# Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)



## purrin

*Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma sucks)*
  
This is a ranking of 17+ DAC and DAC configurations by my ninjas and I. These rankings are largely based on personal preference. They should be taken with a grain of salt. We have heard many more DACs, but these 17 DAC and DAC configurations are ones we feel comfortable making decisive statements about because of the following:
  

We have spent significant time with them in a controlled environment or we own them.
We have able to solicit opinions from each other, usually in the same sessions as as part of the ongoing semi-regular DAC-offs sessions I hold in my home.
We have been able to compare them with at least several other DAC in the list at the same time.
 ​
There was also a lot of older no longer manufactured or no longer popular junk we have listened to that we didn't bother to comment on. Feel free to ask about other DACs that we have heard, although our opinions of them in comparison to the DACs listed here should not be considered reliable.
​
The associated gear used was as follows (it has been consistent so far):
  

Amps: Schiit Mjolnir. Eddie Current Super 7 (modified)
Headphones: HD800 Anax 3.0 (Beta) Modded, HE-500, JPS Labs Abyss
Speakers: Madisound BK-16 Kit augmented by Fostex T90 supertweeters and one Hsu STF-2 subwoofer placed in a corner of the room. Digital PEQ was applied at the listening position for a smooth response from 20-20kHz with a downward slope of 6db. Room modes and major driver resonances were corrected.
Empirical Audio Off-Ramp 5 USB to SPDIF/i2s converter. Regulator upgrade only on the i2s output. No turboclocks.
  
The DACs are ranked according to order of preference and classified into separate categories:
  

Class E - Exceptional stuff significantly better than anything below it.
Very Good Stuff - Highly Recommended 
Good Stuff - Recommended. I use some of this stuff.
Recommended for others
Class S
Beyond Classification - which denotes a conditional recommendation - something we would purchase for specific listening purposes. This is not bad stuff. Just needs to be in the right setup.
  
*Warning:* DACs are a very personal thing and preferences are very specific. It goes without saying that component synergy will play a huge role. There were some minor differences of opinion and DAC ranking among my ninjas and I, but we were able to reach an agreement that we were all happy with. Ultimately it comes down to this: what is would we rather use X or Y, or what do we want to use today? Because personal preference does play a huge role, I am willing to entertain questions concerning specific attributes of any of these DACs.
  
Although some DACs were DSD capable, we used PCM to evaluate the DACs because despite our combined extensive SACD collections, 99% of our content was still in PCM.
  
*Note on OR5 USB Converter:* With some exceptions (because of time / effort limitations), if we felt the OR5 didn't improve a DAC significantly enough to change its ranking, we didn't bother with it. The OR5 only improves certain specific aspects of DACs, and even then it can only do so much based on the limitations of the DAC. The few DACs I wished we had a chance to try the OR5 on were the Lavry, M51, Luxman, Gamma2. The Gamma2 would have mainly been out of curiosity since it's DIY and usually obtainable used for a little over two hundred dollars. In any event, only the top three DACs, the Alpha, PWD2, and especially M7, improved significantly with the use of the OR5.
  
*August 1, 2014 Update:*
My speaker and headphone systems have since changed, so the ranked list will no longer be updated. Also, I haven't had an opportunity lately to stack of bunch of DACs together for more DAC-offs with the other ninjas, so it's difficult to definitively state where they rank in comparison to others. However, because of popular request, I've put my thoughts down on a few DACs here and there where I felt I had a opportunity to properly evaluate them (with known amps, headphones, recordings, etc.) 
  
Scroll down to the very bottom of this post to see my rambling thoughts on these additional DACs.
  
*October 24, 2014 Update:*
The two DACs in Class E can no longer be obtained. They are superior to all other DACs on this list. Like far superior. So much superior that I wouldn't bother with anything in the classes below. The unfortunate thing is that they are no longer being made. They were designed in the 90s: the golden age of R2R DACs. They offer vinyl like smoothness - no sigma-delta hash. They offer texture and tonal density not found on anything not R2R. They growl, scream, kick. They offer superior microdynamic contrast. They present a deep holographic soundstage. It's really hard to put into words.
  
*CLASS E+*
  
*Schiit Yggdrasil USB Gen 3*
Just when you think the Gen V is good, the Yggdrasil is even better. You wouldn't believe how much musical information is contained in those 44/16 files; and just how much lesser DACs leave behind. Brings those old or even bad recordings into a new light. Monster dynamics, bass that stops on a dime, tight precision, decay and ambient cues that don't suddenly disappear when they are not supposed to. No digital crap. Makes me reminisce of vinyl in my youth. The Yggdrasil is the 2015 update to the Theta V by the same guys. The Yggdrasil is really beyond words.
  
The downside? Kinda sounds like **** in the first few hours. 24-48 hours at minimum to warm up. One week for best results.
  
  
*CLASS E*
  
*Theta DSPro Gen V-Va (ST/AT&T optical from Theta Data III)*
Speshal optical connection via hugemongeous laserdisc based transport. AES3 from the Data III is not as good as AES3 from the OR5. The optical takes the cake. No, it's not toslink.
  
*Theta DSPro Gen V-Va (AES3 via OR5 + Wyrd)*
PCM63 based DAC. Uses four of them. Neutral - if anything maybe slightly laid back. Not warm and gooey, but rather honest sounding. None of that "PCM1704 bass" murkiness. Special custom DSP using Motorola processors. Best soundstage and bass quality I've ever heard from a DAC. Period. Nothing even gets close to it. For the right recording, duplicates the recording venue's space - arrived from ambient cues, reverb, echos, etc.
  
Presentation is like a well set up TT with neutral cart. Except with better extension on both ends and much better precision. Incredibly realistic and natural timbre. Smooth and no delta-sigma hashy treble garbage. Overtones of instruments actually roar, growl, twang, etc. A cymbal hit right in front of you sounds just like that. This DAC has faked me out on several occasions. Plankton is as good as anything else out there. This DAC freaks me out every time I hear it.
  
Months later: this DAC still freaks me out.
  
*Sonic Frontiers SFD-1mk2 SE+ upgrades (ST/AT&T optical from Theta Data III)*
  
*Sonic Frontiers SFD-1mk2  **SE+ upgrades **(AES3 via OR5 + Wyrd)*
UltraAnalog module based DAC. Warmer, bassier. Slightly rolled in last octave. Slightly muddy and dirty sounding compared to above because of tube output stage.* However bass still manages good pitch differentiation. Better soundstage than almost anything below only truly beaten by the Gen V's soundstage. Incredible microdynamics and very good plankton. Despite its slight deficiencies, I'd take it over anything below.
  
*pxc SE+ upgrades result in a cleaner more controlled sound.
  
  
*VERY GOOD STUFF*
  
*#1 Audio GD Master 7 (i2s from OR5 with USB cut +5V line and AMB Sigma11 power supply feeding the OR5)*
See AGD M7 comments in #5 below. This is where the AGD finally meets or even starts to exceed the PWD2 in terms of technicalities. The +5V USB cut opens up the soundstage, brings about a better sense of space and a bit of air. With the OR5 i2s, the stage gets very deep with stable precise imaging - a HUGE improvement. The OR5 PS blackens the background image and brings about an ease of presentation. That last bit of PCM1704 softness is finally removed - the M7 is finally able to compete with the PWD2, Alpha, and Gungnir on the macrodynamic level. Bass is not as thick as the #5 configuration below, but some warmth still maintained (this is actually to my preference.). In a nutshell, the M7 with the OR5 i2s is where we finally get the best of the R2R (naturalness and smoothness) and Sigma-Delta DAC (resolution and attack) worlds. All DACs have a readily identifiable and describable sound. We can listen to something and say "Ah, that's a Bifrost. Or that's a PWD2." This setup, not so much. And that's a very good thing.
  
*#1 Bricasti M1 (USB)*
This is a very very good DAC: http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/1275#post_10855968. Was directly compared to some of the other DACs up here.
  
*#2 Berkeley Alpha Series 2 (Alpha USB or OR5)*
Haunting similar sounding to the PWD2. You may as well read the PWD2 description below. Both the Alpha USB and OR5 (WASAPI) USB converters sounded essentially the same. Compared to the PWD2 USB, the Alpha 2 has slightly more natural tone, timbre, and liquidity, but does so at the expense of some microdetail. The PWD2 is only able to nudge in front of the Alpha2 via the i2s from the OR5. Unfortunately, the Alpha 2 won't take i2s; and the Alpha USB won't output i2s. The Alpha2 does have the BADA input, but I don't think devices for this input have been developed yet. One of the other ninjas preferred the PWD2 via USB to the Alpha. I preferred the Alpha based on better tone. An excellent DAC, but a proper USB "transport" is required.
  
*#3 PS Audio PWD2 (AES from Lynx / i2s from OR5 USB Converter / **Coax from a Vintage Denon CDP**)*
_***Upgraded from PWD1 to PWD2 running 2.02 or 2.03 firmware - we are not sure about new PWD2 units as one unit we had sounded very different. Others have reported no issues with their own newer PWD2s._
Read the PWD2 USB entry below for the "meat." We achieved very positive results using the Lynx Hilo via AES as a USB converter. AES was less favorable using the OR5 compared to it's I2S implementation, so impressions may vary. Superior to PS Audio's XMOS USB solution in every way. This is assuming your AES or coax source is up to par. Results in a more cohesive liquid sound, blacker background, better defined and precision rendering of sounds. Improved clarity and overall resolution, microdynamic performance. BTW, the Perfectwave Transport via i2s isn't all that great. Actually it's incredibly average sounding in our comparison of five separate transports.
  
*#4 PS Audio PWD2 (USB)*
_***Upgraded from PWD1 to PWD2 running 2.02 or 2.03 firmware - we are not sure about new PWD2 units as one unit we had sounded very different. Others have reported no issues with their own newer PWD2s._
Extremely resolving, great microdynamics, fast sharp attacks, able to reproduce wide gradations in volume. Deep and wide stage with a great sense of space. Maybe wooden and slightly raspy in the treble depending on filter preferences. One trick we used was to upsample Redbook in software to 176k. This shifts the digital filter upward and results in a smoother treble. Tends to have a bit of haze, or a clarity penalty listening from USB. Still the XMOS USB implementation is one of the better ones. The Audiophilleo AP1 USB/SPDIF converter actually sounded slightly worse than the internal PWD2 USB. Firmware revision can make a difference in bass, treble, and overall clarity. The differences can be significant. This can be good for bad depending upon how you look at it. We have not auditioned the latest firmware.
  
*#5 Audio GD Master 7 (USB - new 8/14/2014 driver and firmware)*
 The new USB driver and firmware update is a significant improvement over the original USB firmware the DAC came with. I did not believe it possible, but Kingwa has pulled it off. The stridency, mushy bass, and just the overall feel of "the USB sucks" is now gone. I'd say it's now the equivalent of a decent USB to SPDIF converter solution. Tonally, everything now seems right. It is also slightly more open (deeper stage) and lively sounding. This makes the Master 7 a serious consideration even without an expensive converter or transport.
  
*#5 Audio GD Master 7 (Coax OR5 or vintage Denon CDP)*
Vocals to die for! Great bass pitch differentiation and texture while being able to sustain power. Natural treble, if not a little rolled in the air region. Best vocals of any DAC we've heard here to date (along with the Metrum and Gungnir). Very engaging, lively, seductive vocal harmonics. Rich in natural vocal timbre. Perhaps a a bit warmer sound as you might find with typical R2R DACs. The transparency window opens up with both USB and PS upgrades on the front end of I2S/AES converters. Without the OR5 i2s, the soundstage was pushed very far back and compressed in terms of depth; and the imaging is not as stable and precise as the above DACs.
  
  
*GOOD STUFF*
  
*#6 Schiit Gungnir Gen2 USB Board **(USB) *
Highly dynamic. Great tonal balance with bite when the recording calls for it. Like the Lavry DA11, it doesn't do much wrong. Sweet sweet tone. Excellent tonal response with some balls in the bass. Compact but well defined stage with great localization of instruments. Very good sounding treble, one of the best we've heard with a sigma-delta chip. Vocals are only second to the AGD M7 or Metrum. Resolution is not the best, but it can still hang in there. With the Gen 2 USB upgrade, the Gungnir has now found its way into my regular rotation. Now I can feel comfortable lending out one of my better DACs to friends because I have a DAC good enough as a substitute. Some have found the Gungnir Gen 1 to be overly dynamic - having a tendency to be too loud. Think rock arena. That drummer that hits really hard. This is the top one or two hardest hitting DACs out there. This does create a sense of tension which can either be good for bad depending upon you sensitivities. I've never fallen asleep to music listening to this DAC.
  
The Gen 2 USB brings to the table some finesse through the restoration of low level sounds which were previously compressed or lost in the Gen 1 USB version. Gen 1 USB also sounds less lively (microdynamics) and less clear. The Gen 2 USB upgrade is significant. It's interesting to note how Schiit has removed all the bad things they said about USB on their website with the release of the Gen 2 USB.
  
*#7 Auralic Vega (USB EXACT Clock)*
EXACT MODE UPDATE: Maybe the occasional drop-out before everything fully stablizes, but wow! A much more refined smoother less lean sound signature (meaning the Vega still has a treble emphasis but now with some warmth in the bass.) Smoothness or lack of grain is not on the level of the R2R or better AKM implementations, but more akin to the the PWD2 via OR5 - a bit of raspyness and grain.
  
*#8 Lynx **Hilo (USB)*
Clean, clear imaging, excellent separation. A bit flat with its imaging making it more 2D wanting for more depth. Bass can be lacking in body which might make percussive instruments like snares appear a bit brittle which could be a factor over long term listening for some recordings. We wouldn't call the Hilo thin or lean sounding though. The Hilo bests the XSabre and Invicta on inner dynamics even though it lacks the thickness of note which helps contribute to more explosive macrodynamics. There are more transients being illuminated and correspondingly more plankton than the other two. The articulation of sounds is superb, especially because they are painted on a really black background. What’s unique about the Hilo is its very smooth sound signature without reliance on added warmth or bass to cover up issues found upstream. This helps some bad recordings sound more palatable. All these make for an very enjoyable and involving listen.
  
*#8 Auralic Vega (USB Coarse / Fine Clock)*
Hyper detailed with the same microdynamic authority but almost, almost just as much plankton extraction as the top setups using the external USB converters. It's on the nicely bright side (maybe lean is a better word) as the SABRE nature of this DAC is very evident. Surprisingly, this DAC manages NOT to annoy us too much. There is a very high level of refinement and precision. We applaud the fact that Auralic has allowed this DAC to be SABREish without trying to make it into something else which usually ends up with peculiar results (see Invicta). This is SABRE done right, leveraging all of the SABRE's strengths without covering up its weaknesses. You either take it or leave it. Very clean sounding. On the more analytical side, but not harsh like the Mytek. (One ninja, the one who really disliked the Mytek, remarked "it's tolerable.") Sub and low bass don't have the palpablility of most of the other DACs, but extension is there. Excellent attack, speed, and drive. Great sense of space, layering, separation, and openness. Doesn't have the natural timbre of ladder DACs but instead has a synthesized robotic quality. (I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean. Think fine silky grain akin to the M51.) But what it does well, it does very very well. This is why we can overlook these weaknesses. The Vega is what the Benchmark DAC wishes it could be. Off Ramp 5 USB to AES added a little bit of bass and warmth, but at the cost of speed. The Vega sounded disjointed (between bass and treble) with the OR5 and we preferred the built in USB which appears to be a very good implementation. This DAC probably plays better with speakers or the LCD2/3 rather than brighter headphones such as the HD800 where fatigue can be an issue. The three ninjas who heard this DAC were split on the ranking of his DAC. The ranking is a compromise. 
  
*#9 Metrum Octave (via Coax OR5 or decent transport)*
(new addition - scroll way down)
  
*#9 NAD M51 (USB)*
The NAD is a neutral (compared to other DACs in the list which may be slightly warm or bright) sounding DAC with very good resolution, but short in the microdynamics department compared to the best. Good bass power, but not quite as explosive in the bass the better DACs. Good bass extension and good air with a wide stage. The NAD has limitations reproducing wide gradations on the volume scale - compressed in that sense. It's our understanding that there have since been firmware revisions which may have changed the sound of the NAD. The sigma-delta like nature of the M51's treble is slightly evident, but it's not annoying like anything SABRE. It's really detailed in the treble, but something with the timbre is not quite right. Sort of a silky synthesized upper octave. Maybe its because of their internal PCM to PWM conversion process. We are nitpicking, but you readers should already know that.
  
*#9 Schiit Bifrost Uber Gen 2 USB (USB) *
The Gen 2 USB is more resolving and has more "finesse" than the Gen 1 USB. This is why the Bifrost Gen 2 is rated slightly higher than the Gungnir Gen 1 USB. As you can imagine, the Bifrost is getting way too close for comfort to the Gungnir Gen 2 USB. Bifrost is weaker than the Gungnir G2 in the following ways: slightly less smooth, slightly less dynamic (which may be a good thing for certain people), slightly more grainy. Bifrost G2 and Gungnir G2 are equally resolving. The Uber Analog boards correct two notable issues I had with the original boards: slight mid-bassiness; slight treble stidency. The original Bifrost is not anywhere as resolving. As for the Gungnir G2: make no mistake, the Gungnir is better, even with the single ended outputs. It's also not that much more money because the Bifrost with all the bells and whistles starts to get expensive.
  
*#10 Schiit Gungnir Gen1 USB Board (USB) *
See Gungnir above. Some can find the Gungnir Gen 1 overly dynamic - having a tendency to be too loud, brash, without finesse, Gen 1 USB seems to drop off the softest sounds or compress them upward. Gen 1 USB also sounds less lively and less clear than Gen 2.
  
*#11 Audio GD Master 7 (USB - older firmware)*
The USB severely limits what the M7 can really do. Everything gets taken down a notch. Soundstage gets taken down a notch from coax losing even more depth and offering fuzzy unstable images. The M7 also becomes a bit strident in the treble and slower; muddier and thicker in the bass. The midrange tends sounds recessed because of these factors. The USB32 is soft sounding, hazy, and lazy compared to the better transport options. Also the background was rather gray with the USB32. It's still a really good DAC, but nothing exceptional other than still being quite detailed and providing that characteristic R2R sound.
  
*#11 Lavry DA11 (USB)*
We were pleasantly surprised at how well rounded this DAC sounded. The Lavry's greatest strength is that there was absolutely nothing about it which we found annoying. Especially of note, was the lack of apparent digital glare, stridency or harshness (aka. digitittus). It does everything somewhat well. Staging, resolution, dynamics, tonal balance,etc. Although this is a studio DAC, it does not have the typical studio DAC sound. This is solid conservative choice backed by a well known industry player. The biggest drawback to the Lavry would be it's rather slightly flat presentation lacking ultimate depth and dimensionality. Everything is done well or above average but nothing is excelled at except it's superb tonal balance which maybe the most important aspect for some listeners. 
  
*#11 Matrix X-Sabre (USB)*
Dynamic, precise tight rendering of midrange and treble. Clear sounding with great blackground. Good openness with wide imaging not quite as tight or deep as the best DACs in the list. Highly resolving: better than DA11 and Gungnir above and matching M51. Overall tonality tends toward the very slightly lean side and only in comparison to most the other DACs in this list. Solid piece of aluminum can be used as a weapon. A rather polite and laid back sounding DAC; however as with all SABRE based DACs, there are issues with the treble and bass rendering: the mid/high treble is spitty, the bass while quick, explosive and punchy, tends to lack pitch differentiation and texture. Personally, I didn't have much trouble with the X-Sabre's treble rendering, but I know others who had. Feeding the X-Sabre DSD via DoP sounds slightly better. We recommend converting PCM content to DSD. Don't let the relatively low personal ranking of ours discourage you from trying the X-Sabre out, especially if you are OK with the current sigma-delta DAC kind of sound.
  
*#12 AMB Gamma2 (USB)*
Great tone. Great slam and bass extension. Great refined sound. Maybe a slight tilt toward a dark tonality. Short in the resolution department, probably because of the ASRC chip, although I've heard this DAC is much more resolving with a good coax source. Amazing sound for such little DAC. It sounds like a bigger desktop DAC.
  
*#12 Metrum Quad (Coax or OR5)*
This is the entry level DAC for Metrum's R2R NOS line of DACs. While we loved the timbre and smoothness of this DAC, especially for voices, we ultimately found the Quad too laid back sounding. Laid back as too in polite. Not enough bite in voices, trumpets, and percussion. Note that "laid back" should not be misinterpreted for warm or thick sounding. Treble and bass extension were very good. Stage was compact and intimate. Bass tended to get syrupy with the PC/Coax, but was fine with the OR5. Control and precision were good from the mids on up. The OR5 helped deepen the stage and provide a better sense of the space. The Quad's presentation lends itself to vocals at the expense of other instruments. Easily the least resolving of all the DACs in the "good stuff" category. This DAC is the opposite of the Vega. Good stuff and recommended if you like this kind of presentation.
  
  
*RECOMMENDED FOR OTHERS*
  
*#13 PS Audio DirectStream DAC (USB) *
(new addition - scroll way down)
  
*#14 Resonessence Invicta (USB)*
Much has been said about the close relationship and between Resonnessence Labs and ESS (the maker of the DAC chip in the Invicta). We when first powered the Invicta up and listened to it, we were like "Wow, this is kind of nice. Instruments and vocals have a great sense of body. This is totally unlike anything SABRE." However, it didn't take long for us to realize the Invcita has some serious shortcomings. Despite the voicing of this DAC to provide a fuller bodied sound, the SABRE treble is still there in the form of stridency. (You can't fool us!) The effect is much more muted compared to the poorer SABRE implementations of course. Unfortunately, the extra body makes the bass sound slow. Complex passages sound congested and muddy. Some could say in the attempt to tame the SABRE-esque qualities of the DAC, it crushes the soul of your music. At least gear synergy would not be a problem anymore. Congestion, lack of air, and transient response are issues here. Best considered for those looking for an all-in-one integrated solution when providing your own SD Card material. The SD card sounds better than USB.
  
*#15 Chord Hugo (USB)*
(new addition - scroll way down)
  
*#16 Benchmark DAC1 (USB, Coax from Pure i120)*
This ubiquitous DAC is not particularly impressive. As many others have observed, the DAC1 is the thin sounding side. It lacks bass impact and seems to apparently get weaker in bass volume as we go downward to the extreme. It does a good job of presenting detail on a macro level, but lacks the ability to resolve low level information. Even though this DAC is on the thinner sounding side, its treble behavior was not as bad I was I left to believe. The treble is not horribly etched, glaring, or anything that like. It took us several years to get a friend to dump this DAC, and when he finally did, he thanked us. Reportedly the DAC1 sounds much better with a decent USB/SPDIF converter, exceeding the Gamma2 above. We have yet to test this.
  
*#17 Yulong DA8 (USB)*
(new addition - scroll way down)
  
*#18 ODAC (USB)*
At its best, the ODAC sound expansive, detailed, and precise in imaging. At its worst, the ODAC sounds closed-in, flat, dull, uninteresting, and with wooly bass (Class S). It depends upon the USB connection. Overall the ODAC is not as precise in rendering of sounds. This is where the comparable Modi exceeds its performance. Comparatively, the Schiit Modi is able to reproduce a wider range of more continuous of volumes than the ODAC. Still, the fact that a DAC can even make sounds from USB power is amazing. Nwavguy was right when he said it sounded as good as a Benchmark DAC1. With a good USB connection and power, the ODAC could be catapulted several spots higher. 
  
  
*BEYOND CLASSIFICATION*
  
*Eximus DP-1 (USB)*
We do hope though that anyone considering the DP-1 has actually listened to it (rather than relying on hype) before deciding on a purchase. We liked the DAC, but for specific purposes. While we liked the DP-1's sweet treble and instrument separation on the highs, we found bass extension, power, dynamics and overall control through the entire audio band somewhat lacking. Sounds were always a hair fuzzy and not tightly focused. We would have also liked more micro-detail extraction given the price. The upsample button did one of two things (off = more detail/slight digititus, on=smoother/less detail). The Eximus is mid-foward, fun sounding, has a deep three dimensional soundstage, a bit soft, but euphorically enjoyable. It's enjoyable especially if you don't A/B it w/ anything more capable. Nevertheless, it's not a bad fit specifically for something like the TH900 which as a lot of bass energy anyways, provided that a good head-amp is used. We did not like the DP-1 on electrostatics because the e-stats can be light on bass impact if the DAC is light on bass impact. Beware the headphone out.
  
*Luxman DA-06 (USB)*
Think of this DAC as the Luxman P1u (headamp) of DACs. The Luxman P1u is well known to be euphonic sounding despite it being a solid state amp. The P1u actually sounds like an inferior version of the Eddie Current Zana Deux - the ZD is way better (separation, dynamics, articulation, microdynamics and detail... everything). In that sense, the DA-06, at least through USB, is more P1u than Zana Deux. This DAC's sound is difficult to describe. It's sort of got a inner warmth. That is warm without being bloomy or loose. All of the ninjas agreed that the amp was a little flat sounding and tended to blend everything together. Depth, layering, and seperation were certainly not its strong points. Personally, I liked it. It's like riding in a nice Mercedes. One ninja remarked I am allowed to like this DAC and place it in the Beyond Classification because he himself liked the Eximus DP-1 while I hated it. If there is anything I regret, it's that we lacked time to try this DAC out with the OR5 or BADA USB converters. What these converters bring to the table happen to suit this DAC's weaknesses.
  
*Lampizator 4/5 *
(new addition - scroll way down)
  
  
*CLASS S*
  
*Teac UD-501 (Coax from Sony Transport)*
Presents a staticy unrefined grain found in many low cost low performance products. An overall rough unrefined signature which imparts itself upon the music. Not too different from many mediocre or poor quality headphones and amps. On the analytical side with on the moderately high scale in false detail. Slightly lean. The treble, while not as bad as most SABRE implementations, screams delta-sigma. It gets annoying after a while. It ain't exactly cheap either. If you really want to try DSD / DoP, try the Schiit Loki first.
  
*Audinst HUD-MX2*
We did not find this DAC as outright annoying as the other DACs in "Class S", but it's simply just not very good sounding. There is a strong possibility that your laptop line-out is better sounding. This DAC is veiled and flat sounding, as if the output were run through a chain of op-amps or Objective 2 amplifiers (they measure great, sound mediocre). The rending of sounds is imprecise. It's hard to explain, but it this DAC exhibits a certain kind of raw unrefined sound common with portable DACs - the bad ones. Macro-dynamics and extension at both ends, especially the bass, is poor. I almost placed this DAC in the "Recommended for Others", until I realized I would only give this DAC as a gift to my enemies.
  
*Mytek Stereo192-DSD DAC (USB)*
Supposedly sounds better after 400 hours burn-in, with the use of firewire, feeding it DSD, or lowering the gain via jumpers. Unfortunately, my PC doesn't have firewire and we forgot to try DSD. Just to make things clear: the first sample model we got our hands on was used. We left it on for two days before our evaluation. While the Mytek was very detailed and resolving, we couldn't stomach the treble glare which was almost immediately apparent. It took a while for me for the glare to affect me, but this quality as immediately annoying to two others who had heard it. A second unit we heard (also well used and left on for a period of time) also exhibited this glare. In addition, we found sub-bass volume rather lacking. Think of this DAC as a hyper Benchmark DAC1. There are thousands of people who love this DAC and many great reviews of it. We are definitely in the minority.
  
  
  
*THOUGHTS ON OTHER DACS NOT RANKED AS OF JULY 2014*
My speaker and headphone systems have since changed, so the following DACs will not be ranked. Also, I haven't had an opportunity lately to stack of bunch of DACs together for comparative purposes, so it's difficult to gauge. 9/15/2014: Some of the DACs below have been ranked.
  
  
*RECOMMENDED FOR PYRATES OR NINJAS *  
  
*Schiit Wyrd+Modi (USB) *





Astoundingly good for the price. The Modi by itself can sound thin at times depending upon USB power quality. The Modi also has a tendency to sound imprecise or lacking in focus. The Wyrd solves these issues. 1+1 = 3 in this case. While not as good as a Bifrost Uber w/ Gen 2, the Wyrd+Modi is an very involving listen with good dynamics. While it doesn't resolve, or have the focus, smoothness, refined quality of the the best DACs, it certainly does not sound flat and boring. The Wyrd+Modi was able to keep me up until 1pm listening to music, and few DACs can do that. Hands down the best $200 DAC I've ever heard.
  
*Metrum Octave*
A significant improvement over the Quad. Not as laid back as the Quad (mentioned above). More resolving than the Quad. Potential buyers should take note that Metrum Octave could still be too laid back and not resolving enough for them; but I found its resolution adequate (more than good for most types of speakers.) The Octave is smooth, liquid, does voices really well, yet agile and articulate. Personally, I'd pair it with components (amps, transducers, transports) which have a ton of slam, punch, attack.
  
External CD transport or USB to SPDIF is required. A good part of the sound, maybe 25-33% will be attributed to these external components. The Metrum doesn't seem to be as sensitive to transport as other DACs.
  
Kudos to the guys at Metrum for not ripping people off. I thought this DAC would have cost much more.
  
  
*RECOMMENDED FOR HIGH-ROLLERS*
  
*Lampizator 4/5 *
I've heard three different Lampis (4, and two Big 5s I believe) via a variety of Schiit or EC amps, and they seem to be all over the place. None of them sounded exactly the same. It irks me that there are so many models, making straight comparisons impossible, i.e. "which Lampi?" Then there's the issue of tube rolling - there are a lot of options and tubes to roll inside. 
  
Supposedly the OR5 helps tremendously, but I have not heard a Lampi with an OR5. One thing I feel pretty confident saying is that the analog tube section is fantastic: resolving, clear, immediate without bloat or tooby-ness. Unfortunately, this puts on spotlight on the USB receiver and DAC circuitry which sounded mediocre or pretty darn good but with showstopper type warts (slight treble digititus or grating stridency.)
  
As things stand, I can not recommend the 4 or the Big 5 to friends, unless they are the type that wouldn't mind spending an additional X amount of tubes, tweaking with caps, etc. You could be just as well off buying a cheapo DCX2496, wiring in a boutique clock board, and connecting the output directly from the DAC chips to a tube amp like the BA. There have been four Lampis on sale (4, 5, 6, and 7) for quite a while now on the 'gon.
  
Ears I trust say the Big 7 is good, but we are getting into five figures now. 
  
  
*RECOMMENDED FOR PEOPLE WHO POST THEIR MARRIAGE PROPOSALS ON FACEBOOK *
  
*Chord Hugo *
Jack of all trades and extremely mediocre doing nothing terribly wrong. Overall refinement is lacking with treble coarseness on par with DACs less than 40% of its price. Otherwise decent tone, decent macrodynamics, decent microdynamics, decent resolution. Somewhat flat and lacking in dynamics. Like 1000 USD decent, although one of the ninjas says I was giving it too much credit and that it's more like $500 decent. Headstage lacks depth.
  
Portability and lack of wires is the advantage here. I still can't get over the Fisher Price Toy looks and rolly blue ball thing.
  
Depending upon who you talk to, DSD handling of the Hugo is either better than PCM or worse than PCM. I'm inclined to think its the latter. Sound is highly variable depending upon USB / computer. I wonder if a Schiit Wyrd would help, but then that would add more wires including a power brick.
  
*PS Audio DirectStream DAC (USB) *
The PSA-DSD does have a lot of the “PerfectWave” sound; but with the following caveats or specific characteristics: 1) tonal balance reverts to the PWD-1’s tonal balance - very forward with an emphasis in the upper midrange; 2) lacks sub and low bass impact, similar to some of the PWD2 DACs [new production, non-upgraded from PW1] running the newer brighter sounding firmware versions; 3) smoother treble characteristics [but still slightly delta-sigma raspy], akin to feeding the PWD2 PCM oversampled in software; 4) which also results in less delineated transients and duller attacks. Unfortunately, this effect seems to be carried so overboard where the PSA-DSD sounds slightly on the flat and dull side. Microdynamics have taken a serious hit. One step forward and one step back. Two ninjas I spoke to and myself preferred the PWD1->2. It may come down to preferences. Maybe best to think of it as different, not better. 
  
We heard the PSA DSD on two separate setups with amps, headphones, and recordings we were familiar with. Only built-in USB was used, so I cannot comment on its performance with the OR5's i2s output.
  
*Yulong DA8 (USB)*
I was expecting the Yulong DA8 to be another nasty sounding SABRE DAC, but I was pleasantly surprised. The DA8 has a warmth in the upper bass and lower mids, but it also has a slight glare, silbance, and grain in the treble (it's still SABRE after all) which makes it not as tonally coherent and other SABRE DACs like the comparatively leaner X-SABRE or brighter Vega. The mids and treble are precise and focused. One of the DA8's weaknesses is the muddy indistinct bass which can be described as sort of monotonic muddy thud sound. I find this behavior distracting. The X-SABRE has some of the same indistinct bass issues, but it's bass is more punchy and the X-SABRE is overall more lively sounding. 
  
Other shortcomings are the compressed of macrodynamics and lack of microdynamics. The DA8 makes soft and medium level sounds closer in terms of volume. While I wouldn't say the DA8 is flat or boring, something I've leveled against other DACs, the DA8 just doesn't suck me into the music. The jitter fixer option needs to be turned off. Leaving it on actually does make the music sound flat and boring. Soundstage is upfront with lack of depth. Imaging isn't precise. Center image isn't stable and wavers. With headphones, everything sort of sounds inside my head. Extension of the extremes (sub bass and air) also seem lacking.
  
If the DA8 was cheap, then I would recommend it. Unfortunately, it's not. It's not a bad DAC, and on some recordings the DA8 sounds good, but the aggregate of the little things do add up. Sort of like 8 - 1 - 1 - 1 = 3.


----------



## fishski13

the HP outs of the BM DAC1 driving the 009 _is_ "wire with gain" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.  i hope you agree even though you don't understand 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## TMRaven

Is ODAC the wire with grain?


----------



## purrin

LOL. That's a good one. The ODAC is surprisingly not too SABREy.
  
 The X-Sabre is the one most like wire with grain. And only a bit in the last registers. No nasty glare or anything like that. I didn't like the X-Sabre's funny mid/high treble, but I didn't have any major issues such as pain or fatigue with it and I'm only aware of one person who did. The X-Sabre is pretty clear sounding and detailed sounding too - real detail. I'd have to check my notes to be sure. I get confused with all these DACs.


----------



## thegunner100

Thanks for the rankings Purrin! I think the gungnir may be the next upg I will go for, as it is within my "affordable" (aka save money for a few months...) price range and if it sounds great with vocals without being bright, then I'm all for it. If you still have access to the hd800s, could you do some quick listening sometime and comment on the gungnir (usb gen 2) --> vali -> hd800 (anax 2.0) combo?


----------



## purrin

I don't have an HD800 on hand. I'm listening to the Gungnir USB Gen 2 -> Vali - > Abyss right now this very minute. And I can tell you the HD800 with that will be pretty darn spectacular.


----------



## thegunner100

purrin said:


> I don't have an HD800 on hand. I'm listening to the Gungnir USB Gen 2 -> Vali - > Abyss right now this very minute. And I can tell you the HD800 with that will be pretty darn spectacular.


 

 Excellent. Good enough for me! I predict Schiit introducing a analog upg card for the gungnir in the future, after the release of yggdrasil. Similar to the uber analog upg for the bifrost. If and when that happens, the price/performance value of the gungnir should be even better.


----------



## BournePerfect

Excellent write up Marv!
  
 I still prefer my Eximus DP1 over every other dac including the M7 for a variety of reasons. Yes-dacs are a personal thing it seems. One thing I feel that isn't mentioned often enough though, is the presentation/soundstage of dacs. I loved the tonality and precision of the M7-but it's 5th row presentation, very wide soundstage, coupled with the already large, distant ss of the HD800, was a no-go for me. OTOH, the 'they are here' ss of the DP1 helped create a much more intimate ss with the HD800, and 3D imaging that not only brings the music to life, but brings movies/games (not a priority for most here lol) to another level. Keep in mind I rarely listen to orchestral/classical pieces-where I'm sure the M7 would trump the DP1 with it's presentation that suits those genres better.
  
 So, presentation and musical preferences play a huge role in subjective opinion in dacs imo, and represent a crucial aspect that one must generally hear for himself where possible.
  
I also fully enjoythe DP1 headphone out, even with the HD800. *gasp*
  
-Tari>ChuckNorris


----------



## purrin

bourneperfect said:


> I still prefer my Eximus DP1 over every other dac including the M7 for a variety of reasons. Yes-dacs are a personal thing it seems. One thing I feel that isn't mentioned often enough though, is the presentation/soundstage of dacs. I loved the tonality and precision of the M7-but it's 5th row presentation, very wide soundstage, coupled with the already large, distant ss of the HD800, was a no-go for me. OTOH, the 'they are here' ss of the DP1 helped create a much more intimate ss with the HD800, and 3D imaging that not only brings the music to life, but brings movies/games (not a priority for most here lol) to another level. Keep in mind I rarely listen to orchestral/classical pieces-where I'm sure the M7 would trump the DP1 with it's presentation that suits those genres better.


 
  
 Agreed and updated. The M7's soundstage lacked depth and was just "passable" for coax - even from the OR5. It was not good with USB - with imprecision imaging. Methicks the M7 USB implementation is suckage and severely limits its potential. Surprising the M7 stage really opened up with the OR5 i2s.  The Eximus DP1's 3D stage was already noted.


----------



## Maxvla

Here's hoping the Yggdrasil is more laid back than the Gungnir. Might actually keep a Schiit DAC this time.


----------



## Questhate

Great read, guys. It's cool to see such an ambitious ranking/comparison since DAC differences are so subtle that's it's hard to find a lot of comprehensive comparisons in the wild. But the more you live with a DAC, the greater the differences become. I've lived with a handful of the DACs listed here and you guys seem to nail the qualities of the ones I'm familiar with. 
  
Glad you guys go out of your way to point out (although it should be obvious) that personal preferences/priorities come into play, as with all things audio.


----------



## purrin

Yeah, just free to move things in Class B to Class S or vice-versa according to your own preferences. Just tried to leave some highlights and note some weaknesses for each one.


----------



## Tom W

Fantastic write up!
  
 Have you tried (or considered using) the EA Short Block with the OR5?


----------



## helljudgement

Nice. Usb has always been the bottleneck of all dac so its unfair to use it solely as a base to judge a dac. Glad to see all these gears being thoroughly tested over a period of time and through various inputs so kudos to you purrin. The schiit usb implementation has arouse my interest though. Any difference between gungnir/usb and gungnir/or5 coax?


----------



## wewewho77

I wonder in which category the Audiolab Mdac belongs to? Thanks


----------



## mcullinan

Have you guys heard the Yulong DA8? Where would you place it. I wonder if you had a second system to test out the dacs if it would have ended up a different order.
  
 I have the DP1 and love it for its naturalness... Its not grainy and Id agree it doesn't pull out every detail, but it is highly musical. Not to say it doesn't have enough detail. The DP1 benefits from a good power conditioner imo.
  
 Thanks for taking the time to review the dacs!


----------



## schneller

First negative review of the TEAC UD-501 I have read. Every other source I have read on it says that it is an amazing DAC, besting DACs twice its price.
  
 Looking at your more positive reviews, I wonder how the Schiit compares to the X-Sabre? We're only talking about a $150 difference in price. I guess if you need DSD/DXD the decision is obvious.


----------



## Happy Camper

You had a Hilo you used for AES feed to the PWD. Did you listen to it as a DAC?


----------



## yfei

purrin said:


> PS Audio PWD2 (AES from Lynx / i2s from OR5 USB Converter)
> Extermely favorable results using the Lynx Hilo via AES




So you were using Hilo as a usb to aes converter?

Since you do have a Hilo, why it is not being reviewed as a DAC? Because no agreement from the judges?


----------



## Maxvla

Purrin and co. are not fans of Sabre chips, fyi. I preferred the X-Sabre to the Gungnir, which I had side by side, but they found the opposite.


----------



## purrin

mcullinan said:


> Have you guys heard the Yulong DA8? Where would you place it. I wonder if you had a second system to test out the dacs if it would have ended up a different order.
> 
> I have the DP1 and love it for its naturalness... Its not grainy and Id agree it doesn't pull out every detail, but it is highly musical. Not to say it doesn't have enough detail. The DP1 benefits from a good power conditioner imo.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to review the dacs!


 
  
 Never heard the Yulong. We had one speaker system and one headphone system. I would say both of them sounded more similar than different. But your point of having second, third, or fourth setup possibly leading to different results is very much true. I am friends with the two, three other folks involved with these DAC-Offs (not everyone was involved in all of the sessions, including myself), so there is certainly a level of group-think involved. I know that all of us tend to hear things similarly, and even our preferences are more similar than different. It's just that you're in that situation - in the same room. It's controlled, and everyone is there at the same time. We're just going to heard the same things and use the same vocabulary - or at least establish the same vocabulary because we are all right there.
  
 On the DP-1, we thought long and hard about that one on how to place it. I'm happy where it ended up as "beyond classification". Personally, I didn't like it. But I really did understand why others did, unlike the crap classified as crap.


----------



## purrin

happy camper said:


> You had a Hilo you used for AES feed to the PWD. Did you listen to it as a DAC?


 
  
 That was an oversight. We did listen to the Hilo Lynx. Following up with a write up on it. It's a very good DAC. Class C. Will update in a bit.


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> First negative review of the TEAC UD-501 I have read. Every other source I have read on it says that it is an amazing DAC, besting DACs twice its price.
> 
> Looking at your more positive reviews, I wonder how the Schiit compares to the X-Sabre? We're only talking about a $150 difference in price. I guess if you need DSD/DXD the decision is obvious.


 
  
 The TEAC is a POS. I don't care about what anyone else thinks about it or what the reviews say. Unlike the DP-1, I wouldn't even understand why other people think it's good. But I guess that's possible if we were coming from a $79 Walmart DVD/CD special or AC97 motherboard out. There was one amp manufacturer who purchased it thinking it would be a good DAC to demo his amps on. He sold it. I still give him crap about it to this day "So where's that POS DAC?" He then tells to F off.
  
 X-Sabre are Gungir are different beasts. Personal preferences will play a large part on how they are ranked. The X-Sabre is more resolving, more laid back, fast sounding, and has a bigger stage in comparison to the Gungnir. There's a slight bit of funny mid-high treble crap, fine grain, and lack of bass pitch differentiation typical of SABRE implementations. The Gungir is more aggressively dynamic, has better bass pitch differentiation, and has a slightly smaller stage, but with more stable imaging. The Gungnir's tone is more natural and sweeter, and that's what really wins it over for me. Actually what really wins it over is the Gen 2 USB at which I was really surprised at. The new USB compliments the Gungnir well. It gives the Gungnir more clarity, resolution, and volume gradations. Gungnir Gen 1 USB is class D or E.
  
 One other guy who was part of the sessions dislikes almost anything SABRE. I too am convinced that SABRE is a lost cause. The unnatural treble of the SABRE chip is carries huge penalties. The manufacturers may try to hide the SABRE sound, but it always comes out one way or another. Just something to keep in mind about personal preferences or pet peeves.


----------



## driver 8

In my own experimentation I found that using the AES/EBU input on the NAD (coming from my Stello U3 with an Aqvox PSU) helped its treble a bit, but the bass was still a bit softer than I would have liked.


----------



## EraserXIV

Haha does the "S" in Class S mean what I think it means?


----------



## magiccabbage

great thread, i will be back here soon.


----------



## purrin

driver 8 said:


> In my own experimentation I found that using the AES/EBU input on the NAD (coming from my Stello U3 with an Aqvox PSU) helped its treble a bit, but the bass was still a bit softer than I would have liked.


 

    
 Quote:


helljudgement said:


> Nice. Usb has always been the bottleneck of all dac so its unfair to use it solely as a base to judge a dac. Glad to see all these gears being thoroughly tested over a period of time and through various inputs so kudos to you purrin. The schiit usb implementation has arouse my interest though. Any difference between gungnir/usb and gungnir/or5 coax?


 

  
 I have discovered (not that long ago) that most USB implementations suck. I only wish I had known (I should have known) sooner as I'm sure many of the DACs listed here could have benefited from a proper USB/SPDIF converter. It's frustrating because there are so many combinations to try out. And I can't but help think some of the DACs didn't get a fair shake - that they would have radically improved, especially if their built-in USB converters sucked.
  
 And then there's the question of the effectiveness of USB/SPDIF converters. For example. I suspect the AP1 (at least without the PP PS supply) doesn't do anything. It sounded worse than the PWD2's built-in USB and Amos / Currawong said it sounded the same as his AGD M7's USB (which I felt sucked balls). The AP1 ain't cheap. It's even more expensive with the PP. At this price point, even if it did work, it's not viable for any DAC less than $2K. I would have liked to find out if the PP did anything, but the owner of the AP1 was already pissed that it didn't do jack and said "F that."
  
 In terms of input differences with Gungnir - in order of goodness.
  

USB Gen 2
Coax from my PC (which sound better than the PWD2 USB implementation, which is already not bad) 
...gap...
USB Gen 1
  
 I don't have my OR5 right now, it's on loan, but I will report back on it. The thing with the OR5 is that it's not worth it for the Gungnir. The OR5 as I have it configured is ~$1500. The Gungnir is $750. But cost aside, the Gungnir won't scale with the OR5 like the M7 or PWD2. The fact that the M7 or PWD2 will take i2s provides even another level of advantage. The USB Gen 2 option is $100, optimally scales with the Gungnir's inherent capabilities, and better matches the Gungnir's particularities. By this I mean the USB Gen 2 provides more clarity, really brings out the sweetness of the AKM chip, restores the soft sounds which were either dropped or compressed upward, adds more low level information. From memory, the OR5 only did a little bit to address the last three shortcomings. The OR5 mostly did what it does best: blacken the background, tighten up the sounds, making things more precise sounding, provide more clarity, etc. However, I'm not 100% sure at this point and will require more listening / testing. We are not talking about huge differences.
  


eraserxiv said:


> Haha does the "S" in Class S mean what I think it means?


 
  
 Well, it could mean "Super". Really depends upon personal preferences.
  


tom w said:


> Fantastic write up!
> 
> Have you tried (or considered using) the EA Short Block with the OR5?


 
  
 I have not tried the Short Block yet but I am in the process of making my own. I know that simply cutting the +5V on the USB line to the OR5 incrementally improved soundstage. The next steps would be to put a choke on the ground and a common mode choke on the D+ and D- lines.


----------



## eantala

great review OP.  was thinking of upgrading to the M51 as my next dac, guess I'll just stick to the gungnir !


----------



## schneller

So what is the best way to get DSD/DXD out of the Schiit?


----------



## Armaegis

Loki. That's it.


----------



## magiccabbage

Im looking forward to the new Schiit DAC, does anyone know if there a release date yet?
  
 I would of thought that the NAD M51 was up there with the PWD2


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> So what is the best way to get DSD/DXD out of the Schiit?


 
  
 LOL, the little Loki will allow DSD via DoP. Now someone mentioned to me the Schiit USB Gen 2 boards may be able to support DXD (352 PCM). I need to check on this.
  
 Another alternative is to convert DSD to PCM in foobar or JRiver. I know JRiver supports internal conversion with various options on the DSD high frequency filter, since stuff past DSD 20kHz incrementally becomes more and more noise because of the noise shaping it uses. So much for a hires format.


----------



## purrin

magiccabbage said:


> Im looking forward to the new Schiit DAC, does anyone know if there a release date yet?
> 
> I would of thought that the NAD M51 was up there with the PWD2


 
  
 More similar, and slightly better (from memory) to the PWD1.


----------



## yfei

purrin said:


> That was an oversight. We did listen to the Hilo Lynx. Following up with a write up on it. It's a very good DAC. Class C. Will update in a bit.



Thanks for the Hilo write up. What's the setup? used Dc power supply and Usb to aes converter or not?


----------



## purrin

yfei said:


> Thanks for the Hilo write up. What's the setup? used Dc power supply and Usb to aes converter or not?


 
  
 That setup was USB to Hilo from PC.


----------



## KmanChu

magiccabbage said:


> Im looking forward to the new Schiit DAC, does anyone know if there a release date yet?
> 
> I would of thought that the NAD M51 was up there with the PWD2


 
 The USB input implementation is just OK on the M51. A power conditioner like the ifi iUSB Power or Aqvox helps it a lot. However, it is a completely different animal fed through a really good AES source like the Berkeley Alpha, Offramp, or even a Yellowtec Puc2. Plug in the Offramp and it would be much higher as you suggest. I actually did compare the two before taking the M51. I had to chuckle a bit about the "sigma-delta nature" comment. 
  
 This list is really unusual. These rankings are quite erratic. While I haven't heard them all, I have heard enough of them to know that not only the rankings but also some of the subjective comments don't agree with what I have heard. Different strokes I suppose...


----------



## purrin

One critical thing to note is that the PWD2 I have is an older one converted to 2 with the upgrade board. (We actually had two of those specific models on hand - with a third unit that we've heard.) We have questions about the units coming out from the factory as straight newer PWD2 units which do or possibly or maybe sound different ("different" as in I wouldn't use it, even for free.) The reason that we cannot say for sure that all newer PWD2 units suck is that we only had one sample.


----------



## GoldfishX

Ouch, I can't say I'm surprised about the Teac. I've heard their headphone amplifier and the sound didn't come close to matching the sexy looks.
  
 Any thoughts on the Peachtree Dac-It or iDac? The Dac-It was/is my first "real" stand alone DAC and I really adore it. I was hung up on choosing between it and the Bifrost for the longest time before I picked it up. First real jump in quality I've experienced in hi end audio (having dabbled with various amps and headphones...I run a Lyr and HD800 in my main rig), made me realize how important a DAC is.
  
 Any thoughts on the Gungnir via coax? I have heard that improves the sound on it, compared to the USB. Would be curious to see a comparison of USB vs coax. Am glad to hear it is excellent with vocals, as I have one on the way.
  
 One major suggestion. Please post prices for these, as that can be a major deciding factor for a lot of people.


----------



## purrin

goldfishx said:


> Any thoughts on the Gungnir via coax? I have heard that improves the sound on it, compared to the USB. Would be curious to see a comparison of USB vs coax. Am glad to hear it is excellent with vocals, as I have one on the way.


 
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/ranking-of-17-dacs-and-dac-configurations/15#post_10042186
  
 So far just that. I would need to re-verify. In a nutshell, I slightly prefer the Gen 2 USB over the "decent" coax out from my PC.


----------



## purrin

kmanchu said:


> This list is really unusual. These rankings are quite erratic. While I haven't heard them all, I have heard enough of them to know that not only the rankings but also some of the subjective comments don't agree with what I have heard. Different strokes I suppose...


 
  
 Yes. That is one reason I asked the others involved with the DAC-Off sessions for a meeting so we could all put down our thoughts. We were aware that our observations generally ran against the grain. Some of the DACs we rated as less than stellar are widely accepted as excellent. I think counterpoint is a good thing.


----------



## stainless824

There are many variables with the PWD 2. If i'm reading between the lines correctly, you're using a 2.0.2 firmware version perfectwave which many seem to like. I've tried them all and with my system I strongly prefer either 2.4.1 or 2.4.3; but the 2.2.0 and 2.2.1 I didn't like at all (thin and clinical) which may be why you did not like the 'newer' PWD 2's as they were running these firmware versions.
  
 I suggest you try different firmware versions as they all sound vastly different in my revealing speaker set up.
  
 Furthermore, the PWD 2 sounds best balanced out. I'm assuming you're using balanced out anyway because many of these DACS in your list are balanced DACS.
  
 And one last thing is the network bridge module. I personally find that this module sounds vastly better than the USB input; and would suggest you have a look into this avenue. I costs less than the audiophileo pp1 with battery; but when used with a simple 20 dollar crossover cable into a mac mini, it blows USB out of the water.
  
 Many other DAC's are clear cut and simple to evaluate. The PWD is far from that unfortunately. A lot of tweaking is needed


----------



## helljudgement

purrin said:


> I have discovered (not that long ago) that most USB implementations suck. I only wish I had known (I should have known) sooner as I'm sure many of the DACs listed here could have benefited from a proper USB/SPDIF converter. It's frustrating because there are so many combinations to try out. And I can't but help think some of the DACs didn't get a fair shake - that they would have radically improved, especially if their built-in USB converters sucked.
> 
> And then there's the question of the effectiveness of USB/SPDIF converters. For example. I suspect the AP1 (at least without the PP PS supply) doesn't do anything. It sounded worse than the PWD2's built-in USB and Amos / Currawong said it sounded the same as his AGD M7's USB (which I felt sucked balls). The AP1 ain't cheap. It's even more expensive with the PP. At this price point, even if it did work, it's not viable for any DAC less than $2K. I would have liked to find out if the PP did anything, but the owner of the AP1 was already pissed that it didn't do jack and said "F that."
> 
> ...


 
  
 That's the reason why I'm reluctant to buy an ap1 as there's no proper way for me to verify whether or not it works. The or5 on the other hand is a bit too expensive to use with cheaper dacs as it sort of diminish their means as a cheaper alternative. Depending on what option you click it could even reach the price of a new master 7. It makes more of a sense to use it with dacs above 2-2.5k mark. Schiit however, judging based on your observation seems to have somewhat solved the usb problem and this makes it significantly more attractive than other dacs in this price range.


----------



## dirtrat

Remember, it's 3 peoples opinion, not fact.
  
  
 Quote:


magiccabbage said:


> Im looking forward to the new Schiit DAC, does anyone know if there a release date yet?
> 
> I would of thought that the NAD M51 was up there with the PWD2


----------



## purrin

stainless824 said:


> There are many variables with the PWD 2...


 
  
 I believe its possible that the new production NP-PWD2 (new un-downgradeable) fw 2.20 unit we tried was just foobar.
  
 We had our two PWD1-2s. One running 2.03 and the other running 2.20. Comparing old and new with the same fw 2.20, the NP-PWD2 was a notch behind in most technicalities with much less sub / low bass volume, and a ton of congestion on complex musical passages. We were like What during the comparison. I even tried to mess with my two friends as we were listening. Telling them that I changed DACs when I really didn't. And even then, they picked it out! "You are sure? You are messing with us dude."
  
 We played with a lot of variables, including even trying it with the various OR5 outputs and on different filter settings, but no matter what, the NP-PWD2 just seemed like a shadow of our own PWD1-2s. My friend contacted PS Audio, and supposedly there had been a few cases of NP-PWD2s like this. All it took to fix was a swap of the digital input boards. I don't know how the story ends as the NP-PWD2 was a loaner to us and we simply returned it.
  
 As for the Bridge, I need gapless, and I'm not willing to use that horrible eLyric software for gapless playback. I kind of feel ripped off on that one by Paul; and personally I think he should refund all Bridge owners expecting that gapless function since he kept saying they was working on it, and in the end, PS Audio never got it to really work. But yes, the Bridge does sound better than USB. But the OR5, even via coax, sounds better than the Bridge.
  
 I've heard good things about 2.4.3, but I haven't tried it yet. Just sick and tired of craptastic web support pages and confusing messages from PS Audio. For the longest time, they took down all their download pages, and it became a chore to get the firmware revisions. It's a joke when it easier for me to obtain firmwares from other HF'ers than from the PS Audio website. Don't get me wrong, I love the PWD1-2, but I'm never going to buy another piece of PS Audio gear again.


----------



## purrin

helljudgement said:


> Schiit however, judging based on your observation seems to have somewhat solved the usb problem and this makes it significantly more attractive than other dacs in this price range.


 
  
 I think it's rather interesting Schiit used to Schiit on how Schiity USB was on their webpages. They seemed to have backtracked. At least I can't seem to find those statements anymore.


----------



## applehead

Where does the Bifrost uber with Gen 2 usb fit into the list? I've seen you mention it before and it always seemed to be in a good light given the price.


----------



## GoldfishX

purrin said:


> I think it's rather interesting Schiit used to Schiit on how Schiity USB was on their webpages. They seemed to have backtracked. At least I can't seem to find those statements anymore.


 

 I remember that. It was a secondary feature to them. I tend to stick with coax connections anyway, the consensus is more schiit can go wrong with USB. Audio chains are already delicate enough, would rather be worrying about amps/headphones than my source.


----------



## stainless824

next 2 dacs that I would like to own are the lumin player and the auralic vega.
  
 Gapless is now supported by jriver on the PWD bridge i believe. Not just elyric


----------



## buson160man

schneller said:


> First negative review of the TEAC UD-501 I have read. Every other source I have read on it says that it is an amazing DAC, besting DACs twice its price.
> 
> Looking at your more positive reviews, I wonder how the Schiit compares to the X-Sabre? We're only talking about a $150 difference in price. I guess if you need DSD/DXD the decision is obvious.


 

    I have had a teac ud-501 dac since may and it sounds just wonderful in my set up. But I do have to say that after the unit breaks in there were definitely some settings with regards to the filters and upsampling depending on what type of input was used that make a noticeable difference in how this dac sounds. I myself prefer the dac without any pcm filtering at all. I can hear the effect of passing signal through the filtering and I much prefer listening with no filtering at all. It just sounds much better without the filtering. Next when using the usb input I prefer listening with no upsampling engaged. Things sound much clearer and better. Again I can hear the effect of passing the signal through the  additional circuitry.
   I do prefer listening to cds with the dac upsmapling engaged. Things sound more spacious and more resolving with the upsampling in place. But with the usb inpit things sound much better without the upsampling engaged.
   I suspect based on the comments about this dac that the listening was done with upsampling and digital filtering in place.
   Based on the largely positive comments about this dac and my own experience with it that something seems amiss with the evaluation of the teac ud-501 dac.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

stainless824 said:


> next 2 dacs that I would like to own are the lumin player and the *auralic vega*.
> 
> Gapless is now supported by jriver on the PWD bridge i believe. Not just elyric




Come on, it's Sabre, can't be good.


----------



## BournePerfect

Actually a number of guys over there have been wanting to test a Vega for a while now-I'm sure they'd be more than anxious to test yours. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 -Daniel


----------



## ohhgourami

Purrin, from memory, approximately where would you rank my DAC? I know the comparison was super brief but your ears are damn good.


----------



## Xymordos

I remember posting a thread here quoting a post from the Chinese headphone forums. A member had an email from ESS with them admitting to some bug or something in their chip which could not be fixed. It gave the 9018 massive distortion spikes from what I remembered reading. Though I'd still like to hear a 9018 DAC , since everyone praises it for the immense details it spews out.
  
 What would be the best DAC below $2000 you heard using USB in? It seems all the built in USB converters are crap.


----------



## purrin

ohhgourami said:


> Purrin, from memory, approximately where would you rank my DAC? I know the comparison was super brief but your ears are damn good.


 
  
 I hesitate to rank your DAC (Audio-gd NFB-7.32) because I only heard it once, it was at a meet, it wasn't comparative with at least three to four other DACs, and I've haven't heard it on the speaker setup, and no one here has lived with it for a week. (Although one of my ninjas has heard it.) That's the key here with the rankings. Every single DAC was at least compared with three others, with one to three other evaluators present. Again, this was as part of a series of DAC-offs. The rankings were a synthesis of the results.
  
 My take is that your DAC sounded a like lot an X-Sabre, but improved. Better resolution, dynamics, microdynamics, and gradations of volume (in these areas it's equal to the top tiers). It's notable weaknesses were the following: the lack of bass pitch differentiation and bass texture; the SABREsque quality of the uppermost octave / air region - it wasn't glaring or strident or anything like that; and a lack of continuity / liquid-ness of rendered sounds - particularly notable with vocals. I also felt your DAC, even without the OR5, had good performance. The M7 via USB is severely crippled. You never had a chance to hear the M7 via USB because I won't install the USB drivers.
  
 As you know the differences among the classifications is really small. We are talking about DACs, not headphones.


----------



## purrin

stainless824 said:


> next 2 dacs that I would like to own are the lumin player and the auralic vega.
> 
> Gapless is now supported by jriver on the PWD bridge i believe. Not just elyric


 
  
 I believe someone is sending my ninjas and I a Vega. The whispers we have been hearing is that the Vega is hyper-detailed and bright, but in a very well done way. We are hopeful, but downplaying our expectations after our experience with the Invicta. I was hoping I would be throwing the PWD2 out the window from the things I was reading about the Invicta.


----------



## Hun7er

Purrin did you hear the AMR DP777 ?


----------



## KmanChu

purrin said:


> I have discovered (not that long ago) that most USB implementations suck. I only wish I had known (I should have known) sooner as I'm sure many of the DACs listed here could have benefited from a proper USB/SPDIF converter. It's frustrating because there are so many combinations to try out. And I can't but help think some of the DACs didn't get a fair shake - that they would have radically improved, especially if their built-in USB converters sucked.
> 
> And then there's the question of the effectiveness of USB/SPDIF converters. For example. I suspect the AP1 (at least without the PP PS supply) doesn't do anything. It sounded worse than the PWD2's built-in USB and Amos / Currawong said it sounded the same as his AGD M7's USB (which I felt sucked balls). The AP1 ain't cheap. It's even more expensive with the PP. At this price point, even if it did work, it's not viable for any DAC less than $2K. I would have liked to find out if the PP did anything, but the owner of the AP1 was already pissed that it didn't do jack and said "F that."
> 
> ...


 
 The AP1 is admittedly expensive for what it does. With that you are definitely paying for features vs the AP2. The PP battery supply helps it tremendously but it is overpriced vs just using a 5V linear supply with a dual headed USB cable or using a USB power conditioner like the ifi iUSB Power. 
  
 A good asynchronous USB implementation _should_ be better than any SPDIF converter. I think a lot of the benefit of some converters is just having another stage of isolation between the electrically noisy computer and the DAC board. It's no accident the better implementations of USB like Ayre, AMR, reportedly the newer Schiit and W4S all go through great pains to keep the USB receiver on a separate board and isolated from the rest of the DAC. I have heard the Berkeley Alpha USB (which is probably the consensus top converter) with several very nice DACs and there is not a single one that did not improve with the Alpha.
  
 I have noticed substantial differences in playback between different computers and if other devices are plugged into the USB ports other than just the DAC/converter. Laptops are probably the worst offenders for having noisy USB ports and multiple devices taking turns on the bus. Playback from different computers could have a very big affect on the sound.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

kmanchu said:


> The AP1 is admittedly expensive for what it does. With that you are definitely paying for features vs the AP2. The PP battery supply helps it tremendously but it is overpriced vs just using a 5V linear supply with a dual headed USB cable or using a USB power conditioner like the ifi iUSB Power.
> 
> A good asynchronous USB implementation _should_ be better than any SPDIF converter. I think a lot of the benefit of some converters is just having another stage of isolation between the electrically noisy computer and the DAC board. It's no accident the better implementations of USB like Ayre, AMR, reportedly the newer Schiit and W4S all go through great pains to keep the USB receiver on a separate board and isolated from the rest of the DAC. I have heard the Berkeley Alpha USB (which is probably the consensus top converter) with several very nice DACs and there is not a single one that did not improve with the Alpha.
> 
> I have noticed substantial differences in playback between different computers and if other devices are plugged into the USB ports other than just the DAC/converter. Laptops are probably the worst offenders for having noisy USB ports and multiple devices taking turns on the bus. Playback from different computers could have a very big affect on the sound.


 
 Great post, I can add that all these DDC and USB isolators (iUSB Power, Aqvox) do add some jitter on their own. Guess because of all those extra USB connectors, cables. For instance I had much more dropouts on Vega in EXACT clock mode (very sensitive to incoming jitter setting) with iUSB Power than w/o one in line, ditched it and all the problems are gone. So yes, having great USB implementation on board is much better.


----------



## purrin

kmanchu said:


> I have noticed substantial differences in playback between different computers and if other devices are plugged into the USB ports other than just the DAC/converter. Laptops are probably the worst offenders for having noisy USB ports and multiple devices taking turns on the bus. Playback from different computers could have a very big affect on the sound.


 
  
 Definitely. Different PCs, laptops do sound different. The ODAC sounds like absolute garbage from the Sony VAIO laptop, but is surprisingly decent from the PC. I've heard different playback software on Macs sound different. Supposedly foobar and JRiver sound different, but I haven't tried that myself. Others have reported good results with JPlay or Fidelizer. I haven't heard a difference, but I do "harden" my PCs by disabling all unnecessary Windows services, processes, programs, firewalls, auto-updates, setting USB port bandwidth, isolating mouse/keyboard on certain USB hubs, etc. I don't know if all these do anything, but I'm sure it doesn't hurt. I just don't like the idea of so much crapware, most of it from Microsoft, running on my PCs.


----------



## BleaK

Great writeup! Thank you for doing this!
  
 I will get the vali closer to christmas and I am looking to upgrade the dac after christmas holidays.
 The ones I have been looking at are:
  
 -Concero
 -Gungnir
 -Violectric V800
 -X-Sabre
  
 Looks like the gungnir is a top contender, especially with the new usb. However the comments from Maxvla makes me nervous it will be to "upfront" and I won't be able to relax or casual listen with it (which I like to do time to time).
  
 Decisions decisions...


----------



## purrin

bleak said:


> Great writeup! Thank you for doing this!
> 
> I will get the vali closer to christmas and I am looking to upgrade the dac after christman holidays.
> The ones I have been looking at are:
> ...


 
  
 Maxvla owned the USB Gen 1 and hasn't heard the Gen 2. Note that olor1n also threw his Gungnir (Gen 1 USB) into the trash for the same reasons as Maxvla. On the other hand, Questhate threw his X-Sabre in the dumpster because he hated the Sabre treble. With the Gen 2, the Gungnir is better able to be soft as well as loud and brash. If you are coming from the DAC-1, the X-Sabre might be a more familiar sounding DAC. Really hard to say what you would prefer. How do you feel about your current DAC? What would you like to see improved? I heard the Concero briefly, and I didn't think it was all that great or what it was cracked up to be. Need more time with it.


----------



## purrin

This may help. Think of it as a VOLUME transfer function from recording -> DAC rendering
 It shows how the softest sounds are either dropped or compressed by each DAC. And how the loudest sounds are compressed by each DAC.
  
 RECORDING         X-SABRE

```
10----\ 10 9 \_______9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 _______3 2-----/ 2 1 1 0 0
```
  
 RECORDING          GUNGNIR USB 1

```
10------------10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 _______6 5 / 5 4____/ 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0
```
  
 RECORDING         GUNGNIR USB 2

```
10------------10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 /-------4 3____/ 3 2 2 1 1 0 0
```
  
 RECORDING          PWD2 BEST CONFIG

```
10------------10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1-------------1 0 0
```
  
 RECORDING          AGD M7 BEST CONFIG

```
10-----\ 10 9 \------9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0-------------0
```


----------



## BleaK

purrin said:


> Maxvla owned the USB Gen 1 and hasn't heard the Gen 2. Note that olor1n also threw his Gungnir into the trash for the same reasons as Maxvla. On the other hand, Questhate threw his X-Sabre in the dumpster because he hated the Sabre treble. With the Gen 2, the Gungnir is better able to be soft as well as loud and brash. If you are coming from the DAC-1, the X-Sabre might be a more familiar sounding. Really hard to say what you would prefer. How do you feel about your current DAC? What would you like to see improved? I heard the Concero briefly, and I didn't think it was all that great or what it was cracked up to be. Need more time with it.


 

  
 DAC1:
 -Bass is a bit anemic, and a bit one noted, feel rolled off
 -Mids are detailed, with pretty decent imaging
 -Lower treble are a bit harsh, thin and a bit too "splashy"
 -Soundstage have great width, but close to zero depth (things sound like they come from wither either left or right)
 -The Audio gd interface (usb->spdif) made the DAC1 so much better than the SPDIF out from the PC, makes the HD800 listenable on it.
  
 So I would like a stronger bass without one-note, maybe a bit fuller but detailed mids, "warmer" treble (if I can say that) and a soundstage with a good balance between width and depth.
  
 Gosh sounds like I'm describing a mixture of Gungnir and X-sabre. I just won't make this easy on myself.
  
 Btw, I like the HD800 unmoded (maybe I'm not treble sensitive). So that may be a factor.


----------



## BleaK

purrin said:


> This may help. Think of it as a VOLUME transfer function from recording -> DAC rendering
> It shows how the softest sounds are either dropped or compressed by each DAC. And how the loudest sounds are compressed by each DAC.
> 
> RECORDING         X-SABRE
> ...


 

 I think I understood that! Thanks! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 Also, I hope someone send you guys a violectric dac someday, VERY interested how it would match up in your testing and ranking.


----------



## Maxvla

purrin said:


> Maxvla owned the USB Gen 1 and hasn't heard the Gen 2. Note that olor1n also threw his Gungnir (Gen 1 USB) into the trash for the same reasons as Maxvla. On the other hand, Questhate threw his X-Sabre in the dumpster because he hated the Sabre treble. With the Gen 2, the Gungnir is better able to be soft as well as loud and brash. If you are coming from the DAC-1, the X-Sabre might be a more familiar sounding DAC. Really hard to say what you would prefer. How do you feel about your current DAC? What would you like to see improved? I heard the Concero briefly, and I didn't think it was all that great or what it was cracked up to be. Need more time with it.



My Gungnir was no USB.

I feel the Concero is very similar to the X-Sabre. Nick_Dangerous from Dallas and I compared them side by side on the same amp and hp. We agreed they were almost the same.

I may have a chance to hear the V800 in a month.


----------



## ohhgourami

purrin said:


> I hesitate to rank your DAC (Audio-gd NFB-7.32) because I only heard it once, it was at a meet, it wasn't comparative with at least three to four other DACs, and I've haven't heard it on the speaker setup, and no one here has lived with it for a week. (Although one of my minions has heard it.) That's the key here with the rankings. Every single DAC was at least compared with three others, with one to three other evaluators present. Again, this was as part of a series of DAC-offs. The rankings were a synthesis of the results.
> 
> My take is that your DAC sounded a like lot an X-Sabre, but improved. Better resolution, dynamics, microdynamics, and gradations of volume (in these areas it's equal to the top tiers). It's notable weaknesses were the following: the lack of bass pitch differentiation and bass texture; the SABREsque quality of the uppermost octave / air region - it wasn't glaring or strident or anything like that; and a lack of continuity / liquid-ness of rendered sounds - particularly notable with vocals. I also felt your DAC, even without the OR5, had good performance. The M7 via USB is severely crippled. You never had a chance to hear the M7 via USB because I won't install the USB drivers.
> 
> As you know the differences among the classifications is really small. We are talking about DACs, not headphones.


 

 Thanks for writing that up! Agreed that the my DAC lacks that liquidness in the mids and that amazing bass texture the M7 has. M7 is too damn good in that respect!
  
 Been pondering about getting an OR5 or separates; this confirms that separates might be the better way to go.


----------



## purrin

@BleaK
  
 No. You are not making this easy. What you want only exists in Class A or B. 
  
 The X-Sabre's treble issues are in the upper band, not lower treble. I would not say the X-Sabre is thin sounding, but it is leaner in comparison to the Gungir. I am concerned about the Gungnir's aggressiveness with the HD800, particularly if it's un-modded. It may come down to the amp. It's possible my experiences with the Gungnir and HD800 were different from Maxvla's because mine were from tube amps (Maxvla had a BHA-1 and aggressive + aggressive is not good). And my Gungnir + Mjolnir experiences were mostly with speakers (which are tuned to be slightly dark.) Then again, you run HD800s unmodded, and you don't have any issues with the 6k region. No issues with resolution.
  
 Any plans for the amp?


----------



## purrin

maxvla said:


> My Gungnir was no USB.
> 
> I feel the Concero is very similar to the X-Saber. Nick_Dangerous from Dallas and I compared them side by side on the same amp and hp. We agreed they were almost the same.
> 
> I may have a chance to hear the V800 in a month.


 
  
 Really, I thought the X-Sabre was better (this totally from memory, so I could be full of ****). Your thoughts?


----------



## BleaK

maxvla said:


> My Gungnir was no USB.
> 
> I feel the Concero is very similar to the X-Saber. Nick_Dangerous from Dallas and I compared them side by side on the same amp and hp. We agreed they were almost the same.
> 
> I may have a chance to hear the V800 in a month.


 

 Please posts impressions if you to, I would love to hear them. I've read John's X-sabre review and he says that they compare, but the V800 have better imaging and goes a bit further with quality recordings. However not all my music listening is top quality. I listen mostly to FLAC, but use spotify (ogg vorbis 320) to find new music and listen when I relax. Also there are alot of proggresive rock and metal in my list, and not all of them are quality material (however Ayreon and Opeth recordings still never cease to amaze me with how great they are recorded and mixed).


----------



## BleaK

> Any plans for the amp?


 
  
 Just the Vali for now, then I'm saving up for something good. Maybe statement Schiit, maybe an EC-amp. Perhaps a crazy new HD800-synergy ss-amp is just around the corner 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 It feels like the tonality from gungnir is something I would love, but I would also like the "relaxed" and detailed sound of the x-sabre. Right now I am hoping that the V800 (or concero) is somewhere in the middle, especially when Violectric says that they are upgrading their USB input. But right now I am leaning towards the gungnir with the gen 2 USB.


----------



## Maxvla

Tone and presentation between the X-Sabre and Concero are nearly identical. We thought the X-Sabre was a bit more resolving and just a touch more extension on both ends. The main differences between the units are the balanced connections and ability to DSD/DXD. The new Concero HD does DSD now too but it is also more expensive than the original. Now I will say DSD and DXD are not really selling points, but it is a difference. I would say build quality is similar as well, with the edge to the X-Sabre.

If you like this sound, buy a Concero if you don't need balanced, buy a X-Sabre if you do. The $500 difference doesn't show up in sound. These DACs are like twins with different clothes on.


----------



## driver 8

purrin said:


> I believe someone is sending my minions and I a Vega. The whispers we have been hearing is that the Vega is hyper-detailed and bright, but in a very well done way. We are hopeful, but downplaying our expectations after our experience with the Invicta. I was hoping I would be throwing the PWD2 out the window from the things I was reading about the Invicta.


 
  
 Huh, I don't hear it as being bright, but most of my DACs have been Sabre based, so maybe my frame of reference is off.  It's very detailed, though, yeah.  Be sure to try the Exact clock setting when you get it; it takes everything up a notch.
  
 I occasionally miss the NAD M51's spacial presentation, but I think I like the Vega better overall.


----------



## BleaK

maxvla said:


> Tone and presentation between the X-Sabre and Concero are nearly identical. We thought the X-Sabre was a bit more resolving and just a touch more extension on both ends. The main differences between the units are the balanced connections and ability to DSD/DXD. The new Concero HD does DSD now too but it is also more expensive than the original. Now I will say DSD and DXD are not really selling points, but it is a difference. I would say build quality is similar as well, with the edge to the X-Sabre.
> 
> If you like this sound, buy a Concero if you don't need balanced, buy a X-Sabre if you do. The $500 difference doesn't show up in sound. These DACs are like twins with different clothes on.


 

 Wow, that's huge. I only need usb and unbalanced. This can save me alot of cash (for a better amp in the future! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).


----------



## purrin

My main quibbles (they are not major ones) with the M51 were that sounds were compressed. I felt like that I had to turn the volume knob down on soft sounds and up on loud sounds to get the same effect as the better DACs. The attack was good, but the high treble rendering was off. Not anything annoying or rough, but rather not natural sounding. Sort of like an exquisite silky fine grain. Very open sounding though. It's a good DAC, and I would have purchased it if NAD did not give it the dumb price of $2000 in the USA. (The Aussies lucked out.) I do wonder what magic the OR5 via i2s would have been able to work on it.


----------



## purrin

maxvla said:


> Tone and presentation between the X-Sabre and Concero are nearly identical. We thought the X-Sabre was a* bit more resolving and just a touch more extension on both ends.*


 
  
 That could be crucial though.


----------



## BournePerfect

I'll chime in with a few thoughts on the V800, coupled with my HD800 and various amps. At first, it was pretty impressive. ecent soundstage for the price, nice blackground, neutral overal, w/ decent (not great) detail retrieval. Although technically it seemed like a bargain for the price, a couple of things annoyed me to the degree that I turned around and sold it within a couple of weeks. Namely, for lack of better teminology, I felt it had a 'hard' sound. Like how some headphones have 'hard treble', I felt the Violectric was 'hard' in all the frequencies. At first I couldn't understand why, and even after trying various inputs (USB,Coax, toslink)-I simply couldn't shake that hard sound. I think basically what was causing it was essentially most of the frequencies hit hard, with a _lot of impact-but had improper decay. _It also seemed like it was shouty at all registers-like it was saying 'LOOK HERE!' all the time, at anything and everything-trying to prove it's technical prowess, but at the cost of sounding hard, and at the expense of proper transient presentation. It was simply not an effortless sound-which is where I usually draw the line rather quickly.
  
 I'll reiterate that these traits were unchanged regardless of input and amping used. Hope this helps.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## Tom W

purrin said:


> I have not tried the Short Block yet but I am in the process of making my own. I know that simply cutting the +5V on the USB line to the OR5 incrementally improved soundstage. The next steps would be to put a choke on the ground and a common mode choke on the D+ and D- lines.


 
  
 I liked the improvement the Short Block made in my system. IMO it brought the OR5 up another notch.
  
 I wonder how much of that difference was to the cutting of the +5V line and how much was due to the filtering.
  
 I only had the OR5 a few weeks when the SB arrived so I'm sure it wasn't settled in yet (according to Steve at EA) so I should remove it to see if the difference is still as great as I remember it to be.


----------



## Maxvla

purrin said:


> That could be crucial though.



It was enough for me. As with the BHA-1 and Mjolnir I had a similar finding with the Mjolnir being the better value and the BHA-1 being better but significantly more expensive. Those amps were not nearly as identical sounding as these DACs were, however. There was more trade off with neither amps being perfect.


----------



## tdockweiler

Thanks Purrin.
 I really don't want to know what all happens at a DAC-OFF 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Do you order Pizza? I LOLed, but i'm not going there..
 There is one guy on your forum who's opinion I really trust but I won't say who. I'm sure he played a role here..or not.
 I've gotten into some friendly arguments with him too and you'd think we were worst enemies.
 That's what makes things interesting sometimes. I really complain about my gear way too much sometimes I think.
 Most people would think I hate the HD-598 but I actually love it.
  
 I really do get tired of reviews that are too positive so please don't hold back on very negative impressions. Yet i'm the guy who complained about your 1/5 star reviews.
 I haven't given anything a 1/5 yet but maybe someday. Nuforce Icon Mobile deserves that, but not even an E5 does.
  
 Maybe when you listen to the (Uber) Bifrost you can add it to your list if it's worthy. Maybe even give a short comparison to the Modi.
 I have a feeling I would like it since I love the Modi's sound and both have AKM chipsets.
  
 You don't seem to like the Modi as much as me but IMO it really doesn't sound like a $99 DAC. I'd say more like $200 max.
 When I had the HRT MSII I really never knew what I was missing until I upgraded to the ODAC and then the Modi.
 MSII+ is supposedly comparable to the ODAC i've read.
  
 Heard any desktop DACs with the CS4398 other than your UHA-6S? I really like it and I usually hate Cirrus Logic stuff.
 I'm not a fan of whatever is in my Ipod Touch 2G (Cirrus) but somehow it manages to be a good match with the HD-650 using a dock.
  
 I might be wrong but I can't imagine you liking the CS4398 as a DAC chipset..


----------



## BournePerfect

> The X-Sabre's treble issues are in the upper band, not lower treble. I would not say the X-Sabre is thin sounding, but it is leaner in comparison to the Gungir. I am concerned about the Gungnir's aggressiveness with the HD800, particularly if it's un-modded. It may come down to the amp. It's possible my experiences with the Gungnir and HD800 were different from Maxvla's because mine were from tube amps (Maxvla had a BHA-1 and aggressive + aggressive is not good). And my Gungnir + Mjolnir experiences were mostly with speakers (which are tuned to be slightly dark.) Then again, you run HD800s unmodded, and you don't have any issues with the 6k region. No issues with resolution.


 
  
 The stock HD800/Gungnir v.1/BHA-1 is still the worst experience I've had in this hobby. The very definition of bad synergy. I can't imagine how much worse the MJ would have ben in that chain. Keep in mind I found a number of combinations of the HD800/Bryston or HD800/MJ that was quite pleasing with a number of various dacs. The Gagnir (v.1) was the culprit.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## purrin

tom w said:


> I liked the improvement the Short Block made in my system. IMO it brought the OR5 up another notch.
> 
> I wonder how much of that difference was to the cutting of the +5V line and how much was due to the filtering.
> 
> I only had the OR5 a few weeks when the SB arrived so I'm sure it wasn't settled in yet (according to Steve at EA) so I should remove it to see if the difference is still as great as I remember it to be.


 
  
 The +5 cut was pretty huge. And I suspect that to be most of the difference.
  
 The filters / chokes on the data and ground lines I expect to have less of an affect because these are almost always implemented in the circuitry at the USB receiver end. I really need to test this out to be sure though.


----------



## thegunner100

Would cutting the +5v line on a usb cable do anything for the other a-gd dacs? Straight USB from my PC's mobo to the dac.


----------



## purrin

thegunner100 said:


> Would cutting the +5v line on a usb cable do anything for the other a-gd dacs? Straight USB from my PC's mobo to the dac.


 
  
 It might make them not work.


----------



## tdockweiler

bourneperfect said:


> The stock HD800/Gungnir v.1/BHA-1 is still the worst experience I've had in this hobby. The very definition of bad synergy. I can't imagine how much worse the MJ would have ben in that chain. Keep in mind I found a number of combinations of the HD800/Bryston or HD800/MJ that was quite pleasing with a number of various dacs. The Gagnir (v.1) was the culprit.
> 
> -Daniel


 
  
 Worse than Asgard 1 + K702?
 I could have sworn you were the guy who told me years ago that combo was a total fail. I didn't want to believe it but you were right..
 My problem back then is that I was new and clueless sort of and haven't heard better.
  
 D2000 + HD600 on the Asgard 1 is PERFECT though! I even liked the ATH-AD2000 on it somehow.
 Didn't like the HD-650 on the Asgard 1 much but it wasn't horrible.


----------



## rawrster

purrin I'm curious but have you ever heard a Buffalo III? I've always wondered how it stacks up against the non DIY dacs but of course not all buffalo's will sound the same due to different configurations.


----------



## Stapsy

Check what USB receiver chip your DAC uses.  Any of the XMOS based systems that I have seen need the 5v connection (this includes the yet to be released OR6).  Some M2tech based converters like the OR5 don't need the 5v, but I don't think it is universal.  A more expensive option is something like the iFi USB power where the dirty 5v from your computer is replaced by 5v from a battery.  I looked at it when I was thinking about the Concero and decided that I would be better off putting the money into something else.


----------



## Maxvla

Can't wait to see where the Yggdrasil lands in this list. Looking forward to giving it a shot. Hoping it doesn't need an offramp to sound its best.


----------



## thegunner100

I'll shoot kingwa a email and see what he has to say about it.


----------



## BournePerfect

tdockweiler said:


> Worse than Asgard 1 + K702?
> I could have sworn you were the guy who told me years ago that combo was a total fail. I didn't want to believe it but you were right..


 
  
 Been quite a while since that time, but yeah, that was me. I know Jason took some of my comments to heart and updated the Asgard after that, and it supposedly worked with the AKGs better. I had one of the very first batch though, and stuck with the m-Stage after that though with it's wonderful synergy. That said-yeah the HD800/Gungnir v1/BHA-1 is the worst I've heard. Crap synergy. I'm curious to hear the v.2 though now.
  
 -Daniel
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
_Forgive me._


----------



## purrin

bourneperfect said:


> Been quite a while since that time, but yeah, that was me. I know Jason took some of my comments to heart and updated the Asgard after that, and it supposedly worked with the AKGs better. I had one of the very first batch though, and stuck with the m-Stage after that though with it's wonderful synergy. That said-yeah the HD800/Gungnir v1/BHA-1 is the worst I've heard. Crap synergy. I'm curious to hear the v.2 though now.


 
  
 I still don't think it will change much even with Gen 2. The Gungnir is still a Gungnir, even if it does resolve softer sounds and more plankton. It's voiced a certain way. Personally I wouldn't touch that above combo either. And I think it's no secret by now that Schiit's HD800 demo pair has Anax 2.0 mods. Now the above combo would probably be great with LCD3s.
  


rawrster said:


> purrin I'm curious but have you ever heard a Buffalo III? I've always wondered how it stacks up against the non DIY dacs but of course not all buffalo's will sound the same due to different configurations.


  
  

 There is a lot of individual tailoring with B3 builds (I was part of a secret team of ninjas working on behalf on MisterRogers evaluating boutique regulators for a slightly pimped B3 build); but for most of them, without any hesitation, I would scream "the horror", "the horror" as if I was lit on fire. I have heard one or two good builds though. So this why I have not officially rated it. It highly depends upon build.


----------



## GoldfishX

bourneperfect said:


> The stock HD800/Gungnir v.1/BHA-1 is still the worst experience I've had in this hobby. The very definition of bad synergy. I can't imagine how much worse the MJ would have ben in that chain. Keep in mind I found a number of combinations of the HD800/Bryston or HD800/MJ that was quite pleasing with a number of various dacs. The Gagnir (v.1) was the culprit.
> 
> -Daniel


 

 Wow, that's disheartening to hear. I knew the HD800 hated a lot of amps/tubes, I didn't realize it was such a diva with DAC's as well.
  
 Not having heard the Gungnir yet, what is the issue with the pairing? Just generally unmusical/harsh?


----------



## BournePerfect

Maybe the harshest sound I've ever experienced. Harsh and aggressive I should say. Just realized I was using a pure OCC copper balanced cable with the HD800. Keep in mind I actually thought the HD800/Bryston sounded great (maybe my favorite ss amp for the Senns, actually) with some other dacs in the mix such as the Nuforce Dac100, V800 (minus the hardness I mentioned earlier), and even the SBT analog outs. So I'll go along with what others have repeated in various threads, basically saying the Gungnir v.1 is generally a poor match with the HD800. I'd imagine an extremely warm, laid-back amp would counter that-but then you'd be curtailing a lot of the Senns positive attributes. So Gungnir/HD800: proceed with caution. IMO.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## GoldfishX

Well, I tube roll a lot on my Lyr and I have a Gungnir on the way...and I have a pair of HD800. So this will be interesting...


----------



## purrin

goldfishx said:


> Well, I tube roll a lot on my Lyr and I have a Gungnir on the way...and I have a pair of HD800. So this will be interesting...


 
  
 I think you should be OK with a Lyr. The Lyr is a really warm amp, has lots of bass slam, but is smooth, even laid back in the treble. If necessary ditch stock cable. Silver over copper is just a bad idea with the HD800. Less an issue if you listen to classical. If necessary, apply Anax 2.0 mods as a last resort (or before cables if you don't mind messing with rug liner and Creatology foam.)


----------



## olor1n

I ran the Gungnir/Mj combo with the HD800 (non analmort mod), LCD-2 rev.2 and HD650. The issues I had with the Gungnir were evident through the more forgiving headphones. For me, it went beyond being just a bad match for the HD800.
  
 The Gungnir did impress initially, with its unbridled energy and the apparent improvements on display over the Bifrost. Over time though I found my system too obnoxious. There was too much zest. It was a constant punk-ish assault, shouty and abrasive. There was a lack of finesse, a deft touch when the music called for it. These qualms disappeared with the M51, confirming the Gungnir as the culprit.
  
 My Gungnir was an early unit with the gen.1 usb board. Fwiw, I also employed optical and found the same faults. I'm intrigued about the improvements from the gen.2 board, but on reflection and knowing purrin's preferences - I suspect history would repeat if I were to give the Gungnir another chance.
  
 edit: This post may come across as "bashing" the Gungnir. That's not my intent. It's a component that undeniably presents bang for buck and there will be systems that strike a great balance. There are also people who love to be pummelled in the ears (purrin being the poster boy). For me, the Gungnir/Mj was an OD on energetic presentation. I find there's a misconception about the Mj but a lot of that stems from the Gungnir's attributes imo.


----------



## purrin

LOL, to an extent, I can understand the "_zest. It was a constant punk-ish assault, shouty and abrasive. There was a lack of finesse, a deft touch when the music called for it_." of the Gen 1. Even with my speaker setup, which is dark and more on the laid back sounding side. One of the ninjas had commented shortly after listening to the PWD2/OR5, "The Gungnir is loud" (meaning it had difficulty rendering soft sounds soft. The "_lack of finesse, deft touch_")
  
 I recall trying to fall sleep with the Gungnir on (I tend to fall asleep listening to music), and I was thinking "Dammit, why won't the Gungnir fricking shut up and let me fall asleep." I had to get up from the couch and turn the stereo off. But to me, this quality is a good thing because that's what real music does. I like that energy. I don't fall asleep at live concerts. I can NEVER get enough of dynamics. The Gen 2 USB does help with bringing some of that finesse or deft touch, but as I've said, it's still a Gungnir.


----------



## ungawa

> The M7 via USB is severely crippled. *You never had a chance to hear the M7 via USB because I won't install the USB drivers.*


 
  
 Hi Purrin - Thanks for the Thread - I have been following your thoughts about the M7 with interest (I'm very keen on one of these) - but can you explain why you won't install the USB drivers? Not worth the effort to produce no improvement in SQ?
 Just curious ....


----------



## GoldfishX

Lol, I am reading those descriptions of the Gungnir and I am thinking that is what a Grado DAC would sound like, if such a thing existed.
  
 I actually didn't know Lyr was considered a very warm amp (my favorite tubes are somewhat neutral...Voshkods and Siemens, over the warmer Amperexes and Mullards). It can be pretty moody too, when it finds a combo it likes, it makes my headphones sing. But when it doesn't, it sounds like harsh crap. I've spent much of this past weekend rolling tubes with my new Peachtree Dac-It hooked up. When I put the wrong combination of headphones/tubes together, they let me know in no uncertain terms. Going to use all my notes as reference for when I receive the Gungnir.


----------



## purrin

ungawa said:


> Hi Purrin - Thanks for the Thread - I have been following your thoughts about the M7 with interest (I'm very keen on one of these) - but can you explain why you won't install the USB drivers? Not worth the effort to produce no improvement in SQ?
> Just curious ....


 
 That comment was in the context of the San Diego meet where I did not bother to install USB drivers on the laptop since my intention was to run the Off Ramp 5 USB / i2s converter. It was a matter of laziness in preparing for the meet, and also I would be embarrassed at the SQ of the M7 from the USB.
  
 It should be noted that many others feel the USB of the M7 is not so bad or the differences are not so much light and day as I present them. But every time I go back to revisit the M7 USB, I am not pleased. I was going to say I could try it again tonight to confirm for a fourth time, but I don't think I want do.


----------



## yfei

purrin said:


> That setup was USB to Hilo from PC.


 
  
 What do you think about the quality of Hilo's USB compared to driving Hilo from CD transport, or from USB->AES converter?
  
 From varies reviews I read that Hilo's USB is a big limitation of it's potential,  if that's true I will order a good USB converter.
 Another major limitation on Hilo's potential is it's built-in power supply,   I have ordered battery pack, will try it next week.


----------



## GoldfishX

I am curious how many people actually use DSD. I never heard of it until a few weeks ago and that was because Schiit was poking fun it, by saying it might just be a current fad and they were putting out the low price Loki because they didn't want to commit to it:
  
 "DSD is the buzzword right now. Some of us also remember when SACD, HDCD, DAT, reel-to-reel, ELcassette, and quadraphonic were the “next big thing” on the audiophile scene. There’s a very real possibility DSD will go the way of the dodo. Loki allows you to try DSD at a very low price, and decide if it’s for you—without throwing away your current DAC. If DSD succeeds, cool! If it doesn’t, you’re not out big bucks."


----------



## BournePerfect

I thought it was a really poor attempt at fry humor. Hard to tell. Fail either way.
  
 -Tari>ChuckNorris


----------



## Turn&cough

If I was bent on playing DSD files I'd be seriously considering one of the new Sony music servers instead of a stand alone DAC. I just read a very positive review of the HAP-Z1ES. It does DSD natively and from what I read sounds fantastic. I'm not into DSD (yet) but intend on checking it out as an all-in-one replacement for my current DAC and Squeezebox.


----------



## EraserXIV

Any one hear the Asus Essence One? I remember hearing some pretty good things about it. They just recently announced the Essence III which seems pretty interesting and more mature.


----------



## moriez

applehead said:


> Where does the Bifrost uber with Gen 2 usb fit into the list?


 


tdockweiler said:


> Maybe when you listen to the (Uber) Bifrost you can add it to your list if it's worthy.


 
  
 Indeed, if you had to, whereabouts would you rank the Uber-Bi purrin (or ninja)?


----------



## purrin

moriez said:


> Indeed, if you had to, whereabouts would you rank the Uber-Bi purrin (or ninja)?


 
  
 zerodeefex is a ninja.
  
 I like the uber-frost, but I need to live longer with it to make a decisive determination. Definitely E, possibly D, but take that with a serious grain of salt. I do like it enough that I may end up buying it.


----------



## olor1n

No way man. If the Bifrost is E, then the Gungnir is a C. The M51 would of course be an A. Coz it's the Schiit.
  
 I'm out of tables to flip in rage here purrin! Gonna go knock over a bookshelf!


----------



## purrin

UPDATE 12/7 11:08pm:
  
 Now as how far the Gen2 board lessens this "constantly loudly shouting" effect? (kind of like that Pacific Rim movie where all the actors are ALWAY shouting at each other.) At the risk of sounding ghey, I would say the reduction of this effect is about 80%. The Gen 2 USB not like the quite like the old Gungir Gen 1 USB. I find the DAC with the Gen2 USB just that much more enjoyable now with finesse, refinement, and more plankton. Much more able to reproduce the softest sounds.

 For most of today, I switched back and forth between AGD M7 (coax) and Gungnir Gen 2 USB, usually for 1 hour sessions at a time. Quite frankly I couldn't tell the difference if I was not paying attention - they have such similar tone. The AGD M7 via coax is better, offering slightly better clarity and plankton and doing what it does best with the bass texture thing, smokey vocals, denser tone / richer harmonics. But it was so close. Gungir Gen 2 USB was not far behind. Gungnir Gen 2 staging was also better - further out in front. M7 stage was in closer in.

 I also threw in the ECZD into the mix to get another perspective.

 I'm convinced Maxvla and olor1m would now find the Gen 2 acceptable.


----------



## KmanChu

purrin said:


> My main quibbles (they are not major ones) with the M51 were that sounds were compressed. I felt like that I had to turn the volume knob down on soft sounds and up on loud sounds to get the same effect as the better DACs. The attack was good, but the high treble rendering was off. Not anything annoying or rough, but rather not natural sounding. Sort of like an exquisite silky fine grain. Very open sounding though. It's a good DAC, and I would have purchased it if NAD did not give it the dumb price of $2000 in the USA. (The Aussies lucked out.) I do wonder what magic the OR5 via i2s would have been able to work on it.


 
 The HDMI port apparently doesn't work via the regular HDMI/I2S routes (like PS Audio or W4S.) It works with the NAD M50 and apparently through HDMI protocols but supposedly isn't compatible with the others previously stated. I wish it did as I would have tried it. I use it with a PS3 for watching movies and the sound is very good through the HDMI ports.
  
 Sonically, the winningest qualities of the M51 are the absolute background silence and ability to portray high detail and resolution without harshness. Music has a natural and fluid sound. A large part of the appeal of the M51 is the digital volume control: it is unquestionably the best volume control I have used. The backrgound noise it generates is not a function of the volume. The resolution is not affected by the digital volume control, even with high res materials.  I understand some have used it with excellent results in headphone systems, but to me a large part of its appeal is the HDMI ports and the ability for it to act as a control center/preamp in a "home theater 2.0" type of system. It is a unique product in allowing an all digital audiophile stereo system to stand in as an HDMI 1080p capable handler. If you need this functionality in your system it is a no brainer unless you are willing to fork out mega-bucks. I use it in my main rig as a DAC/preamp. For a headphone rig with a typical headphone amp it wouldn't have as much appeal.
  
 The M51 is in not the pinnacle of current DACs. But, its unique feature set and sonic qualities make it very competitive at it's price point. It is a piece of equipment that has been described as being simultaneously highly resolving and too polite/smooth. That is a good pair of contradictory descriptors.


----------



## aive

purrin said:


> UPDATE 12/7 11:08pm:
> 
> For most of today, I switched back and forth between AGD M7 (coax) and Gungnir Gen 2 USB, usually for 1 hour sessions at a time. Quite frankly I couldn't tell the difference if I was not paying attention - they have such similar tone. The AGD M7 via coax is better, offering slightly better clarity and plankton and doing what it does best with the bass texture thing, smokey vocals, denser tone / richer harmonics. But it was so close. Gungir Gen 2 USB was not far behind. Gungnir Gen 2 staging was also better - further out in front. M7 stage was in closer in.


 
  
 Awesome thread btw - and a great service for those DAC shopping like myself 
  
 It's interesting that you rate the Gungnir on par with the AGD M7 - considering the price difference, that is some serious value coming from the Schiit. Makes me want to wait and see what the Yggdrasil will be like! Considering it again will be cheaper than the AGD M7, I'm *almost* (still deciding) keen to wait for it 
  
 But ignoring the Ygg, my plan is for a AGD M7 + OR5 (or Alpha USB from Berkely Audio) as you recommended in the dedicated M7 thread. Keep up the great work


----------



## Maxvla

purrin said:


> I'm convinced Maxvla and olor1m would now find the Gen 2 acceptable.



Unless the rest of the DAC has changed also, it shouldn't affect me as I never heard the Gungnir through USB since mine didn't have it.


----------



## schneller

buson160man said:


> I have had a teac ud-501 dac since may and it sounds just wonderful in my set up. But I do have to say that after the unit breaks in there were definitely some settings with regards to the filters and upsampling depending on what type of input was used that make a noticeable difference in how this dac sounds. I myself prefer the dac without any pcm filtering at all. I can hear the effect of passing signal through the filtering and I much prefer listening with no filtering at all. It just sounds much better without the filtering. Next when using the usb input I prefer listening with no upsampling engaged. Things sound much clearer and better. Again I can hear the effect of passing the signal through the  additional circuitry.
> I do prefer listening to cds with the dac upsmapling engaged. Things sound more spacious and more resolving with the upsampling in place. But with the usb inpit things sound much better without the upsampling engaged.
> I suspect based on the comments about this dac that the listening was done with upsampling and digital filtering in place.
> Based on the largely positive comments about this dac and my own experience with it that something seems amiss with the evaluation of the teac ud-501 dac.


 
  
 Thanks for the support. I don't own the TEAC but am very close to buying one based on so many positive reviews.


----------



## schneller

Anyone compared the Schiit Gungnir to the Meridian Director DAC? Same price.


----------



## Hun7er

Purrin did compare the Audio GD M7 vs AMR DP777 ?
  
 Regards


----------



## mrtim6

Hi Purin, I was wondering what your thoughts are on the Resolution Audio Cantanta Music Centre as a DAC and where it would place in your DAC off. I ask because the DACs used in the RACMC are not saber DACs. I also think it would be competition for people thinking about the invictus.


----------



## GoldfishX

That is actually my problem with Teac, there's not much info about their DAC or amps online. I got to try the headphone amplifier at a local shop and it sounded like a $200 unit (I forget what the rest of the audio chain was, but it was some heavy duty equipment). Very flat, very 2D, sounds like my Lyr before the tubes have warmed up (cool effect, as they warm up, is like a 2D image becoming a 3D image...guilty pleasure I have with it), so I kind of lost interest in their offerings right there.
  
 I'd probably be way more interested in the M51, but not at that price point. I'd sooner take my chance with the Gungnir for $750-$850 (got mine less, since it was used, heh) or even the Yulong DA8 at $1300 and save up for something higher end in the $2000-$2500 range.


----------



## purrin

mrtim6 said:


> Hi Purin, I was wondering what your thoughts are on the Resolution Audio Cantanta Music Centre as a DAC and where it would place in your DAC off. I ask because the DACs used in the RACMC are not saber DACs. I also think it would be competition for people thinking about the invictus.


 
  
 I heard it many times, but only at HiFi shows on speakers, and with audiophile music I was not familiar with. Which means I can't say anything about it.


----------



## thegunner100

> The all our DACs have not use the +5V line, there is better remove the wire if easy operate, if cut the wire but have not remove, it still in the cable as a Ant receive the RF disturb and fire to the data wire.
> Kingwa


 
 So I take it to mean that it will be better to physically remove the +5V line from the usb cable rather than to just cut the connection.


----------



## purrin

Yes. Or make a new USB cable from scratch.


----------



## thegunner100

I'll see if anyone can make me a usb cable for cheap, and then compare with a normal usb cable with the +5V in place. At the very least it'll get rid of some noise that I hear when I plug the UERMs into the nfb-10es2 w/ usb.
  
 Just noticed that you changed the headphones in the OP to "HD800 Anax 3.0 (Beta)"!


----------



## purrin

thegunner100 said:


> I'll see if anyone can make me a usb cable for cheap, and then compare with a normal usb cable with the +5V in place. At the very least it'll get rid of some noise that I hear when I plug the UERMs into the nfb-10es2 w/ usb.
> 
> Just noticed that you changed the headphones in the OP to "HD800 Anax 3.0 (Beta)"!


 
  
 Yes. I wrote "Anax 2.0 mod" out of habit because I get so many pms about it. He's running a secrat version which measurably completely eliminates the 6k peak and fills in the 3-4k null. I've heard it, his HD800 is quite good, but he's still tweaking it.


----------



## Maxvla

Anaxilus mod 3.0. Coming to a headphone vendor near you, summer of 2020.


----------



## stainless824

not sure if i'm going to get piled on; but the lightharmonic USB cable looks interesting


----------



## Happy Camper

tdockweiler said:


> Thanks Purrin.
> I really don't want to know what all happens at a DAC-OFF  Do you order Pizza? I LOLed, but i'm not going there..
> There is one guy on your forum who's opinion I really trust but I won't say who. I'm sure he played a role here..or not.
> I've gotten into some friendly arguments with him too and you'd think we were worst enemies.
> ...


The Hilo uses CS4398 chipset.


----------



## yfei

happy camper said:


> The Hilo uses CS4398 chipset.


 
 That's right.       And Hilo was an eye opening experience for me.    Used to have ESS 9018 based Eastern Electric MiniMax,  and Anedio D1, D2.    These 9018 based DACs are very nice,   but Hilo is simply another level above:   much much more details, everything are more realistic, and the sound is FULLY transparent,  sound stage is more precise....   
  
 ESS 9018 is ~$40, while CS4398 is only $6 (for >5k order).    Apparently implementation is more important than the $ of DAC chip.


----------



## thegunner100

purrin said:


> Yes. I wrote "Anax 2.0 mod" out of habit because I get so many pms about it. He's running a secrat version which measurably completely eliminates the 6k peak and fills in the 3-4k null. I've heard it, his HD800 is quite good, but he's still tweaking it.


 
  
  


maxvla said:


> Anaxilus mod 3.0. Coming to a headphone vendor near you, summer of 2020.


 

 Well it's good to see that there's progress. It's a little hard to imagine an even more improved version but I'll have to wait.


----------



## Stapsy

I don't see the point in the light harmonic usb cable.  For an extra $300 you could have an OR5 and remove the 5volt power supply from $5 USB cable.  I highly doubt a USB cable with a separate power supply cable would come close to matching the improvement you would get from an OR5.


----------



## barid

A bit off topic since it wasnt part of the review; but do any of you DAC guru's have an opinion on the Benchmark DAC2? Does it fall in line with your thoughts of the DAC1?


----------



## Simon Jay

Purrin, 

First, thanks for the detailed post! As someone who's relatively new to hifi it's great to read approaches in how to listen and think about sound. I see in one of your photos the Audinst HUD MX-1. This is the DAC I have and I'd be really appreciative if you could describe this what you hear in this DAC so as to help me also identify it's various characteristics. It's my first DAC and I really enjoy it but also have nothing to compare it to. 

Cheers,
Simon-Jay


----------



## daigo

Interesting read.  I've thought about upgrading from my gamma 2 that I've used for three plus years now, but I still enjoy my music as is so maybe I can avoid that upgrade bug for a bit.  Good to see it still garners favorable comments.  While not perfect, it still performs well for me.


----------



## purrin

simon jay said:


> Purrin,
> 
> First, thanks for the detailed post! As someone who's relatively new to hifi it's great to read approaches in how to listen and think about sound. I see in one of your photos the Audinst HUD MX-1. This is the DAC I have and I'd be really appreciative if you could describe this what you hear in this DAC so as to help me also identify it's various characteristics. It's my first DAC and I really enjoy it but also have nothing to compare it to.
> 
> ...


  
  The person who sent me the Audist HUD MX-1 warned me against it. I've already measured the jitter and I am afraid! Very afraid. Jitter measurements do have some correlation to good sound, at least to me. Eventually I will listen to it and report back.
  
 It's interesting. I've grown (or re-grown) to prefer DACs with a more natural sound. By this I mean mostly the R2R chip based DACs of yesteryear; although I really do appreciate the hyper-detail some of the modern sigma-delta DACs provide. The really funny thing is that we've all gotten use to this sigma-delta sound, and forgotten how these older chips used to sound. Most of you younger guys have no idea.
  
 The other day, someone had asked me if there were any other measurements I would be interested in, and I replied "the ultrasonic band past the range of human hearing." I know this sounds like hocus-pocus, and I can see a lot of self-appointed "objectivists" huffing and puffing in outrage (to the point of registering for the sole purpose of telling me I am full of ****) about what I am going to say. The ultrasonic characteristics of gear do matter. The audio engineers I've spoken to, ones who have done this for a while, the ones who I think make good stuff, do look at this range.
  
 Well, I found out fairly recently, that two of my favored DACs, the Gungnir (AKM4399) and AGD M7 (PCM1704), which I feel have the best vocals, best bass texture, and most natural sound (#2 and #1 respectively in these sonic categories) without any treble weirdness, actually had similar performance characteristics in the ultrasonic range. That is a low amount of crud, and with most of the crud way off past the spectrum of human hearing. I thought this was an interesting coincidence - but still hardly enough data to make any generalizations or correlations to the subjective experience.
  
 Now I have yet to see the ultrasonic spectrums of the other sigma-delta DACs, especially the ones which I felt sounded kind of nasty, but it would be interesting to identify their chips and see the pre-filtered ultrasonic spectrum. My guess is that something like SABRE would have a lot of noise and other garbage up there. I might look up some of the spec-sheets of some of the sigma-delta DACs to see if there's any information on this. I do find that it's interesting that SABRE _supposedly _makes everyone who gets their hands on one sign an NDA and that their spec-sheets are super secret to the public.
  
 Alas the ladder DAC ships are no longer being made in volume. Something like the PCM1704 last time I checked was $75 per piece, and you need one piece per channel. The industry went to sigma-delta because of all the hoopla on having 20 bits, 24 bits, 32 bits. Even though Redbook (CD) is 16 bit and mp3 is, well mp3. Bottom line was well, the bottom line. The sigma-delta chips being cheaper to make. Something about trimming the resistor ladders to be super precise supposedly makes the R2R chips more expensive. I'm don't know much about that, but it would make sense. The level of accuracy required for the resistors would be paramount - the differences in level between LSB and MSB of 20 bits is HUGE - 1:2^20. You do the math. I can only fathom the accuracy and precision required.
  
 One of these days, I'm going to open this stuff up and measure the ultrasonics.


----------



## zerodeefex

simon jay said:


> Purrin,
> 
> First, thanks for the detailed post! As someone who's relatively new to hifi it's great to read approaches in how to listen and think about sound. I see in one of your photos the Audinst HUD MX-1. This is the DAC I have and I'd be really appreciative if you could describe this what you hear in this DAC so as to help me also identify it's various characteristics. It's my first DAC and I really enjoy it but also have nothing to compare it to.
> 
> ...


 
 It's an Audinst HUD-MX2


----------



## purrin

zerodeefex said:


> It's an Audinst HUD-MX2


 
  Well we would never know. Maybe the MX1 is way better.


----------



## Simon Jay

zerodeefex said:


> It's an Audinst HUD-MX2




Oops........ the different volume knob and selector switch are out of view in the photo.


----------



## Simon Jay

purrin said:


> Well we would never know. Maybe the MX1 is way better.




Oh, I think you'll find the MX1 to be an entry level unit.


----------



## Stil

schneller said:


> Anyone compared the Schiit Gungnir to the Meridian Director DAC? Same price.


 
 I'm interested in this too.


----------



## Xymordos

Perhaps your dislike towards the 9018 chips is due to the distortion that were tested with AP and confirmed with ESS. Between 1khz and 5khz, with signal between 0db and 60db, there is nonlinear distortion. It looks inaudible, but some people might believe otherwise. 



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






Teal is -35dB input signal, and Blue is -36dB input signal


----------



## purrin

Wow, if that for is real, the most scary part is not the distortion per se, but the completely different _characteristics _of the distortion between -35db and -36db.


----------



## Sapientiam

xymordos said:


> Teal is -35dB input signal, and Blue is -36dB input signal


 
  
 Very useful data - thanks! I've been harping on about noise modulation in S-D DACs for a while now, very nice to see another smoking gun. The plot of the Weiss Medea+ showed a kink in the THD+N vs level plot around this very level.
  
 Are you sure you got the colours the right way around though? From eyeballing the plot, the blue looks to have a slightly higher level than the cyan. I'd also expect the noise to be triggered at a specific absolute signal level - the lower amplitude sine does not pass through the critical point around -35dB so doesn't trigger the noise bursts.
  
 Remember that all FFTs only show the average noise - a shift of 20dB in the 2kHz region looks big but given the generated noise is only happening over a relatively small part of the sinewave, the subjective effect is worse than the plot seems to suggest.


----------



## yfei

1) Why it looks like the peak frequency of the 2 curves are different?   not exactly matching 1kHz.
 2) the distortion is below -130~140db, can it really cause audible differences?
  
  
 Quote:


xymordos said:


> Perhaps your dislike towards the 9018 chips is due to the distortion that were tested with AP and confirmed with ESS. Between 1khz and 5khz, with signal between 0db and 60db, there is nonlinear distortion. It looks inaudible, but some people might believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sapientiam

> the distortion is below -130~140db, can it really cause audible differences?


 
  
 Interpreting FFTs is not that straightforward.. A casual look at the plot shows noise 'floor' around -150dB. But remember that's not the_ total_ noise (integrated noise from 20-20kHz) rather each FFT 'point' shows you the noise present in a very narrow bandwidth. You have to add all those points up to get what's called the 'integrated noise'.
  
 Eyeballing the place on the plot where the frequency scale is most expanded (bottom left), note that the 'steps' occur at roughly 3Hz intervals. This is a clue as to the effective noise bandwidth for each data point. It's only a good guide though if no averaging has been done - the AP can be set to average 10s or even 100s of waveforms.


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> Thanks for the support. I don't own the TEAC but am very close to buying one based on so many positive reviews.


 
  
 This week, a friend and I made some visits to a few other friends (who typically carry a few DACs here and there at their places of work). Here are some pictures of the TEAC in various states of use disuse.
  

 (The Airmotiv speakers were actually liked.)
  

  
  It's probably a great DAC if you haven't heard anything better.


----------



## Xymordos

I did mention that it might not be audible, since many of the big DAC companies use it. I know that one of the Taiwan developers managed to test this on his AP and decided not to use it just in case, since there was no fix (confirmed by ESS). John Westlake (designer of MDAC) also said that the 9018 was the most buggy chip he used, and he'll never use it again because of how frustrating it was.


----------



## bowtung

Just wondering does anyone know how the fostex hp-a8 compares to the gungir. I noticed that they have the same akm 4399 chip. Of course implementation matters, but it would be interesting to know how these different akm dacs sound? 
  
 There are a lot of info and comparison on 9018 dacs, but not much on the akm 4399 ones.
  
 Thanks


----------



## Andrew_WOT

xymordos said:


> I did mention that it might not be audible, since many of the big DAC companies use it. I know that one of the Taiwan developers managed to test this on his AP and decided not to use it just in case, since there was no fix (confirmed by ESS). John Westlake (designer of MDAC) also said that the 9018 was the most buggy chip he used, and he'll never use it again because of how frustrating it was.


 
 There is an interesting site of the Russian DAC designer/developer who considers delta-sigma (ESS) a top of the line chips today, and he used to build multibit DACs before. 
  http://goo.gl/RNp4xB
 There is also a pdf describing his 5 years adventure dealing with ESS to make it sound to its best. It's in Russian, but you can probably run it via some google translate.
  
  
 Mostly the difficulty was poor documentation and confusing spec and as a result most manufacturers implementing inferior sounding solutions based on simplest functions of the chip.
 Interesting that AURALiC mentioned that very problem when designing their Vega, so they had to work very closely with chip manufacturer.


----------



## aamefford

@purrin and "minions" - reading the first post review section, you guys make a really good case for buying/building a gamma2 or a gugnir, depending on how much under $1000 one wants to spend, and calling it a day.  That is unless one just wants to spend in the land of what I would term "crazy money" for marginal diminishing returns.  Fair comment?  To quantify - the Gugnir is already past at my "crazy money" threshold, but the Gugnir / Mjolnir combo is on my wishlist.
  
 Currently thinking I may pick up a gamma2 to stand in for my CEntrance HIFI-M8, which is doing double duty as it's own portable rig and as the DAC to my Burson Soloist.  What I'm really looking for, is a dac to pair with the burson, that will be the best spending of $250 to $500.
  
 I am pretty solidly seated in "upper Mid-Fi" with my gear and budget.  I'm trying to maximize my gear within said budget...


----------



## zerodeefex

aamefford said:


> @purrin and "minions" - reading the first post review section, you guys make a really good case for buying/building a gamma2 or a gugnir, depending on how much under $1000 one wants to spend, and calling it a day.  That is unless one just wants to spend in the land of what I would term "crazy money" for marginal diminishing returns.  Fair comment?  To quantify - the Gugnir is already past at my "crazy money" threshold, but the Gugnir / Mjolnir combo is on my wishlist.
> 
> Currently thinking I may pick up a gamma2 to stand in for my CEntrance HIFI-M8, which is doing double duty as it's own portable rig and as the DAC to my Burson Soloist.  What I'm really looking for, is a dac to pair with the burson, that will be the best spending of $250 to $500.
> 
> I am pretty solidly seated in "upper Mid-Fi" with my gear and budget.  I'm trying to maximize my gear within said budget...


 
  
 commissioning a gamma2 will be 300-350.
  
 Sell the M8 for $600, making your total budget $1100.  Get a used Gungnir for $600 (seems to be the going rate) + the USB gen2 install yourself for $100 + Leckerton UHA760 as your new portable.
 The gamma2 is great, but not that resolving. I think you'd be happer in the long run going straight to the Gungnir.


----------



## EraserXIV

I was quite surprised how good the gamma 2 was while I had it. I didn't even realize how good it was until I sold it to "upgrade" I have since been through 2-3 DACs in the $500+ range and haven't found something that has impressed me enough to justify the extra cost. I'm still searching and have since increased my budget to the $1000 range.


----------



## GoldfishX

Well, I can confirm what was said earlier...The Gungnir and the HD800 really do not seem to like each other. Too bright, too aggressive, was not a pleasant experience, even with some light EQing in the high mid/treble bands. My Peachtree Dac-It crushed it pretty good with the HD800's, using the exact same source and the Lyr with the same set of Siemens tubes. Very transparent and musical pairing, it passed pretty much everything I threw at it, from Missing Persons to Dokken to Mozart to the NES Brinstar theme from Metroid.
  
 Gungnir worked pretty good with both the Mad Dogs and HE-500, but was still different in both cases. The HE-500 was especially strange, I got a really dark sound with really rolled off treble (yes, I reset the EQ from the HD800). Was nice, but sounded unnatural. On the Mad Dogs, I had to EQ some of the treble down (the bass was perfect). Never had to do that when it was paired with the Dac-It.
  
 At this point, I'm highly considering running the Dac-It in my home set-up and either selling the Gungnir or using it at work (I'd pair it with the Mad Dogs and the Magni in my cubicle). Not being so good with the HD800 just really sucks. Only thing I can think is maybe try a warmer tube in the Lyr, like a Mullard to tone things down. I've only had the Dac-It for about 2 weeks and it's passed every test I've thrown at it. I'm amazed, to be honest, as I previously had the impression it was an entry-level DAC, nothing too special. I'm disappointed the Gungnir, the Schiit flagship, didn't blow it out of the water (not even close).
  
 Both DAC's were done using coaxial connections to my DX50.


----------



## olor1n

Lol purrin. Was it my whinging that bumped the M51 to class D?
  
 Are there any ninjas that can lend you the NAD? It'd be interesting to see what the OR5 can do for it.


----------



## aamefford

zerodeefex said:


> commissioning a gamma2 will be 300-350.
> 
> Sell the M8 for $600, making your total budget $1100.  Get a used Gungnir for $600 (seems to be the going rate) + the USB gen2 install yourself for $100 + Leckerton UHA760 as your new portable.
> The gamma2 is great, but not that resolving. I think you'd be happer in the long run going straight to the Gungnir.




Not bad. I like the M8 and want to keep it, I think $500 is closer to the sale price, used gamma2 @ $175 in FS section... I may head that direction, though I'd prefer a gamma2 built by MisterX. Gugnir/mjolnir down the road a bit.


----------



## EraserXIV

goldfishx said:


> At this point, I'm highly considering running the Dac-It in my home set-up and either selling the Gungnir or using it at work (I'd pair it with the Mad Dogs and the Magni in my cubicle). Not being so good with the HD800 just really sucks. Only thing I can think is maybe try a warmer tube in the Lyr, like a Mullard to tone things down. I've only had the Dac-It for about 2 weeks and it's passed every test I've thrown at it. I'm amazed, to be honest, as I previously had the impression it was an entry-level DAC, nothing too special. I'm disappointed the Gungnir, the Schiit flagship, didn't blow it out of the water (not even close).
> 
> Both DAC's were done using coaxial connections to my DX50.


 
  
 Peachtree has a "house sound", if you will, that pairs pretty well with the HD800. They are apparently preparing the release of a higher end DAC to hold the ~$1000 price point for CES in January. I haven't heard their Grand Integrated, but that uses a 9018 and apparently maintains their "house sound" according to an audiostream review. It should be pretty interesting to see what they can cook up.


----------



## BournePerfect

I thought the Dac-iT sounded identical to the Bifrost when I had them both side by side. Putting a better aftermarket power cord (yes I'm going there) on the Bifrost made it pull ahead of the DacIt by opening up the soundstage, and in regards to transparency/detail extraction as well. Couldn't try the power cord (Decware, btw) on the Peachtree though because it used a cruddy wall wart. I'd imagin the uber-bifrost would be much better than the DacIt.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## GoldfishX

BournePerfect: What was your source and amp? And which headphones were you running? I'm pretty much married to the Lyr at this point ($$$ spent on tubes, plus I enjoy having its power and sound flexibility). I can't comment on the Bifrost, since I skipped right to the Gungnir (which uses the analogue output stage of the Bifrost Uber), but my mileage varied from headphone to headphone with pretty significant differences. Have not tried a speaker comparison yet.
  
 Opening up the soundstage wasn't an issue on the Gungnir. It is bigger than Peachtree's, I give it that. Problem was that soundstage was filled with treble spikes the HD800's are known for... It fared better with the HE-500.
  
 Eraser: Can you link me? I was looking at refurbed iDac's and iNovas on Peachtree's site recently (local shop sells them, I want to see if they're any kind of improvement over the DacIt). I'd be interested in a new standalone DAC-only in that range from them.


----------



## BournePerfect

I was using a SBT w/ EDO plugin and HD800s. I'm not the only one that feels the HD800/Gungnir gen 1 is a terrible combination to be had, btw.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## EraserXIV

goldfishx said:


> BournePerfect: What was your source and amp? And which headphones were you running? I'm pretty much married to the Lyr at this point ($$$ spent on tubes, plus I enjoy having its power and sound flexibility). I can't comment on the Bifrost, since I skipped right to the Gungnir (which uses the analogue output stage of the Bifrost Uber), but my mileage varied from headphone to headphone with pretty significant differences. Have not tried a speaker comparison yet.
> 
> Opening up the soundstage wasn't an issue on the Gungnir. It is bigger than Peachtree's, I give it that. Problem was that soundstage was filled with treble spikes the HD800's are known for... It fared better with the HE-500.
> 
> Eraser: Can you link me? I was looking at refurbed iDac's and iNovas on Peachtree's site recently (local shop sells them, I want to see if they're any kind of improvement over the DacIt). I'd be interested in a new standalone DAC-only in that range from them.


 
  
 No link, I e-mailed them to ask if there was anything in the pipeline because I remembered hearing rumors about it the beginning of this year.


----------



## purrin

olor1n said:


> Lol purrin. Was it my whinging that bumped the M51 to class D?
> 
> Are there any ninjas that can lend you the NAD? It'd be interesting to see what the OR5 can do for it.


 
  
 Actually it was an error. We had listed several DACs in a google drive spreadsheet, and for some reason the M51 didn't get sorted right originally and ended down further than it was supposed to be.


----------



## mcullinan

Not sure how this is working. Are you updating page 1 thread as you go... Where does the DA8 end up? I own that and the Eximus DP1. Haven't compared them to each other yet though... in different systems


----------



## brunk

mcullinan said:


> Not sure how this is working. Are you updating page 1 thread as you go... *Where does the DA8 end up?* I own that and the Eximus DP1. Haven't compared them to each other yet though... in different systems


 
 Just a hunch, but I'm sure it's a good bit above the X-Sabre thanks to its USB implementation. So long as you tape over pins 1&4 on PC side. You can see in the rankings how a good USB correlates to a higher class.


----------



## mcullinan

I doubt they will be taping the pins though. I have yet to do that with my da8 will have to try it.


----------



## mcullinan

Oops I may be getting Dac comparision threads mixed up lol Gary in md is also doing one...


----------



## purrin

*On the stock HD800:* personally, I wouldn't touch it on _*any *_DAC or *any* DAC/amp combo. It's just too bright and the 6k peak gives it a glare and hardness which does not gel well with 40% of the recordings I listen to. And no, this is not the fault of the recordings.
 Yes, some of the recordings are of marginal quality, but they still sound within the threshold of acceptability on my speakers (laid back sounding), my desktop monitors (slightly bass light, slightly bright), and my UERMs (similar to desktop). I'm only saying this because I've noted people like to blame "bad" recordings and think the HD800 is god's gift to mankind when it's really a german toilet, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
 With DACs, I prefer a more dynamic sound where the attacks aren't blunted. In fact, this one of the top priorities of mine. The stock HD800s are likely to sound especially bad with any DAC listed from A to C, with the exception of the Hilo which is laid back macrodynamics / attack wise.


----------



## Armaegis

Are you saying the HD800 spits at your unmentionables? Waitasec...


----------



## brunk

mcullinan said:


> I doubt they will be taping the pins though. I have yet to do that with my da8 will have to try it.


 
 I think it would be a mistake if they didn't. It's an included feature that only costs two slivers of electrical tape hiding in a drawer...


----------



## Maxvla

brunk said:


> Just a hunch, but I'm sure it's a good bit above the X-Sabre thanks to its USB implementation.



I doubt that. They likely have similar implementations. I know the X-Sabre has basically the same circuitry from the X-SPDIF incorporated.


----------



## brunk

maxvla said:


> I doubt that. They likely have similar implementations. I know the X-Sabre has basically the same circuitry from the X-SPDIF incorporated.


 
 Is the X-Sabre USB powering the cable with filtered Class A power? Most units require the 5v rails from the PC side, not the DA8 though. Just sayin...


----------



## kn19h7

brunk said:


> Is the X-Sabre USB powering the cable with filtered Class A power? Most units require the 5v rails from the PC side, not the DA8 though. Just sayin...


 

 X-Sabre doesn't need that too..


----------



## brunk

kn19h7 said:


> X-Sabre doesn't need that too..


 
 Well, it's pretty clear that clean power for the USB is making a difference in these rankings. Why else would all these regulators be selling if there wasn't an improvement? Which begs the question, why doesn't the X-Sabre "need that too"?


----------



## kn19h7

brunk said:


> Well, it's pretty clear that clean power for the USB is making a difference in these rankings. Why else would all these regulators be selling if there wasn't an improvement? Which begs the question, why doesn't the X-Sabre "need that too"?


 
 Well, in your words, pin1 & pin4


----------



## brunk

kn19h7 said:


> Well, in your words, pin1 & pin4


 
 That's a bit vague, can you elaborate?


----------



## kn19h7

brunk said:


> That's a bit vague, can you elaborate?


 
 Orz I thought I was clear enough..
  
 I also taped pin1&4 of the usb cable connecting pc and x-sabre.


----------



## brunk

kn19h7 said:


> Orz I thought I was clear enough..
> 
> I also taped pin1&4 of the usb cable connecting pc and x-sabre.


 
 So the X-Sabre can power the cable then? Good on them. Do you notice a difference that way? I certainly do, along with Project86 and a few others.


----------



## kn19h7

brunk said:


> So the X-Sabre can power the cable then? Good on them. Do you notice a difference that way? I certainly do, along with Project86 and a few others.


 

 Never bothered to do a back-and-forth comparison actually, I just think it shouldn't be bad to reduce possible noise and ground problems..


----------



## magiccabbage

> *On the stock HD800:* personally, I wouldn't touch it on _*any*_ DAC or *any* DAC/amp combo. It's just too bright and the 6k peak gives it a glare and hardness which does not gel well with 40% of the recordings I listen to. And no, this is not the fault of the recordings.
> Yes, some of the recordings are of marginal quality, but they still sound within the threshold of acceptability on my speakers (laid back sounding), my desktop monitors (slightly bass light, slightly bright), and my UERMs (similar to desktop). I'm only saying this because I've noted people like to blame "bad" recordings and think the HD800 is god's gift to mankind when it's really a german toilet, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
> With DACs, I prefer a more dynamic sound where the attacks aren't blunted. In fact, this one of the top priorities of mine. The stock HD800s are likely to sound especially bad with any DAC listed from A to C, with the exception of the Hilo which is laid back macrodynamics / attack wis


 
  
 when you say stock do you mean without the mod? I have to disagree with you though - the hd800 sounds great on the few amps and DACs that i tried it with. its the best headphone ive heard. the amps i have heard it on are HDVD600/800 and WA2 some DIY ss and tube builds - the DACS are - RDAC/NAD m51 and the Dac in the HDVD 800, also heard it with john kenny dac.


----------



## Toe Tag

Do any of these DACs support USB OTG, as discussed in this thread with half-a-million views:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/595071/android-phones-and-usb-dacs


----------



## seb7

> _we are not sure about new PWD2 units as one we had sounded very different._


 
  
 Does anyone know what a new PWD2 sounds like with the latest firmware? Is it really that much different from previous versions?
  
  
 I'm looking into this DAC but it's hard to get an idea of what it sounds like with all these FW shenanigans


----------



## CEE TEE

^I'll have my PWD2 at the Bay Area Meet this February with EML 300B Solid Plates, TSBGRP, and FW 2.4.3.
  
 People that know the PWD and the BA can post impressions.
  
 With the PX4 tubes I prefer the 2.0.2 firmware, with the EML 300B Solid Plates I prefer 2.4.3.  
  
 I was not a fan of 2.2.0 with the mods I use on my HD800. (Though I may eventually add some more material. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)
  
 Look at it as having more tuning options?  The difference in some of the firmware versions is greater than the difference between the filters.


----------



## Maxvla

Firmware is sort of like tuberolling. Find the one you like and never change it, except firmware doesn't burn out after 5000-15000 hours


----------



## Baxide

maxvla said:


> Firmware is sort of like tuberolling. Find the one you like and never change it, except firmware doesn't burn out after 5000-15000 hours


 

 I disagree with you on the firmware burn out. Chips can fail at any time. Anyone old enough to remember the WISE terminals, might also remember the firmware failure issues.


----------



## daigo

cee tee said:


> ^I'll have my PWD2 at the Bay Area Meet this February with EML 300B Solid Plates, TSBGRP, and FW 2.4.3.
> 
> People that know the PWD and the BA can post impressions.
> 
> ...


 
  
 So firmware rolling is the new tube rolling *scribbles notes*.


----------



## purrin

UPDATES:
  

Auralic Vega DAC added.
Got rid of classifications and instead ranked the DACs in order of preference.
Expected soon: Berkeley Alpha 2, Uber-frost Gen 2, Chord Peach, Luxman DA-06.


----------



## Toe Tag

This thread is testing different DACs and reaching different conclusions than this one 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/689783/december-2013-mid-level-dac-comparison


----------



## Andrew_WOT

purrin said:


> UPDATES:
> 
> 
> Auralic Vega DAC added.
> ...


 
 Good stuff! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Purrin, did you play with AURALiC filters or EXACT clock mode, both have quite significant impact on outcome.


----------



## schneller

So why no....?

NAIM DAC V1
Bryston BDA2
Yulong DA8
W4S DAC2 DSD SE


----------



## Maxvla

toe tag said:


> This thread is testing different DACs and reaching different conclusions than this one
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/689783/december-2013-mid-level-dac-comparison



In this one, the testers used their ears.


----------



## m2man

toe tag said:


> This thread is testing different DACs and reaching different conclusions than this one
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/689783/december-2013-mid-level-dac-comparison



I've had the early Gungnir, and have the Nu-PWD (mine sounds great) and Eximus and Purrin and gang are right on. I don't believe the Gungnir sounds that good, my early on made my teeth hurt. I haven't heard a new one however. Gary saying the Gungnir and PWD sounding identical is crazy talk. Something is wrong there, not sure what.

I'd like you guys to review the Contata (hope I spelled that right). The $6,500 1704 one. 

Great thread.


----------



## brunk

m2man said:


> I've had the early Gungnir, and have the Nu-PWD (mine sounds great) and Eximus and Purrin and gang are right on. I don't believe the Gungnir sounds that good, my early on made my teeth hurt. I haven't heard a new one however. Gary saying the Gungnir and PWD sounding identical is crazy talk. Something is wrong there, not sure what.
> 
> I'd like you guys to review the Contata (hope I spelled that right). The $6,500 1704 one.
> 
> Great thread.


 
 He in fact did not say they were identical. That is false.


----------



## m2man

He put them both in the indistinguishable group...


----------



## purrin

andrew_wot said:


> Good stuff!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Left filters stock. I'll give EXACT clock mode a good try (wasn't sure it would work.) I'll have this DAC in my house for a few days to give it a good run.
  


m2man said:


> I've had the early Gungnir, and have the Nu-PWD (mine sounds great) and Eximus and Purrin and gang are right on. I don't believe the Gungnir sounds that good, my early on made my teeth hurt. I haven't heard a new one however. Gary saying the Gungnir and PWD sounding identical is crazy talk. Something is wrong there, not sure what.
> 
> I'd like you guys to review the Contata (hope I spelled that right). The $6,500 1704 one.
> 
> Great thread.


  

 The Gungnir isn't in the same league as the decked out AGD/PWD2/Alpha2 and technically in terms of resolution isn't as good as some of the DACs rated below it. I love it because of its tone, liquid quality, and hard hitting nature (which some find unbearable.) Gungir is very different from PWD in its presentation. 
  
 I think it's important to point out that differences with DACs are so small that downstream gear such as amps and headphones will be a limiting factor. For example, if I used an Objective2 and very laid back sounding headphone like the LCD3, I doubt I would be able to distinguish any of the DACs from the others, especially as we go up the list. I don't doubt at all what Gary hears or doesn't hear.
  
 I've heard the Canata briefly on several occasions, but not with setups or recordings I was very familiar with. In general I am positive towards it but I suspect it may lack ultimate resolution.


----------



## BournePerfect

Eximus DP1: Beyond Classification. I fully agree. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...and it seems I just lost some fascination with the Vega.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## 7ryder

bourneperfect said:


> Eximus DP1: Beyond Classification. I fully agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I just bought a Vega to try out and the outputs were DOA, both balanced and unbalanced.  I've never had this experience with a new or used purchase (and I've made waaayyy too many!).  I sent it back for a refund and will look at other DACs instead.


----------



## BournePerfect

OUCH. I would have freaked out if that happened to me-especially at it's price point. What dac are you going for next then? Hex?
  
 -Daniel


----------



## 7ryder

bourneperfect said:


> OUCH. I would have freaked out if that happened to me-especially at it's price point. What dac are you going for next then? Hex?
> 
> -Daniel


 
 Just got a great deal on a Ayre QB-9 that was listed here just this morning.  It isn't the DSD version, but I can get it upgraded for $500 and, if I don't like it, probably sell it for at least what I put into it.  I think it will pair well with my GS-X mk2 (got the idea from Justin since he has a QB-9).  
  
 As for the Vega, luckily it was new, so the dealer is giving me a full refund.  
  
 - Chris


----------



## Greed

7ryder said:


> Just got a great deal on a Ayre QB-9 that was listed here just this morning.  It isn't the DSD version, but I can get it upgraded for $500 and, if I don't like it, probably sell it for at least what I put into it.  I think it will pair well with my GS-X mk2 (got the idea from Justin since he has a QB-9).
> 
> As for the Vega, luckily it was new, so the dealer is giving me a full refund.
> 
> - Chris


 
  
 Good choice! That was a great price for a DAC of that quality.


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> So why no....?
> 
> NAIM DAC V1
> Bryston BDA2
> ...


 
  
 It's whatever I can get my hands on or what friends bring over to my house or ship to me. I don't think any manufacturer in their right mind would ever send anything willingly to me after reading of some of the things I've written. It's just too much of a risk. It's standard practice for manufacturers send stuff to people who will only write praise or who are willing to receive gifts, discounts, etc. The only two manufacturers who have dared send stuff to me without _any_ preconditions are Schiit and JPS Labs, and only at my asking.
  


bourneperfect said:


> Eximus DP1: Beyond Classification. I fully agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Let don't me scare you away because my comments regarding the Vega's "brightness" and "robotic timbre" (think Finn's techno voice in Adventure time after he swallowed a computer). While these are apt descriptions, they are also extreme exaggerations to describe what is difficult to describe. Honestly, I almost placed the Vega in the "Beyond Classification" category, but I decided at end that I would have liked it enough to actually use it myself.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

purrin said:


> andrew_wot said:
> 
> 
> > Good stuff!
> ...


 
 Great.
 The stock (default) Filter 4 supposed to be a good all around and based on AURALiC tests collected the most positive feedback during subjective listening testing, but it's not the most detailed.
 Filter 3 is the warmest with strongest treble cut off. And No 1 the best measured, try that one if you want to extract more "plankton", this and EXACT clock would squeeze out the most details. Also covering pin 1 and 4 on USB connector seems to help too.
 Also check out this document, it provides thorough explanation on Vega filters
*AURALiC* Flexible *Filter* Mode Explanation


----------



## purrin

Thanks for the tips.
  
 I've already got a special USB cable. The DAC is currently at a friend's place and we've have to try those settings out.


----------



## purrin

Recent Add: Berkeley Alpha 2 with Berkeley Alpha USB Converter


----------



## Hun7er

Hello I own a AGD M7.
  
  
 And I might if a good idea to upgrade for *PS Audio PWD2 *or *Berkeley Alpha Series 2 but it seems cheaper to got an used OR5 ?*
  
*Which cable did you use for the I2S ? The m2tech evo will work with AGD M7 ?*
  
*Did you hear the coax from Audiophileo ?*
  
*Did you have the exact reference for the vintage Denon CDP ?*


----------



## cizx

hun7er said:


> Hello I own a AGD M7.
> 
> 
> And I might if a good idea to upgrade for *PS Audio PWD2 *or *Berkeley Alpha Series 2 but it seems cheaper to got an used OR5 ?*


 
 Keep the M7 and get the OR5 is my recommendation.
 I think a shielded cat7 cable is fine for I2S.


----------



## koiloco

purrin said:


> It's whatever I can get my hands on or what friends bring over to my house or ship to me. *I don't think any manufacturer in their right mind would ever send anything willingly to me after reading of some of the things I've written. It's just too much of a risk. It's standard practice for manufacturers send stuff to people who will only write praise or who are willing to receive gifts, discounts, etc. The only two manufacturers who have dared send stuff to me without any preconditions are Schiit and JPS Labs, and only at my asking.*
> 
> Let don't me scare you away because my comments regarding the Vega's "brightness" and "robotic timbre" (think Finn's techno voice in Adventure time after he swallowed a computer). While these are apt descriptions, they are also extreme exaggerations to describe what is difficult to describe. Honestly, I almost placed the Vega in the "Beyond Classification" category, but I decided at end that I would have liked it enough to actually use it myself.


 
  
 +1.  Straight up as it should be.  I like that.
Btw, you got me started looking at different DACs to compare to my TEAC.  Just out of pure curiosity.


----------



## hans030390

purrin said:


> *I think it's important to point out that differences with DACs are so small* that downstream gear such as amps and headphones will be a limiting factor.


 
  
 Downstream gear aside, I think some are probably trying to listen for bigger differences than actually exist. I bet this plays a role in perception...or, in these cases, lack of perception to what subtle differences exist. So subtle that, if looking for something more noticeable, they can go missed and thus make DACs indistinguishable.
  
 It's sort of the opposite side to listening so intently for subtle differences that you start to perceive differences that don't exist.
  
 Finding that balance is hard. Figuring out how well others approach that balance is even harder. Purrin, I don't know if you spelled out your methodologies on here as much as you have elsewhere, but I think you have a fairly good process in place.
  
 I could be off the mark or flat out wrong about my ideas.


----------



## schneller

I wish someone could throw the Meridian Director into their comparison mix...
  
 http://www.crutchfield.com/S-V7prYTM7ucH/p_795DIRCTOR/Meridian-Director.html
  
 This little DAC has been pushed on me by several different dealers.


----------



## stainless824

schneller said:


> I wish someone could throw the Meridian Director into their comparison mix...
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/S-V7prYTM7ucH/p_795DIRCTOR/Meridian-Director.html
> 
> This little DAC has been pushed on me by several different dealers.




I would stay away. It appears to be an average DAC riding on its brandname.


----------



## purrin

hun7er said:


> Hello I own a AGD M7.
> 
> 
> And I might if a good idea to upgrade for *PS Audio PWD2 *or *Berkeley Alpha Series 2 but it seems cheaper to got an used OR5 ?*
> ...


 
  
 PWD2 / Alpha are different in presentation to the M7 (which uses an ancient R2R DAC chip). Even though I have indicated the DACs in order of personal preference, that doesn't necessarily mean they all have a similar sound. I have a set of sonic priorities and pet peeves, but sometimes if a DAC does certain things really well, I am willing to overlook certain "issues". The Vega is one such DAC; and so it the PWD2 but to a much lesser extent.
  
 The M7 has a nicety and correctness of tone (rendering of voices, treble / timbre, and bass texture) which neither the PWD2 or Alpha quite have. "Less digital" for lack of better words. The M7 needs a good source (not the built in USB2) to be on par with the PWD2 / Alpha in terms of soundstage, fine detail extraction, separation, layering, attack, precision, and clarity.
  
 I looked into the m2tech EVO, but to get comparable performance, you will need three boxes: 1) EVO; 2) Power supply; 3) Word Clock Box. What killed it for me was that I would need to manually set the sampling frequency, i.e. 44.1, 96, etc on the Word Clock Box. That was a showstopper issue since my music files vary in sampling frequency. I have mix of Redbook and various hires formats. I'm not going to get up and turn the dial to match the sampling rate of the recording every other time I wanted to hear something.
  
 I have only heard the coax of the AP1 with other DACs such as the PWD2, Gungir, and few other random DACs; and then without the power supply upgrade. The base AP1 was worse than the built-in XMOS of the PWD2 and it didn't do anything for the Gungnir. People I trust have remarked that the AP1 improves a bit with the power supply, but I have not heard this configuration; and I doubt the gains from a power supply would be _that _significant. If they are, them shame on Audiophilleo for gimping their product to mediocrity when the base unit is used without the power supply upgrade. I'm not against "upgrades", but I hate it when manufacturers provide a base unit which in actuality _requires_ upgrades to perform at a decent level.
  
_The really special advantage of the OR5 is the* i2s output*_, which even other good USB converters such as the Berkeley Alpha USB, do not possess. The OR5 i2s is seriously another level better than the coax I've heard from other USB converters. For i2s, I use a CAT6 cable, short length, terminated myself.
  
 LOL, I should know the model # of the Denon CDP. It belongs to one of the other ninjas. EDIT: DCD 2700
  


cizx said:


> Keep the M7 and get the OR5 is my recommendation.


 
  
 Yeah. What he said. ^


----------



## purrin

stainless824 said:


> I would stay away. It appears to be an average DAC riding on its brandname.


 
  
 Other than the Meridian Explorer, I haven't had much experience with the most current Meridian DACs except at large meets in bad conditions. I do get the sense that they have a "house" sounding which tends toward warm, lush, syrupy, and forgiving. I know a lot of people like this sound; and there are certainly a lot of ardent defenders of the Meridian brand.


----------



## Hun7er

purrin said:


> PWD2 / Alpha are different in presentation to the M7 (which uses an ancient R2R DAC chip). Even though I have indicated the DACs in order of personal preference, that doesn't necessarily mean they all have a similar sound. I have a set of sonic priorities and pet peeves, but sometimes if a DAC does certain things really well, I am willing to overlook certain "issues". The Vega is one such DAC; and so it the PWD2 but to a much lesser extent.
> 
> The M7 has a nicety and correctness of tone (rendering of voices, treble / timbre, and bass texture) which neither the PWD2 or Alpha quite have. "Less digital" for lack of better words. The M7 needs a good source (not the built in USB2) to be on par with the PWD2 / Alpha in terms of soundstage, fine detail extraction, separation, layering, attack, precision, and clarity.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hello,
  
 Thank for the response.
  
 I have the same feeling on the M7 when compared to my sold Hilo. The timbre and the texture are to die. Voice are stunning. These 3 aspects are more prior than soundstage or attacks. So I keep the M7 and tried to improve with a transport.
 The DAC that can compete on his strength are the AMR DP777.
  
  
 I have heard good things about M2Tech Hiface Evo + Evo Supply + Evo Clocks. Did you think his I2S works with M7 ?
  
"In 6moons' Metrum Hex review, I found this information:

"Adam Mokrzycki organizes the Warsaw Audio Show and also is senior contributor to the Polish Audio magazine. His test of 14 USB bridges netted the following ranking: 

Matrix 24/96 - 60
TeleVox 24/96 - 65
Hegel HD2 - 65
Musical Fidelity V-Link II - 75
Halide Design The Bridge - 80
M2Tech HiFace Evo - 80
Stello U3 - 85
M2Tech HiFace Evo + Evo Supply - 90
JK SPDIF Mk3 - 90
Audiophilleo 1 - 95
Empirical Audio OffRamp Turbo 5 - 95
dCS U-Clock - 95
M2Tech HiFace Evo + Evo Supply + Evo Clock - 100
Scarlatti CD/SACD transport - 100

Subsequently he reported that with the new Pure Power battery supply, the Audiophilleo became "one of the best if not the best S/PDIF converter I know. Apart from those I reviewed above I also tried the über-expensive Soulution 590 which was average at best."

6moons audio reviews: Metrum Acoustics Hex "


----------



## purrin

hun7er said:


> "Adam Mokrzycki organizes the Warsaw Audio Show and also is senior contributor to the Polish Audio magazine. His test of 14 USB bridges netted the following ranking:
> 
> Matrix 24/96 - 60
> TeleVox 24/96 - 65
> ...


 
  
 Do you know that DAC and digital output he used? The results will depend upon what digital out interface is used and the ultimately capabilities of the DAC. Some DACs just won't improve. Using -0- as a reference point:
  
 M7 USB32 -10 
 AP1 (no power supply upgrade) coax -5
 PWD2 XMOS built-in USB 0 
 OR5 AES +15
 Berkeley Alpha USB AES +16
 Lilo (as USB converter) AES +20
 OR5 i2s +25
 OR5 i2s (w/ power supply) +28
  
 Note: my OR5 only has the i2s regulator upgrade. Nothing else. I didn't feel the turboclocks were necessarily an upgrade, but rather a sidegrade without the PS.


----------



## paradoxper

cizx said:


> Keep the M7 and get the OR5 is my recommendation.
> I think a shielded cat7 cable is fine for I2S.


 
 This based off your own experience? Have you even heard the Alpha 2?


----------



## cizx

paradoxper said:


> This based off your own experience? Have you even heard the Alpha 2?


 
 no and no.


----------



## skeptic

purrin said:


> _The really special advantage of the OR5 is the* i2s output*_, which even other good USB converters such as the Berkeley Alpha USB, do not possess. The OR5 i2s is seriously another level better than the coax I've heard from other USB converters. For i2s, I use a CAT6 cable, short length, terminated myself.


 
  
 Crazy that i2s seems to make such a substantial difference.  I wonder where something like this would fall in the pecking order: http://www.ebay.com/itm/CM6631-192KHZ-32bit-USB-to-Fiber-Coaxial-USB-2-0-SPDIF-I2S-Convertor-For-DAC-/181179016827?pt=US_Amplifier_Parts_Components&hash=item2a2f1c667b


----------



## brunk

skeptic said:


> Crazy that i2s seems to make such a substantial difference.  I wonder where something like this would fall in the pecking order: http://www.ebay.com/itm/CM6631-192KHZ-32bit-USB-to-Fiber-Coaxial-USB-2-0-SPDIF-I2S-Convertor-For-DAC-/181179016827?pt=US_Amplifier_Parts_Components&hash=item2a2f1c667b


 
 Feed it a 5v linear regulated supply and see what happens, but do take note the center pin is (-)


----------



## m2man

What crazy cable connector is that? I need a 5 pin something to HDMI connector. There were a couple others that has RJ-45 instead. I didn't see cables for either.


----------



## brunk

m2man said:


> What crazy cable connector is that? I need a 5 pin something to HDMI connector. There were a couple others that has RJ-45 instead. I didn't see cables for either.


 
 It looks like a form of DIN connector. It actually looks very similar to the connector of my iron to the solder station lol. It would be best to ask the seller where to find the female counterpart. I wouldn't be surprised if they have it for sale too.


----------



## purrin

skeptic said:


> Crazy that i2s seems to make such a substantial difference.  I wonder where something like this would fall in the pecking order: http://www.ebay.com/itm/CM6631-192KHZ-32bit-USB-to-Fiber-Coaxial-USB-2-0-SPDIF-I2S-Convertor-For-DAC-/181179016827?pt=US_Amplifier_Parts_Components&hash=item2a2f1c667b


 
  
 i2s physically splits the lines into a bit clock, L/R clock, multiplexed L/R data, and a maybe a master clock. i2s is how DACs operate internally. Splitting this information into separate physical lines helps keep jitter to a minimum. i2s also avoids an extra SPDIF to i2s conversion step. The downside is that because i2s is supposed to be internally used, there is no standard for interconnects.
  
 As for that ebay unit, doubtful that will sound good. The CM6631 is not a good sounding USB receiver chip. Not to mention that low noise, low impedance power supplies and very high quality crystal oscillators. These things usually up to more than $55.59 with free shipping.


----------



## Articnoise

purrin said:


> Thanks for the tips.
> 
> I've already got a special USB cable. The DAC is currently at a friend's place and we've have to try those settings out.


 
  
 Hi Purrin!
 I love to know which USB-cable/s you have used with the Master 7. I for one have heard some real difference between the Starlight 7 and an AQ forest in my system (I don’t have the master 7, but thinking about maybe get one). The forest was simply gray, flat and rolled off in the treble compared to the starlight.


----------



## burnspbesq

maxvla said:


> Tone and presentation between the X-Sabre and Concero are nearly identical. We thought the X-Sabre was a bit more resolving and just a touch more extension on both ends. The main differences between the units are the balanced connections and ability to DSD/DXD. The new Concero HD does DSD now too but it is also more expensive than the original. Now I will say DSD and DXD are not really selling points, but it is a difference. I would say build quality is similar as well, with the edge to the X-Sabre.
> 
> If you like this sound, buy a Concero if you don't need balanced, buy a X-Sabre if you do. The $500 difference doesn't show up in sound. These DACs are like twins with different clothes on.




X-Sabre vs. Concero isn't exactly apples to apples. X-Sabre has 9018 + AC power. Concero has 9023 and USB power. At $600 I find Concero to be an insanely good value (note that I have zero seat time with Bifrost USB 2).


----------



## Maxvla

Yes, that is true on the USB power. It slipped my mind because both myself and Nick Dangerous don't need USB power, and just plug into the wall.

Regarding the chips, it doesn't matter too much, the DACs do sound very similar.


----------



## cocolinho

From my small experience dac chip vas nothing to do with the sound.
Below a link which is saying the same

http://www.headfonia.com/what-ive-learned-from-the-dac-comparisons/


----------



## Andrew_WOT

cocolinho said:


> From my small experience dac chip vas nothing to do with the sound.
> Below a link which is saying the same
> 
> http://www.headfonia.com/what-ive-learned-from-the-dac-comparisons/


 
 John Darko says pretty much the same which also reflects my limited experience.


> I think it bears repeating here: Sabre-chipped DACs rarely sound the same because they invariably use different power supplies, output stages, clocking methods etc etc etc. As my exposure to DACs grows I am increasingly confident that there is no ESS Sabre ‘house sound’. Nor AKM sound. Nor Burr-Brown sound. Nor Wolfson sound. /rant.


----------



## purrin

cocolinho said:


> From my small experience dac chip vas nothing to do with the sound.
> Below a link which is saying the same
> 
> http://www.headfonia.com/what-ive-learned-from-the-dac-comparisons/


 
  
 Sorry, Headfonia's experience with six low-end DACs and 400 word conjecture doesn't qualify.
  
 Try getting involving with building and modifiying DACs, messing with different power supplies, using different DAC chips, different digital receivers, hearing different builds, successed improved builds, etc. Every part of the DAC contributes to final the sound. The DAC chip is the heart of it. That's what a designer usually picks first (or least a few candidates) and then builds around. The power supplies, digital receivers, filters, buffers, clocks, I/V conversion, analog stage, analog filters, etc. usually come afterward.
  
 The DAC chip has a lot of do with the sound. It's neither nothing nor everything.
  
 For example, all the SABRE based DACs in the list sound different. They are not indistinguishable. This is why the various SABRE DACs are not all ranked the same - they are ranked from very good to not so good. Yet, these SABRE DACs also share certain kinds of sonic peculiarities. The Gungnir, DCX2496, and a modded DCX2496 I have use different AKM DAC chips. They all sound different and are not indistinguishable. Yet all of these AKM based DACs (the chips in question have certain design commonalities) share certain kinds of sonic straits - which are actually very different from those of the SABRE based DACs.
  
 Think of (John Elway and Peyton Manning) as one kind of chip; (Joe Montana and Fran Tarkenton) as another; and (Steve Young, Colin Kapernick, and Tim Tebow) as another kind. There's no guarantee that the use of a certain DAC chip will yield good results.


----------



## Sapientiam

cocolinho said:


> From my small experience dac chip vas nothing to do with the sound.


 
 I can only suggest  get more experience.
  
 Ayre changed over from BB/TI DAC to ESS Sabre in their QB9 fairly recently and reported a not inconsiderable step up in SQ. They have a discrete output stage so presumably that was never a limiting factor.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

sapientiam said:


> cocolinho said:
> 
> 
> > From my small experience dac chip vas nothing to do with the sound.
> ...


 
 The chip as any component is a contributing but hardly the deciding to the final result factor. I've owned three DACs based on the same ESS chip and they all sounded vastly different from each other. You should always look at the system as a whole.


----------



## Hi Rez

sapientiam said:


> I can only suggest  get more experience.
> 
> Ayre changed over from BB/TI DAC to ESS Sabre in their QB9 fairly recently and reported a not inconsiderable step up in SQ. They have a discrete output stage so presumably that was never a limiting factor.


 
 Ayre did believe the ESS Saber to improve SQ with the QB9 DSD.  But there were other substantial changes in addition to the switch to the Saber - including an upgraded power supply, an upgraded output stage, upgraded clocks, and switching to AC supplied power for the USB circuitry.  So there was more behind the SQ improvements than just the chip change.


----------



## skeptic

purrin said:


> i2s physically splits the lines into a bit clock, L/R clock, multiplexed L/R data, and a maybe a master clock. i2s is how DACs operate internally. Splitting this information into separate physical lines helps keep jitter to a minimum. i2s also avoids an extra SPDIF to i2s conversion step. The downside is that because i2s is supposed to be internally used, there is no standard for interconnects.
> 
> As for that ebay unit, doubtful that will sound good. The CM6631 is not a good sounding USB receiver chip. Not to mention that low noise, low impedance power supplies and very high quality crystal oscillators. These things usually up to more than $55.59 with free shipping.


 
  
 Thanks for the nice explanation of i2s purrin!  No doubt there are some budget components in that ebay converter, but I thought the cm6331/6331a were actually supposed to be pretty decent, although not quite competitive with the amanero boards or well executed xmos solutions?  Isn't the 6331 exactly what schiit is using in the gen 2 usb you like (see http://schiit.com/drivers/)?  I'm pretty sure Emo uses the same in the stealth.  To be clear, I've never heard a cm6331 in action, but there seem to be a fair number of folks on diyaudio who like the $50 units, setting aside driver issues.  Since it has a dc in, some just build separate regulated psu's or battery packs like brunk suggested.  Even without that though, the only measurements I've seen posted look decent: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/03/measurements-adaptive-aune-x1.html
  
 I almost bought one out of curiosity but ended up receiving one of these over the holidays instead: http://www.ebay.com/itm/XMOS-Asynchronous-USB-to-Coaxial-Optical-converter-24Bit192K-with-PSU-Weiliang-/141026791919?ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:3160.  Built like a tank and sounds quite good in my setup (feeding a keces 131 -> mainline -> hd800s).  Definitely a nice step forward from my old blue circle unit, but admittedly, I've never compared it side by side with anything remotely high end.


----------



## Sapientiam

purrin said:


> i2s physically splits the lines into a bit clock, L/R clock, multiplexed L/R data, and a maybe a master clock. i2s is how DACs operate internally. Splitting this information into separate physical lines helps keep jitter to a minimum. i2s also avoids an extra SPDIF to i2s conversion step. The downside is that because i2s is supposed to be internally used, there is no standard for interconnects.


 
  
 Its worth mentioning here that some of the guys using I2S externally have agreed on a standard amongst themselves. They also don't use it in plain vanilla form, rather they've adapted it to make it more robust when used between boxes. In my understanding this has been done by sending it out in differential (balanced) form over a cat5/6  cable with 4 twisted pairs. I think (by no means sure) they're using LVDS tx/rx for low EMI footprint.


----------



## schneller

*#7 Schiit Gungnir (USB) Gen2 USB Board*
  
 Too bad you don't add list prices to the ranking. If so, I think it would be evident that the Schiit packs the greatest value in terms of performance/dollar. Correct?


----------



## kothganesh

schneller said:


> *#7 Schiit Gungnir (USB) Gen2 USB Board*
> 
> Too bad you don't add list prices to the ranking. If so, I think it would be evident that the Schiit packs the greatest value in terms of performance/dollar. Correct?


 
 +1. I have not heard any other DAC in this list (or any other list that has been compiled on Head-fi). TO MY EARS, this is $850 very well spent. I had been toying with buying the Vega, or NAD M51 or Audio GD 7. Living in India, one is stuck most of the time with no choices to review, hear and then decide. So I had to read these forums extensively before buying anything. Aside of the Audio GD, I am pleased to see the Vega and the M51 *below* the Gungnir (and that's just performance).
  
 Edit: I certainly don't mean to anger the owners of the Vega and M51 but this is more relief than anything else


----------



## purrin

skeptic said:


> Thanks for the nice explanation of i2s purrin!  No doubt there are some budget components in that ebay converter, but I thought the cm6331/6331a were actually supposed to be pretty decent, although not quite competitive with the amanero boards or well executed xmos solutions?


 
  
 Just to clarify, CM6331A is better and what's in the Gen2. XMOS is OK/good, but I haven't heard a great XMOS solution - they all kind of sound the same.


----------



## purrin

sapientiam said:


> Its worth mentioning here that some of the guys using I2S externally have agreed on a standard amongst themselves. They also don't use it in plain vanilla form, rather they've adapted it to make it more robust when used between boxes. In my understanding this has been done by sending it out in differential (balanced) form over a cat5/6  cable with 4 twisted pairs. I think (by no means sure) they're using LVDS tx/rx for low EMI footprint.


 
  
 I'm sure you are familiar with the AGD M7 thread where a HF'er was seeing a lot of noise on the scope for the singled ended i2s implementation with the OR5 using ethernet cable. It makes sense why the PWD2 (and a few other manufacturers who have signed on) uses LVDS over an HDMI cable.


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> *#7 Schiit Gungnir (USB) Gen2 USB Board*
> 
> Too bad you don't add list prices to the ranking. If so, I think it would be evident that the Schiit packs the greatest value in terms of performance/dollar. Correct?


 
  
 That's for you to figure out.  I'm not worried about price until it gets over $5-7k. If something $99 sounds better than something $4999, that would be great.
  


kothganesh said:


> +1. I have not heard any other DAC in this list (or any other list that has been compiled on Head-fi). TO MY EARS, this is $850 very well spent. I had been toying with buying the Vega, or NAD M51 or Audio GD 7. Living in India, one is stuck most of the time with no choices to review, hear and then decide. So I had to read these forums extensively before buying anything. Aside of the Audio GD, I am pleased to see the Vega and the M51 *below* the Gungnir (and that's just performance).
> 
> Edit: I certainly don't mean to anger the owners of the Vega and M51 but this is more relief than anything else


 
  
 I wouldn't say the Gungnir is "higher performance" than the Vega or M51, just that the Gungnir suits my personal tastes better (warmer, more "natural" tone and treble, bass extension, tone, overall slam, uncompressed dynamics.) Both the M51 and especially Vega are more resolving than the Gungnir. They are better at extraction of low level information and reproducing the softest sounds.


----------



## negura

I may have missed this, but with the OR5 are you running the PWD2 in Native?


----------



## purrin

Yes just Native, not NativeX.
  
 The internal "Digital Lens", i.e. NativeX of the PWD2 is not as good as Native mode with the OR5. I assume this is probably because Native mode relies more on the higher quality clocks of the OR5. It doesn't stick the FIFO buffer in the middle.


----------



## kothganesh

purrin said:


> ............
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say the Gungnir is "higher performance" than the Vega or M51, just that the Gungnir suits my personal tastes better (warmer, more "natural" tone and treble, bass extension, tone, overall slam, uncompressed dynamics.) Both the M51 and especially Vega are more resolving than the Gungnir. They are better at extraction of low level information and reproducing the softest sounds.




Thanks for setting me straight there. It looks like we share similar tastes overall and extraction of the most minute details and sounds is not a priority for me as much as the overall sound.


----------



## schneller

In terms of interconnects with the Gungnir, are you using simply USB from source (PC) to DAC or some other fancy equipment?
  
 I guess my concern with the Schiit is overly extended or bloated bass at the expense of the mids and crisp highs. Can you shed light on this?


----------



## kothganesh

schneller said:


> In terms of interconnects with the Gungnir, are you using simply USB from source (PC) to DAC or some other fancy equipment?
> 
> I guess my concern with the Schiit is overly extended or bloated bass at the expense of the mids and crisp highs. Can you shed light on this?


 
 I'm sure the question is meant for Purrin but what the heck ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. FWIW, I connect my Macbook Air to the Gungnir twith the BNC Halide. Thus, it goes from the USB port on the MBA to the SPDIF of the Gungnir.


----------



## remilio

I wonder how good my Anedio D2 among these DACs? And one more question - how good is the headphone output of Hilo? I like all-in-one solutions


----------



## Hun7er

Very interesting thread
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/15-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-spdif-converters-shootout-15327/
  
 "M2Tech stack for example, has a very distinctive sound. I would describe it as ethereal - great resolution, smoothness and vast soundstaging, but at the same time it is a bit light on its feet, lacking some substance and midrange texture. 

ORT5 on the other hand sounds warmer, fuller with more texture, but at the same time, lacks the top end resolution and extension that Evo (and to lesser extent the Scarlatti transport) is capable of.

You can say that BADA is best of both worlds, and then some. Alpha USB has all the texture of the ORT5 and Scarlatti transport, but combines that with the outstanding resolution, smoothness and soundstaging of the Evo stack. In fact, it even goes one step further that the Evo in that department - with BADA not only you can hear all the detail, but you can actually feel a sound wave developing and moving the air, which makes the instrument outlines more 3D. Quite frankly, I was stunned when I first heard this. 

The BADA Alpha USB made the sound smoother, with ZERO artificial edge, grain or digital glare.

There was also much better layering of instruments, and air around the outlines. The instruments sounded not only better separated in space, but also much more 3-dimensional.

The resolution also improved quite a bit. You could hear the sounds that you were not aware are on the recording, the HF decays had much longer trails and hung in space much longer.

The most fascinating thing was that sound had better resolution, but at the same time, was so much smoother and fluid. Usually, it is another way round. Very often we try a new component or a cable and at first are fascinated by improved resolution, only to find out a few days later (after we had X-rayed all our recordings), that the increased resolution brings listener fatigue and makes the listening far less enjoyable.

Not this time. BADA pulls this incredible trick of sounding both more resolute, more transparent, and much smoother at the same time.

To me *Berkeley Audio Designs Alpha USB defines the current state of the art in USB/SPDIF converters design*."


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> In terms of interconnects with the Gungnir, are you using simply USB from source (PC) to DAC or some other fancy equipment?
> 
> I guess my concern with the Schiit is overly extended or bloated bass at the expense of the mids and crisp highs. Can you shed light on this?


 
  
 A few HD800 users I know have felt that the Schiit Gungnir sounded too mid-forward. The HD800 has a 5-6 peak. That the region which gives sounds an edge or a snap. This has not been my experience at all however, at least with the equipment use in this test. I surmise the Gungnir's overly dynamic nature contributes to this effect. So in essence, I would say the highs are pretty crisp with good attack.
  
 Overall, the Gungir is slightly warm sounding. It is not bloated at all in the bass. As for being "overly extended" in the bass, I would consider that a good thing. The Gungir can hit very low and with appropriate authority. In other words, with specific harpischord tracks, I can hear a very palpable, yet low-level sub/low-bass "thump" "thump" of the action of the keys. It's harder to heard this with the leaner sound DACs.
  
 In other words, the Gungir is not the Audeze of the DAC world.


----------



## purrin

hun7er said:


> Very interesting thread
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/15-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-spdif-converters-shootout-15327/
> 
> ...


 
  
 As to the BADA USB and OR5 comments, I actually agree with this (the sense of air and space) but to much more limited extent (based on testing with the Alpha2 and Vega.)
  
 OR5 AES +15
 Berkeley Alpha USB AES +16
  
 Even, then I felt the differences were too close to call (especially when we went back and forth). Changing the OR5 from Kernel Streaming to WASAPI in JRiver MC seemed to even up the score. I still gave the BADA USB the benefit of the doubt by giving it one extra point. All this keeping in mind that my OR5 is close to stock, lacking any SPDIF upgrades.
  
 Where the OR5 runs away from the BADA USB  is with the i2s output, which the Berkeley does not provide. And only a few DACs offer an compatible i2s input.


----------



## negura

purrin said:


> As to the BADA USB and OR5 comments, I actually agree with this (the sense of air and space) but to much more limited extent (based on testing with the Alpha2 and Vega.)
> 
> OR5 AES +15
> Berkeley Alpha USB AES +16
> ...


 
  
 There are so many variables. Did you try ASIO4All and JPLAY? With the converters I had around I preferred these two a notch above the rest.


----------



## purrin

No ASIO since OR5 does not support it. I think we used ASIO for the Berkeley. I'm not sure since we used one of the other ninja's laptops, not mine. (I actually prefer ASIO when available.)
  
 As far as JPLAY, it doesn't do anything on my playback laptop. I run SSDs and "harden" the heck out of it, disabling all unnecessary Windows services, setting process priorities, no security software, and disabled networking too.


----------



## negura

purrin said:


> No ASIO since OR5 does not support it. I think we used ASIO for the Berkeley. I'm not sure since we used one of the other ninja's laptops, not mine. (I actually prefer ASIO when available.)
> 
> As far as JPLAY, it doesn't do anything on my playback laptop. I run SSDs and "harden" the heck out of it, disabling all unnecessary Windows services, setting process priorities, no security software, and disabled networking too.


 
  
 To it "doesn't do anything", I assume that's meaning noticeable changes in sound. Depending on the combination of gear I was using/testing, OS, etc I too came to that conclusion several times. It was that and that at some point other plugins cought up with them. The latest version of JPLAY does sound improved to me though, whatever he did to it. This is on Windows 8.1 and with the specific UltraStream engine for Windows 8 and a few other tweaks.
  
 ASIO4All to me works to slightly more air and spark at the top, while JPLAY has slightly more body and bass impact. The rest of plugins I no longer spend any time with on any of my gear. The differences between these two are very small, so that I only hear them on the most transparent/detailed gear like the SR009, HD800s etc.
  
 If it comes around I suggest you try the PUC2Lite USB to AES with the PWD2. I am using it with great success to get rid of that layer of lazyness the PWD2 USB has with improved details and focus.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

ASIO4ALL is not ASIO, just a wrapper for WDM driver, why would anyone want to use it, native ASIO all the way (if available), other than that WASAPI?
 JPLAY did nothing for me either, got free version with Vega.


----------



## purrin

Just to clarify, I'll use native ASIO when available, not ASIO4ALL.


----------



## negura

It does not cost anything to try. If you all did and didn't hear differences fair enough. As we all know theorycrafting and audio don't always match. Just saying.
  
 Anyway, I agree there are more significant things than plugins to spend time with.


----------



## kothganesh

purrin said:


> A few HD800 users I know have felt that the Schiit Gungnir sounded too mid-forward. The HD800 has a 5-6 peak. That the region which gives sounds an edge or a snap. This has not been my experience at all however, at least with the equipment use in this test. I surmise the Gungnir's overly dynamic nature contributes to this effect. So in essence, I would say the highs are pretty crisp with good attack.
> 
> Overall, the Gungir is slightly warm sounding. It is not bloated at all in the bass. As for being "overly extended" in the bass, I would consider that a good thing. The Gungir can hit very low and with appropriate authority. In other words, with specific harpischord tracks, I can hear a very palpable, yet low-level sub/low-bass "thump" "thump" of the action of the keys. It's harder to heard this with the leaner sound DACs.
> 
> In other words, the Gungir is not the Audeze of the DAC world.




Purrin,
What is your opinion on the USB implementation on the Gungnir (USB 2)? I am using a USB to SPDIFconnection (BNC Halide) and wondering whether USB to USB is a better connection.


----------



## cizx

kothganesh said:


> Purrin,
> What is your opinion on the USB implementation on the Gungnir (USB 2)? I am using a USB to SPDIFconnection (BNC Halide) and wondering whether USB to USB is a better connection.


 
 Read the Gungnir USB2 description on page 1.  He likes it.
  
 A comparison to the other inputs on Gungnir would be good, though.  I didn't see one...


----------



## tgx78

Purrin, have you ever had a chance to try out the exaSound e20 DAC? 
 I had the mkII version early last year then upgraded to mkIII with femto clock. 
 Replace stock power supply to TeddyPardo 12/2 and it sounds (to my ears) slightly better than Berkeley alpha 2.
 You should look into doing a comparison/review.. George at exaSound might supply you with a loaner unit.


----------



## purrin

cizx said:


> Read the Gungnir USB2 description on page 1.  He likes it.
> 
> A comparison to the other inputs on Gungnir would be good, though.  I didn't see one...


 
  
 In order of preference:
  

USB Gen 2
Coax SDPIF from PC ("decent source" in that it's is superior to the built-in USB on PWD2 - this info provided for reference)
USB Gen 1


----------



## purrin

UPDATE: Luxman DA-06 added to Beyond Classification


----------



## aive

purrin said:


> UPDATE: Luxman DA-06 added to Beyond Classification


 
 Holy moly, great timing - I just added this DAC to my consideration list based on high praises from other reviewers. I was going to get it if I couldn't wait for the Schiit Yggi, but now it sounds like it wouldn't be to my liking - I like attack and separation.


----------



## moriez

purrin said:


> UPDATES:
> 
> 
> Expected soon: Berkeley Alpha 2, *Uber-frost Gen 2*, Chord Peach, Luxman DA-06.


 
  
 Reaaally looking forward to your opinion of the Bifrost Uber and how it'll be rated versus Gungy. God I'm impatient!


----------



## mcduman

It appears all the "*VERY GOOD STUFF" * on page 1 had the benefit of a good DDC like the OR5 whereas the other stuff were driven from the stock USB inputs or the digital outs of consumer grade pc's. having first hand experience with a decent DDC (battery driven SOtM dx-USB HD), SPDIF is hands down superior to USB. I am curious to know how the rankings would have changed had all the DAC's been compared like-for-like. 
  
 One could have the impression reading earlier posts that gungnir's gen2 usb implementation is superior to SPDIF. Nothing could be further from the truth...


----------



## Turn&cough

The e20 is tempting but, for those looking towards a 9018 based DAC, something tells me that the upcoming Oppo HA-1 will offer similar performance and much better VFM.
  
 Patience vs instant gratification.


----------



## ericfarrell85

Purrin, did you make the cable between the OR5 and M7 or request for Kingwa to change the i2s connection for compatibility with the offramp?


----------



## purrin

mcduman said:


> It appears all the "*VERY GOOD STUFF" * on page 1 had the benefit of a good DDC like the OR5 whereas the other stuff were driven from the stock USB inputs or the digital outs of consumer grade pc's. having first hand experience with a decent DDC (battery driven SOtM dx-USB HD), SPDIF is hands down superior to USB. *I am curious to know how the rankings would have changed had all the DAC's been compared like-for-like. *


 
  
 I doubt the rankings would have changed much if at all. The OR5 will only improve on certain kinds of things, and even then it can only do so much. We actually did try the OR5 on a few of the lower cost DACs, but what we found is that these DACs just didn't scale that much. For example, someone had asked me if the OR5 was worth it with the Gungnir Gen 1 USB. I replied it wasn't worth it considering the low cost of the Gungnir and the small gains from the OR5 with it. In other words, the OR5 does give the Gungnir the technical prowess of the PWD2 via USB; and it doesn't make sense to pay $1100-$1500 for a USB converter for a $800 DAC.
  
*Generally, if we felt the OR5 didn't improve a DAC significantly enough to change its ranking, we didn't bother. *Just too much work and hassle trying to set up each DAC-Off event. Heck, we still have notes from a few other DACs which we need to compare and do write-ups on. The SABRE DACs all tended to have good USB implementations. The few DACs I wished we had a chance to try the OR5 on were the Lavry, M51, Luxman, Gamma2. The Gamma2 would have mainly been out of curiosity since it's DIY and usually obtainable used for a little over two hundred dollars. In any event, only the top three DACs, the Alpha, PWD2, and especially M7, improved significantly with the use of the OR5.
  


> Originally Posted by *mcduman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> One could have the impression reading earlier posts that gungnir's gen2 usb implementation is superior to SPDIF. *Nothing could be further from the truth...*


 
  
 That's too general of a statement to make. Ultimately, it probably depends upon the quality of the SPDIF source. I found the Gen 2 USB implementation to be superior to SPDIF from two sources I deem as "decent" (a PC and a modified Marantz CDP), but it was so close that I can't be sure. The gains from the OR5 into the Gen 2 are very minimal. We will need to compare the Gungir Gen 2 USB with the Denon CDP, which I know is superior to my PC and Marantz. Maybe I'll ask Schiit if they have an old Theta CD transport l can borrow to add to the mix.


----------



## purrin

moriez said:


> Reaaally looking forward to your opinion of the Bifrost Uber and how it'll be rated versus Gungy. God I'm impatient!


 
  
 Two ninja's have an Uber-Frost right now along with two three other DACs in this list. We are still sharing notes and have yet to make a final determination on its ranking. This is my very early assessment: _Uber-Frost w/ Gen 2 USB is way too close to the Gungnir. Slightly less dynamic and slightly more grainy / less smooth. Equally resolving._
  


ericfarrell85 said:


> Purrin, did you make the cable between the OR5 and M7 or request for Kingwa to change the i2s connection for compatibility with the offramp?


 
  
 I actually made my own cable. Then I realized I could make a special request with Kingwa because Prepoman made such a request with his M7. Just easier this way because it allow me to "roll" standard Ethernet cables. Just kidding. I don't obsess about stuff like that too much. Maybe a little a bit.


----------



## thegunner100

purrin said:


> Two ninja's have an Uber-Frost right now along with two three other DACs in this list. We are still sharing notes and have yet to make a final determination on its ranking. This is my very early assessment: _Uber-Frost w/ Gen 2 USB is way too close to the Gungnir. Slightly less dynamic and slightly more grainy / less smooth. Equally resolving._


 
 Considering a uber bifrost w/ usb gen 2 is $510, do you think the bifrost is better value wise compared to the gungnir w/ usb gen 2 at $850 when used with a SE amp?
 Too late for me on that note, but I'm sure many others are wondering the same thing.


----------



## Happy Camper

Purrin,

if you have your setup comments, which outputs did you listen to the Hilo with? Your description of a 2D presentation I noticed out of the monitor. The balanced outs gave a better soundstage using two DACs. But maybe that was how you tested it. I didn't see anywhere how it was set up.


----------



## purrin

The singled ended outputs were used with the Super 7 (headphone). I used the balanced outs to the Mjolnir (speaker rig).


----------



## purrin

thegunner100 said:


> Considering a uber bifrost w/ usb gen 2 is $510, do you think the bifrost is better value wise compared to the gungnir w/ usb gen 2 at $850 when used with a SE amp?
> Too late for me on that note, but I'm sure many others are wondering the same thing.


 
  
 I know, I know. That what's we are trying to decide right now and it's killing us. There is no doubt however that the Gungnir is better, even with the SE outputs.


----------



## m2man

Since the Gungnir is reclocking the OR5 (adding back jitter) I wonder how the über will do with the OR5. I know it's overkill but it'd be fun to try out...not that you need more setups to try. Give it a whirl.


----------



## bowtung

Hi, I actually have a p1u, do you think the gungnir or the matrix x-sabre is a better fit? Thanks
 I think the better dynamics of gungnir will suit the character of p1u, however seems like x-sabre is more resolving.


----------



## Happy Camper

purrin said:


> The singled ended outputs were used with the Super 7 (headphone). I used the balanced outs to the Mjolnir (speaker rig).


I may be misunderstood. What was the Lynx Hilo's outputs when tested?


----------



## purrin

happy camper said:


> I may be misunderstood. What was the Lynx Hilo's outputs when tested?


 
  
 I used the SE RCA outputs of the Hilo when the Super 7 amp was used. The balanced outputs XLR outputs of the Hilo were used with the Mjolnir.
  


bowtung said:


> Hi, I actually have a p1u, do you think the gungnir or the matrix x-sabre is a better fit? Thanks
> I think the better dynamics of gungnir will suit the character of p1u, however seems like x-sabre is more resolving.


 
  
 Hard to say. I think it depends which direction you want to go. Both DACs are good, but excel in areas where each other don't.


----------



## Chris J

A very interesting thread!
I'll be watching the Bifrost vs. Gungnir comments!


----------



## moriez

chris j said:


> A very interesting thread!
> I'll be watching the Bifrost vs. Gungnir comments!


 

 Ya, thanks for the update purrin.


----------



## purrin

May be another week. I need to stack the following together for a another DAC-Off.
  

Gungnir
Bifrost
M7
PWD2
Metrum Quad


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> May be another week. I need to stack the following together for a another DAC-Off.
> 
> 
> Gungnir
> ...


 
 have you heard the BDA2 ?


----------



## purrin

That's one I'd really like to hear. Bryston was smart enough to avoid SABRE and use an AKM chip.


----------



## schneller

SABRE. Avoid? Why? Most DACs use SABRE chips.
  
 Speaking of SABRE, how long until you get your hands on an Oppo HA-1?


----------



## Argo Duck

Pirates prefer cutlasses to sabres :evil:


----------



## hans030390

schneller said:


> SABRE. Avoid? Why? Most DACs use SABRE chips.
> 
> Speaking of SABRE, how long until you get your hands on an Oppo HA-1?


 
  
 I think it's pretty clear purrin and some of his friends just aren't a fan of most SABRE implementations and overall think there are better chips for audio. As such, this shows in their thoughts and rankings, but I think their explanations also show that they understand many might actually prefer some SABRE implementations. Just keep that reference point in mind.
  
 Also, popularity does not necessarily equal best on subjective or objective terms. You have to consider factors like price and ease of procuring materials (also bulk purchases), buzzwords and marketability of product (omgwtfbbq look how good this ODAC measures), and so on. Often these factors do not equate to the best option or the option we should most highly consider.
  
 Would you wager that most burgers sold in the US use high quality meat? While I can't plug my audio gear into burgers, I think you'd be hard pressed to say McDonalds' and many other fast food restaurants' "meat" shouldn't be avoided because many or most burgers use it. Bad analogy. Now I want a Big Mac.


----------



## boatheelmusic

I know the Sabre 9018 is fashionable, and I understand it's all in the implementation, but I personally think the "sheen" I hear with that chip makes it most unmusical.  Doesn't sound real.
  
 YMMV, but it's not for me.
  
 I prefer the AD 1955's run dual differential, as in the Emotiva DC-1 and in the upcoming Cambridge Audio 851D.
  
 Just my 2 cents!


----------



## paradoxper

hans030390 said:


> I think it's pretty clear purrin and some of his friends just aren't a fan of most SABRE implementations and overall think there are better chips for audio. As such, this shows in their thoughts and rankings, but I think their explanations also show that they understand many might actually prefer some SABRE implementations. Just keep that reference point in mind.


 
 This really is something that most people who have experience with a number of DACs conclude as well.
  
 Invicta, Vega, X-Sabre seem to be the more acceptable SABRE DACS out there. With the Pure DAC and D2
 maybe riding the outskirts.
  
 Seems to me the SABRE chip is a PITA, which is incredibly difficult to get right and even then it's 'off',
 comparative to other's.
  
 Most of all preference is the more important factor to consider. Invicta - detail, Gungnir - excitement - Sabre - polite, etc.
 There's usually an aim to find a middle ground, which often doesn't come cheap.


----------



## Greed

Purrrin and friends, have any of you heard a Buffalo III? I believe it uses a Sabre chip, but to my ears doesn't have some of the extreme characteristics of most Sabre DACs. If you haven't had a chance, I would recommend trying to get your hands on one.


----------



## FredrikT92

Can u review the NuForce DAC-80?
 Its  AKM AK4390


----------



## barid

If the Sabre chips are so widely disliked why are they being used by so many companies currently.  Honest question, not trying to imply they are good/bad, just wondering.


----------



## Greed

barid said:


> If the Sabre chips are so widely disliked why are they being used by so many companies currently.  Honest question, not trying to imply they are good/bad, just wondering.


 
  
 I don't think they're widely disliked at all, just take a peak into the Portable Audio forms here. People rave and cut down any company that releases a DAP without a Sabre based DAC. I can't speak for others of course, but I feel Sabre DACs have some slight unnaturalness to them. They are technically "accurate" and measure very well, but most don't sound very natural to my ears. I think a lot of companies use them because of what I said - they measure extremely well. It is something for those companies to market to people who don't know better. My 2c


----------



## Argo Duck

^ I don't think they are _widely_ disliked. I think the 'why are they being used so widely' has been addressed with one or two recent posts.

Purrin et al. are in the relatively unusual position of having compared a lot of dacs under similar conditions, and - like Paradoxper and Boatheelmusic - find something 'off' about them.

For most of us with experience of only a few dacs, maybe only one, we're not likely to notice this 'house' sound common to one or other chip. We'll just decide we like this or that manufacturer/model more/less won't we?!


----------



## purrin

boatheelmusic said:


> I know the Sabre 9018 is fashionable, and I understand it's all in the implementation, but I personally think the "sheen" I hear with that chip makes it most unmusical.  Doesn't sound real.


 
  
 Things which are coming clear to us about SABRE
  

Whether it's treble sheen, graininess, or whatever, *something funky always seems to manifest in the treble.* Most SABRE DAC implementations will have that mid-high treble sheen. The better ones will minimize it (a fine grain or have a slight unrealistic quality like Finn after he swallowed a tiny computer: http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Finn - scroll down or search "swallowing a tiny computer"). The mediocre SABRE DACs will exhibit one of more of the following in order of severity or evil: glare, etch, hardness, sibilance.
*Lack of bass pitch differentiation and texture*. This is an area were R2R DACs excel. Some delta-sigma DACs do pretty good here too. SABRE DACs tend to treat all bass notes as indistinct blobs. It's hard to understand what's been missing all along until one hears a good R2R DAC: http://www.head-fi.org/t/625793/audio-gd-master-7-discrete-fully-balanced-dac-pcm1704/1140#post_10149405
*SABRE DACs tend to handle DSD streams better than PCM.* However, the differences are so subtle that we'd rather convert DSD to PCM in realtime, i.e. via JRiver MC to a good non-SABRE DAC.
*This does not mean we hate all SABRE DACs. *Two ninjas (I was one of them) very much liked the Auralic Vega. Auralic minimized the SABREs weaknesses without trying to cover them with syrup and honey like the Resossnesnessence Invicta. By doing so, Auralac was fully able to maximize the SABRE's potential, e.g. resolution, attack, precision, pace, etc. to such a high point were we would be willing to overlook its issues. It's never black or white.
  


greed said:


> Purrrin and friends, have any of you heard a Buffalo III? I believe it uses a Sabre chip, but to my ears doesn't have some of the extreme characteristics of most Sabre DACs. If you haven't had a chance, I would recommend trying to get your hands on one.


 
  
 Yes. It highly depends upon the build. There were two builds I really liked. Even changing one of the regulators on the B3 board radically changed its sound. Still, the best B3 implementations still have a little bit of that SABRE quality. There were also many other B3 builds I have heard which were peculiar (another word for horrible.)
  


fredrikt92 said:


> Can u review the NuForce DAC-80?
> Its  AKM AK4390


 
  
 If you send it to me.  There's so much! 
  
 BTW, I know a few of you guys have generously offered to send me some DACs for evaluation. I'm going to have to take a rain-check on those. We still have a small backlog of DACs we still need to compare notes on and rank. Maybe in another month. I want to take a break and enjoy music for a while rather than listen to more DACs.


----------



## Radio_head

@ barid
 Marketing and fear of missing out.  Doesn't hurt that arguably the first DAC in the modern-high end "computer DAC" market happened to use and advertise the 9018.  Subsequently many DAC-makers hopped on and advertised their own DAC as using this premium chip used in the much more expensive _X _DAC.  Seems like it snowballed from there.
  
 Privately, some manufacturers have stated that the chip is very buggy and a pain to work with, that NDA's need to be signed to even view real measurements (so consumers can never see some purportedly enigmatic behavior, particularly in the 20Khz+ range), and some users report glare/sheen/brightness and a somewhat unreal presentation.  The good implementations I've heard seem to skirt these issues for the most part, but the bad ones kind of remind me of seeing the first Hobbit in theaters with its very unnatural looking higher framerate.  
  
 The pendulum is starting to come back around, at least in the higher end of the DAC market, where R2R seems to be making inroads again.
  
 Anti-hype is the backlash of hype.  Some of the more hyperbolic statements about the Sabre DACs have been roughly proportional to the tremendous hype they have enjoyed the last couple years.


----------



## boatheelmusic

And don't overlook the diffuse imaging, at least through good 2 channel speakers!


----------



## purrin

boatheelmusic said:


> And don't overlook the diffuse imaging, at least through good 2 channel speakers!


 
  
 Heh, yeah. Thanks for pointing that out. The diffuseness contributes to a sense of openness. This is a good thing. However, I've noted a tendency for images to be fuzzy, ill-defined, or unstable with most implementations.  But I can't say I found imaging issues specific to SABRE though.


----------



## boatheelmusic

It may be that all or most DSD dacs have Sabre. Good for that, maybe, but not so much for PCM IMO.


----------



## purrin

Yes, I actually see the "popularity" of SABRE / DSD as a threat to good sound, or at least available sound signatures. DSD is being heavily pimped right now by industry movers such a Michael Lavorgna, etc. Sony may die soon, so as a desperate act, they could decide to release their entire catalog on DSD (it's not going to sound any better; but as we all know, anything "new" must be better.)
  
 I think of SABRE / DSD as the Monsanto / GMO of the audio world. It's my sincere wish that audiophiles (new and old) will get a chance to be able to hear (or to be reminded of) the old-school R2R DACs or even some of the better S-D implementations. It's nice seeing companies like TeraDAK, AGD, Metrum, and soon Schiit, to be able to offer R2R DACs at semi-reasonable prices. I hope more will follow so we don't need to rely on a diminishing supply / increasing expensive "legacy" or "industrial" R2R DAC chips.
  
 Considering there is already hi-res PCM, DSD needs to die like Betamax.


----------



## Greed

purrin said:


> Yes, I actually see the "popularity" of SABRE / DSD as a threat to good sound, or at least available sound signatures. DSD is being heavily pimped right now by industry movers such a Michael Lavorgna, etc. Sony may die soon, so as a desperate act, they could decide to release their entire catalog on DSD (it's not going to sound any better; but as we all know, anything "new" must be better.)
> 
> I think of SABRE / DSD as the Monsanto / GMO of the audio world. It's my sincere wish that audiophiles (new and old) will get a chance to be able to hear (or to be reminded of) the old-school R2R DACs or even some of the better S-D implementations. It's nice seeing companies like TeraDAK, AGD, Metrum, and soon Schiit, to be able to offer R2R DACs at semi-reasonable prices. I hope more will follow so we don't need to rely on a diminishing supply / increasing expensive "legacy" or "industrial" R2R DAC chips.
> 
> Considering there is already hi-res PCM, *DSD needs to die like Betamax.*


 
  
 I hope it does.


----------



## schneller

What is R2R and what DACs does Schiit have in the pipeline?


----------



## cizx

I swear DSD sounded better with my BMC PureDAC than it does with my Yulong DA8.  Now it sounds about the same as high-res PCM.
  
 The only non-sabre dac I've had is the Gungnir, and I think I sort of agree with Purrin about the dynamics.  It's more lively than any of the sabres I've had.  The PureDAC had the best tone, though.  Of course my experience is limited, as is my budget.  I'd love to find a good compromise, but I'm also wary of diminishing returns... how different are the Yulong, Gungnir, and PureDAC, really?  In my memory, the difference is huge.  If I had all of them, all feeding the Mjolnir, feeding the LCD-X, could I pick them out?  Who knows.  I don't have the time or money to try that.  That's why I value Gary and Purrin's efforts.  
  
 I'm fine with DSD going away, ultimately.  I think most of the perceived difference is a trick of levels being out of whack and just sourcing better masters.  If I get seriously serious about this hobby, I'll get hi-res PCM and DSD versions of the same thing and compare them... but I probably won't.  I'll probably just be happy with what I have while simultaneously wishing I had something else.
  
 Bleh.


----------



## yfei

purrin said:


> Considering there is already hi-res PCM, DSD needs to die like Betamax.


 
  
 This article did a listening comparison between 44.1k vs 96k  vs  192k   vs DSD
 http://www.audiostream.com/content/dsd-v-pcm-file-comparison-16441-2496-24192-64x-dsd-128x-dsd
The conclusion was that: going from 44.1 to 96 to 192, there are gains in sound quality,   and going from 192k to DSD there is a huge jump in sound quality.
  
 I have only listened to 44.1k.    I will do a test of 44.1k vs DSD of the same music using Hilo.
  
 Technically:
 In many studios, the recorded DSD is first converted to DXD, which is 352.8kHz PCM, for editing.  Then convert back to DSD.    So many of the DSD/SACD we get actually is converted from this 352.8 kHz  PCM.   After this conversion, the size of DSD file is ~ 1/4 of the DXD file.   We can think of DSD as a 'lossy compression' of 352.8 kHz PCM.    In this case I am not sure how big is the sound quality jump between DSD and 192k.
 There are some SACD was mastered without this conversion step.


----------



## cizx

schneller said:


> What is R2R and what DACs does Schiit have in the pipeline?


 
 Yggdrasil is Schiit's statement DAC.  I assume that's what he's talking about.  
  
 I think this is R2R: http://www.tek.com/blog/tutorial-digital-analog-conversion-%E2%80%93-r-2r-dac


----------



## cizx

yfei said:


> This article did a listening comparison between 44.1k vs 96k  vs  192k   vs DSD
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/dsd-v-pcm-file-comparison-16441-2496-24192-64x-dsd-128x-dsd
> The conclusion was that: going from 44.1 to 96 to 192, there are gains in sound quality,   and going from 192k to DSD there is a huge jump in sound quality.
> 
> ...


 
 Ugh.  All this conversion is such a bummer.  I hear that most music isn't even created digitally... I saw some guy in a subway using a guitar.. with strings.  I was like, where's the USB port?  I wanted to scream at people not to listen, to run home and download a flac of the song he was playing, but then the train came.


----------



## boatheelmusic

LOL.....

It gets worse, I also get to worry about my guitar A/D converter for recording in Garageband!


----------



## Greed

Edited for tardiness.


----------



## BournePerfect

cizx said:


> Ragnarok is Schiit's statement DAC.  I assume that's what he's talking about.
> 
> I think this is R2R: http://www.tek.com/blog/tutorial-digital-analog-conversion-%E2%80%93-r-2r-dac


 
 Quick correction: Yggdrasil is he statement dac. Ragnarok is the statement amp. 
  
 -Dniel


----------



## magiccabbage

bourneperfect said:


> Quick correction: Yggdrasil is he statement dac. Ragnarok is the statement amp.
> 
> -Dniel


 
 Does anyone know when the DAC is out? - sometime in the summer? I will be hunting for a DAC towards the end of the year. I wonder if it will compete in the BDA2 ballpark? 
  
 Sabre chip??


----------



## cizx

bourneperfect said:


> Quick correction: Yggdrasil is he statement dac. Ragnarok is the statement amp.
> 
> -Dniel


 
 Correct!


----------



## cizx

magiccabbage said:


> Does anyone know when the DAC is out? - sometime in the summer? I will be hunting for a DAC towards the end of the year. I wonder if it will compete in the BDA2 ballpark?
> 
> Sabre chip??


 
 there's, like, a whole thread on it here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil


----------



## Greed

magiccabbage said:


> Does anyone know when the DAC is out? - sometime in the summer? I will be hunting for a DAC towards the end of the year. I wonder if it will compete in the BDA2 ballpark?


 
  
 Schiit said fairly soon after the release of the Rag barring any unforeseen problems. They said the Rag might be ready early Feb.


----------



## purrin

yfei said:


> This article did a listening comparison between 44.1k vs 96k  vs  192k   vs DSD
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/dsd-v-pcm-file-comparison-16441-2496-24192-64x-dsd-128x-dsd
> The conclusion was that: going from 44.1 to 96 to 192, there are gains in sound quality,   and going from 192k to DSD there is a huge jump in sound quality.
> 
> I have only listened to 44.1k.    I will do a test of 44.1k vs DSD of the same music using Hilo.


 

  
 I don't doubt what he heard. Some DACs like the X-Sabre (and from what I hear about the Hilo and Mytek) tend to handle DSD "better" than PCM. Still doesn't show DSD is a "superior" format. Just that certain DACs handle DSD better than PCM.
  
 Here's a good experiment: convert your favorite 44.1kHz recordings to 88, 174, and DSD. Then see if these conversions sound better. Try the use of different conversion tools or plug-ins, .e.g. r8brain, Adobe Audition, JRiver MC, foobar, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if these conversions coming from the same 44.k original source sound "better" or at least different. At least that's been my experience. I suspect this is because the filters in the DACs handle the higher sampling rates.
  


yfei said:


> Technically:
> In many studios, the recorded DSD is first converted to DXD, which is 352.8kHz PCM, for editing.  Then convert back to DSD.    So many of the DSD/SACD we get actually is converted from this 352.8 kHz  PCM. <snip>


 
  
 That's assuming you have one of those "boutique" studios with crazy expensive equipment which does AD conversion directly to DSD. Most of Sony's SACDs are probably taken from either the analog master (less likely since tape degrades or gets lost over time) or from a 24/96 PCM master.
  
 Keep in mind that DSD rapidly starts to lose bit-depth after 24kHz because of one-bit quantization noise (in other words "error"). To the point where this noise overtakes any real musical content (sonic content past 20kHz gets progressively softer). _In any event, the dirty secret of SACD or DSD players is that they must filter ultrasonic content to eliminate this ultrasonic garbage. _*So much for DSD as a "hires" format.*
  
 DSD was never about sound quality to Sony. It was about control and low cost (R2R DAC chips are hard to make. The precision of the resistors is paramount.)
  

  
 RED = Raw DSD
 BLUE = 24/192 PCM at the outputs of the player
 GREEN = DSD at the outputs of the player
  
 You can definitely see the DSD ultrasonic filter being applied - the stopband ripple gives it away.


----------



## magiccabbage

greed said:


> Schiit said fairly soon after the release of the Rag barring any unforeseen problems. They said the Rag might be ready early Feb.


 
 cool i look forward to that


cizx said:


> there's, like, a whole thread on it here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil


 
 yea i have been to the thread but not for a while, im lazy


----------



## Sanlitun

purrin said:


> Considering there is already hi-res PCM, DSD needs to die like Betamax.


 
  
 Those are pretty strong words, but I tend to agree with them. To my mind DSD is bit of a format war anachronism and isn't necessary these days. I was one of the guys who had a Sony SCD-1 way back when it was the counterpoint to DVD-Audio and I did regret it, as I found in general that DSD did not sound as realistic as hi-res PCM and often seemed to be too euphonical. I suppose these will be strong words, but I can't think of any DSD recording I have that I particularly care for. DSD always sounds "sanded off" to me, at least as it is currently implemented.
  
 Comparing the DXD to DSD files at http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html can provide some insight into this.


----------



## yfei

purrin said:


> Keep in mind that DSD rapidly starts to lose bit-depth after 24kHz because of one-bit quantization noise (in other words "error"). To the point where this noise overtakes any real musical content (sonic content past 20kHz gets progressively softer). _In any event, the dirty secret of SACD or DSD players is that they must filter ultrasonic content to eliminate this ultrasonic garbage. _*So much for DSD as a "hires" format.*


 
 I am not expert, but agree, that's why i said dsd is kind of a lossy compression of dxd:   quantization noise at high freq.   For pcm, all frequencies get 24 or 16 bit depth, for DSD, more bits for low freq, less bits for high freq.
 dxd should be the ultimate file we want to get,   but I guess music studios may never release it to us.  Because dxd is ALL they have, once it is release, they lost control.     Just like movie studios won't give us the original film, or original file recorded by 4k camera.  They give us bluray, only 2k, and with lossy compression.


----------



## boatheelmusic

We should really create a DSD yea or nay thread, since this has legs into the future......


----------



## cizx

boatheelmusic said:


> We should really create a DSD yea or nay thread, since this has legs into the future......


 
 does it really, though?  does anyone aside from the Don Drapers trying to make it happen think that DSD is going to be a consideration in 5 years?


----------



## boatheelmusic

Agree, but go to audiostream and look at the CES focus.......


----------



## Andrew_WOT

The great thread was ruined by another silly formats war.


----------



## boatheelmusic

So when do we talk about artistic and recording quality of our favorite music?

Ultimately this is in fact a dead end.


----------



## Radio_head

On Audiostream and show focus...
  
 Audio press needs a "thing" to fixate on to imply progress.  Something that sounds "better" without having a "thing" to grasp onto (buzzwords) doesn't help pageviews or subscriptions (or niche digital downloads.)  Or make new "progress" at shows exciting. It has been HDCD, SACD, 24/96, 24/192, Asynch USB, now DSD over USB.  It makes actual listening irrelevant as fully half of every review ends up being about cutting-edge feature set and how a given product looks like in some hippie's Japanese rock garden.


----------



## boatheelmusic

Excellent, love it!


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> It's nice seeing companies like TeraDAK, AGD, Metrum, *and soon Schiit, to be able to offer R2R DACs * at semi-reasonable prices. I hope more will follow so we don't need to rely on a diminishing supply / increasing expensive "legacy" or "industrial" R2R DAC chips.




Is that for real? I was curious about the Iggdrasyl (sorry for the sp., sounds like medication name to me  ), but that makes me open my eyes wide!


----------



## Sanlitun

purrin said:


> I don't doubt what he heard. Some DACs like the X-Sabre (and from what I hear about the Hilo and Mytek) tend to handle DSD "better" than PCM. Still doesn't show DSD is a "superior" format. Just that certain DACs handle DSD better than PCM.


 
  
 Even though I am not a big fan of DSD I use the X-Sabre as my general DAC as it does everything so well, or well enough. On the X-Sabre I would say hi-res PCM is -much- better sounding than DSD, and pretty much the only time I listen to DSD is if there is no PCM hi-res of the recording. And maybe not even then. The DSD sound I hear through the X-Sabre is characteristic of the DSD sound I have heard through other sources, slightly rounded and rolled off. Converting PCM to DSD in JRiver does not sound better for me, it just sounds a bit smoother and less resolved like it's going through a "two martini" filter.  
  
 I personally don't really have an issue with the Sabre sound, and I arrived at using the X-Sabre after trying DACs like the Gungnir that were just way too punchy for me. There seems to be an effort with some recent DACs to bump up dynamics to achieve a more realistic performance, but it can be unpleasant, and make some vocals too shouty.


----------



## Maxvla

Sanlitun, I don't mean to direct this at you, but your post brought it to mind...

There has been a lot of talk recently with phrases like "higher dynamics" and "more dynamic" and so on, when the poster actually means it's just louder. This is the opposite of "more dynamic". More dynamic means quieter and louder. Increasing dynamics means making quiets quieter and louds louder, not increasing the overall loudness.

Please choose your words more carefully, people.


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> Yes, I actually see the "popularity" of SABRE / DSD as a threat to good sound, or at least available sound signatures. DSD is being heavily pimped right now by industry movers such a Michael Lavorgna, etc. Sony may die soon, so as a desperate act, they could decide to release their entire catalog on DSD (it's not going to sound any better; but as we all know, anything "new" must be better.)
> 
> I think of SABRE / DSD as the Monsanto / GMO of the audio world. It's my sincere wish that audiophiles (new and old) will get a chance to be able to hear (or to be reminded of) the old-school R2R DACs or even some of the better S-D implementations. It's nice seeing companies like TeraDAK, AGD, Metrum, and soon Schiit, to be able to offer R2R DACs at semi-reasonable prices. I hope more will follow so we don't need to rely on a diminishing supply / increasing expensive "legacy" or "industrial" R2R DAC chips.
> 
> Considering there is already hi-res PCM, DSD needs to die like Betamax.


 
  
 I think the move to high-res and resulting death of the old, R2R DACs was a tragedy. Bar the M7, which comes close, I've still not heard as good a DAC as the old Parasound DAC1600HD. I am thinking of getting an Audio Note kit DAC now since I don't _have_ to use a balanced DAC. The only downside will be having to down-sample all my 192k files but I think my first decision to stay with nothing higher than 96k in audio files was a better one.
  
 The comparisons of high-res files and DSD being better as you go higher I'm putting down to the DAC used in the comparison.


----------



## 7ryder

You guys may have seen this, but here's Ayre's take on PCM vs DSD and includes samples from songs in both formats http://www.ayre.com/insights_dsdvspcm.htm . I'm in the "DSD must die!"camp myself.


----------



## BournePerfect

maxvla said:


> Sanlitun, I don't mean to direct this at you, but your post brought it to mind...
> 
> There has been a lot of talk recently with phrases like "higher dynamics" and "more dynamic" and so on, when the poster actually means it's just louder. This is the opposite of "more dynamic". More dynamic means quieter and louder. Increasing dynamics means making quiets quieter and louds louder, not increasing the overall loudness.
> 
> Please choose your words more carefully, people.


 
  
 Yep-and one of the most important aspects of music, and an easy to identify trait (imo) separates good/great gear from the mediocre...
  
 -Daniel


----------



## yfei

sanlitun said:


> Even though I am not a big fan of DSD I use the X-Sabre as my general DAC as it does everything so well, or well enough. On the X-Sabre I would say hi-res PCM is -much- better sounding than DSD, and pretty much the only time I listen to DSD is if there is no PCM hi-res of the recording. And maybe not even then. The DSD sound I hear through the X-Sabre is characteristic of the DSD sound I have heard through other sources, slightly rounded and rolled off. *Converting PCM to DSD in JRiver does not sound better for me, it just sounds a bit smoother and less resolved like it's going through a "two martini" filter.  *
> I personally don't really have an issue with the Sabre sound, and I arrived at using the X-Sabre after trying DACs like the Gungnir that were just way too punchy for me. There seems to be an effort with some recent DACs to bump up dynamics to achieve a more realistic performance, but it can be unpleasant, and make some vocals too shouty.


 
 I did same experiment on JRiver (on-the-fly conversion from 44.1k PCM to DSDx64), feeding Hilo.   And I observed exactly the same thing:
 The sound difference is quite obvious (I wanted to say 'huge').  The converted DSD is smoothed out in the highs, contains less information.     It may sound smoother, but does not give me a positive experience:  the smoothness doesn't let me feel natural or realistic.  it only let me feel it is unreal.
  
 This experiment only tells me one or both the following 2 things are true:  1) converting from 44.1k PCM to DSD is lossy, at least true for JRiver.   2) Hilo's PCM implementation is not inferior to it's DSD implementation.
 Nothing more than that.  I still need to test DSD vs PCM of the same music.


----------



## magiccabbage

has anyone heard the V800 and compared it to the BDA2 and WFS DAC2 or maybe NadM51? I know the BDA2 would be miles ahead but just wondering about the v800


----------



## Andrew_WOT

yfei said:


> sanlitun said:
> 
> 
> > Even though I am not a big fan of DSD I use the X-Sabre as my general DAC as it does everything so well, or well enough. On the X-Sabre I would say hi-res PCM is -much- better sounding than DSD, and pretty much the only time I listen to DSD is if there is no PCM hi-res of the recording. And maybe not even then. The DSD sound I hear through the X-Sabre is characteristic of the DSD sound I have heard through other sources, slightly rounded and rolled off. *Converting PCM to DSD in JRiver does not sound better for me, it just sounds a bit smoother and less resolved like it's going through a "two martini" filter.  *
> ...


 
 This is invalid test, you're just upsampling redbook material, it doesn't add any information just stretches existing data, any upsampled material sounds glossy and overly smooth.
 What you want is to get original DSD, convert to PCM and compare the results.


----------



## kn19h7

andrew_wot said:


> This is invalid test, you're just upsampling redbook material, it doesn't add any information just stretches existing data, any upsampled material sounds glossy and overly smooth.
> What you want is to get original DSD, convert to PCM and compare the results.


 

 I think the guy was responding to Purrin's statements like DSD sounds better on certain DACs and recommendation like "We recommend converting PCM content to DSD" (X-Sabre part in OP)..
  
 "Smoother and less resolved" is also what I hear when converting PCM to DSD.
  
 By the way, I couldn't see how converting DSD to PCM can be "more valid" than converting PCM to DSD, neither is lossless (or reversible) process anyway.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

kn19h7 said:


> "Smoother and less resolved" is also what I hear when converting PCM to DSD.
> 
> *By the way, I couldn't see how converting DSD to PCM can be "more valid" than converting PCM to DSD, neither is lossless (or reversible) process anyway.*


 
 No upsampling which just muddies things up, you start with highest res material and convert it to another high-res format. You can convert DXD to DSD and compare, this is the most valid PCM vs DSD test.
 Or just go to http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html and grab their free samples of the same track in DXD (PCM) and DSD128 and compare.


----------



## kn19h7

andrew_wot said:


> No upsampling which just muddies things up, you start with highest res material and convert it to another high-res format. You can convert DXD to DSD and compare, this is the most valid PCM vs DSD test.
> Or just go to http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html and grab their free samples of the same track in DXD (PCM) and DSD128 and compare.


 

 DSD and PCM are different enough for me not to think the conversion as "resampling".. (btw I don't see anyone mentioned what PCM formats they have tried, not sure why you assume low-res)
  
 Higher resolution files may get better results in the conversion, but even so its just that the effect is at less extent. We are talking about the general effect in sound when doing the conversion.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

kn19h7 said:


> andrew_wot said:
> 
> 
> > No upsampling which just muddies things up, you start with highest res material and convert it to another high-res format. You can convert DXD to DSD and compare, this is the most valid PCM vs DSD test.
> ...


 
 Did you do the test I suggested, what's the result, what DAC did you use?


----------



## kn19h7

andrew_wot said:


> Did you do the test I suggested, what's the result, what DAC did you use?


 

 Nope, I am not at home now.
  
 Not sure if I will do either, I am lazy.


----------



## One and a half

andrew_wot said:


> What you want is to get original DSD, convert to PCM and compare the results.


 
 What you want is
  
 1. Master Analog tape --> Small EQ if needed ---> DSD64 ---> Listen
 2. Master Analog tape --> Small EQ if needed ---> PCM 176.4/24 ----> Listen
 3. Compare these two, DSD DACs except the Loki play both PCM and DSD.
  
 The hard part will be the A/D to have the same tonal characteristics in both formats, good luck Charlie. DSD will win because PCM will always have extra inherent steps for processing.
  
 Converting a DSD to PCM what rate, redbook...? and then compare? What on earth for? That's really apples and oranges.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

one and a half said:


> andrew_wot said:
> 
> 
> > What you want is to get original DSD, convert to PCM and compare the results.
> ...


 
 Who said anything about redbook, use highest rate supported by your DAC, even DXD.


----------



## purrin

> Originally Posted by *One and a half* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> 1. Master Analog tape --> Small EQ if needed ---> DSD64 ---> Listen
> ...


 
  
 Please explain the extra inherent steps for PCM processing.
  
 BTW, the workflows you stated above almost never happen unless you are at a boutique mastering shop with an analog EQ. Mastering in 2014 is usually done in the digital realm. Ever tried to EQ on native DSD? I thought not.


----------



## One and a half

purrin said:


>


 
 The extra steps with PCM are shown in the figure. More processing = more noise = delays. Snap is from DSD guide 
  

  
This recording from Opus 3 used analog EQ, then direct to a Korg. 
  
_This recording was done at the wonderful venue Järna Kultur center. Using a AKG C12VR mic on Yaminas vocals and a stereo Thuresson on the Steinway D grand piano. The mic feeds goes through the famous Opus3 4-channel valve mixer where mild Equalizing and high-pass filters are applied. Then straight into the Korg MR2000S and captured in DSD128. Those files captured by the MR2000S are the once you are downloading. No other after processing is applied. It is essentially as real as it gets. Comparable to direct-to-disc recorded vinyls but without the losses in duplication. In otherwords Direct-To-DSD._
  
Titling the thread "DSD must die" is like saying, let's not make any more chocolate ice cream. It's a flavour I don't like it at all it needs to go, by that rationale, but many others do like chocolate ice cream, so why deny them that choice? There are all the other flavours, it's good enough is it?
  
There are two companies offering DSD EQ at the moment. Perhaps that's a good thing, to force mastering to use as simple tools as possible instead of killing music with gross compression effects. Philosophies....


----------



## purrin

one and a half said:


> The extra steps with PCM are shown in the figure. More processing = more noise = delays. Snap is from DSD guide


 
  
 LOL, nice. Maybe this is why I prefer R2R DACs. No S-D modulators. Way go referencing DSD propaganda which avoids any mention of noise-shaping techniques employed in the DSD chain and DSD's inferior dynamic range (bits) in the ultrasonic region. 
  


one and a half said:


> Titling the thread "DSD must die" is like saying, let's not make any more chocolate ice cream. It's a flavour I don't like it at all it needs to go, by that rationale, but many others do like chocolate ice cream, so why deny them that choice? There are all the other flavours, it's good enough is it?


 
  
 That is a poor analogy. Saying DSD must die is like saying HD-DVD or Betamax must die.


----------



## cizx

or ice cream made with soy milk.


----------



## aive

Hey Purrin are you able to retest the AGD M7 (USB) with the new USB firmware released on AGD's website? Just curious to see if this improves the DACs USB performance to a significantly higher level such that a transport isn't as required


----------



## purrin

LOL, did AGD read my comments (and that of others)? I will definitely upgrade to the new USB firmware and listen to it when I get a chance.
  
*UPDATE:*
  

Metrum Quad - Good Stuff #16
Schiit Bifrost Uber Gen 2 USB - Good Stuff #10
Audist HUD-MX2 - Class S
 ​
  
*Regarding the DSD Discussion*
*How to playback DSD on PCM DACs*
  
Those who know me have probably already figured out that I brought the DSD discussion into play as a loaded question or controversial statement to eventually make a specific point.
  
Because DSD is the latest craze being pushed at CES and big industry names, this question often arises: "I want to play DSD, but many of the good DACs you list are not DSD capable." Arguments on whether DSD is an inherently better format will never cease (despite DSD being a mathematically inferior format when the noise floor of associated equipment-i.e. amps, is taken into consideration, and this is even assuming we as humans can hear way way way past 18kHz.)
  
_If there is a DAC you like that happens to be DSD capable, by all means go for it._ If you prefer the sound of a PCM DAC, but are afraid of what you are missing out on with DSD, DO NOT SIDEGRADE OR DOWNGRADE TO A DSD COMPATIBLE DAC. Instead, you can do something like this (if you use a PC for playback, which I assume is the case for most people here):
  

  
JRiver Media Center will convert DSD to PCM on the fly. The program considers DSD as a format "Greater than 192,000Hz". Selecting the output to 352,800 Hz will convert the DSD to DXD. 176,400Hz will convert the DSD stream to PCM 24/174, etc.
  
JRiver implements a fairly sharp 24db/octave filter at 24kHz for DSD (this is required since the DSD format inherently contains ultrasonic junk via noise shaping techniques which need to be filtered out.) There are other filter options available to play with, but I like the stock setting the best. Turning off the filter actually results with poorer sound quality, at least with my setup.
  
I am sure there are good options for foobar and the various players on the mac.
  
In my experience, the differences between DSD and PCM are not significant compared to these factors:
  

Quality of the audio production process (recording, mixing, mastering, etc.)
Quality of the DAC.


----------



## aive

purrin said:


> LOL, did AGD read my comments (and that of others)? I will definitely upgrade to the new USB firmware and listen to it when I get a chance.




Awesome. One main reason I'm waiting for yggy is the fact that M7 USB isn't great and I would have to wait to save up for a transport - e.g. If you look at the Gungnir the DAC sounds great and the integral USB is great which is hopeful for yggy.


----------



## One and a half

Blessed are the pcm evangelists. Am outta here. Downgrade to a DSD indeed.


----------



## hans030390

Glad you guys got some level of enjoyment from the Quad! I appreciate the comments and insight as always. I think you would find the Hex to be a nice step up and less laid-back, though I'm guessing it still wouldn't ultimately be to your tastes enough to warrant the price tag. Can't speak for the Octave models. Something about the Metrum sound just works really well for my ears, but I do look forward to checking out other DACs in the future. I guess I'm lucky that last bit of resolving ability isn't something I notice so much.


----------



## purrin

one and a half said:


> Blessed are the pcm evangelists. Am outta here. Downgrade to a DSD indeed.


 
  
 I think you are reading too much into what I am saying. My statement regarding: "not sidegrading or downgrading to a DSD compatible DAC" does not preclude one from upgrading to a DSD compatible DAC.
  
 Examples:
  

If someone had a soundcard and wanted a good sounding DAC which happened to be able to play DSD, the Hilo or X-Sabre (both good DSD capable DACs at difference price points) would be good choices to truly upgrade to.
If someone already had a Gungnir (and was happy with the sound of it), but was curious about DSD, or was striken with "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome, I would NOT recommend sidegrading or downgrading to an X-Sabre to Mytek.
  
 One the points that I really wanted to get across was that with current PCM to DSD conversion tools or computer audio playback programs, there's no need to cross PCM-only DACs off the list if one wanted to hear DSD material. If one happened to really like the sound of a particular PCM-only DAC, why compromise the sound quality just for the sake of DSD hardware compatibility when DSD to PCM conversions can be done in software?
  
 As I've said before, maybe certain DACs handle native DSD "better" than PCM, but such differences are so minute compared to the already subtle differences between DACs and gross differences between different recording masters.
  
 What I'm trying to do is the put some sense into people. People are already going goo-goo ga-ga for the Sony PHA-2 because of the "DSD" sticker without any regard for the fact that the headamp section uses the TPA6120 - probably the most un-resolving flattest more boring monotone sounding headamp chip ever made.
  
 DSD is not a panacea it's marketed out to be.


----------



## purrin

hans030390 said:


> Glad you guys got some level of enjoyment from the Quad! I appreciate the comments and insight as always. I think you would find the Hex to be a nice step up and less laid-back, though I'm guessing it still wouldn't ultimately be to your tastes enough to warrant the price tag. Can't speak for the Octave models. Something about the Metrum sound just works really well for my ears, but I do look forward to checking out other DACs in the future. I guess I'm lucky that last bit of resolving ability isn't something I notice so much.


 
  
 To be truly happy, I think I've probably have to end up with the Hex and use the OR5 with software resampling turned up to 174 or 192 in JRiver. Kudos to Metrum. I kind of wonder if Metrum tuned the Quad to be so laid back sounding to further differentiate it from the other more expensive DACs in the line.


----------



## buson160man

goldfishx said:


> BournePerfect: What was your source and amp? And which headphones were you running? I'm pretty much married to the Lyr at this point ($$$ spent on tubes, plus I enjoy having its power and sound flexibility). I can't comment on the Bifrost, since I skipped right to the Gungnir (which uses the analogue output stage of the Bifrost Uber), but my mileage varied from headphone to headphone with pretty significant differences. Have not tried a speaker comparison yet.
> 
> Opening up the soundstage wasn't an issue on the Gungnir. It is bigger than Peachtree's, I give it that. Problem was that soundstage was filled with treble spikes the HD800's are known for... It fared better with the HE-500.
> 
> Eraser: Can you link me? I was looking at refurbed iDac's and iNovas on Peachtree's site recently (local shop sells them, I want to see if they're any kind of improvement over the DacIt). I'd be interested in a new standalone DAC-only in that range from them.


 
  I purchased a refurb decco 2 from the peachtree website and I was pleased with it and got it at a substantial savings. I did do some upgrades on it replacing the stock fuse with a hifi tuning supreme fuse. I also tried several different power cords that I have settling in on my cable pro reflection power cord. This seemed to be the best combination in my set up. I have to mention that the decco 2s headphone section did not seem to mate very well with my akg 701 phones or my audeze lcd2 v2 phones. There just was not enough drive to sifficiently power those phones. The dac in the peachtree beeing a ess 9006 dac did not seem to possess the treble peak that has been mentioned with the 9018 sabre dac . Of course the dac in the earlier peachtrees only does 96khz. The best feature of this model is the dac it may not have the resolution of dacs that produce higher sampling rates but it does seem to be very listenable. I have not used the amp section so I can not make any comments because I primarily used the dac and preamp to power my emotiva airmotiv 5 active speakers. The preamp works ok but there are better preamps out there.


----------



## buson160man

purrin said:


> This week, a friend and I made some visits to a few other friends (who typically carry a few DACs here and there at their places of work). Here are some pictures of the TEAC in various states of use disuse.
> 
> 
> (The Airmotiv speakers were actually liked.)
> ...


 
  Which emotiva airmotivs are the ones in your pic.I am using a pair of airmotiv 5s with a fuse upgrade (hifi tuning supreme fuse) and upgraded power cords and they work great on my desk top.
 I also have a pair of their stealth 8s that I use in my main set up. The stealth 8s really can sing. At present I am using a used audio research ls2 with balanced outputs as a preamp until I can afford something of more recent vintage to preamp them. Unfortunately the stealth 8s have only balanced inputs so that limits what preamp you can use with them. They also do not have a volume adjustment on the speaker like the airmotiv models so you have to use a dedicated preamp with balanced outputs to adjust the volume.


----------



## hans030390

purrin said:


> To be truly happy, I think I've probably have to end up with the Hex and use the OR5 with software resampling turned up to 174 or 192 in JRiver. Kudos to Metrum. I kind of wonder if Metrum tuned the Quad to be so laid back sounding to further differentiate it from the other more expensive DACs in the line.


 
  
 It could be done on purpose like that, or perhaps it's just post-Quad research led to improvements that were implemented in later models (i.e. MOAR CHIPS!). Based on what I am hearing, I think you would like the Hex a noticeable, not necessarily huge, amount more than the Quad with the setup you mentioned.
  
 To everyone else, one interesting tidbit I've found about the Hex from early measurements is that it measures ~0.4dB higher at 20KHz than the Quad with a sampling rate of 96KHz. Like I said, though, early results, so I'll be re-verifying after I run the DAC through for a while. It could also be an error or mismatch with my hardware and software setup. So, take that all as you will.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

purrin said:


> andrew_wot said:
> 
> 
> > Good stuff!
> ...


 
 Seems like it worked out pretty well, just noticed update to Vega section


> Originally Posted by *purrin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> EXACT MODE UPDATE: Maybe the occasional drop-out before everything fully stablizes, but wow! A much more refined smoother no longer lean sound signature. Not on the level of the R2R or better AKM implementations, but similar to the PWD2 via OR5 - a slight raspyness.


----------



## purrin

Yeah. The difference is significant enough I may provide another entry specific to EXACT mode. Just lining a few DACs again for a better comparative evaluation to be sure where to place them.


----------



## schneller

Which is more musical?
  
 Gungnir or X-Sabre?


----------



## cizx

schneller said:


> Which is more musical?
> 
> Gungnir or X-Sabre?


 
 The x-sabre is a solid piece of aluminum and gungnir is hollow, so I bet you'll get better tone out of the gungnir if you play it like an instrument.


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> Which is more musical?
> 
> Gungnir or X-Sabre?


 
  
 Depends what you mean by musical. I consider both DACs quite musical (that is why they are both in the good stuff list), but their presentations are different. The X-Sabre excels with microdynamics and microdetail which helps bring about realism. The Gungnir has a smooth non-digital, almost warm tone with uncompressed dynamics which also brings about realism.


----------



## yfei

DSD vs PCM      I just did a test using the files on http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html.
 Hardware is Hilo, it supports DSD x64 and PCM upto 192k      I didn't try DSD x128 and DXD files, because Hilo doesn't support them directly.
(Tried most of the files.  And I found the piece "Ståle Kleiberg: Eat! Drink!   from opera-oratoria David and Bathsheba" is quite complex, and makes the comparison easier than other pieces.)
  
1. 44.1 PCM converted from the same DSD file (using JRiver on-the-fly)  vs.  original DSD
 The difference is big.
 PCM sounds digital, 
 If compare to cheese's physical feeling,  then 44.1k is hard cheese like Cheddar, it's texture is coarse: rough, loose, grainy.   While DSD is very soft cheese like Munster, it melts, it is immersive, relaxing.
 Or visually, my brain tells me the converted 44.1k sounds like this:  there are digital 'levels', and there are 'gaps'

 And DSD is like this:  smooth, no levels, and higher resolution.

  
 2. 44.1k converted from 192k PCM file  vs.  DSD
 44.1k from 192k PCM is much better than 44.1k converted from DSD.    There seems to be no 'gaps'.  And seems a little higher resolution.   Compared to DSD it is sharper.  But, still can easily hear digital levels, and less details.
  

  
 3. DSD x64 vs 192k PCM
 Now PCM sounds really good.  It is much smoother than 44.1k, if don't pay much attention then can't feel the 'digital levels'.  and resolution is much higher.
 192k PCM comapred to DSD x64:  
 disadvantage:  if pay good attention, then can feel it seems still have a little bit 'digital' levels.   while DSD feels smoother, more analog.
 the advantage is:   192k PCM is very clean, very sharp.   While DSD contains more 'environmental' feeling, I don't know how to describe it, and I don't know it is real sound, or because of over smoothness, or effect of filters.  Just my personal feel: DSD is not as 'direct', as 'transparent', as clean as 192k PCM.    Resolution-wise I feel they are similar.  Seems to feel PCM is 'faster' in capturing to sound signal changes.
  
 So, conclusion of my feelings:
 1.
 When listen to 192k, I want the last bit of 'digital' feeling to by removed by higher sampling frequency, so it can be truly analog feeling.
 When listen to DSD, I am crying for transparency, cleanness.  And fastness of PCM.  And also feel there is room to be a little bit more analog, more resolving.
Maybe DXD (352k PCM) will combine the best of both 192k and DSD.  Since recording studios are using it as internal format, I'd like to believe it does.    Hope I will have a DAC  to test it in the future.
  
2.
DSD x64 or 192k may be a personal preference thing.  
192k pcm is like clean, clear, cold mountain water: wakes me up, and refreshes me.
 DSD is like warm milk,  thick and makes me sleepy.
 But they are definitely much better than 44.1k.   It is worthwhile to migrate from redbook to high res.


----------



## thegunner100

Yeah... I don't like chocolate ice cream either.


----------



## schneller

Interesting comment about the Gungnir from a different forum. Goes against just about everything I've read about it.
  
_I demoed the Rega DAC, Bifrost, Gugnir, Merdian Director and the Musical Fidelity M1 Dac on Friday and it finally came down to the BiFrost and the Meridian Director. I finally went with the Meridian Director. I was auditioning with SuperUniti as the Preamp and 250 as the poweramp._
  
_I found the Gungir very detailed, open and revealing compared to the other DACS but lacked a little oomph (drive I guess)._


----------



## Gradius

It would be nice to mention the prices on 1st page, so I wouldn't need to go search for the prices unit after unit.


----------



## cizx

gradius said:


> It would be nice to mention the prices on 1st page, so I wouldn't need to go search for the prices unit after unit.


 
 It would also be nice if they'd just tell me which one I like, and what pawn shop I can get it from for $50... but I figure they're doing enough work for free.


----------



## schneller

More comments from the same person, Schiit vs. Meridian...
  
_Make no mistake the Gungir was very good but it became a little too digital sounding over extended period of listening. It really lacked the oomph. For my money the BiFrost came in second, its half the price but had all the characteristics of the Gungir but sounded a little more analogue. I was sceptical about the Director as well, there are a lot of reviews on the meridian site and the Director does hold its own quiet easily._


----------



## purrin

My experience with the Gungnir and Bifrost was the reverse. Bifrost was more grainy and less smooth; Gungnir was smoother, warmer sounding, and had a lot more balls. I wonder if he got the patch cables crossed.


----------



## purrin

yfei said:


> DSD vs PCM      I just did a test using the files on http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html.
> Hardware is Hilo, it supports DSD x64 and PCM upto 192k      I didn't try DSD x128 and DXD files, because Hilo doesn't support them directly.
> (Tried most of the files.  And I found the piece "Ståle Kleiberg: Eat! Drink!   from opera-oratoria David and Bathsheba" is quite complex, and makes the comparison easier than other pieces.)
> 
> ...


 
  
 Excellent! 
  
 Have you tried converting to 174 PCM from DSD - similar to #1, but instead of "downsampling" to 44.1, you are converting to 174. I will be posting my own results soon with the Vega as the DAC.


----------



## purrin

one and a half said:


> This recording from Opus 3 used analog EQ, then direct to a Korg.
> 
> _This recording was done at the wonderful venue Järna Kultur center. Using a AKG C12VR mic on Yaminas vocals and a stereo Thuresson on the Steinway D grand piano. The mic feeds goes through the famous Opus3 4-channel valve mixer where mild Equalizing and high-pass filters are applied. Then straight into the Korg MR2000S and captured in DSD128. Those files captured by the MR2000S are the once you are downloading. No other after processing is applied. It is essentially as real as it gets. Comparable to direct-to-disc recorded vinyls but without the losses in duplication. In otherwords Direct-To-DSD._


 
  
Being one ever curious, I downloaded the 2xDSD otherwise known as DSD128 (since 128 is moar than 64, and moar must be bettar) of this recording. Typical audiophile type of recording mic'd and EQ'd in such a way to sound good on most systems. Basically a variation of weak girl voice + guitar except in this case weak girl voice + piano. There is an emphasis on midrange. Pianos in real life tend to have a lot of bass power. The way the recording is mic'd and EQ's takes away some of this bass power in exchange for clarity of vocals. Absolutely nothing wrong with that - just something to note - although I don't like the mix or the EQ. Personally, I don't think this is great track to assess equipment or formats. It's dynamics and bandwidth limited - doesn't challenge equipment enough.
  
BTW: There's nothing special about this recording - how it's recorded or mastered. That Korg 1-bit AD converter isn't that special either. I've heard better recordings from Harry Belafonte, Harold Faltermeyer, or the London Symphony Orchestra sourced from virgin vinyl ripped to PCM, and then painstakingly cleaned up, EQ'd, i.e. remastered.
  
  
*Playback Setup:*
  

Auralic Vega DAC
Eddie Current Zana Deux (minor mods)
JPS Labs Abyss (minor tweaks)
PC with CPU i7-860 running JRiver Media Center 19 (JRMC19)
Test track: Yamina - Do nothing till you hear from me
 ​
JRMC19 player software can convert PCM to DSD or DSD to PCM in real-time.
  
  
*Observations:*
  

Original DSD128 played back via JRMC19 --2xDoP--> Vega
Converted to 24/44.1 PCM FLAC; then played back via JRMC19 --(real-time 2xDSD "up" conversion 2xDoP) --> Vega DAC
Converted to 24/44.1 PCM FLAC; then played back via JRMC19 --(direct 24/44.1 PCM) --> Vega DAC
Original DSD128 played back via JRMC19 --(real-time 24/176.4 PCM "down" conversion) --> Vega DAC
Converted to 24/44.1 PCM FLAC; then converted to DSD64; then played back via JRMC19 -- (direct DoP) --> Vega DAC
  
(1), (2), (4), and (5) sound exactly the same.
  
(3) sounds a maybe, maybe a teeny teeny teeny bit more murky and hazy and background isn't is black. Way too close to call though. Placebo effect possible.
  
  
*Conclusion:*
  
With this setup:
  

*The notion of DSD being an inherently superior format to PCM would appear to be BS.* the original DSD128 format provides no sonic advantage over a measly down-converted 24/44.1 PCM version of the original, so long as the down-converted 24/44.1 PCM is up-converted to DSD, or 2xDSD before feeding the Vega DAC.
The Vega DAC seems to handle 24/176.4, DSD64, or DSD128 better than 24/44.1, at least to my ears. But even then, it was too close to say anything for certain. DSD and PCM differences if there are any, are just too small. DAC differences, while subtle, are still much easier for me to distinguish.
I still prefer the DSD128 down-converted to 24/88.2 PCM on my two other reference PCM DACs (PWD2 or M7). Less grainy / smoother, more precise imaging, less three blob effect, more natural vocals and timbre (especially on the M7). In other words, provided one can deal with real-time software conversion, DSD compatibility does not and should not be a consideration for a DAC purchase. DSD by itself does have any magickal powers which make lesser DACs into greater or more personally preferred DACs.


----------



## AstralStorm

Oh, someone still posting "bars" for PCM. That is so wrong. It is not bars, it is samples!
 The reconstructed signal is smooth unless zero-order hold is applied, which isn't used in audio devices.
  
 http://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
  
 This video also includes the perfect debunk of the "timing fallacy" where PCM supposedly cannot carry timing information between the samples.
 It can as long as the signal is bandlimited to below half the sampling rate. Which any reasonable ADC does - and microphones have a lowpass built in as well.
 Hey, there are even nearly perfect digital fractional delay filters, as in way below one sample. What they do is spread the signal over a few samples, so that the result is as close to the one moved by that amount. They do cause some lowpassing or are inaccurate (wrong delay) at very high frequencies, as the Nyquist theorem states.
 In DSD, they'd instead vastly worsen the noise floor at high frequencies and/or ring.
  
 DSD has a higher bandwidth limit, however when the bandwidth is increased the noise floor increases considerably, so there's no real gain either.
 Considering SNR, it is worse than a great SAR 96k PCM DAC at high frequencies due to inherent instability of high frequency clocks necessitating noise shaping - which moves the noise from low frequencies where it's more audible to high frequencies where it's less audible.
 And in case of sigma-delta PCM DACs, there's no difference, at all, other than perhaps in the shape of the reconstruction filter - where there should be none. Converting PCM to sigma-delta DSD is the simple part of DAC process - the hard one is actually shaping the resulting signal and controlling the error - as well as clock stability at high frequencies.


----------



## One and a half

Impressive test... of how JRMC works. 
 Fail to see the point of the conversions, when the first test (#1) suffices. 
  
 I don't see the speaker or headphones stated, you missed the imaging of the singer and the piano, this recording is a good test of that.
  
 Piano is not the easiest music to reproduce, it appears that there are deficiencies in your playback chain/room, that makes this recording for you non-challenging, and certainly not enjoyable, which is a classic case of expectation bias.


----------



## kothganesh

one and a half said:


> Impressive test... of how JRMC works.
> Fail to see the point of the conversions, when the first test (#1) suffices.
> 
> I don't see the speaker or headphones stated, you missed the imaging of the singer and the piano, this recording is a good test of that.
> ...


 
 I thought he mentioned he use the Abyss as the HP.....


----------



## Chris J

astralstorm said:


> Oh, someone still posting "bars" for PCM. That is so wrong. It is not bars, it is samples!
> The reconstructed signal is smooth unless zero-order hold is applied, which isn't used in audio devices.
> 
> http://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
> ...




Can you rephrase all this a wee bit better?
It's difficult to follow......


----------



## cizx

chris j said:


> Can you rephrase all this a wee bit better?
> It's difficult to follow......


 
 PCM = good, DSD = meh.  What you think you hear is just expectation bias.
  
 how's that?


----------



## Andrew_WOT

purrin said:


> The Vega DAC *seems to handle 24/176.4, DSD64, or DSD128 better than 24/44.1*, at least to my ears. But even then, it was too close to say anything for certain. DSD and PCM differences if there are any, are just too small. DAC differences, while subtle, are still much easier for me to distinguish.


 
 Good stuff, Marv, what filter mode did you use? 
 For scientific purposes like this should have been 1, it's the flattest, and the same for all sample rates, the others have more treble attenuation effect at 44.1K, that can probably explain .
 Also in DSD filters just cut off ultrasonics, so the effect is completely different than PCM filters.
  
 I honestly did not hear any difference comparing DXD with DSD sample downloads from 2NL, but classical is not the best material for this task.
  
 What I've found interesting in particular that your tests showed 44.1 upsampled to DSD sound same as PCM 176.4.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 And speaking of filters, for PCM and for good recordings I think Mode 2 is the best, it's like slightly sweetened Mode 1, still relatively flat but with very little treble roll-off.
  
 BTW, did you find upsampled in software material sounding in general better with Vega, I think by the way filters are designed that should be the case, haven't played with that myself, yet.


----------



## purrin

one and a half said:


> Impressive test... of how JRMC works.
> Fail to see the point of the conversions, when the first test (#1) suffices.


 

  
 That DSD is no better a format than hires PCM of even 24/44.1.
  


one and a half said:


> Piano is not the easiest music to reproduce, it appears that there are deficiencies in your playback chain/room, that makes this recording for you non-challenging, and certainly not enjoyable, which is a classic case of expectation bias.


 
  
 Piano is difficult to reproduce in the sense that flat frequency response, especially from the low bass to the mids (upper mids) is crucial. Its' very obvious when certain notes are not louder than others on systems with poor frequency response. This is not an issue on the system used above. Piano also as a tendency to waver in terms of stereo image according to note. This was also not an issue. Considering how the piano was mic'd, that would probably not be the case regardless of system. Also Yamina's piano playing is rather flat and lacks power (typical playing style from an audiophile  jazzy chick playing piano). Combined with the how the recording was EQ'd, I wouldn't consider this recording a system stresser or one that helps differentiate equipment. As I've said, it's one of those recordings that tends to sound homogeneously good on all systems.


----------



## cizx

andrew_wot said:


> What I've found interesting in particular that your tests showed 44.1 upsampled to DSD sound same as PCM 176.4.


 
 I think what it showed is that DSD downsampled to 176.4 and to 44.1 sounds the same.  Further evidence, I think, that the source it what matters.  Maybe all this hype about 44.1 being the limit of human hearing has some validity.


----------



## purrin

andrew_wot said:


> I honestly did not hear any difference comparing DXD with DSD sample downloads from 2NL, but classical is not the best material for this task.
> 
> What I've found interesting in particular that your tests showed 44.1 upsampled to DSD sound same as PCM 176.4.


 
  
 I _expected _to find DSD better sounding than PCM 176.4 fed PCM, but did not. This surprised me a bit.
  
 DXD, a format developed so that DSD can be more easily edited, is basically 352.8 PCM ironically. I guess they could have called it 2xPCM176 or PCM352, but that doesn't sound as cool as DXD. And DXD sounds like DSD, so it must be gud.
  
 I have a good number of SACDs and DSD material. Will try more tests.
  


andrew_wot said:


> And speaking of filters, for PCM and for good recordings I think Mode 2 is the best, it's like slightly sweetened Mode 1, still relatively flat but with very little treble roll-off.
> 
> BTW, did you find upsampled in software material sounding in general better with Vega, I think by the way filters are designed that should be the case, haven't played with that myself, yet.


 
  
 I prefer filter 1 all the way even with PCM. I don't want to lose any of the good even if there is some bad. If I get the chance, I'll try 88.2 as well. But in general, I did find upsampling to 176.4 and 352.8 (DXD) to sound better with the Vega. I would probably just leave the JRMC19 settings to real-time convert everything I was playing to DSD to maximize the SQ of the Vega.


----------



## purrin

cizx said:


> I think what it showed is that DSD downsampled to 176.4 and to 44.1 sounds the same.  Further evidence, I think, that the source it what matters.  Maybe all this hype about 44.1 being the limit of human hearing has some validity.


 
  
 Note that I was using 24/44.1 not standard Red Book which is 16/44.1.
  
 I was getting tired last night, but I did feel that reducing bit depth down to 16 bits actually makes a difference. The 16-bit file, when even up-converted back to hires PCM of DSD, had a tendency to sound grainy or more pointed. But again the differences were so small that I can't say for sure.


----------



## schneller

How long until you can add the Yulong DA-8 to your list?


----------



## Radio_head

However quickly it gets done, it will never be quick enough for schneller.


----------



## yfei

purrin said:


> Excellent!
> 
> Have you tried converting to 174 PCM from DSD - similar to #1, but instead of "downsampling" to 44.1, you are converting to 174. I will be posting my own results soon with the Vega as the DAC.


 
  
 Did the DSD live convert to 174 PCM test yesterday.   I can't hear differences.
 In my last post, those differences are very hard to spot.  I can only hear the difference at certain time on a certain day,   and with great effort.     And my phone Senn 580, is not good for this kind of tests.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

What surprised me is that starting with less data (44.1) and just converting it to DSD the result sounded same or close to high res PCM (176.4), not upsampled.


----------



## purrin

LOL, that one was slightly surprising to me.
  
 I didn't think the DSD128 "decimated" to 44.1 and reconverted back to DSD128 would sound _exactly _the same as the original DSD128. I couldn't distinguish between them in sighted tests. I couldn't distinguish between them in single blind tests either (conducted by my wife this morning).


----------



## Chris J

cizx said:


> PCM = good, DSD = meh.  What you think you hear is just expectation bias.
> 
> how's that?




If what I think I hear is just expectation bias, then PCM and DSD sound the same?


----------



## cizx

purrin said:


> Note that I was using 24/44.1 not standard Red Book which is 16/44.1.
> 
> I was getting tired last night, but I did feel that reducing bit depth down to 16 bits actually makes a difference. The 16-bit file, when even up-converted back to hires PCM of DSD, had a tendency to sound grainy or more pointed. But again the differences were so small that I can't say for sure.


 
 Yeah, I went back and saw that after I replied.  Ah well, the quest continues.


----------



## BleaK

Well I sold my DAC1 and went for the X-sabre. Thank you Purrin for answering and helping me, I feel that the Matrix will suit my tastes better then the Gungnir 
  
 Speaking about that, it seems like the Matrix X-sabre got a lot of high grades in another place, but in this thread it got a pretty low ranking. Is that a preference thing? Or is it that you guys weight some attributes more? Like continousness of sound and micro dynamics over blackness or Plankton. Thinking mostly X-sabre vs gungnir now, but seeing the Bifrost ranked over it made me a bit confused.
  
 Edit: If it's a strictly a preference thing then I understand


----------



## purrin

It's a preference thing and why we've been as descriptive as possible about the sound of these DACs without resorting to writing twenty eight paragraphs; twenty one of which are dedicated to regurgitating meaningless specs and marketing doodoo, and five dedicated to the un-boxing process and smell of new gear.
  
 The other place you are referring to compared X-Sabre, PWD2, Gungnir Gen 1 USB, and Invicta. Since the time that of comparison, the Gungnir has improved (along with the Bifrost); and we've heard more stuff which fits in-between. Note how the Invicta took a massive nosedive (to something we don't like.)
  
 Less technically strong DACs than the X-Sabre were rated higher because they did little wrong (rather than excelling in any areas.) All three and a half ninjas (one is a part timer) are to varying extents allergic to the SABRE chip's rendering of treble (two of us have big vinyl collections.) One person I know (not a ninja) threw his X-Sabre out the window because of these treble issues. Many people have no problem at all with the X-Sabre's mid-high treble rendering (I don't think it's that bad.) Many moderns DACs sound like this, so in that sense, the X-Sabre isn't atypical.
  
 Also, #14 is good and should not be considered low ranking. Anything in the "Good Stuff" section or above is good and something I personally would consider owning and listening to.


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> How long until you can add the Yulong DA-8 to your list?


 
  
 It would have to be whenever someone sends it to me. I have no interest in obtaining yet another middle tier Chinese made SABRE DAC. There's too much more interesting stuff at better prices, e.g. Emotiva, which interests me at the moment.


----------



## FredrikT92

For us youths (lol) who are treble shy, a DAC wont make a great "improvement" compared to an amp change?
 With my current setup, especially woman voices, its almost too bright for me, to the point where its almost uncomfertable.


----------



## cizx

fredrikt92 said:


> For us youths (lol) who are treble shy, a DAC wont make a great "improvement" compared to an amp change?
> With my current setup, especially woman voices, its almost too bright for me, to the point where its almost uncomfertable.


 
 It's interesting that that's what you've taken from this thread.
  
 A better dac will make the music better.  A better amp will make the dac better.


----------



## FredrikT92

I'm just asking here cause its an fairly active thread 
 And obviously I have very little knowledge


----------



## cizx

fredrikt92 said:


> I'm just asking here cause its an fairly active thread
> And obviously I have very little knowledge


 
 Read it.  It's a good thread.


----------



## thegunner100

purrin said:


> It would have to be whenever someone sends it to me. I have no interest in obtaining yet another middle tier Chinese made SABRE DAC. There's too much more interesting stuff at better prices, e.g. Emotiva, which interests me at the moment.


 

 If my dc-1 didn't arrive so late due to the new years shipping delay, I would have sent it to you before I returned it.


----------



## hans030390

fredrikt92 said:


> For us youths (lol) who are treble shy, a DAC wont make a great "improvement" compared to an amp change?
> With my current setup, especially woman voices, its almost too bright for me, to the point where its almost uncomfertable.


 
  
 I seem to be sensitive to treble and much prefer a smooth presentation, and I've found the DAC can make a noticeable difference in this regard. It's generally subtler than amp differences, but that subtlety can go a long way during long listening sessions or even in isolated situations (certain recordings or genres).


----------



## purrin

fredrikt92 said:


> For us youths (lol) who are treble shy, a DAC wont make a great "improvement" compared to an amp change?
> With my current setup, especially woman voices, its almost too bright for me, to the point where its almost uncomfertable.


 
  
 With the Mojo and LCD2, you are at the point where DACs will start to matter. I have no idea how the Arcam sounds like so I can't calibrate to your tastes. Maybe the Metrum DACs? Or that might be too much on the laid back side. Supposedly the irDAC is forward sounding.


----------



## Radio_head




----------



## 62ohm

Purrin,
  
 What do you think of the Resonessence Concero compared to the Bifrost Uber? The cost of getting either is roughly the same here in NZ, so I guess they are on the same level.
  
  
 Edit: The Bifrost Uber would be fed through Optical/Coaxial compared to the only-usb Concero.


----------



## purrin

I can't say for sure. I've only heard the Concero briefly. Maxvla and another have said it sounds very similar to the X-Sabre, but with a little less resolving capability. I actually thought the Concero was less SABRE sounding but also flatter in the micro-dynamic sense. But again, I can't say for sure in the absence of a direct comparison using the same equipment and same exact recordings.


----------



## 62ohm

purrin said:


> I can't say for sure. I've only heard the Concero briefly. Maxvla and another have said it sounds very similar to the X-Sabre, but with a little less resolving capability. I actually thought the Concero was less SABRE sounding but also flatter in the micro-dynamic sense. But again, I can't say for sure in the absence of a direct comparison using the same equipment and same exact recordings.


 
  
 So if we classified the Concero as similar to X-Sabre, does that mean the Bifrost Uber would be better?


----------



## purrin

Again, that depends on your preferences. I wasn't wow'd by the Concero, it was more like "hmmm" (not necessarily in a bad way). With the X-Sabre, I was like, "Hey, this is pretty good."
  
 It comes down to how sensitive you are to SABRE treble weirdness which neither the Wolfson based DacMagic 100 or AKM based Modi have (although the Modi tends to sound a bit lean; lacking bass extension and power being powered by wimpy USB - all USB powered DACs I have heard exhibit this wimpy bass behavior.) Then again, to compound the issue, the Concero seems (at least sharing notes from others who have heard it) to have the least SABREish sound of the Ressossence DACs. Just thinking out loud.
  
 If you could clue me in on your reference points regarding Magni, WA3, HD800, AKGQ701 experiences...


----------



## 62ohm

purrin said:


> Again, that depends on your preferences. I wasn't wow'd by the Concero, it was more like "hmmm" (not necessarily in a bad way). With the X-Sabre, I was like, "Hey, this is pretty good."
> 
> It comes down to how sensitive you are to SABRE treble weirdness which neither the Wolfson based DacMagic 100 or AKM based Modi have (although the Modi tends to sound a bit lean; lacking bass extension and power being powered by wimpy USB - all USB powered DACs I have heard exhibit this wimpy bass behavior.) Then again, to compound the issue, the Concero seems (at least sharing notes from others who have heard it) to have the least SABREish sound of the Ressossence DACs. Just thinking out loud.
> 
> If you could clue me in on your reference points regarding Magni, WA3, HD800, AKGQ701 experiences...


 
  
 I actually preferred the Modi over the DM100 to feed the WA3/HD800 combo despite it at times sound a bit weak as you said. The DM100 sounds a bit harsh to me, the treble has more sibilance. For music, I preferred Modi. Movies, DM100.
  
  
 So I guess I'm looking to upgrade my music DAC, as for now I'm content with the DM100 for movies.. I heard the Concero is a very transparent DAC, which is why I'm intrigued. But then, it is a usb-powered DAC, so I guess it might sound weak like the Modi?


----------



## purrin

If you have no major issues with the Modi, I would be hesitant to recommend anything else. I tend to take a very conservative stance toward changing DACs unless you are willing to blow chunks of cash. Most of the time it's a side-grade. But sometimes a side-grade does the trick and gets the final pieces in place.
  
 I can't say I felt the Concero was a very "transparent" DAC. The few times I've heard it, it failed to really move me. That means something is missing. Only the setups in the "Very Good Stuff" (#1 to #5 as of today) and the #8 Auralic Vega are DACs I would consider "transparent", or at least transparent enough - providing enough resolution.
  
 I do honestly think you can be better served by getting a better amp for your HD800s. The WA3 is more likely to be your bottleneck.


----------



## Sanlitun

62ohm said:


> So if we classified the Concero as similar to X-Sabre, does that mean the Bifrost Uber would be better?


 
  
 I still have my Bifrost Uber around in storage and haven't listened to is since I purchased the X-Sabre. I think I am going to get it out and see what you are all talking about.


----------



## purrin

sanlitun said:


> I still have my Bifrost Uber around in storage and haven't listened to is since I purchased the X-Sabre. I think I am going to get it out and see what you are all talking about.


 
  
 Do you have the Gen 1 or Gen 2 USB?


----------



## kothganesh

purrin said:


> Do you have the Gen 1 or Gen 2 USB?


 
 Hi Purrin,
  
 is there a date after which the Gen 1 was replaced by the Gen 2 that you know of ? I bought mine in July 2013 but I've no clue. Any light on this would be welcome. On the other hand, after I bought it, Schiit has not announced any USB upgrades for the Gungnir. So hoping mine is a Gen 2.


----------



## cizx

if you bought it new in June 2013 from Schiit, it's gen 2.


----------



## kothganesh

cizx said:


> if you bought it new in June 2013 from Schiit, it's gen 2.


 
 Thanks.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

radio_head said:


>


 
 Inspired by Powerblock?


----------



## BournePerfect

radio_head said:


>


 
  
 All your bass are belong to us.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## music_man

fishski13 said:


> the HP outs of the BM DAC1 driving the 009 _is_ "wire with gain"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 sorry for off topic but I would like to try this myself.
 this is from the first page. I assume he means stax sr009? so how does he drive them from the hp out which is 1/4"?


----------



## bowtung

Just purchased a Master 7 based on this thread, will be arriving mid-Feb.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Just want to say a big thankyou to purrin for making me drop $2k+ on a dac.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Hopefully I wouldn't have to think about dac upgrade for the next few years.....


----------



## Maxvla

Ah, but did you get the Offramp too?


----------



## bowtung

maxvla said:


> Ah, but did you get the Offramp too?


 
 Nah, I will be purchasing a music server, with i2s output, always wanted to buy one to remove my self from the computer


----------



## wink

Now you need to save up for the dcs stack.....


----------



## bowtung

wink said:


> Now you need to save up for the dcs stack.....


 
 Thats just money down the drain
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






























  
 2k ish the most i think i will spend on any single piece of audio equipment, and i think the law of diminishing returns goes up   exponentially from that point on


----------



## purrin

aive said:


> Hey Purrin are you able to retest the AGD M7 (USB) with the new USB firmware released on AGD's website? Just curious to see if this improves the DACs USB performance to a significantly higher level such that a transport isn't as required


 
  
 One thing I suddenly realized is that I may have not have even heard the second to latest firmware (2013 V 2.9) for USB. I purchased my M7 new in September 2013, and my USB evaluation of the M7 was probably that of an earlier USB version, possibly 1.1 or 1.12 (it was on loaner from another Head-Fi'er.) The AGD M7 USB impressions in the rankings were based on the earlier 1.1 or 1.12 version since I never bothered seriously listening to my own M7, which would have been the 2.0 (2013). It's quite possible that the 2.0 version on my unit sounded better than then 1.1 or 1.12 versions.
  
 As of about a week ago, firmware 2014V2 was released. So this time around, I compared the 2014V2 to the 2013V2 and I can say the sound quality is slightly better. The image isn't as flat, and mostly, the overall tone is better without the treble stridency I remember from the 1.1 or 1.12 version. The USB is still bassier, thicker, and slower compared to the OR5, but it isn't as "lazy" as it sounded before. USB still has compressed microdynamics and a slight haze - typical of USB. The important thing is that the tone is better with slightly better depth. The M7 coax (from the OR5 or even my PC mobo out) still sounds better to me though.
  
 I'll directly compare M7 USB 2014V4 vs the Uberfrost Gen 2 USB and see which one I like better. We'll see how much the M7 USB moves up. Give me a week though.


----------



## schneller

Purrin: I keep sticking the TEAC to you. I keep reading positive reviews about it with you being the only outlier.
  
 Would you be willing to re-test with USB instead of coax?


----------



## music_man

a lot of people that actually have the teac don't like it. it is really good for the money I think with usb. I shied away from it because I only use coax. if we are speaking of the same one it is half the price of other brand name dsd dacs and not half the performance I am told.
  
 btw, I still would like to know how I plug the sr009 into a 1/4" jack!


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> I keep reading positive reviews about it with you being the only outlier.
> 
> Would you be willing to re-test with USB instead of coax?


 

  
 I know of two MOTs who purchased the TEAC. To this day, they lie unused. You'll have to page back and find the photo evidence. As far as reviews from Audiostream, is there anything they don't like there which hasn't received their "Greatest Bits" award?
  
 Maybe.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

purrin said:


> andrew_wot said:
> 
> 
> > And speaking of filters, for PCM and for good recordings I think Mode 2 is the best, it's like slightly sweetened Mode 1, still relatively flat but with very little treble roll-off.
> ...


 
 How about DSD, do you use default Mode 6 with 50K cut-off or 5 with 70K? 
 Could be a placebo but after using foobar2000 for so many years and trying JRiver for just a week I quickly switched over, for once DSD playback is much smoother when changing tracks, and to my ears sounds less digital (DSD) on both Yulong DA-8 and Vega. After discovering and playing with all media streaming options and ability to play BD, I was sold completely. There is active $10 off coupon http://www.jriver.com/critical_error_16.html?error=21.


----------



## Sopranino

Am curious about the Musical Surroundings MyDAC II.  
  
 CONS: It can't go above 192 sample rate, and that's only via SDPIF.  The USB can't go above 44.1
  
 PROS:  The design allows future upgradability but the strength of this new technology is the unmatched “analog-like” sound it creates with existing Redbook CD, compressed digital music files such as MP3, and internet music sources.  
  
 WHATEVS: It is delta-sigma TI 1798.  Price is $1200
  
 http://www.a.musicalsurroundings.com/mus_surr_pgs/mslsurr_mydacII.html
  
 If Deezer makes it to the US, this thing will be hard to resist.


----------



## yfei

You found all the Sabre based DACs you have tried share the same high freq issue.    But if there is a chance to try DA8, I hope you can take it.    
  
 Because:
 1) I remember another post in another thread, the author mentioned he tried few Sabre DACs and found highs are unreal,    but he found DA8 doesn't have this issue,  the highs are 'real' again.
So maybe all other manufactures are wrong, and only Yulong did a correct Sabre implementation 





2)  I am just curious to see where DA8 will fall into your ranking     
  
 Quote:


purrin said:


> It's whatever I can get my hands on or what friends bring over to my house or ship to me. I don't think any manufacturer in their right mind would ever send anything willingly to me after reading of some of the things I've written. It's just too much of a risk. It's standard practice for manufacturers send stuff to people who will only write praise or who are willing to receive gifts, discounts, etc. The only two manufacturers who have dared send stuff to me without _any_ preconditions are Schiit and JPS Labs, and only at my asking.


----------



## schneller

Second this motion!
  
 SOMEONE PLEASE PURRIN A YA8!!!


----------



## Radio_head

Purrin is out on vacation but will soon be back and it will be time for the Yulong.


----------



## music_man

we all know what this thread was originally titled. perhaps it offended some people. I have no idea why it changed. anyways what I have found is dsd and 24/192 pcm sound about the same to me on a good pcm recording. with a dsd recording dsd sounds better. how many dsd recordings are there? um, let me count. the other area where dsd is better is to clean up a crummy mp3. mp3 converted to dsd sounds better than played back through pcm. now if one has a good cd transport over coax that is just going to be the best. at least for me. I am debating if I will take back my usb cable. the reason I am posting this is because dsd is the fotm. every dac has it now. I would not let it be a selling point because I think it is going to go the way of the dodo bird(again). once the licensing and everything fails it is done for the second time. we forgot about this for like 10 years, now we are doing it again? I am not bashing. I am just saying I would not let it be a selling point. I strongly suggest you purchase your dac based on the pcm you like best.


----------



## Rawrbington

i noticed most were talked about with USB.
 is this meaning the USB input is better than the coax/spdif?


----------



## thathertz

music_man said:


> we all know what this thread was originally titled. perhaps it offended some people. I have no idea why it changed. anyways what I have found is dsd and 24/192 pcm sound about the same to me on a good pcm recording. with a dsd recording dsd sounds better. how many dsd recordings are there? um, let me count. the other area where dsd is better is to clean up a crummy mp3. mp3 converted to dsd sounds better than played back through pcm. now if one has a good cd transport over coax that is just going to be the best. at least for me. I am debating if I will take back my usb cable. the reason I am posting this is because dsd is the fotm. every dac has it now. I would not let it be a selling point because I think it is going to go the way of the dodo bird(again). once the licensing and everything fails it is done for the second time. we forgot about this for like 10 years, now we are doing it again? I am not bashing. I am just saying I would not let it be a selling point. I strongly suggest you purchase your dac based on the pcm you like best.


 
  
 Your post started well with respect to DSD but can you really say that MP3 converted to DSD is better? For a start there is no point doing that conversion.
 Why would you try and convert from a very low quality format to one of the highest quality formats? You can't gain information in the conversion. At best you could say that conversion to DSD smooths out the compression commonly found in such MP3 tracks. But...that would be wrong. DSD is one of the highest quality formats available. There is a lot of debate regarding DSD (in its various forms) against HI-REZ PCM (again its various forms)......You can't bring MP3 into this arena.....sorry but it has no place here! MP3 to DSD should yield the same result. You need to look at the audio chain you used to arrive by this assumption.


----------



## music_man

okay you know audio is open to a ton of interpretation and preference. a lot of it has no technical explanation like cables for instance. I swear, to my ears it makes mp3 sound better. I mean I think it takes 320kbps mp3 and makes it sound nearly like redbook. I know this is impossible but so are a lot of other things we do. hey, it's my ears. for the record I will say this is not technically correct but I know what I personally hear. I was like darn, that made the mp3 sound pretty good. I have no rhyme or reason for this but my own ears tell me different. as for the rest of the dsd debate I don't know. different tracks sound better with different settings/resolutions/formats. I will say native dsd files to me are like insane. the best. there are so few it is a shame. incredibly my cdp can send dsd over coax! the problem is my dac cannot read dsd over coax afaik. because I do have some sacds. but I don't think I can rip them, due to copy protection and I don't wish to break the law.


----------



## 62ohm

Purrin,
  
 How would you rank the Arcam rDac compared to the Uber Bifrost? Thanks


----------



## Sanlitun

purrin said:


> Do you have the Gen 1 or Gen 2 USB?


 
  
 It's the Gen 2. I had it packed away last summer and hadn't had a chance to listen to it since. I had not heard it with my newer rig and I never compared it against the X-Sabre.
  
 After listening to both over the past few days it seems the comparison has really shown me the shortcomings of both DACs and has made me a bit itchy to look for something new. 
  
 I can see why you like the Bifrost and rate it over the X-Sabre, it does have a togetherness to the sound that is what I would say is the Schiit house sound. Rock sounds great on it and overall it is consistently pleasant. The music sounds like it should and there is no struggle to get a good sound from it. On the negative side it does have a bit of a greyness to it and it doesn't offer many surprises. I don't think you will ever fall out of your chair listening to the Bifrost. If there are surprises to be had it is with hi-res tracks where it often sounds better than it's price. 
  
 I bought the X-Sabre because I was intrigued by it's hella block of metal construction after seeing some pics of it in reviews. For me this is exactly what you want in a DAC, as every LCD screen, built in amp or other add on is just going to add noise. For me a brick of metal with nothing but an on switch seems fine, and the X-Sabre does have a fantastic non-existent noise background due to this. I couldn't care less about DSD (someone else in this thread said it was "compressed PCM" which seems right to me) and there are maybe only two or three DSD titles that I listen to as their mastering is better than their PCM counterparts. I could move over to a PCM only DAC and never look back, and really that is what I want, a DAC that excels with 16/44 and up PCM.
  
 But yeah, the treble on the X-Sabre can be a little bit of a problem, and the issue is brought to the forefront in comparison to the sweetness of the Bifrost. As well, the X-Sabre has a bit of an artificial quality to the soundstage, almost as if it is being DSP processed. It's like the designers thought more soundstage means higher end and tried to go as far as they could. This can all become a bit fatiguing, whereas with the Bifrost you can listen all day.
  
 When the X-Sabre is sweet, it can be quite something though. And where I am at with it now is doing a bit of taming by switching out power cords and interconnects etc. I suppose I am finding that the X-Sabre has more raw potential than the Bifrost and it is remaining in my system for now.
  
 I think that what I would like to hear is a well constructed and refined AKM4399 DAC. Something that takes the Bifrost sound to a higher and cleaner level.


----------



## Maxvla

Hm.. even with the king of soundstage, the HD800, I don't find the X-Sabre's soundstage attributes fatiguing. It's the least fatiguing DAC I've heard yet. Laid back but still highly detailed at the same time. I don't know how it manages.


----------



## blasjw

sanlitun said:


> ...
> I think that what I would like to hear is a well constructed and refined AKM4399 DAC. Something that takes the Bifrost sound to a higher and cleaner level.


 
  
 Sounds like what you're looking for is the Gungnir.


----------



## BleaK

maxvla said:


> Hm.. even with the king of soundstage, the HD800, I don't find the X-Sabre's soundstage attributes fatiguing. It's the least fatiguing DAC I've heard yet. Laid back but still highly detailed at the same time. I don't know how it manages.


 

 This is my impression as well. Loving the soundstage with x-sabre and HD800 so far!


----------



## Sanlitun

blasjw said:


> Sounds like what you're looking for is the Gungnir.


 
  
 I've never heard the Gungnir, but I had thought it might not be that big of a difference from the Bifrost?
  
 I know the Bryston BDA-2 uses this same chipset and also has a XMOS USB interface, but it's also much more expensive. So much so you could buy a Gungnir and a top of the line USB to S/PDIF converter like the Audiophilleo to go with it. We do have a Bryston dealer here so maybe I will get a chance to demo the BDA-2.


----------



## blasjw

sanlitun said:


> I've never heard the Gungnir, but I had thought it might not be that big of a difference from the Bifrost?
> 
> I know the Bryston BDA-2 uses this same chipset and also has a XMOS USB interface, but it's also much more expensive. So much so you could buy a Gungnir and a top of the line USB to S/PDIF converter like the Audiophilleo to go with it. We do have a Bryston dealer here so maybe I will get a chance to demo the BDA-2.


 
  
 Ah o-k, cool.  I couldn't think of any DACs other than Gungnir that use AKM4399.  I'm not sure how Gungnir compares to Bifrost myself but I think with the Uber USB upgrade, the Bifrost has the same USB circuit as Gungnir.  As far as SPDIF converters go, I hear the Yellowtec Puck 2 Lite is supposed to be pretty good.


----------



## music_man

24/192 via something like off ramp or even a soundcard is better than usb at 32/384. i doubted it would be. i have to go kick myself. i don't know why everything is usb now.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

music_man said:


> 24/192 via something like off ramp or even a soundcard is better than usb at 32/384. i doubted it would be. i have to go kick myself. i don't know why everything is usb now.


 
 You probably haven't heard any decent USB implementations. Off-ramp is USB too, but you know that.


----------



## Glam Bash

Was the PS audio PWD used with balanced outputs only? Can anyone give a comparison of the sound versus the single-ended outputs? Some of us are not fully balanced around here.


----------



## m2man

My ZDSE has more detail than my Mjolnir so SE on the PWD isn't anything to worry about as far as I can tell. Tough to find something to do a fair comparison on.


----------



## music_man

I just heard the off ramp at a store. isn't a device that takes usb and transforms it to spdif? I did not think it sent usb all the way to the dac? I am sorry I don't know this.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

music_man said:


> I just heard the off ramp at a store. isn't a device that takes usb and transforms it to spdif? I did not think it sent usb all the way to the dac? I am sorry I don't know this.


 
 And this is exactly what USB DACs receivers do internally, converting usb to spdif or i2s. Didn't know there are any B&M stores selling off ramps.


----------



## rnadell

andrew_wot said:


> And this is exactly what USB DACs receivers do internally, converting usb to spdif or i2s. Didn't know there are any B&M stores selling off ramps.


 
 Please excuse my ignorance but what a off ramps?? Thanks


----------



## music_man

it is exactly what Andrew just said it is lol. i did not know this either. thank you Andrew. so how does it do dsd over spdif? i did not think most dacs could accept a dsd input signal on spdif? i am sure i am missing something again duh. at the store it was the owners own piece. he likes to speak highly of anything good. btw, i know what some of you think about dsd so if it doesn't do it i am not disappointed. i am guessing this is like a high end usb soundblaster(duh again). i am also guessing it is a better investment than the isubpower and gemini. more money as well. then again if a dac has good usb implementation and you use the isub stuff i really don't know. i don't know about plugging anything into a motherboard either. does not seem good.  i hope someone sets me straight here!


----------



## 3daudio

rnadell said:


> Please excuse my ignorance but what a off ramps?? Thanks


 

 You spent to much time in the woods....eer your backyard.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Off-ramp is a usb-spdif converter, a ddc (digital-digital converter), an interface....


----------



## stainless824

glam bash said:


> Was the PS audio PWD used with balanced outputs only? Can anyone give a comparison of the sound versus the single-ended outputs? Some of us are not fully balanced around here.




I use mine with an ayre ax-7e and kef ls50 speakers. 

The balanced output is leagues better than the single ended when used on the same amp, but the ax7e is a fully balanced design and works best in balanced anyway. Unsure about SE amps only


----------



## Glam Bash

Thanks for the input guys. Interesting with the zana deux se vs. the mjolnir.


----------



## stainless824

glam bash said:


> Thanks for the input guys. Interesting with the zana deux se vs. the mjolnir.


 
 depends on the headphones. Zana's on general principle would work well with the high impedance sennheisers whereas the mjolnir pairs well with Audezes.
  
 Have you considered adding the BHA-1 to your list? Its a worthy mention- poor man's gs-x. Sounds great to boot with Planars


----------



## Glam Bash

I'm pretty happy with the amps I have(actually tickled pink) and the headphones are not conducive to swapping cables, but never say never right?


----------



## purrin

glam bash said:


> Was the PS audio PWD used with balanced outputs only? Can anyone give a comparison of the sound versus the single-ended outputs? Some of us are not fully balanced around here.


 
  
 PWD2 was fed balanced into the Mojo and singled ended into the S7. I've never heard a reliably discernible difference between the balanced and SE outputs of the PWD2 with amps (BA, Mjolnir, etc.) that offered both inputs. Maybe a bit more detail or resolution, but that's about it. But still in the same league. In other words, a PWD2 single ended is still more resolving than most of the other DACs in the comparo.


----------



## futurecity

What would be a significant upgrade from the Gungnir with a similar sound presentation (i.e, musical)?  Would the NAD51 be worth upgrading to?  Or do I need to get into Ayre/Berkely/PWD territory?  
  
 I'm also wondering why the Ayre QB-9 DSD is not on the list.


----------



## 62ohm

Purrin,
  
 Good to see you're back. May I ask what do you think about how does the Bifrost Uber compares against Arcam rDac?


----------



## kothganesh

futurecity said:


> What would be a significant upgrade from the Gungnir with a similar sound presentation (i.e, musical)?  Would the NAD51 be worth upgrading to?  Or do I need to get into Ayre/Berkely/PWD territory?
> 
> I'm also wondering why the Ayre QB-9 DSD is not on the list.


 
 I have the Gungnir and very briefly heard the NAD. IMO, the NAD would be a side grade at best with a few extras thrown in (like HDMI). I had the same idea that you have ("upgrading to the NAD") but changed my mind.


----------



## music_man

well, as long as your name is not purrin you know what I will recommend. with some mods it brings down the house. stock I feel it is better than the nad already. the pwd is very good to.at that price. md has some demos for sale. the bm dac2 is better than the nad imo. looking at the nad price and no dsd there is the McIntosh and bryston. both pretty good. that is if you are just against my choice.


----------



## elmoe

Nevermind


----------



## olor1n

kothganesh said:


> futurecity said:
> 
> 
> > What would be a significant upgrade from the Gungnir with a similar sound presentation (i.e, musical)?  Would the NAD51 be worth upgrading to?  Or do I need to get into Ayre/Berkely/PWD territory?
> ...


 
  
 Must've been VERY brief for you to conclude the M51 as a side grade. For some, differences between dacs are minute and aren't immediately apparent. How brief was your very brief exposure? And what other components did you have in the chain?
  
 For me the M51 was a significant improvement over the Gungnir. Depends on your preference I guess. purrin is a masochist and enjoys the loud and domineering character of the Gungnir. The M51 is much more musical in that it actually allows me to enjoy my tunes without obsessing about the flaws that detract from the experience. YMMV, IMO, WTFBBQ, ETC....
  
  
 edit: this is all probably moot though. Apparently the NAD is like $1000000000000000 in markets outside Australia. You could probably just sponsor your fave musicians to live with you and play live music at your whim for that price.


----------



## kothganesh

olor1n said:


> Must've been VERY brief for you to conclude the M51 as a side grade. For some, differences between dacs are minute and aren't immediately apparent. How brief was your very brief exposure? And what other components did you have in the chain?
> 
> For me the M51 was a significant improvement over the Gungnir. Depends on your preference I guess. purrin is a masochist and enjoys the loud and domineering character of the Gungnir. The M51 is much more musical in that it actually allows me to enjoy my tunes without obsessing about the flaws that detract from the experience. YMMV, IMO, WTFBBQ, ETC....
> 
> ...


 
 I heard it for all of three days. So take it for what that's worth. I use the Gungnir/Mjolinir stack and if anything, I would expect the Mojo to be the domineering one. Second, I am not good to pick detect minute differences between DACs unless there is an obvious step up/down. In that sense, I can live with either the Gungnir or the M51 and find no need to chase the other one. I was offered the NAD for 2 grand so it is still reachable


----------



## futurecity

What do you recommend?


----------



## purrin

futurecity said:


> What would be a significant upgrade from the Gungnir with a similar sound presentation (i.e, musical)?  Would the NAD51 be worth upgrading to?  Or do I need to get into Ayre/Berkely/PWD territory?
> 
> I'm also wondering why the Ayre QB-9 DSD is not on the list.


 
  
  
 M51 would not necessarily be an upgrade from the Gungnir, but it could do certain things that you happen to like better depending upon your tastes (which I do not know) or not. M51's presentation is really different from Gungnir. Gungnir is warmer and sounds like a rock concert. M51 has more finesse and resolution but with some slight artificiality in the last octave.
  
 It also depends upon what you mean by musical.
  
 I have not heard the Ayre QB-9. That is why it is not on the list.


----------



## futurecity

Thanks. I think I'll keep the Gungnir for now then, I like a warmer sound.
  
  Would the Mjolnir used as a preamp for active monitors (Focal) improve or degrade the sound out of the Gungnir? How would it change the sound?  I could also look at a tube pre, but I'm not sure my budget would allow for that.  A used Mjolnir is about all I can manage right now.  I also may get into headphones seriously in the near future which would be a plus but I am not sure yet.
  
  I'm asking because I have only the digital volume control in JRiver right now as the speaker's have no centralized volume control (which is a pain).


----------



## olor1n

Gungnir warmer than the M51? And the NAD with artificial highs? Your impressions are the exact opposite of mine. Other than the shouty and compressed dynamics, the colder, hard edge and more artificial nature of the Gungnir is what prompted me to abandon it in favour of the M51. Lol, are you certain your notes weren't mixed up? Either that or the NAD's firmware revisions really do have a significant effect on its sq.


----------



## wink

Perhaps, he wears his ears back-to-front. (Attempt at humour).


----------



## futurecity

I'm not getting this cold, hard edged nature from my Gungnir.


----------



## purrin

olor1n said:


> Gungnir warmer than the M51? And the NAD with artificial highs? Your impressions are the exact opposite of mine. Other than the shouty and compressed dynamics, the colder, hard edge and more artificial nature of the Gungnir is what prompted me to abandon it in favour of the M51. Lol, are you certain your notes weren't mixed up? Either that or the NAD's firmware revisions really do have a significant effect on its sq.


 
  
 Artificial sounding highs (note that I didn't say nasty or edgy highs) was a reference to the timbre of the last octave. I actually feel the M51 has a silkier (but not necessarily correct or realistic) treble sound than the Gungnir. Despite the silkiness, I still sense a fine fine grain. The Gungnir's rendering is simply more continuous, more liquid to me. I do agree the Gungnir's attack has more edge and is less blunted; and I know a few have felt the Gungnir was too forward sounding with too much upper-mid emphasis. But I've never had this issue with any of the associated gear. Yes, the Gungnir is going to give you the bite of snares or trumpets. It's not going to sound laid back. Some have said the Gungnir and HD800 is a bad mix. Maybe. But it's been a long time since I've owned the HD800. There's a reason why I don't own the HD800 anymore, and when I did, it was always with mods to tone down the 6kHz peak and on up. (Emphasis in 5-6k region tends to add edge or hardness to recordings.)
  
 In terms of warmth, this was in reference to tonal aspects of the bass and lower mids. The Gungnir is one of the warmer DACs I've heard. (Maybe warm and aggressive at the same time, but I wouldn't describe the Gungnir as a cold sounding DAC.) The M51 was pretty darn neutral to me. I found the Gen 2 USB to render microdynamics better than the Gen 1 USB or even coax SPDIF from all sources I've tried. The M51 had superior microdynamics and microdetail rendering. The Gungnir tends to drop off the quietest sounds or compress them upward slightly. The M51 tends to compress things overall more, especially the loudest sounds. To get the same feel as my references, I kind of felt that I needed to turn the volume button up and down really really fast on the M51 constantly with the music. With the Gungnir, especially with Gen 2 USB not so much. Gungnir definitely has more slam and attack throughout the band - probably the most of any DAC in the list.


----------



## olor1n

Cold was a bad term. I just meant that comparatively the Gungnir seems more artificial. Its attack to me is overemphasised and its upper registers lacks the smoothness of the NAD. It's less "silky", less natural and "cold" in the sense that I found it less inviting.
  
 Your other points are spot on though. If your description of the Gungnir's warmth stems from its low end presence and slam then I agree. This is actually one aspect of the Gugnir that I miss at times. That's not to say the M51's bass rendition is wanting, just that at times it can be a tad too rounded. The best aspect of the Gungnir's attack and leading edge emphasis is the delineation of bass instruments.
  
 But for me the NAD's transition from the midband to the smoother and extended upper registers distracted less than the hardness and grain I found in the Gungnir's rendition of this region. Could be that my appreciation of the Gungnir's bass and simultaneous issue with its forward upper register gave the impression of a V signature and its mid body was overlooked as a result. Hence the "cold" and "artificial" descriptors.


----------



## doctorcilantro

Not one owner of a Vega DAC has spoken about the "grain" you guys "report". Interesting that AudioGD has *two *DACs in your top list. I'd seriously take this whole "report" with a *large *grain of salt and does of chocolate ice cream. Where do you, and your ninjas, find this grain the most evident in the treble? Any concrete examples?
  
 in your profile you discuss "I'm mostly back to speakers now.". Well did you test these DACs on speakers?
  
 The two top DACs are DACs you own, or have decided to keep....maybe you have an affinity with their sonic signature?
  
 The whole effort strikes me as pointless...and suspect.


----------



## Maxvla

There's only one Audio GD DAC in the entire list.


----------



## doctorcilantro

I see but why does one DAC get extra treatment?
  
 I'm not the one jumping, read the thread, folks stating they won't listen for themselves....


----------



## Maxvla

More than one DAC is featured in different arrangements. You keep jumping to conclusions without even making sure you are correct in your statements. Not going to bother with your rants.


----------



## Argo Duck

I imagine the grain found is the very grain of salt you mention!

But really, you've been around here long enough to know better. All "reports" as you put it have inherent limitations, for reasons I suspect you're familiar with. And strengths. In this case, Purrin and his group employ a method that - overall - combines objective and subjective forms of test. It's very interesting, and worth taking seriously. Or not. Your choice.

To dismiss it in haste as you seem to here, as you've failed to raise any substantive points...well again, your choice. But in that case why not pass on by? Your "whole effort [or lack of it] strikes me as pointless...and suspect.".



doctorcilantro said:


> Not one owner of a Vega DAC has spoken about the "grain" you guys "report". Interesting that AudioGD has *two* DACs in your top list. I'd seriously take this whole "report" with a *large* grain of salt and does of chocolate ice cream. Where do you, and your ninjas, find this grain the most evident in the treble? Any concrete examples?
> 
> in your profile you discuss "I'm mostly back to speakers now.". Well did you test these DACs on speakers?
> 
> ...


----------



## bowtung

doctorcilantro said:


> I see but why does one DAC get extra treatment?
> 
> I'm not the one jumping, read the thread, folks stating they won't listen for themselves....


 
 Extra treatment to make it rank worse? he could've simply put master 7 in rank 1 and leave out all those extra treatments. I find this one of the better reviews in head-fi, there simply are too much reviews with manufacturers offering rebates/gifts/etc...(of course there's a possibility, but we as consumers just have to buy logically)
  
 Of course everyone hears differently, and this review is based subjectively on what purrin hears, that's it, nothing more, nothing less...
 He also mentioned there are pros and cons even if one ranks better.
  
 Its really not cool to just simply say something is pointless when the reviewer simply did put in a lot of effort to make these ranks.


----------



## elmoe

Still, this review is not really complete as I would like to have heard his thoughts on the BM DAC1 with the USB converter since it supposedly beats the Gamma 2.
  
 In fact the majority of the mid-range priced DACs were only tested using USB which is detrimental to their ranking to say the least. I would also have liked to see how the Lavry, the NAD, the Schiit DACs and the Lynx fared when used with a USB converter. If you consider the difference in prices between the top DACs on his list as opposed to the midrange one, having a go at them with a USB converter seems relevant.
  
 Seems to me the more expensive DACs in this list were tested more thoroughly, and with more settings. 4 out of the top 5 were tested with the OR5, yet the DACs supposed to benefit the most from a USB converter seemed to have been ignored and worse - used only in USB mode. Or did I misread something?


----------



## doctorcilantro

bowtung said:


> Extra treatment to make it rank worse? he could've simply put master 7 in rank 1 and leave out all those extra treatments. I find this one of the better reviews in head-fi, there simply are too much reviews with manufacturers offering rebates/gifts/etc...(of course there's a possibility, but we as consumers just have to buy logically)
> 
> Of course everyone hears differently, and this review is based subjectively on what purrin hears, that's it, nothing more, nothing less...
> He also mentioned there are pros and cons even if one ranks better.
> ...


 
  
 I'd rather read a sixmoons review than this one. At least they mention reference actual music when getting subjective. Sorry, I'm not trying be cool, just saying this is a wholly subjective review, and not very objective. I don't see any loopbacks with ADCs for example. It's *completely *subjective. Did they try to ABX the DACs? How many ninjas preferred what vs. what. Who is the "we"? How many people were involved in this review?
  
 The review was no doubt a lot of work, but I have the right to call ********, and call into question the results which ultimately don't mean much to me. Next time I'll just bite my tongue and keep the rant off.


----------



## blitzxgene

elmoe said:


> Still, this review is not really complete as I would like to have heard his thoughts on the BM DAC1 with the USB converter since it supposedly beats the Gamma 2.
> 
> In fact the majority of the mid-range priced DACs were only tested using USB which is detrimental to their ranking to say the least. I would also have liked to see how the Lavry, the NAD, the Schiit DACs and the Lynx fared when used with a USB converter. If you consider the difference in prices between the top DACs on his list as opposed to the midrange one, having a go at them with a USB converter seems relevant.
> 
> Seems to me the more expensive DACs in this list were tested more thoroughly, and with more settings. 4 out of the top 5 were tested with the OR5, yet the DACs supposed to benefit the most from a USB converter seemed to have been ignored and worse - used only in USB mode. Or did I misread something?


 
  
 I not 100% on this, but several of the dac listed are no longer in house for comparison (person who owned said dac sold it, returned, etc.) and he did not have the OR5 on had at the time. As for most dacs using the built in usb, I think he said that was mostly done for convenience/ didn't have an OR5/ OR5 didn't improve it much/etc (gungnir doesn't scale much). I'd say most of the dacs simply aren't there anymore to test, so he's going off of what he remembers. As for the top dacs being favored, the OR5 was made for the pwd2, so it makes sense to show how much it can be improved. Master 7 wasn't, but just generally sounds worse without it(a converter) and has ridiculous scaling based on the transport (which is both a good and bad thing). The more expensive dacs are also the ones that he most likely didn't just toss out because they are so capable for _his preferences_. 
  


doctorcilantro said:


> I'd rather read a sixmoons review than this one. At least they mention reference actual music when getting subjective. Sorry, I'm not trying be cool, just saying this is a wholly subjective review, and not very objective. I don't see any loopbacks with ADCs for example. It's *completely *subjective. Did they try to ABX the DACs? How many ninjas preferred what vs. what. Who is the "we"? How many people were involved in this review?
> 
> The review was no doubt a lot of work, but I have the right to call ********, and call into question the results which ultimately don't mean much to me. Next time I'll just bite my tongue and keep the rant off.


 
  
 It's been mentioned that the rankings are the averaged opinions of the ninjas, so I'd expect each ninjas personal list to look quite different. As for ABX, I believe most of these dacs were listened to for many weeks if not months at a time by each respective owner before comparisons. I'm not sure if every owner of each dac is a ninja though. And yeah the whole thing is subjective as is every review without measurements/graphs/pie charts. But measurements can be misleading in some cases (bm dac1). These reviews should be viewed as opinions and not perfect truths. Test for yourself instead of following whatever the **** sixmoons is ranting on about. Or don't.


----------



## elmoe

blitzxgene said:


> I not 100% on this, but several of the dac listed are no longer in house for comparison (person who owned said dac sold it, returned, etc.) and he did not have the OR5 on had at the time. As for most dacs using the built in usb, I think he said that was mostly done for convenience/ didn't have an OR5/ OR5 didn't improve it much/etc (gungnir doesn't scale much). I'd say most of the dacs simply aren't there anymore to test, so he's going off of what he remembers. As for the top dacs being favored, the OR5 was made for the pwd2, so it makes sense to show how much it can be improved. Master 7 wasn't, but just generally sounds worse without it(a converter) and has ridiculous scaling based on the transport (which is both a good and bad thing). The more expensive dacs are also the ones that he most likely didn't just toss out because they are so capable for _his preferences_.


 
  
 Well, testing for convenience is not testing if the mid range DACs have noticeably worse sound using USB, and noticeably MUCH better sound using the OR5. It basically contradicts ranking them at all... Anyway, I'll buy a USB/SPDIF converter and test things out on my DAC1 myself.


----------



## thegunner100

> ~Note on OR5 USB Converter: With some exceptions (because of time / effort limitations), if we felt the OR5 didn't improve a DAC significantly enough to change its ranking, we didn't bother with it. The OR5 only improves certain specific aspects of DACs, and even then it can only do so much based on the limitations of the DAC. The few DACs I wished we had a chance to try the OR5 on were the Lavry, M51, Luxman, Gamma2. The Gamma2 would have mainly been out of curiosity since it's DIY and usually obtainable used for a little over two hundred dollars. In any event, only the top three DACs, the Alpha, PWD2, and especially M7, improved significantly with the use of the OR5.


 
 Please read the WHOLE post before jumping to conclusions. Honestly, does it even make sense to buy a OR5 for a mid-range dac that costs less than the converter itself?


----------



## elmoe

thegunner100 said:


> Please read the WHOLE post before jumping to conclusions. Honestly, does it even make sense to buy a OR5 for a mid-range dac that costs less than the converter itself?


 
 I'm not jumping to any conclusion, I read this part, and it says he WISHED he couldve tried it with many DACs but didnt. There are other USB/SPDIF converter that cost 100-200 bucks, the point isn't to use the OR5 specifically but to see if a USB/SPDIF makes other mid range DACs better.
  
 So next time please read my WHOLE posts before YOU jump to conclusions.


----------



## blitzxgene

elmoe said:


> Well, testing for convenience is not testing if the mid range DACs have noticeably worse sound using USB, and noticeably MUCH better sound using the OR5. It basically contradicts ranking them at all... Anyway, I'll buy a USB/SPDIF converter and test things out on my DAC1 myself.


 
  
 Make sure to post the differences when you get around to it. You could also send it to purrin to have tested with the OR5, to see how it would rank comparatively. And I don't think the posting of the usb impressions is contradictory as it's becoming a very common connection, and considering every dac listed is compared via usb. I already know i'd use only usb at this point (although not everyone does), so it's nice to see how different implementations fair. You also have to consider that the OR5 is really quite expensive relative to many of the "good stuff" dacs, so it doesn't make as much sense to spend so much on the converter. Anyway,
  
 "*Note on OR5 USB Converter:* With some exceptions (because of time / effort limitations), if we felt the OR5 didn't improve a DAC significantly enough to change its ranking, we didn't bother with it. The OR5 only improves certain specific aspects of DACs, and even then it can only do so much based on the limitations of the DAC. The few DACs I wished we had a chance to try the OR5 on were the Lavry, M51, Luxman, Gamma2. The Gamma2 would have mainly been out of curiosity since it's DIY and usually obtainable used for a little over two hundred dollars. In any event, only the top three DACs, the Alpha, PWD2, and especially M7, improved significantly with the use of the OR5."
  
 Pretty sure the OR5 wasn't there or the sound didn't change much with his denon during bm dac1 testing.
  
 (edit: Most usb converters beneath the audiophilleo level are ****. The audio-gd converters might be an exception with the newest firmwares, but kingwa doesn't sell them anymore. I'm still waiting on purrins impressions of the M7 usb with the newest drivers.)


----------



## elmoe

blitzxgene said:


> Make sure to post the differences when you get around to it. You could also send it to purrin to have tested with the OR5, to see how it would rank comparatively. And I don't think the posting of the usb impressions is contradictory as it's becoming a very common connection, and considering every dac listed is compared via usb. I already know i'd use only usb at this point (although not everyone does), so it's nice to see how different implementations fair. You also have to consider that the OR5 is really quite expensive relative to many of the "good stuff" dacs, so it doesn't make as much sense to spend so much on the converter. Anyway,
> 
> "*Note on OR5 USB Converter:* With some exceptions (because of time / effort limitations), if we felt the OR5 didn't improve a DAC significantly enough to change its ranking, we didn't bother with it. The OR5 only improves certain specific aspects of DACs, and even then it can only do so much based on the limitations of the DAC. The few DACs I wished we had a chance to try the OR5 on were the Lavry, M51, Luxman, Gamma2. The Gamma2 would have mainly been out of curiosity since it's DIY and usually obtainable used for a little over two hundred dollars. In any event, only the top three DACs, the Alpha, PWD2, and especially M7, improved significantly with the use of the OR5."
> 
> Pretty sure the OR5 wasn't there or the sound didn't change much with his denon during bm dac1 testing.


 
  
 Will be sure to post.
  
 Regarding your last sentence, if that's true, then it goes against pretty much EVERY single review/opinion I've read about the BM DAC1 + USB/SPDIF converter. edit: actually, rereading his BM DAC1 opinion, it is clear he did not try it with a converter, and only used the DAC1's USB input (which is known to be terrible).


----------



## elmoe

blitzxgene said:


> (edit: Most usb converters beneath the audiophilleo level are ****. The audio-gd converters might be an exception with the newest firmwares, but kingwa doesn't sell them anymore. I'm still waiting on purrins impressions of the M7 usb with the newest drivers.)


 
  
 What do you base that opinion on? Many cheap usb converters got great reviews, and there are some made by french manufacturers which haven't been heard by Head-Fiers that seem to be quite good (Audiophonics in my signature) for 90-200e.
  
 In fact most of the positive things I've read about the DAC1 showing great improvement in sound were using the m2tech hiface. They might be crap compared to the OR5 certainly, but if the difference really is that big, they might still be worth every dollar.


----------



## thegunner100

elmoe said:


> I'm not jumping to any conclusion, I read this part, and it says he WISHED he couldve tried it with many DACs but didnt. There are other USB/SPDIF converter that cost 100-200 bucks, the point isn't to use the OR5 specifically but to see if a USB/SPDIF makes other mid range DACs better.
> 
> So next time please read my WHOLE posts before YOU jump to conclusions.


 

 My apologies, my post wasn't directed towards you specifically.


----------



## elmoe

thegunner100 said:


> My apologies, my post wasn't directed towards you specifically.


 
  
 Fair enough, but I'm pretty much the only person in this thread who feels mid-ranged DACs should've been tested with a converter, or at the very least, using their coaxial inputs and not the notoriously bad USB inputs... It seems very disappointing to me that all these mid-range DACs weren't tested at their best whereas all the more expensive DACs were tested using the myriad of different inputs they offer... So no wonder we have the expensive models at the top of the ranking.


----------



## blitzxgene

elmoe said:


> What do you base that opinion on? Many cheap usb converters got great reviews, and there are some made by french manufacturers which haven't been heard by Head-Fiers that seem to be quite good (Audiophonics in my signature) for 90-200e.
> 
> In fact most of the positive things I've read about the DAC1 showing great improvement in sound were using the m2tech hiface.


 
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/15-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-spdif-converters-shootout-15327/
  
_Most. _Considering purrin and friends, among people such as above have managed to compare many converters with reference systems, they can more accurately gauge performance increases. I'd say many of the cheaper converters can excel in one specific area, but will fall short in others/possibly make things worse. The higher end converters excel all over the place. Without having heard a stupid expensive setup, it's like trying to describe color to someone that's been blind their whole life. I cannot imagine how my M7 could sound any better (and maybe the newest drivers closed some of that OR5 gap?), but it can (probably).


----------



## blitzxgene

elmoe said:


> Fair enough, but I'm pretty much the only person in this thread who feels mid-ranged DACs should've been tested with a converter, or at the very least, using their coaxial inputs and not the notoriously bad USB inputs... It seems very disappointing to me that all these mid-range DACs weren't tested at their best whereas all the more expensive DACs were tested using the myriad of different inputs they offer... So no wonder we have the expensive models at the top of the ranking.


 
  
 If purrin had all the mid ranked dacs on hand again, i'm sure he'd try to test them with the OR5. (People should send their dacs to him then... HINT HINT WINK)


----------



## Armaegis

doctorcilantro said:


> Not one owner of a Vega DAC has spoken about the "grain" you guys "report". Interesting that AudioGD has *two *DACs in your top list. I'd seriously take this whole "report" with a *large *grain of salt and does of chocolate ice cream. Where do you, and your ninjas, find this grain the most evident in the treble? Any concrete examples?
> 
> in your profile you discuss "I'm mostly back to speakers now.". Well did you test these DACs on speakers?
> 
> ...


 
  
 He tried a bunch of dacs, evaluated them against each other... then kept the ones he likes best. How is that wrong? The only difference is he wrote about his experiences for others to read.
  
  
 And how about the _very first line_ in the thread...
  


purrin said:


> This is a ranking of 17+ DAC and DAC configurations by my ninjas and I. There *rankings are largely based on personal preference. They should be taken with a grain of salt. *


----------



## philo50

armaegis said:


> He tried a bunch of dacs, evaluated them against each other... then kept the ones he likes best. How is that wrong? The only difference is he wrote about his experiences for others to read.
> 
> 
> And how about the _very first line_ in the thread...


 
 +1


----------



## elmoe

blitzxgene said:


> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/15-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-spdif-converters-shootout-15327/
> 
> _Most. _Considering purrin and friends, among people such as above have managed to compare many converters with reference systems, they can more accurately gauge performance increases. I'd say many of the cheaper converters can excel in one specific area, but will fall short in others/possibly make things worse. The higher end converters excel all over the place. Without having heard a stupid expensive setup, it's like trying to describe color to someone that's been blind their whole life. I cannot imagine how my M7 could sound any better (and maybe the newest drivers closed some of that OR5 gap?), but it can (probably).


 
  
 Once again, what you are comparing are converters with converters. What I'm interested in is DAC + converter vs DAC USB input, and how big the difference is.
  
 Certainly, the more expensive converters do better than the cheap ones overall - no doubt about that, but it doesn't mean that using a cheap converter will not bring major improvements to a mid-range DAC (and do so without spending as you say, more money than the DAC is worth on a converter)
  
 What I am saying is, rather than selling my mid-range DAC and throwing 3000-5000 bucks into a new one, would buying a somewhat cheap (but good) converter such as the Audiophonics or gd-audio bring about major improvements to my current DAC, which I feel is quite synergistic in my system.
  
 As for sending my DAC to him, it would cost me less money to just buy a cheap converter and test this myself (and it would be not only more fun for me, but more accurate to my own tastes since I would be testing this using my system, with careful chosen synergistic equipment).


----------



## blitzxgene

elmoe said:


> Once again, what you are comparing are converters with converters. What I'm interested in is DAC + converter vs DAC USB input, and how big the difference is.
> 
> Certainly, the more expensive converters do better than the cheap ones overall - no doubt about that, but it doesn't mean that using a cheap converter will not bring major improvements to a mid-range DAC (and do so without spending as you say, more money than the DAC is worth on a converter)
> 
> ...


 
  
 I was under the impression that comparing the value/performance of converters was relative to the improvements you might expect with the bm dac1. In the case of the bm dac1 I think it had one of the earliest initial usb implementations, which would make is _terrible_ by default. I honestly don't know which converters would be cheap and a great improvement for your setup, but I was trying to give you some reviews to understand how some converters perform relative to others. I'm not all that interested in converters that aren't the OR5/future OR6, because my own setup won't benefit as much from non-i2s converters. The hydra is possibly an option, but doesn't perform as well. Try to get a audio-gd di-v3 used and install the newest drivers if you can. I at least know what that sounds like and could recommend it, now that the treble issues and minor bass bloat are gone.


----------



## elmoe

Yep, I actually had found this comparison thread before and gave it extended reading a few days ago. I am actually pretty interested in the audio-gd di, but they are in high demand, I'm not sure I'll have an easy time finding one used. I might just go the Audiophonics way and buy the one they built, it is seemingly pretty good with the XMOS chip and at a very decent (200e) price. Not sure yet, as usual, so many options...
  
 For those interested, this is the audiophonics: 
  
 http://www.audiophonics.fr/audiophonics-uxmos384-interface-digitale-usb-vers-i2sdsdspdif-p-8376.html and http://www.audiophonics.fr/audiophonics-uxmos192-interface-digitale-usb-vers-i2sdsdspdif-p-8375.html
  
 Although in French, it should still be pretty easy to understand the specs.


----------



## cizx

Regardless of how this all turns out, I really want to meet the girl in the love yulong time pic.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

How about compiling a list of DACs with great or at least very decent USB implementation that gain no benefit from mid-range USB converters?
 I don't have access to OR5 but owned iFi iLink with iUSB and AP2+PP and these two DACs sounded the same or better with stock USB receiver:
 - AURALiC Vega (XMOS)
 - Yulong DA8 (Amanero)
Both do not draw power from USB
  
 List of bad USB implementations to avoid would be helpful too.


----------



## purrin

doctorcilantro said:


> Not one owner of a Vega DAC has spoken about the "grain" you guys "report". Interesting that AudioGD has *two *DACs in your top list. I'd seriously take this whole "report" with a *large *grain of salt and does of chocolate ice cream. Where do you, and your ninjas, find this grain the most evident in the treble? Any concrete examples?


 
  
 This "grain" is difficult to describe and only in relation to the other DACs in the comparison. I think most people who are used to modern sigma-delta DACs wouldn't notice it much if at all. Have you ever had an opportunity to hear an R2R DAC? (Wadia, AGD-M7, Metrum, the Valab TD154x based, PCM63, or PCM1702 based DAC, etc). Or even vinyl? Vinyl and R2R DACs have a liquid quality, a certain continuous-ness of sound over time which the many modern sigma-delta DACs, even the best ones, do not quite have. With the Vega, this grain is extremely fine, which is a good thing. Really not too different from the PWD2 in this respect. However, my main issue with the Vega was with its overall timbral presentation. The relative brightness of the Vega and this fine grain combined together resulted in a somewhat robotic, synthesized, or artificial quality. This was evident on every recording, particularly with voices. It wasn't anything highly annoying and in any case, I'm nitpicking to an extreme, and not even considering the effects of EXACT mode to goes ameliorate the grain.
  
 Not having one owner of the Vega DAC speak about the grain does not mean it does not exist. It's more likely that people who are sensitive to this digital grain would not purchase the Vega.
  


doctorcilantro said:


> in your profile you discuss "I'm mostly back to speakers now.". Well did you test these DACs on speakers?


 
  
 Yes. The DACs were tested on the headphone rig and speaker rig as described in the first post.
  


doctorcilantro said:


> The two top DACs are DACs you own, or have decided to keep....maybe you have an affinity with their sonic signature?


 
  
 Yes. I definitely have a affinity for the sonic signatures of the two DACs I have decided to keep. Why would I highly rank and keep stuff I did not like the sound of?

  


doctorcilantro said:


> At least they mention reference actual music when getting subjective. Sorry, I'm not trying be cool, just saying this is a wholly subjective review, and not very objective. I don't see any loopbacks with ADCs for example. It's *completely *subjective. Did they try to ABX the DACs? How many ninjas preferred what vs. what. Who is the "we"? How many people were involved in this review?


 
  
 This review was subjective. Out of my own curiosity, I did take a few jitter, distortion, -90db 1kHz, and FR measurements up to near 100kHz of some of the DACs, but there wasn't really anything which could be strongly correlated except maybe jitter and noise floor. None of the measurements were posted anywhere. Three, sometimes four people were involved in these DAC-Offs. If you want to know who the people involved in these comparisons were, you would have to go outside of HF.
  


doctorcilantro said:


> I'd rather read a sixmoons review than this one. The review was no doubt a lot of work, but I have the right to call ********, and call into question the results which ultimately don't mean much to me. Next time I'll just bite my tongue and keep the rant off.


 
  

 You certainly have the right to call BS. I've always said if the results mean nothing to you, or don't jive with your own experiences, then definitely ignore it. In fact, I would recommend that you put me on ignore. I think it's pretty obvious that you are butt-hurt that I dared find something to criticize about the Vega (a DAC I happen to like), a DAC that you own and hold dear to your heart. I would highly recommend that you re-read the Six Moons article and give yourself a nice pat on the back.


----------



## purrin

andrew_wot said:


> How about compiling a list of DACs with great or at least very decent USB implementation that gain no benefit from mid-range USB converters?
> I don't have access to OR5 but owned iFi iLink with iUSB and AP2+PP and these two DACs sounded the same or better with stock USB receiver:
> - AURALiC Vega (XMOS)
> - Yulong DA8 (Amanero)
> ...


 
  
 Good points. The Vega DAC USB implementation was excellent. Particularly after the hour wait and in EXACT mode. There is absolutely no reason to go with a $1500 (or more) USB to SPDIF converter.
  
 The X-Sabre USB and Schiit Gen 2 USB are pretty darn good too.


----------



## purrin

elmoe said:


> Will be sure to post.
> 
> Regarding your last sentence, if that's true, then it goes against pretty much EVERY single review/opinion I've read about the BM DAC1 + USB/SPDIF converter. edit: actually, rereading his BM DAC1 opinion, it is clear he did not try it with a converter, and only used the DAC1's USB input (which is known to be terrible).


 
  


elmoe said:


> Still, this review is not really complete as I would like to have heard his thoughts on the BM DAC1 with the USB converter since it supposedly beats the Gamma 2.
> 
> In fact the majority of the mid-range priced DACs were only tested using USB which is detrimental to their ranking to say the least. I would also have liked to see how the Lavry, the NAD, the Schiit DACs and the Lynx fared when used with a USB converter. If you consider the difference in prices between the top DACs on his list as opposed to the midrange one, having a go at them with a USB converter seems relevant.
> 
> Seems to me the more expensive DACs in this list were tested more thoroughly, and with more settings. 4 out of the top 5 were tested with the OR5, yet the DACs supposed to benefit the most from a USB converter seemed to have been ignored and worse - used only in USB mode. Or did I misread something?


 
  


elmoe said:


> Well, testing for convenience is not testing if the mid range DACs have noticeably worse sound using USB, and noticeably MUCH better sound using the OR5. It basically contradicts ranking them at all... Anyway, I'll buy a USB/SPDIF converter and test things out on my DAC1 myself.


 
  
I think most of your concerns have been covered by others. Allow me to say a few things:
  
I apologize for not being able to test the BM DAC1 with a suitably priced USB-SDPIF converter. From people who I trust, the BM DAC1 does improve with certain modestly priced USB SPDIF converters. If I had the time, the energy, the money, and the patience, I would have liked to test of all the DACs with a mediocre CD transport, an awesome CD transport, a mid-priced USB-SPDIF, an expensive USB-SPDIF converter, optical SPDIF from a macbook, foobar, JRMC, and 1008 other combinations.
  
Unfortunately, I cannot do this because *I HAVE A FRICKING LIFE*, where I must balance family, work, health, and hobby.
  
Comparisons like this get done because people pitch in (they send me their DACs, come over to my place for micro-meets, bring their USB-SPDIF converters, their recordings, etc.) rather than bitch. You know, I fire people at my company who bitch rather than find solutions.


----------



## elmoe

No need to apologize. You did your review as you wanted to - using the best of conditions for DACs you felt were worth it, and not the rest. It's your prerogative to do whatever you want with your gear. It's mine to point out that your review where the VAST majority of DACs in the ranking weren't listened to in the best of conditions is seemingly flawed and biased towards your personal preferences (which again, I'm completely fine with). I could've done fine with your reply without the petty name calling, but hey, I'll take what I can get, which in this case is that you dismissed quality gear quickly in favor of a bias towards more expensive gear, thus invalidating (for me, anyway) your ranking altogether.
  
 I hope this last bit of "bitching" won't put you in a mood to fire any of your employees, though considering, you may be doing them a favor 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Enjoy your vanilla ice cream.


----------



## purrin

FWIW, and someone else already mentioned this, I only had the OR5 toward the latter comparison sessions. There wasn't any intentional plan in the case of the BM DAC1 to make it sound worse and it would be with a good USB converter. We simply didn't have a USB converter available. Now if you actually want to contribute rather than complain by sending me your BM DAC1, I would be willing to re-evaluate it with the OR5 and maybe some other cheaper converters I can borrow locally.
  
 But honestly, I think you are just upset because we rated the BM DAC1 (something that you own and hold dear to your heart) near the bottom of the pile, even with coax (although I acknowledge that the iPod->coax adapter probably isn't ideal.)
  
 As far as being biased toward preferences, did you not read the first post? "*Warning:* DACs are a very personal thing and preferences are very specific" and "These rankings are largely based on personal preference." I'm am willing to take suggestions how a subjective review can be written without taking into account bias and personal preferences.


----------



## blitzxgene

elmoe said:


> No need to apologize. You did your review as you wanted to - using the best of conditions for DACs you felt were worth it, and not the rest. It's your prerogative to do whatever you want with your gear. It's mine to point out that your review where the VAST majority of DACs in the ranking weren't listened to in the best of conditions is seemingly flawed and biased towards your personal preferences (which again, I'm completely fine with). I could've done fine with your reply without the petty name calling, but hey, I'll take what I can get, which in this case is that you dismissed quality gear quickly in favor of a bias towards more expensive gear, thus invalidating (for me, anyway) your ranking altogether.
> 
> I hope this last bit of "bitching" won't put you in a mood to fire any of your employees, though considering, you may be doing them a favor
> 
> ...


 
  
 Purrin could not evaluate a good number of these dacs in ideal conditions because he did not have an ideal transport. He is doing people a favor by comparing the USB implementations on these dacs and ranking them accordingly. He is not going to purchase and reevaluate every dac on the list everytime he makes an upgrade. Based on his observations AT THE TIME, much of this gear is quite good and has been sorted accordingly. HE CANNOT TRAVEL THROUGH TIME MAN.


----------



## elmoe

purrin said:


> FWIW, and someone else already mentioned this, I only had the OR5 toward the latter comparison sessions. There wasn't any intentional bias in the case of the BM DAC1. I simply didn't have it available. Now if you actually want to contribute rather than complain by sending me your BM DAC1, I would be willing to re-evaluate it with the OR5 and maybe some other cheaper converters I can borrow locally.
> 
> But honestly, I think you are just upset because we rated the BM DAC1 near the bottom of the pile, even with coax (although I acknowledge that the iPod->coax adapter probably isn't ideal.)


 
  
 I'm well aware there wasn't any intentional bias towards the DAC1, but there was no doubt a bias (intentional or not - makes no difference to me as I'm looking for objectivity) toward most midrange priced DACs (your top 3 seemed to have been thoroughly tested with a variety of inputs, whereas most midranged DACs were only tested using USB inputs, am I wrong to call this a bias?). I still don't see how I am complaining about anything. All I did was wonder why you hadn't tried the midrange DACs at their best (not just including the DAC1) as I am looking to buy a USB/SPDIF converter currently, and the bump up in quality for midrange DACs using a USB/SPDIF converter is particularly relevant to my next purchase. Making sure that I won't be spending my money for nothing is the only reason I am even interested in this discussion - your personal opinion about which DAC sounds best really does not interest me in the least - for all I know you favorite music genre is JPOP and we have completely different tastes in both music and sound signatures. I don't see why you still see this as some kind of personal attack, or why you think I am upset about anything. You have your preference in sound signature and I have mine, I spent 10+ years to find the DAC1 was most synergistic with the rest of my system, it really doesn't matter to me what you rank it, especially compared to DACs that cost 3 to 4 times its price. In fact, I'm happy it even made the list at all, if anything. You seem to believe that I am looking for reassurance about a purchase I have made something like 8 years ago - believe me when I say that if a piece of equipment has stayed in my system for that long, it is for good reason, and the only reassurance I need is answered everytime I put music on 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I'm going to try to make this as clear as I can: *The only thing of interest to me is to figure out whether dishing out 200-500 bucks on a USB/SPDIF converter will bring about a noticeable gain in quality to my DAC1.* If not, then I will demo DACs myself, using my own gear and my own music, to form my own opinion instead of throwing 3000 bucks on a piece of gear just because some guy on Head-Fi ranked it first according to his own preferences.
  
 Yes, iPod -> coax is not really what I would call "best conditions", not by a long shot. As for sending you my DAC1 so you can test it out with mid price converters, I would rather save the shipping costs, the customs tax, and the hassle of going without a DAC for weeks if not months and simply buy a converter and test it out myself, with my own music, on my own system. Still, it would've been interesting to have your opinion on the subject before spending that much on a simple converter, that's all.
  
 Responding to your edit with an edit of my own: of course your review is biased and stating so was not needed for me to realize it - but I am not talking about a bias toward sound signature preference here - I am talking about a bias because it seems to me that you were quick to dismiss most DACs without giving them a fair chance: in this particular case, using a USB/SPDIF converter with the DACs that cost 1/3rd the price of your personal favorites. It's a very different kind of bias. In the end, when reading a review comparing gear, people want to know two things:
  
 1) which is better suited to their needs
 2) which is the better value for their money
  
 Clearly for #2, comparing 3000usd DACs saying they are vastly superior to 200-1500usd DACs is not going to be very helpful. What would be more interesting is knowing whether those 200-1500usd DACs + a 200-500usd converter are giving those 3000usd+ DACs a run for their money, which is exactly what I came into this thread hoping to find out.


----------



## purrin

Not taking it personally - just having a little fun. I just like to argue with people from France. (I'd been told by several Frenchmen that such "debating" is considered a favorite pastime.) I'm also bored right now as I am waiting for some automated results from my hacking attempts into a bank.
  
 Obviously, the breadth of the comparison necessitated not being able to go in depth with every DAC which was covered. Not to mention that I do not have a time machine to go back and reassess the DACs with the OR5 which I obtained later. You are correct that no formal observations were written in terms of the midrange DACs. But that does not mean there were no informal observations made. Some of the midrange DACs were tested with the OR5, and while there was an improvement, it wasn't enough to change their rankings significantly.
  
 In light of you explaining what you are looking for (getting the best from the BM DAC1), I would advise you to look elsewhere on HF. I do not like the BM DAC1. Never had. Never will - unless the OR5 does something magical to it a la the AGD-M7. But in that case, there where already tell-tale signs the M7 had serious potential. In other words, you are barking up the wrong tree. The wrong thread. The dedicated BM DAC1 threads are probably more suitable for the information you are looking for.
  
 This thread was never meant to be offer comprehensive coverage of how to get the best from the BM DAC1 or every midrange DAC which came my way.


----------



## elmoe

purrin said:


> Not taking it personally - just having a little fun. I just like to argue with people from France. (I'd been told by several Frenchmen that such "debating" is considered a favorite pastime.) I'm also bored right now as I am waiting for some automated results from my hacking attempts into a bank.
> 
> Obviously, the breadth of the comparison necessitated not being able to go in depth with every DAC which was covered. Not to mention that I do not have a time machine to go back and reassess the DACs with the OR5 which I obtained later. You are correct that no formal observations were written in terms of the midrange DACs. But that does not mean there were no informal observations made. Some of the midrange DACs were tested with the OR5, and while there was an improvement, it wasn't enough to change their rankings significantly.
> 
> ...


 
 As you can see I'm sure, debating is no problem for me as well 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I didn't know you did not have a DAC1 with the OR5 until you told me yourself about an hour ago - however I would like to know which DACs you did test with the OR5 (which midrange DACs in particular, since that seems to not be included in your review).
  
 I understand perfectly that you do not like the BM DAC1 - but that is once again besides the point. Without talking specifically about the DAC1, I am interested in finding out whether buying a USB/SPDIF is a better investment than buying a new, more expensive, higher quality DAC. Whether you like the DAC1 or not has no repercussion on whether or not you think a USB/SPDIF brings significant improvement to it (or to other midrange DACs, because it still isn't clear to me if you thought that NONE of them benefited much from it, or if some actually DID benefit alot from it). Basically, I love my DAC1 but it is starting to bore me, and I am looking for a change. Now, will the USB/SPDIF converter bring me the change in quality I am looking for (while keeping the distinct DAC1 sound signature which I love), or should I start demo'ing more expensive DACs left and right to hopefully once again find one synergistic with my system? That's what interests me. Selling my DAC1 would net me maybe 500 bucks - buying a new DAC is likely to cost me at least 1500. Buying a converter for 200-500usd seems like a more interesting idea, but only IF it is worth it. And the ONLY reason I am asking you personally is because you yourself wrote that you heard the DAC1 greatly benefits from such a converter even though you did not have the chance to test it yourself.
  
 I bet you're biting your nails wishing you hadn't made that tiny little comment on the DAC1+converter right about now


----------



## thathertz

purrin said:


> .............................................
> Unfortunately, I cannot do this because *I HAVE A FRICKING LIFE*, where I must balance family, work, health, and hobby.
> 
> Comparisons like this get done because people pitch in (they send me their DACs, come over to my place for micro-meets, bring their USB-SPDIF converters, their recordings, etc.) rather than bitch. You know, I fire people at my company who bitch rather than find solutions.................


 
  

  
 Handbags at Dawn......
  
 Purrin, I think you're getting into murky waters when offering a ranking of 21 DACS and then using the the OR5 to showcase the benefit
 that can be had by using such an expensive converter ($1200?). You didn't state whether the OR5 was used with every DAC. Even if it was,
 shouldn't the review be restricted to just the DAC's on their own? Granted, it could perhaps be a benefit to DAC owners to hear if their DAC
 was elevated to the 'next level' by the OR5 but surely that's best presented in a different set of rankings? 
  
 Out of interest, and in retrospect, if you could own One of the DACS without a converter, which would you choose?


----------



## elmoe

thathertz said:


> Handbags at Dawn......
> 
> Purrin, I think you're getting into murky waters when offering a ranking of 21 DACS and then using the the OR5 to showcase the benefit
> that can be had by using such an expensive converter ($1200?). You didn't state whether the OR5 was used with every DAC. Even if it was,
> ...


 
  
 Someone who understands me - I am touched


----------



## purrin

elmoe said:


> Responding to your edit with an edit of my own: of course your review is biased and stating so was not needed for me to realize it - but I am not talking about a bias toward sound signature preference here - I am talking about a bias because it seems to me that you were quick to dismiss most DACs without giving them a fair chance: in this particular case, using a USB/SPDIF converter with the DACs that cost 1/3rd the price of your personal favorites. It's a very different kind of bias. In the end, when reading a review comparing gear, people want to know two things:
> 
> 1) which is better suited to their needs
> 2) which is the better value for their money
> ...


 
  
 OK, I will respond more seriously because you are now making more sense and asking specific questions. I will cite specific cases (which were not documented in the first post). Please understand that I was only able to assess a limited number of combinations.
  

The OR5 improved the $800 Gungnir Gen 1 DAC. However, it did not make it sound better than the PWD2 via USB.
The OR5 improved the $1x00 Lavry DA11 DAC. However, it did not make it sound better than the PWD2 via USB or even the Gungnir Gen 2 USB.
The OR5 offered no improvement on the Vega.
The OR5 offered some improvement on the Audinst HUD-MX2, but that DAC was so crappy that it still stands in the crap pile even with the OR5.
The OR5 offered some improvement on the X-Sabre, but it was not significant. Probably a jump up of one or two notches.
The OR5 offered some improvement on the Gungnir Gen2, but it was not significant. Probably a rating jump of one notch.
  
 Now this is not to say a lower quality converter would be less effective. It depends upon the ultimate capability of the DAC. We need to get something which scales optimally. For example, Schiit's implementation of the Gen 2 USB seems to be such a jump. Makes sense if you think about it in their case.
  
 In the case of the OR5, I am very familiar with what it does. It only has a tendency to improve certain sonic characteristics. For some, there is minor to little improvement. Other aspects, there is no improvement. If I heard a DAC which I didn't feel the OR5 would significantly improve upon, I generally did not give it a through assessment with the OR5. This is what I mean when I say that when I heard the M7 via USB, there were many things I did not like, but I also felt it was a DAC to have some serious potential with a good converter / transport.


----------



## purrin

thathertz said:


> ... You didn't state whether the OR5 was used with every DAC. Even if it was,
> shouldn't the review be restricted to just the DAC's on their own?
> 
> ...Out of interest, and in retrospect, if you could own One of the DACS without a converter, which would you choose?


 
  
 Is it really that hard to figure that out?
  

Take the list,
Eliminate everything with (OR5).
Voila. Not only do you now have a "review restricted to just the DACs on their own", but you also see which DAC is the most preferred without any converter.
  


elmoe said:


> And the ONLY reason I am asking you personally is because you yourself wrote that you heard the DAC1 greatly benefits from such a converter even though you did not have the chance to test it yourself.
> 
> I bet you're biting your nails wishing you hadn't made that tiny little comment on the DAC1+converter right about now


 
  
 No not really. Although I do not like the BM DAC1, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt (when used with a converter) based on people I trust. I should also say that this person ended up liking the Gungnir more (part of my DACshare program). If you are curious, I can tell you who to ask about that. He doesn't like Frenchmen though so he may not respond to you.


----------



## elmoe

I see, so basically, I'm better off buying a better DAC. Well, I'm still going to give a USB/SPDIF converter (a cheap, sub 200usd one) a shot, since I found a good cheap XMOS chip one, but as I thought, I'm going to have to go demo some DACs.
  
 Thank you for your thoughts, they are much appreciated.


----------



## elmoe

purrin said:


> No not really. Although I do not like the BM DAC1, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt when used with a converter based on people I trust. I should also say that this person ended up liking the Gungnir more. If you are curious, I can tell you who to ask about that. He doesn't like Frenchmen though so he may not respond to you.


 
  
 Sure, I can brush off the xenophobia so long as I get an interesting answer.


----------



## thathertz

elmoe said:


> Someone who understands me - I am touched


 
  
 I with you bro 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Feelin it


----------



## thathertz

purrin said:


> Is it really that hard to figure that out?
> 
> 
> Take the list,
> ...


 
  
 Shucks you got me. Did you have to use the OR5 though?


----------



## purrin

elmoe said:


> Basically, I love my DAC1 but it is starting to bore me, and I am looking for a change. Now, will the USB/SPDIF converter bring me the change in quality I am looking for (while keeping the distinct DAC1 sound signature which I love), or should I start demo'ing more expensive DACs left and right to hopefully once again find one synergistic with my system? That's what interests me. Selling my DAC1 would net me maybe 500 bucks - buying a new DAC is likely to cost me at least 1500. Buying a converter for 200-500usd seems like a more interesting idea, but only IF it is worth it. And the ONLY reason I am asking you personally is because you yourself wrote that you heard the DAC1 greatly benefits from such a converter even though you did not have the chance to test it yourself.


 
  
 If you love the sound of the DAC1, I would just stick with it and try out a few converters (with return option).
  
 Don't get bitten by "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome. The other DACs with the most similar characteristics in the list are the Mytek, X-Sabre, and Vega. The Vega is kind of like a super refined and resolving DAC1 and the one most likely to provide obvious gains. It is also extremely expensive and probably way over what you want to spend. The Mytek accentuates the what the DAC1 does both good and bad, but it has a difficult treble hardness and glare which I feel that the DAC1 does not have. The X-Sabre probably has the most balanced presentation. More bass volume and power, particularly in the sub and low bass regions and doesn't need a USB converter to shine.
  
 Everytime I hear "I love what I have, but I'm bored" and someone gets something else, it's never good news.
  


elmoe said:


> I see, so basically, I'm better off buying a better DAC. Well, I'm still going to give a USB/SPDIF converter (a cheap, sub 200usd one) a shot, since I found a good cheap XMOS chip one, but as I thought, I'm going to have to go demo some DAC


 
  
 Hard to say. The "better" DAC may sound different. And "different" may not necessarily result in the synergy that you had before. Or you may realize that you like the "different" sound more.
  
 Again, I'll be the first person to say, if you like what you have, do not upgrade. My own upgrade path with DACs has been very slow and deliberate. Trying to find _the _DAC which improved on certain aspects I wanted improved without giving up on sonic aspects I already liked.


----------



## thathertz

Hey Elmoe!
  
 Sorry to go off-topic for a mo...
  
 I see you have a Singlepower MPX3. I had one a few years back. did you get your's checked?
 The MPX3 is a great amp providing you get someone in the know to look over the internals.
 Big caps, high voltages can be scary...as some owners have attested...
 I now have an Extreme Platinum which I can't part with....don't use it at the moment but I have plans...
  
 I have yet to hear a Benchmark DAC (1 or 2)...bow long have you owned it?


----------



## elmoe

purrin said:


> If you love the sound of the DAC1, I would just stick with it and try out a few converters (with return option).
> 
> Don't get bitten by "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome. The other DACs with the most similar characteristics in the list are the Mytek, X-Sabre, and Vega. The Vega is kind of like a super refined and resolving DAC1 and the one most likely to provide obvious gains. It is also extremely expensive and probably way over what you want to spend. The Mytek accentuates the what the DAC1 does both good and bad, but it has a difficult treble hardness and glare which I feel that the DAC1 does not have. The X-Sabre probably has the most balanced presentation. More bass volume and power, particularly in the sub and low bass regions and doesn't need a USB converter to shine.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have a tendency to load my system carefully inside my car, drive to the audiophile stores near me, and demo things with my own gear, so synergy shouldn't be a problem. The audio store owners know me pretty well, they are usually lenient with me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 ​ I would be willing to spend upwards of 3000usd, if the result is worth the price to my ears. In any case, I wouldn't spend a dime without some demo'ing first.
  
 Quote:


thathertz said:


> Hey Elmoe!
> 
> Sorry to go off-topic for a mo...
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's a funny story but my MPX3 had a problem at some point (I bought it way back when Mikhail was just starting to sell them) and I had it sent back to him for repairs. He fixed it right up and sent it back (yes, I got lucky, this was before the whole SP trainwreck). I since then had it checked by a technician after reading about some of the other MPX3 owners troubles - mine was perfectly fine. It's probably the one piece of gear I will never sell (not that it would net me much), I absolutely love it.
  
 I've had this DAC1 for a long time now (it is the non-USB version that came out before most DACs even had USB inputs), about 8-10 years I think? I really dislike its sound on its own (using the headphone outputs), but paired with the MPX3 and SA5k/SR325i, there's just something about this combination that really works well for me.


----------



## purrin

elmoe said:


> I have a tendency to load my system carefully inside my car, drive to the audiophile stores near me, and demo things with my own gear, so synergy shouldn't be a problem. The audio store owners know me pretty well, they are usually lenient with me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 LOL, then why are you asking me? You are lucky enough to have an (presumably decent) audio store nearby. Most of those are gone in the USA. Amazon killed everything.


----------



## elmoe

Well, because debating the finer points of my hobby is a national past time, haven't you heard? 

On a more serious note, most of these stores don't really carry USB converters which is what interested me to begin with.


----------



## 62ohm

Purrin,
  
 Have you heard the Arcam rDac? If so, may I ask how in your opinion do they compare to the Bifrost Uber? Thanks.


----------



## purrin

62ohm said:


> Purrin,
> 
> Have you heard the Arcam rDac? If so, may I ask how in your opinion do they compare to the Bifrost Uber? Thanks.


 
  
 Nope and probably won't for a while because I am sick of comparos for now and just want to enjoy ... but you never know. Random peeps send stuff to me and sometimes I can't refuse.


----------



## thathertz

elmoe said:


> It's a funny story but my MPX3 had a problem at some point (I bought it way back when Mikhail was just starting to sell them) and I had it sent back to him for repairs. He fixed it right up and sent it back (yes, I got lucky, this was before the whole SP trainwreck). I since then had it checked by a technician after reading about some of the other MPX3 owners troubles - mine was perfectly fine. It's probably the one piece of gear I will never sell (not that it would net me much), I absolutely love it.
> 
> I've had this DAC1 for a long time now (it is the non-USB version that came out before most DACs even had USB inputs), about 8-10 years I think? I really dislike its sound on its own (using the headphone outputs), but paired with the MPX3 and SA5k/SR325i, there's just something about this combination that really works well for me.


 
  
 I had my MPX3 checked out in the UK and it was fine. Gorgeous amp....like you say, I was lucky I guess. I moved on to the Extreme Platinum (with a Plitron transformer and TWO independent power supplies) which I also had checked out, and it's been a dream amp I must say. Right now I have D7000's and my amp supposedly doesn't play well with low impedance phones - the bass control is not great but overall they sound way better than they ought to 
  
 I can imagine the DAC1 pairs very well with the MPX3...you have the slightly (sorry) clinical nature of the DAC1 paired with the warmth and romance of tubes 
  
 I see why it's hard for you to decide on the next step. Anyway, I wish you the best and don't give up on the MPX3


----------



## purrin

elmoe said:


> Well, because debating the finer points of my hobby is a national past time, haven't you heard?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Just got a PM from a friend. He said to try the Benchmark DAC2. That if you like the DAC1, forget the USB converter crap and just get the DAC2.


----------



## Maxvla

Sounds like two people walked into a DAC thread expecting a USB convertor thread. :rolleyes:


----------



## fishski13

as someone who recently went through a lengthy in-home DAC shoot-out, i can appreciate the efforts put forth by purrin et al.  i found it arduous to compare only 4 different DACs, and even more so when mixing it up with a USB-S/PDIF converter.   
  
 also, my comparisons suggest that playing around with USB-S/PDIF converters is fertile ground for possible improvements.  the MF V-Link has a sonic sig that made every DAC sound more like the BM DAC1/V-Link pairing.


----------



## Argo Duck

+1 fishski.

Similar story when I compared just three DACs.

OTOH, I learned a lot about how I listen and what I prefer, and improved my listening skills and attention.

Because of this, I have a lot of respect for purrin and his ninjas. Whilst there is risk of group-think, there is also a large advantage to focused group-comparison in terms of mutual calibration and development of a common vocabulary and understanding.


----------



## music_man

I just compared 13 a few weeks ago. thank you to my generous salesman. I picked the best value, and the best overall. one cost me $500 and one cost me $62,000. actually I think that says more about the one that was $500 lol. it perhaps also says something about my sanity. yes, it is very difficult. these are not huge differences we are talking about. you also must be sure it is not your mind.---oh, wait I forgot. my cheapie choice is loathed by purrin. so I suggest you listen to anything first or returnable. be it under a grand or a 100 grand. one thing I hope we all can agree on, is it is up to each individual as to which they prefer. if there was such a thing as right and wrong in regards to this game many a company would be out of business.


----------



## blitzxgene

> $62,000


 
 wat


----------



## Armaegis

I think I could hire a small chamber orchestra to play once a week for that kinda money...


----------



## music_man

it's the msb diamond dac iv with some upgrades. I even got a deal on it! one of the dumber things I have done. on the other hand no one seems to agree with purrin about the teac. it is not the best by any means but it is not class "s" either really. maybe he had a busted one or something. I just don't agree with him. I would take the m51 over the pwd mkii. just goes to show, as I said everyone must listen for themselves. I think the schiit and teac are comparable. I made mods to the teac and now to me it is better than a stock pwd mkii. the msb is like Ferrari. ultimate performance at any cost. i already have bands playing every day as i operate a recording facility. playback can be even better in some cases. i know i rubbed this in already but there are dacs under a grand that are nice. of those everyone already knows which i pick currently. before that it was the bm dac1. oh, for the record the dcs dac is like 100 grand. do realize diminishing returns kick in at a mere 5 grand.


----------



## Currawong

Someone started dobbing in people to the teacher for being rude, so I'd like to point out that suggesting something is wrong or suspicious because someone likes a DAC from a particular maker or doesn't like a positively reviewed one is just plain rude. 
  
 I'm going to comment on DACs instead. I've had a couple of DACs here and tried many in-store (including SACD players that doubled as DACs) that have been positively reviewed and I thought they were rubbish. My theory is that:
  
 1. Hi-fi magazines have such low expectations of what DACs will do (compared to vinyl) that they accept mediocre sound from them.
 2. Many of the reviewers haven't ever experienced an old R2R DAC and how much better they sound, especially given many of them were very over-built, something you only get now in insanely expensive models or from obscure companies like Audio-gd.
 3. They are always being reviewed connected to expensive power conditioners that negate any faults in the PSU design and the DAC ends up sounding good.
  
 or some combination of the above. The rubbish-sounding DACs most definitely improved between being plugged directly into the wall (or a computer in the case of, say, a $1700 USB-powered DAC) and being plugged into a Power Plant Premier (or using a better PSU for the USB-powered one). 
  
 Other than that, personal preference and synergy with one's system I'd consider important too.


----------



## kothganesh

music_man said:


> I just compared 13 a few weeks ago. thank you to my generous salesman. I picked the best value, and the best overall. one cost me $500 and one cost me $62,000. actually I think that says more about the one that was $500 lol. it perhaps also says something about my sanity. yes, it is very difficult. these are not huge differences we are talking about. you also must be sure it is not your mind.---oh, wait I forgot. my cheapie choice is loathed by purrin. so I suggest you listen to anything first or returnable. be it under a grand or a 100 grand. one thing I hope we all can agree on, is it is up to each individual as to which they prefer. if there was such a thing as right and wrong in regards to this game many a company would be out of business.


 
 Won the lotto eh , big guy ?


----------



## music_man

I said many times this is all personal preference. you do have one point currawong. the teac is plugged into a very good power conditioner and using cables that cost much more than it does. I suppose that could make a difference. plus now mine is highly modified so all comparisons are moot. when it was stock I did not think it was rotten but I never did plug it in the wall. I also agree that old nos dacs still sound very good. I usually do not prefer dacs that give me no choice about upsampling. I didn't even think about it but if gear is worth it's salt it should sound good plugged in the wall I guess. I never tried.


----------



## elmoe

thathertz said:


> I had my MPX3 checked out in the UK and it was fine. Gorgeous amp....like you say, I was lucky I guess. I moved on to the Extreme Platinum (with a Plitron transformer and TWO independent power supplies) which I also had checked out, and it's been a dream amp I must say. Right now I have D7000's and my amp supposedly doesn't play well with low impedance phones - the bass control is not great but overall they sound way better than they ought to
> 
> I can imagine the DAC1 pairs very well with the MPX3...you have the slightly (sorry) clinical nature of the DAC1 paired with the warmth and romance of tubes
> 
> I see why it's hard for you to decide on the next step. Anyway, I wish you the best and don't give up on the MPX3


 
  
 I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts going from the MPX3 to the Extreme Platinum. Yes that's exactly why I like the DAC1 so much, it pairs off quite well with the MPX3. Even if I move up the tube amp ladder, I don't think I'll ever sell the MPX3. I'd probably just build a secondary system around it.
  


purrin said:


> Just got a PM from a friend. He said to try the Benchmark DAC2. That if you like the DAC1, forget the USB converter crap and just get the DAC2.


 
  
 Yes I have considered this for awhile but unfortunately I have no way to demo the DAC2, so I would have to order it with a 30 days return condition. That said, it's about 1800usd and in that price range, the number of choices grows significantly, notably the NAD which I demo'd is around that price and might (or might not) be a good fit (I loved it when I demo'd it only a few days ago).
  


fishski13 said:


> as someone who recently went through a lengthy in-home DAC shoot-out, i can appreciate the efforts put forth by purrin et al.  i found it arduous to compare only 4 different DACs, and even more so when mixing it up with a USB-S/PDIF converter.
> 
> also, my comparisons suggest that playing around with USB-S/PDIF converters is fertile ground for possible improvements.  the MF V-Link has a sonic sig that made every DAC sound more like the BM DAC1/V-Link pairing.


 
   
 So can I take it that the prefered USB/SPDIF converter to pair with a dac1 is the MF V-Link? That seems like an affordable alternative.
  
  
  
 Quote:


music_man said:


> it's the msb diamond dac iv with some upgrades. I even got a deal on it! one of the dumber things I have done. on the other hand no one seems to agree with purrin about the teac. it is not the best by any means but it is not class "s" either really. maybe he had a busted one or something. I just don't agree with him. I would take the m51 over the pwd mkii. just goes to show, as I said everyone must listen for themselves. I think the schiit and teac are comparable. I made mods to the teac and now to me it is better than a stock pwd mkii. the msb is like Ferrari. ultimate performance at any cost. i already have bands playing every day as i operate a recording facility. playback can be even better in some cases. i know i rubbed this in already but there are dacs under a grand that are nice. of those everyone already knows which i pick currently. before that it was the bm dac1. oh, for the record the dcs dac is like 100 grand. do realize diminishing returns kick in at a mere 5 grand.


 
  
 Yikes, reading this made me want to try a teac... I have demo'd the m51 only a couple of days ago actually, but without my own stuff. I thought it sounded really great, I'm just not sure it would be the right fit with my system so I will try it again this week, this time with my own gear. Nevermind the msb diamond - that's going to be way out of my price range for awhile yet (I think you scared a few people in this thread talking about that one)


----------



## music_man

the m51 is being replaced by a more expensive dac in the master series. same dac guts apparently but looks real nice. sorry about the msb scare  I guess all I could say about the teac is listen to it and decide. after I modded it it really stepped up the game. stock it is by no means the best but just speaking for myself, it is far from trash. I think I might trade it for the ayre qb-9 which is better and much more money. I need something small in my bedroom.


----------



## elmoe

music_man said:


> the m51 is being replaced by a more expensive dac in the master series. same dac guts apparently but looks real nice. sorry about the msb scare  I guess all I could say about the teac is listen to it and decide. after I modded it it really stepped up the game. stock it is by no means the best but just speaking for myself, it is far from trash. I think I might trade it for the ayre qb-9 which is better and much more money. I need something small in my bedroom.


 
 By curiosity, how did you mod the teac exactly? edit: nevermind I just read the teac thread where you posted about it already


----------



## buson160man

I have had the teac dac for about 9 months now. At some point I will open it up and see the fuse value so I can upgrade it with my preferred high-fi tuning supreme fuse. the dac is pretty decent but of the two dacs that I own I prefer the more atmospheric presentation of my older peachtree decco 2 dac. The teac does process 192 and dsd (which I have not ventured into yet) while the decco 3s dac will only do 96khz.
   But in my set ups I sense that there is a less dimensional presentation produced by the teac dac section as compared to the dac section of the decco 2. But I have upgraded the fuse in the decco 2 with a hifi-tuning supreme fuse. I Can not remember the amount of difference in the soundstage presentation but from what I remember I still think the decco 2 had a more analog like presentation and atmospheric sound.
    I have read a review of the newer peachtrees and there was some mention of the more atmospheric presentation of the earlier dac.
  Sometimes new is not necessarily better even when the resolution level may be more broad that does not always mean the execution and or results are better.
    At least that is what I have found in my set up. I still believe the teac is definitely worth investigating and presents a excellent value for the price . I am hoping the soundstage presentation will improve with the fuse upgrade on the teac.  But the warranty does not expire until may and I can wait at least for a little while longer before I plunge into the fuse upgrade.
    I have to admit that I probably underestimated the performance of the dac section in my peachtree decco 2. It for now sits in my main living room set up and sounds nothing less than stellar.


----------



## elmoe

It's going to take alot to convince me "upgrading" a fuse is going to change anything... No offense...


----------



## dan.gheorghe

purrin said:


> This "grain" is difficult to describe and only in relation to the other DACs in the comparison. I think most people who are used to modern sigma-delta DACs wouldn't notice it much if at all. Have you ever had an opportunity to hear an R2R DAC? (Wadia, AGD-M7, Metrum, the Valab TD154x based, PCM63, or PCM1702 based DAC, etc). Or even vinyl? Vinyl and R2R DACs have a liquid quality, a certain continuous-ness of sound over time which the many modern sigma-delta DACs, even the best ones, do not quite have. With the Vega, this grain is extremely fine, which is a good thing. Really not too different from the PWD2 in this respect. However, my main issue with the Vega was with its overall timbral presentation. The relative brightness of the Vega and this fine grain combined together resulted in a somewhat robotic, synthesized, or artificial quality. This was evident on every recording, particularly with voices. It wasn't anything highly annoying and in any case, I'm nitpicking to an extreme, and not even considering the effects of EXACT mode to goes ameliorate the grain.
> 
> ....
> ....
> ....


 
 Haven't had your experience with so many dacs, and only listened to MSB Analog Dac which is no delta sigma, but what I have heard matches exactly your thoughts! I've heard many implementations of delta sigma dacs from 100 eur to 10k. There were differences, of course, but after a point the differences were too little for the money. I think that over a point, no matter how good is the implementation is, they are limited by the chips themselves. This is just a guess, so I may be wrong, of course.


----------



## purrin

music_man said:


> I said many times this is all personal preference. you do have one point currawong. the teac is plugged into a very good power conditioner and using cables that cost much more than it does. I suppose that could make a difference. plus now mine is highly modified so all comparisons are moot. when it was stock I did not think it was rotten but I never did plug it in the wall. I also agree that old nos dacs still sound very good. I usually do not prefer dacs that give me no choice about upsampling. I didn't even think about it but if gear is worth it's salt it should sound good plugged in the wall I guess. I never tried.


 
  
 Well, as you said, you never did plug it in while it was stock. To me, that still says something because I'm seen that Teac sitting on a desk or shelf not plugged into anything too many times now. Anything I wouldn't use or plug in got thrown into Class S. I know - harsh. 
  
 As for NOS (not to be confused with R2R), I'm not a big fan. I like oversampling.


----------



## elmoe

To be fair he said the teac was plugged into a power conditioner with an expensive power cable - but it was STOCK then. Also, if the modified teac rivals (or betters) the pwd mk2, it's probably worth spending a little time with it, considering the difference in price. That's a 4000 bucks DAC getting beat by a DAC + mods totalling around 1000usd.


----------



## blitzxgene

elmoe said:


> To be fair he said the teac was plugged into a power conditioner with an expensive power cable - but it was STOCK then. Also, if the modified teac rivals (or betters) the pwd mk2, it's probably worth spending a little time with it, considering the difference in price. That's a 4000 bucks DAC getting beat by a DAC + mods totalling around 1000usd.


 
  
 Does anyone actually pay full retail for the pwd mk2? Seems like everyone buys it used for around 2500 usd.


----------



## elmoe

blitzxgene said:


> Does anyone actually pay full retail for the pwd mk2? Seems like everyone buys it used for around 2500 usd.


 
  
 Well, I don't know about that, all I can say is that I certainly wouldn't, but I'm just comparing retail prices. I'm sure you can find the Teac + parts for the mod for cheaper if it's used as well.
  
 Then again for someone to buy it used, someone must have bought it new...


----------



## purrin

They seem to be going for well less than $2K used. I got my PWD1 for $1800 new and got in on the upgrade board special. I think the PWD2s may have gone up in price recently since the 2.4.3 firmware isn't as nasty sounding as the 2.10/20 firmware that the new production PWD2s could only run.
  
 On the MSB DACs, I've heard that MSB will budge a little on the fully-loaded ones. The real trick is to grab a fully or nearly fully loaded one on the 'gon. For the crazy high-end stuff, no one pays retail; unless you are doctor rolling in the dough not having to take Obamacare patients.


----------



## mowglycdb

Purrin do your opinions about the Master-7 USB slightly change with the 2014v2 drivers?


----------



## purrin

I wrote something up a while back on the M7's new USB firmware. The post got buried by the avalanche of the recent banter. In a nutshell, the new USB is slightly better, but not anything transformative.
  
 See this post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/ranking-of-21-dacs-and-dac-configurations-and-why-chocolate-ice-cream-must-die/390#post_10205588


----------



## purrin

dan.gheorghe said:


> Haven't had your experience with so many dacs, and only listened to MSB Analog Dac which is no delta sigma, but what I have heard matches exactly your thoughts! I've heard many implementations of delta sigma dacs from 100 eur to 10k. There were differences, of course, but after a point the differences were too little for the money. I think that over a point, no matter how good is the implementation is, they are limited by the chips themselves. This is just a guess, so I may be wrong, of course.


 
  
 Oh no, you are certainly are not wrong. If you think about it, it begins with the chip (well actually it begins at the recording). Everything else in the DAC is meant to support the chip: receiving digital data, digital filtering, feeding the chip, analog filtering, converting/buffering the signal so it can feed line level inputs, etc.
  
 I like the MSB DACs too. There's a reason why we see so many MSB or other R2R type DACs at the audio shows. Some people don't mind that "digital" or delta-sigma sound at all. This is really what I see as the source of most disagreement regarding how the DACs are rated here.


----------



## mowglycdb

Interesting though the OR5 is out of my range of $$$$   dunno where I read that a OR6 was coming?


----------



## purrin

Just wait for Schiit's uber DAC. Knowing Mike Moffat and how he rails against DSD, PWM, sigma-delta, 1-bit, saying that such methods are not accurate enough to be employed for missiles or medical devices, I would assume that their uber DAC would be something along the lines of R2R, or if it wasn't, it would sound just like R2R.
  
 They already have a fine USB solution with their Gen 2, and I would assume they would try to top that with their TOTL.


----------



## music_man

I did not even notice he puts the mytek in class "s" as  well. he insults the Marantz flagship but "likes it". the most important thing he said was his precursor to all the reviews. this is all personal preference. I would not let anything anyone "says" persuade you, or dissuade you. the differences are subtle here. I feel one needs to listen for themselves or purchase with a return policy. furthermore it is best to be able to compare more than one device in your price range with your equipment in your residence. I can't stress enough that this stuff is not clear cut night and day that anyone can hear. this is very personal and one must decide for themselves. I am by no means insulting purrin. in fact I commend him for what he has done here. so please do not take my statements that way. where we do agree is his top tier. I feel that is good stuff as well. however I am telling you not to take my word for it either. on the other hand I do appreciate this much more than stereo magazines. there has yet to be any stereo component that is so great it can be universally recommended period. there are too many variables. your ears for starters. I also commend him for honesty as he sees it even in the top tier. again,unlike stereo magazines that polish everything they say. which is obviously in their best interest. when one gets to the point they have a relationship with a regular salesperson they can sort of trust/him her. before that point I would not go by their recommendations either. luckily any decent store has a return policy. which leads me to buying demos. always a good idea if possible the way this equipment depreciates. I mean no offence to anyone. I feel I am giving good advice. I know many of you are like,duh! I posted this because there are plenty of others that either fall victim and be unhappy or be elated. for those individuals it would be a toss up if they disregard my principles. like the lottery. anyways, I do appreciate what you have done purrin.


----------



## Maxvla




----------



## 62ohm

LOL


----------



## music_man

let it be known, grammar is not my strong suit! okay, I got a little carried away. oopsie.
  
 I just realized something. perhaps purrin could have thought the teac is better than it was. the headphone amp is okay,not great. using the balanced outputs is a must. 44.1/16, other dacs easily beat it in the $1,000 range. upsample to dsd 2x through the balanced outputs and (if you like the sound) this is where this dac shines. of course purists with nos r2r dacs may feel that is "cheating". pretty much the same goes for the mytek. so depending on how he was using these he may have been more impressed. I have completely modified the teac now so it is an entirely different beast. if one plans to use either of these with a redbook transport mainly I agree, look elsewhere. as well with the headphone amps. so perhaps we actually agree!


----------



## purrin

LOL yeah, I indicated the PCM constraints in that post first. Good reminder for all:
  
*Warning:*  ...
  
Although some DACs were DSD capable, we used PCM to evaluate the DACs because despite our combined extensive SACD collections, 99% of our content was still in PCM.
  
  
 I did mention that there were reports that the Mytek sounded better with DSD. (I have not verified this.) Same thing with X-Sabre and Vega, but both of those DACs more than hold their own with PCM. It didn't occur to me to run DSD through the Teac. For me, although I own a significant amount of SACDs, DSD is a non-consideration. Here is a little story: a real story.
  
 I was at 2014 THE SHOW where I was listening to a setup with the Mytek DSD DAC. I remarked to the rep: "This doesn't sound good. I know that DAC's characteristics and I'm not a big fan. Why use that DAC when the associated equipment around it is much more expensive and of better sound quality?"
  
 Rep: "Well, you really need the best quality sources, DSD, for it to shine."
  
 Me: "Do you have any DSD on that laptop?"
  
 Rep: "No."
  
 Me: "I have some good recordings here (both PCM and DSD), can I play any of my stuff?"
  
 Rep: "No."


----------



## elmoe

It always rubs me the wrong way when reps refuse to let you test things (safely) the way you want. These people expect you to drop thousands of dollars without a thought.


----------



## purrin

music_man said:


> upsample to dsd 2x through the balanced outputs and (if you like the sound) this is where this dac shines. of course purists with nos r2r dacs may feel that is "cheating".


 
  
 That's a good point you've brought up.
  
 To follow up, and something I forgot to mention: Some of these DSD compatible DACs tend to have poor internal hardware conversion from PCM to DSD / sigma-delta. I find that converting PCM (even 16/44) to DSD in real time, i.e. via JMRC19 playback software provides better, or at least different sound. 
  
 I wouldn't consider this cheating, and wasn't I was totally cognizant of when these comparos were started.


----------



## brunk

@purrin - Slight OT here, but feel free to reply via PM if you wish. How are you liking your OB's with a 15in. sub, and how are you crossing them over? I've tried 12 and 15s, but I like the detail my TOTL 8in. sub gives me. Do you get that detailed sound with your 15in.? I also noticed you're using REW, is that through JRMC to your favorite DAC? Thanks in advance


----------



## music_man

okay purrin we finally agree! cool. I am using jriver 19. I did not realize the software is doing the conversion but I just checked it out. I guess that does not say a whole lot about the teac after all but it is not exactly a expensive dac either. the pcm like you ran it through coax on the rca's is mediocre. highly modified the dac is very good. so people that are into projects could consider it I guess. the mytek is a lot like the bm dac1. I think it intends to be. not the most musical device. what I might do with $1,600 is buy a modded teac off the net. of course you are looking at no warranty and possible failure. I wish the pwd mkii was 2 grand new. that would be a game changer. I am not in the market I am just stating my feelings.
  
 they never let me test stuff at ces. I understand their feeling. you could damage something,change something or just embarrass them lol.
  
 sorry for the super long post before.


----------



## purrin

brunk said:


> @purrin - Slight OT here, but feel free to reply via PM if you wish. How are you liking your OB's with a 15in. sub, and how are you crossing them over? I've tried 12 and 15s, but I like the detail my TOTL 8in. sub gives me. Do you get that detailed sound with your 15in.? I also noticed you're using REW, is that through JRMC to your favorite DAC? Thanks in advance


 
  
 Actually it's x2 15" woofers x-over'd @200Hz LR24. Using cheap $79 Eminence Betas. It's really just a proof-of-concept which I plan on expanding. I would say the Betas can't quite keep up with the Cicada drivers, but I also wouldn't call the Betas slow sounding either. The Mojo's preouts are being fed to a DCX2496 and then into a Crest CA2 power amp. Currently not running a sub. I want to see how low I can go without subs. So far getting extension down to 35Hz. I'll probably end up replacing the Betas with these: http://www.aespeakers.com/drivers.php?driver_id=32


----------



## brunk

purrin said:


> Actually it's x2 15" woofers x-over'd @200Hz LR24. Using cheap $79 Eminence Betas. It's really just a proof-of-concept which I plan on expanding. I would say the Betas can't quite keep up with the Cicada drivers, but I also wouldn't call the Betas slow sounding either. The Mojo's preouts are being fed to a DCX2496 and then into a Crest CA2 power amp. The sub right now is out of the mix. I want to see how low I can go without the subs. I'll probably end up replacing the Betas with these: http://www.aespeakers.com/drivers.php?driver_id=32


 
 Cool, thanks for the info. Those look nice  I'm currently using Fostex FE206En in a BK20 enclosure with T90a supertweets. I too will be using a LR24 analog active at 10khz. I am thinking to just use the RCA-out of the DAC to the subs and use their crossover for themselves by ear. If you can think of an alternative solution I am all ears. Will you be testing the Yggdrasil when released by chance?
  
  Here's the project I'm working on. It's 4x LPUHP (16w) with analog active x-overs using OPA4227 


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## purrin

Yeah I've had something similar with the BK-16 kit and T90s. I was going to go on to the BK-20 boxes, until I realized I had the space to go all out and happened to have some Cicada drivers (ideal for OB) needing a home.
  
 I more or less plan on buying the Yggy based on what I know, which isn't much. But I get a sense of Mike's preferred sound and where Schiit wants to go with it. The Yggy is already late along with the Rag, but I'm guessing neither of those will go anywhere until they get it just right. Obviously something just slightly incrementally better than the Gungnir would not be acceptable, taking into account diminishing returns of course.
  
 I'm sure Jason's feeling the pressure already.


----------



## brunk

purrin said:


> Yeah I've had something similar with the BK-16 kit and T90s. I was going to go on to the BK-20 boxes, until I realized I had the space to go all out and happened to have some Cicada drivers (ideal for OB) needing a home.
> 
> I more or less plan on buying the Yggy based on what I know, which isn't much. But I get a sense of Mike's preferred sound and where Schiit wants to go with it. The Yggy is already late along with the Rag, but I'm guessing neither of those will go anywhere until they get it just right. Obviously something just slightly incrementally better than the Gungnir would not be acceptable, taking into account diminishing returns of course.
> 
> I'm sure Jason's feeling the pressure already.


 
 Hehe yeah I bet he is! I will be keeping a close eye on the Yggy and am looking forward to your review. It seems you and I have similar taste and mentality 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Have a good evening!


----------



## cizx

I can't believe I've been listening to opinions on audio equipment from someone whose speakers look like that.


----------



## brunk

cizx said:


> I can't believe I've been listening to opinions on audio equipment from someone whose speakers look like that.


 
 Lol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Mr. Pass approves though!


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## BournePerfect

cizx said:


> I can't believe I've been listening to opinions on audio equipment from someone whose speakers look like that.


 
  
 You should see his favorite headphones then...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 -Daniel


----------



## blitzxgene

bourneperfect said:


> You should see his favorite headphones then...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 lol


----------



## BournePerfect




----------



## brunk

^ LMAO "Noooo, not Bieber!!!"


----------



## music_man

I figured this was a good place to put my thoughts since we are talking about many dacs. I feel regardless of the dac, 2x dsd is the best! even on the msb. I know technically there are superior formats. I think it is perhaps because it is the closest to analog(sort of). apparently if you play a 1 bit stream right into an analog amp you will get music. maybe that explains why I like it so much. everyone is talking about dacs sounding more analog. I know this was against dsd so I might be talking to the wrong folks. I remember the first time I heard sacd. before it even hit the public. I thought it was the first real different kind of digital reproduction. for the better. than years later, here it is again. once again I prefer it vastly. why do you guys hate it? I am not playing dsd. I am upsampling redbook to dsd. which to me sounds much better than upsampling to 24/192 and even way above. it still holds true however that better dacs are better at dsd as well. well, at least for me and at least for now dsd has beaten out pcm upsampling. I will go so far as to say I am liking it better than nos r2r. the air,space,placement,prat all better to me. the only place it lacks a little is it does not seem to have as much sub bass as pcm. I just turned up my subs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 don't hold me to this though. I reserve the right to change my mind!
  
 one thing I would like to know are there any (much)cheaper dacs than the msb that can upsample to dsd on the coax? I wish I could do that with my transport in my bedroom.
 my pc is fine but I cannot find a rf remote receiver for the darn thing. I have a universal brand remote and it does not have ir and I do not want to buy another dongle. I know it is ot but if anyone know's how to work that id appreciate it.


----------



## cizx

Clearly DSD sounds better the more you do drugs.


----------



## music_man

cizx said:


> Clearly DSD sounds better the more you do drugs.


 
  
 that is really rude. this entire site is based on subjectivity. if you think it sucks you do not have to say something like that to me.


----------



## lljayll

.


----------



## magiccabbage

Eh purrin you gonna get the new Schiit YDD? Any interest?


----------



## Maxvla

Yes he will.


----------



## cizx

music_man said:


> that is really rude. this entire site is based on subjectivity. if you think it sucks you do not have to say something like that to me.


 
 You're right, it does sound rude.  I apologize.  I was trying to be funny.


----------



## music_man

okay that's cool. for some reason I did not realize you were joking.


----------



## cizx

I get that a lot.


----------



## KT66

Only just seen this, am I the only one surprised to see no mention
 of the Audiolab M-DAC?
  
 Is it considered old fashioned and out of date now??
  
 Or maybe it's just not that popular outside of the UK


----------



## cizx

Send one to Purrin and he'll add it, I'm sure.
  
 We should put a collection together to fund this scientific study!


----------



## Sanlitun

purrin said:


> Just wait for Schiit's uber DAC. Knowing Mike Moffat and how he rails against DSD, PWM, sigma-delta, 1-bit, saying that such methods are not accurate enough to be employed for missiles or medical devices, I would assume that their uber DAC would be something along the lines of R2R, or if it wasn't, it would sound just like R2R.
> 
> They already have a fine USB solution with their Gen 2, and I would assume they would try to top that with their TOTL.


 
  
  
 This is what I am waiting for. I like the Schiit sound and the sound of the Bifrost,  but it left me as being a little too unrefined and I am using the X-Sabre until something else comes along. I would love to have a super clean sounding ultra Bifrost and I hope that's what the Yggdrasil might be.
  
 Aside from that, the DACs I would like to try are:
  
 Bryston BDA-2 - AKM4399 and XMOS
  
 PWD MK II - But it's $4000
  
 Schiit Yggdrasil - Doesn't exist yet
  
 Anything else?


----------



## SoupRKnowva

sanlitun said:


> PWD MK II - But it's $4000




No one pays that much for the PWD though, street price is quite a bit lower than that


----------



## music_man

they have pwd mkii demos for 2-2.5 grand.
  
 guys I have a question and I can't believe I am asking this. is there a dac that is very small in physical size but considered serious stuff? it does not have to do dsd but I like that. I mean like not more than 10" square and 5" tall.  like in the 2-6 grand price range.  I know the bm dac2 and stereo192 etc but I mean better than those. something that is not only sold online though. it seems most of the good ones are full components and then some.
  
 edit: it has to have balanced and rca. does not require headamp.


----------



## brunk

music_man said:


> they have pwd mkii demos for 2-2.5 grand.
> 
> guys I have a question and I can't believe I am asking this. is there a dac that is very small in physical size but considered serious stuff? it does not have to do dsd but I like that. I mean like not more than 10" square and 5" tall.  like in the 2-6 grand price range.  I know the bm dac2 and stereo192 etc but I mean better than those. something that is not only sold online though. it seems most of the good ones are full components and then some.
> 
> edit: it has to have balanced and rca. does not require headamp.


 
 Resonessence Mirus and Invicta, Playback Designs MPD-3, Lindemann Music Book 10-15 Series and the Exasound e22.


----------



## music_man

thank you brunk.
  
 afaik all of those can only be purchased online. I guess I need to get with the times already. the only one I knew about was the exasound which I have had my eyes on. the other look good too. of course I think purrin does not like sabre either. that's alright, I do lol. I thought about the wadia 121 but read many reports of them locking up etc. plus not dsd.
  
 if you look back at what I did to the teac I am thinking these are still in a different league. i really don't know. that's why i was wanting easy access to them.


----------



## REXNFX

purrin said:


> LOL, that one was slightly surprising to me.
> 
> I didn't think the DSD128 "decimated" to 44.1 and reconverted back to DSD128 would sound _exactly _the same as the original DSD128. I couldn't distinguish between them in sighted tests. I couldn't distinguish between them in single blind tests either (conducted by my wife this morning).


 
 How did the 44.1 sound compared to the upsampled versions? Also if the upsampled redbook is as good as hi-res do we need these hi-res versions at all? Cheers!


----------



## music_man

since i rediscovered dsd now on a computer i prefer redbook upsampled to dsd128-dsd512. i like it better than redbook upsampled to 24/192 which i originally preferred. i hope to hear from purrin on this too. i have not experimented with 32/384 up to 35/1.5mhz. the thing is i think we all want analog sound and dsd is closer to analog. 1 bit is playable through analog amps so i am told. i felt upsampled redbook and an actual dsd recording were about the same.


----------



## purrin

rexnfx said:


> How did the 44.1 sound compared to the upsampled versions? Also if the upsampled redbook is as good as hi-res do we need these hi-res versions at all? Cheers!


 
  
 44.1 (not converted to anything else) straight into the DSD DAC sounded microdynamically flatter than same 44.1 upconverted to DSDx2. This was my observation of the Vega DAC. The Vega DAC also handled 44.1 upsampled to 192 or DXD just as good as DSD. The X-Sabre handled DSD better than any kind of PCM. The differences were minor though with these DACs, i.e. less than the difference between any two DACs, which in many cases really isn't that significant to begin with.
  
 If I had a DSD DAC, it's probably a good bet to always have JRMC convert to DSD and feeding that DSD DAC using DoP.


----------



## music_man

wow purrin! you have really surprised me. I guess we just had a misunderstanding originally. you and i mostly agree on how dacs should be used. I even bet if you retried the teac the way I said you would not think it is class "s" either. it certainly is not a pwd mkii either for that matter. well, stock at least. I think dsd dacs mostly they really focused on the dsd. so I do not think it is a proper comparison. a dac like the bryston or McIntosh will sound plenty good at 24/192. the msb on the other hand just sounds good at everything and it better.


----------



## yfei

music_man said:


> since i rediscovered dsd now on a computer i prefer redbook upsampled to dsd128-dsd512. i like it better than redbook upsampled to 24/192 which i originally preferred. i hope to hear from purrin on this too. i have not experimented with 32/384 up to 35/1.5mhz. the thing is i think we all want analog sound and dsd is closer to analog. 1 bit is playable through analog amps so i am told. i felt upsampled redbook and an actual dsd recording were about the same.


 
 My impression of redbook upsampled to dsd 64:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/ranking-of-21-dacs-and-dac-configurations-and-why-chocolate-ice-cream-must-die/315#post_10172232
 In short, I can feel big differences.  The converted DSD is smoothed out in the highs, contains less information.  It sounds smooth, but not really natural.   So I still prefer 44.1k.
 People also did experiments of converting redbook to LP disc.  And the playback of LP sounds very different from redbook.  And many people prefer the converted LP.
  
 My impression of redbook vs high res PCM vs DSD:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/ranking-of-21-dacs-and-dac-configurations-and-why-chocolate-ice-cream-must-die/345#post_10182975
 In short, I prefer high res (both PCM and DSD) than redbook for sure.      And I slightly prefer high res PCM (>=192k Hz) over DSD.
  
 And recently I started to try SACD recordings, so far I found ~50% of them are true high res, ~25% of them clearly the same as redbook,  ~25% I am not sure.    I think it's due to some publishers/labels are not honest.     So if purrin happened to sample some bad SACDs, then it will lead to the conclusion that DSD no better than redbook.


----------



## Sanlitun

yfei said:


> My impression of redbook upsampled to dsd 64:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/ranking-of-21-dacs-and-dac-configurations-and-why-chocolate-ice-cream-must-die/315#post_10172232
> In short, I can feel big differences.  The converted DSD is smoothed out in the highs, contains less information.  It sounds smooth, but not really natural.   So I still prefer 44.1k.
> People also did experiments of converting redbook to LP disc.  And the playback of LP sounds very different from redbook.  And many people prefer the converted LP.
> ...


 
  
 This pretty much mirrors what I had found when I tried all of this out with the X-Sabre. Upsampling to DSD seems to smooth out the highs and the attack somewhat, and upsampling to DSDx2 just makes mashed potatoes out of the original track.
  
 This page is extremely interesting in this regard and I don't know if it has been posted here previously: PCM to DSD Upsampling Effects
  
 I have a Cary 303/300 CD player that has an upsampler button (all the way to 768kHz lol) on it and the effect is similar. It just becomes fuzzy in a slightly pleasant manner.
  
Now I have found that some native DSD files (Pink Floyd's Wish you were here and the LSO Beethoven series) sound very very good through the X-Sabre. So I gather that part of the issue may be how well JRiver can do the DSD encoding on the fly. It's hard to imagine that it isn't some sort of noisy or lossy process. It might be more interesting to see what happens with a better DSD converter.
  
 This is all pretty much academic for me as my only interest in DSD is at those times when there is no hi-res PCM alternative.


----------



## REXNFX

sanlitun said:


> This pretty much mirrors what I had found when I tried all of this out with the X-Sabre. Upsampling to DSD seems to smooth out the highs and the attack somewhat, and upsampling to DSDx2 just makes mashed potatoes out of the original track.
> 
> This page is extremely interesting in this regard and I don't know if it has been posted here previously: PCM to DSD Upsampling Effects
> 
> ...


 
 Was looking for a way to make 16/44 sound like hi-res, guess not possible in your experience?


----------



## music_man

man I totally mistook you guys. I thought you guys were saying upsampling to dsd sounded great. I guess I am alone on that one then. it does compress the soundstage but I think it greatly increases the prat. oh well, ill listen to it alone.


----------



## purrin

Well, I actually do think that JMRC upsampling to either DSD, 192 PCM, or DXD on the Vega DAC sounds better than 44.1 PCM. On PWD2, I prefer upsampling Red Book x2 or x4 because it smoothes out the graininess and raspyness of the DAC (but at the expense of the blunting of attacks).
  
 I think one thing that we can all agree on is that Red Book does at least sound _different _when upsampled to higher rez PCM or DSD. And that _different _may sound either better or worse depending upon individual taste.


----------



## Sanlitun

rexnfx said:


> Was looking for a way to make 16/44 sound like hi-res, guess not possible in your experience?


 
  
 I think it's completely a matter of personal preference and what your DAC is capable of. A lot of people obviously like the sound of the converted DSD in JRiver, but for me it is too different to consider it to be an improvement.
  
 I did find that some modest upsampling sounded good on bad 16/44 recordings with the X-Sabre. I set it to output 24/48 and there was just a touch more flesh and presence without losing attack. You can set JRiver to output pretty much any bitrate, so there is a lot of room to experiment if your DAC can handle the higher rates.


----------



## REXNFX

sanlitun said:


> I think it's completely a matter of personal preference and what your DAC is capable of. A lot of people obviously like the sound of the converted DSD in JRiver, but for me it is too different to consider it to be an improvement.
> 
> I did find that some modest upsampling sounded good on bad 16/44 recordings with the X-Sabre. I set it to output 24/48 and there was just a touch more flesh and presence without losing attack. You can set JRiver to output pretty much any bitrate, so there is a lot of room to experiment if your DAC can handle the higher rates.


 
 Guess I'll just have to take the plunge and buy a cheap DSD DAC like the Herus or iDSD and JRiver and give it a go. The best digital files I've heard so far are DSD but like most people all my music is redbook so have been reluctant to adopt it. The other thing holding me back has been an interesting comparison of DSD V PCM via the PS Audio Phono Converter on Digital Audio Review where the reviewer states that PCM is more true the original recording than DSD. Ultimately fidelity to the original recording is what matters and I think it's more objective than subjective.


----------



## music_man

I would not say it is objective. that is like saying everyone sees a Picasso the same way. it is not like saying a pinto was a lousy car. the msb sounds better at pcm. that is not because the msb's dsd is weak. it is because the msb is just superior overall and works right. the teac even modded, it's just much better at dsd. the msb will easily beat the teacs dsd at 16/44.1. that should be no surprise. I do like the teac on dsd with small speakers though. I think with the better dacs things work as they should. I don't know if any high end dac sounds better with pcm upsampled to dsd. that is a big leap in conversion. furthermore, those of us that like dsd I do not understand how 1 bit can sound any good at all. scientifically it does not make sense. of course not much in audio ever does. I would love to take a good dac and try dbt pcm vs dsd myself. I have no idea what would happen. I am sure we can all hear the difference. it is hard to pin down which is better. anyways, I might trade the teac in on a better pcm dac. like the ones that were mentioned to me earlier here. it will be interesting if I prefer dsd on those. they are a lot better than the teac but no where near the msb. ill report when it comes. I am kind of guessing dsd is just better on the cheaper dacs because that is what they focused on.


----------



## REXNFX

rexnfx said:


> Guess I'll just have to take the plunge and buy a cheap DSD DAC like the Herus or iDSD and JRiver and give it a go. The best digital files I've heard so far are DSD but like most people all my music is redbook so have been reluctant to adopt it. The other thing holding me back has been an interesting comparison of DSD V PCM via the PS Audio Phono Converter on Digital Audio Review where the reviewer states that PCM is more true the original recording than DSD. Ultimately fidelity to the original recording is what matters and I think it's more objective than subjective.


 
  
  


music_man said:


> I would not say it is objective. that is like saying everyone sees a Picasso the same way. it is not like saying a pinto was a lousy car. the msb sounds better at pcm. that is not because the msb's dsd is weak. it is because the msb is just superior overall and works right. the teac even modded, it's just much better at dsd. the msb will easily beat the teacs dsd at 16/44.1. that should be no surprise. I do like the teac on dsd with small speakers though. I think with the better dacs things work as they should. I don't know if any high end dac sounds better with pcm upsampled to dsd. that is a big leap in conversion. furthermore, those of us that like dsd I do not understand how 1 bit can sound any good at all. scientifically it does not make sense. of course not much in audio ever does. I would love to take a good dac and try dbt pcm vs dsd myself. I have no idea what would happen. I am sure we can all hear the difference. it is hard to pin down which is better. anyways, I might trade the teac in on a better pcm dac. like the ones that were mentioned to me earlier here. it will be interesting if I prefer dsd on those. they are a lot better than the teac but no where near the msb. ill report when it comes. I am kind of guessing dsd is just better on the cheaper dacs because that is what they focused on.


 
 My 'objective' comment was related to the PS Audio Phono converter, where it is possible to compare the analogue output (straight vinyl) to the digitized version in PCM or DSD. So objectively you can hear which version sounds more like the original vinyl.


----------



## purrin

That's a can of worms. You can put four different AD converters (PCM, DSD, or DXD) together ranging from $999 to $15000 and get umpteen different result combinations from different people. And this can be complicated even more if we switch around playback DACs (PCM, DSD, or DXD).


----------



## REXNFX

I'm confused, given my example uses the same ADC and DAC do you not think it is possible to objectively say which conversion is closest to the original vinyl?


----------



## purrin

No, because the limitation may not necessarily be the format, but the PS Audio gizmo and how it handles them.
  
 For example, what if conversion to DSD sounds worse on the PS Audio gizmo compared to conversion to DXD on the MSB Platinum ADC?


----------



## REXNFX

I never said this example would give a definitive answer as to whether PCM is better than DSD just that with this gear, PSA ADC and Invicta Mirus DAC, the PCM version sounded objectively closer to analogue. Capturing and playing back sound as accuratley as possible should be the aim of the music/hifi industry.


----------



## purrin

Ah gotcha. I'm not sure about the aims of the hifi industry. The pro-sound industry seems much more level headed.


----------



## music_man

lol. I am not going to comment on that. I will get run right out of here. that being said, dsd is clearly driven by consumer demand. regardless of whom likes it or not. I will let you in on a little secret but you all probably already know this. dsd has to be converted back and forth to pcm x number of times in the recording process before the final dsd master is laid down. trust me I know this.


----------



## musicinmymind

Hi purrin

  
 I am not sure if you had a chance to try Emo DC-1, if yes how do you rate Emo DC-1 as a DAC.
  

 I got them as they have trail period and wanted to check with Emo UPA-200 (power amp). I was particularly interested as they have solid pre-amp with analog volume control, on my setup I am getting zero noise floor. Currently Driving HE-6, HE-400 and even HD-650 with UPA-200 (125W per channel at 8ohm) with any issues, able to max out the volume (only for testing).

  

 I am liking DC-1, but wanted to know is there any better DAC out there with preamp as good as DC-1.


----------



## purrin

music_man said:


> lol. I am not going to comment on that. I will get run right out of here. that being said, dsd is clearly driven by consumer demand. regardless of whom likes it or not. I will let you in on a little secret but you all probably already know this. dsd has to be converted back and forth to pcm x number of times in the recording process before the final dsd master is laid down. trust me I know this.


 
  
 It's what I've said.
  
 Hifi / audiophiles worry way too much about stupid stuff like DSD to PCM to DSD conversions, DSD64 vs. DSD128, etc. which in the end makes little difference compared to recording and mic'ing techniques, mixing, equalization, mastering processes, setting up playback systems which can provide a suitable reference sound. My experience at hifi shows has mostly been What?! with a few exceptions here and there.


----------



## purrin

musicinmymind said:


> Hi purrin
> 
> 
> I am not sure if you had a chance to try Emo DC-1, if yes how do you rate Emo DC-1 as a DAC.
> ...


 
  
 Someone I trust compared the Emo to the Gungnir and remarked that they were very close with perhaps the Gungnir being a tad more detailed and dynamic and the DC-1 a bit more polite sounding, but no significant jump. Makes sense. I think both DACs use the same AKM chip.
  
 If the DC-1 has a great preamp (I don't know about this), then you should probably stick with it. I know the PWD2 can be used as a preamp, but the volume control is digital and we get degradation (loss of bits) if we reduce volume from 100%.


----------



## music_man

purrin said:


> It's what I've said.
> 
> Hifi / audiophiles worry way too much about stupid stuff like DSD to PCM to DSD conversions, DSD64 vs. DSD128, etc. which in the end makes little difference compared to recording and mic'ing techniques, mixing, equalization, mastering processes, setting up playback systems which can provide a suitable reference sound. My experience at hifi shows has mostly been What?! with a few exceptions here and there.


 
  
  
 people are worrying about formats,tweaks,cables etc. set up what you have right and it will make a big difference. I don't mean if you have a boombox. any stereo worth 8 grand or so can sound good in it's own right. all that other stuff I would not worry about until you were already at the limits of your current system. a format is not going to sound better unless the listening room is up to it. well, it will perhaps sound better but it can sound a lot better. the reason you hear high end turntable systems that sound better is because people tend to set those up right. the truth is if everything is done right plain old 16/44.1 will sound very good. redbook is really no slouch. I see peoples pictures with a 10 grand dac next to their computer on a cart. as well as the recording. there are honestly not a lot of great recordings. a super redbook recording can and will sound great.
  
 now for the record, I am using a ogg radio stream upsampled to dsd. in a very good system it makes "okay" sound "pretty good". still not as good as proper redbook. so it has it's place for me. in this case it does sound better than any pcm to me. the thing is the system is right so it is going to make a difference.
  
 if you want to know something else about dsd, on the msb pcm sounds better. go figure. all these cheap dsd dacs focused on dsd at any cost(or savings) and are lacking in pcm. if I was going to have one dac I would be looking for the best pcm. even after I modded the teac dsd is still it's strong suit because I did not change the converter.


----------



## yfei

music_man said:


> if you want to know something else about dsd, on the msb pcm sounds better. go figure. all these cheap dsd dacs focused on dsd at any cost(or savings) and are lacking in pcm. if I was going to have one dac I would be looking for the best pcm. even after I modded the teac dsd is still it's strong suit because I did not change the converter.


 
 That sounds reasonable.   MSB is R-2R resistor ladder based DAC.   This is perfect for converting PCM to analog.   (But I don't know if R2R is good for DSD or not.)
While most other DACs use Delta-Sigma DAC chip.    From my understanding, Delta-Sigma is good for DSD,  but not good for PCM.    That may explain why Teac DSD sounds better than PCM.


----------



## hans030390

My experience with DACs is relatively limited (but quickly growing), but I was given the chance to borrow the Gungnir for a while. purrin's description fit what I heard pretty well.
  
 - It's true that the gen 2 USB input is really good! I took some basic measurements, and it slightly outperformed SPDIF performance from the JKSPDIF MK3 (w/ 10dB attenuator). Jitter in particular was almost non-existent. The rest of the measurements overall looked great and mostly maxed out the capabilities of my ADC. In other words, I can verify most claims and specifications listed on Schiit's site. It's (objectively) good Schiit.
  
 - Going up against my Metrum Hex (w/ JKSPDIF, Gungnir on USB), I found the Gungnir to have a very sweet, easy-to-listen-to quality. I found both to be quite dynamic, and, surprisingly enough, I did not find the Hex to sound more laid-back than the Gungnir. They were more laid-back/more aggressive than the other in their own ways. I think this is because I found the Gungnir slightly softer sounding overall, and the Hex did a slightly better job conveying micro-swings, movement, and what I (for some reason) want to call small packets of blackness in between the notes/music. However, the Hex does technically have more of a roll-off in the very upper treble than the Gungnir, hence them being more laid-back than the other in their own ways. Gungnir had a slightly more expansive soundstage, where as the Hex was more compact and intimate. I liked what the compact nature did for vocals (greater focus and a sense of body) and "smaller" music (such as, say, a 5-piece, modern rock band), but the Gungnir is probably better for music that has more of a need for a wider soundstage and more-separated layers. (Listening tests done in 16/44.1 with NO software upsampling on either DAC. The Hex seems to handle 16/44.1 material w/out upsampling better than the Quad, and the Hex inherently has less of a treble roll-off vs. the Quad as well.)
  
 - I really like the looks, feel, and finish of the Gungnir. Very sleek, yet simple. The Hex is about as boring as you can get in that regard, but both feel robust and well-built. The Gungnir was also much bigger than I expected!
  
 Very nice overall! I would highly recommend the Gungnir or Bifrost w/ upgrades (haven't heard it, basing off Gungnir).


----------



## kothganesh

hans030390 said:


> My experience with DACs is relatively limited (but quickly growing), but I was given the chance to borrow the Gungnir for a while. purrin's description fit what I heard pretty well.
> 
> - It's true that the gen 2 USB input is really good! I took some basic measurements, and it slightly outperformed SPDIF performance from the JKSPDIF MK3 (w/ 10dB attenuator). Jitter in particular was almost non-existent. The rest of the measurements overall looked great and mostly maxed out the capabilities of my ADC. In other words, I can verify most claims and specifications listed on Schiit's site. It's (objectively) good Schiit.
> 
> ...


 
 What cable did you use to hook up to the USB ? I'm using a Wireworld Platinum Starlight and the music is just fabulous. I also have a BNC Halide USB/SPDIF and for some reason, the USB is a tad louder than the bridge for the same level of my volume pot (on the Mjolnir).
  
 Thanks


----------



## hans030390

I used about the most generic USB cable you could find, and it still slightly outperformed the SPDIF converter (as mentioned, JKSPDIF MK3, battery powered, w/ attenuator using 75ohm BNC connectors and the best digital audio, 75ohm cable I could get from Blue Jeans Cable). Granted, the converter also used that same USB cable, FWIW.
  
 I stumbled on this post from Jason:
  
_1. The new USB Gen 2 input is really, really good. I'll put it up against any converter under $500, and many over that price. Why? Because even with the best USB-SPDIF converter, you're still dependent on how good the DAC is at SPDIF. Now, Gungnir is VERY, VERY good at SPDIF due to the unique Adapticlock system--it is the only DAC out there that assesses the input center frequency and jitter in order to assign it to the best clock regeneration system. But the USB Gen 2 measures even better. Now, measurements are not everything, but the fact remains: USB can outperform SPDIF, at least in measured performance._
  
_2. The Gungnir's USB input doesn't need any conditioning, auxiliary power, cables that cost more than Gungnir itself, plutonium rectifiers, magic faerie dust, rituals involving swinging a dead chicken by the light of the full moon, or any other quantum arcana in order to achieve top performance. Get a good USB 2.0 cable. Connect it. Done._
  
 Doesn't seem like the Gungnir is too picky.


----------



## kothganesh

hans030390 said:


> I used about the most generic USB cable you could find, and it still slightly outperformed the SPDIF converter (as mentioned, JKSPDIF MK3, battery powered, w/ attenuator using 75ohm BNC connectors and the best digital audio, 75ohm cable I could get from Blue Jeans Cable). Granted, the converter also used that same USB cable, FWIW.
> 
> I stumbled on this post from Jason:
> 
> ...


 
 Oh Schiit.... I swung the dead chicken on NEW MOON Day


----------



## hans030390

That's the awesome thing about the Gungnir and USB gen 2 input. Even from my gaming desktop with USB, and when my good-but-basic ADC wasn't being fussy with the Gungnir measurements (not the DAC's fault), I was able to get very clean measurements and almost nothing on JTest (a jitter test). It also sounded really good. 
  
 So, here we have a great, sweet sounding DAC that does very little wrong and makes very few compromises, has some good options in terms of outputs/inputs/potential modular upgrades, won't give you any trouble, and...doesn't require a bunch of Schiit and specific configurations in the chain (hardware and software) to make it work like it should. At that price, it's awesome.


----------



## thegunner100

hans030390 said:


> That's the awesome thing about the Gungnir and USB gen 2 input. Even from my gaming desktop with USB, and when my good-but-basic ADC wasn't being fussy with the Gungnir measurements (not the DAC's fault), I was able to get very clean measurements and almost nothing on JTest (a jitter test). It also sounded really good.
> 
> So, here we have a great, sweet sounding DAC that does very little wrong and makes very few compromises, has some good options in terms of outputs/inputs/potential modular upgrades, won't give you any trouble, and...doesn't require a bunch of Schiit and specific configurations in the chain (hardware and software) to make it work like it should. At that price, it's awesome.


 
  
 Indeed... now we just need that modular analog upgrade


----------



## Armaegis

I think they called that the Reveel


----------



## m2man

http://www.psaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PS-Audio-DirectStream.pdf

PS Audio's DSD converting DAC. 6k list price. Ships in April.


----------



## cizx

m2man said:


> http://www.psaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PS-Audio-DirectStream.pdf
> 
> PS Audio's DSD converting DAC. 6k list price. Ships in April.


 
 I gotta say, that sounds like a lot of marketing dazzle... I'll wait for a whole lot of impressions before upgrading my PWD2.


----------



## purrin

More marketing bull$hit from Paul@PSA I see.
  
 EDIT: I'm just naturally skeptical. For all we know, it could sound great, even better than how today's ladder DACs handle PCM. I'll believe it when I hear it. Maybe Paul can send me a free one for evaluation. If it's indeed the bees-knees, I'll be the first to choke on my own vomit and admit I was wrong. (Like how I did with the Abyss.)


----------



## arnaud

I usually have more qualms about PS Audio marketing fluff. This time, I am interested though.
  
 What if (I know many things can happen with whatifs  ), they have a clean way to convert to DSD? The conversion of the stream to analog is notoriously simple / free of artifact, so, don't they stand a chance to have a really good sounding product?
  
 It's interesting TotalDAC is doing the same thing but the other way around . They can take a DSD stream and massage it in their FGPA so as to feed the R2R DAC (an upgrade to their D1).
  
 I am not quite on the DSD bandwagon yet but, certainly, a DAC that won't use the typical Delta/Sigma converter is appealing to me, esp. if it can handle any input signal.
  
 Arnaud


----------



## purrin

This is all conjecture, but the part that scares me about DSD / 1-bit / delta-sigma is the ultrasonic noise / quantization error which is produced and the noise shaping techniques used to move this noise outside the audio band. I do seriously wonder if why such DACs, i.e. especially SABRE, sound they way they do because of this. Maybe Paul is on to something with the 10x DSD, the FPGA, and associated custom filters. I mean, quite a few others and I did at least get _different _results when converting PCM to DSD via JRMC in real-time to DSD DACs.
  
 Then I start to think about Mike Moffatt @ Schiit saying stuff about DSD being inherently inaccurate and not suitable to diagnosing diseases (leaving sick people to die) or guiding missiles (killing people which we did not intend to kill.)


----------



## seaice

Hi Purrin,
  
 thanks for the great informative comparisons! I am still not sure about the Offramp 5 for my A-Gd M7 but the temptation is very strong 
  
 Have you compared the direct USB connection of the M7 (with the latest drivers and firmware 2014V2) and the Off5>I2S>M7?
 What cable do you use for the i2S connection Off5>M7?
  
 Many thanks in advance!


----------



## purrin

I did try the USB with the latest firmware - go through the thread to find it.
  
 I use a custom made short CAT6.
  
 What would be interesting would be to try other cheap converters like the M2Tech (the OR5 is based on that one, but heavily tweaked with a bunch of boutique parts, separate clock boards, power regulators, etc.) to see if there's an improvement over the stock USB.


----------



## seaice

Thanks, I will make my CAT6 as well.
  
 One experience with the cheap USB converters:
 Some time ago, I tried the first version of hiFace versus the Audio-GD DI-V3 > BNC > A-GD Reference One and preferred the DI-V3 with old drivers and firmware.


----------



## purrin

Yup just too many variables, not to mention the effects of these converters could be different on different DACs.


----------



## cizx

purrin said:


> This is all conjecture, but the part that scares me about DSD / 1-bit / delta-sigma is the ultrasonic noise / quantization error which is produced and the noise shaping techniques used to move this noise outside the audio band. I do seriously wonder if why such DACs, i.e. especially SABRE, sound they way they do because of this. Maybe Paul is on to something with the 10x DSD, the FPGA, and associated custom filters. I mean, quite a few others and I did at least get _different _results when converting PCM to DSD via JRMC in real-time to DSD DACs.
> 
> Then I start to think about Mike Moffatt @ Schiit saying stuff about DSD being inherently inaccurate and not suitable to diagnosing diseases (leaving sick people to die) or guiding missiles (killing people which we did not intend to kill.)


 
 What was PS Audio's stance on DSD before they were trying to sell you a DSD DAC?  Schiit's position on DSD was don't bother, before and after they started selling a DSD DAC.  I tend to trust the Schiit guys, as they don't seem prone to bullschiit.
  
 Of course, I know next to nothing about the tech behind these.  I work at Analog Devices, but I only do the email.


----------



## REXNFX

I just hope there is some truth in PSA's claims as I've always thought PCM sounded broken.


----------



## Greed

rexnfx said:


> I just hope there is some truth in PSA's claims as I've always thought PCM sounded broken.


 
  
 That's funny because most recordings today have been converted to and from PCM at some point.


----------



## yfei

greed said:


> That's funny because most recordings today have been converted to and from PCM at some point.


 
 From what I read and understand from PSA's statement,
http://www.psaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PS-Audio-DirectStream.pdf
 They didn't say PCM is bad,   they agree PCM 44.1k is good,   but how Delta-Sigma DAC chips playback PCM is wrong, those chips makes PCM sounds leveled, and lost details.
 Their chip (FPGA) converts PCM to DSD 10x internally, then playback DSD using 1bit delta sigma.      And they claim the end result is, PCM becomes fully smooth, and full of details.
  
 I don't know that's possible or not.   But hope they can make it, adding a new fun toy to the world.


----------



## skeptic

Interesting.  I wonder how the architecture of the new PS Audio dac willl ultimately stack up against the forthcoming John Swenson/Bottlehead FPGA based dac.


----------



## brunk

skeptic said:


> Interesting.  I wonder how the architecture of the new PS Audio dac willl ultimately stack up against the forthcoming John Swenson/Bottlehead FPGA based dac.


 
 Thanks for reminding me to put that on my watchlist


----------



## music_man

so much for ps audio and chocolate ice cream. dang son,10x? I think I know what I am looking forward to. face it dsd is the fotm for now. I love it too. you know you can do this stuff with software. a modern pc can crunch much more numbers than these dacs. of course there is something to be said about dedicated hardware. I am kicking myself deciding if the msb's pcm sounds better than the modded teacs dsd. it just can't be. first of all it is class "s". second of all the msb is 65x the teacs price. I already decided the teac is better than the msb on dsd. I have to go shoot myself in the foot. I am not being an idiot. I just think dsd is the killer app. you have to try ben and jerrys to really decide haha. seriously I want to see a no holds barred dsd only dac. the ps audio may very well be just that. of course the nad is doing 35 bit pwm. choices,choices. I said before, when sacd came out I was blown away. the thing with the modded teac is it sounds like a digital turntable. I will probably go nuts on the ps audio when I get it. I mod everything of theirs you guys should hear my gcha. it is my fav headamp hands down. I feel all these arguments dsd is old hat are null. so is redbook and sacd is newer than that! I wonder what dac is best at dsd right now but I will probably wait for the ps audio.
  
 purrin, am I correct that you don't hate dsd as much anymore? you just have to embrace it. it is like when gps came out. for a year I thought maps were still where it was at.


----------



## ericfarrell85

Maybe look into the Lampi DSD DAC? I haven't heard it but some folks have become raving lunatics post listen.


----------



## music_man

that is about as analog as a dac can get. only into solid state though. still, that's not a bad idea.


----------



## gevorg

> 30-year PCM cover-up




:rolleyes:


----------



## cizx

gevorg said:


>


 
 This.
  
 Marketing hype.


----------



## music_man

I did not see the original full comment. could someone please copy/paste what exactly is a 30 year pcm cover up? it is funny how all these companies say we don't need a dsd dac until they come out with one.


----------



## cizx

m2man said:


> http://www.psaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PS-Audio-DirectStream.pdf
> 
> PS Audio's DSD converting DAC. 6k list price. Ships in April.


 
 Here.


----------



## music_man

thanks. my pdf reader needed fixing. anyways, I can't say anything about it until I hear it. I can say I do not care for their marketing claims. I think their stance was the pwd mkii did not need dsd. I could be wrong on that. it converts 10x then to 2x? huh? "it can be done with software...." but of course that is no good. I would like a choice if I listen to pcm or dsd and at what rate and word length. furthermore I think the price of ps audios products has outpaced the brand. it is a mid tier brand imo. there Chinese power cords for over a grand. I remember paul commenting they could build them better in china. I think ps audio has become very greedy. a 30 year coverup? I thought they meant a conspiracy. we have been missing what has been sitting on or shelves all this time. maybe they can merge with Shakti. in fact I remember how I laughed when I bought my first ps audio component. they stated in the manual "you need" a ps audio power cord and vibration control for optimum results. they have made very good stuff. I just don't like these claims. even though I do now prefer dsd at the moment. this reminds me of how 10 million Toyotas broke all at once. well, the jury is out I will have to hear the thing. for all I know I eat my words. if it takes out the msb then it is worth the 6 grand indeed. we shall see/hear......


----------



## purrin

> rexnfx said:
> 
> 
> > I just hope there is some truth in PSA's claims as I've always thought PCM sounded broken.
> ...


 
  
 PCM is broken only in the sense that DSD or most sigma-delta DACs don't do PCM right. PCM on most R2R DACs still sound better to me than DSD from most DSD DACs. Even then, the mastering process has much more of an influence on the final sound quality. I have a significant amount of DSD material which I have converted to PCM (44.1), and vice versa. These are my observations in terms of sound quality:
  

Audio production process (big basket here) before mastering
Mastering
DAC
Container (DSD or PCM), _obviously this only applies on DSD capable DACs, and even then I cannot say handling of the DSD container is definitely better on all DSD DACs. And even if it is better, the difference is so tiny as to not make the DAC sound like a better one._
 _​_
 Given that there are software tools which can convert DSD to PCM, even in real-time, I'd rather take the better DAC, be it DSD compatible or not.
  

  
 Quote:


music_man said:


> purrin, am I correct that you don't hate dsd as much anymore? you just have to embrace it. it is like when gps came out. for a year I thought maps were still where it was at.


 
  
 I don't hate it. But I still think it needs to die. A third time. The issue I have with it is the current marketing push by hardware manufacturers as the "must have" or ultimate panacea. IMO, it would be unwise for people to automatically disregard (and this does happen) the non-DSD compatible DACs in this list such as the Lavry DA11, NAD51, Emotiva DC-1, Schiit Gungnir, Audio-GD M7, etc. because they cannot play back DSD with a software conversion. I play back DSD all the time on three non-DSD PCM DACs in my home.
  
 I'll change my position when the last five, three, even two recordings I buy are available in DSD.


----------



## cizx

purrin said:


> I'll change my position when the last five, three, even two recordings I buy are available in DSD.


 
  
 That last is an especially good point.  There really isn't enough available in DSD to make it worth it for me.  
  
 I'll make this promise, though... if Apple starts selling tracks on iTunes in DSD, I'll upgrade.  I don't buy iTunes tracks now, mostly because they're not lossless, but it would be an indicator of the format's success if Apple started using it.  I'd still rather just see them sell lossless redbook or hi-res PCM.


----------



## purrin

This is what Apple did the last time a Sony exec walked into the lobby of One Infinite Loop in Cupertino:


----------



## blasjw

purrin said:


> This is what Apple did the last time a Sony exec walked into the lobby of One Infinite Loop in Cupertino:


 
  
 LoL.  I didn't hear about that.  Can you provide a link?


----------



## seaice

purrin said:


> I did try the USB with the latest firmware - go through the thread to find it.
> 
> I use a custom made short CAT6.
> 
> What would be interesting would be to try other cheap converters like the M2Tech (the OR5 is based on that one, but heavily tweaked with a bunch of boutique parts, separate clock boards, power regulators, etc.) to see if there's an improvement over the stock USB.


 

 Hi putin, great profile photo, nice to have you on this forum  
  
 But back to the latest firmware. Did you try the USB with the latest firmware and the Short Block?
  
 The Short Block is a big surprise to me. In my setup, it has improved the SQ much more than the latest firmware. And I am not sure about the Offramp 5 now because everything sounds really amazing.


----------



## Eating Pie

I'm new to the thread, so I am probably asking a decidedly _old_ question…. or two… or three... 
  
 In your ranking, it's no secret you dislike the ESS Sabre chip.  Why is that?  In relation to the Invicta, you say the "SABRE treble is still there in the form of stridency…"  Can you expound on that a bit in particular.  I've read great things about ESS Sabre chips, and have been mulling the purchase of such a DAC.  But I also suffer from tinnitus which I believe is aggravated by too much high end, or sound described as "fatiguing," so I'm very interested in the source of your misgivings.
  
 I also see in the recent comments that you also dislike DSD to some degree.  Is there a connection between your negative feelings about DSD and those about the ESS Sabre chip?
  
 Thanks for the comparison.  Most of the DACs are out of my price range, but I find comparison threads to be some of the most helpful (and interesting!) on here.
  
 -Pie


----------



## boatheelmusic

With your affliction, DO not get a sabre dac.

I'd recommend a Metrum Octave, with its rolled off top.


----------



## purrin

eating pie said:


> I'm new to the thread, so I am probably asking a decidedly _old_ question…. or two… or three...
> 
> In your ranking, it's no secret you dislike the ESS Sabre chip.  Why is that?  In relation to the Invicta, you say the "SABRE treble is still there in the form of stridency…"  Can you expound on that a bit in particular.  I've read great things about ESS Sabre chips, and have been mulling the purchase of such a DAC.  But I also suffer from tinnitus which I believe is aggravated by too much high end, or sound described as "fatiguing," so I'm very interested in the source of your misgivings.
> 
> I also see in the recent comments that you also dislike DSD to some degree.  Is there a connection between your negative feelings about DSD and those about the ESS Sabre chip?


 
  
 SABRE based DACs do have a tendency toward a brighter sound, having more glare, grain, rasp, etch, etc. for than any other chip I have heard. It's not necessarily the brightness (you put all these DACs on a bench, and they more or less measure flat), but rather the fatigue over longer listening sessions, and the unnatural grain, rasp, etc. which I don't hear on vinyl or R2R DACs.
  
 There certainly is a connection between the SABRE and DSD. Every other new DAC seems to be based on SABRE. And as a result, (the SABRE chip handles DSD with ease without additional design work compared to other chips) DSD's "awesomeness" gets pushed. The sad consequence is that few newer audiophiles get exposure to DACs with smoother sounding more liquid presentations. It seems like 90% of new DACs is a SABRE. I can't count how many requests I get to review X DAC, and I'm thinking "Oh no, not another Chinese SABRE DAC with --->DSD compatibility<--- again." Some people like the SABRE sound. That's fine. But I'd like to see more choice. I think it's great companies like Emotiva and Schiit use the AKM chips.

 The bigger reason why I'm against DSD it because it's a fricking distraction.
  
 On a purely technical level, the DSD format is clearly inferior to hires PCM past 25kHz-100kHz because of the ultrasonic noise (which must be filtered - so there goes one element of "hires"). DSD does have more effective bit-depth than PCM in the audio-range, but PCM's 24 bits / 144db should way more than enough considering most audio gears' noise floors are worse. We don't need DSD's theoretical 200db of dynamic range because analog recording and playback equipment aren't good enough (remembering that microphones and transducers are analog devices.)
  
 On a practical level, there isn't enough material being released. An no, I don't want to listen to yet another speshal DSD recording of Mahler Symphony #1 from the San Francisco Symphony from Michael Tilson Thomas (although they are pretty awesome) or yet another chick with limited vocal range + guitar (boring) or dude in baseball cap and flannel shirt + guitar (not awesome) recording from Cookie Marceno of Blue Coast Records or some other specialty audiophile recording studio. For those who do, DSD is a great idea. And even then I'd rather convert the DSD to PCM and use a non-SABRE DAC for playback.
  
 Until I get to hear a full DSD-DSD (no PCM in the middle) recording of the Russian Secret Police Choir singing Daft Punk's Get Lucky...


----------



## Sanlitun

purrin said:


> SABRE based DACs do have a tendency toward a brighter sound, having more glare, grain, rasp, etch, etc. for than any other chip I have heard. It's not necessarily the brightness (you put all these DACs on a bench, and they more or less measure flat), but rather the fatigue over longer listening sessions, and the unnatural grain, rasp, etc. which I don't hear on vinyl or R2R DACs.
> 
> ....
> 
> The bigger reason why I'm against DSD it because it's a fricking distraction.


 
  
 To my ears it's a very slight in-coherency or haze to the treble, like it's going through an old guitar Phaser peddle. To be fair not everyone hears it, and it didn't really bother me until I started to use better phones and amps. 
  
 Now I am shopping around for a DAC that I might like that isn't sold at a ridiculous audiophile price. 
  
 It's hard to see how DSD is even worth more than a passing mention. In my case there are only a handful of DSD recordings that I listen to, and even then it is due to them being very well mastered or the only hi res option for the music. There are no new DSD releases of note anywhere, and the only other available music on DSD at all are SACD rips of early 2000's SACD releases. I would love to rip my SACD collection, but that ship seems to have sailed and it seems to be impossible now to find the older Playstations that can do this. I can't see the current DSD hype lasting much longer.


----------



## aive

Don't mean to derail this thread (moreso?) but I'd be interested in your opinion of PSAudios (ted's) belief that DSD produces better sound than PCM/redbook (his words not mine and a bold call for sure). Relevant video here: http://www.psaudio.com/vanilla/discussion/6524/part-2-of-the-directstream-dac-teds-talk-is-now-published

Have you experienced what he describes at the start of the vid before? Also impressions from others at the end of the vid. I've never heard DSD before so I'm keen on your opinion - I guess I could extrapolate it from your past responses re DSD in this thread.

As an EE (who is very ignorant of DSD) I just can't imagine how a PWM voltage waveform can produce a more accurate sound than a voltage waveform which is a version of the original recording... But maybe it just does sound better?

Edit: reworded.


----------



## Maxvla

Feel free to go back a page or two and find out.


----------



## 7ryder

aive said:


> Don't mean to derail this thread (moreso?) but I'd be interested in your opinion of PSAudios (ted's) belief that DSD produces better sound than PCM/redbook (his words not mine and a bold call for sure). Relevant video here: http://www.psaudio.com/vanilla/discussion/6524/part-2-of-the-directstream-dac-teds-talk-is-now-published
> 
> Have you experienced what he describes at the start of the vid before? Also impressions from others at the end of the vid. I've never heard DSD before so I'm keen on your opinion - I guess I could extrapolate it from your past responses re DSD in this thread.
> 
> ...


 
 Granted I haven't heard it, but...
 I think PS Audio is in the "don't do what everyone else is doing" camp that Jason writes about in his Schiit Happened thread...http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up.
  
 In the marketing chapter he writes that if you're going to start a company you shouldn't be doing what everyone else is doing, and as I think more about PSA's offerings, while they are an established company, they seem to be following that path with their new phono converter, the old two box Perfectwave system w/ I2S over HDMI and now the Directstream DAC.  As a small company, they have to do things differently to stand out in the crowd, especially since their products, while not terribly expensive, are more expensive than some of the more popular DACs here on head-fi.  This is also probably why their marketing is so over the top at times.
  
Whether or not their products do sound better, they are taking a different approach than many of their competitors and, with DSD as FOTM, they hope to capitalize on people's belief that DSD is superior to PCM.


----------



## REXNFX

purrin said:


>


 

 PSA manufacture one of your reference DAC's and now say in their white paper (link at the bottom of this press release http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/ps-audio-proclaims-pcm-dac-advance/110111) : 'Separating the digital and analog stages from each other, operating from a single master clock, 10x DSD processing and a purely passive output stage reveal musical details formerly buried within the digital audio media and masked by classic PCM processing and decoding techniques.' This DAC seems to be aimed at improving redbook/PCM recordings not the limited number of DSD recordings out there.


----------



## arnaud

I also viewed the talk from Ted and I am actually quite positive on what they're trying to do. (It's always easy for a fool to be impressed though, and I didn't understand half what he said  ).

In particular, they have the means to make clean conversions with their FGPA, are paying attention to power supply to minimize noise in all the stages, and also to jitter where it really matters. 

Also, while I read purrin's concern about noise outside the audio band, isn't a properly designed LP filter able to address this? 10xDSD means it must be really high frequency no?

If we're to trust Ted (the guy's a total geek with this, who wouldn't?), their approach appears much cleaner / robust than precision ladder dacs and other paralleles delta/sigma chips.

Basically, the price may be on the high side for what is inside, but the engineering approach is refreshingly novel, I am definitely more curious about this than all these dacs that have come in spades over the last year.
But also waiting for what schiit has to say about this .


----------



## Stapsy

While the PWD may be ranked highly, there have been a number of problems with PSA products.  The excessive firmware updates and differences between PWD versions have given me enough cause to be cautious about the claims of PS audio.  I think Putin has been pretty fair.  No need to prematurely jump on the bandwagon.  If the product ends up being as groundbreaking as PS audio says, it will be easy to tell how good the super DSD resolver x10 technology DAC is.  Speculation is pointless without having heard anything.


----------



## boatheelmusic

So how do we think about thus vs the NAD M51?


----------



## Eating Pie

boatheelmusic said:


> With your affliction, DO not get a sabre dac.
> 
> I'd recommend a Metrum Octave, with its rolled off top.


  
 Thanks for the recommendation.  Never heard of them, but doing my due google diligence.  Pretty interesting -- and totally unique -- stuff!

  
 Quote:


purrin said:


> SABRE based DACs do have a tendency toward a brighter sound, having more glare, grain, rasp, etch, etc. for than any other chip I have heard. It's not necessarily the brightness (you put all these DACs on a bench, and they more or less measure flat), but rather the fatigue over longer listening sessions, and the unnatural grain, rasp, etc. which I don't hear on vinyl or R2R DACs.
> 
> There certainly is a connection between the SABRE and DSD. Every other new DAC seems to be based on SABRE. And as a result, (the SABRE chip handles DSD with ease without additional design work compared to other chips) DSD's "awesomeness" gets pushed. The sad consequence is that few newer audiophiles get exposure to DACs with smoother sounding more liquid presentations. It seems like 90% of new DACs is a SABRE. I can't count how many requests I get to review X DAC, and I'm thinking "Oh no, not another Chinese SABRE DAC with --->DSD compatibility<--- again." Some people like the SABRE sound. That's fine. But I'd like to see more choice. I think it's great companies like Emotiva and Schiit use the AKM chips.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Great reply.  Really expanded my perception of the ESS chips, especially since this looks like a major red flag for my situation -- one I didn't know about until now!
  
 Thanks a ton!
  
 -Pie


----------



## music_man

well I will say this. I think a lower end dsd dac will outdo a lower end pcm dac. once you get up to the msb pcm is clearly better. so if reasonably affordable is in question id go with dsd. I also do not approve of the marketing game going on. I can think for myself. my lowly modded dsd dac will take on all comers up to a point I maintain. some higher end dsd dacs I guess one just has a choice which they like better. I have no dsd other than sacd. I convert pcm to dsd. which seems to be exactly what ps audio is aiming to do. I still don't get the 10x conversion to 2x output. that's weird. assuming I read that right. I can't wait to hear that thing though. the problem is it is not really native dsd. it just converts everything to dsd. I mean I don't know if it reads dsd files natively.


----------



## magiccabbage

arnaud said:


> I also viewed the talk from Ted and I am actually quite positive on what they're trying to do. (It's always easy for a fool to be impressed though, and I didn't understand half what he said
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 is there a link for the ted talk?


----------



## john57

You can try the PS audio web page or the youtube page at:
  
 http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6mzA8J7n0ylf0RnDpj-vrg


----------



## john57

arnaud said:


> I also viewed the talk from Ted and I am actually quite positive on what they're trying to do. (It's always easy for a fool to be impressed though, and I didn't understand half what he said
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, from reading Ted replies the -3dB point on the passive LP filter is at 80kHz. That's a gentle slope as I see it.


----------



## 7ryder

stapsy said:


> While the PWD may be ranked highly, there have been a number of problems with PSA products.  The excessive firmware updates and differences between PWD versions have given me enough cause to be cautious about the claims of PS audio.  I think Putin has been pretty fair.  No need to prematurely jump on the bandwagon.  If the product ends up being as groundbreaking as PS audio says, it will be easy to tell how good the super DSD resolver x10 technology DAC is.  Speculation is pointless without having heard anything.


 
 Yeah, the functionality of some of their more complex products is a concern.  They had problems with their powerplants when first introduced and you mentioned the firmware for the PWD.
  
 I've owned several PSA products over the years and I was one of the first PWD owners.  I bought the PWD as soon as it was available and I was also a beta tester for the Bridge.  I bought the PWD originally because I wanted to move up from my Cullen modded Sonos player and play hi-res files.  So I fell for the PSA marketing about what the Bridge could do and imagine my surprise/disappointment when I found that the Bridge couldn't do gapless and my surprise that the guys at PSA didn't really have any idea that they'd need gapless for albums to play correctly without gaps between songs.  
  
 They basically didn't build enough computing power into the Bridge to be able to correct it on the hardware. After more than a year of promises that they'd solve it, I sold the PWD and went to Linn -- they finally did solve it, but you have to use their software (eLyric) to get gapless. Given the fact that they couldn't get this right out of the gate, I'd be cautious about being one of the first owners of the Directstream DACs.
  
 As for their marketing claims, they are often over the top.  That said, the PWD mk1 did sound pretty good (I've never heard mk2), but the lack of gapless was (and is) a deal breaker for me, but for those of you using the USB connections instead of the Bridge, this obviously isn't a problem.


----------



## john57

To this day I really do not understand the fuss over gapless playback. I never went to a concert that was gapless. Are we talking about pauses between the tracks or breaks between movements in a classical piece?


----------



## cizx

john57 said:


> To this day I really do not understand the fuss over gapless playback. I never went to a concert that was gapless. Are we talking about pauses between the tracks or breaks between movements in a classical piece?


 
 Some albums where tracks flow seamlessly into one another sort of require gapless playback.


----------



## purrin

john57 said:


> To this day I really do not understand the fuss over gapless playback. I never went to a concert that was gapless. Are we talking about pauses between the tracks or breaks between movements in a classical piece?


 
  
 Funny, all the concerts that I went to had gapless playback.
  
 More seriously, gapless means no artificial pauses (if there weren't any to begin with) in between. Lack of gapless is highly annoying for classical music and certain pop/rock albums. Yeah, I'm miffed that my Bridge doesn't work. (I guess if it does now, I had already given up a while ago and don't care for it now that I have the OR5).


----------



## john57

purrin said:


> Funny, all the concerts that I went to had gapless playback.
> 
> More seriously, gapless means no artificial pauses (if there weren't any to begin with) in between. Lack of gapless is highly annoying for classical music and certain pop/rock albums. Yeah, I'm miffed that my Bridge doesn't work. (I guess if it does now, I had already given up a while ago and don't care for it now that I have the OR5).


 
 I listen to mostly classical music myself and hundreds of CD's and never had a problem with my CD players on this. Sometimes there are a few seconds added to it before the track change. Why this became a problem after 30 years? 
 The one time I had a problem with too many tracks was the J.S. Bach: John Passion offered by Linn Records. There were 81 tracks on that one piece of music alone. Nobody has done that before.  Linn just butchered the piece and put tracks right in a middle of continuum or an aria and the sound will briefly dropout. Some the tracks were 10 seconds, 22 seconds or just one minute long.  Who in the right mind would do so such a thing?


----------



## saer

Question about how to get the best audio quality out of the Mjolnir. 
  
 Toslink, Coax or USB2 ?


----------



## thegunner100

saer said:


> Question about how to get the best audio quality out of the Mjolnir.
> 
> Toslink, Coax or USB2 ?


 
  
 If you mean gungnir, then USB gen 2.


----------



## saer

Ahh yes sorry, the Gungnir.
  
 USB2 provides better sound quality over toslink and coax, huh ? I've been doing it all wrong.. I thought USB was the last resort


----------



## kothganesh

thegunner100 said:


> If you mean gungnir, then USB gen 2.







saer said:


> Ahh yes sorry, the Gungnir.
> 
> USB2 provides better sound quality over toslink and coax, huh ? I've been doing it all wrong.. I thought USB was the last resort :blink:



Same here. I was using USB from laptop to SPDIF. Last week, I switched to the USB on the Gungnir and am not looking back.


----------



## Stapsy

Intersesting...how were you converting the USB to SPDIF before switching to the USB implementation on the Gungnir? 
  
 It seems like the USB input is actually quite a respectable option with many of the newer DACs.  The fact that the OR5 didn't offer that much of an improvement in a number of the DACs in the list is a very positive sign for me.  USB is a far easier and cheaper format to use when running straight from a computer.  Any time you can save money on a specialized converter and get a similar or better sound is a step in the right direction  as far as I am concerned.


----------



## hans030390

john57 said:


> To this day I really do not understand the fuss over gapless playback. I never went to a concert that was gapless. Are we talking about pauses between the tracks or breaks between movements in a classical piece?


 
  
 I actually have a few modern albums (mostly progressive metal, but not necessarily) where the tracks seamlessly lead to the next. Even a small, small gap destroys this and annoys me (in some cases, it causes a larger disconnect than you'd think). Personal preference, I guess. I just live with it on some software and gear.
  


saer said:


> Ahh yes sorry, the Gungnir.
> 
> USB2 provides better sound quality over toslink and coax, huh ? I've been doing it all wrong.. I thought USB was the last resort


 
  
 USB Gen 2 on Gungnir is awesome. Basically negates the need for a USB->SPDIF converter because it is that good, though I suppose some of the top-tier converters could possibly edge it out.


----------



## saer

I've had my Gungnir connected to my computer via optical toslink for about 2 months, thinking that it was in fact the best method to achieve the highest sound quality 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Am I in for a big surprise once I connect it via USB2 ?


----------



## MayaTlab

purrin said:


> SABRE based DACs do have a tendency toward a brighter sound, having more glare, grain, rasp, etch, etc. for than any other chip I have heard. It's not necessarily the brightness (you put all these DACs on a bench, and they more or less measure flat), but rather the fatigue over longer listening sessions, and the unnatural grain, rasp, etc. which I don't hear on vinyl or R2R DACs.
> 
> There certainly is a connection between the SABRE and DSD. Every other new DAC seems to be based on SABRE. And as a result, (the SABRE chip handles DSD with ease without additional design work compared to other chips) DSD's "awesomeness" gets pushed. The sad consequence is that few newer audiophiles get exposure to DACs with smoother sounding more liquid presentations. It seems like 90% of new DACs is a SABRE. I can't count how many requests I get to review X DAC, and I'm thinking "Oh no, not another Chinese SABRE DAC with --->DSD compatibility<--- again." Some people like the SABRE sound. That's fine. But I'd like to see more choice. I think it's great companies like Emotiva and Schiit use the AKM chips.


 
  
 Although I'm not too convinced by Sabre-based DACs, I have the exact opposite experience in terms of grain / rasp / etch, although I'd be the first one to agree that there is a certain glare / unnatural leanness / lack of meat / perfectible timbre accuracy in their presentation (a little like old electrostatic headphones). Compared to my Lavry DA11, I found both the Benchmark DAC2 and Invicta to sound more refined / delicate / smoother in the trebles. I'm not saying they're the best in terms of refined trebles, but so far I've yet to hear better. To me, grain means that instead of a high-hat going "zing", it sort of sounds like it goes "schrzing". Rasp means that vocals, for example, would be throaty - in that regard I've found the sabre DAC I've heard vastly different. The Benchmark DAC2 felt as liquid as it can get, the Invicta less so, but not anymore than the Lavry. Etch means that we would get something akin to the Clarity filter in Lightroom / Photoshop, i.e. details artificially put forward - and again this is not my experience with the sabre DACs I've heard in comparison to a Violectric V800, a Benchmark DAC1 or the Lavry.
 The main thing I dislike with them is their timbre rendition (but it's the same with the Violectric IMHO, which sounds very close to the Benchmark, and yet doesn't have a sabre DAC inside), everything sounds a little "synthesised" in one way or another, especially the Benchmark, and the fact that they all feel less meaty / weighty than the Lavry (although the Invicta gets quite close, at least more than the Violectric V800 I think).
  
 I too find it sad that we're mostly seeing sabre-based DACs only these days, and I'd really like to see R2R Dacs widely available one day.


----------



## boatheelmusic

I'm finding I like the AD1955, especially run in dual differential mode, to my liking.
  
 Very much like the NAD M51......


----------



## blasjw

boatheelmusic said:


> I'm finding I like the AD1955, especially run in dual differential mode, to my liking.
> 
> Very much like the NAD M51......


 
  
 Any other DACs using that chip?


----------



## boatheelmusic

Well, the new Cambridge Audio 851D, the Emotiva DC-1, and others.....


----------



## boatheelmusic

Please understand, the NAD doesn't use a dad chip, it's that the AD1955 sounds similar to me.


----------



## music_man

the nad is not actually a conventional dac chip at all. it is a signal converter. it converts pcm to pwm. other things inside of it do the actual output as analog. like the standard op-amps and stuff. I thought 35 bit pwm was going to be like dsd on steroids. it is good but I was not blown away. Cambridge is always a good bet too. I think they are competitors to nad. except for some of the master series are higher end. if you like them. their thing is to use digital. in fact it is the same zetex current converter that is used both in their amp and the dac. on the one hand I could think that is a good financial move for nad. on the other hand that is pretty slick. see, all these ic's and such don't really do anything per se. you have to build them into a circuit to make them do something. actually I hear there is an electronic cigarette that can be made into a pretty good dac! I know most of you are like,duh. I just said this for a few that don't know.


----------



## boatheelmusic

BTW, the NAD M51 is a part of their Master Series.
  
 I have one here now, evaluating against the Emotiva DC-1.
  
 Stay tuned.


----------



## boatheelmusic

All - I just spent the last week carefully comparing the NAD M51 with my DC-1 on all inputs, on my Maggie 1.7's and Emotiva XPA G1s.

 My observations were as follows:

 The M51 and the DC-1 have  an essentially similar character - say, for example compared to a Sabre 9018 or Metrum Octave as extreme cases.

 The M51 seems to extend the highs and lows a bit over the DC-1, but nothing excessive.  Also slightly wider but not as deep soundstage.

 Bass on the DC-1 is more articulate but a little less powerful....more harmonics heard on string bass.

 The M51 had a bit more air and sibilance, but less metallic cymbal shimmer.  More sandpapery. Not excessive, but definitely there.

 The DC1 is more "present" and less congested in the all important midrange.....not necessarily more forward, but *clearer* if that makes sense.  The M51 a little "softer".

 Features tradeoffs - HDMI vs analog inputs, full size chassis for the M51 and programmable display titles, headphone out and front panel volume control on the DC-1, great remote on the DC-1.

 Each is  easy to listen to and non-fatiguing, but I felt the DC-1 somehow conveye the emotional content of music better.  Many moments where my head snapped up to pay attention to the music rather than drift off.....

 For the 4x price differential, I think the DC-1 is most impressive, and this really says something given the uniformly excellent reviews for the M51.


----------



## music_man

I know it is master series. the m3 just seems like a more serious component to me. then again a dac does not need to weigh 50 pounds. I would hope(or not) that it beats the emotive. little bit of a price difference there.


----------



## boatheelmusic

That's the point - price doesn't always equal quality.....


----------



## kothganesh

stapsy said:


> Intersesting...how were you converting the USB to SPDIF before switching to the USB implementation on the Gungnir?
> 
> ............


 
 I used the BNC Halide bridge.


----------



## fishski13

saer said:


> Ahh yes sorry, the Gungnir.
> 
> USB2 provides better sound quality over toslink and coax, huh ? I've been doing it all wrong.. I thought USB was the last resort


 
  
 the USB Gen 2 in the Gungnir sounds much better than using a USB-SPDIF MF V-Link and fancy Stereovox digital cable in my rig, but i've not tried better converters.


----------



## music_man

boa, didn't you just tell me to get the m51 in another thread? lol. I am not surprised. I felt it was overpriced. I did have it.


----------



## boatheelmusic

LOL...one thing to spend your money, another to spend mine!


----------



## purrin

john57 said:


> I listen to mostly classical music myself and hundreds of CD's and never had a problem with my CD players on this. Sometimes there are a few seconds added to it before the track change. Why this became a problem after 30 years?


 
  
 OK. Timeout. You are confusing me. I don't think you understand what gapless is. Do you care to offer your definition of what you think it is?
  


john57 said:


> I listen to mostly classical music myself and hundreds of CD's and never had a problem with my CD players on this.


 
  
 I don't have a problem on CD players either. I also have no problem with cassette tape or vinyl. But I did with the PS Audio Bridge. That is a pause which should NOT be there between tracks.
  


john57 said:


> Why this became a problem after 30 years?


 
  
 I dunno. I supposed it's because Paul@PSA promised his customers that their Bridge would support playback without artificial pauses between tracks which were not supposed to be there. I waited over a year through several firmware revisions. What was promised never happened while I was waiting.


----------



## purrin

kothganesh said:


> Same here. I was using USB from laptop to SPDIF. Last week, I switched to the USB on the Gungnir and am not looking back.


 
  
 USB Gen 2 on Gungnir all the way. I compared again OR5 and coax. OR5 is the best, but it's $1300 or more. USB Gen 2 is extremely close to OR5.


----------



## purrin

mayatlab said:


> Although I'm not too convinced by Sabre-based DACs, I have the exact opposite experience in terms of grain / rasp / etch, although I'd be the first one to agree that there is a certain glare / unnatural leanness / lack of meat / perfectible timbre accuracy in their presentation (a little like old electrostatic headphones). Compared to my Lavry DA11, I found both the Benchmark DAC2 and Invicta to sound more refined / delicate / smoother in the trebles. I'm not saying they're the best in terms of refined trebles, but so far I've yet to hear better. To me, grain means that instead of a high-hat going "zing", it sort of sounds like it goes "schrzing". Rasp means that vocals, for example, would be throaty - in that regard I've found the sabre DAC I've heard vastly different. The Benchmark DAC2 felt as liquid as it can get, the Invicta less so, but not anymore than the Lavry. Etch means that we would get something akin to the Clarity filter in Lightroom / Photoshop, i.e. details artificially put forward - and again this is not my experience with the sabre DACs I've heard in comparison to a Violectric V800, a Benchmark DAC1 or the Lavry.
> The main thing I dislike with them is their timbre rendition (but it's the same with the Violectric IMHO, which sounds very close to the Benchmark, and yet doesn't have a sabre DAC inside), everything sounds a little "synthesised" in one way or another, especially the Benchmark, and the fact that they all feel less meaty / weighty than the Lavry (although the Invicta gets quite close, at least more than the Violectric V800 I think).
> 
> I too find it sad that we're mostly seeing sabre-based DACs only these days, and I'd really like to see R2R Dacs widely available one day.


 
  
 It's important to understand that I am talking generalities. I have not heard the DAC2. I have heard the Invicta and it would appear that the designers went through some lengths to tame the typical SABRE sound. The Invicta has more warmth and body compared to many other DACs SABRE or otherwise. I still insist however that there is a bit of unnatural stridency in the treble of the Invicta once you isolate its treble aspects from the Invicta's warmth and full bodied sound - which tends to mask a lot of things. In other words, I don't let the warmth and body of the Invicta fool me of its SABREness. 
  
 That being said, the Invicta handles the treble portion better than probably all other SABRE DACs I've heard. A bit of stridency is much much better than last octave mechanical rasp of most Chinese SABRE DACs, or hard glaring sonic death rays of the Mytek. My beef with the Invicta was with mostly with poor bass articulation, poor bass pitch differentiation, congestion, and lack of cohesiveness between the lower and upper registers. (Given it's price and rave reviews, it actually took me months for me to admit that I really did not like the Invicta.)
  
 Also, the fact that I feel 85% of SABRE implementations are horribad in terms of treble timbre. grain, lack of continuousness, etc. does not mean that other delta-sigma DACs cannot be equally horribad. Heck, I do not even like the PWD2 running the 2.10/2.20 firmwares.
  
 And even then, R2R is not a panacea. While I appreciated certain attributes of the HM-801 and Metrum Quad, they were too far laid back and not resolving enough for my tastes.


----------



## MayaTlab

purrin said:


> It's important to understand that I am talking generalities. I have not heard the DAC2. I have heard the Invicta and it would appear that the designers went through some lengths to tame the typical SABRE sound. The Invicta has more warmth and body compared to many other DACs SABRE or otherwise. I still insist however that there is a bit of unnatural stridency in the treble of the Invicta once you isolate its treble aspects from the Invicta's warmth and full bodied sound - which tends to mask a lot of things. In other words, I don't let the warmth and body of the Invicta fool me of its SABREness. That being said, the Invicta handles the treble portion better than probably all other SABRE DACs I've heard. A bit of stridency is much much better than last octave mechanical rasp of most Chinese SABRE DACs, or hard glaring sonic death days of the Mytek. My beef with the Invicta was with mostly other things.
> 
> Also, the fact that I feel 85% of SABRE implementations are horribad in treble timbre. grain, lack of continuousness, etc. does not mean that other delta-sigma DACs cannot be equally horribad. Heck, I do not even like the PWD2 running the 2.10/2.20 firmwares.


 
  
 I understand that you're talking generalities, but as far as my very limited experience goes, I too was talking in generalities - so far the two sabre DACs I've heard felt more refined / delicate / smooth up top than the other DACs I've heard. Perhaps it's because I've avoided the most sabrish sabre DACs around while picking up the most sabrish sabre-less DACs around ? Although the Benchmark sounded to me like what I thought was a typical sabre-sounding DAC reading reviews of the Anedio for example, meaning smooth, refined, but lean and thin, and relative to the Lavry I didn't find the Invicta exactly full-bodied. Perhaps I should try to hear the Mytek one day so that I understand better what you mean.
  
 The only experience I had with a R2R DAC was with an Hifiman HM-801 and I didn't find it particularly refined up top - but perhaps that wasn't the most relevant example of such DACs. It's too bad we don't have more of those hanging without having to go through the hassle of fine-tuning an Audio GD with external USB receivers and other devices or paying more for resistance - based R2R DACs such as the Totaldac.


----------



## purrin

mayatlab said:


> Perhaps it's because I've avoided the most sabrish sabre DACs around while picking up the most sabrish sabre-less DACs around ?


 
  
 LOL, I think that's what happened.
  


> Originally Posted by *MayaTlab* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It's too bad we don't have more of those hanging without having to go through the hassle of fine-tuning an Audio GD with external USB receivers and other devices or paying more for resistance - based R2R DACs such as the Totaldac.


 
  
 Yeah, I get you on that. That's why I'm hopeful on the Schiit Yggy. The M7 is 35 pounds, sucks energy like crazy, and still needs tweaks such as the OR5 or a great transport to sound its best. 
  
 Has anyone had the chance to hear the Naim R2R DAC? Looks like a good design and not too pricey either. (Someone PM'd me on this DAC.)


----------



## john57

purrin said:


> OK. Timeout. You are confusing me. I don't think you understand what gapless is. Do you care to offer your definition of what you think it is?
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem on CD players either. I also have no problem with cassette tape or vinyl. But I did with the PS Audio Bridge. That is a pause which should NOT be there between tracks.
> ...


 
 Now you just show a example that might make some sense that there is a issue with the PSA bridge. Maybe our definition of gaped playback is different. Lets start with gaped playback. I have many CD's that have pauses with a specific number of seconds that you can see the count down timer on the CD display put into between the tracks. Noticed that I said count down not the normal count up on the display. Within the CD specifications there is a feature called index marks within the track that allows the CD player to jump to a special position on the track that is normally gapless. Very few CD's  are made with indexing and players with indexing displays are rare and I happen to have one. Sometime the pauses deliberate put in are long like 11 seconds in some cases and I have to wait for the count down timer before my CD player will play the next track. This happens with that particular CD disk using a stand-alone player or my computer DVD player. When I rip the CD's to the computer the pause countdown timer that is put in by the engineer is stripped away from the CD's I recently acquired a stereo network player that has DLNA using the Ethernet and I noticed that there is a min fixed pause time between the tracks. Is that the gaps we are talking about?


----------



## Maxvla

Yes


----------



## groovyd

Any thoughts on where the McIntosh D100 fits in?


----------



## 7ryder

John57 - you're correct for the most part. Basically if a media player has gapless playback, the rip should play like the CD - - if songs on a CD seque from one track to another with no break in the music on the CD (or album), then a player with gapless playback will do the same. 
  
 The problem with PSA's Bridge is that it could/can only play one track at a time and breaks are inserted where they don't belong. So with albums like Dark Side of the Moon or most of side two of Abbey Road, instead of songs flowing into another, the Bridge inserts gaps of silence where there shouldn't be any.


----------



## kothganesh

7ryder said:


> .........So with albums like Dark Side of the Moon or most of side two of Abbey Road, instead of songs flowing into another, the Bridge inserts gaps of silence where there shouldn't be any.



Thanks. These examples drive home the point.


----------



## purrin

Yes.
  
 Another example: the PSA Bridge puts a pause of a few seconds between movement III and IV of Beethoveen's #6. That's when the folk dancing part is suddenly interrupted by the thunderstorm. It's annoying when Keanu Reeves, I mean Paul@PSA stops time for a few seconds of silence right before the thunder hits.


----------



## aive

I'm thinking about getting an Auralic Vega and playing back my music (100% PCM) converted and up sampled to 2xDSD (DSD128) via USB. Could people, more experienced than I in these matters, please provide some feedback re this idea? Sorry if this is OT from the original post, but there are some great DAC related discussions going on in here. Still in planning stages of DAC purchase with sights set on Yggy but in case that option takes too long, I'm thinking about the Vega as an alternative.
  
 Started thinking about this arrangement based on information released re the PS Audio Directstream and DSD - I guess I'm trying to 'emulate'/achieve some of the features in more expensive DACs with the following:
 - Increasing sampling rate to push noise further into the ultrasonic band and with the use of the Mode 5 filter in the Vega (-3 dB @ 70 kHz) I should be able to preserve more original high frequency content. As an example, EMMDAC2X up samples all music to DSD128 in hardware prior to conversion. Also the Directstream LPF is apparently -3 dB @ 80 kHz (link).
 - Bypass the PCM-to-DSD decoder in the ES9018 chip by transcoding in the PC. There are some thoughts that the integrated PCM decoder may be detrimental to sound quality.
 - Hopefully run the Vega in EXACT clock mode to minimise jitter.
  
 Thoughts?


----------



## MayaTlab

purrin said:


> Yeah, I get you on that. That's why I'm hopeful on the Schiit Yggy.


 
  
 Are we sure this is going to be a R2R DAC ? I believe the topology wasn't mentioned in its dedicated thread.
  
 There also is the new Lavry Quintessence (pompous name, just like the Invicta), but then again Dan Lavry hasn't mentioned anything about its topology, it's got 20th century inputs only, X-wing dashboard styled buttons on the front plate, and will probably cost a bomb.


----------



## mowglycdb

We did an ABX test in chile with the SE outputs of Master-7+Master-8, O2+ODAC, NFB-1.32+NFB-6  and we hardly found any diference between these three outputs, we have to take in consideration that it was a flimsy ABX box with 1/8 input and output, so it was kinda strange.


----------



## cizx

mowglycdb said:


> We did an ABX test in chile with the SE outputs of Master-7+Master-8, O2+ODAC, NFB-1.32+NFB-6  and we hardly found any diference between these three outputs, we have to take in consideration that it was a flimsy ABX box with 1/8 input and output, so it was kinda strange.


 
 strange how?  it was a flimsy ABX box.  the sources exceeded its limitations.  I'm sure every car stereo sounds pretty much the same from outside the car with the windows closed, just like every TV looks the same in a video taken with an iPhone.


----------



## cizx

I'm seeing a trend in this thread of replies falling in one of three veins:
 1. "I read what you said, but can you tell me what I will like more in words more closely tailored to me and my situation?"
 2. "I like music.  this thread is about music.  I'm thinking about listening to music in one specific way. thoughts?"
 3. "this is a waste of my time if you don't test my particular setup.  why haven't you tested my particular setup or the setup I'm thinking about?  I am very surprised that you are not testing my particular setup or the setup I am thinking about.  why are you wasting my time?"
  
 it's making me rethink my position on net neutrality.


----------



## magnetiq

yeah i hate it when people have opinions


----------



## cizx

ME TOO!  We should be buddies!


----------



## Sanlitun

There is a NAD dealer a couple of blocks from where I live so I have a very new M51 to shoot out against my X-Sabre now. This one has firmware 1.43 which is not documented on the NAD website.
  
 I'm quite interested in the NAD as it may be about as far as you can go from the Sabre sound...


----------



## groovyd

How about the 4th type of post which is 'how does a DAC like the McIntosh D100 compare' or is this the wrong thread for these questions?


----------



## Stapsy

The McIntosh would be an excellent choice for those who love McIntosh gear.


----------



## groovyd

Does that mean it does not compare to the other DACs mentioned in this thread? Have you listened to it?


----------



## purrin

aive said:


> I'm thinking about getting an Auralic Vega and playing back my music (100% PCM) converted and up sampled to 2xDSD (DSD128) via USB. Could people, more experienced than I in these matters, please provide some feedback re this idea? Sorry if this is OT from the original post, but there are some great DAC related discussions going on in here. Still in planning stages of DAC purchase with sights set on Yggy but in case that option takes too long, I'm thinking about the Vega as an alternative.
> 
> Started thinking about this arrangement based on information released re the PS Audio Directstream and DSD - I guess I'm trying to 'emulate'/achieve some of the features in more expensive DACs with the following:
> - Increasing sampling rate to push noise further into the ultrasonic band and with the use of the Mode 5 filter in the Vega (-3 dB @ 70 kHz) I should be able to preserve more original high frequency content. As an example, EMMDAC2X up samples all music to DSD128 in hardware prior to conversion. Also the Directstream LPF is apparently -3 dB @ 80 kHz (link).
> ...


 
  
 That's what I would do if I owned the Vega. Though I didn't think there was a difference between 2x DSD and regular DSD. When I had the Vega in my possession, I ran it via JRMC19 and upsampled all Red Book to DSD to feed the Vega over DoP. As indicated, I got excellent results with EXACT mode, although a good USB connection will be necessary for that. My PC worked fine in EXACT mode. My two laptops did not.
  
 Make sure you'll like the sound of the Vega. (I expect the Yggy to have a very different type of sound.) It does tend toward the brighter analytical side. The other two ninjas weren't fond of it. One ninja used an Anax modded HD800. He initially liked the Vega quite a bit, but felt that the brightness eventually wore on him. The other who uses the Paradox or other variants felt it was "tolerable" in terms of the treble, but didn't say much else. I probably liked it the most, but I also happen to run speakers two-thirds of the time.
  


mayatlab said:


> Are we sure this is going to be a R2R DAC ? I believe the topology wasn't mentioned in its dedicated thread.


 
  
 Just an assumption, and if it's not, it would probably have that kind of sound. I've spoke to Mike Moffatt a few times to try to wring information from him, but he only give hints like "they don't use delta-sigma chips for medical or military".
  
 For all we know, they could be doing something crazy by making discrete resistor ladders.


----------



## purrin

stapsy said:


> The McIntosh would be an excellent choice for those who love McIntosh gear.


 
  


groovyd said:


> Does that mean it does not compare to the other DACs mentioned in this thread? Have you listened to it?


 
  
 FWIW, I did get chance to briefly hear McIntosh's MCD1100 SACD player, and I thought it was pretty good. Probably the best SABRE (I think it's SABRE) implementation that I have heard. It's not in the comparo because I never had a chance for direct comparison and listen conditions were not good.
  
 The MCD500 is a dedicated unit and a completely other price class than then D100 though.


----------



## Maxvla

It is, ESS9016 to be precise, the scaled back much cheaper version of the ESS9018. They are very careful to say things like "The USB DAC utilizes a ESS Sabre 8-channel DAC capable of handling up to 32-bit/192kHz" to avoid talking about the exact chip in use. Also, its headphone output has a 47ohm output resistance. You aren't getting accurate sound from that no matter what headphone you use.


----------



## Stapsy

Looks like the MCD1100 uses the 9018 and the D100 uses the 9016.


----------



## Armaegis

purrin said:


> For all we know, they could be doing something crazy by making discrete resistor ladders.


 
  
 Are there any actual discrete resistor ladder dacs in use these days?


----------



## Maxvla

Isn't the TotalDAC D1 Dual a resistor ladder?


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Im convinced that is what the Yggy will be. The only other DAC I'm legitimately interested in, besides my M7 and the Yggy(aka is cheap enough) is one of the Lampizator dacs, like the Gen 4 level 4 dac. Purrin you should check one of those out


----------



## Maxvla

I doubt the Yggy will be a resistor ladder at the projected price of ~$1800-1900. The labor to make one must be ridiculous, mostly in the testing of the resistors and matching them.


----------



## music_man

armaegis said:


> Are there any actual discrete resistor ladder dacs in use these days?


 
  
  
 I was told here that the msb is one. perhaps that accounts for the price among other things. it is insane at pcm. I have a $1,500 creation of mine that is better at dsd. that is no surprise since mine is sigma delta.


----------



## purrin

I love the MSB DACs, but I am extremely suspicious of the MSB black golden box modules. Do you guys remember the "discrete" Ultra Analog DAC modules from yesteryear? I've heard several DACs using them such as the Moth HyperDACs, Classe, maybe a few others.
  
 Well after a few people cracked these $$$ Ultra Analog suckers open, it turns out they really had BB PCM63 chips inside them. Hahaha. For all we know, the MSB modules could have a bunch of cherry picked PCM1704-Ks inside.
  
 Again, doesn't mean I wouldn't get an MSB DAC if I had the cash to blow. And the the TOTAL DAC stuff is crazy legit.


----------



## Maxvla

Marv, sign me up for your TotalDAC D1 Dual loaner program.


----------



## music_man

purrin, if that was the case I would be pretty unhappy. I mean it sounds super but it wouldn't be worth the premium then. I was wondering how the diamond dac iv select is "80 bits". I assume that is their sharc dsp but what exactly does it do in that sucker? the inputs obviously only go to 32 bits. is the audio converted to 80 bits or something? sort of like what the forthcoming ps audio and nad m51 do. I have no idea whatever they do it obviously works.


----------



## MayaTlab

maxvla said:


> I doubt the Yggy will be a resistor ladder at the projected price of ~$1800-1900. The labor to make one must be ridiculous, mostly in the testing of the resistors and matching them.


 
  
 Me too, given that I believe it's impossible today to find a discrete resistor-based ladder DAC below €6000 these days.
  
 What are the alternative ? I've heard of "FPGA" processors, but I believe those can only be used to upsample the signal with a proprietary filter to avoid using the DAC chip embedded converter, am I right ? At one end you'll still need a DA chip of some sort ?


----------



## boatheelmusic

PS Audio PWD II now $1,995 new at their site.
  
 Use as is now, then get upgrade kit for $2,995 or trade in or get $2,000 credit later.


----------



## hans030390

The TotalDACs look awesome, even just down to the internal boards. I want to listen to one a lot, but they're so pricey!  Same goes for the Phasure NOS1 and MSB DACs.


----------



## MayaTlab

mayatlab said:


> What are the alternative ? I've heard of "FPGA" processors, but I believe those can only be used to upsample the signal with a proprietary filter to avoid using the DAC chip embedded converter, am I right ? At one end you'll still need a DA chip of some sort ?


 
  
 I've read a little more and I believe I now understand the ways in which it could be used... Apparently the new PerfectWave DAC is a FPGA that converts and upsamples everything to DSD and then sends the signal to a discrete D/A 1bit board, isn't it ?
  
 Perhaps that's also what Schiit is going to do. I can't really see any other way to make a DAC without using a dedicated integrated chip that costs less than usual discrete ladder DACs.
  
 Obviously please forget everything I just wrote if it's sheer idiocy combined with utmost ignorance.


----------



## fengwei007

purrin said:


> The TEAC is a POS. I don't care about what anyone else thinks about it or what the reviews say. Unlike the DP-1, I wouldn't even understand why other people think it's good. But I guess that's possible if we were coming from a $79 Walmart DVD/CD special or AC97 motherboard out. There was one amp manufacturer who purchased it thinking it would be a good DAC to demo his amps on. He sold it. I still give him crap about it to this day "So where's that POS DAC?" He then tells to F off.




It's either your UD501 a defect one, or we have very different music taste. And to be honesty, no matter how much you don't like the TEAC, claim it as POS made your whole thread meaningless to me. 

Thanks anyway for your effort. I'm going back to enjoy the POS.


----------



## mowglycdb

Purrin,
  
   We did some ABX tests in chile  with the  SE outputs of the following combos:
  
 1. Master 7  + Master 8
 2. NFB-1.32 + NFB-6
 3. ODAC+O2
  
 We couldn't find diference at all with this tiny ABX box, is there something that could be happening that I can't tell appart any of them?
  
 I'm sure there are diferences while listening to them separately, but I can't measure it


----------



## Radio_head

MSB's modules are their own.  In this internet age, they'd have to be.  Something like that (just containing other people's chips) would be a gigantic blow to their business, and it would invariably happen (I'm sure someones opened up say old generation modules by now.)


----------



## hans030390

I don't see how MSB products could be anything other than 100 billion percent amazing with such a serious man picture on their front page:
  

 I mean, look at that. You know that means legit. Then they wrote a sweet poem for me. Mmmmmm....must...hear it.
  
_The MSB digital system is the lowest jitter, most technically advanced, most musical playback system in the world today! _
_You must hear it to believe it._


----------



## MayaTlab

hans030390 said:


> I don't see how MSB products could be anything other than 100 billion percent amazing with such a serious man picture on their front page:
> 
> 
> I mean, look at that. You know that means legit. Then they wrote a sweet poem for me. Mmmmmm....must...hear it.
> ...


 
  
 You can definitely tell that this man's brain is made of a thousand 0.01% custom-made matched pairs of resistors.


----------



## music_man

it looks like he is giving me the evil eye lol. that is one serious man.
  
 about the teac. I think he just dismissed it for some reason and did not really put it through it's paces.stock it is fantastic even if it was $2,500 I say. fully modded out it is seriously good. right now I am listening to two systems. a dedicated listening room that includes the msb. my bedrrom has the teac. sure, my bedroom system is not as good as the one downstairs but I am not disappointed. I tried at least as many dacs as purrin and settled on these two for now. even modded, price wise the teac is the very least expensive component in that system. I think the modded teac is better than it's esoteric brother. come to think of it I really just need a esoteric face plate for the thing! I think this is a scenario where the _low_ price may dissuade people. if I was not handy I would just order a modded one. you cannot do better for 5x the $1,600 asking prices. says i.


----------



## groovyd

Are the ES9018 and 9016 pin compatible, that is could one swap them out without other circuit changes?


----------



## purrin

mowglycdb said:


> Purrin,
> 
> We did some ABX tests in chile  with the  SE outputs of the following combos:
> 
> ...


 
  
 In that case, I would highly recommend the ODAC+O2. Not being able to hear a difference is a blessing. And I'm not being mean-spirited or sarcastic either. Other factors as headphones or speakers or recordings may also have an effect on this test.


----------



## mowglycdb

purrin said:


> In that case, I would highly recommend the ODAC+O2. Not being able to hear a difference is a blessing. And I'm not being mean-spirited or sarcastic either.


 
  
 Lol, the Master-7 + Master-8 is mine. I think the ABX is doing something to the impedance output and to the sound signature, because I'm sure that NFB-1.32 has a different sound signature than the Master-7


----------



## purrin

Well, it could be fatigue. I'm able to ABX identify MP3-128 and FLAC consistently when my ears are fresh, but after 10-20 trials, I start to lose it. The other thing you could do is just try living with the ODAC+O2 for an extended period of time and see how that works for you. Long term comparison is just as if not more valid than quick ABX.


----------



## mowglycdb

Yeah, I think just as you about it,  we were testing it on revealing headphones,  LCD-3  and HE-6
  
 To test the three equipments we used a little ABX box that has 5  1/8  inputs and one 1/8 output.  So I think that box altered the sound in some way.


----------



## purrin

fengwei007 said:


> It's either your UD501 a defect one, or we have very different music taste. And to be honesty, no matter how much you don't like the TEAC, claim it as POS made your whole thread meaningless to me.


 
  
 I think it's obvious we have very different sonic priorities. I don't like most of the sources (at least the ones that I have heard) in your sig: Herus, iPhone5, HM-901, UD-501, etc. So I would agree with you that this thread is probably meaningless to you and that you should seek elsewhere for information.
  
 I've always said, DAC preference can be a very personal thing, and if none of this jives, then ignore everything I have to say going backwards and forwards.


----------



## eantala

im about to order the Gen2 usb board for my Gungnir, to those that swapped out is it fairly easy to do?


----------



## blasjw

fengwei007 said:


> It's either your UD501 a defect one, or we have very different music taste. And to be honesty, no matter how much you don't like the TEAC, claim it as POS made your whole thread meaningless to me.
> 
> Thanks anyway for your effort. I'm going back to enjoy the POS.


 
  
 It's funny, judging by how much Purrin hates the Teac UD-501, I assumed it was using his favorite chip - ESS Sabre.  I was surprised to find out that upon further investigation, it's actually using the highly regarded BurrBrown PCM1795:

http://audio.teac.com/product/ud-501/


----------



## zerodeefex

I used the TEAC for a year and was happy to replace it with an uberfrost. It was an upgrade. Putin's right in calling the TEAC a piece. I regret ditching my DAC2 for it due to the hype.


----------



## john57

The Benchmark? Seems to be well put together.


----------



## zerodeefex

john57 said:


> The Benchmark? Seems to be well put together.


 
  
 Yep. I actually wish I still had it on hand to compare side by side with my X-Sabre.


----------



## thathertz

Hi Purrin / Putin / Hitler ...whatever
  
 Have a few statements for you which I hope you can address 
 I must say that I disagree with alot of your comments but hey ho that's life.
 You're not forcing people to read this thread but when you present it with a screw you attitude you just know that a flak jacket will be required.
  
 Ok Q.1....What do you consider as being the best SABRE implementation?
  
 2.  I'm biased of course but I've heard many Sabre DACs and the Invicta is the best I've heard by far. I just don't get your assertion that
      the Invicta is employing sleight-of-hand to cover supposed inherent deficiencies. I don't hear the 'strident' nature you attest to. Maybe
      my ears are more suited to the Invicta signature....I just know that I like what I hear when comparing to many other DACs in recent history.
      RESULT: We're both happy so that's a +. 
  
 3. Given your continued vocal stance on the imminent DEATH of DSD, how do you feel about the new path of PS Audio and their Directstream 
     implementation? Again, given that my DAC of choice is the Invicta I'm biased but even then when looking at the signal path for the proposed
     Directstream  'DAC' it looks beautifully simple. Ted (the designer) is a true genius and of that there is no doubt.
     Anyway, ignoring the heavy PS Audio marketing speak for a moment, there must be something strong and tangible here for PS Audio 
     to put all their weight behind this technology. They're saying that regardless of the input signal, you WILL be hearing DSD 'quality' and it will sound 
     better than the input PCM signal. So 16/44.1Khz recordings will show details that will not have been heard with current converters. This suggests 
     that current PCM conversion implementations are 'broken' and that DSD conversions under PS Audio Directstream will be a huge improvement.
  
 Interesting times 
  
 4. Why the screw did you choose that avatar? I think it's overkill. Not required. You will elicit the same response through casual postings.


----------



## boatheelmusic

1) sell your harsh Invicta for a new PS Audio.

2) did you vote for OB?


----------



## thathertz

boatheelmusic said:


> 1) sell your harsh Invicta for a new PS Audio.
> 
> 2) did you vote for OB?


 
  
 1) But my Invicta is not harsh  Have you actually ever heard the Invicta?
  
 2) Nope I'm in the UK but yeah I would vote for Obama


----------



## boatheelmusic

God help you on both counts !


----------



## thathertz

boatheelmusic said:


> God help you on both counts !


----------



## MayaTlab

thathertz said:


> looking at the signal path for the proposed Directstream  'DAC' it looks beautifully simple.


 
  
 I'm not too sure there always is a correlation between simplicity and sound quality - and even then this is a graphical representation of a circuit, which may be designed with bias (for example regrouping several components or dissociating others - for example, I'd like to know why they didn't put any power related components in their Directstream representation and decided to split the ESS chip sigma delta part into a "multibit sigma delta" and a "multple multibit DACs used at random" - typo included).
  
 Regarding your comments about the Invicta, I too am not in total agreement with Purrin, but he's probably heard a lot more DACs than both of us, and at least I agree with him on certain points. So perhaps it would be wiser to try to understand relative to what other DAC he made these comments (because after all this is a relative point of view once we're past measurements).


----------



## thathertz

boatheelmusic said:


> God help you on both counts !


 
  
 OT but what are your thoughts on the ~NAD M51? I looked at that for a long time (along with the NAIM DAC-V1) before going with the Invicta.
 I must say I LOVE the Invicta. I have two 128gb SDXC cards (so far) and it is just a dream to be able to control playback through the Invicta 
 remote without having the hassle of using a PC/laptop source with Foobar or Jriver etc. etc.....


----------



## music_man

now, this is getting interesting!


----------



## purrin

eantala said:


> im about to order the Gen2 usb board for my Gungnir, to those that swapped out is it fairly easy to do?


 
  
 Easy to do. Just a million screws on the Gungnir to open it up. Be sure to employ good anti-static practices.
  


zerodeefex said:


> I used the TEAC for a year and was happy to replace it with an uberfrost. It was an upgrade. Putin's right in calling the TEAC a piece. I regret ditching my DAC2 for it due to the hype.


 
  
 Dude, you gotta mod it, get a power conditioner, and convert PCM to DSD to it.
  
 Lest I remind everyone of the Teac in varying states of disuse by two reputable makers of headphone related gear. Names shall be withheld to protect the innocent.
  

  

  


thathertz said:


> Ok Q.1....What do you consider as being the best SABRE implementation?


 
  
 Probably the Vega, or one of MisterRogers insane SABRE builds. Lord knows he probably spend countless hours and well over $5K in parts for experimentation to get the right sound on it.
  


thathertz said:


> 2.  I'm biased of course but I've heard many Sabre DACs and the Invicta is the best I've heard by far. I just don't get your assertion that the Invicta is employing sleight-of-hand to cover supposed inherent deficiencies. I don't hear the 'strident' nature you attest to. Maybe my ears are more suited to the Invicta signature....I just know that I like what I hear when comparing to many other DACs in recent history.


 
  
 I'm really sensitive to treble stridency, probably more so than most. Again, I grew up listening to vinyl and still have a ton of it around.
  


thathertz said:


> 3. Given your continued vocal stance on the imminent DEATH of DSD, how do you feel about the new path of PS Audio and their Directstream implementation? Again, given that my DAC of choice is the Invicta I'm biased but even then when looking at the signal path for the proposed Directstream  'DAC' it looks beautifully simple. Ted (the designer) is a true genius and of that there is no doubt.
> 
> Anyway, ignoring the heavy PS Audio marketing speak for a moment, there must be something strong and tangible here for PS Audio to put all their weight behind this technology. They're saying that regardless of the input signal, you WILL be hearing DSD 'quality' and it will sound better than the input PCM signal. So 16/44.1Khz recordings will show details that will not have been heard with current converters. This suggests that current PCM conversion implementations are 'broken' and that DSD conversions under PS Audio Directstream will be a huge improvement.


 
  
 I think they could be on to something. If so, that would be great. The proof will be in the pudding. I almost went for the trade-in program to get their new DAC. But thinking about it more, it's obvious that Paul's reference system and sonic preferences do differ somewhat from a vocal subset of their customer base (the ones who felt the PWD1->2 running 2.02 or 2.03 was the best sounding.) Given the issues with the firmwares making the PWD2 sound different, the Bridge being broken for so long, and what appears to be Paul's preference for the nasty sounding treble of the latter firmware revisions, I've decided to wait on the sidelines. In time, the $6K PSA DSD DAC will probably come down to $3K anyways like the PWD2.
  


thathertz said:


> 4. Why the screw did you choose that avatar? I think it's overkill. Not required. You will elicit the same response through casual postings.


 
  
 My buddy AL mis-typed Putin instead of Purrin on his mobile device in the AGD-M7 thread. A few peeps, some of them my friends, got slightly hung up on it, so I decided to play along.
  
 I'll probably change my avatar because of recent events and also because Putin is an as5h0le. However, I do admire Putin because although he appears crazy, he stands by his convictions and doesn't give a sh1t about what other people think about him. I also like him because he out maneuvered the Barry and Kerry foreign policy team, reminding us how incompetent they (Barry and Kerry) were. (I didn't like W's foreign policy execution either.)
  
 But you are right. Again, Putin is an a-hole and I will change my avatar back soon.


----------



## MayaTlab

What puzzles me most is that if you find the Invicta's treble perfectible (I do too), you seemed to prefer the Lavry in that regard, while I would personally take the Invicta any time over the Lavry as far as listening fatigue goes, or the presence of grain / dirt / grit / lack of refinement in the trebles. In the same way I don't find it any less detailed / textured / agile in the bass than Dan's creation (but then you may very well argue that it probably should be a lot better than it given the price difference and I'd agree with you). I suspect you may find the Benchmark DAC2 quite similar to the Vega given your description, perhaps a little less convincing overall.
  
 And I'm sorry but Kerry's lack of prescience regarding foreign issues is nothing in comparison to the jolly disorganised mess that the EU foreign policy is regarding Russia. Let me claim that we're better at being diplomatic noobs than Kerry ATM : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/o-10-ukraine-sanctions-gaffe-city-profits-diplomacy-britain-russia?CMP=fb_gu


----------



## thathertz

mayatlab said:


> I'm not too sure there always is a correlation between simplicity and sound quality - and even then this is a graphical representation of a circuit, which may be designed with bias (for example regrouping several components or dissociating others - for example, I'd like to know why they didn't put any power related components in their Directstream representation and decided to split the ESS chip sigma delta part into a "multibit sigma delta" and a "multple multibit DACs used at random" - typo included).
> 
> Regarding your comments about the Invicta, I too am not in total agreement with Purrin, but he's probably heard a lot more DACs than both of us, and at least I agree with him on certain points. So perhaps it would be wiser to try to understand relative to what other DAC he made these comments (because after all this is a relative point of view once we're past measurements).


 
  
 At face value the Directstream 'DAC' looks good. However, I've read the forum posts and watched the videos. It's really hard to not get caught up in 
 Ted Smith's enthusiasm. He's just one of those guys that you want to believe in. Imagine him being there at a 'meet'.... I'm sitting on a huge investment 
 (for me) in the Invicta so I'm bound to be defensive. I spent a LOT of time researching DACs before buying this from a UK dealer which was £3500. 
 At current exchange rates that's $5,832.28. Not a million miles away from the projected price of the Directstream. 
  
 I've learned alot from Purrin. He's certainly more qualified than I to comment on the various DAC's in the marketplace, but talk of DSD dying, chocolate
 ice cream, SABRE SABRE SABRE SABRE SABRE etc. just winds me up...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 We're all human after all. 
  
 I'm more than happy with my setup. My ultimate would be the Invicta +_ (HP AMP) + JPS LABS Abyss which is something I'm working towards.
  
 For me that means I need to reconsider the car I'm looking to drive. Do I go for the BMW 3 series or do I buy the Renault Clio + the Abyss etc?
  
 My son is 7 years old. If he were my age how would I advise him?


----------



## MayaTlab

thathertz said:


> For me that means I need to reconsider the car I'm looking to drive. Do I go for the BMW 3 series or do I buy the Renault Clio + the Abyss etc?


 
  
 The Clio please. France counts on your support to get its economy going. Don't you want to taste a bit of va va voom ?


----------



## boatheelmusic

As for me, in all seriousness I like a detailed but SMOOTH presentation first through my Maggies then secondly through my HD 600's.

Having said that, both Sabres I've tried in the Oppo 105 and the BMC puredac had this sheen that while plenty detailed didn't sound real. I'm a professional jazz guitarist, so maybe a little familiar with just what that is.

I liked the M51, but similar in character to the Emotiva DC1 which at 1/4 the price and with more features represents a remarkable value.

I have a PS Audio PWD being delivered tomorrow, and will file a report in due time.

As to "Barry and Kerry", they represent major posers who embarass many of us on this side of the Pond!

Best,

Bill


----------



## MayaTlab

boatheelmusic said:


> As for me, in all seriousness I like a detailed but SMOOTH presentation first through my Maggies then secondly through my HD 600's.
> 
> Having said that, both Sabres I've tried in the Oppo 105 and the BMC puredac had this sheen that while plenty detailed didn't sound real. I'm a professional jazz guitarist, so maybe a little familiar with just what that is.


 
  
 Agreed on the sheen. But I still think the ones I've tried (DAC2, Invicta) are the smoothest DACs I've tried yet (there probably is better around). Smooth, refined, but more or less lean, thin with a more or less "synthesised" timbre.


----------



## thathertz

Hi Purrin
  
 Sorry couldn't quote your last post. Not sure if it was a 'Chrome' issue.
  
 Anywaaaaaay....
  
 I agree with your comments on the Directstream approach AND (mostly) on Putin 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 It's really hard to read your posts when it seems they have come from Putin's mouth  
  
 You changed your avatar! Top man.
  
 Sorry if I seemed overly emotional in my recent posts.
  
 I chose a bad week to give up meth.


----------



## boatheelmusic

BTW, dacs, headphones and speakers all seem to have sonic signatures, so I'm coming to believe it's all about the matching .

Not to be evaluated alone, necessarily!


----------



## Radio_head

thathertz said:


> My son is 7 years old. If he were my age how would I advise him?


 
 You'd probably tell him not to have a child the same year you're born as it forces you to choose between a BMW and the Abyss.


----------



## thathertz

mayatlab said:


> The Clio please. France counts on your support to get its economy going. Don't you want to taste a bit of va va voom ?


 
  
 How the hell do you know about the VA VA VOOM? Do they have the same adverts en Francais?


----------



## Turn&cough

Pardon me for butting in - but if the ESS chip is so deeply flawed (harsh treble, one note "thud" bass) as some appear to be saying what chip would you chose as the current best all rounder? TI(BB), Wolfson, AKM, AD, Cirrus, etc. Assuming, of course, that the chip is for the most part responsible for a DAC's sound characteristics.


----------



## thathertz

radio_head said:


> You'd probably tell him not to have a child the same year you're born as it forces you to choose between a BMW and the Abyss.


 
  
 Love it


----------



## MayaTlab

thathertz said:


> How the hell do you know about the VA VA VOOM? Do they have the same adverts en Francais?


 
  
 Nope, but I watch British Tv, the one on this side of the channel is apocalyptically rubbish.
  
 The commercial possibly is the only thing worth your attention about this car. Bascially, your choice is about stinky cheese from Guyancourt with an audiophile strawberry on top or fat sausages from Munich.


----------



## boatheelmusic

turn&cough said:


> Pardon me for butting in - but if the ESS chip is so deeply flawed (harsh treble, one note "thud" bass) as some appear to be saying what chip would you chose as the current best all rounder? TI(BB), Wolfson, AKM, AD, Cirrus, etc. Assuming, of course, that the chip is for the most part responsible for a DAC's sound characteristics.




AD1955 in dual differential configuration.


----------



## thathertz

mayatlab said:


> Nope, but I watch British Tv, the one on this side of the channel is apocalyptically rubbish.
> 
> The commercial possibly is the only thing worth your attention about this car. Bascially, your choice is about stinky cheese from Guyancourt with an audiophile strawberry on top or fat sausages from Munich.


 
  
 Ok I laughed so hard I think I got a hernia........


----------



## thathertz

boatheelmusic said:


> AD1955 in dual differential configuration.


 
  
 What's the cost?


----------



## boatheelmusic

The new Cambridge Audio 851D at 1500 or the Emo DC1 at 500 are two examples....


----------



## Maxvla

I don't know about differential configuration, but the Matrix Mini-I normal uses 2 1955s and the sound is merely ok.


----------



## thathertz

Purrin!
  
 Please take some time to think about this.
  
 What is your ultimate system? (Ending with headphones or speakers).
  
 Assuming digital input!
  
 Source > DAC > AMP > Headphones/Speakers.
  
 Speakers are a whole different world for me now (the last speakers I owned were Mission MX5's).
  
 I saw your OB speakers at the last meet..(in my browser unfortunately) ...were they based on the Lampizator specs?
 Look forward to hearing about your Ultimate system 
  
 Cheers,
 Mike


----------



## Maxvla

Ultimate system is always changing, but I would assume he would go for speakers.

His OB speakers were based on his talks with Donald North of DNA who designed his own OB speakers, the DNA Sequence.


----------



## purrin

mayatlab said:


> What puzzles me most is that if you find the Invicta's treble perfectible (I do too), you seemed to prefer the Lavry in that regard, while I would personally take the Invicta any time over the Lavry as far as listening fatigue goes, or the presence of grain / dirt / grit / lack of refinement in the trebles. In the same way I don't find it any less detailed / textured / agile in the bass than Dan's creation (but then you may very well argue that it probably should be a lot better than it given the price difference and I'd agree with you). I suspect you may find the Benchmark DAC2 quite similar to the Vega given your description, perhaps a little less convincing overall.


 
  
 I don't disagree on your points. I actually did find the Invicta more resolving than the Lavry and the Lavry actually sounding a bit more grainy in the last octave Overall I find the Lavry DA11 rather ho-hum or pedestrian. What killed the Invicta for me was its muddy bass, congestion at complex passages, and a lack of coherency between the added body (not found in other SABRE implementations) which covered up the SABRE treble - the bass and the treble. It was like the Invicta didn't have a personality which was "whole". I put the Lavry DA11 up there because it didn't do anything terribly wrong, not because it did anything particularly well. A conservative choice, but also taking into account that one of the ninjas voted the Invicta down significantly.
  


mayatlab said:


> And I'm sorry but Kerry's lack of prescience regarding foreign issues is nothing in comparison to the jolly disorganised mess that the EU foreign policy is regarding Russia. Let me claim that we're better at being diplomatic noobs than Kerry ATM : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/o-10-ukraine-sanctions-gaffe-city-profits-diplomacy-britain-russia?CMP=fb_gu


 
  
 Well, I sort of excuse that because you guys are right there with the EU being partially dependent upon Russian gas. Heck, Putin can decide to go crazy at any time and invade half of Europe. This time, I'm sure ex-Stasi Angela Merkel would be complicit.


----------



## thathertz

maxvla said:


> Ultimate system is always changing, but I would assume he would go for speakers.
> 
> His OB speakers were based on his talks with Donald North of DNA who designed his own OB speakers, the DNA Sequence.


 
  
 Thanks for clearing that up. Dunno why I assumed Purrin used the Lampizator specs.
  
 My Ebay 'saved searches' presented this today. To be honest it looks like a great deal!
  
 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Lampizator-Endorphin-Open-Baffle-Speakers-/191089269554?pt=UK_AudioVideoElectronics_HomeAudioHiFi_HiFiSpeakers&hash=item2c7dcedb32
  
 Anywaaaaaaaay, I feel I know Purrin much better now and I hope he will forgive my earlier aggressive posts. Purrin? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Cheers
 Mike


----------



## purrin

turn&cough said:


> Pardon me for butting in - but if the ESS chip is so deeply flawed (harsh treble, one note "thud" bass) as some appear to be saying what chip would you chose as the current best all rounder? TI(BB), Wolfson, AKM, AD, Cirrus, etc. Assuming, of course, that the chip is for the most part responsible for a DAC's sound characteristics.


 
  
 I haven't heard enough AD1955 DACs, but I think I would like that. I like the AKMs, even the older AKMs. They just have such a sweet sound to them; and it appears easy not to make them sound bad. Wolfson is OK, but tends to be all over the place depending upon implementation. Cirrus sounds boring. TI(BB) outside of their R2R stuff, I pretty much dislike. Also, just because a DAC may have a PCM1704 doesn't mean I will like it. I don't like over 50% of PCM1704 implementations I have heard.


----------



## MayaTlab

purrin said:


> a lack of coherency between the added body (not found in other SABRE implementations) which covered up the SABRE treble - the bass and the treble. It was like the Invicta didn't have a personality which was "whole".


 
  
 I believe I'm with you on that one. Did you try several filter settings ? I found slight differences between them, certainly not enough to change its overall sound signature (or signatures), but enough IMHO to maybe alleviate to a point what you just said. Anyway I'll probably have to wait for quite a long while before somebody comes up with something in a similar form factor that I don't dislike more than I don't dislike the Invicta.


----------



## purrin

thathertz said:


> Purrin!
> 
> Please take some time to think about this.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Assuming digital input - where I could use digital PEQ:
  
*DAC*
 An MSB DAC or the AG-D M7/OR5. I'm still due for a shootout to see how close it may be. The MSB Analog may not be resolving enough for me. Unfortunately, I don't want to spend $20K for a better MSB. Getting an MSB DAC is like buying a Porsche. By the time I get all the options I want, the Cayman (the real Porsche since the 911 is so bloated now) is $120K.
  
*AMP*
 Eddie Current 445, otherwise known as the "God Amp". Only five made in the first run. Don't know if there will be any more. 4 x 45 tubes. Will be running EML Meshes. Only 3 watts per channel.
  
*SPEAKERS*
 A new high-efficiency open baffle design. The OB speakers you saw in the Bay Area Meet thread were a proof of concept using Moth Cicada drivers I had on hand and cheap $70 15" stamped frame woofers from PartsExpress. I slapped the thing together the week before the meet (although I had already done some of the design work / simluations keeping the Cicada drivers in mind months ago.)
  
 I'd probably go a three for maybe four way for the final design. Aura NS18 18"woofer, Fostex FE208EZ 8" for mids, and Fostex FE108 4" for the highs. The 4" is a strange choice, but there isn't 2" driver / tweeter with the range and efficiency I want, unless of course Donald North designs one, which would be cool. I still need to evaluate a few more drivers to make a final decision. The Acoustic Elegance Dipole15/18 seem interesting as well. Since I would have digital EQ at my disposal, I would just run single caps and coils for the crossover circuits to keep them as simple as possible. Crossover components are evil.
  
 The system would be bi-amped with the 445 powering the mids and treble. Reasonable priced but powerful solid-state (such as the Crest CA2 power amp) would handle the woofer amping duties.


----------



## Turn&cough

purrin said:


> I haven't heard enough AD1955 DACs, but I think I would like that. I like the AKMs, even the older AKMs. They just have such a sweet sound to them; and it appears easy not to make them sound bad. Wolfson is OK, but tends to be all over the place depending upon implementation. Cirrus sounds boring. TI(BB) outside of their R2R stuff, I pretty much dislike. Also, just because a DAC may have a PCM1704 doesn't mean I will like it. I don't like over 50% of PCM1704 implementations I have heard.


 
 I built a few Cirrus based DACs and agree that they do lack musicality. The only Wolfson based DAC that I tried was the Rega DAC. It had good tonal richness but felt sluggish when compared to an ESS based DAC. Owned a few inexpensive PCMxxxx DACs (not ladder) that fell short in one area or another. Also owned a TDA1541a NOS DAC that was OK but too rolled off on top.
 If you don't mind paying for a lot of features you may or may not need the Cambridge 851D sure looks good *on paper*. I'll look in to borrowing one from my local dealer.


----------



## music_man

I think the problem some people are having is they take others opinions as an insult to their taste. I personally don't care. as long as I like something. that being said my two main systems now contain the modded teac and the diamond dac iv select. take that as you will but I think that states on my part I for one do not think the teac is a pos! now go tell me to go to the ent doc okay? furthermore, I feel what the teac brings to the table for $849 msrp is astounding. technology wise. regardless if any one individual prefers it's sound. if I am correct purrin states himself that this stuff is highly subjective. just because he thinks something is a pos does not mean that is gospel. however if 5 people say you are a horse you might consider a saddle. I will give you that. of course not including unmentioned headphone companies. for all I know one of them is dr. dre! oh heck, he is a doctor after all! then again I couldn't really say how the teac is stock. moded it first. put a hyabusa motor in a smart car and that sucker is fast!
  
  
 just wanted to add. thahertz,now that you made up with purrin....could you please remove the "ah" reference you made? that can be very offensive to some people on a completely different level than the bickering going on here. I don't even know purrin and I will bet he has committed no such atrocities.


----------



## purrin

thathertz said:


> Anywaaaaaaaay, I feel I know Purrin much better now and I hope he will forgive my earlier aggressive posts. Purrin?


 
  
 I have a short memory and have a hard time keeping track of everyone. Every day is a new day for me. You also have to understand that I relish people saying stuff like "troll/shill of the highest order. I have no respect for that loser." It means I'm doing my job of trying to get people to differentiate sonic qualities of gear.
  
 Not everything sounds the same, and not everything sounds _grrrrreat_ as every piece of gear highlighted on the front page of this forum or reviewed in Audio360.org would have us believe. Lack of qualitative discernment is not a good thing. Discernment will of course lead to differing opinions, which will sometimes result in passionate disagreements.
  
 It gets messy sometimes, but overall, I think it's a better thing than I pat your back and you pat my back convincing each other we all have the greatest stuff.
  
 FWIW, I've recommended many times _against _my favored DACs (or headphones) in PMs after I've assessed a person's sonic preferences, favorite recordings, associated gear, etc.


----------



## thathertz

purrin said:


> I have a short memory and have a hard time keeping track of everyone. Every day is a new day for me. You also have to understand that I relish people saying stuff like "troll/shill of the highest order. I have no respect for that loser." It means I'm doing my job of trying to get people to differentiate sonic qualities of gear.
> 
> Not everything sounds the same, and not everything sounds _grrrrreat_ as every piece of gear highlighted on the front page of this forum or reviewed in Audio360.org would have us believe. Lack of qualitative discernment is not a good thing. Discernment will of course lead to differing opinions, which will sometimes result in passionate disagreements.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Short reply....it's 2.38am here.
  
 I'm getting you now Purrrin and I like it.
  
 Bed is calling ....see yah. More tomorrow.
 Mike


----------



## thathertz

music_man said:


> just wanted to add. thahertz,now that you made up with purrin....could you please remove the "ah" reference you made? that can be very offensive to some people on a completely different level than the bickering going on here. I don't even know purrin and I will bet he has committed no such atrocities.


 
  
 I think Purrin understands me now and I understand him. I'm looking at this thread through a whole different window. I'm going to read it again.
  
 Gotta go...it's now 2.58 am and as much as I love Scorpions - Lovedrive I have lots to do tomorrow. 
  
 See ya
 Mike


----------



## Glam Bash

turn&cough said:


> I built a few Cirrus based DACs and agree that they do lack musicality. The only Wolfson based DAC that I tried was the Rega DAC. It had good tonal richness but felt sluggish when compared to an ESS based DAC. Owned a few inexpensive PCMxxxx DACs (not ladder) that fell short in one area or another. Also owned a TDA1541a NOS DAC that was OK but too rolled off on top.
> If you don't mind paying for a lot of features you may or may not need the Cambridge 851D sure looks good *on paper*. I'll look in to borrowing one from my local dealer.


 
 I borrowed and 851D from my local hifi shop. Resolution of detail was very good, but the lack of oomph in dynamics was a deal breaker. Can't believe that wasn't mentioned in any of the reviews I read about it.  I remember describing the bass as "dry"  to my sales guy.


----------



## music_man

the 851d is a nice digital preamp. if you just need a dac the money should go further. the 840av2 was classic. smoked the little krell at the time. this lower end gear is hit or miss. I wonder if the dacmagic plus or whatever is the same thing sans the preamp. does not look that way. I don't go by price I go by what I like to listen to. that does not mean anyone else does either. besides it's easier to hate anything that is one grand vs. multiples of that. plus most things are priced accordingly I will say the 851d is better at being a preamp than the bm dac2. the dac2 is a better dac. hence the dac2 d..


----------



## music_man

I wholeheartedly disagree with the following statement. you said yourself a number of times this is subjective. nothing actually discussed here is a clear cut pos. I know what you say about the magazines. all of them have given mostly positive reviews to all of this. of course I never heard them say something sucked either. I will just use my own ears. on that note I still maintain the ud-501 sounds great right next to the diamond dac iv select. albeit, modded quite a bit. even stock it was no slouch when used properly. you also did admit you did not put it through it's paces. I am sorry this just irks me. it is not about patting each other on the back. you should not exclude anyone from owning anything because you personally feel it is a pos. or a handful of others you leave nameless. this subjective as you have said multiple times here. so now it seems you are contradicting yourself. you are doing the exact opposite of patting people on the back. in essence saying their taste sucks. sort of being a bully. I cant change this. all I can say is each individual should use their own ears. I have to say for my total investment in the ud-501 it is off the chain. I personally recommend everyone go out and get one. even if they leave it stock. I have nothing to do with teac. I just know good sound when I hear it. hence having the msb as well. the magazines certainly agree. interestingly they did nitpick the m51 for instance. I would be the first to say don't read the magazines though. now I am not contradicting my self either. I used my ears. call my ears broken if you so wish. I recorded a bunch of your music on a bm dac1. so that was the foundation. which you also seem to dislike. luckily you can change the sound upon playback. heck we probably don't agree on whiskey either. that is if you drink it. I am just making  a point. there is no right and wrong here as you state below. please, don't anyone think that. that is my opinion. other than that I do commend you for the effort you put forth here. so long as it is noted this is solely your own opinion. if only it were that clear cut. then there would be only dac on the market. that is obviously not the case. they are all selling or we would see these companies disappear. in regard to the teac keep in mind they also produce esoteric. which if I were to guess you feel is pos as well. that being because I actually feel the ud-501 is better than the d1 which I also own. even stock as well as certainly modded. okay, I got my monies worth. that's how I feel. as do a score of others that have pm'd me. being to embarrassed to voice their opinions here due to the stigma you have created. shame,shame. yes, another long winded paragraph of mine. call me miffed. 
  
 Quote:


purrin said:


> I have a short memory and have a hard time keeping track of everyone. Every day is a new day for me. You also have to understand that I relish people saying stuff like "troll/shill of the highest order. I have no respect for that loser." It means I'm doing my job of trying to get people to differentiate sonic qualities of gear.
> 
> Not everything sounds the same, and not everything sounds _grrrrreat_ as every piece of gear highlighted on the front page of this forum or reviewed in Audio360.org would have us believe. Lack of qualitative discernment is not a good thing. Discernment will of course lead to differing opinions, which will sometimes result in passionate disagreements.
> 
> ...


----------



## BournePerfect

Break that **ish down man.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## Maxvla

music_man said:


> as do a score of others that have pm'd me. being to embarrassed to voice their opinions here due to the stigma you have created.



20 separate people have pm'd you? 

They should feel free to post whatever they want. I, and many others who consider Purrin a friend, disagree with his evaluations of gear sometimes. He's human, too. It shouldn't be adversarial as long as you keep an open dialogue. If you speak only to prove your point and are closed minded you will have wasted your time, and ours.


----------



## Argo Duck

music_man, so you are miffed. Great! We get that. Other than the single difference that you like the UD-501 and purrin doesn't, it seems you agree with his post you quote, together with other points he makes elsewhere.

What's the problem? You hear great; purrin hears great, and so - as purrin suggests - "Discernment...will sometimes result in passionate disagreements".

_QED_. Can we move on now?


----------



## music_man

okay I didn't mean to be a jerk I got carried away. we mostly do agree. i just got the idea he was saying his opinion is the only one that counts. i guess that is not what he said. i just hope anyone would get whatever they want and not feel pressure by others. this is probably unfounded on my part and i apologize. honestly this is like ford vs. chevy. me personally i always told people which ever you prefer and don't be ashamed with that choice. i probably took purrin the wrong way. of course you know the truth is i have a personal agenda here. i do feel insulted myself but that is my own problem. i mean, how i am i so much enjoying a pos? i have to question myself there. of course mine is not exactly what he had heard either. i have my own pos list but in fear of being ousted i keep it to myself. interestingly my pos list is many times revered here. so i guess we just all hear differently. that is fine. anyways i apologize for thinking out loud.


----------



## kothganesh

music_man said:


> okay I didn't mean to be a jerk I got carried away. we mostly do agree. i just got the idea he was saying his opinion is the only one that counts. i guess that is not what he said. i just hope anyone would get whatever they want and not feel pressure by others. this is probably unfounded on my part and i apologize. honestly this is like ford vs. chevy. me personally i always told people which ever you prefer and don't be ashamed with that choice. i probably took purrin the wrong way. of course you know the truth is i have a personal agenda here. i do feel insulted myself but that is my own problem. i mean, how i am i so much enjoying a pos? i have to question myself there. of course mine is not exactly what he had heard either. i have my own pos list but in fear of being ousted i keep it to myself. interestingly my pos list is many times revered here. so i guess we just all hear differently. that is fine. anyways i apologize for thinking out loud.


 
 In the interests of a good exchange of ideas, the ideal thing to do is to limit oneself to the "technical" aspects on this forum. If you want to vent, the PM route is always available (but in no way do I want to give the impression that you should clog that route with "hate" mails 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





). I have myself learned a thing or two from these exchanges but the concern is that the thread itself will be locked out and that's just a shame.


----------



## music_man

I said I was sorry. I was not even mad. I was just pointing out there are differences of opinions. that all. let's just forget it. I am sorry purrin. I hope I did not make you steaming mad.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ All good then.

You're right, we all hear differently.

Speaking purely _for me_ I'm pretty sure I don't hear the same as purrin, but (again, this is just me) I appreciate his and his associates' irreverent and questioning attitude. In particular, they've developed an interesting and quite well-defined vocabulary and ratings which - together with certain others here and elsewhere - have caused me to listen for things I might not have otherwise. Whether or not I 'hear' the same things as they, it's definitely helped me hear more than before.


----------



## arnaud

music_man said:


> I said I was sorry. I was not even mad. I was just pointing out there are differences of opinions. that all. let's just forget it. I am sorry purrin. I hope I did not make you steaming mad.




I don't think you need to apologize to anyone, it's a natural reaction. At the end of the day, we are not our gear and mostly splitting hairs in 4 during these heated debates so best is to take a chill pill, sleep on it.
As for purrin, I would guess he is rather excited that this caused some reaction / discussion than mad at you in the least...


----------



## Stapsy

No offense but...
  
 I don't understand all this confusion (consistent throughout the entire thread not just on the last couple pages).  Nobody is making any claims to have all the answers here.  The first post states how personal DAC preferences are. This is a thread for Purrin&Co to give an opinion on DACs and rank them in order of preference.  I fail to see the absolute's.  Anybody who comes on here and takes it as truth needs to learn how to think for themselves. 
  
 This forum is almost entirely based on people's opinion's.  Why do we always need to waste time with "IMO" whenever something is said that might offend another person's tastes?  If you need people to pat you on the back and tell you how awesome you are go post in one of the fanboy threads.
  
  
 While I think that Purrin does a good job of describing his opinion of gear in an objective way, nobody is forced to take that as gospel.  The whole point of a forum should be discussion.  Nobody is going to get yelled at if they post dissenting opinions here in a well thought out and respectful way. 
  
 I would love to see more discussion from people who don't agree.  There has already been talk from former Gungnir owner's who didn't like the Gungnir in their setups.  The same punchy and dynamic sound that Purrin loves in his review was a source of annoyance for other owners.  Perfect example of disagreement and discussion leading to some valuable insight for potential buyers.
  
  
 All the above is IMO, YMMV, IWDIWPYOYBABYAA


----------



## music_man

I know this. I am totally cool with it personally. I am a big boy really. I was feeling there are some other people that may not understand and be insulted. really it was not my job to protect those people in fact. for some odd reason I felt I had to take it upon myself to do so. what I did was quite frankly stupid and I wish for it to be forgotten. it should be, as I did not actually say anything rude afaik. I was just pointing out for others not in the know perhaps that this is not written in stone. I hate to see some kid not try something because they read something bad about it. I was wrong in doing so. so I kind fully retract all statements to that effect. this thread sits completely fine with me personally in fact. I really don't know what came over me in the middle of last night. can we just please forget it?


----------



## john57

glam bash said:


> I borrowed and 851D from my local hifi shop. Resolution of detail was very good, but the lack of oomph in dynamics was a deal breaker. Can't believe that wasn't mentioned in any of the reviews I read about it.  I remember describing the bass as "dry"  to my sales guy.


 
 I had a balanced DAC that did not reproduce fully the dynamic range of the music. It sounded a bit compressed and weak. The left channel gave out a year latter.


----------



## purrin

music_man said:


> i mean, how i am i so much enjoying a pos?


 
  
I don't care if you took it the wrong way (and BTW, my post was not even directed at you). I will just be blunt and call you out on a few things.
  
Your Teac UD-501 is modded. I think you mentioned you are running a power conditioner, converting PCM to DSD in realtime, etc. Really man, you keep bringing up the Teac UD-501 as the bee-knees able to compete with some really great DACs I've heard. Except that yours is modded and you are running it under special conditions which most people do not do. That's fine if you state your disagreement with me once, twice, three times. But you keep on it over and over. Isn't there a UD-501 appreciation thread somewhere?
  
Where you able to do a direct shootout of the Teac UD-501 with several other DACs at the same time with a small committee of other listeners? At least you can see the pictures I posted where we've stacked up a bunch of DACs for direct comparison. And also keep in mind I've probably heard x3-4 the number of DACs / CD- Players in this list. The only reason they are not formally included is because I have never had a chance for a direct comparison to at least several other DACs in the list. And even then, I still have my own doubts on the rankings.
  
You mention your modded Teac UD-501 is good as the MSB Diamond. Under what conditions? Your house, dealer showroom, audio shows? What equipment was used? Headphones, speakers, amps, etc. How is it as good? Where is it better? What qualities is it worse? What do you consider the strengths of the MSD Diamond? How is your modded Teac better than the stock? Please elaborate on specific sonic qualities. In my experience, no two DACs sound exactly the same. Even the two DACs which I felt sounded spookingly closest to either other, the PWD2.02/OR5 and the Berkeley Alpha2/BADA-USB had differences. Maybe it's possible that for you, with your setups, there's isn't a big difference.
  
The difference between you and me (despite our personal preferences), is that I try to state why (at least in a few sentences of specifics) I feel a DAC is good or is bad. This allows the reader to understand where I am coming from and where my preferences lie. Also, you will never see me go around stating the AGD M7 or PWD2 as the absolute bees-knees to everyone. I know people who don't like certain qualities of the M7, and I know people who really dislike the PWD2. And I know the reasons why. I don't go around to threads where people dislike the PWD2 and keep on it to convince them that it's good.
  
Take another example: the Gungnir vs. X-Sabre. Although I prefer the Gungnir, I have actually lead people who have PM'd me in the direction of the X-Sabre based on a little Q&A with them concerning their gear, what liked before, what they didn't like, what their preferences were. I've advised people against the PWD2, against the M7, etc. in favor other other DACs I did not prefer as much.
  
I don't know if you have noticed the disagreements on the Gungnir with Maxvla, olor1n, Soup, etc. We totally disagree about the Gungnir, but it does seem we are hearing some of the same things. It's just that we react differently to the sonic attributes of the Gungnir. Its these things of discussions (including amp pairings, headphone pairings, USB upgrade board, etc.), breaking things down, which are most helpful to other HF'ers. In the end, I've tried to make sure that people who have gone out to purchase the Gungnir will actually liked it (assuming they have contacted me and asked me for more specifics.)
  
I can respect that you like the Teac UD-501 because you have tried out lots of other DACs. In that sense, you seem to the exception of most people who really really love the Teac UD-501. But one thing in general with the I've noticed with the Teac UD-501 adherents is that they haven't heard (nor even listened to) much else. In that sense, the Teac is probably a great DAC if one comes from an iPhone (brittle and bright) or a crappy cheap portable DAC. Maybe this is why the 20 people who PM'd you are afraid to speak out. They lack experience to walk the talk.
  
That's fine if people like the UD-501, but if you haven't figured it out by now, all I want people to do is to consider the other DACs on this list before heading straight to the Teac UD-501. It very well could be that they like the UD-501 in the end.
  
I will again re-iterate why I don't like the _*STOCK UNMODDED*_ Teac UD-501.
  

Unrefined staticky jumpy quality. Lacks a certain calmness and grace. Rough. Hard to describe. Sounds cheap, like the AUDINST HUD-MX-2. Doesn't have the control and grace of most desktop amps.
Lean tonal balance. One the leaner sounding DACs.
Rather poor at resolving low level information. What detail is presents is on the macro level. In fact, there seems to be a tendency to accentuate the macro-details.
 ​
To me, sonic qualities of the Teac UD-501 are simply unforgivable. This lack of "refinement" mentioned as #1 for a desktop DAC is a disgrace. It is truly a piece of ****. Of course my perception of #1 and #3 above would easily be perceived as inviting, engaging, or lively to others.


----------



## BournePerfect

Don't feel bad musicman-Marv had to come up with a new class for my extra special Eximus DP-1, because he didn't want to offend me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But at least it's not a pos lol. Btw I likme the DP1 way more than the Master 7-mainly because it has a more holographic, intimate presentation. In comparison, the M7 has a flat, super-wide soundstage, that essentially doesn't gel with the types of music I listen to.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## brunk

I also agree with Purrin, that Teac really is a POS, just really harsh and unrefined. I had it for about 2 weeks doing A/B with the Yulong D18 and it didn't rival the D18 in any area, except features.


----------



## Tuco1965

What ever happened to the chocolate ice cream?


----------



## music_man

again, purrin I apologize for being a jerk. last night I just thought out loud. I actually agree with you more than disagree. i realize i am probably giving people a false notion. so really i should be called out i guess. like you say it is highly modded and running under certain circumstances. even with custom written asio drivers. it was not so bad stock to me. this is because if something i also did not state. the system it is in is high end but the setup is not so revealing. downstairs the msb will slaughter it at pcm. i said that. dsd is not an r2r dac's strong suit. so i guess again you can call me out for comparing apples and oranges. here it sounds very god to me. i should let it be known that this is not what most people are going to get. however for someone coming from a sound blaster i do think it is an upgrade. i know, that is not saying much. i am not eating my words, just agreeing i did not tell the whole story. i did state all this but i made it appear as if this was what everyone was going to get. to be honest i listened to it stock for like 2 hours anyways. there was obviously a reason i felt the need to tweak the heck out of it. another thing i did not mention just to be honest here. my cables and vibration isolation cost 50x the price of this little thing. i guess you got me. i will agree one may be better off to just go buy a better dac. it remains it is still a big upgrade for a lot of people. in this particular very unique setup i am very pleased. i can get adifferent sound but right now i am settled on this. again, this is probably not what anyone else can expect. i don't even recommend modding it unless you are either an engineer or prepared to lose $849. there is more to it that here anyways. who puts odin on a $849 dac besides me? probably no one. so truthfully purrin is mostly correct. i am sorry purrin. i do commend you for being honest. since i was not exactly.
  
 as for the msb. used properly it will hands down smoke even my teac. downstairs there is no comparison. in my bedroom it is not so obvious.
  
 now, i am going to test dcs and light harmonic. i want to be sure the investment in the msb was right. in a dedicated listening room. not a bedroom full of carpet,drapes and furniture. on that note these types of dacs are not for everyone either. i think to a lot of people there is not going to be a huge difference. not them. their room and equipment.
  
 oh, one last thing. the teac was always connected to a preamp with xlr's then to an amp and speakers. i will say you can get a much beter headphone amp. which i left untouched and am not using. to think that is what this very forum is regarding. so yeah, sorry for being misleading. i did say all this but i think it may not have come across that way. my apologies to everyone here.
  
 i hope we can move on now. i made a mistake and i hope i have rectified it in everyone's eyes.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> I don't care if you took it the wrong way (and BTW, my post was not even directed at you). I will just be blunt and call you out on a few things.
> 
> Your Teac UD-501 is modded. I think you mentioned you are running a power conditioner, converting PCM to DSD in realtime, etc. Really man, you keep bringing up the Teac UD-501 as the bee-knees able to compete with some really great DACs I've heard. Except that yours is modded and you are running it under special conditions which most people do not do. That's fine if you state your disagreement with me once, twice, three times. But you keep on it over and over. Isn't there a UD-501 appreciation thread somewhere?
> 
> ...


----------



## Radio_head

Teac UD-501 - Against the Grain
  
 I was one of those voices that was scared of speaking out (though I didn't personally PM him), but it seems with the browbeating music_man is receiving, my silence is no longer warranted.
  
 When I first heard about the UD-501, I was skeptical.  Could good sound, let alone good DSD, be wrung out of such a cheap unit?  Well, besides for all the positive impressions on the forums, what pushed me over the edge was finding out Teac also runs Esoteric.  Esoteric makes the famous K-01, which some users have trumpeted as "better than my ipod" in their high end rigs (with BHSE's and Stax 009's.)  Surely Teac could take some of that magic and, if they couldn't produce a quarter from behind my ear, I'd still be happy with a nickel.
  
 The other thing that I loved about the Teac was how cutting edge it was.  DSD is like the Blu Ray to PCM's Betamax.  I wanted to ride the new wave with something _even better_ than my vaunted Mytek DAC.  Well, that DAC is here, and it is the Teac.
  
 The 501 has been in house now for some time being put through its paces.  As suggested by some users, it has been playing Pink on a loop for a few hundred hours.  Now, the question, were pot-stirrer Purrin's claims justified?
  

Unrefined staticky jumpy quality. Lacks a certain calmness and grace. Rough. Hard to describe. Sounds cheap, like the AUDINST HUD-MX-2. Doesn't have the control and grace of most desktop amps. 
*I noticed no staticky quality.  There was no lack of grace or roughness. *
Lean tonal balance. One the leaner sounding DACs.
*Tonal balance was not lean to me.*
Rather poor at resolving low level information. What detail is presents is on the macro level. In fact, there seems to be a tendency to accentuate the macro-details.
*I did not notice accentuated micro-details. * 
 ​
 For those who will question my rig, I ran the Teac in the _exact_ same configuration as Mike Moffatt, celebrated Thetan and current DAC Designer for Schiit.  I think he knows a thing or two about audio.  
  
 This is, as usual, a product assassination by a small cabal of audiophiles who have nothing better to do than tell us the chocolate ice cream in our cones is actually excrement.


----------



## wink

I like pistachio gelato. much betterer than chokky ice cream. Chokky ice-cream is for plebs.
  
 I have no experience with Teac DACses.


----------



## Maxvla

Gelato shop a few miles away has pistachio occasionally. It's so good. I'm a sucker for fruity gelato, though, since the flavor is so strong; blackberry, red currant, lime, etc. Ice cream tends to do chocolates and so forth alright. Gelato doesn't have quite as much lead on those.


----------



## kothganesh

maxvla said:


> Gelato shop a few miles away has pistachio occasionally. It's so good. I'm a sucker for fruity gelato, though, since the flavor is so strong; blackberry, red currant, lime, etc. Ice cream tends to do chocolates and so forth alright. Gelato doesn't have quite as much lead on those.


 
 Max, stop. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 it's close to 95 degrees here in India now and this is making me thirsty. I don't get good ice cream here.


----------



## Maxvla

It's about 30F here, so hot I need some gelato to cool off.


----------



## Maxvla

radio_head said:


> *I noticed no staticky quality.  There was no lack of grace or roughness. *
> *Tonal balance was not lean to me.*
> *I did not notice accentuated micro-details.*
> ​
> I ran the Teac in the _exact_ same configuration as Mike Moffatt.



I agree. When I had the Teac unplugged in my system I detected no audible flaws at all.


----------



## music_man

I think I have nailed the entire problem. our difference of opinion. I am a vegan. so I only eat soy ice cream! granted it sucks. I will give you that one. well, once again it succks by other peoples account. I wouldn't know. as I have been a vegan all my life. mom raised me that way. I like it though!


----------



## Argo Duck

^^^ Now _this_ is the kind of commentary I was looking for when I joined this thread.

I think I'll go and eat some ice cream...


----------



## wink

I've had some bad pies and burgers, but it's really hard to spoil a good salad sandwich.
  
 I love my NAD M51 too.


----------



## elmoe

This thread took an interesting turn... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I ended up buying a USB/SPDIF converter made by a local company for 90 euros which, according to the many reviews I've read, rivals the Audio-GD V3 converter. I'm happy with the noticeable bump in quality, but I am still plenty curious and will probably try out a few DACs in the coming months, just because it's GAS time.


----------



## ericfarrell85

[ and will probably try out a few DACs in the coming months, just because it's GAS time.
[/quote]

Is that what you do when you're feeling gassy?


----------



## elmoe

It's the best cure for my GAS, but a real laxative for my wallet


----------



## doctorcilantro

purrin said:


> Assuming digital input - where I could use digital PEQ:
> 
> *DAC*
> An MSB DAC or the AG-D M7/OR5. I'm still due for a shootout to see how close it may be. The MSB Analog may not be resolving enough for me. Unfortunately, I don't want to spend $20K for a better MSB. Getting an MSB DAC is like buying a Porsche. By the time I get all the options I want, the Cayman (the real Porsche since the 911 is so bloated now) is $120K.
> ...


 

 Ok, sorry if I was doucetastic upthread. got off on the wrong foot.
  
 the one DAC I would be interested to hear is the Hugo with AP1 or Hydra-X, testing FPGA against Sabre. I might do so. Kudos to the time you put into this.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

doctorcilantro said:


> Ok, sorry if I was doucetastic upthread. got off on the wrong foot.
> 
> the one DAC I would be interested to hear is the Hugo with AP1 or Hydra-X, testing FPGA against Sabre. I might do so. Kudos to the time you put into this.


 
 I have tested Hugo with and without Hydra-X. 


> While at first, on electronic music I thought the coax input with hydra is better than the hd usb input, as it had more bass that went deeper, on classical music I observed that the usb input had better details, speed, transients, dynamics, soundstage &  imaging and precision.


 
 I think the usb input from Hugo is very good on it's own.
  


> Originally Posted by *purrin*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I found MSB Analog Dac to be very resolving, not as resolving as signature but still very resolving. And it is resolving in a very natural way, nothing is pushed by force in front.
  


> *Details & Micro-details*
> The Analog Dac made me hear somethings for the first time in many songs that I know intimately, and this is available on the whole audio spectrum from very low bass to high treble.  In Leonard’s ‘”Going Home” song,  I have heard how he touched his face with the microphone or with his hands, the sound showing that at that moment he hadn’t shaved for a day or two.


 
 The transparency and details increase with the upgraded power source.


----------



## music_man

proper power regulation should make any component sound better. as do cables and such. if for nothing else perhaps my teac sounds so good because I am using a power conditioner and cables that are 50x the price of the dac. most people are not going to do that to a $849 component though. improving the power regulation inside the unit worked wonders too. with msb one obviously does not need to do these things. in fact I would not dare open my msb and I am very capable of doing so safely.


----------



## thathertz

music_man said:


> .................... because I am using a power conditioner and cables that are 50x the price of the dac..........................


 
 Holy sh** dude, what conditioner and power cables are you using? Apologies if you already mentioned this.
  
 Cheers
 Mike


----------



## purrin

music_man said:


> i hope we can move on now.


 
  
 That's for clearing that up. I appreciate your sincerity and honesty.


----------



## thathertz

purrin said:


> That's for clearing that up. I appreciate your sincerity and honesty.


 
  
 And we're cool too Purrin? I hope so. I woke up the other morning and thought 'oh screw what did i say.....'


----------



## thathertz

purrin said:


> Assuming digital input - where I could use digital PEQ:
> 
> *DAC*
> An MSB DAC or the AG-D M7/OR5. I'm still due for a shootout to see how close it may be. The MSB Analog may not be resolving enough for me. Unfortunately, I don't want to spend $20K for a better MSB. Getting an MSB DAC is like buying a Porsche. By the time I get all the options I want, the Cayman (the real Porsche since the 911 is so bloated now) is $120K.
> ...


 
  
  
 Purrin, if you don't mind me asking...what would be the cost of your endgame system?
 Also, do you think that realistically it's within your grasp?
  
 God, I need a better job...


----------



## zerodeefex

I had a 300 amp breaker and incredibly stable power at my last house before I sold it. I dabbled in home theater installs and invested quite a bit in incredibly stable power. Even with many many 10s of thousands invested in electrical work and my power conditioners, the TEAC sounded terrible. Compared to the DAC2 I had before and eventually uberfrost I replaced it with, it made my KGSSHV > SR-007 mk1 sound like a significantly crappier setup.


----------



## ericfarrell85

music_man said:


> proper power regulation should make any component sound better.




I agree with this point, though the level of improvements definitely vary with the gear. My BPT 3.5 Sig Plus transformed my Dynahi. It went from a great amp but a little jagged, a little peaky here and there, to the best amp in my stable. The Eddie Currents (ZD, BA) showed very little improvement comparably. The PWD I owned also improved very nicely, but my Master 7 to a lesser extent, if at all. So, a person should definitely think twice before dropping 5k on a power conditioner. It may be worth it and then again it might not be.


----------



## purrin

thathertz said:


> And we're cool too Purrin? I hope so. I woke up the other morning and thought 'oh screw what did i say.....'


 
  
 Yeah. We are cool. As I've said, I have a short memory. I would hope that you would understand where I am coming from by now.
  


thathertz said:


> Purrin, if you don't mind me asking...what would be the cost of your endgame system?
> Also, do you think that realistically it's within your grasp?
> 
> God, I need a better job...


 
  
 I dunno. Maybe $20K-$30K with most of that going to the sources (TT and/or DAC). I'm all SET (no pun intended) with the main amp. The cheapest part would probably be the speakers because I would build my own design as I have been for some years now. Thank heavens top speaker drivers haven't gone the way of top headphone prices.
  
 I have kids to feed, but I would say its within my grasp in 10 years, possibly sooner if I decide to move to a state with less taxation, lower home prices, and less powerful public sector unions.


----------



## doctorcilantro

dan.gheorghe said:


> I have tested Hugo with and without Hydra-X.
> I think the usb input from Hugo is very good on it's own.
> 
> I found MSB Analog Dac to be very resolving, not as resolving as signature but still very resolving. And it is resolving in a very natural way, nothing is pushed by force in front.
> ...


 

 Thanks, I have heard similar reports from a Chord dealer who has heard many DACs, and his sentiments echo your report. Power supply, according to Robert Watts, should be fine as is with Hugo. I'm going to compare it to the Vega soon.


----------



## music_man

thanks purrin. I think we mostly agree. obviously people had different mileage with the teac. it could just be my system room or whatever. I will be the first to say something sucks. truthfully when I got the teac I was sure I would be returning it before I used it. I guess just my own luck. I am using odin cables and  equitech 10wq off of separate mains coming into the home. than at the source I am using a Richard gray powerhouse. I realize most people are not going to do this with a $849 component as I have already said. however the rest of the system is much higher end then the teac. it just so happens it worked good. this is not even my main system which is run off a apc infrastructure. once the teac was heavily modded it suited me. stock it probably would not have been my choice. for the price stock I think it is okay. remember it is not very pricey. anyways I am trying to be truthful now. most people are probably not going to get this out of it. of course most people buying the teac are coming from no dac or an ipod or whatever. so for them I maintain it could be an improvement. i really did not mean to be misleading. sure, i could have put another diamond dac or dcs Vivaldi but the teac just worked better in this room for whatever reason. i am kind of embarrassed to have it in this situation but that is just my own snobbery. i will say i am not using the headphone amp in it which i left untouched. it is alright but not even close to my standards. then again i hardly listen to headphones anymore. also if it says anything when i did i mainly listened to my ps1k and not the he90 or sr009. that in itself might speak volumes about our differences of opinions. i don't try to seek out crap gear but i guess i just have unusual preferences. my ears are known to be good but what i chose to listen to for leisure often does not agree with many others. again, i am trying clarify what i may initially have been vague about. many dacs sound good. i said the pwd mkii sounds good. i just have my odd preferences. i can appreciate others likes and dislikes as well. i apologize i so vehemently defended the teac when there were some unusual circumstances surrounding my usage of it.  
  
 oh, and sorry for yet another long paragraph. writing is not my strong suit either.


----------



## REXNFX

purrin said:


> Yeah. We are cool. As I've said, I have a short memory. I would hope that you would understand where I am coming from by now.
> 
> 
> I dunno. Maybe $20K-$30K with most of that going to the sources (TT and/or DAC). I'm all SET (no pun intended) with the main amp. The cheapest part would probably be the speakers because I would build my own design as I have been for some years now. Thank heavens top speaker drivers haven't gone the way of top headphone prices.
> ...


 

 Absolutely agree that most budget should go to the source! Glad to see you use a TT, if you find a DAC that compares favorably to vinyl when playing Redbook I'd love to hear about it. Thanks much for the entertaining read.


----------



## magiccabbage

Eh Purrin. a little off point here but have you heard the Audio GD M7 with DNA Stratus? I was wondering if you think it pairs well? Im getting the Stratus in a few months and am looking for a DAC to go with it. 
  
 I will be using HD800 mostly


----------



## purrin

I haven't heard that exact combo, but I don't see why it shouldn't pair well. Donald uses an old R2R tube based Sonic Frontiers CD Player at his meets which I suspect sounds more similar to the M7 than not. I've also heard SABRE based DACs with the Stratus, and the Stratus handles that well too. Donald had made some minor circuit changes recently to the Stratus, and although I haven't heard it in a while, I could swear there were some incremental improvements all across the board when I heard it again at the Bay Area meet.
  
 I really like the Stratus. It ones of those amps that sounds good with almost anything you throw at it. Since you can roll 2A3 tubes (there are a TON of different kinds, not to mention the decent availability of vintage tubes), you can tweak the sounding to your liking according to your source and headphones.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> I haven't heard that exact combo, but I don't see why it shouldn't pair well. Donald uses an old R2R tube based Sonic Frontiers CD Player at his meets which I suspect sounds more similar to the M7 than not. I've also heard SABRE based DACs with the Stratus, and the Stratus handles that well too. Donald had made some minor circuit changes recently to the Stratus, and although I haven't heard it in a while, I could swear there were some incremental improvements all across the board when I heard it again at the Bay Area meet.
> 
> I really like the Stratus. It ones of those amps that sounds good with almost anything you throw at it. Since you can roll 2A3 tubes (there are a TON of different kinds, not to mention the decent availability of vintage tubes), you can tweak the sounding to your liking according to your source and headphones.


 
 Thanks for the reply - I am really looking forward to tube rolling the Stratus


----------



## northshore

purrin said:


> Assuming digital input - where I could use digital PEQ:
> 
> *DAC*
> An MSB DAC or the AG-D M7/OR5. I'm still due for a shootout to see how close it may be. The MSB Analog may not be resolving enough for me. Unfortunately, I don't want to spend $20K for a better MSB. Getting an MSB DAC is like buying a Porsche. By the time I get all the options I want, the Cayman (the real Porsche since the 911 is so bloated now) is $120K.
> ...


 

 Great components, thanks for the reference to the CA2. This is a really nice configuration, one that should offer most of the sound in a very attainable 90% system. 
  
 PLLXO’s splitting the amps? Keeps the crossover circuits simple, maximizes those 3 watts by focusing on the mids and highs, and enables a high quality source instead of multiple DAC’s after a digital/opamp based crossover. The Stealth DC-1 is my immediately attainable placeholder and while well suited to the configuration does still put an opamp in the mix. 
  
 Anyway, using a splitter in the RCA’s allows easy selection of either the inline crossover (speakers), or a full range input for headphone use. In my case, the EC ZDT has 3 inputs and 6 watts output, hopefully incoming Alpair 12p’s will be sensitive enough. The bottom end will be Peerless 830669’s in an H-frame, very well regarded and all 4 are less than one of the Aura NS18’s.
  
 So just wanted to point out that waiting for the ship to come in is not a requirement for this style system.


----------



## purrin

northshore said:


> PLLXO’s splitting the amps? Keeps the crossover circuits simple, maximizes those 3 watts by focusing on the mids and highs, and enables a high quality source instead of multiple DAC’s after a digital/opamp based crossover.


 
  
 I've thought about this. Here's my current setup / OB proof-of-concept. Just really quick and dirty using parts and gear I had on hand.

  
 With PLLXO, I can do something like this instead:

  
 Advantages
  

Don't have to worry about digital clipping (esp. with movies) on a digital processor.
More efficient use of tube amp with a direct couple of tube amp speaker outs to Cicada driver.
Eliminates digital processor. No more AD-DA conversion on the woofer.
Smaller values / cheaper / higher quality XO parts.
  
  
 Disadvantages:
  

Less ease / flexibility with tailoring bass EQ to room.
Need wire up a volume control box.
Need to design a filter for low pass XO and OB correction
Possible disjointedness between woofer and wide-bander driver because they are now driven by totally different type of amps without any commonality in the chain. (I've always preferred sub plate amps driven from the speaker outputs of the mains instead of from line-level outputs of pre-amp. The sound is more cohesive this way.)
  


northshore said:


> So just wanted to point out that waiting for the ship to come in is not a requirement for this style system.


 
  
 Yup. It's just a lot of elbow grease and unconventional thinking. With results superior than what can be commercially found regardless of price at the local hifi store.


----------



## northshore

Your first sketch seems to be the common approach. The second is what I was thinking and though it will take more effort to refine as you say it should reward with better results.
  
 Disadvantages:
  
*Less ease / flexibility with tailoring bass EQ to room.* 
_Yup, though at least OB bass/room interaction generally tends to be more favorable. _
*Need wire up a volume control box.* 
_Probably the best answer, until then there’s always player software if upsampling. In my case, the DC-1 has a pretty good variable pre with a remote. It also has an adjustable level mute. Between that and the ZDT volume/CA-2 gain pots I might be good._
*Need to design a filter for low pass XO and OB correction*
_Here's a spreadsheet that does the low pass calculations PLLXO_Calculator - I also need to do this after firming up on the CA-2 for impedance. Also, Craig told me something about testing rca jacks to confirm actual impedance. At least as you say the parts are inexpensive for testing. OB correction should be limited to low end EQ by crossing below the dipole peak. I need to look further into if/how a player’s EQ (jriver?) works with the low pass crossover._
*Possible disjointedness between woofer and wide-bander driver because they are now driven by totally different type of amps without any commonality in the chain.* 
_True, though there’s the commonality of both amps coming out of a single dac/clock without the smearing of additional AD-DA conversion on just the CA-2. If bi-amping with a SET top end, then the CA-2 is probably as good as it gets for the relatively narrow range bottom. Plenty of clean power with nice damping which will help drivers which that also have potential for disjointedness, keeping my fingers crossed on the 830669’s. They do seem to match well with the wide-bander in the Manzanita, though again that is on a single amp._


----------



## GJoshi

Hi there,
 Let me start by saying that this post is very informative.
 I am not an audiophile, but just recently acquired Revel Salon2 speakers and Pass labs X250.8 amplifier. All my music is in AIFF format in Mackbook pro (itunes). I just returned Benchmark DAC2 converter which I found to be very poor in midrange and bass and too shrill in treble.
 What will be the best arrangement of components between my macbook pro and amplifier?
 - DAC (with and without DSD). Where does Ayre QB-9 DSD stand?
 - Preamplifier (can one do without it?)
 - Connections (USB to IS2 [OR5]?)
 Thx for attending....appreciate it!!


----------



## XVampireX

So based on the first post, the OP is underrating the Auralic Vega by placing it 8th while other DACs that cost a whole lot less like Schiit Gungnir and Audio-gd Master 7 are better, right?
  
 Can anyone explain? Or is it the "Bang-for-buck" factor where more money gets you more features?
  
 It's weird, there isn't 1 review that puts the DAC to shame like the OP did.


----------



## Maxvla

Sabre


----------



## kkcc

xvampirex said:


> So based on the first post, the OP is underrating the Auralic Vega by placing it 8th while other DACs that cost a whole lot less like Schiit Gungnir and Audio-gd Master 7 are better, right?
> 
> Can anyone explain? Or is it the "Bang-for-buck" factor where more money gets you more features?
> 
> It's weird, there isn't 1 review that puts the DAC to shame like the OP did.




Or the OP is not "underrating" or ranking other higher due to value, but they truly like those sounds of the M7 Gungnir better? Both are also highly rated by many headfi regulars and these rankings are all subjective preferences of the group of reviewers which might or might not coincide with ours. 

Having said that I find the write-up highly informative with the commentaries and why or why not they like certain aspects of each reviewed unit and is very helpful.


----------



## northshore

gjoshi said:


> Hi there,
> Let me start by saying that this post is very informative.
> I am not an audiophile, but just recently acquired Revel Salon2 speakers and Pass labs X250.8 amplifier. All my music is in AIFF format in Mackbook pro (itunes). I just returned Benchmark DAC2 converter which I found to be very poor in midrange and bass and too shrill in treble.
> What will be the best arrangement of components between my macbook pro and amplifier?
> ...


 
 Choosing those components qualifies you as an audiophile. They are designed to be arranged: Mac>Ayre QB-9 DSD>Preamp>X250.8>Salon2’s.
  
 Both the Ayre and X250.8 are designed to be utilized with a preamp, so you have one more component to choose – and it could be the most interesting yet.
  
 You have an opportunity to select a preamp that would also serve as a headphone amp. The Ayre outputs both balanced and unbalanced signals, so a worthy option would be to select a balanced pre/headphone amp. For whatever reason, the difference in balanced headphone sound is more discernable than in a speaker system.
  
 You will want to audition some different headphone topologies i.e. dynamic vs. orthodynamic. Once you identify your preferences then one more piece is in place to assist selecting the pre/headphone amp.
  
 I’m partial to Eddie Current products, the Balancing Act would fit the bill nicely though it doesn’t really require a balanced source (Ayre). If you are sensitive to a lean presentation (DAC2), it may have just the synergy you want with the rest of your system.
  
 There is a wealth of info to consider here on Head-Fi, witness post #813 just above and following yours _…I find the write-up highly informative with the commentaries and why or why not they like certain aspects of each reviewed unit and is very helpful._
  
 The poster was commenting on the Auralic Vega dac, one that is frequently compared to your very well regarded Ayre.


----------



## murphythecat

so it seems that the Schiit Bifrost Uber gen 2 is the best bang for the buck dac out there?????


----------



## cizx

murphythecat said:


> so it seems that the Schiit Bifrost Uber gen 2 is the best bang for the buck dac out there?????


 
 does it?????
 the gen2 usb gungnir would be my pick for that, as it's not that much more than the bifrost and is markedly better and has more features.


----------



## Tuco1965

$849 VS $519 is a bit of a difference.


----------



## cizx

$330 isn't much when you consider the price jump to the next DAC up the scale.


----------



## Tuco1965

That's over 60% more than the Bifrost.


----------



## magiccabbage

Has anyone heard the Audio GD M7 and the Bryston BDA2 for comparisons? Also maybe someone had heard the Twisted pear buffalo dac3 and the Audio gdm7 side by side? 
  
 I have ruled out getting the following DACs - WFSD2 - NAD M51 - Mytek 192 
  
  
  
 So i will choose from the Audio GDM7 - Bryston BDA2 and the new Schiit YGDD if it gets good feedback. 
 I have a friend that can build me a Twisted Pear 3 but im not too sure if its in the same league as the others. 
  
 What do you guys think.


----------



## cizx

tuco1965 said:


> That's over 60% more than the Bifrost.


 
  
 Very good math skills, but this method is a bit slower than a calculator.
  
 Yeah, it's more expensive.  Before we can declare a best bang for your buck winner, we need to define what that means.  Is it the cheapest one that sounds passable?  Is it the most well rounded?  What's the point of diminishing returns in dollars?  What's the required % improvement in sound quality and features necessary for something to be worth more (and how much more) than something else?
  
 In my opinion, Gungnir is a better deal than Bifrost.
  
 You can disagree, but you will be absolutely, positively, completively, totalutely wrong.  But that's also my opinion.


----------



## cizx

magiccabbage said:


> Has anyone heard the Audio GD M7 and the Bryston BDA2 for comparisons? Also maybe someone had heard the Twisted pear buffalo dac3 and the Audio gdm7 side by side?
> 
> I have ruled out getting the following DACs - WFSD2 - NAD M51 - Mytek 192
> 
> ...


 
 Why'd you rule out the M51?  Just curious.  I picked one up on Audiogon after selling my PWDII, and I'm honestly starting to wonder if I have any ear for these things at all, because the differences are minor.  I wish I had the time and the funds to have more than one at a time. 
  
 I rank the ones I've tried like this:
 1. BMC PureDAC
 1. PS Audio PerfectWave DAC II
 2. Gungnir (gen 2)
 2. M51
 3. Yulong DA8
 3. Bifrost (Non uber, gen 1)
  
 The differences between the 1s and the 3s is probably about 5%.  The only real standout is the gungnir, which has a definite liveliness that the others don't... I guess I agree with Purrin's assessment that it's very dynamic.  I liked it, but more with the LCDs and Mjolnir than the WA2 and HD 800... of course the one I used with the wa2 was a gen 1, so who knows what that means.
  
 Nothing about my comparisons is scientific, and my results are not particularly revealing.  I didn't have the same amp or headphones for all of them.  I tried the Gungnir with Mjolnir and with a Woo WA2, the BMC on its own, the Yulong with a Mjolnir, Bifrost with Lyr, and PWDII and M51 with Eddie Current S7.  I've gone through 3 LCD2s, an LCDX, a T1, and two HD 800s.  
  
 I'm about settled on getting some speakers and calling it a day.


----------



## Maxvla

cizx said:


> I guess I agree with Purrin's assessment that it's very dynamic.



Do you mean it has a high dynamic range, or that it is just louder than the rest? Being louder is actually less dynamic.


----------



## magiccabbage

cizx said:


> Why'd you rule out the M51?  Just curious.  I picked one up on Audiogon after selling my PWDII, and I'm honestly starting to wonder if I have any ear for these things at all, because the differences are minor.  I wish I had the time and the funds to have more than one at a time.
> 
> I rank the ones I've tried like this:
> 1. BMC PureDAC
> ...


 
 I heard the NAD M51 back in November last year. I had about 2 hours with it on my own in a closed off room. I was using NAD - WA2 - HD800/T1. I was comparing it to my Arcam Rdac. 
 Now before hand I had anticipated a huge increase in quality when going from the Rdac to the NAD. I know that DAC's are hard to discern the differences between but I thought that only applied to similarly priced DAC's. 
  
 I was under the assumption that the NAD would kick the Arcams ass. What actually happened was, well, nothing really. I could barely hear a difference. I remember at the time being really annoyed and then scared that i had terrible hearing. I just couldn't really tell any difference at all, apart from the NAD being the slightest bit smoother. 
  
 Later on when i thought about it i think my time with the gear could of been tainted because i barely slept the night before. When your tired i have found that everything kind of sounds the same so maybe that was a factor. Also the amp i was using - the WA2 maybe is a tad colored for this task so that also could of come into play. 
 The whole experience has kind of ruined the idea of getting the NAD for me, but maybe I am being a little harsh and should give it another go who knows.
 My interest has moved onto other DACs for now. 
  
 Maybe i will have the same experience no matter what DAC i get. I remember Purrin saying that it takes a long time to notice the differences - like 100's of hours. So when i do 
 Decide on a DAC, be it the Audio GD M7/ BDA2 or Schiit YGDD   (and have it connected to the DNA Stratus instead of the WA2)   hopefully after spending time with it i will notice the differences in detail and nuance. Even if that never happens it is a risk that i am willing to take.


----------



## purrin

cizx said:


> Very good math skills, but this method is a bit slower than a calculator.
> 
> Yeah, it's more expensive.  Before we can declare a best bang for your buck winner, we need to define what that means.  Is it the cheapest one that sounds passable?  Is it the most well rounded?  What's the point of diminishing returns in dollars?  What's the required % improvement in sound quality and features necessary for something to be worth more (and how much more) than something else?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Although the Bifrost gets scary close to the the Gungnir in terms of sound quality, the Gungnir is the better deal if you consider there's only a linear increase rather than exponential increase in price.


----------



## purrin

>





kkcc said:


> xvampirex said:
> 
> 
> > So based on the first post, the OP is underrating the Auralic Vega by placing it 8th while other DACs that cost a whole lot less like Schiit Gungnir and Audio-gd Master 7 are better, right?
> ...


 
  
 ^ Pretty much sums it up. Definitely read the commentary, get an idea of personal preferences (ours and yours) and focus less on the rankings which are based on the averaged personal preferences of 3.5 people. I thought about removing the numeric rankings, until I realized that would be weak.


----------



## purrin

magiccabbage said:


> Maybe i will have the same experience no matter what DAC i get. I remember Purrin saying that it takes a long time to notice the differences - like 100's of hours. So when i do
> Decide on a DAC, be it the Audio GD M7/ BDA2 or Schiit YGDD   (and have it connected to the DNA Stratus instead of the WA2)   hopefully after spending time with it i will notice the differences in detail and nuance. Even if that never happens it is a risk that i am willing to take.


 
  
 Spend more time with the DACs, just live with one for a week, and then do a switch. You'll go whoa. Also use the Stratus. The WA2 has a tendency to impart its signature and is not nearly as resolving as the Stratus.
  
 As for Twisted Pair SABRE DAC, unless your builder really knows what he's doing and understands the how the TP standard parts sound like, I would avoid. Unless you like the SABRE sound.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> Spend more time with the DACs, just live with one for a week, and then do a switch. You'll go whoa. Also use the Stratus. The WA2 has a tendency to impart its signature and is not nearly as resolving as the Stratus.
> 
> As for Twisted Pair SABRE DAC, unless your builder really knows what he's doing and understands the how the TP standard parts sound like, I would avoid. Unless you like the SABRE sound.


 
 good point, to be honest if he builds it, it will be a long wait because he is so busy with other things. So i might not go that way regardless.
 I dont even know ifi like the sabre sound. I need to listen to a lot more DAC's to figure that out.
  
 Speaking of chipsets do you know if Schiit have released any info on what they are using for the YGGD. Are you in any way interested in that DAC?


----------



## Lappy27

magiccabbage said:


> I heard the NAD M51 back in November last year. I had about 2 hours with it on my own in a closed off room. I was using NAD - WA2 - HD800/T1. I was comparing it to my Arcam Rdac.
> Now before hand I had anticipated a huge increase in quality when going from the Rdac to the NAD. I know that DAC's are hard to discern the differences between but I thought that only applied to similarly priced DAC's.
> 
> I was under the assumption that the NAD would kick the Arcams ass. What actually happened was, well, nothing really. I could barely hear a difference. I remember at the time being really annoyed and then scared that i had terrible hearing. I just couldn't really tell any difference at all, apart from the NAD being the slightest bit smoother.
> ...


 
 In which configuration did you listened to the M51?
  
 If it's USB input, believe me, you definitly not heard it at it'a max potential. Not even close. I have a M51 for one year now. I had a good deal on a used one with trial and MBG if I didn't liked it. So I compared it with my W4S DAC-2 in USB configuration. M51 was better, so I sold the W4S to a relative. Soon after, another relative of mine loaned me an Audiophilleo2 (without PurePower) USB to SPDIF converter. Wow! What a difference in performance. I then decided to try the Audiophilleo2 with PurePower. Another BIG step in performance.
  
 I know that involve another $1000 but it's simply not the same dac anymore. Much more musical and accurate with fantastic low end with Ap2 + PP.
  
 We held a mini meet last august at my workplace (around 12 headfiers were there). Five of the participants accepted my invitation to test the differences in performance when comparing USB direct to the AP2/PP converter, They were ALL floored by the magnitude of the improvment with the AP2/PP combo. This is not subtle at all.


----------



## Sanlitun

magiccabbage said:


> I heard the NAD M51 back in November last year. I had about 2 hours with it on my own in a closed off room. I was using NAD - WA2 - HD800/T1. I was comparing it to my Arcam Rdac.
> Now before hand I had anticipated a huge increase in quality when going from the Rdac to the NAD. I know that DAC's are hard to discern the differences between but I thought that only applied to similarly priced DAC's.
> 
> I was under the assumption that the NAD would kick the Arcams ass. What actually happened was, well, nothing really. I could barely hear a difference. I remember at the time being really annoyed and then scared that i had terrible hearing. I just couldn't really tell any difference at all, apart from the NAD being the slightest bit smoother.


 
  
 The NAD M51 has an interesting idiosyncrasy where it uses different op-amps for the XLR and RCA with the XLR being much superior in my experience.


----------



## music_man

that's interesting. some dacs are much better on xlr. I prefer xlr where possible anyways.


----------



## magiccabbage

sanlitun said:


> The NAD M51 has an interesting idiosyncrasy where it uses different op-amps for the XLR and RCA with the XLR being much superior in my experience.


 
 i used it with xlr with the hdvd amps


----------



## cizx

maxvla said:


> Do you mean it has a high dynamic range, or that it is just louder than the rest? Being louder is actually less dynamic.


 
 I mean that the sound volume seemed to fluctuate more with Gungnir than with whatever else I'd listened to right before it.


----------



## cizx

sanlitun said:


> The NAD M51 has an interesting idiosyncrasy where it uses different op-amps for the XLR and RCA with the XLR being much superior in my experience.


 
 Of course it does, because I'm using an amp without XLR... 
  
 Maybe I can use XLR to RCA cables.


----------



## mowglycdb

Now that I've spent a bit more time with the Master-7, it's very natural, has nice tonality with piano, has crisp highs, I feel it is too full bodied with my LCD-3 it's passing from full bodied to thick.In some months I might think about the OR5.


----------



## Sanlitun

magiccabbage said:


> i used it with xlr with the hdvd amps


 
  
 I wasn't certain from your post how it may have been set up when you did your demo.
  
 When I got mine I hooked it up like I had my previous DAC set up (Matrix X-Sabre) which was with RCA cables so I could do a comparison. I was initially not impressed and thought it was not a huge improvement over the X-Sabre. It wasn't until I did the XLR setup and spent some time with it that I began to see just how good the NAD is.
  
 Sometime later I read this post about the output differences and sure enough that seems to be the case. The XLR outs are much more refined and coherent sounding to my ears.
  
 Anyways it's a great DAC, and I would rate it above the Gungnir or Master 7 on the listing at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## cizx

sanlitun said:


> I wasn't certain from your post how it may have been set up when you did your demo.
> 
> When I got mine I hooked it up like I had my previous DAC set up (Matrix X-Sabre) which was with RCA cables so I could do a comparison. I was initially not impressed and thought it was not a huge improvement over the X-Sabre. It wasn't until I did the XLR setup and spent some time with it that I began to see just how good the NAD is.
> 
> ...


 
 so... does it make sense to use XLR outs on the NAD to RCA inputs on the ECS7 amp?  sounds like yes... but I don't know what sacrifices are being made using XLR to RCA cables.


----------



## elmoe

cizx said:


> so... does it make sense to use XLR outs on the NAD to RCA inputs on the ECS7 amp?  sounds like yes... but I don't know what sacrifices are being made using XLR to RCA cables.


 
  
 This might be useful:
  
 http://www.moon-audio.com/cardas-rca-xlr-adapter.html
  
 I have a pair to use with my BM DAC1.


----------



## SinSation

sanlitun said:


> Anyways it's a great DAC, and I would rate it above the Gungnir or Master 7 on the listing at the beginning of this thread.


 

 Have you actually heard M7 or Gungnir?


----------



## magiccabbage

sanlitun said:


> I wasn't certain from your post how it may have been set up when you did your demo.
> 
> When I got mine I hooked it up like I had my previous DAC set up (Matrix X-Sabre) which was with RCA cables so I could do a comparison. I was initially not impressed and thought it was not a huge improvement over the X-Sabre. It wasn't until I did the XLR setup and spent some time with it that I began to see just how good the NAD is.
> 
> ...


 
 when i tested the NAD i was primarily using it with WA2 so it had to be single ended for that amp and maybe that is that i wasn't that impressed.


----------



## Sanlitun

sinsation said:


> Have you actually heard M7 or Gungnir?


 
  
 During my recent DAC search I heard the Gungnir and a used M7. I also finally got to hear the beloved Teac UD-501 and demoed pretty much everything Headphone Bar sells. I also got to briefly hear the Chordette and some other units through speakers at a local Hi-Fi place.
  
 I don't think I have heard anything else on the list except for the X-Sabre and Bifrost which I own. I nearly bought the PWD MK2 without hearing it when the price dropped recently, but I went with the NAD M51 as we have a dealer just a few blocks from here and I could demo it.
  
 When I say I would rate one DAC over another it's really just a matter of trivial personal preference. I know I would be happy with hooking up the Bifrost or Gungnir from time to time and rocking out etc.
  
 The thing I like about the NAD is that it just doesn't sound like anything else and doesn't exhibit any particular signature (Wolfson, Sabre, AKM) that I have ever heard. It has an unusual and hallucinatory realistic/unrealistic smooth and detailed sound that I am really enjoying. I guess I am set until the next big thing comes along.


----------



## Chris J

gjoshi said:


> Hi there,
> Let me start by saying that this post is very informative.
> I am not an audiophile, but just recently acquired Revel Salon2 speakers and Pass labs X250.8 amplifier. All my music is in AIFF format in Mackbook pro (itunes). I just returned Benchmark DAC2 converter which I found to be very poor in midrange and bass and too shrill in treble.
> What will be the best arrangement of components between my macbook pro and amplifier?
> ...




I have a Pass Labs X-150, a very similar amp ( obviously mine has less power!). 
Your amp accepts a balanced input, has a balanced amplification topology and has a balanced output.
I would try to get a pre-amp with balanced outputs....just my 2 cents worth.

Did you use the balanced outputs on the DAC2? Not too sure if it would have "saved" the Benchmark though...


----------



## magiccabbage

sanlitun said:


> I wasn't certain from your post how it may have been set up when you did your demo.
> 
> When I got mine I hooked it up like I had my previous DAC set up (Matrix X-Sabre) which was with RCA cables so I could do a comparison. I was initially not impressed and thought it was not a huge improvement over the X-Sabre. It wasn't until I did the XLR setup and spent some time with it that I began to see just how good the NAD is.
> 
> ...


 
 I wonder if using the NAD with the DNA single ended would be a good or bad thing? 
  
 Maybe it would not be a good pairing because the DNA is single ended like my WA2


----------



## music_man

rca to xlr adapter is not balanced. it will use the better op amp. which may make a big difference. problem is if it is not attenuated the signal is saturated for rca.


----------



## olor1n

What? Where did all these NAD fanboys spring from?


----------



## Maxvla

There's a joke there.


----------



## elmoe

music_man said:


> rca to xlr adapter is not balanced. it will use the better op amp. which may make a big difference. problem is if it is not attenuated the signal is saturated for rca.


 
  
 So basically it is useless to go from a balanced XLR output to an RCA input (not just with the NAD but with anything)?


----------



## john57

elmoe said:


> So basically it is useless to go from a balanced XLR output to an RCA input (not just with the NAD but with anything)?


 
 That is not what he said. A better op-amp on the balanced outs can still make a difference in SQ without the benefit of a balanced connection.


----------



## elmoe

But he said the signal would be saturated, so doesn't that defeat the purpose?


----------



## aive

Since this thread is getting pretty technical, just thought I'd share a video I just watched that was quite interesting (and entertaining) re digital sampling and DA conversion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM. Hope others find it just as educational 
  
 Follow-up article from the same guy re higher sampling rates (44.1 vs 192 kHz) here:  http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html - Might be interesting to see if any of your systems produce audible distortion from ultrasonic content...


----------



## Chris J

music_man said:


> rca to xlr adapter is not balanced. it will use the better op amp. which may make a big difference. problem is if it is not attenuated the signal is saturated for rca.




Not too sure why you think the signal needs to be attentuated.
If you pull off one side of a Balanced signal off the XLR output, it is typically the same level as the output signal from the RCA.

XLR (balanced) will have twice as much voltage as single ended if you USE BOTH SiGNAL PINS off the XLR.


----------



## music_man

actually chris j you are correct. duh. I was thinking they twisted both pins to the center on those. I doubt they do that. one pin is indeed the right voltage. of course that does ordinarily not have the benefit of a balanced connection. in this case it will take advantage of the better op-amp. which I said should make a big difference for these particular dacs. like the nad and teac.


----------



## elmoe

music_man said:


> actually chris j you are correct. duh. I was thinking they twisted both pins to the center on those. I doubt they do that. one pin is indeed the right voltage. of course that does ordinarily not have the benefit of a balanced connection. in this case it will take advantage of the better op-amp. which I said should make a big difference for these particular dacs. like the nad and teac.


 
  
 And coincidentally, the Benchmark DACs as well.


----------



## purrin

music_man said:


> actually chris j you are correct. duh. I was thinking they twisted both pins to the center on those. I doubt they do that. one pin is indeed the right voltage. of course that does ordinarily not have the benefit of a balanced connection. in this case it will take advantage of the better op-amp. which I said should make a big difference for these particular dacs. like the nad and teac.


 
  
 And the better op-amp SE will indeed be better than lesser op-amps balanced, unless you are running long lengths in a studio environment. It's not even funny how so many DACs which offer balanced outputs actually have inferior sounding outputs on the balanced outs. It's something to be aware about when considering the purchase of DACs.


----------



## john57

purrin said:


> And the better op-amp SE will indeed be better than lesser op-amps balanced, unless you are running long lengths in a studio environment. It's not even funny how so many DACs which offer balanced outputs actually have inferior sounding outputs on the balanced outs. It's something to be aware about when considering the purchase of DACs.


 
 Yes that already happen to me that the single ended connection available on one of the balanced DAC's I had was better than the balanced connection on the same DAC. If you are not using op-amps chips for the balanced outputs you need better parts matching for the 4 sides of a stereo balanced connection otherwise it can sound like crap. That also happen to me.


----------



## music_man

of course a true balanced system assuming they have good op-amps should be best. for instance I feel spdif is better than aes/ebu. this is not the case with se vs. balanced analog connections. even without long lengths. balanced does not even need to be shielded. the very design should have a lower noise floor. unless your balanced equipment sucks. good stuff like mark levinson fully exploits the balanced connection. in fact companies like ml suggest if at all possible not to use se. of course some cheap stuff like Cambridge audio just connects the balanced to the se internally.


----------



## purrin

The PWD2 SE out is actually one leg of its balanced out. At least the balanced out of the PWD2 is all discrete. Also, kudos to Schiit for an all discrete true balanced solution on their Gungnir. Whether you like the sound of the Gungnir or not, one has to appreciate the engineering effort behind that, especially at that price point.


----------



## music_man

serious equipment at least offers true balanced. I take it you did all of this in se. no wonder the teac was a pos. the balanced if nothing else on it is far superior to it's se. in fact I think much equipment will perform better balanced. some will not. unfortunately the teac is running se to a very high end headphone amp. get this, I hardly listen to my phones anymore anyways. at that my last favorite was the ps1k. that might explain a lot about me. I have the he90,sr009 etc but prefer the ps1k. which many people think is a pos. so I think we have much different taste. to exemplify more I like johnny walker blue better than 25 year macallan. am I an idiot, perhaps. I like what I like. you can't fault me for doing what I like. now this is a big ymmv because I am not so average. purrin may be much more mainstream than I. in fact overall I would take his advice before mine. the things I do do not suit everyone. I am not stupid I just have odd tastes. of course people got gear I talked about and liked it as well. for all I know those people are coming from an ipod. in that case any dac is an upgrade. if they know there stuff and chose as I did then well they may have niche taste as well. I personally would have put the teac in the for others category. notwithstanding I assume you tested it with se. in that case compared to say a pwd mkii I can see where you get pos. I still would not go that far myself. this is all fine. I don't honestly mind at all. I have no bone to pick with that decision of yours. seriously.


----------



## skeptic

By "true balanced," do you guys mean dual mono or bridged output stages?  Balanced is a much bastardized term  (thanks headroom and rsa!) that only really refers to cabling and connectors.  As discussed in the somewhat infamous argument between amb and benchmark engineer (http://www.amb.org/forum/benchmark-engineer-on-balanced-v-unbalanced-headphone-amps-t326.html), there are some major downsides to bridged or differential designs due to increased noise, distortion and impedance.  On the flip side, you get moar power and higher slew rate.
  
 Unless you are struggling to power an inefficient transducer, the best "balanced" designs, in so far as the above considerations (and assuming you think CMR actually matters in your setup),are those used by bottlehead and DNA.  As described by DNA:
  


> I am frequently asked why the balanced output version does not include balanced inputs. This is because balanced inputs are not necessary to provide balanced headphone drive. Being a single ended amplifier, all it needs for input is a single ended (unbalanced) signal. The Sonett operates single ended triode with transformer loading the plate of the 6H30 amplification tube. The secondary windings on the output transformers are center tapped (and grounded for safety), thereby providing a true, differential, balanced output. Thus, you get balanced drive without the complexity from additional balanced input circuitry or input transformers. Again, the simpler - the better.


 
  
 Translation - a 2 channel amp provides a "true balanced" output via clever engineering and appropriate use of output transformers.  I still don't understand why balanced is at all desirable for consumer dacs _unless _your dac and amp are no where near one another.


----------



## purrin

This has nothing to do with Headroom or RSA "balanced" / bridged amps. We are talking about _differential signaling_, e.g. 2x3-pin line level XLR patch cables in pro/studio environments where long lengths are used, etc.
  
 Whether the equipment is used in a studio or home environment was really not the topic of discussion. The issue being discussed was with the common practice of DAC manufacturers offering a balanced output option by taking shortcuts: 1) splitting the standard SE output with a cheap opamp splitter going into another two opamps for the differential drive; or 2) using a different set of op-amps (usually lessor quality, but higher output current than the SE opamp) for the balanced outputs.
  
 Let's not bring up the Headroom or RSA definition of "balanced" again. Gives me a headache.


----------



## Chris J

music_man said:


> actually chris j you are correct. duh. I was thinking they twisted both pins to the center on those. I doubt they do that. one pin is indeed the right voltage. of course that does ordinarily not have the benefit of a balanced connection. in this case it will take advantage of the better op-amp. which I said should make a big difference for these particular dacs. like the nad and teac.




I am convinced that Balanced Audio is one of the most misunderstood concepts on Head Fi!

OTOH, hi Rez audio doesn't seem to be too well understood either....


----------



## music_man

chris you are correct once again. you too purrin. i am just talking about cables. they should have a completely separate output stage if done right. not just bridge off the se. that is not really balanced. i do feel sometimes it sounds better. purrin is correct it really only mattered in 150' cable runs. which is what it was developed for. likewise in our equipment spdif and possibly usb should work better than aes/ebu. just because something was designed for pro use does not mean it is better for hifi. many times to the contrary. it just so happens on the flipside of what purrin said some hifi paid more attention to the balanced section. ie, better op-amps. in the case of the nad and teac i have encountered thus far. honestly i can't believe i am saying this but cheap Chinese crap. i assure you are not finding this on the pwd mkii or d100 for instance. certainly not on the msb. msb paid good attention to all inputs and outputs. does one sound better in a given system? perhaps but they all are great.
  
 hi-rez is also very misunderstood. thank you chris. in fact i will go so far to say hi-rez is a complete misnomer. trust me. i record this stuff. i know what has to take place. if it leaves the so called hi-rez domain but once i say it is not hi-rez. try up to 50+ times in a given recording. i do feel converted to dsd/dxd does sound better on cheaper dacs. leveling the playing field with better dacs at pcm. the better dacs on pcm are still better. do not misunderstand me. i never said the teac is as good as the msb at pcm. not even close. it may edge it out in my highly modified unit at dsd. a r2r dac's strong suit was never dsd. btw, who knows you may be listening to a cd i recorded right now. not bragging. just saying i did this for 41 years and tens of thousands of releases. i just mastered them and i assure none of them were what most people think is hi-rez. before you ask contract makes it so i am not at liberty to say what is what. i think i spelled it out enough.


----------



## magiccabbage

music_man said:


> chris you are correct once again. you too purrin. i am just talking about cables. they should have a completely separate output stage if done right. not just bridge off the se. that is not really balanced. i do feel sometimes it sounds better. purrin is correct it really only mattered in 150' cable runs. which is what it was developed for. likewise in our equipment spdif and possibly usb should work better than aes/ebu. just because something was designed for pro use does not mean it is better for hifi. many times to the contrary. it just so happens on the flipside of what purrin said some hifi paid more attention to the balanced section. ie, better op-amps. in the case of the nad and teac i have encountered thus far. honestly i can't believe i am saying this but cheap Chinese crap. i assure you are not finding this on the pwd mkii or d100 for instance. certainly not on the msb. msb paid good attention to all inputs and outputs. does one sound better in a given system? perhaps but they all are great.
> 
> hi-rez is also very misunderstood. thank you chris. in fact i will go so far to say hi-rez is a complete misnomer. trust me. i record this stuff. i know what has to take place. if it leaves the so called hi-rez domain but once i say it is not hi-rez. try up to 50+ times in a given recording. i do feel converted to dsd/dxd does sound better on cheaper dacs. leveling the playing field with better dacs at pcm. the better dacs on pcm are still better. do not misunderstand me. i never said the teac is as good as the msb at pcm. not even close. it may edge it out in my highly modified unit at dsd. a r2r dac's strong suit was never dsd. btw, who knows you may be listening to a cd i recorded right now. not bragging. just saying i did this for 41 years and tens of thousands of releases. i just mastered them and i assure none of them were what most people think is hi-rez. before you ask contract makes it so i am not at liberty to say what is what. i think i spelled it out enough.


 
 just wondering what you use in your rig? Headphones and speaker wise


----------



## purrin

I've done simple experiments with the Mjolnir amp where I felt balanced XLR outputs from the DAC (assuming the DAC design didn't gimp the balanced outputs) extracted more low level information than using one of the legs from the balanced XLR.
  
 Makes sense if you think about it. Not to different from adding another DAC chip and averaging the output, except in this case, it's even better because the other leg is a complementary signal where certain kinds of noise would be cancelled out.
  
 Most, if not all modern DAC chips, have differential outputs.


----------



## music_man

yeah totally agree purrin. a lot of cheap stuff is just really the se on the balanced.
  
 magicabbage, my main system uses Wilson Alexandria and 2 big rels. in a dedicated lede listening room. my bedroom system is on 24/7. those are sonus faber guarneri evolution and little rel. my favorite cans are the grado ps1000. I have he90,sr009 and other better ones but I like the grados best. other equipment is too much stuff to mention. you asked about speakers/headphones. I think you can see where my taste lies. probably much different than purrins and many other peoples. I have had people say the wilsons sound like $500 speakers. I also have the ml clx in that room but not hooked up. I wish it were easy to move 1,200 pound speakers around lol. unfortunately the apogee grand  bit the dust and were replaced with the ml. I think the apogees were the best loudspeakers ever. no known way to repair them at this point. I saw what they are fetching and feel bad.


----------



## blitzxgene

Hey Purrin, would you mind posting any impressions you have of the Master 7 hdmi i2s interface developed by dacladder? He sent me a snippet of what you'd thought, but I like logging in to read big breakdowns/rants. If you are still evaluating, then keep evaluating away and post when you have the time.


----------



## purrin

Will do... going to reverse changes and take another listen - just to confirm.


----------



## Tuco1965

chris j said:


> I am convinced that Balanced Audio is one of the most misunderstood concepts on Head Fi!
> 
> OTOH, hi Rez audio doesn't seem to be too well understood either....


 
 Agreed.


----------



## john57

music_man said:


> yeah totally agree purrin. a lot of cheap stuff is just really the se on the balanced.
> 
> magicabbage, my main system uses Wilson Alexandria and 2 big rels. in a dedicated lede listening room. my bedroom system is on 24/7. those are sonus faber guarneri evolution and little rel. my favorite cans are the grado ps1000. I have he90,sr009 and other better ones but I like the grados best. other equipment is too much stuff to mention. you asked about speakers/headphones. I think you can see where my taste lies. probably much different than purrins and many other peoples. I have had people say the wilsons sound like $500 speakers. I also have the ml clx in that room but not hooked up. I wish it were easy to move 1,200 pound speakers around lol. unfortunately the apogee grand  bit the dust and were replaced with the ml. I think the apogees were the best loudspeakers ever. no known way to repair them at this point. I saw what they are fetching and feel bad.


 
 I never owned the apogees but heard them several times and they were the best in planners I ever heard and far better than the maggies I had. I used to have Ohm F speakers and they got ruined and cost more to repair them them what I paid for them. I did not like the newer wash drivers and they went to the dump as I have no need for the bases. For dynamic speakers I like the Thiel 3.5 after my Ohm F's and was very happy with them but a power surge took out the equalizer box  and both the dealer and Thiel could not get the equalizer box repaired after Thiel stop selling them and I ended up selling the 3.5. So much for having and paying for dealer and manufacture support at the time. I had the maggies like them at first but miss the quality of the Thiel and I ended up selling them. Currently using using near field monitors at a much lower cost point and now can get about 85% of the SQ of the Thiel speakers I had. I am burnout by the lack of long term support by manufactures on higher end speakers.


----------



## Chris J

tuco1965 said:


> Agreed.




Everyone seems to have lost the plot:

Transmit information in balanced format so that it may be received in balanced form to reject any noise it may have picked up on both lines during transmission.


----------



## music_man

of course chris. that's the idea.
  
 you can get outstanding sq with some pro monitors and not pay hifi prices. I recommend genelec. of course that last 5% of pure pleasure cannot be had for hifi. that will cost $$$.


----------



## Chris J

music_man said:


> of course chris. that's the idea.
> 
> you can get outstanding sq with some pro monitors and not pay hifi prices. I recommend genelec. of course that last 5% of pure pleasure cannot be had for hifi. that will cost $$$.




The last bit of pure pleasure can be found in Las Vegas.
And that will cost you $$$
:tongue_smile:


----------



## music_man

yeah, no sh..... I have enjoyed a few evenings of debauchery. before I was married of course I mean.


----------



## Chris J

Anybody have any experience with the Arcam irDAC?

Not the old rDAC, the new irDAC, the one with the iDevice USB input. 
I've never heard one, but I do like the idea of plugging an iPod or iPhone or iPad straight into it.

Anybody try this DAC to see how it compares soundwise with "the other contenders"?


----------



## skeptic

purrin said:


> This has nothing to do with Headroom or RSA "balanced" / bridged amps. We are talking about _differential signaling_, e.g. 2x3-pin line level XLR patch cables in pro/studio environments where long lengths are used, etc.
> 
> Whether the equipment is used in a studio or home environment was really not the topic of discussion. The issue being discussed was with the common practice of DAC manufacturers offering a balanced output option by taking shortcuts: 1) splitting the standard SE output with a cheap opamp splitter going into another two opamps for the differential drive; or 2) using a different set of op-amps (usually lessor quality, but higher output current than the SE opamp) for the balanced outputs.
> 
> Let's not bring up the Headroom or RSA definition of "balanced" again. Gives me a headache.


 
  
 I follow you as to the above.  My assumption, perhaps wildly incorrect, was that most of these high end dacs would be using an I/V stage (e.g. http://www.twistedpearaudio.com/linestages/legato.aspx ), rather than a cap coupled output straight off the dac board, as is possible with at least some chips.
  
 If the manufacturer is using different opamps for its se and balanced outputs, that certainly further complicates matters.  But I guess I don't see why the same principles that apply to gain stages in headphone amps wouldn't apply to a line or I/V stage in a dac?  (Again, happy to be educated if I'm grossly oversimplifying here?)  If, per the engineers at Benchmark, a push-pull output (or alternatively a bridged output) generally adds noise and distortion (excluding common mode) and raises output impedance, and has higher component cost, why is this sort of output at all desireable as compared to an equivalent se output if the anticipated use of the product is within a home where there is no benefit to CMR?


----------



## purrin

I dunno. These things don't apply to me and I try not to think about these kinds of things. I use the SE outputs of my DAC into my SET tube amp (which obviously only takes SE inputs).
  
 It helps to sells cables with expensive XLR connectors?
  
 Now I did feel the PWD2 or Gungnir's XLR balanced outputs in to the Mjolnir (circlotron circuit) sounded 1.07% more resolving with better separation and space. Not significant enough detect the difference via blind AB (and yes I do like blind tests or pulling off trickaroos such as telling my ninjas when one thing when it's really the other to psych them out) or significant enough to change any of the rankings.


----------



## magiccabbage

chris j said:


> Anybody have any experience with the Arcam irDAC?
> 
> Not the old rDAC, the new irDAC, the one with the iDevice USB input.
> I've never heard one, but I do like the idea of plugging an iPod or iPhone or iPad straight into it.
> ...


 
 I have an rdac i bought mine in cloney audio and while i have not heard the irdac the store owner - Ivan tells me that is is a good stet up from the original rdac. Didn't it win loads of awards?


----------



## Chris J

skeptic said:


> I follow you as to the above.  My assumption, perhaps wildly incorrect, was that most of these high end dacs would be using an I/V stage (e.g. http://www.twistedpearaudio.com/linestages/legato.aspx ), rather than a cap coupled output straight off the dac board, as is possible with at least some chips.
> 
> If the manufacturer is using different opamps for its se and balanced outputs, that certainly further complicates matters.  But I guess I don't see why the same principles that apply to gain stages in headphone amps wouldn't apply to a line or I/V stage in a dac?  (Again, happy to be educated if I'm grossly oversimplifying here?)  If, per the engineers at Benchmark, a push-pull output (or alternatively a bridged output) generally adds noise and distortion (excluding common mode) and raises output impedance, and has higher component cost, why is this sort of output at all desireable as compared to an equivalent se output if the anticipated use of the product is within a home where there is no benefit to CMR?




Some companies use a plain old fashioned Op Amp for the SE output and a specific, purpose built analog integrated circuit for balanced output. The company "Analog Devices" makes a purpose built balanced output IC: SSM2142.
The guy from Benchmark may have had a bit of an agenda when he made these statements......
You can also argue that balanced outputs increase SNR.
And if the distortion is low enough, then the added distortion a balanced output creates is academic.
Or you can argue that a balanced amp a la Nelson Pass cancels distortion.
He's received a patent for his Super Symmetry design so it must do something.


----------



## skeptic

chris j said:


> Some companies use a plain old fashioned Op Amp for the SE output and a specific, purpose built analog integrated circuit for balanced output. The company "Analog Devices" makes a purpose built balanced output IC.
> The guy from Benchmark may have had a bit of an agenda when he made these statements......
> You can also argue that balanced outputs increase SNR.
> And if the distortion is low enough, then the added distortion a balanced output creates is academic.
> ...


 
  
 Agreed that SuSy is a different story.  (Sadly, I don't have the technical background necessary to fully appreciate the why of it.)  But if you look at Mr. Pass' technical summary article, you will note that he essentially agrees with the Benchmark guy in so far as suggesting that the 3 traditional balanced approaches either perform worse than, or at best, equal to, ordinary 2 channel single ended designs.  https://passlabs.com/articles/super-symmetric-amplification
  
 I understand Pass Lab's SuSy patent recently expired and that's why Dr. Gilmore, Spritzer and company have now released gen2 SuSy dynahi and dynalo diy designs.  I am not aware of any dacs using that topology, but I certainly would be interested in an EE's perspective as to how beneficial this is in low power applications and whether we are likely to see a proliferation of SuSy output stages in commercial dacs in the future.


----------



## StefanJK

chris j said:


> Or you can argue that a balanced amp a la Nelson Pass cancels distortion.
> He's received a patent for his Super Symmetry design so it must do something.


 
 I'm pretty sure that's too low a standard.  There are lots of bad patents out there that do very little that's useful.  If you're willing the pay the legal fees you get a patent on pretty much anything, useful or not.


----------



## Chris J

stefanjk said:


> I'm pretty sure that's too low a standard.  There are lots of bad patents out there that do very little that's useful.  If you're willing the pay the legal fees you get a patent on pretty much anything, useful or not.




I was being sarcastic.
Super Symmetry is, in fact, one mechanism by which distortion can be reduced.


----------



## Chris J

skeptic said:


> Agreed that SuSy is a different story.  (Sadly, I don't have the technical background necessary to fully appreciate the why of it.)  But if you look at Mr. Pass' technical summary article, you will note that he essentially agrees with the Benchmark guy in so far as suggesting that the 3 traditional balanced approaches either perform worse than, or at best, equal to, ordinary 2 channel single ended designs.  https://passlabs.com/articles/super-symmetric-amplification
> 
> I understand Pass Lab's SuSy patent recently expired and that's why Dr. Gilmore, Spritzer and company have now released gen2 SuSy dynahi and dynalo diy designs.  I am not aware of any dacs using that topology, but I certainly would be interested in an EE's perspective as to how beneficial this is in low power applications and whether we are likely to see a proliferation of SuSy output stages in commercial dacs in the future.


 
  
 We're way off topic here, but I don't see any reason why you can't use this in low power applications: driving headphones or used as a pre-amp building block.
 The kicker is, it is a balanced in, balanced out configuration, i.e. no point in using it in an SE or SE out configuration, its advantages are lost there.


----------



## skeptic

Agreed that we're getting out into left field at this point, and I promise I won't belabor the point any further, but just fyi - in the new SuSy dynahi's and dynalo's, the circuits are actually se or balanced in, but only balanced out.  No input transformers required.  Still slowly churning my way through the NEETS materials hoping that some day I'll be educated enough to puzzle out how this actually works.


----------



## purrin

Another circuit that is balanced or SE in, but balanced out is the circlotron or "Cross-FET" as implemented in the Mjolnir amp. There's lots to read up on that.


----------



## Eee Pee

Which makes me curious how they're doing SE out on the Ragnarok.
  
 Maybe they're just stashing a Magni inside.


----------



## Chris J

purrin said:


> Another circuit that is balanced or SE in, but balanced out is the circlotron or "Cross-FET" as implemented in the Mjolnir amp. There's lots to read up on that.




Circlotron's are optimized to accept a balanced input signal.
Like Super Symmetrical topologies, they can take SE inputs.
But they operate better from balanced inputs.


----------



## purrin

I think someone may have asked me in this thread about the HDMI i2s card for the AGD M7. Here is the link to the info: http://www.head-fi.org/t/625793/audio-gd-master-7-discrete-fully-balanced-dac-pcm1704/1560#post_10394607


----------



## musicinmymind

I recently got PWD2 and it is very good upgrade from bifrost. I was wondering if USB cable that keeps power and ground completely separated like this one 
  
 http://home.comcast.net/~ridgestreetaudio/Poiema_USB_40_Ad.html or iUSB with dual-path Gemini USB cable, makes any difference ?
  
 apologies if this question is already asked and discussed.


----------



## purrin

You can try cutting the USB +5V or putting tape over one of the pins of the USB adapter. I think this should work with the PWD2's XMOS and yield similar results. Might want to ask in the PWD2 thread or search around on how to do this.
  
 I simply cut the +5V on the USB of a Belken Gold cable for use with the OR5.


----------



## Chris J

purrin said:


> You can try cutting the USB +5V or putting tape over one of the pins of the USB adapter. I think this should work with the PWD2's XMOS and yield similar results. Might want to ask in the PWD2 thread or search around on how to do this.
> 
> I simply cut the +5V on the USB of a Belken Gold cable for use with the OR5.


 
  
 Ah, the Belkin Gold!
 I guess you don't use boutique USB cables?
 No judgement either way, I'm just asking.


----------



## musicinmymind

purrin said:


> You can try cutting the USB +5V or putting tape over one of the pins of the USB adapter. I think this should work with the PWD2's XMOS and yield similar results. Might want to ask in the PWD2 thread or search around on how to do this.
> 
> I simply cut the +5V on the USB of a Belken Gold cable for use with the OR5.


 
  
 Thanks a lot, this helps and saves $. I will search around, also if you can post pic of your Belken Gold cable, it would help me to implement same.


----------



## music_man

I think it needs +5 to "handshake". just get a powered usb hub and then get a regulated psu for the hub at radioshack. as I said elsewhere the only cable I like better than Belkin gold is $1,000usd. I "like" it better. I never said it "sounds" better!


----------



## Chris J

music_man said:


> I think it needs +5 to "handshake". just get a powered usb hub and then get a regulated psu for the hub at radioshack. as I said elsewhere the only cable I like better than Belkin gold is $1,000usd. I "like" it better. I never said it "sounds" better!


 
 LOL!


----------



## musicinmymind

music_man said:


> I think it needs +5 to "handshake". just get a powered usb hub and then get a regulated psu for the hub at radioshack. as I said elsewhere the only cable I like better than Belkin gold is $1,000usd. I "like" it better. I never said it "sounds" better!


 
  
 Or can I just use AQVOX power supply, is it same as powered usb hub with regulated psu?


----------



## music_man

yes indeed. what I suggested should run you $30 though. same thing. ifi is a little nicer but pretty much all the same thing. one warning. if you do the hub with psu do not plug any other usb devices in it. it will cause noise and overload that psu.


----------



## Stapsy

I got a very long Belkin Gold with my OR5 and it is noticeably better than the Audioquest Cinnamon USB I was using.  Better bass response and clarity.  The Audioquest sounds kind of dull and muddy by comparison...a result that I didn't quite expect. 
  
 Right now I am just using tape to cover the 5v connector.  If I work up the nerve I will try to cut the 5v power line. I would have done it already but I can't find anywhere close that carries the Belkin Gold to get a replacement if I **** it up.


----------



## music_man

tape is fine. I honestly cannot hear a difference. unless the cable is messed up some how. you either have to be sure you hear a difference or just appreciate that you do. I love the aq diamond. I can't hear a difference from the Belkin but I just dig it. it has to be better. I don't really believe that scientifically but it is my choice. I wonder if anyone that thinks they can hear it thinks the Belkin is better than the diamond. I don't doubt this for whatever reason I just personally can't tell.


----------



## elmoe

music_man said:


> I think it needs +5 to "handshake". just get a powered usb hub and then get a regulated psu for the hub at radioshack. as I said elsewhere the only cable I like better than Belkin gold is $1,000usd. I "like" it better. I never said it "sounds" better!


 
  
 Why bother? I use this to bypass the USB power on my converter:
  


  
 15 bucks, works perfectly. Then again I'm of the opinion that digital cables cannot change the sound. Figured there's no point in spending a fortune on something as basic as this.


----------



## music_man

yeah but if you are wiling to spend about $30 no work involved. you still need the psu for yours. so I would say yours is about $30 too. a usb hub with a linear psu will do the same thing. no soldering. oh, I can certainly make cables but not required here. although yours does look very nice. the dirty power should certainly change the sound but perhaps not a fancy cable. I don't doubt others opinions but I think the Belkin is fine. I do have bad usb cables that do not make connection etc. that is a different story.


----------



## elmoe

Sure, I just don't like having devices cluttering up my desk so the cable is a nice alternative for me. As for USB cables changing up the sound, well, that's a debate for the sound science forum so I won't get into it here, but personally I don't think it's possible.


----------



## Chris J

elmoe said:


> Sure, I just don't like having devices cluttering up my desk so the cable is a nice alternative for me. As for USB cables changing up the sound, well, that's a debate for the sound science forum so I won't get into it here, but personally I don't think it's possible.



 


No, that's not a debate for the Sound Science Forum.
It's a chance for the Sound Science Forum to continue ranting against any and all Subjectivism!


----------



## mowglycdb

It's full of them though I have the same opinion, different usb cables don't do much either than look sexier, I'll try cutting the +5v and see what happens.


----------



## elmoe

chris j said:


> elmoe said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, I just don't like having devices cluttering up my desk so the cable is a nice alternative for me. As for USB cables changing up the sound, well, that's a debate for the sound science forum so I won't get into it here, but personally I don't think it's possible.
> ...


 
  
 I'm of the opinion that there isn't much place for subjectivism with USB cables though... it either sends the 1s and 0s or it doesn't. Anyway, if you believe you can hear differences in sound from different USB cables more power to you. Personally I couldn't hear a difference.


----------



## music_man

yeah. that's exactly what I said! I am not going to knock anyone else but personally I can't.


----------



## Stapsy

What is the rest of your chain like after the DAC?  Before I got the OR5 I didn't really notice a difference in USB cables.  In fact it kind of surprised me that I could hear a difference.  I only switched to the Audioquest cable because it was shorter and is less of a mess beside my rack.  After a couple minutes I realized that there was something missing compared with the Belkin Gold.

 If you trust Steve from Emprirical Audio he seems to think that length has an impact on quality due to reflections.  I believe it was .75m intervals that provided the best measurements. 

 To be honest I have turned into the Audiophile that I originally hated.  I notice a difference in the smallest changes like cables, tubes, USB driver settings.  Perhaps it is my own neurosis, but all I can really do is trust my ears. I have tested some very expensive interconnects that I thought were pretty bad compared with what I already have.  If I am biased at least it is towards cheap    
  
 Belkin Gold FTW!


----------



## music_man

this is very high end stuff. the dac is cheap but highly modified. the problem may be that I have a 16 foot cable. that is actually Belkin gold. the aq diamond is in another system and like 3 feet or something. either one sounds fine to me. what does not sound okay is a computers bus power imo. interestingly as far as printer cables go the Belkin gold is the only cable that can carry 100+ feet with amplification.


----------



## elmoe

stapsy said:


> What is the rest of your chain like after the DAC?  Before I got the OR5 I didn't really notice a difference in USB cables.  In fact it kind of surprised me that I could hear a difference.  I only switched to the Audioquest cable because it was shorter and is less of a mess beside my rack.  After a couple minutes I realized that there was something missing compared with the Belkin Gold.
> 
> If you trust Steve from Emprirical Audio he seems to think that length has an impact on quality due to reflections.  I believe it was .75m intervals that provided the best measurements.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well, as long as its towards cheap, no harm done. I bought the Schiit USB cable, it's cheap, well built and gets the job done.


----------



## cddc

How is Shiit Modi compared to ODAC?


----------



## purrin

Provided you can get clean / sufficient power to the ODAC, I prefer the ODAC to the Modi. For example, I prefer the Modi from my laptop which seems to have crappy USB power. The ODAC sounded craptastic from my laptop. However the ODAC sounds great from my PC - a little better than the Modi. My PC seems to have a "real" USB port, or at least one with either sufficient juice or power quality.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> Provided you can get clean / sufficient power to the ODAC, I prefer the ODAC to the Modi. For example, I prefer the Modi from my laptop which seems to have crappy USB power. The ODAC sounded craptastic from my laptop. However the ODAC sounds great from my PC - a little better than the Modi. My PC seems to have a "real" USB port, or at least one with either sufficient juice or power quality.


 
 I have a run of the mill lenovo laptop - how much am i missing out on by using this instead of say a P.C? I asked before about whether the Laptop or P.C matters at all in the chain if you are using a good DAC like the Audio GD7 or something like that. I didn't get a straight answer. Do you know?


----------



## music_man

no computer has good usb power. if you want the best sound you need a regulated usb power supply. there are many to choose or you can make one real easy. just put a regulated psu on a Belkin usb hub,tape the cable and it does not matter what computer you have.. this will usually make a huge improvement. will cost $30 and take 2 minutes.


----------



## magiccabbage

music_man said:


> no computer has good usb power. if you want the best sound you need a regulated usb power supply. there are many to choose or you can make one real easy. just put a regulated psu on a Belkin usb hub,tape the cable and it does not matter what computer you have.. this will usually make a huge improvement. will cost $30 and take 2 minutes.


 
 Wow - a straight answer. Thanks. What do you mean buy tap the cable. Sorry for my ignorance. Can you send a link showing what this might look like? 
  
  
 Is there anywhere i can read about this in detail?


----------



## StefanJK

music_man said:


> no computer has good usb power. if you want the best sound you need a regulated usb power supply. there are many to choose or you can make one real easy. just put a regulated psu on a Belkin usb hub,tape the cable and it does not matter what computer you have.. this will usually make a huge improvement. will cost $30 and take 2 minutes.


 
 Yes, more detail would be helpful.  I've seen expensive regulated USB power supplies out there (iFi, AQVOX), but I'd like to pick up something equivalent for less. I'm assuming that your standard powered UBS hub could be improved on with a better power supply (and other tweaks).  Googling get me this, needs more investigations.


----------



## miceblue

This might be a stupid question to ask, but is there a relatively easy way to do A/B comparisons between DACs?

This is pretty straightforward, but I don't know if it seriously degrades the signal or what. With the ODAC, the sound is very quiet and I have to turn the volume knob on the O2 to maximum to get to the same volume level as the Audio-GD NFB-2 and the O2.


Holy...I didn't know the Audio-gd has changeable DAC filters! I might need to borrow this (it's a friend's unit). XD


----------



## m2man

You can do it with some pro audio gear. Something with spdif in and 6 spdif out. This feeds two DACs. Then you go to one amp with different inputs and can change one the fly. It's too spendy to do cheaply. You just need a crazy pro audio friend. PM me. One of the Seattle meet regulars has this gear. He set up my PWD and his v800 this way.


----------



## PleasantSounds

miceblue said:


> This might be a stupid question to ask, but is there a relatively easy way to do A/B comparisons between DACs?


 
  
 If you have a decent A/D converter available you could record the output of your DACs with it. Then you can easily ABX in Foobar, ideally throwing the original in as well.
 This method has its problems too - it introduces the A/D converter and a second pass through the DAC when listening, but spotting the differences becomes much easier this way.


----------



## music_man

this is from an old post of mine. warning: it in fact does not come with a regulated power supply. you will need to get one from radioshack or an electronics supply. it is very important that you have the regulated supply. it is okay to use anything from 4.5 to 5v. absolutely no more or you will fry things like your dac! 4.5v supply's actually put out about 4.7-4.8v at no load which meets usb spec. you can actually use any good hub. you will need to get the correct adapter for the psu to hub and get the polarity right or you will kill something.  do not plug anything else into the hub besides your dac! for one thing the psu you are going to get does not have enough amperage.
  
 ~~position the supplied cable(the side that goes into the computer) facing up towards you so you see the pins. put a little piece of scotch tape on the pin all the way to the right. make sure the pin is completely covered with tape. now plug everything in as normal and use the usb cable of your choice. I recommend Belkin gold with this. you now have clean linear isolated +5v power that is not coming from the computer. even if your dac has self power it most likely still needs +5v from the cable to sync. do not tape the ground on the left. you can also use this trick to make a data only cable if you wish. they rarely work though. now for 20 bucks you have a comparable device others sell for $200+.. good deal. there is one caveat, with jriver at least sometimes I get an error once on start and it works the second time. do not plug anything else into the hub for best sound. it sounds real good. ......this has been edited from my original post because I had misinformation at the time. others doubted it but I can measure it as good or better than any other option. of course then there are usb filters which will further increase performance which this do not have. good clean power is a good step in the right direction. a desktop or laptop computer supplies nothing but noise on usb!
  
 if you have any doubts about your ability do do this don't! I thought that warning was in order even though this is very simple. I am in no way liable for what anyone does. I am simply providing instructions.
  
 you can also splice the ground on the cable and ground it to something outside the computer. any solid earth ground in a building. again, do not attempt this if you are not sure of yourself!


----------



## blitzxgene

music_man said:


> this is from an old post of mine. warning: it in fact does not come with a regulated power supply. you will need to get one from radioshack or an electronics supply. it is very important that you have the regulated supply. it is okay to use anything from 4.5 to 5v. absolutely no more or you will fry things like your dac! 4.5v supply's actually put out about 4.7-4.8v at no load which meets usb spec. you can actually use any good hub. you will need to get the correct adapter for the psu to hub and get the polarity right or you will kill something.  do not plug anything else into the hub besides your dac! for one thing the psu you are going to get does not have enough amperage.
> 
> ~~position the supplied cable(the side that goes into the computer) facing up towards you so you see the pins. put a little piece of scotch tape on the pin all the way to the right. make sure the pin is completely covered with tape. now plug everything in as normal and use the usb cable of your choice. I recommend Belkin gold with this. you now have clean linear isolated +5v power that is not coming from the computer. even if your dac has self power it most likely still needs +5v from the cable to sync. do not tape the ground on the left. you can also use this trick to make a data only cable if you wish. they rarely work though. now for 20 bucks you have a comparable device others sell for $200+.. good deal. there is one caveat, with jriver at least sometimes I get an error once on start and it works the second time. do not plug anything else into the hub for best sound. it sounds real good. ......this has been edited from my original post because I had misinformation at the time. others doubted it but I can measure it as good or better than any other option. of course then there are usb filters which will further increase performance which this do not have. good clean power is a good step in the right direction. a desktop or laptop computer supplies nothing but noise on usb!
> 
> ...


 
 Taping the ground does work for some products like audio-gd dacs. Not sure if there was a performance increase at all though as I taped both the 5v pin and the ground at the same time months ago.


----------



## gevorg

blitzxgene said:


> music_man said:
> 
> 
> > this is from an old post of mine. warning: it in fact does not come with a regulated power supply. you will need to get one from radioshack or an electronics supply. it is very important that you have the regulated supply. it is okay to use anything from 4.5 to 5v. absolutely no more or you will fry things like your dac! 4.5v supply's actually put out about 4.7-4.8v at no load which meets usb spec. you can actually use any good hub. you will need to get the correct adapter for the psu to hub and get the polarity right or you will kill something.  do not plug anything else into the hub besides your dac! for one thing the psu you are going to get does not have enough amperage.
> ...




For Audio-GD's USB-32 interface it seems that it won't matter if you tape the 5V line or not since the DAC itself severs the 5V line and does not use it even on the USB board like many XMOS implementations (see Audio-GD's explanation below). I did try taping over the ground line on my USB cable for NFB-28 and it gave a noticeable improvement (haven't ABX'd it to be sure though). 

http://audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/USB32/USB32EN.htm



> *The USB-32 have not connect the +5V from computer for the less disturb , so every times power on the computer then power on the DAC if applied USB playback.*


----------



## music_man

if a dac does not use +5v or has its own than it is good and there is no reason to tape it. you can externally ground it but please be sure you know how.


----------



## PleasantSounds

music_man said:


> if a dac does not use +5v or has its own than it is good and there is no reason to tape it. you can externally ground it but please be sure you know how.


 
  
 If your DAC does show up on the computer's device list when its power is off, you can be pretty sure it uses the USB power lines. Otherwise isolating the power is worth a try.
  
 I found taping the connectors unreliable and ended up doing a bit of surgery on my USB cables, i.e. cutting both power and ground lines. That works for Hilo and NFB-5. If your cable has black, red, green and white wires in it, most likely it conforms with the standard: red is +5V, black is ground. White and green are the data lines so leave them alone   However DO THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK.


----------



## schneller

By chance has anyone compared the Schiit Gungnir USB2 ($850) to the Arcam irDAC ($700)?


----------



## music_man

I will try cutting the ground. the dac should be grounded to the chassis or through the powered hub. I don't think that matters anyways. it is the +5v you want to not have coming from the computer. even a plain old hub should be a lot less noisy than a pc. I did not have the ground cut on this if I remember correctly.


----------



## cddc

purrin said:


> Provided you can get clean / sufficient power to the ODAC, I prefer the ODAC to the Modi. For example, I prefer the Modi from my laptop which seems to have crappy USB power. The ODAC sounded craptastic from my laptop. However the ODAC sounds great from my PC - a little better than the Modi. My PC seems to have a "real" USB port, or at least one with either sufficient juice or power quality.


 
  
 Thank you very much for your opinion. Just wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on how ODAC is better than Modi?
  
 You mentioned in Recommendation #19 that ODAC is not so precise as Modi. Also, Modi is able to reproduce a wider range of more continuous of volumes than the ODAC. But where does ODAC beat Modi? Thanks a lot.


----------



## music_man

pleasantsounds said:


> If your DAC does show up on the computer's device list when its power is off, you can be pretty sure it uses the USB power lines. Otherwise isolating the power is worth a try.
> 
> I found taping the connectors unreliable and ended up doing a bit of surgery on my USB cables, i.e. cutting both power and ground lines. That works for Hilo and NFB-5. If your cable has black, red, green and white wires in it, most likely it conforms with the standard: red is +5V, black is ground. White and green are the data lines so leave them alone   However DO THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK.


 
  
  
 I thought the teac ud-501 had it's own usb power. others refuted this. I just turned it off while I watched the device manager. it instantly disappeared from the list. does that in fact mean that it does have it's own power and I have wasted my time supplying cleaner power? "If your DAC does show up..." or did you actually mean to say does-not?


----------



## PleasantSounds

music_man said:


> I thought the teac ud-501 had it's own usb power. others refuted this. I just turned it off while I watched the device manager. it instantly disappeared from the list. does that in fact mean that it does have it's own power and I have wasted my time supplying cleaner power? "If your DAC does show up..." or did you actually mean to say does-not?


 
  
 No, that statement was correct. Think about it: when the DAC is disconnected, the system is no longer displaying it. That's because it cannot be identified. When the DAC's power is down, it's similar: it still behaves as if it wasn't there. The conclusion must be that if the system is still able to identify the DAC, it must be still powered somehow. If you switched the power off, the only remaining supply is the USB power line.
  
 But that does not necessarily mean that the opposite is true. It is quite possible that the DAC's power switch breaks the USB power supply as well, so the DAC chip may shut down, even if it does require USB power to operate.


----------



## shultzee

schneller said:


> By chance has anyone compared the Schiit Gungnir USB2 ($850) to the Arcam irDAC ($700)?







Good question. I would also like to know.


----------



## music_man

when I used a data only cable it did not work. however it may require +5v to handshake with the pc. I am pretty sure it has it's own power but others said no. it would seem any dacs power switch would break the usb power. if the dac chip is off it will not receive power thus not display in device manager I would thing. just like if you connect a camera,phone etc and turn it off. I guess I don't know if it actually is self powered. the board appears to be but I just can't be sure without a schematic. just for the sake of it I am supplying clean power. I will try cutting the ground since I assume the usb hub provides that as well.
  
 is there any to actually know for sure if the dac provides it's own usb power?


----------



## Chris J

music_man said:


> when I used a data only cable it did not work. however it may require +5v to handshake with the pc. I am pretty sure it has it's own power but others said no. it would seem any dacs power switch would break the usb power. if the dac chip is off it will not receive power thus not display in device manager I would thing. just like if you connect a camera,phone etc and turn it off. I guess I don't know if it actually is self powered. the board appears to be but I just can't be sure without a schematic. just for the sake of it I am supplying clean power. I will try cutting the ground since I assume the usb hub provides that as well.
> 
> is there any to actually know for sure if the dac provides it's own usb power?


 
  
 Not too sure if cutting the ground is a good idea, especially if one (or both) of the transmitting and receiving devices is floating (not grounded).


----------



## musicinmymind

music_man said:


> when I used a data only cable it did not work. however it may require +5v to handshake with the pc. I am pretty sure it has it's own power but others said no. it would seem any dacs power switch would break the usb power. if the dac chip is off it will not receive power thus not display in device manager I would thing. just like if you connect a camera,phone etc and turn it off. I guess I don't know if it actually is self powered. the board appears to be but I just can't be sure without a schematic. just for the sake of it I am supplying clean power. I will try cutting the ground since I assume the usb hub provides that as well.
> 
> is there any to actually know for sure if the dac provides it's own usb power?


 
  
 Using PWD 2, I taped both ends of usb cable at laptop end and works just fine. SQ is bit better.
  
 not all dac uses +5v for handshake.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

musicinmymind said:


> Using PWD 2, I taped both ends of usb cable at laptop end and works just fine. SQ is bit better.
> 
> not all dac uses +5v for handshake.


 
 Same on Yulong DA8 and AURALiC Vega.


----------



## TooPoor

Just wanted people's quick opinion: I have $1k to spend on a DAC. Pairing it with a La Figaro 339 and HE-500 (see sig for details).
  
*Options*:
  
*Cheap*: Emotiva DC-1 - tons of inputs, great reviews, great price ($400 b stock from Emotiva)
*Less Cheap*: Schiit Gungnir - I have a Music Fidelity 24/192 USB/SPDIF converter so I wouldn't need the USB version unless it's $100 more 'worth it'.
*Least Cheap*: Matrix X-Sabre/Yulong DA8 - top of the budget. Would highly prefer not to blow my whole budget, but maybe it's worth it?


----------



## music_man

well, they go in the exact order you listed them. the emotive is a great value. the da8 is great quality. the schiit is in the middle. depends how good you want. I would certainly listen to them. you may be satisfied with the emotive or you may demand the da8. or the schiit might be good enough without breaking the bank. you have to listen. for all I know you could love the emotive and hate the da8. this stuff is not that clear cut. ie, more money you just like the sound better.


----------



## OJNeg

You wouldn't be disappointed by the Gungnir, or even the Bifrost if you want to save a little bit.


----------



## hans030390

Bifrost and Gungnir would be good choices. Gamma2 is awesome as well, if you can find one. Matrix Mini-I w/ dual AD1955s may be an alternative to the Emotiva.
  
 Do keep in mind the X-Sabre will be fairly dissimilar from the first 3 I mentioned (well, as dissimilar as good DACs get).


----------



## TooPoor

I really do like the Gungnir, but the big question I have now is: If wont be running it balanced (La Figaro isn't balanced), then is it still worth it over the DC-1? Yes, I will most likely go balanced in the future, but not sure when.


----------



## kothganesh

toopoor said:


> I really do like the Gungnir, but the big question I have now is: If wont be running it balanced (La Figaro isn't balanced), then is it still worth it over the DC-1? Yes, I will most likely go balanced in the future, but not sure when.



Yes,IMO, since you are future-proofing yourself to some extent. The Gungnir is upgradable as well.


----------



## dguitarnut

I had the Emotiva DC1 and was not impressed with it. It did it's job well but I wanted something a little better.
The DA-8 has to my ears has much more detail presentation. I guess it should at twice the price. It's also a more impressive looking piece of gear. I am very happy with it.


----------



## eyal1983

Does anybody have experience with the *CIAudio VDA-2* ?  how does it sound ?
http://www.ciaudio.com/products/VDA2
  
 ...I also wonder- how does it compare to, say , a BiFrost Uber-analog w/ USB-gen-2


----------



## shultzee

eyal1983 said:


> Does anybody have experience with the *CIAudio VDA-2* ?  how does it sound ?
> http://www.ciaudio.com/products/VDA2
> 
> ...I also wonder- how does it compare to, say , a BiFrost Uber-analog w/ USB-gen-2


 
 The CIAudio doesn't have USB input, compared to USB gen 2 bit frost.


----------



## eyal1983

OK, left the *CIAudio VDA-2* option
  
 what about the *Musical Fidelity M1 DAC *?
 anybody heard it ?
http://www.musicalfidelity.com/m1dac/


----------



## purrin

toopoor said:


> I really do like the Gungnir, but the big question I have now is: If wont be running it balanced (La Figaro isn't balanced), then is it still worth it over the DC-1? Yes, I will most likely go balanced in the future, but not sure when.


 
  
 The difference between SE and balanced outs on Gungnir is very minor. I thought the balanced outs through the Mjolnir sounded a bit more resolving compared to the SE outs. For someone as picky as me, I didn't find it significant.
  
 If you have heard and like the overall presentation of the Gungnir, I wouldn't worry about the resolution aspect until to get to the level of uber amps and headphones.
  
 The X-SABRE sounds quite different from the Gungnir. They are almost opposites.
  
 The Gungnir remains one of the few DACs below $1K I would personally use. The other being the Bifrost Uber Gen2 and AMB Gamma 2. Gen 2 USB is extremely highly recommended, although your Musical Fidelity may likely perform well. I haven't tried this combo so I cannot say.
  
 One of these days I'll grab the Yulong out of morbid curiosity.


----------



## TooPoor

Purrin, thanks for weighing in. I still haven't found anything that has made me want to upgrade from my Beresford MKII. Not sure if you've ever heard it, but at it's price point it seems like a great buy. If I see a B-Stock USB Gungnir on Amazon I'll probably pick one up. I'm worried about grabbing a non-USB version and always wondering if the USB is better implemented by Schiit or through my USB-SPDIF convertor.


----------



## diodao

purrin said:


> I think it's important to point out that differences with DACs are so small that downstream gear such as amps and headphones will be a limiting factor. For example, if I used an Objective2 and very laid back sounding headphone like the LCD3, I doubt I would be able to distinguish any of the DACs from the others, especially as we go up the list. I don't doubt at all what Gary hears or doesn't hear.


 

  






 Hi there,
 I am still quite a newbie into this whole thing, but nevertheless quite recently I invested some buck into Mjolnir and LCD-3, moving from X-Fi Titatium HD => Fiio E9 => DT990. Titanium HD is still stuck in this stack, because back then, I made a guess that Yggdrasil might be just behind the corner and so I would "wait it out."

  
 Now I am wondering what I might have or have not been missing while sitting on my hands. I know that at another place, you mentioned that with Mjolnir amping LCD-3s, source might start to play a role with those otherwise quite "laid-back" cans.

  
 So my question is, in your opinion (and of course in anybody else's), should I jump the boat of this waiting game and go for something real (already available on the market), or I am really not missing that terribly much?

 Thanks in advance,

  
         Martin


  
 P.S. With regards to possible interferences while using USB port as an input for DAC, have any of you tried to tinker around DPC Latency values of your computers? My thinking goes as follows: right now my peak DPC Latency measurement for the computer as a whole is at 617 µs (and peak measurement for USBPORT.SYS is at 160 µs). Using ReClock as audio renderer, duration for sound pre-buffer is set at 110 ms, which should then eclipse interferences with regards to any other peripherals connected via USB port (or in this example, even latency caused by computer as a whole). Should anyone be interested in tinkering with this, there are two softwares to obtain these measurements: DPC Latency Checker (preferable for PC as a whole) and LatencyMon (for measuring latencies with regards to particular drivers).
 Of course assumptions on which I based this line of thought might be false, it is just something that (quite suddenly) occurred to me while reading first few pages of this thread.


----------



## music_man

purrin, you know properly designed equipment the balanced vs se is not much of a difference if any. the teac on the other hand it is like night and day. also true with some other cheaper amps. I now don't blame you for dismissing it. that is bs. no real gear does that. modded I love the thing but I can't really recommend it to anyone anymore solely based on one thing. if they have a bigger budget. I had to completely rework the se on it to use with my favorite headamp. if one is going to be using the se stock forget it.


----------



## purrin

Yeah, a modded Behringer DCX2496 can go from a POS to something pretty good too.


----------



## purrin

diodao said:


> So my question is, in your opinion (and of course in anybody else's), should I jump the boat of this waiting game and go for something real (already available on the market), or I am really not missing that terribly much?


 
  
 My approach is why wait if you can afford something nice now. Just do your homework first. There will _*always *_be something better coming along. If I'd waited for the supposed OR6 USB converter which should have been out a few months ago but is still not out now, I wouldn't have enjoyed what the OR5 has given me for nearly a year.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> My approach is why wait if you can afford something nice now. Just do your homework first. There will _*always *_be something better coming along. If I'd waited for the supposed OR6 USB converter which should have been out a few months ago but is still not out now, I wouldn't have enjoyed what the OR5 has given me for nearly a year.


 
 I hope you do a review of the Schiit YGG when it comes out. 
  
 The last time I spoke to you, you had not heard the Bryston BDA-2. By any chance have you gotten to hear it since then?


----------



## purrin

Not yet. Sort of on hiatus and just coming back to causing trouble. Partners at my old firm threw me under the bus after seven loyal years. Moved to a different part of town and now working in the big corporate world. At least I get good benefits and I'm learning new stuff again.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> Not yet. Sort of on hiatus and just coming back to causing trouble. Partners at my old firm threw me under the bus after seven loyal years. Moved to a different part of town and now working in the big corporate world. At least I get good benefits and I'm learning new stuff again.


 
 Sometimes a change makes all the difference. Hope it goes well. I am still on a DAC hunt. I'm selling my WA2 and T1 next month. Im gonna use the money and get a DAC for when my Stratus comes towards the end of the summer. I'm hoping the new Shciit DAC will be out by then.


----------



## music_man

that's funny you mention that. all behringer stuff is pos. some of it once modded are classic. I mean for studio use. on the other hand much of it is so bad you can't even get it apart. like glued in 12ax7's.


----------



## JakeJack_2008

purrin said:


> Provided you can get clean / sufficient power to the ODAC, I prefer the ODAC to the Modi. For example, I prefer the Modi from my laptop which seems to have crappy USB power. The ODAC sounded craptastic from my laptop. However the ODAC sounds great from my PC - a little better than the Modi. My PC seems to have a "real" USB port, or at least one with either sufficient juice or power quality.


 
  
 Hi Purrin,
  
 My ODAC sounds excellent from my modern Toshiba Satellite (the S-series, released June 2012), so the_ USB power_ is good
 (how good?)  in this particular  case.
  
 Anyway, one can use the ODAC with the Vaunix _hub   _(recommended by Currawong)_ _or the iFi iUSB, and so on.
 What about running the ODAC from good quality batteries - someone on this site  mentioned Clean Power batteries?
 Just out of curiosity, would the ODAC benefit more from the Clean Power (or other good quality brands) batteries?
 What are pros and cons _in terms of the electric power quality_ of using _batteries _*vs*. _dedicated power supplies_ (IFi iUSB, etc.)?
  
 Thanx for reading.


----------



## Sapientiam

What's needed to improve the ODAC is cleaner power to the ES9023 chip itself. The fact that changing the USB power source changes the SQ says that the regulator on the board doesn't have enough filtering to deliver a clean supply - no surprise really as Lord Voldemort didn't fit the correct output capacitor for the Micrel regulator. Batteries certainly will help as they're not subject to common-mode noise - they have the very valuable quality of being perfectly isolated - but that's a different kind of improvement as it's primarily affecting the equipment the ODAC feeds into.


----------



## music_man

all these cheap dacs are like that. improve the psu and outputs and you have a good dac usually. of course you could just buy a good dac to begin with.


----------



## Sapientiam

There is a fairly hard limitation though - they can't be made better than the DAC chip they use, and for a cheap DAC they'll almost certainly use S-D type chips. TDA1543 is the exception rather than the rule in cheapo DACs and that's one of the poorest sounding multibit chips.


----------



## TwoEars

I would like to upset everyone (well, not really) and say that I personally don't like the idea of ranking dacs.
  
 The name of the game is synergy and personal tastes.
  
 An overly tubey amp may need a strident and even somewhat harch DAC to make the system work.
  
 A harsh and lean amp may need a mellow rounded dac to make the system perform it's best.
  
 Headphones are like tools, some tools are better than others. Some tools do many things while others are hammers and only do one thing well.
  
 Amps are the same.... and so are dac's too when you think about it.
  
 I'm not saying that a schiit loki can better than a PW mk2, because I don't think it can.
  
 But there can be systems where an aggressive dac makes an otherwise sluggish amp pop into life and really shine.
  
 To objectively say that this dac is better than that dac is to say that everyone has a reference system at home and that all the other components in the signal chain are dead neutral in character. Neither warm, nor cold, nor fast, nor slow.... just dead neutral.
  
 I think we can all agree that such a system does not exist.
  
 Synergy my friends.... it's all about synergy.


----------



## Greed

How astute of you.. I wonder how many times purrin will have to sing the same song.


----------



## magiccabbage

greed said:


> How astute of you.. I wonder how many times purrin will have to sing the same song.


 
 What do you mean? That purrin will have to keep explaining himself because of comments like the one above?


----------



## magiccabbage

Purrin did say at the start - 


> These rankings are largely based on personal preference. They should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Tuco1965

Salted DAC mmm


----------



## TwoEars

greed said:


> How astute of you.. I wonder how many times purrin will have to sing the same song.


 
  
 Oh, I don't expect that at all.
  
 I did say at the beginning of my post that "I personally don't like the idea of ranking dacs" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 That is to say that I value his opinions very much, but I might as well prefer something from the middle of the field in my system. And I'm well aware of that.
  
 Even more useful would actually be a ranking with "smooth, warm, cold, detailed, harsh" etc all on a scale from 1-10. Hard to do objectively I know, but it would be very interesting if you were looking to change your system in some direction.


----------



## Greed

magiccabbage said:


> What do you mean? That purrin will have to keep explaining himself because of comments like the one above?


 
  
 Yes, it has been explained before and is clearly stated in the review. What you quoted can't be interpreted any other way. These are subjective opinions, and thus subjective rankings.


----------



## verber

twoears said:


> I would like to upset everyone (well, not really) and say that I personally don't like the idea of ranking dacs.
> 
> The name of the game is synergy and personal tastes.


 
  
 I can understand your point. First, the rankings (unless done on purely objective measures) will  personal and therefore vary person to person and you have the issue that some people have better taste than others  Second,  as you noted,  the DAC is only one part of the system, so which DAC would make the overall system the "best" will vary depending on the characteristics of the other components.  Even with those caveats, I think trying to rank DACs is useful for several years:
  
 1) Rank can be personalized... by the reader.  Reading others rankings helps me discover / prioritize what might be good for *me*.  How?  When I am hunting for a new component I read reviews of components I have heard myself. I look for people whose reviews reflect what I hear.  and whose stack rank list is similar to mine (of the components we both have tried). When I find someone who wrote reviews I agree with, I figured I have found someone with similar taste.  Things they really like get higher priority, things they dislike get lower priority.
  
 2) We are getting close to being about to objectively evaluate (and built) great amplifier / DACs. I think we have a pretty good idea of the characteristics of a "perfect amplifier" and I think there are numerous products are getting quite close to perfection. I think it's reasonably strait forward to objectively measure what is a good amplifier.  I am sure there are subtleties that  haven't yet been identified / measured, but in time we will be able to identify them and build amplifiers that are close to "perfect".  I think DACs are similar, though a bit tougher / more complicated.  So I think we are approaching the day when objectivism measures of these devices could be substantially driven by objective measures.  20 years ago there was a huge difference between the cheap and the good DACs. These days there are a number of <$300 DACs which are quite good, and the gap between the very best DACs and the pretty good DACs (ignoring those that are garbage) is getting smaller each year.
  
 3) Remember Garbage in, Garbage Out. I personally think the DAC is the wrong place to try and add color.  I think the DAC is the place were one should be looking for maximum fidelity because if you are messing with tone in the DAC, that limits everything downstream. The biggest variable and where getting something perfect, finding objective measurements, etc  seems most illusive is in the headphones (and speakers).  I think this is the place that personal taste comes into play the most because every headphone (and speaker) made today had to make a series of trade-offs.  No amount of variance of the DAC or amplifier will make headphones sounds the same.  I would challenge anyone to try and make the HD800 sound like LCD-X, or HD650, or Grado RS60i.  My personally philosophy is that people need to select headphones whose sound signature, the trade-offs, are most pleasing to them.  Decent DACs and amplifiers will give that sounds to you. Sure, there are synergies, but these are actually pretty minor provided the component is doing a decent job.  
  
 --Mark


----------



## elmoe

verber said:


> I can understand your point. First, the rankings (unless done on purely objective measures) will  personal and therefore vary person to person and you have the issue that some people have better taste than others  Second,  as you noted,  the DAC is only one part of the system, so which DAC would make the overall system the "best" will vary depending on the characteristics of the other components.  Even with those caveats, I think trying to rank DACs is useful for several years:
> 
> 1) Rank can be personalized... by the reader.  Reading others rankings helps me discover / prioritize what might be good for *me*.  How?  When I am hunting for a new component I read reviews of components I have heard myself. I look for people whose reviews reflect what I hear.  and whose stack rank list is similar to mine (of the components we both have tried). When I find someone who wrote reviews I agree with, I figured I have found someone with similar taste.  Things they really like get higher priority, things they dislike get lower priority.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have to disagree there. First of all it's pretty easy to make headphones sound like other headphones - just EQ to the same freq response and they will sound very similar (if not exactly the same). Secondly, synergy is probably the most important factor in picking out gear, in my opinion. You can buy a dac and amp combo costing tens of thousands of dollars that by themselves do a decent job, but will be terrible paired together (I've heard plenty!), I've also heard systems under 1000 dollars that sounded alot better than much more expensive setups because synergy between the components was there.
  
 I agree with you that people should pick headphones first, and build around them, but if you're not careful about which source/amp you're getting, you can end up with a pretty awful sounding setup and quite a few thousands wasted.


----------



## purrin

jakejack_2008 said:


> Hi Purrin,
> 
> My ODAC sounds excellent from my modern Toshiba Satellite (the S-series, released June 2012), so the_ USB power_ is good
> (how good?)  in this particular  case.
> ...


 
  
 I've known people who have gotten very good results from ODAC with tweaked external power. Otherwise I cannot say because I have not tried it myself, batteries or otherwise. My results were wonderful from by big PC USB (where I wouldn't be using the ODAC) and horrible from my laptop USB  (where I would actually use it).


----------



## purrin

elmoe said:


> I agree with you that people should pick headphones first, and build around them, but if you're not careful about which source/amp you're getting, you can end up with a pretty awful sounding setup and quite a few thousands wasted.


 
  
 Picking headphones first is a good way to go. I think once I really got into things, I started to pick amps first. A very specific type of amp. I really don't recommend picking amps or DACs first until you reach level 78 wizard. This is to avoid, as you said, thousands of dollars wasted.


----------



## purrin

BTW, what @verber said.
  
 I think I already said this before buried somewhere: I don't like ranking DACs either, but I decided that not doing so and not putting a personal preference on things would be kind of weak considering that I've attempted to describe specific qualifiers and attributes for each DAC and answered specific questions (e.g. bright vs. dark, synergies, etc.) for each - if asked.


----------



## TwoEars

purrin said:


> Picking headphones first is a good way to go. I think once I really got into things, I started to pick amps first. A very specific type of amp. I really don't recommend picking amps or DACs first until you reach level 78 wizard. This is to avoid, as you said, thousands of dollars wasted.


 
  
 I definitely agree with that.
  
  


purrin said:


> BTW, what @verber said.
> 
> I think I already said this before buried somewhere: I don't like ranking DACs either, but I decided that not doing so and not putting a personal preference on things would be kind of weak considering that I've attempted to describe specific qualifiers and attributes for each DAC and answered specific questions (e.g. bright vs. dark, synergies, etc.) for each - if asked.


 
  
  I did enjoy reading your ranking a lot, thanks for the effort!


----------



## BeyerMonster

First off, thanks for recording your endeavor here for everyone else's benefit. Regardless of the actual findings, the fact that this thread even exists is helpful.
  
 Quote:


purrin said:


> I think I already said this before buried somewhere: I don't like ranking DACs either, but I decided that not doing so and not putting a personal preference on things would be kind of weak considering that I've attempted to describe specific qualifiers and attributes for each DAC and answered specific questions (e.g. bright vs. dark, synergies, etc.) for each - if asked.


 
  
 2 things:
 1) I know it would be a bit of work, but the bright/dark, warm/cold, analytical/natural type comparisons are pretty helpful to prospective buyers who may not have easy access to the products. As such, it would be great if those thoughts could be rolled up into page 1. This is one of those things where a forum thread tends to be a semi-horrible way to organize this information, but we don't really have a good alternative since setting up a wiki to do this would be a lot of work.
 2) Any advice on what to listen for when noticing some of those USB vs non-USB comparisons? I briefly spent some time doing this with a Gen2 Gungnir and a V800 and couldn't really find any specific differences with USB vs non-USB in terms of sound quality. Most differences could be summed up as "USB problems". i.e. certain players made noises on start of a new file, etc.
  
 P.S. Ever listen to a Violectric V800?


----------



## Stapsy

Think of USB input as a transport.  Look for things like background blackness, clarity, resolution, dynamics.  Most of the effects of a USB implementation can be related to reducing jitter and filtering dirty computer power.  It isn't going to change the overall tonality or characteristics of the DAC.  Depending on how resolving the rest of your system is it is easy to miss.
  
 I have also found it takes a bit of experimentation to find tracks that are able to show you those differences.


----------



## TwoEars

I usually also find it really hard to pick out differences between the inputs on a DAC. I think in general the difference between the inputs is much smaller than the change in tonality from one dac to another.
  
 If I can hear a difference between the inputs it's usually "more of a feeling" than an absolute. I have sometimes felt that the USB input of some dacs provide a little bit more mellow and relaxed listening experience, whereas the spdif input are a little bit more dynamic and in your face. It's a very minute difference and if I hadn't experienced on several dac's and several times I could easily have discarded it as placebo. Well.... I still shouldn't discard it completely as placebo but such have been my impressions.
  
 I'm not saying that one is better than the other because that depends on the dac and what you're looking for.


----------



## BeyerMonster

stapsy said:


> Think of USB input as a transport.  Look for things like background blackness, clarity, resolution, dynamics....It isn't going to change the overall tonality or characteristics of the DAC.  Depending on how resolving the rest of your system is it is easy to miss.


 
  
 Maybe I just haven't heard a really bad USB implementation, but I haven't noticed those types of differences between inputs on the 3 outboard DACs I've tried with multiple inputs. I've certainly heard them with different amps and sources, just not from multiple inputs on the same DAC.
 If my particular amps and headphones aren't resolving enough to detect that type of input, I'm happy to chalk that one up as being a non-issue for all practical purposes.
  


stapsy said:


> I have also found it takes a bit of experimentation to find tracks that are able to show you those differences.


 
 I guess that is the thing that I'd actually like to know. If there were particular tracks or types of tracks people were using to find these differences, I'm curious what they are. I think I"ve got a fairly diverse set of tracks I use to demo already, but input switching can be rather painfully tedious.


----------



## Stapsy

It is going to be somewhat system dependent, I did a test last weekend between another USB converter and the OR5 with my PWD. The results were quite similar.  There was a slight raspiness to some vocals that was cleared up with the OR5 and an increase in small details like vocal inflections which overall sounded more real to me.  In a search to obtain optimal sound quality these types of small differences become more noticeable.  It is the difference from saying "wow this sounds awesome" to "I can't tell I am listening to headphones anymore".
  
  
  
 With the Mjolnir and LCD3 I would imagine you could hear differences if they existed. I haven't heard the Mjolnir but the LCD3 was quite resolving.  Part of it is identifying weaknesses in your downstream equipment.  For example I have noticed that HD800s do tend to take on a grainy quality in the midrange when using lower end gear, whereas the Code-X remain quite strong in this area.  It is hard for me to say where you will notice the difference with the LCD3 as I haven't listened to them extensively.
  
  
 Quick changes are alright to identify obvious changes.  In my experience they tend to gloss over more subtle changes.  I would suggest you try the following.  Listen to one input for a couple hours and write down notes about the sound.  Things that jump out at you, things you like, things you don't like, etc for each track. 
  
 The next day do the same thing with another input (don't refer back to your previous notes during this step).  Then compare the notes.  Now go back and try some faster switches.  I have found this makes it easier for me to identify and then validate the things that I hear.  It also gives me a good point of reference when you force yourself to internalize what you hear by writing it down. 
  
 If all else fails just rely on your emotions.  Hearing the OR5 the first time gave me the chills.  Switching cables from Cardas to DHC put a huge smile on my face (and I didn't know which was which).  Sometimes that is the easiest way for me to identify if I hear a difference or not.
  

 Hearing is a skill just like anything else.  It takes time to practice and hone that skill especially when looking at small changes.  You need to give yourself time to adjust to the changes.  My method isn't perfect but it has worked for me.  I don't stress about it though because that would take all the fun out of it.


----------



## BeyerMonster

stapsy said:


> Quick changes are alright to identify obvious changes.  In my experience they tend to gloss over more subtle changes.  I would suggest you try the following.  Listen to one input for a couple hours and write down notes about the sound.  Things that jump out at you, things you like, things you don't like, etc for each track.


 
 This is the approach I usually take, though it's usually more like days or a weekend instead of hours. It's the one I used to decide to demo my latest sets of gear, but I made the mistake of buying 6 new toys at the same time (2 cans, 2 amps, 2 DACs). Technically 4 amps and 4 DACs, but I didn't really evaluate the ALO Pan Am and Modi/Magni at all.
  
 I've always tried to demo audio gear with a relatively wide range of source material, looking for general purpose performers that worked across the board.
  
I guess what I was thinking is that input-handling deficiencies in DAC implementations might generally suffer from the same types of problems and therefore lead to the same types of sonic shortfalls. If so, I was thinking there might be a few go-to tracks that people like for highlighting those types of problems. For the Gungnir + Audeze LCD-3/LCD-XC pairing, I always felt some listener fatigue, but I couldn't put my finger on the cause until I added a few more tracks into my demo suite. Once I found the right track, the offensive characteristics were readily apparent all the time. To my ears, it was not at all subtle.
  
Sometimes 2 weeks sounds like a very long time. Sometimes it doesn't seem like anywhere near enough.


----------



## purrin

beyermonster said:


> 2) Any advice on what to listen for when noticing some of those USB vs non-USB comparisons? I briefly spent some time doing this with a Gen2 Gungnir and a V800 and couldn't really find any specific differences with USB vs non-USB in terms of sound quality. Most differences could be summed up as "USB problems". i.e. certain players made noises on start of a new file, etc.


 

  
 To follow up on what Staps said:
  

Think of it as a *transport/interface combination*. For example USB from macbook and optical from macbook are kind of the same thing since the macbook as a transport actually does have its own sound. Sound's BS'y, but it's true. Even different generations of macbooks have their own sound. My Windows laptop (with most services turned off) sounds different from my desktop computer sounds different from my CD-player, etc.
The only thing about the Gen2 I could say was that is was better than the Gen1 USB = coaxial from the mobo out from the same computer.
Changes could be anything. Less grain, less digititus, warmer more liquid presentation, more open, more extraction of low level information, better separation / layering, etc.
On most DACs, the changes were small. The only DAC where USB / non-USB / transport made a huge difference was the AGD-M7.
  
  


beyermonster said:


> 2 things:
> 1) I know it would be a bit of work, but the bright/dark, warm/cold, analytical/natural type comparisons are pretty helpful to prospective buyers who may not have easy access to the products. As such, it would be great if those thoughts could be rolled up into page 1. This is one of those things where a forum thread tends to be a semi-horrible way to organize this information, but we don't really have a good alternative since setting up a wiki to do this would be a lot of work.


 

  
 I've done this with smaller sets of DACs (4-5) at a time. It's out on the Internet somewhere, just not here. Just too much of a clusterfk to do so with 25+ different combinations. Also, this round of comparisons is over since I've changed my amp, added a headphone, and built new speakers. I guess I'll have to start a new one and will keep the matrix approach in mind.


----------



## TwoEars

beyermonster said:


> This is the approach I usually take, though it's usually more like days or a weekend instead of hours.


 
  
 I think this sounds like an interesting idea, I tend to want to swap a little to often listening for differences.
  
 I actually got a new DAC just yesterday...  and I think I might try this opposite approach for once, just plug it in and listen to music and not even care about listening for differences. After a 2-3 days I might switch back to my old DAC and we'll see.
  
 Carefree and non-analytical but looking for musical enjoyment, could work.


----------



## BeyerMonster

twoears said:


> I think this sounds like an interesting idea, I tend to want to swap a little to often listening for differences.
> 
> I actually got a new DAC just yesterday...  and I think I might try this opposite approach for once, just plug it in and listen to music and not even care about listening for differences. After a 2-3 days I might switch back to my old DAC and we'll see.
> 
> Carefree and non-analytical but looking for musical enjoyment, could work.


 
 I would say I try to focus on the sound itself, and not specifically differences(Schrödinger's cat). While I do try to focus on musical enjoyment, I wouldn't say that I purposely avoid trying to be analytical in my approach. If/when I think I find differences, I might do some A/B swapping to go back and confirm later.
  
 My local hi-fi shop is actually the one that recommended the approach as they let me take stuff home when they close on Sat if I bring it back on Tuesday (They're closed Sun/Mon). It's really useful for getting past the novelty factor of new changes. For example, what sounds as "more accurate or analytical" can turn into thin/glaring/harsh if you listen for more than a few hours over a wide rang of content. The end goal is usually to find gear that sounds best over a long period of ownership, not the ones that sound best only in 5 minute A/B tests.


----------



## TwoEars

Schrödinger's cat 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Always fun when you can mix quantum theory into one of your hobbies. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 But yes, this sounds like a good idea. I'll give it a go.
  
 BTW - when it comes to quantum theory there are two kinds of people. Those who don't understand it, and those who think they understand it. But upon closer inspection both groups frequently change their mind.
  
 Old physics joke.


----------



## wink

I always apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle when I'm auditioning gear.
  
 I'm uncertain as to whether the thing sounds better until I had bought it.
 I'm uncertain whether the thing was worth the money until I had bought it.
 I'm uncertain if it sounds better than my other gear until I had listened to it for at least a couple of days.
 I'm incertain if burn-in is real until I get used to the way the thing sounds.
 I'm uncertain whether I really inderstand what I'm hearing.
 I'm uncertain whether this makes any sense at all..
  
 But, what I am certain about is that I like all my gear except the AT W5000 which sound more coloured than a childrens' art class.


----------



## Eee Pee

"I'm uncertain whether this makes any sense at all..."
  
 Such is life.  
  
 ...


----------



## magiccabbage

wink said:


> I always apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle when I'm auditioning gear.
> 
> I'm uncertain as to whether the thing sounds better until I had bought it.
> I'm uncertain whether the thing was worth the money until I had bought it.
> ...


 
 here is a  laughing donkey, he thought that was very funny indeed ¬


----------



## TwoEars

I'll give you another one.
  
_"It has become appallingly obvious that our high-end equipment has exceeded our ability of hearing"_​  
 Should be a relatively easy catch. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I think I'll make that my sig for a while.. lol.


----------



## wink

Quote:TwoEars 





> Schrödinger's cat


 
 Yeah, These forums are like Schrodinger's cat.
 You can read all the posts as much as you like, and audition what you want at a meet or shop etc., but you don't really know what you've bought until after you've opened your own box.
  
 It is only after you integrate the item into your system and get accustomed to the whole shebang that you can determine whether the cat is alive, or you have yourself a pig in a poke........


----------



## kkcc

> Originally Posted by *Greed* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> For Sale: FS: Audio-gd Master 7 (Upgraded BNC - Neutrino Clocks and DACLadder HDMI Mod)
> $1,985 (USD)


 
  
 Just noticed from your sig you're selling your M7.  What's the next DAC you're setting your sight on?


----------



## TwoEars

wink said:


> Yeah, These forums are like Schrodinger's cat.
> You can read all the posts as much as you like, and audition what you want at a meet or shop etc., but you don't really know what you've bought until after you've opened your own box.
> 
> It is only after you integrate the item into your system and get accustomed to the whole shebang that you can determine whether the cat is alive, or you have yourself a pig in a poke........


 
  
 Wise words.
  
 I like to compare it to cars.. You can ask "what is the best car in the world" but it quickly becomes a pointless question because there are so many possible answers. Is it the cheapest car? The most reliable car? the fastest car? the most comfortable car? etc etc....


----------



## Greed

kkcc said:


> Just noticed from your sig you're selling your M7.  What's the next DAC you're setting your sight on?


 
  
 Still deciding but I have a Bricasti M1 on order via a local dealer.


----------



## ericr

Hi all,
  
 Recently I've acquired an Uber Bifrost (w USB gen 2) and an ODAC with RCA out, and would like to do some A/B comparisons.  Using RCA "Y" splitter cables, can I connect both DACs to my amp at the same time and quickly switch between the two by selecting one or the other as the output in Foobar?  Or will they electrically mess with one another (or my amp)?
  
 No guessing please.
  
  
 Thanks!


----------



## ericr

The *AMB Gamma2 *also looks interesting, but noticed it lacks Async USB.  Does that matter?


----------



## purrin

ericr said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Recently I've acquired an Uber Bifrost (w USB gen 2) and an ODAC with RCA out, and would like to do some A/B comparisons.  Using RCA "Y" splitter cables, can I connect both DACs to my amp at the same time and quickly switch between the two by selecting one or the other as the output in Foobar?  Or will they electrically mess with one another (or my amp)?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Don't do that. Use a cheap A/V switch instead: http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=396491
  


ericr said:


> The *AMB Gamma2 *also looks interesting, but noticed it lacks Async USB.  Does that matter?


 
  
 At the price point (used or DIY), it doesn't matter. I've heard worse USB solutions. Buzzwords are just that.


----------



## ericr

purrin said:


> Don't do that. Use a cheap A/V switch instead: http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=396491


 
 Great, thanks for the feedback.  There's one in stock at the RS down the street from my office - I'll pick it up tomorrow.
  
 Also, for anyone else interested here is a corrected link (the original is missing the last digit):
  
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3964910


----------



## hans030390

I tested a Gamma2 that had the ASRC bypassed (worth trying if you don't need "HD" music capabilities), and I used the USB input. I thought it was an awesome DAC in that config. Blew me away for the size and price.


----------



## yfei

ericr said:


> Great, thanks for the feedback.  There's one in stock at the RS down the street from my office - I'll pick it up tomorrow.
> Also, for anyone else interested here is a corrected link (the original is missing the last digit):
> http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3964910


 
  
 I have tried a no brand RCA switch, not the same one as you listed.  I bought it for $29 from Target or RS, I forgot.   The one I tried was not good, it blurred the sound, makes $1000 DAC sounds like computer sound card, and worse than my mobile phone's output.   Returned immediately.
  
 You can first try to compare the sound with vs without the RCA switch.  If can't spot any difference, then the switch is good enough, go ahead with A/B test.
 Hope this RS brand switch is good.


----------



## ericr

Of course using a switch also means buying another pair of $1000 RCA interconnects.


----------



## d4nim4l

Purrin, I am curious what you think of Audio GD's implementation of the Sabre 9018 and Wolfson 8741 chips in any of their other DACs you may have experience with?


----------



## magiccabbage

I am looking forward to the YGG vs Chord Hugo impressions. I wonder if the YGG will be in the same playing field. Some people are even saying that the Hugo is as good if not better than the Audio GD M7! I hope the YGG is up there also but i suppose only time will tell. 
  
  
 Purrin have you heard the Hugo? Maybe you could say if it is close to the M7?


----------



## purrin

The Hugo is extremely mediocre. While it's not class S, it simply won't make any part of this the list. Not worth mentioning.
  
 The M7, even with its crappy built-in USB, especially with the recent firmware upgrades, is better. Heck, even the AK120 (old ones with the Wolfson chips) is better than the Hugo. Some people like the Chord house sound though.


----------



## purrin

d4nim4l said:


> Purrin, I am curious what you think of Audio GD's implementation of the Sabre 9018 and Wolfson 8741 chips in any of their other DACs you may have experience with?


 
  
 Have not hard the Wolfson AG-Ds. Thought NFB-7.2? was a solid SABRE implementation, but Vega was better (and also much more expensive). It's hard for me to say because I don't like the SABRE.


----------



## kkcc

purrin said:


> Heck, even the AK120 (old ones with the Wolfson chips) is better than the Hugo. Some people like the Chord house sound though.




I like the Hugo as a portable dac/amp, definitely sounded a lot better than my ak240 either as a DAC only or as DAC/amp. And I much prefer my ak240 over my (now sold) ak120... to me the Hugo has better resolution and clarity, fuller sound, better defined note articulation, and overall more enjoyable than the AKs. Not sure if I like the "chord hose sound" as I didn't care for the cute ex or qbd76 and thought Hugo sound quite different then either. Just my 2c.

Re desktop comparison, there are some hype going on saying it challenge many different makes/models and I certainly don't buy into that. Though interesting enough some PS audio owners place it between pwd2 (worse) and the directstream (better), and plenty of Naim owners switching camps.


----------



## purrin

I far preferred the AK120 (wolfson) to the AK240 which I felt was huge huge step backwards in terms of microdynamics. The AK240 sounded dull, flat, and boring. I hate the AK240. I wouldn't use the AK240 even if someone gave it to me for free. In fact, I would probably smash it with a hammer, burn it, and make a youtube video of that to prove how much I hated it.
  
 As for the Chord house sound, I'm referring to a particular tonal balance (kind of hard to describe) which seems to be common among them; although I agree the Cute, others definitely have a different timbral presentation, not a good one, particularly in the treble. The Hugo's greatest asset was that it didn't do anything to sound nasty. While the Hugo may be an improvement over the AK240 in terms of focus and precision, I found it just as flat and boring. Flat and boring is one of the biggest deal killers for me, along with SABRE treble digititus. Of course I've be damned if I found out the Hugo uses the SABRE.


----------



## kkcc

purrin said:


> I far preferred the AK120 (wolfson) to the AK240 which I felt was huge huge step backwards in terms of microdynamics. The AK240 sounded dull, flat, and boring. I hate the AK240. I wouldn't use the AK240 even if someone gave it to me for free. In fact, I would probably smash it with a hammer, burn it, and make a youtube video of that to prove how much I hated it.




Yup I guess we all have different preferences. I also wasn't a fan of the cirrus logic on my 6003 and didn't thought I would like the ak240 when it was first announced. 

Also reading thru your comprehensive impressions it makes sense you would prefer the Wolfson 8740 sound over the cirrus logics, or even the Hugo.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> I far preferred the AK120 (wolfson) to the AK240 which I felt was huge huge step backwards in terms of microdynamics. The AK240 sounded dull, flat, and boring. I hate the AK240. I wouldn't use the AK240 even if someone gave it to me for free. In fact, I would probably smash it with a hammer, burn it, and make a youtube video of that to prove how much I hated it.
> 
> As for the Chord house sound, I'm referring to a particular tonal balance (kind of hard to describe) which seems to be common among them; although I agree the Cute, others definitely have a different timbral presentation, not a good one, particularly in the treble. The Hugo's greatest asset was that it didn't do anything to sound nasty. While the Hugo may be an improvement over the AK240 in terms of focus and precision, I found it just as flat and boring. Flat and boring is one of the biggest deal killers for me, along with SABRE treble digititus. Of course I've be damned if I found out the Hugo uses the SABRE.


 
 nothing if not opinionated. I like it.


----------



## hans030390

Audio-GD's Wolfson-based DACs should be solid performers, and I like that some offer selectable digital filters (big strength of the Wolfson DACs). But don't overlook the Gamma2 either, if you want a Wolfson DAC.


----------



## Hutnicks

wink said:


> I always apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle when I'm auditioning gear.
> 
> I'm uncertain as to whether the thing sounds better until I had bought it.
> I'm uncertain whether the thing was worth the money until I had bought it.
> ...


 

 Or you could use the Schodingers Cat principle. It's absolutley perfect, until you take it out of the box.


----------



## wink

> Or you could use the Schodingers Cat principle. It's absolutley perfect, until you take it out of the box.


 
 It's more like - you don't know what you've got until you take it out of the box.
  
 I like Bernoulli's Lift Theorem being applied to music to give it an extra kick.
  
 It works like a charm on everything except a funeral march and Wagner's Ring Cycle. Nothing can help Wagner...........


----------



## Armaegis

wink said:


> It works like a charm on everything except a funeral march and Wagner's Ring Cycle. Nothing can help Wagner...........


 
  
 Except Elmer Fudd...


----------



## 62ohm

Hi guys, I'm currently looking for a new DAC, which one of these do you think is the better value?
  
 (local price - NZD)
 NAD D1050 - $800
 Benchmark DAC1 USB - $900
 Arcam irDAC - $900
 Musical Fidelity M1 DAC - $1,000
  
 I'm looking for a DAC that focuses on detail retrieval & add some aggressiveness system, not a laid-back DAC. Which one of these fits the criteria? Thanks


----------



## xored

62ohm said:


> Hi guys, I'm currently looking for a new DAC, which one of these do you think is the better value?
> 
> (local price - NZD)
> NAD D1050 - $800
> ...



Get the benchmark dac 1 on maybe the audiolab mdac, both have the same sound signature, with the mdac being more aggressive


----------



## 62ohm

xored said:


> 62ohm said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys, I'm currently looking for a new DAC, which one of these do you think is the better value?
> ...




Audiolab M-Dac costs $1,700 here, so it's out I guess..


----------



## HelmetGuy

62ohm said:


> Hi guys, I'm currently looking for a new DAC, which one of these do you think is the better value?
> 
> (local price - NZD)
> NAD D1050 - $800
> ...


 
 I've heard the M1 DAC and IMO it's a smooth, laid back DAC.
  
 Do you need optical and balanced outputs? If not, consider also the Resonessence Labs Concero for $900.


----------



## 62ohm

helmetguy said:


> 62ohm said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys, I'm currently looking for a new DAC, which one of these do you think is the better value?
> ...


 
  
 I do in fact, need an optical input, which is why my choices are kinda limited. Not so much for the balanced outputs though as numerous people have said that it makes little to no difference..
  
 It is surprising to hear that the M1 DAC sounds laid back. WhatHiFi described the M1 DAC as "A touch of top-end aggression: needs careful system matching", while many other also said that the M1 DAC sounds a bit laid back. I don't really want a laid back DAC 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 What about the other candidates, have you heard them?


----------



## HelmetGuy

62ohm said:


> I do in fact, need an optical input, which is why my choices are kinda limited. Not so much for the balanced outputs though as numerous people have said that it makes little to no difference..
> 
> It is surprising to hear that the M1 DAC sounds laid back. WhatHiFi described the M1 DAC as "A touch of top-end aggression: needs careful system matching", while many other also said that the M1 DAC sounds a bit laid back. I don't really want a laid back DAC
> 
> ...


 
 I would take What Hifi's reviews with a very large grain of salt...
  
 I haven't heard any of the other DACs but I do notice that all are available to demo locally. Hearing these DACs for yourself may be your best bet.


----------



## elmoe

62ohm said:


> I do in fact, need an optical input, which is why my choices are kinda limited. Not so much for the balanced outputs though as numerous people have said that it makes little to no difference..
> 
> It is surprising to hear that the M1 DAC sounds laid back. WhatHiFi described the M1 DAC as "A touch of top-end aggression: needs careful system matching", while many other also said that the M1 DAC sounds a bit laid back. I don't really want a laid back DAC
> 
> ...


 
  
 I can vouch for the Benchmark being a very detailed DAC. If you're looking to pair a DAC with a tube amp, it's a good choice.


----------



## 62ohm

elmoe said:


> 62ohm said:
> 
> 
> > I do in fact, need an optical input, which is why my choices are kinda limited. Not so much for the balanced outputs though as numerous people have said that it makes little to no difference..
> ...


 
  
 What intrigues me the most is why in Stereophile's 2013 recommended DAC, the Benchmark DAC-1 gets categorized as 'Class A', while other DACs like the Musical Fidelity M1 DAC and the Rega DAC gets categorized as 'Class B'. I read numerous post that states the ODAC sounds the same as the Benchmark, would it be a big mistake for me if I go for the Benchmark DAC-1?
  
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/2013-recommended-components-digital-processors


----------



## elmoe

62ohm said:


> What intrigues me the most is why in Stereophile's 2013 recommended DAC, the Benchmark DAC-1 gets categorized as 'Class A', while other DACs like the Musical Fidelity M1 DAC and the Rega DAC gets categorized as 'Class B'. I read numerous post that states the ODAC sounds the same as the Benchmark, would it be a big mistake for me if I go for the Benchmark DAC-1?
> 
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/2013-recommended-components-digital-processors


 
  
 I haven't heard the ODAC personally, but I seriously doubt it can compete with the DAC1. Don't give too much credit to what stereophile says, I personally rarely agree with them. Plenty of people will tell you plenty of different things.
  
 The fact most can agree on is that the DAC1 is a very bright DAC, with top class measurements making it an industry standard for professionals. I'm very happy with mine, I've had it for ~8 years and after demo'ing quite a few DACs I can honestly say that it won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
  
 Also, the resale value of a DAC1 is quite good compared to most DACs, something to keep in mind.


----------



## purrin

62ohm said:


> What intrigues me the most is why in Stereophile's 2013 recommended DAC, the Benchmark DAC-1 gets categorized as 'Class A', while other DACs like the Musical Fidelity M1 DAC and the Rega DAC gets categorized as 'Class B'. I read numerous post that states the ODAC sounds the same as the Benchmark, would it be a big mistake for me if I go for the Benchmark DAC-1?
> 
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/2013-recommended-components-digital-processors


 
  
 Stereophile in the past 15 years has had a process of democratization in order to please sponsors and let owners feel good about themselves. It would be like if I put the top two classifications of my own DAC comparison into Class A, put "Beyond Classification DACs" into class B, and made Class S into Class C.
  
 BTW just heard two PS Audio Directstream DACs on two different systems including one with an EC2A3mk4 which I am familiar with. Don't bother. If you like that kind of sound, the Vega is far superior. There is a reason why so many people are selling them.


----------



## boatheelmusic

purrin said:


> Stereophile in the past 15 years has had a process of democratization in order to please sponsors and let owners feel good about themselves. It would be like if I put the top two classifications of my own DAC comparison into Class A, put "Beyond Classification DACs" into class B, and made Class S into Class C.
> 
> BTW just heard two PS Audio Directstream DACs on two different systems including one with an EC2A3mk4 which I am familiar with. Don't bother. If you like that kind of sound, the Vega is far superior. There is a reason why so many people are selling them."
> 
> ...


----------



## purrin

What or why or how many? Been approached by two people I know if I was interested. Also been seeing a a few on the 'gon.
  
 As to why, I would have to assume they bought into the marketing and ended up not liking it.


----------



## boatheelmusic

thanks, I must say I've been delighted with the PWD II.


----------



## purrin

Let's say it sounds like a PWD1 tonally (upper-mid emphasis) and somehow got flatter and less involving on the microdynamic level. The only plus is smoother. And sub-low bass is missing. PSA seems to have taken one step forward and three steps backward.
  
 I actually preferred the Hugo to the PSA DSD. The Hugo is OK. But I still want to destroy one and film it on youtube because of how much it costs.


----------



## purrin

Oh and I forgot. Kind of crazy to recommend this:
  
 Wyrd + Modi = astoundingly good DAC for the price. It's like 1+1=3. Bifrost/uber/gen2 is better still, but that's more than x2 the price. Yes, I'm crazy to recommend a $99 Wyrd for a cheap $99 DAC, but the Modi really benefits from it, whether it be the better USB power or USB reclocking, I do not know. More details later.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ That's the kind of crazy that's good to hear


----------



## Turn&cough

purrin said:


> The Hugo is extremely mediocre. While it's not class S, it simply won't make any part of this the list. Not worth mentioning.
> 
> The M7, even with its crappy built-in USB, especially with the recent firmware upgrades, is better. Heck, even the AK120 (old ones with the Wolfson chips) is better than the Hugo. Some people like the Chord house sound though.


 
 I'm surprised that the Hugo is mediocre. I've read almost unanimous raving regarding it. I was even considering getting one despite what I consider to be a mental amount of outlay for a DAC.
  
 So now that I've defeated the 2.5K psychological barrier - if not the Hugo or M7 then what?


----------



## Maxvla

I also think the Hugo is overrated. It is decent for what it is, a transportable all-in-one. Better casing and less voodoo controls would be nice.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

purrin said:


> Oh and I forgot. Kind of crazy to recommend this:
> 
> Wyrd + Modi = astoundingly good DAC for the price. It's like 1+1=3. Bifrost/uber/gen2 is better still, but that's more than x2 the price. Yes, I'm crazy to recommend a $99 Wyrd for a cheap $99 DAC, but the Modi really benefits from it, whether it be the better USB power or USB reclocking, I do not know. More details later.




Thank You!!! Happy to hear someone with immaculate standing make that statement... Very happily using a Wyrd/Modi combination, caught a bit of flack about it, but I trust my ears..it is an excellent combination, punches way above it's class....also share your views on Sabre Kit, no thanks.


----------



## kothganesh

purrin said:


> Oh and I forgot. Kind of crazy to recommend this:
> 
> Wyrd + Modi = astoundingly good DAC for the price. It's like 1+1=3. Bifrost/uber/gen2 is better still, but that's more than x2 the price. Yes, I'm crazy to recommend a $99 Wyrd for a cheap $99 DAC, but the Modi really benefits from it, whether it be the better USB power or USB reclocking, I do not know. More details later.


 
 By extrapolation, do you think the Wyrd helps the Biftost Uber W/Gen 2 and/or the Gungnir? Thanks.


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> The Hugo is extremely mediocre. While it's not class S, it simply won't make any part of this the list. Not worth mentioning.
> 
> The M7, even with its crappy built-in USB, especially with the recent firmware upgrades, is better. Heck, even the AK120 (old ones with the Wolfson chips) is better than the Hugo. Some people like the Chord house sound though.


 
  
 I left the M7 on for over 4 hours before comparing it to the Hugo, and the latter had better detail retrieval while still maintaining a "natural" presentation of voices and instruments. 
  


purrin said:


> I far preferred the AK120 (wolfson) to the AK240 which I felt was huge huge step backwards in terms of microdynamics. The AK240 sounded dull, flat, and boring. I hate the AK240. I wouldn't use the AK240 even if someone gave it to me for free. In fact, I would probably smash it with a hammer, burn it, and make a youtube video of that to prove how much I hated it.
> 
> As for the Chord house sound, I'm referring to a particular tonal balance (kind of hard to describe) which seems to be common among them; although I agree the Cute, others definitely have a different timbral presentation, not a good one, particularly in the treble. The Hugo's greatest asset was that it didn't do anything to sound nasty. While the Hugo may be an improvement over the AK240 in terms of focus and precision, I found it just as flat and boring. Flat and boring is one of the biggest deal killers for me, along with SABRE treble digititus. Of course I've be damned if I found out the Hugo uses the SABRE.


 
  
 The Chord units do definitely have something of a weird presentation. I think it has to do with the output. Sometimes it can sound dark, sometimes bright, depending what is plugged in. "Flat and boring" to me are the bad Sabre implementations and definitely not the Hugo and especially not with the Audiophilleo feeding it. The DAC2 in a shop was one. I need to audition that again under better circumstances as it sounded awful. It might have been a fresh-out-of-the-box unit though given the timing (not long after it was announced).


----------



## hans030390

FWIW, I was left fairly unimpressed when I had the PSA PWD MK1 on hand. It sounded pretty good (not my favorite) and measured very well in most regards, but I was overall left with the impression that PSA didn't really know what they were doing with DACs relative to what many other individuals and companies were putting out. I have numerous reasons for this that, as I said, go beyond how it sounded or measured. To me, they seem like another audio company that excels at getting people to spend more than they should on audio products due to pretty marketing. Not enough "real substance" there for me. I would not be surprised at all if their new DSD DAC truly isn't that good, as unfortunate as that sounds.
  


turn&cough said:


> I'm surprised that the Hugo is mediocre. I've read almost unanimous raving regarding it.


 
  
 Are you _really_ surprised? It seems everywhere I turn, every DAC is getting rave reviews somewhere. Everything is awesome! Except, not really. The reasons why most audio products get better reviews and more positive responses than they should are too numerous and complicated for me to adequately spell out.


----------



## Turn&cough

hans030390 said:


> FWIW, I was left fairly unimpressed when I had the PSA PWD MK1 on hand. It sounded pretty good (not my favorite) and measured very well in most regards, but I was overall left with the impression that PSA didn't really know what they were doing with DACs relative to what many other individuals and companies were putting out. I have numerous reasons for this that, as I said, go beyond how it sounded or measured. To me, they seem like another audio company that excels at getting people to spend more than they should on audio products due to pretty marketing. Not enough "real substance" there for me. I would not be surprised at all if their new DSD DAC truly isn't that good, as unfortunate as that sounds.
> 
> 
> Are you _really_ surprised? It seems everywhere I turn, every DAC is getting rave reviews somewhere. Everything is awesome! Except, not really. The reasons why most audio products get better reviews and more positive responses than they should are too numerous and complicated for me to adequately spell out.


 

 That's why I've been hanging on to my long in the tooth EE Minimax. Each time a new FOTM appears everybody gets stiff nipples and jumps on the bandwagon.
 I fell for it a few times myself. A few weeks later it gets nitpicked to death and everybody moves on to the next FOTM. I thought the Chord was different (game changer) but apparently not - on this forum at least.


----------



## kothganesh

turn&cough said:


> That's why I've been hanging on to my long in the tooth EE Minimax. Each time a new FOTM appears everybody gets stiff nipples and jumps on the bandwagon.
> I fell for it a few times myself. A few weeks later it gets nitpicked to death and everybody moves on to the next FOTM. I thought the Chord was different (game changer) but apparently not - on this forum at least.


 
 Oh yeah, and that's why I upgraded my regular Bifrost to the Uber/Gen 2 and refuse to part with the Gungnir. I'm also glad both of them are well-liked on this forum as well.


----------



## purrin

kothganesh said:


> By extrapolation, do you think the Wyrd helps the Biftost Uber W/Gen 2 and/or the Gungnir? Thanks.


 
  
 Yes, Wyrd definitely helps Gungnir, but the jump is not huge like it is on the Modi. Heck, I've even put one in front of my OR5. The results are subtle, but easily worth $99.
  


currawong said:


> I left the M7 on for over 4 hours before comparing it to the Hugo, and the latter had better detail retrieval while still maintaining a "natural" presentation of voices and instruments.
> 
> 
> The Chord units do definitely have something of a weird presentation. I think it has to do with the output. Sometimes it can sound dark, sometimes bright, depending what is plugged in. "Flat and boring" to me are the bad Sabre implementations and definitely not the Hugo and especially not with the Audiophilleo feeding it. The DAC2 in a shop was one. I need to audition that again under better circumstances as it sounded awful. It might have been a fresh-out-of-the-box unit though given the timing (not long after it was announced).


 
  
 Compared to the M7 via USB or coax, I might have to say the Hugo was better at detail presentation and tonal balance, i.e. without the bass mud, but the M7 was still smoother and more liquid. The Hugo still maintained a slight hint of that "sigma-delta"ish treble signature. So in terms of naturalness, it was one step forward and one step back. As you said, it's sometimes hard to put your finger on the Chord sound. Sometimes it can sound nasty bright, lean and thin, other times pretty darn good with some warmth.
  
 As far as the flat and boring thing, that statement was more in the context of comparison to the AK240 and using the headamp outputs. However much I don't like the AK240 for being flat and boring relative to the AK120, the Hugo sucks even more when used for driving IEMs or headphones. Even then, when compared to other DACs I really like such the the Vega, PWD1->2 or Schiit DACs, including the lowest-end Wyrd+Modi, the Hugo is more compressed dynamically. The Hugo sounds good, but it doesn't draw me in to the music. And that's a serious problem for me, especially at $2500 (USD). Sure something like the Vega is $3500, but the Vega wholly on another level compared to the Hugo. $1k more isn't a major consideration at that level. The Hugo is in the same playing field as the X-Sabre, Gungnir, Bifrost, M51, etc.
  
 I've never had a chance to plug in the Hugo to a good USB converter, so it's likely I haven't heard it at its full potential.


----------



## Turn&cough

The Hugo's USB implementation is supposed to be excellent. So, unless it's a crazy expensive one, I doubt a converter would be a major performance boost.


----------



## Mortalcoil

purrin, any chance you will have an opportunity to test the upcoming Berkley Alpha Reference?  Most likely going to be a megabuck unit.
  
 Not out yet but would like to see your take on it.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Good morning all. Can someone pleae send me a link to where the hugo and DS is deeds cussed here. As I understand purring view on this but would like to read and comment 
Al


----------



## john1711

I am so glad to have discovered this thread's discussion on the Chord Hugo.  Was on the brink of buying it 2 days ago.  Now I am seriously reconsidering since I am extremely satisfied with the HM901 and Altmann Tera.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

As I own the hugo but not the others. But I do know of them . The others a re daps where the hugo is not. Regarding sound the hugo is pretty damn good all around and does pcm better than dad as well.


----------



## john1711

The Tera is brilliant.  Compact, fuss free and delivers sound that when paired correctly is actually better than the HM901.  Too bad about the current price though.  It costs more than the Hugo.  But when I think about Charles hand assembling each unit, I appreciate the labour cost of making something that is not mass produced and that makes the price a little bit easier to swallow.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Let's start by stating playback formats. Do any of them play dsd and to what resolution pcm ? 
For me if no dsd no deal .
Al


----------



## magiccabbage

alrainbow said:


> Let's start by stating playback formats. Do any of them play dsd and to what resolution pcm ?
> For me if no dsd no deal .
> Al


 
 Just as a matter of interest - what player do you use for DSD Al?


----------



## ALRAINBOW

I only own one dap now the hibino hdpr10. 
I did own a ak120 and had the ak240 for a couple of weeks. 
I now use the hugo with the hibino or iphone 5. Paired with the iphone it does dsd 128 and all of pcm as well. It's the best sounding portible I have heard . It even is better than a few desktops I owned or had. 

I am not pushing the hugo as it's not a dap anyway. But I use it daily and it does well with ciems. 

Al


----------



## john1711

I have many SACDs for which I cannot buy the downloads online. DSD playback is on a PLAYBACK DESIGNS MPS-5 for me. I use my desktop set-up as a reference benchmark. And the Tera gives me easily 90% of that. I have some high res wav downloads from HD Tracks but the selection is not as wide as red book CDs. Just listening to the tracks I enjoy, Tera just nails it for me. And with the Toneflake Bialbero Epsilon S as a transportable amp, it is so satisfying that a desktop set-up becomes close to redundant.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Post links to the products please it's stuff I have heard of but not seen anyone with 
Thanks 
Al


----------



## magiccabbage

I have gotten some DSD files and am wondering if there is a player for my laptop that i can use. I usually stick to foobar, maybe there is a download for foobar that allows DSD? 
  
 If anyone knows of any players that i can buy and download I would appreciate it. 
  
 Sorry if this is off topic


----------



## john57

yes just google foobar2000 DSD.
  
 http://www.audiostream.com/content/how-play-dsd-file-using-foobar2000


----------



## magiccabbage

john57 said:


> yes just google foobar2000 DSD.
> 
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/how-play-dsd-file-using-foobar2000


 
 thanks man  - I really appreciate it.


----------



## SearchOfSub

AL, have you heard the Exasound e22?


----------



## SearchOfSub

Has anyone heard the Exasound e22? Really trying to decide between the exa and the Auralic Vega...


----------



## ALRAINBOW

No I have not heard any of the ex astound line. It is something I would like to hear though.
Al


----------



## purrin

Added three DACs at the very end of the first post:
  
 Schiit Wyrd/Modi
 Chord Hugo
 PSA DSD


----------



## Byrnie

purrin said:


> Added three DACs at the very end of the first post:
> 
> Schiit Wyrd/Modi
> Chord Hugo
> PSA DSD



Nice! Thanks for updating this Purrin. What a great resource.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> Added three DACs at the very end of the first post:
> 
> Schiit Wyrd/Modi
> Chord Hugo
> PSA DSD


 
 I like what you had to say about the Hugo. For some reason I thought that you would slaughter it but you went easy enough. The Hugo is the best DAC I have heard to date. I like it a lot more than the NAD M51 although I haven't tried the NAD balanced. 
  
  
 Really looking forward to hearing your opinion on the Schiit YGG when it comes out. I'm hoping its a whopper myself. 
  
  
 Oh I have been meaning to ask if you have heard any of the Lampizator DAC's? It would be interesting to see how they would stack up against the rest on his thread.


----------



## Stereolab42

magiccabbage said:


> I like what you had to say about the Hugo. For some reason I thought that you would slaughter it but you went easy enough. The Hugo is the best DAC I have heard to date. I like it a lot more than the NAD M51 although I haven't tried the NAD balanced.


 
  
 Shows how much opinions vary... I think the Hugo is one of the worst DACs I've ever heard. It looks to be the Ultrasone/Grado of the DAC industry...


----------



## purrin

magiccabbage said:


> Oh I have been meaning to ask if you have heard any of the Lampizator DAC's? It would be interesting to see how they would stack up against the rest on his thread.


 
  
 I've heard three different Lampis (4, and two Big 5s I believe), and they seem to be all over the place. None of them sounded exactly the same. It irks me that there are so many models too, making straight comparisons impossible, i.e. "which Lampi?" Then there's the issue of tube rolling - there are a lot of options and tubes to roll inside. Supposedly the OR5 helps tremendously. One thing I feel pretty confident about saying is that the analog tube section is fantastic. However, the DAC sections either sounded mediocre (and hence why I suspect the OR5 would help tremendously) or pretty darn good but with showstopper type warts.
  
 As things stand, I wouldn't recommend the 4 or the Big 5 to friends, unless they are the type that wouldn't mind spending an additional X amount of tubes, tweaking with caps, etc. You may be just as well off buying a cheapo DCX2496, wiring in a boutique clock board, and connecting the output directly from the DAC chips to a tube amp like the BA. I do wonder why there have been four Lampis on sale for quite a while now on the 'gon.


----------



## SearchOfSub

Hello purrin, what DAC would you recommed for 3k? I am really looking at the Auralic Vega but who knows there might be something better out there at the moment..


----------



## SoupRKnowva

searchofsub said:


> Hello purrin, what DAC would you recommed for 3k? I am really looking at the Auralic Vega but who knows there might be something better out there at the moment..



My guess, just looking at the list. A used master 7 and a used or5 fits that bill


----------



## SearchOfSub

It seems like from the review he prefers PWD MK2 over the Auralic Vega... 

I do want to hear the Master 7 but my listening will come mostly from transport so OR5 etc wont b3 any good..

If Purrin can only do a update using stock inputs like coax or optical through the same transport, it realy would be outstanding for all types of audiophilles who dosent just use a usb or computer to listen to music..

But again, Pwd mk2 over Auralic Vega.. what?

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Both the M7 and the PWD mkii need an offramp,or AP1/PP. TO sound there best. Without them it's very different . So I think he is making the best observation possible . 
Regarding his lampi comments he is correct lampi,s all sound different even if it's the same model. I had a level 4 and two level 5 for a while and they all were very different although they all had a house sound at the same time. And he is also correct in tube rolling. This changes them drastically in some cases. I presently own a B7 and love it. For now I have the stock tubes being used they are very good tubes to start with . The tube sound is not tubby but there is something tubes add to the sound that gets you more involved In the music . Where I do differ is the Pwd over the new DS I much prefure the new dac . To me the old dac was too heavy at least with headphones anyway. The new dac is more like the lampi and the msb stack I have . I like hyper deatils and microphonics. As the pwdmkii had this it was not at the level of the others I a mention. Again choice is also a big factor of what we end up with . And by choice I mean what we as indivuals like and go towards . I much prefure the DS to the Hugo I feel the DS is much more refined . But again choice comes into this. With iems the choice gets blurred as they just have much less. Resolution and does not reveil the whole picture in sound. Hesdphones do a much better job atleast the hyper detailed ones example hd800 over a LCD can. For me only speakers give us a true image to judge devices by with headphones as tool but iems just not usefull to me. So there is much that goes into decerning what is best for us and thus comes down to choice . Although some stuff is just bad for anyone who has some experience in what good is but the search for best is a futile one at best. 
Buy enjoy learn and listen to comments but always make the decision yourself not totally based on someone else's views they may not be yours and no one should tell you what you should like but sugestions are fine by me. 

Al


----------



## skeptic

Al - when you say DS, is that the dangerous source? Seems like a very interesting option and highly praised by those who have tried it. Wish the form factor wasn't such a turn off though... 

Also, out of curiosity, is there a reason no one here ever seems to discuss AR dacs? Seems like a lot of folks consider their pres and power amps to be about as good as it gets. Is their digital team playing in a lesser league?


----------



## SearchOfSub

Audio Research are too expensive for me... I dont even google it because it wold kick off the upgratitis.


----------



## purrin

searchofsub said:


> It seems like from the review he prefers PWD MK2 over the Auralic Vega...
> 
> I do want to hear the Master 7 but my listening will come mostly from transport so OR5 etc wont b3 any good..
> 
> ...


 
  
 What transport? Vega is best with EXACT mode via USB. I'm hesistant on the PWD2 mk2 and would prefer the PWD1-2>. What are you currently using? What don't you like about its sound? Do you more bass or less bass? Vega, Berkeley, M7 all sound very different.
  
 PWD1->2 can sound extremely different. We tried five transports with it. Some very technically precise sounding but with treble etch, others warmer, gooey, and smoother. I was exploring CD transports, but ditched that in the for the OR5 because that killed of all them. I still have a transport sitting around, but haven't used it for two years.
  
 What about an old Sonic Frontiers CD player like the SFCD-1?
  
 Maybe Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC? I really like that one and would recommend it. Make sure you have a top-notch transport to boot.


----------



## purrin

alrainbow said:


> lampi... The tube sound is not tubby but there is something tubes add to the sound that gets you more involved In the music .


 
  
 That's a good point and why I feel the tube section is fantastic. Just very immediate and resolving. Also, I have not heard Big 7, but that's another category in terms of cost.
  


alrainbow said:


> Resolution (Cantata) and does not reveil the whole picture in sound.


  

 LOL! The irony is this the name of the DAC.
  


alrainbow said:


> For me only speakers give us a true image to judge devices by with headphones as tool but iems just not usefull to me.


  
 I was just talking to a friend about this. Speakers allow us to evaluate soundstaging, especially separation and layering, much better. The HD800, however good in may be in staging, is a joke compared to properly setup speakers in a properly setup room. One can get away with DACs which stage poorly, especially with depth, on headphones.


----------



## 7ryder

skeptic said:


> Al - when you say DS, is that the dangerous source? Seems like a very interesting option and highly praised by those who have tried it. Wish the form factor wasn't such a turn off though...


 
 He's referring to the PS Audio Direct Stream DAC


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> Maybe Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC? I really like that one and would recommend it. Make sure you have a top-notch transport to boot.


 
  
 What price does that DAC go for?


----------



## ALRAINBOW

About 4500 new or so . It's pretty good for me it's above a Hugo anyway but agin there that choice that is no being made by me. Reg speakers I get bashed when I tell people this especially the iem people wow are they uptight. I use all these things daily and so I feel I understand this fine . But most who just use one are totally convicted of one being the end all. Thanks for staing it. 
Al


----------



## magiccabbage

alrainbow said:


> About 4500 new or so . It's pretty good for me it's above a Hugo anyway but agin there that choice that is no being made by me. Reg speakers I get bashed when I tell people this especially the iem people wow are they uptight. I use all these things daily and so I feel I understand this fine . But most who just use one are totally convicted of one being the end all. Thanks for staing it.
> Al


 
 Have you got any pic's of your home speaker set up on headfi?


----------



## ALRAINBOW

No sorry. , I am presently renovation the NYC office system now. It will be done in a couple of months or less. Inhope and then I will post some pics for while .
Al


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Can someone please post a link to the DAC post please I search but I cannot find it. 
Thanks 
Al


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Regarding the Hugo. I found it the opposite about the DSD over PCM. 
I personnelly feet the DAC was voiced for PCM and cheats us on DSD. 
It could be it cannot handle anymore detail then PCM. 
Al


----------



## SearchOfSub

I cant audition all these dacs and i am trying to go for the ones that have a unanimous vote with no complaints..

So far the Vega seems to fit the bill...from what i gather seems like around 2 -3k range, there are only a small difference with one 1-2 dacs above the pack then a whole another level of sonic gain starts at 5K..



Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## SearchOfSub

Berkley alphs 2 seems to get mixed reviews on the net.. pro reviewers seem to love it, but the actual users say its too polite etc..

One dac that ive read up on that blows away the compettion is the Phasure NOS Dac... but then ofcourse its a usb dac it seems like which is useless to me.. how sad.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## Wildcatsare1

The NAD-51 seems to get positive reviews and is liked by "Ears I Trust" here on HeadFi.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Advice. Choice. Is all you need 
Choice is what you like understand not someone else's choice but yours. 
Choice does not mean someone else's it's yours 

You cannot change choice it's wired to your brain. 
Understand would you ask someone else tol pick out your car or even a wife 

So auditioning is fine and should be done. Maybe a mini meet some where at least you bring your music and listen. 
Also you should bring your headphones too. Ones that work good with most stuff so not and he6 but a hd800. 
Hope this helps. You please do not take offense I mean no harm just offering advice 
Al


----------



## skeptic

searchofsub said:


> Audio Research are too expensive for me... I dont even google it because it wold kick off the upgratitis.




New yes. But the AR dacs actually do get down below 3k used on a'gon fwiw. 



7ryder said:


> He's referring to the PS Audio Direct Stream DAC




Thanks!


----------



## purrin

> I cant audition all these dacs and i am trying to go for the ones that have a _unanimous vote with no complaints._


 
  
 A unanimous choice not too long ago was the Mytek DSD. "Everyone", including "professional" and amateur reviewers, and their grandmas were raving about it. I know three people who purchased it and got rid of it, two of them immediately within days. I also personally know a half dozen people who have heard it and can''t stand that thing. No one I know personally likes it, although I know of one or two people from various audio forums who like it.
  


> So far the Vega seems to fit the bill...from what i gather seems like around 2 -3k range, there are only a small difference with one 1-2 dacs above the pack then a whole another level of sonic gain starts at 5K..


  
 The Vega is very much a SABRE DAC. Possibly the best one I've heard yet. Make sure you are OK with the SABRE sound and a brightly tilted sound. EXACT mode, which sounds the best on the DAC, is only possible via USB.
  
 Via a Redbook PCM transport, the Audio GD M7 is going to be on the same level as the Vega - both solidly good. But M7's sound is polar opposite to Vega's sound.

  


searchofsub said:


> One dac that ive read up on that blows away the compettion is the Phasure NOS Dac... but then ofcourse its a usb dac it seems like which is useless to me.. how sad.


 
  
 Phasure NOS I heard was very good. I can't say much more because I didn't get a good bead on it because it was on associated equipment I was not familiar with. But as you said, the DAC is more of a DAC/Software system.
  


wildcatsare1 said:


> The NAD-51 seems to get positive reviews and is liked by "Ears I Trust" here on HeadFi.


 
  
 NAD M51 is a good all rounder where I don't see anyone really not liking it. The problem with that is it's not particularly great at any one thing. Sometimes its better to concentrate on DACs that do a really good job on the things you care a lot about, and less well about things you care less about. For 3,500 USD budget, one can probably do better.


----------



## SearchOfSub

Wow. I never knew exact mode was only available via usb. This kills it for me as i will always think i am missing out. In general, I cant stand Sabre sound..i had a oppo 105 running coaxial and it was a nightmare, too far analytical and rythem was way off and non musical. I was coming from from a marantz right before i tried oppo. Then i tried Arcam irdac... warmer, more musical, better soundstage etc.. but i ended up returning it bcuz i tnought i get a better dac at a higher price range... which is what i am doing now. One thing i wanted was more of was a intimate vocals/transperency.

I thought Vega was different, since a pro reviewer at audiostream said it was very musical and gave credit to him and this OP saying it was "Sabre done right"..

Tought i give it a chance, but if it still has sabre house sound, bright as hell thatbis analytical, i will pass.

From OP review, master 7 seems to fit the bill but it was used offramp through usb...

I am basically looking for master 7 sound chracteristics but sound just as good with coaxial input. Usb wont be used.

My system is already on hyper detailed,fast/lean side.

Amp is Job 225 with MicroOne speakers which use ribbons which is bright to begin witj compare to domes.. it can and do get fatiguing. 

Any recommendation beside m7? If not, might as well get the M7, its just that im hesitant coaxial wont do much.. maybe DS.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## ALRAINBOW

If I may ask you some questions. 
How much detail do,you like. 
Reg details what kind me sample top end , low end , microphonics. 
Lastly what percentage dsd and PCM. 
Lastly ribbons are more detailed then domes in general. And I do prefure ribbons all around except for the bass of course. . The job amps are very good amps to use very clean .
Reg the M7 it's warm and a bit muddy on the low end and lacks the micro deatils I like how ever it's my likes not yours. 
Al


----------



## SearchOfSub

Hello AL, i will be doing 100% PCM. No DSD at all.

That is why i thank this thread and OP. I like transperency and details with warmth.

Vocals is very important to me. Can you suggest?

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## SearchOfSub

Purrin, would you rate the Nad M51 over the Hugo?

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## ALRAINBOW

I think you need to find a way to hear these dacs period. Unless yo are willing to risk 3 k on something that does not fit the choice you already have made .

I could reccomnd a tube dac like a lampi 5 used of course . You coild roll the tubes to get the warmth up u like. Remeber with warmth comes less details and staging demisnishing as well. Not bad but a fact . Also you start to loose micro details. I say used cause it's a crap shoot in a way . I say lampi as it s a dac that has some warmth to it and tube rolling makes it a good choice. The fives I heard were above any Hugo big time and PCM is pretty good with lampi . Where do you live anyway is there any mini meets coming your way.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

The master 7 is good via coax as well, it just has to be a good transport and I think the two different coax inputs(RCA and bnc) use different receivers? I remember people saying one was better than the other in the past


----------



## Currawong

@purrin How was the Hugo set up when you auditioned it?


----------



## purrin

Last time was USB via macbook to DNA Stratus (new one with the upgrades) and Shuguang big bottle 2A3s.


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> Last time was USB via macbook to DNA Stratus (new one with the upgrades) and Shuguang big bottle 2A3s.


 
  
 Did you use the Hugo in line-out mode, or with the volume set at max?


----------



## purrin

Line-out mode. With the volume in line, the Hugo was terribad.


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> Line-out mode. With the volume in line, the Hugo was terribad.


 
  
 There's the problem. The Hugo puts out 3V in line out mode, which overloads some amps that don't have volume on the input. Try it again if you can with the HD-800s plugged in directly. They are fine directly from the Hugo. Give it at least 10 minutes to warm up a bit first though.


----------



## purrin

3V isn't going to overload the Stratus' input stage considering the volume pot wasn't even cranked up. With the HD800 or UERMs plugged directly in to the Hugo, I didn't care for the Hugo at all (in other words, it was like What, why are people saying this is great). Directly plugged in, the Hugo sounded dead. AKM120 + UERM destroyed Hugo, keeping in mind AK240 was step backward sonically (flat and boring) to AK120.


----------



## kazsud

souprknowva said:


> The master 7 is good via coax as well, it just has to be a good transport and I think the two different coax inputs(RCA and bnc) use different receivers? I remember people saying one was better than the other in the past




How much of a difference can a transport make? I heard a difference between oppo 103 and a old sacd player to my nuforce dac-100 but thought I was just hearing things. Isn't it just relaying the 010101s?


----------



## kkcc

purrin said:


> 3V isn't going to overload the Stratus' input stage considering the volume pot wasn't even cranked up. With the HD800 or UERMs plugged directly in to the Hugo, I didn't care for the Hugo at all (in other words, it was like What, why are people saying this is great). Directly plugged in, the Hugo sounded dead. AKM120 + UERM destroyed Hugo, keeping in mind AK240 was step backward sonically (flat and boring) to AK120.


 
  
  


currawong said:


> There's the problem. The Hugo puts out 3V in line out mode, which overloads some amps that don't have volume on the input. Try it again if you can with the HD-800s plugged in directly. They are fine directly from the Hugo. Give it at least 10 minutes to warm up a bit first though.


 
  
  
 I think it's perfectly fine for Purrin to prefer other DAC's sound over Hugo and I'm sure he knows what he's doing as in not clipping the amp input.  From his comparison notes and posts (and the fact he prefers the original AK120 over the AK240) you can see his preference.  SearchofSub also seems to have similar preference that prefers warmth over details/neutrality.  I also have friends locally who prefers the X5 sound over Hugo saying Hugo.  Bottomline is that I learn how wide different preferences can varies.  Thought personally I would never be able to agree AK120 sounds better than AK240 or Hugo.  I believe there had been enough high praises for the Hugo (myself a accomplice) and it is good to also have folks like Purrin sharing a different views.


----------



## purrin

kazsud said:


> How much of a difference can a transport make? I heard a difference between oppo 103 and a old sacd player to my nuforce dac-100 but thought I was just hearing things. Isn't it just relaying the 010101s?


 
  
 A transport can make 30-60% of the sound of the DAC. Yes, it's relaying 01010101s, and in theory, it should only be jitter at the DAC chip digitial input pins which matters. But why does the Schiit Wyrd work magic when it shouldn't, even with $10,000 DACs? I've messed around with DAC internals to know that even the slightest changes make differences, e.g. change a regulator, different sound.
  
 We can even consider USB to coax / i2s converters as "transports", just that they do not use CD but USB from a PC instead. Heck, even the type of computer makes a difference. Macbooks have a tendency to sound bad (digital glare) from USB, Mac desktops sound good, Windows machines have a certain sound, etc.
  
 The Master 7 is highly dependent upon quality of transport and hence why I have a slight hesitancy to recommend it. Use a crappy or badly matching CD transport, and the potential of the Master 7 gets severely gimped.


----------



## purrin

searchofsub said:


> I thought Vega was different, since a pro reviewer at audiostream said it was very musical and gave credit to him and this OP saying it was "Sabre done right"..


 
  
 By SABRE done right, I meant the designer did not try to artificially warm things up and make the Vega into something it was never good at doing. A example of this is the Invicta DAC. Ressossossonace tried to warm up the sound of the Invicta and just ended up with a mess: a juxtaposition of mud, stridency, congestion, especially when recordings got complex. Yes, the Invicta _almost _had me fooled, but SABRE always shows!  Invicta is like trying to cure a gay guy or trying to make a 4000 lbs Camaro handle like a GT86. You can try to do it, but the results are never good.
  
 So Vega simply took advantage of what the SABRE does well (hyperdetail, attack, microdynamics, etc.) and worked with that and made it really good. It remains a bright DAC. EXACT mode with USB helps quite a lot with providing a more liquid sound with a less "robotic" treble timbre. So I really do appreciate Auralic for making the Vega the way it is despite myself not 100% into that kind of sound.
  


searchofsub said:


> I am basically looking for master 7 sound chracteristics but sound just as good with coaxial input. Usb wont be used.


  

 See post above on transports and master 7. From coax sources I tried, Master 7 is quite warm with "PCM1704" bass for lack of a better term. I did enjoy the Master 7 via coax sources (ranked #5).


----------



## Currawong

kkcc said:


> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > 3V isn't going to overload the Stratus' input stage considering the volume pot wasn't even cranked up. With the HD800 or UERMs plugged directly in to the Hugo, I didn't care for the Hugo at all (in other words, it was like What, why are people saying this is great). Directly plugged in, the Hugo sounded dead. AKM120 + UERM destroyed Hugo, keeping in mind AK240 was step backward sonically (flat and boring) to AK120.
> ...


 
  
 Totally agreed here. I was curious to find out how he had arrived at his impressions and wanted to make sure he hadn't hit on any of the weird things that came up with the Hugo that we knew about but he may not have.


----------



## 62ohm

Purrin, I take it you're not a fan of ESS-based DACs? May I ask what do you think about CS-based DACs?


----------



## purrin

Well, I did prefer the Hugo to the PSA DSD on that same setup.


----------



## purrin

62ohm said:


> Purrin, I take it you're not a fan of ESS-based DACs? May I ask what do you think about CS-based DACs?


 
  
 Taking into account that we all know that DACs are more than the chip, in general, I do not like Cirrus based DACs. Too boring or polite sounding. I do like the Lynx Hilo though and would take that for DSD over any SABRE. I tend to like AKMs for the modern chips. I don't think there's an AKM based DAC I've heard which I did not like.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

^Purrin, would you say the Gugnir/Bifrost USB 2's have the best cost/performance ratio in this thread/your experience?


----------



## SearchOfSub

I think Bryston bda-2 might do the trick for me.. Chord does sound nice but eveything is just lit up and with MY speakers which are NOT laid back at all... it can get fatiging..

Purrin.. have you heard the bryston bda 2?

Did you also say you preffered Hugo over PS Audio Directstream? Just wanted to clarify...

P.S - souprknowa said the same thing to me in pm telling me What about Hugo lol

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## castleofargh

purrin said:


> kazsud said:
> 
> 
> > How much of a difference can a transport make? I heard a difference between oppo 103 and a old sacd player to my nuforce dac-100 but thought I was just hearing things. Isn't it just relaying the 010101s?
> ...


 
come on mate, how about a little less caricature and exageration? some readers might believe such a post.
from a bad dac to a good dac there isn't 30-60% differences in the sound(in fact in a controlled level matched test most would sound exactly the same). hell an amp will not change the sound that much.
so unless your scale of sound goes up to a hundred thousand%, it would be nice to come up with something more realistic about a transport. I would have been ticked off with 1% as being largely unrealistic.
  
 never mind, I didn't realize it was you purrin(I feel silly for responding to this post now). we've been living in parallel universes for some times now, and I don't feel confident at all about the laws of physic on your side.


----------



## SearchOfSub

Well, actually if you know about ps audio and its Native X vs. Native setting, you would know purrin is correct on some parts. Native X clean signal before entering the Dac, and many report huge difference when turned on.

How accurately the transport reads the disc and gets to the dac, the dac can then process whaever info is given.

So if the read skips 12345 out of 10, dac can only process 5 numbers. So, there is some truth to what purrin said.. i dont think 60%... more like 25- 30% max..

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## purrin

wildcatsare1 said:


> ^Purrin, would you say the Gugnir/Bifrost USB 2's have the best cost/performance ratio in this thread/your experience?


 
  
 Wyrd + Modi for $200 is the best cost/performance DAC. I actually have one sitting on my desk.
  


searchofsub said:


> I think Bryston bda-2 might do the trick for me.. Chord does sound nice but eveything is just lit up and with MY speakers which are NOT laid back at all... it can get fatiging..
> 
> Purrin.. have you heard the bryston bda 2?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Always have been interested in the BDA-2. AKM chip which is a good sign.
  
 I preferred Hugo over PSA DSD on a specific headphone setup because I felt the Hugo had better overall tonality with the PSA DSD sounding too thin and lacking sub and low bass. The PSA DSD was superior to the Hugo in all many aspects - the PSA DSD was more refined sounding, less coarse, more liquid, less grainy, and more resolving than the Hugo. Overall tone matters a lot of me. Personally, I'm not a fan of either DAC.
  
_soup _tends to hear the same things as I do, so I can totally see his "What" expression regarding the Hugo. You may want to get opinions from other people who really like the Hugo.


----------



## zachchen1996

purrin said:


> so I can totally see his "*What*" expression regarding the Hugo. You may want to get opinions from other people who really like the Hugo.


 
  
 Exactly how I felt when I first heard the hugo, and I thought mine was broken.


----------



## purrin

castleofargh said:


> come on mate, how about a little less caricature and exageration? some readers might believe such a post.
> from a bad dac to a good dac there isn't 30-60% differences in the sound(in fact in a controlled level matched test most would sound exactly the same). hell an amp will not change the sound that much.
> so unless your scale of sound goes up to a hundred thousand%, it would be nice to come up with something more realistic about a transport. I would have been ticked off with 1% as being largely unrealistic.


 
  
 I would highly suggest that you actually try blind testing as I have done.
  
 The fact that the Audio-GD M7 goes from #12 (below a Gungnir) from straight USB to #1 with the OR5 on the list should be an indication how much the transport matters. As I've said, and many others in the M7 thread, the M7 is extremely sensitive to transport.
  
 Stack up 5-6 transports and do a blind test yourself as some friends and I have done. This is what you would do if you are truly interested in science. I was quite shocked myself how transports do actually have their own sound which gets carried over from DAC to DAC.
  
 It's really not that unexpected given how small the differences are between some DACs in the first place.
  


castleofargh said:


> never mind, I didn't realize it was you purrin(I feel silly for responding to this post now). we've been living in parallel universes for some times now


 
  
 Yes, you live in the universe where science is perverted into religion, where hypotheses, in this case "transports do not matter", do not require testing and must be accepted as absolute truth.
  
 And no, you don't feel silly at all. If you did, you wouldn't have done the intentional strike-out and then later state that you felt silly. You would have replaced everything with "deleted. nvm" instead. What you are doing is just a passive aggressive throw a booger at my face drive by.


----------



## kothganesh

Hi Purrin:
  
 Reading your comments to castleofargh, am I inferring correctly that it would be better to play music out of the Mac mini than out of a Macbook Air ? I have both sitting on my desk and would love to hear from you on this. Thanks.


----------



## purrin

Definitely try it.
  
 I've had good results with the USB from my Mac mini (an ancient model) - better than from my Sony VAIO laptop, which would have drop outs with the early USB of the Schiit DACs. With the Schiit DACs that you have, I didn't think the differences were huge. While you are at it, try a dual boot with Windows too on the Mac mini.


----------



## kothganesh

purrin said:


> Definitely try it.
> 
> I've had good results with the USB from my Mac mini (an ancient model) - better than from my Sony VAIO laptop, which would have drop outs with the early USB of the Schiit DACs. With the Schiit DACs that you have, I didn't think the differences were huge. While you are at it, try a dual boot with Windows too on the Mac mini.


 
 Ok thanks a lot.


----------



## castleofargh

searchofsub said:


> Well, actually if you know about ps audio and its Native X vs. Native setting, you would know purrin is correct on some parts. Native X clean signal before entering the Dac, and many report huge difference when turned on.
> 
> How accurately the transport reads the disc and gets to the dac, the dac can then process whaever info is given.
> 
> ...


 
 anything with that many errors would simply be defective. anything that ends up with a dac reading actual errors instead of the real signal with some matter of jitter should be dismissed as a non working audio system. that much is pretty obvious to me. we're not in 1980 anymore.
  


purrin said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > come on mate, how about a little less caricature and exageration? some readers might believe such a post.
> ...


 
 blind testing? strange I don't remember reading much about matched volume levels and blind test on the first post. I happen to have 2 different models of audio switches right here and I realize that I never blind tested them.
  
 what I read from your post is that the M7 has one crappy USB IN with compatibility issues. I don't really see why we should blame the transports for this, or what they have to do with it?
 even arguing feels weird in that dimension.
  
 anyway I would love to know half of what nwavguy knows, I'm not familiar with the second dude was he also banned for being right too loud about the wrong subject? 
 if by "science is a religion" you mean that I believe in science, then yes, guilty as charge. science being a major contributor to the fact that we have music at home and the source of a few pro tips like "wash your hands will help you not die before reaching 35". yeah I'm a huge fan of music at home and not being dead.
 but then again, I fail to see why an hypothesis wouldn't require testing. I guess you meant axiom
 also you might be interested by the fact that the only domain of science dealing with absolute truth is math.


----------



## boatheelmusic

SearchofSub, why don't you try a PS Audio PWD II?  You can get a new one at Audiogon for maybe $1,800 now, a tremendous deal.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Regarding laptops to desk tops. For the use of playing audio any portible CPU does not do audio good. It's not that it cannot be used but there is plenty to lose if you do. Shutting down all services espically anti virus and running on battery makes a big difrence . Using optical output does help but it is limited anyway so USB in most cases matters more . 

Regarding how we make choices of what we like .
Our choices are actually made before we even listen as this is all about personnel preference and not really what is better . It's important for us to say this clearly . If we do not it becomes a holy grail of that persons choice . 
We all hear different and I know some feel this is not true but choices we make prove it. A simple example is a mytek dac or a ak 120 or ak 240. Not all of them use sabre but all,of them are dull and and glaring if played loud to Me . but clearly not all feel this way. To many make claims for all,of us to read and this becomes law ,well there is no law but nice guide lines for us to follow. 

Having a really high end source for reference matters plenty in making judgements . So listing what music is being used is mega important . The why is simple using ref cd tracks from low red book to high dsd shows the full realm of the products being reviewed. A simple case of this is the Hugo or psa DS dac. They both do PCM very well and it does improve with dsd . But while playing dsd it becomes apparent of the limitations of the dacs. 

Given noise floor and just how well a dac can play low volume sounds at the noise floor matter plenty at this point. 
Also how well the dac performs at high levels and maintaining staging from simple to complex music also shows how well a dac handles the full spectrum. 

Regarding the M7 dac as reference well not for me at all. It's just way to varying in the above situations . The staging changes as well as the noise floor being way above the other dacs I just listed. Now I have dacs costing many times the price of the two I mentioned and if I use them as referance it's clear just how off the findings mentioned by purrin are. Now are they really off , well theres that choice that must be figured into this. But most do not consider it and they should 

The how and why is simple it's that persons choice and this should be weighed in but does not. There is no be all end all reference but choices we have made already before we turned on the equipment. 

Regarding the music we play this matters as well. Simple music always sounds better than complex does so when I read what a reviewer is using helps me understand the review. If the person uses just simple then it's a Waiste of time to read as dacs change during varying styles of music. Also if the music is Brite to begin with matters. This is why I have about thirty tracks I use to evaluate and device i play . The music runs the gamet of sounds , from simple to complex , from soft to loud and from PCM low to high as well as dsd both dsd 64 and 128. 

I completely disagree with some of purrins statements but do feel he is wrong in his choices ? We must form our own in this and not what someone says with confidence . I have owned a few PC,s of devices of the years based on this and will not anymore follow what someone says. Lastly as i love to make claims of having super memory or hearing but I do not . I have read many studies that we do not have good sound memory as whole so not having stuff in front of you can lead to making statements makes no sense but we all do this anyway. I have in the past few weeks had the time to play with a about six dacs at length and with a few friends as well. The how and where matters plenty in this review process and having others comments does as well. This shows me my choices over others. And makes me feel better about the whole process. I have gone to many homes to listen to there home systems. It's amazing how different they all sound some were very dull or recessed . But yet these people love it just the way it is. And for me to suggest it's all wrong is just me making the choice for them , my choice not there's understand my point. It's not mine to make. . My top dog dac is a MSB stack consisting of a platinum plus with galaxy clock 2 with a diamond PSU . Also is a MSB UMT plus with a signature dual PSU. This is connected to a full caps unit. 
This consisted of a MSI main board with PPA clock mod , I7 2.70 CPU . Two PPA SD drives one for server 2012 OS and the other music only. All batteries running all devices . Two bakoon,s and one redwine for main board. The PPA USB PCI x card as well. Now this gives a my reference to use against other dacs I own or test. This gives me the ability to make the choices I make and find them different from others who post. Again my choice and this does not make mine better than there's. But I'd like to say it's very different then above comments about ranking of dacs. 

Hope this clears up my choices as opposed to others made here. 

Al


----------



## ALRAINBOW

boatheelmusic said:


> SearchofSub, why don't you try a PS Audio PWD II?  You can get a new one at Audiogon for maybe $1,800 now, a tremendous deal.




 As I own both to get the best out of either dac required the off ramp. It's way to expensive for me to Recomend either of them. Although they do have some similarities but with headphones i preferred the M7 but with speakers the Pwd mkii with 244 firmware. 

Al .


----------



## boatheelmusic

alrainbow said:


> As I own both to get the best out of either dac required the off ramp. It's way to expensive for me to Recomend either of them. Although they do have some similarities but with headphones i preferred the M7 but with speakers the Pwd mkii with 244 firmware.
> 
> Al .


 
 Thanks, Al - the 2.4.5 firmware fixes the mute and other switch issues of 2.4.4 and sounds as good or better, IMO.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

If you already own the dac try to borough a ap1/pp. It will make a big difrence in the dac .


----------



## kazsud

purrin said:


> A transport can make 30-60% of the sound of the DAC. Yes, it's relaying 01010101s, and in theory, it should only be jitter at the DAC chip digitial input pins which matters. But why does the Schiit Wyrd work magic when it shouldn't, even with $10,000 DACs? I've messed around with DAC internals to know that even the slightest changes make differences, e.g. change a regulator, different sound.
> 
> We can even consider USB to coax / i2s converters as "transports", just that they do not use CD but USB from a PC instead. Heck, even the type of computer makes a difference. Macbooks have a tendency to sound bad (digital glare) from USB, Mac desktops sound good, Windows machines have a certain sound, etc.
> 
> The Master 7 is highly dependent upon quality of transport and hence why I have a slight hesitancy to recommend it. Use a crappy or badly matching CD transport, and the potential of the Master 7 gets severely gimped.




Thanks

I knew about osx sounding better than windows. I would hate hearing new music at work on my windows box w/ my dragon fly and w4r.


----------



## elmoe

kazsud said:


> I knew about osx sounding better than windows. I would hate hearing new music at work on my windows box w/ my dragon fly and w4r.


 
  
 Wow, people really believe this? ...


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Of course they do they just posted it. It has to be true . 

I type the truth too but not all agree. Itmis most likely the cpu he is using as nothing gets close to my caps cpu,s. 
But my iMac beats out most laptops even if they are Mac. 
Al


----------



## ultrabike

elmoe said:


> Wow, people really believe this? ...


 
  
 Yes. For one, even when using the same operating system (like Windoze) one has the option of using several different drivers: Wasapi, ASIO, Direct Sound, ... They are not the same nor do the work the same way.
  
 I use ASIO drivers when doing measurements, as others tend to mess things up a bit.
  
 Also, HW matters. Many Macs are better built than many Wankdoze machines and may offer lower noise at the output of their USB and audio interfaces...
  
 If you want an extreme example consider my HP Laptop with the hard to get rid off Beats Audio Crapyfier package...


----------



## elmoe

alrainbow said:


> Of course they do they just posted it. It has to be true .
> 
> I type the truth too but not all agree. Itmis most likely the cpu he is using as nothing gets close to my caps cpu,s.
> But my iMac beats out most laptops even if they are Mac.
> Al


 
  
 No offense but even a Pentium I has a good enough CPU for music playback. The reason your iMac beats most laptops is that laptops are usually noisy due to integrated fans and the hardware being all packed together. Take any fanless tablet with android or windows and it will be less noisy than any iMac, replace the HDD with an SSD in any fanless laptop and it will be less noisy than any iMac.
  
 The point is the only difference between the two is the amount of noise generated. If you are outputting a digital signal then it's ridiculous to even argue that one OS beats another, all that will matter is hardware generated noise, and for the money, any PC will win hands down since Apple computers cannot be customized and you cannot get rid of the fans.
  
  


ultrabike said:


> Yes. For one, even when using the same operating system (like Windoze) one has the option of using several different drivers: Wasapi, ASIO, Direct Sound, ... They are not the same nor do the work the same way.
> 
> I use ASIO drivers when doing measurements, as others tend to mess things up a bit.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Wasapi or ASIO are exactly the same. They send digital through your USB. There is no difference in 1s and 0s. Direct Sound however, differs, but only because it goes through windows' kmixer. However since ASIO, Wasapi and KS are all available on windows, its a non-issue.
  
 A fast CPU or lots of RAM matters very little as far as audio playback is concerned. Lower noise at the output on a mac? That's ridiculous. A PC can be built any way you'd like for a fraction of the price of a Mac. As for audio interfaces, we are talking about sending a digital signal through USB, so once again that's a non issue (not to mention that there are plenty of external soundcards for windows).
  
 Your example is completely irrelevant, you're talking about bloatware that has no significance in this discussion.
  
 For the same amount of money as any Mac, if you build a PC for audio playback, it will always be better in both hardware capability and noise.


----------



## ultrabike

> Originally Posted by *elmoe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Wasapi or ASIO are exactly the same. They send digital through your USB. There is no difference in 1s and 0s. Direct Sound however, differs, but only because it goes through windows' kmixer. However since ASIO, Wasapi and KS are all available on windows, its a non-issue.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Mmmm. I'll try to run some measurements with Wasapi and ASIO again and see what I get. Going by memory I don't think I was getting a fair shake with Wasapi. Will check it out again.
  
 Not sure why "fast CPU or lots of RAM" is being brought up, don't think I mentioned that. As far as lower noise on a Mac, like you said, it depends on the build. I'm sure you can come up with a primo PC... But if you bought one bargain deal from Dell or HP, don't expect that. In a sense I guess you are agreeing that a Mac will do better than a usual bargain PC which IMO have a fair share of the market.
  
 I'm not that concerned about the 1's and 0's going though the PC, but the power supply noise and distortion coupling though the power and data lines of the USB interface and into the external soundcard. Depending on the soundcard, this might degrade performance of the analog circuitry.
  
 As far as bloatware, I wish it was that. That Beats Audio deal is somehow built in the driver itself for my particular laptop (and perhaps many other laptops and desktops). HP made some improvements on it, but not perfect. Believe me, I actually reinstalled a brand new and legit windows 7 OS to my laptop... only to have it download the same crapy drivers. With Linux that was not an issue, but the laptop would overheat and had to drop back to windows.
  
 I agree with you that one can do better than a Mac in HW specs... But make sure the drivers are mature and reliable for the particular OS that you plan to use... beware of being locked into the Beats Audio drivers as I was. Using ASIO (or maybe Wasapi) helps to solve that problem though, IF supported by the SW one is planing to use.
  
 ... again, like you said one still has to look into the PC/laptop HW specs, and make sure drivers are good for BOTH HW and SW for a particular OS.


----------



## elmoe

ultrabike said:


> Mmmm. I'll try to run some measurements with Wasapi and ASIO again and see what I get. Going by memory I don't think I was getting a fair shake with Wasapi. Will check it out again.
> 
> Not sure why "fast CPU or lots of RAM" is being brought up, don't think I mentioned that. As far as lower noise on a Mac, like you said, it depends on the build. I'm sure you can come up with a primo PC... But if you bought one bargain deal from Dell or HP, don't expect that. In a sense I guess you are agreeing that a Mac will do better than a usual bargain PC which IMO have a fair share of the market.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You can literally spend half what you spend on a mac and have a higher quality PC. That's my point originally. Certainly, a 200 dollars "bargain" Dell craputer will be worse than a 1600-2000usd macbook pro. There's no point to compare things not in the same price range though. Dollar for dollar, the PC will always win, in every possible aspect.
  
 Power supply noise and distortion coupling will be the same in a PC as it is in a Mac. A Mac or a PC's power supply is rudimentary the same thing, except for your PC you can pick and choose one with less audible noise, and you can customize your case to isolate it alot better than in any Apple computer. Anyhow, I would like to see any kind of proof as to how Apple's USB implementation is better than any PC as far as noise goes, and will be incredibly surprised to see any difference whatsoever. Apple computers tend to be much smaller in size than the average PC which most likely results in a higher noise through USB than most decently built PCs.
  
 The Beats Audio thing is irrelevant if you are outputting a digital signal via USB. It will not be going through the laptop's internal DAC/soundcard to begin with. Just install foobar with WASAPI or ASIO and your Beats Audio stuff will not even be used.
  
 One can do better than a Mac for pretty much everything - except personal preference in usability. Actually, even then, you can easily install OS X on a PC and have the best of both worlds (although personally, I will still pick windows over OS X any day of the week, and if I'm going to install OS X I might as well pick a proper Linux distro instead).


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Regarding the quote of cpu speed .indo not build cpu for a living nor create audio systems for one either. I am just the amuck who buys things and listens to them. As a whole the peed of the processor needs to be just fast enough to sound good , but no too fast to create more noise fetching the data to many times a cycle. Well this may be true but I have tried various cpu speeds and anythg I7 beats out anything I 5. In dsd. As pcm seems to use much less of the cpu . But given if the cpu is to be used for work or home office as well it's alway good to have more. But if listening to music Ina critical way then it's dual boot into win server 2012 and audio optimizer. Its a no brainier in improvements. And not having an I7 is too. The iMac theory and the noise I honestly do not measure anything but have a simple pci x usb card fed witha battery or linear PSU and shutting down all services not needed matters plenty too. But if not using a I7 cpu it still matters in dsd. Some dacs are affected meow than others but all will suffer below certain threshold . No one here has to beleave me that's fine but as many systems as I do and plying with this stuff as I do shows me what is a simple best case for sound. Laptops stink in general period I do not claim to know why but they do. An iMac blows away a Mac laptop . And same for PC. Now maybe running win 2012 on one might makes things more even but I do not on know anyone doing this. And you cannot do a battery pci car do one so you stuck with whatever is in the laptop I think. 
Digital audio is a major pain to get done right and almost no here does this right as I did and now I know how good it can be . 
Lastly if someone likes a M7 over a Hugo or DS it shows the persons choice more than the review . They are so different you cannot be objective to them. It's like having chocolate ice cream and reviewing it but you strawberry . How can one be objective . 
My choice tells me they are are better than the M7. But I also like the M7 but only in some musical situations but most not. Again choices. Lastly unless we all are Ina room at the same time same music and form or reproduction it is impossible to comment accruitly on the outcome . And if we did have the massive meet we would find out how very different our choices are . 
Al


----------



## ALRAINBOW

elmoe said:


> No offense but even a Pentium I has a good enough CPU for music playback. The reason your iMac beats most laptops is that laptops are usually noisy due to integrated fans and the hardware being all packed together. Take any fanless tablet with android or windows and it will be less noisy than any iMac, replace the HDD with an SSD in any fanless laptop and it will be less noisy than any iMac.
> 
> The point is the only difference between the two is the amount of noise generated. If you are outputting a digital signal then it's ridiculous to even argue that one OS beats another, all that will matter is hardware generated noise, and for the money, any PC will win hands down since Apple computers cannot be customized and you cannot get rid of the fans.
> 
> ...


----------



## elmoe

alrainbow said:


> Regarding the quote of cpu speed .indo not build cpu for a living nor create audio systems for one either. I am just the amuck who buys things and listens to them. As a whole the peed of the processor needs to be just fast enough to sound good , but no too fast to create more noise fetching the data to many times a cycle. Well this may be true but I have tried various cpu speeds and anythg I7 beats out anything I 5. In dsd. As pcm seems to use much less of the cpu . But given if the cpu is to be used for work or home office as well it's alway good to have more. But if listening to music Ina critical way then it's dual boot into win server 2012 and audio optimizer. Its a no brainier in improvements. And not having an I7 is too. The iMac theory and the noise I honestly do not measure anything but have a simple pci x usb card fed witha battery or linear PSU and shutting down all services not needed matters plenty too. But if not using a I7 cpu it still matters in dsd. Some dacs are affected meow than others but all will suffer below certain threshold . No one here has to beleave me that's fine but as many systems as I do and plying with this stuff as I do shows me what is a simple best case for sound. Laptops stink in general period I do not claim to know why but they do. An iMac blows away a Mac laptop . And same for PC. Now maybe running win 2012 on one might makes things more even but I do not on know anyone doing this. And you cannot do a battery pci car do one so you stuck with whatever is in the laptop I think.
> Digital audio is a major pain to get done right and almost no here does this right as I did and now I know how good it can be .
> Lastly if someone likes a M7 over a Hugo or DS it shows the persons choice more than the review . They are so different you cannot be objective to them. It's like having chocolate ice cream and reviewing it but you strawberry . How can one be objective .
> My choice tells me they are are better than the M7. But I also like the M7 but only in some musical situations but most not. Again choices. Lastly unless we all are Ina room at the same time same music and form or reproduction it is impossible to comment accruitly on the outcome . And if we did have the massive meet we would find out how very different our choices are .
> Al


 
  
 Once again, there is no difference even for DSD playback. What you are doing is reading a file, and sending it digitally through USB to your DAC. Your CPU has no influence on this so long as the media player's process can be handled (and it can very very easily).
  
 If you're hearing a difference between an i5 and an i7 when playing DSD files then the difference comes from something else entirely. As long as you're not running so many processes that your CPU can't handle your media player (and it's incredibly unlikely, considering a media player even playing DSD files will take a very SMALL amount of CPU usage), then there will not be any difference.
  
 And it should be noted that, even IF your CPU couldn't handle this, there would still be no AUDIBLE differences. The track would skip, the media player app might freeze, but audibly there will not be any kind of difference whatsoever, you will still be sending the SAME digital signal through via USB to your DAC, the same 1s and 0s, no matter the CPU used.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Do not think in terms of computing the sound we here's is very fragile and any tiny delay effects the sound. 
If you do hear this then get better stuff or I am crazy. And I do not think I am. 
The really hear what us going on you need really good headphones and amp or good speakers 
But the imaging changes much more in slower CPU s. 
And never getting the pint if studdy either. 
It's why win server 2012 in core mode matters so much. And I. This case you may be correct as not neededing so much CPU power. 
But I any windows applications as in win 7 or 8 it fires matter. 
The issue is we all post about USB cables but not the cpu playing the music this is why I am posting this 
Al


----------



## ultrabike

elmoe said:


> You can literally spend half what you spend on a mac and have a higher quality PC. That's my point originally. Certainly, a 200 dollars "bargain" Dell craputer will be worse than a 1600-2000usd macbook pro. There's no point to compare things not in the same price range though. Dollar for dollar, the PC will always win, in every possible aspect.
> 
> Power supply noise and distortion coupling will be the same in a PC as it is in a Mac. A Mac or a PC's power supply is rudimentary the same thing, except for your PC you can pick and choose one with less audible noise, and you can customize your case to isolate it alot better than in any Apple computer. Anyhow, I would like to see any kind of proof as to how Apple's USB implementation is better than any PC as far as noise goes, and will be incredibly surprised to see any difference whatsoever. Apple computers tend to be much smaller in size than the average PC which most likely results in a higher noise through USB than most decently built PCs.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well, my HP craputer laptop was north of $1k and just a little shy of what a macbook pro would cost. Got it because it had better specs (i7 + 8G RAM + dedicated GPU ...) failed to consider the level of failure Beats introduced to the HP offerings. Like you, I though it was just removable bloatware. I was wrong. Yes, external card solves that problem, but when I'm to lazy to hook up the USB card I have to accept the consequences of my poor HW selection, which also sort of forced me into the Windows OS (HW not supported by OS X, and issues with Linux distros as I later found out).
  
 Noise on the USB line might depend on how things are laid out... specially with laptops and the quality of the USB transceivers and how well they isolate from the bus noise.
  
 Again, I agree that an external card will remove the Beats Audio from the equation, but it makes for an extreme example about software crapyfing your listening experience.
  
 For audio, I actually prefer OS X from my iPad (like the interface and sound), but use more my Windows 7 -> external card (foobar) for convenience and when I'm not too feeling too anal retentive about audio. Stay away from Linux unless you are confident your HW is WELL supported, which usually means outdated HW specs... BTW last time I tried Ubuntu, it was buggy with foobar as well.


----------



## elmoe

alrainbow said:


> Do not think in terms of computing the sound we here's is very fragile and any tiny delay effects the sound.
> If you do hear this then get better stuff or I am crazy. And I do not think I am.
> The really hear what us going on you need really good headphones and amp or good speakers
> But the imaging changes much more in slower CPU s.
> ...


 
  
 The CPU is not 'playing the music'. If anything, having an SSD instead of HDD or enough ram will matter a whole lot more than your CPU. There is no 'computing the sound' either, since in this case we are talking about using the PC as a transport only. What OS you use does not matter either, which is why OS X does not "sound better" than windows, or linux, or android, or anything else. If you playback files from your Android phone in USB Audio mode (outputting the digital signal via USB) to your external DAC, then it will sound exactly the same as it would from your home computer (given that the USB ouput jitter on your computer is inaudible that is). 1s and 0s are 1s and 0s.


----------



## elmoe

ultrabike said:


> Well, my HP craputer laptop was north of $1k and just a little shy of what a macbook pro would cost. Got it because it had better specs (i7 + 8G RAM + dedicated GPU ...) failed to consider the level of failure Beats introduced to the HP offerings. Like you, I though it was just removable bloatware. I was wrong.
> 
> Noise on the USB line might depend on how things are laid out... specially with laptops and the quality of the USB transceivers and how well they isolate from the bus noise.
> 
> ...


 
  
 And I bet your laptop is still much better than a macbook pro if you use digital out through USB. If that's how you're playing music then the Beats Audio stuff doesn't enter the equation anyway. I don't have any experience with Beats Audio on HP laptops, but it seems to be easily removed by doing this:
  
 http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-PC-Sound-and-Audio/Delete-Beats-Audio/td-p/1685737
  
 Noise on the USB line will no doubt depend on how things are laid out, that being said you're not sending an analog signal here but a digital signal. The only implication would be jitter, and on both Apple and PCs, the levels will be comparable.
  
 That you like the interface of OSX is one thing (although I can't for the life of me understand why people prefer iTunes to the dozens of great choices you can have on windows with WASAPI/ASIO support like foobar, JRiver, etc etc etc, even iTunes is available!), but soundwise there will be no difference.
  
 I don't know when you last tried ubuntu but it works perfectly well for me, though I tend to just use windows. As far as hardware compatibility is concerned, as long as your USB ports are recognized, then you'll be able to output a digital signal through them.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

elmoe said:


> The CPU is not 'playing the music'. If anything, having an SSD instead of HDD or enough ram will matter a whole lot more than your CPU. There is no 'computing the sound' either, since in this case we are talking about using the PC as a transport only. What OS you use does not matter either, which is why OS X does not "sound better" than windows, or linux, or android, or anything else. If you playback files from your Android phone in USB Audio mode (outputting the digital signal via USB) to your external DAC, then it will sound exactly the same as it would from your home computer (given that the USB ouput jitter on your computer is inaudible that is). 1s and 0s are 1s and 0s.




wow is that not true i use a hugo from my iphone 5 via rhe camera adaptor into the hugo ussb port . it sounds pretty good but better on my home cpu and much better with an cccaps audio server . this is not made up . i am not one to calim i hear changes in usb cables or hesadphones wiring. not saying they dont but not for me . 
al


----------



## elmoe

alrainbow said:


> wow is that not true i use a hugo from my iphone 5 via rhe camera adaptor into the hugo ussb port . it sounds pretty good but better on my home cpu and much better with an cccaps audio server . this is not made up . i am not one to calim i hear changes in usb cables or hesadphones wiring. not saying they dont but not for me .
> al


 
  
 I'm sure you believe it sounds better, but in a blind test you would not be able to tell any difference whatsoever. At the end of the day you are sending exactly the same information to your Hugo DAC from all 3 devices. They all merely act as a transport for the digital signal (carrying DATA, 1s and 0s), nothing more.


----------



## ultrabike

elmoe said:


> And I bet your laptop is still much better than a macbook pro if you use digital out through USB. If that's how you're playing music then the Beats Audio stuff doesn't enter the equation anyway. I don't have any experience with Beats Audio on HP laptops, but it seems to be easily removed by doing this:
> 
> http://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-PC-Sound-and-Audio/Delete-Beats-Audio/td-p/1685737
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yup, tried that a long time ago... and did not work. What sort-of worked was that HP updated their drivers and it is possible to bypass a lot of the crapy-ness, but it's still crapy. Just less so.
  
 I also don't use iTunes on my iPad nor think highly of it.
  
 The OS IMO is indirectly tied to the performance of what you get. For one not all HW is available for all OS. Second not all drivers perform the same in all platforms... It depends. And with the HW (and SW support) comes the possible differences.
  
 I also don't think you have to worry of jitter only. Noise may cause some other problems, depending on the USB sound card. For example, if I use my Focusrite 2i2, I don't have many problems with noise. If use my BitHead (an older SC that I hold on to) I can hear a higher noise floor, random bus signals, and the stomach of my laptop when it gets hungry... Depends also on the USB sound card... Guess one could get a Schiit Wyrd, but dunno.
  
 Ubuntu worked great with an old Dell laptop I had. No overheating problems, and all HW supported (after some days of updating and mocking around with drivers)... The HP laptop not so. I get a sorry HW not fully supported, wait next year or next next year for support... maybe.
  
 EDIT:
  
 And... I can say that the Focusrite 2i2, BitHead, Leckerton UHA-6, and so forth (which while not the same as the ones discussed in this thread are SC I have some experience with) do sound different. Like 39.5716...% different in some cases and 68.53487...% in some others.
  
 Measurements indicate why in some cases... In some others I'm not quite sure.


----------



## purrin

castleofargh said:


> blind testing? strange I don't remember reading much about matched volume levels and blind test on the first post.


 
  
 This thread was more about DACs and never intended to be a transport comparison. A comparison was made with six transports / interface combinations on the PWD2 and three transports / interface combinations on the M7. These tests included blind level matched comparisons are not addressed in this thread. If I have time, I'll post the results of this comparison or another I am currently performing with the M7.
  
 Blind testing level matched testing, or eliminating placebo, not the exclusive domain of nwavguy.
  


castleofargh said:


> what I read from your post is that the M7 has one crappy USB IN with compatibility issues. I don't really see why we should blame the transports for this, or what they have to do with it?


 
  
 You are shifting the argument. You argued that my statement that transports play a significant role in the sound of DACs was BS - that transports affect the sound of the DAC maybe 1%. I'm simply replying that you lack the experience (not having performed any such comparisons yourself, blind or otherwise) to give any credence to your assertion that transports do not or very minimally affect the sound of DACs.
  
 In terms of treating science as religion, I simply meant that you are guilty of not applying the scientific method to test your assertions.
  


castleofargh said:


> also you might be interested by the fact that the only domain of science dealing with absolute truth is math.


 
  
 Which is exactly why you should have never bothered with or deleted your initial post rather then conduct your passive-aggressive booger flicking drive by at me. But I know your kind quite well.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Jitter is many forms of noise limped into one phrase . Music is all about timing so anything that effects it's process creates the sound we here and greatly effects it's clarity. An example of this is the DAC inside the hdvd800. Most say it stinks well not in tiredly actually. If I use an offramp 5 or AP1/PP IT Improves dramatically . It's the overall definition to,listen for. So with out it cymbals don't shimmer then shrill. With it they shimmer and resonate . This is what I am posting about. The changes are very obvious unles the the music is just so complex you can tell anything of it. Butno,any something less complex and the details of improvement shine bright in your ears . 

Regarding external devices for sound its simple if the device is noises so will the external sound card . You have not solved the issue . This is why some here feel it's all a waist and think there is no difference there is but not the way you are approaching the issue .
Al


----------



## ALRAINBOW

purrin said:


> This thread was more about DACs and never intended to be a transport comparison. A comparison was made with six transports / interface combinations on the PWD2 and three transports / interface combinations on the M7. These tests included blind level matched comparisons are not addressed in this thread. If I have time, I'll post the results of this comparison or another I am currently performing with the M7.
> 
> Blind testing it not the exclusive domain of nwavguy.
> 
> ...


----------



## purrin

On operating systems affecting the sound.
  
 Modem operating systems have quite a bit of control over the hardware, including assigning priorities, reserved bandwidth, polling for power management, etc. to specific USB ports, and linux, OSX, Windows, all do it slightly differently. To complicate matters, USB cannot use DMA (direct memory access) and therefore must always utilize some CPU time. The noise environment inside computers are a mess with spread spectrum turned on for most CPUs, CPU now use halt states and variable clocks for power efficiency. I presume that these things matter and do affect the sound given how even the most simple changes, such as a PS regulator for the chip, can affect the sound of a DAC.


----------



## ultrabike

I think even NwAvGuy made a big deal of the PS quality. Spent tons of words in describing the "wrongs" of virtual grounds. Went all crazy about single battery designs and went for 2 'cuz 1 was bad. Spread the word about the saintness of star grounds, and so forth...
  
 But USB noise and effects on the PS of an external card ... don't. matter... That's showing a lack of objective faith and requires some lashes and going on ones knees from home to church as penance.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Thanks Purrin. I may not know why but I know what I hear. 

If more people had an offramp there would be better understanding how much us the CPU creating this sound we have 
What info not understand is the complete lack of the DAC makers in this to fix it. I would think most dacs at least a 1 k and up should have something to help. 
Al


----------



## purrin

alrainbow said:


> I completely disagree with some of purrins statements but do feel he is wrong in his choices ? We must form our own in this and not what someone says with confidence
> 
> Al


 
  
 Al and I have our disagreements - but also many agreements. Even when we disagree, we understand each other and where we are coming from. This is really the essence of fruitful conversation. Trying to get to bottom of things. The discovery process, understanding what is different, rather than trying to argue what is better or not.
  
*I'm reposting this from another thread because I think it belongs here more than anywhere else:*
  
_On that thought, four things I would like to point out in my experience:_
  

_People hear the same unless they have defective hearing. I don't buy this people hear differently crap; however note four points below._
_People will use different vocabulary in describing sound._
_People will hear different aspects of gear depending upon the sonic characteristics other equipment in the chain._
_People will hear different aspects of gear depending upon specific recordings down to specific masters, releases, formats, etc._
_Personal preferences and sonic priorities are different._
  
_I find that once #2 to #4 are reconciled, there is always 100% agreement on how something sounds._
  
_#2 can be easy to reconcile with a phone call or direct conversation if the people involved have heard a lot of gear in common. it is still difficult to bridge though because it's hard to happen to find two random people who have heard a lot of the same stuff; and even then it takes time to establish common meanings. I cite this Star Trek episode: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Darmok_(episode)_
_#3 can be reconciled by people using the same gear or having a great deal of shared experience of specific gear._
_#4 can be reconciled by people using the same recordings or having a great deal of experience and knowledge of specific recordings in common._
_#5 can not be reconciled unless were are all assimilated into the borg collective._
  
_I've never experienced disagreement other than different personal preferences when I've gotten X people together in the *same* room to listen to the *same* recordings on the *same* equipment while attempting to bridge our vocabularies._
  
_I was at the Bay Area meet and I asked a friend of mine to listen to the Bakoon amp because I thought it was pretty nifty with the HD800. I noticed that he had a slight grimace on his face and I looked over and noticed he was listening to the Michael Jackson SACDs. I was like "noooooooo....". Most people are familiar with the Michael Jackson CDs or the remasters in the 2000s, but not the SACDs, which are very bass lite (they were messed up when mastered). If my friend had not known about the nature of these specific MJ SACD recordings, he would have thought the Bakoon was an extremely bass-lite or thin sounding amp._


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Sorry I meant info feel you are correct in your choices sorry 
About that


----------



## purrin

I know what you meant!


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Good cause it sounded like I am a jerk. 
Thanks


----------



## skeptic

ultrabike said:


> I think even NwAvGuy made a big deal of the PS quality. Spent tons of words in describing the "wrongs" of virtual grounds. Went all crazy about single battery designs and went for 2 'cuz 1 was bad. Spread the word about the saintness of star grounds, and so forth...
> 
> But USB noise and effects on the PS of an external card ... don't. matter... That's showing a lack of objective faith and requires some lashes and going on ones knees from home to church as penance.


 
  
 Eh - not exactly. The guy was sometimes an abrasive ass, and I certainly don't agree with all of his conclusions or philosophies, but this misstates the nwadogma.  
 -He was opinionated about grounds, true, but he did acknowledge why active grounds are useful in some high power amp designs.  Given increased cross-talk as a downside, he just argued it made no sense in headamps.  Most engineers seem to agree with this - although let me be clear that I still like my mini3 and think that the way nwa lashed out at amb was not reasonable or civil.  The o2 does sound cleaner with a wider variety of headphones though - and I use mine fairly often after throwing agdr's booster board in it along with a lme49990 soip adapter in the gain stage.
 -The dual battery was all about supplying adequate voltage to drive less sensitive headphones.  Not exactly ground breaking stuff.
 -As to PS quality, he advocated in favor of a $7 wallwart and a couple of dirt cheap onboard regulators....
  
 Given the above, I'd say that what he did with the input on the odac is consistent with a certain apathy about power supplies and their noise.  Odac is still a nice cheap beginner option for those with decent usb ports who don't mind sabre's house sound, but I confess a certain glee in seeing mcandmar's posted measurements of a pupdac + doodlebug outmeasuring an odac + doodlebug.  (http://www.head-fi.org/t/636683/pupdac-step-by-step-build-thread/255#post_10536044 )  Think I'm gonna have to try my hand at a pupdac sometime soon.  Always wanted something with a bb 1794 in it.


----------



## ultrabike

skeptic said:


> Eh - not exactly. The guy was sometimes an abrasive ass, and I certainly don't agree with all of his conclusions or philosophies, but this misstates the nwadogma.
> -He was opinionated about grounds, true, but he did acknowledge why active grounds are useful in some high power amp designs.  Given increased cross-talk as a downside, he just argued it made no sense in headamps.  Most engineers seem to agree with this - although let me be clear that I still like my mini3 and think that the way nwa lashed out at amb was not reasonable or civil.  The o2 does sound cleaner with a wider variety of headphones though - and I use mine fairly often after throwing agdr's booster board in it along with a lme49990 soip adapter in the gain stage.
> -The dual battery was all about supplying adequate voltage to drive less sensitive headphones.  Not exactly ground breaking stuff.
> -As to PS quality, he advocated in favor of a $7 wallwart and a couple of dirt cheap onboard regulators....
> ...


 
  
 I understand what you are saying, but not sure how I'm misstating nwdude's scriptures... LOL! I'm being a bit sarcastic, but that doesn't mean I feel MissingGuy is wrong in all of his inspired writings.
  
 TheGuy seemed to think active grounds are useful in high power amps, but he also did not feel these amps were the last word in fidelity. I'm not sure that is generally true just cuz of the virtual grounds, but it may apply in many cases. Crosstalk due to increased impedance _seen at the ground by both channels_ makes sense but it's a design choice with pros and cons. The mini3 uses only one battery and the options to have a real ground are more limited... Dual battery supply obviously is capable of more voltage swing, but one pays the price of real state. Obviously using the right dirt cheap onboard regulators helps vs. not having them. (EDIT: BTW, while I don't think NW's measurements are fabricated, there are a few places where I don't think he gave the mini3 a fair shake, but I'm not going to discuss that... too out of topic)


skeptic said:


> Given the above, I'd say that what he did with the input on the odac is consistent with a *certain apathy about power supplies and their noise*.


 
  
 That's the point. I also feel clean power supplies should make a difference in performance. I think this difference depends on the DAC susceptibility to noise at the inputs to the PS. In USB powered DACs, the USB port at the PC/laptop (with random SW) supplies the powar...
  
 I'm also quite interested in the pupdac.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

A cheap big improvement with windows CPU desk top. Is simple a Paul pang PPA USB PCI x card and the voltage reguer he sells it's in three hundred with batteries twinsets and charger LIpo batteries. It makes a big enough improvement for old people like me to hear easily 
And it works on all is systems asside from Mac anyway 
Al


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Can someone please post Link to the list people are posting about 
I cannot find it 
Thanks in advance 
Al


----------



## skeptic

ultrabike said:


> I understand what you are saying, but not sure how I'm misstating nwdude's scriptures... LOL! I'm being a bit sarcastic, but that doesn't mean I feel MissingGuy is wrong in all of his inspired writings.
> 
> TheGuy seemed to think active grounds are useful in high power amps, but he also did not feel these amps were the last word in fidelity. I'm not sure that is generally true just cuz of the virtual grounds, but it may apply in many cases. Crosstalk due to increased impedance _seen at the ground by both channels_ makes sense but it's a design choice with pros and cons. The mini3 uses only one battery and the options to have a real ground are more limited... Dual battery supply obviously is capable of more voltage swing, but one pays the price of real state. Obviously using the right dirt cheap onboard regulators helps vs. not having them. (EDIT: BTW, while I don't think NW's measurements are fabricated, there are a few places where I don't think he gave the mini3 a fair shake, but I'm not going to discuss that... too out of topic)
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the gracious reply!  Sounds like we're on about the same page all in all.  Maybe we can reconvene this party in the pupdac thread in the not too distant future.  Fingers crossed that we both manage to get those first couple of components soldered cleanly.  Once the oscillator and 1794 are down, the rest of it looks easy enough.


----------



## 7ryder

purrin said:


> _*I was at the Bay Area meet and I asked a friend of mine to listen to the Bakoon amp because I thought it was pretty nifty with the HD800.*_


 
 I also believe that the HD800 sounds pretty nifty with the Bakoon amp, my wallet wishes otherwise.


----------



## castleofargh

ultrabike said:


> skeptic said:
> 
> 
> > Given the above, I'd say that what he did with the input on the odac is consistent with a *certain apathy about power supplies and their noise*.
> ...


 
 I believe we're saying the same here. except I blame the dac not the transport. when you're gonna make a usb DAC you have to know that it will usually not be plugged into some perfect 5v with zero noise. still going on market with something that will get largely affected by it is an error, or should be mentioned with a list of proper sources.
 I never dared to think that all transports were the same, but I dare to say that the impact should be minimal on a competent dac design and certainly not 30-60%. I stand by that opinion.
 my only experience of weird stuff was with a hifimediy, where I could hear the computer noise going in my IEMs. here obviously the transport would matter, but for the odac/o2 and leckerton the background is always audibly clear (I don"t have measurement tools).
  
 about your comment before on differences with asio wasapi etc, I would tend to think that a working asio should output the same as a working wasapi, else one of those is a liar ^_^(perfect bit). but depending on the computer I sometimes had trouble making asio work, and on others it was wasapi( right now both are happy and I don't hear a difference). but that's to say that the OS and drivers might play more of a part than we would guess at least up to the point where we get rid of compatibility issues. I did experience differences between wasapi in push mode and in event mode once(can't remember the dac right now, but it will come back). obviously it would seem logical that a dac able to deal with "event" should work optimally with it. but again the problem here is mostly to have something actually working properly, and what the dac was optimized for. some have a complicated firmware limiting compatibility and requiring to install a software on the computer to work at it's best, some are very basic and limited to lower sample rates or 16bit to maximize compatibility. I find it very wrong to blame a transport for the dac specs.
 I never said we could never experience differences, I'm saying we shouldn't have much differences if we paired gears as intended.
  
 it's a little like cables, with wrong damping, wrong voltages close to clipping, and weird cables, there is no end to how non linear a response can get sometimes. but when used as intended between gears made for each other with a big damping factor(or with a real 75ohm cable for spdif), then cable impact becomes de facto negligible(unless you live right next to a military radio tower, that might change a few things^_^). should we account for all the wrong pairings of gear and say that cables matter? should we plug whatever into whatever without a care in the world and blame the transports? that's where I obviously disagree. should I blame vodka for not being the best fuel for my car and say that fuel choices make a 30-60% change in my car? or say that battery choice is important because a 2volt/500ma one doesn't boot my laptop? that's what people are doing in audio everyday and blaming the gears for it. I'm not blaming people, one can't solve a problem he doesn't know exists. but that makes for strange debates on headfi.
 the stuff with the hugo is probably something like that and the gears are clipping.
  
 I could take my own opposite opinion and defend it, it's easier than with philosophy. just with the buffer size in foobar I can make one dac output "tac" noises while the other is ok. and changing the value make the fine one stuttur and the "tacking" one fine.  it's easy to mess things up, and if I don't know or don't care, then I can come here and post that one is good and one is defective, randomly, with "facts" to support it. or maybe I can blame my laptop manufacturer for not being able to feed the great dac I love so much on my mac(fiction I don't buy mac because I'm mac racist). anyway I'm starting to blame you for purrin's posts, sorry for that.


----------



## ultrabike

I think differences are somewhere between 1 to 99% +/-1%.
  
 I know Purrin, and he's got quite a bit of experience with plenty of DACs and transports. One may disagree with the level of performance difference and impact... Like Purrin might say, it's 30% different when it actually is closer to 29.99873%.
  
 You bring a good point about proper hardware pairing though, but sometimes it's the manufacturer shooting itself in the foot, not necessarily the reviewer.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

I can add this not sure it belongs too though meaning witch side of the argument. Trans ports do not have clocks so they sync to the dacs clock. So that leaves noise right no it does not. And deviation in the fat stream effects the dac . Now one would think the dac should fix all of this but it does not so they re both to blame if you ask me . But. Given that dacs do no better witha CPU as transport who really cars then. As the dac makers should be the last stop so I say is them but only if it's a CPU. After that it's both. Now I do have a rally expensive transport and guess what happens if I use it even with a Hugo we ll,irs the best sound from it . On par witha caps unit all out server. So noise or whatever it is seems to prevail over our sound all the time unless we use a ap1//pp or an offramp 5 or any other really good USB converter . But the next funny thing is the hugo or DS both get worse with a an offramp 5 or a ap1/PP . I posted this result but got no answers . Jitter is not just noise it's anything that happens to the data stream even if the data stream is loaded into memory like the PWT does it's still there waiting when the stream continues . Now my msb stack fixes this all some how . 
As I have no idea what is going on it sure seems like a really good transport and or dac fixes it. . 
Al


----------



## purrin

castleofargh said:


> ...


 
  
 tl; dr


----------



## castleofargh

ultrabike said:


> I think differences are somewhere between 1 to 99% +/-1%.
> 
> I know Purrin, and he's got quite a bit of experience with plenty of DACs and transports. One may disagree with the level of performance difference and impact... Like Purrin might say, it's 30% different when it actually is closer to 29.99873%.
> 
> You bring a good point about proper hardware pairing though, but sometimes it's the manufacturer shooting itself in the foot, not necessarily the reviewer.


 

 should I understand that you can measure something as big as 30% more distortions coming out of a dac depending on what transport you use?  or a 30% variation in FR? or both?
 I don't understand how you can accept such a number. 10% variation in sound for a source would be enough for me to call the system defective(yeah I'm also not a fan of high distortion tube amps). having to deal with headphones limitations and coloration is enough for my plate.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

purrin said:


> tl; dr




???


----------



## purrin

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr


----------



## ultrabike

Tube stuffs are not necessarily distortion monsters... at least the Vali wasn't (will have to measure some other ones)...
  
 How something measures does not always translates into how something sounds. There is some correlation, but it's not 100%. If it was 100% there wouldn't be anything some guys could exploit to get reasonable results with lossy compression (ala mp3 and such).
  
 Some 1.584122% issues end up sounding 61.5984% bad. Some 10.48412% issues end up sounding 0.0158415% bad... +/- 35.87403%.
  
 EDIT: measured % issue could be THD, IMD, Crosstalk, FR, IMD of IMD, damping, bad weather, possession, and/or just plain bad juju level.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Hahahaha very funny. 
Al


----------



## SearchOfSub

zachchen1996 said:


> Exactly how I felt when I first heard the hugo, and I thought mine was broken.


 
 LOL.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Holy cow if this stuff was posted on the guo thread they would be going crazy. Great stuff. But I like the Hugo with my CIEMS anyway for mobile use .
Al


----------



## SearchOfSub

boatheelmusic said:


> SearchofSub, why don't you try a PS Audio PWD II?  You can get a new one at Audiogon for maybe $1,800 now, a tremendous deal.


 
 I thought about it, but it just seems like its outdated and the sound quality not good because of that reason... Bryston BDA-2 is what I am looking at.. heard it was never fatiguing..


----------



## castleofargh

ultrabike said:


> Tube stuffs are not necessarily distortion monsters... at least the Vali wasn't (will have to measure some other ones)...
> 
> How something measures does not always translates into how something sounds. There is some correlation, but it's not 100%. If it was 100% there wouldn't be anything some guys could exploit to get reasonable results with lossy compression (ala mp3 and such).
> 
> Some 1.584122% issues end up sounding 61.5984% bad. Some 10.48412% issues end up sounding 0.0158415% bad... +/- 35.87403%


 

 oh so those are percentage to correlate taste of music. purrin you were talking about that too?
 if so I have nothing to say as taste is taste and small stuff can be horrible for one and unimportant to another(like hiss). but I though % of sound had to relate to actual percentage of sound that's what got me going. old me being too rational.


----------



## boatheelmusic

Outdated?

Poor sound quality?

Nay. nay...........


----------



## Currawong

castleofargh said:


> what I read from your post is that the M7 has one crappy USB IN with compatibility issues. I don't really see why we should blame the transports for this, or what they have to do with it?


 
  
 Though it is a past post, the details of which have long since been gotten over, I wanted to comment on relative experiences.
  
 What purrin is saying is: The stock USB _compared to $1500-worth of dedicated USB-to-I2S converter designed by someone with many decades of experience, research and effort_ is crap. That's going to be a given. I don't think the USB32 with custom firmware or the CMedia USB are crap, they are both very good, but they aren't going to compete with Audiophilleo or Empirical Audio.
  


purrin said:


> alrainbow said:
> 
> 
> > I completely disagree with some of purrins statements but do feel he is wrong in his choices ? We must form our own in this and not what someone says with confidence
> ...


 
  
 Star Trek analogies FTW!


----------



## SearchOfSub

Regarding transports. I just swapped my panasonic player which is about 1/3 of the size of my PS4 back and forth.. played same cd in both... sound was different. Alot more warmer on the PS4. More dynamic for one... sound is bigger.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Transports sound different and also use EQ in the software to make them sound as they wish . This too effects the sound . I nor iced this why playing them wit the Hugo . They all have a house sound to them .
Al


----------



## SearchOfSub

I get what AL is saying. For me its pretty simple... even when you play games or or load up s spreadsheet, when you got things running in the backround, the program lags and creates noise... you dont even need speakers to hear it..i can hear it from the actual cpu lol... any cpu would lag.. and i assume lag would ofcourse cause delays issues on all softwares etc... including jriver etc... normal person would not even really think about this or would care.. but ofcourse al is a big audiophille 

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## Wildcatsare1

^^Al, could you describe what your an by " house sound" for transports and what those "house sounds" are for various manufacturers? Thx


----------



## SearchOfSub

Considering Jriver is a software... and comparing it with lets say any video games which is a software... the graphic card and the cpu would totally make things more fluid vs lag.. isnt it same concept?

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## ALRAINBOW

What I mean by house sound is the change that occurs to sound when we use that transport . If you tried it on a few dacs you would start to pick the house sound of the transport. . I have four transports and they all have a house sound . This also occurs with daps we use as transports as well. 
Al


----------



## Wildcatsare1

^ K, thx Al


----------



## purrin

alrainbow said:


> What I mean by house sound is the change that occurs to sound when we use that transport . If you tried it on a few dacs you would start to pick the house sound of the transport. .* I have four transports and they all have a house sound . This also occurs with daps we use as transports as well.*
> Al


 
  
 Isn't that the weirdest thing? It makes completely no sense, but it's so true.


----------



## Clemmaster

Wouldn't this be more a matter of interaction with the DAC than a definitive EQ in the software?

Case in point: WASAPI and Kernel Streaming sound different with any DACs I tried (JRiver). They're all supposed to be "bit perfect", yet they sound different. Go figure.


----------



## sandab

clemmaster said:


> Wouldn't this be more a matter of interaction with the DAC than a definitive EQ in the software?
> 
> Case in point: WASAPI and Kernel Streaming sound different with any DACs I tried (JRiver). They're all supposed to be "bit perfect", yet they sound different. Go figure.


 
 Maybe your computer puts out a ton of HF noise on the USB signals, ground, and shielding - and the DACs just manage to keep it from getting onto the analog outputs with varying degrees of success.


----------



## Clemmaster

sandab said:


> Maybe your computer puts out a ton of HF noise on the USB signals, ground, and shielding - and the DACs just manage to keep it from getting onto the analog outputs with varying degrees of success.


It probably does. That noise shape and characteristics could be what's making different transports sound, well, so different.


----------



## hans030390

castleofargh said:


>


 
  
 I don't think you _fully_ understand the science of digital audio conversion as well as you think you do. I sure know I don't have a complete grasp on it! It is stupidly complex and sensitive to get just right in all factors, and it doesn't have to be just right to produce bare-minimum or acceptable audio quality. Sometimes it's a situation of "Does it work or not?" but often times is not so obviously problematic. I came to learn that folks like nwavguy over simplify many scientific aspects in this regard or simply make incorrect, absolute assumptions about human hearing.
  
 Do you mind if I ask what your thoughts are on digital filtering and upsampling/oversampling, including pre and post-ringing, and how that might affect what we hear? It's just one small area of DACs I'm interested in, not that I fully understand it all that well. Curious to hear your thoughts. For example, I'm of the opinion that pre and post-ringing do have slightly audible effects, though most "scientists" quickly dismiss that as impossible to hear without running their own blind tests or similar.


----------



## purrin

Think about it. The transport does have a clock. In fact, for most simple SPDIF implementations, the transport has _the _clock. It's going to spit out data at a certain rate and the digital receiver on the DAC end can't do jack about it. SPDIF is unidirectional - it's not like TCP/IP where there's flow control and retransmission. The digital receiver on the DAC is going to have to try to keep pace with data coming from the transport. There's no guarantee the reciever is going to be able to keep up. The DAC to a large extent is at the mercy of the transport. SPDIF compounds the issue because both data and clock and multiplexed into the signal, and the receiver has to make sense of it and extract each stream accordingly.
  
 Some folks will remember back in the day that a few companies (Wadia, Linn, etc.) put the master clock in the DAC and fed that clock back to the transport (or some variation thereof.) Two cables. One for SPDIF/data from transport to DAC and another for master word clock from DAC to transport.
  
 Yeah, transports do matter, especially for basic SPDIF, because the clock generator is in the transport. This is why transports have their own sound.
  
 FUNDAMENTALIST ZEALOTRY OR SCIENCE, IT'S YOUR CHOICE.
  
  *-OR-  *


----------



## doyouknowSBmean

Hey，Purrin. Did you ever heard the Bricasti M1 DAC. I have seen you stated that M7+OR5 with HDMI is better than MSB analog DAC in M7's thread. I'm interested in how my M1 compared with M7+OR5 combo.
 Thanks for taking the time to review the dacs!


----------



## purrin

Not heard one, but I will be hearing one this weekend. I've asked the owner about the Bricasti's sound and already feel positive about it. (I trust the guy's hearing - he has younger ears and he just nails it with descriptives.)
  
 BTW, I plan on replacing the M7/OR5 with the MSB Analog/PS later this year, if I can swing it.


----------



## doyouknowSBmean

Nice,looking forward to your comments on M1 and even the new ranking list


----------



## hans030390

purrin said:


> _On that thought, four things I would like to point out in my experience:_
> 
> 
> _People hear the same unless they have defective hearing. I don't buy this people hear differently crap; however note four points below._


 
  
 I'm of the opinion that people _mostly_ hear things the same way, though there are slight differences. With my in-ear headphone measurement setup, my two ears produce slightly different results (thus why I use averages of each channel on both ears, if at all possible). While some of this must simply be errors from my setup that wouldn't completely manifest themselves in a real listening environment, I'm assuming at least part of this is due to slight variations between my ears. So, I have to imagine different people hear things ever so slightly differently, as we don't have exactly the same ears (size, shape, etc.) from a physical perspective. Enough to explain fairly common disagreements on various gear? I don't think so...too subtle for that, but there nonetheless.
  
 Differing terminology and personal tastes are much bigger factors, which you clearly mentioned.


----------



## OJNeg

purrin said:


> Think about it. The transport does have a clock. In fact, for most simple SPDIF implementations, the transport has _the _clock. It's going to spit out data at a certain rate and the digital receiver on the DAC end can't do jack about it. SPDIF is unidirectional - it's not like TCP/IP where there's flow control and retransmission. The digital receiver on the DAC is going to have to try to keep pace with data coming from the transport. There's no guarantee the reciever is going to be able to keep up. The DAC to a large extent is at the mercy of the transport. SPDIF compounds the issue because both data and clock and multiplexed into the signal, and the receiver has to make sense of it and extract each stream accordingly.
> 
> Some folks will remember back in the day that a few companies (Wadia, Linn, etc.) put the master clock in the DAC and fed that clock back to the transport (or some variation thereof.) Two cables. One for SPDIF/data from transport to DAC and another for master word clock from DAC to transport.
> 
> Yeah, transports do matter, especially for basic SPDIF, because the clock generator is in the transport. This is why transports have their own sound.


 
  
 Well said. This is why most pro audio and pro measurement gear have the ability to sync using a single, common clock. Always derived from a high quality oscillator. You see independent BNC ports on the back of a lot of this gear so that you can let the most critical device (would in fact be the DAC for audio) generate the clock and the other devices (there could be multiple) follow that signal. In fact, having this functionality is critical for a lot of applications if you're looking for reliability and highest performance.


----------



## aive

purrin said:


> Not heard one, but I will be hearing one this weekend. I've asked the owner about the Bricasti's sound and already feel positive about it. (I trust the guy's hearing - he has younger ears and he just nails it with descriptives.)
> 
> BTW, I plan on replacing the M7/OR5 with the MSB Analog/PS later this year, if I can swing it.


 
 Can I preorder your OR5?


----------



## aive

searchofsub said:


> I get what AL is saying. For me its pretty simple... even when you play games or or load up s spreadsheet, when you got things running in the backround, the program lags and creates noise... you dont even need speakers to hear it..i can hear it from the actual cpu lol... any cpu would lag.. and i assume lag would ofcourse cause delays issues on all softwares etc... including jriver etc... normal person would not even really think about this or would care.. but ofcourse al is a big audiophille
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 He speaketh the truth. Some smart people have actually devised a method of decrypting information based on CPU noise - http://www.tau.ac.il/~tromer/acoustic/


----------



## castleofargh

dammit I got logged out and lost my message ... (it's happening to me randomly since I updated to firefox31. they really want me to use chrome more)
  
 Quote:


hans030390 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 
 ok second version in short:
 what does any of that have to do with a transport sending data? when you put your songs on an external hard drive, you don't wonder if the song will be stored better if sent from a better computer right? or if the colors of the youtube video will be more hifi with another router?
 why are you trying to mix data upload or data streaming, with digital conversion?
 I'm not a "scientist" and pretty much like the rest of your post, I don't understand what nwavguy has to do with me? he's not my dad(this is a cellphone), he never bought me beer, and for all I know he could be a smurf from the CIA who failed to infiltrate a famous audio terrorist organization and got dumped at the bottom of a river with shiiiit amps chained to his feet.
 on a side note, most of nwavguy posts were directed at people who aren't engineers and were purposefully written as much as possible in layman's terms. if you can do better, and be more precise while understandable by the majority, please I beg you, I'm eager to learn more about how audio works and AES papers are usually too much for poor me.
  


purrin said:


> Think about it. The transport does have a clock. In fact, for most simple SPDIF implementations, the transport has _the _clock. It's going to spit out data at a certain rate and the digital receiver on the DAC end can't do jack about it. SPDIF is unidirectional - it's not like TCP/IP where there's flow control and retransmission. The digital receiver on the DAC is going to have to try to keep pace with data coming from the transport. There's no guarantee the reciever is going to be able to keep up. The DAC to a large extent is at the mercy of the transport. SPDIF compounds the issue because both data and clock and multiplexed into the signal, and the receiver has to make sense of it and extract each stream accordingly.
> 
> Some folks will remember back in the day that a few companies (Wadia, Linn, etc.) put the master clock in the DAC and fed that clock back to the transport (or some variation thereof.) Two cables. One for SPDIF/data from transport to DAC and another for master word clock from DAC to transport.
> 
> ...


 
 I never said there would be no differences. what's the matter with you guys trying to put an all black or white meaning to what we write. me saying that the differences shouldn't be much is fundamentalist zealotry, but you making up huge percentage values on the top of your head is science?
 my problem as I said was with your 30-60% sound change statement. but it seems like it was a purely rhetorical value to make your point and not at all an expression of how much sound can get corrupted. so we didn't argue about the same thing from the start and there wasn't really a reason to argue.
 I don't think I said there would be no measurable differences between transports as I never ever though that way. obviously there would be differences if only because of different protocols or different clock precisions and speeds.
 and indeed if you take a protocol that uses pure streaming(like spdif) instead of buffering and internal reclocking from the dac in asynchronous USB, then the lags are probably as good as the transport's clock and errors from the transport will stay errors. but errors in signal are very very rare nowadays(or again it's a defective product), and jitter being reported as not being audible unless the delays are huge, the audible impact should still be minimal in any not too crappy transport. I mean a product made to output sound has to be built to handle at least 44.1khz with some confidence.
 now as I said to ultrabike, if a dac is at ease only with one kind of protocol(and that's usually how they are) and we use another one, then the results might also change. again I wouldn't make a claim about how audible that can be as it depends entirely on the gears. but that part is DAC dependent mostly so we shouldn't blame the transport for it.
  
 I'm glad I can pass for a science freak on the net, my mum will be proud. I would be very interested in seeing measurements from different sources plugged into a few DAC/amps. maybe there really is something to dig here. but if there could be up to let's say 5% of distortion because of a transport, then it would mean that a transport is more important than a dac and an amp together. I dare imagine that it would have picked the interest of a few people if such was the case. but maybe that's again my zealotry speaking.


----------



## elmoe

All this is pointless anyhow. The only factor entering the equation here is noise and jitter. Jitter is absolutely inaudible nowadays, and has been since the 80s. If it WAS audible, it would produce a data error, and the resulting audible sound would be cut offs, at best. There is no such thing as "better quality" 1s and 0s, you either get the data or you do not.
  
 As far as noise is concerned, if you're hearing noise through your USB ports, then something is wrong with your hardware.
  
 In either case, there is not going to be a "different sound". I suggest giving this article a good read:
  
 http://ethanwiner.com/audibility.html


----------



## ALRAINBOW

What ever it is , it's extremely audioble to our brain. Our brains can determin extremely small variations in timing of the sounds we here .,it changes the texture and clarity of the sound. .

One of my ref red book is a cd recorded in the 1980. There is no dsd or hirez I coild ever find. It's on Pablo records . It's count Basie Kansas City shout . It features eddy clean head and few other old timers with count Basie and his band . So now what does this matter well now read the following. 

The first track is I had a dream the track is pretty simple just a few instruments and eddies voice. But the drummer brushes the cymbols almost constantly. 
The following is some thing that is very easy to hear. While using the hdvd800 as amp and dac . Now most say the stinks well not really all the true although it's not fantastic .
If plYed from atypical CPU or surface pro on battery the cymbols actually hiss almost like air . The dynamics are also effected of his voice as well the air around the studio is lost. .
Next I tried the AP1/PP OR OFFRAMP 5 and wow how much better it is. The air is back and so is the voice .mand the symbols are so clean you can hear the brushing stoping briefly with the strokes . Thus us an observation with the same CPU and both USB devices . Now the offramp darkens things a little and lowers the noise floor while the AP1/PP 
seems briter . Now if I use one of my caps the sound is fantastic even better than either the offramp or caps. Now keep,in mind the presentstion is still a little thin but the deatils are now startling in comparison to without a caps or USB converter. So call it jitter or noise or rfi I do not claim to know what it is. But I do claim it effects our dacs greatly. Now some dacs improve far less witha USB converter and not as much with a caps . But every dac does improve witha a caps . Also my conclusion some dacs sound there best in USB and spidif thus can be determined by simply playing around with inputs. I now own a lampi B7. And it sounds it's best over USB , as when I used the spidif and USB converters there was no such improvment and over all best over USB. I also own a UMT plus it's. Transport and even with this the USB still sounded it's best choice. Now it never sounded bad but it did sound it's best with USB . 

One last thought not all transports have clocks in them. My UMT plus does not have one and I do not think the ps audio PWT has one either . But I am sure about the UMT plus it's an upgrade I did not buy. Over all,it's the best transport I have for sure. 

I also did a test with my krell connect it has several outputs . Spidif as RCA and optical. It also is A very good transport but not as good a my caps but does produce clean clear music with good detail. 

Recently I tested my ps audio DS with my caps in USB mode . The calls is in core mode single u setup. Using j river and audio optimizer 
All Paul pangs stuff from top,to bottom and three battery supplies two bakoons and one red wine . Completly fan less and off the grid. 

The music was holographic simply the best audio I have ever heard . Voiced sand subtle changes as musicians move ever so slightly wre ver apparent 
Truly magical as the music was like a 3D presentation. Some say there speakers melt Into the room well I never really got that until the other night. 
My infinites always give me a sound stage that is amazing but this is just way above that. Now inhave a few dacs that I feel are much better than the DS but I have not had time to switch them in as yet. But my point in this post is digital audio startes at the CPU we use and truly must the best setup we can have and most dacs are far better than what we ever thought possible. 

Al


----------



## elmoe

This is all conjecture and personal experience at best. It can simply all be due to expectation bias. You've been saying a lot of things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever in this thread...
  
 The UMT Plus has a clock, as does the PS Audio PWT? Or am I missing something?
  
 http://www.msbtech.com/products/universalPlus.php
  


> _The Clock and Jitter_ - When it comes to audio quality, its all about jitter, jitter and jitter. It is the key to good sound. The biggest PLUS in the UMT_plus_ is our advanced approach to clock jitter.


 
  
  
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/psaudio7/perfectwave_3.html


> With the PWT, the moment the data exit the lens, a high-precision asynchronous clock adds the clock signal


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Did you read the details of the link you posted. It uses the clock inside my dac. . I also,own the msb platinum dac with galaxy clock 2 77 femto .
When i use it as a simple transport there is no clock inside the transport and it uses whatever is in the dac . I won it and purchased it. The clock was an option I did not buy 
Regarding my view I can except you feeling I a wrong this is fine. But the funny thing is I own all the stuff I post about . My views are based on using the devices over long periods of time . Not a 30 min session at a mini meet or shop. So think what you wish and I never claim to be a golden ear just an observer willing to post my views. 
Al


----------



## haloxt

The jitter studies I have seen were inconclusive, poorly done, but still suggest humans can be sensitive to very minute levels of jitter. I don't think science will ever figure out in any meaningful way the conscious, let alone the subconscious, thresholds of audibility of jitter, because not only do they not care to use the correct test equipment or audio tracks, and they don't even know what type of jitter to use or have any appreciation of how to minimize false negatives, oblivious of what combinations of equipment, sound clips, and jitter to use to make jitter more audible or in what ways they should become audible, and they don't even know what to look for other than "HE SAYS HE HEARS IT".
  
 If there is one type of auditory minutiae that humans can detect, it is time domain issues like jitter because humans have a very fine sense of time delays in order to help spatial positioning of sound sources, whereas humans may subconsciously "wash over" minutiae in frequency response, SNR, and THD, because it serves little purpose for humans to differentiate between such minutiae in the real world other than to attempt poorly designed ABX tests to amuse idiots who have no idea of how unscientific their tests are. Scientific bigots will never appreciate the possibility that when people experience the reduction of jitter in their audiophile gear, it may exist primarily as a subconscious awareness of the reduction of "wow and flutter" that may be as subtle as a "gut feeling" or "less fatigued feeling" which may be cumulative or take even over an hour to form, after which the listener might feel that the sound seems more "right", or possibly even worse if the reduction of jitter causes fatiguing sounds to become more pronounced. Nah, it's gonna be a bunch of smug-faced science bigots demanding that people subject themselves to highly unoptimal ABX tests designed to make people fail. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my $500 jitter reduction box while audio science remains in the dark ages.


----------



## elmoe

alrainbow said:


> Did you read the details of the link you posted. It uses the clock inside my dac. . I also,own the msb platinum dac with galaxy clock 2 77 femto .
> When i use it as a simple transport there is no clock inside the transport and it uses whatever is in the dac . I won it and purchased it. The clock was an option I did not buy
> Regarding my view I can except you feeling I a wrong this is fine. But the funny thing is I own all the stuff I post about . My views are based on using the devices over long periods of time . Not a 30 min session at a mini meet or shop. So think what you wish and I never claim to be a golden ear just an observer willing to post my views.
> Al


  
  
 Owning the gear is even more likely to make your expectation bias higher though. This isn't a shot at insulting you, the day you do a DBT ABX test where you can accurately tell a difference is the day I will start believing your claims. Until then, I will stick to what science tells me...
  

 Quote: 





haloxt said:


> The jitter studies I have seen were inconclusive, poorly done, but still suggest humans can be sensitive to very minute levels of jitter. I don't think science will ever figure out in any meaningful way the conscious, let alone the subconscious, thresholds of audibility of jitter, because not only do they not care to use the correct test equipment or audio tracks, and they don't even know what type of jitter to use or have any appreciation of how to minimize false negatives, oblivious of what combinations of equipment, sound clips, and jitter to use to make jitter more audible or in what ways they should become audible, and they don't even know what to look for other than "HE SAYS HE HEARS IT".
> 
> If there is one type of auditory minutiae that humans can detect, it is time domain issues like jitter because humans have a very fine sense of time delays in order to help spatial positioning of sound sources, whereas humans may subconsciously "wash over" minutiae in frequency response, SNR, and THD, because it serves little purpose for humans to differentiate between such minutiae in the real world other than to attempt poorly designed ABX tests to amuse idiots who have no idea of how unscientific their tests are. Scientific bigots will never appreciate the possibility that when people experience the reduction of jitter in their audiophile gear, it may exist primarily as a subconscious awareness of the reduction of "wow and flutter" that may be as subtle as a "gut feeling" or "less fatigued feeling" which may be cumulative or take even over an hour to form, after which the listener might feel that the sound seems more "right", or possibly even worse if the reduction of jitter causes fatiguing sounds to become more pronounced. Nah, it's gonna be a bunch of smug-faced science bigots demanding that people subject themselves to highly unoptimal ABX tests designed to make people fail. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my $500 jitter reduction box while audio science remains in the dark ages.


 
  
 That's a lot of name calling for someone who provides.. well... no scientific basis whatsoever. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 An ABX test is not designed to do anything but correlate something you guys say 'makes a HUGE AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE'. If that were so, those double blind ABX tests would be passed easily.
  
 It should also be said that I have myself done my fair share of DBT ABX tests, and when there actually IS an audible difference, I tend to pass them easily. The same can be said for most people who have been tested for things with a clearly audible difference which can actually be scientifically explained.
  
 You'll have to pardon me if your argument of "after a few hours, the difference becomes clear, the sound is less fatiguing, it's my gut feeling" only serves my disbelief. The fact of the matter is that audible memory only lasts a few seconds, so what you're sure happens after an hour, well... could simply be nothing at all.
  
 Enough said.


----------



## mowglycdb

How did you carry out your ABX tests?


----------



## elmoe

mowglycdb said:


> How did you carry out your ABX tests?


 
  
 It depends on which tests in particular. I tested power amps, headphones amps, lots of interconnects, and different files from 64kbps to DSD.


----------



## mowglycdb

Awesome, a friend from a chilean forum, did some tests with audio formats, and found differences up to 320kbps mp3 vs FLAC 44.1khz/16bit with 7% chance of guessing. FLAC 44.1khz vs 96khz, no difference whatsoever.
  
 But in this thread they're testing transports for DACs. There must be diferences but for one I know I would fail in double blind tests, but I still believe there are differences.  I don't trust ABX boxes, I think that if more than one DAC is playing at the same time some distorción goes through.


----------



## elmoe

mowglycdb said:


> Awesome, a friend from a chilean forum, did some tests with audio formats, and found differences up to 320kbps mp3 vs FLAC 44.1khz/16bit with 7% chance of guessing. FLAC 44.1khz vs 96khz, no difference whatsoever.
> 
> But in this thread they're testing transports for DACs. There must be diferences but for one I know I would fail in double blind tests, but I still believe there are differences.  I don't trust ABX boxes, I think that if more than one DAC is playing at the same time some distorción goes through.


 
  
 That's pretty much what I found also, differences up to 320 kbps mp3s / 256VBR AAC, no differences whatsoever between 44/96/192.
  
 There are no doubt differences, the question is whether they are audible or not. There is no DAC in an ABX box.


----------



## mowglycdb

I mean an ABX box with four inputs and only one output.  Conect four DACs playing at the same time and the distortion will be high.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

The changes are there and obvious I'm most cases 
I do not hear cables or interconnects this is for super hearing people. 
But no one here us posting how the testing was done. 
For starters CIEMS are in most cases not suitable to test with. 
So good headphones like a stax 009 or hd800. 
No LCD or like them. A HE6 is also good. 
But only speakers are a very revieling test. 
Lastly the system must be transparent to the source if not it's a waste 
And lastly the ref music must be your own. I have a collection on a thumb drive 
From redbook to hibrez PCM to DSD 64 and 128 
And really good redbook is really good and does sound close to DSD in some ways. 
But only DSD gives you the analog sound as from open reels 
Al


----------



## elmoe

Changes in transport - that can be argued I guess. Changes depending on your OS or CPU? Sorry, but I have to disagree.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

the canges are there its obvious and very repeatible were not talikng wiring . 
al


----------



## ultrabike

elmoe said:


> Changes in transport - that can be argued I guess. Changes depending on your OS or CPU? Sorry, but I have to disagree.


 
  
 I can tell you that I feel my craputer w foobar sounded better with Ubuntu than with Mickeysoft with it's default not-so direct sound and horrible drivers. Things got more even as one might expect when I used ASIO drivers (though they are a pain). I still have not done a test (ABX or whatevs) with ASIO vs Wasapi, but I'm predisposed in not expecting lot's of difference.
  
 I don't think the CPU is going to have a major impact, unless it's something like an 8051. But the particular PC built might, depending on components and how well it was put together.
  
 Whatever one may believe or not, it's good to keep an open mind and check things out whenever possible... I've learned quite a bit that way.


----------



## elmoe

ultrabike said:


> I can tell you that I feel my craputer w foobar sounded better with Ubuntu than with Mickeysoft with it's default not-so direct sound and horrible drivers. Things got more even as one might expect when I used ASIO drivers (though they are a pain). I still have not done a test (ABX or whatevs) with ASIO vs Wasapi, but I'm predisposed in not expecting lot's of difference.
> 
> I don't think the CPU is going to have a major impact, unless it's something like an 8051. But the particular PC built might, depending on components and how well it was put together.
> 
> Whatever one may believe or not, it's good to keep an open mind and check things out whenever possible... I've learned quite a bit that way.


 
  
 There is no doubt that with DirectSound in Windows, things are going to sound very different than they would using ASIO or WASAPI. I'm not arguing that at all. That being said, using ASIO under windows or OS X will be exactly the same thing. DirectSound is not your typical output considering the music will go through windows' kmixer which will significantly alter the sound, unlike ASIO or WASAPI which alter nothing.
  
 If we're talking about using the onboard soundcard's headphone output then YES, the PC build will probably have a major impact. However, if we are talking about sending a digital signal using ASIO/WASAPI through a USB port, then the impact, if any, will be inaudible at best.
  
 Since we here on Head-Fi tend to like our computer audio as close to perfection as possible, most if not all of us are doing exactly that: using ASIO/WASAPI to send the signal via USB to our interfaces or DACs. Thus, being on topic in the discussion, which operating system or whether you have a mac or PC will not matter significantly enough for audible changes to arise. Whether you're using an i5, a pentium IV or an i7 will matter even less.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

a more simplistic approach is win ser 2012 and audio optimizer . it elevates things to another level . even if not using batteries or linear psu,s the gain is there . so if this true then various cpu,s must be true as well . lets face it computer audio is not real until it gets to the analog output and who knows what is going on to get it there . 

al


----------



## elmoe

alrainbow said:


> a more simplistic approach is win ser 2012 and audio optimizer . it elevates things to another level . even if not using batteries or linear psu,s the gain is there . so if this true then various cpu,s must be true as well . lets face it computer audio is not real until it gets to the analog output and who knows what is going on to get it there .
> 
> al


 
  
 I don't see how the use of a software making your music sound better will also mean different CPU will. There is no correlation there.


----------



## purrin

mowglycdb said:


> But in this thread they're testing transports for DACs. There must be diferences but for one I know I would fail in double blind tests, but I still believe there are differences.  I don't trust ABX boxes, I think that if more than one DAC is playing at the same time some distorción goes through.


 
  
 There are other ways of performing experiments to verify if people are indeed hearing differences.
  
 Slightly off topic, but the notion of "I believe in what science says" is nonsense. Science only tells us to observe and conduct experiments. While there is nothing unscientific with making an assumption such as "modern DACs and/or transports have jitter levels so low that they are undetectable to human ears", the minute someone takes such an assumption as truth, particularly if that person has limited or no zero exposure to the systems in question, science gets thrown out the door.
  
 It's really no different than someone saying this: the earth is flat, this is what science says. And when asked did you sail the seas? The person replies no. Did you scan the heavens? No. Did you study the movement of the stars? No. Then why do you believe science says the earth is flat? I believe the earth is flat based on my own intuition and my readings of materials from the Church, Doug Self, nwavguy, etc. while I sit in my chair at home.
  
 Getting back on topic: DBT ABX is only one way to test. Another method I thought would be a neat idea is to stick DACs, transports, or combinations thereof into identical boxes and label them A, B, C. This arrangement would allow for long term listening of various DACs in a more relaxed setting without any pressure of "passing" the test or having listening fatigue affect the results. I have found that listening fatigue sets in rather quickly with quick ABX tests via switches.
  
 On the argument that the switches themselves can color or distort the sound, this is a possibility; but I feel that it is unlikely that the switches will impact the sound so much as to make DACs indistinguishable.
  
 By the way, I use this cheap-ass switch from Radioshack in reverse:
  
 http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3964911&utm_source=GooglePLA&utm_medium=pla&utm_term=1500313&cid=iPLA:RSO:Google&gclid=CLiDvZrH_L8CFYsbfgod8X4AYw&gclsrc=ds#
  

 One thing I would urge people to do is to experiment for yourselves. Some already have. Even casual observation, while not as reliable as blind tests, is better than no observation at all.
  
 P.S. I have my own doubts on different software players or WASAPI vs. kernel streaming sounding different. I'll make no strong statements either way until I get a chance to properly test and evaluate. It's possible to be skeptical while keeping an open mind.


----------



## elmoe

There is no assumption in DACs having inaudibly low level jitter, there are actual papers published proving that fact. It's cute to compare actual scientific data with the earth being flat, but it's nonetheless wrong. There are many published AES papers on the topic:
  
 http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/white-papers/12142221-jitter-and-its-effects
  
 Links at the bottom.
  
 The only thing here that is an assumption is the fact that you believe you can hear things which are inaudible.


----------



## bfreedma

alrainbow said:


> a more simplistic approach is win ser 2012 and audio optimizer . it elevates things to another level . even if not using batteries or linear psu,s the gain is there . so if this true then various cpu,s must be true as well . lets face it computer audio is not real until it gets to the analog output and who knows what is going on to get it there .
> 
> al


 
  
 In isolation, a CPU, as long as it's capable of handling the load (and everything from the last two decades fits that description) will have no impact on audio.
  
 I read the Audio Optimizer page and it's claims about the advantages of Windows Server 2012 over a standard desktop OS.  What an absolute bunch of bunk - they are just another "audiophile" company preying on those who might not understand how light a task processing audio is to any computer of a recent vintage.  After reading the manual, it's pretty clear that all the product does is configure a standard Windows installation while requiring an expensive WinS12k license on top of whatever they are charging for what amounts to an install script.
  
 There are a lot of testimonials on that site.  What there isn't is a single piece of valid information as to why their product is actually better.


----------



## elmoe

I don't think I've called anyone here stupid? Or anything else for that matter. At the end of the day, you spend your money however you want. Just don't try to convince me that OS X sounds better than Windows or a PC better than a Mac. I am as entitled to my own opinions as the "believers". And I don't mind arguing about audio at all, but I expect a civilized discussion instead of petty name calling.


----------



## mowglycdb

Sorry, I was talking about hardcore skeptics, you seem reasonable enough 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. ( I don't believe that a cpu or other components will affect much or at all either, a the psu might)


----------



## haloxt

elmoe said:


> Changes in transport - that can be argued I guess. Changes depending on your OS or CPU? Sorry, but I have to disagree.


 
  
 Different OS, components, and software players can result in significant differences in how the information and digital signal is handled from when it is in the hard drive or SSD to the digital output. Even playing WAV vs FLAC with the same exact computer and software player will result in meaningful differences in CPU usage which will have an effect on jitter.
  


> That's a lot of name calling for someone who provides.. well... no scientific basis whatsoever.


 
  
 I don't need to provide science anything, none of the jitter studies are conclusive neither do they claim to be conclusive, it is relatively undiscovered territory and it will remain that way for a very long time because we have on one hand skeptics who think they have all the answers and on the other hand audiophiles and audiophile equipment manufacturers who have tossed aside attempting to objectively validate their subjective experiences or their design philosophies.
  


> An ABX test is not designed to do anything but correlate something you guys say 'makes a HUGE AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE'. If that were so, those double blind ABX tests would be passed easily.


 
  
 There are not many audiophiles who claim that the effects of jitter reduction is instantaneously audible, but the way that most audiophiles develop an opinion about audible differences between different components and accessories is usually based upon long-duration listening, not the same as the conditions most subjective audibility DBT ABX tests are done. It is difficult to obtain reliable information from humans who are not designed to process information like machines regarding their conscious perceptions or reporting of conscious perceptions which is distinct from their theoretical thresholds of physical sensory perception and subconscious processing of the information. When attempting to test the thresholds of conscious or subconscious perception of minutiae you can't simply say "DBT ABX". Researchers will throw tens of thousands of dollars at making sure the test subjects are given optimal test conditions so as to be able to minimize false positives and false negatives in even something as simple as taste tests which they know can significantly differ moment to moment from what humans are theoretically capable of correctly discerning, yet you talk about the testing of audibility thresholds as if it's a simple matter of instantly and consciously being aware of things.
  


> It should also be said that I have myself done my fair share of DBT ABX tests, and when there actually IS an audible difference, I tend to pass them easily. The same can be said for most people who have been tested for things with a clearly audible difference which can actually be scientifically explained.


 
  
 No one knows exactly what is consciously audible and what is not audible, the physical limits of human sensory perception is very different from what is consciously perceivable, and all scientific explanation can do regarding the SUBJECTIVE limitations of conscious awareness of minutiae in sensory perception is attempt to estimate what the threshold might be, and it should be noted, such threshold is constantly changing moment to moment, and different person to person. Everyone knows that human are extremely unreliable when it comes to reporting their own sensory perception, but some people won't admit that this tendency for false positives will also result in false negatives. I don't think people will ever create audibility threshold studies that actually minimize false negatives to anywhere near the same degree that studies on other humans senses have, first because most people have already decided that they know how measurements and audibility correlate, and second because there's no money in determining audibility thresholds.
  


> You'll have to pardon me if your argument of "after a few hours, the difference becomes clear, the sound is less fatiguing, it's my gut feeling" only serves my disbelief. The fact of the matter is that audible memory only lasts a few seconds, so what you're sure happens after an hour, well... could simply be nothing at all.


 
  
 Humans don't just directly sense the world around them, they also sense the internal world. What can't be sensed in the external world directly by the conscious mind can still be physically received by human sensory equipment, processed unconsciously, and finally sensed subconsciously, such as in how the person feels, especially during very long periods of exposure. If you were to have two duplicate humans in the same exact duplicate environments, then exposed one to audio, and exposed the second to the same audio with minute differences, the sound waves would affect the humans differently, result in different neurons to be fired, etc., and the issue then is can the conscious mind become aware of the difference. Given enough time, differences between the two different audio exposure can result in the two otherwise identical humans to feel differently and associate their subconscious feelings to the stimuli which they were not able to consciously be aware of directly, especially when the difference is something like minute decibel level changes of sibilance causing fatigue, minute softening of bass which results in less stress, minute addition of even order harmonics which give a sense of euphony, etc. How many studies do you know that actually give people ideal conditions in which the conscious audibility of minutiae, if it exists, will be able to manifest itself? All the ones I read have used inadequate equipment, audio, testing procedures, and also test subjects. Personally if I wanted to test the threshold of audibility of humans, I would be about a billion times more picky about these things than the studies I've read, and you can bet the only test subjects I would use would be people who have proven to have photographic auditory memory. When you tell a person to go into a DBT ABX, with skeptics ready to pounce on him when he fails the poorly designed tests, obviously you will actually increase the occurrence of false negatives if such a test is ever done because it is far from ideal conditions, and the test results wouldn't be worth much of anything other than to prove what we should (but apparently many don't) already know, that testing audibility threshold is not easy and not something you run around demanding people to do.


----------



## bfreedma

haloxt said:


> Different OS, components, and software players can result in significant differences in how the information and digital signal is handled from when it is in the hard drive or SSD to the digital output. Even playing WAV vs FLAC with the same exact computer and software player will result in meaningful differences in CPU usage which will have an effect on jitter.


 
  
 If properly configured, various OS's and storage devices will not be audibly different.  Many of the differences heard are because of improper setup and are easily corrected through proper/normal configuration.
  
 As for the variability in WAV/FLAC and CPU utilization, unless you're running a Vic 20 or your current computer is already CPU throttled, there won't be a difference in jitter based on percentage of available CPU cycles.  This is easy to verify - run your player of choice and bring up the appropriate tool to look at resource utilization for the player's process - not much to see and with modern caching, no impact to jitter.


----------



## skeptic

I'm curious what you all think of John Swenson's three part Q&A on Dacs and Jitter.  (First of three here - http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-1-what-digital , you'll have to google links to the other two since audiostream fails to provide direct links...)  The way he gets down on a micro level and explains digital, return currents and how ramp time and ground plane noise impact the functioning of inverters makes a whole lot of sense to me.  This isn't so much about the audibility of jitter as explaining the engineering challenges in minimizing it.
  
 As an aside, I have to take issue with all the vilifying of skeptics 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  God forbid we embrace the application of critical thinking and make a practice of questioning propositions that strike us as unsupported or that we simply don't understand.  Someone might actually learn something in the process!  At the end of the day, a reasonable skeptic is just an analytical thinker who is interested in parsing degrees of uncertainty while recognizing that very little in life is 100% provable (see Reid and Hume).  There is nothing in the word that implies behaving like an obstinate ass on internet forums.  Rather, it is the fanatical audio objectivists and, conversely subjectivists, who refuse to question their assumptions or consider the possibility of changing any of their positions, that stand as a perpetual obstacle to civil discourse, learning and advancement.


----------



## Draygonn

Did I wander into the SS section? I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque.


----------



## Stereolab42

Interesting thread. However, as a Sabre fan perhaps a Sabre-only thread will be created someday that's like this one.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Hahaha well sabre does not DSD. And PCM us clear and detailed but somehow 
It is plastic to me. I am not knocking it 
Just my view it could be a nice tube amp after the DAC would fix things though 
Al


----------



## castleofargh

haloxt said:


> The jitter studies I have seen were inconclusive, poorly done, but still suggest humans can be sensitive to very minute levels of jitter. I don't think science will ever figure out in any meaningful way the conscious, let alone the subconscious, thresholds of audibility of jitter, because not only do they not care to use the correct test equipment or audio tracks, and they don't even know what type of jitter to use or have any appreciation of how to minimize false negatives, oblivious of what combinations of equipment, sound clips, and jitter to use to make jitter more audible or in what ways they should become audible, and they don't even know what to look for other than "HE SAYS HE HEARS IT".
> 
> If there is one type of auditory minutiae that humans can detect, it is time domain issues like jitter because humans have a very fine sense of time delays in order to help spatial positioning of sound sources, whereas humans may subconsciously "wash over" minutiae in frequency response, SNR, and THD, because it serves little purpose for humans to differentiate between such minutiae in the real world other than to attempt poorly designed ABX tests to amuse idiots who have no idea of how unscientific their tests are. Scientific bigots will never appreciate the possibility that when people experience the reduction of jitter in their audiophile gear, it may exist primarily as a subconscious awareness of the reduction of "wow and flutter" that may be as subtle as a "gut feeling" or "less fatigued feeling" which may be cumulative or take even over an hour to form, after which the listener might feel that the sound seems more "right", or possibly even worse if the reduction of jitter causes fatiguing sounds to become more pronounced. Nah, it's gonna be a bunch of smug-faced science bigots demanding that people subject themselves to highly unoptimal ABX tests designed to make people fail. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my $500 jitter reduction box while audio science remains in the dark ages.


 

 studies show that what most gears confront us with will usually be indistinguishable in ABX (so at best not very audible). at some point it becomes audible because it will start to change more than just the timing of high frequencies. and the higher the jitter the lower the affected frequency.
 in that situation (so high level of jitter) we now might get something like the treble sound at maybe 16khz (as it should be) + some noise at -60 or -40 or say -20db in some real bad situations(obviously if it's already that bad at 16khz it's gonna be worst at 18khz and better at 14khz).
 usually sounds at 16khz are rolled off, if not on the album(if it was from a vinyl it certainly is), then I better not have a "warm" amp, else it would mean more roll off here. then I have to use a headphone (I don't count IEMs, most don't have much sound if any at 16khz) that doesn't roll off itself.
 so chances are that my jitter will affect some music that is already 5 10 or 20db lower than the mids or bass, and the noise generated in a real bad situation is still gonna be at -20 or -30db below that already lower sound. and then you add the fact that we are a lot less sensitive to trebles than we are to mids(when I try to make some equal loudness EQ with something supposed to be EQed flat-ishhh already I end up with around 25db difference compared to mids and that's my ears). that's why we tend to say that it is not gonna be audible, because in most normal situations, it will not be for one reason or another and usually an accumulation of reasons.
 sure if you have the worst system with super high jitter and everything with boosted trebles, and a young man's hearing. then you might just end up hearing jitter at some point. people saying that jitter will not be audible aren't saying it's impossible, they're saying that it's unlikely while listening to music.
  
 now your assumption about science and those people who seem to know nothing and do everything wrong, well someone might believe you, but even on the old videos from MIT, jitter seemed to be a very hot topic and they already know a great deal about it(more than I could understand at some point). but if you're ok with your delusion that somehow you or that one guy making your gear in a garage actually knows more than the people who made the components for that guy to use, then so be it. but it's really not that hard to know how much you're wrong. jitter has always been a concern and always will be and has been very much studied because as it happens, all of science and electronic doesn't turn around audio and jitter doesn't disappear as soon as you're making a computer instead of a DAC.
  
 then about time delays, maybe you should read a little more of what those "amused" "bigot" "idiots" know about time delays. it would help you avoid talking crap as if you knew your stuff. positioning cues are a mix of signature and time delays, obviously the frequency response is so much affected by so many factors that it doesn't really mater and we have a hard time telling up and down in music when it's so precise in real life. for one guy the sound will go higher up then at some point start to go in front, or behind, it depends as much on the sound and our equipment as on the shape of our ears.
 so what is left is time delays, yes! you got one! except that's time delays between left and right you silly willy. half the people can't tell when headphones have inverted polarity and that's a 180° "lag". jitter might be audible, but not for spatial positioning. try getting your reasons straight before you start getting angry at the universe.
 also you might like to know that jitter is usually given in nanoseconds. when you use a crossfeed (that's actually used for positioning cues) you mix left and right with delays like 280µs for Mayer crossover(or something close). and it's not hard to find the time delay between left and right(again it has nothing to do with jitter in the dac as it will affect both sides identically) you take the size you head, sound is 340m/s, not hard stuff.
 anyway you're using lags 1000times bigger with left and right differences as material to say that jitter matters ^_^. but yeah go ahead and point out all the little defects of abx being unscientific (it's a subjective test, it's not perfect because it uses human for measurement).
  
 then you talk about subconscious "wow and flutter"... amazing!!!!!  again the jitter we are talking about is how much? let's say 100ns(poor us). worst case scenario 20khz wave is 1/20000=50µs long (hope I didn't fail here^_^). so this very very bad jitter of 100ns in our equipment is also a 0.1µs jitter. it will move sideways the 20khz signal from 1/500th of it's own period. and you hear 20000 of those every second. you're gonna pretend you can interpret that magnitude of variation as wow and flutter? lol
 let's save the day and pretend you were talking about vinyl and not digital streaming. maybe sometimes you should stop thinking theory to justify your opinions, and take a look at numbers, you might have to change a few of your opinions afterward.
 what we may hear at some point is the noise generated by the slightly irregular signal(but that also depends on the type of jitter, a regular one does nothing at all). that's because by being late the wave ends up with an amplitude slightly different, what in sound translates in some noise added to the original signal. noise as I said much lower than the sound of the 20khz itself. and as we go lower in frequency the lag becomes less and less significant in regard to the size of one period of the wave, making it effectively meaningless. so my fun example was a worst case scenario where you could hear 20khz...
  
 enjoy you 500$ jitter box, maybe it does something else and is still meaningful, but you obviously have no idea why you bought it.
 some people buy paintings, I've been told it doesn't affect sound, yet I find it relaxing and less fatiguing than looking at the wall. you think I'm onto something here?


----------



## castleofargh

purrin said:


> On the argument that the switches themselves can color or distort the sound, this is a possibility; but I feel that it is unlikely that the switches will impact the sound so much as to make DACs indistinguishable.


 
 my first attempt at switches some years ago went fairly bad because the switch I was using had both sides bleeding into each others(it was some cheap stuff to switch between headphone and speakers with super long cables). it's wasn't big, but obviously it made everything more "alike" so I failed to discriminate a lot of stuff that were actually audibly different.
 also, I don't know if it's because of a common ground or something I don't get, but some amps I tried had hiss while plugged to a switch with another amp on the other input. but didn't hiss when plugged alone on the switch or in normal use. so it's a great tool, but it's always good to do a few tests aside from the switch to know what to expect.
  
 I still take a bad switch to manual cable switching any day. my brain is too much of a joker to be left alone with several seconds delays.


----------



## purrin

stereolab42 said:


> Interesting thread. However, as a Sabre fan perhaps a Sabre-only thread will be created someday that's like this one.


 
  
 Well, you can take tidbits from here. I don't like SABRE, but I can certainly pretend to.
  

Vega - best SABRE DAC I've heard so far. hyperdetailed, great microdynamics, attack, and good macrodynamics. EXACT mode via USB results in a warmer more liquid sound. on the brighter side, but good bass extension. Sounds best being fed with DSD or hires PCM with better microdynamic rendering and authority of just digging in. (I think there's some circuitry in there to convert hires PCM to DSD internally.) Did not need OR5. Sounded best with EXACT mode.
Audio-GD NFB7.32.43.546.45452.343.rev34344.Nineteeneightfour - hyperdetailed, attack, good macrodynamics. Sort of the bridge between above and below item. Generally Vega sounds more refined. Those who like SABRE will not notice any SABRE treble oddities - it's a very solid standard SABRE sound. Neutralish sig. USB is quite capable, but OR5 provides even more resolution.
X-Sabre - slightly odd last octave (typical of all SABRE, so SABRE fans will not notice anything askew), but no stridency. even tonal response - "neutral" for lack of a better term. fast, detailed, resolving, good attack. great results with better microdynamics when fed DSD. downsides are lack of bass texture and pitch differentiation. don't get me wrong, I like this DAC, and would love it, especially considering its price if I were a SABRE fan.
Invicta - attempts to warm up and provide body to the SABRE sound, but with disastrous results. Every note or sound rendering has body. Juxtaposed with slight stridency, just weird. No oddities in the last octave. Some congestion when things get difficult. Poor bass pitch differentiation and texture. Filters had a huge difference, but one of them was clearly the best. Better with SD card. but overall a huge disappointment. I really wanted to like it upon initial listen, but the more I heard it, the less I liked it. Covering up the SABRE sound with tricks is something only an immoral hypocritical Jedi would do.
Typical Chinese SABRE DAC $899 and under - don't bother. just don't bother.
Mytek - lean, but not brighter than Vega. by this, i mean sub and low bass seem to be missing. Upper mid  lower treble glare galore. burning in DAC for several days (a la Stereophile) did not help. a used unit left on for several days did not help. thousands of noobs who upgraded from iphones or bestbuy crap think it's the beesknees - they are not wrong -  but in the overall scheme of things pretty unlistenable. unless you like to sit in the orchestra right next to the horn flare of the french horn guy.


----------



## purrin

draygonn said:


> Did I wander into the SS section? I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque.


 

 ignore works wonders.


----------



## BournePerfect

People that hedge all their bets on science crack me up. They absolutely accept nothing but what is scientifically measured-and deny the possibility that said measurements are actually limited in their ability to quantify subjective nuances of the human auditory system. Then a scientific advancement comes along that can measure one of these nuances or two-and they're all for it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You've really gotta learn to straddle that line in order to keep your head out of the sand.
  
 -Daniel


----------



## BournePerfect

I was referring to those objective zealots who claim science as the be-all-end-all truth in audio. Sounds like maybe you feel as if you yourself fall into that category, seeing as I never picked you out.

Good to know though, and like you said-to each their own.

-Daniel


----------



## ALRAINBOW

Take thus as one who likes to argue my point. This not worth arguing over. We need to move on with this. Weather what side we are on . 

Al


----------



## d4nim4l

purrin said:


> Well, you can take tidbits from here. I don't like SABRE, but I can certainly pretend to.
> 
> 
> Vega - best SABRE DAC I've heard so far. hyperdetailed, great microdynamics, attack, and good macrodynamics. EXACT mode via USB results in a warmer more liquid sound. on the brighter side, but good bass extension. Sounds best being fed with DSD or hires PCM with better microdynamic rendering and authority of just digging in. (I think there's some circuitry in there to convert hires PCM to DSD internally.) Did not need OR5. Sounded best with EXACT mode.
> ...


 
 The NFB7 is the only DAC above that you didn't formally rank; If the Vega is #8 and the X-Sabre is #14, where does the NFB7 slot in?


----------



## adamaley

d4nim4l said:


> The NFB7 is the only DAC above that you didn't formally rank; If the Vega is #8 and the X-Sabre is #14, where does the NFB7 slot in?


 
 Whew, finally back on topic here. Hope this new phenomenon lasts.


----------



## d4nim4l

adamaley said:


> Whew, finally back on topic here. Hope this new phenomenon lasts.


 
  
 I blacked out and missed a few pages of the thread, did we veer off subject?


----------



## purrin

d4nim4l said:


> The NFB7 is the only DAC above that you didn't formally rank; If the Vega is #8 and the X-Sabre is #14, where does the NFB7 slot in?


 
  
 Between Vega and X-Sabre.


----------



## d4nim4l

purrin said:


> Between Vega and X-Sabre.


 
  
 How about in terms of the numerical ranks?  Is it closer to #8 or #14?  Or smack in the middle at #11?


----------



## purrin

#13.5, which makes the X-Sabre a much better value. But pretending I liked SABRE, #10.


----------



## d4nim4l

purrin said:


> #13.5, which makes the X-Sabre a much better value. But pretending I liked SABRE, #10.


 
  
 Thanks for all the time you put into this, it has been a great resource to me certainly as I contemplate my next DAC.


----------



## purrin

If hope this makes sense. Maxvla has an X-Sabre and lives in OK. I know he's organzied meets in Austin or other parts of TX before.


----------



## d4nim4l

purrin said:


> If hope this makes sense. Maxvla has an X-Sabre and lives in OK. I know he's organzied meets in Austin or other parts of TX before.


 
  
 Absolutely.  I don't have any firsthand experience with SABRE DACs, so I don't know if that will be my cup of tea or not.  I appreciate that you acknowledge your personal preferences and are up front about communicating them.
  
 Yeah, I have had conflicts with the Austin meets the past couple of years - I think I actually PM'd with Maxvla in years past about it.  I plan on getting to a local or national meetup to get some head time with some different dac / amp combinations in the near future.  I bought my AGD NFB-10SE without hearing it first based largely on feedback here on headfi, and I have been very pleased with it.  This time around, I will definitely be spending a lot of time auditioning equipment before making another purchase - I might find myself satisfied with what I already have.


----------



## 62ohm

Purrin,
  
 Do you think it's worth it for me to get a OPPO BDP-103? I'm going to use it to play CDs & Blu-Rays, as well as using it as a transport.


----------



## SearchOfSub

Changes in cpu and os different sound. I once had a game called NBA 2k14.. out for Xbox One and PS4... different OS and CPU... software maker made the game exactly same specs (or atleast released to public that it was... did the game run differently in 2 systems? Simply yes..

Ps 4 version was alot better even though same specs.. heard sounds (like basketball hitting the basket when missied) crowd clapping... small details i didnt hear with the xbox one version..

So i do get ALs story..

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## SearchOfSub

Not to mention the gameplay was far more fluid and everyyhing was just easier...cleaner and crisper.

If you relate the gameplay to sound, it is the same thing.. not sure if you can relate it though..

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## purrin

62ohm said:


> Purrin,
> 
> Do you think it's worth it for me to get a OPPO BDP-103? I'm going to use it to play CDs & Blu-Rays, as well as using it as a transport.


 
  
 That blind test of five or six transports that I mentioned earlier when this thread got derailed by the zealots? One of the transports in question was the OPPO BDP-103. Let's say it wasn't in the top three or four.


----------



## sonixen

purrin,

Enjoyed a couple for reads in this thread. Just wondering where does the recently released micro idsd rank ?


----------



## magiccabbage

Can anyone tell me how many taps are in the Rcam Rdac? Don't know where else to ask. the chip is - wolfson WM8741


----------



## bfreedma

searchofsub said:


> Changes in cpu and os different sound. I once had a game called NBA 2k14.. out for Xbox One and PS4... different OS and CPU... software maker made the game exactly same specs (or atleast released to public that it was... did the game run differently in 2 systems? Simply yes..
> 
> Ps 4 version was alot better even though same specs.. heard sounds (like basketball hitting the basket when missied) crowd clapping... small details i didnt hear with the xbox one version..
> 
> ...


 
  
 You're kidding, right?
  
 Different versions of the software.


----------



## adamaley

Can't believe you bit.


----------



## haloxt

Originally Posted by *bfreedma* 


  
*If properly configured, various OS's and storage devices will not be audibly different.  Many of the differences heard are because of improper setup and are easily corrected through proper/normal configuration.*
  
 As for the variability in WAV/FLAC and CPU utilization, unless you're running a Vic 20 or your current computer is already CPU throttled, there won't be a difference in jitter based on percentage of available CPU cycles.  This is easy to verify - run your player of choice and bring up the appropriate tool to look at resource utilization for the player's process - not much to see and with modern caching, no impact to jitter.
  
 There are many ways in which the transport can mess up the sound, and most windows users don't even get bit perfect sound, let alone low jitter signals. You need specialized software like osx's BitPerfect or window's Ciscmemoryplayer or specialized plug-ins to make sure you are getting bit perfect, especially for windows, and to minimize i/o's and overhead. Cics has taken measurements showing it can output significantly less jitter than other players due to reducing i/o's and cpu usage by loading music onto RAM and idling the CPU as much as possible.
  
 http://web.archive.org/web/20130831192523/http://cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CMP.03Jitter
 http://web.archive.org/web/20120126082039/http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CMP.02Upsampling
 http://web.archive.org/web/20101124034801/http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=CMP.04BitPerfect?
  
 Originally Posted by *castleofargh*
  
*studies show that what most gears confront us with will usually be indistinguishable in ABX (so at best not very audible). at some point it becomes audible because it will start to change more than just the timing of high frequencies. and the higher the jitter the lower the affected frequency.*
*in that situation (so high level of jitter) we now might get something like the treble sound at maybe 16khz (as it should be) + some noise at -60 or -40 or say -20db in some real bad situations(obviously if it's already that bad at 16khz it's gonna be worst at 18khz and better at 14khz).*
*usually sounds at 16khz are rolled off, if not on the album(if it was from a vinyl it certainly is), then I better not have a "warm" amp, else it would mean more roll off here. then I have to use a headphone (I don't count IEMs, most don't have much sound if any at 16khz) that doesn't roll off itself.*
*so chances are that my jitter will affect some music that is already 5 10 or 20db lower than the mids or bass, and the noise generated in a real bad situation is still gonna be at -20 or -30db below that already lower sound. and then you add the fact that we are a lot less sensitive to trebles than we are to mids(when I try to make some equal loudness EQ with something supposed to be EQed flat-ishhh already I end up with around 25db difference compared to mids and that's my ears). that's why we tend to say that it is not gonna be audible, because in most normal situations, it will not be for one reason or another and usually an accumulation of reasons.*
*sure if you have the worst system with super high jitter and everything with boosted trebles, and a young man's hearing. then you might just end up hearing jitter at some point. people saying that jitter will not be audible aren't saying it's impossible, they're saying that it's unlikely while listening to music.*
  
 Studies can only show that within the study, they were unable to manifest conscious audibility at x y z jitter ns at a b c frequencies in the study with all of the inherent issues and possibilities of false positives and false negatives of the study, none of them would claim like you that it is “indistinguishable” like something set in stone. Nothing regarding something as complex as the limits of conscious awareness of sensory input is set is stone because it is never static, in fact, human reports of their conscious awareness of things can be extremely unreliable It may not be directly consciously audible in many circumstances, but it doesn't change the fact that jitter raises noise floor, or that humans are able to be affected by minute changes in sensory input that is physiologically perceived by sensory organs and processed different on an unconscious and subconscious level, and which can indirectly result in conscious perception. Whether or not some minutiae is consciously audible is very difficult to estimate, and claiming things like it is "unlikely" doesn't matter. It is like saying slight changes in shades of color in an artwork is consciously imperceptible and therefore there's no point in having more shades, but it does affect the human physiologically through perceiving different apparent colors and different neurons being fired and resultant changes in the body which eventually will result in differences in the human body that a person may become consciously aware of. What is the conscious threshold of audibility or of any other senses? I know in most other fields they don’t try to give an absolute amount for limits of conscious awareness of sensory input, but audio… sigh.
  
*now your assumption about science and those people who seem to know nothing and do everything wrong, well someone might believe you, but even on the old videos from MIT, jitter seemed to be a very hot topic and they already know a great deal about it(more than I could understand at some point).*
  
 There is significant disagreement about the threshold of audibility of jitter within even scientific groups, like among different audio engineers, i.e. compare what Julian Dunn and Eric Benjamin have said. And how much do we know about the conscious effects of jitter, of how they may be perceived? Do they consider that some jitter may in fact “sound better”? In example I could inject some mid frequency jitter and people may say it sounds more euphonic, when it actually just blurs the sound but humans are very complex creatures and may perceive it as euphony, or I could remove jitter in high frequencies and people say it sounds worse because it allows sibilance and other high frequency sounds to be more distinct and fatiguing and which may take minutes or even hours to manifest as something that is consciously discernible. Let me repeat, no matter how much skeptics say x y z is not possible unless it passes DBT ABX as if such automatically solved the issue of false positives and false negatives, the limits of human conscious audibility will remain undiscovered territory because anything regarding the limits of human perception is difficult to test, isn't tested optimally, and because there is no money in it.
  
*but if you're ok with your delusion that somehow you or that one guy making your gear in a garage actually knows more than the people who made the components for that guy to use, then so be it. *
  
 I am not saying jitter reduction product manufacturers know more about jitter, neither do most of them have access to proper jitter analysis tools to do it even if they wanted to measure jitter and do experiments, I am saying that these manufacturers and the people who purchase their products have moved far beyond testing jitter, they are going to insanely low jitter levels such as sub-picosecond regardless of what people say about the audibility of jitter, even if such <picosecond scale is thousands of times lower than what some people say is audible. The AES can make as many guidelines as they want regarding jitter, but it would be completely irrelevant to audiophiles and audiophile manufacturers of jitter reduction equipment and software because their jitter levels have gone waaaaay below whatever jitter recommendations the AES would ever make, and they keep trying to go lower and lower. The people who make the components are irrelevant here, I'm not saying and never said the audiophile manufacturers know more about jitter than them and I don't see how it is relevant. Sure manufacturers of components have to try to aim for low jitter for a lot of components for different reasons, and sometimes they do it because they have different beliefs as what jitter amount is acceptable in terms of sound or to cater to their customers and specify jitter, different types of jitter, peak or rms jitter, but that doesn't change the fact that there can be a lot of sources of jitter in different components in audio chains which will exist regardless of what manufacturers of components have done or can do.
  
*but it's really not that hard to know how much you're wrong. jitter has always been a concern and always will be and has been very much studied because as it happens, all of science and electronic doesn't turn around audio and jitter doesn't disappear as soon as you're making a computer instead of a DAC.*
  
 Sure they've tried to deal with jitter in many industries including audio, but it doesn't change the fact that for a very long time a lot of people preferred vinyl over CD's because of crap jitter performance of digital, and with the introduction of computer as transport there's all new sources of jitter that have to be dealt with, and it should be noted, many people who believe jitter is highly audible think that jitter is the cause of much  of the “digital” sound of digital audio reproduction and the preference for components and equipment that have low jitter, which for decades up to even right now is still an issue people have against digital reproduction, and which audiophiles and audiophile manufacturers are trying to address by reducing jitter further even to this day. And the people creating the best solutions to jitter in audio are often audiophile manufacturers and manufacturers of components catering to audiophile gear manufacturers, or components meant for other uses but hijacked for audio uses. Regardless of jitter reduction and measurement, what is really at issue here is the conscious audibility threshold of jitter, and it is my opinion that it is quite undiscovered territory, and any discussions about the merits or demerits of jitter reduction should take into consideration this fact that conscious audibility threshold is a very difficult thing to test and we can’t blanket say what jitter is and is not possible to hear.
  
*then about time delays, maybe you should read a little more of what those "amused" "bigot" "idiots" know about time delays. it would help you avoid talking crap as if you knew your stuff. positioning cues are a mix of signature and time delays, obviously the frequency response is so much affected by so many factors that it doesn't really mater and we have a hard time telling up and down in music when it's so precise in real life. for one guy the sound will go higher up then at some point start to go in front, or behind, it depends as much on the sound and our equipment as on the shape of our ears.*
  
 Sigh, you forget that the issue is conscious audibility of jitter, and I bring up that humans are able to discern minute differences in time because the worst kinds of jitter can manifest themselves as shifts in time and the addition of harmonics at times where they shouldn’t. It doesn't matter that audio reproduction reproduces confusing spatial cues, what matters is that it is extremely repetitive when a person listens to the same audio clip, song, or album over and over again, and the same audio clips over and over again with jitter introduced, to be able to remember or try to remember the differences, and when he compares future listening against his memory, whether consciously or subconsciously, he may notice differences, especially when it is periodic jitter causing similar distortion over the same frequencies. In other words, even if audio recording and reproduction are not lifelike they still do exhibit differences from jitter, so that the direct or indirect conscious awareness of auditory differences, if they exist, can still be noticed by comparing two audio clips with different types and amounts of jitter, assuming the test is done properly, which again, I think would be very hard to do.
  
*so what is left is time delays, yes! you got one! except that's time delays between left and right you silly willy. *
  
 Humans are able to perceive small differences in time delay because we have a very good ability to discern time, of when things start, end, and the modulations in frequency and volume in between, especially at frequencies of human speech, including the harmonics and fundamental spread caused by jitter, with very minute changes affecting the apparent musical expressiveness and meaning of notes and of voices/words, and this can be done with one ear. There have been times where I used iem’s to hear the sound without outer ear HRTF and only with one headphone speaker, turning off the other channel so that I could analyze equipment with just one stream of sound without being distracted by having to analyze music from two different channels and the issues that come from it. That people are able to discern time delay between the two ears to determine spatial positioning of sound sources is possible only because of the human ability to discern minute differences in time in sounds. It should be noted, much of this occurs on a subconscious level which might primarily be detected consciously indirectly when consciously detectable, and long duration listening may be much preferable to the sort of fast switching you get in most ABX DBT for allowing conscious audibility of minutiae, if it exists, to manifest.
  
*half the people can't tell when headphones have inverted polarity and that's a 180° "lag".*
  
 That humans so easily give false positives would make one think that false negatives are an issue too. But I guess that doesn't matter, let's just insult human fallibility, pretend to know the limits of conscious audibility, and not do anything to try to actually test the threshold of conscious audibility.
  
*jitter might be audible, but not for spatial positioning. try getting your reasons straight before you start getting angry at the universe.*
  
 Never said jitter is "audible for spatial positioning”, only that humans have a very good sense of timing as evidenced by their very good ability to spatially position things based upon delays and can notice when there are spurious changes in sounds, especially when they are repetitive like in the worst kinds of jitter.
  
*also you might like to know that jitter is usually given in nanoseconds. when you use a crossfeed (that's actually used for positioning cues) you mix left and right with delays like 280µs for Mayer crossover(or something close). and it's not hard to find the time delay between left and right(again it has nothing to do with jitter in the dac as it will affect both sides identically) you take the size you head, sound is 340m/s, not hard stuff. anyway you're using lags 1000times bigger with left and right differences as material to say that jitter matters ^_^.*
  
 Just like you said, it has nothing to do with jitter, but you just want to attack. Let me repeat myself, humans have a very good sense of time as evidence by their ability to discern spatial positioning based upon time delay. And one more time for good measure, I meant to say humans have a very good sense of time and can notice very small changes which can alter the apparent musical expression or meaning of notes and voices, and some studies even claim it is in the tens of nanoseconds, so please enough with your 1000x bigger.
  
*but yeah go ahead and point out all the little defects of abx being unscientific (it's a subjective test, it's not perfect because it uses human for measurement).*
  
 Yawn. ABX DBT is unscientific when people... don't care to minimize false negatives and pretend to know the limits of conscious audibility when studies are inconclusive and differ from one another in their findings, not to mention aren’t optimal.
  
*then you talk about subconscious "wow and flutter"... amazing!!!!!  again the jitter we are talking about is how much? let's say 100ns(poor us). worst case scenario 20khz wave is 1/20000=50µs long (hope I didn't fail here^_^). so this very very bad jitter of 100ns in our equipment is also a 0.1µs jitter. it will move sideways the 20khz signal from 1/500th of it's own period. and you hear 20000 of those every second. you're gonna pretend you can interpret that magnitude of variation as wow and flutter? lol*
  
 Humans have proven themselves to be very sensitive to jitter, but exactly how sensitive they are would require much more rigorous testing than has been done, and in my opinion won’t ever be done, and even if done well, no one would claim (except people like you) that x y z conscious audibility is not in any way possible. I am reminded of how ophthalmologists used to try to gauge the conscious thresholds of visual acuity, they simply don’t, because they realized very early on that it is always inconstant, changes time to time, person to person, stimuli to stimuli, test condition to test condition, and when people are in different mental or emotional states, and there are accounts of even eye tests for giving prescription glasses taking hours to do ending with no satisfactory result, due to this conscious variability of human perception and fallibility of humans to report their conscious awareness of their physiological processes of perception and unconscious processing of the sensory input. They might be able to estimate very accurately the technical limits of human vision, but trying to put a limit on the conscious threshold of a person’s vision is foolish, just as people might be able to very accurately estimate the technical limits of the human hearing apparatus, trying to claim one knows the limits of conscious audibility is foolish. In visual reproduction, you just have people making smaller and smaller pixels, faster and faster FPS, and no one complaining about this progress, because they understand it is difficult to bridge the gap between theoretical limits of the eyes and the conscious limits of conscious perception, whereas in audio you have people saying nanosecond jitter is fine and other people trying to go to femtoseconds of jitter. And unlike in audio, they don’t try to say with absolute certainty what is and what is not possible to be consciously seen or be consciously affected by minute differences in visual stimuli.
  
*let's save the day and pretend you were talking about vinyl and not digital streaming. maybe sometimes you should stop thinking theory to justify your opinions, and take a look at numbers, you might have to change a few of your opinions afterward.*
*what we may hear at some point is the noise generated by the slightly irregular signal(but that also depends on the type of jitter, a regular one does nothing at all). that's because by being late the wave ends up with an amplitude slightly different, what in sound translates in some noise added to the original signal. noise as I said much lower than the sound of the 20khz itself. and as we go lower in frequency the lag becomes less and less significant in regard to the size of one period of the wave, making it effectively meaningless. so my fun example was a worst case scenario where you could hear 20khz...*
  
 So jitter is more audible at higher frequencies, so what? What do you know is meaningless or not meaningless? You obviously haven't tested the conscious audibility threshold of jitter. Let me repeat myself, the fundamental issue is that we don’t know what is the limits of conscious audibility, and I posit that most of the studies I have seen are extremely inadequate, and anyway they don’t even agree about what can and can’t be detected within the studies. If someone were to attempt to test the conscious limits of human vision for distant objects, would he pick random people off the streets, visual reproduction gear aficionados? Or would he pick someone who is known to have extraordinary distance vision? Then when the tests start going to the threshold of what the person is able to see, things will become blurrier and sharper under different circumstances, and even change moment to moment for no apparent reason, and the responses from the test subject regarding the subject’s conscious interpretation of what his eyes physiologically sense and unconsciously process in his mind before handing the information to the conscious mind will be extremely unreliable. And the question has to be asked then, what is the real limit of conscious visual discernment if human visual acuity can fluctuate so much? How do we minimize false positives and false negatives? Nah, let’s just say shazam, it’s hard to hear at 20khz, if not audible in this best case scenario, how can you hear at other frequencies?
  
*enjoy you 500$ jitter box, maybe it does something else and is still meaningful, but you obviously have no idea why you bought it.*
  
 I bought it out of scientific curiosity, and have spent countless hours doing listening tests with and without it, and with many different changes. In fact, most of the things I have bought regarding audio and most of the times I have listened to my gear have been to satisfy my scientific curiosity. I think my experiences have been significantly more enriching than if I were to simply make proclamations about what is and is not audible based upon biased interpretation of measurements.
  
*some people buy paintings, I've been told it doesn't affect sound, yet I find it relaxing and less fatiguing than looking at the wall. you think I'm onto something here?*
  
 That human consciousness is not designed to be able to analyze two waveforms and note differences as numerical differences, but that human physiological perception, processing, and conscious awareness of sensory stimuli can be affected by countless different variables which people should attempt to account for if a study is ever to reduce false positive and false negatives to the point where it would be useful for attempting to gauge conscious audibility threshold? Hmm, no, I think that would be expecting too much. Skeptics dismiss the very many audiophiles and audiophile equipment manufacturers who are trying to deal with jitter with software and hardware at levels far below what is “scientifically” accepted as being the thresholds of audibility and who in turn dismiss the “<2ns jitter is indistinguishable” people and really, this disconnect should increase as much as possible because neither skeptics nor believers will ever find common ground, and the further apart they are, the less they bother each other. What’s ironic is that it is the believers discovering new ground, and the skeptics are bogged down in scientific dogma and their own prejudices about what is and is not possible, not being willing to consider that maybe science hasn’t figured everything out, instead choosing to automatically dump everything that doesn't fit into their view into the category of “placebo”.


----------



## adamaley

Let's just keep the thread on track. This thread was the most helpful to me in determining my DAC purchase. It seems so for others as well since many come on here with direct questions to Purrin and his ninjas for advice. Now , there seems to be an attempt by many to hijack the thread and have it spill into mayhem, which will inadvertently/ultimately lead to it being shut down. Enough of the hearing differences talk, and let's stick to the spirit and purpose of the OP.


----------



## hans030390

castleofargh said:


> what does any of that have to do with a transport sending data?
> why are you trying to mix data upload or data streaming, with digital conversion?


 
   
 Well, this is a DAC thread, after all, but it has covered much more than that from early on. The DAC unit itself is just one, important part of the entire digital-to-analog process. There are other devices that can play a role as well, including transports, converters, and computers. The digital-to-analog conversion process itself starts when the OS creates threads and computational processes in order to start that initial step of pulling data from a mounted storage device (or, if not local or stored as temp/cache files on a local volume, stored in RAM or cache from a different, often online, resource), in this case, initiated by the user for music playback via popular software. This process ends when the digital signal has finally been converted to an analog one in the DAC unit itself and is healthily on it's way to whatever jack, port, or orifice you decided to plug your RCA or XLR cables into. Thus, I am not mixing anything up, nor was I addressing any one topic you mentioned (you do, after all, cover a variety of grounds), but rather was discussing one small part of the process. I was curious to know what you yourself might have known on a particular, related topic based on some knowledge claims you had made about another, again, related topic. And is not digital filtering more on topic with the thread than some other ongoing discussions? Genuinely interested to know what you think about what I brought up, as I can't say I know everything about it, and am always looking to know more from people that are smarter than me.
  
 Quote:


> I don't understand what nwavguy has to do with me?
> he's not my dad(this is a cellphone), he never bought me beer, and for all I know he could be a smurf from the CIA who failed to infiltrate a famous audio terrorist organization and got dumped at the bottom of a river with shiiiit amps chained to his feet.


 
  
 Very interesting. I never called your cell phone your father, though. I'm glad to know it's a he. You sound close. What is its name?
  


> my problem as I said was with your 30-60% sound change statement.


 
  
 It could be aliens.
  


> I'm glad I can pass for a science freak on the net


 
  
 Can you?
  


elmoe said:


> There is no such thing as "better quality" 1s and 0s, you either get the data or you do not.


 
  
 It is true that you either get perfect data transmission quality or not. How often does one get perfect data transmission, and how do they go about achieving it? What happens when it is not perfect, but within specification to not cause the technical glitches you mentioned? And is this entire process really as simple as 0s and 1s? Some ancient astronaut theorists believe...I mean...If so, please explain the entire digital-to-analog conversion process, starting from the very beginning (including, on a hardware level, how the electrical signals are generated, sent off, received, and decoded from this data stream, and with potential problems you can run into, along with their causes). I truly don't have a great understanding of this (not being sarcastic), but believe you are under simplifying it. I am genuinely always looking for people who can frame it all for me in a way I can better understand, if you have a better understanding of it than I do...often what I read is a bit technical for me to digest easily (or attentively).
  
 Colorful pictures also help.


----------



## purrin

Guys, please use ignore and take the SS talk out of this thread. I mean it's pretty obvious the discussion in this thread is about subjective impressions, observations highly subject to placebo or nocebo effects or otherwise.
  
Using the scientific method to confirm observations is great, but it's also a pain in the ass to properly set one up. And even then, after the tests, you always realize there is something you could have done to make the test better. Just want to point out that I'm not against them. 
  
If you want to use blind tests, that's great. I encourage you to do so. But in the meantime, please stop crapping in this thread. I've already had enough of the PM-1 thread where someone was telling me what I was hearing was placebo / expectation bias - when of all things, that person had not even heard what I had heard. My patience is running thin. I will be flagging off-topic posts going forward.


----------



## subtle

Purrin...have you spent any time with the Ayre QB-9 DSD?  If so, any impressions on how it stacks up.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

I owned the Ari before it was DSD and after it was modded. I sold it a while back. 
To put things in perspective the Hugo and DS are much better at PCM and the DSD on the ari did not give me the potentional of DSD. 
Again my perspective and I too want to read purrins 
I think for some reason the FPGA dacs have some of the qualities of high tear dacs but do not get me to the finish line 
Al


----------



## SearchOfSub

Ofcourse it wont AL, you are comparing it to lampi master 7 costing 3-4 times more and msb costing like 15 times more...

Perhaps a 10,000 fpga dac might change your mind.. 

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## castleofargh

hans030390 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by *castleofargh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ...


 
 it was a lame joke (I realize most of my jokes are taken as first degree sentences, I don't blame you I just have weird humor at weird moments).

  
  
@haloxt I'll answer in PM, you made an effort to reply it wouldn't be nice to leave it at that but I'd rather go with the flow, leave purrin's opinion undisputed and vacate the premises.


----------



## SearchOfSub

Wow.. throughly dissaponited with hugo in 2 channel setup. Its going sttaight to amp. Maybe skipping preamp is whats causing this but my arcam irdac had better soundstage.. vocals are oushed forward ehich give you bit of intimacy with vocals, and harmonics is there, but for 2400.. not very good. For headphones, it sounds ok.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## hans030390

Well, shame on me for missing that joke reference.


----------



## ALRAINBOW

searchofsub said:


> Wow.. throughly dissaponited with hugo in 2 channel setup. Its going sttaight to amp. Maybe skipping preamp is whats causing this but my arcam irdac had better soundstage.. vocals are oushed forward ehich give you bit of intimacy with vocals, and harmonics is there, but for 2400.. not very good. For headphones, it sounds ok.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk




This is kinda how I feel but people get mad. If you say the 2400 product they just bought is not the best dac they ever . It's fine as portible with CIEM,s or most headphones . But as I move up in definition with better headphones it reveals wha the dac is doing more and for me some unplesentries . Other wise it. Is very system for portible use . 
Al


----------



## zachchen1996

searchofsub said:


> Wow.. throughly dissaponited with hugo in 2 channel setup. Its going sttaight to amp. Maybe skipping preamp is whats causing this but my arcam irdac had better soundstage.. vocals are oushed forward ehich give you bit of intimacy with vocals, and harmonics is there, but for 2400.. not very good. For headphones, it sounds ok.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


 
  
 Yeah, the soundstage on the hugo was pretty disappointing.


----------



## purrin

You mean like mono? Sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## kothganesh

purrin said:


> You mean like mono? Sorry, I couldn't resist.



Mercy man, I can see the grin on your face


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> You mean like mono? Sorry, I couldn't resist.


 
  
 I would say the opposite: very left and right.
 I, too, was disappointed with the Hugo, coming from the quteHD. I think the tonality shift is not good for my bright/airy headphones (Hifiman, HD-800, blabla).
  
 I received my exchanged Hugo at work yesterday morning. It didn't take me long to figure I preferred the sound of the Dangerous Source over the Hugo with the RE262...
  
 So much for the biggest breakthrough in the DAC world...


----------



## ALRAINBOW

This is why I got in trouble on the Hugo thread 
I said what you said. I also have a DS ITS Much better than a Hugo 
But still not S good as my lampi B7 or MSB PLATINUM. 
what can I say at least others are understanding 
Al


----------



## Clemmaster

alrainbow said:


> This is why I got in trouble on the Hugo thread
> I said what you said. I also have a DS ITS Much better than a Hugo
> But still not S good as my lampi B7 or MSB PLATINUM.
> what can I say at least others are understanding
> Al


 
  
 You don't need to be a crowd pleaser, Al 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. With all the gears you have, you already have some sort of "natural authority" over many many head-fier who could only dream to listen to what you actually own.
  
 Now, will you tell us the truth about Hugo vs Master-7?


----------



## purrin

> Originally Posted by *Clemmaster* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Now, will you tell us the truth about Hugo vs Master-7?


 
  
 AL uses it as portable when on trains in NY. It looks like a $29 Fisher Price toy, so he don't get mugged. They take his wallet, his Beats, and leave the Hugo.


----------



## zachchen1996

purrin said:


> It looks like a *$29 Fisher Price toy*, so he don't get mugged. They take his wallet, his Beats, and leave the Hugo.


 
  
 LOL


----------



## ALRAINBOW

No beats. I use the a few CIEMS. 
And it does look stupid as well. What can say 
To
Much hype and not enough pay off. 
This is why u stay away for te chord thread. 
If one more person tells me how great it is 
K get band with my reply. 
So I stay a way. And the messiah called rib watts 
Walks on water and hates DSD 
And thu is why the PCM is as good or better than the DSD 
How can they pay him to make a product that is based on his view. 
Try to find his reply to my question of analog. 
He said basically that analog is bloated bass lousy dynamics and distorted 
The guy needs to retire or get out if audio. 
Do you guys know that Q DAC he made did not play DSD at all but if course the usael suspects liked it. 
He got so much flack tha he made a new firmware to at DSD for it. 
He us just out there with a teather so he just floats on his own concepts 

I had. A fellow headfi friend over to hear some stuff I have. 
He could not beleave how bad the DSD was on the Hugo. 
Regarding the M7 against the Hugo. They are very far apart 
In sound so a fair assessment as to what us better is really not possible to 
Do by me


----------



## Armaegis

Hey guys, apparently the Fisher Price dap is $738... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 http://www.amazon.com/Fisher-Price-Kid-Tough-Music-Player-Microphone/dp/B00388DLIO


----------



## ALRAINBOW

It looks nicer than my Hugo


----------



## mowglycdb

armaegis said:


> Hey guys, apparently the Fisher Price dap is $738...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Because it's discontinued, it was between 50 and 85 before that...  Still expensive!


----------



## ALRAINBOW

As we buy stuff at rediculas prices in this hobby I get it. But who would buy that at all 
We can buy a card for ten bucks and it records for 30 seconds more than enough for a child


----------



## purrin

clemmaster said:


> I would say the opposite: very left and right.


 
  
 out of phase mono.


----------



## 7ryder

alrainbow said:


> This is why I got in trouble on the Hugo thread
> I said what you said. I also have a DS ITS Much better than a Hugo
> But still not S good as my lampi B7 or MSB PLATINUM.
> what can I say at least others are understanding
> Al


 
 Given their price tags, I certainly hope those other DACs you mention are better than one that cost $2.5K, regardless of Watt brand it is.  
  
 if I remember correctly, when you bought the Hugo, you said you didn't expect it to be better than the DS, so I don't understand why you're so disappointed about it, since it turns out your hunch was correct. But if it were me and I hated a piece of kit so much, I'd get rid of it.  Life is too short.
  
 BTW, I know what you mean about fanboys and the Hugo thread, that's the same reason I stay away from the PSA threads & website as well as threads that attract chocolate ice cream lovers


----------



## Clemmaster

Nice pun!


----------



## Mython

I respect everyone's right to openly express their opinion about products, but it is obvious to anyone _without_ an axe-to-grind about the Hugo, that this thread is *proactively* anti-Hugo.
  
 I won't mince my words: it makes me wary.   I'm cool with people expressing negative opinions about gear I like, and, likewise, I occasionally express negative opinions about some products, too.
  
 No product is perfect, and the Hugo is no exception, but to compare it to DACs and amps several times as big, and some of them considerably more expensive, hardly seems appropriate.
  
  
 Head-fi is one of the largest specialist websites for headphone-related-audio in the world, but, impressive though it's traffic throughput may be, it can be easy to become myopic when visiting this microcosm.
  
 We have a thread here with a relatively small number of people expressing how inadequate they feel the Hugo to be. In the personal experience of these few people, they may be sincere in feeling it falls short of their expectations.
  
 But what is being overlooked is how many hundreds of people around the world are thoroughly appreciating the extraordinary performance the Hugo has brought to the market, in such a compact and portable form. I don't consider Chord's marketing of the Hugo to be bombastic, either.
  
 What is also being overlooked is that the Hugo is being appreciated _not just by headphone-focused customers_, but also by some users of fullsize hi-fi systems costing substantially more than the most glamorous desktop headphone-centric gear.
  
 Frankly, to slate the Hugo in comparison to desktop gear, and then flippantly concede, in a couple of throw-away words, that it is more portable, is potentially misleading to folks who are new to this market segment. They may understandably read the negative remarks and focus upon them, rather than noticing the fact that *apples are being compared to oranges* in a tone that_ implies _that apples are being compared to apples. I'm sure some will be keen to quickly counter this viewpoint by pointing out exceptions, but, overall, the point legitimately stands.
  
 I have absolutely no affiliation to Chord, and I respect (and support) everyone's right to free speech and constructive criticism. However, I have experienced the Hugo, and consider it a damn decent product which, whilst not exactly cheap, offers excellent performance in a remarkably portable (and very flexible) package. And Fisher Price toys aren't made from diecast magnesium, last I checked...
  
 Criticism is one thing, but comparing apples to oranges and crusading from that dubious foundation does no one any favours.
  
 I'm not being personal, with any of this; I'm simply pointing out how this thread comes across to those of us without an axe-to-grind about the Hugo.


----------



## negura

mython said:


>


 
  
 In short, I agree with you. Yes, Chord is a good portable device. It does not quite compare with good desktop DACs and it obviously has some limitations.


----------



## magiccabbage

mython said:


> I respect everyone's right to openly express their opinion about products, but it is obvious to anyone _without_ an axe-to-grind about the Hugo, that this thread is *proactively* anti-Hugo.
> 
> I won't mince my words: it makes me wary.   I'm cool with people expressing negative opinions about gear I like, and, likewise, I occasionally express negative opinions about some products, too.
> 
> ...


 
 nicely put. I had the Hugo for nearly 5 weeks and I really liked it. I preferred it to the NAD M51 (SE not balanced) but I haven't heard an awful lot of DAC's especially high end DAC's. 
  
 I have heard ¬
  
 Arcam Rdac
 Buffalo DAC 2
 Nad M51
 Cuinis Dac 
  
 I preferred the Hugo to all of these


----------



## adamaley

For a thread like this, it is important to read the Original Post to receive all the YMMV, IMHO, TIWAPOS, etc.


----------



## Mython

adamaley said:


> For a thread like this, it is important to read the Original Post to receive all the YMMV, IMHO, TIWAPOS, etc.


 
  
 I did.
  
 and I stand by what I said.


----------



## anetode

mython said:


> I respect everyone's right to openly express their opinion about products, but it is obvious to anyone _without_ an axe-to-grind about the Hugo, that this thread is *proactively* anti-Hugo.
> 
> I won't mince my words: it makes me wary.   I'm cool with people expressing negative opinions about gear I like, and, likewise, I occasionally express negative opinions about some products, too.
> 
> ...


 
  

  


Spoiler: <disclaimer>



I've no dog in the fight, in my eyes all DACs are created equal. Just thought this could brighten things up.


----------



## purrin

mython said:


> I respect everyone's right to openly express their opinion about products, but it is obvious to anyone _without_ an axe-to-grind about the Hugo, that this thread is *proactively* anti-Hugo.
> 
> I won't mince my words: it makes me wary.   I'm cool with people expressing negative opinions about gear I like, and, likewise, I occasionally express negative opinions about some products, too.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think you are taking it too personally and not making any sense.
  
 First of all, you say that comparing the Hugo to big desktop systems is "inappropriate". But then in the next few sentences, you say that the Hugo is being appreciated by people outside of headphonedom with "fullsize hi-fi systems costing substantially more than the most glamorous desktop headphone-centric gear".
  
 Make up your mind. No one I personally know in their right mind would ever use a Hugo in their an two channel setup. In "big boy" audio, I prefer significantly less expensive desktop DACs such as the Schiit Uberfrost Gen USB2, Lavry DA11, etc. over the Hugo.
  
 I'm mostly a SET tube amp two-channel speaker guy. Headphones are an enjoyable secondary pleasure or me. I currently use Altec horn, Fostex BLH, and OB speaker designs that I've built. I'm hardly being myopic here.
  
 In terms of apples to apples - we are talking about comparison of performance regardless of any other factors. Some people have pm'd me asking how I felt about using the Hugo as a desktop DAC. Even you implied that people are considering its use beyond headphones. This is why the Hugo is being compared against desktop DACs. Regardless, I much prefer the AK120 over the Hugo for portable use if you want an apples to apple comparison. I also prefer the Cypher Labs Algo Rhythm stuff for portable use. For small footprint desktop, I far prefer the Wyrd/Modi boxes at $198 to the Hugo - so I'm not comparing to big ticket items either.
  
 In terms of people being mislead because the Hugo is being compared to desktop DACs, I doubt people really are that stupid, especially when the I've already spelled out the advantages of the Hugo as a small portable DAC - it's not like I was hiding it. I know someone with a $30K+ DAC who uses the Hugo for travel. I understand his sonic preferences and where he is coming from. People on HF know exactly what the Hugo is. Bottom line is that I was asked how the Hugo stacked up. I never volunteered my impressions from the get-go.
  
 I really don't give a crap that "many hundreds of people around the world are thoroughly appreciating the extraordinary performance the Hugo has brought to the market, in such a compact and portable form." Do you personally know these hundreds of people? What authority are you appealing to to cite such a point? Many thousands of people around the world are also enjoying the Mytek DAC which I think is horrible. All I can say is that 9 out of 10 people I personally know do not think the Hugo is competitive against desktop DACs priced less than a third of its price; and 5 of 10 people think the Hugo is decent, albeit expensive as a portable DAC.
  
 Fisher Price toys are not made out of magnesium. But did Chord have to mold the magnesium to look like a Fisher Price toy? I mean really, did the industrial designer they employed work for Sesame Street?
  
 Finally, everything is relative. What other DACs have you heard which you think are better than the Hugo and worse?


----------



## Head Injury

mython said:


> I respect everyone's right to openly express their opinion about products, but it is obvious to anyone _without_ an axe-to-grind about the Hugo, that this thread is *proactively* anti-Hugo.


 
 If it's any consolation, with all biases set aside, I'm sure the Hugo sounds _exactly_ as good as all the other DACs in the thread.


----------



## ohhgourami

All of you guys are full of it. All DACs sound the same. They are just processing 1's and 0's.


----------



## Mython

purrin said:


> I think you are taking it too personally and not making any sense.


 
  
  
 Read my post. Then read your reply..
  
 Which of us is making personal attacks here?
  
 I was addressing _the thread_, not you exclusively.
  
  
  
 Quote:


purrin said:


> First of all, you say that comparing the Hugo to big desktop systems is "inappropriate". But then in the next few sentences, you say that the Hugo is being appreciated by people outside of headphonedom with "fullsize hi-fi systems costing substantially more than the most glamorous desktop headphone-centric gear".


 
  
  
 I do think it is somewhat inappropriate when insufficient acknowledgement is given to the very different design briefs of the portable Hugo vs many of the other DACs being discussed.
  
 That the Hugo is being appreciated by some customers in quite high-end fullsize hi-fi systems is kudos to Rob's design skills, but it does not necessarily mean that it's open-season to judge the Hugo against fullsize, non-portable DACs without duly acknowledging the significant practical constraints within which the Hugo has been conceived, and which the non-portable DACs did _not_ each have to contend with in order to achieve their respective levels of sonic performance.
  
  


purrin said:


> I'm mostly a SET tube amp two-channel speaker guy. Headphones are an enjoyable secondary pleasure or me. I currently use Altec horn, Fostex BLH, and OB speaker designs that I've built. I'm hardly being myopic here.


 
  
  
 I'm not being argumentative with this:
  
 I actually find it interesting that you're into horn-loaded speakers and tube amps. Some of these set-ups (not all, but some) are favoured by audiophiles because they may sound mellower than transistor-based amps and more 'point-source' monitor loudspeaker designs.
  
 I wonder if this might suggest that you favour a mellower sound than the Hugo yields?   That's not 'right' _or _'wrong', in any way - I'm simply talking about personal taste, here.
  
 I actually used to know an old guy, just down the road from me, who had a pair of active Meridian floorstanders, fed by a Meridian CD Transport and DAC, at one end of his large listening room, and a valve-driven horn-loaded, vinyl-source set-up at the opposite end of the room. He invariably used to use the valve/horn set-up precisely because he preferred the mellower portrayal of this system. And I promise you that is a genuine, true story.
  
  


purrin said:


> I really don't give a crap that "many hundreds of people around the world are thoroughly appreciating the extraordinary performance the Hugo has brought to the market, in such a compact and portable form." Do you personally know these hundreds of people? What authority are you appealing to to cite such a point?


 
  
  
 There's '_quite a few more_' of your fellow head-fiers, in other threads, who thoroughly appreciate the Hugo, than there are in this thread who do not appreciate it. That's just on Head-fi.
  
 As for the many hundreds of other people around the world, I guess you'll just have to ask Chord how many Hugos they've sold around the world, in the mere months it's been on sale.
  
 I think we both know that it has not been a flop, by any stretch of the imagination.
  
 There's _plenty _of other DACs on the market, yet a substantial number of customers have been very happy to part with their hard-earned cash, after hearing the Hugo.
  
  
  
  
 If it's any consolation, Chord are a very well-established, well-respected, and savvy company. It is also apparent, from his willingness to happily engage with customers, here on Head-fi, that Rob Watts enjoyed the Hugo project. Combine those factors with the healthy Hugo sales, and it would not surprise me at all if Rob and Chord were, perhaps, tempted to build upon the success of the Hugo with related products, some time in the future. I could, of course, be completely wrong about that, but I live in hope. If the Hugo is an apple, then who knows - maybe an orange might appear that'd perhaps be more appropriate to compare with your existing oranges...  Wouldn't that be a (_potentially_) happy scenario for both of us?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 .


----------



## purrin

Quote:


mython said:


> Which of us is making personal attacks here?



  
 Not making a personal attack. Just saying that you are making no sense to me. First you say special consideration should be give to the Hugo because of its portability and design goals. And then you say the Hugo is well accepted in "big boy" hi-fi / speaker circles. This confuses me as to which standard you want applied to the Hugo. If it's so well accepted in "big boy" hi-fi circles (which to my experience with other fellow audiophiles, it is not), then why shouldn't it be compared to its bigger desktop brethen?
  
  
 Quote:


mython said:


> I do think it is somewhat inappropriate when insufficient acknowledgement is given to the very different design briefs of the portable Hugo vs many of the other DACs being discussed.


 
  
 How much of an acknowledgement do you want? Perhaps a lengthy explanation of why the Hugo will never be able to compete against desktop DACs given the power supply restrictions from USB? I already said it "Portability and lack of wires is the advantage here." Should I preface my comments with "This is not a fair comparison"? What exactly you want to me do? Say that the Hugo gets a +11 handicap, and with this handicap, that it sounds really good?
  
 As I've said. Someone asked me a question about the Hugo without any qualifiers.. I said it wasn't the bees knees like how the Internets makes it out to be.
  


mython said:


> That the Hugo is being appreciated by some customers in quite high-end fullsize hi-fi systems is kudos to Rob's design skills, but it does not necessarily mean that it's open-season to judge the Hugo against fullsize, non-portable DACs without duly acknowledging the significant practical constraints within which the Hugo has been conceived, and which the non-portable DACs did _not_ each have to contend with in order to achieve their respective levels of sonic performance.


 
  
 I don't know anyone _personally _would appreciate the Hugo is a full size system. The guys I know into "big boy" I know use $3k DAC setups to start. Oftentimes more, and they usually go through three or four of them before they find the right one. Yes. Rob is great for making a decent DAC which runs off just the USB. It doesn't change that the Hugo is worse sounding than the $198 Wyrd/Modi which has the advantage of a wall wart.
  


mython said:


> I actually find it interesting that you're into horn-loaded speakers and tube amps. Some of these set-ups (not all, but some) are favoured by audiophiles because they may sound mellower than transistor-based amps and more 'point-source' monitor loudspeaker designs.
> 
> I wonder if this might suggest that you favour a mellower sound than the Hugo yields?   That's not 'right' _or _'wrong', in any way - I'm simply talking about personal taste, here.


 
  
 I am into SETs because of their expansive sound stage, openness, immediacy, resolution, dynamics, and fast sound. The tube amps I have used tend to be solid-state sounding. The 4-45 is actually a bright amp. Not all horn loaded speakers tend toward mellow. The wide-band drivers tend to have peaks in the upper mids or treble.
  
 The Hugo's tonal balance is slightly leaner than what I would like, but overall I am fine with it. The issues with the Hugo are as follows: coarse treble unrefined treble, lack of macro-dynamics, a slight flatness in micro-dynamics, and lack of power in the sub/low bass. It's not a piece of junk. But it's not what I would consider a very good DAC. Mediocre yes. Of course it's personal taste. 
  



mython said:


> I actually used to know an old guy, just down the road from me, who had a pair of active Meridian floorstanders, fed by a Meridian CD Transport and DAC, at one end of his large listening room, and a valve-driven horn-loaded, vinyl-source set-up at the opposite end of the room. He invariably used to use the valve/horn set-up precisely because he preferred the mellower portrayal of this system. And I promise you that is a genuine, true story.


 
  
 The Meridian stuff is already too laid back for my tastes. I do not like their house sound.
  
  


mython said:


> There's '_quite a few more_' of your fellow head-fiers, in other threads, who thoroughly appreciate the Hugo, than there are in this thread who do not appreciate it. That's just on Head-fi.
> 
> As for the many hundreds of other people around the world, I guess you'll just have to ask Chord how many Hugos they've sold around the world, in the mere months it's been on sale.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I can only attest to people I personally know - not the entire Head-Fi universe. I find that the reality on the ground always seems to be different from the reality on the Internet. As I've said, there a lots of people who like the Invicta, Mytek, Benchmark, ODAC, Teac, Audinst, PWD DSD etc. All DACs I detest. I run against the grain. If other people like these DACs, that's great.
  
  


mython said:


> If it's any consolation, Chord are a very well-established, well-respected, and savvy company. It is also apparent, from his willingness to happily engage with customers, here on Head-fi, that Rob Watts enjoyed the Hugo project. Combine those factors with the healthy Hugo sales, and it would not surprise me at all if Rob and Chord were, perhaps, tempted to build upon the success of the Hugo with related products, some time in the future. I could, of course, be completely wrong about that, but I live in hope. If the Hugo is an apple, then who knows - maybe an orange might appear that'd perhaps be more appropriate to compare with your existing oranges...  Wouldn't that be a (_potentially_) happy scenario for both of us?


 
  
 Were you paid indirectly by Chord? Seriously, I know there are firms out there who will work on behalf of companies to help shape their image on the Internets. Do you work for one of them? I only say so because you keep repeating those same canned lines about the company - as if you were typing from a script. I know how things work in the industry, especially how the "big boy" companies work.

 If Chord wants to be so great, why don't they charge $899 for the Hugo?
  
 I don't think Chord is the only company out there who is well-established, well-respected, savvy, willing to happily engage with customers, or has great sales numbers. Audeze, Schiit, HiFiMan, UE, Oppo, etc.


----------



## Maxvla

mython said:


> I do think it is somewhat inappropriate when insufficient acknowledgement is given to the very different design briefs of the portable Hugo vs many of the other DACs being discussed.
> 
> That the Hugo is being appreciated by some customers in quite high-end fullsize hi-fi systems is kudos to Rob's design skills, but it does not necessarily mean that it's open-season to judge the Hugo against fullsize, non-portable DACs without duly acknowledging the significant practical constraints within which the Hugo has been conceived, and which the non-portable DACs did _not_ each have to contend with in order to achieve their respective levels of sonic performance.



Alright, let me try to understand. You praise it for being able to slot into a high end stationary system, yet it shouldn't be compared against stationary DACs because they aren't portable? Double standard much?

I agree with Purrin in all he's said in reply to you, especially the shill comments, and I stand by my own comments earlier in the thread. I think it's an alright transportable DAC/amp but several times more expensive than the performance warrants. I think the casing of the unit is directly taken from the Fisher Price playbook, including the over sized openings around all the plugs, which makes it look awful. I would expect the casing of a $2k+ product to have very tight fitting gaps around the plugs. The gimmicky buttons and color coding is annoying.


----------



## Mython

Please, enough with the aggressive tone, it isn't necessary.
  
  
 Quote:


purrin said:


> Were you paid indirectly by Chord? Seriously, I know there are firms out there who will work on behalf of companies to help shape their image on the Internets. Do you work for one of them? I only say so because you keep repeating those same canned lines about the company - as if you were typing from a script. I know how things work in the industry, especially how the "big boy" companies work.


 
  
  
 No, not at all. I just consider this thread to be very one-sided in it's discussion of the Hugo, and I simply felt inclined to point that out, since I personally consider it to be a decent product made by a decent company.
  
 I don't even own a Hugo. I have no stake in the company or the product, but I was loaned one for 7 days and thoroughly enjoyed it. I aim to buy one some time in the future, when I can afford it.
  
  
 I understand your cynicism, and I actually feel similarly suspicious, at times, so I don't mind you challenging me, but if you think I am a shill, then perhaps you should consider why:
  
  
 1) I have been a Head-fier for almost 6 years and never even mentioned Chord until a few months ago, when the Hugo raised my interest as what I consider to be an innovative product.
  
 2) I posted these challenging remarks: http://www.head-fi.org/t/702787/chord-hugo/675#post_10315496    ...Chord did pi$$ me off with that move, and yet, having heard the product, I know it is a decent piece of gear, and I also know that, from a broader context, Chord do have integrity. The Hugo may not be appreciated in Calabasas, but Chord is generally well-respected around the world. Over the past 23 years, I have heard their fullsize gear many times at hi-fi shows, and a few dealers, when I used to live in London.
  
  
  
 Is it really so hard to believe that someone might _legitimately_ feel the Hugo is a product worth supporting?  (again, I'm not saying that in an argumentative tone).


----------



## Mython

maxvla said:


> Alright, let me try to understand. You praise it for being able to slot into a high end stationary system, yet it shouldn't be compared against stationary DACs because they aren't portable? Double standard much?


 
   
 My point is that it is remarkable that is able to perform as well as it does, but if one _chooses_ to compare it to fullsize DACs with elaborate power supplies and limitless chassis/circuitboard real estate, then it should rightly be acknowledged that the playing field, from a design and production point of view, is not a level one.
  
 I really don't think I'm being unreasonable about that.
  
  
 Quote:


maxvla said:


> I agree with Purrin in all he's said in reply to you, especially the shill comments, and I stand by my own comments earlier in the thread. I think it's an alright transportable DAC/amp but several times more expensive than the performance warrants. I think the casing of the unit is directly taken from the Fisher Price playbook, including the over sized openings around all the plugs, which makes it look awful. I would expect the casing of a $2k+ product to have very tight fitting gaps around the plugs. The gimmicky buttons and color coding is annoying.


 
  
 I've responded to the shill comments, above.
  
 As for the casing - I personally dislike the volume control, and I've said as much, publicly, but it is well-known that the oversized openings around the _plug sockets_ are in response to customer feedback that the original snug openings were preventing some exotic interconnects from mating correctly.
  
 I also concede that the colour coding can be annoying - most of all, I dislike the lack of labels on any of the inputs/outputs.
  
 But that's not sufficient to warrant a lynch mob.


----------



## hans030390

purrin said:


> I said it wasn't the bees knees like how the Internets makes it out to be.


 
  
 "Everything is Awesome!"
  
 Good luck finding solid, critical analysis or reviews for audio products on the interwebz these days. It's turrible.


----------



## purrin

I would pose to you the same question in reverse: Is it really so hard to believe that someone (or more than one) might legitimately feel the Hugo is a product NOT worth supporting?
  
 Consider this thread a counterpoint to the high praise Hugo has received. It's not like the people who criticized the Hugo offered a simplistic statement that it was a piece of junk. Specific insights into the Hugo shortcomings are discussed: the ones I mentioned in the above posts and earlier, the quality and power capability of the head-amp, the poor DSD implementation (sounds worse than PCM), sound quality dependent on quality of USB port/power on PC, etc. People are free to read the negative aspects spoken of the Hugo. They can decide if those negatives apply to them or not. I wouldn't assume that people are so dumb that they couldn't pick out what would be (or not be) useful to them. They can decide that their tastes are different from the detractors'. They can decide that the detractors are full of it. The worse thing that could happen is that somebody interested in the Hugo takes pause, and perhaps schedules an audition first (or perhaps listen to competing products) before making a purchase.
  
 Do the detractors poke fun at the Hugo's looks while at it? Most certainly yes. Are the detractors disgusted at the "I'm rich and I have too much money to spend" audiophile pricing of the Hugo? Most certainly yes.
  
 Again, it's all relative. Your posts would have been more well received had they been focused on relative comparisons (specific qualities better or worse) to other portable or desktop DACs rather than citing gibberish of sales numbers, universal truths, and canned marketing spiel (at least from how it appears). If you told me you thought the Hugo was better than the iBasso stuff for example, I may not have disagreed.


----------



## Mython

purrin said:


>





> I would pose to you the same question in reverse: Is it really so hard to believe that someone (or more than one) might legitimately feel the Hugo is a product NOT worth supporting?


 
  
  
 No, of course not, nor did I ever suggest as much.
  
  
  
  
 Though we could continue back-&-forth for days, I think this exchange has run it's course.
  
 No hard feelings.
  
 We are each entitled to our points of view.


----------



## Maxvla

mython said:


> Is it really so hard to believe that someone might _legitimately_ feel the Hugo is a product worth supporting?



There's a thread for that. It's not this one. 



mython said:


> but it is well-known that the oversized openings around the _plug sockets_ are in response to customer feedback that the original snug openings were preventing some exotic interconnects from mating correctly.



Ha. I had no idea, but that explains much more than just the over sized openings.

I wouldn't call this a lynch mob. We feel it's overpriced but we understand how some can feel it is a good item to have. There's a difference between outright negativity and criticism. It just happens that many of the things we are critical of (especially appearance and price) are very easy targets on this device, so comments can seem out of proportion.


----------



## Insidious Meme

Not your run of the mill "I like product X because I said so" threads. Logical reasoning and descriptions make this a worthwhile read.


----------



## purrin

Just to clarify a few things.
  
 I don't mind if people say they like something that I don't. But when I directly ask "what else have you heard in comparison to X" and the answers I get back are "truths" (i.e., how well regarded X is in the community and also outside of it, citation of vaguishly high sales numbers (which MoTs usually keep secret), how excellent the manufacturer is in supporting the product, etc.), I get kinda irked. When these "truths" are then repeated, as if they came from a marketing manual, then I get suspicious (of shilling).
  
 Was my tone assertive in the past few posts? Most certainly yes. However, I don't think my telling said person that his arguments weren't making any sense or questioning if he was a shill constitutes a personal attack. I really do think some people are reading way too much into it. I mean, aren't arguments supposed to be heated in audio sometimes?
  
 Anyways, I simply just wanted to him to make a point of his own and tell me what he himself thought of the Hugo without citing "well known" truths. If he had come back and said, I compared it to my DX100 and the Hugo outright toasted it. I would have probably replied: fair enough. If he said that the Hugo was really detailed souding for its size, I wouldn't have disagreed.
  
 This is why when my wife says "Lets go see movie X, lots of people say its good", I ask her "Who is 'lots of people'?" If "lots of people" is yahoo.com Internet buzz or certain friends, then I know to avoid it. If lots of people is Anaxilus or over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, then I would probably be willing to see the movie with her.
  
 I've had discussions over the phone with ALRAINBOW on the Hugo and many other DACs. He likes the Hugo for travel purposes and he explained why in way I totally understand. However, he also points out the the Hugo is no match for the bigger desktop DACs his owns like the OR5+M7 or MSB or PSA DSD. And by the way, if you guys go the first post, or some post in between, I did say that I preferred the Hugo over the PSA DSD in a direct comparison (but one of the other ninjas preferred the PSA DSD).
  
 That's what this thread is all about. Relative comparison. Personal experience. It's not grading DACs via Internet popularity contest.


----------



## purrin

_Bricasti M1 (cut and paste from another thread b/c it really belongs here)_
  
  
 I'll make a few succinct points (direct comparison with Wyrd->PWD2, Wyrd->OR5+M7 on EC 2A3 Custom / Levi with a wide variety of headphones) :
  

The Bricasti M1 is very very nice.
No OR5 required with M1. The XMOS USB implementation is good as it is.
The M1 brings out details more than the OR5+M7. The M1 is more in toward the "hyperdetailed" school of DACs, i.e., PWD2, Berkeley Alpha 2, Vega, etc. I wouldn't say the OR5+M7 is any less detailed, but just more subtle about it. Not saying one is better. I can go either way depending upon system.
However, the great thing about the M1 is that it manages the hyperdetailed sound without being anywhere as raspy or dry as the PWD2 or as artificial as the Vega (esp. if you cannot get EXACT more working).
However, the M1 is also very obviously a sigma-delta sounding DAC. Hard to explain. You can hear that digital grain, but somehow it maintains an easy about it - there's a smoothness and liquidness to the sigma-delta presentation. The M1 is sort of self-contradictory that way.
M1 has slightly better attack, dynamics, punch than OR5+M7. This sort of gives the extremes a little bit of emphasis compared to the mids. Not too much different from the PWD2. Yet at the same time, I wouldn't say the mids are recessed or anything. Again, it's sort of self-contradictory.
Tonal balance is similar to the Berkeley Alpha 2. Less warm than OR5+M7, less bright, less raspy as PWD2.
OR5+M7 stage is less expansive, especially in terms of depth.
  
 The M1 actually reminds me of the Empirical Audio Overdrive; but I think the Overdrive is a wee bit leaner sounding. Overall, the M1 is an excellent DAC.
  
  


ccschua said:


> how about the M1 to the Directstream? I am sure Directstream is way more ahead of PWD 2.
> 
> Does Vega sound so artificial ? how about the zodiac platinum ?


 
  
 For background and to put things into perspective, I even preferred the PWD1->2 fw2.03 over PSADSD. PSADSD tonal balance is too much like like PWD1: lean in the bass (like Benchmark DAC1 lean) and slightly emphasized upper mids. However PSADSD was smoother and refined in the treble. Maybe too smoothed out where I felt some attacks were blunted (sort of what happens with a lot of DACs when you upsample PCM to hires in software - but the effect on PSADSD is even more exaggerated). PSADSD is flatter sounding than the PWD1->2 fw2.03. But there is definitely a PSA house sound to both DACs. Rather than one is outright better than the other, I would say they are different.
  
 The Bricasti M1 captures the essence of those two PSA DACs (hyperdetailed, expansive, highly dynamic, etc.) but does it right by addressing what I view as the major shortcomings of PWD1->2 fw2.03 and PSADSD DACs. The M1 is like the sigma-delta twin brother of the resistor ladder MSB Analog DAC where I find it difficult to criticize either DAC. They do what they do best based on their DNA (DAC architectures) and make no mistakes. In the context of the OR5+M7, the OR5+M7 has a lot of similarities to the Analog DAC, especially with headphone use (but small little things: Analog hits harder with more dynamics, has more expansive stage; OR5+M7 brings out details more, is slightly warmer with hints of "PCM1704 bass")
  
 That the Vega sounds artificial is certainly an exaggeration on my part. It is the brightest of the DACs discussed here. This brightness tends to highlight how much different its timbre is from the resister ladder DACs such as the OR5+M7. It wouldn't call the Vega's treble objectionable. But it is very different - almost a robotic sound. Hard to explain. Here's an exaggerated analogy: http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Auto-tune
  
 EXACT mode on Vega does a lot to alleviate Finn's computer voice timbre effect.
  
 If OR5+M7 was in left field, M1 would be in center field. EXACT mode moves Vega from foul ball territory into right field. Still right field, but at least in the field of play.


----------



## En_R

purrin said:


> _Bricasti M1 (cut and paste from another thread b/c it really belongs here)_


 
  
 Vega is really only as good as the USB output of your computer, same with the meitner MA-1/ Emm DAC2X, which is why so many people have had bad experiences with them (though even under optimal conditions I still do not like the latter). A good USB card like SOTM/PPA/JCAT + a good linear psu or battery psu makes a world of difference. It would probably be comparable the first time you listened the OR5 -> i2s -> PWD MK2 =).

 After listening to Vega and M1 for awhile I've noticed that in terms of detail and resolution the M1 actually loses quite handily to Vega (and this is not the accentuated treble coming into play), although both are still better than the Analog in this department. I think the Analog's forte is it's reproduction of tone/timbre.


----------



## Argo Duck

Really glad to see this thread re-opened. Good decision.

I've heard and own five discrete DACs, none of them covered here. Kinda hoping the Yggdrasil makes it to this list. That's a DAC I intend to get, and it'll give me a strong point of reference for the many others mentioned here.

Meantime, the criteria developed by purrin and his friends - such as 'plankton', microdynamics etc - have been directly beneficial to me in differentiating the 'information' inside the raw 'data' that listening brings (or as some may prefer, I am now better at differentiating among the auditory hallucinations engendered by audiophile placebo). Whether or not I hear the _same_ things as purrin _et al._, I definitely hear more


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> [...]
> 
> That the Vega sounds artificial is certainly an exaggeration on my part. It is the brightest of the DACs discussed here. This brightness tends to highlight how much different its timbre is from the resister ladder DACs such as the OR5+M7. It wouldn't call the Vega's treble objectionable. But it is very different - almost a robotic sound. Hard to explain. Here's an exaggerated analogy: http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Auto-tune
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks Marv.
  
 Where would you place the NFB-7 in that field? Can you translate it to a hockey field instead?


----------



## purrin

en_r said:


> Vega is really only as good as the USB output of your computer, same with the meitner MA-1/ Emm DAC2X, which is why so many people have had bad experiences with them (though even under optimal conditions I still do not like the latter). A good USB card like SOTM/PPA/JCAT + a good linear psu or battery psu makes a world of difference. It would probably be comparable the first time you listened the OR5 -> i2s -> PWD MK2 =).


 
  
 That's a really good point you bring up - something that had not crossed my mind until recently: computer source side upgrades, i.e. dedicated USB cards / power. BTW, I consider the Wyrd to belong more in the computer source side upgrade category as well, with it being a USB data buffer/repeater/reclocker and some attention to +5V USB power regulation.
  
 Just another factor which adds difficulty to comparing DACs, especially on the higher end.
  


clemmaster said:


> Thanks Marv.
> 
> Where would you place the NFB-7 in that field? Can you translate it to a hockey field instead?


 
  
 Hard to say with NFB-7.32. I've only heard it once, and via the coax (not i2s) of the OR5, so in essence, it was kinda of gimped. From that impression, the NFB-7.32 is in the penalty box, not on the ice. It's has a very obvious SABRE timbre which affects vocals and treble, but all other aspects are very good. It's hard for me to say because as you know, I don't like the SABRE sound. The Vega on the other hand is pretty special as far as SABRE DACs go especially with EXACT mode on. It's going to be the one to beat.


----------



## Sorrodje

Time to subscribe I think.
  
 Anyone compare the Metrum Hex against other Big boys here or there?
  
 What would be the logical upgrade of a Metrum Octave . In my mind, "Logical" = "same overall sound but better ( still ananog like but maybe with more refinement)  and with more features, especially XLR and RCA outputs who can work together with two amps.. for examples speakers amp and headphone amp.


----------



## Clemmaster

sorrodje said:


> Time to subscribe I think.
> 
> Anyone compare the Metrum Hex against other Big boys here or there?
> 
> What would be the logical upgrade of a Metrum Octave . In my mind, "Logical" = "same overall sound but better ( still ananog like but maybe with more refinement)  and with more features, especially XLR and RCA outputs who can work together with two amps.. for examples speakers amp and headphone amp.


I think your mind is set . Start saving up!


----------



## hans030390

I had the Quad and Hex for a while. They sound pretty similar. Hex is a bit cleaner and a touch less laid-back sounding. However, I believe the output transformers have their own effect on the sound, where as the Quad/Octave don't have that for the analog out. Some have said this gives the Quad/Octave more of a "direct" sound over the Hex, whatever that means. I was stupid and didn't do direct comparisons listening for that when I had them, though. Honestly, I know the Hex got a ton of praise from reviewers, but I'm not really sure it's worth the extra cost over the Octave unless you're looking for those extra features. It's just such a huge price jump...
  
 Audio-GD doesn't make them anymore, as far as I know, but the NOS-1704 DAC they put out had some interesting traits as well. Similar NOS sound as the Metrums, but with a noticeably cleaner and more detailed/more resolving sound. A bit darker and more intimate, though.


----------



## castleofargh

purrin said:


> Anyways, I simply just wanted to him to make a point of his own and tell me what he himself thought of the Hugo without citing "well known" truths. If he had come back and said, I compared it to my DX100 and the Hugo outright toasted it. I would have probably replied: fair enough. If he said that the Hugo was really detailed souding for its size, I wouldn't have disagreed.
> ...
> 
> ...
> That's what this thread is all about. Relative comparison. Personal experience. It's not grading DACs via Internet popularity contest.


 
 there is irony in you being the one to say that when tens, maybe hundreds of people take whatever you say as gospel truth. not your fault in anyway, it's not like you're to blame for being popular, but you are by yourself one of those internet popularity contest. and people "fight" for you even when they don't have a clue what they are talking about. you saying something clearly became reason enough to believe it for a lot of people.
  
 I don't have a take on the hugo as I didn't listen to it. I find it to be a ludicrously expensive toy. we can get a DAC1 at home + a good portable DAP+portable amp for the same money, so good or not I just don't care, it's a niche product for very very specific people.
  
 anyway the one-voice system should be kept for blogs and magazines, forums should be full of opinions clashing and I hope this happens a lot more while still talking like gentlemen, and that moderation can moderate itself and use diplomacy before nukes. I disagree with your choices and reasons more than I can count on this topic, but I wouldn't like to solve it all with a mute button on your post.


----------



## estreeter

Unless you have al's budget or purrin's ready access to everything under the sun, is there any chance that those of us who havent even *heard* a given product might refrain from commenting on its sonic capabilities ?


----------



## purrin

castleofargh said:


> and people "fight" for you even when they don't have a clue what they are talking about. you saying something clearly became reason enough to believe it for a lot of people.


 
  
 That's where I feel you are wrong. A handful of people who fought for me, I know personally. Another handful I have no interactions with at all. The rest I interact on a regular basis via e-mail, forums, private messages, phone calls. I wouldn't say these people are clueless. Many of them own some of the DACs on this list. Some of them own other DACs of which I have no experience. The reason they fought for this thread to be reopened is because they disagreed with the moderation, thought this was a useful thread, and felt Mython was "asking for it" with his first post passive-aggressive attacks and dishonest debate techniques. They did not fight for this thread to be reopened because they are clueless. I don't think it's fair for anyone to accuse to such people of being overly simplistic; nor do I think it's honest tactic for anyone to cite "purrin's cult of personality" to diminish either my likability or authority on the subject matter, or remind me of Stan Lee's wisdom: "With great power comes great responsibility". Lest I remind people of taking my word as gospel. I am a not Jude. I am not Robert Harley. I am not John Atkinson. I am not superhero and I bleed just as easily as any other human being.
  


castleofargh said:


> anyway the one-voice system should be kept for blogs and magazines, forums should be full of opinions clashing and I hope this happens a lot more while still talking like gentlemen, and that moderation can moderate itself and use diplomacy before nukes. I disagree with your choices and reasons more than I can count on this topic, but I wouldn't like to solve it all with a mute button on your post.


 
  
 Although I am the voice of this thread (I am the thread starter after all), everything I have written is the synthesis of several peoples' thoughts. The differences among most DACs are not huge. I rely on having peers to bounce impressions: a half dozen others, some with expensive two-channel speaker setups, and others with modest systems. The entire point of this thread when I started it was to invite other opinions and experiences. Unfortunately there haven't been many other dissenting opinions where the arguments were truly honest; but there have been some. Unfortunately, most readers will only remember the drama. The more astute readers will have noted re-assessments and updates to the DACs on this list over time. This is the result of good honest discussion and "going back" to verify. Maybe this thread tends toward one voice because there's more agreement than disagreement, particularly with the descriptive specific aspects of DACs?
  
 Finally, I don't think it's your call or my call what belongs here. Mind you that this was not the only DAC list thread on HF. Someone else tried and failed.


----------



## purrin

hans030390 said:


> I had the Quad and Hex for a while. They sound pretty similar. Hex is a bit cleaner and a touch less laid-back sounding. However, I believe the output transformers have their own effect on the sound, where as the Quad/Octave don't have that for the analog out. Some have said this gives the Quad/Octave more of a "direct" sound over the Hex, whatever that means. I was stupid and didn't do direct comparisons listening for that when I had them, though. Honestly, I know the Hex got a ton of praise from reviewers, but I'm not really sure it's worth the extra cost over the Octave unless you're looking for those extra features. It's just such a huge price jump...
> 
> Audio-GD doesn't make them anymore, as far as I know, but the NOS-1704 DAC they put out had some interesting traits as well. Similar NOS sound as the Metrums, but with a noticeably cleaner and more detailed/more resolving sound. A bit darker and more intimate, though.


 
  
 NOS-1704 was more "tonally dense" correct? I suspect so because the NOS-1704 DAC seems like a M7 with two PCM1704s and no DSP (NOS) - where I ran the M7 in NOS mode. This is in comparison to your Quad (and I've heard the Octave too), but DACs seemed "lighter". Hard to explain or use words. I think you know what I mean.


----------



## Sorrodje

clemmaster said:


> I think your mind is set
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 No. That's not so simple.  I read things herer or there about the fact the hex is "a league above" the Octave. I'd prefer to judge it by myself and I'm open to other opinions  . One more point is that the Hex can't be used with both XLR and RCA  outputs if I'm not wrong. So I'm not so convinced 
  
  


hans030390 said:


> I had the Quad and Hex for a while. They sound pretty similar. Hex is a bit cleaner and a touch less laid-back sounding. However, I believe the output transformers have their own effect on the sound, where as the Quad/Octave don't have that for the analog out. Some have said this gives the Quad/Octave more of a "direct" sound over the Hex, whatever that means. I was stupid and didn't do direct comparisons listening for that when I had them, though. Honestly, I know the Hex got a ton of praise from reviewers, but I'm not really sure it's worth the extra cost over the Octave unless you're looking for those extra features. It's just such a huge price jump...
> 
> Audio-GD doesn't make them anymore, as far as I know, but the NOS-1704 DAC they put out had some interesting traits as well. Similar NOS sound as the Metrums, but with a noticeably cleaner and more detailed/more resolving sound. A bit darker and more intimate, though.


 
  
 Thks for the very precious Input mate. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I heard briefly an Auralic Ark mx+ and found some similarities with Metrum sound but I can't make my mind with only a few minutes of listening. 
  
  
 I'm in a kind of dead-end with the DAC and my whole system. Obviously it sounds as good as i've always expected and I listen hours and hours of music with great pleasure but you know the game.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Purrin's hyped me with the Stratus but I'm not convinced without give it a try myself. For the DAC , I don't what could be a real upgrade.  I bought my Octave for 400€ and it was the more obvious upgrade  I heard in my system. The Sonett is more ... inconspicuous?  Octave & Sonett are Yin and Yang in my system. so i'm a bit reluctant to spend $$$$ for an hypothetic upgrade in my HD800 rig . Its only a HD800 after all and the budget for upgrade is close to a full stax rig. Moreover with the upgrade budget, Ic could build a extremely good complete system for HE-6 or LCD3 or whatsoever ... I'm in a crossroad.


----------



## Stereolab42

sorrodje said:


> Its only a HD800 after all


 
  
 Heh. Only on Head-Fi would one find this statement written about a $1500 pair of headphones!


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

purrin said:


> NOS-1704 was more "tonally dense" correct? I suspect so because the NOS-1704 DAC seems like a M7 with two PCM1704s and no DSP (NOS) - where I ran the M7 in NOS mode. This is in comparison to your Quad (and I've heard the Octave too), but DACs seemed "lighter". Hard to explain or use words. I think you know what I mean.



I think its not correct,the nos1704 is based on sa1.32 which utilize pcm1704s in parallel, m7 uses them with push/pull circuit


----------



## purrin

But in comparison to Metrum?


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

purrin said:


> But in comparison to Metrum?


 
 ops, i dont mean about the sound, only think even when you run the m7 in nos mode, its still not the same with nos1704 since the dac chips are used in different way


----------



## arnaud

sorrodje said:


> No. That's not so simple.  I read things herer or there about the fact the hex is "a league above" the Octave. I'd prefer to judge it by myself and I'm open to other opinions  . One more point is that the Hex can't be used with both XLR and RCA  outputs if I'm not wrong. So I'm not so convinced


 
  
 Not discussed herein but I have high (unrealistic?) expectations for the Ygg... Maybe too rich for your blood but it would be a bargain in itself in regards to the usual suspects for discrete ladder dacs.


----------



## zachchen1996

arnaud said:


> Not discussed herein but I have high (unrealistic?) expectations for the Ygg


 
  
 Same here, the anticipation is killing me.


----------



## hans030390

purrin said:


> NOS-1704 was more "tonally dense" correct? I suspect so because the NOS-1704 DAC seems like a M7 with two PCM1704s and no DSP (NOS) - where I ran the M7 in NOS mode. This is in comparison to your Quad (and I've heard the Octave too), but DACs seemed "lighter". Hard to explain or use words. I think you know what I mean.


 
  
 Not sure how the NOS-1704 compares to the M7 without DSP/oversampling. I'd be really curious to compare! xxxfbsxxx brought up a good point about the NOS-1704's design as well which is worth consideration (though, really, you'd need to compare side by side subjectively).
  
 I'm pretty sure I know what you mean about the Metrums being a bit "lighter" and the NOS-1704 being more "tonally dense." I think that's a good comparison. The NOS1704 still sounded a bit more artificial to my ears than the Metrum, but the extra detail and resolving ability was more noticeable than that still.
  
 I know the Metrums are too smooth and not resolving enough for some, but there's something about the way they convey music that sounds more engaging and real to me than perhaps any other DAC I've heard. I noticed this on a particular track with a soft, but powerful, guitar solo...NOS1704 was less smoothed over and had better detail, but the Metrum gave me a better sense of having the guy playing right in front of me. Better emotion...just felt like I could "feel" the guy playing in front of me, I dunno. Really, really hard to explain in words. Guess I just like what I like!


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> hans030390 said:
> 
> 
> > I had the Quad and Hex for a while. They sound pretty similar. Hex is a bit cleaner and a touch less laid-back sounding. However, I believe the output transformers have their own effect on the sound, where as the Quad/Octave don't have that for the analog out. Some have said this gives the Quad/Octave more of a "direct" sound over the Hex, whatever that means. I was stupid and didn't do direct comparisons listening for that when I had them, though. Honestly, I know the Hex got a ton of praise from reviewers, but I'm not really sure it's worth the extra cost over the Octave unless you're looking for those extra features. It's just such a huge price jump...
> ...


 
  
 Hans described it about right. It was based on another or an older model DAC without the DSP and a bit of tweaking to get the PCM1704s working well in NOS mode. If you didn't know it was NOS, you wouldn't guess it IMO. It is a touch more smooth or more forgiving than the M7, which seemed with the USB32 to have a small touch of -- I don't know... hardness? -- but at the expense of soundstage. It does a good job of sounding smooth and reasonably detailed whether it is fed 44.1 or 192. It's a very "I want to listen and enjoy without thinking about the equipment" kind of DAC.


----------



## estreeter

@purrin, I think you overestimate some of your more slavish disciples.


----------



## Sorrodje

arnaud said:


> Not discussed herein but I have high (unrealistic?) expectations for the Ygg... Maybe too rich for your blood but it would be a bargain in itself in regards to the usual suspects for discrete ladder dacs.


 
  
 Yes ... I forgot the Hex because it can't work both with XLR and RCA .. Yggdrasil/Ragnarok seems very promising for who want to build a  complete living room ( or audio room ) system for both speakers & headphones. I'm really interested in Schiit work on these new babies but I've not enough space for such a system right now...  My HD800 rig is a desktop rig.


----------



## purrin

estreeter said:


> @purrin, I think you overestimate some of your more slavish disciples.


 
  
 LMAO. Hahaha. That's EXACTLY how I feel.


----------



## hans030390

If you like the Octave and are on the MK1 version, I'd say consider the MK2 (uses newer boards, supposedly good USB implementation), find something outside the Metrum line, or wait for a new product like the Yggy. I really liked the Hex, but given what you can get the Quad and Octave for, it's a pretty risky jump in price for a pretty similar sound, IMO.


----------



## kphfrail

purrin said:


> LMAO. Hahaha. That's EXACTLY how I feel.


 
 From today onward, you will be known as The Messiah. All hail to The Messiah!


----------



## BournePerfect




----------



## SearchOfSub

purrin said:


> I think you are taking it too personally and not making any sense.
> 
> First of all, you say that comparing the Hugo to big desktop systems is "inappropriate". But then in the next few sentences, you say that the Hugo is being appreciated by people outside of headphonedom with "fullsize hi-fi systems costing substantially more than the most glamorous desktop headphone-centric gear".
> 
> ...






And why would anyone in their right mind wouldn't use Hugo as a dac in 2 channel.. please explain?


----------



## BournePerfect

Price, sonics, build quality, aesthetics?


----------



## SearchOfSub

maxvla said:


> Alright, let me try to understand. You praise it for being able to slot into a high end stationary system, yet it shouldn't be compared against stationary DACs because they aren't portable? Double standard much?
> 
> I agree with Purrin in all he's said in reply to you, especially the shill comments, and I stand by my own comments earlier in the thread. I think it's an alright transportable DAC/amp but several times more expensive than the performance warrants. I think the casing of the unit is directly taken from the Fisher Price playbook, including the over sized openings around all the plugs, which makes it look awful. I would expect the casing of a $2k+ product to have very tight fitting gaps around the plugs. The gimmicky buttons and color coding is annoying.


----------



## purrin

searchofsub said:


> And why would anyone in their right mind wouldn't use Hugo as a dac in 2 channel.. please explain?


 
  
 "2 channel" inferring two channel full-sized speaker system - in the context of reply of original arguments put forth by Mython. As for why not? Because there's stuff just as good in every way for 1/3 to 1/4 of the price. (IMHO, FWIW, my 2 cents, depending upon personal sonic priorities, depending upon associated gear, What, I'm not the messiah, etc.)


----------



## SearchOfSub

bourneperfect said:


> Price, sonics, build quality, aesthetics?





I've heard the Qutehd with external psu that cost 400.00 I think from a well known power supply designer in a 2 channel setup... and qutehd is accepted by many high end 2 channel purists as a dac only with an extra psu, and the Hugo did better in the same setup. There was better timing, less noise, more emotional. It just sounded more high end and better balanced overall. 

Also compared the PS Audio MK2 with a Audio quest NRG.3 Powercord plugged in, same amp, and ics, the Hugo blows it away in every way possible. It as running on nativeX. Mode. PS Audio by comparison just sounded amteurish, raspy, not clear, flat soundstage in comparison. And mk2 are known for soundstage amongst many owners.. Hugo in comparison was on another level.

The only reason I see as Hugo not being fit for 2 channel is that the amp section of the Hugo cannot be bypassed so it is running all the time, so even with an external amp, your speakers are being double amped all the time. I dont know how much this is a negative factor.. but if someone can chime in, it would be great. 


Some of the dacs I have heard are, Arcam irdac, ps audio mk2, chord qutehd, OPPO 105 sabre32,auralic vega, lampizator big 7, ps audio directstream, ...

I would like to hear the metrum.. and the Schiit ygg, and willing to let go the Hugo only if the double amp problem is big enough..

Otherwise, I would keep it for a long time. Especially that I picked it up for 1,800.00


----------



## SearchOfSub

purrin said:


> "2 channel" inferring two channel full-sized speaker system - in the context of reply of original arguments put forth by Mython. As for why not? Because there's stuff just as good in every way for 1/3 to 1/4 of the price. (IMHO, FWIW, my 2 cents, depending upon personal sonic priorities, depending upon associated gear, What, I'm not the messiah, etc.)





I forgot that you were the thread starter purrin, would have given more credibility to the post if I remembered that it as you before I posted. Anyway, I would note this and look into this further.


----------



## purrin

Don't disagree with if you the PSA PWDmk2 was one of the newer ones which only 2.10 or higher with confirmed odd behavior. Someone sent one of those to me to confirm how it sounded. Pretty bad. This is why I made it a strong point to only recommend the PWD1->PWD2 running fw 2.02/2.03. I also preferred the Hugo over the PSA DSD simply because I felt it had better tonal response with being as lean. I don't really care for the PSA DSD either.
  
 Maccabbage felt the Hugo was better than the NAD M51. I totally can see why. Qutehd (without external PSU) and Oppo105 are nothing special.
  
 But in terms of high performance two channel, people I know belong in two groups: sky's the limit (where the Hugo wouldn't be seriously considered) or cheap (DIY, tweaked DCX2496, Emotiva, etc.).


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> searchofsub said:
> 
> 
> > And why would anyone in their right mind wouldn't use Hugo as a dac in 2 channel.. please explain?
> ...


 
  
 Any particular suggestions? 
  
 I'll see if I can't take the Hugo into one of the local dealers or to a friend's house or somewhere and compare it in a 2-channel set-up.


----------



## SearchOfSub

+1. What DAC would you suggest for upto 2,000.00 new or used in 2 channel setup for coaxial or optical sources?


----------



## purrin

Metrum Octave mk2 (totally different sound though) (+ good transport or an old transport with a clock upgrade would be a nice touch)
Schiit Gungnir USB Gen 2 + Wyrd
Schiit Uberfrost USB Gen 2 + Wyrd
Lavry DA11 (maybe)
Schiit Wyrd + Modi (hard to beat price, Wyrd is not optional)
Matrix X-Sabre (Maxvla's recommendation)
AK120
Behringer DCX2496 (modified, and especially if used as an digital X-over)
Schiit Yggy


----------



## SearchOfSub

purrin said:


> Metrum Octave mk2 (totally different sound though) (+ good transport or an old transport with a clock upgrade would be a nice touch)
> Schiit Gungnir USB Gen 2 + Wyrd
> Schiit Uberfrost USB Gen 2 + Wyrd
> Lavry DA11 (maybe)
> ...





Lol @ Schiit YGG being last. Feel bad for those Schiit fan boys waiting 2+ years for it..

Definitely gonna look into the metrum now.


----------



## zachchen1996

searchofsub said:


> Lol @ Schiit YGG being last. Feel bad for those Schiit fan boys waiting 2+ years for it..
> 
> Definitely gonna look into the metrum now.


 
  
 It's probably put there because it hasn't even been released yet.


----------



## purrin

LOL, it's not in any particular order.
  
 The DCX2496 is almost always in one of my development setups for speakers. The Wyrd+Modi has recently earned it's way into my secondary setups. I'm not afraid to spend money if I think there is something special, but when it comes down to it I'm am cheapskate. My primary DAC setup, the AGD-M7<-DACLadder HDMI interface<-OR5<-Wyrd, was a result of a series of accidents, coincidences, luck and wyrdness. Otherwise I would have plopped down for an MSB Analog by now.
  
 Additional considerations $2K or under:
  
 Add Shanling CD3.2 (CD player). I like this one.
 The Emotiva AKM based DAC (DC-1), Naim PCM-1704 (maybe over), Bryston BDA-2 (maybe over), MHDT Stockholm look interesting too; but need to verify.


----------



## purrin

searchofsub said:


> Lol @ Schiit YGG being last. Feel bad for those Schiit fan boys waiting 2+ years for it..
> 
> Definitely gonna look into the metrum now.


 
  
 The only thing I'm concerned about with Metrum Octave is that it can be too laid back for some. As Hans said, it's not as laid back a the Quad. Its also does not belong in the hyperdetailed school of DACs, but I found its resolution adequate (more than good for most types of speakers.) Octave is smooth, liquid, does voices really well, yet agile and articulate. Personally, I'd pair it with components (amps, transducers) which have a ton of slam, punch, attack.


----------



## En_R

searchofsub said:


> Otherwise, I would keep it for a long time. Especially that I picked it up for 1,800.00


 
  
 Your head-fi feedback looks interesting.
  


searchofsub said:


> The only reason I see as Hugo not being fit for 2 channel is that the amp section of the Hugo cannot be bypassed so it is running all the time, so even with an external amp, your speakers are being double amped all the time. I dont know how much this is a negative factor.. but if someone can chime in, it would be great.


 
  
 So the RCA outs on the Hugo do not bypass the amp section?


----------



## zachchen1996

en_r said:


> So the RCA outs on the Hugo do not bypass the amp section?


 
  
 Nope


----------



## En_R

zachchen1996 said:


> Nope


 


 .. I just assumed. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Well, to me the Hugo sounds flat and lacking in dynamics. Before I would say the DAC section is worth 800$ max (but I understand you are paying a premium for the portability), but now I'm not sure how much the analogue circuitry is coming into play here... since the headphone out is quite bad.


----------



## zachchen1996

en_r said:


> Well, to me the Hugo *sounds flat *and *lacking in dynamics*.


 
  
 Same here, and I thought I was the only one who felt this way about the hugo!


----------



## Sorrodje

hans030390 said:


> If you like the Octave and are on the MK1 version, I'd say consider the MK2 (uses newer boards, supposedly good USB implementation), find something outside the Metrum line, or wait for a new product like the Yggy. I really liked the Hex, but given what you can get the Quad and Octave for, it's a pretty risky jump in price for a pretty similar sound, IMO.


 
  
 Thats all I need to make my decision. I won't change my Octave mk I before finding and  hearing something really better . I don't really see in what the MkII could be a real upgrade since I use myself a transport for USB to SPDIF conversion.  I'd rather consider a transport upgrade maybe.  The audioGD DI-2014 eyes me up  with a lot of inputs & outputs and its inboard PSU.
  
 @Purrin : You should put the Octave in your first page. I'm always very pleased ( aka touched by the finger of God ) when my personal gear is in the Messiah's favourites 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## applehead

purrin said:


> The Emotiva AKM based DAC (DC-1), Naim PCM-1704 (maybe over), Bryston BDA-2 (maybe over), MHDT Stockholm look interesting too; but need to verify.


 
  
 Just a minor correction, Emotiva DACs (the XDA and DC series) used the AD1955 chip. DC-1 has two of them.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> Don't disagree with if you the PSA PWDmk2 was one of the newer ones which only 2.10 or higher with confirmed odd behavior. Someone sent one of those to me to confirm how it sounded. Pretty bad. This is why I made it a strong point to only recommend the PWD1->PWD2 running fw 2.02/2.03. I also preferred the Hugo over the PSA DSD simply because I felt it had better tonal response with being as lean. I don't really care for the PSA DSD either.
> 
> Maccabbage felt the Hugo was better than the NAD M51. I totally can see why. Qutehd (without external PSU) and Oppo105 are nothing special.
> 
> But in terms of high performance two channel, people I know belong in two groups: sky's the limit (where the Hugo wouldn't be seriously considered) or cheap (DIY, tweaked DCX2496, Emotiva, etc.).


 
 I did think the Hugo was better than the NAD M51. But keep in mind I was using it with my WA2 so could only use it single ended. Have heard from people that it sounds better balanced - unfortunately I didn't get to hear it balanced except for a brief listen through the HDVD600 
  
  
 I am really looking forward to receiving my DNA Stratus and I'm hoping it will help me identify the differences between DAC's compared to the WA2. I think sometimes the WA2's over warm sound can get in the way choosing a DAC.


----------



## molika

magiccabbage said:


> I did think the Hugo was better than the NAD M51. But keep in mind I was using it with my WA2 so could only use it single ended. Have heard from people that it sounds better balanced - unfortunately I didn't get to hear it balanced except for a brief listen through the HDVD600
> 
> 
> I am really looking forward to receiving my DNA Stratus and I'm hoping it will help me identify the differences between DAC's compared to the WA2. I think sometimes the WA2's over warm sound can get in the way choosing a DAC.


 

 anyone have an opinion on the metrum octave vs m51. also, has anyone heard the Questyle CAS192D DAC and can share their thoughts. cheers


----------



## dguitarnut

searchofsub said:


> I've heard the Qutehd with external psu that cost 400.00 I think from a well known power supply designer in a 2 channel setup... and qutehd is accepted by many high end 2 channel purists as a dac only with an extra psu, and the Hugo did better in the same setup. There was better timing, less noise, more emotional. It just sounded more high end and better balanced overall.
> 
> Also compared the PS Audio MK2 with a Audio quest NRG.3 Powercord plugged in, same amp, and ics, the Hugo blows it away in every way possible. It as running on nativeX. Mode. PS Audio by comparison just sounded amteurish, raspy, not clear, flat soundstage in comparison. And mk2 are known for soundstage amongst many owners.. Hugo in comparison was on another level.
> 
> ...




$1800 for a Hugo maybe accounts for his interesting head-fi feedback. :blink:


----------



## magiccabbage

molika said:


> anyone have an opinion on the metrum octave vs m51. also, has anyone heard the Questyle CAS192D DAC and can share their thoughts. cheers


 
 I have not head either of those sorry


----------



## Xecuter

purrin said:


> Metrum Octave mk2 (totally different sound though) (+ good transport or an old transport with a clock upgrade would be a nice touch)
> Schiit Gungnir USB Gen 2 + Wyrd
> Schiit Uberfrost USB Gen 2 + Wyrd
> Lavry DA11 (maybe)
> ...


 

 Now can you do DACs   2-5k please.
 Still wondering what DAC to choose for GS-X DACT > Abyss/LCD-3. Thanks purrin. Love your work.


----------



## estreeter

Where are you people getting your hands on the Lampizator DACs ? Every Aussie I know who has one has spent bucket loads of cash just getting the thing from Poland - is there a reseller network in the states ?


----------



## Tony1110

sorrodje said:


> Thats all I need to make my decision. I won't change my Octave mk I before finding and  hearing something really better . I don't really see in what the MkII could be a real upgrade since I use myself a transport for USB to SPDIF conversion.  I'd rather consider a transport upgrade maybe.  The audioGD DI-2014 eyes me up  with a lot of inputs & outputs and its inboard PSU.
> 
> @Purrin : You should put the Octave in your first page. I'm always very pleased ( aka touched by the finger of God ) when my personal gear is in the Messiah's favourites  .




The MkII benefits more from a USB power supply than USB to SPDIF converters. I tested mine with the Audiophilleo 2 and the Halide Bridge. To my ears the ifi iUSB yielded the biggest improvement. If you have the MKI and a decent converter I wouldn't bother. Having said that, depending on the quality of your converter (if you could get a great price for it), it could actually work out cheaper to sell them, upgrade to the MKII and buy the power supply as they're relatively cheap compared to some of the higher end converters.


----------



## Sorrodje

tony1110 said:


> The MkII benefits more from a USB power supply than USB to SPDIF converters. I tested mine with the Audiophilleo 2 and the Halide Bridge. To my ears the ifi iUSB yielded the biggest improvement. If you have the MKI and a decent converter I wouldn't bother. Having said that, depending on the quality of your converter (if you could get a great price for it), it could actually work out cheaper to sell them, upgrade to the MKII and buy the power supply as they're relatively cheap compared to some of the higher end converters.


 
  
 I think I didn't understand all .  The octave MKI is not usb  powered . It has its own PSU .  if i didn't miss something , the MkII includes the PSU and the DAC itself in the same casing ?  so why speaking about usb power supply ?


----------



## Tony1110

sorrodje said:


> I think I didn't understand all .  The octave MKI is not usb  powered . It has its own PSU .  if i didn't miss something , the MkII includes the PSU and the DAC itself in the same casing ?  so why speaking about usb power supply ?




Yes it has a PSU, of course, but it takes its power for the USB board from the computer it's connected to. Most DACs that operate in this way can benefit significantly from a USB power supply.


----------



## Sorrodje

tony1110 said:


> Yes it has a PSU, of course, but it takes its power for the USB board from the computer it's connected to. Most DACs that operate in this way can benefit significantly from a USB power supply.


 
  
  
 mmh my Octave MkI PSU is a 220V one and I plug it to my wall electrical outlet. No USB power . No USB intput at all 
  
 See picture below


----------



## Tony1110

sorrodje said:


> mmh my Octave MkI PSU is a 220V one and I plug it to my wall electrical outlet. No USB power . No USB intput at all
> 
> See picture below




I'm talking about the MKII.


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> Thats all I need to make my decision. I won't change my Octave mk I before finding and  hearing something really better . I don't really see in what the MkII could be a real upgrade since I use myself a transport for USB to SPDIF conversion.  I'd rather consider a transport upgrade maybe.  The audioGD DI-2014 eyes me up  with a lot of inputs & outputs and its inboard PSU.
> 
> @Purrin : You should put the Octave in your first page. I'm always very pleased ( aka touched by the finger of God ) when my personal gear is in the Messiah's favourites
> 
> ...


 
  
 Just put up there. Wanted to wait until I got more exposure to it.
  


applehead said:


> Just a minor correction, Emotiva DACs (the XDA and DC series) used the AD1955 chip. DC-1 has two of them.


 
  
 I like the AD1955, along with the AKMs. There seems to be a high correlation to the DACs I like and the chips which are used. Would be interesting if someone did an analysis.


----------



## Clemmaster

I confirm the Metrum Quad worked really great on my dad's stereo setup: Exposure 2010S + Focal 826W.
 Vocals are really the highlight of this DAC!
  
 The QuteHD + LPSU was the best in his setup.


----------



## Sorrodje

tony1110 said:


> I'm talking about the MKII.


 
  

  
  
 Sorry but I think the power for mkII neither come from USB   .


----------



## Tony1110

sorrodje said:


> Sorry but I think the power for mkII neither come from USB   .




You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not trying to state that the DAC is powered by the USB input. I'm saying that the USB board inside the DAC takes its power from the computer as opposed to a dedicated power supply.


----------



## TokenGesture

The Octave is great DAC for the money I think.  I've paired it with the Metrum Aurix amp, the combination is wonderful - clear, musical, controlled, with great tone.  Not in your face but the detail is there.


----------



## Sorrodje

tony1110 said:


> You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not trying to state that the DAC is powered by the USB input. I'm saying that the USB board inside the DAC takes its power from the computer as opposed to a dedicated power supply.


 
  
 Oh sorry. I was sure there was something wrong in what I understood but I didn't know what...


----------



## BournePerfect

Yep-this is why even some of the heavy hitters can benefit from something like an iUSB. Wish I had tried it with my DP1 when I had it, as I heard great things about that particular pairing.


----------



## thegunner100

I can vouch for the DC-1 being an excellent dac for the price. It's $500 and you get tons of features for it: USB, Coax, Optical, AES, BNC input, Pre-amp functionality w/ RCA in, both RCA and XLR outs, well built, relatively small form factor, and a nice remote. I think it comes close to the Gungnir's performance but the DC-1 isn't as dynamically capable and the bass quality isn't quite as good.
  
 Purrin's comment about liking the AD1955 and the AKM chips in the Schiit dacs makes sense to me, having done a brief comparison between the DC-1 and Gungnir.


----------



## skeptic

bourneperfect said:


> Yep-this is why even some of the heavy hitters can benefit from something like an iUSB. Wish I had tried it with my DP1 when I had it, as I heard great things about that particular pairing.




Someone on computeraudiophile posted a bunch of scope measurements of the iusb, and the switching wallwart is really noisy. Having to diy a linear supply for a device that is supposed to provide clean usb power seems wonky, but that's what the guy did. Big improvement in the measurements.

Edit - here's the thread: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/ifi-ipurifier-what-it-how-use-it-do-i-want-it-18206/index6.html


----------



## purrin

Includes a few not discussed in the thread - mostly the stuff I don't like.


----------



## BournePerfect

skeptic said:


> Someone on computeraudiophile posted a bunch of scope measurements of the iusb, and the switching wallwart is really noisy. Having to diy a linear supply for a device that is supposed to provide clean usb power seems wonky, but that's what the guy did. Big improvement in the measurements.
> 
> Edit - here's the thread: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/ifi-ipurifier-what-it-how-use-it-do-i-want-it-18206/index6.html


 
  
 Yes I believe the remarks regarding the iFi/DP-1 used it's optional power supply. Makes sense.


----------



## BournePerfect

purrin said:


> Includes a few not discussed in the thread - mostly the stuff I don't like.


 
  
 Doesn't the Hugo justify it's own slice on the bottom pie yet?


----------



## castleofargh

again with the USB and the evil sources :'(
 last time I tried giving my opinion by talking about how stuff work, but nobody cares about technical reasons (else I wouldn't see so many people with NOS DACs ^_^).
 so maybe I can try basic human logic this time?
 whatever is in a magic USB box or any crappy hub with an external power supply, it's made from available and relatively cheap components, and however you wanna see it, those components would work the same way if they were already inside a DAC. so why wouldn't your favorite DAC be already equipped with whatever is in the magic box to make the audio "better"?
 to that I can see a few very logical options:
  
 -1/ the manufacturers did just that, the DAC already has external power supply, super clock, and whatever trick available.
 =  you're just adding redundant products in the signal path and probably making the signal worst.
  
 -2/ the manufacturers of that DAC don't know what they're doing. they added USB input because people kept bothering them for it, but don't know much about USB and made a poor design.
 = you bought the wrong DAC or at least you shouldn't use the USB input.
  
 -3/ they know but decided to save money instead of using 40$ of components to make a clean USB signal and improve the DAC specs.
 if it's a cheap product, well why not. but if it's some hifi stuff, you've been swindled.
  
 -4/ they know and tested all configurations to realize it was making no significant improvement. so they decided to not add useless junk.
 if they get great measured specs, then they were right not to bother. else goto -2/
  
  so from this very basic manufacturer's side thinking, and I don't think I went wild with imagination here, the only time where adding something to the USB cable might improve things will be with -2/. and even in that situation you have to take your time and think if you should go for another input, go for another DAC, or if you really want to keep this one DAC with a crappy usb input? then and only then, look for a magic box or a powered hub, or update your usb drivers on your computer or get a raspberry pi as dedicated audio source...
 that's why I do believe that when a DAC has troubles with some source, most of the time the answer is to get a proper DAC instead of trying to patch things up. (and by proper I don't mean expensive, I mean proper for your own needs).


----------



## BournePerfect

I think I just went blind...


----------



## LCfiner

thegunner100 said:


> I can vouch for the DC-1 being an excellent dac for the price. It's $500 and you get tons of features for it: USB, Coax, Optical, AES, BNC input, Pre-amp functionality w/ RCA in, both RCA and XLR outs, well built, relatively small form factor, and a nice remote. I think it comes close to the Gungnir's performance but the DC-1 isn't as dynamically capable and the bass quality isn't quite as good.
> 
> Purrin's comment about liking the AD1955 and the AKM chips in the Schiit dacs makes sense to me, having done a brief comparison between the DC-1 and Gungnir.


 

 Just wanted to say that I also have a DC-1 and think it’s a really good DAC and amazing value considering the performance and I/O. I don’t find the sound to be bright or glaring or suffer from raspiness. I really like it.
  
 To contribute a comparison to the thread, I’ve been doing some listening comparisons this weekend on my recently acquired *NAD M51 vs the DC-1*. Thought I’d share
  
 eqpt: QUAD 12L active bookshelves on isoacoustic stands in a near field setup.
 Bakoon HPA-01 and Grado PS1000 (but I’ve done almost all comparisons with the speakers).
 HDMI to NAD (tried USB on NAD, HDMI seemed slightly smoother, might be placebo.) USB into DC-1
  
 I volume matched as closely as I could with a mic and pink noise. But I might still be off by a dB, although I think any loudness difference might be in favour of the DC-1, anyway. (pink noise level moves around slightly and minor peaks from measuring DC-1 were a _bit_ higher)
  
 Key takeaway: I think the NAD is better overall but I think the DC-1 holds up quite well. 
  
 I find the sound from the NAD and speaker combo to be larger than with DC-1. The stage extends further outside the speakers and there’s a bit more depth to the soundstage. The size of everything is enlarged but imaging also seems a bit more focused for main vocals. NAD seems more lively overall and I think it has a greater sense of macrodynamics for orchestral music.
  
 To my surprise, I think the NAD might be prone to a hint more sibilance (high ‘sss” sounds in vocals) than the DC-1. Just a hint (maybe a good usb/spdif converter will reduce this?) But that little extra bite also comes along with vocals and instruments sounding more prominent and forward than with the DC-1. 
  
 I did try moving the DC-1 volume up from the matched levels to see if I could “overcompensate”  and get a bigger stage to match the NAD M51 (since I felt the differences in scale I was hearing was something that a volume mismatch could explain) but it didn’t really work out. sounded louder, yes, but not more expansive. same confines within the speaker boxes. so I just moved it back to the matched levels.
  
 One of the differences I noted with headphones was with the bass response of the PS1000 and the HPA-01 amp. The Bakoon’s current output will create a bump at around 100 Hz on the PS1000. The PS1000 already has a boosted response in this area. On the DC-1, I felt the combo was too much for songs with a continuous driving bass line - it got too muddy with a lot of bloom around the notes, clouding the melody of the bass. But on the NAD, the mud is reduced. there’s still a boost in the bass region with the amp/headphone pair but the bloom around a bass guitar is reduced and initial bass strum is more defined. (On voltage output, this extra bloom isn’t there, just the PS1000’s natural bass boost)
  
 This probably wouldn’t be as noticeable with a different amp/headphone pair (something better behaved without as much boom) but the exaggerated nature of the HPA-01 and the PS1000 made the difference in the DACs a bit more noticeable
  
 For detail retrieval, I’m not capable of telling a difference. All the little whispers and inhales and licking of lips right next to mics sounds pretty much the same from both from my gear. If one of them is missing something I have not yet heard it. But I’ve always felt limited in this area. I don’t think I pick up as much as other people here.
  
 In regards to tone and timbre, I think both are very natural sounding. There’s no obvious artificiality or sheen or glare to my ears. That’s really why I like the DC-1 so much. It does a great job with tone and naturalness, even if it doesn't match the NAD in terms of scale. The only tonal difference I heard was with the bass response/impact and that was noted partly due to the headphone and amp pairing I was using. With my speakers, it’s not as easy to hear.
  
 So, the NAD gets a big thumbs up from me. I really like it. The DC-1 doesn’t quite match the NAD with my setup but it still sounds great and is an easy recommendation from me.


----------



## Chris J

en_r said:


> .. I just assumed.
> 
> Well, to me the Hugo sounds flat and lacking in dynamics. Before I would say the DAC section is worth 800$ max (but I understand you are paying a premium for the portability), but now I'm not sure how much the analogue circuitry is coming into play here... since the headphone out is quite bad.




I believe the headphone amp and line out amp are one and the same.


----------



## boatheelmusic

lcfiner said:


> Just wanted to say that I also have a DC-1 and think it’s a really good DAC and amazing value considering the performance and I/O. I don’t find the sound to be bright or glaring or suffer from raspiness. I really like it.
> 
> To contribute a comparison to the thread, I’ve been doing some listening comparisons this weekend on my recently acquired *NAD M51 vs the DC-1*. Thought I’d share
> 
> ...






This is exactly what I found, documented elsewhere on this site

Only the PS Audio PWD II bested these two in my tests.


----------



## applehead

lcfiner said:


> HDMI to NAD (tried USB on NAD, HDMI seemed slightly smoother, might be placebo.) USB into DC-1


 
  
 The USB input of the DC-1 isn't galvanically isolated so adding something like a Schiit Wyrd might help improve the sound quality a bit more. I've tried using a jkspdif mk3 converter and going through coax, and also inserting an Olimex usb isolator for the usb input. Both changed the sound a little bit for the better. I can't accurately describe the changes since it's been a while, but I just wanted to add that. I assume the NAD has cleaner power for all its inputs to begin with.


----------



## jexby

applehead said:


> The USB input of the DC-1 isn't galvanically isolated so adding something like a Schiit Wyrd might help improve the sound quality a bit more.


 
  
 not turning you against trying a Wyrd (I have one with a Modi), but your "galvanically isolated" comment is irrelevant for USB 2.0 standards.
 so sayeth Jason of Schiit, in the FAQ of Wyrd itself.


----------



## applehead

jexby said:


> not turning you against trying a Wyrd (I have one with a Modi), but your "galvanically isolated" comment is irrelevant for USB 2.0 standards.
> so sayeth Jason of Schiit, in the FAQ of Wyrd itself.




Its fine, I've been trying to confirm the same thing myself although I haven't had the time to do a proper side by side comparison or abx yet. Do you think the modi improved any by adding the wyred?


----------



## jexby

applehead said:


> Its fine, I've been trying to confirm the same thing myself although I haven't had the time to do a proper side by side comparison or abx yet. Do you think the modi improved any by adding the wyred?


 
  
 just got the Modi a couple days back, and to be honest- haven't tried it without the Wyrd yet.
 Purrin and others have sworn by the Wyrd improvement to the "simple USB powered" Modi, almost to the point I don't want to waste a time consuming A/B test only to confirm his results.





  
 Note however, I have added the Wyrd inline to my Concero HD --> Lyr 2, and wouldn't say the Wyrd appreciably improved the Concero HD.
 Concero HD has a bunch of internal USB "improvements" on it's own accord in the hardware path and USB controller parts.
 so it's possible the HD on it's own does "some" of what Wyrd is performing already..... thus, the lack of Wyrd effect.


----------



## LCfiner

boatheelmusic said:


> This is exactly what I found, documented elsewhere on this site
> 
> Only the PS Audio PWD II bested these two in my tests.


 
  
 Would you mind linking me to your comparison? I’d like to read it and must have missed it when searching through the site for M51 reviews the last couple weeks. thanks 
  


applehead said:


> The USB input of the DC-1 isn't galvanically isolated so adding something like a Schiit Wyrd might help improve the sound quality a bit more. I've tried using a jkspdif mk3 converter and going through coax, and also inserting an Olimex usb isolator for the usb input. Both changed the sound a little bit for the better. I can't accurately describe the changes since it's been a while, but I just wanted to add that. I assume the NAD has cleaner power for all its inputs to begin with.


 
  
 I’ve considered getting a Wyrd, wondering if the data rechecking would make any difference (for either amp). But I think I’ll just wait till my wallet recovers from the NAD purchase and then look into an AP2+PP. They have a good return policy in case I don’t hear enough of  a difference with the NAD to justify keeping it.


----------



## mowglycdb

purrin said:


> Includes a few not discussed in the thread - mostly the stuff I don't like.


 
  
 Is it the metalic treble that you hate from the SABRE DAC's?


----------



## boatheelmusic

lcfiner said:


> Would you mind linking me to your comparison? I’d like to read it and must have missed it when searching through the site for M51 reviews the last couple weeks. thanks
> 
> 
> I’ve considered getting a Wyrd, wondering if the data rechecking would make any difference (for either amp). But I think I’ll just wait till my wallet recovers from the NAD purchase and then look into an AP2+PP. They have a good return policy in case I don’t hear enough of  a difference with the NAD to justify keeping it.


 
 Here it is:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/708858/some-dac-preamp-comparisons-long
  
  
 You may wish to audition the PWD, available new for $1,750 or so on Audiogon.
  
 IMO, a better DAC for less $$$


----------



## purrin

mowglycdb said:


> Is it the metalic treble that you hate from the SABRE DAC's?


 
  
 The SABRE timbre has never sounded quite right to be. That's definitely the number one issue. The second issue, tangentially related, which seems to be less talked about, is that the lesser implementations don't do a good job reproducing low level information, but yet at the same time bring gross details to the forefront. Tons of in your face macrodetail without supporting microdetail. That bugs the heck out of me. It's false advertising. The third issue is that the SABRE implementations don't seem to have good bass pitch differentiation or texture. Rather than a low frequency pitch, we get a thud.
  
 A lot of it could be implementation though. SABRE tends to be very popular, especially with the cheap stuff. I don't know the business or engineering reasons why SABRE is so popular. Maybe it's easy to implement with pre-baked basic designs freely given out by ESS once you sign the contract and NDA.


----------



## doyouknowSBmean

Hi purrin. How does your EC4-45 drive a speaker? Which speaker do you use now?


----------



## hans030390

purrin, when you were talking about the Octave, were you referring to Mk1, Mk2, or both? If Mk2, did you try the USB input, and if so, how was it?


----------



## purrin

doyouknowsbmean said:


> Hi purrin. How does your EC4-45 drive a speaker? Which speaker do you use now?


 
  
 4-45 has speaker taps. Only 3 watts at most. With the Fostex 6" Sigma BLH, it's used with a sub. With the open baffle:, x'over via single cap at 400Hz to a Moth Cicada driver and 2nd order low-pass via processsor to a power amp to drive the 15" woofer. With the Altec horn, plan is to x'over w/ 2nd order butterworth at 550Hz, and maybe PLLXO to SS power amp to handle the 15". I'm always working on something new or different.
  


hans030390 said:


> purrin, when you were talking about the Octave, were you referring to Mk1, Mk2, or both? If Mk2, did you try the USB input, and if so, how was it?


 
  
 The mk2 units, but via coax. I've never tried the built-in USB interface on them.


----------



## hans030390

Cool, thanks. I'm thinking about eventually changing to an Octave Mk2 setup. Dunno, I like the extra detail and resolving ability on the NOS1704 when doing direct comparisons, but I think I just prefer the Metrum's presentation in the end. I know the Mk2 has new boards based on what's in the Hex, and I believe it doesn't use output transformers like the Hex does (going back to some impressions I've read stating the Quad/Octave sounded more "direct" than the Hex due to this). Curious to check it out some day. I'm hoping the USB implementation with something like the iFi USB or Wyrd would be good enough to negate the need for a USB->SPDIF converter to both save some money and simplify my setup (still an extra box either way, I guess).


----------



## magiccabbage

Anyone else hear that the new Schiit Yggy is going to be 2300 dollars? I was hoping they would keep it under 2K. It should be a serious contender but i wonder will it compare to the like of AMR DP777 nd the new resonance labs DAC?


----------



## Tony1110

hans030390 said:


> Cool, thanks. I'm thinking about eventually changing to an Octave Mk2 setup. Dunno, I like the extra detail and resolving ability on the NOS1704 when doing direct comparisons, but I think I just prefer the Metrum's presentation in the end. I know the Mk2 has new boards based on what's in the Hex, and I believe it doesn't use output transformers like the Hex does (going back to some impressions I've read stating the Quad/Octave sounded more "direct" than the Hex due to this). Curious to check it out some day. I'm hoping the USB implementation with something like the iFi USB or Wyrd would be good enough to negate the need for a USB->SPDIF converter to both save some money and simplify my setup (still an extra box either way, I guess).




USB implementation on Octave MKII is top notch with the power supply. Definitely no need for a SPDIF converter.


----------



## LCfiner

boatheelmusic said:


> Here it is:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/708858/some-dac-preamp-comparisons-long
> 
> ...


 

 thanks for the link.
  
 as for the PWDII, I had one briefly a little over a year ago. It’s just too huge for my desk, lol. and I have an enormous desk. I’d have to get a dedicated rack for that thing.
  
 Plus, at the time when I had it, with different speakers and headphones, I didn’t think it was enough of an improvement over my other DAC at the time to keep it. (it was 2500 for a used one, then). 
  
 Now, I might be willing now to try it again vs the NAD but the form factor is still an issue. also, I got the NAD used for around 1500 so the price is similar. 
  
 Maybe 2015 or 2016 if prices drop closer to 1K. But I kind want to just live with the NAD for a while and not think about a change for a while. Comparing DACs is always a bit of a chore for me


----------



## Stereolab42

magiccabbage said:


> Anyone else hear that the new Schiit Yggy is going to be 2300 dollars? I was hoping they would keep it under 2K. It should be a serious contender but i wonder will it compare to the like of AMR DP777 nd the new resonance labs DAC?


 
  
 They're going to be in trouble at that price range with no DSD support. I think Schiit is missing the fact that although there aren't a huge number of native DSD recordings available yet, it's still a major differentiater for DACs that are otherwise very similar in features. For example, look the iFi "Octo-adopter" campaign.


----------



## boatheelmusic

stereolab42 said:


> They're going to be in trouble at that price range with no DSD support. I think Schiit is missing the fact that although there aren't a huge number of native DSD recordings available yet, it's still a major differentiater for DACs that are otherwise very similar in features. For example, look the iFi "Octo-adopter" campaign.




Perhaps not.......here's an excerpt from Computer Audiophile's review of Berkeley's $16K DAC.....no DSD.

"Rarely do I hear a component that's truly a game changer, a component that's so good I can't stop listening through it, and a component that's so good it renders much of the competition irrelevant. I can't remember, off the top of my head, the last time I heard such a component. That is, before the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series arrived. The Alpha DAC RS, every bit a true game changer, blew me away from the first listen in my system. Since its arrival I've listened to more complete albums and heard more new sounds from old albums than any time in my life. The Alpha DAC RS is so good and such a game changer it may force consumers to reconsider their desire for high resolution music. Sure the Alpha DAC RS can reproduce high resolution music better than any DAC I've heard in my system, but its absolute magic can be heard with standard CD quality 16 bit / 44.1 kHz material. The Alpha DAC RS is without question the best DAC I've heard anywhere when it comes to 16/44.1 playback. I've never heard detail, delicacy, and transparency with my favorite music like I have when listening through this DAC. The Alpha DAC RS is so outstanding that I equate its presence in my system to that of a new pair of loudspeakers. That's correct; the Alpha DAC RS had an impact on my system equivalent to a new pair of loudspeakers. In fact, the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series is the most remarkable sounding product I've ever reviewed. "


----------



## Byrnie

stereolab42 said:


> They're going to be in trouble at that price range with no DSD support. I think Schiit is missing the fact that although there aren't a huge number of native DSD recordings available yet, it's still a major differentiater for DACs that are otherwise very similar in features. For example, look the iFi "Octo-adopter" campaign.



I honestly don't think a lack of DSD support is that big of a deal. It doesn't even seem that popular yet it is growing though.


----------



## Stereolab42

Umm, yeah, a $16k DAC. IMHO as soon as you zoom past $500 the audible differences between DACs when playing common formats becomes very small (with the exception of a few that really manage to screw up, like the portable DAC that looks like a toy that shall-not-be-named). What you are paying for is features, build quality, noise control (filtering of external noise/jitter, lack of pops/clicks), reliability, and support for new formats. But I realize many people disagree on this point so I'm not going to get into a debate about it.


----------



## boatheelmusic

And a Toyota can get you to work as effectively as a Porsche.....but luxury goods are always that way.

BTW, that's too rich for my blood too, but that's also what many here would say about my PWD that I enjoy and can justify.


----------



## Chris J

stereolab42 said:


> Umm, yeah, a $16k DAC. IMHO as soon as you zoom past $500 the audible differences between DACs when playing common formats becomes very small (with the exception of a few that really manage to screw up, like the portable DAC that looks like a toy that shall-not-be-named). What you are paying for is features, build quality, noise control (filtering of external noise/jitter, lack of pops/clicks), reliability, and support for new formats. But I realize many people disagree on this point so I'm not going to get into a debate about it.




Hugo!

Sorry.


----------



## BournePerfect

stereolab42 said:


> They're going to be in trouble at that price range with no DSD support. I think Schiit is missing the fact that although there aren't a huge number of native DSD recordings available yet, it's still a major differentiater for DACs that are otherwise very similar in features. For example, look the iFi "Octo-adopter" campaign.


 
  
 They're gonna be fine. I think this thing is honestly going to sell like gangbusters-and HF is gonna be swamped with lesser, costlier dacs on the FS forums in 6 months. In fact I'm definitely getting in on the beta for Yggy (if there is one) if for no other reason to ensure I get one and won't have to worry about stock considerations.
  
 Call it another hunch.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

bourneperfect said:


> They're gonna be fine. I think this thing is honestly going to sell like gangbusters-and HF is gonna be swamped with lesser, costlier dacs on the FS forums in 6 months. In fact I'm definitely getting in on the beta for Yggy (if there is one) if for no other reason to ensure I get one and won't have to worry about stock considerations.
> 
> Call it another hunch.




This.

I think schiit probably understands the dac market better than most. I would reason to guess they sell more dacs than most other audiophile companies do. Plus, they don't like DSD. If you want DSD buy a different dac, I don't think they'll miss your sale


----------



## BournePerfect

Soup I know you've been stoked for this thing just as long as I have-since the day it was announced. Good times ahead!


----------



## pietsjef

Wyred Dac2 Dsdse -femento? Many, many inquiring minds wondering, I suspect


----------



## estreeter

stereolab42 said:


> Umm, yeah, a $16k DAC. IMHO as soon as you zoom past $500 the audible differences between DACs when playing common formats becomes very small (with the exception of a few that really manage to screw up, like the portable DAC that looks like a toy that shall-not-be-named). What you are paying for is features, build quality, noise control (filtering of external noise/jitter, lack of pops/clicks), reliability, and support for new formats. But I realize many people disagree on this point so I'm not going to get into a debate about it.


 
  
 I'm curious - *how much time have you actually spent with the Hugo in your system* ? I've only heard two DACs that I would consider 'above average' - Weiss DAC202 via Firewire and the Hugo via coax. It's interesting that people who've never heard the Weiss immediately zero in on the unfortunate 'smiley face' then focus on the sticker - most have clearly never even heard it. If I could afford that DAC, I'd buy it in a heartbeat - regardless of purrin's opinion of the architecture - but I can't afford a ~7k DAC so I ended up with the Hugo. I have my own issues with the casework, but to dismiss it based purely on the aesthetics and a couple of unhappy campers is shortsighted IMO. I disagree with the designer on a couple of points but at the end of the day Chord shipped the product they believed best represented their quirky approach to something many of us take far too seriously. 
  
 As for your dismissal of the Berkeley based purely on it's sticker price, is there any chance that you could actually _audition_ the DAC prior to giving us your opinion ? I have no problem with the law of diminishing returns, but I do have a problem with people making broad-brush statements with no firsthand experience of a given product. Connaker has made no secret of his feelings for the Berkeley Audio Design product line, but he previously conceded that his Alpha had been toppled by the DAC202 - it would seem that BAD had to dip into the 'cost-no-object' bin to put themselves back on his top shelf. 
  
 Unlike purrin and a couple of others here (project86 seems to have moved to the big leagues), most of us dont have the luxury of being able to listen to a slew of high-end source/amp/headphone combinations, but sooner or later we all have to make a purchase decision and I dont regret buying the Hugo, Schiit will sell truckloads of Yggdrasil based on _nothing more than the spec sheet and the buildup her_e, whether the price is above or below 2K - this DAC is aimed well above anything they've sold previously and well beyond any of their obvious competitors. If your statement re audible differences held true, threads like this would have no value whatsoever - surely we would all just buy the ODAC and call it a day ? 
  
 Looking forward to your feedback,


----------



## Stereolab42

estreeter said:


> If your statement re audible differences held true, threads like this would have no value whatsoever - surely we would all just buy the ODAC and call it a day ?


 
  
 I stated explicitly in my post that there many other reasons to pay good money for a DAC aside from pure SQ, which varies between "excellent" and "outstanding" for 95% of DACS at or above $500 I've heard. I went through many DACs before arriving at my exaSounds, which are not cheap... and the reasons were never purely SQ-related. Maybe to your ears a $16k DAC may make a difference. For me, I have zero reason to believe so. I'm no objectivist, I'm saying this purely subjectively... if it sounds great for you, well, I'm not going to persuade you not to spend that $16k.


----------



## estreeter

If I cant afford a 7K DAC it follows that I cant afford a 16K DAC. That said, if there is an _aspirational_ aspect to this hobby then drawing an arbitrary line at $500 or $5000 isnt far off the 'any properly designed source/amp sounds the same when properly volume matched' argument, and that IS an objectivist mantra.


----------



## purrin

hans030390 said:


> Cool, thanks. I'm thinking about eventually changing to an Octave Mk2 setup. Dunno, I like the extra detail and resolving ability on the NOS1704 when doing direct comparisons, but I think I just prefer the Metrum's presentation in the end. I know the Mk2 has new boards based on what's in the Hex, and I believe it doesn't use output transformers like the Hex does (going back to some impressions I've read stating the Quad/Octave sounded more "direct" than the Hex due to this). Curious to check it out some day. I'm hoping the USB implementation with something like the iFi USB or Wyrd would be good enough to negate the need for a USB->SPDIF converter to both save some money and simplify my setup (still an extra box either way, I guess).


 
  
 Do you know if the Octave uses caps instead of the transformers?


----------



## Rajikaru

estreeter said:


> If I cant afford a 7K DAC it follows that I cant afford a 16K DAC. That said, if there is an _aspirational_ aspect to this hobby then drawing an arbitrary line at $500 or $5000 isnt far off the 'any properly designed source/amp sounds the same when properly volume matched' argument, and that IS an objectivist mantra.


 
  
 As opposed to '_the more money you spend, the better the sound gets'_, which IS a subjectivist Dogma?
  
 Most of the arguments centered on DACs really come down to:
 Conclusion based on experience vs. Dogma (what you want to believe)

 What really muddles things up is that there are so many conflicting conclusions based on various individual experiences.

 The REAL question is why no one sets up either:
 a. a DBT between various DACS from the ODAC up to the 16K esoterica a lot of people aspire to.
  
 or  even better,

 b. Directly record the output of  DACs all the way from the  ODAC up to the 16K esoterica and null them for any differences.  (After all we're all listening to recordings so I cannot see how this won't reveal anything).
  
 Then we can stop arguing about DACs, like it was politics or religion.


----------



## adamaley

rajikaru said:


> As opposed to '_the more money you spend, the better the sound gets'_, which IS a subjectivist Dogma?
> 
> Most of the arguments centered on DACs really come down to:
> Conclusion based on experience vs. Dogma (what you want to believe)
> ...


 
  
 So, about them DACs......


----------



## purrin

estreeter said:


> If I cant afford a 7K DAC it follows that I cant afford a 16K DAC. That said, if there is an _aspirational_ aspect to this hobby then drawing an arbitrary line at $500 or $5000 isnt far off the 'any properly designed source/amp sounds the same when properly volume matched' argument, and that IS an objectivist mantra.


 
  
 I wouldn't bother arguing. I wouldn't hear much difference in DACs if I were using most of the same mediocre headphones or amps either.


----------



## 62ohm

Purrin,
  
 What do you think about the Benchmark DAC2? Would you rank it above, or bellow the NAD M51?


----------



## purrin

rajikaru said:


> The REAL question is why no one sets up either:
> a. a DBT between various DACS from the ODAC up to the 16K esoterica a lot of people aspire to.


 
  
 DBTs are hard to setup and conduct properly. Hell, single blind tests are hard to setup and conduct properly. However people do setup single blind tests.
  


rajikaru said:


> Then we can stop arguing about DACs, like it was politics or religion.


 
  
 Easier said than done. Some "objectivists" seem hell bent on proselytizing others on the dangers of placebo purgatory. It's like they can't keep such awesome gnosis to themselves, but need to save all others, including those who don't want to be saved. It's like that time where that Jehovah's Witness knocked on my pothead neighbor's door when I lived in Satan Cruz.


----------



## purrin

62ohm said:


> Purrin,
> 
> What do you think about the Benchmark DAC2? Would you rank it above, or bellow the NAD M51?


 
  
 No clue. Not heard.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

purrin said:


> I wouldn't bother arguing. I wouldn't hear much difference in DACs if I were using most of the same mediocre headphones or amps either.




I will say I never heard as much difference between dacs in my system as I do using the Valhalla 2 and hd800s. Not with the HV and 009s or the Mjolnir with the LCD-3s.


----------



## estreeter

rajikaru said:


> As opposed to '_the more money you spend, the better the sound gets'_, which IS a subjectivist Dogma?
> 
> Most of the arguments centered on DACs really come down to:
> Conclusion based on experience vs. Dogma (what you want to believe)
> ...


 
  
 Couldnt agree more, but how many in this thread have even attempted a genuine DBT ? I've used the F2K ABX Comparator, but that's the limit of my attempts to objectively identify a difference between hi-res and Redbook - trying to separate purrin's DAC sample based on a genuine blind test would be a massive logistical exercise. Do I believe I could reliably identify the DAC202 in the middle of that pack ? Maybe, and maybe I would just grow weary of hearing DSOTM for the umpteenth time - longer term, I know which DAC I'd be happy to plug into my Taurus regardless of purrin's subjective rankings.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> I wouldn't bother arguing. I wouldn't hear much difference in DACs if I were using most of the same mediocre headphones or amps either.


 
  
 Back to the DACs - how soon can you get your hands on Yggdrasil ?


----------



## purrin

Can't say for sure. It's one of those things where if I knew and if I told you anything, I would have to kill you.


----------



## estreeter

The CIA non-disclosure clause, eh ? I look forward to your impressions.


----------



## magiccabbage

souprknowva said:


> I will say I never heard as much difference between dacs in my system as I do using the Valhalla 2 and hd800s. Not with the HV and 009s or the Mjolnir with the LCD-3s.


 
 wow


----------



## hans030390

purrin said:


> Do you know if the Octave uses caps instead of the transformers?


 
  
 Not sure on that...you'd have to get some internal shots of the Octave Mk2 and Hex to compare. I'm also not sure how the Mk1 and Mk2 boards differ. Just an area I'm pretty noob in.


----------



## gitf03

hans030390 said:


> Not sure on that...you'd have to get some internal shots of the Octave Mk2 and Hex to compare. I'm also not sure how the Mk1 and Mk2 boards differ. Just an area I'm pretty noob in.


 
 Octave MK2:

  
 Hex:


----------



## Stereolab42

I'm not sure they stuffed enough capacitors into the Hex. Surely they could have fit a few dozen more?


----------



## Clemmaster

The original Octave had just some resistors in the "output stage". No caps, no transformers. They actually said it has no output stage and that's why it is so "direct" sounding.
  
 The DAC chips they use are designed to drive 75 ohm loads with no output stage. They just added some resistors to the output of the 4 DAC (per channel) to make a 82.5ohm output impedance.
  
 The Octave mkII uses the OEM board designed for the HEX (which makes use of 2 of them). It's a modular board that can be slave to another one to create a balanced DAC (HEX, again) or be used standalone (Octave).
  
 Metrum actually sells this OEM board.


----------



## hans030390

Clemmaster, is the Mk2 setup the same way as the Mk1, in that it just has some resistors in the output stage? I rarely know what I'm looking for when it comes to stuff like this.


----------



## Chris J

purrin said:


> Easier said than done. Some "objectivists" seem hell bent on [COLOR=222222]proselytizing[/COLOR] others on the dangers of placebo purgatory. It's like they can't keep such awesome gnosis to themselves, but need to save all others, including those who don't want to be saved. It's like that time where that Jehovah's Witness knocked on my pothead neighbor's door when I lived in Satan Cruz.




That basically explains half the participants in the Sound Science Forum!


----------



## skeptic

purrin said:


> Easier said than done. Some "objectivists" seem hell bent on proselytizing others on the dangers of placebo purgatory. It's like they can't keep such awesome gnosis to themselves, but need to save all others, including those who don't want to be saved. It's like that time where that Jehovah's Witness knocked on my pothead neighbor's door when I lived in Satan Cruz.


 
  
 LOL!  Love this analogy!  Great post.


----------



## SearchOfSub

skeptic said:


> LOL!  Love this analogy!  Great post.






Hahaha lol. Nice 1.


----------



## remilio

*purrin,*
  
 you've mentioned good ol' Parasound D/AC 1600 somewhere, saying it's great DAC, but how it compares to modern contenders (NAD M51, Octave etc.)?


----------



## molika

would one recommend the NAD M51 (used) or Schiit Audio Gungnir DAC (new) if i could get the at the same price.


----------



## kothganesh

molika said:


> would one recommend the NAD M51 (used) or Schiit Audio Gungnir DAC (new) if i could get the at the same price.


 
 IMO, the Gungnir...


----------



## xdog

I have a funny thought experimen:
 Here I would considered D/A chip, but this can be easily extended into DACs and amps
 Lets take into consideration units size * manufacture gain,
 I would (very roughly) guess that this numbers are like:
 Realtec HD =: 100mln * 10cents = 10mln $
 PCM 179x = 100k * 10$ = 1mln $
 Some ESS 32bit chip = 3k * 30$ = 100k $
 Some exotic FGPP  (whatever) chip = 30 * 300$ = 10k (I'm really guessing this one)
  
 And think that this gain could turn into R&D investment....
 You might not agree with the numbers (as I said this is just a guess), but it is something which is worth thinking about.
 PS: I know (at least from some forums which I read) that the best equipment is basically DIY sold at 1k~2k$, made by a guys that basically started working with electronics like few months ago, using some few dollar parts [preferably using 50$ fully implemneted board from china] + super special [not produced from 1990, if you wanted to check them] military resitors and NASA grade capacitors, which basically distroys everything upto 5k$....


----------



## shortcuttomonct

kothganesh said:


> IMO, the Gungnir...


 
 It's pretty close....and keep in mind with the NAD M51 you're getting a stellar preamp and integrated remote control.


----------



## purrin

M51 has more microdetail and nuance but with some grain (non-annoying). Gungnir hits harder in bass and has more edge - is smoother.


----------



## kokushu

Have anybody heard the bmc puredac?  How is that dac compare to all of the previously mentioned dac.


----------



## Currawong

remilio said:


> *purrin,*
> 
> you've mentioned good ol' Parasound D/AC 1600 somewhere, saying it's great DAC, but how it compares to modern contenders (NAD M51, Octave etc.)?


 
  
 If you really want an excellent bargain ($300-400) and don't care about being limited to essentially CD quality the Parasound and similar era PCM63K-based DACs are excellent. But at Purrin said, you'll probably not quite get the micro detail of a newer, more expensive DACs. They are for the kind of people who have large classical CD collections IMO, as the presentation of the usual difficult instruments such as piano and violin is wonderful.


----------



## remilio

currawong said:


> If you really want an excellent bargain ($300-400) and don't care about being limited to essentially CD quality the Parasound and similar era PCM63K-based DACs are excellent. But at Purrin said, you'll probably not quite get the micro detail of a newer, more expensive DACs. They are for the kind of people who have large classical CD collections IMO, as the presentation of the usual difficult instruments such as piano and violin is wonderful.


 
 Thanks for the answer! Unfortunately, D/AC 1600 is about 600-650$ in Russia, while used M51 for example can be found for 750-800$ So, Parasound doesn't look like a bargain in that regard


----------



## Currawong

@remilio Wow, that IS a radically different market. I know the European Union has a similar issue in that what is good value depends very much on whether a product was made inside the Union or tax has to be added to it on import. Japan likewise tends to massively over-price European gear and the second hand market is a rip-off too.


----------



## remilio

currawong said:


> @remilio Wow, that IS a radically different market. I know the European Union has a similar issue in that what is good value depends very much on whether a product was made inside the Union or tax has to be added to it on import. Japan likewise tends to massively over-price European gear and the second hand market is a rip-off too.


 
 It depends on a brand - NAD, Sennheiser etc have superb prices, while some other North American or EU brands are very expensive. Vintage and discontinued ones etc is a whole different story - it purely depends on a seller - for example, a week ago I bought a perfect condition HeadAmp KGSS for 700$ ) If Parasound was 400$ here, I'd pick it without even asking


----------



## fzman

so, BMC???   ....     anyone????
  
 I am also curious


----------



## Argo Duck

^ By far the BMC PureDAC is the best DAC I have heard (the others being Meier StageDAC, Beresford Bushmaster, Schiit Bifrost - _uber not yet installed_, Eastern Electric MiniMax). But I have not heard any of the DACs or DAC-combinations (e.g. Bifrost+Wyred) listed here.

IIRC Boatheelmusic tried it but detected the Sabre 'digital sheen' :eek: I don't hear this (maybe brain hasn't learned to recognise it) but interestingly my _other_ Sabre dac the MiniMax comes bottom of my stable. _It_ has a "pristine purity" about its treble which is like mid-Winter air and frost. Remote, cold, distinct. Marred by a muddy low-end (this in SS mode), it's definitely my least favorite with the LCD2r1 or LCD3F.

Relative strengths of the BMC: more low-level detail, especially in the bass and lower mids; a lot more bass information - e.g. texture - than from these other DACs, giving perceived "more bass"; nicely controlled and extended top end, no false detail, certainly more "organic" than the MiniMax.

It gives me the impression, though I can hardly claim it is an educated one!, that I hear the music rather than the DAC. (I think similarly of the Wolfson-based Meier Stagedac, which however does the bass less well and gives less low-level detail. The other Wolfson contender - the Bushmaster - is a surprisingly "direct-sounding", transparent DAC, a bargain).

All of this FWIW, TME, I like apple pi etc.


----------



## boatheelmusic

As mentioned, I MUCH preferred the PS audio PWD to the Puredac.

Instead of "miracle engineering" , it relies on solid engineering (11 power supplies, robust reclocking, selectable phase, sampling rate and filters).

It is also made in the USA, not in Asia if that matters to you. ( BMC suggests it's German, but check for yourself)

Then there's that Sabre sheen, as many with highly resolving systems consistently report.

Oh, and the PWD is currently available for less than the BMC.

I've heard both in my system, and no comparison.

Having said that, the BMC is pretty.


----------



## hans030390

I thought the PWD sounded pretty good (wasn't really my thing or to my tastes in the end, though), but I was disappointed by the selectable filters given they didn't implement any of the filters with low pre and/or post-ringing for 16/44 playback (based on my measurements), which is one of the really cool things about the Wolfson chips.


----------



## boatheelmusic

Absolute nonsense.

The PWD's five filter choices are the Wolfson choices.

Pm me for more, or do the homework.

Respectfully,

Bill


----------



## Chris J

argo duck said:


> ^ By far the BMC PureDAC is the best DAC I have heard (the others being Meier StageDAC, Beresford Bushmaster, Schiit Bifrost - _uber not yet installed_, Eastern Electric MiniMax). But I have not heard any of the DACs or DAC-combinations (e.g. Bifrost+Wyred) listed here.
> 
> IIRC Boatheelmusic tried it but detected the Sabre 'digital sheen' :eek: I don't hear this (maybe brain hasn't learned to recognise it) but interestingly my _other_ Sabre dac the MiniMax comes bottom of my stable. _It_ has a "pristine purity" about its treble which is like mid-Winter air and frost. Remote, cold, distinct. Marred by a muddy low-end (this in SS mode), it's definitely my least favorite with the LCD2r1 or LCD3F.
> 
> ...




WRT the Beresford Bushmaster:
I fully agree!


----------



## boatheelmusic

chris j said:


> WRT the Beresford Bushmaster:
> I fully agree!




Not even in the same ballpark as the others.


----------



## Chris J

boatheelmusic said:


> Not even in the same ballpark as the others.
> 
> A bottomfeeder.




I'll remind you that it is a $300 DAC.
Can you suggest a better DAC for $300 or $400?


----------



## boatheelmusic

Well, yes.

The emotiva DC1 is $500 new, or $400 factory demo.


----------



## estreeter

boatheelmusic said:


> Not even in the same ballpark as the others.
> 
> A bottomfeeder.


 
  
 The DAC or Stanley ?


----------



## hans030390

boatheelmusic said:


> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> The PWD's five filter choices are the Wolfson choices.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have measurements on hand and can assure you they did NOT match the low-ringing filter results from a couple other Wolfson DACs I measured...will PM you since I can't link them here due to HF forum rules. BTW, I am only speaking for the Mk1, not Mk2, which I should have specified (I've mentioned that I only had the Mk1 a few times before, though).


----------



## boatheelmusic

estreeter said:


> The DAC or Stanley ?


 
 Not Stanley, he's great!


----------



## boatheelmusic

hans030390 said:


> I have measurements on hand and can assure you they did NOT match the low-ringing filter results from a couple other Wolfson DACs I measured...will PM you since I can't link them here due to HF forum rules. BTW, I am only speaking for the Mk1, not Mk2, which I should have specified (I've mentioned that I only had the Mk1 a few times before, though).


 
 I'm sorry, I was only speaking of PWD II - I'll PM some info I have.
  
 Thanks,


----------



## Chris J

boatheelmusic said:


> Not Stanley, he's great!




Yep, Stan is OK in my book!


----------



## Argo Duck

I'm pleased to learn I'm so susceptible to a pretty DAC 

But I'm susceptible to pretty faces too, so what's new?!

ps: living in New Zealand, choice is limited as the domestic resale market is essentially non-existent in our tiny population. Trying a PWD2 (or similarly priced competitors) would have to be an outright purchase, though I dearly wanted to at one time. Having to be 240V, there'd be no chance of re-selling into the American market. _The Ygg - if I buy - will like the PureDAC be on faith alone and an expensive mistake if I don't like it_ :eek:


----------



## gitf03

For classical music with HD800 and tube amp (which I haven't decided on yet), which DAC would you prefer for 1000-1500$? Metrum Ocatve MK2, Gungnir...?
  
 Really hard to guess if a warmer DAC and tube amp will be to warm and thick for HD800. Also I'm irritated since people wright about both they sound analog but then purrin mentions they sound totally different?
  
 Generally I want to spend ~2500 for amp and DAC for HD800 and avoid any digital flare, digitis, or harshness that fatigues me fast.


----------



## purrin

Depends upon tube (or otherwise) amp or DAC. For example, I found Loki + Red Top (warmish DAC, organic sounding amp) too laid back for the HD800. It's also hard to say because different people have different sensitivities.
  
 Between Gungnir and Octave, the Octave is definitely the more laid back of the two. The Gungnir is more honest and will give you bite with trumpets, horns, violins. The Octave is a bit smoother with a lusher vocal presentation, the Gungnir isn't far behind. I actually feel the Octave is slightly colored to present vocals in a special way. The Gungnir is also more dynamic. Neither DAC is as digital sounding as most other DACs out there; although the Octave is especially good in this regard, there are costs to that.


----------



## Sorrodje

Metrum Octave + DNA Sonett 2 + (stock)) HD800 here .
  
 This combo is more oriented IMO for modern Jazz , EDM and all modern music.  If I'd listen mostly to classical , I'd keep the dac and would maybe change the amp for something with more Clarity/Sparkle/Bite in the treble ( EC Zana deux maybe or a solid state amp?  ) but my Octave adds something special to my (unmodded) HD800. There's something so real in the overall tone I really like.


----------



## Xecuter

Hi Purrin, as one of the few people who has compared a lot of the high end gear.
  
 What would you recommend with the Abyss, LCD-3, hd-800 as an amp: The GS-X DACT or EC 4-45?. I listed to almost every genre. But I like clean strong bass, rolled off treble and warm highs.
  
 Also DAC choice for either of these up to 5k?
  
 Thanks for replying if you get a chance.


----------



## magiccabbage

xecuter said:


> Hi Purrin, as one of the few people who has compared a lot of the high end gear.
> 
> What would you recommend with the Abyss, LCD-3, hd-800 as an amp: The GS-X DACT or EC 4-45?. I listed to almost every genre. But I like clean strong bass, rolled off treble and warm highs.
> 
> ...


 
 I know the answer to that.


----------



## kothganesh

magiccabbage said:


> I know the answer to that.


 
 He might surprise you with the Ragnarok


----------



## magiccabbage

kothganesh said:


> He might surprise you with the Ragnarok


 
 Did he get it through the beta?


----------



## wnmnkh

magiccabbage said:


> kothganesh said:
> 
> 
> > He might surprise you with the Ragnarok
> ...


 
 Yes. Supposedly current production beta rag is quite different from previous testing versions.


----------



## Xecuter

Well Schiit, I hope it's not the Ragnarok!
  
 But if it is, it saves me some serious money!
  


magiccabbage said:


> I know the answer to that.


 

 Don't tease 
 What would you suggest??


----------



## wnmnkh

xecuter said:


> Well Schiit, I hope it's not the Ragnarok!
> 
> But if it is, it saves me some serious money!
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yo, answer to my PM, man.
  
 My educated guess from purrin's previous posts is EC445, but it might have changed now....


----------



## magiccabbage

xecuter said:


> Well Schiit, I hope it's not the Ragnarok!
> 
> But if it is, it saves me some serious money!
> 
> ...


 
 I have not heard either amp although I nearly bought the GSX MK2 and decided on the DNA Stratus instead. 
  
 I think if you look at previous posts from Purrin you can see that he prefers the EC 445 and probably by a large margin.


----------



## gitf03

@purrin, Sorrodje
  
 Thanks for the Input. From what you both describe it seems that for classical the Gungnir is the better choice. I would probably consider the Metrum for anything else.


----------



## kothganesh

wnmnkh said:


> Yo, answer to my PM, man.
> 
> My educated guess from purrin's previous posts is EC445, but it might have changed now....


 
 Oh shucks...I don't want to start anything here...just my guess and yes his current favorite is the EC 4-45.


----------



## kothganesh

magiccabbage said:


> I have not heard either amp although I nearly bought the GSX MK2 and decided on the DNA Stratus instead.
> 
> I think if you look at previous posts from Purrin you can see that he prefers the EC 445 and probably by a large margin.


 
 These are good times to be looking for an amp....I would bide my time and wait for the reviews... but we're hijacking this thread... I own the Gungnir and love everything about it..especially its speed and bass.... Between the Stax and the HD 800, I get more detail than I need


----------



## magiccabbage

I'm really looking forward to the Schiit Yggy beta. That will be really interesting


----------



## Xecuter

Just need to wait for the hype train to die down a bit, then audition them. Hopefully I can audition them while I'm visiting the US end of year!


----------



## kothganesh

xecuter said:


> Just need to wait for the hype train to die down a bit, then audition them. Hopefully I can audition them while I'm visiting the US end of year!


 
 Lucky you..


----------



## En_R

Taking into account his preferences the 445 and Rag would probably not make the shortlist.
  
 @Xecuter
   

 You can pass on the GS-X if rolled off treble/warm highs are a priority. Bass is nice and clean though.

  
 Personally I'd go for a Stratus. It has the warm highs you are looking for and a very liquid midrange - I'd look into monoplate RCA 2a3's. The Liquid Glass can also give you what you're looking for and its probably my first choice for the Abyss/LCD-3 but not for the HD800. For those I'd probably pick the EC 4*2a3.
  
 DAC choice- you'd fit in with the NOS dac camp for warmer highs - try Audionote. The Bricasti M1 can be made to sound relatively warm/dark with certain setups (if you've ever heard the old Mark Levinson dacs, you can get an idea of the sound). This would probably be my first choice for you if paired with the Stratus. I can't in good faith recommend Lampizator or the Northstar series but if resolution, details and clarity are not your main priorities you can give them a try.


----------



## commtrd

wnmnkh said:


> magiccabbage said:
> 
> 
> > kothganesh said:
> ...


 

 Would prolly be well advised to wait until the statement items come out from Schiit before making any decisions on anything... At least that is what I am going to do. In the meantime, I am enjoying my current amp and dac very much. In fact I am not seriously motivated to make a move at all so that says something. Most cost effective thing to do would be just keep what I have and be happy with it (which I am).


----------



## kothganesh

commtrd said:


> Would prolly be well advised to wait until the statement items come out from Schiit before making any decisions on anything... At least that is what I am going to do. In the meantime, I am enjoying my current amp and dac very much. In fact I am not seriously motivated to make a move at all so that says something. Most cost effective thing to do would be just keep what I have and be happy with it (which I am).


 
 I have the same set up that you do....G/M combo so I've been gritting my teeth and passing on several names - Stratus, Dynahi, EC etc... However, if the Rag can play all HPs (including the 800 and the HE 6) well, then I will need to dig into my wallet again,,,,


----------



## BaTou069

Can someone please explain me, why all of these fancy DACs I see in high end audio shops get never mentioned in this forum? Are these just expensive and not the real deal, or are the needs for headphone listenings less high then these for speaker listening? 
  
 Thanks


----------



## fzman

I am wondering how people here would rate the sonics of the better dacs in the roughly $1500-$4000US price range in terms of the the following parameters:
  
 Grit./grain/glare edginess (harsh 'distortions', in other words.
  
 Tonal balance - ranging from 'instruments struggling to get free from the tar pits'   to 'a bunch of cymbals and sparkle-y things along with some other instruments' -- that is, does the dac highlight a specific part of the ffrequency range whether at the expense of the other ranges or not.
  
  
 Distance from performers:  that is, does it make everything sound like it's in your face, or waaaay down the hall, or just right?
  
 I am trying to avoid terms like 'warm' or 'bright' or 'analytic', as these can get in the way.   I have read a number of reviews of dacs from Rsonesence, Auralic, Antelope, Weiss, and they all seem to be on the lighter side of neutral - not necessarily bright, but not fully pressenting the nautral warmth and body of live, unamplified instruments.  Or, am I misreading this?  I am not looking for warmth as a coloration, but want a dac that does not remove or lessen it, when present.
  
 Thanks in advance for your comments/suggestions.


----------



## commtrd

kothganesh said:


> commtrd said:
> 
> 
> > Would prolly be well advised to wait until the statement items come out from Schiit before making any decisions on anything... At least that is what I am going to do. In the meantime, I am enjoying my current amp and dac very much. In fact I am not seriously motivated to make a move at all so that says something. Most cost effective thing to do would be just keep what I have and be happy with it (which I am).
> ...


 

 Yeah the HD800 seems to be the main problem with almost all amps and dacs. Seems to be extremely demanding of the upstream to try to overcome its -ahem- peculiarities. At the risk of offending HD800 peeps I would say that if a headphone is such that the whole upstream chain has to be tailored specifically to that headphone then maybe there are better alternatives? With my Audeze products (all of them) I have always had stellar results with my stack. Just sayin'...


----------



## Clemmaster

Not everybody can bear the weight and overall comfort (or lack thereof) of the LCD-3.
Not everybody like the elephant-heavy bass rendition and smoky Audeze house sound.
It is also not as resolving as a HD-800 or HE-6...

The list goes on. Depends on your priorities.
Any Audeze would sound like heavy crap on my setup because it's be tailored for brighter cans over the years (Hifiman, AKG). Different path.


----------



## commtrd

clemmaster said:


> Not everybody can bear the weight and overall comfort (or lack thereof) of the LCD-3.
> Not everybody like the elephant-heavy bass rendition and smoky Audeze house sound.
> It is also not as resolving as a HD-800 or HE-6...
> 
> ...


 

 My LCD-X are extremely comfortable and I wear them for hours on end with no issues. In fact several times I have finished listening to music and find that I still have them on and never thought about it. No elephant heavy bass rendition (but awesome when it is in the recording) and non-smoky ? Audeze house sound associated with the X. Which is precisely why I moved to the X from LCD3c. As far as resolution I cannot compare to HE6 or HD800 as I have never listened to those phones but I CAN say the X on my stack are just incredibly detailed and musical too. Good thing there are options so everyone can have what they want (or close to it). I can't imagine a headphone sounding better than my X but totally fine with those who could not think of listening to other than the HD800. I think it is safe to say that the X will be pretty much compatible with almost any amp / dac while the HD800 are clearly NOT compatible with just any amp or dac. There are many threads that relate to this very thing right here on HeadFi. According to consensus the HD800 command tailoring all the upstream to effectively drive them, to accommodate their characteristics. I would rather not have to go to such trouble to try to make my whole chain fit my headphones. Others will. That's cool to each his own.


----------



## Maxvla

Compatible with everything because it masks so much. Anyways, I thought this was a DAC thread.


----------



## magiccabbage

maxvla said:


> Compatible with everything because it masks so much. Anyways, I thought this was a DAC thread.


 
 yea - use the PM function lads.


----------



## purrin

xecuter said:


> Hi Purrin, as one of the few people who has compared a lot of the high end gear.
> 
> What would you recommend with the Abyss, LCD-3, hd-800 as an amp: The GS-X DACT or EC 4-45?. I listed to almost every genre. But I like clean strong bass, rolled off treble and warm highs.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Two amps in the running if you are looking something which will work well with LCD-3, Abyss, and HD800. I own Abyss and HD800, but sold LCD-3 a while back (not necessarily because I didn't like it). Those two current production amps are the EC 4-45 and Schiit Ragnorak. That being said, there are many other amps which should also be considered if you want to focus on one particular headphone, or one type of headphone.
  
 The 4-45 is actually a wee bit insignificantly brighter than the Ragnarok. The Ragnarok is mid focused if even anything could be said about it. The Rag has the smoothest more liquid sound, especially in the treble, lack of grain, that I have ever heard in an amp regardless of tube or solid state. Amps like the Leben are also smooth, but that amp is overly warm, syrupy, and distorted, therefore not considered. Both the Rag or 4-45 do lend themselves to the tonal balance of the LCD-3 and Abyss quite well. With the HD800, I prefer the use with some sort of Anax mod (just the liner without the foam). It's just the nature of the HD800 and that those amps aren't necessarily what I would call dark or warm. But that does not mean they are analytical, antiseptic, or lean, which I do not like. Both Rag and 4-45 have a subdued bass, which slams hard when it's called for. I would not say that the treble is rolled off on either amp, but I would say that the treble is not unnaturally harsh, edgy, etched, etc. which I find the GS-X2 to be (GS-X is lean in comparison, it also does not resolve as well).
  
 The bass is cleaner on the Rag. The resolution and microdynamics is better on the 4-45. Overall articulation is better on the Rag - incredibly clean transients. I prefer the HD800 with the 4-45. The 4-45 is more capable of reproducing the low level information which only the HD800 is capable of reproducing. I prefer the Abyss on the Rag. The Abyss is slightly less resolving, so a super high resolving amp isn't necessary. (I still consider the Rag the most resolving SS amp I've heard.) However the extra power and control of the Rag grabs the Abyss by the balls. The LCD-3, I no longer have, but it would be an educated guess that it would be somewhere in between. I know the Audeze guys have borrowed EC's amps for some shows here and there; and Audezes are known to have synergies with the Schiit Stack (Mojo+Gung).
  
 So basically consider Rag vs. 4-45. Those are two amps which I consider equivalent, but different. Those are the two amps I consider the best in terms of the flexibility that you require in terms of powering low impedance orthos and high impedance dynamics.
  
 DACs are a personal thing. The setup I use (Schiit Wyrd --> Empirical Audio Off Ramp 5 (with only i2s regulator upgrade) --i2s--> Audio-GD Master 7) is rather convoluted, but it gets results; otherwise I would have gone for a $10K DAC. But I'm cheap if it does the job.
  
 Since this a DAC thread, I cannot guarantee the above results if a DAC used does not have smooth treble characteristics or is not sufficiently resolving. DAC is crucial at this stage in the game.


----------



## purrin

batou069 said:


> Can someone please explain me, why all of these fancy DACs I see in high end audio shops get never mentioned in this forum? Are these just expensive and not the real deal, or are the needs for headphone listenings less high then these for speaker listening?
> 
> Thanks


 
  
 It depends on the hifi shops.  One hifi shop around where I used to live only carried certain lines: Cambridge Audio, Bryston, Classe, and Devialet. Carrying certain lines isn't uncommon at all for hifi shops. Some of the DACs mentioned and discussed are commonly seen at the hifi shows nearby and have been written about the magazines: MSB, Vega, Bricasti M1, Cantata, Berkeley, M51, PSA DSD, Invicta, Emprical Audio, Mytek, Teac, etc. It also could be a distributor network / geography / sphere of influence thing. There are a lot of DAC manufacturers out there; it's entirely possible that I am going to miss the four or five fancy DACs which happen to be carried by your local hifi shop.
  
 Also, and to answer someone else's question, I consider the $2000-$5000 range of DACs to be sort of a no-mans land. Lots of overpriced / under-performing gear, probably as a result too much emphasis on home theater. Two channel audio (speaker or headphone) is a small niche.


----------



## commtrd

maxvla said:


> Compatible with everything because it masks so much. Anyways, I thought this was a DAC thread.


 

 Hmmm. OK whatever.


----------



## Xecuter

> So basically consider Rag vs. 4-45. Those are two amps which I consider equivalent, but different. Those are the two amps I consider the best in terms of the flexibility that you require in terms of powering low impedance orthos and high impedance dynamics.


 
  
 Thank you Purrin, I will be sure to audition the Rag as soon as I can!
  
 As far as Dacs go I'll wait for the Ygg release before buying anything as it will probably be up there.


----------



## 62ohm

Purrin,
  
 Just out of curiosity, have you heard the Da Vinci Dac? What do you think about it, if you've heard it?


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> *RECOMMENDED FOR PEOPLE WHO POST THEIR MARRIAGE PROPOSALS ON FACEBOOK *


 
  
  
 HA HA HA HA HA ... L.O.L.  I died laughing to that !


----------



## BaTou069

sorrodje said:


> HA HA HA HA HA ... L.O.L.  I died laughing to that !


 
  
 But is the Hugo really so mediocre?


----------



## zachchen1996

batou069 said:


> But is the Hugo really so mediocre?


 
  
 In my opinion, yes.
 But it's best to hear it for yourself.


----------



## purrin

Hugo comparison to Geek Wave. (I have not heard the Wave): http://www.head-fi.org/t/713829/light-harmonic-geek-wave/660#post_10871785.
  
 BTW a few updates to page one. Ranked most of the newer DACs after some discussion with the ninjas. Note AGD M7 USB firmware update makes M7 with stock USB (without fancy converter) now highly worth considering.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> Hugo comparison to Geek Wave. (I have not heard the Wave): http://www.head-fi.org/t/713829/light-harmonic-geek-wave/660#post_10871785.


 
  
 As 'comparisons' go, that's right up there with '_Chevy's rool and Fords suck !_'


----------



## remilio

I'm in a search for new DAC for HeadAmp KGSS -> Stax 404LE, now I can buy used Lavry DA11, NAD M51 or Metrum Octave for practically the same price, which one is better for rock and metal music (more dynamic, better PRaT, overall balance)?


----------



## qawsedrf

Apologies to be a bother guys, but would like to hear some (more in depth?) thoughts - If I could get the Gungnir USB Gen2 and a second hand Lavry DA11 for about the same price, which one would be the overall better choice?
The genre I listen to varies quite a bit (piano, vocals, electronic/ambiance, pop, instrumental), but I am in particular pretty fond of female vocals - Would that indicate the Gungnir could be a better choice for me?

Thanks.


----------



## purrin

If you are using USB and not afraid of hard hitting dynamics, get the Gungnir. The DA11 does have a nice stereo width setting for headphone use, so that may be a consideration. Both DACs are on the smoother sounding side without the digital hash. The Gungnir is a little sweeter sounding with vocals.


----------



## Clemmaster

I can't find any impression on the HP-A8 (the search engine gives 48 pages of answers...).
  
 Could somebody summarize?


----------



## qawsedrf

purrin said:


> If you are using USB and not afraid of hard hitting dynamics, get the Gungnir. The DA11 does have a nice stereo width setting for headphone use, so that may be a consideration. Both DACs are on the smoother sounding side without the digital hash. The Gungnir is a little sweeter sounding with vocals.




purrin, thanks for taking the time to reply to me. Much appreciated.
Dynamics in relation to the contrast between the quietest and loudest passage in music? I do not mind if the recording calls for it.

I build my headphone setup to help me deal with sleep/rest (having depression/severe anxiety is no fun) - Understand YMMV, but from your experience does the Gungnir presents itself in a fashion which "keeps you awake the whole night"?

Many thanks again, purrin. If only I could audition the Gungnir to get a good idea of the dynamics being mentioned. Sweet sounding vocals would be great for a vast majority of recordings though.


----------



## purrin

Yes. Gungnir hits hard. One of the hardest hitting DACs in terms of lack of compression on the top scale of amplitude. Gungnir does not allow me to sleep. That can either be a good thing or bad thing.


----------



## Clemmaster

The NFB-27 was like that, too. Gosh that was so great for rock!


----------



## qawsedrf

purrin said:


> Yes. Gungnir hits hard. One of the hardest hitting DACs in terms of lack of compression on the top scale of amplitude. Gungnir does not allow me to sleep. That can either be a good thing or bad thing.




Eeek - I should think this through properly then. Chances are low but will put some effort to see if I might be able to audition the Gungnir.
Thanks for the feedback, purrin.


----------



## purrin

Initial Yulong DA8 impressions added to front page and ranked. Still evaluating.


----------



## purrin

qawsedrf said:


> Eeek - I should think this through properly then. Chances are low but will put some effort to see if I might be able to audition the Gungnir.
> Thanks for the feedback, purrin.


 
  
 LOL, don't let my comment on the Gungnir dynamics scare you away. I've never fallen asleep at a RL concert or musical performance of any sort. So to me, the Gungnir is accurate in that sense.


----------



## commtrd

purrin said:


> Yes. Gungnir hits hard. One of the hardest hitting DACs in terms of lack of compression on the top scale of amplitude. Gungnir does not allow me to sleep. That can either be a good thing or bad thing.


 

 Many times I have relaxed in the easy chair listening to Al Marconi on the LCD3c and the music completely carried me away into dreamland. If the music is relaxing that is what I hear. If the music is rock or metal it definitely is super energetic which I love. I regularly listen to meditation recordings and end up falling asleep every single time. Vocals just beautiful as well. Highly recommend the Gungnir. YMMV of course...


----------



## qawsedrf

commtrd said:


> Many times I have relaxed in the easy chair listening to Al Marconi on the LCD3c and the music completely carried me away into dreamland. If the music is relaxing that is what I hear. If the music is rock or metal it definitely is super energetic which I love. I regularly listen to meditation recordings and end up falling asleep every single time. Vocals just beautiful as well. Highly recommend the Gungnir. YMMV of course...






purrin said:


> LOL, don't let my comment on the Gungnir dynamics scare you away. I've never fallen asleep at a RL concert or musical performance of any sort. So to me, the Gungnir is accurate in that sense.




Thanks for the reassurance guys, much appreciated. Know that your feedback will help someone live his daily life better.
I will give the Gungnir serious thoughts then - Might be hard to get someone to allow me to audition the Gungnir while I am on my bed (lol), but I will give it a shot.


----------



## purrin

qawsedrf said:


> Thanks for the reassurance guys, much appreciated. Know that your feedback will help someone live his daily life better.
> I will give the Gungnir serious thoughts then - Might be hard to get someone to allow me to audition the Gungnir while I am on my bed (lol), but I will give it a shot.


 
  
 Now that you are assured, let me cause some doubt  The Gungnir can be aggressive sounding with maybe too much bite and harshness when used with certain bright headphones like the HD800. I don't use HD800 that often, and when I use the HD800, I use the Anax mods, so it's not an issue for me. I rather like to hear the bite, crunch, and harshness of certain instruments, so long as there are not artifacts added to it. The Gungnir is definitely a rock arena type of DAC. Doesn't mean it can't be used for classical either; it's not the most detailed DAC out there, but it's in my top five in terms of vocal rendition.


----------



## kothganesh

purrin said:


> Now that you are assured, let me cause some doubt  The Gungnir can be aggressive sounding with maybe too much bite and harshness when used with certain bright headphones like the HD800. I don't use HD800 that often, and when I use the HD800, I use the Anax mods, so it's not an issue for me. I rather like to hear the bite, crunch, and harshness of certain instruments, so long as there are not artifacts added to it. The Gungnir is definitely a rock arena type of DAC. Doesn't mean it can't be used for classical either; it's not the most detailed DAC out there, but it's in my top five in terms of vocal rendition.


 
 I use the Gungnir with the Vali as my "HD 800 setup". That too in stock mode. IMO, I don't find it overly bright. Maybe its the definition of bright I suppose?


----------



## qawsedrf

purrin said:


> Now that you are assured, let me cause some doubt  The Gungnir can be aggressive sounding with maybe too much bite and harshness when used with certain bright headphones like the HD800. I don't use HD800 that often, and when I use the HD800, I use the Anax mods, so it's not an issue for me. I rather like to hear the bite, crunch, and harshness of certain instruments, so long as there are not artifacts added to it. The Gungnir is definitely a rock arena type of DAC. Doesn't mean it can't be used for classical either; it's not the most detailed DAC out there, but it's in my top five in terms of vocal rendition.




Pfftt oh purrin you. 

But in all seriousness, I can't thank you enough. Can see where you are coming from. No worries, your impression (as well as the rest, thanks guys) will help me set benchmarks and know what to look for when I come across the Gungnir and Lavry DA11, won't buy blind. 
I will be using my HE-560 with pre-production pads (on the Violectric V200 - which I know you find dynamically compressed, purrin)


Well, failing that, there's always the Audio GD Master 7 and a very upset wallet..... Heh.


----------



## JoelT

purrin said:


> Now that you are assured, let me cause some doubt  The Gungnir can be aggressive sounding with maybe too much bite and harshness when used with certain bright headphones like the HD800. I don't use HD800 that often, and when I use the HD800, I use the Anax mods, so it's not an issue for me. I rather like to hear the bite, crunch, and harshness of certain instruments, so long as there are not artifacts added to it. The Gungnir is definitely a rock arena type of DAC. Doesn't mean it can't be used for classical either; it's not the most detailed DAC out there, but it's in my top five in terms of vocal rendition.


 
 Forgive me if this has been stated already (probably has) - When using USB, adding Wyrd (with Gungnir) does help a bit with _perceived _detail IMO. I'm able to make out fine details in certain recordings with far greater ease with Wyrd. I didn't realize there was some amount of USB induced micro-detail smearing going on until I added Wyrd in to the chain. Everything sounds a bit more resolved. If one is going to be using USB, I'd highly recommend buying Gungnir/Wyrd together. Obviously it isn't actually making Gungnir more detailed per say, but rather cleaning up & reclocking the source.


----------



## BleaK

qawsedrf said:


> Pfftt oh purrin you.
> 
> But in all seriousness, I can't thank you enough. Can see where you are coming from. No worries, your impression (as well as the rest, thanks guys) will help me set benchmarks and know what to look for when I come across the Gungnir and Lavry DA11, won't buy blind.
> 
> ...


 

 If you can, consider the X-sabre. It has a more "softer" sound, yet still neutral, detailed and musical. Love mine


----------



## Maxvla

As do I.


----------



## BleaK

maxvla said:


> As do I.


 

 How does it sound with your GS-X2? Still happy or thinking of a upgrade?
  
 Btw, I have the wyrd on it's way. Can report if I gain anything from adding it in front of the x-sabre.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

bleak said:


> How does it sound with your GS-X2? Still happy or thinking of a upgrade?
> 
> Btw, I have the wyrd on it's way. Can report if I gain anything from adding it in front of the x-sabre.




Down the food chain a bit, but the Wyrd is a great addition to the Bifrost and Modi, improving the noise floor, allowing the music to rise out of a deep black background.


----------



## BleaK

wildcatsare1 said:


> Down the food chain a bit, but the Wyrd is a great addition to the Bifrost and Modi, improving the noise floor, allowing the music to rise out of a deep black background.


 

 Yeah was reading some impressions from purrin that the Wyrd cleared up alot for usb-dac. The x-sabre don't use the power from the usb, but I fixed alot of problems just going to a usb hub with powersupply than directly from  my laptop, so I'll try the wyrd and see if it clears up some more.


----------



## Maxvla

bleak said:


> How does it sound with your GS-X2? Still happy or thinking of a upgrade?
> 
> Btw, I have the wyrd on it's way. Can report if I gain anything from adding it in front of the x-sabre.



The X-Sabre still does well. I'm getting a Yggdrasil just because, though.


----------



## BleaK

maxvla said:


> The X-Sabre still does well. I'm getting a Yggdrasil just because, though.


 

 Hehe, I am thinking that it will be on the top of this list in a couple of months


----------



## castleofargh

wildcatsare1 said:


> bleak said:
> 
> 
> > How does it sound with your GS-X2? Still happy or thinking of a upgrade?
> ...


 

 from this I get that the noise is audible (enough for me to get rid of the lot and label it as "bad stuff"). and more troubling, that acting on the digital part helps reducing it, making the dac the number one suspect for noise. scary story.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

Oh, castleofartlough, there you go again.......how long have you been lurking out there, your getting a wee bit slow in jumping in too save us from our gross misconceptions Lad.....


----------



## adamaley

castleofargh said:


> from this I get that the noise is audible (enough for me to get rid of the lot and label it as "bad stuff"). and more troubling, that acting on the digital part helps reducing it, making the dac the number one suspect for noise. scary story.


 
 Lol. What's scary is your overreaction and way of processing the statement made by *Wildcatsare1. *You are essentially saying that every device that benefits from the Wyrd is "bad stuff". Please read up on the Wyrd and what its purpose is before coming to such a conclusion.


----------



## Currawong

Guys, for obvious reasons, we don't allow political discussion on Head-Fi, so some posts are going to be removed.


----------



## commtrd

joelt said:


> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > Now that you are assured, let me cause some doubt  The Gungnir can be aggressive sounding with maybe too much bite and harshness when used with certain bright headphones like the HD800. I don't use HD800 that often, and when I use the HD800, I use the Anax mods, so it's not an issue for me. I rather like to hear the bite, crunch, and harshness of certain instruments, so long as there are not artifacts added to it. The Gungnir is definitely a rock arena type of DAC. Doesn't mean it can't be used for classical either; it's not the most detailed DAC out there, but it's in my top five in terms of vocal rendition.
> ...


 

 What if the G has the USB2 mod done to it? Wondering if there would be any real noticeable improvement there?
  
 REALLY wanting to see the Yggdrasil get released finally and start getting some reviews on that one.


----------



## purrin

read first post. I think I wrote a few things about the USB Gen 2 in the Gungnir comments.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:
			
		

> DACs are a personal thing. The setup I use (Schiit Wyrd --> Empirical Audio Off Ramp 5 (with only i2s regulator upgrade) --i2s--> Audio-GD Master 7) is rather convoluted, but it gets results; otherwise I would have gone for a $10K DAC. But I'm cheap if it does the job.
> 
> Since this a DAC thread, I cannot guarantee the above results if a DAC used does not have smooth treble characteristics or is not sufficiently resolving. DAC is crucial at this stage in the game.


 
  
 10K ? You're getting warm  
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/599-berkeley-audio-design-alpha-dac-reference-series-review/
  
 According to Mr Connaker, every other DAC is basically _irrelevant_ - we might as well be kids driving go-carts around the inside of a NASCAR track while he laps us repeatedly at 200mph. Here's 10 hours of Chris' favourite video :


----------



## ciphercomplete

estreeter said:


> Here's 10 hours of Chris' favourite video :




 LOL Yeah, lately his reviews have become almost exclusively laudatory.  We have all seen it happen time and time again with review websites - they start off well enough and then turn into a Stereophile clone.


----------



## schneller

Is it me or is the Gungnir USB2 still perhaps the "best buy" of the bunch in terms of value/dollar?


----------



## jacal01

ciphercomplete said:


> LOL Yeah, lately his reviews have become almost exclusively laudatory.  We have all seen it happen time and time again with review websites - they start off well enough and then turn into a Stereophile clone.


 
  
 I think you had it right the first time.  Actually, I find myself fast forwarding through the reviews of both magazines and going straight to the centerfold.


----------



## purrin

I got lost with the "The original Alpha DAC is considered by many to be the best $5,000 DAC money can buy", even back then the original Alpha was good, but not all that great, especially without a great USB-SPDIF converter.
  
 I got even more lost with the "'Berkeley' previously made a $5,000 DAC sound as good as or better than many DACs costing several times more money." Umm, No.
  
 At that point, I stopped reading. The review looked like it had too many words anyways. Don't get me wrong, I like the Berkeley Alpha 2.


----------



## purrin

schneller said:


> Is it me or is the Gungnir USB2 still perhaps the "best buy" of the bunch in terms of value/dollar?


 
  
 As of today, Wyrd+Modi is the best buy of the bunch.


----------



## doyouknowSBmean

purrin said:


> As of today, Wyrd+Modi is the best buy of the bunch.



Hi purrin I noticed that you bought a ragnarok. How is this amp drive your headphones? Compared to 445 or ECBA.


----------



## magiccabbage

doyouknowsbmean said:


> Hi purrin I noticed that you bought a ragnarok. How is this amp drive your headphones? Compared to 445 or ECBA.


 
 I think that's posted a few pages back. 
  
  


> Two amps in the running if you are looking something which will work well with LCD-3, Abyss, and HD800. I own Abyss and HD800, but sold LCD-3 a while back (not necessarily because I didn't like it). Those two current production amps are the EC 4-45 and Schiit Ragnorak. That being said, there are many other amps which should also be considered if you want to focus on one particular headphone, or one type of headphone.
> 
> The 4-45 is actually a wee bit insignificantly brighter than the Ragnarok. The Ragnarok is mid focused if even anything could be said about it. The Rag has the smoothest more liquid sound, especially in the treble, lack of grain, that I have ever heard in an amp regardless of tube or solid state. Amps like the Leben are also smooth, but that amp is overly warm, syrupy, and distorted, therefore not considered. Both the Rag or 4-45 do lend themselves to the tonal balance of the LCD-3 and Abyss quite well. With the HD800, I prefer the use with some sort of Anax mod (just the liner without the foam). It's just the nature of the HD800 and that those amps aren't necessarily what I would call dark or warm. But that does not mean they are analytical, antiseptic, or lean, which I do not like. Both Rag and 4-45 have a subdued bass, which slams hard when it's called for. I would not say that the treble is rolled off on either amp, but I would say that the treble is not unnaturally harsh, edgy, etched, etc. which I find the GS-X2 to be (GS-X is lean in comparison, it also does not resolve as well).
> 
> ...


----------



## hans030390

schneller said:


> Is it me or is the Gungnir USB2 still perhaps the "best buy" of the bunch in terms of value/dollar?


 
  
 Can't speak for the Wyrd+Modi (will trust purrin on this one), but the AMB Gamma2 was also an excellent deal when I sampled it.


----------



## doyouknowSBmean

Thanks for that. Seems RAG is really great.


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> At that point, I stopped reading. The review looked like it had too many words anyways. Don't get me wrong, I like the Berkeley Alpha 2.



You're missing out skipping over this DAC, it has a led indicating HDCD material is being played. 

Mind you, I may be the exception out there to not have a single HDCD encoded cd in my collection I think. But all this led does to me is bring me 15 years back, pacific microsonics nostalgy at work. Talking about future obsolete formats, DSD isn't supported though.

But it doesn't stop there, then goes on about how less is more: you end up with aes/ebu input but no USB. 

No comment on sound, but basically, I am already turned off but just the design choices. The front and top panel finish is fantastic, but then the back panel feels so DIY, eh?? It's like painting the front of the house and moving all the trash to the back porch.

End of rent, I must just be frustrated I can't justify spending 15k on a DAC 

Arnaud


----------



## commtrd

I read all that and that is why I was wondering if there would be any appreciable gains to using a Wyrd module in conjunction with the USB Gen II update already installed. Common sense tells me "fugedaboutit" since it sounds really nice just the way it is. Money better spent to upgrade amp and dac when the time comes I think.


----------



## purrin

Wyrd changes to Gungnir Gen 2 USB are incremental, not significant; unlike Modi, where the Wyrd does make a significant difference. Does more than cable, but less than a piece of gear which is just simply better. At $99 you can go either way; but its value becomes more compelling once you become a full-fleged member of the headphone nutjob society with thousands of dollars sunk into this so called hobby.


----------



## Sorrodje

Anyone can advice a dac with a typical sabre sound at affordable price . not too bad or good. I would like to find a cheap "average" sabre dac to understand what you're talking about


----------



## doyouknowSBmean

I have another question. How is RAG compared to LG?


----------



## doyouknowSBmean

RAG is even more resolving than LG? I mean Cavalli liquid Gold.


----------



## PleasantSounds

sorrodje said:


> Anyone can advice a dac with a typical sabre sound at affordable price . not too bad or good. I would like to find a cheap "average" sabre dac to understand what you're talking about


 
  
 ODAC?


----------



## skeptic

When the doodlebug finally becomes readily available, I'm curious whether wyrd will really stand the test of time. 

As I understand it from posts by avro, articles by John Swenson, etc. you do not want a continuous ground (which wyrd has) in a usb purifier if minimizing noise and jitter is the goal. http://www.head-fi.org/t/703334/doodlebug-usb-isolator/180_30#post_10831790


----------



## castleofargh

sorrodje said:


> Anyone can advice a dac with a typical sabre sound at affordable price . not too bad or good. I would like to find a cheap "average" sabre dac to understand what you're talking about


 

 any of the high end chips in the last years have been more than able to output amazingly transparent signal if only given the right circumstances(understand implementation and power source).
 don't just believe people coming up with hasty conclusions about a DAC chip. even less when based on a few random observations where they had zero way to ascertain if the DAC chip played a bigger part than any other DAC component in defining a certain sound(given that they actually heard a different sound). skipping coffee 3 days and having rain for 3 days isn't a reason to conclude that drinking coffee brings the sun.
 only DAC manufacturers can really answer about the role of one DAC chip, certainly not DAC listeners. at best listeners should talk about one DAC vs another, not one chip vs another as they have no mean to do any simple comparison with some magic "DAC chip rolling". so talking about the chipset alone is futile.
  
 of course different DAC chips have different needs. and the TOTL sabre chip happens to require a lot in order to work optimally. so perhaps several good sabre DACs have a lot more in common than just the chipset? still it's at best circumstantial and implementation is all.
  
  
 au cas où, hifimediy has a sabre DAC


----------



## purrin

skeptic said:


> When the doodlebug finally becomes readily available, I'm curious whether wyrd will really stand the test of time.
> 
> As I understand it from posts by avro, articles by John Swenson, etc. you do not want a continuous ground (which wyrd has) in a usb purifier if minimizing noise and jitter is the goal. http://www.head-fi.org/t/703334/doodlebug-usb-isolator/180_30#post_10831790


 
  
 Interesting, so the ADuM3160 in the Doodlebug actually keeps the grounds of USB in and USB out separate?


----------



## thegunner100

sorrodje said:


> Anyone can advice a dac with a typical sabre sound at affordable price . not too bad or good. I would like to find a cheap "average" sabre dac to understand what you're talking about


 
 ODAC and the hifimediy dac, as mentioned by others.


----------



## skeptic

purrin said:


> Interesting, so the ADuM3160 in the Doodlebug actually keeps the grounds of USB in and USB out separate?


 
  
 Yup.  Although I think I need to amend my prior comment, following further reading, to acknowledge that there is some debate over the pros and cons of this approach.  On the BH boards, it looks like Swenson thinks the adum chips (in particular) reduce noise but _add_ some jitter.  http://bottlehead.com/smf/index.php?topic=4086.msg50790;topicseen#msg50790  Although, he still suggests that properly implemented ground plane isolation coupled with signal isolators is the best overall approach.  http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits  
  
 Adum vs. GMR chips aside, it seems like the guys who build up doodlebug beta boards are all pretty happy with them.  Since the doodlebug is so cheap, and so is the wyrd, I may just have to try both when time permits.


----------



## estreeter

I'll stick with the iUSBPower, even if the iFi cable does annoy the hell out of me. Not sure who sits down to design a cable this heavy when they know it's designed to be plugged into a lightweight component like the iUSBPower.


----------



## Sorrodje

castleofargh said:


> blablablabla


 
  
  
 Do not take me for an idiot please 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 . I know that.
  
 What I want is to understand what Purrin & those friends said when they talk about "sabre" sound. I have currently an Odac and I had the tiny hifimediy I loaned you a few time ago.  Indeed I forgot that Odac is based on a sabre chip. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
@purrin : Are ODac & hifimediy representative of other more expensive Sabre DAC you dislike ?
  
 I received yesterday a Beresford Bushmaster. Cheap but very very good if I trust my ears. The Embedded headphone amp seems weak but I'll try to use it soon with the Sonett or the 02


----------



## Jason Stoddard

purrin said:


> Interesting, so the ADuM3160 in the Doodlebug actually keeps the grounds of USB in and USB out separate?


 
  
 Kinda. At the cost of 480Mbps. Max 12Mbps, so not full-speed USB2 compatible. Which is why we didn't use it.
  
 There is no effective galvanic isolation for full-speed USB2 data rates. Funny how the buzzwords change, huh?


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> @purrin : Are ODac & hifimediy representative of other more expensive Sabre DAC you dislike ?


 
  
 Yes more or less. I think I wrote a blurb a few posts back on the SABRE sound. SABRE is the opposite of say something like your Octave.


----------



## Sorrodje

Interesting...  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 The octave is OFF and unplugged right now. Currently using the Bushmaster.


----------



## aive

purrin said:


> Hugo comparison to Geek Wave. (I have not heard the Wave): http://www.head-fi.org/t/713829/light-harmonic-geek-wave/660#post_10871785.
> 
> BTW a few updates to page one. Ranked most of the newer DACs after some discussion with the ninjas. Note AGD M7 USB firmware update makes M7 with stock USB (without fancy converter) now highly worth considering.


 
  
 Thanks for the heads up, didn't realise there was new firmware for the M7! Noticing bass in Daft Punk Giorgio is slightly more resolving (a SMIDGE more if so)... but not sure, could be my SuSy Dynahi contributing to the change too...


----------



## Chris J

sorrodje said:


> Interesting...
> 
> 
> The octave is OFF and unplugged right now. Currently using the Bushmaster. :blink:




The Bushmaster Mk II?
Yes, it's an excellent DAC for the money.
I believe it uses a Wolfson DAC.


----------



## Sorrodje

MkII indeed. I'm very impressed by the sound produced by this DAC. But it can be a "new toy" effect. Octave will stay off for a few days I guess.


----------



## Tony1110

estreeter said:


> I'll stick with the iUSBPower, even if the iFi cable does annoy the hell out of me. Not sure who sits down to design a cable this heavy when they know it's designed to be plugged into a lightweight component like the iUSBPower.




 A lot if cable manufacturers will make you a twin-headed USB cable if you ask them. Cheaper too. I recommend the one made by Matthew at FORZA Audioworks.


----------



## azteca x

jason stoddard said:


> Kinda. At the cost of 480Mbps. Max 12Mbps, so not full-speed USB2 compatible. Which is why we didn't use it.
> 
> There is no effective galvanic isolation for full-speed USB2 data rates. Funny how the buzzwords change, huh?


 
 Well that's a damn shame. I hope we get there.


----------



## StefanJK

jason stoddard said:


> Kinda. At the cost of 480Mbps. Max 12Mbps, so not full-speed USB2 compatible. Which is why we didn't use it.
> 
> There is no effective galvanic isolation for full-speed USB2 data rates. Funny how the buzzwords change, huh?


 
 Why do we need more than 12Mbps?  Even 24/192 is below that if I'm not confused (always possible), at 1.125 Mbps.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

stefanjk said:


> Why do we need more than 12Mbps?  Even 24/192 is below that if I'm not confused (always possible), at 1.125 Mbps.




Not quite, 24 bits per sample times 192000 samples per second times two channels is already over 9mbps, not to mention overhead. And it's not like usb always transfers at max bitrate.


----------



## castleofargh

stefanjk said:


> jason stoddard said:
> 
> 
> > Kinda. At the cost of 480Mbps. Max 12Mbps, so not full-speed USB2 compatible. Which is why we didn't use it.
> ...


 
  
  


souprknowva said:


> stefanjk said:
> 
> 
> > Why do we need more than 12Mbps?  Even 24/192 is below that if I'm not confused (always possible), at 1.125 Mbps.
> ...


 

 you're saying the same thing, one with bytes the other with bits


----------



## purrin

My question is - are the grounds truly isolated? In the US for 120V, there is hot, neutral and ground on the AC outlet. Even if the ground (outlet) of the devices are isolated or not used, the neutral is still tied to the neutral tie block to where the ground is also tied (just that ground path has less resistance).
  
 So yes, the ground is broken at the USB-USB chip. But what about the other way around at the power supply / outlet of the two devices?
  
 Are we isolating something that was never isolated anyways at the outlet?


----------



## skeptic

Interesting question!  Hopefully an EE will weigh in.
  
 Also, re the isolators, it looks like as of 2011, many adum models supported 150mbs and nve up to 110mbps.  (http://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/which-digital-isolators-for-i2s-or-not/ )  Obviously, this is still lower than 480mbs, but I'm not sure why it would be a problem for audio aside from the tradeoff Swenson and others have acknowledged re reducing noise but adding some jitter.


----------



## twinkle

castleofargh said:


> you're saying the same thing, one with bytes the other with bits


 

 Just so I can niggle 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 : bytes would be MBps, with a capital B, and with the last 2 digits inverted for the correct result: 1.152 MBps = 9.216 Mbps for 2 chan. 24/192. Ahhh...


----------



## HemiSam

chris j said:


> The Bushmaster Mk II?
> Yes, it's an excellent DAC for the money.
> I believe it uses a Wolfson DAC.


 
  
 I'm curious about the Bushmaster Mk II.  I have not seen it for sale here in the U.S., but then again I have not looked all that hard yet.  Would very much like to see how it sounds through my Woo WA7 amp.
  
  
 HS


----------



## Chris J

hemisam said:


> I'm curious about the Bushmaster Mk II.  I have not seen it for sale here in the U.S., but then again I have not looked all that hard yet.  Would very much like to see how it sounds through my Woo WA7 amp.
> 
> 
> HS




You buy it on line, direct from Beresford Audio.
Cheers,
Chris


----------



## HemiSam

chris j said:


> You buy it on line, direct from Beresford Audio.
> Cheers,
> Chris


 
  
  
 Sweet.  I'm blocked from there "shop" option on their site here at work.
  
 Was the shipping to the U.S. crazy?
  
 HS


----------



## Chris J

hemisam said:


> Sweet.  I'm blocked from there "shop" option on their site here at work.
> 
> Was the shipping to the U.S. crazy?
> 
> HS




It's really not bad at all.
I'm in Canada, and shipping was quite reasonable and quite fast.
The new top of the line is the Caiman MK II, BTW


----------



## HemiSam

chris j said:


> It's really not bad at all.
> I'm in Canada, and shipping was quite reasonable and quite fast.
> The new top of the line is the Caiman MK II, BTW


 
  
 Thanks a bunch, Chris.  I'll have a look tonight once I'm beyond big brother's reach at work...
  
  




  
 HS


----------



## fzman

purrin said:


> My question is - are the grounds truly isolated? In the US for 120V, there is hot, neutral and ground on the AC outlet. Even if the ground (outlet) of the devices are isolated or not used, the neutral is still tied to the neutral tie block to where the ground is also tied (just that ground path has less resistance).
> 
> So yes, the ground is broken at the USB-USB chip. But what about the other way around at the power supply / outlet of the two devices?
> 
> Are we isolating something that was never isolated anyways at the outlet?


 
  
 you are assuming that signal ground for either analog or dsigital circuitry is tied to "safety ground.  Any power supply xformer will give you galvanic isolation between primary and secondary, so the neutral is taken cvare of.  If signal gound is never tied to safety/chassis grond, then the isolation question does not come up.
  
 Or, am I missing something? (Intended as a legit question, not a snarky one - honest!)


----------



## Chris J

fzman said:


> you are assuming that signal ground for either analog or dsigital circuitry is tied to "safety ground.  Any power supply xformer will give you galvanic isolation between primary and secondary, so the neutral is taken cvare of.  If signal gound is never tied to safety/chassis grond, then the isolation question does not come up.
> 
> Or, am I missing something? (Intended as a legit question, not a snarky one - honest!)




The short answer is....it depends.
As you were alluding to:
Is the safety ground tied to the signal ground (I.e the signal common)?
Typically the safety ground is loosely coupled to the signal ground (i.e. the signal common) so that the signal ground is not completely floating, but not tightly bonded to safety ground either.
Signal ground and safety ground may be loosely tied together via a capacitor, or a resistor, or a pair of diodes.

So in actual fact, trying to break a ground loop by cutting the safety ground off your AC cable may do nothing more than
A. Make your equipment unsafe
B. Actually defeat the systems noise filtering


----------



## Sorrodje

hemisam said:


> I'm curious about the Bushmaster Mk II.  I have not seen it for sale here in the U.S., but then again I have not looked all that hard yet.  Would very much like to see how it sounds through my Woo WA7 amp.
> 
> 
> HS


 
  
 My Bushmaster impressed me a lot and for the few hours I spent with it, I think it's a very good DAC with an impressive 3D presentation and very high resolution without Harshness. It sounds maybe a bit thin on the entire FR against my Octave and it"s undoubtly less forgiving associated with my Sonett/HD800. Surprisingly, this little dac is somewhat analytical but not harsh or boring.
  
 I would be very interested to have opinions from experienced Head-fier who are not biased by prices. This DACis a very good one. Regardless of price.
  
 I'll give it more listening in next weeks but I'm seriously considering the new caïman mkII.


----------



## HemiSam

sorrodje said:


> My Bushmaster impressed me a lot and for the few hours I spent with it, I think it's a very good DAC with an impressive 3D presentation and very high resolution without Harshness. It sounds maybe a bit thin on the entire FR against my Octave and it"s undoubtly less forgiving associated with my Sonett/HD800. Surprisingly, this little dac is somewhat analytical but not harsh or boring.
> 
> I would be very interested to have opinions from experienced Head-fier who are not biased by prices. This DACis a very good one. Regardless of price.
> 
> I'll give it more listening in next weeks but I'm seriously considering the new caïman mkII.


 
  
 Thanks for the feedback.
  
 Intrestingly, I was reading some reviews on another forum yesterday after a search for Caiman Mkii on google.  The feedback was that it was a signficant step up from the BM (both I and II) and that is was much more forgiving of lesser quality input chains than the BM while still maintaining resolution.  They were also big on using battery power (no way I'll be doing that with the limited space I have) and using the coaxial vs the USB input digital input.
  
 For the money, it looks like a heck of a deal.  Wish there was more feedback here to help out.
  
 HS


----------



## Sorrodje

hemisam said:


> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> Intrestingly, I was reading some reviews on another forum yesterday after a search for Caiman Mkii on google.  The feedback was that it was a signficant step up from the BM (both I and II) and that is was much more forgiving of lesser quality input chains than the BM while still maintaining resolution.  They were also big on using battery power (no way I'll be doing that with the limited space I have) and using the coaxial vs the USB input digital input.
> 
> ...




It seems we read the same threads. I've emailed Stanley Beresford today about the caiman. I think I'll pull the trigger in next weeks


----------



## Argo Duck

^ There is a thread on head-fi about the original Bushmaster (which I own) and comment here and there about the mark II (which Chris J owns _inter alia_). It's a surprising DAC, exceptional IMHO. The window it gives into the recording environment on some of my tracks is staggering, together with its ability to resolve piano notes in chords which other DACs tend to muddle into a homogenous mess (accurately or not I don't know).

That said, it's not quite the 'perfect' DAC for me - I agree it's a little thin compared to e.g. the similarly Wolfson-based StageDAC or Sabre-toothed PureDAC. Extraordinary value though.

I think feedback on Beresford's DACs is light because unfortunately Stan seems at one time to have let defensiveness about his brain-children lure him into excesses, result being he's not welcome. A pity IMO as his behavior tarnished the very products he was trying to defend.


----------



## estreeter

Removed by estreeter - wrong thread.


----------



## HemiSam

sorrodje said:


> It seems we read the same threads. I've emailed Stanley Beresford today about the caiman. I think I'll pull the trigger in next weeks


 
  
 Sweet!  Please let me know what you find out and what you think.  I don't plan on going as far as some did on that thread with the battery power supply and I may very well end up using the USB, although if I can make the digital coax work that's great too.
  
 I think it would be a nice upgrade to the DAC in my Woo WA7 and the money sure looks to be right.  Last I read Beresford was shipping them Stateside pretty quick and not for too much money.
  
  




  
 HS


----------



## HemiSam

estreeter said:


> Almost identical US sticker to the Taurus MkII - more interesting to look at, but I'm still not convinced that I need to part with my beloved Taurus.


 
  
  
 Sorry, but I think I missed a turn.  The Caiman MkII is similarly priced to the AURALiC Taurus MkII?
  
  
 HS


----------



## Chris J

hemisam said:


> Sorry, but I think I missed a turn.  The Caiman MkII is similarly priced to the AURALiC Taurus MkII?
> 
> 
> HS




No, the Caiman Mk II is approx. $400.00 USD!
The casework is very basic.
The design is supposed to be fairly simple.


----------



## HemiSam

chris j said:


> No, the Caiman Mk II is approx. $400.00 USD!
> The casework is very basic.
> The design is supposed to be fairly simple.


 
  
  
 Right.  So I didn't understand what estreeter's comment was referring to.  
  
 HS


----------



## estreeter

hemisam said:


> Right.  So I didn't understand what estreeter's comment was referring to.
> 
> HS


 
  
 My apologies - had two windows open and posted in the wrong one - I'll go back and edit it if I can. My comment was supposed to refer to the new Violectric amp - nothing to do with the Caiman - hopefully I didnt cause too much confusion.


----------



## HemiSam

estreeter said:


> My apologies - had two windows open and posted in the wrong one - I'll go back and edit it if I can. My comment was supposed to refer to the new Violectric amp - nothing to do with the Caiman - hopefully I didnt cause too much confusion.


 
  
 No sweat.  You just lost me is all.
  
 HS


----------



## listen4joy

purrin will you review the Abbingdon Music Research DP-777 ?


----------



## purrin

listen4joy said:


> purrin will you review the Abbingdon Music Research DP-777 ?


 
  
 LOL, if I ever get my hands on one. The higher end stuff is really hard to come by and I've had to rely on a handful of sources for the top few DACs I've heard.


----------



## Priidik

> *#6 Schiit Gungnir Gen2 USB Board **(USB) *
> 
> The Gen 2 USB brings to the table some finesse through the restoration of low level sounds which were previously compressed or lost in the Gen 1 USB version. Gen 1 USB also sounds less lively (microdynamics) and less clear. The Gen 2 USB upgrade is significant. It's interesting to note how Schiit has removed all the bad things they said about USB on their website with the release of the Gen 2 USB.
> 
> ...


 
 Does the Gungnir Gen2 USB fare better in microdetails, than DA8? How is overal detail extraction between the two?


----------



## boatheelmusic

What in the world are you going on about?


----------



## xaval

sorrodje said:


> It seems we read the same threads. I've emailed Stanley Beresford today about the caiman. I think I'll pull the trigger in next weeks


 
 We're on the same boat as I'll also should be pulling the trigger on a C2. The good thing with the Caiman 2 is that I'll be able to keep my linear PSU with sBooster as it's compatible with both Bushmaster 1, 2 and Caiman 2.
  
 Despite the past issues with Stan on these boards I have only great respect for him as his always extremely helpful supporting his products and really goes the extra mile to keep you satisfied whitin reason - he offers a refund when a customer doesn't feel he made an upgrade whem buying one of his DACs. And the heaphone amps are no afterthought either... I agree that his DACs are real contenders in their price range.


----------



## Chris J

xaval said:


> We're on the same boat as I'll also should be pulling the trigger on a C2. The good thing with the Caiman 2 is that I'll be able to keep my linear PSU with sBooster as it's compatible with both Bushmaster 1, 2 and Caiman 2.
> 
> Despite the past issues with Stan on these boards I have only great respect for him as his always extremely helpful supporting his products and really goes the extra mile to keep you satisfied whitin reason - he offers a refund when a customer doesn't feel he made an upgrade whem buying one of his DACs. And the heaphone amps are no afterthought either... I agree that his DACs are real contenders in their price range.


 
  
 To be fair, Stan is certainly not the only person with issues (or has had issues) on Head Fi!   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 And I agree, the headphone amps are NOT an afterthought.


----------



## purrin

priidik said:


> Does the Gungnir Gen2 USB fare better in microdetails, than DA8? How is overal detail extraction between the two?


 
  
 I have both in the house right now. Will DAC-Off tonight on those specifics.


----------



## Sorrodje

xaval said:


> We're on the same boat as I'll also should be pulling the trigger on a C2.




Mine is ordered. I should receive it in the next days.


----------



## purrin

priidik said:


> Does the Gungnir Gen2 USB fare better in microdetails, than DA8? How is overal detail extraction between the two?


 
  
 Gungnir Gen 2 USB beats DA8 by a hair in terms of microdetail extraction. However, more important is microdynamics, especially toward the softer range. The DA8 has this bad tendency of compressing soft sounds, that it makes soft and medium level sounds closer in terms of volume. On the surface, it may initially sound better or more detailed, but after a few minutes, it gets somewhat annoying. The effects of this behavior are further exacerbated by the DA8's lack of depth. Everything sort of sounds one volume without nuance and without layering - all in the middle of your head. So in terms of microdetail and microdynamics (which really go hand in hand), the Gungnir beats the DA-8.
  
 Once you add Wyrd to Gungnir Gen 2 USB (still less than cost of DA8), the stage deepens even more along with more nuanced microdynamics and microdetail. At this point the Gungnir Gen 2 USB + Wyrd utterly destroys the DA-8.


----------



## xaval

sorrodje said:


> Mine is ordered. I should receive it in the next days.


 
 I think you could be surprised on how fast you get it. Stan is famous for overnight miracle deliveries 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Please do post some feedback about how it sounds.... I don't think there's a thread opened yet for the Caiman 2...


----------



## Argo Duck

Yeah, someone who owns or is about to own the Caiman 2 should open a thread


----------



## Sorrodje

argo duck said:


> Yeah, someone who owns or is about to own the Caiman 2 should open a thread





Unfortunately, I won't. I PMed moderators to ask the question about deleted or locked threads about Beresford stuff. Right now they prefer to avoid any new Beresford thread on HF.


----------



## xaval

sorrodje said:


> Unfortunately, I won't. I PMed moderators to ask the question about deleted or locked threads about Beresford stuff. Right now they prefer to avoid any new Beresford thread on HF.


 
 Does it meand we can't discuss Beresford products? I wasn't aware of such limitations as I've certainly have posted stuff about the Bushy.


----------



## Sorrodje

I really don't want to create any debate. I'm talking about Beresford dacs myself in this thread or here or there but I won't create a new thread. That's all.


----------



## Chris J

sorrodje said:


> Unfortunately, I won't. I PMed moderators to ask the question about deleted or locked threads about Beresford stuff. Right now they prefer to avoid any new Beresford thread on HF.




Seriously? :rolleyes:


----------



## xaval

Best move forward then. Looking forward to your impressions with the Bushy vs Metrum. Such different presentations (and price...) of source material should prove quite interesting.


----------



## mcullinan

Conspiracy!!!! lol


----------



## Priidik

purrin said:


> Gungnir Gen 2 USB beats DA8 by a hair in terms of microdetail extraction. However, more important is microdynamics, especially toward the softer range. The DA8 has this bad tendency of compressing soft sounds, that it makes soft and medium level sounds closer in terms of volume. On the surface, it may initially sound better or more detailed, but after a few minutes, it gets somewhat annoying. The effects of this behavior are further exacerbated by the DA8's lack of depth. Everything sort of sounds one volume without nuance and without layering - all in the middle of your head. So in terms of microdetail and microdynamics (which really go hand in hand), the Gungnir beats the DA-8.
> 
> Once you add Wyrd to Gungnir Gen 2 USB (still less than cost of DA8), the stage deepens even more along with more nuanced microdynamics and microdetail. At this point the Gungnir Gen 2 USB + Wyrd utterly destroys the DA-8.


 
 Thanks! Thats great info, i might want to try Gungnir now.  
 I realized the DA8 faults myself just recently in a dac-off and my comparative observations matched yours quite closely.


----------



## HemiSam

The Caiman looks SUPER interesting.  Barring any threads about a product, regardless of whether you choose to ban an individual or vendor from posting, is absolute B.S.  That's plain heavy handedness so I hope I'm reading this wrong.  I'd love to hear impressions about a DAC I'm seriously considering before I spend my hard earned money on it.  That's what I love about this place....great posts from experienced audiophiles that help me avoid bad choices.  
  
 I'll move on now...
  
  
 HS


----------



## castleofargh

purrin said:


> Gungnir Gen 2 USB beats DA8 by a hair in terms of microdetail extraction.


 
  what does that mean in real world fact? should we pretend like one product loses a few bits on the road? "that sample has 6digit? F it, I'm gonna read just 5 and bring my kids to school! my back hurts, I'm not digging one bit deeper!"
  
 Quote:


> Originally Posted by *purrin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> However, more important is microdynamics, especially toward the softer range. The DA8 has this bad tendency of compressing soft sounds, that it makes soft and medium level sounds closer in terms of volume. On the surface, it may initially sound better or more detailed, but after a few minutes, it gets somewhat annoying.


 
  surely the amplitude response varies so much depending on voltage input that you can hear. I don't know those products, but either what you're describing is pure subjective dream unrelated to actual dynamic, and you really go all the way to bringing technical words that look convincing. or that DA8 is total trash with probably very very scary measurements?
  
 and surely microdetail and microdynamic are different enough in sinusoidal signals so that you can hear both independently and report about them... if microdynamic is the vertical parameter, what is microdetail supposed to be? time? a third electrical dimension only audiophile can perceive? later you talk about imaging and layering so it's not about stereo... I'm very confused.
  
 let me guess you saw that pic and you decided you had to tell the world about that horrible -126db notch surely so obviously placebo audible once you've seen the graph, after all it's only -126db and look it's not straight!

  
 Quote:


purrin said:


> The effects of this behavior are further exacerbated by the DA8's lack of depth.


 
  pretty much the only thing that I understand and where I ccould see both subjective and objective reasons for this.
  
 Quote: 





purrin said:


> Once you add Wyrd to Gungnir Gen 2 USB (still less than cost of DA8), the stage deepens even more along with more nuanced microdynamics and microdetail. At this point the Gungnir Gen 2 USB + Wyrd utterly destroys the DA-8.


 
 did you try to put 2 wyrds in series for even more of the more stuff?
  
  
  
 aren't microdetails and microdynamics just a fancy way to look at linearity? if the above graph is real, does it mean you were using words to talk about something else? did you dream it all? or did you really hear something meaning that maybe it's the gungnir that doesn't have good linearity?
 I clearly didn't learn much with this post(DA8= bad depth), but it surely made me very curious.


----------



## jexby

and here we go.....


----------



## StefanJK

I welcome debate/airing of views.  My sense is that there should be measureable differences between DACs that correspond at least somewhat to real perceptions if you measured the right things, but that's speculation with not enough experience and research, probably with some wishful thinking mixed in as well.


----------



## purrin

castleofargh said:


> blah blah blah


 
  
 dScope doesn't have sufficient resolution to measure linearity in that way. The internal ADC of the dScope is probably only 8 bits. There's a way to do it, but it's much more involved where you can't just bring up a few config screens and press a button on the dScope.
  
 Here are some _*real *_DAC linearity plots (integral and differential):


----------



## purrin

stefanjk said:


> *I welcome debate/airing of views.* My sense is that there should be measureable differences between DACs that correspond at least somewhat to real perceptions if you measured the right things, but that's speculation with not enough experience and research, probably with some wishful thinking mixed in as well.


 
  
 I do too so long as people have actually heard X or Y, know what they are talking about in terms of measurements (having a good grasp of the limitations of the output data, the methods employed, and the equipment), and are open to seeking and understanding how certain measurements may correlate with certain subjective qualities.
  
 There is no discussion here when someone interjects without the above three conditions met, especially when they do so with literal irony and back handed insults.


----------



## fzman

purrin said:


> Gungnir Gen 2 USB beats DA8 by a hair in terms of microdetail extraction.


 
  "what does that mean in real world fact? should we pretend like one product loses a few bits on the road? "that sample has 6digit? F it, I'm gonna read just 5 and bring my kids to school! my back hurts, I'm not digging one bit deeper!"
  
  
 did you try to put 2 wyrds in series for even more of the more stuff?
  
 aren't microdetails and microdynamics just a fancy way to look at linearity? if the above graph is real, does it mean you were using words to talk about something else? did you dream it all? or did you really hear something meaning that maybe it's the gungnir that doesn't have good linearity?
 I clearly didn't learn much with this post(DA8= bad depth), but it surely made me very curious."
  
 In response to the quotes above, which I am not having any luck imbedding ith the quote feature -- here is my reply below:
  
  
  
 Seems to me like it actually could mean a number of things which make sense, other than the obviously straw-manish arguments you're making. It's always difficult to assess intent from a post, but I think most people will interpret your comments as intentionally condescending and insulting.  (And wrong as well, but that's just my opinion)


----------



## Clemmaster

stefanjk said:


> I welcome debate/airing of views.  My sense is that there should be measureable differences between DACs that correspond at least somewhat to real perceptions *if you measured the right things*, but that's speculation with not enough experience and research, probably with some wishful thinking mixed in as well.


 
  
 Here lies the real issue. I shall find that answer and finally re-conciliate the subjectivists and objectivists and bring peace to this world!
  
  
Wish me luck...


----------



## hans030390

All I know is that I've subjectively compared DACs that measure similarly, excellently on pretty much all grounds, and outside of what many would claim to be beyond human audibility (which I believe is less understood and absolute than some make it off to be, plus some do actually hear "better" than others, and they often have trained ears), and I have found subjective differences between these DACs. It was around that time I realized that while measurements are useful in some regards, especially to filter out the total crap or study very specific characteristics such as filter implementations, they won't tell the whole story. Either they never will, we don't have good enough gear to really dig deep enough into measurements that show differences, and/or there are still tests we aren't running that may explain these subjective differences.
  
 Could it all be placebo or some sort of mental trickery on my end? Sure. Still, I believe there have been cases I heard a genuine difference, and anyone is welcome to disagree with that and go about their business. If a DAC looks great on paper, that's fine and preferred, but I'm at the point where I'm more interested in how it sounds to my ears and how it matches my tastes. I think it's fair to assume no one has an absolute understanding of human hearing abilities and DAC measurements, especially when it comes to correlating this stuff together, thus it does no good to leave out subjective analysis and rely only on unfinished and not entirely understood objective analysis.


----------



## ultrabike

castleofargh said:


> [angry rant for who knows what reason]


 
  
 Based on your condescending and "confused" rant you seem to have a problem with terminology. Here is a book that may help you get un-confused:
  
 http://tvr.vejas.lt/uploads/Literatura/High%20Performance%20Audio%20Power%20Amplifiers%201.pdf
  
 Refer to 1.10.4 for a description of dynamics (including microdynamics). There is also a definition for detail (or space) in 1.10.3 which is described in more depth in 1.10.5.


----------



## schneller

I still want purrin to test a NAIM DAC V1.


----------



## En_R

castleofargh said:


> did you try to put 2 wyrds in series for even more of the more stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 We need a thumbs down button on head-fi. It should be red (for rage).
  
 What I like about most of Purrin's reviews is that even though he sometimes delves into the more technical side of things most of what he says is easily understood, even by laymen.

 I'm glad you tried to sound knowledgeable even though you got the smackdown two posts later, but in the passage you quoted Purrin clearly describes what microdynamics encompasses and how the DA8 is flawed in this department. But I guess in this case that would only apply to him, since his definition is a "pure subjective dream".
  


> > Originally Posted by *purrin*
> >
> >
> > However, more important is *microdynamics*, especially toward the softer range. The DA8 has this* bad tendency of compressing soft sounds, that it makes soft and medium level sounds closer in terms of volume*. On the surface, it may initially sound better or more detailed, but after a few minutes, it gets somewhat annoying.


----------



## xaval

hemisam said:


> The Caiman looks SUPER interesting.  Barring any threads about a product, regardless of whether you choose to ban an individual or vendor from posting, is absolute B.S.  That's plain heavy handedness so I hope I'm reading this wrong.  I'd love to hear impressions about a DAC I'm seriously considering before I spend my hard earned money on it.  That's what I love about this place....great posts from experienced audiophiles that help me avoid bad choices.
> 
> I'll move on now...
> 
> ...


 
 The thread should be monitored so I suppose if anything out of order was posted we should already have been notified by now. Maybe some pirate will find interest on these energetic gian killers and give it an ear. This thread sure needs some european made DAC love anyway 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
@ultrabike : thanks for the link. Should be an interesting read over some nice tunes.


----------



## jude

mcullinan said:


> Conspiracy!!!! lol


 
  
 I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but, no, there's no conspiracy.
  


sorrodje said:


> Unfortunately, I won't. I PMed moderators to ask the question about deleted or locked threads about Beresford stuff. Right now they prefer to avoid any new Beresford thread on HF.


 
  
 There have been issues in the past. *This link* may help explain my concerns on the matter.


----------



## Sorrodje

jude said:


> I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but, no, there's no conspiracy.
> 
> 
> There have been issues in the past. *This link* may help explain my concerns on the matter.


 
  
 HI Jude.
  
 Its a bit  old now. Maybe we can consider to Give to Beresford Products a new chance to shine here on HF.  We're many owners ( not affiliated to Beresford) who like to share impressions and news about Beresford DACs.


----------



## HemiSam

jude said:


> I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but, no, there's no conspiracy.
> 
> 
> There have been issues in the past. *This link* may help explain my concerns on the matter.


 
  
  
 Does this mean we can't have threads regarding Beresford equipment?  That's the only thing I find really odd and I'm hoping that was mistakenly posted.  
  
 HS


----------



## jude

hemisam said:


> Does this mean we can't have threads regarding Beresford equipment?  That's the only thing I find really odd and I'm hoping that was mistakenly posted.
> 
> HS


 
  
 What it means is that, even years later, we have a cautious eye.
  
 It's easy to say _it was a long time ago, so relax already._ However, it was a situation that wasn't confined to Head-Fi, and with one of the profiles in question making 1173 posts here, many about Beresford's products. Both outside and inside Head-Fi, the moderators here were being accused of all sorts of ridiculousness on the matter, until I posted that post--at which point, it pretty much (not surprisingly) stopped.
  
 Here's *another link* with my response then about some of these questions, as well as some follow-up community discussion.
  
 For now, this isn't the thread for it, so let's get it back on topic. What I am saying is that discussions regarding at least one of the brands in question do come under greater scrutiny from our moderators here--yes, even this many years later.
  
 If you want to discuss it with me, PM me, and let this thread get back on topic.


----------



## HemiSam

jude said:


> What it means is that, even years later, we have a cautious eye.
> 
> It's easy to say _it was a long time ago, so relax already._ However, it was a situation that wasn't confined to Head-Fi, and with one of the profiles in question making 1173 posts here, many about Beresford's products. Both outside and inside Head-Fi, the moderators here were being accused of all sorts of ridiculousness on the matter, until I posted that post--at which point, it pretty much (not surprisingly) stopped.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thank you for the response.  Cautious seems reasonable.
  
 I enjoy the open exchange of DAC info on this thread and was hoping if someone (meaning a customer) had real life feedback on the Caiman, I'd like to see it as it's in the top 3 for my next DAC purchase...maybe the top 2.
  
 HS


----------



## castleofargh

purrin said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > blah blah blah
> ...


 
 ok I'm really not experienced with those types of measurements but they do seem straightforward and counting in LSB does make lot of sense(if I got something wrong, plz let me know as again I discover those kind of measurements).
 so here is my reasoning:
 2^16= 65536 least significant values available. at least in theory for "perfect 16bit".
 what we usually accept as being around 6*16=96db of usable range.
 making going from one least significant bit to the next a jump of about 96/65536 = 0.0015db (I doubt it's exactly this, but surely somewhere around that order of magnitude).
  I don't know if what you posted are usual values for audio DACs or not. still I'll use what's offered to me, if I understand that right, it would say that some errors in this example can be as big as jumping maybe 4values of least significant bit. so a good deal bigger than quantization error, yet still ludicrously small.
 something not too far away from 0.0015*4=0.006db error.
  
  so here is my problem: are you trying to say that you heard that kind level of amplitude differences from the dynamic of 2DACs? seriously?
 even if it was 0.05db I wouldn't believe it while listening to music.
 see why irony was my first thought? "oh the guitar was 0.006db quieter than it should, a few times for 1/44000th of a second. I should mention microdynamic for this DAC and explain it."  that's pretty much how I understood the post and how impossibru it seemed to me.
  


ultrabike said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > [angry rant for who knows what reason]
> ...


 
 I have no problem with the words, I have a problem with what they're used for.
 talking about microdynamic or microdetail for a song doesn't trouble me that much if it's with the idea that the composition makes use of such characteristics. microdetail and microcontrast sure go perfectly when talking about picture treatment, and how increasing microcontrast can improve the subjective sharpness up to a point, and how it is DSP abused on cheap cameras inside phones. so I'm not sure I have a problem with the terms themselves.
 but read his post again, with your rational thinking and tell me there is nothing wrong with it plz. those words were clearly used and surrounded with explainations of how one DAC was pretty much acting as a DSP and compressing the dynamic of certain loudness levels. as I said imagine the nightmarish measurements we would get from such a DAC.
 those modifications of the signal would read as distortions or at least noise right? when looking at some usual DAC specs like THD+noise and SNR it's not hard to see how small the actual micro variations described can be and how they are unrelated to actual music perception. plz tell me you don't believe he actually heard changes of microdynamic between 2 DACs. being purrin's buddy shouldn't forbid you from having an objective opinion on the matter.
 if I'm wrong or really missed something plz explain me where. I do usually trust your judgement and have no problem telling how stupid and sorry I am when I'm shown to be wrong. (the perk of having no self esteem).


----------



## Clemmaster

OMG...
  
 Your 6x16 = 96 suddenly becomes a 96/65536... Do you actually know what dB scale is?
 You should start from here


----------



## negura

> ....


 
  
 I have French corporate clients like this ... Firstly if you read your own posting again, does it make sense to you?
 Hopefully without any undue surprise science is based on empirical evidence, to which it grows to clarify.
  
 My perception is you both did not hear nor study enough.


----------



## Clemmaster

negura said:


> I have French corporate clients like this ...


 
 Nothing to do with being French... I am French


----------



## ultrabike

castleofargh said:


> I have no problem with the words, I have a problem with what they're used for. talking about microdynamic or microdetail for a song doesn't trouble me that much if it's with the idea that the composition makes use of such characteristics. microdetail and microcontrast sure go perfectly when talking about picture treatment, and how increasing microcontrast can improve the subjective sharpness up to a point, and how it is DSP abused on cheap cameras inside phones. so I'm not sure I have a problem with the terms themselves.
> but read his post again, with your rational thinking and tell me there is nothing wrong with it plz. those words were clearly used and surrounded with explainations of how one DAC was pretty much acting as a DSP and compressing the dynamic of certain loudness levels. as I said imagine the nightmarish measurements we would get from such a DAC.
> those modifications of the signal would read as distortions or at least noise right? when looking at some usual DAC specs like THD+noise and SNR it's not hard to see how small the actual micro variations described can be and how they are unrelated to actual music perception. plz tell me you don't believe he actually heard changes of microdynamic between 2 DACs. being purrin's buddy shouldn't forbid you from having an objective opinion on the matter.
> if I'm wrong or really missed something plz explain me where. I do usually trust your judgement and have no problem telling how stupid and sorry I am when I'm shown to be wrong. (the perk of having no self esteem).


 
  
 LOL! Differences between DACs tend to be more subtle than differences between headphones. But they do exist IMO.
  
 For example, a sense of increased space might be due to different levels of crosstalk, differences on frequency response due to DAC architecture, handling of ultrasonic distortion and so forth.
  
 Now AFAIK the DA8 uses a Saber DAC which _I think_ it's a 1-bit Delta Sigma + proly some special sauce to deal with silent passages. The Schiit uses an AKM deal which might be a multi-bit Delta Sigma (AKM is known for that). I would consider a multi-bit delta sigma superior in general to a 1-bit Delta Sigma in terms of distortion and flexibility. But TBH I'm not intimate with the details of implementation which are proly proprietary.
  
 Would these differences in implementation result in different microdynamics (detail in small level signals)? Possible. Delta sigmas (specially 1 bit ones), can be unpredictable when signal does not comply with certain uniform statistics. They don't necessarily behave the same way in terms of quantization, which is an issue with low level signals. Also note that our hearing may adjust depending on level. Probably hard to detect a signal 90 dB buried mosquito fart in some classic music instrument play hell... but if things relax a bit in the recording, it may all of the sudden be up to the rig resolution capabilities to bring out the sought after mosquito gas.
  
 There are other implementation details, outside of the ICs used, such as DAC analog filter and board parasitics. I can tell you that even Lord Voldemort kinda seem to gave up and went Yoyodine cuz he couldn't do much better than FiiO with his ODAC at the early stages due to possible board implementation issues. Would those issue be hear-able? Maybe.


----------



## yfei

Agree.   "Measurements" are like how blind men poke the elephant.     They only represent a very narrow perspective.  
 Open your ears, you 'see' the full picture.

  
 Good measurement doesn't tell people anything, it doesn't mean the product is good.
 Only Bad measurements are useful, during product engineering phase, to tell people that something is wrong, we need to fix a bug.   
  
  
 Quote:


hans030390 said:


> All I know is that I've subjectively compared DACs that measure similarly, excellently on pretty much all grounds, and outside of what many would claim to be beyond human audibility (which I believe is less understood and absolute than some make it off to be, plus some do actually hear "better" than others, and they often have trained ears), and I have found subjective differences between these DACs. It was around that time I realized that while measurements are useful in some regards, especially to filter out the total crap or study very specific characteristics such as filter implementations, they won't tell the whole story. Either they never will, we don't have good enough gear to really dig deep enough into measurements that show differences, and/or there are still tests we aren't running that may explain these subjective differences.
> 
> Could it all be placebo or some sort of mental trickery on my end? Sure. Still, I believe there have been cases I heard a genuine difference, and anyone is welcome to disagree with that and go about their business. If a DAC looks great on paper, that's fine and preferred, but I'm at the point where I'm more interested in how it sounds to my ears and how it matches my tastes. I think it's fair to assume no one has an absolute understanding of human hearing abilities and DAC measurements, especially when it comes to correlating this stuff together, thus it does no good to leave out subjective analysis and rely only on unfinished and not entirely understood objective analysis.


----------



## purrin

castleofargh said:


>


 
  
 tl; dr
  
 this thread is about subjective impressions. plz take the straw man arguments to the sound science section.


----------



## sandab

purrin said:


> dScope doesn't have sufficient resolution to measure linearity in that way


 
 It's not necessarily a matter of linearity.  There are lots of linear effects that are extremely difficult to identify by looking at data, but quite obvious to our senses.  One example is applying 0.5x gain to a signal, then adding it back in with a delay of a few sample periods.   Basically an echo.  This has ZERO effect on the frequency response; it's a linear effect (it can be removed by deconvolution; if it were nonlinear it wouldn't be expressible as a convolution kernel); and it ONLY shows up in the phase part of the frequency domain.  Looking at the phase component of a signal and trying to determine anything from it is notoriously difficult.  The only cases I'm aware of where the phase forms meaningful patterns is in image processing, where moire' forms spikes in the 2D phase for instance.  But you can hear such a "fast echo" effect instantly, and identify it immediately whenever you hear it in the future. 
  
 So it's not just a matter of collecting measurements.  It's about knowing what to look for in the measurements.  That's something junior engineers and technicians often don't get, that the hard part is not collecting data but knowing What to look for.


----------



## castleofargh

clemmaster said:


> OMG...
> 
> Your 6x16 = 96 suddenly becomes a 96/65536... Do you actually know what dB scale is?
> You should start from here


 

 I couldn't apply an example for all discrete values anyway, else to get just one value I have to specify it, and decide on the voltage from the chip. then picking one value would make it say whatever I want it to say as the values can go from 6db to 0.0001db and some more if it's a 16bit DAC...
 pretty much why I guess they use LSB as a unity of measurement instead of killing themselves with voltage or DB variation. I just wanted to give a logic and simple to follow idea that the magnitude would have to be stupidly small and shouldn't come into play to explain what we identify as being more or less dynamic or micro dynamic from an audition.
  
 here I take 33000 and 33004(close to the middle) with 3.3v and 16bit, I get 0.0010527725605274762db variation by taking that it works like a R2R ladder. I don't know how pulse modulated signal are dealt with and how timing translates really in voltage. but the output signals have to be close in the end, else measurements wouldn't show that almost all kind of DACs can be transparent. so I guess I can go R2R without too much shame.
 I'm sure you're thrilled by some more accurate estimations based on real calculus this time. but I'm afraid it didn't massively help me make my point. it only shows that the value can be even smaller and even more impossible to hear. but didn't change a thing about the idea.
  
 people agree or not, but a 0.1DB difference is a close call for a human to tell as sounding different. in fact most hardcore objectivists will be ok to call gears match leveled in a test if there is less than 0.1DB variation. what purrin explained about micro dynamic compression would come from errors that could very well be a hundred times smaller than 0.1db(and probably not regular enough to really change the shape of the wave by all of the error's amplitude). again if it was bigger and audible, then the DAC specs would show crap going on at crazy high levels, like -50db noise or some stuff like that. but they don't so the errors are indeed very low and contained. and if it was audible, it would still be more likely to sound like noise more than a change in dynamic.
 yet I'm the only one troubled about him casually implying that he can hear and actually describe how that sounds and where it comes from.
 to me subjective means dependent on the subject, so yes it allows for variations, but I still expect the subject to be human.
 I'll leave it at that, obviously purrin doesn't see anything wrong with what he said.  and more and more I share your feelings and wish I would just go away and forget about it.


----------



## Clemmaster

You won't be able to make your point by mixing dB and linear scale.


----------



## Currawong

Also, the differences may only for the most part be measurable in the time domain, which standard measurement gear can't do, and best explained by people with sufficient engineering experience (which would mean Rob Watts or Mike Moffat amongst active members).
  
 The explanation for all this subjective stuff actually has nothing to do with measurements (don't misconstrue what I mean by this though). When I can be bothered, I'm going to write or make a video about it.
  
 As suggested though, the measurement stuff would be better confined to the Sound Science forum.


----------



## arnaud

sandab said:


> One example is applying 0.5x gain to a signal, then adding it back in with a delay of a few sample periods.   Basically an echo.  This has ZERO effect on the frequency response; it's a linear effect (it can be removed by deconvolution; if it were nonlinear it wouldn't be expressible as a convolution kernel); and it ONLY shows up in the phase part of the frequency domain.




Are you sure about this? A pulse signal (flat broadband spectral content) duplicated / delayed results in sharp notches in the amplitude response, at regular intervals (comb filter effect). 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_filter


----------



## Chris J

purrin said:


> tl; dr
> 
> this thread is about subjective impressions. plz take the straw man arguments to the sound science section.




Agreed.


----------



## Chris J

currawong said:


> Also, the differences may only for the most part be measurable in the time domain, which standard measurement gear can't do, and best explained by people with sufficient engineering experience (which would mean Rob Watts or Mike Moffat amongst active members).
> 
> The explanation for all this subjective stuff actually has nothing to do with measurements (don't misconstrue what I mean by this though). When I can be bothered, I'm going to write or make a video about it.
> 
> As suggested though, the measurement stuff would be better confined to the Sound Science forum.




OTOH,
Witness the "what's the special sauce in the Hugo?" Thread in the Sound Science forum.


----------



## adamaley

castleofargh said:


> ok I'm really not experienced with those types of measurements but they do seem straightforward and counting in LSB does make lot of sense(if I got something wrong, plz let me know as again I discover those kind of measurements).
> so here is my reasoning:
> 2^16= 65536 least significant values available. at least in theory for "perfect 16bit".
> what we usually accept as being around 6*16=96db of usable range.
> ...


 
 I read your original post, and just had a feeling of deja-vu. It could be the non-capitalization, or just the high level of smugness. For some reason, I have become very sensitive to trollism, and can spot its characteristics without paying much attention. Great work on your part. You succeeded in derailing another thread. Kudos.


----------



## HemiSam

I look forward to more valuable input about specific DAC's, comparisons...real world opinions.  The Popular Science discussion makes me need a LOT more coffee....
  
  
  




  
 HS


----------



## mowglycdb

I find that the Master-7 is a nice DAC for micro details , they seem smooth but detailed and deep but distinctive in the sound stage.


----------



## fzman

hemisam said:


> I look forward to more valuable input about specific DAC's, comparisons...real world opinions.  The Popular Science discussion makes me need a LOT more coffee....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 coffee - so that would make DAC= *d*ecaf *a*nd *c*ream


----------



## mcullinan

Whats the ETA to receive a Master 7 in the US with the new USB?
  
 I think I agree with the Yulong DA8 assessment. Its got really nice tight control but seems to miss a lot of the nice microdetails and not as big of a sound stage as other DACs. Maybe lean would be the word, but not bright or anything.


----------



## kazsud

mcullinan said:


> Whats the ETA to receive a Master 7 in the US with the new USB?
> 
> I think I agree with the Yulong DA8 assessment. Its got really nice tight control but seems to miss a lot of the nice microdetails and not as big of a sound stage as other DACs. Maybe lean would be the word, but not bright or anything.




+1


----------



## ciphercomplete

mcullinan said:


> Whats the ETA to receive a Master 7 in the US with the new USB?


 
  
 If you are in the US I would say no longer than 10 days total (2-3 days handling and then around 7 days of actual shipping time) They get stuff out of the door fairly quick now.  My Master 7 arrived 7 days after I sent my email order in if I recall correctly so shipping had to be 5 days or less on that one.


----------



## sandab

arnaud said:


> Are you sure about this? A pulse signal (flat broadband spectral content) duplicated / delayed results in sharp notches in the amplitude response, at regular intervals (comb filter effect).
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_filter


 
  
 Yes, if you add 1kHz to another slightly time shifted 1kHz signal you get a 1kHz signal with two phase spikes.  It will sound like a 1kHz signal inside a "synthetic metal bin" when they're close enough (I've done this) and if you put a scope on it it will have a perfectly clean looking 1kHz spectrum (i.e. a spike).  It sounds synthetic because a real metal bin would resonate and add a distortion product.  The "inside a metal bin that doesn't sound like a metal bin" is our sensory response to the phase component.  BTW, adding signals means multiplying their unit (0 to 1) amplitudes.  In a circuit you can use one as gain for the other.  It's important to realize our ears hear in the frequency domain (freq, phase), and it's difficult to tell what something sounds like by staring at a waveform.  Much of the timbre lives in the phase, yet it's similarly difficult to derive the actual sensation of the timbre by looking at phase data.  At least I've never managed to make sense of it.


----------



## boatheelmusic

Link to my Grace m920 review:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/709617/new-grace-design-m920-dac-amp-with-dsd-decoding


----------



## purrin

"Using the Linear Phase – slow filter" - gotta remember that next time I listen to it. How was the bass of the Grace m920 vs. your PWD2 (fw 2.43)? Did you find the PWD2 more "raspy" in treble?


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

purrin said:


> "Using the Linear Phase – slow filter" - gotta remember that next time I listen to it. How was the bass of the Grace m920 vs. your PWD2 (fw 2.43)? Did you find the PWD2 more "raspy" in treble?


 
 just saw that you have climbed up another level on dac chain, can you please share some impresison with new purchase dac and how much you gonna rank it above in the list ^__^
  
 p/s: love your avatar, look similar to my lovely cat )


----------



## Sorrodje

sorrodje said:


> I'm seriously considering the new caïman mkII.


 
  
  


> Originally Posted by *HemiSam* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Wish there was more feedback here to help out.


 
  
  


sorrodje said:


> I think I'll pull the trigger in next weeks


 
  
  


hemisam said:


> Sweet!  Please let me know what you find out and what you think.


 
  
  


sorrodje said:


> Mine is ordered. I should receive it in the next days.


 
  
  


xaval said:


> Please do post some feedback about how it sounds....


 
  
  


xaval said:


> Looking forward to your impressions with the Bushy vs Metrum. Such different presentations (and price...) of source material should prove quite interesting.


 
  
  
  
 My Beresford Caïman mkII has arrived yesterday.


----------



## boatheelmusic

Purrin - PM sent on filters due to length- I had been using the latest 2.4.6, which was the best I tried.  And the bass on the m920 was deeper and more articulate.
  
 Very powerful.


----------



## xaval

@Sorrodje : That sounds great. Hope you don't have too many weekend appointments 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Give the Caiman a nice ear burn in and let us know about you're findings. I have little experience with the Octave and wasn't really my sound for the money. A great DAC but I prefer more energetic sound overall.


----------



## Sorrodje

xaval said:


> @Sorrodje : That sounds great. Hope you don't have too many weekend appointments
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 What do you listen to mostly ?
  
 I'll give impressions about the Octave ,the bushmaser and the Caiman here as soon as I have valuable opinion.


----------



## HemiSam

sorrodje said:


> My Beresford Caïman mkII has arrived yesterday.


 
  
 I've exchanged emails this very week with Stan about the Caiman MKii.  I'm VERY interested in this DAC and am seriously considering pulling the trigger soon.  I'm using a Woo WA7 for both DAC and amp sections and am wondering if I couldn't improve using the Caimain as the DAC into the Woo via analog cables.  Would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the Caiman.
  
  
  




  
 HS


----------



## xaval

sorrodje said:


> What do you listen to mostly ?
> 
> I'll give impressions about the Octave ,the bushmaser and the Caiman here as soon as I have valuable opinion.


 
 Mostly classic rock (60s-70s and some Rock FM 80s), Prog Metal/Rock, Jazz of all ages and some Classical with large orchestras. Check on sig thread "what I'm listening right now" as I post some of the stuff I go by.


----------



## SinSation

Any thoughts on Audio-GD DI-2014 compared with OR5? Sorry if I missed it.


----------



## hans030390

Here are my Yulong DA8 thoughts. Some similarities to what purrin found:

 - Surprisingly not grating on the ears, not lean sounding. If anything, a touch warm and thick.
 - Bass and low-mids have a nice sense of body to them, but, OTOH, are a bit muddy and could use some more kick down low.
 - Treble isn't hyper-detailed or sharp. Actually fairly smooth and easy to listen to, IMO, but I do sense a bit of treble thinness.
 - Some treble details get kinda lost. Not the most resolving DAC I've heard. Some treble details are brought to the forefront when they shouldn't be.
 - Soundstage is kinda small and intimate. Not a great sense of depth and layering or air. Related to some of the treble details being brought forward and some being left behind.
 - Kind of dynamically grey sounding. Just not the most lively DAC I've ever heard. But at least it's pretty easy to listen to.
 - I have a very hard time telling between the two filters. There is a bit of difference between slow + no jitter reduction compared to fast + jitter reduction on, but I've heard DACs where different filters are noticeably different sounding. Fast + jitter reduction might be a bit cleaner and more detailed sounding, maybe a touch more kick down low, maybe not. Honestly was hard for me to tell, so I wouldn't trust my thoughts on that.

 Not bad, enjoyable, fairly easy to listen to. Just quite too expensive for what you get. I didn't try the headphone amp on it yet, but I don't expect that to change my opinion on the overall value.


----------



## HemiSam

My Beresford Caiman Mkii showed up.  Burning it in now....
  

  

  
  
 Stan was great with all my questions and the Caiman was packed very well.  Arrived in less than a week.  Looking forward to get to know it.  Very early but I like the synergy between the Caiman, the Woo (as an amp) and the HD 650's.  Initially it sounds to be an improvement over the DAC built into the Woo WA7 but it's really early.
  
  
 HS


----------



## Chris J

hemisam said:


> My Beresford Caiman Mkii showed up.  Burning it in now....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Please keep us posted!
I'm thinking about getting a Caiman MK II myself.


----------



## HemiSam

chris j said:


> Please keep us posted!
> I'm thinking about getting a Caiman MK II myself.


 
  
  
 Will do, Chris.  It's early and I've only given it 8-10 hours of burn-in but I have to say, for the price point, this thing is pretty damned impressive so far.  I'm really digging my combination with a variety of music.
  
 HS


----------



## SearchOfSub

estreeter said:


> Where are you people getting your hands on the Lampizator DACs ? Every Aussie I know who has one has spent bucket loads of cash just getting the thing from Poland - is there a reseller network in the states ?





I heard the Lampi Big 7 at the Newport Beach show awhile back. It sounded great.


----------



## SearchOfSub

estreeter said:


> I'm curious - *how much time have you actually spent with the Hugo in your system* ? I've only heard two DACs that I would consider 'above average' - Weiss DAC202 via Firewire and the Hugo via coax. It's interesting that people who've never heard the Weiss immediately zero in on the unfortunate 'smiley face' then focus on the sticker - most have clearly never even heard it. If I could afford that DAC, I'd buy it in a heartbeat - regardless of purrin's opinion of the architecture - but I can't afford a ~7k DAC so I ended up with the Hugo. I have my own issues with the casework, but to dismiss it based purely on the aesthetics and a couple of unhappy campers is shortsighted IMO. I disagree with the designer on a couple of points but at the end of the day Chord shipped the product they believed best represented their quirky approach to something many of us take far too seriously.
> 
> As for your dismissal of the Berkeley based purely on it's sticker price, is there any chance that you could actually _audition_ the DAC prior to giving us your opinion ? I have no problem with the law of diminishing returns, but I do have a problem with people making broad-brush statements with no firsthand experience of a given product. Connaker has made no secret of his feelings for the Berkeley Audio Design product line, but he previously conceded that his Alpha had been toppled by the DAC202 - it would seem that BAD had to dip into the 'cost-no-object' bin to put themselves back on his top shelf.
> 
> ...






I think there are major differences in sound between dacs imo. I have heard the sabre dac which sound completely different from Arcam irDAC and PS Audio PWD MK2, Lampi Big 7 which sound different as well. It can very well be the ones that do not hear much difference from DACS have lesser transparent Int. Amps/speakers or system setup in general.

In my 2 channel setup, DACS brought big difference to sound coming out of my speakers. The PWD MK2 (not the upgrade from mk1 but orig. Mk2s) and the OPPO 105 sabre dac was the worst (oh sabre dac nightmare) perfectly unsuitable for music, but for HT, it might not suck as much if you are not into soundtracks. Still, the PRAT is what gets me the most about oppo implementation of sabre dac. It's horrible.

Arcam irDAC is a damn good dac for the price IMO and i would recommend it to anyonr..but I also haven't heard schitt dacs at the price point purrin mentioned on this thread so can't really compare.

But honestly, if I had PWD mk2 or oppo 105 in front of me, regardless of price, I'd go for the Arcam irDAC.

Lampi Big 7 is in another league though. First of all, it's away from solid state, stepping into tubes. So the sound is different from the foundation, many owners of lampis reviewers sound like they had a damn revelation or something listening to lampis, and I can kind of see why. Especially if you are coming from solid state. It's clean for tubes, with good soundstage and very very musical and involving. When I came out of lampis room at the Newport Beach show after about 15 minutes of listening, I got that feeling you get when you goto a theatre and watch a really engaging movie for 2 hours in the dark and step out, the normal outside world seems a little tiny bit surreal. A head change. I guess this is what the Lampi owners mean when they say it's revelatory LOL.

Chord Qutehd is full and balanced as well, but I like the Chord Hugo better. It's more transparent, have better tone, and is more delicate sounding. Or should I say more articulate? Anyway, it sounds more high end. More intimate. Bass is a little thin, but I think it was a compromise rob watts the designer made to give it such a big soundstage depth and air. A good DAC.

Now, with all these different sound signatures of dacs, I can tell right away the difference. Maybe it's the amp that I played on and speakers that is transparent that it's so revealing, but I do and can tell a difference. To a point where it would brake my system and get me cranky.

So I disagree with the original post saying after 500.00 price point of dacs, they all sound the same. They hardly do.


----------



## Priidik

hans030390 said:


> Here are my Yulong DA8 thoughts. Some similarities to what purrin found:
> 
> - Surprisingly not grating on the ears, not lean sounding. If anything, a touch warm and thick.
> - Bass and low-mids have a nice sense of body to them, but, OTOH, are a bit muddy and could use some more kick down low.
> ...


 
 Pretty much reflecting my thoughts as well.
 I think the overall package is decent for low-z headphones. The amp made me re-value RE400, for example. 
 Althought i wasn't impressed by it paired with HD800.


----------



## 62ohm

Purrin,
  
 May I ask what do you think about these DACs?
 -Arcam irDAC
 -Audiolab M-DAC
 -Rotel RDD-1580


----------



## kali77

Purrin- or anyone for that matter... Have you listened to the Benchmark Dac2 HGC? What are your thoughts? I recently picked one up and find it to be excellent. I'm surprised no one really talks about it here at head-fi, and am wondering if there is a reason or something I'm missing.

Thanks!


----------



## azteca x

kali77 said:


> Purrin- or anyone for that matter... Have you listened to the Benchmark Dac2 HGC? What are your thoughts? I recently picked one up and find it to be excellent. I'm surprised no one really talks about it here at head-fi, and am wondering if there is a reason or something I'm missing.
> 
> Thanks!


 
 I think a lot of people's impressions are it has very impressive specs on paper but ultimately isn't very involving or "musical" in timbre. I haven't heard it myself but I'm sure someone will pipe up.


----------



## kali77

azteca x said:


> I think a lot of people's impressions are it has very impressive specs on paper but ultimately isn't very involving or "musical" in timbre. I haven't heard it myself but I'm sure someone will pipe up.




I could see that. In my experience over the past few weeks, I have come to realize the benchmark plays the music as is, albeit extremely clean, it does not color the sound in anyway. Whereas other dacs I have heard can tend to influence the source material with there own sound, I.e warm, bass heavy, dark, etc. I suppose that is why I am enjoying the benchmark as I want to hear the source material as is.l


----------



## purrin

No heard any of the stuff mentioned above.


----------



## Greeni

I realise that this thread is not about digital transport, but I like to know more about your opinion of the PS Audio Perfectwave Transport. I am interested in this transport as it works differently than other CD players by first extracting music from the CD, then storing to an internal memory and playing from the memory instead of the disc, thus potentially can be used as a music server without the need of a PC.
  
 It appears to me that you do not have a high opinion of the PS Audio Perfectwave Transport when you wrote that "...the Perfectwave Transport via i2s isn't all that great. Actually it's incredibly average sounding in our comparison of five separate transports". Did you find the transport to sound pretty average only when it is used via i2s, or just plain average every other way?


----------



## reddog

greeni said:


> I realise that this thread is not about digital transport, but I like to know more about your opinion of the PS Audio Perfectwave Transport. I am interested in this transport as it works differently than other CD players by first extracting music from the CD, then storing to an internal memory and playing from the memory instead of the disc, thus potentially can be used as a music server without the need of a PC.
> 
> It appears to me that you do not have a high opinion of the PS Audio Perfectwave Transport when you wrote that "...the Perfectwave Transport via i2s isn't all that great. Actually it's incredibly average sounding in our comparison of five separate transports". Did you find the transport to sound pretty average only when it is used via i2s, or just plain average every other way?



That is a real good idea, I would love the folk at Schiit to implement some type of cd transport system. That could extract information and put it to a,mediums, which could range from a internal hard drive to a new 8 track/ digital tape format.


----------



## purrin

greeni said:


> I realise that this thread is not about digital transport, but I like to know more about your opinion of the PS Audio Perfectwave Transport. I am interested in this transport as it works differently than other CD players by first extracting music from the CD, then storing to an internal memory and playing from the memory instead of the disc, thus potentially can be used as a music server without the need of a PC.
> 
> It appears to me that you do not have a high opinion of the PS Audio Perfectwave Transport when you wrote that "...the Perfectwave Transport via i2s isn't all that great. Actually it's incredibly average sounding in our comparison of five separate transports". Did you find the transport to sound pretty average only when it is used via i2s, or just plain average every other way?


 
  
 PWT was used with i2s. It was in the middle of the pack with a bunch of other transports tested. A vintage Denon (Anax's - I can't recall model #), and a Marantz CD5004 (light mods) beat it using SPDIF. This all to a PWD1 upgraded to 2. Keep in mind that the PWT with its "digital lens" worked more ideally with the PWD1. The PWD2 included in the digital lens (or FIFO buffer) via NativeX, hence the PWD1 buffer was redundant.


----------



## korolev

hello there 
  
 i hope to ask if an integrated tube amp should be matched with a tube dac?
 i currently use the jds labs standalone odac with an arcam alpha 5 integrated amp.
 however, i have plans to switch to a tube amp later part of the year.
  
 thank you!


----------



## kazsud

purrin said:


> PWT was used with i2s. It was in the middle of the pack with a bunch of other transports tested. A vintage Denon (Anax's - I can't recall model #), and a Marantz CD5004 (light mods) beat it using SPDIF. This all to a PWD1 upgraded to 2. Keep in mind that the PWT with its "digital lens" worked more ideally with the PWD1. The PWD2 included in the digital lens (or FIFO buffer) via NativeX, hence the PWD1 buffer was redundant.




What is NativeX? Also is there any literature on the filters?
I just got a used PWD MkII friday.


----------



## Argo Duck

"Should be"? No, not at all. It can and does work, but IMHO there's enough work finding the right tubes for _one_ piece of gear. Across two pieces produces many more tube combinations to test :eek:




korolev said:


> hello there
> 
> i hope to ask if an integrated tube amp *should be* matched with a tube dac?
> i currently use the jds labs standalone odac with an arcam alpha 5 integrated amp.
> ...


----------



## jacal01

purrin said:


> PWT was used with i2s. It was in the middle of the pack with a bunch of other transports tested. A vintage Denon (Anax's - I can't recall model #), and a Marantz CD5004 (light mods) beat it using SPDIF. This all to a PWD1 upgraded to 2. Keep in mind that the PWT with its "digital lens" worked more ideally with the PWD1. The PWD2 included in the digital lens (or FIFO buffer) via NativeX, hence the PWD1 buffer was redundant.


 
  
 If that was a Denon DP-S1, then that's kinda like apples and oranges.  The Marantz CD5004 I find kinda hard to believe, but who knows?  What were modded, the caps?


----------



## purrin

The Marantz actually has low jitter per per JA / Stereophile measurements. Basically mass loaded chassis and crucial parts of the CD mechanism with strips of lead, metal, roofing material. Put the transformers on rubber washers. Pulled power to parts of the player which weren't necessary for its use as a transport.


----------



## mkrzych

chris j said:


> Please keep us posted!
> I'm thinking about getting a Caiman MK II myself.


 
 Hello,
 If you or someone is interested in CMII here is my sort of review and discussion: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?34608-Caiman-MKII-first-impressions
 Certainly much better than previous 7520 with Gator and mods. Recently I see some issue described here http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-2-0-a-21673/index44.html#post361205 post nr 1080 and here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?34676-CMII-LED-blinking, maybe it's software maybe not. Don't know yet, so if you have any idea I will be very happy.


----------



## commtrd

purrin said:


> priidik said:
> 
> 
> > Does the Gungnir Gen2 USB fare better in microdetails, than DA8? How is overal detail extraction between the two?
> ...


 
 +1 on Wyrd with Gungnir gen2 upgrade. Really enhanced the presentation a lot.


----------



## Chris J

mkrzych said:


> Hello,
> If you or someone is interested in CMII here is my sort of review and discussion: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?34608-Caiman-MKII-first-impressions
> Certainly much better than previous 7520 with Gator and mods. Recently I see some issue described here http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/audirvana-2-0-a-21673/index44.html#post361205 post nr 1080 and here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?34676-CMII-LED-blinking, maybe it's software maybe not. Don't know yet, so if you have any idea I will be very happy.




Not exactly a glowing review! :confused_face_2:


----------



## Argo Duck

^ So the Caiman mk II DAC is great but the hp out pretty bad (with Grado 325i)...fair summary?


----------



## HemiSam

I didn't have an issue with the HP out of my Caiman MkII.  I prefer to use it sending an analog signal to my Woo WA7 which has a better amp section and plugging in my cans to the Woo so that's how I use it, but I listened straight out of the 1/4" HP out and didn't have a similar issue.
  
 HS


----------



## purrin

Updated the first post. Created a special Class E for Exceptional stuff: two vintage DACs from the 1990s. My journey is effectively over and I am totally and utterly disgusted at the state of the hi-fi industry, especially in regards to modern DACs where we seem to have gone a step or two backwards in 20 years.
  
If you asked someone, even just ten years ago about the Theta Gen V - how good it was - the reply would have typically been: "Oh, that's an old DAC, all the new DACs we have now are so much better with newer technology."
  
My ass.
  
In my state of disgust toward the hi-fi industry that wants to push crappier sounding stuff at higher prices, I refuse to write any more about, much less listen to sigma-delta DACs, PCM1704 based DACs (since there are probably something like 87 chips left in the world), other DACs based on industrial R2R chips with bad looking INL plots, or DACs based on discrete resistors where I am almost certain it would be impossible to achieve over 12 real bits. I already know these DACs will not hold a candle to the vintage 1990s R2R DACs. There is no point.
  
THE END.
  
Thanks to everyone who contributed and sent me stuff to listen to.


----------



## Maxvla

The King is dead, long live the King! 

So now that we've taken 2 dozen steps backwards in the last 20 years, we're just in time for some early 20th century math to fix Schiit once and for all.


----------



## hans030390

To be brief, I got an old-school DAC after reading purrin's thoughts on a vintage DAC to see if he was onto something. I can't speak for all of the vintage DACs with these supposedly-awesome chips (UltraAnalog modules, PCM63 or similar, AD1862, TDA1541A, etc.), but I think there may be something to them indeed that has been lost in the past couple decades.


----------



## Audio Jester

hans030390 said:


> To be brief, I got an old-school DAC after reading purrin's thoughts on a vintage DAC to see if he was onto something. I can't speak for all of the vintage DACs with these supposedly-awesome chips (UltraAnalog modules, PCM63 or similar, AD1862, TDA1541A, etc.), but I think there may be something to them indeed that has been lost in the past couple decades.



+1. I am in the same boat. I have been schooled and am thankful for it.


----------



## kothganesh

audio jester said:


> +1. I am in the same boat. I have been schooled and am thankful for it.


 

 Got to wait for the Yggy; you guys are extremely quick to snag the vintage DACs, well done.


----------



## mkrzych

Hello,
 The headphone out on Caiman II is very good and not stock faulty, but in my case needed some tuning (correction) - after that the quality is back to my taste. Your miles may vary of course.
 It's built with very high speed opamp with slew rate way above the high resolution requirements and can drive even 600Ohm cans when changing gain resistors to higher values.
  
 Overall, it is very good product and with its price extremely valuable. I can recommend it, if you're on budget. It's musical, detailed and spacious sounding DAC.


----------



## mkrzych

hemisam said:


> I didn't have an issue with the HP out of my Caiman MkII.  I prefer to use it sending an analog signal to my Woo WA7 which has a better amp section and plugging in my cans to the Woo so that's how I use it, but I listened straight out of the 1/4" HP out and didn't have a similar issue.
> 
> HS


 
 The "issue" is not for stock item. Mine just needed some correction and changes to make it sounds to my taste. Do you happen to use Audirvana Plus for playing the music and toslink out?


----------



## estreeter

jacal01 said:


> If that was a Denon DP-S1, then that's kinda like apples and oranges.  The Marantz CD5004 I find kinda hard to believe, but who knows?  What were modded, the caps?


 
  
 I don't find it hard to believe - Marantz have been building disc spinners for a long time and I'd imagine their engineers picked up a thing or two back in the Philips era - easy to forget how much work Philips put into the humble CDP. Lampi's site isn't going to win any design awards but if purrin is convinced that the best DAC technology was left back in the 90s, this isn't completely OT - 
  
 http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/REFERENCES/Philips%20CD751/Philips_tda1549.html
  
 http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/REFERENCES/Marantz%20CD5000/marantz5000.html
  
 No idea how many here heard the TDA1549 but it certainly seems to have had an impression on Lukasz.


----------



## HemiSam

mkrzych said:


> The "issue" is not for stock item. Mine just needed some correction and changes to make it sounds to my taste. Do you happen to use Audirvana Plus for playing the music and toslink out?


 
  
 I do not.  I play mostly CD quality files out of iTunes from either my MacAir or my iPad mini via a USB cable.  With the iPad mini into the Caiman I need to use the Camera Converter Kit (lighting to female USB to avoid the dreaded insufficient power message).  Then I transfer the analog signal via RCA's to my Woo WA7 for amping....love the Woo.
  
 HS


----------



## Currawong

I remember I think it was computerparts who came to the same conclusion and bought an Audio Note DAC in the end. 
  
 Let me know if I should lock this thread or keep it open.


----------



## fzman

I vote for keeping it open. -- it's been informative, non-hostile, and helpful


----------



## mkrzych

hemisam said:


> I do not.  I play mostly CD quality files out of iTunes from either my MacAir or my iPad mini via a USB cable.  With the iPad mini into the Caiman I need to use the Camera Converter Kit (lighting to female USB to avoid the dreaded insufficient power message).  Then I transfer the analog signal via RCA's to my Woo WA7 for amping....love the Woo.
> 
> HS


 
 OK, thank you.


----------



## Byrnie

currawong said:


> I remember I think it was computerparts who came to the same conclusion and bought an Audio Note DAC in the end.
> 
> Let me know if I should lock this thread or keep it open.



Wait why would it need to be locked?


----------



## StefanJK

> Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Let me know if I should lock this thread or keep it open.


 
 Where did this come from?  Is this some site glitch, posting old posts?


----------



## wnmnkh

currawong said:


> I remember I think it was computerparts who came to the same conclusion and bought an Audio Note DAC in the end.
> 
> Let me know if I should lock this thread or keep it open.


 
  
 Yes, and that DAC uses yet another obsolete r2r DAC chip as well.
  
 You might not want to lock the thread, since another 'Class E'  DAC, which is not-out-of-production, is coming soon, and I am sure purrin has a lot to say about it....


----------



## HemiSam

currawong said:


> I remember I think it was computerparts who came to the same conclusion and bought an Audio Note DAC in the end.
> 
> *Let me know if I should lock this thread or keep it open.*


 
  
 NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!  Why so quick to want to lock down a great thread.  I'm late to the game, I appreciate, so I'm soaking all this stuff up.  Be gentle....
  
  




  
 HS


----------



## ciphercomplete

Yeah don't close it unless we get some petty folks who want to attack Purrin's reviews/opinions.  Alot of us have heard these dacs listed and a good discussion can still be had even though Purrin has retired .  
  
 I really appreciate Purrin's last update even though lots of people have come to that conclusion before.  I'm just bummed a bit because alot of these vintage dacs were flooding the market 5-6 years ago and I never thought to give them a shot because of all the hype around the latest and greatest.  And now I'm sitting here with a in production dac with a vintage chip lol.


----------



## Byrnie

byrnie said:


> Wait why would it need to be locked?




My mistake, I must have missed purrin's recent post. I think it should still be left open for discussion.


----------



## cooperpwc

No one has to convince me of the benefits of old R2R DACs. USB Monica has been in the house since 2008 - using a chip from the 1990s and really brought to life again by the Schiit Wyrd. Long live the Philips TDA1545A.
  

  
 As for discreet resistor ladders not performing beyond 12 bits, we will see. That is what I am investigating now.


----------



## ciphercomplete

Who makes (or will make) a discrete resistor ladder dac?


----------



## RudeWolf

ciphercomplete said:


> Who makes (or will make) a discrete resistor ladder dac?


 
  
 Check out DiyAudio.


----------



## purrin

cooperpwc said:


> As for discreet resistor ladders not performing beyond 12 bits, we will see. That is what I am investigating now.


 
  
 To be more clear, its a combination of bits and error. It's easy to say 16 bits, but you when look at the error for each bitcode and its up to 8 LSBs, that's not a good thing. In other words, it's bits and linearity (INL - output vs. bitcode, not the Stereophile kind of linearity measurements which are different).* The proof will be in how resolving the DAC sounds.* This only matters  of course if resolution is a priority. I know many people prefer the older R2R DACs because they don't have that sigma-delta hashy sound.
  
 These vintage R2R DACs, properly implemented, can be just as resolving as modern day DACs. Drop in a pair of the old UltraAnalog modules or quadruple up PCM64 chips.


----------



## estreeter

ciphercomplete said:


> Who makes (or will make) a discrete resistor ladder dac?


 
  
  

  
 No - it's not a 2-box solution, although I'm sure some here would definitely go for a dCS-style stack - I just couldn't see Jason and Mike doing that to us,


----------



## hans030390

One of the most, if not THE most, resolving DAC I've heard thus far is a 20yo DAC (was a TOTL model back then) using UltraAnalog chips. Classe Audio DAC-1. However I might try to sell it and get something warmer and more rolled-off, for a variety of reasons that boil down to personal needs and tastes. I was floored when I heard it, though. Oh, and I took measurements of it, and it still measures like a TOTL DAC despite being limited to 16/48 max.


----------



## ciphercomplete

estreeter said:


> No - it's not a 2-box solution, although I'm sure some here would definitely go for a dCS-style stack - I just couldn't see Jason and Mike doing that to us,


 
 I did not know that.  I must have skipped that post in the Schiit thread.


----------



## purrin

I figure I should add an epilogue so people don't take me the wrong way. What I am trying to do is raise awareness.
  
I'm not saying "find a vintage DAC" or "it sucks to be you". Every vintage DAC is in fact a time bomb waiting to fail. Heat, dried up caps, shorted parts, etc. These vintage DACs are from twenty years ago.
  
What I'm saying is let's wake up and stop the wool from being pulled over our eyes. I take a look at 95%+ of the current production DACs, and realize that an electronic noob like me could make one of them. It's a matter of putting the lego pieces together. I'll get back to this later...
  
Sigma-delta DACs came out in twenty some years ago because they were cheaper to make. Not because they sounded better. I remember that time and the marketing BS around these single-bit (or hybrid variant) DACs: the BS that I read in the Crutchfield catalogs as a teen, etc. And I ate it all up.
  
Yes, early CD players sounded like ****. But there was a lot of great stuff being developed by the late 80s and early 90s. Lots of great high-end DACs in the 90s. Unfortunately, the high-end never trickled down to the entry level because of sigma-delta took over the universe. Sony has more than happy to cram this down our throats. BB and AD were happy that DAC chips were not much easier to manufacture. Even now, most of the high-end consists of sigma-delta designs.
  
I understand the need for sigma-delta on the low-end. There's no way around that. But the question is what about the middle tier? I know there are plenty of people who are willing to pay $800 or over for a good DAC. And I don't buy the excuse R2R DACs are too expensive to make. That excuse is totally lame.
  
As consumers what we need to do is call manufacturers out on their **** and them tell "Hey, we know what good sound sounds like, and this ain't it." or "Stop making DACs that a noob like me can make." Put in some R&D effort. Think creatively. Think out-of-the-box. Do we really need yet another SABRE DAC for $799, $1299, $2999? 
  
And by the way, this is where DSD comes in. DSD is simply a way for the manufacturers to obfuscate the real issues behind the sound quality (lack thereof) of modern DACs. 
  
I hope readers realize how ridiculous it is that I began a search for DACs in 2013 and ended up in 1993.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Wry grin.

Although I don't have access to (good) vintage gear to hear the proof of the pudding, the above unfortunately sounds all too plausible.

I have high hopes of Yggy, if only because it seems to me Mike and Jason always have been and are still "out of the box" thinkers (even if they suffered a bit of frustration and delay getting it all "in the box" in 2014 )


----------



## Currawong

argo duck said:


> ^ Wry grin.
> 
> Although I don't have access to (good) vintage gear to hear the proof of the pudding, the above unfortunately sounds all too plausible.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Likewise. The Theta DACs are going for $8k on the 'gon, so if they can do the same or better for $2k, then that's a huge win.


----------



## Clemmaster

currawong said:


> Likewise. The Theta DACs are going for $8k on the 'gon, so if they can do the same or better for $2k, then that's a huge win.


 
 It's a Theta gen VIII. Marv's has a cheaper gen V that costed somewhere around ~$4,000 back then.
 Not improbable to be able to build the equivalent for half the money today.


----------



## purrin

The Gen V or VA are the ones to get. $1400-$2200 depending upon condition. Again, given their age, not a wise choice unless you can repair yourself. Parts of the analog section do get hot. A bad tantalum cap next to a PCM63 chip will kill it. Might be good to have a few PCM63s around too.


----------



## estreeter

I see the whole sigma-delta thing as no different to the fact that the music industry took us from vinyl to CD to digital downloads - it would all be 128K MP3s if the suits had their way. What is surprising is the fact that even the boutique operations which have persisted with SACD players don't seem to have skipped a beat when the R2R DACs were replaced by TI and Philips. I guess they were forced to make do with whatever came down the pike, but allow me a small detour.
  
 Charlie Hansen bought up the remaining stockpile of Toshiba FETs because he's not prepared to risk the sound of Ayre's amps changing in the middle of a production run _simply because Toshiba no longer make that part _- I can't link to that but it's buried in a thread on the QB9DSD at CA. I can't recall what his stance is on multi-bit DACs but he was very outspoken about DSD - seemingly an odd position for someone designing a DSD-capable DAC - but my point is that _I doubt a larger operation would have even considered throwing capital at an obsolete part simply to indulge an engineer's passion for his products_. To the bean counters, it's all just part numbers and manufacturing schedules - we've all seen the 'specifications subject to change without notice' disclaimers on various product pages.
  
 Mike clearly has the resources to build his baby, but I'm pessimistic as to whether or not this will spur others to go down the same path. He freely admits that Yggy has been a challenge - hopefully he has sorted the latest board revisions and the other issues post-RMAF and we'll see a Yggy beta in early 2015.


----------



## estreeter

clemmaster said:


> It's a Theta gen VIII. Marv's has a cheaper gen V that costed somewhere around ~$4,000 back then.
> Not improbable to be able to build the equivalent for half the money today.


 
  
 If Schiit can ship Yggy for less than 3K USD, I'll take my hat off to them. I know that's higher than the initial projection, but I guess we'll know in a few months.


----------



## mtruong34

My current favorite DAC is the dcs 954 (pro version of dcs Delius Plus) which first came out late 90's.  Based on dcs proprietary ring DAC, it's beaten out many modern DACs in my system including Bryston BDA-1, Weiss DAC202, Eximus DP-1, Modwright Platinum Transporter, etc.
  
 No matter what other modern DAC I might try in the future, the dcs 954 will always remain as a benchmark sanity check to see if technology is really giving us anything better.


----------



## MohawkUS

Count me glad that I stopped by head-fi today, and thanks to Purrin for sharing your experiences. In the past few years I've wondered if most of the technological advances with modern DACs & exactly what is being charged for with them are for advancements regarding getting a clean jitter free input. Considering you have what may be the best USB converter on the market(the OR5) I'm not too surprised that you would be getting more for your money with vintage DACs over modern designs. The priorities of the engineers are different as these days we have 'sloppy' computer transports to account for. The DACs that score the highest marks seem to be those best isolated against the hash generated by computer transports rather than those which simply have the best designed converter and output stage.

I don't think this should be overlooked, though computer playback has come a long way with different software players and people building specialized playback machines(read low power/fanless/filtered power) I suspect most designers are designing their product to sound good with your standard laptop or consumer class machine filled to the brim with bloatware. Such is what will be utilized at shows and what will be brought into audio stores(the ones that still exist) to try out new products.

My point is that if you're shopping for a modern USB input DAC that you should be looking at it as more than a DAC, it's that as well as a 'USB converter/decrapifier.' If you already have a standalone converter you're simply paying for the same thing twice or paying for a feature that you won't be using, which explains not getting the performance you were expecting.


That being said I have a mid 80s CD player, and to be realistic here it's a mass produced Toshiba full of JRC op-amps and other budget components. It isn't embarrassed by the modern gear I have heard, or at least it isn't as far behind as you'd want to think it is. One of my more memorable listening experiences was through this CD player(2 years ago,) give it the right album and it can really shine. Detail and timbre wise it performs above or equal to the various DACs I have heard in the $500-1500 range though it is extremely unforgiving of source material. I am not surprised in the least that a well designed DAC with high part quality of the era can perform exceptionally when not burdened with having to filter out the hash from a poor input signal.


----------



## jacal01

ciphercomplete said:


> Who makes (or will make) a discrete resistor ladder dac?


 
  
 I sure there are more around, but 3 I know of in current production are:
  
 MSB Analog/Platinum/Diamond/Select
 Rockna Wavedream
 Totaldac d1
 Nagra HD-DAC (added for completeness this post - re. arnaud's post #1698)
 Light Harmonic Da Vinci
  
 And o'course the upcoming Schiit Yggy which everyone is familiar with.
 EDIT: With subsequent recalibration, I now stand corrected: an R2R DAC chip (not PCM1704).


----------



## Clemmaster

The Ygg is not a discrete ladder DAC as far as I know?


----------



## jacal01

Supposed to be.  Certainly it was alluded to that way.  But otherwise, what multi-bit chip would they use?  Mike has already said that the PCM1704 was ass (compared to the PCM63 he used in the Theda).  And the PCM1704 is fastly becoming extinct as well.


----------



## purrin

LOL, you guys are funny. So many clues: Yggy guts photo, stuff about high voltages, missiles hitting hospitals, etc.


----------



## jacal01

Not all 'you guys'.  There seems to be a ongoing significant assimilation lag function on the Yggy discrete resistor ladder design information.  I suspect sporatic thread reading/participation.
  
 Speaking of flying missiles, OT o' the day is that seismic design and certification does not entail continued operational integrity after an event, but only that the equipment remains moored and does not become a flying missile wrecking havoc.
  
 Yggy guts photo linky?


----------



## StefanJK

Well, the Yggy board photo I've seen is a bit too small to be useful: "very deliberately small, so no early leaks about tech..."


----------



## jacal01

Yeah, methinks purrin is privy to some offline additional info that he's blurring the distinction on for us regular folk.


----------



## aive

purrin said:


> LOL, you guys are funny. So many clues: Yggy guts photo, stuff about high voltages, missiles hitting hospitals, etc.


 

 What does that even mean? I'm guessing some industrial mil-spec DAC chips?


----------



## jacal01

*groan*
  
 EDIT:  We (I) could/should have known at this point re. an Oct. 20th John H. Darko/Digital Audio review of the Schiit exhibit at Canjam '14, whereby it's stated Mike Moffat has opted for a non off-the-shelf decoder chip "...from medical electronics and weapons systems."


----------



## estreeter

aive said:


> What does that even mean? I'm guessing some industrial mil-spec DAC chips?


 
  
 Mike has only written 24 posts here, and several of them give an insight into his thoughts on multi bit vs sigma-delta chips.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/u/181024/baldr
  
 The missile reference refers to the accuracy of the multi bit chips vs their competition - if you designed a missile-guidance system using a sigma-delta chip there is every chance that you'd take out a hospital instead of an enemy position. Given that various armed forces have done precisely that over the years, one can only surmise that they went with the lowest quote on their missile systems.


----------



## fzman

estreeter said:


> Mike has only written 24 posts here, and several of them give an insight into his thoughts on multi bit vs sigma-delta chips.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/u/181024/baldr
> 
> The missile reference refers to the accuracy of the multi bit chips vs their competition - if you designed a missile-guidance system using a sigma-delta chip there is every chance that you'd take out a hospital instead of an enemy position. Given that various armed forces have done precisely that over the years, one can only surmise that they went with the lowest quote on their missile systems.


 
  
 Gives new meaning to the phrase 'sabre-rattling"?!


----------



## jacal01

Bedpan rattling.


----------



## estreeter

I liked the quote from the NASA guy after one of their rockets blew up recently - I don't have the exact wording but it was very close to '_Hey, this rocket stuff is really, really hard _!'.  Perhaps that was the problem with the PCM63 - improving on it was going to be really, really hard so they moved on.


----------



## jacal01

No, as purrin explained, it was pretty much economics driven, with the delta-sigma DAC chips and their implementation so much cheaper, starting at the bottom tier and perculating up, as multi-bit became increasing niche with the additional cost, especially discrete R2R.


----------



## arnaud

jacal01 said:


> I sure there are more around, but 3 I know of in current production are:
> 
> MSB Analog/Platinum/Diamond/Select
> Rockna Wavedream
> ...


 

 I remember an interview from 6 months ago  (web interview by enjoy the music) where Audio Note was working on a discrete ladder dac, using it's own uber dupper resistor. Per the head of the company, prototype was leagues better than current TOTL offering from Audio Note, which was almost embarrassing as projected cost would be much lower. I thought it was planned for a fall release but looks like not, haven't heard anything since.
  
 Also, isn't the Nagra HD-DAC discrete ladder type? Can't see anything about the DAC module from pics as it's encaged but I thought I read something like this.
  
 Schiit Audio must be using an industrial chip in the same fashion as Metrum. There's no way they could sell a discrete R2R at projected price if resistors were anywhere near precise enough for the task (I recall at least 1/3 of the cost of a Total-DAC D1 is in the laser trimmed resistors, it might be even higher ratio in the balanced version of the circuit...).


----------



## estreeter

jacal01 said:


> No, as purrin explained, it was pretty much economics driven, with the delta-sigma DAC chips and their implementation so much cheaper, starting at the bottom tier and perculating up, as multi-bit became increasing niche with the additional cost, especially discrete R2R.


 
  
 I suspect that you took my last comment a little too seriously - I completely get the economic angle and I know it wouldn't have been the engineers who decided to move on.


----------



## jacal01

arnaud said:


> Schiit Audio must be using an industrial chip in the same fashion as Metrum. There's no way they could sell a discrete R2R at projected price if resistors were anywhere near precise enough for the task (I recall at least 1/3 of the cost of a Total-DAC D1 is in the laser trimmed resistors, it might be even higher ratio in the balanced version of the circuit...).


 
  
 But totaldac is not out of the realm of mid-tier pricing, and Rockna approaches MSB territory, but not as drastic an entry level.
  
 I speculated early on that 21st century laser trimming might reduce the cost of realizing finely matched resistors, leading to an 'economy of scale' cost reduction that would make the discrete resistor ladder topology cheap enough for the likes of Schiit.  Jason stated that the technology has just now arrived where Mike can finally produce his ideal DAC of yore, making me think that I may be on the right track.  Or purrin may have the right of it when he said that 12 bit resolution is about all that can be practically achieved from the discrete resistor D/A conversion, and Mike deciding that even at that level of resolution, it'll sound so much better than the competing 'ass' delta-sigma DACs at that price break.
  
 I took purrin's allusion to the high voltage hint to mean that the analog signal strength retained through discrete resistor conversion would be so much higher than that which IC chip conversion would allow.  I just wisht that he would just come out and tell us straightforward what he knows about the Yggy or his best educated guess at this point.  Maybe Jason has extracted from him a non-disclosure agreement when he visited with them.


----------



## arnaud

The comment on technology getting available refers to the digital reconstruction filters I recall, in particular the dso horsepower required to use very large tap filters (to achieve these "ideal" filter characteristics mike was referring to).

The comment about large output voltages from the D/A stage, does point to the use of an industrial, non audio specific chip...


----------



## Wildcatsare1

estreeter said:


> Mike has only written 24 posts here, and several of them give an insight into his thoughts on multi bit vs sigma-delta chips.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/u/181024/baldr
> 
> The missile reference refers to the accuracy of the multi bit chips vs their competition - if you designed a missile-guidance system using a sigma-delta chip there is every chance that you'd take out a hospital instead of an enemy position. Given that various armed forces have done precisely that over the years, one can only surmise that they went with the lowest quote on their missile systems.




Careful there Buckeheat, not true, number 1, a bit too political for Head Fi, number 2.


----------



## purrin

Hahaha. I never signed a non-disclosure agreement. However, I have made several guesses based on the existing public information and I have attempted to bait Jason or Mike into revealing more. And while I have heard the Yggy in its current iteration, I have not seen the insides of it other than the photo Jason posted.
  
 I have some ideas what their approach might be. I figure its more fun if I let you guys figure it out. There lots of ways to skin the R2R cat.


----------



## jacal01

Easy for you to say.


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> Hahaha. I never signed a non-disclosure agreement. However, I have made several guesses based on the existing public information and I have attempted to bait Jason or Mike into revealing more. And while I have heard the Yggy in its current iteration, I have not seen the insides of it other than the photo Jason posted.
> 
> I have some ideas what their approach might be. I figure its more fun if I let you guys figure it out. There lots of ways to *skin *the R2R cat.


 
 You mean trim, right?


----------



## BirdManOfCT

32-bit ladder DAC, power consumption 750W, portable, $15,000. Right?


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> The comment about large output voltages from the D/A stage, does point to the use of an industrial, non audio specific chip...


 
  
 Lots of issues with that too. Non audio chips have glitch impulse behaviors, difficulty of loading bytes/word, etc.


----------



## aive

arnaud said:


> The comment on technology getting available refers to the digital reconstruction filters I recall, in particular the dso horsepower required to use very large tap filters (to achieve these "ideal" filter characteristics mike was referring to).
> 
> The comment about large output voltages from the D/A stage, does point to the use of an industrial, non audio specific chip...




Yeh this is what I think but I don't know much and can't infer anything from the photos


----------



## purrin

other than it doesn't look like this:


----------



## purrin

or have any parts like this:
  

  
 or mystery modules like this:
  

  
 or this:
  

  
 However, the boards look like it's possible that they could have this:
  

  
 which would probably make me do this:


----------



## estreeter

wildcatsare1 said:


> Careful there Buckeheat, not true, number 1, a bit too political for Head Fi, number 2.


 
  
 1. I based that on Mike's posts on the subject - as I've never worked in that domain I have no practical knowledge of the accuracy of the sigma-delta chip
  
 2. It's pretty clear to most that my reference to 'armed forces' was deliberately vague - in any case, you've been here since _January_ (resurrection or no) and you're telling me that something is 'too political for Head-Fi' ?? I'll leave that call to the mods.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

^ Point taken, my apologies, I am extremely tired of politics, cannot wait for November 5th!


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> Lots of issues with that too. Non audio chips have glitch impulse behaviors, difficulty of loading bytes/word, etc.


 

 I think it's a stupid idea but - assuming precision is measured in terms of absolute Vout for a given quantization rather than relative voltage between quantizations (I think it's relative voltage that matters though) - can't we alleviate the burden of having high precision trimmed resistor working on low voltage signal by using high voltage signal and then passing it through an attenuator for the line out?
  
 For example, using 1% precision resistor and 100V, we get +/-1V precision. But assuming output voltage needs to be dropped to 1V, we're at +/-10mV precision using the same .
  
 I have a feeling this is really really silly (we're still no better than 1% precision on the 1V output...), but that's what you get when you ask non E.E. people to take guesses at electronics circuits 
  
 arnaud


----------



## aive

arnaud said:


> I have a feeling this is really really silly (we're still no better than 1% precision on the 1V output...), but that's what you get when you ask non E.E. people to take guesses at electronics circuits
> 
> arnaud


 
  
 Sad thing is I'm an EE and I still have no idea what purrin is on about...


----------



## StefanJK

As a complete non-EE person (who does write some linear filter code in other settings), I vote for 'software trimming'.  If you can do a good one-time calibration with good measurement tools, you can undo the hardware errors.  Just my guess from my parochial perspective.  Obviously some implementation issues, but I'd not be stunned if those can be overcome by people who know what they are doing.
  
 Update: not too surprisingly, it seems that some version of software calibration is already done (for lower resolution DACs), for instance here.  A more sophisticated version (with more redundant DAC parts?) should be able to get you to higher resolution.


----------



## jacal01

purrin said:


> other than it doesn't look like this:


 
  


purrin said:


> or have any parts like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
OK. I'll play.
1.  Whoa.  A real live discrete resistor ladder DAC circuit layout?! GOK which vintage DAC it's from if so. And there's no clue as to how long the TI HC754 data flip-flop chip has been around. 
2.  Appears to be some MSB speced resistor block/module (Vishay?), but I don't see any leads, so it might be some sort of assemblage, like:
3.  The MSB Platinum R2R DAC module (complete). 
4.  This one is intriguing; a parts connexion DAC module replacement for the UltraAnalog 20400A multi-bit chip, and still available! Altho at $250 a pop, it'd seem strictly relegated to DIY efforts.  Wonder if one can get a quantity discount break...
5.  Sabre!  Nooooooo…..  Nice Munchage.
  
But you're right.  The Yggy board photo shot shows sundry caps, but no kind of a resistor array like your first photo.  It'd almost seem to have to be some kind of multi-bit R2R chip solution, like that square thing in the middle that reminds you of the Sabre chip.  
  
It does make you wonder if aive and arnaud do have the right of it; that maybe Mike has managed to source a huge inventory of industrial or military multi-bit R2R chips for cheap that'll actually make audio spec, like Jason did with his Vali subminiature amp tube bulk buy.  And Mike's experience at Theta is with R2R chip circuitry, rather than discrete resistor ladders, altho that means hardly anything in the present context.
  
But I see what you've been doing; trying to match the square chip profile in the Yggy middle section with the usual and unusual multi-bit R2R chip suspects.  Any luck?   Sourcing a large volume inventory or open stock R2R chip, which are by and large pretty extinct beasts nowadays, for an upcoming production DAC does seem to be the tipping point.


----------



## jacal01

arnaud said:


> Also, isn't the Nagra HD-DAC discrete ladder type? Can't see anything about the DAC module from pics as it's encaged but I thought I read something like this.


 
  
 I believe you're right; I'm reading a 6 moons review that states it as using a discrete R2R for PCM conversion. Interestingly, it also says that it separately realizes true single bit DSD conversion via FPGA programming.  Sounds right to me.  A mere $25K.
  
 Also, I've learned that the PCM1704 is still readily available for current DAC products, only its price has dramatically increased.  Anyway, it's not square...  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 But you know, thinking on it, the single middle square chip probably is the DSP processor.  You need 2 or 4 of those oblong DAC chip suckers to make a balanced output, and I'm not seeing any of that.  I vote underneath the USB input converter board.


----------



## Currawong

Now if the largest chip on the DAC board is an FPGA....
  
 I know it is not uncommon for the better than average DAC makers to use an off-the-shelf DAC, but none of the built-in filters, instead programming their own. However, Mike has said that the Yggy will keep all the bits going through, so he must have programmed _something_ I reckon.


----------



## purrin

jacal01 said:


> But I see what you've been doing; trying to match the square chip profile in the Yggy middle section with the usual and unusual multi-bit R2R chip suspects.  Any luck?   Sourcing a large volume inventory or open stock R2R chip, which are by and large pretty extinct beasts nowadays, for an upcoming production DAC does seem to be the tipping point.


 
  
 Yup. Now you know what I was thinking. No luck though. As I've said, been trying to bait Jason and Mike. They don't budge.
  


jacal01 said:


> Also, I've learned that the PCM1704 is still readily available for current DAC products, only its price has dramatically increased.  Anyway, it's not square...


 
  
 I don't think the Schiit guys are big fans of the PCM1704. I'm sure the constant availability/retirement alerts wouldn't give any manufacturer confidence to base a product off of it. Based on DACs that I've heard (and there are always good, mediocre, and bad implementations), I'm beginning to think the PCM63 was the pinnacle of DAC chips. Another favorite would be the UltraAnalog, with the UltraAnalog being smoother and organic, and the PCM63 being cleaner and more precise. All PCM1704 implementations had at least some murkiness in the bass and a tendency of sounding soft.
  


currawong said:


> Now if the largest chip on the DAC board is an FPGA....
> 
> I know it is not uncommon for the better than average DAC makers to use an off-the-shelf DAC, but none of the built-in filters, instead programming their own. However, Mike has said that the Yggy will keep all the bits going through, so he must have programmed _something_ I reckon.


 
  
 You look at what Theta (Gen VIII does not count) did in the past which was different from most of their competitors. I was curious about certain special sonic qualities of the Gen V and Mike told me _[redacted] _I grabbed the Gen V on the hunch there would be some similarities with the Yggy because I wanted an Yggy-like DAC before Q1 2015. It turns out _[redacted]_


----------



## jacal01

currawong said:


> Now if the largest chip on the DAC board is an FPGA....
> 
> I know it is not uncommon for the better than average DAC makers to use an off-the-shelf DAC, but none of the built-in filters, instead programming their own. However, Mike has said that the Yggy will keep all the bits going through, so he must have programmed _something_ I reckon.


 
  
 Jason already said that they are using programmed DSP and not FPGA for filtering.  But yeah, the DSP chip would be large and square, too.
  
 I'm looking at the mil spec DAC8581, altho the datasheet is stamped that it's not recommended for new designs (new replacement chip?) and I'm not sure it's even suitable for audio application.  What's the difference in SQ between 'resistor string' and 'resistor ladder'?  2 aspects of it that is intriguing, tho, is that it calls for an off-chip digital filter, such as the DSP that Schiit is implementing, and that it allows for a piece-wise linear (PWL) approximation to cancel linearity errors from the resistor string, which can also be resourced from DSP program.   Hell, if true bit perfect data retention can be obtained via the closed form equations in the 1917 Western Electric paper that they're programming the 18K+ timing interpolation filter taps algorithm from, then quite maybe they won't need PWL approximation for resistor mismatch error.
  


purrin said:


> I don't think the Schiit guys are big fans of the PCM1704. I'm sure the constant availability/retirement alerts wouldn't give any manufacturer confidence to base a product off of it. Based on DACs that I've heard (and there are always good, mediocre, and bad implementations), I'm beginning to think the PCM63 was the pinnacle of DAC chips. Another favorite would be the UltraAnalog, with the UltraAnalog being smoother and organic, and the PCM63 being cleaner and more precise. All PCM1704 implementations had at least some murkiness in the bass and a tendency of sounding soft.


 
  
 I'm beginning to think that as long as they get the digital filtering right, it doesn't much matter which multi-bit R2R chip they use.  Quite of bit of latitude in the implementation.  I may be having an epiphany here.
  
 MOAR EDIT:  OK.  If the 24-bit PCM1704 isn't in play because it sounds like "ass" compared to the PCM63, then my vote is the 16-bit PCM56, which is still in production, even if not recommended for new design.  Note that the analog output signal filter requirements are greatly simplified through the use of 2-channel digital oversampling, up to 4x per DAC chip (page 8).  'Course I could completely be talking out of my own ass if not hat.  The PCM56U is fairly square, too.


----------



## jacal01

OK, best guess:
  
TI has trio of 16-bit monotonic DAC ICs that are designed to replace the traditional monolithic multi-bit resistor ladder DAC chips, which suffer the disadvantages of conversion error from output signal sample-and-hold-deglitcher circuit imperfections and higher order analog filter phase response non-linearity, largely reduced to low order linear phase by employing digital filter oversampling, as alluded in my PCM56 post above, and high-swing output buffers, as well as voltage drift in multiple chip implementations due to different temperature coefficients.  This monotonic DAC chip family is as follows:
  
DAC8580 – Uses ‘resistor string’ architecture to largely eliminate glitching error and analog filter and output buffer requirements.  It includes an onboard programmable digital data interpolation filter capable of input data oversampling up to 16x, which can be bypassed, switched on, or switched on/off on the fly.  The external DSP interpolation filter might then be used to in conjunction with the onboard programmable filter in the bypass mode.
  
DAC8581 – Is the same in design as the DAC8580 above with similar resistor string architecture, but without the onboard programmable digital interpolation filter.  Since the Yggy will employ external DSP programmed digital interpolation filtering, anyway, this may be the appropriate DAC chip to use between the two, replacing the suggested external microcontroller digital filter PWL linearity approximation, as I had previously proposed.
 
However, both of these chips are not recommended for new product design, trending toward obsolescence.  They are both proposed to be replaced by the 
  
DAC8811 – This 16-bit monotonic DAC does use resistor ladder architecture, and with a THD of -105 dB.  An external op amp is to be used in conjunction to impose output linearity.  The external DSP programmed input data interpolation filter should significantly enhance the output waveform fidelity, but is not discussed as a requirement or capability in this DAC implementation circuit design.   This DAC chip production is actively supported at present, may well offer some additional D/A signal conversion advantages for audio application, and so probably is most likely choice of the 3 options for predicting the Yggy DAC topology.
  
And the best part is that they are all square!


----------



## hans030390

My guess is it isn't either of the first two of those three chips, though there's a good chance another DAC manufacturer does. That third looks interesting regardless if anyone is using it yet.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

jacal01 said:


> OK, best guess:
> 
> TI has trio of 16-bit monotonic DAC ICs that are designed to replace the traditional monolithic multi-bit resistor ladder DAC chips, which suffer the disadvantages of conversion error from output signal sample-and-hold-deglitcher circuit imperfections and higher order analog filter phase response non-linearity, largely reduced to low order linear phase by employing digital filter oversampling, as alluded in my PCM56 post above, and high-swing output buffers, as well as voltage drift in multiple chip implementations due to different temperature coefficients.  This monotonic DAC chip family is as follows:
> 
> ...


 

 Good write-up. Thanks!


----------



## twinkle

jacal01 said:


> But you know, thinking on it, the single middle square chip probably is the DSP processor.


 
 I'd think so too.         Edit: there's a similar looking square chip on the USB board.
  


> You need 2 or 4 of those oblong DAC chip suckers to make a balanced output, and I'm not seeing any of that.  I vote underneath the USB input converter board.


 
 What about the left side of the center board that bears the square chip, isn't there some twins or quatuors "oblong" chips there?
  
 By the way you can stop looking 'cause I found Yggy's board schematics:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



http://xkcd.com/730/


----------



## estreeter

And to think purrin thought _this thread had run it's course_ and wanted it closed - from memory, I think that was about 5 or 6 pages back  
  
 I still think the obsession with silicon is short-sighted but I guess it fills in time during the long wait for Yggy.


----------



## darkless

jacal01 said:


> 1.  Whoa.  A real live discrete resistor ladder DAC circuit layout?! GOK which vintage DAC it's from if so. And there's no clue as to how long the TI HC754 data flip-flop chip has been around.


 
  
 The picture shows the R2R ladder arrangements inside of a Totaldac d1. The laser trimmed Vishay VAR Series "Naked" Z-Foil Resistors are a dead giveaway. I own a Totaldac d3-single, so I should know. It's not vintage but an actual production DAC and it definitely belongs in the Class E tier.


----------



## twinkle

estreeter said:


> And to think purrin thought _this thread had run it's course_ and wanted it closed - from memory, I think that was about 5 or 6 pages back
> 
> I still think the obsession with silicon is short-sighted but I guess it fills in time during the long wait for Yggy.


 
  
 Pretty good detective work on Jacal01's part though, maybe too good? careful now 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, don't wanna give it away...
  
 You know you might be right though: that analog implementation looks pretty serious, even sans tubes.


----------



## NoPants

If schitt doesn't care about the bit depth then they can use the PCM56 which is still in production. 16 bits is good enough for most of us. A shame it's $20 a chip.
  
 I'm interested in how his filter works since he keeps doting on it. If it really does achieve closed-form digital filtering then it should be on everyone's radar. I have a few reservations about how the SPDIF input is handled though. 
  
 I also use an R2R dac as my reference (spectral SDR),  a shame that it probably needs to be recapped sooner rather than later
That being said, I also use a  non-DSD Ayre QB9 which could be considered the antithesis of these vintage DACs. I would be wary of writing off sigma-delta when it has a strong implementation behind it.
  
Also stuck with a Lavry DA11 which I don't find to be all that great


----------



## Tachikoma

I'm guessing...
 http://www.analog.com/en/digital-to-analog-converters/da-converters/ad5791/products/product.html
   
Not an audio DAC, but is designed for military/aerospace.


----------



## purrin

nopants said:


> I'm interested in how his filter works since he keeps doting on it. If it really does achieve closed-form digital filtering then it should be on everyone's radar.


 
  
 The digital filter is very intriguing to me. What matters to me is not necessarily the technicalities or algorithms, but how this secret sauce filter sounds like. How does it translate to what hear? Does the implementation of it in the Yggy have any relation to Mike Moffat's tales from yesteryear?
  
 Techno babble is meaningless unless it actually does something.
DSD cough cough.


----------



## smitty1110

purrin said:


> The digital filter is very intriguing to me. What matters to me is not necessarily the technicalities or algorithms, but how this secret sauce filter sounds like. How does it translate to what hear? Does the implementation of it in the Yggy have any relation to Mike Moffat's tales from yesteryear?
> 
> Techno babble is meaningless unless it actually does something.
> DSD cough cough.


 
 That's the worst part about RMAF is that they teased the Yggy, but not in an environment where you couldn't do proper critical listening. Oh well, fingers crossed for another beta program, and I'll be all over it if Schiit decides to have one.
  
 Also, +1 for the DSD cheap-shot.


----------



## Guomapi

I purchase a schiit digital filter. Do not feel amazing. Just a little change. Although $100 is OK.


----------



## purrin

How did you buy something which isn't out yet?


----------



## Maxvla

I guess he means a Wyrd.


----------



## purrin

I am totally confused.


----------



## bontakunlevi

Purrin, Guomapi is probably referring to the Schiit Wyred http://schiit.com/products/wyrd-usb-decrapifier which is not related to the digital filter in the upcoming Yggdrasil dac that you're discussing.
  
 -bontakun


----------



## twinkle

tachikoma said:


> I'm guessing...
> http://www.analog.com/en/digital-to-analog-converters/da-converters/ad5791/products/product.html
> 
> Not an audio DAC, but is designed for military/aerospace.


 

 You guys are relentless...


----------



## Guomapi

Yep right I missed


----------



## StefanJK

tachikoma said:


> I'm guessing...
> http://www.analog.com/en/digital-to-analog-converters/da-converters/ad5791/products/product.html
> 
> Not an audio DAC, but is designed for military/aerospace.


 
 This looks like a decent guess to me.  How common are voltage output dac chips?  Mofat seems to have hinted strongly that he's using a 'volts', which I take to mean no i-v conversion stage and high voltage (which this chip does up to 33 V).  20 bit is 'good enough' for what we want.
  
 This write-up appears to be relevant:   The 20-Bit DAC Is the Easiest Part of a 1-ppm-Accurate Precision Voltage Source:


> Its design, shown in Figure 2, features precision voltage-mode R-2R
> architecture, *exploits state-of-the-art thin-film resistor-matching*
> *techniques, and employs on-chip calibration routines to achieve*
> *1-ppm accuracy levels*. Because the device is factory calibrated and,
> ...


----------



## purrin

The only problem with that one is it doesn't take standard digital i2s or even anything resembling audio in digital format. Look at the write mode timing diagram. Doesn't exactly take 44.1khz straight up and need to run through a few loops to load up all the bits in word.


----------



## jacal01

Besides the fact that it's single bit, you mean?


----------



## jacal01

darkless said:


> The picture shows the R2R ladder arrangements inside of a Totaldac d1. The laser trimmed Vishay VAR Series "Naked" Z-Foil Resistors are a dead giveaway. I own a Totaldac d3-single, so I should know. It's not vintage but an actual production DAC and it definitely belongs in the Class E tier.


 
  
 Yeah, I didn't cruise the totaldac website in too much depth, basically looking for the exact foto source purrin used, but you'd think that I could have mentally rotated the top down interior board shot to an isomeric view, wouldn't you?
  
 The d1 does have its enthusiasts, agreed.  Have to sell it to purrin, tho, it's his category.  
  


twinkle said:


> You know you might be right though: that analog implementation looks pretty serious, even sans tubes.


 
  
 Who are you addressing here, me or estreeter?
  


> Originally Posted by *purrin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ...other DACs based on industrial R2R chips with bad looking INL plots...


 
  
 Do you include the DAC8811 chip in this statement?  Have you looked at its datasheet?  INL ≈ ±0.7 @ 25 °C work for you?
  
 Does this DAC circuit look capable of sustaining the output VOLTS that Baldr alluded to?  I suppose that its not requiring an output buffer as he also included is a mark against it.  Not a whole lot of other candidates in active production that I could divine...


----------



## StefanJK

jacal01 said:


> Besides the fact that it's single bit, you mean?


 
 It is 'single 20-bit' --- what does that mean?  My reading, not knowing the terrain here, was "single '20-bit'".


----------



## StefanJK

purrin said:


> The only problem with that one is it doesn't take standard digital i2s or even anything resembling audio in digital format. Look at the write mode timing diagram. Doesn't exactly take 44.1khz straight up and need to run through a few loops to load up all the bits in word.


 
 Doesn't sound impossible with some pre-processing...but not at all my field of expertise.


----------



## commtrd

Plus an incredibly complex streaming data (audio signal) is orders of magnitude more demanding from the range hi to low than even the most stringent requirements of distributive process control analogs measurements, let alone gas chromatography. Does not look like to me that circuitry would be able to process in real time a complex word structure representing streaming audio bandwidth. But I am a chromotography specialist not an engineer so take that for whatever it's worth...


----------



## estreeter

I'm not ashamed to admit that the technical details are way over my head, but that's fine - I just want to see Yggy in beta. purrin and jacal01 can pull theirs apart and post photos of all 7 pcbs - its time someone got some serious listening time with this dac. As purrin said, the techno babble means nothing without results.


----------



## Tachikoma

purrin said:


> The only problem with that one is it doesn't take standard digital i2s or even anything resembling audio in digital format. Look at the write mode timing diagram. Doesn't exactly take 44.1khz straight up and need to run through a few loops to load up all the bits in word.


 

 I'm guessing that's a part of the reason Yggy took so long to finish. Also, AD has said that the chip can be used for hi-fi, in principle, on their youtube presentation of the chip.


----------



## Sorrodje

If I'm not wrong , there aren't any wolfson based DAC in the list. Can someone explain why ?
  
 For thoses interested, I've used the Beresford Caïman mkII with my Sonett 2/ (unmodded) HD800 and i've no doubt it sounds at least as good as the Metrum Octave MKI : Slightly less thick in the mids but slightly more exciting with a great soundstage. Both DACs play  very well with the Sonett2/HD800 and i'm very surprised to discover that the Caiman (Wolfson based) sounds almost as analogic than the Highly regarded Metrum Octave ( NOS, R2R ) . The Bushmaster mkII exhibits a marvelous soundstage too and a high level of detail but there's a price : a bit too thin overall sound for my tastes and my headphone and a slight glare in the treble. Nothing really wrong expecially for the price ( a bit more than 230€ shipped in France from UK) but imo the Caiman is definitely in a league above.
  
 Considering the price of the Caiman: 380€ shipped in France, it's the biggest bargain DAC I've ever met . Maybe it's only relative to my own preferences. Dunno. Would really like to read more experienced opinion on that DAC. and I really would like to compare it seriously with Jan Meier's DACCORD ( wolfson based too).
  
 I know those dacs won't interest people as much as the future Schiit Flagship but i'm currently thinking that there's another good path between Sabres and Vintage R2R or Schiit TOTL line.


----------



## NoPants

sorrodje said:


> If I'm not wrong , there aren't any wolfson based DAC in the list. Can someone explain why ?


 
  
 Wolfson doesn't do anything interesting with their designs, and they typically concern themselves with system integration over component quality


----------



## Sorrodje

nopants said:


> Wolfson doesn't do anything interesting with their designs, and they typically concern themselves with system integration over component quality


 
  
 I don't understand the point sorry.  What's the connection with the dac sound & design?


----------



## mouwen

Great review & comparison!
 As a Yulong DA8 owner, I agree with most of OP's thoughts on it.


----------



## magiccabbage

I have only heard wolfson in cheaper products


----------



## NoPants

sorrodje said:


> I don't understand the point sorry.  What's the connection with the dac sound & design?


 
  
 nothing at all


----------



## ogodei

sorrodje said:


> If I'm not wrong ,* there aren't any wolfson based DAC in the list*. Can someone explain why ?


 
  
 PS Audio PerfectWave 2 ?
  
 Lampizator ?


----------



## Sorrodje

ogodei said:


> PS Audio PerfectWave 2 ?
> 
> Lampizator ?


 
  
 PS audio perfectwave ! . .Incredible 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





... I missed this dac was wolfson based.  Lampizator too but the Lampizator line up is too hard to decode . Thks !!


----------



## jacal01

stefanjk said:


> It is 'single 20-bit' --- what does that mean?  My reading, not knowing the terrain here, was "single '20-bit'".


 
  
 Single bit modulation; 20 bit resolution.
  


estreeter said:


> I still think the obsession with silicon is short-sighted but I guess it fills in time during the long wait for Yggy.


 


estreeter said:


> I'm not ashamed to admit that the technical details are way over my head, but that's fine - I just want to see Yggy in beta. purrin and jacal01 can pull theirs apart and post photos of all 7 pcbs - its time someone got some serious listening time with this dac. As purrin said, the techno babble means nothing without results.


 
  
 So you've now said repeatedly.  The technical details are what make the 'magic sauce'.  Mr. Moffat certainly has some strong opinions about it.  And purrin's 'techno babble' remark was aimed at DSD more specifically, not electronics discussion in general.  There's more to life than just 'warm fuzzies', like intellectual couriosity and interest in the various technology underpinnings and engineering feats of present civilization. 
  
 Next you'll be playing the OT card.


----------



## StefanJK

jacal01 said:


> Single bit modulation; 20 bit resolution.


 
 How do you use R2R architecture to get single bit modulation?  This is a R2R chip.


----------



## jacal01

You don't.  We're talking about the AD5791 DAC chip.  Show me R2R.


----------



## StefanJK

jacal01 said:


> You don't.  We're talking about the AD5791 DAC chip.  Show me R2R.


 
 The link I quoted is AD writing about the AD5791.  The document states the AD5791 has R2R architecture.


----------



## jacal01

You're right.  I was looking at Tachikoma's link. My apologies.
  
 I wondered about AD's current offerings.  Intriguing.  And INL = ±0.6 LSB...
  
 Come Analog Devices...
AD1866
AD1851
  
 And they're both in production.
  
 Lotsa high res multi-bit sigma-delta DAC chips around.  Are we sure about R2R?
AD1857
AD1852
AD1955


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> PS audio perfectwave ! . .Incredible
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 AMB Gamma 2 as well. Not on the list: the AK120, which I loved and preferred over the AK240.
  


tachikoma said:


> I'm guessing that's a part of the reason Yggy took so long to finish. Also, AD has said that the chip can be used for hi-fi, in principle, on their youtube presentation of the chip.


 
  
 Or they could have used a precision 12 or 16 bit chip, and added a few resistors for the MSBs. Hybrid discrete and chip. Like how UltraAnalog did, except they didn't put it in a mysterious black box.
  
 Quote:Quote:


mouwen said:


> Great review & comparison!
> As a Yulong DA8 owner, I agree with most of OP's thoughts on it.


 
  
 Thanks


----------



## purrin

jacal01 said:


> So you've now said repeatedly.  The technical details are what make the 'magic sauce'.  Mr. Moffett certainly has some strong opinions about it.  And purrin's 'techno babble' remark was aimed at DSD more specifically, not electronics discussion in general.


 
  
 Also referring to the digital filter algorithm which I find much more interesting than guessing the R2R (or whatever it may be) implementation. It's the reason why I picked up a Theta Gen V. I'm kind of following the designer back in time. Mike's tales of yesteryear about filters with a divide by zero problem solved by a guy who drove a crappy car got me interested. I figure the digital filter going into the Yggy might somehow be related to one in the Gen V. It's hard to find literature these days on the Gen V, the Theta did use their own DSP for digital filter relying on motorola processors rather than rely on the usual suspects back then such as SM5803AP, PMD100, PDM200, etc.


----------



## Byrnie

purrin said:


> AMB Gamma 2 as well. Not on the list: the AK120, which I loved and preferred over the AK240.



Just to clarify, you're referring to the original AK120 (meaning not the AK120II)? I ask because I heard warren and mercer preferred the original AK120 to the AK120II.


----------



## purrin

The original.


----------



## twinkle

> Originally Posted by *jacal01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Quote:
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Sorry, I meant I agree with estreeter.
  
 To clarify, I think the main anticipated strength of Mike's design is in the closed form algorithm.  While the choice of DAC chip and/or other converting hardware will affect ultimate resolution, I think it's in encoded filters that you can reach that "organic", bit-perfect, artefact-free, non-destructive reconstruction. And then the analog section implementation does the remaining 60% of the magic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Still good detective work on your part Jacal


----------



## Clemmaster

jacal01 said:


> *Mr. Moffett* certainly has some strong opinions about it.


 
  
 I assume, Mr. Mosfet and Mr. Mosfat do, too


----------



## Byrnie

purrin said:


> The original.



Nice and they sell for a nice price too!


----------



## twinkle

purrin said:


> Also referring to the digital filter algorithm which I find much more interesting than guessing the R2R (or whatever it may be) implementation. It's the reason why I picked up a Theta Gen V. I'm kind of following the designer back in time. Mike's tales of yesteryear about filters with a divide by zero problem solved by a guy who drove a crappy car got me interested. I figure the digital filter going into the Yggy might somehow be related to one in the Gen V. It's hard to find literature these days on the Gen V, the Theta did use their own DSP for digital filter relying on motorola processors rather than rely on the usual suspects back then such as SM5803AP, PMD100, PDM200, etc.


 

 Ok, now that is much more useful than the nonsense in a previous post:


> I was curious about certain special sonic qualities of the Gen V and Mike told me _[redacted] _I grabbed the Gen V on the hunch there would be some similarities with the Yggy because I wanted an Yggy-like DAC before Q1 2015. It turns out _[redacted]_


----------



## jacal01

purrin said:


> Also referring to the digital filter algorithm which I find much more interesting than guessing the R2R (or whatever it may be) implementation.


 
  
 That's funny now considering your earlier posted investigation into the square processor chip in the middle of the Yggy board foto.
  
 Quote:


purrin said:


> Yup. Now you know what I was thinking. No luck though. As I've said, been trying to bait Jason and Mike. They don't budge.


 
  
 Do you want me to now find the 1917 H.K. Erlang "Solution of some Problems in the Theory of Probabilities of Significance in Automatic Telephone Exchanges" paper, instead?   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


> To clarify, I think the main anticipated strength of Mike's design is in the closed form algorithm. While the choice of DAC chip and/or other converting hardware will affect ultimate resolution, I think it's in encoded filters that you can reach that "organic", bit-perfect, artifact-free, non-destructive reconstruction. And then the analog section implementation does the remaining 60% of the magic.


 
  
 As did I in a previous post (#1720), ala my "epiphany".


----------



## StefanJK

purrin said:


> Also referring to the digital filter algorithm which I find much more interesting than guessing the R2R (or whatever it may be) implementation.


 
 But doesn't the filter algorithm you want to implement depend on the R2R implementation?  The filtering you want to do depends on the DAC architecture, with less noise coming out of the dac you can focus on 'nice to have' filter aspects.  I'd guess that the Yggy filter may not be great on other dacs.


----------



## purrin

twinkle said:


> Ok, now that is much more useful than the nonsense in a previous post:


 
  
 I wanted people to figure it out themselves. It's no fun when someone points you straight to the answer. I'm still surprised that no one has asked me what I thought of the Yggy's sonics.
  


jacal01 said:


> That's funny now considering your earlier posted investigation into the square processor chip in the middle of the Yggy board foto.


 
  
 Well square chip doesn't mean anything, and it's hard to tell what's surrounding it in that fuzzy pic. For all we know, it could still be this, which happens to be small and square:
  

  
 We can make out three huge blocks of iron though. Three transformers? Probably a good thing.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

purrin said:


> I wanted people to figure it out themselves. It's no fun when someone points you straight to the answer. I'm still surprised that no one has asked me what I thought of the Yggy's sonics.
> 
> 
> Well square chip doesn't mean anything, and it's hard to tell what's surrounding it in that fuzzy pic. For all we know, it could still be this, which happens to be small and square:
> ...


 

 Hey, what do you think about the Yggy's sonics?


----------



## Sorrodje

birdmanofct said:


> Hey, what do you think about the Yggy's sonics?


 
  
 +1
  
 Hey Purrin what do you think about the Yggy's sonics ?


----------



## jacal01

stefanjk said:


> But doesn't the filter algorithm you want to implement depend on the R2R implementation?  The filtering you want to do depends on the DAC architecture, with less noise coming out of the dac you can focus on 'nice to have' filter aspects.  I'd guess that the Yggy filter may not be great on other dacs.


 
  
 Well, from my perusal of the DAC datasheets, it appears that being able to interface a programmable external digital filter is a key element of its architecture along with the usual conversion fidelity specs.  That and left justified PCM I2S data input. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I'm guessing that the closed form "bit perfect" time domain data stream interpolation with 18K+ filter taps digital filter would be a great match for most DACs, as opposed to finite truncated function waveform approximations.


----------



## MohawkUS

What are the chances they have something in place similar to the Musical Surroundings MYDAC II? It uses a form of EQ before and after digital conversion so that the lower frequencies are converted in a similar way to the higher frequencies, supposedly allowing them to be converted more accurately. That could explain the talk of 16 bits really being limited to 12 bits, no?
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/musical-surroundings-mydac-ii-dac/


----------



## arnaud

sorrodje said:


> +1
> 
> Hey Purrin what do you think about the Yggy's sonics ?


 

 +2  Do you still have access to a prototype Purrin? From reading early on, it seemed - unit not quite warmed up - you felt it was rather neutral sounding, not bass light but not what you'd call a warm sounding dac. Then, the resolution galore also pointed away from a sirupy / forgiving type of sound - is that still the feeling?


----------



## purrin

No full access to prototype, but I finally did get to hear the same unit as the one at RMAF. The same one Maxvla, Misterrogers, and a few others heard. Take everything with a grain of salt because obviously the Yggy I heard isn't the final production.
  

Neutral sounding, not bass light, not warm, not cold, not rolled, not laid back. Maybe slightly "aggressive" a la Gungnir. It's all relative because I feel Gungnir tonality is fine. So I think folks expecting that warm, soft, and murky PCM1704, syrupy super smooth UltraAnalog, or laid-back and rolled Metrum sound, or ever-present tonally dense "NOS" sound _could_ be disappointed. Schiit doesn't necessarily have a house sound. But with the exception of some of their first generation stuff, they don't make gear that sounds overly polite or forgiving, fuzzy, rolled, laid back, with blunted attacks, or overly warm or bassy. The warmest amp in existing lineup is the Lyr 2, and even then, it's just a touch. 
The Yggy is a fricking resolution monster. It will scrap every single bit from the PCM data. It's unbelievable in this regard. I've heard a lot of resolving DACs, many that I haven't even ranked, and the Yggy beats them all by a good margin. Makes me _wonder_ if all other DACs really aren't effectively 16-bits / 24-bits, but more like 14. I mean, there's just all this schiit flying everywhere. It was information overload for a while - just not used to it - especially into headphones which I haven't been using as much as speakers lately.
There was no added glare, grain, sigma-delta hashy treble garbage, yet at the same time, it didn't impart a smoothness over everything like how the SFD-1 tends to do. Some recordings sounded pretty rough, rougher than usual, e.g. the more recent Pixies MSFLs which tend toward bright. Yggy won't remove glare or grain present in the recordings. Pristine recordings sounded absolutely wonderful, especially those recorded and mixed in the analog domain from years past. You can tell which recordings were mixed or mastered in the analog domain and which ones were mixed or mastered in the digital domain. I think given more time to fully warm up, the Yggy would have smoothed out even more and eased up on some of that aggression, as this was the case with the Theta Gen Va where I felt about four hours was about right. I only had about two to three hours on and off with the Yggy. Most of the time was spent waiting for it to warm up.
In comparison to the Gen Va which I had on hand for a direct comparison, the Yggy started to sound eerily similar to it after it warmed up for about an hour or two. Really no surprise. Same texture, twangs, growls, roars. The kind of sounds that makes the hairs on your back stand up. Same super precise nuanced taut bass that stops on a dime. The differences, as already alluded to above, were more detail and resolution - just on another level; and clearer with more impact than the Gen Va, which already is super hard hitting.
Yggy had same holographic 3d soundstage as Gen Va. As already indicated in posts elsewhere, I got a exact sense of the size of the church, the ceiling, the walls, in that Cowboy Junkies album, from the reverb and ambient cues. And you get this great "sense of space" as I call it, from only the ambient noise too. When music is playing, the imaging fakes you out and makes you look left, right, down, especially when you are using open headphones and get confused between ambient sounds and sounds from the recording. To me that's a good thing.
  
 Yggy it is very much a modern DAC in that it is super resolving with unadulterated attacks. In the sense that it is a vintage 90s DAC, there is no sigma-delta treble hashy raspy stuff and a lot of harmonic texture.
  
 Did I want to steal it and take it home with me? Most certainly yes. I miss it already.


----------



## zachchen1996

purrin said:


> The Yggy is a _*fricking resolution monster*_. It will scrap every single bit from the PCM data. It's unbelievable in this regard. I've heard a lot of resolving DACs, many that I haven't even ranked, and the Yggy *beats them all by a good margin*. Makes me _wonder_ if all other DACs really aren't effectively 16-bits / 24-bits, but more like 14. I mean, there's just all this schiit flying everywhere. It was information overload for a while - just not used to it - especially into headphones which I haven't been using as much as speakers lately.


----------



## Baldr

Admittedly off topic in a DAC thread:
  
 REVEAL:  The square chip is an ADSP-21478


----------



## NoPants

thanks for the reveal, now I can sleep soundly at night


----------



## jacal01

But a great reveal nonetheless. 
  
 Yeah, those do look like AD DAC chips, now that you mention it.  Makes sense, considering that pretty much all of TI's R2R DAC chips are now defunct, except for multiplying DACs and the PCM1704, which we know you don't like.  AD1851R-J work for you?


----------



## magiccabbage

> Originally Posted by *purrin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> The Yggy is a fricking resolution monster. It will scrap every single bit from the PCM data. It's unbelievable in this regard. I've heard a lot of resolving DACs, many that I haven't even ranked, and the Yggy beats them all by a good margin. Makes me _wonder_ if all other DACs really aren't effectively 16-bits / 24-bits, but more like 14. I mean, there's just all this schiit flying everywhere. It was information overload for a while - just not used to it - especially into headphones which I haven't been using as much as speakers lately


 
  
 Great to here. I cant wait to hear it with my DNA Stratus which should arrive very soon


----------



## twinkle

baldr said:


> Admittedly off topic in a DAC thread:
> 
> REVEAL:  The square chip is an ADSP-21478


 

 Ah-ha! you were right Jacal01 about it being a dsp chip 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Sharky!
  
 Can I say I'm relieved it's not the ESS that was shown?
 Now that cat needs help methinks (I'm talking about zachchen's cat).


----------



## jacal01

I think I'm right about the AD1851 DAC chip, too, altho the PCM63 was a dual channel DAC  (ala AD1866).
  
 Those TI chips from before are all monotonic multiplying R2R DACs, and while their specs are fairly rigorous, I never could find evidence that they're suitable in an audio application.
  
 Aaand to be snarky (vs. sharky), you notice that purrin's DAC like/dislike pie chart comparisons are all categorized by their implemented DAC chips, not by their digital filter processor chips.


----------



## StefanJK

jacal01 said:


> I think I'm right about the AD1851 DAC chip.


 
  AD1851 being 18-bit isn't a problem?  PCM63 is 20-bit.


----------



## jacal01

No, I suspect that 16 bit resolution is going to be the best we'll get from the audio multi-bit R2R DAC chips still in production.  The 18 bit actually refers to the AD1861 chip, which is now obsoleted.  It appears to me that the different bit resolutions mainly manifest in their respective signal-to-noise ratio specs, altho the THD+N of the 24 bit PCM1704 is actually more like 17 bit, with the 16 bit R2Rs probably closer to 14 bit.
  
 However, we do know that there is more to DAC sonics than mere numerical bit resolution, as evidenced by Mike Moffat's scathing denunciation of the PCM1704 relative the the PCM63, and hopefully now these AD1851/1866 R2R DAC chips.  Much obviously is in the circuit implementation, with the Schiit bit perfect programmed DSP digital filtering pulling whatever remaining however niggly DAC resolution (and linearity) shortcoming chestnuts out of the fire.  That's the plan, anyway.


----------



## StefanJK

jacal01 said:


> No, I suspect that 16 bit resolution is going to be the best we'll get from the audio multi-bit R2R DAC chips still in production.  The 18 bit actually refers to the AD1861 chip, which is now obsoleted.  It appears to me that the different bit resolutions mainly manifest in their respective signal-to-noise ratio specs, altho the THD+N of the 24 bit PCM1704 is actually more like 17 bit, with the 16 bit R2Rs probably closer to 14 bit.
> 
> However, we do know that there is more to DAC sonics than mere numerical bit resolution, as evidenced by Mike Moffat's scathing denunciation of the PCM1704 relative the the PCM63, and hopefully now these AD1851/1866 R2R DAC chips.  Much obviously is in the circuit implementation, with the Schiit bit perfect programmed DSP digital filtering pulling whatever remaining however niggly DAC resolution (and linearity) shortcoming chestnuts out of the fire.  That's the plan, anyway.


 
 Sorry, went for the AD1861 specs.  As you write, AD1851 is 16 bit.  I suspect Schiit is going with at least 18 bit, more likely something 20 bit like the AD 5791 (with some preprocessing hacks?).  But I'm just guessing without any field relevant expertise.  I'd bet you a dollar, maybe ten after a bit more googling.


----------



## Jason Stoddard

jacal01 said:


> No, I suspect that 16 bit resolution is going to be the best we'll get from the audio multi-bit R2R DAC chips still in production.  The 18 bit actually refers to the AD1861 chip, which is now obsoleted.  It appears to me that the different bit resolutions mainly manifest in their respective signal-to-noise ratio specs, altho the THD+N of the 24 bit PCM1704 is actually more like 17 bit, with the 16 bit R2Rs probably closer to 14 bit.
> 
> However, we do know that there is more to DAC sonics than mere numerical bit resolution, as evidenced by Mike Moffat's scathing denunciation of the PCM1704 relative the the PCM63, and hopefully now these AD1851/1866 R2R DAC chips.  Much obviously is in the circuit implementation, with the Schiit bit perfect programmed DSP digital filtering pulling whatever remaining however niggly DAC resolution (and linearity) shortcoming chestnuts out of the fire.  That's the plan, anyway.


 
  
 That's one plan. Not our plan.


----------



## NoPants

you're not going to pull chesnuts? now I don't know what to believe


----------



## jacal01

The DAC chips used, or the DSP filter function?


----------



## StefanJK

There goes the easily winnable leg of that bet with jacal01 I proposed.


----------



## twinkle

> > ....Much obviously is in the circuit implementation, with the Schiit bit perfect programmed DSP digital filtering pulling whatever remaining however niggly DAC resolution (and linearity) shortcoming chestnuts out of the fire.  That's the plan, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Such a tease... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 By the way this is AD1851R-J apparently:


----------



## jacal01

stefanjk said:


> There goes the easily winnable leg of that bet with jacal01 I proposed.


 
 Yours wasn't a 'not' bet, yours was the AD5791 horse bet.  Were that it was that easy, huh?: "You AD1851; me everything else".
  


twinkle said:


> Such a tease...


 
  
 That less than helpful sniping is what I get for snarking.  I'm getting a lot of that lately.


----------



## StefanJK

jacal01 said:


> Yours wasn't a 'not' bet, yours was the AD5791 horse bet.  Were that it was that easy, huh?  You AD1851; me everything else.
> 
> 
> That less than helpful sniping is what I get for snarking.  I'm getting a lot of that lately.


 
  What?  I'm not betting on AD1851, I'm betting against AD 1851.  The easy part, in my view, is betting against any 16 bit dac chip.  You, if I read you correctly, are/were betting on some 16 bit dac chip.  The hard part is me betting on AD5791, could obviously be something else.  Just not a 16 bit dac chip.


----------



## jacal01

The 'you' in this case is me.  I should have added quotation marks.  Allow me to edit.
  
 I doubt if I'll speculate any further, tho.  Why bother?  Guess we'll just have to wait for the warm fuzzies to arrive.
  
 However, if it does end up being the AD5791, I'll pay you your $10, no problem.  And props besides.


----------



## twinkle

> > Originally Posted by *twinkle*
> >
> > Such a tease...
> 
> ...


 
 Huh?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




    I'm calling Jason a tease because he's not telling us what their plans are for DAC implementation. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Maybe it's a problem with multiple quotes of different people? I'll try to use a clearer form then...


----------



## jacal01

Rampant misunderstandings all around, it seems. I was referring to Jason's post above, too.
  
 I guess I was in an emotional dither.  But I'm feeling better now.


----------



## StefanJK

Thanks.  I only care about props.   Seeing a Yggy in the house would be nice too...else I'll start being tempted to try to learn more by building my own dac from parts.  Might take a while if I don't go with plug-and-play solutions.  I know enought to understand that I don't know what's really going on and what really matters.  Actually implementing a dac would change that.


----------



## Tachikoma

jacal01 said:


> The 'you' in this case is me.  I should have added quotation marks.  Allow me to edit.
> 
> I doubt if I'll speculate any further, tho.  Why bother?  Guess we'll just have to wait for the warm fuzzies to arrive.
> 
> However, if it does end up being the AD5791, I'll pay you your $10, no problem.  And props besides.


 

 Will I get a piece of that too?


----------



## twinkle

jacal01 said:


> Rampant misunderstandings all around, it seems. I was referring to Jason's post above, too.
> 
> I guess I was in an emotional dither.  But I'm feeling better now.


 

 Cool 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




!!

 I think the fact that we can quote someone directly but we loose what they were quoting is what creates the misunderstandings.... we'd need quotes embedded in quotes... (but then redundancies pile up)


----------



## jacal01

Sure, no prob.  I'm not worried.


----------



## StefanJK

tachikoma said:


> Will I get a piece of that too?


 
 Yes, Tachikoma has priority.


----------



## jacal01

twinkle said:


> Cool
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Me, I'm quote averse, if it's directly above mine.  I knew what you meant, just imprecise phrasing on my part.


----------



## Baldr

A Definition:
  
 Bit Perfect – in a closed A/D system, a give analog level with a defined maximum and minimum is converted to a number. What is significant is what is the bit resolution and speed of the converter. In an 8 bit case, there are 256 possible numbers – a 16 bit case yields 65,528 possible numbers. That number of numbers doubles with each additional bit. If the A/D converter (case 8 bit) yields 256 numbers from 1 to 256 (or more accurately, 0 to 255) then there are no missing codes; the device works for coarse MRIs or weapons. The D/A converter in this perfect system then converts these numbers back to analog levels which all should be unique according to the decoded numbers. There should be no missing or duplicated levels; this is Bit Perfect. A goal for high end products. No sonic glare; unbelievable detail levels.
  
 This applies to multibit A/D and D/A converters _*only. *_At the higher bit and speed levels required for audio resolution, this becomes expensive. Hence the development of “audio” parts (Sigma-Delta A/Ds and Delta-Sigma DACs). Even worse is DSD, which I have previously addressed. These are offered by all of the “audio” chip makers, complete with reference designs and “Howto” data sheets that make it possible for fourth graders to build them as class projects. They are cheap, and have resulted in digital audio technology that is nearly as universal as it is insipid. That's not to say that a builder can't add “designer” capacitors, over-designed analog sections or power supplies, fancy over-machined front panels, water-cooling, palletized delivery, jewels, etc., etc, ad nauseum. This sort of extravagance is  perfect for the user who wants to invite people over to have his guests admire the piece first. Unfortunately, even though you have wrapped plastic around the vile-smelling “audio” parts, they still have the same performance stench.
  
 A good analogy is a tire. You can have the best performing car in the world and easily kill yourself if you have poorly designed tires. Now, do you invite all of your friends over and say “Look at my tires”? Of course not! All you care about is their performance. But I digress..........(Good thing Jason is around to make sure the Schiit stuff looks absurdly good.)
  
 An SOF (Schiit only feature) – The Schiit Footlong Mega Burrito Supersauce Digital Filter:
  
 It is a digital filter/sample rate converter designed to convert all audio to 352.8 or 396KHz sample rates so that it may drive our DACs. You get it from us; it is our filter. It keeps all original samples; those samples contain rudimentary frequency and phase information which can be optimized not only in the time domain but in the frequency domain. We do precisely this in the Yggy with said filter; this is the reason that on good recordings through Yggy you can hear the hall, its dimensions, and the exact position of anyone coughing or farting in the room, the motions of guitars being hoisted in preparation of being played, sheet music pages being turned, etc. etc. This comes from our mega burrito filter. A friend of mine, Jonathan Horwich, sells analog master tapes in ½ track form – at least 15 IPS, and 30 (I believe) as well. On those analog masters, you can also hear the entire environment before the music starts – what is amazing there is that even if on accounts for hearing “down into” the analog noise, the S/N indicates a 14 bit performance at best for those tapes. 14 bit or not – those tapes, totally scratch my itch. If you want that, we got that and more in the Yggy.


----------



## jacal01

Thanks for the cogent explanation, Mike.  You didn't know that educating the unwashed masses was part of your job description, did you?
  
 But I think you said 3 things:
  
 1.  Putting lipstick on a pig is exactly that.
 2.  The DAC chip you're using can and does process data sampling at 352.8/396 kHz.
 3.  Input sample data at 16 bit/44.1 kHz still has all the sonic information so that you can hear and place all the farts in the room, and that in the interpolation oversampling it to 396 kHz, none of the original information is lost or distorted.
  
 Did I about get it right/close?  Should we be looking at a multi-bit 352.8/396 kHz data processing DAC chip then?  Do you want guacamole with that burrito?


----------



## Baldr

jacal01 said:


> Thanks for the cogent explanation, Mike.  You didn't know that educating the unwashed masses was part of your job description, did you?
> 
> But I think you said 3 things:
> 
> ...


 

 I would restate number 3 as follows:
 Input sample data at 16 bit/44.1 kHz contains rudimentary sonic information.  A time domain and frequency domain optimized filter (as in the Yggy) enables one to hear and place all the farts in the room far more precisely.


----------



## estreeter

Not the first time Jason has used the '_it's a plan. It's just not our plan_' line, but it's gold nonetheless.


----------



## tonykaz

Hello Professor Baldr ,
  
 Sonic Glare , oh my , HP just passed and here you are providing a Lexicon for DAC reviewers , the torch has passed to you , dear man ! 
   I am delighted to read your description and promise of Good Things coming , I'm holding off further Audio investments till these Good Things are sitting on my Desk , delivering  the promise of Digital's unrealized potential . 
   You are setting-up a rather high level of anticipation , if your words = performance in the hands of your followers ; You will be Enshrined . 
   Audio Opium for the new classes of music reproducers , coming from the Headphone segment - no less , people will whisper your name ( "where did JS find him" ? ) , and "I want him to Autograph my T-Shirt , honey get the camera , I wanna picture of this !  
   I have listened to the products from the lads up in Watsonville , their stuff lacks Sonic Glare , I felt their Ladder performance was something like the Canon 1d images printed by Epson's High Dynamic Range Printing technology compared with a Prosumer Canon and a lessor Epson printer , Sharpness , color fidelity , detail , depth , realism all astonishing and within reach but pricy , very pricy indeed , requiring buying customers . 
   You won't have difficulty finding the buying customers , they will find you , your word of mouth is already strong .  
   I suspect you have a working example in your living room , active and being listened to , how else could you be inspired to coin "Sonic Glare" and I hope you find a way to describe Piano harmonics and Cymbals Crashing & Splashing along with all the other sounds that musical instruments create , our reviewers need you to enhance their "tired and worn-out" phraisiology .  Providing us , the Un-washed masses , an ability to describe what we hear will be a god-send , oh-dear , I'm calling you a god ! , let me wash my mouth out , shame on me !!  
   14 Bit depth , I'm in , hell I've been ok with the 7 or 8 from Vinyl ( back in the day ) .  Who has electronics and transducers that go beyond 20 Bit depth ? , I know OPPO claim that much but is it true and where is the musical proof ?  Genelec & Focal have Active Monitors that promise beyond 120 db , half field , for mega $$$$$ but even a simi-anichoic room will have a 30db noise floor , add 84db to that ( 14 bits ) and we've hit 120 db , so , in practice , 14 Bit depth will work just fine , I think . 
   Piano reaches far beyond 20 bits , drum kits can sail another 20db higher yet :  Compression stays with us , how can we ever realize listening with electronic devices that feature 30 Bit depth ?  
   I'm feeling that we will never be able to reproduce Live Performances , it's not in the Cards , I'm not hoping or trying to hope , it's not worth contemplating , let HP experience it from the Angel's Choirs but it's not to be here on Earth . I'll settle for a good performing DAC and then I'll discover just how good my other "chain" of components actually are . 
   Buckle your seat belt Professor , you're in for a wild year ! 
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## purrin

I've heard the stuff from Watsonville too.
 Yup, their stuff lacks sonic glare.
 Smooth and butter,
 Yet not as resolving.
 In the larger scheme of things,
 Especially when compared to Yggy.
 Beware though because high resolution
 from fancy tech and algorithms won't make
 bad recordings sound good.
 Quite the contrary in fact.


----------



## aive

baldr said:


> ...On those analog masters, you can also hear the entire environment before the music starts – what is amazing there is that even if on accounts for hearing “down into” the analog noise, the S/N indicates a 14 bit performance at best for those tapes. 14 bit or not – those tapes, totally scratch my itch. If you want that, we got that and more in the Yggy.


 
  
 Seriously, I want to give you my money right now....


----------



## Baldr

Gents,
  
 I cannot get too engaged at this point; given my efforts to finish Yggy and get it to market.
  
 Let me just say that being in the business of building audio reproduction equipment allows no, nada, ******-all control of whatever the recording engineers did or didn't do, what equipment they used, whether it was originally analog or not, what microphones were used, what and how it was digitized, how it was processed, etc., etc.
  
 Nor does it solve who or what was done to various issues of identical recordings to make them sound different, etc. etc.
  
 Maybe I assume too much, but I accept it as a given that there are recordings of a very wide spectrum, from god-awful to sublime. It has been so as long as I have been addicted to this hobby. It is a constraint we must live with if we are to be audiophiles.
  
 In the old analog days, we used the best components we could afford to give us the best possible sound. Everybody in the hobby knew they could not fix bad recordings. I thought that was yet obvious today.
  
 Now I almost offer (next 90 days or so) a D/A converter. It has a very special digital filter/sample rate converter that is only available from Schiit. It is neither magic nor faith based. It neither raises the dead nor makes bad recordings sound good. There is no smoke, mirrors, or doves spontaneously appearing. It is pure science, and it is amazing because the technology was contributed over a 70 year period, from the 1910's until the 1980's. It exists because I am stubborn and kept going, finding new geniuses when necessary in the quest of trying to make digital sound better than analog.
  
 Digitally, it takes nothing away from the original information. Nothing, nada, ******-all. It then takes a weighted average of the original samples and adds frequency (read flat) and time (read image) extra info between the samples to convert the samples to 352.8/396KHz. All complete calculations – NO approximations. All info is a function of the original. Real math – hard science. Not psychology or social science. 2 + 2 = 4. Now and forever.
  
 The result is a D/A converter that images like nothing I have ever digitally heard. The promise is that with better recordings (Cowboy Junkies, for example) you hear the entire environment. If you check it against photos of the original session (often available as part of the LP/CD documentation or online), you may be shocked.
  
 That's what Yggy digitally does. Period! (Pardon the shouts) IT DOES NOT MAKE BAD RECORDINGS SOUND GOOD. If you let it warm up all the way, IT DOES NOT MAKE BAD RECORDINGS SOUND WORSE. If you are listening to a lot of bad recordings, you may try stamp collecting or another hobby. You do not have to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, or swing dead chickens around your head while dancing nude and covered with moose dung in the Alaskan tundra in February.  Flippin' science.
  
 There is no way to fix a bad recording, for now and ever shall be. Amen
  
 Now to get back to finishing it!!!


----------



## estreeter

I can only add this to MIke's post re bad recordings - if you read any of Mark Waldrep's rants you will probably despair for the future of recorded music beyond jazz and classical. When an engineer is repeatedly 'bludgeoned' into making a recording louder by a suit from a record label, that's a cancer that needs to be cut out. All this talk of whether a DAC is capable of 14/16/20 bits resolution is great stuff till you realise the brickwalling an album is no barrier to chart success. I previously blamed this on the production efforts of Rick Rubin but I dont believe he acted alone.....
  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californication_(album)
  
 I find some of the results in the Dynamic Range Database quite odd but they appear to have nailed the original CD recording of RHCP's most commercially successful outing. 
  
 http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Red+Hot+Chili+Peppers&album=Californication
  
 For the pros and cons of the numbering system used to allocated the various colors, the discussion which followed this Stereophile piece makes some very good points re purchasing decisions made on the basis of a set of numbers vs actually listening to the music. 
  
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/unofficial-dynamic-range-database


----------



## Tachikoma

To be fair, I think a lot of pop recordings would sound worse if they were recorded with proper dynamic range. Just imagine an audiophile recording of Gangnam style, for instance.
  
 Thankfully, music that does benefit from being recorded well, usually isn't compressed to hell.


----------



## jacal01

Quote:


tachikoma said:


> I'm guessing...
> http://www.analog.com/en/digital-to-analog-converters/da-converters/ad5791/products/product.html
> 
> Not an audio DAC, but is designed for military/aerospace.


 
  
 Quote:


stefanjk said:


> This looks like a decent guess to me.  How common are voltage output dac chips?  Mofat seems to have hinted strongly that he's using a 'volts', which I take to mean no i-v conversion stage and high voltage (which this chip does up to 33 V).  20 bit is 'good enough' for what we want.
> 
> This write-up appears to be relevant:   The 20-Bit DAC Is the Easiest Part of a 1-ppm-Accurate Precision Voltage Source:


 
  


purrin said:


> The only problem with that one is it doesn't take standard digital i2s or even anything resembling audio in digital format. Look at the write mode timing diagram. Doesn't exactly take 44.1khz straight up and need to run through a few loops to load up all the bits in word.


 
  
 I'm starting to warm up to this DAC chip.  A lot.  Recently released to the wild (~2010), true 20 bit resolution, R-2R architecture, ≤ ±1 (±0.25 typ) LSB INL, up to 34.3 V output, it pushes all the right buttons.  It has an unbuffered voltage output to feed into the external buffer analog stage re. Mike's post.  The single as in "...single 20 bit..." most likely refers to single channel in this case.
  
 As to purrin's input data format argument, the chip has a 3-wire serial interface (SYNC, SCLK, SDIN) that is compatible with standard SPI and "...*most DSPs*..." (datasheet page 19).  Sound familiar?  All the frequency and phase oversampling (~8x) is done in the DSP programmed megaburrito supersauce digital filter at the front end, so it makes sense that its output is what feeds into the DAC chip, and even more so as an AD DSP compatible output to this AD DAC input.
  
 I bet Schiit is pretty smug that this new generation high resolution/linearity R-2R DAC chip is now available and in time to be complementary to the closed form frequency and time domain data stream optimization algorithms that they've protractedly developed.  A high precision multibit D/A conversion chip downstream stable mate to the bit perfect digital filter/sample rate converter for their SOTA DAC product.
  
 Looks like Tachikoma's got this one, and I may be out $20 here.


----------



## tonykaz

ADI & the AD5791 DAC chip ,
   Everyone buckled in ? , the DAC world is in for another advance , cross the board , probably game changing , the little dragonfly type things may be about to share space in the misc. drawers with the un-used RCA interconnects and record cleaning brushes .  
   The ADI chip costs $38 in one thousand lots , hmm , what will an upgraded Bifrost end up costing ? and what will this do in terms of those $2,500 Portable units out there with Gordon Rankin designs in their Chipsets ? .  
   Oh , Mr. Baldr , there is sooooo much to talk about now !  
  
   Tony in Michigan


----------



## jacal01

I don't think that a USB input converter/DSP processor filter/R2R DAC IC chip sandwich board will ever be able to fit into a Dragonfly type flash drive sized plug-in configuration, but I think that a USB & SPDIF input portable DAC/amp with that setup, considering how little or no analog gain stage is required for headphone output, could be a viable future product.


----------



## twinkle

baldr said:


> ..., jewels, etc., etc, *ad nauseum*.


 
 Mikologism:
  
 Ad nauseum: museum-quality nausea-inducing repetition.






 
  
 (edited for clarity)


----------



## NoPants

baldr said:


> Gents,
> 
> I cannot get too engaged at this point; given my efforts to finish Yggy and get it to market.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Are you doing anything to minimize the possible jitter added by this math, and are you addressing jitter at a system level? Maybe a stupid question, but it would be a big turnoff if I read about all these interesting filter ideas and under the hood was 10M rubidium clock


----------



## tonykaz

Antelope Clock ,
  
 why would that be a turn-off ? ,  the Cost of the Clock is 4 or 5 times the total cost of the Schiit device .  
 Any thoughts on the Antelope Pure 2 ? 
  
 Tony in Michigan 
  
 ps.  I don't think Schiit is trying to Control an entire 64 Channel Stage Presentation of any A National Touring Group , they may have a Quartz Oven though .  So far , Schiit designers haven't hinted at their Clocking requirements


----------



## NoPants

rubidium is useless for audio applications, and I was making a jab at blah blah blah
  
 They haven't mentioned clocking which is why I'm bringing it up


----------



## estreeter

When did we stop using the 'Spoiler' method for quoting large posts and can we please revert to that ? The only thing that irks me more is when someone quotes a massive post containing a collection of images - it's just not good netiquette folks.


----------



## Jason Stoddard

nopants said:


> Are you doing anything to minimize the possible jitter added by this math, and are you addressing jitter at a system level? Maybe a stupid question, but it would be a big turnoff if I read about all these interesting filter ideas and under the hood was 10M rubidium clock


 

 Yeah, we're in trouble, Mike knows_ nothing_ about jitter!


----------



## tonykaz

Oh dear , 
  
 Well , I can help , I know a little bit , want me to teach him ? , I can teach him all I know in about 3 minutes time , no problem , happy to do it !  :   
  
 1. )   Stop what you're doing , take a few breaths , fill the tub with 110 F. water , take a nice hot bath , try to relax .  
  
   Mike , remember you can get over this , concentrate on your 3 foot world , don't worry so much about all the idiots , like me , that pester you night and day , seemingly endlessly .  You will overcome all this pressure and resume a balanced life , take Mrs out for a nice Dinner , see a movie , relax . 
  
 Annnnnnd don't let that meany JS push you around , be a man , stand up for yourself .  
  I know you can do it .  
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## estreeter

Hmm, other than Tony I only know of one other individual from Michigan - must be something in the water .....


----------



## ultrabike

nopants said:


> rubidium is useless for audio applications, and I was making a jab at blah blah blah
> 
> They haven't mentioned clocking which is why I'm bringing it up


 
  
 I have no idea what filtering approach Schiit is using. At all. Seems it's proprietary secret-sauce kind of stuff. Haven't even heard the product. Only read a few bits of information about it here and there. Pertinent to Mike's post, which you replied to, I found this:
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/900#post_10484437
  
 18,000+ taps is a lot of taps and more than jitter I would be concerned about bit-width precision. However, I think the ADSP-21478 (which I think Schiit is using) supports 32 bit fixed and 32/40 bit floating point operations, on top of FIR, IIR and FFT accelerators. That's kind of a lot of overkillness there IMO (hell, for all that I know, the processor may support double precision 64/80 bit operations, but I'm not familiar with it).
  
 I guess I'm not seeing the link between Mike's comments and the jitter concern. Unless you are saying that timing error due to jitter causes the world to be a bit less than perfect. But that would be down the chain in the digital to analog conversion. I thought Mike said:
  
 "*Digitally*, it takes nothing away from the original information..."


----------



## Audio Jester

jason stoddard said:


> Yeah we're in trouble, Mike knows _nothing_ about jitter!




No worries Jason! Just get Mike to watch this educational video about jitter. It covers pretty much all you need to know. 
http://youtu.be/pIgZ7gMze7A


----------



## NoPants

jason stoddard said:


> Yeah, we're in trouble, Mike knows_ nothing_ about jitter!


 
 Haha I guess I deserved that. Good schiit
  


ultrabike said:


> I have no idea what filtering approach Schiit is using. At all. Seems it's proprietary secret-sauce kind of stuff. Haven't even heard the product. Only read a few bits of information about it here and there. Pertinent to Mike's post, which you replied to, I found this:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/900#post_10484437
> 
> ...


 
 There's no direct relation between his comments and jitter, it's just something I wanted to bring it up among all the chatter of d/a chips and filter processing. The chip seems relatively buff as far as compute is concerned.


----------



## 62ohm

Has anyone ever heard the Myryad Z20? It doesn't seem to be very popular around here, but it does seem to be well priced.


----------



## purrin

baldr said:


> That's what Yggy digitally does. Period! (Pardon the shouts) IT DOES NOT MAKE BAD RECORDINGS SOUND GOOD. If you let it warm up all the way, IT DOES NOT MAKE BAD RECORDINGS SOUND WORSE. If you are listening to a lot of bad recordings, you may try stamp collecting or another hobby. You do not have to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, or swing dead chickens around your head while dancing nude and covered with moose dung in the Alaskan tundra in February.  Flippin' science.
> 
> There is no way to fix a bad recording, for now and ever shall be. Amen


 
  
 On this thought... the problem once you get a great DAC is that you start hunting for good recordings. Better masters. I think I have four different masters of Michael Jackon's Thriller. You start doing crazy **** like hunting down SACDs (yes DSD can be converted to PCM - actually, if you look at the frequency distribution say in say a wave editor like Adobe Audition, a good amount of DSD seems to be sourced from 44.1kHz PCM), buying rare Japan releases, asking friends in the industry, perusing every "remaster", etc. in an attempt to find the best recording.
  
 It's kind of a pain, but I actually find the search for the best recording quite rewarding.


----------



## BournePerfect

jason stoddard said:


> Yeah, it was a stupid question.


 
  
 FTFY.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr.estreetr , 
  
 I think I know that guy , we may have done a job together , a few years ago , in S.Dakota , or maybe we did time together on the Rock , can't quite remember properly , I was a heavy drinker back then .   
   If it's the guy I know , tell him he still owes my my cut of the $27K we got from that Bank Job , I'm looking for him , you say he's here in Michigan , somewhere , hmm , thanks for the tip , bet he's hiding out at our old Deep woods hideout , I'll find him .  
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> baldr said:
> 
> 
> > That's what Yggy digitally does. Period! (Pardon the shouts) IT DOES NOT MAKE BAD RECORDINGS SOUND GOOD. If you let it warm up all the way, IT DOES NOT MAKE BAD RECORDINGS SOUND WORSE. If you are listening to a lot of bad recordings, you may try stamp collecting or another hobby. You do not have to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, or swing dead chickens around your head while dancing nude and covered with moose dung in the Alaskan tundra in February.  Flippin' science.
> ...


 
  
 The local Head-Fi group here uses Thriller as their standard test track. I've heard it so many times now...


----------



## Baldr

BRUZ is the best/only flavor.


----------



## estreeter

Tony, this might jog your memory ...
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c3d7QgZr7g


----------



## tonykaz

Thriller indeed ,
  
 It was Recorded and Mastered with Electrocompinet Electronics by Quincy Jones .   Electro electronics is top stuff .   You can own Electrocompaniet yourself , it's not all that pricy .  
  
 Tony in Michigan 
  
 ps. the little Asgard 2 has the Electro "sound" !


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> On this thought... the problem once you get a great DAC is that you start hunting for good recordings. Better masters. I think I have four different masters of Michael Jackon's Thriller. You start doing crazy **** like hunting down SACDs (yes DSD can be converted to PCM - actually, if you look at the frequency distribution say in say a wave editor like Adobe Audition, a good amount of DSD seems to be sourced from 44.1kHz PCM), buying rare Japan releases, asking friends in the industry, perusing every "remaster", etc. in an attempt to find the best recording.
> 
> It's kind of a pain, but I actually find the search for the best recording quite rewarding.


 
 Which is your favorite re issue of thriller? I presume you have heard the master sound and HD stereo versions? Are there any better than those?


----------



## twinkle

baldr said:


> BRUZ is the best/only flavor.


 

 Oh good, a clue about the dac in the form of a coded message!


----------



## jacal01

Not a clue; a giveaway.  We're there, baby!


----------



## twinkle

jacal01 said:


> Not a clue; a giveaway.  We're there, baby!


 

 Surely, you're not calling me baby?


----------



## jacal01

If Telly Savalas could do it, it's not so hard now for the rest of us.
  
 How old are you, anyway?


----------



## twinkle

jacal01 said:


> If Telly Savalas could do it, it's not so hard now for the rest of us.
> 
> How old are you, anyway?


 

 You're supposed to reply: nope, and don't call me Shirley 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 (ps no spring chicken around here)
 edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6_rXO3wdUs


----------



## jacal01

Doh!  Completely missed that one.  And somewhat aggravatingly, it seems to happen more and more frequently of late.  Which should give you some indication of my age...


----------



## twinkle

jacal01 said:


> Doh!  Completely missed that one.  And somewhat aggravatingly, it seems to happen more and more frequently of late.  Which should give you some indication of my age...


----------



## Argo Duck

With age comes greater noise rejection. (Granted, sometimes you miss a good one that's in the noise, like the one above )


----------



## jacal01

Were that it was so.  I'm finding the babble all increasing, meself.  Is that what you mean?


----------



## Argo Duck

Pretty much  I find I focus more on the key message and ignore the side-tracks and chatter that go nowhere. That's what I mean by noise. And I don't just mean people talking or writing. There's a lot of it in the data I work with too. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Speaking of talk though, I used to remember whole conversations verbatim. Find I don't do that anymore _unless the conversation is interesting/worthwhile_. Of course, sometimes I tune out when I shouldn't :eek:


----------



## jacal01

Huh?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




    [Was that another softball lob, like the Surely line twinkle threw me?]
  
 But that's actually a relief.  I thot you were talking about the incessant voices...


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Oh _those_ voices. I know what you mean...


----------



## BirdManOfCT

purrin said:


> On this thought... the problem once you get a great DAC is that you start hunting for good recordings. Better masters. I think I have four different masters of Michael Jackon's Thriller. You start doing crazy **** like hunting down SACDs (yes DSD can be converted to PCM - actually, if you look at the frequency distribution say in say a wave editor like Adobe Audition, a good amount of DSD seems to be sourced from 44.1kHz PCM), buying rare Japan releases, asking friends in the industry, perusing every "remaster", etc. in an attempt to find the best recording.
> 
> It's kind of a pain, but I actually find the search for the best recording quite rewarding.


 

 LOL! I'm just starting that journey with headphones. I'd started that journey about 20 years ago with a loudspeaker system, but it got cut short when we converted the listening area to office space. Probably saved a lot of money!


----------



## Chris J

estreeter said:


> When did we stop using the 'Spoiler' method for quoting large posts and can we please revert to that ? The only thing that irks me more is when someone quotes a massive post containing a collection of images - it's just not good netiquette folks.




OK Mom


----------



## korolev

thanks for sharing


----------



## wink

It's not the babble that worries me, more like the dribble.


----------



## SearchOfSub

sorrodje said:


> PS audio perfectwave ! . .Incredible :blink: ... I missed this dac was wolfson based.  Lampizator too but the Lampizator line up is too hard to decode . Thks !!





PS audio perfect wave is not incredible at all. Arcam irDAC is better than PS Audio. How How many dacs have you heard?


----------



## magiccabbage

searchofsub said:


> PS audio perfect wave is not incredible at all. Arcam irDAC is better than PS Audio. How How many dacs have you heard?


 
 IRdac better than PWDMK2? Is that what your saying?


----------



## Sorrodje

searchofsub said:


> PS audio perfect wave is not incredible at all. Arcam irDAC is better than PS Audio. How How many dacs have you heard?


 
  
 Hi,
  
 What I found incredible is the fact I missed the Perfectwave was wolfson based. I've never heard this dac.
  
 That been said, the Perfectwave seems Highly praised by Purrin and his friends and I think they heard much more dacs than me.  I've read many good things about the ARCAM iRdac though. Definitely a DAC  I would like to compare to my Beresford Caiman for example 
  
 The Metrum Octave is back in my HD800 system. Not sure but I feel like I prefer its sound when it's fed with 24/88,1 PCM stream.  Dunno if it's psycho ou placebo as musurements showed differences are slight ( 0,5 db at 10khz, 1,5 @15khz and I can't hear more). Maybe the upsampled PCM brings something more in the sound ?


----------



## 62ohm

I've tried the irDAC with my HD800 + HDVA600, and at that time the shop had the Musical Fidelity M1 DAC for me to compare to. The Arcam is certainly better than the MF to me, but I don't think it can compete with TOTL DACs.
  
 I haven't heard a lot of DACs, but the irDAC certainly sounded very smooth to me, while the M1 DAC sounded a bit harsh. Can't remember many details though as it was only an hour, albeit in a very quiet room audition.


----------



## Sorrodje

.


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> That been said, the Perfectwave seems Highly praised by Purrin and his friends and I think they heard much more dacs than me.  I've read many good things about the ARCAM iRdac though. Definitely a DAC  I would like to compare to my Beresford Caiman for example


 
  
 The PWD2 was conditional on it being the upgraded PWD1 units running olderfirmwarm 2.02/03 which sounded different than new production PWD2s which couldn't run the older firmware.  I couldn't stand a PWD2 running 2.10 or later; but I never followed up with 2.4x firmwares. Even then, certain units of the newer PWD2s didn't sound right - they were really bass light and lean sounding.


----------



## estreeter

wink said:


> It's not the babble that worries me, more like the dribble.


 
  
 The best post in the last two pages of this thread - amen to that.


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> The PWD2 was conditional on it being the upgraded PWD1 units running olderfirmwarm 2.02/03 which sounded different than new production PWD2s which couldn't run the older firmware.  I couldn't stand a PWD2 running 2.10 or later; but I never followed up with 2.4x firmwares. Even then, certain units of the newer PWD2s didn't sound right - they were really bass light and lean sounding.


 
 Like the DirectStream?


----------



## Currawong

sorrodje said:


> The Metrum Octave is back in my HD800 system. Not sure but I feel like I prefer its sound when it's fed with 24/88,1 PCM stream.  Dunno if it's psycho ou placebo as musurements showed differences are slight ( 0,5 db at 10khz, 1,5 @15khz and I can't hear more). Maybe the upsampled PCM brings something more in the sound ?


 
  
 It's not placebo, the filter effectively changes running anything higher than 44.1. I've measured this. It is a consequence of it being a non-oversampling DAC. The difference isn't huge though in my experience, as it mostly affects higher frequencies above 10 kHz.
  
 The idea of using a NOS DAC with high-resolution music (studio masters) has always made sense to me from the standpoint of minimal processing of the recorded music, both on the studio end and the playback end of things.


----------



## Sorrodje

currawong said:


> It's not placebo, the filter effectively changes running anything higher than 44.1. I've measured this. It is a consequence of it being a non-oversampling DAC. The difference isn't huge though in my experience, as it mostly affects higher frequencies above 10 kHz.
> 
> The idea of using a NOS DAC with high-resolution music (studio masters) has always made sense to me from the standpoint of minimal processing of the recorded music, both on the studio end and the playback end of things.


 
  
 Yup . Seems legit to me too but currently my flac files are all 16/44.1 so I'm upsampling to 24/88,1khz.  Indeed I saw your measurements on the Octave thread and that's why I decided to upsamble (I'm running Linux so I use Pulse audio to upsamble) . The first time I did that I didn't notice improvements but I haven't any comparison point and we're speaking about very few (from 0,5 to 2 Db if I remember well) db at 10khz and above . I didn't think this will be produce really hearable differences. But so far it seems I feel (it's more feeling than real hearing) it's better.


----------



## SearchOfSub

sorrodje said:


> Hi,
> 
> What I found incredible is the fact I missed the Perfectwave was wolfson based. I've never heard this dac.
> 
> ...





Hello, purrin is talking about the original ps audio perfectwave then updated to perfectwave 2. The original perfectwave 2 that is made new, purrin also dosent rate it very high. Of all the dacs that I have had in my system, perfectwave 2 was the absolute worst. Grainy, no depth to soundstage, and timing is a bit slow. (Ofcourse this is the fresh made perfectwave 2/ Not the updated one from perfectwave 1 to 2)

From the current hyped up dscs in the market,with a integrated or a preamp in the mix, I wouldn't rate the Hugo high either. If running passive speakers with the Hugo as all in one, I would recommend it. But you would need high efficient speakers ofcourse. Some have compared it to Devialet 200, and have favored the Hugo when running as all in one and it's 1/4 the price. There is just alot of air, transparent and delicate. Alot of owners with Hugo running passive speakers as all in one liked it alot, so I think there is a new one under development from chord that will offer higher WPC to run with speakers but keeping hugo sound signature.

Arcam irDAC is a good dac for the price. I wouldn't mind using this as a 10 year dac. It's very balanced, timing is spot on, good soundtage, non fatiguing at all and very musical. The only downside is that the bass is a bit thin, but you can make up for it with a good integrated that is a little heavy on the bass.

I would definately like to try the metrum one day.


----------



## magiccabbage

>


 


> Arcam irDAC is a good dac for the price.


 
 Have you tried the Arcam DJ 33?


----------



## SearchOfSub

magiccabbage said:


> Have you tried the Arcam DJ 33?





No, I have not. But I have read some reviews and although people did like it, they could not justify the price. Iv read the Arcam irDAC has alot of the quality of the bigger brother at a fraction of the price making it a very good deal. I think Arcam in general make really good low to mid price point products (even arcam fmj 19) that put out high quality products for the price, but once it goes over 2 grand, there are other products that can compete with them that has a certain trait that is better than what arcam puts out. Their sound signature is balanced - sound that do not really emphasize on a certain trait, so I think to conclude they are good for a midfi system for easy listening. For critical listening, on which alot of dacs out there tend to get one or two traits really right, people tend to gravitate towards those nowadays.
For about $550.00 which you can pick up the Arcam irdac on ebay right now, I think it's a very good buy.

Also, for Hugo, I think $2,400.00 is a bit overpriced even as a all in one, for about 1,500.00 - to use as a all in one I think it's a good buy as well.


----------



## judmarc

baldr said:


> An SOF (Schiit only feature) – The Schiit Footlong Mega Burrito Supersauce Digital Filter:
> 
> It is a digital filter/sample rate converter designed to convert all audio to 352.8 or 396KHz sample rates so that it may drive our DACs.


 
  
 [Despicable pedant mode] 396KHz or 384? [/Despicable pedant mode]


----------



## jacal01

wink said:


> It's not the babble that worries me, more like the dribble.


 
  
 More like the drivel.
  
 But yeah, one of my favorite SNL skits was where Dan Akroyd played a old senile English aristocrat who wore a little silver drool bucket strapped to his chin and humped on every...


----------



## jacal01

judmarc said:


> [Despicable pedant mode] 396KHz or 384? [/Despicable pedant mode]


 
  
 I wondered about that myself.


----------



## kazsud

I picked up a used pwd1 a few weeks ago that was upgraded to 2. It's sounds a lot better than the oppo 105d and nuforce dac-100 that I used to have. It has the latest firmware and sounds smoother and detailed but does have a weird soundstage. I haven't heard a Hugo, master 7, or directstream yet.


----------



## judmarc

baldr said:


> Admittedly off topic in a DAC thread:
> 
> REVEAL:  The square chip is an ADSP-21478


 
  
 Great minds think alike: Bruno Putzeys' Mola-Mola DAC is also supposed to be based on a SHARC chip whenever it comes out.  (Now projected for early 2015, was supposed to be quite a bit earlier.  Deja vu.)
  
 That's actually more than a little sarcastic, as Putzeys would much rather have what he calls "the glorious sound of DSD" than any steenkin' PCM going through his DAC.  (That being said, I have no idea what Mike or Jason think of Mr. Putzeys or his designs, and they have a policy of not commenting on any other company's stuff, which is all to the good.)  But a couple of points:
  
 - I would guess the Mola-Mola DAC is going to be in a price range many times that of Yggy, just to give you an idea of value for money regarding Yggy's tech.
  
 - This shows different people can use the same/similar parts to build very different designs, which means trying to guess sound characteristics from parts is unlikely to be as fruitful as, say, listening.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Listening :eek:

What a novel concept for head-fi


----------



## smitty1110

argo duck said:


> ^ Listening
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Sadly, this is true. Look at the hype threads for some examples...and then get drunk to forget about the hype threads.


----------



## jacal01

judmarc said:


> Great minds think alike: Bruno Putzeys' Mola-Mola DAC is also supposed to be based on a SHARC chip whenever it comes out. (Now projected for early 2015, was supposed to be quite a bit earlier. Deja vu.)
> 
> That's actually more than a little sarcastic, as Putzeys would much rather have what he calls "the glorious sound of DSD" than any steenkin' PCM going through his DAC.


 
  
 DSD is more optimized towards the single bit DAC architecture, anyway, which is where the preponderance of current production audio DAC chip design lies.  Putzeys may be taking the path of least resistance with respect to digital data stream formatting and available DAC chips to its logical conclusion.
  
 I wonder if this now DSP programmed digital filter offchip configuration paradigm will lead to a resurgence of R2R DAC chip production for PCM audio data processing.


----------



## smitty1110

jacal01 said:


> DSD is more optimized towards the single bit DAC architecture, anyway, which is where the preponderance of current production audio DAC chips lie.  Putzeys may be taking the path of least resistance with respect to digital data stream formatting and available DAC chips to its logical conclusion.
> 
> I wonder if this now DSP programmed digital filter offchip configuration paradigm will lead to a resurgence of R2R DAC chip production for PCM audio data processing.


 

 It probably will cause a resurgence in high-end audio, but low end audio will probably remain in the Sigma-delta space. Having an external filter will kill their margins, so they'll stick with whatever's cheapest.


----------



## judmarc

jacal01 said:


> I wonder if this now DSP programmed digital filter offchip configuration paradigm will lead to a resurgence of R2R DAC chip production for PCM audio data processing.


 
  
 Looks like minimum order of a hundred, and it's a thousand before you get to a price break.  My guess (and it's just a guess) is the entire R2R DAC annual world output for several years would be pretty unnoticeable as a percentage of total sales of this type of chip.


----------



## estreeter

judmarc said:


> Great minds think alike: Bruno Putzeys' Mola-Mola DAC is also supposed to be based on a SHARC chip whenever it comes out.  (Now projected for early 2015, was supposed to be quite a bit earlier.  Deja vu.)
> 
> That's actually more than a little sarcastic, as Putzeys would much rather have what he calls "the glorious sound of DSD" than any steenkin' PCM going through his DAC.  (That being said, I have no idea what Mike or Jason think of Mr. Putzeys or his designs, and they have a policy of not commenting on any other company's stuff, which is all to the good.)  But a couple of points:
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm in the '_Puzteys is a genius and he's already proved his critics wrong_' camp, but Mike has made his thoughts on DSD abundantly clear and I completely agree that i_t's as much about the lack of genuine 'native DSD' recordings by anyone you'd ever previously heard of _as any technical objections to the format_._  The 'if you build it, they will come' ethos begins to look more like a tail wagging a dog - without the recording industry getting behind DSD I just dont see how it can possibly work. 
  
 I own SACDs, two players capable of SACD playback (5  DSD-capable DACs in total) and I've experimented with DSD upsampling in JRMC : *I'm not a Luddite,* but the promise of Yggy is that it will transform plain old PCM into something much closer to what the artists wanted us to hear without the need to mess around in software. It's not that long ago that the dream for most audiophiles was that iTunes and Amazon would move to lossless downloads - FLAC/ALAC - and it still hasnt happened. HDTracks, FWIR, continue to provide 'hi-rez' downloads of dubious provenance and the genuine article seems to be confined to classical and jazz recordings. Dr Putzeys may be the smartest guy in the room, but my fear is that he's backing a format which will join SACD in the 'niche within a tiny niche' category - time will tell.


----------



## judmarc

estreeter said:


> I'm in the '_Puzteys is a genius and he's already proved his critics wrong_' camp, but Mike has made his thoughts on DSD abundantly clear and I completely agree that i_t's as much about the lack of genuine 'native DSD' recordings by anyone you'd ever previously heard of _as any technical objections to the format_._  The 'if you build it, they will come' ethos begins to look more like a tail wagging a dog - without the recording industry getting behind DSD I just dont see how it can possibly work.
> 
> I own SACDs, two players capable of SACD playback (5  DSD-capable DACs in total) and I've experimented with DSD upsampling in JRMC : *I'm not a Luddite,* but the promise of Yggy is that it will transform plain old PCM into something much closer to what the artists wanted us to hear without the need to mess around in software. It's not that long ago that the dream for most audiophiles was that iTunes and Amazon would move to lossless downloads - FLAC/ALAC - and it still hasnt happened. HDTracks, FWIR, continue to provide 'hi-rez' downloads of dubious provenance and the genuine article seems to be confined to classical and jazz recordings. Dr Putzeys may be the smartest guy in the room, but my fear is that he's backing a format which will join SACD in the 'niche within a tiny niche' category - time will tell.


 
  
 I'm kinda in the "let a thousand flowers bloom" camp (though admittedly that didn't work out great for folks in China).  I don't think PCM can only exist in opposition to DSD, or vice versa, and I'm not sure the question of which is better even makes sense in the abstract - it all depends on the recording.  (Just like Mike said about Yggy - it won't make a bad recording good.  So the answer to "Which is better, PCM or DSD?" is identical to the answer to the question "Which is the better mastering *of this particular recording*?")
  
 I've got thousands of ripped and downloaded tracks in PCM format, and probably a thousand or more DSD tracks, and have been lucky enough to have it be mostly stuff I love.  (If you've got a good DAC that will natively play DSD downloads, I highly recommend Rickie Lee Jones' "Traffic from Paradise.")  By far the best versions of Quadrophenia, Tommy, and Gaucho that I own are in SACD/DSD format.  Of course that leaves a whole lotta shakin on PCM, like everything from Beatles to just about all the brand new rock I've bought recently.  (But my favorite classical artist, Jordi Savall, issues hybrid CD/SACD discs of all his new stuff.)
  
 I wouldn't want to give up any of it, and happily, I don't have to.  If at some point I'm lucky enough to be an Yggy owner, I'll still have a DSD DAC around for all the stuff that has its best masterings in that format.


----------



## tonykaz

SACD is DSD as far I know , 
   at least in any practical sense .  
  
 I had some access to a Mastering Studio in LA reciently where an Artist asked about DSD to the Mastering People ,
 Artist : "Should we consider DSD , been hearing about DSD" ? , 
 Studio Reply :  DSD ? , nobody is doing anything with DSD , who would we make it for ?  no , lets stay with 44.1 and a version for portable players !    
   Artist :  Yea , Ok , I was just wondering , you know what you're doing , do what you thinks best ! 
  The Studio Walls were covered with Gold & Platinum framed Albums by Artists this outfit Mastered . 
   Professor Moffat is right , even conservative in his appraisal of the Facts .  
   Let's move onto the concept of 32 Bit depth and keep some kind of fire burning .  Bring marshmallows and chocolate bars , we'll have some fun .
  
 Tony in Michigan 
  
 ps.  HP of TAS ( the Absolute Sound ) passed , a few days ago , 77 years old , at his home in Sea Cliff , NJ .


----------



## Chris J

tonykaz said:


> ps.  HP of TAS ( the Absolute Sound ) passed , a few days ago , 77 years old , at his home in Sea Cliff , NJ .




Harry Pearson, founder of The Absolute Sound, still my favourite audio magazine.
He will be missed!


----------



## BirdManOfCT

tonykaz said:


> [snip]
> 
> ps.  HP of TAS ( the Absolute Sound ) passed , a few days ago , 77 years old , at his home in Sea Cliff , NJ .


 
  Thanks for letting us know!


----------



## purrin

magiccabbage said:


> Which is your favorite re issue of thriller? I presume you have heard the master sound and HD stereo versions? Are there any better than those?


 
  
 The master of Thriller that I prefer is not commercially available anywhere.


----------



## smitty1110

purrin said:


> The master of Thriller that I prefer is not commercially available anywhere.


 

 Is it like the bootleg master of Californication, or is it a bit more official?


----------



## NinjaHamster

At the lower end of the price scale, does anybody have experience with the requisite DAC's to posit where the "Geek Out USB DAC/Headphone amp" would fit on the ratings scale?

I have been using a transformer-coupled NOS R2R DAC (using TDA1545) for years, and was quite surprised (VERY surprised - and a little disappointed really) that the Geek Out 450 DAC is so much better. Admittedly the NOS R2R DAC is only 16 bit, so had never heard HD recordings at their full reolution, but it was surprising that a $200 DAC was so much better even on 16 bit recordings.

I had clearly been unaware that some of the progress made in DAC production IS actually progress ... at least in the lower-cost segment.


----------



## BaTou069

purrin said:


> The master of Thriller that I prefer is not commercially available anywhere.


 
 Which is your commercially available favorite re issue of thriller?


----------



## judmarc

ninjahamster said:


> At the lower end of the price scale, does anybody have experience with the requisite DAC's to posit where the "Geek Out USB DAC/Headphone amp" would fit on the ratings scale?
> 
> I have been using a transformer-coupled NOS R2R DAC (using TDA1545) for years, and was quite surprised (VERY surprised - and a little disappointed really) that the Geek Out 450 DAC is so much better. Admittedly the NOS R2R DAC is only 16 bit, so had never heard HD recordings at their full reolution, but it was surprising that a $200 DAC was so much better even on 16 bit recordings.
> 
> I had clearly been unaware that some of the progress made in DAC production IS actually progress ... at least in the lower-cost segment.


 
  
 I did not own both at the same time, but have owned both Geek Out and Bifrost, and the latter I think is considerably better.  Yes, the Bifrost costs more, but I would still consider it to be "in the lower-cost segment."


----------



## NinjaHamster

Thanks - that's about what I thought. The core technology has me excited for the Geek Pulse Xfi when that is released. The addition of a linear power supply, femto clocks and balanced topology should be a step or two above the Bifrost. If it canes the Geek Out in the process, I will be VERY happy.  Then to await more news of the Yggy !


----------



## purrin

ninjahamster said:


> I have been using a transformer-coupled NOS R2R DAC (using TDA1545) for years, and was quite surprised (VERY surprised - and a little disappointed really) that the Geek Out 450 DAC is so much better. Admittedly the NOS R2R DAC is only 16 bit, so had never heard HD recordings at their full reolution, but it was surprising that a $200 DAC was so much better even on 16 bit recordings.
> 
> I had clearly been unaware that some of the progress made in DAC production IS actually progress ... at least in the lower-cost segment.


 
  
 The NOS / TDA / transformer coupled stuff sounds a certain way. I don't think those designs are the epitome of R2R DACs, therefore really shouldn't be used as a reference to measure progress...
  


judmarc said:


> I did not own both at the same time, but have owned both Geek Out and Bifrost, and the latter I think is considerably better.  Yes, the Bifrost costs more, but I would still consider it to be "in the lower-cost segment."


 
  
 ... that being said, the Geek Out is an excellent product. I like the GO450 with the lastest firmware which allows the use of one particular digital filter and fixed the coarse volume control. The GO450 will have a difficult time exceeding the capabilities of good dedicated desktop DACs up to $500, but its strength (and purpose) is an easy to use package: a small portable DAC/amp combo which sounds pretty darn good. Good detail. Good control. Good clarity. Good bass. In some respects excellent considering its footprint.
  
 I know that many posters here were criticized for not acknowledging the Hugo was totally awesome. One reason is the GO450. As a simple DAC/amp combo that can be plugged into a laptop. the GO450 beats the Hugo. The Hugo as a DAC is OK, but as a DAC/amp combo, it's kinda sucky.


----------



## NinjaHamster

Yes - the transformer-output NOS was very rolled off (of course), and very rich and rhythmic, and not very detailed.

In the end, the lack of treble (combined with 300B tubes and LCD-2.2's) left everything a bit murky for me.

The Geek Out 450 has been a good antidote to that ... but it kind of pisses me off ... you know, when you find you could have been listening to better sound for ages, but you have been blithely unaware - oh well, there's something to be said for that at least.

I guess that's the way you felt when you "discovered" the Theta and it made other stuff sound "broken" by comparison.


----------



## jexby

purrin said:


> ... that being said, the Geek Out is an excellent product. I like the GO450 with the lastest firmware which allows the use of one particular digital filter and fixed the coarse volume control. The GO450 will have a difficult time exceeding the capabilities of good dedicated desktop DACs up to $500, but its strength (and purpose) is an easy to use package: a small portable DAC/amp combo which sounds pretty darn good. Good detail. Good control. Good clarity. Good bass. In some respects excellent considering its footprint.
> 
> I know that many posters here were criticized for not acknowledging the Hugo was totally awesome. One reason is the GO450. As a simple DAC/amp combo that can be plugged into a laptop. the GO450 beats the Hugo. The Hugo as a DAC is OK, but as a DAC/amp combo, it's kinda sucky.


 
  
 purrin,
  
 yah my GO450 is getting more and more time at work (with NAD HP50) after the v1.5 firmware,  a great improvement.
 it easily remains my favorite tiny USB DAC+Amp for laptops.
  
  
 does GeekOut not have the "sabre sheen" you are famous for hearing and posting about? 
 or is it lessened to the point of "not bad"?
  
 I'm not quite sure what to listen for (or what tracks demonstrate) the Sabre sheen, but would like to try and isolate that sonic-issue when listening to my Concero HD and HP for comparison in that respect.
 TIA
 cheers.


----------



## Currawong

Especially with the updated firmware, the GO 1000 at least is excellent value. I have been scratching my head about swapping for a GO 450 to use when travelling, as the lower noise floor and lower power usage would be great on airplanes with my MB Air.


----------



## jacal01

judmarc said:


> Looks like minimum order of a hundred, and it's a thousand before you get to a price break.  My guess (and it's just a guess) is the entire R2R DAC annual world output for several years would be pretty unnoticeable as a percentage of total sales of this type of chip.


 
  
 Actually my speculation was whether other companies besides AD would get back into the high res R2R DAC chip production for audio application, now that the oversampling digital filter paradigm is programmable FPGA and DSP chips external to the DAC IC chip, allowing for more exact interpolation algorithms with 1K+ filter taps.
  
 I looked at the datasheets for present resistor string and resistor ladder TI chips DAC8580, 8581 and 8811 that I'd previously discussed, and it appears like they do have SDIN, SCLK and SYNC analogous serial data inputs (SDIN/SDI/DIN, SCLK/CLK, FSYNC/CS)  compatible with DSP outputs, but their bit resolution is still only 16 bit, so that'd be low end for audio DAC application.  TI still has all of its high res audio R2R DAC chips (sic) in with their 24 bit PCM1704 DAC chip, also configured for an external digital filter input (e.g. DF1704), and with assumably DSP output compatible analogous serial inputs (DATA, BCLK, WCLK).  However, all these chips except the DAC8811 are in "not recommended for new design" production status, implying that the current product applications are being supported from existing inventories.
  
 I do think unless there is some appreciable market movement back toward R2R D/A topology, IC chip or discrete, in audio DAC products because of public comparative reviews, increased buyer awareness, etc., the bulk of present and future DAC products will continue to be of the single bit DAC chip architecture vein, and like you say, overall R2R new chip design or even current chip production because of audio applications will remain static at current levels, or even more diminished over time.  The Yggy will have to make one hell of a game changing impact to bring notice at industry level.


----------



## NinjaHamster

currawong said:


> Especially with the updated firmware, the GO 1000 at least is excellent value. I have been scratching my head about swapping for a GO 450 to use when travelling, as the lower noise floor and lower power usage would be great on airplanes with my MB Air.




The Geek Out 450 is also great to use as a DAC - the 2.65v output is less hot than the Geek Out 1000's 4v so less attenuation is required.


----------



## richard51

i had read this thread and some people here really know many more things about dac than me , i had the bushmaster mkII and i think this is a very good dac, are there some impression here about that dac ?


----------



## Turn&cough

richard51 said:


> i had read this thread and some people here really know many more things about dac than me , i had the bushmaster mkII and i think this is a very good dac, are there some impression here about that dac ?


 
 I owned one for a brief while. OK for the price but in my system I found that it didn't sound natural. I might have been expecting too much of a bargain.


----------



## richard51

turn&cough said:


> I owned one for a brief while. OK for the price but in my system I found that it didn't sound natural. I might have been expecting too much of a bargain.


 
 what is the dac you prefered now over it?


----------



## Turn&cough

I've mentioned this a few times on this forum but here it is again...
  
 I've owned an Eastern Electric Minimax (original model but with some mods) since it first came out. It's not perfect but I tried Rega DAC, Yulong DA8, Ciunas and Bushmaster MK II. They all had their pros and cons but in each case I kept the MM and returned/sold the others.
  
 Despite what I read about other well rated DACs in its price range ($650 at the time) or so called ''giant killers'' (I'm curious about Arcam irDAC) I suspect I'll need to spend considerably more to de-trhone the MM.
  
 If I'm going to spend +2K on a DAC it will need to be very convincing. Schiit yggy, Chord Hugo, Mirus, etc?


----------



## SearchOfSub

turn&cough said:


> I've mentioned this a few times on this forum but here it is again...
> 
> I've owned an Eastern Electric Minimax (original model but with some mods) since it first came out. It's not perfect but I tried Rega DAC, Yulong DA8, Ciunas and Bushmaster MK II. They all had their pros and cons but in each case I kept the MM and returned/sold the others.
> 
> ...





Regardless of price, Arcam irDAC better'd Oppo 105 sabre, PS Audio MK2, and compared to Chord Hugo as well as Chord QuteHD, it just sounds "different", not necessarily worse. I still don't know why the irdac dosent get as much hype on this forum. Perhaps mostly has to do with price being so low, not worth talking about. I've heard the minimax, and start and stop time is quicker in the minimax, but the irdac has a bigger soundstage. I like the Arcam better in tone. It's a bit warmer. Not the kind where it's annoying too much warmth, but just right.


----------



## SearchOfSub

Edit: Forgot to mention Chord Hugo and QuteHD has more details over irDAC. Otherwise, irDAC is a good DAC. I can't imagine anyone not liking it if not into DSD.


----------



## Sorrodje

richard51 said:


> i had read this thread and some people here really know many more things about dac than me , i had the bushmaster mkII and i think this is a very good dac, are there some impression here about that dac ?


 
  
  
 The Bushmaster is a great dac but its brother the caïman is better. IMO Bushmaster offers a great Soundstage and a serious amount of details without being sterile or cold. it always remains engaging.  with mu HD800 and my Sonett. The bushmaster  sounded a bit too thin overally and stil has a treble etch. The caïman has a much more analog kind of sound but doesn't become sirupy or muddy. IMO the perfect balance between resolution and natural timbres . at least for my HD800. I'm still struggling to choose which dac I prefer in my HD800 system  : Metrum Octave MkI or Beresford CaÏman mkII. 
  
 Take this with the usual grain of salt. I've not heard so much other dacs.


----------



## schneller

I really would love a comparison of the Arcam irDAC vs. Schiit Gungnir USB2 vs. Rega DAC-R (new one).
  
 For the Arcam I can say this: it's rare to find ANY consensus on DACs but somehow across several different audio forums I visit, Arcam has managed to garner positive bang-for-buck commentary from all of them.


----------



## richard51

sorrodje said:


> The Bushmaster is a great dac but its brother the caïman is better. IMO Bushmaster offers a great Soundstage and a serious amount of details without being sterile or cold. it always remains engaging.  with mu HD800 and my Sonett. The bushmaster  sounded a bit too thin overally and stil has a treble etch. The caïman has a much more analog kind of sound but doesn't become sirupy or muddy. IMO the perfect balance between resolution and natural timbres . at least for my HD800. I'm still struggling to choose which dac I prefer in my HD800 system  : Metrum Octave MkI or Beresford CaÏman mkII.
> 
> Take this with the usual grain of salt. I've not heard so much other dacs.


 

 Merci infiniment, thank you very much, i will buy the Caiman in the future.....Best regards


----------



## HemiSam

richard51 said:


> Merci infiniment, thank you very much, i will buy the Caiman in the future.....Best regards


 
  
 I have enjoyed my Caiman MKII very much.  To post frankly, the instructions are poor and I was having an operational issue that I believe may have been due to the instructions ( I shared my opinions directly with Stan about the need to revisit the instructions for future buyers).  I figured it out on my own with time and by luck.  So if you do purchase one and you have any issues with it, feel free to PM me and I'll share my findings.  It does not appear to be a pervasive issue based on what I read on the European centric forums.  I've been enjoying mine since I figured it out and sorted through a few issues.  Now I have it working reliably and I give a BIG thumbs up to the value for money received.
  
 Stan is an interesting character....LOL.
  
 HS


----------



## purrin

jexby said:


> does GeekOut not have the "sabre sheen" you are famous for hearing and posting about?
> or is it lessened to the point of "not bad"?


 
  
 Yes, it does have a little bit of the sabre sheen, but it's well controlled. with the GO, the sabreness manifests as sort of edges that are a little bit to straight for me. In general, I have not liked sabre DACs (AGD, Yulong, Ressossossnace, ODAC, many others), but I have made specific exceptions with Vega, X-Sabre, and now GO450. 
  
 I found one digital filter setting much more palatable than the other. With the modded Sony Z7 (reduced bass), even the Z7's small treble bump, I had absolutely no issues from the GO450. You can take a GO450 and add Z7, HD650, LCD2, etc. and pretty much have a complete system worthy of many that I've heard that were more expensive. The GO450's price also makes it difficult for me to be nitpicky.
  
 I did find the Paradox however not to work well with GO450 from the low Z output. Sort of a hard edge or glare what would build up over time and get to me by 45 minutes. However a switch to the 10ohm out Z output solved this issue with the Paradox.


----------



## richard51

hemisam said:


> I have enjoyed my Caiman MKII very much.  To post frankly, the instructions are poor and I was having an operational issue that I believe may have been due to the instructions ( I shared my opinions directly with Stan about the need to revisit the instructions for future buyers).  I figured it out on my own with time and by luck.  So if you do purchase one and you have any issues with it, feel free to PM me and I'll share my findings.  It does not appear to be a pervasive issue based on what I read on the European centric forums.  I've been enjoying mine since I figured it out and sorted through a few issues.  Now I have it working reliably and I give a BIG thumbs up to the value for money received.
> 
> Stan is an interesting character....LOL.
> 
> HS


 

 Thank you very much for your kind offer.....i will contact you if i needed to....


----------



## bmichels

purrin said:


> _Bricasti M1 (cut and paste from another thread b/c it really belongs here)_
> 
> 
> I'll make a few succinct points (direct comparison with Wyrd->PWD2, Wyrd->OR5+M7 on EC 2A3 Custom / Levi with a wide variety of headphones) :
> ...


 
  
 Purrin, *will you consider the M1 as a good choice with an Eddie Curent 445 *?  Will it offer a good synergy ?  
  
 (so far I am considering a TotalDAC for my 445 because it is R2R and...I know the maker of it, Vincent,  but I am open to other suggestion...in the "10.000$ max" range)


----------



## tonykaz

TOTALDAC !!!  
 Hello Mr. Bmichels ,
  
   I have been noticing this TotalDAC and the person behind it .   I too am considering a proper R2R DAC as in the MSB Analog DAC and the Antelope Pure 2 and the Schiit Yggy thing that Professor Mike Moffat of Schiit is about to release .
   It seems now ( today ) that prices for these technologies are falling into the range where nonprofessional Music lovers might be able to justify and afford owning such devices  .   The Vishay resistors can be purchased by the do-it-yourself group which may result in a infant birth of home-grown DACs , I am hopeful .   
   I see the DAC today in three quality levels : Good , Better , Best !  
 The Good can be purchased from nearly every outlet for costs in the $100 US to $250 US Range .
 The Better seem to start from $250 US and range up beyond $2,000 .
 The Best seem to start at prices beginning around $5,000 and reach beyond $50,000 .
  
 I will own one of the Best group , I don't know which , how can a person decide without certain confidance , the prices are high for speculations and simple trust , I'm not trusting reviewers to have the vocabulary and lexicon of accuracy to properly describe as DAC performance is more likened to Digital Film Cameras than to musical instruments .  Still , I'm thinking that time will reveal the Better performers from the not so good .   Jon Iverson seems intent to separate these Best DACs , he already own's the MSB Ananlog and does field testing of the others ( with the assistance of his Audio Club )  , Iverson is a reviewer for Sterophile ( which is primarily an Analog Magazine but now leaning to the Digital ) .
   Overall , I feel the preponderance of the little white wires hanging from so many peoples ears is actually the driving force behind the Digital Movement , we can anticipate a growing number of these portable player people graduating to better Home Music , accurate Musical renderings from available DACs will improve as the Market for them develops . 
  
 I am hopeful .
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## bmichels

tonykaz said:


> TOTALDAC !!!
> Hello Mr. Bmichels ,
> 
> I have been noticing this TotalDAC and the person behind it .   I too am considering a proper R2R DAC as in the MSB Analog DAC and the Antelope Pure 2 and the Schiit Yggy thing that Professor Mike Moffat of Schiit is about to release ....
> Tony in Michigan


 
  
 is the MSB Analog DAC also a  R2R DAC ?


----------



## bmichels

another high quality DAC not very well known: VAD new dual mono DAC-12 DSD
  

  
  
VAD new dual mono DAC-12 DSD


----------



## tonykaz

The MSB Analog DAC is a R2R DAC with a super accurate and stable Clock !  
  
 Starting Cost about $7,000 US .
  
 MSB Labs is a California Company in Watsonville , Ca.   
  
 It's respected , maybe feared by DAC compititors .  
  
 The Upper level MSB DACs have "Moon Shot" price tags .
  
 Tony in Michigan 
  
 ps.   I just had a look at the VAD DAC , it's a chip based unit , includes DSD capability which is of no future use as the Recording Industry has standardized in 16/44.1 & 24/96 .  The higher resolutions are being rather ignored , it seems , featuring larger files with no benefit .


----------



## bmichels

tonykaz said:


> ... I just had a look at the VAD DAC , it's a chip based unit , includes DSD capability which is of no future use as the Recording Industry has standardized in 16/44.1 & 24/96 .  The higher resolutions are being rather ignored , it seems , featuring larger files with no benefit .


 
  
 The VAD DAC seems to sound excellent with 16/44 files !  
  
 And the DSD is just a "plus" because there are 2 totally separate DAC engines: one for PCM and one for DSD !  This DSD playback is completely separate from the PCM DAC: It has its own dedicated USB, mains power supplies and analogue path.


----------



## NoPants

bmichels said:


> The VAD DAC seems to sound excellent with 16/44 files !
> 
> And the DSD is just a "plus" because there are 2 totally separate DAC engines: one for PCM and one for DSD !  This DSD playback is completely separate from the PCM DAC: It has its own dedicated USB, mains power supplies and analogue path.


 
 That DAC looks hideous inside


----------



## BirdManOfCT

nopants said:


> That DAC looks hideous inside


 

 In what way? Not disagreeing, just wondering what you're thinking about.
  
 I've seen the headphone-era being compared to high-end in 80s and 90s. I'm beginning to agree. Watch your wallet!


----------



## NoPants

birdmanofct said:


> In what way? Not disagreeing, just wondering what you're thinking about.
> 
> I've seen the headphone-era being compared to high-end in 80s and 90s. I'm beginning to agree. Watch your wallet!


 
  
 There's no one particular thing, it just looks like a DIY endeavor in a nice chassis. 
  
 Why are they using a floating terminal block to connect to the cap
  
 No thought to the placement of transformers
  
 short run of usb cable inside the case
  
 I could go on but blah blah blah


----------



## VAD G

Hi
 I am Gregor from VAD
 Thank you for your comment
  
 I beg to disagree about anything being `hideous` looking inside DAC-12
 This is hand built and as such definitely does not look like `infrared stove` soldered gear with almost everything SMD on one PCB in `military order`. 
 It is also `destined` for the people who like hand engineered electronics and  the very best sound of it.
 Otherwise what would be the point of point-to-point hand made best valve amps.
 The placement of transformers has been determined by experimenting how they influence each-other.
 The over-sized `bullet` connectors are there to make servicing possible.
 The DAC has three sections chassis.
 FR-4 2mm PCB`s separate for PCM and DSD
 The only `chips` are in PCM decoding, yet the HF triode is responsible for SPDIF inputs
 Device passes all the required electrical tests without problem.


----------



## tonykaz

Hello Gregor ,
  
 That person's comment amounts to heckling , you may ignore it ,
   Certainly your design is well thought out ,
 Someone was recommending your unit to me . I mentioned that I was hunting for a BEST category DAC .  
 I am !
 [size=x-small]My feeling is [/size]that the DAC is the Phono Cartridge type Transducer that Creates Music from Bits , thus it is the Critical Component in the Music Chain of Electronics , the better the DAC the better the rest of the System performs .  [size=x-small] [/size]
 [size=x-small] I am now considering the R2R type DAC from MSB ( the Analog DAC ) , the Schiit Yggy and the Antelope Pure 2 .   I'm waiting for the Schiit to be released . [/size]
 I come to understand a Man in France started building a R2R DAC called TOTALDAC .  
 We were discussing all these when someone pointed out your product , I mentioned it being a Chip DAC , then that person made that "nasty" comment .
   Sometimes one person says something unfortunate and it slips out , he may not even intend it's meaning but it gets out , un-edited , these things happen .  
   Well , what can we do ?  
 Still , I'm hoping that the Best Category of Consumer DACs will settle in the $2,500 US range , I can't justify greater expenditures as a hobby item .  If I were a Professional Application I could support much greater outlay .  
  
 Where is VAD ?  Somehow I had the feeling you are in the UK 
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## VAD G

Hi Tony
 Thank you for `cheering me up`
 Yes, I am in the UK (Northamptonshire)
  
 If the VAD gear would be just for the money, I  certainly would choose the `easier way`:
 (good DAC on one PCB with neat `rows` of parts, fully CAD conceived,
 IR soldered possibly in the far east = very good sound for £1000 or less and a new model every two months)
  
 VAD gear started from not being designed/made - `for the money` at all
 It is now, but DAC-12 will never be `eligible` for mass production and it is a limited number only (I can make maybe 100 before eyes give up)
 Not really possible to train more people to make it as it would put the price into `fantasy land category` in the UK 
  
 Regarding `chip` wars
 Honesty there is nothing wrong with `chip` for PCM, it is the implementation which matters the most.
 Of course any fan of `discrete` R2R DAC isn`t wrong at all!
 In DAC-12,  the PCM is a dual mono conversion with long researched - configured `chips`  
 The DSD playback is rather innovative and doesn`t include dac chip per se.
  
 I sincerely wouldn`t solder it for 5 days to complete if it wouldn`t be worth sound wise above all.
  
 The chassis isn`t `fancy` - I just needed space within standard HiFi size and love the view of valves glowing.
  
 All the best
 Gregor


----------



## tonykaz

Dear Vad G , Gregor ,
  
 I think I understand , I had an Export Office in the UK , back in the 1980s , I loved the place but my family is here in the States so I had to return .   
  
 Brits create amazing stuff , some of it scales up to high production , most of it quite nice . 
  
 Just about all of our hifi retailers around here are long gone , nowadays companies sell thru the Internet or they don't sell , Schiit is a good example of how things are done and can be done .  You can read the entire example of Schiit's birth and growth , here on headfi , Jason Stoddard writes the entire story , chapter by chapter .
  I Exported from the UK and Imported here in the US , I mail ordered too , Jason's explaining of today's business model is quite accurate and achievable .  
  
 Well , thank you for responding , DSD has not importance for me , I work with the Mastering Studios , from time to time , they don't do DSD and hold out no future for the format so I see no point in supporting the DSD hope .  The Vinyl twidlers hold out some hope for DSD but I think it's a lost cause , something like Sony's BETA video system against VHS , perhaps better but not adopted .
  
 I see Digital Conversion as the developing technology , it's quite expensive to work with , at the moment , much improvement is possible , the marketplace is coming of age with the iPod people graduating to better sounding music reproduction .
  
 You are in the right place !  ,  You have some "word of mouth" working for you !  I hope you achieve a bit of market penetration .  
  
 Tony in Michigan 
  
 ps.  Antelope have a DAC thing that looks like your piece , very avant


----------



## Ookazi

Can anyone shortly compare the Geek Out 450 to the Wyred+Modicombo? I'm looking for a DAC for travel and am very interested in how the GO 450 sounds in comparison to similarly priced gear.
  
 EDIT: I'm especially interested in a DAC that handles USB really well in that pricerange.


----------



## bmoura

nopants said:


> That DAC looks hideous inside


 
  
 Not sure about the comments on the inside, but the upcoming Geek Soul seems to get some of its design cues from the outside of the VAD DAC case from what I have seen so far - including a "V" indented area for the tubes. 
 Check the photos at https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/geek-pulse-ultra-high-def-audio-for-your-desktop and see if you agree.


----------



## bmoura

tonykaz said:


> Well , thank you for responding , DSD has not importance for me , I work with the Mastering Studios , from time to time , they don't do DSD and hold out no future for the format so I see no point in supporting the DSD hope .  The Vinyl twidlers hold out some hope for DSD but I think it's a lost cause , something like Sony's BETA video system against VHS , perhaps better but not adopted .


 
  
 Depends on the mastering studios you talk to and work with I suppose. 
  
 Over on Facebook, mastering engineer Bruce Brown at Puget Sound Studios says "Have 4 DSD projects to get out this weekend. DSD is alive and well folks!" 
 He must be getting all the work your mastering engineers are missing with their 16/44.1 gear...


----------



## skeptic

Love to see them spending less time on chassis design and addon tube buffer stages and more time actually delivering on all of the past products people have already ordered...
  
 Also, take a look at the hilarious comparison chart on that page...  I bet ARC would love that LH is suggesting the Dac 8 doesn't have an ultra-low noise power supply when, if memory serves, the Dac 8 has seven stages of regulation.  Similarly, suggesting LH's mid-grade sabre implementation plus femto is somehow better than Ayre's FPGA design is just silly.


----------



## tonykaz

DSDs 
  
 I'm reviewing music now-a-days , I've not seen the first DSD yet .    I know there are a few , maybe 5,000 actual recordings , which is the total number quoted by the Industry People at the last AES in California .
   Professionally , I'm not concerned , one way or another , I don't have a Dog in this Fight !  
  I'm spending considerable funds on PCM review electronics ,  high level DSD DACs are quite expensive too , at this moment I won't have to own the stuff . I will purchase if I have to .  
 PCM continues to be the digital language the Industry Speaks : 16/44.1 & 24/96  , that is it .   
   As an aside -  Mastering Engineers will work to have the lossy sound good , they seem to feel the World is all Car Radio and Portable .  If they are to do anything Audiophile they'll tend to a Vinyl version that has all the Bass combined into Mono and only 40 to 45 db of dynamic range ! 
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## jacal01

Re. purrin's pursuit of good recording masters topic, I was reviewing my options for a recent Japanese remastering of Tom Wait's Rain Dogs this past week, and there were 3 levels of disc choice: Redbook CD, platinum coated CD, and hybrid SACD, along with commensurate pricing.  I chose the Pt CD after not too much further thought, so DSD (and its potential future promise )is apparently not much priority with me (or not enough to pay the extra premium for the open-ended possibility).


----------



## tonykaz

Jacal01,
  
 and it's probably DSD converted from PCM !  Which is exactly how much of the DSD stuff is done .
  
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## BirdManOfCT

vad g said:


> Hi
> I am Gregor from VAD
> Thank you for your comment
> 
> ...


 

 Don't get me wrong, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with question. To my eyes, it's not that unusual. But, I'm no expert. When we're talking analog, things tend to look quite different. In that regards, looks nice.
  
 I'm still waiting to see the innards of some other equipment from some competition.


----------



## purrin

jacal01 said:


> Re. purrin's pursuit of good recording masters topic, I was reviewing my options for a recent Japanese remastering of Tom Wait's Rain Dogs this past week, and there were 3 levels of disc choice: Redbook CD, platinum coated CD, and hybrid SACD, along with commensurate pricing.  I chose the Pt CD after not too much further thought, so DSD (and its potential future promise )is apparently not much priority with me (or not enough to pay the extra premium for the open-ended possibility).


 
  
 I know. It drives you nuts huh? Sometimes good to have friends to share the effort with you to determine which are the good masters. I have Rain Dogs on vinyl purchased back in the day. Will need to ask around for the best digital version.


----------



## purrin

bmichels said:


> Purrin, *will you consider the M1 as a good choice with an Eddie Curent 445 *?  Will it offer a good synergy ?
> 
> (so far I am considering a TotalDAC for my 445 because it is R2R and...I know the maker of it, Vincent,  but I am open to other suggestion...in the "10.000$ max" range)


 
  
 I'd for go the M1 if I had a warmer amp like the 2A3mk4. Actually, if you had 2A3mk4, I'd just say Schiit Yggy. It depends if you want warmer sound or not. I myself prefer a slightly warm sound - just a touch. It also depends if you want something that sounds more forgiving or pleasant vs something very resolving. Personally I'd just get the Yggy because I think it's better than the Theta Gen V, which with a proper transport is better than anything from MSB I've heard. But again it depends. Theta and Yggy are same school: extremely resolving with incredible stage, lots of slam, un-blunted attacks. I know a lot of people who would prefer a more slightly colored pleasant DAC that sounds good with almost everything. The MSB stuff sounds good with almost everything. I'm betting the TotalDAC is along these lines.
  
 Otherwise any of the warmer sounding R2R DACs for 4-45. I have not heard TotalDAC. I don't think you can go wrong with MSB Analog. Make sure you get the power supply. Best way to get MSB is to find someone who got one of the more expensive units selling for cheaper. See here: http://app.audiogon.com/listings/da-converters-msb-technology-platinum-dac-iv-plus-signature-platinum-power-base-signature-volume-us-2014-11-14-digital-53593-verona-wi.
  
 The issue with the MSB Analog is that you can only upgrade to a certain extent. This is why I recommend a used higher level MSB if you want to go that route, such as the one linked above. MSB is horribly overpriced with Porsche like options, so that kind of turns me off from them. But then again, the MSB Analog comes more capable than the entry level higher up line from MSB. And it is almost impossible to go wrong with the MSB Analog + power base.
  
 Maybe you should get your amp first and use whatever DAC you currently have to get a reference of where to start. Someone told me that EC is selling 2A3mk4 again, but I am not sure and I have not checked.


----------



## jacal01

purrin said:


> I know. It drives you nuts huh? Sometimes good to have friends to share the effort with you to determine which are the good masters. I have Rain Dogs on vinyl purchased back in the day. Will need to ask around for the best digital version.


 
  
 The Japanese remastering is almost always of first rate competance, which is why they're usually signifcantly more expensive and rapidly disappear from availability.  Sometimes Germany or some other country distributor besides Japan is your last and only resort.  These Dogs remasterings were released just this year, so don't wait too long... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 UK import remasters are generally a cut about the US releases as well.  Maybe they're not so much into compression rock.
  
 @ tony-
 I'm sure you're right.  I actually crossed the SACD 'Rubicon' a couple of years back.  I'm just smarter about the PCM conversion to DSD format much more recently.


----------



## bmichels

purrin said:


> ..... But then again, the MSB Analog comes more capable than the entry level higher up line from MSB. And it is almost impossible to go wrong with the MSB Analog + power base.
> 
> Maybe you should get your amp first and use whatever DAC you currently have to get a reference of where to start. Someone told me that EC is selling 2A3mk4 again, but I am not sure and I have not checked.


 
  
 Thanks a lot for your precise answer. TotalDAC & MSB Analog (+power base) are indeed first on my list.
  
 But, as you suggest, I will start to use my 445 (supposed to arrive in 2 days) with my HUGO and then, when it will be breaked-in and I will get used to it's sound, I will start to test some higher end DACs with it.


----------



## TooPoor

Does anyone wish to comment on the WM8741 chip? I never really here about it (probably for a reason), but I've loved the dual set in my AGD 10.33 so far... I just picked up the HD800 and it sounds pretty good so far, waiting on my balanced Draug2 to really comment though.


----------



## estreeter

tonykaz said:


> TOTALDAC !!!
> Hello Mr. Bmichels ,
> 
> I have been noticing this TotalDAC and the person behind it .   I too am considering a proper R2R DAC as in the MSB Analog DAC and the Antelope Pure 2 and the Schiit Yggy thing that Professor Mike Moffat of Schiit is about to release .
> ...


 
  
  
 Tony, I'm wondering if you may have missed the part where purrin added the two vintage R2R DACs and ruled a line straight through everything else below them ? Perhaps I took this too literally - bolding is mine :
  
_*October 24, 2014 Update:*_
_The two DACs in Class E can no longer be obtained. They are superior to all other DACs on this list. Like far superior. *So much superior that I wouldn't bother with anything in the classes below.* The unfortunate thing is that they are no longer being made. They were designed in the 90s: the golden age of R2R DACs. They offer vinyl like smoothness - no sigma-delta hash. They offer texture and tonal density not found on anything not R2R. They growl, scream, kick. They offer superior microdynamic contrast. It's really hard to put into words._
  
 Not sure that I completely agree with you re the price of current R2R offerings, but I guess it's all relative - compared to the dCS offerings, they're all 'affordable', but from memory I think Yggy will be the only modern offering under 5k USD and that's my idea of 'affordable'.


----------



## tonykaz

Hello Thailand Mr.estreeter ,  
  
 I think everyone realizes this .  
 The Recording industry had and has these older technologies , they produced excellent 16/44.1 but consumer electronics fell far short of the mark in quality , that quality gap is now closing for Consumers !  
 It seems the new benchmark price point for high Quality DACs begins around the $2,500 level , I hope it continues to become even more accessible ! ,  we are just now seeing two such converters about to be released both from respectable Companies :  Antelope & Schiit .   I hope more will follow .  
   16/44.1 continues , 24/96 joins it and dominates the video side of Audio reproduction , top realized bit depth is around 20 bits which equates to 120 db of dynamic range .  No consumer gear is now capable of greater than 120 db of dynamic range ( for all practical purposes ) .  As of today , only OPPO claim dynamic range capability of their headphones & little headphone amp .  I hope others will also build to this capability .
   Things are looking very good for us civilian Music lovers and affordable reproduction equipment , I could say it's never been this good ( the Vinyl people might disagree ) .
   We live in exciting times .
  
Tony in Michigan


----------



## ogodei

toopoor said:


> *Does anyone wish to comment on the WM8741 chip? I never really here about it *(probably for a reason), but I've loved the dual set in my AGD 10.33 so far... I just picked up the HD800 and it sounds pretty good so far, waiting on my balanced Draug2 to really comment though.


 
  
 PS Audio PerfectWave 2.


----------



## TooPoor

ogodei said:


> PS Audio PerfectWave 2.




Not sure how I missed that... Regardless, the Rag/Yggy seem like the setup I'll end up with. Continuing to hear great things about them both. Any potential pricing updates on the Yggy? I'm still catching up on the Rag/Yggy thread.


----------



## Defiant00

toopoor said:


> Not sure how I missed that... Regardless, the Rag/Yggy seem like the setup I'll end up with. Continuing to hear great things about them both. Any potential pricing updates on the Yggy? I'm still catching up on the Rag/Yggy thread.


 
  
 Either $2300 or $2399, I can't remember for sure right now.


----------



## listen4joy

really good thread of the best Dacs out there. only 2 Dacs missing here i think
 AMR DP 777 and 
 Ayre QB-9
  
 Bravo Purrin! 
  
 i sure that future Yggy will place high as well


----------



## bmichels

listen4joy said:


> really good thread of the best Dacs out there. only 2 Dacs missing here i think
> AMR DP 777 and
> Ayre QB-9
> 
> ...


 
  
 yes, expecialy now that there is a new DP777 *SE* upgraded version.


----------



## listen4joy

i forgot MSB oh well...


----------



## Bonesy Jonesy

Would be good to also review the Chord Electronics Qute and QBD76HD as these two DACS have rave reviews in the HiFi World !


----------



## estreeter

bonesy jonesy said:


> Would be good to also review the Chord Electronics Qute and QBD76HD as these two DACS have rave reviews in the HiFi World !


 
  
 I suspect that you may be in the wrong thread for those two DACs, but I would be interested in hearing purrin's opinion of the totaldac and the phasure nos-1a, assuming he's heard them.


----------



## lestuan

Me, too. Still waiting for his value input about these DAC.


----------



## listen4joy

purrin
 oops... i forgot to tell you about some high end dacs that you didnt mention and compare as well....
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/725435/music-alchemists-ultimate-wish-list-thread-feel-free-to-add-your-own-items/30#post_11078578

 will it ever end?
 ^-^


----------



## wink

Quote:listen4joy 





> will it ever end?


 
 Not while ever there are audiophiles like us and companies willing to scratch our itch and empty our wallets.....


----------



## NinjaHamster

Hi Purrin,

Just wondering if you've heard any of the (admittedly more expensive) newer R2R Dacs as a comparison - something like the Total DAC, MSB Analogue or such-like ?


----------



## estreeter

listen4joy said:


> purrin
> oops... i forgot to tell you about some high end dacs that you didnt mention and compare as well....
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/725435/music-alchemists-ultimate-wish-list-thread-feel-free-to-add-your-own-items/30#post_11078578
> ...


 
  
 I could be wrong here, but I dont think his intention was ever to evaluate every high-end DAC on the planet and his last post made it pretty clear that he's lost interest in any further comparisons. As always I'm happy to hear otherwise.


----------



## jacal01

And yet this thread still lives...  Maybe some other informed 'golden' ear(s) can pick up the comparison torch as opportunity presents itself.  As long as the comparison basis is referenced to one or more of purrin's existing ranked/catagorized DACs on his list, it should be able to be expanded on by multiple contributors here.
  
 I'll start: I think the Yugo rates an E. Oh wait... it's already ranked as an F, for Facebook.


----------



## jacal01

ninjahamster said:


> Hi Purrin,
> 
> Just wondering if you've heard any of the (admittedly more expensive) newer R2R Dacs as a comparison - something like the Total DAC, MSB Analogue or such-like ?


 
  
 Purrin once stated on the audio-gd Master 7 DAC thread that using its HDMI LVDS I2S input through an Empirical Audio OR5 USB DDC sounded competitive with the MSB Analog DAC, which I thought a pretty heady comparison, given the price difference.  That premier position has now been usurped by the olde timey Sonic Frontier and Theda R2R DACs for him.  Not sure where that now puts the MSB DAC...


----------



## smitty1110

jacal01 said:


> Not sure where that now puts the MSB DAC...


 
 That puts it in Hell, MI. Far away from Purrin's lair.


----------



## jacal01

Actually, purrin probably has a better chance at this point of auditing the MSB Analog (and/or better) DAC and TotalDAC, as well as better qualified to assess them against his extensive listening experience, than most of us.  All of us would like some empirical informed review of the discrete resistor laddar DACs relative to the present and former R2R chip DACs for conversion performance, given the price difference, and purrin has a demonstrated rating system to evaluate those differences, however subtle they may be at the high end, that everyone would give credit to.


----------



## purrin

jacal01 said:


> Purrin once stated on the audio-gd Master 7 DAC thread that using its HDMI LVDS I2S input through an Empirical Audio OR5 USB DDC sounded competitive with the MSB Analog DAC, which I thought a pretty heady comparison, given the price difference.  That premier position has now been usurped by the olde timey Sonic Frontier and Theda R2R DACs for him.  Not sure where that now puts the MSB DAC...


 
  
 With headphones, the comparison between the two is closer. With speakers, the MSB Analog pulls ahead because the M7's relatively shallower depth of stage and softer hitting nature become more evident. I _was _actually in the market for an MSB Analog + power base when I owned the M7.
  
 Since the SFD-1mk2 w/ SE+ upgrades and especially the Theta Gen V and Data III with ST/AT&T optical (and also audition of the Yggy), I now have absolutely zero interest in the MSB Analog or any other MSB DACs (yes, I've heard the $60K MSB DACs too) other than the cachet and bragging rights that goes with owning one. Spending that much on a DAC for bragging rights would be unwise anyways.


----------



## lestuan

purrin said:


> With headphones, the comparison between the two is closer. With speakers, the MSB Analog pulls ahead because the M7's relatively shallower depth of stage and softer hitting nature become more evident. I _was _actually in the market for an MSB Analog + power base when I owned the M7.
> 
> Since the SFD-1mk2 w/ SE+ upgrades and especially the Theta Gen V and Data III with ST/AT&T optical (and also audition of the Yggy), I now have absolutely zero interest in the MSB Analog or any other MSB DACs (yes, I've heard the $60K MSB DACs too) other than the cachet and bragging rights that goes with owning one. Spending that much on a DAC for bragging rights would be unwise anyways.


 
 Purin, do you think the Theta GenVIII has the same sound character just as your Gen V ? Have you ever heard the Gen VIII ?


----------



## purrin

Absolutely not same. Gen VIII is totally different architecture. Isn't R2R and doesn't have Mike Moffat implemented secret sauce digital filter. Mike had been gone from Theta for 15 years or since when Gen VIII finally came out.
  
 The most similar sound you will get to Gen V is Yggy (both have very unique trademark soundstage and timbre characteristics). I think I mentioned I got to compare both DACs side by side for a few hours. Except Yggy is like way more resolving than Gen V, which was in turn about as or more resolving as anything I've heard yet (Bricasti M1, EA Overdrive, PSA PWD2, Bezerkly Alpha2, Aurulac Vega, etc.)


----------



## mtruong34

purrin said:


> Except Yggy is like way more resolving than Gen V, which was in turn about as or more resolving as anything I've heard yet (Bricasti M1, *EA Overdrive*, PSA PWD2, Bezerkly Alpha2, Aurulac Vega, etc.)


 
  
 Hi Purrin. I did not see your impressions of EA Overdrive on Page 1.  Would you be so kind to add this to your excellent list?  I'd be interested to read your thoughts and where it falls in the pecking order.  Best Regards.


----------



## bmichels

purrin said:


> Absolutely not same. Gen VIII is totally different architecture. Isn't R2R and doesn't have Mike Moffat implemented secret sauce digital filter. Mike had been gone from Theta for 15 years or since when Gen VIII finally came out.
> 
> The most similar sound you will get to Gen V is Yggy (both have very unique trademark soundstage and timbre characteristics). I think I mentioned I got to compare both DACs side by side for a few hours. Except Yggy is like way more resolving than Gen V, which was in turn about as or more resolving as anything I've heard yet (Bricasti M1, EA Overdrive, PSA PWD2, Bezerkly Alpha2, Aurulac Vega, etc.)


 
  
 So Purrin, should I understand that if I can still wait a little before I buy a new DAC for my EC445, I should* wait for the **Yggy * rather than spending $10.000 on a MSB Analog DAC or more likely a TotalDac D1-Dual ?    
  
*--> Do you believe Yggy & EC445 will have good synergy ? *
  
*--> Any idea of the pricing ? is it R2R ? *


----------



## tonykaz

Hello Purrin ,   
  
 I guess you're floating to the top of the "experienced" in DACs list of interested parties .  
  
 You seem to be a Mike Moffat believer from way back in the day , I presume you know the man himself as you have access to the early prototypes .   The promise of a bright DAC future is about as good a Product Roll-out endorsement as exists for the Yggy , to date ( other than Mike's wife brought to tears from a brief exposure to the design !  
   Placing it in the same league with the Antelope , MSB Analog and Benchmark is effectively what you're doing here , I hope you're right , I hope Mike Moffat is right , I hope his wife is right , I hope Schiit gets a nice big Bases Clearing Home Run outa this DAC and I hope the darn thing makes it into Production .
  I personally think that nobody is gonna out-DAC those MSB people , that whole team in Watsonville are experienced Digital People , pricy ? , yea , very , better , certainly .  
  The  $2,500 Yggy price point is what's NEW here , Antelope have moved into this range , MSB can't , Benchmark are there too .  So , the performance winner will take all , in the consumer range ,  I'm thinking . 
 We live in exciting times .
  
 I'll be watching and buying , I'm hoping for Schiit , too ! 
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## purrin

mtruong34 said:


> Hi Purrin. I did not see your impressions of EA Overdrive on Page 1.  Would you be so kind to add this to your excellent list?  I'd be interested to read your thoughts and where it falls in the pecking order.  Best Regards.


 
  
 The Empirical Audio Overdrive DAC is one of those that I haven't had a good amount of time with, so I didn't want to put it up there with a number ranking assigned to it. So instead of being 95% sure, it's more like I'm 80% sure. The Overdrive reminded me most of the Bricasti M1. I suspect the Overdrive uses AD1955 like on the Bricasti? I've been wrong before. But in comparison to Bricasti M1, a touch more resolving and focused, maybe leaner - the Bricasti has a slight warmth to my ears.


----------



## purrin

bmichels said:


> So Purrin, should I understand that if I can still wait a little before I buy a new DAC for my EC445, I should* wait for the **Yggy * rather than spending $10.000 on a MSB Analog DAC or more likely a TotalDac D1-Dual ?
> 
> *--> Do you believe Yggy & EC445 will have good synergy ? *
> 
> *--> Any idea of the pricing ? is it R2R ? *


 
  
 Will answer. Stay tuned. Can you wait a month? I would prefer to wait until I can hear near final-production.
  
 How do you like your Hugo DAC with 445?


----------



## bmichels

purrin said:


> Will answer. Stay tuned. Can you wait a month? I would prefer to wait until I can hear near final-production.
> 
> How do you like your Hugo DAC with 445?


 
  
 There is no rush indeed since I still appreciate the step-up from  HUGO   to   HUGO + 445 , but... I know I am not using the 445 to it's full potential, which is...  frustrating 
  
 As I said, so far my alternatives are the TotalDAC D1-Dual  (and then, N°2, the MSB Analog). If I take the TotalDac D1, I will also take their D1-Server to have a complete coherent solution.   But... saving $ 5000 by choosing YGGY instead of TotalDAC is tempting.... if the Yggy is at the level of the TotalDAC


----------



## mowglycdb

Maybe manufacters should take a good look at the Theta DSPro Gen V-Va to correct their ways


----------



## darkless

bmichels said:


> There is no rush indeed since I still appreciate the step-up from  HUGO   to   HUGO + 445 , but... I know I am not using the 445 to it's full potential, which is...  frustrating
> 
> As I said, so far my alternatives are the TotalDAC D1-Dual  (and then, N°2, the MSB Analog). If I take the TotalDac D1, I will also take their D1-Server to have a complete coherent solution.   But... saving $ 5000 by choosing YGGY instead of TotalDAC is tempting.... if the Yggy is at the level of the TotalDAC


 
 I briefly owned the Empirical Audio Overdrive Signature DAC a few years ago, and in direct A/B tests it was beaten by a Wadia 781i which I auditioned at the time and later bought. A few years later I took a leap of faith and purchased a Totaldac Reference D3 (essentially a d3-single with upgraded USB-input). The Totaldac matched the Wadia on technical prowess and completely wiped the floor with the Wadia when it came to achieving perfectly natural fluidity and tonality, so the Wadia had to leave. Despite having a 10-day evaluation period to figure out if I wanted to keep it or not, in my case I was already convinced after just a few hours of happy listening with my wife sitting next to me, both of us enjoying the natural sound from the Totaldac. To this day, I've yet to hear a better DAC than the Totaldac.
  
 In your case, since you live close to France, the Totaldac should be a no-brainer to audition, especially considering the 14-day evaluation period now offered by Totaldac. I use the Totaldac D3 in my living room due to its built-in digital crossover sections, so I'm currently looking for an excellent multibit DAC for my dedicated headphone setup in my office. I suspect the Schiit Yggdrasil might fit the bill, and I will certainly compare the two once I get a chance to do it.


----------



## tonykaz

Hello Denmark ,
  
 Thank you for speaking up about that Totaldac , it's a rare item and I think you may be the first to relate owning one .  
  
 Proper awareness of DAC importance is just now coming of age , releasing a new generation of products accompanied by accessible prices .   I can imagine the clever electronics designers all wanting to make an attempt at building DACs with those .01% precision resistors , they all seem to understand power supply technology , clocking will probably be their nut to crack . The Race in On now , the Trophy being a $2,500 to $10,000 Sale price possibility .  
   You're reporting on the Schiit Yggy is certainly something that will be widely read , I hope you follow thru .  
   In fact ; I'm hoping Professor Moffat's work results in a performance break-thru , we already have superb electronics and transducers , DACs are the weak link for everyone , you're Totaldac man in France is one of the Pioneers , a small guy but he's serving as an inspiration to everyone else . 
 Thank you again ,
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## BirdManOfCT

I'm hoping the Yggy isn't too big. Would like to fit it on my desk.


----------



## tonykaz

Fit on ur Desk ?  , getta bigger desk !  
  
 Tony in Michigan 
  
 ps.  and buy a new Car , seen the new Caddys lately ? you deserve one don't you ?


----------



## Feuergeist76

Yesterday I've been to my second listening session with the Eddie Current Balancing Act, and I've A/Bd the TotalDAC D1 with Reclocker against Auralic Vega (unfortunately without exact clock mode) and Wyred4Sound DAC2. At home I've an Oppo HA-1, which maybe can count as another comparison, even though it's quite unfair because I only know how the Oppo sounds with his own built in amplifier. I'll test the Oppo at home after the EC burned in, as I took a new one home. I'll need some other tubes as actually I've the simple ones sold by Craig.

It was enlightening for me to see how big the difference can be. The TotalDAC was by far the most harmonic DAC, it was able to bring the music to life regardless of what quality it was. It tried a song from Emilie Sande, live in the Albert Music Hall, 16/44 kHz, on the Sabre DACs it was some kind of metal sounding, especially the voice (I think grainy is the right word to describe it). The song is full of different sounds and voices, and it's unbelievable how good the combination of resolution, harmonic and natural sound and dynamics is. And probably this is where you can start to compare the others to the TotalDAC. Simply subtract this and that here and there, do it a bit weaker, different, and so on, and then you know how the sound was.

But I need to make a remark: of all Sabre DACs I heard so far the Auralic is by far the best. And what I also observed is with an increase in sound quality (e.g. 24/96), the distance between the Auralic and the TotalDAC becomes shorter. I wonder how it is with DSD, as I heard the Auralic should sound way better with DSD and exact clock mode.

I can truly understand Purrins Odyssee searching the right DAC. It drives me nuts the last weeks to see that I maybe need to increase my budget rapidly if I really want to have a good sound which will give me goosebumps.

And another thing is also remarkable: maybe newer chipsets can achieve high quality with higher source quality like DSD64 or DSD128, but most of my music and most of easily and comparatively cheap accessible music is still lower quality, especially if you are not a classic or jazz lover.

Feuergeist


----------



## purrin

Your description of the Vega DAC is consistent with my own experience. I'm with you on it's the best Sabre DAC I've heard so far. I would expect the TotalDAC to be tonally denser, harmonically richer, more fluid, and without "sigma-delta hashy crap" (as you say, metallic on Vega) being NOS / R2R. EXACT mode on Vega brings more fluidity and and tones down the metallic sound.
  
 Vega does seem to pick up more microdynamic nuance when fed hires PCM or DSD. One nice touch about Vega is that it does a good a job on hires PCM as DSD. I know this from taking DSD128 files and converting to hires PCM. No difference. Redbook 16/44 did not sound as good as 24/48 or 24/96 PCM, which sounded the same as DSD64/128 (if taken from DSD128 original)


----------



## john1711

I have an EA Overdrive DAC with Hynes regulator upgrades as well as the Final Drive passive transformers.  Paired with a good transport, the EA Overdrive outperforms the Playback Designs MPS-5 and Metrum Hex by a wide margin on Red Book.  It is the best DAC I have heard to date.  Other digital front-end systems in my benchmark are Zanden Mk IV and AMR 77.


----------



## darkless

john1711 said:


> I have an EA Overdrive DAC with Hynes regulator upgrades as well as the Final Drive passive transformers.  Paired with a good transport, the EA Overdrive outperforms the Playback Designs MPS-5 and Metrum Hex by a wide margin on Red Book.  It is the best DAC I have heard to date.  Other digital front-end systems in my benchmark are Zanden Mk IV and AMR 77.


 

 Last fall I had a fellow enthusiast visiting me, as he had recently purchased a Metrum Octave and wanted to hear the Totaldac. A day or two after listening to my setup with the Totaldac as source, he told me that his Octave at home was lacking in terms of dynamics and ultimate details retrieval compared to the Totaldac setup. I believe he used the word "boring". Bear in mind though that he never tried the Totaldac in his house with his own gear, so this was merely his impressions of two different setups. Lack of dynamics was the main reason I went from the EA to the Wadia, but the Wadia's lack of natural sound was the reason I finally ending up with the Totaldac which was the best of both worlds.


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> ..., I now have absolutely zero interest in the MSB Analog or any other MSB DACs (yes, I've heard the $60K MSB DACs too) other than the cachet and bragging rights that goes with owning one. Spending that much on a DAC for bragging rights would be unwise anyways.


 
  
 That's a bit harsh, I hope you get a chance to hear the TotalDAC someday, maybe it changes your mind on the bragging rights thing.
  


bmichels said:


> So Purrin, should I understand that if I can still wait a little before I buy a new DAC for my EC445, I should* wait for the **Yggy * rather than spending $10.000 on a MSB Analog DAC or more likely a TotalDac D1-Dual ?


 
  
 I have been reading threads on the D1 on various forums and I thought I might have seen you agonising over which dac to buy for the last 24 months, is it? I would suggest you not to buy the D1 as you probably will regret soon after something else comes up, starting with the Iggy. On the other hand, I suspect upgraditis is not going to stop at Iggy with you so it's a challenging position. Suffice to say, you should stop taking others opinion to make your decision, that's the best recipe for disaster. There's a home audition for the D1, and you're in or near France, aren't you? Apart from shelling the dough upfront, you have little to loose to try it out.
  


bmichels said:


> There is no rush indeed since I still appreciate the step-up from  HUGO   to   HUGO + 445 , but... I know I am not using the 445 to it's full potential, which is...  frustrating
> 
> As I said, so far my alternatives are the TotalDAC D1-Dual  (and then, N°2, the MSB Analog). If I take the TotalDac D1, I will also take their D1-Server to have a complete coherent solution.   But... saving $ 5000 by choosing YGGY instead of TotalDAC is tempting.... if the Yggy is at the level of the TotalDAC


 
  
 You mean 10+kUSD difference between the Schiit statement DAC (<2.5kUSD) and the D1-Dual+Server (>16kUSD?).
  


> Originally Posted by *darkless* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The Totaldac matched the Wadia on technical prowess and completely wiped the floor with the Wadia when it came to achieving perfectly natural fluidity and tonality, so the Wadia had to leave. Despite having a 10-day evaluation period to figure out if I wanted to keep it or not, in my case I was already convinced after just a few hours of happy listening with my wife sitting next to me, both of us enjoying the natural sound from the Totaldac. To this day, I've yet to hear a better DAC than the Totaldac.


 
  


feuergeist76 said:


> The TotalDAC was by far the most harmonic DAC, it was able to bring the music to life regardless of what quality it was.
> 
> I can truly understand Purrins Odyssee searching the right DAC. It drives me nuts the last weeks to see that I maybe need to increase my budget rapidly if I really want to have a good sound which will give me goosebumps.
> 
> Feuergeist


 
  
 Two owners commenting in a row, finally some feedback on the TotalDAC! I listened to the D1 over a year ago at home, only for a day or so, I was also sold in minutes. I have been comparing DACs (nothing like Purrin's group though) on and off for the past couple of years, satisfied with my DAC but kind of looking for more. Nothing has really moved me enough to pull the trigger (stuff in the 2-5kUSD bracket). More recently, I spent time with a Mark Levinson 30.5, which redefined the scale for DAC quality at the time in Stereophile (over 20 years ago that is). Reason why I was curious is because of the mad design with multiple isolated massive power supplies / ladder dac chips / and simply very good reputation. It turns out with the link I used (SPDIF through my Audio GD D/D converters), it was a let down when using home phones / amps. Nothing very different from my current DAC and especially not the kind of recollection I had of the D1 a year ago using the same downstream gear.
  
 I have had my eye on the D1 all along but never crazy enough to go for it (it truly is insane territory in terms of money imo). I was pretty sure I was getting an Iggy but Purrin's comments have put a damper on that one a bit. I guess time will tell, but anyone whose listened to the D1 agrees that it sounds amazingly detail and precise while at the same time being very fatigue free / smooth / liquid / fluid. I have never experienced a soundstage (well headstage really) like what I heard with TotalDAC and having instrument solidly anchored with air around them / a full room whose walls you can feel, make all the difference in the world in terms of transporting me into the music. Probably others could not care less, to each his own.
  
 Also, I would not be the one to say it is "worth its price", you got to be seriously mad to think spending over 10 grands on a DAC is justified . But if that is the one hobby you spend money on (pretty much that for me) and if you can spring it (I don't buy gear every times some new FOTM comes out so I guess I save little by little this way), it's not that terrible thing to do. Also, similar to Schiit Audio, the TotalDAC gear is sold direct. Margins on the product are not crazy as I understand, the laser trimmed resistors count for a good third of the price of the product I thought I read, not the chassis/machining as sometimes is the case with high-end gear.
  
 Anyhow, the news for me: awaiting a silver D1-Dual, maybe this month, probably next . Now if the BHSE could ever arrive eh . 
  
 Arnaud


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. Arnaud in Japan ,
  
 Expensive DACs aren't Crazy , DACs are becoming an Awareness Issue ! 
  
 Now that Vinyl is rather widely recognized to be a completed Era , Digital has risen to a "new" fresh level of realization .  Designers understand the the need for Proper Conversion of the little bits into beautiful music and that a proper listening experience requires high levels of DAC performance , they can't just offer modest performance and get by .  The Bar has been placed rather high by that French Man with his TotalDAC and by the Antelope Physicists & Engineers .   
   The Latent Engineering Prowess of Professor Moffat at Schiit re-awakening in this environment seems to be resulting in a Close approximation of Ultra-High levels of performance accessible to everyone via Schiit's Internet Distribution System .  This is the Democratization of Quality Music Reproduction , it's an International Reality , pinch-me , this is happening in our lifetime !  
   And , this is happening inside a Company ( Schiit ) that already has a Successful Track Record of "NOT burning their Customer Base" .  
   The TotalDac man in France will be successful as will Antelope and anyone else that can deliver this very high level of DAC performance without extensive layers including : National Sales Managers , Regional Sales Managers , Importers , Distribution Centers , Protected Dealer Networks , expensive Show Schedules with Floor Displaying Fixtures to be shipped around and set up by Expensive local Display technicians , Beautifully Designed and Heidelberg Lithograph Printed Brochure handouts and well done Swag .  
   There is gonna be more of this sort of thing , brace yourself , the World has changed in the little guys favor ! , the Big Guys like Sony are spinning their Wheels trying to get a grip on all this , their only real hope is to create a Moat like SACD or some other Proprietary Exclusive that forces Customers to them , so-far their efforts haven't worked and outfits like Schiit figured out a way to Compete successfully . 
  
 Expensive DACs are becoming accessible ! and we are getting very close to achieving the traditional $100,000 worth of Musical Reproduction for the price of a Lexus Car Radio .
  
 We live in exciting times ! 
  
 Tony in Michigan 
  
 ps . are you in Japan having those Demonstrations that we in the States are having over Police Brutality ? , it seems that it's quite legal to beat up and kill Blacks ( here anyway ) , I kinda thought we ended all that with our 1860s Civil War , guess I was wrong . Very sad , the way we treat ourselves !


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> That's a bit harsh, I hope you get a chance to hear the TotalDAC someday, maybe it changes your mind on the bragging rights thing.


 
  
 I didn't say I crossed the TotalDAC off the list, I just said I have no desire to revisit the MSB line. The qualities I liked most with the MSB line are the tonality, timbre, and buttery smoothness. The Analog (+ power supply) was never what I would consider a highly resolving DAC. This is probably why I never felt comfortable pulling the trigger on one. Almost on many occasions, but never did quite pull the trigger.
  
 Now the MSB DACs proper with all the right options are more resolving - acceptably so for my requirements, but we talking about $30k-$60k USD. The price increase seems rather steep for incremental, yes incremental - not significant - improvements over the Analog. The Gen V, which I'm currently using already ****s(1) on the MSB Analog in terms of soundstage, resolving power, and dynamics. And the Yggy ****s(1) on the Gen V in terms of resolution.
  
 Ultimately, it's matter of personal requirements(2). At this point, I am more willing to pay money for DAC accuracy and resolution since I'm already happy with the SFD-1 (mk2 w. SE+ upgrades) as my [tonally dense / harmonically rich / smooth / liquid / spacious DAC] - which also happens to be no slouch in the resolution department.
  
 I'd rather take the extra money and stuff a Corvette engine into my BRZ. That would be 350% illegal in CA, but it would fun to piss off all the Tesla driving douchbags in the San Fernando Valley. Sometimes I wished I still lived in MI where doing such an engine swap would only be 100% illegal.
  
  
(1)****s = significantly immediately noticeable better, not incrementally slightly better - something my wife would notice while passing by the listening room. (Yes, she definitely noticed the Gen V - the first time ever for a DAC. To put things in perspective, she did not notice M7 over PWD2.)
  
(2) The requirements thing is also why I haven't given bmichels any solid recommendations or direction. I want to get a better sense of what his sonic requirements are over time.


----------



## ccschua

jacal01 said:


> Purrin once stated on the audio-gd Master 7 DAC thread that using its HDMI LVDS I2S input through an Empirical Audio OR5 USB DDC sounded competitive with the MSB Analog DAC, which I thought a pretty heady comparison, given the price difference.  That premier position has now been usurped by the olde timey Sonic Frontier and Theda R2R DACs for him.  Not sure where that now puts the MSB DAC...


 

 your statement here put things into perspective.
  
 i hope purrin will continue to provide update.


----------



## HemiSam

arnaud said:


> *That's a bit harsh*, I hope you get a chance to hear the TotalDAC someday, maybe it changes your mind on the bragging rights thing.
> 
> 
> I have been reading threads on the D1 on various forums and I thought I might have seen you agonising over which dac to buy for the last 24 months, is it? I would suggest you not to buy the D1 as you probably will regret soon after something else comes up, starting with the Iggy. On the other hand, I suspect upgraditis is not going to stop at Iggy with you so it's a challenging position. Suffice to say, *you should stop taking others opinion to make your decision, that's the best recipe for disaster. *There's a home audition for the D1, and you're in or near France, aren't you? Apart from shelling the dough upfront, you have little to loose to try it out.
> ...


 
  
  
 It is certainly possible that there is a language barrier, but I expect it's not that complicated.  I read your statements and you seem to be the one that's harsh.  See, I have been living in high performance automobile forums for quite a few years now.   A lot of testosterone and, as we say Stateside, piss and vinegar.  I don't see so much of that at head-fi.  In those automobile forums, though, the good folks that are reputable and well accomplished would likely call you out for being a bit of a prick.  Perhaps a well informed prick, perhaps not, but a prick all the same.  I am perfectly good with that aside from the fact that you seemed to take a jab at a gent that I consider to be quite polite, social and kindly.  Me...I have little to lose here so I thought I would point that out for your benefit in case no one has previously.
  
  
 Cheers,
 HS


----------



## tonykaz

Hey Mr. 6 ,
  
 it's getting a bit rough here , can you go in there and settle things down a bit , this Car guy and another guy are starting to tussle , this could be yur first assignment , do a good job , think of it as a performance evaluation test .  Good luck , they look kinda pissd .
  
 Tony in Michigan 
  
 ps.   I'd go myself but I'm afraid of getting slugged , Being from Irish Boston you'd probably will feel right at home


----------



## arnaud

hemisam said:


> ....
> Cheers,
> HS



You can sugar coat an answer, this is not typically how I write, sorry if that irks you. Not a native english speaker myself but I did intend to make a clear statement to bmichel. He's in europe, he's thus able to listen to the product more easily than many of us. He has the budget for it obviously as he's considering various big guns. He's asking for people advice in each and every thread on the D1 I've seen, but not ever making a move. I am just saying it like I see it...

My comment to purrin stemmed from a misunderstanding. I thought he was crossing the TotalDAC of the list by association with MSB experience, without having ever heard it.

No less, no more.

Arnaud


----------



## HemiSam

arnaud said:


> You can sugar coat an answer, this is not typically how I write, sorry if that irks you. Not a native english speaker myself but I did intend to make a clear statement to bmichel. He's in europe, he's thus able to listen to the product more easily than many of us. He has the budget for it obviously as he's considering various big guns. He's asking for people advice in each and every thread on the D1 I've seen, but not ever making a move. I am just saying it like I see it...
> 
> My comment to purrin stemmed from a misunderstanding. I thought he was crossing the TotalDAC of the list by association with MSB experience, without having ever heard it.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I very much appreciate direct when it is directed at me.  I do not read tea leaves well despite having lived in Asia Pacific, South America and Europe for quite some time.  The only thing you see in my post is a response to your concern about that gent's questions....his audio journey, if you will.  For some reason your response struck me as rather pointed and elicited my post.  Nothing personal.  Much like a doctor taking a mallet to a one's funny bone... 
  
 HS


----------



## estreeter

As Ted Nugent used to say, _looks like we got a lotta Michiganiacs here tonight._  HemiSam and Tony from Michigan, I'm more than happy to bench race with both of you, and purrin seems to have watched one too many eps of Monster Garage, but I didnt see anything particularly personal in Arnaud's comments. About the only comment I would make is that some of us may have been better served _spending 10K once than >2K 5 times_ (and counting) .... 
  
 For me, it's never been about going faster than the other guy - it's been about looking better doing it. That has absolutely nothing to do with DACs but since we seem to find ourselves on Thunder Road anyway, I'll leave you with this.
  

  
_For all the shut down strangers and hot rod angels​​ Rumbling through this promised land​​ Tonight my baby and me we're gonna ride to the sea​​ And wash these sins off our hands​​ ​ Tonight tonight the highway's bright​​ Out of our way mister you best keep​​ 'Cause summer's here and the time is right​​ For racing in the street​_  
 (Summer probably seems like a very long way away for folks in Michigan right now, but here in central Thailand it's Summer most of the year. Keep the faith, gearheads)


----------



## lojay

purrin said:


> I didn't say I crossed the TotalDAC off the list, I just said I have no desire to revisit the MSB line. The qualities I liked most with the MSB line are the tonality, timbre, and buttery smoothness. The Analog (+ power supply) was never what I would consider a highly resolving DAC. This is probably why I never felt comfortable pulling the trigger on one. Almost on many occasions, but never did quite pull the trigger.
> 
> Now the MSB DACs proper with all the right options are more resolving - acceptably so for my requirements, but we talking about $30k-$60k USD. The price increase seems rather steep for incremental, yes incremental - not significant - improvements over the Analog. The Gen V, which I'm currently using already ****s(1) on the MSB Analog in terms of soundstage, resolving power, and dynamics. And the Yggy ****s(1) on the Gen V in terms of resolution.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The Analog is indeed buttery smooth, I do not even have the power base yet and it still sounds more impressive than the AMR DP777 especially in its grain-free presentation and dynamics. I share your view that additional resolution is welcomed for the Analog, esp for complex stuff, but I do not know if I want more dynamics and detail for headphone listening. I am thinking of keeping the Analog for usual listening (including crap files from Spotify and other poorly recorded music) and the Yggy for more hi-res well recorded material. I am concerned that Yggy will not be as forgiving for poorly recorded material. You think that sounds like a good combination of DACs, the Analogy and the Yggy?


----------



## bmichels

lojay said:


> You think that sounds like a good combination of DACs, the Analogy and the Yggy?


 
  
 may be TotalDac can replace " the Analogy + the Yggy " 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  :   smooth AND detailed ?      Am I dreaming ?


----------



## Feuergeist76

As far as I think about it today there is some more or less clear line between the raw material (=data), the very common Red Book material/CD Rips up to the high quality PCM on the one side and DSD on the other side.
  
 I have the (subjective, as everything with regards to audiophile topics) feeling that for the first kind of material the situation is that we have reached some kind of plateau with the DACs, the R2R seems to be cream of the crop in the PCM world (which I can say only with my very small experience). In this category you'll spend easily 5k to 10k$ in order to get hardware. Some examples are the Theta Gen V, Sonic Frontier SFD1mkII (to name some of the older generation), MSB Analog DAC, TotalDAC D1 Dual, and so forth, to name some of the newer generation.
  
 For the second kind of material we are actually in the exiting phase of newly developed products, which come to the market every week or so, with all excitements (wow-effects) and ****ty feelings (whoever was an early adopter knows what I mean). Some examples are the Audio GD Master 7, Bricasti M1, Auralic Vega, and so forth.
  
 Sure there is a kind of grey zone, where both kind of products can be outperforming each other. So far I've not heard any Delta Sigma DAC which has been better then the R2R.
  
 What does this mean in the end? If I look to my raw material, it's actually mainly 16/44 kHz, a little bit is better PCM, no DSD. And my experience as of today is, that the best sound I've ever heard was converted by an R2R DAC (which was in my case the TotalDAC) from PCM material. I'm in this hobby for over 20 years now, and in the last three years I heard a lot of speakers, including some legends like MBL 101 Extreme and B&W Nautilus, both accompanied by the best of hardware you can buy for money as of today, and what the R2R Dac produced on my headphones was simply outstanding.
  
 If I take this together it's quite clear, with my raw material the best sound comes from R2R DACs. Could they been beaten by newer generation DACs, maybe for half the price? Sure, someday this will happen.
  
 Will I spend the money on a TotalDAC? Well, this is something for the next couple of weeks, where I will think it over carefully. Emotionally I've already lost the game against R2R, they got me in the very first minute.
  
 Feuergeist


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> Now the MSB DACs proper with all the right options are more resolving - acceptably so for my requirements, but we talking about $30k-$60k USD. The price increase seems rather steep for incremental, yes incremental - not significant - improvements over the Analog. The Gen V, which I'm currently using already ****s(1) on the MSB Analog in terms of soundstage, resolving power, and dynamics. And the Yggy ****s(1) on the Gen V in terms of resolution.


 
 Now, I really like the sound of that.


----------



## lojay

bmichels said:


> may be TotalDac can replace " the Analogy + the Yggy "
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think you've already set your sights on the TotalDac, I do think it is a good choice for you since you are close to France. 
  
 I'm loving the Analog. Will play it a bit more before I consider my next DAC purchase.


----------



## shadow84

Would the HifimeDIY U2 USB DAC be considered as a decent DAC?


----------



## wink

No, not in this company.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. Feuergeist76 ,  
  
 You have just summarized the Entire DAC situation as it stands today !  
  
 Excellent work on your reasoning and conclusions , this is exactly what we face .  
  
 Lets hope some outfit like Bottlehead prepare a DIY package for a proper R2R &  Clock , in the $4-5k range , something to inspire  ! 
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## Armaegis

tonykaz said:


> Mr. Feuergeist76 ,
> 
> You have just summarized the Entire DAC situation as it stands today !
> 
> ...


 
  
 Bottlehead has been working on a DAC, but it will only be offered as a finished product due to the complexity of the build. Price is $1.55k. More info here:
 http://bottlehead.com/smf/index.php?topic=6875.0


----------



## smitty1110

armaegis said:


> Bottlehead has been working on a DAC, but it will only be offered as a finished product due to the complexity of the build. Price is $1.55k. More info here:
> http://bottlehead.com/smf/index.php?topic=6875.0


 

 Ah, but Tony wants an R2R dac. More specifically, he wants a DIY discrete R2R dac, which would be an interesting experience to put together. So many resistors...


----------



## Feuergeist76

I've found this DIY Project, which seems to be interesting:
  
https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/r2r-for-the-rest-of-us/
  
 Anyone already got notice of that?


----------



## judmarc

feuergeist76 said:


> I've found this DIY Project, which seems to be interesting:
> 
> https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/r2r-for-the-rest-of-us/
> 
> Anyone already got notice of that?


 
  
 There's a very lengthy thread on DIY Audio about Soekris' DAC: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendors-bazaar/259488-reference-dac-module-discrete-r-2r-sign-magnitude-24-bit-384-khz.html
  
 There's also a quite interesting Open Hardware DAC using shift registers here, with BOM, schematics, and PCB layout for anyone who wants to go ahead and build one:  http://www.signalyst.com/hardware.html  Should be pretty inexpensive.


----------



## purrin

smitty1110 said:


> DIY discrete R2R dac, which would be an interesting experience to put together. So many resistors...


 
  
 Just to get 12-14 effective bits at best, even with 0.01% resistors. Software trimming could help with accuracy I guess.


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> Just to get 12-14 effective bits at best, even with 0.01% resistors. Software trimming could help with accuracy I guess.




15 years ago, 12-14 bits is all you could get from budget ADC (Texas Instruments) for the professional market. Would run out if dynamic range in some peculiar situation (like huge roll off in response from LF to HF).

But with the majority of 16/44 material I listen to I can't help bu think of lot of these extra 8bits to 24 is just here to record ambient and esp. Electronics background noise. 

Also, on a pure technical basis, aren't mixing LSB accuracy and ladder dynamic range? In particular, there's no issue getting 24 bits from the ladder array but it's the precision of each quantization level you are questioning.

From the TotalDAC designer: effective dynamic range of the ladder is more critical than LSB precision (which affects how well you render mics hiss really .

Arnaud


----------



## Monago

Hey guys. I had a quick question regarding purrin's comments about the gungnir I was hoping someone could answer. 
  
 He mentions the soundstage is "compact but well defined" in his comments on the generation 2 usb iteration; I was simply wondering if this is referring to the intimacy/immediacy of the presented sound (on the stage with musicians vs. 3 or 4th row), or if this means a shallow and/or narrow soundstage.
  
 Thanks in advance for any clarification or insights anyone can provide!


----------



## NinjaHamster

monago said:


> Hey guys. I had a quick question regarding purrin's comments about the gungnir I was hoping someone could answer.
> 
> He mentions the soundstage is "compact but well defined" in his comments on the generation 2 usb iteration; I was simply wondering if this is referring to the intimacy/immediacy of the presented sound (on the stage with musicians vs. 3 or 4th row), or if this means a shallow and/or narrow soundstage.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any clarification or insights anyone can provide!






Well, I'm sure he means both - that the soundstage is shallower and narrower than some other units, but that the specific placement of musicians within that smallish soundstage is better defined than with some other DACs.

The intimacy/immediacy of the sound would be a seperate issue from the soundstage (though correlated to a minor extent). I think he stated that the Gugnir does have an immediate presentation.


----------



## purrin

It's all relative. Gungnir stage is more compact depth and width wise compared to the heavy hiiters PWD2, SFD-1, Gen V especially. However, sense of depth is better than M7 or Yulong. M7 stage is set further back. Yulong stage is upfront. Gungnir stage is slightly more upfront than M7 but as not as upfront as Yulong. I would say Gungnir stage is about above average. Nothing extraordinary. Wyrd does provide for more openness, depth, and better sense of the venue.
  
 Great staging seems to be the exclusive domain of expensive DACs.


----------



## jexby

purrin said:


> better sense of the venue.


 
  
 this just became my GoTo phrase for capturing the essence of a DAC feeling "at the gig" or in the space.
 kudos purrin.


----------



## Feuergeist76

Finally I made my move to go for an Auralic Vega for the time being, looking for another solution during the next couple of months. I think talking of Sabre DACs this DAC is simple one of the best, maybe to some ears also the best implementation as of today.
  
 I will experiment with some tubes and the impact on soundstaging as well as musicality (the stage is really impressive, as well as the transparency, and with the exact clock it's really a bliss to have this strong improvement available). Probably some set of tubes or adjustments in Software (PCM/DSD Encoding) can have some further improvements. While im sure that tubes can have a good impact, the impact of software adjustments will be a bit limited, I guess.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr.Feruergeist76 ,
  
 How expensive is the Vega in Beijing ? ,  I think they're around $2,000 US in the States .  The Reviewers seem to own the Vega themselves .
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## Feuergeist76

They are between 3-3.5k$ ... are you sure about the 2k$? In Europe they are about 3k€.


----------



## shortcuttomonct

I heard an Audio Note DAC for the first time this weekend. Fantastic. Can't buy it but will get a chance to hear in my system for a couple days. I think I get what the R2R fuss is about. Would be very interested to see what OP thinks about the AN DACs.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. Feuergeist ,
  
 I am not all certain of the US prices.   But I can check and get back
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. shortcut,
  
 Where on earth did you find an Audio Note DAC and which one? 
  
 Are you a Brit? 
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## tonykaz

The vega does cost $3,500 US


----------



## shortcuttomonct

tonykaz said:


> Mr. shortcut,
> 
> Where on earth did you find an Audio Note DAC and which one?
> 
> ...


 
 Eastern Canada!  It is called a DAC 2.1 and was built from the online kit by a local guy - electrical engineer.  He did some upgrades to the standard AN kit but honestly, I am not sure what those were other than he spent about 500 bucks extra on the upgrades.
  
 I`m pretty excited to give it a shot in my system when he goes away for the holidays.


----------



## judmarc

shortcuttomonct said:


> Eastern Canada!  It is called a DAC 2.1 and was built from the online kit by a local guy - electrical engineer.  He did some upgrades to the standard AN kit but honestly, I am not sure what those were other than he spent about 500 bucks extra on the upgrades.
> 
> I`m pretty excited to give it a shot in my system when he goes away for the holidays.


 
  
 The Audio Note kits don't use oversampling as far as I know.  Perhaps your EE friend changed that (unlikely), or he or you use computer software to oversample prior to the DAC.  If not, with Redbook (16/44.1) material, you'll get harmonic distortion, similar to the original CD players.  Many people like this, as subjectively it's a "hot" or "live" sort of sound.
  
 Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just so you know.
  
 You might try listening to some higher resolution music, or using computer software to upsample Redbook prior to feeding it to the Audio Note, and seeing what you think of that.


----------



## HemiSam

I thought that defeated the primary purpose of using a NOS DAC?
  
 HS


----------



## judmarc

hemisam said:


> I thought that defeated the primary purpose of using a NOS DAC?
> 
> HS


 
  
 Depends whether you want accuracy or a particular "sound" from your DAC.


----------



## Articnoise

One big (if not the biggest) reason why AN changed from oversampling to no oversampling was to get rid of the digital filters. The Phasure nos1a does the oversampling/up sampling in the computer before deliver it to the dac and don’t use digital filters, if I have understand it right.


----------



## judmarc

articnoise said:


> One big (if not the biggest) reason why AN changed from oversampling to no oversampling was to get rid of the digital filters. The Phasure nos1a does the oversampling/up sampling in the computer before deliver it to the dac and don’t use digital filters, if I have understand it right.




Almost. It (the Phasure) substitutes digital filtering in the PC for digital filtering in the DAC. That, or using higher resolution files, are the options I suggested in order to use the Audio Note but avoid harmonic distortion.

Edit: Filtering and upsampling/oversampling are nearly synonymous, because all upsampling/oversampling must be accompanied by filtering.


----------



## Articnoise

judmarc said:


> Almost. It (the Phasure) substitutes digital filtering in the PC for digital filtering in the DAC. That, or using higher resolution files, are the options I suggested in order to use the Audio Note but avoid harmonic distortion.
> 
> Edit: Filtering and upsampling/oversampling are nearly synonymous, because all upsampling/oversampling must be accompanied by filtering.


 

  
 The Light harmonic davinci dac doesn’t oversample or use digital filter and I haven’t heard people saying that it has harmonic distortion, so maybe it’s more to it


----------



## judmarc

articnoise said:


> The Light harmonic davinci dac doesn’t oversample or use digital filter and I haven’t heard people saying that it has harmonic distortion, so maybe it’s more to it


 
  
 This is what the folks at Schiit Audio call "buzzword compliant."
  
 From the Audiostream online review of the DaVinci (which I've heard at an audio show - not the best venue, granted - sounding great):
  


> The Duet Engine utilizes analog *interpolation* with parallel output modules utilizing highly precise clocks *to double the sample rate for CD 44.1/16 files*. The Duet Mode does not utilize *conventional* upsampling or digital filters. Light Harmonic claims that a sophisticated aligned timing technology is used to *double the effective playback sampling rate to 88.2kHz*. Light Harmonic feels that the Duet Mode will provide smoother high frequencies without the negative effects of a “brick-wall filter”, and at the same time, provide bit perfect playback.


 
 [Emphasis added.]
  
 In other words, they use an analog rather than a digital oversampling filter.  Still an upsampling/oversampling/interpolation filter.  (Interpolation is the more technically proper term.)  This is, as they mention, to avoid the negative effects of "brick-wall" filtering, i.e., harmonic distortion, that would be required if the DAC truly did no interpolation of 44.1 rates.
  
 The Light Harmonic marketing folks couldn't resist one more buzzword phrase, "bit perfect playback," at the end.  This is nonsensical in two ways: (1) As we've seen, there's interpolation via an analog filter.  The moment you filter, by definition you are no longer bit perfect.  (2) You can't be bit perfect at the *playback* end, because you're outputting analog, not bits.  By definition you've employed a reconstruction filter to convert the bitstream to analog.  (If you've ever listened to a DAC that loses lock, you know how nasty the unconverted bitstream sounds.)
  
 What goes on inside DACs is the subject of a tremendous amount of marketing.  There are buzzwords to be avoided (digital, upsampling) and buzzwords to be included (analog, bit perfect), and technical accuracy takes a back seat.  There are only a tiny handful of true NOS DACs, among them the Audio Note and Phasure.  And as noted above, the Phasure is explicitly meant to be used with software that does the digital interpolation filtering in the computer.  All in all, you should remain skeptical that a DAC is truly NOS unless you know what the DAC chip(s) inside is/are and have looked at a spec sheet for it/them.
  
 With regard to there being "more to it" - digital audio at Redbook resolution needs a "brick-wall" reconstruction filter that causes harmonic distortion.  This isn't a matter of better or worse filter design, or digital versus analog filters, it's sheer mathematics.  The only alternative (for 44.1 resolution) is the one that engineers turned to decades ago - interpolation/filtering to a higher rate, and only then using a reconstruction filter that can be more gently sloped due to the higher rate bitstream.


----------



## jacal01

If for a continous analog output signal, what is the filter interpolating between?  And I thought clocking was in the digital realm to minimize signal bit timing synchronizing jitter.


----------



## judmarc

jacal01 said:


> If for a continous analog output signal, what is the filter interpolating between?  And I thought clocking was in the digital realm to minimize signal bit timing synchronizing jitter.


 
  
 Filtering takes place at least twice in all but true NOS DACs:
  
 - The *interpolation* filter(s) to raise the sample rate of the bitstream.  By far the most common is 8x oversampling, which raises the bit rate to 352.8/384kHz in 3 or fewer rounds of doubling.  So, for instance: 44.1 -> 88.2 -> 176.4 -> 352.8; or 192 -> 384.
  
 - The *reconstruction* filter, nearly always a relatively simple analog low pass filter to take the bitstream and convert it to analog.
  
 In sigma delta DACs (i.e., all except the very few R2R DACs), there is a step between these, sigma delta modulation.  There, the sigma delta modulator (which is another filter) modulates the bitstream (usually to DSD-type rates, though in ESS chips the rate is much higher).
  
 Edit: Oh, and clocking - that takes place before the interpolation filtering stage (or before each round of it, in case of multiple rounds of interpolation).  The bitstream runs from the DAC input to a buffer; the clocks then clock the bits *out of* the buffer and into the interpolation filtering stage.
  
 Yet another edit: See the block diagram for PCM data on page 2 of this datasheet for the chip used in the original Bifrost (don't know if it still is): http://www.akm.com/akm/en/file/datasheet/AK4399EQ.pdf


----------



## arnaud

jacal01 said:


> If for a continous analog output signal, what is the filter interpolating between?  And I thought clocking was in the digital realm to minimize signal bit timing synchronizing jitter.


 

 I am confused as well, interpolation means between discrete points, can only be done in the digital domain?!
  
 Otherwise, @judmarc: I have had good experience with NOS / analog reconstruction "brickwall" filter DAC and I typically dislike oversampling it seems (although my current DAC may actually be oversampling 8x for all I know yet it does not suck to these ears). So maybe there's more to it than the R2R / NOS buzzwords you mention indeed.
  
 My thoughts on the topic, posted earlier in the stax thread ( post #3960 )but more relevant here actually :
  


decoy said:


> Why do we limit the frequencies?  Well, human ears can't hear sound over a certain frequency, so we just cut it off.


 
  
 To answer simply: it's not quite that simple I am afraid.
  
 I stand to be corrected with what's below as I am writing from memory and memory can be treacherous sometimes but...
 - Indeed with a continuous fourier transform (and its inverse), we can go to and from time or frequency domain representations of a signal. This assumes you do not truncate any piece of information in either domains
 - Issue is when we go from continuous to discrete (or analog to digital domains if you will),  as you run the risk of truncating some of the frequency content when doing the finite fourier transform
 - Without filtering of this high frequency content (basically anything above 1/2 sample rate), it will "fold back" onto the visible portion of the fourier spectrum.
 - Without even considering fourier transforms and sticking with the conversion of time domains signals from contiguous to discrete domains, the above explains why "anti-aliasing" filters are necessary prior to an A/D stage.
 - Similarly, I believe "reconstruction filters" are necessary after D/A stage to smooth out (filter out) high frequency noise that results from the quantization process. e.g. a stair case has effective very broad frequency content well above the sinusoidal it is trying to replicate.
  
 Now where that relates to practice:
 - Astrostar is trying to share his bad experiences with oversampling and other reconstruction filters used in D/A stages.
 - For instance, no reconstruction filter is gentle if effective, hence the nasty name "brickwall".
 - The steeper the slope of the filter (required if you want to maintain bandwidth right up to half the sample rate), the nastier it's transients (e.g. you get lots of pre-ringing or lots of post-ringing or some mix along with phase distortion)
 - The solution has long been to either a) get rid of the reconstruction filter (that assumes you trust the high frequency hash you may get as a result isn't going to bite you back), b) oversample the data so that the filter can have gentler slope, c) forget about trying to reproduce 20kHz tone without attenuation and leave with a slight HF roll off from the filter at the benefit of reduced ringing.
 - You'd think oversample is the most elegant way to deal with the issue but it turns out an oversampling filter is just another filter with its own issues in terms of transient response and such.
  
  
 My personal experience:
 - I've heard nasty artifacts with a NOS/filterless DAC I tried a few years back so typically running away from filterless designs.
 - I've heard no better than NOS / R2R DAC (with a brickwall filter).
 - I've never ever preferred a resampled / up sampled version of a 44.1k, be it software or hardware based upsampling
 - My take is that oversampling is thus more detrimental than a well designed NOS reconstruction filter and that is the direction I am headed to.
  
 cheers,
 arnaud


----------



## jacal01

@ judmarc:
 Yes, but what is analog interpolation filtering?  That part confuses me.  The filters you describe are both digital signal filters.


----------



## judmarc

jacal01 said:


> @ judmarc:
> Yes, but what is analog interpolation filtering?  That part confuses me.  The filters you describe are both digital signal filters.


 
  
 We have to distinguish between the way a filter is *implemented*, and *what is being filtered*.
  
 Here's Wikipedia:
  


> Digital filters are not subject to the component non-linearities that greatly complicate the design of analog filters. Analog filters consist of imperfect electronic components, whose values are specified to a limit tolerance (e.g. resistor values often have a tolerance of ±5%) and which may also change with temperature and drift with time. As the order of an analog filter increases, and thus its component count, the effect of variable component errors is greatly magnified. In digital filters, the coefficient values are stored in computer memory, making them far more stable and predictable.


 
  
 So analog filters are implemented with analog electronics; digital filters are implemented with coefficient values stored in computer or chip memory.
  
 What is being filtered in a DAC is the digital bitstream; but what is *doing* that filtering - the filter itself - can be analog or digital.  Usually the interpolation filter and (I believe) sigma-delta modulator are implemented digitally; usually (I believe) the reconstruction filter is a relatively simple analog design.


----------



## judmarc

arnaud said:


> I am confused as well, interpolation means between discrete points, can only be done in the digital domain?!
> 
> My personal experience:
> - I've heard nasty artifacts with a NOS/filterless DAC I tried a few years back so typically running away from filterless designs.
> ...


 
  
 Hi arnaud, I agree with most of what you have written, especially your references to the mathematics and why brick-wall filters are necessary for NOS DACs.
  
 However, I think in the piece above you have mixed up non-sigma-delta and NOS DACs.
  
 R2R DACs are not usually NOS.  You will still have the 8x upsampling (unless, as with the Phasure, it is done in the computer beforehand, or you feed the DAC recordings done in 352.8/384kHz resolution).  What you will not have is the sigma-delta modulation step.
  
 What R2R DACs have you heard and liked, and we can look at whether they are NOS?


----------



## jacal01

judmarc said:


> What is being filtered in a DAC is the digital bitstream; but what is *doing* that filtering - the filter itself - can be analog or digital.  Usually the interpolation filter and (I believe) sigma-delta modulator are implemented digitally; usually (I believe) the reconstruction filter is a relatively simple analog design.


 
  
 OK den. But I harken back to the DaVinci DAC quote and your interpretation of it as the source of my confusion.  Surely an analog interpolation filter is implied. if not overtly stated as such. Marketing doublespeak?
  


judmarc said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > The Duet Engine utilizes analog *interpolation* with parallel output modules utilizing highly precise clocks *to double the sample rate for CD 44.1/16 files*.
> ...


 
  
 So an "analog" (digital) filter are those that filter the digital signal via discrete electronic components rather than programmed algorithm software, right?


----------



## judmarc

jacal01 said:


> OK den. But I harken back to the DaVinci DAC quote and your interpretation of it as the source of my confusion.  Surely an analog interpolation filter is implied. if not overtly stated as such. Marketing doublespeak?
> 
> 
> So an "analog" (_not _digital) filter are those that filter the digital signal via discrete electronic components rather than programmed algorithm software, right?


 
  
 That's exactly right (with my little edit in the second statement 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ).
  
 The Light Harmonics statement _is_ marketing, but is not quite doublespeak.  It's absolutely accurate to say they've implemented an analog interpolation filter, even though that filter is being used on the digital bitstream as all interpolation filters are.  Where I think the marketing comes in is with two implications: (1) "Analog" implies musicality to consumers, whereas "digital" implies harshness.  Thus saying that something is digital in most other DACs, but is analog in the DaVinci, raises expectations for musicality.  The DaVinci filter may indeed make for a musical sounding DAC, but that will come from the quality of the design and implementation, not from any inherent superiority of analog filtering.  (2) If you look at the Light Harmonic statement, you'll see they carefully avoid calling their interpolation step "filtering," while saying they employ no "digital filters" at that step.  This feeds into their somewhat misleading marketing of the DaVinci as being NOS (which it is for higher res, but not for the most common resolution it will be fed, 44.1kHz).


----------



## BirdManOfCT

articnoise said:


> The Light harmonic davinci dac doesn’t oversample or use digital filter and I haven’t heard people saying that it has harmonic distortion, so maybe it’s more to it


 

 I'd love to own a Da Vinci. Maybe someday.


----------



## StefanJK

birdmanofct said:


> I'd love to own a Da Vinci. Maybe someday.


 
 I googled it...what's the street value?  No my price range.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

Perhaps I am now brave enough to risk your ridicule.

For some bizarre reason I decided that understanding how a DAC worked would be an interesting 2 or 3 evenings reading. This was several months ago. In fact it has taken me very many evenings. And I studied Nyquist and bleeding Shannon at University. One of the main reasons it is so difficult to get a grip on is the confusing terminology which seems to be used throughout Audio Engineering.

In order for N-S to come remotely close to proving what everyone claims it does about digital sampling of sound (and BTW it still doesn't then), it requires the interpolation to be implemented using a Poisson summation (e.g. a Fourier Transform), certainly not just a line between two points. This interpolation seems to be implemented in a chip called a 'digital filter'. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I always understood a filter to be something which stops or blocks something of a particular frequency or range of frequencies. A Poisson interpolation is doing the precise opposite. It is creating a great deal more frequencies from a number of digital samples. And the bigger and better it is the more different frequencies it will be able to interpolate. So why is that called a filter?

Any answers , facetious or otherwise, will be appreciated.


----------



## jacal01

I think 'filter' is just a broad category name for any kind of signal conditioner.  Mike Moffat called his digital interpolation filter a 'sample rate converter'.


----------



## judmarc

backtoanalogue said:


> Perhaps I am now brave enough to risk your ridicule.
> 
> For some bizarre reason I decided that understanding how a DAC worked would be an interesting 2 or 3 evenings reading. This was several months ago. In fact it has taken me very many evenings. And I studied Nyquist and bleeding Shannon at University. One of the main reasons it is so difficult to get a grip on is the confusing terminology which seems to be used throughout Audio Engineering.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Excellent question.
  
 A filtering step must always accompany an interpolation step in order to remove aliases.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

That I know and understand but they are entirely separate operations. One creates frequencies, 'the interpolation engine' or 'sample rate converter', which sounds awfully like up-sampling to me because it is, and then the other, the aliasing or whatever filter takes out anything it has introduced which is not wanted or detrimental in some way. There are plenty of other examples of odd terminology and use of measurements.
  
 So it is just another confusing term.
  
 But not the most confusing term. That is Decibel which seems to be universally misunderstood.
  
 I am sure this history of odd terminology goes back a long way and everyone is stuck with it now.
  
 Even the term 'analog' became a misnomer as soon as 'digital' was invented and it still confuses a lot of people. 'Analog' is now meaningless and some writers realise this and use the term 'continuous' when they are trying to explain the difference.
  
 To a normal person, not steeped in jargon, this is much more meaningful and makes it easier to understand, in the very unlikely event that they should want to do so.
  
 I speak as one who has tried to interest a few normal people and it was a fruitless enterprise.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr.Analog in UK,
  
 You are asking a useful question.
 Typical of the Engineering world is the old wisdom: "A problem well stated is half-solved".  
 It seems those who have engineered useful solutions in the DAC world i.e. people like Igor Levin, the engineers at MSB and a few others are not quite open to creating a language for everyone's use.  
 We are coming to the feeling that R2R is ideal but expensive, Clocking is critical and a proper DAC design is both delicate and expensive to manufacture - not too expensive for Mastering Studio Use or perhaps Recording Studio use but out of reach for the masses with their little civilian devices made by the hundreds of thousands or millions of units the entire world use daily.  
 Consumer Electronics outfits that serve us the critical users are attempting to build price-point DACs that approach Mastering DAC performance levels, a market-place advantage will result if they succeed, I can't imagine them to share or make public their secrets. 
 Perhaps a decade from now DAC understanding will be a common as Ohm's law! or perhaps it too will remain a secret as in the Coca-Cola formula.
 [size=x-small]The good news today is that a useful high performance DAC can be had in the $2,500 US price range, an [/size]acceptable product can be had for $200 [size=x-small] from Schiit or the JDS people in the tiny ODAC.   [/size]
 [size=x-small]Our hard-drives are our Turntables, the DACs are the Phono Cartridges.[/size]
 [size=x-small]DACs can be as beautiful sounding as Analog Systems, we know this from people like the UK's dcs Company, getting the price point down is what is just around the corner for us, can you wait it out? [/size]
  
 [size=x-small]Tony in Michigan  [/size]


----------



## drez

Personally I'm not eve sure R2R is ideal, if even with no cost spared designs there is a lack of resolution or precision. Even with without considering total cost, I am still interest in technology that per dollar brings me closer to the music.  For example do we spend all the money on resistors, or do we spend it on precision power supplies, digital filtering, vibration management, noise isolation, R&D etc.
  
 Further I think that as audiophile we typically assume too much when we label and attempt to make sense of what we are hearing.  For example a DAC sounds bad yo our ears, there is harshness in the treble, and an alternate design does not share this harshness.  What is causing this harshness, and what does it mean that another DAC does not exhibit this harshness?  Now is this because it is Delta Sigma, is it because it uses ASRC, or is ti just garbage-in-garbage-out?
  
 Now if we know now a DAC reacts to noise and jitter, do we throw away this design for something which is far less accurate and precise and hugely expensive, or do we try and fix the signal?  Or do we maybe chose a DAC which is accurate, economical but which exhibits subjectively less offending products from jitter and noise?  Or maybe do we look at improving the signal at the source?
  
 To each their own really, but for me I will take precision and accuracy along with the artefacts, rather than a DAC with no artefacts which is imprecise and inaccurate.
  
 EDIT: Of course hearing is believing, and if R2R or other multi bit DAC can achieve the level of resolution/timing/control/lack of grunge provided my similar priced Delta Sigma then this path might be worthwhile.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

Geez.  It was all I could do not to jump in and say something like you can avoid all those bad things by sticking with vinyl...


----------



## wink

That's like saying you can avoid all the problems of petrol and diesel cars by going back to the Stanley Steamer.....


----------



## BackToAnalogue

drez said:


> Personally I'm not eve sure R2R is ideal, if even with no cost spared designs there is a lack of resolution or precision. Even with without considering total cost, I am still interest in technology that per dollar brings me closer to the music.  For example do we spend all the money on resistors, or do we spend it on precision power supplies, digital filtering, vibration management, noise isolation, R&D etc.
> 
> 
> Further I think that as audiophile we typically assume too much when we label and attempt to make sense of what we are hearing.  For example a DAC sounds bad yo our ears, there is harshness in the treble, and an alternate design does not share this harshness.  What is causing this harshness, and what does it mean that another DAC does not exhibit this harshness?  Now is this because it is Delta Sigma, is it because it uses ASRC, or is ti just garbage-in-garbage-out?
> ...



 


I agree and that is why many of us sometimes find the sound from a decent (but not outrageous) vinyl set-up to be preferable to a DAC (with 16/44, but the jury is still out on 24/192 for me). The thing that is most important to our ears is how 'coherent' the sound wave produced by our HiFi is, compared to the source. The term 'coherence'is rarely used to describe sound because it is something we can't measure, or at least I don't think we can. It is best described in this document in the first 3 or 4 pages.

https://www.jblpro.com/pub/manuals/pssdm_1.pdf

So the sound from two speaker stacks is 'coherent' but not identical.

 'Coherent' sound waves produce interference patterns whereas 'non-coherent' ones don't. 

And there will be an effect as 2 waves become less coherent (through distorting one in some way), where the interference pattern becomes less pronounced (if you could see it of course, but you have to measure it).

So I think Drez is saying that the 'coherence' of the output audio signal is more important to him than all these various artefacts which everyone gets concerned about.

 I agree. I think that sums up the Scientific or Technical explanation for why some audio reproduction equipment or formats sounds better than others.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

jacal01 said:


> I think 'filter' is just a broad category name for any kind of signal conditioner.  Mike Moffat called his digital interpolation filter a 'sample rate converter'.



 


Sorry I meant to reply to this earlier.

You may be right. It is certainly true that a lot of confusing terminology has been introduced into digital audio from the analogue world.

The term 'signal conditioner' is entirely inappropriate for anything in a digital circuit . You only ever condition an analogue signal.

 I have a very good understanding of the digital world but from an IT background. I mean a real nuts and bolts IT background involving fast data comms, lots of real time data, writing code including Asynchronous device drivers, interrupt handlers etc. So when I started trying to understand a CD player and then a DAC I just quickly realised they were both specialised computers and so worked through the designs from the knowledge I have on how computers are designed and built. It works well, but you have to translate a hell of a lot of terminology back into meaningful and accurate terms first so you know what you are talking about. I also had to remember a lot of techie stuff I hadn't used for many years.


----------



## Articnoise

Marantz NA-11S1 seems pretty interesting and is frankly more in my budget span than the Light harmonic davinci dac is. It’s not NOS and it has digital filters, more than one actually and it plays DSD plus has a headphone output. Any one heard it?


----------



## Clemmaster

articnoise said:


> Marantz NA-11S1 seems pretty interesting and is frankly more in my budget span than the Light harmonic davinci dac is. It’s not NOS and it has digital filters, more than one actually and it plays DSD plus has a headphone output. Any one heard it?


 
 I would like to know more about it as well.


----------



## computerparts

drez said:


> Personally I'm not eve sure R2R is ideal, if even with no cost spared designs there is a lack of resolution or precision. Even with without considering total cost, I am still interest in technology that per dollar brings me closer to the music.  For example do we spend all the money on resistors, or do we spend it on precision power supplies, digital filtering, vibration management, noise isolation, R&D etc.
> 
> Further I think that as audiophile we typically assume too much when we label and attempt to make sense of what we are hearing.  For example a DAC sounds bad yo our ears, there is harshness in the treble, and an alternate design does not share this harshness.  What is causing this harshness, and what does it mean that another DAC does not exhibit this harshness?  Now is this because it is Delta Sigma, is it because it uses ASRC, or is ti just garbage-in-garbage-out?
> 
> ...


 
  
 You really can't just judge a dac chip. You have to take into account the entire design of the dac itself. For example; Audio Note took a unique approach with filterless NOS dacs. Mbl has some unbelievably incredible Delta Sigma dacs, DCS processes the digital signal to the moon and back with their ring dacs. Then there are the vintage R2R dacs.
  
 The harshness can be attributed to by many factors. It could be cabling, noise on the power line, or it could even be the dac itself. But when you hear harshness in one dac and none in another dac, it could be the other dac has a better power supply or excessive filtering.
  
 Don't assume jitter to be the bad guy right off the bat. Look at Audio Note. They don't do any filtering or processing. The signal passes through with jitter intact and all, yet they have managed to design an extremely musical solution which is the closest to vinyl that I've ever heard. 
  
 It really all comes down to personal preference. Chasing accuracy will lead you on a wild goose chase. Even if you have an analog source to compare to, who says analog itself is accurate? How do you know what is accurate if you were not present at the studio during the time of recording? IMO there is no such thing as an accurate reproduction of music.


----------



## drez

backtoanalogue said:


> drez said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I'm not eve sure R2R is ideal, if even with no cost spared designs there is a lack of resolution or precision. Even with without considering total cost, I am still interest in technology that per dollar brings me closer to the music.  For example do we spend all the money on resistors, or do we spend it on precision power supplies, digital filtering, vibration management, noise isolation, R&D etc.
> ...


 
  
 I can't say I have too much experience with the relationship between DAC and coherency - the most recent change I have made to my system which improves coherency has been an inexpensive power filter from Shunyata.
  
 Regarding multibit vs delta sigma, I'm not sure which tends to sound more coherent, but personally I think coherency might be a mix of different metrics combined. 


computerparts said:


> You really can't just judge a dac chip. You have to take into account the entire design of the dac itself. For example; Audio Note took a unique approach with filterless NOS dacs. Mbl has some unbelievably incredible Delta Sigma dacs, DCS processes the digital signal to the moon and back with their ring dacs. Then there are the vintage R2R dacs.
> 
> The harshness can be attributed to by many factors. It could be cabling, noise on the power line, or it could even be the dac itself. But when you hear harshness in one dac and none in another dac, it could be the other dac has a better power supply or excessive filtering.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You are right jitter ≠ harsh.  I think a lot of people blame jitter for harshness, but most of the time I have simulated jitter the results are not harshness but more laid back. 
  
 You are right regarding accuracy also.  I tend to be more concerned with a _convincing_ reproduction, and seeing as we all listen differently, presumably we all find different things convincing in audio reproduction, and we all probably have different musical tastes.  Personally I can't stand fuzziness or softness in music playback, unless that softness is a convincing part of the natural harmonics and decay of an instrument.  I think most people's ears can tell when something sounds right or not.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

Sorry you have misunderstood. I am not using the word 'coherence' as a general descriptive term. It is a specific term as applied to sound waves and means 'how similar they are to one another'. So if a reproduced signal was compared with the original source then it would be very 'coherent' if there was very little distortion. So a very 'coherent' signal from a DAC would be the one with the most accurate wave form detail reproduced between two sample points.

Sadly this only has any value as a 'mind game' to help understand what it is we are looking for and why our measurements don't tell us that. It is not something we could actually measure unfortunately.

So when you say 'I tend to be more concerned with a convincing reproduction', I know exactly what you mean and feel the same way myself. I think what we are hearing is an audio signal from the loudspeakers which is more 'coherent' with the original source i.e. a more accurate reproduction. None of the measurements we use tell us that at all.

Also when you say 'I think most people's ears can tell when something sounds right or not.' I again agree. I am much more inclined to believe someone who says 'it just sounds clearly better to me, I just prefer it', than I am someone who claims to have done lots of proper ABX testing and written lengthy descriptions of the differences.


----------



## Currawong

I think more, high quality recordings are ultimately more important. DACs have come a long way these days. However, the more we compare them, the more sensitive we become to the subtleties, to the point that we end up having to upgrade to avoid the small flaws. We are our own worst enemy.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. Frosty ,  
  
 DACs can be compared with Digital Video.   
 Have a look at some old 240p video on you tube , then have a look at some 480p or i , then some 720i or p ( tyll's video is 720p) , then have a look at some 1080p.   
 We are about to go to 2k and perhaps 4k.  
  
 Same with Audio where the Best DACs are 1080p, the typical DACs available to the Audiophile consumers are 720p.
  
 I own a Printing Company, our Analog printing amounts to 480 quality, out digital output has far greater resolution ( astonishing ) .  
  
 Audio is, perhaps, the last area where digital hasn't quite hit it's full capability ( as least for consumer reproduction ).
 The much better DACs are just around the corner for us, all the other industries are way out front on this.  
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## BirdManOfCT

computerparts said:


> It really all comes down to personal preference. Chasing accuracy will lead you on a wild goose chase. Even if you have an analog source to compare to, who says analog itself is accurate? How do you know what is accurate if you were not present at the studio during the time of recording? IMO there is no such thing as an accurate reproduction of music.


 
  
 True. That's why it's much harder to judge music that I like (mostly classic rock) as opposed to classical.
  
 Even in the studio is hard to judge because you have to determine if it's the recording, the mixing, or the playback. If the latter, would want to have the same speakers (etc.) that they used there.


----------



## estreeter

articnoise said:


> Marantz NA-11S1 seems pretty interesting and is frankly more in my budget span than the Light harmonic davinci dac is. It’s not NOS and it has digital filters, more than one actually and it plays DSD plus has a headphone output. Any one heard it?


 
  
 I imagine you've read John Atkinson's very favourable review in Stereophile, where he described the 11S1's DAC capabilities in laudatory terms - if my Marantz dealer had that model at anything even _vaguely_ close to the US sticker I would have bought it, but the best I could manage was the SA-14S1, and you can read my thoughts here:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/737337/heavy-duty-marantz-sa-14s1
  
 I would also like to hear the 11S1, but I'd be even more interested in hearing the KI Pearl SACD player. It never ends


----------



## BackToAnalogue

tonykaz said:


> Mr. Frosty ,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 


The analogy of light and printing often works when trying to understand audio, but it is only an analogy and it has a big hole so it often falls over. We receive visual information in a 'parallel interface', all at the same time, whereas we receive sound information as a 'serial interface', a continuous stream. 

But I agree, we are nearly there with digital audio. Just a pity about all the digital master tapes for the last 30 years.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. Analog,
  
 You're right,  visual & sounds ain't the same sort of thing.  
  
 Still, I see the output from the new Epson Large Format Printers, the 50meg Kodak Sensors medium format cameras and think that consumer audio is way behind in this.  
  
 Consumer audio services the guy in a Car and the guy with the white wires hanging from his ears, not the guy with an LP12/Ittok/Asak system.
  
 The Movie Industry is far fussier that even our most critical audiophile & his limited budget;  want great Mozart? get out your Amadeus DVD with music by Sir Nevil & St.Martin!, they'll put you in jail for trying to burn a copy, FBI is watching.  
  
 Home Audio is made up of us poor relations to the big boys with their multi-million dollar budget for each and every project, they insist on and get the good stuff
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## Articnoise

estreeter said:


> I imagine you've read John Atkinson's very favourable review in Stereophile, where he described the 11S1's DAC capabilities in laudatory terms - if my Marantz dealer had that model at anything even _vaguely_ close to the US sticker I would have bought it, but the best I could manage was the SA-14S1, and you can read my thoughts here:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/737337/heavy-duty-marantz-sa-14s1
> 
> I would also like to hear the 11S1, but I'd be even more interested in hearing the KI Pearl SACD player. It never ends


 

  
 That’s right, his and a few others 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. When you say that if the price have been lower you had bought it. I interpret it like you have compeered them. In your opinion what kind of sound (pros and cons) does the NA-11S1/14S1 have and how is it compeered to your Hugo that you like pretty much, if I don’t remember wrong?


----------



## Articnoise

currawong said:


> I think more, high quality recordings are ultimately more important. DACs have come a long way these days. However, the more we compare them, the more sensitive we become to the subtleties, to the point that we end up having to upgrade to avoid the small flaws. We are our own worst enemy.


 

  
 It’s one way to look at it. Another is that that the majority of today’s digital players has to be fed much “better recordings” to sound as tonally “accurate” and musical as a respectable vinyl player from the 80s.


----------



## Currawong

articnoise said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I think more, high quality recordings are ultimately more important. DACs have come a long way these days. However, the more we compare them, the more sensitive we become to the subtleties, to the point that we end up having to upgrade to avoid the small flaws. We are our own worst enemy.
> ...


 
  
 I wont disagree, from some of my experiences ... just stop there though, as I really don't want a vinyl rig. I don't have anywhere to put the records.


----------



## purrin

drez said:


> Personally I'm not eve sure R2R is ideal, if even with no cost spared designs there is a lack of resolution or precision.
> 
> EDIT: Of course hearing is believing, and if R2R or other multi bit DAC can achieve the level of resolution/timing/control/lack of grunge provided my similar priced Delta Sigma then this path might be worthwhile.


 
  
 Theta Gen V (R2R) with Data III transport or OR5 USB-AES2 gizmo is more resolving than the best resolving S-D DACs that I have heard, including those from Bricasti, Berkeley, Auralic, etc. I would agree with you that most if not all modern R2R implementations are the suck in terms of resolution. This is what prompted me to go back in time (when the R2R implementations were better) to see what R2R can truly do. Not this current limp-dip PCM1704 garbage, which I only partially embraced.
  
 Yggy (an R2R DAC about to be released) easily and significantly beats Gen V (and thereby all other modern S-D DACs I've heard) in terms of resolution. This is what happens when you have two or three guys crazy enough to stick military grade chips with < 1 LSB error and develop crazy firmware so the chip will eat audio data. DAC accuracy / linearity = resolution. Proof is in the pudding via listening and experimenting. Try building a DAC yourself. Start stacking chips for better linearity and hear the result. Yes, I've done this. Even mediocre DAC designers know this.
  


drez said:


> Further I think that as audiophile we typically assume too much when we label and attempt to make sense of what we are hearing.  For example a DAC sounds bad yo our ears, there is harshness in the treble, and an alternate design does not share this harshness.  What is causing this harshness, and what does it mean that another DAC does not exhibit this harshness?  Now is this because it is Delta Sigma, is it because it uses ASRC, or is ti just garbage-in-garbage-out?


 
  
 That is a very good point. My SFD-1 DAC sounds most like vinyl. It emulates vinyl. The UltraAnalog based implementations tend to sound that way. Over time, I felt that the SFD-1 imparted too much of a vinyl characteristic on everything. On the other hand, the PWD-2, M1, Vega (all superb SD DACs) tended to impart garbage that I know isn't there. Only the Gen V provided the best "what you get out is what your put in" aspect for me: analog mixed and mastered recordings tended to sound analog; recordings where digital (of varying quality) was part of the chain sounded digital (or varying quality). I use the Gen V to get the maximum from the best recordings I have, but there is a cost to poor recordings. This is why I keep the the SFD-1 DAC when I want something more forgiving that's always sounding "like vinyl" regardless of recording.
  
 Once you hear enough stuff, you can decide for yourself where you want to sit. There is no clear win. I tend to lose a lot because I won't play bad recordings through the Gen V, which is what I use for playback the most. This tends to cause an unhealthy obsession with hunting down the best masters.
  


drez said:


> Now if we know now a DAC reacts to noise and jitter, do we throw away this design for something which is far less accurate and precise and hugely expensive, or do we try and fix the signal?  Or do we maybe chose a DAC which is accurate, economical but which exhibits subjectively less offending products from jitter and noise?


 
  
 That's the $64,000 question. Rarely can you have everything you want. Best to develop your senses and determine where your priorities lie. It usually comes down to finding equipment which is a balance of attributes you like at a price you can afford. Jitter should not be an issue in 2014 if you have a decent budget. Computer to DAC data transmission, i.e. USB, is a more serious concern, but there has been a lot of progress in this area. Actually, the most serious concern is the proliferation of low cost SD DACs and how audiophiles are willing to take it up the butt with all the hashy treble garbage by paying thousands and thousands of dollars for DACs which are essentially tweaked manufacturer evaluation boards.


----------



## Timestretch

Very cool thread. I always like seeing an experienced person comment on a wide variety of equipment.  
   
 I'm a bit sad that a lot of people I see online don't enjoy the Benchmark DAC1, though. I know it's childish of me to think like that, to be a fanboy for a product - I know people can like what they like and that's fine and is what brings us such a diverse and interesting array of different kinds of gear in the first place. After trying so many different sorts of DACs it remains my favorite.    
   
 I just hope I'm not becoming close-minded. Maybe one day I'll hear a DAC that really excites & satisfies me in new ways, and is a new king for me.


----------



## Audio Jester

I'm still enamoured with my SFD-1. Easily one of my best audio purchases to date (thanks Marv). I hope to do the SE upgrade next year and if it is better in some way I will be over the moon. It taught me that redbook was better than I realised,now my hires stuff does not seem so impressive.


----------



## Chris J

backtoanalogue said:


> jacal01 said:
> 
> 
> > I think 'filter' is just a broad category name for any kind of signal conditioner.  Mike Moffat called his digital interpolation filter a 'sample rate converter'.
> ...




Define "signal conditioner".

You can equalize, filter, apply dynamic range compression, etc in the digital domain.


----------



## lojay

purrin said:


> Theta Gen V (R2R) with Data III transport or OR5 USB-AES2 gizmo is more resolving than the best resolving S-D DACs that I have heard, including those from Bricasti, Berkeley, Auralic, etc. I would agree with you that most if not all modern R2R implementations are the suck in terms of resolution. This is what prompted me to go back in time (when the R2R implementations were better) to see what R2R can truly do. Not this current limp-dip PCM1704 garbage, which I only partially embraced.
> 
> Yggy (an R2R DAC about to be released) easily and significantly beats Gen V (and thereby all other modern S-D DACs I've heard) in terms of resolution. This is what happens when you have two or three guys crazy enough to stick military grade chips with < 1 LSB error and develop crazy firmware so the chip will eat audio data. DAC accuracy / linearity = resolution. Proof is in the pudding via listening and experimenting. Try building a DAC yourself. Start stacking chips for better linearity and hear the result. Yes, I've done this. Even mediocre DAC designers know this.
> 
> ...


 
  
 That's extremely helpful Marv, it puts your comparisons and findings in perspective. I only use headphones and to me, the resolution that is coming out of the MSB Analog > EC 445 > HD800 is already as much as I care for. It is more of a priority for me that bad recordings sound good. I don't think I will spend big money on modern DACs with "more resolution" but I am very interested in the Yggy, especially if priced competitively.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

lojay said:


> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > Theta Gen V (R2R) with Data III transport or OR5 USB-AES2 gizmo is more resolving than the best resolving S-D DACs that I have heard, including those from Bricasti, Berkeley, Auralic, etc. I would agree with you that most if not all modern R2R implementations are the suck in terms of resolution. This is what prompted me to go back in time (when the R2R implementations were better) to see what R2R can truly do. Not this current limp-dip PCM1704 garbage, which I only partially embraced.
> ...


 
 I agree this is extremely helpful. All of Purrin's observations support my understanding (or current theory, since it is not accepted by anyone apart from me at the moment) of how 'information' about music is transmitted to our auditory system and how this is affected by different formats and the various limitations of different approaches to DAC design. My thinking is summarized in an earlier post here.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/2025#post_11136795
  
 I am glad that someone, who has clearly developed the necessary skills of highly trained hearing and musical interpretation ability, has taken the time to identify and describe some of the different characteristics in an objective way, using meaningful language. I certainly do not have those abilities and I think the ability to do this with short ABX tests is quite rare and certainly has to be learned. That is why when I posted a first attempt at explaining some of my thoughts in another recent thread, see below, I was careful to explain why I was not going to refer to any of my own direct observations or any ABX testing to support my explanations. I am unable to do it, so it would be pointless trying. That does not automatically invalidate any explanations that I offer. I am able to use observations by others who do have this ability, and also general comments which occur repeatedly (e.g. 'CDs lack depth', 'HD music has more 'space' between the notes'), to test and support my explanations. Several other posters misunderstood this as some kind of 'cop out'.
  
 It is not. I am just being honest.
   
http://www.head-fi.org/t/744959/why-most-of-the-old-recordings-ae-24bit-and-the-new-are-16bit/75#post_11136481

  
 I have spent many months thinking about this; it is an enormously complex subject; it is not fully understood by any of the people working at the real sharp end of DAC design; the information that is available online is riddled with misunderstandings, bad Maths, incorrect assumptions, and half understood techniques. The terminology and measurements used date from a different era, and a different domain (analogue).
  
 It is time that we acknowledged there is something wrong with our current understanding. Now that we are on the brink of fixing the problem it would be a good time to take a step back and think it through again. I didn't set out intending to do that; but it is what I have done.
  
 I am more than happy to share this with anyone who is interested, but I haven't written all of it down yet, it is very complex, but only because we made it complex.
  
 The underlying principles are, as always, simple once you understand them. They do provide a very good explanation.


----------



## Chris J

backtoanalogue said:


> I agree this is extremely helpful. All of Purrin's observations support my understanding (or current theory, since it is not accepted by anyone apart from me at the moment) of how 'information' about music is transmitted to our auditory system and how this is affected by different formats and the various limitations of different approaches to DAC design. My thinking is summarized in an earlier post here.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/2025#post_11136795
> 
> ...




Oh my goodness.
With respect, you are not trying to say that you know more about this subject than someone who has actually designed a DAC, are you?

It is one thing to study and read about DACs, it is quite another thing to actually design a DAC.


----------



## computerparts

purrin said:


> Theta Gen V (R2R) with Data III transport or OR5 USB-AES2 gizmo is more resolving than the best resolving S-D DACs that I have heard, including those from Bricasti, Berkeley, Auralic, etc. I would agree with you that most if not all modern R2R implementations are the suck in terms of resolution. This is what prompted me to go back in time (when the R2R implementations were better) to see what R2R can truly do. Not this current limp-dip PCM1704 garbage, which I only partially embraced.
> 
> Yggy (an R2R DAC about to be released) easily and significantly beats Gen V (and thereby all other modern S-D DACs I've heard) in terms of resolution. This is what happens when you have two or three guys crazy enough to stick military grade chips with < 1 LSB error and develop crazy firmware so the chip will eat audio data. DAC accuracy / linearity = resolution. Proof is in the pudding via listening and experimenting. Try building a DAC yourself. Start stacking chips for better linearity and hear the result. Yes, I've done this. Even mediocre DAC designers know this.
> 
> ...


 
  
 As good as the Theta Gen Va was, it was soundly beat by an mbl 1511D (which is a Delta Sigma design) in my setup. I highly recommend an audition of an mbl if you get a chance. It certainly changed my thoughts on Delta Sigma dacs. Not only that but it sadly destroyed even my vinyl setup. Just wondering, but what vinyl setup have you compared the SFD-1 to? What tubes are you using in it?  It didn't sound much like my vinyl rig at all no matter which tubes I tried (Amprex, RCA, Siemens, Tungsol, and Telefunken). I can't say Ultra Analog based designs sound like vinyl. I've owned three Ultra analog based dacs. A Levinson 35, Audio Research DAC1- 20, and a Sonic Frontiers SFD-1. Out of those three, the Levinson came closest to vinyl but was still a ways off.


----------



## purrin

I haven't heard the mbl 1511D and I doubt I ever will get a chance. I don't see the mbls around the local hifi shops here at all and I don't think I've ever seen one at any of the shows, although it's entirely possible I missed it. mbl could have perfected its delta-sigma implementations to not have that treble hash or temporal disjointedness; but so far, I have not personally heard a single delta-sigma implementation that doesn't have those "digital" characteristics. Have you happened upon delta-sigma DACs other than the mbl that have a characteristic sound more alike the R2R DACs? I would be curious, especially if they are affordable, i.e. ~3k USD or less.
  
 Digital does not sound like vinyl. I was mainly referring to how the UltraAnalog based stuff "emulated" vinyl in aspects of fluidity, smoothness, and also a touch of that syrupy bass found on classic tables like the Linn LP12, which was already really showing its age decades ago.
  
 The digital-setups that sounded most "analog" like to me always started with the recording. The Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs issues using the GAIN system comes to mind. Supposedly, MFSL did not accept second generation tapes. Couple that with a good R2R DAC (keeping the data chain in the same format without conversions), and you have something that sounds pretty darn close to those old reel-to-reel tapes. The GAIN2 that MFSL now uses is a one-bit A-D conversion process. It sounds different from original GAIN.
  
 Ultimately, the crux of everything I've been saying is that monothic uniform landscape of SABRE and other sigma-delta DACs is generally not a good thing. Your mbl 1511? may do the D-A job properly, but I not going to recommend to my friends that they plunk down 8k USD more or less to do so. (Admittedly, I'm not sure how much the mbl 1511Ds go for used on the 'gon, or how often they pop up.) I grabbed the Gen Va + Data III transport for peanuts. So did about half a dozen people I know in the past month. Make that a dozen people if you include various other vintage DACs from that era. These DACs are obtainable and a dirt cheap way to get good "non-digital"and resolving sound from digital; although your mbl is obviously better, and I don't doubt what you hear.
  
 BTW, I had a chance to compare a proto Yggy to the Gen Va this weekend. The Yggy beats the Gen V in every way. More slam, more expansive and precise stage, etc. In terms of clarity and resolution, the Yggy crushes the Gen Va.


----------



## reddog

From the way Putin and others describe the Yggdrasil, I guess I shall start saving up, and get one to pair with my Ragnarok. I have gone this long without a dac, I guess I can wait, and get it.


----------



## cizx

Putin has an Yggdrasil now?  I thought their economy was in the toilet.


----------



## computerparts

purrin said:


> I haven't heard the mbl 1511D and I doubt I ever will get a chance. I don't see the mbls around the local hifi shops here at all and I don't think I've ever seen one at any of the shows, although it's entirely possible I missed it. mbl could have perfected its delta-sigma implementations to not have that treble hash or temporal disjointedness; but so far, I have not personally heard a single delta-sigma implementation that doesn't have those "digital" characteristics. Have you happened upon delta-sigma DACs other than the mbl that have a characteristic sound more alike the R2R DACs? I would be curious, especially if they are affordable, i.e. ~3k USD or less.
> 
> Digital does not sound like vinyl. I was mainly referring to how the UltraAnalog based stuff "emulated" vinyl in aspects of fluidity, smoothness, and also a touch of that syrupy bass found on classic tables like the Linn LP12, which was already really showing its age decades ago.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Sadly, no I haven't came across any other delta sigma dacs that have similar characteristics as R2R dacs in that price range. The only other that springs to mind is DCS Elgar but they are a bit more than $3k used. Then again I'm not sure if their ring dac would qualify as a delta sigma design. You can find 1511D's for about $2500 when they pop up, which I admit is very rare and for good reason. It's the 1611D that will set you back $9k+ on the used market. Have you heard any stuff from Ayon? I heard good things about them.  
  
 Agreed digital does not sound like vinyl. However, I have found one exception. Audio Note. I had an AN dac kit 2.1B and that thing, I kid you not, sounded like vinyl. Indeed there are some very good deals to be had in vintage gear. The Theta DS Pro Basic was easily the best bang for the buck I ever found, though it certainly wasn't the smoothest sounding thing out there. How do you like the Data III? I heard the Data II was the best sounding of the bunch, though I had never heard one. I owned a Jade and a Data Basic. Each had their own strengths. The Jade had superior imaging, the Data Basic had superior prat (pace rhythm, and timing).
  
 I'm becoming interested in the Yggdrasil but can't find anything about it or any reviews. If it beat the Gen V, I wonder how it would compare to a Gen VIII.


----------



## purrin

The Data III appears to be like an even bigger and heavier Data II (both based on video disc players). The ST / AT&T optical seems to what made it special. Better space and a little better resolution compared to AES, SDPIF, etc., at least when used with the Gen Va. The Data III ST / AT&T optical was the only method that proved better than the Off-Ramp5 USB to AES converter. Slightly better technicalities all around, but less analytical. It's bizarre and makes me wonder since the optical was transmitting the SPDIF format still.
  
 It's kind of ridiculous for its size since I don't use spinners anymore. Just too difficult trying to find _that _CD, etc. Computer audio is just much easier to deal with. Also, DACs don't take ST / AT&T optical anymore.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. Purrin ,
  How in the world are you getting your hands on a Yggy?, you and the Schiit people are the only ones talking about actually having time with the device.  ( other than that Darko lad from Down-under who says he was sworn to secrecy ) . 
  
 Are you the Schiit Beta Tester? 
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## Chris J

cizx said:


> Putin has an Yggdrasil now?  I thought their economy was in the toilet.




He found one in the Ukraine and claimed it for his own.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

chris j said:


> cizx said:
> 
> 
> > Putin has an Yggdrasil now?  I thought their economy was in the toilet.
> ...


 
  
 Like his Superbowl ring?


----------



## Chris J

johnnycanuck said:


> Like his Superbowl ring?




Yes, like "his" Super Bowl ring. :rolleyes:
Putin = schmuck!
I won't be sending him a Christmas card!


----------



## purrin

tonykaz said:


> Mr. Purrin ,
> How in the world are you getting your hands on a Yggy?, you and the Schiit people are the only ones talking about actually having time with the device.  ( other than that Darko lad from Down-under who says he was sworn to secrecy ) .
> 
> Are you the Schiit Beta Tester?
> ...


 
  
 There was a headphone hobbyist mini-meet in the area. Jason randomly popped up and brought the Yggy proto along with a bottle of Springbank 21 year. I need to get the bottle back to him. He took the Yggy back.
  
 There were about 10 others who heard the Yggy. We had a stash of vintage DACs: Spectral, PSA, SF, Theta, etc. and three vinyl setups to compare.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

chris j said:


> backtoanalogue said:
> 
> 
> > I agree this is extremely helpful. All of Purrin's observations support my understanding (or current theory, since it is not accepted by anyone apart from me at the moment) of how 'information' about music is transmitted to our auditory system and how this is affected by different formats and the various limitations of different approaches to DAC design. My thinking is summarized in an earlier post here.
> ...



 


Er no, I don't think that I said that did I? If I implied it then I certainly didn't intend to.

All I said was that I have a far better understanding than I did 6 months ago and it has taken a great deal of time and effort to get there because of the factors I listed. I have also identified several widely held misconceptions.

It is very likely that the couple of dozen or so people in the world who do this for a living know everything that I do, and a lot more besides, but they don't write it down in blogs like this. And as far as I am aware none of them have stuck their heads above the parapet to correct the '24-bits makes no difference' argument because it is a good argument (I was convinced by it for several months) and hard to explain why it is wrong to a non Mathematician. It is easier just to wait for the people who care to use their own ears, because the vast majority of people don't care.


----------



## purrin

Taking hires original material (DSDx128, 24/192 PCM, etc.) and inspecting data in something like Adobe Audition to confirm actual hires content (there is quite a bit of fake hires content out there), and downconverting to various bit and sampling rates, my personal threshold of audibility is 18 bits. Sampling rate past 44.1 doesn't seem to matter*. That is, I cannot tell the difference between DSD/ hires PCM and the same material downconverted to 44.1kHz at 18 bits. At 16 bits, I start to hear a difference - 18 bits at 44.1kHz seems enough; with the caveat being good A-D or as pure a chain as possible.
  
 *Some DACs sound different (not necessarily better, not necessarily worse) at different input sampling rates, real or non-existent hires data or not.
  
 The quality of A-D conversion and final mastering is HUGE. That's the other half of the conversion process. Starting off the bat, there's no chance in hell for most recordings to sound like the tapes they came from regardless of how good the playback gear. This goes back to what I was saying about the downsides of better D-A.
  
 Some pure chain DSD stuff is really good, but different. Unfortunately, the pure chain DSD recordings are rare and usually consists of craptastic "audiophile" music that I don't care for, i.e. mediocre soul-less girl vocals + guitar -or- mediocre soul-less girl vocals + lightweight piano. Bleh.


----------



## En_R

computerparts said:


> As good as the Theta Gen Va was, it was soundly beat by an mbl 1511D (which is a Delta Sigma design) in my setup. I highly recommend an audition of an mbl if you get a chance. It certainly changed my thoughts on Delta Sigma dacs. Not only that but it sadly destroyed even my vinyl setup. Just wondering, but what vinyl setup have you compared the SFD-1 to? What tubes are you using in it?  It didn't sound much like my vinyl rig at all no matter which tubes I tried (Amprex, RCA, Siemens, Tungsol, and Telefunken). I can't say Ultra Analog based designs sound like vinyl. I've owned three Ultra analog based dacs. A Levinson 35, Audio Research DAC1- 20, and a Sonic Frontiers SFD-1. Out of those three, the Levinson came closest to vinyl but was still a ways off.


 
  
 MBL 1511/1531 are both very colored. Mids are warm and dark, with very noticeable roll-off in the top end. My biggest problem with the lower end MBL sources is that they lack layering throughout the spectrum (mushy bass, lack of instrument separation, etc), and congested soundstage. If the 1511 is your reference then perhaps you have different sonic priorities than most.

 I'd like to point out that for the price of the MBL DAC you could have purchased all the prior DACs listed, or you could have gotten a real setup like a Levinson 30.6 + 31.5, instead of the inferior 35. In fact for a bit more you could have gotten a Wadia 7+9 =/

 It would be good to say what you paired the levison/sfd-1/DAC1 with as well. They don't have USB, and transports matter. So does the coax/BNC cable.


----------



## BirdManOfCT

purrin said:


> Some pure chain DSD stuff is really good, but different. Unfortunately, the pure chain DSD recordings are rare and usually consists of craptastic "audiophile" music that I don't care for, i.e. mediocre soul-less girl vocals + guitar -or- mediocre soul-less girl vocals + lightweight piano. Bleh.


 
  
 LOL. So true. I have run into a few good songs in the process, but most of them I play and think "Really?".


----------



## purrin

Heh, glad somebody understands


----------



## drez

purrin said:


> Theta Gen V (R2R) with Data III transport or OR5 USB-AES2 gizmo is more resolving than the best resolving S-D DACs that I have heard, including those from Bricasti, Berkeley, Auralic, etc. I would agree with you that most if not all modern R2R implementations are the suck in terms of resolution. This is what prompted me to go back in time (when the R2R implementations were better) to see what R2R can truly do. Not this current limp-dip PCM1704 garbage, which I only partially embraced.
> 
> Yggy (an R2R DAC about to be released) easily and significantly beats Gen V (and thereby all other modern S-D DACs I've heard) in terms of resolution. This is what happens when you have two or three guys crazy enough to stick military grade chips with < 1 LSB error and develop crazy firmware so the chip will eat audio data. DAC accuracy / linearity = resolution. Proof is in the pudding via listening and experimenting. Try building a DAC yourself. Start stacking chips for better linearity and hear the result. Yes, I've done this. Even mediocre DAC designers know this.
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah I'm pretty intrigued by the Ygg.  personally I am yet to be able to identify digital hash, possibly because the only non SD DAC I have used has been PCM1704, and well I would rather take the digital hash
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  Most of the treble issues I have detected have been able to be reduced through improved input signal (computer and transport, cables) and vibration management (isolate a component/rack/shelf too much and you start to hear it's own resonant characteristics…) but to be honest I have come to accept some brightness glare assuming it is part of the signal.  Mics, mixing consoles etc.  My general philosophy is that if something can sound less analytical/glare/splashy while sounding more resolving, progress has been made, however I am stubborn in not giving up a single drop of resolution.
  
 I will probably give the Ygg a spin when that comes out, not having heard non-soft or grungy sounding multibit (read: PCM1704) I am skeptical but hoping to be surprised.
  
 Computer/USB is definitely a big barrier in digital.  Many of my friends have said that even a mid-fi CD player can beat an average workstation, but I can't comment on this personally.  I have a pretty tin-hat music server, and recently built a general use workstation, and comparing the two, the tin hat server is much more resolving, but not any less bright.  I have tried disabling cores to emulate lower CPU power use (and lower performance) and this yields a more laid back sound, but some resolution is missing.  So unfortunately I am unable to determine if the reduced brightness is from lower electrical noise or lower computer performance.  Things like the JCAT USB card and disabling hardware/software/OS threads have however yielded more of the no-compromise improvements.  Well of course there is a compromise though - in my case usability is horrible.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

I think that there may well be a problem with some USB Asynch implementations given the number of posts I have seen from people reporting this. ASynch USB should perform better than SPDIF with no jitter being introduced by the comms clocking or disc reads, but that relies on both ends of the USB connection having high performance USB interface chips and high CPU performance. Windows is not designed to help a DAC maintain a steady stream of data, it is designed to do whatever Microsoft deem to be the most important activity first. Your DAC comes last.

The first thing to do is a whole list of small tweeks and settings to ensure that Windows behaves itself. Also a fast PC, USB 3 ports (much faster if you can put up with possibly having to fix compatibility problems) .and anything else to help PC performance.

All current DAC chips (correct me if I'm wrong) were designed based on a synchronous data flow, SPDIF. To then have to bolt on a very fast asynchronous data flow is quite a big ask and I would expect to have to increase processor power by between 5 and 10 times to ensure no buffer overflows or underflows. If you then also take into account Windows uneven data flow it still may sometimes have problems. The easiest way to fix this is to introduce another (intermediate) buffer between the PC and the DAC. A $25 USB 3.0 4 port hub will do the job fine. This should smooth the data flow to the DAC and will introduce an additional time delay which it uses to do this.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. Purrin & fellow searchers of DAC,
  
 Is there any point in discovering the DAC used in the recording process? and then finally the Mastering process?  
  
 Somehow, it seems to me, the DAC ( I have ) can do no more than reverse the work done by the two DACs proceeding it.  
  
 In the few Mastering Studios I've visited the engineers have an Atomic Clock ( 10M ) they point to, where is our DAC's Clock?, a little Quartz crystal which we use to control our FM Radio Transmitter's Frequency?, accurate and stable enough to satisfy the FCC, is it enough to keep our music in focus?, it does seem good enought for consumer use but is this the best we can expect for a proper Musical Instrument that we hope our Home Audiophile DAC to be?  
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## computerparts

en_r said:


> MBL 1511/1531 are both very colored. Mids are warm and dark, with very noticeable roll-off in the top end. My biggest problem with the lower end MBL sources is that they lack layering throughout the spectrum (mushy bass, lack of instrument separation, etc), and congested soundstage. If the 1511 is your reference then perhaps you have different sonic priorities than most.
> 
> I'd like to point out that for the price of the MBL DAC you could have purchased all the prior DACs listed, or you could have gotten a real setup like a Levinson 30.6 + 31.5, instead of the inferior 35. In fact for a bit more you could have gotten a Wadia 7+9 =/
> 
> It would be good to say what you paired the levison/sfd-1/DAC1 with as well. They don't have USB, and transports matter. So does the coax/BNC cable.


 
  
 Can't agree at all. I find it interesting how people who prefer the Levinson sound find the mbl to sound colored. Your comments seriously make me wonder if you had something setup wrong or if you had a faulty unit. You'll not find one review of anything from mbl reflecting those comments. In my setup the mbl 1511D paired with a Theta Jade had excellent transient response, extension, and separation. The dynamics were second to none. I had many compliments about my system from visitors back then. The most common complement referred to it such as live music which I agree with. We all have our preferences and I found I don't particularly care for the Levinson sound. The 35 may be inferior to the 30.6 but it still retains the same flavor since the designs are very similar. As someone who plays guitar, I find that flavor to be rather artificial sounding.
  
 As far as price, I didn't pay anything near retail for the mbl since I got it used.


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> Heh, glad somebody understands


 
  
 I guess he's not alone to understand.


----------



## computerparts

drez said:


> Yeah I'm pretty intrigued by the Ygg.  personally I am yet to be able to identify digital hash, possibly because the only non SD DAC I have used has been PCM1704, and well I would rather take the digital hash
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 IMO a computer is a horrible source or even transport period. It's just not made for that purpose in mind (laptops are even worse yet). In a typical pc, you've got the cpu and gpu emitting frequencies in the ghz with no shielding in sight. The wiring going to the front panel usb port is horrible with minimal shielding. If you're using the onboard audio digital output then that's even worse since that's on the same exact board that everything else emitting noise is on (the motherboard). The power supply is inadequate for audio as the power for everything in the computer comes from one source, again no shielding in sight. Music servers are a bit better but still share some of the same problems regarding shielding and frequency emissions. In a cd player, there is no cpu or gpu contaminating everything in sight nor are there any components for wi-fi or lan. So it's fairly easy to see why a mid-fi cd player will destroy a typical pc, workstation, or even a music server. I think one should only expect so much when using a typical pc/workstation/music server for audio.


----------



## ciphercomplete

computerparts said:


> So it's fairly easy to see why a mid-fi cd player will destroy a typical pc, workstation, or even a music server.


 
  
 Except that this is not the rule.  I've owned quite a few transports and cd players and my music server beat them out.  Two of my friends own PWT with similar DACS to mine (Master 7 and SA2) and by comparison you don't hear all the dreaded nasties of a computer transport in my system vs theirs.  Saying that any old mid fi cd player would beat any computer is false.  Computers, despite their issues, can be done right provided you know what you are doing.  Where people screw up imo is attempting to use their personal computers as a media pcs or using over the top processors and unnecessary GBs of memory that need lots of power.  Dedicate a low power consuming pc to music only and get a good linear pc power supply and get a good dac (or usb to spdif/I2s converter) that effectively deals with usb power issues.  The only caveat there really is is expense, but you get awesome convenience in return.


----------



## computerparts

ciphercomplete said:


> Except that this is not the rule.  I've owned quite a few transports and cd players and my music server beat them out.  Two of my friends own PWT with similar DACS to mine (Master 7 and SA2) and by comparison you don't hear all the dreaded nasties of a computer transport in my system vs theirs.  Saying that any old mid fi cd player would beat any computer is false.  Computers, despite their issues, can be done right provided you know what you are doing.  Where people screw up imo is attempting to use their personal computers as a media pcs or using over the top processors and unnecessary GBs of memory that need lots of power.  Dedicate a low power consuming pc to music only and get a good linear pc power supply and get a good dac (or usb to spdif/I2s converter) that effectively deals with usb power issues.  The only caveat there really is is expense, but you get awesome convenience in return.


 

 You're right it's not the rule. There are always exceptions. For example, a $10k music server should beat out a $1k cd player. I can't remember many people raving about the PWT and I've never heard a setup with one so I can't comment. However, you stated "you don't hear all the dreaded nasties of a computer transport in my system vs theirs" which tells me it's not a valid comparison unless I'm misunderstanding. Have you put the music server in their system to see how it sounded? Have you put their PWT and dac in your system to see how it sounded?
  
 Also, when you were comparing your music server to other dacs and cd players, were they all in the same price range as the music server? Did the rest of your system stay the same or were their any other changes after you bought the music server? What I'm getting at is it's easy to say X beats Y but if other components/ancillaries in the system have changed, then it is not a valid comparison. I'm sure you can obtain good results from a music server, but a pc is still a pc and it will have its limitations compared to a dedicated dac and transport.


----------



## cizx

I hear that if you keep adding zeroes, the sound keeps getting better.


----------



## Chris J

cizx said:


> I hear that if you keep adding zeroes, the sound keeps getting better.




Ones and Zeroes.
Go from 16 bit to 24 bit and the sound improves by 50%.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

No, only 25% :>)


----------



## Armaegis

Double wrong. It's 17.6%
  
 C'mon guys, we all know that audio only works in the log scale, so clearly log(24/16)=0.176
  
  
 ... ya buncha amateurs


----------



## wink

Yeah, but subjectively it's more like 534%...
  
 i.e. chalk and cheese difference, night and day,, comparing Stax SR-009 to apple i-buds, etc, etc, ad hoc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum....


----------



## Chris J

wink said:


> Yeah, but subjectively it's more like 534%...
> 
> i.e. chalk and cheese difference, night and day,, comparing Stax SR-009 to apple i-buds, etc, etc, ad hoc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum....




Yep.
534% is a reasonable approximation, if you only want to take into account the first order effects.

Mathematical proof to follow shortly.........:wink_face:


----------



## StefanJK

chris j said:


> Yep.
> 534% is a reasonable approximation, if you only want to take into account the first order effects.
> 
> Mathematical proof to follow shortly.........:wink_face:



We're doing small sample asymptotics with non-converging series here. Has to be true.


----------



## boatheelmusic

You are talking about music reproduction, right?
  
 Sounds like a Dr. evo science project!


----------



## estreeter

computerparts said:


> IMO a computer is a horrible source or even transport period. It's just not made for that purpose in mind (laptops are even worse yet). In a typical pc, you've got the cpu and gpu emitting frequencies in the ghz with no shielding in sight. The wiring going to the front panel usb port is horrible with minimal shielding. If you're using the onboard audio digital output then that's even worse since that's on the same exact board that everything else emitting noise is on (the motherboard). The power supply is inadequate for audio as the power for everything in the computer comes from one source, again no shielding in sight. Music servers are a bit better but still share some of the same problems regarding shielding and frequency emissions. In a cd player, there is no cpu or gpu contaminating everything in sight nor are there any components for wi-fi or lan. So it's fairly easy to see why a mid-fi cd player will destroy a typical pc, workstation, or even a music server. I think one should only expect so much when using a typical pc/workstation/music server for audio.


 
  
 Is this the part where someone tells me my SACD players arent comparable with your 1K CDPs because they were designed for a different silver disc ? Both do an excellent job as transports, but I suspect that you'll tell me there are better options out there - I'm all ears. 
  
 http://www.marantz.co.uk/uk/products/pages/productdetails.aspx?catid=hifi&subcatid=sacdcdplayer&productid=sa14s1
  
 http://www.oppodigital.co.uk/ecommerce/product/BDP-105D.aspx
  
 I'm willing to accept that paying more money does not guarantee you a better result, but both cost considerably more than 1K USD retail. I bristle at the 'mid-fi' tag but that's where Marantz gear seems to get lumped by folk with considerably more expensive gear, so I'll live with it. There's a point to this, but I dont want to shoot my mouth off till you've revealed your 1K candidates. That's 1K USD retail - I'll accept an internet special, but not a modded unit. I look forward to your response.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

boatheelmusic said:


> You are talking about music reproduction, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 


We haven't even started yet. Watch and enjoy:}


----------



## smitty1110

computerparts said:


> IMO a computer is a horrible source or even transport period. It's just not made for that purpose in mind (laptops are even worse yet). In a typical pc, you've got the cpu and gpu emitting frequencies in the ghz with no shielding in sight. The wiring going to the front panel usb port is horrible with minimal shielding. If you're using the onboard audio digital output then that's even worse since that's on the same exact board that everything else emitting noise is on (the motherboard). The power supply is inadequate for audio as the power for everything in the computer comes from one source, again no shielding in sight. Music servers are a bit better but still share some of the same problems regarding shielding and frequency emissions. In a cd player, there is no cpu or gpu contaminating everything in sight nor are there any components for wi-fi or lan. So it's fairly easy to see why a mid-fi cd player will destroy a typical pc, workstation, or even a music server. I think one should only expect so much when using a typical pc/workstation/music server for audio.


 
 Why would HF noise on the usb data lines be a problem? It's all lower than the threshold of what the chipset's looking for, it's not flipping bits or something. Unless your dac is USB powered there's no problems. The only reason that you have problems is if you have a stressed PSU, or a really bad disc drive, both of which are easily fixed. You can get a TotL SATA disc drive for $200 (if you engage in some really sketchy rounding), and a great PSU for $600. That PSU will provide 1500W, so now it will barely purr when just playing music, and probably be at half power when my system is running at max output (and I game at 4k with my rig, so I've got a _very_ nice graphics card, uses almost half of my system's power). Though if either of these components needed upgrading it would be super obvious with really ****ty audio, with all sorts of gaps, skips, etc.
  
 What were the specs of the computer that was so poor that you formed your extremely negative opinion of computer? Surely one of the two things I mentioned was a problem, otherwise I just can't see how you came to your conclusions.


----------



## computerparts

estreeter said:


> Is this the part where someone tells me my SACD players arent comparable with your 1K CDPs because they were designed for a different silver disc ? Both do an excellent job as transports, but I suspect that you'll tell me there are better options out there - I'm all ears.
> 
> http://www.marantz.co.uk/uk/products/pages/productdetails.aspx?catid=hifi&subcatid=sacdcdplayer&productid=sa14s1
> 
> ...


 
  
 Your post is confusing. Where did I mention anything about SACD? That is not what I'm talking about here.
  


smitty1110 said:


> Why would HF noise on the usb data lines be a problem? It's all lower than the threshold of what the chipset's looking for, it's not flipping bits or something. Unless your dac is USB powered there's no problems. The only reason that you have problems is if you have a stressed PSU, or a really bad disc drive, both of which are easily fixed. You can get a TotL SATA disc drive for $200 (if you engage in some really sketchy rounding), and a great PSU for $600. That PSU will provide 1500W, so now it will barely purr when just playing music, and probably be at half power when my system is running at max output (and I game at 4k with my rig, so I've got a _very_ nice graphics card, uses almost half of my system's power). Though if either of these components needed upgrading it would be super obvious with really ****ty audio, with all sorts of gaps, skips, etc.
> 
> What were the specs of the computer that was so poor that you formed your extremely negative opinion of computer? Surely one of the two things I mentioned was a problem, otherwise I just can't see how you came to your conclusions.


 
  
 Computers aren't made for the sole purpose of reproducing music, that is a fact. They are a rat's nest of noise. It has always been my opinion that a mid-fi cd player will sound better than a typical pc used as a source. If you're happy with using a typical pc as a source then more power to you. But for the price of that $200 sata drive + $600 psu alone, you can get some very good vintage equipment that will blow that pc away. Factor in the cost of the rest of that pc and it's no contest IMO.


----------



## sandab

smitty1110 said:


> Why would HF noise on the usb data lines be a problem?


 
 Because HF noise is very pervasive and insanely difficult to get rid of.  It gets onto the enclosure, the ground plane, the power rails, the transformer, cable shielding, even out the AC cord. If you touch the enclosure it becomes part of you.  It just needs to get to the base of an emitter follower, and now it's part of the signal and IMD and other audible distortion will appear as the HF is outside the linearity bandwidth of bipolar transistors.  It can even cause transistor instability.  It's not necessarily a HUGE problem, but it also can't just be idly dismissed.


----------



## BackToAnalogue

sandab said:


> smitty1110 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would HF noise on the usb data lines be a problem?
> ...


 

 Well if it helps you sleep easier, and it does me, then use a USB 3.0 port (much faster) and stick a separately powered USB 3.0 hub ( $25 ) in between the PC and the DAC.
  
 Simples, job's a good 'un.
  
 Happy Xmas, love and peace to you all in 2015


----------



## estreeter

computerparts, *all I need is for you to accept that either of my SACD players is at least as good a transport as your (still unnamed) 1K CDP* and we can take it from there. In this corner, I have a stock 2014 Macbook Pro running JRMC19 and serving nothing more complex than Redbook and some (genuine) 24/96 downloads of the Ludwig remaster of Springsteen's first 7 albums. I also have the CD boxed set of same and I've played all of them thru the Marantz and the Oppo - I suspect that you arent going to like my conclusions, but we're talking _same DAC, same cables and same stock power cords_. It's one of the big pluses of having both coaxial in and coaxial out on a player, and I think you'll struggle to find that on a 1K player, but I'm always happy to hear otherwise.
  
 Still confused ? Let's start with the music, shall we ?
  
 http://tinyurl.com/ksbtjde


----------



## fzman

estreeter said:


> computerparts, *all I need is for you to accept that either of my SACD players is at least as good a transport as your (still unnamed) 1K CDP* and we can take it from there. In this corner, I have a stock 2014 Macbook Pro running JRMC19 and serving nothing more complex than Redbook and some (genuine) 24/96 downloads of the Ludwig remaster of Springsteen's first 7 albums. I also have the CD boxed set of same and I've played all of them thru the Marantz and the Oppo - I suspect that you arent going to like my conclusions, but we're talking _same DAC, same cables and same stock power cords_. It's one of the big pluses of having both coaxial in and coaxial out on a player, and I think you'll struggle to find that on a 1K player, but I'm always happy to hear otherwise.
> 
> Still confused ? Let's start with the music, shall we ?
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ksbtjde


 
  
 Now I'm a bit confused,....   are you saying your spinners are better than the laptop setup?  I'm not criticising- just asking.  As far as the other comparison, it's just the old chestnut that, all things equal, used gear costs less than new gear.  I'd venture to say that a really top-shelf transport with one of the Esoteric drive mechanisms, with properly implemented spdif output might very well sound better than your Marantz and Oppo (and I sell both of them, and think very highly of them both).
  
 But, hey, it's Xmas toay so I hope you all have wonderful 1's and 0's under your ritual Conifers...


----------



## computerparts

estreeter said:


> computerparts, *all I need is for you to accept that either of my SACD players is at least as good a transport as your (still unnamed) 1K CDP* and we can take it from there. In this corner, I have a stock 2014 Macbook Pro running JRMC19 and serving nothing more complex than Redbook and some (genuine) 24/96 downloads of the Ludwig remaster of Springsteen's first 7 albums. I also have the CD boxed set of same and I've played all of them thru the Marantz and the Oppo - I suspect that you arent going to like my conclusions, but we're talking _same DAC, same cables and same stock power cords_. It's one of the big pluses of having both coaxial in and coaxial out on a player, and I think you'll struggle to find that on a 1K player, but I'm always happy to hear otherwise.
> 
> Still confused ? Let's start with the music, shall we ?
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ksbtjde


 
  
 I have no experience with SACD so I can't say anything for sure. You mention having coax in on the player. Are you using the macbook pro as transport into the player and comparing that to the player used by itself? I remember reading that the even the NA-11S1 is lacking in redbook playback compared to some redbook only players. So I would assume the same to be true for your SA-14S1. But if you're using SACD, then theoretically your Marantz should be better when used by itself.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> Some pure chain DSD stuff is really good, but different. Unfortunately, the pure chain DSD recordings are rare and usually consists of craptastic "audiophile" music that I don't care for, i.e. mediocre soul-less girl vocals + guitar -or- mediocre soul-less girl vocals + lightweight piano. Bleh.


 
 That's so true - there are so many amazing sounding recordings out there with no content at all. I'd rather a brilliant album that sounds bad than a terrible albums that sounds brilliant.


----------



## magiccabbage

computerparts said:


> Your post is confusing. Where did I mention anything about SACD? That is not what I'm talking about here.
> 
> 
> Computers aren't made for the sole purpose of reproducing music, that is a fact. They are a rat's nest of noise. It has always been my opinion that a mid-fi cd player will sound better than a typical pc used as a source. .


 
 Wont a DAC with A synchronous USB get rid of all the computer noise? I have never tested this myself but sometime next year I will get a good CD player and pair it with the new YGGY DAC (or the new Chord DAC) and also see what the Laptop/DAC sounds like. 
  
 Maybe you have tried this .............  CD Player + Dedicated DAC  vs  Laptop + Dedicated DAC?


----------



## takato14

wow 

for once I kind of want currawong to intervene


----------



## computerparts

magiccabbage said:


> Wont a DAC with A synchronous USB get rid of all the computer noise? I have never tested this myself but sometime next year I will get a good CD player and pair it with the new YGGY DAC (or the new Chord DAC) and also see what the Laptop/DAC sounds like.
> 
> Maybe you have tried this .............  CD Player + Dedicated DAC  vs  Laptop + Dedicated DAC?


 
  
 I do not own a laptop. But for that comparison, why limit yourself to a cd player? Why not use a high quality cd transport instead?


----------



## estreeter

takato14 said:


> wow
> 
> for once I kind of want currawong to intervene


 
  
 Why ? This is a thread about DACs and it was started by a Head-fier who did his initial evaluations using an entry-level Marantz CDP as transport but has since indicated that he prefers to use a computer as transport from an ease of use perspective. computerparts put forward the old standby that most computers make poor transports and that even a 'mid-fi' CDP would be a better choice. Given that I own both CDPs and computers, I chose to respond - how is that in any way off topic ? The discussion is civil and I'm afraid I just dont see what your objections are - please elucidate.


----------



## estreeter

computerparts said:


> I have no experience with SACD so I can't say anything for sure. You mention having coax in on the player. Are you using the macbook pro as transport into the player and comparing that to the player used by itself? I remember reading that the even the NA-11S1 is lacking in redbook playback compared to some redbook only players. So I would assume the same to be true for your SA-14S1. But if you're using SACD, then theoretically your Marantz should be better when used by itself.


 
  
 To be clear, I have experimented with a host of configurations including Marantz as transport into the Oppo and vice-versa (coaxial) and I've hooked both up to my Hugo to see if I could discern any major differences in their ability as transports - i'd give the nod to the Marantz on that one but it wasnt a massive difference. My personal preference is the USB connection from my MBP into the Marantz, and that's where John Atkinson had his 'hallelujah' moment with the NA-11S1 when he started listening to a few DSD samples via the Burr Brown DAC in the 11S1. I didnt read that as inferring that the 11S1 wasnt very good with Redbook - on the contrary, the review is almost gushing in it's praise for the Marantz as a DAC and he glosses over the networking functionality. 
  
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/marantz-reference-na-11s1-network-audio-playerdac
  
_While I've been skeptical about the 1-bit sigma-delta encoding format used by DSD, the sound of these files streamed to the Marantz was among the best I have experienced in my system. As I finish writing this review, I'm listening to the final movement of Ivan Fischer and the Budapest Festival Orchestra's recording of Mahler's Symphony 1 (SACD/CD, Channel Classics CCS SA 33112), which Kal Rubinson enthused about in his July 2013 "Music in the Round" column. The NA-11S1 is set to Filter 1 and the soundstage is spacious. More important, there's a silky smoothness to the sound of the strings very reminiscent of the real thing in that it is notaccompanied by mellowness. It's difficult to resist the sheer beauty of the orchestral sound in DSD, to keep myself from abandoning the laptop to pay the appropriate attention to Mahler's marvelous scoring._
  
I popped the top off my Marantz to confirm that it has the same DAC chip as the 11S1 (albeit the latter has a larger toroidal and balanced outputs) and I've listened to various DSD samples of my own - I agree with JA's assertion re smoothness but the music simply isnt my preferred genre - what I needed was music I knew intimately and the aforementioned 24/96 downloads of two Springsteen albums that I know back-to-front were the missing piece of the puzzle. I'm finally able to compare apples with apples - the CDs with the 24-bit remasters they were cut from - and I prefer the latter. My 16/44.1 rips of these albums are indistinguishable from the CDs via the Marantz - perhaps someone with more golden ears would beg to differ. If I'm going to put my hand in my pocket for Yggdrasil, I can do so without having to debate whether or not I need a 'better' transport. 
  
If the appearance of 'SACD' muddied the waters, I apologise - _my intent was always to compare good Redbook playback from a disc spinner with the same tracks ripped to my laptop's solid state drive_. FWIW, the laptop cost almost as much as the Marantz - thanks so much, Apple Corp - and both are in the ballpark with the projected price for Yggy. None is even remotely close to the stickers on gear from Esoteric, Simaudio Moon and others and I'm completely open to the possibility that those transports could give me a totally different perspective on this comparison, but you did say 'mid-fi CDP'. I'll leave it to others to decide what their best options are, but for me it's a no-brainer - a laptop with a library of music and the convenience of playlists vs the stack of CDs I once owned. Now that's a _Happy New Year_.


----------



## magiccabbage

computerparts said:


> I do not own a laptop. But for that comparison, why limit yourself to a cd player? Why not use a high quality cd transport instead?


 
 I need to get my hands on one. They are expensive enough, I was looking for one a while back but could not find any under 5K. Maybe you know of some that won't break the bank?


----------



## estreeter

magiccabbage said:


> I need to get my hands on one. They are expensive enough, I was looking for one a while back but could not find any under 5K. Maybe you know of some that won't break the bank?


 
  
 http://www.sonicartaudio.com/CEC.htm
  
 TL51X - belt-drive transport - $1690


----------



## magiccabbage

estreeter said:


> http://www.sonicartaudio.com/CEC.htm
> 
> TL51X - belt-drive transport - $1690


 
 Thanks - this is great


----------



## ciphercomplete

The world of cd transports is really hit and miss (more miss).  The CEC is probably one of the better ones still in production but here is what Lampizator had to say about it.  http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/REFERENCES/cec51/cectl51x.html


----------



## computerparts

estreeter said:


> To be clear, I have experimented with a host of configurations including Marantz as transport into the Oppo and vice-versa (coaxial) and I've hooked both up to my Hugo to see if I could discern any major differences in their ability as transports - i'd give the nod to the Marantz on that one but it wasnt a massive difference. My personal preference is the USB connection from my MBP into the Marantz, and that's where John Atkinson had his 'hallelujah' moment with the NA-11S1 when he started listening to a few DSD samples via the Burr Brown DAC in the 11S1. I didnt read that as inferring that the 11S1 wasnt very good with Redbook - on the contrary, the review is almost gushing in it's praise for the Marantz as a DAC and he glosses over the networking functionality.
> 
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/marantz-reference-na-11s1-network-audio-playerdac
> 
> ...


 
  
 I should also apologize and clarify I'm talking about used gear which had an msrp of $1k and can now be had for a fraction of that. Let's keep things simple and just talk pure redbook. I'm curious, have you tried any mid-fi cd players used by itself, not as a transport. And have you compared that to the sound of your laptop to dac? For example, the Musical Fidelity A3 I reviewed in my old thread was just stupidly good bang for the buck around $300. I would love to see how that would compare to your current setup. Or even perhaps a cd player that would be more inline with the price of your laptop.
  


magiccabbage said:


> I need to get my hands on one. They are expensive enough, I was looking for one a while back but could not find any under 5K. Maybe you know of some that won't break the bank?


 
  
 If your budget goes up to $5k then you have a lot of options that will include world class stuff on the used market. Keep an eye out for Theta Jade which can be had for roughly $800. Levinson no. 37 which generally go for about $1600. C.E.C. TL-2X, which is vastly superior to the 51X mentioned, usually go for about $1200. If you want to take it a step further, Levinson 31 for about $2500. C.E.C. TL-1x for about $2500. Audio Note CDT-3 can be had for about $3k if you can find one. MBL 1521A for about $4500. Accustic arts Drive II you may be able to find for roughly the same or slightly more than the MBL. A lot of options for sure.


----------



## Currawong

magiccabbage said:


> computerparts said:
> 
> 
> > Your post is confusing. Where did I mention anything about SACD? That is not what I'm talking about here.
> ...


 
  
 Asynchronous USB refers to how the data is transferred. Noise is electrical and will be transmitted regardless. Rob Watts made an interesting post in the Hugo thread yesterday stating that he reckons that optical is the best transport (for the Hugo) as the jitter will be eliminated and it wont transmit any noise at all. Given that modern DAC designs are supposed to eliminate jitter, what he said about people mistaking the effects of noise as better clarity may explain a lot.
  
 As for S/PDIF transports I consider this required reading: http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/TRANSPORT/CD_transport_DIY.html
  
 I'd consider my Audiophilleo 1 to effect the same thing as a high-end transport, but without the issue of having to get music off a disc, which, if you know how they work, are full of errors!
  
 I'd bet strongly that the best transport is a well-made streaming server with suitable electrical isolation at the digital outputs.


----------



## estreeter

computerparts said:


> I should also apologize and clarify I'm talking about used gear which had an msrp of $1k and can now be had for a fraction of that. Let's keep things simple and just talk pure redbook. *I'm curious, have you tried any mid-fi cd players used by itself*, not as a transport. And have you compared that to the sound of your laptop to dac? For example, the Musical Fidelity A3 I reviewed in my old thread was just stupidly good bang for the buck around $300. I would love to see how that would compare to your current setup. *Or even perhaps a cd player that would be more inline with the price of your laptop*.


 
  
 And we're back to my earlier question - i*snt my Marantz SA-14S1 a 'CD Player' *? What precisely differentiates an SACD player from it's more basic siblings ? As far as I know, when we're talking Redbook there should be no difference at all in the way data is retrieved from the disc - always willing to hear otherwise. Based on current THB-USD exchange rates, this is roughly what i paid for each:
  
 Marantz SA-14S1    - 2400USD
 Apple Macbook Pro - 2000USD
  
 As for listening to a string of budget CDPs, how is that relevant to your initial point that a CD player is a better *transport* than a computer ? If the core of this thread is about standalone DACs, it makes little sense to start comparing those DACs to your MF CDP, even if it might be an interesting exercise to compare the MF with my Marantz. If all I want is a 'stupid good' DAC for less than $300, I have the iFi iDSD nano - dragging another large disc spinner into my cramped digs just isnt going to happen. 
  
 Clearly, you've decided that the CD player, a technology largely driven by 3 large corporations, is preferable to the homebrew of efforts of the majority who build computer transports - that's fine. What I dont agree with is the old standby that computers cant compete as transports  - there are countless threads on this at Computer Audiophile and that may well be the best forum to continue this discussion.


----------



## computerparts

estreeter said:


> And we're back to my earlier question - i*snt my Marantz SA-14S1 a 'CD Player' *? What precisely differentiates an SACD player from it's more basic siblings ? As far as I know, when we're talking Redbook there should be no difference at all in the way data is retrieved from the disc - always willing to hear otherwise. Based on current THB-USD exchange rates, this is roughly what i paid for each:
> 
> Marantz SA-14S1    - 2400USD
> Apple Macbook Pro - 2000USD
> ...


 
  
 It is a matter of perspective. I view your Marantz as an SACD player that is capable of playing cd's. Other's may view it as a cd player, but that is not its greatest strength. As far as the differences go, the transport mech would be the main difference. SACD spins at a higher speed than regular cd. The SACD transport mech has one laser which will consist of 2 beams which read at different wavelengths. One for SACD and the other for cd. How it determines which beam to shoot out first is beyond me. Maybe that occurs during reading the table of contents. The other main difference would of course be the dac. Try finding an SACD player with an R2R dac.
  
 IMO yes a cd player is a better transport than a computer. Why? The main reason is the transport mech. Try finding a hard drive with an rpm of 500 which is the fastest at which a cd will spin. Typical laptop drives are 5200 rpm. An SSD's performance is far faster. If you throw data at a dac at these insane speeds (which I don't even know if dacs are made for) shouldn't there be some repercussions? Maybe you could buffer it but how would you know what to set the buffer at? Now if you're using some kind of outboard usb to spdif converter, outboard master clock, or some kind of usb/firewire outboard audio interface, then that's a different story. What I'm talking about is a computer or laptop with the signal going straight from it to a dac, nothing in between. Next reason is noise. As I said computers are a rat's nest of noise and I wouldn't dare put one near the rest of the audio components in a dedicated 2 channel listening environment.
  
 In my bedroom I'm using my pc as a transport going into a Proceed AVP. Not just for music, but for movies and games also. Optical out from the motherboard straight to the AVP. It gets the job done for what I need in that application. It's fine for what it is but it will never give me the results that I know are achievable from a dedicated transport or even a cd player. IMO there is a level of fluidity and prat (pace, rhythm, and timing) that a pc cannot match.


----------



## arnaud

computerparts said:


> Try finding a hard drive with an rpm of 500 which is the fastest at which a cd will spin. Typical laptop drives are 5200 rpm. An SSD's performance is far faster. If you throw data at a dac at these insane speeds (which I don't even know if dacs are made for) shouldn't there be some repercussions?


 
  
 I don't know where your handle name came from and I am no computer expert, but one thing I can tell you is that a computer differs slightly from a sausage maker as far as throughput regulation and there's more to it than the speed at which the motor spins lol!!
  
 Now, I understand you still live in 1995 where non computer drive type transports were the rule and think a 1x spinning CD is really good at jitter. But in case one wants a practical alternative and still has worries about jitter and other noise due to connected computer, here's a $99 solution that deals with it on the USB side: http://schiit.com/products/wyrd . It actually did not make squat difference in my system, probably because I already have a reclocker downstream (was using USB power through), so it's more for the OCD checkbox than anything else atm...
  
 I'd love more DAC comparison talk and less rethoric if there's any contributor available! Still waiting for my dac so it will be a while until I post...
  
 arnaud


----------



## computerparts

arnaud said:


> I don't know where your handle name came from and I am no computer expert, but one thing I can tell you is that a computer differs slightly from a sausage maker as far as throughput regulation and there's more to it than the speed at which the motor spins lol!!
> 
> Now, I understand you still live in 1995 where non computer drive type transports were the rule and think a 1x spinning CD is really good at jitter. But in case one wants a practical alternative and still has worries about jitter and other noise due to connected computer, here's a $99 solution that deals with it on the USB side: http://schiit.com/products/wyrd . It actually did not make squat difference in my system, probably because I already have a reclocker downstream (was using USB power through), so it's more for the OCD checkbox than anything else atm...
> 
> ...


 
  
 And yet isn't it ironic that to this day some of the best sounding dacs date back to the 90's?  By the way, I never said anything about a cd player being good at jitter. I never even said anything about jitter to begin with so I'm not sure where you conjured that up. Back to dac talk. Weren't you the guy having trouble finding a good dac in Japan? If so, have you looked at 47 Labs, Kondo, and Accuphase? If you get lucky you might even find a Stax DAC-X1T.


----------



## Chris J

currawong said:


> Asynchronous USB refers to how the data is transferred. Noise is electrical and will be transmitted regardless. Rob Watts made an interesting post in the Hugo thread yesterday stating that he reckons that optical is the best transport (for the Hugo) as the jitter will be eliminated and it wont transmit any noise at all. Given that modern DAC designs are supposed to eliminate jitter, what he said about people mistaking the effects of noise as better clarity may explain a lot.
> 
> As for S/PDIF transports I consider this required reading: http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/TRANSPORT/CD_transport_DIY.html
> 
> ...




OK.
I read it.
Is there a quiz? :confused_face_2:


----------



## ciphercomplete

computerparts said:


> Try finding a hard drive with an rpm of 500 which is the fastest at which a cd will spin. Typical laptop drives are 5200 rpm. An SSD's performance is far faster. If you throw data at a dac at these insane speeds (which I don't even know if dacs are made for) shouldn't there be some repercussions?


 
  
 This is just not how things work.  
  
  


computerparts said:


> Maybe you could buffer it but how would you know what to set the buffer at?


 
  
 This is exactly what happens in a sense and it is done automatically no need to set a buffer.  The data gets *clocked* by the computer or usb/spdif solution (outside or inside the dac) before it reaches the actual conversion step.  The same thing happens inside a cd player, data is read, hopefully error corrected, clocked and sent to the dac (internal or external).  A computer can in no way bombard the dac with the information like you seem to suggest as it simply would not work.  The information gets there at the same pace as it would had it came from a cd transport.  Hard drive speed only refers to how fast the computer pulls data off of the hard drive.


----------



## ciphercomplete

currawong said:


> Asynchronous USB refers to how the data is transferred. Noise is electrical and will be transmitted regardless. Rob Watts made an interesting post in the Hugo thread yesterday stating that he reckons that optical is the best transport (for the Hugo) as the jitter will be eliminated and it wont transmit any noise at all. Given that modern DAC designs are supposed to eliminate jitter, what he said about people mistaking the effects of noise as better clarity may explain a lot.


 
   Back in the day (2008 lol) the only way I would even consider connecting my pc to my headphone rig was by optical.  I had a external soundcard with optical output ran into a Monarchy audio DIP with AES into a Monarch NM24 dac.  I've always thought optical was overlooked especially in computer audio.  I read somewhere many years ago that the only reason optical is limited to 96khz is that no one has bothered to update the send and recieve connectors to something more robust.  
  
 I think a optical solution that somehow spoofs usb would be awesome.  You would have to have a add on pci express card with a optical data output or software that can re-purpose the computer's toslink optical output to output data then a separate external box can either convert this to spdif or send it on in usb form over standard usb cables to your usb dac.  At least there would be no hard line for any noise to travel to the dac.


----------



## computerparts

ciphercomplete said:


> This is just not how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what happens in a sense and it is done automatically no need to set a buffer.  The data gets *clocked* by the computer or usb/spdif solution (outside or inside the dac) before it reaches the actual conversion step.  The same thing happens inside a cd player, data is read, hopefully error corrected, clocked and sent to the dac (internal or external).  A computer can in no way bombard the dac with the information like you seem to suggest as it simply would not work.  The information gets there at the same pace as it would had it came from a cd transport.  Hard drive speed only refers to how fast the computer pulls data off of the hard drive.


 
  
 I see I was mistaken. Thank you for the explanation. This is interesting. So it is not the dac that is being bombarded but rather the clock in the pc. With this bombarding in the pc, would it be possible for the clock to produce extra errors or maybe I should say noise on the clock? I understand not all clocks are created equal. So shouldn't there be some limitation to a cheap factory clock in a pc receiving data at 10 times the speed a cheap factory clock in a cd based transport would receive?


----------



## bfreedma

computerparts said:


> ciphercomplete said:
> 
> 
> > This is just not how things work.
> ...




Not going to be an issue. Handling audio isn't an issue for any recent PC.


----------



## estreeter

@computerparts, if you're prepared to wade through the conflicting opinions at Computer Audiophile, you'll find a few of the regulars do know their stuff. If I had to nominate a 'turnkey' solution _without having actually heard it_, try to find a used Bryston BDP-1 : I'm still messing around with DiY toys but Bryston know a thing or two about audio. Good luck.


----------



## kazsud

Has anyone here tried the audio-gd usb to i2s converters?
  
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DI2014/DI2014EN.htm


----------



## conquerator2

kazsud said:


> Has anyone here tried the audio-gd usb to i2s converters?
> 
> http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DI2014/DI2014EN.htm


 
 I have it. What of it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 I also ordered the Gustard U12 to compare and see how the two 'budget' converters fare


----------



## Hansotek

Two part question:

1. Is the sound from the Bifrost Uber's optical input as good as the sound from the gen 2 USB input? 

2. Would a Bifrost Uber (optical only) be a noticeable upgrade from an ODAC?

(Source would be a MacBook Pro. Amp is a Schiit Lyr.)


----------



## papa kief

currawong said:


> Asynchronous USB refers to how the data is transferred. Noise is electrical and will be transmitted regardless. Rob Watts made an interesting post in the Hugo thread yesterday stating that he reckons that optical is the best transport (for the Hugo) as the jitter will be eliminated and it wont transmit any noise at all. Given that modern DAC designs are supposed to eliminate jitter, what he said about people mistaking the effects of noise as better clarity may explain a lot.
> 
> As for S/PDIF transports I consider this required reading: http://lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/TRANSPORT/CD_transport_DIY.html
> 
> ...




+1 for Audiophilleo.

i am using a MBP (with jriver) feeding an Audiophilleo AP2 SE (Special Edition) thru an upgraded, custom power supply and then feeding the 24bit 384k/ DSD128 source into my Chord Hugo via coax from the ap2. This connection versus a simple high quality silver usb cable (32bit 384k to the Hugo) was the icing on the cake for me. My sound now has much more depth, air, deep rich bass (but not too much). Much more of a full, 3d holographic feeling sound that I was looking for. Almost sold my Hugo and purchased another DAC, glad I didn't. I tried a few other usb spdif converters but nothing touches the AP in my setup. 

Very very happy with the Audiophilleo.


----------



## Stillhart

So 142 pages and I know I'm going to come in here and noob it up... but I gotta ask.
  
 I heard the Chord Hugo this week at CES and was REALLY impressed by the sound quality.  Based on your review on the first page, It seems I have much to learn.  I brought my cheap portables along (SoundMAGIC HP100) so I could have a baseline for testing other headphones and listening through the Chord just made my jaw drop.  I didn't realize those headphones could do that!
  
 So now I'm thinking I need to drop some money on a real DAC and amp.  I feel like there's a lot of potential for obvious sonic gain by moving up the DAC+Amp ladder now.  Especially with my new LCD-2.
  
 My first choice was the NFB-28 (I like Audio-GD!) but I worry that maybe that's a baby step when I should just go all in and get something like the Gungnir and Mjolnir, wife-aggro be damned!  I'm not a fan of the Modi, didn't find it much better than the DAC in my Sound Blaster, so I'm worried that all the Schiit gear is equally over-hyped and over-rated.  But you guys seem to love the Gungnir and the price is really competitive.
  
 I'm rambling.  I guess, I just need a nudge in the right direction so I can get my research rolling.  Can you guys recommend a good desktop DAC and Amp combo (I don't care if it's all-in-one or not) that's cheaper than the Chord Hugo but sounds as good or better?
  
 Thanks!


----------



## tonykaz

Mr.Stillhart,
  
 You gotta be major careful about Shows, these presentations are set-up by people that know how to do a Dog & Pony show, you probably heard the best possible music and carefully chosen electronics devices.   
  
 If you had a glimpse of the behind the scenes view of how these Shows are done you'd be careful not to put much credence in your observations and impressions.  
  
 The Chord is reviewed to be a nice sounding device but not a magical device. 
  
 Find a local group of Headphone people and try their stuff, you can expect this path to be representatve of what you can realistically expect from any purchase you make.  
  
 I've done CES and other shows over the last 4 decades as a Purchasing Agent, Retailer and Manufacturer,  all the stops are pulled out for the Big Show.  
  
 If you are a consumer, you are a babe in the woods. 
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## judmarc

stillhart said:


> Can you guys recommend a good desktop DAC and Amp combo (I don't care if it's all-in-one or not) that's cheaper than the Chord Hugo but sounds as good or better?
> 
> Thanks!


 
  
 The thing is that the Hugo has a deserved reputation for sounding as good as DACs many times *its* price.  As you learned, it's an excellent DAC.  Gungnir is a heck of a DAC - Schiit builds great stuff - but that's quite a load of expectation to put on it.  Laudable goal to come out with something better but lots cheaper than the Hugo, but you may be better served by having a more realistic view: What level of performance will make you happy?  If it's nothing less than the Hugo, start saving!  If it's something in line with your current budget, then the question isn't what will sound as good as or better than the Hugo, but what the best sounding contenders are in your price range.


----------



## Clemmaster

At least wait for the Chord 2Qute and pair it with a decent headphone amp. Would get much better result than the Hugo, no doubt.


----------



## Stillhart

tonykaz said:


> Mr.Stillhart,
> 
> You gotta be major careful about Shows, these presentations are set-up by people that know how to do a Dog & Pony show, you probably heard the best possible music and carefully chosen electronics devices.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hi Tony,
  
 Yeah, I totally get where you're coming from.  But to be clear, I tested the Hugo with my test tracks streaming digitally via Bluetooth to the Hugo, while using my headphones that I brought with me.  This is about as unbiased a test as I can do without actually A/B'ing it at home with my gear.  
  
 And with tracks and cans that I was very familiar, the Hugo wowed me.  Admittedly, I haven't heard anything else in that price range under those circumstances.  I know it's not reviewed great in this thread, which is why I am asking for advice.  If the Hugo wowed me, then some alternatives must be REALLY good.
  


judmarc said:


> The thing is that the Hugo has a deserved reputation for sounding as good as DACs many times *its* price.  As you learned, it's an excellent DAC.  Gungnir is a heck of a DAC - Schiit builds great stuff - but that's quite a load of expectation to put on it.  Laudable goal to come out with something better but lots cheaper than the Hugo, but you may be better served by having a more realistic view: What level of performance will make you happy?  If it's nothing less than the Hugo, start saving!  If it's something in line with your current budget, then the question isn't what will sound as good as or better than the Hugo, but what the best sounding contenders are in your price range.


 
  
 Hm, so is the Hugo good or bad?  The review on the front page here says it's a toy DAC for losers who like bright colors and it sounds mediocre. The Gungnir is rated one of the top ones and it's a fraction of the price.  I'm not looking for something "lots" cheaper, tho that would be nice.  I'm just trying to get some ideas for cheaper alternatives.  If it really sounds that bad, then surely there are others around the same price that blow it out of the water?
  


clemmaster said:


> At least wait for the Chord 2Qute and pair it with a decent headphone amp. Would get much better result than the Hugo, no doubt.


 
  
 Yeah, but isn't it like the same price as the Chord with only a DAC?


----------



## thehoff

stillhart said:


> Hi Tony,
> 
> Yeah, I totally get where you're coming from.  But to be clear, I tested the Hugo with my test tracks streaming digitally via Bluetooth to the Hugo, while using my headphones that I brought with me.  This is about as unbiased a test as I can do without actually A/B'ing it at home with my gear.
> 
> And with tracks and cans that I was very familiar, the Hugo wowed me.  Admittedly, I haven't heard anything else in that price range under those circumstances.  I know it's not reviewed great in this thread, which is why I am asking for advice.  If the Hugo wowed me, then some alternatives must be REALLY good.


 
  
 The Hugo is 1400 pounds? Whoa. You have a ton of options in that price range or a bit lower for an all-in-one that sounds fantastic:
  
 Oppo HA-1
 Marantz HD-DAC1
 Teac UD-501 (+the amp if your phones are harder to drive)
 Burson Conductor SL (half price right now)


----------



## tonykaz

Mr.Stillhart,
  
 Bluetooth ? , this isn't worthy of support for a multi-thousand dollar decision.  
  
 If you feel bluetooth to be acceptable than the little Schiit M&Ms will be beyond your expectations in performance.  
  
 However, the Chord product packaging is glorious, this stuff is way over the top beautiful look-at-me type stuff.  It will fit right in with your Maserati and designer casual clothes.  
  
 Chord is for the Playboy Mansion person. 
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## Stillhart

tonykaz said:


> Mr.Stillhart,
> 
> Bluetooth ? , this isn't worthy of support for a multi-thousand dollar decision.
> 
> ...



Your patronizing tone is unneccesary and makes you look ridiculous given you clearly don't know what you're taking about. But thanks, you've efficiently enabled me to filter your comments into the appropriate mental bucket.


----------



## Argo Duck

I think it would be accurate to say the Hugo has polarized opinion. For sure the designer has interesting concepts and views. But read on...

Schiit Audio is definitely not overpriced or over-hyped. Their gear is designed by engineers (Mike Moffat and Jason Stoddard) who earned enormous respect in the past, and came together in the last few years with a business model for good to great gear at realistic prices. They have a careful policy of only doing gear that differentiates itself on value or performance or both. In this - IMHO - they have succeeded brilliantly. Which is not to say their gear is necessarily to everyone's taste.

In Hugo price territory, Schiit's forthcoming Yggdrasil DAC _may_ be a break-through product both in concept and execution. Purrin here is one of the lucky few to have heard a prototype. Would be fair to say there's a lot of anticipation for this DAC.

Tonykaz has an unusual sense of humor.


----------



## waynes world

stillhart said:


> Your patronizing tone is unneccesary and makes you look ridiculous given you clearly don't know what you're taking about. But thanks, you've efficiently enabled me to filter your comments into the appropriate mental bucket.


 
  
 My read is that he was being humorous and wasn't directing the Maserati comment at you specifically.
  


argo duck said:


> Tonykaz has an unusual sense of humor.


 
  
 I hadn't read the above when I posted my comments, but there you have it lol


----------



## purrin

@Stillhart
  
 I have not heard the Audio-GD NFB-15.32, but every AGD DAC/all-in-one that I have heard short of their TOTL DACs has been craptastic more or less. Even the AGD TOTL M7 DAC requires a lot of band-aids to sound its best. You will get many opinions on Hugo. As an all-in-one, the Hugo is craptastic - although possibly a higher level of craptastic compared to the NFB-15.32. The built-in amp is not powerful enough to drive most of the headphones that you currently own. IME, the Hugo sound soft, flat, and boring directly driving headphones. Although I can see people perhaps liking this effect when driving brighter or aggressive sounding headphones. The Hugo as a standalone DAC is OK, but horrible overpriced. It's a little bit on the lean side in the universe of DACs that I have heard, but not offensively lean or missing low bass. The treble on the Hugo is a little coarse and not as refined, and it's a little short on slam and a little bit flat sounding (unable to make distinct small volume changes) compared to what I would consider a good desktop DAC regardless of price. The Hugo is resolving though.
  
 It's been said by many that the Hugo compares with desktop DACs many times its price. I guess that could be true if you compare the Hugo to some really craptastic $6,000 to $10,000 DACs that I have heard. Yes, audio jewelry crap like that actually exists. Personally, the Hugo (DAC only) compares to what I would consider good DACs in the range from 30%-50% of it's cost. I always hear this general statement of how Hugo is comparable to expensive desktop DACs; but strangely I never people be specific such as "Hugo > Vega" or "Hugo > Bricasti" or "Hugo > PWD2" or "Hugo > PSA DSD" or "Hugo > AGD M7", etc. not to even mention in what specific aspects is it better? The compelling reason / niche of the Hugo is portability, not best SQ at its price point. But then again, one's man's feces is another man's treasure.
  
 Finally, as a poster said above, always, always, always use your own music that you are familiar with to evaluate gear. Also keep in mind that different releases of the same recording may be different from different mixing, final mastering, etc. So you can't necessary trust the same song on a vendors' computers or CD players. Smart vendors are very good at setting up their gear with certain music selections to make their gear shine. I don't blame them. I have had friend been burned by this, i.e. "Well, it sounded good then". All I will say is that years ago when I wanted to hear Magico speakers (their heroic construction methods, etc.) at an audio show, a friend asked the rep if we could use our own music. The rep was like "umm, maybe later in the afternoon", even though no one was there. I'm like thinking "Yeah right, um, FU Magico". It turns out later that I found their stuff sounded really craptastic, at least with the recordings that I typically used for assessing systems.
  
 How much do you want to spend?
  
 The Ember you have is OK. Make sure you have it on high-gain for best SQ, even if this results in you having the keep the volume knob low. I would start fairly cheap and see where you want to go. People have different preferences. Some like stuff warmer sounding, some like laid-back, some like aggressive, etc, smoother, less smooth, stronger attacks, deeper stage, faster transients, more clarity, etc. Might want to hit the FS section and see what you can get for cheap and start from there. That way, you have a good reference and a way to establish your sonic priorities so you can get some good advice. Otherwise most of us are just shooting in the dark since every DAC I have heard sounds different - each DAC may do some things good and some things not as good; and we don't know what you like.


----------



## Stillhart

waynes world said:


> My read is that he was being humorous and wasn't directing the Maserati comment at you specifically.
> 
> 
> I hadn't read the above when I posted my comments, but there you have it lol


 
  
 I have 2200 posts in less than a year on here because I try to help people who have questions.  I've spent way too much time and money learning these things because I live in an area where I can't demo gear anywhere.  If I can help others not have to go through that, I'm happy to.  
  
 It's a shame others don't feel the need to extend the same courtesy.


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> @Stillhart
> 
> I have not heard the Audio-GD NFB-15.32, but every AGD DAC/all-in-one that I have heard short of their TOTL DACs has been craptastic more or less. Even the AGD TOTL M7 DAC requires a lot of band-aids to sound its best. You will get many opinions on Hugo. As an all-in-one, the Hugo is craptastic - although possibly a higher level of craptastic compared to the NFB-15.32. The built-in amp is not powerful enough to drive most of the headphones that you currently own. IME, the Hugo sound soft, flat, and boring directly driving headphones. Although I can see people perhaps liking this effect when driving brighter or aggressive sounding headphones. The Hugo as a standalone DAC is OK, but horrible overpriced. It's a little-bit on the lean side in the universe of DACs that I have heard, but not offensively lean. The treble on the Hugo is a little coarse and not as refined, and and it's a little bit flat sounding compared to what I would consider good desktop DACs.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the advice, good sir.  I appreciate your taking the time.  I'll keep looking on my own, though.


----------



## purrin

If you can, make it out to the meet in SoCal.


----------



## conquerator2

^ When is it?


----------



## purrin

March or something? Somewhere on this site. CanJam


----------



## estreeter

@Stillhart it's unfortunate that you waded into the wrong thread to ask about the Hugo, but at the end of the day what is more important - the fact that you enjoyed a product at a show or the opinions of a subsection of Head-Fiers ? The Hugo suffered, IMO, from the initial flurry of rave reviews in the magazines and online - reviewers who are accustomed to manhandling larger DACs costing thousands more went in with low expectations and came away impressed. It's also worth noting that many of those reviews were based on the Hugo as a desktop DAC : line-out into expensive reference (speaker) rigs, usually. _When you're cables cost more than the Hugo, its easy to start making bold statements re VFM_ and comparing a product to others costing 5-10 times as much is an increasingly dated cliche in reviews and I'm surprised that anyone is still swallowing the bait. 
  
 Personally, HD800 aside, I havent felt a pressing need to use my Taurus headphone amp with the Hugo for the majority of my listening, but I didnt set out to find 'the best' of anything. I wanted an unobtrusive DAC that I could plug into my laptop and get good results - no shortage of those on the market but the Hugo's 'Swiss Army knife' utility appealed to me. I have a couple of 'true' desktop sources and they both take up more room than I'd like - neither will fit in any backpack or laptop case I know of and that goes for Yggdrasil and the vast majority of purrin's 'top picks' on page one of this thread. Comedians like tonykaz were always going to zero in on the Hugo's aesthetics - I'd love to see some blind testing results where the listeners didnt even know the Hugo was one of the DACs in the test, but that's a thread in itself. 
  
 As with anything on this site, opinions will always differ. When the HD800 and LCD-2 were initially released, they were greeted with nothing short of rapture here - a few years on and you dont have to look far to find strident critics of both designs. I hope you find what you're looking for, and sorry for your wallet.


----------



## Currawong

@purrin "Hugo > AGD M7" easily. I said it, just not in this thread. Granted, the Hugo's headphone amp, in comparison to using it as a source with a TOTL amp, sounds thin in comparison. It's a matter of relativity I reckon -- once you've experienced how good things can be, everything that sounded great before doesn't sound so good any more. From the other direction too. Someone moving up from something lesser will feel that a piece of gear that we aren't so enamoured with any more sounds amazing. The mistake is in treating this as an absolute. Comparisons are evil -- they ruin us. 
  
 I have what I feel is a nice match in the Hugo with a Japanese amp I hope to bring to Canjam. It'll be fun to compare. 
  
 About Schiit Audio: It is really not a fair comparison to Chord, as you don't have to pay for any of the usual stuff (fancy casework, marketing or dealer margin) when you're buying their products and they aren't marketed to typical hi-fi component buyers. So, yes, I'd love it if Chord made a Hugo without all the unnecessary stuff and sold it direct for $1k.


----------



## Clemmaster

currawong said:


> @purrin "Hugo > AGD M7" easily. I said it, just not in this thread. Granted, the Hugo's headphone amp, in comparison to using it as a source with a TOTL amp, sounds thin in comparison. It's a matter of relativity I reckon -- once you've experienced how good things can be, everything that sounded great before doesn't sound so good any more. From the other direction too. Someone moving up from something lesser will feel that a piece of gear that we aren't so enamoured with any more sounds amazing. The mistake is in treating this as an absolute. Comparisons are evil -- they ruin us.
> 
> I have what I feel is a nice match in the Hugo with a Japanese amp I hope to bring to Canjam. It'll be fun to compare.
> 
> About Schiit Audio: It is really not a fair comparison to Chord, as you don't have to pay for any of the usual stuff (fancy casework, marketing or dealer margin) when you're buying their products and they aren't marketed to typical hi-fi component buyers. So, yes, I'd love it if Chord made a Hugo without all the unnecessary stuff and sold it direct for $1k.


 
  
 And I say "M7 > Hugo", hands down. We're stuck 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. They have completely different sound philosophy. One is all about body, the other is much leaner. Makes a huge difference with Hifiman headphones. Granted, I would probably prefer the Hugo's sound with an Audeze headphone. YMMV.
  
 Looking forward to hearing that Japanese amp at Canjam 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## richbass

IS there much difference between uber bifrost vs gungnir uber ?


----------



## SoupRKnowva

richbass said:


> IS there much difference between uber bifrost vs gungnir uber ?




Yes

Enough so that I borrowed a Gungnir to see if I liked it, loved. Ordered a uber bifrost instead. Was disappointed and sent it back and got my own Gungnir instead. 

And yes, maybe not everyone would care about the differences as much as me.


----------



## mcullinan

I heard the Hugo too. It was good sounding. I guess it really depends on what setup you listened to them on. I heard the Hugo with the Mad Dog Alphas.  The Hugo can't compare with desktop systems imo.


----------



## estreeter

I'd still like to hear the Hugo - along with other DACs discussed in this thread - in some of speaker rigs used by various magazine reviewers. It certainly adds some much needed sparkle to my Marantz / Monitor Audio rig.


----------



## Sorrodje

estreeter said:


> I'd still like to hear the Hugo - along with other DACs discussed in this thread - in some of speaker rigs used by various magazine reviewers. It certainly adds some much needed sparkle to my Marantz / Monitor Audio rig.




Which other DAC did you compare to the Hugo? Did you use the Hugo in "DAC mode" with the fixed output? If so, did you matches the volumes between the Hugo and the other DAC you compared to the chord?


----------



## estreeter

sorrodje said:


> Which other DAC did you compare to the Hugo? Did you use the Hugo in "DAC mode" with the fixed output? If so, did you matches the volumes between the Hugo and the other DAC you compared to the chord?


 
  
 Not sure how you (mis)read my post, but '*I'd still like to'* implies that I havent had the opportunity to hear the Hugo or any other DAC with a top-shelf reference system. You seem to be reading something into my post which simply isnt there - _I'd still like to _go on a date with Scarlett Johansson too, but I'm afraid one outcome is about as likely as the other at this point in time.


----------



## evillamer

This is interesting: a discrete dac: Mola Mola. Using 3 SHARC DSP and 32 x 1 bit DACs.
  
 site: http://www.mola-mola.nl/index.php/dak
  
 Fastforward to 7min of video:


----------



## Sorrodje

estreeter said:


> Not sure how you (mis)read my post, but '*I'd still like to'* implies that I havent had the opportunity to hear the Hugo or any other DAC with a top-shelf reference system. You seem to be reading something into my post which simply isnt there - _I'd still like to _go on a date with Scarlett Johansson too, but I'm afraid one outcome is about as likely as the other at this point in time.


 
  
 Sorry, that was not at all what I implied . I haven't really heard any top shelf reference system myself. My question was precisely about the ouput volume of the hugo and the other dac you compared. When I tried myself the Hugo in dac mode I was a bit wowed by the quality before I noticed that in reality the Hugo output is 3 VRMS. it was not better than my current dac , it was just louder. I had hard times to compare the hugo and my other dacs because of this output difference.
  
 As I previously said to Purrin, I would not be as forgiving as him about the Hugo, especially considering its price.


----------



## Argo Duck

Good point. The (original) Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC produced 2.5Vrms with tube switched out and 3V with it in. Took a lot of work matching DACs in a 3-way comparison I did years ago.


----------



## Sorrodje

argo duck said:


> Good point. The (original) Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC produced 2.5Vrms with tube switched out and 3V with it in. Took a lot of work matching DACs in a 3-way comparison I did years ago.


 
  
  
 Yup. And a difference of 1 VRMS does not create so much differences finally in what we hear in headphones. So it's easy to be fooled and then find better the louder dac


----------



## estreeter

Is it just me, or has the effort he's expended getting NCore from a white paper to production reality aged Bruno Putzeys well beyond his years ? There are some photos of him on the Hypex site from the very early days of NCore becoming the 'next big thing' in amp design and he looks like a fresh-faced 30-year old : 3 years on and you could be forgiven for adding 10 years to that figure based on the vid. All credit to him for a phenomenal achievement - i just hope he can start keeping regular hours now that his amp and DAC designs are sorted.


----------



## purrin

currawong said:


> @purrin "Hugo > AGD M7" easily.


 
  


clemmaster said:


> And I say "M7 > Hugo", hands down. We're stuck
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 LOL. I would probably agree the Hugo is better than M7 with the old USB. I've said this many times before, the M7 with the old USB was extremely mediocre. The new M7 USB is quite a bit better, although it seems the M7 has slowly creeped up in price where it's no longer a value proposition.
  
 This is how I would break the DACs down qualitatively in terms of sonics.
  
Hugo (DAC)
 --Lean tonally
 -Slightly coarse treble
 +Better attack and incisiveness
 +Better bass control
 +More resolving
 -Slightly flat microdynamics
  
AGD M7
 +Body, tonal density
 -Slightly strident (new USB is marginally better)
 +No delta-sigma treble hash / fluid sound
 --Syrupy slower bass (new USB is marginally better)
 -Less resolving (new USB is marginally better)
  
 The Hugo is a DACs is OK / decent / even good depending if personal preferences are compatible. The lean tonality of the Hugo is a notable detracting aspect for me personally. Heck, I've even heard the Hugo through the DNA Stratus (warm amp) and the Hugo still sounded a touch lean. I'd probably run away in horror if the Hugo was hooked up to the Rag or 4-45. Oh the horror I imagine! But I'll channel "Mike Mercer" here: The Hugo just doesn't tickle me. The emotional connection to the music is missing. That's really the essence of why I don't like the Hugo regardless of technicalities or descriptions of sonics.
  

If it came down to Hugo or M7 (USB) right now for a desktop DAC, I would say neither. In that price range or higher: Schiit Yggdrasil all the way.
If it came down to a semi-portable all-in-one, I'd take either GO450* or GO1000* (warmer sound) for $1700-$2200 less. I dunno, how much does the Hugo cost now?
  
 *Make sure you have latest firmware.
  
 P.S.
  
 Yes, probably the wrong thread to talk about Hugo. Lots of Hugo Haters here. If anyone wants to confirm or validate that the Hugo is right choice for them or that the Hugo sounds as good as DACs many times its price (cough, cough, cough), or simply to get other opinions, better to read the Hugo appreciation threads or the Brit audiophile rags.


----------



## evillamer

With regards to the syrupy slow bass on the audio-gd master 7. You can try tweaking the internal jumpers and bypass DSP onboard PLL, that should give a tighter and more controlled bass. (YMMV, depending on your usb and source jitter)

Also try out 1x sampling mode on the m7 as well. It should improve speed, plankton but at the expense of tonal refinement.


----------



## evillamer

estreeter said:


> Is it just me, or has the effort he's expended getting NCore from a white paper to production reality aged Bruno Putzeys well beyond his years ? There are some photos of him on the Hypex site from the very early days of NCore becoming the 'next big thing' in amp design and he looks like a fresh-faced 30-year old : 3 years on and you could be forgiven for adding 10 years to that figure based on the vid. All credit to him for a phenomenal achievement - i just hope he can start keeping regular hours now that his amp and DAC designs are sorted.




Give another three years of electronic designing, and he may end up looking like Ted smith of PS Audio. Heh.


----------



## evillamer

Anyone have a listen to this dac based on dual PCM56P(very well regarded chip in the dac world) and it's only about ~usd$1k for a r2r dac with 24bit 192khz input support.

http://dhost.info/mhdtlab/stockholm2.htm

https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/3467012


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> LOL. I would probably agree the Hugo is better than M7 with the old USB. I've said this many times before, the M7 with the old USB was extremely mediocre. The new M7 USB is quite a bit better, although it seems the M7 has slowly creeped up in price where it's no longer a value proposition.
> 
> This is how I would break the DACs down qualitatively in terms of sonics.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm not looking for confirmation bias.  Just some cheaper alternatives that sound good.  
  
 X-sabre and Gungnir can be had for pretty cheap compared to most stuff on the list.  Not only does Gungnir seem to be a pretty well-regarded non-Sabre alternative, but, as far as I can tell, it's the cheapest non-Sabre on your list by a mile.  Is it a no-brainer to just get the Gungnir if I'm not willing to jump into the $2k range?  Or are there other good alternatives that are just not really talked about on the first page of the thread?


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> I'm not looking for confirmation bias.  Just some cheaper alternatives that sound good.
> 
> X-sabre and Gungnir can be had for pretty cheap compared to most stuff on the list.  Not only does Gungnir seem to be a pretty well-regarded non-Sabre alternative, but, as far as I can tell, it's the cheapest non-Sabre on your list by a mile.  Is it a no-brainer to just get the Gungnir if I'm not willing to jump into the $2k range?  Or are there other good alternatives that are just not really talked about on the first page of the thread?




This dac looks really well designed. Not sure if Purrin had any hands on with it. Not cheap but definitely r2r, NOS and filter-less

http://www.ankaudiokits.com/DAC4.1-Non-Oversampling-Valve-Rectified-Tubed-DAC.html


----------



## purrin

If you liked how the Hugo sounded, your best bet would be the X-Sabre. Gungnir has a lot of slam and attack, has mediocre resolution, can be aggressive, but is also smooth. These two DACs are good, but diametrically different in approach.
  


evillamer said:


> With regards to the syrupy slow bass on the audio-gd master 7. You can try tweaking the internal jumpers and bypass DSP onboard PLL, that should give a tighter and more controlled bass. (YMMV, depending on your usb and source jitter)
> 
> Also try out 1x sampling mode on the m7 as well. It should improve speed, plankton but at the expense of tonal refinement.


 
  
 Best way to cure M7's ills is an Off-Ramp 5 USB to i2s converter with DACLadders HDMI kit. I've tweaked all that stuff (PLL, oversampling, filters, etc.). There were some settings that I liked or found interesting, but I always came back to stock settings for best overall balance. Despite whatever tweaks, there will always be still hints of M7's tendencies: "PCM1704 bass" can only be mitigated so far without changing the chip; the M7's shallow depth of stage and lack of explosiveness is ultimately what made me move on to better DACs
  
 In the end, an UltraAnalog based SFD-1mk2 SE and PCM63 based Theta Gen V crushed the bested and crushed the M7 respectively.


----------



## evillamer

This is a very well written article that simply explains R2R vs Sigma Delta in audiophile dacs without use of complex jargon or mathematical formulas:
  
 http://www.ankaudiokits.com/DAC-RR2-Part1.pdf


----------



## evillamer

If given a choice between a TOTL Schitt Stack or Audio-GD stack :
  
 Schitt Yggdrasil + Schit Ragnarok
  
 USD$2299 + USD$1699 = USD$3998
  
 vs
  
 Audio-GD Master 7 + Audio-GD  Master 9
  
 USD$2180 + USD$1550 = USD$3730
  
  
 This is without shipping cost, which the Audio-GD stack would cost abit more given the weight of the two heavy items(~15KG x 2) and shipment from China. So in the end, these two stack cost roughly the same.
  
 The advantage of the Audio-GD stack is that it has native ACSS connection between the two devices which should reduce coloration of the sound and lesser distortion vs XLR(schitt). However the Audio-GD's VIA32 USB may not be as good as Schitt's "next gen" Cmedia?
  
 Schitt Ragnarok may be more versatile given it is able to drive speakers, however the Master 9 has a very good Resistor-Switch volume control that doesn't suffer from any kind of channel imbalance. And also R-core(Audio-gd) vs EI-core(Schitt)


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> This is a very well written article that simply explains R2R vs Sigma Delta in audiophile dacs without use of complex jargon or mathematical formulas:
> 
> http://www.ankaudiokits.com/DAC-RR2-Part1.pdf


 
 Super helpful, thanks.  Now to figure out how to tell what's R2R and what's not.  Assuming R2R is super expensive, I wonder what the cheapest one around is... That $3k DAC is a bit out of my price range right now.


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> Super helpful, thanks.  Now to figure out how to tell what's R2R and what's not.  Assuming R2R is super expensive, I wonder what the cheapest one around is... That $3k DAC is a bit out of my price range right now.


 
  
 You should consider second-hand/pre-owned. There's plenty of people in head-fi getting rid of their "old" R2R DAC in preparation of "upgrading" to the Schitt Yggdrasil. 
  
 If you are uncomfortable with getting second-hand goods, there's always cheaper chinese based ones like LITE DAC-83 (4 x PCM1704, ~USD$1k)
  
 review of Lite DAC 83:
 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2011/01/lite-dac-83-4-x-burr-brown-pcm1704uk/


----------



## HemiSam

stillhart said:


> Super helpful, thanks.  Now to figure out how to tell what's R2R and what's not.  Assuming R2R is super expensive, I wonder what the cheapest one around is... That $3k DAC is a bit out of my price range right now.


 
  
  
 If you don't want to go large foot print, old school, I suggest you also check out the NOS Metrum Octave MkII.  I have a friend that swears by his and I trust his opinion.
  
 HS


----------



## Stillhart

I actually prefer getting used over new.  But like I said, not really sure how to tell what's R2R vs the other thing.  Thanks for the suggestions so far.  I'll keep digging.


----------



## Clemmaster

evillamer said:


> If given a choice between a TOTL Schitt Stack or Audio-GD stack :
> 
> Schitt Yggdrasil + Schit Ragnarok
> 
> ...


 
 The Rag also has a resistor switched volume control.
  
 I owned both the Master-9 and Ragnarok when I had my Master-7 (+ Hydra-X+ AES). The Master-9 was thinner and (much) less involving than the Rag with my modded HE-6. Sure it is a well separated, well delineated sound with a good bass impact and definition, but it lends too much on the analytical side for my taste and headphones. A very good headphone amp but the Rag was just better for me.
_By comparison*, *_the M9 was flat and lacked dimensionality (sound-stage is very left / right with little depth and height). The Rag has an intense midrange tonality, bigger sound overall (especially height) and draws me more in the performance. Its bass is not as taut (softer hit) but it is no less detailed and the treble is the smoothest I've heard that stills passes all the details. It is not necessarily warm, just smoother all around.
  
 That's with the Master-7, which, itself, is a warm DAC with intense tone and slightly loose bass. Then comes the Yggy: it is simply a better DAC in every aspects. Even with the $1500+ offramp-5, the Master-7 can only dream of competing with the Yggy, which does not need an external digital-digital converter. Honestly, except for the specific tonality (which I deeply enjoyed!), I don't see myself recommending the M7 when the Yggy is around the corner.
  
 As for the ACSS connection: many people said it shifted the M7+M9 presentation towards a leaner / more detailed kind of presentation. It is definitely a no-go in this context.


----------



## evillamer

It's amazing how a USA based company(Schitt) with higher production and labor cost can match up/exceed a China based(Audio-Gd) company in the audiophile industry in terms of pricing/performance/feature set.
  
 I was wondering, given the design of the Yggdrasil digital interpolation filter, won't it be unpleasant sounding if matched to the wrong gear?(i.e. Ultrasone Edition 10 or Grado PS1000)
  
 The biggest issue with my M7+M9 is that it requires abit of warmup time(2-4hours or more) to reach it's optimal sound(it could be due to the mass amount of discrete components inside).
  
 Wonder how's the power consumption of the Schitt Stack? Audio-Gd stack is 90W(45W+45W) .


----------



## jodgey4

evillamer said:


> If given a choice between a TOTL Schitt Stack or Audio-GD stack :
> 
> Schitt Yggdrasil + Schit Ragnarok
> 
> ...


 
 Check his site again... new gears announced .
  
 Also, explain R vs. El core pretty please?


----------



## estreeter

evillamer said:


> It's amazing how a USA based company(Schitt) with higher production and labor cost can match up/exceed a China based(Audio-Gd) company in the audiophile industry in terms of pricing/performance/feature set.


 
  
 Perhaps a better question might be : _if Schiit can do it, why can't more US-based audio companies_ ? The DiY brigade has been banging on for years about how seriously overpriced a lot of high-end audio is given the basic electronics found inside even the most ornate casework - if you go to Lampi's site, he has some very detailed photos showing this in graphic detail - but those guys rarely factor in the costs of running a business. Any 'profit margin' they allocate seems to assume that everyone involved in the industry lives at home in their mother's basement and ships 10 units a month via Paypal - there ARE still one-man operations like that in this hobby but they will charge you 400-500 USD for a portable amp. If economies of scale and streamlining the production process is the answer, then Schiit are presumably shipping enough product each month to make it work - more power to them - it just isnt going to happen for most of the others. Paradoxically, there is also a mindset in this hobby that says 'If it's cheap, it's no good' - the inference is that corners must have been cut somewhere and serious audiophiles dont like that. 
  
 If I can be allowed a tiny whine, it's this - _with each passing week, the USD seems to be getting stronger, effectively making Yggdrasil more expensive for overseas buyers_. If there is any chance of Schiit providing a mechanism for pre-orders (with the option of paying a minimum deposit or the full sticker price upfront), it might save some pain in 2-3 months time : just a suggestion. 
  
 http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=AUD&view=1Y
  
 http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=GBP&view=1Y
  
 http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=EUR&view=1Y


----------



## purrin

evillamer said:


> If given a choice between a TOTL Schitt Stack or Audio-GD stack :
> 
> Schitt Yggdrasil + Schit Ragnarok
> 
> ...


 
  

The Master 7 (USB) DAC is not in the same league as the Yggy (USB). In fact, the Master 7 with a fully loaded $2300 Empirical Off-Ramp 5 USB to i2s converter is still not in the same league as the Yggy nor even the Yggy's spiritual predecessor from more than 20 years ago, the Theta Gen V.
ACSS = essentially a gimmick. It matters a tiny bit, but overall implementation of the gear in question will trump interconnect method. ACSS was nonsense that Krell cooked up and AGD adopted to keep customers staying in the same family of products for pheer of "Oh no, it doesn't have ACSS. The interconnect distortion will make things worse music!" Yeah right. I've known way too many people who've gotten worked up on the ACSS / Krell current output thing and stuck with it far too long.
R-core vs El-core transformers = shouldn't matter. Appropriate sizing of transformers matters more. Overall implementation of power supply matters more. For example, Yggy has a big choke in the power supply. No one, no one does that. Yggy has milspec multi-bit chips with less than 1 LSB relative accuracy. Rag has circlotron, etc. The paper comparison stuff can go on and one.
  
 What matters most is actual sound quality.


----------



## purrin

evillamer said:


> It's amazing how a USA based company(Schitt) with higher production and labor cost can match up/exceed a China based(Audio-Gd) company in the audiophile industry in terms of pricing/performance/feature set.


 
  
 The TOTL AGD stuff, especially the DACs, has slowly crept up in price. AGD is no longer the deal it used to be. The price of the predecessor to the Master 7, the Ref 1 was silly for just over a grand a few years ago. The most expensive parts in the Master 7 are the PCM1704 chips, the price of which is set by Texas instruments.
  
 The downturn in the US economy a few years ago and the decline of unions has resulted in an adjustment to US labor rates. Also labor costs are increasing in China (my dad has electronic manufacturing interests there). Chinese laborers are demanding better conditions and better wages.
  
 Also, if you ever studied Schiit products from metalwork, to packaging, to circuit design and parts selection (no - this has nothing to do with "R-core being better than El-core"), they do a lot of smart stuff, i.e. engineering to keep costs down while maintaining performance. Also Schiit depends on fairly high volume, economies of scale.
  


evillamer said:


> I was wondering, given the design of the Yggdrasil digital interpolation filter, won't it be unpleasant sounding if matched to the wrong gear?(i.e. Ultrasone Edition 10 or Grado PS1000)


 
  
 Why would it in particular? Is there something you suspect specifically about the Yggy's algorithm which would cause the DAC to make unpleasant sounds with crappy headphones? Also, shouldn't "wrong gear" such as the Ultrasone 10, Grado PS1000, simply sound wrong or unpleasant on fairly uncolored sounding gear? I figure those headphones would only sound good to me on gear that has extreme treble roll-off.
  


evillamer said:


> The biggest issue with my M7+M9 is that it requires abit of warmup time(2-4hours or more) to reach it's optimal sound(it could be due to the mass amount of discrete components inside).


 
  
 I actually prefer the sound of the Master 7 cold or when it's cool. It gets a tiny bit muddier and hazy after an hour, especially in the summer. Not a huge difference or deal-breaker in any event.


----------



## evillamer

jodgey4 said:


> Check his site again... new gears announced .
> 
> Also, explain R vs. El core pretty please?


 
  
 R core is supposed to have less electrical hum(from mechanical vibration) and less magnetic field leakage vs EI Core. Although it's more about quality, design and correct application of the transformer.


----------



## evillamer

estreeter said:


> Perhaps a better question might be : _if Schiit can do it, why can't more US-based audio companies_ ? The DiY brigade has been banging on for years about how seriously overpriced a lot of high-end audio is given the basic electronics found inside even the most ornate casework - if you go to Lampi's site, he has some very detailed photos showing this in graphic detail - but those guys rarely factor in the costs of running a business. Any 'profit margin' they allocate seems to assume that everyone involved in the industry lives at home in their mother's basement and ships 10 units a month via Paypal - there ARE still one-man operations like that in this hobby but they will charge you 400-500 USD for a portable amp. If economies of scale and streamlining the production process is the answer, then Schiit are presumably shipping enough product each month to make it work - more power to them - it just isnt going to happen for most of the others. Paradoxically, there is also a mindset in this hobby that says 'If it's cheap, it's no good' - the inference is that corners must have been cut somewhere and serious audiophiles dont like that.
> 
> If I can be allowed a tiny whine, it's this - _with each passing week, the USD seems to be getting stronger, effectively making Yggdrasil more expensive for overseas buyers_. If there is any chance of Schiit providing a mechanism for pre-orders (with the option of paying a minimum deposit or the full sticker price upfront), it might save some pain in 2-3 months time : just a suggestion.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Interestingly enough, Audio-GD and most of the audiophile companies are charging their products based on USD, which means if USD rises, in theory, all of audiophile equipment would rise in price for the international customers.
  
 I think there's some place where Schitt "cuts corner" and that's in the design and quality of the metal chassis. Most of their product "reuse" chassis (magni, modi, wyrd, etc). Schitt doesn't have the nice and clean industrial design like  MSB, AMR, Esoteric but I am pretty sure that Schitt will sound as good/better than these company products that cost 10x more.
  
 There are some US companies like JDS Labs which grew very quickly(in the past few years) from sell DIY amps to making their own DAC/AMP combination. Which tells you there's a viable market in the audiophile world that allows for the low, mid and high-end. Especially when you have so many eager people giving tons of money to Light Harmonic for the ESS 9018K2M based (mid-fi grade)Dacs(The fully upgraded Geek Soul XFI ~ + LPS cost as much as Schiit Yggdrasil).  Not to mention you have company like Chord, with their overpriced(in relation to everything else, including hugo) Hugo TT. (flamesuit on).


----------



## Benny-x

estreeter said:


> I'd still like to hear the Hugo - along with other DACs discussed in this thread - in some of speaker rigs used by various magazine reviewers. It certainly adds some much needed sparkle to my Marantz / Monitor Audio rig.


 
  
  


sorrodje said:


> Which other DAC did you compare to the Hugo? Did you use the Hugo in "DAC mode" with the fixed output? If so, did you matches the volumes between the Hugo and the other DAC you compared to the chord?


 
  
  


estreeter said:


> Not sure how you (mis)read my post, but '*I'd still like to'* implies that I havent had the opportunity to hear the Hugo or any other DAC with a top-shelf reference system. You seem to be reading something into my post which simply isnt there - _I'd still like to _go on a date with Scarlett Johansson too, but I'm afraid one outcome is about as likely as the other at this point in time.


 
  
  


sorrodje said:


> Sorry, that was not at all what I implied . I haven't really heard any top shelf reference system myself. My question was precisely about the ouput volume of the hugo and the other dac you compared. When I tried myself the Hugo in dac mode I was a bit wowed by the quality before I noticed that in reality the Hugo output is 3 VRMS. it was not better than my current dac , it was just louder. I had hard times to compare the hugo and my other dacs because of this output difference.
> 
> As I previously said to Purrin, I would not be as forgiving as him about the Hugo, especially considering its price.


 
  
 Don't ruin it for me and tell me that was all intentional... You guys crack me up!


----------



## 7ryder

I think they were an old married couple in another life...


----------



## schneller

How is the Schiit Gungnir (USB Gen2) standing the test of time? It seems to garner less press than it use to. It also does not support DSD natively. But what kind of value does it pack for $850 vs. say the Hugo, 2Qute and other newer DACs?


----------



## Benny-x

7ryder said:


> I think they were an old married couple in another life...


 
 Haha, just reading over those again is awesome. Sorrodje is one of the smoothest trolls I've seen. I hope estreeter comes back in with some more fun.
  


schneller said:


> How is the Schiit Gungnir (USB Gen2) standing the test of time? It seems to garner less press than it use to. It also does not support DSD natively. But what kind of value does it pack for $850 vs. say the Hugo, 2Qute and other newer DACs?


 
 How does the older Gungnir compare to newer DACs that are 2-3x as expensive and classified as being in Schiit's Yggsdrail tier? That's a very good question.


----------



## evillamer

Which begs the questIon: If you are going to be living/working on a deserted island with nothing but your entire music collection, and you can only have one DAC, headphone, amp, which one will it be?

Hugo?


----------



## jexby

evillamer said:


> Which begs the questIon: If you are going to be living/working on a deserted island with nothing but your entire music collection, and you can only have one DAC, headphone, amp, which one will it be?
> 
> Hugo?


 
  
 since money is of "no value" on a deserted island, and no friends/pals/peers to ridicule your cost-to-value ratio, then yah sure maybe Hugo. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 because it fit in your life vest?
  
 whereas the Yggy would have pulled you to the bottom of the ocean.


----------



## evillamer

purrin said:


> Why would it in particular? Is there something you suspect specifically about the Yggy's algorithm which would cause the DAC to make unpleasant sounds with crappy headphones? Also, shouldn't "wrong gear" such as the Ultrasone 10, Grado PS1000, simply sound wrong or unpleasant on fairly uncolored sounding gear? I figure those headphones would only sound good to me on gear that has extreme treble roll-off.




Most other dacs have adjustable filter settings like slow roll off, sharp roll off, apodizing and etc. which allows you flexibility in tuning the sound to suit your music source and equipment as well as age of your ears.

Not sure if schitt has implemented any kind of adjustable filter or is it just one schitt filter fits all?


----------



## Sorrodje

benny-x said:


> Sorrodje is one of the smoothest trolls I've seen


 
  
 Happy to be fun But fortunately (or not) I was not trolling. I really wonder if people reallized that Hugo output was louder than average.


----------



## Armaegis

evillamer said:


> Which begs the questIon: If you are going to be living/working on a deserted island with nothing but your entire music collection, and you can only have one DAC, headphone, amp, which one will it be?
> 
> Hugo?


 
  
 The largest most convoluted and clunky gear I can get, from which I can rip pieces out and fashion survival gear and possibly cobble together a radio/transmitter. Toss a gaming headset in there so I have a microphone. Oh and some spare tubes for the amp which have just the right size and shape so I can focus sunlight to make fire.
  
 You know what, for the "music collection" I'll just subscribe to a streaming service, so this necessitates internet access and thus access/communication with the outside world.
  
 Done.


----------



## Benny-x

sorrodje said:


> Happy to be fun But fortunately (or not) I was not trolling. I really wonder if people reallized that Hugo output was louder than average.


 
 I've never tried the Hugo myself, nor compared anything in that new league, so we'll have to wait for estreeter to get back to us and tell us how his comparison went.


----------



## Benny-x

armaegis said:


> The largest most convoluted and clunky gear I can get, from which I can rip pieces out and fashion survival gear and possibly cobble together a radio/transmitter. Toss a gaming headset in there so I have a microphone. Oh and some spare tubes for the amp which have just the right size and shape so I can focus sunlight to make fire.
> 
> You know what, for the "music collection" I'll just subscribe to a streaming service, so this necessitates internet access and thus access/communication with the outside world.
> 
> Done.


 
 My music collection is an integral part of my personal super, mega yacht.
  
 Done.


----------



## Armaegis

benny-x said:


> My music collection is an integral part of my personal super, mega yacht.
> 
> Done.


 
  
 Is your yacht big enough to have its own island in the middle of the pool?


----------



## Stillhart

armaegis said:


> Is your yacht big enough to have its own island in the middle of the pool?


 
  
 Mine is!  Proof:
  


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## jacal01

purrin said:


> ACSS = essentially a gimmick. It matters a tiny bit, but overall implementation of the gear in question will trump interconnect method. ACSS was nonsense that Krell cooked up and AGD adopted to keep customers staying in the same family of products for pheer of "Oh no, it doesn't have ACSS. The interconnect distortion will make things worse music!" Yeah right. I've known way too many people who've gotten worked up on the ACSS / Krell current output thing and stuck with it far too long.


 
  
 ACSS is no gimmick.  Of course analog circuit implementation matters most, but ACSS maintains the current driven signal transmission in current loop design amplification topology (like Krell and a-gd) between components instead of converting to voltage driven output for interconnection, and all the signal impedance matching that implies.  And if you think that cable and connector impedance matching little matters, then there's not much point in pursuing this conversation.


----------



## jacal01

evillamer said:


> Which begs the questIon: If you are going to be living/working on a deserted island with nothing but your entire music collection, and you can only have one DAC, headphone, amp, which one will it be?
> 
> Hugo?


 
  
 Well, considering the quality of the available power supply, battery driven gear for sure.


----------



## Clemmaster

jacal01 said:


> ACSS is no gimmick.  Of course analog circuit implementation matters most, but ACSS maintains the current driven signal transmission in current loop design amplification topology (like Krell and a-gd) between components instead of converting to voltage driven output for interconnection, and all the signal impedance matching that implies.  And if you think that cable and connector impedance matching little matters, then there's not much point in pursuing this conversation.


 
 And how important is that interconnect next to the actual amplifier topology / implementation?
  
 Sure, it's great to have an interconnect that guarantees the crappy sound of a crappy amp is not deteriorated in the transmission


----------



## sgbwill2

Hello people, what are the most competitive DAC's around the £250 mark that can handle 24bit/192KHz recordings? Thanks


----------



## Sorrodje

sgbwill2 said:


> Hello people, what are the most competitive DAC's around the £250 mark that can handle 24bit/192KHz recordings? Thanks


 
  
 24/192 through USB ?


----------



## sgbwill2

sorrodje said:


> 24/192 through USB ?


 
 Yes


----------



## jacal01

clemmaster said:


> And how important is that interconnect next to the actual amplifier topology / implementation?
> 
> Sure, it's great to have an interconnect that guarantees the crappy sound of a crappy amp is not deteriorated in the transmission


 
  
 "Crappy" component evaluations are entirely subjective, IMO.  I happen to like my Krell amp.  And cable discussions are stratospheric around here, if you haven't yet noticed.


----------



## Clemmaster

jacal01 said:


> "Crappy" component evaluations are entirely subjective, IMO.  I happen to like my Krell amp.  And cable discussions are stratospheric around here, if you haven't yet noticed.


 
 That was not the point.
  
 The point is how significant or insignificant this transmission technology is next to the actual performance of the amp and whatever it is connected to.


----------



## jacal01

It all counts, or haven't you been paying attention to the audiophilic obsessions?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Seriously, I'm coming under the impression that cable impedance mismatching, and in particular non-nodal destructive signal reflections, significantly degrades sound quality discernable to the listener.  It can account for audible differences in digital cables.  And no, I'm not interested in further discourse.
  
 All of this is avoided, at least in the analog realm, by current controlled signal transmission, i.e. ACSS and similar interconnects.


----------



## ciphercomplete

jacal01 said:


> Seriously, I'm coming under the impression that cable impedance mismatching, and in particular non-nodal destructive signal reflections, significantly degrades sound quality discernable to the listener.  It can account for audible differences in digital cables.  And no, I'm not interested in further discourse.
> 
> All of this is avoided, at least in the analog realm, by current controlled signal transmission, i.e. ACSS and similar interconnects.


 
  
 This is the reason I have stuck with ACSS in my system.  That and the fact that it outperformed xlr to my ears.


----------



## evillamer

Some may find ACSS thin sounding(lack of body,warm) or laid back but some find it very pleasant to listen to and more resolving.
  
 Master 9 with XLR vs Master 9 with ACSS  is a different kind of sound. XLR is more aggressive.


----------



## evillamer

Looks like ESS Tech just released bunch of DAC chips:
  
 more details here:
 http://www.esstech.com/index.php?p=products_DAC
  
  
 ESS SABRE 9018AQ2M (which replaces the ES9018K2M)
  
  Dynamic range improved to 129db vs 127db(K2M)
 with special SLIMbus

  
 http://www.esstech.com/PDF/SABRE9018AQ2M%20PB%20v0.5%20141212.pdf
  
  
 As well as SABRE9006AS(upgrade of ES9006S)
 http://www.esstech.com/PDF/SABRE9006A%20PB%20v0.4%20140916.pdf
  
  
 Also note in the PDF, ESS new company motto seem to be "Analog Reinvented"
  
 The question is, how does one reinvent "analog"? Sigma-Delta "Approximation"? Randomly assign multiple dac output to randomize quantization noise to fool the ears?? Oversampling to the MHz? hmm...


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

evillamer said:


> Also note in the PDF, ESS new company motto seem to be "Analog Reinvented"
> 
> The question is, how does one reinvent "analog"? Sigma-Delta "Approximation"? Randomly assign multiple dac output to randomize quantization noise to fool the ears?? Oversampling to the MHz? hmm...


 
  
 No, just marketing hype...


----------



## evillamer

johnnycanuck said:


> No, just marketing hype...


 
  
 There's a reason why it's call ESS *Hype*rstream DAC...


----------



## estreeter

benny-x said:


> Haha, just reading over those again is awesome. Sorrodje is one of the smoothest trolls I've seen. I hope estreeter comes back in with some more fun.
> 
> How does the older Gungnir compare to newer DACs that are 2-3x as expensive and classified as being in Schiit's Yggsdrail tier? That's a very good question.


 
  
 Sorrodje does take a lot of this very, very seriously - he's not just here to keep idle minds amused while you wait for yggdrasil  
  
 Let's ignore Hugo and every other d-s design out there for a moment - given what purrin has written this is Yggdrasil's natural competition regardless of the price differential:
  
 http://www.audiostream.com/content/totaldac-d1-dual-dac
  
 12K USD might as well be 120K for many of us, but sections of that review are eerily similar to the impressions given here and in the Yggy thread re the Schiit DAC's sonic prowess:
  
_The thing I'd like most to convey about the D1-Dual DAC is what may seem like a contradictory set of values. It is at once fluid, very fully voiced in terms of a lovely and rich timbral palette, while also delivering a truly amazing level of detail. Even though I almost hate to say it, I heard things, important musical things, from recordings I thought I knew all too well that I've never heard before. Things like drum sticks hitting cymbals and the resultant rush of sound where the distinction between these events was conveyed with an uncanny exactness that I've heard get completely lost with other DACs. It's as if the Totaldac is able to pull more musical information from the sound file and deliver it in a more exacting manner while also sounding completely natural and without stripping away one ounce of tonal character. And that's pretty special in my experience._
  
It's worth noting that, up to this point, Lavorgna was convinced that DSD was the only way to fly - the totaldac re-aligned his thinking about Redbook. It's a similar beast to Yggy in that any repairs will require shipping back to the point of origin - in this case, France - making ownership a serious investment, albeit not as serious as the monobloc D1 server also reviewed on Audiostream, but that takes us even further from the Yggy's 2300USD sticker. I believe the MSB offerings - particularly their Analog DAC - have already been discussed here, but atm this is the R2R wildcard for mine:
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/phasure-nos1a-digital-analogue-converter-review-or-experience-22305/
  
 Another one-man operation, another return-to-Europe repair proposition, but the people who've heard it seem every bit as evangelical as purrin is about Yggdrasil. The stumbling block for me - purchase price and RTB issues aside - is that this DAC seems tied to PeterSt's playback software for best results and that's the kind of lock-in that most of us wont be happy with. The designer's thinking on digital audio seems to line up brilliantly with some of the hardcore fanatics on the CA site and those guys live to tweak everything from the hardware to the OS : *if Mike's DAC offers us one thing, its the prospect of being able to plug the thing into the transport of our choice and just start listening to music*. For $2300 plus shipping and taxes. With a warranty honored by an established company in the US. And a designer who has an extraordinary grasp of the English language.
  
 I didnt start this as an attempt to write an endorsement for a DAC I've never even heard, but Benny-x's query does contain some interesting wording:
  
*classified as being in Schiit's Yggsdrail tier*
  
 Unless I'm missing something, that would be _the vintage R2R DACs and the two European offerings discussed abov_e. '*2-3 times the price*' immediately excludes the ultra high-end stuff from people like MSB, Light Harmonic and dCS - I'd love to hear all of them but I'm not too fussed about comparisons between statement audio and something which will cost less than the top Macbook Pro which - as luck would have it - is what I'm currently using to type this overly long post whilst listening to some music via the - shock, horror - Chord Hugo. That sort of dedication will not go unpunished. 
  
 http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro 
  
 In summary, unless purrin and Mike have done a very effective snow job, *the vast majority of DACs on the market are built around a fundamentally flawed design principle, delta-sigma modulation*. Rule a line through those and you're left with either the seriously expensive and/or the seriously quirky. I'm all for comparisons - flawed designs or no - but if what has been typed here re _highly-regarded_ DACs like the Auralic Vega is even vaguely accurate, the comparisons should focus on the other R2R offerings. Apologies for the length of this post - just my two cents worth and others may have a completely different take on it. I'm confident that the usual suspects on CA will want comparisons with the totaldac and phasure offerings - fine and dandy, but there is more to buying specialist audio than opening the box and plugging it in.


----------



## evillamer

estreeter said:


> *the vast majority of DACs on the market are built around a fundamentally flawed design principle, delta-sigma modulation*.


 
  
 Here's what Ken Ishiwata of Marantz fame has to say in a 2009 interview with regards to D/A ConvertersJump to 5m 18sec of the video). He mention that the newer 24bit D/A converters build on CMOS tech is unable to deliver the power current vs the older 16bit DACs. Maybe that could be one of the reasons why PCM1704 isn't as good as PCM63 in purrin's books?
  

  
 I quote Ken Ishiwata:


> "I want to tell the end consumers, trust your own ears and heart, you take your favorite music, you play that specific track, and if your emotion is moved, this system has a value for you."
> 
> Ken Isihwata


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> Here's what Ken Ishiwata of Marantz fame has to say in a 2009 interview with regards to D/A ConvertersJump to 5m 18sec of the video). He mention that the newer 24bit D/A converters build on CMOS tech is unable to deliver the power current vs the older 16bit DACs. Maybe that could be one of the reasons why PCM1704 isn't as good as PCM63 in purrin's books?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




  
 I don't claim to know jack squat about any of this, but it seems to me like this is a problem that maybe has been addressed over the last 5 years since the interview.  I mean, that's like 3 lifetimes in computer years (Moore's Law). 
  
 Of course I could be wrong, but tech moves fast.  I agree with the quote tho, just gotta listen for ourselves to see what sounds good.  Too bad there isn't a ton of choice in the more affordable price brackets.


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> I don't claim to know jack squat about any of this, but it seems to me like this is a problem that maybe has been addressed over the last 5 years since the interview.  I mean, that's like 3 lifetimes in computer years (Moore's Law).
> 
> Of course I could be wrong, but tech moves fast.  I agree with the quote tho, just gotta listen for ourselves to see what sounds good.  Too bad there isn't a ton of choice in the more affordable price brackets.


 
  
 The issue is with the miniaturization of semiconductors. With smaller chip packaging, you have to use finer wiring/interconnections/pinout, which inturn affects the amount of electrical current that can "flow" in/out from the DAC. Maybe some kind of dynamic transient power / peak power output limitation with tiny wiring? And maybe that could explain why Kingwa have to combine 8 x PCM1704 into a DAC? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 From the data sheets:
 PCM63 fast current output:  2mA 200ns 
 PCM1704 fast current output:  1.2mA 200ns
  
 http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm63.pdf
 http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1704.pdf


----------



## estreeter

Per my sig, I'm afraid Ken bores me to the point of unconsciousness, but I'm confident that the HDAM modules in my Marantz SA-14S1 are delivering sufficient current to the Burr-Brown DSD1792A converter chip : what those modules cant do is address the PCM filtering issues discussed earlier in this thread. For all John Atkinson's high praise of the same chip's DSD capabilities in the NA-11S1, Marantz converts DSD to PCM (DoP) - back to square one. 
  
 I dont have a rock solid technical understanding of the problems involved, but if the totaldac is indicative of where pricing would be now if the industry hadnt moved to delta-sigma designs I'm not surprised that so many DAC designers jumped on the bandwagon. Marantz has already had several ownership changes during it's long corporate history - selling CDPs at that sort of sticker in the 90s would have made their next owner a bankruptcy trustee.


----------



## evillamer

estreeter said:


> Per my sig, I'm afraid Ken bores me to the point of unconsciousness, but I'm confident that the HDAM modules in my Marantz SA-14S1 are delivering sufficient current to the Burr-Brown DSD1792A converter chip : what those modules cant do is address the PCM filtering issues discussed earlier in this thread. For all John Atkinson's high praise of the same chip's DSD capabilities in the NA-11S1, Marantz converts DSD to PCM (DoP) - back to square one.
> 
> I dont have a rock solid technical understanding of the problems involved, but if the totaldac is indicative of where pricing would be now if the industry hadnt moved to delta-sigma designs I'm not surprised that so many DAC designers jumped on the bandwagon. Marantz has already had several ownership changes during it's long corporate history - selling CDPs at that sort of sticker in the 90s would have made their next owner a bankruptcy trustee.


 
  
 I think it's because the real discerning audiophile is a very tiny market and our senses(eyes and ears) are easily fooled.
  
 That's why you see cheaper 6bit TN/PVA LCD Panels with Frame Rate Control sold everywhere and most consumers cannot tell the difference between a 6bit panel and a true 8bit panel. 
  
 The influx of Sigma-Delta dac is actually a good thing, as it is easily mass produced and help to pave the ipod/personal audio music revolution of the 2000s, which in the end helped with the growth of head-fi gear as these people want to improve what they hearing.
  
 Seriously good sounding audiophile equipment are hard to design, hard to produce/integrate and usually use a lot of power and product a lot of heat(Class A, Tubes, Circrotrons, Diamond Buffer and what not).


----------



## Chris J

jacal01 said:


> It all counts, or haven't you been paying attention to the audiophilic obsessions?
> 
> Seriously, I'm coming under the impression that cable impedance mismatching, and in particular non-nodal destructive signal reflections, significantly degrades sound quality discernable to the listener.  It can account for audible differences in digital cables.  And no, I'm not interested in further discourse.
> 
> All of this is avoided, at least in the analog realm, by current controlled signal transmission, i.e. ACSS and similar interconnects.




That theory applies to digital cables, i.e. very high freqeuncy transmission, i.e. MHz, GHz, not low frequency audio transmission, i.e. 20 Hz to 20 kHz. 
Signal reflection doesn't go away because we use current mode transmission.


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> I think it's because the real discerning audiophile is a very tiny market and our senses(eyes and ears) are easily fooled.
> 
> That's why you see cheaper 6bit TN/PVA LCD Panels with Frame Rate Control sold everywhere and most consumers cannot tell the difference between a 6bit panel and a true 8bit panel.
> 
> ...


 
  
 As snobbish as this makes you sound, it actually makes me feel better about my search for a good DAC.  Knowing that most people can't tell the difference between a $1k DAC and a $10k DAC means I really shouldn't be stressing out about it.  
  
 "our senses are easily fooled"
  
 What's the difference between being "fooled" into thinking something sounds good and something actually sounding good?  The answer, of course, is that there is no difference.


----------



## thehoff

stillhart said:


> As snobbish as this makes you sound, it actually makes me feel better about my search for a good DAC.  Knowing that most people can't tell the difference between a $1k DAC and a $10k DAC means I really shouldn't be stressing out about it.
> 
> "our senses are easily fooled"
> 
> What's the difference between being "fooled" into thinking something sounds good and something actually sounding good?  The answer, of course, is that there is no difference.


 
  
 I've learned to accept I either have bad aural memory or other people have fantastic aural memory and I shouldn't sweat it either way.


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> As snobbish as this makes you sound, it actually makes me feel better about my search for a good DAC.  Knowing that most people can't tell the difference between a $1k DAC and a $10k DAC means I really shouldn't be stressing out about it.
> 
> "our senses are easily fooled"
> 
> What's the difference between being "fooled" into thinking something sounds good and something actually sounding good?  The answer, of course, is that there is no difference.




IMHO, Audiophile is a subjective and sometimes very volatile affair. One moment X equipment is the highest ranked equipment on someone's list(be it a reviewer, blogger, or forumer) and the next moment, it's recieving negative accounts from the same person..

Some like the sound of tubes, some like the sound of ESS Sabres(some hate it for its glare), some really like the hugo, some love their vinyl, some swear by r2r dacs. One man's meat is another man's poison.

What I mean by easily fooled is that most common folks can't tell 256kbps AAC apart from the original source. And the fact that 80 to 90% of the audio information has already been removed

Most common folks dont care too much about absolute sound quality as long as the medium/format is easily accessible and fit their budget and asthetics. 

The key issue is what kind of sonic performance you are getting for the price you pay. E.g. Why pay for a $20,000 dac, when a dac that cost $2000 could achieve the same kind of result. The problem with high end audiophile equipment, is sometimes you pay a lot more for the metal chassis instead of paying for what's actually producing the sound.

Whatever your equipment maybe, be it AM radio or million dollar sound system, the most important thing of all is to enjoy the music.


----------



## prot

thehoff said:


> I've learned to accept I either have bad aural memory or other people have fantastic aural memory and I shouldn't sweat it either way.



Just another anecdote and personal exp but I think it's more like other people *pretend* to have those fantastic aural memories and hearing capabilities. My audiologist agrees too. He also agreed to give me a certificate that states I have very good hearing. Despite that, I do not hear most things that people around here pretend to hear...like cables...or diffs between bitperfect players...or much diffs between suposedly highend portables like AK end the rest...or diffs between 16/44 and 24/96...and so on
Point is, if you like your DAC just relax & enjoy the music. I surely enjoy my minimax plus...and it's not even on purrins list


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Well, firstly (@prot) you've conflated "hearing capabilities" (I assume you mean 'physical hearing capability' from mention of your audiologist?) and "aural memory" together. Next, you can't embed your premise in your conclusion: "I do not hear most things that people around here _pretend_ to hear". 'Say' or even 'claim' they hear might be more accurate and tactful 

Aural memory and (physical) hearing capability is not the same. There's hearing, and then there's the brain's _decoding_ of it, and then our "chunking" of sensory and other information into 'meaningful' blocks within long-term memory. One doesn't have to accurately remember every instance of "dry" sound one has heard. A representative example is sufficient, and it pegs our subsequent listening experiences.

Above is speculative (i.e. not tested by research) but completely in line with recent understanding of memory and cognition. IMHO would make quite a good masters topic for some cognitive scientist with the inclination.


----------



## prot

argo duck said:


> ^ Well, firstly (@prot) you've conflated "hearing capabilities" (I assume you mean 'physical hearing capability' from mention of your audiologist?) and "aural memory" together. Next, you can't embed your premise in your conclusion: "I do not hear most things that people around here _pretend_ to hear". 'Say' or even 'claim' they hear might be more accurate and tactful
> 
> Aural memory and (physical) hearing capability is not the same. There's hearing, and then there's the brain's _decoding_ of it, and then our "chunking" of sensory and other information into 'meaningful' blocks within long-term memory. One doesn't have to accurately remember every instance of "dry" sound one has heard. A representative example is sufficient, and it pegs our subsequent listening experiences.
> 
> Above is speculative (i.e. not tested by research) but completely in line with recent understanding of memory and cognition. IMHO would make quite a good masters topic for some cognitive scientist with the inclination.



That *pretend* actually comes from my audiologist too. Acording to him those super ears people are a myth but he met a lot who like to pretend. And I did not talk much about aural memory (which afaik is only a few seconds long) but about those differences so many people hear. If I do not hear anything and I know they do not have super ears, how exactly should I interpret this 'situation' !?


----------



## Argo Duck

Ok, have to differentiate "aural memory" in the sense of an 'exact recording' in the brain of what was heard versus a reliable (meaning repeatable and verifiable) _description_ of what was heard.

Parenthetically, the only way to establish an assertion such as "aural memory...is only a few seconds long" _at present_ is to work from descriptions, i.e. language. For example, one might repeat an aural segment and test a person's identification of that segment: "Did you hear this segment - yes or no?". Repeated over some number of trials establishes the "limen" or threshold of (in this case) aural recall. Notable about this is that as the question is put _via language_ some form of communication between aural memory and the language/decision centers of the brain is pre-supposed.

Now if - and I admit I'm taking the chain of argument elsewhere than you may have intended - yes/no aural tests are possible, so are other descriptions such as "dry", "wet", "dynamic" etc. These terms are imprecise in the sense that over a population of listeners individuals will vary in terms of exact examples of each, but _on average_ these establish an 'understood' vocabulary within a listening community. Within such a community - with its shared experience and understanding - it should not be possible for one listener's "wet" to be another listener's "dry".

All of this depends whether 'we' (I'm not sure here whether I mean "all listeners" or "experienced listeners") are capable of chunking aural input into semantic (language-based) memory in the repeatable way hypothesized. However, the state of research when I did post-grad memory and cognition (circa 1999) certainly showed a lot of evidence for the chunking model, to the extent it was somewhat uncontroversial. Because of chunking we apparently "recognise" situations, emotions, images etc. Subjectively we may experience 'exact recall' whereas what we may in fact recall is a _similar_ experience., i.e. a 'relevant' fragment of sensory or perceptual experience. The question is whether these similarities - between exemplar and what is actually in front of us - are sufficient to make our responses "valid and accurate" and - for example - assist our survival. Our success as a species suggests it does, notwithstanding that the cognitive processes concerned are not 100% valid and reliable. There's a large literature about how easily 'fooled' we are too, but this does not detract from how much we get right.

I'm hopeful your audiologist is aware of the difficulties of scientific measurement, both to support and particularly to disconfirm claims both scientific and casual. I do wonder if in this case s/he may have dismissed audiophile claims too readily? Was their dismissal evidenced, or opinion?


----------



## prot

I guess he was just talking from his experience, probably he tested tens of thousands of ears. And he did not meet any superears just people who pretended to have them. 
And you are talking about some very complex psychoacoustics. I am just talking about simple side by side tests ... you hear a difference or not. I do not think any rocketscience or vocabulary is needed to hear differences between e.g. dap-s or cables or whatever. 
And I think we are derailing this thread and doubt many are interested. It was just a pretend-remark, nothing fancy.


----------



## Argo Duck

Sure. Subject closed. Cheers!


----------



## prot

Cheers and good DAC-cing ... or whatever that's called


----------



## Chris J

argo duck said:


> Sure. Subject closed. Cheers!




Hey......I was interested!


----------



## estreeter

stillhart said:


> "our senses are easily fooled"
> 
> What's the difference between being "fooled" into thinking something sounds good and something actually sounding good?  The answer, of course, is that there is no difference.


 
  
 There is when you get something home and realise that it sounded whole lot better in the dealer's showroom than it does in your listening room. Expectation bias and placebo are a lot harder to deal with when you're surrounded by the gear of your dreams in a purpose-built listening room.


----------



## Stillhart

estreeter said:


> There is when you get something home and realise that it sounded whole lot better in the dealer's showroom than it does in your listening room. Expectation bias and placebo are a lot harder to deal with when you're surrounded by the gear of your dreams in a purpose-built listening room.


 
 Fair enough if you're referring to that sort of "fooling your senses".  I took it to mean the difference between digital and analog, etc.  But I see how it can take on different meaning in that context.
  
 To continue that line of thought though, how about a device that sounds good even in a bad listening environment like CES?  Or is that a different kind of trickery that ends up being the same in the end?


----------



## Priidik

prot said:


> Just another anecdote and personal exp but I think it's more like other people *pretend* to have those fantastic aural memories and hearing capabilities. My audiologist agrees too. He also agreed to give me a certificate that states I have very good hearing. Despite that, I do not hear most things that people around here pretend to hear...like cables...or diffs between bitperfect players...or much diffs between suposedly highend portables like AK end the rest...or diffs between 16/44 and 24/96...and so on
> Point is, if you like your DAC just relax & enjoy the music. I surely enjoy my minimax plus...and it's not even on purrins list


 
 These so called bit perfect players have even pitch differences, any fool can hear it, if compares directly. Audirvana vs JR for example.


----------



## prot

priidik said:


> These so called bit perfect players have even pitch differences, any fool can hear it, if compares directly. Audirvana vs JR for example.




Not sure what/how are you testing and not sure what 'pitch diffs' means and also not a mac user. Prolly heard AU 3 times total for less than 10 mins. But I can say that I'm not hearing anything diff between foobar, jriver and a few others on my PC. All configured for bitperfect via wasapi. And I did test quite a lot. In fact I plan to post a review sometime. On short I did cfg everything properly, I did 'optimize' my PC and I hear nada...still testing though, could always be an user-error. 
Anyway, take it as one experience/opinion. I wont go into many details and derail this thread again.


----------



## thehoff

priidik said:


> These so called bit perfect players have even pitch differences, any fool can hear it, if compares directly. Audirvana vs JR for example.


 
  
 >*any fool can hear it*
  
 Definitely not. I don't have perfect pitch and I don't seem to have half the aural memory of the average person here. I use iTunes because it offers the best home sharing and those other players have (somehow even worse) UIs.


----------



## ciphercomplete

I certainly can't tell the difference between Foobar and J River.


----------



## estreeter

Just an addendum to my earlier post re competition for the Yggdrasil, I didnt realise that Lampi's 'Big Six' uses an R2R chip, but it quickly became apparent that to get something equivalent to the Yggy would quickly put you in totaldac territory. Granted, it does use a tubed output stage and PSU, and it is available right now. 
  
 Base DAC - 4900 Euro
 24/192 capability - 1000 Euro
 USB input - 500 Euro
 Subtotal - 6400 Euro
 Fully balanced option adds '20% of total bill' :  1280 Euro
*Total before shipping and local taxes :  7680 Euro   (~8900 USD)*
  
 Those who've heard the upper end of Lampi's DAC range seem to swear by it, but a thousand Euro simply to avoid downsampling higher res music to 16/44.1 ? Then 20% of the total bill to have balanced outputs ? Sorry Lukasz, but some of your rants re CDPs that '_only a German doctor could afford_' are beginning to sound a lot like self-parody.


----------



## jodgey4

Nuts pricing... it's not   _that_   hard to fix your inputs and clocks for higher rates and USB... 1500 Euro, smdh!


----------



## prot

estreeter said:


> Just an addendum to my earlier post re competition for the Yggdrasil, I didnt realise that Lampi's 'Big Six' uses an R2R chip, but it quickly became apparent that to get something equivalent to the Yggy would quickly put you in totaldac territory. Granted, it does use a tubed output stage and PSU, and it is available right now.
> 
> Base DAC - 4900 Euro
> 24/192 capability - 1000 Euro
> ...



20% for fully balanced sounds relatively reasonable. But $1K for 24/192 does not. That is prolly a different DAC chip and circuit but I can't see why does it cost so much more than the standard 16/44 option. The price diff for the chips alone is max a few tens of $. 
Anyway, guess nowadays he is quite the same as those hifi producers that he used to mock...at least when it comes to pricing. Hopefully his devices do indeed sound better. AFAIK, purrin is the only one who tried Lampis and came back relatively unimpressed. Almost everyone else is raving them like crazy. Doesn't mean they are that good but it is quite a consensus


----------



## sin28

Was comparing a bunch of DAC chips... and I came to a conclusion (something you've probably already thought of)...
  
 If an ADC is not performing the same functions as the DAC will be performing in reverse then you're losing accuracy.
  
 The perfect DAC starts with making the perfect ADC and then using the exact DAC that matches it for playback?
  
 Even if the recording is 44.1Khz, 16bit and the DAC is done in 44.1Khz, 16 bit with no downsampling/oversampling or anything going on...
  
 It sounds like TI's vs Wolfson vs Sabre DAC chips are a little different... they have different signal to noise ratios, and I don't really understand what else is different.
  
*Unless the DAC functions are 100% the same... just the functions to reduce the amount of noise introduced into the analogue signal are different? *
  
*Can someone help me understand the differences?*


----------



## evillamer

estreeter said:


> Just an addendum to my earlier post re competition for the Yggdrasil, I didnt realise that Lampi's 'Big Six' uses an R2R chip, but it quickly became apparent that to get something equivalent to the Yggy would quickly put you in totaldac territory. Granted, it does use a tubed output stage and PSU, and it is available right now.
> 
> Base DAC - 4900 Euro
> 24/192 capability - 1000 Euro
> ...


 
   
  
 Speaking of which, he recently criticized Neil Young for championing hi-res audio files. This, ironically coming from a manufacturer that sells "hi-res" DSD & 24bit 192KHz DACs. Maybe he should revert to selling redbook standard 16bit/44KHz DACs since the difference is so miniscule?
  
  
 Quote:


> “I think* Neil is barking up the wrong tree*,” says Lukasz Fikus, a digital audio designer whose high-priced Lampizator components have earned a following among hard-core enthusiasts.
> 
> The benefits of hi-res files may be detectable on high-dollar stereo systems, but “t*he difference is so miniscule that it’s not even worth talking about*,” according to Fikus.
> 
> ...


----------



## evillamer

ciphercomplete said:


> I certainly can't tell the difference between Foobar and J River.


 
 Can you tell difference between: Directsound, ASIO and WASAPI?


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> Can you tell difference between: Directsound, ASIO and WASAPI?


 
 I can tell the difference between Directsound and WASPI, but I never got ASIO working on my system.


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> I can tell the difference between Directsound and WASPI, but I never got ASIO working on my system.


 
  
 I see from your sig that you are using audio-gd, you can try this step to get ASIO working:
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/USB32/Step7.jpg


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> I see from your sig that you are using audio-gd, you can try this step to get ASIO working:
> http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/USB32/Step7.jpg


 
  
 Thanks.  I'm pretty happy with WASPI.  Is there an advantage to ASIO that will make it worth the effort?


----------



## evillamer

WASAPI is like Microsoft's answer/alternative to ASIO. ASIO was created by a 3rd party company Steinberg for professional audio software usage back when Microsoft didn't pay much attention/oblivious to professional/high quality, low latency sound.
  
 I can't really say which is better, they sounded almost the same.
  
 If I had to pick the best, I would say ASIO but just by a tiny bit
  
 Best to experiment yourself.
  
 more reading:
 http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WASAPI.htm
 http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/ASIO.htm


----------



## ciphercomplete

evillamer said:


> Can you tell difference between: Directsound, ASIO and WASAPI?




I never tried direct sound as I just assumed it would be terrible. Whether I can tell the difference between wasapi and asio really depends on the driver. Some of the earlier AGD drivers sound quite different depending which one you would use but with the ciaudio transient in the chain I can't tell the difference between wasapi and asio.


----------



## purrin

jacal01 said:


> ACSS is no gimmick.  Of course analog circuit implementation matters most, but ACSS maintains the current driven signal transmission in current loop design amplification topology (like Krell and a-gd) between components instead of converting to voltage driven output for interconnection, and all the signal impedance matching that implies.  And if you think that cable and connector impedance matching little matters, then there's not much point in pursuing this conversation.


 
  
 Point is that I would easily take Yggy -> XLR -> Master 9 rather than AGD Master 7 -> ACSS -> AGD Master 9 for the sake of ACSS. Yes, ACSS makes a slight difference, but it tends to make people huff-and-puff and get all OCD about it. I could imagine people get all stressed out about the overarching need to keep the ACSS and stick with a far far inferior DAC (or any piece of equipment less complementary to the rest of the chain) just to maintain the ACSS "awesomeness", even if the overall system sonics would be inferior.
  
 At worst, one ends up trapped in a manufacturers' ecosystem, be it Krell, or AGD for fear of losing ACSS's speshalness. There's a lot of great stuff out there that doesn't use ACSS. I've heard the ACSS stuff. I wouldn't say it's necessarily better, I'd say it sounds different; similar in vein to feeding DACs up-sampled Redbook.
  
 When a piece of equipment is so overwhelmingly superior, ACSS, speshal USB to i2s, silver wiring, magnetic rocks, mods with boutique parts, femto-clocks, EMI shielding - none that of that crap matters. Heck, if even is piece of equipment simply superior, none of that crap matters.


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> AFAIK, purrin is the only one who tried Lampis and came back relatively unimpressed. Almost everyone else is raving them like crazy. Doesn't mean they are that good but it is quite a consensus


 
  
 There are others. Generally, it's the people who are familiar with very good tube gear that come away unimpressed. I can't speak for the Big 6 or 7, but 4, 5, Big 5: fantastic tube section which let me hear the mediocrity of the digital section (a very obvious delta-sigma signature). I suppose the use of a good USB-SPDIF converter would help, but that's just adding another $1100-$2400.
  
 Also, if Lampi DACs are that great, why are so many being dumped on the 'gon at any given minute? There are six Lampis as of today (Jan 16, 2015) on the 'gon. Last time I checked, there were four. People eventually figure out the tube gimmick.
  
 I'd rather slap on $299 boutique clocks on a $299 Behringer DCX2496, parallel the three AKM chips per channel, and pay Donald North $5K to make me a custom DHT output section.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> There are others. Generally, it's the people who are familiar with very good tube gear that come away unimpressed. I can't speak for the Big 6 or 7, but 4, 5, Big 5: fantastic tube section which let me hear the mediocrity of the digital section (a very obvious delta-sigma signature). I suppose the use of a good USB-SPDIF converter would help, but that's just adding another $1100-$2400.
> 
> Also, if Lampi DACs are that great, why are so many being dumped on the 'gon at any given minute? There are six Lampis as of today (Jan 16, 2015) on the 'gon. Last time I checked, there were four. People eventually figure out the tube gimmick.
> 
> I'd rather slap on $299 boutique clocks on a $299 Behringer DCX2496, parallel the three AKM chips per channel, and pay Donald North $5K to make me a custom DHT output section.


 
  
 OK - I'll bite, as its only the second time I've seen Behringer gear recommended on HF and they have an unfortunate history re quality control - it seems you get what you pay for. I had one of their headphone amps years ago and it was a throwaway - worse than anything I've heard on a DAP at any price point. That said, you want something you can modify to your heart's desire, and Behringer really went to town with the inputs and outputs on this equaliser/crossover - 
  

  
 And this from the Amazon reviews:
  
_But the clincher for me was that the DCX is eminently 'tunable' thanks to the DIY audio fraternity...

 There's a huge online population of DIY audio folks, and some are professional designers with decades of experience in audio (and other) electronics. Many solutions to all the DCX's shortcomings are available from small outlets or individuals, either in kit form (if you have soldering skills), or as a send-in/return service.

 My now highly-modded DCX2496 now has a completely replaced analogue input/output circuit board (vastly better sonics than the original, an integrated, post-DSP/DAC infrared remote multi-channel volume control, simplified analogue signal paths, and unbalanced connections with levels suitable for domestic use). In addition, the stock PSU has been replaced (made a *huge* difference to sonic detail). Neither of these mods required more than just basic soldering skills and some patience; both were bought as kits, with exemplary documentation, high quality components, and support from the mod designer. The result is a unit with *far* better sound quality than the original, and getting pretty close to 'audiophile' quality.

 When I have time, I'll fit the replacement master clock/sample rate converter kit (some surface-mount work), which should improve things further, and the final mod will be to replace the stock AK4393 DAC chips with higher-specced AK4396s._
  
 I'm not a DiY guy, but on paper it does seem like an interesting project even if your comment re the tube output stage tells me you probably are yanking our chain.


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> Thanks.  I'm pretty happy with WASPI.  Is there an advantage to ASIO that will make it worth the effort?




In theory, ASIO is the native driver for Audio-gd DACs and thereby they should perform best with it.
I have tried both and I believe there is a difference, though I am not entirely sure, so it is slight and also not necessarily for better.
If you can get them to work, it is worth a shot. I curse the day Audio-gd chose to use those VIA drivers for ASIO. The stability is very hit or miss and I have not been able to figure it out and I am also starting to doubt whether it is worth the hassle.
2/3 Audio-gd products have experienced some kind of issue related to it... VIA ASIO my ass.


----------



## prot

evillamer said:


> Can you tell difference between: Directsound, ASIO and WASAPI?



Do not hve much ASIO experience but never heard ASIO -WASAPI differences. 
DS vs WASAPI is in my exp hit and miss. Assuming you disable windows sounds and the music player is the only running app, i doubt you will hear any differences. I dont with latest foobar. But I did with other PCs and older versions of foobar, xbmc12 or VLC. YMMV. But you can just config Wasapi and forget about it


----------



## ciphercomplete

conquerator2 said:


> In theory, ASIO is the native driver for Audio-gd DACs and thereby they should perform best with it.
> I have tried both and I believe there is a difference, though I am not entirely sure, so it is slight and also not necessarily for better.
> If you can get them to work, it is worth a shot. I curse the day Audio-gd chose to use those VIA drivers for ASIO. The stability is very hit or miss and I have not been able to figure it out and I am also starting to doubt whether it is worth the hassle.
> 2/3 Audio-gd products have experienced some kind of issue related to it... VIA ASIO my ass.


 
  
 I think this is right.  I think if ASIO sounds better to your ears then everything is probably fine.  If Wasapi sounds better then it is possible the manufacturer has not optimized the ASIO driver for your operating system (or you have funny tastes
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





).  If they sound the same I still think you are mostly OK.  
  
 AGD's early drivers were bloated and had some huge control panel coded in.  Once the control panel was removed from the driver the moajority of its issues cleared up.   I think its to the point now that if you don't like a AGD dac then it has little to do with the USB implementation and more to do with the dac itself.  Thats not to say they have perfected their driver just that it matters less.


----------



## ciphercomplete

purrin said:


> Point is that I would easily take Yggy -> XLR -> Master 9 rather than AGD Master 7 -> ACSS -> AGD Master 9 for the sake of ACSS. Yes, ACSS makes a slight difference, but it tends to make people huff-and-puff and get all OCD about it. I could imagine people get all stressed out about the overarching need to keep the ACSS and stick with a far far inferior DAC (or any piece of equipment less complementary to the rest of the chain) just to maintain the ACSS "awesomeness", even if the overall system sonics would be inferior.
> 
> At worst, one ends up trapped in a manufacturers' ecosystem, be it Krell, or AGD for fear of losing ACSS's speshalness. There's a lot of great stuff out there that doesn't use ACSS. I've heard the ACSS stuff. I wouldn't say it's necessarily better, I'd say it sounds different; similar in vein to feeding DACs up-sampled Redbook.
> 
> When a piece of equipment is so overwhelmingly superior, ACSS, speshal USB to i2s, silver wiring, magnetic rocks, mods with boutique parts, femto-clocks, EMI shielding - none that of that crap matters. Heck, if even is piece of equipment simply superior, none of that crap matters.


 
 I think thats mostly right.  The differences between the two are a bit overblown anyway as they are not that different but those minor differences are audible and even moreso depending on the rest of your surrounding equipment.  I think I personally prefer ACSS output on the Master  7 because I'm constantly trying to sharpen the Master 7 some in the bass region.  ACSS from preamp to amp though I think is a bit different and incrementally superior to XLR in every way even with non-ACSS dacs in the chain.   
  
 I have had several 1704UK dacs (AGD and non AGD) and I have always had a love hate relationship with them but I have always preferred them over NOS, non R2R designs,  or other sigma delta dacs.  Hopefully the Yggy gives the best of all worlds.


----------



## Maxx134

ASIO, WASAPI, Kernal Streaming..
on one laptop I found KS to seem to have more dynamics and the others were so close I didn't bother to differentiate them. 
I just changed laptops and will try again but it is interesting how these implementations can differ when they all supposed to do same job...


----------



## ciphercomplete

I owned the Monarchy NM24 for about four years which had a pair of 1704UK chips but I always wanted to hear the predecessor Monarchy m24 which I now realize used the PCM-63K chips.  Monarchy made several dacs that used that chip.  Id love to hear from someone who has heard it and can give a brief review or knows a person willing to sell.  I wouldn't mind having one around.


----------



## Maxx134

prot said:


> ... but I think it's more like other people *pretend* to have those fantastic aural memories and hearing capabilities..



Nonsense.(not you of course just the extreme posiitions, which is actually on both sides.)

Im pretty sure if people kept an open mind,
 they ALL would hear differences which is what this whole audio industry is based upon..
The fact that you CAN hear differences which dac makers are always improving upon with each successive model..
And that goes with everything audio.


----------



## ciphercomplete

maxx134 said:


> ASIO, WASAPI, Kernal Streaming..
> on one laptop I found KS to seem to have more dynamics and the others were so close I didn't bother to differentiate them.
> I just changed laptops and will try again but it is interesting how these implementations can differ when they all supposed to do same job...


 
 Yeah it seems that way but if you have ever coded then you know that getting two different programs to behave the same way 100% of the time is next to impossible.  But if you are a dac manufacturer and have coded a ASIO or KS driver you shouldn't settle for second best to the basically built in Wasapi, if you know your hardware your driver should be at least as good.  I think quality control is the reason why alot DACS sound different depending on which output you use.


----------



## conquerator2

ciphercomplete said:


> I think this is right.  I think if ASIO sounds better to your ears then everything is probably fine.  If Wasapi sounds better then it is possible the manufacturer has not optimized the ASIO driver for your operating system (or you have funny tastes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I love Audio-gd products and have supported them for some time now [I think it's evident from my sig ]
 However, I am simply saying that neither their products, nor their software is perfect
 The three previous products that I've bought from A-gd - Compass2 [faulty USB module/Sabre chip, some compatibility issues with Windows, now discontinued], NFB7 [so far flawless], DI-V2014 [initially flawless, currently experiencing some USB issues but might be due to using multiple inputs con-currently].
 Maybe I am just not lucky, but I am pretty sure the VIA drivers are to blame...
  
 Anyway, that's kinda OT. Sorry


----------



## ciphercomplete

conquerator2 said:


> I love Audio-gd products and have supported them for some time now [I think it's evident from my sig ]
> However, I am simply saying that neither their products, nor their software is perfect
> The three previous products that I've bought from A-gd - Compass2 [faulty USB module/Sabre chip, some compatibility issues with Windows, now discontinued], NFB7 [so far flawless], DI-V2014 [initially flawless, currently experiencing some USB issues but might be due to using multiple inputs con-currently].
> Maybe I am just not lucky, but I am pretty sure the VIA drivers are to blame...
> ...


 
 I was kind of speaking from the perspective of the M7 only, I haven't used the products you listed.  I assumed that once they fixed the drivers that it was a universal fix though.  It could be the VIA drivers and I guess we won't know unless they switch to XMOS or some other solution.


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> There are others. Generally, it's the people who are familiar with very good tube gear that come away unimpressed. I can't speak for the Big 6 or 7, but 4, 5, Big 5: fantastic tube section which let me hear the mediocrity of the digital section (a very obvious delta-sigma signature). I suppose the use of a good USB-SPDIF converter would help, but that's just adding another $1100-$2400.
> 
> Also, if Lampi DACs are that great, why are so many being dumped on the 'gon at any given minute? There are six Lampis as of today (Jan 16, 2015) on the 'gon. Last time I checked, there were four. People eventually figure out the tube gimmick.
> 
> I'd rather slap on $299 boutique clocks on a $299 Behringer DCX2496, parallel the three AKM chips per channel, and pay Donald North $5K to make me a custom DHT output section.



I wasn't challenging your Lampi criticism. In fact I think we need more of that, the praising choir is a bit exagerated.


----------



## purrin

> prot said:
> 
> 
> > ... but I think it's more like other people *pretend* to have those fantastic aural memories and hearing capabilities..





maxx134 said:


> Nonsense.(not you of course just the extreme posiitions, which is actually on both sides.)
> 
> Im pretty sure if people kept an open mind,
> they ALL would hear differences which is what this whole audio industry is based upon..
> ...


 
  
 Strangely enough, only the few weirdos on the Internet seem to claim to have fantastical hearing abilities bordering on the clairvoyant.
  
 Now I've heard stories of people not being able to hear the difference between an O2 and a Rag; but this seem rare. In my real-life experience with real-life people, there is little or no difference in hearing capabilities between the audiophile and other regular people like my wife, young kids, relatives, or co-workers. The differences are mainly with being able to establish common vocabulary, communicate what is perceived, and having shared references (in terms of other gear). What sounds good simply sounds good.
  
 The subtle but very important factors that most people don't consider are quality of recordings and making sure there are no weak-links in the chain. Evaluating DACs using a Objective 2 amp, Monoprice headphones, and Japanese anime soundtracks will most definitely result in most of the DACs I've listed as being sonically indistinguishable from each other.


----------



## lojay

purrin said:


> Strangely enough, only the few weirdos on the Internet seem to claim to have fantastical hearing abilities bordering on the clairvoyant.
> 
> Now I've heard stories of people not being able to hear the difference between an O2 and a Rag; but this seem rare. In my real-life experience with real-life people, there is little or no difference in hearing capabilities between the audiophile and other regular people like my wife, young kids, relatives, or co-workers. The differences are mainly with being able to establish common vocabulary, communicate what is perceived, and having shared references (in terms of other gear). What sounds good simply sounds good.
> 
> The subtle but very important factors that most people don't consider are quality of recordings and making sure there are no weak-links in the chain. Evaluating DACs using a Objective 2 amp, Monoprice headphones, and Japanese anime soundtracks will most definitely result in most of the DACs I've listed as being sonically indistinguishable from each other.


 I agree, not to mention that one may often have to live with the DACs for a couple of weeks to fully appreciate its sonic qualities. Other factors may have a significant impact on the sound, eg when I was comparing the DAC on the AMR DP777 to the MSB Analog I found the resolution and airiness of the former to improve substantially whilst turning the pre amp off. Most times SPL matching willl be necessary for proper AB comparisons. There are just too many variables and people either fail to appreciate that or, as is more often the case, don't have the time or resources to bother.


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> The subtle but very important factors that most people don't consider are quality of recordings and making sure there are no weak-links in the chain. Evaluating DACs using a Objective 2 amp, Monoprice headphones, and Japanese anime soundtracks will most definitely result in most of the DACs I've listed as being sonically indistinguishable from each other.



what would be your minimal evaluation stack? Or a good one?

E.g. I am not a big fan of the O2 (treble kinda shrill) but it is very clear and detailed with good soundstage and (almost) no coloration ... in my book good enough for a DAC review. And also very practical, you can easily pack an O2 and a pair of HPs and visit a few hifi stores. I'm actually planning to build a mobile test stack as:
DAP with digital out - [test dac] - Obj2 - Westone umpro30 and/or sennheiser 650. 
Not sure if my sansa zip with rockbox is good enough as DAP (recommendations?) but the rest should be. 
O course 1-2h in a store is not the same as having the DAC at home for a week ... but it is still much better than nothing. And with such a mobile stack you test with your own music, with familiar equipment and do not need much support from the store clerks.


----------



## Priidik

purrin said:


> Strangely enough, only the few weirdos on the Internet seem to claim to have fantastical hearing abilities bordering on the clairvoyant.
> 
> Now I've heard stories of people not being able to hear the difference between an O2 and a Rag; but this seem rare. In my real-life experience with real-life people, there is little or no difference in hearing capabilities between the audiophile and other regular people like my wife, young kids, relatives, or co-workers. The differences are mainly with being able to establish common vocabulary, communicate what is perceived, and having shared references (in terms of other gear). What sounds good simply sounds good.
> 
> The subtle but very important factors that most people don't consider are quality of recordings and making sure there are no weak-links in the chain. Evaluating DACs using a Objective 2 amp, Monoprice headphones, and Japanese anime soundtracks will most definitely result in most of the DACs I've listed as being sonically indistinguishable from each other.


 
 I would add that some people don't have enough attention span to discern differences and pick up nuances. If they concentrated hard enough, they could hear them for sure.


----------



## Sorrodje

I agree. The Brain matters more than ears in critical listening.
  
 What I learned thanks to Purrin is that the most important point is not the FR. if we stay focused on FR , we definitely can't detect all what we could hear.  That been said , I can't say I can currently detect so much differences than other people here  . I'm still a noob with less than 2 years of experience in audio though and I'm definitely convinced that I can detect much more differences than one year ago.    Ear and brain need training.


----------



## ciphercomplete

lojay said:


> Most times SPL matching willl be necessary for proper AB comparisons.


 
 SPL mismatching is almost always the reason some of my audio friends think they hear differences in music.  It is very important.


----------



## estreeter

ciphercomplete said:


> SPL mismatching is almost always the reason some of my audio friends think they hear differences in music.  It is very important.


 
  
 Differences in music or differences in gear ? I'm confident that my 24/96 downloads DO represent an improvement over their Redbook equivalents, but am I prepared to submit myself to rigorous DBT under laboratory conditions (whatever those are in such a subjective hobby) ? Nope - I prefer to just listen to the Redbook rips alongside the 24/96 downloads and see what stands out to me - in some cases, not a lot, but that's showbiz. The important thing is that I enjoy the music.


----------



## richbass

ciphercomplete said:


> SPL mismatching is almost always the reason some of my audio friends think they hear differences in music.  It is very important.


 

 What is SPL mismatching ? How to match it


----------



## lojay

estreeter said:


> Differences in music or differences in gear ? I'm confident that my 24/96 downloads DO represent an improvement over their Redbook equivalents, but am I prepared to submit myself to rigorous DBT under laboratory conditions (whatever those are in such a subjective hobby) ? Nope - I prefer to just listen to the Redbook rips alongside the 24/96 downloads and see what stands out to me - in some cases, not a lot, but that's showbiz. The important thing is that I enjoy the music.


 Gear. I think SPL matching is useful if you want to check if your impressions as to differences of gear are "real" or just placebo or misconceived or tainted by preconceptions. It helped me decide on selling one or two amps but really, the process was painful! For that sort of money I better make sure the improvements or differences are real. I have no reason to submit myself to laboratory test conditions when it comes to comparing tracks.




richbass said:


> What is SPL mismatching ? How to match it


 SPL is a short form for sound pressure level. SPL matching means using an instrument (for me, a specialised app on iPhone) to measure the loudness of a piece of audio equipment (say, an amp) through the headphone and match that loudness with the other piece of equipment (say, another amp) that I am comparing the former to. SPL mismatching is when you are comparing two pieces of gear with different SPL. Your ears will subjectively prefer the louder gear.

Estreeter is referring to a particular regimented (read, anal) form of SPL matching where you match the SPL level of two versions of the same track, one red book the other hi-rez, to see if there are differences. Problem with that approach is that the two tracks may come from different masters or may be processed differently. The differences, even if you hear any, might have nothing to do with the hi-rez or red book sample rate. The point of SPL matching is to maintain things ceterus paribus, which for me does not work when comparing tracks for the purpose of identifying whether a particular format is better. Might help in identifying which version of a track you have is better, but that will be quite anal I'm afraid, and even so, you might not get a ceterus paribus controlled comparison as the dynamic gain of the tracks might change unevenly throughout the track.


----------



## ciphercomplete

richbass said:


> What is SPL mismatching ? How to match it




Just a funny way of saying that comparisons between gear should be made at the same volume level. Often, when visiting buddies of mine to compare gear, stuff would get switched out but volume levels were not kept the same. Almost always this would result in the "louder" one "sounding" better or having better bass or detail. The only sure fire way to ensure you have the same volum level after changing out gear is to use a SPL meter.


----------



## ciphercomplete

estreeter said:


> Differences in music or differences in gear ? I'm confident that my 24/96 downloads DO represent an improvement over their Redbook equivalents, but am I prepared to submit myself to rigorous DBT under laboratory conditions (whatever those are in such a subjective hobby) ? Nope - I prefer to just listen to the Redbook rips alongside the 24/96 downloads and see what stands out to me - in some cases, not a lot, but that's showbiz. The important thing is that I enjoy the music.




No, only when comparing gear really. But on the other hand SPL matching would eliminate a variable when making a comparisons between different recordings which could be helpful in determining differences between them b/c you would at least know that any differences you are hearing are not attributable to differing volume levels.


----------



## Stillhart

estreeter said:


> Differences in music or differences in gear ? I'm confident that my 24/96 downloads DO represent an improvement over their Redbook equivalents, but am I prepared to submit myself to rigorous DBT under laboratory conditions (whatever those are in such a subjective hobby) ? Nope - I prefer to just listen to the Redbook rips alongside the 24/96 downloads and see what stands out to me - in some cases, not a lot, but that's showbiz. The important thing is that I enjoy the music.


 
  
 Without getting into a debate about it, there's a thread in the Sound Science forum about the 24bit vs 16bit myth.  (Spoiler:  there's no audible difference).  It turns out, the differences I've been hearing on my HDTracks downloads have been from their (admittedly well-done) remastering of the tracks.  It's a fascinating read, whether you agree with the science or not.
  
  
 On another topic, a friend of mine has loaned me his Geek Out SE since I have been talking his ear off about better DAC's lately.  This one has all the bells and whistles like femto junk and whatever.  But most important to me is the Sabre DAC.  
  
 My immediate impression was that the brighter sound and more controlled bass was a really good pairing with the LCD-2f and put the sound more in line with my preferences. But I wanted to do some more critical listening and see if I could find any really obvious differences.
  
 Well I found a song with an interesting difference and I was hoping you guys could help me understand the language of what I'm hearing (e.g. is it "microdetail" or "plankton" or "transients" or some other audiophile word I'm not clear on?)
  
 The song is "Spanish Harlem" by Rebecca Pidgeon and the version I used was a 24/96 Chesky version from HD Tracks.  Basically, when I listen with the NFB-15 (dual Wolfson DAC), her voice is a little more forward and the "echos" or "reverb" that you can hear are very subtle.  But with the Sabre DAC in the GO, the reverb suddenly becomes a lot more noticeable and it really sort of describes the shape of the room.  Can anyone help me to understand what that difference is that I'm hearing?


----------



## evillamer

Looks like the mola mola dac will retail for $12,000. Still Sigma Delta based.
 http://www.theaudiobeat.com/rmaf2014/rmaf2014_mola_mola.htm


----------



## Sapientiam

stillhart said:


> The song is "Spanish Harlem" by Rebecca Pidgeon and the version I used was a 24/96 Chesky version from HD Tracks.  Basically, when I listen with the NFB-15 (dual Wolfson DAC), her voice is a little more forward and the "echos" or "reverb" that you can hear are very subtle.  But with the Sabre DAC in the GO, the reverb suddenly becomes a lot more noticeable and it really sort of describes the shape of the room.  Can anyone help me to understand what that difference is that I'm hearing?


 
  
 I've used that track a lot when evaluating my own DAC designs, though the RBCD version. What you're hearing is a lower noise floor, so the low level ambience cues are no longer being masked by noise. For getting the room acoustic right, reducing lower frequency noise is key. I call this 'improved soundstaging'. The forwardness on the voice I'd suggest is coming from the Wolfson DAC's sensitivity to PSU noise - the internal opamps are 'leaky' to PSU noise and it ends up on the audio.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ This - "The forwardness on the voice...[comes from] the Wolfson DAC's sensitivity to PSU noise" - is very interesting. Could you explain more about how this happens?

The one Wolfson-based DAC I've heard had apparently greater (micro)detail/microdynamics with voice than the others (SPL-matched) DACs I heard at the time. Could this have been in-leaking PSU noise :eek:


----------



## Stillhart

sapientiam said:


> I've used that track a lot when evaluating my own DAC designs, though the RBCD version. What you're hearing is a lower noise floor, so the low level ambience cues are no longer being masked by noise. For getting the room acoustic right, reducing lower frequency noise is key. I call this 'improved soundstaging'. The forwardness on the voice I'd suggest is coming from the Wolfson DAC's sensitivity to PSU noise - the internal opamps are 'leaky' to PSU noise and it ends up on the audio.


 
  
 Thanks, that's super helpful!  Is noise floor something that you can see in the specs of the device?  I'd like to be able to keep an eye out for that while I'm researching my next purchase...


----------



## Sapientiam

Wolfson (and similar, Cirrus etc.) DACs with on-board opamps turn out to be very sensitive to power supply quality in my experience. If you examine the datasheet for a typical opamp you get some indication as to why this is. Their PSRRs (ability to reject noise from the power supply) suck, especially at high frequencies. A lower PSRR means more 'leakiness' to PSU noise. There's a lot of technical explanation behind opamp PSRR, Bruno Putzeys's masterclass is relevant (can't recall which though) where he's discussing amplifier topologies and their shortcomings.
  
 I'd speculate that where you get better microdynamics with a Wolfson DAC it'll be where the designers have realized the chip's inherent PSU sensitivity and given the DAC chip decoupling a lot of attention. Hearing 'greater detail' could be a good thing or a bad, depending precisely on what's meant by 'detail'. Some detail IME is false.


----------



## Sapientiam

stillhart said:


> Is noise floor something that you can see in the specs of the device?  I'd like to be able to keep an eye out for that while I'm researching my next purchase...


 
  
 Yes and no (hedging himself....). There are indications from graphs in various datasheets of DAC noise, which for an S-D (sigma delta) type of DAC does vary with the signal level. You do though have to know how to tie up the FFT plots with the tabulated figures. I go into some of that in an old thread on WBF which I might be able to turn up a link for if anyone's interested.
  
 In short, at the highest output levels of most S-D DACs, the noise floor does rise. So for example there might be noise at -105dB when playing a full scale sine, whereas with 20dB less signal, the noise has fallen to -120dB.The Sabre (ES9018) is rather a special case as its noise floor shifts (sometimes fairly dramatically) around -35 to -36dB. To see that, look at how the THD+N vs signal level graph is shaped. If there's a bump, that's induced noise (called noise modulation).


----------



## Stillhart

sapientiam said:


> Yes and no (hedging himself....). There are indications from graphs in various datasheets of DAC noise, which for an S-D (sigma delta) type of DAC does vary with the signal level. You do though have to know how to tie up the FFT plots with the tabulated figures. I go into some of that in an old thread on WBF which I might be able to turn up a link for if anyone's interested.
> 
> In short, at the highest output levels of most S-D DACs, the noise floor does rise. So for example there might be noise at -105dB when playing a full scale sine, whereas with 20dB less signal, the noise has fallen to -120dB.The Sabre (ES9018) is rather a special case as its noise floor shifts (sometimes fairly dramatically) around -35 to -36dB. To see that, look at how the THD+N vs signal level graph is shaped. If there's a bump, that's induced noise (called noise modulation).


 
  
 Ha!  All that stuff is way beyond me right now.  I was thinking more like "THD+N is a good indicator of noise floor" or something like that.


----------



## Sapientiam

I haven't noticed a correlation between THD+N figures and perceived noise floor. If anything the correlation would be a negative one - those focussing on THD+N as their primary metric of quality probably miss that the noise floor isn't static and the worst case for it is most definitely not with a sinewave as a stimulus.


----------



## Argo Duck

Thanks! Well indeed, the DAC concerned is Jan Meier's (StageDAC, dual-mono). He did seem to give the PSU a lot of attention, with these statements - in my ignorance of electronic design - possibly relevant, possibly not: "Separate transformers and powerlines for the analog and digital circuitry....all voltage lines double or three-fold regulated" among other details.

I hear you about false detail - especially IME via heightened treble. The latter seems certainly _not_ the case with this DAC. Neutral and one might almost say unexciting - except for the nice detail and apparent ability to track vocal nuances...



sapientiam said:


> Wolfson (and similar, Cirrus etc.) DACs with on-board opamps turn out to be very sensitive to power supply quality in my experience....
> 
> I'd speculate that where you get better microdynamics with a Wolfson DAC it'll be where the designers have realized the chip's inherent PSU sensitivity and given the DAC chip decoupling a lot of attention. Hearing 'greater detail' could be a good thing or a bad, depending precisely on what's meant by 'detail'. Some detail IME is false.


----------



## Sapientiam

6moons is a great resource for the internals of audio boxes. Here's a fragment of the picture of the workings of the StageDAC I found there, which does rather bear out that they worked hard to get the PSU right. The Wolfson DACs are only just peeking out above a row of 6 rather large caps. There are more than two dozen large caps in that box taking up what looks to me to be more real estate overall than the two toroidal trafos.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Yes, Jan has built a lot of capacitance into his power supplies., e.g. his Classic headamp released next after the StageDAC. (Capacitance is one thing an EE friend of mine told me years ago is important to "prevent PS sag", key to handling transients/providing clean head-room if I understood him correctly).

Thanks - this has been educational


----------



## TokenGesture

any one interested in the Metrum Pavane - new R2R flagship with proprietary chips


----------



## Sorrodje

Considering the prices :
  
 Metrum PAVANE : 4950€
 Schitt Yggdrasil : (estimated) 2300 €
  
 If the Yggy is such a game changer and a statement dac at this price, I have no reason to look forward anything pricier. The wisest IMO is to wait and try the Schiit before to decide to spend even more money.
  
 Nevertheless, I would be interested to give a listen to the new  Metrrum Dac for sure.
  
 My 2 cents.


----------



## evillamer

sorrodje said:


> Considering the prices :
> 
> Metrum PAVANE : 4950€
> Schitt Yggdrasil : (estimated) 2300 €
> ...


 
  
 Pricing will ultimately land at €4095 (+ VAT) but an introductory price of €3695 (+ VAT) will hold until the end of January 2015.
 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2014/12/metrum-acoustics-announce-pavane-dac/
  
 Basing on current euros to us$ conversion:
  
 Pavane = €3695 (US$4290.63) or €4095  (US$4732.37)
 Yggdrasil = €1979.92 (US$2299)


----------



## Sorrodje

http://www.metrum-acoustics.com/Int_pricesEN.html  official prices for EU including VAT. For Yggy : 2300$ in the US  will become approximatively 2300€ with VAT in E.U.
  
 BTW you get the point.. Iggy is much less expensive.


----------



## conquerator2

Interesting topic. I fancy reading such things.
Speaking of Sabre, my NFB-7 is sold and my Gungnir will hopefully arrive at the end of the week.
Exciting times ahead!!


----------



## Stillhart

conquerator2 said:


> Interesting topic. I fancy reading such things.
> Speaking of Sabre, my NFB-7 is sold and my Gungnir will hopefully arrive at the end of the week.
> Exciting times ahead!!


 
  
 Grats, man.  Looking forward to hearing your take on it.


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> Grats, man.  Looking forward to hearing your take on it.


 





 Thanks.
 The one DAC I wonder how'd it perform against is the Yulong Sabre D18, which is not the traditional, analytic Sabre DAC it seems, Haven't found a comparison between it and the Gung though...
 Nonetheless, looking forward to the Schiit


----------



## estreeter

sorrodje said:


> http://www.metrum-acoustics.com/Int_pricesEN.html  official prices for EU including VAT. For Yggy : 2300$ in the US  will become approximatively 2300€ with VAT in E.U.
> 
> BTW you get the point.. Iggy is much less expensive.


 
  
 Dont you get slugged with *import duty* before they calculate the VAT, or is your 2300 EUR figure taking that into account ?


----------



## Sorrodje

estreeter said:


> or is your 2300 EUR figure taking that into account ?


 
  
  
 This ^  . The Rag is priced at 1699$ on the Schitt Website and the same amp is priced at 1690€ on the Schiit-Europ Website


----------



## estreeter

Ouch ....


----------



## dan.gheorghe

sorrodje said:


> This ^  . The Rag is priced at 1699$ on the Schitt Website and the same amp is priced at 1690€ on the Schiit-Europ Website


 
 I think that the prices are before the rise of the dollar. We could see a ~15% increase in prices soon.


----------



## Sorrodje

dan.gheorghe said:


> I think that the prices are before the rise of the dollar. We could see a ~15% increase in prices soon.


 
  
 Maybe but we're splitting hairs here mates.  I gave this price to give an idea but the point was that even with the Dollars increase or whatever , the Yggy will be less expensive than thre Metrum Pavane. period.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

sorrodje said:


> Maybe but we're splitting hairs here mates.  I gave this price to give an idea but the point was that even with the Dollars increase or whatever , the Yggy will be less expensive than thre Metrum Pavane. period.


 
 Ah, there is no question on that matter. Just wanted to show my frustration with the dollar - eur situation ) . Also if you were thinking of buying some schiit products that already exist, it might be beneficial to buy them now or expect a price increase.


----------



## evillamer

dan.gheorghe said:


> sorrodje said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe but we're splitting hairs here mates.  I gave this price to give an idea but the point was that even with the Dollars increase or whatever , the Yggy will be less expensive than thre Metrum Pavane. period.
> ...


 
 Why not just convert your foreign currency to USD$ first and keep it until the schitt ygg is ready?


----------



## smitty1110

evillamer said:


> Why not just convert your foreign currency to USD$ first and keep it until the schitt ygg is ready?


 

 Two reasons. First, you get charged fees twice, once for converting to USD, and a second time when you need to deposit it at your bank to use it and it gets converted back to euros when you deposit it again to make it available for the purchase. Secondly, holding that much cash at home is never a really good idea, but that might just be my paranoia speaking.


----------



## evillamer

smitty1110 said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Why not just convert your foreign currency to USD$ first and keep it until the schitt ygg is ready?
> ...


 
 Oh just email schitt and pre-order from them first, pay them the USD now. Show them this picture:


----------



## estreeter

sorrodje said:


> Maybe but we're splitting hairs here mates.  I gave this price to give an idea but the point was that even with the Dollars increase or whatever , the Yggy will be less expensive than thre Metrum Pavane. period.


 
  
 So it's going to be less than 3650 EUR or whatever the 'intro price' is ? Great - *put me down for five* !  
  
 OK, OK - I get your point - but we arent talking a minor price difference, are we ? That said, the casework in Darko's preview is to die for .....


----------



## jacal01

purrin said:


> Point is that I would easily take Yggy -> XLR -> Master 9 rather than AGD Master 7 -> ACSS -> AGD Master 9 for the sake of ACSS. Yes, ACSS makes a slight difference, but it tends to make people huff-and-puff and get all OCD about it. I could imagine people get all stressed out about the overarching need to keep the ACSS and stick with a far far inferior DAC (or any piece of equipment less complementary to the rest of the chain) just to maintain the ACSS "awesomeness", even if the overall system sonics would be inferior.
> 
> At worst, one ends up trapped in a manufacturers' ecosystem, be it Krell, or AGD for fear of losing ACSS's speshalness. There's a lot of great stuff out there that doesn't use ACSS. I've heard the ACSS stuff. I wouldn't say it's necessarily better, I'd say it sounds different; similar in vein to feeding DACs up-sampled Redbook.
> 
> When a piece of equipment is so overwhelmingly superior, ACSS, speshal USB to i2s, silver wiring, magnetic rocks, mods with boutique parts, femto-clocks, EMI shielding - none that of that crap matters. Heck, if even is piece of equipment simply superior, none of that crap matters.


 
  
 As long as you realize that you're calling BS on the ACSS cable, but what you're really critiquing are the components the cable's connected to.


----------



## jacal01

chris j said:


> That theory applies to digital cables, i.e. very high freqeuncy transmission, i.e. MHz, GHz, not low frequency audio transmission, i.e. 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
> Signal reflection doesn't go away because we use current mode transmission.


 
  
 Intuitively, the destructive reflective wave signal should happen across all frequencies, and not just ultra high frequencies. For conception, visuallze a rock thrown in a pond... reflected waves degrading the propagating wave does not depend on the speed of propagation.
  
 Tho I may very well have been remiss in attempting to connect a media phenomenon (cable material, length, connectors) with an electrical properties issue (impedance change vs. signal fidelity), so that yes, wave reflection would also apply to current driven signal transmissions at cable mechanical interfaces/boundaries.  But one can also speculate for voltage driven signal transmission that, beyond the usual system voltage/impedance change distortion of the original transmitted signal argument, there may be an additional degradative electrical properties component at the impedance change interfaces, analogous to an electrical barrier causing propagation resistance and perhaps reflective voltage distortion as well.


----------



## Chris J

jacal01 said:


> Intuitively, the destructive reflective wave signal should happen across all frequencies, and not just ultra high frequencies. For conception, visuallze a rock thrown in a pond... reflected waves degrading the propagating wave does not depend on the speed of propagation.
> 
> Tho I may very well have been remiss in attempting to connect a media phenomenon (cable material, length, connectors) with an electrical properties issue (impedance change vs. signal fidelity), so that yes, wave reflection would also apply to current driven signal transmissions at cable mechanical interfaces/boundaries.  But one can also speculate for voltage driven signal transmission that, beyond the usual system voltage/impedance change distortion of the original transmitted signal argument, there may be an additional degradative electrical properties component at the impedance change interfaces, analogous to an electrical barrier causing propagation resistance and perhaps reflective voltage distortion as well.




Three things:
1. at audio frequencies the wavelengths are extremely long, far longer that the length of cables used in our systems.
2. at audio frequncies, the characteristic impedance of a cable increases as frequency decreases, at very high frequencies, cable impedance is constant and does not vary with frequency.
3. A 75 Ohm digital cable should use 75 Ohm connectors and be terminated by 75 Ohms at both ends, the transmitting and the receiving ends.


----------



## jacal01

As I understand it, the only true S/PDIF 75Ω connectors are BNC.


----------



## evillamer

As I was in the process of changing car(transfering sound system to new car), I just did some tweaks to my Pioneer DEH-80PRS Car CD Reciever (3 x Burr Brown PCM1793 + AK7732VT DSP). Applied 3M AB5100S EMI Shielding to the various chips.
  

  

  
  
 Still trying to find a Car receiver with USB input that has a true R2R DAC. I doubt it will be easy to find. Anyone have any knowledge on that?


----------



## estreeter

Does anyone know why the industry settled on the phono-style plug for digital coax over BNC connections ? I assume it was a simple question of aesthetics - the BNC connectors do look more like something you'd find at the back of an old monitor, but technically it's meant to be a superior connection. Anyone ?


----------



## evillamer

estreeter said:


> Does anyone know why the industry settled on the phono-style plug for digital coax over BNC connections ? I assume it was a simple question of aesthetics - the BNC connectors do look more like something you'd find at the back of an old monitor, but technically it's meant to be a superior connection. Anyone ?


 
  
 Parasound's Richard Schram prefer BNC over AES.
  


> Parasound's Richard Schram doesn't think much of the AES3 digital-on-balanced-cables standard, which he believes is the result of an engineering compromise in the early days of digital intended to allow European broadcasters to save money by using their installed base of balanced analog microphone cables as digital-audio cables. Schram states: "A connector carrying high frequencies must have mechanical dimensions that give it the same impedance as the impedance of the cable. The AES/EBU standard's XLR connector is simply wrong for digital audio, in all mechanical respects. The XLR was developed for analog audio, and frequencies lower than digital. When connector and cable impedances are mismatched, the result is reflections—echoes of the signal travel back and forth, corrupting the real signal. In digital audio this results in jitter, and ringing near the signal edges, which are the transitions between a 0 and a 1. The longer the cable and the higher the sampling rate, the worse the problem."


 
  
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/parasound-halo-cd-1-cd-player-0
  
 More info on impedance mismatch problems with digital cable(see post by napalm):
 http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=117507.0


----------



## estreeter

Yeah - i've read much the same from several designers, but the connector remains a rarity on audio gear - possibly not in the pro audio world, but here in 'audiophile land' that connector seems to be absent from a lot of gear, even at the top end of this crazy hobby.


----------



## purrin

jacal01 said:


> As long as you realize that you're calling BS on the ACSS cable, but what you're really critiquing are the components the cable's connected to.


 
  
 Never said ACSS was BS. Just said the effects of ACSS are insignificant in the larger scheme of things, along with speshal USB to i2s, silver wiring, magnetic rocks, mods with boutique parts, femto-clocks, EMI shielding, some of the stuff I use myself.


----------



## Chris J

jacal01 said:


> As I understand it, the only true S/PDIF 75Ω connectors are BNC.




Sounds correct.
I guess the consumer audio industry went with RCA SPDIF because it was cheaper?
Or more common?
Which really makes no sense.....HDMI connectors have caught on.


----------



## Sapientiam

Probably not only price but the cables (RCA to RCA) were already in existence for audio use. Video in the home also travels over the same connectors, the pros all use BNC.


----------



## conquerator2

How does BNC or Coax RCA compare to Optical Toslink?


----------



## hans030390

Gotta say I was pretty surprised initially at the Pavane's price. The Hex is questionably priced too, IMO, with the Octave hitting a sweet spot. Here's to hoping the tech trickles down to an midrange product.
  
 Based on early Yggy impressions, it seems it will occupy a different target sound area. Probably more aggressive and detailed than the Pavane, so they should hold their own purpose for those with different tastes. My early guess is the Pavane will retain the smooth Metrum nature and tone but have noticeably better resolution and detail than before. Still, the Yggy's price tag makes most other expensive DACs look, well, overpriced for what you're really getting regardless of sound.


----------



## jacal01

@purrin:
 As long as an audible preferential improvement can be detected, it counts in the audiophilia world.  What you're now discussing is 'bang for the buck', which as you know, is achieved primarily through circuit design/implementation, secondarily through component quality, and tertiarily through various signal upgrades such as conductor, clocking, power conditioning, cables, etc.
  
 @Chris J and Sapientiam:
 Unfortunately, BNC is not prevalent among US audio products.  We like our RCA and TRS connectors here, both historically and by manufacturer consensus.  I'd been trying to get micro BNC connectors advanced for portable product use (e.g. DAC/amp digital line out), but to so far limited success.
  
 Digital audio HDMI is mainly consigned to LVDS I2S (PSA std.), and altho that one has attained considerable traction (16 products at last count), it's still considered by some too niche/'boutique' to be widely adopted, especially for low end/margin and volume products, and one in particular (huh, purrin?).
  
 @Chris J:
 So if I understand correctly, audio digital cable (up to 5m) is all within a single cycle sinusoidal wavelength?  And harmonics?  If so, then audio range wave reflection phenomenon is present in neither voltage nor current mode cable connections.


----------



## Chris J

Makes sense.
Home video connections like the legacy composite video and component video formats really should have used BNC connectors.
But they are soooo 2005......


----------



## evillamer

With regards to EMI/DAC shielding and why it matters, check these articles out:
 https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/poor-mans-jitter-measurement/
 https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/more-jitter-measurement/
 https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/sabre32-unlocks-looking-for-gremlings/
 https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/sabre32-dac-unlocks-the-shielding-factor/
 https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/full-potential-of-buffalo-ii-at-last/


----------



## Stillhart

So I was doing some more testing with the NFB-15 (dual Wolfson DAC) vs the GO SE (Sabre DAC + Femto-unicorn-magic), this time with the HD650.  I noticed (again) that the NFB-15 is much more mid-forward while the GO sound more balanced.  But something new I noticed is a sort of... grainy character to the treble on the GO.  The NFB-15 felt smoooooth vs the grainy Sabre.  
  
 Is this the "Sabre sound" that Purrin complains about?


----------



## purrin

Yeah  One aspect of it, although I think LH has done a decent job of making SABRE listenable. I think there's a secret way to change the filters on the Pulse SE. You can get really different sound - I haven't decided on a favorite yet. It's more different sounding filters than one significantly better than the other.
  
 If you run a PC, try out JRiver MC20 to real-time convert PCM to DSD to feed the Geek Out. The GO DACs (along with a lot of Sabre stuff) seems to treat DSD better than PCM.


----------



## jexby

purrin said:


> Yeah  One aspect of it, although I think LH has done a decent job of making SABRE listenable. I think there's a secret way to change the filters on the Pulse SE. You can get really different sound - I haven't decided on a favorite yet. It's more different sounding filters than one significantly better than the other.
> 
> If you run a PC, try out JRiver MC20 to real-time convert PCM to DSD to feed the Geek Out. The GO DACs (along with a lot of Sabre stuff) seems to treat DSD better than PCM.


 
  
 1.  I'm interested in the upcoming LH "streaming filter" to see how it helps Spotify, Tidal etc.
  
 2.  agreed on the Jriver to DSD feed the GeekOut, been trying that for weeks now on Mac OS X, and enjoy the slightly "more natural"(?) sound as well as seeing the blue LED light always a glow.


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> Yeah  One aspect of it, although I think LH has done a decent job of making SABRE listenable. I think there's a secret way to change the filters on the Pulse SE. You can get really different sound - I haven't decided on a favorite yet. It's more different sounding filters than one significantly better than the other.
> 
> If you run a PC, try out JRiver MC20 to real-time convert PCM to DSD to feed the Geek Out. The GO DACs (along with a lot of Sabre stuff) seems to treat DSD better than PCM.


 
  
Any free options I can use for testing?  I've already used my free trial...
  
 Figured it out.  Sounds about the same TBH.  
  
 Interesting thing is that I can hear it really easily on the HD650 but not as much on the LCD-2 because the trebles are more recessed.  Of course once you start hearing it, it's hard to unhear... thanks a lot, @purrin!
  
 It's a shame there don't seem to be too many alternatives in the $1k or less range (new or used) that are a step up from what I have, and brighter, but don't use Sabre.  I feel like the Gungnir is about it...?


----------



## conquerator2

When I have it, I'll make sure to drop a word or two to say how I think it fares against my previous excellent Sabre implementation


----------



## Stillhart

Hey guys,
  
 Any thoughts on the Audio-GD DAC-19?  It uses the PCM1704UK chip, which I believe is R2R not Sigma-Delta.  It's not balanced, but it's R2R at a reasonable price.  It's an older unit and only supports 24/96, but that's all I need anyways.  
  
 Thx!


----------



## Clemmaster

In audio-gd's offering, everything in the mid class (Ref-5.32, SA-1.32 and DAC-19) is pretty dark sounding. The SA-2 and M7 is a departure from that sound.

So it's darkish and soft sounding, like the Ref-5.


----------



## Stillhart

clemmaster said:


> In audio-gd's offering, everything in the mid class (Ref-5.32, SA-1.32 and DAC-19) is pretty dark sounding. The SA-2 and M7 is a departure from that sound.
> 
> So it's darkish and soft sounding, like the Ref-5.


 
  
 By soft, do you mean the opposite of detailed?


----------



## Clemmaster

stillhart said:


> By soft, do you mean the opposite of detailed?



No, the opposite of impactful.


----------



## Sapientiam

Like DSD then.


----------



## motberg

I have an AudioGD NOS1704 - 4 pcs. of PCM1704UK... 24/96...
 The "impactful-ness" can be adjusted via AO settings or JPlay engines.
 I can get a pretty realistic kick drum type sound if desired, but my speakers I think trend to the bright side of things
  
 (greetings from XiaoShan...)


----------



## evillamer

Just wondering how does the MHDT Havana Balanced compares against the Audio-Gd Master 7. PCM56Px4(with Tube) vs PCM1704UKx8


----------



## ciphercomplete

I had a test run with a friend's Havana a few years back.  I didn't like it.  I thought both the Wyred 4 Sound Dac2 and the Monarchy NM24 were better and the M7 smokes both of those.  YMMV.


----------



## evillamer

Review on the Metrum Hex, reviewer seem to love it:


> While not cheap – costing a hefty $3500 USD – the Metrum Hex has transformed my digital listening experience. No longer do I have to avoid early 1980’s-1990’s albums for their overly “digital” sound. Instead, I can enjoy the full breadth of my music collection with the ease of mind knowing that I can simply sit back and let the music flow. The expansive sound stage has me amazed at just how much more detail there was in my recordings that my other DACs missed. Not to mention that the naturalness of the sound has left me completely satisfied. The solid, though utilitarian, construction has me impressed with my purchase. The sonics of the Hex, however, have me thoroughly delighted with my music.


 
  
 http://headphone.guru/metrum-acoustics-hex-dac/


----------



## MacedonianHero

evillamer said:


> Review on the Metrum Hex, reviewer seem to love it:
> 
> http://headphone.guru/metrum-acoustics-hex-dac/


 
  
 As I mentioned in the LCD-X thread, I did have the option to stick with my Bryston BDA-2, but after a weekend with the Hex, I knew that wasn't going to happen. Ah well, I guess its an occupational hazard?


----------



## magiccabbage

macedonianhero said:


> As I mentioned in the LCD-X thread, I did have the option to stick with my Bryston BDA-2, but after a weekend with the Hex, I knew that wasn't going to happen. Ah well, I guess its an occupational hazard?


 
 Yo Peter - Will you get a chance to compare the yggy when it comes out? I would appreciate the comparisons if it was possible for you. 
 Not that many people on headfi have the HEx


----------



## MacedonianHero

magiccabbage said:


> Yo Peter - Will you get a chance to compare the yggy when it comes out? I would appreciate the comparisons if it was possible for you.
> Not that many people on headfi have the HEx


 
  
 I would love to hear the Yggy...it is on my radar for sure.


----------



## Solrighal

This is a great thread but it's taking me ages to get through it. I'm looking to upgrade my DAC in the near future but in unsure of the options. My current setup is... 

Mac mini > JRiver 19 > ODAC > O2 > HD 650.

The O2 is being replaced with a Project Ember shortly and I'm curious as to what's possible DAC wise. It will need to be USB and preferably under £300.

Thanks in advance for any & all help.


----------



## Stillhart

solrighal said:


> This is a great thread but it's taking me ages to get through it. I'm looking to upgrade my DAC in the near future but in unsure of the options. My current setup is...
> 
> Mac mini > JRiver 19 > ODAC > O2 > HD 650.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well you know I was pretty happy with the NFB-15.32 and Project Ember with the HD650.  Not the most neutral sound but holy mids!  lol


----------



## Solrighal

stillhart said:


> Well you know I was pretty happy with the NFB-15.32 and Project Ember with the HD650.  Not the most neutral sound but holy mids!  lol


 
  
 Yeah mate, I know. That has an amp built-in though and I don't need one of those. Perhaps one of Audio-GD's stand-alone DAC's might do the job.


----------



## Stillhart

solrighal said:


> Yeah mate, I know. That has an amp built-in though and I don't need one of those. Perhaps one of Audio-GD's stand-alone DAC's might do the job.


 
  
 The nice thing about the NFB-15 and NFB-11 is that the DAC's (IMO) are worth the asking price alone.  The Amp is just bonus.  Or in other words, I think it's worth the price even if you just use the DAC section.  
  
 Then again, I got mine used for a lot cheaper than new so that probably affects the value proposition...


----------



## Sorrodje

solrighal said:


> This is a great thread but it's taking me ages to get through it. I'm looking to upgrade my DAC in the near future but in unsure of the options. My current setup is...
> 
> Mac mini > JRiver 19 > ODAC > O2 > HD 650.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Give a try to a Beresford Bushmaster mkII  .. Beresford proposes a Return policy if you're not satisfied with the purchase.  and it's far less than 300£ . it should make  a terrific combo with your ember and your HD650 .


----------



## Solrighal

sorrodje said:


> Give a try to a Beresford Bushmaster mkII  .. Beresford proposes a Return policy if you're not satisfied with the purchase.  and it's far less than 300£ . it should make  a terrific combo with your ember and your HD650 .




I've just had a look at the Beresford but it doesn't have a USB input. Thanks for the suggestion though.


----------



## Sorrodje

solrighal said:


> I've just had a look at the Beresford but it doesn't have a USB input. Thanks for the suggestion though.


 
  
 Oops Sorry. Caïman mkII then . A bit more expensive but better


----------



## Solrighal

thats one to think about I guess. I wonder why there are so few stand-alone DAC's out there. I can't find many for my budget. There's the Pro-jest models but I don't know anything about those as yet.


----------



## conquerator2

solrighal said:


> thats one to think about I guess. I wonder why there are so few stand-alone DAC's out there. I can't find many for my budget. There's the Pro-jest models but I don't know anything about those as yet.


 
 Audio-gd or Schiit I guess are the most common choices.


----------



## Solrighal

conquerator2 said:


> Audio-gd or Schiit I guess are the most common choices.


 
  
 Yeah, thanks. I guess I'll have to look at the Schiit Bifrost then. I'm just not sure if it's any better than the ODAC or if it is, whether I'll be able to hear the difference.


----------



## jexby

I'd be surprised if you couldn't hear some differences with the Bifrost Uber.
Then again- why not try the 15 day trial unless shipping and return fee is cost prohibitive?


----------



## Stillhart

jexby said:


> I'd be surprised if you couldn't hear some differences with the Bifrost Uber.
> Then again- why not try the 15 day trial unless shipping and return fee is cost prohibitive?


 
  
 Shipping and return fees at Schiit are pretty bonkers.  Better off buying a used one and reselling it IMO.


----------



## Solrighal

stillhart said:


> Shipping and return fees at Schiit are pretty bonkers.  Better off buying a used one and reselling it IMO.




There's always

http://electromod.co.uk/schiit-audio/


----------



## Solrighal

Scratch that. £410 for a Bifrost? No chance. I think I'll be sticking with my ODAC unless I find something second-hand.


----------



## Stillhart

solrighal said:


> Scratch that. £410 for a Bifrost? No chance. I think I'll be sticking with my ODAC unless I find something second-hand.


 
  
 I still think you shouldn't count out the Audio-GD just because it comes with an amp.  There's a reason they're considered one of the better values in the price range...
  
 But yeah, ODAC is supposed to be decent for the price too.


----------



## Solrighal

It's not that. I like a small form factor if possible because space is at a premium. I do like the value Audio-GD bring to the table. I'll need to look into it dome more. I'll keep you posted.


----------



## olegausany

solrighal said:


> It's not that. I like a small form factor if possible because space is at a premium. I do like the value Audio-GD bring to the table. I'll need to look into it dome more. I'll keep you posted.



You should consider Cambridge audio DacMagic plus, it's UK product and could be used vertically using provided stand to save space. I personally preferred its sound over Bifrost Uber


----------



## estreeter

solrighal said:


> thats one to think about I guess. I wonder why there are so few stand-alone DAC's out there. I can't find many for my budget. There's the Pro-jest models but I don't know anything about those as yet.


 
  
 So _few_ ? Maybe under a certain sticker, but by the time you get up around the 2500 USD mark things get very crowded. I have more expensive DACs than this but it makes a lot of sense with my laptop and its under 200USD - 
  
 http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/nano-idsd/
  
 Not a desktop product and probably not what we're discussing here, but still an option for those without a lot of money to spend, as is the Schiit _Modi/Magni_ combo per Purrin's recommendation. It's not that long ago here that the choice most faced when they wanted to get 'serious' about a DAC was either the Benchmark DAC1 or the Grace M902 - gear at the level of the MBL / dCS offerings was rarely discussed here. It's all relative, but I cant help thinking DACs are steadily taking over from amps as the electronic component Head-Fiers are most likely to obsess over.


----------



## Solrighal

olegausany said:


> You should consider Cambridge audio DacMagic plus, it's UK product and could be used vertically using provided stand to save space. I personally preferred its sound over Bifrost Uber


 
  
 That DAC is definitely on my radar, thanks. The only reason I'm hesitant is because I feel sure there will shortly be a  dual-DAC version like the 100+ (but without the amp section).
  


estreeter said:


> So _few_ ? Maybe under a certain sticker, but by the time you get up around the 2500 USD mark things get very crowded. I have more expensive DACs than this but it makes a lot of sense with my laptop and its under 200USD -
> 
> http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/nano-idsd/
> 
> Not a desktop product and probably not what we're discussing here, but still an option for those without a lot of money to spend, as is the Schiit _Modi/Magni_ combo per Purrin's recommendation. It's not that long ago here that the choice most faced when they wanted to get 'serious' about a DAC was either the Benchmark DAC1 or the Grace M902 - gear at the level of the MBL / dCS offerings was rarely discussed here. It's all relative, but I cant help thinking DACs are steadily taking over from amps as the electronic component Head-Fiers are most likely to obsess over.


 
  
 Yes, I did say few. Your post doesn't exactly contradict that either. I already own the ODAC so one of the lower Schiit models isn't likely to up the ante much.


----------



## Anda

solrighal said:


> thats one to think about I guess. I wonder why there are so few stand-alone DAC's out there. I can't find many for my budget. There's the Pro-jest models but I don't know anything about those as yet.


 
  
 You could have a look at the Gustard offerings:

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/kidultonline/GUSTARD-/_i.html?_fsub=858846819


----------



## Hansotek

solrighal said:


> Yes, I did say few. Your post doesn't exactly contradict that either. I already own the ODAC so one of the lower Schiit models isn't likely to up the ante much.




This may not suit your fancy, but it seems worth mentioning that the Schiit Wyrd provides a pretty significant upgrade to the ODAC. It makes ODAC significantly cleaner and tighter.


----------



## Solrighal

anda said:


> You could have a look at the Gustard offerings:
> 
> http://stores.ebay.co.uk/kidultonline/GUSTARD-/_i.html?_fsub=858846819




I'll check those out when I get home, thanks. 




hansotek said:


> This may not suit your fancy, but it seems worth mentioning that the Schiit Wyrd provides a pretty significant upgrade to the ODAC. It makes ODAC significantly cleaner and tighter.




Are you speaking from experience? It certainly is something to consider & it's an angle I hadn't thought of. Thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## Hansotek

solrighal said:


> hansotek said:
> 
> 
> > This may not suit your fancy, but it seems worth mentioning that the Schiit Wyrd provides a pretty significant upgrade to the ODAC. It makes ODAC significantly cleaner and tighter.
> ...


 
 Yep. I've had it for about two weeks now. Running Macbook Pro > Wyrd > ODAC > Lyr > HE500. The difference is pretty noticeable. The background is blacker and the punch and decay becomes very clean and exacting. Notes that used to be just "walls of sound" now seem to have a well defined top and bottom. On some songs (not all) the imaging becomes much cleaner and well defined within the soundstage. The effects aren't huge, but they are noticeable.
  
 It should be noted, there seems to be a burn-in period of a day or two with this thing. My guess is that it is 80% brain burn-in and 20% the DAC getting used to receiving 3x the power. It was kinda harsh for the first two days and then the bass disappeared for a couple hours, but by day 3, all was normal. I noticed at least one user had an identical "burn-in" experience with his USB DAC in the Wyrd thread. I only mention it because the burn-in was so unexpected.


----------



## conquerator2

solrighal said:


> Scratch that. £410 for a Bifrost? No chance. I think I'll be sticking with my ODAC unless I find something second-hand.


 
 Are you aware of www.schiit-europe.com?


----------



## evillamer

this looks kinda interesting, seems much better than EMU or Focusrite.
  
 Audio interface with 24bit 192Khz DA/AD converters, rca word clock in/out, rca spdif in/out, round trip latency 3ms, plenty of analog I/O.
  
 $599 Q2/2015
  
 http://www.arturia.com/audiofuse/overview
  
 claimed 129db input SNR:
 http://www.arturia.com/audiofuse/discretepro®


----------



## Solrighal

hansotek said:


> Yep. I've had it for about two weeks now. Running Macbook Pro > Wyrd > ODAC > Lyr > HE500. The difference is pretty noticeable. The background is blacker and the punch and decay becomes very clean and exacting. Notes that used to be just "walls of sound" now seem to have a well defined top and bottom. On some songs (not all) the imaging becomes much cleaner and well defined within the soundstage. The effects aren't huge, but they are noticeable.
> 
> It should be noted, there seems to be a burn-in period of a day or two with this thing. My guess is that it is 80% brain burn-in and 20% the DAC getting used to receiving 3x the power. It was kinda harsh for the first two days and then the bass disappeared for a couple hours, but by day 3, all was normal. I noticed at least one user had an identical "burn-in" experience with his USB DAC in the Wyrd thread. I only mention it because the burn-in was so unexpected.




Thanks mate, that's got me thinking now. I'll look into it more. 



conquerator2 said:


> Are you aware of www.schiit-europe.com?




No I wasn't but I do now. Thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## cdnpaul33

I'm currently wondering whether it makes sense to get a Sonic Frontiers SFD-2 mk2 w/ SE Plus upgrades or the Schiit Yggdrasil. It sounds like the SFD w/ the SE Plus upgrades might give the Yggdrasil a run for the money.


----------



## Stillhart

cdnpaul33 said:


> I'm currently wondering whether it makes sense to get a Sonic Frontiers SFD-2 mk2 w/ SE Plus upgrades or the Schiit Yggdrasil. It sounds like the SFD w/ the SE Plus upgrades might give the Yggdrasil a run for the money.


 
  
 Based on that article, it sounds like a pretty darned good DAC if you can get your hands on one.  That said... it doesn't seem like something that's readily available.


----------



## cdnpaul33

stillhart said:


> Based on that article, it sounds like a pretty darned good DAC if you can get your hands on one.  That said... it doesn't seem like something that's readily available.


 

 I think it would take some hunting to get one and then I'd need to send it in for the upgrades. I'm definitely leaning towards the Yggdrasil though since I already have the Ragnarok.


----------



## Stillhart

Do we even know when the Yggdrasil is going to be available yet?  Is it safe to assume there will be one at CanJam?


----------



## blitzxgene

cdnpaul33 said:


> I'm currently wondering whether it makes sense to get a Sonic Frontiers SFD-2 mk2 w/ SE Plus upgrades or the Schiit Yggdrasil. It sounds like the SFD w/ the SE Plus upgrades might give the Yggdrasil a run for the money.




Purrin stated in another location that he might keep his sdf-2 mk2 w/ upgrades to contrast the yggy's ultra resolving nature for certain recordings, but that the yggy bests it in many ways. Interpret that however you wish.


----------



## estreeter

stillhart said:


> Do we even know when the Yggdrasil is going to be available yet?  Is it safe to assume there will be one at CanJam?


 
  
 9 days into Q2 is April 9 on my calendar - no idea what the initial backlog will be like though. I've said it before, but *a pre-order thread* (even unofficial) might have helped Schiit get some idea of the demand for Yggy - even if they completely ignored the list and offered no discounts for early adopters. Keystrokes are a lot cheaper than a 2300 dollar DAC, but thus far the hype train seems to have completely bulldozed initial opposition to the proposed sticker price. 500 or so names in a pre-order thread might give Jason and Mike heart palpitations (and their accountant two tickets to Brazil), but Head-fi is still just one corner of the DAC market - interesting times ahead.


----------



## estreeter

Put my keystrokes where my mouth is - dont know how long it will stay there, but felt I should give it a shot anyway.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/752962/schiit-yggdrasil-unofficial-pre-orders
  
 Bring it


----------



## Chris J

solrighal said:


> I've just had a look at the Beresford but it doesn't have a USB input. Thanks for the suggestion though.




Try the Beresford Caiman Mk II, it has one USB input.
A very fine sounding DAC for the money.


----------



## Solrighal

I've actually had the offer of a V-DAC 2 for £50 and I think I'm going to go for that. Thanks for the suggestion though.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

For those interested in black Bifrosts or B-stock silver Bifrosts, Schiit has them listed for sale here.


----------



## evillamer

Has anyone hear or tried out this DAC? It seems like a rare species of R2R, you don't find much AD1865 dacs around nowadays.
  
 http://www.mojo-audio.com/mystique-nos-ad1865n-k-dac/
  
*237,000uf of capacitance and 7X Belleson regulators​*


----------



## Sapientiam

I find this line amongst their various bullet points amusing :
  
_Laboratory grade filtered IEC plus multi-stage AC filtering that is extremely tolerant of line noise_
  
 For myself I'd rather my AC filtering kicked line noise firmly and resolutely into touch, not demonstrated forbearance....


----------



## smitty1110

sapientiam said:


> I find this line amongst their various bullet points amusing :
> 
> _Laboratory grade filtered IEC plus multi-stage AC filtering that is extremely tolerant of line noise_
> 
> For myself I'd rather my AC filtering kicked line noise firmly and resolutely into touch, not demonstrated forbearance....


 

 There seems to be a number of strange design decisions here, but I'll reserve judgement on it. Nothing on the page suggests it will be garbage.


----------



## lamode

purrin said:


> Just to get 12-14 effective bits at best, even with 0.01% resistors. Software trimming could help with accuracy I guess.


 
  
 It is a sign magnitude design so the least significant bits are very accurate and there is very little distortion at low levels. The accuracy of the MSB only comes into play when the signal exceeds -6dB and even then in the worst case scenario, the deviation is about 1.6 bits from the MSB (in 16 bit DAC). More likely it will be 1 bit or less. But the total deviation will be the total of each individual switched R at any time, so it will vary for each of the 65,536 values. I haven't seen the circuit so I don't know if the designer used any tricks to push this noise down further.
  
 What matters to me is how it sounds. People have just started to receive their boards so I hope reviews will soon trickle in.


----------



## magiccabbage

Hi guys - I am planning on building a dedicated audio PC but. I was intending on using Jplay for file playback and interface. Does anyone know *(maybe Purrin or Zorrofox) *if the yggy is compatible with jplay via Audio PC? I know the loki uses C media drivers and isnt compatible with J play. 
  
 I found this info on other forums - about C media....... Don't actually know that much about PC's so take that into account please. 
 The reason I am thinking of building a dedicated Audio PC is because I heard one recently and it blew me away - was way better than
 the SACD and record players I had heard and for a fraction of the price. I was very impressed indeed.


----------



## Solrighal

I had to Google JPlay because I've never heard of it. Now that I've read about it I can't see the point to be honest. Other than that I can't really help since I'm on OS X. 

Good luck.


----------



## smitty1110

solrighal said:


> I had to Google JPlay because I've never heard of it. Now that I've read about it I can't see the point to be honest. Other than that I can't really help since I'm on OS X.
> 
> Good luck.


 
 All this appears to do is give you another level of buffering, which your normal media player does anyway. I'm not buying the hype on their review page.


----------



## estreeter

The bitter campaign run by JRiver against JPlay told me I didnt need to go there, but I couldnt even put my hand on my heart and tell you that my Windows 2012 installation running Audiophile Optimizer - software I shelled out a reasonable amount of money for - is all that some here would have you believe, even in its most stripped down mode. There is a hardcore element at Computer Audiophile who spend far more time playing with every software and hardware tweak they can find than they do actually listening to music or exploring new music - its an easy enough trap to fall into, but there's a point where you can seriously compromise the utility of whatever computer you're working on. Anyhow, this is JRiver's take on JPLAY - aomething they conveniently fail to mention is that archimago found no major differences between any of the playback software he tested, either in terms of his measurements or subjectively. Personally, I like what the Bitperfect app does for iTunes - largely because it sits in the background and does its job without requiring you to deal with wonky metadata and album art issues. I own Decibel, JRMC 19 and I trialled the current version of Audirvana briefly - difficult to say how much of this is placebo, but given that most offer a free trail period I think you should give each of them a shot. 
  
 http://www.jriver.com/jplay.html
  
 Note that archimago appears to have written this back in June 2013 - in software terms, that could easily be several versions ago. I'd suggest you download each of the current trial editions and give them a shot. 
  
 http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/06/measurements-part-i-bit-perfect.html


----------



## olegausany

Last night I downloaded and tried JPlay with HA-1 as dac and CSP3 amp and heard no noticeable improvement with the only settings I was able to get sound with.


----------



## Stillhart

This conversation reminds me of a quote from my favorite movie of all time:
  
  

  
 (Says the guy who still uses Winamp!)


----------



## smitty1110

This seems like one of those instances of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".


----------



## olegausany

smitty1110 said:


> This seems like one of those instances of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".



I'm still using a fix but different and less known and popular


----------



## purrin

magiccabbage said:


> Hi guys - I am planning on building a dedicated audio PC but. I was intending on using Jplay for file playback and interface. Does anyone know *(maybe Purrin or Zorrofox) *if the yggy is compatible with jplay via Audio PC? I know the loki uses C media drivers and isnt compatible with J play.
> 
> I found this info on other forums - about C media....... Don't actually know that much about PC's so take that into account please.
> The reason I am thinking of building a dedicated Audio PC is because I heard one recently and it blew me away - was way better than
> the SACD and record players I had heard and for a fraction of the price. I was very impressed indeed.


 
  
 JPLAY should work. I've used it before with JRiver MC. It didn't do anything, but my playback PC has been "hardened" with a lot of services disabled.


----------



## purrin

cdnpaul33 said:


> I'm currently wondering whether it makes sense to get a Sonic Frontiers SFD-2 mk2 w/ SE Plus upgrades or the Schiit Yggdrasil. It sounds like the SFD w/ the SE Plus upgrades might give the Yggdrasil a run for the money.


 
  
 Depends upon what you are looking for. The Ultraanalog modules do have a certain sound, SF-D output caps and tubes can be rolled to produce slightly different sonics. Yggy is way cleaner sounding, more precise, and more resolving - on another level - yet not analytical either - still maintains the "R2R" sound. Get both.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> JPLAY should work. I've used it before with JRiver MC. It didn't do anything, but my playback PC has been "hardened" with a lot of services disabled.


 
 I'll double check when yggy comes out. Have you have built a dedicated audio PC yourself Purrin? Maybe you could point me to a thread? Anything on here?


----------



## zerodeefex

I think you mean me, not ZorroFox (I'm the one who wrote the yggy preview).

Didn't use JPlay. Only JRiver MC20, Audirvana+, and HQPlayer. JPlay, windows 2012 with Audiophile Optimizer, and Fidelizer produce no noticeable improvements for me in my system over a heavily optimized windows 7 or 8.1 instance.


----------



## purrin

magiccabbage said:


> I'll double check when yggy comes out. Have you have built a dedicated audio PC yourself Purrin? Maybe you could point me to a thread? Anything on here?


 
  
 Tell you what, I'll drop by Schiit's HQ sometime and try it out. Just type in Windows hardening or disabling Windows services in Google. Disable all unnecessary devices in hardware manager, etc. I should write up a guide.
  
 But really, you are better off spending the money that would otherwise go to JPLAY on rare Mobility Fidelity CDs using the GAIN system (not GAIN2, not the Meitner A-D converts) or any of the DCC Gold discs. JPLAY isn't going to help a crappy A-D or mastering process. Yggy shines with good recordings.


----------



## magiccabbage

zerodeefex said:


> I think you mean me, not ZorroFox (I'm the one who wrote the yggy preview).
> 
> Didn't use JPlay. Only JRiver MC20, Audirvana+, and HQPlayer. JPlay, windows 2012 with Audiophile Optimizer, and Fidelizer produce no noticeable improvements for me in my system over a heavily optimized windows 7 or 8.1 instance.


 
 Sorry I did mean you yes. 
 Maybe you could answer this question so ¬
  
 So with the dedicated audio PC - I don't wanna use a monitor because I wanna have it all in the rack - where it would slide under the DAC. So, my question is this - Do you know if it is possible to use a smart phone or Ipad to access the files in the PC. Ipods and smart phones don't have optical or USB so would I have to use wifi? Would that not interfere with everything?
  
 Is there another way around this - i really dont want to use a monitor


----------



## blitzxgene

magiccabbage said:


> Sorry I did mean you yes.
> Maybe you could answer this question so ¬
> 
> So with the dedicated audio PC - I don't wanna use a monitor because I wanna have it all in the rack - where it would slide under the DAC. So, my question is this - Do you know if it is possible to use a smart phone or Ipad to access the files in the PC. Ipods and smart phones don't have optical or USB so would I have to use wifi? Would that not interfere with everything?
> ...




Jriver has an app called gizmo on android and apple devices. Works well from my experiences with it on a galaxy s4. I'm not sure for other players though.


----------



## Tuco1965

Gizmo is for Android and is free.  It works well on both my Galaxy S3 and Note 4.  JRemote is for IOS and is a paid app.  It works very well on my iPad Air.


----------



## magiccabbage

tuco1965 said:


> Gizmo is for Android and is free.  It works well on both my Galaxy S3 and Note 4.  JRemote is for IOS and is a paid app.  It works very well on my iPad Air.


 
  


blitzxgene said:


> Jriver has an app called gizmo on android and apple devices. Works well from my experiences with it on a galaxy s4. I'm not sure for other players though.


 
 deadly - great news for me so. Thanks guys


----------



## Priidik

magiccabbage said:


> Hi guys - I am planning on building a dedicated audio PC but. I was intending on using Jplay for file playback and interface. Does anyone know *(maybe Purrin or Zorrofox) *if the yggy is compatible with jplay via Audio PC? I know the loki uses C media drivers and isnt compatible with J play.


 
 Just use Daphile or similar linux distro, at least as good sonically, but less hassle. You do need to control it from another device in the same network.
 For reviewing purposes Daphile lets you pug in and play back any number (nr of usb ports) of dacs, in synchro.


----------



## Solrighal

If you have the option I'd take JRemote over Gizmo any day of the week.

*edit* If you're dead set on going headless you should take a look at the Mac mini.


----------



## magiccabbage

solrighal said:


> If you have the option I'd take JRemote over Gizmo any day of the week.
> 
> *edit* If you're dead set on going headless you should take a look at the Mac mini.


 
 I will do that now
  
 edit
  
 I actually don't want that - sure its the same as a laptop. 
 I want something that doesn't need a desk. 
  
 Am I derailing the thread here - sorry guys


----------



## bfreedma

magiccabbage said:


> zerodeefex said:
> 
> 
> > I think you mean me, not ZorroFox (I'm the one who wrote the yggy preview).
> ...




Check out Splashtop as an iPad based remote access tool for Windows via local wifi or the Internet. I use it for monitor/mouse/keyboard access for my music server and the audio steaming PC. Like you, I keep my audio streaming PC in a rack and didn't want a monitor.


----------



## magiccabbage

bfreedma said:


> Check out Splashtop as an iPad based remote access tool for Windows via local wifi or the Internet. I use it for monitor/mouse/keyboard access for my music server and the audio steaming PC. Like you, I keep my audio streaming PC in a rack and didn't want a monitor.


 
 Good stuff sir - we are on to a winner now. 
 You ever get interference with the wifi ?


----------



## Solrighal

My Mac mini is in a rack. I can't remember the last time I touched it. Or even looked at it for that matter. Anyway, it's your choice. I just wanted to show you another option.


----------



## magiccabbage

solrighal said:


> My Mac mini is in a rack. I can't remember the last time I touched it. Or even looked at it for that matter. Anyway, it's your choice. I just wanted to show you another option.


 
 cool thanks - you got any pics of the rack lying around that i could look at?


----------



## bfreedma

magiccabbage said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > Check out Splashtop as an iPad based remote access tool for Windows via local wifi or the Internet. I use it for monitor/mouse/keyboard access for my music server and the audio steaming PC. Like you, I keep my audio streaming PC in a rack and didn't want a monitor.
> ...




Glad to help. No issues with wifi interference - I use an external USB wifi adapter/antenna with a 10' cable to keep some distance between it and the audio gear.

If you want to try a really straight forward, low/no cost configuration, Foobar2000 with the MonkeyMote plug in and iPad application is worth a look. No claims that its better than Jriver but I thought it was easier to get up and running. If you're interested, let me know and I'll PM you more info on setup and configuration.


----------



## ciphercomplete

I use EOS and it is leagues better than Gizmo and worth the small cost. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lenworthrose.eos&hl=en
  
 I have never use JRemote since I don't own a Ipad but a comparison between EOS and JRemote would be interesting.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> Tell you what, I'll drop by Schiit's HQ sometime and try it out. Just type in Windows hardening or disabling Windows services in Google. Disable all unnecessary devices in hardware manager, etc. I should write up a guide.
> 
> But really, you are better off spending the money that would otherwise go to JPLAY on rare Mobility Fidelity CDs using the GAIN system (not GAIN2, not the Meitner A-D converts) or any of the DCC Gold discs. JPLAY isn't going to help a crappy A-D or mastering process. Yggy shines with good recordings.


 
  
 No idea just how good this DCC remaster actually is, but this album has been part of my collection since it was released in the late 70s and this is the first time I've felt the need to buy another CD version.
  
 http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/van_halen/van_halen_f7/
  
 As over the top as that guy's review is, it reminds me of the way I felt the first time I heard the vinyl back in the day - 19 years old, wandering around university with no particular ambition in life and trying to come to grips with being a metal/hard rock fanatic in a world dominated by disco and saccharine pap like ABBA. I dont think the band ever regained the in-your-face excess of that first album but it's still a mind blower over 30 years later. 
  
 Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## Solrighal

ABBA Rocks!


----------



## fzman

solrighal said:


> ABBA Rocks!


 
  
 yes, on the front porch,with a quilt over its legs


----------



## estreeter

fzman said:


> yes, on the front porch,with a quilt over its legs


 
  
  
 I'll pay that, even if Benny and Bjorn have made an absolute bundle out of a generation's nostalgia for music that was never more than catchy pop at best : nostalgia just aint what it used to be, but its all good as long as the Boss can still climb up on a stage and punch out a set.


----------



## drez

Good thing with not hearing a difference with JPlay is you save money.  But personally even the difference I hear with JPlay is not clearly better, in fact I think last time I tested it I found the sound a little diffuse/ethereal and slightly coloured.  I should probably test again one of these days.
  
 WS2012 with AO is probably a safer bet, but even then I found some of the settings seemed to add coloration, and in the case of "filter" and "sound signature" settings I reverted to the standard Windows settings.  The software is still pretty useful and offers a host of settings that can be tested, and convenient way of applying tweaks.
  
 Could be that some are using DAC and transports that offer better jitter rejection and noise isolation from the computer and therefore hear less of difference with these softwares.


----------



## Articnoise

drez said:


> Good thing with not hearing a difference with JPlay is you save money.  But personally even the difference I hear with JPlay is not clearly better, in fact I think last time I tested it I found the sound a little diffuse/ethereal and slightly coloured.  I should probably test again one of these days.
> 
> WS2012 with AO is probably a safer bet, but even then I found some of the settings seemed to add coloration, and in the case of "filter" and "sound signature" settings I reverted to the standard Windows settings.  The software is still pretty useful and offers a host of settings that can be tested, and convenient way of applying tweaks.
> 
> Could be that some are using DAC and transports that offer better jitter rejection and noise isolation from the computer and therefore hear less of difference with these softwares.


 

 I prefer Jriver and agree with drez that JPlay sound a bit diffuse and colored. Both sounds way better than Foobar, which I find to sounds artificial and thin. JCAT, JPlay’s hardware gears I like.


----------



## hans030390

purrin said:


> Just type in Windows hardening or disabling Windows services in Google. Disable all unnecessary devices in hardware manager, etc. I should write up a guide.


 
  
 I've done some of this myself, but I do agree that you should write up a guide. I think it would be beneficial to a lot of folks that might not have much experience in this area.


----------



## drez

articnoise said:


> I prefer Jriver and agree with drez that JPlay sound a bit diffuse and colored. Both sounds way better than Foobar, which I find to sounds artificial and thin. JCAT, JPlay’s hardware gears I like.


 
  
 I agree on all counts, Foobar does sound a bit artificial and less like music (less revealing of musical detail), and JCAT make some amazing computer hardware and cables although personally I use WW Platinum for digital cables.


----------



## conquerator2

Well, based on Purrin's review I've sold my NFB-7 and bought the Gungnir. Now, it seems like I did right. I don't mind the loss in plankton because of the immense musicality and body my tracks have gained!
 Kudos for that... Really glad I followed it


----------



## Stillhart

conquerator2 said:


> Well, based on Purrin's review I've sold my NFB-7 and bought the Gungnir. Now, it seems like I did right. I don't mind the loss in plankton because of the immense musicality and body my tracks have gained!
> Kudos for that... Really glad I followed it


 
  
 Care to elaborate?


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> Care to elaborate?


 
 Well, The NFB-7 [ES9018] was a detail monster, right. It revealed every detail, every nuance, every imperfection. Everything. Huge soundstage. But to my ears, it was devoid of musicality or emotion. I found the bass too tight [nice extension but a lack of body, or 'differentiation pitch' as Purrin puts it] and the treble was an issue with tracks where mastering was not stellar [even with the Gung it isn't perfect obviously, but far more tolerable. It does not shine a spotlight on it!]... I think calling it robotically perfect is a good description [again, courtesy of Purrin]. It sounds precise and accurate no doubt, but without the 'soul' that makes it enjoyable [for me]. Perfect masterings sounded great though but these are the minority of my collection so I can care less. It was just too perfect and too demanding.
 Anyway, I dunno. Might just be me. I like neutral headphones so perhaps the Sabre is just not a good match. Still, I wanted to try Sabre and I guess I am glad I did. I liked the things it did well but the sacrifice in musicality was just too big for me.
 I find the Gungnir a bit similar to the Wolfson but not as lush and warm, similarly musical but certainly closer to it than to the Sabre.
 One thing's for sure - the NFB-7 and Gungnir can't sound more different than they do


----------



## Stillhart

conquerator2 said:


> Well, The NFB-7 [ES9018] was a detail monster, right. It revealed every detail, every nuance, every imperfection. Everything. Huge soundstage. But to my ears, it was devoid of musicality or emotion. I found the bass too tight [nice extension but a lack of body, or 'differentiation pitch' as Purrin puts it] and the treble was an issue with tracks where mastering was not stellar [even with the Gung it isn't perfect obviously, but far more tolerable. It does not shine a spotlight on it!]... I think calling it robotically perfect is a good description [again, courtesy of Purrin]. It sounds precise and accurate no doubt, but without the 'soul' that makes it enjoyable [for me]. Perfect masterings sounded great though but these are the minority of my collection so I can care less. It was just too perfect and too demanding.
> Anyway, I dunno. Might just be me. I like neutral headphones so perhaps the Sabre is just not a good match. Still, I wanted to try Sabre and I guess I am glad I did. I liked the things it did well but the sacrifice in musicality was just too big for me.
> I find the Gungnir a bit similar to the Wolfson but not as lush and warm, similarly musical but certainly closer to it than to the Sabre.
> One thing's for sure - the NFB-7 and Gungnir can't sound more different than they do


 
  
 You're listening mainly with HE-560, right?  I know they can be a little analytical so maybe the musical pairing with the Gungnir is just a better synergy.  I know my LCD-2 is pretty warm so something brighter like the Sabre might suit them better.
  
 I'll be interested to hear more impressions from you later.  Glad you like it.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 (You using a balanced amp?  I don't recall)


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> You're listening mainly with HE-560, right?  I know they can be a little analytical so maybe the musical pairing with the Gungnir is just a better synergy.  I know my LCD-2 is pretty warm so something brighter like the Sabre might suit them better.
> 
> I'll be interested to hear more impressions from you later.  Glad you like it.
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, the HE-560 plays a part in it for sure 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Nope, still the single-ended SA31SE. I love that amp. Not balanced connections but still great sound  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Anyway, yeah I'd expect the LCD-2 to do better with Sabre DACs, how much better and if is to your liking remains to be seen 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 And thanks! Good luck. Let me know your next move


----------



## drez

IMO sabre gains in musical detail as you improve the DAC, input signal etc. but still retains the clean transients.  You get less smoothing and more body/impact.  NFB-7.32 is a very simple implementation of the Sabre 9018 as far as the digital side goes, so is very sensitive the quality of signal being fed into it.  It also appears sensitive to the AC power quality.  Getting a Sabre DAC to sound musical is not easy...  It might be easier to make other DAC's sound as clean as SABRE, but not many seem to go down this path.


----------



## conquerator2

^ I agree. The Yulong D18 seems that way. I also think using the VIA 'USB32' chip was a bad idea. It is noticeably brighter by itself than the Cmedia/XMOS implementations. Coupled with the NFB-7m I wouldn't consider it a lucky match.Anyway, it is a pitty then that it is so hard to get the Sabre to sound good musically. The Yulong and Matrix would have been better choices for me I guess.
 I agree that the NFB-7 was very dynamic sounding, but ultimately too harsh for lack of a better word, in the treble. And the bass presentation is not a good fit with neutral headphones IMO.
 Warmer headphones should fare better.
 There were certainly times when I loved it but those were unfortunately outshined,


----------



## jodgey4

I wonder what DAC chip is most used in studio gear for production... if it was a 'typical Sabre' implementation, I wonder if so many people would really find it sterile anymore.


----------



## evillamer

AK4399, CS4398, PCM1794, ES9018, WM8742
  
 All these sigma delta dacs lacked the soul and enjoyment of a good R2R dac. That's my opinion.
  
 Sigma Delta = mass production cake, bland and texture-less
 R2R = Grandma's hand made crummy cheese cake, yummy, full of texture


----------



## drez

I tried an R2R PCM1704UK DAC probably for about a year and didn't really like it.  These days if I want that sound I can emulate this by using one of my soft sounding headphone cables (less extension, warmer, more body, less harsh, richer tonality - all there)


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> AK4399, CS4398, PCM1794, ES9018, WM8742
> 
> All these sigma delta dacs lacked the soul and enjoyment of a good R2R dac. That's my opinion.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't think anyone is arguing that R2R doesn't sound better.  But not everyone is in the position to be able to audition one, much less own one.
  
 In other words, my grandmas have both passed-on and I can't afford an R2R DAC.


----------



## lamode

conquerator2 said:


> Well, The NFB-7 [ES9018] was a detail monster, right.


 
  
 The problem with comparing one DA chip on one system with another DA chip on another system is that there are so many other variables. Until you build two DAC/amps which vary only by the DA chip they use, you can never be sure what contributed what to the overall sound. Or to put it another way, there are many DAC/amps which sound different to each other even though they use the same DA chip.


----------



## Clemmaster

I enjoyed (a lot!) my NFB-27 with the USB firmware #3 only. It was definitely different than anything release after that. #4,5 ... sounded essentially the same and brighter/leaner than #3. Go figure...
  
 The SA-31 helped bringing some musicality to the setup, too. Heck, I'm still enjoying this amp tremendously with a Ragnarok sitting next to it (I haven't used it in a while). Definitely great with any Hifiman headphones other than HE-6. The Oppo PM-2 is great, too.


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > AK4399, CS4398, PCM1794, ES9018, WM8742
> ...


 
  
 Guess this is the most afforable new R2R dac(non-diy) you can get. USD$854 +  USD$45 for shipping(con. us)
 http://dhost.info/mhdtlab/havana.htm


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> Guess this is the most afforable new R2R dac(non-diy) you can get. USD$854 +  USD$45 for shipping(con. us)
> http://dhost.info/mhdtlab/havana.htm



Thanks for that! That's a pretty good price for sure. And good looking! I suppose balanced costs a good chunk more.

Are there any good diy ones you can suggest?


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Guess this is the most afforable new R2R dac(non-diy) you can get. USD$854 +  USD$45 for shipping(con. us)
> ...


 
  
 These are even cheaper, but not sure about sound quality, best to do some research:
 http://www.shenzhenaudio.com/teradak-v2-6d-dac-philips-tda1543-nos-dac-26d-24bit-96khz-decoder.html
   
http://www.amazon.com/Project-Audio-DAC-Filterless-Black/dp/B007FCMEOG


----------



## lamode

stillhart said:


> Are there any good diy ones you can suggest?


 
  
 Definitely worth checking out: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendors-bazaar/259488-reference-dac-module-discrete-r-2r-sign-magnitude-24-bit-384-khz.html


----------



## Baldr

Back in the Theta days, the PCM1704 was the last of the Burr-Brown, designed for audio multibit DACs to appear.  I remember waiting with the expectation that this would be indeed a new improvement not only in specs but in sound on the PCM56-PCM58-PCM61-PCM63 evolution chain that I had been working with for the last several years. 
  
 Was I surprised when I realized, after I'd built a proto, that the PCM1704 sounded like ass compared to its evolutionary ancestors.  When I worked with Burr-Brown engineers back in the days before the TI acquisition, they genuinely gave a schiit about audio as reproducing good sound.  After the acquisition, they became much less accessible in a larger TI corporate world. 
  
 A recent factory stock check at TI revealed that there are perhaps 200-300 remaining PCM1704s, which means there can only be another 100 to 200 DACs built with this spectacularly insipid DAC.  The audio world can therefore be grateful.


----------



## estreeter

baldr said:


> Back in the Theta days, the PCM1704 was the last of the Burr-Brown, designed for audio multibit DACs to appear.  I remember waiting with the expectation that this would be indeed a new improvement not only in specs but in sound on the PCM56-PCM58-PCM61-PCM63 evolution chain that I had been working with for the last several years.
> 
> Was I surprised when I realized, after I'd built a proto, that the PCM1704 sounded like ass compared to its evolutionary ancestors.  When I worked with Burr-Brown engineers back in the days before the TI acquisition, they genuinely gave a schiit about audio as reproducing good sound.  After the acquisition, they became much less accessible in a larger TI corporate world.
> 
> A recent factory stock check at TI revealed that there are perhaps 200-300 remaining PCM1704s, which means there can only be another 100 to 200 DACs built with this spectacularly insipid DAC.  The audio world can therefore be grateful.


 
  
 Thanks for that insight, Mike - it's interesting that many manufacturers make a big deal of *anything* containing a Burr-Brown chip regardless of the topology. I'm happy with my Marantz SACD player (SA-14S1) but their marketing guys lay it on a little thick when you realise what the B-B chip would have cost them in quantity. I guess its easier to sell part numbers than implementation - cant blame them for repurposing an SACD player into a DSD DAC, though. Buzzwords sell. 
  
*Premium Converter Chip Enhances Dynamic Range and Clarity*
 New for the SA-11S3 is the inclusion of the top-line Burr-Brown DSD1792A D/A converter chip, which features both PCM and DSD decoding, and provides a high current output that is substantially larger (7X more) than the DAC chip used in previous models, for greater dynamic range and improved signal to noise characteristics. Coupled to the Marantz-designed latest generation PEC777f3 24 bit DSP processor/digital filter, the combination provides unparalleled sound quality from both PCM (CD, LPCM, WAV) sources and Super Audio CD DSD bitstreams. With multi-channel SACDs, the SA-11S3 also provides stereo (2 channel) down-mixing.
  
*Proprietary Digital Filters* 
SA-11S3 even includes Marantz's proprietary switchable noise-shaping digital filters that fine-tune the musical presentation to your specific tastes. This is the ultimate analog lover's digital player. Whether playing high-resolution SACDs or standard CDs, the performance is simply unrivaled!


----------



## OJNeg

evillamer said:


> AK4399, CS4398, PCM1794, ES9018, WM8742
> 
> All these sigma delta dacs lacked the soul and enjoyment of a good R2R dac. That's my opinion.
> 
> ...


 

 I'm not sure I agree with this wholeheartedly. I've always felt that certain multi-bit delta-sigma IC's can get a lot closer to the R2R character than others. For example, The AK or CS chips you mentioned are more similar to each other or to a good R2R DAC than say...a Sabre D/A. There's a fairly wide spectrum and the different DS chips out there seem to encompass it from end to end.


----------



## Sapientiam

stillhart said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that R2R doesn't sound better.  But not everyone is in the position to be able to audition one, much less own one.
> 
> In other words, my grandmas have both passed-on and I can't afford an R2R DAC.


 
  
 TDA1387 is a multibit (actually better than R2R - segmented current source) DAC which forms the heart of some affordable DACs. Today I just got one of these - http://www.cart100.com/Product/42124644877/. I did under an hour's modding and its sounding jolly satisfying, especially given the price (to me, I'm in China and bought this direct on Taobao) under $60. Tonality in particular is spot on, for those who've had enough of S-D DACs.


----------



## jacal01

baldr said:


> Back in the Theta days, the PCM1704 was the last of the Burr-Brown, designed for audio multibit DACs to appear.  I remember waiting with the expectation that this would be indeed a new improvement not only in specs but in sound on the PCM56-PCM58-PCM61-PCM63 evolution chain that I had been working with for the last several years.


 
  
 Without naming it, where would you rank the new Yggy chip in this pantheon of glory days R2R DAC chips?


----------



## Jose R

lamode said:


> Definitely worth checking out: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendors-bazaar/259488-reference-dac-module-discrete-r-2r-sign-magnitude-24-bit-384-khz.html


 
 A couple of potential negatives to this DAC:
  
 1. As configured, it is a stereo board with an opamp buffer output for SE-BAL conversion. Not a real issue, if you don't mind the use of opamps in a circuit.
 2. For true balanced operation, two boards need to be used, but the firmware needs to be updated. The designer would need to write new firmware, since there is none existing. And I doubt it is a high priority.
 3. Firmware updates are made using an old Serial RS232 connection. Since most of us don't use a computer from the 80s/90s with an existing RS232 port, you would need a USB to RS232 cable.
 4. No DSD support, as of now. Firmware needs to be written. (Which, I think, is in the works.) Most reasonable users probably won't care.
 5. As of now, no user manual. (DIYers are already making simple mistakes since they are being asked to read the schematic and then correlate the connections on the PCB in order to connect power, signal, etc.)
  
 I'm interested in building a balanced DAC with these boards, but, not until the firmware is updated and a user manual is supplied. Which may be a while.


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> Guess this is the most afforable new R2R dac(non-diy) you can get. USD$854 +  USD$45 for shipping(con. us)
> http://dhost.info/mhdtlab/havana.htm


 
  
 Looks like there's a new version with slightly updated USB and SPDIF interfaces, and there's also a balanced version for about 50% more.  Has anyone in here heard this DAC and some others for comparison?


----------



## hans030390

You can get non-oversampling TDA1543 DACs for relatively cheap. I know that at least. Can't speak for the Teradak units. There's a battery-powered model from some French guy you can regularly find on eBay for cheap if you bid on it. I like the warm tone and relatively smooth sound, but I also have peculiar tastes that a lot of people often don't share. Some will tell you to stay away from non-oversampling DACs and/or the TDA chips. Depending on what you're looking for, I understand where they're coming from. Anyway, that cheapo DAC I mentioned is kinda-sorta similar to what you'd get from a Metrum DAC, so it's sort of a way to get a window into the NOS R/2R sound for cheap. Far from a technical masterpiece subjectively or objectively, but worth an experiment if you can snag something for a low price (i.e. <$200).
  
 If you can find a used DAC based on older, "vintage" R2R chips, some of those have an almost magical quality to them. The Classe Audio DAC-1 with UltraAnalog modules and the PMD100 digital filter blew me away. It was just a bit too fatiguing for my baby ears and weird tastes. Just some of these DACs are prone to failure due to old components. Yggy sounds like it will capture that and then some.


----------



## HemiSam

How many people have actually listened to Yggy?
  
 HS


----------



## jacal01

42.


----------



## evillamer

How does Yggdrasil compare to r2r dacs that don't have digital filtering like the meterum pavane?

Does the Yggdrasil do any kind of oversampling?


----------



## jacal01

Ostensively one of iits best features.  True closed form bit-perfect time and frequency domains interpolation (8x?) filtering, if you're drinking the kool-aid.  Leads to a holographic soundstage, according to our pirate.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

jacal01 said:


> 42.


 
  
 As in the answer to the universe?


----------



## jacal01

Amazing how that worked out.  Another in a series of strange coinkydinkies...


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

jacal01 said:


> Amazing how that worked out.  Another in a series of strange coinkydinkies...


 
  
 Well, it helps that I'm not young...


----------



## jacal01

You mean like in naive?
  
 EDIT:  Big 800, baby!  I gotta slow down.


----------



## evillamer

jacal01 said:


> Ostensively one of iits best features.  True closed form bit-perfect time and frequency domains interpolation (8x?) filtering, if you're drinking the kool-aid.  Leads to a holographic soundstage, according to our pirate.




Will Yggdrasil make Rebecca Black sound as good as Rebecca pigeon?
Will Yggdrasil make Jusin Bieber songs listenable?


----------



## conquerator2

No DAC will make Bieber listenable to anyone but teenage girls and under -_-


----------



## jacal01

No, but the Schiit Dingleberry will.
  
 EDIT: I like to quote a Wash line from the movie _Serenity_:
 "Do we care?"  "Are we caring about that?"


----------



## HemiSam

jacal01 said:


> 42.


 
  
 I like a good chuckle....
  
  





  
 HS


----------



## evillamer

Between spending USD$2399 on Schitt Yggdrasil vs spending USD$2288 ($1969+$297+$22) for LH Labs Geek Vi Tube + Infinity Perk + ES9018AQ2M perk .
  
 I think the choice is very obvious.
  
 https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/vi-high-performance-crowd-designed-audio-system


----------



## Defiant00

evillamer said:


> Between spending USD$2399 on Schitt Yggdrasil vs spending USD$2288 ($1969+$297+$22) for LH Labs Geek Vi Tube + Infinity Perk + ES9018AQ2M perk .
> 
> I think the choice is very obvious.
> 
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/vi-high-performance-crowd-designed-audio-system


 
  
 Agreed, it seems like a pretty obvious choice.
  
 Not sure why you linked that though


----------



## Clemmaster

defiant00 said:


> Agreed, it seems like a pretty obvious choice.
> 
> Not sure why you linked that though


 
 Because there's no link for the Yggy, yet


----------



## hans030390

evillamer said:


> How does Yggdrasil compare to r2r dacs that don't have digital filtering like the meterum pavane?
> 
> Does the Yggdrasil do any kind of oversampling?


 
  
 As far as I know, no one has really heard the Pavane. But if I had to guess based on my experience with the Quad and Hex along with what I know about what the Pavane is doing, I'm guessing the Pavane will sound more accurate and detailed, maybe cleaner, than the previous offerings. Relatively, keeping in mind the Quad/Octave/Hex are pretty low on the scale in terms of detail and resolution. Likely will still have that smooth, laid-back, and IMO musical quality of the earlier DACs. Yggy has the closed form, time and frequency domain optimized oversampling implementation, and what early impressions I've read make me think it'll be one of the most detailed and a very accurate sounding DAC. Probably much more so than what the Pavane will offer, though I'm willing to bet it will be noticeably more aggressive and less smooth than the Pavane (again, keeping in mind where the Metrum sound usually lies).


----------



## mulveling

evillamer said:


> Between spending USD$2399 on Schitt Yggdrasil vs spending USD$2288 ($1969+$297+$22) for LH Labs Geek Vi Tube + Infinity Perk + ES9018AQ2M perk .
> 
> I think the choice is very obvious.
> 
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/vi-high-performance-crowd-designed-audio-system


 
  
 Schiit seems to earnestly treat its customers with respect, so yeah super-easy choice in favor of the Yggy. You know, as opposed to confusing and goading its customers into submission, spending more money (up FRONT, sans usual consumer rights) and waiting longer times for probably buggy product.
  
 I'm highly interested in the Yggdrasil, and optimistic it'll be a stellar product when ready.


----------



## Stillhart

mulveling said:


> Schiit seems to earnestly treat its customers with respect, so yeah super-easy choice in favor of the Yggy. You know, as opposed to confusing and goading its customers into submission, spending more money and waiting longer times for probably buggy product.


 
  
 My experience with Schiit's customer support wasn't particularly good, but even so they're still better than LH Labs.  lol


----------



## abvolt

Hello everyone I've never posted in this thread and would like to ask a question, I'm looking at upgrading my current dac. The 2 dac's I've been looking at are the Matrix X saber dac, and the Wyred dac1-le. I've never listened to either so any impressions would be very helpful Thanks a lot..


----------



## Argo Duck

Apologies in advance if I'm wrong but isn't Yggy supposed to be $2299?

Did it go up $100 while I wasn't looking?


----------



## Sorrodje

argo duck said:


> Apologies in advance if I'm wrong but isn't Yggy supposed to be $2299?
> 
> Did it go up $100 while I wasn't looking?


 
  
 Are you considering the Yggy too ?
  
 I'm currently selling my Octave and I purchased a used Corda DACCORD. Will give some impressions against why I know from the Octave and agains my Beresford Caïman ( Currently in Loan tour here in France) .
  
 I loved the Octave but the impression that this DAC has a sound of its own and lacks transpareny never left me during the Year I owned it.  Great meaty sound and impressive natural timbres though. I'll travel a bit elsewhere in the dac world  but If Other offers don't fit the bill for me, I'll certainly be back to Metrum DACs (Octave mkII as far as I use a single ended amp)  or eventually a used totaldac A1 .


----------



## bmichels

evillamer said:


> Between spending USD$2399 on Schitt Yggdrasil vs spending USD$2288 ($1969+$297+$22) for LH Labs Geek Vi Tube + Infinity Perk + ES9018AQ2M perk .
> 
> I think the choice is very obvious.
> 
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/vi-high-performance-crowd-designed-audio-system


 
  
 very good looking, but... has someone heard it yet ?  
  
 And with this "crowd funding" stuff , I do nor really understand how to get one (*can someone explain please*)


----------



## estreeter

If purrin's impressions are accurate. bieber and most of the today's compressed pop will sound even worse on Yggy, but I still think Gaga is worth saving when she sits down at that piano, stops talking and starts singing from the heart. Ultimately, this is the music I need to hear from something like Yggy. 
  
 http://www.amazon.com/David-Gilmour-Remember-Night-Albert/dp/B000OYC7A8


----------



## zerodeefex

I enjoyed 1989 and Prism just fine on the Yggy.


----------



## purrin

estreeter said:


> If purrin's impressions are accurate. bieber and most of the today's compressed pop will sound even worse on Yggy, but I still think Gaga is worth saving when she sits down at that piano, stops talking and starts singing from the heart. Ultimately, this is the music I need to hear from something like Yggy.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/David-Gilmour-Remember-Night-Albert/dp/B000OYC7A8


 
  
 I listen to a lot of modern pop. Yggy doesn't make anything sound worse. Put it this way, Bieber, Gaga, Katy Perry, Will-I-Am, etc. will sound worse an on say AGD-M7, and much worse on Hugo and most ESS Sabre DACs, especially if the box says Yulong on it.
  
 Resolving <> Nasties
  
 Now maybe, maybe a few pop records (the worse offenders - bright) might sound better on the Metrum or SFD-1/2.


----------



## conquerator2

purrin said:


> *I listen to a lot of modern pop. Yggy doesn't make anything sound worse. Put it this way, Bieber, Gaga, Katy Perry, Will-I-Am, etc. will sound worse an on say AGD-M7, and much worse on Hugo and most ESS Sabre DACs, especially if the box says Yulong on it.*
> 
> Resolving <> Nasties
> 
> Now maybe, maybe a few pop records (the worse offenders - bright) might sound better on the Metrum or SFD-1/2.


 
 Say, where does the Gungnir places?
 How'd you say the Gungnir and Yggy compare in this aspect?
 As a current Gungnir owner, this is something that's very much of interest to me as I find the Gungnir pretty good in this aspect.
 Thanks


----------



## purrin

Yggy destroys the Gungnir. Even more natural sound, but 100 times better clarity, resolution, micro-dynamics, holograph stage, etc. Schiit needs to update the Gungnir. I'm hoping Schiit will continue with their trend of offering updates (like on Bifrost). Maybe an Gungir Uber upgrade. Maybe trickle down tech from Yggy. FWIW, Theta offered upgrades (and followed through), so I am hoping the Schiit guys will. Gungnir is unlistenable now that I have SFD-1, Theta Gen V, and will have Yggy. Gungnir has now been relegated for my FireTV box.


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> Yggy destroys the Gungnir. Even more natural sound, but 100 times better clarity, resolution, micro-dynamics, holograph stage, etc. Schiit needs to update the Gungnir. I'm hoping Schiit will continue with their trend of offering updates (like on Bifrost). Maybe an Gungir Uber upgrade. Maybe trickle down tech from Yggy, FWIW, Theta offered upgrades. Gungnir is unlistenable now that I have SFD-1, Theta Gen V, and will have Yggy. Gungnir has now been relegated for my FireTV box.


 
  
 We need a thread that's just like this one but for people who aren't using extremely rare, extremely expensive DAC's.  Like a big comparison of $500-1500 DAC's done by folks who have heard a bunch of them but who don't call them "unlistenable".  lol  Unfortunately, that's not super helpful to the folks who want something better than a Realtek and cheaper than a Yggdrasil.
  
 It's awesome that the Yggdrasil compares favorably to DACs that are twice the price (if you can find them), but it's still $2200.  :-/


----------



## purrin

> Quote:
> 
> 
> evillamer said:
> ...


 
  
 Yup, it depends. In general terms:
  

PCM1704 (R2R) soft and mushy. rolled. un-resolving. liquid, smooth, fluid, but at too high of a cost. lots and lots of craptastic overpriced high-end DACs built on this chip.
PCM63 (R2R) probably the best sounding one. just as resolving as the most resolving modern DS when doubled up, but with balance natural tone - not gooey, not nasty, and not artifically forgiving for pleasant. Just right. Bad implementations sounded boring.
PCM1702 (R2R) came after PCM63 and heading toward the direction of PCM1704, but I like this one.
UltraAnalog (R2R) rolled, thick bass, laid back. surprisingly resolving - essentially what the PCM1704 aspires to be. TI went backwards with the PCM1704.
CS4398 laid-back, can be boring, delicate micro, great staging / deep.
ES9018 good pace, attack, micro-stuff, but nasty treble and monotone bass.
AKM sweet harmonics and vocals, a bit less micro stuff than best DS chips. (there are some differences within the family. i am most familiar with 4393 and 4396)
WM8742 all over the place - seems highly dependent on implementation.
AD1955 resolving - no nasties, good impact, but yet very obvious DS signature
Metrum mystery industrial (R2R) - laid back, not resolving, colored pleasant and forgiving, needs to be quadrupled, octupled, may even centuple up.
Schiit mystery milspec (R2R) - OMG. PCM63 like but 100 times more resolving.


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> Yggy destroys the Gungnir. Even more natural sound, but 100 times better clarity, resolution, micro-dynamics, holograph stage, etc. Schiit needs to update the Gungnir. I'm hoping Schiit will continue with their trend of offering updates (like on Bifrost). Maybe an Gungir Uber upgrade. Maybe trickle down tech from Yggy. FWIW, Theta offered upgrades (and followed through), so I am hoping the Schiit guys will. Gungnir is unlistenable now that I have SFD-1, Theta Gen V, and will have Yggy. Gungnir has now been relegated for my FireTV box.


 
 Pretty good for a FireTV, though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  
 Luke, I haven't turned on my reference Rig in a month now (waiting for my UltraLink II and Offramp to come back) and honestly I don't feel like I'm missing much. Your Gungnir is fine as long as you don't compare it to anything more capable (the Theta Gen V used to be in the ~$3,xxx in 1995's USD, clearly in a different league than the Gungnir).
  
 Plus, what is 100 times better, really? It's just "20dB better" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## zerodeefex

Speaking of PCM1702, this cheap Wyrd > Ciunas >TransDAC stack with Jriver downsampling to 16/44 beats the living pants off many many DACs I've owned in much higher price tiers.


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> We need a thread that's just like this one but for people who aren't using extremely rare, extremely expensive DAC's.  Like a big comparison of $500-1500 DAC's done by folks who have heard a bunch of them but who don't call them "unlistenable".  lol  Unfortunately, that's not super helpful to the folks who want something better than a Realtek and cheaper than a Yggdrasil.
> 
> It's awesome that the Yggdrasil compares favorably to DACs that are twice the price (if you can find them), but it's still $2200.  :-/


 
  
 It's all relative. The rankings on the front page, even though I am not updating, still apply.
  

Good ones, but they sound different in certain respects: Schiit Gungnir/Bifrost, NAD M51, X-Sabre, Lavry DA10, Metrum Octave, GO450
Stuff to avoid: Mytek Stereo192-DSD DAC, Teac UD-501, anything from Yulong, Benchmark DAC1, anything from iFi


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> It's all relative. The rankings on the front page, even though I am not updating, still apply.
> 
> 
> Good ones, but they sound different in certain respects: Schiit Gungnir/Bifrost, NAD M51, X-Sabre, Lavry DA10, Metrum Octave, GO450
> Stuff to avoid: Mytek Stereo192-DSD DAC, Teac UD-501, anything from Yulong, Benchmark DAC1, anything from iFi


 
  
 Yup, I've gleaned all that.  I do appreciate the work you put into it.  It's just hard to figure out what the hell is going on when one of the highest ranked DAC's on your list is called "unlistenable".
  
 I'm actually really curious about that MDHT Havana one using the older PCM56 chip.  The appreciation thread was started in '08 and I'm wondering if the sound holds up seven years later.


----------



## zerodeefex

purrin said:


> It's all relative. The rankings on the front page, even though I am not updating, still apply.
> 
> 
> Good ones, but they sound different in certain respects: Schiit Gungnir/Bifrost, NAD M51, X-Sabre, Lavry DA10, Metrum Octave, GO450
> Stuff to avoid: Mytek Stereo192-DSD DAC, Teac UD-501, anything from Yulong, Benchmark DAC1, anything from iFi


 
  
 He's not kidding. I've owned 3 of the 6 things specifically mentioned here to avoid and I regretted every purchase.


----------



## Argo Duck

99% sure I will buy Yggy, but as it will be without audition I'll wait on more impressions first.

I have a lot of confidence in what Schiit have said about Yggdrasil's design and philosophy, and as well that I mostly 'get' what purrin, zero' _et al_ mean with their terms and impressions. But I still want more data-points. "This DAC is awful" posts can be a convincing reason to buy too provided there's enough information there to understand why.

Will be very interested to hear what you think of the DACCORD. IMHO Jan Meier did a great job with the earlier StageDAC.



sorrodje said:


> Are you considering the Yggy too ?
> 
> I'm currently selling my Octave and I purchased a used Corda DACCORD. Will give some impressions against why I know from the Octave and agains my Beresford Caïman ( Currently in Loan tour here in France) .
> 
> I loved the Octave but the impression that this DAC has a sound of its own and lacks transpareny never left me during the Year I owned it.  Great meaty sound and impressive natural timbres though. I'll travel a bit elsewhere in the dac world  but If Other offers don't fit the bill for me, I'll certainly be back to Metrum DACs (Octave mkII as far as I use a single ended amp)  or eventually a used totaldac A1 .


----------



## Sorrodje

@AiDee: I hope you'll buy the Yggy before me in order I can have your impressions before any buy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
  
 I'm on the same page. I trust Purrin & Zero for sure but impressions I appreciate the most are the impressions after many weeks/month of owning. I hope to be wise enough to wait those impressions.


----------



## conquerator2

Well, I'll probably end up with the Yggy one way or another, sooner or later 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 Until then, the Gungnir will have to suffice


----------



## evillamer

purrin said:


> stillhart said:
> 
> 
> > We need a thread that's just like this one but for people who aren't using extremely rare, extremely expensive DAC's.  Like a big comparison of $500-1500 DAC's done by folks who have heard a bunch of them but who don't call them "unlistenable".  lol  Unfortunately, that's not super helpful to the folks who want something better than a Realtek and cheaper than a Yggdrasil.
> ...




Is IFI stuff really that bad? I thought the designer is a well regarded and knowledgable engineer.

What about stuff from LH Labs?


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> Is IFI stuff really that bad? I thought the designer is a well regarded and knowledgable engineer.
> 
> What about stuff from LH Labs?


 
  
 He has the Geek Out 450 on the good list so I assume the others would follow...


----------



## jexby

evillamer said:


> Is IFI stuff really that bad? I thought the designer is a well regarded and knowledgable engineer.


 
  
 while I won't exclaim to have the DAC width/breadth of mighty Purrin-  I don't agree all iFi stuff is bad.  at all.
  
 I love the DAC section of iFi iDSD micro compared to a couple others on that recent Good/Avoid list.


----------



## Tuco1965

jexby said:


> while I won't exclaim to have the DAC width/breadth of mighty Purrin-  I don't agree all iFi stuff is bad.  at all.
> 
> I love the DAC section of iFi iDSD micro compared to a couple others on that recent Good/Avoid list.


 
  
 It's all subjective anyway.  What matters is how you like or dislike something.


----------



## evillamer

When is Schitt going to allow pre-orders on the Yggdrasil?

Or at least give us the web page for the product or some kind of opt-in mailing notification of availability


----------



## hans030390

stillhart said:


> Yup, I've gleaned all that.  I do appreciate the work you put into it.  It's just hard to figure out what the hell is going on when one of the highest ranked DAC's on your list is called "unlistenable".
> 
> I'm actually really curious about that MDHT Havana one using the older PCM56 chip.  The appreciation thread was started in '08 and I'm wondering if the sound holds up seven years later.


 
  
 I got the impression he meant that the Gungnir is relatively unlistenable with much better DACs on hand, not that it is unlistenable in and of itself. It's a pretty good DAC, just not something you'd probably use for serious listening when you have better DACs on hand (am I wrong here?). My tastes lean more towards the Metrum Octave side, but that's just me.
  
 The more I read about the MDHT DACs, the more I think they might not sound that great. I know I've read a few reports of sharp or harsh treble, which would be odd for a tube non-oversampling DAC. I've also read the opposite. Too mixed for me to feel comfortable risking a purchase. But, hey, since I haven't heard one myself, I'd need to do that before I could say anything definitively.


----------



## purrin

Yeah. My first car was a Corolla when I was 16. Now that I have the money to buy better cars, I don't consider the Corolla driveable. I flat out will not drive a Corolla or an Accord. I just don't enjoy the experience.


----------



## Stillhart

hans030390 said:


> I got the impression he meant that the Gungnir is relatively unlistenable with much better DACs on hand, not that it is unlistenable in and of itself. It's a pretty good DAC, just not something you'd probably use for serious listening when you have better DACs on hand (am I wrong here?). My tastes lean more towards the Metrum Octave side, but that's just me.
> 
> The more I read about the MDHT DACs, the more I think they might not sound that great. I know I've read a few reports of sharp or harsh treble, which would be odd for a tube non-oversampling DAC. I've also read the opposite. Too mixed for me to feel comfortable risking a purchase. But, hey, since I haven't heard one myself, I'd need to do that before I could say anything definitively.


 
  
 I get a similar impression from the Havana.  But the real question is:  does a bad R2R DAC sound better than a good SD DAC?  Like how would it compare to something comparably priced like the Gungnir?  I haven't heard enough mid-range DAC's like that to be able to judge, even if I did take a chance on the Havana.
  


purrin said:


> Yeah. My first car was a Corolla when I was 16. Now that I have the money to buy better cars, I don't consider the Corolla driveable. I flat out will not drive a Corolla or an Accord. I just don't enjoy the experience.


 
  
 From my point of view, the Corolla is a garbage car by a solid company (i.e. the Modi).  The Gungnir isn't a Corolla tho, it's solid mid-fi so maybe something like a cheap Merc or BMW.  To me , you're driving around in Ferrari's and classic E-Types and bagging on the BMW 3-Series as undriveable.  To anyone in Corolla currently, that 335 is a huge step up not only in price but also in performance.  In fact, for most people, the 328 is all they'll ever need.
  
 Anyways, just trying to show another perspective.  The Gungnir is quite expensive compared to what MOST people are using, i.e. Realtek (bleh), Modi, Fiio E17, etc.  And I'm not trying to rag on you for your opinions... I've experienced this phenomenon with other things.  I'm 100% sure that you're right and the Gungnir is probably garbage once you're used to the TOTL!  But it's just not helpful at all to hear that; why bother upgrading from my ****ty NFB-15 just so I can get a ****ty Gungnir or ****ty M51 or ****ty X-sabre instead?
  
 Maybe I just have the wrong idea about what this thread is for.  If it's intended to be a discussion on summit-fi DAC's, it doesn't seem that way from the number of mid-fi DAC's listed on the front page.  Like I said tho, I'm just trying to make you aware of how it sounds when you say stuff like that.  No offense intended or taken, just saying.


----------



## Tom W

evillamer said:


> When is Schitt going to allow pre-orders on the Yggdrasil?


 
  
 I asked and they replied that they weren't taking pre-orders or having a waitlist for the Yggy.


----------



## 7ryder

purrin said:


> Yeah. My first car was a Corolla when I was 16. Now that I have the money to buy better cars, I don't consider the Corolla driveable. I flat out will not drive a Corolla or an Accord. I just don't enjoy the experience.


 
 Obviously, you haven't driven the Corolla S


----------



## hans030390

stillhart said:


> But the real question is:  does a bad R2R DAC sound better than a good SD DAC?


 
  
 I'm all about R2R these days, but, no, I'd rather take a good SD DAC (something like a Gungnir or Gamma2) over a bad R2R DAC.


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> Maybe I just have the wrong idea about what this thread is for.  If it's intended to be a discussion on summit-fi DAC's, it doesn't seem that way from the number of mid-fi DAC's listed on the front page.  Like I said tho, I'm just trying to make you aware of how it sounds when you say stuff like that.  No offense intended or taken, just saying.


 
  
 LOL, conq asked me what I thought of Gungnir vs. Yggy, and I replied the Yggy (and SF and Gen V) makes the Gungnir unlistenable. That was an honest statement. I don't know if you are aware that this was an honest statement. Hearing Yggy is liked being touched by God. Once you are touched by God everything below Class E (touched by angels) sucks.
  
 What did you want to me say? That the Yggy is only _slightly _better than the Gungnir? That statement would not be true. The Yggy stomps Gungnir. The Yggy schews up Gungnir and spits it out. I know in my heart that the guys at Schiit know this is true, they know Yggy destroys the Gungnir (and most everything else on the planet) but they will never say it.
  
 If you look at the first post:
  
 Yggy is in Class G (Godly) - OK, I just made this one up.
 Gen Va is in Class E+
 SFD is in Class E
 Then there is VGS (Very good stuff)
 After that is GS (good stuff) where the Gungnir lies
  
 Gungnir is five classes below Yggy. Also, keep in mind six months ago, there was no class E, E+, and one month ago, there was no class G. This has nothing to do with $500-$1500 or summit-fi or whatever. I do not grade DACs based on cost or compare only high-end stuff. As of today, I honestly feel everything in GS is crap. *Crap being defined: I would not use it for serious listening at my temple of music speaker setup.* But there are different levels of crap. IMO, the Gungnir, ranked at #6 leads the heap of crap. In other words, while I honestly feel the Gungnir is crap, it is better than the other crap.
  


stillhart said:


> But it's just not helpful at all to hear that; why bother upgrading from my ****ty NFB-15 just so I can get a ****ty Gungnir or ****ty M51 or ****ty X-sabre instead?


 
  
 TBH, none of the stuff within each class is really an "upgrade". It's more like a side-grade. In others words, not necessarily better, but different. The rankings reflect my own personal preferences. All the DACs in VGS and GS have flaws. It's a matter of which flaws are less annoying to you, and which strengths you value. This is why I have attempted to describe certain attributes of DACs instead of simply offer numerical rankings.
  
 I know it's not helpful to say none of the stuff within each class is really an "upgrade", but I really can't do anything about that. If you truly want something better, not different, you are going to have to go up a class. That's just the way it is. <_cue Bruce Hornsby or Phil Collins/David Crosby_>
  
 Have I gone mad or insane? Possibly. But it's certainly much less crazy than buying the latest super craptastic POS or DSD Sabre DAC from China or over-priced, over-hyped, expertly-marketed DAC from the UK or 75 lbs PCM1704-based behemoth that sounds rolled and resolves nothing from the USA.


----------



## arnaud

sorrodje said:


> @AiDee
> : I hope you'll buy the Yggy before me in order I can have your impressions before any buy  .
> 
> I'm on the same page. I trust Purrin & Zero for sure but impressions I appreciate the most are the impressions after many weeks/month of owning. I hope to be wise enough to wait those impressions.



It is quite wise to wait for impressions once the initial new toy syndrome has worn off a bit. Having said that, it does not take 2 weeks to figure out when you hear a very special dac. It is that obvious when listening to familiar tunes, you get shocked at every new track . 
Not talking about the Iggy per say, but if it is of the SQ level of my recent TotalDac purchase, you're in for a treat .

Arnaud


----------



## Sorrodje

arnaud said:


> It is quite wise to wait for impressions once the initial new toy syndrome has worn off a bit. Having said that, it does not take 2 weeks to figure out when you hear a very special dac. It is that obvious when listening to familiar tunes, you get shocked at every new track
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I hope the Yggy will offer that indeed.
  
 But Since I tested by myself the Hugo and compared my own impressions to what I read here or there, I'm more and more reluctant to believe anyone (even the Messiah aka Purrin himself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) .
  
 More seriously, Objective technical and sonic capabilities is one thing. Personal tastes is another. as Hans030390 said before, even the best dac in the world could be "too much of a good thing" for my casual listenings. I think we're several readers in the same boat to be afraid of a too much resolving DAC. I thing it's because we can't imagine a DAC who offers both emotion and resolution/detail and that's because resolutin is too often associated with harshness.
  
 Wait and See. Dunno yet if I'll able to resist to be one of the primary buyer.. or not.
  
 Indeed , the TotalDAC I heard thanks to Frédéric (Superfred21) is a dream machine who offer both refinement, and real timbres.  Hope the Iggy will compete for a fraction of the price. If not .A used totaldac A1 will be maybe the way to go for me. Dunno if the entry lever totaldac is better from a Metrum Octave or not though. 
  
 For now, I've a Meier DACCORD to play with


----------



## boatheelmusic

You're on the right train.
  
 I see so much discussion here about .0000001% differences, much perversion of theory, and also high equipment turnover.
  
 This, when source recordings are mostly questionable.
  
 At the end of the day, music is about enjoyment, not a science project.
  
 Be more confident in your personal judgements as well as sound engineering, and you'll be happier!
  
 They call it Audio Nervosa for a reason.


----------



## PCWar

boatheelmusic said:


> You're on the right train.
> 
> I see so much discussion here about .0000001% differences, much perversion of theory, and also high equipment turnover.
> 
> ...


 
  
 One of the best comments I've red on years here


----------



## Priidik

sorrodje said:


> For now, I've a Meier DACCORD to play with


 
 How do you like it?


----------



## cdnpaul33

purrin said:


> Depends upon what you are looking for. The Ultraanalog modules do have a certain sound, SF-D output caps and tubes can be rolled to produce slightly different sonics. Yggy is way cleaner sounding, more precise, and more resolving - on another level - yet not analytical either - still maintains the "R2R" sound. Get both.


 

 Thanks for the info. As a result, I decided to get a Sonic Frontiers SFD-2 mk2 w/ SE+ upgrades which I should have on Monday. I'll likely get the Yggy as well but I'll wait until the exchange rate is more reasonable.


----------



## ciphercomplete

My plan is to get the Yggy and keep the Master 7 for certain recordings but if my own history with owning more than one digital source at once is any indication I will likely only use the one that sounds the best.


----------



## bmichels

The new Vi Dac from LH Labs is also very interesting Project. And, IMO.. Very good looking.

One fun feature: you can have SS & Tube output runing in the Same Time, booth connected to your Amp, and you then van switch from SS & Tube sound by switching your amp's input. 

Does anyone has infos on this Baby or had a chance to listen to the prototype ?


----------



## Clemmaster

bmichels said:


> The new Vi Dac from LH Labs is also very interesting Project. And, IMO.. Very good looking.
> 
> One fun feature: you can have SS & Tube output runing in the Same Time, booth connected to your Amp, and you then van switch from SS & Tube sound by switching your amp's input.
> 
> Does anyone has infos on this Baby or had a chance to listen to the prototype ?




I heard it's gonna be delivered in 2018 and will look completely different from this picture...
By then, for the same price, we will have a black Yggy 2 and Ragnarok 2 with front power switch and remote control!


----------



## bmichels

clemmaster said:


> I heard it's gonna be delivered in 2018 and will look completely different from this picture...
> By then, for the same price, we will have a black Yggy 2 and Ragnarok 2 with front power switch and remote control!




And DSD support


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> snip
> 
> Gungnir is five classes below Yggy. Also, keep in mind six months ago, there was no class E, E+, and one month ago, there was no class G. This has nothing to do with $500-$1500 or summit-fi or whatever. I do not grade DACs based on cost or compare only high-end stuff. As of today, I honestly feel everything in GS is crap. *Crap being defined: I would not use it for serious listening at my temple of music speaker setup.* But there are different levels of crap. IMO, the Gungnir, ranked at #6 leads the heap of crap. In other words, while I honestly feel the Gungnir is crap, it is better than the other crap.
> 
> snip


 
  
 I appreciate your level-headed response, Purrin.  I just wanted to comment on this part because I think it's important.  What you said here about the Gungnir being crap but the best of the crap is still useful.  More useful than just calling it crap.


----------



## conquerator2

purrin said:


> *Yggy destroys the Gungnir. Even more natural sound, but 100 times better clarity, resolution, micro-dynamics, holograph stage, etc*. Schiit needs to update the Gungnir. I'm hoping Schiit will continue with their trend of offering updates (like on Bifrost). Maybe an Gungir Uber upgrade. Maybe trickle down tech from Yggy. FWIW, Theta offered upgrades (and followed through), so I am hoping the Schiit guys will. Gungnir is unlistenable now that I have SFD-1, Theta Gen V, and will have Yggy. Gungnir has now been relegated for my FireTV box.


 
 Well, if the HE-1000 is priced above 3K $, then the Yggy will be my next piece. Not that the Gungnir is bad but I am kinda starting to miss the Sabre sound in certain ways [ie. resolution, details, realism, etc.] Yeah, bury me 5 feet under please 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 The Yggy sounds like it plays in the same field as the msot detailed Sabre DACs with superior naturalness... I think I'd really like that


----------



## purrin

That is the essence of the DACs in that range - we end up trading certain attributes with another. I would say the Gungnir and the NFB you had before are opposites of each other - doing things well that the other doesn't and also doing things not so well that the other is good at.
  
 The Yggy is a huge step-up in resolution than any Sabre DAC I have heard, although not quite as "detailed" on a gross level. Yggy is extremely extremely resolving, but not in your face kind of detail. The only problem is that only 10-20% of my recordings can take advantage of the resolution.


----------



## estreeter

@purrin, I'm getting some villagers and pitchforks together and we're coming round - tonight. One thing to attack the Hugo at it's original sticker, but *the iDSD micro is 500 bucks*, *** - let someone _other than those in your ivory tower_ have a little fun with their audio toys, Major Killjoy .....  
  
 http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showpost.php?p=8513610&postcount=26
  
 Try that on for size, Mr Poopypants !  You got nothin', bro  
  
 (forgot to add - I use the nano as a usb-spdif converter into my other DACs, including the Hugo - I like that level of functionality, but your mileage clearly varies)


----------



## sci80899

Hey Purrin
  
 Will you know how a Theta DS Pro Basic IIIa would stack up against the Theta Gen V-Va or the Sonic Frontiers
 There's an opportunity for me to grab a used one, and am wondering if I should pull the trigger. 
  
 .


----------



## conquerator2

purrin said:


> That is the essence of the DACs in that range - we end up trading certain attributes with another. I would say the Gungnir and the NFB you had before are opposites of each other - doing things well that the other doesn't and also doing things not so well that the other is good at.
> 
> The Yggy is a huge step-up in resolution than any Sabre DAC I have heard, although not quite as "detailed" on a gross level. Yggy is extremely extremely resolving, but not in your face kind of detail. The only problem is that only 10-20% of my recordings can take advantage of the resolution.


 
 My main issue with the Gungnir is that certain instruments [even vocals] sound a bit soft in contrast to others and lack some energy I like, a bit smoothed over if you will.
 I'd say the Gungnir's strengths are in the bass, lower midrange and lower treble, while the Sabre is good with upper midrange and upper treble and overall resolution/spaciousness.
 Where do you think the Yggy lies tonally? Would you say it sits somewhere in between, close to neutral. I'd say the Gung is a bit dark due to the bit subdued upper treble/authoritative bass and the Sabre is a bit bright due to the bit emphasized upper treble/tight bass.
  
 Thanks.


----------



## smitty1110

estreeter said:


> @purrin, I'm getting some villagers and pitchforks together and we're coming round - tonight. One thing to attack the Hugo at it's original sticker, but *the iDSD micro is 500 bucks*, *** - let someone _other than those in your ivory tower_ have a little fun with their audio toys, Major Killjoy .....
> 
> http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showpost.php?p=8513610&postcount=26
> 
> ...


Dat mini rack...and the isolation blocks under a macbook air...


----------



## purrin

conquerator2 said:


> My main issue with the Gungnir is that certain instruments [even vocals] sound a bit soft in contrast to others and lack some energy I like, a bit smoothed over if you will.
> I'd say the Gungnir's strengths are in the bass, lower midrange and lower treble, while the Sabre is good with upper midrange and upper treble and overall resolution/spaciousness.
> Where do you think the Yggy lies tonally? Would you say it sits somewhere in between, close to neutral. I'd say the Gung is a bit dark due to the bit subdued upper treble/authoritative bass and the Sabre is a bit bright due to the bit emphasized upper treble/tight bass.
> 
> Thanks.


 
  
 Hard to say since final isn't out, but I'd say it's somewhere in between. Not bright or thin like a lot of Sabre stuff and not as dense basswise as Gungnir. It's hard to compare - it's more complex than that. It not as warm but more bassy at the same time. Bass is very clean and clear, but also has even more strength and presence when there is bass. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## purrin

estreeter said:


> @purrin, I'm getting some villagers and pitchforks together and we're coming round - tonight. One thing to attack the Hugo at it's original sticker, but *the iDSD micro is 500 bucks*, *** - let someone _other than those in your ivory tower_ have a little fun with their audio toys, Major Killjoy .....


 
  
 I will be making a youtube video of me destroying an iFi product (probably one cheaper than the micro). I plan on smashing it with hammer, dousing it with gasoline, and lighting it on fire.


----------



## Tuco1965

Do it Jimi Hendrix style.


----------



## Rajikaru

purrin said:


> I will be making a youtube video of me destroying an iFi product (probably one cheaper than the micro). I plan on smashing it with hammer, dousing it with gasoline, and lighting it on fire.


 
  

  
 ODAC: Is that gasoline I smell? Take your shot, funboy.
 You got me deadbang.


----------



## conquerator2

purrin said:


> Hard to say since final isn't out, but I'd say it's somewhere in between. Not bright or thin like a lot of Sabre stuff and not as dense basswise as Gungnir. It's hard to compare - it's more complex than that. It not as warm but more bassy at the same time. Bass is very clean and clear, but also has even more strength and presence when there is bass. Hope that makes sense.




Would you say the Yggy is more airy and extended up top?
That's pretty much my main gripe with the Gung - it sounds a bit smoothed overall and there's not too much extension up top... A bit more energy would be nice!
The bass wouldn't be my main concern with the Gungnir 
Somewhere in between sounds good to me.


----------



## Armaegis

purrin said:


> I will be making a youtube video of me destroying an iFi product (probably one cheaper than the micro). I plan on smashing it with hammer, dousing it with gasoline, and lighting it on fire.


 
  
 All while inside a microwave!


----------



## evillamer

purrin said:


> estreeter said:
> 
> 
> > @purrin, I'm getting some villagers and pitchforks together and we're coming round - tonight. One thing to attack the Hugo at it's original sticker, but *the iDSD micro is 500 bucks*, *** - let someone _other than those in your ivory tower_ have a little fun with their audio toys, Major Killjoy .....
> ...


 
  
  
 Somehow Purrin reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson of the Top Gear.


----------



## purrin

conquerator2 said:


> Would you say the Yggy is more airy and extended up top?
> That's pretty much my main gripe with the Gung - it sounds a bit smoothed overall and there's not too much extension up top... A bit more energy would be nice!
> The bass wouldn't be my main concern with the Gungnir
> 
> ...


 
  
 I didn't feel Yggy was brighter or more airy / extended than the Gungnir. Just a lot more resolving and precise up on - where it was easier to hear ambient cues, get a sense of the space of the venue, note the nature of noise grain, much more open, etc.


----------



## jodgey4

purrin said:


> note the nature of noise grain


 
 Wut.
 Please tell, what on earth does that mean?


----------



## conquerator2

purrin said:


> I didn't feel Yggy was brighter or more airy / extended than the Gungnir. Just a lot more resolving and precise up on - where it was easier to hear ambient cues, get a sense of the space of the venue, note the nature of noise grain, much more open, etc.



Yep, thanks.
That's more what I meant. Openness and being resolving it is and it will thus portray the venue, even air to a point and timbre more closely and accurately. That is pretty much what I needed to know 
The scale is also bigger and staging, which all contributes to the realism


----------



## reddog

conquerator2 said:


> Yep, thanks.
> That's more what I meant. Openness and being resolving it is and it will thus portray the venue, even air to a point and timbre more closely and accurately. That is pretty much what I needed to know
> The scale is also bigger and staging, which all contributes to the realism



The Gungnir sounds like a great dac, I wish I had more money to get the Gungnir now and save up for Yggdrasil later this year but just can not justify two dacs in one year. Thanks for your impressions on the Gungnir.


----------



## purrin

conquerator2 said:


> Yep, thanks.
> That's more what I meant. Openness and being resolving it is and it will thus portray the venue, even air to a point and timbre more closely and accurately. That is pretty much what I needed to know
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes, always hard to convey thoughts in writing. It's sort of the intersection between resolution, last octave treble/air, and soundstage. Gungnir was never strong at this (error of omission). Sabre stuff does this well, but at the expense of added delta-sigma digitus crap (error of commission).
  
 Yggy takes it to another level which is just jaw-dropping but without the Sabre bright hashing grainy stuff. Same thing with the Theta - supposedly because it runs the same DSP which pays attention the phase domain was well as frequency domain. I don't fully understand the algorithm as implemented at this point, and I imagine the code is top-secret. One day I'll dissect it. But there seems to be some proof-in-the-pudding comparing something from 20 years ago and now with same code (although it's my understanding that Yggy's algorithm is more exhaustive).


----------



## lojay

purrin said:


> Yes, always hard to convey thoughts in writing. It's sort of the intersection between resolution, last octave treble/air, and soundstage. Gungnir was never strong at this (error of omission). Sabre stuff does this well, but at the expense of added delta-sigma digitus crap (error of commission).
> 
> Yggy takes it to another level which is just jaw-dropping but without the Sabre bright hashing grainy stuff. Same thing with the Theta - supposedly because it runs the same DSP which pays attention the phase domain was well as frequency domain. I don't fully understand the algorithm as implemented at this point, and I imagine the code is top-secret. One day I'll dissect it. But there seems to be some proof-in-the-pudding comparing something from 20 years ago and now with same code (although it's my understanding that Yggy's algorithm is more exhaustive).


 
  
 Hi Marv, for someone who wants two setups to take advantage of the best of both worlds, sounds like a sensible solution would be to get *(1)* the Yggy for a highly resolving "_I can hear the pin drop_" setup and* (2)* the MSB Analog / Spectral SDR 2000 / Sonic Frontiers SFD-1 Mk2 for an organic and forgiving "_Taylor Swift never sounded better_" setup. 
  
 Does this sound right? It is more difficult perhaps to choose among the DACs listed in *(2) *above. I have decided that NOS tube DACs are probably not for me, so the AMR, Metrums and Audio Notes of this world are off my list. Yet I am not sure if it is sensible to replace the MSB with older DACs that might break down any minute after 20 odd years of use, especially if the gains to be had from the MSB in terms of resolution etc etc are not worth the risks and the effort and expense of selling the MSB and buying a vintage one. What do you think?


----------



## zerodeefex

lojay said:


> Hi Marv, for someone who wants two setups to take advantage of the best of both worlds, sounds like a sensible solution would be to get *(1)* the Yggy for a highly resolving "_I can hear the pin drop_" setup and* (2)* the MSB Analog / Spectral SDR 2000 / Sonic Frontiers SFD-1 Mk2 for an organic and forgiving "_Taylor Swift never sounded better_" setup.
> 
> Does this sound right? It is more difficult perhaps to choose among the DACs listed in *(2) *above. I have decided that NOS tube DACs are probably not for me, so the AMR, Metrums and Audio Notes of this world are off my list. Yet I am not sure if it is sensible to replace the MSB with older DACs that might break down any minute after 20 odd years of use, especially if the gains to be had from the MSB in terms of resolution etc etc are not worth the risks and the effort and expense of selling the MSB and buying a vintage one. What do you think?


 
  
 I don't know what Marv will tell you, but I can tell you I listened to 1989 and similar albums on the Yggy > Rag and Yggy > BA combos. Those kinds of albums were super enjoyable with the Yggy .


----------



## lojay

zerodeefex said:


> I don't know what Marv will tell you, but I can tell you I listened to 1989 and similar albums on the Yggy > Rag and Yggy > BA combos. Those kinds of albums were super enjoyable with the Yggy .


 
  
 I guess the question is whether they are more enjoyable on the MSB / Sonic Frontiers / Spectral!


----------



## dan.gheorghe

lojay said:


> I guess the question is whether they are more enjoyable on the MSB / Sonic Frontiers / Spectral!


 
 I am also curious about MSB Analog Dac vs Yggy, as I own an Analog Dac. Will also get the latest usb input which should add more details better transparency.

 Hope I can get my hands on an Yggy and make a thorough comparison between the two.


----------



## lojay

dan.gheorghe said:


> I am also curious about MSB Analog Dac vs Yggy, as I own an Analog Dac. Will also get the latest usb input which should add more details better transparency.
> 
> Hope I can get my hands on an Yggy and make a thorough comparison between the two.


 
  
 I am using the AES input (via my Audiophellio 1 with Pure Power) instead of the USB input. I think it adds more body to the Analog and slightly better details. Not sure I will be forking out that much money on the latest USB.


----------



## Sorrodje

@lojay : are you considering to buy the Yggy ?


----------



## lojay

sorrodje said:


> @lojay : are you considering to buy the Yggy ?


 
  
 Yes, for sure. I don't mind getting an extra DAC for my home apartment but if it replaces the MSB probably even better. The MSB is the single most expensive piece of equipment I have (even bought at second hand prices).


----------



## Sorrodje

lojay said:


> Yes, for sure. I don't mind getting an extra DAC for my home apartment but if it replaces the MSB probably even better. The MSB is the single most expensive piece of equipment I have (even bought at second hand prices).


 
  
 Looking forward your impressions. I did really like the job you made in your other reviews


----------



## lojay

sorrodje said:


> Looking forward your impressions. I did really like the job you made in your other reviews


 
  
 Thanks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I haven't even gotten round to do my Apex Teton vs EC 4-45 mega review ....


----------



## bmichels

Things were much more simple in those days....   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 no DAC, No Server, No USB, No Jitter....


----------



## dan.gheorghe

lojay said:


> I am using the AES input (via my Audiophellio 1 with Pure Power) instead of the USB input. I think it adds more body to the Analog and slightly better details. Not sure I will be forking out that much money on the latest USB.


 
 Interesting, I have tested hydra and ap2 with it. While I did get more body with hydra, I found the usb input superior in details, transparency and soundstage. I also applied this tweak and found it very interesting. This is what I use now. SMS-100 was very good with it as well.
 I got the new usb input because I had the  chance to get it from the beginning. I "only" added 500 eur to the free default usb to get the latest implementation.

 Larry told me it should bring it very close to the msb transport quality. We shall see.


----------



## lojay

dan.gheorghe said:


> Interesting, I have tested hydra and ap2 with it. While I did get more body with hydra, I found the usb input superior in details, transparency and soundstage. I also applied this tweak and found it very interesting. This is what I use now. SMS-100 was very good with it as well.
> 
> I got the new usb input because I had the  chance to get it from the beginning. I "only" added 500 eur to the free default usb to get the latest implementation.
> 
> Larry told me it should bring it very close to the msb transport quality. We shall see.




Thanks this is very informative.

I don't mind paying $500 at all for the USB upgrade. My research says what you're talking about is this: Premium QUAD USB2 - $1595

How did you manage to get it down to $500?


----------



## dan.gheorghe

lojay said:


> Thanks this is very informative.
> 
> I don't mind paying $500 at all for the USB upgrade. My research says what you're talking about is this: Premium QUAD USB2 - $1595
> 
> How did you manage to get it down to $500?


 
 Thank you. Glad I could help. 
  
 With the price, I was actually lucky. I was just getting a new msb analog dac and the first input is free. Getting the quad as the first usb input, meant adding 500$ to the price.


----------



## bmichels

lojay said:


> Hi Marv, for someone who wants two setups to take advantage of the best of both worlds, sounds like a sensible solution would be to get *(1)* the Yggy for a highly resolving "_I can hear the pin drop_" setup and* (2)* the MSB Analog / Spectral SDR 2000 / Sonic Frontiers SFD-1 Mk2 for an organic and forgiving "_Taylor Swift never sounded better_" setup. . .


 
  
 May be the* TotalDAC D-1* can offer the best of booth world ?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ?


----------



## Armaegis

bmichels said:


> Things were much more simple in those days....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 vinyl warping = analog jitter


----------



## conquerator2

bmichels said:


> May be the* TotalDAC D-1* can offer the best of booth world ?  ?


 
 Wow, no offence, but that's some exorbitant pricing... The Yggdrasil seems like a cheap-ass DAC compared to their price-list.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

armaegis said:


> bmichels said:
> 
> 
> > Things were much more simple in those days....
> ...


 
  
 Yes, but 78s weren't vinyl.  They broke rather easily but they didn't warp.


----------



## purrin

conquerator2 said:


> Wow, no offence, but that's some exorbitant pricing... The Yggdrasil seems like a cheap-ass DAC compared to their price-list.


 
  
 I forgot to mention, Wyrd helps with the openness / air / microdetail thing on Gungnir. 20% improvement (keeping in mind 20% is still small in the overall scheme of things with DACs.) Yeah - not kidding. YMMV though.


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> I forgot to mention, Wyrd helps with the openness / air / microdetail thing on Gungnir. 20% improvement (keeping in mind 20% is still small in the overall scheme of things with DACs.) Yeah - not kidding. YMMV though.


 
  
 Really?  Even though Schiit themselves refuse to take a stance on whether the Wyrd actually does anything at all?  I'm not saying I don't believe you.  I'm just wondering why they don't actually say that it helps.  Seems like a weird marketing choice by a company that's very marketing-focused.


----------



## purrin

lojay said:


> Hi Marv, for someone who wants two setups to take advantage of the best of both worlds, sounds like a sensible solution would be to get *(1)* the Yggy for a highly resolving "_I can hear the pin drop_" setup and* (2)* the MSB Analog / Spectral SDR 2000 / Sonic Frontiers SFD-1 Mk2 for an organic and forgiving "_Taylor Swift never sounded better_" setup.
> 
> Does this sound right? It is more difficult perhaps to choose among the DACs listed in *(2) *above. I have decided that NOS tube DACs are probably not for me, so the AMR, Metrums and Audio Notes of this world are off my list. Yet I am not sure if it is sensible to replace the MSB with older DACs that might break down any minute after 20 odd years of use, especially if the gains to be had from the MSB in terms of resolution etc etc are not worth the risks and the effort and expense of selling the MSB and buying a vintage one. What do you think?


 
  
 I'd stick with the MSB. The Spectral and SFDs (upgraded / old-parts replaced) are arguably better than or equivalent to the MSB Analog, but they are ticking time bombs with no servicability - except for the SF which pcx still services.
  


bmichels said:


> May be the* TotalDAC D-1* can offer the best of booth world ?  ?


 
  
 To me, the Yggy offers the best of one world and betters the other world. R2R ladder type sound + resolution a step above even the most resolving delta-sigma DACs. We're not talking about etch, sharpness, false detail, we are talking about fine resolution. Hearing what's on the master tape without strange 1-bit A-D artifacts that go shhh shh shh shhh shhh shh shh s hhhh shhh.
  
 It depends how you like your porn:
  

Low-rez oversharped artifact infested from free sites
Dreamy-look blurry Penthouse photo filter
1080p at 60fps


----------



## evillamer

Does Yggdrasil benefit from using USB to SPDIF converters or is the USB implementation good enough?


----------



## conquerator2

purrin said:


> I forgot to mention, Wyrd helps with the openness / air / microdetail thing on Gungnir. 20% improvement (keeping in mind 20% is still small in the overall scheme of things with DACs.) Yeah - not kidding. YMMV though.


 
 Yeah, the Wyrd is in the system. I am currently also using a cheaper USB/COAX converter [Gustard U12, actually proving a very solid unit in its respective thread and to me, even compared to the more expensive DI-V2014, which I also own... Still, either isn't even half the price of the OR5 for example, but that's not something it needs anyway...]. The Gungnir's USB is perfectly fine though and I honestly find little to no difference between the two, save for a slightly smoother vocal presentation. But since I already have it, might as well use it.
 I am currently using all Gungnir's inputs at times and find them all comparable in quality. 
 The Yggy is becoming a sure DAC upgrade meanwhile... Hopefully end-game for a few years, at least 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Unless the new HiFiMAN are priced close to it, which is still very doubtful... and even then I might go Yggy first because the HE-560 is a very solid performer.
 Got a bit OT though, sorry 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Speaking of the Yggy, do we know what inputs it will have? I assume it will have at least the same one as the Gungnir, but I2S would be a nice surprise, for instance.


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> Really?  Even though Schiit themselves refuse to take a stance on whether the Wyrd actually does anything at all?  I'm not saying I don't believe you.  I'm just wondering why they don't actually say that it helps.  Seems like a weird marketing choice by a company that's very marketing-focused.


 
  
 They don't say anything about how any of their products sound. The other reason I surmise is that results do vary. Little to no effect on some DACs, worse sound on others. An informal poll seems to suggest an improvement of anywhere from -20% to 50%.


----------



## bmichels

purrin said:


> I'd stick with the MSB. The Spectral and SFDs (upgraded / old-parts replaced) are arguably better than or equivalent to the MSB Analog, but they are ticking time bombs with no servicability - except for the SF which pcx still services.
> 
> 
> To me, the Yggy offers the best of one world and betters the other world. R2R ladder type sound + resolution a step above even the most resolving delta-sigma DACs. We're not talking about etch, sharpness, false detail, we are talking about fine resolution. Hearing what's on the master tape without strange 1-bit A-D artifacts that go shhh shh shh shhh shhh shh shh s hhhh shhh.
> ...


 
  
 The Yggy seems promissing indeed.... I am just concern that it could be to analytical/dry with my 445 that I find sometime not enough "soft-round" as a tube amp should be ? this is why I was also considering "tubeDAC" to compensate a little...
  
 Am I wrong ?


----------



## purrin

I understand. Hard to say as tastes may be different.
  
 But it seems wasteful to use a less resolving DAC with a highly resolving amp. Tonally, I would say the Yggy is bassier, warmer with more refined treble compared to the Hugo. (Hugo is tonally lean in comparison). I hope this helps. Moving from 4-45 to 2A3mk4 might help too (I know this probably doesn't help, but the 45 tube is known to be neutralish even lean.)
  
 The way I would put is it that I would not use Hugo, Mytek, Vega, PSA-DSD, X-Sabre or other bright/lean DACs on 4-45. Yggy, M1, Berkeley Alpha 2, M7, etc. would be fine.
  
 Are you running Amperex, Raytheon, or WE driver tubes?
  
 @conq: No i2s. Instead I believe we get USB Gen 3. Honestly, I don't feel i2s or other fancy stuff is needed. However I'm trying to convince the Schiit guys to make a converter box that uses the old ST/AT&T optical that high-end DACs supported 20 years ago.


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> They don't say anything about how any of their products sound. The other reason I surmise is that results do vary. Little to no effect on some DACs, worse sound on others. An informal poll seems to suggest an improvement of anywhere from -20% to 50%.


 
  
 Fascinating.  As someone who is still trying to pick up some basic electronics theory, I'm intrigued by things like power conditioners that may or may not provide any benefit.  Mentally I have them in the same category as cable upgrades and the pointy foot things for your electronics.  But I suspect they're less placebo effect and more dependent on variables like power supply quality and DAC implementation and such.
  
 Which leads me to another question:  (Not sure if this is the right thread for it, but yeah) I mainly use SPDIF optical in my DAC's for a couple reasons.  First is that I game on my PC and I can get virtual surround through my DAC if I use optical.  Second is that I don't use any HD files beyond 24/96 so I don't need the USB.  For DAC's which offer both USB and Optical, which is generally the better sounding choice?  (Yes, yes, try both and figure it out myself.  But I'm looking for the theoretical correct answer, if there is one.)


----------



## conquerator2

purrin said:


> I understand. Hard to say as tastes may be different.
> 
> But it seems wasteful to use a less resolving DAC with a highly resolving amp. Tonally, I would say the Yggy is bassier, warmer with more refined treble compared to the Hugo. (Hugo is tonally lean in comparison). I hope this helps. Moving from 4-45 to 2A3mk4 might help too (I know this probably doesn't help, but the 45 tube is known to be neutralish even lean.)
> 
> ...


 
 Oooh, USB gen 3 would suffice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I hope we get toslink? My DAC needs to have that. USB and Toslink is pretty much all I need 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Speaking of amps, I have a rather budget amp [now discontinued] - the Audio-gd SA31SE. For that price, I find its performance phenomenal and its discontinuity disappointing. It is a diamond-difference design, so slightly warm but I still find it highly transparent, hardly colored, powerful and dynamic... Perhaps my favorite piece of gear. Makes me not want to upgrade it anytime soon... The only con is that it is indeed SE only, but the Yggy seems to perform admirably in SE use as well...
 Anyway, I reckon I'd really like that combo. Would make for a musical but detailed experience.


----------



## bmichels

purrin said:


> Are you running Amperex, Raytheon, or WE driver tubes?


 
  
 Thanks for all thoses infos.
  
 I am using * 6C45II-5   OTK4 * driver tubes.    Is it possible to change the sound also by rolling the Driver tubes ?  This will be much cheaper than changing the 4 "BIG" tubes


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> Fascinating.  As someone who is still trying to pick up some basic electronics theory, I'm intrigued by things like power conditioners that may or may not provide any benefit.  Mentally I have them in the same category as cable upgrades and the pointy foot things for your electronics.  But I suspect they're less placebo effect and more dependent on variables like power supply quality and DAC implementation and such.
> 
> Which leads me to another question:  (Not sure if this is the right thread for it, but yeah) I mainly use SPDIF optical in my DAC's for a couple reasons.  First is that I game on my PC and I can get virtual surround through my DAC if I use optical.  Second is that I don't use any HD files beyond 24/96 so I don't need the USB.  For DAC's which offer both USB and Optical, which is generally the better sounding choice?  (Yes, yes, try both and figure it out myself.  *But I'm looking for the theoretical correct answer, if there is one.)*


 
 Hopefully purrin will chime in here but in my experience, I find the USB to be slightly more extended/detailed/harsh in general and the optical a bit smoother/smeared... I think that this highly depends on the USB and optical chips/implementations and the answer might not be as simple. With the NFB-7, the USB sounded more lively and the optical was more smoothed. With the Gungnir, the same applies. optical was from SB X7 or my PC's SB Recon output. Running it through a converter [like the Gustard U12] yielded some minor improvements... 
 I usually use the optical for gaming [little choice lol...] and USB from my PC [through Wyrd and sometimes a USB/optical/XYZ converter] and the differences seem consistent, if minor in the grand scheme of things.
 The better the DAC usually the better they sound, regardless of input, unless the USB/optical input is crap, then the other input or a converter is the clear winner 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 I believe the optical toslink has higher jitter numbers than USB does.
 TLR - So far the differences in my case were minor but consistent - USB > Toslink, but not something to fret over.


----------



## Stillhart

If USB is better, why use a USB>Toslink converter?  That's part of what's confusing me.


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> If USB is better, why use a USB>Toslink converter?  That's part of what's confusing me.


 
 Don't know... I usually only do USB to COAX, BNC, I2S, etc, or Toslink-converter-COAX/BNC/etc... The DI-V2014 is one such that does that and as dedicated device it did improved the sound a bit to me, slightly clearer and more focused... It is minor though... so I just skip that sometimes...
 Never actually used a USB to toslink converter. For that reason.


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> If USB is better, why use a USB>Toslink converter?  That's part of what's confusing me.


 
  
 Because the USB converter inside the DAC might not implement galvanic isolation which supposed to reduce electrical noise from the PC.
  
 And some of the USB to I2S chips inside the DACs might be the weakest link in the chain(e.g. Audio-GD's VIA based USB chip)
  
 Schitt is using a next generation Cmedia USB chip. Not sure how they compare next to the Audiophilleo 2, Berkeley alpha usb, Offramp 5, Hydra Z or Gustard U12.


----------



## Stillhart

So you're saying that internally the DAC's are converting USB to toslink?  So then why use USB at all?  Why not just use SPDIF and call it a day?  Or is SPDIF not the same as toslink and that's what's confusing me?


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> So you're saying that internally the DAC's are converting USB to toslink?  So then why use USB at all?  Why not just use SPDIF and call it a day?  *Or is SPDIF not the same as toslink and that's what's confusing me?*


 
 Yep, it is different. SPDIF/Coaxial vs Toslink. Two different things. Different jitter levels, etc.
 Or that's what I believe is true 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 Theoretically, it shouldn't matter much, but coaxial is more straightforward while optical has to be converted... Many discussions about that - http://www.whathifi.com/forum/home-cinema/optical-v-coaxial.
 Lots of entris through google


----------



## RickB

stillhart said:


> Really?  Even though Schiit themselves refuse to take a stance on whether the Wyrd actually does anything at all?  I'm not saying I don't believe you.  I'm just wondering why they don't actually say that it helps.  Seems like a weird marketing choice by a company that's very marketing-focused.


 
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/3810#post_11058782


----------



## purrin

bmichels said:


> Thanks for all thoses infos.
> 
> I am using * 6C45II-5   OTK4 * driver tubes.    Is it possible to change the sound also by rolling the Driver tubes ?  This will be much cheaper than changing the 4 "BIG" tubes


 
  
 OK. That totally explains it. The 6C45s are more solid-state sounding and with sharper treble.
  
 Try to find a converter that lets you use the 5842 driver tube (DO NOT GET THE REVERSE ADAPTER OTHERWISE BOOM!):
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/1x-5842-417-to-6C45-Vacuum-tube-adapter-socket-converter-/291002448607?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43c118fadf
  
 The 5842s are warmer, more natural sounding, and nail the timbre - especially the WE417s. Amperex are a good tube for moderate cost. After that, I'm sure you will be fine with Yggy. That should make a huge difference. Personally, I did not like the 6C45s; and I feel that your tastes may be similar to mine.


----------



## Stillhart

rickb said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/3810#post_11058782


 
  
 Ah, there's that Schiit marketing I was talking about!  lol  If nothing else, it makes for a good read.  I guess I'll continue to be skeptical of this product until I hear it for myself.  If it worksas described, should be an easy $100.  I wish Canjam would hurry up and get here!


----------



## purrin

On tos


conquerator2 said:


> Hopefully purrin will chime in here but in my experience, I find the USB to be slightly more extended/detailed/harsh in general and the optical a bit smoother/smeared... I think that this highly depends on the USB and optical chips/implementations and the answer might not be as simple. With the NFB-7, the USB sounded more lively and the optical was more smoothed. With the Gungnir, the same applies. optical was from SB X7 or my PC's SB Recon output. Running it through a converter [like the Gustard U12] yielded some minor improvements...
> I usually use the optical for gaming [little choice lol...] and USB from my PC [through Wyrd and sometimes a USB/optical/XYZ converter] and the differences seem consistent, if minor in the grand scheme of things.
> The better the DAC usually the better they sound, regardless of input, unless the USB/optical input is crap, then the other input or a converter is the clear winner
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yes, they sound different Just use what is best. With Gungnir IMO, assuming similarly capable transport; USB Gen 2 > Toslink > USB Gen 1. Transport does matter too. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if toslink from a TOTL transport sounded better than USB Gen 2.
  


evillamer said:


> Schitt is using a next generation Cmedia USB chip. Not sure how they compare next to the Audiophilleo 2, Berkeley alpha usb, Offramp 5, Hydra Z or Gustard U12.


 
  
 FWIW, I didn't feel the USB Gen 2 in the Yggy proto was any worse than Off Ramp 5 -> AES -> Yggy. Differences were too small - subject to placebo effect - but I did prefer the USB Gen 2 over OR5.


----------



## evillamer

only wish Schitt would implement Yggdrasil 2 with SD Card slot and arm processor so that we can bypass USB/SPDIF/Noisy PC and get the lowest jitter ever. like how they did with Invicta/Mirus.


----------



## smitty1110

evillamer said:


> only wish Schitt would implement Yggdrasil 2 with SD Card slot and arm processor so that we can bypass USB/SPDIF/Noisy PC and get the lowest jitter ever. like how they did with Invicta/Mirus.


Why would you want to have an arm processor just to manage that? That would add a ton of complexity to the system, increasing costs because of the need for another programmer, and might add noise to the system. Also, if you want to avoid HF noise just use an optical toslink cable.


----------



## Jason Stoddard

stillhart said:


> Seems like a weird marketing choice by a company that's very marketing-focused.


 
  
 We are not marketing-focused. We have a strong brand. There is a very big difference.
  
 If we were marketing-focused, we'd have t-shirts and coffee cups, send 24 emails a year to our email list about new products and old products, do discounts and sales, offer people incentives to spread the word about our product, spend much more on advertising on major sites and publications, be active in social media, do cool videos, make sure tons of review samples go out before launch, and lots of other things. That's marketing. 
  
 In reality, our marketing spend is much, much less than average. In fact, you could say our biggest "investment" in marketing right now is my direct time on the Schiit Happens ongoing story...and if you can still buy something from us after reading how much we screw up, it's a minor miracle.
  
 Sorry to interrupt the thread, but this is a common misconception about Schiit: that we are heavy marketeers. We aren't. But we do have a strong brand.
  
 To contribute actual content: the kits for Yggy are undergoing final "find the backordered part" stuff that is typical when getting a new product to market, and are going to the assembly house shortly. With metal in-house, this puts us in a good position to make an end Q1 ship date. In addition, I have finally been spending time with a final 0.99 Yggy, and have found no operational glitches or other problems. Which is as expected--this has been baking a long time.


----------



## conquerator2

Glad to hear that Jason and congrats on your 1000th post! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Exciting times are soon to be had, or read for now, at least


----------



## Finjima

Grats on 1000th post Jason!!


----------



## lojay

purrin said:


> I'd stick with the MSB. The Spectral and SFDs (upgraded / old-parts replaced) are arguably better than or equivalent to the MSB Analog, but they are ticking time bombs with no servicability




Thanks Marv. Seems like the real step up from the MSB will be the Yggy. As always, no point stepping up from a DAC when perfectly happy with it and when you are actually stepping sideways (eg with the SF and Spectral).


----------



## Mr Rick

jason stoddard said:


> We are not marketing-focused. We have a strong brand. There is a very big difference.
> 
> If we were marketing-focused, we'd have t-shirts and coffee cups, send 24 emails a year to our email list about new products and old products, do discounts and sales, offer people incentives to spread the word about our product, spend much more on advertising on major sites and publications, be active in social media, do cool videos, make sure tons of review samples go out before launch, and lots of other things. That's marketing.
> 
> ...


 
 I don't need to tell *you* this but your best salesmen are your enthusiastic and satisfied customers. You can't buy that kind of marketing. You have to earn it. And you have.


----------



## Jones Bob

jason stoddard said:


> We are not marketing-focused. We have a strong brand. There is a very big difference.
> 
> If we were marketing-focused, we'd have t-shirts and coffee cups, send 24 emails a year to our email list about new products and old products, do discounts and sales, offer people incentives to spread the word about our product, spend much more on advertising on major sites and publications, be active in social media, do cool videos, make sure tons of review samples go out before launch, and lots of other things. That's marketing.
> 
> ...


 

I would be willing to sacrifice my precious spare time to Schiit to offload a Yggy, for me to help wrap up the beta testing. 

Oh hell Jason, since you are a friend, I would even do it for free.


----------



## Currawong

mr rick said:


> jason stoddard said:
> 
> 
> > We are not marketing-focused. We have a strong brand. There is a very big difference.
> ...


 
  
 A lot of companies forget that the strongest marketing tactic is having excellent products. All that social media stuff just builds a taller cliff to fall down if a product has a serious defect or issue that sends people into a spin.
  
 Back to DACs though: An interesting thought that came to mind, when pondering back when I owned an Anedio D2, was that DACs designed to a large degree to have objectively low distortion seem to get complaints about sounding thin. The Anedio and Hugo being very good examples of this.


----------



## 62ohm

currawong said:


> A lot of companies forget that the strongest marketing tactic is having excellent products. All that social media stuff just builds a taller cliff to fall down if a product has a serious defect or issue that sends people into a spin.
> 
> Back to DACs though: An interesting thought that came to mind, when pondering back when I owned an Anedio D2, was that DACs designed to a large degree to have objectively low distortion seem to get complaints about sounding thin. The Anedio and Hugo being very good examples of this.


 
  
 and the Benchmark DAC1 also known for sounding thin. I think it is true though, which is why I'm currently aiming to also get the Metrum Octave to complement it.


----------



## jodgey4

A problem at the mastering, not with the DAC, then. Which is why I'm excited that there's been a few services talking about doing lots of remasters recently, like Pono (I think?) and Uprise.FM. Also, Harman's target curves for headphones are pushing headphones the other way towards 'warmth', so the whole market seems to be kinda changing around.


----------



## Currawong

Definitely the Benchmark. Don't know how I didn't think to mention that!


----------



## estreeter

@purrin, I'm still patiently awaiting the YT vid of you setting fire to your house an iFi product. If you really want to impress your legion of the damned er, _supporters_, I believe it needs to be this one:
  
 http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/retro-stereo-50/
  

  
_Burn, baby, burn - disco inferno !_


----------



## Yoga

lojay said:


> Thanks Marv. Seems like the real step up from the MSB will be the Yggy. As always, no point stepping up from a DAC when perfectly happy with it and when you are actually stepping sideways (eg with the SF and Spectral).


 

 Very interested to hear what you think of the Yggy vs. your current two sources. Very interested indeed (especially the 777) :¬)


----------



## jacal01

purrin said:


> Honestly, I don't feel i2s or other fancy stuff is needed. However I'm trying to convince the Schiit guys to make a converter box that uses the old ST/AT&T optical that high-end DACs supported 20 years ago.


 
  
 Ha!  It's a good thing _that_ isn't fancy niche stuff.
  
 USB continues to be a work in progress for audio.


----------



## frenchbat

> Posted by *62ohm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> and the Benchmark DAC1 also known for sounding thin. I think it is true though, which is why I'm currently aiming to also get the Metrum Octave to complement it.


 


> Posted by *Currawong*
> 
> Definitely the Benchmark. Don't know how I didn't think to mention that!


 
  
 It's very much source dependent. Give it a decent usb2spdif converter, and it won't be thin anymore. The usb input of the dac1 is just useless. The dac has weaknesses, but it's not as bad as people would like it to be.


----------



## evillamer

jacal01 said:


> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I don't feel i2s or other fancy stuff is needed. However I'm trying to convince the Schiit guys to make a converter box that uses the old ST/AT&T optical that high-end DACs supported 20 years ago.
> ...


 

  
 Problem with USB is that it's another layer of data transmission that requires re-clocking which introduces jitter.
  
  
 Sdcard Transport with I2S more direct:


----------



## Artist2

JDS Labs C5D --- It is exceptional. Very little to no hiss noise even with sensitive iem, very clean detailed and accurate sound, reference quality, pocketsized simple design.


----------



## evillamer

artist2 said:


> JDS Labs C5D --- It is exceptional. Very little to no hiss noise even with sensitive iem, very clean detailed and accurate sound, reference quality, pocketsized simple design.


 
  
 Yeah, at least you are getting something that sounds great out of the box. Unlike some "crowdfunded development cycle".
  
 I feel sorry for those who put money into something they won't recieve for months/years to come. Thank goodness for Great US companies like JDSLabs and Schitt where you get what you paid for(almost immediately). Not to mention you can purchase modular "plug and play" upgrades from Schitt.
  
 Not to mention, John Seaber(Jdslabs) is a very nice guy too.


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> Yeah, at least you are getting something that sounds great out of the box. Unlike some "crowdfunded development cycle".
> 
> I feel sorry for those who put money into something they won't recieve for months/years to come. Thank goodness for Great US companies like JDSLabs and Schitt where you get what you paid for(almost immediately). Not to mention you can purchase modular "plug and play" upgrades from Schitt.


 
  
 I don't feel sorry for them.  Caveat Emptor.  
  
 I am reminded of that every few years, most recently by Schiit actually.  Not meaning to put them on the same level as "that crowd-funded company", but my experience left a bad taste in my mouth.  I'm much more wary now about all the hype with ANY company that's so universally lauded on here.  If it sounds to good to be true, it usually is.
  
 I'm reserving judgement on the Yggy until I hear it for myself.  Same with the high end Geek stuff.  
  
 (And yeah, I know the Schiit guys are reading this.  I don't mean to trash the company as a whole or any of them personally.  I had a bad experience and it's done now.  I just want to balance out all the gushing because nobody is perfect.  It's hard for anyone to live up to the kind of reputation they have on here.  I am open to trying Schiit again but I'll be going in with eyes open next time.)


----------



## Artist2

evillamer said:


> Yeah, at least you are getting something that sounds great out of the box. Unlike some "crowdfunded development cycle".
> 
> I feel sorry for those who put money into something they won't recieve for months/years to come. Thank goodness for Great US companies like JDSLabs and Schitt where you get what you paid for(almost immediately). Not to mention you can purchase modular "plug and play" upgrades from Schitt.
> 
> Not to mention, John Seaber(Jdslabs) is a very nice guy too.




C5D has been connected to my Etymotic HF5 and iPad anytime I can take some time out, and the sound is superb, especially with 24bit 96khz music.


----------



## Sorrodje

artist2 said:


> C5D has been connected to my Etymotic HF5 and iPad anytime I can take some time out, and the sound is superb, especially with 24bit 96khz music.


 
  
  
 The sound is superb compared to what ? give comparisons mates or it does not make sense.


----------



## mtruong34

Hello Purrin/Marv,
  
 Have you heard of Mojo Audio’s Mystique DAC, built around Analog Devices' AD-1865N-K R-2R ladder DAC chip.  If so, what are your thoughts?  Any potential here to be a modern day DAC with that vintage magic like the Gen V?
  
http://www.mojo-audio.com/mystique-nos-ad1865n-k-dac/


----------



## conquerator2

Well, I am kinda disappointed with the way Gungnir renders female vocals and the whole treble area [save for lower treble, which I like]. I know it's a lot of personal taste, IMO and YMMV, but for something that purrin [zero offence meant] denoted as his third most favorite DAC for female vocals, I am a bit disappointed...
 For what it's worth, my previous Sabre DAC rendered female vocals much more beautifully and realistically. They had more presence, air and well-mastered tracks sounded downright heavenly and amazing. With the Gungnir, while the bright/harsh female vocals sound better, owing to its smoother tonality, the ones that I was enjoying so much with the NFB now sound less special and well, less realistic...
 Same applied to OSTs, instrumental pieces and well-mastered tracks in general.
 The Gungnir admittedly sounds better with pop, rock and the likes, where the bright and aggressive nature of the Sabre causes more harm than good, while the Gungnir plays nicely and smoothly.
 But to not only mock - the Gung has one of, if not the best bass I've heard from the HE-560/any headphone, period. Deep, thunderous and just really satisfying. The lower midrange and treble is nice and smooth too, which I like.
 Though, I must say that I do miss the upper midrange and upper treble presence very much - it gave the vocals soul, air and breath and guitars/violins/pianos that amazing presence, timbre and realism that Gung just does not touch... Unfortunately.
 If the Yggy really is the best of the two - a cross-breed of both, then there's not much choice but to save money and get it, because quite frankly, while I love the things the Gung does right and better than Sabre/NFB, I just as much miss the things it does a class worse...
 Maybe the man himself can chime in once more and tell me how he feels about the two now in this regard. Maybe some other kind soul can chime in and let me sleep better 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Either way, there's much waiting and anticipation to be had 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






  
 Sorry for the long post and thank you


----------



## Clemmaster

Get the Yggy, indeed.
  
 Or try to find a used PS-Audio Ultra link II. Its tonality reminds me of the NFB-27 sometimes. It's not exactly the same, but of all the DACs I've owned since I sold the NFB (soooo many...), it is the least warm and, as such, the closest to the NFB-x7).


----------



## conquerator2

clemmaster said:


> Get the Yggy, indeed.
> 
> Or try to find a used PS-Audio Ultra link II. Its tonality reminds me of the NFB-27 sometimes. It's not exactly the same, but of all the DACs I've owned since I sold the NFB (soooo many...), it is the least warm and, as such, the closest to the NFB-x7).


 
 Cheers Clem.
 I guess I'll keep waiting for the Yggy.
 I am thinking that's probably my best bet.
 I really liked the NOS TDA1543 [which is currently in my portable DAP] but that's not the final word in realism and timbre either.
 Still loving the SA31SE


----------



## evillamer

conquerator2 said:


> clemmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Get the Yggy, indeed.
> ...


 
  
 Or you could opt for the LH VI XFI DAC @ MSRP$3999.


----------



## conquerator2

evillamer said:


> Or you could opt for the LH VI XFI DAC @ MSRP$3999.




Yeah... No


----------



## Clemmaster

evillamer said:


> Or you could opt for the LH VI XFI DAC @ MSRP$3999.


 
 I heard it's only $1372 if you choose to wait till 2018 to get it. The perk is available July 13, 2016 only, with one unique batch of 20, that can be extended to 3 batches, because it is not so unique after-all...


----------



## Yoga

Probably said this before, but very interested to see where the Yggdrasil sits in the rankings once released :¬)


----------



## SoupRKnowva

yoga said:


> Probably said this before, but very interested to see where the Yggdrasil sits in the rankings once released :¬)




Purrin has already made it pretty clear it's better than the Theta Gen Va in every way, which is at the top, the yggy will be at the top of this list once it gets released


----------



## StefanJK

yoga said:


> Probably said this before, but very interested to see where the Yggdrasil sits in the rankings once released :¬)


 
 I want to see where the Yag sits in general esteem in three years.


----------



## Yoga

Good points, Soup and Stefan.


----------



## Sorrodje

stefanjk said:


> I want to see where the Yag sits in general esteem in three years.


 
  
 I much prefer to have enough money to see within the three next years how the Yggy sits in my own esteem.


----------



## fog16

Hi,
  
 Is someone had experienced CD listening with the Theta DSPRO GEN GEN V-Va and VIII Series 1 ?
  
 Gen V is very hard to find and I have an opportunity for a Gen VIII Series 1.
  
 I have traveled the forum and I did not find such a comparison.
  
  
 This is my fisrt post so I greet everyone well !


----------



## estreeter

stefanjk said:


> I want to see where the Yag sits in general esteem in three years.


 
  
 I can only think of a few amps that have remained at the top for that long, although I admit that not enough of us can afford the Apex Pinnacle to know how it compares. *BHSE, GS-X and its Mk2 sibling* and possibly one or two of the DIY offerings - everything else seems to get rolled when the next big thing comes out. Cavalli, Woo, HiFiMan - they all seem to cannibalise their own sales to some extent. There are a couple of made-to-order amps with a small but very dedicated following, but in terms of 'mainstream' products people inevitably move on to the shiny new toys. I'm sure Tyll would have more insight, but he seems to have farmed out his amp reviews to others on the basis that he isnt an impartial observer having made a living in that arena.


----------



## Articnoise

conquerator2 said:


>


 

 I don’t have any Schiit product but I’m pretty sure that Gungnir and Yggdrasil as well are made to be used in balanced configuration and will sound its best in that configuration. All according to Schiit them self and users that have tried. Other audio product I have had, that have been made to be used in balanced operation have all sound notably better when been used in that way. The difference between real balanced and SE (in a balanced dac/amp) is often that the SE sound warmer, muddier, less airy, lack the last extension in both ends and also have a less precise staging. 

 I’m not saying that your Gungnir will sound like a Sabre DAC if used in balanced mod only that it’s maybe worth considering especially if you thinking about to grab a Yggdrasil. Also worth remember is that many actually prefer the “Sabre sound” and find that they have a cleaner and nicer sparkle to the music. Other think that it adding an artificial glare. I haven’t acquired the experience to say anything of value on the matter, but have a more holistic approach to audio gear and high fidelity sound. Everything matters but not equally and synergy between gears/components can make good things sound like crap and inexpensive ones can sound really nice.


----------



## purrin

I'm really not concerned about "general esteem" if the 20 year old Theta Gen V is any indication. Heck, I still have vintage (ancient) Altec horns / compression drivers.
  
 Just have to immunize self to new toy syndrome by stepping back and asking: "is this new toy really better or is this just different?" The one thing I regret the most was selling the ECBA to fund my foray into electrostatics.


----------



## conquerator2

articnoise said:


> I don’t have any Schiit product but I’m pretty sure that Gungnir and Yggdrasil as well are made to be used in balanced configuration and will sound its best in that configuration. All according to Schiit them self and users that have tried. Other audio product I have had, that have been made to be used in balanced operation have all sound notably better when been used in that way. The difference between real balanced and SE (in a balanced dac/amp) is often that the SE sound warmer, muddier, less airy, lack the last extension in both ends and also have a less precise staging.
> 
> I’m not saying that your Gungnir will sound like a Sabre DAC if used in balanced mod only that it’s maybe worth considering especially if you thinking about to grab a Yggdrasil. Also worth remember is that many actually prefer the “Sabre sound” and find that they have a cleaner and nicer sparkle to the music. Other think that it adding an artificial glare. I haven’t acquired the experience to say anything of value on the matter, but have a more holistic approach to audio gear and high fidelity sound. Everything matters but not equally and synergy between gears/components can make good things sound like crap and inexpensive ones can sound really nice.


 
 No can do, sorry. My amp is SE.
 A Sabre still sound like a Sabre and Gungnir like a Gungnir. Both balanced DAC and both had to do SE conversions...
 The difference is not big enough to transform a DAC to something it is not...
 Anyway, I think I'll keep the Gungnir indefinitely until I can upgrade to something better. I am coming to terms with it and liking what it does right very much


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> I'm really not concerned about "general esteem" if the 20 year old Theta Gen V is any indication. Heck, I still have vintage (ancient) Altec horns / compression drivers.
> 
> Just have to immunize self to new toy syndrome by stepping back and asking: "is this new toy really better or is this just different?" The one thing I regret the most was selling the ECBA to fund my foray into electrostatics.


----------



## ericfarrell85

conquerator2 said:


> Well, I am kinda disappointed with the way Gungnir renders female vocals and the whole treble area [save for lower treble, which I like]. I know it's a lot of personal taste, IMO and YMMV, but for something that purrin [zero offence meant] denoted as his third most favorite DAC for female vocals, I am a bit disappointed...
> For what it's worth, my previous Sabre DAC rendered female vocals much more beautifully and realistically. They had more presence, air and well-mastered tracks sounded downright heavenly and amazing. With the Gungnir, while the bright/harsh female vocals sound better, owing to its smoother tonality, the ones that I was enjoying so much with the NFB now sound less special and well, less realistic...
> Same applied to OSTs, instrumental pieces and well-mastered tracks in general.
> The Gungnir admittedly sounds better with pop, rock and the likes, where the bright and aggressive nature of the Sabre causes more harm than good, while the Gungnir plays nicely and smoothly.
> ...


 

 A lot of people seem to overlook what should be among the first caveats in this hobby: it's about the system and not always about the components. A "better" DAC will not always provide an improvement in your system. The MSB Analog, Meitner MA1, dCS Debussy couldn't give, in my system, what the Spectral and Lampizator can. Some of them may be "better" in some obtuse, absolute way, but they don't work with my conditioner, preamp, amps, interconnects, headphones, transport, etc...You'll drive yourself nuts wondering if you have the best dac, amp or headphone in the world. Don't worry about that. It's all about synergy.


----------



## conquerator2

ericfarrell85 said:


> A lot of people seem to overlook what should be among the first caveats in this hobby: it's about the system and not always about the components. A "better" DAC will not always provide an improvement in your system. The MSB Analog, Meitner MA1, dCS Debussy couldn't give, in my system, what the Spectral and Lampizator can. Some of them may be "better" in some obtuse, absolute way, but they don't work with my conditioner, preamp, amps, interconnects, headphones, transport, etc...You'll drive yourself nuts wondering if you have the best dac, amp or headphone in the world. Don't worry about that. It's all about synergy.


 
 Sure, I am very much aware of that... Or I am pretty sure there's a semblance at least 
 Still, I am happier and happier with the Gungnir, so that's that.
 I can see myself getting the HE-1000/Yggdrasil/Ragnarok eventually, when money allows.
 For now though, I am happy.


----------



## Sorrodje

ericfarrell85 said:


> A lot of people seem to overlook what should be among the first caveats in this hobby: it's about the system and not always about the components. A "better" DAC will not always provide an improvement in your system. The MSB Analog, Meitner MA1, dCS Debussy couldn't give, in my system, what the Spectral and Lampizator can. Some of them may be "better" in some obtuse, absolute way, but they don't work with my conditioner, preamp, amps, interconnects, headphones, transport, etc...You'll drive yourself nuts wondering if you have the best dac, amp or headphone in the world. Don't worry about that. It's all about synergy.


 
  
 That definitely match my own experience .


----------



## drez

ericfarrell85 said:


> A lot of people seem to overlook what should be among the first caveats in this hobby: it's about the system and not always about the components. A "better" DAC will not always provide an improvement in your system. The MSB Analog, Meitner MA1, dCS Debussy couldn't give, in my system, what the Spectral and Lampizator can. Some of them may be "better" in some obtuse, absolute way, but they don't work with my conditioner, preamp, amps, interconnects, headphones, transport, etc...You'll drive yourself nuts wondering if you have the best dac, amp or headphone in the world. Don't worry about that. It's all about synergy.


 
  
 Does depend on philosophy though - for me at this point in my journey I will take every bit of musical information a component can provide, and tend to find that with components like racks, conditioners and cables I am usually hearing more music with better components eg Stillpoints, power regenrators, better transports and source upgrades.  When I move to a more laid back DAC, I hear less music - which is probably just more to do with how I listen and appreciate music than anything else.


----------



## Lindvior

Hi guys, I'm looking for an upgrade USB cable for O2+ODAC combo, any suggestions?


----------



## Hansotek

lindvior said:


> Hi guys, I'm looking for an upgrade USB cable for O2+ODAC combo, any suggestions?



Adding a Schiit Wyrd to your chain makes ODAC sound SIGNIFICANTLY better and cleaner, even with a $10 USB cable. Highly, highly recommend it as a fellow ODAC owner!


----------



## 62ohm

Hi Purrin (or anyone familiar in this regard),
  
 I'm planning on getting a Metrum Octave Mk.1, is it mandatory to get a USB-Coax converter, or should I simply use my computer's built-in Toslink output? Cheers.


----------



## Sorrodje

IMO the built-in toslink ouput deserves a try before any more purchase. My 2 cents


----------



## 62ohm

sorrodje said:


> IMO the built-in toslink ouput deserves a try before any more purchase. My 2 cents


 
  
 Not an option as the shop I'm planning to buy it from has both, and I would get a special price of I get both at the same time. But if I only get the Octave, which I would still get free shipment, I would have to pay for additional shipment if I want to get the USB-Coax converter later on.
  
 PS: I'm not familiar with any kind of USB-Coax conversion, the converter the shop is providing is this "MHDT Labs USBridge" which cost roughly $120 USD.


----------



## Sorrodje

Your converter is based on a CM6631 USB chip. its quite good if well implemented (Schiit, meier Audio use it)  but this MHDT converter does not seem to be Hi-end.  What's the asked price ?


----------



## 62ohm

sorrodje said:


> Your converter is based on a CM6631 USB chip. its quite good if well implemented (Schiit, meier Audio use it)  but this MHDT converter does not seem to be Hi-end.  What's the asked price ?


 
  
 (NZD) $150 for the Converter, $900 for the Octave. $1,000 for both & free shipment.
  
 I honestly don't know anything about USB-Coax conversion though..


----------



## Sorrodje

For less than 100 NZD , you can't really go wrong IMO. such a converter is always useful because it allows to use two DACS from the same USB and than compare it very easily


----------



## Lindvior

hansotek said:


> Adding a Schiit Wyrd to your chain makes ODAC sound SIGNIFICANTLY better and cleaner, even with a $10 USB cable. Highly, highly recommend it as a fellow ODAC owner!


 
  
 I'v never consider an USB interface cz I thought most of them only support coaxial output which does't match the ODACs.
  
 I'm surprised that this Schiit Wyrd has USB output, Thanks you for the suggest!


----------



## hans030390

62ohm said:


> Hi Purrin (or anyone familiar in this regard),
> 
> I'm planning on getting a Metrum Octave Mk.1, is it mandatory to get a USB-Coax converter, or should I simply use my computer's built-in Toslink output? Cheers.


 
  
 Yeah, the Metrum DACs really work best with a high-end SPDIF converter of some sort. You might be better off in the end and save money ultimately by saving up for the MkII with USB input.


----------



## evillamer

Has purrin tried this dac yet?
 http://www.aquahifi.com/la_scala.html
  
 John Darko seems to like it alot, rating equal or above the Metrum Hex:
  
 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2014/03/aqua-hifi-la-scala-mkii-dac-review/


----------



## 62ohm

hans030390 said:


> Yeah, the Metrum DACs really work best with a high-end SPDIF converter of some sort. You might be better off in the end and save money ultimately by saving up for the MkII with USB input.


 
  
 The Mk.2 costs almost twice as much as the (second-hand) Mk.1 here, that's why I'm more inclined to get the Mk.1


----------



## Clemmaster

62ohm said:


> The Mk.2 costs almost twice as much as the (second-hand) Mk.1 here, that's why I'm more inclined to get the Mk.1



A second hand mkII is roughly 300 more. Makes you reconsider a bit. Plus the Octave / Aurix stack looks cute


----------



## 62ohm

clemmaster said:


> A second hand mkII is roughly 300 more. Makes you reconsider a bit. Plus the Octave / Aurix stack looks cute


 
  
 There's no 2nd-hand Mk.2 currently available here in NZ, and if I get one from overseas I would need to pay additional tax..


----------



## motberg

62ohm said:


> Not an option as the shop I'm planning to buy it from has both, and I would get a special price of I get both at the same time. But if I only get the Octave, which I would still get free shipment, I would have to pay for additional shipment if I want to get the USB-Coax converter later on.
> 
> PS: I'm not familiar with any kind of USB-Coax conversion, the converter the shop is providing is this "MHDT Labs USBridge" which cost roughly $120 USD.


 

 This appears to be an old version powered only by the USB input, so you may need to clean that up a little.
  
 I would grab the DAC before it is gone and get one of these XMOS Gustard DDC
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/736294/gustard-u12-usb-interface-8-core-xmos-chip
  
 The toslink may be OK, but in my experience would require a decent cable and even then the coax would probably be more suitable for such a high quality DAC


----------



## bmichels

Did someone heard this one ?   A tube DAC....may be it will offer a nice synergy with my EC445 ??


----------



## ciphercomplete

Alot of us here, including myself, have been through the ringer with Sabre chipped dacs and for that matter sigma delta dacs in general.  It might be hard to find someone who wants to try it. $6500 for a sabre dac just doesn't sit well with me having already heard a crap load of them.


----------



## evillamer

ciphercomplete said:


> Alot of us here, including myself, have been through the ringer with Sabre chipped dacs and for that matter sigma delta dacs in general.  It might be hard to find someone who wants to try it. $6500 for a sabre dac just doesn't sit well with me having already heard a crap load of them.


 
 Sabre ES9018S is seriously not a bad sounding chip if it's well implemented like in the case of the Auralic Vega. The only problem is with ES9018K2M sounds more harshy or pitchy treble(sabre glare). Not sure if the ES9018AQ2M will fix this.


----------



## bmichels

evillamer said:


> Sabre ES9018S is seriously not a bad sounding chip if it's well implemented like in the case of the Auralic Vega. The only problem is with ES9018K2M sounds more harshy or pitchy treble(sabre glare). Not sure if the ES9018AQ2M will fix this.


 
  
*Accuphase* also use ES9018 in it's DAC, including it's latest DC-37, and.... I do not think that Accuphase is know for "bad" sound !!


----------



## bmichels

have you noticed that now the TotalDac D1-TUbe is now "*mk2"....& sold at the price of the D1-Dual !* 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Indeed in this D1-Tube, the discrete R2R ladder is doubled (like the d1-dual) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 One more reason to go TotalDAC... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  (but note that this Tube version is still SE only, and do not have the Headphone out like the D1-Dual). So ....


----------



## magiccabbage

I heard a dedicated Audio PC today with a Lampi generation 4 through my WA5. The dedicated PC was amazing. Very impressive - it floored me actually ..... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 most impressive thing at the meet I thought


----------



## darkless

bmichels said:


> have you noticed that now the TotalDac D1-TUbe is now "*mk2"....& sold at the price of the D1-Dual !* :eek: Indeed in this D1-Tube, the discrete R2R ladder is doubled (like the d1-dual)
> 
> One more reason to go TotalDAC...    (but note that this Tube version is still SE only, and do not have the Headphone out like the D1-Dual). So ....



As the output impedance for the tube version is 460 Ohm, a headphone output with such a high impedance would make little sense.


----------



## Stillhart

Hi all,
  
 Just wanted to report in a bit.  I picked up an Audio-GD NFB-28.  Since I decided that I wasn't going to drop the big bucks on a R2R DAC just yet, I figured the NFB-28 is one of the best bang-for-the-buck Sabre DAC's out there and a good one to hold me over until I can jump into the big leagues.  I got it used so saved a few bucks.
  
 Anyhow, I did some testing tonight comparing the NFB-15 (Wolfson), NFB-28 (Sabre) and GO SE (Sabre) all using the amp in the NFB-28.  I posted a bunch of impressions in the NFB-28 thread.  But what I wanted to mention here was that, upon comparing the 28 and the 15, I could very clearly hear that "one-note bass" you were talking about in the Sabre DAC.
  
 It's weird because the Sabre has more bass extension and more sub-bass body.  Yet kick drums felt totally flat and lifeless...like kicking wood instead of a drum head.  The Wolfson DAC, although inferior in a lot of ways, had a lot more dynamic kick drums.
  
 The other thing that I found interesting was comparing the two different Sabre implementations.  I felt like the GO SE was more "sabre-y"... it had more digital treble and even less dynamics in the bass.  They were very similar overall but the differences were there and I felt like the 28 just had more body and was slightly more pleasing.
  
 I know this stuff is all relatively low-end for some of you guys, but I found the comparisons really fascinating and I think it helps me understand some of the things you've been discussing in this thread.
  
 EDIT - Forgot to mention that my testing was done with the SE connection on the NFB-28 since I don't have my balanced cable yet.  The sound should improve a bit but I'm not sure how much the Sabre sound is going to change... I'll find out in a few days.


----------



## ericfarrell85

magiccabbage said:


> I heard a dedicated Audio PC today with a Lampi generation 4 through my WA5. The dedicated PC was amazing. Very impressive - it floored me actually ..... :eek:  most impressive thing at the meet I thought




What was the dedicated pc? I don't know if you own one, but the Lampizator is a component that can "floor" someone who hasn't heard it before. It's nothing if not distinct. Though, it's certainly not without issues, it has an immediate glamour about it.


----------



## evillamer

@Stillhart
  
 Please move up to the R2R if you can or at least find someone near you who has a good R2R dac to listen to. If I have to exaggerate abit here, sigma delta sounds like a ultra high quality FM synthesizer generating sine waves vs the natural fluid sound(better at micro semitones, plakton details) you get off R2R dac.


----------



## magiccabbage

ericfarrell85 said:


> What was the dedicated pc? I don't know if you own one, but the Lampizator is a component that can "floor" someone who hasn't heard it before. It's nothing if not distinct. Though, it's certainly not without issues, it has an immediate glamour about it.


 
 Well I tied the Audio PC and the cuinis DAC first and was blown away - the lampizator was just the cherry on top. I dont know the specs of the PC, it was a DIY job.


----------



## mcullinan

I heard the latest lampozator and it blew chunks. At the NY Show last year, bright, ear bleeding highs, i almost had an aneurysm. Lol. Ive heard the other version too. Meh. Lampi guys are zealots for some reason. I think because they have to justify the cash. The version 4 had hum issues and background noise. Ugh. 





ericfarrell85 said:


> What was the dedicated pc? I don't know if you own one, but the Lampizator is a component that can "floor" someone who hasn't heard it before. It's nothing if not distinct. Though, it's certainly not without issues, it has an immediate glamour about it.


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> @Stillhart
> 
> 
> Please move up to the R2R if you can or at least find someone near you who has a good R2R dac to listen to. If I have to exaggerate abit here, sigma delta sounds like a ultra high quality FM synthesizer generating sine waves vs the natural fluid sound(better at micro semitones, plakton details) you get off R2R dac.



I'll hear some at Canjam in a month. Until then, I'd rather just enjoy my inexpensive ignorance. LOL


----------



## evillamer

mcullinan said:


> I heard the latest lampozator and it blew chunks. At the NY Show last year, bright, ear bleeding highs, i almost had an aneurysm. Lol. Ive heard the other version too. Meh. Lampi guys are zealots for some reason. I think because they have to justify the cash. The version 4 had hum issues and background noise. Ugh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 "lampizator" done to a car:
  

  
 more reading:
 http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2350&sid=8b3a562714885d97a88e4614926313de


----------



## ericfarrell85

mcullinan said:


> I heard the latest lampozator and it blew chunks. At the NY Show last year, bright, ear bleeding highs, i almost had an aneurysm. Lol. Ive heard the other version too. Meh. Lampi guys are zealots for some reason. I think because they have to justify the cash. The version 4 had hum issues and background noise. Ugh.




Wow, words are thrown about carelessy nowadays, huh? Just a friendly reminder that zealots once referred to a fanatical sect in Judea, militantly opposed to Rome and paid for their zeal, most usually with their lives. While zealots are still around, Lampizator owners don't really fit that complexion. 

And for what it's worth, my Lampi is a little rolled off and lacking shimmer next to my Spectral. Then again, I may be justifying the expense; who ever really knows with zealots anyway?


----------



## kazsud

magiccabbage said:


> Well I tied the Audio PC and the cuinis DAC first and was blown away - the lampizator was just the cherry on top. I dont know the specs of the PC, it was a DIY job.


 
 Which lampizator was it?


----------



## magiccabbage

kazsud said:


> Which lampizator was it?


 
 4


----------



## mark_h

What's a DAC?


----------



## johnjen

It's just another Dammed Audio Contraption…
  
 JJ


----------



## estreeter

I guess this lines up with 'justifying the price' but many of the Lampi faithful claim you have to hear the Big 6 - at a minimum - to hear what Lukasz is capable of. Note that he is now selling a 'Head DAC' for 3900 Euro - still way above my pay grade esp when you factor in shipping and import duty - and he's finally rejigged that appalling website, cosmetically at least. The old DiY stuff is still the same - hard to fault his excellent photos of the guts of old gear - but at least someone coming to the commercial site for the first time isnt going to have a conniption.


----------



## drez

evillamer said:


> @Stillhart
> 
> Please move up to the R2R if you can or at least find someone near you who has a good R2R dac to listen to. If I have to exaggerate abit here, sigma delta sounds like a ultra high quality FM synthesizer generating sine waves vs the natural fluid sound(better at micro semitones, plakton details) you get off R2R dac.


 
  
 Hoperfully someone at upcoming meet will buy Ygg/Rag.  I'm mostly interested to hear Ygg to try and figure out what plankton details are (if they are microdetails or small microdynamic changes, delta sigma can pick this up - just a matter of getting the noise floor low enough).  I guess R2R could have an advantage when it comes to noise floor?


----------



## magiccabbage

estreeter said:
			
		

> but at least someone coming to the commercial site for the first time isnt going to have a conniption.


 
 hahaha so true


----------



## wink

> Originally Posted by *estreeter*  but at least someone coming to the commercial site for the first time isnt going to have a conniption.


 
 But they could have a serious episode of _*wallet*_osis.


----------



## evillamer

Has anyone heard this dac? Stereophile seem to love it
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/cambridge-audio-azur-851d-da-processor


> Analog Devices ADSP-BF532 BlackFin 32-bit DSP chip, which upsamples data to 24/384 using the second-generation Adaptive Time Filtering (ATF2) process. Digital-to-analog conversion is handled by two Analog Devices AD1955 24-bit chips


 


> The Cambridge Audio Azur 851D's measured performance is never short of superb. The fact that it can offer this level of performance for $1500 puts many more-expensive processors to shame.—*John Atkinson*


 
  
  
 $1499(9% discounted) at amazon:
 http://www.amazon.com/CAMBRIDGE-AZUR-851D-DAC-BLACK/dp/B00HW2VYCM/


----------



## evillamer

Seems like he prefers AD1955 over ES9018:
  


> And, it’s finished ! It’s really hard to fault this DAC in any way now. It’s the best sounding DAC I’ve ever heard. Eat your heart out ES9018, you’re number 2. Yes, the ES9018 is more punchy but this has the most overall pleasing sound I’ve heard.


 
  
 https://myl8test.wordpress.com/audio/modifying-an-audio-dac/


----------



## evillamer

drez said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > @Stillhart
> ...


 
  
 It's not just about the low noise floor of R2R.
  
 If you got an ipod classic(6th gen) or your PC/laptop onboard realtek soundcard, you will get to hear the worst kind of the sigma delta sound with this track then you compare it to your ES9018(which will sound better, but not as good as R2R)
  

  
  
 A good R2R will playback the celesta with a real life like "ting" metal sound while a really bad sigma delta will sound more like plasticy "dung"(with all kinds of grainy/sawy distortion).
  
  
 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celesta


----------



## negura

All the instruments sound more natural on a good R2R.


----------



## drez

evillamer said:


> It's not just about the low noise floor of R2R.
> 
> If you got an ipod classic(6th gen) or your PC/laptop onboard realtek soundcard, you will get to hear the worst kind of the sigma delta sound with this track then you compare it to your ES9018(which will sound better, but not as good as R2R)
> 
> ...





 I think I understand - but still not sure I would understand unless I have experience first hand of the difference.  I guess my main concern having no direct experience of the improvement that is possible in terms of tonality (PCM1704 was more natural but rolled at both ends) is to try to understand why good R2R has better tonality.  
  
 If this is purely a wetness of tonality or absence of grain thing, then this could be reproduced by tubes, cables, amplifier etc.  I would expect that if the culprit with delta sigma is noise, that we should be able to measure the noise and correlate this to what we are hearing.  I think we also need to determine if the noise is in the recording or an artefact of D/A conversion.
  
 I guess the other golden question is what it takes to get a "good" R2R DAC, for example does Ygg also fix the grain and noise in the tonality and treble?  How does the noise and distortion in the treble measure vs the bad Delta Sigma?


----------



## Sapientiam

drez said:


> I would expect that if the culprit with delta sigma is noise, that we should be able to measure the noise and correlate this to what we are hearing.  I think we also need to determine if the noise is in the recording or an artefact of D/A conversion.


 
  
 The noise introduced by delta sigmas is as a result of the mode of operation but only tends to show up with the right kind of stimulus. What's happening in the simplest terms is there's lots of feedback wrapped around a stark nonlinearity - quantization. There's no known mathematics to characterize and predict what happens in such a non-linear, chaotic system, everything has to be done empirically, through simulation. On average the technique gives the perfect measurements that S-D (or D-S) DACs are known for, but determining what period of time is the appropriate one to average over for subjective sound quality concerns is rather tricky. Search for Martin Mallinson's RMAF presentation from a few years back if you'd like to learn more of the arcane details of noise-shaping feedback loops.


----------



## drez

sapientiam said:


> The noise introduced by delta sigmas is as a result of the mode of operation but only tends to show up with the right kind of stimulus. What's happening in the simplest terms is there's lots of feedback wrapped around a stark nonlinearity - quantization. There's no known mathematics to characterize and predict what happens in such a non-linear, chaotic system, everything has to be done empirically, through simulation. On average the technique gives the perfect measurements that S-D (or D-S) DACs are known for, but determining what period of time is the appropriate one to average over for subjective sound quality concerns is rather tricky. Search for Martin Mallinson's RMAF presentation from a few years back if you'd like to learn more of the arcane details of noise-shaping feedback loops.


 

 Interesting, thanks for posting this, hopefully I will be able to follow what is discussed in the lecture and it will give me some insight into this.


----------



## estreeter

@evillamer I'll pay Schiit 2300USD if they can promise me I'll never have to listen to the Nutcracker again on ANY dac .... for the love of God, is there no Puccini opera which features notes or instruments where I might discern the evil of which you speak ? How about the collected works of Mr Simon O'Shine from Poland ? For your sins, I sentence you to AKB48 on endless loop for 24 hours


----------



## gevorg

But what can you do if your music was recorded with a delta-sigma ADC, which I assume is the most common tech in today's pro-audio world. Can the magic of R2R DACs cure that contamination?


----------



## Sapientiam

No I don't believe so, but at least the multibit (R2R is the lowest of the low in the multibit world) DAC won't add more noisy grunge. You're right in your assumption - its actually a slight understatement, the D-S ADC is ubiquitous nowadays, very very few use a multibit (SAR) ADC. I think I heard somewhere that Chesky changed over from their S-D (one of the very first designs, if not the first) ADC to a multibit one.


----------



## mcullinan

estreeter said:


> @evillamer I'll pay Schiit 2300USD if they can promise me I'll never have to listen to the Nutcracker again on ANY dac .... for the love of God, is there no Puccini opera which features notes or instruments where I might discern the evil of which you speak ? How about the collected works of Mr Simon O'Shine from Poland ? For your sins, I sentence you to AKB48 on endless loop for 24 hours





 lol so true. Im down to get this DAC too. The hype is high, but the tech seems new (from something old)


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> Anyhow, I did some testing tonight comparing the NFB-15 (Wolfson), NFB-28 (Sabre) and GO SE (Sabre) all using the amp in the NFB-28.  I posted a bunch of impressions in the NFB-28 thread.  But what I wanted to mention here was that, upon comparing the 28 and the 15, I could very clearly hear that "one-note bass" you were talking about in the Sabre DAC.


 
  
 I'm glad you went out and started listening to stuff yourself. Interesting that you too noticed this behavior in the bass with the Sabre based DAC. What did I call this? Lack of pitch differentiation. The bass sort of farts out. Not all Sabre DACs I've heard are like this - the Vega is an exception.
  
  
 Quote:


drez said:


> If this is purely a wetness of tonality or absence of grain thing, then this could be reproduced by tubes, cables, amplifier etc.
> 
> I guess the other golden question is what it takes to get a "good" R2R DAC, for example does Ygg also fix the grain and noise in the tonality and treble?  How does the noise and distortion in the treble measure vs the bad Delta Sigma?


 
  
 Not a tube thing. Even a "wet" sounding tube stage or amplifier will show the true colors of delta-sigma nasties. This is why I did not like the Lampi 4, 5, and Big 5. The Lampis actually have very good (uncolored) tube implementations. The downside to such great tube implementations is that they let us hear more clearly how the core D-A process craps all over the sound. (I would be extremely surprised if the Lampi 4, 5, or big 5 used an R2R chip. It sounds like a bad implementation of the Wolfson chip. I actually have no idea what it uses since the lettering on the chips are sanded out - _LAME_...) Also to wit, the Hugo DAC didn't sound any less nasty with the DNA Stratus, an amp known to have a good dose / balance of "wet" or tooby sound.
  


gevorg said:


> But what can you do if your music was recorded with a delta-sigma ADC, which I assume is the most common tech in today's pro-audio world. Can the magic of R2R DACs cure that contamination?


 
  
 Alas, the magic of R2R D-A conversion cannot reverse the process. The good thing is that it doesn't make it worse. If you can grab these two MFSL recordings:
  

Muddy Waters Folk Singer UDCD593 (GAIN system. R2R A-D converter designed by Pass+Moffat using milspec accuracy A-D chips with oven to control temps.)
Tom Petty UDCD735 (GAIN2 - yes number TWO system. Using one-bit A-D - will not name).
  
 The Muddy Waters is a touch more resolving and doesn't have the "shhhhh" "shhhh" "sssshhh" garbage in the one-bit system. Albeit that was an early one-bit A-D converter.
  
 GAIN sounds better than GAIN2. It's a huge shame MFSL switched to DSD so quickly and threw the original GAIN system in the garbage, but businesses like MFSL are tough to keep afloat. DSD was new, fancy, and hires back then, so it helped sell stuff.


----------



## drez

I still reckon I would need to listen to Ygg or similar quality R2R DAC to understand what is happening with the treble and sigma delta converters.  I would be a believer if the treble is at the same time more extended/nuanced *AND* less grainy/noisy.  Also ideally keep the transient speed of Sabre…  If there is just less noise/grain and more warmth could be cheating, or in any case would be giving with one hand and taking with the other...


----------



## purrin

No cheating. I know what you mean. This is why prefer the Vega to the Invicta. The Vega stays true to its Sabre roots and sounds more "right" and cohesive. The Invicta attempts to cheat by adding body and warmth, but mucks up everything in the process.


----------



## negura

drez said:


> I still reckon I would need to listen to Ygg or similar quality R2R DAC to understand what is happening with the treble and sigma delta converters.  I would be a believer if the treble is at the same time more extended/nuanced *AND* less grainy/noisy.  Also ideally keep the transient speed of Sabre…  If there is just less noise/grain and more warmth could be cheating, or in any case would be giving with one hand and taking with the other...


 
  
 I had the same curiosity to satisfy. To me one of the biggest gains with R2R is that instruments sound so much more like in real life. Heck, everything sounds more real and believable. I myself played two instruments, and thus I know how they should sound. When I got my Theta - it was a moment of screw yeah - this is much closer now to how it sounds in real life and what I have been missing. Thing is I was used with the PWD2, and it was constant progress up  the D/S scale to that point. It's like eating junk with too much sugar, it becomes normal taste. That is not only limited to the treble, but across all spectrum. I guess the focus on treble with these discussions is that treble nasties actually bother a lot of people, myself included here.


----------



## evillamer

The most destructive process in audio is when the studios decide to "re-master" albums.
  
  
 Also check out JVC's XRCD2:


----------



## evillamer

I find that AKM ΣΔ dacs(AK4396) suffer less from the sigma delta noise/grain(buzz, tizz, sawy sound) but the trade off is that it sounds less detailed compared to ES9018.
  
Of all the ΣΔ dacs, I think Analog Devices(AD1955) have the most polite and sweetest sound, that works best with classical music. However they can sound abit laid back when you try rock genre with it.


----------



## evillamer

Speaking of R2R, like purrin mentioned, Audio-GD Master 7 really needs quite alot of other components to sound excellent.
  
 Out of the box, Audio-Gd Master 7 sounds as good or slightly better than ES9018, but to get it to the level of "WOW, OMFGBBQ" level. You need to invest and tweak it:
  
 Things I have done inorder to get it to a much higher level:
  
 Disable PLL Jumper(This is a MUST)
 Paul Pang PPA v2 USB Card
 Audiobyte Hydra-X USB to I2S
 Schitt Wyrd USB power
 Disconnected and removed the internal(VIA tech) USB card
 Audio Quest Carbon HDMI as I2S Cable
 3M AB5100S EMI Absorber on DSP, DAC and other chips inside M7
 Ikea APTITLIG Bamboo Chopping board as Isolation Base
 Belkin Gold USB Cables
  
 and this is still a Work in Progress.


----------



## purrin

negura said:


> I had the same curiosity to satisfy. To me one of the biggest gains with R2R is that instruments sound so much more like in real life. Heck, everything sounds more real and believable. I myself played two instruments, and thus I know how they should sound. When I got my Theta - it was a moment of screw yeah - this is much closer now to how it sounds in real life and what I have been missing. Thing is I was used with the PWD2, and it was constant progress up  the D/S scale to that point. It's like eating junk with too much sugar, it becomes normal taste. That is not only limited to the treble, but across all spectrum. I guess the focus on treble with these discussions is that treble nasties actually bother a lot of people, myself included here.


 
  
 LOL, I didn't realize you took a similar DAC path as I did (although I snuck AGD-M7 in between). If you love your Theta Gen Va, and I know you do, your jaw will drop holy **** when you get the Yggy. As I've said many times, the Yggy is very much like the Theta, except even better.


----------



## estreeter

@evillamer, I personally find the teak chopping board makes a better base for most S-D DACs but if bamboo is your thing then I say go for it, man.


----------



## evillamer

estreeter said:


> @evillamer, I personally find the teak chopping board makes a better base for most S-D DACs but if bamboo is your thing then I say go for it, man.


 
 "'
 I prefer my asian roots(pun intended) and take up your "offer" to listen AKB48 for 24hours. 
  
 But the main reason behind bamboo is because it's so cheap and easy to get from Ikea(and it works according to thread at compueraudiophile), vs finding or buying some expensive base from audiophile shops.


----------



## jacal01

Ooh.  Lignum vitae base board if you can source it.


----------



## StefanJK

[Ooops, wrong thread.]


----------



## jodgey4

jacal01 said:


> Ooh.  Lignum vitae base board if you can source it.




But seriously that's incredible stuff!


----------



## drez

Reading over the ESS presentation from RMAF, looking at rhe noise vs dc offset graphs - erm why are the vertical and horizontal scales different. ..

Would seem the noise is slightly lower but still there once the scales are taken into account. ..


----------



## Sapientiam

A very good question - I recall that I noticed that too about the scales.


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> Muddy Waters Folk Singer UDCD593 (GAIN system. R2R A-D converter designed by Pass+Moffat using milspec accuracy A-D chips with oven to control temps.)


 
  
 That explains something. When I heard that album at first in high-res, it completely blew me away.  Thankfully whoever mastered didn't try to use compression. It's always fun to demo it with the volume turned up a bit too high, so when he breaks out with the big notes people fall of their chairs.


----------



## evillamer

Speaking on the topic of recordings.
  
 Which recording do you feel highlights the ills of Sigma Delta conversion more than anything else? This can be expanded to include D/A converter specifics (e.g. Sabre Glare) or AKM's missing plankton details.


----------



## conquerator2

evillamer said:


> Speaking on the topic of recordings.
> 
> Which recording do you feel highlights the ills of Sigma Delta conversion more than anything else? This can be expanded to include D/A converter specifics (e.g. Sabre Glare) or AKM's missing plankton details.


 
 Bright recordings/masters make Sabre piercing/harsh. Dark recordings/masters make AKM overly dark/veiled. Neutral ones usually sound good with both and thus will depend on one's preference.
 IMO


----------



## evillamer

How is this considered as music? Why are the people clapping at the end of the "performance"?
  
 This guy just makes Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black worth listening to, even if their singing sucked or not.


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




  
 "Ugh, this tastes terrible!  Here, try it!"


----------



## Porteroso

evillamer said:


> How is this considered as music? Why are the people clapping at the end of the "performance"?
> 
> This guy just makes Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black worth listening to, even if their singing sucked or not.


 
 I wouldn't go that far. The idea is that in technical terms, music can be any sound. If you don't think so, then you end up arbitrarily ruling out sounds just because you don't like them. What Cage did, in general, was break down the barriers, as much as he could, on what traditional "music" was. He created new instruments, new sounds, he was constantly experimenting. And at one point, he did write 4:33, and the point of it was to show people that whether they are expecting it or not, there are sounds out there, sounds worth exploring.
  
 Obviously, he had to have known what would happen. The audience, first, would be on the edge of their seats, watching for any sign that the piece would actually start, then they would start wondering, and all the coughs and sneezes that everyone was holding back would come out, some people would look around for the culprit of this coughing/sneezing, as if it was ruining some performance, some chairs would creak and squeek, on and on. The idea is that it would be this cacophony of audience-made noise for exactly 4:33, and then the guy would take a bow.
  
 So, you see, it was not about the "performance," it was about the statement that it made. In a way, 4:33 is the most powerful statement that John Cage ever made, because people like you are about 99% more certain to have heard of this piece, than anything else he wrote. And he wrote a lot. And the statement is very important. It says to take it all in.
  
 We often only go to concerts of musicians we already know we will like, in this day and age of recordings, and media attention, all that. Sometimes, it's good for us to be thrown out of our comfort zone, to experience things we have not yet. Even if we hate it, we were still living, and maybe after sitting through a piece like this, a little more aware of the world around us.


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> "Ugh, this tastes terrible!  Here, try it!"


 
  
 Ok boss, have a ear massage, it's on me. (try with headphones)


----------



## evillamer

Incidentally this track is known as the "*Sabre* Dance", Maybe this track is why someone in ESS decide to name their dac as Sabre?  Really highlights or exposes the Sabre capabilities(Glare, Dynamics, Speed) to the max. Bet $1 on Purrin loving this track especially on Auralic Vega + Ultrasone Edition 10 or JH Roxannes?


----------



## jexby

porteroso said:


> So, you see, it was not about the "performance," it was about the statement that it made. In a way, 4:33 is the most powerful statement that John Cage ever made, because people like you are about 99% more certain to have heard of this piece, than anything else he wrote. And he wrote a lot. And the statement is very important. It says to take it all in.


 
  
 +4.33
 Bravo!


----------



## XERO1

porteroso said:


> I wouldn't go that far. The idea is that in technical terms, music can be any sound. If you don't think so, then you end up arbitrarily ruling out sounds just because you don't like them. What Cage did, in general, was break down the barriers, as much as he could, on what traditional "music" was. He created new instruments, new sounds, he was constantly experimenting. And at one point, he did write 4:33, and the point of it was to show people that whether they are expecting it or not, there are sounds out there, sounds worth exploring.
> 
> Obviously, he had to have known what would happen. The audience, first, would be on the edge of their seats, watching for any sign that the piece would actually start, then they would start wondering, and all the coughs and sneezes that everyone was holding back would come out, some people would look around for the culprit of this coughing/sneezing, as if it was ruining some performance, some chairs would creak and squeek, on and on. The idea is that it would be this cacophony of audience-made noise for exactly 4:33, and then the guy would take a bow.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't like to got off topic, but I just have to comment on this.
  
 "4:33" is nothing more than the equivalent of some "artist" buying a blank canvas, signing it, and calling it a work of art.
  
 It is a pathetic joke of a "piece" and anyone who whats to show up and sit through it absolutely deserves to be part of the punchline.


----------



## Stillhart

xero1 said:


> I don't like to got off topic, but I just have to comment on this.
> 
> "4:33" is nothing more than the equivalent of some "artist" buying a blank canvas, signing it, and calling it a work of art.
> 
> It is a pathetic joke of a "piece" and anyone who whats to show up and sit through it absolutely deserves to be part of the punchline.


 
  
 You know, your comment reminded me of a painting I saw in the SFMOMA.  I looked it up and guess who is mentioned in the description?
   
 Quote:


> "In 1961, composer John Cage (1912–1992) famously referred to the White Paintings as airports for lights, shadows, and particles, establishing an enduring understanding of the series as receptive surfaces that respond to the world around them."
> 
> Source: http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/collection/artwork/25855#ixzz3SR1HjQLp
> San Francisco Museum of Modern Art


----------



## estreeter

It's hardly a 'painting', is it - unless I'm completely missing something. 
  
 http://pastexhibitions.guggenheim.org/singular_forms/highlights_1a.html
  
 I'd like to think that I have some concept of what the Japanese are trying to achieve in a garden comprised of nothing more than a few deliberately sited rocks surrounded by white pebbles swept into perfect patterns, but the works of Messrs Cage and Rauchenberg seem like nothing more than an index finger raised to their respective audiences. Massively self-indulgent - I guess there is a place for that in art, but I'm not a fan of the same hubris in music.


----------



## XERO1

estreeter said:


> ....but the works of Messrs Cage and Rauchenberg seem like nothing more than an index finger raised to their respective audiences. Massively self-indulgent - I guess there is a place for that in art, but I'm not a fan of the same hubris in music.


 
  
 +1000.  I couldn't agree more.  Oh, and I think you meant to say "middle finger".
  
 And just to be clear, I completely get what these "artists" are claiming they are attempting to achieve with this "art".  I simply reject it entirely.


----------



## jexby

xero1 said:


> +1000.  I couldn't agree more.
> 
> And just to be clear, I completely get what these "artists" are claiming they are attempting to achieve with this "art".  I simply reject it entirely.




And I, with many others, reject your narrow scope of definition entirely.
Move along.


----------



## RiddleyWalker

The fact that we are here discussing whether or not '4:33' is "art" / "music" means that it has succeeded in it's purpose


----------



## drez

evillamer said:


> How is this considered as music? Why are the people clapping at the end of the "performance"?
> 
> This guy just makes Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black worth listening to, even if their singing sucked or not.




  
 I love this kind of "intellectual auto-erotica" really sums up much of what turns me off in modern art.


----------



## XERO1

drez said:


> ....this kind of "intellectual auto-erotica" really sums up much of what turns me off in modern art.


 
  
 Same here.
  
 I actually have nothing against most modern art.  I recently visited LACMA (I just _had_ to see the limited engagement samurai armor exhibit) and was seriously impressed by some of the modern art pieces and installations that were there.
  
 But I think I'll just let Moe have the final word on this:
  

_*Annnnnnnnnyway*_........ Back to the DACs!


----------



## HemiSam

Can we get back to DAC's?
  
  




  
 HS


----------



## estreeter

hemisam said:


> Can we get back to DAC's?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Given that this is a thread about purrin's intense dislike of chocolate ice-cream, I hardly think that's fair.


----------



## Eddie Q

I dislike chocolate ice cream as well, but with one caveat:  Hot fudge topping over a double scoop of vanilla and cookies-n-cream.
  
 Yummy!  (technically, i'm on-topic...right?)


----------



## Porteroso

xero1 said:


> porteroso said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


 
 I'm not saying that I would pay money to go and "hear" it, and to call it a joke is pretty fair. Knowing what it is is enough. Point made. However, I also see the other side. As a musician, I love the piece just because people end up talking about it once they hear it. Any time people put thought and effort into thinking about music, it is a good thing. Too many of the horrible things on the radio are geared towards people who just want cheap, mindless entertainment. Musicians and composers who try to take music places it has never been have all of my respect, even if I don't enjoy listening to their music.
  
 Case in point, early Schoenberg is absolutely divine, his Transfigured Night, even his first quartet. But he's known for his aversion to tonality, developed after writing the things that you can actually enjoy listening to. I don't go to concerts that I can't enjoy without a few hours of score study beforehand. There has to be a line somewhere. But even then, he did something notable with his 12 tone theory, and I can at least respect the inventiveness of it. Some people even say they enjoy it. More power to them! No reason for me to be a downer, or "reject" anything. It seems there are plenty of people who get off talking trash about things outside their interest/comfort zone, and I don't plan on being yet another.
  
 edit: I thought I'd link the schoenberg, good group playing it, quality is good too. Very much worth listening to. Don't be put off by the first 7 or so minutes of it.
  

  
 About dacs, I've enjoyed reading this thread and trying to understand all the technical talk behind all of it. The Yggy is going to be priced outside my range, for now, but it does sound like a great thing in the audio world. Excited to hear it, hopefully at a meet soon.


----------



## drez

Tonality/atonality - guess we are kind of on topic given recent discussions of merits of sigma delta and R2R converters.
  
 Reading over the Sabre presentation from RMAF a few years ago my impression is that Sabre does a good job of minimising certain forms of noise, but that is about all I can understand.  IIRC Schiit said something about selecting AKM DAC for having least coloration, is this correlated to the switching noise?
  
 In any case I would expect that any of these sigma delta can only minimise switching noise but not completely eliminate it.  There is a certain dry quality to the treble tonality from my Sabre DAC which I would imagine could be improved, but again I am not sure if this is because of switching noise, or some other D-A artefact.
  
 In any case if all goes well I will put some money aside for Yggy to see what it has to offer.


----------



## evillamer

Upcoming 2015 USB DAC/AMPs:
  
 Hugo TT: $4795
  
 Schitt Yggdrasil + Schiit Ragnarok:  $3998 ($2299 + $1699) 
  
  
 I guess the choice is very obvious again.


----------



## evillamer

drez said:


> Tonality/atonality - guess we are kind of on topic given recent discussions of merits of sigma delta and R2R converters.
> 
> Reading over the Sabre presentation from RMAF a few years ago my impression is that Sabre does a good job of minimising certain forms of noise, but that is about all I can understand.  IIRC Schiit said something about selecting AKM DAC for having least coloration, is this correlated to the switching noise?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Take for example, if you tried video noise fitering or noise reduction in ffdshow or other video software/player, it always result in lowered noise but at the expense of micro-details.
  
 I believe it's the same with audio noise shaping, you can reduce noise with digital filters, but you also destroy plankton sonic details in the music at the same time.


----------



## 7ryder

estreeter said:


> Given that this is a thread about purrin's intense dislike of chocolate ice-cream, I hardly think that's fair.


 
 Chocolate ice cream was a euphemism for DSD


----------



## drez

evillamer said:


> Take for example, if you tried video noise fitering or noise reduction in ffdshow or other video software/player, it always result in lowered noise but at the expense of micro-details.
> 
> I believe it's the same with audio noise shaping, you can reduce noise with digital filters, but you also destroy plankton sonic details in the music at the same time.


 
  
 Could be I guess, I'm not too familiar with how feedback works in this case.  I agree through with R2R there probably would be more noise in the audio band for sure, and this would likely always be a disadvantage compared to delta sigma.  Perhaps different R2R DAC's can use some special techniques to reduce this noise and still keep the other advantages of R2R.


----------



## Topspin70

7ryder said:


> Chocolate ice cream was a euphemism for DSD




lol. Why chocolate ice cream if I dare venture to ask? This thread is getting more educational by the hour.


----------



## jexby

topspin70 said:


> lol. Why chocolate ice cream if I dare venture to ask? This thread is getting more educational by the hour.




Indeed, am glad Purrin didn't chose to degrade mango kulfi or Greek baklava!


----------



## estreeter

eddie q said:


> I dislike chocolate ice cream as well, but with one caveat:  Hot fudge topping over a double scoop of vanilla and cookies-n-cream.
> 
> Yummy!  (technically, i'm on-topic...right?)


 
  
 Technically, I'd say you're 10 seconds from lapsing into a _diabetic coma_


----------



## Sapientiam

drez said:


> Perhaps different R2R DAC's can use some special techniques to reduce this noise and still keep the other advantages of R2R.


 
  
 I have the idea that a multibit DAC's noise performance might be increased by noise shaping techniques which don't use feedback. Feedforward might work. But it would need a multibit DAC designed to run very fast. Modern comms DACs might just turn out to be great at audio - they're normally 14bits or under but run into 100s of MHz no problem. I even have an eval board but its going to need DSP to up the effective resolution.


----------



## 7ryder

topspin70 said:


> lol. Why chocolate ice cream if I dare venture to ask? This thread is getting more educational by the hour.




I don't remember the reason. Look back at te posts in early January 2014, I think that's when "I hate DSD" was changed to "I hate chocolate ice cream"


----------



## evillamer

sapientiam said:


> drez said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps different R2R DAC's can use some special techniques to reduce this noise and still keep the other advantages of R2R.
> ...


 
  
 here's a nicely written article on ES9018 and PCM1704
  


> That puts the 3-bit difference between the class-leading ESS 9018 and the class-leading Burr-Brown 1704 in a different light. The performance of the 1704 is the native performance, akin to a zero-feedback amplifier. What you hear is not an algorithm, but the device itself.
> The ESS 9018, along with all the other delta-sigma converters out there (including the latest Burr-Brown products), realize their performance with extremely complex digital-feedback algorithms. You are hearing the algorithm, not the 5= or 6-bit converter, and a lot of very strange things can happen with that algorithm. ESS spent several years and a lot of engineer-hours trying to find out what the "golden ears" were hearing—and found, measured, and then corrected several different problems. Given the complexity of noise-shaping techniques, though, there could still be some surprises to be discovered.
> What I can say on a subjective basis is the ESS 9018 is the closest of the delta-sigma family to the sound of the best ladder converters, but it still isn't quite the same. Perhaps it isn't the converter itself; maybe the residual difference comes down to the difference in current-to-voltage conversion. I'm not familiar with the RF emission spectra of the ESS 9018. It operates at much higher speeds than the sub-MHz PCM1704, but there could be internal components that take the sharp edges off the output of the DAC.


 
  
 http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue65/dac.htm


----------



## Sapientiam

Without having clicked on your link, sounds like its coming from the pen of Lynn Olson


----------



## evillamer

You can search the patents held by ESS tech to understand more about their DACs:
  
 https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=inassignee:%22Ess+Technology,+Inc.%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=iyDrVMXLF4iTuASq9YHoBA
  
 System and method for compensating for error in a sigma delta circuit:
 https://www.google.com/patents/US7259704?dq=inassignee:%22Ess+Technology,+Inc.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JyHrVMWgC8-NuATFiYCoCw&ved=0CBoQ6AEwADgU
  
 Low noise digital to pulse width modulated converter with audio applications:
 https://www.google.com/patents/US7570693?dq=inassignee:%22Ess+Technology,+Inc.&ei=tCLrVKfXJIqNuAS2i4LgDQ&cl=en


----------



## Jason Stoddard

Interesting anecdote (warning: subjective information incoming, not statistically significant, blah blah). However, it is relevant to the discussion about noise-shaping in general.
  
 Dave, one of our engineers, and in general the firmware guru, was recently discussing Bifrost and Yggdrasil with Mike and I, shortly after the 0.99 Yggys were complete. 
  
 "I always ran Bifrost with 24/96 input, upsampled by my Mac," Dave said, "Because it sounded best to me that way. But with Yggy, I always run the native sample rate and bit depth...because _you can hear what the computer upsampling_ is doing. Yuck."
  
 Again, just one anecdote, YMMV, we make crap gear anyway, woof woof. But I did think it was interesting.


----------



## zerodeefex

You can hear EVERYTHING with that damn DAC. It's bonkers.


----------



## Stillhart

jason stoddard said:


> Interesting anecdote (warning: subjective information incoming, not statistically significant, blah blah). However, it is relevant to the discussion about noise-shaping in general.
> 
> Dave, one of our engineers, and in general the firmware guru, was recently discussing Bifrost and Yggdrasil with Mike and I, shortly after the 0.99 Yggys were complete.
> 
> ...


 
  
 That's pretty cool.  Will you guys be demoing the Yggy at Canjam?  I'd love an opportunity to try to hear the difference with a TOTL DAC.


----------



## Jason Stoddard

stillhart said:


> That's pretty cool.  Will you guys be demoing the Yggy at Canjam?  I'd love an opportunity to try to hear the difference with a TOTL DAC.


 

 Yep, Yggy will be at CanJam.


----------



## snip3r77

jason stoddard said:


> Yep, Yggy will be at CanJam.




Hi Jason,

Will there be a pre-order promo and when will Ygg start shipping? 
Also, what's the chances DSD support will be incorp to Ygg rev 2?

Thanks.


----------



## estreeter

snip3r77 said:


> Hi Jason,
> 
> Will there be a pre-order promo and when will Ygg start shipping?
> Also, what's the chances DSD support will be incorp to Ygg rev 2?
> ...


 
  
 Look away, kids. Daddy's going to have a glass of milk and a lie down.


----------



## jacal01

snip3r77 said:


> Hi Jason,
> 
> Will there be a pre-order promo and when will Ygg start shipping?
> Also, what's the chances DSD support will be incorp to Ygg rev 2?
> ...


 
  
 Aah, he's just pushing buttons now.  I count four...


----------



## smitty1110

estreeter said:


> Look away, kids. Daddy's going to have a glass of milk and a lie down.


 

 That's not nearly enough booze to deal with that question, just go for a whole bottle.


----------



## kstuart

snip3r77 said:


> jason stoddard said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, Yggy will be at CanJam.
> ...


 
 Ck the Yggdrasil thread for shipment/availability information.
  
 The answer to the first and third questions is the same:


----------



## Jones Bob

jason stoddard said:


> Interesting anecdote (warning: subjective information incoming, not statistically significant, blah blah). However, it is relevant to the discussion about noise-shaping in general.
> 
> Dave, one of our engineers, and in general the firmware guru, was recently discussing Bifrost and Yggdrasil with Mike and I, shortly after the 0.99 Yggys were complete.
> 
> ...




With my Wyrd and Gungnir, over my KGST and Stax SR-009s I already prefer the native sample rate vs. Mac Mini upsampling via Audrivana/Isotope. Even prefer to turn off digital attenuation, as both are more "pleasant" sounding but adds an artificial synthetic quality to the sound that distracts from the music.


----------



## jk47

is the yggdrasil nos in the same sense that the metrum dacs are nos? or does the yggy's upsampling, albeit bit-perfect, create the need for negative feedbacks which correct distortion at the expense of creating multiple smaller distortions?


----------



## tonykaz

Hello Mr.Stoddard,
  
 0.99 ?,   isn't that less than 1?, how many are in the first production run? I hope it's more than 1.00!
  
 Are there gonna be enough to go round? , maybe 100 or so.   
  
 I wonder if we can get all those interested parties to do a count down?  Can everyone out there post an "I'm In" on this site to see if there will be enough production to satisfy the pent-up demand.
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## Tuco1965

Version number.


----------



## evillamer

jones bob said:


> jason stoddard said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting anecdote (warning: subjective information incoming, not statistically significant, blah blah). However, it is relevant to the discussion about noise-shaping in general.
> ...


 
  
 Software Upsampling(Not hardware dsp oversampling) tends to smear the sound with a bright veil that replaces the natural sound with a more synthetic sound.
  
 However if your DAC/Soundcard does not have good analog filtering or your source(yotube videos) is schit, upsampling might help to reduce the effects of excess digitis.
  
 I find that upsampling from 44.1KHz to 88.2Khz does help with smoothing things out without sound too artificial and anything beyond that(174Khz) is way too over.
  
 It's like trying to watch a video with 400% of orginal size. It just looks crap.


----------



## drez

^I will have to give SOX plugin another spin while I am using my workstation as source (music server is _still_ out of action while I wait for another shelf)
  
 BTW is USB input the best with Yggy?  It would be great if I could do without a USB transport and maybe just clean up the USB signal/power/grounds a bit with Wyrd if that is needed.


----------



## estreeter

tuco1965 said:


> Version number.


 
  
 I'm guessing he knows that - Tony is a long time Schiit stirrer. Barking mad, of course, but mostly harmless.


----------



## evillamer

drez said:


> ^I will have to give SOX plugin another spin while I am using my workstation as source (music server is _still_ out of action while I wait for another shelf)
> 
> BTW is USB input the best with Yggy?  It would be great if I could do without a USB transport and maybe just clean up the USB signal/power/grounds a bit with Wyrd if that is needed.


 
  
 Not sure how is Schiit's usb implementation but I think Noisy USB isolation is very important. Just look at the difference between non-isolated and isolated USB for exasound dac:
  

  

  
 http://www.exasound.jp/


----------



## smitty1110

estreeter said:


> I'm guessing he knows that - Tony is a long time Schiit stirrer. Barking mad, of course, but mostly harmless.


 

 I table the motion to declare Tony the official unofficial mascot of all Schiit threads, since he fulfills the role already.


evillamer said:


> Not sure how is Schiit's usb implementation but I think Noisy USB isolation is very important. Just look at the difference between non-isolated and isolated USB for exasound dac:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Wow, that's actually a lot of noise in the audio band. It appears that it would be below the noise floor for most gear, but it's still disconcerting


----------



## StefanJK

smitty1110 said:


> Wow, that's actually a lot of noise in the audio band. It appears that it would be below the noise floor for most gear, but it's still disconcerting


 
 Looks like most noise in the non-isolated UBS implementation is below 140 db...that's really not a problem.  Two spikes up to not even 135 db.  135 db at 20 kHz.  I don't think this is an issue.  The isolated USB is ridiculously quiet, not even sure how they measured that.


----------



## evillamer

smitty1110 said:


> Wow, that's actually a lot of noise in the audio band. It appears that it would be below the noise floor for most gear, but it's still disconcerting


 

 noise floor of AD1855
 source http://www.totaldac.com/D1-digital-eng.htm
  

 noise floor of total dac
 http://www.totaldac.com/principles.htm
  
  
 The concern is that the ES9018 based Exasound(isolated graph as well) seems to have increasing unstable noise fluctuations(saw like) on the higher frequency spectrum. These unstable fluctuations may become audible(not 100% if it really does) when there's amplified music signal going through.


----------



## drez

evillamer said:


> Not sure how is Schiit's usb implementation but I think Noisy USB isolation is very important. Just look at the difference between non-isolated and isolated USB for exasound dac:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 For sure, I think galvanic isolation is important but also difficult to implement well.  I think even isolation of the chassis ground i.e. the USB cable shield and connector housing might be important.  Even RFI shielding  and power supply design seems to matter.  All this while minimising jitter.  I think this might be why often the external USB transports often perform better unless the USB input is very well designed.


----------



## evillamer

drez said:


> For sure, I think galvanic isolation is important but also difficult to implement well.  I think even isolation of the chassis ground i.e. the USB cable shield and connector housing might be important.  Even RFI shielding  and power supply design seems to matter.  All this while minimising jitter.  I think this might be why often the external USB transports often perform better unless the USB input is very well designed.


 

  

 source: http://audiobyte.net/download/hydratech.pdf
  
 Also it seems that Audio-byte has one of the best usb isolation with jitter reduction(reclocking) solution


----------



## Sapientiam

FFT 101 - you can't interpret absolute noise levels from an FFT unless the 'bin size' and sample rate is given you.
  
 The reason for this is simple - the noise you 'see' on the plot is the total noise you'd see on a 'scope but divided
 into a multitude of pots (called bins in FFT parlance). So unless you know how many pots the noise has been
 spread out over, what use is knowing the content of each pot? An FFT is a histogram - even though it looks like
 a graph (i.e. a continuous function), it isn't.


----------



## StefanJK

sapientiam said:


> FFT 101 - you can't interpret absolute noise levels from an FFT unless the 'bin size' and sample rate is given you.
> 
> The reason for this is simple - the noise you 'see' on the plot is the total noise you'd see on a 'scope but divided
> into a multitude of pots (called bins in FFT parlance). So unless you know how many pots the noise has been
> ...


 
 Yes, I almost made a remark that I don't see how to do the integral here.  So yes, the difference of about 10db (which is meaningful?) in the upper frequency band could be significant, depending on that absolute noise level.


----------



## Stillhart

What do you guys think of the Gustard U12?


----------



## Sapientiam

stefanjk said:


> Yes, I almost made a remark that I don't see how to do the integral here.  So yes, the difference of about 10db (which is meaningful?) in the upper frequency band could be significant, depending on that absolute noise level.


 
  
 I looked closely and couldn't see a way to do the integral either. Normally I zoom in on the lowest frequency and see if there's any 'blockiness' to the data. Here I can't see any which suggests the bin size is very small - below 1Hz. Differences can be meaningful yeah - I am seeing vast increase in noise power in the ultrasonics. Perhaps this is common-mode noise induced by a SMPSU - most likely the PC's power supply. While you won't hear it directly its almost certainly going to squash dynamics through IMD between it and the music, raising the perceived noise floor.


----------



## snip3r77

kstuart said:


> Ck the Yggdrasil thread for shipment/availability information.
> 
> The answer to the first and third questions is the same:




Able to point the URL ? There are a couple of Ygg threads. Thanks


----------



## drez

Hydra Z looks decent, I like that they put heatshrink over the USB pug, possibly to isolate the cable shield from the transport chassis.  When it comes to the architecture, I think this setup is relatively common in placing the isolation between the USB receiver and the FPGA - seems like a sensibly way to do this.
  
 When it comes to isolation, the most paranoid I can think of is Berkeley BADA USB.  They even use plastic chassis panel to mount the USB plug, and internal RFI shield between the USB input and the FPGA.  I think they also use the computer to power the USB receiver, that way provide better isolation between the grounds.  
  
 It's a bit scary how fast things move with computer transports though.  I think the Berkeley is already a few years old, not that that seems to be much of a problem.  For now the Berkeley is the best I have heard, but I have not heard all that many USB transports, and not the Hydra.


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> What do you guys think of the Gustard U12?


 
  
 Gustard U12 is based off stock XMOS 8 core design.
 While Hydra X/Z is based off Custom FPGA design.
  
 From what I have read is that FPGA has more real-time DSP power than XMOS. That could explain why Hydra can support DSD-512(no music right now uses this format yet)
  
 The Hydra Z is more flexible in the end, due to it's support for more interface(BNC word clock) and battery power capabilities but it's also a more costly solution (it has femto grade clocks).
  
 If you are on tighter budget, then just go for the Gustard U12, so far people who bought it seems happy/satisfied with it.


----------



## numbercube

Where can I buy a USB to ST AT&T converter?


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> Gustard U12 is based off stock XMOS 8 core design.
> While Hydra X/Z is based off Custom FPGA design.
> 
> From what I have read is that FPGA has more real-time DSP power than XMOS. That could explain why Hydra can support DSD-512(no music right now uses this format yet)
> ...


 
 Thanks.  I'm really curious how something like that will affect the sound.  I know that in the reviews on this thread, Purrin thinks they make a big enough difference to warrant mentioning. 
  
@conquerator2 you have the Gustard, right?  Have you tested the Gungnir with and without?


----------



## Clemmaster

evillamer said:


> Gustard U12 is based off stock XMOS 8 core design.
> While Hydra X/Z is based off Custom FPGA design.
> 
> From what I have read is that FPGA has more real-time DSP power than XMOS. That could explain why Hydra can support DSD-512(no music right now uses this format yet)
> ...


 
  
 The Hydra-Z does not have an internal battery like the X and X+. It can be powered by an external 5V source, which can be a battery. Just to clarify.


----------



## evillamer

They do have a seperate battery module for the hydra z. Called the ZPM.


----------



## hans030390

stillhart said:


> What do you guys think of the Gustard U12?


 
  
 I think it's a decent unit for the price. Others might disagree. IMO, good if you'd rather have a stop-gap solution as you save up for something nicer instead of just waiting to buy something later and saving the $150-175 you'd put towards the U12 for said nicer product. At the very least, it's been stable and trouble free for me. Can't say that about anything HiFace/M2Tech-based I've tried (unstable drivers, crash Win8 a lot and sometimes just don't work).


----------



## Stillhart

hans030390 said:


> I think it's a decent unit for the price. Others might disagree. IMO, good if you'd rather have a stop-gap solution as you save up for something nicer instead of just waiting to buy something later and saving the $150-175 you'd put towards the U12 for said nicer product. At the very least, it's been stable and trouble free for me. Can't say that about anything HiFace/M2Tech-based I've tried (unstable drivers, crash Win8 a lot and sometimes just don't work).


 
  
 How does it compare to something like the Wyrd?
  
 EDIT - I mean, it looks like the U12 does what the Wyrd does, plus a little more?  Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> How does it compare to something like the Wyrd?
> 
> EDIT - I mean, it looks like the U12 does what the Wyrd does, plus a little more?  Or am I misunderstanding?


 
  
 Gustard is cheap in relative terms. It works, but may not be better or worse than stock USB implementation on DACs. "Proper price point" IMHO is $200. So I guess it's a good deal for what it is. 
  
 Gustard is USB to SPDIF. XMOS chip USB receiver to various outputs - mainly for DACs that don't have USB.
  
 Wyrd is different. It's USB to USB (power regulation and data repeater / reclocker). Wyrd offers proper USB juice to power (if the USB rec needs good power, e.g. ODAC, GO450) for better performance. Wyrd also has a USB data reclocker which does stuff to the sound. Anywhere from -15% to 50% improvement. I mainly hear better space, deeper stage, and slightly more plankton with Wyrd. Some people I know don't like the effect of Wyrd - adds some extra precision/crispness - maybe too much for certain tastes.
  
 I'm a cheapskate, so I use Wyrd with OR5 USB converter. Because the OR5 turboclocks (which have similar effect to Wyrd) are a $700 option. Also, the OR5 turboclock slightly overdo the precision/crispness effect - at least for me it does.


----------



## hans030390

Right, if your DAC has a decent USB input already, likely no need for the U12. Strikes me as a better solution than the other cheapy Chinese USB->SPDIF converters and is a good deal at $150-175 or so for those on a budget. Wyrd would be better in that situation if you're just looking to clean up and re-clock the USB signal and don't need the converter/extra digital output stuff.


----------



## Stillhart

Huh.  I guess I'm still not super clear on the difference.  
  
 The Gustard cleans the power and reclocks when it does the conversion, right?  The Wyrd cleans the power and reclocks but doesn't convert.  So the question is whether the Gustard's USB interface is better or worse than the DAC's USB interface?  If not the Wyrd would be a better choice?  
  
 Either way, is there any way to know if something like the Wyrd will be any benefit without just trying it?  10% restocking fee + shipping in two directions is a lot to pay to test it out.


----------



## SodaBoy

purrin said:


> Gustard is cheap in relative terms. It works, but may not be better or worse than stock USB implementation on DACs. "Proper price point" IMHO is $200. So I guess it's a good deal for what it is.
> 
> Gustard is USB to SPDIF. XMOS chip USB receiver to various outputs - mainly for DACs that don't have USB.
> 
> ...


 

 The Gustard U12 offers an i2s output through HDMI in addition to various S/PDIF outputs (coaxial, toslink) and also AES. In my opinion this sets it apart from many other USB-S/PDIF converters. I do prefer the i2s output as it offers lower jitter due to separate clock and data signals. This is a very good option for DACs that support i2s.
  
 I will disagree with you in that I do believe that the U12 does offer superior USB implementation compared to most DACs. I have connected the U12 to my older DACs and it was a night and day improvement over the stock USB implementation. The Gustard is a very capable reclocker with two TCXO being fed by a low noise discrete power supply. In addition to reclocking the signal, it isolates the potentially noisy power of the transport from the DAC much like the power regulation of the Wyrd.
  
 Unlike the Wyrd however, the U12 has no need for a wall wart as it has an onboard toroidal transformer. I believe that wall warts are a cheap solution that supplies dirty power which requires heavy filtering, and that it pollutes the power line with ripple and are potent emitters of RFI. Due to their cheap low cost nature, you will find wall warts on almost all consumer electronics, and almost never in high end audio.
  
 Overall, I think the cheap price of the U12 belies its true quality and utility as a capable reclocker and galvanic isolator, with many connectivity options. It is a hefty little unit with excellent build quality which hits well above its weight in capability.
  
 However I think the Wyrd still does have utility with DACs that only have USB connectivity such as the ODAC. The Gustard U12 is the better choice in my opinion however, for most people.


----------



## johnjen

sodaboy said:


> snip
> 
> Unlike the Wyrd however, the U12 has no need for a wall wart as it has an onboard toroidal transformer. I believe that wall warts are a cheap solution that supplies dirty power which requires heavy filtering, and that it pollutes the power line with ripple and are potent emitters of RFI. Due to their cheap low cost nature, you will find wall warts on almost all consumer electronics, and almost never in high end audio.
> 
> snip


 
 Some wall warts are NOT switching power supplies (like the one used in the Wyrd) they are simply an ac transformer.
 This is actually a benefit in that it removes the transformer from being in proximity with the rest of the circuit. This significantly reduces the 'stray' magnetic fields effect upon the rest of the device.
  
 Just a bit of insight into what Schiit has designed into the Wyrd.
  
 JJ  :thumb


----------



## Mr Rick

"Unlike the Wyrd however, the U12 has no need for a wall wart as it has an onboard toroidal transformer. I believe that wall warts are a cheap solution that supplies dirty power which requires heavy filtering, and that it pollutes the power line with ripple and are potent emitters of RFI. Due to their cheap low cost nature, you will find wall warts on almost all consumer electronics, and almost never in high end audio."
  
 You really don't know much about electronics do you?


----------



## SodaBoy

johnjen said:


> Some wall warts are NOT switching power supplies (like the one used in the Wyrd) they are simply an ac transformer.
> This is actually a benefit in that it removes the transformer from being in proximity with the rest of the circuit. This significantly reduces the 'stray' magnetic fields effect upon the rest of the device.
> 
> Just a bit of insight into what Schiit has designed into the Wyrd.
> ...


 
 Yes you are right and I stand corrected. I just checked that it outputs 16VAC not VDC as I assumed.


----------



## Stillhart

So other than that one error, do you folks agree with that assessment?  That seems line up more with my understanding of the device vs the Wyrd.  
  
 I'm not trying to trash the Wyrd, I'm trying to understand if spending an extra $50 on the U12 will offer any actual benefit other than additional output formats.  Or in the other direction, if the Wyrd is actually doing more for less (assuming your DAC has a USB input).


----------



## SodaBoy

stillhart said:


> So other than that one error, do you folks agree with that assessment?  That seems line up more with my understanding of the device vs the Wyrd.
> 
> I'm not trying to trash the Wyrd, I'm trying to understand if spending an extra $50 on the U12 will offer any actual benefit other than additional output formats.  Or in the other direction, if the Wyrd is actually doing more for less (assuming your DAC has a USB input).


 

 For my needs at least, I wanted the i2s output which the U12 had. Without the i2s input or output, I would be looking for a DAC which has a good onboard USB implementation instead. A good onboard USB implementation has the shortest signal path to the DAC and is the most optimal.
  
 The only time I would use an external reclocker is if an i2s output were available, and the DAC accepts external i2s, as this would largely cut down on the signal path, much like a good onboard USB solution.
  
 EDIT: Actually, looking at the Wyrd, it looks like a straight pass through. So what I said about i2s might not be so relevant with the Wyrd.
  
 EDIT 2: From what I see, the Wyrd uses a single 20ppm oscillator to reclock the signal while the Gustard U12 uses two 0.1ppm oscillators to reclock. The Gustard should provide a more accurate clock.
  
 From the description from Schiit, it appears the Wyrd is not meant to be a USB interface, it is only meant to clean up the signal for an onboard USB interface, providing cleaner power and rudimentary reclocking.
  
 The Gustard appears to me to be a more turnkey solution that provides a full USB interface, with more accurate clocks, meant to substitute the onboard USB implementation, or fill in for the lack of it, which reflects its higher price.


----------



## conquerator2

I use both in my system. In my case, the Wyrd clears the power for the U12, which clears it further. I like both but I think in terms of pure value for money U12 > Wyrd. But I like having both


----------



## Stillhart

conquerator2 said:


> I use both in my system. In my case, the Wyrd clears the power for the U12, which clears it further. I like both but I think in terms of pure value for money U12 > Wyrd. But I like having both


 
  
 Feel like doing some testing to see if you can hear a difference?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Without, Wyrd, U12, Wyrd+U12.  Also what are you feeding from the Gustard to the Gungnir?  Coax?  I'm really curious if it makes a difference with something like the Gungnir.


----------



## ciphercomplete

So the pins on the Gustard u12 match those for the M7?  I thought some of the polarities(?) like sdata were reversed.


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> So other than that one error, do you folks agree with that assessment?  That seems line up more with my understanding of the device vs the Wyrd.
> 
> I'm not trying to trash the Wyrd, *I'm trying to understand if spending an extra $50 on the U12 will offer any actual benefit other than additional output formats.*  Or in the other direction, if the Wyrd is actually doing more for less (assuming your DAC has a USB input).


 
  
 It depends. Sodaboy made an assumption that I said it was worse. I actually said "not be better or worse than stock USB implementation on DACs".
  
 I'd say the Gustard is more likely a waste of money if you have something modern like the X-Sabre, PWD2, M51, NFB-7.32, etc. all those DACs have good USB implementations and need a top notch USB converter to beat the built-in one. Newer DACs like Vega or Yggy have excellent USB implementations where I felt even the use of a TOTL USB converter like OR5 or Berzerkly Alpha were slightly worse (again, this also depends upon your USB source - laptop USB out tends to suck.)
  
 In general, I felt the Gustard was on the lower end of the chain of converters - at least with SPDIF. The order of things: Gustard < Ciuinas < OR5. The caveat is i2s, but there are only a handful of DACs that utilize i2s, and there is no standard for the pin outs (can you say kaboom or zapp!) Other converters are also offering i2s. There's the AGD USB converter now as another solution with i2s. I have not heard it though and I have my doubts because of that craptastic VIA chip. Keep in mind i2s but itself is no magic bullet. The implementation must actually sound good to begin with to take full potential of i2s. *In other words, don't worry about i2s if you have to ask since the DAC you buy will probably 99% not have i2s or will explode 66% if you connect the i2s cables wrong pins. *People who do i2s usually know exactly what they are doing - asking the manufacturers for pin-outs and even testing the pins themselves, and capable of making their own cables.
  
 Finally, don't get fooled by parts specs. Lots of stuff sounds good on paper, but sounds craptastic (iBasso cough cough cough). It annoys the bejezus outta me when people do that. "The tranfo is inside the case of the Mustard, hence magnetic field mucking with the clocks." neener, neener, neener. "well it's encapsulated" neener, neener, "yeah with plastic" neener, neener. "Well the Mustard's regulation circuit sucks" neener, neener, "Well the USB power - Galvatron isolated it" neener, neener, "Well there's no such thing because one leg of the power ties back to ground in US electrical wiring" neener, neener, "Well Optimus Prime said so", etc. Lame arguments and lamer counter arguments about specs and implementation can go on and on. Proof is in listening and trying different combinations.
  
 Now if you get a DAC with no USB input, and you want computer audio, obviously the Gustard would be a good value based choice.
  
 If you get a fairly modern DAC with USB built-in, try the built-in USB out first. At this point in the game, if it works and sounds good, probably no need to waste another $200 for an unknown. Don't put the cart before the horse, especially if you are starting out and wanting to try out new DACs. USB has come a long long way with some of the newer chips. I actually feel the CMedia 6632A or even 6631A can compete with or exceed XMOS. XMOS seems to work really well with Sabre DACs though.* But anyways what I am saying is that USB converters are like aftermarket intakes for cars. The majority of them don't do jack **** for most modern cars, or give you gains of 2hp.*
  


conquerator2 said:


> I use both in my system. In my case, the Wyrd clears the power for the U12, which clears it further. I like both but I think in terms of pure value for money U12 > Wyrd. But I like having both


 
  
 That's a good way to think about it. They are not mutually exclusive products.


----------



## negura

Also posting this information here, since there is a lot of Theta DAC talk:
  
 Be warned of using any Audio GD amplification with the Theta. The Audio GD practice on all their amplification is to short input pins to the ground if the amplifier is powered off or if the input is unused. They do not state this anywhere - I had to find this info via measurements on my own post-factum, and then Audio GD confirmed it. This practice bears a high risk for damaging the output stage in the Theta. I know this from first hand experience. I wonder if I was very unlucky and if anyone tried Audio GD gear on the Theta and got away with it. But the manual warning is very clear to me.
  
 From the Theta manual:
 " Whenever making connections to the Generation V, it is very important to power off the Generation V by removing the AC power cord from the wall socket. This will prevent any chance of *shorting the analog outputs to ground which will cause damage to the Generation V*. "


----------



## n-a

Hi Negura.
  
 I did use my Theta Gen V-a with my Audio-gd Precision 2 without problems.
 I powered up the source, amp, dac in random order.
 I am no EE but isnt the amplifier closed circuit? So the signal goes from + to - ?
 The switches in V goes easily from off to on, and the power supply is allways on, so there is potential risk to shorting.
 I pulled the AC cord off when i changed the gear etc. 
  
 But the manual/dac back plate clearly says not to use in unearthed sockets. But you live in UK so that isnt problem...
 Well, i don't know if that helps, its just my 0.02€
  
 Best regards,
 n-a


----------



## simomat

I don't think anyone on this thread mentioned the AMR DP-777 dac. I own one and it's very natural sounding. I wonder how the AMR stacks up against some of the dacs that have been talked about here (Yggdrasil, Theta Digital, Analog dac, Luxman DA-06 and other).


----------



## ciphercomplete

Purrin, I recall you saying that the Wyrd did not make a difference when you used it with the Yggy.  Is this because that tech is already built into it?  I still rather like the idea of having the wyrd inbetween the two as a extra layer against noise.
  
  
 Also for folks skeptical about the Wyrd's wall wart.  I bought one of these to power my media server and external harddrive http://www.hd-plex.com/HDPLEX-Fanless-Linear-Power-Supply-for-PC-Audio-and-CE-device.html  I use the leftover 5v output to power the Wyrd but I notice no difference in performance when doing so.


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> snip
> 
> If you get a fairly modern DAC with USB built-in, try the built-in USB out first. At this point in the game, if it works and sounds good, probably no need to waste another $200 for an unknown. Don't put the cart before the horse, especially if you are starting out and wanting to try out new DACs. USB has come a long long way with some of the newer chips. I actually feel the CMedia 6632A or even 6631A can compete with or exceed XMOS. XMOS seems to work really well with Sabre DACs though.* But anyways what I am saying is that USB converters are like aftermarket intakes for cars. The majority of them don't do jack **** for most modern cars, or give you gains of 2hp.*
> 
> snip


 
  
 Thanks for the super detailed response!  My NFB-28 uses a VIA VT1731 USB chip.  I believe you called it "craptastic".  In that case, do you think a USB converter would be beneficial?  (Yes yes, the best way to know for sure is to try it.)
  
 Honestly, I'm rather happy with my NFB-28 right now.  I feel like I'd need to spend a good chunk more money to get a notable upgrade at this point.  But if a USB power thingy like the Wyrd or the U12 might help for cheap, I wouldn't kick it out of bed...


----------



## Clemmaster

stillhart said:


> Thanks for the super detailed response!  My NFB-28 uses a VIA VT1731 USB chip.  I believe you called it "craptastic".  In that case, do you think a USB converter would be beneficial?  (Yes yes, the best way to know for sure is to try it.)
> 
> Honestly, I'm rather happy with my NFB-28 right now.  I feel like I'd need to spend a good chunk more money to get a notable upgrade at this point.  But if a USB power thingy like the Wyrd or the U12 might help for cheap, I wouldn't kick it out of bed...


 
  
 You'd better get a Wyrd to improve the USB input. If you don't mind the awful Audio-GD drivers (when it's working, it's working...), the VIA and Sabre DACs usually work great.


----------



## purrin

I'm tending to go with Clem based on my own experience with the AGD Sabre DACs and the VIA USB chips. The VIA USB / Sabre D-A implementations with AG-D seemed pretty darn solid, only bested by the mega buck Off-Ramp 5, and even then, the difference was incremental. So doubtful Custard would make a impact. Always fun to experiment though if you have money to blow. I won't discourage that. 
  
 But give Wyrd a try (again, it's not mutually exclusive). You can easily return Wyrd for a refund. Tell you what, I'll bring the Wyrd to CanJam. Find me at my table.


----------



## Clemmaster

One thing to know with the Wyrd and Windows: you will have to re-install the drivers with the Wyrd.
 I don't know why that is, but I could never have the drivers work again *without* the Wyrd later on... These drivers are really bad...


----------



## hans030390

stillhart said:


> Thanks for the super detailed response!  My NFB-28 uses a VIA VT1731 USB chip.  I believe you called it "craptastic".  In that case, do you think a USB converter would be beneficial?  (Yes yes, the best way to know for sure is to try it.)
> 
> Honestly, I'm rather happy with my NFB-28 right now.  I feel like I'd need to spend a good chunk more money to get a notable upgrade at this point.  But if a USB power thingy like the Wyrd or the U12 might help for cheap, I wouldn't kick it out of bed...


 
  
 You're in a situation where it's probably hard to say whether you'd get better sound with a Wyrd -> USB or going U12 -> SPDIF, given I've read some "meh" comments on Audio-GD's USB implementations. And the U12 is a budget product after all. My guess is if it's a newer DAC with one of the new USB implementations (I don't keep up with AGD stuff well enough to know), you'd probably be best served with a Wyrd and will save some money as well. If the USB implementation really isn't that good, then, well, even the budget U12 may be an improvement. I've heard some say XMOS is smoother sounding than some other offerings, so it may well with with the Sabre chip.
  
 I only initially got the U12 as a cheap experiment to see how it would impact that sound of a DAC I was using at the time. Now I just use it because my JKSPDIF Mk3 has horrible drivers and is a PITA to work or crashes my computer. Saving up slowly for a nicer converter down the road since I don't have DACs with a USB input themselves.


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> I'm tending to go with Clem based on my own experience with the AGD Sabre DACs and the VIA USB chips. The VIA USB / Sabre D-A implementations with AG-D seemed pretty darn solid, only bested by the mega buck Off-Ramp 5, and even then, the difference was incremental. So doubtful Custard would make a impact. Always fun to experiment though if you have money to blow. I won't discourage that.
> 
> But give Wyrd a try (again, it's not mutually exclusive). You can easily return Wyrd for a refund. Tell you what, I'll bring the Wyrd to CanJam. Find me at my table.


 
  
 Thanks, if I don't have one by then it should be beneficial.  I do plan on bringing my NFB-28 just because I'm driving down so why not.  Maybe I'll be able to borrow someone's to take back to the hotel room and test.
  


hans030390 said:


> You're in a situation where it's probably hard to say whether you'd get better sound with a Wyrd -> USB or going U12 -> SPDIF, given I've read some "meh" comments on Audio-GD's USB implementations. And the U12 is a budget product after all. My guess is if it's a newer DAC with one of the new USB implementations (I don't keep up with AGD stuff well enough to know), you'd probably be best served with a Wyrd and will save some money as well. If the USB implementation really isn't that good, then, well, even the budget U12 may be an improvement. I've heard some say XMOS is smoother sounding than some other offerings, so it may well with with the Sabre chip.
> 
> I only initially got the U12 as a cheap experiment to see how it would impact that sound of a DAC I was using at the time. Now I just use it because my JKSPDIF Mk3 has horrible drivers and is a PITA to work or crashes my computer. Saving up slowly for a nicer converter down the road since I don't have DACs with a USB input themselves.


 
  
 Thanks.  The NFB-28 is a 2014 model so relatively new.  I was thinking of trying a Wyrd off Amazon; it's a little more than direct from Schiit with shipping, but if I decide to return, the lack of restocking fee makes it cheaper.  
  
 We'll see, I guess.  I'm in no rush to experiment so maybe I'll just wait for Canjam.  Heck, maybe Schiit will have some for sale there with no shipping fees (a guy can dream, right?).


----------



## jexby

stillhart said:


> We'll see, I guess.  I'm in no rush to experiment so maybe I'll just wait for Canjam.  Heck, maybe Schiit will have some for sale there with no shipping fees (a guy can dream, right?).


 
  
 FYI:
 Schiit doesn't sell at RMAF Canjam.  suspect they won't at the March event either.
 although good for your if they change this for attendees!


----------



## mcduman

negura said:


> Also posting this information here, since there is a lot of Theta DAC talk:
> 
> Be warned of using any Audio GD amplification with the Theta. The Audio GD practice on all their amplification is to short input pins to the ground if the amplifier is powered off or if the input is unused. They do not state this anywhere - I had to find this info via measurements on my own post-factum, and then Audio GD confirmed it. This practice bears a high risk for damaging the output stage in the Theta. I know this from first hand experience. I wonder if I was very unlucky and if anyone tried Audio GD gear on the Theta and got away with it. But the manual warning is very clear to me.
> 
> ...


 
  
 i spotted a theta gen V but the owner warned me there were additional known problems with the 230v european models and even theta acknowledged  it at the time. though he was not sure what it was. anyone in the know has any further details?


----------



## negura

That may be a different point - there are several used Thetas that went around for sale in Europe and I've not seen/heard any negative feedback. What this could be is that some European countries allow for plugs that have no grounding, which I understand is a no-no. But that's common sense for many devices.
  
 What I am raising as warning, is not about a problem with some European models. It's about poor practice used by Audio GD, to short the inputs when not used, as confirmed by two engineering sources I trust. It seems Theta designs, but there may be other sources out there in the same situation, are not protected for when this engineering practice is used upstream. 
  
 I wanted to warn folks about the risks getting their DACs fried.


----------



## Articnoise

negura said:


> That may be a different point - there are several used Thetas that went around for sale in Europe and I've not seen/heard any negative feedback. What this could be is that some European countries allow for plugs that have no grounding, which I understand is a no-no. But that's common sense for many devices.
> 
> What I am raising as warning, is not about a problem with some European models. It's about poor practice used by Audio GD, to short the inputs when not used, as confirmed by two engineering sources I trust. In seems Theta designs, but there may other sources out there in the same situation, are not protected for when this engineering practice is used upstream.


 

  

 If I remember right it stood something on the page about HE9 or was it on the HE7 that it didn’t used mute … (something) because it will degenerate the sound. Is that’s the problem or is it something different that will affect all AGD amps? 

 Btw all HE products are gone on their English homepage so I can’t look it up now.


----------



## negura

articnoise said:


> If I remember right it stood something on the page about HE9 or was it on the HE7 that it didn’t used mute … (something) because it will degenerate the sound. Is that’s the problem or is it something different that will affect all AGD amps?
> 
> Btw all HE products are gone on their English homepage so I can’t look it up now.


 
  
 Yes, they pulled the range off the website, coincidentally (??) the same day I reported my findings.
 The link still works if you have it, and I have made sure to take PDF copies: http://www.audio-gd.com/HE/HE-9/HE-9EN.htm
 No warning whatsoever I found on ground shorting used on inputs.


----------



## Articnoise

Meridian has a new digital coding/decoder for reproduce studio master quality sound in high-resolution files that is not as big as some Hi-res and DSD and wherefore easier to stream. It is called MQA (Master Quality Authenticated). The MQA music file is PCM but with a different encode-decode technology. Maybe can be something, or not.

 Beware of plenty of marketing buzz words if reading.     

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/robert-harley-listens-to-meridian-mqa/ 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/meridians-mqa-one-listeners-impression


----------



## Stillhart

articnoise said:


> Meridian has a new digital coding/decoder for reproduce studio master quality sound in high-resolution files that is not as big as some Hi-res and DSD and wherefore easier to stream. It is called MQA (Master Quality Authenticated). The MQA music file is PCM but with a different encode-decode technology. Maybe can be something, or not.
> 
> Beware of plenty of marketing buzz words if reading.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I listened to it a little at CES.  Both on the Meridian Prime and the Explorer2, with the LCD-3 and LCD-X.  Unfortunately, they were demoing stereo gear in the next room so the listening conditions were terrible for trying to pick out fine detail differences.  Sounded cool in theory, but you'd have to get the people selling the music to use MQA and since it's a proprietary format, I'm not sure how much success it's going to have.


----------



## korzena

hans030390 said:


> ...I only initially got the U12 as a cheap experiment to see how it would impact that sound of a DAC I was using at the time. Now I just use it because my JKSPDIF Mk3 has horrible drivers and is a PITA to work or crashes my computer. Saving up slowly for a nicer converter down the road since I don't have DACs with a USB input themselves.


 
 You can try Young drivers for JKSPDIF Mk3. Or if you use it Kernel streaming mode, try to change to WASAPI. I had a similar problem with crashes on Windows 7 and Kernel streaming (J.river media center 19). Now I have Windows 8 and both JKSPDIF Mk3 drivers (the original and the young's) work great in both KS and Wasapi.


----------



## purrin

articnoise said:


> Meridian has a new digital coding/decoder for reproduce studio master quality sound in high-resolution files that is not as big as some Hi-res and DSD and wherefore easier to stream. It is called MQA (Master Quality Authenticated). The MQA music file is PCM but with a different encode-decode technology. Maybe can be something, or not.
> 
> Beware of plenty of marketing buzz words if reading.
> 
> ...


 
  
 LOL MQA sounds like HDCD all over again except 100x worse - even more proprietary. I'm sick of Robert Harley. A few years ago, he was going goo-goo ga-ga over apodizing filters for DACs, specifically Meridian DACs. Personally, I think apodizing filters sound like crap.


----------



## wnmnkh

mqa could be successful if decoder is free. But it seems Meridian is not going to do that.
  
 Probably precise reason why mqa will fail really hard.


----------



## hans030390

korzena said:


> You can try Young drivers for JKSPDIF Mk3. Or if you use it Kernel streaming mode, try to change to WASAPI. I had a similar problem with crashes on Windows 7 and Kernel streaming (J.river media center 19). Now I have Windows 8 and both JKSPDIF Mk3 drivers (the original and the young's) work great in both KS and Wasapi.




Yeah, I've tried all that. I just don't care for the drivers on any M2tech device from any PC I've used. Always been buggy for me.


----------



## evillamer

on the topic of studio mastering:
  
 Quote:


> Beck is a celebrity endorser of Pono. He can clearly be seen criticising the lifelessness of MP3 in this Pono promo video and yet MP3 compression has somehow made it into _Morning Phase_’s chain of creation . Who’s disrespecting artistry now?


 
  
 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/02/disrespecting-artistry-becks-morning-phase-as-a-hi-res-download/
  
  
  
 http://www.analogplanet.com/content/stop-nonsense-bob-ludwig-true-numbers-behind-becks-imorning-phasei-album


----------



## Stillhart

evillamer said:


> http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/02/disrespecting-artistry-becks-morning-phase-as-a-hi-res-download/
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.analogplanet.com/content/stop-nonsense-bob-ludwig-true-numbers-behind-becks-imorning-phasei-album


 
 Fascinating article.  You should post it to the 24bit vs 16bit Myth Exposed thread!


----------



## Jones Bob

Will the Yggy play MQA?


----------



## estreeter

Only if you're taking LSD or PCP, OK ?


----------



## Currawong

evillamer said:


> on the topic of studio mastering:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 
  
 I was talking to someone in the industry last time I was in LA about that album. The gist of what I was told was in effect that Beck uses gear to generate the sound effects on his albums that isn't high res, but because it makes the sound he wants in the music. It was definitely a poor choice of an album to advertise as high res. Definitely not Beck's fault in this, he just made the music he wanted to make. 
  
 I guess the industry is just going to keep shooting itself in the foot with this stuff, just like it has with Autotune *cough*.
  
 On a different note (ha!) I'm pondering not bringing a rig at all to Canjam because it will be overshadowed by Schiit's RYgg.


----------



## estreeter

That's assuming you can get anywhere near the Schiit stand. That would frustrate the hell out of me - to fly all the way from Asia to the US, roll up to CANJAM brimming with excitement only to see a horde of people with exactly the same idea. I know it's selfish, but I'd want to turn up to see Mike waiting to usher me into a soundproofed booth where I could spend the rest of the show listening to Yggy in complete silence with a selection of TOTL amps and phones. Dreams are free, right ?  
  
 Seriously, Amos, enjoy yourself over there, mate - I look forward to your impressions,


----------



## Jones Bob

estreeter said:


> Only if you're taking LSD or PCP, OK ?




No thanks, but I'll trust your advise.


----------



## shadow84

Are there any decently priced DAC with multi inputs like schiit modi 2 uber or smsl m8 so dat i can connect to pc and console?


----------



## Stillhart

shadow84 said:


> Are there any decently priced DAC with multi inputs like schiit modi 2 uber or smsl m8 so dat i can connect to pc and console?


 
  
 Check the Audio-GD NFB-15, NFB-11 and Creative X7.  None of the listed ones are going to be up to Purrin's standards, but they'll get the job done for your uses.  The X7 will also provide you virtual surround for gaming, which is a big plus.


----------



## evillamer

Has anyone read this book before? Is it worth the buy/read?
  
 http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-complete-guide-to-high-end-audio-fifth-edition/


----------



## bmichels

evillamer said:


> Has anyone read this book before? Is it worth the buy/read?
> 
> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-complete-guide-to-high-end-audio-fifth-edition/


 
  
 I will be interested also to know if it is worth, since I am tempted to get one.


----------



## wmedrz

The Muddy Waters master is absolutely fantastic, the best I've heard.
  
 Any recommendations for Veedon Fleece? 
  
 (thought I'd try)


----------



## prot

Did anyone try this DAC?
http://m.ebay.com/itm/111525053002
Dual ess9018, amanero usb up to 32/384 and dsd512, crystek femto clocks, i2s input and all sorts of other "audiophile goodies". It even looks very good. Quite amazing actually for a china device costing just $1299


----------



## Armaegis

I really feel like I've seen that design somewhere, but I can't place it...


----------



## prot

armaegis said:


> I really feel like I've seen that design somewhere, but I can't place it...



Hopefully not here http://www.head-fi.org/t/745032/lks-audio-mh-da003
The dedicated thread exists but it does not contain any SQ info. Looks like noone tried it although it's available for purchase everywhere, including amazon.
Only found a few short comments in another forum saying it is quite popular in china/hk and suposedly better than mytek192.


----------



## conquerator2

There's also the Gustard X12, which has a thread here [merged with the H10] and has had a very positive response... I am considering it...


----------



## prot

conquerator2 said:


> There's also the Gustard X12, which has a thread here [merged with the H10] and has had a very positive response... I am considering it...



The x12 spec sheet is pretty good too. However, it looks like something you wanna hide under the desk . 
Btw, rumor is that they are goin to release an improved x20 model for about $650. Hopefully with improved design.


----------



## conquerator2

prot said:


> The x12 spec sheet is pretty good too. However, it looks like something you wanna hide under the desk
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, but it seems to be around July... that's too late and we won't know just how good it is for a while... The X12 has been proved to be good


----------



## Sorrodje

TotalDAC A1 in da place...


----------



## estreeter

@Sorrodje I officially hate you  
  
 Seriously - looking forward to your impressions - that is one of the few DACs that seems to earn universal praise from everyone who has heard it.


----------



## drez

prot said:


> Did anyone try this DAC?
> http://m.ebay.com/itm/111525053002
> Dual ess9018, amanero usb up to 32/384 and dsd512, crystek femto clocks, i2s input and all sorts of other "audiophile goodies". It even looks very good. Quite amazing actually for a china device costing just $1299


 
  
 Seems Buzzword compliant, but really need to listen to it to work out if it is good or not.  Many other things matter than just the buzzwords.
  
 Recently came across the "SDTrans384" project which seems interesting but highly impractical.


----------



## Sorrodje

estreeter said:


> @Sorrodje I officially hate you
> 
> Seriously - looking forward to your impressions - that is one of the few DACs that seems to earn universal praise from everyone who has heard it.


 
  
 Pleased to be hated for that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Very brief impressions ( *Huge grain of salt wholeheartly recommended*) : its sounds like a PCM1704uk dac but on steroïds : less mellow, more impactful with ballz expecially in Bass area but all spectrum is really lively. No risk to fall asleep during the listening. Never heard my Stax sounded like that before. More liquid and mellifluous than the Metrum Octave. 2 hours of listening , new toys effect highly likeky  . Need more real comparison against my other dac and I need my f.cking HD800 returns home from Colorware. I know the Senn better than the Stax and the HD800 is a better tool to evaluate gear IMO.
  
 It does not sound how I would have expected. I didn't expect that sense of thunderous power and liveliness.


----------



## prot

drez said:


> Seems Buzzword compliant, but really need to listen to it to work out if it is good or not.  Many other things matter than just the buzzwords.



My thoughts exactly. That's why I keep asking for first hand impressions. 

@Sorrodje
That sounds like a very interesting super DAC. However, the super price is not that interesting


----------



## Sorrodje

prot said:


> @Sorrodje
> That sounds like a very interesting super DAC. However, the super price is not that interesting


 
  
 I paid 1800€ for it  . not so expensive compared to a lot of other contenders ( Metrum Hex, Audio GD last flagship, Auralic Vega ... ) but it's discontinued and somewhat rare on the market. The current most affordable totaldac is priced at 6500€.
  
 I purchased this A1 because I fell in love with R2R with the discover of the Metrum Octave. This totalDAC and the Yggy was my two best bets for my end-game HD800 rig. But you're right it's serious money. That's why I decided to buy this totaldac while I'm saving money for the Yggy.  when I'll be ready, I'll be able to compare them side by side at home and then choose the one I prefer with my own ears. 
  
 Fortunately I've friend who own other "big" dacs like the AMR DP555 or the Totaldac D1 Dual. I hope we'll have the opportunity to compare the Yggy to all these.  . i'm eager to discover by myself if the Yggy is really the promised state-of-the-art DAC on the market.. or not. No offense to Marv' or Zerodeefex or other people who claimed the Yggy blows all other dacs out the water but I much prefer to make my own opinion with my own (flawed) ears.


----------



## arnaud

sorrodje said:


> I paid 1800€ for it  . not so expensive compared to a lot of other contenders ( Metrum Hex, Audio GD last flagship, Auralic Vega ... ) but it's discontinued and somewhat rare on the market. The current most affordable totaldac is priced at 6500€.
> 
> I purchased this A1 because I fell in love with R2R with the discover of the Metrum Octave. This totalDAC and the Yggy was my two best bets for my end-game HD800 rig. But you're right it's serious money. That's why I decided to buy this totaldac while I'm saving money for the Yggy.  when I'll be ready, I'll be able to compare them side by side at home and then choose the one I prefer with my own ears.
> 
> Fortunately I've friend who own other "big" dacs like the AMR DP555 or the Totaldac D1 Dual. I hope we'll have the opportunity to compare the Yggy to all these.  . i'm eager to discover by myself if the Yggy is really the promised state-of-the-art DAC on the market.. or not. No offense to Marv' or Zerodeefex or other people who claimed the Yggy blows all other dacs out the water but I much prefer to make my own opinion with my own (flawed) ears.




Congrats on the A1! I have gotten used to me D1 but what's left is just enjoyment. I started with the compensation filter on (compensation for the rolloff due to the brickwall filter for nos playback of 44.1k material) but soon found that leaving it off sounded more natural (having it on gives treble a somewhat metallic / hard sound).

I may have gone death but I think that this rollof issue of nos dacs is overplayed a bit: I enjoy the D1 without the compensation filter, and switching from 44.1k to HD material does not make me feel like I am missing on a ton of detail or air.

I shall be proved wrong at some point perhaps and don't doubt the oversampling filter in the iggy is great and all but, from my seat, it feels more like playing into schiit's marketing on the revolutionary filter. There's so much more to a dac than just this filter, one would need to hear the iggy with a more traditional filter in order to assertively attribute the perceived "unprecedented resolution" of the iggy to its OS filter. 

Cheers,
Arnaud


----------



## Sorrodje

Thanks Arnaud,
  
 On the A1 , the FIR filter is not desactivable . There isn't any setting at all. On/off button, One Coax Input, Two RCA ouputs and that's all. KISS philosophy and its all what I need 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .
  
 Hope You'll have the chance to compare your D1 to the Yggy too.


----------



## estreeter

sorrodje said:


> Pleased to be hated for that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the feedback - I realise its very tough with so few hours, but hopefully you'll be able to revisit this thread in a month or so when you've had more time with the DAC. My expectations would be through the roof if I had a chance to listen to anything from totaldac - their current range seems to stretch into the seriously high-end and you definitely got a bargain.


----------



## Sorrodje

@Estreteer : I even asked my friend to loan me the Octave I sold to him in order to compare the two directly. I won't be able to do quick A/B but at least I'll have the two DAC on my desk.


----------



## frenchbat

arnaud said:


> Congrats on the A1! I have gotten used to me D1 but what's left is just enjoyment. I started with the compensation filter on (compensation for the rolloff due to the brickwall filter for nos playback of 44.1k material) but soon found that leaving it off sounded more natural (having it on gives treble a somewhat metallic / hard sound).
> 
> I may have gone death but I think that this rollof issue of nos dacs is overplayed a bit: I enjoy the D1 without the compensation filter, and switching from 44.1k to HD material does not make me feel like I am missing on a ton of detail or air.
> 
> ...


 

 Or you can pass by to visit us next time you're around . Closest thing to the Yggy is still the Theta gen Va and I have a Rag incoming.


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> There's so much more to a dac than just this filter, one would need to hear the iggy with a more traditional filter in order to assertively attribute the perceived "unprecedented resolution" of the iggy to its OS filter.


 
  
 You got your wires crossed. Yggy's digital filter doesn't have as much to do with its "unprecedented resolution" as with its holographic staging / precise imaging. Gen V has the same filter but with a smaller processing window. You should hop over to frenchbat's place to get a sense of the Gen V's imaging/staging, preferably with speakers. Keep in mind that the Gen V already trashes the MSB DACs, and the Yggy trashes the Gen V.
  
 Yggdrasil's resolution is because of its effective bits and accuracy (the chips used - I believe it's a badly kept secret now). I'm in the middle of certain experiments to further verify this. Everyone will get to read a paper about this in a year or so.


----------



## smitty1110

> Everyone will get to read a paper about this in a year or so.


 
 Hopefully the paper won't be pay-walled


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> Very brief impressions ( *Huge grain of salt wholeheartly recommended*) : its sounds like a PCM1704uk dac but on steroïds : less mellow, more impactful with ballz expecially in Bass area but all spectrum is really lively.


 
  
 So it sounds like a PCM1702?


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> So it sounds like a PCM1702?


 
  
  
 Never heard any one.


----------



## frenchbat

purrin said:


> You got your wires crossed. Yggy's digital filter doesn't have as much to do with its "unprecedented resolution" as with its holographic staging / precise imaging. Gen V has the same filter but with a smaller processing window. You should hop over to frenchbat's place to get a sense of the Gen V's imaging/staging, preferably with speakers. Keep in mind that the Gen V already trashes the MSB DACs, and the Yggy trashes the Gen V.
> 
> Yggdrasil's resolution is because of its effective bits and accuracy (the chips used - I believe it's a badly kept secret now). I'm in the middle of certain experiments to further verify this. Everyone will get to read a paper about this in a year or so.


 

 Might take a while, since I'm not in Japan anymore. But he knows the door's open  Depends whether someone among the Tokyo team gets an Yggy first or not.


----------



## Sorrodje

frenchbat said:


> Might take a while, since I'm not in Japan anymore.


 
  
  
 Back to France ?


----------



## frenchbat

sorrodje said:


> Back to France ?


 
 Yep, though opposite side from you. Northern Brittany. You're welcome if you're passing by, just need some planning.


----------



## zerodeefex

purrin said:


> sorrodje said:
> 
> 
> > Very brief impressions ( *Huge grain of salt wholeheartly recommended*) : its sounds like a PCM1704uk dac but on steroïds : less mellow, more impactful with ballz expecially in Bass area but all spectrum is really lively.
> ...


 
  
 OH! So the totalDAC sounds like this:


----------



## Sorrodje

Don't forget there's several Totaldac. I purchased the lowest priced one . the state-of-the-art totaldac which meany people consider as the best current dac in production is the totaldac D1 Dual .
  
 Currently listening  to this :
  

  
 I can't believe i have a Stax lambda on my head. lol


----------



## mcullinan

How much is the cheapest TotalDac in the US? The list of pricing is confusing.


----------



## Sorrodje

New it shoud be around 6500$ I guess. The entry level totaldac is the Single D1.


----------



## frenchbat

Funny, just realized Totaldac headquarters are actually only an hour away from my place. Another reason to come and visit guys ...


----------



## arnaud

Frenchbat, first it's great to read you again on this forum! Would live to stop by you guys place (all the more if we could pay vincent briant a visit  ). As it stands though earliest bet would be summer 2016 (won't be able to drive there this summer) ((.
I cannot imagine nobody will go for the iggy locally, especially if it is that good so this comparison to the D1 will eventually occur...
Arnaud


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> the best current dac in production is the totaldac D1 Dual .


 
  
 That's the 14.5 bit DAC right?


----------



## evanft

purrin said:


> That's the 14.5 bit DAC right?


 
  

  
 Savagery.

 Does Yggy have USB gen 2 or 3?


----------



## zerodeefex

USB gen 3


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> That's the 14.5 bit DAC right?


 
  
 Still better than the 6 bits delta-sigma crap currently prevalent...


----------



## Clemmaster

frenchbat said:


> Funny, just realized Totaldac headquarters are actually only an hour away from my place. Another reason to come and visit guys ...


 
  
 I payed Vincent a visit when I grabbed his Total USB cable. Alas, he had no DAC ready in house and his speakers were dismounted 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 (Xmas time).


----------



## estreeter

14.5 bits or no, I'd be happy to take any of the totaldac lineup for a spin. Less enthused about the Phasure nos1a given some of PeterSt's increasingly eccentric rants over at CA - I guess some people get a thrill out of working with a _mad genius_ but I'd prefer to see more of the genius and a little less of the mad


----------



## frenchbat

arnaud said:


> Frenchbat, first it's great to read you again on this forum! Would live to stop by you guys place (all the more if we could pay vincent briant a visit
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Summer '16 sounds good anyway. We're planning a trip to Tokyo next year too actually. 
  
 I'm totally expecting someone to get anYggy in the meantime, but we'll do as usual, forget about gear and have fun.


----------



## frenchbat

> I payed Vincent a visit when I grabbed his Total USB cable. Alas, he had no DAC ready in house and his speakers were dismounted
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Given that he only started his company, I guess he's careful with his stock.
  
 Next time, give me a heads up. Assuming there's another time


----------



## Clemmaster

frenchbat said:


> Given that he only started his company, I guess he's careful with his stock.
> 
> Next time, give me a heads up. Assuming there's another time


 
 Next time will most likely be next Xmas... But I keep that in mind! Je suis de Rennes.
  
 Demand is high enough, apparently! Also, surprisingly, the bigger DACs seem to sell just as well as the D1 single. He just departed from one of the big DACs before I came...


----------



## frenchbat

clemmaster said:


> Next time will most likely be next Xmas... But I keep that in mind! Je suis de Rennes.
> 
> Demand is high enough, apparently! Also, surprisingly, the bigger DACs seem to sell just as well as the D1 single. He just departed from one of the big DACs before I came...


 

 Xmas family meeting, I see. Well then there will likely be a next time then. Xmas is my busiest work period (seasonality of my business), but we can try something out. I'm on the coastline (Saint Malo)


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> That's the 14.5 bit DAC right?


 
  


evanft said:


> Savagery.


 
  
  
 LOL !
  
  
@purrin : Don't get me wrong I don't claim anything myself. I just know people who heard all Hi end DAC including DCS or MSB best offers and who 've choosen the TotalDAC D1 Dual as their end-game dac. that's alL . No need to kid me with 0,5 bits  . we're not teens right ? we are not here to compete with the lenght our bits ( private joke for french speakers included  "concours de bit(e)s = di.k contest ) .
  
 Would you kind enough to give us explanations or sources for this 14 bits affairs.  I read you a few posts before but didn't take time for further reading.  thks
  
  
 A few more impressions after two more houres of listening yesterday evening : the DAC seems to put the hand on my Stax system and squeeze it like a citrus to extract the music. I feel more like I've bought a new big amp than a new dac. 
  
 The SR404 before totaldac :
  

  
  
 After totaldac :


----------



## frenchbat

Just curious, how much is the A1 going for now ?


----------



## Sorrodje

frenchbat said:


> Just curious, how much is the A1 going for now ?


 
  
  
 Juste call Vincent. Maybe he has still one or two . It's currently officially discontinued


----------



## frenchbat

I'm not really interested, just curious. I've seen it's discontinued and it's only until the end of the stock. How much did you pay yours ?


----------



## Sorrodje

frenchbat said:


> I'm not really interested, just curious. I've seen it's discontinued and it's only until the end of the stock. How much did you pay yours ?


 
  
 1800€ Shipped .


----------



## frenchbat

gotcha. Curious to hear it, but the more time passes, the better my Theta deal sounds.


----------



## Sorrodje

Would be really interested to give a listen to the Theta myself.  You currently drive your HD800 with the Leck ?


----------



## frenchbat

sorrodje said:


> Would be really interested to give a listen to the Theta myself.  You currently drive your HD800 with the Leck ?


 

 I'm using my benchmark as the amp. I can see faces cringing already, but no the benchmark isn't that bad. Especially the HDR with the LM4562, which I have. 
 Anyway, I have a Rag incoming this month, whenever it's back in stock this side of the pond.
  
 That said, I'm expecting a fairly large increase, coming from Theta rca single-ended on the DAC1 to xlr balanced on the Rag.


----------



## Armaegis

sorrodje said:


> The SR404 before totaldac :
> 
> After totaldac :


 
  
 So... you're saying the totaldac adds a saturation filter?


----------



## Sorrodje

armaegis said:


> So... you're saying the totaldac adds a saturation filter?


 
  
 You piss me off pyrates


----------



## Sorrodje

frenchbat said:


> That said, I'm expecting a fairly large increase, coming from Theta rca single-ended on the DAC1 to xlr balanced on the Rag.


 
  
 I guess you won't be disappointed. I'll grab a Rag on loan in next weeks . I'm curious.


----------



## frenchbat

Too bad your hd800 is still away  , but stax ain't so bad either


----------



## Sorrodje

My HD800 will be back at home before the rag.


----------



## frenchbat

All good then.


----------



## ericfarrell85

Marv,
  
 What did you think of the Spectral when you heard it?


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> LOL !
> 
> 
> @purrin : Don't get me wrong I don't claim anything myself. I just know people who heard all Hi end DAC including DCS or MSB best offers and who 've choosen the TotalDAC D1 Dual as their end-game dac. that's alL . No need to kid me with 0,5 bits  . we're not teens right ? we are not here to compete with the lenght our bits ( private joke for french speakers included  "concours de bit(e)s = di.k contest ) .
> ...


 
  
 Haha. I cite Six Loons: W_hile the Totaldac is a 24-bit network, 0.01% resistors cannot easily exceed 14-bit resolution (1/10.000 versus 1/65.536 for a 16-bit signal). The 24-bit foil ladder is __not used at full capacity but guarantees 14-bit resolution for both most significant and less significant bits. _
  
Then they go on to make some lame-ass excuse: _Built-in dynamic limitation of large-scale signals is obvious but in reality today’s status of recordings and microphones here is the greater limiting factor. The never-ending race towards higher-resolution converters seems wasted in view of the top accuracy of the rest of the playback chain._
 
That makes my BS detector go off:
 

Why don't I just run my wave files through a computer program that I wrote to decimate the last 2 bits of every RedBook recording to get 14-bits. (I've actually done this and more.)
I'm surprised how much plankton Yggy is able to scrap off from both old and new mediocre quality recordings (not to mention other notable DAC such as Gen V, PWD2, M1, etc.) I don't buy this "oh, all recordings are ****", we don't need a full 16-bits. I mean, why don't we just pull out the good ol' TDA1540 (14-bit, 4 LSB DNL error)?
  
Musical satisfaction / re-creation of reality requires being as true to the original tapes or source as much as possible. I can only speak for myself.


----------



## purrin

ericfarrell85 said:


> Marv,
> 
> What did you think of the Spectral when you heard it?


 
  
 I wouldn't mind owing one. I'd stick it a bit above the SFD-1mk2/SE+ upgrades but below the Gen V. Really good DAC. Better than any of the modern ladder DACs from the big names.


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> Haha. I cite Six Loons: W_hile the Totaldac is a 24-bit network, 0.01% resistors cannot easily exceed 14-bit resolution (1/10.000 versus 1/65.536 for a 16-bit signal). The 24-bit foil ladder is __not used at full capacity but guarantees 14-bit resolution for both most significant and less significant bits. _
> 
> Then they go on to make some lame-ass excuse: _Built-in dynamic limitation of large-scale signals is obvious but in reality today’s status of recordings and microphones here is the greater limiting factor. The never-ending race towards higher-resolution converters seems wasted in view of the top accuracy of the rest of the playback chain._
> 
> ... 
  
 That would be interesting to reproduce this with the Yggy (with proper dithering / noise shaping), to see what's actually left out in the process.
  
 Can someone explain the rational behind the 0.01% resistors limit the resolution to 14.5 bits? Do they even know how these resistors are used in this converter to make such a claim? Are all the resistors value the same? Can't the ladder be broken down into different segments (MSB / LSB and, possibly, intermediary segments), like the new Metrum Pavane?


----------



## prot

clemmaster said:


> That would be interesting to reproduce this with the Yggy (with proper dithering / noise shaping), to see what's actually left out in the process.
> 
> Can someone explain the rational behind the 0.01% resistors limit the resolution to 14.5 bits? Do they even know how these resistors are used in this converter to make such a claim? Are all the resistors value the same? Can't the ladder be broken down into different segments (MSB / LSB and, possibly, intermediary segments), like the new Metrum Pavane?



http://youtu.be/nLEhfieoMq8. A pretty nice demo & explanation for the effects of lowering bit rates. There's a good chance that 16 to 14 bit with proper dithering will not be audible. With a very good recording, a very resolving system and high sensitivity speakers it may be though. 

As to your second Q, not sure about that relation between resistor values and bit depth. That math sounds kinda fishy. Maybe someone can clarify


----------



## Sorrodje

@purrin : Ok I see.  Soekris who made R2R ladder dac on DIYaudio says that the Totaldac does not use a sign magnitude architecture if I understand well ( a friend gave me this informations) but my friend said me that some totaldac measurements ( THD ? ) don't match wit a 14 bits resolution... Work in progress to understand this.


----------



## Clemmaster

prot said:


> http://youtu.be/nLEhfieoMq8. A pretty nice demo & explanation for the effects of lowering bit rates. There's a good chance that 16 to 14 bit with proper dithering will not be audible. With a very good recording, a very resolving system and high sensitivity speakers it may be though.
> 
> As to your second Q, not sure about that relation between resistor values and bit depth. That math sounds kinda fishy. Maybe someone can clarify


 
 Thanks for the link, will check it out.
  
 As for the resistor accuracy and bit depth, Wikipedia gives some explanation : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor_ladder
 But they also mention that R-2R is not the only way to build a ladder DAC. I guess we would need to dig some more to get an understanding of how the TotalDAC is implemented.
 Measurements a la Stereophile would be great, too.


----------



## drez

clemmaster said:


> Thanks for the link, will check it out.
> 
> As for the resistor accuracy and bit depth, Wikipedia gives some explanation : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor_ladder
> But they also mention that R-2R is not the only way to build a ladder DAC. I guess we would need to dig some more to get an understanding of how the TotalDAC is implemented.
> Measurements a la Stereophile would be great, too.


 
  
 Yep, I think Stereophile style measurements would be what's needed.  Seems local hifi store will be taken over my company that distributes Schiit, so hopefully they will have Rag/Ygg for demo.  Less for me to lose than using the evaluation period of Schiit.


----------



## Clemmaster

This video is very cool: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml


----------



## purrin

clemmaster said:


> Thanks for the link, will check it out.
> 
> As for the resistor accuracy and bit depth, Wikipedia gives some explanation : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor_ladder
> But they also mention that R-2R is not the only way to build a ladder DAC. I guess we would need to dig some more to get an understanding of how the TotalDAC is implemented.


 
  
 Six Loons seems to imply the Total DAC is an R / 2R architecture. Just plug in randomly generated R and 2R resistor values according to a specific tolerance  into a speadsheet and with the formulas / calculations for that architecture.
  


clemmaster said:


> That would be interesting to reproduce this with the Yggy (with proper dithering / noise shaping), to see what's actually left out in the process.


 
  
 You never know, I may have already done it. Maybe even modeling specific D-A chips of yesteryear according to generated INL error plots. You never know.


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> Six Loons seems to imply the Total DAC is an R / 2R architecture. Just plug in randomly generated R and 2R resistor values according to a specific tolerance  into a speadsheet and with the formulas / calculations for that architecture.
> 
> 
> *You never know, I may have already done it. Maybe even modeling specific D-A chips of yesteryear according to generated INL error plots. You never know.*


 
  
 I would be interested in seeing your generated INL plots.
 I did generate a transfer function for the DAC8581 based on the LE plot and a lousy CV algorithm, but the plot's resolution is not good enough to get a decent TF


----------



## prot

clemmaster said:


> Thanks for the link, will check it out.
> 
> As for the resistor accuracy and bit depth, Wikipedia gives some explanation : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor_ladder
> But they also mention that R-2R is not the only way to build a ladder DAC. I guess we would need to dig some more to get an understanding of how the TotalDAC is implemented.
> Measurements a la Stereophile would be great, too.



Thx for that link, seems clear now. And if my math isnt too rusty 0.01% accuracy should be enough for ~13.3 bits (100 / 2 power noBits = neededAccuracy). Which is indeed quite lame. 

However wiki also says "integrated circuits may push the number of bits to 14 or even more". Anyone who can clarify that part?


----------



## Clemmaster

prot said:


> Thx for that link, seems clear now. And if my math isnt too rusty 0.01% accuracy should be enough for ~13.3 bits (100 / 2 power noBits = neededAccuracy). Which is indeed quite lame.
> 
> *However wiki also says "integrated circuits may push the number of bits to 14 or even more". Anyone who can clarify that part?*


 
 I think they mean we can achieve greater accuracy with the technology used to manufacture integrated circuits (take a PCM1702/4, for instance), which is more precise than for a discrete resistor, thanks to techniques like laser trimming, etc.


----------



## arnaud

Well, if 13.5 bit effective resolution is what makes the TotalDAC sound so good, so be it! I have just never ever heard that much detail in my CDs and it's not like I have been using ladder dacs all along. Too bad also the TotalDAC designer can't step in and explain how he got 140dB effective dynamic range if all we got are 14bits. Maybe I can try to get an explanation from him. I guess I get confused between dynamic range and precision.
  
 I still think there's a lot of babbling around to justify the Iggy's design (be it the effective resolution of the ladder or the zillion taps long OS filter) and, maybe, be even more assertive on how it is going to be the best thing since sliced bread, killing each and every dac ever made .
  
 I will be very very curious to give it a run, in my rig, once the BHSE is in the house for example . 
  
 arnaud


----------



## Sorrodje

The totaldac is definitely a r2r ladder DAC. Soekris with his diy board or msb seems to achieve a 24 bits dynamics or resolution with sign magnitude architecture. V.brient said me the totaldac fully use 24 bits dynamics too but didn't tell me if he used the same method.


----------



## Golfnutz

arnaud said:


> Well, if 13.5 bit effective resolution is what makes the TotalDAC sound so good, so be it! I have just never ever heard that much detail in my CDs and it's not like I have been using ladder dacs all along. Too bad also the TotalDAC designer can't step in and explain how he got 140dB effective dynamic range if all we got are 14bits. Maybe I can try to get an explanation from him. I guess I get confused between dynamic range and precision.
> 
> I still think there's a lot of babbling around to justify the Iggy's design (be it the effective resolution of the ladder or the zillion taps long OS filter) and, maybe, be even more assertive on how it is going to be the best thing since sliced bread, killing each and every dac ever made .
> 
> ...


 
 Arnaud, he did try to explain it on a different forum, as a similar question was asked.
  
 Q - Member. "If 0.01% is good for 14-bits of discrete voltage steps, what are the other 10 bits used for? Does the 24-bit ladder become a graceful 14-bit down converter or is there something else in play that utilizes the other 10 bits ???"
  
 A - Totaldac. "In audio 24bit resolution is used to get the ability to resolve the large signals and also the very small signals, that's the dynamic capability. Such a R2R DAC has the ability to produce high level with 0.002% low distortion but also very low levels with a very good resolution. The FFT spectrum given in my web site shows the ability to resolve the very small signal with a very low noise which a 14bit DAC couldn't resolve, not even a 16bit nor a 20bit DAC, the noise floor is achievable only by the best 24bit DACs. For large signals (0dBFs) the LSB resolution is not necessary, and simply impossible to get by any DAC, calculate the distortion that would be admitted by a mathematically perfect 24bit DAC, it would be a distortion impossible to get and also completely useless. In audio people often forget that dynamic is the characteristic number one in audio.
 For example take the ear or a good microphone or a good loudspeaker, their distortion is higher than most DACs and than most transistor amplifiers but their dynamic is extremely high. I tried to make a DAC that fits these accoustics characteristics."


----------



## Sorrodje

@Golfnutz: Vincent gave me the same answer but the question is how the totaldac can achieve this 24 bits depth.
  
 I borrowed yesterday a HD800 and a Metrum Octave and give the A1 more hours of listening in next days.


----------



## prot

arnaud said:


> Well, if 13.5 bit effective resolution is what makes the TotalDAC sound so good, so be it! I have just never ever heard that much detail in my CDs and it's not like I have been using ladder dacs all along. Too bad also the TotalDAC designer can't step in and explain how he got 140dB effective dynamic range if all we got are 14bits. Maybe I can try to get an explanation from him. I guess I get confused between dynamic range and precision.



I'm no EE or audio expert (IT background) but here's my interpretation of the wiki data on R2R (2kg of salt as prerequisite!). 
It's not hard to achieve 24 or any other bit depth with R2R. That only depends on the no of resistors and the circuit topology. Problem is the accuracy of those 24bits. IIUC, the resistor accuracy and matching are the main factors there and it mostly applies to the higher order bits. You get a 24bit result no matter what resistors you use but the last X bits may or may not be correctly interpreted. 

Question is, how do those errors affect the sound?. And that's even harder to say. It may generate a sound coloration that is actually pleasing ... some sort of tube-like coloration.
The fact that R2Rs have a known problem with the highs rolloff seems to fit well with my "explanation". And generally (another 2kg of salt here) if you err on changing 1s into 0s your sound will become thinner. If you err the other way it *may* become fuller, louder, deeper. 
That's only *very* generic bits theory and logic, though. And I may be talking way above my pay grade . Would be very helpful to hear something from ppl with hands on experience.


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> I still think there's a lot of babbling around to justify the Iggy's design (be it the effective resolution of the ladder or the zillion taps long OS filter) and, maybe, be even more assertive on how it is going to be the best thing since sliced bread, killing each and every dac ever made .


 
  
 There's babbling around, but that doesn't change the FACT that the D-A used in the Yggdrasil will resolve the full 16-bits essentially without any error. Again, what part they are using is not exactly a secret now.
  
 I'm sure the TotalDuc sounds resolving to you, but another fact remains, you really haven't had any significant experience in terms of high-end DACs both new or vintage, unlike a lot of people who have heard the Yggy.


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> I'm no EE or audio expert (IT background) but here's my interpretation of the wiki data on R2R (2kg of salt as prerequisite!).





> It's not hard to achieve 24 or any other bit depth with R2R. That only depends on the no of resistors and the circuit topology. Problem is the accuracy of those 24bits. IIUC, the resistor accuracy and matching are the main factors there and it mostly applies to the higher order bits. You get a 24bit result no matter what resistors you use but the last X bits may or may not be correctly interpreted.


 
  
 That's pretty much it. You can make a 64-bit discrete R2R DAC, but the errors will be so significant that you end up with much less effective number of bits. Even 13.5 or 14 bits is pushing it with discrete resistors because even power circuits become a factor.
  


prot said:


> Question is, how do those errors affect the sound?. And that's even harder to say. It may generate a sound coloration that is actually pleasing ... some sort of tube-like coloration.
> The fact that R2Rs have a known problem with the highs rolloff seems to fit well with my "explanation". And generally (another 2kg of salt here) if you err on changing 1s into 0s your sound will become thinner. If you err the other way it *may* become fuller, louder, deeper.


 
  
 Smoothes things out. Makes things rounder sounding. Removes microdetails, ambient cues. People make all sorts of excuses: "Oh, the Metrum doesn't lack resolution, it just pushes the details into the background." Um, yeah right. Where did that string decay on that Eagles recording go?
  
 Based on listening tests on my gear, I can distinguish up to 18-bits. (Taking a good 24bit hires recording and converting down to 20,18,16,14 bits, etc.) The effects are subtle. I doubt most people without sufficiently resolving gear will be able to tell the difference with 12 bits. I cannot hear any sonic advantages past 48kHz or 44.1kHz sampling rate.


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> There's babbling around, but that doesn't change the FACT that the D-A used in the Yggdrasil will resolve the full 16-bits essentially without any error. Again, what part they are using is not exactly a secret now.
> .



So, that would be another "24bit" component that can barely solve 16bit. Looks like those bits are quite relative in the audio world. And the 24bit sigmas are also max 22bit. And who knows how many other limiting components you have in the playback chain. 
 Does anyone else feel like something stinks in audioland? I'm an IT guy. If my 24bit algorithm actually works on 16bit, I'll be fired the next day. Apparently not the same in audioland. You can just put a 24bit label on anything and noone cares. You even get enthusiastic reviews for it. It may not be as simple as that, but for me it still sounds like shady business and crookery with numbers. 
Oh well, as long as it all sounds "amazing" and "so much better than redbook", everyone is happy.


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> I'm sure the TotalDuc sounds resolving to you, but another fact remains, you really haven't had any significant experience in terms of high-end DACs both new or vintage, unlike a lot of people who have heard the Yggy.


 
  
 To the point you can judge products without hearing them, TotalDuc being one, amazing! 
  
 Arnaud


----------



## Articnoise

If not a secret any longer that dac chip is used in the Yggdrasil?


----------



## prot

articnoise said:


> If not a secret any longer that dac chip is used in the Yggdrasil?



+1. would like to know that too


----------



## Sorrodje

Interesting.
  
 Purrin, You've not heard the dac but you suggest it does not resolve more than 14 bits despite the SNR measurements (indeed provided by Brien himself) and you suggest the resolution is as deficient that an octave ( I confirm easily the octave lacks dynamics and resolution ) . Smells like a soviet lawsuit. guilty before judgement 
  
 I have the Octave and the A1 Side by side. Will try to give impression about resolution. I'm as cheapstake as you so if the totaldac does not bring special to the table against the Metrum, it 'll send back the A1 and recover my money . it's as simple as that. And it would even not be a proof. Maybe my ears or my gear is too bad to hear enough resolution after all. then the Octave will largely suffice.
  
 I did not really understand the technical principles though. Forget me for that


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> That's pretty much it. You can make a 64-bit discrete R2R DAC, but the errors will be so significant that you end up with much less effective number of bits. Even 13.5 or 14 bits is pushing it with discrete resistors because even power circuits become a factor.



Thx for the confirmation. Wasnt sure that my pure math interpretation works as such



> Smoothes things out. Makes things rounder sounding. Removes microdetails, ambient cues.



Again from a pure math/bits background, that should be true if you simply remove the bits above 14 or so. If you keep em and ignore the errors the sound should be somewhat more detailed ... and possibly with more "weight". But since the errors are unpredictable (afaik), one cannot really say. As mentioned, you could very well end up with a sort of pleasung tubelike coloration. That would match the SQ impressions posted about the current R2R dacs. 



> Based on listening tests on my gear, I can distinguish up to 18-bits. (Taking a good 24bit hires recording and converting down to 20,18,16,14 bits, etc.) The effects are subtle. I doubt most people without sufficiently resolving gear will be able to tell the difference with 12 bits. I cannot hear any sonic advantages past 48kHz or 44.1kHz sampling rate.



 Tried 16 vs 14 bit once and I think I heard the diff (faint detail cues) but not sure I could pass a proper abx. And couldnt hear any diff above 44/48khz either. My system is however lowfi by your standards: modded mmax plus dac and sfaber speakers. 
Btw, I dont think my modded mmax fits into your "shrill sigma highs" category. Sounds quite smooth to me and very detailed with the sparko opamps. A lot of that smoothness may come from the sfabers but a mytek 192 was definitely more "strident" in the same setup.


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> To the point you can judge products without hearing them, TotalDuc being one, amazing!
> 
> Arnaud


 
  
 Indeed, it is rather amazing! Yes, based on my own experience with so many DACs, examining their designs, I can almost get a sense of how something will sound.**
  
 I'm more than inclined to believe that the TOTALDuc will have great tonal, textural, liquid qualities with no delta-sigma treble hash. However, I have always, always, been suspicious of the resolving capabilities of R2R DACs. The fact is, delta-sigma designs do on average (for audio applications) have better accuracy than R2R designs, especially the discrete or magical black-box solutions. Cheap, small, and resolving were always the advantages of delta-sigma and why delta-sigma was permeated 99.999% DACs sold today.
  

On the current iteration of the Metrum DACs, which I and even some owners had indicated, are weak in the resolution department, uses an industrial DAC chip. It's been speculated what this chip is on other forums (Metrum scratches the markings out - how ghey). I looked up the spec sheets, and yikes - it's absolutely craptastic in terms of accuracy. (again, this might not be the right spec-sheet - only speculation.) Explains a lot and one of the reasons (there are obvious other reasons) why Metrum had to stack 4, 8, 16 of them to get good accuracy from them.*
I've enjoyed the MSB DACs tremendously. The Analog and Platinum (worse than the Analog in some respects) are craptastic in terms of resolution, but have great tonal, textural, liquid qualities with no delta-sigma treble hash. I almost, almost bought one, but I decided otherwise because I knew I wanted the resolution of the best delta-sigma DACs out there. Even the uber MSB Diamond... more resolving. It has the better black-box modules. Still not enough - not as good as the best delta-sigma DACs I've heard.
The old TDA1540 (14-bit with 4LSB) and TDA1541/2 (16-bit with 1-2LSB error - this spec is very very doubtful, I've heard that it's no better than 15-bits, and even then it's probably worse than that.) as used on the Valab and TeraDACs. They also suck in terms of resolution.
The most resolving R2R chip I've heard is probably the PCM63 followed by the PCM1702 and maybe the UltraAnalog Modules (two high accuracy 8-bit chips stacked with 4 resistor ladders). And even then, these R2R solutions need to be stacked (doubled up or more) to get close to the resolution of really good modern delta-sigma DACs. The Audio-GD M7 I had used 8x1704 chips - and even then, the imaging sucked because the digital filter implementation sucked.
I'm sure you've also heard of the Soekris R2R DAC board. My friend Misterrogers has been playing with it. Sounds great he says. I trust him. He's heard the Yggy. The Soekris R2R is not in the same league of the Yddrasil in terms of resolution.
Also, I've found that the practice of stacking chips (evens out errors) does increase resolution. I stacked 3x AKM4393s, and yes, that sounded more resolution than 1x AKM4393. DAC engineers don't stack chips for fun. There's a reason for it.
  
 Bottom line: While there isn't enough data to write a paper, I'm at least satisfied, at least for myself, that DAC accuracy does make a huge difference in sound quality.
  
*As far as crossing the TotalDuc off my short-list:* I know what my sonic priorities are. When it's _published _in Six Loons (a webzine that says everything is great) that the TotalDuc has no better than 14-bits of resolution, I know I can cross that DAC off my list, especially when it costs 7000-10000 euros. **** that. I'm not saying the TotalDuc will not be a great DAC. I'm sure it is. I'm just not willing to pay so much for something that will be resolve the full 16-bits. Also, keep in mind that I'm running Yggy v0.99 through its paces trying to break it right now. Ho Lee *** - I would have never expected how much musical information is still contained on old CDs of questionable audio engineering quality from the 80s. I mean, why would I want to spend $10K and then down convert to 13/14-bits every CDs that I have?
  
 P.S.
 Another thing regarding the blathering from Schiit: I like to trust but verify. This is why I went out to get Theta Gen V (I suspected same / similar DSP) and audition a four dozen other DACs, a dozen of them in them in the mult-thousand dollar range. I wanted to find out if Mike Moffatt and Jason Stoddard were full of **** of the accuracy thing, missiles, close-form filters, some of their opinions of certain chips of yesteryear, etc.
  
 *On this thought, at least industrial, medical, military R2R chips do publish DNL/INL accuracy plots. They don't do that for audio R2R chips - which is kind of scary if you think about it.
  
 **"It's the implementation, not the D-A chip / circuit" - that's the biggest load of BS I've heard. Yes, implementation does matter, but D-A chips all do have a "sound" to them.


----------



## Articnoise

Interesting this that you say that more resolving = better accuracy. 

 If that’s a fact how do the Yggdrasil compere to a good vinyl player like VPI or Linn LP 12 when looking strictly on level of accuracy?


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Purrin, You've not heard the dac but you suggest it does not resolve more than 14 bits despite the SNR measurements (indeed provided by Brien himself) and you suggest the resolution is as deficient that an octave ( I confirm easily the octave lacks dynamics and resolution ) . Smells like a soviet lawsuit. guilty before judgement


 

  
 Wrong measurement. I am talking about DAC accuracy / error. Read below.
  
 No Soviet lawsuit. Think of this this way: If I want a good handing car, and Car and Driver said a car weighed almost 1800kg, why would I consider buying that 1800kg car, especially if it's really expensive?
  
 The Man himself already said its 14 bits at best. I happen to want a 16-bit DAC. I don't want another TDA1540 from 1982. (I appreciate his honestly, but really he has no choice - no way going around laws of physics and manufacturing limitations of discrete resistors)
  
 It's the Man's opinion that 14 bits is all we need. I happen to disagree.
  
  
 Quote:


prot said:


> Thx for the confirmation. Wasnt sure that my pure math interpretation works as such
> Again from a pure math/bits background, that should be true if you simply remove the bits above 14 or so. If you keep em and ignore the errors the sound should be somewhat more detailed ... and possibly with more "weight". But since the errors are unpredictable (afaik), one cannot really say. As mentioned, you could very well end up with a sort of pleasung tubelike coloration. That would match the SQ impressions posted about the current R2R dacs.
> Tried 16 vs 14 bit once and I think I heard the diff (faint detail cues) but not sure I could pass a proper abx. And couldnt hear any diff above 44/48khz either. My system is however lowfi by your standards: modded mmax plus dac and sfaber speakers.
> Btw, I dont think my modded mmax fits into your "shrill sigma highs" category. Sounds quite smooth to me and very detailed with the sparko opamps. A lot of that smoothness may come from the sfabers but a mytek 192 was definitely more "strident" in the same setup.


 
  
 LOL, not all Sabre sounds bad to me. LFF looked like he wanted to kill me or gave me this "are you serious" look when I _made _him listen after 6 seconds on the Mytek.
  
 The errors with R2R or true multi-bit DACs should be predictable in certain ways. There some variance because of temperature, but what happens is translation between the bitcodes and voltage output gets messed up. For example, here is a perfect DAC:
  
 0001 = 0.1 V
 0002 = 0.2 V
 0003 = 0.3 V
 0004 = 0.4 V
 0005 = 0.5 V
 0006 = 0.6 V
  
 In reality, because of resistor variances, we end up getting something like this (making up random numbers):
  
 0001 = 0.12 V
 0002 = 0.19 V
 0003 = 0.33 V
 0004 = 0.32 V
 0005 = 0.47 V
 0006 = 0.61 V
  
 The relation between bitcode and voltage output can be plotted as INL (do a Google search). It's measure of relative accuracy. You have also heard the term monotoncity - used by zdfx in his shilling Yggy post. (do Google search on that term too.) Fascinating stuff and a really unique angle to look at things. We usually hear a lot more focus with DSD, hires, et. al., on frequency / bandwidth / jitter on the X-axis but pay no attention to error on the Y-axis. Accuracy is like jitter on the Y-axis.


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> Wrong measurement. I am talking about DAC accuracy / error. Read below.
> 
> No Soviet lawsuit. Think of this this way: If I want a good handing car, and Car and Driver said a car weighed almost 1800kg, why would I consider buying that 1800kg car, especially if it's really expensive?
> 
> ...


 
  
 what measurements is wrong and why ?  Just want to understand 
  
 How to understand this answer ? (quoted from http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/2820#post_11384596)
  


> A - Totaldac. "In audio 24bit resolution is used to get the ability to resolve the large signals and also the very small signals, that's the dynamic capability. Such a R2R DAC has the ability to produce high level with 0.002% low distortion but also very low levels with a very good resolution. *The FFT spectrum given in my web site shows the ability to resolve the very small signal with a very low noise which a 14bit DAC couldn't resolve, not even a 16bit nor a 20bit DAC, the noise floor is achievable only by the best 24bit DACs. *For large signals (0dBFs) the LSB resolution is not necessary, and simply impossible to get by any DAC, calculate the distortion that would be admitted by a mathematically perfect 24bit DAC, it would be a distortion impossible to get and also completely useless. In audio people often forget that dynamic is the characteristic number one in audio.
> For example take the ear or a good microphone or a good loudspeaker, their distortion is higher than most DACs and than most transistor amplifiers but their dynamic is extremely high. I tried to make a DAC that fits these accoustics characteristics."


----------



## purrin

We are talking apples and oranges. I gave hints in my prior post what I was talking about. Will explain later - meeting at work - unless someone wants to chime in first.


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> We are talking apples and oranges.


 
  
  
 Sorry . My english and my technical skills are maybe too weak.


----------



## prot

articnoise said:


> Interesting this that you say that more resolving = better accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> If that’s a fact how do the Yggdrasil compere to a good vinyl player like VPI or Linn LP 12 when looking strictly on level of accuracy?



that is mostly a preferences comparison. 
In terms of numbers vinyl is about 10bits. See http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Bit_Depth#sources. Some HA threads put it at 12 bits. That's not 100% clear math but I would say it's good enough. 
Also 1bit depth ~= 6.02db SNR ... or dynamic range which is approx the same thing. How much is audible above 12bit depth depends on lots of factors: ears, gear, recording quality, environment. E.g. you'll prolly never hear any improvement above 12bit in a car. 
Anyway, I wont care much about those bits. If it sounds good to you, enjoy and nevermind the numbers.


----------



## Articnoise

prot said:


> that is mostly a preferences comparison.
> In terms of numbers vinyl is about 10bits. See http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Bit_Depth#sources. Some HA threads put it at 12 bits. That's not 100% clear math but I would say it's good enough.
> Also 1bit depth ~= 6.02db SNR ... or dynamic range which is approx the same thing. How much is audible above 12bit depth depends on lots of factors: ears, gear, recording quality, environment. E.g. you'll prolly never hear any improvement above 12bit in a car.
> Anyway, I wont care much about those bits. If it sounds good to you, enjoy and nevermind the numbers.


 

  



 Not really that I was asking about, but thanks anyway.

 I asked about the more resolving equals’ better accuracy theory. I have never heard of this correlation before. 

 To be clear I’m not saying I know much about dac designs, but to me a god vinyl spinner is superb on accuracy, especially if we talking about tonal accuracy. To me accuracy means true to the source - less artificial. But as you said vinyl is less resolving than a good CD, so what does it mean to the more resolving equals’ better accuracy theory?


----------



## purrin

> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Indeed, digital sounds so different from analog that it makes comparisons difficult. An entirely different language needs to be used with vinyl. First of all, an LP12 (unmodded) sounds nothing like an unsuspended VPI. Second of all, what cartridge and phono-pre? Also what arm? Cart, phono-pre, arm, and table must be thought of in one unit.
  
 All that side, I do feel that a _*properly setup* _TT system for about $1k, assuming equivalent recordings will easily beat something like a Gungnir in microdetail, microdynamics, immediacy, fluidity, but fall short of something like a Theta Gen V. That's were my Project TT setup stands right now. Somewhere between the Gungnir and the Theta Gen V. It's really too hard to compare because digital does some things really really well.
  
 While vinyl does have much more limited dynamic range than 16-bit digital, the steps within that range are not quantized into discrete steps. 16-bit digital has 65536 discrete steps of volume. The grooves on vinyl, the rises and falls, the peaks and troughs, do not take discrete steps. How this translates into DAC accuracy I cannot answer.
  
 It's funny because as I was putting the v0.99 iteration of Yggdrasil through its paces last night, I was saying to myself wow, this DAC really gives me that sense of pure immediacy and enjoyment when I was a kid (we only had records back then.)


----------



## purrin

articnoise said:


> Not really that I was asking about, but thanks anyway.
> 
> I asked about the more resolving equals’ better accuracy theory. I have never heard of this correlation before.
> 
> To be clear I’m not saying I know much about dac designs, but to me a god vinyl spinner is superb on accuracy, especially if we talking about tonal accuracy. To me accuracy means true to the source - less artificial. But as you said vinyl is less resolving than a good CD, so what does it mean to the more resolving equals’ better accuracy theory?


 
  
 Wrong way around. I didn't mean resolving = better accuracy.
  
 I mean better numerical accuracy of D-A conversion -> more resolving.


----------



## prot

articnoise said:


> Not really that I was asking about, but thanks anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



sorry that was all I had 
Guess it depends on how you define accuracy. In general more resolving (detailed) should be same as better accuracy. But if you talk about tonal accuracy all bets are off. Doubt there is any direct relation between the amount of sound detail and tonality. And I also put tonality first because "crispy" highs do hurt my ears. E.g. a senn 800 produces much more audible detail than hd600 ... but after 30mins or so I feel like someone is piercing my ears with tiny needles. So screw the 800 and all that detail, I wanna enjoy music. 
Judgung by the available iggy descriptions, it's one of those rare components that gets both detail and tonality right. Curious to hear that.


----------



## Articnoise

purrin said:


> Wrong way around. I didn't mean resolving = better accuracy.
> 
> I mean better numerical accuracy of D-A conversion -> more resolving.


 

  

 Ok, when it make better sense to m, lol. I thought you there meaning another type of accuracy.


----------



## Articnoise

prot said:


> sorry that was all I had
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  

 I value good tonality very high as well, but I’m not sure that more resolving will lead to a less good tonality.

 I’m with you on the “I wanna enjoy music”!


----------



## Clemmaster

I'm not sure your ear can resolve a signal at -90dBFS when there's another signal 70dB higher in level at the same time, due to the combination of masking and ATH. In a sense, being able to resolve at both extreme of the DAC's scale, at the same time, is probably not necessary.
 What if the totalDAC didn't use a linear scale? It would be able to both 1) have a great dynamic range (140dB, as reported by someone; couldn't find that on the site, at first glance), 2) have an excellent low level resolution (as shown on the website: the -100dB sinewave looks extremely clean), but not at the same time.


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> Sorry . My english and my technical skills are maybe too weak.


 
  
 What I am talking about is how errors in DACs (yes, they do not perfectly translate digital codes into signals) effectively lower the number of bits. For instance, there is a DAC's resolution and then there is error which lowers the effective number of bits. Let's take the example of a hypothetical 14-bit DAC with +/-16 LSB INL error with output from from -8.192 volts and 8.191 volts.
  
 This 14-bit DAC has 16384 discrete values from -8192 to 8191. When the code is 0, we get 0V output. When the code is 8191 we get 8.191V output. You get the idea. 
  
 Now because the error spec is 16 least significant bits either way, the output of the DAC may be off by that much for any given code. For example if the code is 0, where we should get an output of 0V, we could end up with an output as far off as 0.016V or -0.016V, or anywhere in between. For code 4000 where we should get 4.0V output, we could get 4.012V, or 3.997V, 3.984V, etc. Heck, the next code 4.001 could even result in a smaller output value than the one before. This would be considering something that isn't monotonic. Motonicity = when stuff is supposed to get louder, it gets louder, not softer. 
  
 In essence, we still have 14-bit resolution, but the accuracy is not guaranteed. Because the accuracy is not guaranteed, any time we want an output, the value is going to be off, in this case as much as 0.016V either +/- way which means 0.032V which translates to 32LSB. Since 2^5 = 32. 5 bits. What we have is 14 bit DAC with an effective number of 9 bits.
  
 Why is this spec important? Because if the guidance computer of a AMRAAM tells the motor of a control surface to rotate 1.232% degrees, it better not be 1.217 degrees. Engineers need to know what the effective number of bits is, or what bits they can count on so they can properly design a weapons system according to specifications. Now does this translate into audio? Mike and Jason seem to believe so. I wasn't sure about a year before, but now I am fairly convinced, especially after hearing craptastic DACs with known bad specs, mediocre R2R DACs with dubious specs, and the Yggdrasil with known unbelievably great specs.


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> What I am talking about is how errors in DACs (yes, they do not perfectly translate digital codes into signals) effectively lower the number of bits. For instance, there is a DAC's resolution and then there is error which lowers the effective number of bits. Let's take the example of a hypothetical 14-bit DAC with +/-16 LSB INL error with output from from -8.192 volts and 8.191 volts.
> 
> This 14-bit DAC has 16384 discrete values from -8192 to 8191. When the code is 0, we get 0V output. When the code is 8191 we get 8.191V output. You get the idea.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Ok , I understand where You come from
  
 Hope you'll get a chance to give a listen to a totalDAC yourself to see if it change you mind or not. I know I'll do so for the Yggy and compare it against the current dac i'll own when I'll have the money to purchase the Schiit DAC.  Maybe it will be this totalDAC A1 , maybe something else if I'm not convinced but the A1 in the long term.


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> ...
> 
> It's funny because as I was putting the v0.99 iteration of Yggdrasil through its paces last night, I was saying to myself wow, this DAC really gives me that sense of pure immediacy and enjoyment when I was a kid (we only had records back then.)




 Well, the "accurate" transistor radios of my teens never did sound as good as my granpa's tube monster. Never had the slightest trace of fatigue from that thing in spite of the ridiculous amounts of hiss and cracks. 
But every time I think about getting a turntable, I remember how couch-friendly digital is


----------



## zerodeefex

arnaud said:


> Well, if 13.5 bit effective resolution is what makes the TotalDAC sound so good, so be it! I have just never ever heard that much detail in my CDs and it's not like I have been using ladder dacs all along. Too bad also the TotalDAC designer can't step in and explain how he got 140dB effective dynamic range if all we got are 14bits. Maybe I can try to get an explanation from him. I guess I get confused between dynamic range and precision.
> 
> I still think there's a lot of babbling around to justify the Iggy's design (be it the effective resolution of the ladder or the zillion taps long OS filter) and, maybe, be even more assertive on how it is going to be the best thing since sliced bread, killing each and every dac ever made .
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think you will be very surprised at how much information is contained in redbook content. When I listened to the Yggdrasil, it had been after about two years of bugging Marv and demoing DACs in the 15-20k or less range. The Yggdrasil pulled information from familiar recordings that I had NEVER heard before the sense of realism was ridiculous.
  
 I'm curious, what DACs have you compared to the TotalDAC? What gear and with what recordings?


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> Hope you'll get a chance to give a listen to a totalDAC yourself to see if it change you mind or not. I know I'll do so for the Yggy and compare it against the current dac i'll own when I'll have the money to purchase the Schiit DAC.  Maybe it will be this totalDAC A1 , maybe something else if I'm not convinced but the A1 in the long term.


 
  
 I actually have not discounted the totalDAC at all. As I've already said, I expect it to be fantastic sounding. It's just more fun to argue with Arnaud than anything else. He says closed-form digital filters and DAC accuracy are "blathering". I say 10000euros for the privilege of 14 effective bits is bull testicles.  
  
 I very much appreciate that the totalDAC designer went through with the effort to create a discrete resistor ladder. I hope more people make multi-bit DACs, discrete parts or not. The lower the cost, the better. There's no reason why HFers who are willing to spend up to $1500 or so should be limited to a bunch of Chinese Sabre DACs being shilled by people who get to keep their gifts "evaluation" units.
  
 In the end, it's important to know the true enemy of good sound.


----------



## prot

zerodeefex said:


> I think you will be very surprised at how much information is contained in redbook content. When I listened to the Yggdrasil, it had been after about two years of bugging Marv and demoing DACs in the 15-20k or less range. The Yggdrasil pulled information from familiar recordings that I had NEVER heard before the sense of realism was ridiculous.
> 
> I'm curious, what DACs have you compared to the TotalDAC? What gear and with what recordings?




You guys are surely doing a great job at promoting the iggy. It already sounds like the second coming of digital. And I gotta admit I'm mighty curious already. 



purrin said:


> I actually have not discounted the totalDAC at all. As I've already said, I expect it to be fantastic sounding. It's just more fun to argue with Arnaud than anything else. He says closed-form digital filters and DAC accuracy are "blathering". I say 10000euros for the privilege of 14 effective bits is bull testicles.
> 
> I very much appreciate that the totalDAC designer went through with the effort to create a discrete resistor ladder. I hope more people make multi-bit DACs, discrete parts or not. The lower the cost, the better. There's no reason why HFers who are willing to spend up to $1500 or so should be limited to a bunch of Chinese Sabre DACs being shilled by people who get to keep their gifts "evaluation" units.
> 
> In the end, it's important to know the true enemy of good sound.



May I ask what makes you different? Cause it surely sounds like you'll enjoy keeping your evaluation iggy 
I'm definitely grateful that you are testing all those dacs for us but lets not pretend that you are doing charity work for the god of sound.


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> There's no reason why HFers who are willing to spend up to $1500 or so should be limited to a bunch of Chinese Sabre DACs being shilled by people who get to keep their gifts "evaluation" units.
> In the end, it's important to know the true enemy of good sound.


 
  
  
 I can't agree more
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .  And I wholeheartly hope that the 2300$ Yggy will really be the statement dac we all wait. 2300$ is a really a big amount of money but it stays affordable for hobbyists who are patient enough to save the money. MSB, totalDAC offers are way out this area.


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> May I ask what makes you different? Cause it surely sounds like you'll enjoy keeping your evaluation iggy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have to return this item. This was made clear to me from the beginning. zdfx had the first go at it with v0.96. It's now my turn with v0.99.
  
 What makes me different? Surely you have heard that I am the Messiah?
  
 Consider this: I lose of a lot money on my endeavors and website; and most vendors won't dare let me touch their stuff.
  
 P.S.
  
 I also have an axe to grind with "high-end" audio bull-****tery. Starts with a story about 14 years ago when I asked my hifi dealer why we never saw bad reviews in the rags. These sentiments are reinforced every year I attend THE SHOW. So yes, I am doing this largely for the good of sound. Otherwise I'd be starting a true HF competitor website and raking in the dough. It wouldn't be that hard for a person in my position, I could start saying everything is "great", and vendors would be lining up at my door.


----------



## negura

purrin said:


> I have to return this item. This was made clear to me from the beginning. zdfx had the first go at it with v0.96. It's now my turn with v0.99.


 
  
 So how's v0.99?


----------



## conquerator2

This thread just keeps on surprising me


----------



## HemiSam

This thread is real world.  Great info and just enough B.S. color for entertainment.  Besides, where else do you get the term "craptastic" in the context of head-fi audio....
  
  




  
 HS


----------



## purrin

negura said:


> So how's v0.99?


 
  
 Do inquiring minds _really _want to know? I wrote a FAQ on the Yggy v0.99's sound to entertain myself and my friends. I would be glad to post it here.


----------



## mikek200

purrin said:


> Do inquiring minds _really _want to know? I wrote a FAQ on the Yggy v0.99's sound to entertain myself and my friends. I would be glad to post it here.


 
 PLEASE DO !!!


----------



## purrin

*PREFACE*
  
*Question: *I would be curious to hear how it stacks up to the MSB DAC's. Since the MSB stuff is so far out of the price range of most people and even most audiophiles... Appreciate the write-up on this! Interesting to see the history behind this and its relationship to the Theta DAC.
  
*Another's Answer (from someone who heard v0.96): *Stomps the Analog DAC on technicalities. Some might prefer the Analog if they want that thicker tone/timbre which is honestly verging on a romantic coloration to me but tastefully done. I'd say competitive with the Platinum DAC though none of MSB's stuff has ever really impressed me for ultimate resolution. In fact, using the same demo tracks they use I've found that it might be a bit more forgiving than my own headphone rig. Whether that's from the DAC or other aspects of various chains found at various shows, I just feel after 3-4 years of hearing their stuff in various situations I always come away with the same feeling.

 I'd say MSB's tuning is more geared toward natural ease of listening without being offensive as too dry and analytical or warm and relaxed. I prefer gear more focused on honesty and transparency to the recording not that their stuff doesn't do that well, it's just not a number one priority based on my listening experiences so far.
  
.
.
.
.
.
.
  
*FAQ for v0.99*
  
The MSB DACs are mere toys. 

 There comes a point where words like warm, natural, digital, analog, raspy, romantic, timbre, tone, resolution, dynamics, micro-dynamics, liquid, analytical, organic, involving, soulful, flat, boring, lively, low level information, etc. make absolutely zero, nada, no ******* difference.  Yep, no ******* difference. The audiophile's pursuit, at least from my point of view and I know Anax is of the same opinion, is to recreate the musical performance to be as true as possible to the real thing - to fake us out into thinking it IS the REAL thing.

 The Yggy does that. It is the most REAL source I have ever heard. We are talking about v0.99 (essentially what the production model will be) which I was finally able to preview. The iteration Ravi heard was v0.96. This final version is a huge, HUGE step up - especially in terms of the intangibles.

*Q:* I'm worried about the Yggdrasil being too analytical because you guys said it was so resolving down to the the original source tapes. I'm afraid of resolution.
*A:* **** you. Do you think of resolution or analytical when you listen to the REAL thing?

*Q:* How's the tone? I like a warm sound and I don't like nasty treble.
*A:* **** you. Does the word REAL mean anything to you? REAL means the complete gamut of every kind of sound.

*Q:* I have sucky recordings. Will the Yggdrasil make things sounds worse?
*A:* Absolutely not. The Yggy will scrape whatever is left of the soul of the recording and rendering it in the most REAL way possible. In fact, bad recordings sound great, because you get a new take on them.

*Q:* How does it compare to X or Y DAC?
*A: *Do X or Y DAC fake you out into thinking the recording is REAL?

*Q:* What do you mean by it's real?
*A: *I'm listening to Taylor Swift's second record right now from the Yggdrasil. Ho Lee ***. Ho Lee ***. I keep saying to myself. I cannot believe it. I am at a concert. This is real. She and her band are in my living room. Yeah, Ho Lee ***... Ho Lee ***. I am going to explode.

*Q:* I don't believe you.
*A:* I don't give a ****. Go waste your money on an MSB DAC if you prefer American or Total DAC if you prefer European.

*Q: *How does this compare to the Audio-GD Model X or Y?
*A:* **** you. Are you a retard?

*Q: *Does the Yggdrasil sound like a ladder DAC, or delta-sigma DAC, or a combination of the best qualities of both?
*A:* **** you. Does REAL life sound like a ladder DAC or delta-sigma. Give me a ******* break.

*Q:* I want a relaxo sound with imposed fluidity and warmth, like the Metrum or TDA15xx based NOS DACs.
*A: *Then go get a ******* Metrum or POS TDA15xx based DAC.

*Q:* Does the Yggy sound natural?
*A: ***** you. Do you ask yourself if REAL life sounds are "natural"?

*Q: *Can I copy and paste this post into a HF thread?
*A: *Yeah, sure.

*Q: *I'm afraid of the bite of trumpets, the blare of horns, crunch of guitars, smack of snares, crash of cymbals...
*A: *Get another DAC. Might want to consider an expensive PCM1704 based one. Wadia or wait... _Resolution _Audio come to mind.

*Q: *How long does it need to be warmed up? I heard about the long warm up times.
*A: *Just leave it on. All the time. Sucking juice. I've done that with every DAC I have owned. True audiophiles need to make sacrifices. But to answer your question: 3 days minimum, 1 week for optimal performance.

*Q: *I find this warm-up phenomenon rather incredulous or either Schiit engineers must be incompetent.
*A: *Go buy an ODAC.

*Q: *I prefer NOS because the marketing spiel from the NOS DAC manufacturer says that NOS does not muck up the signal. Is the Yggy an NOS DAC?
*A: *Are you a ******* retard? Do you know what a brick-wall filter does to the original signal at 44.1kHz NOS?

*Q: *How good is the Yggdrasil's USB Gen 3 implementation?
*A: *Finally, a good question. I found the built-in USB Gen 3 to be cleaner and blacker sounding than the AES and SPDIF outputs from the Off Ramp 5. My OR5 does not have the turboclock or OTL upgrades.

*Q: *Does Wyrd improve the sound?
*A: ***** off. Do you think people who drive Bugatti Veyrons or Lexus LFAs bother with aftermarket intakes for their cars?


----------



## Rajikaru

*Q:* How much does it cost?
*A: *$2300
  
**** you! 
  
I'll buy a plane ticket, and go on a REAL vacation, to a REAL beach, and hear REAL live music. 
  
I'll take along my FiiO X5 and IEM, and as I'm listening to music while sitting on REAL sand, sipping a REAL beer, watching a REAL sunset, I really shouldn't be thinking about this thread or anything on Head-fi at all. But if I do...
  
I'll laugh REAL hard.


----------



## purrin

rajikaru said:


> *Q:* How much does it cost?
> *A:* $2300
> 
> 
> ...




Or go to the real concert in Hawaii, come back home to the Yggy, and relive the experience with a $100 bottle of scotch.

Must suck to be poor. Who's laughing now.


----------



## HemiSam

And the hits keep comin'...
  
 This place is starting to grow on me.
  
  
  




  
 HS


----------



## bfreedma

purrin said:


> rajikaru said:
> 
> 
> > *Q:* How much does it cost?
> ...




Nice cheap shot. $100 bottle of scotch? Meh - scraping the bottom of the decent stuff I suppose.


----------



## Rajikaru

purrin said:


> Or go to the real concert in Hawaii, come back home to the Yggy, and relive the experience with a $100 bottle of scotch.
> 
> Must suck to be poor. Who's laughing now.


 
  
 LOL I am.
  
 What is this, Beverly Hills 90210?!?
  
 Let's all take out our Guccis and top down sport cars and run races around our half-mile elliptical driveways. 
  
 If you can't handle your own irreverence, then...it must suck.


----------



## purrin

neener, neener, neener.


----------



## Clemmaster

rajikaru said:


> I'll buy a plane ticket, and go on a REAL vacation, to a REAL beach, and hear *REAL live music*.


 
  
 And you'll be REALLY deaf when you come back.


----------



## ciphercomplete

What's the point in complaining about the price of a DAC (or anything for that matter) that you have no plan to buy?


----------



## kugino

purrin said:


> Or go to the real concert in Hawaii, come back home to the Yggy, and relive the experience with a $100 bottle of scotch.
> 
> Must suck to be poor. Who's laughing now.


 

 can't. she's not having a concert in hawaii...but i get the idea.


----------



## Sapientiam

Wow this thread grew a lot overnight. So let me chuck a spanner in. Y'all have been talking so much about multibit DAC's static performance that you forgot the elephant in the room. I'm not here to say static performance (like DNL, INL) doesn't matter for a MB DAC but I know that dynamic performance matters too and perhaps more when subjective SQ is the goal.
  
 Incidentally what's the chip Yggy is using which is the not so well kept secret?


----------



## ciphercomplete

I don't think I have ever heard an argument that multibit DACs are less dynamic than others and certainly hasn't been my experience in listening to many different dacs. I'm not well versed on the technical-design side of this argument though.


----------



## Sapientiam

Perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough - when I spoke of 'dynamic performance' I was talking in the 'objective' realm, not in terms of subjective dynamics.
  
 By dynamic performance (using EE-speak, not audiophile) I mean how a DAC chip performs in the time domain as its run faster and faster. Terms like INL and DNL date back to when DACs were used in control systems which are close to DC. Dynamic performance includes aspects such as glitch, settling time and the nature of the settling transient (any overshoot for example).


----------



## RiddleyWalker

I have a question for the DAC-aficionados who frequent this thread - have you heard any implementations of the old Phillips NOS chips (TDA1541, TDA1543, etc) that can compete with the upper-tier DACs discussed in this thread?  I guess it would only be fair to compare with other NOS DACs, but would still to be interested to hear any sort of impressions.  I know the chips don't measure well in frequency, so I'm talking mostly from a subjective standpoint.
  
 Lately I've been looking at things like dB Audio Labs Tranquility DAC, Audio Zone DAC-1, and DIY-style designs like this one: http://audio.starting-point-systems.com/


----------



## Sapientiam

TDA1543 shouldn't really be mentioned in the same breath as the mighty TDA1541A. I think Purrin got them confused though because he mentioned Valab and TeraDak which I've only seen use TDA1543 not TDA1541. The link you've shown is to a TDA1543-based design - that's unlikely to be in the same league as top-end DACs as the low-level performance of the chip sucks fairly badly, on one channel more than the other.


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> bull testicles.


 
  
 Unsuitable for a custom title, unfortunately. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 Iggy vs. Vivaldi stack would be interesting.


----------



## EraserXIV

Apples and oranges.. $2000 for a real vacation, but resort-grade live music is still resort-grade music. Don't worry about the music, just enjoy the sights, food, and culture.


----------



## purrin

Not all live shows are bad sounding. It depends upon the artist and venue. The worse thing that happens is when the guy behind the console is deaf and doesn't think the sound is loud enough, and he ends up cranking it up making it sound like **** because of the distortion.
  
 One of the best sounding shows I saw was Billy Joel concert in the Oakland Coliseum I went to over 20 years ago. Another Sugarcubes/PIL/New Order Concert at Shoreline in Mountain View totally sucked. One of the sequencers died and New Order didn't know what to do. All the small classical concerts in a certain Palo Alto church have been stunning fantastic.
  
 This one below was pretty darn good in terms of sound. She's wasn't the main act, so the audio engineers didn't feel a need to crank it up. But then again, she's such an awesome crooner and she can certainly belt it out.
  

  

  
 TBH, I don't understand why some people think being an audiophile and concert goer are mutually exclusive things.


----------



## drez

Yggy with 24 bit recordings? Not as important as redbook, but still, important enough to ask...


----------



## purrin

drez said:


> Yggy with 24 bit recordings? Not as important as redbook, but still, important enough to ask...
> 
> At this point I have spent too much on audio equipment, and ideally dont want to buy in at a point in time where there are limitations which might not be here in 2 years time, or a years time with Yggy Uber, or Yggy 2.


 
  
 LOL, I have quite a decent amount of few hires, but I didn't bother because I considered the 16-bit masters I have of the same of superior quality. Oh wait, I did try Fleetwood Mac Rumours 24/96. Sounded great.


----------



## Baldr

More later but for now..................
  
 AD5791BRUZ - Headline specs:  1 ppm 20-Bit, ±1 LSB INL.  We use 2 per channel (1 per phase) to get an honest 20 bit level of performance.  That is four per Yggy.  The BRUZ version is the higher specced model.
  
 I know only 20 bits you say?  You can get a 24 delta sigma bit (advertised) DAC  chips for 3% of the cost of one 5791.  Check it out.  Go to Mouser or Digi-Key and see how much AD5791s cost.  Yup, you get just about $400 worth of DAC chips in every Yggy.  I have seen $10,000 dollar D/A converters with $22 bucks worth of dac chips inside.  The Yggy is by far away the best fu***ng parts cost deal going in the arena of high end DACs
  
 Biggest problem was figuring out how to get it running without glitching - sample and hold amps sound like ass.
  
 Also you have to drive it with DSP because every sample requires a fixed preamble.
  
 For the above reasons, I don't expect a lot of competitors to be using it.  After all, even analog devices told me it was not designed for audio.  The best way to get me to do something is to tell me I can't or shouldn't do it.


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> LOL, I have quite a decent amount of few hires, but I didn't bother because I considered the 16-bit masters I have of the same of superior quality. Oh wait, I did try Fleetwood Mac Rumours 24/96. Sounded great.




The one from HDCrack? I think it's too loud. But yeah, aside from that it's pretty good.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

sapientiam said:


> Perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough - when I spoke of 'dynamic performance' I was talking in the 'objective' realm, not in terms of subjective dynamics.
> 
> By dynamic performance (using EE-speak, not audiophile) I mean how a DAC chip performs in the time domain as its run faster and faster. Terms like INL and DNL date back to when DACs were used in control systems which are close to DC. Dynamic performance includes aspects such as glitch, settling time and the nature of the settling transient (any overshoot for example).







baldr said:


> More later but for now..................
> 
> AD5791BRUZ - Headline specs:  1 ppm 20-Bit, ±1 LSB INL.  We use 2 per channel (1 per phase) to get an honest 20 bit level of performance.  That is four per Yggy.  The BRUZ version is the higher specced model.
> 
> ...




Mr Moffat, I'd be interested in what you thought about the dynamic performance of the DAC chip you're using, as brought up by sapientiam.


----------



## purrin

baldr said:


> The best way to get me to do something is to tell me I can't or shouldn't do it.


 
  
 No way you can you stick all this Yggy **** into Gungnir. No way. Too much crap to stick into that small footprint. You shouldn't even try.


----------



## purrin

souprknowva said:


> Mr Moffat, I'd be interested in what you thought about the dynamic performance of the DAC chip you're using, as brought up by sapientiam.


 
  
 It's all in the spec sheet. There are papers on the Internet on how to deal with the glitching using methods other than sample and hold amps.


----------



## prot

baldr said:


> ...
> The best way to get me to do something is to tell me I can't or shouldn't do it.



You can't and shouldn't send me a free iggy.


----------



## purrin

clemmaster said:


> The one from HDCrack? I think it's too loud. But yeah, aside from that it's pretty good.


 
  
 Actually the SACD/DSD one.


----------



## eddypoon

baldr said:


> We use 2 per channel (1 per phase) to get an honest 20 bit level of performance.  That is four per Yggy.


 
  
Jesus, isn't that actually should be considered at 80-bits of accuracy for rendition? 
  
OH MY GOD......


----------



## evanft

So even taking into account volume discounts, the DAC chips alone cost more than a base Bifrost.

 Great googly moogly. I need to hear this thing.


----------



## Currawong

baldr said:


> More later but for now..................
> 
> AD5791BRUZ - Headline specs:  1 ppm 20-Bit, ±1 LSB INL.  We use 2 per channel (1 per phase) to get an honest 20 bit level of performance.  That is four per Yggy.  The BRUZ version is the higher specced model.
> 
> ...


 
  
 For the above reasons, I expect you're going to piss a lot of people off in the high-end industry.


----------



## drez

20 bits is heaps though right? Especially for multibit. Iirc the best delta sigma can do 22 bits or something? I doubt the last 4 bits will be missed? Personally I can barely perceive truncation to 16 bits from 24, if I'm doing it right.


----------



## Armaegis

purrin said:


> TBH, I don't understand why some people think being an audiophile and concert goer are mutually exclusive things.


 
  
 Because I can only afford one?
  
 Though for the kids out there, I highly recommend checking if your local symphony has student rates. Oftentimes a student rate or season subscription is a fraction of the "adult" cost. Sit yourself at row 10 in a concert hall and get a taste of real soundstage with instruments coming at you from all angles.


----------



## Sapientiam

souprknowva said:


> Mr Moffat, I'd be interested in what you thought about the dynamic performance of the DAC chip you're using, as brought up by sapientiam.


 
  
 Rather than clog up this thread with arcane technical stuff, now Mike's confirmed the DAC chip I'm putting down some thoughts on it on my blog here : http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/blogs/abraxalito/1224-schitts-flagship-dac-uses-not-audio-dac-chip.html
  
 Suffice to say here that a DAC's static performance isn't the whole picture, not by a long shot.


----------



## Sapientiam

sorrodje said:


> what measurements is wrong and why ?  Just want to understand
> 
> How to understand this answer ? (quoted from http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/2820#post_11384596)


 
  
 I believe his answer that only a 24bit DAC could resolve his signal is wrong. The error stems from mis-reading of an FFT's noise 'floor' which is a very common mistake on audio forums. DACs with many fewer bits than 24 can resolve very low-level signals when viewed on an FFT because the FFT inherently performs averaging over many thousands of samples. Where the 'grass' appears on an FFT plot is not the audio band noise floor of the DAC, rather the grass shows at each point how much noise is in a single FFT bin. An FFT bin has a very narrow bandwidth (typically single digit Hz) whereas audio noise floors are specified over the whole audio bandwidth (say 22kHz).


----------



## estreeter

Sweet Jesus - I go to sleep, come back to this thread and it has exploded ! 
  
 The devil in me wishes I could set something up at a meet 3 or 4 months post Yggy becoming available whereby the audience thought they were listening to the Yggy while DAC duties were actually being performed by a Hugo TT.  Whether the latter compares sonically or not is less important than the _expectations_ many would take to such a meet and how they might react if they perceived any of the notorious s-d hash purrin now considers kryptonite to his R2R superpowers. Those naughty people at Chord Electronics just wont leave it alone


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> I have to return this item. This was made clear to me from the beginning. zdfx had the first go at it with v0.96. It's now my turn with v0.99.
> 
> What makes me different? Surely you have heard that I am the Messiah?



Heard it now for sure. And since I'm relatively new here I gotta ask: are you still in your pre-ressurection period or did I miss the best years? 

Btw, doing it for glory is still not "charity for the god of sound". But nevertheless, I still thank you for doing it. 




> Consider this: I lose of a lot money on my endeavors and website; and most vendors won't dare let me touch their stuff.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> I also have an axe to grind with "high-end" audio bull-****tery. Starts with a story about 14 years ago when I asked my hifi dealer why we never saw bad reviews in the rags. These sentiments are reinforced every year I attend THE SHOW. So yes, I am doing this largely for the good of sound. Otherwise I'd be starting a true HF competitor website and raking in the dough. It wouldn't be that hard for a person in my position, I could start saying everything is "great", and vendors would be lining up at my door.



That's the problem with bad reviews, noone wants to talk to you anymore. But I for one definitely want to see those too. So, good luck and keep on going. And if you ever open some sort of donations fund to cover the costs for bad reviews, pls notify. 

Also, I would like to nominate yours for The FAQ Of The Year. So much personality ... So much passion ... I wonder who's getting FAQed so hard


----------



## fzman

prot said:


> Btw, doing it for glory is still not "charity for the god of sound". But nevertheless, I still thank you for doing it.
> That's the problem with bad reviews, noone wants to talk to you anymore. But I for one definitely want to see those too.


 
  
 Not to veer to far from the discussion of dacs - How many people have sought letters of recommendation, or used as "job references" people who would give really honest reviews of their abilities and performance- and not just say good things about them........   Thought so.  Bad reviews do not get written - if reviews are written by people who are blatantly lying or who write stuff because they have been bribed-- different story.
  
 Buy things from vendors who allow returns - judge for yourself - problem largely solved.


----------



## AustinValentine

fzman said:


> Not to veer to far from the discussion of dacs - How many people have sought letters of recommendation, or used as "job references" people who would give really honest reviews of their abilities and performance- and not just say good things about them........   Thought so.  Bad reviews do not get written - if reviews are written by people who are blatantly lying or who write stuff because they have been bribed-- different story.


 
  
 Recommendations are generally assumed positive as a genre. That's why it's a "Recommendation" and not an "External Review of Candidate's Potential." 
  
 Reviews are not assumed positive as a genre, except - apparently - in high end audio.


----------



## Golfnutz

So does this mean the Yggy portion of the R2R ladder DAC is 14-bits?
  
*DAC ARCHITECTURE*
 The architecture of the AD5791 consists of two matched DAC
 sections. A simplified circuit diagram is shown in Figure 49.
 The six MSBs of the 20-bit data-word are decoded to drive 63
 switches, E0 to E62. Each of these switches connects one of 63
 matched resistors to either the VREFP or VREFN voltage. The
 remaining 14 bits of the data-word drive the S0 to S13 switched
 of a 14-bit voltage mode R-2R ladder network. To ensure
 performance to specification, the reference inputs must be force
 sensed with external amplifiers.


----------



## fzman

austinvalentine said:


> Recommendations are generally assumed positive as a genre. That's why it's a "Recommendation" and not an "External Review of Candidate's Potential."
> 
> Reviews are not assumed positive as a genre, except - apparently - in high end audio.


 
 No analogy is perfect-- only high end audio components can be perfect (Oh, and Messiah's too, I suppose) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 My point was regarding whether the content is "honest" and who is solicited to write them.  As to your main point-does it make sense to use the phrase 'negative recommendation'?
  
 In addition, it does seem like many people uses reviews as a form of buying recommendations- not just as fact-sources.  Your point is a good one, and I think we should go back to dacs-- pm is ok though


----------



## prot

fzman said:


> Not to veer to far from the discussion of dacs - How many people have sought letters of recommendation, or used as "job references" people who would give really honest reviews of their abilities and performance- and not just say good things about them........   Thought so.  Bad reviews do not get written - if reviews are written by people who are blatantly lying or who write stuff because they have been bribed-- different story.
> 
> Buy things from vendors who allow returns - judge for yourself - problem largely solved.



Or not. The try&return option surely helps but how many components can you test? I cant even test one per month. So no, that option does not solve much. 

I do not agree with purrin all the time ... and I'm a fan of chocolate (although not in the chocolatey-sound sense) ... but I really appreciate his "that sounds like ****" rants. It's his opinion and should be same as proeminent as other's "sounds amazing" opinions. He even calls my dac (minimax) "cheap china ****". So what, I still like it and I think it's one of the best price/perf deals. 

Generally, I do appreciate ppl who state their opinios directly and openly. The bullsh*t consensus that ppl (cough marketers) usually try to build along various components makes me puke. It's not true and it'll never be because there are millions of ears and tastes. And I dont need anyone to filter those for me and only show the nice stuff. That is a false, artificially sweetend picture and personally I dont want it. I guess it's the kind of pocture that Carlin had in mind when he spoke about the "*****fication of the western man". 
I'm a grown up. I can take an honest opinion. Give it to me and keep your sweeteners. 
/rant


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> Indeed, it is rather amazing! Yes, based on my own experience with so many DACs, examining their designs, I can almost get a sense of how something will sound.**
> 
> I'm more than inclined to believe that the TOTALDuc will have great tonal, textural, liquid qualities with no delta-sigma treble hash. However, I have always, always, been suspicious of the resolving capabilities of R2R DACs. The fact is, delta-sigma designs do on average (for audio applications) have better accuracy than R2R designs, especially the discrete or magical black-box solutions. Cheap, small, and resolving were always the advantages of delta-sigma and why delta-sigma was permeated 99.999% DACs sold today.
> 
> ...


 
  
 - Thank you for taking the time to write such detailed explanation (you really are one of the most dedicated out there, there's no question about it!)
 - However, I think the comment from @Clemmaster below is much more meaningful than simply looking at bit depth.
 - I personally don't have kemar head ears and certainly can't hear a fly fart in the middle of a fortissimo which I think is the argument we're having here.
 - For instance, your parallel between using a traditional ladder dac and converting a library to 13-14 bits is flawed: Decimating a whole song to 14 bit is basically throwing away a large part of the ladder array (so you'll loose all low level information). That is not what is happening in practice (the dac can effectively quantise down to 24 bits).
 - You insist on the high bits precision error relative to the low bits but does that really matter when, by definition, high bits are active during peak times and there's only so much difference between loudest and quietest sound human can hear (level masking)?
 - From my experience so far (i.e comparing the D1 resolving power to all other D/S dacs I have had / heard) tells me that, perhaps, this bit depth thing is a non-issue. 
  


clemmaster said:


> I'm not sure your ear can resolve a signal at -90dBFS when there's another signal 70dB higher in level at the same time, due to the combination of masking and ATH. In a sense, being able to resolve at both extreme of the DAC's scale, at the same time, is probably not necessary.
> What if the totalDAC didn't use a linear scale? It would be able to both 1) have a great dynamic range (140dB, as reported by someone; couldn't find that on the site, at first glance), 2) have an excellent low level resolution (as shown on the website: the -100dB sinewave looks extremely clean), but not at the same time.


 
  
  


zerodeefex said:


> I think you will be very surprised at how much information is contained in redbook content. When I listened to the Yggdrasil, it had been after about two years of bugging Marv and demoing DACs in the 15-20k or less range. The Yggdrasil pulled information from familiar recordings that I had NEVER heard before the sense of realism was ridiculous.
> 
> I'm curious, what DACs have you compared to the TotalDAC? What gear and with what recordings?


 
  
 - I already get surprised each and every day so I can't wait for the Iggy's revolution .
 - You're asking the wrong guy about extensive gear comparisons, I have nowhere near enough time on my hands to ever consider doing that.
 - I have been looking into a DAC upgrade for a couple of years though and here are the guys I had opportunity to listen to with my own amp / phone (I listen to other dacs at shows but it's meaningless without my recordings / downstream gear as reference): Yamamoto YDA-01 (still own it) , Mark Levinson 30.5, Ren. Labs Invicta, Eximus DP1.
  
 cheers,
 arnaud


----------



## arnaud

currawong said:


> Unsuitable for a custom title, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 That's it, I am reporting you to a mod!
  
 Oh wait...


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> - For instance, your parallel between using a traditional ladder dac and converting a library to 13-14 bits is flawed: Decimating a whole song to 14 bit is basically throwing away a large part of the ladder array (so you'll loose all low level information). That is not what is happening in practice (the dac can effectively quantise down to 24 bits).
> - You insist on the high bits precision error relative to the low bits but does that really matter when, by definition, high bits are active during peak times and there's only so much difference between loudest and quietest sound human can hear (level masking)?


 
  
 Agreed. The proper method is to introduce LSB error to screw things up so the ENOB gets reduced. I've actually written a WAV file converter to do this according to a transfer function / INL plot.


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> Muddy Waters Folk Singer UDCD593 (GAIN system. R2R A-D converter designed by Pass+Moffat using milspec accuracy A-D chips with oven to control temps.)


 
  
 Absolutely great recording. Thks for that.


----------



## purrin

sorrodje said:


> Absolutely great recording. Thks for that.


 
  
 If you like music along those lines, another one using the same Pass/Mofatt GAIN A-D.:
  
 UDCD659 B.B. King - Lucille.
  
 Now pick up stuff before GAIN (no what what A-D converter MFSL was using), still sounds pretty good, but not as resolving. Not as much plankton.
 Then pick up stuff after GAIN - the one-bit A-D GAIN2. Sounds different... I know the first GAIN2 release, Tom Petty is like "shhhh shhh shhh shhh shhh."
  
 Yeah, I actually went out and got a bunch of the old MFSL stuff, just to see if the GAIN thing / Mofatt were full of ****. As I like to say, "trust but verify" - much better than be skeptical and pontificate.


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> - You insist on the high bits precision error relative to the low bits but does that really matter when, by definition, high bits are active during peak times and there's only so much difference between loudest and quietest sound human can hear (level masking)?


 
  
 You are either presenting a straw man argument or not grasping the concept of relative accuracy. The issue is what happens when a DAC is not monotonic to 16 bits? What if small tiny increases in volume according to the bitcode is translated into small tiny decreases instead? Or what if the bitcode calls for an increase of 0.021V for the next sample, but instead get increase 0.017 volts or perhaps even a decrease of 0.012 volts? 
  
 Again, think of this as "jitter" on the Y-axis. This has nothing to do with high level signals masking low level signals (since you made a reference to Clem's post).
  


arnaud said:


> - From my experience so far (i.e comparing the D1 resolving power to all other D/S dacs I have had / heard) tells me that, perhaps, this bit depth thing is a non-issue.


 
  
 What satisfies you may not satisfy me. What I notice, you may not. You have to remember I'm coming from the Berkeley, Bricasti, Wadia (yuck), MSB, PSA, Aurulac, Invicta (yuck), DACs.


----------



## wnmnkh

golfnutz said:


> So does this mean the Yggy portion of the R2R ladder DAC is 14-bits?
> 
> *DAC ARCHITECTURE*
> The architecture of the AD5791 consists of two matched DAC
> ...


 
  
 I think this is the reason why two of them are used on each channel for proper 20bit+ performance.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

wnmnkh said:


> I think this is the reason why two of them are used on each channel for proper 20bit+ performance.


 
  
 Either that or to maintain balanced channels.


----------



## Sapientiam

wnmnkh said:


> I think this is the reason why two of them are used on each channel for proper 20bit+ performance.


 
  
 The DAC's a low-frequency monster and to get it sounding as good as it does requires an external deglitcher. So the 'secret sauce' such as it is, is in that deglitcher they're using - without that it'll be no more than, say a 12-bit DAC. The spec sheet says its good to 12bits after 1uS - at 16X OS the sample period is 1.4uS.


----------



## prot

sapientiam said:


> The DAC's a low-frequency monster and to get it sounding as good as it does requires an external deglitcher. So the 'secret sauce' such as it is, is in that deglitcher they're using - without that it'll be no more than, say a 12-bit DAC. The spec sheet says its good to 12bits after 1uS - at 16X OS the sample period is 1.4uS.



What's a deglitcher?! And generally, would you care to explain your post a bit? Not all of us have EE degrees


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> You are either presenting a straw man argument or not grasping the concept of relative accuracy. The issue is what happens when a DAC is not monotonic to 16 bits? What if small tiny increases in volume according to the bitcode is translated into small tiny decreases instead? Or what if the bitcode calls for an increase of 0.021V for the next sample, but instead get increase 0.017 volts or perhaps even a decrease of 0.012 volts?
> 
> Again, think of this as "jitter" on the Y-axis. This has nothing to do with high level signals masking low level signals (since you made a reference to Clem's post).
> 
> ...


 
  
 - Fair enough on the stuff one notices / pays attention being people dependent (and you seem to have a particularly solid ear)
 - About the ladder precision thing, let say I will remain skeptic until I can hear this for myself.
 - 14bits effective resolution is 80dB plus of dynamic range.
 - That means this "Y-axis jitter" term you're using comes into play for signals that are 80dB below the peak value at any given time block.
 - You're thus saying you can hear these "fly farts within the orchestra playing".
 - Fine, but there are concepts like level masking that long exist and prove this makes little sense.
  
 cheers,
 arnaud


----------



## SoupRKnowva

sapientiam said:


> The DAC's a low-frequency monster and to get it sounding as good as it does requires an external deglitcher. So the 'secret sauce' such as it is, is in that deglitcher they're using - without that it'll be no more than, say a 12-bit DAC. The spec sheet says its good to 12bits after 1uS - at 16X OS the sample period is 1.4uS.


 

 that might be part of why they aren't doing 16x oversampling, they seem to only be doing 8x oversampling according to what mike said about things being oversampled to 352 or 384khz, though that could also have been a limitation in the computational ability of the DSP they are using...who knows


----------



## Sapientiam

prot said:


> What's a deglitcher?! And generally, would you care to explain your post a bit? Not all of us have EE degrees


 
  
 It does get a bit technical - for more technical background, go see my blog on DIYA which I linked to further up.
  
 Here goes for a non-techy explanation. The Yggy DAC's designed to give the best performance with low frequencies - that's the application its intended for, where the output doesn't change at a fast rate. Think of it as a low sample frequency DAC where it only gets its stellar performance when updated relatively slowly (less than 10,000 times per second). Because of this, when the DAC's output changes, its spending a fair bit of time on its journey to the new commanded output. A deglitcher is used to remember the DAC's output and provide a copy of it to the following circuit while the DAC itself is changing its output. Think of the deglitcher as a switch and a memory of the last sample out of the DAC - when the DAC's told to update, the switch is opened and the memory element (normally a capacitor) provides the voltage to the downstream circuit. Then when the DAC's output has fully settled, the memory is updated with the new value.


----------



## Sapientiam

souprknowva said:


> that might be part of why they aren't doing 16x oversampling, they seem to only be doing 8x oversampling according to what mike said about things being oversampled to 352 or 384khz, though that could also have been a limitation in the computational ability of the DSP they are using...who knows


 

 Ah thanks for that, I dunno where I got the idea they're doing 16X OS from. Makes more sense.


----------



## evillamer

Analog to Digital Converter Shootout http://www.analogplanet.com/content/analog-digital-converter-shootout-which-sounds-best
  
  
Lowest to highest price, the A/D converters are the HRT Linestreamer+, ($299.95), the P.S. Audio NuWave Phono Converter ($1,899), the Channel D Seta Piccola ($1,899, or $2098 as supplied including optional RIAA module), the M2TECH Joplin ($2,499), the Lynx Hilo ($2499) and the Ayre QA-9 ($3995).


----------



## prot

sapientiam said:


> It does get a bit technical - for more technical background, go see my blog on DIYA which I linked to further up.
> 
> Here goes for a non-techy explanation. The Yggy DAC's designed to give the best performance with low frequencies - that's the application its intended for, where the output doesn't change at a fast rate. Think of it as a low sample frequency DAC where it only gets its stellar performance when updated relatively slowly (less than 10,000 times per second). Because of this, when the DAC's output changes, its spending a fair bit of time on its journey to the new commanded output. A deglitcher is used to remember the DAC's output and provide a copy of it to the following circuit while the DAC itself is changing its output. Think of the deglitcher as a switch and a memory of the last sample out of the DAC - when the DAC's told to update, the switch is opened and the memory element (normally a capacitor) provides the voltage to the downstream circuit. Then when the DAC's output has fully settled, the memory is updated with the new value.



Thx, makes a lot more sense now. Kinda like a buffer. 
Your OS abbreviation was also pretty confusing...in my IT-centered world that stands for Operating System


----------



## prot

evillamer said:


> Analog to Digital Converter Shootout
> 
> http://www.analogplanet.com/content/analog-digital-converter-shootout-which-sounds-best
> 
> ...



An interesting test. The poll results are however already flawed because they allowed people to comment on the samples. Anyone who reads the comments will be flawed. I did not try but my bet is on the "all sound the same" option winning comfortably. 

Here's another Dac shootout http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html. From the $2 Dac on the PC mboard to the $2000 Benchmark. The results may surprise many but I cant really see any flaw in their test procedure. 

Darko also keeps a nice Dac review index http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/the-darko-dac-index/. His review style is a bit too much "audiophile" for my taste but he is still quite moderate when it comes to hearing audio unicorns.


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> - Fair enough on the stuff one notices / pays attention being people dependent (and you seem to have a particularly solid ear)
> - About the ladder precision thing, let say I will remain skeptic until I can hear this for myself.
> - 14bits effective resolution is 80dB plus of dynamic range.
> - That means this "Y-axis jitter" term you're using comes into play for signals that are 80dB below the peak value at any given time block.
> - You're thus saying you can hear these "fly farts within the orchestra


 

 You are still not getting this. the y-axis jitter analogy applies to all bitcodes that represent the entire range, not just the low level signals.
  
 In the end, it's not about dog farts in the orchestra. There is certain ambient, microdynamic, and harmonic information that disappears when amplitude data is "fuzzied". Recordings sound a little less live, less immediate, less real.

 In the end, the audiophile's pursuit to have the recording fool him into thinking it's real.


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> What's a deglitcher?! And generally, would you care to explain your post a bit? Not all of us have EE degrees




For resistor ladder D to A, the outputs for each bit are switched. When a zero gets switched to a one, there is a sudden inrush current. A spike, which then takes some time to settle. Kinda like your vacuum cleaner. 

This behavior is not always the same. Changes in the bitcodes of your WAV files vary. Worse case glitch occurs when a lot of bits get flipped at once. More bits flipped, more switches flipped, sharper spike, longer to settle.

Glitching tends to be worse on non-audio chips.

One method is to build a sample and hold amplifier. But as Mike said, he feels sample and hold sounds like moose-butt.

Interestingly enough, Jason answered my question on how they dealt with the glitch, right before I asked the question. He probably figured I had read the spec sheet. I'm not telling; and I think it would be presumptuous to think that Mike and company didn't know what they were doing compared to us Internet armchair DAC designers. 

But guessing is fun. I know I had fun trying to guess the chips used based on hints Mike left on the Internet. There are hints in the Yggy's architecture on how the glitch was dealt with.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

prot said:


> An interesting test. The poll results are however already flawed because they allowed people to comment on the samples. Anyone who reads the comments will be flawed. I did not try but my bet is on the "all sound the same" option winning comfortably.
> 
> Here's another Dac shootout http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html. From the $2 Dac on the PC mboard to the $2000 Benchmark. The results may surprise many but I cant really see any flaw in their test procedure.
> 
> Darko also keeps a nice Dac review index http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/the-darko-dac-index/. His review style is a bit too much "audiophile" for my taste but he is still quite moderate when it comes to hearing audio unicorns.


 
 My opinion on tomshardware dropped more than 50% because of that article. It doesn't deserve any attention and any link on this thread.


----------



## purrin

dan.gheorghe said:


> My opinion on tomshardware dropped more than 50% because of that article. It doesn't deserve any attention and any link on this thread.


 
  
I don't have have a problem with the results, but I have a problem with context and framing of the results (picture of expensive McIntosh tube amp to pander to the "overpriced expensive stuff" agenda (the McIntosh amp had nothing to do with the test), running from the built-in headouts, and comparing stuff which mostly really does sound more or less the same. But you have consider a the audience: It's rather trendy thing for people in their twenties who still live with their parents to rail against the "overpriced arena of ******** that is the field of 'high-end" audio'. Part of this an extension of the nwavguy movement, which in turn is a modern take on of the the Doug Self movement decades ago.
  
Lest we forget, we only need to go a few posts back in this very thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/2850#post_11386526.
  
 You won't see me going to Bimmer or Audi forums calling people out for being tards on buying "overpriced expensive stuff." To each his own.


----------



## purrin

Quote: 





arnaud said:


> - Fine, but there are concepts like level masking that long exist and prove this makes little sense.




  
 Yes, the question whether these small inaccuracies make any difference when the bitcodes indicate higher levels is valid.
  
 What I would ask you to do is examine the bitcodes in WAV files of good quality recordings with a lot of dynamic range. You would be surprised how low/small the absolute amplitude/bitcodes tend to be at. I certainly was. Also, you have to realize that even a high level 0dBFS sinewave is composed of bitcodes that run from 0 to 32767 back to 0 down to -32767 back up to 0, et. al. 
  
 As far as your doubts whether 16-bits is necessary or not, I guess through your own powers of intuition that you know better than Sony and Philips who came up with the 16/44 Redbook spec, or Philips who realized the TDA1540 at 14-bits was too sucky and needed to make a more accurate 16-bit chip, or the professional recording industry who didn't like the 13/14 bits of information left over from processing in 16-bits, or Mike Mofatt who pioneered the standalone DAC / use of milspec chips (GAIN) two decades ago.
  
 Personally, I'll place my in trust Sony, Philips, Mofatt, (and my own ears which tell me 18-bits is about right for me for playback) than your belief that 16-bits is unnecessary and 14 honest bits with 2 fuzzy fits is all that we need. Honestly, you just sound like an apologize for TotalDAC at this point. It is what it is. No need to defend it. I don't disbelieve you when you said the totalDAC sounded great with your 10 minutes or whatever gear and recordings you used during your audition.


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> What I would ask you to do is examine the bitcodes in WAV files of good quality recordings with a lot of dynamic range. You would be surprised how low/small the absolute amplitude/bitcodes tend to be at. I certainly was. Also, you have to realize that even a high level 0dBFS sinewave is composed of bitcodes that run from 0 to 32767 back to 0 down to -32767 back up to 0, et. al.




Well, I can discretize a sine wave to 64 bits and still see every bit active. That's does not prove any quantisation below -80dB FS is useful perceptively.



purrin said:


> As far as your doubts whether 16-bits is necessary or not, I guess through your own powers of intuition that you know better than Sony and Philips who came up with the 16/44 Redbook spec, or Philips who realized the TDA1540 at 14-bits was too sucky and needed to make a more accurate 16-bit chip, or the professional recording industry who didn't like the 13/14 bits of information left over from processing in 16-bits, or Mike Mofatt who pioneered the standalone DAC / use of milspec chips (GAIN) two decades ago.




- 14 bits is over 80 dB of dynamic range
- Electronics 20 years ago could barely touch that in terms of background noise. I used to do a lot of n&v measurements as part of my work, still look / process test data every day. 
- 16 bits was thus a reasonable value considering the typical clipping headroom.
- Just for the same reason we use 24 bit DAC in modern ADC because it makes life easier (we guarantee our background noise is due to mics / electronics rather than quantisation error).



purrin said:


> Personally, I'll place my in trust Sony, Philips, Mofatt, (and my own ears which tell me 18-bits is about right for me for playback) than your belief that 16-bits is unnecessary and 14 honest bits with 2 fuzzy fits is all that we need. Honestly, you just sound like an apologize for TotalDAC at this point. It is what it is. No need to defend it. I don't disbelieve you when you said the totalDAC sounded great with your 10 minutes or whatever gear and recordings you used during your audition.




- Not preaching for TotalDAC in particular but I guess I can object to your claims of it sounding unresolved since it's in my stash for a month and proving you wrong to my ears. 
- I am all about room cues / ambience / keeping the texture of instruments day, placing instruments in the room. And, despite your talk, the D1 stomps every other 20-24 bit D/S dac I have heard in that regard. Something doesn't add up..
- Conversely, all you've heard from the D1 is its spec sheet and extrapolation of what MSB gear sounds like...
- As for Mike Moffat's opinion, I'd be inclined to believe he has no interest in saying one needs any less than 18 bits as he's the one who decided on using a fairly expensive DAC part in the Iggy .



purrin said:


> I don't disbelieve you when you said the totalDAC sounded great with your 10 minutes or whatever gear and recordings you used during your audition.




Now I see the true purrin: discredit people's authority, discredit people's ear, trash competitive gear, trash reviewers, do anything it takes to make your point. I have this image of you racing in the mud with many other people, stepping on people's face to stay out of the mud 

At last though as we both have a life I suppose: fair enough in the required dynamic effective bit depth, I'd be curious to hear your altered wav files. Especially when I hear the Iggy as it would make sense only then, but even now just to validate it sounds identical on the D1. 

Arnaud


----------



## prot

dan.gheorghe said:


> My opinion on tomshardware dropped more than 50% because of that article. It doesn't deserve any attention and any link on this thread.




And mine went up at least 50%. The world's balance is safe again


----------



## drez

purrin said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Not sure I understand how it works with bit depth.  So a high dynamic range 24 bit recording will use how many bits?  Is there any point having a DAC that can resolve more than this number of bits?
  
 Seems to be some kind of relationship between DAC noise floor and dynamic range?


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> I don't have have a problem with the results, but I have a problem with context and framing of the results (picture of expensive McIntosh tube amp to pander to the "overpriced expensive stuff" agenda (the McIntosh amp had nothing to do with the test), running from the built-in headouts, and comparing stuff which mostly really does sound more or less the same. But you have consider a the audience: It's rather trendy thing for people in their twenties who still live with their parents to rail against the "[COLOR=333333]overpriced arena of ******** that is the field of 'high-end" audio'. Part of this an extension of the nwavguy movement, which in turn is a modern take on of the the Doug Self movement decades ago.[/COLOR]
> 
> [COLOR=333333]Lest we forget, we only need to go a few posts back in this very thread: [/COLOR]http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/2850#post_11386526.
> 
> You won't see me going to Bimmer or Audi forums calling people out for being tards on buying "overpriced expensive stuff." To each his own.




I am pretty sure noone from tom's will come here to complain about your dacs 
And I wont either. Got no problem paying 5-10k for a component. But if I pay that kind of money, I wanna be sure it sounds better than the $2 mboard chip. And I want that 'better' to be easily audible. Same as easy as seeing the price diff in my account. 
Did tom's have an agenda? Maybe. But everyone has. And their test procedure was more than ok. Many people knew already that the benchmark and the odac were quite similar. Nwavguy said that too and many confirmed. But a $2 soundcard chip!? That's not funny anymore


----------



## dan.gheorghe

prot said:


> I am pretty sure noone from tom's will come here to complain about your dacs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Dude, I've listened to a bunch of dacs starting from onboard dacs to msb diamond dac. If you cannot hear the difference between the 2$ soundcard and a 5000$ dac there could be many issues:
  
 1. The other components in the system are not up the the task
 2. The dac is truly BS
 3. You don't hear the difference because:

Hearing problems -> Go see a doctor 
Audio memory problems -> untrained ear most probably 
  
 As I said before we rely most on our vision, so the hearing is not our best sensory input, thus most of us don’t have a very good audio memory. This is an *interesting test* for audio (rhythm) memory. If you score badly and cannot tell the differences between different rhythms, it will be very hard to tell the differences between some audio gear ( as soundstage, details, dynamics, transients differences are harder to distinguish than rhythm changes). However, in time your audio memory gets better and your ears more sensible to these aspects. This is why this hobby is appreciated better in time and gets even more addictive. 
  
 You may also want to join the Philips Golden Ears Challenge which has very good training and tests.


----------



## prot

dan.gheorghe said:


> Dude, I've listened to a bunch of dacs starting from onboard dacs to msb diamond dac. If you cannot hear the difference between the 2$ soundcard and a 5000$ dac there could be many issues:
> 
> 1. The other components in the system are not up the the task
> 2. The dac is truly BS
> ...


 

Are you sure you are talkin to me? I did no test, I just posted a link. Not my Dacs, not my ears, not my results. And I tried to find a fault in that test too because it sounds kinda funny. No success. 

You wanna prove that tom's test was flawed?! Find the flaw. Or do a better test. Dont just parade your 'magic' ears and/or insult other people's ears. Oh and btw, neither I nor my audiologist like to be called 'dude'. 

P.S.
 You may also find this thread interesting http://www.head-fi.org/t/754695/asrock-z97-e-itx-ac-outperforms-my-bifrost-and-crack-hd-600


----------



## Bill-P

So I scored pretty well on that test. Do I win a cookie? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  

 And yeah, I can tell the differences between some DACs, and also the differences between different filters of the same DAC (sometimes). But I don't think the test is meant to prove that. It was mostly about identifying out-of-rhythm cues, or sections that were altered very slightly (more beats or less) as opposed to how they were before.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

bill-p said:


> So I scored pretty well on that test. Do I win a cookie?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Good score. No, it is not meant to do that but as I said before, if you cannot tell the differences between rhythms, how can you tell the differences in details, dynamics, transparency, imaging, etc. ?


----------



## prot

drez said:


> Not sure I understand how it works with bit depth.  So a high dynamic range 24 bit recording will use how many bits?  Is there any point having a DAC that can resolve more than this number of bits?
> 
> Seems to be some kind of relationship between DAC noise floor and dynamic range?




The wikipedia articles on dynamic range, bit depth and SNR are pretty good.


----------



## Bill-P

dan.gheorghe said:


> Good score. No, it is not meant to do that but as I said before, if you cannot tell the differences between rhythms, how can you tell the differences in details, dynamics, transparency, imaging, etc. ?


 

 Yeah... I see the point.
  
 Kinda surprising to see the average so low after completing it. It's like saying the average guy will just be able to guess it right half the time. Half way through, I realized the replay button had a limited number of use. At that point, I was down to... 1 replay left. So the last half was all guessing. Haha.


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> For resistor ladder D to A, the outputs for each bit are switched. When a zero gets switched to a one, there is a sudden inrush current. A spike, which then takes some time to settle. Kinda like your vacuum cleaner.
> 
> This behavior is not always the same. Changes in the bitcodes of your WAV files vary. Worse case glitch occurs when a lot of bits get flipped at once. More bits flipped, more switches flipped, sharper spike, longer to settle.
> 
> ...



I'm an armchair DAC listener at best . But thx for adding to the explanation. Always curious about techie stuff like that.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

prot said:


> Are you sure you are talkin to me? I did no test, I just posted a link. Not my Dacs, not my results. And I tried to find a fault in that test too because it sounds kinda funny. No success.
> 
> You wanna prove that tom's test was flawed?! Find the flaw. Or do a better test. Dont just parade your 'magic' ears and/or insult other people's ears. Oh and btw, neither I nor my audiologist like to be called 'dude'.
> 
> ...


 
 I wasn't implying you didn't hear well and wasn't intending on insulting anyone. I was referring to the general case. If you read it again, I gave 3 cases there, all valid from my point of view. And even if people have hearing problems, how is that an insult? And btw, there's no magic, I'm afraid


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> Arnaud


 
  
 tl; dr.
  
 I tire of this conversation. We'll be going round and round in circles. I'm not surprised the totalDAC is more resolving than the craptastic D/S that DACs you have heard. (BTW, you never answered zdfx's original question.)
  
 Let's remember the overall theme and conclusion of this thread - *more choice (better sound) *and *value*:
  
 1) Modern DACs have not really progressed in sound quality in 20 years. One step forward. One or two steps back.
 2) To have more choice other than the D/S DACs that currently permeate the market.
 3) To bring back multi-bit (R2R or otherwise) DACs that sound great.
 4) While understanding that R2R will never be cheap - to have somewhat affordable multi-bit DACs that normal people (not wealthy people like you) can buy.
  
 If you want to spend $6500-$10,000 for the privilege of a 13/14-bit (admitted by the guy who made it) multi-bit DAC, by all means, go for it. While I respect totalDAC dude's efforts, it's obvious his target customer base is people where 10,000euros is a drop in the bucket. 10,000euros is too rich for my blood. Seriously, the totalDAC shouldn't even be compared to the Yggdrasil because the price points are so different.
  
 It my sincere wish that the Yggdrasil's technology will trickle down to their lower end products, and that in time, other manufacturers will take note. Perhaps Analog Devices or BB/TI might even notice and decide that there indeed is a market for good sounding high performance multi-bit chips that will be easier to work with for audio.


----------



## purrin

cablesnakeoil said:


> Purin, do you have any *data* to back this chart or you just ranked the gear by price (descending) ?
> 
> Also, you do realize that mentioning anything from PSAudio doesn't contribute to your credibility right ? (e.g: noise harvester, 1 grand power cables, ..).
> 
> simply grotesque!


 
  
 I don't think there is a strong correlation with price in my rankings. For example, note these expensive DACs that I did not particularly care for:
  

PSA DSD $5,999
PSA PWD2 (new production, not upgraded)  $2,995
Chord Hugo $2,445
Lampizator $4,950
Lampizator Big $6850 (starting price)
Eximus DP-1 $3,150
Teac HA-501 $799 (not that expensive, but horrid)
Mytek Digital Stereo 192-DSD $1695 (not that expensive, but unlistenable)
  
 Since I am no longer updating the list, I may as well mention many other expensive DACs that I also do not care for:
  

Anything from MSB. Good stuff, but too expensive for what you get.
Anything from Wadia. I don't like their house sound.
Anything from Meridian. I don't like their house sound.
Resolution Audio Cantata.
There are a few more, I can't name them off the top of my head.
  
 I know of PS Audio's reputation as a company, but credit is due to where they succeeded (the PWD1 units upgraded to 2).


----------



## jogfi2002

Good post.
  
 Well, it is reaallly hard to decide which DAC to buy when you have not so much in your pocket...


----------



## Bill-P

jogfi2002 said:


> Good post.
> 
> Well, it is reaallly hard to decide which DAC to buy when you have not so much in your pocket...


 

 If that's the case, you can just grab one of the Geek Out's... and you can also forget about the amp. Bargain, I'd say.
  
 No, honestly... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I'm using a Geek Out 450 as my DAC. Cheap, very functional, and does a fairly decent job. Far better than some of the more expensive offerings I have heard.


----------



## purrin

cablesnakeoil said:


> Priceless, and now you mention 'TotalDAC', a company famed for its USB/Ethernet 'filters'
> 
> Just so you know, I emailed the TotalDAC guy a few months back to thank him for the fun I had reading about his USB filter, and asking him if some naive people actually did buy this nonsense? He laughed and asked me whether I knew about his ethernet product.


 
  
 I have no problem with filters and cables but the fact that these items cost 360-390euros when the cost in parts is a few euros. That sets off my BS detector. It's practices like this that give high-end audio a bad reputation. It doesn't need to happen.


----------



## evillamer

Seriously, anyone who can't hear difference between ESS Sabre(any model) and Realtek AL1150 should just stay at Hydrogen forums and deregister from Head-fi.


----------



## drez

Ideally we could have Multibit DAC's that measure well also - but nobody seems willing (or able) to make them.  Well, unless the measurements for the Totaldac are honest.
  
 I am still struggling to grapple with how something have be more resolving yet have less resolution, retrieve more ambient detail yet have higher noise floor.  Well, not counting  dynamic compression, but I doubt this is happening.  My problem is probably not hearing any of these old school DAC's or Yggy - trying to understand hifi from preconceptions ends up with some of the recent additions to this thread.
  
  
 I have however come across one phenomenon where a slower sound can be more coherent and resolving.  I have a headphone cable which while less focussed and precisely enunciated, makes music more coherent, the tone comes through, more of the timbre also, especially in the bass which gains a lot of growl and meat.  Treble too is easier to discern timbres, and has less glare.  The soundstage though is not so great, so it can't completely reproduce what I expect these Multibit DAC's to sound like according to my imagination. 
  
 How bad do the delta sigma artefacts sound though?  How loud would they need to be?  If Sabre are to be trusted - the none PPS noise is all below say -123dB.  Are we really hearing this noise at -123dB or are we hearing some other noise coming through, thanks to the extremely low noise floor and distortion?  For example I recently played some music through a HDD, before transferring to an SSD.  Much more glare and digital hash on the HDD.
  
 Yes my timing to discuss such tweaks is not excellent considering our recent visitors.


----------



## purrin

evillamer said:


> Seriously, anyone who can't hear difference between ESS Sabre(any model) and Realtek AL1150 should just stay at Hydrogen forums and deregister from Head-fi.


 
  
 I don't not believe that person's experience. Mobo outs can be warmer and more pleasant sounding. Also the person mentioned he got less noise from the optical input and that the USB was noisy. Sounds like something could have been wrong with the USB or he should have switched USB ports. Also we have no idea if he was using the Windows DirectSound Mixer where sounds from all other applications are mixed and combobulated. DirectSound is handy, but will make everything sound equal - equally crappy. Windows and PCs can be temperamental. I tried using Macs, until I realized 90% of the programs and tools I used didn't exist on that platform.


----------



## Sapientiam

drez said:


> Ideally we could have Multibit DAC's that measure well also - but nobody seems willing (or able) to make them.  Well, unless the measurements for the Totaldac are honest.
> 
> I am still struggling to grapple with how something have be more resolving yet have less resolution, retrieve more ambient detail yet have higher noise floor.  Well, not counting  dynamic compression, but I doubt this is happening.  My problem is probably not hearing any of these old school DAC's or Yggy - trying to understand hifi from preconceptions ends up with some of the recent additions to this thread.
> 
> ...


 
  
 As a part-time (armchair?) designer of DIY multibit DACs myself, which measurements are the ones that matter to you?
  
 I agree that the retrieval of ambient detail whilst having a higher overall noise floor is something of a puzzle, but its been something I've perceived too in my DAC experiments. How I look at it is that there's dynamic noise from a DAC which broadly tracks the program content (noise modulation in other words) and because this noise is strongly correlated with the signal, our brain interprets it as signal. Thus it doesn't end up being perceived as ambience when the signals are decoded in our brain.
  
 On S-D artefacts they tend to be rather impulsive so relying on an FFT to gauge their level is misleading because the FFT time window is normally measured in seconds nowadays (64k and up FFTs are common) whereas for our ear/brain to register something it can be much shorter duration. I suspect we'll need wavelet analysis to get to grips with what happens in S-D modulators on short time-scales.


----------



## jogfi2002

bill-p said:


> If that's the case, you can just grab one of the Geek Out's... and you can also forget about the amp. Bargain, I'd say.
> 
> No, honestly...
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for your advice, but I would rather to find a AC powered one instead of a USB powered one.
  
 I am using Schiit Fulla now and not really satisfied with it...


----------



## drez

sapientiam said:


> As a part-time (armchair?) designer of DIY multibit DACs myself, which measurements are the ones that matter to you?
> 
> I agree that the retrieval of ambient detail whilst having a higher overall noise floor is something of a puzzle, but its been something I've perceived too in my DAC experiments. How I look at it is that there's dynamic noise from a DAC which broadly tracks the program content (noise modulation in other words) and because this noise is strongly correlated with the signal, our brain interprets it as signal. Thus it doesn't end up being perceived as ambience when the signals are decoded in our brain.
> 
> On S-D artefacts they tend to be rather impulsive so relying on an FFT to gauge their level is misleading because the FFT time window is normally measured in seconds nowadays (64k and up FFTs are common) whereas for our ear/brain to register something it can be much shorter duration. I suspect we'll need wavelet analysis to get to grips with what happens in S-D modulators on short time-scales.


 

 I think this might explain the paradox.  If the noise is perceived as part of the music rather than something foreign.  I guess it also depends what the noise or distortion does to the sound - which I don't think I would be able to understand this from specs without hearing the product.  Were the measurements for none PSS noise on the ESS presentation from RMAF FFT plots also?
  
 I'm trying to figure out what the offending delta sigma noise is and what level it is.
  
 To be honest it could be at a very low level and still matter.  I can't imagine the noise from my computer hard disk, passing through storage controller, computer, galvanic isolation in my transport, finding it's way to the DAC, would be of a substantial level either, but I could hear that.


----------



## purrin

The D-S hash stuff, I wondering if it's something out of band that can be correlated to the experience. It would have to be measured pre analog filter with good equipment.
  
 Another interesting thing is that I can write a program to simulate R2R error according to a generated INL plot to use as a transfer function. However this cannot be done on D-S DACs because the error is going to change depending upon what data preceded it. In other words, R2R error is predictable for each bitcode assuming stable temperature among other things.
  
 I would have no idea how to write an algorithm to degrade a WAV file for D-S DACs. But the point is this error tends to be random in the context of each bitcode. Maybe this contributes to the D-S sound?


----------



## Sapientiam

drez said:


> I think this might explain the paradox.  If the noise is perceived as part of the music rather than something foreign.


 
  
 RIght - that's more of less where my hypothesis comes from. Noise (tape hiss on an analog original recording which often have best ambience) doesn't get decoded into the soundscape, its kind of a fuzz floating around in front of the speakers with my setup. I reckon the ambience cues we depend on (to create the soundstage depth illusion) are below the tape hiss and these can get masked out by correlated noise.


----------



## Bill-P

jogfi2002 said:


> Thanks for your advice, but I would rather to find a AC powered one instead of a USB powered one.
> 
> I am using Schiit Fulla now and not really satisfied with it...


 

 AC powered and reasonably priced? Gamma2.
  
 I'm moving away from AC-powered DAC because I have to travel, but... if you have a bit of cash to blow, then yeah, admittedly, AC-powered DACs do sound good.
  
 Incidentally, I'm also selling my main DAC as well. Though I'm not sure if you'll be interested. It's very specialized, and the difference between this one and every other DAC is very pronounced.


----------



## purrin

bill-p said:


> AC powered and reasonably priced? Gamma2.


 
  
 Good luck soldering that Wolfson chip. That's when I hand over the board to the Vietnamese technician working at the board plant in Fremont.


----------



## Bill-P

purrin said:


> Good luck soldering that Wolfson chip. That's when I hand over the board to the Vietnamese technician working at the board plant in Fremont.


 
  
 Oh ya... it's mostly surface mount. Hahaha.
  
 Well, I've got a bit of experience working with surface mount now... essentially, flux, stable soldering tip, and all... so I'm a bit more comfortable, but yeah, it's kinda a nightmare to put together still. Especially for a beginner.
  
 But... it sounds great. I don't think up to R2R vintage standards, but it still sounds good for something of that size and price. And it can be reasonably powered from USB, too.
  
 I never got the chance to try the Gamma2 with LPS and Wyrd but Gamma2 + Wyrd was a very respectable setup IMO.


----------



## Sapientiam

purrin said:


> The D-S hash stuff, I wondering if it's something out of band that can be correlated to the experience.


 
  
 In the case of DSD, Parseval's theorem seems relevant. In practice - since the 1 bit DAC has only two places to go its output energy across the whole band (both in-band and out-of-band) is constant. It follows then at low-levels of in-band the OOB is at a maximum and conversely when something big happens in-band the OOB must diminish to compensate. So there's this inverse correlation between in-band and out-band energy.


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> I tire of this conversation. We'll be going round and round in circles. I'm not surprised the totalDAC is more resolving than the craptastic D/S that DACs you have heard. (BTW, you never answered zdfx's original question.)
> 
> Let's remember the overall theme and conclusion of this thread - *more choice (better sound) *and *value*:
> 
> ...


 
  
 - There are many points I agree with actually and it's great Schiit is coming up with gear to stir the market a bit.
 - One correction though: I really wish 10 grands were a drop in the bucket for my wallet, seriously . Let just say I don't dissolve my hobby fund into too many directions and I do agree 10k in a DAC is silly...
  
 arnaud


----------



## jogfi2002

bill-p said:


> AC powered and reasonably priced? Gamma2.
> 
> I'm moving away from AC-powered DAC because I have to travel, but... if you have a bit of cash to blow, then yeah, admittedly, AC-powered DACs do sound good.
> 
> Incidentally, I'm also selling my main DAC as well. Though I'm not sure if you'll be interested. It's very specialized, and the difference between this one and every other DAC is very pronounced.


 
 Yeah I saw your post...It is absolutely out of my budget, haha..


----------



## evillamer

here's something worth reading(for purrin, mike moffat and etc). The things described there is beyond me.
 http://www.hit.bme.hu/~papay/edu/ABCsoup.htm


----------



## Bill-P

jogfi2002 said:


> Yeah I saw your post...It is absolutely out of my budget, haha..


 
  
 Yeah... haha. Well, like I said, Geek Out 450 is my choice for a budget option right now. I'm actually using it right now... not because I'm being cheap, but because there really isn't a lot of options for a decent USB DAC in the same size and package even up to $500, or beyond. The fact that it has a headphone amp built in is a nice bonus, though I do have an external amp to use with it either way.
  
 AMB Gamma2 is my next choice if I could tolerate the size... but hey, the Geek Out saves me on bag space when I'm traveling, and that's where it shines.
  
 I haven't heard the Fulla... admittedly, but I have heard quite a number of DACs under $200. The GO450 is still my best contender there. My friends who have heard the Fulla also agree that the GO450 is a decent one at that budget.
  
 So... if you have access to Amazon, and the Geek is within your budget, I'd say... go for it. If you don't like it, they have an amazing return procedure. I'd think... there's no reason not to give it a try.


----------



## Benfica1

Any worthwhile deskttop dacs with opt/pdif inputs in the $500 range?


----------



## evillamer

benfica1 said:


> Any worthwhile deskttop dacs with opt/pdif inputs in the $500 range?


 
  this? GUSTARD DAC-X12 ES9018 XMOS 32Bit / 384KHz DSD DOP Decoder with USB http://www.amazon.com/GUSTARD-DAC-X12-ES9018-384KHz-Decoder/dp/B00RCUC94Q/


----------



## Benfica1

evillamer said:


> this?GUSTARD DAC-X12 ES9018 XMOS 32Bit / 384KHz DSD DOP Decoder with USBhttp://www.amazon.com/GUSTARD-DAC-X12-ES9018-384KHz-Decoder/dp/B00RCUC94Q/



 

Thanks. I'll do some research on it. Any others for comparision purposes?


----------



## purrin

benfica1 said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > this? GUSTARD DAC-X12 ES9018 XMOS 32Bit / 384KHz DSD DOP Decoder with USB http://www.amazon.com/GUSTARD-DAC-X12-ES9018-384KHz-Decoder/dp/B00RCUC94Q/
> ...


 
  
 Here are non-Sabre alternatives:
  
 Emotiva XDA Gen2 - AD1955 $299
 Bifrost Uber (no USB) - AKM $419
 Mousai MSD192 - Wolfson $430
 Modi2 Uber - AKM $159


----------



## prot

evillamer said:


> Seriously, anyone who can't hear difference between ESS Sabre(any model) and Realtek AL1150 should just stay at Hydrogen forums and deregister from Head-fi.


 
  
 Was it really necessary to be that rude ?!
  
 I posted those MB-sound reports more as a question.  Were those measurements and tests right? I do not know ... but I have no reason to doubt any of those people.  The AL1150 chip is quite a step-up and was measured by many people around 105DB SNR.  For example here.  Asus even claims 115DB for some of their top range boards.  And those are pretty well built audio solutions: well isolated, audiophile caps, replaceable opamps, etc.  Why is it so hard to believe that some of those actually sound better than most middle-low range dacs/amps who measure in the 85-100DB range? Say the ODAC or similar (which btw is an ESS DAC) ... or another ESS thingie like this.  A simple SNR measurement is of course not the whole story but one cannot just dismiss a 10+DB difference.
  
 Besides, where exactly is your test that proves the opposite?  What MBs and DACs did the all-knowing evillamer actually try?  Or we should all just trust evillamer&co because they say so !?
  
 P.S.
 sorry for the slightly offtopic and annoyed msg ...  I just dont think that such insulting and unsuported statements help anyone.


----------



## Benfica1

purrin said:


> Here are non-Sabre alternatives:
> 
> Emotiva XDA Gen2 - AD1955 $299
> Bifrost Uber (no USB) - AKM $419
> ...



 

Thank you very much. I'll take a look at these.


----------



## Sorrodje

purrin said:


> Here are non-Sabre alternatives:
> 
> Emotiva XDA Gen2 - AD1955 $299
> Bifrost Uber (no USB) - AKM $419
> ...


 
  
 Beresford Caiman mkII deserves interest too : 320$ . Analog sound, a bit leaner but more resolving than a Metrum Octave well ranked in the #1 post.  Crappy HO but very good as standalone dac.


----------



## AustinValentine

purrin said:


> Here are non-Sabre alternatives:
> 
> Mousai MSD192 - Wolfson $430


 
  
 The Mousai is also on Massdrop right now. If it hits lowest drop (and it probably will, 2 days left), it's only $299. Exceptional performance for the dollar.


----------



## hans030390

benfica1 said:


> Any worthwhile deskttop dacs with opt/pdif inputs in the $500 range?


 
  
 AMB Gamma2.


----------



## FayeForever

Like what marvey has said, just buy a odac and be done with this thread.


----------



## HemiSam

sorrodje said:


> Beresford Caiman mkII deserves interest too : 320$ . Analog sound, a bit leaner but more resolving than a Metrum Octave well ranked in the #1 post.  Crappy HO but very good as standalone dac.


 
  
 Hear hear.  It's a good DAC, especially for the price point.  I'm not a big fan of it's amp section, but it'll work in a pinch if someone needs a single solution.
  
 HS


----------



## Benfica1

Thanks for all the suggestions. Looks like it's down to these 3:
1) bitfrost uber (no usb)
2) beresford caiman mkii 
3) mousai msd192 dac

The AMB is a DIY and don't trust myself to pull it off.

What worries me about the mousai is that a couple of posts on massdrop mentioned that it wouldn't power on and I'm not sure about support and service for this unit. That leaves the beresford and the bitfrost. The schiit customer service and support that I've experienced is first class and that goes a long way. Decisions,decisions.


----------



## hans030390

benfica1 said:


> The AMB is a DIY and don't trust myself to pull it off.


 
  
 Buy one used, then. I've seen some floating around currently for $250 or less with an included power supply (though you can run it off USB power). Based on memory, I prefer it over the Mousai. The Mousai is good but generally a bit greyer, less lively, and more polite across the board than the Gamma2. At least IMO.


----------



## Currawong

> *DON'T reply If someone makes an off-topic, rude or otherwise inappropriate comment, or a post appears to be trolling or spam.* Report it by clicking on the red flag and filling in the box explaining what the problem is and let the moderators take care of it. *If something is inappropriate or rude, what is the point of giving it more attention by replying to it and/or quoting it?!?* _If nobody replies to or comments on a trolling or abusive post 100% of the time the person goes away!_


 
  
 ...and the thread doesn't end up locked permanently when we can't be bothered reading a dozen pages of crap to figure out how to un-screw things.


----------



## evillamer

sapientiam said:


> drez said:
> 
> 
> > Ideally we could have Multibit DAC's that measure well also - but nobody seems willing (or able) to make them.  Well, unless the measurements for the Totaldac are honest.
> ...


 
  
 Found this AES article which examines the idle tone(unwanted noise?) of the sigma delta modulator.
 http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~josh/documents/PerezReiss-AES122.pdf
  
   





> Idle tones are an unwanted phenomenon, which is mainly associated with the appearance of partials in the SDM output spectrum that were not in the original input signal. It remains one of the less understood SDM behaviors. When idle tone are in the audible range of the spectrum and their magnitude is bigger than the audible human threshold they can become audible.


----------



## drez

Seems a likely candidate for sd hash.


----------



## conquerator2

I should get the X12 this week


----------



## Sorrodje

(temporary) final thoughts about Metrum Octave mkI vs TotalDAC A1 comparison.
  
 Those last days, I borrowed the Octave I sold to a friend and a HD800 to a neighbour. Mine is not back home yet.
  
 I bought and received the totaldacA1 last week and I needed to compare the two DAC in order to be able to make my choice and keep the totalDAC or return it within the 14 days trial period. I read 6 moons and Srajan Aeben concluded that the Octave and the totalDAC sounded almost the same. that's why i wanted to be sure before any decision.
  
 To be honest, I must precise that I think all dacs sound almost the same... but all the game in the "almost"  . so I agree with 6 moons, the metrum and the totaldac A1 sounds almost the same. But I think the totaldac is significantly better enough to keep it.  If I had to give you only one reason, I would say that there's some tracks I listened many many times before and in which i never noticed background noise and hum. with the totaldac I noticed the hums and noise for the first time. when I switched back to the Octave , I noticed it obviously but, in my mind, the fact i noticed them for the first time say something about the resolving capabilities of the totalDAC.
  
 Don't get me wrong, I've always thought that the Metrum was not resolving enough. It's really a great dac with a very specific tone but technically speaking its a bit weak. The consequencies on my listening enjoyment have always been subtle though. I owned the Octave during one year and two feelings never left me : First of all, Classical was not perfectly rendered. I miss some excitement/bite/dynamics. The second point is that I've never achieved to "forget" the dac. It seems i always heard the metrum coloration : thick , bodied and slightly unrefined. Extremely enjoyable for Electronic musics but less for acoustics and/or classical. Purrin found that the Octave a liquid sound. I think myself it's maybe more liquid than some other dacs but far from the last word in this field.
  
 The totaldac is IMO a clear step up. The bass slam is better, the dacs hits faster and harder and I feel like I can hear more harmonic richness in the mids. Textures are maybe better rendered. It resolves better too. I compared it the PCM1704uk dacs before. The totaldac offers this kind of lushness/euphonia/liquid sound but IMO it's faster and offer more slam and precision.
  
 The totalDAC A1 stays at home  and I'm saving money for the Yggy while I'll watch Yggy threads and read impressions.


----------



## Tom W

@ Sorrodje,
  
 Thanks for the comparison.
  
 Just curious original Octave or Octave Mk II?
  
 What digital source(s) did you use? USB? CD Player?


----------



## Sorrodje

tom w said:


> @ Sorrodje,
> 
> Thanks for the comparison.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Octave MKI , Xmox USB to SPDIF interface with lits inear power supply , mostly 16/44,1 material  upsampled ( OS upsampling)  to 24/88,1 because I felt the octave sounded better that way as I've previously noticed during the year I owned it.


----------



## SynthAddicted

If people don't mind jumping back to the subject of ~$500 Dacs,
  
 The Gamma2 looks interesting but I think I'd rather not go for something DIY (At least as long as it's going to be my only setup. So that leaves me looking at:
  
 Magni/Modi 2 uber stack
 Emotiva XDA or DC-1
 ifi Micro iDSD
 Mousai MSD192
  
 Most of the DACs I have listened to are professional audio interfaces/converters, often on studio monitoring setups- The only real exception to this is the McIntosh D100 with headphones (which I enjoyed but it didn't sound too accurate to me- but then maybe that's just the 50 ohm headphone amp it has).
  
 I will be using whatever I opt for to do sound design as well as just listening to music, so accuracy, "resolving power" (to hear what I'm doing with synthesizers etc) and avoiding listening fatigue are my priorities. Given the feature sets of the above devices, I find myself leaning towards the ifi and DC-1, which out-value the others imo (Granted the schiit stack is cheaper, but still). At the same time, sound quality is king for me- so I'm open to any of the above. Also, I'm really curious about the Mousai because LFF praised its accuracy for the price (And I'm considering a pair of Paradox).
  
 Purrin, if you read this, I would love your input, as I seem to hear similar flaws to you when auditioning DACs. During studio sessions at my college, I am fortunate enough to have access to rather impressive-sounding recording chains (U47 FET through a RND 5088 for example, if anyone happens to be curious)- and I always saddened when I switch from the live feed to the one coming out of the Mac Pro- especially about the high frequencies, in a way that I suspect that my frustration might be at least somewhat with delta-sigma modulation. This has me curious about the pcm1794 implementation of the ifi micro, but I am not nearly as knowledgeable as I would like to be about audio electronics.
  
 Thanks,
 MPZ


----------



## purrin

synthaddicted said:


> The Gamma2 looks interesting but I think I'd rather not go for something DIY (At least as long as it's going to be my only setup. So that leaves me looking at:
> 
> Magni/Modi 2 uber stack
> Emotiva XDA or DC-1
> ...


 
  
  
 Magni 2 / Modi 2 Uber was pretty darn good for the price. It is on the warm sounding side, especially if you get the Magni 2 Uber instead of the Magni 2 standard.
  
 I think @thegunner100 wrote a review on DC-1 vs. Gungnir. The Emotiva was received favorably. I have not heard the DC-1 myself, but I trust gunner. The DC-1 has the AD1955 which I feel is a good sounding chip. Also uses good opamps LM4562 and has a good sized transformer. Based on parts, it's a good value.
  
 I don't like any of the PCM179x DACs. The sound is not offensive, but rather slow and dead. Something happened with BB/TI. Since PCM63, everything DAC chip they make seems to get progressively crappier sounding. Lots of people like the ifi Micro iDSD. I only have the ifi Nano iDSD in my possession, and it is one of the biggest turds I've ever heard. The Micro being more expensive could be better sounding though. But I think this is unlikely if it's powered from USB. I've never liked any USB or small battery powered DAC. The iFi Micro seems to have poorer value than the rest when cost of parts are taken into consideration.
  
 Mousai I have not heard, but my friend LFF liked it. Wolfson chips and OPA627 opamps. In theory shouldn't be bad sounding. Great price on Massdrop recently.
  
 If you live in the USA, Schiit and Emotiva might have service advantages, but it probably doesn't matter because you will get something different within a year.
  
 Personally, I would get the DC-1 from Amazon and try it out.


----------



## kugino

so has anyone here heard any of the older monarchy audio dacs? they used the pcm63 chips in them and seemed to have really favorable reviews at the time.


----------



## SynthAddicted

purrin said:


> Magni 2 / Modi 2 Uber was pretty darn good for the price. It is on the warm sounding side, especially if you get the Magni 2 Uber instead of the Magni 2 standard.
> 
> I think @thegunner100 wrote a review on DC-1 vs. Gungnir. The Emotiva was received favorably. I have not heard the DC-1 myself, but I trust gunner. The DC-1 has the AD1955 which I feel is a good sounding chip. Also uses good opamps LM4562 and has a good sized transformer. Based on parts, it's a good value.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for the input Purrin 
  
 I concur about trying out the Emotiva- I was planning on auditioning at least it and the ifi- which I love the feature set of, but sonically I have read more and more concerning things about it as time has gone on (at least from the perspective of working with it for any kind of sound design/music production). I would love to hear the mousai, but I don't want to deal with returning it to china- so I would have to find one near me to listen to. Also, the feature set is a bit limited for my tastes/desires, so I will probably only really consider it if the DC-1 and I don't get along for whatever reason.
  
 As far as the Schiit is concerend, I might just scoop the pair up to audition against the DC-1, especially given that this would actually give me four different configurations to try out. I definitely enjoy a warm sound as long as it is not bloated, but I would prefer to have speed and transient accuracy for production purposes.
  
 Cool to hear that you're friends with LFF. I'd love your opinion on his Paradox headphones, as I have all but decided that I'm going to buy a pair to use as production/studio workhorses. I'm actually pretty limited for options as I want closed, accurate (neuteral), production-oriented cans, but they have to be planar magnetic- I have yet to hear a pair of dynamic headphones that I don't find at least a little bit fatiguing (some are ok for listening to music, but for the dynamics involved in production it doesn't work out), much less enjoy as much as planars. Perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to IMD? I'm not sure, but the upshot of it all is that while I might tolerate the limitations of open planars, I'm not going to spend hundreds on a pair of dynamic headphones at the moment.
  
 As far as I'm aware, this essentially limits my options to a T50RP mod, HE-400i/500/560s, PM-3s and EL-8's, (I probably shouldn't budget more than around $7-800). Having heard the LCD-2 and LCD-3, I presume I would really enjoy the EL-8s but I'm not sure if the Audeze house sound is what I want for studio/sound design work. Also, from what I've heard so far it seems that the PM-3s aren't quite at the same sound quality level as some of the other options. I don't really want to go for the HE series as they are open, so that leaves the Paradox and the Alpha dogs/primes as front runners alongside the EL-8. I have heard a pair of DIY-modified T50s that I absolutely loved, but they weren't really accurate. I also listened to a pair of Alpha Dogs at a meet and while the frequency response sounded pretty linear, the highs seemed a bit off somehow (my pet peeve, even with speakers, is highs that either sound quite unrealistic or irritate my ears) and while they sounded 3d, the sense of space seemed somehow unnatural (especially going back to back with HD800s- which I did)
  
 All that being said, based on my experiences and what I have read thus far I expect to probably love the Paradox (I think its the time domain coherence of the "RP" technology in the T50rp drivers that does it for me), and I am immensely curious as to what the EL-8 will sound like. If you have any thoughts about all this, I'd love your input         
  
 Thanks again,
 MPZ


----------



## purrin

The Schiit low end stuff is really just too neat and cheap not to try. It's like the cool stuff on Massdrop. I have schiit from Schiit and Massdrop still sitting inside the boxes.
  
 I'm down to one headphone now, and that is the Paradox. I liked the HD800's technicalities, but it just gives me a headache and I really don't want to screw up my ear now that I'm back experimenting with speakers again. Audezes are nice listen, the only problem with using them for production work is that you'll probably end up with too bright of the sound if you acclimate and forget they are tuned to be laid-back / rolled.
  
 You can look up random FR graphs here and there, and at the end of the day, the Paradox sounds the most like my speaker setup (using an old B&K microphone target response at listening position). The Paradox is a touch bright in the mid-treble. Just notch down 2-3db around 9k and you are done. Depends upon the chain. I know Luis likes a little boost up there to help definition when he's mastering stuff. IME, Paradox + Sabre DAC = bad idea. Actually, anything, with some exceptions of couse, with Sabre = bad idea. 
  
 The Alpha Dogs are OK, slightly better resolution and definition compared to Paradox, but I found a hardness or glare in the treble to the sound which only weakly correlated with measurements (maybe a small bump around 6kHz).


----------



## purrin

kugino said:


> so has anyone here heard any of the older monarchy audio dacs? they used the pcm63 chips in them and seemed to have really favorable reviews at the time.


 
  
 I would have gotten one, but people are asking too much for them.
  
 Now what would be awesome would be a tubed Yggdrasil. But I know Mike, Jason, and the guys at Schiit would never do that. Yup never. Never ever. Probably not enough real estate since would need separate power supply for the tubes.


----------



## EraserXIV

I've been pretty impressed with my Modi 2 Uber. It sonically reminds me of the Gamma 2 when I had it, but for half the price, in a better looking chasis, and a much more robust USB implementation. It's on the warmer side, but is still detailed, dynamic, and the bass impact is great.
  
 Been thinking of getting a normal Modi 2 (non-uber) as a gift for a friend, but I'm afraid the loss of the linear power supply will change its sound. Can anyone confirm or deny?


----------



## 7ryder

purrin said:


> I would have gotten one, but people are asking too much for them.
> 
> Now what would be awesome would be a tubed Yggdrasil. But I know Mike, Jason, and the guys at Schiit would never do that. Yup never. Never ever. Probably not enough real estate since would need separate power supply for the tubes.


----------



## jexby

eraserxiv said:


> I've been pretty impressed with my Modi 2 Uber. It sonically reminds me of the Gamma 2 when I had it, but for half the price, in a better looking chasis, and a much more robust USB implementation. It's on the warmer side, but is still detailed, dynamic, and the bass impact is great.


 
  
 this "warmth" of modi 2 uber is interesting, IIRC the modi 1 non-uber was initially reported as "slightly bright, or thin" ?


----------



## snip3r77

Is there an R2R usb stick type ( ala dragonfly ) ?


----------



## jexby

snip3r77 said:


> Is there an R2R usb stick type ( ala dragonfly ) ?


 
  





 my ears dream of such....


----------



## EraserXIV

jexby said:


> this "warmth" of modi 2 uber is interesting, IIRC the modi 1 non-uber was initially reported as "slightly bright, or thin" ?


 
  
 It's not _warm_, it's essentially neutral at its core, but I would say it leans more towards the warm-side of the neutral spectrum. Never heard the modi 1, but I definitely wouldn't call the Modi 2U thin or bright.
  
 If you've heard the Gamma 2 before, I'd say its pretty similar to that.


----------



## thegunner100

synthaddicted said:


> Magni/Modi 2 uber stack
> Emotiva XDA or DC-1
> ifi Micro iDSD
> Mousai MSD192


 
 The DC-1 is a great value at $500 and comes with tons of features that similarly priced dacs don't have. You get multiple inputs, SE/balanced pre-amp outputs, and a remote control! At the time that I wrote my comparison between the DC-1 and Gungnir, I felt that the two weren't all too much different from each other. However... now I can probably tell more of a difference between the two since I'm more experienced. By association though, the DC-1 is probably a better buy than the bifrost with the uber and gen 2 usb upgrades.
  
 I returned the DC-1 and kept the Gungnir because I felt that the Gungnir was just a bit better, and while it doesn't have the features that the DC-1 does, it will be upgradeable in the future. 
  
 Another dac that you could try right now is the GO 450 since it is just $129 on massdrop right now. The GO is seriously a VERY good dac for it's price, plus it's very portable if you need that sort of thing. I don't know how it compares to the Modi 2 uber though.


----------



## kugino

i want to try both the dc-1 and the gungnir...i suppose both have trial periods so i could do that. or wait til one shows up in the f/s forums...


----------



## SynthAddicted

purrin said:


> The Schiit low end stuff is really just too neat and cheap not to try. It's like the cool stuff on Massdrop. I have schiit from Schiit and Massdrop still sitting inside the boxes.
> 
> I'm down to one headphone now, and that is the Paradox. I liked the HD800's technicalities, but it just gives me a headache and I really don't want to screw up my ear now that I'm back experimenting with speakers again. Audezes are nice listen, the only problem with using them for production work is that you'll probably end up with too bright of the sound if you acclimate and forget they are tuned to be laid-back / rolled.
> 
> ...


 
 Lol- You wrote exactly what I was struggling to communicate about the Alpha Dogs (hardness is really the right word imo) and the HD800 (I remember putting them on and thinking "so much detail and space... but these aren't going to stay on my head for very long")
  
 I'm very pleasantly surprised by the apparently massive similarity in the way we seem to hear- it makes it easier for me to just risk some money and order a custom Paradox  
 I had essentially decided to do that anyways (I was thinking I would audition some other stuff first), but now I won't worry about it nearly as much 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Thank you so much for making this decision process far more relaxing!​ 
  


thegunner100 said:


> The DC-1 is a great value at $500 and comes with tons of features that similarly priced dacs don't have. You get multiple inputs, SE/balanced pre-amp outputs, and a remote control! At the time that I wrote my comparison between the DC-1 and Gungnir, I felt that the two weren't all too much different from each other. However... now I can probably tell more of a difference between the two since I'm more experienced. By association though, the DC-1 is probably a better buy than the bifrost with the uber and gen 2 usb upgrades.
> 
> I returned the DC-1 and kept the Gungnir because I felt that the Gungnir was just a bit better, and while it doesn't have the features that the DC-1 does, it will be upgradeable in the future.
> 
> Another dac that you could try right now is the GO 450 since it is just $129 on massdrop right now. The GO is seriously a VERY good dac for it's price, plus it's very portable if you need that sort of thing. I don't know how it compares to the Modi 2 uber though.


 
 I will actually have uses for the additional features of the DC-1 (and I only have so much budget as I'm getting cans as well), some immediate, some waiting for more budget. For example, the dual onboard headphone amps will actually be really convenient for showing my work to friends, and the high quality preamp will drastically extend usability when i bring it into my school studios and use it in place of the lame Motu interfaces in the rooms that have the best synthesizers (something the Gungir would probably be too big for). Also, it's much easier on the budget (33% less, and I can skate by on the onboard headphone amp while I pool money for a bit). So the DC-1 seems to be the right choice in my case- though I plan to buy it on Amazon, so if I have some issue with it, I don't lose any money.
  
 I really appreciate you chiming in here


----------



## ciphercomplete

kugino said:


> so has anyone here heard any of the older monarchy audio dacs? they used the pcm63 chips in them and seemed to have really favorable reviews at the time.




Having owned the 1704uk based nm24 I am still interested in the older pcm63 m24 and m22(?)DACs. I had always heard that that the m24 was superior to the newer version. But with the Yggy's release seemingly just around the corner I decided not to scratch that itch. There's a m22 on eBay someone should buy before I get tired of looking at it though.


----------



## ciphercomplete

purrin said:


> I would have gotten one, but people are asking too much for them.
> 
> Now what would be awesome would be a tubed Yggdrasil. But I know Mike, Jason, and the guys at Schiit would never do that. Yup never. Never ever. Probably not enough real estate since would need separate power supply for the tubes.




Yuck, not me. If my history with tubes is any indication a tube version of the Yggy would lead to me owning a room full of tubes and being very unhappy.


----------



## blitzxgene

Mmm, Yggy is fantastic. I now know i will be buying one.


----------



## evillamer

snip3r77 said:


> Is there an R2R usb stick type ( ala dragonfly ) ?


 
  
 Time to tell Mike Moffat he can't do that for SURE.


----------



## purrin

jexby said:


> this "warmth" of modi 2 uber is interesting, IIRC the modi 1 non-uber was initially reported as "slightly bright, or thin" ?


 
  
 Original Modi was on the lean side - depended up on USB. I had to resort to Wyrd for Modi to get a more consistent sound that wasn't lean..
  
  


eraserxiv said:


> It's not _warm_, it's essentially neutral at its core, but I would say it leans more towards the warm-side of the neutral spectrum. Never heard the modi 1, but I definitely wouldn't call the Modi 2U thin or bright.
> 
> If you've heard the Gamma 2 before, I'd say its pretty similar to that.


 
  
 My original statement was saying that Magni 2 Uber > warmer than Magni 2 when used in combination with Modi 2 Uber. I need to pick up a Modi 2 Uber for myself. Trying to avoid because the perception is that I'm kind of a Schiit-shill or Schiit-head. But it's hard to deny performance for the price.


----------



## jogfi2002

Hi, it's me again.
  
 Has anybody ever listened to Emotiva XDA-2 GEN2?
 How does it perform comparing to Schiit M&M 2 stack and Denon DA300?
  
 Thanks!


----------



## 62ohm

Purrin,
  
 Is the Metrum Octave an R2R DAC? I googled it and some says it's a string DAC, not an R2R.


----------



## Sorrodje

The octave uses industrial R2R chips.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

62ohm said:


> Purrin,
> 
> Is the Metrum Octave an R2R DAC? I googled it and some says it's a string DAC, not an R2R.


 
  
  
 Nothing wrong with it being a Resistor String DAC chip instead of an R2R type, both are multibit dac chips just of differing architectures.
  


sorrodje said:


> The octave uses industrial R2R chips.


 
  
  
 I think the main problem here is that on the forum R2R has become synonymous with multibit, which isn't the case, there are several types of multibit DAC architectures around, R2R just being one of them.


----------



## davidvanderbilt

This may be a silly question but is the PS Audio perfectwave MK II still considered a strong contender among the other dacs that are out right now? I have the gungnir but was considering buying a used perfectwave. I've done a lot of research, just wasn't sure if this dac was outdated at all yet if that makes any sense.


----------



## Sapientiam

souprknowva said:


> I think the main problem here is that on the forum R2R has become synonymous with multibit, which isn't the case, there are several types of multibit DAC architectures around, R2R just being one of them.


 
  
 +1.
  
 Even within DACs which are nominally R2R often not all the stages are implemented as R2R. For example the Yggy's DAC is shown here - 6MSBs are decoded separately and the bottom 14 bits are true R2R.


----------



## hans030390

souprknowva said:


> I think the main problem here is that on the forum R2R has become synonymous with multibit, which isn't the case, there are several types of multibit DAC architectures around, R2R just being one of them.


 
  
 mulbtibipt is hard to type so let's stick with r2r


----------



## Clemmaster

sapientiam said:


> +1.
> 
> Even within DACs which are nominally R2R often not all the stages are implemented as R2R. For example the Yggy's DAC is shown here - 6MSBs are decoded separately and the bottom 14 bits are true R2R.


 
  
 Interesting. That could actually be how the TotalDAC is implemented as well.


----------



## evillamer

Question is Yggdrasil truely 20bit or near(pseudo) 20bit? Given the context of the Analog Device's internal 14bit R2R + 63 segments diagram.


----------



## Sapientiam

Given that the DAC chip itself is only truly 20bit at fairly low frequencies, the answer to your question (which would reasonably apply over the audio band) depends on the dynamic performance of their deglitching circuit in the main. The datasheet doesn't give enough detail about the settling dynamics of the DAC which would need to settle to 1ppm within 2.8uS (no mean feat) and the deglitcher has to do considerably better than that for the performance to be dominated by the DAC chip's 20bits.


----------



## purrin

souprknowva said:


> Nothing wrong with it being a Resistor String DAC chip instead of an R2R type, both are multibit dac chips just of differing architectures.
> 
> I think the main problem here is that on the forum R2R has become synonymous with multibit, which isn't the case, there are several types of multibit DAC architectures around, R2R just being one of them.


 
  
 I've loosely used R2R / ladder to refer to anything not delta-sigma, PWM, etc.
  
 R2R architecture (literally looks like a ladder with two resistor values, R and 2R) , a string of resistors, a capacitor array, array of current sources, and all sorts of fancy stuff the mind can imagine for multi-bit.
  


evillamer said:


> Question is Yggdrasil truely 20bit or near(pseudo) 20bit? Given the context of the Analog Device's internal 14bit R2R + 63 segments diagram.


 
  
 It's 20 bits with 1LSB error = 19 bits. Two per channel for true 20 bits.
  
 AD5791 appears to be R2R for the 14 LSBs and string architecture for the 6 MSBs. The "Six MSBs decoded into the 63 equal segments" is a big hint as well the the simplified schematic. A 20 bit string DAC would require over a million resistors / segments.
  
 The UltraAnalog modules of yester-year glued two high accuracy R2R chips for LSB and a bunch of resistors for the 4 MSBs.
  
 Oh Noes! What are we doing to do?


----------



## evillamer

It's already March. Where's the yddrasil?


----------



## estreeter

evillamer said:


> It's already March. Where's the yddrasil?


 
  
 You're either not very good at counting or trying to be witty - *'end Q1 2015*' is March 31 : by my calendar, still 15 days away. Mike gave an update about 5 days ago in the main thread - promising without unduly raising expectations. I could show you YT vids of Fedex and DHL couriers throwing packages around, but perhaps we should just hope for the best with a 35lb DAC containing seven PCBs and the kind of complexity that will leave most of the DiYers shaking their heads.


----------



## mauriceg

Hopefully this isn't too off topic in this thread, if it is please just ignore.
 I am looking for a good dac around 700€(850$) used, somost products around 1200-1300€ new would qualify.
 Can anyone give me some recommendations? For now I will be listening with headphones through a Lehmann Black cube linear. My headphones are sennheiser HD650's.


----------



## conquerator2

What kind of sound are you after?


----------



## mauriceg

conquerator2 said:


> What kind of sound are you after?



That is a good question, honestly I am more the kind of person that can't really describe the sound I am looking for, but when I hear it, I know that is what I want.


----------



## Sorrodje

@mauriceg : If I were You i would grab a Brand new Meier DACCORD.  great sound, great features, great seller, 14 days return policy.  IMO a HD650 does not need more investment in the DAC. it's wonderful headphone and need great amps to shine but IMO a great , precise well built , resolving and transparent DAC will do the job. The Meier DACCORD  is one of those DAC.


----------



## mauriceg

sorrodje said:


> @mauriceg
> : If I were You i would grab a Brand new Meier DACCORD.  great sound, great features, great seller, 14 days return policy.  IMO a HD650 does not need more investment in the DAC. it's wonderful headphone and need great amps to shine but IMO a great , precise well built , resolving and transparent DAC will do the job. The Meier DACCORD  is one of those DAC.




Thank you! The meier seems like a nice dac! 
In case I will upgrade my headphones some time it might be smart to already have a DAC that suits the headphones I was thinking though. 
I was already considering upgrading to sennheiser HD700's a while ago, I might do that some time in the not too distant future.


----------



## Sorrodje

The HD700 is not so much an upgrade from the HD650 IMO  . But we're off topic there.
  
 The DACCORD is really versatile and transparent. you can keep it and build the Headphone + amp combo of your choice . Jan Meier is really a kind guy to deal with.  IMO Meier Audio is the European counterpart of Schitt audio.  no BS, affordable prices , direct sales , no snake oil , great piece of gear. Meier's business is smaller than Schiit though.


----------



## mauriceg

sorrodje said:


> The HD700 is not so much an upgrade from the HD650 IMO  . But we're off topic there.
> 
> The DACCORD is really versatile and transparent. you can keep it and build the Headphone + amp combo of your choice . Jan Meier is really a kind guy to deal with.  IMO Meier Audio is the European counterpart of Schitt audio.  no BS, affordable prices , direct sales , no snake oil , great piece of gear. Meier's business is smaller than Schiit though.


 

 Sounds Great!
 I am definitely interested and will look into meier some more! Talking about Schiit, I was also considering their Gungnir, seems like a lot of bang for the buck.
 Also audiolab's M-DAC and PS audio's Nuwave look very interesting to me. And so does the Metrum octave dac


----------



## Sorrodje

The Metrum Octave is a good choice when you're after smoothness, mids fullness and somewhat laid back sound. I wouldn't go that route for a HD650. Even if My HD800 I found sparkle and bite was lacking. Metrum octave mids are wonderful though.  This Octave is a polar opposite of analytical DAC but still enjoyable and not sirupy.
  
 Didnt hear Gungnir , Nuwave and MDAC. So I can't help more.


----------



## TokenGesture

I didn't get on with the MDAC - too bright for me. Went to the Octave and haven't looked back!


----------



## mauriceg

sorrodje said:


> The Metrum Octave is a good choice when you're after smoothness, mids fullness and somewhat laid back sound. I wouldn't go that route for a HD650. Even if My HD800 I found sparkle and bite was lacking. Metrum octave mids are wonderful though.  This Octave is a polar opposite of analytical DAC but still enjoyable and not sirupy.
> 
> Didnt hear Gungnir , Nuwave and MDAC. So I can't help more.


 

 I should indeed probably stay away from the metrum then. Sound slike a great DAc but probably not a great match with the HD650's.
 Thanks so much for your help!
 The Gungnir, Nuwave and MDAC are just a few options that I had on my mind, I have no serious considerations to buy any of those yet.


----------



## mauriceg

tokengesture said:


> I didn't get on with the MDAC - too bright for me. Went to the Octave and haven't looked back!


 

 Possibly the bright sound of the M-DAC wouldn't be so bad with the HD650s though?
 Also may I ask what you paid for your octave? I see prices on them range from 300€ to 1000€


----------



## mauriceg

I recently tried a Linn Majik DS, does anyone know a dac that comes close in sound to the Linn Majik DS's?


----------



## estreeter

mauriceg said:


> I recently tried a Linn Majik DS, does anyone know a dac that comes close in sound to the Linn Majik DS's?


 
  
 If you go back a year or so on the Linn forums, you'll find that many were very impressed with the Hugo - purrin and a few others here weren't, but the threads are there nonetheless. Given that the Hugo isn't a networked source and the DS relies heavily on a configuration that many consider superior to USB (again, a matter of conjecture), it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Theoretically a bridge like the Auralic Aries would allow you to compare other DACs with the DS but my experience with DLNA to date hasnt been a happy one - the control point software seems to lose the plot - so I'll leave you with the threads at CA.
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/auralic-aries-hardware-impressions-and-information-21261/
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/auralic-lightning-ds-app-software-impressions-and-information-21262/


----------



## Articnoise

IMO the Linn DC and DCM series sounds very good. All of them has a refined, nice and musical quality’s. I have mostly listening to the super expressive Klimax and the still expansive, but less so Akurate. As I haven’t used Majik in my setup I cannot say exactly how it sounds like or other DACs that sounds like it, but you need a good dac and sources to compete with it in my book. 

 I think that the overall SQ on Majik than playing from a NAS is at least on pair with AGD Master 7 using its SPDIF in + an audio grade computer/CAPS/server. The Akurate is more or less on pair with Master 7 using OR5 HDMI + an audio grade computer/CAPS/server and that the Klimax is superior.


----------



## mauriceg

Thanks for the two posts above! good options, still pretty costly though unfortunately though considering I can buy a used majik DS for 1500€ at this moment


----------



## prot

mauriceg said:


> Hopefully this isn't too off topic in this thread, if it is please just ignore.
> I am looking for a good dac around 700€(850$) used, somost products around 1200-1300€ new would qualify.
> Can anyone give me some recommendations? For now I will be listening with headphones through a Lehmann Black cube linear. My headphones are sennheiser HD650's.



Minimax dac plus fits your reqs perfectly. Highly recommended, especially if you like modding (you can roll the tube & opamaps). 

Or you can buy a new one for that money. The Gustard x12 seems to be pretty good and an upgraded x20 will come soon.


----------



## conquerator2

prot said:


> Minimax dac plus fits your reqs perfectly. Highly recommended, especially if you like modding (you can roll the tube & opamaps).
> 
> Or you can buy a new one for that money. The Gustard x12 seems to be pretty good and *an upgraded x20 will come soon.*


 
 I read somewhere it wasn't to be sooner than June... So, 3 months at best it seems. Just FYI


----------



## purrin

mauriceg said:


> Thanks for the two posts above! good options, still pretty costly though unfortunately though considering I can buy a used majik DS for 1500€ at this moment


 
  
 You should grab it. I like what Linn's done with their digital stuff as of late, especially at used prices. The streamer functionality is icing on the cake and actually works, unlike the PWD2's Ethernet Bridge, cough, cough, cough.


----------



## wahsmoh

purrin said:


> You should grab it. I like what Linn's done with their digital stuff as of late, especially at used prices. The streamer functionality is icing on the cake and actually works, unlike the PWD2's Ethernet Bridge, cough, cough, cough.


 

 Hey Purrin I just won a Theta Digital DS Pro Progeny for $276 on Ebay. What are the basic aspects of this model and (in your opinion) how does it perform? I notice it has a single Burr Brown PCM-67 and isn't balanced like the Pro Prime counterpart but I am very anxious to hear this 18-bit chip
  

 LOL I barely sniped this guy's bid.. almost lost it by $1 and I think I would have had a heart attack


----------



## mauriceg

purrin said:


> You should grab it. I like what Linn's done with their digital stuff as of late, especially at used prices. The streamer functionality is icing on the cake and actually works, unlike the PWD2's Ethernet Bridge, cough, cough, cough.



I wish I could get the money together... I tried one last week and the sound was spectacular!
I was wondering though, is it possible to hook up a wifi to ethernet device to the linn ethernet input? I can't run an ethernet cable to where my hifi room is so i would have to use a wifi-> ethernet converter


----------



## purrin

wahsmoh said:


> Hey Purrin I just won a Theta Digital DS Pro Progeny for $276 on Ebay. What are the basic aspects of this model and (in your opinion) how does it perform? I notice it has a single Burr Brown PCM-67 and isn't balanced like the Pro Prime counterpart but I am very anxious to hear this 18-bit chip
> 
> LOL I barely sniped this guy's bid.. almost lost it by $1 and I think I would have had a heart attack


 
  
 Nice! You got Theta's budget PCM67 one-bit based solution. I owned the Theta Cobalt back in the day which used the same chip and opamps, but the Cobalt lacked the custom Theta DSP and probably better power supplies of the Progeny. The Cobalt was a super-budget solution that was a little bit better than the mid-model Sony ES players. I'm betting what you got might be better sounding than the Gungnir.
  


mauriceg said:


> I wish I could get the money together... I tried one last week and the sound was spectacular!
> I was wondering though, is it possible to hook up a wifi to ethernet device to the linn ethernet input? I can't run an ethernet cable to where my hifi room is so i would have to use a wifi-> ethernet converter


  
 A wifi/Ethernet endpoint should work with the Linn.


----------



## mauriceg

Thanks! I really hope I can get the momey together for a linn


----------



## mauriceg

By the way purrin, how do you think the gungnir compares to other dacs like chord, naim, ps audio, metrum, matrix etc... and maybe even the linn majik ds?


----------



## purrin

I've never liked any of the smaller Chords, and I've never heard the real big-boy stuff from them. I haven't heard Naim in years. I still feel the PSA PWD Mk1->2 running fw 2.02 is better than the Gungnir, although PWD1->2 still has that bit of treble rasp. Gungnir and Matrix X-Sabre are opposites: Smoothness/tone vs. detail. Metrum is interesting, a smooth laid-back sound with colored euphonic vocals, but doesn't resolve anything. Moving up the Metrum chain helps, but not much. I've heard the Majik, but only on setups that I was not super familiar with. Good space. A refined sound more in the direction of the Gamma 2 than the hyperdetailed PWD2. There tends to be a Linn house sound that I find agreeable, but definitely buy used or at a discount.


----------



## mauriceg

purrin said:


> I've never liked any of the smaller Chords, and I've never heard the real big-boy stuff from them. I haven't heard Naim in years. I still feel the PSA PWD Mk1->2 running fw 2.02 is better than the Gungnir, although PWD1->2 still has that bit of treble rasp. Gungnir and Matrix X-Sabre are opposites: Smoothness/tone vs. detail. Metrum is interesting, a smooth laid-back sound with colored euphonic vocals, but doesn't resolve anything. Moving up the Metrum chain helps, but not much. I've heard the Majik, but only on setups that I was not super familiar with. Good space. A refined sound more in the direction of the Gamma 2 than the hyperdetailed PWD2. There tends to be a Linn house sound that I find agreeable, but definitely buy used or at a discount.




It sounds like you do find the gungnir to be one of the better dacs available.
Which would the detailed one be and which would the smooth one be between the gungnir and the x-sabre? I haven't tried either yet


----------



## thegunner100

mauriceg said:


> It sounds like you do find the gungnir to be one of the better dacs available.
> Which would the detailed one be and which would the smooth one be between the gungnir and the x-sabre? I haven't tried either yet


 
 Gungnir is smoother but more aggressive and dynamic sounding. X-Sabre is the more detailed and laid-back sounding dac.


----------



## 7ryder

I've never heard a Majik, but I had an Akurate DS and, until recently, a Klimax DS/1 -- decided to give tubes a try and picked up an Audio Research Ref DAC which has Ethernet streaming in addition to the usual digital connections.  
  
 Like Purrin says, Linn has Ethernet streaming and gapless down, unlike PS Audio and that confounded Bridge!  I got rid of my PWD w/ Bridge and went to the Akurate because of the issues with the Bridge.  
  
 Linn has a lot of support docs on their website and, yes, you can use the DS players wirelessly and can stream from your iThing too if you want.  
  
 here's a link to the support pages where you can read how to set up the Majik, recommendations for a LAN, NAS, etc. http://www.linn.co.uk/support
  
 If you like the Majik, don't, I repeat, don't listen to the Akurate...or the Klimax for that matter, or you'll be pawning stuff to increase your budget!  I made the mistake of listening to the Klimax when I owned the Akurate...my wallet hasn't quite forgiven me.
  
 Oh, and yes, definitely buy used.


----------



## 62ohm

@purrin
  
 On your best amp for HD800 list, you mentioned that the amp circuitry of HDVA 600 / HDVD 800 have its own sound, and DACs don't make much different with this amp. To what extent do you think does the amp circuitry impose its own sound signature?
  
 I recently get myself a Metrum Octave and, with the Senn amp I actually find very little (minuscule, actually) difference between the Metrum Octave and the Benchmark DAC1. I recall trying out various sources with the BHA-1 before and the difference between one DAC and another was not subtle.


----------



## mauriceg

thegunner100 said:


> Gungnir is smoother but more aggressive and dynamic sounding. X-Sabre is the more detailed and laid-back sounding dac.


 

 Could both work well with sennheiser HD650's? Or would one of the two be favorable?


----------



## mauriceg

7ryder said:


> I've never heard a Majik, but I had an Akurate DS and, until recently, a Klimax DS/1 -- decided to give tubes a try and picked up an Audio Research Ref DAC which has Ethernet streaming in addition to the usual digital connections.
> 
> Like Purrin says, Linn has Ethernet streaming and gapless down, unlike PS Audio and that confounded Bridge!  I got rid of my PWD w/ Bridge and went to the Akurate because of the issues with the Bridge.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks so much for the advice! I'm already doing everything I can to be able to afford the Majik DS, wanting a klimax or akurate would be a disaster for me haha!


----------



## AustinValentine

purrin said:


> Nice! You got Theta's budget PCM67 one-bit based solution. I owned the Theta Cobalt back in the day which used the same chip and opamps, but the Cobalt lacked the custom Theta DSP and probably better power supplies of the Progeny. The Cobalt was a super-budget solution that was a little bit better than the mid-model Sony ES players. I'm betting what you got might be better sounding than the Gungnir.


 
  
 This. As long as you're staying single-ended, it's a pretty incredible piece of kit. I use one of those with my Project Ember + Paradox/HD600. Make sure that you get a decent USB to Coax converter for it - Gustard U12 works well, a Ciunas Converter would be better still. 
  
 Don't run it off of Macbook or motherboard toslink. Seriously. Just don't.


----------



## jogfi2002

How do you comment on the DENON DA300 and Emotiva DC-1?
  
 In USA, they are at the same price of $499, but the DENON seems to have an atrracting technology AL32 that have been used in their top devices.
  
 Very confused and could not decide which to buy...


----------



## purrin

thegunner100 said:


> Gungnir is smoother but more aggressive and dynamic sounding. X-Sabre is the more detailed and laid-back sounding dac.


 
  
 ^ What he said. Plus Gungnir is bassier, X-Sabre is leaner. Both good DACs. Pick your poison.


----------



## purrin

jogfi2002 said:


> How do you comment on the DENON DA300 and Emotiva DC-1?
> 
> In USA, they are at the same price of $499, but the DENON seems to have an atrracting technology AL32 that have been used in their top devices.
> 
> Very confused and could not decide which to buy...


 
  
 No idea on AL32. It might be a legit custom DSP / digital filter that does wonders or it might not matter. I'm a bit hesistant because of the BB1795 DAC chip (not a good sounding chip) and also because Denon hasn't made anything good sounding in a decade. They make crap integrated amps and bluray players for sale at Best Buy now. As for the DC-1, I don't think I've heard an AD1955 implementation that I did not like.


----------



## purrin

62ohm said:


> @purrin
> 
> On your best amp for HD800 list, you mentioned that the amp circuitry of HDVA 600 / HDVD 800 have its own sound, and DACs don't make much different with this amp. To what extent do you think does the amp circuitry impose its own sound signature?
> 
> I recently get myself a Metrum Octave and, with the Senn amp I actually find very little (minuscule, actually) difference between the Metrum Octave and the Benchmark DAC1. I recall trying out various sources with the BHA-1 before and the difference between one DAC and another was not subtle.


 
  
 The answer to a very large extent. I couldn't even tell much of a difference between my iPhone, Sony Walkman X out, and the HDVD800's internal DAC. The Metrum Octave vs. Benchmark on a good setup should sound very very different, even on modest amps and headphones.
  
 The headphone circuit in the HDVx units is based on an TI headamp chip that has a tendency of making everything laid-back sounding at best, or flat and boring, at worst (examples would Hi-Fi-M8, PHA-1, etc.). The chip makes decent power, especially in balanced bridged configuration where it also helps with imaging precision. The nature of the chip's sound and high output impedance makes it a good match for the HD800 and HD6x0. The chip imparts a certain kind of stamp on the sound. Hard to describe. Sort of an enforced timbre. Pleasant and forgiving.
  
 The BHA-1 (provided that you don't let it get hot) is a much more transparent amp. If you plan on rolling DACs, avoid the HDVx units from Senn. However, I think the HDVx solutions are worthy of consideration if you just want something that works with the HD800 and don't care about getting the most from the headphone. HDVx amps suck on most other headphones, especially orthos.


----------



## jogfi2002

purrin said:


> jogfi2002 said:
> 
> 
> > How do you comment on the DENON DA300 and Emotiva DC-1?
> ...


 
 Thanks for reply.
  
 So you are absolutely prefer Emotiva to DENON.
  
  
 Hmmmm...May turn to Emotiva.


----------



## jexby

Ok, my turn to rub the tummy of Purrin Budda and ask for a ranking/ recommendation without including Yggy:

current Gungnir + Wyrd
BiFrost Uber USB gen 2 + Wyrd
BiFrost Uber USB gen 1 + Wyrd
Modi 2 Uber + Wyrd


----------



## 62ohm

purrin said:


> The answer to a very large extent. I couldn't even tell much of a difference between my iPhone, Sony Walkman X out, and the HDVD800's internal DAC. The Metrum Octave vs. Benchmark on a good setup should sound very very different, even on modest amps and headphones.
> 
> The headphone circuit in the HDVx units is based on an TI headamp chip that has a tendency of making everything laid-back sounding at best, or flat and boring, at worst (examples would Hi-Fi-M8, PHA-1, etc.). The chip makes decent power, especially in balanced bridged configuration where it also helps with imaging precision. The nature of the chip's sound and high output impedance makes it a good match for the HD800 and HD6x0. The chip imparts a certain kind of stamp on the sound. Hard to describe. Sort of an enforced timbre. Pleasant and forgiving.
> 
> The BHA-1 (provided that you don't let it get hot) is a much more transparent amp. If you plan on rolling DACs, avoid the HDVx units from Senn. However, I think the HDVx solutions are worthy of consideration if you just want something that works with the HD800 and don't care about getting the most from the headphone. HDVx amps suck on most other headphones, especially orthos.


 
  
 I guess I need to get the BHA-1 as well then. And I'm guessing the BHA-1 with the Metrum Octave would be a decent match for the HD800? Might as well keep the Benchmark DAC1 for the HDVA600 as it won't make much of a difference anyway regarding what DAC I use with the HDVA600.


----------



## EraserXIV

jexby said:


> Ok, my turn to rub the tummy of Purrin Budda and ask for a ranking/ recommendation without including Yggy:
> 
> current Gungnir + Wyrd
> BiFrost Uber USB gen 2 + Wyrd
> ...


 
  
 Get the Modi 2U and save your money until you can afford the Yggy.


----------



## jexby

eraserxiv said:


> Get the Modi 2U and save your money until you can afford the Yggy.




Indeed, solid advice.
Except I have no rack space, speakers, nor nuclear power plant for 24x7 operation of the Yggy yoga master DAC.


----------



## prot

mauriceg said:


> Could both work well with sennheiser HD650's? Or would one of the two be favorable?




I'm pretty sure that any anno2015 Dac works fine with the hd650. An iphone does a very good job already...and with an extra amp for a bit more oomph, you're all set


----------



## kothganesh

jexby said:


> ........................................
> 
> 1. current Gungnir + Wyrd
> 2. BiFrost Uber USB gen 2 + Wyrd
> ...


 
 Obviously not Purrin but please see my IMO above ( I actually have them)


----------



## kugino

jogfi2002 said:


> Thanks for reply.
> 
> So you are absolutely prefer Emotiva to DENON.
> 
> ...


 

 there was one in the f/s forum for a pretty good price...don't know if it's still there...


----------



## estreeter

jexby said:


> Ok, *my turn to rub the tummy of Purrin Budda* and ask for a ranking/ recommendation without including Yggy:
> 
> current Gungnir + Wyrd
> BiFrost Uber USB gen 2 + Wyrd
> ...


 
  
 Cmon, purrin - I thought you told me a hundred or so pages back that your apostles dont have to kneel in your presence any more ?


----------



## evanft

62ohm said:


> I guess I need to get the BHA-1 as well then. And I'm guessing the BHA-1 with the Metrum Octave would be a decent match for the HD800? Might as well keep the Benchmark DAC1 for the HDVA600 as it won't make much of a difference anyway regarding what DAC I use with the HDVA600.


 
  
 Given the price of the BHA-1, wouldn't it make more sense to go straight for the Ragnarok?


----------



## jogfi2002

kugino said:


> jogfi2002 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for reply.
> ...




Yeah I saw it yesterday!
It seems serveral people have PMed him and not sure if I will be the one to get it.


----------



## Clemmaster

jogfi2002 said:


> Yeah I saw it yesterday!
> It seems serveral people have PMed him and not sure if I will be the one to get it.


 
 There are already 2 person before you. I'll let you know when I get answers


----------



## jogfi2002

clemmaster said:


> jogfi2002 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I saw it yesterday!
> ...


 
 Sure!
  
 And how about the Marantz? Do you think it sounds better than the DC-1?


----------



## Clemmaster

The Marantz has a great USB input and a better headphone amp.
  
 The sound is quite different. The DC-1 is warm and laid-back, the HD-DAC1 is more detail-oriented, better sound-stage/imaging and leaner.
 The Marantz is more exiting and more technically proficient for sure. The headphone amp is much better than the Emotiva, too.


----------



## jogfi2002

clemmaster said:


> The Marantz has a great USB input and a better headphone amp.
> 
> The sound is quite different. The DC-1 is warm and laid-back, the HD-DAC1 is more detail-oriented, better sound-stage/imaging and leaner.
> The Marantz is more exiting and more technically proficient for sure. The headphone amp is much better than the Emotiva, too.


 
 Thanks for the review.
  
 Please let me know if you have decided. Either the DC-1 or Marantz is OK.
 Do others have shown interest on the Marantz? If no, I may pick it up.


----------



## purrin

> jexby said:
> 
> 
> > ........................................
> ...


 
  
 ^ pretty much that.


----------



## purrin

estreeter said:


> Cmon, purrin - I thought you told me a hundred or so pages back that your apostles dont have to kneel in your presence any more ?


 
  
 It dawned on me that there is no escape. 
  
 It's really more a matter of function - spreading the word of good sound. If people want to show me their appreciation, that's fine. If people think I am insane, that's fine too. What's makes me happy is talking with people and helping them find the DAC that suites their preferences at a reasonable or unreasonable price. Otherwise I'd make a website called DACreviews.com and shill the **** outta everything that came to me, especially the permanent loaners. Hmm, I'm beginning to see how this religion thing works...


----------



## jexby

the appreciation IS (in part) because you are insane!
 thanks for the continued contributions here and on other islands.
  
 knock CanJam SoCal for a loop!


----------



## jexby

kothganesh said:


> Obviously not Purrin but please see my IMO above ( I actually have them)


 
  
 very much appreciated for your rankings, as I'm looking at a secondary set up.
 if a modi 2 uber + Wyrd grace your ears additional info always appreciated.
 thanks.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

> It's really more a matter of function - spreading the word of good sound. If people want to show me their appreciation, that's fine. If people think I am insane, that's fine too.


 
  
 What makes you think that they're mutually exclusive?


----------



## 62ohm

evanft said:


> Given the price of the BHA-1, wouldn't it make more sense to go straight for the Ragnarok?


 
  
 The prices of Schiit product (or getting a Schiit product from overseas) here in NZ is enormous. I can get a new BHA-1 for $2,000 NZD, while I would have to pay *at least *$1,000 NZD more for a new Ragnarok.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ OT but are you comparing apples with apples? BHA-1s are retailed in NZ and presumably the importer 'bought forward' and escaped the recent large improvement in the US$.

We have dropped about 1/7 in recent months (meaning we pay 1/6 more) and our dollar has not been this low (versus US) since about 2011. Bad timing with Yggy on the horizon 

(But it is what it is. We want the tech, we pay the price!)


----------



## Za Warudo

Any comparisons between the Modi 2 Uber and Gamma 2 (especially using coaxial input)?  Seems like they are similar sounding, if so I guess the Modi 2U would be the better value?  Is the Bifrost 2 Uber (no usb) a significant step up over the Modi 2U?  Which one is less warm?


----------



## czy6412

Any suggestions for a used dac (purely dac, not all in one dac+amp) at $500 range


----------



## hans030390

Depends on your tastes. I've seen some Gamma2 + PSU (it runs off USB if you don't have a dedicated PSU for it) go for less than $300. Out of the several DACs I've tried, that one has always been pretty memorable for me for the great sound it offered at a low price. The model I heard did not have the ASRC in it.


----------



## smitty1110

czy6412 said:


> Any suggestions for a used dac (purely dac, not all in one dac+amp) at $500 range


 

 Schiit DACs up through the bifrost uber, I've had good experiences with all of them. Look on the classifieds, you might find a steal on there (I got a bifrost for $250 once). If you see a Matrix X-sabre for $500, jump on that, it's literally a steal.
  
 Disclaimer - It's St. Patty's day, I'm drunk. I freaking love this holiday!


----------



## estreeter

smitty1110 said:


> Schiit DACs up through the bifrost uber, I've had good experiences with all of them. Look on the classifieds, you might find a steal on there (I got a bifrost for $250 once). If you see a Matrix X-sabre for $500, jump on that, it's literally a steal.
> 
> Disclaimer - It's St. Patty's day, I'm drunk. I freaking love this holiday!


 
  
 I tried to explain St Pats to some Thai ladies last night and I have to admit, it doesnt translate well.
  
_'We wear silly hats and drink green beer because we're celebrating the day Saint Patrick chased the snakes out of Ireland'_
_'Oh, OK ...'_
  
 Yep - mum would be proud that my early indoctrination into the Catholic church has left me with a profound understanding of the religious holidays  
  
 On a more serious note, for those in NZ and Europe bemoaning the slippery slope most of our currencies have been on with the USD since early Feb, no question that it will make Yggdrasil a very expensive proposition compared to customers in the US but its easier to swallow when you look at the sticker on most of Yggy's competition.


----------



## 62ohm

Well I predict the Yggy will cost more than $4,000 NZD here, so wouldn't really be an easy purchase..


----------



## mauriceg

To everyone who might be interested, I a little update on the question I asked earlier,
 I decided it would probably be smarter to get the Linn right away, instead of buying something cheaper and then regretting my purchase and having to buy the linn anyway later on.
 I am going to pick up a majik ds to try it out at home tomorrow. I will be hooking it up to a wireless bridge.
 The shop is also selling the original version of the akurate DS for a few hundred more.
 A quick question, I have heared great things about the new akurate, but is the older akurate DS also better than the current majik ds?


----------



## kothganesh

purrin said:


> ^ pretty much that.


 
 Ah, the master approves. That was a long reach from Chennai (India) to Calabasas (CA) to rub your tummy.


----------



## Articnoise

mauriceg said:


> To everyone who might be interested, I a little update on the question I asked earlier,
> I decided it would probably be smarter to get the Linn right away, instead of buying something cheaper and then regretting my purchase and having to buy the linn anyway later on.
> I am going to pick up a majik ds to try it out at home tomorrow. I will be hooking it up to a wireless bridge.
> The shop is also selling the original version of the akurate DS for a few hundred more.
> A quick question, I have heared great things about the new akurate, but is the older akurate DS also better than the current majik ds?


 

  

 I haven’t heard the old Akurate DS/0 but the new DS/1 is considered a worthy upgrade. As good as the Majik sound it’s still on the lean side compared to the Akurate or Master 7. For me the fact that the Akurate has balanced outputs and the Majik not, is another important factor to considering then making the choice. 

 If you can try both do that, If not read on different forums and call stores who sells Linn and ask their opinion. Personally I would go for the Akurate DS/0 if the price difference is small and both is in good condition and have some warranty left. 

 Summing up: I think you will be happy with which ever you chose.


----------



## mauriceg

articnoise said:


> I haven’t heard the old Akurate DS/0 but the new DS/1 is considered a worthy upgrade. As good as the Majik sound it’s still on the lean side compared to the Akurate or Master 7. For me the fact that the Akurate has balanced outputs and the Majik not, is another important factor to considering then making the choice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am afraid to try the akurate, it's a 600€ difference and I already have a hard time getting the money for the majik together. If it is that much better I will only be frustrated in the end. I already heared the majik and thought it was excellent so I guess I should just try the majik (I get to try it at home) if I'm not satisfied after a couple days I could still try a few days I could always try the akurate. i guess that way I spare some money and I won't feel bad about my purchase if I end up with the Majik.


----------



## purrin

You should get the Akurate, even if its DS/0


----------



## mauriceg

I guess I'll just do a side by side test
But I am scared to do so, or at least, my wallet is,,,


----------



## 7ryder

Don't say I didn't warn you about listening to the Akurate!


----------



## skeptic

Purrin - any chance you and misterrogers might have a chance to get together and set the yggy .99 and his soekris r2r build side by side?  That seems like the other really interesting novel option out there right now - and the price is shockingly low considering the psu, fpga and discrete r2r ladder are all included on the board.  I imagine it is only a matter of time before someone enterprising (or unemployed) starts building/kitting them up with amanero boards for those who aren't interested in diy.  The fact that the diyaudio community keeps cranking out new filters makes it sound like a whole lot of fun, even if it isn't ultimately quite up to the level of yggy (and once the firmware issues all get squared away).


----------



## mauriceg

7ryder said:


> Don't say I didn't warn you about listening to the Akurate!


o
That is true, this is so dificult....


----------



## Priidik

skeptic said:


> Purrin - any chance you and misterrogers might have a chance to get together and set the yggy .99 and his soekris r2r build side by side?  That seems like the other really interesting novel option out there right now - and the price is shockingly low considering the psu, fpga and discrete r2r ladder are all included on the board.  I imagine it is only a matter of time before someone enterprising (or unemployed) starts building/kitting them up with amanero boards for those who aren't interested in diy.  The fact that the diyaudio community keeps cranking out new filters makes it sound like a whole lot of fun, even if it isn't ultimately quite up to the level of yggy (and once the firmware issues all get squared away).


 
  
 Such impressions would be priceless. MrRogers has quite a setup around his Soekris board too, further fortifying its performance.
 As much faith that i have on the dam1021, i doubt it challenges Yggy straight on. Fortunately i will hear them side by side myself sooner or later anyways 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## estreeter

skeptic said:


> Purrin - any chance you and misterrogers might have a chance to get together and set the yggy .99 and his soekris r2r build side by side?  That seems like the other really interesting novel option out there right now - and the price is shockingly low considering the psu, fpga and discrete r2r ladder are all included on the board.  I imagine it is only a matter of time before someone enterprising (or unemployed) starts building/kitting them up with amanero boards for those who aren't interested in diy.  The fact that the diyaudio community keeps cranking out new filters makes it sound like a whole lot of fun, even if it isn't ultimately quite up to the level of yggy (and once the firmware issues all get squared away).


 
  
 I really like the fact that the DVR case used in the diyuino build doesnt look like something nwavguy threw together while he was testing a design. While its obvious that he has repurposed some of the cutouts in the casework, the end result looks neat - I cant solder to save myself, but I look forward to hearing more on this project.


----------



## djcarpentier

Anyone here heard any of the dacs by Monarchy Audio?


----------



## purrin

skeptic said:


> Purrin - any chance you and misterrogers might have a chance to get together and set the yggy .99 and his soekris r2r build side by side?  That seems like the other really interesting novel option out there right now - and the price is shockingly low considering the psu, fpga and discrete r2r ladder are all included on the board.  I imagine it is only a matter of time before someone enterprising (or unemployed) starts building/kitting them up with amanero boards for those who aren't interested in diy.  The fact that the diyaudio community keeps cranking out new filters makes it sound like a whole lot of fun, even if it isn't ultimately quite up to the level of yggy (and once the firmware issues all get squared away).


 
  
 I haven't spoken to misterrogers on the siekris discrete r2r boards - he did offer some impressions on some other web forum out there. The concerns he has right now are with filters and power supplies. I'd give him some time to tweak it. He has said good things about it, but I haven't heard "highly resolving" yet.
  
 I can definitely see a good $1200-$1500 custom DAC built on the soekris boards.


----------



## kugino

djcarpentier said:


> Anyone here heard any of the dacs by Monarchy Audio?


I posed the same question a few pages back. the 22 series used the pcm63 chip and got really good reviews back in the day. but I personally have not heard one...


----------



## purrin

Sadly, I've had to part ways with the Yggy and returned the unit back to Schiit. In the meantime, I've added one update to the first page. You can guess what it is. Mainly because I keep getting asked about the Theta DACs.


----------



## djcarpentier

kugino said:


> I posed the same question a few pages back. the 22 series used the pcm63 chip and got really good reviews back in the day. but I personally have not heard one...




I just purchased one at a very good price. As i just listen to redbook it was worth a try. I'll let you know what i think soon.


----------



## coli

I've been reading the thread, but why do you hate chocolate ice cream?


----------



## Yoga

coli said:


> I've been reading the thread, but why do you hate chocolate ice cream?


 

 Purrin likes it transparent. Chocolate ice cream is coloured and flavoured. The mere thought of Ben & Jerry's sends him into spasm.
  
 He chews ice after each meal.


----------



## jexby

yoga said:


> Purrin likes it transparent. Chocolate ice cream is coloured and flavoured. The mere thought of Ben & Jerry's sends him into spasm.
> 
> He chews ice after each meal.


 
  
 "and when he breathes it, he breathes pure Oxygen with none of that nitrogen junk.
 he's the most Interesting Man in the world."


----------



## Sorrodje

jexby said:


> "and when he breathes it, he breathes pure Oxygen with none of that nitrogen junk.
> he's the most Interesting Man in the world."


----------



## purrin

coli said:


> I've been reading the thread, but why do you hate chocolate ice cream?


 
  
 Originally the thread was titled "...and why I hate Sabre". I re-titled so I wouldn't hurt peoples' feelings. I figured I wasn't a fan of chocolate ice cream either - doesn't go well with bourbon. I prefer homemade Vanilla lightly sugared with egg yolk (French Vanilla).
  
  


yoga said:


> Purrin likes it transparent. Chocolate ice cream is coloured and flavoured. The mere thought of Ben & Jerry's sends him into spasm.
> 
> He chews ice after each meal.


 
  
 Ben and Jerry's ice cream is the most disgusting stuff in the world. I mean, why would anyone foul something that is already so rich. Only the Persians know how to do complex stuff like that right (rose-water, saffron, pistachio).


----------



## StefanJK

purrin said:


> *CLASS E+*
> 
> *Schiit Yggdrasil USB Gen 3*
> ....
> ...


 
  
 Can't be warm up...will be at at stable temp way before 24 hours.  Not that it matters and I'm getting one anyway, but I don't like believings that seem to violate physics.  Can't imagine though what else it could be.  I'd rather believe break-in, with faster warm up after that.


----------



## jexby

now awaiting for the blow by blow teardown of the "just published" 
  Absolute Sound 2015 Editor's Choice:  DACS Under $1000
 article.


----------



## kugino

djcarpentier said:


> I just purchased one at a very good price. As i just listen to redbook it was worth a try. I'll let you know what i think soon.


cool. which model did you get?


----------



## 7ryder

mauriceg said:


> o
> That is true, this is so dificult....




It gets more difficult, an ADS/1 just came up for sale on Audiogon $1700USD


----------



## estreeter

jexby said:


> now awaiting for the blow by blow teardown of the "just published"
> Absolute Sound 2015 Editor's Choice:  DACS Under $1000
> article.


 
  
 Cant see anything here that makes my heart race, but have at it DAC fans. Not sure I agree with TAS that the ~$800 Rotel is at 'box-store prices', but I'm willing to bet that each of the manufacturers represented here has an ad in the current edition of TAS : that's business, but it's painfully obvious business. 
  
 http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2015-editors-choice-dacs-under-1000/


----------



## estreeter

@purrin, apologies for this detour into the murky depths of history but you seem to have a pretty good understanding of what went down in the 90s viz-a-viz chipsets, specifically:
  
_*Sonic Frontiers SFD-1mk2  **SE+ upgrades **(AES3 via OR5 + Wyrd)*_
_UltraAnalog module based DAC. Warmer, bassier. Slightly rolled in last octave. Slightly muddy and dirty sounding compared to above because of tube output stage.* However bass still manages good pitch differentiation. Better soundstage than almost anything below only truly beaten by the Gen V's soundstage. Incredible microdynamics and very good plankton. Despite its slight deficiencies, I'd take it over anything below._
  
 I believe the chip in that DAC was the D20400A, augmented by some HDCD technology from none other than Spectral's Keith Johnson. Wadia bought out UltraAnalog but interestingly, Wadia dont seem to have actually used any of the UltraAnalog chips for their 'reference' CDPs and DACs, relying instead on various iterations in the PCM170* line from TI - the gossips have it that Wadia buried the UA technology simply to stop competitors having access to it. 
  
 Whatever transpired with UltraAnalog, Spectral released the SDR-2000 Pro at around the same time as your SFD-1mk2 - they still have the product page for it and it's like a time capsule, particularly given their predictions for HDCD. Specs-wise, it seems very similar to the Sonic Frontiers DAC, but the most interesting part of the Spectral blurb for me is their complete rejection of the changes they could see happening around them at the time. Op-amps / ICs / cheap mass market parts in expensive casework - I guess we've seen most of the same rhetoric from various designers over the years, but it's clear that Spectral dont just release a new model every year to keep up with the Joneses and they dont hand out review units like candy to the audio press. If they do seem to have some Kool-Aid onboard, it's in the Naim / Linn style insistence that you need to hear an all-Spectral system to understand just how good their gear is, but for a company like that to survive for so long with almost no print reviews is outstanding. Not sure how much longer you'll maintain an interest in vintage DACs now that you seem to have found your 'unicorn', but if Redbook is the _raison d'etre_ for the R2R ladder DACs, it would be fantastic to be able to hear your thoughts on the SDR-2000. 
  
 (Apologies for the length of this rant, but many of us vividly recall where we were in 1995 and it's sad to think that the industry took a sharp left when it would _seem_ that wasnt in the best interests of their customers)


----------



## djcarpentier

kugino said:


> cool. which model did you get?




Found a m22a with balanced outputs. Mint shape. Feeding it via spdif from my asus xonar stx sound card. Was thinking of picking up the DIP classic as well for jitter improvement, but the stx is so much newer it should have better jitter rejection. Should have it on hand in less than a week.


----------



## mikek200

stefanjk said:


> Can't be warm up...will be at at stable temp way before 24 hours.  Not that it matters and I'm getting one anyway, but I don't like believings that seem to violate physics.  Can't imagine though what else it could be.  I'd rather believe break-in, with faster warm up after that.


 
 Not that I would question Purrin,is this a typo.."24-48 hours warm up time,minimum".".One week for best results.?"


----------



## drez

It's common opinion that digital component clocks take time to settle - and to be honest this hobby has involved a lot of my own personal observations which violate my understanding of physics.


----------



## jogfi2002

drez said:


> It's common opinion that digital component clocks take time to settle - and to be honest this hobby has involved a lot of my own personal observations which violate my understanding of physics.


 
 So you think there's something cannot be explained by physics in this hobby?


----------



## drez

jogfi2002 said:


> So you think there's something cannot be explained by physics in this hobby?


 
  
 Nope, just that my own prior understanding of science has failed to explain my own observations.  
  
 Maybe someone else with better understanding of electronics will have less surprises, but possibly just as many.
  
 (Not saying science cannot measure stuff, just that prior knowledge can fail to predict things)


----------



## kugino

djcarpentier said:


> Found a m22a with balanced outputs. Mint shape. Feeding it via spdif from my asus xonar stx sound card. Was thinking of picking up the DIP classic as well for jitter improvement, but the stx is so much newer it should have better jitter rejection. Should have it on hand in less than a week.


 

 cool...i'm looking around for a 22c b/c i want the preamp...i have a cheapo gustard usb converter i'll use into the monarchy if/when i find one. interested to hear your impressions when you receive it.


----------



## coli

jogfi2002 said:


> So you think there's something cannot be explained by physics in this hobby?


 
 Science is wrong.


----------



## kugino

coli said:


> Science is wrong.


 

 good reading for those interested in science, theories, philosophy of science, etc. dr. cartwright is badass...
  
 http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198247044.001.0001/acprof-9780198247043


----------



## coli

kugino said:


> good reading for those interested in science, theories, philosophy of science, etc. dr. cartwright is badass...
> 
> http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198247044.001.0001/acprof-9780198247043


 
 Heh, yeah, and here's a great quote I've been saving:
  
 "Some people props up science to religion-like worship, to the degree that they won't believe something they see with their own eyes, because it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. There's a bigger picture reality than what mainstream western science is presenting."


----------



## estreeter

jogfi2002 said:


> So you think there's something cannot be explained by physics in this hobby?


 
  
 Definitely _If it all came down to measurements, why would any of us want anything more than the O2/ODAC combo_ ? Unfortunately, I dont have the background in behavioural psychology or philosophy to explain the difference between the way the world works and the way we perceive it. I actually like the way purrin describes he favorite vanilla ice-cream and I like the impressions he has posted of the Yggy, but the physics of both confectionary, my olfactory senses and boutique audio remain the same : its my perception that matters. Technically, I live in a country which is under martial law but I believe I'm free to come and go as I choose - again, perception. Stock markets - and by extension the world economy - rely on it, politicians spend a lot of time cultivating it and I'd like to think scientists are prepared to dismiss it n their search for whatever is really happening in the universe. I'm happy for the planet to be curved, considerably less so for the ground beneath this building to exhibit any noticeable curvature  
  
 In a world dominated by science, this would have been demolished many years ago. Fortunately the human mind isnt a PCB - yet.


----------



## purrin

There's a moderate path. I like to see measurements, but if they don't correlate to what i hear, I won't bother with them.
  
 There's a lot of stuff that makes no sense. Like why do CD transports have their own sound? Or What does the Wyrd work?


----------



## Yoga

estreeter said:


> Definitely _If it all came down to measurements, why would any of us want anything more than the O2/ODAC combo_ ? Unfortunately, I dont have the background in behavioural psychology or philosophy to explain the difference between the way the world works and the way we perceive it. I actually like the way purrin describes he favorite vanilla ice-cream and I like the impressions he has posted of the Yggy, but the physics of both confectionary, my olfactory senses and boutique audio remain the same : its my perception that matters. Technically, I live in a country which is under martial law but I believe I'm free to come and go as I choose - again, perception. Stock markets - and by extension the world economy - rely on it, politicians spend a lot of time cultivating it and I'd like to think scientists are prepared to dismiss it n their search for whatever is really happening in the universe. I'm happy for the planet to be curved, considerably less so for the ground beneath this building to exhibit any noticeable curvature
> 
> In a world dominated by science, this would have been demolished many years ago. Fortunately the human mind isnt a PCB - yet.


 
  
 Well said. I have a Masters in Advanced Comp Sci (digital data storage and transport being a key element), and also a background in psychology/neurology/physics, and one thing is certain; *regardless of objective measurements, the observer influences the outcome*. 
  
 In the same way a sugar pill (placebo) can heal a disease, a USB cable - or even a crystal sitting atop a dac - can influence the observers perception. The senses (in this case hearing), and how our personality (mind) perceives them, *is not objective*. *It's subjective and open to variation*. Not just from person to person, but also within a single person. Countless studies have been performed in this area over the years. That's a profound notion that the vast majority who argue online are not aware of.
  
 People are - quite literally - wired differently, and if they want to hear a change, they will (or not). It's also *impossible* to prove (or not) what - and more importantly, _how_ - someone hears (or sees, or tastes) differently to you. Hence arguing about objective numbers, waves and specs is rather fruitless :¬)
  
 Enjoy what you enjoy, and let others enjoy what they enjoy. Everyone wins.


----------



## drez

I think that a lot of people are aware of the frailties of human perception, however in this hobby we need to learn to work with it, and even trust it enough not to immediately dismiss observations which seem to fall outside what we expect. In most cases it's all we have to go off, untill we find a way to measure the phenomenon that correlates to our observations, or else our observation changes (more often than not these days, my observation does not change, but rather the way I interpret and classify what I hear). Even where there is objective data, we need to understand how that correlates to a listening experience, or whether the measurements are adequate.


----------



## Clemmaster

purrin said:


> There's a moderate path. I like to see measurements, but if they don't correlate to what i hear, I won't bother with them.
> 
> There's a lot of stuff that makes no sense. Like why do CD transports have their own sound? Or What does the Wyrd work?


 
  
 Stereophile published an article about that. The transport's sound _seemed to_ correlate with the jitter profile of its output.
 Meaning that a given transport would sort of impose its jitter profile (its own _sound character_)  to the different DACs (as measured at their output), to some degree. That degree depends on the DAC's own jitter reduction capacity.
  
 I thought it was interesting.


----------



## reddog

clemmaster said:


> Stereophile published an article about that. The transport's sound _seemed to_ correlate with the jitter profile of its output.
> Meaning that a given transport would sort of impose its jitter profile (its own _sound character_)  to the different DACs (as measured at their output), to some degree. That degree depends on the DAC's own jitter reduction capacity.
> 
> I thought it was interesting.



+1 extremely interesting, CD transport can manifest its jitter profile, very interesting indeed. Would like to see a mathematical model explain it.


----------



## Tachikoma

If a measurement doesn't correlate with observation, you're probably measuring the wrong quantity.


----------



## coli

LOL, yes, the O2/ODAC, I highly recommend that "thing" to anyone who believe in measurements. It's amazing how that things takes away all emotions from songs...


----------



## nicolo

Emotions in songs
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Are you kidding with that subjectivist crap?
  
 The only purpose of songs is to see how components measure. That's it.


----------



## mikek200

coli said:


> LOL, yes, the O2/ODAC, I highly recommend that "thing" to anyone who believe in measurements. It's amazing how that things takes away all emotions from songs...


 
 Brother,you may want to get your ears checked.
  
 I used the 02 & the HD600,with the Yulong DA8 dac,for over a year,and I found it very neutral,and worked on almost all of my other headphones
 I had some long,very enjoyable, listening sessions with the above combo
 It is also,rated ,as one of the top amp/dacs on head-fi.


----------



## coli

mikek200 said:


> Brother,you may want to get your ears checked.
> 
> I used the 02 & the HD600,with the Yulong DA8 dac,for over a year,and I found it very neutral,and worked on almost all of my other headphones
> I had some long,very enjoyable, listening sessions with the above combo
> It is also,rated ,as one of the top amp/dacs on head-fi.


 
 I was talking about the O2/ODAC combo. It does not surprise me that guy went into hiding, lol.
  
 Also I hope the Soekris doesn't suffer the same fate, I already found a couple posts complaining about the sound.


----------



## Hansotek

coli said:


> LOL, yes, the O2/ODAC, I highly recommend that "thing" to anyone who believe in measurements. It's amazing how that things takes away all emotions from songs...



In the context of the last few comments, that sounds like textbook confirmation bias to me. A lot of people say that about the O2/ODAC - but in my experience listening to the actual equipment, I haven't found that to be true at all.


----------



## mikek200

coli said:


> I was talking about the O2/ODAC combo. It does not surprise me that guy went into hiding, lol.
> 
> Also I hope the Soekris doesn't suffer the same fate, I already found a couple posts complaining about the sound.


 
 Yes,I was talking about the 02+odac as well


----------



## prot

hansotek said:


> In the context of the last few comments, that sounds like textbook confirmation bias to me. A lot of people say that about the O2/ODAC - but in my experience listening to the actual equipment, I haven't found that to be true at all.




Same here. That combo simply sounds neutral. It doesnt take anything off your music it just plays whatever it receives. May be too bright with some cans but that's not exactly its fault. Sounds very good with darker cans like senn 650. 
Not so many ppl like neutral though. And that's ok. But to say that the Odac suks simply because you dont like neutral sound is not ok.


----------



## mikek200

Some amps give some musical color to the music,some headphones do the same thing.
 I for one ,try to stay with what the original music,that came off the CD.,
 I prefer a neutral SQ.
  
 It's all a matter of personnel taste,I let my ears tell me what is good,and what is,not so good.
  
 I apologize ,if my above comment was taken the wrong way,.
  
 Mike


----------



## skeptic

purrin said:


> I haven't spoken to misterrogers on the soekris discrete r2r boards - he did offer some impressions on some other web forum out there. The concerns he has right now are with filters and power supplies. I'd give him some time to tweak it. He has said good things about it, but I haven't heard "highly resolving" yet.
> I can definitely see a good $1200-$1500 custom DAC built on the soekris boards.


 

  
 Thanks for the reply!  I've been following along in the other thread and will most likely try my hand at the build at some point, although it sounds like it will be a long term effort to do a first rate job of it.  I understand from MR that to really optimize the build, he highly recommends participating in some upcoming GB's for reflector-D boards to power the i2s source and +3v isolators, plus an additional regulated +-12v supply for the rest of the board.  
  
 If you happen to have a chance to hear one in the meanwhile, would love to hear your thoughts on it.  I'd expect you are right that the yaggy will be better overall, but I would be delighted if the ultimate conclusion was that a proper soekris build outclasses most of the widely recommended sigma delta options.
  
 Quote:


priidik said:


> Such impressions would be priceless. MrRogers has quite a setup around his Soekris board too, further fortifying its performance. As much faith that i have on the dam1021, i doubt it challenges Yggy straight on. Fortunately i will hear them side by side myself sooner or later anyways
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  Look forward to reading about it when you've got yours up and running!  You went with the 2% board right?
  


estreeter said:


> I really like the fact that the DVR case used in the diyuino build doesnt look like something nwavguy threw together while he was testing a design. While its obvious that he has repurposed some of the cutouts in the casework, the end result looks neat - I cant solder to save myself, but I look forward to hearing more on this project.


 
  
 Totally agree!  When I saw those photos, I started kicking myself for throwing out an old Tivo last year that probably would have made for a super easy chassis.  If you're willing to forego fancy power supplies, I'm not sure lack of comfort with soldering would be a big hindrance to you actually.  The dac board is premade, and you can run it straight off an ac trafo, with something like an amanero usb (also fully soldered/assembled), that draws power from usb and outputs the other 3v you need to feed the isolators.  All you're really talking about is running the wires that connect these pieces together, connecting the inputs and outputs, and the trafo to the IEC inlet and power switch.  If I could find a usb to i2s board that was like the amanero, but gave you the option of running off an external supply, I would probably try the simple version first and then decide about whether or not to go whole hog on three regulated psu's.


----------



## skeptic

mikek200 said:


> Some amps give some musical color to the music,some headphones do the same thing.
> I for one ,try to stay with what the original music,that came off the CD.,
> I prefer a neutral SQ.
> 
> It's all a matter of personnel taste,I let my ears tell me what is good,and what is,not so good.


 
  
 I think this is true for all of us really.  The real issue is defining what constitutes neutral SQ and what amp topologies bring us the closest to natural live sound, which almost certainly varies between different listeners who have different sensitivities to different types of distortion components.  
  
 The unfortunate part of the o2 revolution on head-fi is that somewhere in the process (probably starting with nwavguy's site), the significance of basic audio spectrum measurements got overstated and vastly oversimplified.  While a lot of aspects of sound were thoughtfully explained on his blog, the use of negative feedback to hit target specs, and the pros and cons of that approach, were not fully disclosed.
  
 I only stumbled on this article from Nelson Pass recently, but I think it is must read material for anyone trying to sort through all this information.  In essence, along with supporting measurements, Pass explains how negative feedback in amplifiers like the o2 - decrease total THD, reduce output impedance, and improves other standard audio measurements, but at the cost of adding new complex distortion components/nonlinear distortions, particularly of high order, to the signal that a significant percentage of people find to be more unpleasant and unnatural than certain other types of distortion (e.g. the low order distortions more prevalent in nonfeedback amps).  Pass designs amps that use feedback and amps that do not, so I see this as a purely informative rather than biased account of these design choices.  https://passlabs.com/articles/audio-distortion-and-feedback  
  
 Further, as I understand this, it offers a pretty clean and simple explanation for the general bias against opamp based amplifiers.  Opamps can only operate in a linear mode (i.e. in audio amplifiers) when they are fed negative feedback.  So these distortion characteristics are likely to be present in all chip amps.  For some listeners, I suspect these amps do in fact sound better than higher THD discrete or tube designs.  For others, the nonlinear distortions and disproportionate high order distortions will make them sound worse.


----------



## prot

skeptic said:


> I think this is true for all of us really.  The real issue is defining what constitutes neutral SQ and what amp topologies bring us the closest to natural live sound, which almost certainly varies between different listeners who have different sensitivities to different types of distortion components.
> 
> The unfortunate part of the o2 revolution on head-fi is that somewhere in the process (probably starting with nwavguy's site), the significance of basic audio spectrum measurements got overstated and vastly oversimplified.  While a lot of aspects of sound were thoughtfully explained on his blog, the use of negative feedback to hit target specs, and the pros and cons of that approach, were not fully disclosed.
> 
> ...




Very interesting link, thank you. I am a fan of the O2 and I do not think it takes anything out of the music or sounds distorted. For me the only issue is that it's kinda harsh/bright and brings the worst out of bright cans.


----------



## evillamer

Audio-gd new dac:
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DAC1911/DAC19EN.htm
  
 PCM1704, Single ended, USD$750(first 100 units)


----------



## conquerator2

evillamer said:


> Audio-gd new dac:
> http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DAC1911/DAC19EN.htm
> 
> PCM1704, Single ended, USD$750(first 100 units)


 
 Yup - http://www.head-fi.org/t/759872/new-audio-gd-dac-19-10th-anniversary-edition#post_11433260


----------



## thegunner100

I've used the O2 amp and the ODAC separately, but never at the same time. The Leckerton UHA-6s mkii (with ADA4627-1A) KILLED the O2 when used with the UERMs, HD600, and HD800s. The odac on the other hand, sounded decent when I had it. It was nice for a portable, but not really good enough for a desktop setup imo. Ever since the Geek Out was released... there's not much reason to get a ODAC unless you can find one for very cheap. The GO 450 is simply better in every way. 
  
 If I had to venture a guess, the GO 450 as an amp/dac would probably slaughter the O2/ODAC combo.


----------



## tomb

skeptic said:


> mikek200 said:
> 
> 
> > Some amps give some musical color to the music,some headphones do the same thing.
> ...


 
  
 Interesting ...
  
 This isn't about chip-based amps, but still pertinent.  I have direct experience in measuring two tube amps with almost identical circuitry, except for the localized tube circuit and tube types. One measured almost a magnitude less in distortion (as in 0.034% vs. 0.198%), yet the higher distortion amp sounded better in all aspects with all headphones tested.  IMD was similar difference - 0.040% vs. 0.319%.  Noise, crosstalk, dynamic range were all within a couple of dB of each other.   It wasn't really that close in listening, though.  As if, "What's wrong this amp?  It measures better, but sounds worse."
  
 Both of these amps had zero feedback, so there's still more to measuring - or a lack of understanding of what those measurements show, rather.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

thegunner100 said:


> I've used the O2 amp and the ODAC separately, but never at the same time. The Leckerton UHA-6s mkii (with ADA4627-1A) KILLED the O2 when used with the UERMs, HD600, and HD800s. The odac on the other hand, sounded decent when I had it. It was nice for a portable, but not really good enough for a desktop setup imo. Ever since the Geek Out was released... there's not much reason to get a ODAC unless you can find one for very cheap. The GO 450 is simply better in every way.
> 
> If I had to venture a guess, the GO 450 as an amp/dac would probably slaughter the O2/ODAC combo.


 
 Bill P. suggested I look at the Leckerton. How does it drive orthos? Looking at the specs (which I know isn't everything), it would seem to not have adequate current. Is that what you use the Magni for?  Thanks~


----------



## purrin

On O2/ODAC:
  
 ODAC is OK sounding if fed good USB.
  
 O2 is pretty craptastic in the overall scheme of things:
  

O2 adds crap that isn't there. Errors of commission. The bit of stridency. Rolling the voltage gain op-amp can warm up the sound, but that stridency is always there. Also, there is a bit of veil to the sound compared to better amps (of which I can name many many of them).
O2 subtracts a lot of stuff that is there, especially microdynamics, small changes in volume, granularity. Microdetail which is smothered by the veiled. Compared to good stuff, the O2 sounds flat and boring.
  
 The O2 at $99 is a good price for what it is, but let's not believe it's a great or even good sounding amp. It's a $99 amp that sounds like a $49 amp. It is somewhat fair to call it an uncolored neutral sounding amp, but something uncolored and neutral sounding can just as well suck. An HD600 out of a Torpedo or Valhalla2 destroys in O2 in terms of conveying realism. As someone above said, O2 takes emotions away from music. And no, neither of those tube amps are colored, bloomy, warm, tubey, if the the right tubes are used.
  
 In the end, the comparison needs to be relative to other equipment. People who think the O2 is "good" or "transparent" sounding haven't heard anything better or don't have a chain (headphones or source) able to take advantage of a superior amp. People who think O2 is competitive with superior amps are suffering from serious serious confirmation bias because of select measurements (which don't measure the right thing.) Yes, confirmation bias works both ways. This is why I listen to headphones before I take measurements.
  
 The O2 is a fairy cheap amp that sounds like a fairly cheap amp. No more, no less.


----------



## wahsmoh

purrin said:


> On O2/ODAC:
> 
> ODAC is OK sounding if fed good USB.
> 
> ...


 

 It uses op amps.. that is just like a no-no for anything I plan on listening to


----------



## estreeter

Let's cut nwavguy some slack - I never considered him a 'genius', but I admire the fact that he had the guts to make his fledgling designs public. He might not be in the same class as someone like Bruno Putzeys, but they both gave their critics something to chew on, and a lot of it must taste like humble pie. I vividly recall a forum post from a know-it-all DIYer who read Putzey's white paper and declared that it would never even get to the working prototype stage - funny how those guys never come back to accept defeat. 
  
 http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/profiles/nwavguy-the-audio-genius-who-vanished
  
 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2014/09/nad-masters-series-m22-hypex-ncore-for-the-rest-of-us/


----------



## tomb

estreeter said:


> Let's cut nwavguy some slack - I never considered him a 'genius', but I admire the fact that he had the guts to make his fledgling designs public. He might not be in the same class as someone like Bruno Putzeys, but they both gave their critics something to chew on, and a lot of it must taste like humble pie. I vividly recall a forum post from a know-it-all DIYer who read Putzey's white paper and declared that it would never even get to the working prototype stage - funny how those guys never come back to accept defeat.
> 
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/profiles/nwavguy-the-audio-genius-who-vanished
> 
> http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2014/09/nad-masters-series-m22-hypex-ncore-for-the-rest-of-us/


 
  
_I think most of us object to the way he went about it.*_  He first made his name by taking that DScope his employer let him borrow (my conjecture, admittedly) and tried to fault a number of other products - including DIY-ones.  At least in the case of one particular DIY product, he wasn't even measuring it properly.  As for the rest, it's a bit like picking daisies.  Anyone with experience in the audio industry knows that measurements are often exaggerated.  It was easy to find a few such products, burn them publically, and then make a name for himself.  It also exploited the large numbers of noobs who have blinding faith in measurements.  (It takes some life experience to realize that not everything is so easily quantifiable.)
  
 It looks like he at least updated his domain registration again - on 3/10/2015.  Maybe he's planning a comeback when he retires from his present employer.  Or perhaps he's been saving his money to purchase his own DScope (more conjecture again).
  
 * There is a long tradition of building reputation by creating good designs or offering great products.  It's not as easy to gain a reputation this way, but better in the long run.


----------



## thegunner100

liu junyuan said:


> Bill P. suggested I look at the Leckerton. How does it drive orthos? Looking at the specs (which I know isn't everything), it would seem to not have adequate current. Is that what you use the Magni for?  Thanks~


 
 Getting a little offtopic, but yes. The leckerton is simply okay for orthos, nothing outstanding. It helps to have it left on stock gain settings for orthos but was otherwise just fine with the paradox slants and he-560s. It might help to use the AD8620 for orthos since that will output more power.
  
 If you want a cheap amp for orthos, Magni 2 uber is probably the way to go.


----------



## justsven

Owning an ODAC and a Vali, wondering if it is worthy to upgrade or side-grade to Modi 2 U.


----------



## OJNeg

> Originally Posted by *tomb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It looks like he at least updated his domain registration again - on 3/10/2015.  Maybe he's planning a comeback when he retires from his present employer.  Or perhaps he's been saving his money to purchase his own DScope (more conjecture again).


 
  
 More likely an auto-renew


----------



## Hansotek

justsven said:


> Owning an ODAC and a Vali, wondering if it is worthy to upgrade or side-grade to Modi 2 U.



You should upgrade your ODAC with a Schiit Wyrd instead. IMO, this combo catupults ODAC several spots up the rankings. Honestly, it sounds at least as good as, if not better than the AMB Gamma 2.


----------



## conquerator2

+1 for the Wyrd


----------



## justsven

hansotek said:


> You should upgrade your ODAC with a Schiit Wyrd instead. IMO, this combo catupults ODAC several spots up the rankings. Honestly, it sounds at least as good as, if not better than the AMB Gamma 2.


 
 Thanks, I should get one. But maybe I should also replace ODAC with modi for aesthetic reason, two schiit stacks with an ODAC looks very odd for me.
  
 From what I read of their FAQs, Wyrd mostly improves crappy usb power, which may benefits ODAC and MODI, but modi 2 uses external power adapter, so my question is, does Wyrd improve Modi 2u performance?


----------



## purrin

estreeter said:


> Let's cut nwavguy some slack - I never considered him a 'genius', but I admire the fact that he had the guts to make his fledgling designs public. He might not be in the same class as someone like Bruno Putzeys, but they both gave their critics something to chew on, and a lot of it must taste like humble pie. I vividly recall a forum post from a know-it-all DIYer who read Putzey's white paper and declared that it would never even get to the working prototype stage - funny how those guys never come back to accept defeat.


 
  
 No, that guy is a turd. The real geniuses were people like Tanget, Morsel, Chu Moy, etc. who came up with the Cmoy, MINT, META, PPA chip and buffer based amps - followed up by the likes of AMB, Cavalli, Gilmore with much more intricate and advanced designs.
  
 All nwavguy did was put the volume pot between the stage which was a horrible, horrible dumb idea - do you know how many random HF'ers PM'd me on the issues this caused? The gain in many instances had to be set much lower - probably because spec sheets were wrong, opamp variation, etc. This design issue was discussed but ignored by nwavguy because wanted a 3-4db lower noise floor. Too much masturbation / measurbation.
  
 I too built an headamp - based on CHA44 utilizing a similar opamps (same output). It sounded better than O2. This was before nwavguy. The point is, anyone can build an opamp based headamp.
  
 The genius of nwavguy was with his marketing schitck and dscope shlong. I'm sure he's made $300,000 by now on ODAC sales.


----------



## evanft

justsven said:


> Thanks, I should get one. But maybe I should also replace ODAC with modi for aesthetic reason, two schiit stacks with an ODAC looks very odd for me.
> 
> From what I read of their FAQs, Wyrd mostly improves crappy usb power, which may benefits ODAC and MODI, but modi 2 uses external power adapter, so my question is, does Wyrd improve Modi 2u performance?


 
  
 Many have reported that the Wyrd improved DACs that are wall-powered. It's not just a power supply, it's also a reclocker.

 I would just get a regular Modi 2 and a Wyrd if you don't need optical and coax.


----------



## purrin

justsven said:


> Thanks, I should get one. But maybe I should also replace ODAC with modi for aesthetic reason, two schiit stacks with an ODAC looks very odd for me.
> 
> From what I read of their FAQs, Wyrd mostly improves crappy usb power, which may benefits ODAC and MODI, but modi 2 uses external power adapter, so my question is, does Wyrd improve Modi 2u performance?


 
  
 ODAC + Wyrd is pretty good.
  


justsven said:


> From what I read of their FAQs, Wyrd mostly improves crappy usb power, which may benefits ODAC and MODI, but modi 2 uses external power adapter, so my question is, does Wyrd improve Modi 2u performance?


 
  
 I suspect there could be some improvements on the USB repeater / discombobulator / reclocker. Let me plug this combo in and let you know. I wasn't a fan of the original Modi, but Modi 2 Uber is really good.


----------



## hans030390

In regards to measurements, neutrality, transparency, etc., I ate up the ODAC/O2 stuff when it was fresh on the scene. Then I heard a few products that also measured excellently in all the same areas (below the supposed point of audibility), and I was able to detect non-subtle differences. I had to throw a lot of what I thought I knew out the window.


----------



## Hansotek

justsven said:


> hansotek said:
> 
> 
> > You should upgrade your ODAC with a Schiit Wyrd instead. IMO, this combo catupults ODAC several spots up the rankings. Honestly, it sounds at least as good as, if not better than the AMB Gamma 2.
> ...



I don't know that for sure, but the power for the usb component isn't necessarily powered by the AC power adaptor. This is true even on Schiit's more expensive designs. So, I strongly doubt they've reinvented the wheel on Modi 2U... I'm sure they would've mentioned it in the product description, if they did something so radical... It wouldn't make sense not to market it. 

Still, I would imagine components that rely *solely* on USB power benefit most, performance-wise (if all other things are equal). You'd be shocked how muddy and disorganized the ODAC sounds (on it's own) after you listen to it with Wyrd for a couple of weeks. It cured my upgrade-itis for sure.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> ODAC + Wyrd is pretty good.
> 
> 
> I suspect there could be some improvements on the USB repeater / discombobulator / reclocker. Let me plug this combo in and let you know. *I wasn't a fan of the original Modi,* but Modi 2 Uber is really good.


 
  
 Really ? It was *the best $200 DAC you'd ever heard* a few months back  
  
_*Schiit Wyrd+Modi (USB) *




_
_Astoundingly good for the price. The Modi by itself can sound thin at times depending upon USB power quality. The Modi also has a tendency to sound imprecise or lacking in focus. The Wyrd solves these issues. 1+1 = 3 in this case. While not as good as a Bifrost Uber w/ Gen 2, the Wyrd+Modi is an very involving listen with good dynamics. While it doesn't resolve, or have the focus, smoothness, refined quality of the the best DACs, it certainly does not sound flat and boring. The Wyrd+Modi was able to keep me up until 1pm listening to music, and few DACs can do that. Hands down the best $200 DAC I've ever heard._
  
 OK - that was with the Wyrd, which apparently also catapults the otherwise mediocre ODAC into the stratosphere. Granted, Modi 2 Uber + Wyrd is still _chump change_ for many here, but then I'm the guy who felt the same way about iFi's reasonably priced iUSBPower and you've since intimated that their gear is junk. You'll forgive me if I have cause for hesitation before I pull the pin on any more toys.


----------



## EraserXIV

The Wyrd + Modi2U has been working great for me, it's one of only 2 DACs I've purchased where I didn't spend a week trying to convince myself I didn't waste my money (the other being the Gamma 2). I could happily live with this.


----------



## purrin

estreeter said:


> Really ? It was *the best $200 DAC you'd ever heard* a few months back
> 
> _*Schiit Wyrd+Modi (USB) *
> 
> ...


 
  
 Obviously my above statement does not contradict what I said - that I did not care for the Modi (implication is by itself and in the context of discussion with Wyrd in post #3146). That's awesome you like the iUSBPower. I haven't heard the $199 iUSBPower (not a DAC), so I cannot say. More precisely, I said that I didn't care for any of the iDSD DACs. This is not surprising because I don't like any of the PCM179x DACs. Just this weird soft fuzzy haze of limp-dick sound. It's all relative, maybe others might feel I prefer a more "clinical" sound.
  
 Finally, I don't understand why I need to forgive you. I'm not Jesus Christ - I don't have those powers of wiping your slate clean; also you are free to do or think what you wish.


----------



## jexby

purrin said:


> Finally, I don't understand why I need to forgive you. I'm not Jesus Christ - I don't have those powers of wiping your slate clean; also you are free to do or think what you wish.




Wait What? Fer real?
head-fi is now dead to me.


----------



## tomb

ojneg said:


> > Originally Posted by *tomb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > It looks like he at least updated his domain registration again - on 3/10/2015.  Maybe he's planning a comeback when he retires from his present employer.  Or perhaps he's been saving his money to purchase his own DScope (more conjecture again).
> 
> ...


 

 Yep - true that.  Still, if it was hitting his wallet and he was concerned, he'd go in and cancel it.  Or does domain registration renewal occur annually regardless of whether several years have been paid?  I've never looked at mine enough to tell.


----------



## tomb

hans030390 said:


> In regards to measurements, neutrality, transparency, etc., I ate up the ODAC/O2 stuff when it was fresh on the scene. Then I heard a few products that also measured excellently in all the same areas (below the supposed point of audibility), and I was able to detect non-subtle differences. I had to throw a lot of what I thought I knew out the window.


 

 A great pleasure to read your post, sir!


----------



## coli

hans030390 said:


> In regards to measurements, neutrality, transparency, etc., I ate up the ODAC/O2 stuff when it was fresh on the scene. Then I heard a few products that also measured excellently in all the same areas (below the supposed point of audibility), and I was able to detect non-subtle differences. I had to throw a lot of what I thought I knew out the window.


 
  
 Me too, I didn't know what I was doing before so fancy charts it is, frequency response, blah blah blah.
  
 Nowadays, if I read review, I mainly look for emotional words. If there's politely worded reservations, they are a huge red flag.


----------



## Armaegis

tomb said:


> _I think most of us object to the way he went about it.*_  He first made his name by taking that DScope his employer let him borrow (my conjecture, admittedly) and tried to fault a number of other products - including DIY-ones.  At least in the case of one particular DIY product, he wasn't even measuring it properly.


 
  
 In some cases he also made outright challenges and tried to call people out, both designers and other high profile members of the community, on headfi as well as other audio sites. All bully tactics that really only served to bring more attention to him.


----------



## hans030390

Funny thing is, now I primarily listen to non-oversampling DACs, sometimes the sort that don't measure well even for a NOS DAC (enter objectivist heart attack)! And I'm transitioning to tube amps, it seems. The me from years ago chasing the O2/ODAC would have been disappointed in the now-me-with-garbage-ears. I like to utilize and understand measurements as best as I can, but I follow my ears in the end.


----------



## estreeter

coli said:


> Me too, I didn't know what I was doing before so fancy charts it is, frequency response, blah blah blah.
> 
> Nowadays, if I read review, I mainly look for emotional words. If there's politely worded reservations, they are a huge red flag.


 
  
 They can get as emotional as they like - until I hear my music with my rig through my ears, its all going to be a bit of a crapshoot. Damning a component with faint praise is vintage Michael Fremer territory and he was notorious for it whenever Atkinson lumped him with the review of a digital component : it pays to know if the reviewer has his heart in it or if he's just looking to pay his rent.


----------



## czy6412

So what is the place of Neko Audio D100 MKII in the lost of ranking.


----------



## purrin

armaegis said:


> In some cases he also made outright challenges and tried to call people out, both designers and other high profile members of the community, on headfi as well as other audio sites. All bully tactics that really only served to bring more attention to him.


 
  
 nwavguy compared his O2 to AMBs mini3. The comparison was not appropriate because of several reasons: 1) the O2 had a larger footprint; hence had real-estate for an extra battery and higher voltage swing; 2) by having a larger footprint, the O2 failed in one of its purported design goals: portability.


----------



## purrin

czy6412 said:


> So what is the place of Neko Audio D100 MKII in the lost of ranking.


 
  
 I don't know if I have heard the MkII or not. Personally I was not a big fan of of the mk1. I don't like how the Burr-Brown delta-sigma chips sound like and I also believe the DAC chips need a good active stage rather than being coupled with a transformer. It's a warm sounding DAC. The bass is a bit slow, mushy, and syrupy. Lacks resolution. Overall too forgiving of sound for my tastes. The D100 is the opposite of the Mytek. Some friends I know like it.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> nwavguy compared his O2 to AMBs mini3. The comparison was not appropriate because of several reasons: 1) the O2 had a larger footprint; hence had real-estate for an extra battery and higher voltage swing; 2) by having a larger footprint, the O2 failed in one of its purported design goals: portability.


 
  
 Yeah - at best its _transportable_, but I just found the ergonomics on my Epiphany Acoustics O2 so clunky after owning a couple of other portable amps that when the volume knob - not the pot, just the plastic knob - fell off i just threw the amp in the bin. I knew about the gain issue and had EA modify mine for less gain but that whole case just felt clunky - if he had given others the freedom to make their own modified versions under something similar to the Linux model I suspect we might have ended up with something a bit more ergonomic : even the Triad L3 seems like a more friendly form factor, albeit in a longer and heavier case than most portable amps.


----------



## prot

Oh wow, it's hunting season again for nwavguy & his devices? 
I find that somewhere between lame and disingenuous. Low and dumb personal jabs, lies, funny blabla about the sound of the odac/o2 ... are you enjoyin youself?

Was/is nw perfect? No. So what?! Of you "critics" who exactly did anything at least remotely comparable for the audio world and the average audio joe? That joe who will prolly never buy a $2000 component and who's constantly screwed by all sorts of snake oil specialists. Who of you took his time and used his tools to warn joe that device x & y are expensive scams? Who of you published a free design for a perfectly usable component? Dont rush with the answers, I'll be here all week. 

Is the odac or the o2 perfect or the best? No. So?! 
Maybe there are $50 amps that sound better as purrin says. Dont know, havent heard all. But I heard >$500 components that sound same or worse. Heck, heard 100000 systems that did sound worse. The o2/odac are indeed a bit harsh and bright sounding for audiophile standards... but most proaudio components I heard have a very similar signature: detailed, crisp, neutral. I'm using an o2 quite often and never heard a false note from it, never felt it robbed my music of anything. And yes it sounds more detailed that pretty much any tubeamp I ever heard...stronger, punchier bass too. And no matter how good they are, all tubes do have coloration. Some more some less but there is no uncolored tube. And I heard hundreds. I do not have the luxury of hearing all those compnents in my home as purrin. But I do travel a lot and visited more highend shops than I can remember. And after hearing hundreds of systems and components from the supermarket kind to the hundreds of thousands monsters I still use a o2 on the road. Why? Cause it's that good. And cause the 10k components sound 5% better tops.. if any. It is actually extremely rare that you hear a component which sounds clearly *better* than most else ... like the stax 009. The rest is just extra features, beautiful cases and different sound colorations. And I'm not gonna pay thousands for something like that. 

I'm also grateful to awguy for exposing some crapty components and for sharing his designs ... wish we had a lot more like him. And less nitpickers and shady 'critics'


----------



## Sorrodje

prot said:


> if any. It is actually extremely rare that you hear a component which sounds clearly *better* than most else ... like the stax 009.


 
  
 Sorry , but it's very debatable.
  
 I personaly think the debate is bit too hot around the O2. but there's a reason for that.  Nwavguy and his zealots pretend to own the truth : " the O2 is the neutrality, all well designed amps sound the same , only flawed and colored amp sound differently- people who prefer those amps just don't like the real sound blablabla".. that pisses me off more than the Sound of My O2 .
  
 I don't personaly think the 02 is so bright. More a bit unrefined and dull IMO . this lack of refinement and precision contributes to some roughness in the treble and overall lack of precision.. YMMV.
  
 Even I didn't design any amp or dac myself , I still have the right to give opinions about what I ear right ?  . I've never laid any egg but I can have an opinion about my fried eggs after all.


----------



## AustinValentine

prot said:


> Who of you published a free design for a perfectly usable component? Dont rush with the answers, I'll be here all week.


 
  
 Not me personally, but AMB Labs has done far more for the hobby with their DIY open build designs than Voldemort. Period. The same AMB mentioned not three posts above yours. The same AMB who had to kick VD off of their forums for generally being a rude jackass and then preceded to attack in the aforementioned Mini^3 comparison post.
  
 To quote AMB directly: "As for why *VOLDEMORT** was banned from this forum - it's all about his attitude and personal/character insults. That kind of behavior is not tolerated here. It's one thing to carry on a sane technical discussion, but he had _way_ crossed the line."
  
 There's a reason that he-who-shall-not-be-named has been banned from most well-traffic'ed audio forums - and it's not that he's unveiled some grand conspiracy at the heart of high-end audio. It's that he didn't engage with _anyone_ in good faith. Manufacturers, moderators, other users...it didn't matter. He walked into the hobby with a scope and a claim to gnostic knowledge and used them as an excuse to treat others poorly. If that's someone you want to admire, then that's good for you. But you shouldn't be surprised when communities express their relief at his absence and generally push back at those who imbue him with a legacy that's indexed towards salvation. 
  


prot said:


> Maybe there are $50 amps that sound better as purrin says. Dont know, havent heard all. But I heard >$500 components that sound same or worse. Heck, heard 100000 systems that did sound worse. The o2/odac are indeed a bit harsh and bright sounding for audiophile standards... but most proaudio components I heard have a very similar signature: detailed, crisp, neutral. I'm using an o2 quite often and never heard a false note from it, never felt it robbed my music of anything. And yes it sounds more detailed that pretty much any tubeamp I ever heard...stronger, punchier bass too. *....* It is actually extremely rare that you hear a component which sounds clearly *better* than most else ... like the stax 009. The rest is just extra features, beautiful cases and different sound colorations.


 
  
 To my ears, the Schiit Vali is more resolving, shows more microdetail, and is far less grainy. It's $119. 
  
 ----------
  
 So that I'm contributing something in terms of positive content related to this thread: I'll also reiterate that the ODAC is a good DAC though. Wyrd + ODAC is a great combo. Along the same lines, and I think that Purrin has a note on this on the original comparison list, but the Gamma2 is similarly improved by a USB-to-Coax converter. Even a relatively cheap converter like the Gustard U12 (~$150) makes the Gamma2 far more detailed and crisp. Its USB connection is its weak point. While it can helped slightly by a Wyrd, the real improvement comes from going SPDIF with it. 
  
 *Edit: Redacted to add more Voldemort.


----------



## prot

sorrodje said:


> Sorry , but it's very debatable.
> 
> I personaly think the debate is bit too hot around the O2. but there's a reason for that.  Nwavguy and his zealots pretend to own the truth : " the O2 is the neutrality, all well designed amps sound the same , only flawed and colored amp sound differently- people who prefer those amps just don't like the real sound blablabla".. that pisses me off more than the Sound of My O2 .
> 
> ...




Of course it is all debatable. And of course each one of us is entitled to have an opinion. Doesnt have to be a lame personal attack on nwav or his devices though.

 I'm not even the biggest fan of nwav or his odac/o2. I actually like the tubed firefly amp better and would use it if it was lighter and reasonably priced. However, that doesnt mean I will call him incompetent, charlatan or his devices cr*p like some ppl did above. That's uncalled for and lame. Doesnt help anyone either.

P.S.
if anyone can recommend an amp or amp/dac combo similar to the O2/odac (price, size, features) please do. Especially curious about tubed devices and/or generally 'rounder' than O2 without being overly colored or veiled.


----------



## AustinValentine

prot said:


> I'm not even the biggest fan of nwav or his odac/o2.


 
  


prot said:


> The o2/odac are indeed a bit harsh and bright sounding for audiophile standards... but most proaudio components I heard have a very similar signature: detailed, crisp, neutral. I'm using an o2 quite often and never heard a false note from it, never felt it robbed my music of anything. And yes it sounds more detailed that pretty much any tubeamp I ever heard...stronger, punchier bass too. ... after hearing hundreds of systems and components from the supermarket kind to the hundreds of thousands monsters I still use a o2 on the road.* Why? Cause it's that good.* And cause the 10k components sound 5% better tops.. if any. It is actually extremely rare that you hear a component which sounds clearly *better* than most else ... like the stax 009. The rest is just extra features, beautiful cases and different sound colorations.
> 
> I'm also *grateful to awguy* for exposing some crapty components and for sharing his designs ... *wish we had a lot more like him*. And less nitpickers and shady 'critics'


----------



## wahsmoh

Okay moving away now from the discussion of Nwavguy's ODAC and O2.
  
 I just got my Theta DS Pro Progeny v. A shipped to me today. First thing that surprised me was how much it weighed.. very very hefty and unlike most products under $500 you can buy today.
  
 Now.. onto the sound. Can't do it yet until I get my USB - SPDIF converter shipped to me.. I just ordered a Peachtree T1 USB-Coax because I do not plan on using my soundcard's SPDIF/toslink-out, I'd rather have one USB cable and a converter separating me from my music. Also I heard the toslink input was added as an afterthought back in the 90's compared to the coaxial inputs.
  
 Here is the back of it

 And part of the front


  
 These are from Ebay, I have only plugged it in to see if it powers up which it does. I just don't want to listen to it yet if I have to listen through the toslink input because I would rather wait than spoil it


----------



## purrin

Try it with toslink anyways. There's a computer/data buffer/DSP thing in there, so transport does tend to be less critical compared to some other DACs.


----------



## purrin

Try it with toslink anyways. There's a computer/data buffer/DSP thing in there, so transport does tend to be less critical compared to some other DACs.


----------



## purrin

Try it with toslink anyways. There's a computer/data buffer/DSP thing in there, so transport does tend to be less critical compared to some other DACs.


----------



## purrin

Try it with toslink anyways. There's a computer/data buffer/DSP thing in there, so transport does tend to be less critical compared to some other DACs.


----------



## wahsmoh

purrin said:


> Try it with toslink anyways. There's a computer/data buffer/DSP thing in there, so transport does tend to be less critical compared to some other DACs.


 

 Will do. I am going to give it a go tonight when I have some more free time.


----------



## prot

@AustinValentine
Didnt know about the AMB incident, that sounds pretty bad indeed. Maybe he was a jerk afterall ...still no incompetent charlatan. And there's nothin wrong with his devices..especially for the price. Heard one of those small schiit amps once ... didnt have the o2 to compare but thee was nothing special ... just another good small amp, prolly worth the reasonable price. 



wahsmoh said:


> Okay moving away now from the discussion of Nwavguy's ODAC and O2.
> 
> I just got my Theta DS Pro Progeny v. A shipped to me today. First thing that surprised me was how much it weighed.. very very hefty and unlike most products under $500 you can buy today.
> 
> ...




 Tried quite a long time to get one of those Dacs of yore on ebay EU but the Thetas and Parasounds are very rare and still very expensive around here ... not gonna pay €700-1000 for simple curiosity. Congrats and maybe you can compare it with some current models


----------



## mikek200

prot said:


> @AustinValentine
> Didnt know about the AMB incident, that sounds pretty bad indeed. Maybe he was a jerk afterall ...still no incompetent charlatan. And there's nothin wrong with his devices..especially for the price. Heard one of those small schiit amps once ... didnt have the o2 to compare but thee was nothing special ... just another good small amp, prolly worth the reasonable price.
> 
> Tried quite a long time to get one of those Dacs of yore on ebay EU but the Thetas and Parasounds are very rare and still very expensive around here ... not gonna pay €700-1000 for simple curiosity. Congrats and maybe you can compare it with some current models


 
 Do any of these dacs,from the 90's,still have parts available,if needed,or are these  newer models , with warranty??
 Correct me,if I'm wrong.


----------



## wahsmoh

prot said:


> @austinvelentine
> Didnt know about the AMB incident, that sounds pretty bad indeed. Maybe he was a jerk afterall ...still no incompetent charlatan. And there's nothin wrong with his devices..especially for the price.
> 
> Tried quite a long time to get one of those Dacs of yore on ebay EU but the Thetas and Parasounds are very rare and still very expensive around here ... not gonna pay €700-1000 for simple curiosity. Congrats and maybe you can compare it with some current models


 
 That's my goal. If I can get to SoCal CanJam 2015 I will compare it with the Gungnir and today's modern DACs.
  
 For now though it will be a single-ended shootout between the Bifrost Uber Gen2 USB and DS Pro Progeny A. I think that leads to an interesting match up because the Progeny A was designed as an affordable step-up to Theta DACs but in a single-ended form. The Schiit Bifrost Uber Gen 2 was designed by the same guy and offers the modern advantage of asynchronous USB. The Theta DS Pro Progeny A has two transformers, one for the digital section and one for the analog versus the single transformer of the Bifrost Uber. I think the Bifrost Uber managed to separate these two sections more with the Uber analog stage. I plan on listening to redbook and anything under 20/48khz to keep the sample rates fair in my comparisons.


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> ...still no incompetent charlatan.


 
  
 I'd say borderline. The PCB layout was kind of funky, the pot between the stages was dumb, and the amp failed with its stated design goal of being portable. Charlatan in that he actually convinced a lot of people that he was not only competent, but competent beyond reproach with his D-scope and all.


----------



## wahsmoh

mikek200 said:


> Do any of these dacs,from the 90's,still have parts available,if needed,or are these  newer models , with warranty??
> Correct me,if I'm wrong.


 
 Yes and no. Most of these Theta legacy products can no longer be repaired or maintained through warranty. I have heard of people sending their Sonic Frontiers DACs to the original guy and getting them worked on so yes there are some 90's DACs that are still repaired by the company. What makes them hard to repair I believe are the parts that are no longer manufactured. That means the Theta Digital DS Pro Basic IIIa which uses 4x PCM1704 has a chip that is on a timeline to expiration as they are no longer manufactured and have a limited stock. Also the one that my DAC uses, the Burr Brown PCM67P-k is no longer manufactured.


----------



## mikek200

wahsmoh said:


> Yes and no. Most of these Theta legacy products can no longer be repaired or maintained through warranty. I have heard of people sending their Sonic Frontiers DACs to the original guy and getting them worked on so yes there are some 90's DACs that are still repaired by the company. What makes them hard to repair I believe are the parts that are no longer manufactured. That means the Theta Digital DS Pro Basic IIIa which uses 4x PCM1704 has a chip that is on a timeline to expiration as they are no longer manufactured and have a limited stock. Also the one that my DAC uses, the Burr Brown PCM67P-k is no longer manufactured.


 
 Well,I wish you the best of luck,and I hope you get years of service/enjoyment out of it.I was close to getting one myself,but decided at the last minute, for the Yiggy
  
  
 Mike


----------



## evillamer

Speaking of O2 amps and AMB. What happened to RSA? They used to be very well regarded with their RSA shadow amp and all. Now it seems that they aren't as popular as they used to be. Maybe Schitt Audio or other players like Leckerton or Jdslabs supersede them interms of $/performance?


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> I'd say borderline. The PCB layout was kind of funky, the pot between the stages was dumb, and the amp failed with its stated design goal of being portable. Charlatan in that he actually convinced a lot of people that he was not only competent, but competent beyond reproach with his D-scope and all.




Well he convinced me . The O2 is portable enough for my needs (hotel room amp), can drive almost any HPs and sounds very good for the price...especially since I only paid ~€100 for a swiss made device on ebay. As about "competent beyond reproach", noone is that good. 

 Anyway, curious what would you recommend as an alternate. Dac/amp combo or just amp ... under 1k ... able to drive most HPs ... portable or at least semi... sounds clearly better than an iphone or middlerange DAPs like the ibasso-s. 

May also be just a DAP. Currently I'm looking at the soundaware esther...apparently will be able to take 1TB of music and has a reasonably powerful amp ... may be my future road jack


----------



## prot

mikek200 said:


> Do any of these dacs,from the 90's,still have parts available,if needed,or are these  newer models , with warranty??
> Correct me,if I'm wrong.




I'm not the right person to ask, I just tried to get one of those. I assume the parts & service situation is quite dare, wouldn't buy one of those as my main device.


----------



## Armaegis

evillamer said:


> Speaking of O2 amps and AMB. What happened to RSA? They used to be very well regarded with their RSA shadow amp and all. Now it seems that they aren't as popular as they used to be. Maybe Schitt Audio or other players like Leckerton or Jdslabs supersede them interms of $/performance?


 
  
 RSA products always had a bit of a premium pricing on them, and with increasing competition especially from the cheaper Asian market most of the popular names in portable amps from a couple years back are dwindling.


----------



## Bill-P

prot said:


> Well he convinced me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Try the Leckerton UHA-6S Mk.II. Smaller footprint than O2, truly portable, and power output is only a bit behind, but resolution and everything else should be audibly better due to it having better technicality than the O2.
  
 There were some comparison measurements made between the O2 and the Leckerton, even, showing the O2 audibly causing frequency response variations in hard-to-drive IEMs, whereas the Leckerton handles them like a champ. Unfortunately, that website has gone down now.
  
 If you need a better DAC than ODAC, I'd say... Geek Out 450.
  
 I had an O2 for a while, but when I got my Leckerton in and did a comparison, the O2 went up for sale almost immediately...


----------



## hans030390

UHA-6S MkII is what made me sell the O2/ODAC unit, even if the Leck's DAC isn't quite as good as the ODAC. Still sounded better overall.


----------



## prot

bill-p said:


> Try the Leckerton UHA-6S Mk.II. Smaller footprint than O2, truly portable, and power output is only a bit behind, but resolution and everything else should be audibly better due to it having better technicality than the O2.
> 
> There were some comparison measurements made between the O2 and the Leckerton, even, showing the O2 audibly causing frequency response variations in hard-to-drive IEMs, whereas the Leckerton handles them like a champ. Unfortunately, that website has gone down now.
> 
> ...




Thx for the suggestion, the leckerton did seem perfect up to "usb limited to 16/48" ... thats a bit too little for anno 2015. 

The geeks are not that special and they can't drive both IEMs & HPs. Plus I already have a microstreamer + O2 and I'm trying to simplify my life with an upgrade ... too many cables & components to carry right now. I'm thinking either a very powerful DAP like that soundaware, or a serious powerpackage like iDSD Micro. Or just a really good amp fed from the iPhone. Dont know I'm quite lost between all those posibilities ... and open to suggestions.


----------



## Yoga

On a related note, has anyone compared the Schiit Wryd to the Berkeley Alpha USB? Purrin? :¬)


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> Thx for the suggestion, the leckerton did seem perfect up to "usb limited to 16/48" ... thats a bit too little for anno 2015.


 
  
 Why? It's not like any of these portable amps are resolving enough to let you hear the difference between 16 and 18bit material, and anything beyond 44.1kHz can't be heard anyways (assuming we are working from the same master).
  
  


yoga said:


> On a related note, has anyone compared the Schiit Wryd to the Berkeley Alpha USB? Purrin? :¬)


 
  
 Different devices and not comparable. Wyrd doesn't convert USB to SPDIF like Alpha. Wyrd is only USB to USB - it's not a converter, it's a USB decrapifier.


----------



## Yoga

purrin said:


> Different devices and not comparable. Wyrd doesn't convert USB to SPDIF like Alpha. Wyrd is only USB to USB - it's not a converter, it's a USB decrapifier.


 
  
 A slight oversight on my part there, thanks.
  
 The Wyrd seems worth a pop. A lot cheaper than a premium USB cable.


----------



## kugino

armaegis said:


> RSA products always had a bit of a premium pricing on them, and with increasing competition especially from the cheaper Asian market most of the popular names in portable amps from a couple years back are dwindling.


yeah, when I got into this hobby 12 years ago the big names were Meier and RSA and then a lot of smaller DIY outfits. my gear bCk then comprised of stuff from larocco and other gear. who remembers how good the PINT and other amps were? yes, gear today is better and more professional looking, but RSA and Meier and a bunch of other folk did a whole lot to get this hobby going in the 90s and early 2000s.


----------



## Argo Duck

Meier's still doing ok. He's working on reducing amplifier intermodulation distortion right now.


----------



## estreeter

yoga said:


> On a related note, has anyone compared the Schiit Wryd to the Berkeley Alpha USB? Purrin? :¬)


 
  
 I believe this is the natural competition for the Wyrd, unless the term 'decrapifier' encompasses something beyond what iFi claims their iPurifier does. 
  
 http://www.hdphonic.com/en/hardware/ifi-ipurifier/


----------



## drez

I think the uptone audio regen is a more comparable product.

The iFi looks more like an usb filter than a regenerator. Could be good though.


----------



## Hansotek

estreeter said:


> yoga said:
> 
> 
> > On a related note, has anyone compared the Schiit Wryd to the [COLOR=3E3E3E]Berkeley Alpha [/COLOR]USB? Purrin? :¬)
> ...



It doesn't appear to have a data reclocker or provide independent power for the USB DAC, so I don't see a lot of similarity (other than the function of adding clean seperation from the computer's USB).


----------



## Sonic Defender

So here is my dilemma, I want to try a new DAC sound signature, but I'm worried about the hashy Sabre DACs. They really just don't sound that good from what I have heard and read. Great at resolution, but very rarely do I ever hear them being called musical. Sabre suggestions are welcome, but certainly not cold implementations. I value ubber resolution less than listen-ability. Currently I still like my Gungnir, but after two years I have decided I need a new sound signature. I don't want to do a side-grade, and I'm willing to spend about $1000 - $1400 for a new DAC. I was tempted to stretch for the Yggy, but at $3000US, plus shipping, plus duties, plus taxes, well, it becomes $4000 Canadian very quickly so I need another option.
  
 I have a line on an Audio GD Master 7, which would be great, but it doesn't have the USB which requires I sink in at least $500 more simply to connect it so that is feeling hard to swallow on top of the $1800 for the DAC.
  
 Ideally there would be a DAC in my price range that would be able to improve on the resolution ability of the Gungnir, yet remain musical and not be overly analytical. I could be wrong, but it seems that most Sabre implementations are very detailed focused, and that in my limited experience results in elements being dissected out of the music while the overall music suffers and becomes sterile sounding. Perhaps there is a Sabre DAC that isn't like this? I'm open to suggestions for a standalone DAC, no amplifier section, and it should be fully balanced. Maybe I want to much for too little?


----------



## johnjen

sonic defender said:


> So here is my dilemma, I want to try a new DAC sound signature, but I'm worried about the hashy Sabre DACs. They really just don't sound that good from what I have heard and read. Great at resolution, but very rarely do I ever hear them being called musical. Sabre suggestions are welcome, but certainly not cold implementations. I value ubber resolution less than listen-ability. Currently I still like my Gungnir, but after two years I have decided I need a new sound signature. I don't want to do a side-grade, and I'm willing to spend about $1000 - $1400 for a new DAC. I was tempted to stretch for the Yggy, but at $3000US, plus shipping, plus duties, plus taxes, well, it becomes $4000 Canadian very quickly so I need another option.
> 
> I have a line on an Audio GD Master 7, which would be great, but it doesn't have the USB which requires I sink in at least $500 more simply to connect it so that is feeling hard to swallow on top of the $1800 for the DAC.
> 
> Ideally there would be a DAC in my price range that would be able to improve on the resolution ability of the Gungnir, yet remain musical and not be overly analytical. I could be wrong, but it seems that most Sabre implementations are very detailed focused, and that in my limited experience results in elements being dissected out of the music while the overall music suffers and becomes sterile sounding. Perhaps there is a Sabre DAC that isn't like this? I'm open to suggestions for a standalone DAC, no amplifier section, and it should be fully balanced. Maybe I want to much for too little?


 
 I've been running a PWD mk1-2 for a few years now and I suggest a look see.
  
 Yes they are finicky and selecting the 'best' s/w for your needs will take some time, but it does have 'significant' resolution and inner detail and can sound wonderful.
  
 And I suspect they will be coming up on the used market soon after Jggy appears.
 Just a thought… 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 JJ


----------



## coli

sonic defender said:


> So here is my dilemma, I want to try a new DAC sound signature, but I'm worried about the hashy Sabre DACs. They really just don't sound that good from what I have heard and read. Great at resolution, but very rarely do I ever hear them being called musical. Sabre suggestions are welcome, but certainly not cold implementations. I value ubber resolution less than listen-ability. Currently I still like my Gungnir, but after two years I have decided I need a new sound signature. I don't want to do a side-grade, and I'm willing to spend about $1000 - $1400 for a new DAC. I was tempted to stretch for the Yggy, but at $3000US, plus shipping, plus duties, plus taxes, well, it becomes $4000 Canadian very quickly so I need another option.
> 
> I have a line on an Audio GD Master 7, which would be great, but it doesn't have the USB which requires I sink in at least $500 more simply to connect it so that is feeling hard to swallow on top of the $1800 for the DAC.
> 
> Ideally there would be a DAC in my price range that would be able to improve on the resolution ability of the Gungnir, yet remain musical and not be overly analytical. I could be wrong, but it seems that most Sabre implementations are very detailed focused, and that in my limited experience results in elements being dissected out of the music while the overall music suffers and becomes sterile sounding. Perhaps there is a Sabre DAC that isn't like this? I'm open to suggestions for a standalone DAC, no amplifier section, and it should be fully balanced. Maybe I want to much for too little?


 
 Look on the bright side, at the rate the Canadian dollar is falling, the $4000 Yggy becomes $5000 in a year, netting you a gain of $1000 Canadian.


----------



## Sonic Defender

coli said:


> Look on the bright side, at the rate the Canadian dollar is falling, the $4000 Yggy becomes $5000 in a year, netting you a gain of $1000 Canadian.


 

 If only that were true! The second you buy the DAC it drops 20% in value when it comes to actually selling it if you need to so no investment potential there! I know you were joking. Just two years ago the Canadian dollar was higher than the US dollar, those were good days up here, good days indeed.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Anybody here tried the Questyle DAC? Frankly I couldn't care less about DSD and sadly it supports DSD which is a waste of circuitry for me anyway.


----------



## estreeter

sonic defender said:


> So here is my dilemma, I want to try a new DAC sound signature, but I'm worried about the hashy Sabre DACs. They really just don't sound that good from what I have heard and read. Great at resolution, but very rarely do I ever hear them being called musical. Sabre suggestions are welcome, but certainly not cold implementations. I value ubber resolution less than listen-ability. Currently I still like my Gungnir, but after two years I have decided I need a new sound signature. I don't want to do a side-grade, and I'm willing to spend about $1000 - $1400 for a new DAC. *I was tempted to stretch for the Yggy, but at $3000US, plus shipping, plus duties, plus taxes, well, it becomes $4000 Canadian very quickly so I need another option.*
> 
> I have a line on an Audio GD Master 7, which would be great, but it doesn't have the USB which requires I sink in at least $500 more simply to connect it so that is feeling hard to swallow on top of the $1800 for the DAC.
> 
> Ideally there would be a DAC in my price range that would be able to improve on the resolution ability of the Gungnir, yet remain musical and not be overly analytical. I could be wrong, but it seems that most Sabre implementations are very detailed focused, and that in my limited experience results in elements being dissected out of the music while the overall music suffers and becomes sterile sounding. Perhaps there is a Sabre DAC that isn't like this? I'm open to suggestions for a standalone DAC, no amplifier section, and it should be fully balanced. Maybe I want to much for too little?


 
  
 OK - you'll forgive me if I've never quite understood the Canadian perspective on this. 
  
 1. The projected sticker on the Yggy is 2300USD - somewhere in the vicinity of 2880 CAD. 
 2, Is shipping really that exorbitant from the US to Canada ? I realise that both are very big countries, but you should be able to get an estimate using the Rag as your guinea pig : same dimensions, similar weight
  
 This site gave me a duty amount of 144CAD based on the 2880 figure for 'DVD / Blu-ray Players' (the closest I could find to any form of audio component):
  
 http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/dte-acl/est-cal-eng.html
  
 Obviously, I have no idea which province you live in, but you're still well short of 4000CAD by my calculations. I accept that its easy for me to spend your money, and I'm in a similar position here - I just wonder if you've thought this through. Everything you claim to want from a DAC seems to be precisely what purrin is claiming for Yggy - spending 1500-2000 CAD on another DAC will be a false economy if you are no happier with your choice 6 months from now. We've all been there - I definitely went down that road with headphone amps till I bit the bullet and shelled out for a Taurus - and it's a road I dont like to see others travel.


----------



## czy6412

Does anyone have some idea on Sonore exD DSD DAC?


----------



## wahsmoh

Okay I just got around to listening to the Theta DS Pro Progeny v. A and I decided to do S/PDIF pass through from my HT Omega Claro Halo soundcard of pure PCM to the toslink input of the DS Pro Progeny.
  
 I am going to say right now off of first impressions,
  
 HOLY !@$! this is like the Bifrost Uber on steroids..
  
 I mean the Bifrost Uber gets close to sounding "analog" but now I really see what people are talking about when they refer to this "warm analog" sound with serious balls in the bass department that a lot of these new DACs wish they could be.
  
 WOW first thing came to mind was spacious soundstage, the Bifrost Uber isn't quite there. Also, I am going to say right now this is like the Bifrost Uber without the slight infection of "digititis" in the highs and has way more cajones in the bass region. <--Definitely NOT neutral but way more enjoyable.. Looks like this is going my main rig for redbook audio cause it sounds better than the Bifrost Uber 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			











 I haven't even tested out the coaxial input but will when I get my Peachtree T1.. what a major score at $276 + free shipping
  

  
 BTW here's a list of what I have listened to so far, don't make fun of me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 (all are FLAC or PCM 16/44)
 David Bowie - China Girl, Let's Dance
 Sublime - Pawn Shop
 Def Leppard - Hysteria
 Trentemoller - Le Champagne
 Shiba San - Okay
 Queen - Somebody to Love
 Death Cab for Cutie - Soul Meets Body, I Will Possess Your Heart
 Disclosure - Latch
 Nu Shooz - Goin' Thru the Motions
 Cocteau Twins - Sugar Hiccup
 Van Halen - Ain't Talkin 'Bout Love
 Deadmau5 ft. Kaskade - I Remember
 Led Zeppelin - Good Times, Bad Times
 Fleetwood Mac - Dreams, Say You Love Me
  
 playing new music through a piece of equipment made in 1994 and enjoying it more than something from circa 2010 is like telling people from the past that the future is actually very scary and includes boatloads of D-S chips & digital nasties 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 note to Mike Moffat: the Bifrost Uber is not superior to the Theta DACs of yesteryear.. now I see why you are coming out with the Yggdrasil. Maybe you had a change of heart 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 OH and did I mention? this thing kicks @#%$in @$$ for $276
  
 last edit:: I'm in music heaven.. goodnight Head-fi I could care less if the Yggdrasil came out today or tomorrow just let me get intoxicated by the sounds of the DS Pro Progeny and spare it lives another 20 years given it looks like it's brand new with no nicks or scratches


----------



## conquerator2

sonic defender said:


> So here is my dilemma, I want to try a new DAC sound signature, but I'm worried about the hashy Sabre DACs. They really just don't sound that good from what I have heard and read. Great at resolution, but very rarely do I ever hear them being called musical. Sabre suggestions are welcome, but certainly not cold implementations. I value ubber resolution less than listen-ability. Currently I still like my Gungnir, but after two years I have decided I need a new sound signature. I don't want to do a side-grade, and I'm willing to spend about $1000 - $1400 for a new DAC. I was tempted to stretch for the Yggy, but at $3000US, plus shipping, plus duties, plus taxes, well, it becomes $4000 Canadian very quickly so I need another option.
> 
> I have a line on an Audio GD Master 7, which would be great, but it doesn't have the USB which requires I sink in at least $500 more simply to connect it so that is feeling hard to swallow on top of the $1800 for the DAC.
> 
> Ideally there would be a DAC in my price range that would be able to improve on the resolution ability of the Gungnir, yet remain musical and not be overly analytical. I could be wrong, but it seems that most Sabre implementations are very detailed focused, and that in my limited experience results in elements being dissected out of the music while the overall music suffers and becomes sterile sounding. Perhaps there is a Sabre DAC that isn't like this? I'm open to suggestions for a standalone DAC, no amplifier section, and it should be fully balanced. Maybe I want to much for too little?




I am not sure what answer you'll get in an anti-Sabre thread 
Anyway, I should get the X12 today or tomorrow. It is supposedly one of the most analogue and smoothest sounding Sabres.
It is not 1000$+ but still, I have high hopes 
There is also the audio-gd DAC19


----------



## Sonic Defender

estreeter said:


> OK - you'll forgive me if I've never quite understood the Canadian perspective on this.
> 
> 1. The projected sticker on the Yggy is 2300USD - somewhere in the vicinity of 2880 CAD.
> 2, Is shipping really that exorbitant from the US to Canada ? I realise that both are very big countries, but you should be able to get an estimate using the Rag as your guinea pig : same dimensions, similar weight
> ...


 

 I know brother really I do, but add 13% tax on top of that figure as in Ontario that is what we pay so it will be creeping above $3000 toward 4K easily. And yes, at that weight the shipping will be at least another $100 I'm sure, hell the Asgard 2 was about $35 if I remember correctly so it is indeed almost $4k. I really want the Yggy, but not that much, at least not now so I really do want to stay at about 2K Canadian. Surely I can improve a little on the Gungnir for that price point? Maybe not.


----------



## nicolo

If the Yggdrasil is as good as people on this thread are making out, you might as well sell your Gungnir to finance it.


----------



## prot

nicolo said:


> If the Yggdrasil is as good as people on this thread...




The DACs are never as good as the people


----------



## prot

sonic defender said:


> So here is my dilemma, I want to try a new DAC sound signature, but I'm worried about the hashy Sabre DACs. They really just don't sound that good from what I have heard and read. Great at resolution, but very rarely do I ever hear them being called musical. Sabre suggestions are welcome, but certainly not cold implementations. I value ubber resolution less than listen-ability. Currently I still like my Gungnir, but after two years I have decided I need a new sound signature. I don't want to do a side-grade, and I'm willing to spend about $1000 - $1400 for a new DAC. I was tempted to stretch for the Yggy, but at $3000US, plus shipping, plus duties, plus taxes, well, it becomes $4000 Canadian very quickly so I need another option.
> 
> I have a line on an Audio GD Master 7, which would be great, but it doesn't have the USB which requires I sink in at least $500 more simply to connect it so that is feeling hard to swallow on top of the $1800 for the DAC.
> 
> Ideally there would be a DAC in my price range that would be able to improve on the resolution ability of the Gungnir, yet remain musical and not be overly analytical. I could be wrong, but it seems that most Sabre implementations are very detailed focused, and that in my limited experience results in elements being dissected out of the music while the overall music suffers and becomes sterile sounding. Perhaps there is a Sabre DAC that isn't like this? I'm open to suggestions for a standalone DAC, no amplifier section, and it should be fully balanced. Maybe I want to much for too little?




The EE Minimax Plus is a pretty smooth sabre. Tube output too, you can color the sound as you wish. Prolly about $7-800 2nd hand nowadays. Just check the dedicated thread for extra info.


----------



## borrego

Or just use a Tube VST plug-in which you can roll tube with a simple mouse click.


----------



## auvgeek

sonic defender said:


> So here is my dilemma, I want to try a new DAC sound signature, but I'm worried about the hashy Sabre DACs. They really just don't sound that good from what I have heard and read. Great at resolution, but very rarely do I ever hear them being called musical. Sabre suggestions are welcome, but certainly not cold implementations. I value ubber resolution less than listen-ability. Currently I still like my Gungnir, but after two years I have decided I need a new sound signature. I don't want to do a side-grade, and I'm willing to spend about $1000 - $1400 for a new DAC. I was tempted to stretch for the Yggy, but at $3000US, plus shipping, plus duties, plus taxes, well, it becomes $4000 Canadian very quickly so I need another option.
> 
> I have a line on an Audio GD Master 7, which would be great, but it doesn't have the USB which requires I sink in at least $500 more simply to connect it so that is feeling hard to swallow on top of the $1800 for the DAC.
> 
> Ideally there would be a DAC in my price range that would be able to improve on the resolution ability of the Gungnir, yet remain musical and not be overly analytical. I could be wrong, but it seems that most Sabre implementations are very detailed focused, and that in my limited experience results in elements being dissected out of the music while the overall music suffers and becomes sterile sounding. Perhaps there is a Sabre DAC that isn't like this? I'm open to suggestions for a standalone DAC, no amplifier section, and it should be fully balanced. Maybe I want to much for too little?


 
 Maybe consider the new Gustard X20 that's supposed to be released in a limited run around May timeframe? Pricing hasn't been released yet, but I'm guessing it will be in your budget. Check the general Gustard thread in the Amp forum for more info. The X20 uses the Sabre chip, but so does the X12, which isn't supposed to be harsh. Nobody has heard the X20, though, and I haven't heard the X12 so I'm just throwing out an option, not speaking from experience.


----------



## thegunner100

wahsmoh said:


> Okay I just got around to listening to the Theta DS Pro Progeny v. A and I decided to do S/PDIF pass through from my HT Omega Claro Halo soundcard of pure PCM to the toslink input of the DS Pro Progeny.
> 
> I am going to say right now off of first impressions,
> 
> ...


 
 Haven't heard any Thetas, but my Parasound D/AC-1100 sounds better than my Gungnir in most areas. I probably won't be getting a Yggy anytime soon, but I can't wait for some trickle down technology that will bring the Gungnir up to the Parasound's level or above.


----------



## auvgeek

This is probably a dumb question, but I searched a bit and didn't see an answer. I am currently using my Macbook Pro as the source (playing Spotify on "Extreme" setting). The laptop features a mini-optical jack so I am using a cheap mini-Toslink to Toslink cable to connect the laptop and DAC. I think the optical out sounds better than the USB on my older Audio-gd DAC. Is this a decent way to connect an BiFrostUber or older Theta, or will I see dramatic improvement if I spring for a $150-$200 USB converter (likely either the Gustard U12 or Schiit Gen 2/3 USB)? I am unlikely to move away from my computer as the source.


----------



## purrin

sonic defender said:


> So here is my dilemma, I want to try a new DAC sound signature, but I'm worried about the hashy Sabre DACs. They really just don't sound that good from what I have heard and read. Great at resolution, but very rarely do I ever hear them being called musical. Sabre suggestions are welcome, but certainly not cold implementations. I value ubber resolution less than listen-ability. Currently I still like my Gungnir, but after two years I have decided I need a new sound signature. I don't want to do a side-grade, and I'm willing to spend about $1000 - $1400 for a new DAC. I was tempted to stretch for the Yggy, but at $3000US, plus shipping, plus duties, plus taxes, well, it becomes $4000 Canadian very quickly so I need another option.
> 
> I have a line on an Audio GD Master 7, which would be great, but it doesn't have the USB which requires I sink in at least $500 more simply to connect it so that is feeling hard to swallow on top of the $1800 for the DAC.
> 
> Ideally there would be a DAC in my price range that would be able to improve on the resolution ability of the Gungnir, yet remain musical and not be overly analytical. I could be wrong, but it seems that most Sabre implementations are very detailed focused, and that in my limited experience results in elements being dissected out of the music while the overall music suffers and becomes sterile sounding. Perhaps there is a Sabre DAC that isn't like this? I'm open to suggestions for a standalone DAC, no amplifier section, and it should be fully balanced. Maybe I want to much for too little?


 
  
 My advice is to wait a few months. Don't do anything. Don't buy anything. Don't sell anything.


----------



## Tuco1965

Sounds like something is coming.


----------



## jexby

purrin said:


> My advice is to wait a few months. Don't do anything. Don't buy anything. Don't sell anything.


 
  
 oh lordy.  an-ti-ci-pation!


----------



## mhamel

sonic defender said:


> So here is my dilemma, I want to try a new DAC sound signature, but I'm worried about the hashy Sabre DACs. They really just don't sound that good from what I have heard and read. Great at resolution, but very rarely do I ever hear them being called musical. Sabre suggestions are welcome, but certainly not cold implementations. I value ubber resolution less than listen-ability. Currently I still like my Gungnir, but after two years I have decided I need a new sound signature. I don't want to do a side-grade, and I'm willing to spend about $1000 - $1400 for a new DAC. I was tempted to stretch for the Yggy, but at $3000US, plus shipping, plus duties, plus taxes, well, it becomes $4000 Canadian very quickly so I need another option.
> 
> I have a line on an Audio GD Master 7, which would be great, but it doesn't have the USB which requires I sink in at least $500 more simply to connect it so that is feeling hard to swallow on top of the $1800 for the DAC.
> 
> Ideally there would be a DAC in my price range that would be able to improve on the resolution ability of the Gungnir, yet remain musical and not be overly analytical. I could be wrong, but it seems that most Sabre implementations are very detailed focused, and that in my limited experience results in elements being dissected out of the music while the overall music suffers and becomes sterile sounding. Perhaps there is a Sabre DAC that isn't like this? I'm open to suggestions for a standalone DAC, no amplifier section, and it should be fully balanced. Maybe I want to much for too little?


 
  
 Check out the Dangerous Source.


----------



## purrin

auvgeek said:


> This is probably a dumb question, but I searched a bit and didn't see an answer. I am currently using my Macbook Pro as the source (playing Spotify on "Extreme" setting). The laptop features a mini-optical jack so I am using a cheap mini-Toslink to Toslink cable to connect the laptop and DAC. I think the optical out sounds better than the USB on my older Audio-gd DAC. Is this a decent way to connect an BiFrostUber or older Theta, or will I see dramatic improvement if I spring for a $150-$200 USB converter (likely either the Gustard U12 or Schiit Gen 2/3 USB)? I am unlikely to move away from my computer as the source.


 
  
 It's true that older USB tends to suck. However, the newer USB implementations Schiit's Gen2, XMOS, etc. are pretty good sounding. If you want to try an older Theta, go for the cheap Gustard.
  
 I don't think the differences will be dramatic. But this is a hobby where people are willing to pay for small incremental improvements


----------



## hans030390

wahsmoh said:


> WOW first thing came to mind was spacious soundstage, the Bifrost Uber isn't quite there. Also, I am going to say right now this is like the Bifrost Uber without the slight infection of "digititis" in the highs and *has way more cajones in the bass region. <--Definitely NOT neutral but way more enjoyable.*


 
  
 Are you saying the extra balls in the bass is less neutral than what you'd get from the Bifrost? How are you sure that's just not closer to how it should sound? Usually the best DACs will have excellent slam and power in the bass while still being clean, textured, and having good pitch differentiation.


----------



## wahsmoh

hans030390 said:


> Are you saying the extra balls in the bass is less neutral than what you'd get from the Bifrost? How are you sure that's just not closer to how it should sound? Usually the best DACs will have excellent slam and power in the bass while still being clean, textured, and having good pitch differentiation.


 

 Hans I think you are right. The slam of the Theta DS Pro Progeny is greater than that of the Bifrost Uber, that includes basically all the percussion instruments I was hearing; not just bass instruments / electronic bass. It is just as revealing as the Bifrost Uber because I noticed the same digital artifacts on my less-than-perfect masterings and no traces of digital artifacts on my best recordings. In other words it doesn't just glance over the music like a lot of "warmer" sounding DACs.


----------



## ciphercomplete

tuco1965 said:


> Sounds like something is coming.


 
  
 Yeah like a truckload of used $1500+ DACs will be for sell soon.


----------



## wahsmoh

We can't help it we just want the latest and greatest


----------



## barid

hans030390 said:


> Are you saying the extra balls in the bass is less neutral than what you'd get from the Bifrost? How are you sure that's just not closer to how it should sound? Usually the best DACs will have excellent slam and power in the bass while still being clean, textured, and having good pitch differentiation.


 
  
 Actually just got a Bifrost Uber last Friday and have spent the last few days with it.  I'd say bass is "ever-present" yet doesn't seem to go as low or be as punchy as the benchmark 2 or whatever burr brown implementation is in the MHA100 (only 2 other DACs I have on hand right now).  It imparts a very meaty full-bodied up-front sound on basically everything yet can also sometimes come off as almost flat/condensed in a way where its not extending to the extreme highs or lows, or maybe I'm just missing some of the air between the notes.  Or I could just not be used to the signature yet....whatevs.


----------



## wahsmoh

barid said:


> Actually just got a Bifrost Uber last Friday and have spent the last few days with it.  I'd say bass is "ever-present" yet doesn't seem to go as low or be as punchy as the benchmark 2 or whatever burr brown implementation is in the MHA100 (only 2 other DACs I have on hand right now).  It imparts a very meaty full-bodied up-front sound on basically everything yet can also sometimes come off as almost flat/condensed in a way where its not extending to the extreme highs or lows, or maybe I'm just missing some of the air between the notes.  Or I could just not be used to the signature yet....whatevs.


 

 I have the same feelings as you. I think that is where the Theta DAC I have that uses the Burr Brown PCM67P-k and a single Motorala DSP56001 imparts it's main strengths. The Bifrost is definitely warm and full bodied but the Theta DAC is almost like having an analog bass boost(for songs with bass) as well as sounding smoother in the highs than the Bifrost Uber (slightly though and not as big of a difference as the bass factor)
  
 also.. the soundstage. The Bifrost Uber is focused and has moderate sized soundstage with good instrument separation, but the Theta DS Pro Progeny has something special about it that I can't put my finger on.. it sounds more 3D where the back to-L/R-to front of the Bifrost Uber isn't as mesmerizing. Last night I stayed up til 2 AM listening to it, I couldn't sleep


----------



## Insidious Meme

I know purrin is on to something. I'm guessing it has been alluded to in a previous post. But I'll just have to wait and see like everyone else.


----------



## prot

borrego said:


> Or just use a Tube VST plug-in which you can roll tube with a simple mouse click.




Interesting one, I'll have a try next time I visit home 



auvgeek said:


> Maybe consider the new Gustard X20 that's supposed to be released in a limited run around May timeframe? Pricing hasn't been released yet, but I'm guessing it will be in your budget. Check the general Gustard thread in the Amp forum for more info. The X20 uses the Sabre chip, but so does the X12, which isn't supposed to be harsh. Nobody has heard the X20, though, and I haven't heard the X12 so I'm just throwing out an option, not speaking from experience.




Rumor says ~$630. Havent tried any of their Dacs but quite happy with the u12 usb-spdif


----------



## Sorrodje

wahsmoh said:


> Hans I think you are right. The slam of the Theta DS Pro Progeny is greater than that of the Bifrost Uber, that includes basically all the percussion instruments I was hearing; not just bass instruments / electronic bass. It is just as revealing as the Bifrost Uber because I noticed the same digital artifacts on my less-than-perfect masterings and no traces of digital artifacts on my best recordings. In other words it doesn't just glance over the music like a lot of "warmer" sounding DACs.


 
  
  
 Match definitely with my Experience with the totalDAC vs other DAC i know. More Slam, more resolution , more inner detail, more everything. Less forgiving too.   A bit more expensive than your progeny though


----------



## prot

Did anyone try the new Hegel midrange Dac? http://www.hegel.com/products/dac/hd12
AKM chip and at about $1400 sounds like a good candidate for the anti-sabre brigade ... some review links on the right side of their page.


----------



## korzena

I would like to upgrade my Bifrost DAC in order to get more from my LCD-2.2 headphones. 
  
 At the moment I am considering Resonessence Labs Concero HD, Meier Audio Daccord and Gungnir. I would appreciate advice regarding these DACs or other DAC recommendations within my budget of $1000/€1000 for my system. Thanks!


----------



## Yoga

estreeter said:


> I believe this is the natural competition for the Wyrd, unless the term 'decrapifier' encompasses something beyond what iFi claims their iPurifier does.
> 
> http://www.hdphonic.com/en/hardware/ifi-ipurifier/


 

 Thanks - I happen to own one of those, worked a treat in both my systems!


----------



## purrin

wahsmoh said:


> I have the same feelings as you. I think that is where the Theta DAC I have that uses the Burr Brown PCM67P-k and a single Motorala DSP56001 imparts it's main strengths. The Bifrost is definitely warm and full bodied but the Theta DAC is almost like having an analog bass boost(for songs with bass) as well as sounding smoother in the highs than the Bifrost Uber (slightly though and not as big of a difference as the bass factor)
> 
> also.. the soundstage. The Bifrost Uber is focused and has moderate sized soundstage with good instrument separation, but the Theta DS Pro Progeny has something special about it that I can't put my finger on.. it sounds more 3D where the back to-L/R-to front of the Bifrost Uber isn't as mesmerizing. Last night I stayed up til 2 AM listening to it, I couldn't sleep


 
  
 In the overall scheme of things, Bifrost Uber lacks a little at the extremes, doesn't punch or throw bass as well well, and is a tiny bit grainy / unrefined on the top end. Just nitpicking. A DAC like the Gungnir solves these issues, but the Gungnir is no better in terms of resolution.
  
 Because of the Motorola DSP56001, I believe the Progeny has the "secret sauce" digital filter (maybe a scaled down version) of what's found in the GenIII, Gen V and Yggy. It is this digital filter that gives you the 3D, front-to-back, up-and-down, sense of venue effect. You will be surprised by the holographic imaging for months if not years on end. You will never tire of it. In fact, you will think that almost any DAC without it has sucky imaging and you will be forced to only want to buy stuff made by Mike Moffat with the "secret sauce" filter. Doubters like Arnaud believe the "secret sauce", closed-form, divide-by-zero, retains original samples, digital filter is marketing BS, but as you have experienced, it is very very real.
  
 The PCM67 is interesting. It's an R2R for the 10 LSB at 18-bit linearity and delta-sigma 1-bit for the remaining bits.
  
 You got a great deal on this. Looking for one myself based on curiosity. I didn't realize that Theta/Moffat trickled down their Gen V tech to such an extent.


----------



## drfindley

purrin said:


> The PCM67 is interesting. It's an R2R for 10bits at 18-bit linearity and delta-sigma 1-bit for the remaining bits.
> 
> You got a great deal on this. Looking for one myself based on curiosity. I didn't realize that Theta/Moffat trickled down their Gen V tech to such an extent.


 
  
 This gives me hope that Yggy filter will make it into cheaper tech. I'm planning on getting a Yggy, but I listen to music in more than one place and buying a Yggy for all of them? Spendy.


----------



## AustinValentine

purrin said:


> Because of the Motorola DSP56001, I believe the Progeny has the "secret sauce" digital filter (maybe a scaled down version) of what's found in the Gen V and Yggy. It's this digital filter that gives you the 3D, front-to-back, up-and-down, sense of venue effect. You will be surprised by the holographic imaging for months if not years on end. You will never tire of it. In fact, you will think that almost any DAC without it has sucky imaging and you will be forced to only want to buy stuff made by Mike Moffat with the "secret sauce" filter
> 
> You got a great deal on this. Looking for one myself based on curiosity. I didn't realize that Theta/Moffat trickled down their Gen V tech to such an extent.


 
  
 My experience with this is actually what makes me hopeful about Yggy tech trickling down the product line in the future. That's a spot on description of the digital filter. I've cycled through a number of PCM63 and PCM1702 DACs using DF1700P and PMD100 and none of them have sounded as good as the Progeny yet. Pretty damn impressive overall.


----------



## purrin

austinvalentine said:


>


 
  
 Oh crap! You got one too? (I can't keep track anymore)


----------



## AustinValentine

purrin said:


> Oh crap! You got one too? (I can't keep track anymore)


 
  
 I know, right? 
  
 -------------------
  
 As a general FYI for anyone considering picking these up: one thing I really wasn't ready for was the increased output voltage that some of these Theta DACs put out. I had to use a Harrison Labs 12db attenuator in line just to be able to use the volume knob on my amplifier. 
  
 Theta apparently did this to make them badass passive preamps (and they are). But if you're not ready for it and/or don't realize that they do that, you could end up listening at a much higher volume than with your previous DACs.
  
 This has been a Public Service Announcement from the Society for the Prevention of Tinnitus.


----------



## estreeter

ciphercomplete said:


> Yeah like a truckload of used $1500+ DACs will be for sell soon.


 
  
 There was a Gungnir and a a Bifrost sitting in the FS forum the last time I checked - its not just the $1500+ DACs that will be put up for sale. Kinda blown away by how close to the original sticker price some folk are asking for used gear, but I guess its all part of the negotiation game.


----------



## wahsmoh

austinvalentine said:


> I know, right?
> 
> -------------------
> 
> ...


 

 I believe the Theta Progeny v. A tried to address this issue regarding the excessive output levels but it still dials in pretty loud on my Asgard 2. About 1'oclock-2'oclock more to the left from the Bifrost Uber's output on the dial


----------



## EraserXIV

estreeter said:


> Kinda blown away by how close to the original sticker price some folk are asking for used gear, but I guess its all part of the negotiation game.


 
  
 Haha yeah, those people who take $10 off and say I'm getting a great deal because I would have to also pay for shipping if I bought it new. Smh.


----------



## Clemmaster

eraserxiv said:


> Haha yeah, those people who take $10 off and say I'm getting a great deal because I would have to also pay for shipping if I bought it new. Smh.


 
 Which is true 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I noticed the Resonessence Concero HD/HP sell for a minimum discount, too.
  
 The Schiit are great value to begin with, it is not so surprising people would try to sell them at a very low discount before they decide to simply keep them.


----------



## mikek200

purrin said:


> It's true that older USB tends to suck. However, the newer USB implementations Schiit's Gen2, XMOS, etc. are pretty good sounding. If you want to try an older Theta, go for the cheap Gustard.
> 
> I don't think the differences will be dramatic. But this is a hobby where people are willing to pay for small incremental improvements


 
 Purrin,
 Which" cheap Gustard" would you recommend?
 Now,you've peeked my curiosity-LOL
  
 Mike


----------



## AustinValentine

mikek200 said:


> Purrin,
> Which" cheap Gustard" would you recommend?
> Now,you've peeked my curiosity-LOL
> 
> Mike


 
  
 Not Purrin here, but I'm pretty sure he means the Gustard U12 USB converter - which is a pretty good deal for $140-160.


----------



## wahsmoh

> It is this digital filter that gives you the 3D, front-to-back, up-and-down, sense of venue effect. You will be surprised by the holographic imaging for months if not years on end. You will never tire of it. In fact, you will think that almost any DAC without it has sucky imaging and you will be forced to only want to buy stuff made by Mike Moffat with the "secret sauce" filter. Doubters like Arnaud believe the "secret sauce", closed-form, divide-by-zero, retains original samples, digital filter is marketing BS, but as you have experienced, it is very very real.


 
  
 I just listened to "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins and at about 2:13 in the song (out of 5:37) version I am listening to the backing vocals kicked in over my left shoulder of this 3D space and I was like HOLY !@$# who @#%# are you and your voices weren't supposed to come through so clear it was haunting... the backing vocals are crystal clear and separated as I have never heard before


----------



## conquerator2

mikek200 said:


> Purrin,
> Which" cheap Gustard" would you recommend?
> Now,you've peeked my curiosity-LOL
> 
> Mike


 
 The Gustard U12. I have it and it is pretty good.


----------



## mikek200

conquerator2 said:


> The Gustard U12. I have it and it is pretty good.


 
 Lucas,
 Is this the one ,you are referring to:
  
   
 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PU3R6KY/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2Q0JVLI22BSVA
  
 Thanks,
 Mike


----------



## AustinValentine

mikek200 said:


> Lucas,
> Is this the one ,you are referring to:
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 That's the one. Pretty cool that it's prime eligible too.


----------



## mikek200

Thank You,Sir.


----------



## kugino

I just got the u12 but won't need it as the DAC i had intended to use it with suddenly became unavailable. so if anyone wants a NIB with silver faceplate, PM me.


----------



## wahsmoh

conquerator2 said:


> The Gustard U12. I have it and it is pretty good.


 
 Nice I bought a cheaper USB-Coax converter but I will probably get the U12 next and do a rundown of S/PDIF pass through Toslink, versus Peachtree T1 adaptive USB, vs. U12 asynch/tcxo connected to the DS Pro Progeny


----------



## Za Warudo

Speaking of usb interfaces, is there one that would remove the crackling noise of a lousy PC usb port?  Is Wyrd the best option?


----------



## shadow84

Any cheap and decent DAC only with multi inputs for console and pc? Budget within US$200-300. Schiit modi 2 uber is on my list.


----------



## conquerator2

za warudo said:


> Speaking of usb interfaces, is there one that would remove the crackling noise of a lousy PC usb port?  Is Wyrd the best option?


 
  
 Both the Wyrd and an external USB converter [U12, DI-V2014] might help. It helped me, but according to others, it is still a bit of a shot in the dark.
  


shadow84 said:


> Any cheap and decent DAC only with multi inputs for console and pc? Budget within US$200-300. Schiit modi 2 uber is on my list.


 
 Audio-gd NFB-11/NFB-15 also.


----------



## shadow84

Jus to confirm something, i saw the dac have amp section. If i connect the output via rca, the headphone section of the dac will not be touched? It will be purely a dac?

And whr to get audiogd?


----------



## auvgeek

shadow84 said:


> Jus to confirm something, i saw the dac have amp section. If i connect the output via rca, the headphone section of the dac will not be touched? It will be purely a dac?


 
 Yes. Connecting an external amp via RCA cables will bypass the integrated amp section in the Audio-gd products.


----------



## Sorrodje

auvgeek said:


> Yes. Connecting an external amp via RCA cables will bypass the integrated amp section in the Audio-gd products.


 
  
 Not on the AudioGD NFB 12, 12.1 for example. Only the Volume pot is bypassed if you set the jumper accordingly.  Dunno if this point change with the NFB11 and 15.32.


----------



## ciphercomplete

za warudo said:


> Speaking of usb interfaces, is there one that would remove the crackling noise of a lousy PC usb port?  Is Wyrd the best option?


 
  
 Is your's a desktop computer?  If it is you could get a pci-e usb card.


----------



## zach915m

Sorry to everyone who PM'd me in the last day about the Theta Progeny - I decided to keep it for now!  I was going to get a second EAD (Enlightened Audio Design) DSP 7000 as a back-up because the one I have seems to have overheated or something at the last meet I was at.  The Progeny is a great DAC, and for those looking for one, also check out the Pro-Prime II.   They are the same same chip/specs AFAIK, just the Progeny is single ended not balanced.
  
 Anyone else have experience with the EAD stuff?  The DSP-7000 Series III is my favorite "vintage" DAC that I've owned so far.  It doesn't image as aggressively as the Theta's and the sense of space isn't as precise or extreme, but the musicality and liquid nature of it is addicting.


----------



## Za Warudo

ciphercomplete said:


> Is your's a desktop computer?  If it is you could get a pci-e usb card.




It is, that's a good idea since it's cheap enough to give it a shot. Thanks.


----------



## prot

za warudo said:


> Speaking of usb interfaces, is there one that would remove the crackling noise of a lousy PC usb port?  Is Wyrd the best option?




 Most probably those cracks have nothing to do with the usb port. I'd say you either have electrical issues (e.g. grounding or very noisy supply) or your audio is badly configured (google welltemperedcomputer) or your PC is not powerful enough for audio. Maybe a combo of those, especially the lasr two. An extra pcie card wont solve any of those but I guess it's cheap enough to try.


----------



## coli

prot said:


> Most probably those cracks have nothing to do with the usb port. I'd say you either have electrical issues (e.g. grounding or very noisy supply) or your audio is badly configured (google welltemperedcomputer) or your PC is not powerful enough for audio. Maybe a combo of those, especially the lasr two. An extra pcie card wont solve any of those but I guess it's cheap enough to try.


 
 Another possibility is malware in the system, really too hard to tell without more info.


----------



## wahsmoh

Okay so I just got my Peachtree T1 USB-Coax converter and compared it with the S/PDIF toslink pass through of my HT Omega Claro Halo sound card.
  
 The PCM pass-through sounds better than the Peachtree T1 with the T1 adding more grain to the treble and slightly compressing the soundstage of the Progeny.
  
 I think I am going to upgrade my toslink cable and look at higher priced USB-Coax converters that are Async, not adaptive USB. Should have just got the Gustard U12. Looks like this will be my backup for now.


----------



## prot

coli said:


> Another possibility is malware in the system, really too hard to tell without more info.




Most people do not have enough hairs to account for every possible software issue


----------



## Sonic Defender

conquerator2 said:


> The Gustard U12. I have it and it is pretty good.


 

 Did it solve the issues you felt were there with the Gungnir? If it resolves more that is great, but do you feel it is musical? I know that is a very vague term, but that is what the Gungnir does so well is be very listenable and engaging. I want that, but with a little more resolution.


----------



## conquerator2

sonic defender said:


> Did it solve the issues you felt were there with the Gungnir? If it resolves more that is great, but do you feel it is musical? I know that is a very vague term, but that is what the Gungnir does so well is be very listenable and engaging. I want that, but with a little more resolution.


 
 Nope. Did not resolve more. It was a bit smoother [I felt the USB was slightly abrasive in the treble].
  
 However, the X12 [at the risk of praising a Sabre DAC] might be that. I received it about an hour ago and from very early impressions [going through my favorite pieces atm] it sits squarely between my NFB-7 and Gungnir.
 More resolving than the Gungnir but one of the most analogue and smoothest sounding Sabres that I've heard.
 I'd say it keeps most of the musicality and smoothness of the Gungnir and adds a layer of detail and better separation of the Sabres. The least 'digititis' I've heard on a Sabre too. I'd say it rivals Gungnir in that. Also, very black background. Like, dead silent. Sounds just come and go - pretty cool.
 It is not as airy and trebly as my previous NFB-7 and is definitely less revealing and detailed too, but it does keep things fairly more musical than the NFB-7 did and easier on the ears.
  
 Again, just preliminary impressions. Give me a bit to adjust but so far I am feeling very good about these ~550$ spent. I think it might keep me occupied until the Yggy is out. and I might actually get the HE-1000 first. I feel like it is the more important part of my chain right now as the X12 really seems very good _*so far*_.


----------



## Sonic Defender

conquerator2 said:


> Nope. Did not resolve more. It was a bit smoother [I felt the USB was slightly abrasive in the treble].
> 
> However, the X12 [at the risk of praising a Sabre DAC] might be that. I received it about an hour ago and from very early impressions [going through my favorite pieces atm] it sits squarely between my NFB-7 and Gungnir.
> More resolving than the Gungnir but one of the most analogue and smoothest sounding Sabres that I've heard.
> ...


 

 Nice, thanks for the reply, and it does sound promising. I'm going to hold out for as long as I can and see what if any new products come into the picture. It is nice to hear that the X12 is that nice. Is it balanced?


----------



## conquerator2

sonic defender said:


> Nice, thanks for the reply, and it does sound promising. I'm going to hold out for as long as I can and see what if any new products come into the picture. It is nice to hear that the X12 is that nice. Is it balanced?


 
 Yep, it is balanced. I am running it both RCA-RCA and XLR-RCA. No XLR-XLR possibility yet [SE amp]. But both SE and 'BAL' sounds very good so far


----------



## Sonic Defender

conquerator2 said:


> Yep, it is balanced. I am running it both RCA-RCA and XLR-RCA. No XLR-XLR possibility yet [SE amp]. But both SE and 'BAL' sounds very good so far


 

 I just saw a Canadian ebay site with it at $552 I think, so that isn't too bad. I will be very interested to hear your thoughts after you've had a few weeks of good listening. Cheers.


----------



## conquerator2

I certainly recommend it to anyone who thinks Sabre is digital and harsh. The X12 seems like a special exception to the rule.


----------



## Za Warudo

prot said:


> Most probably those cracks have nothing to do with the usb port. I'd say you either have electrical issues (e.g. grounding or very noisy supply) or your audio is badly configured (google welltemperedcomputer) or your PC is not powerful enough for audio. Maybe a combo of those, especially the lasr two. An extra pcie card wont solve any of those but I guess it's cheap enough to try.


 
 The headphone jack from the PC has no crackling noise, so I doubt it's the PC not having enough power.  It's probably an electrical/grounding issue, as every usb port on that pc has the same problem. If so then a pcie card won't help it?  Would I have to replace the power supply?


----------



## Baldr

Re Theta DSProgeny -
  
 Yes they all have the mega-electric-burrito filter (scaled way back in terms of taps).  That is why they image the way they do.  The PCM67 DAC was the beginning of the end of Great DACs with the multibit - delta-sigma hybrid done for the sake of cost).  Finally, all of the Theta D/A converters were purposely designed to have output 6db higher than the 2VRMS standard of the time for the ease of adding passive preamps.


----------



## Jones Bob

Hi Mike, I am wondering if the filter in the Yggy shows the same pre and post echos on square wave signals as other oversampled DACs?


----------



## wahsmoh

baldr said:


> Re Theta DSProgeny -
> 
> Yes they all have the mega-electric-burrito filter (scaled way back in terms of taps).  That is why they image the way they do.  The PCM67 DAC was the beginning of the end of Great DACs with the multibit - delta-sigma hybrid done for the sake of cost).  Finally, all of the Theta D/A converters were purposely designed to have output 6db higher than the 2VRMS standard of the time for the ease of adding passive preamps.


 

 God bless you Mike. It is your fault I stayed up til 1 AM last night and 2 AM the night before. I'm in love with it and I am debating whether or not I should bless the CanJam 2015 attendees with it or leave it at home where it rightfully belongs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 haha jk it will be there you betcha
  
 so far my most successful use of the Progeny has been with the S/PDIF pass-through Toslink connection from my $200 PC soundcard with PCM options set limited to 44.1khz and 48khz. I can play back all my FLAC files without any problem, I'm guessing that my soundcard is sending a pure PCM signal so it doesn't matter (unlike my Sansa Clip+ which would read incompatible file format). I tried out a USB-coax converter called the Peachtree T1 and it added digital nasties. I am bummed, looks like I will try Gustard U12 next and buy a nicer toslink cable(even though the one I have sound perfectly fine with no traces of USB or digital crap)
  
 Blurpp.. I just listened to some jazz and I used to think that saxophones were really harsh on my ears. the super shrimp surf and turf burrito filter helped change that


----------



## AustinValentine

wahsmoh said:


> so far my most successful use of the Progeny has been with the S/PDIF pass-through Toslink connection from my $200 PC soundcard with PCM options set limited to 44.1khz and 48khz. I can play back all my FLAC files without any problem, I'm guessing that my soundcard is sending a pure PCM signal so it doesn't matter (unlike my Sansa Clip+ which would read incompatible file format). I tried out a USB-coax converter called the Peachtree T1 and it added digital nasties. I am bummed, looks like I will try Gustard U12 next and buy a nicer toslink cable(even though the one I have sound perfectly fine with no traces of USB or digital crap)


 
  
 I found that the Coax input on the Theta sounds ever so slightly better to my ears over the Optical. IMO skip on the better toslink cable and just pick up a well built Coaxial cable with for the U12. 
  
  


baldr said:


> Re Theta DSProgeny -
> 
> Yes they all have the mega-electric-burrito filter (scaled way back in terms of taps).  That is why they image the way they do.  The PCM67 DAC was the beginning of the end of Great DACs with the multibit - delta-sigma hybrid done for the sake of cost).  Finally, all of the Theta D/A converters were purposely designed to have output 6db higher than the 2VRMS standard of the time for the ease of adding passive preamps.


 
  
 Thanks for the confirm on the filter and the higher output Mike! Jason mentioned the PCM67 cost cutting over in the Schiit Happened thread last summer. http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/1350#post_10629409  When I read that, I thought that it was probably referencing the budget line Thetas that used the PCM67 (Chroma/Cobalt, Basic II, Prime I & II, the Basic II, and the Progeny). Not all of those got the mega-electric-burrito filter though, and it seems that that filter can cover a lot of budget sins.
  
 Frankly, I'm just amazed at how well these have held up. Not just in sound quality, they're built like tanks! I've seen very few vintage DACs that have this level of durability. Now if the Progeny only had an off switch on the front...


----------



## wahsmoh

Hehe question, who is going to CanJam 2015? I will be there on Saturday


----------



## Bill-P

Me. Please come on by to say hi and try stuffs out. Would love to "make" you listen to my LCD-2 and hear what I've been rambling on about in the DT880 thread.
  
 As for DAC, I have nothing special. Just a Geek Out 450. Waiting for when and if Schiit will decide to downscale the Yggdrasil to a smaller enclosure. I won't even need its ability to play high-res contents. I don't think I have heard the entire 16 bits of all of my music library, either.


----------



## wahsmoh

bill-p said:


> Me. Please come on by to say hi and try stuffs out. Would love to "make" you listen to my LCD-2 and hear what I've been rambling on about in the DT880 thread.
> 
> As for DAC, I have nothing special. Just a Geek Out 450. Waiting for when and if Schiit will decide to downscale the Yggdrasil to a smaller enclosure. I won't even need its ability to play high-res contents. I don't think I have heard the entire 16 bits of all of my music library, either.


 
 Bill I will be glad to come back and check out your setup. I will have my Alpha Dogs too. If you get a chance though you should come up to the 3rd floor and listen to my Theta DS Pro Progeny which uses a digital filter not unlike the one in the Yggy other than new tech because Mike M designed it.
  
 Better yet, if you want to have another DAC on your table I would stick around and donate it for your purposes even though it is a single-ended setup. I don't have a source like a laptop or PC(have a PC, not bringing it) so I've been looking around for someone to pair up with because the 3rd floor situation and who plans on watching who's gear has not been set up yet. That DS Pro Progeny takes toslink and coax, no USB. Has an impressive 3D soundstage that I really want you to hear too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 No hard feelings if something from 1994 happens to embarrass one of the new DACs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 oh and I know you're an engineering kind of guy, so here's the internals if it interests you

  
 found it with a google search on audio asylum
 this might help you discover those last 16-bits


----------



## auvgeek

Boy, I'd love to hear Bill's LCD2.2 and the Theta Progeny together. That has to be about the best value combo I can imagine. You guys have fun at CanJam.


----------



## agooh

Schiit Yggdrasil I listen to this special dac really impressive performance .
 but the real beast is Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC every thing you want : tiniest micro-details, huge 3d sound with speakers , musicality, imaging is the best in this DAC .
 About Hugo  what's unique about it make the sound like it's real , very detail, musicality .add more fullness and emotion you need a very good tube amp.
 Can it compete against big names ?  yes .


----------



## estreeter

sonic defender said:


> Did it solve the issues you felt were there with the Gungnir? If it resolves more that is great, but do you feel it is musical? I know that is a very vague term, but that is what the Gungnir does so well is be very listenable and engaging. I want that, but with a little more resolution.


 
  
 It's all relative, but I'm guessing you dont want to listen to Yggy if you have your heart set on Gungnir.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil/5175#post_11446741
  
 His words, not mine - dont shoot the messenger - but its interesting that the previous 'best I ever heard' gear suddenly sounds like crap when we get to hear a new toy  
  
*so I went back to the Gungnir and by comparison it sounded dry, brittle and 'digital'. Three words I never would have expected to use about the Gungnir.*


----------



## Sonic Defender

estreeter said:


> It's all relative, but I'm guessing you dont want to listen to Yggy if you have your heart set on Gungnir.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil/5175#post_11446741
> 
> ...


 

 I already have the Gungnir! I would love to make the move to the Yggy, if it was the right move. I am considering holding off until around July at the latest to see what may develop. Until then, I will have to read what others are experiencing with the Yggy. Cheers.


----------



## coli

estreeter said:


> It's all relative, but I'm guessing you dont want to listen to Yggy if you have your heart set on Gungnir.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil/5175#post_11446741
> 
> ...


 
  
 The higher end you go, the subjective improvement get's bigger even if absolute improvement is smaller. And you can never go back. It's better to not hear if you don't want to go there. Ignorance is bliss, then you die.


----------



## estreeter

sonic defender said:


> I already have the Gungnir! I would love to make the move to the Yggy, if it was the right move. I am considering holding off until around July at the latest to see what may develop. Until then, I will have to read what others are experiencing with the Yggy. Cheers.


 
  
 I dont think you'll have any problems 'waiting till July' - its only the people who have their hearts set on getting Yggy in April who may be in for disappointment given the parts shortage. The best laid plans of mice and men


----------



## Bill-P

@wahsmoh, you have a DT880, right? If you ever feel the treble is too much for you, just bring it to me, and I'll tame it for you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I have a tamed DT770, and it sounds awesome!!
  
 Anyway, would love to take you on that offer. My Geek Out 450 is a bit limited, and I know my amp (TTVJ Portable Tube) is equally limited. I may try to push a modded headphone or two after CanJam in order to get a more proper amp at the very least, since the amp is the weak link in my chain currently. Highly aiming for the Cavalli portable.
  
 Y' know, I still sometimes miss the bass of my TransDAC. R2R bass and tonal density is something ya simply can't forget once you've gotten used to it. New delta-sigma stuffs sound blurred in comparison. Though delta-sigma is more detailed above bass.
  
@auvgeek, haha, yeah. I think the Abyss is still a bit cleaner and faster than my LCD-2.2 at bass. Just a smidgen so, but enough for it to inch ahead. Abyss is also just a tad more aggressive than LCD-2.2, too. But all things considered, LCD-2.2 does have the resolution, I think, and I was very surprised to try my LCD-2.2 the other day with TransDAC -> Ragnarok. It was a great combo! But I felt like there was more to be extracted from the music (from having heard Yggdrasil prior). Would love to try LCD-2.2 on the new 0.99 Yggdrasil now and see what has changed.
  
 At this point in the game, I've started to think almost nothing else is worth the expense... except for Yggdrasil.


----------



## wahsmoh

bill-p said:


> @wahsmoh, you have a DT880, right? If you ever feel the treble is too much for you, just bring it to me, and I'll tame it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 In that case maybe I will bring my DT880 too and you can have a listen. I would love to hear a tamed DT880 it has always been a little too sparkly and not neutral enough.
  
 That R2R bass and texture.. it really lacks the blurred edges and digital grit of the S-D DAC sound. Detail in the highs isn't thrown in your face like a lot of S-D Dacs and may even sound "rolled off" but I can confirm it doesn't because I have tested tracks back to back and cymbal crashes sound real. If the track isn't mastered in a way to show the treble, the Progeny isn't going to emphasize at all. Mid-range separation and imaging is some of the best that I have ever heard as well as the "3D soundstage" I want you to hear
  
 Looking forward to hearing your LCD-2.2 Bill and MDR-Z7 with the Progeny. It really is a soundstage enhancer, I used to think the Alpha Dogs lacked back-L/R-front separation but it doesn't.. it was the Bifrost Uber all along or the filter in the Progeny just enhances the headphones and makes instruments sound clear and defined, instruments that I didn't think sounded as separated with the Uberfrost
  
 but really last edit, hearing this DAC made me question life and just " how the Alpha Prime would scale with this DAC if people felt the original Alpha Dog wasn't up to task or as refined? " that right there is what I want to find out at CanJam as well as the other flagship cans like Bill's LCD-2.2 and MDR-Z7


----------



## purrin

I'll be at CanJam. I should have an Yggy, but may still bring the Gen V since Yggy really does need time to sound good. Maybe Gen V for Saturday while Yggy warms up for Sunday.


----------



## wahsmoh

purrin said:


> I'll be at CanJam. I should have an Yggy, but may still bring the Gen V since Yggy really does need time to sound good. Maybe Gen V for Saturday while Yggy warms up for Sunday.


 
 Would love to hear the Gen V Purrin


----------



## mikek200

Hi Purrin,
  
 Yes,I would love to hear the comparison of the Gen V vs, the Yiggy , as well ..,also,would love to get some more info,on proper warm up times,on the Yiggy
 24-48 hours??? ..1 week?,tell me it ain't so???


----------



## purrin

OK. Just another 40 lbs. I guess we can put up a small Moffat DAC history museum at Canjam.
  
 BTW I am bringing a spinner - Theta Basic III. Not dealing with computer audio at this meet, so burn CDs of your reference / favorite tracks. I may be reverting to spinners because my wife can't handle audio playback software on either PCs or macs. CDs make everything easier for older people like us.
  
 On Yggy warmup:
  

When cold, there's a steely / kettle drum timbre in the treble. It's also a bit lean and closed-in. The first two-four hours sucks. It sounds resolving and analytical.
After four to eight hours, it's a little bit better. Yggy is now listenable. The treble timbre gets more normal. The stage open ups a bit. A very resolving DAC with excellent technicalities all around.
After 24-48 hours, this is when the magic starts to happen. When you start to get fooled into thinking you are hearing the real thing at times.
After four-seven days, the Yggy stabilizes - where the last vestiges of any kind of artificiality disappear.


----------



## Clemmaster

How are you gonna handle this problematic warm-up for thr meet?
I'm glad I'm coming on Sunday, then


----------



## purrin

Start early.


----------



## Tuco1965

Travel with a generator.


----------



## mikek200

purrin said:


> Start early.


 
 That's why Purrin has been there, since Thursday !!!!
  
 Sorry Purrin-couldn't resist,now that I think about it....not the worst places to be ,then Southern Cali
  
 Enjoy


----------



## negura

If it was on for 2 weeks 24/7 and let's say turned off for 5-10mins. Does it start over from square 1?


----------



## purrin

If off for a few minutes, no problem. Off for an hour - start over.
  
 Was tempted to travel with a power inverter attached to a spare car battery. No - not gonna do that.


----------



## negura

That's OK. It makes things like swapping certain cables etc feasible.


----------



## hodgjy

I'm trying to wrap my head around the 4-7 day claim of thermal stability in the Yggy.  I understand that electronics usually sound best when fully warmed and are thermally stable.  But, I fail to understand what is so unique about the Yggy that it requires 4-7 days to stabilize.  Most electronics gain thermal stability in a few hours.  
  
 If the Yggy is actually decoding digital files and outputting analog music, that means all the components are being used and will generate heat.  I imagine if it's being used in this fashion it will achieve stability and reach its maximum temperature in a few hours.
  
 If the Yggy is sitting idle and not decoding files and outputting analog music, not all the components are being used, so it's not generating maximum heat.  It may take a long time for the residual heat to reach all components.  But, I still think 4-7 days is too long to be accurate.  Maybe it takes a day in this situation.
  
 So, if assuming the former scenario, if the Yggy takes 4-7 days to reach thermal stability, something isn't quite right with it and it's not a stable device to begin with.  I can't think of any possible reason for it to take so long to reach temperature and stability.  Also, wouldn't the designers be aware of this and attempt to fix it?  Wouldn't owners be frustrated by this?  Who wants to wait a week to use a top shelf device?


----------



## jexby

purrin said:


> Was tempted to travel with a power inverter attached to a spare car battery. No - not gonna do that.


 
  
 If you didn't, I hope Jason and Baldr did!
  
 feed your ears well this weekend!


----------



## estreeter

hodgjy said:


> I'm trying to wrap my head around the 4-7 day claim of thermal stability in the Yggy.  I understand that electronics usually sound best when fully warmed and are thermally stable.  But, I fail to understand what is so unique about the Yggy that it requires 4-7 days to stabilize.  Most electronics gain thermal stability in a few hours.
> 
> If the Yggy is actually decoding digital files and outputting analog music, that means all the components are being used and will generate heat.  I imagine if it's being used in this fashion it will achieve stability and reach its maximum temperature in a few hours.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Agree with many of the points you make, but the longer I spend in this hobby the more I'm convinced that some sections do indeed '_want to wait a week'_ to hear the magic. The people who put this together are undeniably zealots, but it highlights the extent to which some will go .... 
  
 http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Digital.html#2012
  
 In short, dont even *move* your digital source by a millimetre without being prepared to spend many hours waiting for the magic to reappear.


----------



## Clemmaster

Usually my gears sound better after 30mn, which is approximately the time it takes for alcohol to make effect...
  
 Seriously though, (some) studies have shown that clocks would actually take few hours to settle (with jitter graph showing different profiles over time). I don't know about days, though.
  
 I would say my mood and - maybe - the house's power quality made a much greater difference than any "settling" time, past the ~30/1h mark (depending on gear. The Rag takes actually a bit more time than my other amps). I've had great sessions after the 30mn mark point and ****ty ones after few hours of warm-up, and vice versa.


----------



## jexby

clemmaster said:


> Usually my gears sound better after 30mn, which is approximately the time it takes for alcohol to make effect...




+1


----------



## thune

hodgjy said:


> I'm trying to wrap my head around the 4-7 day claim of thermal stability in the Yggy.  I understand that electronics usually sound best when fully warmed and are thermally stable.  But, I fail to understand what is so unique about the Yggy that it requires 4-7 days to stabilize.  Most electronics gain thermal stability in a few hours.
> ...
> Also, wouldn't the designers be aware of this and attempt to fix it?


 
 I share this confusion. What is there to change after thermal steady-state has been achieved, which I also believe happens in a matter of hours. [Is there some reason it doesn't?]
  
 If it does take 4-7days, we'll probably see someone working on a warm-up acceleration protocol. [Put in oven at 70C for 20minutes and then install into system / Cover right half of chassis with a blanket for 4 hours / Apply 1000W hair drier airflow in the specified pattern for 10 minutes.]


----------



## Khragon

It doesn't take 4-7 days to warm up, but our ears aged 4-7 days so the treble got that much smoother.


----------



## reddog

Thanks for the heads up, once I get the Yggdrasil, I shall rarely, turn it off. I was hoping this issue would had been fixed, before finale production.


----------



## djtw345

Just an FYI, the manual for my Theta Gen V-VA states that it takes 4 days on for the analog output section to stabilize.
  
 Also, when the Theta is plugged in, the analog section is always on, regardless of the ON/OFF switch position. Perhaps the yggy will work the same way?


----------



## mikek200

djtw345 said:


> Just an FYI, the manual for my Theta Gen V-VA states that it takes 4 days on for the analog output section to stabilize.
> 
> Also, when the Theta is plugged in, the analog section is always on, regardless of the ON/OFF switch position. Perhaps the yggy will work the same way?


 
 Aren't the guys who were involved in The Theta Gen V-VA,also involved in the Yiggy
 I think Purrin mentioned that in a pm ,he sent me..


----------



## kugino

mikek200 said:


> Aren't the guys who were involved in The Theta Gen V-VA,also involved in the Yiggy
> I think Purrin mentioned that in a pm ,he sent me..


 

 correct


----------



## Tachikoma

Long warm-up times seem to be the norm for R2R based DACs.


----------



## johnjen

I agree that if it were only a thermal issue, the SQ wouldn't change once the entire assembly reached equilization.
  
 And I have been tracking SQ changes as components 'age' and also after changes have been made.
  
 I many cases I'm hearing major improvements after hundreds of hours of playing time.
  
 And most of these changes aren't simple improvements in the usual types of distortion etc.
  
 These changes are closer to what MM referred to as the equipment dissapears (gets out of it's own way) and our connection to the music becomes much more 'direct'.
 I have called this being IN the music, and it seems to be associated with a greatly reduced listener fatigue factor.

 What the causitive factors of all of this is, I'm not certain, but when the veils lift and the emotional quotient is raised, the music becomes Imperative.
  
 JJ


----------



## mikek200

johnjen said:


> I agree that if it were only a thermal issue, the SQ wouldn't change once the entire assembly reached equilization.
> 
> And I have been tracking SQ changes as components 'age' and also after changes have been made.
> 
> ...


 
  
 About 3 weeks ago,I got delivery of a new KGST amp.
 One of the first things that the builder {Geoffrey} ,told me,was to give it 200 hours minimum break-in,.,300 would be better.
  
 Recently,I seem to be  hearing a difference-I even asked my wife to give it a listen,she confirmed it..smoother,more defined,,were words she used...a really outstanding amp, IMHO.,,maybe I will finally achieved -end game.
  
  
 I'm hoping the Yiggy will be the icing on the cake,no matter ,how long I have to warm it up.


----------



## hodgjy

Burn in isn't the same as thermal stability.  Burn in is also a hotly debated topic, but it's more concrete for me to wrap my head around.
  
 I'm not discrediting people (and the idea itself) about long times required to reach thermal stability.  But, my brain is having a hard time comprehending the physics and thermodynamics of a 20 pound device needing 4-7 days to thermally stabilize.  We're not talking about a 100,000 sq foot warehouse here.  Once a temperature is reached, it's reached.  If there's no catalyzing of materials or chemical reactions, I don't understand what transformations are taking place inside a solid state device after a few hours of warming.  An electron is an electron and the temperature of its medium will have an impact, but its behavior should be repeatable at each temperature.


----------



## gevorg

sometime in 2018: Introducing Yggdrasil 2, warms up to perfection in just 24 hours!


----------



## mikek200

hodgjy said:


> Burn in isn't the same as thermal stability.  Burn in is also a hotly debated topic, but it's more concrete for me to wrap my head around.
> 
> I'm not discrediting people (and the idea itself) about long times required to reach thermal stability.  But, my brain is having a hard time comprehending the physics and thermodynamics of a 20 pound device needing 4-7 days to thermally stabilize.  We're not talking about a 100,000 sq foot warehouse here.  Once a temperature is reached, it's reached.  If there's no catalyzing of materials or chemical reactions, I don't understand what transformations are taking place inside a solid state device after a few hours of warming.  An electron is an electron and the temperature of its medium will have an impact, but its behavior should be repeatable at each temperature.


 
 I totally agree with you,Hodgiy,unless someone come up with a solution,I'm just leaving mine on ,,24/7
 Excuse ,the detour.


----------



## wahsmoh

My Theta plugs into a wall and it doesn't have an on/off switch. I just leave it plugged in and that way it is always warmed up and I can't fault it in any way.


----------



## mikek200

wahsmoh said:


> My Theta plugs into a wall and it doesn't have an on/off switch. I just leave it plugged in and that way it is always warmed up and I can't fault it in any way.


 
 And that's on a dac,that's .....25 years old..??
 Nice.


----------



## hodgjy

mikek200 said:


> And that's on a dac,that's .....25 years old..??
> Nice.


 
 Some of the biggest changes to the audio world have been improved op amps.  That technology has taken over because they are a cheap way to achieve good measurements on audio analyzers. Older technology used fets and discrete output stages.
  
 Since many people find that fets sound better than op amps, new technology, like the Schiit family, is adopting them again. Also, older gear is having a renaissance.


----------



## purrin

khragon said:


> It doesn't take 4-7 days to warm up, but our ears aged 4-7 days so the treble got that much smoother.




Could be. Sometimes it's a matter of accustomization. The problem with that is that I own multiple DACs / have another reference to compare to.

FWIW, the GAIN AD converter used by MFSL had an oven.

Would be interesting to keep music playing. The one week warm up time was simply leaving it on.


----------



## mikek200

hodgjy said:


> Some of the biggest changes to the audio world have been improved op amps.  That technology has taken over because they are a cheap way to achieve good measurements on audio analyzers. Older technology used fets and discrete output stages.
> 
> Since many people find that fets sound better than op amps, new technology, like the Schiit family, is adopting them again. Also, older gear is having a renaissance.


 
 Yes,I was looking to pick up the Theta,but it was to close to the Yiggy in price,plus,....Purrin talked me out of it.
 I've heard wonderful thinks,about the Theta,just wasn't sure ,how long it might last me,and I imagine ,parts are probably scarce,if it should need servicing


----------



## purrin

gevorg said:


> sometime in 2018: Introducing Yggdrasil 2, warms up to perfection in just 24 hours!




In 2018, the same Yggy might not need that warmup. My 20 year old Gen V can now be transported and switched on without issue even though the manual says leave it on for four days. I also noted over time that my Mjolnir required less warm up time.

The gear that required the least warm up... Tube amps. 15 minutes and we are good.


----------



## djcarpentier

@ kugino (and anyone else)
  
 Alrighty, my Monarchy M22a DAC is actually pretty awesome. This has the R2R PCM63P-K chip. I've had it for about a week so far. Don't have too much to compare it to right now, but i will say it is a very good sounding DAC. I noticed right away the bass was excellent. Running it balanced out to studio monitors via spdif. Black background, excellent dynamics. Zero smearing or congestion for full passages of music. For the price these can be had at they are fantastic. Highly recommended.


----------



## estreeter

reddog said:


> Thanks for the heads up, once I get the Yggdrasil, I shall rarely, turn it off. I was hoping this issue would had been fixed, before finale production.


 
  
 I dont know that there is anything to 'fix' - if you read Mike's thoughts on digital sources a few weeks back, he doesnt turn any of his gear off. Some claim that the digital clocks take at least 48 hours to stabilise - I have no idea how said stabilisation works, but if its true than that's something else to consider. Audiophiles are a funny bunch - something that would have almost any other hobbyist crying foul can be accepted in this hobby if the groupthink is sufficiently powerful. The 300-hour burn in seems to be some sort of standard now, but I've seen figures as high as 1000 hours and these were supposedly 'night and day' differences according to the reviewer in question. 
  
 If the accepted wisdom turns out to be that you need to turn Yggy on and leave it on until the zombie apocalypse takes out the grid, then that's what I believe most owners will do.


----------



## Sonic Defender

estreeter said:


> I dont know that there is anything to 'fix' - if you read Mike's thoughts on digital sources a few weeks back, he doesnt turn any of his gear off. Some claim that the digital clocks take at least 48 hours to stabilise - I have no idea how said stabilisation works, but if its true than that's something else to consider. Audiophiles are a funny bunch - something that would have almost any other hobbyist crying foul can be accepted in this hobby if the groupthink is sufficiently powerful. The 300-hour burn in seems to be some sort of standard now, but I've seen figures as high as 1000 hours and these were supposedly 'night and day' differences according to the reviewer in question.
> 
> If the accepted wisdom turns out to be that you need to turn Yggy on and leave it on until the zombie apocalypse takes out the grid, then that's what I believe most owners will do.


 

 Nah, I turn my gear on an hour beforehand if I can remember.


----------



## arnaud

My D1 sounded pretty awful out of the box, best I can describe it is smeared, muffled and wet. I was a but concerned actually as i might have been fooling myself when I had a unit for a short while a year before.
Now, it did take barely 4 hours to get everything setted. I haven't actually turned it off since but sound hasn't changed to my ears.

Well, I did get spoiled and used to the sound so, I have switched back to my previous DAC once last week to make sure what I felt was a little more than than placebo due to price tag . 

Turns out I did not leave the old dac on for 5 minutes, it was that obvious. Not that the old dac sucks (at least not to me ears and with my comparisons to similar priced gear in the past) but the D1 is just a while another level of realism & resolution. I absolutely agree the treble does not feel lacking in the least, the cymbal splash actually sounds much more realistic on the ladder dac. The other obvious difference is texture / body, everything gains weight and again realism. Last one is layering, I guess resolution helps to better hear room cues.

Anyhow, I suppose the iggy delivers on all these fronts so you guys going to canjam are in for a treat (and a long wait line eh!  ).

Arnaud


----------



## prot

major, night&day improvements after thousands of hours of burn-in ... and hundreds of hours of warm-up ... equipment dissapears ... feet are tapping ... no listener fatigue ... 

imho that is how components move from the "sounds good" category into the "sounds too good to be true" category ... and for some reason I do prefer the plain old cow steak to the new and fancy unicorn steak.


----------



## jexby

prot,
  
 have not laid ears nor headphones on the Yggy (or Ragn) have ye?


----------



## prot

jexby said:


> prot,
> 
> have not laid ears nor headphones on the Yggy (or Ragn) have ye?




I'm living in the EU and hopefully it is already clear for everyone that I did not. 
And never will if the discussion continues on that path. Life's too short for chasing unicorns.


----------



## jexby

prot said:


> I'm living in the EU and hopefully it is already clear for everyone that I did not.
> And never will if the discussion continues on that path. Life's too short for chasing unicorns.


 
  
  
 completely understand this perspective.
  
 however, having heard Yggy+Ragn with my own balanced cabled and HE-560 for 20min at RMAF-
 my ears were transported into the "recording room" as the music sounded that realistic and that physical.
  
 and with that will claim- some unicorns are real.


----------



## Argo Duck

Whether unicorns exist or not has nothing to do with whether the Yggy is a high performer. These are logically distinct things.

And yes - the problem of one's equipment disappearing has been raised :eek:


----------



## wahsmoh

[delete]


----------



## wahsmoh

Here's a neat little comparison from audiophilia website of the Assemblage (Sonic Frontiers) DAC-2 and DS Pro Progeny if any of you have heard one or the other this might be good for reference.
  
 http://www.audiophilia.com/hardware/dac2.htm
  
 "At the opposite end of the frequency spectrum, the DAC-2 had a satisfyingly deep bottom end, with only the deepest of deep bass notes getting short shrift. The throbbing bass lines on tracks from Holly Cole's _Temptation_ didn't have quite the impact that they have via the Theta DS Pro Progeny, admittedly a processor with a price tag almost double that of the DAC-2's. The only minor quibble I have with the tonal balance of the DAC-2 is its apparent slight lack of energy in the lower midrange/upper bass region. On some discs, this imparted a touch of leanness to the sound of male voice and the lower registers of female voice. Mark Knopfler's voice, on _Calling Elvis _from the excellent Super Bit Mapped reissue of Dire Straits' _On Every Street_, lost some of its familiar gravelly texture, a texture that was more apparent through the DS Pro Progeny than through the DAC-2. In addition, Charlotte Neddiger's harpsichord on _Tafelmusik's _Bach Branderburg Concerto No. 5, had a more "tinkly" character and less authority to its lower registers than it has live or via the Theta processor. In all other respects, however, the DAC-2 proved to be formidable competition for the $995 DS Pro Progeny, in my opinion, one of the best under-$1000 processors. The DAC-2 was the Progeny's near-equal in the areas of imaging, soundstaging, and dynamics. The frequency range from the upper treble to the midrange was handled very well by both processors, the Theta managing to edge out the DAC-2 only from the lower midrange on down. One area in which the DAC-2 was the clear winner was in the area of detail retrieval, as the DAC-2 managed to mine the subtlest of detail from CDs, some of which the Theta glossed over. To be quite honest, before listening to the DAC-2, I had some reservations about comparing it to the DS Pro Progeny given the disparity in price between the two processors. The fact that the DAC-2 could not only compete with the Theta processor, but was actually able to better it in some areas, is a real testament to the skill of the engineers at Sonic Frontiers."
  
 These impressions match up with how I feel and glad he took note of the lower mids and bass which I think are the best attributes aside from dynamics, imaging, and soundstage. Goodnight everyone and see you at CanJam 2015 if you are going


----------



## estreeter

sonic defender said:


> Nah, I turn my gear on an hour beforehand if I can remember.


 
  
 Then it would appear that your time with Yggy _may_ be short and unpleasant if purrin's observations are accurate.


----------



## conquerator2

Well, I am not keeping my gear on all the time  :rolleyes:


----------



## daerron

Hmmm, with that kind of warm up time, I'll have to cancel my Yggy dreams. Unfortunately we have an energy crisis in our country and we have frequent forced 2 hour power breaks to ensure the ongoing stability of the electricity grid. Haven't got even a hope to get those 4 days of warm up time! Try living with Hi-Fi in an energy stricken country and suddenly audio as a hobby becomes a lot more complicated.. The frequent power cuts also cause spikes on the grid that can damage your equipment so you have to unplug everything from the wall.. I'm looking forward to receiving my Geek Out just so I can enjoy uninterrupted audio on my laptop through electricity black outs...


----------



## Articnoise

estreeter said:


> I dont know that there is anything to 'fix' - if you read Mike's thoughts on digital sources a few weeks back, he doesnt turn any of his gear off. Some claim that the digital clocks take at least 48 hours to stabilise - I have no idea how said stabilisation works, but if its true than that's something else to consider. Audiophiles are a funny bunch - something that would have almost any other hobbyist crying foul can be accepted in this hobby if the groupthink is sufficiently powerful. The 300-hour burn in seems to be some sort of standard now, but I've seen figures as high as 1000 hours and these were supposedly 'night and day' differences according to the reviewer in question.
> 
> If the accepted wisdom turns out to be that you need to turn Yggy on and leave it on until the zombie apocalypse takes out the grid, then that's what I believe most owners will do.


 

  

 I have also read that some digital clocks takes 24- 48 hours to stabilize. IME it takes like 12-14 hours for the OR5 to sound descent and a little better still if left on for more than 24 hours. If I unplug it for just a few minutes or a longer time doesn’t matter much its back to square one. I don’t know the reason to this, but is probably not a thermal thing as much as a need for the voltage to stabiles or something else I/we don’t know about. 

 My Master 7 doesn’t sound as bad when been unplug as the OR5 but still sounds better if been on for some hours. I can power it off and when change a cable and put it on and not needing to go thru the long stabilizing thing like with the OR5. Both has a digital clock but react a bit different IME. M7 seems mostly be stabilized by thermal and OR5 by voltage or something else. 

 Regarding burn-in time. Some gears have capacitor that needs very long burn-in time. One notorious capacitor is the black gate that seems to sound its best after like 700 hours.


----------



## Sonic Defender

estreeter said:


> Then it would appear that your time with Yggy _may_ be short and unpleasant if purrin's observations are accurate.


 

 We will see, but I never hear these big warm-up differences anyway. I can't imagine any design having such a requirement to sound good. I can't believe leaving gear on doesn't shorten the life of the gear, but I'm not exactly at Mike's level am I?


----------



## prot

articnoise said:


> I have also read that some digital clocks takes 24- 48 hours to stabilize. IME it takes like 12-14 hours for the OR5 to sound descent and a little better still if left on for more than 24 hours. If I unplug it for just a few minutes or a longer time doesn’t matter much its back to square one. I don’t know the reason to this, but is probably not a thermal thing as much as a need for the voltage to stabiles or something else I/we don’t know about.




If you dont know it and noone actually saw it or came up with an at least remotely reasonable explanation, then it's an unicorn... pretty much by definition. At least it is for me.
 It may actually exist or it may not ... but I dont have the time or desire to care.


----------



## evanft

purrin said:


> OK. Just another 40 lbs. I guess we can put up a small Moffat DAC history museum at Canjam.
> 
> BTW I am bringing a spinner - Theta Basic III. Not dealing with computer audio at this meet, so burn CDs of your reference / favorite tracks. I may be reverting to spinners because my wife can't handle audio playback software on either PCs or macs. CDs make everything easier for older people like us.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Is the one you're bringing a pre-pro unit, similar to the one zero reviewed? I knew he said something about the warm-up time being an issue with that one.


----------



## daerron

Temperature changes in resistive networks can have effects on the linearity of the DAC. When its at optimum temperature and warmup the performance will be best and most consistent. I'm not sure whether temperature has an effect on the jitter performance of oscillators, but can imagine those having a settling time. Whether it is noticeable is a different question?


----------



## Articnoise

prot said:


> If you dont know it and noone actually saw it or came up with an at least remotely reasonable explanation, then it's an unicorn... pretty much by definition. At least it is for me.
> It may actually exist or it may not ... but I dont have the time or desire to care.


 

  

 If one can hear it, it exist. The fact that I don’t know the exact reason for it is not meaning it of less importance.  Hey science can’t even fully explain what energy is, still we can use it, make theories and calculating about it. 

 I have read that it has something to do with oscillators and voltage stabilizing. The why it will take that long time for the clock to stabilizing is a puzzle to me as well, but not making it unicorn in my book.


----------



## coli

It takes some time for the brain to adjust to new sound signature and be able to process it. The breakin/burnin time really depends on how plastic your brain is.
  
 If you look at some highly rated musical speakers for example, they don't measure well at all, but they provide more information for the brain to convert into pleasure.


----------



## Articnoise

coli said:


> It takes some time for the brain to adjust to new sound signature and be able to process it. The breakin/burnin time really depends on how plastic your brain is.
> 
> If you look at some highly rated musical speakers for example, they don't measure well at all, but they provide more information for the brain to convert into pleasure.


 

  

 You know we are talking about DACs that we have own for some time (not new) and the reason they can sounds inferior after they have been off for a while and then power on again, do you?


----------



## coli

articnoise said:


> You know we are talking about DACs that we have own for some time (not new) and the reason they can sounds inferior after they have been off for a while and then power on again, do you?


 
 Just get an equitech unit and you won't have that problem anymore.


----------



## estreeter

prot said:


> If you dont know it and noone actually saw it or came up with an at least remotely reasonable explanation, then it's an unicorn... pretty much by definition. At least it is for me.
> It may actually exist or it may not ... but I dont have the time or desire to care.


 
  
 Mike could very easily have set something up at CANJAM assuming he had sufficient access to the Schiit room well in advance. Three Yggys, labelled A, B and C. One powered on for at least 48 hours, one just 8 hours before they let the mob through the doors (by my calculations, that will be happening as I type this) and _one that he only powers on when prot or another skeptic asks to hear the DAC_. Each audition would be accompanied by a tablet with columns for 'Date', 'Time', 'Attendee ID' and 'Rating', assuming CANJAM allocates some form of ID to every paying attendee. 
  
 The kicker is that the skeptics wont be able to hear 'DAC A' until the end of the meet, when they will be able to go back to a simple graph illustrating their opinion of the 'on-again, off-again' Yggy. If purrin is right, there should be some red faces and Mike's wont be one of them - of course, all three Yggys would have roughly the same number of hours on them. Alternatively, Schiit could simply update their FAQ and explicitly state that they believe that leaving gear turned on is advisable for those wanting to get the best from their DACs. My guess is that any Yggy at CANJAM will be in such heavy demand that reserving one simply for the skeptics would evoke howls of protest from those who are prepared to accept that some gear needs to be left on to sound its best. Will certainly make for some very interesting CANJAM impressions assuming Mike didnt have access to the room 48 hours ago


----------



## ciphercomplete

^that would be great


----------



## negura

.


----------



## negura

purrin said:


> In 2018, the same Yggy might not need that warmup. My 20 year old Gen V can now be transported and switched on without issue even though the manual says leave it on for four days. I also noted over time that my Mjolnir required less warm up time.
> 
> The gear that required the least warm up... Tube amps. 15 minutes and we are good.


 
  
 I was going to say it I would struggle to tell differences at all, after let's say the first 1-2 hours on either of my Theta. For the first few minutes until it gets a bit warm it is perhaps a bit more analytical and less refined.


----------



## bmichels

I am really looking forward the launch of the replacement of the CHORD QBD 76 HDSD: The *CHORD QBD168 that will be launched at the Munich Show.*
  
*--> Anybody has preliminary infos already ? *


----------



## prot

estreeter said:


> Mike could very easily have set something up at CANJAM assuming he had sufficient access to the Schiit room well in advance. Three Yggys, labelled A, B and C. One powered on for at least 48 hours, one just 8 hours before they let the mob through the doors (by my calculations, that will be happening as I type this) and _one that he only powers on when prot or another skeptic asks to hear the DAC_. Each audition would be accompanied by a tablet with columns for 'Date', 'Time', 'Attendee ID' and 'Rating', assuming CANJAM allocates some form of ID to every paying attendee.
> 
> The kicker is that the skeptics wont be able to hear 'DAC A' until the end of the meet, when they will be able to go back to a simple graph illustrating their opinion of the 'on-again, off-again' Yggy. If purrin is right, there should be some red faces and Mike's wont be one of them - of course, all three Yggys would have roughly the same number of hours on them. Alternatively, Schiit could simply update their FAQ and explicitly state that they believe that leaving gear turned on is advisable for those wanting to get the best from their DACs. My guess is that any Yggy at CANJAM will be in such heavy demand that reserving one simply for the skeptics would evoke howls of protest from those who are prepared to accept that some gear needs to be left on to sound its best. Will certainly make for some very interesting CANJAM impressions assuming Mike didnt have access to the room 48 hours ago




Dream on...


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> OK. Just another 40 lbs. I guess we can put up a small Moffat DAC history museum at Canjam.
> 
> BTW I am bringing a spinner - Theta Basic III. Not dealing with computer audio at this meet, so burn CDs of your reference / favorite tracks. I may be reverting to spinners because my wife can't handle audio playback software on either PCs or macs. CDs make everything easier for older people like us.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Ruh-roh ...
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/758649/canjam-socal-2015-impressions-thread/45#post_11455110
  
 Per my post in that thread, perhaps today's CANJAM attendees have a better chance of hearing Yggy at it's best. The irony of a Head-Fier hearing both Yggy and the (portable) Hugo for the first time (the TT is the same DAC FWIW) and _preferring the Hugo_ isnt lost on me, but I'm happy to wait for a few more impressions, albeit in the less than ideal conditions of a meet. So far, most of the raves seem to be around Mr Speakers ETHER and the HE-1000 : hopefully someone will plug one or both into a Yggy/Rag combo on Day 2 and give us some feedback. Really sorry for all our wallets


----------



## jexby

estreeter said:


> The irony of a Head-Fier hearing both Yggy and the (portable) Hugo for the first time (the TT is the same DAC FWIW) and _preferring the Hugo_ isnt lost on me,


 
  
  
 it's completely lost on me.
 one head-fier "preferring" anything is an insignificant sample size, especially with new (Ether) headphones which are unfamiliar to the listener initially as well.
  
 more trust is placed in folks who have had a Yggy in their environment, with familiar headphones, for days/weeks on end.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

Yeah, it would seem that something which would immediately jump at you could possibly be tiresome in the long term. I would feel more comfortable placing value into impressions that have had a chance to digest the full scale and subtleties of the DAC and by means of extended comparisons with other DACs. To his credit, he did indicate that meet conditions could be to blame for his initial lukewarm impression of the Yggy.


----------



## estreeter

jexby said:


> it's completely lost on me.
> one head-fier "preferring" anything is an insignificant sample size, especially with new (Ether) headphones which are unfamiliar to the listener initially as well.
> 
> more trust is placed in folks who have had a Yggy in their environment, with familiar headphones, for days/weeks on end.


 
  
 No argument from me - _I was referring to the earlier discussion around prot's complete rejection of the 'unicorn' of alleged warm-up times for the Yggy and the apparent need to keep it on 24/7_ - the Hugo reference was merely an observation. As for the other comment re a component being 'tiresome' if it leaps out at you at a meet, all I can suggest is that some here need a bit more exposure to the component in question before making that call, as it absolutely has not been my experience. The SABRE DACs in my BDP-105D and the B-B DSD1792A in my Marantz can definitely grate on me when I'm tired, but to date that hasn't been my experience with the Hugo. In any case, your point is valid - let's hope for more impressions from day two very soon. 
  
 As for my comment re plugging the Ether into Yggy, I'm not sure that's what actually happened but the Head-Fier in question did leave us with some nice images of the gear he enjoyed:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/758649/canjam-socal-2015-impressions-thread/15#post_11454515
  
 Again, meet impressions surrounded by new gear and a crowd of enthusiastic Head-Fiers arent going to be the same as a report from someone who has spent weeks with a given component in their own system - that said, I'm still very eager to hear impressions from currawong. Right now, Amos is undoubtedly catching some Zs in preparation for another big day in his element - color me green


----------



## wahsmoh

So in the end I was bummed that I never managed to demonstrate my Theta DS Pro Progeny v. A. I brought it and everything but no one set up any sources in the executive board lounge upstairs and I didn't have any of my own. I was too busy at the end of the day trying to search for all the things I wanted to hear and get all the signatures for my stamp card which I did with ease.
  
 I came back home and fired up the Theta DS Pro Progeny v. A and am listening to it with the Asgard 2 and they are both single ended. A true match made in heaven. For the next members Head-fi meet I will be delighted to demonstrate this analog truth teller. It is like a single ended Yggy in the way it images, totally Mike. Thanks Mike 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 good job today on your seminar!!! you were a crack up and everyone had a good time


----------



## Baldr

I have been dealing with subjective impressions of cold vs. warmed up D to A converters I have designed for over 30 years.  Where there are many opinions, here are some laws of the engineering physical universe:
  
 In the case of brand new passive components, reliability increases an order of magnitude in each successive 24 hours of burn-in.  In the 1980’s, with through-hole parts, approximately .5% of such parts failed randomly in the first 24 hours.  Today, with surface mount parts, the first 24 hours result in a much lower .01 to .05%.  This is precisely why I burned Theta Gear in for 100 hours back in the 80’s and will burn the Yggys in for 24-48 hours today.
  
 As they burn-in and reach operating temperature, resistors mechanically deform from new and their ohmic value changes.  Typically parts per 100,000.
  
 All resistors have voltage coefficients – this means they change their ohmic value as the voltage across them changes.  In the highest-grade thin film resistors, it is typically 0.005%.  That is 5 parts per 100,000.
  
 All signal capacitors have some percentage of the signal passing through them randomly being absorbed.  This varies from parts per 100 (electrolytic caps) to parts per 100,000 (Teflon).  You guessed it – this varies with temperature.
  
 The DAC in the Yggy is 20 bit -1 part per million considering a 1 lsb linearity error and the fact that there are 2 per channel. 
  
 Now based upon some half assed experiments I have run on myself, I figure my hearing is good to somewhere in the 1 part per 10,000 to 1 part in 100,000, according to the parameter. 
  
 But I am positive that if I can only estimate the quantitative accuracy of my own hearing that I have a very poor idea of what anyone else can hear. 
  
 It seems there are a couple of swingin’ dix on this thread who have decided what others can hear.  You may well have more meaning and friends in life if you just keep your arrogance to yourself.
  
 Stuff warms up – what is trivial sonically to some matters to others.  Nothing is broken because it performance varies within the above parameters over time.


----------



## estreeter

Mike, I have absolutely no problem with any of that and you've already stated your views on leaving sources on 24/7 - the head swinger appears to be taking his meds at the moment, but I expect that he'll be along to give us the benefit of his undeniable expertise in the fields of electronics and metallurgy. And unicorns, of course.


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> Why? It's not like any of these portable amps are resolving enough to let you hear the difference between 16 and 18bit material, and anything beyond 44.1kHz can't be heard anyways (assuming we are working from the same master).




 If you put it like that, 16/44 is enough for everything and everyone . Personally I never heard any improvement above that .. and not the type who worries much about such things.

 I just want a plug&play device that plays all files OOTB and can drive almost any cans.. and it's at least transportable. The Leckerton looks quite well generally but I just dont wanna fiddle with things like bitrate/file format/dsd and so on. 
The iDSD Micro fits my bill quite well. IIUC, you do not like their sound much, would you care to go into some detail?


----------



## Insidious Meme

estreeter said:


> Ruh-roh ...
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/758649/canjam-socal-2015-impressions-thread/45#post_11455110
> 
> Per my post in that thread, perhaps today's CANJAM attendees have a better chance of hearing Yggy at it's best. The irony of a Head-Fier hearing both Yggy and the (portable) Hugo for the first time (the TT is the same DAC FWIW) and _preferring the Hugo_ isnt lost on me, but I'm happy to wait for a few more impressions, albeit in the less than ideal conditions of a meet. So far, most of the raves seem to be around Mr Speakers ETHER and the HE-1000 : hopefully someone will plug one or both into a Yggy/Rag combo on Day 2 and give us some feedback. Really sorry for all our wallets




There are three Yggys at the meet. One at the Schiit table (with a Ragnarok), purrin's table (with his EC 2A8), and with Mr. Speakers. I didn't notice any HE-1000 outside of Hifiman's table, but I'm sure you'll have people listening to the Ether with it there with Mr. Speakers. I know at the Shiit and purrin tables, the Yggys will be left on overnight. Not sure if that will be the case with Mr. Speakers, nor what amp it is with. I didn't notice when I listened to the Ether there.

Also, the 1.00 firmware one was with Schiit, the 0.99 ones were at the other tables. Wasn't told what the difference was.


----------



## prot

estreeter said:


> Mike, I have absolutely no problem with any of that and you've already stated your views on leaving sources on 24/7 - the head swinger appears to be taking his meds at the moment, but I expect that he'll be along to give us the benefit of his undeniable expertise in the fields of electronics and metallurgy. And unicorns, of course.




I'm pretty sure that my msges do contain enough 'for me', 'personally' and other similar qualifiers. Each one of us is entitled to an opinion ... and whether it is me, you or anyone else, that is just *one* opinion and just one set of ears. Anyone who has more proof than that, can make a thread in the very nice science section and prove his point ... once and for all if possible. 

I am also pretty sure that this is neither the schiit nor the iggy thread but a generic Dac thread...all Dacs for all needs, preferences and budgets. *Personally* I'd like it to stay like that. 

P.S.
As about your hardly veiled & very personal jabs, there is a PM system, no need to annoy everyone. Thank you and have a good sounding time. And appologies to everyone else for this offtopic msg.


----------



## Currawong

estreeter said:


> Again, meet impressions surrounded by new gear and a crowd of enthusiastic Head-Fiers arent going to be the same as a report from someone who has spent weeks with a given component in their own system - that said, I'm still very eager to hear impressions from currawong. Right now, Amos is undoubtedly catching some Zs in preparation for another big day in his element - color me green


 
  
 5am and I can't sleep. It seems I can't get more than 6 hours sleep a night at meets. 
  
 The Iggy: 
  
 It's that good. 
  
 As for how it sounds cold or warm: Seriously, who gives a ****? Do so if you buy your own. The real unicorn is the argument itself. We should be grateful we have amazingly talented guys like Mike and Robb making this stuff for us and doing their best to bring back the reality into the sonic output of DACs.


----------



## 62ohm

^ Love that shirt lol


----------



## estreeter

Thanks Amos - I'll leave it there. Enjoy the rest of the meet, mate.


----------



## coli

estreeter said:


> Ruh-roh ...
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/758649/canjam-socal-2015-impressions-thread/45#post_11455110
> 
> Per my post in that thread, perhaps today's CANJAM attendees have a better chance of hearing Yggy at it's best. The irony of a Head-Fier hearing both Yggy and the (portable) Hugo for the first time (the TT is the same DAC FWIW) and _preferring the Hugo_ isnt lost on me, but I'm happy to wait for a few more impressions, albeit in the less than ideal conditions of a meet. So far, most of the raves seem to be around Mr Speakers ETHER and the HE-1000 : hopefully someone will plug one or both into a Yggy/Rag combo on Day 2 and give us some feedback. Really sorry for all our wallets


 
 I've been looking at charts, and past Schiit DAC don't rank well. Guess I'll wait for reviews.


----------



## prot

currawong said:


> Seriously, who gives a ****? ... The real unicorn is the argument itself.




Definitely agree with that one ... also hope to see a lot more tshirts like yours .. and people who truly mean it. 

And btw, any chance for some similar meets around the EU!? Quite jealous right now.


----------



## smitty1110

coli said:


> I've been looking at charts, and past Schiit DAC don't rank well. Guess I'll wait for reviews.



Jason has a post somewhere on this site about how they take a selection of products, test them, take thw worst numbers they get on any individual product, and then double them or something like that. Peopl on other formus have measured much better rezults from schiit products than the official conservative numbers on the schiit website.


----------



## Currawong

prot said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, who gives a ****? ... The real unicorn is the argument itself.
> ...


 
  
 That was Mike Moffat's t-shirt!
  
 EU? Yes! It hasn't been announced on the forums, but those who came and read the back page of the Canjam guide will have noticed that the next one is in London at the end of August.


----------



## Sorrodje

We hope to have a chance to build one canjam in France too. Before the end of the year 
  
@Currawong : is there any guidelines for canjams ?


----------



## shadow84

What is the difference between Maverick Audio Tube Magic D1 DAC & Maverick Audio Tube Magic D2 DAC? Is it considered a level higher than schiit modi 2?


----------



## Currawong

sorrodje said:


> We hope to have a chance to build one canjam in France too. Before the end of the year
> 
> @Currawong : is there any guidelines for canjams ?


 
  
 They are organised by Jude, Warren and Ethan. The Canjam name can't be used by anyone else.


----------



## Sorrodje

currawong said:


> They are organised by Jude, Warren and Ethan. The Canjam name can't be used by anyone else.


 
  
 Ok . So I'll shoot a MP to the team and talk about our project. We would really like to associate Head-fi community to our plans.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

currawong said:


> They are organised by Jude, Warren and Ethan. The Canjam name can't be used by anyone else.


 

 well there was that one time across the pond...


----------



## Redcarmoose

daerron said:


> Hmmm, with that kind of warm up time, I'll have to cancel my Yggy dreams. Unfortunately we have an energy crisis in our country and we have frequent forced 2 hour power breaks to ensure the ongoing stability of the electricity grid. Haven't got even a hope to get those 4 days of warm up time! Try living with Hi-Fi in an energy stricken country and suddenly audio as a hobby becomes a lot more complicated.. The frequent power cuts also cause spikes on the grid that can damage your equipment so you have to unplug everything from the wall.. I'm looking forward to receiving my Geek Out just so I can enjoy uninterrupted audio on my laptop through electricity black outs...









You just need to get a voltage regulator. They come in all shapes and sizes. If you do experience voltage swings your laptop transformer will also burn out in due time. 

After you get a voltage regulator you can leave your stuff plugged in all the time.


----------



## prot

currawong said:


> That was Mike Moffat's t-shirt!
> 
> EU? Yes! It hasn't been announced on the forums, but those who came and read the back page of the Canjam guide will have noticed that the next one is in London at the end of August.




London isnt exactly my favourite (expensive accommodation & all else, ****ty weather) but I guess it makes sense for you guys (language, culture, flights and prolly sponsors too). My first choice would be amsterdam .. or paris, milan .. or even berlin. In any case, for us europeans London surely beats flying transatlantic.

 Thx for the good news and hopefully I'll be able to fit an ear-massage weekend into my summer schedule.


----------



## negura

currawong said:


> That was Mike Moffat's t-shirt!
> 
> EU? Yes! It hasn't been announced on the forums, but those who came and read the back page of the Canjam guide will have noticed that the next one is in London at the end of August.


 
  
 Awesome news to me and I will be there. So thrilled. I will try and bring one of my Theta Gen Vs and if I have it by then, the Ygg, of course.


----------



## daerron

redcarmoose said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yeah, thanks, I've got one from Clearline protecting my Hi-Fi, but the grid here can be unstable for around 5 minutes after the power comes back on, actually worried it will damage the voltage regulator which is pretty expensive by itself so since the outages are scheduled I usually just plug it out all the same! My laptop is protected through a UPS, but regular outages aren't good for the backup battery. The typical UPS wasn't really meant to be used as backup power so I'm looking at getting a solar panel with a good deep cycle battery with a good regulator and inverter and running my office from that. Some UPS systems produce regenerative sine waves which aren't that good for audio components.


----------



## mikek200

Can you explain what this means????
  

"After 24-48 hours, this is when the magic starts to happen. When you start to get fooled into thinking you are hearing the real thing at times."
 So,basically,we still have to wait 1 week,for optimal results-correct?


----------



## estreeter

mikek200 said:


> Can you explain what this means????
> 
> 
> "After 24-48 hours, this is when the magic starts to happen. When you start to get fooled into thinking you are hearing the real thing at times."
> ...




qpparently not but lets wait for everyone to get back from canjam, get some sleep and we'll get back to that.


----------



## mikek200

estreeter said:


> qpparently not but lets wait for everyone to get back from canjam, get some sleep and we'll get back to that.


 
 Tnx,Estreeter
  
 Seems things are getting more confusing ..
 If this 1 week warmup time, is really the case,I may have to switch back to my Theta Gen;V plan,if I can find one.
  
 Enjoy today,please post back with more Yiggy info,if you can?
  
 Mike


----------



## Sonic Defender

So I'm trying to fully interpret what Mike was saying. This is how I read the situation and if I err, somebody please correct me. The Yggy when new should be turned on and left on for at least 48hours, no worries there. After that, if you didn't want to leave it on all the time would turning it on for an hour before use be adequate? Perhaps Mike is still looking on this thread. Cheers.


----------



## mikek200

sonic defender said:


> So I'm trying to fully interpret what Mike was saying. This is how I read the situation and if I err, somebody please correct me. The Yggy when new should be turned on and left on for at least 48hours, no worries there. After that, if you didn't want to leave it on all the time would turning it on for an hour before use be adequate? Perhaps Mike is still looking on this thread. Cheers.


 
 AS I understand it,correct me if I'm mis-reading it.
  
 24-48 hours is the minimal time for warm up
 1 week is optimal.
 If you shut down for short period of time,up to 1 hour,your still ,OK? ,anything over that..?????,you will have to wait ???
  
 Correct me ,if I'm wrong.
 My question is-was they're anyone at the meet that had a Yiggy ,that was warmed up, for 1 week,if so...who..Purrin?


----------



## coli

daerron said:


> Yeah, thanks, I've got one from Clearline protecting my Hi-Fi, but the grid here can be unstable for around 5 minutes after the power comes back on, actually worried it will damage the voltage regulator which is pretty expensive by itself so since the outages are scheduled I usually just plug it out all the same! My laptop is protected through a UPS, but regular outages aren't good for the backup battery. The typical UPS wasn't really meant to be used as backup power so I'm looking at getting a solar panel with a good deep cycle battery with a good regulator and inverter and running my office from that. Some UPS systems produce regenerative sine waves which aren't that good for audio components.


 
 Solar inverter produces extremely bad quality AC which will have a big effect on sound quality.


----------



## purrin

Yggy is finally sounding good today. By magic, we are talking about the realism and involvement aspect. Yggy sounds dry and merely technically proficient otherwise.

Keep in mind Yggy could be like the Gen V where over time, the excessive warm up isn't necessary.

BTW, I did hear the Chord TT.


----------



## negura

purrin said:


> BTW, I did hear the Chord TT.


 
  
 Are you buying one?


----------



## mikek200

purrin said:


> Yggy is finally sounding good today. By magic, we are talking about the realism and involvement aspect. Yggy sounds dry and merely technically proficient otherwise.
> 
> Keep in mind Yggy could be like the Gen V where over time, the excessive warm up isn't necessary.
> 
> BTW, I did hear the Chord TT.


 
 So,Purrin,,how long has it been on----48 hours??


----------



## purrin

negura said:


> Are you buying one?




Hell no.


----------



## 62ohm

purrin said:


> Hell no.




Care to give us some thoughts?


----------



## purrin

mikek200 said:


> So,Purrin,,how long has it been on----48 hours??




Since Friday 8pm. I think putting music through it and flipping the bits hastens the warm up.


----------



## drez

Have you tried the demagnetising tracks? Sounds like massive BS but works for me with cables. They are meant to reduce warm up and burn in time. Just yesterday my Zeus cable sounded sibilant as hell until I used the tracks. (Didn't use the Zeus for a couple of months)


----------



## Sonic Defender

So for real, is it being suggested that people have to leave the Yggy on all the time, consuming power? I will be honest, that is a little disappointing to hear if true. How much power does it consume when idle?


----------



## lojay

purrin said:


> Since Friday 8pm. I think putting music through it and flipping the bits hastens the warm up.


 
  
 Hey Marv, do you think the Yggy is a better match for the 445 or the Ragnarok when driving HD800s?


----------



## johnjen

sonic defender said:


> So for real, is it being suggested that people have to leave the Yggy on all the time, consuming power? I will be honest, that is a little disappointing to hear if true. How much power does it consume when idle?


 
 Thus far I've not seen any mention of the 'idle' power draw.
 But judging from other hi-end dacs I figure no more than ≈ 50 watts (my PWD draws ≈ 30 watts)
  
 JJ


----------



## estreeter

sonic defender said:


> So for real, is it being suggested that people have to leave the Yggy on all the time, consuming power? I will be honest, that is a little disappointing to hear if true. How much power does it consume when idle?


 
  
 Mike did post some estimates of what all the gear in his house - audio, A/V etc - was drawing (he leaves _everything_ on) and I seem to recall that nothing stood out as excessive. End of the day, we're talking a single source component that potentially is going to put a smile on your face every single time you pump music through it - surely that's worth a few cents on your electricity bill ? If your concern is the environment, you'd better take that up with Mike - he seems typically forthright on that issue too.


----------



## purrin

sonic defender said:


> So for real, is it being suggested that people have to leave the Yggy on all the time, consuming power? I will be honest, that is a little disappointing to hear if true. How much power does it consume when idle?


 
  
 30 watts.
  
 P.S. I have always left my DACs on running continuously.
  


lojay said:


> Hey Marv, do you think the Yggy is a better match for the 445 or the Ragnarok when driving HD800s?


 
  
 Yggy is 445 is fine if you already have the 445 with HD800. Really no need for Rag.


----------



## mcullinan

I hear that placing a few Audio Pebbles™ on the YGGY it will cut warmup time in half by controlling the initial tone.


----------



## coli

sonic defender said:


> So for real, is it being suggested that people have to leave the Yggy on all the time, consuming power? I will be honest, that is a little disappointing to hear if true. How much power does it consume when idle?


 
 Another concern is how long it'll last and a even bigger concern is how fast till sound quality starts to deteriorate due to aging components...


----------



## smitty1110

mcullinan said:


> I hear that placing a few Audio Pebbles™ on the YGGY it will cut warmup time in half by controlling the initial tone.


 

 I was going to put some sulfur crystals on top, so that my room wold smell like brimstone while listening to organ music. Make the warm up faster is merely a bonus


----------



## magiccabbage

I have heard a lot of indifferent to unimpressed impressions from canjam in regards to the yggy. This is quiet surprising.
  
 everyone seemed to love the HUGO TT though - well, for the most part.  
  
  
  
 I will be reviewing the TT soon - it would be great to have the yggy there for AB comparisions


----------



## arnaud

Most ears weren't burned in / warmed up to listen to the awesomeness. . More seriously, didn't impressions improve on sunday? Seems like Amos was thrilled when listening to it on sunday night (he must have been plenty warmed up in the ears by then lol  ).
Arnaud


----------



## magiccabbage

arnaud said:


> Most ears weren't burned in / warmed up to listen to the awesomeness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 ill have to go back and read through more


----------



## Rotijon

You've got to be messing with me. A week warm-up time. A damn week. Is the dac made of thousand year frozen mammoth bones or something. 

 I guess you really do learn or hear something new in audio everyday.

 Would be a funny ass story if intel said their processors need to be on 2 weeks to reach max cpu speed.


----------



## StefanJK

I'm willing to potentially buy a week long 'warm-up' period for Yggy (I've not heard it yet),  but I'm doubtful this is actually 'warm-up' in the sense of getting to a stable warm temperature.  It has to be something else, more along the lines of warming up + electrical field chemical diffusion effects.  Along the lines of boiling gasses out of water, where you need to actually boil the water long enough to let the gasses get out  -- the time scale is otherwise non-plausible.  It would be nice to know what's actually happening, ideally so this could be addressed by design.


----------



## estreeter

magiccabbage said:


> I have heard a lot of indifferent to unimpressed impressions from canjam in regards to the yggy. This is quiet surprising.
> 
> everyone seemed to love the HUGO TT though - well, for the most part.
> 
> ...


 
  
 There are a few Yggy impressions in the thread - either wildly enthusiastic or totally underwhelmed - but with the level of expectation that Yggy has generated, surely some of that was to be expected ? I would also argue that not everyone loved the TT, although as Hugo owner and huge fan of Rob Watts' design skill, I'm happy for Chord if they can sell the desktop version for roughly double the price of the original. I haven't heard either Yggy or the TT, but based on the wildly variable reports on the HE-1000 and repeated complaints about the absurd volume levels many attendees used for their listening, I'm not prepared to draw too many conclusions.
  
 If I had to pick two setups I would love to have heard based purely on the enthusiasm levels in that thread, one would be Frank Cooter's SR-009 rig and the other the ALO Continental 2  but rave reviews are no guarantee that I would have had the same reaction - its just interesting to see the emphasis various people have given to both  products in their impressions. Look forward to your review of the TT, even if you seem to have tipped your hat somewhat.


----------



## Clemmaster

The Hugo TT is a joke at its price point.


----------



## reddog

stefanjk said:


> I'm willing to potentially buy a week long 'warm-up' period for Yggy (I've not heard it yet),  but I'm doubtful this is actually 'warm-up' in the sense of getting to a stable warm temperature.  It has to be something else, more along the lines of warming up + electrical field chemical diffusion effects.  Along the lines of boiling gasses out of water, where you need to actually boil the water long enough to let the gasses get out  -- the time scale is otherwise non-plausible.  It would be nice to know what's actually happening, ideally so this could be addressed by design.



+1 Well said sir. I am still shocked, I need to leave the Yggdrasil on all the time. I have really trained myself to turn off every thing, when I step out of my pad, for few hours. I shall have to learn to leave it on all the time.


----------



## estreeter

clemmaster said:


> The Hugo TT is a joke at its price point.


 
  
 I havent heard it so I'll take your word for it.


----------



## magiccabbage

estreeter said:


> There are a few Yggy impressions in the thread - either wildly enthusiastic or totally underwhelmed - but with the level of expectation that Yggy has generated, surely some of that was to be expected ? I would also argue that not everyone loved the TT, although as Hugo owner and huge fan of Rob Watts' design skill, I'm happy for Chord if they can sell the desktop version for roughly double the price of the original. I haven't heard either Yggy or the TT, but based on the wildly variable reports on the HE-1000 and repeated complaints about the absurd volume levels many attendees used for their listening, I'm not prepared to draw too many conclusions.
> 
> If I had to pick two setups I would love to have heard based purely on the enthusiasm levels in that thread, one would be Frank Cooter's SR-009 rig and the other the ALO Continental 2  but rave reviews are no guarantee that I would have had the same reaction - its just interesting to see the emphasis various people have given to both  products in their impressions. Look forward to your review of the TT, even if you seem to have tipped your hat somewhat


 
 No hat tipping here - I will buy the best DAC, that's my plan. I'm gonna try to hear both at the same time. If that is not possible then I'l hear them separately and decide. 
  
 I was 90% sure that the Yggy was going to be the DAC for me. Those impressions just worried me a bit thats all - but then again that's Audio for ya. I hope to god the yggy sounds better than the Hugo TT - I would rather spend less and get more quality but if the TT trumps it then that's where ill go - at least that's my thinking at the moment. God knows what ill actually end up buying, 
  
 I was playing around with the idea of building a dedicated audio PC with the help of a friend and holding off on a DAC upgrade till the end of the summer. This seems like a wiser option for me right now. ¬
  
 I heard a Dedicated audio pc at a private meet recently - it was connected to a cuinis DAC and the thing blew me away. It was incredible. The build cost about 1100 euro including a separate power supply. Adding a Yggy or Hugo to the PC at the end of the summer might be the way I go but ill keep you informed along the way. I could end up with a completely different DAC altogether. 
  
  
 Paddy


----------



## purrin

On the warm up issue, there are two possibilities:
  

zerodeefex, badr (Mike Moffat), and my observations (and a few others') on the warm up effect are real.
Our ears got accustomed to the sound / we were subject to mysterious effects of the mind.
  
 For those who believe in possibility #2 or are concerned about leaving the Yggy on all the time (keeping in mind that some DACs actually still stay on when turned off or some people leave their DACs on all the time), then I would advise them to not buy the Yggy. Yes. Do not buy it. I am being genuine here.


----------



## mikek200

purrin said:


> On the warm up issue, there are two possibilities:
> 
> 
> zerodeefex, badr (Mike Moffat), and my observations (and a few others') on the warm up effect are real.
> ...


 
 So,for all of us,who choose option # 2,what do you sugest?
 As per an e-mail reply I got a few hours ago,he states:
  
  
  

 
 *Jason Stoddard* 
 1:46 PM (3 hours ago) 


 ​ ​

 

​ 
 to me





 
 

  
  
  
  
  "It’s really simple: turn it on. Leave it on. Done.  
 Beyond that, best to refer to Mike’s posts on head-fi."    All the best,
  
 Jason Stoddard
  
 Co-Founder"
  
 Is this some sort of joke??-Jesus
 Mike


----------



## haywood

magiccabbage said:


> I was 90% sure that the Yggy was going to be the DAC for me. Those impressions just worried me a bit thats all - but then again that's Audio for ya. I hope to god the yggy sounds better than the Hugo TT - I would rather spend less and get more quality but if the TT trumps it then that's where ill go - at least that's my thinking at the moment. God knows what ill actually end up buying,



Keep in mind the list at the start of the thread, if the rankings fall in line with your own listening then odds are the Yggy will be the DAC for you. If you have tastes different than purrin and his friends then it might not be. The warm up stipulation (and it should be noted purrin said it was a week for best possible results, he also said it finally started sounding good at CanJam on Sunday which is much less than a week) is definitely a handicap but there are lots of things in your house that drain current even when "off". A standby mode that provided enough current to keep the magic happening but wasn't full power might be worth exploring but 30w isn't outrageous.

Did anyone who wasn't impressed Saturday come back and listen Sunday? That'd be the most interesting comparison.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> On the warm up issue, there are two possibilities:
> 
> 
> zerodeefex, badr (Mike Moffat), and my observations (and a few others') on the warm up effect are real.
> ...


 
 So you are saying that it will need to be left on for prolonged periods all the time and not just during the first few weeks of burn in??
  
 If so then balls!! Major big balls. 
  
 I was hoping that this would just be a burn in issue at the start. Unfortunately there would be no possible way I could leave it on for hours on end except for maybe once at the weekend. 
 Surely this is fixable? They hardly expect us to leave the thing on indefinitely?


----------



## magiccabbage

haywood said:


> Did anyone who wasn't impressed Saturday come back and listen Sunday? That'd be the most interesting comparison.


 
 But why didn't they make sure that the thing was running for a week before hand - its almost like they didn't want anyone to like it. 
 If it wasn't gonna sound good without being on for a week and there was no way to fulfill that week run then why bring it at all? - doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## EraserXIV

Maybe "warm-up" isn't the best term. It implies that it is all due to temperature (which to a certain degree it probably is), but there are probably other factors at play too. Maybe "ramp-up" would be a better term and make it more acceptable to people.
  
 That way we might get a little less: "But I used my infrared temperature sensor that has a error-factor of only 0.001% from my air-chair engineering sofa and it was at maximal temperature in 20 minutes!! This defies all the Newtonian, Einsteinian, Heisenbergian laws of physics that I simultaneously wrote my imaginary doctoral thesis on!!! This is impossibruuuuuu!".


----------



## Jason Stoddard

Guys, I'm sure Mike will chime in here, but a couple of comments from my side:
  
 1. I think the warm-up thing is overblown. Really. That said, why didn't we run it for a million years? Because we just got boards from the PCB assembly house on Thursday. It is the first 1.0-level product (actually manufactured, rather than hand-assembled.)
  
 2. That said, it does sound best when left on. If this doesn't work for you, I totally understand.
  
 3. If you think that anything could be told from a 1-10 minute listen in the howling 90dB ambient, 85 degree temperature room we were in at the show (most rooms were much more relaxed, quieter, and cooler), especially since most listeners did not bring their own music, and were relying on an unfamiliar system, I think you need to sit back and reflect on that.
  
 4. Similarly, I encourage you to try the DACs you're considering for yourself, rather than making snap decisions based on hearsay. Is Yggy for everyone? Of course not. Neither is anything else. We have done our best to make a state-of-the-art, completely upgradable product that you can enjoy for many, many years and not worry about changes in the future. No matter what you end up with, I hope you find the perfect product for your needs.


----------



## magiccabbage

jason stoddard said:


> Guys, I'm sure Mike will chime in here, but a couple of comments from my side:
> 
> 
> 3. If you think that anything could be told from a 1-10 minute listen in the howling 90dB ambient, 85 degree temperature room we were in at the show (most rooms were much more relaxed, quieter, and cooler), especially since most listeners did not bring their own music, and were relying on an unfamiliar system, I think you need to sit back and reflect on that.


 
 that's a fair point. 
  
 If i cant get my hands on one in the next few weeks while im reviewing the Hugo TT then i will try and find someone in London who has one and call to them for a listen. I would be willing to fly over to hear one before or coming up to June.


----------



## mikek200

jason stoddard said:


> Guys, I'm sure Mike will chime in here, but a couple of comments from my side:
> 
> 1. I think the warm-up thing is overblown. Really. That said, why didn't we run it for a million years? Because we just got boards from the PCB assembly house on Thursday. It is the first 1.0-level product (actually manufactured, rather than hand-assembled.)
> 
> ...


 
 OK,your post should have been posted FIRST.
  
 Many of us,myself included,and you told us about the Yiggy,alot of us were very excited,and have been waiting,for some sort info,the results via camjam,left me ,with the impression,that many people were not exactly tripping over themselves,to buy the Yiggy.
 If you tell us to wait..,most of us,myself included will wait-that's all.,but to read this BS about" do not buy the Yiggy"..is a total joke.
 Good luck with the rest of your production on the Yiggy..hope everything works out for you.,driver issues,warm-up times,and what other things might crop up
  
 MikeS.


----------



## reddog

I have no problem with keeping this unit on all the time. It seemed odd to me, but lots of electronics are left on all the time. If I leave it on all the time, it will be one less thing to fiddle with.


----------



## Baldr

Some further clarification re warmup:
  
 I leave my sources on all the time at home. It is convenient for me and workable as I notice improvements over time temperature with NOT just D/A converters but amps, etc.etc. Purrin and others have also noticed this effect.
  
 When I went on record 30 years ago with the Theta gear to leave it on four days I received a myriad of replies. Every thing from, “Screw you, I won't buy it if I have to leave it on” to “Mine sounded fine after a few hours.”
  
 We have a very limited amount of pre-production Yggys floating around in the field. Most who have heard them are demanding listeners who are expert at hearing any flaws in equipment. YMMV.
  
 Old Thetas I have heard don't seem to change over such a period of time. Perhaps they more “permanently” burned in. I have no idea, nor the time to study such matters statistically.
  
 From time to time I have listened to other digital gear, and in my humble opinion, it gets better over a long period of time. The relevant consideration with much of this gear is, do I really want to keep listening to it that long?  Apparently the listeners to new Yggys wanted to keep going.
  
 So don't get trapped in relative matters for gear you have never heard.
  
 I have yet to hear a D/A converter that does not improve in its first week of life. Anybody's. Period.
  
 I have nothing to say about other D/A converters other than my own because I have not heard them. I may be loud, old and opinionated, but have never commented on experiences I lack.
  
 YMMV.
  
 Oh, I forgot – YMMV.
  
 And did I say, YMMV.


----------



## skeptic

Just to add a little perspective, many other dac makers similarly suggest that their products be left on at all times for best results.  The same recommendation was made when I bought my modest keces dac, which is a well engineered little unit, but certainly no statement piece like the yggy.  I think it is just one of those things you need to accept as a necessary evil if you want your dac to sound as good as it can.
  
 A lot of listeners seem to think that tube gear needs major warm up time while solid state gear should not.  In fact, it is arguably the reverse.  (See: http://www.theaudioarchive.com/TAA_Resources_Tubes_versus_Solid_State.htm , under transistor - disadvantages, "device parameters vary considerably with temperature")


----------



## jacal01

baldr said:


> YMMV.
> 
> Oh, I forgot – YMMV.
> 
> And did I say, YMMV.


 
  
 So, you're sayin' there's a chance?


----------



## mikek200

baldr said:


> Some further clarification re warmup:
> 
> I leave my sources on all the time at home. It is convenient for me and workable as I notice improvements over time temperature with NOT just D/A converters but amps, etc.etc. Purrin and others have also noticed this effect.
> 
> ...


 
 +1,me too,unless it runs extremely hot


----------



## bfreedma

Does the Yggy have a "soft start" function where it's plugged in with the power switch on but the LEDs off? If so, would that state qualify as "powered on all the time"?


----------



## mikek200

baldr said:


> Some further clarification re warm up:
> 
> I leave my sources on all the time at home. It is convenient for me and workable as I notice improvements over time temperature with NOT just D/A converters but amps, etc.etc. Purrin and others have also noticed this effect.
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for getting back to us ,on this
 Recently,I received a new KGST amp,that was made to me,by Geoffrey.
 When I opened the box,he left me a letter,to give the KGST,at least 2-300 hours.of break in,and NOT TO TURN IT OFF.
 Now that I'm around 250-300 hours,I am hearing a big difference,inn SQ.
 When-if I ever get the Yiggy..I will just leave it on
 Question:-why were we being advised NOT to buy the Yiggy,if we want to leave it on..???
  
 MikeS.


----------



## purrin

I have already said these things and will say it again.
  

My 20 year old Theta Gen Va sounds fine right after I turn it on. I have observed that my Mjolnir requires much less warm up time than when I first got it a few years ago. It is entirely possible that over time, the Yggy may not require such a long warm up time. No guarantees.
One way to get around the warm up issue is to leave the DAC on all the time. I tend to leave my DACs on. Some DACs I have owned did stay on all the time, e.g. PWD2. All the DACs where I gave impressions on in the first page were warmed-up at least two days, sometimes a week before evaluation.
  
 At the meet, a banned HF'er and I found Yggy thin and grainy without much plankton at 12 hours. The Gen V was easily better in terms of tone, timbre, and resolution. 40 hours later around Sunday noon, Yggy started to get good. Around 44 hours, I started hear little spurts of the magic (let's just call it a vinyl-like effect instead of magic).
  
  
 If the warm-up issue sounds too mysterious and you equate this phenomenon to the effect of "magic rocks", do not buy it, I repeat do not buy it. I think it is totally reasonable for someone to choose not to buy something that he/she thinks is magical BS. If you are concerned about not getting the best from the Yggy and can't bear the thought of not leaving it one all the time, then do not buy it. This is my genuine honest-to-goodness recommendation.


----------



## purrin

> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > On the warm up issue, there are two possibilities:
> ...


 
  
 To clarify, If you are NOT concerned about leaving the Yggy on all of the time, then obviously, it is non-issue for you.
  
 If you think what I am saying about the Yggy needing this time to sound its best is BS, then please assume I am full of ****, and do not buy it.


----------



## 7ryder

magiccabbage said:


> So you are saying that it will need to be left on for prolonged periods all the time and not just during the first few weeks of burn in??
> 
> If so then balls!! Major big balls.
> 
> ...


 
 I'm curious, will you keep the dedicated PC you plan on building powered up all the time?


----------



## purrin

magiccabbage said:


> that's a fair point.
> 
> If i cant get my hands on one in the next few weeks while im reviewing the Hugo TT then i will try and find someone in London who has one and call to them for a listen. I would be willing to fly over to hear one before or coming up to June.


 
  
 There are ways to control / calibrate impressions at meets. Look for times that are quiet. Come in the early morning, or wait until the meet dies town and stack **** up to compare. Use the same set of reference recordings over and over again. Know how the amp sounds in terms of tonal balance and resolving capabilities to isolate the DAC's characteristics. Know what the listeners' sonic preferences are. Ask the listener what other gear he has heard and under what circumstances. Ask the listener what headphones and specific masters of recordings - he was using. Everything must be relative and controlled to each other as much as possible.
  
 Using these techniques, I have been able to well discern how gear sounds even in less than ideal conditions. If I am not sure, I will say so. A good example of this is the HE1000. I have said that the HE1000 seems promising, but I was not able to control / isolate factors as much as I wished, hence no strong opinion on the headphone. 
  
 The Cavalli Carbon sounded like ass the first time I heard it, until I realized it was the Cypher Labs portable DAC that sounded like ass. I isolated that DAC and replaced it with a better one which made the Carbon sound fantastic. In both instances, I used the same headphone and same recording that I was familiar with.
  
 A few people commented that my setup at the meet, an EC2A3 custom amp + Yggy was on the bright sounding side. Most of my friends thought it was pretty darn neutral. By reference, neutral has in being very similar to the Ragnarok/Yddrasil combo's tonal balance. Everything is relative. Some people prefer a warmer sound. Some people like an analytical sound. Some people prefer a deep stage. Some people don't care about stage.
  
 Finally, there are people I trust more than others. Usually people I have pm'd and have found common ground on shared experiences with gear. If what I say correlates 15% to own experience, by all means do not listen to me. If what I say correlates 80% to your own experience, then maybe give me a little bit more weight than random dude at meet with random headphones and random recordings.


----------



## Argo Duck

Bemused by this issue. Maybe I've missed something. I have assumed the phrase "to sound its best" means 'in order to extract the last possible drop of super-performance'. As numerous real life factors can stop us 'hearing at our best' I really doubt I would notice the difference between Yggy at 99% of its best versus 99.99% - *most of the time*.

OTOH, if it's being claimed Yggy needs X-days warmup because until then _it sounds like crap compared to 90% of all other DACs_ then *this* would certainly be an issue for anyone who can't or won't leave it turned on. But I really don't believe this is what's being said?!


----------



## johnjen

My 2¢
State of the Art gear ALWAYS has issues, for someone.
 Of course the same can be said for any gear, but SotA gear usually has a 'generous' serving of these types of issues.  
 They don't exist to piss people off, but because in order to reach these degrees of sonic precision, certain compromises, or choices, were made in the design and implementation of the desire to push the SotA in new directions.  
 And that is the point of a SotA device to push the envelope, to provide something that is unique.
  
 This is nothing new nor unusual in any way.
 And make no mistake Jggy IS a SotA DAC.
 It comes from deep SotA roots and for those who have not ventured into these rarefied heights before, well there are and always have been certain requirements in order to play in this portion of the audio spectrum.
  
 If the details surronding ANY piece of gear don't match your requirements then as JS states "If this doesn't work for you, I totally understand."
 We're talking expectations here, some are realistic while others, not so much.
  
 And since Jggy is a SotA DAC, it has it's strengths and weaknesses, just like ANY piece of gear does.
 And like any SotA device there are 'costs' associated with 'living' with it.
 Not to mention getting the most out of the device (aka tweaking it).
  
 You either are willing and able to come to terms with this, or not.
 This isn't rocket science (well the Jggy is) so it boils down to, you can either accept these strengths and weaknesses or rail against these realities.
 The realities aren't going to change, which leaves it up to you.
  
 IOW get over it.
 Find another DAC that does meet your needs and enjoy your music…
  
 That is after all what the real goal is after all, isn't it?
 Enjoyment of music…
  
 JJ


----------



## reddog

argo duck said:


> Bemused by this issue. Maybe I've missed something. I have assumed the phrase "to sound its best" means 'in order to extract the last possible drop of super-performance'. As numerous real life factors can stop us 'hearing at our best' I really doubt I would notice the difference between Yggy at 99% of its best versus 99.99% - *most of the time*.
> 
> OTOH, if it's being claimed Yggy needs X-days warmup because until then _it sounds like crap compared to 90% of all other DACs_ then *this* would certainly be an issue for anyone who can't or won't leave it turned on. But I really don't believe this is what's being said?!



+1 Well said.


----------



## mikek200

purrin said:


> To clarify, If you are NOT concerned about leaving the Yggy on all of the time, then obviously, it is non-issue for you.
> 
> If you think what I am saying about the Yggy needing this time to sound its best is BS, then please assume I am full of ****, and do not buy it.


 
 Purrin,
 Nothing you say..is..BS to me,OK?
 I value your feedback,+ you were probably the only guy ,who had a properly warmed up Yiggy
  
 MikeS


----------



## hodgjy

purrin said:


> At the meet, a banned HF'er and I found Yggy thin and grainy without much *plankton* at 12 hours. The Gen V was easily better in terms of tone, timbre, and resolution. 40 hours later around Sunday noon, Yggy started to get good. Around 44 hours, I started hear little spurts of the magic (let's just call it a vinyl-like effect instead of magic).


 
 Plankton? I don't know, I find him gritty and annoying.


----------



## mikek200

johnjen said:


> My 2¢
> State of the Art gear ALWAYS has issues, for someone.
> Of course the same can be said for any gear, but SotA gear usually has a 'generous' serving of these types of issues.
> They don't exist to piss people off, but because in order to reach these degrees of sonic precision, certain compromises, or choices, were made in the design and implementation of the desire to push the SotA in new directions.
> ...


 
 Excellent post JohnJen.


----------



## Downrange

Just my .02 - I cannot imagine making a decision on what a high-end DAC, like the Yggy is capable of in any showroom I've been in.  There are so many variables that you cannot develop a realistic "control," especially when you have, maybe 10 minutes with it.   As to leaving a DAC on, etc., hell my ECD-1 has not been turned off, except for maybe one or two long out of town trips, for 9 years now.  Why would you turn off something that draws a relative handful of watts, anyway?  
  
 As to new component burn-in issues, I reviewed the Gungnir (on its own thread in this forum) a month or so ago.  It took me nearly the FULL "try it at home" period that Schiit GENEROUSLY extends us to make a final decision on whether to keep it or wait for the Yggy.  It finally stabilized into what I believe to be a stasis of its sound capability at just about 6 days - continuously on, and running HD Radio through it overnight with the preamp muted - long listening sessions during the days.  It was competing against my Steve Nugent-turbomodded older ECD-1 high-end DAC, and it BESTED it in a few areas.  I was pretty close to keeping it, but many HOURS into very extensive listening sessions, during which I had COMPLETE control over every aspect of the testing experience from the selection of source material to speakers, it lost out in a key area that I could, absolutely, repeatably, be sure about.
  
 Hence, I'm one of those eager folks, hanging on every word on this new DAC.  I, for one, will not make any kind of decisions based on anything less than the experience of a reviewer who, in their own audio environment,  and over a respectable period of time with the Yggy, puts forth their impressions.


----------



## Pidgeon

I've a question for Mike or Jason, I apologize if this has already been answered. Let's suppose that I live in an ideal room, with perfect temperature, humidity and so on. Now, I'm going to keep Ragnarok and Yggdrasil on all the time. I would listen to them about 3 hours a day, every day, with heapdhones, at normal volume (typical usage). Question is: how much should I expect from Rag and Ygg in terms of lifespan? 5-10-15+ years? Thank you.


----------



## magiccabbage

7ryder said:


> I'm curious, will you keep the dedicated PC you plan on building powered up all the time?


 
 No I will be turning it off. It will be on only when I'm using it. 
  
 I could go through a few weeks of having the Yggy turned on all the time if it eventually got to a stage where it would only need a half hour or hour warm up but on all the time indefinitely - that's a no no for me. I will wait it out for a few months and see what others say and make a decision then but I will definitely give the yggy a chance - i just really wanna hear one and am determined to do so now


----------



## Mr Rick

purrin said:


> To clarify, If you are NOT concerned about leaving the Yggy on all of the time, then obviously, it is non-issue for you.
> 
> If you think what I am saying about the Yggy needing this time to sound its best is BS, then please assume I am full of ****, and do not buy it.


 
  
 Actually there is another option. I can think what you are saying is BS and buy the Yggy anyway. And, live happily ever after. LOL


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> There are ways to control / calibrate impressions at meets. Look for times that are quiet. Come in the early morning, or wait until the meet dies town and stack **** up to compare. Use the same set of reference recordings over and over again. Know how the amp sounds in terms of tonal balance and resolving capabilities to isolate the DAC's characteristics. Know what the listeners' sonic preferences are. Ask the listener what other gear he has heard and under what circumstances. Ask the listener what headphones and specific masters of recordings - he was using. Everything must be relative and controlled to each other as much as possible.
> 
> 
> Finally, there are people I trust more than others. Usually people I have pm'd and have found common ground on shared experiences with gear. If what I say correlates 15% to own experience, by all means do not listen to me. If what I say correlates 80% to your own experience, then maybe give me a little bit more weight than random dude at meet with random headphones and random recordings.


 
 there are peoples opinions here on headfi that i value - yours is one. 
  
 I will give the yggy the time and attention it deserves - hopefully I can audition it in my own house for a few weeks - that would be Ideal 
 I will review the Hugo TT and hold off on buying anything until I get to hear the yggy properly - then ill make a decision. If this takes a few months the so be it.


----------



## purrin

mr rick said:


> Actually there is another option. I can think what you are saying is BS and buy the Yggy anyway. And, live happily ever after. LOL


 
  
 Yes, that is true. I'm fine as long as people don't buy the Yggy and tell me that it sounded grainy, harsh, unresolving, and closed in after 2 hours from the box.


----------



## Mr Rick

purrin said:


> Yes, that is true. I'm fine as long as people don't buy the Yggy and tell me that it sounded grainy, harsh, unresolving, and closed in after 2 hours from the box.


 
 I don't buy my Head-Fi gear based on someone eases opinion. I do my own due diligence and proceed accordingly. So, you have no worries.


----------



## purrin

I also do my own due diligence, which almost always includes other peoples' opinions.


----------



## wahsmoh

I value Purrin's opinions because he made me a believer after hearing with my very own ears.
  
 I jumped the gun and bought myself a Theta DS Pro Progeny v. A off eBay (there is another one up for sale, not a v. A) and have been enjoying it WAY more than the Bifrost Uber, in fact I haven't listened to the Uber more than once since I got the Progeny.
  
 It is now a $500 stand for my Asgard 2 and heat dissipater to keep my Progeny nice and cool and my Asgard 2 elevated.
  
 The 3D soundstage is real, detail is there without digital harshness. I'm listening to Jane Says by Jane's Addiction from Nothing's Shocking and then just switched it up to Jay Z "Regrets" from Reasonable Doubt. Both are equally enjoyable and the Progeny's DSP filter presents a soundstage that is realistic and smooth and shows ambient cues like the more expensive DACs I heard at CanJam 2015 such as the Lampizator Level 4.
  
 What a great $276 purchase. What kind of $276 will get you a product that has two separate transformers and modern copycat designs? oops I forgot the Progeny cost between $995-1200 back in 1994, which is roughly equivalent to $1200-1500 today. *on a side note going back to 1995 brings me back to my early childhood years I recall watching the "Goofy Movie" which was an animated film by Disney and hearing my dad play Dire Straits on his cassette player in the backyard. I was only 3 years old by the way
  
 just listened to Miles Davis "So What" from a 180g vinyl rip and nearly fell asleep it was so smooth. I could care less about tubes and whatnot this is just magical. Next Head-fi members meet I really hope to get the Theta DAC on a table for people to hear it
  

 Berkley Alpha DAC below


----------



## estreeter

argo duck said:


> Bemused by this issue. Maybe I've missed something. I have assumed the phrase "to sound its best" means 'in order to extract the last possible drop of super-performance'. As numerous real life factors can stop us 'hearing at our best' I really doubt I would notice the difference between Yggy at 99% of its best versus 99.99% - *most of the time*.
> 
> OTOH, if it's being claimed Yggy needs X-days warmup because until then _it sounds like crap compared to 90% of all other DACs_ then *this* would certainly be an issue for anyone who can't or won't leave it turned on. But I really don't believe this is what's being said?!


 
  
 Which part of 'thin and grainy and lacking plankton' at the 12 hour mark excites you ? What part of 'If you arent prepared to leave it on 24/7, dont buy it' isnt clear to you ?
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/3405#post_11460635
  
 Personally I'd prefer to focus on what it sounds like at 48 hours than what it sounds like at 12, but I may not be in the majority on that stance. You'll forgive me if I seem a little strident on this issue, but I believe I was pooh-poohed on this in a post from sleep-deprived Currawong during CANJAM:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/3345#post_11455796
  
*As for how it sounds cold or warm: Seriously, who gives a ****? Do so if you buy your own. The real unicorn is the argument itself.*
  
 Clearly, Amos, people do give a ******* - quite a few people - but I agree with what Jason said earlier : _at least listen to the thing before forming any opinions_. I appreciate that you'd endured a long-haul flight followed by a big day and a relatively sleepless night so I'll leave that exchange as it stands. 
  
 The kicker here is that I actually agree with purrin and Mike - leave the bloody thing on ALL THE TIME - I leave my Oppo BDP-105D on all the time for music and movies and that's not held in terribly high esteem by the anti-SABRE camp here. Mike gave a host of technical reasons as to why some of us might prefer to leave the Yggy on and I havent seen a single rebuttal from anyone with any genuine knowledge of engineering to any of his points:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-i-hate-chocolate-ice-cream/3345#post_11455570
  
 Finally, it's interesting that there are some here who have _hung on purrin's every utterance_ since roughly 1990 (!) who appear to have had a conniption ('major balls', indeed.. ) when they were asked to swallow one, relatively bitter pill in exchange for a greatly improved listening experience. Suddenly the Messiah has asked us to stop eating red meat on Fridays and we're off to find another religion ? What - you either respect his opinions - along with Mike and Jason's - or you don't. I completely disagree with his assessment of the original Hugo but I can see that the guy _lives, eats, sleeps and breathes this hobby_ : if what he has to say suddenly curdles your milk then perhaps it's time to find another thread to air your grievances. There is a Yggy thread for those who have an issue with the product and there's a Sound Science forum for those who have an issue with warmup/burn-in on solid-state devices. I've had a dig at his Messiah status several times, but he's heard a hell of a lot more gear than I'm ever likely to - throw in the ability to articulate what he's hearing and I cant ignore this thread or the OP's often blunt opinions. 
  
 Someone commented a while back that this wasnt a thread about the Yggy, rather a thread for general discussion around DACs - I'm afraid that isnt the way I read the OP in late March 2015. _Sigma-delta bad, R2R good_ - if you're prepared to make a relatively small commitment to getting the best out of it. I stated from the start that the shipped cost of the Yggy would be beyond my means, leaving me with those nasty s-d offerings, but such is life. For those of you who live in the US and do have 2300 dollars, I think Mike's previous run at a statement DAC cost something in the order of $8500 in 1995 dollars : do the math. 
  
 I wish the team at Schiit all the best with the Yggy and the rest of you a good day.


----------



## wahsmoh

I just leave my DAC on all the time cause it doesn't have an on or off switch. Better to keep it plugged in and always warmed up.


----------



## mowglycdb

jason stoddard said:


> Guys, I'm sure Mike will chime in here, but a couple of comments from my side:
> 
> 1. I think the warm-up thing is overblown. Really. That said, why didn't we run it for a million years? Because we just got boards from the PCB assembly house on Thursday. It is the first 1.0-level product (actually manufactured, rather than hand-assembled.)
> 
> ...


 
  
 I assume that the Yggy has very little burn in time then.  Some equipment definitely has to burn in over time. For example(it's an amp though) my Audio-GD Master 8, would depend on warming up time. After a few months of using it, the warming up period didn't influence sound quality that much as before, I think that's because the equipment is more burned in.
  
 King-wa sends his master products with 300 hour burn in (I think I got my Master-8 when they still burned it in for 100 hours) YMMV
  
 PD: English isn't my first language


----------



## Argo Duck

I presume these questions are rhetorical but given your unnecessarily _ad hominem_ framing...

Lacking though I am in English comprehension and being of limited hearing ability and slight of intellect too eek:!), I did dare to think purrin's listening skills - which I too respect BTW - might be just a little too refined and discriminating. His comments might put off potential purchasers who would actually _enjoy_ yggy. IOW, perhaps purrin instantly hears subtleties I personally have yet to discover. Or might never. Not improbable: what I hear (can decode) now is considerably more than 2 or 3 years ago.

Hence, I put purrin's 'advice' to one side. My response was to Jason's "it does sound best when left on". My hope: _it sounds best when left on_ not _it sounds crap if not_.

Aware as I am of how talk propogates through groups, it is IMHO far too soon and potentially too damaging to push the proposition that 'Yggy is no good if not left on'. The latter is certainly not what I understand either Jason or Mike to have said. 



estreeter said:


> Which part of 'thin and grainy and lacking plankton' at the 12 hour mark excites you ? What part of 'If you arent prepared to leave it on 24/7, dont buy it' isnt clear to you ?


----------



## skeptic

Rumor has it that yggy sounds indistinguishable from an odac for the first 48 hours after being powered on


----------



## estreeter

skeptic said:


> Rumor has it that yggy sounds indistinguishable from an odac for the first 48 hours after being powered on


 
  
 And we seem to be back to 'any properly designed DAC will sound identical to any other properly designed DAC given similar measurements'  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
@AiDee - no problem - I may have gone in a little hard in that post and I'm happy to move on. You and I seem to have read both Jason and Mike's posts differently, but that's cool too.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Equally happy to move on @estreeter. Cheers


----------



## Currawong

@estreeter I meant the same thing as Jason wrote: It's overblown. I found a lot of gear doesn't sound quite as it is capable of when first switched on but better after some time, whether that be 10 minutes or 4 hours. It doensn't consume my life, I just switch my DACs on as early as possible before listening because I feel the result is better. 
  
 The argument is a unicorn because it is a construct, whereas the Yggy is real.


----------



## zerodeefex

Even the .96 sounded great to me just turned on. It got better after a couple of days of power up, but it was darn tootin good on first boot. I am getting super excited that we have seen a 1.0 out in the wild! I have my credit card standing by


----------



## Maxx134

hodgjy said:


> Plankton? I don't know, I find him gritty and annoying.



Haha I love that photo...
I am obsessed with retrieving all audio plankton. .





magiccabbage said:


> ...... but on all the time indefinitely - that's a no no for me. I will wait it out for a few months and see what others say and make a decision then but I will definitely give the yggy a chance - i just really wanna hear one and am determined to do so now




There seems to be a huge hole in information concerning warm up with many members here.

I really can't understand why it is not a well known and accepted knowledge about leaving electronics on and " burn in" .

Well run recoding studios NEVER shut down their systems, 
Actually if you worked in one and did that would get you fired.

It is known in first year electronics that all circuits are designed to work in the ON state,

So whatever happens in between when U turn it (either on or off) will adversely affect it.

It was also known loooong ago, since my pops "hifi" days,
 that leaving stereo on was a good thing.
In His B&K sonata preamp, the circuitry always stayed on and the power button simply muted the outputs.
That was way back in the 90s
And it is still plugged in and still looks new & sounds like magic.

So I have to state again there is alot of rather naive opinions floating around here, and I don't mean to insult your post, just in general I don't know how this void of knowledge happened 
.
there are in actuality many appliance & electronics that stay "on" in your home all the time from the clocks in your microwave,
to your refrigerator where you sneak to at night while reading my dumb long post...
How many people here have a dvr or cable box that always warm? Hmmmm?


----------



## agooh

Hugo and hugo TT is better in detail and musicality and make music live and sound real.
I will rank them like : 
Chord Hugo : S
Chord Hugo TT : S++
Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS : S+++, best dac I ever heard .
There are best of the best .


----------



## chowmein83

estreeter said:


> Ruh-roh ...
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/758649/canjam-socal-2015-impressions-thread/45#post_11455110
> 
> Per my post in that thread, perhaps today's CANJAM attendees have a better chance of hearing Yggy at it's best. The irony of a Head-Fier hearing both Yggy and the (portable) Hugo for the first time (the TT is the same DAC FWIW) and _preferring the Hugo_ isnt lost on me, but I'm happy to wait for a few more impressions, albeit in the less than ideal conditions of a meet. So far, most of the raves seem to be around Mr Speakers ETHER and the HE-1000 : hopefully someone will plug one or both into a Yggy/Rag combo on Day 2 and give us some feedback. Really sorry for all our wallets


 
  
 Ok, I've been looking at the posts in this thread, and I'd thought I'd chime in with my thoughts on the Ygg/Rag combo at CanJam. Yes, I was lucky enough to plug in the Ether and the HE-1000 into the combo (as well as an HD800 and HE-560 that were at the Schiit table, and the HE-400i that I brought).
  
 I'm going to be quoting several of my other posts in other threads:
  


> Then I went to the Schiit booth to listen to the Ragnarok and Yggdrasil combo they had there. I was lucky enough to actually experience the HD-800, Ether, HE-1000, HE-560, and the HE-400i I brought all on that combo - sorry to anybody who was waiting if I hogged it too long! (Look for my comparison of these headphones on that setup in other threads later). What did I think of the Schiit combo? In short, I was actually kind of disappointed. Head-Fi has made it sound like the Yggdrasil is like the next big step in audio quality, but I honestly could not hear that. I seriously did not think it really sounded better than some of the other expensive DACs that were at the show. Also, the setup was really bright (I know this mainly because I plugged my HE-400i in, and I am very familiar with how that sounds). Is the combo still a great sounding combo? Undoubtedly yes (though in my opinion you'll need to like their sound signature). But is it really that much better than everything else in the market? In my opinion, no.


 
  


> Originally Posted by *chowmein83* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The HE-1000 sounds a bit brighter than the Ether in my opinion. While I thought that the HE-1000 could get harsh at times with the Schiit combo (something I attribute more to the Schiit combo than the HE-1000 itself, after having heard the HE-1000 paired with Hifiman's other amps), I never really felt that way with the Ether paired with the Ragnarok/Yggdrasil combo.


 
  


chowmein83 said:


> I was also very lucky to be able to listen to the HE-1000 with the Schiit Ragnarok and Yggdrasil combo. First off, I'm going to say that while I thought the Schiit combo was good, it's not going to make current owners of other high-end gear be very jealous. Don't get me wrong, the Yggdrasil and Ragnarok combo sounded very good, excellent even, but to me did not sound really better than any of the other high-end combos that I heard at CanJam (for example, to me it didn't sound any better paired with the HD-800 or the Ether than those same headphones paired with the Cavalli Audio Liquid Gold paired with some really expensive DAC that I forget the name of). Also, the HE-1000 sounded really, really bright with the Ragnarok/Yggdrasil combo (to the point of being harsh at times in my opinion). However, if I look past that, I found the HE-1000 paired with the Schiit combo to be really, really good. With well-recorded music, once again there was this realistic layer to the sound that no other headphone at the show (with the exception of the SR-009 paired with Frank's amp) could really come close to. I especially remember some kind of orchestral/chorus track that I randomly picked at the Schiit table, and I was pretty impressed with what I heard in terms of actually feeling like being in the actual concert hall for such a thing. I think a lot of people will be extremely pleased with the HE-1000/Schiit combo, but personally I found the HE-1000 to pair better with Hifiman's EF-1000 amp (which is warmer but still not lacking in detail, and much closer to my tonality preferences). I do wish that I could've plugged in the HE-1000 into one of the Cavalli Audio amps (which I was extremely impressed with), but Mr. Bian wanted to keep the HE-1000 in the room where Hifiman was, and so I respected his wishes.


 
  
 The following quote comes from when a fellow head-fi'er asked me about the pairing between the Ether and the Ygg/Rag:
  


chowmein83 said:


> A winning combination? Yes, I would think so after hearing it. However, I feel that is mostly because the Ether is tuned so that it never gets harsh, because the Ygg/Rag combo definitely got harsh on some of the other headphones I tested it with (namely HE-560, HE-1000 at points, and the HD800). The Ether has this quality where it has great treble-extension but it's never grating on the ears.
> 
> However, I will say that I found other combos to be better suited to my taste. Specifically, I really loved any of the Cavalli amps with the Ether - to me, it's a better combination of warmth and detail.


 
  
 Overall, the major points behind my thoughts are that 1.) The Ygg/Rag combo is pretty dang good, but not mind-blowing (especially compared to other high-end setups) and 2.) to me this setup is really bright. (The sound signature is really why I said I preferred the EF-1000 pairing with the HE-1000 over that same headphone with the Schiit combo). And yes, I listened to the combo on the second day of CanJam.
  
 To give a reference point as to what my preferences are, I especially enjoyed the Cavalli Audio Liquid Gold paired with that crazy expensive DAC, and the Cavalli Audio Liquid Carbon and portable IEM amp with the Chord Hugo acting as the DAC.
  
 As always, I have to put the usual disclaimers that these are all only my opinion, and that CanJam conditions were not entirely optimal for listening.


----------



## Sorrodje

@chowmein83 : what's you reference headphone and gear ? what's your history in audio ? Did you own or experienced during long time some reference dac or amp ? what dac or amp ? what's you musical tastes?  .. in other words, can you precise please where you're coming from ?   Opinion does not matter so much if we don't have the full context  
  
 What gives a specific weight to some opinions here is the fact posters are undoubtly experienced in audio. DIYfier, Experienced hobbyists,  Some people with measurement rigs.  I can read Hans030390 opinion and know where he comes from .We're sharing some experience of the same gear , and our experiences are a bit different so when he give impressions, i know how to receive and understand them. Sometimes it can apply for me . sometimes not.
  
 Posters here are a kind of Galaxy.  I can almost sit the main posters on my personal map and I know where I'm sit myself in this galaxy. then I try to correlate others experiences to mine and even a guy have different tastes than mine, I understand what he says.


----------



## chowmein83

sorrodje said:


> @chowmein83 : what's you reference headphone and gear ? what's your history in audio ? Did you own or experienced during long time some reference dac or amp ? what dac or amp ? what's you musical tastes?  .. in other words, can you precise please where you're coming from ?   Opinion does not matter so much if we don't have the full context
> 
> What gives a specific weight to some opinions here is the fact posters are undoubtly experienced in audio. DIYfier, Experienced hobbyists,  Some people with measurement rigs.  I can read Hans030390 opinion and know where he comes from .We're sharing some experience of the same gear , and our experiences are a bit different so when he give impressions, i know how to receive and understand them. Sometimes it can apply for me . sometimes not.
> 
> Posters here are a kind of Galaxy.  I can almost sit the main posters on my personal map and I know where I'm sit myself in this galaxy. then I try to correlate others experiences to mine and even a guy have different tastes than mine, I understand what he says.


 
  
 History in audio - well, to summarize, I've been in this hobby for several years, but it wasn't until the last two years I started to get serious and upgrade to better DACs and amps beyond FiiO and get better headphones (starting with the Sennheiser HD598). I now own a Hifiman HE-400i, which is usually paired to my Nuforce UDH-100 DAC/Amp combo (which I believe is really an extremely-stripped down in terms of features Nuforce DAC-100; project86 has a really good review on the DAC-100, and his description of the DAC-100 sounds pretty close to what I'm hearing out of my UDH-100). Other headphones I have auditioned with my UDH-100 and Aune T1 DAC/amp combo are listed in my profile under the "Auditioned only" section.
  
 As for musical tastes, well, I like jazz, rock, female vocals, J-Pop and C-Pop, orchestral, and probably other things that I'm forgetting right now. But those are the major music genres that I like.


----------



## estreeter

currawong said:


> @estreeter I meant the same thing as Jason wrote: It's overblown. I found a lot of gear doesn't sound quite as it is capable of when first switched on but better after some time, whether that be 10 minutes or 4 hours. It doensn't consume my life, I just switch my DACs on as early as possible before listening because I feel the result is better.
> 
> The argument is a unicorn because it is a construct, whereas the Yggy is real.


 
  
 Thanks Amos, and I hope you survived the flight back intact, assuming you're now back in Japan. I would have been looking at that little trip map they have onscreen and desperately wishing I could get off in Hawaii for a couple of nights


----------



## estreeter

Before I forget, the Cavalli portable does seem to have an official name now - the *Liquid Silicon*. No idea when Alex will get the battery sorted, but given that this amp seems to have incubating for at least 2 years I guess the Cavalli faithful can wait a little longer. Scroll down in this thread - the little guy looks quite small sandwiched between the Liquid Carbon and a Hugo but it will be interesting to see how Cavalli gear that will reportedly come in under 700 USD will be received by that segment of the Head-Fi community, particularly with ALO's Continental 2 at a jaw-dropping $1500, albeit with it's own DAC and toobs. Carting those massive DAC+amp stacks that were _de rigeur_ when the CLAS was released seems to have become decidedly uncool in 2015.  
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/758649/canjam-socal-2015-impressions-thread/420#post_11461464
  
 Away from portable amps and back to desktop DACs - apologies for the slight detour.


----------



## magiccabbage

How much energy does the Yggy suck from the wall? Would it be akin to leaving a PC running all day? Does anyone have an idea of the cost? 
  
 Just trying to figure out the cost per month. I share a house with others - its not fair if my gear jacks up the price for everyone else in the house. If it ain't that much more then its no big deal I suppose. 
  
  
 Does yggy take 30 watts from the wall? A regular PC is 65 - 250 I think? 
  
 If its the difference between 30 and 250 then thats fine.


----------



## AstralStorm

estreeter said:


> And we seem to be back to 'any properly designed DAC will sound identical to any other properly designed DAC given similar measurements'


 
 That is true actually. Except the set of measurements used by that guy was not comprehensive enough.
  
 Antialiasing filter design for instance, if any is present; noise shaper in sigma-delta DACs.
 Presence or absence of ringing in step response - not sure how audible that is, but it can be measurably different.
 Crosstalk is also a big variable. Reaction to weird loads also can cause trouble.
 (Though he did design the DAC to work with "most" "reasonable" loads - which does not include low impedance inputs/high currents or high capacitance wiring.)
  
 Psychoacoustic caveat: acutance vs accuracy. What you say is plankton might actually be the result of inaccurate reproduction and should not be audible.
 Accuracy in DACs is an absolute value. Acutance is not. That you like something doesn't mean it is actually accurate.
 For instance, some people like sharpening, some prefer blurring in sampling filters.
  
 And it is also important how the downstream gear (amplifier and headphones/speakers) reacts to any introduced artifact - there's a whole huge world of possibilities there.
  
 Regardless, we're talking about the last 1% of sound quality when you're considering most non-broken DACs - unless you're planning to connect the DAC to a weird load.


----------



## pldelisle

Wow ! Really nice thread and many thanks to Purrin for the reviews ! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 But every time I read about the Schiit Bifrost Uber vs Gungnir, I'm more and more uncertain about which one to choose 
  
 The Bifrost Uber USB fits my budget. Gungnir would be more a long-long term investment. Are the additional 330 $ (well, in Canada it's more like 400 $!) of the Gungnir worth it ? It's almost twice the price ...


----------



## Downrange

astralstorm said:


> That is true actually. Except the set of measurements used by that guy was not comprehensive enough.
> 
> Antialiasing filter design for instance, if any is present; noise shaper in sigma-delta DACs.
> Presence or absence of ringing in step response - not sure how audible that is, but it can be measurably different.
> ...


 

 This.  I would hate to have to make a decision about a source component (or anything upstream of the transducer) with my Stax Lambdas, for example.  Or the big Maggies.  There simply is no transducer that brings out the reality of a recording like the Omega IIs.  And, they don't resolve as much "plankton" as the Maggies, or the Lambdas, for that matter.  What they, and I hope, the best DACs* do, is to resolve the critical mid-range in a way that lesser transducers cannot.  
  
 Edit: *or any component of an interactive system


----------



## judmarc

wahsmoh said:


> I just leave my DAC on all the time cause it doesn't have an on or off switch. Better to keep it plugged in and always warmed up.


 
  
 Yup.  When I built mine I could have included a switch but chose not to.  It's pretty much on all the time.  If it ever needs to be off for any reason, I disconnect the power cord from the IEC receptacle in the back.


----------



## freddy1201

Hey!!! I've finally found an article that explain AND shows with measurement the difference between warm-up time for dacs.
  
 http://www.audioquest.com/resource_tools/downloads/whitepapers/Phase-Noise-Jitter-Report-0317-14.pdf
  
 As you can see, dragonfly, which is a cheap usb dac, has the best and smoothest response after 24 hours of warm-up.
  
 Now, imagine warming-up 7 boards in an 30 pounds yggy. I think 48 hours of warm-up is reasonable considering the complexity of this dac.


----------



## Insidious Meme

estreeter said:


> Before I forget, the Cavalli portable does seem to have an official name now - the *Liquid Silicon*. No idea when Alex will get the battery sorted, but given that this amp seems to have incubating for at least 2 years I guess the Cavalli faithful can wait a little longer. Scroll down in this thread - the little guy looks quite small sandwiched between the Liquid Carbon and a Hugo but it will be interesting to see how Cavalli gear that will reportedly come in under 700 USD will be received by that segment of the Head-Fi community, particularly with ALO's Continental 2 at a jaw-dropping $1500, albeit with it's own DAC and toobs. Carting those massive DAC+amp stacks that were _de rigeur_ when the CLAS was released seems to have become decidedly uncool in 2015.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/758649/canjam-socal-2015-impressions-thread/420#post_11461464
> 
> Away from portable amps and back to desktop DACs - apologies for the slight detour.




You really should just stop bringing this up.

Alex Cavalli writes...


----------



## estreeter

insidious meme said:


> You really should just stop bringing this up.
> 
> Alex Cavalli writes...


 
  
 You win - incredible radar across several threads at any one time. I liked Liquid Silicon but I guess we'll have to wait for the real name to be announced.


----------



## StefanJK

freddy1201 said:


> Hey!!! I've finally found an article that explain AND shows with measurement the difference between warm-up time for dacs.
> 
> http://www.audioquest.com/resource_tools/downloads/whitepapers/Phase-Noise-Jitter-Report-0317-14.pdf
> 
> ...


 
 Interesting.  All (?) the fun settling seems to be in the sub 100 Hz band.  Also odd non-monotonicities in settling.  Not sure the measurements are good...what causes this?


----------



## paradoxper

Purrin, or hell, even Mike Moffat, have you not considered explaining why you think the Ygg/Theta, etc improve with warm up time. I mean, the discussion on jitter is interesting,
 and at times this is something subtle and in many cases a lot of people won't be able to pick up on it. i.e. having had more experience/exposure and there in better trained ears with being able to pick up on subtleties.


----------



## purrin

mowglycdb said:


> I assume that the* Yggy has very little burn in time then. * Some equipment definitely has to burn in over time.


 
  
 This is a crucial observation. At this point, no one, including Schiit has had any one particular Yggy running for months on end. As I've stated, warm-up time seems to decrease as the product gets older, e.g. my ~20 year old Theta Gen V is pretty much ready to go after flipping the switch.
  


argo duck said:


> Lacking though I am in English comprehension and being of limited hearing ability and slight of intellect too (
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 For new readers to this thread - yes. I am extremely discriminating. This is a typical conversation between some audiophile friends and I: "**** you, I don't hear this plankton (microdetail and resolution) ****. I'm not a level 70 audiophile." and I reply back: "You are still a level 55 audiophile, so I know you hear this plankton ****. You just don't want to go down that road because it's going to cost you."
  
 I thought I had mentioned this in the first post or somewhere close to it, DACs tends to more close to each other than amps or headphones. It's funny because at the meet, I had a good conversation with Amos about how sensitive I am to small differences. Small differences that most people wouldn't care about. Also, everything is relative. If there is something better, second, third, and fourth, place sounds like ass. For example: PCM63 sounds great. The PCM1704 sounds like ass. (Actually, my thoughts about the PCM1704 have always been mixed.)
  


estreeter said:


> Someone commented a while back that this wasnt a thread about the Yggy, rather a thread for general discussion around DACs - I'm afraid that isnt the way I read the OP in late March 2015. _Sigma-delta bad, R2R good_ - if you're prepared to make a relatively small commitment to getting the best out of it.


 
  
 This thread became a journey for me. Rankings have changed a lot since I started it. I started with S-D / D-S stuff, learned to appreciate what R2R as of 2013 and 2014 brought to the table, went back in time to R2R as of 1990 (when there were better quality R2R chips, and latched on to Mike Moffat's secret project. People are going to gravitate to other people who have similar tastes. People may think I am a Schiit Yggy shill, but the fact is, this thread was started way way before I even knew about the existence of the Yggy. You guys have to know that the AGD M7 with OR5 i2s, and the PWD1->2 DACs were tops for a while.
  


chowmein83 said:


> Ok, I've been looking at the posts in this thread, and I'd thought I'd chime in with my thoughts on the Ygg/Rag combo at CanJam. Yes, I was lucky enough to plug in the Ether and the HE-1000 into the combo (as well as an HD800 and HE-560 that were at the Schiit table, and the HE-400i that I brought).


 
  
 If I calibrate certain aspects of my preferences to yours, I actually don't disagree on your observations. I can definitely see a lot of people observing the Rag/Yggy combo as too bright. Tonal balance is a priority, but not the highest priority for me in terms of DACs. Resolution and lack of digital artifacts are the top priorities. I intentionally brought certain CDs which I felt were sufficiently resolving for the Yggy. Some of the CDs I brought were custom remastered to sound right on a neutral (more or less) speaker system. (The RHCP CD was not one of them, my neighbor put that CD in there.) Did you get a chance to hear my setup, the custom EC 2A3 amp + Yggy on Sunday morning or afternoon?
  


pldelisle said:


> But every time I read about the Schiit Bifrost Uber vs Gungnir, I'm more and more uncertain about which one to choose
> 
> The Bifrost Uber USB fits my budget. Gungnir would be more a long-long term investment. Are the additional 330 $ (well, in Canada it's more like 400 $!) of the Gungnir worth it ? It's almost twice the price ...


 
  
 LOL, I have a problem between choosing Bifrost Uber or Gungnir myself. If you think you might go forward in this hobby, I'd get the Gungnir since they are so close in price. Mike Moffat mentioned at CanJam during his presentation something along the lines of when you buy a DAC from Schiit, you buy a relationship, and when it comes time for an upgrade, if you buy used, you are going to ******* pay more for an upgrade. Given the history of Theta providing upgrades, and Schiit providing upgrades in the past, I wonder if something might be up. I'm just thinking that if something happens, the Gungnir will be a much better platform for uber awesome upgrades.
  


paradoxper said:


> Purrin, or hell, even Mike Moffat, have you not considered explaining why you think the Ygg/Theta, etc improve with warm up time. I mean, the discussion on jitter is interesting,


 
  
 It would all be conjecture. I'm thinking it's the 5791 chips. This is based on what I was told about changes to the output section of the .96 and .99 versions. The chips have self-correcting mechanisms to maintain its accuracy. The fact that the spec-sheet has INL plots for different temperatures also makes you wonder. Temperature of the chip may asymptotically stabilize, but a in a small up-down squiggly way toward it.
  
 P.S.
  
 Most of my listening is through speakers. So this presents an entirely different set of variables.
  
 P.S.S.
  
 Just to **** with you guys more, absolute polarity does matter. This is why there is a polarity switch on the Yggy and Gen V. I was not a believer before.


----------



## frenchbat

purrin said:


> This is a crucial observation. At this point, no one, including Schiit has had any one particular Yggy running for months on end. As I've stated, warm-up time seems to decrease as the product gets older, e.g. my ~20 year old Theta Gen V is pretty much ready to go after flipping the switch.


 
 To be completely fair, the analog stage of the Theta Gen V is always on. The front is only for the digital stage. Hence it's always on, as plenty of other units from different manufacturers. What people think is an on/off switch is actually a mute switch in a lot of cases.


----------



## auvgeek

purrin said:


> Mike Moffat mentioned at CanJam during his presentation something along the lines of when you buy a DAC from Schiit, you buy a relationship, and when it comes time for an upgrade, if you buy used, you are going to ******* pay more for an upgrade.


 
 Just to be clear, Schiit now has (or envisions) alternate pricing for upgrading the DACs based on whether you bought it new or used?


----------



## jexby

auvgeek said:


> Just to be clear, Schiit now has (or envisions) alternate pricing for upgrading the DACs based on whether you bought it new or used?


 
  
 unsure if Jason has unplugged and is off the interwebs on vacation just yet.....
  
 not having owned a Schiit DAC in the days BEFORE the USB Gen2 card, nor before Uber analog cards were released-
 unsure if they "asked folks" for the serial number of their DAC before selling/sending out the upgraded parts?
  
 right now on their web site, the "self install" of USB Gen 2 card and analog Uber cards are the same price as adding the components to new DAC purchases...
 hm.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> This is a crucial observation. At this point, no one, including Schiit has had any one particular Yggy running for months on end. As I've stated, warm-up time seems to decrease as the product gets older, e.g. my ~20 year old Theta Gen V is pretty much ready to go after flipping the switch.


 
 Hopefully this is the case. By July or August we should know for sure. You hardly got a chance to hear the Hugo TT? I know its expensive and that turns a lot of people off but I was wondering if you heard it and considered it an improvement over portable Hugo? 
  
 Did you get to hear any other DAC's - maybe something else at the show surprised you?


----------



## kugino

jexby said:


> unsure if Jason has unplugged and is off the interwebs on vacation just yet.....
> 
> not having owned a Schiit DAC in the days BEFORE the USB Gen2 card, nor before Uber analog cards were released-
> unsure if they "asked folks" for the serial number of their DAC before selling/sending out the upgraded parts?
> ...


I don't know where you're seeing this. I just looked in the schiit site and adding the usb card to a new order costs $100 while getting a new card for self install costs $150.


----------



## purrin

auvgeek said:


> Just to be clear, Schiit now has (or envisions) alternate pricing for upgrading the DACs based on whether you bought it new or used?


 
  
 I have no idea. But it would make sense from a business point of view to support the customers who stuck with them. For all we know, they could just as well refuse upgrades for second-hand Bifrosts or Gungnirs. This is all academic anyways, until they actually develop any upgrades.


----------



## JeremiahS

Hello people, 

 I hope my question is posted in the correct topic. 

 I have been doing some silent reading in this forum and this topic of vintage DACs with ladder chips are interesting me. Is anyone familiar with the Parasound 1100HD? I think I have a chance to buy one but the problem is it has been modified, I'm not sure about the technical details but its analogue stage has been replaced with discrete parts. 

 The DAC is also almost 20 years old so are there going to be problem with endurance? 

 If it helps, IIRC this is the original sales ad: http://www.head-fi.org/t/548272/fs-modded-parasound-dac-1100-hd

 As always I thank you people for your kind advice. 

 Regards,
 Jeremiah


----------



## purrin

magiccabbage said:


> Hopefully this is the case. By July or August we should know for sure. You hardly got a chance to hear the Hugo TT? I know its expensive and that turns a lot of people off but I was wondering if you heard it and considered it an improvement over portable Hugo?
> 
> Did you get to hear any other DAC's - maybe something else at the show surprised you?


 
  
 It's difficult to assess the TT as a DAC because I only heard it as a combined DAC/amp. Went through a few familiar tracks with HD800 and Bill-p modded HE560s. I would say the TT is a massive improvement over the Hugo. The Hugo couldn't drive a lot of headphones well - just soft and flaccid. The TT provided good warmth. Good power. A little bit overly warm because stock HD800s should sound dry on a neutral system. I felt the warmth was on the verge of being a little bit too syrupy. Microdetail and microdynamics were on the verge on being almost, almost good enough; but fell just short. My ear tends to overly strain to hear this fine resolution that I know exists in certain recordings - but I get this feeling of being unfulfilled when microdetail and microdynamics aren't there. Also, I noted after three songs, my ears started to get fatigued. I started to notice glare. Longer session induced digititus. To put things in proper context, I am sensitive to these digititus effects than others.
  
 I can definitely see a lot of people liking the TT. It's got a very nice warm smoothed over sound, slightly euphonic, with decent technicalities, and few things wrong upon first listen. You probably already know that I am not in the school of warm-tonal-balance DACs, unless they are less than $1000. The fatigue is troubling at the TT's price point.
  
 No DACs surprised me. I had pretty much heard them all, and if I hadn't, it wasn't anything to write about. If anything, the meet confirmed prior experiences and impressions.


----------



## Sonic Defender

kugino said:


> I don't know where you're seeing this. I just looked in the schiit site and adding the usb card to a new order costs $100 while getting a new card for self install costs $150.


 

 I paid $150 for my self-install about 1.5 years ago.


----------



## bmichels

purrin said:


> ....
> It's difficult to assess the TT as a DAC because I only heard it as a combined DAC/amp. Went through a few familiar tracks with HD800 and Bill-p modded HE560s. I would say the TT is a massive improvement over the Hugo. The Hugo couldn't drive a lot of headphones well - just soft and flaccid. The TT provided good warmth. Good power. A little bit overly warm because stock HD800s should sound dry on a neutral system. I felt the warmth was on the verge of being a little bit too syrupy. Microdetail and microdynamics were on the verge on being almost, almost good enough; but fell just short. My ear tends to overly strain to hear this fine resolution that I know exists in certain recordings - but I get this feeling of being unfulfilled when microdetail and microdynamics aren't there. Also, I noted after three songs, my ears started to get fatigued. I started to notice glare. Longer session induced digititus. To put things in proper context, I am sensitive to these digititus effects than others....


 
  
 Purrin,I have to confess that I do not understand exactly if you like the TT or not. is it better than the HUGO ?
  
 Indeed, you start by saying something very encouraging (as a HUGO owner mysefl) : " _I would say the TT is a massive improvement over the Hugo_"
  
 but...then
  
 what you add is not encouraging at all ! :" _....... A little bit overly warm...... I felt the warmth was on the verge of being a little bit too syrupy.....my ears started to get fatigued. I started to notice glare. Longer session induced digititus.... __The fatigue is troubling at the TT's price point_."
  
 So... shoud I upgrade" my HUGO to the TT (for headphone use with TH-900, ED5 and LCD-X) ?
  
 thanks


----------



## jexby

kugino said:


> I don't know where you're seeing this. I just looked in the schiit site and adding the usb card to a new order costs $100 while getting a new card for self install costs $150.


 
  
 click on the USB Gen 2 card on the left.
  
 on the Installation Please Select, Pull down:
 change to
  No Installation.
  
 cost of USB card drops to $100.  
 click Add to Cart.


----------



## purrin

bmichels said:


> So... shoud I upgrade" my HUGO to the TT (for headphone use with TH-900, ED5 and LCD-X) ?
> 
> thanks


 
  
 The TT is A LOT of money. I like to think of the TT as a BMW M4. I personally am not a fan of the M4, but I understand why some people love it.


----------



## zerodeefex

purrin said:


> bmichels said:
> 
> 
> > So... shoud I upgrade" my HUGO to the TT (for headphone use with TH-900, ED5 and LCD-X) ?
> ...




If the TT was an M4, what would be a turbo Elise?


----------



## purrin

I'll let you answer that. I'm retiring as the Messiah.


----------



## kapanak

purrin said:


> I'll let you answer that. I'm retiring as the Messiah.


 
  
 Such a retirement usually involves violent means, such as spears, crucifix and/or fire.
  
 'Tis a sad day today.


----------



## kugino

jexby said:


> click on the USB Gen 2 card on the left.
> 
> on the Installation Please Select, Pull down:
> change to
> ...


aah. got it. thanks.


----------



## StefanJK

kapanak said:


> Such a retirement usually involves violent means, such as spears, crucifix and/or fire.
> 
> 'Tis a sad day today.


 
 Not to mention resurrection.  Thought that may be a myth made up later...First Nawguy, now this...


----------



## estreeter

bmichels said:


> Purrin,I have to confess that I do not understand exactly if you like the TT or not. is it better than the HUGO ?
> 
> Indeed, you start by saying something very encouraging (as a HUGO owner mysefl) : " _I would say the TT is a massive improvement over the Hugo_"
> 
> ...


 
  
 My friend, I sense that you're young and well meaning, but you seem to move from thread to thread looking for the 'end game' : we've all been there and I'm absolutely convinced that it doesnt exist. You need to find a Chord dealer who is prepared to give you at least 2 weeks with the TT in your own rig with your music - I dont know how simple that will be, but the alternative is to buy from someone with a very generous return policy. No single Head-Fier will ever be able to give you an ironclad guarantee that what works for them will work for you - even the once 'impregnable' BHSE+SR-009 combination now appears to have its critics. That's simply the way it is in this hobby, I'm afraid.


----------



## XVampireX

estreeter said:


> My friend, I sense that you're young and well meaning, but you seem to move from thread to thread looking for the 'end game' : we've all been there and I'm absolutely convinced that it doesnt exist. You need to find a Chord dealer who is prepared to give you at least 2 weeks with the TT in your own rig with your music - I dont know how simple that will be, but the alternative is to buy from someone with a very generous return policy. No single Head-Fier will ever be able to give you an ironclad guarantee that what works for them will work for you - even the once 'impregnable' BHSE+SR-009 combination now appears to have its critics. That's simply the way it is in this hobby, I'm afraid.


 
  
 Also I would like to add to that, that Purrin is not the ultimate authority on what's the best setups, he merely said what he considers the best for himself (And apparently why he hates Chocolate Ice Cream)
  
 So yes, best to try it for yourself and see how you like it...


----------



## kapanak

xvampirex said:


> Also I would like to add to that, that Purrin is not the ultimate authority on what's the best setups, he merely said what he considers the best for himself (And apparently why he hates Chocolate Ice Cream)
> 
> So yes, best to try it for yourself and see how you like it...


 

 While true, he certainly has heard more DACs than any of us, and many times side by side, with some of the most transparent amps and headphones around. Trying what he has tried would cost many of us our houses or cars or family lol ... So it is good to have a guideline to what's currently the best DAC from his perspective, and make a wise purchase decision afterwards.


----------



## jacal01

Deleted for found redundancy.


----------



## XVampireX

kapanak said:


> While true, he certainly has heard more DACs than any of us, and many times side by side, with some of the most transparent amps and headphones around. Trying what he has tried would cost many of us our houses or cars or family lol ... So it is good to have a guideline to what's currently the best DAC from his perspective, and make a wise purchase decision afterwards.


 
  
 I don't really think it's working like that. A guideline is good, but right now you're listening to the opinion of one person or one group of people who might very well share similar tastes, and if you like that taste, then go ahead and join them.
  
 I've stopped choosing that way, I do comparisons see what's good, read reviews, if I get the chance than I listen to it myself, for example even though I could have gotten Stax SR-009 if I really wanted, I don't have the chance to listen to it, a lot of people claim it's the best thing since sliced bread, even people who have helped me choose the LCD-3 (MacedonianHero is one) but I never got around to actually buying it and now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think I will, I'd rather really go for the HE-1000 which won't require me of a special amp.
  
 Never look at 1 source of information for your decisions. Try to have an opinion yourself, too... Just some advice.


----------



## mikek200

xvampirex said:


> Also I would like to add to that, that Purrin is not the ultimate authority on what's the best setups, he merely said what he considers the best for himself (And apparently why he hates Chocolate Ice Cream)
> 
> So yes, best to try it for yourself and see how you like it...


 
 Yeah,but IMHO,he comes pretty damn close.
  
 If you go to P.1 of this thread,he covers a lot of territory,and with some of the finest dacs,around,even some that were built 25 years ago
 Purrin knows his *hit,and usually what he says goes,in my book,anyway.
  
 Mike


----------



## arnaud

xvampirex said:


> Never look at 1 source of information for your decisions. Try to have an opinion yourself, too... Just some advice.


 
  
 Especially if you find your tastes diverge with said person. Purrin is the first one to say this. I found myself so often with different conclusions than his that I have learned to take his impressions with a pinch of salt, at least relativise it.
  
 That does not take away from the huge amount of effort Purrin has put in, certainly this thread has helped establish credibility but YMMV applies nonetheless... Now, if someone is happy just taking someone else's word for granted, forego any critical judgement, and actually be happy with the result, all the better as you've said yourself a lot of work to find out what you like .
  
 Having being in these waters for over a decade though, my personal take is that this is the best recipe for disappointment, you'll simply find yourself in a constant state of questioning / upgraditis whenever the next best thing since slice bread comes around... But that's what the hobby is about for many so, maybe all is fine after all lol .
  
 arnaud


----------



## mikek200

arnaud said:


> Especially if you find your tastes diverge with said person. Purrin is the first one to say this. I found myself so often with different conclusions than his that I have learned to take his impressions with a pinch of salt, at least relativise it.
> 
> That does not take away from the huge amount of effort Purrin has put in, certainly this thread has helped establish credibility but YMMV applies nonetheless... Now, if someone is happy just taking someone else's word for granted, forego any critical judgement, and actually be happy with the result, all the better as you've said yourself a lot of work to find out what you like .
> 
> ...


 
 Very True,Arnuad.
  
 Might as well throw Currawong in the same boat, as Purrin
 These are just a few guys,who,if I see a thread,or,post,I'll definitely read it.
 Not 100% sure,I take ALL, there info as,gospel.


----------



## XVampireX

arnaud said:


> Especially if you find your tastes diverge with said person. Purrin is the first one to say this. I found myself so often with different conclusions than his that I have learned to take his impressions with a pinch of salt, at least relativise it.
> 
> That does not take away from the huge amount of effort Purrin has put in, certainly this thread has helped establish credibility but YMMV applies nonetheless... Now, if someone is happy just taking someone else's word for granted, forego any critical judgement, and actually be happy with the result, all the better as you've said yourself a lot of work to find out what you like .
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 I think Upgraditis happens to people with a lot of money and nowhere to spend it or people who are just bored.
  
 I've got myself the Auralic Vega and I must say, it's not going anywhere, ever. I've got my LCD-3 and I think I might not sell it, though I'm not sure because there's so much new in the headphone world, and Audeze did surprise me in terms of audio quality and even aesthetics, but not about build quality.
  
 Meh, I'm ranting much. Seriously when I'm doing a lot of research before I'm buying, and even when I already know what I want but do research before buying I end up choosing the right thing, not the other way around I go with my gut feeling.
  
 P.S - I just think that Purrin is not the ultimate authority because he clearly put the Vega not where it belongs and now all that hype with Schiit Yggdrasil "OMG OMG OMG" makes it look like he's either biased or getting paid


----------



## Sonic Defender

xvampirex said:


> I think Upgraditis happens to people with a lot of money and nowhere to spend it or people who are just bored.
> 
> I've got myself the Auralic Vega and I must say, it's not going anywhere, ever. I've got my LCD-3 and I think I might not sell it, though I'm not sure because there's so much new in the headphone world, and Audeze did surprise me in terms of audio quality and even aesthetics, but not about build quality.
> 
> ...


 

 Dude, that isn't very cool to say. I don't think Purrin has done anything to deserve that type of criticism. Sure he loves the Yggy, so what? Maybe for his ear the Vega just doesn't do it for him. Again, so what, none of those things mean he is paid or biased deliberately as you imply. We are all biased, it is impossible to avoid.


----------



## Clemmaster

xvampirex said:


> P.S - I just think that Purrin is not the ultimate authority because he clearly put the Vega not where it belongs and now all that hype with Schiit Yggdrasil "OMG OMG OMG" makes it look like he's either biased or getting paid


 
  
 Or he has different taste and priorities than you. This has been said multiple times already.
  
 I don't care for the Vega either. I'm neither biased, nor paid for making such a statement; it's just the way it is.


----------



## XVampireX

Well I'm not here to offend anyone just stating my opinion that I don't consider purrin an authority on setups.

Experience is a good thing if you have the option to listen to different equipment but if you like something better than another wouldn't mean that I would like the same or someone else.

I just don't understand the cult like following here

Again sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## Schopenhauer

xvampirex said:


> Well I'm not here to offend anyone just stating my opinion that I don't consider purrin an authority on setups.
> 
> Experience is a good thing if you have the option to listen to different equipment but if you like something better than another wouldn't mean that I would like the same or someone else.
> 
> ...


 
 Dude, accusing someone of being on the take is fracked up. That's not "stating your opinion"; that's slander.


----------



## kapanak

xvampirex said:


> Well I'm not here to offend anyone just stating my opinion that I don't consider purrin an authority on setups.
> 
> Experience is a good thing if you have the option to listen to different equipment but if you like something better than another wouldn't mean that I would like the same or someone else.
> 
> ...


 

 Reading his opinions is not being a cult. There are many reviewers here. Over the years, he has built a solid reputation with regards to his recommendations. So we read his opinions. None of us just take it as is without forming our own opinions.
  
 You are outright insulting him, saying he takes bribes and all that. That's slander and totally not cool.
  
 If you like the Vega, that's great. Some of us don't have that kind of money, and if something, say the Schiit Yggy can offer equal or better performance, for less money, then we'd want to hear about it.


----------



## alreadyused

Purrin has announced on the blog that can't be named here he will soon be a MOT. I guess That's why he said earlier today on this forum that he's retiring as the messiah.
  
 So you can stop kicking him around and start missing him. I know I'll miss his unadulterated opinions.


----------



## magiccabbage

xvampirex said:


> P.S - I just think that Purrin is not the ultimate authority because he clearly put the Vega not where it belongs and now all that hype with Schiit Yggdrasil "OMG OMG OMG" makes it look like he's either biased or getting paid


 
 Those are strong accusations. I think Purrin has been fair with his comments thus far.


----------



## reddog

xvampirex said:


> I think Upgraditis happens to people with a lot of money and nowhere to spend it or people who are just bored.
> 
> I've got myself the Auralic Vega and I must say, it's not going anywhere, ever. I've got my LCD-3 and I think I might not sell it, though I'm not sure because there's so much new in the headphone world, and Audeze did surprise me in terms of audio quality and even aesthetics, but not about build quality.
> 
> ...



Sir you have crossed the line with your rant against Purin. Either show the people, on head-fi, that Purin is taking bribes or take back what you have said. I am new to head-fi, and I listen to a lot of chaps, who I feel are experienced, in the topic I am researching and Purin, is one person, who gives rock solid advice on all thing Dac. However I am not a fan boy, but your are smearing the mans honour, and that is very uncool.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> It's difficult to assess the TT as a DAC because I only heard it as a combined DAC/amp. Went through a few familiar tracks with HD800 and Bill-p modded HE560s. *I would say the TT is a massive improvement over the Hugo.* The Hugo couldn't drive a lot of headphones well - just soft and flaccid. *The TT provided good warmth. Good power.* A little bit overly warm because stock HD800s should sound dry on a neutral system. I felt the warmth was on the verge of being a little bit too syrupy. Microdetail and microdynamics were on the verge on being almost, almost good enough; but fell just short. My ear tends to overly strain to hear this fine resolution that I know exists in certain recordings - but I get this feeling of being unfulfilled when microdetail and microdynamics aren't there. Also, I noted after three songs, my ears started to get fatigued. I started to notice glare. Longer session induced digititus. To put things in proper context, I am sensitive to these digititus effects than others.
> 
> I can definitely see a lot of people liking the TT. It's got a very nice warm smoothed over sound, slightly euphonic, with decent technicalities, and few things wrong upon first listen. You probably already know that I am not in the school of warm-tonal-balance DACs, unless they are less than $1000. The fatigue is troubling at the TT's price point.
> 
> No DACs surprised me. I had pretty much heard them all, and if I hadn't, it wasn't anything to write about. If anything, the meet confirmed prior experiences and impressions.


 
 Thanks for taking the time and the honest reply. I am really looking forward to hearing the TT now and I hope the DAC sections pairs well with my WA5. 
 I will have a nice set of open baffle speakers for the review also ¬ 
  
http://eistaudio.ie/base/?page_id=44 
  
 Did you ever get around to building that transport? Sorry if this is off  topic


----------



## AustinValentine

schopenhauer said:


> Dude, accusing someone of being on the take is fracked up. That's not "stating your opinion"; that's slander.


 
  
 
  
 But yes, either way it's a **** move.


----------



## hodgjy

Report the inflammatory post to the mods and have them deal with it.


----------



## Schopenhauer

austinvalentine said:


> schopenhauer said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, accusing someone of being on the take is fracked up. That's not "stating your opinion"; that's slander.
> ...




 Ha! Point taken!


----------



## jacal01

purrin said:


> I'll let you answer that. I'm retiring as the Messiah.


 
  
 Ha!  good luck with that.  I was getting the impression here that this thread was turning into a personality eulogy more than a DACs discussion.
  
 EDIT:  Now that I've read on, maybe 'roast' is more more appropriate.


----------



## purrin

It's cool. I believe Amos made a good point about synergy a few posts, and a lot of it is exactly that. I can only speak for DACs on my setups. I believe I've posted the FR on my speakers on several occasions.
  
 In response to XVampireX:
  
 If I owned the LCD3 like you, I would probably gravitate toward the Vega DAC as well, or probably the Bricasti M1, PWD1->2 running 2.20fw (not 2.02), or even Yggy. Since you said the Vega DAC would be at the top of your list, I can only assume that you have heard the Bricasti, PWD2, or Yggy as well to make that determination? Yes? No?
  
 Also, I hope that you did not miss the WARNING in the first post:
  
_*Warning:* DACs are a very personal thing and preferences are very specific. It goes without saying that component synergy will play a huge role... Because personal preference does play a huge role, I am willing to entertain questions concerning specific attributes of any of these DACs._
  
 Finally, how do we know that you are not paid by Auralic? It does go both ways, but in the end, such accusations back and forth become asinine. Yes, I do have a preference for the Moffat sound. One that I discovered in the Theta Gen V, way before the Yggy became operational. I am biased.


----------



## wahsmoh

This message is directed to the Auralic Vega guy.
  
 The Auralic Vega is an either "love it or hate it." Just as Amos said, synergy is important.
  
 The Auralic Vega would do better with a darker sounding headphone because it sounds "overly detailed' as in it tries way too hard to be detailed and ends up sounding bright with the wrong pair of headphones.
  
 I know for sure I enjoyed the Mr. Speakers Ether more on the Yggdrasil/Ragnarok because it was tonally richer and had more body to the sound.
  
 Thatbeing said, the Ether on the Auralic Vega sounded more like an HD800. That is what you are dealing with if you buy a Vega, it leans towards overly detailed and can tonally change a "warmer" sounding pair of headphones. Just my 2 cents after hearing it at CanJam 2015 at Dan's table.


----------



## mikek200

alreadyused said:


> Purrin has announced on the blog that can't be named here he will soon be a MOT. I guess That's why he said earlier today on this forum that he's retiring as the messiah.
> 
> So you can stop kicking him around and start missing him. I know I'll miss his unadulterated opinions.


 
 Me too,
  
 Isn't it funny,that Purrin managed to get the Yiggrasil warmed up by late Sunday afternoon,so at least some,were able to get a half way decent listen.
  
 What is this attack on Purrin for,he deserves alot more respect ,that what some people in this thread are giving him.


----------



## reddog

wahsmoh said:


> This message is directed to the Auralic Vega guy.
> 
> The Auralic Vega is an either "love it or hate it." Just as Amos said, synergy is important.
> 
> ...



Thanks for comparing the Ether with Auralic Vega and with Schiit combo : yiggy and rag. Your views help me understand the Ether's sound a bit better.


----------



## Insidious Meme

xvampirex said:


> P.S - I just think that Purrin is not the ultimate authority because he clearly put the Vega not where it belongs and now all that hype with Schiit Yggdrasil "OMG OMG OMG" makes it look like he's either biased or getting paid




Hmm, that came across as sour grapes. You can disagree with his opinions and that's fair game. But that last part...


----------



## purrin

wahsmoh said:


> I know for sure I enjoyed the Mr. Speakers Ether more on the Yggdrasil/Ragnarok because it was tonally richer and had more body to the sound.
> 
> Thatbeing said, the Ether on the Auralic Vega sounded more like an HD800. That is what you are dealing with if you buy a Vega, it leans towards overly detailed and can tonally change a "warmer" sounding pair of headphones. Just my 2 cents after hearing it at CanJam 2015 at Dan's table.


 
  
 Well said. I am appointing you as my successor.


----------



## kugino

i certainly don't agree with purrin with a bunch of his rankings (though have not heard some of them, to be fair)...and i don't care for some of his characterizations of various products. but man, to call him a shill or insinuate that he's getting paid? that's weak. just b/c he doesn't agree with you? weak.


----------



## reddog

When I get the Yggdrasil and I always leave it on, should I get a small fan, to insure good air flow ventilation?


----------



## Tuco1965

Would it generate enough heat to need one?


----------



## purrin

Na. It's cool. Really.
  
 What I'd really like to hear from XVampireX is how qualitatively the Vega is better than the other DACs on this list. I have my own personal preferences, but I feel discussions of qualitative differences provides folks with the best kind of information. For example: "I like the Vega better than the Gen V because the Vega has a better sense of blackness, sharper better defined outlines to sounds, etc." or "I like the Vega better because the AGD/OR5 lacks soundstage depth" or "the timbre of the Vega sounds perfectly natural to me".
  
 These are the kinds of discussions I wanted to spur. What things do we hear similarly? What things do we not hear? I find that in many cases, we tend to hear the same things, but differ on preferences. In other cases, some people can be dumb in terms of hearing certain characteristics, e.g. I tend to be dumb in terms of hearing soundstage in headphones. I can hear gross soundstage issues with very closed headphones, but as far as DAC soundstage, I don't notice much difference with headphones. I grew up as a speaker listener, so my soundstage neurons probably were not wired for headphones.


----------



## wahsmoh

Did anyone take notice of my picture and the shocking similarity between the Berkley Alpha DAC and the Progeny DAC. Aside from both being R2R they look very much alike..
  
 hell I love my Progeny and it shows cause I can pick apart the digititis now in most DACs. I also heard the Sabres that don't bother me as much and have ways of smoothing out the highs (Yulong DA8, new Ayre Codex, Geek Pulse Infinity + LPS4)
  
 but.. the sticker price of the Geek Pulse + LPS4 nearly made me crap my pants.. not worth it unless you funded the kickstarter and got a killer deal. I think their pricing is bologna


----------



## mikek200

Can you post the pics,here??
 got a link?


----------



## wahsmoh

Check recent images in this thread. The Alpha DAC has the separate board for the power supply.


----------



## Argo Duck

This! Not that's it's particularly useful to offer what I personally hear and prefer because my list of dedicated DACs heard is ultra-short (5) but...like purrin I heard and pursued speakers for many years before I got into headphones. Sound-stage (with headphones) is something I'm only just beginning to hear. I like separation (between instruments) and clarity as much as anyone I guess but when I hear fast, separated _notes_ within a musical passage (thinking particularly piano here) I may call foul, knowing a real piano has decay and sound-board resonance going on (regardless of how clean the pedalling) that tends to run notes together. That to me can be a sign of an artificially dry DAC or amp.

So far Sigma-Delta digititis is not something I can pick out or recognise but I suspect when/if I get Yggy it will become all too clear. And, like others, my preferences will become a click more specialized and my expectations a click more demanding. And a click less comprehensible to myself circa "six months earlier"!

To XVampireX what seemed absurd about your post-script was that you criticized purrin as being no "absolute authority" then in the same breath announced your own rating of the Vega as though _you_ were an absolute authority. Sure, ok. Possible. But at least offer your impressions and reasons. The slur that followed was just plain unnecessary as you can hopefully now understand.



purrin said:


> What I'd really like to hear from XVampireX is how qualitatively the Vega is better than the other DACs on this list. I have my own personal preferences, but I feel discussions of qualitative differences provides folks with the best kind of information. For example: "I like the Vega better than the Gen V because the Vega has a better sense of blackness, sharper better defined outlines to sounds, etc." or "I like the Vega better because the AGD/OR5 lacks soundstage depth" or "the timbre of the Vega sounds perfectly natural to me".
> 
> These are the kinds of discussions I wanted to spur. What things do we hear similarly? What things do we not hear? I find that in many cases, we tend to hear the same things, but differ on preferences. In other cases, some people can be dumb in terms of hearing certain characteristics, e.g. I tend to be dumb in terms of hearing soundstage in headphones. I can hear gross soundstage issues with very closed headphones, but as far as DAC soundstage, I don't notice much difference with headphones. I grew up as a speaker listener, so my soundstage neurons probably were not wired for headphones.


----------



## lojay

Interesting stuff guys. Nice to know its not just lawyers who know the difference between libel and slander, haha.
  
 My MSB Analog died on me and is sent back for repairs. I had dreaded this moment when I had to go back to my low-fi Emotiva DC-1 Stealth, but to my surprise, it holds up extremely well against the Analog despite being less than 10% of its price. Surprisingly, I don't feel that the delta sigma AD1955 is particularly annoying even on my resolving system (EC445/HD800 and KGSSHV/SR009), though it does rear its ugly head on certain vocal tracks. 
  
 Perhaps this is more telling of the limitations of the Analog in terms of its resolution and technical capabilities. 
  
 I am really looking forward to the Yggy. Might be a good time to think of selling the Analog once it returns from repairs.


----------



## Sapientiam

wahsmoh said:


> Did anyone take notice of my picture and the shocking similarity between the Berkley Alpha DAC and the Progeny DAC. Aside from both being R2R they look very much alike..


 
  
 I noticed and thought that's an astute observation. The trafos are presumably chosen for low capacitance to mains. Berkeley Alpha DAC though isn't R2R, its using an ADI S-D chip (AD1955? not completely sure on this).


----------



## chowmein83

purrin said:


> If I calibrate certain aspects of my preferences to yours, I actually don't disagree on your observations. I can definitely see a lot of people observing the Rag/Yggy combo as too bright. Tonal balance is a priority, but not the highest priority for me in terms of DACs. Resolution and lack of digital artifacts are the top priorities. I intentionally brought certain CDs which I felt were sufficiently resolving for the Yggy. Some of the CDs I brought were custom remastered to sound right on a neutral (more or less) speaker system. (The RHCP CD was not one of them, my neighbor put that CD in there.) Did you get a chance to hear my setup, the custom EC 2A3 amp + Yggy on Sunday morning or afternoon?


 
  
 No, unfortunately I did not, as I was busy listening to other stuff in the room (namely the AKG K1000 and everything that one Head-Fi'er brought to the meet - sorry, forgot his name!, and Frank Cooter's setup) and wasn't actually in the member showcase room for most of the one day I was at CanJam. I really should have listened to your setup, as that sounds awesome.
  
 But I am curious for your opinion as to whether you think the Yggy is bright, or was it the Ragnarok that made things bright?
  
 And thanks for stating your preferences and where you're coming from. Yeah, I'm the kind of guy who has to have the tonality right - otherwise, it really impedes my ability to enjoy the music.


----------



## estreeter

I just want to go on record as stating that I'm perfectly fine with any and all vendors contributing to my (ongoing) retirement fund and/or sending me gear free. Hell, I'm prepared to be more annoying than purrin, Mercer and Michael Fremer all rolled into a guy who acts like Jim Carrey in public and Bill Clinton in private, If I've learnt one thing in Thailand, its that corruption and graft aren't for people who want to go in halfway - here it's '_go big or go home_'. Thanks in advance for your support.


----------



## XVampireX

I have no heard Yggdrasil or have any way to hear it at the moment, I might have come across as rude to some though purrin did understand me.
  
 The point I was trying to give is that, sure, perhaps he has done a lot of testing of different DACs, but coming across as a little biased, maybe I was defending my purchase too, as the Vega is a $3500 DAC and he's comparing it to DACs like the Gungnir/Master 7/etc... which are quite a bit less expensive.
  
 Regarding Hugo vs Hugo TT, I didn't like the design of the Hugo in the first place, it might sound good but seems like it's as much "love it or hate it" relationship for people and also some even claim a device like iDSD Micro being just as good.
  
 I'd guess if you like Chord sound that Hugo TT might be a slight upgrade but without the portability feature.
  
 Regarding DACs I've heard so far, I've had the chance to listen to Bryston BDA-2 DAC, Antelope Audio Zodiac Platinum, Auralic Vega, Schiit Modi, Asus Xonar Essence STX, Naim Audio something... as some from my memory not a big list but some really quality DACs and I consider Auralic Vega the most detailed and versatile DAC, even though Zodiac Platinum is the most expensive of the bunch.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

estreeter said:


> I just want to go on record as stating that I'm perfectly fine with any and all vendors contributing to my (ongoing) retirement fund and/or sending me gear free. Hell, I'm prepared to be more annoying than purrin, Mercer and Michael Fremer all rolled into a guy who acts like Jim Carrey in public and Bill Clinton in private, If I've learnt one thing in Thailand, its that corruption and graft aren't for people who want to go in halfway - here it's '_go big or go home_'. Thanks in advance for your support.




Although I have enjoyed your posts immensely elsewhere, this one falls flat. Care to explain your actual feelings in detail?


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> Na. It's cool. Really.
> 
> What I'd really like to hear from XVampireX is how qualitatively the Vega is better than the other DACs on this list. I have my own personal preferences, but I feel discussions of qualitative differences provides folks with the best kind of information. For example: "I like the Vega better than the Gen V because the Vega has a better sense of blackness, sharper better defined outlines to sounds, etc." or "I like the Vega better because the AGD/OR5 lacks soundstage depth" or "the timbre of the Vega sounds perfectly natural to me".
> 
> These are the kinds of discussions I wanted to spur. What things do we hear similarly? What things do we not hear? I find that in many cases, we tend to hear the same things, but differ on preferences. In other cases, some people can be dumb in terms of hearing certain characteristics, e.g. I tend to be dumb in terms of hearing soundstage in headphones. I can hear gross soundstage issues with very closed headphones, but as far as DAC soundstage, I don't notice much difference with headphones. I grew up as a speaker listener, so my soundstage neurons probably were not wired for headphones.


 
  
 This is what I'd like to see.
  
 By the way guys, please don't go and report posts from days and days ago. I'm not going to attempt to clean up after you lot after a couple of pages of replies have been made to a post. I'd rather see what Purrin is asking for above.  I see people getting too hung up on the opinions of Purrin and others simply because their "status" in the community, rather than treating them as just another member posting their thoughts. If I, Purrin, Jude or anyone else posts impressions of a product, it is just our opinion and not some kind of declaration. In my case and I'm sure in Purrin's too, I welcome different opinions and feelings because it gives me different perspectives to consider. 
  
 I posted it in the Canjam impressions thread, but I thought the Yggy is fantastic. My test was a variety of acoustic music and instrument reproduction, for which it was outstanding. I didn't hear Purrin's Theta in the end, but I did have time to try n3rdling's Stax DAC using my computer and Audiophilleo 1, which had the same organic richness that the best of those old DACs have.


----------



## TokenGesture

Let's all keep our sense of humour. And salute purrin for this excellent thread ( even though I'm a Hugo and Octave owner  )


----------



## estreeter

liu junyuan said:


> Although I have enjoyed your posts immensely elsewhere, this one falls flat. Care to explain your actual feelings in detail?


 
  
 Sorry - most would have recognised it as sarcasm and not having a dig at anyone here : simply trying to lighten the mood when there was a lot of finger-pointing going on between various parties. Feel free to ignore / block me - no problem - I just came back to a thread that had exploded after a pretty ordinary morning dashing around in the heat and things may have gotten a little out of control.


----------



## bmichels

Look what arrived today 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   The NEW  *AMR DP-777 SE.*
  
 The importer was nice enough to provide it for testing...  with my Eddie Curent 445 ( + LCD-X or TH-900)
  
 Will it put my HUGO on retirement ?  (or I should say, on the road again)
  
 
  

  
  
 .


----------



## Stillhart

Well I don't have nearly the experienced ears that Purrin does, but I did listen to a lot of stuff at CanJam using my music and the HE-560 if I could find it.  I posted my thoughts on the Yggy in the Canjam thread (linked in sig), but in short:  I was impressed.
  
 The thing is, I learned something fascinating.  We all know that our ears have to be trained to recognize subtle differences in sound.  When I hand my wife my latest greatest headphone gear to listen to, she politely listens and smiles and tries to be supportive of my hobby.  lol  
  
 Well as far as I've come now, I recognized that to really hear the differences between these top end DAC's, I'd need more time with them (and probably a much better listening environment).  At first, I was just like my wife... "Hmm, sounds nice."
  
 But later in the day on Sunday, when things had wound down a bit, I spent a fair bit of time with the Yggy/Rag/Ether combo in the Mr Speakers room and really got into the music.  When I went to my next stop and swapped back to my good old X5 (dual PCM1795, IIRC), it sounded positively closed-in and muddy.
  
 My point is that I didn't have this "oh s**t" moment when I first listened to it.  That moment came later after I went from the Yggy to something else.  Even an hour with it was enough to get my brain accustomed to its subtleties, even if I couldn't consciously point out the tiny details that make it sound good.
  
 I don't know if that rambling post made much sense, but there you have it.
  
 On a side note, it was very nice to finally meet you in person, Purrin.  And I thought your amp was too bright for my taste.


----------



## jodgey4

I always notice bigger differences moving down in gear than up... must just be the way the brain works. I have one of the best setups you could ask for, and it seems pretty 'nice'. I step down, even a bit, and I'm like 'what on earth is wrong with this song?'. Go back up, and I'm back to 'nice'.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> Well I don't have nearly the experienced ears that Purrin does, but I did listen to a lot of stuff at CanJam using my music and the HE-560 if I could find it.  I posted my thoughts on the Yggy in the Canjam thread (linked in sig), but in short:  I was impressed.
> 
> The thing is, I learned something fascinating.  We all know that our ears have to be trained to recognize subtle differences in sound.  When I hand my wife my latest greatest headphone gear to listen to, she politely listens and smiles and tries to be supportive of my hobby.  lol
> 
> ...


 
 Excellent post-thank you.,Stillheart.,good impressions
  
 Remember,Purrin was one of few members {correct me,if I'm wrong}who had the   Yiggy warmed up{think he had  it on for about 48-50? hours,at that point},so,your timing was  perfect.


----------



## StefanJK

jodgey4 said:


> I always notice bigger differences moving down in gear than up... must just be the way the brain works. I have one of the best setups you could ask for, and it seems pretty 'nice'. I step down, even a bit, and I'm like 'what on earth is wrong with this song?'. Go back up, and I'm back to 'nice'.


 
 Yes, very much this.  I'm working (somewhat) hard to find upgrades and I often am close to convincing my self that that I'm not making all that much progress (or just fooding myself).  But after a few weels of habituation I step back for a few days and then compare my best implementation to a prior version and there is a clear difference and ranking...but it's not all that clear that I'm actually better off with all that habituation to the better implemention.  I think I am, but that may just be hope.   And I do think it is not just habituation, but also learning what's better.
  
 Waiting to redo all this with Yggy.  It will take a few weeks before my view stabalizes a bit, about as fast Yggy warms up.


----------



## mikek200

"Waiting to redo all this with Yggy.  It will take a few weeks before my view stabalize a bit, about as fast Yggy warms up."--LOL
  
   We both ,might be in for a big, surprise...
  
 Mike


----------



## reddog

estreeter said:


> I just want to go on record as stating that I'm perfectly fine with any and all vendors contributing to my (ongoing) retirement fund and/or sending me gear free. Hell, I'm prepared to be more annoying than purrin, Mercer and Michael Fremer all rolled into a guy who acts like Jim Carrey in public and Bill Clinton in private, If I've learnt one thing in Thailand, its that corruption and graft aren't for people who want to go in halfway - here it's '_go big or go home_'. Thanks in advance for your support.



Lol I respect your honesty and I agree if you are going to go for it, go all the bloody way.


----------



## mikek200

reddog said:


> Lol I respect your honesty and I agree if you are going to go for it, go all the bloody way.


 
 I have owned most of the Schiit amp/dacs over the years,and Jason has never let me down,both in price,quality,& tech support..
 after they get over a few wrinkles,and finally release it,we all will be happy.
  
 Mike


----------



## reddog

estreeter said:


> Sorry - most would have recognised it as sarcasm and not having a dig at anyone here : simply trying to lighten the mood when there was a lot of finger-pointing going on between various parties. Feel free to ignore / block me - no problem - I just came back to a thread that had exploded after a pretty ordinary morning dashing around in the heat and things may have gotten a little out of control.



I thought it was a joke, but sarcasm can be hard to convey, on the screen. Wish there was a icon a person could use to denote sarcasm. I hope my own sarcastic attitude, has not offended anyone.


----------



## reddog

mikek200 said:


> I have owned most of the Schiit amp/dacs over the years,and Jason has never let me down,both in price,quality,& tech support..
> after they get over a few wrinkles,and finally release it,we all will be happy.
> 
> Mike



+1 Schiit Audio rocks, I have 3 of their amps and swear by them.


----------



## magiccabbage

bmichels said:


> Look what arrived today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 looks amazing that setup! Is that preps AMR??
  
 Let me know how it sounds i comparison to the hugo


----------



## Liu Junyuan

estreeter said:


> Sorry - most would have recognised it as sarcasm and not having a dig at anyone here : simply trying to lighten the mood when there was a lot of finger-pointing going on between various parties. Feel free to ignore / block me - no problem - I just came back to a thread that had exploded after a pretty ordinary morning dashing around in the heat and things may have gotten a little out of control.




No, haha. I responded unclearly myself. I actually got the sarcasm. I just did not understand the last part as in it went over my head. I did not find anything offensive about your post at all. Best,


----------



## wahsmoh

There is some Theta gear on eBay bidding up relatively high.. it just shows how collectible this stuff really is and those poor saps that sold their Thetas around the turn of the century (as I noticed on audio forums) and decided to go for the "32-bit" D-S chips must feel like idiots if they really took the time to compare this stuff. Or, they just like shrill detail and digital glare..


----------



## Currawong

The Yggys at the show had been left on since Friday evening, so they should have been warm enough. 
  
 If I can attend another Canjam, I might see if I can't do a Hugo TT vs. Rygg comparison. A regular Hugo with a Schiit Wyrd is magical as a source IMO, if it doesn't seem to be as trippy-detailed as the Yggy. I don't think Purrin wants to hear about the Hugo any more though. He'll end up having nightmares about weirdly-carved aluminium rectangles at this rate.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. purrin,
  
 Tyll has a nice video with you.  
  
 I initially contacted you about the Yggy after J.Stoddard dropped one off to you lads for prototype evaluation. I seem to remember you being quite taken with the design.   You seemed quite focused, determined and authoritative at the time, now I see you are a pleasant fellow, much like your little kitten.  
 [size=x-small]  In the 1980s I was active in the Consumer Audio Business as Exporter from England, Importer to the USA, Retailer in Michigan and Manufacturer.  [/size]
 [size=x-small]I would caution you that achieving high levels of Audio Reproduction to Room Filling is a very expensive proposition. [/size]
 [size=x-small]The finest Systems are to be found in Mastering Studios, built by Mastering Engineers [/size]with budgets far beyond any Home Enthusiast.  
 These Systems go from 0 to 40Khz flat, achieve a stressless 132db of dynamic range and are constantly improved with interfaces by Bruce Brisson and Karen Sumner to the tune of many thousands of dollars.
  You are gonna need Deeeeeeep Pockets to venture here if you hope to approach Stax 009 performance in Mid-field or ( room filling ) monitoring capability.  Piano and Cymbals [size=x-small] push these Systems to their very limits .  [/size]
  
 [size=x-small]I've turned to headphones because of the intense cost of creating proper near-field monitor system. [/size]
  
 [size=x-small]An Engineer I know built a large egg shaped listening chamber ( one person ) equipped with a pair of Pro-Ac tablets as the Transducers resulting in a wonderful listening experience.[/size]
  
 [size=x-small]I guess that I'm writing you today to say that I became exhausted from chasing superb Music Reproduction for a Decade ( 1975 - 1985 ).  I had to take a good long break to recover. [/size]
  
 [size=x-small]Recorded music is far better now than it's ever been, so I'm back, collecting the World's music, enjoying the playback, happy with modest equipments. [/size]
  
 [size=x-small]My best regards,[/size]
  
 [size=x-small]Tony in Michigan [/size]


----------



## hodgjy

I think I finally have my head wrapped around the long warm up times necessary for the Yggy.  For at least a week of thinking about it, the answer escaped me.  Then, it finally dawned on me.  It's the R2R ladder DAC.  Resisters do change with subtle temperature changes.  While this might be common knowledge the ninjas in this thread, the concept eluded me for some time. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks.
  
 Carry on.


----------



## wink

Quote:reddog 





> Wish there was a icon a person could use to denote sarcasm.


----------



## Jones Bob

hodgjy said:


> I think I finally have my head wrapped around the long warm up times necessary for the Yggy.  For at least a week of thinking about it, the answer escaped me.  Then, it finally dawned on me.  It's the R2R ladder DAC.  Resisters do change with subtle temperature changes.  While this might be common knowledge the ninjas in this thread, the concept eluded me for some time. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks.
> 
> Carry on.




So it took you some time to warm up the idea of Yggy warm up time?


----------



## wink

So this is purrin?
  
 And here, I thought this was the dude....
  
  
 Or, this
  
  
 Sorry, Marv, my bad.......................


----------



## reddog

Lol love the happy face with the bullet between the eyes lol.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

Purrin seems really cool to me. I trusted his opinion enough to buy the Gungnir over other DACs in the price range and I do not regret it at all. Tyll's write up on Purrin was wonderful and the video transparently displayed, I think, that Purrin "know his ****" while being frank about his proclivities and tastes. Lovely entry on Tyll's part.


----------



## conquerator2

wahsmoh said:


> There is some Theta gear on eBay bidding up relatively high.. it just shows how collectible this stuff really is and those poor saps that sold their Thetas around the turn of the century (as I noticed on audio forums) and decided to go for the "32-bit" D-S chips must feel like idiots if they really took the time to compare this stuff. Or, they just like shrill detail and digital glare..




Yeah, except not all D-S sounds that way.
Hell, not even all Sabres.
My current doesn't. I do agree that the D-S can sound shrill, but making it a given is untue :rolleyes:


----------



## hodgjy

conquerator2 said:


> Yeah, except not all D-S sounds that way.
> Hell, not even all Sabres.
> My current doesn't. I do agree that the D-S can sound shrill, but making it a given is untue


 
 Agreed.  I once had a 1-bit Sony CD player that was smooth and silky.  I had a Technics CD player that would pierce your ears.  My Schiit Bifrost Uber is pretty smooth, too.  No shrill or glare at all.  There's a little grain, but nothing to worry too much about in the less than $1000 bracket.


----------



## conquerator2

hodgjy said:


> Agreed.  I once had a 1-bit Sony CD player that was smooth and silky.  I had a Technics CD player that would pierce your ears.  My Schiit Bifrost Uber is pretty smooth, too.  No shrill or glare at all.  There's a little grain, but nothing to worry too much about in the less than $1000 bracket.




On a similar note I'd recommend the Gustard X12 who wants to try something smooth but tonally between Gungnir and analytic/edgy Sabre.
This is real smooth! XMOS USB. Price. It is my current DAC and I am real impressed!


----------



## coli

Found this 2010 post
  
 "Equipment from cold is a different matter and it depends on the design I think.. A Quad 33/303 was tested and shown to take 15 minutes from cold before settling fully down (I suspect the 303 mainly from my experience) and that was forty years ago, my AVI stuff was "there" withing a couple of minutes. The Crowns don't need warm-up, yet both Quad 405-2's I owned (both fully serviced) needed seven to eight hours from switch-on to lose a slight "sting" in the sound. Older multi-bit CD players need a couple of hours at least and many prefer to be left on 24/7 if at al possible."


----------



## jacal01

reddog said:


> I thought it was a joke, but sarcasm can be hard to convey, on the screen. Wish there was a icon a person could use to denote sarcasm. I hope my own sarcastic attitude, has not offended anyone.


 
  
 I've been lobbying for a sarcastic icon for years.  Best I can do is lotsa winky faces.  My jibes tend to have barbs.


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> My point is that I didn't have this "oh s**t" moment when I first listened to it.  That moment came later after I went from the Yggy to something else.  Even an hour with it was enough to get my brain accustomed to its subtleties, even if I couldn't consciously point out the tiny details that make it sound good.
> 
> I don't know if that rambling post made much sense, but there you have it.


 
  
 Absolutely makes sense. There a longer term listening aspect to these things. Sometimes gear that wows and impresses upon first listen gets tiring and annoying after repeated listens. Sometimes we don't get the understated aspects of sublime awesomeness... until we go back to something less. With more experience, listening to a lot of different gear, we can learn to filter out the initial "wow" effect and easier identify the more subtle qualities of gear. More on this in the last paragraph below.
  


stillhart said:


> On a side note, it was very nice to finally meet you in person, Purrin.  And I thought your amp was too bright for my taste.


 
  
 Haha! I thought my setup was a bit too warm! At least from Saturday to Sunday afternoon with the Psvane WE275 tubes. It's hard to say. The Theta Gen V is warmer and was used Saturday morning. The Yggy sounded lean on Saturday and got warmer sounding Sunday afternoon. When this started happening, I switched to brighter sounding but more resolving vintage Sylvania and Hytron 2A3s. My setup was brightest sounding right around this change around Sunday noon or a little bit after. The tubes need a little bit of time (15 minutes to an hour) to not sound brittle. I felt the setup sounded best around 5:00pm on Sunday before the show was over. Yeah, I'm that OCD. And yes, tubes warm up quicker than solid-state stuff.
  
  


mikek200 said:


> Excellent post-thank you.,Stillheart.,good impressions
> 
> Remember,Purrin was one of few members {correct me,if I'm wrong}who had the   Yiggy warmed up{think he had  it on for about 48-50? hours,at that point},so,your timing was  perfect.


 
  
 Schiit had their Yggy on about the same time, a little bit earlier actually. I was running v0.99, Schiit was running v1.00. There is some suspicion that v1.00 warms up quicker. (This is not worth exploring because the recommendation is just to leave the darn thing on and 1.00 will be the production version anyways.) Jason and I actually talked about doing crazy stuff like in hauling the Yggy plugged into a power inverter attached to a car battery. 
  
*I'll go out a limb here and note one very very crucial thing: no one, I repeat no one, at the meet, including myself heard what the Yggy could really do.* Maybe hints and spurts here and there. 48-50 hours is just getting started. After 90-120 hours and something really incredible happens. It's subtle, you press play, sounds good as usual, bob your head, and suddenly, it hits you, you realize... OMG. What. Tears of joy or piss on the floor.
  
 It's my sincere wish you guys your get Yggys soon and experience this. (BTW, I don't currently have an Yggy, I'm waiting in line like the rest of you guys. As I've said, it was made very clear that the unit provided for me was a loaner and could be taken back at any time.)


----------



## conquerator2

purrin said:


> Absolutely makes sense. There a longer term listening aspect to these things. Sometimes gear that wows and impresses upon first listen gets tiring and annoying after repeated listens. Sometimes we don't get the understated aspects of sublime awesomeness... until we go back to something less. With more experience, listening to a lot of different gear, we can learn to filter out the initial "wow" effect and easier identify the more subtle qualities of gear. More on this in the last paragraph below.
> 
> 
> Haha! I thought my setup was a bit too warm! At least from Saturday to Sunday afternoon with the Psvane WE275 tubes. It's hard to say. The Theta Gen V is warmer and was used Saturday morning. The Yggy sounded lean on Saturday and got warmer sounding Sunday afternoon. When this started happening, I switched to brighter sounding but more resolving vintage Sylvania and Hytron 2A3s. My setup was brightest sounding right around this change around Sunday noon or a little bit after. The tubes need a little bit of time (15 minutes to an hour) to not sound brittle. I felt the setup sounded best around 5:00pm on Sunday before the show was over. Yeah, I'm that OCD. And yes, tubes warm up quicker than solid-state stuff.
> ...


 
  
 Well, that's 5 days... Seems like this thing is either on at all times or nothing then 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Some dedication required for sure


----------



## purrin

hodgjy said:


> I think I finally have my head wrapped around the long warm up times necessary for the Yggy.  For at least a week of thinking about it, the answer escaped me.  Then, it finally dawned on me.  It's the R2R ladder DAC.  Resisters do change with subtle temperature changes.  While this might be common knowledge the ninjas in this thread, the concept eluded me for some time. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks.


 
  
 Interesting. Not just an R2R, but an R2R + string hybrid. String architectures have even more resistors per bit than R2R.


----------



## purrin

conquerator2 said:


> Well, that's 5 days... Seems like this thing is either on at all times or nothing then
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well, they did make the power switch extremely inconvenient to get to. (People were bitching about it in the Rag/Yggy thread.) Probably a reason why.


----------



## negura

purrin said:


> Haha! I thought my setup was a bit too warm! At least from Saturday to Sunday afternoon with the Psvane WE275 tubes. It's hard to say. The Theta Gen V is warmer and was used Saturday morning. The Yggy sounded lean on Saturday and got warmer sounding Sunday afternoon. When this started happening, I switched to brighter sounding but more resolving vintage Sylvania and Hytron 2A3s. My setup was brightest sounding right around this change around Sunday noon or a little bit after. The tubes need a little bit of time (15 minutes to an hour) to not sound brittle. I felt the setup sounded best around 5:00pm on Sunday before the show was over. Yeah, I'm that OCD. And yes, tubes warm up quicker than solid-state stuff.


 
  
 The EC 2A3 amp - is that basically a 2A3MK4 with different (than Hammonds) interstage transformers? And out of interest which one is clearer/brighter sounding between the Rag and the 2A3? 
 I myself prefer solid statey sounding tube amps, and the other way around for solid states. Without going overboard.


----------



## Maxx134

I have to say this has been one of, if not the most informative thread on dacs on HeadFi so thank Purrin for all your input..

Also I like to note an aspect of sound I haven't seen mentioned yet.
Many members associating bit depth only with dynamic range and then talk about louder sounds "masking" smaller...

But music is just not that simple..

You can have a bass note so loud it can shake your guts while still hear the drummer's high hat sizzle bucause we are talking differnt frequencies so amplitude (masking) is not that easily a factor..

Indeed, a good recording engineer will make sure the singer's vocal frequencies are not masked by instrunemts recorded in that similar frequency spectrum..
by usage of not only tonality changes but their placement in the stereo image..

So to say their will be any "masking" of details, is to me, very naive and unrealistic. 
Whatever specific range of frequencies that could be masked at any instant or point in time, is also subject to the brains correction/interpretation by using the other channel(ear) which would contain the ambient information needed, because nothing is monural as we are talking about stereo 3D image..

I feel like I generalized and opened up a can of questions, 
but bottom line is that nothing is that simple, when it comes to faithfully reproducing the original sonic image.


----------



## wahsmoh

hodgjy said:


> Agreed.  I once had a 1-bit Sony CD player that was smooth and silky.  I had a Technics CD player that would pierce your ears.  My Schiit Bifrost Uber is pretty smooth, too.  No shrill or glare at all.  There's a little grain, but nothing to worry too much about in the less than $1000 bracket.


 

 I did go a bit far to lump all D-S chips into the shrill digital sounding group. I would say though that the Yulong DA8, Ayre Codex, Mytek192, and Geek Pulse Infinity + LPS4 were all wonderful sounding for D-S chips. Still, I don't think they could light a candle next to the Yggdrasil or the 90's R2R DACs when it comes to effortless smooth sound. I'd only own one for DSD playback and even then there are better options out there


----------



## Stillhart

wahsmoh said:


> I did go a bit far to lump all D-S chips into the shrill digital sounding group. I would say though that the Yulong DA8, Ayre Codex, Mytek192, and Geek Pulse Infinity + LPS4 were all wonderful sounding for D-S chips. Still, I don't think they could light a candle next to the Yggdrasil or the 90's R2R DACs when it comes to effortless smooth sound. I'd only own one for DSD playback and even then there are better options out there


 
  
 Barring the LH Labs products, which are laughably optimistic on the MSRP, you're comparing some very expensive R2R DAC's to D-S DAC's that cost half as much or less.  I have yet to see any R2R proponents suggesting things that cost less than a grand.  
  
 Yes, we all realize your Ferrari is better than my WRX in almost every way.  But for a normal mortal, the WRX is pretty great performance for the money!
  
 I know this thread is about SQ in absolute terms, so price isn't really a factor.  But I feel like the R2R proponents sometimes forget that we can't all afford the Yggy or Theta or whatever.  Maybe you've forgotten how bad some DACs can get... when's the last time you tried using your Abyss right out of your laptop or phone, even with a nice amp?
  
 Sorry, it just rubs me the wrong way a little bit when people are so dismissive of the ONLY DAC's available under $1000.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> After 90-120 hours and something really incredible happens. It's subtle, you press play, sounds good as usual, bob your head, and suddenly, it hits you, you realize... OMG. What. Tears of joy or piss on the floor.


 
  
 Exactly how where you hooking that battery up to the Yggy when you had the latter reaction ?


----------



## wahsmoh

stillhart said:


> Barring the LH Labs products, which are laughably optimistic on the MSRP, you're comparing some very expensive R2R DAC's to D-S DAC's that cost half as much or less.  I have yet to see any R2R proponents suggesting things that cost less than a grand.
> 
> Yes, we all realize your Ferrari is better than my WRX in almost every way.  But for a normal mortal, the WRX is pretty great performance for the money!
> 
> ...


 

 I doubt I could even compare the pricing of the Progeny or any older R2R in absolute terms to the pricing of a car. The Progeny takes parts from a $6000+ DAC when it was brand new and utilizes them in a single-ended setup while still having two separate transformers for analog and digital section. The Progeny when new was $1000-1200. It still kicks the crap out of the newer DACs in terms of absolute sound quality and PCB design.
  
 I'm not going to elaborate any further but we can all bow down to Schiit and Mike and Jason for even attempting such a daring feat at less than $5000. ($2300) man that is a bargain considering you get 4 chips that each cost over $80 a piece in dual mono


----------



## Stillhart

wahsmoh said:


> I doubt I could even compare the pricing of the Progeny or any older R2R in absolute terms to the pricing of a car. The Progeny takes parts from a $6000+ DAC when it was brand new and utilizes them in a single-ended setup while still having two separate transformers for analog and digital section. The Progeny when new was $1000-1200. It still kicks the crap out of the newer DACs in terms of absolute sound quality and PCB design.
> 
> I'm not going to elaborate any further but we can all bow down to Schiit and Mike and Jason for even attempting such a daring feat at less than $5000. ($2300) man that is a bargain considering you get 4 chips that each cost over $80 a piece in dual mono


 
  
 Post redacted because I get the feeling you're trolling me.


----------



## wahsmoh

stillhart said:


> Post redacted because I get the feeling you're trolling me.


 

 Hehe well the Progeny is technically a DAC under $1000. ($995 listed MSRP in 1994) try building it with todays inflation at that price lmao. btw there is one on eBay that has already hit $300 + shipping and it isn't even the version A. These things really hold value too.
  
 btw just plugged in the Bifrost Uber and took a listen.. I was saddened.. I mean it doesn't sound harsh but then when the cymbals come crashing down and the "studio magic" like the effects and separation of instruments starts to become noticeable the Bifrost is lacking and doesn't have as clear and defined image and "black space" defining certain sounds. The Bifrost Uber starts to mash instruments together when passages get really complex. I listened for 5 minutes and couldn't take it anymore and hooked up the Progeny again now permanently


----------



## Priidik

stillhart said:


> Barring the LH Labs products, which are laughably optimistic on the MSRP, you're comparing some very expensive R2R DAC's to D-S DAC's that cost half as much or less.  I have yet to see any R2R proponents suggesting things that cost less than a grand.
> 
> Yes, we all realize your Ferrari is better than my WRX in almost every way.  But for a normal mortal, the WRX is pretty great performance for the money!


 
 Multibit PCM dacs can be done under 500$, the time is just yet to come because majority is happy with S-D. 
 Diy guys have done it with discrete means, now picture a whole modern chip dedicated to audio.


----------



## estreeter

wahsmoh said:


> Hehe well the Progeny is technically a DAC under $1000. ($995 listed MSRP in 1994) try building it with todays inflation at that price lmao. btw there is one on eBay that has already hit $300 + shipping and it isn't even the version A. These things really hold value too.
> 
> btw just plugged in the Bifrost Uber and took a listen.. I was saddened.. I mean it doesn't sound harsh but then when the cymbals come crashing down and the "studio magic" like the effects and separation of instruments starts to become noticeable the Bifrost is lacking and doesn't have as clear and defined image and "black space" defining certain sounds. The Bifrost Uber starts to mash instruments together when passages get really complex. I listened for 5 minutes and couldn't take it anymore and hooked up the Progeny again now permanently


 
  
 FWIW the Inflation Calculator has 995 1994 dollars at $1575 in 2015, but given that every cost in the supply chain would have gone up I suspect we'd be talking something closer to the projected sticker on the Yggy. If they can sort the filter issues with the Soekris board that might be a more feasible ~1K R2R DAC in 2015, but the DiY guys rarely attempt to factor in the cost of their labor in any such build. If something costs $800 in parts, it doesnt seem to matter how many hours went into the design or any subsequent refinements - that's an '$800 DAC' to many DiYers. Still its an interesting project to follow - it will also be interesting to see if anyone else is prepared to do something similar commercially. 
  
 http://www.usinflationcalculator.com


----------



## wahsmoh

estreeter said:


> FWIW the Inflation Calculator has 995 1994 dollars at $1575 in 2015, but given that every cost in the supply chain would have gone up I suspect we'd be talking something closer to the projected sticker on the Yggy. If they can sort the filter issues with the Soekris board that might be a more feasible ~1K R2R DAC in 2015, but the DiY guys rarely attempt to factor in the cost of their labor in any such build. If something costs $800 in parts, it doesnt seem to matter how many hours went into the design or any subsequent refinements - that's an '$800 DAC' to many DiYers. Still its an interesting project to follow - it will also be interesting to see if anyone else is prepared to do something similar commercially.
> 
> http://www.usinflationcalculator.com


 

 I recall Mike mentioning the number of Yggys they plan on producing. It goes into the thousands I think.. so that is the only way to make something like that profitable is to make a ton of them and streamline the process as much as they can


----------



## mikek200

estreeter said:


> FWIW the Inflation Calculator has 995 1994 dollars at $1575 in 2015, but given that every cost in the supply chain would have gone up I suspect we'd be talking something closer to the projected sticker on the Yggy. If they can sort the filter issues with the Soekris board that might be a more feasible ~1K R2R DAC in 2015, but the DiY guys rarely attempt to factor in the cost of their labor in any such build. If something costs $800 in parts, it doesnt seem to matter how many hours went into the design or any subsequent refinements - that's an '$800 DAC' to many DiYers. Still its an interesting project to follow - it will also be interesting to see if anyone else is prepared to do something similar commercially.
> 
> http://www.usinflationcalculator.com


 
 And,if you remember,how many years the Yiggy was in its planning stage,long before ,it began to actually start to be built.
 How much would it cost us today...$4-5K??
 So,if Jason does list it next week,and all the 250 units sell in 1 month,we won't be getting any   feedback ,for at least another month,maybe?
 Having Jason give us a "state of the Art" dac for $2299-,is simply amazing...IMHO.
 Just a few  wrinkles to iron out,that's all.


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> Barring the LH Labs products, which are laughably optimistic on the MSRP, you're comparing some very expensive R2R DAC's to D-S DAC's that cost half as much or less.  I have yet to see any R2R proponents suggesting things that cost less than a grand.
> 
> Yes, we all realize your Ferrari is better than my WRX in almost every way.  But for a normal mortal, the WRX is pretty great performance for the money!
> 
> ...


 
  
 Price is always a factor. Go down the list in the first post and realize the cost of some of the D-S DACs. $8000, $6000, $4000, $3000, etc. I have hunch we may see more R2R DACs at lower prices. Other manufacturers will take note of what Schiit is doing. I can see Analog Devices realize the high volume of sales of the AD5791 and decide to make a high precision chip for audio. Will it always be as cheap at D-S DACs? Probably not. But I see no reason once R2R chips become more widely available and easily used for audio, a company like Emotiva can't make a $799 DAC. Moffat during his presentation at CanJam already hinted at Bifrost and Gungnir while wearing this "Delta-Sigma, when music doesn't matter" T-shirt.


----------



## hodgjy

purrin said:


> *Moffat during his presentation at CanJam already hinted at Bifrost and Gungnir while wearing this "Delta-Sigma, when music doesn't matter" T-shirt.*


 
 Wait, what? Are you suggesting there may be trickle down upgrades to Bifrost and Gungnir?


----------



## kugino

hodgjy said:


> Wait, what? Are you suggesting there may be trickle down upgrades to Bifrost and Gungnir?


 

 sounds like it to me.


----------



## Stillhart

hodgjy said:


> Wait, what? Are you suggesting there may be trickle down upgrades to Bifrost and Gungnir?


 
  
 Why wouldn't there be?  Isn't that the whole point of touting the upgradability of those DAC's?


----------



## hodgjy

stillhart said:


> Why wouldn't there be?  Isn't that the whole point of touting the upgradability of those DAC's?


 
 That's what I was thinking, but isn't the DA converter hardwired to the PCB? I thought the cards were only for the output stage and USB input stage. I could be wrong, though.


----------



## kugino

hodgjy said:


> That's what I was thinking, but isn't the DA converter hardwired to the PCB? I thought the cards were only for the output stage and USB input stage. I could be wrong, though.


 

 per schiit's site:
  


> Worried about rapidly-changing USB input technology? Concerned about future advances in D/A conversion? Gungnir’s modular design uses separate, USB Input and DAC/Analog cards. When USB technology changes, we can simply drop in a new, better USB Input Card. *When meaningful upgrades to D/A converters come out, we can drop in a new DAC/Analog Card*. The result? A virtually future-proof DAC that won't end up in the dumpster.


----------



## negura

I took my time with commenting on my experience, but a while ago I felt like taking the punt to buy a Theta DAC, even if just to see if Purrin is talking out his arse basically. And because, well I bought more stupid and more expensive products in the past, so why not.
  
 I was lucky enough to get my hands on my first Gen V A about 5-6 months ago, while owning the PWD2. The latter was a DAC I really enjoyed. It is difficult to convey to my friends who have not experienced an R2R DAC at any length, why I think the R2R sound is a transformational experience. To me it is NOT just another DAC.
  
 I will start with what I did not fully know bothered me. One of the greatest assets R2R brings to the table is that treble response is a completely different experience. No matter what headphones or speakers. It just is no longer harsh, grainy or in the slightest unpleasant at any level. No matter what. You can try really hard. Throw silver at it. I did.
 Stax SR-009 a walk in the park - absolute love even with poor recordings.
 HE-6 - why would anyone in the world consider these headphones to have even the slightest brightness.
  
 On the PWD2, which is one of the decent sounding S/Ds, sometimes I still had tune my system so it sounds nice enough for me in the treble, even with the Audeze LCD-3s. And that is not one of the brightest S/D DACs by a large margin imo.
  
 And now the shock as it may be. The macro detail on the Theta R2R DAC was actually on par with the PWD2. Yes, one can have both: perfectly detailed yet natural, non-aggresive treble response AND overall great detail. 
  
 However all this to me is only the tip of the iceberg. Actually my first reaction to the Theta, was more like.... holy screw the bass response and sound stage holography. Those are immediate. They always are with any gear though, when it's there. Comparatively the PWD2 sounded hollow. To most other S/D DACs I heard it was not. The R2R DAC also has this amazing natural body and tonal purity. A piano sounds so real and so does a violin. I did not used to think of it that way, but I almost had an instinctive fast forward reflex to trumpet heavy tracks. But yes, they actually can and should be enjoyable. To some extent one could almost get to re-remember how instruments actually sound and what has been missed.
  
 Now about the Yggdrasil, I could be in two minds. From one perspective, I was not impressed by the Ragnarok, which was another very hyped product, so I could easily be biased. To me the Ragnarok sounded almost veiled, by having that added smoothness layer that I found it has. I kept reading about the clarity and resolution it has. I did not find that, comparatively, with either my speaker amp, the Audio GD HE-9 or the Moon 430HA. All those amps I found to be more resolute, more clear, more articulate, more transparent. Yet all sounding very different from each other. To be fair the Ragnarok is priced OK for what it offers. No wonder product there for me though.
  
 However, this should have little to do with the DAC product. A modern day R2R DAC at a palatable price is more than welcome by me. I think I will buy it right away, even if to support a point made. I want more R2R DACs out there.


----------



## hodgjy

kugino said:


> per schiit's site:


 
 Cool. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## reddog

kugino said:


> sounds like it to me.



A uber Gungnir hmmm. That would be fantastic.


----------



## hodgjy

reddog said:


> A uber Gungnir hmmm. That would be fantastic.


 
 I would buy that in a second.


----------



## wahsmoh

Wow! major ups to negura for conveying so well what some of us fanatics have heard. It is not easy to explain something like that in merely words..
  
 on another note.. good point of the macrodetails.. I am listening to 2Pac "Changes" in 16-bit redbook and I didn't know so much existed on a CD. No treble harshness on a song that I recall having a more sparkly(and annoying) chime in the right channel, great feeling of recording space and backup vocals come through with haunting clarity.. eargasm
  
 edit again: on another note, turning up the volume to get more bass doesn't result in more treble annoyance like the Bifrost Uber.. I think this might have to do with the boosted output of the Progeny that helps preamps get some more oomph like Mike told me in combination with the two transformers providing ample power. Better overall balance on the Progeny with bass that has balls


----------



## purrin

hodgjy said:


> That's what I was thinking, but isn't the DA converter hardwired to the PCB? I thought the cards were only for the output stage and USB input stage. I could be wrong, though.


 
  
 If you pop open the Schiit DACs, there are DA/Analog out output cards sitting on top on risers over the motherboard. The USB card is also that way.
  
 I remember Mike Moffat saying something like this... paraphrasing of course: "When you buy into Schiit, you are buying into a relationship. So when it comes time to upgrade, if you have a used Bifrost or Gungnir, you are ******* going to pay more."


----------



## estreeter

It would make zero financial sense for Schiit to release an R2R version of Gungnir within 12 months of Yggy's release. Naim and a few others might be happy to cannibalise their own product lines but I would be very surprised if Schiit did that - end of the day though, that's up to them.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

estreeter said:


> It would make zero financial sense for Schiit to release an R2R version of Gungnir within 12 months of Yggy's release. Naim and a few others might be happy to cannibalise their own product lines but I would be very surprised if Schiit did that - end of the day thought, that's up to them.


 
  
  
 I was trying to find the exact quote where Jason said they would do exactly that in his book, but it was taking too long. But the short of it was that if they don't do it to themselves, someone else will.
  
  
 Edit: Found it
  


jason stoddard said:


> *Chapter 30: *
> *Death of a Product*
> 
> *Product Life Cycles, AKA the Game of Update, Assassinate, or Cannibalize*
> ...


----------



## kugino

apple's been known to kill off successful and competitive products. it happens.


----------



## jexby

purrin said:


> If you pop open the Schiit DACs, there are DA/Analog out output cards sitting on top on risers over the motherboard. The USB card is also that way.
> 
> I remember Mike Moffat saying something like this... paraphrasing of course: "When you buy into Schiit, you are buying into a relationship. So when it comes time to upgrade, if you have a used Bifrost or Gungnir, you are ******* going to pay more."


 
  
 I totally understand the premise and intent of Mike's message.
 and it's whacked that used Gungnir are posted for $750 and include no 5 year warranty?  pass.
  
 but the fact that current schiit web site allows anyone to "buy" a self-installed upgrade USB or Analog Uber card for
  a) less than having Schiit install it (on existing unit) [makes sense]
 but
  b) don't ask for people's Serial Number + Name to match up to an original buyer
  
 means this "****** paying more" isn't happening now.   (yet)
  
 would I be cool with Schiit saying:
  "hey, direct/original buyers of BiFrost, your USB v3 card is $X.  but everyone else (2nd hand market) cost is $X+$50 markup"
 sure.
  
 get those trickle down cards out soon, and I'll buy new faster than clickety click.


----------



## Sonic Defender

jexby said:


> I totally understand the premise and intent of Mike's message.
> and it's whacked that used Gungnir are posted for $750 and include no 5 year warranty?  pass.
> 
> but the fact that current schiit web site allows anyone to "buy" a self-installed upgrade USB or Analog Uber card for
> ...


 

 I totally get where Mike is coming from, and I agree, as a used Gungnir purchaser I'm totally cool with paying a moderate premium. After all, membership does have privileges. But I will say this, now it is different, but two years ago when I purchased my Gungnir used, I could not have afforded a brand new one. However; in these past two years I will guarantee that my genuine enthusiasm and ability to discuss the DAC intelligently has helped sell a few, so my hands aren't shaking either if I save a little as even a used Schiit owner over say a never owned a Gungnir client.


----------



## conquerator2

I wonder where does the audio-gd DAC-19 stands. They've just released the 10th anniversary edition. It's under a grand.


----------



## wink

Quote:conquerator2


> I wonder where does the audio-gd DAC-19 stands.


 
 As an educated guess, on it's base...


----------



## reddog

jacal01 said:


> I've been lobbying for a sarcastic icon for years.  Best I can do is lotsa winky faces.  My jibes tend to have barbs.



+1 yes it would be a lot more easier to have icon for sarcasm, than for me or others to apologize for ruffling someone's feathers.


----------



## wink

Quote:jacal01 





> winky faces


 
 HEY, I only have one face.......


----------



## jacal01

hodgjy said:


> I think I finally have my head wrapped around the long warm up times necessary for the Yggy.  For at least a week of thinking about it, the answer escaped me.  Then, it finally dawned on me.  It's the R2R ladder DAC.  Resisters do change with subtle temperature changes.  While this might be common knowledge the ninjas in this thread, the concept eluded me for some time. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks.


 
  
 It occurs to me that another reason why manufacturers might have switched to delta/sigma DAC products, besides the ever popular cheaper (much) theory, is that the R2R DACs could have sounded like ass from a cold startup to the walk-in prospective customer auditing audio equipment.  The delta/sigma DAC may have been more appealing for sales right out of the box.


----------



## negura

jacal01 said:


> It occurs to me that another reason why manufacturers might have switched to delta/sigma DAC products, besides the ever popular cheaper (much) theory, is that the R2R DACs could have sounded like ass from a cold startup to the walk-in prospective customer auditing audio equipment.  The delta/sigma DAC may have been more appealing for sales right out of the box.


 
  
  
 This could be a good point, but it all depends on the particulars imo. There are S/D DACs that also take time to warm-up, like the Auralic Vega, which isn't even offering it's best "Exact" mode upfront. Even my PWD2 needed some time to sound at its best. But yeah not days.
  
 I am not entirely sure, but I don't think the MSB Analog (R2R) needs a very long warm-up. Perhaps owners can advise better.


----------



## korzena

negura said:


> This could be a good point, but it all depends on the particulars imo. There are S/D DACs that also take time to warm-up, like the Auralic Vega, which isn't even offering it's best "Exact" mode upfront. Even my PWD2 needed some time to sound at its best. But yeah not days.
> 
> I am not entirely sure, but I don't think the MSB Analog (R2R) needs a very long warm-up. Perhaps owners can advise better.


 
 Yggys will come and warm our houses


----------



## Stillhart

conquerator2 said:


> I wonder where does the audio-gd DAC-19 stands. They've just released the 10th anniversary edition. It's under a grand.


 
  
 I haven't been hearing good things about the PCM1704...
  
 EDIT - Wait, isn't the 1704 the same one in the M7?  Maybe I'm thinking of something else...


----------



## coli

jacal01 said:


> It occurs to me that another reason why manufacturers might have switched to delta/sigma DAC products, besides the ever popular cheaper (much) theory, is that the R2R DACs could have sounded like ass from a cold startup to the walk-in prospective customer auditing audio equipment.  The delta/sigma DAC may have been more appealing for sales right out of the box.


 
 Look up the 2010 post earlier in the thread, it looks like R2R historically needs to be on 24/7 to sound best. Probably another reason why the mass market industry moved on.


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> I haven't been hearing good things about the PCM1704...
> 
> EDIT - Wait, isn't the 1704 the same one in the M7?  Maybe I'm thinking of something else...


 
 It is. You're thinking about the 17_*9*_X ones. Those suck.


----------



## Stillhart

conquerator2 said:


> It is. You're thinking about the 17_*9*_X ones. Those suck.


 
  
 I have a dual 1795 in my X5 and it sounds fine until you listen to it right after the Yggy.  lol


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> I have a dual 1795 in my X5 and it sounds fine until you listen to it right after the Yggy.  lol


 
 I guess. I've heard the 1793 and 1794 and while not terrible, they sound muddy and congested compared to anything that I've heard...


----------



## jacal01

korzena said:


> Yggys will come and warm our houses


 
  
 Living on the top (3rd) floor of an apartment complex in Houston, I have the opposite problem.  You don't even want to visualize my in-apartment attire during the summer.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





stillhart said:


> I haven't been hearing good things about the PCM1704...
> 
> EDIT - Wait, isn't the 1704 the same one in the M7?  Maybe I'm thinking of something else...


 
  
 Contrary to purrin's and MM's pronouncement of the PCM1704 as ass, it's still an R2R DAC chip, and audio-gd does a pretty good job of implementation, especially when Kingwa starts stacking 'em.  Indeed, look at the M7's relative ranking among purrin's audited DACs on Page 1.  The DSP filter is also pretty good.  It's the digital signal input formats that one has to start playing around with.


----------



## Stillhart

jacal01 said:


> Contrary to purrin's and MM's pronouncement of the PCM1704 as ass, it's still an R2R DAC chip, and audio-gd does a pretty good job of implementation, especially when Kingwa starts stacking 'em.  Indeed, look at the M7's relative ranking among purrin's audited DACs on Page 1.  The DSP filter is also pretty good.  It's the digital signal input formats that one has to start playing around with.


 
  
 A brand new R2R DAC with manufacturer support under $1000?  Tempting!
  
 And after reading all that talk from the Ayre guy about non-feedback design on InnerFidelity, it makes me want to try the ACSS thing.  Interesting...
  
 Still, I clearly recall Moffat and Purring saying that the PCM17?? was "crap".  I just don't recall which one.  And I already have a crap D-S DAC so no need to sidegrade for that much money.


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> A brand new R2R DAC with manufacturer support under $1000?  Tempting!
> 
> And after reading all that talk from the Ayre guy about non-feedback design on InnerFidelity, it makes me want to try the ACSS thing.  Interesting...
> 
> Still, I clearly recall Moffat and Purring saying that the PCM17?? was "crap".  I just don't recall which one.  And I already *have a crap D-S DAC* so no need to sidegrade for that much money.


 
 C'mon, it's not crap... It's 'crap' 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 +1 curiosity about the DAC-19, whether it is basically a SE M7 [though with only 2x1704s]


----------



## purrin

jacal01 said:


> Contrary to purrin's and MM's pronouncement of the PCM1704 as ass, it's still an R2R DAC chip, and audio-gd does a pretty good job of implementation, especially when Kingwa starts stacking 'em.  Indeed, look at the M7's relative ranking among purrin's audited DACs on Page 1.  The DSP filter is also pretty good.  It's the digital signal input formats that one has to start playing around with.


 
  
 LOL, it's all relative. PCM63 > PCM1702 > PCM1704 >> PCM179x. BB stuff got progressively worse sounding.


----------



## Clemmaster

estreeter said:


> It would make zero financial sense for Schiit to release an R2R version of Gungnir within 12 months of Yggy's release. Naim and a few others might be happy to cannibalise their own product lines but I would be very surprised if Schiit did that - end of the day though, that's up to them.


 
 Theta did.


----------



## Articnoise

Haha Audio GD is hardly one of the big and famous CD/dac manufacturer that has put the BB 1704 on the map. Companies like MARK LEVINSON, MCINTOSH, WADIA, AYON, KRELL, NAIM and many more have all used the 1704 dac ship in their top CD/DAC and many of them stop using it because they got hard to find, got more expensive and the movement to higher bitrates for DSD/SACD.


----------



## hodgjy

I'm seriously considering getting the Gungnir to replace my Bifrost Uber.  If they do eventually offer an R2R upgrade card, I may consider it, but the thought of leaving my DAC on all the time to achieve the best sound is unappealing.  I'm ok with D-S chips because I prefer to turn on my gear, let it warm for 30 mins, and then play.


----------



## Stillhart

articnoise said:


> Haha Audio GD is hardly one of the big and famous CD/dac manufacturer that has put the BB 1704 on the map. Companies like MARK LEVINSON, MCINTOSH, WADIA, AYON, KRELL, NAIM and many more have all used the 1704 dac ship in their top CD/DAC and many of them stop using it because they got hard to find, got more expensive and the movement to higher bitrates for DSD/SACD.


 
  
 Clearly you're a fan since you own the M7.  Do you think the DAC-19 is worth a shot?  For all my complaining about the lack of cheap R2R options, I feel like I should grab one now that I know about it!  lol


----------



## 7ryder

purrin said:


> If you pop open the Schiit DACs, there are DA/Analog out output cards sitting on top on risers over the motherboard. The USB card is also that way.
> 
> I remember Mike Moffat saying something like this... paraphrasing of course: "When you buy into Schiit, you are buying into a relationship. So when it comes time to upgrade, if you have a used Bifrost or Gungnir, you are ******* going to pay more."


 
  
 I don't expect you to speak for Mike (and maybe he'll chime in here), but I'm confused about what is driving his comment...
  
 1) is he saying that not all owners are created equal?*  'Cause that's the implication if people are charged different prices for the same upgrade. 
 2) or is it his belief that putting in a tiered pricing system for upgrades will result in the sale of more new units with more money going directly to Schiit?
  
 If it is #1, an owner is an owner and, like it or not, if someone owns your product, you're in a relationship even if it was an arranged marriage and someone bought your product used.
  
 If it is #2, as a person that buys cars and most of my audio equipment used, I think I'm prolly like a lot of other folks in saying that I buy used because I can't justify the price of buying new -- Linn, ARC, Parasound, BMW, etc. would not have gotten my money for a new product.  And while these are higher ticket items than Schitt stuff, I think the argument holds for people that buy used Schiit -- they either can't justify buying new or can't afford to buy new, so they buy used.
  
 And I've had upgrades done on my Linn and Parasound stuff and, unless an upgrade was offered to original owners for free, the upgrade price was the same for each owner; there wasn't a different price based upon whether or not the owner bought it used.  And that makes sense since the manufacturer knows what the upgrade costs them and the margin they want and charge accordingly for the upgrade. 
  
 Still, if this tiered upgrade pricing goes into effect, 

It will be interesting to see how a strategy of pricing upgrades for "1st class (original) owners" at one price and a higher upgrade price for "2nd class (used) owners" will play out since customers are smart and know that the cost of the upgrade (parts, labor) is the same; the only difference in the price charged is the profit margin.  
If executed, I think you'd also have to apply this to repair rates as well since, to be consistent, "2nd class owners" don't deserve the same level of service as those in 1st class and will have to pay more for out of warranty repairs.  
And, to route calls properly, Schiit will have to change how the phones are answered  
Sample script - "where'd you get your Schitt?" If they say they bought it new, you look up their account and handle the call right away, directing the call to the Concierge. If they reply "used", then the unwashed masses get put into voicemail so Schiit can keep lines open for people in 1st Class. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Maybe, with their fanclub, Schiit could get away with tiered upgrade pricing, but I question if it is worth it since it is bound to alienate people.  
  
 My advice is to price the upgrade properly and charge/treat everyone the same,since it's one of the things that's made Schiit successful.  
  
 I think Jason understands this Schiit and, hopefully, Mike is just blowing Schiit. 
  
  
  
 *I know from both Jason's book and my own experience that not all customers are equal, but this usually applies to customers you want to fire because they are either PITA and/or you lose money on them. You certainly don't tell this to customers you want to keep!


----------



## wahsmoh

I think if you can't take the brash and direct style of Jason and the marketing strategy "Schiit" you've already over-thought this way too much. They didn't have the design or anything layed out when they created the Bifrost and Gungnir. However, in the long run they were planning on making the DAC chip and upgradeable part. There was no R2R Schiit back when Bifrost and Gungnir came out. Trickle-down Yggdrasil is like the trickle-down Theta Gen V to the lower Thetas. It was bound to happen, but the timing wasn't there and we still don't know (or should expect) them to come out with an R2R upgrade soon with their hands full on Yggy orders.


----------



## purrin

hodgjy said:


> I'm seriously considering getting the Gungnir to replace my Bifrost Uber.  If they do eventually offer an R2R upgrade card, I may consider it, but the thought of leaving my DAC on all the time to achieve the best sound is unappealing.


 
  


7ryder said:


> I don't expect you to speak for Mike (and maybe he'll chime in here), but I'm confused about what is driving his comment...


 
  
 Too early for us to speculate. For all we know, the warm-up times could be different. Even Yggy's warm-up times might be reduced with use. Upgrade pricing structure hasn't been determined. Just too early to worry about these things.


----------



## kugino

purrin said:


> Too early for us to speculate. For all we know, the warm-up times could be different. Even Yggy's warm-up times might be reduced with use. Upgrade pricing structure hasn't been determined. Just too early to worry about these things.


 

 agreed. yggy isn't even out yet and people are worrying about what the pricing structure on future potential upgrades to bifrost/gungnir might be just in case they in fact do trickle down the technology to those DACs? sheesh...


----------



## thegunner100

purrin said:


> LOL, it's all relative. PCM63 > PCM1702 > PCM1704 >> PCM179x. BB stuff got progressively worse sounding.


 
 Personally, I wouldn't necessarily say that the PCM63 > PCM1702. I think they both have trade-offs that might make one prefer one over the other. At least when considering similarly priced dacs of course. The implementation on the theta gen V's pcm63 and the digital filter are probably much better than the ones on my transdac. 
  
 However... PCM63 and PCM1702 easily beats the M7's PCM1704 (via usb. Never tried i2s).


----------



## GoldfishX

purrin said:


> Price is always a factor. Go down the list in the first post and realize the cost of some of the D-S DACs. $8000, $6000, $4000, $3000, etc. I have hunch we may see more R2R DACs at lower prices. Other manufacturers will take note of what Schiit is doing. I can see Analog Devices realize the high volume of sales of the AD5791 and decide to make a high precision chip for audio. Will it always be as cheap at D-S DACs? Probably not. But I see no reason once R2R chips become more widely available and easily used for audio, a company like Emotiva can't make a $799 DAC. Moffat during his presentation at CanJam already hinted at Bifrost and Gungnir while wearing this "Delta-Sigma, when music doesn't matter" T-shirt.


 

 This. I appreciate what Schitt is trying to deliver and I hope Yggy does turn the DAC side of the industry on its ass, primarily because so many lackluster, overpriced, under-engineered products are finding their way to market and it makes people go through the struggle of getting music to sound good (before you get to the headphones/amp part). Mike does have something of an unfair advantage, given his Theta tenure, but that gives his words regarding DAC's some much-needed clout. Yggy will probably prove to be too rich for a lot of people's blood, but it will definitely open the door for an R2R Bifrost or Gungnir (a DAC I was relatively unimpressed with and sold, btw). A lot of other companies will likely need to start from scratch.


----------



## skeptic

conquerator2 said:


> I guess. I've heard the 1793 and 1794 and while not terrible, they sound muddy and congested compared to anything that I've heard... :blink:




Curious which 1793 and 1794 dacs you have heard? I know these chips aren't Purrin's personal favorites and assume in equally well engineered implementations, they likely do not hold up to good r2r, but I think there are still some very good dacs out there using these chips. Eg setting aside the overgeneralizations in this thread, I can't imagine the popular opinion here is really that ARC makes worthless unlistenable dacs due to their use of these supposed inferior chips (when they are almost immediately snapped up off a'gon whenever one is up for less than $3k). The digital elite over on computeraudiophile certainly seem to think highly of ARC's recent dacs in any event. 

With my mainline hd800 rig I personally prefer my keces (well implemented bb 1793) to both the wolfsons I own (arcam cdp and picodac), which are in turn better than my odac. For reference, my litmus test for purposes of comparison is generally whether violins sound natural and textured or like digital bleh on good decca recordings. I also listen for the timbre of brass and string bass on several high quality recordings recommended by LFF back in the day, before the pirates sailed off for more open waters. In any event, based on the equipment I've lived with, and what Ive heard at CanJam, I don't understand the 1793/1794 hate and would be interested to know which actual dacs are inspiring the criticism (other than ifi products which have been previously called out in this thread). Comparisons between specific dacs are helpful and interesting. Redundant proclamations and backsapping suggesting that anything other than vintage thetas or as yet unreleased yggys should be tossed in the bin are frankly a bit obnoxious.


----------



## snip3r77

purrin said:


> LOL, it's all relative. PCM63 > PCM1702 > PCM1704 >> PCM179x. BB stuff got progressively worse sounding.




Are 63 and 1702 current production dac still available?


----------



## Baldr

snip3r77 said:


> Are 63 and 1702 current production dac still available?


 

 Not that I know of - there are (as of 6 months or so ago) 6 tubes of PCM1704 available at TI -- Enough to manufacture a grand total of 75 stereo D/A converters.


----------



## snip3r77

baldr said:


> Not that I know of - there are (as of 6 months or so ago) 6 tubes of PCM1704 available at TI -- Enough to manufacture a grand total of 75 stereo D/A converters.




Yup audiogd has most of the 1704uk


----------



## purrin

skeptic said:


> Redundant proclamations and backsapping suggesting that anything other than vintage thetas or as yet unreleased yggys should be tossed in the bin are frankly a bit obnoxious.


 
  
 I understand the skepticism about the sound of vintage PCM64, UltraAnalog, PCM1702, Yggy, etc. but you should go listen for yourself. I'll usually have private meets a few times a year. We usually have DAC-offs stacking a bunch of different DACs (vintage R2R, modern D-S, R2R) on top of each other. If you are interested, definitely shoot me a pm. Come on by!


----------



## 62ohm

OOT, but I see there's a Cavalli Liquid Gold there.. What do you think of it compared to say, Ragnarok?


----------



## Baldr

Theta Digital offered upgrades. I put them in almost from the beginning. The only problem was there were no prior precedents in the audio biz. So I followed my gut and experimented away.
  
 The problem is that it is difficult to balance in terms of what is fair to the users and to us. I know, I know, Schiit has no loyalty programs, show specials, etc. This is so the guy who just bought his Chingadera from us at no discount will not feel bad when the discount was later offered. Unfair!
  
 So what happens when we upgrade the Chingadera to an Uber-Chingadera? Let's dissect the economics a bit. So let's say the Uber costs 50% more to make than the non-uber.
  
 Since the Uber then sells for 50% more, and since I am not being a typical high-end audio company, I am not going to discontinue the non-Uber and introduce the Uber at 50% more money, just to sell more units.
  
 So since, I am selling a relationship with my company and in a perfect universe, I sell upgrades for the 50% difference and every one is happy, right?
  
 Not that simple – if I factor the entire cost of the original Chingadera and the cost of the new parts, then the total cost will be much higher because of the parts sold in the non-uber which are now replaced by the parts on the new PCB, the cost difference is now much higher – say 70%.
  
 So, if I am going to stay in business, I can't absorb that cost. The easy way out is to just replace the model as mentioned above. If I am going to offer an upgrade, and the offer is intended to be a perk for my original users, how do I do it?
  
 This is what I did at Theta – If the upgrade user was a registered user of the original product, his cost on the upgrade was 20% less than someone who was not an original user. I was flying by the seat of my pants. It did work and it was fair.
  
 This made it so the original customers did not have to subsidize those who bought the units second hand. A true loyalty discount. As fair as I can figure.
  
 We still had a few whiners – “Well I bought mine used because I didn't have the money for new, etc.” They are still getting a tremendous discount even with a surcharge given almost everyone else's policy of not upgrading at all.
  
 So the summary of the policy was:
  
 1. We offer upgrades which save money to our users. All users save money on upgrades.
 2. We give original users a price break - loyalty is rewarded over opportunism.
  
 Have we instigate this policy at Schiit? No, not yet. But we may well do so in the future as our upgrades become a more and more significant portion of the product.
  
 Those who think this unfair were advised during the Theta era they were free to purchase anybody else's gear at the time when we were the only manufacturer with an upgrade policy at all. This would still apply today.


----------



## wink

I wanna buy used. It's better for my garden....


----------



## SoupRKnowva

purrin said:


>


 
  
 Thats the massive Krell to power the HE-6s right? what a beauty


----------



## shadow84

For the audio gd DAC NFB15, what is the meaning of the 15.32, 15.1, etc? How do i get that? By configuring the DAC itself or requesting from audio gd?


----------



## Stillhart

shadow84 said:


> For the audio gd DAC NFB15, what is the meaning of the 15.32, 15.1, etc? How do i get that? By configuring the DAC itself or requesting from audio gd?


 
  
 Those are older models.  They just changed the name as they updated them to newer models over the years.  The newest model will have everything the older models have and then some.


----------



## shadow84

stillhart said:


> Those are older models.  They just changed the name as they updated them to newer models over the years.  The newest model will have everything the older models have and then some.


 
 So what is the latest revision for NFB 15?


----------



## Stillhart

shadow84 said:


> So what is the latest revision for NFB 15?


 
  
 If you go to their website, it'll be the one that they're selling right now.


----------



## Clemmaster

souprknowva said:


> Thats the massive Krell to power the HE-6s right? what a beauty


 
 Indeed.


----------



## ohhgourami

souprknowva said:


> Thats the massive Krell to power the HE-6s right? what a beauty


 

 Yup! Breaks my back but keeps me warm during a SoCal "winter".


----------



## Articnoise

stillhart said:


> Clearly you're a fan since you own the M7.  Do you think the DAC-19 is worth a shot?  For all my complaining about the lack of cheap R2R options, I feel like I should grab one now that I know about it!  lol


 

  
 Lol I would not say that am a fan of this chip because I own the M7. I didn’t buy the M7 for the chip I bought it because of my good experience of the master 9 together with the impressions in some reviews. My pointed was that many others more well-known CD/DAC companies are using or have used the chip and that the sound of 1704 is not equally with the sound of Audio GD Master 7, hens the line of companies I mentioned.
  
 I don’t know if the DAC-19 is worth a shout or not. I’m personally not that concerned what DAC ship one DAC uses. To me it is about the SQ of the whole packages: DAC chip, filters, analog stage, upsample/NOS, inputs/outputs, balanced/SE, PSU etc and how they work together. I have heard and liked a verity of CD’s/DAC’s with different takes on DAC chips, analog stage and so on and have liked some more than other but have not come to find one component or design that I can say that I prefer over all others. 
  
 Surly I have not heard all or even a fraction of the CD’s/DAC’s that have been made. What I can do is see what different designers chose to use in their own low-, mid- and high end CD/DAC’s.


----------



## eddypoon

baldr said:


> So, if I am going to stay in business, I can't absorb that cost. The easy way out is to just replace the model as mentioned above. If I am going to offer an upgrade, and the offer is intended to be a perk for my original users, how do I do it?
> 
> This is what I did at Theta – If the upgrade user was a registered user of the original product, his cost on the upgrade was 20% less than someone who was not an original user. I was flying by the seat of my pants. It did work and it was fair.


 
 Thanks MM, please also remember that for those outside US, they also bought through dealers.  I still have my receipt, but some may not.


----------



## conquerator2

Does anyone know whether the Progeny or Gen V can accept a processed signal [Dolby Digital 5.1, Virtual Surround, Digital True Surround, etc.]?
 I know the Pro Basic does not but it seems to be different in that it seems to be made for CD Transports mainly [switch on the front says CD/DAT and has only COAX input], while Progeny/Gen V says OPTI/COAX].
 Any tips appreciated.
  
 Plus how much of a difference is there between the Progeny and the Prime one? How much of a down-grade it could be/how much different are they?
 Thanks


----------



## Sonic Defender

Up until the Gungnir, I purchased all my other Schiit new. However, I'm totally fine with paying a reasonable premium over a registered user for an upgrade as it is hard not to see this approach as fair and balanced. I will say Mike, buying used isn't opportunist in my mind, there we can agree to disagree. If I had to go new, I couldn't have done so at the time. I stretched my budget to get a used  (still expensive relative to my income at the time Gungnir) and in doing so I have been able to talk about this amazing DAC so many times. I know for a fact there are two people I know personally who ordered a Gungnir from Schiit directly from talking to me about my experience, and the other guy from hearing mine. So while I completely agree with the tiered approach, I would suggest that the language of respect needs to be equally applied to all Schiit customers. Certainly when you consider how many people are out there like me; who have bought direct from Schiit before, in my case twice, will buy direct again, but despite that, for situational reasons did buy used. There is no shame in buying used, and in this hobby it is required except for the select few with such deep pockets saving money isn't an issue.


----------



## thegunner100

What about people who bought b-stock directly from Schiit? I bought my gungnir as b-stock.


----------



## wink

New, Used, second-hand,  B-Stock, pre-loved..?
  
 So, not all Schiit is equal?


----------



## thegunner100

wink said:


> New, Used, second-hand,  B-Stock, pre-loved..?
> 
> So, not all Schiit is equal?


 

 My used schiit is better than your new schiit!


----------



## wink

I have musical diarrhoea.  Sounds like beats headphones.


----------



## Sonic Defender

thegunner100 said:


> What about people who bought b-stock directly from Schiit? I bought my gungnir as b-stock.


 

 I'm sure that counts as registered for Schiit, so don't worry.


----------



## wink

You'll get B-Stock upgrade modules.  No worries...


----------



## preproman

snip3r77 said:


> Yup audiogd has most of the 1704uk


 

 Maybe, maybe not....
  
 http://www.aquahifi.com/la_scala.html


----------



## jk47

sonic defender said:


> I totally get where Mike is coming from, and I agree, as a used Gungnir purchaser I'm totally cool with paying a moderate premium. After all, membership does have privileges. But I will say this, now it is different, but two years ago when I purchased my Gungnir used, I could not have afforded a brand new one. However; in these past two years I will guarantee that my genuine enthusiasm and ability to discuss the DAC intelligently has helped sell a few, so my hands aren't shaking either if I save a little as even a used Schiit owner over say a never owned a Gungnir client.


 
 If schiit implements higher pricing for upgrades for used equipment the effect will be to drive down the price of their used stuff, AND drive down the value of original purchases.  ie if you buy some schiit you'll know that the resale market won't be as good.  that will make it harder for a schiit owner to upgrade to a totally higher level piece. i think it's a foolish policy, probably generating a few extra bucks in the short term, but damping their future growth.


----------



## schneller

Been following this thread, esp. comments about the Gungnir Gen2, for a year or more now. 
  
 My only problem with the Gungnir is that this forum/thread is about the only place where it receives positive reviews really. I am sure it's still one of the best DACs for under $1K but DACs costing just a little more like the new Chord 2Qute and HEGEL HD12 are getting praise from many corners of the internet. The more the merrier of course when one cannot audition all these things side by side! 
  
 I would like to see a Gen3 version...
 -Footprint no more than say a HEGEL HD12
 -DSD support
 -USB galvanic isolation
 -Priced no more than $1800


----------



## thegunner100

When we say Gen 2... we mean USB gen 2, the modular card, not the entire unit.


----------



## AustinValentine

jk47 said:


> If schiit implements higher pricing for upgrades for used equipment the effect will be to drive down the price of their used stuff, AND drive down the value of original purchases.  ie if you buy some schiit you'll know that the resale market won't be as good.  that will make it harder for a schiit owner to upgrade to a totally higher level piece. i think it's a foolish policy, probably generating a few extra bucks in the short term, but damping their future growth.


 
  
 Schiit isn't trying to get other people to sell schiit - they're not Herbalife. Schiit wants to sell schiit, which is understandable because it's Schiit's schiit. The resale market generally competes against the direct market manufacturer for sales. If someone is going to buy a Schiit product, choosing to buy it used actually takes a new sale away from the company. So the cost of "driving down the value of the original purchase" only comes from the lowered value of the used item on the aftermarket - which is understandably not something that the manufacturer should be trying to promote.
  
 Again, Schiit wants to sell schiit. Not an unreasonable position.
  
 Truth be told, the lost resale value is more or less already ther_e_ though because of Schiit's non-transferable warranties. That's a far larger aftermarket deterrent than the small nominal upgrade fee. Any loss of value from a future possible upgrade fee is going to be negligible compared to the value loss caused by this. I know when I buy used schiit, I weigh the risk/reward ratio of possible future equipment failure against the immediate short-term savings. 
  
 The company to some degree already mitigates this "value loss" for the consumer _who purchases through them_ by way of their 15 day trial period. The trial period puts the onus on the consumer to make sure they want the schiit that they are buying. If you think that the schiit is not for you, send it back to Schiit for a near total refund. If you're still using the schiit that you bought from them, then cheaper upgrades actually increase the value of the original purchase to the consumer. 
  
_Put another way:_ In the scenario that you're mentioning (i.e. Someone buys new/used schiit then wants to sell their used schiit to buy wholly new schiit from Schiit but can't because their used schiit has depreciated too much due to Schiit's totally unfair Stalinist warranty and upgrade policies), _how is Schiit any different from any other company with non-transferable warranties? _
  
 Who knows? Maybe a company will come along that will release products at Schiit's price bracket with same price-to-performance ratio. Maybe that company will provide well differentiated products and a clear upgrade path, with upgrades available even to some prior purchases. Maybe that company will provide transferable warranties to consumers who buy used. Right now, the only company that I can think of that fits these criteria is Garage1217 and they only sell a small line of amplifiers. 
  
 When that company comes along, if people want they can take their business there. Free market such and such.


----------



## Khragon

tl;dr - too much schiit.
  
 The way I look at this is if people are not willing to pay full price they won't pay full price regardless of what schiit do.   What's going to happen is people will wait for an upgraded item to be on sale and buy that, there won't be that much of a change, maybe even at a better discount thanks to the new policy.  Schiit just going to get a bad rep for trying to alienate 2nd hand buyers.


----------



## Sonic Defender

austinvalentine said:


> Schiit isn't trying to get other people to sell schiit - they're not Herbalife. Schiit wants to sell schiit, which is understandable because it's Schiit's schiit. The resale market generally competes against the direct market manufacturer for sales. If someone is going to buy a Schiit product, choosing to buy it used actually takes a new sale away from the company. So the cost of "driving down the value of the original purchase" only comes from the lowered value of the used item on the aftermarket - which is understandably not something that the manufacturer should be trying to promote.
> 
> *My reply ... Not completely true, there will be people who at a certain point can't afford a new product, that is reality. However, they can afford second-hand, as when I bought my Gungnir used. Now these people become brand loyal if the product is good, and Schiit is good, really good. So now Schiit has gained a brand loyal customer, that is the GOLD standard in marketing, who cares about a lost sale, the sale was never there to be lost as the person couldn't afford the product new anyway and would likely have moved on to another item, perhaps a less expensive off-shore well featured DAC. *
> 
> ...


----------



## AustinValentine

> *My reply ... Not completely true, there will be people who at a certain point can't afford a new product, that is reality. However, they can afford second-hand, as when I bought my Gungnir used. Now these people become brand loyal if the product is good, and Schiit is good, really good. So now Schiit has gained a brand loyal customer, that is the GOLD standard in marketing, who cares about a lost sale, the sale was never there to be lost as the person couldn't afford the product new anyway and would likely have moved on to another item, perhaps a less expensive off-shore well featured DAC.*
> 
> *Now the brand loyal customer will expose Schiit gear to their circle of influence, some will perhaps never have considered Schiit otherwise, some will buy new, some used. As well, the original used purchaser may have changed economic fortunes, like myself, and now be able to buy new. I'm a business man, and anyway I can earn a customer, they are my full on customer, lock stock and barrel. Simply looking at some lost margin on a purchase done used is potentially myopic and not really a good business lens. You buy my gear, I value you as you have validated my gear and my business, you're my customer.*


 
  
 (I don't work for Schiit and I'm not affiliated with them in anyway so take what I have to say re; their business with a grain of salt. I only know them from audio forums and haven't even met them IRL. The only Schiit product I currently own is the Wyrd.)
  
 It's good that you've become a brand loyal customer by a second hand purchase. You made a sensible purchase based on your finances and got a good product for the money.
  
 But with regard to doing the upgrade at the same price as those that bought direct: your original used purchase didn't put any money into Schiit's pocket. In post #3617, Mike noted that doing the upgrade for people who buy used would actually cost the company money and would need to be subsidized by those that purchased it new. (The cheaper price is effectively a loyalty discount. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he's saying there, but that's how I read it.)
  
 What you're actually asking Schiit to do here then is to perform a service at a loss, on an item that you obtained by means of an aftermarket transaction where Schiit received no money, in exchange for exposing "Schiit gear to their circle of influence." Schiit doesn't have a marketing budget, or even...well...marketing, so word of mouth is important. I'm not going to understate that. But exposure is the most vague, intangible, often insubstantial form of transactional currency. I teach at an arts and media college and you wouldn't believe what people ask my students to do in exchange for "exposure". 
  
 If you have enough revenue, cash-on-hand, or low interest credit and can afford to be a loss leader, then - yeah - you can afford to take a loss in order to build market share. Amazon has made an empire out of doing just that. Schiit is a pretty small company though, and transactions need to result in profit in order to make payroll, pay for R&D, afford warehouse space, buy solder, repair their forklift, give Jason more time to write sci-fi stories, buy Mike novelty t-shirts, etc. etc. 
  
 To me, brand loyalty means wanting a company to continue being able to make quality products. This means that they need to be able to make money on those products and services. That means when you can afford to buy a product new, buy it from them even if it costs a bit more than used because it actually puts money in their pocket. It also means accepting that they need to have a profit margin on upgrading out-of-warranty used equipment.
  
 The difference between being a loyal customer and just a fan is that you actually purchased an item from a company, accepted that you paid the mark-up/profit margin they need to keep working, and received a quality product in exchange for materially compensating them for their labor. It's a subtle distinction, and one that can get lost pretty easily.  Anywho, I've blah blah blah'ed enough for one morning.


----------



## Sonic Defender

austinvalentine said:


> (I don't work for Schiit and I'm not affiliated with them in anyway so take what I have to say re; their business with a grain of salt. I only know them from audio forums and haven't even met them IRL. The only Schiit product I currently own is the Wyrd.)
> 
> It's good that you've become a brand loyal customer by a second hand purchase. You made a sensible purchase based on your finances and got a good product for the money.
> 
> But with regard to doing the upgrade at the same price as those that bought direct: your original used purchase didn't put any money into Schiit's pocket. In post #3617, Mike noted that doing the upgrade for people who buy used would actually cost the company money and would need to be subsidized by those that purchased it new. (The cheaper price is effectively a loyalty discount. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he's saying there, but that's how I read it.)


 
 I guess you didn't see my first post in this thread. I agree that people who purchased used such as myself should indeed pay more for an upgrade, but certainly within reason. I agree that Schiit couldn't remain in business, or at least it would be far more difficult if they allowed the second-hand market to have the same level of benefit that retail purchasers have, and that is a very fair position to take, again, within reasonable limits. My point was mostly aimed at the choice of language used by a Schiit representative calling second-hand purchases "opportunistic" which in this context can easily be seen as a pejorative term. I also believe there was mention of people "whining" that they couldn't afford new. Again, those are not customer-focused messages, and frankly I'm surprised at such a negative tone. I can't imagine any serious audio enthusiast here or anywhere that doesn't need to do some second-hand purchases from time to time.
  
 Those who purchased second-hand need to be realistic, and fair in their expectations of Schiit, but that respect is a two way street.


----------



## Mr Rick

sonic defender said:


> I guess you didn't see my first post in this thread. I agree that people who purchased used such as myself should indeed pay more for an upgrade, but certainly within reason. I agree that Schiit couldn't remain in business, or at least it would be far more difficult if they allowed the second-hand market to have the same level of benefit that retail purchasers have, and that is a very fair position to take, again, within reasonable limits. My point was mostly aimed at the choice of language used by a Schiit representative calling second-hand purchases "opportunistic" which in this context can easily be seen as a pejorative term. I also believe there was mention of people "whining" that they couldn't afford new. Again, those are not customer-focused messages, and frankly I'm surprised at such a negative tone. I can't imagine any serious audio enthusiast here or anywhere that doesn't need to do some second-hand purchases from time to time.
> 
> Those who purchased second-hand need to be realistic, and fair in their expectations of Schiit, but that respect is a two way street.


 
  
 Mike is not a salesperson or customer service rep. Mike is an engineer. 
  
 If you've ever met Mike you will know he is not a 'warm and fuzzy' type person. He tells it as he sees it and I respect him for that.


----------



## conquerator2

Do we know how much Wattage do the Thetas draw?


----------



## Sonic Defender

mr rick said:


> Mike is not a salesperson or customer service rep. Mike is an engineer.
> 
> If you've ever met Mike you will know he is not a 'warm and fuzzy' type person. He tells it as he sees it and I respect him for that.


 

 Totally cool, but that is why we hire people to do what it is that we aren't strong at. If you're not a PR person, in the best interest of the company, you should have a PR person act in that capacity.


----------



## frenchbat

conquerator2 said:


> Do we know how much Wattage do the Thetas draw?


 

 Manual doesn't say. Maybe Mike remembers.


----------



## conquerator2

Hmmm... What's the difference between the A and non-A versions?


----------



## frenchbat

conquerator2 said:


> Hmmm... What's the difference between the A and non-A versions?


 

 1- Transistors matched in the analog section
 2- Improved filter topology
 3- Improved clocks
 4-Improved algorythm


----------



## conquerator2

frenchbat said:


> 1- Transistors matched in the analog section
> 2- Improved filter topology
> 3- Improved clocks
> 4-Improved algorythm


 
 Thanks.
 Though I wonder how much audible difference that'd account for.
  
 Also, any comments on something like the Theta Digital Progeny vs Sonic Frontiers DAC-2?
 The DAC-2 was much cheaper, though the comparison seems favorable, as posted by wahsmoh - http://www.audiophilia.com/hardware/dac2.htm


----------



## frenchbat

conquerator2 said:


> Thanks.
> Though I wonder how much audible difference that'd account for.
> 
> Also, any comments on something like the Theta Digital Progeny vs Sonic Frontiers DAC-2?
> The DAC-2 was much cheaper, though the comparison seems favorable, as posted by wahsmoh - http://www.audiophilia.com/hardware/dac2.htm


 

 Sorry can't help you. I haven't heard either.


----------



## conquerator2

frenchbat said:


> Sorry can't help you. I haven't heard either.


 
 No problem.
 Though I wonder how the DAC chips fare - one has a single PCM-67-P the other has 2x PCM1702...
 Not that chips are everything, just something that separates the Progeny and DAC-2


----------



## kugino

anyone here have the lite dac 72? it uses the PCM1702. i've been thinking about picking up an old r2r dac from monarchy or lite or some other company...but not sure how the implementation in the dac-72 is...


----------



## conquerator2

Any way to get a non-A variant upgraded to A today?


----------



## bmichels

As you know I just received for2 weeks of test an *ARM DP-777 SE* (the new version).

 It has Only 50 hours so far, and... I hope it will improve with the break-in because so far it is good but not really better than my HUGO.

 - How much break-in does it need before providing it's best SQ ? 

 - I have 2500 CD in red-book format, so I need a DAC that is best with 16-44 music. 
  
 --> *Is the ARM a good choice for people having much more 16/44 than higher res files ?  are there other DAC better optimised for 16/44 ?*


----------



## frenchbat

conquerator2 said:


> Any way to get a non-A variant upgraded to A today?


 

 You're free to try and contact the EU importer in UK. It's Absolute Sounds in London, but I wouldn't keep my hopes up.


----------



## negura

bmichels said:


> As you know I just received for2 weeks of test an *ARM DP-777 SE* (the new version).
> 
> It has Only 50 hours so far, and... I hope it will improve with the break-in because so far it is good but not really better than my HUGO.


 
  
 What would you say you prefer about the Hugo so far. And with which amp/headphones.


----------



## bmichels

negura said:


> What would you say you prefer about the Hugo so far. And with which amp/headphones.


 
  
 the HUGO is so precise !  You can head all the details !  it's incredible !
  
 I use it as DAC/AMP when on the GO (with  ED5 or LCD-X) or at home with my EC445  (with TH900 or LCD-X).


----------



## conquerator2

frenchbat said:


> You're free to try and contact the EU importer in UK. It's Absolute Sounds in London, but I wouldn't keep my hopes up.


 
 Cheers mate. I might, but I am not sure there's need for it. We'll see how it sounds if I manage to score one. I am sure the non-A versions still sound tops


----------



## negura

bmichels said:


> the HUGO is so precise !  You can head all the details !  it's incredible !


 
  
 I liked Hugo's detail level, and if one focuses on this aspect the Hugo can look very good indeed. However as a DAC I found some big problems in paradise, such as a very 2D and nut size sound stage, lack of texture and inappropriate tonality to name a few of the issues imo. I would certainly expect the AMR to better this. Or be very surprised.


----------



## Sorrodje

I can't agree more with Negura's opinion that match definitely my own impressions of the Hugo.


----------



## smitty1110

sonic defender said:


> Totally cool, but that is why we hire people to do what it is that we aren't strong at. If you're not a PR person, in the best interest of the company, you should have a PR person act in that capacity.


 

 Usually the Schiit PR dude would chime in for this discussion, but he's on vacation ATM. Jason should be back sometime next week IIRC, and will probably try to clear up any remaining confusion.


----------



## hans030390

bmichels said:


> It has Only 50 hours so far, and... I hope it will improve with the break-in because so far it is good but not really better than my HUGO.
> 
> - I have 2500 CD in red-book format, so I need a DAC that is best with 16-44 music.
> 
> --> *Is the ARM a good choice for people having much more 16/44 than higher res files ?  are there other DAC better optimised for 16/44 ?*


 
  
 What do you find that it does better, worse, or the same as the Hugo?
  
 If I remember correctly, the DP-777 runs in non-oversampling mod (or close enough) with a TDA1541 chip for 16/44 or 48 material. Something else for anything higher bit or sampling rate, and usually I hear more about its 16/44 section than anything else. The sort of sound I'd imagine that will provide might not be your thing.
  
 You might like some of the vintage DACs using something like a PCM63 or UltraAnalog module (w/ oversampling) more, or the Yggy when it launches.


----------



## Baldr

Guys,
  
 What I posted previously was Theta policy when I was running it in the 80's.
  
 As I said, I had no previous precedent to follow.  Theta was the first audio company to upgrade.
  
 This is *not* Schiit's policy, current or proposed.  But here are the possibilities:
  
 1.  Generate the most $ for the company, offer no upgrades, and sell new models as technology changes.  Screw all users and view them as maxx cash cows.
  
 2.  Generate an upgrade program as a benefit for prior customers.  This involves a reduction in revenue for the manufacturer; the carrot is that hopefully it sells more units as it makes the offered products safer to buy.  This policy subsidizes all prior customers and in addition, used Schiit buyers.. 
  
 3.  At Theta, I chose to reward the original customers slightly more than the used customers.  It was entirely workable for Theta back then with a brand new program no one else was offering.  It is not about what Schiit will or will not do.  We will work that out later.
  
 It was an effort at that time for spreading the economic burden.  It was not perfect.  It worked.
  
 As I have repeatedly said, God could appear to me and tell me how to build the perfect DAC, and there would be users out there who would hate the way it sounds.
  
 It is also apparent that when one offers upgrades as a subsidy for technology upgrades - there will also be complainers. 
  
 If so, buy somebody else's stuff.  We are not perfect - but we are very grateful for all of our current users - and yes that includes the used buyers.


----------



## kugino

two truisms in audio:
1. there will always be someone who hates the sound
2. there will always be complainers

you hit the nail on the head, mike.


----------



## mikek200

baldr said:


> Guys,
> 
> What I posted previously was Theta policy when I was running it in the 80's.
> 
> ...


 
 Why are we even discussing this..
  
 The Yiggy is not even listed for sale--yet?
 The warm up time issue has not even  been completely addressed/solved..??
 The windows driver problem-if it really exists,hasn't been solved,or has it?


----------



## reddog

Yes he posted on another thread, that the window driver problem was fixed.


----------



## Mr Rick

mikek200 said:


> Why are we even discussing this..
> 
> The Yiggy is not even listed for sale--yet?
> The warm up time issue has not even  been completely addressed/solved..??
> The windows driver problem-if it really exists,hasn't been solved,or has it?


 
 Go back a few pages and all will become clear.


----------



## jexby

baldr said:


> As I have repeatedly said, God could appear to me and tell me how to build the perfect DAC, and there would be users out there who would hate the way it sounds.
> .




Um wait what?
Yggy isn't' the God inspired DAC?

Unsub.


----------



## mikek200

jexby said:


> Um wait what?
> Yggy isn't' the God inspired DAC?
> 
> Unsub.


 
 LOL,maybe..??,probably!!!!
  
 Lets just get the GD item ,on the market first...


----------



## mulder01

baldr said:


> I have been dealing with subjective impressions of cold vs. warmed up D to A converters I have designed for over 30 years.  Where there are many opinions, here are some laws of the engineering physical universe:
> 
> In the case of brand new passive components, reliability increases an order of magnitude in each successive 24 hours of burn-in.  In the 1980’s, with through-hole parts, approximately .5% of such parts failed randomly in the first 24 hours.  Today, with surface mount parts, the first 24 hours result in a much lower .01 to .05%.  This is precisely why I burned Theta Gear in for 100 hours back in the 80’s and will burn the Yggys in for 24-48 hours today.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Sorry if this has been covered, but from this explanation, there are a bunch of electronic components that behave slightly differently after a certain period of time.  
  
 So then wouldn't that mean that all electronic devices would be equally as effected?  Why is the Yggy particularly sensitive to such minute differences compared to other pieces of equipment?  Or is it effected equally as much as other pieces of equipment, but for some reason everyone is blowing up about this DAC in particular?


----------



## eddypoon

mulder01 said:


> Why is the Yggy particularly sensitive to such minute differences compared to other pieces of equipment?  Or is it effected equally as much as other pieces of equipment, but for some reason everyone is blowing up about this DAC in particular?


 
  
 It's like coke.  Nobody discovered Cola before the french revolution, and now we have Cola, everybody asks about the difference in taste between different sugars used in different origins. 
  
 Like you said, equally affecting all equipment. There is no other logical explanation.


----------



## mikek200

"but for some reason everyone is blowing up about this DAC in particular?"
  
 Honetly,I don't know,but many of us,have been waiting for this product to emerge,at least I have,in fact,I sold my current dac,jus to help finance,the Yiggy.
  
 I'll continue to wait,& thank you  ,Mike & Jason for all the hard work,you've put into this project
  
 Mr.Rick,Redog ...thanks for the corrections,& updates.
  
 Mike


----------



## Sonic Defender

mikek200 said:


> "but for some reason everyone is blowing up about this DAC in particular?"
> 
> Honetly,I don't know,but many of us,have been waiting for this product to emerge,at least I have,in fact,I sold my current dac,jus to help finance,the Yiggy.
> 
> ...


 

 I agree, despite some slight concern over warmup time the Yggy sounds like it will be an amazing piece of gear. I personally would consider the Yggy if it makes sense for me, but time will tell.


----------



## GoldfishX

I'm surprised the "leave it on all the time" thing is such a problem for people. DAC's generally don't run that hot. It's not that much different from leaving, say, a DVD player, a computer or TV on all the time.  It's not like it's a Class A tube amp. Leave it on and forget about it.
  
 And I dunno, Mike's doing fine with PR in this thread so far.


----------



## Stillhart

What happened to chocolate ice cream?


----------



## jexby

stillhart said:


> What happened to chocolate ice cream?


 

 If you leave it on all the time it melts.


----------



## lukeap69

jexby said:


> If you leave t
> 
> 
> If you leave it on all the time it melts.




So, is that the reason Purrin hated chocolate ice cream? He cannot leave it all the time?


----------



## estreeter

goldfishx said:


> I'm surprised the "leave it on all the time" thing is such a problem for people. DAC's generally don't run that hot. It's not that much different from leaving, say, a DVD player, a computer or TV on all the time.  It's not like it's a Class A tube amp. Leave it on and forget about it.
> 
> And I dunno, Mike's doing fine with PR in this thread so far.


 
  
 Agree completely, but the dissenting voices will always be the loudest on any forum. If Ayre, Linn or Naim suggested that a source should be left on 24/7 for optimum performance, no one who pays that sort of money would argue, but Schiit Audio has appealed to the 'Absolutely no BS' crowd from day one and clearly some of them see this as very much an Ayre / Linn / Naim thing. High-end audio with all the mythology that goes along with it - _yada yada yada_. 
  
 The thing is that Mike isnt asking anyone to buy a thousand dollar power cord or a separate PSU for 75% of the cost of the Yggy (Naim..) and he's not going from forum to forum telling potential customers where to go and what to do when they get there (sorry, Charlie, but thats how you project yourself). Read any interview with Linn's Ivor Tiefenbrun and you'll quickly discover a prickly individual who has his own ideas on what makes for good sound and what you need to spend to get to that level - he's pretty much at the 'take it or leave it' stage. 
  
I dont see any easy answers here - either accept the relatively small overhead in terms of your power bill or wait till the R2R goodness trickles down to Gungnir.


----------



## C.C.S.

stillhart said:


> What happened to chocolate ice cream?


 
  
 Perhaps purrin found some chocolate ice cream that he actually enjoys?


----------



## wahsmoh

goldfishx said:


> I'm surprised the "leave it on all the time" thing is such a problem for people. DAC's generally don't run that hot. It's not that much different from leaving, say, a DVD player, a computer or TV on all the time.  It's not like it's a Class A tube amp. Leave it on and forget about it.
> 
> And I dunno, Mike's doing fine with PR in this thread so far.


 

 Agreed. The important thing is to keep your amp from transferring heat to your source if they are in close proximity.


----------



## fzman

estreeter said:


> Agree completely, but the dissenting voices will always be the loudest on any forum.  ........
> I dont see any easy answers here - either accept the relatively small overhead in terms of your power bill or wait till the R2R goodness trickles down to Gungnir.


 
  
 Don't be so sure about that ....  look what happens when we leave Purrin on all the time!


----------



## Sonic Defender

Recently I have been leaving my Gungnir on all the time (about 5 days now). I can't say I hear a difference myself, but I'm willing to try!


----------



## shadow84

My choices are now Maverick D2, NFB 15.32 and modi 2 uber. For pc and console gaming, with audioengine A5+ and maybe upcoming S8 subwoofer.
  
 Any more choices around this price range?


----------



## wink

Quote:fzman 





> look what happens when we* lead* Purrin on all the time!


 
 FTFY....


----------



## coli

goldfishx said:


> I'm surprised the "leave it on all the time" thing is such a problem for people. DAC's generally don't run that hot. It's not that much different from leaving, say, a DVD player, a computer or TV on all the time.  It's not like it's a Class A tube amp. Leave it on and forget about it.
> 
> And I dunno, Mike's doing fine with PR in this thread so far.


 
 Until your house burns down. Assuming it's your house of course.


----------



## hodgjy

shadow84 said:


> My choices are now Maverick D2, NFB 15.32 and modi 2 uber. For pc and console gaming, with audioengine A5+ and maybe upcoming S8 subwoofer.
> 
> Any more choices around this price range?


 
 Don't buy anything from Maverick. I took a bath with them. Not to mention, the stuff they sell isn't very good.


----------



## Stillhart

shadow84 said:


> My choices are now Maverick D2, NFB 15.32 and modi 2 uber. For pc and console gaming, with audioengine A5+ and maybe upcoming S8 subwoofer.
> 
> Any more choices around this price range?


 
  
 IMO, the NFB-15 is one of the best values in its price range.  I think the DAC is a step up from the Modi (but I haven't heard the Modi 2) and the amp is solid.  I've never heard anything good about the Mavericks.  Schiit's entry level stuff if is a good value if you're in the States, but once you start paying huge shipping fees and import taxes, the value proposition goes down...depends how cheap you can get them for.
  
 Other things to consider in the price range are the O2/ODAC,Fiio E07k/E09k, and Geek Out 1000.  The NFB-11 is also really nice for the price, tho it's a bit more than the other items mentioned.


----------



## bmichels

I do not see any talk here about *the  no-compromize  1543 DAC (and the associated CAT music server)* from the UK company Computer Audio Design ?
  
 This NON oversampling DAC uses the *16 bits Philips 1543 chip + R2R lader technology* (in fact it uses *16 *(Sixteen !) TDA1543 chips !!).   Purrin, you should like this "vintage" concept ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 This ladder operates without any form of oversampling or filtering, and the 16 TDA1543 DAC chips generate an output of 1.65v without needing a conventional output stage !
  
 And the CAT Music Server uses a very modified version of Windows. And since it is windows based... you can install on it software like QOBUZ or ..."Out of Your Head"  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
  

  
*I believe that this guy should deserve attention, at least for it's extremely brave NON-Commercial NO-Compromise approach !  *





   
  
 anyone heard it ? know it ?
  

 The digital board with it's twin rows of 8 x 1543 DACs all topped by a massive heatsink !!
  
 Back of the DAC: USB in, RCA out.... a very minimalist approach !!
  

  
 The  CAT server/streamer/NAS/Streamer


----------



## Stillhart

bmichels said:


> I do not see any talk here about *the  no-compromize  1543 DAC (and the associated CAT music server)* from the UK company Computer Audio Design ?
> 
> This NON oversampling DAC uses the *16 bits Philips 1543 chip + R2R lader technology* (in fact it uses *16 *(Sixteen !) TDA1543 chips !!).   Purrin, you should like this "vintage" concept ?
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's a bad sign when nobody who sells it will list the price...


----------



## bmichels

stillhart said:


> It's a bad sign when nobody who sells it will list the price...


 
  
1543 DAC = £6,900
CAT =  £5,300 or £4,800 when purchased with 1543 DAC
  
HiFi+  CAT review here


----------



## Ableza

bmichels said:


> 1543 DAC = £6,900
> CAT =  £5,300 or £4,800 when purchased with 1543 DAC
> 
> HiFi+  CAT review here


 
 Uh huh.  Estimated MSRP of Schiit Yggdrasil: $2399 US.  I'll wait.  And I built my media server/network audio player for less than $250.  Thank you Vortexbox.


----------



## gevorg

That's one nice chassis!


----------



## icebear

I somehow stumbled into this thread on a lazy Sunday afternoon and went over the latest 15 pages or so. I haven't been following Shiit and I don't have any intention to look into their products as I am pretty happy with my current set up.
  
 Having said that I wonder why with all the "heated" discussion about warm up times and "leave always on" there has no one mentioned active temperature control ...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. If the parts and circuits need to reach a certain temperature to tune in and sound best, why not help the DAC actively to reach that state ?
  
 That is not rocket science : 
 http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Coffee-MWBLK-Mug-Warmer/dp/B000CO89T8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428262014&sr=8-1&keywords=mug+warmer+auto+shut+off
  
 If Shiit isn't integrating something, just get two of these thingies and put them under the DAC


----------



## mikek200

icebear said:


> I somehow stumbled into this thread on a lazy Sunday afternoon and went over the latest 15 pages or so. I haven't been following Shiit and I don't have any intention to look into their products as I am pretty happy with my current set up.
> 
> Having said that I wonder why with all the "heated" discussion about warm up times and "leave always on" there has no one mentioned active temperature control ...
> 
> ...


 
  
 Is it safe?
 If you go along with this type of warm-up thing,why no just use a small warm up blanket,and just place it directly underneath the Yiggy
  
 And,how are we to know,when the Yiggy has reached optimal temperature???,or,possible,over heating?
  
 Leaving the Yiggy on,to me,seems like ,the best way
 Electrical bill,increase,is minimal,at least in NYC.


----------



## DSNORD

My Gungnir draws 20W power per hour it's on. That's 480W per day if left on 24/7. At 10 cents per Kilowatt from Met Ed here in Reading, PA, leaving my G on costs me 5 CENTS A DAY or $1.50 per month. 

To balance this cost and the ecological catastrophe I create daily with my Gungnir, I park ONE spot farther away at work!!!!!!!

I'll gladly pay 5 CENTS a day to possibily have 1 iota of better sonic goodness each time I go to listen. But more importantly, never turning it off saves me the caloric energy expenditure required to reach BEHIND my Gungnir to switch it on!!!!


----------



## hans030390

Anyone charging more than a couple hundred bucks for a TDA1543-based DAC is ridiculous. I don't care how many of them you parallel. The 1543 chips are an inherently low-budget, compromised design. You can get much better performance out of a single 1541 chip. bmichels, how many non-oversampling DACs have you tried besides the DP-777? If you're not thrilled with the DP-777, my guess is non-oversampling isn't what you should be pursuing.


----------



## mikek200

disregard


----------



## haywood

mikek200 said:


> Is it safe?
> 
> Leaving the Yiggy on,to me,seems like ,the best way
> Electrical bill,increase,is minimal,at least in NYC.



I think that was a joke. 

Anyway this isn't about heat as the device would reach a stable temperature relatively quickly. The obvious solution is to just leave it on, and maybe it'd be worth Schitt implementing a front panel soft switch to put it in "standby" mode like other devices (e.g. tv) use, but it would be interesting for someone with the engineering chops to find out why it does have the current behavior. I'd also like to see tests with multiple Yggys where one has been left on for the required week, and the other hasn't and get people's impressions of the difference. Ideally it'd be more units so you can see what differences happen and roughly when but then it starts to get ridiculous unless Schiit gets involved. I'd love to see purrin and his pirate crew take that on since we already have a frame of reference for them and they're relatively impartial.


----------



## pldelisle

The more I read, the more I think I'm going to get the Gungnir over the Bifrost Uber. Seems better on many points. And since it's a long term buying (Do you think it can last me for more than 5 years ?), it worths the premium price over the Bifrost.


----------



## estreeter

Guys, the name is *Schiit Audio* - you need a 'c', two 'i's and a single t - I know they've overplayed the joke but some of the attempted spellings here are truly *****. _Spelling police_ or no, this is an enthusiast community and we owe it to ourselves and newbies to get the brand names right. Not sure how a group that can manage '_Resonessence Labs_' can muff this one so badly. 
  
 http://schiit.com
 http://www.schiit-europe.com
 https://www.facebook.com/Schiit


----------



## mikek200

haywood said:


> I think that was a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 That sounds like an excellent idea,and Purrin would be the man,if he is willing ,and has the time to do it.
 Mike from Schiit would be another guy..
  
 OK,well damn..now I cant cant the Mr.Coffee warm-up pads..I was hoping that I could get a years worth of coffee for free !!!
 Guess,my Yiggy takes preference-LOL
  
 Thanks Haywood--good post


----------



## mikek200

pldelisle said:


> The more I read, the more I think I'm going to get the Gungnir over the Bifrost Uber. Seems better on many points. And since it's a long term buying (Do you think it can last me for more than 5 years ?), it worths the premium price over the Bifrost.


 
 Ihad the Gungnir,many years ago ,and after what I read about the new Gen2 USB from Purrin,I was seriously thinking about getting it again also.
  
 Have you read this:
  
 " 
*6 Schiit Gungnir Gen2 USB Board* *(USB)*
 Highly dynamic. Great tonal balance with bite when the recording calls for it. Like the Lavry DA11, it doesn't do much wrong. Sweet sweet tone. Excellent tonal response with some balls in the bass. Compact but well defined stage with great localization of instruments. Very good sounding treble, one of the best we've heard with a sigma-delta chip. Vocals are only second to the AGD M7 or Metrum. Resolution is not the best, but it can still hang in there. With the Gen 2 USB upgrade, the Gungnir has now found its way into my regular rotation. Now I can feel comfortable lending out one of my better DACs to friends because I have a DAC good enough as a substitute. Some have found the Gungnir Gen 1 to be overly dynamic - having a tendency to be too loud. Think rock arena. That drummer that hits really hard. This is the top one or two hardest hitting DACs out there. This does create a sense of tension which can either be good for bad depending upon you sensitivities. I've never fallen asleep to music listening to this DAC.
  
 The Gen 2 USB brings to the table some finesse through the restoration of low level sounds which were previously compressed or lost in the Gen 1 USB version. Gen 1 USB also sounds less lively (microdynamics) and less clear. The Gen 2 USB upgrade is significant. It's interesting to note how Schiit has removed all the bad things they said about USB on their website with the release of the Gen 2 USB."
  
 I have already made up my mind about the Yiggy,so I have put aside those funds,and I am hoping thats the Yiggy,will be listed ..soon
  
 Good luck with the Gungnir,if you get it.
  
 Mike


----------



## pldelisle

Yes I read this mini-review from Purrin. The only thing that was holding me was the price. It's about 400 $ CND more than the Bifrost Uber :/ But every member of this forum seems to agree that it worths the price premium. 
  
 I won't be using the balanced output, though. But I have really good shielded RCA cables. But who knows, maybe in the futur my speaker amp will have balanced inputs... But I read that even with the unbalanced RCA output the sound is better than the Bifrost Uber.


----------



## conquerator2

Do we have any nice Theta alternatives?
 Would like to spread my repertoire of possibilities a bit


----------



## mikek200

pldelisle said:


> Yes I read this mini-review from Purrin. The only thing that was holding me was the price. It's about 400 $ CND more than the Bifrost Uber :/ But every member of this forum seems to agree that it worth the price premium.
> 
> I won't be using the balanced output, though. But I have really good shielded RCA cables. But who knows, maybe in the future my speaker amp will have balanced inputs... But I read that even with the unbalanced RCA output the sound is better than the Bifrost Uber.


 
 Yeah,but the Gungnir already has xlr plugs.
 Also,I hearing something about other??? upgrades for the Gungnir---don't know how accurate that info is.??
 The Gungnir might be a dac,that will stay with you for a few decades???
  
 I would go back online,and read about the SQ differences,that both dacs offer??,or,PM a few Gungnir/Bifrost owners
 Guys who had both .....??
 My gut reaction is to take Purrins' opinion as Gospel,and tells it like it is..thats just my $.02.
  
 Mike


----------



## kugino

conquerator2 said:


> Do we have any nice Theta alternatives?
> Would like to spread my repertoire of possibilities a bit


I've been looking at the monarchy r2r dacs as well as some of the lite ones. the lite dac-72 uses the pcm1702 like the theta. and the monarchy uses the pcm63 in some of theirs.


----------



## AustinValentine

kugino said:


> I've been looking at the monarchy r2r dacs as well as some of the lite ones. the lite dac-72 uses the pcm1702 like the theta. and the monarchy uses the pcm63 in some of theirs.


 
  
 Yep, Monarchy r2r's can be solid, for sure. While there isn't really a direct 1:1 alternative for the Moffat-filtered/Motorola DSP'ed Thetas, there are other really solid vintage models brands and models. Obviously, the offerings by Linn Numerik, Krell, Wadia, and Mark Levinson that use Ultra Analog/PCM63/1702/1704 all already command a premium. Beyond those - and in some cases above those - my favorite vintage r2r's come from Sonic Frontiers, Parasound, and Adcom. I actually get a bit shocked by the lack of attention that the Adcom GDA 600/700 get, as the PCM63/1702 chips and DF1700P/PMD100 filters that they use are really quite good.


----------



## purrin

conquerator2 said:


> Do we have any nice Theta alternatives?
> Would like to spread my repertoire of possibilities a bit


 
  
 The Sonic Frontiers UltraAnalog and PCM1702 based DACs. The Monarchy UltraAnalog and PCM63 based DACs. Spectral SDR2000, PS Audio Ultralink, Adcom, Parasound, etc.
  
 There are a lot of DACs from that "golden age" era that are still overpriced or not that great, i.e. the vintage Linn CD12 is still selling for way too much, but then again it was Linn's $20K flagship back in the day. The Linn Numerik (PCM63)/Karik could have been better.


----------



## kugino

austinvalentine said:


> Yep, Monarchy r2r's can be solid, for sure. While there isn't really a direct 1:1 alternative for the Moffat-filtered/Motorola DSP'ed Thetas, there are other really solid vintage models brands and models. Obviously, the offerings by Linn Numerik, Krell, Wadia, and Mark Levinson that use Ultra Analog/PCM63/1702/1704 all already command a premium. Beyond those - and in some cases above those - my favorite vintage r2r's come from Sonic Frontiers, Parasound, and Adcom. I actually get a bit shocked by the lack of attention that the Adcom GDA 600/700 get, as the PCM63/1702 chips and DF1700P/PMD100 filters that they use are really quite good.


 

 cool...nice to get a bunch of options, though i'm sure most are difficult to obtain. thanks!


----------



## shadow84

stillhart said:


> IMO, the NFB-15 is one of the best values in its price range.  I think the DAC is a step up from the Modi (but I haven't heard the Modi 2) and the amp is solid.  I've never heard anything good about the Mavericks.  Schiit's entry level stuff if is a good value if you're in the States, but once you start paying huge shipping fees and import taxes, the value proposition goes down...depends how cheap you can get them for.
> 
> Other things to consider in the price range are the O2/ODAC,Fiio E07k/E09k, and Geek Out 1000.  The NFB-11 is also really nice for the price, tho it's a bit more than the other items mentioned.




Well, i would b pairing it with console and pc, so i need optical and usb.

I can get modi 2 uber at s$250 which is ard us$178.

Jus wondering, if paired with console via optical, would it degrade the sound if i used 2.0 or 2.1 speakers?


----------



## pldelisle

At least, since all Schiit stuff is made in USA, you don't have to pay duty taxes when importing to Canada. You only have to pay PST + GST.


----------



## XERO1

dsnord said:


> My Gungnir draws 20W power per hour it's on. That's 480W per day if left on 24/7. At 10 cents per Kilowatt from Met Ed here in Reading, PA, leaving my G on costs me 5 CENTS A DAY or $1.50 per month.
> 
> To balance this cost and the ecological catastrophe I create daily with my Gungnir, I park ONE spot farther away at work!!!!!!!


 
  
 LOL!!!


----------



## Stillhart

shadow84 said:


> Well, i would b pairing it with console and pc, so i need optical and usb.
> 
> I can get modi 2 uber at s$250 which is ard us$178.
> 
> Jus wondering, if paired with console via optical, would it degrade the sound if i used 2.0 or 2.1 speakers?


 
  
 None of the DAC's mentioned support more than 2 channels so there won't be any degradation in sound.  The only decent sounding option that will give you surround (short of the $3k Smyth Realiser) is the Creative X7.  You might want to check out MLE's Thread for more info about gaming setups.


----------



## wahsmoh

purrin said:


> The Sonic Frontiers UltraAnalog and PCM1702 based DACs. The Monarchy UltraAnalog and PCM63 based DACs. Spectral SDR2000, PS Audio Ultralink, Adcom, Parasound, etc.
> 
> There are a lot of DACs from that "golden age" era that are still overpriced or not that great, i.e. the vintage Linn CD12 is still selling for way too much, but then again it was Linn's $20K flagship back in the day. The Linn Numerik (PCM63)/Karik could have been better.


 
  
 I think you may be right about the Linn Numerik. I was reading the Stereophile review from a long time ago and the descriptive language sounds like it's full of fluff. Talking about how it sounds very laid back and has such a smooth treble response, yet at the same time doesn't offer the upper mids or bass that the other DACs compared (DS Pro Basic II)


----------



## SoupRKnowva

pldelisle said:


> Yes I read this mini-review from Purrin. The only thing that was holding me was the price. It's about 400 $ CND more than the Bifrost Uber :/ But every member of this forum seems to agree that it worths the price premium.
> 
> I won't be using the balanced output, though. But I have really good shielded RCA cables. But who knows, maybe in the futur my speaker amp will have balanced inputs... But I read that even with the unbalanced RCA output the sound is better than the Bifrost Uber.




I borrowed a Gungnir to try out the schiit DAC sound and fell in love. So I ordered a Bifrost Uber since it would match my Valhalla 2. Got it in and it just didn't have the same magic as the Gungnir and I'm using it single ended. The impact and intensity that I loved so much about the Gungnir was gone. So I sent the Bifrost back and got my own Gungnir. So yes, to me the Gungnir is definitely worth the price increase over the Bifrost uber.


----------



## pldelisle

Thanks a lot for your input ! Will definitivéy go with the Gungnir... If I can stop freaking with the bill xD


----------



## Sonic Defender

pldelisle said:


> Thanks a lot for your input ! Will definitivéy go with the Gungnir... If I can stop freaking with the bill xD


 

 The Gungnir is a great DAC. If you lived in Ottawa I would say come over and have a listen. Very musical DAC and upgradeable to boot.


----------



## mikek200

pldelisle said:


> Thanks a lot for your input ! Will definitivéy go with the Gungnir... If I can stop freaking with the bill xD


 
 Welcome to the wonderful world of Head-fi-congratulations,you made the right choice.
 When I bought my Stax rig..,I went through about $8K,in one weekend-ouch!!,best investment I ever made.


----------



## paradoxper

mikek200 said:


> Welcome to the wonderful world of Head-fi-congratulations,you made the right choice.
> When I bought my Stax rig..,I went through about $8K,in one weekend-ouch!!,best investment I ever made.


 
 Should have just bought a T2, Mike. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Yggy will treat you well.


----------



## mikek200

paradoxper said:


> Should have just bought a T2, Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Maybe that will be next..
 Rumor has it,the Yggy,might???? be listed this week,
 Say some prayers-OK?


----------



## paradoxper

mikek200 said:


> Maybe that will be next..
> Rumor has it,the Yggy,might???? be listed this week,
> Say some prayers-OK?


 
 You can grab a Megatron that may be up for sale fairy soon. 
  
 This week? No, they haven't even put the Yggdrasil through its mandatory 30 days on cycle.


----------



## mikek200

paradoxper said:


> You can grab a Megatron that may be up for sale fairy soon.
> 
> This week? No, they haven't even put the Yggdrasil through its mandatory 30 days on cycle.


 
 Are you sure??
 What's a Megatron??


----------



## Schopenhauer

paradoxper said:


> mikek200 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe that will be next..
> ...


 
 I'd go with the Galvatron instead. It's way stronger and totally insane.


----------



## wink

Quote:haywood 





> and maybe it'd be worth Schitt implementing a *back* panel soft switch to put it in "standby" mode like other devices (e.g. tv) use


 
 FTFY.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Schiit design mandates the switch goes on the back. enough said.....


----------



## wink

Quote:Schopenhauer 





> paradoxper said:
> 
> 
> > mikek200 said:
> ...


 
 I'd definitely go for the positron.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 There's far too many negatives in High fidelity these days.


----------



## Currawong

bmichels said:


> I do not see any talk here about *the  *


 
  
  
 ...DAC nobody here owns, just because it uses some vintage chips. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Teradak has what looks like an old Parasound clone using PCM63s for only about $400 if you don't mind only 48k input.


----------



## estreeter

currawong said:


> ...DAC nobody here owns, just because it uses some vintage chips.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Now that DOES interest me - thanks Amos !


----------



## estreeter

mikek200 said:


> Maybe that will be next..
> Rumor has it,the Yggy,might???? be listed this week,
> Say some prayers-OK?


 
  
 Other than _the rumor you're trying to start_, its the first I've heard anything about this week - Mike's last update didnt even point to Schiit being even remotely ready to release it this week. I'm sticking to my *April 20* estimate simply because its far enough away that no-one will remember my prediction when that date comes and goes with no sign of Yggy on the product pages.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 It's a little like predicting the zombie apocalypse - if anyone tries to give you a hard time that your prediction was a dud, you can always respond that a few more months in the land of the living wont make much difference when the horde descends and they dont have their own bunker. Headphones and a generator will definitely help tune out all the screaming - just go easy on the tinned baked beans in that shipping container you buried in the backyard.


----------



## bmichels

So, is the consensus that I should pass on this Computer Audio Design 's 1543 DAC ? 
  

  
  
 If yes, may be I will just look at their music server because I have interest in a Windows server on which you can load software like "Out of your head" that I tested and liked.
  
 --> *what are the other TOL dedicated music server/ripper using Windows (not a PC that need tweeking, but a dedicated box) on which you can load 3rd party Windows applications ?*


----------



## wink

Quote:bmichels 





> So, is the consensus that I should pass on this Computer Audio Design 's 1543 DAC ?


 
 NO - Get the Yggdrasil.


----------



## bmichels

wink said:


> NO - Get the Yggdrasil.


 
  
 OK OK OK... I will do so (if I return the ARM DP-777 SE that I have on test right now).
  
 Now remain the Music server question !   Aurender ? Aries ? Antipodes DX ? LUMIN ? or...a Windows based server on which I can load software like "Out of your head" that I tested and liked.  Minimum requirement is a very user friendly UI, and integration of TIDAL or QOBUZ for high quality streaming, and no need for a NAS (USB HD is OK)
  
 So.... is the CAT from Computer Audio Design a viable solution ?   HiFi+ review here      *Other suggestions ? *
  
 It is Windows based, includes inside SSD for storage, a ripper, and can act also as... a NAS if you want.
  
 It's Windows is highly tweaked and stripped back, but...You can still load Windows' applications on it.


----------



## mulder01

@bmichels even if a few people on here said "yeah it looks awesome you should buy it", that's not really a good enough reason to lay down over ten thousand pounds is it?


----------



## wink

Get a NAD M51 and save heaps....


----------



## Articnoise

bmichels said:


> OK OK OK... I will do so (if I return the ARM DP-777 SE that I have on test right now).
> 
> Now remain the Music server question !   Aurender ? Aries ? Antipodes DX ? LUMIN ? or...a Windows based server on which I can load software like "Out of your head" that I tested and liked.  Minimum requirement is a very user friendly UI, and integration of TIDAL or QOBUZ for high quality streaming, and no need for a NAS (USB HD is OK)
> 
> ...


 

  

 I have not heard any of this DACs and cannot say anything about the sound of them from own experience. What I have read on them they seems to have kind of a different sound signature. Meaning they do better on different sound aspects. Most DACs are more in one sound sig camp then another.* Even if we want it all it is not going to happen*. One need to choose. Let say that we make 3 groups.

 1.      - Musicality camp: nice tonality and engaging sound   

2.     - Neutral and revealing camp: revealing, speed and neutral

3.     - All-around camp: pretty good on everything, but not a master of any aspect.

 Which camp do you feel you belong in?

 One can of cause make other groups with other aspects and names, but the facts is the same one need to choose what the most important aspects is, or this is at least that I think.


----------



## Sonic Defender

@bmichels ultimately you need to decide what is best for you. It seems clear to me that the Yggy is certainly worth the audition and with an imminent release date and  the fact that you can afford it I would certainly want to audition it. The only possible negative is that if the Yggy does take this significant time to sound it's best you may eat up a great deal of the trial period simply waiting for it to warm-up. That said, I know I would absolutely want to try as we all know that the ears and skills at Schiit produce killer gear. Did the AMR not work out for you? I'm sorry if I missed you discussing this earlier in the thread, but I am interested to know. Cheers.


----------



## estreeter

mulder01 said:


> @bmichels even if a few people on here said "yeah it looks awesome you should buy it", that's not really a good enough reason to lay down over ten thousand pounds is it?


 
  
 I suspect the majority of the active posters in this thread see it that way, but I'm beginning to wonder if he does ....


----------



## bmichels

estreeter said:


> I suspect the majority of the active posters in this thread see it that way, but I'm beginning to wonder if he does ....




WHY you state this !?

 I bought my ED5 against most advices here and I love them. Same for the DP-777 that I have on test in my place: I must be one of the Very first to have the new SE version, and will report. And I got my LCD-X after one day Testing in a "private canjan" in Paris. I also have 2 japanese hand made portable tube amps that almost Nobody heard of here ( from Analog Square Paper). . .

So, I listen to advices but... Do it my Way


----------



## dglow

@bmichels re: the CAT, you'd just be using this is just a transport, yes? That seems seems a lot of pay for a PC. Better putting your attention and money into a DAC that you like.


----------



## Ableza

Simple, reliable Linux-based servers that don't cost a boat load of money:  http://shop.smallgreencomputer.com/
  
 I've been using one for several years and it it great.


----------



## GoldfishX

I'm somewhat of a fan of the all-in-one design. I run a Sony HAP-S1 in my main setup. The achilles heel of the thing is that it's locked into using the onboard DAC...It would be ideal if I could lineout to another DAC. Onboard, it uses the PCM1794 or 1795. Sounds fine, but hardly safe from the upgrade bug. I'm planning to audition an Aries with the DAC's I have and, if that works out, start moving towards an Aries/Yggy frontend.
  
 So the delay/price tag of the Yggy isn't bothering me right now. lol


----------



## bmichels

dglow said:


> @bmichels re: the CAT, you'd just be using this is just a transport, yes? That seems seems a lot of pay for a PC. Better putting your attention and money into a DAC that you like.


 
  
 well, as for the DAC, I am testing right now the ARM DP-777 SE and, If I finally do not kept it, I will look into other options like the Total DAC, the next Chord "secret" Project xxxx, and also the... Yggdrasil
  
 But, I stil need a good music server.  So I am hesitating between some Windows based servers like this CAT or *a Baetis* or...some more safe options like Aurender, Aries, Antipode...
  
 NOTE: I believe that the CAT includes in it's price the 2 external Teddy Pardo power supply.
  

  
 but the Baetis is another (better known) Windows's based server alternative...


----------



## 7ryder

wahsmoh said:


> I think you may be right about the Linn Numerik. I was reading the Stereophile review from a long time ago and the descriptive language sounds like it's full of fluff. Talking about how it sounds very laid back and has such a smooth treble response, yet at the same time doesn't offer the upper mids or bass that the other DACs compared (DS Pro Basic II)


 
 And here's a recent review of the Linn Sondek CD12.  Short version, not as good as the original reviews made it out to be http://hifi-advice.com/Linn-CD12-review.html


----------



## 7ryder

ableza said:


> Simple, reliable Linux-based servers that don't cost a boat load of money:  http://shop.smallgreencomputer.com/
> 
> I've been using one for several years and it it great.


 
 +1  I was just going to point him in this direction


----------



## conquerator2

wahsmoh said:


> I think you may be right about the Linn Numerik. I was reading the Stereophile review from a long time ago and the descriptive language sounds like it's full of fluff. Talking about how it sounds very laid back and has such a smooth treble response, yet at the same time doesn't offer the upper mids or bass that the other DACs compared (*DS Pro Basic II)*


 
 I'd be interested in that... Because I just scored the Basic II for $400 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Excited!


----------



## wahsmoh

conquerator2 said:


> I'd be interested in that... Because I just scored the Basic II for $400
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 WOW Nice one!!! that is basically a balanced Progeny. 2x PCM67 + 2x Motorola DSP56001. Nice score!


----------



## conquerator2

wahsmoh said:


> WOW Nice one!!! that is basically a balanced Progeny. 2x PCM67 + 2x Motorola DSP56001. Nice score!


 
 Yep, excited man!
 After barely missing a non-A Progeny on Ebay [for a bit more!], ,I feel redemption 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
 Not sure if it is the BAL version [apparently it was optional. I've inquired to the seller. I wasn't sure from the pics.] but I don't care all that much. 2x PCM and DSPs are still in there.
 It is also the non-A version, and it has an AES/EBU input instead of the BNC... This model never had a toslink input, regardless. Guy says it is an original piece, so I guess you could choose/customize that, perhaps?
 Everything seems legit and the guy seems to have taken good care of it... Hopefully it lasts!
 No idea, but it seems very promising. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Certainly hyped! Cost me less than my previous DAC [the Gustard X12, which was VERY good arguably, but different technology].


----------



## snip3r77

conquerator2 said:


> Yep, excited man!
> After barely missing a non-A Progeny on Ebay [for a bit more!], ,I feel redemption  .
> Not sure if it is the BAL version [apparently it was optional. I've inquired to the seller. I wasn't sure from the pics.] but I don't care all that much. 2x PCM and DSPs are still in there.
> It is also the non-A version, and it has an AES/EBU input instead of the BNC... This model never had a toslink input, regardless. Guy says it is an original piece, so I guess you could choose/customize that, perhaps?
> ...



http://www.thetadigital.com/legacy_products.shtml#fully_balanced_differential_layout

Which DAC you got ? Which one should one aim for ? Thanks


----------



## conquerator2

snip3r77 said:


> http://www.thetadigital.com/legacy_products.shtml#fully_balanced_differential_layout
> 
> Which DAC you got ? Which one should one aim for ? Thanks


 
 http://www.thetadigital.com/legacy_products.shtml#basic_ii
 That's the one I got. But honestly, I think anything is worth a try... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 And happy Easter everyone!


----------



## estreeter

currawong said:


> ...DAC nobody here owns, just because it uses some vintage chips.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hi Amos,
  
      Do you have a link to this at 400USD - perhaps it went up after they decided it had a 'fever five drill reputation' : arguably the last thing I want in a DAC but clearly a selling point for some  
  
 http://www.cart100.com/Product/15139446028/Marshal_TeraDak_fourth_version_of_the_PC/
  
 Thanks


----------



## mhamel

bmichels said:


> well, as for the DAC, I am testing right now the ARM DP-777 SE and, If I finally do not kept it, I will look into other options like the Total DAC, the next Chord "secret" Project xxxx, and also the... Yggdrasil
> 
> But, I stil need a good music server.  So I am hesitating between some Windows based servers like this CAT or *a Baetis* or...some more safe options like Aurender, Aries, Antipode...
> 
> ...


 
  
 10,000 pounds for a Windows PC in a fancy case seems absurdly overpriced to me.
  
 You can DIY that including a fancy custom case for a fraction of the cost and it will be every bit as good, including top of the line/boutique components and all the customizing/tweaks you'd want. 
  
    -Mike


----------



## Stillhart

Okay well I just snagged an Adcom GDA-600 for a song.  I'm sure it's no Theta, but for the price, it's one way to try vintage R2R on the cheap...


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> Okay well I just snagged an Adcom GDA-600 for a song.  I'm sure it's no Theta, but for the price, it's one way to try vintage R2R on the cheap...


 
 Congradulations,Stillhart ,-use it in good health.
  
 Was that the one on e-bay?-I looked at that last night.?
  
 I'm now looking at the 700..its got XLR connections..
 I may try to get it.?????
  
 Mike


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> Okay well I just snagged an Adcom GDA-600 for a song.  I'm sure it's no Theta, but for the price, it's one way to try vintage R2R on the cheap...


 





 Same day as I did the Basic II... Happy Easter huh?


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> Congradulations,Stillhart ,-use it in good health.
> 
> Was that the one on e-bay?-I looked at that last night.?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Nope, this one was posted this morning.  The one last night was $175 before shipping and this one was $98.  Also sold by Stereo Exchange in NYC, so trustworthy seller.
  
 I was definitely looking at the 700 tho.  I've got my eye on a few units right now, but I couldn't pass up the Adcom for under $100!
  
 Now I need a transport.  Looking at the Gustard U12 and the Audio-GD DI-2014.  Amusing that I'm looking at a transport that cost 3x what the DAC cost.  lol
  


conquerator2 said:


> Same day as I did the Basic II... Happy Easter huh?


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> Nope, this one was posted this morning.  The one last night was $175 before shipping and this one was $98.  Also sold by Stereo Exchange in NYC, so trustworthy seller.
> 
> I was definitely looking at the 700 tho.  I've got my eye on a few units right now, but I couldn't pass up the Adcom for under $100!
> 
> Now I need a transport.  Looking at the Gustard U12 and the Audio-GD DI-2014.  Amusing that I'm looking at a transport that cost 3x what the DAC cost.  lol


 
 I took the wife out for dinner the other night,& it was 2x's what you just paid for the adcom600,-LOL
 Yours wasn't a sale--it was a gift!!!--NICE !!!


----------



## Sonic Defender

mikek200 said:


> I took the wife out for dinner the other night,& it was 2x's what you just paid for the adcom600,
> Yours wasn't a sale--it was a gift!!!--NICE !!!


 

 I take it you have a pretty wife


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

mhamel said:


> 10,000 pounds for a Windows PC in a fancy case seems absurdly overpriced to me.
> 
> You can DIY that including a fancy custom case for a fraction of the cost and it will be every bit as good, including top of the line/boutique components and all the customizing/tweaks you'd want.
> 
> -Mike


 
  
 Makes a Raspberry Pi solution look pretty good, doesn't it?


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> Okay well I just snagged an Adcom GDA-600 for a song.  I'm sure it's no Theta, but for the price, it's one way to try vintage R2R on the cheap...


 
  
 Stillhart,
 I needed some info on the 700,and I came across this:
 Thought it would come in handy:
  
 http://www.manualslib.com/manual/206121/Adcom-Gda-600.html#manual
  
 Mike


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> Stillhart,
> I needed some info on the 700,and I came across this:
> Thought it would come in handy:
> 
> ...


 
 Nice, thanks!  
  
 If you can believe it, this one came with a copy of the manual too... tho I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a printout of the one you found.  lol


----------



## wahsmoh

http://theartofsound.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-16590.html
  
 another satisfied Progeny v. A owner, scroll to the very bottom and his ears match what I first wrote about


----------



## Clemmaster

I don't know if this has been linked already (I didn't see it) but here's a great comparo of vintage DAC / CD players from 2010: http://www.head-fi.org/t/528199/the-vintage-dac-cd-player-list-review-thread


----------



## mikek200

Is there anyone who is familiar with this dac,and how does Parasound rank in comparison to say,Adcom?
 I know,that the Theta's are in great demand.
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/151640286282?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
  
 Any help/advice/opinions ,will be greatly appreciated
  
 Thanks
 Mike


----------



## Sonic Defender

Has anybody else been finding head-fi to be performing significantly worse in the last few months? I find it very slow with all the scripts running and my CPU (albeit an older, but still very good Intel Duo Core). When I first land here I get very slow page loads, huge delays character typing in the editor (the character typing also happens on my work machine which is a current Dell business class machine). I get tons of Webpage not responding messages, script running slow and or not responding messages and the CPU jumps way up - Google 2% head-fi at page load spikes well over 60% and can hang there for a while before coming down to normal 4-10% CPU. I'm not sure what to disable in IE, I wonder how much I can limit the scripts being run for advertising? I know head-fi makes revenues from the ads, which is cool, but man do they bloat the site really badly. Likely they just optimize the site mostly for quad core, high ram machines. It is really bad recently. Going to try another browser and see if that helps.


----------



## jexby

you aren't alone.  page re-loads or moving to sub pages in Mobile (view) mode on my iPhone or iPad have gotten slower lately as well.
  
 I'm guessing it's actual head-fi back end servers initiating new connections to <insert Ad agency plug ins here> that have slowed down when doing page re-loads?


----------



## AustinValentine

mikek200 said:


> Is there anyone who is familiar with this dac,and how does Parasound rank in comparison to say,Adcom?
> I know,that the Theta's are in great demand.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/151640286282?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
> ...


 
  
 While I can't speak specifically to how that DAC sounds, I can note one thing: That Parasound Zdac is a multi-bit Delta-Sigma design (AD1853). It's likely a bit of a different animal compared to the r2r DAC's that have been under discussion.
  
 The Parasound DACs that use Burr-Brown/Ultra Analog chips are the 1000, 1100HD, 1500, 1600HD, and 2000. 2000 uses Ultra Analog 20400A and is generally a bit pricier than the others in that series. IMO, YMMV, etc. - but I think that the Parasound that I've heard (1500 & 1600HD) sound better _unmodded_ than the Adcom GDA-600/700 _unmodded_.
  
 With some work, which is well documented across the web, the Adcoms can gain ground or reach parity. They shine with some opamp and cap swaps which help quite a bit with clarity and detail. (I plan on modding my GDA-600 sometime this summer if I get so motivated.)


----------



## Sonic Defender

I find the site the absolute worst performing website I have ever known as of late, and I've been on the Internet extensively since 1998. I'm sure some of it is my computer, but I'm sure a big part is poorly optimized ad content integration as you suggest. I hope an admin takes note as it is actually heating my laptop up significantly from the crazy CPU use. Just nuts, can barely use the site at times. Just now had to use notepad to first type my message as the editor doesn't respond worth a damn, and it is only this site so I don't think my machine is the main problem. It is a Dell Workstation class 4GB RAM machine with an Intel Duo Core so that should be adequate to load a freaking web page.


----------



## johnjen

sonic defender said:


> I find the site the absolute worst performing website I have ever known as of late, and I've been on the Internet extensively since 1998. I'm sure some of it is my computer, but I'm sure a big part is poorly optimized ad content integration as you suggest. I hope an admin takes note as it is actually heating my laptop up significantly from the crazy CPU use. Just nuts, can barely use the site at times. Just now had to use notepad to first type my message as the editor doesn't respond worth a damn, and it is only this site so I don't think my machine is the main problem. It is a Dell Workstation class 4GB RAM machine with an Intel Duo Core so that should be adequate to load a freaking web page.


 
 Have you been doing regular file structure maintenance?
  
 You know, HD de-frags, Registry cleaning etc., and especially cookie and flash player purging?
  
 JJ


----------



## Sonic Defender

This is a fresh Windows 7 install. I only use this machine to run JRiver for my drumming music and for reading this and very few other audio sites.


----------



## magiccabbage

bmichels said:


>


 
 That chasis is a standard stream com chasis - a lot of guys who build dedicate audio PC's use them - they are completely noisless
http://www.streacom.com/products/fc5-alpha-fanless-chassis/ 
  
 I will be building one in the summer with the very same body except in silver. 
 The deicated Audio PC that I heard at a meet this year was amazing. 
  
 I had my *laptop* - *a Lampi gen4 - and my WA5  vs  Dedicated Audio PC - Cuinis DAC - WA5 *
 The result was that the Dedicated Audio Pc with the Cheap 250 euro Cuinis DAC clobbered the other setup.
 Even when I swapped out the Cuinis for an Rdac the peformance was really close to the Laptop/Lampi  
  
  
 Dedicated Audio PC's are the real deal - especially ones with their own power supplies but it can be tough to find someone who can put one together for you. I had to get a friend to source the parts and will work with hi on it come summer time.


----------



## skeptic

sonic defender said:


> I find the site the absolute worst performing website I have ever known as of late....


 
  
 Probably worth pursuing in the feedback and bug report forum: http://www.head-fi.org/f/5620/feedback-bug-reports  
  
 Adblock might also be worth a go.


----------



## mikek200

austinvalentine said:


> While I can't speak specifically to how that DAC sounds, I can note one thing: That Parasound Zdac is a multi-bit Delta-Sigma design (AD1853). It's likely a bit of a different animal compared to the r2r DAC's that have been under discussion.
> 
> The Parasound DACs that use Burr-Brown/Ultra Analog chips are the 1000, 1100HD, 1500, 1600HD, and 2000. 2000 uses Ultra Analog 20400A and is generally a bit pricier than the others in that series. IMO, YMMV, etc. - but I think that the Parasound that I've heard (1500 & 1600HD) sound better _unmodded_ than the Adcom GDA-600/700 _unmodded_.
> 
> With some work, which is well documented across the web, the Adcoms can gain ground or reach parity. They shine with some opamp and cap swaps which help quite a bit with clarity and detail. (I plan on modding my GDA-600 sometime this summer if I get so motivated.)


 
 Excellent post Austin,
 I will go over the Parasound dacs,that you recommend
 What type of SQ does the Zdac have?=warm,neutral,bright??,I am not a modder,so?..with the exception of my Stax rig,if I have a choose,I'd go with a moderate,slightly warm ..SQ?
  
 I'm making this purchase ,until,I get my Yiggy dac,so the dacs,I listed above,are to hold me over until the Yiggy gets here,-then the vintage dac goes to my son--I must say,I am very curious ,as to how they sound..???,especially,the Theta's
  
 Mike


----------



## Sonic Defender

skeptic said:


> Probably worth pursuing in the feedback and bug report forum: http://www.head-fi.org/f/5620/feedback-bug-reports
> 
> Adblock might also be worth a go.


 

 Thanks, yes I was lazy posting here. Appreciate the nudge. I disabled animations and that is helping a little so far, lets see if it continues. Sorry for going OT.


----------



## mulder01

magiccabbage said:


> That chasis is a standard stream com chasis - a lot of guys who build dedicate audio PC's use them - they are completely noisless
> http://www.streacom.com/products/fc5-alpha-fanless-chassis/
> 
> I will be building one in the summer with the very same body except in silver.
> ...


 
  
 Wow that's a bit rude that they charge that much for something that's straight off the shelf


----------



## magiccabbage

mulder01 said:


> Wow that's a bit rude that they charge that much for something that's straight off the shelf


 
 The CAD company or Streamcom? 
  
 They are some of the nicest chasis available (at least that i know of) and are fanless as well.
 They might be a bit steep but I like how they look and wouldn't mind spending the extra few bucks for that


----------



## jsgraha

magiccabbage said:


> That chasis is a standard stream com chasis - a lot of guys who build dedicate audio PC's use them - they are completely noisless
> http://www.streacom.com/products/fc5-alpha-fanless-chassis/
> 
> I will be building one in the summer with the very same body except in silver.
> ...




Yup, can't agree more. My most improvement on my setup came from dedicated audio pc with dedicated linear power supply, more than improvement from vali to stratus


----------



## magiccabbage

jsgraha said:


> Yup, can't agree more. My most improvement on my setup came from dedicated audio pc with dedicated linear power supply, more than improvement from vali to stratus


 
 Its amazing isnt it, and for around 1K the improvements over a laptop are incredible - unbelievable really


----------



## johnjen

sonic defender said:


> This is a fresh Windows 7 install. I only use this machine to run JRiver for my drumming music and for reading this and very few other audio sites.


 
  I have found that after a fresh install is when a great deal of 'extraneous detritus' can be purged, especially from the registry.
  
 Not to mention reducing the degree of fragmentation on the boot drive.
  
 JJ


----------



## estreeter

Head-Fi is about the same for me as its ever been although occasionally the pages dont load properly - no graphics etc. MBP core i7 with 16GB RAM, FWIW.


----------



## jsgraha

magiccabbage said:


> Its amazing isnt it, and for around 1K the improvements over a laptop are incredible - unbelievable really




I think if someone would like to build a nice setup, using a nice dac, amp etc, it's best to avoid noisy pc and laptop. Imo, it will be a bottleneck on a whole setup. Maybe just use a nice cdp would be better. But as always, YMMV ...


----------



## Currawong

estreeter said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > ...DAC nobody here owns, just because it uses some vintage chips.
> ...


 
  
 http://www.teradak.com/products/21.html
  
 This is what I was quoted. Please note that it may NOT be current as this was some months ago.  The DF1700 may be upgraded using the same upgrades as are available for Parasound and other DACs though they haven't tested them as working above 48k, so YMMV.
  
 ================================================================
 (1) DIR9001+DF1700+PCM63P-K*2 +  BUF03+OPA627+AD797
       Paypal price $396 USD
 (2) DIR9001+DF1700+PCM63P-K*4 +  BUF03+OPA627+AD797
       Paypal price $452 USD
 (3) DIR9001+DF1700+PCM63P-K2*2 +  BUF03+OPA627+AD797
       Paypal price $452USD
 (4) DIR9001+DF1700+PCM63P-K2*4 +  BUF03+OPA627+AD797
       Paypal price $509 USD
 All of the chips except dir9001 are refurbished.  All of the prices DO NOT include shipping fee.


----------



## haywood

mikek200 said:


> Is there anyone who is familiar with this dac,and how does Parasound rank in comparison to say,Adcom?
> I know,that the Theta's are in great demand.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/151640286282?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
> ...


 

 I don't think any of these vintage dacs had usb so if you see that present you can probably rule it out.


----------



## ciphercomplete

austinvalentine said:


> While I can't speak specifically to how that DAC sounds, I can note one thing: That Parasound Zdac is a multi-bit Delta-Sigma design (AD1853). It's likely a bit of a different animal compared to the r2r DAC's that have been under discussion.
> 
> The Parasound DACs that use Burr-Brown/Ultra Analog chips are the 1000, 1100HD, 1500, 1600HD, and 2000. 2000 uses Ultra Analog 20400A and is generally a bit pricier than the others in that series. IMO, YMMV, etc. - but I think that the Parasound that I've heard (1500 & 1600HD) sound better _unmodded_ than the Adcom GDA-600/700 _unmodded_.




This one has been listed for a while now. Its been on my watch list for a month so it has been relisted a few times.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221712726393


----------



## snip3r77

currawong said:


> http://www.teradak.com/products/21.html
> 
> This is what I was quoted. Please note that it may NOT be current as this was some months ago.  The DF1700 may be upgraded using the same upgrades as are available for Parasound and other DACs though they haven't tested them as working above 48k, so YMMV.
> 
> ...




4pcs of PCM63P-K2 is pretty nice


----------



## estreeter

currawong said:


> http://www.teradak.com/products/21.html
> 
> This is what I was quoted. Please note that it may NOT be current as this was some months ago.  The DF1700 may be upgraded using the same upgrades as are available for Parasound and other DACs though they haven't tested them as working above 48k, so YMMV.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Groovy - thanks for that - just not completely wild about their ordering system. Much prefer a cart but I guess if they're offering custom options they prefer to offer you those choices when you fire them off the initial email.


----------



## mikek200

ciphercomplete said:


> This one has been listed for a while now. Its been on my watch list for a month so it has been relisted a few times.
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/221712726393


 
 Yes,I saw that one
 It's a bit expensive,and I am cautious on buying anything coming from Kiev.??
  
 Thanks,
 Mike


----------



## conquerator2

estreeter said:


> Groovy - thanks for that - just not completely wild about their ordering system. Much prefer a cart but I guess if they're offering custom options they prefer to offer you those choices when you fire them off the initial email.



Audio gd works the same way. It takes a bit more time but I like it mostly.


----------



## drez

I had a revelation yesterday.  My music server is pimped out dedicated machine with no graphics card, special USB card, fanless, linear power supply etc.  I also have a gaming workstation with X99 6 core intel, fans, powerful graphics card, digital switching supply etc.
  
 It pains me to say but the X99 workstation blew the dedicated music server away even without special parts like linear power supply, fanless cooling, special USB card etc.
  
 Now could be that the old windows installation I am using on the music server is the limiting factor (Windows server installation is out of action for now - gaming machine uses Windwos 8.1) but I have a feeling it's not all down to the OS.
  
 I will have to report back once I get a Windows server installation back up and running, but I fear the main factor here is the 6 core intel horsepower...


----------



## estreeter

Some - particularly those selling expensive TOTL audio servers - subscribe to the belief that the less time it takes for the signal to get from your storage medium to the USB or optical output, the less likely that signal will be prone to the evils of an inherently noisy (electrically noisy) environment. For the 'bits are bits' crowd that's all just clever marketing, but for me there is definitely something wrong when one of the USB ports on my TOTL Macbook Pro wont even allow me to connect my iPad without continually losing the connection : luckily the port on the other side is fine. Anyone who has messed around with something like MPD running from a USB stick will know that you can get good results without having to mess with a large GUI-driven OS, but its a pretty basic user experience. Swings and roundabouts, I guess.


----------



## jsgraha

drez said:


> I had a revelation yesterday.  My music server is pimped out dedicated machine with no graphics card, special USB card, fanless, linear power supply etc.  I also have a gaming workstation with X99 6 core intel, fans, powerful graphics card, digital switching supply etc.
> 
> It pains me to say but the X99 workstation blew the dedicated music server away even without special parts like linear power supply, fanless cooling, special USB card etc.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Nice impression!
 Any chance to upgrade the processor at music server to intel x99?


----------



## johnjen

To add to the mystery of music servers that influence the SQ from our audio systems.
  
 I am running a Mac Pro w/4 cpu and 16GB of ram on a SSD as the boot volume.
  
 It runs all the time, as in 24/7.
 Well, except when I restart.
  
 Ya see, I've found that the SQ will change if I re-start the mac.
 It will also change if I just re-start Jriver Media Center.
 And if I re-start just my PWD DAC.
  
 Any and all combinations result in cumulative SQ changes, for the better I might add.
  
 What I notice is the amount of ram being used drops after a system re-start, sometimes by 1GB±
  
 Now why a re-start should improve the SQ is a mystery.
 I mean bits is bits right?
  
 Well it seems some bits are more equal than other bits, or perhaps it's the order of said bits, or perhaps there are too many bits.
 I really can't explain why this happens.
  
 So I invite one and all to explore this, in the privacy of your own home, on your system and see.
 And I might add it seems to take 24hrs of continuous operation to effect a SQ change.
  
 JJ


----------



## mulder01

Whaaaaaaaa-
 If you could pass a blind test and pick weather or not the computer has been on for 24 hours by listening to a song I'd be mighty surprised.
 If so, I blame apple   Tweet Tim Cook and ask why is it so.


----------



## johnjen

mulder01 said:


> Whaaaaaaaa-
> If you could pass a blind test and pick weather or not the computer has been on for 24 hours by listening to a song I'd be mighty surprised.
> If so, I blame apple   Tweet Tim Cook and ask why is it so.


 
 I doubt I'd pass that test.
  
 Mostly because it's the contrast from what was, to what is now playing.
 It's easiest to do if you play the first 10-30 seconds of a track then restart the 'puter and restart the same track.
  
 What I notice is an increase in inner and low level details, along with added low frequency 'punch'.
 YMMV
  
 As to 'letting Apple know', they have much more pressing issues to deal with in terms of OSX issues.
 It would be VERY unlikely they would even take notice.
 The response would be much like MS and their usb compatibility issues…
  
 JJ


----------



## Yoga

johnjen said:


> Ya see, I've found that the SQ will change if I re-start the mac.
> It will also change if I just re-start Jriver Media Center.
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have a very open mind (including audio), but having a Masters degree in Advanced Comp Sci (architecture and data structure being key, including memory allocation and whatnot), this is really difficult to swallow. Software does not change. Your RAM will not perform better after a reboot or an application reload. I can't help but call viewer perception in this case, which is known to have profound effects on the human experience; measured, repeatable effects that are vastly more likely to be the cause than the science of hardware and software.
  
 Still, if it works for you - which it can - enjoy your rebooting :¬)


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Not due to memory clean-up done by the O.S. from removing then reinserting the app? I've no idea - used to be a problem when you could address memory anywhere on the machine but I guess the point is there's much better protection and isolation nowadays.

Or what about badly behaved apps - maybe Jriver is one of them - hogging resource to some degree and creating some form of low-level 'stutter'? Hence benefit derived from a restart.

Note I am not advocating one way or the other. Just idle speculation...


----------



## johnjen

I wish it did make sense in some way as well.
  
 This makes no 'logical' sense.
  
 But the proof of the puding, so to speak…
  
 I'd invite you to try it for your self, just because…
  
 Also the biggest change to the amount of memory in use is to the browser.
  





  
 JJ


----------



## wmedrz

I'm under the impression laptops are generally weak servers. Both my macbook and asus laptops sound like ass compared with a gaming desktop I've tweaked with some filters and a dedicated USB.


----------



## mulder01

If computers are such a temperamental source, maybe a portable dap would be better?  Processing the music is the only thing it does.


----------



## hodgjy

My coffee maker gets better with use every morning. The first pot of coffee in the morning is congested with lack of air and details. But, but by the second pot, it's really humming along and everything is more alive and punchy. I can only assume that it's better at brewing coffee once it's warmed up and had some water running through it.


----------



## Yoga

Check to see if your computer is generating page faults / using the swap file. This happens when the RAM is full and drive space for additional storage and access is needed. This could have some kind of negative effect in the chain, if the drive is magnetic.
  
 Easy to find on a Mac by loading up Activity Monitor, clicking the Memory tab and viewing the bottom left item: *Swap Used*. It should read *0 byes*.


----------



## Yoga

mulder01 said:


> If computers are such a temperamental source, maybe a portable dap would be better?  Processing the music is the only thing it does.


 

 This is why I'm now testing the SoTM sMS-100, powered by a regulated linear PSU.
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/585-sotm-sms-100-mini-server-review/
  
 Early indications are no different, but I need an extended critical listening session to verify.


----------



## estreeter

mulder01 said:


> If computers are such a temperamental source, maybe a portable dap would be better?  Processing the music is the only thing it does.


 
  
 The guys over at Computer Audiophile seem to have tried every solution under the sun and the only consensus I've seen is that ethernet trumps USB but my own experiments with DLNA were dismal failures - the control point software continually lost the plot and I gave up. Companies like Linn and Naim have reportedly sorted those issues but the price of their solutions is eye-watering.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

yoga said:


> Check to see if your computer is generating page faults / using the swap file. This happens when the RAM is full and drive space for additional storage and access is needed. This could have some kind of negative effect in the chain, if the drive is magnetic.
> 
> Easy to find on a Mac by loading up Activity Monitor, clicking the Memory tab and viewing the bottom left item: *Swap Used*. It should read *0 byes*.


 
  
 If only windows were so well behaved, it uses the page file all the time even when it you have loads of ram sitting empty....piece of garbage OS


----------



## Yoga

estreeter said:


> The guys over at Computer Audiophile seem to have tried every solution under the sun and the only consensus I've seen is that ethernet trumps USB but my own experiments with DLNA were dismal failures - the control point software continually lost the plot and I gave up. Companies like Linn and Naim have reportedly sorted those issues but the price of their solutions is eye-watering.


 

 The SMS100 worked flawlessly - both Airplay (Tidal) and JRiver (MDP / DLNA) within minutes of install. Very impressive in terms of ease of use.
  
 The only thing I couldn't get working with it was HQPlayer, although I spent no time attempting to fix that since it doesn't support m4a, which a lot of my older redbook stuff is encoded with.


----------



## Yoga

souprknowva said:


> If only windows were so well behaved, it uses the page file all the time even when it you have loads of ram sitting empty....piece of garbage OS


 

 Indeed. Why anyone would use Windows for a music server is beyond me. It's quite literally the _worst_ choice.


----------



## jsgraha

For me, I run window server 2012 r2 in server core mode (and disable all unnecessary services). The reason I choose this OS since my player of choice, jplay, run its best at this os. I haven't try other os, but someone whom I know had tried other setup, including mac mini 2009 setup, and prefer this same setup as mine. I might try other os and system, if I had a spare time (which might be unlikely in the next few months). But I do welcome other input. I still would like to improve my setup if I had a chance.

So far, I'm quite happy with this setup. A few days back, I tried a fresh install of foobar portable 1.3.8 (and disable & delete all its unnecessary components & themes) and still found my preference lie on current setup. It offer the music flow analog and liquid alike, while maintain its black background, good imaging and great texture. Soundstage is the same.


----------



## wahsmoh

I'm having hard drive errors with my PC I think from clearing out registry errors more than a few times. My PC stalls and the red light on my case turns on and after 30 seconds to a minute my PC resumes function. I just need to reinstall windows for the 2nd time in 6 months. Such a POS and this is windows 7 too not windows 8


----------



## estreeter

yoga said:


> Indeed. Why anyone would use Windows for a music server is beyond me. It's quite literally the _worst_ choice.


 
  
 Chris Connaker rang - apparently he wants a word with you outside  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/609-computer-audiophile-pocket-server-c-p-s-v4-introduction/
  
*CAPS v4 Software*

All four CAPS servers will run *Windows 8.1 Professional 64-bit* and JRiver Media Center v20. At this point in time Windows 8.1 is the only stable game in town that's compatible with any number of applications and audio components. I'm excited to see what members of the CA Community will do when they install Linux, but for now my four main designs are Windows based. I selected JRiver Media Center v20 because it's very stable, has great support, is widely used in the CA Community, and is capable of great sound quality for all PCM and DSD sample rates as well as multi-channel audio. There are other applications available that I consider a bit more fringe at this moment in time. I'll leave it to the CA Community to use and tweak those applications and share results with everyone. As a formula and platform I believe Windows 8.1 Professional and JRiver Media Center v20 is the best combination.


----------



## ciphercomplete

yoga said:


> Indeed. Why anyone would use Windows for a music server is beyond me. It's quite literally the _worst_ choice.




Its only the worst choice if you dont know everything you need to do to get it running. Just like Linux is the worst choice if you have never used it before and no idea how to install dependant libraries. I have tried most of them (windows 8.1, linux, apple) in my system. The end result sound quality wise was the same.


----------



## ciphercomplete

souprknowva said:


> If only windows were so well behaved, it uses the page file all the time even when it you have loads of ram sitting empty....piece of garbage OS




I'm no Microsoft appologist by any stretch, as i just had to reinstall Windows 8.1 on my family pc because of a windows update error,but just because Windows is writing to and reading the pagefile does not mean it is using it as a ram susbtitute at that moment.


----------



## bfreedma

jsgraha said:


> For me, I run window server 2012 r2 in server core mode (and disable all unnecessary services). The reason I choose this OS since my player of choice, jplay, run its best at this os. I haven't try other os, but someone whom I know had tried other setup, including mac mini 2009 setup, and prefer this same setup as mine. I might try other os and system, if I had a spare time (which might be unlikely in the next few months). But I do welcome other input. I still would like to improve my setup if I had a chance.
> 
> So far, I'm quite happy with this setup. A few days back, I tried a fresh install of foobar portable 1.3.8 (and disable & delete all its unnecessary components & themes) and still found my preference lie on current setup. It offer the music flow analog and liquid alike, while maintain its black background, good imaging and great texture. Soundstage is the same.


 
  
 I'm amazed that people are spending a minimum of $700 for a Server OS that has no real benefits.


----------



## ciphercomplete

bfreedma said:


> I'm amazed that people are spending a minimum of $700 for a Server OS that has no real benefits.




 

I have the same thoughts about speaker cable risers, "quantum tunneled" power cables, super special usb cables etc. But if people think they hear a difference im not one to argue.


----------



## jsgraha

bfreedma said:


> I'm amazed that people are spending a minimum of $700 for a Server OS that has no real benefits.




I use the evaluation version which have 180 days. So I need to reinstall every 6 months, which about 10 minutes to do.

You may try it here 
http://care.dlservice.microsoft.com/dl/download/6/2/A/62A76ABB-9990-4EFC-A4FE-C7D698DAEB96/9600.16384.WINBLUE_RTM.130821-1623_X64FRE_SERVER_EVAL_EN-US-IRM_SSS_X64FREE_EN-US_DV5.ISO

I found an improvement over windows 7 or 8, but only using it to play music. Nothing else

The thread can be found on my local forum

http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/60130-audiophile-optimizer/


----------



## bfreedma

jsgraha said:


> I use the evaluation version which have 180 days. So I need to reinstall every 6 months, which about 10 minutes to do.
> 
> You may try it here
> http://care.dlservice.microsoft.com/dl/download/6/2/A/62A76ABB-9990-4EFC-A4FE-C7D698DAEB96/9600.16384.WINBLUE_RTM.130821-1623_X64FRE_SERVER_EVAL_EN-US-IRM_SSS_X64FREE_EN-US_DV5.ISO
> ...


 
  
 There is no possible reason for Server to improve music playback over the desktop OS.  And you could accomplish the same thing in Win 7 or 8 by disabling services and setting Priority and Processor Affinity for your playback software.
  
 A modern computer running little more than software to play music isn't working hard enough to have any impact.  That's simple enough to prove via Resource Management reporting.


----------



## estreeter

bfreedma said:


> I'm amazed that people are spending a minimum of $700 for a Server OS that has no real benefits.


 
  
 Pretty well known that most people use the eval version and reinstall every 6 months - no biggie.


----------



## Priidik

bfreedma said:


> I'm amazed that people are spending a minimum of $700 for a Server OS that has no real benefits.


 
 I never tried to tweak windows for this purpose, as it feels wrong to me, but i have tried others.
  
 At first i was sceptical too, but linux daemon based os-es with locked cpu parameters and other optimizations do sound better.
 Blacker background and more depth to the sound. This is no placebo for me. The effect is of the same magnitude as difference between two different Sabre based dacs i had to test. It's there. 
 Latelly been using Raspberry Pi2 with Volumio or Archphile, which to date is best computerized source i have heard.


----------



## jsgraha

bfreedma said:


> There is no possible reason for Server to improve music playback over the desktop OS.  And you could accomplish the same thing in Win 7 or 8 by disabling services and setting Priority and Processor Affinity for your playback software.
> 
> A modern computer running little more than software to play music isn't working hard enough to have any impact.  That's simple enough to prove via Resource Management reporting.




Nevermind then.


----------



## Yoga

Linux, Windows and Mac read _static_ data, which is processed by an _external, operating system independent _digital to analogue converter_. _


----------



## bfreedma

yoga said:


> Linux, Windows and Mac read _static_ data, which is processed by an _external, operating system independent _digital to analogue converter_. _


 
  
 True.  Processing that data is a trivial task that all OS's are fully capable of performing.


----------



## maeveth

priidik said:


> Latelly been using Raspberry Pi2 with Volumio or Archphile, which to date is best computerized source i have heard.


 
  
 +1 for this. I want people to educate people that you really don't need to spend hundreds when $70 bucks and a little know-how you can have bit-perfect playback to whatever DAC your ears prefer.  I use 2 Pi2s right now, one on the hifi setup(for both speakers and cans) and one next to the bed for some late night chill out while reading.
  
 My Pi2 and my home server(ZFS) is literally the best home-media solution I've ever had.
  
 The only thing that would really beat it would be a Sonos if it could do bit-perfect 24/192 output via the S/PDIF which it cant but it does have better usability for wife-acceptance factor.


----------



## Yoga

I just ran Prime95 - a system benchmark tool that maxes out (i.e. abuses!) the CPU - while listening to songs.
  
 I'd like to proffer that people try that themselves *with their partner or a friend* starting and stoping the 'Torture Test' with you unable to see the screen or hear the CPU/fan kick in.
  
 If you can hear a difference consistently and correctly, take the audio off your machine and play it through the SMS100. Cheaper and easier than another machine and needs no administration. If you don't hear a difference, don't give your OS another thought (Windows or Mac).
  
 I'm running a quad core 5Ghz hackintosh and couldn't hear any differences when idle or under extreme load.
  
 Operating system optimisation used to be handy for (hardcore) gaming, which is demanding on a system, but it's becoming less and less so as CPUs and GPUs evolve. For passing music data across - it's entirely unnecessary. We sent people to the moon with a CPU less powerful than a modern day washing machine. Your machine can handle static bits.


----------



## ciphercomplete

maeveth said:


> +1 for this. I want people to educate people that you really don't need to spend hundreds when $70 bucks and a little know-how you can have bit-perfect playback to whatever DAC your ears prefer.  I use 2 Pi2s right now, one on the hifi setup(for both speakers and cans) and one next to the bed for some late night chill out while reading.
> 
> My Pi2 and my home server(ZFS) is literally the best home-media solution I've ever had.
> 
> The only thing that would really beat it would be a Sonos if it could do bit-perfect 24/192 output via the S/PDIF which it cant but it does have better usability for wife-acceptance factor.




Im going to be building one soon. Too cheap not to try.


----------



## Priidik

yoga said:


> I'm running a quad core 5Ghz hackintosh and couldn't hear any differences when idle or under extreme load.
> 
> Operating system optimisation used to be handy for (hardcore) gaming, which is demanding on a system, but it's becoming less and less so as CPUs and GPUs evolve. For passing music data across - it's entirely unnecessary. We sent people to the moon with a CPU less powerful than a modern day washing machine. Your machine can handle static bits.


 
 Isn't it more to do with hardware? The optimisation is meant to hold the hardware in check. DC-DC converters see less switching action with steady cpu voltage. There are other hardware that is switched as well, if cpu clock changes, no? I am not computer tech, maybe someone can enlighten me here. 
 Is there even true bit perfect playback in OS X?
  
 These are the things making any sense to me so far. 
 For some reason Mac and Windows 8 are different sounding, and even basic Ubuntu handily bests both. I think i haven't found right player (real bitperfect) for OSX yet, so far OSX is the worst sounding.


----------



## Yoga

priidik said:


> Isn't it more to do with hardware? The optimisation is meant to hold the hardware in check. DC-DC converters see less switching action with steady cpu voltage. There are other hardware that is switched as well, if cpu clock changes, no? I am not computer tech, maybe someone can enlighten me here.
> Is there even true bit perfect playback in OS X?
> 
> These are the things making any sense to me so far.
> For some reason Mac and Windows 8 are different sounding, and even basic Ubuntu handily bests both. I think i haven't found right player (real bitperfect) for OSX yet, so far OSX is the worst sounding.


 

 Have you tried Audirvana Plus (v2)? Fantastic sounding!
  
 Edit: optimisation is predominantly software based; disabling system services and whatnot. 

 I'd love to try a Pi2 also, nice little project.


----------



## pldelisle

My experience is that, with my Asus Xonar Essence STX, sound quality was worse on Linux with proper ALSA driver than on Windows with Asus' driver. It's just my two cents. Saying OSX has the worst audio quality playback is, I think, hasty generalization.

I'm kind of new to this world but I'm sure there is bitperfect audio player on Mac OS. Mac OS is one of the most used platform for audio production.


----------



## maeveth

pldelisle said:


> My experience is that, with my Asus Xonar Essence STX, sound quality was worse on Linux with proper ALSA driver than on Windows with Asus' driver. It's just my two cents. Saying OSX has the worst audio quality playback is, I think, hasty generalization.
> 
> I'm kind of new to this world but I'm sure there is bitperfect audio player on Mac OS. Mac OS is one of the most used platform for audio production.


 
 No OS has worse or better playback.  ALSA(Linux), Windows, OSX are all Operating Systems.  Your ability playback audio in an unmolested has more to do with the driver implementation and whether or not the software you are using it doing any re-sampling prior to sending it to your hardware device - both can actually do this.
  
 Assuming your setup to do bit-perfect output to your DAC, on card or external device, you will get the exact same audio performance out of that DAC on any OS.


----------



## Stillhart

I did some brief research online and I think a Pi2 is in my future as well.  Does anyone know if there's a Pi-Fi thread yet?  If not, maybe we should start one as this conversation is pretty OT for this thread...


----------



## coli

drez said:


> I had a revelation yesterday.  My music server is pimped out dedicated machine with no graphics card, special USB card, fanless, linear power supply etc.  I also have a gaming workstation with X99 6 core intel, fans, powerful graphics card, digital switching supply etc.
> 
> It pains me to say but the X99 workstation blew the dedicated music server away even without special parts like linear power supply, fanless cooling, special USB card etc.
> 
> ...


 
 Linear power supply degrades sound out of the PC for some reason. I also found that switching power supply sounded better.
  
 You also must try jplay 6.
  
 What USB card were you using?


----------



## wahsmoh

maeveth said:


> No OS has worse or better playback.  ALSA(Linux), Windows, OSX are all Operating Systems.  Your ability playback audio in an unmolested has more to do with the driver implementation and whether or not the software you are using it doing any re-sampling prior to sending it to your hardware device - both can actually do this.
> 
> Assuming your setup to do bit-perfect output to your DAC, on card or external device, you will get the exact same audio performance out of that DAC on any OS.


 

 I agree!! 100%, I tried using a Peachtree T1 USB-Coax converter which uses adaptive USB, not asynchronous USB to connect my Theta DS Pro Progeny which only takes Coax or Toslink.
  
 I then compared it to the S/PDIF pass-through of my HT Omega Claro Halo soundcard.
  
 The result, the HT Omega Claro Halo left no digital harshness or crap. The Peachtree T1 hasn't been used since and I am waiting for my Gustard U12 before I give up on USB completely. Honestly the Peachtree T1 added crap to my sound versus giving me a pure unmolested signal. I am getting pure PCM pass-through optical from my HT Omega Claro Halo


----------



## Priidik

yoga said:


> Edit: optimisation is predominantly software based; disabling system services and whatnot.


 
 Well then, more reason to try linux based system. Most of them hold cpu multiplyer constant, that sort of things. + on the soft side there is nothing but the music daemon.
 Out of dacs i have used with for example Daphile the ones with crappy usb side benefited most.


----------



## maeveth

priidik said:


> Well then, more reason to try linux based system. Most of them hold cpu multiplyer constant, that sort of things. + on the soft side there is nothing but the music daemon.
> Out of dacs i have used with for example Daphile the ones with crappy usb side benefited most.




If you just disable speed step in the bios your CPU speed will remain locked no matter what OS you use.


----------



## conquerator2

wahsmoh said:


> I agree!! 100%, I tried using a Peachtree T1 USB-Coax converter which uses adaptive USB, not asynchronous USB to connect my Theta DS Pro Progeny which only takes Coax or Toslink.
> 
> I then compared it to the S/PDIF pass-through of my HT Omega Claro Halo soundcard.
> 
> The result, the HT Omega Claro Halo left no digital harshness or crap. The Peachtree T1 hasn't been used since and I am waiting for my Gustard U12 before I give up on USB completely. *Honestly the Peachtree T1 added crap to my sound versus giving me a pure unmolested signal*. I am getting pure PCM pass-through optical from my HT Omega Claro Halo


 
 Definitely give the U12 a shot. Doesn't get much smoother than that!
 You raise an interesting point, though I've been thinking about it myself. Could it be just that the gear is more revealing, rather than calling it digital crap?
 I don't mean digitis or delta-sigma hash, just that the gear is revealing what's in the recording rather than not.
 Curios about your U12 impressions


----------



## wahsmoh

conquerator2 said:


> Definitely give the U12 a shot. Doesn't get much smoother than that!
> You raise an interesting point, though I've been thinking about it myself. Could it be just that the gear is more revealing, rather than calling it digital crap?
> I don't mean digitis or delta-sigma hash, just that the gear is revealing what's in the recording rather than not.
> Curios about your U12 impressions


 

 Well, the most important thing is that I want my Theta to do all the work. I'm not sure if this whole reclocking thing is for me when the Theta already has some kind of advanced PLL clocking system with dithering and all the other fancy words I don't understand. I also believe the Motorola DSP56001 has a crystal oscillator to reduce jitter.
  
 Adding another piece of equipment to reduce jitter or reclock the signal isn't always going to give you better performance. Sometimes its just best to leave it to the guys who designed your DAC and feed it a proper signal. I have been reading a lot of USB vs. S/PDIF talk and it may just be a myth but before there was a decent solution for USB the general consensus was that USB sounds like crap. And I can agree the Peachtree T1 USB-coax wasn't giving me a more transparent image than when using the S/PDIF pass through of my soundcard (pure PCM)


----------



## maeveth

wahsmoh said:


> And I can agree the Peachtree T1 USB-coax wasn't giving me a more transparent image than when using the S/PDIF pass through of my soundcard (pure PCM)


 
  
 Do you have confirmation that the output from your soundcard was bit-perfect?  Many sound cards DO NOT output bit-perfect PCM unless specifically told to do so.  Some have settings to resample for downstream hardware and a great deal of them will default to 16/44.
  
 Some sound cards plain and simple cannot actually handle higher bit-depths and sample rates in hardware and the driver will actually resample in software the PCM stream.  Also note that this process is done with little respect for quality since for most users real-time audio responsiveness is valued over SQ.
  
 Devices such as the peachtree as they are audio focused will prioritize in their driver designs, hardware architecture, and default settings will be setup to make audiophilles happy.


----------



## drez

jsgraha said:


> Nice impression!
> Any chance to upgrade the processor at music server to intel x99?


 
  
 I think they have an x99 mini ITX but only 2 ram slots, and not identical features to the board I am using.  I would need to experiment further to try and get some idea what is responsible for the better performance of my system.
  
 In terms of what was better, the X99 system had more dynamics and nuance to the music.  The music server sounded more laid back but less nuance and dynamics.
  
 Previous experiments I have tried disabling cpu cores.  The sound became more laid back but less musical nuance and dynamics - the music sounded more dead.  There could of course be much more to this than just cpu performance.
  


coli said:


> Linear power supply degrades sound out of the PC for some reason. I also found that switching power supply sounded better.
> 
> You also must try jplay 6.
> 
> What USB card were you using?


 
  
 I tried JPlay 6, I still prefer JRiver as I find JPlay to sound more blurry and phasey.  Actually my current favourite is HQPlayer.  
  
 I am using JCAT USB.  It does't seem to like my X99 motherboard.  I might email Marcin to see if he has ideas.  It helped my other computer a lot.
  
 I will try the same power supply from my X99 system on my music server to see if that helps.  I might also try upgrade to windows 8.1 on that computer to take that variable out of the equation.


----------



## wahsmoh

maeveth said:


> Do you have confirmation that the output from your soundcard was bit-perfect?  Many sound cards DO NOT output bit-perfect PCM unless specifically told to do so.  Some have settings to resample for downstream hardware and a great deal of them will default to 16/44.
> 
> Some sound cards plain and simple cannot actually handle higher bit-depths and sample rates in hardware and the driver will actually resample in software the PCM stream.  Also note that this process is done with little respect for quality since for most users real-time audio responsiveness is valued over SQ.
> 
> Devices such as the peachtree as they are audio focused will prioritize in their driver designs, hardware architecture, and default settings will be setup to make audiophilles happy.


 

 Yes. There is an option to select the formats that the outbound receiver is capable of supporting. I selected 44.1khz and 48khz since that is what the Theta is capable of receiving. I will take a screenshot of it later but it says pure PCM stream. I'm betting that anything above is downsampled but I have been able to play back all formats with this option from 44/16 to 24/192
  
 Most of my music is redbook audio so it doesn't really matter. But I don't notice anything degrading the sound of 24/96 or 24/192
  
 BTW the HT Omega Claro Halo uses an AKM4396VF which isn't a bad DAC at all. I know I am only using it as a pass-through device so I don't think it influences the sound
 at all.
  
 I think with USB what we have to worry about more is jitter. I don't think the Peachtree T1 USB uses advanced techniques of reclocking the signal like the Gustard U12 does. That is why I am giving an Async USB converter a chance. It also has a power supply and Crystek VCXO's so I think it will have a lower noise floor than the Peachtree T1 and less jitter as well.


----------



## drfindley

I have a Peachtree X1 and T1, but I've never compared the two. The X1 is asynchronous, whereas the T1 is not. I should do a comparison between the two and with or without a Wyrd.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

"Does OS X even have bit perfect audio?" Yes...yes it does, all you have to do is make sure you have the output in audio midi set right and leave the volume control in iTunes maxed. That is bit perfect, don't even need audirvana or anything else. Though those applications assist in Automatically changing the sample rate in audio midi so you don't have to


----------



## estreeter

souprknowva said:


> "Does OS X even have bit perfect audio?" Yes...yes it does, all you have to do is make sure you have the output in audio midi set right and leave the volume control in iTunes maxed. That is bit perfect, don't even need audirvana or anything else. Though those applications assist in Automatically changing the sample rate in audio midi so you don't have to


 
  
 No need to mess about - easily the best 9.99 USD I've spent in this crazy hobby and I own several of the big name playback apps.
  
 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bitperfect/id455545700?mt=12
  
 Seamless.


----------



## Articnoise

drez said:


> I think they have an x99 mini ITX but only 2 ram slots, and not identical features to the board I am using.  I would need to experiment further to try and get some idea what is responsible for the better performance of my system.
> 
> In terms of what was better, the X99 system had more dynamics and nuance to the music.  The music server sounded more laid back but less nuance and dynamics.
> 
> ...


 

  

 If your music server sounded to laid back and lack dynamics, it could mean that it doesn’t get enough power. How much power/current does it deliver? Also some/many music server have filters and at least I know what they can sound like.

 The HQPlayer (with no up sampling) is my favorite player as well more open, clear and dynamic than the other players I have.


----------



## drez

articnoise said:


> If your music server sounded to laid back and lack dynamics, it could mean that it doesn’t get enough power. How much power/current does it deliver? Also some/many music server have filters and at least I know what they can sound like.
> 
> 
> 
> The HQPlayer (with no up sampling) is my favorite player as well more open, clear and dynamic than the other players I have.




I am using Teradak's 350W linear atx supply, it needs to power an intel i7 3770k, motherboard, 2 SSD's and the JCAT USB card. I figure the system should draw about half of that at max load, but 350W is not overkill by any means.

My other power supply is Corsair's AX1200i ATX PSU, so quite a bit more power from that one. I figure possibly better transient speed also, but the Teradak linear supply should have lower ripple and is audiophile buzzword compliant.

I will hook up the 3770k system (the dedicated music computer) to the Corsair supply and update to Windows 8.1 on the weekend.

My reason for suspecting CPU power is a factor is previously I have experimented disabling CPU cores, results varied between sounding more laid back to sounding more grainy. I also found underclocking CPU to add grain. Still may as well see if I can get some use out of the older computer.


----------



## daerron

The recent swing in this thread enough to make me check in with the local psychologist. And there I was thinking turntables were complicated things to set up, I nearly booked an appointment after getting a new cartridge.
  
 Now I've got to watch out for undervolting, overclocking, core disabling, operating systems, drivers, bitperfect playback never mind the USB transport and DAC. And to think that Corsair PSU sports one of the lowest ripple noise figures ever. Makes me completely paranoid about my Android smartphone... Who knows what throttling, undervolting, core manipulating, virtual machines, kernels and stuff is running under the hood, maybe Forest Gump should have said "Bitperfect playback is like a bunch of chocolates, you never what you're gonna get"!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Grateful to have spent that cash on a Macbook Pro with Audirvana+ and not having to worry about anything, just what music I'm going to listen to tonight! Though the music server discussion is interesting, I see a Raspberry Pi 2 as a music server in my near future, would like to get back discussing DACs!


----------



## bmichels

a little of topic, Munich is the place to audition some very-TOL european gears, and Chord will announce there their "Project XXX" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 :
  
 --> is anyone going to the *Munich High End audio show in may* ?  I will try to go this year !


----------



## snip3r77

currawong said:


> http://www.teradak.com/products/21.html
> 
> This is what I was quoted. Please note that it may NOT be current as this was some months ago.  The DF1700 may be upgraded using the same upgrades as are available for Parasound and other DACs though they haven't tested them as working above 48k, so YMMV.
> 
> ...




How does PCM63P-K2 ( input capability ) as compared to 1704 and 1534 ?
Also SQ wise..

Thanks


----------



## pldelisle

daerron said:


> Grateful to have spent that cash on a Macbook Pro with Audirvana+ and not having to worry about anything, just what music I'm going to listen to tonight!


 
  
 Ahaahah ! It is exactly what I did and would never get back to a PC.


----------



## ciphercomplete

I cant imagine how and why changing from one adequate pc power supply to another would have any effect on the sound. There is a benefit from removing all the cheap switching power supplies that often come with external hard drives, laptops, or tiny psus like the PICO power supply since they tend to dump garbage back into the line. But the idea that more power when a pc already has enough of it to begin with would somehow change the sound quality is as mysterious to me as $1000 power cords.


----------



## kapanak

I highly doubt 350W PSU is enough for the load you're speaking of. I'll stick with my Corsair AX1200. Single rail and clean.


----------



## Stillhart

snip3r77 said:


> How does PCM63P-K2 ( input capability ) as compared to 1704 and 1534 ?
> Also SQ wise..
> 
> Thanks


 
  
 I'll be able to tell you in a few weeks.  Until then, I've read that the 1704 is the worst R2R Burr Brown, so presumably the PCM63 is better.


----------



## snip3r77

stillhart said:


> I'll be able to tell you in a few weeks.  Until then, I've read that the 1704 is the worst R2R Burr Brown, so presumably the PCM63 is better.



What's the input limit for 63 ?


----------



## evanft

kapanak said:


> I highly doubt 350W PSU is enough for the load you're speaking of. I'll stick with my Corsair AX1200. Single rail and clean.




1200 watts is a ton. That's for like a high end gaming machine with multiple graphics cards.


----------



## kapanak

evanft said:


> 1200 watts is a ton. That's for like a high end gaming machine with multiple graphics cards.




Well in my situation I'm running 4790K with SLI GTX980 (just two) and a few hard drivers and SSDs, so I suppose I can justify it. Still 350w seems on the low side for a desktop unlocked i7 rig that was spoken about above.


----------



## Stillhart

OMG, this discussion is just so out of place in this thread.  I don't want to come across as a dick, but there have to be more appropriate places on this forum for a discussion on your computer specs and and superstitions...


----------



## thegunner100

Agreed... can we get back to talking about dacs now?


----------



## Yoga

thegunner100 said:


> Agreed... can we get back to talking about dacs now?


 

 All dacs are the same.
  
 No, wait, the ODAC is the best and everything else is either human madness or imperfect reproduction. 
  
 Etc 
  
 On topic: I'm itching to get my hands on a Yggy. Will test against (hopefully) the Lampi DSD and AMR 777SE.


----------



## Stillhart

I hope to have my Adcom by Monday and I may be getting my hands on a A-GD DAC-19 as well.  Two R2R DAC's to give me a taste of the flavor.  
  
 Also, since I built my own Project Solstice, I'm feeling confident in my ability to mod the Adcom.  I've read that upgrading some caps here and there can make a huge difference.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> I hope to have my Adcom by Monday and I may be getting my hands on a A-GD DAC-19 as well.  Two R2R DAC's to give me a taste of the flavor.
> 
> Also, since I built my own Project Solstice, I'm feeling confident in my ability to mod the Adcom.  I've read that upgrading some caps here and there can make a huge difference.


 
 Stillhart,
  
 Which Adcom did you order
 I was closely looking at the 700,but decided on the Parasound ZDAC,at the last minute-Price.
  
 Got it new,with warranty,..$299-,with overnight delivery included,should be here,within a few hours
  
 It will, hold me over, till the Yiggy comes in.
  
 Good Luck with your new gear,use it in good health,
 Mike


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> Stillhart,
> 
> Which Adcom did you order
> I was closely looking at the 700,but decided on the Parasound ZDAC,at the last minute
> ...


 
  
 I got the GDA-600.  I would have preferred the 700 but I couldn't pass up the price.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> I got the GDA-600.  I would have preferred the 700 but I couldn't pass up the price.


 
 I told you --that price was a gift
 I would have ordered 2
  
 Just got the ZDAC...5 minutes ago
  
  Similar, to my Yulong DA-8


----------



## thegunner100

mikek200 said:


> I told you --that price was a gift
> I would have ordered 2
> 
> Just got the ZDAC...5 minutes ago
> ...


 

 So why did you pick up the ZDAC? I must have missed the reasoning behind it.
  
 Are you attending the NY meet?


----------



## mikek200

thegunner100 said:


> So why did you pick up the ZDAC? I must have missed the reasoning behind it.
> 
> Are you attending the NY meet?


 
 I originally tried to get a Theta,but ,the optical connection on the rear panel,was some sort of connection from 1995.??,made by AT&T..so,I never bid on it.
 Must have gone through 20 messages with the seller,plus..it would have barely fit on my desktop,and I would have to have stacked it up,with my KGST amp
  
 The Adcom was also very big..17ins wide,very tight fit,and would have had to be stacked.
  
 So,I grabbed the Zdac,new inbox,warranty,Fedex shipping-$299-
 I'll use this,until the Yiggy comes in......
  
 Not sure yet about the meet-if I do go,and you live ,anywhere near JFK,or,Manhattan..I'll give you a lift-OK?
 Mike


----------



## thegunner100

Well the ZDAC isn't a vintage dac and perhaps you would have been better getting something like the Geek Out or Modi 2. No idea really, as I've only heard the GO but it's really damn good for the size/price.
  
 Thanks for the offer on the ride but I'll be driving there myself from Long Island. I'll be bringing my Parasound d/ac-1100 and Sonic Frontiers Transdac.


----------



## mikek200

thegunner100 said:


> Well the ZDAC isn't a vintage dac and perhaps you would have been better getting something like the Geek Out or Modi 2. No idea really, as I've only heard the GO but it's really damn good for the size/price.
> 
> Thanks for the offer on the ride but I'll be driving there myself from Long Island. I'll be bringing my Parasound d/ac-1100 and Sonic Frontiers Transdac.


 
 I have another setup--Vali/Modi ,which I use with my HD600's.
  
 I sold my Yulong DA-8 dac/amp,because I was under the impression the Yiggy would be out by now--guess I was wrong
 Sorry I didn't link up with you  earlier...you might have been able to help me out with a vintage dac,I was very disappointed about the loosing the Theta.
  
 I'll do my best to make it to the meet,so I can hear the Frontier,and your Parasound


----------



## auvgeek

stillhart said:


> I did some brief research online and I think a Pi2 is in my future as well.  Does anyone know if there's a Pi-Fi thread yet?  If not, maybe we should start one as this conversation is pretty OT for this thread...


 

 I probably wasn't the best person to do it, but I started a Raspberry Pi2 thread in the Computer Audio section since took the initiative and I was curious. I'm really curious about it, so hopefully the people who own one will chime in there.


----------



## Currawong

I owned a Parasound DAC1600HD, which has 4x PCM63K. It was a lovely-sounding DAC. I only sold it because there was no way to make it accept greater than 48k input. The traces on the boards were far too long for 96k to work. I went through the schematic for hours to try and figure out a way to bypass some of the electronics but gave up in the end.


----------



## thegunner100

Based on how the 1100 sounds, I would love to hear a 1600. But I'm afraid that the price for a 1600 would be much more expensive than what I paid for the 1100.


----------



## snip3r77

currawong said:


> I owned a Parasound DAC1600HD, which has 4x PCM63K. It was a lovely-sounding DAC. I only sold it because there was no way to make it accept greater than 48k input. The traces on the boards were far too long for 96k to work. I went through the schematic for hours to try and figure out a way to bypass some of the electronics but gave up in the end.




For rbcd, how is the sound Sig BTW 63 and 1704 ?


----------



## estreeter

currawong said:


> I owned a Parasound DAC1600HD, which has 4x PCM63K. It was a lovely-sounding DAC. I only sold it because there was no way to make it accept greater than 48k input. The traces on the boards were far too long for 96k to work. I went through the schematic for hours to try and figure out a way to bypass some of the electronics but gave up in the end.


 
  
 Without wanting to take this of on_ another_ tangent, I was initially underwhelmed when I realised I needed to downsample the 24/96 downloads in my iTunes library to 24/48 for my iPod Classic but I sheepishly admit that I'd be hard pressed to tell the two apart via any of my DACs in a blind test using the Lightning USB adapter for the Classic. Possible factors at work here:
  
 - as purrin pointed out earlier, if a d-s DAC can resolve even 18 of those 24 bits, you're doing well
 - at 56, I may not have the golden ears possessed by nwavguy or purrin not to mention the frequently quoted '24-bit audio is a myth' gap between the theoretical frequencies achievable with 24-bit files and the limits of human hearing
 - I've listened to the albums in question so many times from a variety of sources - including the remastered CDs in the case of the Springsteen albums - that I'm more interested in the emotional content than whether I can hear Danny Federici's keyboards through the mix. For others, not being able to hear those keyboards would be a showstopper - _caveat emptor_. 
  
 In short, for me personally, if I could get everything in my collection at 24/48 I would be more than happy to have a DAC that did an excellent job at 48kHz. Even playing back concert DVDs on my Oppo, I'm frequently blown away by just how good DVD audio can sound if it's done right. Stereophile's John Atkinson is reportedly a big fan of Blu-Ray audio, but that would be one _very_ expensive addiction


----------



## Currawong

I had much the same thought, but I decided in the end I'd rather have the DAC be able to natively process whatever music I have without having to re-configure my software. It also makes more sense after I had been playing around with the Aurender Flow, which is a nice DAC if you've never heard anything that good, but sounds flat and boring if you've heard better. I switched to using iZotope to up-sample to 352.8 or 384 kHz and there was a remarkable improvement. I can't help wondering what might be possible to achieve if I could feel a PCM63K the maximum sample rate it can accept using software up-sampling to get the best results.


----------



## bmichels

OK BIG changes are needed in my strategy ! 
  
 Indeed, I just bought from a friend of mine who is an audiophile/opera fanatic a lot of 2500 rare classical CD  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  This was  unexpected but now... I have a loooong ripping job to do 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Anyway, this change my focus from HighRes to redbook.  Indeed, now *I need to find a system that can really provide it's BEST SQ out of 16/44* rather than a DAC that need super high resolution or DSD to be at it's best !
  
 I have the HUGO and I am testing now the DP-777SE, and I am looking for other suggestion for a *16/44 champion* ?    I heard about the Berkeley reference serie as a 16/44 champ, but it is not imported in Europe due to lack of RoHS certification.   Does the NAGRA HD DAC be a 16/44 champ or rather a DSD champ ?   other suggestions ???
  
 (same thing apply to the Music server: I do not want to mess with NAS, so I was investigating ARIES or AURENDER (with USB HD), but now I look instead toward Antipode DX & the Baetis Server rather than ARIES or Aurender because of their built-in ripping possibility.  Any other suggestion for  Music Server PLUS ripper  )


----------



## EraserXIV

bmichels said:


> OK BIG changes are needed in my strategy !
> 
> Indeed, I just bought from a friend of mine who is an audiophile/opera fanatic a lot of 2500 rare classical CD
> 
> ...


 
  
 The rediscovery of "vintage" r2r DACs such as Theta and its upcoming Schiit successor seems to have quieted the shift towards high-res and DSD.


----------



## bmichels

eraserxiv said:


> The rediscovery of "vintage" r2r DACs such as Theta and its upcoming Schiit successor seems to have quieted the shift towards high-res and DSD.


 
 you mean the Yggdrasil may be the solution for  16/44  ??


----------



## Argo Duck

purrin and others stated Yggdrasil brought things they had not previously heard with 16/44 IIRC


----------



## mulder01

Just read something interesting from Fried from Violectric who have just released their new dac, also without DSD support:
  
 A lot of you probably already knew this but I didn't...
  


fdg said:


> The biggest disadvantage of DSD (there are many more) is: it can´t be edited.
> So, if there is a real DSD recording it is converted to PCM before it enters the mixing console or the editing suite.
> After the necessary steps are made it is back converted into DSD.
> Does this really make sense ??
> And to make a DSD file out of a PCM file is as senseful as upsampling a CD because of the sound ...


 

  
 Seems as though the only reason DSD files might sound better is because there was more effort put into making the recording sound good and has nothing to do with the format.  Especially if they've all just been converted to DSD from PCM.


----------



## Sorrodje

I Hope that one day, all audiophiles will wake up and realize that HD or DSD are pure BS and that 16/44 is all what we need. 16 vs 24 is debatable though.


----------



## XVampireX

sorrodje said:


> I Hope that one day, all audiophiles will wake up and realize that HD or DSD are pure BS and that 16/44 is all what we need. 16 vs 24 is debatable though.


 
  
  
 Well what are you doing here then? Why are you posting in a forum clearly biased on Hi-Res and DSD? Why do you have the equipment that you do?
 DBT or it didn't happen!
  
 Mastering is definitely one thing that improves music, but there are things like DACs/Amps/Headphones/Speakers that reproduce it with more detail, and your measurements won't help because you can drool on your measurements as much as you want, at the end of the day, you're listening to music with your ears and not with your eyes.
  
 Also where's the damn proof that DSD/Hi-Res are sounding better just because of better mastering? Were you the one who did the mastering and you have both the Original and Hi-Res copy? Of course, if you turn PCM to DSD, it will have pretty much as much detail as the PCM. However, with certain DACs, there seems to be a difference. And if It's only subjective, I'm happy about it, because that's the way it's supposed to be.


----------



## Sorrodje

xvampirex said:


> Well what are you doing here then? Why are you posting in a forum clearly biased on Hi-Res and DSD? Why do you have the equipment that you do?
> DBT or it didn't happen!


 
  
 Just answered to this ^ : I don't think HF is biased to  DSD or Hi-Res. At least posters I read the most carefully. 
  
 For Red-book vs Hi-res and the interest for human ear of anything above 44,1khz , I let you do a search on HF and elsewhere.  Don't want to destroy this Great thread with overbeated debates.


----------



## mulder01

This thread is a bit biased toward the yggy, which doesn't support dsd, so I don't think there is any bias toward dsd at all - otherwise everyone would be saying it's already outdated technology because of the lack of dsd...


----------



## hodgjy

mulder01 said:


> Just read something interesting from Fried from Violectric who have just released their new dac, also without DSD support:
> 
> A lot of you probably already knew this but I didn't...
> 
> ...


 
 I've bee saying this (well, parts of this) for years. With many tracks, it's not the format that matters the most. It's how that track was mastered.
  
 The most striking example of this is my DSD collection of Dark Side of the Moon. I have 2.0 DSD and 5.1 DSD. I also have the PCM 16/44.1 of it. When I play the 2.0 DSD and then the PCM of it through my rig, I can hear no difference. When I force the 5.1 down to 2.0 and play it through my rig, it sounds completely different than the other two. What's the difference? The way it was mastered.


----------



## Yoga

hodgjy said:


> I've bee saying this (well, parts of this) for years. With many tracks, it's not the format that matters the most. It's how that track was mastered.
> 
> The most striking example of this is my DSD collection of Dark Side of the Moon. I have 2.0 DSD and 5.1 DSD. I also have the PCM 16/44.1 of it. When I play the 2.0 DSD and then the PCM of it through my rig, I can hear no difference. When I force the 5.1 down to 2.0 and play it through my rig, it sounds completely different than the other two. What's the difference? The way it was mastered.


 

 Absolutely.
  
 Same with 320 vs FLAC on a well mastered track.


----------



## Stillhart

Not to be that guy again, but this debate can get the thread locked. We know currawong is reading so I HIGHLY suggest taking it up in the 24 bit vs 16 bit thread in the Sound Science forum.


----------



## estreeter

If purrin is right, Redbook is what Yggy was made for - why are you running all over the place when its due out on *April 20* ?


----------



## kazsud

I heard the Yggdrasil on Wednesday. I should of brought my pwd mkii to a/b but didn't :/
To me I think it's a little better than the pwd mkii. In just about all areas.


----------



## magiccabbage

estreeter said:


> If purrin is right, Redbook is what Yggy was made for - why are you running all over the place when its due out on *April 20* ?


 
 hahaha .... the picture i have in my head of his avatar freaking out is hilarious. 
  
 April 20 - 10 days left. I cant wait for impressions.


----------



## mikek200

estreeter said:


> If purrin is right, Redbook is what Yggy was made for - why are you running all over the place when its due out on *April 20* ?


 
 Has this info been confirmed??


----------



## evanft

No.


----------



## estreeter

mikek200 said:


> Has this info been confirmed??


 
  
 Cmon Mike - you know the only place this is considered 'info' is in my brain - why torture yourself ? Still, _I'm a believer in the power of positive thinking_ - as several wits have remarked, the beauty of deadlines is the sound they make as they go rushing by. If you value your sanity, take any prediction that doesnt come directly from Mike or Jason with a massive grain of salt, and even they arent infallible.


----------



## EraserXIV

This April 20 date was literally pulled out of thin air. Yggy driving people crazy around here.. confabulation of release dates


----------



## mikek200

eraserxiv said:


> This April 20 date was literally pulled out of thin air. Yggy driving people crazy around here.. confabulation of release dates


 
 Yeah,I should have known better-
  
 On a side note--I got a Parasound ZDAC yesterday,to tied me over,and was really surprised
 With my 009's & the KGST..it really gave me a very nice sound quality,,neutral to slightly bright..good detail..,nice bass
 Anyone looking for a small desktop dac,you might want to look at the ZDAC..??
  
 Still need a few more weeks of break in..
  
 Mike


----------



## Clemmaster

eraserxiv said:


> This April 20 date was literally pulled out of thin air. Yggy driving people crazy around here.. confabulation of release dates


 
 Especially when Yggy has been out for 2 days now...


----------



## estreeter

I see what you did there  - naughty man, you are. Poor old Mike is perched on the edge of his seat, refreshing the Schiit website every 30 seconds waiting for this thing


----------



## conquerator2

I heard two naked prophets ecstatically whispering 05.05.2015


----------



## Maxx134

clemmaster said:


> Especially when Yggy has been out for 2 days now...





that wasnt funny..


----------



## Stillhart

conquerator2 said:


> I heard two naked prophets ecstatically whispering 05.05.2015


 
  
 Clearly I live in the wrong country...


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> Clearly I live in the wrong country...


 
* Might have not been real prophets


----------



## mikek200

estreeter said:


> I see what you did there  - naughty man, you are. Poor old Mike is perched on the edge of his seat, refreshing the Schiit website every 30 seconds waiting for this thing


 
 Heah,
 Whats with the "old" ..be careful Estreeter,the audio Gods, will but a jinx on you1!!
  
 Couldn't get a Theta
 Yiggy,still not out
  
 It's ok guys..I am end-game,now that I have the Zdac--LOL


----------



## estreeter

conquerator2 said:


> I heard two naked prophets ecstatically whispering 05.05.2015


 
  
 One can only imagine just how close you were to said naked profits to hear them whispering. Golden ears indeed  
  
 Edit: I did pull April 20 out of thin air, only to realise its the birth date of one of the most reviled figures of the 20th century. And a fellow Arian (Mar 21-Apr 21), sadly. Weird how our minds fixate on things like that.


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> Heah,
> Whats with the "old" ..be careful Estreeter,the audio Gods, will but a jinx on you1!!
> 
> Couldn't get a Theta
> ...


 
  
 I may or may not have won a balanced Theta Pro Basic II last night on eBay.  >.>


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> I may or may not have won a balanced Theta Pro Basic II last night on eBay.  >.>


 
 Thats right,rub it in....
  
 How the hell are you connecting it??
 Is that the SE unit I was watching???
  
 Mike


----------



## EraserXIV

That's over $300 that could have went towards the Yggy fund


----------



## jsiegel14072

conquerator2 said:


> I heard two naked prophets ecstatically whispering 05.05.2015


 
 Should be 05-10-15


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> Thats right,rub it in....
> 
> How the hell are you connecting it??
> Is that the SE unit I was watching???
> ...


 
  
 Nope, it was the balanced unit that was "pickup only" in NY.  Shipping was a chore and not cheap, but it should be worth it.
  
 I picked up a Gustard U12 transport to use for the vintage DAC's, and I'll be using the amp section of my NFB-28 until the Cavalli Liquid Carbon goes into production.


----------



## auvgeek

I had my eye on that one, too, but since the Basic II came out a few years before the Progeny, I wasn't sure if it had the "mega-electric-burrito" filter Mike mentioned. You'll have to let us know how it sounds!


----------



## conquerator2

auvgeek said:


> I had my eye on that one, too, but since the Basic II came out a few years before the Progeny, I wasn't sure if it had the "mega-electric-burrito" filter Mike mentioned. You'll have to let us know how it sounds!




It has two of them and two DAC chips.
The Progeny has one of each.
They should be quite similar. Our Basics might edge out the Progeny somewhat. We shall see 
Should get mine early next week!


----------



## ginetto61

conquerator2 said:


> The Gustard U12. I have it and it is pretty good.


 
  
 Hi and sorry but it is a usb to spdif converter not a dac.
 The X12 is a dac.  
  
http://www.amazon.com/GUSTARD-DAC-X12-ES9018-384KHz-Decoder/dp/B00RCUC94Q
  

  
  
 Is the one mentioned ?
 Thanks,  gino


----------



## conquerator2

ginetto61 said:


> Hi and sorry but it is a usb to spdif converter not a dac.
> The X12 is a dac.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/GUSTARD-DAC-X12-ES9018-384KHz-Decoder/dp/B00RCUC94Q
> ...




True true.
That is the one. The one on top of the X12.


----------



## ginetto61

conquerator2 said:


> True true.
> That is the one. The one on top of the X12.


 
  
 Thanks a lot for the confirmation.
 And is it really that good ?
 For good i mean mostly 3dimensional, with good dynamics and a robust bass.
  
 However i am looking at Theta dacs but there are so many models.  All nice ?
 Is it possible to get a ranking of their dacs ?
 As i said i am looking for something 3dimensional, with good dynamics and a robust bass.
  
 Thanks again,  gino


----------



## conquerator2

ginetto61 said:


> Thanks a lot for the confirmation.
> And is it really that good ?
> For good i mean mostly 3dimensional, with good dynamics and a robust bass.
> 
> ...


 
 I think the U12 is a very good USB converter. The DI-V2014 is another, more costly one. Others include Melodious [not yet available] and Tanley Audio [also not yet available]. They all get the job done.
 In general the Thetas go like this Pro Gen [II < III < V] > Basic [I < II ? III] > Prime [I < II] > Progeny [= SE Prime II]. All used to be upgradeable to A version [slightly improved] but the difference shouldn't be too big.


----------



## bmichels

AS you know I am testing right now a ARM DP-777 SE new DAC and I have mixed feeling about it's sound quality. The importer told me to verify if the load and the neutral are not inversed, because his DAC is quite sensible to inverted phase (load).
  
 I therefore did some simple tests it looks like my power system is totally mess-up:
  
 LOAD should be on the right prong (tester should light-up) and neutral on the left one (tester should NOT light-up) ? Correct ?
  
 but...according to *the tester which light-up on EACH prong*, It seems that I have load on right and on left ( see pictures ).
  
*-> Is it wrong ? can this reduce the sound quality of my DAC & AMP ? or damage them ?*
  
  
  
 sincerely


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

Here's an interesting article from _Positive Feedback Issue 77_ that I haven't seen mentioned here yet:
  
 Musings on DSD: Using Offline Conversion from DSD to High-Resolution PCM Files Rather Than Using a DSD-capable DAC
_by Andy Schaub_
  
 It can be viewed here.


----------



## Priidik

bmichels said:


> AS you know I am testing right now a ARM DP-777 SE new DAC and I have mixed feeling about it's sound quality. The importer told me to verify if the load and the neutral are not inversed, because his DAC is quite sensible to inverted phase (load).
> 
> I therefore did some simple tests it looks like my power system is totally mess-up:
> 
> ...


 
 Only one should light up. It seems you might have some household appliance shorting to null a bit and/or poor conduction from null to main powerlines. (how's your electricity bill?)
 A neighbour next door of me had water boiler that shorted to ground, and had ground connected to null.. i had 80V in my null line vs real ground. It could do serious harm to sensitive equipment.
 Is the extra ground wired?


----------



## 7ryder

johnnycanuck said:


> Here's an interesting article from _Positive Feedback Issue 77_ that I haven't seen mentioned here yet:
> 
> Musings on DSD: Using Offline Conversion from DSD to High-Resolution PCM Files Rather Than Using a DSD-capable DAC
> _by Andy Schaub_
> ...


 
 I'm not a DSD believer...still, it is kind of hard to take this guy seriously given that his "uber Rega Dac" consists of approximately $5500 worth of cables, etc. on a $1000 DAC (currently on sale for $795 on line).


----------



## Sonic Defender

7ryder said:


> I'm not a DSD believer...still, it is kind of hard to take this guy seriously given that his "uber Rega Dac" consists of approximately $5500 worth of cables, etc. on a $1000 DAC (currently on sale for $795 on line).


 

 LOL, so freakin funny. While I'm a cable agnostic, you just have to know that there is no way on the planet (unless there is a very special new group of laws of physics) that a cable can make enough of a difference to warrant that disproportionate an amount of investment. If they make a difference at all, it is at best subtle and more of a finishing detail from what I gather. So you would be so much further ahead to spend the extra cash on speakers or headphones where you can get an audible return on investment.


----------



## wahsmoh

sonic defender said:


> LOL, so freakin funny. While I'm a cable agnostic, you just have to know that there is no way on the planet (unless there is a very special new group of laws of physics) that a cable can make enough of a difference to warrant that disproportionate an amount of investment. If they make a difference at all, it is at best subtle and more of a finishing detail from what I gather. So you would be so much further ahead to spend the extra cash on speakers or headphones where you can get an audible return on investment.


 

 hehe well I think cables are more of a "fine tuning" sort of investment. I don't believe they make a significant difference to a headphones overall sound signature but high quality cables DO sound different than their stock counterparts. I am a cable believer but not a cable zealot. It doesn't make more than a 1-2% incremental difference but that in itself is noticeable to me after spending months with the stock cable before my purchase last year.
  
 Once you have headphones you really love it doesn't hurt to buy cable because usually the stock cables included suck.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

7ryder said:


> johnnycanuck said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an interesting article from _Positive Feedback Issue 77_ that I haven't seen mentioned here yet:
> ...


 
  
 Well, I'm sure that he just used whatever cables he had on hand.  They probably won't degrade the sound too much.
  
 The part that I found interesting was that converting DSD to PCM via software before sending the audio stream to the DAC sounded better than streaming the DSD directly.


----------



## StefanJK

7ryder said:


> I'm not a DSD believer...still, it is kind of hard to take this guy seriously given that his "uber Rega Dac" consists of approximately $5500 worth of cables, etc. on a $1000 DAC (currently on sale for $795 on line).


 
 Yes, how do I start selling one $1,000 USB cable per week?  Good work if you can get it.  Easier than making and selling a DAC.  So no, not taking advice from that source.


----------



## mikek200

stefanjk said:


> Yes, how do I start selling one $1,000 USB cable per week?  Good work if you can get it.  Easier than making and selling a DAC.  So no, not taking advice from that source.


 
 USB cable,are you joking??
  
 That being said-I bought a VanDel Hul XLR inter-connect from Currawong,last year...$1K-USED..OUCH !!!
 Without a doubt,the finest cable I own..


----------



## fzman

It constantly amazes me how so many participants on Head-Fi can make such accurate determinations regarding specific empirical matters without having to have _any _of the relevant experiences.  Science can now move forward at a staggering pace due to this exciting development.  
  
 Just making the above statement is the proof itself!


----------



## Stillhart

stefanjk said:


> Yes, how do I start selling one $1,000 USB cable per week?  Good work if you can get it.  Easier than making and selling a DAC.  So no, not taking advice from that source.



To be fair, I heard a $500 USB cable at Canjam and ab'ed against a regular cable. The difference was obvious and more than just 1-2%. And this was from a friend, not someone selling a cable.

No idea how or why it makes a difference and I didn't believe it until I heard it for myself. I wouldn't expect others to believe it, but I urge you to try it yourself if you ever get the opportunity.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> To be fair, I heard a $500 USB cable at Canjam and ab'ed against a regular cable. The difference was obvious and more than just 1-2%. And this was from a friend, not someone selling a cable.
> 
> No idea how or why it makes a difference and I didn't believe it until I heard it for myself. I wouldn't expect others to believe it, but I urge you to try it yourself if you ever get the opportunity.


 
 +1,,Stillhart
  
 And of,course Currawong{ the gentleman that he is.} told me,if I didn't hear any difference in sq,to return it after 7 days.....,when I plugged the cable in-it took me all of 30 minutes to be convinced


----------



## bmichels

mikek200 said:


> +1,,Stillhart
> 
> And of,course Currawong{ the gentleman that he is.} told me,if I didn't hear any difference in sq,to return it after 7 days.....,when I plugged the cable in-it took me all of 30 minutes to be convinced


 
  
 please can you tell what cable exactly do you speak about !


----------



## estreeter

I thought I was in the DAC thread, not Sound Science ......


----------



## wahsmoh

ginetto61 said:


> Thanks a lot for the confirmation.
> And is it really that good ?
> For good i mean mostly 3dimensional, with good dynamics and a robust bass.
> 
> ...


 

 Yes it is really that good. I think the special DSP filter and R2R smoothness help lend to the "analogue" sound that I have read in just about every audio forums impressions on them. It sounds more dynamic though than your typical vinyl setup and more extended both ways.
  
 The reason the soundstage is such a big deal to me is because the Theta creates a stable center image and this lends to the 3D placement effect of instruments.
  
 There is not just depth but width that I didn't know my Alpha Dogs were even capable of.
  
 Treble is always smooth and palpable, sure it isn't as "detailed" as some of the other modern offerings out there but the macrodetail and precise imaging make it a very natural sounding DAC. Cymbals in good recordings always sound clean, not splashy and tizzy. Big ups to Theta and Mike for such a bargain. I can't wait to do a real Yggy comparison with my vintage beast.
  
 EDIT: For all you Tool fans out there, I just listened to a few tracks off AEnima. My mind is blown, the drums of Danny Carey are imaged so perfectly. I can picture myself sitting in the middle of the studio and the weight of the drums is characterized by the mid and bass slam that this Theta has. Like Purrin said with the Gen V, instruments growl and hit you hard. Same case with the Progeny, maybe not as refined as the Gen V.


----------



## mikek200

bmichels said:


> please can you tell what cable exactly do you speak about !


 
 PM me bmichaels.
  
 Looks like it is that time of month, for Estreeter


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> PM me bmichaels.
> 
> Looks like it is that time of month, for Estreeter



Be nice, he's right. 

My apologies, I'll try to stay on topic.


----------



## kapanak

Sound Science would mean actual science is involved in the discussion. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Anybody even seen that forum? XD
  
 My favourite Snake Oil btw http://www.machinadynamica.com/ And yes, it's not a parody, these guys are serious hahaha 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
  
  
  
 Anyway, back to DACs, I find the Concero HD and HP to lack the digititis that comes along with almost all Sabre implementations. Only Matrix X-Sabre lacks the digititis as well. Concero HP works surprisingly well for such a portable option with the HD800, and very well or all except the most sensitive IEMs and headphones I've tried on them 
  
 Also, the little secret with the Concero HP is that you can use a 1/4 to RCA adapter and use it as a pre-amp/DAC.


----------



## Stillhart

kapanak said:


> Sound Science would mean actual science is involved in the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Empirical testing is part of science.  If you can't at least manage that part of it, I'm not sure how you can claim to hold a valid opinion on the subject.


----------



## bmichels

mikek200 said:


> Looks like it is that time of month, for Estreeter


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> Be nice, he's right.
> 
> My apologies, I'll try to stay on topic.


 
 I know,
  
 Estreeter is the best-I always search out his responses--good info,always.....??..well not always
  
 Estreet..PM me,if you have time,OK?
  
 Mike


----------



## kapanak

stillhart said:


> Empirical testing is part of science.  If you can't at least manage that part of it, I'm not sure how you can claim to hold a valid opinion on the subject.




I'm not sure where and how you derived such a comment from my statement, but okay.


----------



## mikek200

bmichels said:


> please can you tell what cable exactly do you speak about !


 
 Van Del Hull....Mountain,retails for $1400.00,might be higher ,now?


----------



## bmichels

mikek200 said:


> Van Del Hull....Mountain,retails for $1400.00,might be higher ,now?


 
 thanks


----------



## Sonic Defender

wahsmoh said:


> Yes it is really that good. I think the special DSP filter and R2R smoothness help lend to the "analogue" sound that I have read in just about every audio forums impressions on them. It sounds more dynamic though than your typical vinyl setup and more extended both ways.
> 
> The reason the soundstage is such a big deal to me is because the Theta creates a stable center image and this lends to the 3D placement effect of instruments.
> 
> ...


 

 Huge Tool fan myself (frustrated drummer). That is an amazing sounding album for the genre and the runs Carey pulls off are just nuts, Fourty Six and two, just crazy stuff. Have you seen that pretty hot female drummer Meytal Cohhen or something like that? She bangs out a cover of Fourty Six and Two and misses NOTHING!


----------



## mulder01

bmichels said:


> AS you know I am testing right now a ARM DP-777 SE new DAC and I have mixed feeling about it's sound quality. The importer told me to verify if the load and the neutral are not inversed, because his DAC is quite sensible to inverted phase (load).
> 
> I therefore did some simple tests it looks like my power system is totally mess-up:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Those neon screwdrivers are not the most accurate or reliable means of testing power.  I wouldn't rely on it too much.


----------



## jarrett

You should list prices on page 1 
  
 I'm looking for something as an upgrade to my HRT microStreamer. The DAC in the microStreamer is PCM1793 if you were wondering. Any suggestions as an upgrade?
  
 Anything under $400?
  
 Has to have:
  
 - its own power supply (the obvious upgrade)
 - USB async
 - stereo RCA would be good
  
 Thanks


----------



## coli

fzman said:


> It constantly amazes me how so many participants on Head-Fi can make such accurate determinations regarding specific empirical matters without having to have _any _of the relevant experiences.  Science can now move forward at a staggering pace due to this exciting development.
> 
> Just making the above statement is the proof itself!


 
 Agreed. Other forum are worse though. All DACs sounds the same, all amps sounds the same, etc...


----------



## jexby

mikek200 said:


> +1,,Stillhart
> 
> And of,course Currawong{ the gentleman that he is.} told me,if I didn't hear any difference in sq,to return it after 7 days.....,when I plugged the cable in-it took me all of 30 minutes to be convinced


 
  
 +1
 testing, and hearing in a familiar chain is important.
 one cable can have varying (some, none) effects depending on other elements.
  
 recently had my own headphone cable jaw-dropping awakening.  didn't believe it was possible.
  
 Fast forward to today's jaw dropping with the Gungnir arriving, plugged in and wow! nice.


----------



## hodgjy

jarrett said:


> You should list prices on page 1
> 
> I'm looking for something as an upgrade to my HRT microStreamer. The DAC in the microStreamer is PCM1793 if you were wondering. Any suggestions as an upgrade?
> 
> ...


 
 While slightly over your budget, you can't do much better with the Schiit Bifrost for the money.


----------



## jexby

And used BiFrost Ubers can be found in the For Sale forums around $400 frequently.


----------



## mikek200

jexby said:


> +1
> testing, and hearing in a familiar chain is important.
> one cable can have varying (some, none) effects depending on other elements.
> 
> ...


 
 Jex,
 Did you get the new upgraded Gen2 USB Gungnir
 Not sure if you saw this,but:,here it is anyway:
  
  
*6 Schiit Gungnir Gen2 USB Board* *(USB)*
 Highly dynamic. Great tonal balance with bite when the recording calls for it. Like the Lavry DA11, it doesn't do much wrong. Sweet sweet tone. Excellent tonal response with some balls in the bass. Compact but well defined stage with great localization of instruments. Very good sounding treble, one of the best we've heard with a sigma-delta chip. Vocals are only second to the AGD M7 or Metrum. Resolution is not the best, but it can still hang in there. With the Gen 2 USB upgrade, the Gungnir has now found its way into my regular rotation. Now I can feel comfortable lending out one of my better DACs to friends because I have a DAC good enough as a substitute. Some have found the Gungnir Gen 1 to be overly dynamic - having a tendency to be too loud. Think rock arena. That drummer that hits really hard. This is the top one or two hardest hitting DACs out there. This does create a sense of tension which can either be good for bad depending upon you sensitivities. I've never fallen asleep to music listening to this DAC.
  
 The Gen 2 USB brings to the table some finesse through the restoration of low level sounds which were previously compressed or lost in the Gen 1 USB version. Gen 1 USB also sounds less lively (microdynamics) and less clear. The Gen 2 USB upgrade is significant. It's interesting to note how Schiit has removed all the bad things they said about USB on their website with the release of the Gen 2 USB."
  
 Good Luck with it-Enjoy,
  
 Mike


----------



## jexby

Yup, Gungnir came with USB v2 board already installed.
Have a Wyrd in front of Gung already, so it's sort of like a USB v3 receiver now.


----------



## olegausany

jarrett said:


> You should list prices on page 1
> 
> I'm looking for something as an upgrade to my HRT microStreamer. The DAC in the microStreamer is PCM1793 if you were wondering. Any suggestions as an upgrade?
> 
> ...



Get used Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus


----------



## snip3r77

stillhart said:


> To be fair, I heard a $500 USB cable at Canjam and ab'ed against a regular cable. The difference was obvious and more than just 1-2%. And this was from a friend, not someone selling a cable.
> 
> No idea how or why it makes a difference and I didn't believe it until I heard it for myself. I wouldn't expect others to believe it, but I urge you to try it yourself if you ever get the opportunity.




If you read reddit a lot for them also mention USB cable are BS as it's 1010101. One has to try it and experience it


----------



## ciphercomplete

Folks can't assume that people who think that pricey USB cables are BS are people who haven't tried them.  I'd wager that there are just as many people have tried them and heard no difference (there are plenty of us) as there are people who have heard a difference.


----------



## Stillhart

jarrett said:


> You should list prices on page 1
> 
> I'm looking for something as an upgrade to my HRT microStreamer. The DAC in the microStreamer is PCM1793 if you were wondering. Any suggestions as an upgrade?
> 
> ...


 
 Looks like you've got mostly IEM's.  Have you thought about the GO100?  
  
 Otherwise, I don't see any amps listed on your profile.  Maybe an all-in-one like the Audio-GD NFB-15 or 11.


----------



## jarrett

stillhart said:


> Looks like you've got mostly IEM's.  Have you thought about the GO100?
> 
> Otherwise, I don't see any amps listed on your profile.  Maybe an all-in-one like the Audio-GD NFB-15 or 11.


 
  
 It's there, but I have a Bryston B60. I've only been using the microStreamer's line-out to the amp. I don't need it for headphones


----------



## Stillhart

jarrett said:


> It's there, but I have a Bryston B60. I've only been using the microStreamer's line-out to the amp. I don't need it for headphones


 
  
 The Bifrost is probably going to be the best bet in the $400 price range, as others have mentioned.  There's not really much that I'm aware of between the Bifrost and then used ones in the $600 range like the X-Sabre, Gungnir, etc.  The Corda DACcord maybe?  Not sure if it's any good or not.  There's the ifi stuff too, but I've heard mixed reviews.


----------



## hodgjy

stillhart said:


> The Bifrost is probably going to be the best bet in the $400 price range, as others have mentioned.  There's not really much that I'm aware of between the Bifrost and then used ones in the $600 range like the X-Sabre, Gungnir, etc.  The Corda DACcord maybe?  Not sure if it's any good or not.  There's the ifi stuff too, but I've heard mixed reviews.


 
 Completely agree. If you don't need a balanced connection, then the Gungnir won't drastically change your sound (while being unbalanced). You'll probably have to go above $1000 to get large improvements over the Bifrost.


----------



## olegausany

hodgjy said:


> stillhart said:
> 
> 
> > The Bifrost is probably going to be the best bet in the $400 price range, as others have mentioned.  There's not really much that I'm aware of between the Bifrost and then used ones in the $600 range like the X-Sabre, Gungnir, etc.  The Corda DACcord maybe?  Not sure if it's any good or not.  There's the ifi stuff too, but I've heard mixed reviews.
> ...



No you don't need to go over $1000, get irDac for $700


----------



## Stillhart

hodgjy said:


> Completely agree. If you don't need a balanced connection, then the Gungnir won't drastically change your sound (while being unbalanced). You'll probably have to go above $1000 to get large improvements over the Bifrost.


 
  
 I haven't heard the Bifrost really, so I can't speak to whether it's an upgrade, but my $800 (new) NFB-28 has a really nice smooth DAC.  The NFB-1S should be very similar at $525 before shipping.


----------



## hodgjy

stillhart said:


> I haven't heard the Bifrost really, so I can't speak to whether it's an upgrade, but my $800 (new) NFB-28 has a really nice smooth DAC.  The NFB-1S should be very similar at $525 before shipping.


 
 I'm sure the NFB-28 is a fine DAC, but it's not exactly comparable to the Bifrost. The added costs must reflect DSD, the XLR outputs, and the head amp. What makes the Bifrost able to punch above its price is it only focuses on line-level unbalanced PCM.


----------



## auvgeek

stillhart said:


> The Bifrost is probably going to be the best bet in the $400 price range, as others have mentioned.  There's not really much that I'm aware of between the Bifrost and then used ones in the $600 range like the X-Sabre, Gungnir, etc.  The Corda DACcord maybe?  Not sure if it's any good or not.  There's the ifi stuff too, but I've heard mixed reviews.


 

 Some experienced people in the Gustard thread who have heard both have stated preferences for the Gustard X12 over the Bifrost (and Gungnir). The X12 is currently on massdrop for $450 shipped to USA. Just a thought.


----------



## Stillhart

hodgjy said:


> I'm sure the NFB-28 is a fine DAC, but it's not exactly comparable to the Bifrost. The added costs must reflect DSD, the XLR outputs, and the head amp. What makes the Bifrost able to punch above its price is it only focuses on line-level unbalanced PCM.


 
 I'm sure the Bifrost is a fine DAC, but it's not exactly comparable to the NFB-28.  For very little extra cost, you get DSD, XLR outputs, and a 8W/channel fully balanced amp.  What makes the NFB-28 able to punch above its price is giving you everything you could want while saving cost by using a single unit.
  
 See it works both ways because it's not apples to apples.


----------



## hodgjy

stillhart said:


> I'm sure the Bifrost is a fine DAC, but it's not exactly comparable to the NFB-28.  For very little extra cost, you get DSD, XLR outputs, and a 8W/channel fully balanced amp.  What makes the NFB-28 able to punch above its price is giving you everything you could want while saving cost by using a single unit.
> 
> See it works both ways because it's not apples to apples.


----------



## hodgjy

auvgeek said:


> Some experienced people in the Gustard thread who have heard both have stated preferences for the Gustard X12 over the Bifrost (and Gungnir). The X12 is currently on massdrop for $450 shipped to USA. Just a thought.


 
 I've been reading a lot of good things about Gustard, and they intrigue me. I'm waiting for the dust to settle just to see if it's another case of FOTM or if there's really something there.


----------



## Stillhart

hodgjy said:


> I've been reading a lot of good things about Gustard, and they intrigue me. I'm waiting for the dust to settle just to see if it's another case of FOTM or if there's really something there.


 
  
@conquerator2 had one and said the sound sig was between the NFB-7 and the Gungnir.  He liked it a lot, but sold it when he won the Theta.  I'm sure he can chime in some more...


----------



## estreeter

At the risk of parroting purrin (gotta love a little o*nomatopoeia this early in the day) and a few others, how many of us would have been thrilled stupid to be able to put together a VFM rig like this when we first started in this crazy hobby:*
  
_*Wyrd -> Modi2 Uber -> Vali*_
  
Candidate phones: *Fidelio X1/X2, Nad HP50, Oppo PM-3* and the list goes on. The golden age is upon us, people


----------



## BeyerMonster

kapanak said:


> My favourite Snake Oil btw http://www.machinadynamica.com/ And yes, it's not a parody, these guys are serious hahaha


 
 Ripping people off at those prices is serious business.


----------



## drfindley

estreeter said:


> At the risk of parroting purrin (gotta love a little o*nomatopoeia this early in the day) and a few others, how many of us would have been thrilled stupid to be able to put together a VFM rig like this when we first started in this crazy hobby:*
> 
> _*Wyrd -> Modi2 Uber -> Vali*_
> 
> Candidate phones: *Fidelio X1/X2, Nad HP50, Oppo PM-3* and the list goes on. The golden age is upon us, people


 

 Couldn't agree more. With a more expensive setup with a varied set of DACs, AMPs and cans it's shocking how fantastic the Wyrd -> Modi 2 Uber -> Vali -> Oppo PM-3 is. We used to pay thousands for that sound.


----------



## wahsmoh

hodgjy said:


> Completely agree. If you don't need a balanced connection, then the Gungnir won't drastically change your sound (while being unbalanced). You'll probably have to go above $1000 to get large improvements over the Bifrost.


 

 Hehe or score something vintage that once cost over $1000


----------



## Stillhart

wahsmoh said:


> Hehe or score something vintage that once cost over $1000


 
  
 There's another Adcom GDA-600 for $150 up right now.  Mine will be arriving Monday so I can give some impressions with plenty of time to spare before the auction ends.  I suspect it won't really come alive until I do some of the recommended mods, tho...


----------



## SoupRKnowva

hodgjy said:


> Completely agree. If you don't need a balanced connection, then the Gungnir won't drastically change your sound (while being unbalanced). You'll probably have to go above $1000 to get large improvements over the Bifrost.




Have you ever personally compared the bifrost uber to the gungnir single ended?


----------



## Sonic Defender

beyermonster said:


> Ripping people off at those prices is serious business.


 

 Well, people that are that stupid might hurt themselves and buy guns or knives that get them so maybe it is better people take their money this way?


----------



## reddog

sonic defender said:


> Well, people that are that stupid might hurt themselves and buy guns or knives that get them so maybe it is better people take their money this way?



+1 lol. One way to partially disarm the mob called society.


----------



## purrin

jexby said:


> Yup, Gungnir came with USB v2 board already installed.
> Have a Wyrd in front of Gung already, so it's sort of like a USB v3 receiver now.


 
  
 That's the way to do it. Now don't turn it off, ever.


----------



## Sonic Defender

purrin said:


> That's the way to do it. Now don't turn it off, ever.


 

 Answered my own question, made a mistake and just now realized it. My bad.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> There's another Adcom GDA-600 for $150 up right now.  Mine will be arriving Monday so I can give some impressions with plenty of time to spare before the auction ends.  I suspect it won't really come alive until I do some of the recommended mods, tho...


 
 Stillhart,
  
 Picked up the ADCOM GDA- 700,today
 Excellent price....
 Might give it to my son..or...???


----------



## thegunner100

mikek200 said:


> Stillhart,
> 
> Picked up the ADCOM GDA- 700,today
> Excellent price....
> Might give it to my son..or...???


 
 Maybe give it a listen first?


----------



## haywood

thegunner100 said:


> Maybe give it a listen first?


 

 I think his plan was to get something to tide him over until Yggy, but it'd be nice to get impressions about all the vintage dacs people are getting in.


----------



## mikek200

thegunner100 said:


> Maybe give it a listen first?


 
 Not that good..?????


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> Stillhart,
> 
> Picked up the ADCOM GDA- 700,today
> Excellent price....
> Might give it to my son..or...???


 
  
 Mine arrives tomorrow.  I've been spending some time reading through the posts about modding it and it all seems simple enough except for one step.  I'm trying to dig more into it because the thread is 5 years old so I don't know how much help I'll be getting if I can't figure it out.  lol


----------



## mikek200

haywood said:


> I think his plan was to get something to tide him over until Yggy, but it'd be nice to get impressions about all the vintage dacs people are getting in.


 
 Yes,that was the plan.
 Originally I was looking for a Theta,but that didn't pan out,connection issues,space issues as well.
  
 Grabbed a ZDAC,last week,new.....,breaking it in as we speak,,need a few more weeks..,
  
 Now,the ADCOM,will be here ..next week,My son,will have a lot of gear to choose from-LOL
  
 Amazing how cheap,you can get some of the older gear,the ADCOM was in MINT condition,hope it sounds mint,as well


----------



## jexby

purrin said:


> That's the way to do it. Now don't turn it off, ever.




Never have turned off any of my DACs and don't plan to start now.
Pulse X Infinity with femto will also stay powered on forever, (once it arrives).

UpTone Audio USB Regen may replace the Wyrd tho....


----------



## kugino

stillhart said:


> Mine arrives tomorrow.  I've been spending some time reading through the posts about modding it and it all seems simple enough except for one step.  I'm trying to dig more into it because the thread is 5 years old so I don't know how much help I'll be getting if I can't figure it out.  lol


 
  
  


mikek200 said:


> Yes,that was the plan.
> Originally I was looking for a Theta,but that didn't pan out,connection issues,space issues as well.
> 
> Grabbed a ZDAC,last week,new.....,breaking it in as we speak,,need a few more weeks..,
> ...


 

 interested to hear your impressions and what mods you're planning on doing. i have a gda-700 as well and am looking to fix it up a bit...
  
 i'm also on the wait train. looks like a lot of cool DAC technologies coming in the next year so i want to wait til the dust settles before buying my "endgame" DAC...


----------



## murrays

kugino said:


> interested to hear your impressions and what mods you're planning on doing. i have a gda-700 as well and am looking to fix it up a bit...
> 
> i'm also on the wait train. looks like a lot of cool DAC technologies coming in the next year so i want to wait til the dust settles before buying my "endgame" DAC...


 
  
 I have a GDA-700 and have done some work on it.  The circuit board is very solid and it's difficult to de-solder components (none of the IC's are socketed).  The ground planes soak up a lot of heat and make it hard to even remove capacitors.  I would suggest using a professional de-soldering station to avoid damaging the boards.  The analogue circuit is a very standard cookbook circuit similar to the Burr Brown application notes (sans servo).  The balanced output is just created by way of an op-amp inverting the single-ended output for the opposite phase.
  
 Last year I had to replace the Ultra Analog AES-21 digital receiver and de-jitterisator because of intermittent problems, see here... http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/250700-ultra-analog-aes-21-upgrade-replacement-project.html#post4057603.  the replacement part was not cheap, but has worked flawlessly since installed.


----------



## DecentLevi

Boy am I glad to find this thread - I'm hoping somebody here can point me in the right direction for *a good DAC recommendation for around $150* (or a pricier one that's used).
  
My sound preferences:
          lush, organic, neutral sound signature with highs that are textured / detailed, but not overly harsh.
  
What I'm seeking in an improvement over the Modi DAC:
          better detail retrieval / instrument separation, soundstage imaging / instrument placement, and more 'front row'.
  
 A little background is that I've owned a Schiit Modi + Magni for about 1 year but have recently realised that the Modi DAC puts out a sound that is somewhat 'distnant' or 'middle row' with the Magni amp, as compared to more of a 'front row' sound when daisy-chaining the Magni amp to the amplified soundcard of my laptop. But the sound I'm getting now is overtly analytical / bright, and the schematic is perhaps less then ideal.
  
 I've tried the Chord Hugo as a DAC and loved it, the Geek Out 450 as a DAC and liked it (but maybe too bright), the Modi 2 and it was 'good', and the Continental Dual Mono and it was phenomenal, yet just not released yet and more than I can afford yet. I've seen a lot of buzz about Adcom DACs - would this be the recommendation based on what I'm seeking (above), and if so then which one is more within my price range? Or is another DAC the one with my name on it? Thanks much guys!
  
 PS- @Stillhart - Is it just my bad memory or did you look older the last time we met at Can Jam near L.A.? (LOL)


----------



## drez

Spoiler: Warning: Off topic follow up to my previous post about my music computer(s)



Anyway, update on my previous computer transport post.  Well I threw my Corsair AX1200i back onto my dedicated music computer and it sounds good again.  So I see one of two scenarios:
  
 1. My dedicated music computer performs better with the Corsair PSU than the Teradak Linear
  
 2. The Teradak Linear is under-specified for my music compute.  Well really I could see a drop of possibly 45 watts from this system if I were to use lower powered CPU but maybe it would be more suitable load for the linear PSU.  Either way I can't really be bothered to go out and build a computer to match a power supply which may or may not be better in real life.  So yes the Teradak will probably be put for sale.


----------



## conquerator2

Wyrd is to the left.



Audio-gd SA31SE - Gustard U12/Audio-gd DI-V2014 converters - Theta Digital DS Pro Basic II

I won't comment yet. My brain is overwhelmed. :blink:

If the Theta lasts, probably the best 400$ I've spent yet on Audio


----------



## Currawong

decentlevi said:


> Boy am I glad to find this thread - I'm hoping somebody here can point me in the right direction for *a good DAC recommendation for around $150* (or a pricier one that's used).
> 
> My sound preferences:
> lush, organic, neutral sound signature with highs that are textured / detailed, but not overly harsh.
> ...


 

 Did you try adding a Wyrd to the Modi? If you still have the Hugo I feel it makes a substantial improvement to that too. It's worth trying with different DACs to see if it will improve the sound quality.


----------



## purrin

conquerator2 said:


> Wyrd is to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Oh no! Another Theta!


----------



## Stillhart

decentlevi said:


> Boy am I glad to find this thread - I'm hoping somebody here can point me in the right direction for *a good DAC recommendation for around $150* (or a pricier one that's used).
> 
> My sound preferences:
> lush, organic, neutral sound signature with highs that are textured / detailed, but not overly harsh.
> ...


 
  
 I know there's a lot of Schiit love in here, but I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I wasn't very impressed with the Modi.  I couldn't hear a difference from the Sound Blaster card I'd been using as a DAC at the time (paired with a Matrix M-stage amp and AKG Q701).
  
 When I upgraded to the Audio-GD NFB-15, I heard an obvious improvement in separation, clarity and black background.  That was testing against the Sound Blaster using only the DAC of the NFB-15 with the Matrix (so apples to apples DAC test).  Then I tested the NFB-15 amp vs the Matrix M-stage, I couldn't hear any difference with my headphones.  Given that, I sold the Matrix and had a very cheap upgrade for a notable improvement.
  
 Now that I've got a few more DAC's under my belt, I know that the NFB-15 is very warm and mid-forward.  It doesn't have quite the clarity of the Sabre chips, but it doesn't have that digital treble and one-note-bass either.  The Wolfson is an interesting chip and it's really nice if you want a warm setup.  Since I was pairing it with a very bright headphone at the time, it worked quite well.
  
 Still, I think it's a great bang for the buck, especially if you can find one used at around $200-225.  Even new, though, the pricing is comparable to the Magni 2/Modi 2 and I think the DAC at least is a notable step up.  (I've never heard the Magni so I can't comment on how the amps compare.)  In fact, it's my number one recommendation for anyone getting their foot in the door with audiophile DACs.  Sorry, Schiit!
  
 Re the Adcom, it'll be arriving today.  I'll give some first impressions later.
  
 (Also, LOL!  Yes, I'm a bit older than that little guy...tho we dress alike.)


----------



## Maxx134

mikek200 said:


> USB cable,are you joking??
> 
> That being said-I bought a VanDel Hul XLR inter-connect from Currawong,last year...$1K-USED..OUCH !!!
> Without a doubt,the finest cable I own..



I not sure if this is a joke or else very sad occurance..
What is needed is an underatanding of what is going on and why, then appropriate sensible approaches, 
instead insane prices and vodo-sonic-logiC.
Just because you CAN hear a difference does not mean it is worth thousands when materials alone probably cost maker $20bucks at most...

we need strike a balance of sanity of logic and realizing always more to learn in audio..

In the USB realm we already have solutions that beinfit and cover whatever sonic results you can gain, for much less money and much more verified.
Products like the schiit WYRD and also cables wich isolate dirty power line and also cables with higher conductivity silver...

So why do people still buy into the snake-oil businesS?

Its only obvious that spending $1k or more on a cable is sheer ludicris.
Or maybe society is turning insane?

Same thing with "bmichels",
We need to know what we are looking for and then use appropriate tools.
In his case, all he needs is a digital tester to read actual voltagE and then to get a protective power line solution ,
like a power strip that actually works like "Furman" models.


Hey I have a great fantastical lunacy idea I will now implement a paint that will reflect all interfering light spectrum signals to dampen my headphones from interfering light & radio frequenseeeze!...

Then I can listen to my new dac in all its glory without digital haze..


Edit, 2points:

1- I was not informed about the VanDel Hul XLR inter-connect and spoke to quick & naive.
It should not be labled in with other snake-oil cables as I only assumed because of price but was informed it is very good..

2- I did paint my headphones highly reflective to deflect all light rays..
lol


----------



## mikek200

maxx134 said:


> I not sure if this is a joke or else very sad occurance..
> What is needed is an underatanding of what is going on and why, then appropriate sensible approaches,
> instead insane prices and vodo-sonic-logiC.
> Just because you CAN hear a difference does not mean it is worth thousands when materials alone probably cost maker $20bucks at most...
> ...


 
  
  
  
 No,it's not a joke,& I still stand by what my ears told me,when I first auditioned the Van Del Hull .
 IMHO,it is NOT  a snake oil product..
 Whether I choose to spend $1K on a cable ,or any other product is , my business,not yours.
  
 Have you ever heard,the cable I am referring to..??..>
 I doubt it..
  
 So,your just spitting out /opinions on something ,you never heard..whether ,it is worth $1400.00{new},is a totally different topic ;,your just annoyed that someone would spend that much money,on a cable...
  
 Maybe it would benefit all,that you just keep your opinions to yourself.
 And ,don;t forget to take your medication


----------



## Ableza

There has yet to be anyone who can tell the difference between a silver and a copper interconnect in a genuine double blind listening test.  But if it makes you feel better and you believe in the magic, then knock yourself out.  As in all things audio, whatever floats your boat is what you should do.


----------



## kapanak

You folks really want Currawong to come down swinging with his magic hammer?


----------



## Priidik

ableza said:


> There has yet to be anyone who can tell the difference between a silver and a copper interconnect in a genuine double blind listening test.  But if it makes you feel better and you believe in the magic, then knock yourself out.  As in all things audio, whatever floats your boat is what you should do.


 
 Even two very similar sabre dacs are many magnitudes more different than differences between interconnects that i have tried.
 I can hear a minor difference between silver coated and regular cat5e as headphone cable.
 Cat5e is better. Very, very slightly less harsh.  
 I  couldn't find any differences between interconnect cables between dac and amp, though.
 Perhaps too little load to get anything out of superior conductivity of silver or monocrystaline copper.


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> Stillhart,
> 
> Picked up the ADCOM GDA- 700,today
> Excellent price....
> Might give it to my son..or...???


 
  
 BTW, I just read last night that the 700 is PCM1702.  The 600 is PCM63.  I'm curious how that changes the sound, but not curious enough to buy a 700 and see for myself.  lol


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> BTW, I just read last night that the 700 is PCM1702.  The 600 is PCM63.  I'm curious how that changes the sound, but not curious enough to buy a 700 and see for myself.  lol


 
 I'm not sure either-I was hoping you could tell me-is there a major difference
 Didn't you tell me a week or so ,that you would have preferred the 600.?


----------



## kapanak

Hey folks, I own the Concero HD as my current DAC.
  
 I require a portable or transportable DAC for my needs. I have been looking at the GeekOut 450 or 1000 and the Herus+ as well as the Concero HP.
  
 I was wondering if price was no object, which one of the three would be the better option?


----------



## AustinValentine

The bigger difference between the GDA-600 and the GDA-700 are the digital filters used. The 600 uses a DF1700P and the 700 uses a PMD100. This will likely have a bigger impact on the sound than the difference between PCM63 and PCM1702. 
  
 Honestly: I think most people decide between them based on if they care that much about balanced output or not. Both of them are fantastic units.


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> I'm not sure either-I was hoping you could tell me-is there a major difference
> Didn't you tell me a week or so ,that you would have preferred the 600.?


 
  
 At the time, I would have preferred the 700 because I wanted the balanced unit.  After doing a lot more research, I don't feel that the additional cost is warranted.  All other things equal, I'd pick balanced.  But all other things are not... (see below)
  


austinvalentine said:


> The bigger difference between the GDA-600 and the GDA-700 are the digital filters used. The 600 uses a DF1700P and the 700 uses a PMD100. This will likely have a bigger impact on the sound than the difference between PCM63 and PCM1702.
> 
> Honestly: I think most people decide between them based on if they care that much about balanced output or not. Both of them are fantastic units.


 
  
 Thanks for this.  Is the filter on the 700 supposed to be better?


----------



## mikek200

austinvalentine said:


> The bigger difference between the GDA-600 and the GDA-700 are the digital filters used. The 600 uses a DF1700P and the 700 uses a PMD100. This will likely have a bigger impact on the sound than the difference between PCM63 and PCM1702.
> 
> Honestly: I think most people decide between them based on if they care that much about balanced output or not. Both of them are fantastic units.


 
 Excellent post,Austin
 I was beginning to have 2nd; thoughts..
  
 PM SENT
  
 Mike


----------



## Timestretch

What's the popular recommendation for a very visually attractive, competent DAC <$1000 that has optical & USB inputs, and RCA & XLR outputs?  
   
 I do love my Benchmark DAC1 and have never had a complaint with it, but I think variety could be nice, too.


----------



## kapanak

timestretch said:


> What's the popular recommendation for a very visually attractive, competent DAC <$1000 that has optical & USB inputs, and RCA & XLR outputs?
> 
> I do love my Benchmark DAC1 and have never had a complaint with it, but I think variety could be nice, too.


 

 Matrix X-Sabre?


----------



## AustinValentine

stillhart said:


> At the time, I would have preferred the 700 because I wanted the balanced unit.  After doing a lot more research, I don't feel that the additional cost is warranted.  All other things equal, I'd pick balanced.  But all other things are not... (see below)
> 
> 
> Thanks for this.  Is the filter on the 700 supposed to be better?


 
  
 There are lots of great DACs that use both. A number of very good vintage DACs from Spectral, Sonic Frontiers/Assemblage, Classe, Krell, and Parasound use PMD100. On the other hand, fantastic vintage DACs from Linn, Monarchy, and the Sonic Frontiers TransDAC all use DF1700P.
  
 I'm not sure I could say that one is any better than the other. I think this is one of the reasons that people pick by input/output when buying Adcoms instead of the specific chips, etc. Probably not the most helpful answer I can give, but certainly the most honest.


----------



## murrays

stillhart said:


> At the time, I would have preferred the 700 because I wanted the balanced unit.  After doing a lot more research, I don't feel that the additional cost is warranted.  All other things equal, I'd pick balanced.  But all other things are not... (see below)
> 
> 
> Thanks for this.  Is the filter on the 700 supposed to be better?



The PMD100 (in the GDA-700) decodes HDCD.


----------



## Stillhart

austinvalentine said:


> There are lots of great DACs that use both. A number of very good vintage DACs from Spectral, Sonic Frontiers/Assemblage, Classe, Krell, and Parasound use PMD100. On the other hand, fantastic vintage DACs from Linn, Monarchy, and the Sonic Frontiers TransDAC all use DF1700P.
> 
> I'm not sure I could say that one is any better than the other. I think this is one of the reasons that people pick by input/output when buying Adcoms instead of the specific chips, etc. Probably not the most helpful answer I can give, but certainly the most honest.


 
  
 No, actually, that was very helpful, thanks!
  


murrays said:


> The PMD100 (in the GDA-700) decodes HDCD.


 
  
 Oh right, I do recall reading that.  It went in one ear and out the other, though, since it's not a feature I'd use.  Thanks!
  


kapanak said:


> Matrix X-Sabre?


 
  
 Or maybe a used HA-1?


----------



## kapanak

stillhart said:


> Or maybe a used HA-1?


 
  
 Oh yes, if cosmetics was the only concern, the HA-1 certainly is attractive for the price.
  
 In terms of sound, it is utterly horrific XD


----------



## Maxx134

I am actually on the camp that you CAN hear differences in all changes of equipment and to me the dac differences were more noticable on better equipment.

Also the Matrix X-Sabre Sounds very similar as HA-1 dac section.
Edit: both bright signatures.

While I have herd differences in cable the reasoning was not clear-cut because its not just the metals/materials but also overall design.
The Largest benificial difference I herd in a cable so far is the Draug2 cable.

My position still stands that there are completeley rediculous prices in Audio cable.

And yes I must agree if anyone wants to pay those foolish prices it is completly their own business..


----------



## jacal01

Quote:


timestretch said:


> What's the popular recommendation for a very visually attractive, competent DAC <$1000 that has optical & USB inputs, and RCA & XLR outputs?
> 
> I do love my Benchmark DAC1 and have never had a complaint with it, but I think variety could be nice, too.


 
  
 Dunno about the very visually attractive priority, but the upcoming Audio-gd DAC-19 10th anniv. release may be considered a competent <$1000 ($750 till 8/1) new DAC product, with its PCM1704 R2R DAC, DSP digital filter, and non-feedback (current driven) analog output stage.  ACSS (current) output connectors are available, if not XLR.
  
 Eye candy fanboys may want to chime in here.


----------



## Timestretch

maxx134 said:


> I am actually on the camp that you CAN hear differences in all changes of equipment and to me the dac differences were more noticable on better equipment.


 
  
 I'm not sure if I can tell a difference between DACs. I've tried a few of very different price ranges mostly at head-fi meets. What I'd like to do is find a DAC that sounds very distinctly superior or different to the DAC1, and occasionally switch between them to get those different feels.   
   
 And if it looks very cool, then that's ideal as well. The DAC1 is an ancient, rugged, utilitarian studio device and I would like something more beautiful on my desk. Again, since I'm not positive I know the audible differences between DACs, appearance & features could be a lot of the distinction for me.


----------



## mikek200

maxx134 said:


> I am actually on the camp that you CAN hear differences in all changes of equipment and to me the dac differences were more noticable on better equipment.
> 
> Also the Matrix X-Sabre Sounds very similar as HA-1 dac section.
> Edit: both bright signatures.
> ...


 
 First off,I want to aplogise, for my rude tone in my reply,earlier,{guess it struck me,the wrong way} ,,and I doubt,if ever I will spend $1K on a cable ,again
 The first place I jump to ,when a cable is needed is monoprice,or,the buy/sell forum.
 Have a good day,
  
 Mike


----------



## Stillhart

timestretch said:


> I'm not sure if I can tell a difference between DACs. I've tried a few of very different price ranges mostly at head-fi meets. What I'd like to do is find a DAC that sounds very distinctly superior or different to the DAC1, and occasionally switch between them to get those different feels.
> 
> And if it looks very cool, then that's ideal as well. The DAC1 is an ancient, rugged, utilitarian studio device and I would like something more beautiful on my desk. Again, since I'm not positive I know the audible differences between DACs, appearance & features could be a lot of the distinction for me.


 
  
 Definitely take a look at the Oppo HA-1 then.  Despite what haters in this threat say about Sabre DAC's, it's not THAT bad.  lol


----------



## thegunner100

timestretch said:


> I'm not sure if I can tell a difference between DACs. I've tried a few of very different price ranges mostly at head-fi meets. What I'd like to do is find a DAC that sounds very distinctly superior or different to the DAC1, and occasionally switch between them to get those different feels.
> 
> And if it looks very cool, then that's ideal as well. The DAC1 is an ancient, rugged, utilitarian studio device and I would like something more beautiful on my desk. Again, since I'm not positive I know the audible differences between DACs, appearance & features could be a lot of the distinction for me.


 
 Head-fi meets aren't the greatest places to listen to dac differences. Were you using your own music, amp, and headphones? If not, then the comparison isn't truly valid.
  
 Like Maxx said, the better your upstream gear (amp and headphone), the bigger the differences will be between dacs. I can't say how good or bad your Crown amp is but the he-6 is more than resolving enough to tell the differences between gear. You just have to get a different for yourself and do comparisons in your own time and quiet environment.


----------



## kugino

the Nad M51 can be had for about $1000 used.


----------



## frenchbat

timestretch said:


> What's the popular recommendation for a very visually attractive, competent DAC <$1000 that has optical & USB inputs, and RCA & XLR outputs?
> 
> I do love my Benchmark DAC1 and have never had a complaint with it, but I think variety could be nice, too.


 

 Just get a good usb to coax converter, and feed data to your benchmark through coax. You'll thank me later.
  
 The usb input on the benchmark is but an afterthought.


----------



## Timestretch

frenchbat said:


> Just get a good usb to coax converter, and feed data to your benchmark through coax. You'll thank me later.
> 
> The usb input on the benchmark is but an afterthought.


 
  
  
 Ah, I actually use toslink. Without galvanic isolation between my large PC and any DAC I've ever personally tried, I get interference (coax/usb both seem to fall prey to this). I am not sure why this is the case, but it plagued my friends before they moved to toslink with their DACs, too. The interference comes as strange clicking noises, weird staticy buzzes whenever you move the mouse of your PC, overall louder noisefloor, etc. I've yet to see a USB DAC where this doesn't happen (try turning your volume all the way up with no music playing and see if you can recreate)    
   
 So far I have to say I like the look of the NAD M51, and actually the Schiit Gungnir, too. It would be neat to get a DAC that lacks any headphone output or volume control. Just a simple, sleek design.


----------



## frenchbat

Never tried the toslink, so I have no idea how good it is on the benchmark. Any decent converter should give you galvanic isolation though. I personally use a diy card, with a linear psu, and never had trouble with static or interference.


----------



## wahsmoh

timestretch said:


> Ah, I actually use toslink. Without galvanic isolation between my large PC and any DAC I've ever personally tried, I get interference (coax/usb both seem to fall prey to this). I am not sure why this is the case, but it plagued my friends before they moved to toslink with their DACs, too. The interference comes as strange clicking noises, weird staticy buzzes whenever you move the mouse of your PC, overall louder noisefloor, etc. I've yet to see a USB DAC where this doesn't happen (try turning your volume all the way up with no music playing and see if you can recreate)
> 
> So far I have to say I like the look of the NAD M51, and actually the Schiit Gungnir, too. It would be neat to get a DAC that lacks any headphone output or volume control. Just a simple, sleek design.


 

 I ran into the same problem as you. I was using an adaptive USB-coax converter called the Peachtree T1. I found the same problems.
  
 Switched back to pure PCM S/PDIF pass-through of my soundcard and use a toslink cable. Problem solved.
  
 I am waiting on my Gustard U12 before I give up on USB converters.
  
 I see nothing wrong with toslink as long as your DAC didn't include it as an afterthought. I know it sounds good on my Theta and I will give the coax another chance when I get my Gustard converter. The Gustard has its own transformer and is wall powered versus USB powered so it should have less noise and better signal isolation.


----------



## haywood

decentlevi said:


> Boy am I glad to find this thread - I'm hoping somebody here can point me in the right direction for *a good DAC recommendation for around $150* (or a pricier one that's used).
> 
> My sound preferences:
> lush, organic, neutral sound signature with highs that are textured / detailed, but not overly harsh.
> ...



IIRC the Modi is only recommended in combination with Wyrd (and people use Wyrd with much more expensive DACs as well).

Given your budget the only other option from those not panned is the ODAC or something better used. You might be able to find one of the vintage r2r models being talked about in your general price range but keep in mind: 1) they're quite old and internal components age and can go bad, 2) they're limited to more or less redbook, 3) there's no USB so people use an external converter like the Gustard U12 which is more than your budget.

If you can go higher that opens up more options, $500 is probably more realistic to do much better than Modi.


----------



## DecentLevi

stillhart said:


> I know there's a lot of Schiit love in here, but I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I wasn't very impressed with the Modi.  I couldn't hear a difference from the Sound Blaster card I'd been using as a DAC at the time (paired with a Matrix M-stage amp and AKG Q701).
> 
> When I upgraded to the Audio-GD NFB-15, I heard an obvious improvement in separation, clarity and black background.  That was testing against the Sound Blaster using only the DAC of the NFB-15 with the Matrix (so apples to apples DAC test).  Then I tested the NFB-15 amp vs the Matrix M-stage, I couldn't hear any difference with my headphones.  Given that, I sold the Matrix and had a very cheap upgrade for a notable improvement.
> 
> ...


 
 Hello again, thanks. So it looks like you're upgrading your DAC because the NFB-15 is too warm and mid-forward? Also I've scoured the web and I can't find this one for sell new/used ANYWHERE. But I guess that's OK. Yes please post your impressions on your Adcom once you try it out. Thanks much!


----------



## Stillhart

decentlevi said:


> Hello again, thanks. So it looks like you're upgrading your DAC because the NFB-15 is too warm and mid-forward? Also I've scoured the web and I can't find this one for sell new/used ANYWHERE. But I guess that's OK. Yes please post your impressions on your Adcom once you try it out. Thanks much!



I upgraded to the NFB-28 a couple months ago because I've upgraded headphones and wanted a more neutral sound (also balanced out). I still have the 15 because I really like it with my older headphones and it's nice to have an option in DAC's. 

Now that I have a few more DAC's coming in tho, it might be time to get rid of it. Makes me sad thinking about selling it but I am not using it much.


----------



## auvgeek

decentlevi said:


> Hello again, thanks. So it looks like you're upgrading your DAC because the NFB-15 is too warm and mid-forward? Also I've scoured the web and I can't find this one for sell new/used ANYWHERE. But I guess that's OK. Yes please post your impressions on your Adcom once you try it out. Thanks much!


 I have an Audio-gd Compass DAC/amp that I'm considering selling for around $200. Do your own research, but it should be a step up from the NFB-15. Shoot me a PM if you're interested.


----------



## DecentLevi

Hello guys, thanks much for your advice on DACs. I'm sure I will consider one of those once I can afford them. But for now with my question about the best DAC for around $150-ish, I'm surprised nobody mentioned about the *HRT microStreamer* or HRT Music Streamer III,* or the  Peachtree Audio DAC-iT*. Does anybody have anything to share about their experiences with either of these? 
  
 Also @auvgeek I will send you a PM, thank you.


----------



## Stillhart

decentlevi said:


> Hello guys, thanks much for your advice on DACs. I'm sure I will consider one of those once I can afford them. But for now with my question about the best DAC for around $150-ish, I'm surprised nobody mentioned about the *HRT microStreamer* or HRT Music Streamer III,* or the Peachtree Audio DAC-iT*. Does anybody have anything to share about their experiences with either of these?
> 
> Also @auvgeek I will send you a PM, thank you.


 
  
 I had issues with my Mircostreamer on one of my computers so I sold it.  It can be picky about USB and setting and stuff in Windows (they know it and help folks here to get it resolved, but I didn't feel like dealing with it).  The guy I sold it to had Mac and no issues.
  
 You might check out the Meridian Explorer or Explorer 2.
  
 In other news, I'm taking my first listen to the Adcom right now.  First impressions (compared to the Sabre in my NFB-28):  slightly mid-forward but without sounding dark, treble is a bit rolled off or laid back but very smooth/musical, it sounds a bit congested.  The treble is the most obvious difference.  Honestly, except for the slight congestion, I'd say this little guy compares quite favorably to the NFB-28.  
  
 I need to go back to the mod thread and see if it's supposed to open up the soundstage a bit...
  
 EDIT - Actually, if I spend a song or two just on the Adcom and go back to the sabre, the treble on the sabre is actually really annoying...


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> I had issues with my Mircostreamer on one of my computers so I sold it.  It can be picky about USB and setting and stuff in Windows (they know it and help folks here to get it resolved, but I didn't feel like dealing with it).  The guy I sold it to had Mac and no issues.
> 
> You might check out the Meridian Explorer or Explorer 2.
> 
> ...


 
 Didn't you get the 006 ,new??,You might need to break it in more,before you do any modds..?From what you've read on the modd site,do you think there will be a night & day improvement??
 Anyway,all in all,you got , one hell of a deal.--
  
 The 007 I ordered yesterday,cost me over 21/2 times. what you grabbed the 006 for.
 Sometimes the audio Gods look down on us.....-NICE!!


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> Didn't you get the 006 ,new??,You might need to break it in more,before you do any modds..?From what you've read on the modd site,do you think there will be a night & day improvement??
> Anyway,all in all,you got , one hell of a deal.--
> 
> The 007 I ordered yesterday,cost me over 21/2 times. what you grabbed the 006 for.
> Sometimes the audio Gods look down on us.....-NICE!!


 
 New?  No, lol, not sure where you got that.  But yeah, I'm sure it needs to warm up a bit and stay on for a few weeks before it sounds its best (/sarcasm guys!) and I plan on leaving it on all the time.  
  
 I'm not going to jump into the mods just yet for a few reasons:  I want to get used to the stock sound for a little bit.  Also, I'm buying a Cavalli amp tomorrow, and I have a Theta DAC incoming and I have another surprise audio-related expense (that I'm DEFINITELY not complaining about, but wasn't expecting).  Also taxes.
  
 So yeah, maybe the mod in a few weeks.  lol
  
 Re: night and day:


Spoiler: Some quotes from folks who've done the mod



 


> i had some lengthy sessions friday and saturday..it's a huge improvement! like going from a redbook cd to a well-done re-master! it is not sutble! i was pushing some serious current into my 2btl's and i think my ears were the weak link the bass now has incredible slam and depth!that's on all recordings...not just when it feels like showing up, like before the drum sounds are great! snares sound like snares....you can almost se the wires in the snare drum...pianoes sound better than ever...and the SDA???? holy schnikeys! active alive and all over!! this is a must do upgrade!


 


> if you own one of these,,you will never understand what you are missing out on if you do not perform this mod,as it truly transforms this into a whole 'nother animal.


 


> So who else has done this mod? I know have about 60-70 hours on the new parts. One word that comes to mind is hyper-detail. I'm not saying if that is a positive or negative, just very, very detailed. Not sure how I feel about it. I definitely wouldn't say it's analog sounding like the stock unit leaned. Again I need more listening time to formulate if it's too detailed. Not harsh, or fatiguing, etc. just very detailed.
> The sound stage has improved hugely in both depth and width and space around instruments is superb. Decay and attack has improved as well.
> P.s. My prior post doesn't mean to imply that the mod isn't desirable, just putting some impressions out there. My impressions aren't fully formulated yet and may take a few months of listening for the final verdict. So far I LIKE what I hear.


 


> At just around 100 hours of break-in this thing has really settled in. It sounds fantastic. I can't get over the detail and soundstage is just huge. Bass extension is nice as well especially at lower levels.
> If you have one of these and have the skills this is really a no brainer and worth every penny.


 


> Ok, the final verdict is this modd is fu*king fantastic. My rig has never sounded better. Better dynamics, detail, bass, clarity, microdynamics and all still leaning towards the analog side of the scale. Biggest improvement has been the sound stage, noticeably deeper and wider as well as better delineation between instruments and vocals.
> Listening to Rod Stewart's - Stay w/ Me last night I kept hearing a cymbol crash way back in the mix behind the speakers.............never heard that before. Well, I've heard the crash before, but mostly in the same plane as the rest of the cymbol's. It's this kind of stuff, which you have to notice and listen for, where the largest improvements and enjoyment comes from for me.
> Highly, highly recommended


 
  


  
 Some random impressions from that thread to give you an idea of what I've been reading.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> New?  No, lol, not sure where you got that.  But yeah, I'm sure it needs to warm up a bit and stay on for a few weeks before it sounds its best (/sarcasm guys!) and I plan on leaving it on all the time.
> 
> I'm not going to jump into the mods just yet for a few reasons:  I want to get used to the stock sound for a little bit.  Also, I'm buying a Cavalli amp tomorrow, and I have a Theta DAC incoming and I have another surprise audio-related expense (that I'm DEFINITELY not complaining about, but wasn't expecting).  Also taxes.
> 
> ...


 
 Don't know where I got that idea,either..when I bought the Parasound ZDAC,the seller told me it was laying around for a few years??,maybe that was it??
 The ZDAC was new,,which is rare for a dac,made in 1996.
  
 Wow,I must say,you've been busy
 Good luck with all your gear that's coming in..,very nice.
  
 Buzz me,after you get the Theta,please..


----------



## Maxx134

mikek200 said:


> First off,I want to aplogise, for my rude tone in my reply,earlier,{guess it struck me,the wrong way} ,,and I doubt,if ever I will spend $1K on a cable ,again
> The first place I jump to ,when a cable is needed is monoprice,or,the buy/sell forum.
> Have a good day,
> 
> Mike



Na no need aplogys here as we all can have "testosteroned" comments at times and I admit I can come across brash at times,
but mainly because I see lots of sincere dudes looking for help and end up spending alot here.
We shouldnt be tempted by latest dacs or headphones just because its new.

A good game plan is to try ro save so as to skip over alot gear,
 that in essence would just be a "side-grade" more than a real upgrade.
I did my own mistakes with the dacs also.
didnt really need to upgrade from irdac but the oppo was an all in one solution that I could not resist.
Now that I have herd better in the AKM type dacs(Gingnir& LIO),
 I have to admit the lesabre dacs were nicely detailed but not optimal for the hd800..


----------



## mikek200

maxx134 said:


> Na no need aplogys here as we all can have "testosteroned" comments at times and I admit I can come across brash at times,
> but mainly because I see lots of sincere dudes looking for help and end up spending alot here.
> We shouldnt be tempted by latest dacs or headphones just because its new.
> 
> ...


 
 Yeah,at the time I bought the 009's,I was on a real audio bender
 I was searching out any & all ways of improving the 009 flavor--the Van Del hull cables ,helped me reach that goal
  
 For the last few weeks,I've been going in a sideways direction,buying vintage dacs,wherever I can find them-at a good price.
 It's also a learning curve for me,as I know nothing about gear that's 25 years old.
 One item I plan on getting though...yes,you are correct
 La Yggdrasil,..LOL..it's a new state of the art,Viking dac.
 This will halt my $1K cable purchases,forever.
  
 Have a good night,Later,
 Mike


----------



## Sonic Defender

mikek200 said:


> Yeah,at the time I bought the 009's,I was on a real audio bender
> I was searching out any & all ways of improving the 009 flavor--the Van Del hull cables ,helped me reach that goal
> 
> For the last few weeks,I've been going in a sideways direction,buying vintage dacs,wherever I can find them-at a good price.
> ...


 

 Once a cable junkie, always a cable junkie


----------



## mikek200

sonic defender said:


> Once a cable junkie, always a cable junkie


 
 LOL-No,I've graduated to a DAC junkie!!!
 Sidenote--when my wife found out about the 1K cable,she said to.me ."enjoy it now,because I'm going to hang you with it"


----------



## Sonic Defender

mikek200 said:


> LOL-No,I've graduated to a DAC junkie!!!


 

 Almost as bad. You'll be turning tricks in no time, just wait and see.


----------



## StefanJK

mikek200 said:


> Sidenote--when my wife found out about the 1K cable,she said to.me ."enjoy it now,because I'm going to hang you with it"


 
 That's why I stick to $2,300 that you can't yet buy.  And my kids are far more dangerous than my wife.


----------



## Sonic Defender

mikek200 said:


> LOL-No,I've graduated to a DAC junkie!!!
> Sidenote--when my wife found out about the 1K cable,she said to.me ."enjoy it now,because I'm going to hang you with it"


 

 Ha ha, I'll bet she will yet. So funny.


----------



## wahsmoh

stillhart said:


> I had issues with my Mircostreamer on one of my computers so I sold it.  It can be picky about USB and setting and stuff in Windows (they know it and help folks here to get it resolved, but I didn't feel like dealing with it).  The guy I sold it to had Mac and no issues.
> 
> You might check out the Meridian Explorer or Explorer 2.
> 
> ...


 

 I think when you first start listening to the R2R DACs they give you the impression they sound slightly rolled off or not as detailed. Then when you go back to the S-D AKM or Sabre variants they both sound noticeably more glarey and not smooth enough. Sounds like you've been initiated.


----------



## Argo Duck

Classic. Your wife's statement should be posted as a warning on head-fi's front page 



mikek200 said:


> LOL-No,I've graduated to a DAC junkie!!!
> Sidenote--when my wife found out about the 1K cable,she said to.me ."enjoy it now,because I'm going to hang you with it"


----------



## Stillhart

wahsmoh said:


> I think when you first start listening to the R2R DACs they give you the impression they sound slightly rolled off or not as detailed. Then when you go back to the S-D AKM or Sabre variants they both sound noticeably more glarey and not smooth enough. Sounds like you've been initiated.


 
  
 Honestly, I wasn't expecting a whole lot from my $100 DAC, but I'm pretty impressed.  I am now quite excited to get that Theta in on Thursday!


----------



## nicolo

decentlevi said:


> Hello guys, thanks much for your advice on DACs. I'm sure I will consider one of those once I can afford them. But for now with my question about the best DAC for around $150-ish, I'm surprised nobody mentioned about the *HRT microStreamer* or HRT Music Streamer III,* or the Peachtree Audio DAC-iT*. Does anybody have anything to share about their experiences with either of these?
> 
> Also @auvgeek I will send you a PM, thank you.


 
  
 Get the Wyrd and try the Geek Out 450 you have. The sound is transformed as the GO sounds much smoother with an addictive analogue-like tonality without any harshness whatsoever.


----------



## conquerator2

So, I wanted to chime in with my pinch of salt. Here're my Theta Basic II [preliminary impressions] and how it compares to my three previous DACs - Audio-gd NFB-7, Schiit Gungnir and Gustard X12:
  
 Bass
  
 - Theta beats the competition here, hands down. The Gungnir has a very similar bass presentation which impactful and punchy, however Theta has superior tightness and control, whereas Gungnir could sound a bit too prominent at times, smearing the other frequencies a bit. The NFB-7 had the tightest of bass, which sounded wonderful with instruments but it was overall weak and thuddy. The X12’s bass sounded closer to the NFB7 as far as bass goes, but had a bit more impact and weight. If I had to grade bass for all-round use, it’d go Theta > X12 > Gungnir > NFB-7.
  
 Mids
  
 - The Theta has an amazing midrange – present, clear and instruments just naturally peak across the stage. Gungnir’s midrange is reasonably clear but it does not match the rest of the DACs in clarity, detail retrieval, refinement, or naturalness. To me, it sounded a bit forced at times, while slightly obscured by the bass at others. Isolated, the midrange is very decent, natural and musical, but it does not compete with these DACs IMO. The NFB-7 proves strong competition in this aspect and it is quite similar in clarity and presence, though instruments tended to pop with a bit too much energy sometimes, taking away from naturalness, but overall a very clear, spacious and competitive sound. Does beat Theta in dynamics at the expense of naturalness [instruments can hit with a bit more energy and vigor]. The X12 sits somewhere between the Gungnir and NFB7 as it lends the musicality of the one and clarity of the other. It is less in dynamics and more in smoothness than the NFB7, but not overly so like the Gungnir. Very solid and smooth midrange. Grading Theta/NFB-7 [different tonality, equally good IMO] > X12 > Gungnir.
  
 Treble
  
 - The Theta bas the best extension/presence/naturalness ratio of all the DACs. It extends far, without ever losing naturalness or emphasizing any particular frequency, with very natural presence that doesn’t ever feel forced [it just doesn’t get harsh :O]. The vocals are not super airy, but they are very natural and nicely extended, more so than the others. The NFB-7 is the most airy of all of them, and could display some of, if not the most, convincing vocals and instruments I’ve heard, extending ad infinitum. Unfortunately, it was often accompanied by too much energy and harshness, especially in the form of sibilance during vocals, making those ‘perfect’ moments less common. I’d say the treble was artificially overdone to sound better, which I really liked at times but despised at others. The Gungnir to me felt congested and smoothed in the treble. It tries to sound like the Theta, but it doesn’t as it is beat in all aspects – naturalness, extension, timbre or clarity. It is definitely smoother than the NFB-7 and slightly more than the X12, but the magic in the treble is lost as the presence is greatly diminished IMO. The X12 again tries to find a fine line between the G and the X and it manages so for the most part. Almost as smooth as Gungnir, but with more presence. Not the degree of extension of the NFB, but nowhere near as emphasized in the treble. The Sabre that gets as close as it can to being a non-Sabre IMO, as most of the issues I had with the NFB are eliminated with the X, which does include some things that I liked too of course. Overall, Theta > NFB7 [can match Theta at times and even slightly edge it out] > X12 > Gungnir
  
 Imaging
  
 - The Theta images fabulously, and conveys a very convincing instrument placement. It can place instruments beyond the ‘limits’ of the headphones, where others DACs wall it off quite noticeably. The Gungnir also images very well, though the uneven presence in frequencies harms it somewhat and instruments with smaller presence can sound a bit obscured, but nothing too problematic. It does not match the imaging prowess of the Theta/NFB though. The NFB-7 is on par here, IMO. It can image and stage just as well as if not slightly better than the Theta can [can’t tell without having them side-by-side], projecting instruments with ease, but with a bit more pop and less naturalness. No Burrito filter necessary . The X12 is a bit of an enigma for me in this aspect. The soumdstage size is somewhere between NFB and Gungnir, so not too shabby, however it images in a strange way to me. I don’t wanna comment on it as I am not sure why it does it in such a way as no other DAC I’ve had imagined this way. I simply did not like it and found the imaging either a bit too stacked or overly panned. Might be just me YMMV. NFB-7/Theta > Gungnir > X12[?].
  
 Soundstage
  
 - Neither of these DACs sound congested like some [cheaper] DACs can. Case in point, all create a convincing soundstage, The NFB-7 has probably the largest stage [helped by the tremendous amount of air and extension], the Theta is a close second though with more natural instrument pops, the X12 is third and Gungnir is in fourth place with the most intimate stage [but fairly close to the X12]. So, NFB-7/Theta > X12/Gungnir [kinda close, plus the imaging can affect it, depending on the song, in case of the X12].
  
 Vintage risks
  
 Now, the areas where the three DACs obviously beat the Theta – serviceability/warranty, flexibility of many different inputs [most notably USB and Toslink], higher sampling rates [My Basic II tops out at 24/48] and availability [associated with trying to snag a 20+ y.o. product that will last for an indefinite time].
  
 Value
  
 - In terms of value, I’d say the X12 is the king for 549$ with an USB implementation that is the best to my ears, tons of inputs and great build quality. It is THE Sabre DAC to get IMO, even among the non-Sabre crowd. [the imaging is enigmatic to me, so I won’t say it is necessarily a conn. It was just different]. Recommended for most systems as there’re no flaws with its sound. The Gungnir at 849$ with USB is arguably a better than the NBF7 at 1350$ + shipping, fees, etc. Though, I’d think the NFB is better in most aspects [worth to take a look at the lower NFB models, perhaps?]. I’d recommend the Gungnir for a bright system and the NFB-7 for a dark/warm system to get the best of both units. The Thetas are hard to evaluate. If you can score a long lasting Theta for cheap [my Basic II was 400$, second day on, so far a steal] then by all means! Though, it is an old unit and quite an insecure investment. Hopefully mine will last. Totally up to the individual to wager the pros and cons. It was 2000$ [for a good reason, as I think that price wouldn’t be too far-fetched today] but I probably wouldn’t spend much more than 500$ for a rather risky and vintage gear. YMMV.
  
 Hope this proves useful. Cheers!


----------



## i019791

If you take into account only good recordings (e.g. exclude the sibilant ones), will your rank be the same ?


----------



## conquerator2

i019791 said:


> If you take into account only good recordings (e.g. exclude the sibilant ones), will your rank be the same ?




The NFB7 would score a bit better. Wouldn't affect the rest. Everyrhing would still apply.
It is a scenario I can't imagine though, with such a broad range of music that I listen to


----------



## n-a

Hi.
 I believe the Theta ds Basic II was designed with lower power DSP, and with op-amps in the output stage.
 Just thinking what could explain the imaging and not achieving the superior 3D effect that i have heard in my previous dac, Theta gen V-a.
 I have also had the Audio-gd Reference-7 and SA-2, and comparing those to the Theta, the "burrito" filter advantages was obvious. You really dont even need to try hard to hear the difference. To me the difference was immediate from the first recording i heard. 
 Try some recordings where the instruments are separated and the whole recording process is done well, something like Buena Vista Social Club etc..
 Br,
 n-a


----------



## conquerator2

n-a said:


> Hi.
> I believe the Theta ds Basic II was designed with lower power DSP, and with op-amps in the output stage.
> Just thinking what could explain the imaging and not achieving the superior 3D effect that i have heard in my previous dac, Theta gen V-a.
> I have also had the Audio-gd Reference-7 and SA-2, and comparing those to the Theta, the "burrito" filter advantages was obvious. You really dont even need to try hard to hear the difference. To me the difference was immediate from the first recording i heard.
> ...




I owned the Reference One and I think the Theta is superior.
It is only the NFB7 that can compete... It was its strenght. I don't think it is unreasonable... 
I disaprove with the theory of opamps and lower DSP. They both have the right to be excellent.


----------



## auvgeek

@conquerator2: Your whole post was immensely helpful! Thanks very much for the detailed comparison.
  
 Quote:


conquerator2 said:


> - In terms of value, I’d say the X12 is the king for 549$ with an USB implementation that is the best to my ears, tons of inputs and great build quality. It is THE Sabre DAC to get IMO, even among the non-Sabre crowd. [the imaging is enigmatic to me, so I won’t say it is necessarily a conn. It was just different]. Recommended for most systems as there’re no flaws with its sound. The Gungnir at 849$ with USB is arguably a better than the NBF7 at 1350$ + shipping, fees, etc.


 
  Considering the X12 is on massdrop now for $450 shipped (to the USA), I think it will be hard to beat that value. I really want to try some a vintage Theta, though!


----------



## pldelisle

Well... kind of disappointed by the Gungnir after reading conquerator2 review !  But I guess I would not notice the difference. You seem to have a lot more experience than me in sound !! 
  
 Still freaking about passing my order to Schiit... Damn this is pricey (2000$ CND for Gungnir + Asgard 2 + Wyrd)


----------



## Articnoise

conquerator2 said:


>


 

  

 Good and enlightening review!


----------



## arnaud

maxx134 said:


> Na no need aplogys here as we all can have "testosteroned" comments at times and I admit I can come across brash at times,
> but mainly because I see lots of sincere dudes looking for help and end up spending alot here.
> We shouldnt be tempted by latest dacs or headphones just because its new.
> 
> ...




Please don't take this bad but I feel compelled to tell you the proper spelling for the verb hearing: I hear, you hear, he/she hears. I heard, you heard, he/she heard.

I've refrained from posting this but I swear it, whenever I read a "herd" on this, you're the poster. Example: you last two posts in just this thread...

Or maybe it's your signature writing. Suffice to say, it pains my eyes and probably others too .

Back to topic...

Arnaud


----------



## auvgeek

conquerator2 said:


> Imaging
> 
> The X12 is a bit of an enigma for me in this aspect. The soumdstage size is somewhere between NFB and Gungnir, so not too shabby, however it images in a strange way to me. I don’t wanna comment on it as I am not sure why it does it in such a way as no other DAC I’ve had imagined this way. I simply did not like it and found the imaging either a bit too stacked or overly panned. Might be just me YMMV. NFB-7/Theta > Gungnir > X12[?].


 
 It seemed like you only had the X12 for a little while before you sold it—do you think the problems you had with imaging could be caused by a lack of burn-in? As I'm sure you've read in the Gustard thread, burn-in seems to be a larger deal with their products than others. How many hours did you get on the X12 before you sold it? Not trying to belittle your opinion; just genuinely curious.


----------



## conquerator2

auvgeek said:


> It seemed like you only had the X12 for a little while before you sold it—do you think the problems you had with imaging could be caused by a lack of burn-in? As I'm sure you've read in the Gustard thread, burn-in seems to be a larger deal with their products than others. How many hours did you get on the X12 before you sold it? Not trying to belittle your opinion; just genuinely curious.




Could be. I think it had aroind 50 hours? Probably.
I felt it open up and improve after ~10. Was not expecting further improvements.


----------



## mikek200

Outstanding review, Conquerator..
 Excellent,you covered all the bases...


----------



## wahsmoh

pldelisle said:


> Well... kind of disappointed by the Gungnir after reading conquerator2 review !  But I guess I would not notice the difference. You seem to have a lot more experience than me in sound !!
> 
> Still freaking about passing my order to Schiit... Damn this is pricey (2000$ CND for Gungnir + Asgard 2 + Wyrd)


 

 Keep your Asgard 2. I wouldn't go on too fast to get rid of the Gungnir. Look through Audiogon/Canuck Audio Mart/eBay and you can still score yourself a nice vintage DAC to compare to the Gungnir. If you like the other DAC more it isn't that hard to sell a Gungnir since they are very popular and have more resolution than the Bifrost Uber by a slight degree.
  
 Here's a few songs for those with a Theta to listen to and get awe-struck:
  
 Fleetwood Mac- Hypnotized
 Dire Straits - Money for Nothing
 The Doors - Riders on the Storm
  
 Nirvana - Lithium **edit** just listened to this, WOW didn't know so much was on 16-bit redbook. From the cymbals hitting ever so naturally throughout the song, nothing ever came off as unnatural to me.
 great soundstage tests


----------



## pldelisle

wahsmoh said:


> Keep your Asgard 2. I wouldn't go on too fast to get rid of the Gungnir. Look through Audiogon/Canuck Audio Mart/eBay and you can still score yourself a nice vintage DAC to compare to the Gungnir. If you like the other DAC more it isn't that hard to sell a Gungnir since they are very popular and have more resolution than the Bifrost Uber by a slight degree.


 

 I don't have any DAC yet. I had an Asus Sonar Essence STX in my PC for driving my headphones and speakers, but I converted my PC into a server so I lost the sound card.
  
 I am about to buy the Schiit kit (Gungnir + Asgard 2 + Wyrd).


----------



## wmedrz

wahsmoh said:


> Fleetwood Mac- Hypnotized
> Dire Straits - Money for Nothing
> The Doors - Riders on the Storm


 
 Which masters?


----------



## wahsmoh

I ripped this from CD into FLAC.
  
 Dire Straits was downloaded in 24-bit/44.1khz
  
 The Doors is from the Greatest Hits CD which I believe contains remasters


----------



## Tuco1965

I want that Fleetwood Mac Disc.


----------



## mikek200

arnaud said:


> Please don't take this bad but I feel compelled to tell you the proper spelling for the verb hearing: I hear, you hear, he/she hears. I heard, you heard, he/she heard.
> 
> I've refrained from posting this but I swear it, whenever I read a "herd" on this, you're the poster. Example: you last two posts in just this thread...
> 
> ...


 
  
 Arnaud.....Please,are you kidding??..LOL


----------



## Liu Junyuan

Can someone please defend my poor Gungnir so I don't feel bad? lol


----------



## wahsmoh

Hold your horses, there is still a chance in the future that Gungnir and Bifrost Uber will go through another set of upgrades. Then you will feel unloyal and sad when they both end up becoming R2R DACs.
  
 Don't count on it, but Mike did mention something about the loyal Theta customers who stuck around long enough to upgrade to version A. I got a version A Progeny and I am not an original owner, just lucky the original owner sent it back in.


----------



## Mr Rick

wahsmoh said:


> Hold your horses, there is still a chance in the future that Gungnir and Bifrost Uber will go through another set of upgrades. Then you will feel unloyal and sad when they both end up becoming R2R DACs.
> 
> Don't count on it, but Mike did mention something about the loyal Theta customers who stuck around long enough to upgrade to version A. I got a version A Progeny and I am not an original owner, just lucky the original owner sent it back in.


 
  
 Both the Gungnir and Bifrost are listed as "future-proof". I take Schiit at their word.


----------



## auvgeek

mr rick said:


> Both the Gungnir and Bifrost are listed as "future-proof". I take Schiit at their word.


 

 "Future-proof," yes...but that doesn't mean they'll go from S-D to R2R. Similarly, just because the Bifrost is upgradeable doesn't mean it'll ever become a Gungnir or Yggy. But yeah I'm definitely hoping the Gungnir gets an R2R upgrade. The Yggy is about double the limit of my price range.


----------



## Tuco1965

I can't see either going r2r.  Wouldn't that be a ground up redesign as opposed to maybe next gen usb or dac analog section upgrade?


----------



## StefanJK

auvgeek said:


> "Future-proof," yes...but that doesn't mean they'll go from S-D to R2R. Similarly, just because the Bifrost is upgradeable doesn't mean it'll ever become a Gungnir or Yggy. But yeah I'm definitely hoping the Gungnir gets an R2R upgrade. The Yggy is about double the limit of my price range.


 
 I'd be very very surprised if we see a R2R implementation of a Gungnir upgrade...might as well pull out the USB card and plunk it in Gungnir level R2R in that case.  Possible, but not economically sensible.  Maybe in three years of the Yggy takes off and they figure out how to cut costs on the core implementation.  Still, I'd be willing the bet against it.


----------



## pldelisle

Sorry for my ignorance ... But what is R2R concretely?


----------



## auvgeek

stefanjk said:


> I'd be very very surprised if we see a R2R implementation of a Gungnir upgrade...might as well pull out the USB card and plunk it in Gungnir level R2R in that case.  Possible, but not economically sensible.  Maybe in three years of the Yggy takes off and they figure out how to cut costs on the core implementation.  Still, I'd be willing the bet against it.


 

 Yeah, I get that. I should have said that I'm hoping they come out with an R2R that's cheaper than the Yggy. Like Theta had different versions. I view the Yggy as an upgrade to the Gen V; I'm hoping for an analogous upgrade to the Basic II or Prime.


----------



## StefanJK

auvgeek said:


> Yeah, I get that. I should have said that I'm hoping they come out with an R2R that's cheaper than the Yggy. Like Theta had different versions. I view the Yggy as an upgrade to the Gen V; I'm hoping for an analogous upgrade to the Basic II or Prime.


 
 Yes, a less gold-plated R2R than Yggy would be great and hopefully doable without too many audible corners cut.


----------



## Ableza

I hope for the opposite.  Don't dilute the position of Yggdrasil by making lower cost versions (if that's even possible.)  Keep the technology for the Top Of The Line.  The Schiit DAC lineup is already pretty full of closely priced selections... and the predicted price point of Yggdrasil is already very low for its design.  Just finish it, launch it, and call it good.


----------



## wahsmoh

I don't see the problem with just unplugging the DAC board and putting in a new improved one. Doesn't seem implausible that Gungnir or Bifrost Uber couldn't be easily upgradeable with their configurations.
  
 Also, depending on the success and implementation of the Yggy I don't see how the guys at Schiit wouldn't be planning any sort of trickle-down technology in the 1-2 years following. Seems like the Gungnir would have more space for an upgrade. It also has to be feasible and in the 2 years prior, Mike has been developing the Yggy up to this point. We can't expect an upgrade for another 1-2 years but that is the case of my Theta Progeny which came out in 94' and got the upgrade in 96'.


----------



## Stillhart

liu junyuan said:


> Can someone please defend my poor Gungnir so I don't feel bad? lol


 
  
 You should be the one defending it.  If you like it, that's all that matters.  :-D


----------



## hodgjy

stillhart said:


> You should be the one defending it.  If you like it, that's all that matters.  :-D


 
 I'm considering pulling the trigger on a Gungnir to upgrade from my Bifrost. Upgradeitis has the best of me right now, but I'm not going over the $1000 mark.


----------



## pldelisle

But for the price, is the Gungnir the best DAC I can get right now (I mean, a new one) ? 
  
 I know it is a question on which we can debate for long and that has a lot of variable to consider, but item makes 2 weeks I'm trying to convince myself to push the button for this DAC. 
  
 I saw Audio-GD products too, but with import tax and shipping, it will roughly cost more than a Gungnir which is made in USA and duty free with NAFTA (I live in Canada). And by preference, I prefer to get something made in USA.
  
 I would have took the Bifrost, but everyonee seems to upgrade for the Gungnir here ! So I'll directly buy the Gungnir and keep it the longest possible.


----------



## immersifi

Sorry that I am so late to this party, but with 250+ pages in this thread to peruse I'm just not willing to plow through all of them. However, I'm more than willing to ask the question as to how the comparisons (in this thread) were made. Were they double-blind, or is all of this opinion? If someone can provide some post links in which these matters are addressed, I would be grateful.
  
 What I am most interested in is whether these comparisons were doing using typical double-blind controls when paired comparisons are made (i.e. ABX, Bradley-Terry et al) or if all of this thread is based on uncontrolled tests.
  
 Lastly, does anyone know of any recently-published papers either by IEEE or AES that looks into such matters? That is, a published paper that can be found in a peer-reviewed journal?
  
 Thanks,
  
 Mark (immersifi)


----------



## Sonic Defender

liu junyuan said:


> Can someone please defend my poor Gungnir so I don't feel bad? lol


 

 The Gungnir is a fantastic DAC, very musical, plenty of detail, but there will always be people who find it doesn't quite hit their sweet-spot. I typically don't like Sabre based DACs (I haven't heard that many so I say typically), others don't like a NOS DAC as much as a Sabre DAC. As another poster said if you like the Gungnir, then that is all that matters isn't it? Of course it isn't perfect, but maybe for you it is? I only recently decided to get another DAC after having a Gungnir for I think 2 and a half years. I loved it, but I get bored easily enough and I wanted to try a new sound signature. Enjoy the Gungnir, plus it is upgradeable and you have to know the team at Schiit will eventually roll out an upgrade and the Gungnir 2 will quite likely be stunning. Don't feel bad because a few people say the Gungnir wasn't for them, maybe what they like you wouldn't like?


----------



## Stillhart

pldelisle said:


> But for the price, is the Gungnir the best DAC I can get right now (I mean, a new one) ?
> 
> I know it is a question on which we can debate for long and that has a lot of variable to consider, but item makes 2 weeks I'm trying to convince myself to push the button for this DAC.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well, Conquerator just wrote a big post about how he prefers the Theta and the X12 and the NFB-7 over the Gungnir...  everyone has their own preferences so it's not possible to call one The Best in the price range.


----------



## wahsmoh

immersifi said:


> Sorry that I am so late to this party, but with 250+ pages in this thread to peruse I'm just not willing to plow through all of them. However, I'm more than willing to ask the question as to how the comparisons (in this thread) were made. Were they double-blind, or is all of this opinion? If someone can provide some post links in which these matters are addressed, I would be grateful.
> 
> What I am most interested in is whether these comparisons were doing using typical double-blind controls when paired comparisons are made (i.e. ABX, Bradley-Terry et al) or if all of this thread is based on uncontrolled tests.
> 
> ...


 

 We can't all do double blind tests and ABX with the way our configurations work. I did do an ABX though with my Bifrost Uber and Theta Progeny v. A since I have the ability to switch sources since I am using USB and coax separate. I also spent months listening to the Uber before receiving the more recent DAC so my audio memory is fresh.
  
 Conquerator is spot on when he says that the imaging reaches out of the earcups and doesn't hit this "wall". Also the slightest bit of glare in the treble is evident on the Uber. Take the imaging and treble glare and that is my main caveat with the Uber. I would go as far as saying the Uber's bass extends very low and nice, but doesn't have the same kind of slam as the Theta. This slam in the upper mids and lower bass is what makes the Theta sound more enjoyable and musical with percussion. Then of course it has the super burrito DSP filter that stabilizes the image and offers a 3D soundstage that the Uber just doesn't have.


----------



## Tuco1965

hodgjy said:


> I'm considering pulling the trigger on a Gungnir to upgrade from my Bifrost. Upgradeitis has the best of me right now, but I'm not going over the $1000 mark.


 
  
 Yeah then comes Yggyitis after that.


----------



## wahsmoh

Also if you search the Art of Sound forums there are some British chaps who liken the Theta DAC to American-made quality with testosterone fueled sound. It has balls, it makes music sound real with more slam than some people like for their setups. Yes they mentioned testosterone like this is some kind of manly DAC


----------



## hodgjy

tuco1965 said:


> Yeah then comes Yggyitis after that.


 
 Probably, but I'm not sure the Yggy can survive in the woods I'm living in after I'm evicted for not having rent money.


----------



## mikek200

hodgjy said:


> I'm considering pulling the trigger on a Gungnir to upgrade from my Bifrost. Upgradeitis has the best of me right now, but I'm not going over the $1000 mark.


 
 I saw a few on the buy/sell forum,in the $699- range
 Just make sure it is the Gen2,usb version
 also,see here:
  
*6 Schiit Gungnir Gen2 USB Board* *(USB)*
 Highly dynamic. Great tonal balance with bite when the recording calls for it. Like the Lavry DA11, it doesn't do much wrong. Sweet sweet tone. Excellent tonal response with some balls in the bass. Compact but well defined stage with great localization of instruments. Very good sounding treble, one of the best we've heard with a sigma-delta chip. Vocals are only second to the AGD M7 or Metrum. Resolution is not the best, but it can still hang in there. With the Gen 2 USB upgrade, the Gungnir has now found its way into my regular rotation. Now I can feel comfortable lending out one of my better DACs to friends because I have a DAC good enough as a substitute. Some have found the Gungnir Gen 1 to be overly dynamic - having a tendency to be too loud. Think rock arena. That drummer that hits really hard. This is the top one or two hardest hitting DACs out there. This does create a sense of tension which can either be good for bad depending upon you sensitivities. I've never fallen asleep to music listening to this DAC.
  
 The Gen 2 USB brings to the table some finesse through the restoration of low level sounds which were previously compressed or lost in the Gen 1 USB version. Gen 1 USB also sounds less lively (microdynamics) and less clear. The Gen 2 USB upgrade is significant. It's interesting to note how Schiit has removed all the bad things they said about USB on their website with the release of the Gen 2 USB.
  
 I almost bought one myself...but..?
  
 Mike


----------



## immersifi

wahsmoh said:


> We can't all do double blind tests and ABX with the way our configurations work. I did do an ABX though with my Bifrost Uber and Theta Progeny v. A since I have the ability to switch sources since I am using USB and coax separate. I also spent months listening to the Uber before receiving the more recent DAC so my audio memory is fresh.
> 
> Conquerator is spot on when he says that the imaging reaches out of the earcups and doesn't hit this "wall". Also the slightest bit of glare in the treble is evident on the Uber. Take the imaging and treble glare and that is my main caveat with the Uber. I would go as far as saying the Uber's bass extends very low and nice, but doesn't have the same kind of slam as the Theta. This slam in the upper mids and lower bass is what makes the Theta sound more enjoyable and musical with percussion. Then of course it has the super burrito DSP filter that stabilizes the image and offers a 3D soundstage that the Uber just doesn't have.


 
 No, I'm not suggesting that all tests should be done via ABX, I realize the logistics. I was asking more about the original assertion that something 'sounds bad' and whether that was opinion, or the result of well-controlled listening tests with many subjects.
  
 It does kind of make me wonder if at the CAN JAMs ABX tests are run for specific electronics. (Dr.) Sean Olive presented some interesting findings here in Detroit back in '14 (at least I think it was) about the difficulty of doing blind tests with 'phones due to differences in (cup) aspect ratios, clamping force etc., so I get that in terms of 'hiding' the identity of headphones. However, for electronics (DACs what have you), ABX is fairly easily implemented; I think it would be_ interesting to perhaps have a poll of gear that people would like to see tested in a non-biased fashion (ABX) at one of the CAN JAMs to see the outcome._
  
 We all make comparisons with gear that we own (it's the practical thing to do), but that we know what we are listening to skews the results - it just 'is'. I mean, if there are clear, unmistakable differences between two signals, pieces of gear or whatever, then the confirmation bias matters less, if at all (if the signals are very disparate) and one needn't worry about double-blind. However, if two signals or pieces of gear are very close, performance-wise, then double-blind really has to be performed to determine if there is a repeatable, identifiable difference.
  
 Again, I am not saying that for someone to say that something 'sounds awful' or 'sounds great' is wrong when comparing two things. What I am saying is that 'awful' and 'great' are subjective and unless backed by controlled tests are opinion. That does not invalidate the opinion or its weight, but opinion should not be confused with a factual case wherein a repeatable statistically significant result is realized as a consequence of double-blind tests. This is why I had asked the question about peer-reviewed papers having been published on the subject - I'm somewhat curious about that...there have to be several...somewhere out there...


----------



## estreeter

immersifi said:


> Sorry that I am so late to this party, but with 250+ pages in this thread to peruse I'm just not willing to plow through all of them. However, I'm more than willing to ask the question as to how the comparisons (in this thread) were made. Were they double-blind, or is all of this opinion? If someone can provide some post links in which these matters are addressed, I would be grateful.
> 
> What I am most interested in is whether these comparisons were doing using typical double-blind controls when paired comparisons are made (i.e. ABX, Bradley-Terry et al) or if all of this thread is based on uncontrolled tests.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You're in the wrong thread - and probably the wrong forum - for a discussion like that. My understanding is that purrin's rankings are *entirely subjective* - initially, he did confer with others before he started trying to rank each of the DAC but by the time he got to the vintage R2R designs I believe it was a case of _'this is the best, forget the rest'_ : he has since climbed down from that lofty stance slightly but most of the recommendations now are along the lines of 'if you cant afford Yggy or you're not willing to wait, these are your options'. I know I'm putting words in someone else's mouth, but the posts are there for those who feel I'm being liberal with the facts. 
  
 I havent ventured into Sound Science for a very long time - its more 'Mad Science' in many of the threads - but that's where you may find more pertinent discussions of the topics you seem to be focussed on. 
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/f/133/sound-science


----------



## immersifi

estreeter said:


> You're in the wrong thread - and probably the wrong forum - for a discussion like that. My understanding is that purrin's rankings are *entirely subjective* - initially, he did confer with others before he started trying to rank each of the DAC but by the time he got to the vintage R2R designs I believe it was a case of _'this is the best, forget the rest'_ : he has since climbed down from that lofty stance slightly but most of the recommendations now are along the lines of 'if you cant afford Yggy or you're not willing to wait, these are your options'. I know I'm putting words in someone else's mouth, but the posts are there for those who feel I'm being liberal with the facts.
> 
> I havent ventured into Sound Science for a very long time - its more 'Mad Science' in many of the threads - but that's where you may find more pertinent discussions of the topics you seem to be focussed on.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/f/133/sound-science


 
 Thanks. That's really all that I wanted to know (that this thread is entirely subjective and down to opinion). Again, I am not denigrating peoples' opinions, I was merely looking for clarification as to the assertions that were made.
  
 Many Thanks,
  
 Mark (immersifi)


----------



## Articnoise

estreeter said:


> You're in the wrong thread - and probably the wrong forum - for a discussion like that. My understanding is that purrin's rankings are *entirely subjective* - initially, he did confer with others before he started trying to rank each of the DAC but by the time he got to the vintage R2R designs I believe it was a case of _'this is the best, forget the rest'_ : he has since climbed down from that lofty stance slightly but most of the recommendations now are along the lines of 'if you cant afford Yggy or you're not willing to wait, these are your options'. I know I'm putting words in someone else's mouth, but the posts are there for those who feel I'm being liberal with the facts.
> 
> I havent ventured into Sound Science for a very long time - its more 'Mad Science' in many of the threads - but that's where you may find more pertinent discussions of the topics you seem to be focussed on.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/f/133/sound-science


 

  

 That was a good one “Mad Science”!


----------



## Liu Junyuan

stillhart said:


> You should be the one defending it.  If you like it, that's all that matters.  :-D




Hehe you are correct, totally. To be honest, I have defended and recommended it a lot, but since I lack the experience of other higher end DACs, I sort of rely on comparisons to make sense of how DACs stand up. But it is true that I do enjoy my Gungnir and that is all that matters.


----------



## jexby

liu junyuan said:


> Hehe you are correct, totally. To be honest, I have defended and recommended it a lot, but since I lack the experience of other higher end DACs, I sort of rely on comparisons to make sense of how DACs stand up. But it is true that I do enjoy my Gungnir and that is all that matters.


 
  
 as a used Gungnir USB gen2 fell in my lap last week, can't be more happy with it at the moment.  Wyrd in the chain also.
 Gung replaced a Concero HD at home, and will eventually have a shoot out with Pulse X Infinity one day this summer.
  
 won't claim to own Purrin's experience or ears, and have only heard Yggy for 10min at RMAF 2014-
 can't afford Yggy nor want it's elephant size in a small computer / listening room.
  
 what Gungnir immediately brought to my ears was "realism".   an audiophile term? nah.   but with familiar songs, if the DAC places me in the room/space, with soundstage, presence and musicality- WHAM, I'm sold.
 is Gungnir perhaps the most detailed, or most accurate?  maybe not according to what I've read here.  
 yet don't feel Gungnir is a slug in those departments either. 
  
 was not hesitant to buy a used Gungnir as I believe Mike/Jason/Schiit will provide update boards for DAC and Analog sections at some random day in the future.
 pricing, features and value of such potential upgrades all TBD.
  
 and, Lyr 2 doesn't look completely silly sitting on top of Gungnir either. or does it?


----------



## mikek200

wahsmoh said:


> Also if you search the Art of Sound forums there are some British chaps who liken the Theta DAC to American-made quality with testosterone fueled sound. It has balls, it makes music sound real with more slam than some people like for their setups. Yes they mentioned testosterone like this is some kind of manly DAC


 
 HHMMMM,just wondering
  
 What would the shipping charge be like,shipping a Theta to NY,from Europe??


----------



## wahsmoh

mikek200 said:


> HHMMMM,just wondering
> 
> What would the shipping charge be like,shipping a Theta to NY,from Europe??


 

 I'd estimate anywhere from $50-80. I wouldn't know how much shipping costs, I bought mine from a pawn shop dealer who hadn't the slightest clue of how to upsell the product. So the Theta I bought flew under the radar basically. I got it with free shipping from Florida to California. That is a major bargain, they also packaged it with a TON of bubble wrap and packing peanuts and I can assure you it was safe and unscathed (the box was battered, clueless USPS folks)
  
 ..the price $276. Greatest $276 I have ever spent on anything
  
 sad to say I think we have all payed more to fix our cars at one time or another


----------



## kugino

I don't see how any of the "tests" done on these DACs can be anything but subjective and, therefore, comments about good or bad are purely in the eye of the beholder. too many people here are hanging on every little breath of this person or that person. sure, it's nice to hear about perceived differences between DACs that one might not have heard, but really, it's ok to like what you like, even if it might not be the "popular" choice.


----------



## mikek200

kugino said:


> I don't see how any of the "tests" done on these DACs can be anything but subjective and, therefore, comments about good or bad are purely in the eye of the beholder. too many people here are hanging on every little breath of this person or that person. sure, it's nice to hear about perceived differences between DACs that one might not have heard, but really, it's ok to like what you like, even if it might not be the "popular" choice.


 
 Kugino,you have to admit,that some of us newbie vintage dac people, rely on what guys like Purrin has to say,& now,today..Conquerator2 ..
 IMHO,excellent info,and I study it hard,and probably 90 % of the time,make my purchases,what they say,and others ,who have the dacs,I am looking to buy..
 No,they don't have my ears,and they don't listen to my type of music,but still they give out honest,good info
 Purrin's info on p.1 of this thread is my Bible..& read it constantly.
  
 YMMV..


----------



## Stillhart

As in all aspects of this hobby, the best way to tell is to listen for yourself.  
  
 Unfortunately, once you start getting into very expensive or very rare components, that becomes difficult.  It's for those reasons that impressions like Purrin's or Conq's are useful.  
  
 I fully plan on doing a write-up of the Adcom vs the Theta and possibly vs the DAC-19 and NFB-28.  Hopefully it will help some folks down the line.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> As in all aspects of this hobby, the best way to tell is to listen for yourself.
> 
> Unfortunately, once you start getting into very expensive or very rare components, that becomes difficult.  It's for those reasons that impressions like Purrin's or Conq's are useful.
> 
> I fully plan on doing a write-up of the Adcom vs the Theta and possibly vs the DAC-19 and NFB-28.  Hopefully it will help some folks down the line.


 
 And he is supplying us all,with free POPCORN!!!
 Super!!


----------



## Argo Duck

I agree with what you wrote but 'entirely subjective' might be a little strong. I (cautiously) think there may be some validity and statistical power in opinions found in this thread and in these forums generally. That is, these opinions' ability to determine a better DAC or whatever is better than one would obtain from a purely random selection.

It sure would be interesting to see some well done research looking into 'the audiophile experience' - but it's not a hot research topic AFAIK. There is a phenomenology here backed up by a loose, shared vocabulary among audiophiles that poses some interesting questions in terms of what objective correlates might be discoverable.

Indeed, our thread-starter purrin spent quite a lot of time in past years conducting CSD plots and looking (informally I think) at what correlates he and his fellow listeners could and could not establish. Purrin is most certainly not an outright subjectivist; rather he seems interested in exactly these broader questions. But also in enjoying the music 



immersifi said:


> Thanks. That's really all that I wanted to know (that this thread is entirely subjective and down to opinion). Again, I am not denigrating peoples' opinions, I was merely looking for clarification as to the assertions that were made.
> 
> Many Thanks,
> 
> Mark (immersifi)


----------



## olegausany

mr rick said:


> wahsmoh said:
> 
> 
> > Hold your horses, there is still a chance in the future that Gungnir and Bifrost Uber will go through another set of upgrades. Then you will feel unloyal and sad when they both end up becoming R2R DACs.
> ...



Where are those upgraded?


----------



## olegausany

pldelisle said:


> But for the price, is the Gungnir the best DAC I can get right now (I mean, a new one) ?
> 
> I know it is a question on which we can debate for long and that has a lot of variable to consider, but item makes 2 weeks I'm trying to convince myself to push the button for this DAC.
> 
> ...



You can upgrade to irDac


----------



## estreeter

kugino said:


> I don't see how any of the "tests" done on these DACs can be anything but subjective and, therefore, comments about good or bad are purely in the eye of the beholder. too many people here are hanging on every little breath of this person or that person. sure, it's nice to hear about perceived differences between DACs that one might not have heard, but really, it's ok to like what you like, even if it might not be the "popular" choice.


 
  
 +1.


----------



## Sonic Defender

olegausany said:


> Where are those upgraded?


 

 Patience, I suspect there is some Schiity goodness in store in the near future. It has been a while since the Gungnir was designed, and there have been some meaningful advances in DAC design so you can bet Schiit will respond soon enough. They don't just say something for pure marketing so upgradeable means upgradeable.


----------



## immersifi

argo duck said:


> I agree with what you wrote but 'entirely subjective' might be a little strong. I (cautiously) think there may be some validity and statistical power in opinions found in this thread and in these forums generally. That is, these opinions' ability to determine a better DAC or whatever is better than one would obtain from a purely random selection.
> 
> It sure would be interesting to see some well done research looking into 'the audiophile experience' - but it's not a hot research topic AFAIK. There is a phenomenology here backed up by a loose, shared vocabulary among audiophiles that poses some interesting questions in terms of what objective correlates might be discoverable.
> 
> Indeed, our thread-starter purrin spent quite a lot of time in past years conducting CSD plots and looking (informally I think) at what correlates he and his fellow listeners could and could not establish. Purrin is most certainly not an outright subjectivist; rather he seems interested in exactly these broader questions. But also in enjoying the music


 
 Again, I am not discounting opinions or attempting to denigrate them; everyone's opinion and preference counts (or should). I am however attempting to make a distinction between the results of well-designed tests conducted in an controlled fashion and opinion. Again, when differences are clear (and I'll concede that's a relative term) then yes, such structured tests are overkill.
  
 I can say that, having worked (since 1990) in signal processing, NVH, and sound quality, double-blind tests are what is used industry-wide (and not just in automotive, but pretty much everywhere) to perform anything from simple rank-order of preference (product "A" against "B", "C", "D" and so on) down to regression analyses to better understand which psychoacoustic metrics best correlate with listener preference of the sounds evaluated. This is done for everything from power tools, to door closures, to hair dryers, leaf-blowers, lawn mowers...pretty much everything. Sometimes the answer is pretty immediate and clear, and other times, it's inconclusive.
  
 One other thing that's done in industry that's never really done in these threads (not specifically headfi.org but others as well) is that in product development circles, the sounds that are recorded for evaluation by jurors are played back at 1:1 loudness levels. Let that sink in for a minute... in other words, if (for example) a dishwasher produces 57.5 dB(L), then that sound and others to be presented are presented at their correct levels in the headphones (in this example, the dishwasher sound, when played back in the headphones will produce 57.5 dB(L) SPL).
  
 This really does matter, because of the anything-but-linear nature of the Human hearing mechanism. So, by ensuring that sounds are played back at a 1:1 loudness level (whether in sone or decibel) a fair comparison between sounds can be made. Otherwise, if left uncontrolled, by raising the gain, you may hear certain things that would otherwise be masked when the sound is generated by (in this case) the dishwasher. Conversely, if one were to conduct such tests at a lower-than-actual playback level, there is a reasonable chance that one would miss certain attributes of the sound. I think it's clear that after spending time (and costs) in setting up the test etc.to have the validity compromised by evaluating the products at levels other than their actual levels could be 'problematic'.
  
 This should sort of make sense to anyone reading this even if they are not acquainted with the Human hearing mechanism's workings. That is, who among us hasn't noticed that what we perceive as well as emote can be dramatically affected by the level at which we choose to evaluate the sound (or song), or even simply listen to a track for pure enjoyment? This is a pretty important aspect of hearing and one that seems to be seldom controlled in most of the listening evaluations most often discussed on the web.
  
 The problem with calibrating the levels of music is, of course, the recordings are seldom if ever level-calibrated (it is possible to do...), so there is a lot of latitude resulting in terms of what levels can (and will) be chosen when attempting to make an unbiased comparison between sounds / products. Mind you, if the Human hearing mechanism were linear (and by linear I do not mean 'flat') then the level at which sounds were presented would matter not, but this is not the case.
  
 It's for this reason that juried sound evaluation software packages allow a loop calibration to be performed thereby ensuring 1:1 playback of actual sound levels. But...don't take my word for it - check the Society of Automotive Engineers (S.A.E.) database as well as those of the Institute of The Institute of Noise Control Engineering (I.N.C.E.) as well as the Acoustical Society of America (A.S.A.) for published works on juried testing (basically, similar to ABX, but with a few more options). If you are interested in knowing more about listening tests, you can web-search for 'juried tests' and "Bradley-Terry" as a start, but if you likewise search the names "Otto", "Lake", "Blommer", "Crewe", and "Cerrato" you will find many published works on double-blind juries testing and the results. Interesting stuff.


----------



## Stillhart

FYI, discussions on double blind testing outside of the sound science forum is a great way to get the thread locked and some bans handed out.  Second only to discussing cables.  Not threatening, just warning...Amos is not a gentle mod.


----------



## immersifi

stillhart said:


> FYI, discussions on double blind testing outside of the sound science forum is a great way to get the thread locked and some bans handed out.  Second only to discussing cables.  Not threatening, just warning...Amos is not a gentle mod.


 
 Hmmm...I'm not sure why I should be banned for discussing something that's related to the subject. In no way did I denigrate anyone or their positions or opinions, nor did I say anything untoward about any or all of the products mentioned. In fact, if you look at my previous posts, I actually asked the question about whether the assertions made were opinion, or based on more rigorous methodologies (and I even thanked one Member for having clarified the issue).
  
 Having said that, I hope that what I have written does not get me 'banned'. I like the discussions here, and so far, I've managed to meet some very cool people.
  
 Mark (immersifi)


----------



## Stillhart

immersifi said:


> Hmmm...I'm not sure why I should be banned for discussing something that's related to the subject. In no way did I denigrate anyone or their positions or opinions, nor did I say anything untoward about any or all of the products mentioned. In fact, if you look at my previous posts, I actually asked the question about whether the assertions made were opinion, or based on more rigorous methodologies (and I even thanked one Member for having clarified the issue).
> 
> Having said that, I hope that what I have written does not get me 'banned'. I like the discussions here, and so far, I've managed to meet some very cool people.
> 
> Mark (immersifi)


 
  
 No judgement implied, man.  I'm just letting you know how Amos works.


----------



## Ableza

If people get banned for off topic discussion then half the participants in the Schiit threads should be gone. Including me.


----------



## Stillhart

ableza said:


> If people get banned for off topic discussion then half the participants in the Schiit threads should be gone. Including me.


 
  
 I named two very specific topics, not all off-topic discussion.


----------



## purrin

auvgeek said:


> "Future-proof," yes...but that doesn't mean they'll go from S-D to R2R. Similarly, just because the Bifrost is upgradeable doesn't mean it'll ever become a Gungnir or Yggy. But yeah I'm definitely hoping the Gungnir gets an R2R upgrade. The Yggy is about double the limit of my price range.


 
  
 I doubt a guy who wears a T-shirt "D-S, when music doesn't matter" would subject any of us to an "upgrade" from D-S to D-S. The Bifrost form-factor seems awfully limited on real-estate though.
  


wahsmoh said:


> I don't see the problem with just unplugging the DAC board and putting in a new improved one. Doesn't seem implausible that Gungnir or Bifrost Uber couldn't be easily upgradeable with their configurations.


 
  
 Hahaha. One thing I noticed when I popped the hood for the Gen 2 USB upgrade was the amount of space available.
  


immersifi said:


> No, I'm not suggesting that all tests should be done via ABX, I realize the logistics. I was asking more about the original assertion that something 'sounds bad' and whether that was opinion, or the result of well-controlled listening tests with many subjects.


 
  
 Some of the early stuff was done blind, but informally. Later, we shared notes. The R2R revelations and rankings are mostly my own, although specific attributes are agreed upon with the same set of people I share notes with.
  
 In the end, it's all subjective opinions. Just crap outta my ass, confirmation bias, placebo, et. al. Take it as you will. I take audio seriously, but I don't take myself seriously.
  
 I conducted a formal blind test of two amps level matched to +/- 0.1db with a switch box. Never again will I do such a thing. Never again. Easier to talk about than to do.


----------



## mikek200

purrin said:


> I doubt a guy who wears a T-shirt "D-S, when music doesn't matter" would subject any of us to an "upgrade" from D-S to D-S. The Bifrost form-factor seems awfully limited on real-estate though.
> 
> 
> Hahaha. One thing I noticed when I popped the hood for the Gen 2 USB upgrade was the amount of space available.
> ...


 
 deleted


----------



## Armaegis

purrin said:


> I doubt a guy who wears a T-shirt "D-S, when music doesn't matter" would subject any of us to an "upgrade" from D-S to D-S. The Bifrost form-factor seems awfully limited on real-estate though.


 
  
 I wonder if there's enough space to fit in some transformers for a balanced output...


----------



## wink

Or, a switch on the front.
 Or, perhaps even, a sensor for a remote control...........


----------



## Sapientiam

immersifi said:


> Hmmm...I'm not sure why I should be banned for discussing something that's related to the subject. In no way did I denigrate anyone or their positions or opinions, nor did I say anything untoward about any or all of the products mentioned. In fact, if you look at my previous posts, I actually asked the question about whether the assertions made were opinion, or based on more rigorous methodologies (and I even thanked one Member for having clarified the issue).


 
  
 Listening isn't as black and white as being either 'based solely on opinion' or 'based on rigorous methodology'. There is middle ground between those two poles - that's falsifiable descriptions of what we hear. Smell is equally a purely subjective perception but qualitative descriptions in that sensory domain have turned out to be useful to developers of scents. Luca Turin has done some excellent work there and you can read about that in his and Chandler Burr's books.


----------



## Stillhart

Random question:  I've been listening to the Adcom with a coax cable from the Gustard U12.  On a whim, I connected the AES/EBU connector (3-pin XLR) and swapped to that.  I could swear it opened up the congestion and SS just a tad.  Is that possible?  I might have to have my wife flip the switch for me so I don't know which is which...


----------



## purrin

sapientiam said:


> Listening isn't as black and white as being either 'based solely on opinion' or 'based on rigorous methodology'. There is middle ground between those two poles - that's falsifiable descriptions of what we hear. Smell is equally a purely subjective perception but qualitative descriptions in that sensory domain have turned out to be useful to developers of scents. Luca Turin has done some excellent work there and you can read about that in his and Chandler Burr's books.


 
  
 Audio is like food to me. Xiaolongbao at Din Tai Fung at the Glendale, California location is not as good as the xiaolongbao at the Din Tai Fung at the Xinyi Taipei location. I don't need to take a double-blind and/or ABX test to know this or tell other people this. If anyone has a problem with my assertion, they are free to conduct their own double-blind ABX taste test of the xiaolongbao at these locations.


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> Random question:  I've been listening to the Adcom with a coax cable from the Gustard U12.  On a whim, I connected the AES/EBU connector (3-pin XLR) and swapped to that.  I could swear it opened up the congestion and SS just a tad.  *Is that possible? * I might have to have my wife flip the switch for me so I don't know which is which...


 
  
 Yes.
  
 AES3 sounded better from the OR5 into the Gen V than SPDIF. Further improvement: very short run of a twisted pair in CAT5 (effectively same characteristic impedance of AES cable). Good time to learn how to solder if you don't already know how. Can save lots of money, or have you end up melting a lot of things.


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> Yes.
> 
> AES3 sounded better from the OR5 into the Gen V than SPDIF. Further improvement: very short run of a twisted pair in CAT5 (effectively same characteristic impedance of AES cable). Good time to learn how to solder if you don't already know how. Can save lots of money, or have you end up melting a lot of things.


 
 Yeah, I've made my own cables and put together a Project Solstice.  Are you suggesting I use CAT5 cable into 3-pin XLR for AES3 connection?
  
 BTW, I'm pretty sure at this point that it opened the soundstage and lowered the noise floor a bit.  Not much, but enough to not go back to coax.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

But I didn't take a blind taste test when I preferred suan cai yue near the park at Dinghuaimen in Nanjing to the suan cai yue in central Nanjing. Thus, even though I knew to go to Dinghuaimen, my subjective memory interferes, prompting me to suspend judgment to take objective taste tests (lol sarcasm).


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> Yeah, I've made my own cables and put together a Project Solstice.  Are you suggesting I use CAT5 cable into 3-pin XLR for AES3 connection?
> 
> BTW, I'm pretty sure at this point that it opened the soundstage and lowered the noise floor a bit.  Not much, but enough to not go back to coax.


 
  
 Yes, use on TP in a CAT5 cable. 1 meter length or less. Blacker, less haze, more expansive stage, more precise location of instruments. Exactly as you said. Not much, but won't go back to coax.
  
  Quote:


liu junyuan said:


> But I didn't take a blind taste test when I preferred suan cai yue near the park at Dinghuaimen in Nanjing to the suan cai yue in central Nanjing. Thus, even though I knew to go to Dinghuaimen, my subjective memory interferes, prompting me to suspend judgment to take objective taste tests (lol sarcasm).


 
  
 Unfortunately the stupidity goes on and on. Maybe your taste memory is only short term? Perhaps the suan cai is 0.3C colder at one place than other? Maybe allergy affected your sense of taste? Perhaps you have an affinity for once place than the other, hence confirmation bias. You can't win, only lose. What we really should be discussing should be the nature of experienced phenomena, mind, consciousness, and existence.
  
 Makes me so hungry for Chinese street food right now. Can't get that in USA.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

purrin said:


> Yes, use on TP in a CAT5 cable. 1 meter length or less. Blacker, less haze, more expansive stage, more precise location of instruments. Exactly as you said. Not much, but won't go back to coax.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the stupidity goes on and on. Maybe your taste memory is only short term? Perhaps the suan cai is 0.3C colder at one place than other? Maybe allergy affected your sense of taste? Perhaps you have an affinity for once place than the other, hence confirmation bias. You can't win, only lose. What we really should be discussing should be the nature of experienced phenomena, mind, consciousness, and existence.
> ...




Me too. BBQ lamb and mashed cucumber with garlic on the side, along with spicy eggplant! 

Sorry off topic!


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> Yes, use on TP in a CAT5 cable. 1 meter length or less. Blacker, less haze, more expansive stage, more precise location of instruments. Exactly as you said. Not much, but won't go back to coax.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the stupidity goes on and on. Maybe your taste memory is only short term? Perhaps the suan cai is 0.3C colder at one place than other? Maybe allergy affected your sense of taste? Perhaps you have an affinity for once place than the other, hence confirmation bias. You can't win, only lose. What we really should be discussing should be the nature of experienced phenomena, mind, consciousness, and existence.
> ...


 
  
 Thanks, I'll give it a shot.  I'm assuming one pair into each pin and one pair to connector ground?  Or do I leave off the last pair?  And should I do the same for balanced interconnects between DAC and Amp?
  
 And that second paragraph made me LOL.  Thanks for such an illustrative example.


----------



## Sapientiam

purrin said:


> Audio is like food to me.


 
  
 S-D DACs get my nomination for being like MSG. Impressive at first but leaves me with a headache longer term.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

Ignorance is bliss! I am sorry but I love my Gungnir, and I would agree with Purrin's application of the phrase "sweet sweet tone" to this musical, far-from-fatiguing DAC in the first post. 

I did think the MSG analogy was funny though.


----------



## Stillhart

liu junyuan said:


> Ignorance is bliss! I am sorry but I love my Gungnir, and I would agree with Purrin's application of the phrase "sweet sweet tone" to this musical, far-from-fatiguing DAC in the first post.
> 
> I did think the MSG analogy was funny though.


 
  
 LOL!  Nice avatar pic.


----------



## Argo Duck

Interesting stuff indeed. But I suspect you missed my points. Never mind.

My research field is social dynamics (group behavior within small and large contexts), I'm an ex-lecturer in social dynamics and discourse, am trained in statistics and psychometrics and act from time to time as a research consultant and statistician in both this and the medical field. So there is certainly overlap between my area and yours - although I certainly don't claim anything like your expertise with signal processing and sound measurement. The point though is that many of the measures I developed in the past were cognition and perception based., i.e. somewhat akin to the audiophile phenomenology. What others call "subjective" psychometricians will often go ahead and measure - with the usual requirements that they be repeatable, achieve adequate standards of reliability and achieve validity with respect to some well-founded and well-argued construct.

My comment that 'the audiophile experience' is not a hot research topic was meant seriously. There is no way I or anyone within my faculty could have hoped to attract funding for this kind of thing. Nor were my literature searches some years back particularly fruitful - although I could well have not used the right terms!

Yes, be wary of Amos (Currowong) - he's always watching 



immersifi said:


> Again, I am not discounting opinions or attempting to denigrate them; everyone's opinion and preference counts (or should). I am however attempting to make a distinction between the results of well-designed tests conducted in an controlled fashion and opinion. Again, when differences are clear (and I'll concede that's a relative term) then yes, such structured tests are overkill.... Interesting stuff.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

stillhart said:


> LOL!  Nice avatar pic.




酸菜鱼！


----------



## estreeter

Taking this hobby far too seriously can lead down a very deep and dark rabbit hole. 
 
http://www.high-endaudio.com
 
Arthur is special - in every sense of the word - read some of his correspondence with various Stereophile writers for confirmation. He's also been a trenchant keyboard warrior on various forums, but I suspect those efforts led to the creation of that site after he was banned from several of the forums. He's just as entitled to his opinions as anyone - particularly given his history selling gear - but he embodies everything that I loathe about zealotry in this hobby. It's like any ideology - once you take a stance (analog v digital, feedback v zero feedback, class A vs the rest) it becomes increasingly hard to ever move from that position and you spend a lot more time at a keyboard than listening to music. Every hobby has such folk, of course, but they can be particularly odious in the audiophile realm.
 
*if I can contradict myself here, the one thing I will say in Arthur's favor is that (until very recently) he was consistent in his assertion that nothing beats analog. It's not because I agree with him - simply because he was consistent to the point where all his digital source recommendations had to come from his anyonymous 'associates'. That seems to be under threat as of Feb this year - 
 
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RECENT.html#Feb
 
I dont know what APL's mods do for the Esoteric CDPs, but in stock form they seem to be a 'love or hate' proposition and the sticker prices are eye-watering. Also no idea what the architecture is or whether the DAC sections bear comparison to anything here, but there is obviously still a market or TEAC would have dumped the division years ago. Attractive casework probably helps, but post GFC I doubt that's the whole picture.


----------



## murrays

stillhart said:


> Thanks, I'll give it a shot.  I'm assuming one pair into each pin and one pair to connector ground?  Or do I leave off the last pair?  And should I do the same for balanced interconnects between DAC and Amp?
> 
> And that second paragraph made me LOL.  Thanks for such an illustrative example.


 
  
 The balanced digital signal should be one twisted pair.  Since CAT-5 is unshielded you will have to use one or more of the other wires/pairs in place of the shield.  If the connection is short enough the shield connection may not be vital.
 Note: I have not tried this in practice, as I don't have anything that outputs AES/EBU balanced digital to my Adcom GDA-700.  By the way, the match is close, but not exact: CAT-5 is 100 ohm and AES/EBU is 110 ohm. Should be close enough.
  
 One thing to note about the sound of the Adcom GDA-700 DAC is that the sound will probably be dominated by the PMD-100 digital filter and the Adcom op-amps (6AA = AD711) which have class-A biasing but may "smooth" the sound a bit.


----------



## Sapientiam

liu junyuan said:


> 酸菜鱼！


 
  
 Love that but didn't recognise it from the pic....


----------



## immersifi

argo duck said:


> Interesting stuff indeed. But I suspect you missed my points. Never mind.
> 
> My research field is social dynamics (group behavior within small and large contexts), I'm an ex-lecturer in social dynamics and discourse, am trained in statistics and psychometrics and act from time to time as a research consultant and statistician in both this and the medical field. So there is certainly overlap between my area and yours - although I certainly don't claim anything like your expertise with signal processing and sound measurement. The point though is that many of the measures I developed in the past were cognition and perception based., i.e. somewhat akin to the audiophile phenomenology. What others call "subjective" psychometricians will often go ahead and measure - with the usual requirements that they be repeatable, achieve adequate standards of reliability and achieve validity with respect to some well-founded and well-argued construct.
> 
> ...


 
 Social dynamics. Very interesting stuff (I say that in earnest). Good point about overlap - I can give you one such example, namely, when we do the listening trials, we try to visually isolate (if possible) the jurors' points of view. That is, just like back in grade school, we don't want people looking at their neighbor's keypad to see which key is being pressed. What I don't know about social dynamics though is a great deal. It's interesting how often such simple tests - and in paired comparison stuff we're asking jurors which they prefer, nothing more - how the juried study can impart anxiety in some subjects. We try never to call them "juried tests" because the second word can impart anxiety (we simply refer to them as "listening sessions", and anxiety (as I'm sure you know) can cloud one's ability to judge.
  
 I'm not sure specifically which of your points that I missed, but I'll go back and re-read your posts; I hope that I didn't offend. My reply (ies) was (were) more than likely due to my focus and background, and I hope that I didn't come across as heavy handed or rude.
  
 Mark


----------



## immersifi

sapientiam said:


> Listening isn't as black and white as being either 'based solely on opinion' or 'based on rigorous methodology'. There is middle ground between those two poles - that's falsifiable descriptions of what we hear. Smell is equally a purely subjective perception but qualitative descriptions in that sensory domain have turned out to be useful to developers of scents. Luca Turin has done some excellent work there and you can read about that in his and Chandler Burr's books.


 
 Thanks for this. I was not acquainted with Turin's work until now. Interestingly, a lot of the methodology that is employed in SD (semantic differential) and PC (paired comparison) testing comes from the food industry (the Bradley-Terry model has some of its roots there if I am not mistaken), so there's some similarity (or at least there appears to be) in that all of this is concerned with sensory evaluation, and the extension of methodologies in one field to another.
  
 I'll have to check into the books by Burr et al.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Mark


----------



## coli

liu junyuan said:


> But I didn't take a blind taste test when I preferred suan cai yue near the park at Dinghuaimen in Nanjing to the suan cai yue in central Nanjing. Thus, even though I knew to go to Dinghuaimen, my subjective memory interferes, prompting me to suspend judgment to take objective taste tests (lol sarcasm).


 
 Obviously your taste is wrong! 
  
 And I'm sure an objective test would prove the two restaurants are indistinguishable.


----------



## Maxx134

immersifi said:


> Sorry that I am so late to this party, but with 250+ pages in this thread to peruse I'm just not willing to plow through all of them. However, I'm more than willing to ask the question as to how the comparisons (in this thread) were made. Were they double-blind, or is all of this opinion? If someone can provide some post links in which these matters are addressed, I would be grateful.
> 
> What I am most interested in is whether these comparisons were doing using typical double-blind controls when paired comparisons are made (i.e. ABX, Bradley-Terry et al) or if all of this thread is based on uncontrolled tests.
> 
> ...



The problem with double blind test is that it removes all strengths clues that you would use to differentiate anything by not using your own equipment and fav familiar test songs as well as placing you mentally under stress with unfamiliar environment so as to distract you .
The whole while you are already in assumption of doing a test that promotes not hearing anything and thus you mind is already bias and its active filter is mentally closed...

Anf for those that have sensitive eyes,
I don't use spellcheck so please forgive any typos from my smartphone..


The bottom line is you gotta believe somebody and what I do is accept an opinion once a general consensus made over time with many users...
that and whatever Purrin says, lol


----------



## Articnoise

If conducting a study, a blind or A-B test, it is important to reduce all the factors that can influence the participants in one way or the other. A more experienced participant is normally less infected to some of the factors, but never immune.

 1 If only listening for 1-3 track in an unfamiliar system and then changing gear it is less likely that one will find it very fatigue or spot other minor flaws that is more obvious in longer listening sessions. 

 2 If only listening for 1-3 track in an unfamiliar system and then changing gear back and forth, it is less likely that one will really feel and connect to the music (this is SQ aspect) a as much as in a more relaxed situation.

 3 If only listening for 1-3 track in an unfamiliar system and then changing gear back and forth, one is more likely to prefer a more crispy sound that stands out and that has the wow factor than in a longer listening sessions.

 4 If only listening for 1-3 track in an unfamiliar system it is hard to conclude if the tonality of the specific tested gear is natural, neutral, lean etc. only if the whole synergy of the system sound that way. 

 5 If only listening for 1-3 track and then changing gear one is more likely to prefer a sharper and more present sound, especially after a couple of hours.  

 6 The synergy between different gears and their tolerance to pure/dirty power etc. are important aspects that can infect some gear more than others.

 7 The music chosen is important as some gears do some categories (bass, vocal, symphony etc.) of music better than others.  

 I agree with Maxx. To conducting the same short blind test in a familiar system and with well-known music is so much easier and one can normally detect even minor difference between the tested gears and also find the distinguishing difference in both tonality and technicality.

 IME.


----------



## Ableza

A blind test is never necessary to determine a preference.  It is only necessary when trying to determine a reason for the preference, or when trying to ascribe causation (causation that is not found through electrical parameter testing, that is.)
  
 For example, me saying that I like the new Whammo Super Bajinga amplifier more then my old Gizmodo Flipperoo amplifier is a perfectly valid statement and the reason why doesn't matter at all.  I like it more, that's all that matters.  It's a preference based on my total personal perception of the Whammo.  But if I want to determine which one sounds better based solely on the signal output, then I really must remove all other variables - and get a consensus opinion from more people than just myself - for that judgement to be valid.


----------



## Articnoise

ableza said:


> A blind test is never necessary to determine a preference.  It is only necessary when trying to determine a reason for the preference, or when trying to ascribe causation (causation that is not found through electrical parameter testing, that is.)
> 
> For example, me saying that I like the new Whammo Super Bajinga amplifier more then my old Gizmodo Flipperoo amplifier is a perfectly valid statement and the reason why doesn't matter at all.  I like it more, that's all that matters.  It's a preference based on my total personal perception of the Whammo.  But if I want to determine which one sounds better based solely on the signal output, then I really must remove all other variables - and get a consensus opinion from more people than just myself - for that judgement to be valid.


 

  

 I don’t think that the reason for doing a blind test is to determine a reason for the preference. It is to prevent unwanting bias to influence the result. It is common in many diffrent studies.


----------



## kugino

murrays said:


> The balanced digital signal should be one twisted pair.  Since CAT-5 is unshielded you will have to use one or more of the other wires/pairs in place of the shield.  If the connection is short enough the shield connection may not be vital.
> Note: I have not tried this in practice, as I don't have anything that outputs AES/EBU balanced digital to my Adcom GDA-700.  By the way, the match is close, but not exact: CAT-5 is 100 ohm and AES/EBU is 110 ohm. Should be close enough.
> 
> One thing to note about the sound of the Adcom GDA-700 DAC is that the sound will probably be dominated by the PMD-100 digital filter and the Adcom op-amps (6AA = AD711) which have class-A biasing but may "smooth" the sound a bit.


interesting tidbit about the adcom. I have the 700 coming in later this week. isnt it true of most DACs that the sound is determined a lot by the filter? isn't one of the main reasons the theta sounds so smooth is due to the super burrito filter that moffatt designed?


----------



## haywood

articnoise said:


> I don’t think that the reason for doing a blind test is to determine a reason for the preference. It is to prevent unwanting bias to influence the result. It is common in many diffrent studies.



However valid the reason for double-blind testing is it has nothing to do with this thread which is titled "thoughts on a bunch of DACs" and not "a definitive study on listener preference as it relates to music and DACs" or whatever.

Now... back to DACs. Please?


----------



## Articnoise

haywood said:


> However valid the reason for double-blind testing is it has nothing to do with this thread which is titled "thoughts on a bunch of DACs" and not "a definitive study on listener preference as it relates to music and DACs" or whatever.
> 
> Now... back to DACs. Please?


 

  

 I will very soon have a new tube dac to play with. Just wonder how I should conduct the test against the Master 7; blind, double blind, triple blind or atx LOL!


----------



## icebear

I take a wild guess here :
 Only a very small minority of customers buys a hifi product blind (any product for that matter).
  
 So what's the purpose of double blind or whatever study in the context of discussing hifi gear?
 There is the sound science forum for the inclined members 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Of course having validation of some sort, preferably with numbers black on white makes every argument much easier. So comparisions often try to settle on a number of good practises. One of them SPL matching. Hoenstly if the louder one sounds better, why just not kick it up a notch and be happy? I never use any SPL at home, I just adjust the volume to match the music to my liking and mood.
  
 Ultimately if you buy a product e.g. a DAC and you like it, just be happy and enjoy listening to music. There no absolute best that is valid for everyone. Usually everbody has his/her own set of ears and music preference. It's no surprise that there are different opinions about gear and there will be no study that will reveal the ultimate truth in DAC's, although it can only be DAC42


----------



## Argo Duck

Mark, you didn't offend at all. Coming out of my field my points may have been a little obscure. I'm not putting it very well here but...the question is whether 'subjective judgment' or opinion has any validity or truth-power. If it does, even marginally, then forums that share opinions are useful in steering us toward better choices, even if only slightly., i.e. we have better utility. The 'control' case is to choose one's equipment blind - through random selection - with perhaps a sideways glance at the pitifully few objective measures published by equipment manufacturers. Let's say we set a lower limit before gear qualifies for our 'selection pool'.

Where this comes right into my area of interest is to what extent a community sharing opinions (messages we tend to call them) enhances its functioning or survival. Specialist communities like head-fi are not different in this respect. Increasingly unusual in this internet age though is the merging of multiple and disparate communities and groups with all kinds of other vocabularies and 'understandings'. Critical to a group like head-fi is to what extent is our 'shared language' - with its specialist terms such as 'dry', 'wet', 'warm' etc - is rooted in a shared experience. Probably not much - though informal groups like purrin's and mini-meets as well are strong steps to something better - but is it enough anyway to achieve greater validity than would be the case from an entirely solo audiophile journey?

I don't pretend to have any answers. A couple of years in the sound 'science' forum convinced me there's nothing interesting going on there. Had some research ideas of my own but I my expertise is too peripheral, the task too large and I don't have the time or inclincation anyway!

In the end I pursue this hobby to relax 

And btw welcome.



immersifi said:


> Social dynamics. Very interesting stuff (I say that in earnest). Good point about overlap - I can give you one such example, namely, when we do the listening trials, we try to visually isolate (if possible) the jurors' points of view. That is, just like back in grade school, we don't want people looking at their neighbor's keypad to see which key is being pressed. What I don't know about social dynamics though is a great deal. It's interesting how often such simple tests - and in paired comparison stuff we're asking jurors which they prefer, nothing more - how the juried study can impart anxiety in some subjects. We try never to call them "juried tests" because the second word can impart anxiety (we simply refer to them as "listening sessions", and anxiety (as I'm sure you know) can cloud one's ability to judge.
> 
> I'm not sure specifically which of your points that I missed, but I'll go back and re-read your posts; I hope that I didn't offend. My reply (ies) was (were) more than likely due to my focus and background, and I hope that I didn't come across as heavy handed or rude.
> 
> Mark


----------



## jacal01

I'm getting the impression that the eye candy fanboy crowd is a larger percentage of this forum than I'd given them credit for.  Gotta look good in your living room or desktop.  SQ evaluations?  Pffft.


----------



## Stillhart

murrays said:


> The balanced digital signal should be one twisted pair.  Since CAT-5 is unshielded you will have to use one or more of the other wires/pairs in place of the shield.  If the connection is short enough the shield connection may not be vital.
> Note: I have not tried this in practice, as I don't have anything that outputs AES/EBU balanced digital to my Adcom GDA-700.  By the way, the match is close, but not exact: CAT-5 is 100 ohm and AES/EBU is 110 ohm. Should be close enough.
> 
> One thing to note about the sound of the Adcom GDA-700 DAC is that the sound will probably be dominated by the PMD-100 digital filter and the Adcom op-amps (6AA = AD711) which have class-A biasing but may "smooth" the sound a bit.


 
  
 Thanks, this is super handy.  I'll give it a shot and see what happens.
  
 I also found out that my Theta (which gets here tomorrow!!!) doesn't have AES3, just coax and some old style optical/BNC connector.  Oh well, at least it has balanced out.
  
 Regarding the sound of my 600, the biggest part of the mod that I'll be doing is replacing the opamps with OPA637.  Apparently that makes the biggest difference and all the cap upgrades are minor in comparison.


----------



## Tuco1965

hodgjy said:


> It's taken me a long time to come to this realization--because I was once of the belief there is a "best" component that existed somewhere in the universe--that there's nothing wrong with placebo effect. We do this hobby for enjoyment. Music moves us. So, if component A is bright and shiny and costs more than dingy component B, there's nothing wrong with believing A sounds better than B. Do what brings happiness and enjoyment to the hobby. We do this with other hobbies in our life--clothes, cars, food, wine, vacations, etc. Audio should be no different.
> 
> *The problems arise when someone pontificates that A is better than B, and you're not a skilled listener if you can't tell them apart and come to the same conclusion*. Purrin was pretty clear he said "his preference" in "his system" to avoid pontification.


 
  
 That's the problem that bothers me.  My ears know what I like, just as your ears know what you like.  We all have preferences.


----------



## conquerator2

stillhart said:


> Thanks, this is super handy.  I'll give it a shot and see what happens.
> 
> I also found out that *my Theta (which gets here tomorrow!!!*) doesn't have AES3, just coax and some old style optical/BNC connector.  Oh well, at least it has balanced out.
> 
> Regarding the sound of my 600, the biggest part of the mod that I'll be doing is replacing the opamps with OPA637.  Apparently that makes the biggest difference and all the cap upgrades are minor in comparison.


 
 #ThetaHype


----------



## murrays

B





stillhart said:


> Thanks, this is super handy.  I'll give it a shot and see what happens.
> 
> I also found out that my Theta (which gets here tomorrow!!!) doesn't have AES3, just coax and some old style optical/BNC connector.  Oh well, at least it has balanced out.
> 
> Regarding the sound of my 600, the biggest part of the mod that I'll be doing is replacing the opamps with OPA637.  Apparently that makes the biggest difference and all the cap upgrades are minor in comparison.




Be very careful using the OPA637 if you don't have an oscilliscope to confirm their stability. The OPA637 is not unity gain stable and may be prone to HF oscillations. It would be safer to use the related unity gain stable part, which is the OPA627. 
Do you have the GDA-600 or GDA-700?


----------



## Stillhart

murrays said:


> B
> Be very careful using the OPA637 if you don't have an oscilliscope to confirm their stability. The OPA637 is not unity gain stable and may be prone to HF oscillations. It would be safer to use the related unity gain stable part, which is the OPA627.
> Do you have the GDA-600 or GDA-700?


 
  
 Actually, you're right.  I just double checked and I misspoke, it was the OPA627.  I was typing from memory.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I'm modding the 600.  Here's the thread I'm using for reference on the mod.  I've read through the whole thing twice, checked all the photos, and now I'm trying to put together all the parts...which I'll probably have to source from 3-4 different places.  DIY is a crazy journey...


----------



## kugino

nice. interested to hear about your mods. I want to work on my 700 after giving it a few weeks of stock listening time.


----------



## Currawong

Guys, please take the DBT discussion to Sound Science, rather than polluting this thread with it.


----------



## prot

hodgjy said:


> My preference is a solid piece of equipment with a silver-colored metal case, lots of inputs, a low noise floor, no audible distortion or signal drop outs, treble that doesn't cut holes in my ears, no wall-wart power supply, a dedicated 3rd-pin ground, and less than $1000. To me, those options are just as important as the sound.




That sounds like a lot of conditions but all those are quite generic nowadays. E.g. here you have 7-8 choices from one company only http://marantz.co.uk/uk/products/pages/productlisting.aspx?catid=networkproducts&subcatid=avreceiver .. nice silver cases, more inputs than anyone needs, warm sound and except the latest 7009 all under $1000. 

There are probably hundreds if not thousands of components that fit all your above criteria ... how do you choose?


----------



## Ableza

currawong said:


> Guys, please take the DBT discussion to Sound Science, rather than polluting this thread with it.


 
 My apologies.


----------



## Maxx134

haywood said:


> However valid the reason for double-blind testing is it has nothing to do with this thread which is titled "thoughts on a bunch of DACs" and not "a definitive study on listener preference as it relates to music and DACs" or whatever.
> 
> Now... back to DACs. Please?







currawong said:


> Guys, please take the DBT discussion to Sound Science, rather than polluting this thread with it.




I Have to agree.

This is an 
Subjective impressions thread,
So subjective impressions rule ..

Many dac impression posts here are quality comparisons And the experience of users is invaluable to us.


In my opinion DBT (especially in this thread) is utter polution And the reasons posted to disregard it was enlightening so now that the moderator has spoken we can put this behind us..


----------



## Ableza

My current favorite DACs are the ones in my two main systems: Wavelength Crimson (head fi rig) and Kora Hermes II (dedicated 2-channel rig.)  The Kora is an old girl and only 16/44 compatible, but I'll eat my hat if anything else sounds as smooth, full and wonderful.  Plus it looks great.


----------



## ciphercomplete

tuco1965 said:


> That's the problem that bothers me.  My ears know what I like, just as your ears know what you like.  We all have preferences.




Well of course but there is nothing wrong with seeking out people who seem to have preferences very close to yours. Lucky for me I have heard quite a few of the DACS Purrin reviewed and I had close to the same conclusions. Also his stated sound preferences mirror mine. But yeah if you read Purrin's or anyone's, for that matter, posts and you have different preferences than him then his list would be totally useless to you. Personally Purrin has saved me alot of money though lol.


----------



## Tuco1965

I'm all for hearing from those with similar preferences and even those with different ones.  I wouldn't be reading this thread if I didn't.


----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> Thanks, I'll give it a shot.  I'm assuming one pair into each pin and one pair to connector ground?  Or do I leave off the last pair?  And should I do the same for balanced interconnects between DAC and Amp?
> 
> And that second paragraph made me LOL.  Thanks for such an illustrative example.


 
  
 Short length of one foot or less. Just the hot and cold. I don't bother with ground. A real AES3 cable has a shield - probably needs to traverse 10-30ft. You are inside a home, so should be fine.
  
 I like Mogami for interconnects or internal wiring. I like CAT 5 (TPs paralleled up) for speaker cables.


----------



## Armaegis

purrin said:


> I like CAT 5 (TPs paralleled up) for speaker cables.


 
  
 Do you double them up? How many cables per speaker?
  
  
 A few years ago there was a brief trend in desktop gear that used regular RJ45 connections between amps and speakers (mostly Taiwanese I think). I kinda miss that as it was quite convenient and far slimmer than binding posts or speakon jacks.


----------



## purrin

Just one - for tweeters. I biamp. Lampcord, leftover cable, whatever I can find, or something cheap for woofers.


----------



## murrays

armaegis said:


> Do you double them up? How many cables per speaker?
> 
> 
> A few years ago there was a brief trend in desktop gear that used regular RJ45 connections between amps and speakers (mostly Taiwanese I think). I kinda miss that as it was quite convenient and far slimmer than binding posts or speakon jacks.


 
  
 Here's some examples to try: <http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diycables.html>


----------



## lukeap69

So Yggy will be available less than a week from now... So says Mike on the other thread.


----------



## smitty1110

lukeap69 said:


> So Yggy will be available less than a week from now... So says Mike on the other thread.


 

 Do you have a link to the post?


----------



## lukeap69

Post#152
http://www.head-fi.org/t/752914/yggdrasil-a-p-review-two-days-of-paradise/150#post_11515598


----------



## wahsmoh

stillhart said:


> Actually, you're right.  I just double checked and I misspoke, it was the OPA627.  I was typing from memory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Hehe it's going to be interesting with 3 new Theta owners conversing over the differences between DACs. All I can say is don't get too excited!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 I keep my comments limited for now out of fear of overhyping an amazing product. hehe


----------



## conquerator2

#ThetaHype4Real


----------



## estreeter

lukeap69 said:


> So Yggy will be available less than a week from now... So says Mike on the other thread.


 
  
 If that is accurate and not simply Mike messing with people's heads, can you tell me which of us nominated *April 20* as the release date ? Was it:
  
 Alfred E Neumann
 Justin Bieber
 estreeter alias _The All-Seeing and Most Benevolent of All Seers in the Land of Smiles and Beautiful Women_ 
  
 ??
  
 It's true, folks - I rock. Hard. And often.


----------



## Stillhart

murrays said:


> Here's some examples to try: <http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diycables.html>


 
 Thanks, that's a great resource!


----------



## StefanJK

estreeter said:


> If that is accurate and not simply Mike messing with people's heads, can you tell me which of us nominated *April 20* as the release date ? Was it:
> 
> Alfred E Neumann
> Justin Bieber
> ...


 
 I'll praise you once you correctly predict the ship date(s) for people who order on the first day orders open.
  
 I care when I get Yggy, not when I order.
  
 I myself have no idea.


----------



## Stillhart

stefanjk said:


> I'll praise you once you correctly predict the ship date(s) for people who order on the first day orders open.
> 
> I care when I get Yggy, not when I order.
> 
> I myself have no idea.


 
  
 I wondering which will ship first:  the next next LH Labs product, the Yggy or the Cavalli Liquid Carbon.


----------



## maeveth

I'd guess the Liquid Carbon since they actually put it up for order.  
  
 The wait for the Yggdrasil is killing me...


----------



## Stillhart

maeveth said:


> I'd guess the Liquid Carbon since they actually put it up for order.
> 
> The wait for the Yggdrasil is killing me...


 
  
 The estimate on the LC is 4 months from now.


----------



## wahsmoh

stillhart said:


> I wondering which will ship first:  the next next LH Labs product, the Yggy or the Cavalli Liquid Carbon.


 

 lol no comment on the LH labs products


----------



## estreeter

stefanjk said:


> I'll praise you once you correctly predict the ship date(s) for people who order on the first day orders open.
> 
> I care when I get Yggy, not when I order.
> 
> I myself have no idea.


 
  
 4-6 weeks after you order, same as Rag - what's the problem here ? If they can build something this complex on a production line, I'm guessing humans can learn to assemble more than one Yggy a day.


----------



## jacal01

Don't forget the EC Red Top, er... Black Widow.


----------



## StefanJK

estreeter said:


> 4-6 weeks after you order, same as Rag - what's the problem here ? If they can build something this complex on a production line, I'm guessing humans can learn to assemble more than one Yggy a day.


 
 I got a Rag less than two weeks after ordering, so things can go fast.  On the other hand, the second batch of Rags still seems not to have gone out the door.  Not a complaint, just the observation that there is a good amount of uncertainty here.


----------



## hodgjy

stefanjk said:


> I got a Rag less than two weeks after ordering, so things can go fast.  On the other hand, the second batch of Rags still seems not to have gone out the door.  Not a complaint, just the observation that there is a good amount of uncertainty here.


 
 It seems like parts suppliers are having issues meeting demands. I read that Wyred 4 Sound is experiencing delays while waiting for parts suppliers. It's possible Schiit was (is) too.


----------



## Chris J

dsnord said:


> My Gungnir draws 20W power per hour it's on. That's 480W per day if left on 24/7. At 10 cents per Kilowatt from Met Ed here in Reading, PA, leaving my G on costs me 5 CENTS A DAY or $1.50 per month.
> 
> To balance this cost and the ecological catastrophe I create daily with my Gungnir, I park ONE spot farther away at work!!!!!!!
> 
> I'll gladly pay 5 CENTS a day to possibily have 1 iota of better sonic goodness each time I go to listen. But more importantly, never turning it off saves me the caloric energy expenditure required to reach BEHIND my Gungnir to switch it on!!!!




It's actually 480 Watt * hours per day.
Watt*hours and kW Hrs are actually units of energy.
The elctric companies actually bill you for enrgy used, not power.

Other than that, I have nothing intelligent to add to this thread!


----------



## Stillhart

Well poo.  My Theta DS Pro Basic II (balanced) came just now.  Plugged into the coax from the U12 that was working fine wiht the Adcoma and it won't give me a signal lock light.  When I try the same music from the coax out of my X5, it works fine.  Anyone have any suggestions on getting it working with the U12?  I made sure to use 16/44 to test and I know the cable and the U12 coax work otherwise.  I also tried both coax ports on the Theta.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> Well poo.  My Theta DS Pro Basic II (balanced) came just now.  Plugged into the coax from the U12 that was working fine wiht the Adcoma and it won't give me a signal lock light.  When I try the same music from the coax out of my X5, it works fine.  Anyone have any suggestions on getting it working with the U12?  I made sure to use 16/44 to test and I know the cable and the U12 coax work otherwise.  I also tried both coax ports on the Theta.


 
 Dan,
 Why not shoot Purrin & Conquerator2 a PM,they might have a solution??
 Don't know what else to suggest..????
 Wish I had an answer for you....


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> Dan,
> Why not shoot Purrin & Conquerator2 a PM,they might have a solution??
> Don't know what to suggest..????


 
  
 Conquerator is asleep.  I'm going to hit him up in a few hours when they're awake across the pond.  I assume @purrin is keeping tabs on this thread so hopefully he'll chime in if he has any ideas.
  
 It's a bit frustrating because the coax out works fine to both my NFB-28 and my Adcom.  And the same files playing off my X5 using coax with the same cable work fine.
  
 The most frustrating thing?  The Theta sounds GOOD.  The treble is the most obvious difference:  it sounds more natural AND more detailed!  The bass is a bit fuller.  I don't know, I need to give it more time to really get a good idea of where all the differences are.  But subjectively, I prefer it even if only for the more natural treble.
  
 Oh and it definitely doesn't have the congestion of the GDA-600.  It's a really nice open sound.


----------



## mikek200

OK,well at least your getting sound...LOL
  
 You did read Conquerators2 post ,his review & comparison ,from a few days ago,didn't you?----that's what made me re-open my search for the Theta
 Hang in there,the issue is probably a simple one
  
 Yesterday,you were ready to MOD the 600,now it sounds like ,it's going in the closet..????


----------



## estreeter

purrin just started a new job - I imagine he's coming to grips with the assembly process for Cavalli's Liquid Carbon right now and may not have time to visit this thread. Still, how hard can it be to _slot a PCB into a case, hook up the power supply and test the thing _? 500 times


----------



## Lohb

Every time I searched for the Theta DAC on ebay AbbassAudio (ID kievfilharmony2006) came up in the search results....after PM'ing him about his new units/old chips he is going to expand and sell ready-made....
  
 Quote
  
"PCM58,PCM63 and TDA1541 and TDA1543 low cost DACs coming soon!
 There will be kind of "plug and play" DACs "​  
  
 Edit:- though low-cost may be relative to high-end DAC pricing.... have PM'd again to try and get a ballpark figure for these NOS new units.


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> OK,well at least your getting sound...LOL
> 
> You did read Conquerators2 post ,his review & comparison ,from a few days ago,didn't you?----that's what made me re-open my search for the Theta
> Hang in there,the issue is probably a simple one
> ...


 
  
 Nah, I still want to mod it just for fun if nothing else.  But I think it has a lot of potential.  It's already arguably on par with the Sabre.  If the mod can make it sound better, even if it's not as good as the Theta, it's still worth checking out.  Then I can sell it to some lucky friend as a good into to R2R.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Chatted with Conqueartor a bit and he doesn't have that problem with his U12, but he couldn't get it working with his DI-2014 (same idea, different company).  Also he's got AES on his so he didn't try coax.  He's gonna test coax later.


----------



## Stillhart

estreeter said:


> purrin just started a new job - I imagine he's coming to grips with the assembly process for Cavalli's Liquid Carbon right now and may not have time to visit this thread. Still, how hard can it be to _slot a PCB into a case, hook up the power supply and test the thing _? 500 times


 
  
 Purrin is going to be assembling my Liquid Carbon??  I wonder if it's too late to cancel...


----------



## guitarrules

Would the Hugo chord compare well to the gungnir just as a dac? I am thinking that it could fit my speaker system as a dac as well as a portable system.


----------



## estreeter

Relax - they have a rigorous QC regime in place. ISO9001, eat your miserable heart out.


----------



## lukeap69

Purrin is with EC right?


----------



## estreeter

lukeap69 said:


> Purrin is with EC right?


 
  
 Doh - my mistake - I've got Cavalli on the brain courtesy of the $599 OMG Liquid Carbon. Apologies to all concerned, especially the terrified young lady in my last photo : I expect that she'll be good as new when the bandages come off.


----------



## lukeap69

estreeter said:


> Doh - my mistake - I've got Cavalli on the brain courtesy of the $599 OMG Liquid Carbon. Apologies to all concerned, especially the terrified young lady in my last photo : I expect that she'll be good as new when the bandages come off.


 
 Did you order the Carbon?


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> Nah, I still want to mod it just for fun if nothing else.  But I think it has a lot of potential.  It's already arguably on par with the Sabre.  If the mod can make it sound better, even if it's not as good as the Theta, it's still worth checking out.  Then I can sell it to some lucky friend as a good into to R2R.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 And remember what you paid for it,I mean LOL,-it was a gift..you were very lucky
 Many guys are modding the 600,with very positive results.
  
 I was expecting my 700,but due to a screw up from the seller,and mis-communication with Fedex,I'm now getting it next Wednesday.....I think?


----------



## Insidious Meme

estreeter said:


> Doh - my mistake - I've got Cavalli on the brain courtesy of the $599 OMG Liquid Carbon. Apologies to all concerned, especially the terrified young lady in my last photo : I expect that she'll be good as new when the bandages come off.




Guessing he's working on the rival amp.


----------



## wahsmoh

Dear God... I just listened to the Bifrost Uber after sitting with the Theta for some time now...
  
 the differences were more staggering than I could imagine.
  
 I mean the Bifrost Uber is a balanced sound but it never breaks through the soundstage wall or pumps out serious bass rhythms or images as naturally as the Theta.
  
 It always carries a slight tinge of digital glare to the entire spectrum of sound.
  
 Bass of the Bifrost Uber is always tight, but it never gets anywhere near the bass presence factor that the Theta has.
  
 I will do a more detailed comparison soon with more artists and genres. I was hoping for a better fight from my Bifrost Uber but nope.. it isn't even close.
  

  
 I got this CD from this local band from San Diego. This was the deal breaker, I am going to sell the Bifrost Uber when I get a stand for my Asgard 2 to raise it above the Theta


----------



## Stillhart

wahsmoh said:


> Dear God... I just listened to the Bifrost Uber after sitting with the Theta for some time now...
> 
> the differences were more staggering than I could imagine.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Did you have any issues getting your Theta to work with the Gustard via Coax?


----------



## wahsmoh

stillhart said:


> Did you have any issues getting your Theta to work with the Gustard via Coax?


 

 Still waiting on my Gustard to ship here :/


----------



## Stillhart

wahsmoh said:


> Still waiting on my Gustard to ship here :/


 
  
 What are you using for a transport right now?


----------



## wahsmoh

stillhart said:


> What are you using for a transport right now?


 
  
 S/PDIF pass-through from my HT Omega Claro + soundcard. I am using a cheap toslink cable to hook it up to my Theta. No degradation of sound I am sending a pure PCM stream at 16-bit and 44/48khz to the Theta. Toslink cables shouldn't matter anyways it's just light traveling along some plastic fibers.
  
 I can still play everything from 16-bit/24-bit and 96-192khz without any noticeable degradation of sound quality. Is the decoding done at the sound card and the Theta can simply receive the PCM??


----------



## estreeter

lukeap69 said:


> Did you order the Carbon?


 
  
 With a 4-month waiting list and ~2200 USD in my Paypal account ? *April 20*, people, April 20 - it's a shame because this is one weekend where spending my days indoors would have made infinitely more sense than going out into this madness. The idiot brigade should be rolling down the highway from Bangkok by now - happy days ...


----------



## Stillhart

wahsmoh said:


> S/PDIF pass-through from my HT Omega Claro + soundcard. I am using a cheap toslink cable to hook it up to my Theta. No degradation of sound I am sending a pure PCM stream at 16-bit and 44/48khz to the Theta. Toslink cables shouldn't matter anyways it's just light traveling along some plastic fibers.
> 
> I can still play everything from 16-bit/24-bit and 96-192khz without any noticeable degradation of sound quality. Is the decoding done at the sound card and the Theta can simply receive the PCM??


 
  
 You computer is probably downscaling it to 16/44 because of your OS settings.  There's a school of though that there's no effective gains past 16bit audio because we don't even use the full 16bits that we have already.  This could be why you're not hearing a difference.  
  
 (I picked my words carefully there because it's not my intention to debate the 16 vs 24 thing in here.  There's a sound science thread for that.)


----------



## wahsmoh

stillhart said:


> You computer is probably downscaling it to 16/44 because of your OS settings.  There's a school of though that there's no effective gains past 16bit audio because we don't even use the full 16bits that we have already.  This could be why you're not hearing a difference.
> 
> (I picked my words carefully there because it's not my intention to debate the 16 vs 24 thing in here.  There's a sound science thread for that.)


 
 Oh a correction. I am using a HT Omega Claro Halo sound card. 
  
 Looks pretty quality though.


----------



## lukeap69

estreeter said:


> With a 4-month waiting list and ~2200 USD in my Paypal account ? *April 20*, people, April 20 - it's a shame because this is one weekend where spending my days indoors would have made infinitely more sense than going out into this madness. The idiot brigade should be rolling down the highway from Bangkok by now - happy days ...


 
 LOL. So the Yggy gets the 2200USD from your paypal account then...


----------



## wahsmoh

estreeter said:


> With a 4-month waiting list and ~2200 USD in my Paypal account ? *April 20*, people, April 20 - it's a shame because this is one weekend where spending my days indoors would have made infinitely more sense than going out into this madness. The idiot brigade should be rolling down the highway from Bangkok by now - happy days ...


 
  
 Haha omg you have a really colorful community


----------



## haywood

lukeap69 said:


> Purrin is with EC right?


 

 Is he really? I thought that was a joke title because of his custom EC amp.
  
@Stillhart
  
 Have you tried altering the power-on sequence of the different components? Like maybe the theta wants to be powered on last, or first, or second or whatever. It's also not unheard of for cables that work for one peripheral to not work with another, might be worth trying another coax cable or switch over to optical instead.


----------



## estreeter

Colorful describes the language you'll want to use when they pour icewater down the back of your shirt.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

estreeter said:


> Colorful describes the language you'll want to use when they pour icewater down the back of your shirt.




Do you feel clever?


----------



## wink

Not by half.


----------



## wahsmoh

estreeter said:


> Colorful describes the language you'll want to use when they pour icewater down the back of your shirt.


 
 hahaha that may be so


----------



## Stillhart

haywood said:


> Is he really? I thought that was a joke title because of his custom EC amp.
> 
> @Stillhart
> 
> ...



I have not tried that. With everything on, I was swapping cables between two source/transports and three dacs; every combination worked except the U12 and Theta. I even tried two different sources for the U12...


----------



## Stillhart

Well, I decided to return my U12 to Amazon and buy another.  I can only assume the unit is faulty at this point.  @conquerator2 had a faulty U12 for his first unit, but his replacement one works fine with his Theta (which is the exact same model as mine).  Given that, and everything else about the situation, I think it's worth trying another unit to see.
  
 I'll know on Tuesday if it works or not.  If not, I'll have to look into an alternative to the U12.  :-/


----------



## auvgeek

stillhart said:


> I'll know on Tuesday if it works or not.  If not, I'll have to look into an alternative to the U12.  :-/


 
 In either this thread or another, the Melodious MX-U8 is supposed to be slightly better than the U12, but I haven't heard either. People over in the Gustard thread report the X12 sounds the best with the U12 when connected via I2S and quality HDMI cables—so a drawback of the MX-U8 is the lack of I2S, but that wouldn't affect your Theta. Just a thought in case the U12 doesn't work out for you.


----------



## Stillhart

auvgeek said:


> In either this thread or another, the Melodious MX-U8 is supposed to be slightly better than the U12, but I haven't heard either. People over in the Gustard thread report the X12 sounds the best with the U12 when connected via I2S and quality HDMI cables—so a drawback of the MX-U8 is the lack of I2S, but that wouldn't affect your Theta. Just a thought in case the U12 doesn't work out for you.


 
  
 Thanks.  There's been some talk lately in the U12 thread about alternatives.  That one is on my radar, but I'd probably go with the Audio-GD as my next choice if the U12 doesn't work.  I love Kingwa's stuff and I know he'll be there to support me if I have problems.  Kinda wish I'd gone that way from the start now, but here's hoping the replacement U12 just works.


----------



## auvgeek

stillhart said:


> Thanks.  There's been some talk lately in the U12 thread about alternatives.  That one is on my radar, but I'd probably go with the Audio-GD as my next choice if the U12 doesn't work.  I love Kingwa's stuff and I know he'll be there to support me if I have problems.  Kinda wish I'd gone that way from the start now, but here's hoping the replacement U12 just works.


 

 I should have known you'd be more informed on the options than I am, haha.


----------



## Stillhart

auvgeek said:


> I should have known you'd be more informed on the options than I am, haha.



Hey I'm okay with all the help I can get! Thanks!


----------



## estreeter

From Mike's update in the main Yggy thread:
  
_Alex has set up the production line and we are now in the process of final assembly. As a time study, we now have the first three complete production Yggys in burn. As well as many board sets to make many more by *Monday evening*._
  
_*I will turn on the order button as soon as we have 60 units in burn.*_
  
 Correct me if I'm wrong, people, but Monday is *April 20*. Even if Mike doesnt turn on that order button until Tuesday or Wednesday, I'm prepared to do a lap of honor here in Thailand. No thanks are necessary - your tears are thanks enough. As always, I rock on days ending in 'y'.


----------



## lukeap69

Estreeter - I don't know how you have foreseen the future but it seems you are right on the money. You better think of turning this into a career...


----------



## estreeter

lukeap69 said:


> Estreeter - I don't know how you have foreseen the future but it seems you are right on the money. You better think of turning this into a career...


 
  
 Sadly, predicting next week's Powerball numbers seems to be beyond my psychic abilities, and that would have come in a lot more handy. Still, its not over until that order page appears, and I'm guessing the Schiit site could be in danger of the same fate that befell Cavalli Audio when they launched the Liquid Carbon at $200 off the projected sticker. This will be particularly interesting as Mike has been forced to dial back his initial estimate of 250 units courtesy of his parts suppliers, and the vision of 60 Yggys sitting on the burn-in bench waiting for new owners will be rolling around in the minds of those who've waited months for this day. 
  
 Patience and restraint may be the order of the day early next week.


----------



## Xymordos

If you're getting it off Taobao, there's also one with 3 Crystek clocks that is more expensive. Not sure how it is.
 http://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a230r.1.14.122.HgzNw6&id=40193288881&ns=1&abbucket=6#detail


----------



## Sonic Defender

estreeter said:


> Sadly, predicting next week's Powerball numbers seems to be beyond my psychic abilities, and that would have come in a lot more handy. Still, its not over until that order page appears, and I'm guessing the Schiit site could be in danger of the same fate that befell Cavalli Audio when they launched the Liquid Carbon at $200 off the projected sticker. This will be particularly interesting as Mike has been forced to dial back his initial estimate of 250 units courtesy of his parts suppliers, and the vision of 60 Yggys sitting on the burn-in bench waiting for new owners will be rolling around in the minds of those who've waited months for this day.
> 
> Patience and restraint may be the order of the day early next week.


 

 I hope to eventually get a Yggy (I'll wait a year) as I picked up the M51, which while I suspect isn't in the same league as Yggy, it will hold me over for a time while I save up my pennies.


----------



## estreeter

I seem to recall that the M51 is the exact opposite of NOS DACs like the Yggy - from memory, it upsamples everything to 384kHz, regardless of the original bitrate. At the time, it was very highly regarded here - I did hear one briefly in a NAD showroom in Bangkok but the ambient noise made any attempt to get a feel for the all-NAD / PSB rig a complete waste of time.


----------



## Sonic Defender

estreeter said:


> I seem to recall that the M51 is the exact opposite of NOS DACs like the Yggy - from memory, it upsamples everything to 384kHz, regardless of the original bitrate. At the time, it was very highly regarded here - I did hear one briefly in a NAD showroom in Bangkok but the ambient noise made any attempt to get a feel for the all-NAD / PSB rig a complete waste of time.


 

 I does sound very nice indeed. I thought there was some upsampling with the Yggy? I must have misunderstood. Really looking forward to more impressions of the Yggy. Time will tell if it becomes my 5 year long DAC (I can't imagine no matter how good something was me keeping it for longer, I always want to hear something different).


----------



## preproman

estreeter said:


> I seem to recall that the M51 is the exact opposite of NOS DACs like the Yggy - from memory, it upsamples everything to 384kHz, regardless of the original bitrate. At the time, it was very highly regarded here - I did hear one briefly in a NAD showroom in Bangkok but the ambient noise made any attempt to get a feel for the all-NAD / PSB rig a complete waste of time.


 

 The Yggdrasil is not a NOS DAC, it upsamples as well.  IIRC that is..


----------



## hodgjy

preproman said:


> The Yggdrasil is not a NOS DAC, it upsamples as well.  IIRC that is..


 
 Can someone explain to me the DSP filter the Yggy is using?


----------



## Argo Duck

There are posts in this thread iirc from Mike and Jason - try search this thread for ''closed form"


----------



## estreeter

preproman said:


> The Yggdrasil is not a NOS DAC, it upsamples as well.  IIRC that is..


 
  
 Does it alter the sample rate of the source material on the fly ? My understanding is that this is the last thing Mike wanted to do. 
  
_The NAD resamples everything you throw in its direction and converts it to a pulse-width-modulation (PWM) signal, the native format for DSD, at a sampling rate of 844kHz, all controlled by a clock running at 108MHz. *It doesn't care if you want this done or not—it just does it*_
  
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/nad-m51-direct-digital-da-converter
  
 There are extensive blurbs on the difference between oversampling and upsampling but you've got me re the Yggy - I'm not a technician.


----------



## preproman

estreeter said:


> *Does it alter the sample rate of the source material on the fly ? My understanding is that this is the last thing Mike wanted to do. *


 
  
 And??
  
 I'm sure you've read this:
  
 http://www.metrum-acoustics.com/Design%20Philosophy%20Metrum%20Acoustics.pdf


----------



## estreeter

OK - I know why i had zero sleep last night, but clearly I'm not the only one who needs to chill out. I'll rejoin this discussion when I've had some shuteye.


----------



## preproman




----------



## purrin

stillhart said:


> Well, I decided to return my U12 to Amazon and buy another.  I can only assume the unit is faulty at this point.  @conquerator2 had a faulty U12 for his first unit, but his replacement one works fine with his Theta (which is the exact same model as mine).  Given that, and everything else about the situation, I think it's worth trying another unit to see.
> 
> I'll know on Tuesday if it works or not.  If not, I'll have to look into an alternative to the U12.  :-/


 
  
 Some of the SPDIF receivers on older DACs seem to be very sensitive to source. The SFD DAC I have barfs on one of my transports, does OK on another, and requires warm-up for the third. The other possibility is that the U12 could be jittery. You could try leaving stuff on for a day or two - if you haven't tried that yet.


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> Some of the SPDIF receivers on older DACs seem to be very sensitive to source. The SFD DAC I have barfs on one of my transports, does OK on another, and requires warm-up for the third. The other possibility is that the U12 could be jittery. You could try leaving stuff on for a day or two - if you haven't tried that yet.


 
  
 In theory, the U12 has two TXCO (TCXO?) clocks for reducing jitter.  But who knows... I just tried my X5 coax with the Adcom and it doesn't seem to like it, but the X5 works fine on the Theta.  *shrug*  These things seem to be decently temperamental.
  
 On the plus side, when the Theta works, it sounds really really good.  Similar to my experience with the Yggy, it doesn't have immediate wow factor, but over time you really pick up on the nuances and going back to other DAC's feels like a step down.
  
 I also note that the balanced out from the Theta is LOUD.  I have very little play on my amp when using the balanced outputs and I'm considering just going back to RCA for that reason.


----------



## haywood

stillhart said:


> In theory, the U12 has two TXCO (TCXO?) clocks for reducing jitter.  But who knows... I just tried my X5 coax with the Adcom and it doesn't seem to like it, but the X5 works fine on the Theta.  *shrug*  These things seem to be decently temperamental.
> 
> On the plus side, when the Theta works, it sounds really really good.  Similar to my experience with the Yggy, it doesn't have immediate wow factor, but over time you really pick up on the nuances and going back to other DAC's feels like a step down.
> 
> I also note that the balanced out from the Theta is LOUD.  I have very little play on my amp when using the balanced outputs and I'm considering just going back to RCA for that reason.


 

 Not specifically relevant because I don't know that the Theta uses it, but here's a thread on the DIYAudio forum talking about someone having lock issues and replacing an old UA AES-21.
  
 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/250700-ultra-analog-aes-21-upgrade-replacement-project.html
  
 Hopefully the new U12 replacement you get sorts things out, but if not maybe there's a relatively easy "fix" on the Theta side. And it's a reminder that vintage gear can often be great but it can sometimes be a pain too.


----------



## murrays

haywood said:


> Not specifically relevant because I don't know that the Theta uses it, but here's a thread on the DIYAudio forum talking about someone having lock issues and replacing an old UA AES-21.
> 
> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/250700-ultra-analog-aes-21-upgrade-replacement-project.html
> 
> Hopefully the new U12 replacement you get sorts things out, but if not maybe there's a relatively easy "fix" on the Theta side. And it's a reminder that vintage gear can often be great but it can sometimes be a pain too.


 

 You will see in that DiyAudio thread that I fitted one of those replacement AES-21 modules in my Adcom GDA-700.  It works well, but they're not cheap!


----------



## Stillhart

murrays said:


> You will see in that DiyAudio thread that I fitted one of those replacement AES-21 modules in my Adcom GDA-700.  It works well, but they're not cheap!


 
 Yeah, more than I paid for my GDA-600 (including shipping) just for the chip.  Yikes!  Fortunately, the Adcom is working well for me right now.  (knock on wood)


----------



## prot

Is this one of the good Thetas?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/111647713498


----------



## Stillhart

prot said:


> Is this one of the good Thetas?
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/111647713498


 
  
 Wow, that was like $50 for the last 3 days and just went up to $300 tonight...


----------



## kapanak

stillhart said:


> Wow, that was like $50 for the last 3 days and just went up to $300 tonight...


 
  
 Some men just want to watch the world burn.


----------



## Stillhart

kapanak said:


> Some men just want to watch the world burn.


 
  
 Also some men don't know how to snipe on eBay.  Others have sock puppet accounts...


----------



## kapanak

stillhart said:


> Also some men don't know how to snipe on eBay.  Others have sock puppet accounts...


 

 In the past, when an item I wanted crossed my self-set spending limit, I would bid on it to make it more expensive for the person who outbid me. It only failed once lol ...


----------



## estreeter

Now that the link has been posted here, we can expect the bidding to heat up further.


----------



## snip3r77

What if link provider is seller lol


----------



## prot

stillhart said:


> Wow, that was like $50 for the last 3 days and just went up to $300 tonight...




Actually it went to 300 immediately after I posted the link ... but no worries, got enough popcorn 
And I still want an answer to my Q ... is that one of the top theta models or just an average?


----------



## haywood

prot said:


> Actually it went to 300 immediately after I posted the link ... but no worries, got enough popcorn


 
  
 Add in a U12 and shipping and you're like 1/4 of the way to Yggy.


----------



## SanJulesSur

Just want to say a belated thanks to Purrin for taking the time to share his Yggy and Theta at CanJam.  Could really hear the bloodline in them. Had a couple of questions I wanted to ask but you were busy with speaking with someone else and I left discreetly.  Anywho, got my own Theta couple of weeks back. Probably the best upgrade I've ever made out for my personal system. Thanks for the insight Marv!


----------



## wahsmoh

snip3r77 said:


> What if link provider is seller lol


 
 hahaha that would be smart idea. The bidding war is going to get pretty heated if this item is at $300 ish and has 3 days left still. What kind of moron decided to bid super early is beyond me?? no one has any bidding senses in this bid
  
 Below is how you bid on an item 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 SNIPED


----------



## prot

wahsmoh said:


> hahaha that would be smart idea. The bidding war is going to get pretty heated if this item is at $300 ish and has 3 days left still. What kind of moron decided to bid super early is beyond me?? no one has any bidding senses in this bid
> 
> Below is how you bid on an item
> 
> ...




Guess that would be an obvious idea for anyone who knows this thread and has such an ancient 'wonder' in the attic. I dont. 

As for ebay, bidding for an item is like slapping yourself. Just configure a notification search and use a last-second sniper.


----------



## theblueprint

sanjulessur said:


> Just want to say a belated thanks to Purrin for taking the time to share his Yggy and Theta at CanJam.  Could really hear the bloodline in them. Had a couple of questions I wanted to ask but you were busy with speaking with someone else and I left discreetly.  Anywho, got my own Theta couple of weeks back. Probably the best upgrade I've ever made out for my personal system. Thanks for the insight Marv!




Congrats on the acquisition bro! Which theta did you win and how would you compare it to Marv's. I'm especially curious to hear how it does against Yggdrasil.

I see many thetas are being sold for $400ish, offering the best performance to price ratio for a DAC.


----------



## Sonic Defender

prot said:


> Guess that would be an obvious idea for anyone who knows this thread and has such an ancient 'wonder' in the attic. I dont.
> 
> As for ebay, bidding for an item is like slapping yourself. Just configure a notification search and use a last-second sniper.


 

 Absolutely, never bid, just snipe. I manually snipe and I have only once been beaten on e-bay. When you bid, you simply drive the price up, and many of these sellers make extra money on shipping and handling costs so why nail yourself on asking price.


----------



## auvgeek

> And I still want an answer to my Q ... is that one of the top theta models or just an average?


 
 If you really wanted an answer to that, you could have done some research. There have been links posted in this thread to the Theta Digital site: http://www.thetadigital.com/legacy_products.shtml. From that link, it appears the Prime II is one of the top models. But if you were really just wondering if the model was a good one, you could have simply asked if the "Prime II" was one of the top Theta models...
  
 And yes, I was looking to snipe it. When I checked the price this morning and saw it had jumped from $50 to $300, I figured someone in this thread had mention it or posted a link. Appreciate your thoughtfulness in looking out for all us interested in vintage Theta.


----------



## Stillhart

My understanding of the theta models: Generation > Basic > Prime > Progeny. The roman numerals make it a bit tougher but using the link provided above should help a bit.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> My understanding of the theta models: Generation > Basic > Prime > Progeny. The roman numerals make it a bit tougher but using the link provided above should help a bit.


 
 I have a BasicIII model coming in ,next week
  
 One bit of info Conquerator2 pointed out to me,was that the basicIII uses a different chip..PCM1702.,a slight downgrade..??
 Some of the other models uses the PCM63P-K,which is supposed to one of the finest chips made...not sure if the PCM,translates into lower quality sound,I'd doubt it???
  
 Maybe Lucas can chime in here.??


----------



## Stillhart

mikek200 said:


> I have a BasicIII model coming in ,next week
> 
> One bit of info Conquerator2 pointed out to me,was that the basicIII uses a different chip..PCM1702.,a slight downgrade..??
> Some of the other models uses the PCM63P-K,which is supposed to one of the finest chips made...not sure if the PCM,translates into lower quality sound,I'd doubt it???
> ...



Opinions vary. The 1702 is still R2R so it should still be a level above the modern D-S chips. As others have pointed out, the filter chip makes a big difference too: it's still a Theta.

I'm eager to hear what you think.


----------



## preproman

stillhart said:


> Opinions vary. *The 1702 is still R2R so it should still be a level above the modern D-S chips.* As others have pointed out, the filter chip makes a big difference too: it's still a Theta.
> 
> I'm eager to hear what you think.


 
  
 Tell that to the Bricasti M1...


----------



## purrin

sanjulessur said:


> Just want to say a belated thanks to Purrin for taking the time to share his Yggy and Theta at CanJam.  Could really hear the bloodline in them. Had a couple of questions I wanted to ask but you were busy with speaking with someone else and I left discreetly.  Anywho, got my own Theta couple of weeks back. Probably the best upgrade I've ever made out for my personal system. Thanks for the insight Marv!


 
  
 Welcome and gratz. Cute avatar.


----------



## mikek200

stillhart said:


> Opinions vary. The 1702 is still R2R so it should still be a level above the modern D-S chips. As others have pointed out, the filter chip makes a big difference too: it's still a Theta.
> 
> I'm eager to hear what you think.


 
 Believe me Dan,you'll be the first to know,and I'll probably have a few hundred tech questions for you-LOL


----------



## wink

Quoterepoman 





> Tell that to the Bricasti M1...


 
 The Bricasti just will not listen.........


----------



## purrin

mikek200 said:


> I have a BasicIII model coming in ,next week
> 
> One bit of info Conquerator2 pointed out to me,was that the basicIII uses a different chip..PCM1702.,a slight downgrade..??
> Some of the other models uses the PCM63P-K,which is supposed to one of the finest chips made...not sure if the PCM,translates into lower quality sound,I'd doubt it???
> ...


 
  
 From my understanding, only the TOTL Gen III and Gen V used the PCM63. The lineup went from Gen, Basic, and later Prime / Progeny, Cobalt. (Sort of like Yggy, Gungnir, Bifrost, Modi). It's slightly complicated by II, III, V, etc as they improved things within the span of a few years.
  
_EDIT: What stillhart said above._
  
 PCM1702 is second best.  to the PCM63.


----------



## purrin

On the vintage Theta DACs:
  
 I've said this before. I do not recommend them unless you can get them for dirt cheap. All the outbidding on eBay is insane. These DACs are ancient and likely to die at any moment, especially the bigger hotter running ones. The ones with opamps might live a bit longer, but be prepared to swap in new caps.


----------



## wahsmoh

purrin said:


> On the vintage Theta DACs:
> 
> I've said this before. I do not recommend them unless you can get them for dirt cheap. All the outbidding on eBay is insane. These DACs are ancient and likely to die at any moment, especially the bigger hotter running ones. The ones with opamps might live a bit longer, but be prepared to swap in new caps.


 
 Totally agree Purrin. Audiogon and Canuck Audio Mart might be a better place for people to search because the hype is getting to be too much, that or there is just more general curiosity and nostalgia. 
  
 I got lucky, my Progeny looks like it's barely ever been used before and also got upgraded to version A. Although cosmetics don't always tell the whole picture, my Progeny doesn't have a single nick on the metal front part or any of the vinyl case work.
  
 A lot of these eBay ones look like they've been poorly maintained/nicked and I would be very careful.


----------



## Stillhart

Interestingly, my adcom 600 uses pcm63 and opamps, it was dirt cheap and I plan on upgrading the caps. I give myself two thumbs up.


----------



## bmichels

Now that I just bought from a friend his  collection of 2500 CD-ROMs of Classical Music 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 , mostly rare CDs, *I need a good CD-Player *
  
 What do you think about this* Aesthetix Romulus CD player / Tube DAC ? * It's got very good reviews...and a new "signature" version is now available


----------



## Stillhart

bmichels said:


> Now that I just bought from a friend his  collection of 2500 CD-ROMs of Classical Music
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Maybe this setup?


----------



## haywood

stillhart said:


> Maybe this setup?



I'd be _really_ leery of investing money in old cd mechanisms even if they were godly back in the day. **** wears out.


----------



## coli

preproman said:


> And??
> 
> I'm sure you've read this:
> 
> http://www.metrum-acoustics.com/Design%20Philosophy%20Metrum%20Acoustics.pdf


 
 I'm currently using a DSD DAC, and I got a Metrum Pavane coming, it will be most interesting to hear how different they sound.


----------



## skeptic

bmichels said:


> Now that I just bought from a friend his  collection of 2500 CD-ROMs of Classical Music
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Your money might be better spent on a NAS and an intern to rip all those to flac for you.  CD-ROM's don't hold up forever in my experience.


----------



## preproman

skeptic said:


> Your money might be better spent on a NAS and an intern to rip all those to flac for you.  CD-ROM's don't hold up forever in my experience.


 

 Why Flac?  Now a days WAV or AIFF should be even better. If there is a such thing..  Also if disk space is of abundance..


----------



## Stillhart

preproman said:


> Why Flac?  Now a days WAV or AIFF should be even better. If there is a such thing..  Also if disk space is of abundance..


 
 I thought lossless was... lossless.  Why use WAV when you can use FLAC and use less space?  Just to speed the rips?


----------



## Poimandres

You may be opening Pandora's box, there are those that believe wavs sound better than flacs.


----------



## skeptic

poimandres said:


> You may be opening Pandora's box, there are those that believe wavs sound better than flacs.


 
  
 Still for archiving, lossless is lossless, and there's no reason not to use some form of compression.


----------



## Articnoise

bmichels said:


> Now that I just bought from a friend his  collection of 2500 CD-ROMs of Classical Music
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  

 I have just bought a used Aesthetix Pandora DAC/PRE so I’m still in the honeymoon stage, but so far a very musical sounding DAC that do most thing good. Maybe a tad to forgiving for some people. The descriptions on the pros and cons I have read in versus forums and reviews on the Romulus/Pandora appears accurate, only want to add that it has Cojones. Truly fat and articular bass.


----------



## Stillhart

poimandres said:


> You may be opening Pandora's box, there are those that believe wavs sound better than flacs.


 
  
 Not my intention to get into a debate...this is just the first I've heard of it.


----------



## coli

poimandres said:


> You may be opening Pandora's box, there are those that believe wavs sound better than flacs.


 
 Windows audio is very flawed and system timing can be audible depending on setups. Foobar is particularly a bad example...
  
 On low to mid end setups you won't hear a thing though.


----------



## Poimandres

stillhart said:


> Not my intention to get into a debate...this is just the first I've heard of it.



I utilize flacs.


----------



## wahsmoh

-.- PCM lossless is PCM lossless... I don't care what you think it's pointless to debate on it. I will continue enjoying my Theta, it is the greatest thing since I can't afford an Yggy


----------



## Poimandres

X2 I wish I could afford an iggy.


----------



## ciphercomplete

stillhart said:


> I thought lossless was... lossless.




And you would be correct. Any modern day software is equally adept at decoding flac, aiff and wav. They are all at least 13 year old formats and this aint rocket science.


----------



## hodgjy

Not too long ago, people debated about the speed at which CDs were burned impacting sound quality. Slower burns were "deeper and more accurate" than fast burns, or at least some derivative of that nonsense. Audiophiles will debate every last tweak.


----------



## preproman

stillhart said:


> I thought lossless was... lossless.  Why use WAV when you can use FLAC and use less space?  Just to speed the rips?


 

 I did say if hard drive space was at an abundance.  You're correct lossless i.e. lossless.  However compressed is different than un compressed.  Is there a different in sound - I don't get into that, that's for the folks with the 6 million dollar man ears..  
  
 I just go with un compressed WVA or AIFF files using dBpoweramp .  FLAC is a compressed lossless file.


----------



## pldelisle

A lot of my CD are ripped in WAV. But as of now, my new ones are all in FLAC. Uses a lot less space and there is absolutely no quality loss. You can analyse a song's spectrum with Adobe Audition that is encoded in Losless FLAC and the same song in WAV and you will see absolutely no difference. 
  
 I store this in a Synology 5-bay NAS. Could not get a better NAS than this. Really easy to configure and for an IT guy like me, it can do a lot more than a simple NAS. Sure, it's pricey, but this is a damn good NAS ! I put in it a bunch of Western Digital SE enterprise grade HDDs (I run iSCSI VMs too on it, needed a fast RAID array) in RAID 5 and works like a charm with one HDD failure protection.


----------



## Jose R

preproman said:


> I just go with un compressed WVA or AIFF files using dBpoweramp .  FLAC is a compressed lossless file.


 
  
 I use dBpoweramp and rip to uncompressed FLAC.
  
 If I download hi-rez files, I try and buy WAV files. Then I convert to uncompressed FLAC.
  
 Preference being WAV files aren't tagged natively like FLAC files.


----------



## takato14

I rip to WAV and convert to FLAC in foobar, usually, if I compress it at all (I really don't have very many CDs)


----------



## SanJulesSur

theblueprint said:


> Congrats on the acquisition bro! Which theta did you win and how would you compare it to Marv's. I'm especially curious to hear how it does against Yggdrasil.
> 
> I see many thetas are being sold for $400ish, offering the best performance to price ratio for a DAC.


 

 I got the Progeny.  Purrin's is better, haha his whole system as a whole is amazing.  But in terms of what I've personally used it's definitely better than the PCM1793 that's in the Burson SL I'm now just using for the amp stage.  The bass on the Theta is amazing. To call it a bass boost would undersell it.  It's been said before on this thread but that depth and slam on the bass, which I also heard on the Yggy and Purrin's GenVa, simply massive.


----------



## bmichels

articnoise said:


> I have just bought a used Aesthetix Pandora DAC/PRE so I’m still in the honeymoon stage, but so far a very musical sounding DAC that do most thing good. Maybe a tad to forgiving for some people. The descriptions on the pros and cons I have read in versus forums and reviews on the Romulus/Pandora appears accurate, only want to add that it has Cojones. Truly fat and articular bass.


 
  
 thanks for your description.    
  
 -  "..may be a tad too forgiving...": Is this at the cost of less precision, less details extracted from the music ? 
  
 -  Do you have the new "*signature* " version ?


----------



## purrin

wahsmoh said:


> -.- PCM lossless is PCM lossless... I don't care what you think it's pointless to debate on it. I will continue enjoying my Theta, it is the greatest thing since I can't afford an Yggy


 
  
 Some folks feel that uncompressed lossless formats sound better than compressed lossless formats. (extra CPU processing doing something strange, etc.) Same reason why folks run JPLAY, Fidelizer, use spheshal USB cards, use USB decrapifiers, avoid Macbook OSX / USB because it has a nasty glare, run dedicated linux, etc. I run Windows on a fast dedicated machine with the OS hardened with a Wyrd. That's as OCD I am willing to go, but I totally understand if others are willing to be even more OCD.


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> Some folks feel that uncompressed lossless formats sound better than compressed lossless formats. (extra CPU processing doing something strange, etc.) Same reason why folks run JPLAY, Fidelizer, use spheshal USB cards, use USB decrapifiers, avoid Macbook OSX / USB because it has a nasty glare, run dedicated linux, etc. I run Windows on a fast dedicated machine with the OS hardened with a Wyrd. That's as OCD I am willing to go, but I totally understand if others are willing to be even more OCD.




OCD or not the only question is if they are adressing real playback issues or just chasing their own unicorns. Judging by my exp, the latter is much closer to the truth. And even if you bet on the former, all you get from those people are thin and totally unreliable i-heard-it-on-my-expensive-xyz 'explanations' and 'solutions'. Hardly anything to waste more than a minute on.


----------



## estreeter

prot said:


> OCD or not the only question is if they are adressing real playback issues or just chasing their own unicorns. Judging by my exp, the latter is much closer to the truth. And even if you bet on the former, all you get from those people are thin and totally unreliable i-heard-it-on-my-expensive-xyz 'explanations' and 'solutions'. Hardly anything to waste more than a minute on.


 
  
 You're an argumentative fellow, but in this instance I agree - those debates are cyclical and endless. People with money will spend it on the things that make them happy - whether that's a weekend at a ski resort or a weekend in Vegas : either way, the money is gone come Monday morning.


----------



## Articnoise

bmichels said:


> thanks for your description.
> 
> -  "..may be a tad too forgiving...": Is this at the cost of less precision, less details extracted from the music ?
> 
> -  Do you have the new "*signature* " version ?


 

  

 By forgiving I mean a smooth and kind of analog sound that is very enjoyable to listen to. Definitely more natural then neutral.

 I have only had it for 4 days yet and have not compared it back to back to any of the other top players in this price range. With that said I don’t think it has significant less precision, less details or speed than they have. Sure some really good DACs do some technicality aspect a little bit better and will present details more in your face kind of way than the Pandora. Pandora is IMO very capable on all technicality aspect but will probably not be considered a true master. What it do is connect me to the music and doing it with authority and finesse. More listening is definitely necessary to see if the forgiving and “analog” sound will hold also in the long run. 

 No I don’t have the signature.


----------



## magiccabbage

purrin said:


> . I run Windows on a fast dedicated machine with the OS hardened with a Wyrd.


 
 Is this a self built P.C  -  any pics or links ?


----------



## preproman

magiccabbage said:


> Is this a self built P.C  -  any pics or links ?


 
  
 Hi Paddy,
  
 I'm not purrin, but it looks like you're looking for some ideas on a dedicated music PC.  This is just another idea of how you can configure one.
  
 I use this my dedicated fan less PC:  http://atechfabrication.com/products/HeatSync_2800HP_Mini-Client.htm  This PC has the SoTM USB card and a SSD for the boot drive inside.  Runing J.River 20 on a striped down Windows 8.1
  
 I use this as my storage device.http://atechfabrication.com/products/mass_storage_2500.htm    I use to store all my music files on an unRAID NAS, but I started to run into buffering issues when other stuff was running like files coping and movie playing.  So I decided to go the stand alone route.  My storage unit is connected to the PC via eSATA.
  
 Here is the custom made PSU I got made from TeraDak:  The 9v is for the USB card.  A 12v is for the storage unit and the other 12v is for the PC.


----------



## negura

If one doesn't need included storage, this is a no-brainer for the price: 
 http://www.sotm.sonore.us/SOtM1.html
  
 Very simple board with an ARM chip, Linux, usb stick and SOTM's USB interface. Running Vortexbox.


----------



## pldelisle

The Mac Mini is also a good option. Maybe not as cheap as the above Linux box, but many people I know use it for a media center/audio server.


----------



## drez

Redacted


----------



## magiccabbage

preproman said:


> Hi Paddy,
> 
> I'm not purrin, but it looks like you're looking for some ideas on a dedicated music PC.  This is just another idea of how you can configure one.
> 
> ...


 
 Cheers prep - looks great. Do you use a monitor? I was hoping to be able to have a hand held device to scroll through and play songs, like an adroid phone or something - dont like the idea of heving a monitor and keyboard but im sure ill find something. I am gonna go for the stream com FC10 fanless case.


----------



## bmichels

articnoise said:


> By forgiving I mean a smooth and kind of analog sound that is very enjoyable to listen to. Definitely more natural then neutral.
> 
> I have only had it for 4 days yet and have not compared it back to back to any of the other top players in this price range. With that said I don’t think it has significant less precision, less details or speed than they have. Sure some really good DACs do some technicality aspect a little bit better and will present details more in your face kind of way than the Pandora. Pandora is IMO very capable on all technicality aspect but will probably not be considered a true master. What it do is connect me to the music and doing it with authority and finesse. More listening is definitely necessary to see if the forgiving and “analog” sound will hold also in the long run.
> 
> No I don’t have the signature.


 
 thanks
  
 I look forward hearing more listening tests from you after few more days of burn-in.  
  
 A,d may be the "signature" version can improve the detail retrival further without loosing it's musicality ?


----------



## wahsmoh

sanjulessur said:


> I got the Progeny.  Purrin's is better, haha his whole system as a whole is amazing.  But in terms of what I've personally used it's definitely better than the PCM1793 that's in the Burson SL I'm now just using for the amp stage.  The bass on the Theta is amazing. To call it a bass boost would undersell it.  It's been said before on this thread but that depth and slam on the bass, which I also heard on the Yggy and Purrin's GenVa, simply massive.


 
 Nice choice. You also have planars too!! I tried the Theta with my DT880 and it couldn't scale the bass as well as what my Alpha Dog can do with the source material. Planars seem to benefit the most off the Theta DAC because I have noticed everyone who has bought one owns some form of planar headphone.


----------



## prot

estreeter said:


> You're an argumentative fellow, but in this instance I agree - those debates are cyclical and endless. People with money will spend it on the things that make them happy - whether that's a weekend at a ski resort or a weekend in Vegas : either way, the money is gone come Monday morning.




Everyone is of course free to buy whatever they like. And I want better sound just like everyone else but I already spent way too much time chasing audio unicorns .. especially in the cable & software playback areas. Never found the slightest improvement above a well built copper cable ($50 tops) and a well configured foobar (free). And I really tried and wanted to believe in that kind of stuff (e.g. see my cable thread in the science section). 

My posts may come out as overly argumentative but hopefully they'll keep a few people from wasting their time & money like I did.


----------



## negura

My experience is more of the opposite, and I would well encourage people to experience for themselves. Most of those reading this thread would probably be past that point anyway.


----------



## prot

negura said:


> My experience is more of the opposite, and I would well encourage people to experience for themselves. Most of those reading this thread would probably be past that point anyway.




I'm under no illusion that any of my msges will stop people from experimenting. It didnt even work for me. No matter how many crooked signs I saw and how many ppl warned me, I kept pushing and trying. For hours, days or even weeks .. actually I prolly spent months testing almost every conceivable/available software tweak and app. Thinking about writin a big review at some point. But it's really hard to find the time for a proper writeup and on top of that, my conclusion is very easy to summarize: don't! 

But nevertheless, why dont you tell us about the diffs you heard, how did you test, etc !? It's not like we all have better things to do/discuss around here


----------



## Stillhart

magiccabbage said:


> Cheers prep - looks great. Do you use a monitor? I was hoping to be able to have a hand held device to scroll through and play songs, like an adroid phone or something - dont like the idea of heving a monitor and keyboard but im sure ill find something. I am gonna go for the stream com FC10 fanless case.


 
  
 I went ahead and built myself a little Raspberry Pi music player after reading a bit about it on this thread.  Cost me less than $100, took all of 30 minutes to get going (most of that was me not being patient enough waiting for it to fully boot an initialize), and works like a charm driving my Gustard U12 into whatever (Theta, Adcom, Audio-GD, etc).  It runs Volumio, which I control from my PC via a web interface or using an app on my phone.  
  
 I don't think there's any difference in the audio, but if you're into having a dedicated unit, this is certainly cheap and effective.


----------



## Articnoise

bmichels said:


> thanks
> 
> I look forward hearing more listening tests from you after few more days of burn-in.
> 
> A,d may be the "signature" version can improve the detail retrival further without loosing it's musicality ?


 

  

 Michel I will let you know by PM then I have listened more to it. 

 There are not many impressions between the original and the SE. A wild guess is that the SE is a bit better on time precision, details and speed without losing its musicality. The question is is it worth it? The upgrade cost as much as I paid for the Pandora DAC/PRE and with the SE upgrade it will need to compete with DACs like the Dual DAC and MSB Analog with Power Base and Lampi Big 7. 

 I’m going to try some NOS tubes only, no SE for me.


----------



## magiccabbage

stillhart said:


>


 
 great stuff - thanks for sharing I will look into that for sure. Can you PM me some more info on it maybe a few links 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Have you got any pics you could send? 
  
  
 Cheers
  
  Paddy


----------



## negura

prot said:


> But nevertheless, why dont you tell us about the diffs you heard, how did you test, etc !? *It's not like we all have better things to do/discuss around here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Fully agreed.
  
 I will use an infamous analogy. Diet Coke and regular Coke do not taste the same to me. I don't at all feel a need to "test" that.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

prot said:


> I'm under no illusion that any of my msges will stop people from experimenting. It didnt even work for me. No matter how many crooked signs I saw and how many ppl warned me, I kept pushing and trying. For hours, days or even weeks .. actually I prolly spent months testing almost every conceivable/available software tweak and app. Thinking about writin a big review at some point. But it's really hard to find the time for a proper writeup and on top of that, my conclusion is very easy to summarize: don't!
> 
> But nevertheless, why dont you tell us about the diffs you heard, how did you test, etc !? It's not like we all have better things to do/discuss around here


 
  
 I think we are past the audio quality disagreements on this thread and the whole...you didn't test accordingly and your brain is playing games with you...etc..etc..
  
  
 Quote:


negura said:


> Fully agreed.
> 
> I will use an infamous analogy. Diet Coke and regular Coke do not taste the same to me. I don't at all feel a need to "test" that.


 
  
 What about green tea ?


----------



## Stillhart

magiccabbage said:


> great stuff - thanks for sharing I will look into that for sure. Can you PM me some more info on it maybe a few links
> Have you got any pics you could send?
> 
> 
> ...



We started a raspberry pi thread somewhere. Let's discuss in there... Sorry don't have the link handy as I'm on mobile.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

stillhart said:


> magiccabbage said:
> 
> 
> > great stuff - thanks for sharing I will look into that for sure. Can you PM me some more info on it maybe a few links
> ...


 
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/762336/raspberry-pi2-as-music-server


----------



## prot

stillhart said:


> I went ahead and built myself a little Raspberry Pi music player after reading a bit about it on this thread. Cost me less than $100, took all of 30 minutes to get going (most of that was me not being patient enough waiting for it to fully boot an initialize), and works like a charm driving my Gustard U12 into whatever (Theta, Adcom, Audio-GD, etc). It runs Volumio, which I control from my PC via a web interface or using an app on my phone.
> 
> I don't think there's any difference in the audio, but if you're into having a dedicated unit, this is certainly cheap and effective.




Pretty much the best way to do it ... sounds same as good as those $5K 'wonders' that so many people are buying for some reason.


----------



## magiccabbage

johnnycanuck said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/762336/raspberry-pi2-as-music-server


 
 sweet


----------



## preproman

prot said:


> Pretty much the best way to do it ... sounds same as good as those $5K 'wonders' that so many people are buying for some reason.


 
  
 From most of your post, it seems like you have an issue with how people spend "their" money...


----------



## prot

preproman said:


> From most of your post, it seems like you have an issue with how people spend "their" money...




Not at all ... many issues though with people who insist that X sounds better than Y just because they spent a fortune on X. Also very annoyed when I pursue one of those 'tips' and end up empty handed. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who fried his paycheck like that...a lot more than once.


----------



## prot

dan.gheorghe said:


> I think we are past the audio quality disagreements on this thread and the whole...you didn't test accordingly and your brain is playing games with you...etc..etc..




Gotta agree, those arguments can easily go bad and annoy everyone. OTOH, threads where everyone agrees with everyone else end in the lala-land where everything sounds better than everything else ... especially if newer and/or more expensive. 
Personally, I dislike that even more. And noone needs a forum for that kind of stuff ... just read TAS, pay the audiotax and be happy thereafter.


----------



## conquerator2

Why would anyone stop making the Theta is beyond me and suite sad really. It is a perfect blend of the Sabre and Gungnir but with naturalness and musicality neither of them has. Everything sounds fabulous from old mp3 theme songsto high quality classical. It just flows. The music is just music. I honestly say I will probably stay with this DAC as long as it lasts and then try to fix it if it breaks... I do not crave for Gungnir or any other DAC atm for the first time... The amp is also really good, so I see it between the HE/Dharma/Ether, then one day probably a new amp and hopefully many many days later a new DACs. The Theta is all I've been looking for in the last year or so for a price that I'd never even think possible and simply unfair to what it brings to the table... I owe Purrin credit for this at least. I now really believe that R2R is the only way now


----------



## dan.gheorghe

prot said:


> Gotta agree, those arguments can easily go bad and annoy everyone. OTOH, threads where everyone agrees with everyone else end in the lala-land where everything sounds better than everything else ... especially if newer and/or more expensive.
> Personally, I dislike that even more. And noone needs a forum for that kind of stuff ... just read TAS, pay the audiotax and be happy thereafter.


 
 Well, what I am trying to tell, is that I trust my ears very much and I am tired of arguing the same old things, and I do hate it when someone I don't know and doesn't know me comes and tells me that all I heard was just a trick my brain played on me. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this is the case  here, but it often leads to that.
  
 And I agree, the price is not a quality assurance in audio. I did listen to products that were cheaper and better than other considerably more expensive ones, so no surprise there.


----------



## prot

dan.gheorghe said:


> Well, what I am trying to tell, is that I trust my ears very much and I am tired of arguing the same old things, and I do hate it when someone I don't know and doesn't know me comes and tells me that all I heard was just a trick my brain played on me. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this is the case  here, but it often leads to that.
> 
> And I agree, the price is not a quality assurance in audio. I did listen to products that were cheaper and better than other considerably more expensive ones, so no surprise there.




Guess everyone is tired . But people make the same mistakes over and over again. Lots of 'smart' marketing, hype, etc ... Unfortunatley hope and dreams sell much better than spec sheets and the plain truth. 

P.S.
I think I visited your town (bucharest?) last week ... quite nice and lively, especially with the warm spring weather


----------



## prot

conquerator2 said:


> Why would anyone stop making the Theta is beyond me and suite sad really.




R2R chips are hard to make and expensive. Deltasigma easily wins the price war. Plus, the DSs sell better/easier. Most people just test a few hours in a shop and the extra DS detail easily wins in that environment. R2R chips also cant do DSD (at least I dont know of any such chip)

It's not so hard to see why the DSes are leading nowadays .. but you never know. If the iggy lives up to the hype, the wave can easily turn. And then purrin can truly call himself messiah


----------



## conquerator2

prot said:


> R2R chips are hard to make and expensive. Deltasigma easily wins the price war. Plus, the DSs sell better/easier. Most people just test a few hours in a shop *and the extra DS detail easily wins *in that environment. R2R chips also cant do DSD (at least I dont know of any such chip)
> 
> It's not so hard to see why the DSes are leading nowadays .. but you never know. If the iggy lives up to the hype, the wave can easily turn. And then @purrin can truly call himself messia


 
 Except the Theta does detail and nuances better than any other Sabre DAC I owned before


----------



## drez

prot said:


> Not at all ... many issues though with people who insist that X sounds better than Y just because they spent a fortune on X. Also very annoyed when I pursue one of those 'tips' and end up empty handed. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who fried his paycheck like that...a lot more than once.


 
  
 True, people should always provide limits when offering recommendations eg YMMV etc because IME nothing is universally valid across all systems and to all ears, music preferences etc.  Even if we heard the same thing, there would be difference in how we classify and make sense of what we hear.  There is definitely potential to get burnt and waste money on stuff - I have been there, however this is part of the learning experience and hopefully brings us closer to understanding what works and what doesn't work.


----------



## Stillhart

prot said:


> R2R chips are hard to make and expensive. Deltasigma easily wins the price war. Plus, the DSs sell better/easier. Most people just test a few hours in a shop and the extra DS detail easily wins in that environment. R2R chips also cant do DSD (at least I dont know of any such chip)
> 
> It's not so hard to see why the DSes are leading nowadays .. but you never know. If the iggy lives up to the hype, the wave can easily turn. And then @purrin can truly call himself messia


 
  
 I thought DSD was invented specifically to complement D-S DAC's or something like that?


----------



## evanft

I'm pretty sure it was invented as an excuse to make a new physical music format that couldn't be copied with your computer.


----------



## Chris J

bmichels said:


> Now that I just bought from a friend his  collection of 2500 CD-ROMs of Classical Music   , mostly rare CDs, *I need a good CD-Player *
> 
> What do you think about this *Aesthetix Romulus CD player / Tube DAC ?*  It's got very good reviews...and a new "signature" version is now available




This is Romulan Technology, stolen from a decommissioned Romulan battle cruiser.

Klingon Technolgy is superior.


----------



## estreeter

_Klingon_ technology ? My friend, I think I speak for about a billion lifeforms when I say that nothing this perfect ever graced the deck of a Federation starship, before or since. Resistance is completely and utterly futile.  
  

  
 Man, what I would have given to get her in my Cube for a quick trip around the Delta quadrant. Open the pod bay doors, HAL.


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> Gotta agree, those arguments can easily go bad and annoy everyone. OTOH, threads where everyone agrees with everyone else end in the lala-land where everything sounds better than everything else ... especially if newer and/or more expensive.
> Personally, I dislike that even more. And noone needs a forum for that kind of stuff ... just read TAS, pay the audiotax and be happy thereafter.


 
  
 It's a matter of priorities and not putting the cart before the horse. If people want to go down that route after they've settled the big decisions, I'm all for it. But it's dumb worrying about that stuff beforehand. For example: wondering if Wyrd improves Yggy, wondering if JPLAY works with Yggy, wondering if magic rocks will improve Yggy, etc. I already chucked my magickal speshal Off-Ramp 5 USB converter (Yggy doesn't need it), and I'm all the more glad that I have one less tweak to be OCD about.
  



conquerator2 said:


> Why would anyone stop making the Theta is beyond me and suite sad really. It is a perfect blend of the Sabre and Gungnir but with naturalness and musicality neither of them has. Everything sounds fabulous from old mp3 theme songsto high quality classical. It just flows. The music is just music. I honestly say I will probably stay with this DAC as long as it lasts and then try to fix it if it breaks... I do not crave for Gungnir or any other DAC atm for the first time... The amp is also really good, so I see it between the HE/Dharma/Ether, then one day probably a new amp and hopefully many many days later a new DACs. The Theta is all I've been looking for in the last year or so for a price that I'd never even think possible and simply unfair to what it brings to the table... I owe Purrin credit for this at least. I now really believe that R2R is the only way now


 
  
 Holy Moly! You ended up getting one after all. Yes, blend of Gungnir and Sabre aspects + more "musicality" as you say. Regarding R2R, not all R2R sound like the Thetas. Most other R2R DACs lack the resolution, space, separation of the Thetas. Currently available R2R DACs tend have great tone and fluidity, but are lacking in resolution. For me, there was always this dichotomy between R2R (good tone, fluidity, but lacking resolution and attack) and D-S (good resolution and attack, but having digital artifacts), until I re-discovered the Theta DAC.
  
 On "musicality", wait until you hear the Schiit R2R/string DAC. Moffat wasn't kidding when he said his wife was brought to tears.


----------



## mikek200

"On "musicality", wait until you hear the Schiit R2R/string DAC. Moffat wasn't kidding when he said his wife was brought to tears."
  
 What are you exactly referring to-?
  
 Is it by chance the. Yiggy?..


----------



## estreeter

mikek200 said:


> "On "musicality", wait until you hear the Schiit R2R/string DAC. Moffat wasn't kidding when he said his wife was brought to tears."
> 
> What are you exactly referring to-?
> 
> Is it by chance the. Yiggy?..


 
  
 Mike, might be time to move to decaf, my friend. Of course that's what he's referring to. My guess is that you're currently refreshing the Schiit homepage every 30 seconds and clearing your browser cache / checking Head-Fi during the remaining 29 .....


----------



## pyfgcrl

estreeter said:


> Mike, might be time to move to decaf, my friend. Of course that's what he's referring to. My guess is that you're currently refreshing the Schiit homepage every 30 seconds and clearing your browser cache / checking Head-Fi during the remaining 29 .....


 

 ... and you (and the rest of us) aren't?


----------



## mikek200

estreeter said:


> Mike, might be time to move to decaf, my friend. Of course that's what he's referring to. My guess is that you're currently refreshing the Schiit homepage every 30 seconds and clearing your browser cache / checking Head-Fi during the remaining 29 .....


 
 LOL,my right hand has been in pain for days
 Could use a few valium,as well..
  
 Yiggy has been put on the back burner,,the Theta is coming in tomorrow..getting a little anxious.


----------



## estreeter

pyfgcrl said:


> ... and you (and the rest of us) aren't?


 
  
 Sadly, I already have a 35lb DAC - the prospect of paying freight and Customs on another doesnt do it for me, but I look forward to your impressions. I admire Yggdrasil for what it represents - one man who never gave up on his belief that an entire industry took a wrong turn 20 years ago. There are renegades in every industry, but how many get to turn their dream into a production reality ?? Whether this is the Bugatti Veyron for the price of a Golf is a question for others to answer, but this train has to pull into the station very soon by my calculations.


----------



## estreeter

mikek200 said:


> LOL,my right hand has been in pain for days
> Could use a few valium,as well..
> 
> Yiggy has been but on the back burner,,the Theta is coming in tomorrow..getting a little anxious.


 
  
 OK- perhaps we need to replace 'decaf' with 'valium' ..... and I'm prepared to give you a leave pass on the right hand : you know I'd normally have a field day with that quote.


----------



## mikek200

LOL,Your a sick puppy,but you know your ...stuff
 Lets move on!!!!..back to the Yiggy


----------



## SanJulesSur

wahsmoh said:


> Nice choice. You also have planars too!! I tried the Theta with my DT880 and it couldn't scale the bass as well as what my Alpha Dog can do with the source material. Planars seem to benefit the most off the Theta DAC because I have noticed everyone who has bought one owns some form of planar headphone.


 
  
 Haha yep LCD2 & HE500.  That was the very first thing I noticed when i hooked up the progeny to my mac, that exponential heft in bass that's still quick. Taken as a whole I love what it does with my music.  I don't have a completely lossless collection but I feel like no matter the source the theta just makes listening enjoyable. 
  
 BTW do you play with the Phase when you listen to your music?  I keep it inverted 98% of the time.  It sounds like it brings the music more into focus especially the bass kicks like a drum, strings, and percussion.  It sounds like i hear the "hit", "pluck, or "strike" more on inverted.  
  
  
  


conquerator2 said:


> Why would anyone stop making the Theta is beyond me and suite sad really. It is a perfect blend of the Sabre and Gungnir but with naturalness and musicality neither of them has. Everything sounds fabulous from old mp3 theme songsto high quality classical. It just flows. The music is just music. I honestly say I will probably stay with this DAC as long as it lasts and then try to fix it if it breaks... I do not crave for Gungnir or any other DAC atm for the first time... The amp is also really good, so I see it between the HE/Dharma/Ether, then one day probably a new amp and hopefully many many days later a new DACs. The Theta is all I've been looking for in the last year or so for a price that I'd never even think possible and simply unfair to what it brings to the table... I owe Purrin credit for this at least. I now really believe that R2R is the only way now


 
  
 Well put conqueror2, took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## prot

estreeter said:


> My guess is that you're currently refreshing the Schiit homepage every 30 seconds and clearing your browser cache / checking Head-Fi during the remaining 29 ..... :blink:




Calling this 'hype' already feels like a nice & gentle undestatement


----------



## wink

Imagine, next week we get pages of how the Yggdrasil kicks the Theta's butt all directions including up and down.....  I can't wait....


----------



## lukeap69

But you will need to wait for few days before the Yggy shows it's true performance. So it looks like next, next week then...


----------



## estreeter

wink said:


> Imagine, next week we get pages of how the Yggdrasil kicks the Theta's butt all directions including up and down.....  I can't wait....


 
  
 purrin already posted to that extent weeks ago, but I take your point. I'm still reeling from the fact that two of my dream DACs, the Berkeley and the Bricasti, were cast aside like something purrin found in the bargain bin at K-Mart the day he got a vintage R2R DAC. I think that was the point where the earth shifted on it's axis and every s-d DAC on that first page was effectively just there to make up the numbers. In some respects, its a shame the manufacturers dont get right of reply as they do in Stereophile reviews, but that would have turned this into an even bigger opus than it already is. I _would_ very much like to hear from one of the engineers working at either of those companies as to why they've persisted with sigma-delta when their sticker prices would seem to indicate they could afford to implement an alternative.


----------



## alreadyused

estreeter said:


> purrin already posted to that extent weeks ago, but I take your point. I'm still reeling from the fact that two of my dream DACs, the Berkeley and the Bricasti, were cast aside like something purrin found in the bargain bin at K-Mart the day he got a vintage R2R DAC. I think that was the point where the earth shifted on it's axis and every s-d DAC on that first page was effectively just there to make up the numbers. In some respects, its a shame the manufacturers dont get right of reply as they do in Stereophile reviews, but that would have turned this into an even bigger opus than it already is. I _would_ very much like to hear from one of the engineers working at either of those companies as to why they've persisted with sigma-delta when their sticker prices would seem to indicate they could afford to implement an alternative.


 
 I doubt the engineers have much say in the matter.


----------



## nicolo

Sigma Delta means higher profit margins compared to R2R, even when DACs are highly priced. It's just good business sense. That's all.


----------



## pyfgcrl

nicolo said:


> Sigma Delta means higher profit margins compared to R2R, even when DACs are highly priced. It's just good business sense. That's all.


 

 It's only good business sense until Mike Moffat releases the best DAC the world has ever seen, turns their business sense on its head and craps in their Cheerios.


----------



## prot

conquerator2 said:


> Why would anyone stop making the Theta is beyond me and suite sad really.


 
  
 Speaking about Theta, here's another side of their story
 http://www.lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/REFERENCES/THETA%20Universal/theta.html
  
 For some funny reason, the Theta website contains a very different version of that story
 http://www.thetadigital.com/legacy_products.shtml#data


----------



## amalgamist

its live ~!@~!@


----------



## pyfgcrl

amalgamist said:


> its live ~!@~!@


 

 Ordered.


----------



## estreeter

Cue thread explosion -* Tuesday AM LA time - in your face mulder01 !*
  
 http://schiit.com/products/yggdrasil


----------



## bfreedma

estreeter said:


> Cue thread explosion -* Tuesday AM LA time - in your face mulder01 !*
> 
> http://schiit.com/products/yggdrasil




Great. Can you move on now?


----------



## skeptic

pyfgcrl said:


> It's only good business sense until Mike Moffat releases the best DAC the world has ever seen, turns their business sense on its head and craps in their Cheerios.


 
  
 In our tiny little eccentric corner of the world of hifi audio, that may be the case!  Having placed my order, I have high hopes that the Yggy will thoroughly outclass my current dac.  That said, unless Apple and Samsung start implementing AD5791BRUZ's in their smartphones (and making them the size and weight of cinderblocks), I don't think the SD manufacturers have a whole lot to stress about from a business standpoint.   
  
 [Edit - which raises an interesting question - schiitphone anyone? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




]


----------



## pyfgcrl

skeptic said:


> In our tiny little eccentric corner of the world of hifi audio, that may be the case!  Having placed my order, I have high hopes that the Yggy will thoroughly outclass my current dac.  That said, unless Apple and Samsung start implementing AD5791BRUZ's in their smartphones (and making them the size and weight of cinderblocks), I don't think the SD manufacturers have a whole lot to stress about from a business standpoint.
> 
> [Edit - which raises an interesting question - schiitphone anyone?
> 
> ...


 


jason stoddard said:


> *Mystery 3.* And expect something that nobody is expecting from us. I can’t say more.


 
  
 See? Of _course_ it's the Schiitphone.  Remember when Steve Jobs denied they were doing a phone for years and then?  Boom.


----------



## kapanak

pyfgcrl said:


> See? Of _course_ it's the Schiitphone.  Remember when Steve Jobs denied they were doing a phone for years and then?  Boom.


 

 LOL! Anyway, only reason I'm reluctant to believe that (even though I predicted the same right when Jason posted that) is that he said he won't want to do transducers ever again.
  
 But who said about HIM having to do it? Somebody else at Schiit might be working on it


----------



## hodgjy

skeptic said:


> [Edit - which raises an interesting question - schiitphone anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I would buy a Shiitphone only if it had a fully discrete JEFT analog output stage running in pure class A.


----------



## wahsmoh

hodgjy said:


> I would buy a Shiitphone only if it had a fully discrete JEFT analog output stage running in pure class A.


 
 Just don't let your conversations get too "heated"


----------



## lukeap69

hodgjy said:


> I would buy a Shiitphone only if it had a fully discrete JEFT analog output stage running in pure class A.


 
 will this use multibit DAC as well?


----------



## lukeap69

estreeter said:


> Cue thread explosion -* Tuesday AM LA time - in your face mulder01 !*
> 
> http://schiit.com/products/yggdrasil


 
 we're not worthy...


----------



## hodgjy

lukeap69 said:


> will this use multibit DAC as well?


 
 Of course. I also want a tube input stage.


----------



## lukeap69

hodgjy said:


> Of course. I also want a tube input stage.


 
 I'll probably get one. or 2...


----------



## wahsmoh

I'm going to create a savings account for my Yggdrasil.. [xxx # of days until my Theta eventually expires] that way when it does expire I have the logical successor to the headphone throne.


----------



## blitzxgene

Want to thank the messiah for keeping up the endless comparisons between dacs, because I can't afford to. This thread has been instrumental to navigating the world of dacs for me personally and I thank you!
  
 Looking forward to the Yggy's arrival.


----------



## kazsud

bfreedma said:


> Great. Can you move on now?




Lmao


----------



## DecentLevi

Those of you who can't wait to read the impressions of the Yggy - it was on display last month at CanJam Socal (stacked with the Rangarok I believe) and probably at least 100 people auditioned it. You can read some of the initial impressions here. I remember I was at the Schiit booth trying some of the smaller gear, only looking at all the big amps / DACs, but I'd never heard of the Yggdrasil at the time and was more interested in medium/small size gear so I passed over it. There was always someone or another getting a lot of head time on it though and not much movement around there.
  
 In hindsight I should've tried it, but I'm sure I'll be pleased with my Gustard X12 and later the Alo Audio CDM (portable DAC / tube amp hybrid) for quite a while anyway. That would tickle my fancy if they released a portable (or at least transportable) Yggy... word?


----------



## Insidious Meme

decentlevi said:


> Those of you who can't wait to read the impressions of the Yggy - it was on display last month at CanJam Socal (stacked with the Rangarok I believe) and probably at least 100 people auditioned it. You can read some of the initial impressions here. I remember I was at the Schiit booth trying some of the smaller gear, only looking at all the big amps / DACs, but I'd never heard of the Yggdrasil at the time and was more interested in medium/small size gear so I passed over it. There was always someone or another getting a lot of head time on it though and not much movement around there.
> 
> In hindsight I should've tried it, but I'm sure I'll be pleased with my Gustard X12 and later the Alo Audio CDM (portable DAC / tube amp hybrid) for quite a while anyway. That would tickle my fancy if they released a portable (or at least transportable) Yggy... word?




There were actually 3 of them in attendance at Can Jam with 2 others aside from the one you mentioned. Due to the one at the Schiit table being effectively locked down, I was able to listen to one of the others.

Also, there is a difference between hearing it at a noisy fest with a chain that you're not used to hearing it through, and a great length of time at home with gear that you are familiar with. The impressions will come. Even against other high end DAC's that owners already have.


----------



## borrego

decentlevi said:


> Those of you who can't wait to read the impressions of the Yggy - it was on display last month at CanJam Socal (stacked with the Rangarok I believe) and probably at least 100 people auditioned it. You can read some of the initial impressions here. I remember I was at the Schiit booth trying some of the smaller gear, only looking at all the big amps / DACs, but I'd never heard of the Yggdrasil at the time and was more interested in medium/small size gear so I passed over it. There was always someone or another getting a lot of head time on it though and not much movement around there.
> 
> In hindsight I should've tried it, but I'm sure I'll be pleased with my Gustard X12 and later the Alo Audio CDM (portable DAC / tube amp hybrid) for quite a while anyway. That would tickle my fancy if they released a portable (or at least transportable) Yggy... word?


 
  
 I think Currawong's comment summarized it: if one listen to well recorded/master acoustic material, then it makes perfect sense for the true 20bit resolution of the Yggy. If one listens mostly to music produced by synthesizer and ADC of 6 to 8bit resolutions, the Yggy won't make much difference anyway.


----------



## mulder01

estreeter said:


> Cue thread explosion -* Tuesday AM LA time - in your face mulder01 !*
> 
> http://schiit.com/products/yggdrasil


 
  
 I know we're meant to be letting it go, but Tuesday wasn't the 20th... Just sayin' 
 You were pretty close though - I'll give you that
  
 Did I read earlier that you aren't going to be buying this DAC anyway?  How can you be so excited about the release of a product that you're not going to buy?


----------



## Liu Junyuan

I recall Purrin stating that the Yggy is capable of extracting plankton from any recording. There is also something to be said for tone.


----------



## Rotijon

mulder01 said:


> I know we're meant to be letting it go, but Tuesday wasn't the 20th... Just sayin'
> You were pretty close though - I'll give you that
> 
> Did I read earlier that you aren't going to be buying this DAC anyway?  How can you be so excited about the release of a product that you're not going to buy?


 
 Im was pretty excited when CERN found the God Particle even though its not going to affect me.

 Breakthroughs are always exciting!.


----------



## prot

liu junyuan said:


> I recall Purrin stating that the Yggy is capable of extracting plankton from ANY recording.




And if it was personally blessed by purrin, the iggy can also extract chlorophyll from stones and prepare a nice veggie burger for you.

Joking aside, SOME music does not contain any extra 'plankton' .. e.g. the electro music mentioned by the OP only contains the pure synth-generated tones and nothing more.

***edited. Bolded a few keywords to avoid more funny comprehension-based flames.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

I do not ascribe to the Messiah nonsense, but I dont go to the other equally polemical extreme either.

I have plenty of well recorded electronica that I am fairly confident would benefit from the Yggy. I am not talking about Incunabula synth simplicity, even though it is rightly a classic, but more along the lines of Exai and Syro type schiit.


----------



## DecentLevi

Oh, by Exai you're referring to an album by Autechre and Syro meaning Aphex Twin.
  
 Yes I also didn't agree at all with @borrego about how electronica is all "produced by synthesizer and ADC of 6 to 8bit resolutions". Theoretically some of it could be made this way, but a fair share of the all encompassing umbrella category of music known as electronic music AKA electronica with 200+ styles also incorporates organic sounds as well as synthetic sounds (prepared field recordings and vocals, in addition to multiple layers of synths), which actually make this not only the most diverse genre of infinite possibilities, but also encompasses the broadest frequency spectrum the most often. So yeah, there's uber detail in those dope tunes!


----------



## johnjen

The only 'problem' I have with electronic music isn't the degree of inner detail but the amount of compression and dynamic range manipulation that is applied.
  
 Well that and the amount of low end that is 'cut off' from some of the digitized samples.
  
 There are some electronic instruments/sounds that can be truly impressive in terms of their harmonic content, inner details, and the range and depth of the low end.
  
 JJ


----------



## wink

Quote:borrego 





> I think Currawong's comment summarized it: if one listen to well recorded/master acoustic material, then it makes perfect sense for the true 20bit resolution of the Yggy. If one listens mostly to music produced by synthesizer and ADC of 6 to 8bit resolutions, the Yggy won't make much difference anyway.


 
 If you can't tell the difference between a clarinet and a bass drum, anything else won't matter either....


----------



## borrego

decentlevi said:


> Oh, by Exai you're referring to an album by Autechre and Syro meaning Aphex Twin.
> 
> Yes I also didn't agree at all with @borrego about how electronica is all "produced by synthesizer and ADC of 6 to 8bit resolutions". Theoretically some of it could be made this way, but a fair share of the all encompassing umbrella category of music known as electronic music AKA electronica with 200+ styles also incorporates organic sounds as well as synthetic sounds (prepared field recordings and vocals, in addition to multiple layers of synths), which actually make this not only the most diverse genre of infinite possibilities, but also encompasses the broadest frequency spectrum the most often. So yeah, there's uber detail in those dope tunes!


 
  
 No... No... No... I didn't imply all electronic music are of low resolution. Definitely not what I meant.


----------



## prot

borrego said:


> No... No... No... I didn't imply all electronic music are of low resolution. Definitely not what I meant.




For misterious reasons, some ppl enjoy putting their own words in one's mouth and then contradicting themselves


----------



## Priidik

prot said:


> ' .. e.g. the electro music mentioned by the OP only contains the pure synth-generated tones and nothing more.


 
 You are in for a surprise if you get to hear some from proper R2R dac. 
 My assessment has been that badly recorded orchestral can sound dull and lacking 'plankton' or sub-content as easily as crappy EDM.
  
 Computer synthesized stuff has the advantage of not having to go through any (sigma-delta) ADC.


----------



## ginetto61

> Originally Posted by *estreeter* /img/forum/go_quote.gif....
> 
> *I would very much like to hear from one of the engineers working at either of those companies as to why they've persisted with sigma-delta when their sticker prices would seem to indicate they could afford to implement an alternative*


 
  
 Hi and just to say ... mee too.
 I read something amusing on the subject.
  
 Analog Devices experts did not recommend the dac chip used because deemed too much for an audio application.
 How much is too much should be open to debate especially if the listenings are so positive,
  
 The dac chip at 100 USD/each is considered too expensive.
 Yes .. maybe in a dac priced 200 USD ... but let's say that a serious high end dac usually starts around 5-6000 USD ... 100 or 200 USD more are not going to make a big difference
  
 I really do not understand why they do not produce multibit dacs anymore ... at least to be used in better dac.
 In my humble experience sigma-delta dacs lack drive ... dynamics. An unforgivable sin with music ! this is not realistic
 And even gifted designers tend to follow the trend ... with replacing the famous UltraAnalog multibit dac chip with a more recent Cyrrus logic sigma delta and saying that this is a remarkable improvement on the older chip.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 You will understand that the monkey (me) gets easily confused  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Thanks for the interesting thread.
 Regards,  gino


----------



## prot

priidik said:


> You are in for a surprise if you get to hear some from proper R2R dac.
> My assessment has been that badly recorded orchestral can sound dull and lacking 'plankton' or sub-content as easily as crappy EDM.
> 
> Computer synthesized stuff has the advantage of not having to go through any (sigma-delta) ADC.




Admitedly I never had a proper R2R DAC audition. But this electro music subject is quite hard to debate. For the acoustic sounds one does have a clear reference, the live sound. No such reference for the synth sounds and one cannot really say that they sound better on DacX or DacY .. it's just a matter of taste & pure subjective preference.


----------



## conquerator2

My acquisition of the Theta puts my lust for Yggy to sleep, indefinitely *

* As long as the Theta is able to work


----------



## pldelisle

The Yggy seems just ... wow ! Incredible !!!!!
  
 But I'm sorry I have to ask this question : 
  
 A friend is trying to convince me that spending 2000 bucks on a Wyrd + Gungnir + Asgard 2 is a waste of money. 
  
 He wants me to try his E-MU 0202 USB sound interface... http://www.creative.com/emu/products/product.aspx?pid=15186
  
 I'm going to try it tonight, but any though on this ? I personally think that this would be a downgrade compared to my previous Asus Xonar Essence STX... And my little finger tells me that would be like day and night with a Schiit kit...
  
 Am I right ?


----------



## wahsmoh

conquerator2 said:


> My acquisition of the Theta puts my lust for Yggy to sleep, indefinitely *
> 
> * As long as the Theta is able to work


 
  
 That Theta upper mid/bass slam :O it truly is ridiculous.. and then of course you got the smooth "analog" sound throughout the range. Forget about "tss" "tss" that you usually hear on cymbals and bright vocals. This is detail without the S-D crap glare.
  
 2Pac - Me Against the World
 FLAC - 944kbps 16-bit 44.1khz (CD)
  

  
  


pldelisle said:


> The Yggy seems just ... wow ! Incredible !!!!!
> 
> But I'm sorry I have to ask this question :
> 
> ...


 
  Sigh... I wouldn't jump that quick. Wait for your gear to ship then do a real listening session with your friend. You might be wasting money when you could order a Yggdrasil for $2300 and starve yourself for a few weeks then rebuy your Asgard 2 until you need a Rag or balanced setup.


----------



## mcullinan

Im going to wait for some pro reviews (Yggy), but it does sound promising..


----------



## negura

pldelisle said:


>


 
  
 Which headphones are you using ? If it's the Momentums listed in your profile, I would work towards upgrading those first.
  
 I think the HD600/650s are a point where it makes sense to get the gear you are looking at.


----------



## pldelisle

Ahahah !!! 
  
 Well, for me it's 1345 $ US, but with customs, exchange rate and Quebec's taxes, it rises to 2000 $ CND for the Schiit kit. 
  
 The Yggy is simply too pricey for me. I'm still not engineer, only an engineering student ! ahah ! When I'll get the real engineer pay, then, maybe  
  


> Which headphones are you using ? If it's the Momentums listed in your profile, I would work towards upgrading those first.


 
  
 Yes, I have these headphones, but I love them. The thing is I can't always be at home to listen to music. It's a mix of university, bus and home. So I needed a pair of headphones that is good with an iPhone and a more powerful setup. I liked the sound of the Momentum in both situation so I decided to grab a pair of these last year. Still like the sound, because I have never heard one of these HD-600/650 on a good DAC+Amp setup  But I don't close the door to upgrade my headphones in the next year. Momentum are good on the go, but I know there is much better than these cans with a Schiit setup. But considering it is not a crappy pair of Senn, I will give them a chance if I buy this Schiit.
  
 My other rig is an Onkyo stereo analog amplifier with Polk Audio speakers. Nothing terrific here, but has good performance for the price I paid. It was doing good with my Xonar. But I know that my "good" might be your "poor" for you guys ahaha ! I'm a beginner in this world.


----------



## thegunner100

pldelisle said:


> Ahahah !!!
> 
> Well, for me it's 1345 $ US, but with customs, exchange rate and Quebec's taxes, it rises to 2000 $ CND for the Schiit kit.
> 
> ...


 

 Why not just get a cheaper schiit stack like the modi 2uber and magni 2 uber? They'll work well for your momentums and gives you leftover money to spend on the hd600s/650s. You can find a pair of used hd600s for about $220 nowadays, and they scale up like crazy. Or just get a GO 450, which you can use on the go as well.
  
 Once you get a good pair of headphones, then you should worry about the rest of your chain. I consider the hd600/650 the minimal point of entry.


----------



## pldelisle

Thanks thegunner.
  
 Quote:


> Why not just get a cheaper schiit stack like the modi 2uber and magni 2 uber?


 
  
 Simply because when I buy something, I buy it for a long time. Maybe for the next 5 to 10 years if there is still support for this DAC. So if I have to buy something, I'm willing to pay more if what I buy can scale up well in time, instead of having to sell what I previously bought to upgrade to new one and than waste even more money buy doing so. 
  
  


> Once you get a good pair of headphones, then you should worry about the rest of your chain. I consider the hd600/650 the minimal point of entry.


 
  
 The Momentum are that bad ?


----------



## negura

pldelisle said:


> Simply because when I buy something, I buy it for a long time. Maybe for the next 5 to 10 years if there is still support for this DAC. So if I have to buy something, I'm willing to pay more if what I buy can scale up well in time, instead of having to sell what I previously bought to upgrade to new one and than waste even more money buy doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> The Momentum are that bad ?


 
  
 Best go to the for sale section on these forums, buy yourself a pair of used HD600/650s and some other used entry-level Schiit gear and hear for yourself. Then compare those to the Momentums. You can then resell the used gear with very little to no loss.  
  
 That will put you in a better position for bigger/long term decisions.


----------



## 7ryder

ginetto61 said:


> Hi and just to say ... mee too.
> I read something amusing on the subject.
> 
> Analog Devices experts did not recommend the dac chip used because deemed too much for an audio application.
> ...


 
 I think what you're missing here isn't just the increased cost of the DAC chips involved, it is also the cost and time to develop the digital filters required for these chips. Then there is also the case of whether or not the audio manufacturer has the "chops" to be able to even design the required filters.  Taking something off the shelf and slapping it in a case is much faster as well as cheaper.
  
 That said, even though companies like Linn and Ayre use delta-sigma DAC chips, they put their own filters in and by-pass the built-in filters on the chips themselves; this may be why they've gotten such a good reputation for good sound.

 Take a look at this post from Mike regarding the Digital Filter/Interpolator/Sample Rate Converter in the Yggy, it sheds some light on why everyone isn't doing what Schiit is doing 
  
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil/4950#post_11396780


----------



## estreeter

I was asked why I've spent so much time in this thread and the main Ryggy thread when I have no immediate plans to buy the DAC. 
  
 1. purrin ruled a line through every s-d DAC he had ever heard when he took delivery of a vintage Theta - one man's opinion, but it sparked my interest
  
 2. When you go back through the CAL/SFD/Theta history, you soon realise these werent faceless engineers working behind a corporate firewall. These guys had some very strong opinions back then and that attitude shines through in a lot of what Mike has written over the last 12 or so months
  
 3. How many times in audio do you have a renegade prepared to take something that the so-called majority believe cant work for a given purpose and make it work ? Bruno Putzeys reportedly did it with NCore and Nelson Pass has reportedly done it with JFETs - go back a few years and you will find a slew of people who were prepared to pooh-pooh both from a design POV and the tube brigade were particularly incensed that someone was prepared to take a transistor which wasnt even designed for audio applications and try to build an amp with SET-like characteristics. Mike has joined those two and a few others in the renegade camp. 
  
 4. The hype train just gained momentum with each passing month as the initial 'Jan 2015' deadline expired, and I admit that it was hard to ignore. 
  
 In short, I like to see people realise their dreams, but never more so when there is a chorus of naysayers on the sidelines saying 'It cant be done !'. Well done to Mike and the team at Schiit.


----------



## pldelisle

negura said:


> You can the resell the used gear with very little to no loss.
> 
> That will put you in a better position for bigger/long term decisions.


 
  
 Problem is, you have to find buyers for this afterward ! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Quebec's market is not California or US market. You look in the local classified ads and you get almost nothing about whatever seems audiophile grade. I've tried to sell my Asus board for months and still got no offer for it ... different things you'll tell me, but globally, the interest for sound is not here in Quebec. And selling it on eBay means custom fees and fairly high shipping cost ...


----------



## LingLing1337

pldelisle said:


> negura said:
> 
> 
> > You can the resell the used gear with very little to no loss.
> ...




Is there a canadian Audiogon? The few times ive shipped to canadaland i send "electronics" with a value of "$5". Still not necessarily cheap for me to ship but the buyer never complains about customs.


----------



## pldelisle

I never heard of such a community for Canada.


----------



## jacal01

pldelisle said:


> A friend is trying to convince me that spending 2000 bucks on a Wyrd + Gungnir + Asgard 2 is a waste of money.


 
  
 And you call him a friend?
  


pldelisle said:


> Simply because when I buy something, I buy it for a long time.


 
  
 Ahahahahahaha... hah!
  
 You need to forget you found this forum.  No, seriously.  You need to run away while you can.


----------



## Mortalcoil

pldelisle said:


> I never heard of such a community for Canada.


 

  
 Try this  http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/
  
 Upgrade those headphones first if you can


----------



## pldelisle

jacal01 said:


> And you call him a friend?
> 
> 
> Ahahahahahaha... hah!
> ...


 
  
 Ahahah ! Funny ! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Thanks MortalCoil for this link ! Didn't know that !


----------



## mikek200

estreeter said:


> I was asked why I've spent so much time in this thread and the main Ryggy thread when I have no immediate plans to buy the DAC.
> 
> 1. purrin ruled a line through every s-d DAC he had ever heard when he took delivery of a vintage Theta - one man's opinion, but it sparked my interest
> 
> ...


 
  
 +1 Dan
 Excellent post..


----------



## Jason Stoddard

estreeter said:


> 3. How many times in audio do you have a renegade prepared to take something that the so-called majority believe cant work for a given purpose and make it work ? Bruno Putzeys reportedly did it with NCore and Nelson Pass has reportedly done it with JFETs - go back a few years and you will find a slew of people who were prepared to pooh-pooh both from a design POV and the tube brigade were particularly incensed that someone was prepared to take a transistor which wasnt even designed for audio applications and try to build an amp with SET-like characteristics. Mike has joined those two and a few others in the renegade camp.


 
  
 Actually, if you take a look back into the deep history of high-end audio, you may see that Nelson and Bruno followed Mike...Mike was an audio rebel first in the 1970s, proselytizing tubes when solid-state had taken over, then using 6DJ8 tubes for audio, rather than the commonly accepted 12AX7 (which Mike has much disdain for.) His original Theta (not Theta Digital) started in the 1970s.
  
 And then there's Theta Digital, and Mike's first DSP stuff, and jitter, and...
  
 And then there's the first upgradable surround processors...
  
 And then there's the first practical media center, pre-Windows Media Center, with a custom UI and video DSP.
  
 Bottom line, Mike's history is a bit more deep and varied than some random dude taking potshots at delta-sigma. Whether or not he's right is up for the market to decide.
  
 Aaaaanndd...not taking away from Bruno or Nelson, just talking histories here...and Mike has a very, very long history of "thinkin' different" and "skewering sacred cows."


----------



## estreeter

My apologies, Jason and Mike - extremely poor wording on my part. If anything, the other two have joined Mike not the other way around. They definitely arent the only ones in that 'renegade' group but I can only go on what I read online : unlike Mike, I wasnt actually there when he stopped selling audio and started building gear. Some of my favorite stories dont come from anyone directly connected to Schiit - in this case, from a competitor:
  
 http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/10982/


----------



## prot

pldelisle said:


> The Yggy seems just ... wow ! Incredible !!!!!
> 
> But I'm sorry I have to ask this question :
> 
> ...


 
  
 You are probably right about Xonar vs EMU but I guess it's worth a try ... may be a slight improvement.
 However, I wont read so much into those night&day reviews when it comes to the step from Xonar to a Schiit stack ... the Xonar has a pretty good DAC and you may have a not so pleasant surprise when the $2000 improvement turns out to be barely audible.  Why dont you just order a Gugnir first and see how much of a diff you can hear in your system!?


----------



## ginetto61

7ryder said:


> I think what you're missing here isn't just the increased cost of the DAC chips involved, it is also the cost and time to develop the digital filters required for these chips.
> Then there is also the case of whether or not the audio manufacturer has the "chops" to be able to even design the required filters.
> Taking something off the shelf and slapping it in a case is much faster as well as cheaper.
> That said, even though companies like Linn and Ayre use delta-sigma DAC chips, they put their own filters in and by-pass the built-in filters on the chips themselves; this may be why they've gotten such a good reputation for good sound.
> ...


 
  
 Hi and thanks a lot for the very helpful advice. 
 So the real secret of the exceptional sound is in the proprietary digital filter implemented ?
 What i do not understand then is why they do not put more efforts in developing better filters.
 I give up and wait for the future.
 After almost 30 years from the birth of the cd, this sector is very far from to be mature IMHO.
 Thanks again.  gino


----------



## pldelisle

prot said:


> You are probably right about Xonar vs EMU but I guess it's worth a try ... may be a slight improvement.
> However, I wont read so much into those night&day reviews when it comes to the step from Xonar to a Schiit stack ... the Xonar has a pretty good DAC and you may have a not so pleasant surprise when the $2000 improvement turns out to be barely audible.  Why dont you just order a Gugnir first and see how much of a diff you can hear in your system!?


 

 You think ? Really ?! 
 Won't be audible because the Sonar was good or also because of my headphones? 
  
 Spotted a used Gungnir on Audio Mart. Will try to get it. I would save up to 450 $ over a new one. That would give me the opportunity to buy HD 650.


----------



## prot

pldelisle said:


> You think ? Really ?!
> Won't be audible because the Sonar was good or also because of my headphones?
> 
> Spotted a used Gungnir on Audio Mart. Will try to get it. I would save up to 450 $ over a new one. That would give me the opportunity to buy HD 650.




The Xonar is already quite good and your Momentums, while a very good midrange HP, are not exactly detail monsters. The 2nd hand gugnir sounds like a good option .. and the 650 should be a bit better than the momentums .. also scale much better with better playback gear. 
Generally, try not to listen so much to those night&day reviews...lots of marketing and hyped claims. Most of the audio gear nowadays is really good and the diffs are mostly coming from the nitpicking land.


----------



## pldelisle

Ok. Many thanks for your input !
  
 I just want to buy something that will make me say : wow. I never heard this particular song like this before. But with a reasonable price ...


----------



## prot

pldelisle said:


> Ok. Many thanks for your input !
> 
> I just want to buy something that will make me say : wow. I never heard this particular song like this before. But with a reasonable price ...




We all do . The reasonable price part may be a bit of a problem though.


----------



## pyfgcrl

jason stoddard said:


> Mike has a very, very long history of "thinkin' different" and "skewering sacred cows."


 
  
 Sacred cows are delicious.


----------



## hodgjy

Here's a question for us OCD fellows.
  
 If I do indeed get the Yggy, I'll follow the recommendations and leave it powered on 24/7. I'm not worried about the power consumption. What I am worried about, however, is power supply isn't always 24/7. There's flickers and even outages. I don't sweat these phenomena on cheaper devices like my tv or refrigerator, but I sure as heck will with a $2300 DAC.
  
 What is the consensus about power flickers, etc, and the potential to damage the Yggy?


----------



## negura

You could try something like this: 
 http://www.powerinspired.com/ag500-ac-regenerator-500w-p-1723.html


----------



## nicolo

Get a decent power conditioner. The Yulong P18's pretty good and is cheap.


----------



## Clemmaster

Get a Tripp Lite Isobar, they're cheap and good.
  
 The Yulong P18 didn't do it for me.


----------



## smitty1110

My PSA IPC-8000 didn't do anything for my system sonically, but it is a very nice 10-outlet power strip/surge protector/thing that lets me sleep a bit better since my gear won't explode during a thunderstorm. The sleep part is probably the most important, I would probably cry a little bit if my 45 SET amp fried. NOS globe 45's ain't cheap, man. Also, the IPC-8k was $400 shipped, so check out the used market before buying new. There are some good deals to be had if you're really set on power filtering/conditioning/regeneration.


----------



## hodgjy

To be more clear, I'm not worried about surges. I'll turn off my gear and unplug it during a storm. I'm more concerned with the occasional flicker or short interruption in power. A UPS has been recommended. Is that the consensus? Get a UPS? Or am I too OCD for my own good?


----------



## negura

Some (purrin) say if the Ygg is off for a couple of minutes, it's still good to go performance wise when powered back on. If it gets to cool down, something like one hour or more, warm-up program starts over.


----------



## hodgjy

negura said:


> Some (purrin) say if the Ygg is off for a couple of minutes, it's still good to go performance wise when powered back on. If it gets to cool down, something like one hour or more, warm-up program starts over.


 
 I'm more worried about damage from the flickers, not slight changes in temp.


----------



## negura

I give up.


----------



## hodgjy

negura said:


> I give up.


 
 Sorry. I probably wasn't clear. I'm multitasking at the moment. My main worry is damage to the delicate circuits during power flickers. I'm not worried about small temp changes or surges. I'll unplug the gear during storms. Yes, I know there's always the risk there will be a flicker at any moment, even when listening to the gear, but if left on 24/7, the chances of encountering a flicker are greater--and even multiple flickers over the course of time.


----------



## EraserXIV

These power flickers are news to me, that's probably why you're not getting much info on it. Not sure if a passive power conditioner or an isolation transformer will help.


----------



## wahsmoh

7ryder said:


> I think what you're missing here isn't just the increased cost of the DAC chips involved, it is also the cost and time to develop the digital filters required for these chips. Then there is also the case of whether or not the audio manufacturer has the "chops" to be able to even design the required filters.  Taking something off the shelf and slapping it in a case is much faster as well as cheaper.
> 
> That said, even though companies like Linn and Ayre use delta-sigma DAC chips, they put their own filters in and by-pass the built-in filters on the chips themselves; this may be why they've gotten such a good reputation for good sound.
> 
> ...


 
 I agree 7ryder. My experiences with the Ayre Codex at CanJam 2015 gave me a taste of what Ayre's S-D chips/filter do. Still a little bit on the bright tonality, but nothing truly Sabre about it. It sounded very neutral, just not the dynamics and punch of better offerings I have heard.


----------



## 7ryder

hodgjy said:


> To be more clear, I'm not worried about surges. I'll turn off my gear and unplug it during a storm. I'm more concerned with the occasional flicker or short interruption in power. A UPS has been recommended. Is that the consensus? Get a UPS? Or am I too OCD for my own good?


 
 I think you're worrying too much; these things don't matter.


----------



## hodgjy

eraserxiv said:


> These power flickers are news to me, that's probably why you're not getting much info on it. Not sure if a passive power conditioner or an isolation transformer will help.


 
 For some reason, the neighborhood I live in is susceptible to power flickers, and I get about one a month on average. The power completely cuts out for about a second or two, which is enough to shut off devices with soft power switches--and they don't come back on. Those with hard power switches, will power back up. This rapid transition in power doesn't seem to affect more robust things, like my fridge, water heater, washing machine, fans, lights, etc, but I am concerned with delicate electronics with hard switches, such as the Yggy. 
  
 I know I'm probably being OCD, but it was only a few years ago I thought $200 for headphones and $50 for an amp was high dollars. I have since become desensitized to an extent and now have more expensive gear, but moving past the $1000 barrier is huge for me, let alone the $2000 barrier of the Yggy.
  
 If there's no risk of damage to the Yggy from power flickers, no worries. Life is great. If there is risk, then a UPS could be the solution. However, adding another $100-300 or more for a quality UPS/power conditioner adds to the entire price of the Yggy adoption, when every penny already counts as it is.
  
 That's where I'm coming from.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

jason stoddard said:


> Actually, if you take a look back into the deep history of high-end audio, you may see that Nelson and Bruno followed Mike...Mike was an audio rebel first in the 1970s, proselytizing tubes when solid-state had taken over, then using 6DJ8 tubes for audio, rather than the commonly accepted 12AX7 (which Mike has much disdain for.) His original Theta (not Theta Digital) started in the 1970s.
> 
> And then there's Theta Digital, and Mike's first DSP stuff, and jitter, and...
> 
> ...




Dear Jason, 

You are a beautiful writer. Even though your engineering and marketing background occupy a more conspicuous place in the minds of most here, I am struck by your acerbic wit and extraordinarily concise jabs. Your prose reminds of that of James Joyce, by far my favorite craftsman in the English tongue. 

And I would like to think this capacity for wit and concision inflected your choices and tastes in the fear you created 

edit: in the GEAR you created!!!


----------



## EraserXIV

hodgjy said:


> For some reason, the neighborhood I live in is susceptible to power flickers, and I get about one a month on average. The power completely cuts out for about a second or two, which is enough to shut off devices with soft power switches--and they don't come back on. Those with hard power switches, will power back up. This rapid transition in power doesn't seem to affect more robust things, like my fridge, water heater, washing machine, fans, lights, etc, but I am concerned with delicate electronics with hard switches, such as the Yggy.
> 
> I know I'm probably being OCD, but it was only a few years ago I thought $200 for headphones and $50 for an amp was high dollars. I have since become desensitized to an extent and now have more expensive gear, but moving past the $1000 barrier is huge for me, let alone the $2000 barrier of the Yggy.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You should probably direct this question to Schiit via e-mail. If you're afraid of the power shutting off randomly, this might not be much different than frequently using the physical power switch on the Yggy, which I'm sure Schiit accounted for.


----------



## 7ryder

hodgjy said:


> For some reason, the neighborhood I live in is susceptible to power flickers, and I get about one a month on average. The power completely cuts out for about a second or two, which is enough to shut off devices with soft power switches--and they don't come back on. Those with hard power switches, will power back up. This rapid transition in power doesn't seem to affect more robust things, like my fridge, water heater, washing machine, fans, lights, etc, but I am concerned with delicate electronics with hard switches, such as the Yggy.
> 
> I know I'm probably being OCD, but it was only a few years ago I thought $200 for headphones and $50 for an amp was high dollars. I have since become desensitized to an extent and now have more expensive gear, but moving past the $1000 barrier is huge for me, let alone the $2000 barrier of the Yggy.
> 
> ...


 
 If you are this concerned about it, I suggest that you call Schiit and talk to them about it.


----------



## pyfgcrl

hodgjy said:


> For some reason, the neighborhood I live in is susceptible to power flickers, and I get about one a month on average. The power completely cuts out for about a second or two, which is enough to shut off devices with soft power switches--and they don't come back on. Those with hard power switches, will power back up. This rapid transition in power doesn't seem to affect more robust things, like my fridge, water heater, washing machine, fans, lights, etc, but I am concerned with delicate electronics with hard switches, such as the Yggy.
> 
> I know I'm probably being OCD, but it was only a few years ago I thought $200 for headphones and $50 for an amp was high dollars. I have since become desensitized to an extent and now have more expensive gear, but moving past the $1000 barrier is huge for me, let alone the $2000 barrier of the Yggy.
> 
> ...


 
  
 A _quality_ UPS is one that produces a true sine wave, not that digitally stepped approximated type, and those aren't cheap.  I wouldn't worry about a UPS, because it's not like you're listening to it when the power goes out.  If you're concerned about the power blips, and I think it's good to be concerned seeing what you described... consider an isolation transformer, e.g. Tripp-Lite's IS250HG for a > 250w load, though taking a quick look on the 'zon shows the IS500HG to be similarly priced.  I have a larger one (IS1000HG) for a few pieces of equipment and really feel it makes a difference, esp. when I can see all my lights dim when turning on the vacuum, etc. in this older house.  YMMV, but I feel it's a worthwhile investment.


----------



## hodgjy

Thanks for all the responses. I'll email Schiit if I am seriously considering pulling the trigger. The Gungnir is more in line with my price bracket, and it also doesn't need to be powered on 24/7. But I sure wish I could hear R2R decoding.....


----------



## DecentLevi

pldelisle said:


> ...
> 
> A friend is trying to convince me that spending 2000 bucks on a Wyrd + Gungnir + Asgard 2 is a waste of money.
> 
> ...


 
 Some other notable DACs in your $500-ish price range worth considering:
 Gustard X12
 HRT Music Streamer III
  
 Some other notable amps to try, also worth around $500:
Gustard H10
Cavalli Liquid Carbon
  
 Otherwise, the Schiit Modi 2 pairs quite well with the Schiit Vali, which is only about a $10 upgrade from the Magni 2.
  
 I second that the Momentums are "really that bad". Bloated artificial bass and super bright treble with a fakey midrange, and these can's don't scale AT ALL, meaning they sound just as bad with cheap or expensive gear. YMMV.
  
 PS- not to backslide or anything but I also have my doubts about Purrin being the Messiah - he was there at CanJam and I don't remember anything supernatural surround him. (LOL)


----------



## Sonic Defender

pldelisle said:


> You think ? Really ?!
> Won't be audible because the Sonar was good or also because of my headphones?
> 
> Spotted a used Gungnir on Audio Mart. Will try to get it. I would save up to 450 $ over a new one. That would give me the opportunity to buy HD 650.


 

 So funny, I wonder if that was my Gungnir? I'm using the M51 now, but very likely a Yggy is going to find it's way into my system.


----------



## airs

hodgjy said:


> Thanks for all the responses. I'll email Schiit if I am seriously considering pulling the trigger. The Gungnir is more in line with my price bracket, and it also doesn't need to be powered on 24/7. But I sure wish I could hear R2R decoding.....


 
  
 Well you could always audition it for 15 days. Although you'd be out ~$188: shipping to you ($36.50 for my zip), shipping back to Schiit (assume $36.50), and 5% restocking fee (Schiit calls it a transaction fee, $114.95)


----------



## hodgjy

airs said:


> Well you could always audition it for 15 days. Although you'd be out ~$188: shipping to you ($36.50 for my zip), shipping back to Schiit (assume $36.50), and 5% restocking fee (Schiit calls it a transaction fee, $114.95)


 
 Na, I really do try to use return policies in good faith. I only buy after extensive research and only return if I'm completely unhappy. If I get the Yggy, it's staying put until Schiit's next super duper uber monster DAC comes out.


----------



## pyfgcrl

airs said:


> Well you could always audition it for 15 days. Although you'd be out ~$188: shipping to you ($36.50 for my zip), shipping back to Schiit (assume $36.50), and 5% restocking fee (Schiit calls it a transaction fee, $114.95)


 

 mmm, that sounds like it'd be worth it — y'know, just to be sure.  But then on me, @purrin, @zerodeefex et al pretty much have me convinced I'd be _very_ unlikely to return it.  Maybe that's what @hodgjy is concerned about; they will like it so much that it'll burn a hole in their wallet.


----------



## pyfgcrl

hodgjy said:


> Na, I really do try to use return policies in good faith. I only buy after extensive research and only return if I'm completely unhappy. If I get the Yggy, it's staying put until Schiit's next super duper uber monster DAC comes out.


 

 Do it do it do it do it


----------



## airs

hodgjy said:


> Na, I really do try to use return policies in good faith. I only buy after extensive research and only return if I'm completely unhappy. If I get the Yggy, it's staying put until Schiit's next super duper uber monster DAC comes out.


 
  
 I wasn't suggesting you do it maliciously. It's just good to know that if you really don't like the DAC you have some recourse.


----------



## hodgjy

airs said:


> I wasn't suggesting you do it maliciously. It's just good to know that if you really don't like the DAC you have some recourse.


 
 After re-reading your post, I caught your intention. I'm also a penny counter, so the $188 I would eat if I returned the Yggy could have gone towards a Gungnir.


----------



## pyfgcrl

hodgjy said:


> After re-reading your post, I caught your intention. I'm also a penny counter, so the $188 I would eat if I returned the Yggy could have gone towards a Gungnir.


 


mrabundio said:


> Mine too! Now, who would like to buy my Gungnir?


 

 Match made in heaven.


----------



## jacal01

@hodgjy:
  
Here ya go.


----------



## wahsmoh

'
  
 First time the Theta put me to tears.. it was beautiful.. I haven't listened to many electronic music songs since using this DAC and just listened to Nero and was floored. How is this digital harshness not hurting my ears already?? I was hearing sounds not heard before.. bass control and impact unlike anything I have heard.. Do we blame it on our headphones when in reality it was our DAC all along?? Next LA /San Diego Head-fi meet you will hear this beast...
  
 one problem with Theta, it makes music sound too good


----------



## pldelisle

Well, I'm listening right now to the E-Mu 0202. 
  
 Lol ........... 
  
 What a piece of crap. 
  
 No but seriously ... It's a chance that my first language is French and I don't know all the synonyms for "crappy" and "bad" in English, because that interface would get them all. 
  
 Horrible. I can remember details I hear when listening to my Asus that are simply not there using this "audio interface".

 Treble are horrible. Cymbals that I LOVE in some newer songs of Linkin Park are simply horrible. The instruments are not "divided" (découpés in French...), the soundstage is awful. You perceive absolutely nothing of the beauty of a song. Female voices are a lot too low. In brief, sound reproduction is terrible.
  
 No seriously, I hope my friend was kidding me when he borrowed me that. 
  
 Sure, it's "clearer" than the integrated chipset in my MacBook, but I even prefer it because it has less bass. The bass is simply too present on the E-Mu. 
  
 Clearly a downgrade compared to my previous Asus Xonar STX. E-Mu is Creative branded, and it's not for nothing.... Creative was sinking at this time and is still. 
  
 Can't believe this piece of crap was sold for 150 $. I'm sure the Schiit Fulla makes a better job than this for half the price it was sold.


----------



## estreeter

decentlevi said:


> Some other notable DACs in your $500-ish price range worth considering:
> Gustard X12
> HRT Music Streamer III
> 
> ...


 
  
 It would seem that Alex hasnt sold all the initial run of 500 LC amps - even so, waiting 4 months for your amp to arrive may not be everyone's cup of tea. Projected price for the LC when it goes into full production is 799USD - if the adulation afforded to Alex's amps here is any guide, that decision would seem to be a no-brainer.


----------



## Ableza

wahsmoh said:


> one problem with Theta, it makes music sound too good


 
  
 When the early announcements for Yggdrasil were made I could not help but think, "This will not be the most expensive product Schiit has ever made, it will be the least expensive Theta DAC ever made!"


----------



## Sonic Defender

wahsmoh said:


> '
> 
> First time the Theta put me to tears.. it was beautiful.. I haven't listened to many electronic music songs since using this DAC and just listened to Nero and was floored. How is this digital harshness not hurting my ears already?? I was hearing sounds not heard before.. bass control and impact unlike anything I have heard.. Do we blame it on our headphones when in reality it was our DAC all along?? Next LA /San Diego Head-fi meet you will hear this beast...
> 
> one problem with Theta, it makes music sound too good





 The DAC can really make a difference. I was shocked at how differently the M51 presented things as compared with my Gungnir. Not going to proclaim one as better, I guess that is very subjective, but most certainly different. I had always read about the Gungnir being a bass monster, but I really just assumed that the amps and headphones were most responsible for this. Then I hear the M51 and the bass is so different, I was very surprised for sure.


----------



## wahsmoh

ableza said:


> When the early announcements for Yggdrasil were made I could not help but think, "This will not be the most expensive product Schiit has ever made, it will be the least expensive Theta DAC ever made!"


 
 Hehe except the Progeny was $995 back in 94' and mine was upgraded bringing it up to $1200 or more. But it will be the least expensive statement DAC that has ever been made by "Theta" and if it outperforms the Gen V (which Purrin suggests it has) then it has succeeded in doing its job.


----------



## Stillhart

liu junyuan said:


> I recall Purrin stating that the Yggy is capable of extracting plankton from any recording. There is also something to be said for tone.


 
  
 They should have called the Yggy the "Baleen".  <ba dump tss!>
  


pldelisle said:


> The Yggy seems just ... wow ! Incredible !!!!!
> 
> But I'm sorry I have to ask this question :
> 
> ...


 
  
 That seems like an extraordinarily high amount to pay for that combo.  I know Jason and Mike are reading this, but I see no reason not to avail yourself of the discounted ones that flood the classifieds here.
  


hodgjy said:


> To be more clear, I'm not worried about surges. I'll turn off my gear and unplug it during a storm. I'm more concerned with the occasional flicker or short interruption in power. A UPS has been recommended. Is that the consensus? Get a UPS? Or am I too OCD for my own good?


 
  
 Yes, a UPS is the answer you seek.  Something like this is a pure sine wave one (as suggested earlier) and can be found much cheaper on eBay.  I've no first-hand experience with it, but I have been considering trying it...
  
  
 Replacement Gustard U12 still doesn't work with my Theta.    I emailed Kingwa for a quote on a DI-2014.


----------



## purrin

borrego said:


> No... No... No... I didn't imply all electronic music are of low resolution. Definitely not what I meant.


 
  
 I think you would be surprised. Yggy is able to scrape off a lot more musical information than I thought ever existed in old 16/44 Redbook CDs. But then again, a decent amount of pop/rock from the 70s and 80s was well produced and recorded. Also Daft Punk sounds better on Yggy. Incredible bass slam and articulation*, separation, precise imaging. These are crucial to techno. There's no requirement for pristine recordings, although I think you get more back from them compared to mediocre recordings.
  
 * Henceforth to be known as "Moffat Bass". I know you Theta owners know what I am talking about, especially on the higher-end units.
  


conquerator2 said:


> My acquisition of the Theta puts my lust for Yggy to sleep, indefinitely *
> 
> * As long as the Theta is able to work


 
  
 At least you have a backup plan now for your Theta. Are you still visiting the Los Angeles area this summer?


----------



## gevorg

stillhart said:


> Yes, a UPS is the answer you seek.  Something like this is a pure sine wave one (as suggested earlier) and can be found much cheaper on eBay.  I've no first-hand experience with it, but I have been considering trying it...




I actually have that Cyberpower for my desktop PC (the 1350VA version to be exact). One day I plugged just my Matrix X-Sabre DAC and Bryston BHA-1 amp to its battery outlets and it made the sound quality *worse* than straight from the wall. Collapsed soundstage, edgy, flat sound. Really blew my mind, I did not expect to hear any difference. This made me venture into audiofool territory and a few weeks ago I bought a used Furman IT Reference 7 (balanced isolation transformer). Another surprise! It made the DAC and amp sound better, like I don't want to take off the headphones from my head, the music "feels" good. Better soundstage/localization of instruments, and better/punchier bass. Never thought I would use these words to describe a power component, but here I am. What.


----------



## estreeter

wahsmoh said:


> Hehe except the Progeny was $995 back in 94' and mine was upgraded bringing it up to $1200 or more. But it will be the least expensive statement DAC that has ever been made by "Theta" and if it outperforms the Gen V (which Purrin suggests it has) then it has succeeded in doing its job.


 
  
 Why have you put quotes around Theta ? I get that it's not the same company as the current Theta Digital, but I thought most here grasped that.


----------



## Stillhart

Deep breaths, everyone. No need to get personal.


----------



## prot

thx for the fast admin cleanup ... sorry for that, it did not go as I (foolishly) expected


----------



## Liu Junyuan

stillhart said:


> Deep breaths, everyone. No need to get personal.




No worries. He will be the first person I have ever blocked. I'm done with it and won't be further trolled. 

On with the DACs!


----------



## arnaud

wahsmoh said:


> '
> 
> First time the Theta put me to tears.. it was beautiful.. I haven't listened to many electronic music songs since using this DAC and just listened to Nero and was floored. How is this digital harshness not hurting my ears already?? I was hearing sounds not heard before.. bass control and impact unlike anything I have heard.. Do we blame it on our headphones when in reality it was our DAC all along?? Next LA /San Diego Head-fi meet you will hear this beast...
> 
> one problem with Theta, it makes music sound too good





 I don't want Schiit to end up crying when they find out what their user base is using to pay homage to the Iggy, so I am proposing this alternative 
  

  
 I might even prefer an older record from them:
  
l
  
 Although I can't guarantee my DAC can resolve fly's part in the recording, I rest assured you won't be disappointed listening to these recordings with the Iggy...


----------



## estreeter

@purrin, I read your thoughts on the BADA - just wondering if you've spent any time with the Reference ?
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/599-berkeley-audio-design-alpha-dac-reference-series-review/
  
 16K is a lot of beer and buffalo wings, but you seem to have access to other gear in that sphere and beyond : just curious.


----------



## borrego

purrin said:


> I think you would be surprised. Yggy is able to scrape off a lot more musical information than I thought ever existed in old 16/44 Redbook CDs. But then again, a decent amount of pop/rock from the 70s and 80s was well produced and recorded. Also Daft Punk sounds better on Yggy. Incredible bass slam and articulation*, separation, precise imaging. These are crucial to techno. There's no requirement for pristine recordings, although I think you get more back from them compared to mediocre recordings.
> 
> * Henceforth to be known as "Moffat Bass". I know you Theta owners know what I am talking about, especially on the higher-end units.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You know, the fact is I am just looking for reasons for not buying the Yggy.
  
 Reasons:
 1. Fewer than 25% of my music material are considered as good, or considered as "true to live" recordings.
 2. The power of my current apartment is not stable, with voltage varies between 210V to 225V. (unfortunately, Schitt's reply to me the Yggy power section can handle 230V +- 10% without problem...)
 3. I need to upgrade my current CAS setup (e.g. like running 2 computers for setting up JPlay in client server mode) to make the best out of my DAC.
 4. I want to keep my NFB-1, or upgrade to another audio-gd PCM1704 DAC, so I can keep using the current mode output to my audio-gd Master 1 preamp of my speaker setup. Would the JFET analogue output section of the Yggy color sounds more than audio-gd's CASS, and offset the AR5791 advantage over the Sabre or PCM1704?
 5. How important is "true to live" sound from the DAC if I am listening to my Grado?
  
 I am currently struggle at Reason (3) above.


----------



## Baldr

Moffat bass lives in Decca Cartridges, as well.  They were my original bass repro inspiration. Mark I and IIs really rock.  Sorry for ot.


----------



## johnjen

If memory servers those decca carts. were a bitch to dial in.
  
 JJ


----------



## wink

Decca Deram cartridges?


----------



## Baldr

Decca Mark I and Decca Mark II.  They are a bitch, expensive and require the old Decca arm or the Decca-SME adapter.  Absolutely worth it.  The Derams are the mega-cheapo underperformers.


----------



## johnjen

And OH the shreeks and feelings of abject horror when the arm dropped from any height, and the stylus imploded…
  
 But their 'direct' path to the coils is still superior.
  
 JJ


----------



## wink

Quote:Baldr 





> The Derams are the mega-cheapo underperformers.


 
 Yep, that's the ones I remember.....


----------



## prot

Going back to our DACs, I recently came about an all-in-one audiobox ... swiss army kind of stuff. With an encouraging review from qobuz of all places
http://www.qobuz.com/ie-en/info/Hi-Fi-Guide/Pro-Ject-DAC-Box-RS-inputs-and176406
DAC, HP amp, preamp, nine(!) digital inputs, tube and solid state outputs and a remote control ... plus a (unique?) novelty feature: two different DAC chips. 
I dont expect it to be TOTL in any respect but at about $1000 street price it might just be the best hifi bargain. 
Did anyone try it? Especially curious about the quality of the HP out.


----------



## hodgjy

stillhart said:


> Yes, a UPS is the answer you seek.  Something like this is a pure sine wave one (as suggested earlier) and can be found much cheaper on eBay.  I've no first-hand experience with it, but I have been considering trying it...


 
 Excellent; thank you.


----------



## pyfgcrl

gevorg said:


> I actually have that Cyberpower for my desktop PC (the 1350VA version to be exact). One day I plugged just my Matrix X-Sabre DAC and Bryston BHA-1 amp to its battery outlets and it made the sound quality *worse* than straight from the wall. Collapsed soundstage, edgy, flat sound. Really blew my mind, I did not expect to hear any difference. This made me venture into audiofool territory and a few weeks ago I bought a used Furman IT Reference 7 (balanced isolation transformer). Another surprise! It made the DAC and amp sound better, like I don't want to take off the headphones from my head, the music "feels" good. Better soundstage/localization of instruments, and better/punchier bass. Never thought I would use these words to describe a power component, but here I am. What.


 

 There's actually a reason that a Balanced Isolation Transformer costs more than a ~$115 UPS, pure sine or not.  There's oodles of noise coming out of those cheap CyberPower UPSes, which is why I also agree with you and went for the "Hospital Grade" Tripp-Lite over the regular version.  Twice the price, but I still paid < $400 for a 1000VA and <$300 for a 500VA unit.  I find CompSource always tends to have these for cheap.  Tripp-Lite's documentation calls out that the -HG models have leakage current less than 100µA, which it definitely doesn't say for the regular ISOlatOR series (non Hospital Grade).  I find a lot of stuff that's labelled and marketed to audiophiles costs a ridiculous amount of money over the regular product, but then it's all about finding one that works well.  That's my two cents, YMMV.


----------



## warrior1975

I'm actively looking for a dac... So confusing though. I use a portable dap for desktop, usually my AK240. I've never purchased a dac, and I'm very curious as to how much audible improvement I would hear. I have good headphones (th900) and a couple of amps,woo wa6 being my best right now. Just wondering if I will hear a noticeable difference. Is anyone using a portable dap as their source? Seems like most use some other type. I don't want to waste anymore money. I don't have "golden ears", quite the opposite.


----------



## jacal01

stillhart said:


> They should have called the Yggy the "Baleen".  <ba dump tss!>


 
  
 Yeah, I already did the "Swim away!" from Finding Nemo, but nobody caught that either.


----------



## wahsmoh

estreeter said:


> Why have you put quotes around Theta ? I get that it's not the same company as the current Theta Digital, but I thought most here grasped that.


 
 I was implying what you just suggested. I'm not sure if everyone here gets that and if you look at back-to-back line of products released by Theta in the 90s it is clear that Mike was behind that undertaking(upgradeable. OMG) and when you look at Theta today they barely show their face to the world. They aren't storming CES or audio fests like during the 90s to showcase some new top notch product every year.


----------



## prot

warrior1975 said:


> I'm actively looking for a dac... So confusing though. I use a portable dap for desktop, usually my AK240. I've never purchased a dac, and I'm very curious as to how much audible improvement I would hear. I have good headphones (th900) and a couple of amps,woo wa6 being my best right now. Just wondering if I will hear a noticeable difference. Is anyone using a portable dap as their source? Seems like most use some other type. I don't want to waste anymore money. I don't have "golden ears", quite the opposite.


 
  
 Lots of people swear on night&day diffs between DACs, lots say those are barely audible ... usually I'm in the latter camp.  But noone can explain those diffs for you, just pack your AK & HPs and try some DACs in the first hifi shop you can find.
  
  
 And some food for the schiit fanboys: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/04/at-last-schiit-release-multi-bit-yggdrasil-dac/ .  This part I found most interesting:


> Sitting on an Analog Devices DSP processo, Yggy's digital filter runs at sampling rates of 352/384kHz and places the newly calculated samples _between_ the original samples that (Moffat is at pains to underscore) remain intact.


 
  
 Could that be the source for purrin's extra 'plankton' !? And if yes, is it still fair to say that the iggy 'extracts' more detail from music or we should actually say that it 'adds' (it's own brand of) detail !?


----------



## gournard

Hi all,
  
  Has anybody compared a Theta to a Bryston BDA-1/BDP-1 combo.
  
 The enthusiasm on this thread for DAC's like Theta sent me searching for one but they are scarce where I come from.
 I found a private seller who allowed me around for a listen yesterday and I was mightily impressed, even though it is a delta-sigma design.
  
 I am well familiar with the Oppo 105 but the Bryston combo easily and beautifully outperformed it. I could have listened for hours, something that has never happened with the Oppo.  I am hoping someone who has heard both Theta and Bryston would comment.
  
 After being immersed in the music the combo was making with red book CD I feel no pressing urge to concern myself with hi-res.  His asking price is about 65 percent of the yggy !


----------



## Sonic Defender

gournard said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Has anybody compared a Theta to a Bryston BDA-1/BDP-1 combo.
> 
> ...


 

 Asking price for what? If it is for an older DAC, regardless of quality of sound I would certainly not want to pay that much. I could be being a little too pessimistic, but as things age, they get closer to the day they fail. Sure, no moving parts, but it is at least a consideration. What if it fails, are their replacement parts and qualified service personnel? Can it be serviced affordably? I acknowledge this might be much to do about nothing.


----------



## Maxx134

jason stoddard said:


> Actually, if you take a look back into the deep history of high-end audio, you may see that Nelson and Bruno followed Mike...Mike was an audio rebel first in the 1970s, proselytizing tubes when solid-state had taken over, then using 6DJ8 tubes for audio, rather than the commonly accepted 12AX7 (which Mike has much disdain for.)....



Thiss....
This is why I am certain that schiit can come out with the best full balanced tube amp the world has ever seeeenn(!)

If they ever decided to do it...

In meantime I must entertain myself to my own hack job of an amp..


----------



## lukeap69

maxx134 said:


> Thiss....
> This is why I am certain that schiit can come out with the best full balanced tube amp the world has ever seeeenn(!)
> 
> If they ever decided to do it...
> ...


 
 Not so fast... I'm still saving up for Yggy.


----------



## Jones Bob

maxx134 said:


> Thiss....
> This is why I am certain that schiit can come out with the best full balanced tube amp the world has ever seeeenn(!)
> 
> If they ever decided to do it...
> ...




Mike most certainly knows how to build great sounding tube amps!

I had one of his Moffat modified Citation II amps in the early 1990s. It was in the stock chassis and used only the stock transformers. The circuit was a 6SL7 input/phase splitter using a solid state CCS on the tail. Then cap coupled to triode strapped PP EL-34s. It was magic on my VOTT Altecs and Reference 3As. Even more when I swapped the EL-34s for NOS WE-350Bs. 

I'd love to buy a new Moffat Schiitation II.


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> And some food for the schiit fanboys: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/04/at-last-schiit-release-multi-bit-yggdrasil-dac/ .  This part I found most interesting:
> 
> Could that be the source for purrin's extra 'plankton' !? And if yes, is it still fair to say that the iggy 'extracts' more detail from music or we should actually say that it 'adds' (it's own brand of) detail !?


 
  
 Going back to the Thetas, what appeared to be the most responsible for plankton was the quality of the D to A chip, the number of them, the quality of the power supply, the digital receiver, the i/v converter and rest of the analog out circuits. The DSP which was the constant among these DACs seemed most responsible for the holographic staging qualities. The Theta Cobalt I had didn't have the DSP.


----------



## 7ryder

wahsmoh said:


> I was implying what you just suggested. I'm not sure if everyone here gets that and if you look at back-to-back line of products released by Theta in the 90s it is clear that Mike was behind that undertaking(upgradeable. OMG) and when you look at Theta today they barely show their face to the world. They aren't storming CES or audio fests like during the 90s to showcase some new top notch product every year.


 
 Theta went through some tough times...I think the company almost folded. ATI bought them back in 2007 and they've started to roll some new products out, like the Casablanca IV and some new amps.  Now that they have some new stuff out, you might see them at some of the audio shows.
  
 As for CES, I'm not sure what the value is of attending for these small, boutique brands; I'd think that RMAF and shows like that are prolly a better place to show off their wares.
  
 The other thing to remember about these small companies is that they don't necessarily bring entirely new products to market every year; it doesn't make any sense given the cost of bringing a product to market and number of units they sell each year.  That said, Theta has kept the tradition started by Mr Moffat of designing their products so they can be upgraded to latest spec which is cool, especially given the price of their products.  
  
 I have a combined HT/2-channel system (BTW, that's where Yggy is going) and was tempted to ditch my Classe SSP-800 and Linn Klimax Kontrol preamp and go entirely with a Casablanca IV a while back, but at 19" wide, it wouldn't fit in my Middle Atlantic rack. Damn First World problems...


----------



## bmichels

warrior1975 said:


> I'm actively looking for a dac... So confusing though. I use a portable dap for desktop, usually my AK240. I've never purchased a dac, and I'm very curious as to how much audible improvement I would hear. I have good headphones (th900) and a couple of amps,woo wa6 being my best right now. Just wondering if I will hear a noticeable difference. Is anyone using a portable dap as their source? Seems like most use some other type. I don't want to waste anymore money. I don't have "golden ears", quite the opposite.


 
  
 You are not alone...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I am myself trying very hard to find a TOL Desktop DAC to replace my HUGO that is used today with my desktop AMP, and so far... I have not found a desktop DAC with enough audible improvement worth buying a second DAC to replace my HUGO !


----------



## Maxx134

bmichels said:


> You are not alone...
> 
> I am myself trying very hard to find a TOL Desktop DAC to replace my HUGO that is used today with my desktop AMP, and so far... I have not found a desktop DAC with enough audible improvement worth buying a second DAC to replace my HUGO !



Did U hear a Geek out?

Did U order a yggy?


----------



## Argo Duck

FWIW, both. The differences are barely audible _and_ they are night and day. Once you hear a difference between two DACs, it's hard to un-hear it. It then seems large and one might - if unlucky - be forced to pay a lot for that difference! Yet, in real terms, it might only matter for 0.1% of your material...

Completely agree with prot's excellent advice btw. Listen for yourself.

Btw, until I sat down and did a series of A/Bs (level-matched, conducted with careful attention to psychometric principles and with good awareness of cognition and memory-based principles bla bla), I thought "all dacs sounded the same". Or rather, I thought there were differences but too subtle for me to hear. I was wrong...



prot said:


> *Lots of people swear on night&day diffs between DACs, lots say those are barely audible* ... usually I'm in the latter camp.  But noone can explain those diffs for you, just pack your AK & HPs and try some DACs in the first hifi shop you can find.


----------



## AustinValentine

argo duck said:


> FWIW, both. The differences are barely audible _and_ they are night and day. Once you hear a difference between two DACs, it's hard to un-hear it.


 
  
 This.
  
 The closest analogue I can think of is _Kerning_ in typography. The difference in distance between letters in a well-kerned font versus an un-kerned font (or, god helps us, a poorly-kerned font) are extremely minimal. But, for someone who knows what to look for and/or is sensitive to it, that small delta makes a huge difference.


----------



## eddypoon

I have little respect for DAR over the years - look at what they wrote.  Anything substance? 
  
Sorry, for OT.  
  
  
  
  
 Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prot*
> 
> 
> 
> And some food for the schiit fanboys: http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/04/at-last-schiit-release-multi-bit-yggdrasil-dac/ .


----------



## haywood

austinvalentine said:


> This.
> 
> The closest analogue I can think of is _Kerning_ in typography. The difference in distance between letters in a well-kerned font versus an un-kerned font (or, god helps us, a poorly-kerned font) are extremely minimal. But, for someone who knows what to look for and/or is sensitive to it, that small delta makes a huge difference.


 

 Or the uncanny valley effect:
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
  
 We've evolved to be very good at recognizing the way certain things are and when they're even subtly off it can be disconcerting.


----------



## hans030390

stillhart said:


> Replacement Gustard U12 still doesn't work with my Theta.    I emailed Kingwa for a quote on a DI-2014.


 
  
 Can't remember...what way were you trying to hook up the U12 to the Theta? And you did get it to work from some other source via the same input, right? My Gen V doesn't have the coax/BNC input (will try to install one myself soon), but it works fine with the U12 via AES.
  


prot said:


> Could that be the source for purrin's extra 'plankton' !? And if yes, is it still fair to say that the iggy 'extracts' more detail from music or we should actually say that it 'adds' (it's own brand of) detail !?


 
  
 You know what oversampling does, right?


----------



## Stillhart

hans030390 said:


> Can't remember...what way were you trying to hook up the U12 to the Theta? And you did get it to work from some other source via the same input, right? My Gen V doesn't have the coax/BNC input (will try to install one myself soon), but it works fine with the U12 via AES.


 
  
 My Theta has some old optical input that looks like BNC, and two RCA coax inputs.  When I use my X5 coax out to the Theta, both inputs work fine.  When I use my U12 coax out to the Adcom or Audio-GD it works fine.  When I try the U12 coax out to the Theta, it doesn't work.  :-/


----------



## gournard

@ Sonic Defender,   Maybe I did not make myself clear. Not being able to locate a Theta DAC I had a chance to listen to a Bryston combo and I liked it very very much. I have not heard a Theta and was hoping someone on the forum who has heard both could briefly describe the difference. I want to buy a really good DAC that I will not need to upgrade. It must be a real improvement and step-up from the Oppo, but I can not afford a new Yggy.__


----------



## diamondears

Deleted. I didn't read the topic title enough...lol

What's wrong with Delta-Sigma DACs again?


----------



## bmichels

maxx134 said:


> Did U hear a Geek out?
> 
> Did U order a yggy?


 
 I tried (& compared to HUGO)  during 2 weeks at home the ARM DP777 SE and tried during few hours the NAGRA HD DAC.   Next step is to compare it to the TotalDAC D-1 Dual...


----------



## prot

eddypoon said:


> I have little respect for DAR over the years - look at what they wrote. Anything substance?




It's just an early intro piece, guess we can give him some slack. But there is another gem in that article that made me scratch my head. 



> Another big influencer of sound quality is the digital filter for which, the Indiana Jones of digital audio that he is, Moffat journeyed back through Western Electric’s archives to 1917 for maths would ultimately beget a “unique closed-form digital filter”.




Nice indiana jones story but 1917 was an early age of analog audio. There was no digital, no DSP and barely any math involved in audio (prolly nothing more than ohm's and maxwell's equations). So what is all that about?!


----------



## Baldr

Once upon a time, in the US there existed a monopoly called Bell Telophone Company.  They created Bell Telephone Labs as a "think tank" subsidiary.  This entity developed virtually all valuable audio technology in the early 20th century, manufacturing much of it by another subsidiary called Western Electric.  What is lesser known, particularly among those of limited or glib knowledge of audio technical history, is that Bell Labs developed and patented what later became known as sampling theory and the fundamentals of what became digital audio some 70 years before the fact of realized equipment; this in the era of World War One.  Bell labs published a forgotten time domain multirate digital filter in 1917 at a time when  no hardware existed to implement it.  I spent five years of my life figuring out how to combine this with modern frequency domain filters.  The resultant filter is the DSP cornerstone of all Theta and now Schiit filters. One has only to peruse the footnotes in modern DSP grad school level textbooks to verify this.


----------



## diamondears

Didn't realize immediately this is just a marketing thread.


----------



## DecentLevi

diamondears said:


> Didn't realize immediately this is just a marketing thread.


 
 I've read about 100 pages of this thread and the thought of this "being a marketing thread" never crossed my mind. To me, it seems more like an enriching forum filled with open minded people who can support each other with the coolest DAC gear advice. Us head-fier's are not paid, we just like to share Schiit that's too good to keep to ourselves. Another good related thread can be found here. How many pages (recent section) of this thread have you read?


----------



## Insidious Meme

diamondears said:


> Didn't realize immediately this is just a marketing thread.




If we extend your definition, this whole site is one big marketing spiel.


----------



## ginetto61

diamondears said:


> Deleted. I didn't read the topic title enough...lol
> 
> *What's wrong with Delta-Sigma DACs again?*


 
  
  
 Hi i think that there is a consensus about them sounding flat and unexciting, lacking from a dynamic point of view.
 I read that they have traded resolution for dynamics
 Unfortunately i have not been able to listen a good multibit dac carefully (they are old, rare and still expensive on the 2nd hand market. A sign of quality i guess).
 But a simple TDA 1543 gives me some excitment really.
 Let's see when the product will be more widely available and reviews will arrive
 kind regards,  gino


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

diamondears said:


> Didn't realize immediately this is just a marketing thread.


 
  
 I've read this thread since its inception and I've never had that impression.


----------



## diamondears

johnnycanuck said:


> I've read this thread since its inception and I've never had that impression.



Schiit Yggdrasil?


----------



## wahsmoh

diamondears said:


> Schiit Yggdrasil?


 
 People started talking about the Yggdrasil because it just came out... The hype train never stopped rolling after it left the station in January. Maybe you should go join the Auralic Vega thread 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 since all overpriced DACs sound the same hehe


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

diamondears said:


> johnnycanuck said:
> 
> 
> > I've read this thread since its inception and I've never had that impression.
> ...


 
  
 See http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil


----------



## prot

baldr said:


> Once upon a time, in the US there existed a monopoly called Bell Telophone Company.  They created Bell Telephone Labs as a "think tank" subsidiary.  This entity developed virtually all valuable audio technology in the early 20th century, manufacturing much of it by another subsidiary called Western Electric.  What is lesser known, particularly among those of limited or glib knowledge of audio technical history, is that Bell Labs developed and patented what later became known as sampling theory and the fundamentals of what became digital audio some 70 years before the fact of realized equipment; this in the era of World War One.  Bell labs published a forgotten time domain multirate digital filter in 1917 at a time when  no hardware existed to implement it.  I spent five years of my life figuring out how to combine this with modern frequency domain filters.  The resultant filter is the DSP cornerstone of all Theta and now Schiit filters. One has only to peruse the footnotes in modern DSP grad school level textbooks to verify this.




Many thx for the history update ... thought the whole digital thing started after ww2 with theoretical inceptions around 1930.


----------



## pldelisle

I noticed that the Yggy comes with USB Gen 3 board. Any indication that BiFrost and Gungnir will get this update soon ?


----------



## Tuco1965

pldelisle said:


> I noticed that the Yggy comes with USB Gen 3 board. Any indication that BiFrost and Gungnir will get this update soon ?




It's been asked and answered with a not any time soon. Who knows though.


----------



## pldelisle

Sorry. Thanks for your answer. I didn't notice it has been asked.


----------



## Stillhart

diamondears said:


> Deleted. I didn't read the topic title enough...lol
> 
> What's wrong with Delta-Sigma DACs again?


 
  
 There's a lot of thread to go through to get this answer.  First thing to realize is that the thread title is the opinion of one man (Purrin), not everyone on Head-fi or even in this thread.  The short version is that some folks think that D-S DAC's don't sound as good as analogue R2R DAC's.  They sound more "digital" and "grainy" and "artifical", while the R2R sounds more "natural" and "realistic" and "smooth".
  
 As someone who recently picked up a pair of vintage R2R DAC's, I'd have to agree that they do sound better IMO.  But I don't think this makes D-S DAC's sound bad, I just don't really like that sound anymore.  
  


diamondears said:


> Didn't realize immediately this is just a marketing thread.


 
  
 The Yggy just came out; it's a hype train thing.  Eventually talk will return to the differences between high-end DAC's.  You just popped in at an interesting time.
  
 Also, it just so happens that the designer of some of the best R2R DAC's from the 90's now works for Schiit Audio.  He comes in here and educates us occasionally and I find that pretty awesome.  If it happens to help sell some units as a corollary, well I'd say he earned it by doing what most companies won't.  Just my $0.02.


----------



## Chris J

argo duck said:


> FWIW, both. The differences are barely audible _and_ they are night and day. Once you hear a difference between two DACs, it's hard to un-hear it. It then seems large and one might - if unlucky - be forced to pay a lot for that difference! Yet, in real terms, it might only matter for 0.1% of your material...
> 
> Completely agree with prot's excellent advice btw. Listen for yourself.
> 
> Btw, until I sat down and did a series of A/Bs (level-matched, conducted with careful attention to psychometric principles and with good awareness of cognition and memory-based principles bla bla), I thought "all dacs sounded the same". Or rather, I thought there were differences but too subtle for me to hear. I was wrong...


 
  
 I would argue with you, but you are crazier than me.


----------



## ciphercomplete

diamondears said:


> Didn't realize immediately this is just a marketing thread.


 




 The original post predates Purrin hearing the Yggy for the first time.  The Yggy is the first dac by Schiit to top the list.  The Master 7 ruled the roost for quite some time before Purrin got his hands on a Sonic Frontiers dac.  You could not be more wrong about this thread.


----------



## pyfgcrl

stillhart said:


> There's a lot of thread to go through to get this answer.  First thing to realize is that the thread title is the opinion of one man (Purrin), not everyone on Head-fi or even in this thread.  The short version is that some folks think that D-S DAC's don't sound as good as analogue R2R DAC's.  They sound more "digital" and "grainy" and "artifical", while the R2R sounds more "natural" and "realistic" and "smooth".
> 
> As someone who recently picked up a pair of vintage R2R DAC's, I'd have to agree that they do sound better IMO.  But I don't think this makes D-S DAC's sound bad, I just don't really like that sound anymore.
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah, I don't see any engineer-types from other high-end audio companies giving us these lessons like Mike (and Jason for that matter) do... they clearly give a Schiit what we, the customer(s), think — that's my perspective anyway.  Other manufacturers are clearly missing the boat if they're not here to educate and enlighten.  I for one am so sick of audiophile-oriented marketing fluff and a good half my reason for trusting in the value of Schiit products is the honesty and _*straightforwardness of the posts from the company's owners on an enthusiast message board*_.


----------



## diamondears

pyfgcrl said:


> Yeah, I don't see any engineer-types from other high-end audio companies giving us these lessons like Mike (and Jason for that matter) do... they clearly give a Schiit what we, the customer(s), think — that's my perspective anyway.  Other manufacturers are clearly missing the boat if they're not here to educate and enlighten.  I for one am so sick of audiophile-oriented marketing fluff and a good half my reason for trusting in the value of Schiit products is the honesty and _*straightforwardness of the posts from the company's owners on an enthusiast message board*_.



iFi audio...into bit-perfect filtering since 2 years ago when the iFi micro iDSD was released (and it's portable)...AMR way way back...their engineers (Thoersten Loestch, among others) discuss a lot about their engineering at the iFi nano, micro, Retro 50 and Pro threads...


----------



## estreeter

ciphercomplete said:


> The original post predates Purrin hearing the Yggy for the first time.  The Yggy is the first dac by Schiit to top the list.  The Master 7 ruled the roost for quite some time before Purrin got his hands on a Sonic Frontiers dac.  You could not be more wrong about this thread.


 
  
 But from the day he got the SFD DAC, the remainder on that first page basically went into a box marked '_toys I know I'll never play with again_' : it was always going to be a quest for a modern version of one of the vintage R2R DACs from that point forward. Not being critical, but its all there in black and white. Whether that makes this a 'marketing thread' is a matter of opinion but my interpretation of that first page now is that the non-R2R DACs are just there for comparison purposes. If I was about to spend anything resembling a thousand dollars on a d-s DAC, would this thread be an incentive to hold off until I had more money or at least had a chance to hear the Yggy for myself - to my way of thinking, it would, particularly given the scarcity of the highly regarded vintage R2R models on the used market.


----------



## wahsmoh

That bad part of those sweet R2R's... I can get the volume higher before the treble becomes a problem and I will probably suffer quicker hearing loss


----------



## estreeter

@pfygcri, have you never seen the epic posts typed up by Ayre's Charles Hansen ? This thread got decidedly nasty in places, but Charlie shoots straight from the hip and he clearly got sick of the usual suspects at CA telling him how to design a DAC. Like Mike and Jason, he wears his heart on his sleeve re the future of DSD - or lack thereof - but he was bludgeoned into implementing DSD in the latest version of the QB-9. 
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/ayre-wants-%241-5k-direct-stream-digitaled-qb-9-a-15650/


----------



## Insidious Meme

Looks like a place in the intarwebs that Jason and Mike never visited..


----------



## pyfgcrl

diamondears said:


> iFi audio...into bit-perfect filtering since 2 years ago when the iFi micro iDSD was released (and it's portable)...AMR way way back...their engineers (Thoersten Loestch, among others) discuss a lot about their engineering at the iFi nano, micro, Retro 50 and Pro threads...


 

 Yes, there are a few -- it's not just the guys from Schiit, but I would still call those who take the time to do so the exception, rather than the rule.


----------



## pyfgcrl

estreeter said:


> @pfygcri, have you never seen the epic posts typed up by Ayre's Charles Hansen ? This thread got decidedly nasty in places, but Charlie shoots straight from the hip and he clearly got sick of the usual suspects at CA telling him how to design a DAC. Like Mike and Jason, he wears his heart on his sleeve re the future of DSD - or lack thereof - but he was bludgeoned into implementing DSD in the latest version of the QB-9.


 

 I have, yeah -- pretty sure Mike isn't going to be bludgeoned into implementing DSD, even though many have thrown a few club swings his way.


----------



## pldelisle

Just pull the trigger on Schiit : 
  
 Gungnir with USB
 Wyrd
 Asgard 2
 1x RCA Cables
 2x USB cables
  
 Oufff... Big amount of money, but will sure love this stack.
  
 Next step is headphones, but will have to reflow the bank account before


----------



## GoldfishX

For those of us that have no faith in DSD, it just gives Mike even more credibility. I can't quite wrap my head around the hype of such a limited selection of music, even if what I've heard does sound quite nice.
  
 And yes, this thread does a fine job of "selling" the idea of R2R DAC's. Ignorance and common sense would lead people to believe that DAC's would improve over the years, not fall prey to the cost cutting measures of D-S. But part of that is the fault of the community at large, because there is no real great consensus on what DAC's sound good. Purrin does the best and what I find to be the most objective breakdown available here. It's not coming across as shilling or "new toy syndrome" like so many other DAC impressions do.
  
 I'm of the camp that expects to see an R2R-based Bifrost or Gungnir next year, using trickle-down technology (Modi? Hmm...) or even a Yggy Jr (since it's inevitable that a good number of people can't shell out $2300).
  
 Changing the marketplace from cost-effective D-S by increasing awareness of R2R would be quite a stroke of brilliance on Schitt's part. If it leads to an overall improvement in sound quality, I'm all for it. If other companies can't match it...well, maybe they should stop making DAC's?


----------



## jexby

if you have an extra $70, reconsider the Wyrd and go with an Uptone Audio USB Regen instead.
 that new Regen reclocker provides even better clarity and music detail delivery, without losing depth on soundstage.
 in my setup at least, and confirmed by a bunch of other early customers of the Regen product.


----------



## pyfgcrl

jexby said:


> if you have an extra $70, reconsider the Wyrd and go with an Uptone Audio USB Regen instead.
> that new Regen reclocker provides even better clarity and music detail delivery, without losing depth on soundstage.
> in my setup at least, and confirmed by a bunch of other early customers of the Regen product.


 

 I know you guys are talking about this w/r/t the Gungnir, but I'd would also like to see people assess the quality difference of their new Yggies with their existing Wyrd and Regen units before I plunk money down on one of those, given that it may not even be necessary with the improvements from Schiit's USB v3 in Yggy.  Still haven't heard back from them about the point in the Yggdrasil v1.1 manual about considering a Wyrd for über-power-conserving USB ports... so Jason, is it still beneficial for Yggy or unnecessary?


----------



## wahsmoh

goldfishx said:


> For those of us that have no faith in DSD, it just gives Mike even more credibility. I can't quite wrap my head around the hype of such a limited selection of music, even if what I've heard does sound quite nice.
> 
> And yes, this thread does a fine job of "selling" the idea of R2R DAC's. Ignorance and common sense would lead people to believe that DAC's would improve over the years, not fall prey to the cost cutting measures of D-S. But part of that is the fault of the community at large, because there is no real great consensus on what DAC's sound good. Purrin does the best and what I find to be the most objective breakdown available here. It's not coming across as shilling or "new toy syndrome" like so many other DAC impressions do.
> 
> ...


 
 I dig this. I am keeping my Bifrost Uber and using it as a stand for my Asgard 2 and to keep heat transfer from reaching the Theta below. If they bring about the Bifrost Uber 2 or Gungnir 2 I am all on board with an R2R board update


----------



## DSNORD

wahsmoh said:


> That bad part of those sweet R2R's... I can get the volume higher before the treble becomes a problem and I will probably suffer quicker hearing loss h34r:


----------



## Stillhart

goldfishx said:


> For those of us that have no faith in DSD, it just gives Mike even more credibility. I can't quite wrap my head around the hype of such a limited selection of music, even if what I've heard does sound quite nice.
> 
> snip


 
  
 This.  I have yet to figure out what the hype is all about with DSD.  There's almost none of it around, the files are MASSIVE and expensive.  It's also expensive to get DAC's that support it properly (the huge price difference between the AK120ii and the AK240 is basically DSD256).  And then there's the whole issue of "was it even recorded in DSD or is it resampled?  If so, why even bother using DSD?" etc.  It just seems like such a BS marketing hype thing that I really can't fathom what the big deal is.
  
 Clearly I must be missing something...


----------



## wahsmoh

stillhart said:


> This.  I have yet to figure out what the hype is all about with DSD.  There's almost none of it around, the files are MASSIVE and expensive.  It's also expensive to get DAC's that support it properly (the huge price difference between the AK120ii and the AK240 is basically DSD256).  And then there's the whole issue of "was it even recorded in DSD or is it resampled?  If so, why even bother using DSD?" etc.  It just seems like such a BS marketing hype thing that I really can't fathom what the big deal is.
> 
> Clearly I must be missing something...


 
 I'm sure the Schiit guys sat around a table wondering the same thing. That is why they released the Loki.. just so you can try it. I'm sure there are  better DSD-type DACs out there but why go through the hassle?


----------



## GoldfishX

It's a flavor of the month that has gone past the expiration date.
  
 On the plus side, when someone chimes in and says, "This unit isn't any good...No DSD support", I know to stop listening to them.


----------



## theblueprint

pldelisle said:


> Just pull the trigger on Schiit :
> 
> Gungnir with USB
> Wyrd
> ...




Get a pair of XLR to RCA cables to connect your gungnir to asgard. The XLR outputs are better than the SEs.


----------



## Maxx134

diamondears said:


> Didn't realize immediately this is just a marketing thread.



Dude Im sorry to have to repeat this quote as I have also read your later posts,
 but I have to say it comes across incredibly rude and insulting when "Baldr" was enlightening us with historical information that I am sure everyone appreciated.

Anyways that's how I read it..
Really bad form.







ciphercomplete said:


> The original post predates Purrin hearing the Yggy for the first time.  The Yggy is the first dac by Schiit to top the list.  The Master 7 ruled the roost for quite some time before Purrin got his hands on a Sonic Frontiers dac.  You could not be more wrong about this thread.



he should know this so theres no excuse.




diamondears said:


> iFi audio...into bit-perfect filtering since 2 years ago when the iFi micro iDSD was released (and it's portable)...AMR way way back...their engineers (Thoersten Loestch, among others) discuss a lot about their engineering at the iFi nano, micro, Retro 50 and Pro threads...



now put your same type post in those threads if any and see how it looks.


----------



## Maxx134

pyfgcrl said:


> There's actually a reason that a Balanced Isolation Transformer costs more than a ~$115 UPS, pure sine or not.  There's oodles of noise coming out of those cheap CyberPower UPSes, which is why I also agree with you and went for the "Hospital Grade" Tripp-Lite over the regular version.  Twice the price, but I still paid < $400 for a 1000VA and <$300 for a 500VA unit.  I find CompSource always tends to have these for cheap.  Tripp-Lite's documentation calls out that the -HG models have leakage current less than 100µA, which it definitely doesn't say for the regular ISOlatOR series (non Hospital Grade).  I find a lot of stuff that's labelled and marketed to audiophiles costs a ridiculous amount of money over the regular product, but then it's all about finding one that works well.  That's my two cents, YMMV.



thank you for that info as I just purchased a trip-lite iso transformer very good deal on Amazon.
No more wories about power


----------



## pyfgcrl

stillhart said:


> This.  I have yet to figure out what the hype is all about with DSD.  There's almost none of it around, the files are MASSIVE and expensive.  It's also expensive to get DAC's that support it properly (the huge price difference between the AK120ii and the AK240 is basically DSD256).  And then there's the whole issue of "was it even recorded in DSD or is it resampled?  If so, why even bother using DSD?" etc.  It just seems like such a BS marketing hype thing that I really can't fathom what the big deal is.
> 
> Clearly I must be missing something...


 

 They can't record in DSD; it was invented for archiving and never meant as a format for recording/mastering — for that, they use DXD which is for all intents and purposes (surprise!) — PCM.
  
 The way I understand DSD is, "well, since we're using these P.O.S. delta-sigma DACs in the first place, why bother feeding it PCM when we're turning it into a 1-bit interpretation anyway?"
  
 To which I think, "that's a crummy solution. I think I'll take everything I've read about high-frequency noise in the DSD feed, @Baldr's experience and observations from @purrin and others along with my closet full of PCM music and skip that DSD thing altogether."


----------



## drfindley

Frankly, if the Yggy started a R-2R DAC revival and many manufacturers gave us non-delta-sigma on some level, that'd be great and this whole thread would get so much better. 
  
 Unfortunately, delta-sigma is the norm unless you go vintage. It's kinda like someone discovering how great tubes are and Schiit being the only one making a tube amp.


----------



## skeptic

I think the r2r revival has been going on for a little while already with boutique dacs like the totaldacs, killerdacs and even the audio-gd units, as well as within the diy community.  See, e.g., the 250 page thread on the soekris boards (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendors-bazaar/259488-reference-dac-module-discrete-r-2r-sign-magnitude-24-bit-384-khz.html), which can be simply implemented for a few hundred dollars, or alternatively, done up with some of the very best regulated power supplies and usb->i2s available, like the tempting build misterrogers has up on the FS forum.  
  
 That said, the Yggy seems to encompass some real innovative leaps above these in terms of Schiit's creative implementation of high precision non-audio chips, the unique digital filter, etc.  Very excited for mine to ship early next week!


----------



## diamondears

maxx134 said:


> Dude Im sorry to have to repeat this quote as I have also read your later posts,
> but I have to say it comes across incredibly rude and insulting when "Baldr" was enlightening us with historical information that I am sure everyone appreciated.
> 
> Anyways that's how I read it..
> ...



Different situation pards. Those iFi threads are titled iFi nano/micro/pro/etc....but I digress. 

The Yggdrasil looks like some awesome piece of DAC. Wish I could demo one to see if the price is right for me.


----------



## lojay

Some of the most expensive high end DACs are R2R, such as Audio Note, Totaldac, and MSB DACs.

Edit: due to a unnecessarily hostile reply I think I better be accurate here and say that dCs uses a hybrid multi bit and s-d approach called the ring DAC and exclude it from my earlier statement.


----------



## Sonic Defender

I'm going to make sure at our July headphone meet that we get at least three people to go through multiple trial blind listening tests of the Yggy against the M51. It is important to do this from time to time. Schiit create art, we all know what they are capable of; wonderful musicality, dynamic slam, detail and precision, sonic art.  I will design the listening tests and with some assistance and my background in psychology where such testing is beyond commonplace, I think I can make sure the results are valid.


----------



## pyfgcrl

lojay said:


> Some of the most expensive high end DACs are R2R, such as Audio Note, Totaldac, MSB and dCS DACs.


 

 Just for giggles, I'd love to hear some golden ear reviewers do a throwdown of MSB's new 90K RRP SELECT DAC against the 2.3K Yggy.  Hopefully a few Head-Fi'ers going to THE Show Newport will do just that.


----------



## GoldfishX

Using the tree-in-the-woods analogy...
  
 If an amazing DAC is priced out of range of 99.999% of potential buyers, is it really that amazing?
  
 As much as I can **** on D-S people and their cost-cutting, the MSB's and dCS's of the world are on some mighty fine drugs with those prices. Yet another win for Schitt.


----------



## lojay

goldfishx said:


> Using the tree-in-the-woods analogy...
> 
> If an amazing DAC is priced out of range of 99.999% of potential buyers, is it really that amazing?
> 
> As much as I can **** on D-S people and their cost-cutting, the MSB's and dCS's of the world are on some mighty fine drugs with those prices. Yet another win for Schitt.


 
  
 I don't have TOTL MSB stacks but will be able to compare the MSB Analog to the Schiit Yggdrasil in due course as my MSB is being fixed and the Yggy has been shipped. I plan to do a nice AB comparison of the two.
  
 Given Marv's findings, I would _not_ be surprised at all if the Yggy beats the MSB in terms of technicalities. In fact, I am looking forward to it. 
  
 The only reason for me to keep the MSB is that it may have a sweeter and smoother sounding character (in the lines of the Sonic Frontiers SFD-1 mk2) compared to the Yggy, which may be pleasant in its own way.


----------



## Lohb

Does anyone know what the Parasound 1000 (PCM-63P) is comparable to in the old school Theta line-up ? A Basic maybe ?
 Is there any known problems with that model or easy upgrade to improve SQ ? I saw the ebay upgrade chips for 24/96 which I'm not interested in.


----------



## estreeter

Hmm - we seem to be sliding into a class war. Before Berkeley, MSB and Bricasti were mentioned in this thread, I think everything in purrin's OP came in under 10K USD retail, with many DACs under 5K. If I went looking for a competitor to Nissan's 370Z or even a Corvette Z06, _would I really want to see a photo of the Veyron_ ? 
  
 http://www.nissanusa.com/sportscars/z-coupe
  
 http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette-z06-supercar.html
  
 http://www.bugatti.com/en/home.html
  
 That's how I view the dCS stack and some of the Esoteric DAC/transport combinations - a _cost-no-object exercise_ that very few of their competitors will ever be able to mimic. I'd still like to see how the Berkeley Reference fares against Yggy, but that's a one-box DAC costing roughly 7 times the Yggy's sticker, not 3 boxes that come in at over 40 times Schiit's asking price. I know some of the backstory on the 'cost no object' DACs and their matching transports, but for most of us they will remain in exactly the same pantheon as the Veyron : even seeing that sort of machinery would require a plane ticket and considerable patience. I vote we keep this discussion to the metal that some here can actually afford or will at least be able to spend a significant amount of time with in a listening room.


----------



## jodgey4

The appeal of the Yggy to me is the R2R, proven to be different filters, flagship positioning - for the price! Bottlehead's DAC is really interesting to me too, but D-S.


----------



## evanft

lohb said:


> Does anyone know what the Parasound 1000 (PCM-63P) is comparable to in the old school Theta line-up ? A Basic maybe ?
> Is there any known problems with that model or easy upgrade to improve SQ ? I saw the ebay upgrade chips for 24/96 which I'm not interested in.


 


 I would bet the Theta units are generally better, but the Parasounds are cheaper and seem to be pretty plentiful. The Parasound 1000 is a very, very smooth sounding DAC. The only reason I'm getting rid of mine so soon after getting it is because I'm getting an Yggy.


----------



## wink

Quote:GoldfishX 





> If an amazing DAC is priced out of range of 99.999% of potential buyers, is it really that amazing?


 
 YES.  Being amazing is an intrinsic quality that is not dependent on subjective verification.
  
 It is what it is.


----------



## Maxx134

diamondears said:


> .. Wish I could demo one to see if the price is right for me.



My apologies for putting U on the spot.
I am quite sure you will eventually be seeing these yggys in future meets,
 and up against all other dacs,
and one thing for sure 
is that it should wake up those other companies to strive for similar improvements.


----------



## GoldfishX

wink said:


> YES.  Being amazing is an intrinsic quality that is not dependent on subjective verification.
> 
> It is what it is.


 

 I repeat/reiterate
  
 If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?
  
 If a great DAC is playing music and 99.9999% of the audience can't afford it, is it really playing music?


----------



## Khragon

goldfishx said:


> I repeat/reiterate
> 
> If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?
> 
> If a great DAC is playing music and 99.9999% of the audience can't afford it, is it really playing music?


 
 Yes, because 0.0001% heard the music, and 0% heard the tree falls.


----------



## Armaegis

tachikoma said:


> **** that, what's wrong with motherboard built-in audio anyway? Bet the Yggy doesn't run at 4.5 Ghz.


 
  
 My motherboard can't even even handle 10kHz+ without really weird distortions and subtones.


----------



## Ableza

goldfishx said:


> If a great DAC is playing music and 99.9999% of the audience can't afford it, is it really playing music?


 
 Those who "can't afford it" are not the target market.  They only post things like this, demonstrating their jealousy and envy.


----------



## Jones Bob

ableza said:


> Those who "can't afford it" are not the target market.  They only post things like this, demonstrating their jealousy and envy.




Spot on.


----------



## purrin

ableza said:


> Those who "can't afford it" are not the target market.  They only post things like this, demonstrating their jealousy and envy.


 
  
 Well, you know, Schiit does make stuff for $99 plus some change. Dunno what people are complaining about.


----------



## GoldfishX

ableza said:


> Those who "can't afford it" are not the target market.  They only post things like this, demonstrating their jealousy and envy.


 

 Gah, you're right...Bad wording on my part. Okay, let's revamp this analogy:
  
 If a great DAC is playing music and 99.9999% of the audience can't afford it or those of us that can view it as being spectacularly and laughably overpriced for what it does and feel that you're paying for the looks, brand name or marketing hype and will probably never own it or bother with it for one of those two reasons, is it really playing music?
  
 BTW, Schitt certainly seems to "get it".


----------



## Ableza

I understand your point but it's really not relevant to anything.  What does the price matter?  Economics says that no matter the price of a thing, if there is a market for it and if people buy it in sufficient quantities to make it worth producing, then it is not overpriced.  If people buy a thing at its price point, then it is priced correctly.  The fact that any given individual may or may not be able to afford the thing is completely irrelevant.  
  
 And yes, DACs like the dCs Davinci make beautiful music.  Its price has nothing to do with that.


----------



## GoldfishX

ableza said:


> I understand your point but it's really not relevant to anything.  What does the price matter?  Economics says that no matter the price of a thing, if there is a market for it and if people buy it in sufficient quantities to make it worth producing, then it is not overpriced.  If people buy a thing at its price point, then it is priced correctly.  The fact that any given individual may or may not be able to afford the thing is completely irrelevant.
> 
> And yes, DACs like the dCs Davinci make beautiful music.  Its price has nothing to do with that.


 
  
 What does the item matter if only 0.0001% of people who listen to music think enough of it to purchase it. For that matter, what does that tiny population matter?
  
 "For what it does" means it plays music. If you're not even reaching 1% of potential music listeners, you're doing something terribly wrong with your product.
  
 (if anyone wants to challenge these made-up statistics, feel free, but I don't think they're off the mark)


----------



## Jones Bob

goldfishx said:


> What does the item matter if only 0.0001% of people who listen to music think enough of it to purchase it. For that matter, what does that tiny population matter?
> 
> "For what it does" means it plays music. If you're not even reaching 1% of potential music listeners, you're doing something terribly wrong with your product.
> 
> (if anyone wants to challenge these made-up statistics, feel free, but I don't think they're off the mark)


. 

It all depends on the market. 

As an eater, I would rather dine at Ruth's Chris than McDonalds.


----------



## Ableza

goldfishx said:


> What does the item matter if only 0.0001% of people who listen to music think enough of it to purchase it. For that matter, what does that tiny population matter?
> 
> "For what it does" means it plays music. If you're not even reaching 1% of potential music listeners, you're doing something terribly wrong with your product.
> 
> (if anyone wants to challenge these made-up statistics, feel free, but I don't think they're off the mark)


 
 Ah well you really don't get it....  Who cares how many people hear something or can own something?  Is a McLaren any less of a super-car because only .01% of the population could ever possibly own one?  Is the MBL Radialstrahler any less of a superb loudspeaker system because no mere mortal can put them in their home? Of course not.  Your point is moot, sorry. 
  
 Just because YOU can't afford something only means it has no value TO YOU.  But it does not diminish the thing at all, nor does it diminish the value it might have to those who CAN afford it.


----------



## GoldfishX

Also, one more thing about prices, especially in this hobby...Usually any audio review I read, someone is like, "When I hooked my Zideon DAC ($25000 base price with $10000 upgraded power supply and $15000 CD transport) up to my Blowhard Omega Speakers ($250,000 per pair) and they are powered by the Gingko Power Amp ($75,000 with optional $5,000 NOS Ginseng Power Tubes), I was amazed at how they sounded." You can probably find the equivalent of what I just wrote in the latest Stereophile.
  
 So yeah, that type of price dick-waving is something that makes high-end audio into the butt of a lot of jokes and it ends up becoming more the focus that what the units actually do. Again, it's something that Schitt seems to have figured out.


----------



## GoldfishX

ableza said:


> Ah well you really don't get it....  Who cares how many people hear something or can own something?  Is a McLaren any less of a super-car because only .01% of the population could ever possibly own one?  Is the MBL Radialstrahler any less of a superb loudspeaker system because no mere mortal can put them in their home? Of course not.  Your point is moot, sorry.
> 
> Just because YOU can't afford something only means it has no value TO YOU.  But it does not diminish the thing at all, nor does it diminish the value it might have to those who CAN afford it.


 

 If you can't own it, don't want to own it or if you do end up owning it but can never feel comfortable with it because of the price, does it really exist?


----------



## Ableza

This is getting tiresome.  You are entitled to your opinion, go for it.  But don't judge those of us who feel some things justify their high price and have no trouble paying it when it's something we want.  If you can't, well sorry, everyone's situation is different, welcome to America.  But it's only seen as "dick waving" by those jealous of others who can afford the price tag.


----------



## EraserXIV

The Yggy is very fairly priced given what it costs to build and the bill of materials. There is no price gouging here like the rest of high-end audio does.. you picked the wrong target to get mad at for high-end audio.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

goldfishx said:


> If you can't own it, don't want to own it or if you do end up owning it but can never feel comfortable with it because of the price, does it really exist?


 
  
 Perhaps you should seek out a dCS thread.


----------



## estreeter

We dont have to turn this into a finger pointing exercise - the way I see it, purrin has done many of us a favor:
  
_- if you dont want/cant afford the Yggy, and dont have a DAC, then you can just get the Wyrd+Modi or whatever combo in that pricerange does it for you_
_- if you already own a DAC you're happy with, does it really matter what's been typed here ? Spend the money on cans or an amp or more music._
  
 Simple.


----------



## mulder01

goldfishx said:


> If you can't own it, don't want to own it or if you do end up owning it but can never feel comfortable with it because of the price, does it really exist?


 
 lol your posts and your signature are some of the most negative things on head fi.
  
 I think we should make one thing clear - there is no value for money in high end audio.  If you want value for money go and buy a pair of earbuds under $100 and plug them into your ipod.  If you want to indulge for the sake of enjoyment, then you're in the right place.


----------



## Sonic Defender

goldfishx said:


> Also, one more thing about prices, especially in this hobby...Usually any audio review I read, someone is like, "When I hooked my Zideon DAC ($25000 base price with $10000 upgraded power supply and $15000 CD transport) up to my Blowhard Omega Speakers ($250,000 per pair) and they are powered by the Gingko Power Amp ($75,000 with optional $5,000 NOS Ginseng Power Tubes), I was amazed at how they sounded." You can probably find the equivalent of what I just wrote in the latest Stereophile.
> 
> So yeah, that type of price dick-waving is something that makes high-end audio into the butt of a lot of jokes and it ends up becoming more the focus that what the units actually do. Again, it's something that Schitt seems to have figured out.


 

 Seriously? Considering the amount of experience and time that has gone into the Yggy, not to mention made in the US and you are calling it overly expensive? Sure, it would be a large expenditure for me, but even I think it is quite reasonably priced. Time will tell how the sound signature holds up, but the safe money is on very well.


----------



## Chris J

ableza said:


> Ah well you really don't get it....  Who cares how many people hear something or can own something?  Is a McLaren any less of a super-car because only .01% of the population could ever possibly own one?  Is the MBL Radialstrahler any less of a superb loudspeaker system because no mere mortal can put them in their home? Of course not.  Your point is moot, sorry.
> 
> Just because YOU can't afford something only means it has no value TO YOU.  But it does not diminish the thing at all, nor does it diminish the value it might have to those who CAN afford it.




Excellent analogies!
Thank you! 

Discussions like this make me wonder if the guys on the "Car And Driver" or "Road And Track" websites get into discussions like this WRT the newest Porsche, Ferrari, etc. etc. etc.

But I guess they are cars and are above the laws of economics.....:rolleyes:


----------



## Maxx134

How famous is a "stradivarius violin"?
Yet how many people touched one?


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

maxx134 said:


> How famouse is a "stradivarius violin"?


 
  
 Uhhh.  I can't afford one therefore it doesn't exist?


----------



## Maxx134

Better question is which thread will the yggy inpressions be in?


----------



## prot

goldfishx said:


> Also, one more thing about prices, especially in this hobby...Usually any audio review I read, someone is like, "When I hooked my Zideon DAC ($25000 base price with $10000 upgraded power supply and $15000 CD transport) up to my Blowhard Omega Speakers ($250,000 per pair) and they are powered by the Gingko Power Amp ($75,000 with optional $5,000 NOS Ginseng Power Tubes), I was amazed at how they sounded." You can probably find the equivalent of what I just wrote in the latest Stereophile.




I just cant believe that you forgot the most important part of 'highend' audio: the $5000/foot cables ... your audiophile card has been suspended indefinitely


----------



## freddy1201

maxx134 said:


> Better question is which thread will the yggy inpressions be in?


 

 at this time, mainly in the rag / yggy thread


----------



## estreeter

At the risk of dragging out a tired argument, there *are* critics who routinely throw the most expensive sports cars in the world around a track or highway and criticise them as stridently as anything else that doesnt pass muster for the price. Whether you regard this as nothing more than light entertainment or you take their criticisms seriously, it can be jarring to find out that a car you've dreamt of since adolescence was actually a bit of a pig on the road (cough, early Lamborghini).
  
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59
  
 Clarkson's mouth finally saw him fired a month or so ago and the BBC have paid the ratings price in his absence, but this hobby could use someone like that even if many of us think he goes too far. Sadly, several million people a week arent going to tune into a show about audio gear, no matter how outspoken the host is, and they could kiss the female demo goodbye from episode one


----------



## mowglycdb

I wonder how the ygg/ M8 or M9  fend


----------



## ginetto61

Hi this long and interesting thread has made me thinking
*The title is quite peremptory .... " delta-sigma sucks ". No exceptions allowed.*
 If this is true this would imply two very important statements for me:
 1)   that dac chips make the sound of a converter
 2)   that even the best dacs based on delta-sigma dac chip suck.
 I would ask to the people who have listened to very top delta-sigma dacs ... do they really suck ?
 I am serious.  Unfortunately i did not have this opportunity.
 I am referring to dacs like the best DCS, the Bricasti M1, the Berkeley Audio dac, the Weiss, the Ayre Acoustics, etc.
 If only one of these dacs does not suck the title should be rephrased.
 I have only a slight doubt about the dynamics.
 I have read a phrase that is buzzing in my mind ...* delta-sigmas have traded resolution for dynamics.*
 And dynamics are absolutely fundamental in an audio equipment.
 If not the sound is nice but flat ... unacceptable.
 Kind regards,  gino


----------



## Argo Duck

The title only recently became 'delta sigma sucks', for reasons well documented after purrin heard Theta gear. For most of the time it was 'and why I hate chocolate ice cream'.

If you read carefully, even after hearing R2R done right purrin found some DS dacs 'acceptable'.

Now that the _relatively_ affordable Yggy has been released and with impressions rolling in for the next few months, it should soon be clear enough what faults (if any) DS has compared to multibit and Mike Moffat's closed-form filter. Delta sigma has been so dominant in the market that opportunities to hear anything different have been quite limited.

How can you hear a technology's faults (and strengths too for that matter) if you don't get to hear alternatives?


----------



## thune

> The title only recently became 'delta sigma sucks', for reasons well documented after purrin heard Theta gear. For most of the time it was 'and why I hate chocolate ice cream'.


 
  
 If i remember correctly the original title was "why delta-sigma must die".
  


ginetto61 said:


> Hi this long and interesting thread has made me thinking
> *The title is quite peremptory .... " delta-sigma sucks ". No exceptions allowed.*


 
  
 Delta-Sigma D-to-A chips require (99.9+% of the time) I/V converters. Is it possible the downfall isn't the delta-sigma D-to-A itself, but the typical opamp I/V converter?


----------



## drez

Definitely not that simple. Some R2R dacs are very poor in many areas. DS does at minimum a reasonable job at accurate music reproduction, and typically has much better dynamic range and resolution than most R2R designs with a few exceptions. Where DS suffers is that it tends to show certain unpleasant qualities, typically in the treble, wether this is an artefact of the DA process or just coming through from the recording. This is open to conjecture, not something I have enough experience to speak about.

Little is to be gained in discussing this matter in broad generalisations. It is far better to discuss the sound quailities of particular dac's. Furthermore we all have our own tastes in music, we all listen and make sense of what we hear differently, and have different systems of categorising what we hear. What one person calls dynamics might be completely different to another persons understanding. We also have different tastes and priorities in what we want from a DAC.


----------



## mulder01

Yeah it seems a little unfair to group all DS DACs together then.  This thread has made me second guess buying a DS DAC and I don't even know why...


----------



## DecentLevi

Without quoting a bunch of hi-end gear, there are many TOTL DACs that use Delta Sigma chips, and I believe that many of us would be quite impressed with the sound they are able to put out. Granted they may not compare after hearing a Theta type of DAC, but I think the over-generalization that they all suck is too broad.
  
 At least I'm glad to see we've finished with the (off topic) banter about who can afford the priciest equipment.


----------



## Sapientiam

thune said:


> Delta-Sigma D-to-A chips require (99.9+% of the time) I/V converters. Is it possible the downfall isn't the delta-sigma D-to-A itself, but the typical opamp I/V converter?


 
  
 Opamps are a big part of it I reckon but not the whole story. Some DIYers I think might have used ES9018 with only a trafo for output, no opamps. I'm fairly sure one of the ES9018s deficiencies is due to using software (more specifically : dynamic element matching by signal processing) to try to overcome a hardware problem (resistor mis-match in their 6bit DAC) - this can't be laid at the feet of opamps. Pretty much all of the multibit S-D chips use similar techniques, which I call 'dynamic element masking'.


----------



## ginetto61

decentlevi said:


> Without quoting a bunch of hi-end gear, there are many TOTL DACs that use Delta Sigma chips, and I believe that many of us would be quite impressed with the sound they are able to put out. *Granted they may not compare after hearing a Theta type of DAC*,


 
  
 Hi well another quite peremptory statement if i am allowed to say.
 Honestly i do not know if this is true but if this is really true i would not be satisfied by anything else than a Theta type dac.
 I think we have to wait and see how this new TOTL dac by Schiit will be received by the audio community.
 I hope it will show the way to follow to all the other manufacturers
 I would like to get really great sound from digital
 Now i have pc > Gustard u12 > AES/EBU >  Apogee Rosetta 200 and the sound is decent ... but i would be willing to save money and buy a very high quality dac for sure
 Thanks for the advice,  gino


----------



## negura

ginetto61 said:


> Honestly i do not know if this is true but if this is really true i would not be satisfied by anything else than a Theta type dac.


 
  
 That is exactly it. Watch for the impressions of people who have never heard great R2R sound before and are receiving their Yggdrasils. It's exactly the repeat experience I had when I listened at home on my gear to high-end R2R gear for the first time. Eyes wide open, jaw starts dropping, What have I been listening to all this time. Etc, YMMV or not.
  
 The Theta Gen V is an extremely rare bird, especially now since everyone who could get their hands on it, bought one.


----------



## pyfgcrl

estreeter said:


> Hmm - we seem to be sliding into a class war. Before Berkeley, MSB and Bricasti were mentioned in this thread, I think everything in purrin's OP came in under 10K USD retail, with many DACs under 5K. If I went looking for a competitor to Nissan's 370Z or even a Corvette Z06, _would I really want to see a photo of the Veyron_ ?
> 
> That's how I view the dCS stack and some of the Esoteric DAC/transport combinations - a _cost-no-object exercise_ that very few of their competitors will ever be able to mimic. I'd still like to see how the Berkeley Reference fares against Yggy, but that's a one-box DAC costing roughly 7 times the Yggy's sticker, not 3 boxes that come in at over 40 times Schiit's asking price. I know some of the backstory on the 'cost no object' DACs and their matching transports, but for most of us they will remain in exactly the same pantheon as the Veyron : even seeing that sort of machinery would require a plane ticket and considerable patience. I vote we keep this discussion to the metal that some here can actually afford or will at least be able to spend a significant amount of time with in a listening room.


 

 See, I don't look at it so much a class war as much as it is *a real thrill to be living in a time when something like the Yggy becomes approachable to almost anyone* who cares, a DAC that could hold its own against 'pie-in-the-sky' DACs which are 'cost-no-object' with 33 femtosecond clocks and 8 chip sign magnitude R-2R DACs which are of course impressive, and with all the (back to your car comparison) Veyron-like accoutrements like high-end custom metal, LCD screens and other cool-but-unnecessary bells and whistles, but like @GoldfishX said, being so far out of reach for most of us, doesn't matter as much.  The biggest feature of Yggdrasil is its price-performance (mass attainability of amazing feature set), not it's performance alone.
  


jodgey4 said:


> The appeal of the Yggy to me is the R2R, proven to be different filters, flagship positioning - for the price! Bottlehead's DAC is really interesting to me too, but D-S.


 
  
 This is the key, right?  Yggdrasil is "the best DAC [they] know how to build … without a second mortgage and 50 amp power runs."  I'm already _really, really_ happy with mine after being on for just a day – the signifcance of the sound is not lost, and neither is the value proposition.
  


ableza said:


> Those who "can't afford it" are not the target market.  They only post things like this, demonstrating their jealousy and envy.


 
  
 But why is it seemingly a crime (or insignificant) to compare something amazing (because of price-performance) with something amazing (because of pure 'cost-no-object' resources), and to see what it costs to eke out an extra 0.05% of tangible difference, if it comes down to that?
  
 I would reckon a large number of us are not the target market for these other DACs, but it's not necessarily jealousy and envy to compare something like what you can get now in a modern-day desktop CPU to supercomputers of old (or current ones)… isn't that how the needle is moved forward?
  
 To me, that's what will make the Yggy so great; and I think it will show over the next few months 'round the community as a whole — the fact that it is so solid and such an amazing performer, for a fraction of what you could spend elsewhere.


----------



## Sonic Defender

The next few months will be important as I will hear the Yggy myself and read many impressions. Taking new gear infatuation into account, if people are going to post how the Yggy kills DS chip DACs it would be really nice if at least some of you do blind listening tests with enough trials. I have no doubt that the R2R when done right is the bees knees, but I do think some well done listening tests are in order. I know at our July meet we will do this, but the more people that do this the more confidence we can have in the results.
  
 While I have a DS DAC, I'm not married to the architecture and I would easily move to the Yggy R2R if it is what I fully expect it to be, but we really do need some blind listening tests so please, can some of you do this? It would be a fantastic and useful exercise. And yes, I know there will be a few who will say to me if you want to do blind listening tests, get your own Yggy so to answer that now I will say, yes I get that. Hopefully not everybody is against doing blind listening tests and is curious enough to take the time and trouble to do so.
  
 As I have said before, Schiit know very well what they are doing and if they feel the Yggy is game changing, there is a pretty good chance that it is just that. I'm excited and frankly, the price is actually quite reasonable.


----------



## pyfgcrl

sonic defender said:


> The next few months will be important as I will hear the Yggy myself and read many impressions. Taking new gear infatuation into account, if people are going to post how the Yggy kills DS chip DACs it would be really nice if at least some of you do blind listening tests with enough trials. I have no doubt that the R2R when done right is the bees knees, but I do think some well done listening tests are in order. I know at our July meet we will do this, but the more people that do this the more confidence we can have in the results.
> 
> While I have a DS DAC, I'm not married to the architecture and I would easily move to the Yggy R2R if it is what I fully expect it to be, but we really do need some blind listening tests so please, can some of you do this? It would be a fantastic and useful exercise. And yes, I know there will be a few who will say to me if you want to do blind listening tests, get your own Yggy so to answer that now I will say, yes I get that. Hopefully not everybody is against doing blind listening tests and is curious enough to take the time and trouble to do so.
> 
> As I have said before, Schiit know very well what they are doing and if they feel the Yggy is game changing, there is a pretty good chance that it is just that. I'm excited and frankly, the price is actually quite reasonable.


 
  
 I'm also looking forward to comparing it and seeing it compared.  Against everything, other R2R implementations, high-end D-S implementations, at all price points, right across the spectrum.
  
 But in the meantime — subjectively, it's a non-insignificant, clearly noticeable improvement of my indulgent music-listening experience* thus far*, which makes me really happy — *and that's all I was really going for*.


----------



## hodgjy

This whole R2R vs. DS debate reminds me of the CISC (x86) and RISC (PowerPC) debate of the 1990s and early 2000s.
  
 x86 was king for years because that's what Microsoft DOS and Windows ran on. Initially, Apple did as well. But, it was deemed to be inferior technology to PowerPC. Market share wasn't about technical proficiency. It was about what the major makers wanted to use.
  
 Apple switched to PowerPC in the early 1990s, claiming it was a quantum leap. It was initially, but then something happened.
  
 In the early 2000s, Apple switched back to x86 because the PowerPC architecture reached some sort of performance plateau and began to fall behind x86.
  
 Everything swings like a pendulum, which is why the new Yggy is such a monumental DAC. Other makers will explore R2R, and certainly DS makers will look to improve their designs.
  
 The pendulum will swing back and forth in the future. No one design will always be technologically superior to other. It's all about development and implementation.


----------



## negura

There are quite a few R2R DACs on the market. MSB, TotalDAC, Light Harmonic etc. to name a few. And they are good. The problem is they are incredibly expensive.


----------



## lukeap69

There are MHDT DACs such as Havana and Lite DACs which are R2R also.


----------



## ginetto61

negura said:


> That is exactly it. Watch for the impressions of people who have never heard great R2R sound before and are receiving their Yggdrasils. It's exactly the repeat experience I had when I listened at home on my gear to high-end R2R gear for the first time. Eyes wide open, jaw starts dropping, What have I been listening to all this time. Etc, YMMV or not.
> The Theta Gen V is an extremely rare bird, especially now since everyone who could get their hands on it, bought one.


 
  
 Hi and i am always more and more interesting in this type of dac
 A little OT ... may i know which *usb interface *are you using with the Theta ?  
 Thanks a lot,  gino


----------



## hodgjy

Of course there are other R2R DACs out there, but it's a small market. Servers ran Unix and RISC architecture. At that time, it was a smaller market.
  
 That was my whole point.
  
 R2R is a smaller market right now because it's a different technology. The masses use DS, and it has nothing to do with technological superiority.


----------



## pyfgcrl

hodgjy said:


> This whole R2R vs. DS debate reminds me of the CISC (x86) and RISC (PowerPC) debate of the 1990s and early 2000s.
> 
> x86 was king for years because that's what Microsoft DOS and Windows ran on. Initially, Apple did as well. But, it was deemed to be inferior technology to PowerPC. Market share wasn't about technical proficiency. It was about what the major makers wanted to use.
> 
> ...


 

 That's an interesting way to look at it.  Nowadays, CISC and RISC based CPUs get you the same end results with no perceptible difference to the user — the only difference was to the assembly programmer or the writer of a higher-level language compiler.  As those folks got better at using the tools at their disposal, the results (performance of one vs other) became closer and closer until they were insignificant.
  
 As I understand it, (and please someone knowledgable, correct me if I'm wrong) D-S chips don't sample fast enough to give you accurate results (potentially lots of extra unnecessary quantization error _added_) without really aggressive filtering after the fact. In that way, the output from a well-designed R-2R based DAC is noticeably closer to the recorded digital samples and (therefore) closer to the original sound even without filtering, in the accuracy of their output over well-designed D-S DACs.
  
 Again, correct me if I'm wrong — but should future delta-sigma chips sample 1-bit at a rate that was say, 2¹⁸ faster than they do now, the accuracy between the two might be splitting hairs.  As it stands today with available D-S chips, the only way to get closer (to the original sound) out of a D-S chip is by fancy guessing (aggressive filter after tossing your original 16/20/24-bit samples away).  The better you are at guessing what it looked like originally — the better your D-S based DAC will sound.  With R-2R, you have the ability to maintain more resolution from the samples you started with, and so with more bits of resolution you have going in, the less guessing you have to do and so you get a result that sounds closer to what you started with.  Does that sound right, or am I off base?


----------



## negura

ginetto61 said:


> Hi and i am always more and more interesting in this type of dac
> A little OT ... may i know which *usb interface *are you using with the Theta ?
> Thanks a lot,  gino


 
  
 Out of the less expensive ones look at the PUC2 Lite, Ifi Ilink or the Audiophilleo 2.
 However things are not so simple for these interfaces to sound at their best. You would need to look at some USB power treatement and a good clean source such as a network streamer.


----------



## Sonic Defender

negura said:


> Out of the less expensive ones look at the PUC2 Lite, Ifi Ilink or the Audiophilleo 2.
> However things are not so simple for these interfaces to sound at their best. You would need to look at some USB power treatement and a good clean source such as a network streamer.


 

 I thought those interfaces provided the USB power treatment?


----------



## negura

No and they are very affected by the power quality AND USB data line crap. The exception to the former is the Audiophilleo with Pure Power.


----------



## blitzxgene

sonic defender said:


> The next few months will be important as I will hear the Yggy myself and read many impressions. Taking new gear infatuation into account, if people are going to post how the Yggy kills DS chip DACs it would be really nice if at least some of you do blind listening tests with enough trials. I have no doubt that the R2R when done right is the bees knees, but I do think some well done listening tests are in order. I know at our July meet we will do this, but the more people that do this the more confidence we can have in the results.
> 
> While I have a DS DAC, I'm not married to the architecture and I would easily move to the Yggy R2R if it is what I fully expect it to be, but we really do need some blind listening tests so please, can some of you do this? It would be a fantastic and useful exercise. And yes, I know there will be a few who will say to me if you want to do blind listening tests, get your own Yggy so to answer that now I will say, yes I get that. Hopefully not everybody is against doing blind listening tests and is curious enough to take the time and trouble to do so.
> 
> As I have said before, Schiit know very well what they are doing and if they feel the Yggy is game changing, there is a pretty good chance that it is just that. I'm excited and frankly, the price is actually quite reasonable.


 
 The phase inverter setting is quite awesome when playing gta 5 (light is on) as the sound appears to come from my screen/the characters, as opposed to floating in front of my speakers (sound is projected in front of or behind my speakers). Quite thrilled when I pushed the button and had an immediately noticeable result. The unusual thing about the Yggy so far is that sharp sounds don't cause pain at high volumes. I can get tired from listening to things at loud levels, but not because of the sounds themselves. Still need to a/b more with the modi though to try and rule out shenanigans.


----------



## Sonic Defender

negura said:


> No and they are very affected by the power quality AND USB data line crap. The exception to the former is the Audiophilleo with Pure Power.


 

 Well, this is an interesting area to investigate further, I use a stock old Dell desktop and as a source I don't hear anything wrong. now that isn't to say that perhaps not having heard the alternative that I'm simply unaware of what it should/could sound like. I am just a little skeptical about huge difference claims. In your mind, are the differences so audible that blind listening you would put money up that you could pick out a USB power treated connection? I'm not saying that to be trite or challenging, I'm just curious how much confidence you have in that as this helps me gauge the potential for improvement.
  
 Now I'm not at all suggesting this in relation to your statements, this is just background to why I am being so careful in this matter. In the past I have encountered posts where somebody makes it sound like the differences in sound quality from something are significant, but when pushed the users so often admit it isn't night and day, or that they never did any blind listening to account for bias.
  
 I would be curious to know what people like Jason and Mike do in their home rigs. Do they use USB isolation and cleaning? What about when developing and testing the Yggy? Did they feel that stock USB implementations are sonically so flawed that treatment is required? I'm not at all calling you out, believe me, this is something I'm considering doing, but unlike with a headphone upgrade, I'm unwilling to spend hundreds of dollars for a very marginal return. However, if there is a chance for significant and extremely obvious sonic improvements I would happily spend the money, so that is why I'm asking this question in this manner. Hopefully it doesn't come across as challenging or rude.


----------



## shabta

Anyone know if the Metrum Octave that @purrin rated in the "good" category is the newest mkii version? How is the USB implementation?


----------



## purrin

mulder01 said:


> Yeah it seems a little unfair to group all DS DACs together then.  This thread has made me second guess buying a DS DAC and I don't even know why...


 
  
 The point of this thread is to make you second guess or at least wonder about the following:
  
 1) Why the **** are there mostly / only D-S DACs around today? Even if we have $1500-$2000 to spend, why do we have no choice?
 2) Of the few R2R DACs around today, why do most of them, regardless of price, suck fuzzy balls in terms of resolution and soundstage, unlike some of the vintage R2R DACs?
 3) How the hell did the "audiophile industry" forget how good the DACs were from the "Golden Era of DACs" 25 years ago? How did the "audiophile industry" slowly ram the ****ty artifacts of D-S DAC down our throats? Why did we as consumers just bend over and allow the industry to **** us up the ass?
  
  


pyfgcrl said:


> See, I don't look at it so much a class war as much as it is *a real thrill to be living in a time when something like the Yggy becomes approachable to almost anyone* who cares, a DAC that could hold its own against 'pie-in-the-sky' DACs which are 'cost-no-object' with 33 femtosecond clocks and 8 chip sign magnitude R-2R DACs which are of course impressive, and with all the (back to your car comparison) Veyron-like accoutrements like high-end custom metal, LCD screens and other cool-but-unnecessary bells and whistles, but like @GoldfishX said, being so far out of reach for most of us, doesn't matter as much.  The biggest feature of Yggdrasil is its price-performance (mass attainability of amazing feature set), not it's performance alone.
> 
> 
> To me, that's what will make the Yggy so great; and I think it will show over the next few months 'round the community as a whole — the fact that it is so solid and such an amazing performer, for a fraction of what you could spend elsewhere.


 
  
 That is exactly it. The Yggy ain't cheap. Schiit has leveraged their mass volume lower end sales to fund the R&D necessary to complete the Yggydrasil. I for one am extremely thankful for that. I bought a Theta Cobalt for $700-$800 to go with a Sony ES CDP in the early 90s right after I graduated from school. The Yggy is attainable for any audiophile who has graduated from school and worked hard enough to get a useful degree or developed sufficient skills to land a decent job. Let's not forget that Schiit has already intimated that Yggy tech will trickle down to their lower priced line up.
  
 We can bitch about hating Schiit and voice our skepticism, but the fact is there is no where else to go unless you want to cough up $8,000 to $65,000+ for something similar, and even then it may not be better. And I've said this before and I'll say it again: If you want something "perfect" based on three or four measurements, get an ODAC.
  


argo duck said:


> (1) The title only recently became 'delta sigma sucks', for reasons well documented after purrin heard Theta gear. For most of the time it was 'and why I hate chocolate ice cream'.
> 
> (2) If you read carefully, even after hearing R2R done right purrin found some DS dacs 'acceptable'.


 
  
 (1) Yes. Not just vintage Theta, but Spectral, Sonic Frontiers, PSA, Classe, etc. 
 (2) Yes, a few DS DACs are "acceptable". Most are nasty.


----------



## negura

sonic defender said:


> Well, this is an interesting area to investigate further, I use a stock old Dell desktop and as a source I don't hear anything wrong. now that isn't to say that perhaps not having heard the alternative that I'm simply unaware of what it should/could sound like. I am just a little skeptical about huge difference claims. In your mind, are the differences so audible that blind listening you would put money up that you could pick out a USB power treated connection? I'm not saying that to be trite or challenging, I'm just curious how much confidence you have in that as this helps me gauge the potential for improvement.


 
  
 I have no doubt. Laptop/PC power is just terrible and I've tried a few. That said a cleaner source is the bigger improvement out of the two. I just re-evaluated this before going to the Head-Fi meet in London. I had to take a lot of equipment so I left the network streamer at home, because of the added complexity and additional network components needed, and played of an Windows laptop. The whole thing sounded perhaps 10% worse, if I was to quantify it.
  
 The key here is the rest of the system, including transducers, has to be very revealing and able to promote the change with little or no bottlenecks. Yes, that includes cables imo. Otherwise look at improving more core areas first.


----------



## hans030390

shabta said:


> Anyone know if the Metrum Octave that @purrin rated in the "good" category is the newest mkii version? How is the USB implementation?


 
  
 I believe it was MkII and that he used the Off Ramp 5 with it...but he'd have to answer to be sure.


----------



## ginetto61

negura said:


> Out of the less expensive ones look at the PUC2 Lite, Ifi Ilink or the Audiophilleo 2.
> However things are not so simple for these interfaces to sound at their best. You would need to look at some USB power treatement and a good clean source such as a network streamer.


 
  
 Hi and thanks a lot for the very helpful reply
 To get good sound out of a pc is not an easy and cheap task at all.
 At present i am using a Gustard u12 ... but i would like to try some pci interface with spdif out, or better with aes/ebu that i feel superior (i read the designer of the Berkeley Audio interface, one of the best in the market, speaking highly of the digital balanced connection)
 USB is a bad beast ... not easy at all to get it right
 Thanks again,  gino


----------



## purrin

hans030390 said:


> I believe it was MkII and that he used the Off Ramp 5 with it...but he'd have to answer to be sure.


 
  
 Yes.


----------



## ginetto61

Hi !
 maybe not all delta-sigma are made equal
 The *AD1955* is found in some of the top sounding dacs on the planet like Bricasti and Berkley Audio.
 An the AD1955 chip costs almost nothing ...
  
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1PCS-DAC-IC-ANALOG-DEVICES-SSOP-28-AD1955ARSZ-AD1955ARS-AD1955XRS-AD1955A-AD1955-/251113119252?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a77821e14
  
 I will ask in the DIY section if anyone has tested the cheap boards that comes with this dac chip ... maybe there is a giant killer out there
 Best regards,  gino


----------



## purrin

AD1955 is good. Has potential. Cheap boards sound ... cheap. Good designs sound ... good. Still sounds D-S like, esp AD1955.


----------



## DecentLevi

Hello @purrin, for some reason I can't help but envy after the sound of the Sony MDR-R10 wooden masterpiece headphones that I sampled at SoCal Can Jam last month. I'm wondering, _was that your system_? And I didn't bother to look at which source DAC was being used - I keep thinking it sounded what a Theta must sound like. _Was that a Theta?_ I just can't get that lush, organic, hyper realistic sound signature with transparent bass out of my mind. It was like nothing else I've ever heard before and I may even prefer it to the Stax SR-09.
  
 And if you were at Can Jam, didn't you get to try the Yggy and do an (at least by memory) comparison of the Theta?


----------



## purrin

R10 was n3rd's setup with STAX DAC (from vintage golden era of DACs) + Dynahi
  
 I had Yggy stacked on top of the Theta Gen V.


----------



## ginetto61

purrin said:


> AD1955 is good. Has potential. Cheap boards sound ... cheap. Good designs sound ... good. Still sounds D-S like, esp AD1955.


 
  
 Hi and thanks a lot for the helpful reply
 Honestly i was impressed by the cheap tda1543 multibit at the point that i wonder how the best multibit can sound
 but they are as rare as diamonds ... and who owns them keeps them.
 I really do not understand why BB, AD and others they do not build these dacs again.
 Even if they are more expensive that the standard DS i am quite sure there are people out there willing to spend some good cash to get a very good sound.
 Then a dsp chip with updatable filter algortihms ... that would be fantastic.
 The could even sell the best FWs !!!
 Thanks again,  gino


----------



## catspaw

When you thought things were finally getting normal, it turns out you need to "warm up" your DAC for a week... I dont know why but that just makes me laugh.
 I was starting to wonder if it would not be easier and cheaper to go vinyl, but then I remembered that I cant vinyl my games .


----------



## DecentLevi

catspaw said:


> When you thought things were finally getting normal, it turns out you need to "warm up" your DAC for a week... I dont know why but that just makes me laugh.
> I was starting to wonder if it would not be easier and cheaper to go vinyl, but then I remembered that I cant vinyl my games .


 
 Warming up the Yggdrasil for a week is said to be recommended to bring it to it's full potential, but not required.


----------



## catspaw

decentlevi said:


> Warming up the Yggdrasil for a week is said to be recommended to bring it to it's full potential, but not required.


 
 Touche.


----------



## shabta

catspaw said:


> When you thought things were finally getting normal, it turns out you need to "warm up" your DAC for a week... I dont know why but that just makes me laugh.
> I was starting to wonder if it would not be easier and cheaper to go vinyl, but then I remembered that I cant vinyl my games .


 
 And every time I think how it is easier to go back to vinyl, I remember the snap, crackle and pop of the needle riding the grooves. I don't miss that noise at all. Even the best cartridges/tonearm won't hide the surface noise... So bring on the yggy!


----------



## 7ryder

decentlevi said:


> Warming up the Yggdrasil for a week is said to be recommended to bring it to it's full potential, but not required.


 
 Actually, it is recommended that it be left on all the time since the military spec chips in the DAC improve significantly if kept at a constant temperature.  
  
 Personally, I have always been skeptical of "burn-in", but something is going on with this DAC.
  
 I haven't reached the magic number yet, but it sounds better each time I listen to it (I put it in my system around 3 pm on Saturday).  Purrin says the magic is supposed to happen around 130 hours of "on time", so sometime Thursday afternoon, it will be time to really listen and comment on this DAC's performance.  
  
 So, if you don't keep it on, it won't ever deliver best performance and after spending $2300USD, you do want the best performance, don't you?
  
 from the owner's manual 
*We recommend leaving Yggdrasil on continuously for best performance. *
  
*Seriously. *
  
*No kidding. *
  
*Yes, we know, this sounds like hoo-ha about “burn-in” and magick discs/stones/markers/etc. But in Yggy’s case, this is a real thing, and a serious recommendation. *
  
*Why? Because the mil-spec D/A converters in Yggy really do operate best once they’re up to temperature. As with a lot of other components inside the box. So, the logical solution (at a power cost of $50-100 per year, depending on where you live) is simply to turn it on, and leave it on. This is facilitated by inconveniently placing the power switch in the rear. *
  
*So what will you hear as Yggy warms up? Hell, we’re not going to speculate on what you hear...but we’re sure you’ll hear impressions from plenty of reviewers, and you can listen for yourself, and make your own decisions. *
  
*Sooooo...turn it on, leave it on, and see if you can’t hear a difference after it’s been on for a few days. And yes, this applies to first turn-on, too. *


----------



## evillamer

Is there any D-S based DACs that can reach near R2R level? Maybe something like the 4 x ESS9018S Lumin S1?


----------



## djtw345

So, the follow up question is how does ADI test their DAC's in production?
I doubt they power them up for a week to test INL and DNL, that would be cost prohibitive.


----------



## skeptic

I don't think the dac chip is the driving consideration here. Do a little reading on oscillators and temperature sensitivity. Schiit is only one among many dac makers that recommends its sources be left powered on at all times.


----------



## freddy1201

Stupid question here: since Yggy need to be brought at a certain temperature, does the ambient room temperature can slow the process? Because my room is pretty cold.


----------



## Armaegis

freddy1201 said:


> Stupid question here: since Yggy need to be brought at a certain temperature, does the ambient room temperature can slow the process? Because my room is pretty cold.


 

 Not enough to worry about.


----------



## djtw345

Some manufacturers put the oscillator in an oven to keep them stable.


----------



## estreeter

ginetto61 said:


> Hi and thanks a lot for the helpful reply
> Honestly i was impressed by the cheap tda1543 multibit at the point that i wonder how the best multibit can sound
> but they are as rare as diamonds ... and who owns them keeps them.
> I really do not understand why BB, AD and others they do not build these dacs again.
> ...


 
  
 Burr-Brown was swallowed by Texas Instruments in 2000 - not sure if chips designed for audio applications are even considered 'core business' at TI, at least if their website is anything to go by. Analog Devices may have a sharper focus, but time moves on and I assume they move to new chips with improvements in manufacturing and design. I'm not an engineer, but no-one at ATI is looking at video cards they built in 2000 and saying 'Wow - we really need to revisit that !' : I realise audio isnt the same domain, but from a technical POV I think the emphasis is always on 'smaller, faster, better' when it comes to silicon.


----------



## purrin

There is a reason why my procedure for listening to DACs has always been to power up for two to three days before listening. Some DACs are left on at all times with no power button or a button button that only shuts down the display. It is what it is. Voodoo, placebo, quantum physics.


----------



## wahsmoh

I never turn off my Theta.. why? It has no power switch. You plug it in and it is turned on. If the Yggy came that way I'm sure people would complain.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> AD1955 is good. Has potential. Cheap boards sound ... cheap. Good designs sound ... good. Still sounds D-S like, esp AD1955.


 
  
 OK - at the risk of doing precisely what Ive accused many of your disciples of, allow me to go through a few of more affordable AD1955 options (I dont consider Accuphase 'affordable' but others might):
  
 1. Lavry DA11 - ~1500USD
_*#11 Lavry DA11 (USB)*_
_We were pleasantly surprised at how well rounded this DAC sounded. The Lavry's greatest strength is that there was absolutely nothing about it which we found annoying. Especially of note, was the lack of apparent digital glare, stridency or harshness (aka. digitittus). It does everything somewhat well. Staging, resolution, dynamics, tonal balance,etc. Although this is a studio DAC, it does not have the typical studio DAC sound. This is solid conservative choice backed by a well known industry player. The biggest drawback to the Lavry would be it's rather slightly flat presentation lacking ultimate depth and dimensionality. Everything is done well or above average but nothing is excelled at except it's superb tonal balance which maybe the most important aspect for some listeners._
  
 2. Cambridge Audio 840C - 800-1000USD used
 Superseded by the 851C, which also uses the AD1955 but at a premium over the 840C. Both were well received by the reviewers but CA are saddled by the image of a British company which designs and markets gear made in China to a very tight margin - even though these are their flagship sources I have to wonder if these would fit into your 'cheap boards sound cheap' group. The DAC-only 851D comes in somewhere between the two but doesnt seem to have been received with quite the same enthusiasm - again, no telling where they saved money beyond the CD transport and some silicon. Every CA CDP I've heard has sounded bright and I was never a fan of the DACMagic, but I didnt get to hear the 840C. 
  
 3. Asus Essence III - 400 USD 
 Asus appears to have thrown themselves into this with a view to being able to tick off as many boxes on the Head-Fiers checklist as possible, but the reviews I read seemed lukewarm. Again, they may not have put the resources into the implementation that the more expensive AD1955 designs have invested in them, but for 400 shekels can we really expect that, plastic knobs and all ? 
  
 As many have pointed out, its about a lot more than the DAC chip and I guess you have to ask yourself if you have 1500USD whether you're simply better off saving for the next Yggy batch at the end of June. If this thread is about options rather than a single slam dunk choice, I'm guessing that each of the above will appear pre-loved at very reasonable prices long before Yggy - just putting it out there.


----------



## AustinValentine

The Emotiva DC-1 Stealth (~$500) also uses dual AD1955 chips. IMO it's a very good implementation of that particular chip and actively competes with the Gungnir in overall quality. Note: The two are voiced very differently.


----------



## evanft

Honestly, I think if you have $1k+ to spend on a DAC, you're probably better off saving up for an yggy than buying anything else.


----------



## mulder01

purrin said:


> The point of this thread is to make you second guess or at least wonder about the following:
> 
> 1) Why the **** are there mostly / only D-S DACs around today? Even if we have $1500-$2000 to spend, why do we have no choice?
> 2) Of the few R2R DACs around today, why do most of them, regardless of price, suck fuzzy balls in terms of resolution and soundstage, unlike some of the vintage R2R DACs?
> 3) How the hell did the "audiophile industry" forget how good the DACs were from the "Golden Era of DACs" 25 years ago? How did the "audiophile industry" slowly ram the ****ty artifacts of D-S DAC down our throats? Why did we as consumers just bend over and allow the industry to **** us up the ass?


 
 So if I want to buy a current model DAC, my two choices are: 
 1 - Buy a Yggy
 2 - Be anally penetrated
 Am I reading that right?


----------



## negura

I have been hearing Msb released a new firmware around the early part of last week that shock horror, apparently improves the Analog a lot adding amongst other things to resolution. Anyone tried that yet?


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

mulder01 said:


> So if I want to buy a current model DAC, my two choices are:
> 1 - Buy a Yggy
> 2 - Be anally penetrated
> Am I reading that right?


 
  
 Personally, I'd go with #1.


----------



## Eee Pee

evanft said:


> Honestly, I think if you have $1k+ to spend on a DAC, you're probably better off saving up for an yggy than buying anything else.


 
  
 Because $1000 is so close to $2300...
  
 Or wait, you said $1000+.  I have $10,000+ to spend on a car, but I might as well save up for the $23,000 car instead.  Makes perfect sense.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

negura said:


> I have been hearing Msb released a new firmware around the early part of last week that shock horror, apparently improves the Analog a lot adding amongst other things to resolution. Anyone tried that yet?


 
 I do confirm that. The sound quality received a significant boost in resolution, transients (better impact), holography, textures, etc.  Adding the usb split cable with usb linear power supply and a power regen also helped *a lot.* 
 Also have a friend that experienced similar results with the firmware upgrade. However, Msb qualifies as wallet rape in most countries, so you would still be in the second category )


----------



## Khragon

How's Yggy single ended output? Is it as bad as Gungnir? meaning higher noise floor.


----------



## thegunner100

khragon said:


> How's Yggy single ended output? Is it as bad as Gungnir? meaning higher noise floor.


 

 How is the Gungnir's SE output any bad?


----------



## freddy1201

khragon said:


> How's Yggy single ended output? Is it as bad as Gungnir? meaning higher noise floor.


 

 I use it on se and i have no problem with noise floor even with lyr(which is a noisy amp)


----------



## Stillhart

evanft said:


> Honestly, I think if you have $1k+ to spend on a DAC, you're probably better off saving up for an yggy than buying anything else.


 
  
 That makes no sense.  $1000 is less than half of the cost of a Yggy.  You can get 2-3 vintage Thetas for that price (backups in case one burns out from being old) and have something that's close to the Yggy for a fraction of the cost.  
  
 I'm sure the Yggdrasil is a wonderful DAC... I have heard it and very much enjoyed it... but the hype train needs to take step back and listen to itself once in a while.  Lord!


----------



## OsminC

stillhart said:


> That makes no sense.  $1000 is less than half of the cost of a Yggy.  You can get 2-3 vintage Thetas for that price (backups in case one burns out from being old) and have something that's close to the Yggy for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> I'm sure the Yggdrasil is a wonderful DAC... I have heard it and very much enjoyed it... but the hype train needs to take step back and listen to itself once in a while.  Lord!


 
 I think the point is that if you are looking and willing to spend $1000+ on a DAC at all....you are probably looking for the best your money can buy, and if you can hold out, you might as well save for, what some say, is the best offering in recent history.
  
 I get it and I used the same thought process. I was going to by Gungnir, but thought, 'I'll probably end up wanting Yggy.....might as well just go for it!'    If you cant swing it.....then don't....simple as that.


----------



## manbear

purrin said:


> The point of this thread is to make you second guess or at least wonder about the following:
> 
> 1) Why the **** are there mostly / only D-S DACs around today? Even if we have $1500-$2000 to spend, why do we have no choice?




Obviously there is no single clear answer but this is an interesting question. Is it a simple case of initially assuming newer = better and then getting stuck in the momentum?

Or, more cynically, is it a matter of pinching pennies? I imagine many audio companies have someone upstairs who will pick the cheapest chip every time, as long as people will buy it in sufficient quantities. Same reason nice restaurants serve schiit beer for $9.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

stillhart said:


> That makes no sense.  $1000 is less than half of the cost of a Yggy.  You can get 2-3 vintage Thetas for that price (backups in case one burns out from being old) and have something that's close to the Yggy for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> I'm sure the Yggdrasil is a wonderful DAC... I have heard it and very much enjoyed it... but the hype train needs to take step back and listen to itself once in a while.  Lord!


 
  
 You're looking at this all wrong.  Buying the Yggy is saving you $9,000 US over the price of a dCS Debussey.


----------



## EraserXIV

Ahh the "fallacy of percentages" strikes again.. (for lack of a better term). The difference between $1000 and $2300 is much different than the difference between $10,000 and $23,000. $11,700 to be exact, or if we're still speaking in percentages, 900% different.


----------



## negura

stillhart said:


> That makes no sense.  $1000 is less than half of the cost of a Yggy.  You can get 2-3 vintage Thetas for that price (backups in case one burns out from being old) and have something that's close to the Yggy for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> I'm sure the Yggdrasil is a wonderful DAC... I have heard it and very much enjoyed it... but the hype train needs to take step back and listen to itself once in a while.  Lord!


 
  
 I have two Theta Gen V/VAs. At 2300$ if the Yggdrasil sounds at the same level of the Theta or very close, it's a worthy buy. Why:
  
 1. You get USB (that saves cost - which can be A LOT; if it's any good that is - I don't know. Yet. It also saves OCD time with interfaces/cables)
 2. You get warranty
 3. It shouldn't give you stress tomorrow it might die (for a long long time to come).
 4. You can get it serviced easily
 5. Good luck finding a Theta these days. I have it in my daily searches and haven't seen a Gen V in months now.
  
 There is something going for the Theta too:
 1. IF power failure, a few minutes is all it takes to get my almost optimal sound quality back
  
 That said, my Thetas' aren't likely going anywhere in a rush. They're too darn good, an amazing piece of vintage gear that does teach a lesson or two even today, and I have multiple rigs. If the Yggdrasil is really good, I may decide to sell one at some point.


----------



## purrin

mulder01 said:


> So if I want to buy a current model DAC, my two choices are:
> 1 - Buy a Yggy
> 2 - Be anally penetrated
> Am I reading that right?


 
  
 option 3: wait for Yggy trickle down.


----------



## Sonic Defender

purrin said:


> option 3: wait for Yggy trickle down.


 

 I know I'm lurking around curious about such a thing. We have seen Valhalla 2, Asgard 2, Modi and Magni 2. Me thinks a Gungnir 2 has a nice ring to it. Time will tell of course.


----------



## Currawong

My thoughts so far are if you get an SD DAC, get one with 384k USB input and use software on your computer, such as Audirvana (Mac) which has iZotope built in. Then use that to up-sample all music 2x/4x/8x to 352.8/384k. That will bypass the crappy built-in filters on many DACs. It had a very positive effect on the Aurender Flow, which is ES9018K2M-based. Still not R2R, but if you've never experienced what is possible (remember that Purrin has ruined himself) then you'll probably find the results very satisfying.


----------



## freddy1201

currawong said:


> My thoughts so far are if you get an SD DAC, get one with 384k USB input and use software on your computer, such as Audirvana (Mac) which has iZotope built in. Then use that to up-sample all music 2x/4x/8x to 352.8/384k. That will bypass the crappy built-in filters on many DACs. It had a very positive effect on the Aurender Flow, which is ES9018K2M-based. Still not R2R, but if you've never experienced what is possible (remember that Purrin has ruined himself) then you'll probably find the results very satisfying.


 

 So i should put iZotope off with Yggy?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 Edit: it was already off


----------



## EraserXIV

freddy1201 said:


> So i should put iZotope off with Yggy?


----------



## Clemmaster

freddy1201 said:


> So i should put iZotope off with Yggy?


 
 You can try and see how it compares to Mike Moffat's mega-burrito filter.


----------



## Currawong

Would be an interesting comparison, but not necessary. iZotope appears to be much better than what is in a regular DAC, but the Yggy isn't a regular DAC.
  
 I should add: Some "regular" DACs have DSPs or the like where the company has designed their own filter, eg: Berkeley Alpha, Cambridge and others. They tend to be be a bit better.


----------



## freddy1201

eraserxiv said:


>


 

 Ok i will test it for you guys


----------



## Stillhart

osminc said:


> I think the point is that if you are looking and willing to spend $1000+ on a DAC at all....you are probably looking for the best your money can buy, and if you can hold out, you might as well save for, what some say, is the best offering in recent history.
> 
> I get it and I used the same thought process. I was going to by Gungnir, but thought, 'I'll probably end up wanting Yggy.....might as well just go for it!'    If you cant swing it.....then don't....simple as that.


 
  
 Hype Train = calling the Yggy "the best your money can buy" when it's been out for less than a week.  You are proving my point.
  


johnnycanuck said:


> You're looking at this all wrong.  Buying the Yggy is saving you $9,000 US over the price of a dCS Debussey.


 
  
 Buying a Theta for (conservatively) $500 on eBay is saving you $1800 US over the Yggy.  See, I can do that too!
  


negura said:


> I have two Theta Gen V/VAs. At 2300$ if the Yggdrasil sounds at the same level of the Theta or very close, it's a worthy buy. Why:
> 
> 1. You get USB (that saves cost - which can be A LOT; if it's any good that is - I don't know. Yet. It also saves OCD time with interfaces/cables)
> 2. You get warranty
> ...


 
  
 Again, for the price difference, you can afford several Thetas (or Monarchys or whatever), a nice USB transport and have money in your pocket.  Why stress about a warranty or service (points 2, 3, 4 are all basically the same) when you can just replace it when it breaks and STILL have money left over?
  
 And your point 5 is fallacious as I (not to mention several people I know) picked up a Theta only a few weeks ago.
  
 My point here is that the Yggy isn't the only game in town.  Yes, it sounds good.  No, it's not the only R2R DAC you can get.  Even if we ignore the vintage stuff for a minute, there's still the Audio-GD DAC-19 which can be purchased brand new for $800, with all the accompanying warranty and service.  Will is sound as good as the Yggy?  Probably not.  But it's 1/3 the price and it's R2R.


----------



## freddy1201

stillhart said:


> Hype Train = calling the Yggy "the best your money can buy" when it's been out for less than a week.  You are proving my point.
> 
> 
> Buying a Theta for (conservatively) $500 on eBay is saving you $1800 US over the Yggy.  See, I can do that too!
> ...


 

 Ok we get it, you don't want Yggy, but some people are willing (like me) to pay more to have a better sounding and reliable product. Good for you and your wallet if you're ok with a vintage theta or a lesser sac! 
  
 Different people, different needs
 Cheers!


----------



## estreeter

mulder01 said:


> So if I want to buy a current model DAC, my two choices are:
> 1 - Buy a Yggy
> 2 - Be anally penetrated
> Am I reading that right?


 
  
 You're assuming this has to be an either/or proposition.


----------



## Stillhart

freddy1201 said:


> Ok we get it, you don't want Yggy, but some people are willing (like me) to pay more to have a better sounding and reliable product. Good for you and your wallet if you're ok with a vintage theta or a lesser sac!
> 
> Different people, different needs
> Cheers!


 
  
 My issue is with those who are advising people that they should "just save up" for a Yggy no matter what budget we're talking about.  
  
 By all means, spend your own money however you like.  But when advising others on how to spend their money, I take a more conservative stance.


----------



## EraserXIV

Thetas aren't in production anymore, you can't guarantee a unit will be easily obtainable when your unit breaks. But for the sake of argument let's say there is one on the auction site when yours goes kaput... The hassle of waiting 7-days for the auction to end, going through a bidding war without an guarantee that I will win it, and the time without a DAC while I'm waiting for said replacement to arrive is worth $1300 to me.


----------



## Stillhart

eraserxiv said:


> Thetas aren't in production anymore, you can't guarantee a unit will be easily obtainable when your unit breaks. But for the sake of argument let's say there is one on the auction site when yours goes kaput... The hassle of waiting 7-days for the auction to end, going through a bidding war without an guarantee that I will win it, and the time without a DAC while I'm waiting for said replacement to arrive is worth $1300 to me.


 
  
 And others don't have that $1300 to spend, whether they value it or not.


----------



## DreamKing

Okay, considering obvious subjectivity when asking a question like this: Is there substantial increase in performance in all these different thetas? Going by http://www.thetadigital.com/legacy_products.shtml, there seems to be a lot of difference between them but it doesn't seem like it from the way people lump them all together here. But I'm probably mistaken (?).


----------



## estreeter

eraserxiv said:


> Thetas aren't in production anymore, you can't guarantee a unit will be easily obtainable when your unit breaks. But for the sake of argument let's say there is one on the auction site when yours goes kaput... The hassle of waiting 7-days for the auction to end, going through a bidding war without an guarantee that I will win it, and the time without a DAC while I'm waiting for said replacement to arrive is worth $1300 to me.


 
  
 The ebay sniping experts will tell you how you can be guaranteed of winning anything you really want, but I would be fascinated to see this stockpile of ~$350 Thetas @Stillhart seems to believe are still out there looking for owners. God knows how many vintage R2R DACs have mysteriously appreciated in value since this thread went down that path.


----------



## EraserXIV

I've had many friends go down similar paths for automobiles, electronics, TVs, etc.. And ended up spending more money than had they just gone the safer route. The adage "You get what you pay for" is an adage for a reason. Just my 2 cents and the last I'll say on this.


----------



## Stillhart

estreeter said:


> The ebay sniping experts will tell you how you can be guaranteed of winning anything you really want, but I would be fascinated to see this stockpile of ~$350 Thetas @Stillhart seems to believe are still out there looking for owners. God knows how many vintage R2R DACs have mysteriously appreciated in value since this thread went down that path.


 
  
 One only needs to do a search for closed listings to get that information.  And really, the exact price seems to be a bit academic.  Even if it's $700 or $1400, it's still significantly cheaper than the Theta, etc etc.
  
 Anyways, clearly my voice of reason is being taken the wrong way so I'll let this conversation go for now.  Maybe in a week or two, the hype will die down and we can have a real discussion on the relative value of the Yggy.


----------



## freddy1201

stillhart said:


> My issue is with those who are advising people that they should "just save up" for a Yggy no matter what budget we're talking about.
> 
> By all means, spend your own money however you like.  But when advising others on how to spend their money, I take a more conservative stance.


 

 Sure, i think it's not the end of all dac, because you need to start the hobby somewhere.


----------



## hans030390

ginetto61 said:


> Honestly i was impressed by the cheap tda1543 multibit at the point that i wonder how the best multibit can sound


 
  
 I think TDA1543 can be fun sounding with good tone, but in terms of objectively good, accurate, or technically competent multibit chips, it's pretty far down there on the list.
  
 Just think a lot better of everything it does and you'll start to have an idea when it comes to better multibit.


----------



## wahsmoh

Vintage R2R's still remain a high value proposition. I payed $500 for my Bifrost Uber Gen 2 USB with all bells and whistles. The $276 eBay Theta DAC spanks the Uber and it is also a single-ended only DAC. Hell it is probably the best single-ended DAC you can buy for what it goes for used. I know the more I talk the more the Theta appreciates in value so I should shut my trap so other people can get a taste of it. I also got free shipping


----------



## Sonic Defender

stillhart said:


> My issue is with those who are advising people that they should "just save up" for a Yggy no matter what budget we're talking about.
> 
> By all means, spend your own money however you like.  But when advising others on how to spend their money, I take a more conservative stance.


 

 I hear you brother, but that is still a valid suggestion. Those who want to and can will save and wait (god knows I couldn't, I'm far too impulsive) and those who can't or don't want to won't. Heck I think the idea of counseling people to engage in delayed gratification is actually a good one. Along the way they will either really appreciate what they saved for, or they'll realize just how much money they are putting out there and maybe decide to do something else with the money?


----------



## hodgjy

wahsmoh said:


> Vintage R2R's still remain a high value proposition. I payed $500 for my Bifrost Uber Gen 2 USB with all bells and whistles. The $276 eBay Theta DAC spanks the Uber and it is also a single-ended only DAC. Hell it is probably the best single-ended DAC you can buy for what it goes for used. I know the more I talk the more the Theta appreciates in value so I should shut my trap so other people can get a taste of it. I also got free shipping


 
 How do you describe the difference? I currently have a Bifrost Uber and am looking to upgrade.


----------



## theblueprint

hodgjy said:


> How do you describe the difference? I currently have a Bifrost Uber and am looking to upgrade.


 
  
 Also curious about this too. I just got a bifrost uber (which will hopefully keep me happy for a couple years at least) and am aware that a substantial upgrade will have me spending well over the 1000s. I'm predicting my next DAC will be an yggy, unless I score a Theta for cheap (though what's keeping me from biting the Theta bait is that I need a usb to SPDIF converter, which will run me another hundred at least).


----------



## wahsmoh

hodgjy said:


> How do you describe the difference? I currently have a Bifrost Uber and am looking to upgrade.


 
 The Bifrost Uber sounds more left channel/right channel where the soundstage is more compressed and center image isn't as focused.
  
 I can hear details and instrument separation better with the Theta. This major difference is the presentation of details.
 The Uber doesn't have any less detail than the Theta, it is the way it is presented that makes it sound artificial in some ways.
  
 It is also less extended in the lows and the Theta doesn't require as much volume/frequency imbalance to get superior bass speed and control over the Uber.
  
 The Uber can get more bass than the Theta but at the expense of the higher frequency glare. I can listen to my Theta at much higher volumes than Uber for this reason, it is way less fatiguing. The Uber is still convincing when you hit the "sweet spot" on the volume dial, but the soundstage and center image suffers in comparison to what the Theta brings.
  
 I also get better low level macrodynamics I can hear with vocals and backing vocals coming through more separated and clearly.
  
 The DSP is the difference.. burrito filter vs. AKM4399 non-burrito filter. The analog section of the Uber is still a well done section, but it doesn't have the staging aspects of what the DSP brings to the table.


----------



## hodgjy

wahsmoh said:


> The Bifrost Uber sounds more left channel/right channel where the soundstage is more compressed and center image isn't as focused.
> 
> I can hear details and instrument separation better with the Theta. This major difference is the presentation of details.
> The Uber doesn't have any less detail than the Theta, it is the way it is presented that makes it sound artificial in some ways.
> ...


 
 Thanks for your impressions. Are you listening via speakers or headphones?


----------



## wahsmoh

hodgjy said:


> Thanks for your impressions. Are you listening via speakers or headphones?


 
 headphone listening. I heard the same thing though with my cheap m-audio monitors. Even my non-audiophile friend commented how the sound was very 3D like


----------



## hodgjy

wahsmoh said:


> headphone listening. I heard the same thing though with my cheap m-audio monitors. Even my non-audiophile friend commented how the sound was very 3D like


 
 Thanks again. Sigh, as I'm still with my Bifrost and could go for something better. Yggy is still too far outside my price range, though. Gungnir is more within it.


----------



## skeptic

stillhart said:


> One only needs to do a search for closed listings to get that information.  And really, the exact price seems to be a bit academic.  Even if it's $700 or $1400, it's still significantly cheaper than the Theta, etc etc.
> 
> Anyways, clearly my voice of reason is being taken the wrong way so I'll let this conversation go for now.  Maybe in a week or two, the hype will die down and we can have a real discussion on the relative value of the Yggy.


 
  
 I think your points are fair ones, but I also think you have to bear in mind that you and a few others have been riding the vintage theta hype train, while screaming "choo choo" at the top of your lungs for weeks now, and it looks a wee bit like you may be having trouble sharing the tracks with a shiny new train.  [<- intended in good humor]
  
 In all seriousness, I have high hopes for my yggy and would love it if it really does outshine everything I've heard to date.  Maybe it really will, or maybe it will to my ears because I want it to.  The reality is, notwithstanding the cute revised title of the thread, I've head a number of very good SD and R2R sources over the years, and have a family friend with a _very _good TT (who designs and calibrates tone arms and thinks digital is for the unwashed masses), and my view is that well engineered implementations of differing techs can all produce wonderful music that approximates live.
  
 There's a funny anecdote that pops up from time to time in the sound science forum about some late 90's audio show when an elite group of golden ears were supposed to be getting a demo of a new megabuck cd player.  As a joke, someone swapped in an early generation ipod instead.  Lo and behold, the audio press still gave rave reviews.  Deep down, I suspect if schiit dropped bifrosts inside of yggy cases for half the units sold, the recipients would still be on the forums signing their praises and discussing the obvious superiority of the r2r renaissance and moffat filter.   No doubt there are some here who could immediately tell the difference, but I'm not that confident I'm one of them (having never owned a bifrost at least).  Since the mainline accepts two inputs, I'm looking forward to doing some A/B'ing with my other sources to put this to the test when mine arrives.


----------



## amalgamist

As much as purrin likes his Gungnir, I'd imagine one with the new Gen 3 USB module and some trickle down R2R goodness would be quite a dac.


----------



## hodgjy

amalgamist said:


> As much as purrin likes his Gungnir, I'd imagine one with the new Gen 3 USB module and some trickle down R2R goodness would be quite a dac.


 
 I think Gen 3 USB is the most immediate trickle down we'll see.  If we see R2R trickle down, if ever, it probably won't be for a while.  I don't use USB, so it's just a matter of when I pull the trigger. Of course, as soon as I do is when the upgrades are released.


----------



## Stillhart

hodgjy said:


> I think Gen 3 USB is the most immediate trickle down we'll see.  If we see R2R trickle down, if ever, it probably won't be for a while.  I don't use USB, so it's just a matter of when I pull the trigger. Of course, as soon as I do is when the upgrades are released.


 
  
 Murphy's Law!  Of course, Mike has been in here talking about he takes care of his customers, etc.  I know if I were considering buying a Schiit right now, I'd be very confident that I'd be taken care of should a new upgrade roll out shortly thereafter.


----------



## hodgjy

stillhart said:


> Murphy's Law!  Of course, Mike has been in here talking about he takes care of his customers, etc.  I know if I were considering buying a Schiit right now, I'd be very confident that I'd be taken care of should a new upgrade roll out shortly thereafter.


 
 Agreed. I'm still exploring DAC options, and Gungnir is at the top of the list.


----------



## StefanJK

hodgjy said:


> Agreed. I'm still exploring DAC options, and Gungnir is at the top of the list.


 
 There is going to be a flow of Gungnirs into the for sale postings soon.


----------



## purrin

currawong said:


> (remember that Purrin has ruined himself)


 
  
 Currawong makes good point.
  


skeptic said:


> There's a funny anecdote that pops up from time to time in the sound science forum about some late 90's audio show when an elite group of golden ears were supposed to be getting a demo of a new megabuck cd player.  As a joke, someone swapped in an early generation ipod instead.


 
  
 LOL, my friends and I used do that all the time at headphone meets to **** with people. Have a bundle of wires cross-crossed and it's hard to tell what's hooked up to what. I'd **** with my friends on which DAC is hooked up during our listening tests.
  
 --
  
 There are lots and lots of options at $1K or under: Gungnir, X-Sabre, Emotiva, Lavry, vintage Sonic Frontiers, Theta Basic, etc. and many many many more. The only caveat in my head is Moffat at CanJam intimating upgrades for current Schiit owners. The questions would be when will these upgrades be released and how close would the multi-bit Gungnirs or Bifrosts be to Yggy.
  
 I have not only ruined myself, but I also took upon a journey that led me specifically to the Yggy. Your own DAC journeys may be quite different.


----------



## hodgjy

purrin said:


> There are lots and lots of options at $1K or under: Gungnir, X-Sabre, Emotiva, Lavry, vintage Sonic Frontiers, Theta Basic, etc. and many many many more. The only caveat in my head is Moffat intimating upgrades for current Schiit owners. The questions would be when will they be released and how close would the multi-bit Gungnirs or Bifrosts be to Yggy.


 
 Well hell, looks like I'll be waiting as long as it takes for trickle down Gungnir upgrades. It's not like my Bifrost is _that_ bad.


----------



## Mr Rick

hodgjy said:


> Well hell, looks like I'll be waiting as long as it takes for trickle down Gungnir upgrades. It's not like my Bifrost is _that_ bad.


 
 You are aware that your Bifrost is upgradable. Right ?


----------



## hodgjy

mr rick said:


> You are aware that your Bifrost is upgradable. Right ?


 
 I am, but I eventually want to go Gungnir to get the extra benefits associated with that platform.


----------



## amalgamist

A Theta just popped up on the marketplace if someone was keen to snatch one up, not sure how good that one is.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/764439/fs-theta-ds-pro-progeny-used-beautiful-condition


----------



## AustinValentine

amalgamist said:


> A Theta just popped up on the marketplace if someone was keen to snatch one up, not sure how good that one is.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/764439/fs-theta-ds-pro-progeny-used-beautiful-condition


 
  
 It sure did


----------



## olegausany

hodgjy said:


> wahsmoh said:
> 
> 
> > headphone listening. I heard the same thing though with my cheap m-audio monitors. Even my non-audiophile friend commented how the sound was very 3D like
> ...



You should really consider irDac, definitely better than Bifrost Uber


----------



## hodgjy

olegausany said:


> You should really consider irDac, definitely better than Bifrost Uber


 
 I have, but I'm completely OCD and vain. I have all silver gear and the black irDAC would drive me nuts. Also, I can't stand walwarts. 
  
 I'm, I'm crazy.


----------



## olegausany

Right now I own a $4k LIO and it has external power. It took me just 30 seconds to notice improvement over Bifrost


----------



## ginetto61

hans030390 said:


> I think TDA1543 can be fun sounding with good tone, but in terms of objectively good, accurate, or technically competent multibit chips, it's pretty far down there on the list.
> 
> Just think a lot better of everything it does and you'll start to have an idea when it comes to better multibit.


 
  
 Hi and yes i read about its very low resolution
 Unfortunately i have never had the opportunity to listen to a proper multibit dac
 My only hope is that this new dac from Schiit would be so widely successful to make the manufacturers to reconsider producing multibit dacs, even if they are more expensive of the sigma-delta.
 But this explanation of the high price i do not buy.
 I praise a lot instead the decision of Schitt designers.  They wanted to make a TOTL dac and they selected the best part available.
 100 USD for a fundamental component are never too much.
 I think that the high cost is also due to the low quantities made.
 Increasing numbers usually lower the price.
 In the meantime i look around for a decent and old multibit
 Thanks a lot.   Regards,  gino


----------



## ginetto61

estreeter said:


> Burr-Brown was swallowed by Texas Instruments in 2000 - not sure if chips designed for audio applications are even considered 'core business' at TI, at least if their website is anything to go by. Analog Devices may have a sharper focus, but time moves on and I assume they move to new chips with improvements in manufacturing and design. I'm not an engineer, but no-one at ATI is looking at video cards they built in 2000 and saying 'Wow - we really need to revisit that !' : I realise audio isnt the same domain, but from a technical POV I think the emphasis is always on 'smaller, faster, better' when it comes to silicon.


 
  
 Hi and thanks  lot for the very helpful advice.
 I think that low power consumption is the present goal.   I am impressed by the usb headphone dacs for instance.
 How it is possible to drive an headphone with just  5V/0.5A  !!!  unbelievable !
 Still i hope that the Schitt new dac will show the way to all others for very top dacs.
 I listen everything through a dac ... everything from news to music and movies.
 And everything starts from a pc nowadays.
 So i am extremely interested.
 Thanks again,  gino


----------



## wink

Quote:Stillheart 





> but the hype train needs to take step back and *DERAIL* itself once in a while.


 
 FTFY


----------



## wink

Quote:Srtillheart 





> My point here is that the Yggy isn't the only game in town.  Yes, it sounds good.  No, it's not the only R2R DAC you can get.  Even if we ignore the vintage stuff for a minute, there's still the Audio-GD DAC-19 which can be purchased brand new for $800, with all the accompanying warranty and service.  Will is sound as good as the Yggy?  Probably not.  But it's 1/3 the price and it's R2R.


 
 But,  but               it's NOT a YGGY... !   There's the problem.


----------



## wink

Quote:hodgjy 





> I'm, I'm crazy.


 
 We knew there was something we liked about you.


----------



## prot

freddy1201 said:


> Ok we get it, you don't want Yggy, but some people are willing (like me) to pay more to have a better sounding and reliable product.




Up to now there is precisely *one* comparison between iggy & other DACs so "better sounding" is still just wishful thinking. And same for "reliable", no sane person can say that after a few days. It may all very well turn up to be true but *at this time* you are paying for hype and proving stillhart's point. 
Also agree with skeptic, there's quite a bit of theta hype around here too. We'll see... last time I checked patience was still a virtue.


----------



## Lohb

prot said:


> Up to now there is precisely *one* comparison between iggy & other DACs so "better sounding" is still just wishful thinking. And same for "reliable", no sane person can say that after a few days. It may all very well turn up to be true but *at this time* you are paying for hype and proving @stillhart's point.
> Also agree with @skeptic, there's quite a bit of theta hype around here too. We'll see... last time I checked patience was still a virtue.


 

 On the basis that a 1994 Theta V A is amazing according to many, I doubt the very same designer will step backwards with the final result after 21 years...


----------



## negura

stillhart said:


> Again, for the price difference, you can afford several Thetas (or Monarchys or whatever), a nice USB transport and have money in your pocket.  Why stress about a warranty or service (points 2, 3, 4 are all basically the same) when you can just replace it when it breaks and STILL have money left over?


 
  
 No they are are not the same. I was in the position of having a dead Theta, and besides the effort you do get left out without a DAC. And it's not easy finding where to service them.
  
 I am really pleased you found a Theta recently. I am looking for one for a friend, and I know a few others trying to find one. I have not seen a Gen V in months. You may be luckier where you live, but that doesn't change anything. They are extremely limited supply, and it will not get any better as they break down and people throw them away, as you suggest.
  
 They are great vintage DACs but people should be aware of the risks.


----------



## prot

lohb said:


> On the basis that a 1994 Theta V A is amazing according to many, I doubt the very same designer will step backwards with the final result after 21 years...




That is, pretty much by definition, wishful thinking. It's not necessarily wrong or false..just wishful. 
Also, your 'basis' is made out of a few words from a few people. Not necessarily wrong or false..just words. 
Get a theta, get an iggy, compare them with 2-3 known DACs and than you have a base..and my ears..and possibly my money. Purrin did that and I'm grateful for his time and effort..but the bills in my wallet are kinda lazy and sticky and more than one opinion is needed to move them.


----------



## Lohb

prot said:


> Get a theta, get an iggy,


 
 At once ? Now that is wishful thinki$$$g


----------



## pldelisle

My Schiit stack has been shipped yesterday !  
  
 But could take a while before receiving it ... Must traverse the Canadian customs ..  
  
 Any experience here on how long it took from US to Canada ?


----------



## DreamKing

I'm getting a headache just thinking of the import fees on that...


----------



## korzena

skeptic said:


> There's a funny anecdote that pops up from time to time in the sound science forum about some late 90's audio show when an elite group of golden ears were supposed to be getting a demo of a new megabuck cd player.  As a joke, someone swapped in an early generation ipod instead.


 
 It was either not is the 90's or it was not an iPod that they swapped with. The first line of iPods was released in October 2001.


----------



## hodgjy

korzena said:


> It was either not is the 90's or it was not an iPod that they swapped with. The first line of iPods was released in October 2001.


 
 This is one of the most perpetuated stories in golden ears lore.  I have my doubts if this really happened, or if it happened in the manner the story is slanted towards.  I think it's more legend than truth.  Did someone somewhere secretly swap about the new Uberdopplebargelconfabulator CD player for an iPod?  Possibly. But probably not in a real venue with real salespeople, marketing execs, and paid critics.


----------



## Eee Pee

Been there!


----------



## pldelisle

dreamking said:


> I'm getting a headache just thinking of the import fees on that...




0 $
 
Because it is made in USA and carried by USPS/Canada Post. It is under the NAFTA agreement. 


That's why I didn't take chineese stuff...


----------



## wink

Quoterot 





> but the bills in my wallet are kinda lazy and sticky and more than one opinion is needed to move them.


 
 Either exercise the wallet as a matter of urgency, or surgery is strongly indicated.
  
  
 Quote:Lohb 





> prot said:
> 
> 
> > Get a theta, get an iggy,
> ...


 
 This is what bank overdrafts were designed for.


----------



## wahsmoh

lohb said:


> At once ? Now that is wishful thinki$$$g


 
 Buy a Theta until you can afford an Yggy. I know someone here recently sold a Theta to get an Yggy


----------



## Pirakaphile

No prices on any of the DACs on the OP, guess I'll do some research when I'm not on my phone.


----------



## freddy1201

pldelisle said:


> My Schiit stack has been shipped yesterday !
> 
> But could take a while before receiving it ... Must traverse the Canadian customs ..
> 
> Any experience here on how long it took from US to Canada ?


 

 With fedex priority, 1 day


----------



## freddy1201

pldelisle said:


> dreamking said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting a headache just thinking of the import fees on that...
> ...


 

 Seriously!!! It cost me 450$! Damn


----------



## pldelisle

freddy1201 said:


> Seriously!!! It cost me 450$! Damn




What did you buy ?! schiit stuff?

You have to make it shipped by USPS. UPS/Fedex are real thieves when you do international shipment. USPS and Canada Post have broker arrangement between borders. Takes a bit longer, but you pay a looooot less !!

Sure you have to pay the God damn 15% quebec taxes, but you have no custom duties to pay.


----------



## mowglycdb

And then 7 days after switching it on for impressions.


----------



## Pirakaphile

mowglycdb said:


> And then 7 days after switching it on for impressions.



Just waiting for the review saying how terrible the sound is.

"I plugged it in and right away I knew I had made a mistake. This DAC sounded terrible! I can't believe the hype around the Yggy, right out of the box and then back in. 1/10"
-inexperienced dude


----------



## wink

that was only because turned on the wrong DAC......


----------



## wahsmoh

wink said:


> that was only because turned on the wrong DAC......


 
 or they played 192 kbps .mp3 instead of FLAC file of the same name


----------



## wink

That would also do it....


----------



## jexby

khragon said:


> How's Yggy single ended output? Is it as bad as Gungnir? meaning higher noise floor.


 
  
 this thread sort of took off in another direction, and not sure this got answered-
 is it a measurable noise floor or ?
  
 Single Ended Gungnir for me:
 iMac and USB impart some slight static via Gungnir, but only when Lyr 2 is on high gain, no music playing, and volume knob cranked.
 no USB tweaks remove the fuzz (Regen nor Wyrd) but a JK Audio Pureformer in my RCA chain does clean it all up, providing a dead black background.
  
 even XLR to RCA cables out of Gungnir doesn't change the above.
 won't have chance to go full balanced cables and HE-560s until Liquid Carbon arrives.


----------



## prot

lohb said:


> At once ? Now that is wishful thinki$$$g



It surely is but dreaming is still free


----------



## Chris F

pldelisle said:


> My Schiit stack has been shipped yesterday !
> 
> But could take a while before receiving it ... Must traverse the Canadian customs ..
> 
> Any experience here on how long it took from US to Canada ?


 
  
 It will be 5-6 days (cleared customs yesterday, delivery today or tomorrow) for my Yggdrasil to go from California to Ottawa with USPS.


----------



## pldelisle

chris f said:


> It will be 5-6 days (cleared customs yesterday, delivery today or tomorrow) for my Yggdrasil to go from California to Ottawa with USPS.




Thanks a lot!!!


----------



## BassDigger

purrin said:


> Indeed, it is rather amazing! Yes, based on my own experience with so many DACs, examining their designs, I can almost get a sense of how something will sound.**
> ...
> 
> The old *TDA1540* (14-bit with 4LSB) and *TDA1541*/2 (16-bit with 1-2LSB error - this spec is very very doubtful, I've heard that it's no better than 15-bits, and even then it's probably worse than that.) *as used on the Valab and TeraDAC*s. They also suck in terms of resolution.
> The most resolving R2R chip I've heard is probably the PCM63 followed by the PCM1702 and maybe the UltraAnalog Modules...


 
  
 I'm sorry both to be so late to the party and nit-picking on something that was written months ago.
  
 I just wondered if you'd give your impressions of the ever-popular TDA1541 chip, in any of its guises?
  
 Of course, I'm sure you know that it's the much maligned TDA154*3* chip contained in the Valab and Terradac. Do you rate the PCM chips so much higher, that you think any difference between the 1541 and 1543 as irrelevant?
  
 Thanks.


----------



## DreamKing

pldelisle said:


> dreamking said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting a headache just thinking of the import fees on that...
> ...


 
  
 I forgot about that, thanks...considering how little electronics are actually made in the USA these days. Plus, I usually only buy from places where they're more relaxed about value declarations...Freakin government has to be the middle man everywhere.


----------



## mikoss

Alright, damn this thread. I just found/bought an Angstrom 200 from eBay... anyone heard how these things sound? Hoping it'll be sweet. Just going to use the Gustard U12 to feed it for now. I'd love to hear comments/thoughts/suggestions about this unit, or the Gustard...


----------



## Sonic Defender

pldelisle said:


> Thanks a lot!!!


 

 Keep in mind sometimes it takes 5 business days to clear customs, it doesn't always go through so quickly. I have been caught like this one or twice. In general 3 business days is normal in customs.


----------



## prot

mikoss said:


> Alright, damn this thread. I just found/bought an Angstrom 200 from eBay... anyone heard how these things sound? Hoping it'll be sweet. Just going to use the Gustard U12 to feed it for now. I'd love to hear comments/thoughts/suggestions about this unit, or the Gustard...


Apparently this guy liked it very much http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=337157


----------



## AustinValentine

mikoss said:


> Alright, damn this thread. I just found/bought an Angstrom 200 from eBay... anyone heard how these things sound? Hoping it'll be sweet. Just going to use the Gustard U12 to feed it for now. I'd love to hear comments/thoughts/suggestions about this unit, or the Gustard...


 
  
 I've been considering picking that unit up for a while. (The one from TMR is probably the one you grabbed, no?) It uses a vintage Crystal (Cirrus) DAC that _practically no-one knows anything about. _
  
 So, if you get the chance to take some photos of the internals - including some closeups of the chips - that would be really useful.


----------



## mikoss

austinvalentine said:


> I've been considering picking that unit up for a while. (The one from TMR is probably the one you grabbed, no?) It uses a vintage Crystal (Cirrus) DAC that _practically no-one knows anything about. _
> 
> So, if you get the chance to take some photos of the internals - including some closeups of the chips - that would be really useful.


 
 Yeppers, from TMR via eBay... too bad it didn't come with the remote & manual. I will take a bunch of pics when it arrives.


----------



## freddy1201

pldelisle said:


> What did you buy ?! schiit stuff?
> 
> You have to make it shipped by USPS. UPS/Fedex are real thieves when you do international shipment. USPS and Canada Post have broker arrangement between borders. Takes a bit longer, but you pay a looooot less !!
> 
> Sure you have to pay the God damn 15% quebec taxes, but you have no custom duties to pay.


 

 Yggdrasil… i will do that next time i buy an Yggy lol


----------



## Pirakaphile

freddy1201 said:


> Yggdrasil… i will do that next time i buy an Yggy lol


 
 One for every room! You have to listen in the tub, in the bed, making dinner, working, ...


----------



## estreeter

dreamking said:


> I'm getting a headache just thinking of the import fees on that...


 
  
 http://www.dutycalculator.com/new-import-duty-and-tax-calculation/


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

Thanks, estreeter,
  
 That's a handy, general purpose calculator.  I'm bookmarking the link.


----------



## Joong

It's too long to read.
The delta sigma Dac has a trouble in highs. Because the temporal resolution is not high enough?
The resolution of DS dac depends on the size of accumulator, 32 bit of Sabre chip, which is good in low and mid range.
Those range allows enough time to accumulate, but highs does not allow to accumulate that much.

Problem is that DS dac is not enough speedy to satisfy the audiophile's ears?
Multi-bit dac does not depends on the accumulation time so that it is consistance throughout frequency band.

Please correct me if i am wrong.


----------



## aqsw

pldelisle said:


> dreamking said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting a headache just thinking of the import fees on that...
> ...




Very true. I waited for two years for the yggy,. Where was it when our $$ were on par.LOL.
Anyways for Canadians, dont be scared of the duty, be scared of the excange rate.
I had to settle for less, as the yggy was just too much. Wish I could have though.


----------



## warrior1975

What did you choose? Are you happy with it?


----------



## DreamKing

aqsw said:


> Very true. I waited for two years for the yggy,. Where was it when our $$ were on par.LOL.
> Anyways for Canadians, dont be scared of the duty, be scared of the excange rate.
> I had to settle for less, as the yggy was just too much. Wish I could have though.


 
  
 Both are close to each other and gets worse if theres duty involved really. If Schiit manufactored anywhere else the customs fees would be more than the exchange rate. 
  

*CA$3143.24* 
 
  
 from that calculator above with 13% Ontario tax and without duty due to being manufactured in the USA. 
  
 yeah...no thanks.


----------



## mikoss

Yeah even in Alberta, the cost would be:
 $2299 US = $2770 CAD+ 9.99 GST processing fee at the border + 138.50 GST = $2918.49 CAD total


----------



## warrior1975

Ouch. That is terrible... Sorry for our brothers to the north.


----------



## cdnpaul33

I figure our dollar isn't going up any time soon so I bit the bullet. I still think it's good value for the money at that price. I also derive my income from the US so it all works out.


----------



## kugino

mikoss said:


> Yeah even in Alberta, the cost would be:
> $2299 US = $2770 CAD+ 9.99 GST processing fee at the border + 138.50 GST = $2918.49 CAD total





yeah, that's pricey for the canucks.

it's been a while since the US dollar's been this strong so for us, it's nice to be able to pick up foreign goods at a "discounted" price. stax gear is as cheap as it's been in a long time...


----------



## Stillhart

FYI, my Audio-GD DAC-19 (10th Anniversary Edition) arrived today.  It's a SE DAC with 2x PCM1704 chips.  This is one of the last brand new Burr-Brown R2R DAC's on the market and it comes in at just over $800 after shipping.  This new version has the same filters as the Master 7, their flagship DAC with 8x 1704 chips (also one of the top units on Purrin's list).
  
 Some advantages over vintage R2R DACS:  It's brand new, it's fully supported/warrantied, it has a USB input (no additional transport needed), it will actually play up to 32bit/192k files over USB, oh and the USB input is modular/upgradable.
  
 I have it hooked up to my amp through the Schiit SYS (along with the Theta) so I can A/B with the Theta by pushing one button.  I synch up my two players and I can easily just swap back and forth.
  
 So, it's only been on for about 5 hours and I've only listened for about 2, but already I can say that it is very comparable to my Basic II in SE mode.  I think the DAC-19's bass is a bit bloomier (but not in a muddy way, just a bit more quantity) and it's a bit more mid-forward.  They're very close at first glance and I'm going to need a lot more time to really tease out the subtle differences.
  
 And of course what that means to me is that the DAC-19 makes a fantastic alternative to a vintage R2R for those who want R2R without all the compromises inherent in a 20 year old unit.  For the price (almost 1/3 of the Yggy), I'd say it's worth looking into for those like me who like the idea of the Yggy but can't swing the price.
  
 I'll be posting more impressions over in the DAC-19 thread if anyone is interested.  Just thought you folks might find it interesting.


----------



## wahsmoh

Wow! Thanks Stillhart. Seems like the DAC-19 is a viable alternative for the vintage R2R's that are getting harder and harder to find.
  
 Should my Theta ever kick the dust I know I will be either buying the Yggy or DAC-19. 
  
 On a side note I just listened to The Smiths - Suffer little Children from the album The Smiths. I was blown away again.. the laughing girl voice at 3:59 freaked me out because I wasn't sure where it was coming from.. I thought it was a pop-up video commercial on my browser.
  

  
 Listen in FLAC, this is just for reference..


----------



## snip3r77

stillhart said:


> FYI, my Audio-GD DAC-19 (10th Anniversary Edition) arrived today.  It's a SE DAC with 2x PCM1704 chips.  This is one of the last brand new Burr-Brown R2R DAC's on the market and it comes in at just over $800 after shipping.  This new version has the same filters as the Master 7, their flagship DAC with 8x 1704 chips (also one of the top units on Purrin's list).
> 
> Some advantages over vintage R2R DACS:  It's brand new, it's fully supported/warrantied, it has a USB input (no additional transport needed), it will actually play up to 32bit/192k files over USB, oh and the USB input is modular/upgradable.
> 
> ...




Cool.. plus one doesn't need to switch on the DAC 247 
and also no need to buy Vintage that has questionable QC due to age.


----------



## lukeap69

stillhart said:


> FYI, my Audio-GD DAC-19 (10th Anniversary Edition) arrived today.  It's a SE DAC with 2x PCM1704 chips.  This is one of the last brand new Burr-Brown R2R DAC's on the market and it comes in at just over $800 after shipping.  This new version has the same filters as the Master 7, their flagship DAC with 8x 1704 chips (also one of the top units on Purrin's list).
> 
> Some advantages over vintage R2R DACS:  It's brand new, it's fully supported/warrantied, it has a USB input (no additional transport needed), it will actually play up to 32bit/192k files over USB, oh and the USB input is modular/upgradable.
> 
> ...




Is it too much to ask, DAC-19 vs NFB-28?


----------



## mulder01

Anyone in Australia bought a Yggy?
 Total price after exchange rate/ postage/ import duty?
 I'd guess $3.5-$4k?
  
 Edit: has just popped up on A2A - $3599


----------



## ciphercomplete

snip3r77 said:


> Cool.. plus one doesn't need to switch on the DAC 247
> and also no need to buy Vintage that has questionable QC due to age.




Every Audio GD product I have ever owned, including the old DAC19, has benefited from being left on 24/7. Even the hot running amps.


----------



## prot

mulder01 said:


> Anyone in Australia bought a Yggy?
> Total price after exchange rate/ postage/ import duty?
> I'd guess $3.5-$4k?
> 
> Edit: has just popped up on A2A - $3599




Schiit EU doesnt have it yet but judging by the price of the Rag it would be more than the usually 'translated' price of €2299. Not exactly cheap.


----------



## lukeap69

ciphercomplete said:


> Every Audio GD product I have ever owned, including the old DAC19, has benefited from being left on 24/7. Even the hot running amps.



Really? Nice. I thought I noticed some improvement on my NFB-1 since leaving it on all the time but could be placebo.


----------



## Turn&cough

Mhdt labs have a few R2R DACs including one (Pagoda) that uses PCM1704. Any opinions?


----------



## warrior1975

There is a Pagoda thread, not much activity, but all positive. I was reading it the other day. Link:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/730874/mhdt-labs-pagoda-any-owners-out-there


----------



## lukeap69

I read that thread too and it is a bit disappointing that there is less to no activity recently.


----------



## shabta

prot said:


> Schiit EU doesnt have it yet but judging by the price of the Rag it would be more than the usually 'translated' price of €2299. Not exactly cheap.


 
 Well the Rag is roughly the dollar price converted to EUR plus 20% VAT (plus about 40 eur). So it doesn't seem really very out of line price-wise...


----------



## warrior1975

Agreed. Wish there was more info on it. I almost bought it the other day, impulse purchase. I definitely need a couple of dacs as I'm still learning about them... I'll probably purchase a cheaper, moderate, and a Yggy priced dac in the next couple of months.


----------



## Stillhart

lukeap69 said:


> Is it too much to ask, DAC-19 vs NFB-28?


 
  
 That's not really a fair comparison.  I'm not going to sit here and tell you D-S sucks, etc etc.  But I will tell you this:  now that I have 3 R2R DAC's, I really don't like listening to the NFB-28's DAC anymore.  The Sabre has a brighter sound with a more forward treble, which also make it feel more airy.  But it's an artificial sound and once you hear it, you can't unhear it.  
  
 It's easiest to hear in something like the shimmer after a splash cymbal hit.  Instead of a dynamic shimmering sound, it sounds like digital white noise.  Think of it like those old "Speak n Spell" toys from the 80s/90s trying to pronounce the "sh" sound.  It's just digital white noise because that's the closest it can get.  It's close enough for you to understand the intention, but it doesn't actually SOUND like someone saying "sh".  Cymbals and such on the Sabre sound like that to me now.
  
 This is one of those things that had to be spoiled for me, though.  Had I never heard R2R, I probably would never have noticed.  Because of that, I'd happily continue recommending the NFB-28 to anyone looking for a really solid DAC in the price range.  I still think it's a very smooth implementation for a Sabre.
  
 Side note:  Because I actually don't like listening to the Sabre anymore, I am having a hard time listening long enough to come up with more detailed impressions of the sound differences.  But as I'll be writing up a full review of the DAC-19, I'll do my best to power through it at some point.  For now, tho, I'm just enjoying the AGD, which I've had for less than a full day.


----------



## wmedrz

ciphercomplete said:


> Every Audio GD product I have ever owned, including the old DAC19, has benefited from being left on 24/7. Even the hot running amps.


 
 I second this. The change is a pretty big one once they've been on for a few hours. I typically turn them on in the morning, listen to 1-3 songs, go away for a few hours, and upon return the sound is improved, smoother and finer. 
  
 The problem is the M9 gets so hot it's unbearable on hot days. 
  
 I still haven't figured if the improved sound is due to M7 warm up or M9 warm up, or both.


----------



## evillamer

stillhart said:


> lukeap69 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it too much to ask, DAC-19 vs NFB-28?
> ...




I believe you are experiencing what purrin/messiah termed as the infamous SABRE GLARE.


----------



## coli

wmedrz said:


> I second this. The change is a pretty big one once they've been on for a few hours. I typically turn them on in the morning, listen to 1-3 songs, go away for a few hours, and upon return the sound is improved, smoother and finer.
> 
> The problem is the M9 gets so hot it's unbearable on hot days.
> 
> I still haven't figured if the improved sound is due to M7 warm up or M9 warm up, or both.


 
 Or it's just the daily power quality fluctuation pattern.


----------



## lukeap69

stillhart said:


> That's not really a fair comparison.  I'm not going to sit here and tell you D-S sucks, etc etc.  But I will tell you this:  now that I have 3 R2R DAC's, I really don't like listening to the NFB-28's DAC anymore.  The Sabre has a brighter sound with a more forward treble, which also make it feel more airy.  But it's an artificial sound and once you hear it, you can't unhear it.
> 
> It's easiest to hear in something like the shimmer after a splash cymbal hit.  Instead of a dynamic shimmering sound, it sounds like digital white noise.  Think of it like those old "Speak n Spell" toys from the 80s/90s trying to pronounce the "sh" sound.  It's just digital white noise because that's the closest it can get.  It's close enough for you to understand the intention, but it doesn't actually SOUND like someone saying "sh".  Cymbals and such on the Sabre sound like that to me now.
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks for not telling me that D-S sucks and that you don't like listening to sabre DACs anymore. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 You just made me more leaning to an R2R DAC as my next piece of schiit! Looking forward to reading your review of DAC-19!
 Cheers


----------



## prot

evillamer said:


> I believe you are experiencing what purrin/messiah termed as the infamous SABRE GLARE.




Not so sure about the 'infamous' part. An R2R or analog fan may surely call sabre aggresive, shrill, bright, etc. But similarly, a sabre fan may call the other camp polite, warm, slow, etc. A jazz/classic fan may swear on r2r but a techno/metal fan may just hate it. And also, since I have a sabre with tube output I can claim with a pretty straight face that mine is a best-of-both-worlds device. 

Guess the only way to (somewhat) settle this would be to record an acoustic instrument (say guitar) and compare the sabre and the r2r with the live sound. Thought about that experiment but I dont have access to a good ADC & mike. Maybe some studio guy(s) can do it.


----------



## wmedrz

coli said:


> Or it's just the daily power quality fluctuation pattern.


 
 I knew I should have gone with that power conditioner!


----------



## coli

wmedrz said:


> I knew I should have gone with that power conditioner!


 
 Have you ever noticed that things sound better at night?


----------



## prot

coli said:


> Have you ever noticed that things sound better at night?




I wondered about that stuff a few times. Not only late at night but also during the day .. pretty much outside of the busy hours when everyone turns their TVs & co on. Could've been in my head or a pretty real effect cause the power in my area is not stellar. 

I just put the whole hifi setup behind a regulated iso transformer that provides stable 230V and it's all good ... at least I stopped worrying


----------



## Stillhart

prot said:


> Not so sure about the 'infamous' part. An R2R or analog fan may surely call sabre aggresive, shrill, bright, etc. But similarly, a sabre fan may call the other camp polite, warm, slow, etc. A jazz/classic fan may swear on r2r but a techno/metal fan may just hate it. And also, since I have a sabre with tube output I can claim with a pretty straight face that mine is a best-of-both-worlds device.
> 
> Guess the only way to (somewhat) settle this would be to record an acoustic instrument (say guitar) and compare the sabre and the r2r with the live sound. Thought about that experiment but I dont have access to a good ADC & mike. Maybe some studio guy(s) can do it.


 
  
 While I agree that some people prefer bright to warm, etc, I don't think that's what I'm talking about here.  I'm talking about realistic reproduction of the sound.  Yes, I agree that the R2R is a bit laid back in the treble compared to the Sabre.  But I'd rather have it be laid back but actually sound like what it's supposed to sound like.  And it doesn't take any wonky kind of experiment... like I said, you listen to the two back to back and you go, "ohh! weird!  how did I not notice that before?".  
  
 I hypothesize that there's a certain amount of conditioning that's happened over the years.  Our brains are just used to interpreting this noise as this sound and do it automatically.  It's not until you're presented with the actual sound that you realize what's been happening.
  
 Anyways, my humble thoughts on the matter.  I'm curious if other folks have had a similar experience.


----------



## prot

stillhart said:


> While I agree that some people prefer bright to warm, etc, I don't think that's what I'm talking about here.  I'm talking about realistic reproduction of the sound.  Yes, I agree that the R2R is a bit laid back in the treble compared to the Sabre.  But I'd rather have it be laid back but actually sound like what it's supposed to sound like.  And it doesn't take any wonky kind of experiment... like I said, you listen to the two back to back and you go, "ohh! weird!  how did I not notice that before?".
> 
> I hypothesize that there's a certain amount of conditioning that's happened over the years.  Our brains are just used to interpreting this noise as this sound and do it automatically.  It's not until you're presented with the actual sound that you realize what's been happening.
> 
> Anyways, my humble thoughts on the matter.  I'm curious if other folks have had a similar experience.




I think your interpretation is actually quite similar. If we take prefs aside, the only real Q is which one sounds more natural ... closer to the acoustic, non-amplified sound. Is the sabre too aggresive (think a pic with exagerated contrast) or is the r2r too tame (same pic with a pleasing blur filter)!?

 Only way I know to figure that out is a 3way compare: sabre, r2r and the actual, natural sound. Maybe you can skip on that natural sound ... sounds like rain and applause are well known as complex and difficult for audio gear... and we have a pretty good idea/memory of those sounds. IIUC, you can do that comparison. Aha's Crying In The Rain starts with a good rain sequence, how about trying that one !? Or some audiophile live jazz with lots of applause like Benny Goodman Orchestra (live in copenhagen IIRC)

Just checked and J.M.Jarre Equinoxe8 seems to have an even better rain sequence. At least the version from the Aero compilation.


----------



## Stillhart

prot said:


> I think your interpretation is actually quite similar. If we take prefs aside, the only real Q is which one sounds more natural ... closer to the acoustic, non-amplified sound. Is the sabre too aggresive (think a pic with exagerated contrast) or is the r2r too tame (same pic with a pleasing blur filter)!?
> 
> Only way I know to figure that out is a 3way compare: sabre, r2r and the actual, natural sound. Maybe you can skip on that natural sound ... sounds like rain and applause are well known as complex and difficult for audio gear... and we have a pretty good idea/memory of those sounds. IIUC, you can do that comparison. Aha's Crying In The Rain starts with a good rain sequence, how about trying that one !? Or some audiophile live jazz with lots of applause like Benny Goodman Orchestra (live in copenhagen IIRC)
> 
> Just checked and J.M.Jarre Equinoxe8 seems to have an even better rain sequence. At least the version from the Aero compilation.


 
  
 Well I'm a drummer (or I was once upon a time) so cymbals are very easy for me.  It didn't occur to me that they might not be as obvious to others.  But yeah, I can try to find some stuff to test other things.  I don't suppose there will be any difference (digital treble is digital treble) but I'm willing to give it a shot.  
  
 Later when I get home tho...


----------



## prot

stillhart said:


> Well I'm a drummer (or I was once upon a time) so cymbals are very easy for me.  It didn't occur to me that they might not be as obvious to others.  But yeah, I can try to find some stuff to test other things.  I don't suppose there will be any difference (digital treble is digital treble) but I'm willing to give it a shot.
> 
> Later when I get home tho...




No hurry, would be great if you do such a test anytime. That BennyGoodmann should pass very well to you ... or Jazz at the Pawnshop, another very clean & clear live recording with lots of natural sounds. 

As about the digital glare my Minimax DS surely has some when compared to analog... but it also has much stronger bass. And as much as I enjoy my turntable, sometimes I find it boring and crave for some digital 'action' 
The iggy action may be as good as they say ... but it'll have to be really special to make me retire the minimax. It has totally exceeded my expectations in terms of both SQ and modding/tuberolling fun.


----------



## aqsw

warrior1975 said:


> What did you choose? Are you happy with it?


 
 I ordered the Hegel HD12. I haven't received it yet, but thought it was fantastic on my brief(30min.)demo.
 I get it in two weeks. The reviews are very good, but it's no Yggy.


----------



## 7ryder

My Hegel H30 amp is very nice.  Hopefully you'll enjoy the HD12 as much as I enjoy the amp.


----------



## purrin

No need to record your own stuff:
  

MFSL UDCD593 Muddy Waters Folk Singer - multibit A to D conversion using GAIN (Pass + Moffat). Moffat used nerfed mil-spec chips. They had to be nerfed for fear of Soviets getting their hands on them.
MFSL UDCD735 Tom Petty Full Moon Fever - GAIN 2 (TWO!) DSD A to D conversion.


----------



## 1adam12

I've been looking for that Muddy Waters disc recently but haven't found it cheaper than ~$100. Kinda crazy.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

thegimp said:


> I've been looking for that Muddy Waters disc recently but haven't found it cheaper than ~$100. Kinda crazy.


 
  
 At that price I assume you're looking for the MFSL version.
  
 I checked out the 1999 release of this CD from the library two days ago.  The CD was scratched beyond repair but the sound was incredible.  I ordered two copies from Amazon (one for a friend).  I highly recommend that you get a copy of this release (it's under $10) and if you eventually do find a copy of the MFSL version you can decide then whether to spend the extra money or not.  In the meantime, though, you'll have a great CD to listen to.


----------



## 7ryder

johnnycanuck said:


> At that price I assume you're looking for the MFSL version.
> 
> I checked out the 1999 release of this CD from the library two days ago.  The CD was scratched beyond repair but the sound was incredible.  I ordered two copies from Amazon (one for a friend).  I highly recommend that you get a copy of this release (it's under $10) and if you eventually do find a copy of the MFSL version you can decide then whether to spend the extra money or not.  In the meantime, though, you'll have a great CD to listen to.


 
 you can get a version from HDTracks or similar on-line retailers.  I don't know the provenance of the source for these downloads. http://www.hdtracks.com/folk-singer-144330


----------



## 1adam12

johnnycanuck said:


> At that price I assume you're looking for the MFSL version.


 
  
 Affirmative. I have the 1999 version but purrin has mentioned the MFSL (and Moffat's GAIN system) a few times so I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
  
 No matter what it is a great album, though.


----------



## 1adam12

7ryder said:


> you can get a version from HDTracks or similar on-line retailers.  I don't know the provenance of the source for these downloads. http://www.hdtracks.com/folk-singer-144330


 

 Just noticed that the Pono Music store has the 24/192 version for $16.49 vs 24.99 at HDTracks. I might give it a shot at that price.


----------



## gevorg

The HDTracks version of the Muddy Waters seems to be a badly made downcovert from SACD since there is plenty of ultrasonic noise left in the PCM:


----------



## wmedrz

thegimp said:


> I've been looking for that Muddy Waters disc recently but haven't found it cheaper than ~$100. Kinda crazy.


 
 That's crazy! I got it for 18 bucks from discogs when purrin mentioned it. 

 Bookmark it and when a cheap one is available you'll get an email.


----------



## Stillhart

prot said:


> No hurry, would be great if you do such a test anytime. That BennyGoodmann should pass very well to you ... or Jazz at the Pawnshop, another very clean & clear live recording with lots of natural sounds.
> 
> As about the digital glare my Minimax DS surely has some when compared to analog... but it also has much stronger bass. And as much as I enjoy my turntable, sometimes I find it boring and crave for some digital 'action'
> 
> ...


 
  
 There's definitely something to be said for understanding and appreciating the differences between the two (R2R and D-S)  and choosing the best one for your mood.  It's certainly an attitude that many folks eschew, but I don't see why you can't enjoy both, as long as you know what you're getting into.  
  
 I'm gonna have to look into those albums Purrin mentioned...


----------



## purrin

wmedrz said:


> That's crazy! I got it for 18 bucks from discogs when purrin mentioned it.
> 
> Bookmark it and when a cheap one is available you'll get an email.


 
  
 Dammit. I need to stop mentioning good vintage CDs and DACs.
  
UDCD505 MFSL Supertramp - Crime of the Century


----------



## pldelisle

Is HDTracks your favorite e-store to buy audio or others are better ?


----------



## sfoclt

Good morning little school girl.


----------



## purrin

pldelisle said:


> Is HDTracks your favorite e-store to buy audio or others are better ?


 
  
 HDTracks is very iffy. No one knows how they do their conversions, what their sources are, how they are mastered, what generation tapes they source, etc. Some of my friends purchased "hires" content that looked like it was sourced from Redbook (nothing past 22kHz) or was found to be brickwall compressed.
  
 On occasion, one lands a gem from HDTracks.
  
 I like recordings from DCC and Audio Fidelity. New Mobile Fidelity is good, but tends to be brightly mastered. The older Mobile Fidelity before they went bankrupt in 2000 was better. The Mobile Fidelity using the GAIN stuff (not GAIN 2) was the best. The later GAIN 2 stuff was good too. And there are some gems from MFSL before GAIN as well.


----------



## wmedrz

purrin said:


> Dammit. I need to stop mentioning good vintage CDs and DACs.
> 
> UDCD505 MFSL Supertramp - Crime of the Century


 
 And the price just went up 50 bucks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





...


----------



## wmedrz

You can also try Pro Studio Masters, Pono, and others. BTW the 2015 RUSH remasters are the best I have ever heard Rush, and I've heard quite a bit of Rush!! Worth picking up.


----------



## haywood

stillhart said:


> And of course what that means to me is that the DAC-19 makes a fantastic alternative to a vintage R2R for those who want R2R without all the compromises inherent in a 20 year old unit.  For the price (almost 1/3 of the Yggy), I'd say it's worth looking into for those like me who like the idea of the Yggy but can't swing the price.
> 
> I'll be posting more impressions over in the DAC-19 thread if anyone is interested.  Just thought you folks might find it interesting.


 
  
 I'd be hesitant to recommend vintage equipment as _the_ solution for anyone just because things wear out and if it does go bad then trying to source somewhere to repair a vintage dac will be next to impossible. It's nice to see there's more than one good new r2r option.
  
 That said I do love vintage gear and sort of accidentally won an auction on a DS Pro Prime II last week. Which arrived today. After a second of initial panic when it didn't lock with the Gustard U12 my impetuousness necessitated it seems to be working well and certainly does sound great. I think someone posted the legacy products page for Theta a while back but just in case not and if people are still looking this might help narrow down choices on what to bid for:
  
 http://www.thetadigital.com/legacy_products.shtml
  
 also this list could be handy though just because something uses PCM63 like the Gen V doesn't mean it'll actually sound like a Gen V.
  
 http://www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/the_complete_d_a_dac_converter_list/


----------



## DreamKing

pldelisle said:


> That's why I didn't take chineese stuff...


 
  
 This is completely off-topic from the thread but I thought I gotta say it anyway: as far as buying chinese vs american for us canadians in MOST cases with dealer/private sales....Let's just say I save thousands choosing chinese at every opportunity 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I cut the middleman every chance I can get. Granted Schiit has unheard of customer service but you can't knock chinese willingness to help people out especially since the law over here is much more strict. 
  
  
 On topic now, how quiet is the signal on the Theta's? Looking at one right now but wondering about the noise if it has any.


----------



## borrego

If money is not a problem, one should own both a high quality R2R DAC for 80s-90s golden era / acoustic music recordings, and a Sabre DAC for post 2000 "loudness war" era modern music recording.
  
 My NFB-1 Sabre DAC is the very first Sabre DAC model from audio-gd, it has 2 R transformers and the same analogue section of their Reference 5 4xPCM1704UK DAC. I recall when I bought my NFB-1 five years ago from audio-gd, I had some 20+ emails discussion with Kingwa of audio-gd deciding whether I should buy the Reference 5 or NFB-1.
  
 Kingwa's reply to me back then was the Sabre produces a more "modern and younger" sound compare to the PCM1704, with the analogue section being equal. Kingwa also said he can make the Sabre sounds like a PCM1704 by changing the analogue section, or make the PCM1704 sounds like a Sabre by changing the digital filter design in the DSP module. Kingwa rated both the NFB-1 and Reference 5 (both considered as mid tier products) as having the same level of sound quality, just having different "flavors"
  
 At the end I bought the NFB-1 because I own and listen to more "loudness war" era music. As I already own a Philips CD950 TDA1547 CD player which I bought brand new in the 90s, at that point I was getting "bored" to the smooth sound signature of the CD950 for 15 years. When I received the NFB-1, I was very happy with the addition dynamics, details and "prat" compare to the CD950.
  
 I am sure at higher price point, as Kingwa said in his Master 7 DAC product description, a R2R DAC can be made as dynamic as a Sabre. But at mid tier price point, I believe Sabre still has the advantage.
  
 Too bad Kingwa does not bring back the Reference 5, otherwise I shall buy one to pair with my NFB-1


----------



## wahsmoh

dreamking said:


> This is completely off-topic from the thread but I thought I gotta say it anyway: as far as buying chinese vs american for us canadians in MOST cases with dealer/private sales....Let's just say I save thousands choosing chinese at every opportunity
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 It's dead silent. There is no noise at all other than what is in the recording. Let me clarify, no signal noise, just recording noise


----------



## BassDigger

prot said:


> Not so sure about the 'infamous' part. An R2R or analog fan may surely call sabre aggresive, shrill, bright, etc. But similarly, a sabre fan may call the other camp polite, warm, slow, etc. A jazz/classic fan may swear on r2r but a techno/metal fan may just hate it. And also, since I have a sabre with tube output I can claim with a pretty straight face that mine is a best-of-both-worlds device....


  

 Quote:


stillhart said:


> There's definitely something to be said for understanding and appreciating the differences between the two (R2R and D-S)  and choosing the best one for your mood.  It's certainly an attitude that many folks eschew, but I don't see why you can't enjoy both, as long as you know what you're getting into...


 
 I am a techno/metal fan (amongst other things) and I love multi-bit (R2R) 'cause of it's prat; that was the biggest difference I noticed, when I revisited the original tech; r2r does it so much better!


----------



## DreamKing

wahsmoh said:


> It's dead silent. There is no noise at all other than what is in the recording. Let me clarify, no signal noise, just recording noise


 
  
 my kind of noise! ty


----------



## wahsmoh

Here's a good test CD for soundstage and imaging.. Bob Marley - Uprising (1980)
  

  
 The lyrics, composition, instruments, vocals, Bob.. it is the best Bob CD you can buy


----------



## wahsmoh

bassdigger said:


>


 
  
   
I don't usually discuss audio in terms of the "PRAT" or pace, rythm, and timing because it confuses some people. I think it's the wonderful speed and slam of upper mid and bass in combo with a realistic treble presentation. I like to hear my cowbells and cymbals like they are supposed to sound, not too splashy or overtly in my face (tested well recorded songs and found this with Bifrost Uber by comparison)


----------



## DreamKing

wahsmoh said:


> Here's a good test CD for soundstage and imaging.. Bob Marley - Uprising (1980)
> 
> 
> 
> The lyrics, composition, instruments, vocals, Bob.. it is the best Bob CD you can buy


 
  
  
 Nice, Gonna play that. I haven't listened to it in a while. Mostly 'cause I play the schiit out of the 2012 remastered _Legend_ whenever I want to listen to Bob.


----------



## BassDigger

wahsmoh said:


> I don't usually discuss audio in terms of the "PRAT" or pace, rythm, and timing because it confuses some people. I think it's the wonderful speed and slam of upper mid and bass in combo with a realistic treble presentation. I like to hear my cowbells and cymbals like they are supposed to sound, not too splashy or overtly in my face (tested well recorded songs and found this with Bifrost Uber by comparison)


 
  
 Prat isn't really a term that I wanted to use, but the only other word that I can think of is 'funkyness'. But that word is genre specific. Basically, I've found that multi-bit portrays the intricacies of the beats and rhythms much better than bitstream.
  
 I did find that multibit sounds a bit 'splashy' (in the treble extremes), but now, with the lcd2f, I'm finding that percussion sounds startlingly realistic.


----------



## Mortalcoil

wahsmoh said:


> I like to hear my cowbells and cymbals like they are supposed to sound, not too splashy or overtly in my face (tested well recorded songs and found this with Bifrost Uber by comparison)


 
  
  
 You knew this was coming right?.....lol


----------



## prot

bassdigger said:


> Prat isn't really a term that I wanted to use, but the only other word that I can think of is 'funkyness'. But that word is gender specific. Basically, I've found that multi-bit portrays the intricacies of the beats and rhythms much better than bitstream.
> 
> I did find that multibit sounds a bit 'splashy' (in the treble extremes), but now, with the lcd2f, I'm finding that percussion sounds very realistic.




A lot depends on taste I guess. I like the LCD sound but all models tested were quite coloured in my opinion: warm, bassy and not particularly fast. The lcd2 (not f) I heard was the most coloured and far from natural of the pack. An easily likable sound sig for sure but 'realistic' is one of the last things I'd call it. And the warm&punchy signature applies (more or less) to all orthos I heard. My benchmark for neutral/natural/realistic sound are electrotats like stax 007/009. Also quite a few people (including most pro-s I met) would put dynamics like senn/bd/akg first in the neutral category 
.. tastes, strokes and folks ...


----------



## BassDigger

prot said:


> A lot depends on taste I guess. I like the LCD sound but all models tested were quite coloured in my opinion: warm, bassy and not particularly fast. The lcd2 (not f) I heard was the most coloured and far from natural of the pack. An easily likable sound sig for sure but 'realistic' is one of the last things I'd call it. And the warm&punchy signature applies (more or less) to all orthos I heard. My benchmark for neutral/natural/realistic sound are electrotats like stax 007/009. Also quite a few people (including most pro-s I met) would put dynamics like senn/bd/akg first in the neutral category
> .. tastes, strokes and folks ...


 
  
 Yep; strokes and folks. I'd call 'neutral' unrealistic. To me, it means slightly on the drier side of realistic. Perhaps the kind of thing that the pros use. I tend to find most headphones typically to be too shouty, edgy or forward sounding; they emphasise the detail above the music. But, that's my impression.
 It makes me wonder if different people prefer to hear different things, or if we literally hear different things in different ways. It's probably a bit of both. Of course, this could effect our preferences for dacs, as well.
  
 From what I've read, those Stax electrostatics (particularly the 009) are all things to all men (and women).


----------



## PCWar

If anybody is interested in one of the classic R2R I've listed my Theta DSPro Basis in the classifieds.


----------



## evanft

wahsmoh said:


> Here's a good test CD for soundstage and imaging.. Bob Marley - Uprising (1980)
> 
> 
> 
> The lyrics, composition, instruments, vocals, Bob.. it is the best Bob CD you can buy


 
  
 That's the wrong version to get. The older, Barry Diament-mastered version is better. In fact, all the Barry Diament Bob Marley CDs from the early 90s are great.


----------



## hodgjy

Slightly OT, but does anyone know if Matrix is releasing an updated version of the X-Sabre?  It's sold out everywhere, and I contacted Matrix USA about potentially buying one, and the owner of the distributor said he found one unit at Matrix HQ in China.  Either they are extremely backordered or transitioning to a new product.
  
 Any ideas?  I'd hate to buy the last new unit on earth and have an update unit come out next week.


----------



## prot

ableza said:


> Gotcha. Ok to get my initial impression I set up the *Yggdrasil* in my living room system replacing a Wavelength Brick DAC. The source is a linux computer running Squeezelite delivering music streamed wirelessly from a Vortexbox server running LMS. I have a Wyrd between the source and the DAC. The *DAC feeds a Marantz 7005 preamp* and Emotiva amps. The loudspeakers are 4-way open baffles of my own design. It sounds darn good. Tomorrow or the next day I'll try moving it to my headphone system (although the Yggdrasil is way too large for my desk.) That's playing the same material from the Votrexbox through a PC running Foobar to an iFi USB Power device, replacing a Wavelength Proton DAC, then feeding my Lyr amp. My current headphones are MrSpeakers Alpha Primes.\




I would be *very* curious about a direct comparison between iggy and the DAC in your Marantz 7005 Ableza... should be quite easy since both are already in the playback chain. 

I think those Marantz preprocessors (7005, 7701/2, 8801/2) are a bit of a hidden gem ... the marantz house-sound I find very enjoyable and the older 70xx models could be had for ~$500 on ebay nowadays (~$3500 for the top model new). That price is pretty much impossible to beat considering what you have in the box:
- a good DAC (multiple AD chips)
- a solid PRE (about 10 digital & analog inputs, including phono)
- a good headphone amp
- a very flexible audio player: usb, network/dlna, spotify, airplay, internet radio ... and any format up to FLAC 24/192
- surround movie processor with audissey 
- multizone playback. 
All that functionality at your fingers via iOS/Android apps (not perfect but good enough and WAF friendly). And from my exp it sounds as good or better than any DAC in the $500 region. Might just be the mother of all hifi bargains!


----------



## Ableza

prot said:


> I would be *very* curious about a direct comparison between iggy and the DAC in your Marantz 7005 @Ableza... should be quite easy since both are already in the playback chain.
> 
> I think those Marantz preprocessors (7005, 7701/2, 8801/2) are a bit of a hidden gem ... the marantz house-sound I find very enjoyable and the older 70xx models could be had for ~$500 on ebay nowadays (~$3500 for the top model new). That price is pretty much impossible to beat considering what you have in the box:
> - a good DAC (multiple AD chips)
> ...


 

 I agree the Marantz sounds very good and we really like it.  But it doesn't have a USB input and my music player only has a USB out, so it would be difficult to do a direct comparison.


----------



## prot

ableza said:


> I agree the Marantz sounds very good and we really like it.  But it doesn't have a USB input and my music player only has a USB out, so it would be difficult to do a direct comparison.




uf. That Marantz should have all digital inputs under the sun except usb: hdmi, coax, optical ... a funny music player you got there without any of those. 

At the very least you can compare Marantz's internal music player (e.g. play from USB HDD or NAS) with your musicPlayer+Iggy combi. 
Or even better, put an SPDIF converter like the Gustard U12 between your USB player and both Iggy and Marantz (e.g. AES cable U12->Iggy and Coax cable U12->Marantz) ... the Gustard outputs are all simultaneously active, that would be a perfect test setup (just use the marantz remote to switch sources ~instantly). No hurry, anytime you fell like experimenting would be great.

Or if anyone else can do a similar test, I'm mighty curious.


----------



## Ableza

prot said:


> a funny music player you got there without any of those.


 
 SoTM SMS-100 mini server.  All I need is USB.


----------



## jacal01

thegimp said:


> I've been looking for that Muddy Waters disc recently but haven't found it cheaper than ~$100. Kinda crazy.


 
 Quote:


wmedrz said:


> That's crazy! I got it for 18 bucks from discogs when purrin mentioned it.
> 
> Bookmark it and when a cheap one is available you'll get an email.


 
 Quote:


purrin said:


> Dammit. I need to stop mentioning good vintage CDs and DACs.
> 
> UDCD505 MFSL Supertramp - Crime of the Century


 
  
 I prolly shouldn't be mentioning this either, but purrin's point was demonstrating the real R2R vs. DS audio differential can be fully appreciated when both the music ADC and DAC conversions are R2R, and not SD ADC/DS DAC and even SD ADC/R2R DAC.  Hence the MFSL GAIN system was MM's R2R ADC machine he built for them, as opposed to their later GAIN 2 SD ADC system.  Both MFSL GAIN and GAIN 2 ADC systems were used on their Ultradisc II Gold CD releases.  I can't speak to any other CD mastering house ADC conversion systems for relative audio quality.
  
 Now, the MFSL Muddy Waters' _Folk Singer _Ultradisc II GAIN release is awesome, and I have it ($47), but frankly I get bored after awhile listening to it, so's it's not the know all/be all for reference quality digital music source for me.  The main reason purrin refers to it is because MM told him that it was MFSL's first release using the GAIN R2R ADC system after he'd installed it, so that he knew about it specifically, and that was in Dec. 1993.
  
 However, MFSL employed their MM R2R ADC GAIN system for their Ultradisc II CD releases up to the Jethro Tull's _Songs from the Wood _release in Oct., 1998.  So theoretically, any MFSL Ultradisc II CD released between 12/93 and 10/98 should be mastered from tape using the GAIN R2R ADC and of equivalent conversion fidelity, ± the quality of the recording sessions/tapes themselves.  Just find you one or two MFSL Ultradisc II GAIN CD releases of your musical preference within that time period (UDCD 593 - 734).  The CD case liner should say GAIN (not 2) system somewhere on it, to be sure. 
  
 Shirley some of them can be had for less than $100, however long now.


----------



## mikoss

Here's a question someone may have some knowledge on... Anyone ever hear/own the old Panasonic sa-xr amps? They're fully digital without a regular DAC... Wonder how they sound compared with r2r's.


----------



## wahsmoh

I will be buying a Schiit SYS so I can give a better and more accurate comparison between Uber and Theta. I didn't know the product existed until someone mentioned it the other day.. I'm just not up to date with my Schiit.


----------



## Stillhart

wahsmoh said:


> I will be buying a Schiit SYS so I can give a better and more accurate comparison between Uber and Theta. I didn't know the product existed until someone mentioned it the other day.. I'm just not up to date with my Schiit.


 
  
 That may have been me.  I've been using my SYS for a while now (came out at the same time as the Opti-modi) and it's really handy.  Mostly I use it for switching my pre-amp output between my speakers and my tube amp.  But it's great for A/B'ing DACs or amps.  It's not cheap but it works.


----------



## prot

ableza said:


> SoTM SMS-100 mini server.  All I need is USB.




 a pretty nice & useful box. 
I assume your music sits on a NAS/DLNA server and you can compare Sotm+Yggy vs. Marantz networkPlayer+DAC ... and/or with that SPDIF box setup I described. 
Btw, the Gustard works pretty well in my system and it's quite cheap (about $150 shipped) ... it may or may not be an improvement on iggy's last-gen USB but for that price one can surely try.


----------



## Ableza

prot said:


> a pretty nice & useful box.
> I assume your music sits on a NAS/DLNA server and you can compare Sotm+Yggy vs. Marantz networkPlayer+DAC ... and/or with that SPDIF box setup I described.
> Btw, the Gustard works pretty well in my system and it's quite cheap (about $150 shipped) ... it may or may not be an improvement on iggy's last-gen USB but for that price one can surely try.


 
 I have used the Marantz' DLNA capability in the past comparing it to the SQ with the Wavelength DAC and found it to be much less enjoyable that using the Wavelength.  So I have no doubt the comparison to Yggdrasil will be equally inferior.  The AV7005 is not currently connected to my network so I won't be doing that comparison (and I have no interest in buying another piece of hardware!)  Sorry.


----------



## prot

ableza said:


> I have used the Marantz' DLNA capability in the past comparing it to the SQ with the Wavelength DAC and found it to be much less enjoyable that using the Wavelength.  So I have no doubt the comparison to Yggdrasil will be equally inferior.  The AV7005 is not currently connected to my network so I won't be doing that comparison (and I have no interest in buying another piece of hardware!)  Sorry.



As said, no worries and no hurry ... anytime you feel bored or just want to try something. 
Meantime, thx for the answers and enjoy your new toy!


----------



## dapla

wahsmoh said:


> Here's a good test CD for soundstage and imaging.. Bob Marley - Uprising (1980)
> 
> 
> 
> The lyrics, composition, instruments, vocals, Bob.. it is the best Bob CD you can buy


 
   Is that an original mastering you're recommending or a remastered version?


----------



## wahsmoh

dapla said:


> Is that an original mastering you're recommending or a remastered version?


 
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/which-bob-marley-cds-were-mastered-by-barry-diament.126298/
  
 this should explain things a bit. I believe it was remastered but I am not sure I have to look at the CD when I get home


----------



## pyfgcrl

wmedrz said:


> You can also try Pro Studio Masters, Pono, and others. BTW the 2015 RUSH remasters are the best I have ever heard Rush, and I've heard quite a bit of Rush!! Worth picking up.


 

 Where'd you pick that up?


----------



## wmedrz

HDTracks. So far only got 2112, waiting on the next three months for Moving Pictures, Permanent Waves, and Hemispheres.


----------



## skeptic

jacal01 said:


> ...
> 
> However, MFSL employed their MM R2R ADC GAIN system for their Ultradisc II CD releases up to the Jethro Tull's _Songs from the Wood _release in Oct., 1998.  So theoretically, any MFSL Ultradisc II CD released between 12/93 and 10/98 should be mastered from tape using the GAIN R2R ADC and of equivalent conversion fidelity, ± the quality of the recording sessions/tapes themselves.  Just find you one or two MFSL Ultradisc II GAIN CD releases of your musical preference within that time period (UDCD 593 - 734).  The CD case liner should say GAIN (not 2) system somewhere on it, to be sure.
> 
> Srely some of them can be had for less than $100, however long now.




  
 Thanks for the great info!  Explains why my Ella and Louis mfsl disks sound so damn good.  That, I really had to hunt to find under $100.  Just grabbed mfsl Folk Singer (used-like new) for $28 though.


----------



## Za Warudo

Anyone know the difference between the Theta DSPro Basic I and II?


----------



## Stillhart

za warudo said:


> Anyone know the difference between the Theta DSPro Basic I and II?


 
  
  


haywood said:


> I'd be hesitant to recommend vintage equipment as _the_ solution for anyone just because things wear out and if it does go bad then trying to source somewhere to repair a vintage dac will be next to impossible. It's nice to see there's more than one good new r2r option.
> 
> That said I do love vintage gear and sort of accidentally won an auction on a DS Pro Prime II last week. Which arrived today. After a second of initial panic when it didn't lock with the Gustard U12 my impetuousness necessitated it seems to be working well and certainly does sound great. I think someone posted the legacy products page for Theta a while back but just in case not and if people are still looking this might help narrow down choices on what to bid for:
> 
> ...


 
  
 These links here should help.


----------



## purrin

jacal01 said:


> Quote:
> 
> However, MFSL employed their MM R2R ADC GAIN system for their Ultradisc II CD releases up to the Jethro Tull's _Songs from the Wood _release in Oct., 1998.  So theoretically, any MFSL Ultradisc II CD released between 12/93 and 10/98 should be mastered from tape using the GAIN R2R ADC and of equivalent conversion fidelity, ± the quality of the recording sessions/tapes themselves.  Just find you one or two MFSL Ultradisc II GAIN CD releases of your musical preference within that time period (UDCD 593 - 734).  The CD case liner should say GAIN (not 2) system somewhere on it, to be sure.


 
  
 Shhhhh, you are not supposed to tell people that. Hints yes, spell it out, no. Now every single one of those discs will go up in price 300%


----------



## jacal01

I know, ain't it a [REDACTED]?


----------



## Stillhart

Success!  I picked up an Audio-GD DI-2014 (transport) and it works with my Theta!  I knew I should have just gone that way to begin with, but lesson learned.  
  
 Now to do some more testing of the DAC-19 vs the Theta.  It's a tough life having two excellent DAC's to decide between.


----------



## gevorg

purrin said:


> jacal01 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...




too late, we got the *treasure map*


----------



## magiccabbage

Any impressions yet on YGGY from the people who bought the first batch ?


----------



## amalgamist

magiccabbage said:


> Any impressions yet on YGGY from the people who bought the first batch ?


 
  
 You can find more here http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil/6495


----------



## Khragon

thegunner100 said:


> How is the Gungnir's SE output any bad?


 
 I have Gungnir and using SE going to the WA5 have noticeably higher noise level than using the XLR -> RCA cable going to the WA5. 
  


freddy1201 said:


> I use it on se and i have no problem with noise floor even with lyr(which is a noisy amp)


 
  
 Glad to know that SE is better on Yggy than Gungnir.  Anyone else using SE? How has it been for you?


----------



## Liu Junyuan

khragon said:


> I have Gungnir and using SE going to the WA5 have noticeably higher noise level than using the XLR -> RCA cable going to the WA5.
> 
> 
> Glad to know that SE is better on Yggy than Gungnir.  Anyone else using SE? How has it been for you?


 
 I use XLR to Gustard H10 and SE to Lyr and La Figaro 339. I do not have any issues with the SE output. I am trying my best to hear a difference between SE and XLR to the H10, but I have not reached any notable conclusions.


----------



## DreamKing

liu junyuan said:


> I use XLR to Gustard H10 and SE to Lyr and La Figaro 339. I do not have any issues with the SE output. I am trying my best to hear a difference between SE and XLR to the H10, but I have not reached any notable conclusions.


 
  
 I've been explained by someone knowledgeable who works in the cable industry that there is no difference and shouldn't be one, unless there is a major flaw in equipment.


----------



## pyfgcrl

wmedrz said:


> HDTracks. So far only got 2112, waiting on the next three months for Moving Pictures, Permanent Waves, and Hemispheres.


 

 Cool -- I just noticed ProStudioMasters has all the new one 2015 Remasters (40th Anniversary Series) including A Farewell To Kings.  That's my favorite album of theirs, so I think I'm going to pick that up.  Thanks for the tip.


----------



## freddy1201

khragon said:


> I have Gungnir and using SE going to the WA5 have noticeably higher noise level than using the XLR -> RCA cable going to the WA5.
> 
> 
> Glad to know that SE is better on Yggy than Gungnir.  Anyone else using SE? How has it been for you?


 

 I'm 7 days of burn-in, everything in my house sound so much better with se, did not try balanced though. I will do a more in depth review in a couple of days.


----------



## Ableza

The Yggdrasil does not "burn in" in your home.  It reaches thermal equilibrium.  Mine did so after three days of being on.  Sounds really great.  I'll have a Wavelength Brick USB DAC for sale soon.


----------



## freddy1201

ableza said:


> The Yggdrasil does not "burn in" in your home.  It reaches thermal equilibrium.  Mine did so after three days of being on.  Sounds really great.  I'll have a Wavelength Brick USB DAC for sale soon.




You are right, and the warm up kinda stabilize after 1 week


----------



## estreeter

wmedrz said:


> You can also try Pro Studio Masters, Pono, and others. BTW the 2015 RUSH remasters are the best I have ever heard Rush, and I've heard quite a bit of Rush!! Worth picking up.


 
  
 Doh ! I probably didnt need to hear that, having been completely won over by the remastered Springsteen boxed set, but I guess now I'll have to take a look. Rush have had the kind of career that makes me laugh when I hear someone from Fleetwood Mac (!) eulogising over how its great that they managed to get the band back together after all these years and how good everyone sounds : newsflash, ladies, while you were coked out of your minds, professional musicians were actually getting _better_ with age.


----------



## wahsmoh

evanft said:


> That's the wrong version to get. The older, Barry Diament-mastered version is better. In fact, all the Barry Diament Bob Marley CDs from the early 90s are great.


----------



## mikoss

Wonder how much it'll go for... probably not much more than $2299 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Theta-Pro-Gen-5-DAC-digital-audio-converter-excellent-condition-/191571715283


----------



## evanft

wahsmoh said:


>




Yes, that one, not the one you posted earlier.


----------



## wahsmoh

evanft said:


> Yes, that one, not the one you posted earlier.


 
 These specific masterings by Barry Diament are the gold standard for Bob Marley recordings.. I highly recommend it for your CD collections


----------



## mulder01

mikoss said:


> Wonder how much it'll go for... probably not much more than $2299
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Wouldn't surprise me if it went for MORE than a yggy.  Some people out there are pretty cashed up and this is kinda one of those "must own" products, even if only to add to a collection


----------



## theblueprint

mulder01 said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if it went for MORE than a yggy.  Some people out there are pretty cashed up and this is kinda one of those "must own" products, even if only to add to a collection




Well if that person was serious enough about acquiring a theta, he/she would've noticed that when it was first posted it went for $1250 buy it now.

And yes, I have that search saved so I can 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 when it's the final minute.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Crazy talk.


----------



## snip3r77

mikoss said:


> Wonder how much it'll go for... probably not much more than $2299
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Theta-Pro-Gen-5-DAC-digital-audio-converter-excellent-condition-/191571715283



At this price DAC19 then


----------



## Sonic Defender

estreeter said:


> Doh ! I probably didnt need to hear that, having been completely won over by the remastered Springsteen boxed set, but I guess now I'll have to take a look. Rush have had the kind of career that makes me laugh when I hear someone from Fleetwood Mac (!) eulogising over how its great that they managed to get the band back together after all these years and how good everyone sounds : newsflash, ladies, while you were coked out of your minds, professional musicians were actually getting _better_ with age.


 

 I think many people fail to realize just how long Rush has been together with the same lineup. No squabbles, or breaks, no feuds. They just manage to enjoy being friends and making music together after all of the years gone by. Makes me feel old. I remember in 1980 for my 12th birthday getting a double vinyl All The Worlds A Stage. Still have that same album and I am going to get Rush to sign it as I'm lucky enough to live very close to their home base.


----------



## DecentLevi

Hello guys (and gals), I just read on the impressions page for a Bay Area meet that happened yesterday one of the head-fi'ers revolutionary discoveries: he tried the new Geek Out v2 (unreleased), and he thought it was better in terms of smoothness and soundstage than another DAC worth 20x more (I'm not going to name the other DAC for fear of sponsor reprisal but let's say the last two letters are TT and the first is the opposite of chordless). You can watch the video of it here:
  

  
 The upcoming Geek Out v2 is supposed to be a substantial improvement over the 450 and is a DAC/amp combo with balanced topology, selectable gain stages and selected filter modes, also supporting firmware updates. Without making this post sound too much like an ad, I'll not mention the price but I'll just tell you it only costs about 2x more than the Modi. Anyone that's tried this sweet DAC gem - impressions highly welcome how this tiny thing stacks up to others many times its size and price.


----------



## DecentLevi

PS- it doesn't seem to have a DAC only option, but with it's lowest gain setting of 100mw I would assume this would allow it to work as a line-out to connect it to another amp. (sound right?)


----------



## ohhgourami

What the hell did you just make me watch? I want those 4 mins of my life back.


----------



## snip3r77

ohhgourami said:


> What the hell did you just make me watch? I want those 4 mins of my life back.




It's better than the boxing match! :rolleyes:


----------



## skeptic

decentlevi said:


> The upcoming Geek Out v2 is supposed to be a substantial improvement over the 450 and is a DAC/amp combo with balanced topology, selectable gain stages and selected filter modes, also supporting firmware updates. Without making this post sound too much like an ad, I'll not mention the price but I'll just tell you it only costs about 2x more than the Modi. Anyone that's tried this sweet DAC gem - impressions highly welcome how this tiny thing stacks up to others many times its size and price.


 
  
 I'm confused.  Are you saying you've actually heard it, or are you just speculating that it is a "gem" based on someone else's review and LH's marketing video?


----------



## DecentLevi

I haven't heard the G.O. v2 yet, but I've heard the G.O. 450 which was already quite decent, and the v2 was tried by some super reputable head-fi members, some of which I have met personally. And the specs are impressive.


----------



## Eee Pee

decentlevi said:


> and the v2 was tried by *some super reputable head-fi members*


 
  
 There's such a thing?  They hear what I hear?  Huh.


----------



## pyfgcrl

decentlevi said:


> Hello guys (and gals), I just read on the impressions page for a Bay Area meet that happened yesterday one of the head-fi'ers revolutionary discoveries: he tried the new Geek Out v2 (unreleased), and he thought it was better in terms of smoothness and soundstage


 
  
 ... with a Sabre ES9018AQ2M?  Would love to see if this implementation exhibits that classic glare on the treble like its 901_x_K2M brethren are wont to do.


----------



## skeptic

decentlevi said:


> I haven't heard the G.O. v2 yet, but I've heard the G.O. 450 which was already quite decent, and the v2 was tried by some super reputable head-fi members, some of which I have met personally. And the specs are impressive.


 
  
 Thanks for the clarification.  Just FYI - although it might be permissible for you to link to that other thread if, for example, you wanted to ask folks here if they have heard this product and agree/disagree, your post comes across as a pretty strong recommendation for something you haven't heard, which violates head-fi's TOS.  http://www.head-fi.org/a/posting-guidelines  Here's the relevant excerpt:
  
*Please don't recommend or post reviews of equipment you don't own* or otherwise don't have a reasonable amount of familiarity with. You wouldn't recommend someone a car you've never driven or suggest someone live in a country you haven't been to, so recommending headphones and equipment you haven't owned or used is unhelpful. Even if you've seen the same comments about something from a dozen members, save discussion of that if you're intending to buy it yourself. Likewise, People use the reviews in the Head Gear section to decide what product to buy, and brief impressions or comments by people who don't own a product (or at least haven't had it in their possession for a sufficient amount of time) are unhelpful.


----------



## frenchbat

You must be new here ...


----------



## purrin

pyfgcrl said:


> ... with a Sabre ES9018AQ2M?  Would love to see if this implementation exhibits that classic glare on the treble like its 901_x_K2M brethren are wont to do.


 
  
 GOv2 was impressive. I'll eat my shorts on hating Sabre for this one.


----------



## pyfgcrl

purrin said:


> GOv2 was impressive. I'll eat my shorts on hating Sabre for this one.


 
  
 Signature Edition, or run-of-the-mill?


----------



## Stillhart

purrin said:


> GOv2 was impressive. I'll eat my shorts on hating Sabre for this one.


 
  






 
  
 April first again already?


----------



## Armaegis

There's a phrase I haven't heard in a while...


----------



## skeptic

purrin said:


> GOv2 was impressive. I'll eat my shorts on hating Sabre for this one.


 
  
 Ha!  Now I kind of want to hear one...despite LH's marketing videos, which are the equivalent of a cold shower for my wallet.


----------



## OperatorPerry

Hey guys, I have a question.  I want to spend ~$200 to buy a DAC to use with my stereo speaker system.  I have been looking at the ODAC and the Schiit Modi 2 Uber.  Can anyone compare the sonic performance of these two DACs?  Or can someone recommend a better DAC that can be had for about $200?
  
 Thanks


----------



## DreamKing

operatorperry said:


> Hey guys, I have a question.  I want to spend ~$200 to buy a DAC to use with my stereo speaker system.  I have been looking at the ODAC and the Schiit Modi 2 Uber.  Can anyone compare the sonic performance of these two DACs?  Or can someone recommend a better DAC that can be had for about $200?
> 
> Thanks


 
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-sucks#post_10040449
  
 what you need is included


----------



## Currawong

decentlevi said:


> Hello guys (and gals), I just read on the impressions page for a Bay Area meet that happened yesterday one of the head-fi'ers revolutionary discoveries: he tried the new Geek Out v2 (unreleased), and he thought it was better in terms of smoothness and soundstage than another DAC worth 20x more (I'm not going to name the other DAC for fear of sponsor reprisal but let's say the last two letters are TT and the first is the opposite of chordless). You can watch the video of it here:


 
  
 I have the GO1000 and it is definitely incredible value and even better out of the Schiit Wyrd than direct out of my computer. I didn't think it was good as my Master 7 or Chord Hugo though, as it sounds a bit flatter and less resolving as a DAC anyway. I'm very glad that they aren't crowdsourcing the new version. When they are readily available I'm definitely going to buy the new model.


----------



## DecentLevi

pyfgcrl said:


> ... with a Sabre ES9018AQ2M?  Would love to see if this implementation exhibits that classic glare on the treble like its 901_x_K2M brethren are wont to do.


 
 In the audio world, sometimes specs alone don't serve justice and you'll know only after trying it.
 Quote:


purrin said:


> GOv2 was impressive. I'll eat my shorts on hating Sabre for this one.


 
  


stillhart said:


> April first again already?


 
 Hello again Stillhart, nope - purrin was actually at this head-fi meet yesterday and actually likes the Geek Out v2.
  
 Also @skeptic I was not endorsing this product, only hoping to spark a little interest, so that we can hear more reviews about it after more people get the chance to try it.


----------



## estreeter

purrin said:


> GOv2 was impressive. I'll eat my shorts on hating Sabre for this one.


 
  
 I absolutely love it when you mess with your disciples' heads. 3 thumbs up.


----------



## mulder01

You think he's trying to throw people just for a laugh and make them look stupid for trusting his opinion 
 rather than
 he actually thinks it is a good product?


----------



## BassDigger

mulder01 said:


> You think he's trying to throw people just for a laugh and make them look stupid for trusting his opinion
> rather than
> he actually thinks it is a good product?


 
  
 No, no, no; He definitely said it's impressive!
  
 I want one. How much is....never mind... where can I get one?


----------



## DecentLevi

I am not endorsing this DAC but since somebody asked, you can click here to pre-order yours for $1, then then the rest will be charged (about $220) when it's shipped. The orders for this are shipped out in batch ship dates; I just got in to batch 23 which won't ship till Nov. 25th.
  
 After I get mine I will do an in depth comparison between the Geek Out v2 and my Gustard X12 DAC, then keep the one I like best.


----------



## wahsmoh

decentlevi said:


> I am not endorsing this DAC but since somebody asked, you can click here to pre-order yours for $1, then then the rest will be charged (about $220) when it's shipped. The orders for this are shipped out in batch ship dates; I just got in to batch 23 which won't ship till Nov. 25th.
> 
> After I get mine I will do an in depth comparison between the Geek Out v2 and my Gustard X12 DAC, then keep the one I like best.


 
 I read the SF meet impressions on the Geek Out V2. If it poops on the Chord Hugo TT I will have to give it a try. I'm looking for a good portable DAC


----------



## prot

decentlevi said:


> I am not endorsing this DAC but since somebody asked, you can click here to pre-order yours for $1, then then the rest will be charged (about $220) when it's shipped. The orders for this are shipped out in batch ship dates; I just got in to batch 23 which won't ship till Nov. 25th.
> 
> After I get mine I will do an in depth comparison between the Geek Out v2 and my Gustard X12 DAC, then keep the one I like best.




Delivery on November 25, wow .. that's quite a leap of faith. Is the GOv2 so good that you forgot how LH has missed every single delivery deadline during the last few years !? In some cases by more than 6 months! At least that "order for $1" option sounds fair. 

Not sure about those shipping prices, though ... $47 to EU sounds pretty inflated. DHL quotes €16 for such a small package going the other way, are US postal services so much more expensive !?! And btw, that $47 is actually more like $75 for me because, for some mysterious reason, the customs here include shipping in the base product cost for which you pay 20% VAT & other customs taxes. Nowadays the $225 GOv2 will actually cost me ~€350 ... not such a good deal anymore. Free trade my a*s.


----------



## zerodeefex

pyfgcrl said:


> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > GOv2 was impressive. I'll eat my shorts on hating Sabre for this one.
> ...


 
  
 It was run of the mill. I stole the prototype to do a full review after the meet. We all heard the same unit together. It was ridiculous. It's better than the base Pulse unit. The V2 is very, very good. The V1 was polarizing with a bunch of folks, but I got Anax, Purrin, CEE TEE and myself together (we all have different tastes) and we all listened to the unit with our own choice of headphones (purrin used the HE-560 straight out of it, Anax went Leckerton > UERM, CEE TEE went Leckerton > HD800, and I tried the HD600 right out of it and leckerton > HD800). I've never seen anything the four of us could wholeheartedly recommend at the price point, but the $299 unit was just so darn good.
  


prot said:


> Delivery on November 25, wow .. that's quite a leap of faith. Is the GOv2 so good that you forgot how LH has missed every single delivery deadline during the last few years !? In some cases by more than 6 months! At least that "order for $1" option sounds fair.
> 
> Not sure about those shipping prices, though ... $47 to EU sounds pretty inflated. DHL quotes €16 for such a small package going the other way, are US postal services so much more expensive !?! And btw, that $47 is actually more like $75 for me because, for some mysterious reason, the customs here include shipping in the base product cost for which you pay 20% VAT & other customs taxes. Nowadays the $225 GOv2 will actually cost me ~€350 ... not such a good deal anymore. Free trade my a*s.


 
  
 One thing I'd note, this is an official preorder rather than a crowdsourcing investment which means you're free to cancel at any time if you feel like their promise management isn't working out.


----------



## pyfgcrl

zerodeefex said:


> It was run of the mill. I stole the prototype to do a full review after the meet. We all heard the same unit together. It was ridiculous. It's better than the base Pulse unit. The V2 is very, very good. The V1 was polarizing with a bunch of folks, but I got Anax, Purrin, CEE TEE and myself together (we all have different tastes) and we all listened to the unit with our own choice of headphones (purrin used the HE-560 straight out of it, Anax went Leckerton > UERM, CEE TEE went Leckerton > HD800, and I tried the HD600 right out of it and leckerton > HD800). I've never seen anything the four of us could wholeheartedly recommend at the price point, but the $299 unit was just so darn good.


 
  
 So, "very good for $299, better than anything we've heard _at this price point_" but not "Yggy/Theta-thrashingly, Moffat's-got-mud-on-his-face" good?


----------



## prot

pyfgcrl said:


> So, "very good for $299, better than anything we've heard _at this price point_" but not "Yggy/Theta-thrashingly, Moffat's-got-mud-on-his-face" good?




Let's not get ahead of ourselves, it is still a DAC-on-a-stick. But if it's better than a good transportable like iDSD Micro, it could be a big hit.


----------



## pyfgcrl

prot said:


> Let's not get ahead of ourselves, it is still a DAC-on-a-stick. But if it's better than a good transportable like iDSD Micro, it could be a big hit.


 

 See, of course I imagine as much — just looking to get @zerodeefex or @purrin to clarify _how_ good.


----------



## wahsmoh

Attention, there are some Thetas on eBay. Surprised at how many "watchers" are on both listings. Both are very desirable and I can vouch for one of them.
  
 "If there is a reason why DACs of past is still favorably looked upon, the ____________ is one such reason. This DAC has amazingly depth and soundstage and unlike many other newer sub-$1000 DACs, the Theta placed more emphasize on the soul of the music rather than bringing forth music through lots of bits and oversampling. The Theta has a more natural appeal and music seems to flow smoother. It might lose a small edge when compared with the multi-bit/ high oversampling DACs in terms of finer details but in terms of musical enjoyment for the dollar, this is the one to beat. For serious little money, this is one DAC we highly recommend to any audiophile system. Digital inputs are coaxial and Toslink with one coaxial output. Analog outputs are RCA and XLR." - seller
  
 Sounds about right


----------



## Stillhart

wahsmoh said:


> Attention, there are some Thetas on eBay. Surprised at how many "watchers" are on both listings. Both are very desirable and I can vouch for one of them.
> 
> "If there is a reason why DACs of past is still favorably looked upon, the ____________ is one such reason. This DAC has amazingly depth and soundstage and unlike many other newer sub-$1000 DACs, the Theta placed more emphasize on the soul of the music rather than bringing forth music through lots of bits and oversampling. The Theta has a more natural appeal and music seems to flow smoother. It might lose a small edge when compared with the multi-bit/ high oversampling DACs in terms of finer details but in terms of musical enjoyment for the dollar, this is the one to beat. For serious little money, this is one DAC we highly recommend to any audiophile system. Digital inputs are coaxial and Toslink with one coaxial output. Analog outputs are RCA and XLR." - seller
> 
> Sounds about right


 
  
 Are you trying to inflate the prices just for grins and giggles now that you have yours?  Let the people who have been watching and are waiting for a good deal have their good deal.


----------



## haywood

stillhart said:


> Are you trying to inflate the prices just for grins and giggles now that you have yours?  Let the people who have been watching and are waiting for a good deal have their good deal.



Two of the three I saw were buy-it-now, including the one he quoted from. The hype definitely ran the price up a bit there but that also means more people got motivated to sell. Plus if he hadn't kept going on about it I probably wouldn't have gotten one. At $400ish (+ at least $160 if you plan on using usb) they're getting toward the high end of what makes sense for such old gear but the Prime II that I have is very good if you don't need > 24/48 (or a warranty, or expectations of long life, etc.)


----------



## wahsmoh

haywood said:


> Two of the three I saw were buy-it-now, including the one he quoted from. The hype definitely ran the price up a bit there but that also means more people got motivated to sell. Plus if he hadn't kept going on about it I probably wouldn't have gotten one. At $400ish (+ at least $160 if you plan on using usb) they're getting toward the high end of what makes sense for such old gear but the Prime II that I have is very good if you don't need > 24/48 (or a warranty, or expectations of long life, etc.)


 
 Of course. I wouldn't hurt someones chances at auction. I'll let it be though. They've been going for that price though since 2008 so I wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast


----------



## Sonic Defender

haywood said:


> Two of the three I saw were buy-it-now, including the one he quoted from. The hype definitely ran the price up a bit there but that also means more people got motivated to sell. Plus if he hadn't kept going on about it I probably wouldn't have gotten one. At $400ish (+ at least $160 if you plan on using usb) they're getting toward the high end of what makes sense for such old gear but the Prime II that I have is very good if you don't need > 24/48 (or a warranty, or expectations of long life, etc.)


 

 I agree, while I'm sure they sound very nice, these prices are too high for older, and I assume difficult or impossible to service gear.


----------



## DreamKing

pyfgcrl said:


> See, of course I imagine as much — just looking to get @zerodeefex or @purrin to clarify _how_ good.


 
  
 It's a solid recommendation for the price point sounds clear enough to me.


----------



## pyfgcrl

dreamking said:


> It's a solid recommendation for the price point sounds clear enough to me.


 
  
 I'm very glad to hear that is a sufficient review of a new product for you.   Perhaps we were looking for two different things; let me clarify.  I would like to know at what level does this new product perform:  Does it trounce everything out there, beyond its price point?  If you can afford a more expensive portable DAC, at which point would you be gaining an appreciable difference in SQ to make the purchase worth it?  Is it possible that the prototype (@zerodeefex mentioned that he brought to the SF meet) had the hand picked components like the company's product page states about their top-of-the-line version and that might have added to the sound quality compared to the versions they'll be producing for the masses?  How does it compare to say, Schiit's latest-and-greatest Yggdrasil — something significantly larger, more expensive and definitely not portable?  Where would this fit in @purrin's scale of DACs ranked and rated at the beginning of this thread?
  
 "Solid recommendation for the price point" may give you all those extra details, and so in that case, please take the time to enlighten anyone interested (myself included) with your extraordinary interpretive skills.


----------



## purrin

I'm an MOT now so unfortunately, I cannot say anything other than than awesomifier, impressive, or wowza, and then only in a nebulous non-comparative way.


----------



## pyfgcrl

purrin said:


> I'm an MOT now so unfortunately, I cannot say anything other than than awesomifier, impressive, or wowza, and then only in a nebulous non-comparative way.


 
  
 Thanks, I appreciate that.


----------



## DreamKing

pyfgcrl said:


> I'm very glad to hear that is a sufficient review of a new product for you.   Perhaps we were looking for two different things; let me clarify.  I would like to know at what level does this new product perform:  Does it trounce everything out there, beyond its price point?  If you can afford a more expensive portable DAC, at which point would you be gaining an appreciable difference in SQ to make the purchase worth it?  Is it possible that the prototype (@zerodeefex mentioned that he brought to the SF meet) had the hand picked components like the company's product page states about their top-of-the-line version and that might have added to the sound quality compared to the versions they'll be producing for the masses?  How does it compare to say, Schiit's latest-and-greatest Yggdrasil — something significantly larger, more expensive and definitely not portable?  Where would this fit in @purrin's scale of DACs ranked and rated at the beginning of this thread?
> 
> "Solid recommendation for the price point" may give you all those extra details, and so in that case, please take the time to enlighten anyone interested (myself included) with your extraordinary interpretive skills.


 
  
 Why in the hell would it compare with the Yggdrasil? 
  
 But I understand you're extremely interested in this dac, so I'll let it be and hope you get the in-depth review you want.
  
 I'm not claiming any extraordinary interpretive skills but that was the gist of the *impressions*. Just relax and you'll get a review maybe.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

A few experienced headfiers listened to a dac yesterday at a meet and you are expecting a full-blown review. I agree with the "let's not get ahead of ourselves" imperative clause someone used earlier.


----------



## pyfgcrl

dreamking said:


> Why in the hell would it compare with the Yggdrasil?
> 
> But I understand you're extremely interested in this dac, so I'll let it be and hope you get the in-depth review you want.


 
  
 I wouldn't think that it would (compare well with it), but
   





> Originally Posted by DecentLevi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> one of the head-fi'ers revolutionary discoveries: he tried the new Geek Out v2 (unreleased), and he thought it was better in terms of smoothness and soundstage than another DAC worth 20x more


 
  
 That would seem to indicate (through hearsay, albeit) that this Geek Out V2 was in some ways one-upping another expensive, competing portable DAC — so hey — stranger things have happened.  I'm interested in knowing just how good it is because, why not? Portable, cheap, sounds interesting… I don't have a DAC at work or on the go with my laptop — and maybe I should, right?
  
 This thread is called "... and why delta-sigma sucks."  As far as my ears can tell, there could be a lot of truth to that, but now ... "eat my shorts," wait? — that doesn't sound like sucky D-S; what's going on?  Is it even possible this new chip, or this company's implementation somehow makes D-S all of the sudden _not suck_?  Questions, questions.
  
 Also, I have a Yggdrasil.  So far, I think it's great.  In fact, I would have to call it a solid recommendation for the price.


----------



## Stillhart

There's a preview of the new go2 on guru if you want a slightly more robust impression.


----------



## pyfgcrl

stillhart said:


> There's a preview of the new go2 on guru if you want a slightly more robust impression.


 
  
 Cool beans, thanks for the tip.


----------



## zerodeefex

Casey brought two Geek Out V2s. I stole one. They are NOT hand picked parts like the special versions. I've confirmed they're an early version of the production vanilla variant with non-final firmware and quickly 3D printed casing.


----------



## estreeter

Why does the GO v2 suddenly have to compete with Yggdrasil, a desktop DAC with considerably more complexity in terms of design and build and - to my mind at least - _a different target audience_ ? I find it curious that someone who was so keen to parrot @baldr and @purrin in slagging off ALL d-s designs is suddenly looking over their shoulder at a new FOTM which very few have even heard and which hasn't even made it into production yet. It's also particularly interesting given the preceding discussion re the merits of USB vs SPDIF, balanced vs SE and everything vs I2S : it would seem that LH have made your choices blindingly simple, even for the lucky 20 who manage to get one of the initial batch of 'Signature' GO v2 DACs. 
  
 A dollar down and 298 more when it rolls off the production line:
  

  
 or ~30K USD if you can find a dealer who has one ready to go.


----------



## DecentLevi

For the sake of not being the evangelist for the Geek Out v2 this will probably be my last post on it until I get to try it. But you can find an in depth review here (in the middle of the page) from Bill-P at the head-fi meet.
  
 Also I was sent a PM from another attendee who said he owns the HRT microstreamer, Audioengine D1 and D3, Centrance DACport, Audioquest Dragonfly, Meridian Explorer, Resonnesence Herus, ODAC, Geek out 450/720/SE and it tops them all.


----------



## Stillhart

decentlevi said:


> For the sake of not being the evangelist for the Geek Out v2 this will probably be my last post on it until I get to try it. But you can find an in depth review here (in the middle of the page) from Bill-P at the head-fi meet.
> 
> *Also I was sent a PM from another attendee who said he owns the HRT microstreamer, Audioengine D1 and D3, Centrance DACport, Audioquest Dragonfly, Meridian Explorer, Resonnesence Herus, ODAC, Geek out 450/720/SE and it tops them all.*


 
  
 Well as those are all competing products, many of which are just okay, I find that much easier to believe than that it compares to the Yggy or the TT.
  
 Amusingly he could have had a Yggy for what he spent on all those crappy little ones.  lol


----------



## estreeter

stillhart said:


> Well as those are all competing products, many of which are just okay, I find that much easier to believe than that it compares to the Yggy or the TT.
> 
> Amusingly he could have had a Yggy for what he spent on all those crappy little ones.  lol


 
  
 Agreed, but he would have been waiting a very long time if his crystal ball had told him the Yggy was going into production in 2015 back when the DACport was initially released (2011/12 ?). With the possible exception of BHSE owners, very few of us have infinite patience or infallible foresight and I guess the people with the good fortune to own seriously expensive kit would regard anyone who continues to buy sub-10K DACs in much the same light. The upside is that those just entering the hobby have more choice than many of us enjoyed when we decided we wanted something better than the headphone socket on our laptops.


----------



## Stillhart

estreeter said:


> Agreed, but he would have been waiting a very long time if his crystal ball had told him the Yggy was going into production in 2015 back when the DACport was initially released (2011/12 ?). With the possible exception of BHSE owners, very few of us have infinite patience or infallible foresight and I guess the people with the good fortune to own seriously expensive kit would regard anyone who continues to buy sub-10K DACs in much the same light. The upside is that those just entering the hobby have more choice than many of us enjoyed when we decided we wanted something better than the headphone socket on our laptops.


 
  
 Yes.  Obviously.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Clearly my humor isn't working on the internet tonight.


----------



## zerodeefex

stillhart said:


> decentlevi said:
> 
> 
> > For the sake of not being the evangelist for the Geek Out v2 this will probably be my last post on it until I get to try it. But you can find an in depth review here (in the middle of the page) from Bill-P at the head-fi meet.
> ...




I'm the person in question and i have a Yggdrasil. I bought them to compare for the community.


----------



## Stillhart

zerodeefex said:


> I'm the person in question and i have a Yggdrasil. I bought them to compare for the community.


 
  
 And I applaud you for it.  My apologies if you mistook my humor for criticism.  It's okay to laugh once in a while, folks.


----------



## DreamKing

I don't see why he'd mistake it for criticism or care if he already has a Yggdrasil. 
  
 But maybe your joke kind of hit too close to home for others lol.


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> ...
> ...
> *For those wanting i2s, I'm curious what converter with i2s out you guys are considering.*
> ...




... moved it here, seems more appopiate than the iggy impressions thread ...

I'm using a Gustard U12 (HDMI I2S) and thinking about a Melodious MX-U8 (Cat5 I2S) ... basically because it looks better . Both are very popular nowadays, very good according to a lot of users and peanuts cheap ($150-250) in hifi terms. 

I did not personally test I2S but you can look into the U12 thread, many swear on it being better with various DACs. Maybe it is. For me it is just something I'd like to have/try at some point and more of a theoretical/whatif question. Many industry people complain about USB (mostly with good reason) but I do not see anyone trying alternatives. 

 I2S may be one ... yes I know about the short-cable limitations but you can easily stack a DAC and a miniPC.
 Or maybe PCIE cable out of the PC with the pcie-i2s converter inside the DAC .. similar short-distance issues but you have the converter inside the DAC an can isolate the crap out of it. IIRC, the phasure DAC designer tried this but went back to USB (not sure why, maybe someone can clarify).
 Or ethernet ... send audio data over the network cable (much better for this purpose than USB) and just add a network endpoint & ethernet-to-I2S converter inside the DAC ..something as small and cheap as a raspi can do all that.. and in any case such a solution should not be harder/costlier than this contraption 

Any of the above could be (in theory) better than the current CPU-PCIE-USB-(SPDIF-)I2S-DACchip chain. And I'm sure there are other solutions, maybe much better. There are lots of people doing interesting experiments on dyiaudio or in android/raspi communities, but even if they have the right plan/idea, most have neither the tools nor the expertise of a hifi vendor. OTOH, the hifi vendors (even more progressive ones like Schiit) dont seem to do anything but complain about USB.

* edited for (hopefully) better readability. 
And after checking a few more things, I'd like to borrow purrin's messiah hat and say the future lies somewhere here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_network_protocols. Actually, that's not even my prediction.


----------



## BassDigger

prot said:


> ... moved it here, seems more appopiate than the iggy impressions thread ...
> 
> I'm using a Gustard U12 (HDMI I2S) and thinking about a Melodious MX-U8 (Cat5 I2S) ... basically because it looks better
> 
> ...


 
  
 I²S is probably the best connection; it's carries the important clocking data, along with the music feed. But, it's only going to be as good as the clock that's feeding it. Any usb to I²S converter also needs to be a reclocking device (I guess that the U12 etc are?).
 But this still doesn't overcome the two main drawbacks of usb connection: Firstly, your computer is playing the music (not ideal); secondly, your computer is (most likely) electrically connected, and propagating all that RFI to your precious equipment!


----------



## zerodeefex

dreamking said:


> [CONTENTEMBED=/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-sucks/4830#post_11571746 layout=inline]I don't see why he'd mistake it for criticism or care if he already has a Yggdrasil.[/CONTENTEMBED]
> [CONTENTEMBED=/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-sucks/4830#post_11571746 layout=inline] [/CONTENTEMBED]
> [CONTENTEMBED=/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-sucks/4830#post_11571746 layout=inline]But maybe your joke kind of hit too close to home for others lol.[/CONTENTEMBED]



I thought it was funny which was why I posted that I have an Yggdrasil. Also, I'd be a dumb dumb to buy all of them to keep . Once a friend returns a box of them, I'm doing a big sell off!


----------



## Sonic Defender

bassdigger said:


> I²S is probably the best connection; it's carries the important clocking data, along with the music feed. But, it's only going to be as good as the clock that's feeding it. Any usb to I²S converter also needs to be a reclocking device (I guess that the U12 etc are?).
> But this still doesn't overcome the two main drawbacks of usb connection: Firstly, your computer is playing the music (not ideal); secondly, your computer is (most likely) electrically connected, and propagating all that RFI to your precious equipment!


 

 Are you sure a computer is really an issue? In the end it simply acts as a transport and I'm not sure that as a transport a computer is inherently inferior to most CD players on the market. I know I was spending over a $1000 for my CD players in the past and when I switched to my basic Dell desktop I never noticed any degradation in sound quality. Everything is electrically connected and the whole notion of noise from utility power always being an issue is a contested notion. I am sure that in some cases you are completely correct, but I'm not so sure that as a blanket statement this is always completely accurate.
  
 At the heart of this issue (as with many things in this hobby) is if measureable, but not audible, is it an issue?


----------



## BassDigger

sonic defender said:


> Are you sure a computer is really an issue? In the end it simply acts as a transport and I'm not sure that as a transport a computer is inherently inferior to most CD players on the market. I know I was spending over a $1000 for my CD players in the past and when I switched to my basic Dell desktop I never noticed any degradation in sound quality. Everything is electrically connected and the whole notion of noise from utility power always being an issue is a contested notion. I am sure that in some cases you are completely correct, but I'm not so sure that as a blanket statement this is always completely accurate.
> 
> At the heart of this issue (as with many things in this hobby) is if measureable, but not audible, is it an issue?


 
  
 I was trying not to make it an all encompassing statement, but i do believe that computers are not good hifi; they are not quality transports, unless they're specifically designed (hardware and software) to be so.
  
 I guess that this doesn't mean that, with good connecting equipment, a pc or mac can't make a reasonable transport, especially if the equipment downstream is doing a good job and isn't particularly susceptible to (computer generated) RFI. The fact that so many, such as yourself, are happy with such set-ups is testament to this.
  
 Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but some learned people have convinced me that a dedicated transport is the best solution, and I've found that it doesn't have to cost much, certainly no more than the products (including cables) that people are buying to try and.get the best out of their usb output.


----------



## ginetto61

Hi i have just on opinion on audio with a pc source
 If the usb dac or the usb to spdif converter is very well designed and built the pc becomes less of an issue.
 For instance reading many many reviews i found two units well done (i am sure there are thousands of others)
 1)  the usb dac from Ayre Acoustics
 2)  the usb to spdif interface from Berkeley Audio
 I read in many places that used even with just a decent PC the performance is excellent.
 I tend to believe this. 
 Of course they all provide the usual power isolation, asynchronus mode, etc. etc. 
 They are well designed and built.
 Another observation.
 Many usb dacs sound much better when used from the spdif input.
 Another evidence of the great importance of the usb interface. 
 I think it does not need to be extremely expensive
 Just well done.
 Regards, gino


----------



## prot

bassdigger said:


> I was trying not to make it an all encompassing statement, but i do believe that computers are not good hifi; they are not quality transports, unless they're specifically designed (hardware and software) to be so.
> 
> I guess that this doesn't mean that, with good connecting equipment, a pc or mac can't make a reasonable transport, especially if the equipment downstream is doing a good job and isn't particularly susceptible to (computer generated) RFI. The fact that so many, such as yourself, are happy with such set-ups is testament to this.
> 
> Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but some learned people have convinced me that a dedicated transport is the best solution, and I've found that it doesn't have to cost much, certainly no more than the products (including cables) that people are buying to try and.get the best out of their usb output.





It is a bit of an audiophile-sport to blame computers for whatever (they think) is wrong in their systems. 
Agree, PC are overly complicated, unstable, ugly and so on ... but no, they are not eating any of your music bits . And if for some mysterious reason you think that your PC is the electric-devil which fills your DAC with the ugliest electrons ever, just buy a battery and a dual-head usb cable and $40 later the universe will be back in order . Besides, it's the DAC's job to isolate itself from eventual transport noise.. and one of the main reasons why separate DACs exist.


----------



## evillamer

Between giving up my hard earned money to Mike Mofatt or Larry Ho. I guess it's pretty obvious who is more experienced and reputable.


----------



## Turn&cough

Don't forget that there is a whole industry being built around the notion that computers are evil when it comes to music. Just think about those ridiculously priced USB and ethernet cables that are popping up everywhere.
  
 Ironic since computers have become a big part of the recording industry.


----------



## wahsmoh

evillamer said:


> Between giving up my hard earned money to Mike Mofatt or Larry Ho. I guess it's pretty obvious who is more experienced and reputable.


 
 My Progeny.. it is from 94 and it still works (crosses fingers)


----------



## Turn&cough

evillamer said:


> Between giving up my hard earned money to Mike Mofatt or Larry Ho. I guess it's pretty obvious who is more experienced and reputable.


 
 Forgive my ignorance but who is Larry Ho?


----------



## hodgjy

turn&cough said:


> Forgive my ignorance but who is Larry Ho?


 
 Founder of Light Harmonic.


----------



## ginetto61

prot said:


> ...  a dual-head usb cable ...


 
  
 hi i do not think that it will work.  The cable that carries the signal is not isolated from the usb power i think.
 I mean, one cable carries only external power and the other signal+ usb power 
 You need a cable like this one here ... this carries only the external power but also the yellow adapter isolates from the pc usb power lines. I have it. 
  

  
 sadly more expensive. From Teradak.
 Around 25 USD ? do not remember precisely 
 Regards, gino


----------



## wmedrz

I thought the issue with computer based servers was jitter and noise due to dirty power. What is RFI? Radio Frequency Interference?


----------



## prot

ginetto61 said:


> hi i do not think that it will work.  The cable that carries the signal is not isolated from the usb power i think.
> I mean, one cable carries only external power and the other signal+ usb power
> You need a cable like this one here ... this carries only the external power but also the yellow adapter isolates from the pc usb power lines. I have it.
> 
> ...




I just posted the first big battery and dual usb cable I found on amazon . You are prolly right, one needs to cut the two power wires in the signal connector. Or just buy the ready-to-go cable you posted ... looks very good and $25 is still nothing in hifi terms. 
The idea is, if anyone's worried about the so called PC noise, getting rid of it is easy and cheap .. no point complaining or spending $1000 on unicorn cables.


----------



## nicolo

evillamer said:


> Between giving up my hard earned money to Mike Mofatt or Larry Ho. I guess it's pretty obvious who is more experienced and reputable.


 
  
 It's not obvious to me who's more experienced or reputable here. In terms of designing a USB DAC based solution, i think Larry would be more knowledgeable than Mike as he's actually worked with the team which created the USB spec. He's also created a R2R DAC which has received rave reviews from pretty experienced reviewers. He's also created "smooth" sounding SABRE based DACS avoiding the typical treble glare inherent in the TOTL SABRE DACs.
  
 Why the hate?


----------



## evillamer

nicolo said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Between giving up my hard earned money to Mike Mofatt or Larry Ho. I guess it's pretty obvious who is more experienced and reputable.
> ...




Not sure why you would equate my opinion on choice of dac vendor as hate. There's nothing for me to hate about Larry, he's a nice guy and a good dac designer for sure, but is he better than Mike Mofatt? I am not sure on that.

As much as the da Vinci dac is getting rave reviews, it doesn't mean one can afford to spend USD$30k on a dac. $2299 seems more reasonable price point and in the reach of average joe six pack.

It's not just Larry Ho who has done that, Kingwa from Audio-Gd has created a TOTL SABRE dac that is also free from the treble glare as well.


----------



## Baldr

Hey Guys,
  
 Please stop............
  
 Yes it is true that I have been building DACs since before they existed.
  
 But all I know is the weighted average of all of have learned or read from others.  Frequently from out of the mouth of others comes brilliance and I am still learning. 
  
 If I stop listening, my products will soon enough suffer.
  
 I have never met Larrry Ho.  He may well have something to teach me, or even vice versa.  But it is not fair to either of us to be compared.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

People like "boxing matches" and will produce them even when try do not exist.


----------



## Currawong

A better thought is that we should be grateful that we have a choice of excellent gear from a number of talented engineers.


----------



## pldelisle

Hey guys !
  
 I received yesterday my Schiit stack (Gungnir + Asgard 2 + Wyrd) !!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 It is simply amazing. 
  
 I only had an hour last night to listen to it. I had courses at university and got home only at 10.30pm. Time to connect the whole thing, I listened until midnight. But let me tell you that was the best listening hour of my life ! ahahah ! Nothing less !
  
 But clearly, I can hear the limits of my Sennheiser Momentum, specially in the mid and high I find. I had never negatively criticized my Momentum before, but I guess it's because I never had the equipment to do so  .  But my Momentum will be correct for the moment. I just spent around 1900 $ CND to get this, so I'll take a break. But I know my next pair is nothing less than an HD650 or something equivalent. Will probably go out and try some models at my favorite local store one of these days.
  
 I read my music with Amarra for now. I'm trying it over iTunes. I think I can hear a difference. Amarra has more detail in sound than iTunes. But it could be psychological too....
  
 I made a mistake though  When I first plugged the DAC and listened to my first song, it was horrible ! But I forgot that the gain of the player was set to 0 dB. I put it to -30 dB and I use the potentiometer of the Asgard 2 to adjust sound. I didn't know this particular thing since it's my first high end kit of my life. I tried to bypass the Amarra gain in the settings, but strangely the sound get so much distortion ....
  
 Asgard 2 runs hot, but nothing to worry about. 
  
 I'm listening to details that I've never heard before. Far better than my previous Asus Xonar STX, though on some song it's similar. 
  
 Any other recommendation for this kit ? Player settings, adjustment ... ? 
  
 Thank you to everyone that recommended me this Schiit  Will be forever grateful to you guys !


----------



## Sonic Defender

pldelisle said:


> Hey guys !
> 
> I received yesterday my Schiit stack (Gungnir + Asgard 2 + Wyrd) !!!
> 
> ...


 

 Consider an HD600 instead of the 650. The Gungnir is already toward the warm side (I owned a Gungnir for three years and an HD650 with it for a year). The 600 is widely considered to be more neutral which unless you love lush will cool the Gungnir down a little. By the way, the Habs blow! No, not really, but I am pissed they beat Ottawa (which frankly was very lucky as I thought Ottawa was easily the better team in the series). Cheers.


----------



## pldelisle

Thanks ! Will consider the HD600 instead  I'll keep that in mind  
  
 Aahahaha ! Yeah we were lucky on this playoff. But we are being killed by Tampa Bay on this second round !!!!


----------



## Sonic Defender

baldr said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> Please stop............
> 
> ...


 

 It is kind of like arguing who is the better drummer, Buddy Rich or Neil Peart. The only thing that can be said is that they are both brilliant, but different.


----------



## Sonic Defender

pldelisle said:


> Thanks ! Will consider the HD600 instead  I'll keep that in mind
> 
> Aahahaha ! Yeah we were lucky on this playoff. But we are being killed by Tampa Bay on this second round !!!!


 

 I havew only briefly heard a 600 myself, but it was quite nice I thought, and as I said, you will find a significant number of users who really like the 600 and swear they are closer to neutral. The Gungnir is quite a nice DAC isn't it? It was the longest I ever kept a piece of gear. Just hard to not enjoy the sound, but eventually curiosity got the better of me and I had to try a new sound signature. Enjoy the Gun.


----------



## pldelisle

sonic defender said:


> I havew only briefly heard a 600 myself, but it was quite nice I thought, and as I said, you will find a significant number of users who really like the 600 and swear they are closer to neutral. The Gungnir is quite a nice DAC isn't it? It was the longest I ever kept a piece of gear. Just hard to not enjoy the sound, but eventually curiosity got the better of me and I had to try a new sound signature. Enjoy the Gun.


 

 It's a very nice DAC ! Love the signature of it. But this is my real first DAC. I'm completely new to this world  But the design is beautiful and so far I really love the sound. Just a bit surprised how the high feels warm. I mean, I though I was going to get ... not clearer highs, but more "present". But I guess I think that because it's the first time I really listen to real audio gear, which is more balanced through the sound spectrum


----------



## DreamKing

pldelisle said:


> I just spent around 1900 $ CND to get this, so I'll take a break


 
  
 That's the least you can say...jesus christ. Your wallet needs at least an ice pack from the violation. I don't even think I understand how that adds up with custom fees either.


----------



## pldelisle

Ahahahahahah ! XD Good one  
  
 Well, it was 1345 $ US. That makes 1660$ CND or so on the VISA with exchange rate and VISA foreign fees.
  
 And a nice bill of 265 $ was waiting for me at arrival only for provincial and federal taxes. So around 1925 $ CND in total .... !!! Luckily there was no custom fees because it is made in USA.
  
 For a student in engineering, that's a lot  Fortunately university here doesn't cost like in the USA !


----------



## US Blues

pldelisle said:


> Hey guys !
> 
> I received yesterday my Schiit stack (Gungnir + Asgard 2 + Wyrd) !!!
> 
> ...


 
  
 Congrats on your new system. As a Gungnir owner I can tell you that it needs 2 weeks to settle into it's full potential, and the Asgard probably has a similar time frame for it's settling in process. Point being, don't draw any conclusions about how the gear, or your headphones sound until a fortnight has passed. And yes, you have to leave the power on 24/7 on the Gungnir. As you listen over the next couple of weeks the sound will change hour-to-hour, it's weird but that's what happens. Enjoy your new system, be patient and you'll be rewarded.


----------



## DreamKing

pldelisle said:


> Ahahahahahah ! XD Good one
> 
> Well, it was 1345 $ US. That makes 1660$ CND or so on the VISA with exchange rate and VISA foreign fees.
> 
> ...


 
  
 All of this reminds me why I never consciously make a total of my system's value...
  
 But I'm sure getting an Yggy would seem very logical if I did. 
  
 Well, audio bliss sure ain't free.


----------



## pldelisle

us blues said:


> Congrats on your new system. As a Gungnir owner I can tell you that it needs 2 weeks to settle into it's full potential, and the Asgard probably has a similar time frame for it's settling in process. Point being, don't draw any conclusions about how the gear, or your headphones sound until a fortnight has passed. And yes, you have to leave the power on 24/7 on the Gungnir. As you listen over the next couple of weeks the sound will change hour-to-hour, it's weird but that's what happens. Enjoy your new system, be patient and you'll be rewarded.


 

 Ok ! I might turn the Asgard off some times when I go out for a long time. But the Gungnir doesn't heat that much, so I'm not afraid of living it on 24/7.
  
 For now, I feel the higher frequencies a little "suppressed" compared to the rest of the spectrum. It might come with time. 
  
 Is it normal that when I select gain bypass in Amarra the sound get distorted ?


----------



## Stillhart

pldelisle said:


> Ok ! I might turn the Asgard off some times when I go out for a long time. But the Gungnir doesn't heat that much, so I'm not afraid of living it on 24/7.
> 
> For now, I feel the higher frequencies a little "suppressed" compared to the rest of the spectrum. It might come with time.
> 
> Is it normal that when I select gain bypass in Amarra the sound get distorted ?


 
  
 Don't forget the "Sennheiser veil."  My HD650 and Momentum On-ears both had recessed highs; it's kind of Sennheiser's house sound (at least for everything below the HD700).  I've also heard the the Gungnir is on the darker side (more bass impact, less air in the highs) so the two combined might just be too warm for your tastes.  If so, you might consider a more neutral or bright pair of headphones to complement the Gungnir.
  
 Grats on the new system!


----------



## pldelisle

Good ! I keep that in note too. I think you're right. I might go with a brighter pair of headphones in the future.


----------



## Sonic Defender

pldelisle said:


> Good ! I keep that in note too. I think you're right. I might go with a brighter pair of headphones in the future.


 

 Yes, that would be good, and to my ear the Gungnir is toward warm/dark. Another good house sound that should do well is Beyerdynamic. I only hesitate a tad as I found the Asgard 2 a little bright, but not at all jarringly so. We all have different sensitivities, but I do wonder how the T1 would mate with the Gungnir? I'll bet somebody in this thread will know. The DT 880 might also be your cup of tea if you want a little more energy in the treble region. I also had an 880 for close to two years and I remember really liking it with the Gungnir, but my amp was different (Valhalla, and then an SPL Auditor).


----------



## pldelisle

DT 880 are reasonably priced. I don't see myself spending over 700 $ on a pair of headphones.


----------



## hodgjy

pldelisle said:


> DT 880 are reasonably priced. I don't see myself spending over 700 $ on a pair of headphones.


 
 I found the DT800 completely dry and boring. The DT990 has more meat on the bones, so to speak, and is much more fun, but sometimes the treble can really sizzle.


----------



## Stillhart

hodgjy said:


> I found the DT800 completely dry and boring. The DT990 has more meat on the bones, so to speak, and is much more fun, but sometimes the treble can really sizzle.


 
  
 That's putting it lightly! If you're treble sensitive, the DT990 is unlistenable.  I'd recommend something like the K7XX or X2 in that price range.
  
 But if your budget is $700, can't do much better than a "open box" HE-560 from Razordog Audio.


----------



## DreamKing

pldelisle said:


> DT 880 are reasonably priced. I don't see myself spending over 700 $ on a pair of headphones.


 
  
 US$700? Because there are great deals for like-new TOTL headphones at $600-700. Well, mainly just HiFiMAN but worth considering. 
  
 And I respect your discipline if you can dissuade yourself from the upgrade itch.
 I thought the same thing when I started out in the hobby. I was a virgin to this stuff...It got its way with me quick.
 You might be surprised by what didn't see yourself spending, you're already pretty deep in this already 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## hodgjy

stillhart said:


> That's putting it lightly! If you're treble sensitive, the DT990 is unlistenable.  I'd recommend something like the K7XX or X2 in that price range.
> 
> But if your budget is $700, can't do much better than a "open box" HE-560 from Razordog Audio.


 
 I'm very treble sensitive, and the DT990s are very track-dependent. If the track is hot, it's bad. But, they don't make good tracks suddenly bad.


----------



## mcullinan

$700 is a lot of money. You should be able to pick up some killer headphones. What about the Sennheiser HD600 or 650s.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

2nd @Stillhart, go for "open box" HE560's, or to spice things up, Grado PS500e..


----------



## Wildcatsare1

Did a search of the Thread and there isn't much on the Mojo Audio's Mystique NOS DAC, Marv do you have any experience with this item. Engineers on the Thread, how does it compare to the Yggy in design?
  
 Thanks!!!


----------



## EraserXIV

hodgjy said:


> I found the DT800 completely dry and boring. The DT990 has more meat on the bones, so to speak, and is much more fun, but sometimes the treble can really sizzle.


 
  
 The DT880 comes alive with certain amps (the tube variety mostly), I found it quite good out of my Crack and it is still pretty good from the Vali. This is the 600ohm version.


----------



## Sonic Defender

pldelisle said:


> DT 880 are reasonably priced. I don't see myself spending over 700 $ on a pair of headphones.


 

 What is your top price you would be willing to shell out for a new headphone? I would say spend as much as you can on the headphone as that is very important, likely the most important part of your headphone system. If people know your ceiling (in US dollars) they will give you the best advice based on that information. I would even say slow down if need be to save a little extra and get as decent a headphone as you can, it is that important in the chain.


----------



## theblueprint

pldelisle said:


> DT 880 are reasonably priced. I don't see myself spending over 700 $ on a pair of headphones.


 
 Since you like your momentums, I'm making a good assumption that you're somewhat of a basshead. If $700 is your max, then I would suggest a used LCD2 which pairs very well with the Asgard 2. You can find one used for about that much. The LCD2 is on the warm side with a good lower end slam that will have you smiling.


----------



## BassDigger

prot said:


> It is a bit of an audiophile-sport to blame computers for whatever (they think) is wrong in their systems.
> Agree, PC are overly complicated, unstable, ugly and so on ... but no, they are not eating any of your music bits
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I can't say I'm surprised with the pro usb computer audio attitude that you, and others have; it's the chosen source/transport for most on here. And as someone else mentions, there's a whole industry expanded around this concept; the concept of upgrading and improving on something that you already own, your computer. Why spend money on another source?
  
 I think, based on good science and sound advice, differently. I haven't bought anything to connect my computer to my dac; I've invested in a different concept, that I believe offers better sound per buck (even though I too already own a pc). After all, isn't that what we're all trying to do?
 And I use forums, like this, to share ideas and opinions. I try not to dismiss others opinions, certainly not without good reason (and reasoning). But I should try harder to consider thinking that's different to mine, I know; it's being open to new ideas that makes progress happen, after all.
  
 Let's just say that we agree to disagree. Only I hope that I haven't mocked your point of view (maybe without fully understanding it) in the process!


----------



## HemiSam

Let the schitt stack burn in as one member suggested.  No need to start throwing money at more cans until you allow brain or electrical (whatever you believe / worship...LMAO) burn-in happen.  That's the best advice I've seen for a college student on here thus far.
  
 Happy listening.
  
 HS


----------



## pyfgcrl

hodgjy said:


> I'm very treble sensitive, and the DT990s are very track-dependent. If the track is hot, it's bad. But, they don't make good tracks suddenly bad.


 

 The sibilance and harshness coming out of DT990s from any track I've listened to  – is hard for me to bear to for any extended period of time. I have a pair of the 600 Ω version and I hate saying I made the wrong decision, but I would have chose another first-purchase set of cans if I were to do it again.  Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## Argo Duck

As you are surely beginning to see, you will get contradictory opinions on every headphone option on head-fi 

The best way to choose a headphone is _listen for yourself_ to a number of them. Don't take our word for any of it - it's what works (suits your preferences, types of music, typical listening volume etc) for you!



pldelisle said:


> DT 880 are reasonably priced. I don't see myself spending over 700 $ on a pair of headphones.


----------



## purrin

Not really. Most people who are experienced will have similar opinions, e.g. DT990s are tough. Consider DT880 in 250 or 600 ohm versions - smoother treble. Since DT800 is semi-open, also consider HD600. The HD600 with a good DAC and amp is an endgame setup, pricey orthos not withstanding (probably a minority view here that HD600/HD650s are really that good).


----------



## drez

bassdigger said:


> I²S is probably the best connection; it's carries the important clocking data, along with the music feed. But, it's only going to be as good as the clock that's feeding it. Any usb to I²S converter also needs to be a reclocking device (I guess that the U12 etc are?).
> But this still doesn't overcome the two main drawbacks of usb connection: Firstly, your computer is playing the music (not ideal); secondly, your computer is (most likely) electrically connected, and propagating all that RFI to your precious equipment!


 
  
 I2S is also not designed as an digital IC connection between components - the signal degrades easily.  HDMI I2S greatly improves on this.
  
 Noise from the computer is a big problem.  I have done 180 on my linear PSU from Teradak.  I can't go back to switching ATX.  The switching supply is glarey, 2D, lacks inner resolution, timing, focus - it is only more forward and noisy in a bad way.  Unfortunately my PSU set off the smoke detector, so not sure if I'm overloading the 12V rails or something (apparently there was an odour but my nose is blocked so I have no idea if something is cooked and also can say if this was normal odour eg off-gassing).  Temps on the heatsink near the 12V lines were about 55 C.  Has anyone had off-gassing electronics set off smoke detector?  The PSU appears to work fine so I have no idea - maybe just the unseasonably warm weather.  The CPU could be pusing the 12V lines too hard - its a i7 3770K which I figure could draw up like 120W and the two 12V lines are rated at 10 A.  Maybe I should have been more conservative and gone with a low power CPU.  I am tempted to buy a 3770T anyway to avoid pushing the PSU too hard.  It is just impossible to go back to using switching ATX PSU.


----------



## SodaBoy

purrin said:


> Not really. Most people who are experienced will have similar opinions, e.g. DT990s are tough. Consider DT880 in 250 or 600 ohm versions - smoother treble. Since DT800 is semi-open, also consider HD600. The HD600 with a good DAC and amp is an endgame setup, pricey orthos not withstanding (probably a minority view here that HD600/HD650s are really that good).


 

 I agree, the HD600/650s measure very well, and sound very well. The fact that they do nothing really wrong is already a small blessing in the headphone world.


----------



## ginetto61

pldelisle said:


> Hey guys !
> 
> I received yesterday my Schiit stack (Gungnir + Asgard 2 + Wyrd) !!!
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hi ! how can this be possible ?  The dac should suck being based on a delta-sigma dac chip 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 No seriously ... i would like to understand if sigma-delta dac chips have "intrinsically impaired dynamics" (as i strongly suspect), or it is more a matter of right/wrong implementation.
 Or maybe not all sigma-delta chips are made equal ?
 Let's take two very good dacs (based on reviews around):

Bricasti M1
Berkeley Audio Reference dac
 They are both built aroung the *ad1955*.
 I have a question for the people who have been "exposed" to these dacs ...
  
 do they really suck ?  and if so in which way ?
  
 Thanks and regards, gino


----------



## BassDigger

drez said:


> I2S is also not designed as an digital IC connection between components - the signal degrades easily.  HDMI I2S greatly improves on this.
> 
> Noise from the computer is a big problem.  I have done 180 on my linear PSU from Teradak.  I can't go back to switching ATX.  The switching supply is glarey, 2D, lacks inner resolution, timing, focus - it is only more forward and noisy in a bad way.  Unfortunately my PSU set off the smoke detector, so not sure if I'm overloading the 12V rails or something (apparently there was an odour but my nose is blocked so I have no idea if something is cooked and also can say if this was normal odour eg off-gassing).  Temps on the heatsink near the 12V lines were about 55 C.  Has anyone had off-gassing electronics set off smoke detector?  The PSU appears to work fine so I have no idea - maybe just the unseasonably warm weather.  The CPU could be pusing the 12V lines too hard - its a i7 3770K which I figure could draw up like 120W and the two 12V lines are rated at 10 A.  Maybe I should have been more conservative and gone with a low power CPU.  I am tempted to buy a 3770T anyway to avoid pushing the PSU too hard.  It is just impossible to go back to using switching ATX PSU.


 
  
 I must admit, that slipped my mind; I2S is only good for ultra-short runs.
 Is hdmi (and ethernet) actually I2S, or something similar? Anyway, I understand that these, and displayport (even better), all carry that important clocking signal that both usb and spdif omit.
  
 There are lots negatives about computer connected audio. I'm afraid that most on here do not want to consider any alternatives, probably because they've already invested in various cables and converters and reclockers and...so on.
  
 I say, if you want to connect your computer to your dac, go ahead. But remember, it's for convenience; you're unlikely to be getting the best from your music files and the most for your money.


----------



## manbear

zach915m said:


> Yeah I've been thinking the same thing, especially after reading @Stillhart
> impressions compared to his Theta's.  It's also more transportable-ish which is a big plus for me.




You're welcome to try mine sometime.

Emphasis on the ish in transportableish... It's pretty darn big.


----------



## diamondears

shabta said:


> Maybe you misunderstand how cool head-fi can be. This thread starts with a list of DACs and a comparative rating done by a group of people. They explain what they liked and didn't like. It is a bit irreverent, which frankly makes it even more fun to read. Most comments or reviews about gear mostly speak about one piece of gear, sometimes they compare it to one or two other things. That isn't the case here. So to call this thread a commercial is almost the same as criticizing nearly every opinion on head-fi. But to criticize the thread for doing more than most reviews on head-fi do, is not only iconoclastic, but maybe missing the point. To further go and try to impugn the motivation of the posters is, IMHO, going too far. I don't agree with a lot of what is written in this thread. But I wish there were more threads like this on head-fi.
> 
> The reason R2R was being phased out is certainly a topic for debate, but it more than likely has to do with costs. Most devices doing D/A conversion, (and we are speaking about billions), want the cheapest solution not the best sounding one...



You believe that chit? The crux of the issue is the DIGITAL FILTER used, not the DAC chip. The Delta-Sigmas and Advance Segments reproduce the most details and definition from the digital media. What they're saying as lost bits is due to MOST digital filters used, not the D-S or A-S or whatever modern chips. 

Again, the real cause of the glare that the R2R fans get their panties in a bunch for is the predominant use of the standard digital filter that has pre-ringing and post-ringing in the higher frequencies. This is the one that's cheap. The standard filter is the CHEAPEST. This is the one that sucks, not the D-S chips. R2R chip using standard digital filter would LIKEWISE sound glary. 

The R2R thingy is just marketing to justify the price. Why bash a product to promote oneself is beyond me.


----------



## diamondears

7ryder said:


> while I don't know if you're implying this (and, if you aren't, I apologize), as a Yggy first adopter, I think painting it with the "R2R DACs don't have enough bass definition or treble details" brush is just as unfair as using the "all Sabre DACs suck" brush that's been used quite a lot around these parts.
> 
> It's a very, very good DAC and it has great bass definition and gets the treble details right.  Frankly, I'm not surprised given Mike's reputation and his reputation is why I bought it, not because of the comments on HF. And this isn't a commercial :wink_face:



Yeah, but I'm just commenting, not creating a thread with a topic as "D-S sucks"...then the topnotcher being the R2Rs, and eventually the Yggy...yey...


----------



## agooh

This is unacceptable will if I said hd600 better than stax 009 !! no way, many headfiers won't believe me, what kind of joke is this ? there is huge margin between them, to be fair you should put comparison Yggy vs Vega .


----------



## Stillhart

diamondears said:


> You believe that chit? The crux of the issue is the DIGITAL FILTER used, not the DAC chip. The Delta-Sigmas and Advance Segments reproduce the most details and definition from the digital media. What they're saying as lost bits is due to MOST digital filters used, not the D-S or A-S or whatever modern chips.
> 
> Again, the real cause of the glare that the R2R fans get their panties in a bunch for is the predominant use of the standard digital filter that has pre-ringing and post-ringing in the higher frequencies. This is the one that's cheap. The standard filter is the CHEAPEST. This is the one that sucks, not the D-S chips. R2R chip using standard digital filter would LIKEWISE sound glary.
> 
> The R2R thingy is just marketing to justify the price. Why bash a product to promote oneself is beyond me.


 
  
 Out of curiosity, do you have any links to data to back this up?  I don't know anything about electrical engineering so I really am not qualified to hold an opinion on the matter.  But you seem rather sure of yourself, so I'm curious if you can point me at some enlightening reading materials.  
  
 One thing I can say for sure from first-hand experience:  I currently own three R2R DAC's and three D-S DAC's.  That's all in the $800 and under price range (considering the price paid for my vintage ones).  All other things equal, the R2R sounds better.  Perhaps you have to jump into a much higher price point to get D-S that sounds as good as the R2R?  
  
 EDIT - Not lambasting or being critical.  I'm trying to be objective and I'm open to having my mind changed given appropriate evidence.


----------



## ciphercomplete

diamondears said:


> You believe that chit? The crux of the issue is the DIGITAL FILTER used, not the DAC chip. The Delta-Sigmas and Advance Segments reproduce the most details and definition from the digital media. What they're saying as lost bits is due to MOST digital filters used, not the D-S or A-S or whatever modern chips.
> 
> Again, the real cause of the glare that the R2R fans get their panties in a bunch for is the predominant use of the standard digital filter that has pre-ringing and post-ringing in the higher frequencies. This is the one that's cheap. The standard filter is the CHEAPEST. This is the one that sucks, not the D-S chips. R2R chip using standard digital filter would LIKEWISE sound glary.
> 
> The R2R thingy is just marketing to justify the price. Why bash a product to promote oneself is beyond me.


 
 Yeah if only it were that simple.  I have owned several DS dacs and several R2R Dacs and I'm just not buying what you are saying.  Those R2R dacs I owned were not using elaborate filters but yet they sound better (i.e. not glary).


----------



## BassDigger

diamondears said:


> You believe that chit? The crux of the issue is the DIGITAL FILTER used, not the DAC chip. The Delta-Sigmas and Advance Segments reproduce the most details and definition from the digital media. What they're saying as lost bits is due to MOST digital filters used, not the D-S or A-S or whatever modern chips.
> 
> Again, the real cause of the glare that the R2R fans get their panties in a bunch for is the predominant use of the standard digital filter that has pre-ringing and post-ringing in the higher frequencies. This is the one that's cheap. The standard filter is the CHEAPEST. This is the one that sucks, not the D-S chips. R2R chip using standard digital filter would LIKEWISE sound glary.
> 
> The R2R thingy is just marketing to justify the price. Why bash a product to promote oneself is beyond me.


 
  
 Sorry....Diamond Ears?!? (I just read your moniker, properly, for the first time. Is it supposed to imply something? Or it is humour?)
  
 Anyway, I'm afraid that I'm joining the others in the lambasting of your opinion; I too find r2r/multibit far superior to bitstream, and I base my opinion on my own listening experiences.
 Although the filter undoubtedly has a strong effect, it's secondary when compared to the conversion chip.


----------



## prot

diamondears said:
			
		

> ...
> The R2R thingy is just marketing to justify the price. Why bash a product to promote oneself is beyond me.




You said it already, it's marketing 101. You cannot just sell another DAC because everyone has at least five (yes you do, count em again). Nowadays you also have to tell them that their DACs s*ck.

 scare em with their shiit so you can sell your shiit... genius  
And the essence of marketing & sales ... everywhere.


----------



## Stillhart

Damn, I must be doing it wrong.  Who do I talk to to get paid to tell folks that R2R is better than D-S?  I was being honest for free, like a sucker.


----------



## juanitox

some very good sounding dac i had was DS   ( audio aero Capitole ,  berkeley alpha )
 and some R2R   audio note DAc 3.1 (kit)   wadia 9 , PASS D1 .     so when it"s good  it"s good   who cares about chips??


----------



## lukeap69

stillhart said:


> Damn, I must be doing it wrong.  Who do I talk to to get paid to tell folks that R2R is better than D-S?  I was being honest for free, like a sucker.


 
 Not sure why you even bother to mind couple of posters who I believe have no other intention but to counter anything positive said about the R2R DACs. I know that you did not immediately believe into the R2R goodness until you have owned one, so your impressions are (for me) more credible. NB - not saying other aren't. 
  
 PS - because of this thread, i have learned to use the 'block member' feature.


----------



## prot

stillhart said:


> Damn, I must be doing it wrong.  Who do I talk to to get paid to tell folks that R2R is better than D-S?  I was being honest for free, like a sucker.




no worries, could be worse .. e.g. I assume you also vote for free .. and me too

lukeap69 
blocking every opinion you disagree with is also very useful in both marketing and politics .. maybe not so much for individuals


----------



## realmassy

This is my new toy, probably not very popular and well know outside Italy
http://www.lector-audio.com/S-192.htm
4x1704 chips + tube output stage, separate power supply...and most of all, very nice sounding! I've only used for a few hours but first impressions are positive.


----------



## ginetto61

diamondears said:


> You believe that chit? *The crux of the issue is the DIGITAL FILTER used, not the DAC chip. The Delta-Sigmas and Advance Segments reproduce the most details and definition from the digital media. What they're saying as lost bits is due to MOST digital filters used, not the D-S or A-S or whatever modern chips....  *


 
  
Hi this point interests me a lot indeed.  Honestly i am thinking the same.  Personally it is the digital glare the most annoying issue.  
It could be that the other things (i.e. actual dac chip used, output stages, etc.) are also important but less detrimental for the sound in the end.
Digital filters could very well be the real issue. 
I understand that with dsd analog filter can be used avoiding in this way the use of digital ones.
So a nice option could be upscaling all formats to dsd and then apply an analog filter ?
That would be fantastic.
Thanks a lot for the interesting advice
Regards, gino


----------



## Articnoise

The DAC chip is only one of many components in a digital to analog converter. The DAC chip is the part that convert the digital signal to analog and is very important for that. Other components in a DAC have other duties and are of more or less equal importance for the final sound IMO.  

 It has been stated in this thread that not all R2R chip sound the same and I would say that nor do all Delta-Sigma. As with everything else they have their pros and cons. I am not an EE and can’t say what are the benefits of this or that, but I can hear that it is possible to make good DACs with both D-S and R2R. I think thou that all other things equal, a good R2R can maybe be marginally better for PMC. 

 I have listened many times to Linn Klimax in some very reviling speaker systems and also compared it direct to the full stack MSB diamond and MSB analog. I clearly preferred the Klimax to the MSB Analog, but can’t say for sure which one I preferred between the Diamond and the Klimax. I would need to have them for a longtime listening to decide and I will probably only be able to say which one synergy the rest of the system best.


----------



## ginetto61

juanitox said:


> some very good sounding dac i had was DS   ( audio aero Capitole ,  berkeley alpha )
> and some R2R   audio note DAc 3.1 (kit)   wadia 9 , PASS D1 .
> so when it"s good  it"s good   who cares about chips??


 
  
 Hi so good digital is only for deep wallets  ? they are all 10kUSD pieces ... or more.
 Just asking. Thanks, gino


----------



## juanitox

ginetto61 said:


> Hi so good digital is only for deep wallets  ? they are all 10kUSD pieces ... or more.
> Just asking. Thanks, gino


 

 a used pass D1, aero capitole , berkeley alpha, Totaldac A1 can be found a less than 2000$   an brand new audio note kit same park ..


----------



## ginetto61

juanitox said:


> a used pass D1, aero capitole , berkeley alpha, Totaldac A1 can be found a less than 2000$
> an brand new audio note kit same park ..


 
  
 Hi !  thanks a lot. I did not know. Not cheap but nicely priced for top performance.  
 I start saving ... i would like very much to have a definitive dac
 Thanks a lot again,  gino


----------



## purrin

diamondears said:


> And same goes for the 1704 or R2R chips. That is why I think this thread is one great big commercial...


 
  
 I get the feeling that you just jumped into the thread. This thread was started at the end of 2013. At that time, there were no R2R DACs on the list. The top DAC mentioned were all delta-sigma designs. I had no idea who Mike Moffat (Theta and now Schiit) was or what he really did. I also had no idea of Yggdrasil. You are not the first one to say this thread was a commercial for Schiit. This thread documents my personal DAC journey. The rankings have changed many times. At one time, the sub-title said "Sabre sucks".
  


diamondears said:


> And same goes for the 1704 or R2R chips... There's a reason R2R is being phased out...it doesn't have enough definition on bass and treble details. The glare is simply due to the standard (aka cheap) digital filter that has pre and post ringings.


 
  
 If the PCM1704 is all that you have heard, I would not disagree with you. PCM1704 is one of the lessor R2R chips - the result of TI buying BB. May I ask you what other R2R DACs you have heard? Concerning the digital glare, I would tend to disagree with you. I find linear phase filters with both pre and posting ringing, better sounding (less digital) than minimum phase or apodizing filters that eliminate pre-ringing. There is no free lunch. There are trade offs with minimum phase. The minimum phase filters do muck up phase and tends of have more post-ringing as a cost of little pre-ringing.
  
 Also, in terms of digital glare, oftentimes, this can be attribute to a poorly designed or wrong type of power supply. Other times, the digital glare can be attributed to the nature of the ultrasonic noise / junk from the chips before they undergo the analog low pass filter. Having a signal generator and an oscilloscope handy tends to help.
  
 So in essence, I disagree with your assertion that digital glare is caused by linear phase filters.
  


diamondears said:


> You believe that chit? The crux of the issue is the DIGITAL FILTER used, not the DAC chip. The Delta-Sigmas and Advance Segments reproduce the most details and definition from the digital media. What they're saying as lost bits is due to MOST digital filters used, not the D-S or A-S or whatever modern chips.
> 
> Again, the real cause of the glare that the R2R fans get their panties in a bunch for is the predominant use of the standard digital filter that has pre-ringing and post-ringing in the higher frequencies. This is the one that's cheap. The standard filter is the CHEAPEST. This is the one that sucks, not the D-S chips. R2R chip using standard digital filter would LIKEWISE sound glary.
> 
> The R2R thingy is just marketing to justify the price. Why bash a product to promote oneself is beyond me.


 
  
 LOL, you seem so sure of yourself? Maybe this conversation was over before it started. DAC accuracy or effective number of bits has a lot of do with how a DAC is able to reproduce low level musical information. And for the record, I still preferred the linear phase (less digital sounding) filters for the delta-sigma DACs I owned. I am curious, have your heard the PCM1702, PCM63, PCM56? FWIW, Yggy is not a pure R2R. It's an R2R architecture for LSBs and a resistor string for a few MSBs.


----------



## purrin

agooh said:


> 6- Schiit Gungnir while 7-Auralic Vega , really !!  this is strange ranking system !! I listen to both : With all due respect to you and shiit Audio but Vega is way better than Gungnir .
> we want other headfiers to rank thier dacs .
> this an example :http://www.stereophile.com/content/2015-recommended-components-digital-processors


 
  
 Did you even bother to read my commentary on each of the DACs or did you just look at the ranking number? The Vega is way more resolving, more precise, more focused, more spacious than the Gungnir. However, the Vega has two showstopper type issues for me: (1) too bright and artificial (2) robotic timbre. In this case, I chose the more natural sounding, but less technically capable DAC. Think of the it like Olympic figure skating. Do you choose the skater with really great jumps and power but less artistry or the skater with great artistry but with less technical capability? It is a matter of taste. You are not wrong for yourself. I am not wrong for myself.
  
 It won't matter anyways. I would expect multi-bit Gungnir to destroy Vega.
  


> Originally Posted by *agooh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> we want other headfiers to rank thier dacs .


 
  
 That would be a good thing, though others have tried and failed.


----------



## zach915m

manbear said:


> You're welcome to try mine sometime.
> 
> Emphasis on the ish in transportableish... It's pretty darn big.


 

 Oh yeah - I saw your post in the SP thread.  No I realize the 19/anniversary edition are the same thing.   Compared to the ref 10.32 I have anything seems transportable I guess.  The thing is like 40 lbs.


----------



## hodgjy

purrin said:


> It won't matter anyways. I would expect multi-bit Gungnir to destroy Vega.


 
 Do you think that will happen? I'm thinking about what they can possibly fit into the Gungnir card slots, and I can definitely see USB gen 3, but it would be a major undertaking to get multibit in there considering the Gungnir has the DAC and analog output stage on the same card, whereas the Yggy has them on separate cards.


----------



## purrin

No idea. Gungnir chassis is so much smaller. They would have to cram the DSP and the D-A chips in the same area as the Uber boards, which are quite small. Betting they would have to replace the entire motherboard in Gungnir.


----------



## hodgjy

purrin said:


> No idea. Gungnir chassis is so much smaller. They would have to cram the DSP and the D-A chips in the same area as the Uber boards, which are quite small. Betting they would have to replace the entire motherboard in Gungnir.


 
 That might be the only way, but that defeats the whole modular approach Schiit is touting with their DACs. They might have to roll out a Gungnir 2 or a whole new DAC named Gjallar.


----------



## jcx

AKM flagship DACs are almost certainly multi-bit - typically ~5 bit "thermometer code" internal DAC wrapped in delta-sigma modulator is today's "mode" for delta-sigma audio DAC: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.132.653&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  
 they are also using Switched Capacitor Filters on the Vout - which circuits are essentially lots of Mike's hated Sample and Holds strung together


----------



## evillamer

Can Mike make a lower cost, lower precision(16 to18bit) Yggdrasil lite?


----------



## purrin

"multi-bit Gungnir" meaning non-delta-sigma multi-bit Gungnir (possibly using same or similar AD R2R/string archiecture chips), which does not exist as of today, but could exist in the future based on what Moffat said at CanJam. Wanted to clarify what I meant.


----------



## gevorg

Or maybe they would not give up on delta-sigma and continue improving Gungnir. There is always a spot for another DAC between $850 and $2300. Like multibit, single-ended and even redbook only (if that would reduce the number of pricey AD5791 chips).


----------



## purrin

Moffat already ****ed himself on delta-sigma when he wore that shirt "Delta-Sigma, when music doesn't matter" to CanJam. No going back for him now.


----------



## gevorg

Sure, same goes for USB gen 1, and here we are with gen 3.


----------



## Tuco1965

purrin said:


> Moffat already ****ed himself on delta-sigma when he wore that shirt "Delta-Sigma, when music doesn't matter" to CanJam. No going back for him now.




Not really a good statement when you sell DS. Doesn't give your customers the warm fuzzies inside.

Actually kind of pisses me off now.


----------



## negura

tuco1965 said:


> Not really a good statement when you sell DS. Doesn't give your customers the warm fuzzies inside.
> 
> Actually kind of pisses me off now.


 
  
 The man is clearly not a politician, as he seems to be telling the truth. You can anytime buy any of the other D/S DACs on the market that are praised by vendors and magazines.


----------



## Insidious Meme

Mike has moved on from delta sigma. You don't have to. Enjoy what you have. Let Mike worry about the t shirt consequences.


----------



## Tuco1965

negura said:


> The man is clearly not a politician, as he seems to be telling the truth. You can anytime buy any of the other D/S DACs on the market that are praised by vendors and magazines.




You seem to miss the point. Schiit sells DS. He's putting down their other products. That is not good marketing. I have 2 Schiit dacs that I like. If I had read that statement on his shirt before I had purchased these, I definitely would be scratching my head as to why I would buy a DS dac from them.


----------



## paradoxper

It's all comparative.


----------



## Tuco1965

For the record, I like Schiit gear. I'm just baffled by the statement. I'll continue to enjoy them. But What?


----------



## prot

insidious meme said:


> Mike has moved on from delta sigma. *You don't have to. Enjoy what you have*. Let Mike worry about the t shirt consequences.



+1


----------



## agooh

let's just calm down ,we want to make everything clear so what did you mean that ranking system doesn't matter if so I can agree with that .


----------



## DreamKing

*"Subjectivity* refers to how someone's judgment is shaped by personal opinions and feelings instead of outside influences. *Subjectivity* is partially responsible for why one person loves an abstract painting while another person hates it."


----------



## arnaud

I'd avoid beeing a bit too manichean and judge all dacs as under the sun as good or bad simply by their I/V architecture.

I have no doubt digital oversampling filters are more or less of an evil with their irremediate pre or post ringing. Brickwall filters many not be that transparent either but, ime, playing material NOS (even 44.1) always sounds more natural so I am not fussed about it.
Apparently, power supply / EM pollution across boards also matter and so does the digital input receiver / usb implementation.
Just like any preamp, the output analog stage of the converter, however minimal it might be, also can't be ruled out from the conversation, yet seldom talked about.

In fact, there are many sound attributes to a dac and, perhaps, different parts of the dac are responsible for specific sound characteristics (or rather degradations). My gut feeling is the apparent dynamic and realistic timbre is an attribute of the ladder I/V architecture. The specifics of the OS filter (or lack there of) likely impart (or not) a certain sheen / metallic sound (digital glare) when poorly executed. The overall blackness and resolution probably requires efforts on the power supply and fighting with EM noise pollution. Even if I am most likely wrong on some counts, I bet the list goes on and on and on / there's only so much of the black art people like MM will reveal on these boards.

Arnaud


----------



## arnaud

purrin said:


> "multi-bit Gungnir" meaning non-delta-sigma multi-bit Gungnir (possibly using same or similar AD R2R/string archiecture chips), which does not exist as of today, but could exist in the future based on what Moffat said at CanJam. Wanted to clarify what I meant.


 

 Indeed, otherwise, there might be a small price jump the day schiit will decide to roll the iggy chip onto less products


----------



## hodgjy

tuco1965 said:


> You seem to miss the point. Schiit sells DS. He's putting down their other products. That is not good marketing. I have 2 Schiit dacs that I like. If I had read that statement on his shirt before I had purchased these, I definitely would be scratching my head as to why I would buy a DS dac from them.


 
 He was, but maybe his intentions were to promote his new DAC. It's a DAC that very few people have heard, and at that price, it might scare some off. So, create a buzz, and get some sales. Look at the buzz it created! There are now hundreds or thousands of people reading this thread who have now all sworn off D/S forever when just a month ago they were perfectly happy with it. There's probably a backorder on the next backorder waiting to get this DAC. That's marketing genius.


----------



## arnaud

agooh said:


> This is unacceptable will if I said hd600 better than stax 009 !! no way, many headfiers won't believe me, what kind of joke is this ? there is huge margin between them, to be fair you should put comparison Yggy vs Vega .


 
  
 As a matter of fact, I jumped on a good deal for a HD600 recently. I plugged it into the DAC using the built in digital volume control and was so pleasantly surprised! There is a little bit of midbass bloom but not to the point of being overly intrusive. There might be also just a tiny bit of coloration in the mids or upper mids but again very mild. Overall though, it sounds quite organic and the imaging is very palpable / realistic. It's not quite the equivalent of the stat rig from the short listen so far but, considering the price (USD250 new), it's just amazingly right!!
  
 I was not sure what to expect from driving the phone directly from the DAC but it's actually pretty promising start.
  
 End of OT


----------



## Sorrodje

arnaud said:


> As a matter of fact, I jumped on a good deal for a HD600 recently. I plugged it into the DAC using the built in digital volume control and was so pleasantly surprised! There is a little bit of midbass bloom but not to the point of being overly intrusive. There might be also just a tiny bit of coloration in the mids or upper mids but again very mild. Overall though, it sounds quite organic and the imaging is very palpable / realistic. It's not quite the equivalent of the stat rig from the short listen so far but, considering the price (USD250 new), it's just amazingly right!!
> 
> I was not sure what to expect from driving the phone directly from the DAC but it's actually pretty promising start.
> 
> End of OT


 
  
 Welcome to the HD6X0 Fan club


----------



## Stillhart

NM


----------



## arnaud

sorrodje said:


> Welcome to the HD6X0 Fan club


 
  
 I had all forgotten about it, used to own HD650s 10 years ago or so


----------



## diamondears

@purrin

Linear phase is less glary than Minimum Phase??? Oh men. You lost credibility on me there, sorry. You just confirmed my theory. 

And I'm not talking about Minimum Phase digital filter, which still has post-ringing as you said, and which traded pre-ringing for timing phase distortion. Let us take my fave the Audiolab--it has Optimal Transient filters (3 of them) that has no pre and post-ringing at all. The most analogue-sounding digital filters I've heard. No glare at all, with very present and defined bass to sub-bass, especially on 3-way speakers. 

I'm actually amazed that you didn't even account for what digital filters are used by each of the D-S and the like that you reviewed.

All DACs that sound the same--glary? It's because they're listening to the same digital filter. Period. All other factors mentioned here would be TOTALLY naught if you use the Standard/Linear Phase digital filter because of both ore and post-ringing. 

If I'm to buy the Yggy or any other with R2R archi, I'll be buying the digital filter or no -digital filter or NOS or passive filter used, not the expensive R2R DAC chip.


----------



## EraserXIV

diamondears said:


> @purrin
> 
> Linear phase is less glary than Minimum Phase??? Oh men. You lost credibility on me there, sorry. You just confirmed my theory.
> 
> ...




No one is forcing you to buy a Yggy, just like no one forced you to buy the Google IPO at $85 a share.


----------



## hans030390

arnaud said:


> I have no doubt digital oversampling filters are more or less of an evil with their irremediate pre or post ringing. Brickwall filters many not be that transparent either but, ime, playing material NOS (even 44.1) always sounds more natural so I am not fussed about it.


 
  
 I've heard a couple custom filters, or stuff from Wolfson that can do all sorts of stuff (2x-8x, LP, MP, etc.), and there are some that sound good to my ears. But I'm right there with you preferring NOS even for 44.1. I get that you and I are probably in the minority here, but something about it just sounds more natural to me in a sort of real way despite some compromises (compromises that I know do the opposite and make NOS sound less real and natural to others).
  
 Speaking of which, I'd love to hear a TotalDAC sometime, though I must say I've been incredibly satisfied with my Audial Model S I recently picked up. It's heads and shoulders above the Hex or NOS1704 I had before.


----------



## Turn&cough

tuco1965 said:


> For the record, I like Schiit gear. I'm just baffled by the statement. I'll continue to enjoy them. But What?


 
 That company definitely likes to attract attention to itself in strange ways. From the company name to the component names (Yggdrasil?) to the cocky FAQ section on their website.
  
 Whether the T-shirt is a deliberate inflammatory statement or a wardrobe malfunction doesn't matter -  it will draw attention.
  
 If the yggy is as good as anticipation hype would lead us to believe then they may be able to walk the walk despite. If not that attention grabbing statement may backfire - leaving a few loyal D/S customers with a bad taste in their mouth.


----------



## DreamKing

I never heard that statement or anything about that shirt until it was brought up here. I don't know how many people attend Canjam but I presume wearing that t-shirt won't matter in the grand scheme of things. Now if it was a headline interview on head fi with Schiit saying all their dacs are schiit except the Yggy, that would be a different story. 
  
 I think it was only meant to attract attention/more hype. The Yggy was one of the main talking points of Canjam after all. I doubt very many people cared if their other dacs would be present.


----------



## yfei

ginetto61 said:


> I understand that with dsd analog filter can be used avoiding in this way the use of digital ones.
> So a nice option could be upscaling all formats to dsd and then apply an analog filter ?


 
 I have tried this with JRiver (converting 44.1k PCM to DSD on the fly) software  +  Hilo DAC.     The result:    
 * Hilo playing native DSD files, it's like heaven, it's phenomenal.   (although I prefer Hilo playing 192k PCM better)
 * Playing live 44.1k converted DSD   -  still sounds like 44.1k PCM.    Event a little bit worse than the original 44.1k PCM.


----------



## Argo Duck

I don't know whether Schiit likes to "attract attention" but it does like to do things _its_ way.

Turn&cough if you haven't already and feel so inclined take a look at their very entertaining backstory. I think it explains a lot about why Mike would even think to wear that T-shirt!


----------



## pyfgcrl

turn&cough said:


> That company definitely likes to attract attention to itself in strange ways. From the company name to the component names (Yggdrasil?) to the cocky FAQ section on their website.
> 
> Whether the T-shirt is a deliberate inflammatory statement or a wardrobe malfunction doesn't matter -  it will draw attention.
> 
> If the yggy is as good as anticipation hype would lead us to believe then they may be able to walk the walk despite. If not that attention grabbing statement may backfire - leaving a few loyal D/S customers with a bad taste in their mouth.


 

 This part of the cocky FAQ?
   





> I’m sorry, I can’t take you guys seriously, what can I do?
> *That’s cool. Not everyone gets us.* But ask yourself this: would you rather buy product from a soulless company that worries about how they can offend the minimum number of people in the world? If so, cool. *There are lots of other manufacturers out there. *


 
  
 They seem to me to be honest people, direct and to the point.  I find that refreshing in this hobby, personally.


----------



## Stillhart

Proudly claiming that every DAC your company has ever sold before last month is for people who don't care about music is a very confusing business move.


----------



## ciphercomplete

yfei said:


> * Playing live 44.1k converted DSD   -  still sounds like 44.1k PCM.    Event a little bit worse than the original 44.1k PCM.




Of course it does. PCM distortion doesnt disappear when it is converted to DSD and then on top of that you add standard DSD distortion. The same thing would happen if you coverted DSD to PCM.


----------



## C.C.S.

It was just a t-shirt, you guys. Get over it.


----------



## pyfgcrl

stillhart said:


> Proudly claiming that every DAC your company has ever sold before last month is for people who don't care about music is a very confusing business move.


 

 I dunno.  Doesn't look like there's a glut of Yggdrasils lying around.  It, and this whole thread (and all the months of hype), and positive reviews from people whose opinions I trust (in no particular order) heavily influenced me to hold out for it — to splurge and buy it over all their other DACs (and all their competitors' offerings as well).  Doesn't look like the strategy is working out that poorly so far.
  
 I cannot peel myself away from this DAC.  I've bought a CD player with AES-EBU output (per Moffat's rec to try it out) and I'm absolutely in heaven with this thing, reliving all my music all over again in a completely new light.
  


c.c.s. said:


> It was just a t-shirt, you guys. Get over it.


 

 Totally.


----------



## recarcar

c.c.s. said:


> It was just a t-shirt, you guys. Get over it.


 
 Exactly


----------



## Stillhart

pyfgcrl said:


> I dunno.  Doesn't look like there's a glut of Yggdrasils lying around.  It, and this whole thread (and all the months of hype), and positive reviews from people whose opinions I trust (in no particular order) heavily influenced me to hold out for it — to splurge and buy it over all their other DACs (and all their competitors' offerings as well).  Doesn't look like the strategy is working out that poorly so far.
> 
> I cannot peel myself away from this DAC.  I've bought a CD player with AES-EBU output (per Moffat's rec to try it out) and I'm absolutely in heaven with this thing, reliving all my music all over again in a completely new light.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm not saying the Yggy isn't good.  It clearly is.  I'm saying that you're essentially insulting anyone who was stupid enough to buy any of your previous products and think it sounds good.  That doesn't make business sense to me.


----------



## altrunox

turn&cough said:


> From the company name to the component names *(Yggdrasil?) *


 
  
 Almost all of their products name are from norse mitology...what's the deal?


----------



## pyfgcrl

stillhart said:


> I'm not saying the Yggy isn't good.  It clearly is.  I'm saying that you're essentially insulting anyone who was stupid enough to buy any of your previous products and think it sounds good.  That doesn't make business sense to me.


 

 That's your perception of what he's saying by wearing a t-shirt that puts down the quality of D-S output.  It's probably not just your perception, so they ought to think about that probably.  However, I'm apparently not the only person who isn't bothered in the slightest bit by it, nor would I be if I owned a bunch of Schiit D-S DACs preceding the Yggdrasil.  It took them forever and a day to release it; clearly required enormous feats of engineering skill if you believe anything Moffat has said.
  
 He's proud of his baby, and it seems to me by the t-shirt that he honestly feels this is the future for DACs of the highest quality sound reproduction.  Not, "ha ha, suckers!" but "if you want something better, get this instead."
  
 At the same time, I believe people who have demoed recent D-S based DACs of the portable variety, who say they actually sound "musical" and "quite good."
  
 "Delta-Sigma, when music doesn't matter" is probably marketing hyperbole.  I can't possibly think of it as anything but that, so I can't bring myself to be offended by it, either.


----------



## DreamKing

I don't think it's a coincidence that that shirt shares the same opinion as the subtitle of this thread either.


----------



## mikoss

Yeesh!! It's a t-shirt with a clever slogan that might be a bit cheeky... ever seen one before? Just because we're total music geeks doesn't mean we have to get all bent out of shape over someone having fun with a new product.


----------



## bfreedma

While not the end of the world, a senior company employee wearing a shirt that denigrates it's own products and insults many of their paying customers isn't the smartest move.


----------



## pyfgcrl

bfreedma said:


> While not the end of the world, a senior company employee wearing a shirt that denigrates it's own products and insults many of their paying customers isn't the smartest move.


 

 On the other hand… If you're insulted by a t-shirt, you're probably not their type of customer, in which case they ought not be too concerned.


----------



## AustinValentine

pyfgcrl said:


> "Delta-Sigma, when music doesn't matter" is probably marketing hyperbole.  I can't possibly think of it as anything but that, so I can't bring myself to be offended by it, either.


 
  
 1000x this.


----------



## Insidious Meme

What are you expecting from people who named their company "Schitt"? Political correctness?


----------



## Turn&cough

pyfgcrl said:


> This part of the cocky FAQ?
> 
> They seem to me to be honest people, direct and to the point.  I find that refreshing in this hobby, personally.


 
 Not just the FAQ, there's a few other parts of the website that have a rather colorful approach. Take for example the Principles page where they play on the word Schiit throughout. Don't get me wrong - none of this really bothers me. It's just unusual, like the name. But they do seem like nice people and it's definitely nice that their products are affordable and made in North America.
  
 I just find it odd that they would slam D/S while they're still selling that topology and even referring to Gungnir as having* ''End-Game Performance''*
  
 Who knows my next DAC could end up being the Yggy but I'll wait until the dust settles first. One thing is that I'm glad for is that I don't own one of their D/S products. Each time I'd be listening to it I'd subconsciously be hearing ♫D/S sucks, D/S sucks, D/S sucks♫


----------



## hodgjy

You can't call a Cadillac luxurious without implying the Cavalier is a piece of Schiit.


----------



## Sonic Defender

turn&cough said:


> That company definitely likes to attract attention to itself in strange ways. From the company name to the component names (Yggdrasil?) to the cocky FAQ section on their website.
> 
> Whether the T-shirt is a deliberate inflammatory statement or a wardrobe malfunction doesn't matter -  it will draw attention.
> 
> If the yggy is as good as anticipation hype would lead us to believe then they may be able to walk the walk despite. If not that attention grabbing statement may backfire - leaving a few loyal D/S customers with a bad taste in their mouth.


 

 Retracted, no point in getting into this mess.


----------



## DreamKing

Was the shirt even a thing here or elsewhere on head-fi before Purrin mentioned it? I think someone's getting a kick out of this.


----------



## bfreedma

pyfgcrl said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > While not the end of the world, a senior company employee wearing a shirt that denigrates it's own products and insults many of their paying customers isn't the smartest move.
> ...




I wonder if their customers who spent money on their D-S products would agree. If Schiit makes that shirt available for sale, I guess we'll have the answer. Somehow, I don't see them adding it to their web store.


----------



## Sonic Defender

dreamking said:


> Was the shirt even a thing here or elsewhere on head-fi before Purrin mentioned it? I think someone's getting a kick out of this.


 

 Not a good thing in my view to wear in public as a business person. The optics read like this, what we do is the best, other things suck. Not sure it is a great public persona to cast.


----------



## Rem0o

I like how people now all of a sudden have an opinion on sigma-delta. I see tons of people now arguing over types of digital filters, old school R2R ladder topologies, absolute phase, oversampling... I actually had a few EE classes in college, so I get the basics of all of this, probably more than most people discussing here, and there is no way I would formulate an opinion on the benefits or the drawbacks of any DAC topology, let alone doing a direct correlation between a specific design choice and a subjective sound impression. Such opinion needs (imo) years and years of design work and experience, which I don't have in that domain. I won't argue over the 21st bit of a DAC when I can't hear the 12th with ambiant noise. I read debates on how R2R is suppose to bring us closer to the music, I think such debates  only pull ourselves away from the real point of interest here, music.
  
   Head-Fi will never cease to surprise me.


----------



## DreamKing

I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't audio any Schiit gear (yet?) so I'm not taking any sides but all I'm saying is that I literally had no idea he wore this before it was mentioned a couple pages ago.


sonic defender said:


> Not a good thing in my view to wear in public as a business person. The optics read like this, what we do is the best, other things suck. Not sure it is a great public persona to cast.


----------



## recarcar

Just my two cents, but I think he was making fun of himself, and having some fun and a sense of humor. Sure it's a company but I think he's also trying to convey that the company's newer stuff is some legitimate innovative stuff and is sounding better than what they were producing before, and was being a self deprecating about it. It doesn't make their old dacs sound any worse than they did yesterday. Or does it...?
  
 Anyway, I think he was just trying to be humorous about some new gear that they are excited about. No biggie IMO.


----------



## pyfgcrl

dreamking said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't audio any Schiit gear (yet?) so I'm not taking any sides but all I'm saying is that I literally had no idea he wore this before it was mentioned a couple pages ago.


 
  
 I saw it back in the CanJam photo library a month back and thought it was quite funny at the time.  Not really newsworthy, however.
  
 Especially since there a quite a few professional aggregators of molehills in our midst.


----------



## EraserXIV

I have a Yggy and while the sound is definitely top notch, I still enjoy listening to my Modi 2U and Fulla in my other systems. The Yggy is the best DAC I've heard, but that doesn't make my other D-S gear suddenly sound terrible. Just like if I owned a Lamborghini, I'd still be able to drive and appreciate an Audi or BMW. 

I really hope people are purposefully overreacting as a means of trolling. If this is truly bothering you, please do yourself a favor, call your ISP and cancel your Internet. You shouldn't be using it.


----------



## Insidious Meme

Mike is certainly on fire today. :evil:


----------



## RickB

My Modi2U still sounds as good as it did before I read the last few pages of this thread, and as I probably will never hear an Yggy, I'm content.


----------



## drfindley

Well my Modi 2 Uber definitely began sounding worse the moment I saw that shirt. I was so angry I bought a Yggy. Now I want two. 
  
 Oh man, I'll get my revenge yet. You'll see when I have 2 Yggys. 
  
 Also, where can I buy this t-shirt.


----------



## nicolo

ginetto61 said:


> Hi so good digital is only for deep wallets  ? they are all 10kUSD pieces ... or more.
> Just asking. Thanks, gino


 
  
 Have a look at the Geek Out V2 or Geek Out V2+ from LH Labs. It can currently be pre-ordered from their website. According to those who have heard the V2, they are very detailed without the typical "Sabre" glare. I think they are only $229 for now.


----------



## BassDigger

rem0o said:


> I like how people now all of a sudden have an opinion on sigma-delta. I see tons of people now arguing over types of digital filters, old school R2R ladder topologies, absolute phase, oversampling... I actually had a few EE classes in college, so I get the basics of all of this, probably more than most people discussing here, and there is no way I would formulate an opinion on the benefits or the drawbacks of any DAC topology, let alone doing a direct correlation between a specific design choice and a subjective sound impression. Such opinion needs (imo) years and years of design work and experience, which I don't have in that domain. I won't argue over the 21st bit of a DAC when I can't hear the 12th with ambiant noise. I read debates on how R2R is suppose to bring us closer to the music, I think such debates  only pull ourselves away from the real point of interest here, music.
> 
> Head-Fi will never cease to surprise me.


 
  
 I agree; so many are so passionate about what to them (and most experts) is just conjecture!
 Surely, we should make the observation first (this sounds better, that sounds worse) and then try and link a theory to the phenomenon. Not just blindly commit to one thing or another, for no real reason.
  
 Regarding 'the T-shirt', speaking as someone who's heard that multi-bit is better, I think he's just being honest. I think that he's frustrated, like so many were back in the 90's, that D-S has become the 'industry standard' for the HiFi industry, when it's not really 'High Fidelity'.
 Just my 'take'.


----------



## 7ryder

The way I see it, who gives a Schiit as long as it sounds good?


----------



## snip3r77

7ryder said:


> The way I see it, who gives Schiit as long as it sounds good?



Doesn't matter if it's r2r or d/s , trust your ears not someone else's


----------



## lukeap69

I didn't realise the Schiit thread had been merged here...


----------



## DreamKing

FYI: this is also the official thread for the Yggdrasil and all dacs in existence.


----------



## ginetto61

yfei said:


> I have tried this with JRiver (converting 44.1k PCM to DSD on the fly) software  +  Hilo DAC.     The result:
> * Hilo playing native DSD files, it's like heaven, it's phenomenal.   (although I prefer Hilo playing 192k PCM better)
> * Playing live 44.1k converted DSD   -  still sounds like 44.1k PCM.    Event a little bit worse than the original 44.1k PCM.


 
  
 HI !  thanks a lot for the very helpful reply
 Yes i am mostly interested in cd format.  My collection is 95% on cds. 
 I am trying to find a good way to playback cd files.  I think the problem is my win 7 pc ... i am quite sure of that.
 Thanks again,  gino


----------



## ginetto61

dreamking said:


> FYI: this is also the official thread for the Yggdrasil *and all dacs in existence. *


 






   they are a lot indeed !
  
 Seriously ... the title is very misleading. Very superficial. 
 I challenge everyone to demonstrate that Berkeley Audio Reference dac and Bricasti M1, to name two, suck. And they use delta-sigma dac chip.
 I listened to the second and it was amazing.  
 I could live with both. 
 Regards,  gino


----------



## BassDigger

ginetto61 said:


> they are a lot indeed !
> 
> Seriously ... the title is very misleading. Very superficial.
> I challenge everyone to demonstrate that Berkeley Audio Reference dac and Bricasti M1, to name two, suck. And they use delta-sigma dac chip.
> ...


 
  
 It's all relative (and relevant 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




); multi-bit fans, like myself, would argue that those (all) dacs would surely sound (even) better if they were designed as r2r, rather than D-S implementations.
 But of course, most, if not all, companies operate as a business first, and d-s offers greater profit margins; they can get....?? 50-90% of the SQ for ??...20% of the price, and then tell us it's better and put the product price up. It's just another form of 'selling out'.


----------



## ginetto61

nicolo said:


> Have a look at the Geek Out V2 or Geek Out V2+ from LH Labs. It can currently be pre-ordered from their website.
> According to those who have heard the V2, they are very detailed without the typical "Sabre" glare. I think they are only $229 for now.


 
  
 Hi and thanks a lot for the very valuable suggestion.
 Actually i am in the process of evaluate some dacs now that i bought recently
 I am quite ok on the amp and headphone side so i can perceive the differences.
 However I have given up a little to the idea to get very good sound.  I am looking just for an honest sound.
 I have thought to explore the solution of putting some tubes in the audio path ... like an hybrid headamp.
 This would round and warm up the sound a little.
 Thanks a lot again.  Kind regards, gino


----------



## nicolo

ginetto61 said:


> Hi and thanks a lot for the very valuable suggestion.
> Actually i am in the process of evaluate some dacs now that i bought recently
> I am quite ok on the amp and headphone side so i can perceive the differences.
> However I have given up a little to the idea to get very good sound.  I am looking just for an honest sound.
> ...


 
  
 In that case, have a look at the Yulong A18 headphone amp. Sure it's a SS amp, but it has a very balanced, clean and resolving sound with an addictive tube-like tonality with sweet treble, excellent mid-range and tremendous bass slam and extension.


----------



## juanitox

i fail my life , i don't have a 4K TV, no Iwatch, and no R2R dac  ... my life sucks.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 i love R2R dac ( i have a totaldac since few years and before a Audionote 3.1 kit)   but before the good ones i had bought bad ones  ( cheap TDA1543 dac card on the bay : no bass no treble muddy sound, and a surprising non musical R2R Metrum Octave  highly praised on 6moon)


----------



## wahsmoh

My difficulty was finding sound without the smearing and digital glare.
  
 I think smearing is what you get when you listen to most dynamic headphones.. transients get smeared and you lose instrument seperation and clarity. Smearing happens when you listen to a really busy music track and sounds start to get lost in the mix.
  
 Planars do a better job at voiding smearing in general.. then your DAC will affect overall tone and imaging capabilities, treble glare being the notorious culprit of ruining a good digital audio experience.
  
 I'm happy with my setup because I don't get my music smeared and it is like a clear window to the sound, albeit not as wide and open as the HD800 but accurate.


----------



## snip3r77

ginetto61 said:


> they are a lot indeed !
> 
> Seriously ... the title is very misleading. Very superficial.
> I challenge everyone to demonstrate that Berkeley Audio Reference dac and Bricasti M1, to name two, suck. And they use delta-sigma dac chip.
> ...




I dont f understand why the title is not changed. it's a sweeping statement. i.e certain race is a ( insert bad attributes here )


----------



## BassDigger

wahsmoh said:


> My difficulty was finding sound without the *smearing* and digital glare.
> 
> I think smearing is what you get when you listen to most dynamic headphones.. transients get smeared and you* lose instrument seperation and clarity*. Smearing happens when you listen to a really busy music track and sounds start to get lost in the mix.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've noticed this with my set-up too, particularly since I've got my lcd2f.
  
 When there are just a few instruments/vocals spaced around, the accuracy is pin-point and exceptionally well positioned; I can place everything in a precise position, in and around my head; it's very holographic.
 But when the track starts to get busy; when the main accompaniment kicks in, the overall sound turns into something that's more like a 'wash' of noise; all the separation just disappears.
  
 I'm hoping that the main cause of this is my (current) under-powered amp, and that purchasing a Gustard H10 will be the fix. Fingers crossed; if it's my dac, then I'm gonna be doing a whole lot of head scratching.


----------



## ginetto61

bassdigger said:


> It's all relevant; multi-bit fans, like myself, would argue that *those (all) dacs would surely sound (even) better if they were designed as r2r, rather than D-S implementations*.
> But of course, most, if not all, companies operate as a business first, and d-s offers greater profit margins; they can get....?? 50-90% of the SQ for ??...20% of the price, and then tell us it's better and put the product price up. It's just another form of 'selling out'.


 
 Hi and i get your point.
 But then i am very very confused.  The designers of the above mentioned dacs they have shown their exceptional competence.  They know digital very well.
 They must be extremely picky on each and every part of their creations.  And they would select an inferior dac chip, one if not the most important piece of the puzzle ???
 In one case, Counterpoint, a replacement of the original multibit chip with a more recent delta-sigma is sold, expensively, as an upgrade.
 But you are not the first to swear for multibits ... there must be something very true behind this choice.
 I just hope that the new TOTL dac from Schitt will show the way to all other to follow.
 When i read that the multibits are too expensive parts i really cannot stop laughing.
 What difference makes 100 USD for a chip on a 5-6 kUSD unit ??? and moreover for a unit that claims to provide top performance.
 I hope truly that Schiit people can demonstrate that very top and sublime sound can be had for how much ?  3000 USD ? 
 This unit will bring some "sanity" to an insane market. I have seen dacs for 10 times that price ... unbelievable.
 I am starting putting money away ... for me the dac is the most important piece of the puzzle (because it is indeed a puzzle).
 Thanks a lot again,  gino


----------



## BassDigger

ginetto61 said:


> Hi and i get your point.
> But then i am very very confused.  The designers of the above mentioned dacs they have shown their exceptional competence.  They know digital very well.
> They must be extremely picky on each and every part of their creations.  And they would select an inferior dac chip, one if not the most important piece of the puzzle ???
> In one case, Counterpoint, a replacement of the original multibit chip with a more recent delta-sigma is sold, expensively, as an upgrade.
> ...


 
  
 Most industries are full of examples of designers apparently shooting themselves in the foot, just for the sake of a cheaper part.
 I think that the key is in the huge profit margins that (most) companies operate with; the cost of the parts and labour rarely gets anywhere near what the public are charged for the finished product!
 So in that context, spending 100-300% more, for just one part, and then having to spend even more because that part is more difficult to implement properly, is going to (and has) become the exception.
 Only calling something for what it is, rather than accepting the hype, is going to change anything.


----------



## ginetto61

nicolo said:


> In that case, have a look at the Yulong A18 headphone amp. Sure it's a SS amp, but it has a very balanced, clean and resolving sound
> with an addictive tube-like tonality with sweet treble, excellent mid-range and tremendous bass slam and extension.


 
  
 Hi and thanks a lot for the very valuable reply.
 At 900 USD the competition is tough ... there is also the KSA5 clone that is tremendously tempting ...
 However i have still a thing to try ... actually i am trying it now.
 Playing the cables trick to get the midrange more fleshed and smoothed out using a pair of Cardas cables known for doing this to the signal.
 I have now what i think is a decent amp (SAC, designed specifically for the AKG k1000).
 I have also some nice tracks for testing.   I am close to a decent sound. Very close.
 I am scared but tubes ... but also insanely attracted by them.
 I do not like the bass from tubes ... but from the midrange up can be absolutely fantastic.
 Personally i believe very much in hybrid amps ... where you can have all the needed (not that is that much) voltage gain in the tube and then a solid state buffer like a diamond buffer for instance.  That would be my top choice.
 I stop the ramblings.   Thanks a lot again, gino


----------



## ginetto61

bassdigger said:


> Most industries are full of examples of designers apparently shooting themselves in the foot, just for the sake of a cheaper part.
> I think that the key is in the huge profit margins that (most) companies operate with; the cost of the parts and labour rarely gets anywhere near what the public are charged for the finished product!
> So in that context, spending 100-300% more, for just one part, and then having to spend even more because that part is more difficult to implement properly, is going to (and has) become the exception.
> Only calling something for what it is, rather than accepting the hype, is going to change anything.


 
  
 Hi thanks for the valuable advice.  I do not know the market and i am not an expert of digital electronics.
 But *we are not talking of mass market units.   We are talking of units that are like cars from Aston Martin, Ferrari ... units aimed to be the best in their class !*
*For me it is mindblowing to think that they skip on the most important chip. Really.*
 And i would like to listen the opinion of the best absolute delta-sigma dac on this issue of multibits vs. delta-sigma.   Maybe i would be still confused after that.
 But i have decided to wait and see before my next move.
 I could stretch the budget for a very definitive unit.
 2-3000 USD distributed in 10 years are in the end 2-300 USD per year ... i can pay that easily.
 But i would like to see the end of the story with this dac from Schiit.
 What i am finding very very strange is that no main magazine have reviewed it yet ... TAS, Stereophile, 6moons ... what they are waiting ???
 I cannot remember a model more awaited ... *i tend to believe to the hype anyway*
 so i am damn curious
 Thanks again,  gino


----------



## BassDigger

Sorry; I forgot to mention:
  
 That $2-3000 product, would usually only be made of probably less than $200 worth of parts. So, spending significantly more on just one of those parts would really make a difference to costs.


ginetto61 said:


> Hi thanks for the valuable advice.  I do not know the market and i am not an expert of digital electronics.
> But *we are not talking of mass market units.   We are talking of units that are like cars from Aston Martin, Ferrari ... units aimed to be the best in their class !*
> *For me it is mindblowing to think that they skip on the most important chip. Really.*
> And i would like to listen the opinion of the best absolute delta-sigma dac on this issue of multibits vs. delta-sigma.   Maybe i would be still confused after that.
> ...


 
  
 Sorry; I forgot to mention:
  
 That $2-3000 hifi product, would usually only be made of probably less than $200 worth of parts. (The Yggy (and Schiit in general) seems to be a rare exception). So, spending significantly more on just one of those parts would really make a difference to costs. They don't need to do this when with clever engineering, they can get it to perform 'well enough', and the hype and marketing will do the rest.
  
 Perhaps automobile manufacturers aren't the best example; I believe that their profit margins are pretty tight.


----------



## ginetto61

bassdigger said:


> Sorry; I forgot to mention:
> That $2-3000 product, would usually only be made of probably less than $200 worth of parts. So, spending significantly more on just one of those parts would really make a difference to costs.
> Sorry; I forgot to mention:
> That $2-3000 hifi product, would usually only be made of probably less than $200 worth of parts. (The Yggy (and Schiit in general) seems to be a rare exception).
> ...


 
  
 Hi and thanks again. I see better now.
 But still in Schiit they have selected a very special part ... a chip used in extremely expensive medical equipment i read.
 Even at Analog Devices they sad that that part for a dac is too much (then we can discuss how much is too much)
 I think people want just a new edition of the pcm63, 1704 chips ...  are they so expensive to make again ? with all the advancement in technology ???
 However ... thanks a lot again for your kind and very helpful explanation.
 I love dacs ... like i love usb to spdif converters when done right.
 The pc is nowadays the only source of my AV enjoyment ... so i am willing to make some sacrifice to find a nice working solution.
 I will keep on reading
 Thanks a lot again.  Best regards,  gino


----------



## juanitox

> I think people want just a new edition of the pcm63, 1704 chips ...  are they so expensive to make again ? with all the advancement in technology ???


 
  
  
 people like what it"s unobtainable right now ,  it is the same for Solid-state amplifier and VFet hype on diy audio or  Western electric old triode ( 300B, 101D, 417A etc..) for Tube maniac      don't forget that men are just like child exept the price of their toys


----------



## Baldr

OK, as the co-founder of Schiit and the architect of Schiit Digital Gear Policy, let me confirm that the prior mentioned shirt exists, and indeed I wore it at the last Can Jam.  Yes it harsh and irreverent, but what do you expect from me?  At the same Can Jam, I also explained that those who bought into our upgradable products would be eventually be rewarded.  So don't get rid of them.  All good things come to those who wait.  My Dad used to say that.
  
 My real position on delta sigma is that it is cheap compared to multibit.  Any moron with marginal reading skills could design one.  You do not need expensive R&D.  That said, we could not build $100-$150 multibit DACs without delta sigma parts.  We build those DACs because few others seem interested in building low cost, low margin gear.  Our Modis and ubers kick ass at that level.  I have built dozens of them for my own companies and other companies as a consultant as well over the last thirty years or so.  So this qualifies me at a minimum as a very experienced moron, and a whore as well. 
  
 So my future is multibit - it is not easy, requires R&D chops, particularly if you don't want to stoop to the level of Parks-McClellan non imaging buyable filter chips, which boring as they are, are still an improvement over the complete dogschiit delta sigma filters,either with or without extra filters of dubious value.  We've got the original megaburrito filter, inhouse designed, which is the only time and frequency domain optimized one which retains all of the original samples.  That is where the uncanny imaging exclusive to us comes from in the Yggy.  Just as it took years to figure out the original Theta stuff, it has taken years again to update to 2015 available parts, NOT the few remaining PCM1704s.
  
 To repeat, in the arena of multi thousand dollar gear, delta sigma is cheap to buy, cheap to design, cheap period.  The technology is progressive, ubiquitous, and insipid.  Anyone who incorporates delta sigma in a such a design is selling multi thousand dollar sneakers with gold threaded shoelaces.
  
 Eventually, we will filter this tech down to the level of all Schiit upgradable DACs.  Any and all current owners of these DACs have been helping this design effort and will be offered reduced price upgrades... when we get there.  I am personally grateful to each and every Gungnir and Bifrost owner who has trusted and partnered with me so far on this journey.


----------



## juanitox

just put the Yggy back in stock and avalaible in EU and it will be fine..


----------



## prot

c.c.s. said:


> It was just a t-shirt, you guys. Get over it.




Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ... many other times it's a d*ck symbol. 
Same for t-shirts. 

P.S.
I know that comparing cigars to tshirts is kinda dumb crazy but some guy above seems very convinced that his googleshares to DACs comparison makes total sense ... so I take it that any shiit that comes through one's mind is fair game


----------



## ginetto61

baldr said:


> OK, as the co-founder of Schiit and the architect of Schiit Digital Gear Policy, let me confirm that the prior mentioned shirt exists, and indeed I wore it at the last Can Jam.  Yes it harsh and irreverent, but what do you expect from me?  At the same Can Jam, I also explained that those who bought into our upgradable products would be eventually be rewarded.  So don't get rid of them.  All good things come to those who wait.  My Dad used to say that.
> My real position on delta sigma is that it is cheap compared to multibit.  Any moron with marginal reading skills could design one.  You do not need expensive R&D.  That said, we could not build $100-$150 multibit DACs without delta sigma parts.  We build those DACs because few others seem interested in building low cost, low margin gear.  Our Modis and ubers kick ass at that level.  I have built dozens of them for my own companies and other companies as a consultant as well over the last thirty years or so.  So this qualifies me at a minimum as a very experienced moron, and a whore as well.
> So my future is multibit - it is not easy, requires R&D chops, particularly if you don't want to stoop to the level of Parks-McClellan non imaging buyable filter chips, which boring as they are, are still an improvement over the complete dogschiit delta sigma filters,either with or without extra filters of dubious value.  We've got the original megaburrito filter, inhouse designed, which is the only time and frequency domain optimized one which retains all of the original samples.  That is where the uncanny imaging exclusive to us comes from in the Yggy.  Just as it took years top figure out the original Theta stuff, it has taken years again to update to 2015 available parts, NOT the few remaining PCM1704s.
> To repeat, in the arena of multi thousand dollar gear, delta sigma is cheap to buy, cheap to design, cheap period.  The technology is progressive, ubiquitous, and insipid.  Anyone who incorporates delta sigma in a such a design is selling multi thousand dollar sneakers with gold threaded shoelaces.
> Eventually, we will filter this tech down to the level of all Schiit upgradable DACs.  Any and all current owners of these DACs have been helping this design effort and will be offered reduced price upgrades... when we get there.  I am personally grateful to each and every Gungnir and Bifrost owner who has trusted and partnered with me so far on this journey.


 
  
 Hi and thanks a lot for the very valuable reply.
 First of all i have to declare my complete ignorance on digital electronics.
 I am sincerely shocked by the scenario depicted.  And i have no reason not to trust your positions. 
 I am thinking now to all the pros in the recording industries, always searching for the utmost fidelity with price no object
 and then playing with units flawed by design, or at least with intrinsic decisive limitations.
 Some of them are regarded even as guru.  
 I have bought one dac, that i do not mention, recommended by one of these famous recording engineers. Yes ... it is delta-sigma 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 While it is true that their main task is to record, they must also monitor very precisely  what they have recorded i guess. 
 I am very very confused indeed because as an ignorant i have to trust someone expert on the matter. 
 But now i have found a very valuable reference.
 Thanks a lot again.
 Kind regards,  gino


----------



## Liu Junyuan

baldr said:


> OK, as the co-founder of Schiit and the architect of Schiit Digital Gear Policy, let me confirm that the prior mentioned shirt exists, and indeed I wore it at the last Can Jam.  Yes it harsh and irreverent, but what do you expect from me?  At the same Can Jam, I also explained that those who bought into our upgradable products would be eventually be rewarded.  So don't get rid of them.  All good things come to those who wait.  My Dad used to say that.
> 
> My real position on delta sigma is that it is cheap compared to multibit.  Any moron with marginal reading skills could design one.  You do not need expensive R&D.  That said, we could not build $100-$150 multibit DACs without delta sigma parts.  We build those DACs because few others seem interested in building low cost, low margin gear.  Our Modis and ubers kick ass at that level.  I have built dozens of them for my own companies and other companies as a consultant as well over the last thirty years or so.  So this qualifies me at a minimum as a very experienced moron, and a whore as well.
> 
> ...




What a lovely post! I am a happy owner of the Gungnir, which is an outstanding iteration of the delta sigma chip, and I look forward to your upgrades. 

Even given the limitations of delta sigma, the Bifrost and Gungnir are beautiful, natural sounding DACs.


----------



## eddypoon

Jason, someone forgot to read your post about "not pre-announcing Schiits" lol


----------



## Sonic Defender

eddypoon said:


> Jason, someone forgot to read your post about "not pre-announcing Schiits" lol


 

 That was Mike posting above.


----------



## ginetto61

Hi and sorry.
 I have already stated my ignorance.  I just love good music well played-back.
 May i ask which is/are_* the most striking sonic advantages of multibits vs. delta-sigma ?*_
 Dynamics ? soundstage ? tone ?
 Thanks a lot, gino


----------



## US Blues

@baldr- Love my Yggy, love my Gungnir (it's great for a bedroom system), when can I buy one of those controversial T-shirts?
  
 Most of all, thank you for sharing your insights into the design of your products, and more so for the wonderful sonic results you achieve.


----------



## Sonic Defender

I also love the Schiit gear I have owned in the past, but I really don't understand why anybody would be so vocal publically as a business person. I have been in sales all of my life, and one of the guiding principles is to avoid negative selling. I as a customer don't like when a salesperson pitches their products by aggressively putting down the offerings of others. I also find this a curious departure from the Schiit FAQ which clearly states they do not compare their products to other products.
  
 Calling other designs insipid and garbage is really rather disconcerting to me. You can't on one hand say our DS designs are decent enough that we would put our name on them, but the rest are garbage. That just doesn't feel convincing. I would have to assume that some DS can be pretty darn good, I know my Gungnir was, and I'm quite sure there are other excellent designs out there. Regardless of technical merit alone, I feel confident that in blind listening tests some people will actually like DS designs, at least the better implementations. While I respect a strong stance and focus on design philosophy, I think it makes poor business sense to publically represent a position on something like this. I just don't get it, Schiit gear is fantastic sounding, people love it, this community in particular seems to love it, I love it, so why the negative selling approach? It can only turn some people off of Schiit and I have actually heard from one person who has been quite honest that indeed this negative tone has really made them back off from Schiit on an emotional level.
  
 I'm posting this in what I hope is a respectful tone, and not a confrontational one in an effort to encourage Schiit to consider the public impact of this style of dialogue. While I know Mike isn't marketing as opposed to being honest about his opinions, and I get that, but ultimately when a business person speaks about the marketplace they operate within, it can only reflect on their business. I will continue to purchase and enjoy Schiit products, but from a customer standpoint I would enjoy less acrimony and rhetoric about design philosophy and more conversation about the sound, the lovely sound that flows from inspired design and build.


----------



## BassDigger

I think they've got their schiit together (wouldn't it be funny if the word had to be pronounced in the same manner as Clay Davis, in The Wire?). 
  
 Anyway, I think that they know what they're doing; maybe it's part frustration with the status quo; multi-bit chips are rare; the industry hasn't worked to get the best out of them; it's just sold out with D-S. And also, there maybe, just maybe, some marketing ploy going on there; what did Baldr mention about their future plans?


----------



## ginetto61

Hi instead i think very differently
 How can a serious designer aimed to design and build a TOP dac settle for a dac chip that he knows to be not TOP ?
 that even with the best tricks will be intrisically limited ??? 
 This is intellectual prostitution really. This is the win of the marketeers !
 I like instead the Schiit approach ... they have screened the parts market without prejudice, identifying a dac chip not intended for audio (words of the AD people), very expensive but with exceptional potential for audio.
 This is extremely honest, serious approach and it deserves to be praised.
 Of course a TOP dac cannot be cheap.
 So they have addressed the lower priced units market with products with excellent sound quality/price ratio. Products that show their know-how even within the obvious price constraints.
 And i can also understand their reaction.
 This said ... but the Asgard ,,, must be really biased so high ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 even to drive a silly HP ?
 why not put a trimmer ???
 i am using an HP that needs almost no power to make loud noise ... 
 Thanks and regards, gino


----------



## Sonic Defender

ginetto61 said:


> Hi instead i think very differently
> How can a serious designer aimed to design and build a TOP dac settle for a dac chip that he knows to be not TOP ?
> that even with the best tricks will be intrisically limited ???
> This is intellectual prostitution really. This is the win of the marketeers !
> ...


 

 I'm not talking about which technological approach is better; frankly I lack the knowledge to evaluate beyond using my ears. What I am talking about is how one publically represents their company, and on that issue as Mike feels strongly about the DAC chips, I feel as strongly that respectful, toned down dialogue is always better. Be as vocal as you like with family and friends (although they may secretly not like it either), but I'm saying in public negative dialogue breeds negative results. Just look at this thread as a small sample. Beyond myself, there have been a few others who have intonated they don't really feel comfortable with the negative and aggressive stance taken against DS. I just don't see the upside of doing this for Schiit. Their gear has always been the best way to get the message across as far as I can tell. Mike is most certainly a genius engineer with a trail of achievements that are almost difficult to believe. Public relations, not so much. Sometimes staying on script is good.


----------



## ginetto61

sonic defender said:


> I'm not talking about which technological approach is better; frankly I lack the knowledge to evaluate beyond using my ears. What I am talking about is how one publically represents their company, and on that issue as Mike feels strongly about the DAC chips, I feel as strongly that respectful, toned down dialogue is always better. Be as vocal as you like with family and friends (although they may secretly not like it either), but I'm saying in public negative dialogue breeds negative results. Just look at this thread as a small sample. Beyond myself, there have been a few others who have intonated they don't really feel comfortable with the negative and aggressive stance taken against DS. I just don't see the upside of doing this for Schiit. Their gear has always been the best way to get the message across as far as I can tell. Mike is most certainly a genius engineer with a trail of achievements that are almost difficult to believe. Public relations, not so much. Sometimes staying on script is good.


 
  
 Hi i see your point.  But still between a polite idiot or manipulator and a rude genius i prefer the company of the second without any doubt.
 I knew a surgeon used to curse during operations. He was extremely talented in his work.  A long list of successful interventions. 
 Then there was another one extremely social and polite, nicknamed "the terminator". Not so successful of course. 
 Who would you choose for an intervention ?
 If the dac is really good i would bear also the insults ... i am not joking.   
 I want this bloody depth of soundstage even with digital .... i want it and i will get it one day  !
 Thanks and regards,  gino


----------



## Sonic Defender

ginetto61 said:


> Hi i see your point.  But still between a polite idiot or manipulator and a rude genius i prefer the company of the second without any doubt.
> I knew a surgeon used to curse during operations. He was extremely talented in his work.  A long list of successful interventions.
> Then there was another one extremely social and polite, nicknamed "the terminator". Not so successful of course.
> Who would you choose for an intervention ?
> ...


 

 I hear you brother, I really do, and for me, I will still purchase Schiit gear as I respect the gear. However, being outspoken can cross over into being rude, and there is no reason to ever allow that to happen for a business. Business history is rife with PR gaffes that end up being quite costly for the company. Mike I guess would be the first to admit he isn't a PR person, I get the feeling that Jason is more comfortable and well suited for that role. It is frankly none of my business how Schiit elects to conduct itself in public, but I will continue to be perplexed by this type of public behavior from a company that I assume wants to continue to grow their business to one extent or another.


----------



## negura

On the other hand I would not be surprised some/many may find some naked honesty and good humour refreshing in a world full of PR/PC. And in the spirit of a company called "Schiit".

Also based on what I heard I actually do think he is being honest and quite right. And I do not, for a minute, believe there is too much honesty out there, in audio in particular.


----------



## lukeap69

Perhaps they will grow more for being honest and direct...


----------



## HemiSam

I appreciate the honesty and humor. No schitt here until the yggy so I'm no fanboy. 

Some people need to take a breath and relax. Get laid.....




HS


----------



## skeptic

Perhaps, but it is hard to imagine that very many people will be running out to buy their mid-range products in the near future given both the rhetoric about SD designs and the inevitable uptick in availability on the used market as more yggy's are released into the wild.  The assurances that upgrades will ultimately be made available to bifrost and gungnir owners are certainly a significant selling point.  Maybe the potential upgrades are the real projected future money maker for these customers?  Best guess here is that Schiit is playing the long game and knowingly taking a hit on its mid priced product sales in the short term to really distinguish itself from the bulk of the consumer dac market.  
  
 Whether or not this strategy works - the yggy really is awesome (totally infatuated with mine), and hopefully the trickle down will be as well for those who wait it out.  In the meanwhile though, I could easily see the anti-SD sentiment spawning competition - for example a start up building completed soekris dacs.  Misterrogers already has an amazing top shelf build, using 3 different absolute no compromise psu's for the board, usb and digital isolators for $1k.  I've been tempted to buy it myself even though I have no need for it.  If he, or someone else, started cranking these out in pretty metal chassis, with cheaper psu's that allow for higher profits, my guess is that purrin and schiit have just created a market for them.


----------



## wahsmoh

bassdigger said:


> I've noticed this with my set-up too, particularly since I've got my lcd2f.
> 
> When there are just a few instruments/vocals spaced around, the accuracy is pin-point and exceptionally well positioned; I can place everything in a precise position, in and around my head; it's very holographic.
> But when the track starts to get busy; when the main accompaniment kicks in, the overall sound turns into something that's more like a 'wash' of noise; all the separation just disappears.
> ...


 
 I think an amp will be an incremental improvement, mostly in the dynamics/slam factor; less likely though to influence soundstage and imaging capabilities. It might help you avoid the "smearing" when the mids and bass and highs all collide together.
  
 I know that my Theta is a passive preamp for my Asgard 2 and I have to be more careful with the volume dial in comparison to the Bifrost. This passive preamp boost is a 1-2'oclock difference on my amp dial and helps the Asgard essentially "cheat." The legendary burrito filter is the real deal though. Seems like the 90's speaker crowd sort of overlooked the lower model Theta's and at the turn of the century the D-S stable of DACs was unleashed, leaving the Thetas to float around in the used market. I'm hoping there will be space at the San Diego mini-meet for me to demonstrate some gear. Otherwise I'll be touring the facilities
  
 On a side note, I think everyone who has spent a considerable(or short) amount of time listening to an R2R has had an "Aha moment" where you aren't expecting to be able to turn up the volume so loud and preparing to wince when you notice there isn't that uncharacteristic treble hash.. it just gets louder and doesn't turn sibilant as fast on good recordings


----------



## purrin

agooh said:


> let's just calm down ,we want to make everything clear so what did you mean that ranking system doesn't matter if so I can agree with that .


 
  
 Rankings are my own based on my own preferences. Your rankings may be different. I believe I said something to that effect in the first post. Maybe I didn't.
  


diamondears said:


> @purrin
> 
> Linear phase is less glary than Minimum Phase??? Oh men. You lost credibility on me there, sorry. You just confirmed my theory.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have heard DACs with minimum phase and linear phase filters. Some D-S DACs I have owned or borrowed for extended periods offered several filters. PWD2, Gamma2, Vega, LH, etc. (too many to recall.) In these cases, I've almost always preferred the linear phase filter. Smoother to my ears; however I still wouldn't say analog sounding or particularly smooth compared to R2R. The other ninjas in the evaluations preferred other filters. I'd say the filters are more a matter of "different" than better or analog.
  
 Using your logic, the smoother "analog" sounding R2R DACs of yesteryear and Yggy would sound very digital because they have linear filter characteristics with both pre and post ringing. BTW, if you didn't know, most of the R2R DACs of yesterday also used cheap pre-canned filters. 
  
 Finally, the Audiolab DAC Optimal Transient filters do have pre and post ringing. So there goes your theory. I'd be happy to provide measurements for you if you don't believe me. Don't get bamboozled by their marketing literature. It's impossible to not have any kind of ringing with filters.
  
 Sorry to say it, but you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## purrin

ginetto61 said:


> they are a lot indeed !
> 
> Seriously ... the title is very misleading. Very superficial.
> I challenge everyone to demonstrate that Berkeley Audio Reference dac and Bricasti M1, to name two, suck. And they use delta-sigma dac chip.
> ...


 
  
 I have not heard the Bezerkly Audio Reference. I have heard Bricasti M1 with one of my amps (currently on loan with a friend), my music, and my headphones. The Bricasti M1 is a fantastic DAC. It is my favorite D-S DAC out-of-the-box. However, compared to the Yggy or even the Gen V the Bricasti sucks.

 See my comments on the M1: http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-sucks/1275#post_10855968
  
 It's all relative.


----------



## Sonic Defender

You know what they say, you mess with the bull, you get the horns.


----------



## Sonic Defender

purrin said:


> I have not heard the Bezerkly Audio Reference. I have heard Bricasti M1 with one of my amps (currently on loan with a friend), my music, and my headphones. The Bricasti M1 is a fantastic DAC. It is my favorite D-S DAC out-of-the-box. However, compared to the Yggy or even the Gen V the Bricasti sucks.
> 
> It's all relative.


 

  If you keep this up purrin I'm going to be out a bunch of money! I have pretty much made up my mind that in 2016 I'll get a Yggy. Going to spend a year enjoying the M51, but my goal since hearing about the R2R implementation that Yggy was going to bring was to end up with the Yggy. The next few months will be great as more and more impressions come in.


----------



## purrin

agooh said:


> This is unacceptable will if I said hd600 better than stax 009 !! no way, many headfiers won't believe me, what kind of joke is this ? there is huge margin between them, to be fair you should put comparison Yggy vs Vega .


 
  
I prefer the HD600 over the 009.
  
What I am getting at? You have to have conviction and a spine (and the intelligence to articulate your rationale.) This is why I love Mike Moffat.
  
Just be glad that Mike is brutally honest about what's he's about. You don't have to agree with him, but I'd rather have him wear that "D-S, when music doesn't matter" shirt than say "everything's good, you're good, i'm good, and lets all sing kumbayah", or even worse, write a Schiit 5 page white paper on why all the Schiit DACs, including the delta-sigma stuffs are so awesome.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

kumbaya?


----------



## 7ryder

oh lord...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ


----------



## 7ryder

purrin said:


> Rankings are my own based on my own preferences. Your rankings may be different. I believe I said something to that effect in the first post. Maybe I didn't.
> 
> 
> I have heard DACs with minimum phase and linear phase filters. Some D-S DACs I have owned or borrowed for extended periods offered several filters. PWD2, Gamma2, Vega, LH, etc. (too many to recall.) In these cases, I've almost always preferred the linear phase filter. Smoother to my ears; however I still wouldn't say analog sounding or particularly smooth compared to R2R. The other ninjas in the evaluations preferred other filters. I'd say the filters are more a matter of "different" than better or analog.
> ...


 
 this is timely
  
 http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/04/internet-blind-test-linear-vs-minimum.html


----------



## agooh

Ok I see Mike Moffat before on youtube !! but why you are talking about him, I respect him as human before he  works with shiit Audio, now I respect him more for doing very good dac with reasonable price ,I didn't know him personally but why I have to agree or disagree with him !! what shirt R u talkin about !!
 Can we get real information here. 
 please don't hype dac while still under production. this won't give the company a positive picture . and btw who are you !! I mean are you working with schiit Audio or loyal guard  ...or you work here as misleading person . I will like to buy good product depends on others opinions not yours alone ..


----------



## theblueprint

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Theta-Pro-Gen-5-DAC-digital-audio-converter-excellent-condition-/191571715283?nma=true&si=QE6XorYamh0tT8svueWl0TYgPhQ%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
  
 Okay, so who bought a Theta GenV for $1750?


----------



## purrin

agooh said:


> what shirt R u talkin about !!
> Can we get real information here.


 
  
 Moffat wore a shirt to CanJam Los Angeles. The shirt had delta-sigma symbol with "when music doesn't matter". He wore this shirt openly during a presentation and someone in the audience asked about it. 
  


agooh said:


> please don't hype dac while still under (before) production. this won't give the company a positive picture .


 
  
 Sorry, but this is not your decision to make. Schiit knew about this thread before they let me know about the Yggy. Schiit came to one of my mini-meets and brought the DAC. I asked for permission to talk about it.
  
 If you feel this does not give the company a positive picture, do not buy the DAC. I have refused to buy products of companies that I did not like, even though their products were good.
  


agooh said:


> I mean are you working with schiit Audio or loyal guard  ...or you work here as misleading person .


 

  
 I work for a company that competes somewhat against Schiit, particularly for headphone amps in the middle to high range from $800 and up. If you feel I am a misleading person, do not read what I have to say and unsubscribe to this thread.
  


agooh said:


> I will like to buy good product depends on others opinions not yours alone ..


 

  
 I don't care how you buy your products. I really don't.
  
 There are two other threads of opinions on Yggy on HF. You can easily go there.


----------



## preproman

The Bricasti M1 suck compared to (insert whatever here)  Yeah right, picture that.  The M1 just may be the best DAC under 10K.  Objective measurements are out the back that up..


----------



## purrin

I'm curious. What did you think of the M1 vs Yggy?


----------



## preproman

The M1 is a very, very good (Technical) DAC.  Meaning the excels in every technicality there is.  
  
 For me it's all about enjoying the music.  I just couldn't really enjoy the (rig) the M1 was in.  If I was to build a rig around it - I think it would be fabulous.  Pairing it up with a BA or a Stratus for instance, or maybe even the 300b Electra.  The M1 and the 4-45 would be a double no go for me..
  
 The Yggdrasil is at home with me.  I'm enjoying the music.


----------



## agooh

purrin said:


> Moffat wore a shirt to CanJam Los Angeles. The shirt had delta-sigma symbol with "when music doesn't matter". He wore this shirt openly during a presentation and someone in the audience asked about it.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this is not your decision to make. Schiit knew about this thread before they let me know about the Yggy. Schiit came to one of my mini-meets and brought the DAC. I asked for permission to talk about it.
> ...


 
  
 The company has positive picture but your response to other headfiers' with this ''false'' manner will ruin it , good news that you are not working with them .
 I want to ask you ( please answer with honestly ): ''what if '' I said, what if schiit mistakenly release another dac around 4000$ and sound very horrible, sound worst than your worst dac you put in your shiny list , will you still defend and hype this product or not ?


----------



## theblueprint

agooh said:


> The company has positive picture but your response to other headfiers' with this ''false'' manner will ruin it , good news that you are not working with them .
> I want to ask you ( please answer with honestly ): ''what if '' I said, what if schiit mistakenly release another dac around 4000$ and sound very horrible, sound worst than your worst dac you put in your shiny list , will you still defend and hype this product or not ?


 
 Clearly, Purrin would not defend it. If you actually have read through this thread, and instead of making false assumptions, you would know that Purrin hates the original Lyr amp, and didn't care much for the original Modi (without wyrd). Yes, he loves a lot of Schiit products, but he would never hype a product that isn't worthy of his ears.


----------



## purrin

theblueprint said:


> Clearly, Purrin would not defend it. If you actually have read through this thread, and instead of making false assumptions, you would know that Purrin hates the original Lyr amp, and didn't care much for the original Modi (without wyrd). Yes, he loves a lot of Schiit products, but he would never hype a product that isn't worthy of his ears.


 
  
 "Yup, I'd probably say What is this POS?" to Jason / Mike (Trust me, I have. If you look around, you can dig up negative or lukewarm impressions of Magni, Modi, Rag (proto @ Bay Area meet), Mjolnir (proto @Village meet), Asgard, Lyr, Valhalla 1, Bifrost 1, etc. I can't say much on Schiit stuff now because according to HF rules, I can't say anything that might possibly be construed as giving EC a competitive advantage, but the history is still there.


----------



## purrin

preproman said:


> The M1 is a very, very good (Technical) DAC.  Meaning the excels in every technicality there is.
> 
> For me it's all about enjoying the music.  I just couldn't really enjoy the (rig) the M1 was in.  If I was to build a rig around it - I think it would be fabulous.  Pairing it up with a BA or a Stratus for instance, or maybe even the 300b Electra.  The M1 and the 4-45 would be a double no go for me..
> 
> The Yggdrasil is at home with me.  I'm enjoying the music.


 
  
 Haha. Thanks. In a nutshell, that's exactly how I feel about the M1.


----------



## evillamer

purrin said:


> agooh said:
> 
> 
> > let's just calm down ,we want to make everything clear so what did you mean that ranking system doesn't matter if so I can agree with that .
> ...


 
  
 To furthur purrin's topic on Audiolab filters, check out this article:
  
 http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/cd-dvd-blu-ray/62-cd-reviews/642-audiolab-q-dac-filters-.html?start=1


----------



## agooh

funny guy, I would like to meet you and see how your face looks like. I'm sure you looks good and gentlemen while here you are doing your job as a guardian .
 I'm starting to feel  yggy is a dac that design for loudspeakers ? am I right ? what kind of loudspeakers you have ?


----------



## Jones Bob

Lighten up Francis.


----------



## 7ryder

I think he's ok...it's just that English isn't his first language...he don't talk good English like we do!


----------



## Jones Bob

(Double post)


----------



## Insidious Meme

Maybe he thinks Purrin is his buddy since he seems to answer all his questions...


----------



## diamondears

purrin said:


> Rankings are my own based on my own preferences. Your rankings may be different. I believe I said something to that effect in the first post. Maybe I didn't.
> 
> 
> I have heard DACs with minimum phase and linear phase filters. Some D-S DACs I have owned or borrowed for extended periods offered several filters. PWD2, Gamma2, Vega, LH, etc. (too many to recall.) In these cases, I've almost always preferred the linear phase filter. Smoother to my ears; however I still wouldn't say analog sounding or particularly smooth compared to R2R. The other ninjas in the evaluations preferred other filters. I'd say the filters are more a matter of "different" than better or analog.
> ...



Sabre 9018 32-bit reproduces much more detail than the R2Rs, so it would sound glary with Standard Linear Phase filter with pre and post-ringing. With R2Rs, it wouldn't...assuming all other things are equal. 

Are you comparing Standard Linear Phase filter vs. Min. Phase on SAME DAC unit implementation?

I'm referring to Audiolab's Optimal Transient/XD/DD Filters which has no ore and post ringing, not the Optimal Spectrum. I'll be happy to see evidence that they have pre and post ringings. 

Yeah, you know what you're talking about, so we consumers that know nothing technical should just shut up and be blind bats to what you guys are advertising?


----------



## eddypoon

7ryder said:


> I think he's ok...it's just that English isn't his first language...he don't talk good English like we do!


 

 Thank you Head-fi for implementing block lists!   saves my time and brain.


----------



## Eee Pee

Except almost everyone here quotes entire posts rendering the block feature nearly worthless.


----------



## evillamer

diamondears said:


> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > Rankings are my own based on my own preferences. Your rankings may be different. I believe I said something to that effect in the first post. Maybe I didn't.
> ...


 
  
 evidence:
 http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/cd-dvd-blu-ray/62-cd-reviews/642-audiolab-q-dac-filters-.html?start=1


----------



## Insidious Meme

diamondears said:


> Sabre 9018 32-bit reproduces much more detail than the R2Rs, so it would sound glary with Standard Linear Phase filter with pre and post-ringing. With R2Rs, it wouldn't...assuming all other things are equal.
> 
> Are you comparing Standard Linear Phase filter vs. Min. Phase on SAME DAC unit implementation?
> 
> ...




Ooh, so it's "you don't know what you're talking about" to "you know too much, you're hiding something". Can't wait for the next iteration. :rolleyes:


----------



## purrin

diamondears said:


> Sabre 9018 32-bit reproduces much more detail than the R2Rs, so it would sound glary with Standard Linear Phase filter with pre and post-ringing. With R2Rs, it wouldn't...assuming all other things are equal.


 
  
 First of all, resolution and "digital sound" are exclusive. Increased resolution does not necessarily cause more digital glare or digital hashy crap. Again, I cite the Gen V and Yggy as examples of this. Extremely resolving DACs but with a very fluid sound with no glare or artificial grain.
  
 Secondly, I would not argue against your assertion that Sabre 9018 is more resolving than PCM1704. (I am not a big fan of the PCM1704 BTW). However I would argue that the 20 year old PCM63 is just as resolving as the Sabre 9018. And the recently developed AD5791 (R2R / resistor string) is way more resolving than Sabre 9018. In the end, many other considerations such as power supply, clock/jitter, digital receivers, stacking D-A chips, are just as important for resolution.
  


diamondears said:


> Are you comparing Standard Linear Phase filter vs. Min. Phase on SAME DAC unit implementation?


  

 Yes. For each of the DACs mentioned (and many more), they have adjustable filters. Not comparing across different DACs but on the same DAC. For example, the PWD has five filters, the Gamma 2, three filters, the Vega has a quite a few, etc.
  


diamondears said:


> I'm referring to Audiolab's Optimal Transient/XD/DD Filters which has no ore and post ringing, not the Optimal Spectrum. I'll be happy to see evidence that they have pre and post ringings.


  

 Audiolab Optimal transient:

  
 Audiolab Optimal transient XD:

  
 Audiolab Optimal transient DD:

  
 Audiolab linear phase slow roll off (*least amount of ringing of them all - even less than the "Optimal"s*)
  



diamondears said:


> Yeah, you know what you're talking about, so we consumers that know nothing technical should just shut up and be blind bats to what you guys are advertising?


  


 There's nothing wrong with being a consumer with less technical knowledge. There is something wrong at arriving at wrong conclusions based on coincidence and lack of exposure to different DACs. There is also something wrong with false technical knowledge.
  
 Anyways, I am curious what PCM1704 DACs you have heard?


----------



## snip3r77

Have you tried Terradak's PCM63 x 4 or any of your friends?


----------



## rawrster

I've never tried any R2R dac's and was thinking of getting a new dac down the line anyway. It sounds pretty interesting but not sure if it's possible for me. Is there anything in current production that doesn't take up that much space? I was looking at the Auralic Vega as a potential candiate for my next dac.


----------



## agooh

I have one a big ? mark : why did I see many guys attack or didn't like the sound of R2R ? , I read 2 reviews about it all score 10/10,9.5/10 it wa s an old product but sound very good ,
 if still compatible and can be developed why did they stop the production ? what's the story ?
  why there are not many companies to produce R2R dac ??????
 really strange !! if someone can answer or put a link .
 Thanks


----------



## mowglycdb

It's more expensive, that's why, implementing Sabre 9018 is cheaper.


----------



## agooh

mmmm that was a simple answer, could you name one product ?
 Thanks


----------



## diamondears

purrin said:


> First of all, resolution and "digital sound" are exclusive. Increased resolution does not necessarily cause more digital glare or digital hashy crap. Again, I cite the Gen V and Yggy as examples of this. Extremely resolving DACs but with a very fluid sound with no glare or artificial grain.
> 
> Secondly, I would not argue against your assertion that Sabre 9018 is more resolving than PCM1704. (I am not a big fan of the PCM1704 BTW). However I would argue that the 20 year old PCM63 is just as resolving as the Sabre 9018. And the recently developed AD5791 (R2R / resistor string) is way more resolving than Sabre 9018. In the end, many other considerations such as power supply, clock/jitter, digital receivers, stacking D-A chips, are just as important for resolution.
> 
> ...



Ok. When I refer to the Standard digital filter, I refer to the Optimal Spectrum filter of Audiolab, not the slow filters. Standard Digital Filter=fast brick wall filter, the standard filter that measures best objectively, the most common digital filter for so long found in most DACs and CD players. The one that has no timing phase distortions nor frequency issues, except pre and post ringings. What should we call this filter?

And even assuming my pet Optimal Transient filters still have pre and post ringings, I'm pretty sure they're minimal or substantially less compared to the Standard digital filter. 

But we're getting out of my main point---that you cannot fault the glary-ness on the D-S DAC chip when you're hearing it using the Standard digital filter that has perfect phase and frequency response but has substantial amount of pre and post-ringing not only objectively but also subjectively. 

You didn't even mention what filter you used you're basing your ranking on. I don't like bashing D-S DACs, or any DAC chips for that matter, and I strongly suggest account for or review and rank the digital filters used in the market today. I'll be all ears on that. 

I suggest further that you check for yourself the Audiolab DACs and see and say for yourself how it measures (objectively) and sounds (subjectively) using the Optimal Transient digital filters, which by the way are slow filters tweaked by the designer that maintains no timing phase distortions. 

I'm not sure why digital filters aren't talked about much, maybe you can enlighten us on this, but I suspect it's their very proprietary nature (aka expensive). What do you think?

There's a reason why R2R DAC chips are being phased out, and it's because not only are they expensive but also they reproduce no more details/resolution than the best D-S (and Advance Segment) DAC chips around. Again, unless convinced otherwise, IMHO the culprit on the digital glare being unjustifiably inquisitioned to the D-S DAC chips is the digital filter used that has maximum pre and post-ringing usually used or associated with such D-S DAC chips. You don't think so?


----------



## Tachikoma

> There's a reason why R2R DAC chips are being phased out, and it's because not only are they expensive but also they reproduce no more details/resolution than the best D-S (and Advance Segment) DAC chips around.


  
 And Analog Devices/Wolfson/AKM care about ultimate detail reproduction because....? High-end audio has no bearing on their business whatsoever.
  
 R2R DAC chips have not been fully phased out of business, just the highest spec'ed ones, whereas the cheaper ones have all survived the cull.


----------



## diamondears

tachikoma said:


> > There's a reason why R2R DAC chips are being phased out, and it's because not only are they expensive but also they reproduce no more details/resolution than the best D-S (and Advance Segment) DAC chips around.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To me, that's because there's no reason to buy the expensive DAC chip, which means there's not enough SQ improvement/detail resolution to justify the price. Otherwise audio manufacturers would still buy it for their added detail resolution and SQ improvement and just recover the added cost thru pricing, which in turn would be justified to consumers because of higher SQ. 

Even assuming, for the same sake of argument, that the R2R chips present better detail resolution and prevents digital glare, the audio manufacturers would have grabbed them and recover the cost to higher pricing. But they didn't because there's no reason to justify the price. That alleged added detail resolution and digital glare avoidance is zip, nil, non-existent. 

How much is each R2R DAC chip? Let's say $250. If in fact they'd present better detail resolution and prevent digital glare, you think audio manufacturers and designers wouldn't budge to get them? Cmon now. And we're not talking here about definition yet (such as bass articulacy) and noise elimination/reduction that over sampling digital filters' main goal is for. 

Again, IMHO, the culprit on the digital glare accusation is the Standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringings, not the D-S DAC chip.

I may be getting the Yggy just for kicks, and keep it if my current opinions gets kicked by it. What digital filters does it have btw?


----------



## evillamer

Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products? He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?


----------



## eddypoon




----------



## purrin

Quote:


diamondears said:


> There's a reason why R2R DAC chips are being phased out, and it's because not only are they expensive but also they reproduce no more details/resolution than the best D-S (and Advance Segment) DAC chips around.


 
  
 I won't disagree with you. The remaining R2R chips that exist today, namely the PCM1704, don't resolve as well as the current D-S chips. The PCM1704 also has other issues, syrupy bass, overly forgiving, etc. If you had bothered reading some of the posts instead of jumping in with a closed mind, you would have better understood where I came from.
  


diamondears said:


> Again, unless convinced otherwise, IMHO the culprit on the digital glare being unjustifiably inquisitioned to the D-S DAC chips is the digital filter used that has maximum pre and post-ringing usually used or associated with such D-S DAC chips. You don't think so?


  
 I don't think so. I found no strong correlation to digital filters and "analog" type sound. My PWD2 sounded raspy, even with the filter that minimized pre and post ringing the most which I believe was #4. (I took measurements on the filters and they may be in a post somewhere. I don't remember,) The filters change the sound slightly, but the PWD2 sounds very much digital to my ears regardless of filter. The Wolfson in the PWD2 chips very much have a sound. Same with the Bricasti M1 which has like 9 linear phase and 9 minimum phase filters. It's all a matter of trade offs with the M1's filters, but in the end, the M1 sounds very digital. The AD1955s in the M1 simply have a certain sound. Same with the Vega and the filters it offered. More a matter of different sound then any one being analog sounding.
  
 The only exception has been the AKM DACs which were always somewhat more bearable and had a sweeter sound than the other chips. But even then, there is a little bit of glare. I liked the sound of the AKM chips before Schiit came out with the Gungnir. The fact that they chose AKM was had nothing to do with me. Evidently, they thought it sounded the best among the D-S chips.
  
 Also, take the R2R Theta DACs of yesteryear. Look at the impulse response of the DSPro Basic:
 Looks like quite a bit of pre and post ringing to me, yet all R2R DACs back then have a smoother more fluid analog sound than today's D-S DACs.

  
 I suspect what it comes down to is the noise shaping / quantization error that the shallower bit-depths of D-S DACs were operating under which give D-S DACs their digital sounding characteristics, not the pre-post ringing of the filters.
  
 In the end, my point is that the state of DAC development went one step forward (more resolution), but two steps back (more digital artifacts).
  
 In the context of that, the Yggy was nice surprise because it utilized a modern DAC chip that was more accuracy than anything else before it, D-S or R2R. But evidently, you already know everything including how the great DACs of the 1990s sounded like. We are talking about the Theta Gen V, SFD-2, Spectral SDR2000, STAX DACs, etc; not the craptastic R2R DACs of today, which do include some big names / high ticket cost items.
  
 I keep asking you this? Again, what R2R DACs have your heard? What PCM1704 DACs have your heard? Ultimately, you need to cite a good implementation.

  


diamondears said:


> Even assuming, for the same sake of argument, that the R2R chips present better detail resolution and prevents digital glare, the audio manufacturers would have grabbed them and recover the cost to higher pricing.


 
  
 You have to get it through your head that no one here has said R2R chips in general resolve better. Some R2R chips resolve better than some D-S chips and vice versa. Practically all of today's D-S chips resolve better than the PCM1704 or whatever industrial DAC chip they use in the Metrum.
  
 The only twist is that the AD5791 that the Yggy uses seems to be huge step up from any of the other R2R or D-S chips. But then again, no one has been crazy enough to use a milspec DAC chip with 1ppm accuracy at 20 bits for an audio application.
  


diamondears said:


> I may be getting the Yggy just for kicks, and keep it if my current opinions gets kicked by it. What digital filters does it have btw?


  

 Don't bother with Yggy. The Yggy has the kind of digital filters you won't like with pre and post ringing. Using your preconceptions, it's going to sound very nasty and digital.
  

  


evillamer said:


> Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products? He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?


 
  
 Because obviously Mike Moffat, the father of the standalone DAC, who has been doing this for 35-40 years is stupid, and knows far less than armchair DAC designer consumers who seem to who know it all.


----------



## diamondears

evillamer said:


> Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products? He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?



It wouldn't sell as much because there's no unique-ness necessary for marketing success like the R2R and military-scientific-grade AD chip. 



eddypoon said:


> It is the sad economics working, just like corn syrup. if one thing is significantly cheaper than the other, and does 98% of the job, the cheaper component wins mostly. Clayton Christensen's book at work.
> 
> Anyways, some people care for the taste difference between kinds of DACs, most of them notice but don't care. Go with what you like in your setup.



I agree that happens on products for the masses (including food, sadly, especially China-food). But not for higher-end or more top-tier models/products.


----------



## ginetto61

purrin said:


> I have not heard the Bezerkly Audio Reference. I have heard Bricasti M1 with one of my amps (currently on loan with a friend), my music, and my headphones. The Bricasti M1 is a fantastic DAC. It is my favorite D-S DAC out-of-the-box. However, compared to the Yggy or even the Gen V the Bricasti sucks.
> See my comments on the M1: http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-sucks/1275#post_10855968
> It's all relative.


 
  
 Hi and thanks a lot for the very helpful reply.
 From what i understand the Berkely Audio Ref and the Bricasti M1 are two of the very best delta-sigma dacs in the world.  So they can be considered to be able to extract all the juice available from delta-sigmas.
 Berkeley Audio in particular has built what is maybe the best usb to spdif/AES-EBU interface around.  So they know what they do.
 I sincerely hope for a return of multibit dac chips, because in the end this seems to be the main advantage of Yggy and Theta dacs.
 I am about to buy a multibit dac ... maybe a Monarchy ?
 If i understand well they are superior on dynamcis ... that means emotion.  If an equipment, with the right music,  cannot transfer emotion is dead for me.
 Now that i think i little better i have an old Cambridge Audio Dac 3 ... i think it is multibit.
 Thanks a lot again,  gino


----------



## Argo Duck

@diamondears you are engaged in a mindtrip to persuade yourself Yggy cannot be a serious, alternative technology to D-S. The premises you have adopted lead you to ludicrous speculations such as "[it's all about] marketing success". This path cannot lead to fruitful discovery.

Just do the experiment already! Get a Yggy and find out whether it sounds as you expect. Or not. Then you will have a valuable data-point to bring to the discussion.


----------



## nicolo

evillamer said:


> Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products? He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?


 
  
 Maybe Mike Moffat actually thought that he could get much better sound by doing his own thing, rather than follow the herd. Shocking i know! How dare he use his experience, knowledge, intelligence and intuition gained and honed over decades to actually do something different? The sheer, absolute, disgustingly brazen arrogance of it all!
  
 He should have contacted you or other know-it-all armchair critics before even thinking of doing something like the Yggdrasil. I mean you all know so much more, right?
 Anyway why stop at 4 x AKM, 4 x Sabre DACs? Why not 8, 16, 32,1000 etc. You know so much better right?
  
 The only thing you're doing here is denigrating a man's effort to do something in a different way to get better results. If you don't like what he's done with the Yggdrasil, don't buy it. Don't follow this or other threads related to the Yggdrasil. Simple.


----------



## diamondears

evillamer said:


> Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products? He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?



It wouldn't sell as much because there's no unique-ness necessary for marketing success like the R2R and military-scientific-grade AD chip. 



eddypoon said:


> It is the sad economics working, just like corn syrup. if one thing is significantly cheaper than the other, and does 98% of the job, the cheaper component wins mostly. Clayton Christensen's book at work.
> 
> Anyways, some people care for the taste difference between kinds of DACs, most of them notice but don't care. Go with what you like in your setup.



I agree that happens on products for the masses (including food, sadly). But not for higher-end or more top-tier models/products. I like my setup, but I'm open to improvements, and I've heard lots of DAC much much more expensive but sounded worse or the same. But why bash D-S DACs when the fault is in the stock Standard digital filter?


----------



## juanitox

and why not a good dac would be :
 20% for power supply ,
 20% for clock management / digital filter/ da converter/  
 20% of analog stage
 and 20% for the chance or the research and development to make a good mix


----------



## diamondears

nicolo said:


> Maybe Mike Moffat actually thought that he could get much better sound by doing his own thing, rather than follow the herd. Shocking i know! How dare he use his experience, knowledge, intelligence and intuition gained and honed over decades to actually do something different? The sheer, absolute, disgustingly brazen arrogance of it all!
> 
> He should have contacted you or other know-it-all armchair critics before even thinking of doing something like the Yggdrasil. I mean you all know so much more, right?
> Anyway why stop at 4 x AKM, 4 x Sabre DACs? Why not 8, 16, 32,1000 etc. You know so much better right?
> ...



Who's denigrating someone or anything? Remember who titled this thread "Sabre/D-S sucks"? Don't you think you're being a hypocrite saying that?


----------



## ginetto61

diamondears said:


> It wouldn't sell as much because there's no unique-ness necessary for marketing success like the R2R and military-scientific-grade AD chip.
> I agree that happens on products for the masses (including food, sadly). But not for higher-end or more top-tier models/products. I like my setup, but I'm open to improvements, and I've heard lots of DAC much much more expensive but sounded worse or the same.





> *But why bash D-S DACs when the fault is in the stock Standard digital filter?*


 
  
 Hi ... i think that is triggers the key question from what i have learned around.
 How much of the sound of a dac is made by the actual filter implemented ?
 Many people say ... a lot indeed.
 So the best dac chip, with the best PS and the best output stage but the wrong filter could sound bad.
 A Schiit they put the focus more than anything else on the dac chip used and the debate multibit vs. delta-sigma.
 Could this misleading in the end ? 
  
*Is indeed the filter the real main actor of the play ?*
  
 Thanks a lot for the very interesting thread.
 Have a nice sunday, gino


----------



## frenchbat

@diamondears, I suggest you do a bit of reading on dac linearity and accuracy, as hinted by Purrin. It should give an idea on why MM decided to go R2R/String, instead of slapping a Sabre implementation together.
  
 Here you go :
 https://www.google.fr/search?q=dac+linearity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=jwhPVYe8J4G1UNG6gOgF
  
 By the way, most of the useful info on the Sabre is under NDA, including the accuracy numbers. Strange isn't it ?


----------



## nicolo

diamondears said:


> Who's denigrating someone or anything? Remember who titled this thread "Sabre/D-S sucks"? Don't you think you're being a hypocrite saying that?


 
  
 Did you read the statement i was responding to? The thread was started by purrin, not Mike Moffat. evillamer's statement as below:
  
 "Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? *Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products?* He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?"
  
 My point is that someone took a different approach and is now being insulted for it. I stand by my statement. You may not like Mike's viewpoint or the stuff he's put in his statement DAC. But to call him nuts is patronising and is thus *denigrating*. Another thing.* I didn't start this thread* and therefore didn't make the thread title. You are barking up the wrong tree here.
  
 However i do agree with purrin that almost all DS DACs suck and have very harsh treble. I have heard Berkley's Alpha, Bricasti M1, Ressonence Labs Sabre based DACs and found each one of those harsh. They just sounded grainy to me. I have heard Burr Brown DS DACs and found them all too smooth, laid back with rolled-of treble with an artificial warmth overall. I have heard some of Schitt's stuff based on AKM DACs and found them lacking too in terms of dynamics and micro-detail. However that hasn't stopped me from getting an LH Labs Pulse Infinity (DS DAC) as i quite liked their Geek Out 1000 based on the Sabre 9018K2M. It sounded analog, smooth, detailed, resolving but never harsh.
  
 If you feel so strongly, why not start a new thread talking up DS DACs as counterpoint? That way the discussion stays constructive without anyone going nuts.


----------



## diamondears

purrin said:


> I won't disagree with you. The remaining R2R chips that exist today, namely the PCM1704, don't resolve as well as the current D-S chips. The PCM1704 also has other issues, syrupy bass, overly forgiving, etc. If you had bothered reading some of the posts instead of jumping in with a closed mind, you would have better understood where I came from.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok. All you said are noted. I have preconceptions but I'm not horse-eyed. 

Re ringings, I think the main point is stick it standard digital filter have SUBSTANTIALLY more pre and post ringings than others, and this stock standard filter is a main factor/culprit on the digital glare accusation. I'm not an EE, but I've heard a lot of DACs and the common denominator on all the DACs that my ears find glary or digitally is the digital filter, the stock standard digital filter. 

Now let me ask you, dies the Yggy have a stick standard digital filter? No. So what is its digital filter? Does its pre and post ringings reasonably equal in amount to the stick standard digital filters on Sabre and D-S DACs? My answer is no, but what's your answer?


----------



## shabta

diamondears said:


> Who's denigrating someone or anything? Remember who titled this thread "Sabre/D-S sucks"? Don't you think you're being a hypocrite saying that?


 
 As has been pointed out several times. The title of the thread only changed to DS sucks after a long time and lots of experience. It is based on the thread starters personal experience. You however have stated that the thread is a "big commercial" which is pretty insulting and is pointed at the motivation of the thread starter. The difference between saying  DS sucks and what you are doing is that the thread starter is giving his opinion based on a lot of data points that he explains, whereas what you are doing is simply being insulting.


----------



## DreamKing

@nicolo I'm pretty sure that evillama's post was a sarcastic mirroring of opinions attacking Moffat's integrity for his design choices.


----------



## Techlology

Color me still very skeptical of this Schiit hype train.
  
 Partly because their previous offerings were my first foray into headfi and they left me bitterly disappointed. The Bifrost was harsh, lifeless, and with more grain than your typical supermarket trail mix. The Lyr was a smeary, blurred up mess when driving my then HD600s. Their sound quality was equally matched by their build quality (I somehow managed to cut myself on the side of the Lyr in the unboxing process). This was a couple of years ago now and maybe my memory is exaggerated but to me they were sloppy and half-assed.
  
 Partly also because of their marketing approach, and of how their community approaches their products. Putting down your competitors' efforts as irrelevant when the bulk of your current product line is based on the same tech, and veiling insults behind edgy humor may speak to a lot of people, but to me it's simply repulsive. Schiit, to me, is a case of approaching a potentially extraordinary product in spite of the people behind it, and to date, I've heard more about how every DAC not Yggy sucks more than I've heard about how good the Yggy actually is. I'm still curious about the complete radio silence from the typical headfi publications.
  
 And lastly because the Vega/Taurus combo driving my LCD-X is everything the list put the Yggy up to be. I don't get any harshness or grain in the treble. I hear full, meaty mids, and a flat and extended bass. The sound stage, separation, and detail are all exemplary. Perhaps not as decadently musical as my living room set up (Thorens 125 -> Pure Audio phono -> Hiachi MOSFET -> B&W bookshelves) but I don't think anything digital can approach that sort of listening experience to my ears, no matter how hard they try to approximate.


----------



## diamondears

nicolo said:


> Did you read the statement i was responding to? The thread was started by purrin, not Mike Moffat. evillamer's statement as below:
> 
> "Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? [COLOR=FF0000]*Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products?*[/COLOR] He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?"
> 
> ...



He's not being "insulted" (which I'm not, just pointing out things) or criticized for his approach, but for his insulting approach. He's being criticized for bashing others to promoted himself or his products. And he hasn't proven that the glare comes from the D-S chip, my suspect is the stock standard digital filter that comes with the chip. 

If it's really not the filter and it's the D-S chip, why not use that same or similar standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringing together with the AD chip? Why make a custom filter for it? Because the filter plays a big role in the digital-ness or glary-ness of the D-S DAC chips being touted as sucking big time.


----------



## diamondears

shabta said:


> As has been pointed out several times. The title of the thread only changed to DS sucks after a long time and lots of experience. It is based on the thread starters personal experience. You however have stated that the thread is a "big commercial" which is pretty insulting and is pointed at the motivation of the thread starter. The difference between saying  DS sucks and what you are doing is that the thread starter is giving his opinion based on a lot of data points that he explains, whereas what you are doing is simply being insulting.



The original title of the thread has "Sabre sucks"...not sure if that's better. 

So insulting the act of someone insulting others is insulting?


----------



## Tachikoma

diamondears said:


> How much is each R2R DAC chip? Let's say $250. If in fact they'd present better detail resolution and prevent digital glare, *you think audio manufacturers and designers wouldn't budge to get them?* Cmon now. And we're not talking here about definition yet (such as bass articulacy) and noise elimination/reduction that over sampling digital filters' main goal is for.


 
 Exactly. The biggest buyers of DACs in the world are corporations like Samsung, Sony and Apple. If these corporations don't care for the difference between SD and R2R DACs, then there is no longer any reason for the manufacturers to continue producing costly high-spec R2Rs for audio purposes.


----------



## DreamKing

diamondears said:


> He's not being "insulted" (which I'm not, just pointing out things) or criticized for his approach, but for his insulting approach. He's being criticized for bashing others to promoted himself or his products. And he hasn't proven that the glare comes from the D-S chip, my suspect is the stock standard digital filter that comes with the chip.
> 
> If it's really not the filter and it's the D-S chip, why not use that same or similar standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringing together with the AD chip? Why make a custom filter for it? Because the filter plays a big role in the digital-ness or glary-ness of the D-S DAC chips being touted as sucking big time.


 
  
 It seems like you're confusing Mike Moffat for the OP.


----------



## diamondears

dreamking said:


> It seems like you're confusing Mike Moffat for the OP.


The title of this thread and Moffat's t-shirt are strikingly of same architecture and ultimate intent and eventual destination.


----------



## shabta

diamondears said:


> The original title of the thread has "Sabre sucks"...not sure if that's better.
> 
> So insulting the act of someone insulting others is insulting?


 
 The original title never said anything about Sabre but about chocolate ice cream. It is important for you to comprehend the logical difference between coming to a conclusion based on personal experience and what you are doing, which is claiming that the thread starter has a bad motivation when the evidence clearly contradicts that claim.


----------



## Baldr

Just for clarification:  Schiit makes 4 DACs priced from $100 to $850.  They all contain d-s DAC chips.  There's also one for $2300 - it is multibit.  To restate:
  
 1.  D-S tech is cheap and easily executable by morons.  Which qualifies me at a minimum as an verify experienced moron.
  
 2.  Multibit tech with optimal DSP is expensive, requires years to execute, and not suitable for development by imbeciles.
  
 3.  Because of this slow development, Schiit would offer this tech as available to existing users of our upgradable products without screwing them.  (Gungnir and Bifrost)
  
 4.  Expensive (multi-thousand $) D-S DAC design is a very poor value due to its inherent economy.


----------



## Currawong

diamondears said:


> If it's really not the filter and it's the D-S chip, why not use that same or similar standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringing together with the AD chip? Why make a custom filter for it? Because the filter plays a big role in the digital-ness or glary-ness of the D-S DAC chips being touted as sucking big time.


 
  
 Quite a few manufacturers do that. The Berkeley Alpha and Bricasti use their own filters for example. I've played with Sabre DACs that had USB input capable of 384k input and using iZotope up-sampling with carefully selected settings versus using the stock filters made a noticeable improvement to me.
  


shabta said:


> diamondears said:
> 
> 
> > The original title of the thread has "Sabre sucks"...not sure if that's better.
> ...


 
  
 Actually, it originally was about how DSD sucks, but IIRC that was changed due to the flame wars that started.
  
 Since it has been confused in only a few posts: Insulting technology is OK, as long as you aren't blatantly trolling or flaming (ie: not explaining your disagreement with something). Insulting people is not OK, even indirectly. It's hard to confuse the two.


----------



## snip3r77

currawong said:


> Quite a few manufacturers do that. The Berkeley Alpha and Bricasti use their own filters for example. I've played with Sabre DACs that had USB input capable of 384k input and using iZotope up-sampling with carefully selected settings versus using the stock filters made a noticeable improvement to me.
> 
> 
> Actually, it originally was about how DSD sucks, but IIRC that was changed due to the flame wars that started.
> ...




Why allow blanket statement ds sucks at the title ? Ain't it misleading ?


----------



## Currawong

snip3r77 said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Quite a few manufacturers do that. The Berkeley Alpha and Bricasti use their own filters for example. I've played with Sabre DACs that had USB input capable of 384k input and using iZotope up-sampling with carefully selected settings versus using the stock filters made a noticeable improvement to me.
> ...


 

 It is discussed in the thread IIRC.


----------



## snip3r77

currawong said:


> It is discussed in the thread IIRC.




I think it's best to remove it. Blanket statement sucks. Other headfiers agree ?


----------



## diamondears

currawong said:


> Quite a few manufacturers do that. The Berkeley Alpha and Bricasti use their own filters for example. I've played with Sabre DACs that had USB input capable of 384k input and using iZotope up-sampling with carefully selected settings versus using the stock filters made a noticeable improvement to me.
> 
> 
> Actually, it originally was about how DSD sucks, but IIRC that was changed due to the flame wars that started.
> ...


Just saying that if we could try a digital filter with high pre and post ringings and a filter without or minimum pre and post ringings on the R2R/AD DAC chips, we could now tell for sure if the culprit is the filter and not the DAC itself. 



shabta said:


> The original title never said anything about Sabre but about chocolate ice cream. It is important for you to comprehend the logical difference between coming to a conclusion based on personal experience and what you are doing, which is claiming that the thread starter has a bad motivation when the evidence clearly contradicts that claim.



What are you saying? You mean it's ok for the topic/whole thread to bash, but a few posts such as mine to point out some suspicions? What a hypocrite.


----------



## nicolo

dreamking said:


> @nicolo I'm pretty sure that evillama's post was a sarcastic mirroring of opinions attacking Moffat's integrity for his design choices.


 
  
 If that's true, my apologies to evillamer


----------



## nicolo

diamondears said:


> He's not being "insulted" (which I'm not, just pointing out things) or criticized for his approach, but for his insulting approach. He's being criticized for bashing others to promoted himself or his products. And he hasn't proven that the glare comes from the D-S chip, my suspect is the stock standard digital filter that comes with the chip.
> 
> If it's really not the filter and it's the D-S chip, why not use that same or similar standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringing together with the AD chip? Why make a custom filter for it? Because the filter plays a big role in the digital-ness or glary-ness of the D-S DAC chips being touted as sucking big time.


 
  
  
 The AD chip wasn't originally designed for audio. It's designed specifically for military applications. Which means that Mike and others would have had to create their own filters along with other custom code modifications.
  
 Here's an idea: if you are nice to Schiit and if you are open to signing an NDA to emulate such "standard" digital filters for comparison purposes, they may even accept your proposal. After then you can compare away to your heart's content.


----------



## n-a

baldr said:


> Just for clarification:  Schiit makes 4 DACs priced from $100 to $850.  They all contain d-s DAC chips.  There's also one for $2300 - it is multibit.  To restate:
> 
> 1.  D-S tech is cheap and easily executable by morons.  Which qualifies me at a minimum as an verify experienced moron.
> 
> ...


 

 Thank you Mike for that post.
  
 I think it explains Schiit:s marketing philosophy very well.
 One of the best D-S chip with good engineering + upgradeability.
 What is the problem people? Look at the prices, you can be very sure that this company is not screwing you, when talking about PRICE / PERFORMANCE.
  
 All the best for everyone here. Peace 
 n-a


----------



## shabta

diamondears said:


> What are you saying? You mean it's ok for the topic/whole thread to bash, but a few posts such as mine to point out some suspicions? What a hypocrite.


 
  
 You seem hell-bent on proving the point that you don't understand the difference between bashing a technical solution and insulting someone (notice how your resorted to name calling in the quote above). Those two are not equivalent. Some people who like Planars think and post how Dynamic headphones are inferior based on the technology employed, that is totally ok. However, It is a false equivalency between someone calling out DS designs as inherently flawed one the one hand and suggesting that someone raises "suspicions" and is just putting on a "big commercial" for expressing their belief that a technology is flawed on the other hand.


----------



## diamondears

shabta said:


> You seem hell-bent on proving the point that you don't understand the difference between bashing a technical solution and insulting someone (notice how your resorted to name calling in the quote above). Those two are not equivalent. Some people who like Planars think and post how Dynamic headphones are inferior based on the technology employed, that is totally ok. However, It is a false equivalency between someone calling out DS designs as inherently flawed one the one hand and suggesting that someone raises "suspicions" and is just putting on a "big commercial" for expressing their belief that a technology is flawed on the other hand.



You missed the point. The point is the bashing of Sabre/D-S DAC chips, and that the bashing is I suspect being used just to market or advertise the non-Sabre/DS DAC chip. In other words, I didn't start this. In fact I'm not criticizing just for the sake of it, I'm presenting arguments, and that is---how can you say/bash the DS DACs for being digitally glary when you didn't even bother to test (making sure other things are equal during the test, and not hearing different DAC units with different filters and implementations) if it's caused by the digital filter used, which is my suspect. 

Look at the Yggy, it doesn't use the standard filter with lots of pre and post ringing. So how can we be sure that the non-digitally glary sound coming from it is primarily due to the AD chip and not the filter or "non-filter" used?


----------



## diamondears

nicolo said:


> The AD chip wasn't originally designed for audio. It's designed specifically for military applications. Which means that Mike and others would have had to create their own filters along with other custom code modifications.
> 
> Here's an idea: if you are nice to Schiit and if you are open to signing an NDA to emulate such "standard" digital filters for comparison purposes, they may even accept your proposal. After then you can compare away to your heart's content.



Yes, that would be great. But better proposition would be to use their proprietary filter on the Sabre/D-S DAC chips. If my suspect is right, their filter would remove the glare, hence its not the D-S DAC chip that's to blame. 

I understand though that the different DAC chips involved could make the two scenarios impossible.


----------



## diamondears

baldr said:


> Just for clarification:  Schiit makes 4 DACs priced from $100 to $850.  They all contain d-s DAC chips.  There's also one for $2300 - it is multibit.  To restate:
> 
> 1.  D-S tech is cheap and easily executable by morons.  Which qualifies me at a minimum as an verify experienced moron.
> 
> ...



Is it possible to create an optimum digital filter/DSP that will remove the glare for the sucky Sabre/D-S DAC chips?

Edit: Or is it better to just use more expensive non-D-S DAC chip to save time and brain matter to develop a digital filter/DSP to remove the glare?


----------



## frenchbat

How about you read the thread from the beginning and try to understand where the OP is coming from ? This thread started as pcm vs dsd, not sd vs r2r. Even Currawong said it.
  
 How about trying to get an idea how DAC chips actually work, and the radical difference between the mathematical results of each chip ? You must know that DS chip actually approximate their results which means that they are inherently innacurate right ? Are you familiar with the GiGo principle in IT engineering ? You can't save the signal with filters if the dac isn't giving you the right answer in the first place, can you ?


----------



## ginetto61

Hi and sorry but from what i understand the superior sound from the Yggy is not only due to the absence of digital glare, clearly a very good thing.
 I guess that is superior also for dynamics and rendition of the virtual soundstage. And we all know how exciting are these other two factors. 
 No that i like the digital glare ... but i would trade a little of it for an exceptional 3D effect. 
 I mean, the glare could be linked to the filter, but the other two to the new and high end dac chip used ?
 Thanks,  gino


----------



## diamondears

frenchbat said:


> How about you read the thread from the beginning and try to understand where the OP is coming from ? This thread started as pcm vs dsd, not sd vs r2r. Even Currawong said it.
> 
> How about trying to get an idea how DAC chips actually work, and the radical difference between the mathematical results of each chip ? You must know that DS chip actually approximate their results which means that they are inherently innacurate right ? Are you familiar with the GiGo principle in IT engineering ? You can't save the signal with filters if the dac isn't giving you the right answer in the first place, can you ?



I'm not an EE, but from what I understand (and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong on this), the stuff you're saying is in the digital filtering process (oversampling) to remove the noise, not in the DAC chip itself, although I understand that the DAC chip always have stock standard digital filters. This is why I'm saying the culprit is the digital filter process (to remove the noise), not the D-S DAC chip or digital to analogue conversion process itself that went before.


----------



## frenchbat

Nope, the results from the dac chip itself are an approximation, that's the way the Delta-Sigma process works. Oversampling is a trick used to reduce the range of the approximation, but it's still inaccurate, only to a lower extent.


----------



## diamondears

frenchbat said:


> Nope, the results from the dac chip itself are an approximation, that's the way the Delta-Sigma process works. Oversampling is a trick used to reduce the range of the approximation, but it's still inaccurate, only to a lower extent.


And the other chips aren't or are better approximations? Do we have evidence on that?


----------



## frenchbat

I already pointed you towards the right track some posts ago. Do some research on Dac accuracy, it's part of the specs, and expressed in LSB INL.
  
 The dac chip chosen by MM is accurate to 1ppm IIRC.


----------



## Sonic Defender

diamondears said:


> You missed the point. The point is the bashing of Sabre/D-S DAC chips, and that the bashing is I suspect being used just to market or advertise the non-Sabre/DS DAC chip. In other words, I didn't start this. In fact I'm not criticizing just for the sake of it, I'm presenting arguments, and that is---how can you say/bash the DS DACs for being digitally glary when you didn't even bother to test (making sure other things are equal during the test, and not hearing different DAC units with different filters and implementations) if it's caused by the digital filter used, which is my suspect.
> 
> Look at the Yggy, it doesn't use the standard filter with lots of pre and post ringing. So how can we be sure that the non-digitally glary sound coming from it is primarily due to the AD chip and not the filter or "non-filter" used?


 
 As I'm sure you have noticed I haven't been here in the thread throwing gushing compliments at MM's PR skills, regardless of where I stand on that issue his technical knowledge and ability to articulate it into amazing sounding DACs has been established without question. I may not like how MM comes across in public (and I'm sure he couldn't give two pinches of coon crap about that) but if MM says it is the totality of the design that should be good enough for you, for anybody. Why would he lie? Do you really believe they are so desperate for money that Schiit needs to use trickery to market their products? The idea is preposterous, Schiit has built their success on the sound of the products, and if MM has put his many years of un-paralleled skill and experience into this design I think that should tell you a great deal. And at this price point you think they are grabbing money? That just doesn't stand up at all. In the world of boutique priced DACs they could easily have asked more and gotten it. I think your going to end up chasing your tail around and getting mud all over yourself. Why not admit you may have jumped to conclusions and wait and hear for yourself?


----------



## evillamer

purrin said:


> Because obviously Mike Moffat, the father of the standalone DAC, who has been doing this for 35-40 years is stupid, and knows far less than armchair DAC designer consumers who seem to who know it all.




In schiit faq style:

And the audacity of them not charging 5 digits! How stupid can they be! This goes against the principle of paying top dollar for top performance! This is totally absurd.


----------



## prot

theblueprint said:


> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Theta-Pro-Gen-5-DAC-digital-audio-converter-excellent-condition-/191571715283?nma=true&si=QE6XorYamh0tT8svueWl0TYgPhQ%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
> 
> Okay, so who bought a *Theta GenV for $1750*?




And that after even the masters of 'ceremony' in this thread stated they wont pay more than $3-400 for such a device. That ebay link is a statement more powerful and telling than 100 pages in this thread. 

Wanna know if the r2r hype is real ... that's your answer. 
Wanna know if the hype already passed ridiculous thresholds .. that's your answer. 

When people take their wallets to 'wonderland', something is clearly wrong in the(ir) universe.


----------



## negura

The Theta Gen V / V A cost a lot of money in their day. Adjust that to inflation and one will find it is within today's MSB pricing range. Yes, even 20 years later £1100 is not a bad price for great technology, (more than) competitive with anything today's R2R, but no longer made and only available in limited and decreasing quantities.
  
 If NOS tube prices are any indication, expect the prices for the great R2R DACs of the hey-day to go only one way.


----------



## EraserXIV

So you think Mike's whole life work, spending many years, thousands of hours, and countless long days and nights to painstakingly develop an elaborate custom platform for the AD5791, because it isn't designed for audio applications, was an elaborate ploy just so they could market the Yggy as an R2R instead of a D-S DAC? And then once they finally succeeded, they only charged a minimal cost considering the bill of materials? Lol


----------



## BassDigger

How many ways can I put this?
  
 Most (hifi) manufacturers are a business. I mean that making money is waaaaaaay more important than providing value for money, in the form of sound per pound (I'm a Brit, remember) for their customers. The profit margin is king!
  
 They do this by charging as much as possible for something that cost as little as possible, for them to make.
 Capitalism at work; all normal so far. Yes?
  
 This results in us buying items for $1000s that cost $100s to make.The rest is overheads and profit margins.
 They can do this because of:

marketing,
dressing a sows ear to look like a silk purse,
the complicity of the 'hifi' media and
the naivety/gullibility of Joe Public.
  
 As someone around here is so fond of mentioning how important the filter is; tweaking the filter will have enough of an effect, that'll make the difference (in sq).
 The main part is the converter chip, and, as I understand it, a D-S chip is about a quarter of the price of an R-2R chip. So, that's maybe $25 vs $100. When the parts budget is a total of $200, that's gonna make a difference.
 So, if a manufacturer has a parts budget of $200, (for a dac that'll sell for $2000+), why would he want to increase the parts cost (alone), by 100%, for maybe a 20-30% increase in sq? He'll save that for the $5000+ dac (if he's feeling generous).
  
 Thankfully, some of the people in the industry appear to be hobbyist, music lovers first, and businessmen second.
  
 People that prefer the sound of multi-bit do so for different reasons; there are different factors, usually multiple, about the sound quality that they prefer; it's not just about digital glare. But if you can't tell the difference, or you think that D-S, or the filters used with D-S, sounds better, then lucky you.


----------



## AustinValentine

Disclaimer: I didn't buy that Gen V. But...
  
 The nine of past ten Gen V and Gen Va models that I've seen have sold for between $1400 and $1650. (Note: Purrin's was the one out of ten that went for less. The person that bought it got a fantastic deal.) Most of these sold _before_ the r2r discussion in this thread began. $1750 isn't a huge deviation from historical trends. In my experience, vintage Mark Levinson DACs go for between $1700 and $3500. Used Spectral SDR2000s go for between $2000 and $4000. Vintage Linn's go between $800 and $4000. 
  
 They go for those prices because their performance is excellent even when compared to modern high-end DACs. 
  
_Summit Fi DACs in this hobby are expensive. Period. _Consider that the dCS Scarlatti stack (ring DAC, upsampler, transport, clock) is $67,000. LH's Da Vinci DAC is $20,000. The Berkeley Audio Alpha Reference is $16,000. EMM Labs DAC2X Reference DAC is $15,000. Even dropping down from five figures: The Meitner Audio MA-1 is $7000. The PS Audio Directstream DAC is $6000. The Resonessence Invicta is $4000. Hell, even the Auralic Vega is $3500. 
  
 As the price point on new gear continues its upward creep and the quantity of available vintage r2r DACs continue to decline (due to age-related failure or unavailability), expect the prices on well-kept specimens to continue to rise. Not because of any magical hype train, but because of the state high end DAC prices and simple supply/demand curves.


----------



## diamondears

sonic defender said:


> As I'm sure you have noticed I haven't been here in the thread throwing gushing compliments at MM's PR skills, regardless of where I stand on that issue his technical knowledge and ability to articulate it into amazing sounding DACs has been established without question. I may not like how MM comes across in public (and I'm sure he couldn't give two pinches of coon crap about that) but if MM says it is the totality of the design that should be good enough for you, for anybody. Why would he lie? Do you really believe they are so desperate for money that Schiit needs to use trickery to market their products? The idea is preposterous, Schiit has built their success on the sound of the products, and if MM has put his many years of un-paralleled skill and experience into this design I think that should tell you a great deal. And at this price point you think they are grabbing money? That just doesn't stand up at all. In the world of boutique priced DACs they could easily have asked more and gotten it. I think your going to end up chasing your tail around and getting mud all over yourself. Why not admit you may have jumped to conclusions and wait and hear for yourself?



I've never said the Yggy's sound sucks. Again, I just don't like the Sabre-D-S sucks statement when it's not proven that the glare is attributable EXCLUSIVELY to the DAC chip. My suspect is the stock standard digital filter used as this is the common denominator in all the DACs I've heard that I felt are glare-y. 

I also said I suspect this thread is related to the Sabre/D-S sucks statement and are used to advertise the Yggy...but I never said Schiit is fooling us in the claimed excellent sound of the Yggy. I fact I said I'd like to try and would likely buy it to hear for myself. The 15-day trial for $115 plus shipping is reasonable for me. 


eraserxiv said:


> So you think Mike's whole life work, spending many years, thousands of hours, and countless long days and nights to painstakingly develop an elaborate custom platform for the AD5791, because it isn't designed for audio applications, was an elaborate ploy just so they could market the Yggy as an R2R instead of a D-S DAC? And then once they finally succeeded, they only charged a minimal cost considering the bill of materials? Lol


See above. And if that's the case (not saying it isn't), why the need to bash Sabre/D-S DAC chips and proclaim them the primary culprit in present day digital glare?


----------



## Sonic Defender

diamondears said:


> I've never said the Yggy's sound sucks. Again, I just don't like the Sabre-D-S sucks statement when it's not proven that the glare is attributable EXCLUSIVELY to the DAC chip. My suspect is the stock standard digital filter used as this is the common denominator in all the DACs I've heard that I felt are glare-y.
> 
> I also said I suspect this thread is related to the Sabre/D-S sucks statement and are used to advertise the Yggy...but I never said Schiit is fooling us in the claimed excellent sound of the Yggy. I fact I said I'd like to try and would likely buy it to hear for myself. The 15-day trial for $115 plus shipping is reasonable for me.
> See above. And if that's the case (not saying it isn't), why the need to bash Sabre/D-S DAC chips and proclaim them the primary culprit in present day digital glare?


 

 Hey, on some parts of your arguments I'm with you in the sense that I also don't think all D-S suck, there is a degree of subjectivity that needs to be considered. It is quite reasonable to expect that for some people a well implemented D-S DAC might be their preference. I have never heard an R2R design myself so I just have no frame of reference. In July we will be doing blind listening tests of my M51 versus the Yggy to see if anybody actually does prefer a D-S signature. I guess it is possible?
  
 Anyway, as I said, I think while it sounds like you have some understanding of filters and their role in sound reproduction, I think it is fair to say that MMskills and knowledge would be orders of magnitude greater and he has told people that the sound of the Yggy is the totality of the design which includes filters. I would say unless you are able to really technically evaluate the Yggy you should just take his word for it and let it go. Glad to hear that you see the price is actually quite reasonable.
  
 Frankly, had I been more patient I would have skipped the M51 (which I like very much by the way) and just grabbed a Yggy, but now I'm going to spend a year with the M51 and move to the Yggy in 2016. Hopefully the acrimony in this thread starts to tone down. Cheers.


----------



## Ableza

I use three  Wavelength DACs with Wolfson D/S devices, and one old school Kora DAC with a TI D/S device and none of them suck.  Yggdrasil does not suck either.


----------



## prot

negura said:


> The Theta Gen V / V A cost a lot of money in their day. Adjust that to inflation and one will find it is within today's MSB pricing range. Yes, even 20 years later £1100 is not a bad price for great technology, (more than) competitive with anything today's R2R, but no longer made and only available in limited and decreasing quantities.
> 
> If NOS tube prices are any indication, expect the prices for the great R2R DACs of the hey-day to go only one way.




One sample of wonderland prices (nos tubes and yes I tried some) does not justify another .. same as any wrong does not justify another

Btw, you should be very happy with those prices since you have a theta v. One Q: now that you heard the full power of iggy, are you goin to sell the theta and other DACs you may have? 

Guess the same Q would apply to anyone who bought an iggy.


----------



## negura

The price is more than justified by the sound quality imo. The Gen Vs have been selling for that price or more already. Nothing unusual.
 But I would not be surprised if prices will actually increase overtime.
  
 I need more than one DAC, so the Theta is here to stay for now. However no doubt the Yggdrasil is superior in SQ. But they also do sound quite differently, Theta even more so subject to whatever interface / source is feeding it.
  
 Also until I find a better Coax/AES interface, I feel I have not unlocked quite the full potential of the Theta. The Yggdrasil's built-in USB interface seems to really good so far. But whether I decide to shift resources this way, that's an entirely different matter. Convenience may just decide this matter for me.


----------



## juanitox

1750$ for a theta gen V  what a bargain !!   look at the price of the other 20 years old R2R legend Dac   ( PCM63 and cello output stage)  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Cello-Dac-D-A-Converter-/251945975324?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_146&hash=item3aa9267e1c


----------



## 7ryder

techlology said:


> Color me still very skeptical of this Schiit hype train.
> 
> Partly because their previous offerings were my first foray into headfi and they left me bitterly disappointed. The Bifrost was harsh, lifeless, and with more grain than your typical supermarket trail mix. The Lyr was a smeary, blurred up mess when driving my then HD600s. Their sound quality was equally matched by their build quality (I somehow managed to cut myself on the side of the Lyr in the unboxing process). This was a couple of years ago now and maybe my memory is exaggerated but to me they were sloppy and half-assed.
> 
> ...


 
 Regarding Schiit's marketing approach, you must feel very strongly about this for you to join Head-fi today just to post both about it and your bad experiences with Schiit.  
  
 First, welcome to HF (I think) and secondly, some people get their marketing approach and some don't and some folks have bought their products and loved them and some haven't.  I understand, you don't like them and I'm happy for you that your Auralic stack works well for you.
  
 Yggy is the first piece of Schiit that I've owned, so I'm not a fanboy and I also can't comment upon Bifrost's sound, but it is the best DAC I've had in my main system...beating out some DACs that retail for 6X+ Yggy's retail price.  Yes, to my ears it is that good and if it wasn't, I'd say so.
  
 It looks like you have some disposable cash, so get a Yggy and decide for yourself if it's hype or not.  If you're in the states, you're only out a couple of hundred bucks if you don't like it.


----------



## 7ryder

diamondears said:


> The title of this thread and Moffat's t-shirt are strikingly of same architecture and ultimate intent and eventual destination.


 
 I think Moffat was originally just busting balls with that t-shirt.  There are also pictures of him in a "ask me about my big DAC" t-shirt and no one is getting upset about the size of Yggy compared to those little girly-man DS DACs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Mike has now stated that he thinks his Yggy design is better, but so what?  
  
 Why are some of the folks that just arrived here on this thread so threatened by Purrin's rankings/opinions and what Mike has said?
  
 YOUR DAC STILL SOUNDS THE SAME WAY IT DID PRIOR TO YGGY BEING INTRODUCED!  
  
 you thought it sounded great then, it still sounds great to you now, right?  Or is it just that you have to be proven that your POV is the correct one?
  
 newsflash -- there are no absolutes, especially in audio.


----------



## snip3r77

where can I get/buy the "big DAC" shirt?


----------



## prot

negura said:


> The price is more than justified by the sound quality imo. The Gen Vs have been selling for that price or more already. Nothing unusual.
> But I would not be surprised if prices will actually increase overtime.
> 
> I need more than one DAC, so the Theta is here to stay for now. However no doubt the Yggdrasil is superior in SQ. But they also do sound quite differently, Theta even more so subject to whatever interface / source is feeding it.
> ...




Thx for the fast answer. 
My understanding of your post is "iggy is not better than theta v, just different .. so I'm keeping both". Pls correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## frenchbat

prot said:


> Thx for the fast answer.
> My understanding of your post is "iggy is not better than theta v, just different .. so I'm keeping both". Pls correct me if I'm wrong.


 


> Originally Posted by *negura*
> 
> 
> 
> However no doubt the Yggdrasil is superior in SQ.


 
 Sorry Prot, you're wrong.


----------



## negura

prot said:


> Thx for the fast answer.
> My understanding of your post is "iggy is not better than theta v, just different .. so I'm keeping both". Pls correct me if I'm wrong.


 
  
 I think I was very clear when I said  "no doubt the Yggdrasil is superior in SQ". Both are excellent, but there are levels and levels of excellence. What I also learnt, is that I would be interested in principle what I could get out of the Theta with a better interface/source. And Yggdrasil for that matter and perhaps this would be outside using USB with both.


----------



## evillamer

Maybe Mike Moffat can once and for all prove diamondears right(or seriously wrong) about R2R by designing a mid-tier Gungnir gen 2 using a AKM "D-S" chip but implemented with the same digital filter as Ygg.(if that's possible)


----------



## Ableza

I doubt very much that Mr. Moffat cares even half a semi-digested burrito about whether any Internet denizen thinks he's right or wrong.  In fact I don't know him personally, but I do know several people like him with similar skill sets (and I share his "generational position") and most of the people I do know would likely say to the Internet something along the lines of, "Buy my Schiit.  Or don't.  And if you don't like my approach go out and build some Schiit of your own."


----------



## wahsmoh

I'm not going to saturate this thread anymore with my opinions on R2R and the Theta DAC. But to me it is a testimony to build quality that this DAC from 1994 still works perfectly fine and yet in this day and age there are people who are having issues with their brand new **insert alternate name** Nerd Pulse extraspecial and have had to return the brand new space age product. Why does this thing from 94 work perfectly fine? It is built like a tank.. served with you get it as it is, don't need triple femto clocks here people to get "analog" sound


----------



## purrin

snip3r77 said:


> I think it's best to remove it. Blanket statement sucks. Other headfiers agree ?


 
  
 Thread title changed. Just so feelings aren't hurt.


----------



## coli

I'm pretty sure there's some back handed marketing arrangements going on.


----------



## purrin

coli said:


> I'm pretty sure there's some back handed marketing arrangements going on.


 
  
 You mean "behind the scenes", not "back handed".


----------



## Sonic Defender

coli said:


> I'm pretty sure there's some back handed marketing arrangements going on.


 

 I doubt it, at least not as how I think you mean it. Yes, purrin has made no bones about his appreciation for Schiit gear, well some of it, and he also enjoys the people behind the company. We all "market" the gear we believe in anytime we post our positive views. Why should purrin not be allowed to do the same thing? It isn't his fault that he has established his reputation as a knowledgeable and honest head-fier so your accusations are pretty baseless as far as I can tell.


----------



## warrior1975

purrin said:


> Thread title changed. Just so feelings aren't hurt.




This is absolutely absurd. It's your opinion, and certainly entitled to share it. It's beyond ridiculous the amount of effort and time you have put into this thread, and more wasted time "defending" your position. 

I respect everyone's opinion and really do appreciate the efforts of those do do similar things. The amount of time one can spend going back and forth abing things is truly unbelievable. 

I suggest to others that are complaining, especially about the title of the thread, do your own abing and summarize it. Also wondering if any of the critics of Purrin appreciate the time and effort of his work? 

I've spent a few hours abing daps and it is not an enjoyable process, and certainly one that I wish never to do again. It's boring, tedious, time consuming, and frustrating at times. Perhaps a little gratitude towards others that take the time to help us is in order? Or, if you have nothing to add or nothing to do but complain, do your own testing. 

I don't know if I'd agree with Purrin, but damn sure do respect then man and appreciate his effort, which is more than I can say for those complaining about a thread title... How petty can you get?


----------



## bearFNF

snip3r77 said:


> where can I get/buy the "big DAC" shirt?


 

 You can make your own...online t-shirt making is pretty easy nowadays...


----------



## evillamer

Well folks, we are in the Facebook generation, and any kind of negativity about something will get you alot of dislike, hates and trolls. You have to be "opinion agnostic" on all your post.


----------



## hans030390

Regarding filters, I've heard DACs with standard filters, either just a default/single option or with multiple options to choose from, and DACs with off-the-shelf or, better yet, custom filters. I'd _like_ to say I prefer minimum phase over linear phase, but for most D/S designs, I generally found I just prefer less oversampling than more oversampling (i.e. 2x vs 8x, 2x being preferable to my ears). Slow roll-off vs sharp or fast roll-off. Etc. Then again, I most prefer a non-oversampled design, which I know for some is a quick way to disconnect them from the music. Just rolling with what resonates best with me.
  
 On the other hand, I've heard 8x oversampling filters that were really quite pleasant. The Theta Gen Va has such a filter. No hint of glare, digital hash, or any other similar unpleasant characteristic. I've heard some standard 8x filters that weren't so bad either, usually from Wolfson-based designs.
  
 Sure, most standard digital filters are probably nothing to write home about. I think some are better than others. For example, I like what Wolfson does, and I like DACs that utilize the variety of digital filter options available from Wolfson. Gamma2 and some of the Audio-GD DACs are good examples of this, with A-GD being awesome for having options ranging from 2x through 8x oversampling with various roll-off types. The PWD Mk1 I tried was a very poor example. All of the filters were 8x, and PS Audio ordered the filters differently on the DAC than what they specified in the manual, so I've never really trusted them to be competent after that despite some liking the PWD Mk2 (Mk1 -> 2 upgrade, that is). But, even then, 8x oversampling or not, I didn't care for the PWD Mk1's sound all that much. It robbed the Wolfson chip of what it did best compared to other D/S chips in terms of tone, liquidity, and so on.
  
 Anyway, while I generally prefer less oversampling (or none) over more oversampling, clearly there are exceptions to this rule or certain options and implementation I don't mind using standard, off-the-shelf, or entirely custom digital filter designs. I don't think it's right to simplify it down to linear phase vs. minimum phase, more ringing vs. less ringing, pre-ringing vs. post-ringing, 0x through 8x oversampling, and so on. Way too many other variables to consider in the DAC.
  
 But all this talk of digital filters, linearity and accuracy, resolution and detail extraction...*none of this touches on where I think R2R/multi-bit really shines*. I just have not heard a single D/S DAC that gives the three-dimensional, full-bodied sound, _real_ sound that you get from R2R/multi-bit. And by full bodied, I don't mean warm or bassy, though R2R/multi-bit does usually seem to have better bass slam, texture, and pitch differentiation assuming good chips and a good implementation. I mean that each instrument, voice, and fart sounds like something that has some sort of real presence and body to it vs. some sort of flatter, 2D representation of said element. D/S generally just sounds like a cheap imitation, good detail or not, and I find it difficult to go back to D/S DACs now.


----------



## MuZo2

coli said:


> I'm pretty sure there's some back handed marketing arrangements going on.


 

 Go and look at his site sponsor and you will come to know if there is any truth in what you just said.


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

purrin said:


> Thread title changed. Just so feelings aren't hurt.


 
  
 It's your thread, Purrin -- call it whatever you want.  If someone else wants to start a thread supporting delta-sigma DACs they're free to do so.
  
 Any arguments regarding the thread's title are a waste of time, energy and bandwidth.


----------



## RoundRound

Baldr said:
			
		

> 3.  Because of this slow development, Schiit would offer this tech as available to existing users of our upgradable products without screwing them.  (Gungnir and Bifrost)




Just to clarify, 
Will ther be an update to the lesser Schiit DACS that brings Yggy tech to them?

Thanks!


----------



## evillamer

roundround said:


> [quote name="Baldr"
> 3.  Because of this slow development, Schiit would offer this tech as available to existing users of our upgradable products without screwing them.  (Gungnir and Bifrost)


 
 Just to clarify,
 Will ther be an update to the lesser Schiit DACS that brings Yggy tech to them?

 Thanks![/quote]

 My $1 bet is on USB Gen 3 upgrade board.


----------



## EraserXIV

Instead of crying that he change the title, why don't people unsubscribe and make their own thread where they can make the title whatever they want to counteract this one. 

This is an Internet forum, people have opinions. If you can't seem to get that simple concept down, you need to get off the Internet for your own good.


----------



## RoundRound

evillamer said:


> My $1 bet is on USB Gen 3 upgrade board.




While on the subject, does the Gen 3 USB in Yggy negates the need for adding a Wyrd into the mix?


----------



## evillamer

Gonna use an analogy here: 
  
 Listening to D-S(Specifically ES9018) is akin to watching a gymnastic performance, you get see alot of fast action but not much of the delicate movement.
  
 Listening to R2R(PCM1704UK) is akin to watching a ballerina performance, each movement is delicate and precise.


----------



## lukeap69

evillamer said:


> Gonna use an analogy here:
> 
> Listening to D-S(Specifically ES9018) is akin to watching a gymnastic performance, you get see alot of fast action but not much of the delicate movement.
> 
> Listening to R2R(PCM1704UK) is akin to watching a ballerina performance, each movement is delicate and precise.


 
 Damn! I'm so interested with R2R until this analogy. I like watching the gymnastic performance more than ballerinas! Got to think about my DAC acquisition plans now...


----------



## DreamKing

People aren't moved until you tell them they've been listening to music wrong their entire life.


----------



## Sonic Defender

evillamer said:


> My $1 bet is on USB Gen 3 upgrade board.


 

 Trickle down effect is likely with the Gungnir at least.


----------



## prot

negura said:


> I think I was very clear when I said  "no doubt the Yggdrasil is superior in SQ". Both are excellent, but there are levels and levels of excellence. What I also learnt, is that I would be interested in principle what I could get out of the Theta with a better interface/source. And Yggdrasil for that matter and perhaps this would be outside using USB with both.




Thx for the clarification. 
For me, the only thing that says "Iggy is clearly/much/nodoubt better than XYZ" is people who stop using XYZ after they got the Iggy .. or sell the XYZ asap. Oldschool I guess (ppl say vs ppl do). And you did not .. and I do not see many doing any of that

P.S.
 I also get annoyed when ppl think they can speak for someone else .. a surprisingly popular trend around here. More of that oldschool of mine I guess


----------



## Eee Pee

Old school people still spell words out completely and correctly. You can't be that old school.


----------



## Turn&cough

lukeap69 said:


> Damn! I'm so interested with R2R until this analogy. I like watching the gymnastic performance more than ballerinas! Got to think about my DAC acquisition plans now...


 
 How about if the ballerinas are naked and in your living room?


----------



## prot

eee pee said:


> Old school people still spell words out completely and correctly. You can't be that old school.




Definitely too old school for spelling bees .. and lazy ppl of any age no good writers make. And oldschool is surely diff than old. And if that's what you wanted to imply, no, I'm not "you kids get off my lawn" old. And this is of course a useless and kinda funn(k)y post.


----------



## Woodman99

Haven't been all the way through this thread, but having had three sessions listening to the Nad 51,  PS Audio NuWave DAC, the REGA Dac-R and the 'toy like' Hugo Chord, I have bought the Hugo. 
  
 I just don't recognise the description that started this thread. It came down to the PS and the Hugo, but the Hugo was utterly convincing with whatever it was thrown. Listening was through a mixture of headphones and speakers.


----------



## preproman

hans030390 said:


> Regarding filters, I've heard DACs with standard filters, either just a default/single option or with multiple options to choose from, and DACs with off-the-shelf or, better yet, custom filters. I'd _like_ to say I prefer minimum phase over linear phase, but for most D/S designs, I generally found I just prefer less oversampling than more oversampling (i.e. 2x vs 8x, 2x being preferable to my ears). Slow roll-off vs sharp or fast roll-off. Etc. Then again, I most prefer a non-oversampled design, which I know for some is a quick way to disconnect them from the music. Just rolling with what resonates best with me.
> 
> On the other hand, I've heard 8x oversampling filters that were really quite pleasant. The Theta Gen Va has such a filter. No hint of glare, digital hash, or any other similar unpleasant characteristic. I've heard some standard 8x filters that weren't so bad either, usually from Wolfson-based designs.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 So I can get a better perspective, what D/S Dacs have you heard - Hi'er end ones?


----------



## hans030390

Admittedly, nothing insanely expensive, and not near the number of DACs purrin has heard (though it seems I already have similar findings as him). Don't have the funds to try these insanely expensive DACs myself, so would have to rely on folks loaning me stuff like the M1 to test out.
  
 I'm sure I'm missing some, but off the top of my head, Gungnir, X-Sabre, PWD Mk1, then a lot of modestly priced stuff like the Gamma2, Audio-GD NFB 3.2 (or something like that). So, nothing top-tier, but nothing that would also nothing that would give me a desire to go higher when modestly priced R2R/multi-bit DACs do much, much more for me than what D/S I've tested.
  
 Always willing to re-evaluate if someone wants to try to change my mind with loaner gear.


----------



## Armaegis

turn&cough said:


> How about if the ballerinas are naked and in your living room?


 
  
 As long as it's not the prima ballerina. Oy...


----------



## arnaud

hans030390 said:


> I've heard a couple custom filters, or stuff from Wolfson that can do all sorts of stuff (2x-8x, LP, MP, etc.), and there are some that sound good to my ears. But I'm right there with you preferring NOS even for 44.1. I get that you and I are probably in the minority here, but something about it just sounds more natural to me in a sort of real way despite some compromises (compromises that I know do the opposite and make NOS sound less real and natural to others).
> 
> Speaking of which, I'd love to hear a TotalDAC sometime, though I must say I've been incredibly satisfied with my Audial Model S I recently picked up. It's heads and shoulders above the Hex or NOS1704 I had before.




This Audial DAC isn't much talked about, is it? I just saw this audiogon review, this looks indeed very promising:
1. Midnight black background
2. Deep, deep, deep depth of soundstage
3. Elegantly detailed
4. Harmonious
5. Tight bass notes
6. Distortion at record low levels
7. Inherently listenable
8. Seductive, sexy. Hurt me...
9. The best digital has to offer


----------



## warrior1975

Anyone hear a tube dac made by Jolida?

http://www.jolida.com/product/glass-fx-tube-dac-iii

Are tube dacs any good? Not much info from what I can find, probably for good reason.


----------



## hans030390

arnaud said:


> This Audial DAC isn't much talked about, is it? I just saw this audiogon review, this looks indeed very promising:
> 1. Midnight black background
> 2. Deep, deep, deep depth of soundstage
> 3. Elegantly detailed
> ...


 
  
 Indeed, I had a hard time finding info on it, especially reviews, so it was a rather risky purchase on my end. But to comment on the points above and add my own thoughts:
  
 - Much more resolving than the Metrum Hex or NOS1704. Actually keeps up the pace fairly well with the Theta Gen Va I have, though with the slightly more rolled, slightly softer sound you'd expect from a non-oversampling DAC. But the Model S really opens up with high-res content and starts to bridge this "softness gap."
 - No hint of digital glare, hash, or other harshness. Smooth in that regard, but NOT gloss-over-details smooth like a Metrum. The Theta, of course, sounds sharper and a bit more in focus, but still has that slight hint of over-sharpness that I hear from about every oversampled DAC (i.e. finger picking a nylon guitar on oversampled DACs makes it sound more like someone is using a pick, not their fingers, on strings that sound more metallic than nylon strings do to me IRL...just one example...though the opposite could be said about cymbals, which sometimes are a bit too polite on NOS DACs).
 - Soundstage one of the best I've heard from NOS so far. Fairly 3D. Does a nice job bringing out subtle positional cues and such or weird mastering quirks across both channels. But more intimate/smaller than the Theta Gen Va, though not by a whole lot. IME, NOS struggles when it comes to producing a very large soundstage, so it's impressive for me to hear how well this does with soundstage and placements.
 - Excellent dynamics, good bass slam. Slightly warmer tone than Theta Gen Va, but, again, not by much. Theta is a tad bit tighter and very slightly more resolving down low but about on par with dynamics and slam. When things get really crazy down low, Theta does a bit better bringing things out cleanly. To me, it's more like splitting hairs, and having a nice SPDIF converter bridges this gap to an extent.
 - Distortion is indeed very low, both on the listed specs and based on some measurements I took (unpublished). Right channel performs a bit better than left at 2nd order distortion (about 0.007% on left vs 0.002% on right, 0dB 1KHz tone), but they perform the same beyond 2nd order. The rest of the measurements look solid, and not just for a NOS DAC.
 - Excellent tone.
 - One of the first things I noticed was how well it did portraying various recording and mastering techniques across various albums. Generally gets out of the way without imparting too many of its own characteristics.
  
 Essentially, it's like it borrows all the good aspects I've heard from various NOS DACs so far, but has more of that magic that I've heard from the legendary DACs produced in the mid-90s. To me, it's head and shoulders above the NOS DACs I'd heard and does indeed please me as much as DACs like the Theta Gen Va or Classe DAC-1 (the Classe being a bit too much for my tastes...too detailed, a bit rough at times, but had huge slam and the best, most holographic soundstage I've heard to date).
  
 It was definitely a hunt for me to find this DAC. I knew I wanted a non-oversampling DAC. The Metrums were the most emotionally involving and least fatiguing of what I'd tried at the time. The NOS1704 had more detail than the Metrums but was mushier, too closed-in sounding, and had a sort of artificial glare to the sound despite it being rolled and smooth sounding at the same time.
  
 All this talk about DAC accuracy and linearity pointed me to a handful of old-school, legendary, multi-bit DACs. After a lot of research, sampling some DACs (including a TDA1543 DAC and some DACs I'd just rather not talk about), I decided that the TDA1541A chip seemed like it would offer what I wanted in terms of overall tone and other sonic characteristics as well as strong performance, even with reported linearity and accuracy, on the datasheets (though I know purrin said he doubted the INL/DNL specs on the 1541A datasheet). The hard part was finding a NOS, TDA1541A-based DAC that looked good on paper OR wasn't some cheap design, so I really didn't have any other options beyond the Audial Model S. Audial was about as transparent as I could find in terms of listing their DAC's technical performance. I had already been bitten in the ass too many times by products that didn't have many specifications listed. Usually that's a sign they don't want you to know how it performs on paper, though not always. Plus, Pedja of Audial was super friendly and happy to answer any questions I had about his products.
  
 It took a couple hundred hours to sound its best (and I'm usually not too keen on believing in equipment burn-in like this), but boy did it open up after that! Though, both a blessing and a curse, the TDA1541A uses an older build type or architecture of sorts that means it gets rather hot, so it's best to only turn on when you need it to avoid damage from long-term heat exposure (usually leaving it off over night is sufficient, if you listen on a daily basis). On the upside, the thing sounds its best after maybe an hour of warmup, vs. a week for the Yggy. 
  
 Again, I haven't heard the TotalDAC or all other non-oversampling DACs, but I'm still in love with the Model S so far after a couple months. Keeps growing on me too.


----------



## zach915m

> The hard part was finding a NOS, TDA1541A-based DAC that looked good on paper OR wasn't some cheap design, so I really didn't have any other options beyond the Audial Model S.


 
  
 You may have told me this already, but was there another DAC that was even close to consideration VS the Audial?


----------



## hans030390

zach915m said:


> You may have told me this already, but was there another DAC that was even close to consideration VS the Audial?


 
  
 There were a couple cheaper options I considered. Not all were Philips/TDA-based, though, as a side note, I do think there are too many high-priced TDA1543-based DACs on the market (it's a budget chip and performs as such! C'mon!). Most I ruled out for one reason or another after research. One that I tried, but will not name, was a no-go. Then there was the potential of used TotalDACs, but those are quite pricey, plus the possibility of them not really reaching beyond 14-bit accuracy due to the 0.01% resistors despite great static measurements concerned me for such a high price. I almost considered the Metrum Pavane until the price was announced.
  
 I got the Model S with RCA and XLR output, transformer coupled (so, most expensive version of it). Cost about $2.6K, and given I wanted something _very_ specific to my tastes, I feel I got my money's worth. Consider that the base Metrum Hex model is _at least_, and often more than, $2.5K without USB input and with stock output transformers, and the Model S blows it away, IMO.
  
 BTW, Pedja of Audial informed me the USB version of the Model S has lower jitter than the SPDIF version and sounds a bit sharper too, though with an ever so slightly less rich tone. He and I both agreed the SPDIF version would probably suit my hardware chain and personal tastes better.


----------



## Sonic Defender

@hans030390, sounds like a stunning little DAC. Do you also have a Yggy? I think I remember you saying you did, and if so, is the Audail the one you currently use more? I must admit to knowing nothing about the Audail and as 2016 is my year for an upgrade in DACs I just may have to learn more about it. Cheers.


----------



## hans030390

No, I have the Audial Model S and Theta Gen Va. No Yggy. Waiting on trickle down tech, since non-oversampling is my go-to. Really no need to spend so much money on what would be my backup, complementary DAC. Also, Model S isn't what I'd call little.  Not as big as the Theta, but more in line with DACs that size than not.
  
 BTW, if you have not yet heard a non-oversampling DAC, best to do so either with a loaner, at a meet, or sampling a budget offering before diving in too deep. Most are better served by and prefer oversampling DACs. I have particular tastes for a variety of reasons.


----------



## evillamer

I feel that NOS is something that you either really like it or don't. It sounds can grainy but at the same it's pleasant. I think most people who started their head-fi hobbies in the past 10-15years, would have grown used to the Oversampled dac sound.


----------



## hans030390

Generally NOS for me is the opposite of grainy, with some exceptions. Though the guy I sold my Hex to said it sounded rough in comparison to the PWD, which was the exact opposite of my experience. Can't say I'm entirely sure what factors cause those different perceptions.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Hopefully I can try a NOS as I have always been intrigued. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Yggy does oversample or have I gotten my information mixed up? So many DACs that I have been reading about (and sadly not hearing).


----------



## snip3r77

purrin said:


> Thread title changed. Just so feelings aren't hurt.




You can change it back no worries, I don't get any moolah / early access to product - if the title is either way.


----------



## hans030390

sonic defender said:


> Hopefully I can try a NOS as I have always been intrigued. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Yggy does oversample or have I gotten my information mixed up? So many DACs that I have been reading about (and sadly not hearing).


 
  
 Yggy's digital filter/oversampling is one of its main selling points. 8x oversampling, IIRC. No rate converter/upsampling prior, though.


----------



## diamondears

frenchbat said:


> I already pointed you towards the right track some posts ago. Do some research on Dac accuracy, it's part of the specs, and expressed in LSB INL.
> 
> 
> The dac chip chosen by MM is accurate to 1ppm IIRC.


 Are you sure you're not referring to oversampling vs upsampling?


----------



## purrin

On the topic of the sound of R2R and D-S:
  
 Generally R2R is more fluid sounding, has stronger tone density, more texture, more distinct richer timbre. D-S DACs may have treble glare, hash, rasp, stridency, treble grain, or a temporary grain / lack of fluidity. 
  
 The very good D-S DACs minimize the bad stuff, but it's always there to some extent. For example, I find that the M51 and M1 have a very fine treble grain, but it's not annoying at all. (But it's still there, so I guess it is annoying.) Also, I have never heard a D-S DAC that has the a tactile sense of body with dense tones / timbre. Maybe Berkeley, PS Audio, Bricasti come somewhat close, but still not R2R. Other D-S DACs come close to R2R fluidity and lack of treble hash and grain like Lavry DA11 or Gungnir, but unfortunately, they don't resolve as well the Berkeley, Bricasti, etc. There's always some trade-off. Either very high resolution, but with treble crap; or lower resolution with less treble crap. And never having the deep tones and textures of R2R.
  
 Most of the R2R of DACs of recent I do not like. Some expensive units from big big names costing thousands of dollars. The reasons is they weren't resolving enough, and often they were too laid-back. Overly polite and forgiving. Blame the PCM1704 or some industrial chips with really crappy specs that should never have been used in audio. Or perhaps blame intentional voicing of DACs to sound like bad turntables.
  
 The gymnastic and ballerina analogy is a good one, but oversimplified.
  
 The R2R DAC that I first (recently) found rather very interesting was the Audio-GD M7. The M7 by itself with its built-in USB was too ballerina for me. Just typical PCM1704 syrupy bass, smooth lush sound, moderately resolving, but nothing _that _special. Certainly not worth the hype on HF anymore since the price shot up to well over $2k. It was only until I figured out the i2s pinouts to use the M7 with the Off Ramp 5 converter where I finally felt satisfied with the sound, and made the up/sidegrade from PWD2 to M7/OR5. DACLadder implemented an LVDS HDMI receiver for the i2s on M7. This was the final touch. A combination of both gymnastic and ballerina traits. That is what I wanted. The best of both worlds. Or more precisely, a good portion of both worlds. 100% ballerina, 50-75% gymnast. Would personally like more gymnast, but hey, I can't complain. 
  
 I was happy for a while until I started to hear rumors of some DAC wizard with white hair and a big belly who kind of looked like a gruff Santa Claus who kept babbling about missiles and medical equipment. After doing some research, I figured out this dude was _the dude_ at Theta.
  
 Yggy gets confirmed by Schiit, I hear marketing speak on mega-burrito filters or whatever. I didn't want to wait, and I also wanted to see if this dude was full of **** about filters, et. al. Also, I hear talk that the PCM63 was _the chip_ for R2R and that in fact, the PCM1704 sucks. (Everything BB after TI bought them sucked more and more. This happens in audio, much like when Harmon bought JBL.) The fact that someone actually dared say that the PCM1704 sucked (I always felt it kinda sucked, but accepted it as a necessary for lack of choice in R2R), made me want to hear the PCM63. (You see, this is why you should never get your panties in a bunch when someone says something sucks.) Anyways, my only other experience with PCM63 was with Linn's Karik/Numerik, and that DAC sucked, so I was doubtful the PCM could really be all that good. But then again, I knew that Linn back in the 90s didn't know what the **** they were doing with digital.
  
 So I take the leap and find a DAC with the mega-burrito filter (at least an earlier version) and the PCM63. That would be the Theta Gen V. I didn't know if the Gen V had the mega-burrito filter or not, but I took a guess, and later confirmed with Jason / Mike and that indeed, it was the same filter, but less complex than what was planned in the Yggy because the processing power of chips 25-30 years ago sucked compared to now. (Before this, I actually picked up a Sonic Frontiers DAC and got rid of my M7 immediately.)
  
 So basically, the Theta Gen V is like Ho Lee ***. 90% ballerina, 100% gymnast. AND MORE... add magician. The magician stuff is the holographic imaging (best appreciated on speakers, but translates to headphones too.) So a lot starts to make sense. These digital filters are important to space, soundstage, imaging. Anecdotal evidence, but probably explains why the M7's stage is horribly shallow with fuzzy imprecise images. (M7 has its own custom digital filter, but obviously it sucks.)
  
 Half a year later, I have a mini-meet. Jason posts, "Hey, can I come? I'll bring Yggy." and I get a few sneak peaks here and there. zerodeefex gets it first for two days. I get it second for seven days to allow for full warm-up as recommended by Santa (yeah, and how many people thought I was full of crap on the warm up stuff now?). The rest as they say is history.
  
 So basically when I say delta-sigma sucks, this does not imply R2R doesn't suck. A lot of R2R, especially the current PCM1704 stuff, sucks (too ballerina, not enough gymnast). The only thing I've concluded is that Yggy and some select vintage R2R DACs sound better than the best D-S DAC ($8000) I have heard. The second meaning behind delta-sigma sucks is that designers have gotten lazy and rehashed delta-sigma evaluation boards / kits into some very expensive DACs, leading to a homogeneous enviroment of D-S DACs - more choice is always better. The third reason is that if you do not speak out on what sucks, things will never get better or at least different (REPEAT: You see, this is why you should never get your panties in a bunch when someone says something sucks.) 
  
 Finally if you are true audiophile seeker, the minute you hear something better, the gear that was worse instantly and immediately sucks. Only false audiophiles do the circle jerk thing and try to feel good about ill-informed purchases or old-gear which has been surpassed by better (not necessarily newer) designs. I sincerely hope a lot of audio companies and chip makers take note of what Schiit is doing. 
  
 P.S.
  
 I told Mike Moffat of my reaction (using speakers) on the polarity button. His reply was "It's like whether the image sucks or blows."


----------



## drez

purrin said:


> Rankings are my own based on my own preferences. Your rankings may be different. I believe I said something to that effect in the first post. Maybe I didn't.
> 
> 
> I have heard DACs with minimum phase and linear phase filters. Some D-S DACs I have owned or borrowed for extended periods offered several filters. PWD2, Gamma2, Vega, LH, etc. (too many to recall.) In these cases, I've almost always preferred the linear phase filter. Smoother to my ears; however I still wouldn't say analog sounding or particularly smooth compared to R2R. The other ninjas in the evaluations preferred other filters. I'd say the filters are more a matter of "different" than better or analog.
> ...


 
  
 I also prefer linea phase filters - I'm not sure if it's that they sound smoother, but IME more coherent as the minimum phase filters I have been playing with seem to throw out really weird imaging I couldn't live with.  
  
 I have been doing this from software using HQPlayer which has an excellent range of filters, dither options, and IMO sounds more transparent than any other software for some reason.  My second preference after HQPlayer would be JRiver, with Foobar in last (I found the WASAPI plugin the least objectionable and digital sounding)
  
 I find that I generally prefer to oversample and music by at least 2 x as this seems to reduce some of the nervousness and grain on some poorer recordings, even hi-res formats.  I suspect this is leveraging some kind of coloration and there is slight time domain blurring from the filter I suspect but is sounds more like music.
  
 I also wonder how much difference there is between noise filtering in both the digital inputs, sensitivty of DAC chip to noise, as well as the analog output sections.  The Sabre DAC I use shows dramatic differences in noise levels corresponding to changes made to the computer.  I really am struggling to adjust to using a switching PSU after getting used to the linear powered computer, but I will have to as I have damaged the linear supply by overloading.
  
 It is one of those things - at first it took my brain a while to get used to lower noise from the digital input - my thoughts were the sound was too laid back, but after a while either burn in took place, or I began to realise that the linear supply was more transparent and detailed, less blurred, less noisy, such that even very good switching supply was unlistenable.
  
 I suspect maybe something similar happens with R2R DAC's once they are on a good enough technicalities footing, even very good delta sigma switching DAC's are difficult to listen to.  Previously I had little to complain about in my system using the switching ATX supply, I think the brain becomes used to the noise and just ignores it as much as possible.
  
 BUT I still have to figure out what exactly is causing the noise in Sigma Delta, and why it is absent from Multibit.  Especially why Sabre, which sets out to eliminate the problem areas of delta sigma sets multibit fans off so badly given how low level the noise producted by the chip itself is, at least with most of the measurements I have seen, including those on ESS white papers.  There are some *very* high end, cost no object DAC's which use Sabre chips, often in multiples, presumably to try and filter out what remaining artefacts are created by the chip, and probably not just using the reference design from ESS.
  
 I have a suspicion that part of the problem with Sabre is that the noise levels are too *low*, and that because of this, other noise from the digital inputs, power supply etc are easily heard, while other DACs which more noise in the audio band do a better job of covering up these noise sources.  This is just my own daydream and not something have tested or formulated from heaps of listening experience so take with grain of salt.
  
 The other though I have had is that I would not mind NOS DAC with high bandwidth digital input, as when using a computer, there is heaps of unused processing power that can be used to implement very good digital filters.  This would reduce costs for a lot of DAC's as they can forgo using complex filters in high end FPGA chips, and would not need the space in the chasis etc.  Maybe it is better to do some of these things near the DAC chip, but FPGA circuits especially powerful ones also product electrical noise AFAIK.


----------



## Techlology

7ryder said:


> Regarding Schiit's marketing approach, you must feel very strongly about this for you to join Head-fi today just to post both about it and your bad experiences with Schiit.
> 
> First, welcome to HF (I think) and secondly, some people get their marketing approach and some don't and some folks have bought their products and loved them and some haven't.  I understand, you don't like them and I'm happy for you that your Auralic stack works well for you.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Not from the States. Where I live, auditioning, shipping, and distribution are a pain in the ass. Disposable cash is currently going towards a tube-fund, been dazzled by the tube aesthetic for a long long time now, so a Yggy or any other piece of gear is not on my roadmap.


----------



## frenchbat

diamondears said:


> Are you sure you're not referring to oversampling vs upsampling?


 

 Seriously ?
  
 I'll point out another word you can look for in google to try and understand : DAC monotonicity. After that you're on your own. Goodbye


----------



## diamondears

frenchbat said:


> Seriously ?
> 
> I'll point out another word you can look for in google to try and understand : DAC monotonicity. After that you're on your own. Goodbye


You got no evidence alright.


----------



## Eee Pee

purrin said:


> I told Mike Moffat of my reaction (using speakers) on the polarity button. His reply was "It's like whether the image sucks or blows."


 
  
  
 That is precisely correct, with speakers.


----------



## diamondears

purrin said:


> On the topic of the sound of R2R and D-S:
> 
> Generally R2R is more fluid sounding, has stronger tone density, more texture, more distinct richer timbre. D-S DACs may have treble glare, hash, rasp, stridency, treble grain, or a temporary grain / lack of fluidity.
> 
> ...



Exactly, so you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch too when someone says saying "Sabre/DS chips sucks" sucks big time, especially when it's the filter that's at fault. 

So, based on your story, it is that mega-burrito filter that matters, and the reason the R2R/PCM63 is used is because the mega-burrito filter would work on it. Developing a filter takes a while and resources, so why not get or borrow an existing filter (the mega-burrito one, old one, existing and cheap) and use a chip where it could be implemented (the R2R/PCM63)? Genius! So basically we just got back to 1990s DAC technology. Now that's advancement, use technology 20 years ago, put it in a shiny new modern case, and proclaim modern chips sucks big time and that the old one blows (both the chip and California burrito filter). I knew it was the filter.


----------



## juanitox

i prefer tube or BJT solidstate or VFET amp than modern chipamp, tripath or icepower tech ..   yes 20, 40 , 70 years old tech can sounds better than modern stuff  , who really cares ?


----------



## purrin

diamondears said:


> Exactly, so you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch too when someone says saying "Sabre/DS chips sucks" sucks big time, especially when it's the filter that's at fault.





> Genius! So basically we just got back to 1990s DAC technology. Now that's advancement, use technology 20 years ago, put it in a shiny new modern case, and proclaim modern chips sucks big time and that the old one blows (both the chip and California burrito filter).


 
  
 Why would I? With a few exceptions, I don't like them. (I'm not sure what you are arguing, it should be pretty clear by now that I'm not a big fan of the Sabre/DS chips.) The only difference between us is that I don't hear the linear phase slow roll-off filters making those DACs sound like the MSB, Resolution Audio, or Yggy "R2R" DACs.
  
 The AD5791 in Yggy came out in 2010. Analog Devices kind of made a big deal about it when it came about because of its accuracy. So Yggy is a combination of new and refined old. The Yggy is better sounding than the Gen V in case you are wondering.
  
 What R2R DACs or PCM1704 have you heard again?


----------



## juanitox

> Home: iPhone 6 Music Player>>iFi micro iDSD/O2


 
  
 seriously ??


----------



## purrin

juanitox said:


> seriously ??


 
  
 I think he might be working for iFi.


----------



## warrior1975

diamondears said:


> Exactly, so you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch too when someone says saying "Sabre/DS chips sucks" sucks big time, especially when it's the filter that's at fault.
> 
> So, based on your story, it is that mega-burrito filter that matters, and the reason the R2R/PCM63 is used is because the mega-burrito filter would work on it. Developing a filter takes a while and resources, so why not get or borrow an existing filter (the mega-burrito one, old one, existing and cheap) and use a chip where it could be implemented (the R2R/PCM63)? Genius! So basically we just got back to 1990s DAC technology. Now that's advancement, use technology 20 years ago, put it in a shiny new modern case, and proclaim modern chips sucks big time and that the old one blows (both the chip and California burrito filter). I knew it was the filter.




Please give it a rest. Purrin doesn't like DS. What's the big deal? Also, from his story, it was the combination of the chip and the filter, not just the filter.


----------



## purrin

warrior1975 said:


> What's the big deal?


 
  
 Might just be trolling / thread-crapping. Just flag his posts if you guys are displeased. Or flag my posts


----------



## juanitox

thanks for the Tips purrin , i'm new here.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 have you ever heard old R2R legacy dac  like WADIA 2000, WADIA9     CELLO reference DAc or EAD DSP 9000   spectral SDR2000 pro ?


----------



## Insidious Meme

purrin said:


> What R2R DACs or PCM1704 have you heard again?




Something is keeping him from answering this question. My bet is filters.


----------



## EraserXIV

diamondears said:


> So basically we just got back to 1990s DAC technology. Now that's advancement, use technology 20 years ago, put it in a shiny new modern case, and proclaim modern chips sucks big time and that the old one blows (both the chip and California burrito filter). I knew it was the filter.




Except the AD5791 is brand spanking new, bleeding edge technology, that was released in 2010, and is the first true 20-bit DAC.

Do you know how many hoops Mike had to jump through to get a DAC the caliber of the AD5791 to work for audio? Why didn't he just use the PCM1704 since it has the same "lineage" as the older PCM63 and also readily accepts this filter if it truly is the filter that only matters, according to your theory? PCM1704 is R2R so it would work in that angle of your marketing conspiracy theory and be a hell of a lot easier to do.


----------



## purrin

juanitox said:


> thanks for the Tips purrin , i'm new here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I like the Spectral quite a bit, more than Sonic Frontiers I own. A friend of mind brought over his Spectral and we stacked up a bunch of vintage PCM63 and UltraAnalog module based DACs to go along with it. I've heard one of the old Wadias (don't remember which one, but I'm thinking it was the 9), wished I had one, but couldn't afford it back then. The new Wadias sound nothing like the old ones. Wadia did some really interesting stuff back in the day.


----------



## juanitox

yes ,  early Wadia had R2R dac and special burrito (digimaster) filter too..


----------



## Currawong

If you flag posts in this thread and reply to them, they wont be deleted.


----------



## wnmnkh

diamondears said:


> Exactly, so you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch too when someone says saying "Sabre/DS chips sucks" sucks big time, especially when it's the filter that's at fault.
> 
> So, based on your story, it is that mega-burrito filter that matters, and the reason the R2R/PCM63 is used is because the mega-burrito filter would work on it. Developing a filter takes a while and resources, so why not get or borrow an existing filter (the mega-burrito one, old one, existing and cheap) and use a chip where it could be implemented (the R2R/PCM63)? Genius! So basically we just got back to 1990s DAC technology. Now that's advancement, use technology 20 years ago, put it in a shiny new modern case, and proclaim modern chips sucks big time and that the old one blows (both the chip and California burrito filter). I knew it was the filter.


 
  
 Well, some people are going back to Vinyl, which is based on the technology from 1857.
  
 That said, I believe Mike Moffat repeatedly told us the filter of yggy is far more advancced than ones in Theta. Not to mention, as purrin said, the DAC chip used came out at only 5 years ago.


----------



## SodaBoy

http://www.analog.com/en/products/digital-to-analog-converters/da-converters/ad5791.html#product-overview
  
 The datasheet certainly looks impressive.


> *Applications*
> Medical Instrumentation
> Test and Measurement
> Industrial Control
> High end Scientific and Aerospace Instrumentation


 
  
 And Moffat came up with a new application lol.


----------



## ginetto61

juanitox said:


> Yes ,  early *Wadia* had R2R dac and special burrito (digimaster) filter too..


 
  
 Hi as an aside i see that Wadia dacs, old and new, are very little discussed.
 Personally i do not know why.
 Maybe a bad marketing ?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I heard the Digimaster X32 ... one of the cheapest.  I found it very good indeed.
 The "serious" one must be mindbowling.
 Regards,  gino


----------



## evillamer

insidious meme said:


> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > What R2R DACs or PCM1704 have you heard again?
> ...


 
 Like how Instagram filters can turn a bad camera with noisy CCD(vs highend CMOS) into taking magazine quality photos.


----------



## evillamer

off topic:
 Speaking of ballerina, this ballerina has the body(& speed) of a well built gymnast aka purrin's 100% ballerina + 100% gymnast


----------



## evillamer

If filters is all anyone cared about, stick to chord hugo, since it's d-s and has rob watts 26k tap filter
  
 Also this link below has some interesting info on schiit's ygg filter: 18k+ tap (lower than hugo)
  
 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/04/at-last-schiit-release-multi-bit-yggdrasil-dac/


----------



## ginetto61

evillamer said:


> If filters is all anyone cared about, stick to chord hugo, since it's d-s and *has rob watts 26k tap filter*


 
  
 Hi this is a very interesting product indeed. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Not cheap though ... 1400 GBP 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Maybe it is for the proprietary filter ?
 I have noticed that people look more to the HW than to the SW
 Maybe because the HW is tangible while the SW is not.
 I know from my HE that a bad SW/FW damages everything ... with computers of course
 While i still think that a decent HW can be found also in rightly designed and built cheap units the SW is a mess
 Thanks, gino


----------



## lukeap69

evillamer said:


> off topic:
> Speaking of [COLOR=333333]ballerina, this ballerina has the body(& speed) of a well built [/COLOR]gymnast aka purrin's 100% ballerina + 100% gymnast




Now, my interest with R2R DAC is coming back.


----------



## sypderman88

even on my Audio-gd DAC 19 R2R it betters my micro idsd (DS) by a lot (even in running native PCM or using HQplayer doing upsampling to DSD 256 with DSD7 modulator and polysinc filter on a beefy 4Ghz quad core)....a combination of good filter, hardware design and class A analogue stage do make the magic happens


----------



## Baldr

I have heard there is much to recommend music and dance artists as audio relationship analogies, particularly ballerinas and piccolo players.


----------



## evillamer

Any updates on when Ygg will be back in stock(not backorder status?). I don't like the idea of ordering something that I don't have a fixed delivery date(cough some kickstarter company cough)


----------



## frenchbat

I hope Diamondears hasn't been banned. It was starting to get fun, like talking to Rain Man, but obviously without the math genious part.


----------



## diamondears

juanitox said:


> seriously ??



Yup. I choose my gears based on SQ alone, not on price.

It doesn't have a D-S DAC chip (2 AdvSeg DAC chips), has a passive filter (NOS), can take DSD natively (up to 512), has USB filter, can take iOS devices directly, can carry it on my Lazboy, and most importantly sounds really really good. And they don't bash competitors at all. 

Not for someone like you to understand, I know. Sorry, but you just won't get it. So don't try, waste of time, on your part.


----------



## diamondears

frenchbat said:


> I hope Diamondears hasn't been banned. It was starting to get fun, like talking to Rain Man, but obviously without the math genious part.



Why, what's wrong with Rain Man? Funny for someone with frenchbat as a handle, actually...


----------



## BassDigger

diamondears said:


> Why, what's wrong with Rain Man? Funny for someone with frenchbat as a handle, actually...


 
  
 Yeah, I gotta side with perfect hearin.....err.....diamondears, on this one. You were definitely insulting the Rain Man with that analogy


----------



## diamondears

eraserxiv said:


> Except the AD5791 is brand spanking new, bleeding edge technology, that was released in 2010, and is the first true 20-bit DAC.
> 
> Do you know how many hoops Mike had to jump through to get a DAC the caliber of the AD5791 to work for audio? Why didn't he just use the PCM1704 since it has the same "lineage" as the older PCM63 and also readily accepts this filter if it truly is the filter that only matters, according to your theory? PCM1704 is R2R so it would work in that angle of your marketing conspiracy theory and be a hell of a lot easier to do.



Ok. I apologize for that.


----------



## diamondears

bassdigger said:


> Yeah, I gotta side with perfect hearin.....err.....diamondears, on this one. You were definitely insulting the Rain Man with that analogy :tongue_smile:


That's a good one....lol...but I don't think the blindbat will get it...self depreciating for me I know, but still a good one.


----------



## BassDigger

hans030390 said:


> ...
> 
> All this talk about DAC accuracy and linearity pointed me to a handful of old-school, legendary, multi-bit DACs. After a lot of research, sampling some DACs (including a TDA1543 DAC and some DACs I'd just rather not talk about), I decided that the TDA1541A chip seemed like it would offer what I wanted in terms of overall tone and other sonic characteristics as well as strong performance, even with reported linearity and accuracy, on the datasheets (though I know purrin said he doubted the INL/DNL specs on the 1541A datasheet). The hard part was finding a NOS, TDA1541A-based DAC that looked good on paper OR wasn't some cheap design, so I really didn't have any other options beyond the Audial Model S. Audial was about as transparent as I could find in terms of listing their DAC's technical performance. I had already been bitten in the ass too many times by products that didn't have many specifications listed. Usually that's a sign they don't want you to know how it performs on paper, though not always. Plus, Pedja of Audial was super friendly and happy to answer any questions I had about his products.
> 
> ...


 
  
 As far as I can find there's precious little discussion about the TDA1541 around here. @Purrin mentions it, but he seems to get it mixed up with the 1543, and won't elaborate; I've asked.
 To me, this seems an omission; the 1541 has such a following. Whether this attention is truly justified, I'm not sure; that's what I've been hoping the discussion, on this thread, might go some way to answering!
  
 Obviously, I'd like to hear about any impressions in comparing the Audial S; what, if any, are worthy competitors? Also, it looks like you've tried some original 90's dacs, perhaps with some modifications, such as a NOS conversion; what did you try and can you give some of your impressions?
  
 Cheers.


----------



## evillamer

AdvSeg is just a marketing term. It's just  Sigma Delta + R2R(4bit MSB)


diamondears said:


> juanitox said:
> 
> 
> > seriously ??
> ...


 

  
 Hope you didn't miss out the word "Sigma-Delta" in the Advanced Segment DAC diagram.
  
 Go get yourself an Arglebargle dac and call it a day.


----------



## frenchbat

evillamer said:


> AdvSeg is just a marketing term. It's just  Sigma Delta + R2R(4bit MSB)
> 
> 
> Hope you didn't miss out the world "Sigma Delta" in the Advanced Segment DAC diagram.
> ...


 

 Nah you don't get it. It's all about the filters.


----------



## n-a

frenchbat said:


> I hope Diamondears hasn't been banned. It was starting to get fun, like talking to Rain Man, but obviously without the math genious part.


 
 Ha-ha


----------



## wink

> Originally Posted by *purrin*
> 
> 
> Thread title changed. Just so feelings aren't hurt.


 
Current Title:- Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff) New Title After Next Complaint:-
Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma is for losers and tone deaf dudes, just to let you know what reality is)


----------



## juanitox

diamondears said:


> Yup. I choose my gears based on SQ alone, not on price.
> 
> It doesn't have a D-S DAC chip (2 AdvSeg DAC chips), has a passive filter (NOS), can take DSD natively (up to 512), has USB filter, can take iOS devices directly, can carry it on my Lazboy, and most importantly sounds really really good. And they don't bash competitors at all.
> 
> Not for someone like you to understand, I know. Sorry, but you just won't get it. So don't try, waste of time, on your part.


 

 seriously ??


----------



## Pirakaphile

wink said:


> Current Title:- Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff) New Title After Next Complaint:-
> Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma is for losers and tone deaf dudes, just to let you know what reality is)


 
 If this is the case, I'm going to do a lot of complaining. Without humour, what is life worth living?


----------



## lukeap69

wink said:


> [COLOR=000000]Current Title:-[/COLOR]
> 
> Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)
> 
> ...




Oh I like the next title. The current one is craptastic!


----------



## diamondears

evillamer said:


> AdvSeg is just a marketing term. It's just  Sigma Delta + R2R(4bit MSB)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks. I was wrong. I stand corrected. 

All along I thought it's not D-S because it sounds so good, yeah it doesn't suck at all, so I thought it's not D-S. My bad.


----------



## AustinValentine

evillamer said:


> AdvSeg is just a marketing term. It's just  Sigma Delta + R2R(4bit MSB)
> 
> 
> Hope you didn't miss out the word "Sigma-Delta" in the Advanced Segment DAC diagram.
> ...


 
  
 This. The iFi Micro iDSD uses 2x Burr Brown DSD1793 chips specifically. There are tear downs of the thing all over the web. See for example the image here.


----------



## diamondears

frenchbat said:


> Nah you don't get it. It's all about the filters.



So if the Yggy didn't have that excellent closed-form filter, it would still sound good, bat?


----------



## diamondears

juanitox said:


> seriously ??



Yes. I don't know why, maybe it takes one to know one, but I just don't get scammed that easily...


----------



## juanitox

diamondears said:


> Yes. I don't know why, maybe it takes one to know one, but I just don't get scammed that easily...


 

 seriously??


----------



## purrin

FWIW. The iFi nano belongs in Class S along with anything that is BB179x. Not very digital sounding, but rather simply bad. Look out for a YouTube video where I burn it and smash it to pieces.


----------



## wink

Quoteurrin 





> Look out for a YouTube video where I burn it and smash it to pieces.


 
 Another community announcement in the never-ending quest to inform and educate the plebicite that vox populi is not to be trusted.


----------



## diamondears

You like burning stuff eh? You related to the Asgard, or was it the Magni?...can't remember...


----------



## frenchbat

n-a said:


> Ha-ha


----------



## jacal01

bassdigger said:


> I'm gonna go a bit easier on those who ask questions that have already been answered, in the future; I did a search, and I couldn't get much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 The wife?


----------



## EraserXIV

diamondears said:


> You like burning stuff eh? You related to the Asgard, or was it the Magni?...can't remember...




It seems you have a bone to pick and I get it. I'm a skeptic at heart, just like you seem to be. Schiit had growing pains in their first couple months of operation like any new start-up. That, the hype surrounding it, and their "nonchalant" attitude made me initially avoid their products. So I waited for things to settle and see where the company went. 

I've been on HF 8 years now, and I didn't own a single Schiit product until 2015. A few months ago, it seemed the company had stabilized and the products matured enough (the second gen products) that I was willing to take a leap of faith. 

Trust me, I would have been the first to call them out on their BS. However, they are legit. I can't speak to their prior products as I have never heard or owned them, but Schiit is for real in their current form and second gen products. I've only had good experiences with them and they are a company that can stand behind great sounding and carefully engineered products that are very fairly priced.

You are doing yourself a disservice as a lover of good sound if you don't keep an open mind.


----------



## purrin

Rebel without a clue.


----------



## prot

bassdigger said:


> As far as I can find there's precious little discussion about the TDA1541 around here. @Purrin mentions it, but he seems to get it mixed up with the 1543, and won't elaborate; I've asked.
> To me, this seems an omission; the 1541 has such a following. Whether this attention is truly justified, I'm not sure; that's what I've been hoping the discussion, on this thread, might go some way to answering!
> 
> Obviously, I'd like to hear about any impressions in comparing the Audial S; what, if any, are worthy competitors? Also, it looks like you've tried some original 90's dacs, perhaps with some modifications, such as a NOS conversion; what did you try and can you give some of your impressions?
> ...




I also find that Audial interesting. NOS and R2R sounds at least like an original combo ... maybe even unique nowadays. 

Here's another pretty enthusiastic review
http://theaudiostandard.net/thread/429/audial-model-dac


----------



## hans030390

bassdigger said:


> As far as I can find there's precious little discussion about the TDA1541 around here. @Purrin mentions it, but he seems to get it mixed up with the 1543, and won't elaborate; I've asked.
> To me, this seems an omission; the 1541 has such a following. Whether this attention is truly justified, I'm not sure; that's what I've been hoping the discussion, on this thread, might go some way to answering!
> 
> Obviously, I'd like to hear about any impressions in comparing the Audial S; what, if any, are worthy competitors? Also, it looks like you've tried some original 90's dacs, perhaps with some modifications, such as a NOS conversion; what did you try and can you give some of your impressions?


 
  
 I'm not sure if purrin has the TDA1543 mixed up. Maybe, maybe not. I don't believe he has them mixed up based on a small conversation I had with him a couple weeks back. I know he had some doubts about the TDA1541As datasheet at least in terms of reported INL/DNL.
  
 The TDA1541A is a whole different ball game compared to the TDA1543, as I'm sure you know. Based on what little experience I have with DACs that use either chip and what research I've done, just in terms of tone and such, the 1543 is warmer, more forward and aggressive, and otherwise just generally less capable on all technical levels. But it can make for an enjoyable listen from a budget DAC. When I see a TDA1543 DAC costing over $500 or, worse, $1000, I just have to shake my head. I don't care how many chips you parallel together. It's still a TDA1543.
  
 I believe TDA1541A, standard grade, is rated for worst case scenario +/- 1 LSB, per the datasheet (still trying to dig for more info and clarification on 1541 lsb error). The various "grades" of the chip have different performance tolerances, some which are rated at worst case of 0.5 to 1LSB depending on bit, I believe. That's not to say you can't find a regular 1541A chip that performs on par with the S1 or S2 grade chips, just that the S1/S2 chips are guaranteed for a higher level of performance.
  
 FWIW, Pedja of Audial hand picks the chips from a very specific batch of TDA1541As, from a '98 run in Taiwan. They're not S1/S2 grade, but subjectively and measurably he says they should perform as such. I have to trust him, because, as far as I know, he's well known in the DIY world for his experience working with and knowledge on the TDA1541A, and I've seen him post comparative measurements of various graded chips. (Can't say how much he knows/doesn't know compared to anyone else, so not saying he's necessarily the bestest.)
  
 From what I've read according to those that design DACs around the TDA1541A, you can get somewhere around 15-15.5 ENOB (effective number of bits) on a good design and assuming you get a good chip from a good batch. I think chips like the PCM63 or AD1862 can reach a higher ENOB, but I also believe they are rated higher than 16-bits. TDA1541A is rated at a max of 16-bits. Compare this to the rumored chips that Metrum uses, which could be anywhere from 12-14 ENOB, which wouldn't be too far off from the TDA1543 (not 1541). TotalDAC with 0.01% resistors may only be able to get 14 ENOB, maybe. I don't have enough knowledge to explain how/why the TotalDAC does so well with static measurements but is rumored to really have only 14-bit performance max. 6-moons wrote a bit about this a while back, and there are other rumors floating around. I get why it might be limited to 14 ENOB, but not sure about the static measurements. Same thing for that new soekris DIY discrete ladder DAC.
  
 Would I have gone with a PCM63-based non-oversampling DAC if available? I definitely would have considered it. That or the AD1862. I just didn't see any available or appealing options that at least looked like they were well designed and came close to maxing out said chip's performance. I know MHDT labs is/was going to put out a non-oversampled, AD1862-based DAC, but A) I have no idea when it will be available, B) I don't know what it will cost, and C) based on reviews I read of other MHDT DACs, I decided the design might not be to my tastes or as good as I'd like. The Metrum Pavane might have better accuracy than the Hex or similar, but it's too pricy, and the listed THD still concerns me about its true performance.
  
 Another thing I've read from DIY DAC designers is that getting the TDA1541A to reach its specified, max potential is rather difficult. And when you're going for a non-oversampled design, it becomes that much more difficult to get it to look good with objective measurements. It seems the only thing holding the Audial Model S back is variance between the left/right channel performance on the chip, which I've read is common or to be expected on the TDA1541A or TDA1543. But, as I said, the main different between the left channels is almost exclusively in the 2nd order distortion, per my (unpublished) measurements. It still looks a whole hell of a lot better in measurements than the Metrum Hex did, and sounds it too. I'm not going to split hairs if the left channel reports 0.007% THD at 0dB 1khz tone and right reports 0.002%, and only due to 2nd order differences. For the most part, looks good on paper, and sounds great to my ears.
  
 Even outside of good performance on paper/datasheets, the TDA1541A has a following because a lot of people simply like its tone. It's just very natural sounding and fatigue free without being boring, slow, too colored, glossing over details, and so on. As I understand it, though, you really need a good, beefy design to really bring out its true dynamic performance. Then you have fans that prefer the PCM63 or AD1862 for different reasons, general tone and different technical qualities. They all look good on paper, so assuming you put them in a good implementation, it really comes down to personal tastes after that point.
  
 ANYWAY...let me know if you want further details beyond the Model S impressions I already provided. I know I already wrote a lot, more than intended, but I will be publishing a full review in the near future. I only have the Theta Gen Va on hand to directly compare it against, though I will do what I can to compare it against the Metrum Hex, Audio-GD NOS1704, and Classe DAC-1 based on memory.
  
 Never tried any mods on these DACs, though it would have been cool to try to get the Classe DAC-1 to run in non-oversample mode. I'm not an electrical engineer of any sorts, or what have you, so that's way outside my expertise. (And, of course because of this, call me out if I misunderstood or got something wrong, please.)
  
 Don't get me wrong...something like the Yggy definitely will beat the Audial Model S in terms of sheer techincal proficiency and accuracy. Had I not required a non-oversampled DAC for my primary setup, I easily would have gone that route. It's such a no-brainer vs. the hunt I had to go through to find the Model S. And I'm sure I'll get a DAC with trickle down Yggy tech in the future as a secondary/complementary DAC. So, anyway, that's just a lot of unnecessary details about the TDA1541A and how I came to my decision to get the Model S, but the vast majority of people are going to be best served by something like the Yggy.


----------



## flipper2gv

purrin said:


>


 
 Have you tried the Geek Pulse Xfi or something in that vein, what is your thought on it?


----------



## purrin

I did get them mixed up. The Valab / Teradac stuff uses the 1543. DIY HiFi Supply used to offer a kit version of a TDA1541 DAC. The name of that DAC eludes me Satch DAC, but I'm sure more than a few people on HF have heard it. I liked it quite a bit, but not resolving enough for me.


----------



## juanitox

audionote dac are R2R and NOS dac  but you had to do with their tube power supply and linestage coming with so definitely not a simple dac  but can be many  the only thing is that you have to play with ( tube rolling ,capacitor rolling, interstage and output transformer rolling,)    at the end it's fun to play Diy with  but not the easy way to get the best of it.


----------



## purrin

flipper2gv said:


> Have you tried the Geek Pulse Xfi or something in that vein, what is your thought on it?


 
  
 Haven't heard the Pulse really - just in passing really quickly at a meet - so no comments on it.


----------



## hans030390

juanitox said:


> audionote dac are R2R and NOS dac  but you had to do with their tube power supply and linestage coming with so definitely not a simple dac  but can be many  the only thing is that you have to play with ( tube rolling ,capacitor rolling, interstage and output transformer rolling,)    at the end it's fun to play Diy with  but not the easy way to get the best of it.


 
  
 I didn't want to go the DIY route (I can barely solder the simplest things), plus I saw measurements of one of the Audio Note CD players, and it did not look so good. I mean, don't get me wrong...I liked the Metrums, and they measured poorly too. But this time around, I wanted to get something that sounded good and measured nicely. I'm not chasing a million zeroes after the decimal point, but there is something to be said about good measurements at times.
  
 I might also be confusing companies. Aren't there two different Audio Note companies...something like that? I remember being confused by that, which was also a turn off.


----------



## agooh

Purrin did you write a review about Yggy ?


----------



## evillamer

Still waiitng on John Darko to write his review on Ygg. It will be interesting given the amount of dacs he has reviewed on.


----------



## agooh

John Darko he just post review of the new Mrspeakers Ether :
 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/05/mrspeakers-ether-headphones-review/


----------



## hodgjy

evillamer said:


> Still waiitng on John Darko to write his review on Ygg. It will be interesting given the amount of dacs he has reviewed on.


 
 I'm assuming he doesn't even have one yet. Jason has repeatedly said all available units go to paying customers first before review units get sent out.


----------



## juanitox

yes 


hans030390 said:


> I didn't want to go the DIY route (I can barely solder the simplest things), plus I saw measurements of one of the Audio Note CD players, and it did not look so good. I mean, don't get me wrong...I liked the Metrums, and they measured poorly too. But this time around, I wanted to get something that sounded good and measured nicely. I'm not chasing a million zeroes after the decimal point, but there is something to be said about good measurements at times.
> 
> I might also be confusing companies. Aren't there two different Audio Note companies...something like that? I remember being confused by that, which was also a turn off.


 

 yes , there is Audionote UK and Audionote Kit US  ..    not exactly the same product and prices..  
 anyway i'd prefer my Audionote 3.1 kit to my Metrum octave but that's another story...
  
 ready to try the Yggi when it will be avalaible in EU ..  the price is fair , it mesure good and seems to please many guys here ,   
 the only thing is that is ugly and i must take care of the WAF    ( my eigthies Stax amplifier are ugly too..)


----------



## jacal01

There's about 4 hours of my life that I wish I had back...  So much for trying to keep up with the posts on this thread.  I thot I had long since left behind the flame war forums of my youth.
  
 For the first time here I'm actually considering blocking a poster.  And some of you need to get out to some mini-meets, already.  For the conviviality if not the equipment auditing.


----------



## arnaud

hans030390 said:


> TotalDAC with 0.01% resistors may only be able to get 14 ENOB, maybe. I don't have enough knowledge to explain how/why the TotalDAC does so well with static measurements but is rumored to really have only 14-bit performance max. 6-moons wrote a bit about this a while back, and there are other rumors floating around. I get why it might be limited to 14 ENOB, but not sure about the static measurements.


 
  
 I could try to hear it from the designer and post response here but I don't expect a clear answer either way (as I understand, there are ways to get around this with the ladder architecture - as effectively implemented in Schist's DAC chip). All I remember is that Vincent is more concerned about useful dynamic range (as in lack of dynamic compression by the output stage / power supply falling apart etc...) than paper numbers. By this I mean that most redbook recordings barely use 12 bit of effective dynamic range and don't sound bad as a result. Conversely, most everyone seems to agree that hi-res perceived advantage often boils down to a good master, which happens to sound as good when downsampled to redbook.
  
 I haven't been through Marv's audibility test of LSB and don't doubt some of us human kind have extraordinary hearing. But 80dB of effective dynamic range sounds like a bloody plenty to me since I don't actually listen to my music in an anechoic chamber but a regular home with kids and what not . Proof's in the pooding and I see at least one member with a TotalDAC and an Iggy in his stack at the moment so we'll find out soon enough (that is if we ignore that the product is the sum of all parts, not just its ENOB ... )
  
 Arnaud


----------



## prot

hans030390
any comparisons between your Audial and other (better known) DACs would be useful


----------



## 7ryder

@prot, I owe you an apology for being a dick a few days ago; it was uncalled for.  Again, my apologies.


----------



## Eee Pee

agooh said:


> Purrin did you write a review about Yggy ?


 
  
 He's posted hundreds or thousands of words about the Yggdrasil.


----------



## purrin

eee pee said:


> He's posted hundreds or thousands of words about the Yggdrasil.


 
  
 LOL, only zerodeefex wrote a formal review of it: http://www.head-fi.org/t/752914/yggdrasil-a-p-review-two-days-of-paradise.
  
 I generally don't write reviews.


----------



## warrior1975

purrin said:


> LOL, only zerodeefex wrote a formal review of it: http://www.head-fi.org/t/752914/yggdrasil-a-p-review-two-days-of-paradise.
> 
> I generally don't write reviews.




You think you could do something here to help the community?


----------



## agooh

http://www.msbtech.com/products/platinumHome.php
 lol Isolation Base near 2000 $


----------



## warrior1975

Little too pricey for me...


----------



## diamondears

purrin said:


> Rebel without a clue.


 And the buyers have the real clue?


----------



## LingLing1337

Yggdrasil vs DirectStream, this is the comparison I'm waiting for. I think other pwd2 owners would also be interested to know whether its worth upgrading to DS or if the Yggdrasil is better, at a more attractive price to boot


----------



## 7ryder

I thought Purrin answered this question on the first post for this thread?


----------



## BassDigger

jacal01 said:


> The wife?


 
  






 (strange one....this) 
  
wife   (wīf)
_n._ _pl._ *wives* (wīvz) A woman joined to another person in marriage; a female spouse.

  
mar·riage   (măr′ĭj)
_n._ *1.* *a. *The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons ofthe same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
*b. *A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.
*c. *A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.
*d. *A common-law marriage.
*e. *The state or relationship of two adults who are married: _Their marriage has been a happy one._

*2. *A wedding: _Where is the marriage to take place?_
*3. *A close union: _"the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics"_ _(Lloyd Rose)._
*4. *_Games_ The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

  
_(Courtesy of thefreedictionary.com)_
  
 I hope this helps, but if you need any more info, maybe it's best to pm me


----------



## Argo Duck

The buyers have the real Yggy. And hence the real data 



> And the buyers have the real clue?


----------



## prot

argo duck said:


> The buyers have the real Yggy. And hence the real data




Ppl nowadays have a lot more devices and very real data .. with internet, forums, wikis etc there should be enough data for almost anything. 
However, no reduction in the # of clueless ppl was ever reported .. those things may not be as correlated as we may think. 




7ryder said:


> @prot
> , I owe you an apology for being a dick a few days ago; it was uncalled for.  Again, my apologies.




No worries we all do that from time to time. And since I'm not part of the current r2r/iggy moving picture, I guess my Qs and msges may sound strange to many.


----------



## BassDigger

prot said:


> I also find that Audial interesting. NOS and R2R sounds at least like an original combo ... maybe even unique nowadays.
> 
> Here's another pretty enthusiastic review
> http://theaudiostandard.net/thread/429/audial-model-dac


 
  
 NOS conversations are a very popular mod for old multi-bit cd players and dacs, particularly the Philips tda1541 models; apparently it's an easy mod to do.
 The main reason isn't really because that the oversampling is unwanted (although many would say so); it's more to do with the music-sapping qualities of the filter chip, such as the 7220 4x OS chip that usually accompanies the 1541; it presents a pretty thick veil for the sound, apparently.
 This chip has been bypassed on my dac, but it still has oversampling, thanks to the configuration of the 4 dac chips. I can't tell anyone what differences this makes; I've not been in a position to A/B any of these mods, unfortunately.


----------



## Khragon

Any thoughts on yggy vs McIntosh d100/d150?


----------



## wahsmoh

khragon said:


> Any thoughts on yggy vs McIntosh d100/d150?


 
 I've heard the McIntosh D100. It has a McIntosh "house sound" and I believe it uses a Sabre chip. I think it is an overpriced piece of tech but it does its best to move away from the Sabre sound. A very warm and syrupy kind of sound. It's been awhile since I heard it but I think you could do a lot better with the Yggy. On another note the somewhat vintage McIntosh MDA1000 has been compared to other flagship vintage DACs of the era. If you could get one for the price of the D100 that would be a better DAC but good luck finding them


----------



## purrin

I thought the D100 was still bit Sabre'y (from headout) despite attempts to mitigate or hide with warmth. D100 is not in same league. D500 SACD/CD player was much much better (with a really nice headout too.) Pretty darn good, but still very much D-S sound. I would have tried to get one via my contacts to audition in home, but the price / performance ratio was too high for me to seriously consider.


----------



## LingLing1337

7ryder said:


> I thought Purrin answered this question on the first post for this thread?




ah thanks, I hadnt been keeping up on the new additions. Interesting he finds the DSD to be a step backwards in SQ from the PWD2, Ive heard similar things from owners who have upgraded.


----------



## Argo Duck

I don't necessarily disagree but - if I'm included in the "we" - I don't correlate anything here.

Curious about the construct "clueless ppl" and the notion there are measures ("no reduction in [number] was ever reported"). This implies there's a literature, definition and operationalization. If so, do these measures demonstrate adequate reliability and validity for the question of correlation (either way) to be decided?

Somewhat OT but serious question, as a possible logical implication of the 'premise' below is that participation in these forums and even owning equipment is pointless if pursuit of either activity would not change one's level of 'cluelessness' :eek:



prot said:


> Ppl nowadays have a lot more devices and very real data .. with internet, forums, wikis etc there should be enough data for almost anything.
> However, no reduction in the # of clueless ppl was ever reported .. those things may not be as correlated as we may think.


----------



## evillamer

anyone heard of Mizik / Wadax dac? Someone over another forum(X.P.) is dismissing the Ygg:




> AndrewC
> Trade Count: (0)
> Full Member
> 
> ...


----------



## Insidious Meme

Oh look.. Another opinion. Though I do wonder if he has as much of a filter fetish as that other poster...


----------



## evillamer

insidious meme said:


> Oh look.. Another opinion. Though I do wonder if he has as much of a filter fetish as that other poster...




It's seems like filters can solve the string theory and even cure cancer!


----------



## DreamKing

Still waiting on the first one to hear it and then express disappointment. All this product page dissecting isn't helping anyone.


----------



## 7ryder

evillamer said:


> anyone heard of Mizik / Wadax dac? Someone over another forum(X.P.) is dismissing the Ygg:


 
 if he's dismissing Schiit's experience with digital filters, he apparently he doesn't know about Mike's background with Theta.  Ultimately, though, it's just some anonymous person's opinion on the interweb...and you know what they say about opinions...


----------



## DreamKing

warrior1975 said:


> Why do you want someone that just dropped over $2k to be disappointed?? I really don't understand why you post in this thread...as annoying as your posts are, I wouldn't wish that on you.


 
  
 I'm not wishing anything on anyone. I didn't phrase it correctly, meant it as a reply. All I'm seeing from those that express their dislike of the Yggy is product page dissecting, perhaps if they heard it it would be easier to listen to them. 
  
 Your aggression dumbfounds me though. I've never spoken with you but I understand I annoyed some way. I'm not gonna apologize but I don't see how anyone would understand why you post in this thread either.
  
 I am interested in the Yggy, concerned of the cost of bringing it to where I live but very interested nonetheless.


----------



## evillamer

I am suspecting they might be audiophile equipment dealer or some kind of reseller. Maybe the schiit Ygg is burning into their high end Swiss Jewelry audio market. That maybe why they feel the need to dismiss a product before hearing it.


----------



## evillamer

on the topic of filters, this dac seems to run without one.
 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2014/03/aqua-hifi-la-scala-mkii-dac-review/


----------



## warrior1975

dreamking said:


> I'm not wishing anything on anyone. I didn't phrase it correctly, meant it as a reply. All I'm seeing from those that express their dislike of the Yggy is product page dissecting, perhaps if they heard it it would be easier to listen to them.
> 
> Your aggression dumbfounds me though. I've never spoken with you but I understand I annoyed some way. I'm not gonna apologize but I don't see how anyone would understand why you post in this thread either.
> 
> I am interested in the Yggy, concerned of the cost of bringing it to where I live but very interested nonetheless.




I'm sorry... I glanced at your name, completely misread it... Though you were someone else. Really sorry. I'm a jackass!! Btw, I'm interested in it as well.


----------



## DreamKing

@warrior1975
 It's all good man, no sweat. These things can happen.


----------



## diamondears

7ryder said:


> if he's dismissing Schiit's experience with digital filters, he apparently he doesn't know about Mike's background with Theta.  Ultimately, though, it's just some anonymous person's opinion on the interweb...and you know what they say about opinions...


And moreso your opinion.

The filter used was designed for R2R 25 years ago. Knowledgeable and experienced, yet just recycle filters from 25 years ago?


----------



## 7ryder

Why the venom dude?


----------



## Chris J

7ryder said:


> Why the venom dude?


 
 Someone needs to smoke a joint....and mellow out.


----------



## Insidious Meme

He's lookin for love in all the wrong places.


----------



## Currawong

"Off the shelf" is a BS term. All of the components are available online, maybe excepting custom transformers. It implies anyone can drop them into a box and make their own high-end DAC.


----------



## skeptic

diamondears said:


> And moreso your opinion.
> 
> The filter used was designed for R2R 25 years ago. Knowledgeable and experienced, yet just recycle filters from 25 years ago?


 
  
 Actually, I think Schiit has been quite candid about the fact that their filter is derived from a 1917 publication by Western Electric.  http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/1335#post_10629320


----------



## evillamer

Question is does Yggdrasil deploy any kind of dsp dithering to achieve 21bits? or is this 21bits before dithering?


----------



## sypderman88

Guys... Let yr ear be the best judge.. Listen n buy what u like....


----------



## diamondears

7ryder said:


> Why the venom dude?







chris j said:


> Someone needs to smoke a joint....and mellow out.







insidious meme said:


> He's lookin for love in all the wrong places.



Don't see any venom...and certainly don't need nor ever smoke a joint...nor looking for love...but last time I checked, this is a forum, not the Yggy's house nor office.

I think my points are very valid, that's why I wonder why it doesn't elicit replies on the merits...and the other replies eye for an eye reactions/replies only, never initiatory.


----------



## Armaegis

diamondears said:


> And moreso your opinion.
> 
> The filter used was designed for R2R 25 years ago. Knowledgeable and experienced, yet just recycle filters from 25 years ago?


 
  
 I solved some calculus problems in high school many years ago. I don't think the math has changed since then.


----------



## borrego

As this thread is about comparing the tonalities of different R2R and D-S Dacs, it will be extremely helpful if posters can include reference of music material (e.g. youtube links) similar to those in the Grado Fans Club thread. Youtube materials are not of high resolution but good enough for tonality comparison.


----------



## NinjaHamster

armaegis said:


> I solved some calculus problems in high school many years ago. I don't think the math has changed since then.





http://youtu.be/UIKGV2cTgqA


----------



## purrin

borrego said:


> As this thread is about comparing the tonalities of different R2R and D-S Dacs, it will be extremely helpful if posters can include reference of music material (e.g. youtube links) similar to those in the Grado Fans Club thread. Youtube materials are not of high resolution but good enough for tonality comparison.


 
  
 Not only a reference of music material, but perhaps mention of R2R and D-S DACs actually heard under good conditions.
  
 FWIW, the dynamic speaker has been around for 90 years. Why recycle the design? Because it works.


----------



## Insidious Meme

diamondears said:


> Don't see any venom...and certainly don't need nor ever smoke a joint...nor looking for love...but last time I checked, this is a forum, not the Yggy's house nor office.
> 
> I think my points are very valid, that's why I wonder why it doesn't elicit replies on the merits...and the other replies eye for an eye reactions/replies only, never initiatory.




Keep pattin yourself on the back there, son.


----------



## BassDigger

evillamer said:


> I am suspecting they might be audiophile equipment dealer or some kind of reseller. Maybe the schiit Ygg is burning into their high end Swiss Jewelry audio market. That maybe why they feel the need to dismiss a product before hearing it.


 
  
 I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head there; the mention of the word "pedigree", kind of gives it away!


----------



## ginetto61

evillamer said:


> anyone heard of Mizik / Wadax dac? Someone over another forum(X.P.) is dismissing the Ygg:


 
  
 Hi well not very useful ... when someone starts saying ... "i have not listened to it " ... this is a really interesting start ... very dependable
 Let's call it prejudice ?
 i think it is quite difficult to judge a product maybe just on the basis of some pics seen on the web.
 Its look maybe ... hardly its sound.
 Regarding the *Berkeley Audio *... their best dac the *reference uses the AD 1955 that is delta-sigma*.
 The dac chip in the Schiit is almost 100 USD ... that multiplied by the usual 10 times means 1000 USD of added cost only for the chip
 If it has two ... voilå the MRSP of 2000 USD just for the dac chips (i dont know if it has two by the way)
  
 However i am getting so many opinions about the very good performance of good multibit dacs.
 There must be something of very real ...
 It is a huge regret that they have stopped producing them
 Actually i do not know why Philips cannot start again to produce their 1541 ...
 I understand that they cannot be cheap, but if they truly sound excellent a little sacrifice could be made.
 Regards,  gino


----------



## diamondears

insidious meme said:


> Keep pattin yourself on the back there, son.


Not patting myself sir, but haven't read any valid and convincing replies either. In fact real questions were avoided and some just got general statements.


----------



## shabta

ginetto61 said:


> Actually i do not know why Philips cannot start again to produce their 1541 ...
> I understand that they cannot be cheap, but if they truly sound excellent a little sacrifice could be made.
> Regards,  gino


 
  
 The reason for why there are very few r2r chips made these days has to do with economies of scale. Most of the dacs sold in the world are in cell phones. For that, you need a really cheap and small solution. The audio industry sells very few stand alone DACs. And even then most of them are in the sub $400 range. As many people in this thread have pointed out the parts cost in most audio gear is a small fraction of the retail price. Multibit DAC chips meet the market need for at least 99% of all consumer applications. Even sabre DAC are designed and sold by a small boutique chip company which is trying to make a business out of a small niche market. But at least they can provide a small footprint, system on a chip solution at only a slightly higher cost than the competition. But I don't think any iphones or galaxy's are going to have a Sabre in them any time soon.... Does this explain it?


----------



## Baldr

ginetto61 said:


> Regarding the *Berkeley Audio *... their best dac the *reference uses the AD 1955 that is delta-sigma*.
> The dac chip in the Schiit is almost 100 USD ... that multiplied by the usual 10 times means 1000 USD of added cost only for the chip
> If it has two ... voilå the MRSP of 2000 USD just for the dac chips (i dont know if it has two by the way)


 
 It has 4 -- no schiit


----------



## ginetto61

shabta said:


> The reason for why there are very few r2r chips made these days has to do with economies of scale. Most of the dacs sold in the world are in cell phones. For that, you need a really cheap and small solution.
> The audio industry sells very few stand alone DACs. And even then most of them are in the sub $400 range. As many people in this thread have pointed out the parts cost in most audio gear is a small fraction of the retail price. Multibit DAC chips meet the market need for at least 99% of all consumer applications. Even sabre DAC are designed and sold by a small boutique chip company which is trying to make a business out of a small niche market.
> But at least they can provide a small footprint, system on a chip solution at only a slightly higher cost than the competition. But I don't think any iphones or galaxy's are going to have a Sabre in them any time soon.... *Does this explain it?*


 
  
 Hi and yes it explains perfectly.
 A marketing reason as usual.
 Also the new generations are not that interested in high fidelity like my generation ... i am around 50 ...
 They are cellphoners, videogamers ... they are more for special effects than fidelity
 And actually i see that almost all mastering engineers work with delta-sigma dacs/interface and they all speak highly about their equipment.
 I have two pro dacs at hand ... well 3 :  Apogee Rosetta 200 and Minidac and Benchmark Dac1
 If they are ok for pro they can be ok also for me.
 Also because lately i have been *testing different usb to spdif converters ... *
*on the basis of this testing i think that my first and biggest issue is really the pc source quality (i.e. quality of the spdif signal coming from the pc).*
 I am working on it very seriously and i think i have found a nice solution
 Thanks a lot again,  gino


----------



## evillamer

Even so, the sudden meteoric rise of an unknown PC sound card and dvd player chipset company into an successful audiophile dac maker that can be found in so many gear does show you that consumers do want more sound quality?


----------



## Currawong

evillamer said:


> Even so, the sudden meteoric rise of an unknown PC sound card and dvd player chipset company into an successful audiophile dac maker that can be found in so many gear does show you that consumers do want more sound quality?


 

 The SQ of DACs went downhill enough with the mass move to SD chips, along with the trend towards a more "hi-fi" sound that when they came out with their flagship it sounded better, unless it was implemented poorly then it sounded like rubbish.


----------



## evillamer

Specially in the start of early y2k, where they started a trend of releasing "remastered" audio albums that sounded even worse.


----------



## ginetto61

baldr said:


> It has 4 -- no schiit


 
  






   Hi ! i did not know honestly ! Great !
 I would only add that i tend to believe to the very good words i read here and somewhere else
 about multibit tech in general and your design in particular.
 I do not know your plans.  But are there any reviews from major audio magazines planned soon ?
 I mean Stereophile, TAS  and similar ?
 Average customers are still very influenced by those Magazines' reviews.
 Thanks a lot for the kind and valuable reply
 Kind regards,  gino


----------



## ginetto61

currawong said:


> *The SQ of DACs went downhill enough with the mass move to SD chips*, along with the trend towards a more "hi-fi" sound that when they came out with their flagship it sounded better, unless it was implemented poorly then it sounded like rubbish.


 
  
 Hi and thanks for the valuable advice
 I can understand average customers but professionals ? do they not have ears ?
 I see here, for instance,  very expensive interfaces and converters with DS chips inside (i guess)
  
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SymphIO8x8x8TB
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/ALLiveR
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/914459-REG/antelope_eclipse_10_eclipse_384_stereo_ad_da.html
  
 are they really that bad ?
 I am not giving any opinion at all because i do not have any idea of their actual sound quality.
 I am just reading excellent reviews about them.
 If so the world is really only marketing.
 This is the end of reason. Even the end of justice.
 Thanks again,  gino


----------



## Currawong

We don't get a lot of pro DACs through here. Maybe we should try a few. I had a Metric Halo at one point and it was quite good.  Given how poorly recorded or mastered a lot of music seems to be I do wonder about the priorities of a lot of professionals. I guess that is as varied as the priorities of enthusiasts like us.


----------



## ginetto61

currawong said:


> We don't get a lot of pro DACs through here. Maybe we should try a few. I had a Metric Halo at one point and it was quite good.
> Given how poorly recorded or mastered a lot of music seems to be I do wonder about the priorities of a lot of professionals. I guess that is as varied as the priorities of enthusiasts like us.


 
  
 Hi and thanks and actully i am doing just  that   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   but they are all DS ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I think that some recording labels aiming at quality can be trusted but i am afraid you are right about the mass market commercial production not having sound quality as main goal.
 I have heard of so much DSP on music that is really puzzling.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Thanks again, gino


----------



## johnjen

*Quote:*
*Originally Posted by Yoga *
  
*Note: this a thought - a question to discuss - not a statement. I have a Yggy on order myself.*
  
*Regarding dacs that reveal incredible details (not just the Yggy), while they are often touted as being the most realistic (tonal/texture quality etc. all aside), could these dacs bring out too much detail?*
  
*If some dacs 'hide' too much detail, would it not be possible to 'show' too much detail?*
  
*Could these 'minor' sounds be brought to the forefront of the sound spectrum / sonic signature more than intended when being originally recorded and produced? Why is hearing a faint breath (that wasn't intended to be heard) more 'realistic'? Is it not simply more resolving?*
  
*Again, this is a discussion point, not a statement.*
  
  
 My 2¢
 When we are splitting hairs of this nature, definitions become really important, as in what do you mean by 'detail', and can you describe it in enough 'detail' so as to be clear?  
  
 Despite this 'limitation' I'd say based upon my experience, no, you can't have too much detail 
 IF…
 The rest of the system is able to deliver ALL of the detail inherent in the source material (DAC or vinyl)
 IOW if the entire system 'gets out of its own way'…
 AND
 If the rest of the system has sufficient resolution and focus to match the level of detail from the source…
 Which is another way of saying the entire system 'gets out of its own way', and can deliver ALL of those pesky details…
  
 This is a tall order, at least as far as I have come to understand this.
  
 And to me, detail means presenting all acoustic aspects, all in their 'proper' harmonic relationships and in their proper time.
 After all we are dealing with SotA levels of reproduction here, and the air is might thin, way up hear… 
  
 Lastly, if you can hear, recognize and identify those 'faint' audible 'cues' in the first place that means they haven't been obscured nor altered such that you CAN "hear, recognize and identify" them.
  
 This isn't just a matter of resolution but also includes a degree of precision of the recreation of the original signal, over a wide dynamic range while maintaining the integrity of each original instrument, despite what ever else is happening.  And then delivering that signal, intact, to our ears.
  
 This becomes more evident in complex (many instruments) passages, where it's all to easy to have the overall soundstage blend together.  The details are still there but they don't retain their individuality so being able to follow a single instrument becomes more difficult.
  
 But when the original signal is delivered intact to be heard, what happens is, aspects such as details and SQ and FR and all such descriptors, become inadequate to describe what the net effect is.
 They cease to be important, they just become superfluous detritus, 
 while you get carried away by the music.
  
  
 JJ


----------



## BassDigger

hans030390 said:


> I'm not sure if purrin has the TDA1543 mixed up. Maybe, maybe not. I don't believe he has them mixed up based on a small conversation I had with him a couple weeks back. I know he had some doubts about the TDA1541As datasheet at least in terms of reported INL/DNL.
> 
> The TDA1541A is a whole different ball game compared to the TDA1543, as I'm sure you know. Based on what little experience I have with DACs that use either chip and what research I've done, just in terms of tone and such, the 1543 is warmer, more forward and aggressive, and otherwise just generally less capable on all technical levels. But it can make for an enjoyable listen from a budget DAC. When I see a TDA1543 DAC costing over $500 or, worse, $1000, I just have to shake my head. I don't care how many chips you parallel together. It's still a TDA1543.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 (Firstly, thanks for your comprehensive reply; I thought I'd wait until I'm a little more lucid, before attempting a response)
  
 As you say, I've only heard bad things about the 1543; I think that maybe ganging a load of them together was little more than a sales ploy!
  
 I'm afraid that you've passed my level of knowledge and understanding with your quoting of "lsb" levels, although I am aware of the different grading and tolerances of the 3 most popular versions of the 1541a; I think that they just got better at making them, as time went on.
  
 ENOB? Ok, I'm new to that term (it seems like you've certainly done more research than I have), but I understand the meaning: the usable number of bits. As far as I understand, the bit rate mainly effects the dynamic range; more bits = more headroom for louder and quieter sections of music. So, maybe it's not quite so important for all music types.
 Anyway, I do recall that the later PCM chips are 18 bit (and later maybe 20). Apparently they do measure better than the tda1541, but of course, measurements don't mean everything. And besides, the media is still only 16 bit!
  
 I've also never made any comparisons between chips, just different cd players; I got hooked on the 1541a (after doing a 'sound-off' between my (then) cherished Marantz CD63KI and an Arcam Alpha) and collected a few models that were going cheap. I certainly would be interested to hear the the PCM and AD competition, for myself. But I'll take solace in the fact that many still rate the 1541 as the king.
  
 I think I've heard of Pedja; the guy who sourced, and basically rebuilt, my music player seems to be a disciple of his. He was suggesting that NOS is the way to go, but I had concerns about high frequency distortion, interference and perhaps even damage to downstream components, like ribbon tweeters. So he suggested using a Cambridge Audio DAC 3, the original Stan Curtis model with 4x tda1541s1 chips. The logic being that with that dac starting at 16x OS, the bypassing of the horrible OS filter chip still leaves it at a more standard 4x OS. This is done by the configuration of the dac chips. This also allows a simpler analogue output to be used, than if it was NOS.
 I don't know what 'damage' this remaining OS is doing, but my 'engineer' said that it's definitely a superior solution to the 7220 filter chip.
  
 Incidentally, sorry if you've already explained, but why, with your Yggy affording budget, do you have a specific requirement for NOS?
  
 Cheers.


----------



## BassDigger

johnjen said:


> *Quote:*
> *Originally Posted by Yoga *
> 
> *Note: this a thought - a question to discuss - not a statement. I have a Yggy on order myself.*
> ...


 
  
 Another angle is about the way in which people prefer to 'listen through' a system that is less than perfect; some focus on the detail retrieval, and aren't too bothered by the lack of a 'full' or 'wholesome' sound, as long as those details are resolved. Whilst others prefer the 'full' or 'wholesome' sound; some (like myself) find it more realistic, and find excessive detail too distracting.
 Of course, the problem is that the details are excessive, because of the failings of the system, but it provokes different reactions in different people.
  
 My concern is, if I can one day afford it, where does the Yggy fit in? Most, who report on its sound, talk about how it excels at detail resolution. Does this mean that it's too detailed for some?


----------



## Articnoise

In the new super expensive MSB Select they use 16 Hybrid DAC’s that they says are faster and more accurate than their ladder DAC’s. It doesn’t say what kind of hybrid it is thou.  

http://www.msbtech.com/image/2015-SELECT-DAC-Poster%2033x80.pdf 

 Moreover Leif of Marten design says that the new Diamond DAC V has a real resolution of 26 bit.

http://www.euphonia-audioforum.se/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t11413.html (in Swedish)


----------



## Pirakaphile

articnoise said:


> In the new super expensive MSB Select they use 16 Hybrid DAC’s that they says are faster and more accurate than their ladder DAC’s. It doesn’t say what kind of hybrid it is thou.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 At this point it's just a big DAC waving contest.
"I've got a full 26 bits of resolution, what are you packin' in that chassis?"

If the DAC doesn't do what people are talking about when they say their music sounds like nothing they've ever heard in regards to the Yggy and the 'magic' that happens, a DAC isn't doing its job. If that 26 bit thing sounds exceptional, cool, but at this point they're only expanding the girth of the DAC, not how they use it. 

Oh dear, innuendo


----------



## evillamer

Same analogy as MSB packs a v12 engine, but we don't know how it translate to performance on the race track.


----------



## Currawong

articnoise said:


> Moreover Leif of Marten design says that the new Diamond DAC V has a real resolution of 26 bit.
> 
> http://www.euphonia-audioforum.se/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t11413.html (in Swedish)


 
  
 Oh dear.


----------



## 7ryder

articnoise said:


> In the new super expensive MSB Select they use 16 Hybrid DAC’s that they says are faster and more accurate than their ladder DAC’s. It doesn’t say what kind of hybrid it is thou.
> 
> http://www.msbtech.com/image/2015-SELECT-DAC-Poster%2033x80.pdf
> 
> ...


 
 Very nice.  
  
 And given that the "suggested" build doesn't include the dual power base option or the Femto 33 clock and these options only add $30K to an already reasonable $89.9K. it's "goodbye Yggy!"


----------



## Articnoise

pirakaphile said:


> At this point it's just a big DAC waving contest.
> "I've got a full 26 bits of resolution, what are you packin' in that chassis?"
> 
> If the DAC doesn't do what people are talking about when they say their music sounds like nothing they've ever heard in regards to the Yggy and the 'magic' that happens, a DAC isn't doing its job. If that 26 bit thing sounds exceptional, cool, but at this point they're only expanding the girth of the DAC, not how they use it.
> ...


 

 I don’t have the MSB Select and are not planning to ever get one. The price is ridiculous! If I get it correct my DAC only has like 16 bit of real resolution and still sounds very good to me. 

 I cannot say if it’s really has 26 bit and if it has, what the benefit of it would be. I just leave some info on a topic that some seems to care very much about.


----------



## Pirakaphile

articnoise said:


> I don’t have the MSB Select and are not planning to ever get one. The price is ridiculous! If I get it correct my DAC only has like 16 bit of real resolution and still sounds very good to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot say if it’s really has 26 bit and if it has, what the benefit of it would be. I just leave some info on a topic that some seems to care very much about.



Maybe you can use the DAC as a multipurpose music player and NASA reentry calculator for their newest sattelites?


----------



## Articnoise

evillamer said:


> Same analogy as MSB packs a v12 engine, but we don't know how it translate to performance on the race track.


 

  

 According to Marten design ”MSB Technology Select DAC, den nya referensen som ingen kommer i närheten av!”

 In English: MSB Technology Select DAC, the new reference that nothing else comes nearby.


----------



## StefanJK

What media comes close to real 26 resolution?  I can't see it now or anytime in the relevant future.


----------



## evillamer

articnoise said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Same analogy as MSB packs a v12 engine, but we don't know how it translate to performance on the race track.
> ...




I am happy with 20bits for just $2299 vs MSB $xx,xxx


----------



## shadyprism

sdf


----------



## hans030390

bassdigger said:


> I'm afraid that you've passed my level of knowledge and understanding with your quoting of "lsb" levels, although I am aware of the different grading and tolerances of the 3 most popular versions of the 1541a; I think that they just got better at making them, as time went on.
> 
> ENOB? Ok, I'm new to that term (it seems like you've certainly done more research than I have), but I understand the meaning: the usable number of bits. As far as I understand, the bit rate mainly effects the dynamic range; more bits = more headroom for louder and quieter sections of music. So, maybe it's not quite so important for all music types.
> Anyway, I do recall that the later PCM chips are 18 bit (and later maybe 20). Apparently they do measure better than the tda1541, but of course, measurements don't mean everything. And besides, the media is still only 16 bit!
> ...


 
  
 Ah, well, I've only just started learning some of this stuff myself, so my understanding of it all is somewhat basic. Guys like purrin can do a much better job explaining these topics like INL/DNL errors in terms of LSB, ENOB, etc.
  
 I do believe ENOB is indeed tied to dynamic range, but I think it can also be related to a general level of low-level detail extraction that might not necessarily be considered entirely related to dynamic range. But, in a nutshell, ENOB means what it sounds like. A DAC might be listed as, say, a 16-bit DAC, but it's accuracy and performance in terms of distortion, noise, crosstalk, INL/DNL errors, and so on, might mean that it really only portrays 14 of those 16 bits. And, on the other hand, I've seen DACs that might only be 14 ENOB but show excellent dynamic range in subjective and static objective tests. Like I said, my understanding of this all is rather basic, and I'm still learning. Someone else would need to step in to better explain or correct me where I'm wrong.
  
 So far, I have not had any components that had issues with my non-oversampling DAC, though I do believe_ some_ various amplifiers and drivers can have issues with it due to all the ultrasonic "garbage" too close to the audible spectrum caused by the lack of a digital filter. No issues on my end yet, though, subjectively and mechanically, from headphones, speakers, all sorts of amps (including a vintage stereo receiver), and so on.
  
 What I mean by having a "requirement" for non-oversampling more comes down to my hearing sensitivities and personal tastes. I am rather treble sensitive, sometimes in weird ways, but it's not that DACs usually bother me in this way outright. I've just noticed that, in general, I get listening fatigue very, very easily and quickly, often for reasons I cannot explain or fully understand. It's much worse on headphones, even at low-level listening, though does happen on speakers to a small extent. As it so happens, non-oversampling has been the best thing for me so far to help with this fatigue. Oversampling DACs have some immediate benefits and differences sonically, sure (though I think non-oversampling has its unique benefits too), but something about oversampling tends to bother me over time, where as NOS does not.
  
 There's also something about NOS aside from that aspect that resonates with me. Something about the sense of presence and body it gives instruments and vocals, and not in a warm, thick sort of way. Things tend to sound more flat and 2D to me with oversampling despite oversampling generally having a wider, airier soundstage and presentation. Tone and timbre sounds more "real" to me on some aspects of music, especially vocals, with NOS. Stuff like someone finger picking a nylon guitar on most oversampling DACs make it sound like, instead, someone is using a pick on a guitar with a weird metal + nylon hybrid string. Like a sort of slightly oversharpened timbre. Maybe I'm too young.  On non-oversampling, it sounds like what it should to me...someone finger picking a nylon guitar. On the other hand, cymbals often sound a bit softer than they do in reality on NOS DACs, where as they sound more real on oversampled DACs. Neither is perfect to me...tradeoffs either way...so I just go with what moves me most.


----------



## sypderman88

Hi.. Just curious .. Is there any actual digital high res music file which can utilise all the dynamic range says even at full 16 bit? If yes does it mean we have to turn on the volume i.e in excess of 100dB to hear the peak? thks


----------



## evillamer

sypderman88 said:


> Hi.. Just curious .. Is there any actual digital high res music file which can utilise all the dynamic range says even at full 16 bit? If yes does it mean we have to turn on the volume i.e in excess of 100dB to hear the peak? thks


 
  
 You can try the sites listed in this link:
 https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/free-hi-res-music/


----------



## sypderman88

I read abt this
http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

It seems 16 bit is enough in practical... If that is true there is no point going higher multibit ....even top of the line TotalDac only arnd 14 to 16 bit....

My knowledge is limited in this area... Please share your opinion ... Thks


----------



## evillamer

sypderman88 said:


> I read abt this
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
> 
> It seems 16 bit is enough in practical... If that is true there is no point going higher multibit ....even top of the line TotalDac only arnd 14 to 16 bit....
> ...


 
  
 From what I understand, sigma delta dacs like ESS Sabre like more bits and more samples/sec. It gives the accumulator more data to work with. Also the TI PCM179x dacs has lower 18bit sigma delta with upper 6bit R2R. So you only get to utilize the R2R part at louder sections/transients?
  
 Most of the time you won't need >16bit(unless you want to playback explosion) or >48KHz(unless you are a bat/dog/animal). What you should be more concern about is DAC Linearity, SNR, THD, Inter-harmonic distortion, Stereo Separation, Noise Rejection, EMC/RFI, Jitter, and the post dac(digital and hardware analog) Filters.
  
 here's plenty of info here about the things I mentioned above:
 http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Linearity.htm


----------



## purrin

sypderman88 said:


> Hi.. Just curious .. Is there any actual digital high res music file which can utilise all the dynamic range says even at full 16 bit? If yes does it mean we have to turn on the volume i.e in excess of 100dB to hear the peak? thks


 
  
 No, if anything, Yggy shows us that most "24-bit" DACs can't resolve worth ****.


----------



## preproman

MUCH RESPECT GOING OUT TO THE YGGDRASIL:​  ​  ​  
This is not a review, just a few impressions of how I hear the gear I have, specifically the Yggdrasil and the TotalDac., so YMMV.
  
The Yggdrasil landed at my home on Monday May 4th.  I plugged it in and had music playing through it from Monday May 4th through Tuesday May 12tn continuously. 
  
The TotalDac landed at my home on that Tuesday May 12th.  I had music playing through it all of two days.  Vincent – the TotalDac creator said to give the Dac 8 hours to stabilize  - Yes, 8 hours – that’s it.
  
I used the Abyss, LCD-3F and the HE-6 headphones.  My HD800s are out on loan.
The amp used is the Pass Labs INT-30A.
  
I used all kinds of music:  From Hard Core Rap to Classical to Jazz to EDM to Rock.
  
Again YMMV.
  
*First up the Yggdrasil. *
  
I’ve been one of the skeptics of this DAC as soon as “Captain Hype a lot” and the “Hype Master” started ranting a raving about this DAC. 
  
Hype Twins:
“I can hear things I never heard before”
  
Me:
Yeah Right – the same ole cliché.
  
Hype Twins:
“I can hear the band members farting at each other” 
  
Me:
Get the F%^ outta hear. 
  
Lots of red flags went up and the "BS" meter went crazy.  All the technical talk about bits, burrito filters and Delta-Sigma vs. Ladder DAC chips don’t really concern me. 
  
How does the damn thing sound?
  
Well, I’ll be the first to say, “Pass me a slice of that crow pie”
  
While I can honestly say I don’t hear band members farting at each other -  but yeah, this is a DAMN good DAC.  It’s good at reproducing music in a sort of natural kind of way.  It has very good dynamics, the bass hits hard when it’s suppose to.  This puts “some” of my previous DACs to shame.  I wish this DAC were around a few years ago.  I may have never gone on the DAC hunt I did. 
  
*A few things I don’t quite like about the Yggdrasil:*
  
I find the tone a little lean.  It doesn’t have that magic with female vocals like the AMR did.  However, it beats the AMR in just about everything else. 
  
Will sound bright / analytical with the wrong amp.
  
Background is not ink, pitch or midnight black. 
  
Midrange does not pop
  
To my ears it sacrifices natural instrumental timbre for resolution.
  
Not as engaging as I would like.
  
I‘m experiencing a clicking noise after each sample rate change.  About 1 second is cut off the start of each track after each sample rate change. 
  
*Things I do like about the Yggdrasil:*
  
Price / Performance – you really can’t beat it nowhere in the audio industry.
  
The edges are nice and sharp, very good dynamics, good soundstage depth, fast bass that hits hard and very resolving. 
  
*Next up the TotalDac (TD). *
  
When listening to the Yggdrasil before the TD came, I was all ready to send it back.  The Yggdrasil had me thinking like yeah – this is it, those F$%&ers was right - better than all my other DACs in just about every way, but I was missing the midrange of the AMR. 
  
One great thing off the bat was Vincent said the TD only needed 8 hours to become stable.  He had no issues with turning the DAC on and off.  
  
*What I don’t like about the TD:*
  
Price
  
Edges not as sharp as the Yggdrasil.
  
Soundstage width is not very expansive
  
  
*Things I like about the TotalDac:*
  
Tonality - An obvious difference between the TotalDac and the Yggdrasil is a richer tonality in favor of the TotalDac.
  
Deep bass that’s fast, agile, hefty and hits hard when asked
  
It’s deep black, midnight background.  Maybe because of the separate PSU
  
This DAC has an amazing timbre and sounds extremely fluid
  
The TD has an organic and natural treble presentation.
  
The 3D presentation compared to the flat 2D presentation of the Yggdrasil
  
  
*Rapping this thing up:*
  
I never heard a more realistic sounding DAC that’s highly resolving – airy, intimate, effortless and very engaging. (Other than the Audio Note 5 Signature)
  
If you like the sound of female vocals – the TotalDac D1-Dual is the DAC for you.
  
I prefer the Total DAC for its more lifelike approach. This DACs biggest advantage to me and why I like it so much seems to be its vivid tone. It has amazing timbre and sounds extremely fluid. It doesn’t sacrifice resolution for natural instrumental timbre it gives you both.


----------



## sypderman88

So in summary .. In practical ...the performance of the dac at 16 bit is more important right ?


----------



## Sapientiam

hans030390 said:


> I do believe ENOB is indeed tied to dynamic range, but I think it can also be related to a general level of low-level detail extraction that might not necessarily be considered entirely related to dynamic range. But, in a nutshell, ENOB means what it sounds like. A DAC might be listed as, say, a 16-bit DAC, but it's accuracy and performance in terms of distortion, noise, crosstalk, INL/DNL errors, and so on, might mean that it really only portrays 14 of those 16 bits. And, on the other hand, I've seen DACs that might only be 14 ENOB but show excellent dynamic range in subjective and static objective tests. Like I said, my understanding of this all is rather basic, and I'm still learning. Someone else would need to step in to better explain or correct me where I'm wrong.


 
  
 Pretty much my understanding too - DACs generate errors and the ENOB is telling how 'loud' those errors are when the DAC's playing out a real-world signal. The number of bits a DAC has is only loosely related to the ENOB - generally speaking with more bits (i.e. physical switches or resistor elements) in the DAC the higher the ENOB but no DAC in the world comes anywhere close to 24 ENOB except at exceedingly low frequencies.
  
 A point worth highlighting is that ENOB is a strong function of the DAC's update rate (sample rate in digital audio). The faster a DAC goes, the lower its ENOB rating in general. The ADI DAC in the Yggy for example only comes close to 20 ENOB at low frequencies. The DS gives the THD at 10kHz sample rate - that's displaying around 16 ENOBs. In the Yggy the chips are updating at 8XOS so you might begin to see how crucial the 'secret sauce' deglitcher is in maintaining the ENOB for a 2.8uS intersample period.


----------



## Argo Duck

Good stuff prep, very useful 
Where to now? You keeping the TD or the Ygg? Got any more listening planned for the Ygg? (Just wondering if there might be more to come despite the advertized 160 hours?)


----------



## evillamer

sypderman88 said:


> So in summary .. In practical ...the performance of the dac at 16 bit is more important right ?


 
  
 What's the most common music format in the world right now? 16bit 44.1KHz.


----------



## wmedrz

sypderman88 said:


> I read abt this
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
> 
> It seems 16 bit is enough in practical... If that is true there is no point going higher multibit ....even top of the line TotalDac only arnd 14 to 16 bit....
> ...


 
 Thanks for the link! Try this exchange between Barry Diament and another poster. I found it helpful on this topic:

 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/yes-close-edge-hdtracks-15303/index11.html#post225145


----------



## drez

Depends on many things I think. If this hobby has taught me anything its that what we learn is highly conditionally specific. At this stage I am constantly re-evaluating previous judgment I have made. Some of them stick, others don't. 

Regarding detail presentation this can be distracting, but I no longer use the term detail as a primary criteria. My system is detailed enough in terms of gross detail. improvement tends to be in qualities such as nuance, dynamics, physicality or the absence of negatives such as noise, blurr etc.

12 months ago I was concerned with different criteria. I guess the point I am getting to is a dac will not right in every system if it does not deliver the kind of improvement that person is looking for. It may or may not be right once that system devlops and the owner shifts their goalposts. It might still be wrong for them or their system.


----------



## Insidious Meme

preproman said:


> [COLOR=FF0000]MUCH RESPECT GOING OUT TO THE YGGDRASIL:[/COLOR]​
> (Review in larger font size so no one can miss it.)
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

preproman said:


> Midrange does not pop
> 
> To my ears it sacrifices natural instrumental timbre for resolution.
> 
> Not as engaging as I would like.


 
 Thanks for the impression, if possible can you please share some thought about the natural timbre of Yggy vs Master7? which presents the timbre, voice tone better in your opinion?


----------



## hans030390

Regarding Yggy vs TotalDAC, a lot, but not all, of those impressions are generally what I hear when comparing good non-oversampling vs. good oversampling DACs. Generalizing here, of course, and I know some will disagree.


----------



## purrin

xxxfbsxxx said:


> Thanks for the impression, if possible can you please share some thought about the natural timbre of Yggy vs Master7? which presents the timbre, voice tone better in your opinion?


 
  
 It depends what you mean by natural - what amps, what transports, and what transducers. Master 7 was thicker sounding, more lush with female vocals, more body with cello, etc. However, this effect, while pleasing, felt unrealistic to me in the longer term.


----------



## nicolo

preproman said:


> ​ The amp used is the Pass Labs INT-30A.


 
  
 The Pass Labs INT30A *doesn't* have a headphone output. Which headphone amp did you use?


----------



## rawrster

preproman said:


> ​


 





  


nicolo said:


> The Pass Labs INT30A *doesn't* have a headphone output. Which headphone amp did you use?


 
  
 There's speaker outputs in the back. You don't necessarily need the typical headphone output.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Yep, Prep uses speaker outs for his headphones IIRC


----------



## BassDigger

sypderman88 said:


> Hi.. Just curious .. Is there any actual digital high res music file which can utilise all the dynamic range says even at full 16 bit? If yes does it mean we have to turn on the volume i.e in excess of 100dB to hear the peak? thks


 
  
 Maybe this is difficult to explain, but I'll have a go (with my own limited understanding):
  
 The dynamic range is the difference between the loudest bits and the quietest (the noise floor). In this case we're talking about the limitations of both the recording format (cd,dvda) and playback device (the converter, dac). The perfect format and system combination would be able to replay a 100% accurate and realistic dynamic range. This does not exist. Because of this, recordings are dynamically compressed. This means the quieter parts are made louder (to keep them audible above the noise floor) and the loudest bits are made quieter (to keep them within the capabilities of the format).
 On top of this, the technical limitations of the playback equipment also reduces the dynamic range, the 16 bit format and converter being one example of this.
  
 Basically, you will always "hear the peak", the loudest parts (unless your volume control is turned too low). A 100dB sound, on the recording, may play anywhere between 1dB or 120dB; it depends on where you've set your volume control (and the capabilities of your system).
  
 Actually, the concern is more at the other end of the spectrum; with a wider dynamic range, the quietest bits will be quieter; you may miss them if your volume is turned too low, your system lacks resolution or its noise floor is too high. This is why dynamic range is so important for classical music, because there's such a difference between the whole orchestra playing, or just a single triangle being tinged; with a realistic dynamic range, the full orchestra is maybe 110dB louder than the triangle.
  
 True 16 bit recordings are 105dB maximum (I think). That's the difference between the loudest and quietest parts. (But most are significantly less, for 99% of the recording.) Then with the technical restrictions of your system, this is reduced further; maybe to less than 100dB. But despite this, you can still make the loudest parts play at 110dB or more,  if you want, but then the quietest would be maybe be at 10 or 20dB, when they should be 5dB; they would be louder than reality. Alternatively, you can play a true 110dB recorded sound play at 50dB, just because you've set the volume that way.
  
 More bits equals more dynamic range, but this has a trade-off, IMO; 24 bit digital (or DSD) may appear technically superior, but it creates other (worse) problems to do this. 16 bit (CD or WAV) and multi-bit (R-2R) dacs have enough headroom, and are the way to go, as far as I'm concerned.
  
 (If anyone wants to revise, improve upon or put right my theory or figures, be my guest. But please use confirmed facts and figures, not 'guestimates'; I've used more than enough of those already. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )


----------



## DreamKing

rawrster said:


> There's speaker outputs in the back. You don't necessarily need the typical headphone output.


 
  
 There's XLR too, IIRC.


----------



## AudioBear

Here's my simple understanding of the bit war.  The dynamic range for a 16 bit CD is 96-98dB.  20 bit is about 120dB.  Human hearing sensitivity has an incredible 140dB dynamic range but most of that is of little use.  Sounds below 30dB (the volume of a whisper) are seldom heard since background noise levels in a home, office or theater are typically much higher and would mask the quietest sounds. Exposure to sounds over 100 dB for more than short periods of time can be uncomfortable--even painful-- and can cause harmful effects.  FWIW rock concerts often hit 115-120dB.  Realistically, a dynamic range of 70-80dB is more than enough for most recordings.  Symphonic music can reach 80dB of dynamic range.  Recordings are often compressed to lift the lowest sounds up to make them more audible in places like homes (40dB +), cars (65-70dB), etc.  The highs are similarly compressed downward to not just avoid uncomfortably loud  passages that could cause harm to your ears but also to protect amplifiers and speakers from clipping and distortion.  Many recordings are very compressed, particularly with the recent recording emphasis on bass and loudness. All of the above is why 16-bits are more than enough for most purposes.
  
 The recent growing popularity of headphones, earbuds, and IEMs may have been facilitated by small portable electronic players but it is also possible that more and more people are discovering that these devices block at least some of the ambient noise and can deliver a very satisfying rendition of music (that's why we're all here isn't it?).  For many, these transducers and the associated equipment not only sound better, they occupy less space and cost less than a comparable room-based stereo system, among other advantages.  It is reasonable to assert at least part of the appeal of Head-Fi is the wider dynamic range that can be heard in the relative absence of external sound.  It is certainly a more personal and intimate experience with the music.
  
 The value of 24 and higher bit systems does not arise from the extended and unnecessarily large dynamic range.  If there is an advantage, it is that the recording mixer/engineer and the equipment designer have more bits with which to work their magic.  In simple terms truncating 4-8 bits of the 24 bit recoding's dynamic range would be inaudible but it can be used to advantage to make the 16-bit representation of sound a whole lot more faithful, accurate, and noise free.  24 bit recordings often sound better to me but some don't--that's a can of worms we don't need in a DAC thread.   Let's not go into the higher bit wars.  Suffice it to say that very few consumer DACs render a true 16-18 bit conversion and the very best can seldom claim more than 20 bits.  Some of the very best sounding DACs are said to have an effective resolution as low as 14 bits.  Most people reading this thread believe DACs make a difference in how the music sounds; I do.  It is, however, unlikely that a DACs reproduction of dynamic range beyond 16 bits (eg 96dB) contributes much if anything to how good it sounds.
  
 That's my simpleton's understanding.  Don't know if it's right so I'd like to learn more from the rest of the people here.


----------



## wahsmoh

wmedrz said:


> Thanks for the link! Try this exchange between Barry Diament and another poster. I found it helpful on this topic:
> 
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/yes-close-edge-hdtracks-15303/index11.html#post225145


 

  
 My Bob Marley CD I bought off eBay from the 90s. It was mastered by Barry Diament and sounds amazing. You can crank it up and there is no "loudness wars"


----------



## sypderman88

interesting, given that most people listen below 100dB , 16 bit  should be sufficient....


----------



## joeexp

sypderman88 said:


> interesting, given that most people listen below 100dB , 16 bit  should be sufficient....


 

 yep:
 10db > Barely audible​ 20db > ​Whisper, rustling leaves
 40db > Library, bird calls (44 dB) > One-eighth as loud as 70 dB.​ 70db > Upper 70s are annoyingly loud to some people.​ 80db > Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train (at 15 meters). > Possible damage in 8 hr exposure​ 100db > Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle > Serious damage possible in 8 hr exposure​ 110db > Average human pain threshold. 16 times as loud as 70 dB.​  
  
 given all that 16bit should be more then enough!


----------



## catspaw

joeexp said:


> yep:
> 10db > Barely audible​ 20db > ​Whisper, rustling leaves
> 40db > Library, bird calls (44 dB) > One-eighth as loud as 70 dB.​ 70db > Upper 70s are annoyingly loud to some people.​ 80db > Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train (at 15 meters). > Possible damage in 8 hr exposure​ 100db > Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle > Serious damage possible in 8 hr exposure​ 110db > Average human pain threshold. 16 times as loud as 70 dB.​
> 
> given all that 16bit should be more then enough!


 
 While I like your list, its slightly inaccurate:
 There is guaranteed damage in human hearing every time you hear something. Even at 30dB.
 The difference is how MUCH damage is done .


----------



## Techlology

Question, when you guys say that the Yggy has a noticeably high noise floor. Do you mean that you're hearing more of the crap that gets picked up by mics during recording? Or do you mean a sort of fuzziness to the background, or hell even electrical noise?


----------



## BassDigger

joeexp said:


> yep:
> 10db > Barely audible​ 20db > ​Whisper, rustling leaves
> 40db > Library, bird calls (44 dB) > One-eighth as loud as 70 dB.​ 70db > Upper 70s are annoyingly loud to some people.​ 80db > Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train (at 15 meters). > Possible damage in 8 hr exposure​ 100db > Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle > Serious damage possible in 8 hr exposure​ 110db > Average human pain threshold. 16 times as loud as 70 dB.​
> 
> given all that 16bit should be more then enough!


 
  
 It seems like an actual maximum volume setting would be 80dB, even for headbangers! So, if the lowest volume requirement is 20dB then our required dynamic range is about 60dB. Therefore 16 bits is plenty.
  
 There're a couple of things worth mentioning:
 Loudspeakers are usually quoted @1 metre, for their sensitivity and loudness. But I certainly never sit 1 metre away from my floorstanders. The sound pressure will drop off exponentially for real in-room loudness; the distance makes a big difference eg. that jumbo, up close, produces 150dB+ (=16x @ 305 metres) = instant deafness!
  
 I guess headphones are pretty straightforward, because the distance is the same; the depth of the pad.
  
 Another factor is the nature of sound, or music. A constant tone will be a constant dB, and also causes hearing damage much sooner. Whereas music is constantly varying, by massive amounts; the peaks will be hitting high volumes, for milliseconds, but it's the average loudness that counts.
 It's wise to listen at the minimum level that you can accept, and if you think that it may be too loud, it surely is; turn that volume down; you'll be glad you did, one day!


----------



## joeexp

On top of that our ears are more sensitive to certain frequencies;
 There is a peak about 2-4khz - center of human voice
  

  
 Looks like Bassheads are doing a lot more damage to their ears ...


----------



## BassDigger

joeexp said:


> On top of that our ears are more sensitive to certain frequencies;
> There is a peak about 2-4khz - center of [COLOR=333333]human voice[/COLOR]
> 
> 
> ...




...or less, because they're more sensitive to those higher frequencies; hence the desire for more bass.


----------



## catspaw

joeexp said:


> On top of that our ears are more sensitive to certain frequencies;
> There is a peak about 2-4khz - center of human voice
> 
> 
> ...


 
 We are all gonna die anyway so why not go with a BASS? .
  
 But I do have to say that Bass is only nice for me if its tight and controlled. I was at a cousins home and they were listening to loud, HEAVY distorted bass in small car speakers.
 I felt like they were from another planet because they seemed to like it.


----------



## StefanJK

joeexp said:


> yep:
> 10db > Barely audible​ 20db > ​Whisper, rustling leaves
> 40db > Library, bird calls (44 dB) > One-eighth as loud as 70 dB.​ 70db > Upper 70s are annoyingly loud to some people.​ 80db > Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train (at 15 meters). > Possible damage in 8 hr exposure​ 100db > Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle > Serious damage possible in 8 hr exposure​ 110db > Average human pain threshold. 16 times as loud as 70 dB.​
> 
> given all that 16bit should be more then enough!


 
 What I never get with this type of statement is that this seems to conflate dynamic range and resolution.  They are not the same thing.  The sequence  1.01, 1.02, 1.04, 1.01, etc has less dynamic range than the sequence 2, 1, 2, etc, but you need more resolution to represent it.  There's still the question of what you can hear, but the two things aren't the same.  May be good to take this back to the original thread...but that was locked last time I checked...


----------



## magiccabbage

preproman said:


> MUCH RESPECT GOING OUT TO THE YGGDRASIL:​  ​  ​
> This is not a review, just a few impressions of how I hear the gear I have, specifically the Yggdrasil and the TotalDac., so YMMV.
> 
> The Yggdrasil landed at my home on Monday May 4th.  I plugged it in and had music playing through it from Monday May 4th through Tuesday May 12tn continuously.
> ...


 
 sweet, thanks for the impressions. I cant weight for the London meet in august so I can hopefully hear the Yggy
  
 Well done Prep - which one are you sending back?


----------



## negura

^ Is there really a need for full block text quoting?


----------



## ginetto61

> Originally Posted by *preproman*
> 
> 
> 
> _*... the flat 2D presentation of the Yggdrasil ...    *_


----------



## ccschua

no one seems to compare Yggd to the Directstream. The DS is also the R2R and wonder if falls short in comparison to Yggd ?


----------



## xxxfbsxxx

purrin said:


> It depends what you mean by natural - what amps, what transports, and what transducers. Master 7 was thicker sounding, more lush with female vocals, more body with cello, etc. However, this effect, while pleasing, felt unrealistic to me in the longer term.


 
 thanks so much, this gonna save me fortune )
 imo, even the master 7 is not thick and smooth enough, i prefer more intimate, thicker, mid centric and lush voice, which i think agd old products offer, eg ref7.1 or audiogd sa series.  
 I sold the master 7 and I was waiting for yggy but it seem the sound does not really suit my taste T_T


----------



## arnaud

stefanjk said:


> What I never get with this type of statement is that this seems to conflate dynamic range and resolution.  They are not the same thing.  The sequence  1.01, 1.02, 1.04, 1.01, etc has less dynamic range than the sequence 2, 1, 2, etc, but you need more resolution to represent it.  There's still the question of what you can hear, but the two things aren't the same.  May be good to take this back to the original thread...but that was locked last time I checked...




That's the point, the actual value doesn't matter, any ladder dac can have 24bits of "resolution" as you name it. The effective dynamic range is this enob thing (the largest range the dac can effectively resolve between a given bit depth and a lower value until the highest bit precision biases the result). Intuitively, you'd think simply the precision of the resistors in the ladder define that but it may not be as simple (see for instance noise shaping techniques).

In any case, we are a few with the opinion that an effective dynamic range of 80dB (that's <14bits) is likely fine for most recordings (that often rely on some varied levels of compression), listening conditions (background noise vs. peak loudness) and let's not forget the linearity of the rest of chain starting with the transducers...

The only people I read who affirm you need more than that are Purrin and Mike Moffatt, as they apparently did some listening tests with "calibrated" recordings using a DAC that could effectively hit >18bit enob (aka the iggy for instance). 
I don't refute the findings (our hearing does have >100dB of usable dynamic range after all) but, I wonder if that's really THE dominant parameter driving perceived resolution.


----------



## icebear

There is a thread about the new MQA format from Meridian over in the Sound science forum...
 Amoung other things they point to the impulse representation and the interval between pre and post ringing. Optimizing this interval down to max 10 micro sec. seems to do something. In analog tape recordings there is a pre impulse bump that is caused by the width of the tape head slot that is magnetizing the tape. Logically higher speed e.g. 30ips vs 15ips will minimize the length of that bump. I have no clue why there is something similar with DACs like this analog bump which is now pre-ringing before an impulse signal builds up.
  
 Maybe it's something like inertia of the electrical components which determines the max. slew rate at which an impulse signal can rise -and fall?
  
 I guess the ability of the DAC to recreate the natural impression of the impulse without any pre- / post artefacts which are simply not there when you hear live music, this is much more important than the number of bits (16, 20,21, 24,32, 33.1/3 etc) or theoretical max. dynamic range.


----------



## magiccabbage

negura said:


> ^ Is there really a need for full block text quoting?


 
 I don't know how to hide the text ..... maybe you can show me


----------



## magiccabbage

magiccabbage said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how to hide the text ..... maybe you can show me


 
 so now i know


----------



## mikoss

Hey guys, just got the Angstrom 200 in... it's been plugged in for a couple of days, and I just started listening to some stuff last night. First impressions, just using the analog input because I'm waiting on a Gustard U12 - extremely clear, detailed sound. The level of detail being presented is quite nice. I'm hearing a clarity in vocals where there seemed to be a bit of smear before, and also just an overall refinement across the board. I'll give more impressions once I'm running a digital signal into it. So far it's a keeper.


----------



## AudioBear

Glad you like the Angstrom. Our experience is the same.  When I bought one new in the 90s the first thing that struck me when I turned on a DVD to watch a movie was the voices.  They were so so real and present.  I look forward to your impressions.  BTW, back in those days we didn't burn processors in for 100 hrs or keep them on all the time and they still sounded pretty good right out of the box.


----------



## frenchbat

> BTW, back in those days we didn't burn processors in for 100 hrs or keep them on all the time and they still sounded pretty good right out of the box.


 
 Want me to send you a scan of the Theta DSPro manual ? It's written 5 day minimum. Just sayin' ...


----------



## AudioBear

Indeed Theta said that and the creator has always believed that.  The Angstrom manual did not say that to my recollection.  Hmmmm.  That could be because I am not sure there was a manual per se.  All I'm saying is it sounded great right out of the box.  It didn't take days or weeks to figure out the Angstrom was pretty special.
  
 Update:  Just thinking out loud.  I need to point out I was using the Angstrom for DVDs as a theater processor and not listening to music.  There is a big difference.  Voices have a much narrower frequency and dynamic range than music and our brains probably process voices differently than music. So that the Angstrom didn't need to burn in for voices to sound good might not say much about how music sounded.


----------



## frenchbat

Depends on brands I guess. Although you might have a failure test in house before shipping. Also a lot of manufacturers actually keep the gear on standby all the time, eventhough there's a switch. It's just a mute.


----------



## purrin

xxxfbsxxx said:


> thanks so much, this gonna save me fortune )
> imo, even the master 7 is not thick and smooth enough, i prefer more intimate, thicker, mid centric and lush voice, which i think agd old products offer, eg ref7.1 or audiogd sa series.
> I sold the master 7 and I was waiting for yggy but it seem the sound does not really suit my taste T_T


 
  
 You could always find an older AGD Ref 7, a Sonic Frontiers SFD/SFCD (from PCX with warranty) or TransDAC.


----------



## purrin

arnaud said:


> In any case, we are a few with the opinion that an effective dynamic range of 80dB (that's <14bits) is likely fine for most recordings (that often rely on some varied levels of compression), listening conditions (background noise vs. peak loudness) and let's not forget the linearity of the rest of chain starting with the transducers...


 
  
 Obviously, the designer of the TotalDAC doesn't agree with you. Otherwise why would he offer the d1-dual or d1-twelve? Just so he can charge people more? Stacking the DACs will average out errors, leading to better accuracy, leading to more perceived resolution.


----------



## joeexp

New Chord DAC to arrive soon. It is called "DAVE"
 No technical details as yet -  but more taps for their FIR filter.

 Supposed to be the World's best DAC ..
 Another candidate for the title ...
  
 At least at looks mean


----------



## PCWar

At least it got the price for the worst looking DAC of the world. Repaced the Hugo


----------



## DreamKing

Yes, I hope this is fake because it looks like it. It looks like it does nothing.


----------



## purrin

joeexp said:


>


 
  
 Gandalf in space. Maybe a device from one of the First Ones in Babylon 5. Or perhaps a prop in the Liberator in a new Blake's 7 if they ever decided to make one.


----------



## evillamer

Give it a million taps , but still based off flawed sigma delta design. No thanks.


----------



## lukeap69

Wow! This will give the PS4 and Xbox One run for their money! This is the game console I've been dreaming of...


----------



## skeptic

Chord really needs a new industrial designer.


----------



## AustinValentine

This is not the droid you're looking for.


----------



## wahsmoh

Put it in an overpriced chassis that claims to be able to handle a tank driving over it


----------



## drfindley

techlology said:


> Question, when you guys say that the Yggy has a noticeably high noise floor. Do you mean that you're hearing more of the crap that gets picked up by mics during recording? Or do you mean a sort of fuzziness to the background, or hell even electrical noise?


 

 With the Yggy, I'm actually hearing hiss and such that I have not heard before. Turns out, it's in the original recordings! I found that some tracks are hiss-free (The Flaming Lips) and others have lots of hiss (Miles Davis, The White Stripes). The Yggy has a low enough noise floor for me that I can plainly hear the differences and the silences.


----------



## jacal01

Looking at that thing makes me think 'nanobots'.   Maybe there's a horde of them acoming...


----------



## hodgjy

>


 
  
 This is the first thing that came to my mind:


----------



## StefanJK

Cosmetic surgery for Dacs...expensive, tries to mislead and doesn't fool anybody but fools.


----------



## Armaegis

joeexp said:


> New Chord DAC to arrive soon. It is called "DAVE"


 
  
 ... and an optional regulated power supply called DAISY.


----------



## wahsmoh

They should name it HAL instead of Dave


----------



## joeexp

This is the remote control: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  

  
 Sorry for de-railing the threat;
 And now to something completely different ...


----------



## Argo Duck

Valuable information. Might be good to put this in the Yggdrasil impressions thread?

e: to add link



drfindley said:


> With the Yggy, I'm actually hearing hiss and such that I have not heard before. Turns out, it's in the original recordings! I found that some tracks are hiss-free (The Flaming Lips) and others have lots of hiss (Miles Davis, The White Stripes). The Yggy has a low enough noise floor for me that I can plainly hear the differences and the silences.


----------



## purrin

Well, there are sort of three Yggy threads, I mean four.


----------



## Insidious Meme

skeptic said:


> Chord really needs a new industrial designer.




Not if Toys R Us was their intended industry...


----------



## jsgraha

purrin said:


> You could always find an older AGD Ref 7, a Sonic Frontiers SFD/SFCD (from PCX with warranty) or TransDAC.


 
  
 So, for someone who is looking to upgrade from agd ref7, by keeping the tone and timbre of ref7, but would like to get a bit more of attack, liquidity, transparency and deeper bass, will yggy a safer bet? I don't mind a leaner body. 
  
 Thanks in advance.


----------



## evillamer

Left my Master 7 playing music for 12hours non-stop. Came back home and was suprised by the improvement in sound quality. Much more spacious, more dynamic(Especially the deep low end bass) and more clarity.
  
 Looks like it's not just YGG that needs to be power on all the time.


----------



## mikek200

evillamer said:


> Left my Master 7 playing music for 12hours non-stop. Came back home and was suprised by the improvement in sound quality. Much more spacious, more dynamic(Especially the deep low end bass) and more clarity.
> 
> Looks like it's not just YGG that needs to be power on all the time.


 
 I went through the same thing,when I was testing the Theta basicIII dac,a couple of weeks ago..
 When I first got it...I was very,very happy with the SQ,would turn it on/off all the time,then I decided to keep it on ..all the time,that lasted 3-4 weeks,and when I went back each time,I could swear it sounded better.
 Finally I had my wife start to listen..after about 10 days ,she agreed with me.
 Now,with whatever dac,I'll be using...I just leave it on.24/7
 My yiggy delivery was just pushed back till mid-July,,when it comes in,,I'll be back with more impressions


----------



## purrin

> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > You could always find an older AGD Ref 7, a Sonic Frontiers SFD/SFCD (from PCX with warranty) or TransDAC.
> ...


 
  
 Probably not. Sounds like TotalDAC dual or TotalDAC twelve or MSB Super Mega Pricey Edition might be what you are after. The other possibility is to stick caps in the signal path after the Yggy output. Or tap into Yggy boards and build a tube buffer coupled with a cap. The last option would void your warranty by 1000% of course.


----------



## EraserXIV

Yggy + "euphonic" tube amp?


----------



## purrin

Well, I am currently running Yggy+ECZDs+HD650 (tweaked) in my living room right now.


----------



## Liu Junyuan

purrin said:


> Well, I am currently running Yggy+ECZDs+HD650 (tweaked) in my living room right now.


 
 Nice to see some HD-650 love. I have a friend who runs the ZD with the HD 650s as well. I wonder if your mods are to calm down the upper midrange?


----------



## juanitox

purrin said:


> Probably not. Sounds like TotalDAC dual or TotalDAC twelve or MSB Super Mega Pricey Edition might be what you are after. The other possibility is to stick caps in the signal path after the Yggy output. Or tap into Yggy boards and build a tube buffer coupled with a cap. The last option would void your warranty by 1000% of course.


 

 or put a nice transformer  ( jensen , lundhal) at  the output to make the balanced/unbalanced  conversion  it will act as a gentle analog filter


----------



## evillamer

mikek200 said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Left my Master 7 playing music for 12hours non-stop. Came back home and was suprised by the improvement in sound quality. Much more spacious, more dynamic(Especially the deep low end bass) and more clarity.
> ...


 
  
 Gonna run my M7 with random music running 24x7 to ensure full resister workout + fully heated


----------



## Articnoise

jsgraha said:


> So, for someone who is looking to upgrade from agd ref7, by keeping the tone and timbre of ref7, but would like to get a bit more of attack, liquidity, transparency and deeper bass, will yggy a safer bet? I don't mind a leaner body.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


 

 I have not heard the AGD Ref 7 or Yggy, but the Master 7 with a good USB converter that do I2S is maybe what you are looking for (my speculation only of cause). The OR5 I2S do keep the tone and timbre of the Master 7 USB and kind of enhance it. 

 The things that stands out the most to me with OR5 I2s is that the sound is less warm, grainy and muddy plus that the overall sound gets more precise and smooth. Other benefits are better attack, liquidity, transparency, instrument separation, image and better bass.

 The Master 7 with an OR5 is expansive thought, so perhaps better to look for another converter/solution.


----------



## ciphercomplete

evillamer said:


> Left my Master 7 playing music for 12hours non-stop. Came back home and was suprised by the improvement in sound quality. Much more spacious, more dynamic(Especially the deep low end bass) and more clarity.
> 
> Looks like it's not just YGG that needs to be power on all the time.


 
  
 I leave my Master 7 on all the time, but I noticed that after I left it on for for that very first month straight the warm up time decreased dramatically.  Now I can cut it off and it will get back to optimum sound in about 3 hours.  I used to have to wait around 2 days.  I hope the same is true with the Yggdrasil.


----------



## motberg

articnoise said:


> I have not heard the AGD Ref 7 or Yggy, but the Master 7 with a good USB converter that do I2S is maybe what you are looking for (my speculation only of cause). The OR5 I2S do keep the tone and timbre of the Master 7 USB and kind of enhance it.
> 
> The things that stands out the most to me with OR5 I2s is that the sound is less warm, grainy and muddy plus that the overall sound gets more precise and smooth. Other benefits are better attack, liquidity, transparency, instrument separation, image and better bass.
> 
> The Master 7 with an OR5 is expansive thought, so perhaps better to look for another converter/solution.


 
  
 I ordered a Melodious Audio MX-U8 with the i2S Ethernet RJ45 style output configured to match my M7 and it works perfectly so far (checked up to 24/96).
 Using the Melodious supplied drivers, Windows Server 2012, AO, JPlay 5.2, JPlay Mini, dedicated computer with PPA V2 USB card.
 I have had only a short time to listen - but this sounds amazing to me, especially the deeper-tighter bass and extra detail compared to my NOS1704, even with a cheap 30 CM CAT7 cable for the i2S connection.
 http://www.shenzhenaudio.com/melodious-audio-mx-u8-ultimate-edition-32bit-384khz-dsd-xmos-usb-digital-audio-interface.html
  
 Many thanks to everyone who posted comments about this DAC... I normally would not consider this price point, but I am sure the M7 will last me many many years...


----------



## ciphercomplete

motberg said:


> I ordered a Melodious Audio MX-U8 with the i2S Ethernet RJ45 style output configured to match my M7 and it works perfectly so far (checked up to 24/96).
> Using the Melodious supplied drivers, Windows Server 2012, AO, JPlay 5.2, JPlay Mini, dedicated computer with PPA V2 USB card.
> I have had only a short time to listen - but this sounds amazing to me, especially the deeper-tighter bass and extra detail compared to my NOS1704, even with a cheap 30 CM CAT7 cable for the i2S connection.
> http://www.shenzhenaudio.com/melodious-audio-mx-u8-ultimate-edition-32bit-384khz-dsd-xmos-usb-digital-audio-interface.html
> ...


 
  
 You still have a ways to go with the M7 too.  The upgrade from the Rj45 to HDMI is nothing to sneeze at.  You don't have to go uber expensive with the OR5 either.  I use a CIAudio Transient usb to I2S converter.  I think there are some cheaper converters out there too.  Also at some point Empirical audio will release the OR6 so you should be able to pick up a OR5 for pretty cheap then.


----------



## Za Warudo

How does the TransDAC compare to the lower Theta DACs like the Basic?


----------



## mikoss

Here's my thoughts on the Angstrom 200.


----------



## jacal01

evillamer said:


> Left my Master 7 playing music for 12hours non-stop. Came back home and was suprised by the improvement in sound quality. Much more spacious, more dynamic(Especially the deep low end bass) and more clarity.
> 
> Looks like it's not just YGG that needs to be power on all the time.


 
  
 I was 2 months into my M7 before I was happy with its tonal body and texture and bass.  'Course I turned it on and off for my listening sessions.
  


purrin said:


> Well, I am currently running Yggy+ECZDs+HD650 (tweaked) in my living room right now.


 
  
 I'm running the Yggy thru an EAR HP4 (6SL7/ECC35) and HD800s, but I'm finding the Yggy + Krell Phantom III (SS) + TH900s more engaging right now. However, I'm not yet thru my Yggy burn-in/warm-up stabilization period.


----------



## wahsmoh

za warudo said:


> How does the TransDAC compare to the lower Theta DACs like the Basic?


 
 Don't have a TransDAC but I heard the Yggy a few times, once at Can Jam and more recently with Dan at the Mr. Speakers factory. The lower level Thetas compare favorably but if you have the money then by all means buy the Yggy and you won't have to worry about parts failing and not having any way of fixing it.
  
 I would say the Progeny DAC I have is like a single-ended Yggy... it shares DNA of the DSP burrito filter and imaging qualities that make you glued to your headphone rig. I am hoping Schiit will release a R2R/DSP upgrade for the Uber so it will in a sense be more like my Progeny but even then.. the Progeny has two transformers and the Bifrost Uber has only one.. different times and different price categories: Progeny ($995[with inflation $1500 today]) Uber ($519)


----------



## evillamer

Food for though video, chip in Yggdrasil:


----------



## smitty1110

Spoiler: Video and stuff






evillamer said:


> Food for though video, chip in Yggdrasil:




  



 Very informative, but there was less enthusiasm from the presenters than at a funeral. They should hire Jason to spice it up.


----------



## DreamKing

It wasn't meant for the head fi crowd, that's the least you can say lol. I imagine advertising technology for use in the military/medical field involves use of concise wording and an almost neutered tone.
  


smitty1110 said:


> Spoiler: Video and stuff
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bmichels

I am at the High-End Show in Munich.  
  
 Biggest surprise for me was the* VIVA EGOISTA *Headphone AMP associated to the DAC/CD player* VIVA NUMERICO.*
  
 Amazing dynamics and bass with LCD-3, ABYSS and my ED5 ! 
  
*--> does someone else heard or know the VIVA NUMERICO  DAC/CD Player* ?


----------



## evillamer

Was reading this pdf doc from analog devices about their 20bit dac
  
 http://www.analog.com/library/analogdialogue/archives/44-04/AD5791.pdf
  


> It is* essential to minimize noise on the reference inputs *because it couples right through to the DAC output


 


> As with all precision circuits,* drift of all components with temperature *is a major source of error


 
  


> The major contributors to errors in 1-ppm-accurate circuits are *noise, temperature drift, thermoelectric voltages, and physical stress. *


 
  


> When operating at 1-ppm resolutions and accuracies, it is of *utmost importance to keep noise levels to a minimum.*


 
  
 Quote:


> Besides random noise, it is important to avoid errors caused by radiated, conducted, and induced electrical interference. Such techniques as shielding, guarding, and* scrupulous attention to grounding and proper printed-circuit-board wiring techniques are imperative. *


 
  


> High-precision analog semiconductor devices are sensitive to stress on their package. Stress relief compounds used within the packaging have a settling effect, but they cannot compensate for significant stress due to pressure exerted directly on the package by local sources, such as* flexing of the PCB. *


 
  


> Enclosing the circuit to *shield circuitry from air currents* would be an effective thermoelectric voltage stabilizing method, and it could have the added value of providing electrical shielding.


 
  


> *Shield fast-switching signals, such as clocks*, with digital ground to avoid radiating noise to other parts of the board.


 


> By far the most efficient method is to _reduce_ the number of junctions in the circuit by minimizing component count in the signal path and *stabilizing the local and ambient temperatures.*


 
  
 Does it mean the highly precise yggdrasil is a super electrical noise sensitive machine that will benefit even more significantly from Dac chip shielding, (usb)input noise isolation, power conditioning, emi/rfi reduction and vibration isolation?


----------



## ericr

OK, I just won an eBay auction for a Paradisea 3 DAC for $330. It is a supposedly a good implementation of the Tda1543.

Does anyone have experience, thoughts or guesses as to how it will fare against my Uber Bifrost?


----------



## AudioBear

Do you want it to be better?  Have you arranged a [redacted redacted] cross-over controlled comparison test?  [PM me if you don't know what got redacted]


----------



## Sonic Defender

evillamer said:


> Does it mean the highly precise yggdrasil is a super electrical noise sensitive machine that will benefit even more significantly from Dac chip shielding, (usb)input noise isolation, power conditioning, emi/rfi reduction and vibration isolation?


 
 Are any of these purported effects known to be audible, or simply measureable on super sensitive devices that can detect fluctuations that aren't audible anyway?


----------



## ericr

audiobear said:


> Do you want it to be better?  Have you arranged a [redacted redacted] cross-over controlled comparison test?  [PM me if you don't know what got redacted]




LOL - that was [redacted] funny!

I assume you must have been burned in the past for suggesting a [redacted redacted] as a reasonable way for me to answer my own question. Funny to see you put it that way, kinda sad you have to though. But that's just my subjective option 

Oh I will take you suggestion, but the Paradisae is coming from Sweden so it will be a while 'til it arrives and it seems I'll need to let it warm up for a bit (those Scandinavian winters can be cold).

And YES! You're dang right I want it to be better - in a reallllllly big way. Had to stop reading the Yggy thread and hopefully the Paradisea 3 will help me stay away. My lovely wife is very supportive of my hobby (even encouraged me to do the 1964 Kickstarter at $1200 for the A12 | ADEL), but even I question the wisdom [edit: of us] spending the money for the Yggy at this time.

Unfortunately this thread has helped me understand why people couldn't convince me my Nakamichi MB-2 CD player (from the early '90s with dual PCM1700 or 1702 IIRC) wasn't an obsolete relic. It was a sad day when it died.

My post was mainly for fun while I wait. To hear what others might say, and maybe learn a bit (npi) as I don't really know anything about the Tda1543, nor MHDT's implementation of it. Hoping it at least has a street taco buffer!

-Eric


----------



## AudioBear

Yes, it's against the rules to mention [redeacted] [redacted] testing anywhere but some thread in Sound Science.
  
 I sprung for the A12s too and they are really great.
  
 I bought an Angstrom 200 new in the late 90s an it was something special. Many of the old Thetas are legend.  I'm sure I've heard DACs with that chip but can't remember which.  There's probably a bit of nostalgia working in liking these old Dacs and chips but that's not the whole reason people like them.  They ARE good.  You have good reason to hope the Paradisae will be good indeed but as you obviously recognize, that desire and the fact that you must wait for it can do strange things to the brain.  The very awareness of trying to avoid confirmation bias can make it more persuasive.  Either you find a way to test it that will give you an answer you have confidence in, or you just listen to it and say it's wonderful.  Plan B has a much lower downside.  So maybe [redacted] [redacted] testing isn't a good idea after all.


----------



## ericr

Would love to hear the A12 on the Yggy. So much of what is being said about the Yggy (analog, tone/timbre, hearing the venue, not just the guitar but the guitar strings too, etc.) are what I'm hearing with the A12.


----------



## AudioBear

Yes it really sounds good.  I too would love to hear it especially since I have owned one of Mike Moffatt's babies.  It's also not expensive for what it appears to do but I haven't decided if I want to spend that much. Not sure the wife would understand why someone with mild age-related hearing loss needs a world class DAC.  But you never know.  This could be a very compelling purchase.  That's why we're all here isn't it?


----------



## evillamer

sonic defender said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Does it mean the highly precise yggdrasil is a super electrical noise sensitive machine that will benefit even more significantly from Dac chip shielding, (usb)input noise isolation, power conditioning, emi/rfi reduction and vibration isolation?
> ...


 
  
 That's something that the Yggdrasil users need to experiment on and give their honest take on it.


----------



## evillamer

audiobear said:


> Yes it really sounds good.  I too would love to hear it especially since I have owned one of Mike Moffatt's babies.  It's also not expensive for what it appears to do but I haven't decided if I want to spend that much. Not sure the wife would understand why someone with mild age-related hearing loss needs a world class DAC.  But you never know.  This could be a very compelling purchase.  That's why we're all here isn't it?


 
 Age related hearing loss just means you lose HF hearing, but it doesn't mean your entire auditory system is gone? Maybe losing >16KHz hearing might be a good thing imho as makes you enjoy/notice the <16KHz frequency content more? Relax, and enjoy the good music provided by the excellent audio equipment that mike designed.


----------



## wink

{Redacted][Redacted] has just been {[Redacted][Redacted]}  good news  for all.....


----------



## Ableza

evillamer said:


> Does it mean the highly precise yggdrasil is a super electrical noise sensitive machine that will benefit even more significantly from Dac chip shielding, (usb)input noise isolation, power conditioning, emi/rfi reduction and vibration isolation?


 
 More likely it means you have quoted some of the reasons why the design took a long time to perfect.


----------



## zerodeefex

liu junyuan said:


> purrin said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I am currently running Yggy+ECZDs+HD650 (tweaked) in my living room right now.
> ...




The ZD super is also much improved as well.

The Yggdrasil > Zana deux super > HD6xx is something special. Surprisingly super layered and resolving.


----------



## LingLing1337

ableza said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Does it mean the highly precise yggdrasil is a super electrical noise sensitive machine that will benefit even more significantly from Dac chip shielding, (usb)input noise isolation, power conditioning, emi/rfi reduction and vibration isolation?
> ...




I think hes just listing the $1000s of mods he wants to do on a $2000 DAC...


----------



## Liu Junyuan

zerodeefex said:


> The ZD super is also much improved as well.
> 
> The Yggdrasil > Zana deux super > HD6xx is something special. Surprisingly super layered and resolving.




Thanks Ravi. Thanks for the help. I am pretty certain a Black Widow is in my future. A Zana Deux would be glorious.


----------



## AudioBear

Thanks.  You're right and I do enjoy the music.  I said my wife might not understand. And I think I'd enjoy and Yggy. The great majority of music energy is below 10KHz and while the higher frequencies are important, I'd like to believe if you get that right, it going to sound pretty good. Maybe somebody will loan me their Yggy to test that hypothesis.


----------



## zerodeefex

liu junyuan said:


>


 


 Sell the HE-500, pick up the Zana Deux Super, and mod your HD650. Sell all your other amps (La Figaro 339, Schiit Audio Lyr (1), Gustard H10, JDS Labs O2) and pair it with the Gungnir. Upgrade the Gungnir if it's ever a choice. It will be an endgame quality rig. My second favorite pairing at the SF Bay meet was the Yggy > Zana Deux Super > HD6xx. You will be amazed.


----------



## Limniscate

I've been comparing a Bryston BDA-2, ODAC and my Outlaw 975 and can't tell a difference on my Magnepan 1.7i through an Odyssey Candela preamp and Odyssey Stratos amp.  I just thought I'd add my two cents even though it's against the grain, fwiw.


----------



## AudioBear

Those are useful data points.  It might be helpful to also describe the material you listened to and how you conducted the hearing.  I am not in any way doubting you but I think there are those who will.  Your system certainly seems up to the task.
  
 I owned a 975 for years and thought it was a very good processor/pre-amp.  Your observations don't surprise me at all.  Others will not be of the same experience or opinion.  I hope we can learn something from the discussion.


----------



## Limniscate

audiobear said:


> Those are useful data points.  It might be helpful to also describe the material you listened to and how you conducted the hearing.  I am not in any way doubting you but I think there are those who will.  Your system certainly seems up to the task.
> 
> I owned a 975 for years and thought it was a very good processor/pre-amp.  Your observations don't surprise me at all.  Others will not be of the same experience or opinion.  I hope we can learn something from the discussion.


 
 I was listening to FLAC files (16 and 24 bit) through foobar WASAPI (event).  The specific tracks that I've used: Dave Matthews - So Much to Say, Jem - Come on Closer, Daft Punk - Bring Life Back to Music, Beck - Turn Away, etc..  I will do a double-blind test later when I have someone to help me conduct one.
  
 The USB cables that I'm using for the inputs are pretty crappy for the Bryston and the ODAC.  However, I'm using a Blue Jean cable (3.5mm to RCA) for the ODAC to my preamp and Nordost RCA for the Bryston to my preamp.
  
 I've also compared the ODAC/O2, Schiit Magni/Modi, and the ASUS Xonar Essence One and have not noticed a difference on my HE500 with Jerg mod.
  
 There's a very slight difference between the O2 and the Emotiva mini x a-100 (speaker amp) on my HE500.
  
 I can barely tell the difference between the ODAC with Odyssey Candela tube preamp and my Outlaw 975.  It certainly isn't worth $1000 difference.  Granted, I haven't tube rolled or changed the fuse in my Candela pre-amp.


----------



## AudioBear

That's better.  Sounds like a good test to me.  Talking about [redacted] [redacted] testing is discouraged here.  I can't wait to hear your results.  Don't forget to critically balance the levels to within 0.1dB.  There's every chance your Maggies are just so good what you feed them is less critical.


----------



## Limniscate

audiobear said:


> That's better.  Sounds like a good test to me.  Talking about [redacted] [redacted] testing is discouraged here.  I can't wait to hear your results.  Don't forget to critically balance the levels to within 0.1dB.  There's every chance your Maggies are just so good what you feed them is less critical.


 
 Yeah I need to get a real SPL.  I was using an app on my phone.  The Maggies are supposedly very revealing of upstream components.


----------



## AudioBear

Testing and comparing equipment by ear is a learned skill.  You have to practice listening.  If you're happy with the Outlaw it might not be a skill you want to learn.  It'll be a lot less expensive, you won't have to do a lot of testing, and you won't get into debates here on the forum.  
  
 I use an iPhone app.(Clear tune) to tune my instruments and it's pretty good but it's not going to be close to the  ±0.01dB or better that you need to match two sources.  There's some good discussion of testing over in the Sound Science area.  It is not an easy task to do a really carefully matched comparison; there are lots of booby traps along the way.  For those and other reasons some members here just trust their ears.  They would argue that if you use a piece of gear in several set-ups and with different material and on different occasions you get a pretty good sense of what it sounds like (if anything) and how good it is for their purposes. It's hard to argue with that even if it isn't a quantitative test. It's what most of us can do easily--as you are now doing.  On the other hand if you want to make a hobby out of testing that's cool too.  It's fun.  I've done a lot of it with speakers.
  
 Don't want to degenerate this into another cable discussion so PM me if you want to talk about cables.  I personally would expect them to be more transparent to the comparison you are doing than the major pieces you are comparing.  It would be better if you the same interconnects and cables were used between all comparable pieces of the chain.  Eliminates cable differences whether you believe in them or not.
  
 Keep us posted (I say us but I'm new here too).


----------



## evillamer

wink said:


> {Redacted][Redacted] has just been {[Redacted][Redacted]}  good news  for all.....


 
 Schiit just [re*dac*ted] a new *dac *called the Yggdrasil.


----------



## juanitox

too much time for me to wait for an Yggi , so i decide to go to the vintage road..    and found a oldR2R dac who make me dreaming for long time ago the  METAXAS MaSDacII  with the legendary D20400 d'Ultra-Analog 
i will report how it sounds compares to my TOTALDAC A1.


----------



## JuanseAmador

Guys, I have a question for you. I've always wondered, there are some special dacs for iStuff, like the streamer or a JDS Labs one, etc. This means that when you use any other non-dedicated dac you are not bypassing the iPod's dac? Does this mean that if I use a Moldi for example, I'm actually using both the Cirrus and the Schiit?


----------



## LingLing1337

juanseamador said:


> Guys, I have a question for you. I've always wondered, there are some special dacs for iStuff, like the streamer or a JDS Labs one, etc. This means that when you use any other non-dedicated dac you are not bypassing the iPod's dac? Does this mean that if I use a Moldi for example, I'm actually using both the Cirrus and the Schiit?




Think about it... how would the signal get back to digital for the Schiit if it had already been converted to analog... theres no ADC in an Ipod or most DACs


----------



## JuanseAmador

lingling1337 said:


> juanseamador said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, I have a question for you. I've always wondered, there are some special dacs for iStuff, like the streamer or a JDS Labs one, etc. This means that when you use any other non-dedicated dac you are not bypassing the iPod's dac? Does this mean that if I use a Moldi for example, I'm actually using both the Cirrus and the Schiit?
> ...




Yeah I know. That's why I'm asking, are you bottlenecking the dedicated amp by doing this?


----------



## Ableza

In general, if you are using an Apple compliant device connected to the Apple interface connector (30-pin or Lightning) then you have access to the digital stream and you are bypassing the phone or iPod's DAC.  If you are connecting via the headphone out you are using an analog signal and that uses the DAC.  In some cases, using a non-Apple certified device on a 30-pin connectors you could also be using analog.  I don't know if the Lightning connector outputs analog.  I have no idea what you mean by "bottle-necking."


----------



## JuanseAmador

ableza said:


> In general, if you are using an Apple compliant device connected to the Apple interface connector (30-pin or Lightning) then you have access to the digital stream and you are bypassing the phone or iPod's DAC.  If you are connecting via the headphone out you are using an analog signal and that uses the DAC.  In some cases, using a non-Apple certified device on a 30-pin connectors you could also be using analog.  I don't know if the Lightning connector outputs analog.  I have no idea what you mean by "bottle-necking."




What I mean is that if I were to use a regular dac (as opposed to an iDevice dedicated one) running from the headphone out, would that compromise the sound?


----------



## Ableza

juanseamador said:


> What I mean is that if I were to use a regular dac (as opposed to an iDevice dedicated one) running from the headphone out, would that compromise the sound?


 
 You cannot connect a DAC to the headphone out as that is already analog.  If you want to use an external DAC with an iDevice, you must use one certified compliant by Apple that connects to the digital output.  Or receives the data via BT or Airplay.


----------



## bearFNF

Don't some idevices use the headphone jack for optical output? Or is that just the laptops?


----------



## 1adam12

bearfnf said:


> Don't some idevices use the headphone jack for optical output? Or is that just the laptops?


 

 Just Macs.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Or you can use the Camera Connection Kit and run USB to quite a few DACs that way


----------



## haywood

ableza said:


> You cannot connect a DAC to the headphone out as that is already analog.  If you want to use an external DAC with an iDevice, you must use one certified compliant by Apple that connects to the digital output.  Or receives the data via BT or Airplay.



People generally use the camera connection kit to connect to external dac/amps. Post iOS 7.0, with that adapter many generic devices work, with the caveat that you might need a hub in between to get around a (non-technical) power draw limitation. From what I understsnd some devices don't need that extra link, or allow you to plug the female end of the adapter into their kit. There are a few (30 pin only afaik) docks that output spdif which would be closer to on-topic but I haven't ever used them so can't say how that compares.


----------



## skeptic

Also, bear in mind that with most dacs, you will need to put a usb hub in between the camera connection kit and dac, because apple has software crippled its devices to display an error message suggesting that non-apple licensed dacs draw too much power.  I forget which iOS update brought this about, but many people suddenly could not use usb dacs with their iphones etc. that had worked the night before.
  
 As a further consideration - mobile devices connected to usb dacs via otg usb or the camera connection kit may or may not preserve the original sample rate.  I know many samsung android phones output everything at 48k, like the kmixer, to the extent they support otg usb out of the box without root.  Can't recall whether iphones preserve or alter the sample rate when hooked up via the cck.


----------



## evillamer

In my experience with Apple CCK. It seems that Ipod Classic 6th gen has a different sound when compared to iphone 4s, 5s, 6plus.


----------



## Ableza

I use a Beyerdynamic (Astell and Kern) A200P DAC/headphone amp with my iPhone 6 (via Lightning) and it sounds great - better than the iPhone by itself.  It's my travel source.


----------



## Currawong

CCK connected DACs cannot draw much power, if at all. The default output is 48k but apps can bypass that and output higher. The Onkyo HF Player can even send out DSD.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

skeptic said:


> Also, bear in mind that with most dacs, you will need to put a usb hub in between the camera connection kit and dac, because apple has software crippled its devices to display an error message suggesting that non-apple licensed dacs draw too much power.  I forget which iOS update brought this about, but many people suddenly could not use usb dacs with their iphones etc. that had worked the night before.
> 
> As a further consideration - mobile devices connected to usb dacs via otg usb or the camera connection kit may or may not preserve the original sample rate.  I know many samsung android phones output everything at 48k, like the kmixer, to the extent they support otg usb out of the box without root.  Can't recall whether iphones preserve or alter the sample rate when hooked up via the cck.




USB DACs don't not get let through because of anything to do with them not being licensed by Apple, it has to do with how much power they are drawing from the port.

iPhones do maintain sample rates out the CCK though, depending on the software. I know the hilt in music app will switch between 44 and 48khz, VLC currently re samples everything to 44khz, I've talked to the iOS VLC dev about it though, and he seemed conducive to making it work at hi res too


----------



## paulchiu

currawong said:


> CCK connected DACs cannot draw much power, if at all. The default output is 48k but apps can bypass that and output higher. The Onkyo HF Player can even send out DSD.


 
  
 The iPhone 6 plus - CCK - Hugo sounds super but the juice runs out of the iPhone really fast.  It failed during my JFK to HKG flights.  So, I ordered the ZX2.  Hope that can last 16 hours.
 I do wish the CCK has a side power in for charging the iPhone.


----------



## JuanseAmador

ableza said:


> juanseamador said:
> 
> 
> > What I mean is that if I were to use a regular dac (as opposed to an iDevice dedicated one) running from the headphone out, would that compromise the sound?
> ...




Thanks for clearing that up. I use an lod with my iPod, I just wanted to know if this was possible.


----------



## skeptic

souprknowva said:


> USB DACs don't not get let through because of anything to do with them not being licensed by Apple, it has to do with how much power they are drawing from the port.
> 
> iPhones do maintain sample rates out the CCK though, depending on the software. I know the hilt in music app will switch between 44 and 48khz, VLC currently re samples everything to 44khz, I've talked to the iOS VLC dev about it though, and he seemed conducive to making it work at hi res too


 
  
 As to point 1, I think that's oversimplifying.  Let me rephrase what I'm getting at here.  If I plug my iphone 6+ into an odac, topping dac or even my BCT -> spdif converter, to name a few, I get the "draws too much power error," but that doesn't actually mean that these devices are incompatible with my iphone.  In fact, all of them used to work with iOS devices before a particular system update.  Even now, an unpowered $9 dlink hub in the middle of the chain lets me run any off these devices, as a usb dac, from my iphone - so it is actually handling the power draw just fine.  My strong suspicion is that the apple approved products simply have some code built into them that bypasses the "low power" check or masks the actual power draw akin to plugging into a hub, and that all this was really put in hamper the use of dacs made by manufacturers that aren't paying licensing fees for official idevice support.  
  
 On point 2, thanks for the info!  Do you know if VLC ever debugged its FTP server function for file transfers?  Tried it a while back, and it always crashed on me.  OPlayer and Capriccio's built in FTP both work, although the latter disconnects at random.  I have no intention of ever syncing my phone up with itunes.


----------



## ericr

skeptic said:


> ...I think that's oversimplifying...




Now I need to get a DAC that's Non Over Simplifying too?


----------



## Lohb

So there is the Teradak new hardware/old chip PCM63 DAC around $4-500.
  
 Can anyone recommend other PCM63 based NEW DAC units under $500 ?


----------



## fiascogarcia

juanseamador said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. I use an lod with my iPod, I just wanted to know if this was possible.


 

 As has been mentioned above, don't forget, the camera connection kit expands the list of dacs you can use.


----------



## mikek200

lohb said:


> So there is the Teradak new hardware/old chip PCM63 DAC around $4-500.
> 
> Can anyone recommend other PCM63 based NEW DAC units under $500 ?


 
 Why must it be ..a PCM63 chip???


----------



## jacal01

skeptic said:


> Also, bear in mind that with most dacs, you will need to put a usb hub in between the camera connection kit and dac, because apple has software crippled its devices to display an error message suggesting that non-apple licensed dacs draw too much power.  I forget which iOS update brought this about, but many people suddenly could not use usb dacs with their iphones etc. that had worked the night before.
> 
> As a further consideration - mobile devices connected to usb dacs via otg usb or the camera connection kit may or may not preserve the original sample rate.  I know many samsung android phones output everything at 48k, like the kmixer, to the extent they support otg usb out of the box without root.  Can't recall whether iphones preserve or alter the sample rate when hooked up via the cck.


 
  
 Big source of angst around here was that the Apple device iOS limited output audio digital files to 14 bit/48 kHz, the sole exception maybe being the Macbook at 21/96, for some reason.  I don't know if that ever got changed since the advent of the Lightning 2 connector.


----------



## Sonic Defender

mikek200 said:


> Why must it be ..a PCM63 chip???


 

 The chip is supposed to have the ability to be used in an architecture that yields a very pleasant sounding DAC if memory serves me. Ultimately as I'm sure this is common knowledge it comes down to the totality of the implementation if the DAC has the sound the buyer wants.


----------



## Sonic Defender

ericr said:


> Now I need to get a DAC that's Non Over Simplifying too?


 

 Ha ha, too funny.


----------



## mikek200

sonic defender said:


> The chip is supposed to have the ability to be used in an architecture that yields a very pleasant sounding DAC if memory serves me. Ultimately as I'm sure this is common knowledge it comes down to the totality of the implementation if the DAC has the sound the buyer wants.


 
 Yes,I know that
 My question is why specially ,the PCM63..they're other excellent chips as well
 When I had the Theta Basic III,I had the PCM 1702,and the SQ was outstanding..
 Maybe,as you say,it had something to do with the implementation?
  
 I have a Sonic Frontiers Transdac coming in ,with the same chip..pcm1702
 If it gives me 1/2 the sq of the Theta,I'll be a happy camper
  
 Mike


----------



## AustinValentine

PCM63 hasn't been in production for quite some time. Neither has PCM1702. PCM1704 went out of production relatively recently, but there is enough new inventory back stock still available that we'll likely see new production DACs (such as Audio-GD's) using them for a few more years at least.


----------



## mikek200

austinvalentine said:


> PCM63 hasn't been in production for quite some time. Neither has PCM1702. PCM1704 went out of production relatively recently, but there is enough new inventory back stock still available that we'll likely see new production DACs (such as Audio-GD's) using them for a few more years at least.


 
 Not sure if its fact or fiction..,I heard that Audio-GD bought all the PCM1704 chips they could get their hands on..??
 So,you are probably right.


----------



## hodgjy

mikek200 said:


> Not sure if its fact or fiction..,I heard that Audio-GD bought all the PCM1704 chips they could get their hands on..??
> So,you are probably right.


 
 The PCM1704 is, and will only become more, the Tung-Sol 5998 tube. Every NOS will be bought up, and eventually pulls from decommissioned gear will happen. I would be very skeptical of quality in a few years time.


----------



## mikek200

Maybe there will be more usage with the AD5791..??????? ,which could be a very good thing/????


----------



## juanitox

lohb said:


> So there is the Teradak new hardware/old chip PCM63 DAC around $4-500.
> 
> Can anyone recommend other PCM63 based NEW DAC units under $500 ?


 

 there is a Stax dac talent ( PCM63)   here on the sale/trade forum , very musical dac..


----------



## mikek200

juanitox said:


> there is a Stax dac talent ( PCM63)   here on the sale/trade forum , very musical dac..


 
 Can you supply us with a link??


----------



## juanitox

sorry , i just see the thread is closed. don't tell if it solded   http://www.head-fi.org/t/764926/fs-ft-stax-dac-talent


----------



## LingLing1337

Theta in the house. the gap between this and my pwd2 is way smaller than it should be, I expected the DSPro to get blown out of the water. For critical listening and my most resolving upstream gear, the PWD2 is the winner, but the DSPro will definitely stay in a secondary system as a solid alternative to a modern DAC in the $500 range. If you can find one I'd highly recommend it. Im sure the later generations of DSPro only get better.


----------



## hans030390

What source are you using to feed the DACs, and what amps and headphones or speakers are you using for comparison?


----------



## LingLing1337

Pc as source, so I wonder how it would do with a decent usb-> coax would do for the sound. Speakers include Cambridge s30, scansonic mb2.5, senn hd700, grado sr80i. For the cambridge and grado it doesnt feel like anything is missing. It takes the higher end gear to really reproduce the extra detail and resolution of the pwd2


----------



## wmedrz

I received the PCM63 K2 from TeraDak last week and it sounds really good! I was taken back on first listen. Didn't expect such a lush sound. I listened bit by bit daily but haven't had time to really AB with some classical and jazz to test it on pianos, violins, saxophones, and sit down to listen in my ideal environment. 
  
 First thing that came out at me compared with M7 was that it sounds  thinner in the  midrange, also has a different type of bass. The quantity is less than M7 but it is a little more airy. The M7 has this dynamic slam to its bass, while the PCM63 is open and soft sounding. It's like the low notes are more open while the M7 kind of hits you. PCM63 may actually articulate some low frequencies better. The highs are definitely brighter than M7, but I wouldn't say treble is hard or annoying. It's the same thing as the bass, it simply feels softer, at the same time brighter. The resolution is better on M7. There is a clarity to it that the PCM63 doesn't have. The vocals on M7 are also better. They're full bodied compared with the thinner presentation of the PMC63. I'm hearing this particularly on male vocals, while female vocals seem to extend well with PCM63. If I had to make an analogy, I would say the PCM63 is the equivalent of a carefully mastered and mixed CD, with peak limiting and compression, but engineered very well, while the M7 is the equivalent of the same mix but in a 176.4/24 format, uncompressed with no peak limiting. 
  
 Redbooks sound really good coming from it, although I did notice the midrange is more forward than M7, a little peaky in comparison. It provides more energy through the midrange. I can tell that for some of my CD's at least, I'm already preferring the PCM63 over M7. When I down sampled 96 and 192 material to 48/24 using J River it didn't sound too good: the range was compressed, ques were lost,  lushness in the lows disappears, and the highs became harder. This is all of course compared with the M7 playing the same material at full 96/24!
  
 The stage and dynamic are wonderful. My expectation was low when ordering... thought it would sound flat or have a boring "old school" sound. It turns out the sound is musical and engaging. Instrument imaging is good, at times I thought it may be better than M7 which I think is quite amazing.
  
 Now that I've heard the PCM63 I can say with confidence the M7 and PCM63 really do have a distinct “R2R” sound and flavor. They are different than the d/s dac's I got to try. They sound more alike than d/s, which in turn sound alike to each other. R2R simply has a richer tone to it. Much more “analog” or whatever one wants to call it.
  
 I asked the rep from TeraDak what their reasoning was behind the buffer, filter and op amp choices on this DAC. Among other things they said a well known PCM63 based dac with matured circuitry was used as a reference, and they tried different modifications to it such as SM58xx filter, going with what sounded better in the end. The only concern is the lifespan of the PCM63 chips since they're so old. I haven't done any real reviews and I don't really have a reputation on these forums, but trust me this DAC sounds really good! I'm certain it will sound better than anything D/S in the same price range and I don't think anyone getting this will be disappointed. Hopefully Purrin can one day compare it against his extensive PCM63 experience. And if this is one of the “worse” sounding PCM63 DAC's then I'm hard pressed to imagine what the “good” ones sound like. 
  
 (Listening to My God (early version) from Wilson's mix of Aqualung right now, my God!)
  
 I'm grateful to Purrin for bringing this chip to my attention, and Currawong for bringing this DAC to my attention. Thanks guys!


----------



## evillamer

So it might be a better option to go for Teradak PCM63P than going for odac rev b / geek pulse and other $500-$999 d-s dacs?


----------



## wmedrz

I don't know what revision b is, but this is a far better sound than my odac! My enthusiasm is probably at an all time high at the moment, but I'll go out on a limb and say hell yes! I heard a Geek something or other last month at the expo and it was meh.


----------



## evillamer

wmedrz said:


> I don't know what revision b is, but this is a far better sound than my odac! My enthusiasm is probably at an all time high at the moment, but I'll go out on a limb and say hell yes! I heard a Geek something or other last month at the expo and it was meh.


 
  
 Does teradak still sell this? or is it a special order?
  
 Also what are the two equipment below the Master 9?


----------



## wmedrz

I wrote them about it and they sent me the same email that was posted earlier in this thread. Had to check inventory, and when it was confirmed they had chips I gave the go ahead. Took a little over two weeks to build. That's the PCM63 dac and a Teac CD1000.


----------



## Emerpus

wmedrz said:


> I received the PCM63 K2 from TeraDak last week and it sounds really good! I was taken back on first listen. Didn't expect such a lush sound. I listened bit by bit daily but haven't had time to really AB with some classical and jazz to test it on pianos, violins, saxophones, and sit down to listen in my ideal environment.


 
  
 So how much did this DAC cost you?


----------



## evillamer

wmedrz said:


> I wrote them about it and they sent me the same email that was posted earlier in this thread. Had to check inventory, and when it was confirmed they had chips I gave the go ahead. Took a little over two weeks to build. That's the PCM63 dac and a Teac CD1000.


 
 Looks like it lacks usb input. probably could use offramp 5/6.


----------



## DreamKing

wmedrz said:


> Spoiler: ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 The one you got has just 1 x PCM63P-K2 right?


----------



## Lohb

evillamer said:


> Does teradak still sell this? or is it a special order?
> 
> Also what are the two equipment below the Master 9?


 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-kinda-sucks-just-to-get-you-to-think-about-stuff/3780#post_11483666


----------



## Lohb

wmedrz said:


> I received the PCM63 K2 from TeraDak last week and it sounds really good!


 
 Did you use your planars to get initial impressions, which amp was paired with it ?
  
 I don't think you have a lot to worry about with the chips, not that expensive to replace vs TDA1541A rarer grade authentic chips etc.


----------



## wmedrz

lohb said:


> Did you use your planars to get initial impressions, which amp was paired with it ?
> 
> I don't think you have a lot to worry about with the chips, not that expensive to replace vs TDA1541A rarer grade authentic chips etc.


 
 Paired with M9 amp, and I did use my HE560 which I feel is on the brighter side to begin with. I just listened to my favorite stuff all week and didn't test any other headphones, in fact I haven't listened to M7 at all since getting it so I'll try to do direct comparison as well. I went with the K2 x 4 option. 
  
 As for TDA1541A, I want to try a d/a converter with this chip as well.


----------



## DreamKing

wmedrz said:


> Paired with M9 amp, and I did use my HE560 which I feel is on the brighter side to begin with. I just listened to my favorite stuff all week and didn't test any other headphones, in fact I haven't listened to M7 at all since getting it so I'll try to do direct comparison as well. I went with the *K2 x 4 option*.
> 
> As for TDA1541A, I want to try a d/a converter with this chip as well.


 
  
 Interesting...What digital inputs did it come with, coax or toslink? Also can it play up to 24/96 or is it just up to 24/44-48?


----------



## mikek200

I got a reply from Michael at Transdak..as I am interested in the Transdac as well..
 The PCM63-P goes to 24/48
   
 "The USB module uses SA9023 USB chip that can output maximum 96k/24 bit.  But the PCM63 only can accept maximum 48k/24 bits."
  
  
 All ,a little confusing...??
 Price is $506.00
 + shipping...???
 If you want XLR,add $25.00
 Comes with both Toslink & Coax.
  
 I asked for pics...no response..still waiting
  
 If anyone,has additional info,please let us know....


----------



## Currawong

I asked them if the upgrades someone made to allow 24/96 in Parasound and other DACs that replace the S/PDIF input chip would allow their DAC to work with 24/96 and they said they didn't know. If you search for "Parasound DAC upgrade" on eBay you'll probably find them.


----------



## aqsw

mikek200 said:


> I got a reply from Michael at Transdak..as I am interested in the Transdac as well..
> The PCM63-P goes to 24/48
> 
> "The USB module uses SA9023 USB chip that can output maximum 96k/24 bit.  But the PCM63 only can accept maximum 48k/24 bits."
> ...




$500.00 for a 24/48 WOW
And people tell me my Hegel is overpriced.


----------



## evillamer

aqsw said:


> confusing...??
> Price
> 4
> $500.00 for a 24/48 WOW
> And people tell me my Hegel is overpriced.




I think it's fair price. In context of Hugos and Daves.

I would pay $5000 for a dac that plays 16/44.1 bit and samples perfectly. Why do people fuss over high sampling rates when most of the content out there is only 16bit 44.1khz.


----------



## DreamKing

evillamer said:


> I think it's fair price. In context of Hugos and Daves.
> 
> I would pay $5000 for a dac that plays 16/44.1 bit and samples perfectly. Why do people fuss over high sampling rates when most of the content out there is only 16bit 44.1khz.


 
  
 I'm all for that too, but it's never bad to know what you're paying for exactly and chances are someone interested in this stuff is gonna have 24/96 or higher material as well. I don't know anyone off the street who would be interested in any of this.


----------



## BassDigger

evillamer said:


> I think it's fair price. In context of Hugos and Daves.
> 
> I would pay $5000 for a dac that plays 16/44.1 bit and samples perfectly. Why do people fuss over high sampling rates when most of the content out there is only 16bit 44.1khz.


 
  
 Agreed, but it's not just about the available media; you could also argue that 16bit/44.1khz gives superior playback (r2r vs bitstream).


----------



## mikek200

bassdigger said:


> Agreed, but it's not just about the available media; you could also argue that 16bit/44.1khz gives superior playback (r2r vs bitstream).


 
 Re:Teradak
 Here is another reply from Michael at Teradak,on a few questions I asked him-thought you guys might want to know
  
 "1.is there a trial period,after I get delivery
  ==> Sorry we don't have such option because the shipping fee is not cheap.   The  DHL/UPS/Fedex shipping fee to USA is  $115 USD.    From US to China, the shipping fee will more expensive.  
  
2.Does the dac,carry a warranty??
  ==> We may offer 1 month warranty for the refurbished chips and 1 year warranty for the DAC.     We bought the refurbished chips from domestic market.   We don't know the chips history and don't make profit from the chips.   We can make sure the DAC should be good when it is shipped.      We can also support you technically.  The other option is no any refurbished chips on the DAC.   You prepare the chips yourself.  The DAC with no chips option will be much cheaper. " 
 
I've backed out of my PCM63 order..,I will deal with  Audio-GD,who gives a 5 year warranty,on their products


----------



## BassDigger

mikek200 said:


> Re:Teradak
> Here is another reply from Michael at Teradak,on a few questions I asked him-thought you guys might want to know
> 
> "1.is there a trial period,after I get delivery
> ...


 
  
 I don't know about the price or performance difference between the Teradak and Audio-GD dacs that you're looking at.
  
 But as far as I'm aware, the Agd dacs are pcm1704, at best. The Tera is pcm63. I'm sure that Teradak will be happy to give you some more warranty, if you want to pay much more for their product.
  
 Otherwise, it's a fairly simple device that I'd maybe consider (especially with the distance involved) as more of hobbyist's toy, that's built to order, rather than a finished, brand name device that's come off a production line.
 What I'm basically trying to say is that I think your main concern should be the sound; the Teradak is a simple device that can quite easily be serviced and even upgraded, maybe by someone around here (not me, I hasten to add!) or in your own locality.
  
 Just my thoughts.
  
_Dig that bass._


----------



## wmedrz

dreamking said:


> Interesting...What digital inputs did it come with, coax or toslink? Also can it play up to 24/96 or is it just up to 24/44-48?


 
 Mine came with coax and toslink, RCA out, but a fellow HeadFi'er was speaking with TeraDak and they informed him they can do XLR and USB as well.


----------



## kazsud

paulchiu said:


> The iPhone 6 plus - CCK - Hugo sounds super but the juice runs out of the iPhone really fast.  It failed during my JFK to HKG flights.  So, I ordered the ZX2.  Hope that can last 16 hours.
> I do wish the CCK has a side power in for charging the iPhone.




I tried this once but like the ak240 sounded supiorer feeding the Hugo.


----------



## paulchiu

kazsud said:


> I tried this once but like the ak240 sounded supiorer feeding the Hugo.


 
  
 I considered Pono, AK240 and ZX2 as portable media servers for my Hugo in travels.  The fact that I can watch better than DVD quality videos and use WhatsApp closed the deal for me.
  
 So far, I used it with PHA3 amp and the ZX2 sounds 90% of Hugo.  Waiting fo the data cable to connect ZX2 with Hugo at the moment.


----------



## shadyprism

Chord Hugo vs auralic vega............


----------



## guilders0

Regarding audio gd, could you comment on the Audio GD Reference 10.32 ?
 I wonder if it worths a try, how you would rank it.
  
 The schiit Yggdrasil looks good.
 In my view it only lacks a remote and a volume control.
 Do you know any excellent DAC that incorporates also an excellent preamp part?


----------



## StryGR

As an ex-owner of Audio-gd Reference 5.32, I'd suggest a Chord Hugo (now enjoying).


----------



## dan.gheorghe

I can't wait to hear the yggy for myself. It seems like a *really great DAC* from what I have read until now. It might just be the best performance/price ratio DAC in the industry. This is something extraordinary indeed. 
  
 However, I think that the hype might have been taken to an extreme level. Don't get me wrong. I am not sure yet, but the hype was something like "yggy destroys everything else" . I own a msb analog dac right now, and while I was a little frustrated when the "*the msbs are mear toys compared to yggy*" remark, and from what I understood....compared to any msb ( I have heard the Diamond DAC IV on more occasions) , I ended up hoping the hype is true. *I still am, actually*. Why?
  
 I have 2 reasons actually. Well, the answer is quite simple.
  
 1. If I sold my analog dac, I would have money to get better speakers(other audio gear in general).
 2. The DAC (audio industry in general) needs this kind of revolution.
  
 Speaking with some guys that own both yggy and analog dac, I've learned that the analog dac isn't just a "mere toy" compared to yggy.
  
 However, I did experience a very nice upgrade to analog dac recently. The new  quad usb input from msb made a huge difference. My guess is that Yggy should be better/equal to msb analog dac with the normal usb input. If this is so, *this achievement of schiit is alone a great one indeed.* Not sure that it beats the analog dac with the quad input thought. I am quite sure that the msbs are note mere toys compared to yggy, though.
  
 Some things from the hype that purrin made are very very important and I do appreciate the following points:
  
 1. The importance of DAC chips. I would never give a ****load of money (>2k$) for a dac that has ~10$ DAC chips. In the end, however how good the rest of the topology is, it gets down to converting Digital To Analog. Do you really think that the DAC chips make no difference? Think again.... Besides the technical aspects, it also comes down to principals in the end...
 2. R2R tonality and  sound were brought again to attention.
 3. Price / Performance Ratio that doesn't kill your wallet. I am sick of companies that want to **** your wallet for the extra-mile they *know *they are capable of. 
 4. Modular Upgrades (*really nice* )
  
 Everyone has some components/gear that really strike their right nerves, making the sound to be exactly what they expected/wanted. This is why I understand hypes. Sometimes there is need for a hype to get your attention. 
  
 Is this taken to extreme? I don't know for sure yet, but I am pretty sure that Yggy is a heck of a product from what I've read until now. Yes, I am that sure based on what I have read from different sources. 
  
 However, I am also pretty sure that the hype was exaggerated.  But if it wasn't , it would't be called a hype at all. 
  
 Surely to be continued.....


----------



## evillamer

Thanks to paramount efforts by Schiit, we are no longer being "monopolized" by Texas Instruments over their "NRND" status PCM1704UK. 
  
 Or having to pay $2000 for a "USB module"...  for just over $2000+++, you can have a full 21bit dac with top notch jitter measurements.


----------



## DreamKing

bassdigger said:


> I don't know about the price or performance difference between the Teradak and Audio-GD dacs that you're looking at.
> 
> *But as far as I'm aware, the Agd dacs are pcm1704, at best. The Tera is pcm63. *I'm sure that Teradak will be happy to give you some more warranty, if you want to pay much more for their product.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Keep in mind one isn't necessarily or objectively better than the other. Even on the previous page, wmedrz mentioned the M7 as having better more full-bodied vocals, better resolution among other qualities that I find more appealing to the teradak's description. If this thread is anything to go by, implementation and the manufacturer's experimentation is key.


----------



## snip3r77

dreamking said:


> Keep in mind one isn't necessarily or objectively better than the other. Even on the previous page, wmedrz
> mentioned the M7 as having better more full-bodied vocals, better resolution among other qualities that I find more appealing to the teradak's description. If this thread is anything to go by, implementation and the manufacturer's experimentation is key.




just see the thread title....


----------



## snip3r77

guilders0 said:


> Regarding audio gd, could you comment on the Audio GD Reference 10.32 ?
> I wonder if it worths a try, how you would rank it.
> 
> The schiit Yggdrasil looks good.
> ...




it's a DAC.why do you need a remote?


----------



## DreamKing

snip3r77 said:


> just see the thread title....


 
  
 They're both R2R....


----------



## LingLing1337

snip3r77 said:


> guilders0 said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding audio gd, could you comment on the Audio GD Reference 10.32 ?
> ...




To switch sources when your mom isnt home to hit the buttons on the front for me


----------



## guilders0

indeed, to switch sources, more convenient, but i agree one can live without.
 What kind of pre works well with the schiit? I found it strange they do not do pre, only integer.
  
 What about the Audio GD Reference 10.32, anyone can comment on it ?


----------



## kugino

guilders0 said:


> indeed, to switch sources, more convenient, but i agree one can live without.
> What kind of pre works well with the schiit? I found it strange they do not do pre, only integer.
> 
> What about the Audio GD Reference 10.32, anyone can comment on it ?


 

 i'd love to hear comments as well. i almost picked up a ref 10.32 on a couple of occasions, but the sales always fell through for one reason or another. i've had other R2R DACs in the past and so wanted to give the 1704UK a listen...and i hear the 10.32 has enough power to drive the he-6 very competently...so it checked off a lot of my boxes.
  
 i know some think the 1704UK is not as good as the PCM63 or the 1702...while i've read elsewhere that the 1704 is the best of the bunch...i guess if i could get a really good deal i'd still be up to trying it. now that i'm moving more towards a stax setup i don't really need a full-on dedicated amp for my dynamic/planar headphones...just wondering how good the DAC section of the 10.32 is.


----------



## BassDigger

> bassdigger said:
> 
> 
> > I *don't know about the price or performance difference* between the Teradak and Audio-GD dacs that you're looking at.
> ...


 
  
 Actually, I was just trying to hint at potential; if that was of any interest.
 Probably, the Audio-gd is better, as is. But, maybe the Teradak has more potential: NOS, tube output, various component upgrades; it's quite a traditional (simple) looking design, with what's (probably) a higher quality chip. Whereas, an Agd? What can be done with that? Maybe swap some op-amps?!?
  
 I see the two as being different kinds of purchase; one an 'off the shelf' finished product; the other more bespoke and 'work in progress'.
 My point is that it's often your own experimentation, or that of a trusted hobbyist/engineer, that will get you ultimate performance for your buck. It's up to the buyer which they prefer.


----------



## wahsmoh

bassdigger said:


> Actually, I was just trying to hint at potential; if that was of any interest.
> Probably, the Audio-gd is better, as is. But, maybe the Teradak has more potential: NOS, tube output, various component upgrades; it's quite a traditional (simple) looking design, with what's (probably) a higher quality chip. Whereas, an Agd? What can be done with that? Maybe swap some op-amps?!?
> 
> I see the two as being different kinds of purchase; one an 'off the shelf' finished product; the other more bespoke and 'work in progress'.
> My point is that it's your own experimentation, or that of a trusted hobbyist/engineer, that will get you ultimate performance for your buck. It's up to the buyer which they prefer.


 

 I was reading around a bit and with the Audio-GD DAC-19 it looks like you can set the jumper on the DSP to adjust the settings and filter.


----------



## DreamKing

bassdigger said:


> Actually, I was just trying to hint at potential; if that was of any interest.
> Probably, the Audio-gd is better, as is. But, maybe the Teradak has more potential: NOS, tube output, various component upgrades; it's quite a traditional (simple) looking design, with what's (probably) a higher quality chip. Whereas, an Agd? What can be done with that? Maybe swap some op-amps?!?
> 
> I see the two as being different kinds of purchase; one an 'off the shelf' finished product; the other more bespoke and 'work in progress'.
> My point is that it's your own experimentation, or that of a trusted hobbyist/engineer, that will get you ultimate performance for your buck. It's up to the buyer which they prefer.


 
  
 Alright, I see your point and agree.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 The implementation and experimentation can be left to the hobbyist/engineer. Alas, I'm unaware of hobbyists specializing in R2R dacs besides the known professionals in the field like Kingwa and Mike Moffat at this point. Got to diversify my circle...
  
 Or settle with production units.


----------



## evillamer

There are a few others like mdht, teradak and litedac who do r2r at 3 digit or low 4 digit prices.


----------



## evillamer

It's been awefully quiet in headfi recently. Wonder where is everyone?


----------



## lukeap69

Has anybody heard Monarchy NM24?


----------



## wahsmoh

Hey Purrin if you are around what do you think of Esoteric's lineup and PCM63 DACs? I correct myself, they mostly use PCM1704 chips. I saw an Esoteric D-3 and I was wondering if you have heard this one before. It uses 8x AD1862N chips


----------



## Khragon

Purrin, was that you at the end of LH Lab GO v2 impression video, almost in tears?


----------



## dan.gheorghe

I've managed to put my hands on a Theta dsp pro basic for a little while. This DAC deserves a review. Excellent piece of hardware, indeed.


----------



## zach915m

guilders0 said:


> indeed, to switch sources, more convenient, but i agree one can live without.
> What kind of pre works well with the schiit? I found it strange they do not do pre, only integer.
> 
> What about the Audio GD Reference 10.32, anyone can comment on it ?


 

 I have the 10.32.  It's a really great unit and checked all the boxes for me as I really like having a good "all-in-one" to travel with.   I can really only compare with any accuracy to my EAD DSP7000 and my Theta Pro Basic 3 and Progeny as I am most familiar with those.  If really splitting hairs compared to the EAD with the PCM 63 chip the 10.32 is a little more "syrupy" sounding and can have an ever so slight etch to the upper mids/treble.  But honestly, it's a great unit, with a great amp section, exceptionally smooth and transparent sound, and never seems too thick, and I never feel like I'm missing anything from my "vintage" dac's.  There's great "weight" to the sound of the 10.32 as well, there seems to be a little less "bloom" to the sound than my Theta and EAD Dac's. 
  
 I will say the DAC section of the 10.32 does have many similarities to the Theta Pro Basic IIIa that I have.
  
  My favorite DAC remains the EAD DSP7000, it just has the right balance for me, it really seems to accentuate the "right" parts of music, and is never harsh, and has an amazing balance or space, weight, speed and smoothness that makes it a great all arounder.  I don't know if this is because of the PCM 63 chip, but I'm sure that has something to do with it.
  
 Regardless I would recommend the 10.32, as I've never been disappointed with any of the Audio-GD gear I've owned.  No it may not be as fluid/effortless as the Yggy's I've heard, but it's fairly close and the Yggy's don't have a 6 watt amp section, so it really depends on what you need.


----------



## kugino

zach915m said:


> I have the 10.32.  It's a really great unit and checked all the boxes for me as I really like having a good "all-in-one" to travel with.   I can really only compare with any accuracy to my EAD DSP7000 and my Theta Pro Basic 3 and Progeny as I am most familiar with those.  If really splitting hairs compared to the EAD with the PCM 63 chip the 10.32 is a little more "syrupy" sounding and can have an ever so slight etch to the upper mids/treble.  But honestly, it's a great unit, with a great amp section, exceptionally smooth and transparent sound, and never seems too thick, and I never feel like I'm missing anything from my "vintage" dac's.  There's great "weight" to the sound of the 10.32 as well, there seems to be a little less "bloom" to the sound than my Theta and EAD Dac's.
> 
> I will say the DAC section of the 10.32 does have many similarities to the Theta Pro Basic IIIa that I have.
> 
> ...


 

 cool. thanks for the impressions. i might look into buying a used unit. again. maybe. d'oh...


----------



## guilders0

Thanks for sharing zach.
 Could you test its preamp part?
 I am interested into having it connected to a power amp and Wonder how good its volume section is?


----------



## ciphercomplete

lukeap69 said:


> Has anybody heard Monarchy NM24?


 
 I owned one for 5~6 years.  A great dac but I modded mine by replacing the big red WIMA caps on the dac side with Mundorf Supremes.  Soundstage depth and midrange detail increased.  The NM24 holds a special place in my heart because it was my first relatively expensive dac but you would probably do just as well by buying the new Audio GD Dac19.  I owned the old version a while ago and aside from the loss of tube rolling I think they are about equal.


----------



## lukeap69

ciphercomplete said:


> I owned one for 5~6 years.  A great dac but I modded mine by replacing the big red WIMA caps on the dac side with Mundorf Supremes.  Soundstage depth and midrange detail increased.  The NM24 holds a special place in my heart because it was my first relatively expensive dac but you would probably do just as well by buying the new Audio GD Dac19.  I owned the old version a while ago and aside from the loss of tube rolling I think they are about equal.




You probably have saved me lots of bucks! Thanks.


----------



## prot

The most interesting new DAC 
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/05/mergings-ethernet-nadac-impresses-at-munich-high-end-2015/
Direct ethernet DAC, no bloody USB. And if you follow the link at the end of the article, they do provide some spectacular measurements. 

And btw, this being the R2R lalala thread, I wonder why isnt anyone talking about the (only?) portable r2r dac/headamp http://www.head-fi.org/products/myst-1866/reviews/11660


----------



## Sonic Defender

prot said:


> The most interesting new DAC
> http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/05/mergings-ethernet-nadac-impresses-at-munich-high-end-2015/
> Direct ethernet DAC, no bloody USB. And if you follow the link at the end of the article, they do provide some spectacular measurements.
> 
> And btw, this being the R2R lalala thread, I wonder why isnt anyone talking about the (only?) portable r2r dac/headamp http://www.head-fi.org/products/myst-1866/reviews/11660


 

 Are these comparable price ranges? I doubt it. Meaning compared to the Schiit Yggy.


----------



## drez

Not sure ethernet is the answer - it's still a packetised transmission just like USB, and can generate a lot of noise.  There is also need for a computer inside the DAC which these days also probably needs to run some pretty looking mobile device UI app for remote control.  I'm not saying it's necessarily better or worse, just not automatically a free lunch.
  
http://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/featured/velvetsound/
  
 Interesting new chip form AKM, looks like a bit of a challenger for Sabre type of chip.  Like usual AKM are really trying to get the noise as low as possible - I hope this can beat Sabre and have more benign sound in most implementations.


----------



## prot

drez said:


> Not sure ethernet is the answer - it's still a packetised transmission just like USB, and can generate a lot of noise.  There is also need for a computer inside the DAC which these days also probably needs to run some pretty looking mobile device UI app for remote control.  I'm not saying it's necessarily better or worse, just not automatically a free lunch.
> 
> http://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/featured/velvetsound/
> 
> Interesting new chip form AKM, looks like a bit of a challenger for Sabre type of chip.  Like usual AKM are really trying to get the noise as low as possible - I hope this can beat Sabre and have more benign sound in most implementations.




There is of course no free lunch. But network is, at least in theory, much better than USB ... pretty much the best we have today for data transmission. And no you dont need a computer inside the DAC, just a simple network endpoint. Posted a msg about that stuff a few weeks ago, you can look it up a few pages back. Some details also here http://nadac.merging.com/networking

The pro world is already moving to network but I did not expect such a consumer device so soon. Quite encouraging. 

Sonic Defender
Just wanted to discuss/hear about an interesting new DAC .. pretty sure there are enough other threads about old schiit.


----------



## drez

A matter of syntax I guess IIRC still requires microprocessor, memory, network adapter, linux operating system to run the server?
  

 At the other end these is a NAS, which is pretty much a simple server computer.  Sure it gets rid of the USB transmission, but IME the network endpoint needs to do even more heavy lifting than a USB receiver.


----------



## prot

drez said:


> A matter of syntax I guess IIRC still requires microprocessor, memory, network adapter, linux operating system to run the server?
> 
> 
> 
> At the other end these is a NAS, which is pretty much a simple server computer.  Sure it gets rid of the USB transmission, but IME the network endpoint needs to do even more heavy lifting than a USB receiver.




Bit of syntax true ... but the Dac chip itself is a computer too if you wanna go that way... also the part that does filtering or any kind of DSP. 

 OTOH, something as simple as a modem or hub is a network endpoint. And that's all you need inside the dac, an ethernet-to-i2s "mo-dem"...actually even less cause it only has to covert/transmit one way. The Nas at the other end does pretty much all else: stores the music, runs the music player software, etc. 

It's a much simpler setup and you get rid of a second PC, USB protocol & cables... and simpler usually sounds better too. But even if it doesnt sound better, what could be wrong with cheaper & easier ?!


----------



## Wildcatsare1

Anybody have any experience with the DCS "Ring DACs"? Totally forgot I have an Arcam FMJ CD23 sitting in my audio closet (I know, a mind and good audio are a terrible thing to waste).


----------



## drez

I didn't know that the server software runs from the NAS, guess that makes sense. Endpoint would then just receive bitstream then and not much else? I guess that shouldn't be too different from usb receiver apart from converted niece of remote app and NAS. I'm more from the wildly impractical for marginal sound quality gain though so my viewpoint is warped lol


----------



## prot

drez said:


> I didn't know that the server software runs from the NAS, guess that makes sense. Endpoint would then just receive bitstream then and not much else? I guess that shouldn't be too different from usb receiver apart from converted niece of remote app and NAS. I'm more from the wildly impractical for marginal sound quality gain though so my viewpoint is warped lol




That's pretty much it, a small network receiver board that converts ethernet-to-i2s. Doesnt have to be more complex than the Usb-to-i2s receiver boards inside most current Dacs. And the only new software needed is an ASIO-over-ethernet driver instead of the current Asio-over-usb. 
Much more practical (less components & cables) and at least in theory it should also sound better.


----------



## BassDigger

drez said:


> Not sure ethernet is the answer - it's still a packetised transmission just like USB, and can generate a lot of noise.  There is also need for a computer inside the DAC which these days also probably needs to run some pretty looking mobile device UI app for remote control.  I'm not saying it's necessarily better or worse, just not automatically a free lunch.
> 
> http://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/featured/velvetsound/
> ...


 
  


prot said:


> There is of course no free lunch. But network is, at least in theory, much better than USB ... pretty much the best we have today for data transmission. And no you dont need a computer inside the DAC, just a simple network endpoint. Posted a msg about that stuff a few weeks ago, you can look it up a few pages back. Some details also here http://nadac.merging.com/networking
> 
> The pro world is already moving to network but I did not expect such a consumer device so soon. Quite encouraging.


 
  
 So as I understand it, the Nadac is used in the same manner as a usb dac; the music is played on a computer, but then the music stream is sent via ethernet, rather than usb.
  
 There is something that indicates that the nadac is halfway to being in control of the playback; they say that _it_ (rather than the source machine) dictates the data transmission rate.
 It's a little confusing. Sure, ethernet is potentially waaay better than usb; it can include the timing info, for starters. (Displayport would be even better.) But they seem to be advertising that this device can be used a long way away from the controlling computer; so why is it still necessary to have the computer in control of the playback? Surely, the best solution would be for it to work as a stand-alone music player, playing music files that are located in the computer or server. The data transmission technology would be virtually irrelevant then*.
  
*(*The most important thing is: Where does the data become a stream? This is usually at the device that's actually playing the file. It matters because once it's a data stream, the timing becomes important, and jitter becomes a problem. The more tenuous the connection, between player and dac, the bigger the problems! Before it's 'played', data is just data; as long as the rate is high enough, the timing is unimportant/non-existant.**)*
  
 This strikes me as something that seems like a good idea _(for a recording studio)_, but the solution is unnecessarily flawed. Is it just another case of a company selling what people think they want or need, because that's what they can see advertised?


----------



## murrays

bassdigger said:


> So as I understand it, the Nadac is used in the same manner as a usb dac; the music is played on a computer, but then the music stream is sent via ethernet, rather than usb.
> 
> There is something that indicates that the nadac is halfway to being in control of the playback; they say that _it_ (rather than the source machine) dictates the data transmission rate.
> It's a little confusing. Sure, ethernet is potentially waaay better than usb; it can include the timing info, for starters. (Displayport would be even better.) But they seem to be advertising that this device can be used a long way away from the controlling computer; so why is it still necessary to have the computer in control of the playback? Surely, the best solution would be for it to work as a stand-alone music player, playing music files that are located in the computer or server. The data transmission technology would be virtually irrelevant then*.
> ...


 
  
 Ethernet is inherently asynchronous.  Data is sent in packets (e.g. TCP/IP).  As the receiver consumes them it sends acknowledgements which signal to the transmitter that it can send more data.  The receiver will maintain a buffer of received data from which it will send audio samples (16 or 24 bit) to the digital filter and DAC chips at its own stable clock rate.  There is no need for the data stream (over ethernet) to carry accurate audio timing information.


----------



## BassDigger

murrays said:


> Ethernet is inherently asynchronous.  Data is sent in packets (e.g. TCP/IP).  As the receiver consumes them it sends acknowledgements which signal to the transmitter that it can send more data.  The receiver will maintain a buffer of received data from which it will send audio samples (16 or 24 bit) to the digital filter and DAC chips at its own stable clock rate.  There is no need for the data stream (over ethernet) to carry accurate audio timing information.


 
  
 Thanks; I'm here to learn.
  
 So, is this 'streaming' the audio, or something else? Also, does this mean that a usb dac, with an asynchronous receiver chip, is much the same?


----------



## maeveth

murrays said:


> Ethernet is inherently asynchronous.  Data is sent in packets (e.g. TCP/IP).  As the receiver consumes them it sends acknowledgements which signal to the transmitter that it can send more data.  The receiver will maintain a buffer of received data from which it will send audio samples (16 or 24 bit) to the digital filter and DAC chips at its own stable clock rate.  There is no need for the data stream (over ethernet) to carry accurate audio timing information.


 
 99% right, the as you stated Ethernet is technically async.  However depending on how they implemented it the receiver may or may not send acknowledgements to the sender - this depends on exactly how they have implemented their communications in(see TCP vs UDP).  I don't think anybody wants me to get deep into the way networking protocols are layered here
  
 Just to add a bit more color on why this could be super awesome
  
 USB audio as it stands right now is NOT error corrected due to the real time nature of audio.  USB in general is error correct This is because USB Audio was designed to have low latency meaning you get a sound as soon as you do something on your computer.  Waiting for error correction is not useful in this case as is correcting samples who's temporal need was already passed.
  
 This is where it remains to be seen if this is potentially any better than USB.
  
 As their implementation can be completely proprietary they have an opportunity to prioritize data reliability vs latency as I think any of us can say "hey if there is a 500ms delay when I hit play to when it plays, im okay".   Doing this would require anything as simple as a ring buffer as Murrays said but allow error correction to take place.
  
 At $8900 USD this is not in the same price range as the Yggy for most buyers however so any qualifications of "better" need to be weighed against that.


----------



## prot

bassdigger said:


> Thanks; I'm here to learn.
> 
> So, is this 'streaming' the audio, or something else? Also, does this mean that a usb dac, with an asynchronous receiver chip, is much the same?




The def for 'streaming' is a bit fuzzy but in your quote seems to mean sending clocked audio signal (data bits + clock). A network Dac will just get the data bits over ethernet and the clocking happens inside the Dac. An Usb Dac does pretty much the same. It's not 100% technically correct but your comparison is good enough: a network Dac is ~same as an Usb Dac but with ethernet cable. 
Hope that helps you wrap your mind around the concept.


----------



## prot

Another Theta Gen V on ebay
http://www.ebay.com/itm/121654018125
No relation to the seller, just curious to see how big the hype really is


----------



## shadyprism

Doesn't ship to the U.S


----------



## BassDigger

prot said:


> The def for 'streaming' is a bit fuzzy but in your quote seems to mean sending clocked audio signal (data bits + clock). A network Dac will just get the data bits over ethernet and the clocking happens inside the Dac. An Usb Dac does pretty much the same. It's not 100% technically correct but your comparison is good enough: a network Dac is ~same as an Usb Dac but with ethernet cable.
> Hope that helps you wrap your mind around the concept.


 
  
 I'm still trying to get my head around it (and many other digital and electrical related topics!), but I'm lacking info as well as intelligence.
  
 I wonder how much it matters that the computer isn't just 'sending data', via usb or ethernet, but is actually playing the file. If the asynchronous dac 'sees' the feed as just pure data (the same as moving a file), where the clock information is superfluous, it should be ok.
 I guess it just must respond when a signal is fed to it, and start the 'playing' process, with a slight delay.
  
 Are you saying that most usb dacs are asynchronous?


----------



## BassDigger

prot said:


> Another Theta Gen V on ebay
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/121654818125
> No relation to the seller, just curious to see how big the hype really is


 
  
 Yeah; already watching; shipping not a problem. Thanks for your '_help_'!


----------



## juanitox

prot said:


> Another Theta Gen V on ebay
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/121654018125
> No relation to the seller, just curious to see how big the hype really is


 
  

 shhhhhhhhht   i'm on it....


----------



## prot

bassdigger said:


> I'm still trying to get my head around it (and many other digital and electrical related topics!), but I'm lacking info as well as intelligence.
> 
> *I wonder how much it matters that the computer isn't just 'sending data', via usb or ethernet, but is actually playing the file. *If the asynchronous dac 'sees' the feed as just pure data (the same as moving a file), where the clock information is superfluous, it should be ok.
> I guess it just must respond when a signal is fed to it, and start the 'playing' process, with a slight delay.
> ...




Yes almost all Usb Dacs nowadays are async. Another somewhat fuzzy term but in this case it means that the Dac is controlling the data transfer and asking for new data packets as needed (instead of the PC sending them as soon as they are ready). 

And what do you think 'playing the file' means ?! The PC-music-player 'grabs' a file from the hdd (flac, waw, mp3, etc), converts the data bits into a format understood by the Dac (e.g. PCM) and sends those data bits to the DAC through the Dac driver. For the PC it doesnt matter much whether it's printing a doc or playing an audio file, it's just processing of data bits as usual...actually printing a doc works exactly as playing an mp3: e.g. microsoft Word grabs the doc, converts it to a printing format and send the converted data bits to the printer through the printer driver. 
There are some diffs of course but only in the details...also they mostly concern the dac/printer side, not the PC itself. 

@the theta people
yap the hype is going strong. There were actually 33 bids even before I posted the link so I would expect this to be the most expensive theta ever. Btw, there's one in the classifieds here too.


----------



## diamondears

Anybody heard the Audiolab 8200 and Yggy recently and can post impressions/comparisons? Not looking to bash Yggy, honestly want how and what the differences are.


----------



## snip3r77

juanitox said:


> shhhhhhhhht   i'm on it....:tongue_smile:




LOL Prot = Seller = lalulala


----------



## catspaw

Purrin, can you comment on wyrd+odac?


----------



## Wildcatsare1

@purrin, et. al., seeking information on the DCs "Ring Technology", a hybrid of Delta Sigma and R2R what are the differences in DCs's approach, what are the sonic attributes versus R2R/DS?
  
 Listening to my "mothballed" Arcam FMJ CD23, wow Stevie Ray sounds really good, deep powerful bass, clean, clear, but not even close to etched, very sweet highs.


----------



## juanitox

snip3r77 said:


> LOL Prot = Seller = lalulala


 
  

 at this time 1270 euro  ;  i quit ....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
http://www.ebay.fr/itm/121654018125?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2648


----------



## prot

snip3r77 said:


> LOL Prot = Seller = lalulala




I sure wish I was  
It's just hype fun for me and btw, it's also not the first ebay theta link I posted. 
And btw2, at those prices the one in the headfi classifieds may be cheaper.


----------



## DreamKing

prot said:


> I sure wish I was
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Whoever had the winning bid only missed the classified's price by about 2 pounds lol. Probably on purpose.


----------



## artur9

Dunno if I missed it but...
  
 What's a good cheap R2R DAC to try out?  I'm currently using a Bifrost and I'll like to compare to other things.  
  
 I had  a North Star Impulso but I found it fatiguing.  I ended up drastically curtailing the amount of music I listened to.  With the Bifrost I never feel like stopping.
  
 Also, are DACs built-in to other things a valid comparison?  Like the ones in CD players or pre-pros?


----------



## kugino

artur9 said:


> Dunno if I missed it but...
> 
> What's a good cheap R2R DAC to try out?  I'm currently using a Bifrost and I'll like to compare to other things.
> 
> ...


quite a bit of suggestions about r2r dacs in previous posts...some you might want to think about are from monarchy audio, adcom, theta, among others. if you search for the dac chips used, you can usually find out what brands/models to look for. pcm1702, pcm63, and pcm1704 are among the more popular r2r chips, though certainly there are more.


----------



## Sapientiam

artur9 said:


> What's a good cheap R2R DAC to try out?


 
  
 Multibit, not R2R but you probably meant multibit - http://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=2013.1.20141002.7.x3YaON&scm=1007.10009.6098.i42524269798&id=42124644877&pvid=98e2c9ec-48d9-4fa0-902a-e5a25a26a948


----------



## purrin

catspaw said:


> Purrin, can you comment on wyrd+odac?


 
  
 I approve of that combo.


----------



## artur9

kugino said:


> quite a bit of suggestions about r2r dacs in previous posts...some you might want to think about are from monarchy audio, adcom, theta, among others. if you search for the dac chips used, you can usually find out what brands/models to look for. pcm1702, pcm63, and pcm1704 are among the more popular r2r chips, though certainly there are more.


 
 None of those are particularly cheap.  That is, for around the same price as a Bifrost.


----------



## dan.gheorghe

artur9 said:


> Dunno if I missed it but...
> 
> What's a good cheap R2R DAC to try out?  I'm currently using a Bifrost and I'll like to compare to other things.
> 
> ...


 
 I currently have a Theta Ds Pro basic at home. I think you can find one at a good price(300-500$). 
  
 Considering it is a few generation before Gen V, I never expected that level of quality from it. I am beginning to understand all the hype around yggy and the theta dacs...
  
 Even the older Theta Dspro basic beats *lots *of the more expensive and newer DACS at considerable bigger prices, not in all regions but in the ones that matter to me, natural tonality, textures, leading edges, even details.


----------



## kugino

artur9 said:


> None of those are particularly cheap.  That is, for around the same price as a Bifrost.


 

 you can find the adcom gda600 for around $200 and the gda700 for around $300, or even a bit less. the monarchy audio 22a, 22b, 22c DACs are harder to find, but they usually sell for less than $300.


----------



## BassDigger

kugino said:


> you can find the adcom gda600 for around $200 and the gda700 for around $300, or even a bit less. the monarchy audio 22a, 22b, 22c DACs are harder to find, but they usually sell for less than $300.


 
  
 +1
  
 The PCM63 might be the creme de la creme, or one of, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee a great dac. Additionally, there are other great multibit chips, knocking around out there.


----------



## Lohb

PCM63 DACs
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/285863/player-dac-with-pcm63#post_3662893

 Accuphase DP-90
 Adcom GDA-600
 Akai CD69
 Akai CD79
 Audio Note DAC-3
 AVI SC2000MC
 Copland CDA277
 Copland CDA288
 Parasound D/AC1000
 Parasound D/AC1500
 Pioneer PD-8500
 Rotel DCM-9PRO
 Rotel RCD-99
 Rotel RCD-971
 Rotel RCD-991
 Wadia 15
 ACCUPHASE DC-91
 APOGEE DA-1000
 ARAGON D2A2
 AUDIO NOTE DAC-1
 AUDIO NOTE DAC-2
 AUDIO NOTE DAC-4
 Balanced Audio Tech. VK-D5
 CARY AUDIO DESIGN CD-300
 COPLAND CDA 266
 COPLAND CDA 289
 EAD CD-1000
 EAD DSP-1000 SERIES II
 EAD DSP-1000 SERIES III
 EAD DSP-7000 SERIES II
 EAD DSP-7000 SERIES III
 KRELL KPS 20i
 KRELL KPS 30i
 LINN NUMERIC
 MONARCHY AUDIO MODEL 22B
 MONARCHY AUDIO MODEL 22C
 MONARCHY AUDIO MODEL 24
 MONARCHY AUDIO MODEL 33
 PARASOUND D/AC-1100 HD
 PARASOUND D/AC-1600 HD
 PASS LABS D1
 PATHOS InTransfer
 PIONEER PD-73
 PIONEER PD-93
 PROCEED PCD3
 PS AUDIO SUPERLINK THREE
 ROTEL RCD-990
 STAX DAC-TALENT
 T+A CD1220R
 T+A CD1240R
 THETA DS PRO GENERATION III
 THETA DS PRO GENERATION V
 WADIA 6


----------



## Sonic Defender

artur9 said:


> Dunno if I missed it but...
> 
> What's a good cheap R2R DAC to try out?  I'm currently using a Bifrost and I'll like to compare to other things.
> 
> ...


 

 Whew, glad I dodged a bullet. I was considering the North Star Impulso, but my gut just said no. Glad I went with the M51. Assuming the Bifrost is similar to the Gungnir which I owned for 3 years I know what you mean about it being eminently listenable and never fatiguing.


----------



## artur9

sonic defender said:


> Whew, glad I dodged a bullet. I was considering the North Star Impulso, but my gut just said no. Glad I went with the M51. Assuming the Bifrost is similar to the Gungnir which I owned for 3 years I know what you mean about it being eminently listenable and never fatiguing.


 
 The Impulso checked all the feature boxes I was interested in but did not seem to synergize with my other equipment.  It seemed very sharp relative to the Bifrost.  Combining that sharpness with the sharpness of the preamp I use and it just wasn't a sound I could enjoy.
  
 It could be that its USB input was relatively poor as I don't have USB on the Bifrost. Or perhaps the Cubox I was using to feed it has noisy USB.
  
 This is through speakers so maybe it works better with headphones.
  
 And its LED was ridiculously bright!


----------



## Sonic Defender

artur9 said:


> The Impulso checked all the feature boxes I was interested in but did not seem to synergize with my other equipment.  It seemed very sharp relative to the Bifrost.  Combining that sharpness with the sharpness of the preamp I use and it just wasn't a sound I could enjoy.
> 
> It could be that its USB input was relatively poor as I don't have USB on the Bifrost. Or perhaps the Cubox I was using to feed it has noisy USB.
> 
> ...


 

 Synergy is always the thing isn't it? It may have worked okay in my speaker rig as my Neat speakers are the typical slightly soft British Hi-Fi flavor and my NAD M3 is also slightly soft. I think this system softness of mine is why I moved from the Gungnir as it was also toward warm so the 3 layers of softness while not significant, was enough to make the move toward a brighter DAC a good thing in my system. I think the M51 while brighter is short of the typical reported digital glare from many Sabre implementations so I feel that I have struck the middle ground. Next year is my Yggy year, unless something else comes along. Cheers.


----------



## sci80899

Purrin

Do you mind sharing how the Geek offerings from LH Labs (whichever you have listened to) would rank in your list on page 1? Thanks.


----------



## purrin

I might put the GOv2 is the "Good Stuff", somewhere from #10 to #12.


----------



## artur9

lohb said:


> KRELL KPS 20i
> KRELL KPS 30i


 
 Talking vintage, any opinions on a Krell Stealth ?


----------



## NinjaHamster

artur9 said:


> Talking vintage, any opinions on a Krell Stealth ?




The Krell Stealth ? I doubt anyone has heard or even seen one ...


----------



## BassDigger

ninjahamster said:


> The Krell Stealth ? I doubt anyone has heard or even seen one ...




Yeah, I guess they're too far 'under the radar' for anyone to spot


----------



## bmichels

Next month, in a mini-met in France, I will be able to compare  *TotalDAC d1*  against  *AYON Stealth*  against  *VIVA Numerico CD/DAC*  (to go with either my EC445 or... the VIVA Egoista 845 IF the VIVA Headphone Amp is better than my Eddie curent EC445 )
  
 I know the AYON and TotaDAC are supposed to be much better than the VIVA Numerico, but.... the Numerico seems to offer an increadible synergy with the VIVA Egoista 845 Amp (everytime I listened to the VIVA Egoista Amp, I was amazed, and each time it was driven by the Numerico, so... the Numerico must be good !?)


----------



## bmichels

by the way,* I am going End of August to CanJam Europe in LONDON. **




*
  

  
  
 I already reserved the Russell Hotel and the Eurostar from France. I am arriving on Friday at 14:05 by Eurostar from Lille.* 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*
  
*Anyone else from Belgium or France wish to come ? * ( come early afternoon to do some city tour/shopping on Friday afternoon)
  
  
 And....  do not forget to find a way to identify yourself at CanJam with a badge like this
  

  
  
 I wish VIVA Audio  will be there also.  In Munich I got lost in the music 1 hour per day with VIVA Egoista 845 + Numerico !


----------



## Mortalcoil

bmichels said:


> by the way,* I am going End of August to CanJam Europe in LONDON. **
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Sounds like a blast ............. have fun !


----------



## mcullinan

I have the theta chroma 396 which is a hybrid r2r dac i believe. Ive been comparing it to new dacs and am shocked everytime. You would think that a Dac like the Yulong DA8 would blow it out of the water but not so. The theta has a hige soundstage w great bass and is overall much more natural sounding. This was while feeding it with a concero. The top end can get bright at times and thats really the only point of contention. 
Plus it needs to be fed a clean signal. But dacs havent really progressed that much.


----------



## LingLing1337

mcullinan said:


> I have the theta chroma 396 which is a hybrid r2r dac i believe. Ive been comparing it to new dacs and am shocked everytime. You would think that a Dac like the Yulong DA8 would blow it out of the water but not so. The theta has a hige soundstage w great bass and is overall much more natural sounding. This was while feeding it with a concero. The top end can get bright at times and thats really the only point of contention.
> Plus it needs to be fed a clean signal. But dacs havent really progressed that much.




What equipment are you using to compare? As I said the difference between my Theta and my PS Audio dac are only apparent using high end gear.


----------



## Sonic Defender

retracted, no point and I should know better by now. Sigh.


----------



## mcullinan

It was actually on my 2.1 system not headphones. Sorry. But its a pretty good system. Wells audio akasha amp. Evolution acoustics micro one speakers. Computer usb to concero to theta chroma dac.


----------



## Sonic Defender

mcullinan said:


> It was actually on my 2.1 system not headphones. Sorry. But its a pretty good system. Wells audio akasha amp. Evolution acoustics micro one speakers. Computer usb to concero to theta chroma dac.


 
 I think the whole your system isn't good enough to show the differences is really not much of an argument, and clearly your system is very nice. I think people hear things as different in sighted listening tests far too easily and often. Cudos for not reporting hearing a difference when you weren't sure.


----------



## LingLing1337

Im not saying anyones rig isnt good enough. Just wondering what associated equipment was being used. Some people also cannot hear differences in equipment as well as others. My system is very similar to mcullinan and I can easily hear the difference between DACs.


----------



## paparazzi mano

Hi there

Been reading your post almost everyday. 

Just wanted to know what are the top 5 dacs that are either 1bit or R2R of the 80s-90s


----------



## BassDigger

paparazzi mano said:


> Hi there
> 
> Been reading your post almost everyday.
> 
> Just wanted to know what are the top 5 dacs that are either *1bit or R2R* of the 80s-90s


 
  
 Maybe you've been reading. Maybe you _haven't_ been understanding. Maybe you should start again.


----------



## wahsmoh

paparazzi mano said:


> Hi there
> 
> Been reading your post almost everyday.
> 
> Just wanted to know what are the top 5 dacs that are either 1bit or R2R of the 80s-90s


 
 hehe there is no definitive answer to this question. If you want me to give you a rundown of the most expensive R2R DACs of the 80s and 90s we can start with the Spectral SDR-2000, Sonic Frontiers SFD2-MKii, Theta Gen V, Accuphase DP-90, a few from Esoteric, the old Naim DAC just to name some.


----------



## koolblue3

lohb said:


> PCM63 DACs
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/285863/player-dac-with-pcm63#post_3662893
> 
> 
> ...




Add Audiomeca Ambrosia


----------



## paparazzi mano

Hi there chaps
  
 Many thanks for helping me out.  and also bearing with me. I like the PassLab and the Original Theta DS Prime
  
 What do you chaps think of the DACs that use TDA 1541 chips?  Any fav?
  
 Cheers


----------



## BassDigger

paparazzi mano said:


> ,,,,
> What do you chaps think of the DACs that use TDA 1541 chips?  Any fav?


 
  
 I've got a small collection of tda1541a players and they 'slam-dunk' later bitstream players. They're all good, ime, but need a bit of modding to get the best out of them.


----------



## NinjaHamster

Try the Audial Model S


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LingLing1337

DSPro Prime is a killer dac for the price. Really natural, effortless sound but it lacks extension on both ends and micro detail compared to modern top tier d/s DACs. But I am talking about units that retail for 5x or more the used market price of a ProPrime.


----------



## hans030390

paparazzi mano said:


> What do you chaps think of the DACs that use TDA 1541 chips?  Any fav?


 
  
 TDA1541A is a solid chip. The hard part is finding a truly good implementation of it to maximize its potential, from what I've read. I've also heard some say the digital filter it was originally and still usually paired with may not be super spectacular. Also, don't leave the TDA1541A on all the time due to heat build up and potential damage from that.
  


ninjahamster said:


> Try the Audial Model S


  

 The Model S is indeed an excellent TDA1541A-based DAC (I recently wrote a full review that's floating around elsewhere on the interwebs), but I only recommend it if you are specifically looking for a non-oversampling DAC. If you don't have experience with non-oversampling DACs, start with some cheap offerings to see if it's your thing or not. Most people are going to be best served by oversampling DACs, like the Yggy.


----------



## wahsmoh

Very nice Ling Ling. I would think though that the DS Pro Prime does not use the PCM63P-k or PCM67P-k but a different chip altogether. I believe it is a 1-bit pulse flow type dac chip.
  
 "One-bit technology was headline news around this time. It was touted by major hi-fi manufacturers as being the next revolution in digital sound. They said multi-bit technology was dead. Theta's design team tried this new technology in high-performance designs and found it smooth sounding but lacking in aliveness, dynamics and bass. They envisioned one-bit technology as a palliative for less expensive products. Most inexpensive CD players and outboard D to A converters sounded shrill and harsh. The smoothness of the one-bit D to A could be implemented to reduce "glare" and other irritating characteristics, to bring new musicality to otherwise unacceptable components. It meant Theta had something to offer in a price realm previously thought hopelessly compromised. The DS Pro Prime was introduced in May of 1991." - Theta Digital
  
 I think maybe the multi-bit chips are more extended in the lows (crazy bass, most definitely) and the highs (although still sounding "softer"  than any d-s DAC chip you will ever hear)


----------



## AustinValentine

wahsmoh said:


> Very nice Ling Ling. I would think though that the DS Pro Prime does not use the PCM63P-k or PCM67P-k but a different chip altogether. I believe it is a 1-bit pulse flow type dac chip.
> 
> "One-bit technology was headline news around this time. It was touted by major hi-fi manufacturers as being the next revolution in digital sound. They said multi-bit technology was dead. Theta's design team tried this new technology in high-performance designs and found it smooth sounding but lacking in aliveness, dynamics and bass. They envisioned one-bit technology as a palliative for less expensive products. Most inexpensive CD players and outboard D to A converters sounded shrill and harsh. The smoothness of the one-bit D to A could be implemented to reduce "glare" and other irritating characteristics, to bring new musicality to otherwise unacceptable components. It meant Theta had something to offer in a price realm previously thought hopelessly compromised. The DS Pro Prime was introduced in May of 1991." - Theta Digital
> 
> I think maybe the multi-bit chips are more extended in the lows (crazy bass, most definitely) and the highs (although still sounding "softer"  than any d-s DAC chip you will ever hear)


 
  
The Theta DS Pro Prime uses a PCM67P chip, similar to the Prime II, Basic II, and Progeny. The PCM67 is an odd hybrid of R2R and 1-bit/D-S, which is what they're likely talking about there. (See Purrin's comments in post #3229). Using the PCM67 was a budget-focused decision as it was way cheaper than either PCM63 or PCM1702 at the time.
  
 Edit: Nope, nope nope. See post up ahead.


----------



## wahsmoh

austinvalentine said:


> The Theta DS Pro Prime uses a PCM67P chip, similar to the Prime II, Basic II, and Progeny. The PCM67 is an odd hybrid of R2R and 1-bit/D-S, which is what they're likely talking about there. (See Purrin's comments in post #3229). Using the PCM67 was a budget-focused decision as it was way cheaper than either PCM63 or PCM1702 at the time.


 
"All that has changed with the introduction of the new Theta DS Pro Prime digital processor. The Prime incorporates a 4x-oversampling digital filter performed by a Digital Signal Processing (DSP) chip under software control, coupled with a Philips 7350 Bitstream DAC. Theta's reason for using the Bitstream DAC was price: a 7350 is far cheaper to implement than a pair of multi-bit DACs with their attendant Most Significant Bit (MSB) trimmer and need for individual calibration at the factory." - Stereophile review of Pro Prime
  
I think you are talking about the Prime II, Basic II, and Progeny


----------



## wmedrz

The Prime does not use the PCM67, that's the multibit Prime II you're thinking about. 
  
 The DSPro Prime uses a Philips 7350 Bitstream DAC. It's a 1 bit dac.
  
 I was actually considering getting one of these as well to see what the 1bit dacs of the 90's sound like! And it has balanced out.
  
 Here is a review:
  
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/theta-ds-pro-prime-da-processor


----------



## wahsmoh

PCM67 is not a 1-bit DAC it is an 18-bit DAC coupled with a 1-bit dac so it is a hybrid


----------



## AustinValentine

wahsmoh said:


> "All that has changed with the introduction of the new Theta DS Pro Prime digital processor. The Prime incorporates a 4x-oversampling digital filter performed by a Digital Signal Processing (DSP) chip under software control, coupled with a Philips 7350 Bitstream DAC. Theta's reason for using the Bitstream DAC was price: a 7350 is far cheaper to implement than a pair of multi-bit DACs with their attendant Most Significant Bit (MSB) trimmer and need for individual calibration at the factory." - Stereophile review of Pro Prime
> 
> I think you are talking about the Prime II, Basic II, and Progeny


 
  
The best way to find out would be to have someone crack theirs open and look. The only decent image of the Basic's internals are here. There is a Theta sticker covering up the chip, and based on it's size & pin configuration it could be either a Philips 7350 or a PCM67P. 
  
It's also listed on the master D/A converter list as PCM67P here. 
  
 Edit: On closer examination of the photo, the master list got this wrong on this one. Stereophile and Wahsmoh got it right. (Will send them a message to correct it.) The PCM67P is a 16-Pin DIP chip; the one in the image is clearly not. Also, next to the Theta stickered image is the 44 pin SAA 7350 chip. You can find the documentation for that here.


----------



## paparazzi mano

I think that the old Theta DAC are a good deal if you play alot of CDs.  The sound is pretty engaging.  Still looking for one that rubs in 220v.
  
 What about the now defunk Audio Alchemy?  They used to be pretty good


----------



## LingLing1337

I can take off the cover of my proprime if anyone is interested


----------



## wink

Show us the bare facts........


----------



## LingLing1337




----------



## AustinValentine

lingling1337 said:


>





> *[Good pics & stuff]*


 
  
 Yep, just like the photo of the other one - uses an SAA7350. (Yours is in _much_ nicer condition than that other though.)


----------



## koolblue3

hans030390 said:


> The Model S is indeed an excellent TDA1541A-based DAC (I recently wrote a full review that's floating around elsewhere on the interwebs), but I only recommend it if you are specifically looking for a non-oversampling DAC. If you don't have experience with non-oversampling DACs, start with some cheap offerings to see if it's your thing or not. Most people are going to be best served by oversampling DACs, like the Yggy.




I owned a Model S (mk I) for almost 3 years. It is indeed a very nice DAC, with a very deep soundstage unlike most other DACs. It is lively and exciting, however as I improved my main system and it marched towards transparency and truth (?) I found I preferred 2 of my other R2R DACs over it and sold it


----------



## wahsmoh

Thank you LingLing. Now we can confirm that Stereophile review is correct and the master DAC list on the web is wrong. (I think valistech.narod.ru and dutchaudioclassics.nl?)


----------



## BassDigger

koolblue3 said:


> I owned a Model S (mk I) for almost 3 years. It is indeed a very nice DAC, with a very deep soundstage unlike most other DACs. It is lively and exciting, however as I improved my main system and it marched towards *transparency and truth* (?) I found* I preferred 2 of my other R2R DACs* over it and sold it


 
  





 Do tell????


----------



## wahsmoh

Has anyone ever seen or heard of this thing before?? This is a Krell Studio DAC that caught my attention. 2x PCM63-P and 2x Motorola DSP56001. Won't have the same algorithm but uses the same chips of the era in a dual mono configuration.
  


  
 I took the pics off the web randomly but a listing caught my interest


----------



## smitty1110

Spoiler: Giant post






wahsmoh said:


> Has anyone ever seen or heard of this thing before?? This is a Krell Studio DAC that caught my attention. 2x PCM63-P and 2x Motorola DSP56001. Won't have the same algorithm but uses the same chips of the era in a dual mono configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  


 Hm, interesting looking. I'm interested to see what chips they used, especially since they are claiming 20-bits.


----------



## jacal01

prot said:


> And btw, this being the R2R lalala thread, I wonder why isnt anyone talking about the (only?) portable r2r dac/headamp http://www.head-fi.org/products/myst-1866/reviews/11660


 
  
 The Altmann Tera-Player DAP used the TDA1543 DAC chip.
  
 FU:  Charles Altmann's present DAP is called the Tera-Player Light.  Same NOS R2R Philips TDA1543 DAC chip, I'm pretty sure, knowing his preference for it and most likely stocked up inventory, but with an improved player algorithm for significantly more money ($3800).  Shoulda bought the first Tera-Player at ~$1K, looking back and knowing what I know now, but I choked on its relative sticker price for a DAP back then.


----------



## prot

jacal01 said:


> The Altmann Tera-Player DAP used the TDA1543 DAC chip.
> 
> FU:  Charles Altmann's present DAP is called the Tera-Player Light.  Same NOS R2R Philips TDA1543 DAC chip, I'm pretty sure, knowing his preference for it and most likely stocked up inventory, but with an improved player algorithm for significantly more money.  Shoulda bought the first Tera-Player at ~$1K, looking back and knowing what I know now, but I choked on its relative sticker price for a DAP even then.




Good catch. That funny altmann guy also sells a few multibit DAC contraptions http://www.mother-of-tone.com/creation.htm ... you may be surprised by the price 

Not sure what to say about the tera player. May sound really good but it's the most inconvenient DAP ever: no screen, no playlists, only plays wav, etc...


----------



## jacal01

Hence the updated algorithm.  No screen is a nuisance, tho.


----------



## wahsmoh

prot said:


> Good catch. That funny altmann guy also sells a few multibit DAC contraptions http://www.mother-of-tone.com/creation.htm ... you may be surprised by the price
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 At his prices is that guy serious or a just a really good troll?? I can't imagine anyone would buy that and if they do they are funding his vacation package


----------



## evillamer

If only Schiit will manufacture a R2R DAP with their closed form filter. 

I would die to have a R2R unit for my car.


----------



## jacal01

I think the better paradigm would prolly be a typical and ubiquitous iphone or Samsung source and following portable R2R DAC/amp (current).


----------



## prot

AFAIK, he's bloody serious. The only extra info I have is of the "heard from a friend who heard from a friend" type ... apparently the contraptions do indeed sound very good. Whether that's $7K good is anyone's guess. I'd be more inclined to give my cash to the kind of strange genius that the altmann guy seems to be, than to some 'highend' company .. but I think he's exaggerating quite a bit with those prices. 
But apparently he has clients and you have to wait in line for many months to get one of his 'wonders' .. and he keeps raising those prices.


----------



## evillamer

jacal01 said:


> I think the better paradigm would prolly be a typical and ubiquitous iphone or Samsung source and following portable R2R DAC/amp (current).


 
  
 I will pay a grand for a Schiit Fulla Gen 2 with multi-bit tech trickled from Yggdrasil.


----------



## Mortalcoil

> Originally Posted by prot
> 
> Good catch. That funny altmann guy also sells a few multibit DAC contraptions http://www.mother-of-tone.com/creation.htm ... you may be surprised by the price


 
  
  
 A real bargain
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Sapientiam

jacal01 said:


> The Altmann Tera-Player DAP used the TDA1543 DAC chip.


 
  
 Are you sure? Seems a very strange choice for a portable player, a DAC which takes 250mW or so. What battery life does he get? If I were Charles I'd have chosen TDA1545A - a far superior DAC at a much lower power level.


----------



## BeyerMonster

For the record, some of us wanted to come read this thread because the OP took a lot of time and effort to catalog his experiences in one place on a large number of devices that the average forum user doesn't have access to.
 He's entitled to his opinion just as much as people who say DSD sucks, CD sucks compared to vinyl, etc.
 If you don't want to hear what he has to say or post... DON'T READ OR POST IN THIS THREAD.
 If you disagree with his conclusions, make a post and move along. No need to repost the same
  



snip3r77 said:


> I think it's best to remove it. Blanket statement sucks. Other headfiers agree ?


 
  
 No person is being insulted. Last I checked, Delta Sigma DACs don't have feelings. You're not correcting a social injustice.
 Coming soon to a theater near you: Do Delta-Sigma DACs deam of electric sheep?
  


diamondears said:


> I'm not an EE, but from what I understand (and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong on this), the stuff you're saying is in the digital filtering process (oversampling) to remove the noise, not in the DAC chip itself, although I understand that the DAC chip always have stock standard digital filters. This is why I'm saying the culprit is the digital filter process (to remove the noise), not the D-S DAC chip or digital to analogue conversion process itself that went before.


 
 Thanks for sharing your opinion. It has been duly noted.


----------



## diamondears

beyermonster said:


> He's entitled to his opinion just as much as people who say DSD sucks, CD sucks compared to vinyl, etc.
> If you don't want to hear what he has to say or post... DON'T READ OR POST IN THIS THREAD.
> If you disagree with his conclusions, make a post and move along. No need to repost the same
> 
> ...


 
  
 Isn't it a fact? And this?--Yggy used the AD R2R DAC chip, because they want to use that old digital filter designed only for an R2R chip. Non-standard/common digital filters are proprietary=expensive.


----------



## DreamKing

Ah great, this schiit again.


----------



## prot

Lots of TDA chips for little money 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/8X-TDA1543-parallel-audio-Hifi-DAC-Decoder-Coaxial-optical-fiber-USB-input-/251890735130


----------



## BassDigger

prot said:


> Lots of TDA chips for little money
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've never heard (read) anything good about the 1543; when they're in multiples, it just emphasises the chips flawed, mid-centric characteristics. So I've been told.
 It's a shame!


----------



## Sapientiam

Down the bottom of the pile for multibit chips, but that pile starts somewhat above the average SQ of S-D chips (the ones with on-chip opamps).


----------



## BeyerMonster

eraserxiv said:


> I've been on HF 8 years now, and I didn't own a single Schiit product until 2015. A few months ago, it seemed the company had stabilized and the products matured enough (the second gen products) that I was willing to take a leap of faith.


 
 Given the fairly liberal return policy, I would call it a calculated risk more than a leap of faith.


----------



## jacal01

sapientiam said:


> Are you sure? Seems a very strange choice for a portable player, a DAC which takes 250mW or so. What battery life does he get? If I were Charles I'd have chosen TDA1545A - a far superior DAC at a much lower power level.


 
  
 Yes, from email exchanges with him at the time.


----------



## jacal01

beyermonster said:


> Do Delta-Sigma DACs deam of electric sheep?


 
  
 No, but they do deem eclectics cheat.


----------



## pldelisle

I was asking me this question today...
  
 Is Schiit would do any speaker amplifier in the futur ? 
  
 That would be very nice!!! I simply love my Gungnir and Asgard 2, but while headphones are great, sometimes I want to listen my music through my speaker setup ! And my setup lack a good power amplifier. I would have full confidence in buying a speaker amplifier from Schiit!
  
 Well that was just a parenthesis to the thread


----------



## JohnnyCanuck

pldelisle said:


> I was asking me this question today...
> 
> Is Schiit would do any speaker amplifier in the futur ?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well, you could try this:
  
 http://schiit.com/products/ragnarok


----------



## pldelisle

Well, I saw it, but it's kinda pricey... lol. I thought they could make something in the sub-1000$.


----------



## maeveth

pldelisle said:


> Well, I saw it, but it's kinda pricey... lol. I thought they could make something in the sub-1000$.


 

 Honestly going by what you have listed in your sig I'd say your better off buying new Speakers than a new Power Amp.  You'll get a better sonic improvement for your dollar.  That however does depend on the room your in to some degree
  
 That being said I really love Parasound's Stereo Power Amps.  The A23 is ~1000 and will easily drive what you have.  I recently demo'd an A21 and loved it - will be picking one up as soon as I can. 
  
 Both the Rag and an A23 would be very overkill for those speakers though.


----------



## prot

pldelisle said:


> Well, I saw it, but it's kinda pricey... lol. I thought they could make something in the sub-1000$.




There are about 1000 sub-1000 amps that sound better than schiit . E.g. almost any modern receiver. And unless you wanna listen at kill-the-neighbors levels or have some funky super-demanding speakers, they all sound good and pretty much transparent. 
It's not 1980 anymore and we are not in any schiit when it comes to amps


----------



## Argo Duck

It is far, far worse than this  Yggy also depends on quantum mechanical theory that dates back to - like - the _1930s_ and it uses _electricity_ :eek: This is tech that's more than a century old and _electricity_...are you kidding me...that's been around for like billions of years.

Yggy is so yesterday's tech and cannot be taken seriously.



diamondears said:


> Isn't it a fact? And this?--Yggy used the AD R2R DAC chip, because they *want to use that old digital filter* designed only for an R2R chip. Non-standard/common digital filters are proprietary=expensive.


----------



## jcx

the reconstruction/anti-alias filter design is relatively independent of the DAC type for common audio DAC capable of the oversampling rate that allows the filter to be digital
  
 but many monolithic DAC do have the filters built in and save chip area with half-band, multi-rate filters which constrains the filter designs a bit
  
 in principle you could reproduce mike's magic filter's pass, stop and transition band, pre/post ringing as exactly as you like in even a delta-sigma DAC
  
 of course the DS noise shaping makes any claim of "exactness" moot
  
  
 but so does all of the audio signal chain's noise, required added dithers make the yggy's filter's "preserves exact samples" claim sound like magical thinking when the whole system is looked at


----------



## wahsmoh

Did anyone notice my post about the Krell Studio DAC that uses 2X PCM63-P and 2x Motorola DSP56001?
  
 I think Mike M. had some competition back in the early 90's


----------



## smitty1110

I didn't notice the chips used, but was certainly interested. That dac might be worthwhile if you can pick it up for $500-$600.


----------



## Baldr

Now that my play is over, it is with blinding speed that I comment on the ENOB exchange seen in this thread several pages back. Now, I may need to reread it, but the emphasis seemed to be on more bits equals more dynamic range. Fair enough, but there is much more involved.
  
 Analog audio has increasing distortion with increasing level; digital audio has increasing quantization error (which translates as well to distortion)with _decreasing_ level. The former, I argue is intuitive – the latter counter intuitive.
  
 Just for the sake of a starting point, let us posit an analog signal to noise ratio of 72 db. It is a commonly accepted fact of analog radio voice communication that weak signals well down into the noise can be clearly understood. It is also clearly possible to hear subtleties and spatial cues into the noise on good analog recordings. In a 16 bit system, ther remain 4 bits worth of quantization. At this level, one has 4 bits of resolution which is a 1 part in 16 error, or 6.25%.
  
 The way the Yggy works, we have 20 bit time and frequency domain samples inserted between the originals, which leaves 8 bits worth of quantization, with a 1 part in 256 error, or just under .4%. A lot better. This is exactly why Redbook 16/44.1 does not and will never scratch my itch.
  
 I have been referring to the DSP in the Yggy as the megaburrito filter. In a recent conversation, Jason pointed out to me that it is really a megacomboburrito filter, since it uniquely optimizes time and frequency domains. This is what causes Yggy users, on a variety of systems to report hearing subtleties previously not experienced.
  
 One more comment – I have received many requests for certain analog topologies to be incorporated into the Yggy. I also get questions on how I voice the Yggy with its chosen analog.
  
 Please hear this – the Yggy has been deliberately designed with a DAC output so high only a buffer is required. This is significant because buffers tend to have far less perceptible sonic differences between them than gain stages. The means that the topology of the analog of the Yggy is as close to sonically irrelevant as possible. What you hear (or not) is chiefly the result of the digital stuff within. I believe that it is misguided (and really expensive) to attempt to “voice” your system with a DAC. There are many, many, amplifiers available to accomplish that.
  
 The only reason to “voice” a DAC with analog is to cover up what your DAC does too much of or doesn't do at all. Kinda like makeup. A really beautiful girl does not need it.


----------



## Baldr

wahsmoh said:


> Did anyone notice my post about the Krell Studio DAC that uses 2X PCM63-P and 2x Motorola DSP56001?
> 
> I think Mike M. had some competition back in the early 90's


 

 The Theta Gen V balanced had 4 PCM63s, 3 DSP56001s, and the megacomboburrito filter at just over half the retail price, some two years before the Studio.


----------



## evillamer

The issue with sigma delta dacs is that they take 16bit/24bit input and converts them to Bitstream data @ 5bits(5bits for sabre/hugo/dave or less bits for other designs) 2.8MHz(for Ess Sabre)/104MHz(Dave). From what I understand this conversion process is quite destructive(time domain or samples wise) and is a lossy/decimation process. Also there's alot of complex feedback algorithm at work here(in the case of hyperstream), these feedback systems/noiseshaper algorithms are not fully understood by the dac designers(check out video of rob watts explaining noise shaping simulation below, perplexing even at his level). So much "black arts" involved in designing sigma delta dacs when a pragmatic dac designer can just stick to high precision R2R to get really good signals out of the decoder and design whatever filters codes/analog stage necessary to get good sound. The amount money spent on "DSP cores/FPGAs" noise shaping system is getting more expensive than just getting a highly precision R2R chip, not to mention with all these high Mhz cores, they might leak higher emi/rfi(electrical noise) into the surrounding audio components and require more filtering/pcb noise mangement/power conditioning and etc etc(increased cost/design time).
  
 Rant: effing money grubbing texas instruments killing off the pre Burr-Brown true R2R chips.
  
 Esstech patent(relates to Sabre Hyperstream modulator)
 http://www.google.com/patents/US8350734


----------



## Sonic Defender

July 4th we are having a meet here in Ottawa. At which will be a Yggy and my NAD M51. We are going to do some well designed, multiple subject, multiple trial blind listening tests. I'm getting a Yggy by years end, and while I suspect it will be a significant step up in sound quality I can't help but think some of this talk about DS being garbage is a little exaggerated. Seriously, to listen to some of the posts you would think that using a DS DAC is essentially the equivalent of listening to the cheapest Emerson receiver with nasty Radio Shack homemade speakers from the 70s. seriously, it sounds like people are suggesting this post-apocalyptic wasteland of sound degradation. While I have a DS DAC, frankly I don't build my identity around it, and I'm quite willing to accept that there are inherent flaws worth overcoming, but some posts here really make DS seem like a technology invented by degenerate freaks who failed community college electronics out to push garbage on people for crazy money. Enough already!
  
 And yes, I did read the title of the thread.


----------



## Argo Duck

Will be interesting no doubt. Look forward to description of method and of course findings


----------



## Sonic Defender

argo duck said:


> Will be interesting no doubt. Look forward to description of method and of course findings


 

 Pretty straight forward, before the meet we are going to select a song by committee that will be used by everybody. The headphone will of course remain constant, the only part of the audio chain that will vary will be the DAC. We will correct as much as possible for volume and we will ensure that a single engaging, but comfortable volume level is used for all subjects.
  
 The duration for each trial will be the same. Subjects will only be asked if the have a preference after each test cycle. We will use at least 5 subjects and 10 trials per subject. More would be ideal, but this is a meet so reasonable time need be allotted to avoid distracted/bored subjects.
  
 We will make sure that the Yggy has been well warmed up. I know the owner will have had it for at least two weeks by then and he will be leaving it on the entire time. Yes there will be a brief time during transit to the meet that it is off for, but we will ensure that it is on for at least two hours before any testing begins. I can't imagine that being off for say 45 minutes after being on for a few weeks will skew the results too much.
  
 I am not sure if I will use dummy tests where the DAC isn't changed. If so, we will tell subjects that it is possible that no switching may occur in some trials and that they don't have to identify if any pairing resulted in any differences. The subjects will be able to indicate no preference as a valid result.
  
 I also think that if time permits we will use another group for sighted listening tests and then eventually compare the results. I am quite confident that sighted listening testing will yield more preferences for one DAC over the other. Will the difference be significant is the question. My wife has an advanced degree in experimental psychology and many years of clinical experience. I will have her run the results through statistical analysis. The university she works at (and that I attend) is an experimental one so I'm quite sure with our various contacts on campus we can get some advice about how to analyze the results.
  
 I will make sure that there is zero contact of any sort between test subjects and myself as I will be responsible for switching the DACs as needed. The order of DACs presented will be selected randomly, e.g. which DAC goes first in a pairing, and whether or not there is a switch of DACs or not. Test subjects will be unable to see the rig at all. We will use a combination of a physical screen as well as a blindfold.


----------



## evillamer

If you intend to do a blind test, it's best to do with more than two dacs. If this is done with only two dacs, then it just might boil down to subjective listening preference of the listener as to preference of warmth or analytical voicing differences between the dacs. I would suggest two different well implemented R2R dacs vs two different well implemented sigma delta dacs then you can compare the results to see if the two r2r dacs get overall higher or lower scores/preferences vs sigma delta dacs.


----------



## evillamer

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-09-28/entertainment/9003210974_1_chips-converter-disc

A throwback to a 1990s article which claim that Single bit sigma delta dacs are superior to traditional multi bit r2r. However it seems like even all modern sigma delta dacs have become multi-bit, why is it that? PSRR/electronic random noise.


This thesis is probably meant for gurus like mike moffat or arm chair dac designers:
https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/13537/ThomasWestonBurress%202011.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## BassDigger

baldr said:


> Now that my play is over, it is with blinding speed that I comment on the ENOB exchange seen in this thread several pages back. Now, I may need to reread it, but the emphasis seemed to be on more bits equals more dynamic range. Fair enough, but there is much more involved.
> 
> Analog audio has increasing distortion with increasing level; digital audio has increasing quantization error (which translates as well to distortion)with _decreasing_ level. The former, I argue is intuitive – the latter counter intuitive.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yeah, dynamic range was the main point, as I understood it.
  





 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm struggling to 'get my head around' your explanation. I kind of get that you're saying that digital requires 'spare' bits, for quantisation. Quantisation requires the same amount of bits, whether it's 16, 20, 24... bit audio. So, the less bits you have to begin with, the lower the percentage of 'usable' bits that are available. Am I correct?
  
 So, what will your Yggy do with my 16/44.1 music files? Will it stuff them with 'false' data, aka upsampling?
  
 Please keep your explanation simple and, if possible, use some analogies; I don't mind if you pretend I'm like...5 years old!
  
 Thanks.


----------



## evillamer

I think the problem with all the theorist and those that strictly follow the Nyquist theory(44.1Khz is enough to capture/reproduce everything in audio) or there abouts(think of those who subscribe to hydrogen audio and etc) forget that there's a little thing in life/engineering known as "headroom".
  
 In theory, you can design a 1.8m height door for a 1.7999m high human being to use, but do you think the human being going through the door can do it fast and smooth? This is not taking into account thermal expansion of the door/wall/floor.
  
 Likewise 44.1KHz makes it diffcult on the digital/analog filters, and no filters(*not sure if it includes yggdrasil) in the world can perfectly filter without causing all sorts of unwanted distortions like gibbs effect, post-ringing, pre-ringing, phase distortion and etc.
  
 There's a 1990s AES article which they tried to push for 48KHz as the replacement(DVD Audio) standard for CD audio, because it relaxes the requirements of the D/A filtering component.
  
 As for the bits part... think of it as making bread. By right if you using 16kilograms of yeast, you should make 16kilograms of bread. However during the process of making bread, you lose some of the yeast somewhere/somehow and the end result is the bread is 14kilograms(or thereabouts) thus not bit perfect. You would want more yeast(bits) to begin with so as to recreate the bread at 16kilogram.
  
 There's this famous baker know as Sabre, he takes 24kilograms of yeast, but only produces about 15kilograms worth of bread.


----------



## Argo Duck

Thanks Sonic Defender. You certainly need to control for order effects given this is largely a within-subjects design. Fatigue is indeed one which counterbalancing (implicit in your randomization) won't address. There may be others. Have you reviewed the literature - if there _is_ any that bears on this topic.

I suspect there are other factors you will wish to control for in your design? Any thoughts?

By 'trial' I presume you mean what one usually means; I'm less clear what constitutes a "test cycle"?

Regardless of one's "confidence" that sighted will yield different results from unsighted testing, what factors do you expect to produce these differences? Hopefully not mere expectation bias (EB)? If so, you will need some reliable test to assess the direction of each subject's bias. Obviously you can't do this _ex post facto_ and nor - presumably - can one simplistically _ask_ each subject "which DAC do you prefer/think will be better/whatever?"!

If you suspect factors other than EB, isolating them and their hypothesized relative contributions is clearly outside scope yet - either way (EB only or EB + others) - you must have formed some expectation of net effect size that leads you to think your sample size might offer adequate power to consider this extension worth doing, yes?

Good luck.


----------



## shabta

@Sonic Defender sound like an interesting test. Looking forward to hearing how it goes!


----------



## Sonic Defender

@Argo Duck I'm not trying to create an actually experiment, that is unrealistic; however, I am attempting to create a test with at least some characteristics of an experiment that can be replicated by others in local meets. While I know order effects exist, I'm not sure to what extent they will influence anything. That said, yes, I think I will have my wife help me design the testing with consideration for order effects. Regardless of how rigorous my methods are, as I'm sure you and others know, there will be room for improvement.
  
 If the results show anything at all it will simply be food for thought, I'm not delusional and believe I will have valid data to publish a paper about! That said, even in this rough form, an undertaking like this may still provide some data of use. If we make it impossible for people to attempt such things nobody will bother. Even imperfect as my rude design is, I think we need to test assumptions, and perhaps I am being foolish, but I feel some effort is better than no effort. If we wait for a university to conduct the experiment that can satisfy your rightfully exacting standards, well, it won't happen. I want to see a little deeper into things, but I know it is only a surface peek, but why not try I say?


----------



## LingLing1337

evillamer said:


> I think the problem with all the theorist and those that strictly follow the Nyquist theory(44.1Khz is enough to capture/reproduce everything in audio) or there abouts(think of those who subscribe to hydrogen audio and etc) forget that there's a little thing in life/engineering known as "headroom".




The old, why buy a ferrari when the speed limit in town is 50 argument, right?


----------



## jcx

http://linearaudionet.solide-ict.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/LA%20Vol%202%20Yaniger%281%29.pdf  gives some guidelines for "informal" but controlled/blinded listening testing for the audio hobbyist
  
 specifically


> ...We will correct as much as possible for volume...


 
  really has to be matched to 0.1 dB, ~ 1% Voltage at the headphone - which is actually pretty easy with soundcard or DMM with at least 1 kHz AC V measurement capability
  
 the V measurement doesn't have to be accurate, just repeatable - resolving and stable enough to insure matching
  
 its much harder to get the repeatability with SPL measurement


----------



## Sonic Defender

jcx said:


> http://linearaudionet.solide-ict.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/LA%20Vol%202%20Yaniger%281%29.pdf  gives some guidelines for "informal" but controlled/blinded listening testing for the audio hobbyist
> 
> specifically
> really has to be to 0.1 dB, ~ 1% Voltage at the headphone


 

 Thanks for the link. Cheers.
  
 Just finished the read, quite useful.


----------



## Argo Duck

All agreed *Sonic Defender* - absolutely you should do this. I just wanted to be satisfied you had thought around all the questions. It's clear you have 

One thought I will add though: even the simplest studies conceal difficulties. Thinking about your design, the key problem to tackle seems to me the 'construct' of listening as the primary measuring instrument will be your listeners.

For present purposes we 'agree' or 'believe' that we can hear differences between DACs. There are two key problems within any design. Both apply here. The first is to operationalize this notion of "listening for differences": what in practical, measureable terms counts as a 'difference' to a listener? For example, a critical difference I found between two DACs some years ago was a barely detectable half-cough by the singer - a fraction of a second in a 2-3 minute track. One DAC made the cough unrecognizable: the other made it clearly identifiable _as_ a cough _and_ that it was from the singer. This was a clear, 'qualitative' difference yet it amounted to a mere fraction of a percent of this one track.

Another difference in this same track was more pervasive (timbral quality of the bass guitar) but - quantitatively - was so slight that it was close to the "just noticeable" level. Dependent on my level of attention (and other factors no doubt) I might hear it or I might not. Once I 'controlled' for this by only listening when (a) not tired (b) not cognitively overactive I could hear the difference repeatedly. This took sessions over many days though, not an option available to your listeners in this case!

And TBH I didn't attack this question as thoroughly as needed! I simply _listened_ and any difference I heard that was _repeatable_ - many were not - I took as reportable.

Still, this was the exact wrong way to go about it! It _might_ work for you to consider this and come up with some notion of what your listeners are to listen _for_...? (And it might not too - it's only a thought )

The second key problem is to optimize the ability of your measuring instrument to in fact _detect_ the hypothesized differences, so-called 'study power'. Many studies - and I get you're not formally calling this a study/experiment - fail not because there aren't real differences and not because the instrument isn't capable, but because of interference from other factors.

Here, elimination of possible spoiling/masking factors comes into play such as the "boredom" you mentioned. Any factors that can't be eliminated must be measured so their effects - which must not be appreciable compared to the primary effect you want to measure - can be controlled for in subsequent statistical processing.

Finally, I must apologize. I must have come off sounding negative and like I wanted to put difficulties in your way. On the contrary, I look forward to you getting stuck into this and to your findings. There's far too much argument and 'logic' thrown around on this forum when we could instead make real progress with a practical (but well thought out) test.



sonic defender said:


> @Argo Duck
> I'm not trying to create an actually experiment, that is unrealistic; however, I am attempting to create a test with at least some characteristics of an experiment that can be replicated by others in local meets. While I know order effects exist, I'm not sure to what extent they will influence anything. That said, yes, I think I will have my wife help me design the testing with consideration for order effects. Regardless of how rigorous my methods are, as I'm sure you and others know, there will be room for improvement.
> 
> If the results show anything at all it will simply be food for thought, I'm not delusional and believe I will have valid data to publish a paper about! That said, even in this rough form, an undertaking like this may still provide some data of use. If we make it impossible for people to attempt such things nobody will bother. Even imperfect as my rude design is, I think we need to test assumptions, and perhaps I am being foolish, but I feel some effort is better than no effort. If we wait for a university to conduct the experiment that can satisfy your rightfully exacting standards, well, it won't happen. I want to see a little deeper into things, but I know it is only a surface peek, but why not try I say?


----------



## Sonic Defender

@Argo Duck, no need to apologize, I'm glad you are bringing these considerations forward. As humble as my little test will be I want it to be the best that it can be warts and all. Ultimately time will be my biggest enemy as I'm sure people will be more motivated by the meet aspect of things and less concerned with my need for control. I suspect it is best to have the test done before the meet is in full swing so I have to see if I can secure subjects willing to commit to things. Most people seem to be keen on the experiment. I think head-fi thirsts for some objective efforts to augment the mountains of subjective experiences.


----------



## mitch_o

I am _very _excited to hear the results of this - thanks for taking it on!


----------



## Sonic Defender

mitch_o said:


> I am _very _excited to hear the results of this - thanks for taking it on!


 

 Me as well. With my love of both the objective and the subjective I feel driven to do this.


----------



## koolblue3

bassdigger said:


> :rolleyes:  Do tell????




Transparency
Both the Audiomeca Ambrosia and SF SFD MK II are more transparent . Further and deeper sound stages with better spatial location of instruments. They combine a whole coherent scale of the macro dynamic swings and flow of music while maintaining the tiny individual pieces that make up the whole tapestry. The micro dynamic inflections are easily heard that let one determine the timbre of each instrument and the actual playing. I can determine the type/ ages of violins used by each performer. The audial never allowed that.


----------



## Ableza

koolblue3 said:


> Transparency
> Both the Audiomeca Ambrosia and SF SFD MK II are more transparent . Further and deeper sound stages with better spatial location of instruments. They combine a whole coherent scale of the macro dynamic swings and flow of music while maintaining the tiny individual pieces that make up the whole tapestry. The micro dynamic inflections are easily heard that let one determine the timbre of each instrument and the actual playing. I can determine the type/ ages of violins used by each performer. The audial never allowed that.


 
 You forgot to add "in your opinion" since everything you are describing are subjective impressions.


----------



## koolblue3

ableza said:


> You forgot to add "in your opinion" since everything you are describing are subjective impressions.




Of course !


----------



## BassDigger

ableza said:


> You forgot to add "in your opinion" since everything you are describing are subjective impressions.


 
  
 Dude, everything written is an opinion, unless stated otherwise. Look up some rules of writing.
 But then, that's just an opinion


----------



## BassDigger

koolblue3 said:


> Transparency
> Both the Audiomeca Ambrosia and SF SFD MK II are more transparent . Further and deeper sound stages with better spatial location of instruments. They combine a whole coherent scale of the macro dynamic swings and flow of music while maintaining the tiny individual pieces that make up the whole tapestry. The micro dynamic inflections are easily heard that let one determine the timbre of each instrument and the actual playing. I can determine the type/ ages of violins used by each performer. The audial never allowed that.


 
  
 Can you tell if the performer remembered to clean their teeth? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 But seriously, is there any trade-off? Anything that you miss about what the Audial (TDA1541A) did? (Particularly with redbook recordings)
 Also, do you think that maybe you could be talking as much about a difference between formats, as the dacs themselves? The tda1541 is 16 bit max, after all. Is a lot of your material >16bit?
 This is of particular interest to me; my collection is redbook; I want to get a better idea of the best dac to play it.


----------



## amalgamist

Alright so who bought the non-working Theta Gen V for $1030 ?


----------



## jbarrentine

koolblue3 said:


> I can determine the type/ ages of violins used by each performer.


 
  
 I almost spit my drink out.


----------



## prot

sonic defender said:


> July 4th we are having a meet here in Ottawa. At which will be a Yggy and my NAD M51. We are going to do some well designed, multiple subject, multiple trial blind listening tests. I'm getting a Yggy by years end, and while I suspect it will be a significant step up in sound quality I can't help but think some of this talk about DS being garbage is a little exaggerated. Seriously, to listen to some of the posts you would think that using a DS DAC is essentially the equivalent of listening to the cheapest Emerson receiver with nasty Radio Shack homemade speakers from the 70s. seriously, it sounds like people are suggesting this post-apocalyptic wasteland of sound degradation. While I have a DS DAC, frankly I don't build my identity around it, and I'm quite willing to accept that there are inherent flaws worth overcoming, but some posts here really make DS seem like a technology invented by degenerate freaks who failed community college electronics out to push garbage on people for crazy money. Enough already!
> 
> And yes, I did read the title of the thread.




+1 for your D-S comments
+10 for the test idea. I'd recommend you open a thread in the science section and ask for advice.. many exp people there and there are many specifics for audio tests. If you have time I'd go for two tests: one "which dac you prefer" and one "can you hear a diff". And I think evillamer is right, a third Dac would help. 
Good luck with the test.


----------



## hans030390

koolblue3 said:


> Transparency
> Both the Audiomeca Ambrosia and SF SFD MK II are more transparent . Further and deeper sound stages with better spatial location of instruments. They combine a whole coherent scale of the macro dynamic swings and flow of music while maintaining the tiny individual pieces that make up the whole tapestry. The micro dynamic inflections are easily heard that let one determine the timbre of each instrument and the actual playing. I can determine the type/ ages of violins used by each performer. The audial never allowed that.


 
  
 You said Model S MK I, right? I'm sure the the gains between I and II are very small, but worth considering. Either way, not sure what the Audiomeca is running in terms of DAC chips/modules, but based on what I've read about the SFD MKII and what I know about or have personally heard with UltraAnalog chips, some of these differences you mentioned don't surprised me. The UA modules are very nice. Even then, basically all of the differences you mentioned seem pretty on par when comparing a non-oversampling design (Audial) with an oversampling design (basically everything else). Oversampling does tend to help with staging, spacial location, and separation on a large and small scale. More transparent in that regard. I'm in the minority in that I think oversampling mucks up some other elements (making some aspects besides those sound less real in comparison to my ears), but, hey, most disagree with me, and that's why I recommend oversampling to most others.


----------



## wahsmoh

amalgamist said:


> Alright so who bought the non-working Theta Gen V for $1030 ?


 
 Ouch. I saw that auction and didn't follow it much longer but that really surprises me


----------



## Sonic Defender

prot said:


> +1 for your D-S comments
> +10 for the test idea. I'd recommend you open a thread in the science section and ask for advice.. many exp people there and there are many specifics for audio tests. If you have time I'd go for two tests: one "which dac you prefer" and one "can you hear a diff". And I think @evillamer is right, a third Dac would help.
> Good luck with the test.


 

 Thanks, appreciate the thoughts and comments. If time permits a third DAC is possible, but I worry that too much time would be involved. Anyway great suggestions on all fronts. Thanks mate.


----------



## hans030390

koolblue3 said:


> Both the Audiomeca Ambrosia and SF SFD MK II are more transparent . Further and deeper sound stages with better spatial location of instruments. They combine a whole coherent scale of the macro dynamic swings and flow of music while maintaining the tiny individual pieces that make up the whole tapestry. The micro dynamic inflections are easily heard that let one determine the timbre of each instrument and the actual playing. I can determine the type/ ages of violins used by each performer. The audial never allowed that.


 
  
 Oh, in relation to my last message, also curious what source you fed these DACs with....I'm assuming some sort of USB->SPDIF converter. (Not trying to imply something wasn't up to par, just curious for my own reasons.)


----------



## KeithEmo

evillamer said:


> I think the problem with all the theorist and those that strictly follow the Nyquist theory(44.1Khz is enough to capture/reproduce everything in audio) or there abouts(think of those who subscribe to hydrogen audio and etc) forget that there's a little thing in life/engineering known as "headroom".
> 
> In theory, you can design a 1.8m height door for a 1.7999m high human being to use, but do you think the human being going through the door can do it fast and smooth? This is not taking into account thermal expansion of the door/wall/floor.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I wanted to comment on your comment - and on two other things as well.
  
 1) Nyquist - What many people forget is that Nyquist is more of a "limit" than a "promise". Essentially, it is theoretically possible to provide all the information necessary to define a continuous sine wave as long as you have more than two samples per period (in other words - in order to "store" a sine wave, you need a sampling frequency at least slightly over twice its frequency). However, what this really means is that, if your sample rate is too low, then it won't be able to do the job. In other words, a CD, sampled at 44.1k _CANNOT_ store information above 22 kHz. This does not constitute a promise that a CD _WILL_ accurately store information up to 22 kHz - just that it's _POSSIBLE_ - considering the sample rate. Nyquist also assumes a continuous sine wave (the math says you can totally define _A CONTINUOUS SINE WAVE_ if you know a little bit more than two data points per cycle - it assumes an endles stream of identical cycles - which is what you have in a continuous sine wave). It doesn't necessarily hold if you have a non-sine-wave, or a combination of multiple sine waves, or a transient wave form.
  
 2) While it's true that oversampling has flaws,so do all the other alternatives. Some people seem to have the idea that the only reason oversampling is used is that many manufacturers are too cheap to do things "the right way". The actual reality is that there are no methods that work perfectly - regardless of what you spend. In order to convert a 44k sample to analog without oversampling, you _MUST_ have a reconstruction filter that is flat to 20 kHz, yet is down _AT LEAST_ 70 dB to 80 dB at 23 kHz. (Otherwise there will be image information and distortion in your output that will distort it). Designing an analog filter that meets this requirement isn't just a matter of cost - it's difficult to impossible to do. (Instead of oversampling you would need to use a filter made up of several op amps and a lot of very carefully matched parts to even get close.) You must also remember that the physical world, and all sources, and even our ears, are also flawed. For example, while all digital filters ring at least a little - so do microphones and speakers. In other words, many of the signals that DACs can't seem to reproduce perfectly are also the sort of signals that don't exist at all ion real life and, if they did, microphones wouldn't be able to record them accurately, speakers couldn't play them, and vinyl and analog tape couldn't reproduce them accurately either.
  
 3) When you talk about a compromise, you need to talk about both the pluses and minuses. For one thing, I've head some reasonable claims that, due to how the process works, Delta-Sigma DACs are much more sensitive to jitter than NOS DACs. If true, this means that, _ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL_, a certain amount of jitter added to the signal will cause a Delta-Sigma DAC to produce more distortion products than a typical NOS DAC. However, this is _NOT_ a flaw per-se... it merely sets a requirement. (It means that, if you're using a Delta-Sigma DAC, it's important that you deliver it a low-jitter signal. But, if it turns out that reducing the jitter by a factor of ten solves that problem, then perhaps trading "the filter problem" for "the jitter problem" is a useful tradeoff after all - as long as you recognize the problem and design your device accordingly. However, it does mean other parts of the design may need to be adjusted.)
  
 Unfortunately, a lot of smaller vendors simply lack the design knowledge to get everything right. (To use my example. You could design a NOS DAC whose input section had relatively a lot of jitter and the jitter won't affect the sound quality that much - but the filter issue will be a problem - which is why many NOS DACs have very poor high frequency response. However, if you were to simply drop a Delta-Sigma chip into that design, while it would solve the filter problem easily, you might find that it didn't sound very good - because your input stage produced enough jitter to cause the D-S chip to distort. However, it also might turn out that reducing that jitter is relatively simple... and, once you do that, the overall performance is better.) My point is that a lot depends on how the different parts of the design interact and work together, and on how well the designers understand this.
  
 The obvious answer to your "headroom" comment is that you are correct. The sample rate and bit depth for CDs was chosen based on the idea that it was "just good enough" - after meeting the "requirement" of being able to fit a full album on a CD using the current maximum data rates practical at the time. The simplest way to ensure sufficient "headroom" is simply to use 24/96 - which gives you a lot more dynamic range and a much wider frequency response. This allows you to use a simpler and easier to design filter. (If you use a high enough sample rate to begin with, then there's no reason to _OVERSAMPLE_ at all - because you've eliminated the problem it solves.)


----------



## zach915m

Just got a Gen Va in.  Will try to write up some comparison's to my trusty Progeny at some point.  But WOW, first impression is very good...ofcourse!


----------



## goobicii

44.1khz can reproduce constant sinewave only up to about 1600hz,higher and the loudness jumps up and down due to insuficient sample rate
  
 yesterday I made experiments,and I make this claim "anything less that 1536khz is lossy format"


----------



## evillamer

Interesting read for those who want know how cd audio got its 74mins max play length.

http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/beethoven.htm


----------



## wahsmoh

zach915m said:


> Just got a Gen Va in.  Will try to write up some comparison's to my trusty Progeny at some point.  But WOW, first impression is very good...ofcourse!


 
 Thanks Zach. I'm a Progeny version A owner. Would be interested to know just how close the Progeny gets to the Gen Va at a fraction of the price.


----------



## Sapientiam

goobicii said:


> 44.1khz can reproduce constant sinewave only up to about 1600hz,higher and the loudness jumps up and down due to insuficient sample rate


 
  
 This is only true on an unfiltered NOS DAC - the image frequencies 'beat' with the signal and cause amplitude fluctuations. Install the appropriate reconstruction filter (most NOS DACs don't do this) to sufficiently attenuate those images and the problem is solved. Its not 'due to insufficient sample rate' as far as I'm aware.


----------



## diamondears

keithemo said:


> I wanted to comment on your comment - and on two other things as well.
> 
> 1) Nyquist - What many people forget is that Nyquist is more of a "limit" than a "promise". Essentially, it is theoretically possible to provide all the information necessary to define a continuous sine wave as long as you have more than two samples per period (in other words - in order to "store" a sine wave, you need a sampling frequency at least slightly over twice its frequency). However, what this really means is that, if your sample rate is too low, then it won't be able to do the job. In other words, a CD, sampled at 44.1k _CANNOT_ store information above 22 kHz. This does not constitute a promise that a CD _WILL_ accurately store information up to 22 kHz - just that it's _POSSIBLE_ - considering the sample rate. Nyquist also assumes a continuous sine wave (the math says you can totally define _A CONTINUOUS SINE WAVE_ if you know a little bit more than two data points per cycle - it assumes an endles stream of identical cycles - which is what you have in a continuous sine wave). It doesn't necessarily hold if you have a non-sine-wave, or a combination of multiple sine waves, or a transient wave form.
> 
> ...


 You think the Yggy is all about that recycled megaburritto filter to avoid huge costs in designing a better filter?


----------



## frenchbat

diamondears said:


> You think the Yggy is all about that recycled megaburritto filter to avoid huge costs in designing a better filter?


 
  
 Oh so now the megaburrito filter is cheaped out. Man, what happened to make you so bitter ? The filter of your dream has responded to your sollicitations ?
  
 Or maybe you've switched to another one.
  
 [Opens the centerfold page of Stereophile]
  
 Let me guess it's the Chord one, right. Oh yeah .... So many taps, it's just tapalicious


----------



## purrin

diamondears said:


> You think the Yggy is all about that recycled megaburritto filter to avoid huge costs in designing a better filter?


 
  

Still a custom filter. Not cheap. They still needed a guy to code for the SHARC. I met that guy. It's not like you can copy code meant for Motorolas from twenty years ago. Lots of other stuff too to code too, e.g. in loading up bits in sequence to the AD5791 since AD5791 is not an audio chip and doesn't take native digital audio formats. Algorithm is one thing, actual coding / implementation of an algorithm is another. Schiit took an extremely difficult path to make that DAC. This of course does not make the efforts of others like Chord any less significant.
FWIW, the custom filters of other DACs out there are also based on existing algorithms.
Why change something that works well? there's a reason why GM stuck with its pushrod motor with the Vette despite it being "old" technology. in both cases, the implementations are new takes on old stuff.
Finally, if you've actually written software or firmware, or even designed something simple, you would understand. Dude, please just give it a rest. Seriously, just shut the **** up because it's obvious you don't know what the **** you are talking about. It's one thing if you are trying to understand, but you are just being a ******** armchair DAC designer. In the end, it's all about sound. What does it matter to you if you haven't heard it, don't plan on hearing it, don't even plan on buying it, or can't afford to buy it. If you smell ****, say so once and please move on.


----------



## Jason Stoddard

diamondears said:


> You think the Yggy is all about that recycled megaburritto filter to avoid huge costs in designing a better filter?


 

 Please explain to me how it is recycled, in specific points (platform, number of taps, coefficient precision, interface, etc) since you clearly know more about the development than we do.


----------



## BassDigger

diamondears said:


> You think the Yggy is all about that recycled megaburritto filter to avoid huge costs in designing a better filter?


 
  
 In the interests of making this forum as fluid and easy to read as possible, I'd like to suggest that people shouldn't quote entire (large) posts, particularly when their point or question doesn't really relate to anything in the quote; it's very lazy and unnecessarily fills up page space.
  
 I would suggest just quoting the relevant text, and omitting the irrelevant, rather than re-displaying the entire post. There is a link, next to the quoted users name, if readers want to view the entire original post.


----------



## diamondears

frenchbat said:


> Oh so now the megaburrito filter is cheaped out. Man, what happened to make you so bitter ? The filter of your dream has responded to your sollicitations ?
> 
> Or maybe you've switched to another one ...  Let me guess it's the Chord one, right. So many taps, it's just tapalicious



No, not bitter at all. Just not anyone's dog, nor bat. 

Instead of you looking at it as something bitter, look at it as a sweet opportunity to point out positive stuff about the Yggy. 

I'm actually thinking of buying the Yggy, or at least trying it out, and I'm hoping I could get that final push to try it out. My current DAC IMHO is very good, and I'm looking for a substantial improvement. 

And I'm really wondering that my queries before and now are never answered directly and just met with personal arguments and ad hominems. So color me not bitter, but just skeptical and potential believer. 

My question can be rephrased like this--Does Yggy's claimed excellent natural, organic, realistic and analogue-like sound can be materially be attributable to that mega burrito filter? And how/why?


----------



## frenchbat

diamondears said:


>


 
 Let me spell it out for you :
  
 This is the irony ---------------------->
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 This is your head [     ]


----------



## Jason Stoddard

diamondears said:


> My question can be rephrased like this--Does Yggy's claimed excellent natural, organic, realistic and analogue-like sound can be materially be attributable to that mega burrito filter? And how/why?


 
  
 Not a direct answer:
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil/4950#post_11396780


----------



## purrin

diamondears said:


> My question can be rephrased like this--Does Yggy's claimed excellent natural, organic, realistic and analogue-like sound can be materially be attributable to that mega burrito filter? And how/why?


 
  
 Who ******* cares? Really, does it matter? Its every ******* thing inside the Yggy (or any other DAC) matters. The huge transformers, the huge choke, the shunt regulators, SPDIF / USB receivers. Precision DAC chips. EVERY ******* THING matters. The filter is just a part of it. Like the valve train in an engine of a complete car.


----------



## frenchbat

purrin said:


> Who ******* cares? Really, does it matter? Its every ******* thing inside the Yggy (or any other DAC) matters. The huge transformers, the huge choke, the shunt regulators, SPDIF / USB receivers. Precision DAC chips. EVERY ******* THING matters. The filter is just a part of it. Like the valve train in an engine of a complete car.


 
 ROFL


----------



## purrin

The REAL secret inside the Yggy:


----------



## purrin

Or perhaps it's this:


----------



## frenchbat

Depends .... Which one has more taps ?


----------



## wahsmoh

There is a lot of reading to be done on this thread for people to catch up to what is going on. I fall into the category of people that has heard/own what these DACs are capable of. I guess that makes me not a skeptic but someone with first hand experience so I can understand why there is a lot of questions being asked and confusion.
  
 Just go to a Head-fi meet and if you don't live near a major city, well then buy a plane ticket and head out to one. You might end up saving a lot of money with less questions and buyers remorse.
  
 Like what Purrin said.. open up the internals of a "statement" DAC. For example... I have pictures of my Progeny and Berkeley Alpha DAC side-by-side somewhere in these forums(internals). Look at the size of these things... these generally aren't small box solutions. It is not just a DSP filter and chip that makes something sound "analog" and dynamic. It is the sum of all parts.


----------



## wink

Diamondears, this is for you.........   Use it sparingly   or not.
  

  
  
 btw, have heard the Yggy and,   -------------       LOVED it.


----------



## Insidious Meme

Why you guys don't have this one trick pony on your ignore list....


----------



## frenchbat

insidious meme said:


> Why you guys don't have this one trick pony on your ignore list....


 

 And miss all the fun ? You can't be serious ...


----------



## goobicii

sapientiam said:


> This is only true on an unfiltered NOS DAC - the image frequencies 'beat' with the signal and cause amplitude fluctuations. Install the appropriate reconstruction filter (most NOS DACs don't do this) to sufficiently attenuate those images and the problem is solved. Its not 'due to insufficient sample rate' as far as I'm aware.


 
  
 but then you are hearing altered signal not original one


----------



## Sorrodje

.


----------



## azteca x

goobicii said:


> 44.1khz can reproduce constant sinewave only up to about 1600hz,higher and the loudness jumps up and down due to insuficient sample rate
> 
> yesterday I made experiments,and I make this claim "anything less that 1536khz is lossy format"


 
  
 44.1/2=22.05. Add in some wiggle room for filtering and whatnot and you get up to about 20kHz (20,000Hz) pretty reliably. Of course, I'd love to see a test where you demonstrate that you can hear differences ±0.1dB at 20kHz.
  
 The highest sample rate I've ever seen (for PCM) is 384kHz, and it's really just hardware support. There are like two things recorded in that format. No recorder can use the extra high frequencies. And as Lavry pointed out in that whitepaper, there is a time where higher sample rates introduce more distortion.
  
 So, how did you do this 1536kHz test?
  
 Also, lossy refers to whether or not a format preserves the original RECORDED signal. So if you can take the original WAV and then take a FLAC you bought off of Bandcamp, invert phase on one of them and get a complete null (silence), you have a lossless format. I don't think anyone would claim that there is a lossless recording method. Recording is a game of compromises and always will be.


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> Who ******* cares? Really, does it matter? Its every ******* thing inside the Yggy (or any other DAC) matters. The huge transformers, the huge choke, the shunt regulators, SPDIF / USB receivers. Precision DAC chips. EVERY ******* THING matters. The filter is just a part of it. Like the valve train in an engine of a complete car.




 many called that filter "special sauce" or something like that and IIRC you did it too ... so I really dont understand what's wrong with someone asking just how 'special' that is ... or why is everyone jumping so hard on that guy for just asking some questions 

Anyway, got another burrito Q: guess it is safe to assume that the original filter does still exist as Theta's property .. are there any other current devices using it ? (theta or licensees, or...)


----------



## azteca x

Keith, if it helps: http://www.head-fi.org/t/764787/yggdrasil-technical-measurements


----------



## goobicii

azteca x said:


> 44.1/2=22.05. Add in some wiggle room for filtering and whatnot and you get up to about 20kHz (20,000Hz) pretty reliably. Of course, I'd love to see a test where you demonstrate that you can hear differences ±0.1dB at 20kHz.
> 
> The highest sample rate I've ever seen (for PCM) is 384kHz, and it's really just hardware support. There are like two things recorded in that format. No recorder can use the extra high frequencies. And as Lavry pointed out in that whitepaper, there is a time where higher sample rates introduce more distortion.
> 
> ...


 
  
 with oversampling,a process that exist only becose the truth is that 44.1khz is too low samplerate
  
 what who seen,what records exist or what are current technology limitations is not my point,the point is anything less than 1536khz CANNOT play a sinewave with constant volume in human hearing range 20-20.000 khz.                personaly I hate the Lavry guy,he thinks he is some guru but he is just bad influence becose people who doesnt think and experiment themself follow him blindly,high sample rates are future,Lavry and his BS is just slowing the technological advancement
  
 simple,just create sinewave at whatever you consider highest freqency that should be reproduced accurately,lets say 20.000hz,create that sinewave at various samplerates and tell me at what point it becomes perfectly constant in volume without any loudness jumping


----------



## AustinValentine

@prot - This is the answer to why people are losing their patience with Diamondears. He's essentially been posting the exact same thing in this thread for over a month now without engaging any of the substantial replies that he's received. See inside the spoiler to see what I mean, with posts presented in reverse chronological order [with all of the insulting/bickering/trolling comments in-between removed]: 
  



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler! [Diamondears Filter Loop Remix



]   
 Quote:


diamondears said:


> You think the Yggy is all about that recycled megaburritto filter to avoid huge costs in designing a better filter?


 
  


diamondears said:


> Isn't it a fact? And this?--Yggy used the AD R2R DAC chip, because they want to use that old digital filter designed only for an R2R chip. Non-standard/common digital filters are proprietary=expensive.


 
  


diamondears said:


> And moreso your opinion.
> 
> The filter used was designed for R2R 25 years ago. Knowledgeable and experienced, yet just recycle filters from 25 years ago?


  



diamondears said:


> So if the Yggy didn't have that excellent closed-form filter, it would still sound good, bat?


 
   
 Quote:


diamondears said:


> Exactly, so you shouldn't get your panties in a bunch too when someone says saying "Sabre/DS chips sucks" sucks big time, especially when it's the filter that's at fault.
> 
> So, based on your story, it is that mega-burrito filter that matters, and the reason the R2R/PCM63 is used is because the mega-burrito filter would work on it. Developing a filter takes a while and resources, so why not get or borrow an existing filter (the mega-burrito one, old one, existing and cheap) and use a chip where it could be implemented (the R2R/PCM63)? Genius! So basically we just got back to 1990s DAC technology. Now that's advancement, use technology 20 years ago, put it in a shiny new modern case, and proclaim modern chips sucks big time and that the old one blows (both the chip and California burrito filter). I knew it was the filter.


  



diamondears said:


> I've never said the Yggy's sound sucks. Again, I just don't like the Sabre-D-S sucks statement when it's not proven that the glare is attributable EXCLUSIVELY to the DAC chip. My suspect is the stock standard digital filter used as this is the common denominator in all the DACs I've heard that I felt are glare-y.
> 
> I also said I suspect this thread is related to the Sabre/D-S sucks statement and are used to advertise the Yggy...but I never said Schiit is fooling us in the claimed excellent sound of the Yggy. I fact I said I'd like to try and would likely buy it to hear for myself. The 15-day trial for $115 plus shipping is reasonable for me.
> See above. And if that's the case (not saying it isn't), why the need to bash Sabre/D-S DAC chips and proclaim them the primary culprit in present day digital glare?


  



diamondears said:


> I'm not an EE, but from what I understand (and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong on this), the stuff you're saying is in the digital filtering process (oversampling) to remove the noise, not in the DAC chip itself, although I understand that the DAC chip always have stock standard digital filters. This is why I'm saying the culprit is the digital filter process (to remove the noise), not the D-S DAC chip or digital to analogue conversion process itself that went before.


  



diamondears said:


> Is it possible to create an optimum digital filter/DSP that will remove the glare for the sucky Sabre/D-S DAC chips?
> 
> Edit: Or is it better to just use more expensive non-D-S DAC chip to save time and brain matter to develop a digital filter/DSP to remove the glare?


  



diamondears said:


> He's not being "insulted" (which I'm not, just pointing out things) or criticized for his approach, but for his insulting approach. He's being criticized for bashing others to promoted himself or his products. And he hasn't proven that the glare comes from the D-S chip, my suspect is the stock standard digital filter that comes with the chip.
> 
> If it's really not the filter and it's the D-S chip, why not use that same or similar standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringing together with the AD chip? Why make a custom filter for it? Because the filter plays a big role in the digital-ness or glary-ness of the D-S DAC chips being touted as sucking big time.


  



diamondears said:


> It wouldn't sell as much because there's no unique-ness necessary for marketing success like the R2R and military-scientific-grade AD chip.
> I agree that happens on products for the masses (including food, sadly). But not for higher-end or more top-tier models/products. I like my setup, but I'm open to improvements, and I've heard lots of DAC much much more expensive but sounded worse or the same. But why bash D-S DACs when the fault is in the stock Standard digital filter?


 
  


diamondears said:


> How much is each R2R DAC chip? Let's say $250. If in fact they'd present better detail resolution and prevent digital glare, you think audio manufacturers and designers wouldn't budge to get them? Cmon now. And we're not talking here about definition yet (such as bass articulacy) and noise elimination/reduction that over sampling digital filters' main goal is for.
> 
> Again, IMHO, the culprit on the digital glare accusation is the Standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringings, not the D-S DAC chip.
> 
> I may be getting the Yggy just for kicks, and keep it if my current opinions gets kicked by it. What digital filters does it have btw?


  



diamondears said:


> Ok. When I refer to the Standard digital filter, I refer to the Optimal Spectrum filter of Audiolab, not the slow filters. Standard Digital Filter=fast brick wall filter, the standard filter that measures best objectively, the most common digital filter for so long found in most DACs and CD players. The one that has no timing phase distortions nor frequency issues, except pre and post ringings. What should we call this filter?
> 
> And even assuming my pet Optimal Transient filters still have pre and post ringings, I'm pretty sure they're minimal or substantially less compared to the Standard digital filter.
> 
> ...


  



diamondears said:


> You believe that chit? The crux of the issue is the DIGITAL FILTER used, not the DAC chip. The Delta-Sigmas and Advance Segments reproduce the most details and definition from the digital media. What they're saying as lost bits is due to MOST digital filters used, not the D-S or A-S or whatever modern chips.
> 
> Again, the real cause of the glare that the R2R fans get their panties in a bunch for is the predominant use of the standard digital filter that has pre-ringing and post-ringing in the higher frequencies. This is the one that's cheap. The standard filter is the CHEAPEST. This is the one that sucks, not the D-S chips. R2R chip using standard digital filter would LIKEWISE sound glary.
> 
> The R2R thingy is just marketing to justify the price. Why bash a product to promote oneself is beyond me.


  



diamondears said:


> And same goes for the 1704 or R2R chips. That is why I think this thread is one great big commercial...the topnotchers were built in part or whole by same people. There's a reason R2R is being phased out...it doesn't have enough definition on bass and treble details. The glare is simply due to the standard (aka cheap) digital filter that has pre and post ringings.


----------



## wmedrz

It sucks that Purrin is MOT. I really enjoyed reading his opinion about limp d*ck craptastic gears


----------



## KeithEmo

azteca x said:


> 44.1/2=22.05. Add in some wiggle room for filtering and whatnot and you get up to about 20kHz (20,000Hz) pretty reliably. Of course, I'd love to see a test where you demonstrate that you can hear differences ±0.1dB at 20kHz.
> 
> The highest sample rate I've ever seen (for PCM) is 384kHz, and it's really just hardware support. There are like two things recorded in that format. No recorder can use the extra high frequencies. And as Lavry pointed out in that whitepaper, there is a time where higher sample rates introduce more distortion.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've seen a few - very few - commercial 384k files (I even have two of them), but they are _VERY_ few and far between. (I believe I found two websites that each had a few examples of 384k content.)
  
 I'm afraid I've got to agree that the white paper about "higher sample rates sometimes causing distortion" is really rather specious. (It's kind of like saying "a TV picture that's too good might make a poor quality projector actually look worse because it struggles to reproduce the unnecessary extra quality".) I cannot fault a content FORMAT for allowing it to reproduce the content more accurately than necessary. If the content producer is worried about 50 kHz noise affecting your playback system, then _THEY_ should limit the bandwidth of their recording - it is not a problem for the recording to have frequency response that's simply better than necessary - unless you're counting on its limitations to protect you from poor production control. (And, if you know that your stereo has problems with a little 25 kHz noise, then it's up to you - or the manufacturer - to "protect it".)
  
 A sine wave that is converted into analog using the proper conversion processes and reconstruction filters should be very close to the original. If there were amplitude variations inside the audio band, then they would count as distortion, and so would prevent you from getting the excellent THD measurements that most good quality DACs can deliver. Sometimes you will see amplitude modulations at high frequencies but, as long as they occur outside the audio band, then they are... inaudible. Most DACs do produce "errors" of some sort on transient type signals (which are _NOT_ continuous sine waves), but they tend to be minimal and not all that audibly annoying. (The variations in these "errors" account for the fact that different oversampling filters often sound subtly different, even though they may all have very low steady-state sine wave distortion figures.) However, as has been noted, there isn't a microphone, or a phono cartridge, or a speaker that is able to accurately reproduce transients anyway, so these minor errors are just one of many minor imperfections in the recording and playback chain.


----------



## azteca x

Keith, I'm with you. I'm a big hi-res fan and while I do think 24/96 is plenty it's up to hardware and software makers to make sure that 192 support is just fine. Though I really hope we don't get even bigger file formats. I don't take that Lavry paper as gospel at all, just offering a viewpoint. I have seen HD downloads that are just straight unfiltered DSD, presumably from SACD masters and while I haven't had any issues it is just poor practice. I'm an audio engineer myself and my preference is generally for whatever format it was recorded in to begin with even though sample rate converters are very very good these days ( src.infinitewave.ca ).
  
 Anyway, onward.


----------



## purrin

frenchbat said:


> Depends .... Which one has more taps ?


 
  
 LMAO, I spit my morning coffee on my screen.


----------



## goobicii

20.000hz sine at 96khz,more than double the CD rate,many people say 44.1 is enough and 96khz is ultimate hi rez and than more is stupid

 only one cycle out of 5 hit the 100% volume that its supposed,the two lowest cycles are at 86% power,lets say you listen music at 100db peak volume,this means that sine would jump up and down 14db,it would only hit correct volume once in every five cycles...but wait theres more! luckily DACs dont respond instantly and dont follow the samplerate perfectly,they have settling time etc,this gives it rounded edges and actualy makes it closer to sinewave in shape becose this low samplerate draws this sine more in sawtooth shape with sharp edges resulting in distortion..... not only cant 96khz play constant sound to the point its embarassing,it cant even give shape to proper round sine,but but but muh Nyquist but Lavry said... hahaha 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 enter the future,1536khz,perfect amplitude of EVERY single cycle within human hearing range,perfect waveform shape.Oversampling? anti aliasing filters? intersample peaks? lol


----------



## Sapientiam

goobicii said:


> but then you are hearing altered signal not original one


 
  
 What's doing the alteration? The original signal has to be band-limited before it reaches the ADC, so if you're listening with no reconstruction filter on a NOS DAC, its altered from the original.
  
 Incidentally you're reading too much into those Audacity waveforms - they're just points joined up with linear interpolation, whereas to get an accurate measure of amplitude you'd need to use sinc interpolation.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm a little confused by these here pictures.
  
 If I sample a 20 Hz sine wave at a 44k sample rate, then each cycle of the wave is represented by more than 2000 sample points - which is going to deliver a pretty darned accurate "connect the dots" drawing. (That top picture looks more like a 10 kHz sine wave, sampled at 44k, then "drawn" without the proper filtering applied.)
  
 But what if it turned out that our digital recording did in fact reproduce a 12 kHz sine wave with all sorts of nasty jagged edges, sharp angles, and other distortions - and we didn't filter them out like we're supposed to? What would that sound like?
  
 Hmmmmm.... Well, since the second harmonic of 12 kHz is 24 kHz, which is inaudible to human beings, the rattiest looking 12 kHz sine wave imaginable would sound....... exactly like a perfectly clean one. (All we humans could hear would be the 12 kHz primary tone.)
  
 However, once we apply the proper reconstruction filter to the output, which filters out the higher frequency junk anyway, what we'll be left with is a 12 kHz sine wave....
  
  
  
  
  
  
 Quote:


goobicii said:


> 20.000hz sine at 96khz,more than double the CD rate,many people say 44.1 is enough and 96khz is ultimate hi rez and than more is stupid
> 
> only one cycle out of 5 hit the 100% volume that its supposed,the two lowest cycles are at 86% power,lets say you listen music at 100db peak volume,this means that sine would jump up and down 14db,it would only hit correct volume once in every five cycles...but wait theres more! luckily DACs dont respond instantly and dont follow the samplerate perfectly,they have settling time etc,this gives it rounded edges and actualy makes it closer to sinewave in shape becose this low samplerate draws this sine more in sawtooth shape with sharp edges resulting in distortion..... not only cant 96khz play constant sound to the point its embarassing,it cant even give shape to proper round sine,but but but muh Nyquist but Lavry said... hahaha
> 
> ...


----------



## Defiant00

goobicii said:


> <snip>


 
  
 As others have pointed out, what Audacity is showing you in your screenshots isn't what a DAC is going to output.
  
 You may find this video (with actual examples using an all-analog scope, even) informative: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml


----------



## azteca x

keithemo said:


> Thanks.
> 
> The one I was somewhat curious about was the transient response, which wasn't offered there in the "standard form", but the square wave pictures provide the same information.... and they indicate that the Yggdrasil has "minimal and symmetrical ringing" - which is not unexpected (and, while good, not especially exceptional). Likewise, many of the other specs are very good, but aren't _exceptionally good_ by today's standards... To me, this leaves the question about which design factors contribute how much to the way the Yggdrasil sounds somewhat open.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Right. I hope to see standard transient measurements sometime soon. The discussion around the Yggdrasil and it's filter reminds me of similar discussions over tons of feedback to get super-low distortion vs. minimal or no feedback and less perfect measurements. For the uninitiated: https://passlabs.com/articles/audio-distortion-and-feedback
  
 Time will tell as more people get their hands on the Yggdrasil, the eventual trickle down into the Gungnir and Bifrost, blah blah...


----------



## frenchbat

purrin said:


> LMAO, I spit my morning coffee on my screen.


 

 Sorry about that. Hope it didn't take too long to clean


----------



## goobicii

defiant00 said:


> As others have pointed out, what Audacity is showing you in your screenshots isn't what a DAC is going to output.
> 
> You may find this video (with actual examples using an all-analog scope, even) informative: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml


 
  
 that is exactly whats wrong with oversampling and sigma delta chips,that these dacs spit out signal vastly different to what really is on pcm


----------



## prot

evillamer said:


> It's like a amateur food blogger critiquing a 3 star Michelin chef's dish without even tasting it first.




Could be. Still, food bloggers have all the rights to ask Qs and criticize as they please and havent seen many ppl in lynch mood yelling at them. 

Anyway, my bad, apparently I missed a lot of that discussion. Btw thx for the update AustinValentine.


----------



## Defiant00

goobicii said:


> that is exactly whats wrong with oversampling and sigma delta chips,that these dacs spit out signal vastly different to what really is on pcm


 
  
 Audacity isn't showing you "what's really on pcm" it's showing you a simplified and incorrect view for the sake of performance.
  
 Please watch the video linked first before responding to my post. What you're viewing in Audacity is not the actual waveform, it's straight lines connecting discrete values. It is likely done this way for performance reasons (lines are much quicker to draw and are likely close enough for a high-level view), but just because the Audacity team chose a convenient/fast way to display the data doesn't show anything about how it's actually converted to sound (which is not a linear interpolation between the steps as displayed).
  
 Again, this is all addressed in the video I linked above, including an entire portion on why stairsteps and other linear views are incorrect, including examining the output of a DAC directly using an entirely analog scope. Perhaps you should watch it?


----------



## goobicii

defiant00 said:


> What? Please watch the video linked first before responding to my post. What you're viewing in Audacity is not the actual waveform, it's straight lines connecting discrete values. It is likely done this way for performance reasons (lines are much quicker to draw and are likely close enough for a high-level view), but just because the Audacity team chose a convenient/fast way to display the data doesn't show anything about how it's actually converted to sound (which is not a linear interpolation between the steps as displayed).
> 
> Again, this is all addressed in the video I linked above, including an entire portion on why stairsteps and other linear views are incorrect, including examining the output of a DAC directly using an entirely analog scope. Perhaps you should watch it?


 
  
 only difference is that PCM is series of straistepsand not straight lines,that doesnt disprove anything I posted,the aplitude jumping is there


----------



## Defiant00

goobicii said:


> only difference is that PCM is series of straistepsand not straight lines,that doesnt disprove anything I posted,the aplitude jumping is there


 
  
 That's exactly one of the main misunderstandings this video is about. PCM is *not *and does *not *produce stairsteps, and anyone representing it as such is wrong.
  
 Since you apparently missed it the first time, here, again, is a good rundown on why this is wrong: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
 Skip to 3:36 if you're in a hurry.


----------



## goobicii

defiant00 said:


> That's exactly one of the main misunderstandings this video is about. PCM is *not *and does *not *produce stairsteps, and anyone representing it as such is wrong.
> 
> Since you apparently missed it the first time, here, again, is a good rundown on why this is wrong: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
> Skip to 3:36 if you're in a hurry.


 
 I watched it before
  
 PCM is stairsteps,only reason it isnt becose the equipment that runs it is not fast and pure enough,if you read my original post you will notice I explained this,I adressed this
  
 its actualy good thing for low samplerates that our dacs are so slow and imperfect that they to give curves to the staircase,it makes the ****ty low samplerate not so ****ty,far from truth but atleast it have organic curves


----------



## azteca x

goobicii said:


> I watched it before
> 
> PCM is stairsteps,only reason it isnt becose the equipment that runs it is not fast and pure enough,if you read my original post you will notice I explained this,I adressed this
> 
> its actualy good thing for low samplerates that our dacs are so slow and imperfect that they to give curves to the staircase,it makes the ****ty low samplerate not so ****ty,far from truth but atleast it have organic curves


 
  
 ....No. Watch it three more times and really listen.


----------



## Defiant00

goobicii said:


> I watched it before
> 
> PCM is stairsteps,only reason it isnt becose the equipment that runs it is not fast and pure enough,if you read my original post you will notice I explained this,I adressed this
> 
> its actualy good thing for low samplerates that our dacs are so slow and imperfect that they to give curves to the staircase,it makes the ****ty low samplerate not so ****ty,far from truth but atleast it have organic curves


 
  
 What? No, producing sine waves that match the samples (or at least get very, very close to them in the case of delta sigma) is exactly how they're supposed to work.
  
 That's kind of the fundamental point of the sampling theorem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem ), that given a specific band-limited set of data (aka, nothing over 20khz), you can reproduce the original waveform given a discrete set of samples. So no, no stairsteps; the samples are at discrete points in time, but that doesn't mean that's the value in between points.
  
 And that's it for me; if you bother to watch the previous video or actually read about sampling theorem then great, perhaps we can have an actual conversation about it.


----------



## KeithEmo

gevorg said:


> Just curious, what kind of specs would be exceptional and which of today's DACs have them?


 
  
 That's sort of a trick question.
  
 My point is that most "good DACs" these days have specs that are good enough that - based on the numbers - I wouldn't expect the differences between them to be audible. There are so many DAcs today that have "exceptionally good specs" that I find it difficult to see how any could "stand out" in a meaningful way based on specs. To pick a few at random, check out the specs on the latest Benchmark model, and on the Emotiva DC-1, and the Wyred4Sound DAC2.... All of the "common specs" like THD, S/N, IMD, and frequency response are so good on all of them that I wouldn't expect the differences to be audible - and I wouldn't expect it to be possible for any of them to be improved on in a meaningful way. Therefore, even if the Yggdrasil's specs on any of those measurements is better, I wouldn't expect that difference to be audible. I don't look at its specs and think: "Aha, xyz is a lot better than everyone else; I'll bet that's why it sounds so good."
  
 To put that another way, _IF YOU'RE BASING YOUR EXPECTATIONS ON THE COMMONLY QUOTED SPECIFICATIONS_, then the Yggdrasil and a lot of other current DACs out there are all so close to perfect that I can't see how _ANY_ of them can be claimed to be significantly better than the others. Therefore, the differences most likely lie somewhere else. Personally, I suspect that the digital filter is probably the single biggest factor there, and perhaps the one in Yggdrasil really does sound better than most of the others. Unfortunately, besides saying whether the ringing is symmetrical, and how much ringing there is overall, we don't really have measurements that describe those differences in any way that I know how to relate meaningfully to how the device actually sounds. (You can see that the ringing on different DACs, all of which may have symmetrical ringing, looks slightly different in other ways - but I've never succeeded in figuring out which visible differences there correlate with which audible differences. I'm also personally convinced that jitter is more audible than many people seem to think, so perhaps the Yggdrasil's excellent jitter immunity is audible - although, again, many other DACs out there also have excellent jitter immunity.)


----------



## goobicii

defiant00 said:


> What? No, producing sine waves that match the samples (or at least get very, very close to them in the case of delta sigma) is exactly how they're supposed to work.
> 
> That's kind of the fundamental point of the sampling theorem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem ), that given a specific band-limited set of data (aka, nothing over 20khz), you can reproduce the original waveform given a discrete set of samples. So no, no stairsteps; the samples are at discrete points in time, but that doesn't mean that's the value in between points.
> 
> And that's it for me; if you bother to watch the previous video or actually read about sampling theorem then great, perhaps we can have an actual conversation about it.


 
  
 PCM will be stairsteps even if it was  99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 billion gigahertz
  
  
 yes yes stairsteps,thats all pcm is,becose dac  cant start and stop instantly we get curves


----------



## KeithEmo

goobicii said:


> I watched it before
> 
> PCM is stairsteps,only reason it isnt becose the equipment that runs it is not fast and pure enough,if you read my original post you will notice I explained this,I adressed this
> 
> its actualy good thing for low samplerates that our dacs are so slow and imperfect that they to give curves to the staircase,it makes the ****ty low samplerate not so ****ty,far from truth but atleast it have organic curves


 
  
 If you were to look at the output of a DAC _WITHOUT FILTERING IT_, then you would indeed see stair steps. However, the reason is that, if you do that, _YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG_. The reconstruction filter, which is a necessary part of "doing the process correctly", limits the bandwidth - which means that it removes the steps and leaves you with only a reasonable facsimile of the original signal. The reconstruction filter isn't "slow and imperfect" at all. In fact, it's doing just what it's supposed to do - filter out the extra out-of-band energy (which is what those steps are made up of). 
  
 The extra junk is supposed to be there, and it's also supposed to be removed, yet you insist on:
  
 1) complaining that removing it is a flaw
 2) then complaining that it's still there


----------



## goobicii

keithemo said:


> If you were to look at the output of a DAC _WITHOUT FILTERING IT_, then you would indeed see stair steps. However, the reason is that, if you do that, _YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG_. The reconstruction filter, which is a necessary part of "doing the process correctly", limits the bandwidth - which means that it removes the steps and leaves you with only a reasonable facsimile of the original signal. The reconstruction filter isn't "slow and imperfect" at all. In fact, it's doing just what it's supposed to do - filter out the extra out-of-band energy (which is what those steps are made up of).
> 
> The extra junk is supposed to be there, and it's also supposed to be removed, yet you insist on:
> 
> ...


 
 yes it would look more like stairsteps but it will still be not perfect since even fastest dac with no reconstruction filter cant start and stop instantly,that being said I umderstand that you misunderstood what I meant whitch is my fault and I pretty much agree with your post
  
  
 you also support my argument against Defiant00,just like you said,PCM is strairsteps,its only becose of reconstruction filter that the output isnt full of square edges


----------



## Defiant00

goobicii said:


> yes it would look more like stairsteps but it will still be not perfect since even fastest dac with no reconstruction filter cant start and stop instantly,that being said I umderstand that you misunderstood what I meant whitch is my fault and I pretty much agree with your post
> 
> 
> you also support my argument against Defiant00,just like you said,PCM is strairsteps,its only becose of reconstruction filter that the output isnt full of square edges


 
  
 He said the opposite, but I guess if you can't be bothered to read or watch any of what others have posted then I wouldn't expect you to pay attention to that either.
  
  
  
 PCM itself isn't stairsteps, what he said is that the output of a DAC *before filtering* would look like a stairstep.
  
 PCM is just a set of discrete samples. Numbers, one after another, at a known rate.
  
 For example, is this a stairstep?
*42*
*1*
*-55*
*7*
*12*
  
 No, it's a set of numbers that could be interpreted in any number of ways. If you interpret it as PCM data and feed it to any rationally-designed DAC you'll get an analog output very close to the set of sine waves that would pass through those values at the specified sampling rate.
  
 Alternately, if you decided to put those in a spreadsheet, then sure, you could make yourself a bar graph and say it's a stairstep (_THIS WOULD NOT BE SOUND DATA THEN OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD BE A GRAPH, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY DON'T QUOTE THIS ONE SENTENCE AND CLAIM I SAID IT WAS A STAIRSTEP_). But if used as PCM data then no, the 100% mathematically correct output would be a set of sine waves very close to the original input (which is what any reasonably designed DAC will get very, very close to).


----------



## Sonic Defender

I'm curious, it seems in the current discussion one of my questions is creeping in again. What are the exact mechanisms by which an R2R DAC sound better than a D-S DAC? I have very little doubt that some of the better R2R designs we have been hearing about in this thread are actually more musical, better sounding DACs as compared with many of the garden variety D-S DACs, but it does seem reasonable that the real difference in the sound could be mostly attributed to the digital reconstruction filters and or the analogue stage of the DAC (as well as the digital input stage). So if this were at all plausible then couldn't a D-S DAC that was equally well designed in these key metrics sound equally as good?
  
 I guess a related question of mine would be is it the R2R design that allows the digital filters to work as implemented in say the Theta's and the Yggy? If I have misunderstood this discussion my apology.


----------



## anetode

goobicii said:


> 20.000hz sine at 96khz,more than double the CD rate,many people say 44.1 is enough and 96khz is ultimate hi rez and than more is stupid
> 
> only one cycle out of 5 hit the 100% volume that its supposed,the two lowest cycles are at 86% power,lets say you listen music at 100db peak volume,this means that sine would jump up and down 14db,it would only hit correct volume once in every five cycles...but wait theres more! luckily DACs dont respond instantly and dont follow the samplerate perfectly,they have settling time etc,this gives it rounded edges and actualy makes it closer to sinewave in shape becose this low samplerate draws this sine more in sawtooth shape with sharp edges resulting in distortion..... not only cant 96khz play constant sound to the point its embarassing,it cant even give shape to proper round sine,but but but muh Nyquist but Lavry said... hahaha
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well there's your problem -- you're not using a vector display! Get outta here with that PCM/RASTER crap, come back when you can attach a polaroid of an oscilloscope.
  
 Wannabe audiophiles tryinna edit audio with their 4K "high-res" displays


----------



## Radio_head

goobicii said:


> yes it would look more like stairsteps but it will still be not perfect since even fastest dac with no reconstruction filter cant start and stop instantly,that being said I umderstand that you misunderstood what I meant whitch is my fault and I pretty much agree with your post
> 
> 
> you also support my argument against Defiant00,just like you said,PCM is strairsteps,its only becose of reconstruction filter that the output isnt full of square edges


 
 PCM is stairsteps but this is not a darwback.  Imagine if you are taking elevator and sewgays every day, you will gradually become unhealthly and sad, you need stairs.  As Mitch Hedberg said, "crutches are strairs that _help_ me walk."  So PCM is strairsteps but they help ear train, to here better and not be a trophy.  The R2R is not stiars, this is a porblem, it is like hndicapped ramp - this ramp is _cause_ of handidcap!


----------



## KeithEmo

sonic defender said:


> I'm curious, it seems in the current discussion one of my questions is creeping in again. What are the exact mechanisms by which an R2R DAC sound better than a D-S DAC? I have very little doubt that some of the better R2R designs we have been hearing about in this thread are actually more musical, better sounding DACs as compared with many of the garden variety D-S DACs, but it does seem reasonable that the real difference in the sound could be mostly attributed to the digital reconstruction filters and or the analogue stage of the DAC (as well as the digital input stage). So if this were at all plausible then couldn't a D-S DAC that was equally well designed in these key metrics sound equally as good?
> 
> I guess a related question of mine would be is it the R2R design that allows the digital filters to work as implemented in say the Theta's and the Yggy? If I have misunderstood this discussion my apology.


 
  
 The basic bottom line is that the purpose of a DAC is to convert a list of numbers into an analog voltage. Therefore, assuming that whatever method you use does that well enough, how it actually works is really not terribly important. The circuitry involved in a "basic R2R ladder DAC" is theoretically simpler than that of a Delta-Sigma DAC. In analog circuitry, there are certain drawbacks to making circuits more complicated - basically, since the analog signal picks up noise and distortion whenever it passes through a part, a more complex circuit has "more places for things to go wrong".  However, this really isn't the case with digital circuitry. (A modern computer has a lot more transistors in its CPU than a 25 year old one, and it runs faster, but it still delivers numbers that are "just as clean".)
  
 I've only ever heard two of what I would consider to be "credible technical arguments" about specific reasons why oversampling DACs in general would be "inferior" - and neither specifically applies to only Delta-Sigma DACs.
  
 First, _ANY_ type of oversampling filter will introduce _SOME_ ringing. It's a sort of side effect of how digital filters work, and is unavoidable with any current filter design - you can have super accurate frequency energy response or super accurate time response but not both (the ringing you see is there because some of the energy that belongs in the impulse has been "smeared" and appears at the wrong time; if you simply wipe out the smeared energy, then the total amount of energy is no longer perfectly correct). Now, pre-ringing and post-ringing sound different, at least according to some people, and it would be nice to minimize the amount of ringing to a bare minimum - or make sure none of it is in the audible frequency range - so this is one area where extra effort may indeed yield improvements (or, at least, differences). One current idea is that post-ringing is less audible than pre-ringing because it is masked better by the actual signal, so many current filters use some math tricks to "shift" the pre-ringing to post-ringing (you get less or no pre and more post). SOme people prefer the way these filters sound - other's don't.
  
 Second, jitter produces distortion - because, when there is jitter on the clock, then you have "correct samples at slightly incorrect times" - so, when you convert these samples into analog audio, you get errors. The amount of error you get for a given amount of jitter depends on how much jitter you have as a percentage of the clock period. So, if you have a file sampled at 44k, with 1 ps of jitter on each sample, and you upsample it to a 10x clock "locked" to the original clock, you may well end up with a data stream that is sampled at 440k, but still has 1 ps of jitter on each sample (assuming you use a simple clock, locked to the original, and no jitter reduction or filtering mechanism). Since that 1 ps of jitter is now a larger _PERCENTAGE_ of your new higher sample clock, it may produce a larger amount of  distortion when your new signal is converted. This means that, in order to maintain an equivalent level of performance (in terms of jitter caused distortion), for any oversampling DAC, including a Delta-Sigma one, you must maintain a lower level of jitter. (In other words, all else being equal, a Delta-Sigma DAC may well be a lot more sensitive to jitter, and so you have to assure a lower level of jitter to avoid problems. (Or, to say it in reverse, if you have jitter that you can't eliminate, it will probably cause a Delta-Sigma DAC to distort more than it would a simple NOS DAC.... however, jitter isn't that difficult to reduce or eliminate, and oversampling offers more than enough benefits to offset this "limitation".)


----------



## blasjw

anetode said:


> Well there's your problem -- you're not using a vector display! Get outta here with that PCM/RASTER crap, come back when you can attach a polaroid of an oscilloscope.
> 
> Wannabe audiophiles tryinna edit audio with their 4K "high-res" displays


 

 FYI, scopes don't use CRTs for the most part nowadays either.  Predominantly LCD.


----------



## anetode

blasjw said:


> FYI, scopes don't use CRTs for the most part nowadays either.  Predominantly LCD.


 
 Na ah, not the r2r ones


----------



## smitty1110

blasjw said:


> FYI, scopes don't use CRTs for the most part nowadays either.  Predominantly LCD.



But since of us miss the old CRTs. There's something special about them...

Actually, that might have been the xrays messing with my brain XD


----------



## jcx

one thing that may be going on with the communication problem is the ambiguous use of the word "DAC"
  
 it can be a the generic name for the whole box from Benchmark, Schiit... with USB or whatever digital inputs and RCA or XLR analog Voltage, with *smooth continuous time audio signal on the output *in competent implementations
  
 it can refer to the function block, today mostly monolithic integrated circuit chip from the likes of TI, AKM, ESS
  
 it can be a conceptual function label
  
  
 the box has* continuous, smooth analog output *on the RCA *because it has analog low pass filters between the DAC chip/module's analog output and the outside world* - these are known as reconstruction filters or anti-image/image reject filters
  
 the internal DAC chips/modules may have current or voltage outputs, may be Zero Order Hold - keeps the analog output quantity constant between update intervals - at whatever internal processing rate used - here you may see "stair steps" - varying amounts of analog circuitry is needed after different DAC chips depending on it and your analog output quality requirements
  
  
 NOS, ZOH DACs need very steep analog filters, in recording you need filters with very similar performance , called "anti-alias filters" - these have to be very high order for Redbook - I believe up to 18th order analog filters were used on both ends of the process giving huge phase distortion, lots of post ringing in pure analog filter implementations
 for an idea of the complexity of filtering this steeply in analog - a 18th order filter would likely be made with 9 op amps, 36 precision resistors and capacitors, any pretense to accuracy could require much better than 1% tolerance parts - and its very hard ( where hard==expensive ) to find capacitors sold in even 2% tolerances
  
 even high oversampling systems need low pass analog filters on their outputs - but they can be much higher frequency and lower order (simpler, cheaper)


----------



## goobicii

radio_head said:


> PCM is stairsteps but this is not a darwback.  Imagine if you are taking elevator and sewgays every day, you will gradually become unhealthly and sad, you need stairs.  As Mitch Hedberg said, "crutches are strairs that _help_ me walk."  So PCM is strairsteps but they help ear train, to here better and not be a trophy.  The R2R is not stiars, this is a porblem, it is like hndicapped ramp - this ramp is _cause_ of handidcap!


 
 I never said its drawback,what you mean R2R is like ramp,tell me more about it ,thats interesting


----------



## Sapientiam

sonic defender said:


> What are the exact mechanisms by which an R2R DAC sound better than a D-S DAC? I have very little doubt that some of the better R2R designs we have been hearing about in this thread are actually more musical, better sounding DACs as compared with many of the garden variety D-S DACs, but it does seem reasonable that the real difference in the sound could be mostly attributed to the digital reconstruction filters and or the analogue stage of the DAC (as well as the digital input stage). So if this were at all plausible then couldn't a D-S DAC that was equally well designed in these key metrics sound equally as good?


 
  
 I'd ask your question the other way around as it seems to me, both subjectively and objectively that multibit DACs are adding in less of their own characteristics to the music than D-S DACs.
  
 So 'Why do D-S DACs sound worse?' Without considering the digital filters there are at least a couple of technical reasons, related to the back-end of the DAC - the modulator and low-bit multibit DAC itself.
  
 The first reason is that the quantizer can't be correctly dithered because its in a feedback loop, hence the optimum level of dither can't be established. Non-optimal dither levels result in noise modulation - signal correlated shifts in the noise floor. I suspect this is an issue that ESS worked hard on in their 'hyperstream' DACs - reducing noise modulation in the modulator - at least its hinted at in Martin Mallison's RMAF presentation.
  
 The second issue I don't believe Mallinson talked about at all - that's the fact that the low-bit DAC used isn't a very good one, in terms of the element matching. The apparent ability to use a not-so-good DAC is the whole point of designing D-S converters. Its this that makes them cheap to produce - the old multibit DACs needed resistor laser trimming which takes time with very expensive hardware hence translates to considerably higher prices. In order to get around the limitations of using a DAC with poorer than 10bit precision a lot of signal processing 'tricks' have to be used otherwise the measured THD would look very bad. The tricks used reduce to something quite simple - conversion of harmonic distortion into noise. I take it its assumed in doing this that 'harmonic distortion' = bad and 'noise' = benign but this looks to me to be a questionable assumption for audio. So long as the noise remains totally constant with signal level its reasonable, but that's the rub - 'linearizing' a poor DAC by turning its distortion into noise ISTM generates non-constant noise levels because its distortion isn't constant with signal level. Its this effect I believe which is responsible for the 'bump' in the THD+N vs signal level graph, around -35dB seen on some plots from ES9018 devices.


----------



## evillamer

Not sure if you guys will agree on this?
  
 A perfect Digital to Analogue Converter is supposed to convert the original recorded digital audio file into analogue wave form without adding or subtracting anything else with perfect timing and precision. e..g Garbage in, Garbage Out in computing terms or DAC Linearity in audio engineering terms.
  
 (However no such perfect electrical dac will ever exist as we all working with limits of Johnson Noise and other forms of EMF distortion and Jitter etc.)
  
 If you wanted a DAC is as close to the described perfect dac as possible given the same filter design costing/expertise.  Which will offer a closer result? R2R or Sigma Delta?


----------



## jcx

yes Head-Fi has a problem recognizing intellectual/engineering "critical analysis" - fanboys don't understand anything beyond you may have said something could be/have been different so you must be dissing their guru/objects of adoration


----------



## jimmypowder

jcx said:


> yes Head-Fi has a problem recognizing intellectual/engineering "critical analysis" - fanboys don't understand anything beyond you may have said something could be/have been different so you must be dissing their guru/objects of adoration




May the Yggdrasil envelope you in madness! 

All hail Schiit .


----------



## wahsmoh

Zach, still waiting for your Theta Gen V vs Progeny A comparison. I want to know if I am hearing atleast 98% of the real deal and I might just wait til I have a real job til I buy a Yggy cause the Progeny is sex to your ears.


----------



## zach915m

wahsmoh said:


> Zach, still waiting for your Theta Gen V vs Progeny A comparison. I want to know if I am hearing atleast 98% of the real deal and I might just wait til I have a real job til I buy a Yggy cause the Progeny is sex to your ears.




Hah! I'm fascinated as well. Tonight I plan to get a little session in - I'll get some thoughts down on here later tonight or in the am.


----------



## agooh

purrin said:


> Let's say it sounds like a PWD1 tonally (upper-mid emphasis) and somehow got flatter and less involving on the microdynamic level. The only plus is smoother. And sub-low bass is missing. PSA seems to have taken one step forward and three steps backward.
> 
> I actually preferred the Hugo to the PSA DSD. The Hugo is OK. But I still want to destroy one and film it on youtube because of how much it costs.


 
 Hugo TT for my need is way better for the price it has the best dac around 5k$ and one of the purerst and cleanset amp you will ever heard, so l will rank it above Yggy .
 I still think that yggy get A+ you need a tube amp to make it sound better it's very good dac but and that's the break point for me : it didn't has the touch of magic like high end dac .


----------



## Insidious Meme

agooh said:


> Hugo TT for my need is way better for the price it has the best dac around 5k$ and one of the purerst and cleanset amp you will ever heard, so l will rank it above Yggy .
> I still think that yggy get A+ you need a tube amp to make it sound better it's very good dac but and that's the break point for me : it didn't has the touch of magic like high end dac .




More expensive = better. Got it.


----------



## zachchen1996

agooh said:


> Hugo TT for my need is way better for the price it has the best dac around 5k$ and one of the purerst and cleanset amp you will ever heard, so l will rank it above Yggy .
> I still think that yggy get A+ you need a tube amp to make it sound better it's very good dac but and that's the break point for me : it didn't has the touch of magic like high end dac .


 

 If the Hugo TT sounds anything like the regular Hugo, then the Hugo TT will be anything BUT good for the price!
  
Please take however much Chord paid you and go somewhere else to troll / shill, thanks!


----------



## aamefford

I just thumbed through the last day's posts. Can I have my hour back please?


----------



## alreadyused

aamefford said:


> I just thumbed through the last day's posts. Can I have my hour back please?


 
 Just be glad they didn't take your thumb along with your hour.


----------



## lukeap69

alreadyused said:


> Just be glad they didn't take your thumb along with your hour.



ROTFL


----------



## purrin

zachchen1996 said:


> If the Hugo TT sounds anything like the regular Hugo, then the Hugo TT will be anything BUT good for the price!


 
  
 Hugo TT is warmer more syrupy than Hugo. Unfortunately, TT is just as flat, dull and dead in terms of microdynamics as Hugo. Possibly even more dead. However TT does have a touch of euphony. Let's call it a euphonic deadness. Also TT still sounds digital in the treble - an unnatural sharpness and stridency. The warmth of TT tries to hide its digital sound, but I am not so easily fooled. Hugo TT reminds of of Invicta DAC, maybe a little bit better. Resolution of TT is good, on par with TT, but nothing special.


----------



## Insidious Meme

euphonic deadness = zombie DAC


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> zachchen1996 said:
> 
> 
> > If the Hugo TT sounds anything like the regular Hugo, then the Hugo TT will be anything BUT good for the price!
> ...


 

 If using the USB input directly from a computer I feel there is a tiny bit of this, but with the Wyrd all of that seems to have been removed. To me it doesn't sound digital in the treble at all. If it does, then something like the Geek Out is horrible in comparison.


----------



## purrin

Well, it's not my problem Ethan or Jude didn't hook up a Wyrd into the TT / Liquid Gold combo at the Bay Area meet or Chord didn't attach a Schiit Wyrd to their TT at CanJam! 
  
 If you are going to help Chord showcase their stuff at best potential, be sure to show it off correctly with the best tweaks available. This includes the Chord reps.


----------



## zerodeefex

currawong said:


> If using the USB input directly from a computer I feel there is a tiny bit of this, but with the Wyrd all of that seems to have been removed. To me it doesn't sound digital in the treble at all. If it does, then something like the Geek Out is horrible in comparison.


 
  
 USB has never been Chord's strong suit. Having owned the Peach, QB76, and QuteHD AND demoed the Hugo extensively (was strongly considering purchase until I found the Geek Out SE > Triad L3 Lion combo), I can say pretty definitively that USB implementation is not their strong suit across all generations of their DACs. Good transports via the other connections far outpace the USB inputs.


----------



## purrin

zerodeefex said:


> USB has never been Chord's strong suit. Having owned the Peach, QB76, and QuteHD AND demoed the Hugo extensively (was strongly considering purchase until I found the Geek Out SE > Triad L3 Lion combo), I can say pretty definitively that USB implementation is not their strong suit across all generations of their DACs. Good transports via the other connections far outpace the USB inputs.


 
 Maybe Chord should hire Jason and Moffat to do their USB for their DACs? I'm sure Wyrd and Schiit USB Gen 3 tech might actually make Chord DACs kinda, sorta, maybe a decent value?


----------



## zerodeefex

I wish Schiit would make a USB gen 3 convertor. I'd buy one for my transdac


----------



## jexby

I'll take a Uptone Audio USB Regen over a Wyrd any day.
 and twice on Tuesday.


----------



## purrin

Word has it that you should throw your TransDAC into the garbage and get a multi-bit Bifrost + Wyrd or Upscale Audio Regen


----------



## Currawong

zerodeefex said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > If using the USB input directly from a computer I feel there is a tiny bit of this, but with the Wyrd all of that seems to have been removed. To me it doesn't sound digital in the treble at all. If it does, then something like the Geek Out is horrible in comparison.
> ...


 

 Their latest versions have galvanic isolation, which reputedly improves that.  It will be interesting to see if the V2 of the Geek Out does as well, as it was also vastly improved with a better PSU. The trouble they have, like any regular manufacturer, is that a regular dealer/distributor/marketing sales model can't compete with direct sales that have none of those three things.  Hopefully though I'll get a TT in for review, because irrespective of that, there are people out there who are simply willing to shell out even serious money for something that sits neatly on a desk that does the whole headamp/DAC/preamp thing and sounds great.


----------



## zerodeefex

purrin said:


> Word has it that you should throw your TransDAC into the garbage and get a multi-bit Bifrost + Wyrd or Upscale Audio Regen


 
  
 Word has it that your trash option costs hundreds of dollars for me. I'm done with the infinite upgrades. I'll enjoy the gear I've paid for (except for the studio, take my damn $7k already).
  
 Yggy > EC Studio + speaker amp > HD800 + philharmonic speakers at home
 TransDAC > Liquid Carbon > Slants at work
 Geek Wave SE (whatever the hell the name is)/Geek Out V2+ SE > UERM on the go


----------



## zerodeefex

currawong said:


> Their latest versions have galvanic isolation, which reputedly improves that.  It will be interesting to see if the V2 of the Geek Out does as well, as it was also vastly improved with a better PSU. The trouble they have, like any regular manufacturer, is that a regular dealer/distributor/marketing sales model can't compete with direct sales that have none of those three things.  Hopefully though I'll get a TT in for review, because irrespective of that, there are people out there who are simply willing to shell out even serious money for something that sits neatly on a desk that does the whole headamp/DAC/preamp thing and sounds great.


 
  
 Galvanic isolation is a small part of the puzzle. The important thing to note is how different operating systems and machines implement USB. It's disturbingly variable. You actually can't rely on the fact that your user will have a machine that supplies enough current, that supplies the correct voltage, that packets are sent reliably, or that any other aspect of USB is implemented to spec.


----------



## jexby

zerodeefex said:


> Word has it that your trash option costs hundreds of dollars for me. I'm done with the infinite upgrades. I'll enjoy the gear I've paid for (except for the studio, take my damn $7k already).
> 
> Yggy > EC Studio + speaker amp > HD800 + philharmonic speakers at home
> TransDAC > Liquid Carbon > Slants at work
> Geek Wave SE (whatever the hell the name is)/Geek Out V2+ SE > UERM on the go


 
  
 +3.
  
 just sold a kidney in hopes of inching towards such a trio of sweetness.


----------



## Currawong

zerodeefex said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Their latest versions have galvanic isolation, which reputedly improves that.  It will be interesting to see if the V2 of the Geek Out does as well, as it was also vastly improved with a better PSU. The trouble they have, like any regular manufacturer, is that a regular dealer/distributor/marketing sales model can't compete with direct sales that have none of those three things.  Hopefully though I'll get a TT in for review, because irrespective of that, there are people out there who are simply willing to shell out even serious money for something that sits neatly on a desk that does the whole headamp/DAC/preamp thing and sounds great.
> ...


 

 Indeed, but it seemed the primary issue was with noise in the USB lines. What you're saying makes it seem like making a USB-powered device is extremely problematic, which makes a lot of sense.  Maybe because of these issues, USB audio receiver manufacturers have improved a lot over the years.


----------



## purrin

currawong said:


> Their latest versions have galvanic isolation, which reputedly improves that.  It will be interesting to see if the V2 of the Geek Out does as well, as it was also vastly improved with a better PSU. The trouble they have, like any regular manufacturer, is that a regular dealer/distributor/marketing sales model can't compete with direct sales that have none of those three things.  Hopefully though I'll get a TT in for review, because irrespective of that, there are people out there who are simply willing to shell out even serious money for something that sits neatly on a desk that does the whole headamp/DAC/preamp thing and sounds great.


 
  
 Hahahaha. Amos, screw that! While I'm willing to shell out $700 for tube amp transformers, I'm still too poor for a TT!
  
 For something that sits neatly on a desk, I'm getting myself a multi-bit Bifrost. Heck for TT money, I'm getting multibit Bifrost + Upscale Audio Regen. Then I'm putting it in custom chassis from FPX. Then I'm laser etching the faceplate with the visage of Idris Elba, since he's like the dude who stands before Bifrost and Schiit. Then I'm spending the money I have leftover on a Fuji X-T1 with the Fujinon 23mm/1.4 prime. And then I'm upgrading my daughter's laptop with a SSD. And then I'm taking my family to Din Tai Fung (hopefully on a good day when they make stuff right.) P.S. I should get my wife something too, like tickets to see Masters of Percussion or the Palast Orchestra at UCLA.


----------



## Currawong

purrin said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Their latest versions have galvanic isolation, which reputedly improves that.  It will be interesting to see if the V2 of the Geek Out does as well, as it was also vastly improved with a better PSU. The trouble they have, like any regular manufacturer, is that a regular dealer/distributor/marketing sales model can't compete with direct sales that have none of those three things.  Hopefully though I'll get a TT in for review, because irrespective of that, there are people out there who are simply willing to shell out even serious money for something that sits neatly on a desk that does the whole headamp/DAC/preamp thing and sounds great.
> ...


 

 Yeah, it's over my budget too, way over. It's for people who have sufficiently deep pockets that they don't have to care about that though. And while we're at it, should you really be breaking private confidences?


----------



## purrin

I'm simply surmising. I have not actually heard any mult-bit beef-roast nor do I know much about it really other than what little Jason / Moffat have said. However, it would appear that you may know more than me about this multi-bit beef-roast! Please tell me more! Many inquiring minds want to know! Maybe we can ask Darko?
  
 Yeah, I know. TT is more for my spoiled rich cousins and nephews in Taiwan who don't have to do anything.


----------



## frenchbat

Let me guess. He's a huge fan of Chord right ?


----------



## zachchen1996

frenchbat said:


> Let me guess. He's a huge fan of Chord right ?


----------



## KeithEmo

sapientiam said:


> I'd ask your question the other way around as it seems to me, both subjectively and objectively that multibit DACs are adding in less of their own characteristics to the music than D-S DACs.
> 
> So 'Why do D-S DACs sound worse?' Without considering the digital filters there are at least a couple of technical reasons, related to the back-end of the DAC - the modulator and low-bit multibit DAC itself.
> 
> ...


 
  
 All of the technical facts you stated seem to be true and accurate, but I do question your interpretation and evaluation of some of them. There is a common tendency (especially by fans of R2R DACs) to describe Delta-Sigma DACs as "using low precision internal DACs and tricks to get good measurements" and making it sound as if this is somehow a way to "foist" inferior products on audiophiles by the use of clever tricks. The first part of the sentence is entirely correct - the whole idea of modern Delta-Sigma DACs is to use some clever tricks to allow an internal function block with five or six bit precision to deliver an analog output with 24 bit precision. (And that is a pretty neat trick.) However, it could also be restated as: "A Delta-Sigma DAC that has circuitry with internal conversion precision of only five or six bits can deliver performance equal to or better than an R2R DAC with 24 bit precision - and do so for a lot lower cost. (When you state it that way it sounds more like a cool idea that lets you get better performance using cheaper parts - which sounds more like a good thing.)
  
 Also, when you talk about "converting distortion into noise", you need to be very careful of the context to avoid becoming mislead... The whole subject of how a Delta-Sigma DAC works is quite a bit more complicated than many people think... In general, you can _ALWAYS_ "trade" bit depth against sample rate. This is what DSD does - when compared to PCM. Instead of a 16 bit (or 24 bit) signal at a certain sample rate, you instead have a one bit signal at a much higher sample rate. However, the process of "trading one for the other" isn't some sort of shady business deal, conducted in a back alley somewhere. Rather, it is perfectly legitimate math, and the "trade" really is fair and equal. You really _CAN_ use less bits at a higher sample rate and get the same performance (within the limitations of what you're doing). A modern Delta-Sigma DAC isn't "doing something sneaky" either - it's simply using some clever math to balance sample rate against bit depth because it so happens that it's a lot easier to get DAC function blocks that can convert with five or six bits of precision, but do so at very high sample rates, than it is to get ones with 24 bit precision, that can do so at lower sample rates. (You can think of it as "dividing" that 24 bit sample into several smaller pieces, converting each piece very precisely and quickly using a DAC with less bits, then carefully putting all the pieces of output back together afterwards.) So, given that the precision of the results will be equal among those choices, it sort of makes obvious sense to choose the (equal) option that costs the least - right? Other than bragging rights, there's no technical benefit to doing something the more difficult and more expensive way unless it actually works better - right? (And arguing that a "real 24 bit R2R" DAC could do a better job than a 24 bit Delta-Sigma one is not only not necessarily true, but it's sort of moot - even the high-end R2R DAC used by Yggdrasil "only" has 20 or 21 bits of precision - not the full - and arguably unnecessary - 24 bits of precision.)
  
 What the fellow from Sabre was referring to was that, because of the way the process works, you sometimes end up with a noise floor that varies depending on the content of the signal you're converting (the noise floor is modulated by the content). Since most people agree that a smooth consistent noise floor is in general less annoying than one that is correlated with the signal in some way, this is something worth avoiding (by careful attention to the details of how that mathematical trick is actually accomplished). We can leave the question of whether you can hear the difference between a smooth noise floor and a bad one, and whether different types of noise modulation sound audibly different - when the noise floor in question is better than -120 dB down - for another discussion. (This is only relevant and meaningful if you actually _DO_ notice that the noise between low level passages really is audible - and sounds audibly different between different DAcs.)
  
 Another thing that seems to need clarification is the subject of digital filters. _ALL_ oversampling DACs require digital filters - and this includes _BOTH_ Delta-Sigma DACs and other types of oversampling DACs as well. Since the oversampling is tied in intimately with the Delta-Sigma process, most Delta-Sigma DACs have an internal oversampling filter. Yggdrasil uses an R2R type DAC _CHIP_, yet it still oversamples, and still uses a digital filter to do so. (Schiit has developed their own digital filter, which functions somewhat differently than the one included in most oversampling DAC chips, and which they claim is audibly superior. Their oversampling is implemented outside the DAC chip.) 
  
 In this context, perhaps I should also clarify what is meant by "digital filter". The process of "oversampling" consists of converting a digital audio stream recorded at a certain sample rate to an equivalent digital audio stream at a higher sample rate. The way this is done is to _create_ more samples. (The process may create all new samples, or keep the original samples and create new ones to "drop" between them at the appropriate times. Note that the process _CANNOT_ create new _information_. The ideal goal is to create new samples that contain the exact same information as the original audio stream, without changing it in any way (except to express it at a higher sample rate). You can think of it conceptually as taking the original samples as points on a graph, drawing a line through them in the precisely correct place, then picking _NEW_ points on that same line (but more of them spaced more closely in time). If you get this all just right, then your new points will define the same exact line as your original points. In practice, this can be done by calculating approximately where the new points should be, then applying a filter. By "filtering out the errors" the filter "forces the new samples into their proper values". Basically, if you make a guess, then eliminate the errors from your guess, the result will be the correct answer. And, yes, that's a horrible oversimplification. However, it can also theoretically be done in other ways.
  
 The purpose of all this is that, by raising the sample rate, it raises the frequency of the errors introduced by the "steps" in the conversion process which, in turn, makes them easier to filter out without altering the desired audio signal. My basic point, however, is that the term "oversampling filter" may be somewhat misleading to some people... and thinking of it as an "oversampling process" (which is usually done using a special sort of digital filter) may make the concept easier to grasp.


----------



## frenchbat

zachchen1996 said:


>


 

 Happy to please


----------



## KeithEmo

currawong said:


> Indeed, but it seemed the primary issue was with noise in the USB lines. What you're saying makes it seem like making a USB-powered device is extremely problematic, which makes a lot of sense.  Maybe because of these issues, USB audio receiver manufacturers have improved a lot over the years.


 
  
 Making a USB powered device _IS_ somewhat problematic... and it also depends a lot on what you're connecting them to.
  
 I've owned several little "dongle DACs" and a lot of desktop units, and this is my experience.....
  
 Basically, the power supplies in most computers are very noisy (they're not intended to power high quality audio equipment - and they're plenty good for digital circuitry). However, If you're using a little DAC (like a DragonFly) for headphones, with the headphones plugged directly into it, then the DAC is basically floating - and so the noise shouldn't matter (or be audible). I've never had a noise problem with any little DAC when used this way.
  
 I've also never had this problem with an AC powered "desktop DAC". I've got a whole bunch of them, some with galvanic isolation, others not, but I haven't noticed this problem to a significant degree with any of them. (Note that most desktop DACs - even the ones with USB inputs - are _NOT_ "USB powered" - they have their own AC power supply. The USB receiver may or may not be partially powered by the USB port of the source device.)
  
 From my experience, however, the problem is common when you want to connect a little dongle DAC to a stereo system or AC powered headphone amp - which has its own ground reference. Once you do that, the noise on the computer's power and ground are now referenced to the ground on your other equipment, through the connections to the DAC, and the noise tends to creep into the analog circuitry in various ways. (Usually the ground and power on a computer are noisy enough that the obvious answer - simply grounding the computer chassis to your stereo - may not work.) Whether you have trouble in this situation depends on your computer, the DAC itself, your stereo, and how your home is wired - and about the only way to find out is to try it.
   
When it does occur, sometimes adding an external "USB isolator" will fix it - other times not. There are also two things you need to be aware of here. First, not all external USB isolators work at the higher sample rates, and some simply don't work with certain DACs at all for various reasons (presumably due to their architecture somehow). Second, a lot of the various "USB cleanup" devices currently being sold do _NOT_ provide galvanic isolation. Some provide galvanic isolation on data and power; others filter the power but don't isolate the data lines, and others simply regenerate the data signal, but don't isolate it - and don't do anything to the power. Whether a given one of these will help with a problem you have will depend on what it does and the specifics of the problem in your particular setup.

   
Whether a USB port can supply sufficient power to run the device at all is another concern with USB powered DACs. Many older computers had very limited power available at their USB ports, and on some modern computers the different ports are actually able to supply different amounts of power - and some designate one "high power USB port" for charging USB devices like phones. You must also keep in mind that each USB port has a limit on the _TOTAL_ amount of current it can deliver. If you plug a passive hub into a USB port, that single port must supply the power to run that hub _AND_ everything you plug into it. Note there that some USB memory sticks use a significant amount of current, as do many other USB devices. If, instead, you use a USB hub with its own power supply, then the hub draws little to no power, _AND_ the hub's power supply powers everything you plug into that hub.

  
 However, to address something someone else mentioned in another post... the actual "quality" of the USB port itself is largely meaningless here. I've never seen a computer whose USB ports put out power that is "clean enough for audio applications". Therefore, it is up to the DAC to work with what's normally available and ignore that noise.
  
 Another issue with USB audio outputs from computers is that of what USB mode they use - and the quality of the digital audio signal they deliver (which is a separate concern entirely from the power). Most older DACs used Isochronous mode, in which the computer is largely in charge of clocking the data. In general, when using this mode, the audio quality you get will depend on the computer itself, and will often be relatively poor. However, most modern USB DACs use Asynchronous mode. In this mode, the DAC controls the clocking of the audio data, and the computer has very little effect on it. (Most people consider Asynchronous mode to be clearly superior although, as usual, a few disagree.)


----------



## blasjw

keithemo said:


> All of the technical facts you stated seem to be true and accurate, but I do question your interpretation and evaluation of some of them. There is a common tendency (especially by fans of R2R DACs) to describe Delta-Sigma DACs as "using low precision internal DACs and tricks to get good measurements" and making it sound as if this is somehow a way to "foist" inferior products on audiophiles by the use of clever tricks. The first part of the sentence is entirely correct - the whole idea of modern Delta-Sigma DACs is to use some clever tricks to allow an internal function block with five or six bit precision to deliver an analog output with 24 bit precision. (And that is a pretty neat trick.) However, it could also be restated as: "A Delta-Sigma DAC that has circuitry with internal conversion precision of only five or six bits can deliver performance equal to or better than an R2R DAC with 24 bit precision - and do so for a lot lower cost. (When you state it that way it sounds more like a cool idea that lets you get better performance using cheaper parts - which sounds more like a good thing.)
> 
> Also, when you talk about "converting distortion into noise", you need to be very careful of the context to avoid becoming mislead... The whole subject of how a Delta-Sigma DAC works is quite a bit more complicated than many people think... In general, you can _ALWAYS_ "trade" bit depth against sample rate. This is what DSD does - when compared to PCM. Instead of a 16 bit (or 24 bit) signal at a certain sample rate, you instead have a one bit signal at a much higher sample rate. However, the process of "trading one for the other" isn't some sort of shady business deal, conducted in a back alley somewhere. Rather, it is perfectly legitimate math, and the "trade" really is fair and equal. You really _CAN_ use less bits at a higher sample rate and get the same performance (within the limitations of what you're doing). A modern Delta-Sigma DAC isn't "doing something sneaky" either - it's simply using some clever math to balance sample rate against bit depth because it so happens that it's a lot easier to get DAC function blocks that can convert with five or six bits of precision, but do so at very high sample rates, than it is to get ones with 24 bit precision, that can do so at lower sample rates. (You can think of it as "dividing" that 24 bit sample into several smaller pieces, converting each piece very precisely and quickly using a DAC with less bits, then carefully putting all the pieces of output back together afterwards.) So, given that the precision of the results will be equal among those choices, it sort of makes obvious sense to choose the (equal) option that costs the least - right? Other than bragging rights, there's no technical benefit to doing something the more difficult and more expensive way unless it actually works better - right? (And arguing that a "real 24 bit R2R" DAC could do a better job than a 24 bit Delta-Sigma one is not only not necessarily true, but it's sort of moot - even the high-end R2R DAC used by Yggdrasil "only" has 20 or 21 bits of precision - not the full - and arguably unnecessary - 24 bits of precision.)
> 
> ...


 

 Keith:
  
 With all due respect, let's face it.  DS sucks.  It's a cheap-***, flawed, no-brainer solution.  Don't get me wrong, I love Emo.  In fact I'm running an Emo spinner (ERC-3) and amp (XPA-200).  But, tell your boys at Emo (for their own sake) to thow those POS XDA-2 and DC-1 DACs in the garbage, go back to the drawing board, and create a real DAC with a multi-bit chip in it.  There's a reason why companies like Schiit and MSB are using R2R with custom filters and SHARC DSPs.  Hell even Behringer is using a SHARC in it's ~$300 DEQ2496.  Peace out.


----------



## Sonic Defender

blasjw said:


> Keith:
> 
> With all due respect, let's face it.  DS sucks.  It's a cheap-***, flawed, no-brainer solution.  Don't get me wrong, I love Emo.  In fact I'm running an Emo spinner (ERC-3) and amp (XPA-200).  But, tell your boys at Emo (for their own sake) to thow those POS XDA-2 and DC-1 DACs in the garbage, go back to the drawing board, and create a real DAC with a multi-bit chip in it.  There's a reason why companies like Schiit and MSB are using R2R with custom filters and SHARC DSPs.  Hell even Behringer is using a SHARC in it's ~$300 DEQ2496.  Peace out.


 

 Wow, calling people's products garbage and saying with all due respect don't work. You essentially said his opinions are garbage and his explanations are nothing but spin. Pretty low-blow there. For the record my D-S DAC sounds quite good, but I'm sure I don't have good hearing and I just can't tell that it is crap.


----------



## Maxx134

Why do I feel like I have been reading alot of schiit flying around in last few pages?
lol

Like watchn a multiple tennis tennis match, i feel like I took in too much.

So far this is the last quote I enjoyed most:



evillamer said:


> The issue with sigma delta dacs is that they take 16bit/24bit input and converts them to Bitstream data @ 5bits(5bits for sabre/hugo/dave or less bits for other designs) 2.8MHz(for Ess Sabre)/104MHz(Dave). From what I understand this conversion process is quite destructive(time domain or samples wise) and is a lossy/decimation process. Also there's alot of complex feedback algorithm at work here(in the case of hyperstream), these feedback systems/noiseshaper algorithms are not fully understood by the dac designers(check out video of rob watts explaining noise shaping simulation below, perplexing even at his level). So much "black arts" involved in designing sigma delta dacs when a pragmatic dac designer can just stick to high precision R2R to get really good signals out of the decoder and design whatever filters codes/analog stage necessary to get good sound. The amount money spent on "DSP cores/FPGAs" noise shaping system is getting more expensive than just getting a highly precision R2R chip, not to mention with all these high Mhz cores, they might leak higher emi/rfi(electrical noise) into the surrounding audio components and require more filtering/pcb noise mangement/power conditioning and etc etc(increased cost/design time).
> 
> Rant: effing money grubbing texas instruments killing off the pre Burr-Brown true R2R chips.
> 
> ...




Edit: 
should have done a few takes,
so he could smooth out what was trying to be said..


----------



## Radio_head

goobicii said:


> I never said its drawback,what you mean R2R is like ramp,tell me more about it ,thats interesting


 
 Sorry for miscommunion, I speaking Slovenly,  (English as sex and language.)  R2R is like ramp, see diagram:
  

  
 No strares steps here, is steep ramp parts we watch (see tape, angle).  This is missing many small "steppings tones" t,hat are challenged listener.  Overly smooth sound, like airbursh celebritory on mangazine.  
  
 For contrasting, see record, so many groovings, every frequentcy is reprersent, this is true aurdinophile and sterps are reason why!


----------



## ciphercomplete

I have been purchasing and researching dacs for a long time and the very first time I have ever heard something about "taps" is recently when reading the Chord website and now for the second time in the Chord video above.  What am I missing here?  WTH is a tap?


----------



## prot

sonic defender said:


> Wow, calling people's products garbage and saying with all due respect don't work. You essentially said his opinions are garbage and his explanations are nothing but spin. Pretty low-blow there. For the record my D-S DAC sounds quite good, but I'm sure I don't have good hearing and I just can't tell that it is crap.




+1
I wish ppl would stop throwing those flat "DS is crap" statements. It's just useless lalala, IMHO. 

Also hope that our KeithEmo expert here would write a bit more concise .. well informed and well though msges but just too long!


----------



## blasjw

sonic defender said:


> Wow, calling people's products garbage and saying with all due respect don't work. You essentially said his opinions are garbage and his explanations are nothing but spin. Pretty low-blow there. For the record my D-S DAC sounds quite good, but I'm sure I don't have good hearing and I just can't tell that it is crap.


 

 If you notice, I'm only singling out the DACs and I didn't say anything about his opinion.  Anyone can feel free to disagree with me but, as and Engineer I can tell you that DS technology is inferior and I stand by that.  Any amount of supporting circuitry to a DS chip is merely a palliative measure.  The scheme if fundamentally flawed and innacurate.  Like I said, there's a reason companies like MSB and Schiit are using R2R.  BTW, I challenge you to A/B your DAC to a good R2R solution.


----------



## Sonic Defender

blasjw said:


> If you notice, I'm only singling out the DACs and I didn't say anything about his opinion.  Anyone can feel free to disagree with me but, as and Engineer I can tell you that DS technology is inferior and I stand by that.  Any amount of supporting circuitry to a DS chip is merely a palliative measure.  The scheme if fundamentally flawed and innacurate.  Like I said, there's a reason companies like MSB and Schiit are using R2R.  BTW, I challenge you to A/B your DAC to a good R2R solution.


 

 I have said before that I do not doubt that it is possible that a R2R can sound better than a D-S DAC design; I would be a fool to ignore all of the input from extremely experienced people. What I do take exception to is the blanket kind of D-S DACs are fundamentally flawed and will sound worse. You are an engineer, I certainly respect that accomplishment, but that in itself does not guarantee you will be completely correct all of the time. I have heard from other engineers who feel that a well done D-S DAC can sound quite good actually. I know my DAC sounds quite good.
  
 I am also interested to know if you have yourself been the subject in a well done blind listening test and you are able over multiple valid trials to always pick out an R2R design over a D-S, or that you in such a test you always preferred an R2R sound signature. I think at the heart of this electronic pissing match is that there can be a difference between measurement and audibility. So would you say that any R2R DAC will sound better than any D-S DAC? If so, that is fine, but the only measurement that matters is the human brain so blind listening tests are of more importance in my view than pure theory.
  
 Again for the record, I myself am likely to purchase an R2R DAC in the very near future and I have no reason to doubt that a well done R2R can be a better sounding DAC. I do feel that despite the fervor and pedigree of those who strongly favour R2R over the D-S, that in and of itself does not mean that all D-S implementations are going to sound the same, nor does that preclude that many people might actually prefer a D-S signature.


----------



## mikoss

IMO all you have to do is hear the Yggdrasil and you will understand the praise for it. There are a lot of people arguing that it could not sound superior who haven't even heard it. I wish was in Ottawa for the meet and comparison, because I heard clear, distinct differences myself. This to me is fairly clear cut in some respects. I haven't compared it with more expensive DACs myself, but I personally agree with what Purrin has written in his rankings. I look forward to your results, I think it's clearly audible.


----------



## jcx

> ...as and Engineer I can tell you that DS technology is inferior and I stand by that


 
 what sort of Engineer?
  
 I r one too - and have used many types of ADC, DAC written DSP code designing, developing electronics for Scientific and Industrial instrumentation and motion control products for a few decades as well as following audio tech too over that time
  
 Delta Sigma is a fine technology, has advantages and weaknesses, has had a mixed history in audio with single bit "DSD" being pushed out to consumers when there were unappreciated flaws - Vanderkooy and Lipshcitz are on target with criticism of single bit DS
  
 but they are fine with multibit: http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf
  
  
 in fact you could step back to the studio and ask what ADC technology is being used - I'm fairly certain it is overwhelmingly DS ADC today
  
 looks like some have gone there already in this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/newsearch/?search=ADC&resultSortingPreference=recency&byuser=&output=posts&sdate=0&newer=1&type=all&containingthread%5B0%5D=693798&advanced=1 a few of the posts go on about studio ADC tech


----------



## KeithEmo

blasjw said:


> Keith:
> 
> With all due respect, let's face it.  DS sucks.  It's a cheap-***, flawed, no-brainer solution.  Don't get me wrong, I love Emo.  In fact I'm running an Emo spinner (ERC-3) and amp (XPA-200).  But, tell your boys at Emo (for their own sake) to thow those POS XDA-2 and DC-1 DACs in the garbage, go back to the drawing board, and create a real DAC with a multi-bit chip in it.  There's a reason why companies like Schiit and MSB are using R2R with custom filters and SHARC DSPs.  Hell even Behringer is using a SHARC in it's ~$300 DEQ2496.  Peace out.


 
  
 I'm curious - do you actually have anything factual against Delta-Sigma DACs - other than that they don't cost enough and they're too easy to use?
 (Or do you consider "It just sucks" to be a technical justification...?)
  
 The simple reality is that Delta-Sigma DACs do happen to currently offer the best "bang for the buck"... which is probably why most DACs sold these days use them (including all of Schiit Audio's other models). And I can assure you that, if Emotiva ever decides to come out with a $2000+ DAC, we will consider all of the available technology and use whichever one allows us to deliver the best performance and sound quality while staying within the available budget.
  
 However, excluding marketing rhetoric and "intuitive assumptions", I'm still curious to hear precisely what you believe R2R DACs _ACTUALLY DO BETTER_ than Delta-Sigma DACs - specifically in the context of digital audio. (Since it is much cheaper to design and build a Delta-Sigma DAC than an R2R DAC, I would reasonably expect there to be plenty of poor quality low cost Delta-Sigma DACs available, and very few low cost R2R DACs - whether good or bad. However, that doesn't in any way suggest which technology is better at a given price point where both exist, it merely suggests that you can't practically design and sell a low cost R2R DAC.)
  
 Incidentally - if you check the manual - you will see that the DEQ2496 uses AKM Delta-Sigma DACs for its D/A conversion. (I didn't see the Sharc processors mentioned by name, but the DEQ2496 inludes both "two high quality DSP processors", and quite possibly a separate CPU for the front panel and display, so it may be using Sharc processors for one or both of those.)
    
 MSB makes what look to be some very nice DACs (I've never heard one). At a starting price over $6k (for the "basic" model), I think it's fair to consider them "cost no object". Stereophile did a review on one of their lower models, with measurements, and it seemed to spec out quite well (although I didn't see any measurements that were clearly superior to those I would expect from a high-end Delta-Sigma DAC.) So, back to the topic of the discussion, I'm still waiting to hear what's better about their DAC, along with some reasonable indication that the difference is _BECAUSE _it's not Delta-Sigma.      
   
http://www.stereophile.com/content/msb-technology-analog-dac-da-converter-and-analog-power-base-power-supply


----------



## blasjw

sonic defender said:


> I have said before that I do not doubt that it is possible that a R2R can sound better than a D-S DAC design; I would be a fool to ignore all of the input from extremely experienced people. What I do take exception to is the blanket kind of D-S DACs are fundamentally flawed and will sound worse. You are an engineer, I certainly respect that accomplishment, but that in itself does not guarantee you will be completely correct all of the time. I have heard from other engineers who feel that a well done D-S DAC can sound quite good actually. I know my DAC sounds quite good.
> 
> I am also interested to know if you have yourself been the subject in a well done blind listening test and you are able over multiple valid trials to always pick out an R2R design over a D-S, or that you in such a test you always preferred an R2R sound signature. I think at the heart of this electronic pissing match is that there can be a difference between measurement and audibility. So would you say that any R2R DAC will sound better than any D-S DAC? If so, that is fine, but the only measurement that matters is the human brain so blind listening tests are of more importance in my view than pure theory.
> 
> Again for the record, I myself am likely to purchase an R2R DAC in the very near future and I have no reason to doubt that a well done R2R can be a better sounding DAC. I do feel that despite the fervor and pedigree of those who strongly favour R2R over the D-S, that in and of itself does not mean that all D-S implementations are going to sound the same, nor does that preclude that many people might actually prefer a D-S signature.


 
 I don't disagree with you that DS can sound very good and I in fact own a few DS DACs myself.  I just argue that R2R has the potential to sound even better due to the fact that it is a superior D to A technique which is something I believe that manufacturers such as Schiit and MSB have acknowledged and chose to go that route even though it is a more difficult and expensive one.  I wish more manufacturers would consider alternate approaches instead of sticking with the easiest/cheapest approach.  It would be foolish to say that every R2R DAC sounds better than any DS DAC because, as you know, there are other factors involved like the analog output stage, power supply, etc.  And you're right, some people may prefer the DS signature which they are entitled to prefer.  Personally, for the best sound, I choose to go with the superior R2R approach.  And certainly different DS implementations can sound different and the same applies equally to R2R.  The good thing about DS is that it's inexpensive to design/manufacture which is a pro.  In certain cases, DS is the best way to go.  In fact for mobile use, I quite like my minuscule Audioquest Dragonfly.  Does it sound as good as my GDA-600 no?  But, my GDA-600 isn't very portable and probably cost a lot more back in the day.  Also, if I loose/break my Dragonfly I'm not likely to shed any tears either.  And you're right, I'm human too which means I do make mistakes from time to time i.e. I'm not always right.  However, for companies like Emotiva trying to sell high end DACs, I suggest they consider a different approaches other than DS for their own good and not try to make poor excuses as to why they should not do so.


----------



## ciphercomplete

blasjw said:


> I wish more manufacturers would consider alternate approaches instead of sticking with the easiest/cheapest approach.


 
  
 +1
  
 And sticking a tube in the analog section of a sabre dac isn't enough lol.


----------



## boatheelmusic

This is a super offensive post and should be moderated and the poster rectified.

BTW, I don't own any EMO and have a Grace m920.


----------



## blasjw

jcx said:


> what sort of Engineer?
> 
> I r one too - and have used many types of ADC, DAC written DSP code designing, developing electronics for Scientific and Industrial instrumentation and motion control products for a few decades as well as following audio tech too over that time
> 
> ...


 
 FWIW (which may be not much), I'm an Electrical/Electronics Engineer.  At least that's what it says on my diploma.  Obviously, different D to A techniques are going to have different pro/cons.  I totally agree.   I'm just sick of manufacturers taking the cheap/easy route and I praise Schiit for taking the time/effort to try something different like they did with the Yggy.  I wish more companies would do that.  DS has it's place for sure, I just don't think it's with high end audio DACs.  Yes, I am aware that ADC is overwhelmingly DS today but that doesn't necessarily make it the best and in fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.


----------



## AustinValentine

For what it's worth, there are quite a few _very_ positive comments on the Emotiva Stealth DC-1 in this thread. This includes positive comments/recommendations from a number of people who have had extensive experience with quality R2R DACs (Purrin*, Gunner, and myself, just to name three off the top of my head). It's an extremely solid AD1955 implementation, and its features - a balanced DAC that's competitive with the Gungnir, preamp functionality, a headphone amp, remote capability, small form factor, lots of inputs/outputs  - make it a tremendous value. It's definitely not crap. There are tons of D-S DACs that are well worth owning, especially at entry/intermediate-level price points.
  
 The intentionally inflammatory title of this thread is to a large extent propaedeutic hyperbole. And I think that the last thing that this hobby needs is every manufacturer jumping on the R2R train just because Schiit has taken a novel approach with the Yggy. Look at the proliferation of cheap, awful Sabre DACs on the market and_ imagine that repeated all over again_ but with a different technology. 
  
 *Relayed other positive impressions, but didn't audition himself. Just a note so that I'm not putting words into his mouth.


----------



## Sapientiam

keithemo said:


> What the fellow from Sabre was referring to was that, because of the way the process works, you sometimes end up with a noise floor that varies depending on the content of the signal you're converting (the noise floor is modulated by the content). Since most people agree that a smooth consistent noise floor is in general less annoying than one that is correlated with the signal in some way, this is something worth avoiding (by careful attention to the details of how that mathematical trick is actually accomplished). We can leave the question of whether you can hear the difference between a smooth noise floor and a bad one, and whether different types of noise modulation sound audibly different - when the noise floor in question is better than -120 dB down - for another discussion. (This is only relevant and meaningful if you actually _DO_ notice that the noise between low level passages really is audible - and sounds audibly different between different DAcs.)


 
  
 The existence of this very thread is down to the difference in sound between D-S DACs and multibit ones - if the audible difference isn't in the shifting noise 'floor' (not necessarily perceivable as noise, but perceivable nevertheless) then what is it?
  
 There also seems to be an assumption in your quoting of this '-120dB' figure that you know the relevant bandwidth of the noise. Do you?
  
 Incidentally I see in a later post Keith you're claiming that D-S DACs do offer the best bang for the buck. I'm currently designing with the TDA1387 so I guess you were implicitly limiting yourself to current production DAC chips as nothing in the D-S world comes anywhere close to the bang of this chip for anywhere near its cost ($0.08, secondary market). Unless you know better?


----------



## judmarc

sapientiam said:


> This is only true on an unfiltered NOS DAC - the image frequencies 'beat' with the signal and cause amplitude fluctuations. Install the appropriate reconstruction filter (most NOS DACs don't do this) to sufficiently attenuate those images and the problem is solved. Its not 'due to insufficient sample rate' as far as I'm aware.


 
  
 At a 44.1kHz sample rate, the reconstruction filter would have to be a well-nigh perfect brickwall filter, which isn't physically possible, in order to "sufficiently attenuate those images."  That's why "8x oversampling" (interpolation and filtering to raise the bitstream to 352.8/384KHz) became industry standard practice decades ago.
  
 That's why NOS DACs have fairly high measurable distortion when fed by RedBook.  You may like the sound (not you personally, but a given listener), but it's a result in part of that fairly high distortion.


----------



## purrin

I have not been able to audition any of the Emotiva DACs, but I trust those few who have heard them and compared them to other DACs. I consider Emotiva to be one of the good guys simply because you can see what's inside the box and know that they are not charging obscene amounts like $5000.
  
 The subtitle of this thread does not proclaim that all R2R is great. Careful readers will note that I dislike the vast majority of PCM1704 DACs, that I have criticized the Metrum ladder DACs for lack of subjective resolving ability, and that I have dismissed other R2R based units, including one which was based on the PCM63.
  
 Now it just so happens that my most favorite DACs before the Yggy ended up as the Theta, Spectral, and Sonic Frontiers (upgraded/modded) R2R models. PCM63, UltraAnalog, and PCM1702. What can I say? Is this causation or coincidence?
  
 There will be no hopping on the bandwagon for R2R or R2R/String DACs soon. The sort-of-currently-existing perpetually-soon-to-be-retired PCM1704 kinda sucks (but in a different way of suck from S-D chips), and the Analog Devices chips Schiit is using are a pain in the ass to implement for audio. The niche players like MSB and TotalDAC don't count because they make stuff for rich audiophiles, who are an endangered species in the USA because they are all too old and don't take care of their health (at least from what I saw at T.H.E. SHOW in Irvine.) Finally, I'm not seeing any signs that Analog Devices or other chip makers want to make expensive R2R audio DAC chips. Just no money in it.
  
 The wonderful thing is that those who like the R2R sound WITH resolution (not R2R syrupy warm thick sounding messes) are in luck. We now have at least some sort of choice at reasonable prices. I guess Schiit will be cleaning up for a few years, especially once multi-bit Gungnir and multi-bit beef-roast come out. (Evidently, Darko said the Gungnir boards are done.)


----------



## blasjw

boatheelmusic said:


> Was that a diploma or a real degree?
> 
> From where, I will check.


 
 I can send you a picture if you like.


----------



## purrin

sapientiam said:


> Incidentally I see in a later post Keith you're claiming that D-S DACs do offer the best bang for the buck. I'm currently designing with the TDA1387 so I guess you were implicitly limiting yourself to current production DAC chips as nothing in the D-S world comes anywhere close to the bang of this chip for anywhere near its cost ($0.08, secondary market). Unless you know better?


 
  
 I don't think it's fair to have a volume production manufacturer scrounge for parts in the secondary market. DIY'ers can get away with that, but when one's income is tied to actually being able to make something in order to sell it, one does not rely on eBay for parts that were made in the 90s.


----------



## Sapientiam

judmarc said:


> At a 44.1kHz sample rate, the reconstruction filter would have to be a well-nigh perfect brickwall filter, which isn't physically possible, in order to "sufficiently attenuate those images."  That's why "8x oversampling" (interpolation and filtering to raise the bitstream to 352.8/384KHz) became industry standard practice decades ago.
> 
> That's why NOS DACs have fairly high measurable distortion when fed by RedBook.  You may like the sound (not you personally, but a given listener), but it's a result in part of that fairly high distortion.


 
  
 Hi Jud - I very much enjoy reading your posts over on CA.
  
 You raise some important points - just how much is 'sufficiently' ? It depends how much frequency response flatness is needed in the filter and if any droop can be tolerated at 20kHz. The bandwidth available for the reconstruction filter is about 4kHz as the first image (of 20kHz) appears at 24.1kHz. I've played around with various LC filters in this role and its certainly possible to reach -93dB (the noise floor of dithered 16bit) and I'm sure the filter I simulated wasn't 'well nigh perfect' as I included losses. If the difficulty with the filter was the reason for adopting 8X OS as you're suggesting then it becomes considerably easier at 2X OS (the transition band expands from 4kHz to over 40kHz) so the rationale for going all the way to 8X is lost on me. Please do set it out here so I can learn something, or alternatively pick holes in the assumptions used.
  
 If 'sufficiently' is determined subjectively then -93dB stop band rejection turns out not to be necessary, I've settled on something around -60dB which is achievable with a quasi-elliptic filter (3 inductors, 7 caps). With such a filter, there is measurable distortion at 20kHz (perhaps even going above 3% of 24.1kHz) but subjectively there's no issue as the distortion over the majority of the audio band is considerably lower. Do you have any evidence to offer that the distortion is the reason people like the sound? I'd be interested to learn of it because my experience does not bear out that claim - installing the filter (which reduces the distortion) improved the SQ. If your claim were true I'd have expected a reduced enjoyment from putting the reconstruction filter in circuit.


----------



## Sapientiam

purrin said:


> I don't think it's fair to have a volume production manufacturer scrounge for parts in the secondary market. DIY'ers can get away with that, but when one's income is tied to actually being able to make something in order to sell it, one does not rely on eBay for parts that were made in the 90s.


 
  
 Depends what's meant here by 'fair' and exactly how big their volumes are. I don't think the volumes involved here are sufficient to rule out going to the secondary market, particularly at the prices involved. If the upfront investment were huge that would be a different matter - but at a price below $0.10 (as here) its only chump change for a going concern to buy 20k parts.


----------



## AustinValentine

purrin said:


> There will be no hopping on the bandwagon for R2R or R2R/String DACs soon. The sort-of-currently-existing perpetually-soon-to-be-retired PCM1704 kinda sucks (but in a different way of suck from S-D chips), and the Analog Devices chips Schiit is using are a pain in the ass to implement for audio. The niche players like MSB and TotalDAC don't count because they make stuff for rich audiophiles, who are an endangered species in the USA because they are all too old and don't take care of their health (at least from what I saw at T.H.E. SHOW in Irvine.) Finally, I'm not seeing any signs that Analog Devices or other chip makers want to make expensive R2R audio DAC chips. Just no money in it.
> 
> The wonderful thing is that those who like the R2R sound WITH resolution (not R2R syrupy warm thick sounding messes) are in luck. We now have at least some sort of choice at reasonable prices. I guess Schiit will be cleaning up for a few years, especially once multi-bit Gungnir and multi-bit beef-roast come out. (Evidently, Darko said the Gungnir boards are done.)


 
  
 Soon, definitely not. Schiit has a strong first-mover advantage here to capitalize on. Multi-bit beef-roast sounds pretty tasty. 
  
 But I'm not sure* that back in the early 2000s that anyone foresaw that a company producing chips for PC audio cards and budget DVD players would become such a ubiquitous presence in high-end audio a little over a decade later. Supply shifts left; ΔQ increases until supply and demand curves hit equilibrium. With enough market buzz to create demand, we'll see headlines like "OPPO Digital Chooses TI's new R2R DAC for Its Flagship Media Player" with incredible speed.
  
 *Note: I'm not sure because I wasn't in the hobby at the time. Seriously, did anyone see the ESS Sabre train coming down the pipe back then? Not a rhetorical question, I'd love to fill this particular gap in my knowledge.


----------



## purrin

sapientiam said:


> Depends what's meant here by 'fair' and exactly how big their volumes are. I don't think the volumes involved here are sufficient to rule out going to the secondary market, particularly at the prices involved. If the upfront investment were huge that would be a different matter - but at a price below $0.10 (as here) its only chump change for a going concern to buy 20k parts.


 
  
 I'm sure Keith made a business decision based on his assessment of risk (availability, expected units for lifetime of product, reliability, returns from breakage, etc.). But of course easier for you to say or judge since your business isn't on the line. Obviously, you are the expert running a successful business making decent audio stuff at affordable prices.


----------



## Sapientiam

Your assumptions are showing - presumably Keith made a decision based on not seeing any issues with S-D - why go out on a limb for no reason when you can get the results you want the easy way? And I've already made the investment in TDA1387s for my own business.


----------



## purrin

It's fine for you because you will sell 5 of them. Emotiva probably sells thousands.


----------



## Sapientiam

Assumptions again! I'm not selling any myself.
  
 In any case this is a deflection from the original point which is Keith's claim that D-S offers the best bang for the buck. I'm merely providing a counter example to that claim.


----------



## purrin

I merely saying because he runs a real business, he can't rely on hitting Alibabi or eBay 10,000 times in a year to buy 5, 10, 20 pieces of TDA1873 at once for $2.70 or $1.98 each (after shipment to USA). Also, many Chinese sources tend to be a waste of time when they say they have X units available or that can get something (trust me, I know this from experience.) Not to mention if he ended up buying defective units or units that ended up defective at a later time. ICs do last a long time, but c'mon, these are 20 year old parts, he would be totally ****ed. No sane person today would ever consider using the TDA1387 for a DAC which is meant to sell in the tens of thousands, or even more - which is Emotiva's business model, in case you haven't noticed.
  
 I'm sure Keith's claim was based on not putting the business at unnecessary risk. Maybe while Keith is on the Internet buying 10 pieces of TDA1873 at a time, he can also try to source Pacific Microsonics PMD100/200 HDCD digital filter chips.


----------



## Sapientiam

purrin said:


> I merely saying because he runs a real business, he can't rely on hitting Alibabi or eBay 10,000 times in a year to buy 5, 10, 20 pieces of TDA1873 at once for $2.70 or $1.98 each (after shipment to USA). Also, many Chinese sources tend to be a waste of time when they say they have X units available or that can get something (trust me, I know this from experience.) Not to mention if he ended up buying defective units or units that ended up defective at a later time. ICs do last a long time, but c'mon, these are 20 year old parts, he would be totally ****ed. No sane person today would ever consider using the TDA1387 for a DAC which is meant to sell in the tens of thousands, or even more - which is Emotiva's business model, in case you haven't noticed.
> 
> I'm sure Keith's claim was based on not putting the business at unnecessary risk. Maybe while Keith is on the Internet buying 10 pieces of TDA1873 at a time, he can also try to source Pacific Microsonics PMD100/200 HDCD digital filter chips.


 
  
 You're setting up a straw man here. Not just one, several of them - but you're probably already aware of that. I'll only address the first by asking you a question - does Keith buy current production parts from Digikey several hundred times a year?
  
 If Keith considers it too risky to use a cheap, secondary market multibit part then that's fine by me. But his claim was about bang for the buck, not business risk.


----------



## Poimandres

Does anyone here have thoughts on the Oppo HA-1? I realize that it is a Sabre DAC however I am curious to read additional opinions on it.


----------



## jcx

Delta Sigma happens to have attractive properties for audio vs R-2R DAC
  
 differential linearity is important for audio - look at the GedLee Metric (highly weights "zero crossing" nonlinearity, tests well for correlation in listing tests)
  
 of course the differential linearity is "perfect" in single bit DS - but that has the other processing problems arising from the nonlinear saturation and audible patterns, "birdies" in early lower order implementations
  
 Multibit Delta Sigma does have to use clever tech to hide the linearity errors of the low (5-7?) bit count internal DAC - but it is proven and measured to work very well, gives differential linearity deep into the noise floor of practical electronics
  
 so Delta Sigma excel in low level linearity where we have evidence that our hearing cares most
  
 the trade is the high oversampling, complicated digital processing to achieve the noise spreading and filtering
  
 there can be issues around noise modulation - but at the levels in current "flagship" monolithic audio DAC chips the evidence for hearing these is scant
  
 in ESS presentation I believe the "bad competitor" DAC audio band noise floor rose ~ 10 dB from -117 dB to -106-7 dB as signal amplitude rose into the top -10 dB to 0 dB full scale of the converter - that should be Loud!

 using estimates of recording mic noise, home listening room noise floor, masking curves I simply don't see where that "bad" DAC's noise floor modulation is going to be audible with music played in the top 10 dB of the DAC, not even with 120 dB SPL peak system capability
 can you really hear noise modulation within 10 dB of our hearing threshold in quiet at the same time the music is blasting at >100 dB SPL?
  
  
  
 full bit depth R-2R DAC is pushing the tech very hard to keep the major bit carry error below desired audio DAC resolution requirements
  
 the differential nonlinearity of full bit depth DACs around zero crossing almost always are going to give correlated distortion
  
 so do you want correlated distortion that is audible or noise that may modulate at levels way below masking thresholds when the output is near full scale - and at a 10x cost differential too
  
  
 the yggy's AD5791 actually uses a segmented architecture with the top 6 bits being equal weighted instead of R-2R - its easy to see evidence of cycles of ripple in the INL and glitch vs code plots in the AD5791 datasheet
  
 I would say the full bit depth approach is "the hard way" today for "hi rez" digital audio


----------



## Currawong

I've moved discussion about listening testing to Sound Science here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/771254/testing-claims-about-the-sound-of-different-dacs


----------



## Maxx134

poimandres said:


> Does anyone here have thoughts on the Oppo HA-1? I realize that it is a Sabre DAC however I am curious to read additional opinions on it.



It is indistinguishable from the Matrix-X dac.
It is Lesabre at it best(or worst lol)
Suffice to say I had no problem with planars, 
and it has a wide beautiful stage,
yet if you pair it with an HD800,
you will realize what this thread is all about.
You will hear that top end fatigue.




jcx said:


> Delta Sigma happens to have attractive properties for audio vs R-2R DAC...
> 
> 
> ...



While I do very much admire your efforts in explanation, which is actually interesting...

There is no way in hell I am ever going back to a Delta Sigma dac of any kind, after owning a yggy..
Just no way..
Reality bites when you can hear the difference.

Also not saying DS is bad, as I do like other DS dacs, (LIO, Gungnir)
but we talking another level..


----------



## Poimandres

Thanks, with planars where would you rate the oppo DAC? Curious if it is at the Gungnir level.


----------



## Maxx134

I preferred my oppo over the Gungnir because of oppo soundstage and details while the Gungnir excelled at dynamics and musicality.
In other words, more of a preference choice as both similar level (to me).


----------



## Poimandres

Thanks. I have heard that dac is the weakest link in the oppo, so assuming that that is true and the Gungnir is 849 the Oppo is a good deal at its current price. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## judmarc

sapientiam said:


> Hi Jud - I very much enjoy reading your posts over on CA.
> 
> You raise some important points - just how much is 'sufficiently' ? It depends how much frequency response flatness is needed in the filter and if any droop can be tolerated at 20kHz. The bandwidth available for the reconstruction filter is about 4kHz as the first image (of 20kHz) appears at 24.1kHz. I've played around with various LC filters in this role and its certainly possible to reach -93dB (the noise floor of dithered 16bit) and I'm sure the filter I simulated wasn't 'well nigh perfect' as I included losses. If the difficulty with the filter was the reason for adopting 8X OS as you're suggesting then it becomes considerably easier at 2X OS (the transition band expands from 4kHz to over 40kHz) so the rationale for going all the way to 8X is lost on me. Please do set it out here so I can learn something, or alternatively pick holes in the assumptions used.
> 
> If 'sufficiently' is determined subjectively then -93dB stop band rejection turns out not to be necessary, I've settled on something around -60dB which is achievable with a quasi-elliptic filter (3 inductors, 7 caps). With such a filter, there is measurable distortion at 20kHz (perhaps even going above 3% of 24.1kHz) but subjectively there's no issue as the distortion over the majority of the audio band is considerably lower. Do you have any evidence to offer that the distortion is the reason people like the sound? I'd be interested to learn of it because my experience does not bear out that claim - installing the filter (which reduces the distortion) improved the SQ. If your claim were true I'd have expected a reduced enjoyment from putting the reconstruction filter in circuit.


 
  
 Thanks for the kind words.
  
 OK, you've cut the frequency response sufficiently to get rid of aliasing/images to an extent satisfactory to you, and now we're all done, right?    Well, lots of folks would say no.  So far we've talked about aliasing, a problem with frequency distortions.  But what about timing and phase?
  
 Timing: In the math that goes into filter design, "frequency domain" stuff (like the aliasing distortion we were talking about) and "time domain" stuff are what are called "conjugate variables."  As one is optimized the other gets worse.  It's not bad design, it's just sheer mathematics.  (This type of math applies to lots of different stuff besides filters.  The quantum uncertainty principle arises from the fact that a particle's position and its momentum are conjugate variables.  Nothing anyone can do about it, it's just how the math works.)
  
 What is "time domain stuff"?  Primarily it's what's called "ringing."  The sharper the cut in your filter, the more it rings.  If you want to see a graphical demonstration, go over to http://src.infinitewave.ca and check out the relationship between the Transition (frequency response) and Impulse (ringing) tests for various filters.  There is lively discussion over the audibility of ringing.  People who look at things pretty exclusively from a frequency response standpoint say the ringing is at ultrasonic frequencies, which is true (though I don't know to what extent this can cause intermodulation - "beating" - with other frequencies to create audible products).  People who focus more on the time domain say ringing causes "smearing" of transient response - drum and piano attacks, string plucks, etc.
  
 Many folks are especially concerned about "pre-ringing."  In what's called a "linear phase" filter, half the ringing energy occurs _before_ the impulse.  Nothing in nature works this way, so that's why folks are more concerned about pre-ringing - they think a steep linear phase filter will sound particularly unnatural.  A way this has often been resolved is to use _minimum_ or _intermediate_ phase filters.  This will not stop ringing.  What it will do is push the ringing energy more (intermediate phase) or completely (minimum phase) to _after_ the impulse, so any time smear is heard as a (supposedly) more natural reverb or tail to the transient.  But this comes with its own problems.  Intermediate or minimum phase filters are "dispersive" (another way of saying it is they have "group delay"), meaning the time it takes to get through the filter is frequency-dependent.  This can give a recording a feeling of depth.  But Keith Johnson (designer of that DAC purrin likes) has said in an interview he feels group delay is the worst problem with RedBook and the typical filtering used with it.  And I've written at CA about why I think I'm sensitive to it in my system with my particular speakers, which are designed to be "time-aligned" (i.e., speakers are designed so all frequencies arrive at the listening position simultaneously).
  
 Now what does this all have to do with 44.1 resolution and 8x oversampling?  'Cause you can get the response cut you need to avoid audible aliasing with a relatively gently sloped (less ringing) filter if you start the cut at 352.8 or 384KHz rather than 44.1 or 48KHz.  So that's why 8x oversampling became a standard so quickly: it allows use of filters that don't ring as much for a given amount of anti-aliasing effect.
  
 Edit: Another way to say that last bit is that 8x oversampling allows filters that have both acceptably low aliasing and acceptably low ringing to be designed more simply and cheaply.


----------



## gournard

Hi guys and gals,  a friend owns an Oppo 105 which when the music gets busy sounds congested and noisy and has me diving for the remote to turn it down. On simpler fare like a piano trio etc. it sounds good, but big band stuff makes me cringe. I am after a dac that I can relax with and hopefully be drawn into the music, not necessarily looking for the maximum detail.
  
 I have found a Wadia 15 for sale, which uses 4 X PCM63P-K. Has anyone heard or compared this.
  
 I also have access to a Bryston BD-1/BDA-1 combo which I heard and thought it sounded great. It uses a CS4398 which is delta-sigma but the sound I heard was way beyond what the Oppo was doing and I could happily live with it.
  
 Although impressed with the Bryston the Wadia is much cheaper and would be my choice if it performs well, but I have never heard any Wadia product.  Perhaps some of you may be able help me choose.


----------



## prot

blasjw said:


> I don't disagree with you that DS can sound very good and I in fact own a few DS DACs myself.  I just argue that R2R has the potential to sound even better due to the fact that it is a superior D to A technique which is something I believe that manufacturers such as Schiit and MSB have acknowledged and chose to go that route even though it is a more difficult and expensive one.  I wish more manufacturers would consider alternate approaches instead of sticking with the easiest/cheapest approach.  It would be foolish to say that every R2R DAC sounds better than any DS DAC because, as you know, there are other factors involved like the analog output stage, power supply, etc.  And you're right, some people may prefer the DS signature which they are entitled to prefer.  Personally, for the best sound, I choose to go with the superior R2R approach.  And certainly different DS implementations can sound different and the same applies equally to R2R.  The good thing about DS is that it's inexpensive to design/manufacture which is a pro.  In certain cases, DS is the best way to go.  In fact for mobile use, I quite like my minuscule Audioquest Dragonfly.  Does it sound as good as my GDA-600 no?  But, my GDA-600 isn't very portable and probably cost a lot more back in the day.  Also, if I loose/break my Dragonfly I'm not likely to shed any tears either.  And you're right, I'm human too which means I do make mistakes from time to time i.e. I'm not always right.  However, for companies like Emotiva trying to sell high end DACs, I suggest they consider a different approaches other than DS for their own good and not try to make poor excuses as to why they should not do so.




 You keep talking about that "superior R2R approach" and you do not give a single freaking *argument* for it ... neither technical, nor sound tests/comparisons/etc ... nothing, nada, zilch. 
Sorry man, but for all I know you could be just as well talking unicorns. Could you please add *something* to support those R2R claims !? I'm not picky, I'll take *anything* ...


----------



## KeithEmo

sapientiam said:


> The existence of this very thread is down to the difference in sound between D-S DACs and multibit ones - if the audible difference isn't in the shifting noise 'floor' (not necessarily perceivable as noise, but perceivable nevertheless) then what is it?
> 
> There also seems to be an assumption in your quoting of this '-120dB' figure that you know the relevant bandwidth of the noise. Do you?
> 
> Incidentally I see in a later post Keith you're claiming that D-S DACs do offer the best bang for the buck. I'm currently designing with the TDA1387 so I guess you were implicitly limiting yourself to current production DAC chips as nothing in the D-S world comes anywhere close to the bang of this chip for anywhere near its cost ($0.08, secondary market). Unless you know better?


 
  
 As far as I can see, the thread is actually about differences, audible or not. (I've seen quite a few claims that Delta-Sigma is "technically inferior" based on how it performs the conversion rather than on claiming that it actually sounds bad - or different - although I've seen plenty of those as well.) I've owned quite a few "reasonable middle of the market" DACs, and I've also listened to quite a few belonging to other people, including some very expensive ones, and some very cheap ones, and some very good-sounding ones, and some really poor sounding ones. However, I can't say that I've personally noticed a "type difference" between the few that weren't Delta-Sigma and the rest that were. (Many of them sound different from each other, but I can't say that I heard something that _all_ the _NON_-Delta-Sigma DACs had in common that was different than _all_ the Delta-Sigma ones.) For one thing, most of the non Delta-Sigma DACs I've heard are also non-oversampling (but there _ARE_ R2R DACs with oversampling - like Yggdrasil). Unfortunately, unlike oversampling, there's no way you can really compare "a Delta-Sigma and non Delta-Sigma version of the same DAC" - because a given DAC uses a chip that is either one or the other, and you can never simply "drop an equivalent R2R chip into an existing design and see if it sounds different".
  
 My comment on the noise floor was very general. On most of the reasonably good sounding DACs I've heard, I found the noise floor to be totally inaudible - and, as someone once said, you can't hear differences between different things if they're all inaudible. I simply don't buy into the idea that "something wrong with the noise floor could have some sort of intangible effect on the way something sounds". Sure, noise that's inaudible could cause excessive modulation of audible frequencies, or perhaps might cause additional intermodulation distortion, or some other type of anomaly - but it would be measurable. (I can imagine a situation where, for example, a major noise spike at 21 kHz might be inaudible yet might give you a headache, but I haven't actually run into that situation personally, and such an anomaly would certainly show up on the overall S/N measurement. The noise spectra I've seen on most "reasonable" DACs lately not only have a very low noise floor, but even the occasional spikes that are there tend to also remain below relatively low levels.)
  
 Yes, I was basically talking about "current production chips". The TDA1387 is a 16 bit DAC chip, which would disqualify it for most "current designs" - since these days a DAC that can't handle 24 bit signals would be a niche market item at best. The TDA1387 also doesn't appear to support oversampling internally, and this leads me two conclusions- depending on how you implement it. If you don't use oversampling, then it's going to be very difficult to design a reconstruction filter that is sharp enough to remove what it has to, yet avoids significantly altering the audio frequency response. (In that situation, I would expect the reconstruction filter to have such a profound effect on the overall sound quality that it would completely overshadow and differences in the DAC topology itself). If you _DO_ use oversampling, it would have to be external to the DAC, and you would have to design and program a custom oversampling filter, in which case I would expect the sound of_ THAT_ to overshadow the inherent sound of the DAC topology.
  
 (Since the Delta-Sigma topology itself is basically an oversampling topology, you can only really compare Delta-Sigma DACs directly to other oversampling DACs - like Yggdrasil. Otherwise you're really just comparing NOS DACs to oversampling DACs.)


----------



## BassDigger

Am I right(?) in thinking that the key difference, between Delta-Sigma and R-2R, is that r2r processes the bits (up to 20 of them) in unison; all at the same time. The entire process is real-time, from start to finish.
 Whereas DS (which started life as a way to add extra bits to a 14 bit r2r dac) processes them individually or separately, at high speed, and then has to put the bits back together, to reconstruct the real-time signal.
  
 This is why the timing (the clock and removing jitter) is so important for DS. And maybe it's why r2r sounds better; it isn't prone to the timing errors, in the same way that DS is.
 After all, timing is at the heart of all music; the beat, the rhythm, the notes themselves; they're all frequencies; timing is everything.


----------



## KeithEmo

bassdigger said:


> Am I right(?) in thinking that the key difference, between Delta-Sigma and R-2R, is that r2r processes the bits (up to 20 of them) in unison; at the same time.
> Whereas DS (which started life as a way to add extra bits to a 14 bit r2r dac) processes them separately, at high speed, and then has to reconstitute the bits back together, into the real-time signal.
> This is why the timing (the clock and removing jitter) is so important for DS. And maybe it's why r2r sounds better; it isn't prone to the timing errors, in the same way that DS is.
> After all, timing is at the heart of all music; the beat, the rhythm, the notes themselves; they're all frequencies; timing is everything.


 
  
 It is correct that an R2R DAC basically takes the full value of the sample as "input" and puts out a single voltage value "all at once" while a Delta-Sigma DAC essentially "slices it up in time, processes each piece in sequence, then sums the results". However, the conclusion that "that's why it sounds better" simply isn't logically valid. While the way a Delta-Sigma DAC works is certainly more complex, and intuitively seems "messier and less precise", the fact is that all that really counts is the result - and both deliver very accurate output signals. (The fact that the process used by an R2R DAC is simpler and easier to understand in no way suggests that it produces a "better" output.)
  
 Neither Delta-Sigma DACs nor R2R DACs are "prone to timing errors". What's happening is that, because of the high level of oversampling used in Delta-Sigma DACs, they are more sensitive to timing errors that are present in the signal you send to them. This same factor is present to a degree in any oversampling DAC - because, the higher the clock rate, the more of a percentage error a fixed amount of jitter is in relation to it. This affects Delta-Sigma DACs more than other DACs because they oversample at a higher rate. If you send a bad signal to both an R2R DAC and a Delta-Sigma DAC, odds are that the Delta-Sigma DAC will produce more distortion as a result. Note that this situation doesn't exist if you send a _GOOD_ quality signal to both. It just means that you have to be more careful what you send to a Delta-Sigma DAC if you want good results.
  
 To put a bit of perspective on this.... Assuming a perfect input signal, with absolutely no jitter, and all else equal, a $5 Delta-Sigma chip will deliver performance equivalent to or better than that you get from a $50 R2R chip. However, since the Delta-Sigma chip is more sensitive to jitter, you're going to have to spend an extra $10 on the input circuitry to ensure that the Delta-Sigma chip gets a clean enough input signal to avoid having its performance degraded by jitter. However, assuming you deliver a clean signal to both, their outputs will be equivalent.
  
 (However, this can be a "deal breaker" if you aren't able to design your other circuit elements well enough to deliver the clean signal that the Delta-Sigma DAC requires to perform well. This might suggest that, if you're designing a DIY project, or are a small company without the design know how and expensive test equipment required to design and test for low levels of jitter, the less strict signal requirements of the R2R chip might be a distinct advantage to you.)
  
 Your final comment about "timing and music" also calls for additional comment.... (you are laboring under a common misconception there).
  
 When we refer to jitter as a "timing error", we are talking about nanoseconds or picoseconds - that's _BILLIONTHS_ and _TRILLIONTHS_ of a second. To put this in perspective, at the 44.1k sample rate used on a CD, the samples are about 20,000,000 picoseconds apart. There is no way a human (or any other living creature) is going to _HEAR_ an error of even tens of thousands of picoseconds directly. (A "decent" input stage, by today's standards, should limit the jitter to several hundred picoseconds at worst). In order to be audible as a beat "out of place", you would need an error of several milliseconds, or a speed error of several hundredths of a percent.
  
 Producing a clean and correct output relies on converting samples that have the correct values at the correct times. If you have jitter, then the timing is slightly incorrect, so you're converting the right values at the _WRONG_ times, which produces a result quite similar to what would happen if the timing was perfect but the sample values were wrong - you get distortion. As it turns out, the distortion you get is related to the frequency characteristics of the jitter, and is related to the content itself, but not in a "harmonic manner" (you get distortion that is related to the input signal, but doesn't consist of "simple harmonics" - which means that it doesn't sound exactly like "ordinary THD".)
  
 When you see those graphs, with a sharp peak surrounded by a bunch of smaller peaks and assorted junk, what you're being shown is the overall spectrum of "what's coming out". The theoretical perfect output would be a single sharp narrow vertical line, and those other peaks are signal that shouldn't be there but is (distortion). Since harmonics tend to be masked by the music signal itself, and a lot of music already contains harmonic content anyway, we can reasonably assume that this unrelated and non-harmonic distortion will quite possibly be more audible and more annoying when it is present. This is why, with a DAC, we would hope to find not only an overall noise floor that is on average inaudible, but we would also hope that no individual "spike" would extend high enough above the average noise floor to itself be audible. So you look for a low noise floor ("the grass") and for there to be no peaks that extend very far above it.
  
 Ignoring the pictures, most people who claim to notice low but significant amounts of jitter usually describe it as "blurring the sound stage" or "making things sound blurry"....  I would personally describe the effects as "making a well recorded wire brush cymbal sound more like a leaky steam valve" - the frequencies are all present, but you lose the "sense" of individual wires hitting metal and it sounds more like a generic burst of noise at the proper frequencies. I also tend to notice a difference on sibilants - to me they seem more exaggerated but less natural when a high level of jitter is present.
  
 (Note that I'm talking about "jitter being present at the DAC" - which is all that counts. If the DAC has some sort of jitter reduction mechanism, which many do, then all that matters is how much jitter remains when the signal arrives at the actual DAC chip to be converted. As it turns out, it requires _VERY_ careful circuit design to be able to remove or reduce jitter to a very low level, and to avoid introducing new jitter to the signal on its way to the DAC itself. Simply using a good clock is not enough to ensure low jitter on the audio signal - although using a bad clock can be enough to ensure a bad jitter spec.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Great information, thank you. I have confirmation that our July meet will indeed have a well broken in Yggy there along with the owners Rag amp so a great stack of Schiit. What I hope to see as I've said is whether or not there is this overwhelming preference for the R2R presentation of the Yggy over the terribly flawed, horrible, error-riddled, only built because it is cheap and could be designed by idiots M51 (sorry, couldn't help the vent). I will not be a subject in the testing of course (but I most certainly will be enjoying listening to the Yggy).


----------



## KeithEmo

sonic defender said:


> Great information, thank you. I have confirmation that our July meet will indeed have a well broken in Yggy there along with the owners Rag amp so a great stack of Schiit. What I hope to see as I've said is whether or not there is this overwhelming preference for the R2R presentation of the Yggy over the terribly flawed, horrible, error-riddled, only built because it is cheap and could be designed by idiots M51 (sorry, couldn't help the vent). I will not be a subject in the testing of course (but I most certainly will be enjoying listening to the Yggy).


 
  
 The one bit of advice I would give (sort of) is that Yggdrasil is well designed in many ways, including having a specially designed oversampling filter, and a very nice analog section. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily assume that the way it sounds is entirely, or even mostly, due to the fact that it uses an R2R DAC (although that's almost certainly part of it). I also wouldn't necessarily expect similar performance from other R2R DACs.
  
 I would also note that many R2R DACs are _ALSO_ non-oversampling (because the same "philosophy of simplicity" often seems to favor both design choices), and NOS DACs, because of the requirements and limitations of their reconstruction filters, tend to sound rather different from other DACs. Yggdrasil, while being R2R, is an oversampling DAC - so I definitely wouldn't expect other NOS R2R DACs to sound like Yggy.


----------



## Ableza

Keith:
  
 Hello and glad to see you posting here on Head-Fi. 
  
 I'm a long-time Emotiva fan and have been supporting Dan Laufman since the early days.  But I will trust the design decisions made by Mike Moffat over yours or Lonnie's or mine or, well, over pretty much anyone's when it comes to DACs.  As a long-time Theta-luster I was very excited when I first read about the Schiit Yggdrasil and as a first-build owner I am happy with both the performance and the price point they obtained.  The two Emotiva DACs I have owned both left me wanting more (although I have not heard the Stealth.)  Whether this was about topology or execution or digital interpolation schemes and sampling algorithms I don't know nor really much care.  I just know what stayed in my rack and what was re-sold on Fleabay.
  
 As in all things audio, to each his own, but when it comes to design I'll stick with the word of the engineer who invented the market sector.


----------



## Sonic Defender

ableza said:


> Keith:
> 
> Hello and glad to see you posting here on Head-Fi.
> 
> ...


 

 Fair, but come on, for several years Schiit was quite happy to sell D-S DACs, so it is somewhat disingenuous to suddenly start saying well, that was a crap technology, we have moved on. Nobody is questioning the skills or knowledge of MM, nor the prowess of the Yggy, quite the opposite actually. What some of us are saying is that regardless of the technical level of discussion how things sound being a very subjective field means that there are actually people who like the D-S signature, and again, I have yet to read of any blind listening tests that demonstrate that any R2R DAC is consistently preferred by listeners. I will say again, I have no opinion yet on the matter beyond having an open mind. I think the M51 for instance sounds quite good, I actually like it very much. Now it is very possible that after hearing the Yggy I will be saying something very different, but perhaps not.


----------



## Ableza

sonic defender said:


> Fair, but come on, for several years Schiit was quite happy to sell D-S DACs, so it is somewhat disingenuous to suddenly start saying well, that was a crap technology, we have moved on. Nobody is questioning the skills or knowledge of MM, nor the prowess of the Yggy, quite the opposite actually. What some of us are saying is that regardless of the technical level of discussion how things sound being a very subjective field means that there are actually people who like the D-S signature, and again, I have yet to read of any blind listening tests that demonstrate that any R2R DAC is consistently preferred by listeners. I will say again, I have no opinion yet on the matter beyond having an open mind. I think the M51 for instance sounds quite good, I actually like it very much. Now it is very possible that after hearing the Yggy I will be saying something very different, but perhaps not.


 
 Like I said, to each his own.  No one should be arguing that any technology is the "be all end all."  If they are, they are foolish.  All I said is I will take Mike Moffat's opinion about what he thinks creates the technically best DAC over yours or anyone else's, and after I gave his solution a try I will not go back.  In fact I am planning to buy at least one more Yggdrasil.


----------



## coli

prot said:


> You keep talking about that "superior R2R approach" and you do not give a single freaking *argument* for it ... neither technical, nor sound tests/comparisons/etc ... nothing, nada, zilch.
> Sorry man, but for all I know you could be just as well talking unicorns. Could you please add *something* to support those R2R claims !? I'm not picky, I'll take *anything* ...


 
 Faith man! Your faith may vary.
  
 Edit: I have read that multi-bit is more resistant to jitter.


----------



## evillamer

Have you guys seen the scope output on this page:
http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm


----------



## Argo Duck

Fair point but there's a sample-size problem here. I understand there's a much larger pool of DS than R2R dacs. Selection from the smaller pool is more likely to result in sampling error., i.e. we're less likely to learn the 'true state of the art' with R2R.

Not to mention that there is presumably a greater variance in the quality of engineering solutions with R2R, simply because it's the less commonly taken path and less engineering 'know how' is available. (Disclaimer: I'm no engineer and could be well wide of the mark with this statement!).

Great to hear your Yggy/M51 trial is coming together S-D.



sonic defender said:


> ...yet to read of any blind listening tests that demonstrate that any R2R DAC is consistently preferred by listeners...


----------



## Jose R

keithemo said:


> Yes, I was basically talking about "current production chips". The TDA1387 is a 16 bit DAC chip, which would disqualify it for most "current designs" - since these days a DAC that can't handle 24 bit signals would be a niche market item at best. The TDA1387 also doesn't appear to support oversampling internally, and this leads me two conclusions- depending on how you implement it. If you don't use oversampling, then it's going to be very difficult to design a reconstruction filter that is sharp enough to remove what it has to, yet avoids significantly altering the audio frequency response. (In that situation, I would expect the reconstruction filter to have such a profound effect on the overall sound quality that it would completely overshadow and differences in the DAC topology itself). If you _DO_ use oversampling, it would have to be external to the DAC, and you would have to design and program a custom oversampling filter, in which case I would expect the sound of_ THAT_ to overshadow the inherent sound of the DAC topology.


 
  
  
 So, in essence the TDA1387 is the typical junk-pile DAC chip for those not concerned with sharp rolloff at 17Khz.
  
  


ableza said:


> Keith:
> 
> Hello and glad to see you posting here on Head-Fi.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I own the Stealth DC-1 and I am having a hard time convincing myself to upgrade to the Schiit Yggdrasil or the Auralic Vega. It does everything I need it to do, all the inputs/outputs I need, a well implemented volume control,  and sounds pretty damn good too. It is smoother sounding than my ESS Sabre Dac (EE Minimax Junior), but both of these units offer great value at their respective price points.
  
 The DC-1 is just exceptional.


----------



## Tuco1965

jose r said:


> So, in essence the TDA1387 is the typical junk-pile DAC chip for those not concerned with sharp rolloff at 17Khz.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Leave Head Fi and enjoy your gear. I say that meaning that you seem pleased with what you have. Put the wallet away unless you're buying more music.


----------



## blasjw

jose r said:


> So, in essence the TDA1387 is the typical junk-pile DAC chip for those not concerned with sharp rolloff at 17Khz.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Sadly mine wasn't.  It sounded like garbage (worse than the XDA-2 I had before it) and I ended up selling it on eBay.  The buyer complained of additional problems and had to arrange for a replacement from Emotiva.  Not sure what happened after that.


----------



## KeithEmo

jose r said:


> So, in essence the TDA1387 is the typical junk-pile DAC chip for those not concerned with sharp rolloff at 17Khz.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm glad you're enjoying your DC-1 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 I wouldn't be quite so harsh on the TDA1387 .... it's simply a good quality "basic DAC", which looks like it might lend itself very well to some types of DIY projects.
 It just lacks many of the features that are available on most of the "better" audio DACs that are currently available.
  
 For example, if you're listening to Red Book CDs, then the 16 bit precision isn't a limitation that matters.
 And, while you will end up with a rolled off high end if you use it at 44k, some fans of NOS DACs seem not to mind that.
 As another possibility, you could RIP your CDs (at 16/44), then oversample them to 192k using computer software, and play the output through your NOS DAC.
 This would allow you to extend your high frequency response well above 20 kHz while still using a relatively simple analog reconstruction filter.
 (There is at least one player program that offers several options for resampling in software - and recommends just such a DAC to go with it.)
 And, if you're into programming and hardware, you could even create your own outboard hardware based oversampling filter to go before it.
  
 However, that's much too long a list of shortcomings and limitations for the TDA1387 to be a commercially viable component today.
 (When, for a few dollars more, I can get an alternative component that doesn't have those limitations and shortcomings.... which is why the TDA1387 has been replaced.)


----------



## KeithEmo

evillamer said:


> Have you guys seen the scope output on this page:
> http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm


 
  
 It's very.... interesting.....
  
 Unfortunately, it doesn't actually _say_ very much. The author seems to think that Delta-Sigma DACs fail to accurately reproduce something he calls "timbre" - whatever exactly that is. He then goes on to show some pictures of what the signal looks like while it's on its way through a Delta-Sigma DAC (note that those pictures aren't of the analog output; they're of the signal partway through the process). It's sort of like asking you to compare two cars by showing you a partly assembled chassis sitting on the assembly line.
  
 The simple reality is that the outputs of both R2R and Delta-Sigma DACs require filtering if you want to end up with the correct analog audio that's encoded in the signal. There's a very good reason why the author hasn't bothered to show pictures of what the actual analog output looks like - because you wouldn't be able to see the difference - because the differences are far smaller than anything you can see with the naked eye on an oscilloscope trace. The fact that the signals that exist partway through the process happen to superficially look "prettier" or "uglier" doesn't mean much - unless you're looking for pictures to hang on the wall.


----------



## evillamer

Well all this talk... Maybe it's time for Emovita to step up to the game and design a TOTL Sigma Delta DAC that sounds(& measures) better than ANY of the current top R2R Dacs (Metrum Acoustics Pavane, Schitt Yggdrasil, Totaldac D12, MSB Select/Platinum/Analog). And silience all Sigma Delta Critics once and for all?
  
 e.g. Get to #1 position of Purrin's dac list, e.g. Exceeding Atomicbob's Yggdrasil Jitter measurements


----------



## vhsownsbeta

evillamer said:


> Well all this talk... Maybe it's time for Emovita to step up to the game and design a TOTL Sigma Delta DAC that sounds(& measures) better than ANY of the current top R2R Dacs (Metrum Acoustics Pavane, Schitt Yggdrasil, Totaldac D12, MSB Select/Platinum/Analog). And silience all Sigma Delta Critics once and for all?
> 
> e.g. Get to #1 position of Purrin's dac list, e.g. Exceeding Atomicbob's Yggdrasil Jitter measurements




LOL. I don't think Keith is trying to 'silence all Sigma Delta critics', he is merely offering an alternate viewpoint.


----------



## evillamer

vhsownsbeta said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Well all this talk... Maybe it's time for Emovita to step up to the game and design a TOTL Sigma Delta DAC that sounds(& measures) better than ANY of the current top R2R Dacs (Metrum Acoustics Pavane, Schitt Yggdrasil, Totaldac D12, MSB Select/Platinum/Analog). And silience all Sigma Delta Critics once and for all?
> ...


 
 Hey! Hey! hey! Don't diffuse my post. I was just trying to get a new DAC on the market.


----------



## Sapientiam

judmarc said:


> Now what does this all have to do with 44.1 resolution and 8x oversampling?  'Cause you can get the response cut you need to avoid audible aliasing with a relatively gently sloped (less ringing) filter if you start the cut at 352.8 or 384KHz rather than 44.1 or 48KHz.  So that's why 8x oversampling became a standard so quickly: it allows use of filters that don't ring as much for a given amount of anti-aliasing effect.
> 
> Edit: Another way to say that last bit is that 8x oversampling allows filters that have both acceptably low aliasing and acceptably low ringing to be designed more simply and cheaply.


 
  
 I'm already aware of what you've been explaining here so I'll cut to the chase which was my question to you regarding the claimed reason(s) 8X OS became the industry standard. If the designers involved in the chips (OS filter chips like NPC5813) which helped establish 8X OS as a kind of defacto standard - were following the principles you've just laid out, why did they introduce pre-ringing into those designs? All those oversampling filters from the mainstream manufacturers have it. There was no need to do this, since they used FIR filters the impulse response could be whatever they chose within the limit of tap number (which impacts on die area hence cost). To me this doesn't look like the rationale that 'ringing is bad for the sound, pre-ringing is the worst kind' was their guiding principle at all or they'd have moved all the ringing to after the impulse.
  
 In my second paragraph I asked if you had any evidence to support the assertion that some people prefer unfiltered NOS due to the imaging distortion. I take it since you've been silent on that that you have none?


----------



## Sonic Defender

evillamer said:


> e.g. Get to #1 position of Purrin's dac list, e.g. Exceeding Atomicbob's Yggdrasil Jitter measurements


 
  
 At what point is jitter audible? I seriously doubt any decent D-S has *audible* jitter. While I know as a technology it is questionable in a few key metrics, but forgive me for suggesting that I have also never before seen any study that demonstrates audible jitter in quality DACs of any stripe. I just can't accept the even if you can't hear the jitter it effects other things you hear without some kind of test that demonstrates this.


----------



## purrin

jose r said:


> So, in essence the TDA1387 is the typical junk-pile DAC chip for those not concerned with sharp rolloff at 17Khz.


 
  
 A lot of those vintage R2R chips, near the dawn of digital, belong in the junk pile. Personally, I'll take a solid D-S implementation instead.


----------



## Sapientiam

keithemo said:


> Yes, I was basically talking about "current production chips". The TDA1387 is a 16 bit DAC chip, which would disqualify it for most "current designs" - since these days a DAC that can't handle 24 bit signals would be a niche market item at best. The TDA1387 also doesn't appear to support oversampling internally, and this leads me two conclusions- depending on how you implement it. If you don't use oversampling, then it's going to be very difficult to design a reconstruction filter that is sharp enough to remove what it has to, yet avoids significantly altering the audio frequency response. (In that situation, I would expect the reconstruction filter to have such a profound effect on the overall sound quality that it would completely overshadow and differences in the DAC topology itself). If you _DO_ use oversampling, it would have to be external to the DAC, and you would have to design and program a custom oversampling filter, in which case I would expect the sound of_ THAT_ to overshadow the inherent sound of the DAC topology.


 
  
 Cool, thanks for the clarification. I've done several reconstruction filter designs for NOS DACs, they're all freely available schematics on my blog and anyone with questions for clarification can post them on the blog. It was something of a challenge but 'very difficult' it wasn't. Its certainly possible not to impact the HF significantly but becomes more difficult (primarily inductor tolerances get very tricky), in the end I've gone for flatness to within half a dB up to 18kHz or so. I don't see why a custom oversampling filter would need to be designed - off the shelf ones are available. Some glue logic to adapt to I2S might be necessary though - which is a whole lot easier than starting from scratch on a filter. I have developed custom filter code for an ARM (M0, M3) processor myself which if anyone's interested I'd be happy to have a look for on my various disks in differing states of repair... When I did this I found that simply running the DAC faster made the sound worse so I've abandoned oversampling and stuck with NOS. The filter characteristics weren't the cause of the SQ degradation which was a loss of dynamics, a 'greying out' of timbres.


----------



## Sapientiam

keithemo said:


> For example, if you're listening to Red Book CDs, then the 16 bit precision isn't a limitation that matters.
> And, while you will end up with a rolled off high end if you use it at 44k, some fans of NOS DACs seem not to mind that.


 
  
 There's no _requirement_ for rolled off highs, there are a few ways to correct for that. I agree plenty of NOS devotees don't mind the 'NOS droop'. However NOS DACs using the TDA1387 are jolly uncommon - over on TaoBao a few designs have shown up from one vendor in the past six months or so though, at very reasonable prices. None of those designs though implement NOS droop correction - if you'd like to hear how a TDA1387 NOS DAC sounds when this is implemented you could do worse than follow the mods suggested over on this thread - http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/269199-tda1387-x8-dac-lets-check-its-design-mod-not-play-music-not.html


----------



## purrin

Cool. SATCH DAC all over again, but like 2.0. Glad to know it sounds better than the DACMagic (which isn't a good sounding DAC BTW).


----------



## Sapientiam

> Originally Posted by *BassDigger* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> This is why the timing (the clock and removing jitter) is so important for DS. And maybe it's why r2r sounds better; it isn't prone to the timing errors, in the same way that DS is.
> After all, timing is at the heart of all music; the beat, the rhythm, the notes themselves; they're all frequencies; timing is everything.


 
  
 Timing issues are far more important for a certain kind of D-S DAC, the kind that does not use on-chip switched capacitor filters. SCFs have been employed by many vendors to get around the timing issues inherent with having vast quantitites (exceeding the signal amplitude for lower-level signals) of ultrasonic noise.
  
 If you study treatments of jitter one thing you might take away is that the higher the frequency a DAC produces, the more susceptible it is to jitter. In other words, the faster the signal is moving the more important timing errors become. On a D-S DAC the output ultrasonic noise is one to two orders of magnitude in frequency above the audio, hence one to two orders of magnitude more susceptible to jitter. Add in the fact that the ultrasonics are much higher amplitude relative to the wanted signal when the DAC's playing back quiet stuff (say < -40dBfs) and you do need to be very careful with output sample timing not to 'fold back' ultrasonic noise into the audio band.
  
 Multibit DACs have no such susceptibility - even unfiltered NOS ones - as any ultrasonics produced track the signal level, they don't go beyond it.


----------



## evillamer

Interesting read for those interested in history of digital audio:
 http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/cd25years.html


----------



## wink

Quote:Tusco 1965 





> jose r said:
> 
> 
> > So, in essence the TDA1387 is the typical junk-pile DAC chip for those not concerned with sharp rolloff at 17Khz.
> ...


 
 1. This is SO wrong. Until the equipment becomes perfect, the journey continues.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 2. Sacrilege.  Hand in your 'Headphoneus Supremus'  title immediately.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     Jose R has only 25 posts in 10 years. He needs to be encouraged to seek musical heaven
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 I believe a severe castigation by way of a PM by a moderator is in order here.


----------



## BassDigger

bassdigger said:


> (Me)
> Am I right(?) in thinking that the key difference, between Delta-Sigma and R-2R, is that r2r processes the bits (up to 20 of them) in unison; all at the same time. The entire process is real-time, from start to finish.
> Whereas DS (which started life as a way to add extra bits to a 14 bit r2r dac) processes them individually or separately, at high speed, and then has to put the bits back together, to reconstruct the real-time signal.
> 
> ...


 


keithemo said:


> It is correct that an R2R DAC basically takes the full value of the sample as "input" and puts out a single voltage value "all at once" while a Delta-Sigma DAC essentially "slices it up in time, processes each piece in sequence, then sums the results". However, the conclusion that "that's why it sounds better" simply isn't logically valid. While the way a Delta-Sigma DAC works is certainly more complex, and intuitively seems "messier and less precise", the fact is that all that really counts is the result - and both deliver very accurate output signals. (The fact that the process used by an R2R DAC is simpler and easier to understand in no way suggests that it produces a "better" output.)
> 
> Neither Delta-Sigma DACs nor R2R DACs are "prone to timing errors". What's happening is that, because of the high level of oversampling used in Delta-Sigma DACs, *they are more sensitive to timing errors* that are present in the signal you send to them. This same factor is present to a degree in any oversampling DAC - because, the higher the clock rate, the more of a percentage error a fixed amount of jitter is in relation to it.* This affects Delta-Sigma DACs more than other DACs because they oversample at a higher rate*. If you send a bad signal to both an R2R DAC and a Delta-Sigma DAC,* odds are that the Delta-Sigma DAC will produce more distortion as a result.* Note that this situation doesn't exist if you send a _GOOD_ quality signal to both. It just means that* you have to be more careful what you send to a Delta-Sigma DAC* if you want good results.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Firstly, thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive and informative explanation.
  
 I guess my terminology was incorrect; "prone to" does suggest that the dac is the _cause_ of the jitter/errors. You're saying DS is more _sensitive _to them. TBH, I wasn't sure which.
  
 But your explanation does seem to suggest that maybe my severely limited understanding, of the basics, wasn't totally incorrect.
  
 I don't know that anybody thinks that you can actually hear the jitter frequencies. But, I guess, what's in question are the effects of jitter that are audible.
 This understanding seems to be changing as time goes by. Originally, it was totally mis-understood, unknown even! But over the years it seems that engineers are discovering that it's effects are ever more influential to the sound reproduced.
 You seem to believe that jitter can relatively easily be kept so low as have no influence on the sound, even for the sensitive DS designs. I'm not so sure that other learned people would agree, today or in the future.


----------



## vhsownsbeta

evillamer said:


> Hey! Hey! hey! Don't diffuse my post. I was just trying to get a new DAC on the market.




Ha. Over my head


----------



## Articnoise

keithemo said:


> I'm glad you're enjoying your DC-1
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  

 Isn’t it better to double the oversample rate like 44.1K -> (88.2K ->) 176.4K instead of go 44.1K -> 192K? My somehow limited understanding and experience is that you should always double or triple the oversample rate in even numbers, no matter if the oversample takes place in the DAC or in a PC. Some DACs are even using two different clocks; one for 44.1, 88.2, 176.4, 352.8 and another for 48, 96, 192, 384. 

  

 Btw I really appreciates your posts here.


----------



## BassDigger

keithemo said:


> ...
> 
> For example, if you're listening to Red Book CDs, then the 16 bit precision isn't a limitation that matters.
> And, while you will end up with a rolled off high end if you use it at 44k, some fans of NOS DACs seem not to mind that.
> ...


 
  
 Firstly, I wonder if anyone can direct me in the direction of a good explanation of oversampling (and digital to analogue conversion, in general); I've been trying to get my head around this for years!
  
 I'm sorry if I'm nitpicking. But do you mean 'upsample'? And if so, does this mean using a program that 'adds' improvised data to the real music data?
 Please tell more; my music collection is redbook; I'm very keen to know of ways that I can get the most out of it.


----------



## RoundRound

I have a general question about bit depth and digital volume.
  
 I was looking into it as my Yggy is plugged directly to a power amp and I'm using Jriver to attenuate the signal around 50dB.
  
 I understand that lowering the volume reduced the ENOB (effective number of bits) but then I realized that if I'm listening at around 70dB (via speakers) than in any case I won't hear any sounds quieter than 70dB which is around 13Bit...? Is this correct? If so why bother with 24 or 20 bit Dacs?  Am I missing something?
  
 Thank you,


----------



## Bibo

Actually the dynamic range you hear in this case is only  40-50 db max as the noise floor of a very silent room ist a least 20db.


----------



## RoundRound

bibo said:


> Actually the dynamic range you hear in this case is only  40-50 db max as the noise floor of a very silent room ist a least 20db.




Thanks,
So what's the point about true 20 bit DACs if we barely hear 8 bit on the real world?


----------



## BassDigger

roundround said:


> Thanks,
> So what's the point about true 20 bit DACs if we barely hear 8 bit on the real world?


 
  
 Read back a few pages; this topic has already been discussed, at length.


----------



## RoundRound

bassdigger said:


> Read back a few pages; this topic has already been discussed, at length.



Thanks mate,
That's a 380 pages thread, can you perhaps point me to the relevant page?


----------



## BassDigger

Try a search for enob. Effective Number of Bits


----------



## BassDigger

roundround said:


> Thanks mate,
> That's a 380 pages thread, can you perhaps point me to the relevant page?


 
  
 This post is quite informative.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-kinda-sucks-just-to-get-you-to-think-about-stuff/5640#post_11662900
  
 But the main discussion was, as mentioned, a few pages earlier (somewhere 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ).


----------



## jcx

actually https://www.xiph.org/video/ is a popular suggestion - I know Monty, he knows his stuff - but I'm allergic to video and already fairly expert in the subject so I never watched all the way through
  
 some make a big deal of distinguishing between upsampling and oversampling - the context should make it clear and unless you haven't any other points to score I'd ignore "misuse" if the rest was correct


----------



## Wildcatsare1

Have a Monarchy 22B on the way. Had a similar question about the PCM63 versus the PCM1704. Is the 63 a better sounding DAC chip, Mr. Poon said he would send me 1704s if I wanted to upgrade to 24 bits from the current 20. Good or bad idea?

Edit: Plenty of info on the 22B, but none on the upgrade (is it one?).


----------



## Head1

purrin said:


> I don't think there is a strong correlation with price in my rankings. For example, note these expensive DACs that I did not particularly care for:
> 
> 
> PSA DSD $5,999
> ...


 
 Do you mean the UD-501?
  
 HA-501 is an amp.


----------



## diamondears

@KeithEmo Great posts.


----------



## thegunner100

wildcatsare1 said:


> Have a Monarchy 22B on the way. Had a similar question about the PCM63 versus the PCM1704. Is the 63 a better sounding DAC chip, Mr. Poon said he would send me 1704s if I wanted to upgrade to 24 bits from the current 20. Good or bad idea?
> 
> Edit: Plenty of info on the 22B, but none on the upgrade (is it one?).


 
  
 Stick with the PCM63s. 1704 is a downgrade.


----------



## DreamKing

thegunner100 said:


> Stick with the PCM63s. 1704 is a downgrade.


 
  
 Hi,
  
 Interesting. Seems really conclusive. On what dac with socketed chips did you compare them and in what ways is the 1704 a downgrade?


----------



## Sapientiam

Typical low level linearity's worse for the PCM1704 (+/- 0.5dB @ -90dB) vs PCM63 (+/- 0.3dB @ -90dB) which is rather odd considering the PCM1704 has 4 more bits.


----------



## DreamKing

My question was more if anyone could hear audible differences between them, on the same dac and setup but I guess the measurements speak loudly. The extra 4 bits appear to give the PCM1704 110, 112 dB dynamic range vs the different iteration of the PCM63's 100, 104, 108 dB DR. All of this as well as the 0.2 dB difference in low level linearity you mentioned are audibly transparent to human hearing though.
  
 Are there any significant differences to human hearing in the measurements of the two chips?
  
 From a quick look at the specs, they appear to mean that swapping out one chip for the other would be a waste of time for audible differences. So the rest of the dac would be of more importance. Safe assessment?


----------



## Jones Bob

The ICs are not pin for pin interchangeable. They are totally different packages.


----------



## DreamKing

Apparently, you can swap the PCM63 for the PCM1704 in the Monarchy 22B some way. 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-kinda-sucks-just-to-get-you-to-think-about-stuff/5850#post_11688338


jones bob said:


> The ICs are not pin for pin interchangeable. They are totally different packages.


----------



## Sapientiam

dreamking said:


> The extra 4 bits appear to give the PCM1704 110, 112 dB dynamic range vs the different iteration of the PCM63's 100, 104, 108 dB DR. All of this as well as the 0.2 dB difference in low level linearity you mentioned are audibly transparent to human hearing though.


 
  
 Those DR figures aren't apples to apples. Note in the small print that A-weighting is adopted for the PCM1704 - this normally makes the figure around 2dB better than an unweighted measurement.


----------



## DreamKing

sapientiam said:


> Those DR figures aren't apples to apples. Note in the small print that A-weighting is adopted for the PCM1704 - this normally makes the figure around 2dB better than an unweighted measurement.


 
  
 There's one mention of A-weighting for the PCM63's SNR in notes, no other weighting mentions though.
  
 When does Burr-Brown not apply A-weighting for these figures? It's an industry standard too, so what other weighting should be assumed, from the same tech company?


----------



## Sapientiam

I'd not assume A-weighting, unless its explicitly mentioned. The PCM63 only has its idle channel SNR measured with an A-weight filter (note 6 in the table), all other measurements don't mention weighting so it would be fair to assume unweighted.


----------



## DreamKing

I see, well a 2 dB change would still be transparent though. So no audible difference in DR still. I wonder if anyone's ever compared them on one of those upgradable DAC's. For the time being, I'm just gonna assume it's up to the DAC and not the chip (between these two chips at least).


----------



## Sapientiam

Current measurements don't give much, if any guide to transparency. Otherwise the ODAC and O2 would be the last word in fidelity.


----------



## prot

sapientiam said:


> Current measurements don't give much, if any guide to transparency. Otherwise the ODAC and O2 would be the last word in fidelity.




Yes they do. And yes they are (one of the..). 
The Odac even carries the amazing "purrin approved" stamp for the faint of heart.


----------



## DreamKing

sapientiam said:


> Current measurements don't give much, if any guide to transparency. Otherwise the ODAC and O2 would be the last word in fidelity.


 
  
 In any case, the PCM1704 would still have more DR than the PCM63 if you subtracted the A-weighting average. So unless you've directly compared the chips, these measurements aren't conclusive to its transparency, if anything else from what you're saying. So a bit confused why you started off by mentioning low level linearity.


----------



## Articnoise

wildcatsare1 said:


> Have a Monarchy 22B on the way. Had a similar question about the PCM63 versus the PCM1704. Is the 63 a better sounding DAC chip, Mr. Poon said he would send me 1704s if I wanted to upgrade to 24 bits from the current 20. Good or bad idea?
> 
> Edit: Plenty of info on the 22B, but none on the upgrade (is it one?).


 
  

 I would ask Mr. Poon which he prefer in this specific DAC and what the SQ pros and cons are. The DAC chip not only has to be good, it really has to synergy well with the filters (they work together) and also the rest of the design. 

  

 Regarding PCM63 versus the PCM1704, not everybody share the view of MM. AYON CD-5, NAIM CD555, Aqua Audio La Scala, Mark Levinson 30.6, Trinity DAC are some well regarding DACs that use the PCM1704 and of cause an equally list of good DACs can be made for the PCM63.


----------



## Sapientiam

> So a bit confused why you started off by mentioning low level linearity.


 
 Answering the question you posed - 'in what way is the 1704 a downgrade?' (relative to the '63).


----------



## Sapientiam

prot said:


> Yes they do.


 
  
 Cite?


----------



## thegunner100

dreamking said:


> Hi,
> 
> Interesting. Seems really conclusive. On what dac with socketed chips did you compare them and in what ways is the 1704 a downgrade?


 
 I had the parasound d/ac-1100, which could have been "upgraded" to the pcm1704. But based on my experience with the M7, I did not go for it. The parasound with a cheap usb/spdif converter already sounded better than the M7 to my ears.
  
 But YMMV. Maybe you'll like the thicker, more syrupy sound of the 1704.


----------



## purrin

"PCM1704 bass", softness, and lack of resolution despite more bits. Lots of people like that kind of sound though.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

^Thanks Gents, I am going to stick with the BB PCM63s, the Monarchy 22B should be here Tuesday.

Appreciate the advice, looking forward to lighting it up!


----------



## Jones Bob

dreamking said:


> Apparently, you can swap the PCM63 for the PCM1704 in the Monarchy 22B some way.
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-kinda-sucks-just-to-get-you-to-think-about-stuff/5850#post_11688338


 

Kludge. 

Not only are the physical parameters not interchangeable, neither are the signal parameters. The digital filter needs to be reprogrammed/replaced to be optimized to either 20 or 24 bit, as does the analog anti imaging filter.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

jones bob said:


> Kludge.
> 
> Not only are the physical parameters not interchangeable, neither are the signal parameters. The digital filter needs to be reprogrammed/replaced to be optimized to either 20 or 24 bit, as does the analog anti imaging filter.




Kludge is correct, Monarchy sells an adapter in the chip replacement and it remains at 20 bits. So I am not going to make the change, very happy I decided not to buy the other unit for sale that had been "upgraded".


----------



## lukeap69

wildcatsare1 said:


> Kludge is correct, Monarchy sells an adapter in the chip replacement and it remains at 20 bits. So I am not going to make the change, very happy I decided not to buy the other unit for sale that had been "upgraded".




Why did you chose 22B over the NM24?


----------



## Wildcatsare1

lukeap69 said:


> Why did you chose 22B over the NM24?





lukeap69 said:


> Why did you chose 22B over the NM24?




I found an M22B at a really good price, so I wanted to give it a shot. Would love to compare them head to head.


----------



## lukeap69

wildcatsare1 said:


> I found an M22B at a really good price, so I wanted to give it a shot. Would love to compare them head to head.



Nice. Let us know your impressions.


----------



## blasjw

jones bob said:


> Kludge.
> 
> Not only are the physical parameters not interchangeable, neither are the signal parameters. The digital filter needs to be reprogrammed/replaced to be optimized to either 20 or 24 bit, as does the analog anti imaging filter.


 

 Also possible.  Many vintage DACs have all four digital chips socketed i.e. the two DACs, digital filter, and input receiver.  For example, you can buy a kit with all four on eBay for a Parasound DAC 1000 to go from PCM63 to PCM1704 with full 96/24 support (see link below).  I just finished socketing all four chips on my GDA-600 yesterday so I may try rolling PCM1704s myself at some point.  Maybe after I try some PCM63-K2s or -Ys.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Now, I'm just waiting for the opa627s to burn-in (I socketed the opamps as well).  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Parasound-DAC-1000-Full-Level-1-2-Digital-Upgrade-24bit-96khz-/371179511363?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item566c05de43


----------



## DreamKing

sapientiam said:


> Answering the question you posed - 'in what way is the 1704 a downgrade?' (relative to the '63).


 
  
 I see, but then you can say (from a quick glance) the PCM63 is a downgrade in SNR (despite A-weighting on the 63) and in DR from the 1704.
   
 Quote:


sapientiam said:


> Cite?


 
  
 https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2. It's been researched through and through. Cite what shows that a particular measurement at this level isn't transparent audibly.


----------



## Jones Bob

blasjw said:


> Also possible.  Many vintage DACs have all four digital chips socketed i.e. the two DACs, digital filter, and input receiver.  For example, you can buy a kit with all four on eBay for a Parasound DAC 1000 to go from PCM63 to PCM1704 with full 96/24 support (see link below).  I just finished socketing all four chips on my GDA-600 yesterday so I may try rolling PCM1704s myself at some point.  Maybe after I try some PCM63-K2s or -Ys.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Anything is possible. I've seen a 440ci Mopar in a Karmann Ghia.
  
  I forgot what digital filter was in my old GDA600, probably was not a BB DF1700 as that was released later. Good luck with using that kit on a GDA600. You will learn ALOT.


----------



## DreamKing

purrin said:


> "PCM1704 bass", softness, and lack of resolution despite more bits. Lots of people like that kind of sound though.


 


thegunner100 said:


> I had the parasound d/ac-1100, which could have been "upgraded" to the pcm1704. But based on my experience with the M7, I did not go for it. The parasound with a cheap usb/spdif converter already sounded better than the M7 to my ears.
> 
> But YMMV. Maybe you'll like the thicker, more syrupy sound of the 1704.


 
  
 That certainly doesn't sound very pleasing to me..I'll do what I can to try both the 63 and 1704 at some point though, to get a better idea.


----------



## DreamKing

jones bob said:


> Kludge.
> 
> Not only are the physical parameters not interchangeable, neither are the signal parameters. The digital filter needs to be reprogrammed/replaced to be optimized to either 20 or 24 bit, as does the analog anti imaging filter.


 
  
What a waste of time and dough then. I'll keep note of never taking up a self-performed dac upgrade. Has there ever been a case where it was effective (meaning with other chips)?
  
 Never mind, just saw blasjw's 1000 post about the Parasound DAC 1000.


----------



## blasjw

jones bob said:


> Anything is possible. I've seen a 440ci Mopar in a Karmann Ghia.
> 
> I forgot what digital filter was in my old GDA600, probably was not a BB DF1700 as that was released later. Good luck with using that kit on a GDA600. You will learn ALOT.


 
 
Actually it is DF1700.  Below are the chips.  CS8414 is pin-for-pin compatible with CS8412 BTW.  I'm always down for learning something new.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 
2 x Burr Brown PCM63 (20-bit). 
1 x Burr Brown DF1700 digital filter. 
1 x CS8412  digital receiver. 
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Crystal-CS8414-Adapter-1-1-CS8412-compatible-/161630888187?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_77&hash=item25a1f3a0fb


----------



## jbarrentine

Unless I'm doing absolutely critical listening, sitting there concentrating on nothing else, am I really going to notice a difference in dacs on the lower end? 
  
 I'm considering music streamer II to music streamer HD right now.


----------



## Ableza

jbarrentine said:


> Unless I'm doing absolutely critical listening, sitting there concentrating on nothing else, am I really going to notice a difference in dacs on the lower end?
> 
> I'm considering music streamer II to music streamer HD right now.


 
 In my opinion, you'll only notice issues.  So if one is noisy or has bad distortion then yes, you'll notice.  Otherwise... not so much.


----------



## jacal01

purrin said:


> "PCM1704 bass", softness, and lack of resolution despite more bits. Lots of people like that kind of sound though.


 
  
 What I noticed with the M7 was a buzz or fuzz out at the very low bass frequencies with performance enhancing headphones, such as the TH900s.  I had thought at the time that it was a downside of the enhancing property of the headphones coloring, but that bass bottom looseness has never been duplicated using the Yggy inline with the TH900s.  The Yggy is somewhat brighter and sharper in attack in comparison with the M7, tho.


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Wait! I can enhance my performance with headphones? TH900s?? Ordered!


----------



## jacal01

You caught that particular euphemistic buzz phrase, did you?  I was grinning while I wrote it.
  
 But yeah, non-consumable and everything...


----------



## Jones Bob

blasjw said:


> Actually it is DF1700.  Below are the chips.  CS8414 is pin-for-pin compatible with CS8412 BTW.  I'm always down for learning something new.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




With the DF7000 stock in the Adcom, looks like you are close to actually being able to swap out the guts of your GDA600. If you do it, please post an update here. 

BTW, even though they share the same pin out, it will need an adapter for the CS8414. It's a SOIC and the CS8412 is a DIP.


----------



## Sapientiam

dreamking said:


> I see, but then you can say (from a quick glance) the PCM63 is a downgrade in SNR (despite A-weighting on the 63) and in DR from the 1704.
> 
> https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2. It's been researched through and through. Cite what shows that a particular measurement at this level isn't transparent audibly.


 
  
 Yes, you can certainly cite some measurements which PCM1704 beats PCM63 on, but you didn't ask about those.
  
 As for Meyer and Moran, its a joke. But discussing its various flaws will land us in 'Sound science'. For a more carefully researched paper you could search for Belcher's work at the BBC in the 1970s, he wrote an article in 'Wireless World' titled 'A new amplifier measurement' which showed no correlation between THD and SQ in amplifiers.


----------



## DreamKing

sapientiam said:


> Yes, you can certainly cite some measurements which PCM1704 beats PCM63 on, but you didn't ask about those.
> 
> As for Meyer and Moran, its a joke. But discussing its various flaws will land us in 'Sound science'. For a more carefully researched paper you could search for Belcher's work at the BBC in the 1970s, he wrote an article in 'Wireless World' titled 'A new amplifier measurement' which showed no correlation between THD and SQ in amplifiers.


 
  
 I asked for way*s, *plural, that you somehow reduced to a singular measurement you and I agree doesn't matter:


dreamking said:


> Hi,
> 
> Interesting. Seems really conclusive. On what dac with socketed chips did you compare them and in what ways is the 1704 a downgrade?


 
 Meaning as a whole dac chip to another dac chip, is the 1704 a downgrade.
  
 And as for Meyer and Moran, either way I don't care what research paper you like or don't like as long as we agree that measurements aren't conclusive to audible differences in almost any case. Especially not at the PCM63 and 1704 level.


----------



## blasjw

jones bob said:


> With the DF7000 stock in the Adcom, looks like you are close to actually being able to swap out the guts of your GDA600. If you do it, please post an update here.
> 
> BTW, even though they share the same pin out, it will need an adapter for the CS8414. It's a SOIC and the CS8412 is a DIP.


 
  
 Sure, no problem.  If I swap out the chips, I will post an update.  So far, I just partially re-capped the power supply, socketed the 4 main digital ICs and the op-amps which I replaced with OPA627s. I'm still waiting for some additional caps for the power supply and some for the analog output stage to arrive.  Have some additional mods in mind for the future as well.
  
 Yes, that's correct.  The CS8414 is SOIC but fortunately, it's readily available on eBay with the adapter if you don't like soldering SMT.


----------



## Sapientiam

dreamking said:


> I asked for way*s, *plural, that you somehow reduced to a singular measurement you and I agree doesn't matter:
> Meaning as a whole dac chip to another dac chip, is the 1704 a downgrade.
> 
> And as for Meyer and Moran, either way I don't care what research paper you like or don't like as long as we agree that measurements aren't conclusive to audible differences in almost any case. Especially not at the PCM63 and 1704 level.


 
  
 I studied the two DSs until I found one example of what you were asking for, then stopped looking for any more. Its already been mentioned on this thread that subjectively the 1704 is a downgrade - what's interesting to me is that most of the measurements tend to point the other way. Incidentally in comparing performance of the two chips they're characterized at different sampling rates - the 1704 at 16X OS and the 63 at only 8X OS. So the 1704 is being asked to work harder.


----------



## KeithEmo

bassdigger said:


> Firstly, thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive and informative explanation.
> 
> I guess my terminology was incorrect; "prone to" does suggest that the dac is the _cause_ of the jitter/errors. You're saying DS is more _sensitive _to them. TBH, I wasn't sure which.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've heard lots of different opinions about "what jitter sounds like".... My (informal) way of testing it was simply to compare the way a given DAC sounds by itself, and how it sounds when I feed the signal going to it through a "jitter remover" (one which I trust to, by the numbers, actually be reducing the jitter to very low numbers). What I tend to hear is that, with "higher jitter", wire brush cymbals tend to sound somewhat unnatural (more like a burst of steam than like metal on metal), and that sometimes sibilants sound odd (sort of emphasized but not necessarily louder). I hate going into details because these are clearly subjective, but I've asked other people their impressions of what was happening, and theirs seemed to agree with mine. I personally don't hear any significant difference with tracks that contain mostly vocals, or tracks with no strong high frequencies, and I find that only a few recordings seem to be "clear" enough to begin with that I notice the difference.
  
 Unfortunately, measuring jitter directly is very difficult, and very few companies are set up to do so. (The oft-mentioned J-test doesn't actually measure jitter directly; it delivers a "torture test signal" to the input of the device, then looks for increases in the jitter spectrum at the output. In short, while it provides a reasonable inference about the device's susceptibility to jitter, it neither delivers a jittered signal to test with, nor measures actual jitter at the output.) Note that the output noise spectra caused by jitter are its "symptom", so measuring them _DOES _give you an accurate picture of how much the sound quality of your output is being affected by jitter.... it just fails to provide detailed information about the error mechanism involved. (So "not seeing significant jitter spectra" really is sufficient proof that "jitter isn't a problem".)
  
 As for "how easy it is to design for low jitter" - that depends on your design and production process. You need to start out with parts that have very low jitter, and a design that doesn't introduce too much extra jitter, then you have to build it in such a way that you preserve those benefits. As a very wide generality, assuming you start with a perfect signal, commercial S/PDIF interface chips can maintain jitter at or under 100 pS (that's a quote - I haven't measured it). An asynchronous USB interface can deliver lower jitter since, because the clocking is done by the receiving device, the jitter of the incoming signal really doesn't matter.
  
 Unfortunately, designing for very low jitter tends to entail critical placement and spacing of circuit paths, which pretty well rules out any point-to-point wiring (you need to create a PCB design that works well and keep any interconnect wiring as short and as neat and consistent as possible). This makes it virtually impossible to "breadboard" a really low-jitter design. So, for a company designing a product, it tends to work out to "design the basic circuit, understanding that it won't work very well; once the basic design is good, design a board; send it out to be built; test it and see if it works like you thought; correct any errors; try again; repeat until you get it right" - which is a bit cumbersome for DIY.


----------



## KeithEmo

articnoise said:


> Isn’t it better to double the oversample rate like 44.1K -> (88.2K ->) 176.4K instead of go 44.1K -> 192K? My somehow limited understanding and experience is that you should always double or triple the oversample rate in even numbers, no matter if the oversample takes place in the DAC or in a PC. Some DACs are even using two different clocks; one for 44.1, 88.2, 176.4, 352.8 and another for 48, 96, 192, 384.
> 
> 
> 
> Btw I really appreciates your posts here.


 
  
 Oversampling and upsampling are really two different words for the same process. Upsampling is a more general term for converting any digital audio content to a higher sample rate - regardless of where you do it. Oversampling is usually used to refer to doing that process inside a DAC, and usually in even multiples of the original sample frequency, but they really mean the same thing. (When it's done internally in a DAC, it's always an even multiple, because that's the easiest way to do it - and there's no benefit to using any other frequency instead.) In any case, since you cannot create new information that isn't present in the original audio data, you are using interpolation to "make up" new information. (Bear in mind that the purpose is _NOT_ to create new information; the purpose is to simplify further processing by delivering the same information at a higher sample rate.)
  
 The math is slightly simpler to upsample to an even multiple, but I wouldn't really consider that an important factor these days.
  
 A clock is a clock - and it doesn't really matter how you get it... except... from a purely practical point of view the reason for using separate _CLOCKS_ is that creating clock frequencies by dividing a clock by even numbers tends to give you a cleaner clock with less jitter than synthesizing a clock from non-even multiples. (There are chips that can "synthesize" any clock you ask them to, but the clocks they produce tend to not be as clean and jitter-free as clock signals generated by fixed-frequency dividers. Note that this is a purely practical consideration; all that really matters is how good the clock you're using is in the end.) Arguably, the best method would be to use a separate fixed-frequency clock for each clock you need, but the cost would be prohibitive.


----------



## evillamer

PCM1704(1.2mA) seem to have much less current output vs PCM63(2mA). Wonder if that has any effect to the bass slam or dynamics.


----------



## Sapientiam

Interesting point - if opamp I/V's being used then the opamp converting the '63s output has to work almost twice as hard, generating almost 6dB more PSU noise in the process.
  
 If passive I/V then the output impedance becomes important as it'll determine the PSRR - PCM1704 wins on that but the figure is still very low - 1kohm. If a 100R resistor's used for passive I/V then that only gives 20dB PSRR meaning PSU noise has to be low and stable.


----------



## DreamKing

sapientiam said:


> I studied the two DSs until I found one example of what you were asking for, then stopped looking for any more. Its already been mentioned on this thread that subjectively the 1704 is a downgrade - what's interesting to me is that most of the measurements tend to point the other way. Incidentally in comparing performance of the two chips they're characterized at different sampling rates - the 1704 at 16X OS and the 63 at only 8X OS. So the 1704 is being asked to work harder.


 
  
 Yes, I do get a sense that people that compared them like the 63 more. At least, that's all I've heard up to now. I may have to compare them at some point to get a better idea but so far I'm leaning more towards the 63 for a first step in R2R.
 The oversampling stuff is interesting, however.


----------



## prot

jbarrentine said:


> Unless I'm doing absolutely critical listening, sitting there concentrating on nothing else, am I really going to notice a difference in dacs on the lower end?
> 
> I'm considering music streamer II to music streamer HD right now.




You need to concentrate and listen hard to hear diffs between almost any two DACs made in 2015 .. even motherboard soundchips sound very good nowadays and are very hard to abx .. and even if you sometimes do (or think you do) hear differences, the normal average-joe most probably wont.


----------



## hbuus

prot said:


> You need to concentrate and listen hard to hear diffs between almost any two DACs made in 2015 .. even motherboard soundchips sound very good nowadays and are very hard to abx .. and even if you sometimes do (or think you do) hear differences, the normal average-joe most probably wont.


 

 This may very well be true, but only up to a certain price point, I think.
  
 For example I recently had the opportunity to make a direct A/B-comparison between a NAD C165BEE and a NAD M51 (both are combined preamp/DAC.)
 The difference in sound signature was very apparent - even to the average joe, I'd suspect.


----------



## jbarrentine

hbuus said:


> This may very well be true, but only up to a certain price point, I think.
> 
> For example I recently had the opportunity to make a direct A/B-comparison between a NAD C165BEE and a NAD M51 (both are combined preamp/DAC.)
> The difference in sound signature was very apparent - even to the average joe, I'd suspect.


 
  
 So if you DON'T have $2,000 to spend probably not is what you're saying. 
  
 I will never spend $2000 on a component. Ever. I just can't imagine such a thing. I know there are people with more money than I have or those that value such things more, but I can't see it for me personally.


----------



## LingLing1337

I recently compared dacs costing $35, $175, $500, and $1500. There was a clear difference between all of them I think all of this "all dacs sound the same" talk has only been around a couple years and probably comes frm the younger generation who has less cash to spend and therefore wants to justify a lo-fi or mid-fi setup as endgame.


----------



## hbuus

jbarrentine said:


> So if you DON'T have $2,000 to spend probably not is what you're saying.
> 
> I will never spend $2000 on a component. Ever. I just can't imagine such a thing. I know there are people with more money than I have or those that value such things more, but I can't see it for me personally.


 

 Hehe, no  I was merely referring to an example of two DACs I have listened to recently where there was a clear difference in sound, that's all.
  
 I totally respect your view on expensive audio btw.
 It's certainly not necessary to spend a zillion $$$ in order to get good sound nowadays, and if you don't feel the price of a piece of equipment is justified for you then indeed, why buy it.
  
 I think you hit the nail on the head when you say there are people who have more money than you and/or people who value such things more.
 For those people it may very well make sense to buy expensive audio.
  
 Look at it this way:
 Some people smoke 15-20 cigarettes a day and get enjoyment out of that.
 Some people like to travel to far-away destinations.
 Some people like to buy a new car every 3. year.
 etc. etc.
  
 We humans tend to spend our money where we get most enjoyment, and for some of us that includes expensive audio equipment


----------



## Sonic Defender

hbuus said:


> ......
> 
> 
> We humans tend to spend our money where we get most enjoyment, and for some of us that includes expensive audio equipment


 
 Exactly brother, we all have different priorities. I am always shocked at the people who lecture me on my audio expenditures who feel it is more reasonable to have as fancy a car as they can, or to smoke, or travel etc.


----------



## evillamer

Found this PDF from analog. Really the most detailed and technical dac document you can find:

http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/43-09/EDCh%206%20Converter.pdf


----------



## evillamer

There seem to be an unannounced AKM AK4497 chip  that has SNR 127db
  
 source:
 http://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/featured/premiumaudio/


----------



## Wildcatsare1

Hey Guys, the Monarchy 22B I picked up on EBay is shorting, the fuse blows immediately. The Seller claims it was working when he mailed it, if that is true any chance one or both of the transformers were damaged in shipping? Help!!!!


----------



## Ableza

wildcatsare1 said:


> Hey Guys, the Monarchy 22B I picked up on EBay is shorting, the fuse blows immediately. The Seller claims it was working when he mailed it, if that is true any chance one or both of the transformers were damaged in shipping? Help!!!!


 
 Well, anything is possible and damage due to transit could happen, especially if the packaging was insufficient.  But bottom line is if you bought on Ebay and used PayPal, then you are protected and if the seller will not make it right for you, file a claim with PayPal.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

ableza said:


> Well, anything is possible and damage due to transit could happen, especially if the packaging was insufficient.  But bottom line is if you bought on Ebay and used PayPal, then you are protected and if the seller will not make it right for you, file a claim with PayPal.


 

 Thanks, yes on both counts, Ebay and PayPal. Mr. Poon (he is a great Guy BTW) sent me the schematics and he is talking me through a couple of things. Need to get a new battery for my multimeter so I will find out this PM. 
  
 It was packed very well, the Seller says he is a Tech with an electrical background and the unit was working when he sent it to me. He only insured it for $100.00 with Canada Post. Here's a pic of the transformers, any idea on the replacement costs?


----------



## Ableza

It is HIGHLY unlikely for a transformer to be damaged due to shipping.  It takes heat and power to damage transformers, normally. Much more likely to have been caused by shipping would be something coming loose or for the motherboard to get knocked off its mounting and perhaps shorting to ground.  I would be very surprised if a transformer was good when shipped and then bad when delivered.  You might look under the main board and see if a screw or something is wedged underneath... or look for a loose connection somewhere...


----------



## Wildcatsare1

ableza said:


> It is HIGHLY unlikely for a transformer to be damaged due to shipping.  It takes heat and power to damage transformers, normally. Much more likely to have been caused by shipping would be something coming loose or for the motherboard to get knocked off its mounting and perhaps shorting to ground.  I would be very surprised if a transformer was good when shipped and then bad when delivered.  You might look under the main board and see if a screw or something is wedged underneath... or look for a loose connection somewhere...




Thanks, will take a look when I get home. If it is a transformer I will have to negotiate for the cost of replacement or just ship it back for a refund.


----------



## AudioBear

Why do you think it was a transformer?  It's more likely a dislodged screw or loose contact as Ableza has pointed out.  Look for cracks in the tracks on the printed circuit boards, loose connectors, a loose wire at the power plug, etc.


----------



## Sonic Defender

I would just go for the refund and hit reboot. You could be pulling your hair out trying to find the fault if it isn't very obvious. You have other DACs right, or is this DAC supposed to be so good that it is worth the effort? Good luck there buddy.


----------



## prot

lingling1337 said:


> I recently compared dacs costing $35, $175, $500, and $1500. There was a clear difference between all of them I think all of this "all dacs sound the same" talk has only been around a couple years and probably comes frm the younger generation who has less cash to spend and therefore wants to justify a lo-fi or mid-fi setup as endgame.


 

And other people compared $2, $200 and $2000 DACs and found that they cannot tell the difference http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733-19.html. That was a pretty professional test, performed 100% by the book. 
Could you tell us more about the devices you tested and how did you do it?


----------



## LingLing1337

Could you first tell me which devices you've used/compared/ABXd?


----------



## drez

In this interst of keeping this thread on topic I made my reply to prot's post on "Testing claims about the sound of different DACs" thread in Sound Science


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> And other people compared $2, $200 and $2000 DACs and found that they cannot tell the difference http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733-19.html. That was a pretty professional test, performed 100% by the book.
> Could you tell us more about the devices you tested and how did you do it?


 
  
 LOL, that article has been mentioned several times already. I too could line up several craptastic DACs from $100 to $4000 and probably have the $100 one sound the best. Those guys were using the builtin headouts of some of those DACs too. The findings in that article aren't that much out of whack if you've actually heard the combinations they've tested.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

audiobear said:


> Why do you think it was a transformer?  It's more likely a dislodged screw or loose contact as Ableza has pointed out.  Look for cracks in the tracks on the printed circuit boards, loose connectors, a loose wire at the power plug, etc.




OK, update....checked the ohms across the 230V point on the board, no idea what it's actually called but Mr. Poon said anything over 20 was fine and I am getting 21.3. No visible cracks on the board, loose connections, etc., stil blowing fuses. Guess I'll be sending it back.

Before I do I'll check with Mr. Poon one more time to see if he has any ideas. Those PCM63 P-K's are beautiful though....


----------



## yfei

purrin said:


> LOL, that article has been mentioned several times already. I too could line up several craptastic DACs from $100 to $4000 and probably have the $100 one sound the best. Those guys were using the builtin headouts of some of those DACs too. The findings in that article aren't that much out of whack if you've actually heard the combinations they've tested.


 

 Actually in the resolution, detail department, I found Dell XPS 9100 desktop PC is the best (integrated realtek chip, probably the whole audio section on the motherboard is only $2).
  
 I use it as a reference to compare with DACs, it beats all DACs I have tried from few hundred to $1xxx.
 I know this sounds crazy, all DACs are not as detailed, as transparent as a $2 audio system.  Until I got Hilo.
  
 Note that I am not talking about sound quality,    XPS 9100 internal sound chip is NOT musical, NOT smooth, frequency response is not flat, ....      Only talking about details and clarity.


----------



## BassDigger

wildcatsare1 said:


> Thanks, yes on both counts, Ebay and PayPal. Mr. Poon (he is a great Guy BTW) sent me the schematics and he is talking me through a couple of things. Need to get a new battery for my multimeter so I will find out this PM.
> 
> It was packed very well, the Seller says he is a Tech with an electrical background and the unit was working when he sent it to me. *He only insured it for $100.00 with Canada Post*. Here's a pic of the transformers, any idea on the replacement costs?


 
  
 The postal insurance should be the seller's responsibility; if he didn't insure enough, that's his problem.
  
 If he seems helpful, he says he's a tech, maybe he'd like to have a look at it, see if he can fix it and return, or refund you, depending on what he can do or how you feel.
  
 It depends on how much of a bargain you feel you got, what comparable alternatives there are and do you trust the seller?


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> LOL, that article has been mentioned several times already. I too could line up several craptastic DACs from $100 to $4000 and probably have the $100 one sound the best. Those guys were using the builtin headouts of some of those DACs too. The findings in that article aren't that much out of whack if you've actually heard the combinations they've tested.




 You and I may or may not agree with the conclusion but I doubt that any audio-joe will hear anything different. That means over 99% of the people .. and since we are discussing the SQ as a subjective matter of oppinion, that percentage is very relevant. 

I have no reason to doubt the people who wrote that article. Tom's is a well known PC hardware-test site.. one of the oldest and most respected. Also, it is not the only report to say that the $2 MB sounchips are really good nowadays. 

I do however have every possible doubt about empty statements like the above "I tested 3 DACs and they did sound very different" .. that is not even information ... and probably wouldve been a much better idea to just ignore it.


----------



## frenchbat

prot said:


> I have no reason to doubt the people who wrote that article. Tom's is a well known PC hardware-test site.. one of the oldest and most respected. Also, it is not the only report to say that the $2 MB sounchips are really good nowadays.
> 
> I do however have every possible doubt about empty statements like the above "I tested 3 DACs and they did sound very different" .. that is not even information ... and probably wouldve been a much better idea to just ignore it.


 

 Wait, what ? You think that using different amps (in this case integrated headout) to compare DACs is A-OK as a methodology ? Seriously ...


----------



## BassDigger

prot said:


> You and I may or may not agree with the conclusion but I doubt that any audio-joe will hear anything different. That means over 99% of the people .. and since we are discussing the SQ as a subjective matter of oppinion, that percentage is very relevant.
> 
> I have no reason to doubt the people who wrote that article. Tom's is a well known PC hardware-test site.. one of the oldest and most respected. Also, it is not the only report to say that the *$2 MB sounchips are really good nowadays*.
> 
> I do however have every possible doubt about empty statements like the above "I tested *3 DACs and they did sound very different" .. that is not even information* ... and probably wouldve been a much better idea to *just ignore it*.


 
  
 Dude, soundchips, instead of DACs?!?
 You've elsewhere mentioned that you, pretty much, don't accept that cables or sources can make any difference.
  
 Aren't you just arguing that any/all 'High-Fidelity' equipment is unnecessary? Or would it be easier for you to say what 'HiF'i equipment is worthwhile? Do headphones make any difference?


----------



## Argo Duck

Seriously? Let's dissect.

Start with a personal opinion: "I doubt that...".
Quantify the opinion: "That means over 99% of the people". 

Say what? How does _your_ doubt generalize to a statement about _others_ and their capacities or lack of them? Not just 'others' mind you. It's "the people".
As in 'a whole population'? I and my colleagues didn't realise populations could be measured so easily! We could've spared ourselves a lot of trouble applying careful psychometric principles to population estimation by merely substituting our opinions.

Next a breath-taking verbal sleight of hand: "since we are discussing the SQ as ... subjective, that percentage is very relevant". Hey you can make anything work by just conflating two independent ideas into the same statement. I guess what is meant here is something like 'because - based on a personal doubt - 99% of people would not subjectively notice a difference, this shows that anyone who subjectively _does_ notice a difference is clearly in a very small minority (1%!) and thus their claim can be disregarded'.

I kind of admire the _spirit_ of this attempt to make the subjective objective in order that the subjective can then be dismissed, but I fear it fails as a credible way of tackling the problem and I won't be applying it within any of my clients' problem domains anytime soon.

Next an appeal to _authority_ based on claims of the pedigree of Tom's hardware. What, no "99%" this time? At any rate, no need for critical scrutiny. We can swallow the finding whole because "Tom's" says so!

The cherry on this particular cake though is this: "I do however have every possible doubt about empty statements like...".

Quite right. The post below is full of them...



prot said:


> You and I may or may not agree with the conclusion but I doubt that any audio-joe will hear anything different. That means over 99% of the people .. and since we are discussing the SQ as a subjective matter of oppinion, that percentage is very relevant.
> 
> I have no reason to doubt the people who wrote that article. Tom's is a well known PC hardware-test site.. one of the oldest and most respected. Also, it is not the only report to say that the $2 MB sounchips are really good nowadays.
> 
> I do however have every possible doubt about empty statements like the above "I tested 3 DACs and they did sound very different" .. that is not even information ... and probably wouldve been a much better idea to just ignore it.


----------



## joeexp

+1 Well put! Couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## Feuergeist76

I don't know why here and also in other threads there is the tendency to argue forwards some objectivity - in the real world most philosophers agree upon that there is not such kind of thing called objectivity.

And especially in the high end hifi world I would say it's even more obvious that it's a pure subjective matter of preference.

Who the hell likes a 2$ sound chip should be happy - he is saving a lot of money for fency cars, expensive holidays and/or sex, drugs and rock'n roll. But please - let the people spending 2000$ or 20000$ do what they want to do.

And by the way - a Sabre high end audio chip called ESS9018 bla cost 10$ a peace. It's obvious that you can get a similar, a little bit less quality chip for 0.2$. And that's the story about.

An AD Chip used in the Yggdrasil cost nearly 100$ a piece - this means that the material costs including labor and development costs of one piece will be around half the price of a unit. And sure the Schiit guys are earning money with their business. That's the story about.

The transistors in the TotalDAC cost roughly one third of the selling price - just make up your own mind if the unit price is right or wrong.

I can only tell you that in the industry it's common that around 25-50% of the selling price are production costs. If this is going more to the point that production costs are 1-10% I would felt ripped of. But this is only my point of view. The more unique something is, the more you have a USP. See what Apple is doing - 130$ unit costs and a selling price of 800$. And do you know what? I even like it.

Back to topic - I personally found out what was mentioned hundreds of times in this thread already - I don't like the slightly robotic sound DS DACs are producing - some more, some less. I hope that the Yggdrasil will solve that - I'm still waiting for my unit.

Cheers

Feuergeist


----------



## prot

ugh. I think some of you are miss-directing your debating energy. We are talking about a test done by Tom's Hardware. If you think something was not right, you are welcome to point the error. And please do cause I tried and couldn't ... and since I have over $10K invested in audio, I am not particularly happy to hear that kind of stuff. 

On short about the few possible errors pointed above: 

There was no "amp issue" because because they compared complete DAC+amp packages: as provided by some MB, a complete o2/odac and a benchmark DAC with HP output. And yes a MB soundchip is basically a DAC ... and here are some measurements for the latest/best such chips. Pretty good if you ask me. And here is another similar test, posted right here on headfi.

The 99% refers to the population at large. No, I do not have any studies/numbers, it's just an approx based on my exp and some extrapolation: e.g. go on the street and ask people, see if more than 1% know what a DAC even is... or another sample, there are many billions of people which live with less that $1 a day. Generally, hifi as a whole is a 1% game ... or even less. And not sure why would anyone want to debate that.


----------



## Feuergeist76

Hey Prot,

I just only wanted to add this objectivity thing - it was not pointing at you,it should be more a contribution to the discussion, as I've read a lot argumentations where people would like to convince others that they are right. I think especially in HiFi and probably already in MidFi there is nothing but taste. If you and me would ask people what they think about spending 5figures in Audio stuff they would call us insane - ask my girlfriend ...

And I totally agree to your last point - I would even say it's more 0.001% then 1%, but the absolute figure doesn't even matter.

So please don't count my contribution to the discussion to a specific post or to specific postings - it's a more general point of view.

By the way, for the tests for computer hardware I used to like tomshardware.com. It's quite some years ago that I've followed up their tests but ten years ago I really liked them.

Cheers

Feuergeist


----------



## frenchbat

prot said:


> There was no "amp issue" because because they compared complete DAC+amp packages: as provided by some MB, a complete o2/odac and a benchmark DAC with HP output. And yes a MB soundchip is basically a DAC ... and here are some measurements for the latest/best such chips. Pretty good if you ask me. And here is another similar test, posted right here on headfi.


 
 If you think that comparing apples to oranges is a sound scientific method, I'd like to have a word with your science teacher. But to each his own. Not my concern. Still it would have been easy to redirect all streams to the DAC2's amp. How about the imperfect volume matching ? Impedance ?
  
 As to the anandtech test, a simple THD graph doesn't give a full picture of the situation, irrespectively of the final quality of said sounchip. For the record, I own a benchmark HDR and I've built 2 O2s, anyone who thinks they sound the same needs to seriously look at his audio chain.


----------



## LingLing1337

prot said:


> ugh. I think some of you are miss-directing your debating energy. We are talking about a test done by Tom's Hardware. If you think something was not right, you are welcome to point the error. And please do cause I tried and couldn't ... and since I have over $10K invested in audio, I am not particularly happy to hear that kind of stuff.




If you have $10k invested and cant hear the difference between gear, thats a personal problem. I cant imagine what would satisfy you in this argument other than coming to our houses and watching us pass an abx test. Why dont you stop worrying so much, sell your gear, and maybe take some cooking classes or somethint.


----------



## prot

feuergeist76 said:


> Hey Prot,
> 
> I just only wanted to add this objectivity thing - it was not pointing at you,it should be more a contribution to the discussion, as I've read a lot argumentations where people would like to convince others that they are right. I think especially in HiFi and probably already in MidFi there is nothing but taste. If you and me would ask people what they think about spending 5figures in Audio stuff they would call us insane - ask my girlfriend ...
> 
> ...




your msg was not even on when I started writing my response, so you were by default not included . Also I think yours was a very reasonable response. Same as this one




frenchbat said:


> If you think that comparing apples to oranges is a sound scientific method, I'd like to have a word with your science teacher. But to each his own. Not my concern. Still it would have been easy to redirect all streams to the DAC2's amp. How about the imperfect volume matching ? Impedance ?
> 
> As to the anandtech test, a simple THD graph doesn't give a full picture of the situation, irrespectively of the final quality of said sounchip. For the record, I own a benchmark HDR and I've built 2 O2s, anyone who thinks they sound the same needs to seriously look at his audio chain.




I do not see any apples or oranges in Tom's test ... it's $2 dac+amp package vs. $200 dac+amp package vs. $2000 package. And, if anything, the extra amp variable would've skewed the results the other way (i.e. towards even bigger audible differences). Unmatched volume is also the best way to end up with "sounds different" results... didnt happen. In any case, they did match the volume and took care of pretty much all else too .. just read the whole article.

However, your "for the record" sample sounds indeed quite fruity: HDR DAC vs. O2 amp. 
Anyway, we can discuss such details in the corresponding science thread (see link above). And you are more than welcome to find Tom's error(s) or do a better test that proves otherwise ... I'll be very thankful ... and relieved that I did not waste (most of) my audio money.


----------



## LingLing1337

prot said:


> Anyway, we can discuss such details in the corresponding science thread (see link above). And you are more than welcome to find Tom's error(s) or do a better test that proves otherwise ... I'll be very thankful ... and relieved that I did not waste (most of) my audio money.




So you will judge whether you made a good purchase based on someone else's tests rather than just enjoying the muaic...


----------



## frenchbat

prot said:


> I do not see any apples or oranges in Tom's test ... it's $2 dac+amp package vs. $200 dac+amp package vs. $2000 package. And, if anything, the extra amp variable would've skewed the results the other way (i.e. towards even bigger audible differences). Unmatched volume is also the best way to end up with "sounds different" results... didnt happen. In any case, they did match the volume and took care of pretty much all else too .. just read the whole article.
> 
> However, your "for the record" sample sounds indeed quite fruity: HDR DAC vs. O2 amp.
> Anyway, we can discuss such details in the corresponding science thread (see link above). And you are more than welcome to find Tom's error(s) or do a better test that proves otherwise ... I'll be very thankful ... and relieved that I did not waste (most of) my audio money.


 
  
 Simple, a 1,5db difference is not trivial. Just try to EQ your bass 1,5db at 100Hz and tell me if there's no difference. No need for a blind test, it's gonna pop out. The fact they missed this means they've screwed up something down the line. Now when it comes to me making a test, I don't claim what these guys are claiming. The proper way to do would be to give the full results and the conditions for repeatability, which they don't.
  
 Just follow LingLing's advice, and stop worrying about that. Though I'd be you I'd thin the herd a bit. 10k isn't nothing


----------



## KeithEmo

Excellent - and very informative. However, for all its detail and everything it covers, bear in mind that this is still a "basic and general document", and so covers a lot of areas in relatively shallow detail (and a lot of it isn't especially relevant to audio applications).
  
 You also must be very careful not to take a lot of what it says out of context. This document covers all types of DACs, and all types of applications, so to it "audio" is a very special case, as are Delta-Sigma and Sigma-Delta DACs. For example, a lot of effort is spend discussing settling time, which is basically how fast the output voltage reaches the correct value after changing.... and the illustrations show a step response - which is similar to a square wave. This is an important issue on very high speed DACs (like video DACs), and on slow but very precise successive approximation DACs, but not really on audio DACs - since most non-S/A DAC chips have a settling time in the nanoseconds. This means that most DACs you're likely to see used in audio applications reach the correct output value to within a fraction of an LSB in a very small fraction of a single audio sample period, and so the "error" really only matters as it relates to THD. However, the ringing and time errors caused by the oversampling filter in a Delta-Sigma or Sigma-Delta DAC only get very brief mention (for example on 6.100).  Don't confuse the edge-ringing in the illustrations on settling time with the impulse ringing you see on a Delta-Sigma DAC because of the time response of the oversampling filter - they _LOOK _superficially similar, but they occur over very different time scales, and are for the most part unrelated. (Also note that AD differentiates between Delta-Sigma DACs and Sigma-Delta DACs, while most people generally interchange the terms in casual conversation.)
  
 What I'm getting at is that, for all its detail, and all the excellent design information it contains, this paper still barely mentions a lot of things that are very important for _AUDIO_ DAC applications.... For example, it goes into serious depth about input data formats and timing, which is very important if you're designing a DAC, but not really useful otherwise, but barely mentions the types of errors caused by various oversampling filter topologies, and doesn't cover them in any significant detail. (In 6.100, they mention that "the settling time of the digital oversampling filter may make this type of DAC inappropriate for multiplexed applications", but they entirely fail to mention that some people might find the fact that the values may take several filter cycles to reach the correct value to be of possible significance in audio applications.)
  
 Quote:


evillamer said:


> Found this PDF from analog. Really the most detailed and technical dac document you can find:
> 
> http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/43-09/EDCh%206%20Converter.pdf


----------



## prot

frenchbat said:


> Simple, a 1,5db difference is not trivial. Just try to EQ your bass 1,5db at 100Hz and tell me if there's no difference. No need for a blind test, it's gonna pop out. The fact they missed this means they've screwed up something down the line. Now when it comes to me making a test, I don't claim what these guys are claiming. The proper way to do would be to give the full results and the conditions for repeatability, which they don't.
> 
> Just follow LingLing's advice, and stop worrying about that. Though I'd be you I'd thin the herd a bit. 10k isn't nothing :blink:




The realtek device had a 1.4db imbalance through the first few tests. And that made it identifiable. Not anymore after they corrected it. It was a clear mistake, but it just makes the whole thing even more credible & hard to swallow. 

 And about thining those $10K, I am not 100% sure what you meant but I am open to suggestions ... e.g. for a start please tell me how to "thin" this

P.S.
 as about Lingling's&co public displays of love, I am a shy guy and such things make me blush. Sorry guys, I'm still not the subject of this thread. But if you really cannot stop those effusions, just open a new thread and/or feel free to PM ... btw, I'm very partial to logic and beautiful audio gifts


----------



## LingLing1337

argo duck said:


> I do however have every possible doubt about empty statements like the above "I tested 3 DACs and they did sound very different" .. that is not even information ... and probably wouldve been a much better idea to just ignore it.


[/quote]

what info do you want? Which DACs they were?


----------



## KeithEmo

prot said:


> ugh. I think some of you are miss-directing your debating energy. We are talking about a test done by Tom's Hardware. If you think something was not right, you are welcome to point the error. And please do cause I tried and couldn't ... and since I have over $10K invested in audio, I am not particularly happy to hear that kind of stuff.
> 
> On short about the few possible errors pointed above:
> 
> ...


 
  
 I haven't read the test you're talking about - but I do have some general comments on the comments about it..... based on my experience with "computer sound cards" and "motherboard sound chips / implementations".....
  
 If you look at the specifications on some (even relatively cheap) computer sound cards, they actually do seem to be quite respectable. However, in many cases, the actual performance you get seems to be not nearly as good as the numbers would lead you to expect. The last time I tried to make an actual recording (of a vinyl album) using a sound card that claimed "S/N of 96 dB", I was barely able to actually achieve a noise floor equal to the output of my phono preamp (since this was a sub-$100 phono preamp, which only claimed a S/N of around 70 dB, the sound card should have been a lot quieter and cleaner than it was). Honestly, the problems seemed to be related to the computer's having a poor ground (grounding things very carefully helped a little), and a very noisy power supply, and probably even the computer radiating enough noise into the room to cause some airborn interference with the phono preamp. This may suggest that "it wasn't the sound card's fault since the computer is a truly lousy environment for a sensitive audio component to be installed in", but the bottom line was that, with that sound card in the computer and connected to other equipment, I was totally unable to get even reasonably good performance. 
  
 Likewise, while the output specs on some sound cards (again even some reasonably cheap ones) suggest that many of them _SHOULD_ sound quite decent, or even "audibly perfect", it's been my experience that none of them actually do manage to deliver good sound quality without bleed through from the screen image into the noise floor, and without unacceptable noise levels in general. Over the years I've had several HP and Dell desktop machines, several Dell, Gateway, and Asus laptops, and a few custom no-name units as well, some with stock MB sound cards, and some with mid-priced add-on cards, and none of them was able to deliver audio performance that wasn't "audibly limited" when compared to even the sound quality of a $59 external DAC. (Since a sound card relies on the computer for its ground and power, and internal sound cards also have to deal with proximity to a massive amount of radiated noise as well, I don't see this as at all surprising. Note that, since grounding seems to be a large part of the issue, plugging headphones directly into the computer is more likely to produce better results than connecting the output to a stereo system or outboard headphone amp because, with headphones, the computer is acting as a "floating" device - and so noise between it's ground and true ground is mostly irrelevant.
  
 I'm not suggesting that some computers may not have reasonably good sounding "sound systems" - at least under some conditions - however, for me at least, there are just too many variables, and too many opportunities for that not to be the case, for me to even consider using "the internal sound system in the computer" for "anything serious". (Since I have several computers, and lots of other equipment, I simply can't fuss a lot every time I hook up a different one in order to try and squeeze adequate performance out of a particular combination of components. I would really rather have a DAC that "I can trust to work with all my computers".)


----------



## frenchbat

prot said:


> The realtek device had a 1.4db imbalance through the first few tests. And that made it identifiable. Not anymore after they corrected it. It was a clear mistake, but it just makes the whole thing even more credible & hard to swallow.
> 
> And about thining those $10K, I am not 100% sure what you meant but I am open to suggestions ... e.g. for a start please tell me how to "thin" this
> 
> ...


 

 Thought you had 10k in headphones. When it comes to speakers I'm not qualified sorry  .
  
 As to the test, this is the straw that breaks the camel's back :


> We also want to explore this codec's output impedance. At 77 Ω for the recommended implementation, it is by far the highest (almost by an order of magnitude over the second-highest) in our round-up. Is that a factor in the real world?


 
  
 What ? 77Ohms and they couldn't hear a difference on the HD800 ? These guys are either deaf or they don't know how to connect their set-up properly.


----------



## jcx

I looked at Tyll's InnerFidelity HD800 Z plot - say 350 mid audio, 650 at the ~ 100 Hz bass bump
  
 then do the divider math with 77 Ohms and I get 0.75 dB  - not immediately obvious that you can tell from Clark's ABX threshold plot for ~2 Octave and 100 Hz center (you have to visually interpolate adding to the guesswork)
  

  
 Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338
ABX]http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm]ABX Amplitude vs. Frequency Matching Criteria
  
  
  
 certainly the bigger needed correction is for average level: 20*log10(350/(350+77)) = -1.7 dB


----------



## evillamer

keithemo said:


> Excellent - and very informative. However, for all its detail and everything it covers, bear in mind that this is still a "basic and general document", and so covers a lot of areas in relatively shallow detail (and a lot of it isn't especially relevant to audio applications).


 
  
 Here's another pdf(see end of page 44 onwards) that covers the audio related implementation of zeroth-order hold, analog filters and anti-alias filters:
  
 http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/dsp-book/dsp_book_Ch3.pdf
  
  
 I think we also have to note why analog is giving very basic information is because(quote from last page of pdf):


> While these explanations and examples provide an introduction to single bit ADC and DAC, it must be emphasized that they are simplified descriptions of sophisticated DSP and integrated circuit technology. *You wouldn't expect the manufacturer to tell their competitors all the internal workings of their chips*, so don't expect them to tell you.


----------



## evillamer

Also it's quite intriguing on this quote from the pdf I just posted: (page 57)
  


> *It is important to understand that none of these options will allow the original signal to be reconstructed from the sampled data. This is because the original signal inherently contains frequency components greater than one-half of the sampling rate. *
> 
> Since these frequencies cannot exist in the digitized signal, the reconstructed signal cannot contain them either. These high frequencies result from two sources: (1) noise and interference, which you would like to eliminate, and (2) sharp edges in the waveform, which probably contain information you want to retain.
> 
> ...


 
  
 How did Schiit managed to do it with their closed form filter.. It's kind of a mystery.


----------



## jcx

the DAC's filter can't do anything about the mic-pe-filter-ADC chain
  
 studio practice is to capture at higher rez and they have more choices that you have no control over in the downsampling decimation/filter and wordlength reduction process - dither is also near universally used today to produce 16/44 release from the studio's internal format(s)
  
 Moffat went ballistic when several commented on dither and noise kinda making "bit perfect, dammit" claims rather curious


----------



## prot

frenchbat said:


> Thought you had 10k in headphones. When it comes to speakers I'm not qualified sorry  .
> As to the test, this is the straw that breaks the camel's back :
> What ? 77Ohms and they couldn't hear a difference on the HD800 ? These guys are either deaf or they don't know how to connect their set-up properly.




Dont know about deaf but I'm pretty sure they know how to connect & test a few HW components. Dont have access to such a Realtek chip so I cannot say whether that dumb output impedance really affects the hd800. AFAIK, the hd800 works pretty well with OTL amps (e.g. bottlehead) which may have an even bigger output impedance.


KeithEmo 
100% with you about the computer sounchips of yesteryear ... they were all quite cr*ptastic, you could hear all sorts of PC noises, even the mouse movement in some cases. However, the last gen chips & implementations seem to be a diff game ... more details in another headfi thread and from a PC forum ... and a sample lastgen implementation. There are many comments on headfi and elsewhere stating that those things sound quite a lot better than the usual MB chips of yore and it could very well be that (at least) some implementations are already transparent/inaudible. 
Times they are a changing 

P.S. people and biases not so much/fast apparently


----------



## negura

prot said:


>


 
  
 Out of interest what is your 10K speaker rig? Does it include a stand-alone DAC? Nothing wrong with questioning things, in general and even more so in audio. It's just unusual to see people with this level of investment having doubts about how computer chips vs good stand-alone DACs comparatively perform.


----------



## prot

negura said:


> Out of interest what is your 10K speaker rig? Does it include a stand-alone DAC? Nothing wrong with questioning things, in general and even more so in audio. It's just unusual to see people with this level of investment having doubts about how computer chips vs good stand-alone DACs comparatively perform.




May be quite unusual, I do not know ... personally, I just do not take anything for granted .. and even less when it comes to hifi 

Anyway, I'm not the one questioning DACs here, it's Tom's review. All I want to know is if anyone could find some serious issues with that review ... cause otherwise it is right and I gotta start questioning some of my audio investments ... at least some future ones. I did post some details about my setup in various threads (including a link not far above) but I'll just PM you cause there is no need to brag here.


----------



## evillamer

http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slaa523a/slaa523a.pdf
  
 page 11:


> PLL Clock Mode The PLL clock mode allows for the user to input a reference clock at the data rate. The internal VCO/PLL will than generate the higher frequency DAC clock from the reference clock. This mode reduces system cost and complexity by allowing the designer to use the DAC without the need for a higher speed clock. However,* often the PLL/VCO option generates more phase noise than an external clock. This* *added phase noise will affect the DACs SNR and SFDR performance. *


 
  
 It seems like PLL/VCO clocking adds phase noise.


----------



## evillamer

rob watts said:


> Hugo and Dave don't use any kind of DAC chip, the analogue conversion is discrete using pulse array. The key benefit of pulse array - something I have not seen any other DAC technology achieve at all - is an analogue type distortion characteristic. By this I mean, as the signal gets smaller, the distortion gets smaller too. Indeed, I have posted before about Hugo's small signal performance - once you get to below -20 dBFS distortion disappears - no enharmonic, no harmonic distortion, and no noise floor modulation as the signal gets smaller. With Dave, it has even more remarkable performance - a noise floor that is measured at -180dB and is completely unchanged from 2.5v RMS output to no signal at all. And the benefit of an analogue character? Much smoother and more natural sound quality, with much better instrument separation and focus. Of course, some people like the sound of digital hardness - the aggression gets superficially confused with detail resolution - but it quickly tires with listening fatigue, and poor timbre variation, as all instruments sound hard, etched and up front. But if you like that sound, then fine, but its not for me.
> 
> On the digital filter front - original samples getting modified - actually the vast majority of FIR digital filters retain untouched the original samples, as they are known as half band filters. In this case, the coefficients are arranged so that one set is zero with one coefficient being 1, so the original sample is returned unchanged. The other set being used to create the new interpolated value. The key benefit of half band filters is that the computation is much easier, as nearly half the coefficients are zero, plus the filter can be folded so that the number of multiplications is a quarter of a non half band filter. When designing an audio DAC ASIC, the key part in terms of gate count is the multiplier, so reducing this gives a substantial improvement in die size, and hence cost. So traditional digital filters use a cascade of half band filters, each half band filter doubles up the oversampling - so a cascade of 3 half band filters will give you an 8 times over-sampled signal, with one sample being the unmodified original data. You can tell if the filter is like this as at FS/2 (22.05 kHz for CD) the attenuation is -6dB. The filters that are not like this are so called apodising filters, and my filter the WTA filter.
> 
> ...


 

  
 Looks like Rob Watts is claiming that his WTA Filter is better than filters that preserve the original data(aka Schiit Closed form filter)?
  
 And this:
  Quote:


> *The job of a DAC is NOT to reproduce the data it is given, but to reproduce the analogue signal before it is sampled.*


 
  
 How does a DAC know what else to reproduce other than the data it is given(e.g. garbage in, garbage out)??? Unless Rob Watts have some kind of method/maths which compensates for analogue to digital converter's signal loss? This sounds like MQA type of solution.
  
 http://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-ltd
  


> So the ideal MQA story begins in the recording studio where the more information gathered about the specific equipment used, including and most importantly the A/D converter, the more the MQA technology can correct for the sonic anomalies found in these devices. Even ideally-er is for the A/D conversion to happen inside an MQA converter


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> May be quite unusual, I do not know ... personally, I just do not take anything for granted .. and even less when it comes to hifi
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Again, I wouldn't disagree with the review. The amping issue is a legitimate one. I know they were using built-in amps on the Xonar and DAC2, but that fact remains, they still are using different amps. Having owned the Xonar a while back, I know the headamp on that card sucks. The Xonar's LOs into a good headamp sounds much better. I would also assume the same for the DAC2: I'm sure the head-amp was more of an afterthought than the DAC circuitry. The OBJ2 amp: that amp is well known. So basically the comparison is this when you break things down:
  
 1) Motherboard DAC/amp out
 2) Xonar DAC | Xonar headout (with crappy headphone chip)
 3) BM DAC2 DAC | DAC2 headout (probably not as much attention paid to it compared to DAC section so likely a bottleneck)
 4) ODAC | Objective 2 headamp
  
 Of the tests, the only consistently identifiable setup was the motherboard out. I am not surprised. Basically you are comparing three mediocre / low-end setups and one really crappy one (which was easily identified.) It was a good test, but the conclusions are flawed. Also, it's obvious there was a huge confirmation bias thing going in (the photo of the Mcintosh tube amp which had nothing to do with the test is huge red flag of nwavuy syndrome) 
  
 Even they admitted they were amateurs. It would be like me comparing 5x7 prints from $3000 Nikons and $150 point-and-shoot cameras. Probably look all the same to me.


----------



## Jones Bob

Deleted


----------



## frenchbat

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






jcx said:


> I looked at Tyll's InnerFidelity HD800 Z plot - say 350 mid audio, 650 at the ~ 100 Hz bass bump
> 
> then do the divider math with 77 Ohms and I get 0.75 dB  - not immediately obvious that you can tell from Clark's ABX threshold plot for ~2 Octave and 100 Hz center (you have to visually interpolate adding to the guesswork)
> 
> ...


 
  


 @JCX
 Well they actually did hear a difference since they supposedly corrected the volume matching later. Additionally they actually managed a 100% result on the Daft Punk track, but it didn't seem to satisfy them so they redid another test which failed, I'm still scratching my head on that. Besides that, well what Purrin said.
  
 The output impedance is one of the reasons why people use OTL amps with the HD6X0 and HD800, to get the bass bump.


----------



## purrin

> Originally Posted by *frenchbat* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Well they actually did hear a difference since they supposedly corrected the volume matching later. Additionally they actually managed a 100% result on the Daft Punk track, but it didn't seem to satisfy them so they redid another test which failed, I'm still scratching my head on that. Besides that, well what Purrin said.


 
  
 Indeed, another sign of confirmation bias. I use the Daft Punk record a lot of for evaluating gear. The material on it is challenging for a lot of systems. Lots of bass, start-stop, low-end extension, effects, difficult waveforms, and even surprisingly good plankton.
  
 They get 100% result the first time, so they _need _to call "BS" - so they to try again (after their ears are fatigued) so they can do worse. A proper test would have been to conduct each test (not just he Daft Punk) several more times, perhaps on separate days.
  
 Confirmation bias goes both ways.


----------



## Ableza

there is a treatment for nwavguy syndrome: enjoy the music and stop obsessing about gear.


----------



## frenchbat

ableza said:


> there is a treatment for nwavguy syndrome: enjoy the music and stop obsessing about gear.


 

 We already suggested that, but it didn't seem to be satisfying unfortunately.


----------



## KeithEmo

evillamer said:


> Looks like Rob Watts is claiming that his WTA Filter is better than filters that preserve the original data(aka Schiit Closed form filter)?
> 
> And this:


 
  


purrin said:


> Again, I wouldn't disagree with the review. The amping issue is a legitimate one. I know they were using built-in amps on the Xonar and DAC2, but that fact remains, they still are using different amps. Having owned the Xonar a while back, I know the headamp on that card sucks. The Xonar's LOs into a good headamp sounds much better. I would also assume the same for the DAC2: I'm sure the head-amp was more of an afterthought than the DAC circuitry. The OBJ2 amp: that amp is well known. So basically the comparison is this when you break things down:
> 
> 1) Motherboard DAC/amp out
> 2) Xonar DAC | Xonar headout (with crappy headphone chip)
> ...


 
  
 You've also got the fact that different headphones are more or less sensitive to things like the output impedance of the amplifier, so it is to be expected that differences of various types will be more or less audible on different headphones. (In fact, it's even worse that that, because different amplifiers with different output impedances are going to interact with the impedance of different headphones, potentially producing different frequency response anomalies. And, since headphones tend to vary even more than speakers, these anomalies may actually end up making a particular headphone sound better to a different listener. (You may like headphone X whe it's tightly controlled by an amplifier with a low output impedance, while I may prefer that same headphone when it's connected to an amp with a higher output impedance, which causes a slight bump in its bass response.)
  
 Because of all this, it's only really fair to control headphone amps with specific (and identical) headphones (and an amp that sounds best with one may well not sound best with another).


----------



## prot

evillamer said:


> Looks like Rob Watts is claiming that his WTA Filter is better than filters that preserve the original data(aka Schiit Closed form filter)?
> 
> And this:




The theory sounds good to me. Also sounds like that guy has the math skills needed to design such a device. Wondering though why isnt he implementing that million-taps thing ... should be ok with 2015 tech


----------



## evillamer

prot said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Rob Watts is claiming that his WTA Filter is better than filters that preserve the original data(aka Schiit Closed form filter)?
> ...


 
  
 Yeah, especially you have 3072 cuda cores from a Single Nvidia Titan X (Maxwell). If you do a 4x SLI setup, and you will have *12288 cores *to design your billion tap filters.


----------



## judmarc

More taps != better filter.
  
 Think of taps as the number of points at which the filter operates on the signal.  This means that, all else being equal, the more taps the steeper the cut.  The steeper the cut - again, all else being equal - the more ringing, which is one of the distortions filter designers generally try to avoid.
  
 So good filter design must take into account this potential disadvantage of an increased number of taps.


----------



## evillamer

My criticism of the Tomshardware test is that they are using WASAPI output instead of ASIO.
  
 We don't know if they have set to WASAPI sharing mode or WASAPI exclusive mode/bit exact mode. Which the sharing mode does have impact on sound quality, especially if the sampling rate is set to default 16bit 48Khz on the sound driver in windows control panel end(which could mean some form of software or driver/hardware sampling rate conversion could have taken place during the test). I recall Foobar does allow for exclusive/bit perfect mode for wasapi output but it is NOT enabled by default and have to be explicitly set in the foobar settings.
  
 They should have used ASIO, which bypasses all the issues all together.
  


> Obvious using WASAPI in exclusive mode doesn’t guarantee bit perfect playback.
> It is up to the developer of the media player using WASAPI to see to it that the playback is bit perfect.
> Bit perfect playback is impossible by design if de properties of the audio file e.g. sample rate are not supported by the hardware.


 
 http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Windows/Win7/AudioPanel.htm


----------



## evillamer

Anyone compared the Lynx Hilo against the Schitt Yggdrasil? Their prices are comparable.


----------



## purrin

Yes.


----------



## Currawong

It amazes me these days how many people do deeply flawed tests and pass off the results as massive generalisations. They don't realise that they are doing practicing "science" at all. The results of a test _only apply to the equipment tested under the conditions of the test!_ I think schools these days should teach kids how not to be duped by everything from fancy packaging, statistics and BS arguments based on flawed tests. Alongside that, they should be taught not to take anything they are told for granted, even if it comes from an "expert", whether it be an experience or a test.


----------



## LingLing1337

^tell that to the guys on AVS who spend $2k+ on speakers without hearing them, only based on hype


----------



## Currawong

lingling1337 said:


> ^tell that to the guys on AVS who spend $2k+ on speakers without hearing them, only based on hype


 
  
 Different situation there I think. They have chosen to take a chance. What they think and feel about the product isn't going to change because of that once the speakers arrive in their home (or any other product for that matter). What I'm talking about, while not entirely unrelated, is the manipulation of beliefs through the presentation of information, which fools people into thinking they know everything that there is about a subject, when clearly they do not. For example, the idea that all "competently made" DACs sound the same because they all measure flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and other gross over-generalisations, or that the THD+N @1 kHz figure written on the box has any meaning, which goes back to those computer sound cards that have factory measurements that far exceed how they perform in most computers.
  
 Edit: My wording is confusing. What I meant to say in the first sentence is, how a person feels about product _after_ they've actually listened with it wont change because of the marketing or hype. Ie: if they like it or hate it, the marketing blurb wont change that.


----------



## yfei

prot said:


> I have no reason to doubt the people who wrote that article. Tom's is a well known PC hardware-test site.. one of the oldest and most respected. Also, it is not the only report to say that the $2 MB sound chips are really good nowadays.


 
  
 Although I found out the $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is extremely clear and detailed,   but it is just an exception. 
 All OTHER PC's sound card I have tried are not good.    Either noisy, or blurred.     Like the Creative chips, it is very blurred.  They charged a premium for loaded features, but loaded leads to less transparency.
  
 Only talking about clearness and transparency. The $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is nothing musical or enjoyable.
  
 I guess the reason is the same for desktop DACs as well: more components, larger the board => harder to make it transparent.     All DACs from $100 to $1xxx I have tried, are not as clear and detailed as the $2 simple sound system.   Small, less components => easy to make it transparent.   Only after > $2000 level, desktop DAC start to be able to compete with this $2 system.


----------



## abartels

currawong said:


> Different situation there I think. They have chosen to take a chance. What they think and feel about the product isn't going to change because of that once the speakers arrive in their home (or any other product for that matter). What I'm talking about, while not entirely unrelated, is the manipulation of beliefs through the presentation of information, which fools people into thinking they know everything that there is about a subject, when clearly they do not. For example, the idea that all "competently made" DACs sound the same because they all measure flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and other gross over-generalisations, or that the THD+N @1 kHz figure written on the box has any meaning, which goes back to those computer sound cards that have factory measurements that far exceed how they perform in most computers.


 
  
 I do NOT agree.
  
  
 A few years ago I ordered a Korsun V8i, nowadays called Dussun V8i.
 http://www.dussun.com/english/v8.html
  
  
 It looked like a very good amplifier, many reviewers said it was same like RedRoseMusic amplifier (Marc Levinson)
  
 It weighs 41Kg / 90 Lbs, very sturdy build.
  
  
 When it arrived at my home I thought it would have to be a perfect amplifier, but, after burn-in time of 1 week i could cry, that bad it sounded.
  
 So, everybody said it was a very good amplifier, and that it sounded perfect. Very good reviews.
  
  
  
 NOT ME.


----------



## Currawong

abartels said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Different situation there I think. They have chosen to take a chance. What they think and feel about the product isn't going to change because of that once the speakers arrive in their home (or any other product for that matter). What I'm talking about, while not entirely unrelated, is the manipulation of beliefs through the presentation of information, which fools people into thinking they know everything that there is about a subject, when clearly they do not. For example, the idea that all "competently made" DACs sound the same because they all measure flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and other gross over-generalisations, or that the THD+N @1 kHz figure written on the box has any meaning, which goes back to those computer sound cards that have factory measurements that far exceed how they perform in most computers.
> ...


 

 Hurriedly written post bad wording fail on my part -- we're actually in agreement. What I mean to say is, the marketing of a product isn't going to change whether they like it or not after it has arrived home and they've listened with it. If they listen and think it is great or it sucks, nothing will change that, except maybe different accompanying equipment, or a different room arrangement if speakers.


----------



## BassDigger

yfei said:


> Although I found out the $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is extremely clear and detailed,   but it is just an exception.
> All OTHER PC's sound card I have tried are not good.    Either noisy, or blurred.     Like the Creative chips, it is very blurred.  They charged a premium for loaded features, but loaded leads to less transparency.
> 
> Only talking about clearness and transparency.* The $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is nothing musical or enjoyable.*
> ...


 
  
 Sorry; I'm a little confused as to whether you're positive or negative, regarding computer audio. What kind of DAC do you find musical and enjoyable?


----------



## prot

judmarc said:


> More taps != better filter.
> 
> Think of taps as the number of points at which the filter operates on the signal.  This means that, all else being equal, the more taps the steeper the cut.  The steeper the cut - again, all else being equal - the more ringing, which is one of the distortions filter designers generally try to avoid.
> 
> So good filter design must take into account this potential disadvantage of an increased number of taps.




Your answer makes sense ... but mr Watts seems to disagree completely (at least that's what I understood from the big quote posted here, more taps= much better sound). Don't have the time or enough curiosity to dive into that kind of math & acoustics so color me confused.



evillamer said:


> Yeah, especially you have 3072 cuda cores from a Single Nvidia Titan X (Maxwell). If you do a 4x SLI setup, and you will have *12288 cores *to design your billion tap filters.




I am pretty sure that it can be done with less that 4xSLI cards. Especially since they dont need a generic CUDA-core but one very specific chip that just implements a single algorithm. They already have good expertise with custom FPGA's and since they sell $5K+ DACs, the budget should be there too. 
Sounds like something for their next DAC ... the Chord Threesome DAC ... one Dave, two Chordettes and some 'special sauce'


----------



## judmarc

prot said:


> Your answer makes sense ... but mr Watts seems to disagree completely (at least that's what I understood from the big quote posted here, more taps= much better sound). Don't have the time or enough curiosity to dive into that kind of math & acoustics so color me confused.


 
  
 More taps can be good, because they allow for more sophisticated filters.  But it's not an unrestricted, "more taps equal better filter forever and ever amen" type of thing.  There's the potential disadvantage that more taps will tend to mean a sharper cut and thus more ringing, so that has to be accounted for in good filter design.


----------



## prot

yfei said:


> Although I found out the $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is extremely clear and detailed, but it is just an exception.
> All OTHER PC's sound card I have tried are not good. Either noisy, or blurred. Like the Creative chips, it is very blurred. They charged a premium for loaded features, but loaded leads to less transparency.
> 
> Only talking about clearness and transparency. The $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is nothing musical or enjoyable.
> ...




Most probably, all PCs/laptops older than 1-2 years do sound quite bad (and I guess that's what >90% of people use or have heard). Also agreed about the creative cards. 

But that "extremely clear and detailed" chip you are mentioning is pretty much what I expect from a DAC. I want a DAC to deliver 100% neutral sound and maybe also a clear, 3D soundstage (although the soundstage is not exactly/entirely a DAC's responsibility). I want the exact same (neutrality) from my source and amp. 
If I want to add that musical/enjoyable 'thingie' I'll try with speakers/HPs or maybe a tube preamp. Preamps & transducers are the components who add the most 'color' to the sound anyway and have the worse THN/etc measurements in any stereo chain ... all other components could be almost 100% transparent nowadays, no need to have any coloration from them.



P.S.
I am wondering if that so called "treble harshness" of the Sigma-Delta chips isn't just simple neutrality. I remember I read somewhere that a perfectly linear-to-20kHz component would sound quite harsh. 
The very neutral/linear O2 fits that theory, it's highs aren't the most 'musical'. Also the most linear speaker I ever heard (and owned) did sometimes sound a bit too strong in the upper treble area ... e.g. the noisy-clocks intro of Pink Floyd's Time was not particularly enjoyable.

judmarc
guess it's more clear now ... but in audioland ppl dont even agree 100% with mathematically proven theorems like Shannon's so I'll be still graying around those taps for a while


----------



## mikoss

What I heard comparing the resonessence invicta to the yggdrasil was treble (hi hats) sounding like ch-ch-ch-ch on the invicta to being a resolved tst-tss-tss-tst on the yggdrasil. Going back to cheaper DACs, hi-hats are even less resolved sounding. I also notice playing records that the percussion has a different sound than playing FLACs through a cheap DAC. It can sound more resolved and "natural", whereas I suppose the DAC sound to me has something like a compression going on. Just my opinion and after hearing the yggdrasil, I can't I unhear the difference.


----------



## wink

Gotta love those tst tss tst tss's


----------



## purrin

mikoss said:


> What I heard comparing the resonessence invicta to the yggdrasil was treble (hi hats) sounding like ch-ch-ch-ch on the invicta to being a resolved tst-tss-tss-tst on the yggdrasil. Going back to cheaper DACs, hi-hats are even less resolved sounding. I also notice playing records that the percussion has a different sound than playing FLACs through a cheap DAC. It can sound more resolved and "natural", whereas I suppose the DAC sound to me has something like a compression going on. Just my opinion and after hearing the yggdrasil, I can't I unhear the difference.


 
  
 Invicta was strange. Full bodied tone, but with a strident and sharp treble timbre.
  
  


prot said:


> P.S.
> I am wondering if that so called "treble harshness" of the Sigma-Delta chips isn't just simple neutrality. I remember I read somewhere that a perfectly linear-to-20kHz component would sound quite harsh.
> The very neutral/linear O2 fits that theory, it's highs aren't the most 'musical'.


  

 You read wrong. Lots of non-harsh sounding gear has bandwidth that fully extends past 20kHz. Also, you also can eliminate roll-off in some DACs by using hires or upsampled source material.
  
 O2 / nwavguy isn't the only person in the world with a 'scope and makes neutral/linear amps. The reason the O2 doesn't sound as good as it could have been is because he went chasing after measurements instead of actually listening.


----------



## prot

wink said:


> Gotta love those tst tss tst tss's




exactly .. and who needs a DAC when we have such beautiful tst, tss, tst-s


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> You read wrong. Lots of non-harsh sounding gear has bandwidth that fully extends past 20kHz. Also, you also can eliminate roll-off in some DACs by using hires or upsampled source material.
> 
> O2 / nwavguy isn't the only person in the world with a 'scope and makes neutral/linear amps. The reason the O2 doesn't sound as good as it could have been is because he went chasing after measurements instead of actually listening.



Could very well be wrong, I was just thinkin out loud. But there are quite a few empiricals that seem to fit my "linear is quite sharp" hypothesis. Most studio speakers will fit it too and those are known for being very neutral/linear. (and of course nwavdude is not the only builder of neutral components, it was just a sample.) 

 But I still wonder, what exactly makes a well built and neutral/linear component sound harsh !? The only theoretical explanation I know is about the odd harmonics sounding harsh (as opposed to the pleasing even ones) ... and apparently a lot of negative-feedback may produce lots of those. That could very well be the O2's case. But modern DACs do not produce much of any harmonics ... at least not in the audible range (I'd put that at -100, -110dB and most DACs are below that already). 
Any other ideas?


----------



## ultrabike

rob watts said:


> Hugo and Dave don't use any kind of DAC chip, the analogue conversion is discrete using pulse array. The key benefit of pulse array - something I have not seen any other DAC technology achieve at all - is an analogue type distortion characteristic. By this I mean, as the signal gets smaller, the distortion gets smaller too. Indeed, I have posted before about Hugo's small signal performance - once you get to below -20 dBFS distortion disappears - no enharmonic, no harmonic distortion, and no noise floor modulation as the signal gets smaller. With Dave, it has even more remarkable performance - a noise floor that is measured at -180dB and is completely unchanged from 2.5v RMS output to no signal at all. And the benefit of an analogue character? Much smoother and more natural sound quality, with much better instrument separation and focus. Of course, some people like the sound of digital hardness - the aggression gets superficially confused with detail resolution - but it quickly tires with listening fatigue, and poor timbre variation, as all instruments sound hard, etched and up front. But if you like that sound, then fine, but its not for me.
> 
> On the digital filter front - original samples getting modified - actually the vast majority of FIR digital filters retain untouched the original samples, as they are known as half band filters. In this case, the coefficients are arranged so that one set is zero with one coefficient being 1, so the original sample is returned unchanged. The other set being used to create the new interpolated value. The key benefit of half band filters is that the computation is much easier, as nearly half the coefficients are zero, plus the filter can be folded so that the number of multiplications is a quarter of a non half band filter. When designing an audio DAC ASIC, the key part in terms of gate count is the multiplier, so reducing this gives a substantial improvement in die size, and hence cost. So traditional digital filters use a cascade of half band filters, each half band filter doubles up the oversampling - so a cascade of 3 half band filters will give you an 8 times over-sampled signal, with one sample being the unmodified original data. You can tell if the filter is like this as at FS/2 (22.05 kHz for CD) the attenuation is -6dB. The filters that are not like this are so called apodising filters, and my filter the WTA filter.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure what "pulse array" means, and never heard of "enharmonic distortion" and "noise floor modulation". Maybe he means quantization noise modulation? and I guess enharmonic means some sort of pitch error? Who knows. Also, in almost all cases, as signal gets smaller, non-linear distortion gets smaller. This is the case with most equipment, not just Chord stuff. If what Rob means is noise floor due to perhaps quantization, that is more a function of signal statistics and topology.

As far as filters, I have no idea what WTA does but it's seems pretty clear it's not a half-band filter. It is interesting that a 1M tap 16-bit coefficient sinc filter is seen in a possitive light, because when sampled at Nyquist, and with the appropriate window, that is a half-band filter. It is also pretty clear the WTA filter is not a linear phase filter, which IMO makes the WTA filter suboptimal in some ways. So it seems we know what the WTA filter is not, but that leaves us with a large set of random posibilities.

I would not be concerned about the pre ringing of a filter as that only affects transcient response (like a few ms before the song starts playing) and delay. But I would be concerned of a very large filter if the number of bits is not sufficient to carry the arithmetic with out incurring into quantization issues.

Also, I don't get this "timing error" issue Rob keeps alluding to. If he is talking about jitter then some of Chord's products didn't seem to do so well on the bench:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-electronics-dac64-da-processor-measurements-part-2

If he is talking about square waves perfectly straight and fast transitions, then more than timing errors we maybe talking about ultrasonic bandwidth limitations. Which are ultrasonic.

---

So all in all, from what I can tell, all that write up amounts to saying is that the Chord uses a very large, possibly numerically challenged, non-linear phase FIR filter (which may or may not be minimal phase). And the topology solves "enharmonic distortion" and "noise floor modulation", whatever that means (for "small" signals), cuz that's how it sounds to Rob.

Would love to see a more straight explanation of what WTA does, and less of this "pulse array" "cascade of half band filters" "Kaiser" preceived verbal wanking business.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

prot said:


> Could very well be wrong, I was just thinkin out loud. But there are quite a few empiricals that seem to fit my "linear is quite sharp" hypothesis. Most studio speakers will fit it too and those are known for being very neutral/linear. (and of course nwavdude is not the only builder of neutral components, it was just a sample.)
> 
> But I still wonder, what exactly makes a well built and neutral/linear component sound harsh !? The only theoretical explanation I know is about the odd harmonics sounding harsh (as opposed to the pleasing even ones) ... and apparently a lot of negative-feedback may produce lots of those. That could very well be the O2's case. But modern DACs do not produce much of any harmonics ... at least not in the audible range (I'd put that at -100, -110dB and most DACs are below that already).
> Any other ideas?




Just a thought, Prot how often do to get out to hear un amplified music?


----------



## prot

wildcatsare1 said:


> Just a thought, Prot how often do to get out to hear un amplified music?




last time a few weeks ago ... small venue and some acoustic, jazzy music. But not as often as I'd wish ... and nowadays it is quite hard to find any un-amplified performance. Also, the amplified ones are so bad sometimes that it makes me wish I stayed home. E.g. a few months ago a dumb-deaf audio-engineer did set up a Gregorian-Chants concert same as a Metallica one: huge bass and generally very loud instrumentation-track ... it just drowned the beautiful choir-voices which should have been the star of the show. It was much worse than listening to a CD or even the lousiest mp3s.

Anyway, now that I answered ... what was your point?


----------



## Wildcatsare1

Just that live, non-amplified music can sound "rolled off" compared to the harsh, glaring treble you were speaking about in your posts. Real music usually doesn't have a hot treble. Some recordings of course do have that artifact, but a great DAC, amp, speaker, headphone should convey the tone, dimensionality, naturalness of un-amplified music, no?


----------



## purrin

prot said:


> But there are quite a few empiricals that seem to fit my "linear is quite sharp" hypothesis.


 
  
 You need to be more specific on the empiricals. What studio speakers? How where they measured? At the listening position? At the "standard" 1 meter with mic leveled with the tweeter in an anechoic chamber? What is the response off-angle? How are the speakers setup / where they setup properly? How were the monitors intended to be used? How were the monitors loaded, i.e. whole-space, half-space, quarter space, and those with adjustable baffle step correction, where they set to correct boundary loading.
  
  


prot said:


> Any other ideas?


  

 For DACs, crap in ultrasonic region before the analog filter. For amps, poor slew rate and peaks in ultrasonic region. No rule, just tendencies.


----------



## evillamer

rob watts said:


> Firstly, some history. I first started getting involved in designing DAC's in 1989, when I heard Phillips Bitstream DAC the SAA7320. Compared to multi-bit DAC's at the time, it was a revelation - digital was starting to sound smooth and refined. Now these DACs were PDM types - that is 1 bit with 256 times oversampling - technically exactly the same as DSD but running at 256 times not 64. Now I started with these DAC's, made improvements, and I realised that the noise shapers were limiting resolution, so I started using multiple chips each with their own dither, to improve resolution. Noise shapers convert PCM to lower resolution data like 1 bit DSD. Also I found that the out of band noise from these noise shapers were overloading the analogue sections, giving noise floor modulation, making it sound harder. Also the DAC's were innately very sensitive to clock jitter. To try to solve these problems I designed the PDM1024, which had multiple noise shapers (improve resolution) and digital filtering (delay and add) to help with the jitter sensitivity and the out of band noise problems. Now the PDM1024 (early 90's now) gave a big step forward, but I could not resolve all of these problems. So I started developing Pulse Array, which was a multi-bit noise shape technology. To solve the noise shaper resolution problems, it runs at 2048 FS and is 5th order or better. This theoretically approaches 90dB more noise shaper resolution than PDM at 256 FS, and 150 dB more resolution than DSD 64. The Pulse Array modulation scheme also has the benefit in that it has much lower master clock jitter sensitivity than native DSD/PDM and, more importantly, has no jitter induced noise that is signal dependent as it is a constant clocking scheme - so it has no innate noise floor modulation. Also, by running at 2048 FS, the noise shaper noise at 1MHz is much lower - about 1000 times lower noise than usual DAC's. This means a simple analogue single stage with minimal filtering, so you get much more transparency. Also, the analogue active section has a much easier time, as RF induced noise floor modulation is fundamentally easier.
> 
> Now this happened in 1995. At the same time, silicon DAC designers were on a similar path - moving performance DAC's to multi-level noise shaping, away from single bit. At this time DSD started, which was moving in the opposite direction - instead of 256 FS it had reduced to 64 FS, simply because of data rate limitations on optical disks. Now as I have talked about in earlier posts, DSD has a major benefit - it does not have the big timing problems of PCM - but it suffers from much poorer resolution, and creates more distortion and noise than PCM. Using the WTA filter addresses (I won't say eliminates the timing issue because I think we need more taps than today to do that) the timing problems of PCM, giving you the potential of better resolution from PCM and overall better sound.




It seems that the chord pulse array is a 2048FS 5th order multi bit pulse density modulation with dither and noise shaping,


----------



## prot

purrin said:


> You need to be more specific on the empiricals. What studio speakers? How where they measured? At the listening position? At the "standard" 1 meter with mic leveled with the tweeter in an anechoic chamber? What is the response off-angle? How are the speakers setup / where they setup properly? How were the monitors intended to be used? How were the monitors loaded, i.e. whole-space, half-space, quarter space, and those with adjustable baffle step correction, where they set to correct boundary loading.
> 
> 
> For DACs, crap in ultrasonic region before the analog filter. For amps, poor slew rate and peaks in ultrasonic region. No rule, just tendencies.




You're asking a bit much, not a pro-studio engineer. Saw some of those though (nothing of say abbey road size & prestige) and my general impression was: very detailed and clear sound but not a relaxing listening space. Some studio speaker samples: k+h o300-400, focal (biggest 3way ones), barefoot, pmc (dont remember models, pretty big & shinny new ones). I did not measure anything but the sound was quite linear, no obviously accentuated freqs and all had some sort of room treats. 
Their components did sound quite linear/neutral but also kinda shrill for my ears. Same for many ultra highend (and suposedly very neutral) hifi setups in various shops. 

As about the slewrate, I think most modern amps (at least the ss kind) are linear to 50khz or more .. even "lousy" receivers are. Doubt that is a big issue nowadays. A poor slew rate would prolly also defeat the linear to 20khz rule .. same about the peaks you mentioned. 

So, I think I still have a Q. Other than odd order harmonics why would a linear-to-20k component sound shrill?


----------



## ultrabike

evillamer said:


> It seems that the chord pulse array is a 2048FS 5th order multi bit pulse density modulation with dither and noise shaping,




Something like that it seems. Would be interesting to know roughly what the quantization Noise Transfer Function (NTF) is (or the equivalent to whatevs his deal is) as that determines to some extent the level of out of band quantizaiton noise filtering needed. That's quite a large oversampling rate also. So is he interpolating the imput signal to the (maybe) delta sigma? If so, using what type of filter? WTA? 

Maybe that's why he needs a lot of taps. Because running the delta sigma that fast might require a fairly large interpolation filter before actually hitting the delta sigma (or PDM, or PA, or WMD).


----------



## evillamer

System diagram of chord Hugo


----------



## negura

prot said:


> You're asking a bit much, not a pro-studio engineer. Saw some of those though (nothing of say abbey road size & prestige) and my general impression was: very detailed and clear sound but not a relaxing listening space. Some studio speaker samples: k+h o300-400, focal (biggest 3way ones), barefoot, pmc (dont remember models, pretty big & shinny new ones). I did not measure anything but the sound was quite linear, no obviously accentuated freqs and all had some sort of room treats.
> Their components did sound quite linear/neutral but also kinda shrill for my ears. Same for many ultra highend (and suposedly very neutral) hifi setups in various shops.
> 
> As about the slewrate, I think most modern amps (at least the ss kind) are linear to 50khz or more .. even "lousy" receivers are. Doubt that is a big issue nowadays. A poor slew rate would prolly also defeat the linear to 20khz rule .. same about the peaks you mentioned.
> ...


 
  
 Where imo some of the studio monitors (in my experience mostly PMCs - have had two different models of these) are really good compared to some "nice" consumer speakers, is the former don't have any design goals in exaggerating or colouring to please. That would not impress their core market. It could be an error of commission, but likely not intended. They try to stay accurate and transparent to the source, which, while may sometimes not instantly impress, in the long term can actually be more pleasant and enjoyable imho, by sounding well a bit more realistic. That's not to say other non-monitor speakers don't achieve the same goals of course.
  
 Harshness/Shrillness: Usually source material and upstream rig would be the cause of this. The PMCs I have are surprisingly well behaved, for how resolved and transparent they are. One of the reasons is that say comparatively to my HD800s, the PMCs don't have audibly nasty treble peaks and (in my room, which isn't that special) reflections like the unmodded former. That said if I were to hook the PMCs to a bright/harsh sounding DAC running bright records, I would always hear that. There are other factors too. Hardly surprising - most good transparent speakers would react the same. 
  
 I would encourage anyone to try and hear a pair of studio PMCs or ATCs on a good R2R DAC or vinyl and a good amp. With my Theta Gen V the PMCs sound noticeably that notch or two warmer/softer compared to the Yggdrasil, or the PWD2. But then I realise preferences are everything and some people would be enamoured with a different type of sound.


----------



## bmichels

Has someone heard the new* BAKOON DAC-21 *?  It is battery operated, with SATRI connection to connect to the BAKOON HPA-21 amp.


----------



## skeptic

prot said:


> Could very well be wrong, I was just thinkin out loud. But there are quite a few empiricals that seem to fit my "linear is quite sharp" hypothesis. Most studio speakers will fit it too and those are known for being very neutral/linear. (and of course nwavdude is not the only builder of neutral components, it was just a sample.)
> 
> But I still wonder, what exactly makes a well built and neutral/linear component sound harsh !? The only theoretical explanation I know is about the odd harmonics sounding harsh (as opposed to the pleasing even ones) ... and apparently a lot of negative-feedback may produce lots of those. That could very well be the O2's case. But modern DACs do not produce much of any harmonics ... at least not in the audible range (I'd put that at -100, -110dB and most DACs are below that already).
> Any other ideas?


 
  
 I'm inclined to think that linear is a misnomer here, and the standard array of published audio measurements just isn't telling us the full story.  On the feedback front, I don't think it is so much about odd or even harmonics but rather disproportionate high order distortions.  According to Pass ( https://passlabs.com/articles/audio-distortion-and-feedback), feedback designs with superlative conventional measurements manifest more complex _non-linear _distortion products than higher THD nonfeedback designs.  Depending on their analog output stages, I would think dacs could share the same traits since opamps require negative feedback to operate in a linear mode (i.e. as an audio amplifier), and many dacs employ opamps in the output.  
  
 That said, although I tend to prefer nonfeedback amps, some opamp based gear really does sound good to me, and not at all harsh, with the right headphones.  So I think even the above must be oversimplifying what is really going on.


----------



## ultrabike

evillamer said:


> System diagram of chord Hugo




To some extent it makes sense. To some other, not so much. That's a lot of interpolation filters and one obscure "noise shapper". Who knows. If it's a multi-bit 5th order delta sigma, I guess it's not much different from some consumer audio DACs ICs out there. The sampling rate is quite high though. Maybe that's what they are trying to market as their differentiator.

Having a high sampling rate may result in lower quantization noise, in paper. Depends on the actual implementation.

Wish things were more up front with those guys though. Given impressions by some it may be that they are over designing for one set of requirements and neglecting others. I dunno.


----------



## maverickronin

ultrabike said:


> To some extent it makes sense. To some other, not so much. That's a lot of interpolation filters and one obscure "noise shapper". Who knows. If it's a multi-bit 5th order delta sigma, I guess it's not much different from some consumer audio DACs ICs out there. The sampling rate is quite high though. Maybe that's what they are trying to market as their differentiator.


 
  
 Doing the crossfeed in the digital domain on a portable device is pretty damn cool though.
  
 It's a shame that it looks like toy for toddlers though.  It might as well be Fisher-Price My First DAC or something...


----------



## evillamer

ultrabike said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > System diagram of chord Hugo
> ...


 
  
 The advantage of Hugo over other sigma delta dac is that it has a dedicated FPGA which has more processing horsepower which means more complex digital filters can be implemented. If you look at higher end dacs that feature ES9018s/ES9018K2M(e.g. Audiolab MDAC, Grace design M920) they usually have their own custom filters and also may bypass the ASRC/PLL on the Sabre.


----------



## ultrabike

maverickronin said:


> Doing the crossfeed in the digital domain on a portable device is pretty damn cool though.
> 
> It's a shame that it looks like toy for toddlers though.  It might as well be Fisher-Price My First DAC or something...




LOL! Yup. Looking at it brings to my mind "brick", which is not a good thing.

Crossfeed in the digital domain is not too bad IMO, but a good feature to have. You know the Sansa Clip+ Rockboxed does some of that. It works to some extent. But it lacks head tracking which I found to be very important after giving the Smith Realiser a shot.



evillamer said:


> The advantage of Hugo over other sigma delta dac is that it has a dedicated FPGA which has more processing horsepower which means more complex digital filters can be implemented. If you look at higher end dacs that feature ES9018s/ES9018K2M(e.g. Audiolab MDAC, Grace design M920) they usually have their own custom filters and also may bypass the ASRC/PLL on the Sabre.




The FPGA is more flexible, but not necessarily higher performance. Depends on implementation details I guess.


----------



## DreamKing

wildcatsare1 said:


> Just that live, non-amplified music can sound "rolled off" compared to the harsh, glaring treble you were speaking about in your posts. Real music usually doesn't have a hot treble. Some recordings of course do have that artifact, but a great DAC, amp, speaker, headphone should convey the tone, dimensionality, naturalness of un-amplified music, no?


 
  
 If the recording is at fault or the headphone is harsh (which is demonstrably more plausible) , why should the dac and amp roll off harshness in them? I mean they could but does that mean that they're superior because they roll off everything and should every electronic strive for this? Where this harshness is coming from should be evaluated before coming to the conclusion that the dac or amp is at fault. And then you're in the realm of perception with all of these terms, so it's all relative.


----------



## maverickronin

ultrabike said:


> Crossfeed in the digital domain is not too bad IMO, but a good feature to have. You know the Sansa Clip+ Rockboxed does some of that. It works to some extent. But it lacks head tracking which I found to be very important after giving the Smith Realiser a shot.


 
  
 I'm just glad that another 'high end" company is taking the idea of crossfeed seriously.  A full on convolution DSP like the Realiser uses plus the head tracking can help quite a bit, but if you're listening to stereo recordings any kind of crossfeed is better than nothing.
  
 It's the biggest problem in the fidelity of headphones that almost no one is addressing.  IMO not using analog crossfeed or a more advanced DSP is the headphone world's equivalent of just throwing a pair of speakers wherever they'll fit and not bothering with toe-in, stands, room treatment, etc.


----------



## hans030390

yfei said:


> I guess the reason is the same for desktop DACs as well: more components, larger the board => harder to make it transparent.     All DACs from $100 to $1xxx I have tried, are not as clear and detailed as the $2 simple sound system.   Small, less components => easy to make it transparent.   Only after > $2000 level, desktop DAC start to be able to compete with this $2 system.


 
  
 I'm curious where you got this rule that more components and larger boards = harder to make transparent. I'm also wondering if your idea of "transparent" is different than how others describe transparent (and it probably is).


----------



## wahsmoh

maverickronin said:


> I'm just glad that another 'high end" company is taking the idea of crossfeed seriously.  A full on convolution DSP like the Realiser uses plus the head tracking can help quite a bit, but if you're listening to stereo recordings any kind of crossfeed is better than nothing.
> 
> It's the biggest problem in the fidelity of headphones that almost no one is addressing.  IMO not using analog crossfeed or a more advanced DSP is the headphone world's equivalent of just throwing a pair of speakers wherever they'll fit and not bothering with toe-in, stands, room treatment, etc.


 
 Seriously. Check out Legacy audio.. they have some serious $$$$ speakers I have heard once in a music room at a high end stereo shop. 
  
 http://legacyaudio.com/products/dsp-solutions/


----------



## Sapientiam

prot said:


> But I still wonder, what exactly makes a well built and neutral/linear component sound harsh !? The only theoretical explanation I know is about the odd harmonics sounding harsh (as opposed to the pleasing even ones) ... and apparently a lot of negative-feedback may produce lots of those. That could very well be the O2's case. But modern DACs do not produce much of any harmonics ... at least not in the audible range (I'd put that at -100, -110dB and most DACs are below that already).
> Any other ideas?


 
  
 If you're looking for technical reasons - its poor PSRR, coupled with power supplies which haven't low enough impedance.
  
 Simple experiment to try on the O2 - add lots of low ESR capacitors across the supply rails for the NJM4556s which are doing all the heavy lifting. I'd suggest a dozen 3,330uF/10V, six each side. The reason for the power supply noise is that the opamps are operating in classAB, meaning nasty non-linear currents are drawn.
  
 These are the caps - they're bulky so the whole thing will no longer fit in the case. But its a $10 upgrade.
  
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/EKZE100ELL332MK25S/565-1651-ND/756167


----------



## aqsw

yfei said:


> Although I found out the $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is extremely clear and detailed,   but it is just an exception.
> All OTHER PC's sound card I have tried are not good.    Either noisy, or blurred.     Like the Creative chips, it is very blurred.  They charged a premium for loaded features, but loaded leads to less transparency.
> 
> Only talking about clearness and transparency. The $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is nothing musical or enjoyable.
> ...




Please dont feed the troll.


----------



## artur9

wahsmoh said:


> Seriously. Check out Legacy audio.. they have some serious $$$$ speakers I have heard once in a music room at a high end stereo shop.
> 
> http://legacyaudio.com/products/dsp-solutions/


 

 I've auditioned these.  I loved them.  Accurate, powerful but they would have overpowered my room.


----------



## wink

Quote:artur9 





> Accurate, powerful but they would have overpowered my room.


 
 I don't understand your problem......


----------



## Wildcatsare1

dreamking said:


> If the recording is at fault or the headphone is harsh (which is demonstrably more plausible) , why should the dac and amp roll off harshness in them? I mean they could but does that mean that they're superior because they roll off everything and should every electronic strive for this? Where this harshness is coming from should be evaluated before coming to the conclusion that the dac or amp is at fault. And then you're in the realm of perception with all of these terms, so it's all relative.




That wasn't my point, the point I was making to Prot was that un-amplified music doesn't have the added "glare" introduced by "hot" sounding equipment. Such as the ODAC or O2.


----------



## mcullinan

You can't hear unamplified music. Its all in your head bro.


----------



## purrin

evillamer said:


> The advantage of Hugo over other sigma delta dac is that it has a dedicated FPGA which has more processing horsepower which means more complex digital filters can be implemented.


 
  
 That's like saying dual overhead camshafts are better than pushrods and rocker arms. It really doesn't matter by the time of final implementation.


----------



## evillamer

purrin said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > The advantage of Hugo over other sigma delta dac is that it has a dedicated FPGA which has more processing horsepower which means more complex digital filters can be implemented.
> ...


 
  
 I mean if you compare to the silicon die space on the ES9018S chip vs the silicon die space on FPGA. You cannot run too complex filters on the ES9018(because of limited die space and power/heat limitations) while you can really do alot more complex stuff with FPGA. This is of course not taking into account how good the filter design is.


----------



## abartels

Even my 16 bit 96kHz CS4328 build, and developed, dac can outperform MANY nowadays dac's, still (1991)

Please, don't forget listening instead of comparing numbers,,,,, 

Cheers ,

Alex


----------



## evillamer

abartels said:


> Even my 16 bit 96kHz CS4328 build, and developed, dac can outperform MANY nowadays dac's, still (1991)
> 
> Please, don't forget listening instead of comparing numbers,,,,,
> 
> ...


 
  
 CS4328 is 18bits, not 16bit 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 http://www.digchip.com/datasheets/parts/datasheet/798/CS4328-KP.php


----------



## abartels

After meaurements our dac, (which i designed and build with a friend of mine), it had a resolution of 16,4 bits, so, chip can be 18 bits, but final resolution is always lower.



Listen to the music.


----------



## DreamKing

wildcatsare1 said:


> That wasn't my point, the point I was making to Prot was that un-amplified music doesn't have the added "glare" introduced by "hot" sounding equipment. Such as the ODAC or O2.


 
  
 I get that but I've seen them described in many ways, so it appears to be all relative. Not everyone hears this glare. So my point is that to get the bottom of this, the whole chain needs to be evaluated. 
  
 I've seen folks listening to the HD800, DT880 and the like with that stuff and then be surprised (or not) that it sounds "hot", when those headphones measure with treble peaks and do sound like it. And I'm not knocking them for that, you and I have the HE-560, that some complain mostly about its lower treble peak. Headphones and recordings are known to vary more wildly in practice (audibly and measurably) than electronics. Can the electronics really be at fault if signs point towards the headphone or the recording, can it realistically just be the amp and dac's effect on the signal that's most audible after it's converted to sound by the headphone?


----------



## KeithEmo

lingling1337 said:


> If you have $10k invested and cant hear the difference between gear, thats a personal problem. I cant imagine what would satisfy you in this argument other than coming to our houses and watching us pass an abx test. Why dont you stop worrying so much, sell your gear, and maybe take some cooking classes or somethint.


 
  
 There are at least a few people in this world who are "pitch perfect"; these souls can tune a piano by ear, and would almost certainly notice if a CD (or a record) were playing 0.1% fast. However, I'm not one of them, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't notice such a speed error at all. However, it's still true that a record or CD _should_ play at the correct speed, and that failing to do so is an error. Therefore, I can't make claims like "it doesn't matter" or "it's inaudible". (I can reasonably say that I can't hear it, or that xx% of the population can't hear it, or, if I was in the marketing department of the product being discussed, I could even say "not enough of our customers can hear it that it's worth us fixing it", but none of that even suggests that it doesn't exist, or that it it "totally inaudible".)
  
 And we can leave the argument about whether I'm lucky - because I could buy a cheap piano and never notice the difference; or whether I'm deprived - because I'll never be able to experience the true joy of a perfectly tuned piano; for philosophy debates.


----------



## KeithEmo

evillamer said:


> Looks like Rob Watts is claiming that his WTA Filter is better than filters that preserve the original data(aka Schiit Closed form filter)?
> 
> And this:
> 
> ...


 
  
 There would actually be two possible ways:
  
 1) As you suggested, it's_ theoretically possible_ that the DAC could "know about" and "compensate for" specific errors that were caused by other components when the audio signal was encoded. While this sounds like a great idea, it usually falls down in practice - first, because some types of errors simply cannot be corrected perfectly, and second, because being able to do so relies on knowing a lot more about the original signal chain than we usually do. 
  
 2) It's perfectly reasonable to claim that simply avoiding causing any additional errors contributes to creating a more perfect reproduction of the original.
  
 There's a sort of "option 1a" that entails making good guesses about problems, and then making alterations based on the assumption that they are present, and hoping that the end result is closer to the original than what you started with. A perfect example of this is the software used to "recover missing detail" from pictures. If you have a picture, taken with a telescope, which shows a bunch of blurry little white blobs, and some short parallel white lines, since you know that what you expected to see were a bunch of tiny white points, you can _assume_ that the blurry dots were supposed to be stars but they are a bit out of focus, and that the short white lines were created when the telescope failed to remain still and so smeared similar dots in a single direction. You can then calculate a mathematical correction that will get you remarkably close to what was there to begin with. However, this all relies on the assumption that you're looking at a picture of stars.
  
 You can use that same or similar software to "sharpen" a picture of something else, such as a human face, or a license plate number. You can even base some of your assumptions on the way in which pictures tend to get blurred when a camera isn't perfectly focused. This will give you a "pretty good guess" that sometimes produces remarkably good results. However, it also sometimes produces bad results, because your assumptions aren't always true. (Modern software can even be written such that, assuming you are hoping to make a license plate number readable, the software can "detect how well it worked", and even adjust its operating parameters accordingly. This would allow it to try different settings, and finally use the one that produced a result that was closer to what it _expected_ or "_hoped for_". However, in reality, it's still a guess.) To take the extreme example, if I was the photographer, and I _DELIBERATELY_ shifted the picture out of focus, then your assumption that it should be sharp is wrong, and, even if you could do so perfectly, making it sharp will "destroy" it.
  
 Personally, I would leave anything that deliberately alters the signal in the "mastering process". (If I was remastering a CD, and I happened to _know_ that it was converted with a specific brand of A/D converter, and also had a way to correct the specific errors introduced by that encoder, then I would so so.... although, even then, if my correction process generates other new errors, I have to decide whether my new version is really "better" or not.)
  
 (This question comes up frequently in legal cases. If I start with a fuzzy blob that's supposed to be the bad guy's face on a security video, with enough signal processing I can probably "sharpen" it to the point where it looks like a human face. However, can I trust it to look like the right face? Or did my software do such a great job that it essentially created a face from insufficient information, in which case who it happens to look like is almost purely random? Or, even worse, does it offer so many options that, if I keep trying different settings, I can produce a result that looks like whomever I want it to - at which point I cheerfully declare "that's the guy" and stop trying new options?)


----------



## KeithEmo

currawong said:


> Different situation there I think. They have chosen to take a chance. What they think and feel about the product isn't going to change because of that once the speakers arrive in their home (or any other product for that matter). What I'm talking about, while not entirely unrelated, is the manipulation of beliefs through the presentation of information, which fools people into thinking they know everything that there is about a subject, when clearly they do not. For example, the idea that all "competently made" DACs sound the same because they all measure flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and other gross over-generalisations, or that the THD+N @1 kHz figure written on the box has any meaning, which goes back to those computer sound cards that have factory measurements that far exceed how they perform in most computers.
> 
> Edit: My wording is confusing. What I meant to say in the first sentence is, how a person feels about product _after_ they've actually listened with it wont change because of the marketing or hype. Ie: if they like it or hate it, the marketing blurb wont change that.


 
  
 I'm afraid I would have to take what you said even further. How we experience actual experiences is modified by our expectation bias. In other words, for most people, what they hear when they actually get those speakers home _will_ depend, at least in part, on what they _expect_ to hear - which will, in turn, depend partly on what they read, and how much this actually occurs will depend on their individual personality, and where they heard that information. (Just like we have a certain tendency to believe it when "the ordinary guy" on the TV commercial tells us that a certain headache tablet "really works", and are influenced to a different degree when "a real doctor" appears on the screen. In fact, as scary as it is, tests have shown conclusively that we're more likely to believe the guy who is _dressed like a doctor_ - even if we know him as an actor who plays a doctor on a TV show. However, it goes even further, because not only are we more likely to believe what he says when he's pushing that product on TV, but we are more likely to imagine that it _actually works better_ when we try it - because how we perceive it depends on our expectations.
  
 In audio terms this means that, if the manufacturer provides a "nice scientific sounding explanation" for why their product _should_ sound better, we are more likely to buy it because we trust them  and "their explanation makes sense", and we are more likely to actually find that we like it better after we buy it because we _expect_ it to work well. (There's also another rationalization mechanism that is pretty well known in humans - that we hate to be wrong. This means that, statistically, you are much likelier to find that you like the way an expensive piece of gear sounds after paying for it, because the alternative is to admit to yourself and your friends that you made a mistake.) Now, none of this will convince most people to buy a really poor product, or to keep one once they listen to it and find that it's clearly worse, but it most definitely will bias you towards hearing a difference where none is present, or to exaggerate the importance of a real but insignificant difference. 
  
 Of course, expectation bias works both ways - and will bias you towards not hearing a difference if you start out being convinced that none exists. (However, with very few exceptions, most people aren't going to order a product which they actually expect to be no better than the one they currently have, which is why many manufacturers - even those who make silly snake oil products - are comfortable offering "money back guarantees" and "return periods". Once you are "convinced enough to try it", you already have a significant expectation that it will be better - otherwise you will have wasted the effort involved in ordering and testing it. Statistically, very few people will bother to order a new product just to confirm for themselves that it's no better than the one they have.)


----------



## KeithEmo

prot said:


> Most probably, all PCs/laptops older than 1-2 years do sound quite bad (and I guess that's what >90% of people use or have heard). Also agreed about the creative cards.
> 
> But that "extremely clear and detailed" chip you are mentioning is pretty much what I expect from a DAC. I want a DAC to deliver 100% neutral sound and maybe also a clear, 3D soundstage (although the soundstage is not exactly/entirely a DAC's responsibility). I want the exact same (neutrality) from my source and amp.
> If I want to add that musical/enjoyable 'thingie' I'll try with speakers/HPs or maybe a tube preamp. Preamps & transducers are the components who add the most 'color' to the sound anyway and have the worse THN/etc measurements in any stereo chain ... all other components could be almost 100% transparent nowadays, no need to have any coloration from them.
> ...


 
  
 As for that PS..... a "perfectly linear-to-20kHz component is going to sound "flat and linear" - terms like "harsh" are simply an interpretation of that result.
 (I often hear the term "analytical" used to describe components in a negative way - when it really means "accurate" - which I seem to recall being the original definition of "high fidelity".)
  
 If your recording sounds "harsh" when it is reproduced accurately, then perhaps the recording simply really does sound harsh.
 (And, perhaps, some components that don't sound harsh with that recording are _ALTERING IT_ by failing to reproduce whatever makes it sound harsh.)
  
 I can think of a few reasons why a recording might sound harsh:
  
 1) Some early A/D converters had poor quality band-limiting filters which produced non-flat frequency response, phase aberrations, and possibly even distortion - especially at high frequencies. SO perhaps some early digital recordings simply sound bad for "technical reasons".
  
 2) Most modern multi-track recordings don't replicate the experience of actually being there live at all anyway. Specifically, high frequencies are attenuated by travel through air, which means that what a cymbal sounds like, even in the front row, is a lot different than what it sounds like one foot directly over the top of the drum set - which is probably where the microphone used to record it was placed. It's only reasonable to expect what the microphone records to sound like what you heard when it was located at the same general position as your ears. (If you've ever made actual live recordings, then you also know that, even if you put the microphone six inches in front of your nose, and don't do any processing at all, it's still difficult to get your recording to sound even close to what you heard. If the microphone is two feet in front of you, it's even more difficult. And a lot of the effort expended by mastering engineers is in the direction of "getting it back to where it belongs". Therefore, it is foolish to assume that the recording sounds exactly like the performance itself - even not counting your playback equipment.)
  
 3) Cymbals are really loud - especially close up. This means that they tend to overload microphones, which may cause them to sound odd. It also means that they often have to be compressed, limited, and otherwise processed during mastering - which are all good reasons why they might sound "odd". Ditto for drums, which produce _VERY_ powerful transients, which are, again, likely to overload a microphone or preamp, and are also likely to be pretty aggressively compressed and limited in the mix.
  
 4) Finally, a lot of how we think about and describe things in general is based on previous experience. Perhaps what some people are describing as "harsh" is simply "correct", but most of us are so used to "rolled off and cleaned up" that we simply aren't used to accurate - and so it seems harsh". (Cymbals can sound mellow when someone is tapping them with a wire brush, but the last time I heard someone actually whack a cymbal, in a small club, without a rag or a damper of some sort on it, it was really loud, and pretty darned harsh.)


----------



## Wildcatsare1

dreamking said:


> I get that but I've seen them described in many ways, so it appears to be all relative. Not everyone hears this glare. So my point is that to get the bottom of this, the whole chain needs to be evaluated.
> 
> I've seen folks listening to the HD800, DT880 and the like with that stuff and then be surprised (or not) that it sounds "hot", when those headphones measure with treble peaks and do sound like it. And I'm not knocking them for that, you and I have the HE-560, that some complain mostly about its lower treble peak. Headphones and recordings are known to vary more wildly in practice (audibly and measurably) than electronics. Can the electronics really be at fault if signs point towards the headphone or the recording, can it realistically just be the amp and dac's effect on the signal that's most audible after it's converted to sound by the headphone?


 

 OK, understood, you are correct on the numerous variables present and the very subjective ways we all interpret them. I have never had a treble problem with the 560, others find it very annoying. 
  
 My problem with the O2/ODAC is also subjective, tonality is critical to me, they just didn't sound natural with multiple headphones. Others love the Audeze "House Sound," I don't. While I love the 560 and HE6, many of those who like Audeze don't care for them. 
  
 What I try to do on Head Fi and in reading the Audio Literature is find those with similar tastes, biases, and objectives, then learn vicariously through their experiences.


----------



## KeithEmo

prot said:


> You're asking a bit much, not a pro-studio engineer. Saw some of those though (nothing of say abbey road size & prestige) and my general impression was: very detailed and clear sound but not a relaxing listening space. Some studio speaker samples: k+h o300-400, focal (biggest 3way ones), barefoot, pmc (dont remember models, pretty big & shinny new ones). I did not measure anything but the sound was quite linear, no obviously accentuated freqs and all had some sort of room treats.
> Their components did sound quite linear/neutral but also kinda shrill for my ears. Same for many ultra highend (and suposedly very neutral) hifi setups in various shops.
> 
> As about the slewrate, I think most modern amps (at least the ss kind) are linear to 50khz or more .. even "lousy" receivers are. Doubt that is a big issue nowadays. A poor slew rate would prolly also defeat the linear to 20khz rule .. same about the peaks you mentioned.
> ...


 
  
 Slew rate is really "how fast the signal passes through the amplifier". In an amplifier with absolutely no feedback, slew rate is unimportant.... because you certainly can't hear whether what you're listening to takes an extra few millionths of a second to play. (This is ignoring the fact that a really low slew rate probably implies a poor frequency response as well.) However, negative feedback relies on the output signal, which is being fed back to the input, being _EXACTLY 180 degrees_ out of phase with the input signal - and anything less than an infinite slew rate "throws this off" to a degree. Therefore, as you use higher levels of feedback, it becomes more critical that you have a _sufficiently_ high slew rate. 
  
 To take this to two extremes:
 1) If you used zero feedback, and assuming everything else was "theoretically perfect", slew rate wouldn't matter at all.
 2) If your slew rate was theoretically perfect (infinite), and everything else was also perfect, there is no reason for _ANY_ amount of feedback to cause audible distortion.
  
 (Of course, since nothing is perfect, neither of these two situations ever happens 100%.)
  
 There are two reasons why most modern audio equipment doesn't quote slew rate any more. First, this relationship is pretty well known - and it's not that difficult to design an amplifier with a slew rate that is more than sufficient for audio. Therefore it's not really a problem with modern designs. Second, while the particular slew rate that you need to avoid causing problems depends on the design itself, an _insufficient_ slew rate will show up in the _normal_ specifications. (An amplifier with an insufficient slew rate will exhibit THD that rises rapidly at high frequencies. So, if you see an amplifier that has 0.05% THD from 20 Hz to 2 kHz, but has 10% THD at 20 kHz, then there's a very good chance it has insufficient slew rate for the amount of feedback and gain it uses. SInce slew rate varies with both frequency and level, this rise will occur sooner and more prominently as the output level is raised. Conversely, if a design maintains a reasonably low THD over the entire audio band, and at reasonable power levels, then it has sufficient slew rate to go with its other design parameters.)
  
 "Back in the old days" the overall distortion specs where high enough that this anomaly would often be "buried" under the normal noise and distortion floor. However, with modern designs, having the THD vs Frequency curve go from "very low" to "almost straight up" at some high but audible frequency would be pretty obvious in the standard graphs... so no separate test is needed.


----------



## prot

KeithEmo
"It's mostly in the source" is of course another 100% valid possibility. I'm not in audio (IT guy) but I hope noone ever records drums & cymbals from only cm/inches away ... there's a reason why drum players wear earplugs.

And yep, live acoustic music and recordings don't seem to sound the same, even in my very limited experience. But lately I checked some pretty good binaural recordings and I am quite impressed ... at least they seem to capture the room and that elusive feeling of realism much better. E.g. binaural recordings of rain sound quite wet already . Don't know if it's the methodology or just the newer/improved recording equipment, but I surely like what I'm hearing. 

As for the initial "why would neutral sound harsh" question, that is surely loaded and "harsh" is of course very personal. But it's not just my observation, many people seem to agree that the very neutral components that the pros usually use are kinda harsh .. the pros included. And even the big OP review here puts studio DACs like Benchmark/Lavry/Mytek in the (somewhat) shrill category ... same for other components which are known to measure very neutral like Odac/O2


----------



## KeithEmo

prot said:


> @KeithEmo
> "It's mostly in the source" is of course another 100% valid possibility. I'm not in audio (IT guy) but I hope noone ever records drums & cymbals from only cm/inches away ... there's a reason why drum players wear earplugs.
> 
> And yep, live acoustic music and recordings don't seem to sound the same, even in my very limited experience. But lately I checked some pretty good binaural recordings and I am quite impressed ... at least they seem to capture the room and that elusive feeling of realism much better. E.g. binaural recordings of rain sound quite wet already
> ...


 
  
 I think the way that final sentence is phrased sort of tells the story.
  
 If someone thinks that _some_ components that measure neutral still sound shrill, while _others_ do not, then there _could_ be something else going on.
  
 However, if someone thinks that "all components that measure neutral sound shrill" and concedes that "the components that don't sound shrill don't measure neutral", then they simply don't like components that are actually neutral - or, to say that differently, _they_ find that components that are actually neutral sound shrill _to them_.
  
 Of course, since this is a headphone forum, and we all know that different headphones sound very different, you really need to qualify that further as to whether they only find that those components sound shrill with _certain headphones_. Personally, I know that a lot of headphones aren't especially flat, so I don't find it at all surprising that certain headphones may sound shrill when presented with a perfectly neutral signal, and may sound less so when presented with a signal which is _NOT_ neutral, but has some roll off that de-emphasizes the frequencies that they over-emphasize.
  
 I know that I personally find many headphones to sound very harsh when presented with a neutral input signal, and so to sound smoother when presented with a signal that is rolled off, and so simply avoids the frequencies that sound harsh on those headphones. (This is why, even though I much prefer solid-state headphone amps in general, I find that _certain_ headphones sound better to me when run with tubes.)
  
 (However, to me, the flaw is with the headphones, and I find having to select a flawed DAC or amp to make my flawed headphones sound good to me to be an unacceptable compromise. My personal goal is to have each piece of equipment I own be as good as it can be _INDIVIDUALLY_, so I don't have to worry about which ones I use together, and so I tend to avoid "picky" headphones - or amps, but some people seem to not mind having to figure out specific combinations that "go well together", or even to "enjoy the chase to perfection".)
  
 I would also note that, at least to me, I find that all DACs that use the Sabre DAC chips have a somewhat distinctive sound. To me they sound as if the upper frequencies are slightly emphasized - even though they have a very flat frequency response. I use the analogy of looking at your carpet with a very bright LED flashlight; you don't see anything that wasn't there under incandescent light, but the dust and dirt seems more obvious, as if the LED light picks them out more carefully. You tend to notice more of the details that were there all along. To me, this goes beyond neutral, and is an actual emphasis - and I'm pretty sure it's related to the digital oversampling filter they use. If you read reviews, you will find that many people who like Sabre DACs describe them as "detailed" or "revealing", while many who don't describe them as "etched". 
  
 In the context of this post, I can definitely see how this would quickly become very annoying with headphones that already emphasize the upper treble - and could well tip the balance between "clean" and "harsh". (And I could see how a headphone or amp that rolled off the high end would make it much less noticeable. I know that I barely noticed the difference with a pair of HiFiMan planars I used to own.)


----------



## jcx

slew rate is a little different than described above - it is the rate of change of the signal at a given instant in time
  
 we are usually interested in the maximum slew rate of a signal and the limits of the amplifying electronics
  
 for those with basic Calculus its easy to see that a 20 kHz, 2 V sine wave has ~ 250000 V/s maximum slew rate at its zero crossings - usually we use Volts per micro-seconds in audio electronics so that would be 0.25 V/us
  
 the max slew rate possible is a function of frequency and the max V so it really needs to normalized to the max V at a particular point in your system - the 1 Vrms of most DAP, 2 Vrms of  consumer DAC or the max level after gain of a headphone amplifier
  
 since Vpeak is sqrt(2) higher than Vrms - consumer desktop DAC output a "conventional audio" 20-20kHz signal is ~0.36 V/us and with special digital signal tricks you could ask for ~2x that to be "safe"
  
 with higher sample rates than CD 44.1k you certainly could record proportionately higher frequency "ultrasonic" signals with higher slew rate - but many surveys of music show generally that music has a "power bandwidth" of <3-5 kHz == amplitude falls above that frequency fast enough that musical signal slew rate is seldom larger than needed for the 3-5 kHz at max amplitude - that's ~ 4x less than the 20 kHz max amplitude calculated number
  
  
 the link between feedback errors and slewrate was the source for some controversy in JAES in the '70s when Matti Otala started publishing his theories on Transient Intermodulation Distortion - there are links depending on the amp electronics internal design, Otala incorrectly assumed a particular linkage was unavoidable and dogfights ensued
 his fundamental assumption has been shown wrong in theory, by hardware realizations, custom built measurement hardware using his TIM definitions - but it is a powerful meme that many wanting to criticize high feedback amplifiers have refused to give up
  
  
 another thing that has happened without getting credit from Otala/TIM adherents is that over time op amp manufacturers have improved the semiconductor processes and internal circuit topologies - modern chips intelligently selected for the application have vanishingly small slew rate caused errors for audio
 and that's off a "baseline" of NE5534, TL072 that managed ~ 10 V/us in the '80s
  
 just take a "prosumer" $150 sound card like the ESI Juli@ and try to show TIM in analog loopback - despite the only slightly better than generic op amps - certainly not using anything a "op amp roller"would put in, "audiophile" manufacturer would brag on (if they admitted to using op amps at all)


----------



## evillamer

Can anyone explain why hi hats sound different on sigma delta vs r2r (ch ch ch vs tsh tsh tsh)

Is it because of accumulator overload or non-filterable aliasing or lack bits in modulators(quantization errors) or feedback issues?


----------



## prot

keithemo said:


> I would also note that, at least to me, I find that all DACs that use the Sabre DAC chips have a somewhat distinctive sound.* To me they sound as if the upper frequencies are slightly emphasized - even though they have a very flat frequency response.*
> ... and I'm pretty sure it's related to the digital oversampling filter they use.


 

that ... why would that happen? 
You say Sabre & oversampling filters ... but I do not think it's only coming from the DACs, my very linear speakers also had their harsh moments ... wish I could remember all the DACs I tried in that system but I'm pretty sure there was some non-DS stuff (like old CD players with philips chips) ... but the speakers were always kinda sparkly

Oh well, may be better to put this whole "linear is harsh" thing to rest ... according to all else I read there are prolly no definitive and/or generic answers ... just had a hope that maybe I missed something and some of the experts could bring the light in a few clear words.


----------



## jcx

show the signals, and the listening test conditions, statistics and more people who know a little about DAC architectures, specs, errors would have a better chance of usefully speculating
  
 Audio DiffMaker files of the DAC's outputs with the signals that you can show that you differentiate in controlled listening would be a place to look with various signal analysis tools


----------



## prot

jcx said:


> *show the signals, and the listening test conditions, statistics* and more people who know a little about DAC architectures, specs, errors would have a better chance of usefully speculating
> 
> Audio DiffMaker files of the DAC's outputs with the signals that you can show that you differentiate in controlled listening would be a place to look with various signal analysis tools




Life would be so easy if I could just do that . 

Like said, it's all based on many, many auditions/tests plus similar impressions I did read in various places. And may very well be that it's all 100% subjective.


----------



## KeithEmo

jcx said:


> slew rate is a little different than described above - it is the rate of change of the signal at a given instant in time
> 
> we are usually interested in the maximum slew rate of a signal and the limits of the amplifying electronics
> 
> ...


 
  
 You're quite right - slew rate itself is "how fast the voltage can change" - which is a very specific measurement, and I conflated that with various other causes of phase shift and delay.


----------



## KeithEmo

prot said:


> that ... why would that happen?
> You say Sabre & oversampling filters ... but I do not think it's only coming from the DACs, my very linear speakers also had their harsh moments ... wish I could remember all the DACs I tried in that system but I'm pretty sure there was some non-DS stuff (like old CD players with philips chips) ... but the speakers were always kinda sparkly
> 
> Oh well, may be better to put this whole "linear is harsh" thing to rest ... according to all else I read there are prolly no definitive and/or generic answers ... just had a hope that maybe I missed something and some of the experts could bring the light in a few clear words.


 
  
 I suspect there are many answers.....
  
 To me, the biggest question there is whether a given component is adding harshness, or simply showing you exactly what's there in the source material, and so allowing you to hear harshness that's already there. If the component is accurate, and your source material really sounds harsh, then it is the job of a high fidelity component to let you hear exactly how bad your source material is - and, if that bother you, then it is your job to pick other source material, or to find better recordings. Likewise, if your headphones really sound harsh, then it isn't the job of your amp or DAC to alter the sound so you can't hear the problem. Much as I prefer a smooth sound, I simply can't "abide by" any component that makes things sound good by hiding how they really sound. (Even though it may make certain poor quality sources sound better, or avoid frequencies that sound harsh on a particular pair of headphones, I'm always inclined to believe that it is also preventing me from hearing all of how good really high quality sources and other components can sound. Obviously not everyone agrees with my philosophy there.)
  
 I was not at all suggesting that harshness is always caused by the DAC, or even that Sabre DACs tend to sound harsh (I would not actually describe the way they sound that way). What I was suggesting was that most headphones don't have a very flat frequency response, and that combining a Sabre DAC, which tends to emphasize certain frequency ranges and certain aspects of the sound presentation, with a set of headphones that also either emphasizes those same frequencies, or simply doesn't handle them very well, could lead to an overall result that would be characterized as harsh. (To phrase that differently.... I would personally specifically avoid pairing a Sabre DAC with headphones that I already considered to be at all harsh or bright. I would much prefer to pair a Sabre DAC with somewhat laid back headphones whose sound character complements it - like planars.)


----------



## prot

KeithEmo
that's why I wated to put the Q to rest .. too many answers. 
And your're right .. even if the DS DACs were indeed too bright/harsh/shrill/etc, there are still thousands of dark amps/HPs/speakers that would be a perfect match. IMO, there is quite a lot of ado about nothing in this thread.


----------



## evillamer

On the topic of Audio Diff Maker, Furman/Panamax did a test with it that shows that their equipment does provide a difference to the sound.


----------



## evillamer

prot said:


> @KeithEmo
> that's why I wated to put the Q to rest .. too many answers.
> And your're right .. even if the DS DACs were indeed too bright/harsh/shrill/etc, there are still thousands of dark amps/HPs/speakers that would be a perfect match.


 
 Well I feel it's like wearing dark sunglasses to cover up the tiny dust and dirt of a room.


----------



## prot

evillamer said:


> Well I feel it's like wearing dark sunglasses to cover up the tiny dust and dirt of a room.




Could be. But same as true you could say it's like combining sweet & sour for an even better taste. 
IMHO, audio is subjective enough, no need to muddy the waters further with (dubious) analogies


----------



## evillamer

prot said:


> evillamer said:
> 
> 
> > Well I feel it's like wearing dark sunglasses to cover up the tiny dust and dirt of a room.
> ...


 
  
 This thread is full of analogies, Purrin uses cars, Keith uses LED lights and Carpet. What's dubious?


----------



## evillamer

keithemo said:


> You can use that same or similar software to "sharpen" a picture of something else, such as a human face, or a license plate number. You can even base some of your assumptions on the way in which pictures tend to get blurred when a camera isn't perfectly focused. This will give you a "pretty good guess" that sometimes produces remarkably good results. However, it also sometimes produces bad results, because your assumptions aren't always true. (Modern software can even be written such that, assuming you are hoping to make a license plate number readable, the software can "detect how well it worked", and even adjust its operating parameters accordingly. This would allow it to try different settings, and finally use the one that produced a result that was closer to what it _expected_ or "_hoped for_". However, in reality, it's still a guess.) To take the extreme example, if I was the photographer, and I _DELIBERATELY_ shifted the picture out of focus, then your assumption that it should be sharp is wrong, and, even if you could do so perfectly, making it sharp will "destroy" it.
> 
> Personally, I would leave anything that deliberately alters the signal in the "mastering process". (If I was remastering a CD, and I happened to _know_ that it was converted with a specific brand of A/D converter, and also had a way to correct the specific errors introduced by that encoder, then I would so so.... although, even then, if my correction process generates other new errors, I have to decide whether my new version is really "better" or not.)
> 
> (This question comes up frequently in legal cases. If I start with a fuzzy blob that's supposed to be the bad guy's face on a security video, with enough signal processing I can probably "sharpen" it to the point where it looks like a human face. However, can I trust it to look like the right face? Or did my software do such a great job that it essentially created a face from insufficient information, in which case who it happens to look like is almost purely random? Or, even worse, does it offer so many options that, if I keep trying different settings, I can produce a result that looks like whomever I want it to - at which point I cheerfully declare "that's the guy" and stop trying new options?)


 
  
 There has been quite alot of technology that tries to "restore" audio. Example will be BBE Sonic Max or Creative Xfi Crystalizer or Pioneer Sound Retriever to name a few.
  
 http://www.tomsguide.com/us/creative,review-490-3.html
  

  

  
 These audio processing software alter the transients quite abit. If done incorrectly or with certain music types, will likely exceed the volume headroom and distort.


----------



## evillamer

keithemo said:


> lingling1337 said:
> 
> 
> > If you have $10k invested and cant hear the difference between gear, thats a personal problem. I cant imagine what would satisfy you in this argument other than coming to our houses and watching us pass an abx test. Why dont you stop worrying so much, sell your gear, and maybe take some cooking classes or somethint.
> ...


 
  
 Seems like Absolute pitch is a god given/natural born talent/perk(fallout 4 anyone?).


> Researchers estimate the occurrence of AP to be 1 in 10,000 people.


 
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch 
  
 It seems that you can be trained to be relative pitch
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_pitch


----------



## Sonic Defender

keithemo said:


> I would much prefer to pair a Sabre DAC with somewhat laid back headphones whose sound character complements it - like planars.)


 
 I certainly subscribe to your way of thinking, but I'm not sure the new planar offerings from HiFi Man for instance would be a slam-dunk compliment as the 560 and now 1000 are very well extended with plenty of high frequency energy. Still, I get what you mean and agree. I wouldn't get a detailed implementation of a Sabre chip and use it to listen to poorly mastered rock with a Grado SR325. No sir. Now throw in an HE 500 or Oppo headphone ... different story.


----------



## prot

sonic defender said:


> I certainly subscribe to your way of thinking, but I'm not sure the new planar offerings from HiFi Man for instance would be a slam-dunk compliment as the 560 and now 1000 are very well extended with plenty of high frequency energy. Still, I get what you mean and agree. I wouldn't get a detailed implementation of a Sabre chip and use it to listen to poorly mastered rock with a Grado SR325. No sir. Now throw in an HE 500 or Oppo headphone ... different story.




Oppo, older hfman, any audeze, senn 6x0 and prolly many others that I never tried .. and an even bigger selection of dark/smooth speakers. Or just use pretty much any tube amp or most of the small portable amps ... or (the horror), use an EQ


----------



## jcx

"perfect pitch" isn't necessarily a great thing to have - pitch standards have changed over the centuries, there are still a few concert pianists that like the last previous standard lower pitch - the whole orchestra has to tune to their piano
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch
  
 relative pitch is what most everyone uses, gives the sensations of consonance/dissonance with chords, temperaments
  
 even the uncorrected Sana Clip+ is fine to listen by itself with its software 0.25% pitch error


----------



## Sapientiam

evillamer said:


> Can anyone explain why hi hats sound different on sigma delta vs r2r (ch ch ch vs tsh tsh tsh)
> 
> Is it because of accumulator overload or non-filterable aliasing or lack bits in modulators(quantization errors) or feedback issues?


 
  
 Its not really an explanation but the cause seems to be noise floor modulation - in other words signal-dependent changes in the background noise. Its not the first two of your suggestions, could be a combination of the last two. Quantisation needs to be correctly dithered to avoid modulation noise - that means a certain amplitude and probability density function noise source needs to be added in prior to word length reductions. From my (fairly limited) knowledge this precise dither source isn't used at the quantizer in S-D converters. If anyone has links to show me I'm wrong here and that it is, I'll be glad to follow them up.


----------



## blasjw

evillamer said:


> Can anyone explain why hi hats sound different on sigma delta vs r2r (ch ch ch vs tsh tsh tsh)
> 
> Is it because of accumulator overload or non-filterable aliasing or lack bits in modulators(quantization errors) or feedback issues?


 
 Here's a quote from Børge Strand-Bergesen which I think sums it up nicely:
  
*SABRE ISSUES*
 An intriguing side issue was brought up by Strand-Bergesen when he was explaining why he chose the AKM DAC chip to sit inside his chassis. One of the DACs under consideration was the current DAC flavour of the month, the ESS Sabre. Unlike many manufacturers out there, though, Strand-Bergesen rejected the Sabre out of hand, he believes that the design of this DAC is fundamentally flawed, “It’s riddled with maths trouble. The digital maths is disappointing. It will overflow internal registers, chopping up and generating a lot of output edges. It sounds distorted around the treble area. With a high power amp, it could kill the treble. I have a friend of mine who has access to the in-house data sheets of the Sabre. He actually has a work-around for it. Well, for the 9012 and 9018 chip models. Although on the 9022 and 9023, you cannot initiate the work-around because there are no pins to access the internal registers and bypass this problem.”


----------



## Sapientiam

_He believes_ - that statement doesn't give anything much of evidence on which he's based his belief. For example, when does the overflow of the internal registers occur? Looks to me too much like FUD.


----------



## blasjw

sapientiam said:


> _He believes_ - that statement doesn't give anything much of evidence on which he's based his belief. For example, when does the overflow of the internal registers occur? Looks to me too much like FUD.


 

 I don't know, sounds pretty convincing to me.  As far as "when does the overflow of the internal registers occur?", why don't you ask him?  Maybe he can explain it in glorious detail.


----------



## wahsmoh

If that guy is correct then it seems like a slam dunk conclusion and correlates to the ears of many who have heard a bright/neutral headphone with the average $250-$1000 Sabre. That isn't always a great pairing, but take the darker sound of the LCD-2.2 and you have a good combination for many. 
  
 Also moving back to the people who were talking about the DT880/HD800 with their treble peak. Taking the DT880 and pairing it with the R-2R Theta does not remove the treble peak or make it much more resolving. The Theta has a noticeably more circular soundstage and image versus the AKM Bifrost Uber and treble that is natural. I think the tonality of the Bifrost Uber is pretty spot on, but the overall image/soundstage/phase correction is influenced more by the burrito-filter DSP chip.
  
 Oh yeah and of course in the dynamics/transients/bass/slam department the Theta walks all over the Uber


----------



## Sapientiam

blasjw said:


> As far as "when does the overflow of the internal registers occur?", why don't you ask him?  Maybe he can explain it in glorious detail.


 
  
 Maybe he could but since I have other reasons (unrelated to his claims) for not using Sabre DACs, I can't see how it would benefit either of us for me to ask. I put the question not because I'm curious to know the answer (I've looked at too many plots of THD+N for Sabre to know it can't be happening on normal sinewaves) rather to show how his statement could be made more persuasive.


----------



## evillamer

As you know in any type of digit based conversion, currency or floating point to integer, there's always chance for rounding errors.
  
 In the Sigma Delta world, when the PCM 16bit 44Khz data is converted into 5bit 1MHz Bitstream(for example), won't it introduce some form of rounding errors as well? Especially if we don't know if they use double precision or single precision or etc. Also during the process of conversion, won't any kind of electrical interferences and jitter affect the precision?


----------



## Sapientiam

Converting from 16bits down to 5bits certainly generates lots of rounding errors - called 'quantisation noise'. Its the job of the S-D modulator to make those errors inaudible - by forcing them up to higher frequencies (above 20kHz). Single or double precision applies only to floats, but here its fixed point.
  
 If electrical interference or jitter affects the result of a truncation, the design's broken. Digital is able to ignore noise completely below a certain level.


----------



## evillamer

The only thing about ESS is the lack of detailed datasheets(not including those NDA ones) like those you find on TI or AD or even AKM dacs. Especially things like Monotonicity, PSSR, Digital Filter Graphs etc.


----------



## evillamer

sapientiam said:


> Converting from 16bits down to 5bits certainly generates lots of rounding errors - called 'quantisation noise'. Its the job of the S-D modulator to make those errors inaudible - by forcing them up to higher frequencies (above 20kHz). Single or double precision applies only to floats, but here its fixed point.


 
  
 Nothing's wrong with this carpet or room, it's very clean and nice.


----------



## Sapientiam

Good analogy - the carpet in the case of S-D DACs is the measurement tool, the FFT.


----------



## evillamer

Woah! Tyll will be the first professional reviewer to take on the Schitt Yggdrasil!
 http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-sound-2015-and-so-it-begins
  


> *DAC/Amps*
> AURALiC Vega DAC ($3499) and Taurus MkII ($1899)
> Simaudio MOON Neo 430 HA ($4300 w/DAC)
> HeadAmp GS-X Mk2 ($2800)
> ...


----------



## abvolt

That should be a good read..


----------



## vhsownsbeta

evillamer said:


> Woah! Tyll will be the first professional reviewer to take on the Schitt Yggdrasil!
> http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-sound-2015-and-so-it-begins


 
  


abvolt said:


> That should be a good read..


 

 Most definitely.
  
 OT but it will be interesting to hear how Eddie Current BW holds its own amongst such company too...


----------



## rkt31

agreed that high end DACs are more about individual tastes but the review about Hugo is surprising as in last one year only this is the negative review of hugo i have read at least for sq and that too for the Treble for which it is most regarded amongst the high end dac. not many reviews of yggdrasil vs Hugo are on the net but I have read some where that yggdrasil has bright Treble which won't suit the every recording. hugo on the other hand differentiate between poor and good recording which but in a more transparent way. it adds nothing to either Treble or bass just refined clean flow of music ! no wonder one reviewer on headfi preferred Hugo with lcd 3 over yggdrasil with lcd 3 with same headphone amp. so my suggestion tread with caution for over enthusiastic reviews of yggdrasil and audition both specially with more dynamic classical recordings. also 2qute is same as Hugo and priced much below yggdrasil.


----------



## ciphercomplete

The Yggy doesn't have bright treble though. It sounds awesome with classical in my rig.


----------



## Staxton

rkt31 said:


> agreed that high end DACs are more about individual tastes but the review about Hugo is surprising as in last one year only this is the negative review of hugo i have read at least for sq and that too for the Treble for which it is most regarded amongst the high end dac.


 
 I'm sorry if I missed this, but which negative review of the Hugo did you read. I would very much like to see that.
 Thanks.


----------



## jcx

sapientiam said:


> Good analogy - the carpet in the case of S-D DACs is the measurement tool, the FFT.


 

 the Fourier Transform is just another tool to look at the data with - shows some things to human eyeballs, our visual pattern recognition that are harder to see in the time domain data
  
 but it seems popular for some to mischaracterize it - a common naive criticism is that the Fourier data is "averaged" - like the carpet smoothing the "bumps" - implying something is "lost"
  
 the conventional understanding of averaging does involve information loss - and therefore isn't a useful way to think about the Fourier Transformed data - because the Fourier full complex data is a Mathematical Dual of the Time Domain data
  
 you can convert the full complex fft phase and magnitude data points back and forth to the time series data with accuracy limited only by your computer arithmetic wordlength
  
  
 a good illustration of the Dual property is that a "single point" Diac impulse in the time domain gives a result in every fft bin with constant magnitude and a smooth phase variation that encodes the time occurrence of the time domain impulse
  
 the Dual situation is the impulse/single point in the fft plot represents a smooth continuous sine wave with differing values in every time domain data point - the sine phase relative to the data record start coming from the arg of the complex fft data point
  
 but all of the information is preserved in either view - just what is localized is different - and is the power of looking at the data in both domains


----------



## Sapientiam

Nice explanation - the 'averaging' that occurs (without data loss) is because the FFT is a _histogram_, a point lost on not a few people who present data with it as if its a graph. So merely being presented an FFT plot hides some vital information - the bin bandwidth. The various mis-presenters then go on to point to a 'noise floor' (when the 'line' of grass is fairly straight and horizontal) and claim that's the noise floor of whatever they were measuring.


----------



## asdfg

Darn, that is actually an extremely detailed list man. Keep up the good work!


----------



## jcx

I don't find your distinction any more or less relevant than saying a digital audio time series single number is a "bin" of the continuous signal "average" over the intersample time
 interpreting fft bins does require knowing record length in addition to sample rate because frequency is inherently a distributed in time concept
 but that really isn't "extra" knowledge - count the bins and look at the frequency axis labels - no different from getting time domain record length form sample rate and number of points
  
 with effective bandlimiting, complying with the Nyquist limit, the digital audio time series of numbers are a practical, useful, even sometimes musically satisfying representation of the continuous signal
 with Shannon-Hartley Channel Capacity Theorem the Analog noise floor also puts a practical limit on the bit depth needed
  
 “So merely being presented an FFT plot hides some vital information" doesn't seem to be relevant to engineers applying the tool to find evidence for or against Delta Sigma possible error vs R-2R DAC
 it really doesn't seem to be useful to harp on the limitations poor popularized presentations in a way that could easily discredit a valuable tool in the minds of people without the speciallized education – as the carpet analogy seems to be trying to say


----------



## purrin

rkt31 said:


> agreed that high end DACs are more about individual tastes but the review about Hugo is surprising as in last one year only this is the negative review of hugo i have read at least for sq and that too for the Treble for which it is most regarded amongst the high end dac. not many reviews of yggdrasil vs Hugo are on the net but I have read some where that yggdrasil has bright Treble which won't suit the every recording. hugo on the other hand differentiate between poor and good recording which but in a more transparent way. it adds nothing to either Treble or bass just refined clean flow of music ! no wonder one reviewer on headfi preferred Hugo with lcd 3 over yggdrasil with lcd 3 with same headphone amp. so my suggestion tread with caution for over enthusiastic reviews of yggdrasil and audition both specially with more dynamic classical recordings. also 2qute is same as Hugo and priced much below yggdrasil.


 
  
  You should follow your own suggestion of listening to both DACs.


----------



## DreamKing

wildcatsare1 said:


> OK, understood, you are correct on the numerous variables present and the very subjective ways we all interpret them. I have never had a treble problem with the 560, others find it very annoying.
> 
> My problem with the O2/ODAC is also subjective, tonality is critical to me, they just didn't sound natural with multiple headphones. Others love the Audeze "House Sound," I don't. While I love the 560 and HE6, many of those who like Audeze don't care for them.
> 
> What I try to do on Head Fi and in reading the Audio Literature is find those with similar tastes, biases, and objectives, then learn vicariously through their experiences.


 
  
 In the end, I agree with you even if I have my different way of looking at essentially the same thing and I personally think headphones still have a lot of ways to go, easily more than any other kind of gear. I think the booming VR development is going to advance research in HRTF binaural technology so I expect to see some amazing stuff soon on the hardware side and software.


----------



## skeptic

jcx said:


> the link between feedback errors and slewrate was the source for some controversy in JAES in the '70s when Matti Otala started publishing his theories on Transient Intermodulation Distortion - there are links depending on the amp electronics internal design, Otala incorrectly assumed a particular linkage was unavoidable and dogfights ensued his fundamental assumption has been shown wrong in theory, by hardware realizations, custom built measurement hardware using his TIM definitions - but it is a powerful meme that many wanting to criticize high feedback amplifiers have refused to give up
> 
> another thing that has happened without getting credit from Otala/TIM adherents is that over time op amp manufacturers have improved the semiconductor processes and internal circuit topologies - modern chips intelligently selected for the application have vanishingly small slew rate caused errors for audio
> and that's off a "baseline" of NE5534, TL072 that managed ~ 10 V/us in the '80s
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for this explanation - very interesting!  Notwithstanding that it sounds like Otala's theory of unavoidable TIM from feedback amps has been disproven, would you say that there is general acceptance for Pass' comments in the article I previously linked - that negative feedback - while dramatically lowering overall distortion, noise, output impedance, etc. - increases non-linear distortions and higher order distortions?  (See, e.g. figures 10 and 11 - https://passlabs.com/articles/audio-distortion-and-feedback )  I have sort of taken this article as gospel as to what is measurable (audible in controlled tests being a separate issue), but would be interested to know if Pass' assertions are controversial among audio engineers. 
  
 I know nwavguy emphatically argued that 1.5V/us should be adequate for any headphone amp and then basically doubled that in designing the o2.  After reading bits and pieces about TIM and slew rate though, I ended up building agdr's booster circuit and swapping out the input opamp for a pair of lme49990's, which bumped it up to around 20V/us (see http://www.head-fi.org/t/616331/o2-amp-odac/2145#post_10350437 - which makes the modded o2's slew above your referenced baseline and just below that of the se-se wire).  Seems to sound slightly better to me than stock, although it very well could just be confirmation bias, a result of lesser dc offset, whatever.  At the end of the day, for those of us with more science interest than ability, it is really hard to know what to believe about this hobby, manufacturer descriptions & specs, and the aspects of design that really matter most.


----------



## Sapientiam

jcx said:


> interpreting fft bins does require knowing record length in addition to sample rate because frequency is inherently a distributed in time concept
> but that really isn't "extra" knowledge - count the bins and look at the frequency axis labels - no different from getting time domain record length form sample rate and number of points


 
 That's my point - when presented with an FFT as a graph (rather than as a histogram) where is the information about the record length and the sample rate employed (not to mention the number of averages performed)? Some presentations do give some of that information, few give all of it. Without that data its not possible to 'count the bins'. In a time domain graph (say a scope plot) its normal to see both axes labelled (V, t).
  
 I'm not out to descredit the FFT as a valuable tool here - I agree its useful and powerful. More to point out that a large number of users of it don't thoroughly understand it when employing it.


----------



## prot

This thread is getting so serious .. Next time you know someone mentions DBTs and we all end up in the dark science section. 

Heeey! That was my beer!

Were was I? Ah ya, life is dangerous...

Wait, you did not get that? ... wait ...


----------



## jcx

perhaps not too far afield - feedback theory is central to the internals of Delta Sigma converters and of course the analog buffers, I/V converters and filters after (almost) any DAC will employ feedback in some form or another
  
 virtually all useful active circuits use negative feedback - the audiophile marketing "no feedback" really at best means no Global loop feedback and ignores local degeneration that feedback relations are needed to describe fully
  
 but it is too big a subject to do justice to in any depth here
  
 I did find the Pass audio distortion and feedback article unfortunate - I did press him over on diyAudio and he did admit my points of criticism - I consider his "exaggerating for effect" as pandering to the expected biases of the audiophile magazine audience
  
 the "trick" for correct analysis that Pass skated past is that the signal level decreases by the gain of the intermediate stages as you follow the signal backwards from output to the input of a high loop gain global feedback amp
 the reduced signal levels hugely reduces the distortion generation in each stage - at the input even undegenerated bjt diff pairs can add less than -120 dB distortion to the difference signal under ordinary operating conditions
  
 there is no "tsunami" of IMD products in well designed high feedback amps operating within their limits - until you clip or try to "correct" a deadband
  
 I do link, recommend just about everything else Pass has published
  
  
 Putzeys feedback paper is a much more reliable popularization for audio enthusiasts with some EE knowledge - still not enough to learn the subject from http://linearaudionet.solide-ict.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/volume1bp.pdf (only a little bit of Laplace transfer function math...)


----------



## evillamer

Here's another article on Sigma Delta Conveters:
 https://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~josh/documents/Reiss-JAES-UnderstandingSigmaDeltaModulation-SolvedandUnsolvedIssues.pdf
  
 In the article, it mentions several issues with sigma delta:
  


> We’ve identified several key issues in sigma–delta modulation: limit cycles, idle tones, dead zones, harmonic distortion, noise modulation, and stability.
> 
> To some extent limit cycles may be considered a mostly solved problem, whereas for each of the other problems *the issues are understood for low-order design but the theory is not yet established for the high-order designs. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Ableza

... or someone will soon state the old audiophoole lie, "We really don't know how to measure everything in audio."  It always happens.


----------



## Sapientiam

OK I'll bite - 'we currently have no measurement for how well an amplifier conveys a recording's soundstage'.


----------



## Ableza

sapientiam said:


> OK I'll bite - 'we currently have no measurement for how well an amplifier conveys a recording's soundstage'.


 
 HA HA HA!  Define the electrical signal properties of "soundstage."  Or even the acoustic field properties of this thing.


----------



## Sapientiam

If I knew what the electrical signal properties of a recording's soundstage were I'd come up with a measurement.


----------



## evillamer

I think soundstage can be defined by the accuracy/resolution of the dac in reproducing the tiny plankton details accurately at the decay & release of the sound envelope. From my (rudimentary) understanding is Sigma Delta averages/smoothes things out using a feedback & noise shaping or some sort clever engineering tricks(which I understand that R2R DAC doesn't do this). Not sure if that averaging/noiseshaping/filtering affects the ability to reproduce very tiny(micro-rapid) changes in the soundwave accurately. 
  
 of course there are many other dac performance aspects like(e.g.) stereo channel separation and IMD that also affects soundstaging.
  
  

  
  
  
  
Measuring reverberation time


----------



## DreamKing

The problem is that you're using a perception-based term that has nothing to do with science. You will never be able to effectively measure it. It needs to remain the same, under the same conditions no matter what.
  


sapientiam said:


> If I knew what the electrical signal properties of a recording's soundstage were I'd come up with a measurement.


----------



## Sapientiam

dreamking said:


> The problem is that you're using a perception-based term that has nothing to do with science. You will never be able to effectively measure it.


 
  
 I agree its perception based but disagree that perception based things have 'nothing to do with science'. Some cognitive scientists are studying how perception works, in detail. To me it does sound rather defeatist to say I'll never be able to measure it effectively.


----------



## DreamKing

sapientiam said:


> I agree its perception based but disagree that perception based things have 'nothing to do with science'. Some cognitive scientists are studying how perception works, in detail. To me it does sound rather defeatist to say I'll never be able to measure it effectively.


 
  
 I'm saying soundstage isn't a scientific term (applied science). Too vague and varying to be measured. It's like saying you're gonna measure prat one day, even more confusing.


----------



## jcx

the Smyth SVS Realizer is a practical demonstration that typical electronics don't seem to have a big problem with presenting a convincing synthesized soundstage of a specific set of loudspeakers in a real room
  
 they sidestep a lot of the modeling with real measurements, mics in your ears in the real room, in front of real speakers from mono up to 7.1 multichannel setups and calibrate as you turn your head through specified range of angles for your personalized hrtf
  
 then they do the same for your circumaural headphones - they supply a Stax Lambda system as a default for those without their own preferred audiophile cans and amp
  
 the result is very good - you can localize the virtual speakers as well as the real, compare in seconds by just lifting the cans off your head, tilting them down so the head tracker can't see the target
  
 the reductionist position is that good electronics, a complete ADC/DSP/DAC chain inserted gives "out of the head" stable, "realistic" soundstage of "those speakers over there, in this room" - because the phase, frequency response conditions needed for the amps ADC and DAC are trivial
  
http://smyth-research.com/technology.html
  
 after hearing a full personal calibration demo of the full Smyth system in a 5.1 setup it is ROTFLAMO funny reading most Head-fi "soundstage" discussions of even headphones, much less claims that specific amps have a serious role in "correcting" soundstage, "in synergy" with certain cans
  
 at least crossfeed circuits or plugins, Dolby Headphone make real differences - but still are pale shadows of what the Smyth Realizer does with personal calibrations and active headtracking


----------



## DreamKing

jcx said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think the booming VR development is going to introduce competition to the Smyth Realizer as well as more binaural content. It's the best thing that can happen. It won't be about replicating speakers for headphones soon but binaural content (much more of it and hopefully not just for video games) and hardware based on individual binaural HRTF.


----------



## evillamer

On the topic of soundstage:
  
 Although this is marketing video(at the very end of the video), It has quite valuable information with regards to how we perceive sound. see it for yourself.
  
 
  
 longer video for those interested in speaker room accoustic:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BroP_iFVJvo


----------



## BassDigger

ableza said:


> ... or someone will soon state the old audiophoole lie, "We really don't know how to measure everything in audio."  It always happens.


 
  
*Bite No.2:*
  
 What difference does it make, for you? That sand must be really clogging up your ears! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  

  
 Saying that we can measure everything is surely like saying that we understand everything.
 Who is ultimately the better scientist, one who thinks that he does or doesn't understand?


----------



## Argo Duck

^ Indeed. Most scientists IME quickly learn humility from conducting _experiments_, me most definitely included


----------



## evillamer

Finally found a technical video that shows Sigma Delta has issues with tracking fast changing(very steep sloping) signals: It is called Slope Overload Distortion. Also Sigma Delta has Granular Noise distortion.
  
 https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Analog_and_Digital_Conversion/Delta_Modulation
  

  
  


> Slope Overload
> 
> If the input signal is rising or falling with a slope larger than Δ/T, where T is the sampling time, we say that the sampler is suffering from *Slope Overload*. In essence, this means that in a Delta Modulation scheme, we can never have slopes larger than a certain upper limit, and functions that rise or fall at a faster rate, are going to be severely distorted. If the slope of m(n Ts)is greater then the slope of m(n Ts- Ts), then Slope Overload distortion occurs.


 
  
  


> [size=20.007px]Granular Noise[/size] *A problem with delta modulation is that the output signal must always either increase by a step, or decrease by a step, and cannot stay at a single value.* This means that if the input signal is level, the output signal could potentially be oscillatory. That is, the output signal would appear to be a wave, because it would go up and down regularly. This phenomena is called *Granular Noise*.
> 
> When used in ADCs (Analog to Digital Converters), this problem can be solved by internally adding additional bit(s) of resolution that correspond to the value of Δ. This way, the LSBs (Least significant bits) that were added can be ignored in the final conversion result.


 
  
 Watch From 28m:50seconds onwards:


----------



## Sapientiam

Slope overload is an issue for delta modulation - have you confused that with sigma-delta?


----------



## skeptic

jcx said:


> perhaps not too far afield - feedback theory is central to the internals of Delta Sigma converters and of course the analog buffers, I/V converters and filters after (almost) any DAC will employ feedback in some form or another
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks so much for the detailed response and explanation!  Tied up with a bunch of family stuff this weekend but looking forward to carefully reading the Putzey article as soon as time permits.


----------



## evillamer

Quote:
  


sapientiam said:


> Slope overload is an issue for delta modulation - have you confused that with sigma-delta?


 
 Correct me if I am wrong. Sigma Delta is an improvement over Delta Modulation by adding oversampling and noise shaping and filtering into the chain? As in Sigma Delta still employs some form of delta modulation(comparator) but at a much higher sampling rate? But the question I don't know is if the slope overload is still an issue with sigma delta or not?(you need 20x oversampling as per this pdf)
   
 http://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/MT-022.pdf
 Quote:


> Tests have shown that in order to obtain the same quality as classical PCM,* delta modulation requires very high sampling rates, typically 20× the highest frequency of interest, as opposed to Nyquist rate of 2×. *


 
  


> HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
> 
> *The Σ-Δ ADC architecture had its origins in the early development phases of pulse code modulation (PCM) systems—specifically, those related to transmission techniques called delta modulation and differential PCM. *(An excellent discussion of both the history and concepts of the Σ-Δ ADC can be found by Max Hauser in Reference 1).
> 
> ...


 
  
  
  
 Another interesting PDF:
  
  
 http://www.numerix-dsp.com/appsnotes/APR8-sigma-delta.pdf
  


> Section 5, page 1
> The work on sigma-delta modulation was developed as an* extension to the well established delta modulation *


 
  


> Section 6, page 2





> The *name Sigma-Delta modulator comes from putting the integrator (sigma) in front of the delta modulator. *Sometimes, the Σ−∆ modulator is referred to as an interpolative coder [14]. The quantization noise characteristic (noise performance) of such a coder is frequency dependent in contrast to delta modulation.


  

  
  
  


> Section 7:
> 
> Three basic tasks are performed in the digital filter sections:
> 
> ...


----------



## mikoss

Sonic Defender did you ever have that meet in Ottawa to do the testing? I heard the Yggy again today and was impressed with the detailed presentation. Just wondering the results when you do have the meet.


----------



## Sonic Defender

mikoss said:


> Sonic Defender did you ever have that meet in Ottawa to do the testing? I heard the Yggy again today and was impressed with the detailed presentation. Just wondering the results when you do have the meet.


 

 Sadly we are seriously considering putting the meet off until late September as it seems summer is a tough time to compete with. For those that don't live in a true winter-bound climate, it may be hard to understand that when a brief summer hits us, people try to cram so much stuff into such a short period of time that something has to give (like headphone meets).
  
 I don't mind as waiting will allow us to have more time to prepare as well as get enough subjects. Long way of saying, not yet.


----------



## mikoss

Cool well maybe I can make it to Ottawa in sept. Enjoy the summer either way...


----------



## rkt31

purrin said:


> I'm simply surmising. I have not actually heard any mult-bit beef-roast nor do I know much about it really other than what little Jason / Moffat have said. However, it would appear that you may know more than me about this multi-bit beef-roast! Please tell me more! Many inquiring minds want to know! Maybe we can ask Darko?
> 
> Yeah, I know. TT is more for my spoiled rich cousins and nephews in Taiwan who don't have to do anything.


 TT has better headphone amp than Hugo hence expensive. 2qute has no amp like yggy. what more it is cheaper than yggy.


----------



## bmichels

rkt31 said:


> TT has better headphone amp than Hugo hence expensive. 2qute has no amp like yggy. what more it is cheaper than yggy.


 
  
 did you really hear a difference between booth AMPs ?  With several headphones, I compared my HUGO with a TT and couldn't head a significant difference ?


----------



## dan.gheorghe

I've managed to get my hands on an old theta dspro basic. I know it's not in the same league with gen V, but I was still astonished by its performance. Incredible performance from a dac designed ~25 years ago.


----------



## evillamer

dan.gheorghe said:


> I've managed to get my hands on an old theta dspro basic. I know it's not in the same league with gen V, but I was still astonished by its performance. Incredible performance from a dac designed ~25 years ago.


 
  
 Excellent Review(as always). Can't wait for you to review on the Theta DS Pro or even the Schitt Yggdrasil.
  
  


> Wood sounds like wood, metal sounds like metal, etc.


 
  


> Exploding attack and laser decays, leading to a fast, energetic & exploding sound signature. I find this DAC to be quite unique in this department.


 
  


> This was another dac that proved to me why I should be a R2R fan. I just loved the textures, voices and natural tonality this DAC was capable of. Most of the delta sigma DACs today tend to have a digital sound, unnatural and harsh.


----------



## evillamer

Some have the misconception that Modern DACs by merit of being newer(due technological advancements) sound better.(think windows 95 vs modern windows 8.1). However it seems that this is not the case with audio hardware. It's the design and quality of the components used that matters more than the age of the product.


----------



## Sonic Defender

evillamer said:


> Some have the misconception that Modern DACs by merit of being newer(due technological advancements) sound better.(think windows 95 vs modern windows 8.1). However it seems that this is not the case with audio hardware. It's the design and quality of the components used that matters more than the age of the product.


 

 While I'm sure this might be true, it isn't safe to assume that this is true frequently. Technological advances are very important and the notion that older always used better quality I'm not sure if that is accurate either. You might have some of the most expensive capacitors from the 90s that were extremely expensive simply due to scale of economy, newness of the technology, or any other number of reasons. Perhaps today even very affordable capacitors are equally as reliable and have better specs. While it is nice to assume older was always better, not likely. People always needed to make margin and corners were cut then as they are now when design parameters allow for it.
  
 Just the other day somebody brought in some quite old Bang and Olufsen speakers and a very long all in one amp, turntable and cassette deck. I threw them all in the recycling bin at work as they were old enough that even entry level Polk speakers would sound better without a doubt.


----------



## evillamer

I am not saying that older products used high quality or expensive components by default. I am saying that quality of the components used and the design of the product outweights the age of the product.

e.g. A 2015 newly designed dac doesn't necessary automagically means it is better than a 2010 dac.


----------



## KeithEmo

evillamer said:


> Some have the misconception that Modern DACs by merit of being newer(due technological advancements) sound better.(think windows 95 vs modern windows 8.1). However it seems that this is not the case with audio hardware. It's the design and quality of the components used that matters more than the age of the product.


 
  
 There is some truth to what you're claiming, but it depends to a large degree on your requirements and priorities. Back when digital cameras first appeared, a 5 megapixel model cost $10,000 and you couldn't have a 10 megapixel one at _ANY_ price - because they simply didn't exist. Nowadays you get one of those in a $300 cell phone.
  
 In the case of DACs, as with most topics in audio, it all boils down to your needs and priorities. The "early technology" DAC chips didn't use oversampling, and simply weren't accurate enough to accurately "resolve" details even to 16 bits. In fact, they were just barely able to deliver marginal performance with 16/44 audio - which was the standard chosen for CDs. This means that, by today's standards, they had relatively poor frequency response, and unacceptably high levels of noise and distortion. Today there are people who still insist that those "NOS" DACs sound better than current Delta-Sigma models, but they can only do so because they base that claim on the fact that, even though the noise and distortion performance is awful, they insist that "there is something else that is more important" that sounds better about them.
  
 So, if you are satisfied with a DAC that has (by today's standards) poor frequency response, and poor noise and distortion performance, and are willing to accept that it will not be able to play a modern 24/192k file at all, then perhaps, according to your requirements and priorities, "those old DACs sounded better"... but, if you find poor noise and distortion performance to interfere with your enjoyment of what you're listening to, then you're wrong.
  
 That claim is a bit like saying "Transportation has been going down hill for the last century - because in 1915 I could take a luxury train from New York to California, and it would have better service than the best first class airline flight today". That claim is true - as long as being able to arrive in five hours instead of five days doesn't matter to you, and you don't mind sitting in a hot train car without air conditioning.
  
 The reality is that modern DAC chips still aren't perfect, but a low cost modern DAC chip will still outperform a vintage one in every way that is considered to be important by most people. (The simple fact is that manufacturers really do their best to deliver what their customers ask for. The whole "conspiracy theory" that modern DAC designers are trying to sell us inferior merchandise because it's cheaper to make is total crap. The vast majority of DAC buyers asked for better frequency response, better resolution, lower noise, and lower distortion... and current DAC chips deliver all of those - AND lower cost. Audiophiles have now "decided" that there are other performance parameters that matter - and sit around pouting that, even though modern chips excell in 99 other ways, "they suck" because they missed one or two of them. Therefore, it would behoove us, rather than describing those old chips in glowing but very vague terms, we figure out the actual specifications and performance parameters involved - so they can be added to next year's $2 chips.)
   
As for your other example - Windows.... that's a bad example. I'm not at all a fan of Windows 8.1, but Windows 98 was a huge improvement over Windows 95, and Windows XP was a huge improvement over Windows 98, and none of the software I need to use to do my job will run on Windows 95 or Windows 98 any more, so it doesn't matter how good or bad they were - because today they are useless.

  
  
   
  
 


 Think of it like travel. If you wanted to go from NY to Los Angeles in 1850,


----------



## evillamer

Maybe it's because those NOS dac users got used to the sound signature(even though it's rolled off or grainy or less dynamic) to the point where they love it. Give them a modern ESS sabre dac with its laser like dynamics and sharp treble, they won't like it at all. This could also happen in operating systems where the user got used to the older interface and do not like/cannot adapt to the newer interface. If must be said that despite its bipolar interfaces, window 8.1 is much more stable and secure than the previous OS.

I am not saying that all modern dacs are bad sounding, they can be better than some of the 90s or 2000 dacs. In fact I think in 2015, with the rise in popularity of high quality lossless streaming services, more audio manufacturers are paying more attention to sound quality than ever before. 

But we should never just take the year of design/manufacture or even price as a basis to good sound/good value as there are still plenty of modern subpar products out there.


----------



## hans030390

Hoping I didn't misunderstand you. While NOS does inherently have more of a roll-off with redbook content (not an issue with higher sampling rates - even then, the NOS roll-off is more of a subtle difference), they usually aren't grainy and can often be wonderfully dynamic. Some suck, some don't. Just like I've heard way too many D/S, oversampled DACs that are compressed and flat dynamically, grey sounding, lifeless, grainy, and, well, boring or painful. And some sound awesome (mmm, give me a good Wolfson or AKM design). I actually started with the typical sort of DACs and found I much prefer the NOS sound. Or, if not that, definitely a really good R2R/multibit sound like those older Thetas. And, hey, some of those DACs actually measure excellently even by today's standards.


----------



## BassDigger

Spoiler: Quotes:






evillamer said:


> Some have the misconception that Modern DACs by merit of being newer(due technological advancements) sound better.(think windows 95 vs modern windows 8.1). However it seems that this is not the case with audio hardware. It's the design and quality of the components used that matters more than the age of the product.


 


evillamer said:


> I am not saying that older products used high quality or expensive components by default. I am saying that quality of the components used and the design of the product outweights the age of the product.
> 
> e.g. A 2015 newly designed dac doesn't necessary automagically means it is better than a 2010 dac.


 
   
 Quote:


keithemo said:


> There is some truth to what you're claiming, but it depends to a large degree on your requirements and priorities. Back when digital cameras first appeared, a 5 megapixel model cost $10,000 and you couldn't have a 10 megapixel one at _ANY_ price - because they simply didn't exist. Nowadays you get one of those in a $300 cell phone.
> 
> In the case of DACs, as with most topics in audio, it all boils down to your needs and priorities. The "early technology" DAC chips didn't use oversampling, and simply weren't accurate enough to accurately "resolve" details even to 16 bits. In fact, they were just barely able to deliver marginal performance with 16/44 audio - which was the standard chosen for CDs. This means that, by today's standards, they had relatively poor frequency response, and unacceptably high levels of noise and distortion. *Today there are people who still insist that those "NOS" DACs sound better than current Delta-Sigma models, but they can only do so because they base that claim on the fact that, even though the noise and distortion performance is awful, they insist that "there is something else that is more important" that sounds better about them.*
> 
> ...





  
@evillamer To me, you seem to be kind of misunderstanding your own point. I mean that I agree with you, but for a specific reason that you aren't mentioning.
  
 Although I have no idea how a good modern Delta-Sigma implementation compares (I lost interest in DS years ago), historically, there seems to have been a definite jump backwards (in terms of SQ), and it has all the hallmarks of cost-cutting!
  
 I'm talking about the switch from R-2R to bitstream.
 Comparing late 80s/early 90s multibit players to their late 90s/early 00s replacements,.....well, there is no comparison; the older, unserviced and unmodified R-2R players sound better in almost every way, to me. And not just by a small margin!
  
 Today there are many who believe that a properly implemented R-2R design sounds the best, even with a format, sample rate or apparent measurement disadvantage.
 This, to me, is the best example that newer is not necessarily better. And in this case, despite all the advances in measured performance, we're still little closer to understanding why.
 (I like this quote: _"If it sounds good, but measures bad, you're measuring the wrong thing."_)
  
 Sure, I believe that D-S has its place, but not in any 'audiophile' _(or studio)_ gear, where sound quality is supposed to be the most important factor.


----------



## Xymordos

What I believe is that natural sound we hear is not as "distortion free" as we think. By the time the sound traveled to our ears it is already quite distorted. As DACs improve, their quality improves and their distortion becomes much lower than before, and detail retrieval improves greatly too. When we hear music like this, it will sound unnatural since normally we would not be able to hear this amount of detail. Thus the old DACs with less resolution and vinyl discs are favored by most people, as less resolution is actually "more" natural in this case.
  
 For example, you stick a mic into the piano to record it. But when you listen to a piano normally, you don't stick your ear into the strings to listen to it.
  
 I remember a comment on the Chinese headphone forums on the JH Roxanne. He said that the resolution was excellent, but he felt like it was suffocating as there was so much detail that it felt like a brick wall hitting him from all sides.


----------



## drez

I recently did a level matched comparison between Metrum Hex and Invicta Mirus (using digital attenuation on the Mirus to compensate for the XLR/RCA level difference).  To be honest the two were very close on the store system...  The only consistent difference I noticed was that the Mirus resolved transients a little more sharply.  Both DAC's are admittedly on the smooth side, and the store system setup is fairly basic and may have not been transparent enough to allow me to hear differences in other areas.  I expected these two DAC's to be miles apart based ton the designs but basing my opinion from that comparison they just weren't.
  
 Both the DAC's were at similar price points, so I could imagine that they should be comparative in performance, so perhaps this is a factor here, with both DAC's converging towards perfect accuracy.  OTOH maybe this is just showing that the differences between DAC's really is in the bee's appendage scale and can easily disappear in non-ideal conditions.
  
 In the future though I will try to level match for all my DAC comparisons.


----------



## haywood

keithemo said:


> The reality is that modern DAC chips still aren't perfect, but a low cost modern DAC chip will still outperform a vintage one in every way that is considered to be important by most people. (The simple fact is that manufacturers really do their best to deliver what their customers ask for. The whole "conspiracy theory" that modern DAC designers are trying to sell us inferior merchandise because it's cheaper to make is total crap.



Sounds like someone is asking for a listening test between a Theta Gen V and a DC-1? Should be a slam dunk for DS, right? 



xymordos said:


> What I believe is that natural sound we hear is not as "distortion free" as we think. By the time the sound traveled to our ears it is already quite distorted. As DACs improve, their quality improves and their distortion becomes much lower than before, and detail retrieval improves greatly too. When we hear music like this, it will sound unnatural since normally we would not be able to hear this amount of detail. Thus the old DACs with less resolution and vinyl discs are favored by most people, as less resolution is actually "more" natural in this case.




The problem isn't DS resolving too much of the original detail, it's that the reproduction method introduces digital noise. They use filters that are supposed to get rid of that noise but there's debate (obviously) about how effective that is and whether it neuters the microdetails in the sound (plankton). There are many posts in the thread dealing with why on both sides. Anyway the resolution of a 16/44 file isn't going to change no matter what you feed it into, a modem dac will still have the same bits to deal with as the hoariest old battleship. Obviously high-res sound files will be better on DS as the old dac won't decode it, whether that high-res audio on DS is preferable to redbook on multibit vintage is an interesting question.


----------



## Staxton

bassdigger said:


> Sure, I believe that D-S has its place, but not in any 'audiophile' _(or studio)_ gear, where sound quality is supposed to be the most important factor.


 
 But what particular DACs or species of DACs are actually used in the studio, especially studios that work primarily with classical or jazz?


----------



## BassDigger

staxton said:


> But what particular DACs or species of DACs are actually used in the studio, especially studios that work primarily with classical or jazz?


 
  
 Something tells me that you already have some knowledge, or an opinion, regarding this.
 As far as I know, DS is quite the prevalent and ubiquitous technology, recording studios included.
  
 I think this was discussed somewhere, maybe earlier in this thread; apparently, there are some recordings, using R-2R ADCs, that synergise and really show what R-2R dacs can do.


----------



## Staxton

bassdigger said:


> Something tells me that you already have some knowledge, or an opinion, regarding this.


 
 Actually, I have very little knowledge what DACs studios use, other than what I've tried to learn here on Head Fi (See What DACs do Professionals Use in the Studio or Doesn't it Matter?) and by searching the internet. And I have absolutely no opinion as to which DAC or DAC species is better.
  
 What I am trying to find out is whether knowing what DACs professionals use in the studio to listen to the music they create is relevant to choosing a DAC for a particular purpose--in my case listening to classical music through good headphones--and, if so, what DACs or types of DACS, they actually use.


----------



## BassDigger

Sorry; maybe I was being a bit defensive. I'm a bit weary of ogres (mad scientists) and trolls. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 It looks like an interesting thread, that you've started.


----------



## ashutoshp

staxton said:


> But what particular DACs or species of DACs are actually used in the studio, especially studios that work primarily with classical or jazz?


 
 Good question. Delta Sigma DACs I believe. Maybe a pro audio gent/gal can back me up or correct me.
 I am pretty sure there are just a handful of stand-alone DACs south of $1000 because the money/demand is of components upstream, i.e., the ADCs rather than the DACs. Makes sense TBH. I always seem to get the notion that DACs are a foregone conclusion in the pro audio business until you hit the high price brackets. Another thing, its not easy to get the exact part number of the DAC used as well. Apparently, most of the cheaper USB interfaces use the same DAC.
  
 Some of those interfaces are truly divine sounding. I listened and am looking to purchase Focusrite's Forte soon. top notch stuff. Any opinions? 
  
 FYI, look at some DACs they review in Stereophile. Quite a few are from the pro audio side of things. Off the top of my head, there's Benchmark, of course, but also Antelope Audio.


----------



## KeithEmo

bassdigger said:


> Spoiler: Quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I've been involved in "audiophile gear" (and specifically digital) for a very long time - and I simply can't agree with you there. I had a relatively early "high end" CD player - back in the days when R2R DAC chips were all there was. Honestly, it was OK (with nothing to compare it to). I replaced it with a Rotel model that was well regarded at the time - which was a definite improvement. From there I went to a separate DAC and a separate little box that did upsampling and jitter removal (Assemblage), and from there to a Benchmark DAC1. And I would have to say that, at least to my ears, each of those steps was a clear and obvious improvement in sound quality. 
  
 I currently own about a half dozen "high end" DACs, all of which seem to be Delta-Sigma at the moment. I recently purchased a well regarded "NOS/R2R" DAC (in the $800 price range), to see what I was "missing", and I have to say that I personally wasn't especially impressed. It sounded smooth, and seemed to do a very good job of reproducing clean plucked strings on some especially good quality recordings, but it also didn't seem to do all that well on voice. I would have to say that, when I plugged my DC-1 back in, it sounded a tiny bit better on some things, and a tiny bit worse on others - all in all about as much difference as I normally hear when switching between different digital filters on a DAC that offers that option - with a very slight edge to the DC-1.
  
 Since "better" or "worse" are matters of personal opinion rather than of technical fact, there is no right or wrong to be found in any discussion based on those terms, and we are all entitled to our own opinions. However, I might suggest that it would be more accurate to state that "many people hear a difference - which some people prefer". 
  
 I do, however, find it interesting that you are quite certain that "the older R2R units sound better to you in every way" even though you also say that you haven't heard modern D-S DACs (I'm assuming this means that you haven't listened to any of them critically, let alone made any sort of direct comparison). If I were being cynical, I might think that you simply don't like D-S DACs "on principle" because "it has (they have) all the hallmarks of cost-cutting" (your words), even though you haven't actually verified for yourself whether they have lowered cost by reducing quality, or actually do deliver better quality for lower cost.
  
 Are you actually basing your opinion on how modern D-S DACs sound based on your memory of how a few very early ones sounded?
 Don't you wonder if perhaps things have changed?


----------



## KeithEmo

ashutoshp said:


> Good question. Delta Sigma DACs I believe. Maybe a pro audio gent/gal can back me up or correct me.
> I am pretty sure there are just a handful of stand-alone DACs south of $1000 because the money/demand is of components upstream, i.e., the ADCs rather than the DACs. Makes sense TBH. I always seem to get the notion that DACs are a foregone conclusion in the pro audio business until you hit the high price brackets. Another thing, its not easy to get the exact part number of the DAC used as well. Apparently, most of the cheaper USB interfaces use the same DAC.
> 
> Some of those interfaces are truly divine sounding. I listened and am looking to purchase Focusrite's Forte soon. top notch stuff. Any opinions?
> ...


 
  
 The _VAST_ majority of DACs sold for professional or consumer use today are Delta-Sigma DACs. In terms of percentages, R2R DACs rank right up there between horse drawn carriages and hydrogen powered cars. (And, if you look at the parts vendors catalogs, virtually _EVERY_ DAC chip "recommended for professional or consumer audio use" is a D-S DAC. You may find a few companies who have brought back old designs to sell to audiophile niche markets, but very few. This means that the only folks using R2R DACs are companies or individual DIYers who are willing to create their own designs, or adapt chips intended for other purposes, or build their own hardware based on old available schematics and designs.)


----------



## BassDigger

@KeithEmo
  
 As you say, everyone has their opinion. Mine is based on old, but very convincing experiences, and the advice of someone who's opinion I trust, more than anyone's around here. (Also, he doesn't misquote me, even though English is his 2nd (or 3rd, I'm not sure) language.)
  
 OK, your opinion is totally the opposite and based on your "very long" involvement; it's worth consideration (I've really appreciated many of your explanations.). But, my own finding showed such a gap between the two technologies. This, combined with other testimonies, would make me very surprised if D-S has caught and passed R-2R, in reproducing music in the way that I prefer. Sure, D-S implementation has got better over the years. But so has R-2R.
  
 I don't understand your reference to cost cutting. I thought that it's well known that D-S dacs are cheaper; hence their prevalence.


----------



## KeithEmo

haywood said:


> Sounds like someone is asking for a listening test between a Theta Gen V and a DC-1? Should be a slam dunk for DS, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 You said it - but I won't disagree with you there 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 However, you seem to be under a slight misconception about digital filters. It's not that "the D-S process produces digital noise - which must then be filtered out". All digital files consist of the actual information you want, mixed in with extra "stuff" (the energy content of the "steps" that occur at the sample rate). That extra stuff _MUST_ be removed somehow, which is only right, since you only get back the original signal after it is removed. (Think of it like making an exact copy of a statue out of stone. You rough it out, then you sand it, and finally you polish it. And, in the end, it hopefully ends up being just like the original. The process isn't "bad" because sanding is one of the steps, and the statue looks bad until you sand it.) So, both R2R DACs and D-S DACs, and both NOS and oversampling DACs, end up with a signal which must be processed through a filter to remove the "excess junk" and get back the signal you want. Oversampling basically alters the characteristics of the noise that is present in such a way that it is easier to filter out. (And the "accusation" is that, even though the result is easier to filter out, and so there is less of it left after it's filtered, it's so much nastier than the original that even the tiny amount that survives is more audible than the original noise.)
  
 The real debate, or claim, or what you will, is that the specific types of noise used/produced by the D-S process is either somehow "inherently worse" than other types, or that it's more of a problem because it isn't being properly removed, and so there's more of it left to be heard, or both. I see people deeply concerned that the noise floor on a specific D-S DAC might be modulated, which could be unpleasantly audible... yet they forget that the noise floor they're worrying about is at -125 dB, which is about 30 dB _BELOW_ the noise floor on a CD. 
  
 The problem I have with many of these discussions is that they start out with a technical argument, but end up with "I know the problem is present, therefore it _MUST_ sound bad" - which is simply faulty logic. There are many reasons why two DACs might sound different, and whether each happens to be R2R or D-S is just one of them. I would very much like to see someone conduct an actual study to determine if most people can actually hear the difference between R2R DACs and D-S DACs. Unfortunately, in order to do such a test, they would have to eliminate all the _OTHER_ variables, of which there are a lot - many of which can be difficult to eliminate. (You must first find an R2R DAC which can match the noise, frequency response, and distortion performance of the D-S DAC you want to compare it to... which may be a difficult and expensive proposition. Otherwise, we're left wondering if you're simply interpreting the flaws as virtues. An R2R NOS DAC that rolls off the high-frequency response by 2 dB at 20 kHz is going to sound so obviously different because of that roll off that you aren't going to hear any more subtle differences that might be present - nor will you be able to confirm that it _IS_ otherwise identical.)


----------



## KeithEmo

bassdigger said:


> @KeithEmo
> 
> As you say, everyone has their opinion. Mine is based on old, but very convincing experiences, and the advice of someone who's opinion I trust, more than anyone's around here. (Also, he doesn't misquote me, even though English is his 2nd (or 3rd, I'm not sure) language.)
> 
> ...


 
  
 My reference to cost cutting was based on my interpretation of your wording - and that it seemed to me to suggest that you were using "cost cutting" as a disparaging term. Personally, while I find that many products do indeed suffer a loss in performance because "costs have been cut", the reverse is often true - that new technology sometimes allows us to achieve better performance at lower cost. Also, in many cases, there is a tradeoff - but not always in performance. (I have a little digital pocket recorder that cost me $200. Aesthetically, it is a "cheap little plastic piece of junk"; yet, in terms of actual audio performance, it easily outperforms the Ampex "studio" open reel tape recorders a friend of mine used to collect - even though they cost ten times as much, weigh about fifty times as much, and are clearly "better made".)
  
 My point is that the fact that they're cheaper _IN NO WAY_ suggests that they don't work as well - or that they do. 
  
 To take the discussion back to technical "ground".... I'm a bit curious about precisely what you think a D-S DAC would be unable to do satisfactorily. (You seem quite certain that there is something inherently wrong with them. I'm cusious how you think they "mess up the signal".) Please note that I make no claim that D-S DACs are perfect... I'm pretty sure I know which things they do well, and which they do less than perfectly, and I'm curious which of their flaws you believe "must" still be present in current versions to the degree that they overshadow the known flaws of other types.
  
 (Incidentally, I do agree with you that many early DACs, of both types, sounded pretty bad. I just don't see a specific correlation between the badness of the sound and the topology - beyond that fact that "most cheap DACs do use D-S chips these days". I could also say that most $2 bottles of wine taste much worse than most $2 bottles of beer; but that in no way suggests a generalization that "beer tastes better than wine".)


----------



## BassDigger

@keithemo
You seem to be mis-quoting me, again. 
I'll leave the technical stuff for you; I just know what I like the sound of. 

I guess wine is more expensive to produce (and it's sold in bigger bottles).


----------



## evillamer

The ess sabre white paper has highlighted transient issues with some sigma delta dacs. Although this may seem like one of the only few problems with sigma delta dacs but we humans(survival) are more sensitive to fast(or loud) transient sounds than other form of sound waves. We are probably less sensitive to the frequency drop from NOS than we are to detecting issues with the transient sound and jitter.

Even though the Ess claims that their sabre dac can process transients without a hitch, the transient response of the sabre dac is still behind well implemented R2R dacs in certain music instruments like cymbals/shakers. As in the ess sabre dac is not free from anomaly as they claim. This is something which some might notice and some might not, depending on the ear of the beholder and the equipment in the chain. Some might also find that the ess sabre tends to recreate transients way too fast than what is considered as normal/natural(as compared to other sigma delta or r2r dacs)

http://www.esstech.com/PDF/sabrewp.pdf

Page 3:



> certain ΣΔ modulators when provided with a rapidly changing input signal will exhibit non-linear noise behavior as they process the transient. This is because all noise shaping modulators are feedback systems and the usual design process (supported by commonly available design tools) operates to minimize in-band noise suppression while maintaining stability. This noise-optimized stable loop configuration will lead to an output that matches the input to the required degree within the requested bandwidth as expected. However this typical design process neglects the dynamic response of each state variable: there are choices of Q (and relative gain) that minimize noise but result in relatively large lightly damped resonances of the internal state variables. The consequence of this is that in a quiet passage of music the state variables of the modulator are all operating within a certain “state space” and the quantization noise shaping is described by the noise characteristics in this “volume” of the space. After a large music transient has passed, the output traces its dynamic response back to the quiescent operating point as we expect, but every state variable is also following its transient response back to its quiescent point12. During this multi-dimensional excursion back to the lower signal level the operating point traverses different volumes of the space, each of which has its own noise characteristic. Hence a very perceptive listener can hear something “anomalous” related to the transient response.


----------



## ciphercomplete

keithemo said:


> I recently purchased a well regarded "NOS/R2R" DAC (in the $800 price range), to see what I was "missing", and I have to say that I personally wasn't especially impressed.


 
  
 I hate NOS dacs personally so I wouldn't be on my 4th (5th? I can't remember) R2R dac if any of them sounded like the few NOS dacs I have heard.  Maybe try a standard or oversampling R2R dac instead.


----------



## KeithEmo

bassdigger said:


> @keithemo
> You seem to be mis-quoting me, again.
> I'll leave the technical stuff for you; I just know what I like the sound of.
> 
> I guess wine is more expensive to produce (and it's sold in bigger bottles).


 
  
 I do apologize if you think I've mis-quoted you..... here is the actual quote from your post:
  
 "Although I have no idea how a good modern Delta-Sigma implementation compares (I lost interest in DS years ago), historically, there seems to have been a definite jump backwards (in terms of SQ), and it has all the hallmarks of cost-cutting!"
  
 To me it seems pretty clear that you are saying...
 1) That you haven't heard a good recent Delta-Sigma DAC
 2) That you are certain that the sound quality in recent years has gone downhill - and that this seems to be the result of "cost cutting"
  
 Do let me know if I'm missing something......
  
 No need to fuss about it - but I do my best to get details right (although I'm only human)


----------



## KeithEmo

evillamer said:


> The ess sabre white paper has highlighted transient issues with some sigma delta dacs. Although this may seem like one of the only few problems with sigma delta dacs but we humans(survival) are more sensitive to fast(or loud) transient sounds than other form of sound waves. We are probably less sensitive to the frequency drop from NOS than we are to detecting issues with the transient sound and jitter.
> 
> Even though the Ess claims that their sabre dac can process transients without a hitch, the transient response of the sabre dac is still behind well implemented R2R dacs in certain music instruments like cymbals/shakers. As in the ess sabre dac is not free from anomaly as they claim. This is something which some might notice and some might not, depending on the ear of the beholder and the equipment in the chain. Some might also find that the ess sabre tends to recreate transients way too fast than what is considered as normal/natural(as compared to other sigma delta or r2r dacs)
> 
> ...


 
  
 Agreed....
  
 However, it's difficult to determine which part of the process to "blame" - and how much credit or blame each deserves. All digital oversampling filters introduce some ringing (which is an error in transient response). And this same type of error will also be exhibited by an R2R DAC that uses an oversampling filter. Likewise, _ALL_ DACs require a reconstruction filter, which will also introduce errors. However, in terms of sound quality, these are all qualitative claims. (We can see that errors exist, and we can measure them, but we can't correlate them directly with sound quality. For example, there's no way to quantify whether an extra 3 mS of ringing at -10 dB will sound worse than an extra 0.7% THD, or a 5 dB higher noise floor.)
  
 To me, here are a few of those questions I'd like to see "worked on":
  
 1) Assuming we are using oversampling, and so a digital filter, which introduces errors in transient response, do the oversampling filters used in D-S DACs introduce _WORSE_ errors than those introduced by the filter itself. (In other words, if I use the same amount of oversampling for an R2R DAC and a D-S DAC, will the D-S DAC have _WORSE_ errors, or _THE SAME_ errors as the R2R DAC, or equally significant but audibly _DIFFERENT_ errors?)
  
 2) I agree that Sabre DACs tend to emphasize transients (according to what I hear, when comparing them to other DACs). However, it would be nice to know if the Sabre DACs are _OVER_-emphasizing transients, or the others are _UNDER_-emphasizing them. Either they're right and everybody else is wrong, or everybody else is right and they're wrong, or they and everybody else are all wrong - just in different ways. (In some of their early marketing literature, Sabre actually said that they "tuned" their sound "based on what users liked in focus groups". This doesn't actually suggest whether the choice they went with was the most accurate - or not.)
  
 3) How do the errors DACs introduce into transients compare to the errors present in alternatives? Neither microphones, nor phono cartridges, nor speakers, have especially clean transient responses, and even A/D converters introduce transient errors. Therefore, no digital recording is "perfect" as a source, but the vinyl or tape "originals" that many people compare DACs to are also flawed. In fact, since most concerts these days use at least some "sound reinforcement", it would be somewhat difficult to find a "purely natural" original to compare to a reproduction. (Saying that "DAC X sounds more like vinyl" could mean that both share some particular good trait, or it could simply mean that the DAC has the same distortions and colorations as a typical vinyl reproduction. Without knowing which is true, unless your actual goal is "to mimic vinyl exactly", we can't know for sure if that claim is a good thing or a bad thing.) 
  
 There's also another facet of "digital processing" that most people seem not to understand - and that is about how "arbitrary processing" interacts with "perception".
  
 To take my favorite example from optics. All digital photographs have a certain unavoidable loss of detail. (If you take a perfectly sharp picture of a black and white checkerboard with a digital camera, the resulting image will contain some grey pixels, because some sensor sites will be "straddling" a boundary, and so "see" half white and half black, which will cause them to return the value for grey.) There is a process called "unsharp mask" which has been used for years to create the _ILLUSION_ of improved sharpness in images. The process actually exaggerates the contrast at contrast boundaries - so, if you have an area of light pixels adjacent to an area of dark pixels, the process creates a very light halo at the edge of the light area and a very dark halo at the edge of the dark area. This alteration then tricks our eyes (or our brain) to "see" a sharper picture by exaggerating the edges that were _DE_-exaggerated by the photographic process. The net result, if done properly, is that the error introduced by the "sharpening process" "cancels out" the flaw in the digital photography process, with the net result that the picture looks more natural.
  
 The implications of this are interesting:
 1) ALL digital photographs are inaccurate
 2) Applying unsharp masking will make most of them even less accurate (by measurements)
 3) However, applying unsharp masking to many of them will make them _APPEAR MORE ACCURATE TO A HUMAN OBSERVER_
  
 3) is actually an understatement - because the "unsharp setting" that will make a given picture appear best to a certain observer will be different depending on the size of the picture, the lighting conditions, the content of the picture itself, and the sharpness of vision of the observer. Therefore, the setting must be chosen based on the intended use of the picture, and the size at which it is intended to be displayed. (There are high-end image processing programs which you can tell how big you plan to print the picture, and in what format you plan to print them, and which will then choose the best settings for you - based on studies of human vision and perception.)
  
 I quite suspect that what Sabre DACs do is the psycho-acoustic equivalent of this process.... they deliberately exaggerate transients slightly, which, in most cases, tends to cancel out an unintentional softening of transients that occurs elsewhere (perhaps due to unavoidable consequences of digital filtering - or perhaps not). The result, much like the result you get with unsharp mask, is that many sources are improved, while a few come out appearing exaggerated or unnatural. (I am using the term "arbitrary processing" to describe a situation where an error is assumed, and a change made that would correct that error, without any way of knowing if the error actually existed in a specific case to begin with or not.)


----------



## KeithEmo

ciphercomplete said:


> I hate NOS dacs personally so I wouldn't be on my 4th (5th? I can't remember) R2R dac if any of them sounded like the few NOS dacs I have heard.  Maybe try a standard or oversampling R2R dac instead.


 
  
 I agree with you there.
  
 Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of them out there - and some of the lower cost ones are suspect for various reasons (a poorly designed R2R DAC is still not going to sound good - and a lot of the ones available at reasonable prices seem to be DIY projects offered by sources with dubious design credentials).
  
 The Schiit Yggdrasil is an oversampling R2R DAC - with an excellent provenance. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 (Although, assuming you really like the way it sounds, you'll still have to figure out how much of the credit goes to R2R and how much to simple "good design".)


----------



## hans030390

drez said:


> I recently did a level matched comparison between Metrum Hex and Invicta Mirus (using digital attenuation on the Mirus to compensate for the XLR/RCA level difference).  To be honest the two were very close on the store system...  The only consistent difference I noticed was that the Mirus resolved transients a little more sharply.  Both DAC's are admittedly on the smooth side, and the store system setup is fairly basic and may have not been transparent enough to allow me to hear differences in other areas.  I expected these two DAC's to be miles apart based ton the designs but basing my opinion from that comparison they just weren't.


 
  
 I'd say you'd need to compare them in a quiet, familiar environment, such as your own home. Do so with very resolving amps and headphones, the best you can find. The Hex is smooth to the point it will literally gloss over low-level details. It should not be even remotely subtle if you know what to look for. If the Mirus does the same, well, that would be interesting.


----------



## skeptic

staxton said:


> But what particular DACs or species of DACs are actually used in the studio, especially studios that work primarily with classical or jazz?


 
  
 Lots of studios make badly recorded classical and jazz music.  The more interesting question is what do/did the very best studios, e.g. MFSL, use while making great recordings like the gold discs of Muddy Waters and Louis and Ella, that sell for a mint?  Answer - custom gear built by Nelson Pass and Mike Moffat that definitely was not DS based.  http://www.vxm.com/21R.46.html


----------



## evillamer

Not sure if ESS has done right with their transient response tweaks but it seems that their transient response can sound exciting or fatiguing for long listening. It really depends on the equipment matching as well. Not sure if it's due to noise shaping/digital filters or something, I myself find that the soundstaging on the various sabres(no special dsp/filters) I listen to, seems to be more closed in(narrow) as compared to the PCM1704uk.
  
 I think we need some form of recording compensation caused by the distortion/transfer lose from recording equipment. I think that's where the Mastering Engineers comes in. These people would have already perform some of EQ/phase/attack/level adjustments at their end.
  
 As for the loss/distortion caused by dac/filters/amps/speakers/headphones in the chain, This is something only a pair of good ears(highly perceptive listener) can tell.
  
  
 This is a high technical video(not for everyone), watch from 27:30 where the lecturer explains what happens to the quantizer(within the sigma delta) when the input exceed a certain threshold causing the noise shaping loop to fall apart(sigma delta instability). He also explain the input cannot exceed the range of the quantizer(Maximum Stable Amplitude).
  
  
 
  
  
 I am guessing this is an area where instrumentation measurements with FFT charts, Simple Sine Wave Amplitude Chart or Frequency Response measurement charts is not going to show the issue with sigma delta stability as it's a continuous input/non-linear function issue.
  
 Also on another note.
  
 IME: Jitter plays a very important role when it comes to reproducing smooth silky sounding female vocals. Doesn't matter if your dac is R2R or Sigma Delta, as long as you have bad jitter, your female vocals will sound coarse. e.g. try a high jitter source apple tv/pc soundcard digital out to your dac.


----------



## BassDigger

keithemo said:


> I do apologize if you think I've mis-quoted you..... here is the actual quote from your post:
> 
> "Although I have no idea how a good modern Delta-Sigma implementation compares (I lost interest in DS years ago), historically, there seems to have been a definite jump backwards (in terms of SQ), and it has all the hallmarks of cost-cutting!"
> 
> ...


 
  
 Why are you apologising for what_ I_ think? You either mis-quoted me, or you didn't. (Actually, I think that there's as much mis-understanding and 'putting words in my mouth', as there is mis-quoting.) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I've explained my position, and why I think what I do. (You haven't asked about the differences that I heard.)
  
 Although, we've previously discussed the importance of timing and jitter, unfortunately this is all beyond my comprehension. But, (Time for me to mis-quote you) you seem to be asking for technical explanations and implying that the measurements prove _everything_





. (Although to be fair to you, you did express a desire to understand what might be going on.) I don't believe that we can measure and understand everything, and that there're are misunderstood phenomenon, creating misunderstood effects. I think that D-S vs R-2R is a prime example, of this.
  
 Regarding whether I've listened to the latest and greatest D-S: as I've said, I've explained my position. Also, R-2R has advanced; many of the early designs had some real 'howlers' of mistakes, in their implementation. But they still sound better than the later D-S designs. Are you implying that D-S has improved so vastly (and so much more than R-2R), over the last decade?
  
 I find it concerning that you don't seem to accept (or admit) the concept that companies will use any (and all) methods they can to increase their profit margins.
 D-S is much cheaper. That's why it's so ubiquitous. R-2R is considerably more costly. This cuts into precious profit margins; D-S can be made to sound 'acceptable'; marketing and the 'assistance' of the hifi media maintains sales, particularly when they concentrate on what D-S can do, with some degree of success (I believe that this is detail retrieval).
 The rest, as they say, is history.
  
 My 'underwear has remained untangled', but there's only so much 'going around in circles' that can remain interesting.


----------



## drez

Yes DS has improved greatly over the last decade. OTOH the only R2R DAC I am interested in is the Yggdrasil. To be honest cost cutting and easy implementation is perfectly valid reason to use DS. Not every company is as crazy as Schiit.


----------



## frenchbat

drez said:


> Yes DS has improved greatly over the last decade. OTOH the only R2R DAC I am interested in is the Yggdrasil. To be honest cost cutting and easy implementation is perfectly valid reason to use DS. Not every company is as *honest *crazy as Schiit.


 
 FTFY


----------



## BassDigger

drez said:


> Yes DS has improved greatly over the last decade. OTOH the only R2R DAC I am interested in is the Yggdrasil. To be honest cost cutting and easy implementation is perfectly valid reason to use DS. Not every company is as crazy as Schiit.


 
  
 Cost cutting? Sure, if you want a cheap dac.
  
 But if you want a good one, a reasonable R-2R implementation will do the job (reproduce music) better every time, no matter how much D-S is passed off as real hifi (and yet can still cost megabucks).
  
 It hasn't been the consumers' costs that anyone's interested in cutting.


----------



## drez

bassdigger said:


> Cost cutting? Sure, if you want a cheap dac.
> 
> But if you want a good one, a reasonable R-2R implementation will do the job (reproduce music) better every time, no matter how much D-S is passed off as real hifi (and yet can still cost megabucks).
> 
> It hasn't been the consumers' costs that anyone's interested in cutting.




Funny I feel that I can hear more music from my current SD DAC than my previous, more expensive R2R DAC from the same manufacturer. I dont count soft, murky, rolled and veiled as contribtuing to my enjoyment of music. Yes the saving in cost was passed onto me. Yggy is the exception to my admittedly limited experience in that it musically surpasses dacs in its price range.


----------



## BassDigger

drez said:


> Funny I feel that I can hear more music from my current SD DAC than my previous, more expensive R2R DAC from the same manufacturer. I dont count soft, murky, rolled and veiled as contribtuing to my enjoyment of music. Yes the saving in cost was passed onto me. Yggy is the exception to my admittedly limited experience in that it musically surpasses dacs in its price range.


 
  
 As I understand it, D-S implementations are much cheaper. If this meant that all D-S dacs are equally cheap, fairplay. But my point is that they're sold at a similar price, despite being significantly cheaper to produce.
  
 I'll try not to be so black or white and all-encompassing, in my statements; some, like yourself, do seem to prefer D-S. (Although, I don't recognise any of your adjectives when it comes to describing the 'sound' of an R-2R dac.)
  
 Each to their own, although musical preference probably has some influence.


----------



## KeithEmo

skeptic said:


> Lots of studios make badly recorded classical and jazz music.  The more interesting question is what do/did the very best studios, e.g. MFSL, use while making great recordings like the gold discs of Muddy Waters and Louis and Ella, that sell for a mint?  Answer - custom gear built by Nelson Pass and Mike Moffat that definitely was not DS based.  http://www.vxm.com/21R.46.html


 
  
 Agreed... sort of...  although the type of oversampling used in A/D converters doesn't have the same issues as D-S D/A converters anyway. (When you use oversampling in a DAC, you're creating new interpolated samples, which then require significant filtering; when you use oversampling to digitize something analog, you are taking actual samples at a higher sample rate, then mathematically reducing them later. In short, there's no "artificial made up information" involved - and so no "guessing" - just initially recording more information than necessary, then eliminating the excess later. In an engineering sense, it's much easier, and more well defined. Therefore, the problems with oversampling DACs aren't present in oversampling A/C converters.)
  
 However, it doesn't really matter what equipment a certain studio uses, _unless they happen to produce recordings by the artist I want to listen to_. If you happen to like Beethoven, you have your choice of hundreds, or even thousands, of recordings of it - by various orchestras, with various conductors, and from different production companies. (Wouldn't it suck if the best and most wonderful version of that song that Ella ever sang was recorded by some cheesy studio on crappy equipment?) My favorite group plays electric guitars, and electric keyboards, and the vocalist always seems to be glued to a microphone. They even mike the drums.The mixing engineer at the recording studio they use seems to think that you there's no real purpose for Volume and Compression settings lower than 10, and the few times I've heard them "live", the PA system at the club they were playing at was even worse. (Nothing bugs me more than "discovering" some new music store, who records all their own stuff "direct to digital", using the best equipment currently available - only to find that they have exactly _NOTHING_ for sale that I actually want to listen to. The great thing about MoFi in the old days was that they actually re-mastered recordings that I actually wanted - and cared about.)
  
 (If I was actually a fan of Louis Armstrong, or Ella Fitzgerald, my biggest regret would be that I can't get a "proper" copy of either on a full quality 24/192 digital format - because, since they weren't originally recorded digitally, all I can get today is a copy made from an analog tape or vinyl master....   )
  
 I guess the point I'm trying to make is that most of us have little choice of what equipment was used to master what we listen to, because we're stuck with whatever equipment the studio our group chose to produce their album used. Therefore, I'm more concerned that my own playback equipment does the best job possible to reproduce "most Red Book CDs, and now digital download files", and less concerned that it do an excellent job with one or two specific ones. (And this is why I take the "obverse" viewpoint to some people about things like the ringing introduced by digital filters. I'll concede that all oversampling DACs have some ringing, but the filters used to produce virtually all CDs also have some ringing, and so do phono cartridges for that matter, so I'm more concerned with whether the DAC _ADDS_ any ringing or other artifacts that are audible above and beyond the flaws that are already present in the recordings I have, and less concerned whether it can render that one "perfect" Ella Fitzgerald recording - which I'm not interested in listening to anyway - to sound perfectly natural.
  
 And, as for things like "natural ambiance and decay" - which were mentioned as being critical in that article quoted about MFSL..... well, I'm pretty sure that, on Within Temptation's latest album (they're _MY_ favorite group), any ambience that was there probably came from a plugin, added by the mixing engineer, after the recording engineer removed any real ambiance that was actually picked up with coarse-grit sandpaper.
  
 Therefore, I'm very interested in having my equipment deliver "his artistic vision" (I want to hear what he wanted me to hear), but "natural" doesn't really come into that discussion... at least not as something distinct from "reproducing whatever is on the recording as accurately as possible". And, in all fairness, unless anyone here was actually alive when it was recorded, and has an awfully good memory, nobody here knows whether that Louis Armstrong recording sounds natural either (as in "what it actually sounded like when they played it live"); the best you can do is do make a judgment call about whether you _think_ it sounds a lot like what you _imagine_ it sounded like in that studio. (You can assume that it sounded a lot like what a well produced concert sounds like - to you - in a "good" modern concert hall.... but that is just an assumption. Tastes, including "what a concert hall should sound like" change, so perhaps it really sounded very different back then.)


----------



## KeithEmo

bassdigger said:


> As I understand it, D-S implementations are much cheaper. If this meant that all D-S dacs are equally cheap, fairplay. But my point is that they're sold at a similar price, despite being significantly cheaper to produce.
> 
> I'll try not to be so black or white and all-encompassing, in my statements; some, like yourself, do seem to prefer D-S. (Although, I don't recognise any of your adjectives when it comes to describing the 'sound' of an R-2R dac.)
> 
> Each to their own, although musical preference probably has some influence.


 
  
 Your first statement is technically true today - but it really does deserve clarification because, although accurate, it gives a false impression of the economies involved. It's not that, given a certain set of requirements, a D-S DAC chip costs $2, while a R2R chip costs $5. It's more like the fact that, if you want a ride to the airport, a ride in a car is a _LOT_ cheaper than a ride in a horse-drawn carriage - because there are so few horse carriages available nowadays that you will have to make expensive special arrangements to use one. If you want to design an audio DAC, using a "commercial off-the-shelf 24 bit audio DAC chip", I don't think you can buy an R2R one at _ANY_ price. Yggdrasil uses DAC chips that are _NOT_ intended for audio, which not only cost more, but require the designer to design all sorts of extra circuitry (to duplicate functionality that is already present in an "audio DAC chip").
  
 So, in fact, it's _NOT_ that: "they save a few bucks by using the cheaper D-S chip".
 It's more like: "if you don't want to use the standard parts everyone else uses, then you have to do it all from scratch".
 (And "hand-made custom-designed" products always cost more - whether they're actually better or not.)
  
 Imagine saying: "I really hate Microsoft Windows, but I also hate Apple software; I think I'll hire someone to design me a computer from scratch" and you're closer to the reality.
 (And even the US military has gotten away from that extravagance wherever possible.)
  
 16 bits is pretty much the dividing line between "it's a little more expensive to do it in R2R" and "it's _REALLY_ hard, and expensive, to do it in R2R, if it can be done as well at all".
  
 The problem with _ALL_ adjectives is that they are not only imprecise, but they tend to mean different things to different people.
  
 And the problem I personally have with every discussion I've heard lately about "D-S vs R2R DACs" is that they are all based on _someone's_ adjectives.
 Oversampling DACs always alter the transient characteristics of the signal - at least slightly; it's an unavoidable "side effect" of the digital oversampling filter.
 However, I am not aware of any specific technical difference in the performance of oversampling D-S and R2R DACs.
 Yes, _SOME_ D-S DACs, with _SPECIFIC_ circuit designs, may produce a modulated noise floor, which _MAY_ be audible under some conditions.
 And, yes, some R2R DACs have issues with glitching at the transitions, which can also be audible.
 (You can't avoid oversampling with a D-S DAC, while an R2R DAC can use oversampling or not, but we seem to be assuming that isn't the issue.)
  
 My point there is that I can show you the ringing of an oversampling filter in oscilloscope photos - and we can compare pix from different DACs.
 While I have yet to see a single photo purporting to show how the output of a D-S DAC and an _OVERSAMPLING _R2R DAC with a similar digital filter are different.
 I want to actually see a picture showing me a D-S DAC that is exhibiting "mistracking" or whose noise floor is "obviously modulated"
 (while a picture of that same signal, reproduced by an oversampling R2R DAC, obviously lacks that flaw).
  
 Instead, what I actually see is a lot of technical discussion about highly technical flaws in the way in which D-S works.....
 Followed by a bunch of subjective opinions about how specific R2R DACs sound better than other D-S DACs to certain people.
 Usually followed by some vague assumption that the two must be related.
 But what's missing is any specific correlation.
  
 If the "modulation of the noise floor by D-S DACs" is really audible, then it should be easy to show that all those purportedly great sounding R2R DACs actually have a noise floor that looks and measures differently than the noise floor on all those purportedly bad sounding equivalent D-S DACs. However, if, when we look and take measurements, we find that the theoretical flaw is undetectable in practical terms, then perhaps a lot of people are barking up the wrong trees. Assuming that the assumptions are correct, the it shouldn't be that difficult to actually take the measurements, and show the photos.


----------



## BassDigger

Aah-ah-aaah. There you go again; missing (avoiding) the point. Yeah, sure, r2r dac prices are prohibitive today; nobody makes r2r audio chips, anymore.
  
 $2 vs $5?!? Is that the real cost difference between the two? I think that by the time you've constructed suitable circuitry, around the chip, the price difference is greater than $3; maybe more like $200 vs $500. And that was back when r2r was the norm and the chips were widely available.
  
 Let's remember that bitstream began life, like most technology, as a solution to a problem; it was used to add an extra couple of bits to a 14bit r2r dac. Am I right? 
  
 What was the driving force, the motivation, to adopt this method to convert all the bits of 16 bit audio? Was it superior performance or reduced manufacturing costs?
  
 As an r2r lover; someone who feels like they know a bit of a secret, I wonder if I should be bothering to discuss this. After all, prices of some vintage dacs are getting silly these days. But, if r2r really is better, don't we, as music lovers, need to spread the word and generate some appreciation, understanding and ultimately demand for whatever is the best conversion technology?


----------



## jacal01

What we have is auditory feedback from competent reviewers who feel that they can discern a distinct improvement in musical fidelity in implemented R2R DAC over D-S DAC equipment in their system. Competency considerations notwithstanding, that includes me.


----------



## rkt31

another Hugo vs yggy. interestingly the reviewer found Hugo smoother.


----------



## rkt31

rkt31 said:


> another Hugo vs yggy. interestingly the reviewer found Hugo smoother.


 here is the link https://www.avforums.com/threads/chord-hugo-tt.1962917/


----------



## ciphercomplete

keithemo said:


> The Schiit Yggdrasil is an oversampling R2R DAC - with an excellent provenance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Considering that I have compared two lesser R2R dacs (Audio GD DAC19 - the old version, Audio GD ref 5) to the likes of the Onix XCD 50, Tentlabs CD player, and the BMC BDCD 1.1 - all extremely well regarded - and did not once feel the need to purchase those players says that at least some of the magic is indeed attributable to R2R.  Funny thing, the guy that owned both the Onix and Tentlabs now uses the Onix as just a transport to feed a Audio GD Master 7.


----------



## KeithEmo

ciphercomplete said:


> Considering that I have compared two lesser R2R dacs (Audio GD DAC19 - the old version, Audio GD ref 5) to the likes of the Onix XCD 50, Tentlabs CD player, and the BMC BDCD 1.1 - all extremely well regarded - and did not once feel the need to purchase those players says that at least some of the magic is indeed attributable to R2R.  Funny thing, the guy that owned both the Onix and Tentlabs now uses the Onix as just a transport to feed a Audio GD Master 7.


 
  
 First off, I'm a little bit confused by the way you phrased that. There's no such thing as magic. The job of a DAC is to convert a digital audio signal into an analog audio signal as accurately as possible (some audiophiles prefer to substitute to "so it sounds good to me" for "as accurately as possible" in that sentence). However, my point is that, assuming that those Audio GD DACs work well, and sound good to you, then I see no reason to expect that others would be better, or to be surprised that they aren't. (I've heard $30,000 DACs that, at least to me, don't sound any better than the $500 one I've got on my desk - and I don't find that especially surprising at all. Therefore, I don't find the fact that you didn't find certain other "well regarded" products to be superior to be especially meaningful. If the Audio R2R DACs you're talking about work well, then why would you expect anything else to sound better?)
  
 I have several Audio GD DACs - none of which happen to be R2R - yet they do sound rather different from each other. In fact, AudioGD is sort of known for "voicing" of their various products. (They used to sell several "discrete op-amps"; each had a cute name, like "Earth" and "Moon", and each was claimed to sound different from the others. Even their analog headphone amps sound different from each other.) In fact, their general product philosophy seems to be to offer a wide variety or products, so as to have "one for every taste" (they also sell R2R DACs, and Sabre DACs, and units with Wolfson DACs). 
  
 My point, however, in the context of _THIS_ discussion, is that, since Audio GD products in general are known for "being voiced", rather than "being as neutral as possible", I wouldn't be inclined to generalize from their R2R DACs to "all R2R DACs". In order to make a generalization like that with any degree of confidence, I would want to either compare two DACs that are as identical as possible in every other respect, including their analog circuitry and oversampling rate, and _ONLY_ differ in the fact that one uses an R2R chip while the other uses a D-S chip, or a significant variety of products of each type by several different vendors.
  
 I also notice, from various descriptions, that the Audio GD DAC19 has several other interesting features, including (in the older model) using the PMD100 digital oversampling filter. This makes direct comparison to other dissimilar devices even more difficult (the audible differences between that digital filter and those used in other DACs _MIGHT_ turn out to be more audible than the differences between R2R and D-S DACs). That could also turn out to _NOT_ be true, but my point stands - that there are too many variables here to make a generalization based on them.
  
 What the experiences you describe suggest to me is simply that R2R DACs are quite capable of sounding very good - which I don't at all doubt.
 However, that doesn't prove that _ALL_ R2R DACs sound good, or that _ALL_ D-S DACs don't.


----------



## KeithEmo

bassdigger said:


> Aah-ah-aaah. There you go again; missing (avoiding) the point. Yeah, sure, r2r dac prices are prohibitive today; nobody makes r2r audio chips, anymore.
> 
> $2 vs $5?!? Is that the real cost difference between the two? I think that by the time you've constructed suitable circuitry, around the chip, the price difference is greater than $3; maybe more like $200 vs $500. And that was back when r2r was the norm and the chips were widely available.
> 
> ...


 
  
 With a complex device like a DAC chip, you can't exactly isolate things like price, demand, development costs, and sales volume.
  
 At this moment, you can get a Delta-Sigma DAC chip that contains pretty well all of the complex functionality you need to make an audio DAC (the DAC, the oversampling filter, and most of the logic) for between $1.50 and $3 each - in quantity. Sabre DACs, which include all of those things, but also add a few other special features, and have a "known brand" name to increase their value, go for just under $20 in quantity. (However, I'll bet that those companies spent at least several million dollars developing those chips.) And, at the moment, an R2R DAC chip will cost you three or four times that much - and then you'll have to spend money to design the support circuitry and glue logic to go with it, and then build that.
  
 However, the real reason this will cost you so much is that the economies of scale and availability are against you. The reason you'll have to design and build that support circuitry yourself is that you'll be using a DAC chip that is either somewhat out of date, or wasn't designed for audio applications (otherwise it would have it built in). Basically, you'll be adapting a part that wasn't intended for exactly what you're using it for. And you'll have to pay a guy to figure out how to get it to work in that application, and pay more people to build it, and buy parts - and all to sell a few hundred, or a few thousand, products. Obviously, you have to add enough to the cost of each unit you sell to pay for those development costs as well as what it costs to build it.
  
 To put it bluntly, it may well cost _YOU_ $80 for that R2R DAC chip, and $200 per unit to design and build the extra circuitry that you'd need to use an available R2R DAC chip for modern audio applications. However, Texas Instruments, who knows more about it than you do, can design it much better..... and, while they may spend $1 million developing the design, they can add it to the chip for $1 each, and sell it to you for $2 - at a nice profit. They can also sell that whole chip for $20 at a profit if they sell enough of them. However, they can't (and won't) do that unless they're pretty sure they can sell at least a few million of them.
  
 My problem with a lot of the current hype about R2R DACs is that most of it is really just guesswork and supposition. I'll take your word for it that _SOME_ R2R DACs sound better than _SOME_ D-S DACs. However, I'm not at all convinced that the general case there is proven. And, beyond even that, even assuming it did turn out to be true, that still doesn't explain _WHY_ - which is sort of important. What _EXACTLY_ do you claim that R2R DACs do better that accounts for the difference in sound? The purpose of _ALL_ DACs is the same - to take in digital audio and put out equivalent analog audio. If R2R DACs are really better than D-S DACs, then the analog audio they produce _MUST_ somehow be different. (It can't be better "just because of the way it works" - because the way it works really doesn't matter; only the results matter.) Therefore, assuming that difference exists, we can measure it, figure out why it happens, and make sure it happens in the next chip we design.
  
 Perhaps, after some actual research, we will find out for sure that most current R2R DACs do indeed sound better than most D-S DACs.
 If we do, then we can move on to finding out _WHY_ they sound different.
 If that happens, then maybe we'll find out that there's some wonderful thing that D-S DACs just can't do.
 Or maybe we'll find out that any $2 D-S DAC can sound better than any R2R DAC ever made - if only we change one little parameter that nobody thought was important before.
  
 To get back to your original question.....
  
 Delta-Sigma DACs were _DESIGNED_ to do everything that most DAC customers wanted, and to do it better and cheaper than R2R DACs.
 Perhaps they missed something important.
 (Or perhaps 99.9% of their customers are wildly satisfied, and only the few audiophiles who make up the other 0.1% of their market consider the project a failure.)
  
 Either way, it sure seems like it makes more sense to actually figure out what's going on instead of sitting around complaining: "Cars make too much smog, we should all go back to horses."


----------



## evillamer

I think the sound quality for common folks has improved quite abit in the past 10 years when you compare 2015 to 2005.  Just take your Iphone 6/6Plus and compare it to your Ipod Classic 5th/6th gen and compare the sound quality. Not sure if its solely due to the DAC chip or other things in the chain like amps and software/mixer or just engineering improvements. This group of people don't really care about how many bits or what kind of digital filter is their device using.
  
 But for audiophiles in this head-fi community in question, we seek the most authentic/natural/musical reproduction thus we will access and evaluate gears and will pay quite abit more than common folks just for any improvements even if it's only slightly better. If you search around head-fi forums, you will find many written impressions from those who upgraded from audiophile grade Sigma Delta Dacs to audiophile grade R2R dac and most, if not all these impressions will be positive. All of them will tell you in one form or another that vocals brings more emotional connection, instruments sound more real and music flows more naturally. Does this mean that Sigma Delta dacs don't have it's place in Audiophile land? No. We have to thank companies like ESS tech who pushed sigma delta sound quality boundaries and allowed for more DACs variety in the audio marketplace especially in the <$1k price range. But I think in 2015, it is high time we "encourage" these semiconductor companies to come out with better audio chips, especially companies like Ti and AD(except AKM & ESS) who has not release any new improved top of the line  designs for quite some time.
  
 I brought my non-audiophile sister and brother-in-law to listen to my R2R setup(just audiogd m7+m9+Yamaha HS8) with some live concert music, and they said that my system sound so real, they feel as if they were in seating in the live concert right now.


----------



## ciphercomplete

keithemo said:


> First off, I'm a little bit confused by the way you phrased that. There's no such thing as magic.


 




 I guess if you were on the supreme court you would be a hardline textualist.  Just substitute "magic" for superior or just good sound quality, but something tells me that you are being dense on purpose.  I'm not trying to be argumentative here but seriously?!!?
  


keithemo said:


> What the experiences you describe suggest to me is simply that R2R DACs are quite capable of sounding very good - which I don't at all doubt.
> However, that doesn't prove that _ALL_ R2R DACs sound good, or that _ALL_ D-S DACs don't.


 
  
 Well which is saying what I said in another way.  In fact I stated a couple of pages back that _IMO_ NOS/R2R dacs suck.  You have spent many paragraphs arguing that chips don't make a big deal (or not at all) not I.  A few of us have heard and compared a great many SD and R2R dacs ourselves.  So are we just crazy?  Did we all just happen to mostly hear SD dacs that suck while lucking up and only hearing R2R dacs that are great?  I never said that all the SD dacs and cd players I have heard were bad.  I quite liked the Tentlabs and the Perfectwave DAC (unsure of which version) and many others I just wouldnt buy one when I can get a Lite Audio DAC 83, Master 7 or Yggy.


----------



## evillamer

On the topic of Apple.
  
 It seems that in the newly released IOS 8.4 and Itunes 12.1.27, Apple might have done some changes to their software audio layer. Sound Quality seems much improved. Much better clarity. Try it for yourself.


----------



## jcx

dCS was pretty well received - "Ring DAC" is essentially a Delta-Sigma thermometer code DAC with Dynamic Element Matching -  modern audio DS DAC DEM is considerably advanced over theirs  
  


> At dCS we care deeply about meeting our own uncompromisingly high standards. We hope our products stir a passion for music that lasts a lifetime and our greatest success is that our products become invisible, leaving the listener with only the music.
> 
> Delighted customers and industry recognition have followed us too. Over the last quarter of a century dCS has amassed a wealth of awards including:
> 
> ...


----------



## evillamer

on the topic of mastering, check out this video:
  
 It seems that the mastering engineer tunes it by his trained ears and the inputs from the client.


----------



## BassDigger

ciphercomplete said:


> I guess if you were on the supreme court you would be a hardline textualist.  Just* substitute "magic"* for superior or just good sound quality, but something tells me that you are being dense on purpose.  I'm not trying to be argumentative here but seriously?!!?
> 
> Well which is saying what I said in another way.  In fact I stated a couple of pages back that _IMO_ NOS/R2R dacs suck.  You have spent many paragraphs arguing that chips don't make a big deal (or not at all) not I.  A few of us have heard and compared a great many SD and R2R dacs ourselves.  So are we just crazy?  Did we all just happen to mostly hear SD dacs that suck while lucking up and only hearing R2R dacs that are great?  I never said that all the SD dacs and cd players I have heard were bad.  I quite liked the Tentlabs and the Perfectwave DAC (unsure of which version) and many others I just wouldnt buy one when I can get a Lite Audio DAC 83, Master 7 or Yggy.


 
  
 On the contrary; I like your use of the word 'magic'. It implies the occurrence of something wonderful, that we don't understand.
 It seems that many of us agree that R-2R dacs do something better than D-S dacs, but we're not sure what or how.
  
 No, actually you're right; it's not magic; it's witchcraft! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 (BTW: I appreciate the guys technical explanations, but not his analogies, and I _do_ think he's doing it on purpose. I've had enough; I've other things to do.)


----------



## evillamer

keithemo said:


> To put it bluntly, it may well cost _YOU_ $80 for that R2R DAC chip, and $200 per unit to design and build the extra circuitry that you'd need to use an available R2R DAC chip for modern audio applications.* However, Texas Instruments, who knows more about it than you do, can design it much better..... and, while they may spend $1 million developing the design, they can add it to the chip for $1 each, and sell it to you for $2 - at a nice profit. They can also sell that whole chip for $20 at a profit if they sell enough of them. However, they can't (and won't) do that unless they're pretty sure they can sell at least a few million of them.*


 
  
 I think this post by Jason Stoddard(of Schiit Audio) is the perfect counter arguement. However we must note that jason posted this story section before keith's post.
  
 I have truncated his post due to length, you can read his full post here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/6855#post_11730790
  
  


jason stoddard said:


> *2015 Chapter 11: *
> *Food Scientists vs. Michelin Stars*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jcx

no one denies you can color or flavor your sound with electronics design and component choices - however it is hard to understand why this is the "superior" position to having accurate, transparent electronics which many of us with decades of EE experience and similar time hobby interest in audio think isn't that hard today
  
 and Jason is (ab)using "objectivists" in a classic rhetorical style - anonymous, context free "they said" attributions
  
 I am disappointed in fact given the early tone of "letting us in", "cutting the hype", his background as an engineer - but given his marketing and professional writing experience it is hard to believe he isn't being deliberate in his choice of rhetorical tools
  
  
 I don't know what others said but just recently somewhere on head-fi I pointed to reasons to believe leveraging ADI's institutional knowledge and $Billion fab line with the AD5791 was likely technically superior than what a MSB is doing for high multiples of Schiits pricing


----------



## drez

I can say quite easily what R2R foes well in audiophile terms. Timbre and tonal colours are typically denser and richer in texture and more natural. Treble is not as aggressive. I don't understand the concept of plankton or how this is better. I find in most cases there are tradeoffs to make these qualities. In my limited time with Yggy I was unable to determine any tradeoffs. Just a fuller acoustic, which I associated with improvement to my DS dac also. Perhaps the acoustic was a little less rry and reserved than I am used to. To be honest though the real question is why R2R sounds this way. Is this more accurate or less so. This really needs to be answered. Going from measurements would appear many R2R DAC's are less accurate. Apparently Yggy's chips are more accurate than DS, but I don't understand this. I was told DAC accuracy is different from effective resolution? ??


----------



## AudioBear

jcx said:


> no one denies you can color or flavor your sound with electronics design and component choices - however it is hard to understand why this is the "superior" position to having accurate, transparent electronics which many of us with decades of EE experience and similar time hobby interest in audio think isn't that hard today


 
 I'm big on neutral and transparent so I can use software equalization to produce the sound I want.  I expect the electronics to just plain get out of the way and disappear so I can shape the music the way I want it.  It's ok me with me if people want to be purists or subjectivists or mix components to achieve the same result because it's a hobby they enjoy.  I just hope that they realize that the "bit perfect" sound on the CD or download they are listening to has been acquired by an imperfect microphone, digitized by an imperfect AD and mixed, equalized and styled by software.  It's not real, it's shaped and there's nothing wrong with reshaping it any way you want (with the components you chose or the software you use)--that's your choice.
  
 I take Jason and Baldr to be trying simply to give us their best effort at translation to analog and amplification of the bits that are on the CD and then get out of the way.  That suits me fine.  Many companies take that approach, others have a house sound, and still others have many flavors available.  I prefer the vanilla so I can add any flavor I want.  I just don't understand why equalization held in such low regard.   I don't see it as any different than picking a bassy headphone.  But that's just me.


----------



## evillamer

Speaking of which it will roughly cost 40% more for audiophile grade R2R vs audiophile grade Sigma Delta if you based off Audio-gd dacs.
  
 TOTL Balanced R2R: USD$2180
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Master/Master-7/M7EN.htm
  
 TOTL Balanced Sigma Delta: US$1380
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB732/NFB7.32EN.htm
  
  
 Single Ended R2R: $750
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DAC1911/DAC19EN.htm
  
 Single End Sigma Delta: $499
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB32014/NFB32014EN.htm
  
  
 Is 40% more worth paying for? Maybe we have to ask @stillhart, @bimmer100 or someone who have owned both audio-gd sigma-delta and r2r dacs.


----------



## BassDigger

evillamer said:


> Speaking of which it will roughly cost 40% more for audiophile grade R2R vs audiophile grade Sigma Delta if you based off Audio-gd dacs.
> 
> TOTL Balanced R2R: USD$2180
> http://www.audio-gd.com/Master/Master-7/M7EN.htm
> ...


 
  
 I get the point; comparing like for like; use components from the same manufacturer to keep everything as similar as possible.
  
 But, if it is concluded that the R-2R dacs sound an amazing 40% better, than their 40% cheaper D-S siblings, aren't people still going to say that a 40% more expensive D-S dac will be just as good?
  
 I think that maybe this kind of comparison should be more about defining what the differences actually are between the technologies, regardless of price. It's already a 'given' that R-2R is more expensive.


----------



## wahsmoh

evillamer said:


> I think the sound quality for common folks has improved quite abit in the past 10 years when you compare 2015 to 2005.  Just take your Iphone 6/6Plus and compare it to your Ipod Classic 5th/6th gen and compare the sound quality. Not sure if its solely due to the DAC chip or other things in the chain like amps and software/mixer or just engineering improvements. This group of people don't really care about how many bits or what kind of digital filter is their device using.
> 
> But for audiophiles in this head-fi community in question, we seek the most authentic/natural/musical reproduction thus we will access and evaluate gears and will pay quite abit more than common folks just for any improvements even if it's only slightly better. If you search around head-fi forums, you will find many written impressions from those who upgraded from audiophile grade Sigma Delta Dacs to audiophile grade R2R dac and most, if not all these impressions will be positive. All of them will tell you in one form or another that vocals brings more emotional connection, instruments sound more real and music flows more naturally. Does this mean that Sigma Delta dacs don't have it's place in Audiophile land? No. We have to thank companies like ESS tech who pushed sigma delta sound quality boundaries and allowed for more DACs variety in the audio marketplace especially in the <$1k price range. But I think in 2015, it is high time we "encourage" these semiconductor companies to come out with better audio chips, especially companies like Ti and AD(except AKM & ESS) who has not release any new improved top of the line  designs for quite some time.
> 
> I brought my non-audiophile sister and brother-in-law to listen to my R2R setup(just audiogd m7+m9+Yamaha HS8) with some live concert music, and they said that my system sound so real, they feel as if they were in seating in the live concert right now.


 
 I just got some powered monitors that I'm going to hook up this weekend after I build some speaker stands. Fostex PM841 are 3-way speakers tweet, 4'' midrange, and 8'' woofer. I figured I would go powered monitors since I do not have a large power amp for speakers. I am going to be using my Asgard 2 as a preamp and Theta DAC (R2R) being fed S/PDIF as my source. I haven't had the chance to test out the speakers  yet  but I am very excited to get them positioned and see how well they image.
  
 I do recall briefly testing out my M-audio BX5d2 (entry level cheapo monitors) and they sounded a lot better with the R2R DAC and more 3D in presentation but still noticeably weak in the midrange and tizzy on the highs. I have been working a really good job so my speaker/dac/amp budget is going to change here really soon.


----------



## KeithEmo

ciphercomplete said:


> I guess if you were on the supreme court you would be a hardline textualist.  Just substitute "magic" for superior or just good sound quality, but something tells me that you are being dense on purpose.  I'm not trying to be argumentative here but seriously?!!?
> 
> 
> Well which is saying what I said in another way.  In fact I stated a couple of pages back that _IMO_ NOS/R2R dacs suck.  You have spent many paragraphs arguing that chips don't make a big deal (or not at all) not I.  A few of us have heard and compared a great many SD and R2R dacs ourselves.  So are we just crazy?  Did we all just happen to mostly hear SD dacs that suck while lucking up and only hearing R2R dacs that are great?  I never said that all the SD dacs and cd players I have heard were bad.  I quite liked the Tentlabs and the Perfectwave DAC (unsure of which version) and many others I just wouldnt buy one when I can get a Lite Audio DAC 83, Master 7 or Yggy.


 
  
 I wasn't picking on you for using the word magic - and I'm sorry if I came across that way.
  
 Honestly, no, I don't just "think you're all crazy". However, I'm not nearly that certain that you didn't "just happen to hear R2R DACs that you thought sounded good and D-S DACs you didn't like". And, in my opinion, this possibility is made more likely by the current market. (If I'm a small company, selling an R2R DAC, I'm going to make sure that it sounds like what the majority of my potential customers - who've come to me because they want an R2R DAC - expect it to sound. So my DAC could sound good to you because the technology itself is superior, or simply because I've made sure to "voice" it to sound like what I know you want.)
  
 I don't believe that "all chips sound the same", but I do claim that the support circuitry makes a bigger difference than the chip. I also don't know for sure if there is some specific error that D-S DACs unavoidably inflict on the signal that R2R DACs do not... but I most certainly haven't seen any convincing proof that there is. To me, saying "they sound better" is a good first step, and the next step is to determine why, which then leads to "fixing the problem across the board". However, this discussion seems to have stalled at "they sound better". (And the few claims made against D-S DACs, like that they may modulate a noise floor that is already below the noise floor of most decent power amps, don't really seem to me to explain why they might sound audibly different.)
  
 (The errors introduced by oversampling, which we seem to agree aren't an audible problem, are pretty easy to explain, measure, and see on an oscilloscope trace. However, I haven't seen any plausible claims that the output signal of "a bunch of R2R DACs that sound good" shares some particular trait or lacks a certain error that is shared by "all D-S DACs that sound bad". And, yes, I would like to know, once and for all, if all the R2R DACs you especially like can reproduce a certain signal accurately that a D-S DAC cannot, of if they share some particular inaccuracy or flaw that you happen to enjoy, or, for that matter, if you're just imagining it, or maybe if I'm imagining that I don't hear it.)
  
 I also _DO_ have a lot of faith in "the market". In other words, if we do eventually figure out what the actual "problem" is, and there are enough people who can hear it and agree that it's a problem, ad they're all willing to pay an extra $5 to avoid it, I figure that TI probably probably will "fix" it in next years $5 DAC chip.... which would benefit all of us.
  
 However, before they're going to listen, we need to tell them _functionally_ what the problem is.... (as in "with this signal, the scope picture looks like this, when it should really look like that"). As a start, if the folks who seem to believe that "the big problem with D-S DACs is that they modulate the noise floor" are right, that should be easy enough to prove.... all they have to do is to create a test signal that contains the same modulated noise floor they insist sounds bad on D-S DACs and play it through an R2R DAC - if they're correct, then doing so should make that R2R DAC "sound exactly like a D-S DAC)... which would go a long way towards proving both that they do sound inherently different, and what the difference is... and show the guys who make the chips which problem they need to fix.


----------



## jexby

faith in "the market"? feh.
 the DAC chip makers market (to profitability) is not tied to audio fans searching for holy grail of quality,
 but to massive adoption in consumer grade equipment sales.
  
 now that the original author has left this thread, happy to do the same myself.
 unsub.
 bicker on.


----------



## KeithEmo

evillamer said:


> I think this post by Jason Stoddard(of Schiit Audio) is the perfect counter arguement. However we must note that jason posted this story section before keith's post.
> 
> I have truncated his post due to length, you can read his full post here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/6855#post_11730790


 
  
 If you were hoping that I was going to disagree with Jason, then I'm going to have to disappoint you... I don't disagree with anything he said. Delta-Sigma DACs were designed to deliver the best possible performance and price/performance ratio - _BASED ON WHAT THE OVERALL DAC MARKET ASKED FOR_. You can pretty well guess that this includes low noise, high precision (accuracy), low distortion, and other such things. Since TI, and their competitors, sell literally tens or hundreds of millions of DACs, and there are several alternative manufacturers offering competing products, you can indeed assume that they succeeded pretty well. However, you can also assume that the vast majority of their sales are to companies other than producers of small-market audiophile products, so it's quite possible that their priorities, and those of their customers, are different than yours or mine. Which makes it quite possible that a small company, with "audiophile priorities", may well be able to create a product that better meets "audiophile needs" by doing it a different way.
  
 (However, it isn't automatic, and so it's also quite possible that the massive development and research budgets available to big companies do actually often enable them to produce a chip for $2 that really is better all around.) However, because there is a lot of competition, and most of their customers almost certainly do have lists of what they do consider important, and would probably notice if the chips they were buying didn't work exactly as advertised, I think you can be pretty certain that they aren't "trying to sneak anything by anyone".
  
 The TI PCM1704 (one of the last remaining available 24 bit R2R DACs) was scheduled for end of life several years ago, but sufficient interest from audiophile manufacturers convinced TI to continue to produce them... at a price sufficiently inflated to compensate them for the aggravation of continuing to produce a product with high production costs and low sales volume. However, you will note that the part is now listed as "end of life" and the "recommended current alternative part" is in fact a Delta-Sigma type (it's actually a hybrid, where some bits are rendered "directly", but most are handled by Delta-Sigma circuitry). If you think about it for a minute, you will also realize that this status prevents most larger companies, and those with large design budgets, from using this chip; after all, who is going to spend a lot of money to design a product that uses a particular part, knowing that the part may soon become unavailable? Someone who builds products ten at a time in his garage, or even 100 at a time in a small facility, can afford to use a part until the bin is empty; but someone who plans spend $1 million designing a unit which he hopes to sell 10,000 units of next year, can't risk having to redesign it all over again when he hits the bottom of the bin.
  
 The problem that I find with many audiophiles is a tendency - which I share - to "enjoy the chase" and to "seek for treasure". Quite simply, we would rather believe that we've "found a treasure made by a little old guy living in the woods" than that the mass produced $2 part made by TI just may be superior. The subject then drifts into "the objectivists", who are usually characterized as "only paying attention to the numbers", and who like the $2 chip "because it measures well", and "the emotionalists", who honestly seem to just plain be unable to even consider the possibility that a cheap mass-market product might actually do what it's supposed to do pretty well, and often end up insisting "it just sounds better to me". (SOmetimes they are able to bakc up that claim in a real double-blind test that excludes their expectations from the equation; other times not.)
  
 (Another not-very-well-kept marketing secret is that "exclusivity and scarcity breed perception of increased value". In other words, tell someone that they're part of an exclusive group being offered a product, or that "they may not be available soon", or "we only have a few left", and most people will automatically "feel" that it is more valuable and want it a lot more. THis is very well known, and is the basis of every "quantities are limited" and "exclusive offer" ad you've ever seen on TV. Since R2R DAC chips, like the PCM1704, are legitimately "scarce and soon to become unavailable", you also have to assume that the fact that they are tends to bias people in favor of their being "rare and valuable" - which, in turn, leads people to expect "something special" from them.)
  
 There are more than a few small audio companies out there who produce badly designed audio products, based on faulty engineering, and which measure and sound as bad as that would lead you to believe, but who still have a "loyal following" of people who simply like the way they sound. (Please note that I absolutely do _NOT_ include Schiit Audio in that category. Their products are well designed and, as far as I know, all perform as they were intended to.)
   
As for what role expectations play in what we hear, and what degree marketing influences what companies sell, I'll just leave you with one comment about Schiit's products....

 If they didn't want the knowledge that it's an R2R DAC to influence your opinion of Yggdrasil, then they wouldn't tell you it was an R2R DAC.
  
 My point, though, is that the fact that it costs more to build an R2R DAC is simply a fact.
 It does suggest that the current market doesn't support the sale of quantities of R2R DACs.
 However, neither of those in any way suggests that R2R DACs are (or are not) inherently better.
  
 Therefore, as a bottom line, I'll give you the same advice that Jason usually does....
 If you've got $x to spend on a product, listen to all (or at least several) of the options in your price range, and buy the one that sounds best to you.


----------



## BassDigger

@KeithEmo
  
 Ok, I'm in a mood to humour you some more.
  
 Your desire for an explanation is perhaps expecting a bit too much; maybe a 'sound science' type discussion, with the mad scientists that lurk around there, might get a little nearer to the answer (or just completely deny that there's any possibility of a difference). 
  
 But, for what it's worth, and as I've stated before, my belief is that it's perhaps a timing issue; the fact (as I understand it) is that D-S does more processing and dividing of the signal, than R-2R, and then has to reconstitute it, at high speed, making it more likely that timing discrepancies (yes, such as jitter) will have some kind of an audible effect.
  
 We've been through this before; I said and you said, but the testimony of other experts, and in my experience the key thing that R-2R does better is musicality. Another adjective (that could mean anything to anyone), but I'm referring to the complexities of beats and rhythms that are much more realistic, 'funkier' with r2r.
  
 Now, where can we find a 'funkyness' meter?


----------



## evillamer

Last I checked the pcm1704uk is still listed as NRND and not EOL/obsolete/end of production.

http://www.ti.com/product/pricebuy.tsp?genericPartNumber=PCM1704


----------



## preproman

keithemo said:


> I wasn't picking on you for using the word magic - and I'm sorry if I came across that way.
> 
> Honestly, no, I don't just "think you're all crazy". However, I'm not nearly that certain that you didn't "just happen to hear R2R DACs that you thought sounded good and D-S DACs you didn't like". And, in my opinion, this possibility is made more likely by the current market. (If I'm a small company, selling an R2R DAC, I'm going to make sure that it sounds like what the majority of my potential customers - who've come to me because they want an R2R DAC - expect it to sound. So my DAC could sound good to you because the technology itself is superior, or simply because I've made sure to "voice" it to sound like what I know you want.)
> 
> ...


 

 Great post.


----------



## evillamer

> As for what role expectations play in what we hear, and what degree marketing influences what companies sell, I'll just leave you with one comment about Schiit's products....
> If they didn't want the knowledge that it's an R2R DAC to influence your opinion of Yggdrasil, then they wouldn't tell you it was an R2R DAC.




Again:

I don't think Schitt is purposely selling/marketing r2r because It is rare or unique. They can always slap on 2 or 4 chips of akm4495 and call it their top of the line dac(sigmadrasil?). And they probably can sell at the same price as the Yggdrasil and make even more profits with lower bill of materials. Not to mention they can market it as a dsd dac as well as oppose to the 24/192 Yggdrasil 

Look at the situation now. Schitt is facing supply chain issue with the 20bit dac chip. Why take this difficult approach when you can just order massive quantities of sigma delta dacs? Surely Schitt can still put their closed form filter on top of sigmadrasil and make it their unique selling point. With the current Yggdrasil backorder and Schitt not collecting any money from customers until shipping means Schitt is technically losing potential revenue(had they used sigma delta design, they would have already collected profits)


----------



## KeithEmo

evillamer said:


> Last I checked the pcm1704uk is still listed as NRND and not EOL/obsolete/end of production.
> 
> http://www.ti.com/product/pricebuy.tsp?genericPartNumber=PCM1704


 
  
 I believe at one point in the past it was officially EOL and was "pulled back" to NRND. I could be wrong on that detail - it could be that TI had announced that they were _going_ to move the part to EOL soon, but were convinced not to do so. I do know that fans have been mourning their imminent demise for quite some time, and some companies that do still produce products that use them have been complaining for some time that they "have become not only expensive but difficult to get".
  
 Either way, if I was considering using them in a product, I wouldn't like to count on being able to get 1000 of them tomorrow.... or on being able to get any of them six months from now. Which means that, for a product with any significant development budget, and any significantly large hoped-for market, they would be off the list. (Since the "official replacement part" is _NOT_ R2R, that means that, once they do disappear, there will essentially be _NO_ direct replacement for it in products that "require a real R2R chip", and so those products will have to be totally redesigned to use a different one.)


----------



## evillamer

Laws of supply and demand at work here.

Even if one day Ti pulls the plug on pcm1704. There is still plenty of other r2r dacs in the marketplace that will sprout out to fill the demand gap. Example:

https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/r2r-for-the-rest-of-us/

the thing is there is money to be made here, maybe it's not worthwhile for mega corps like ti but for small scale firms, maybe it can be profitable to produce r2r dac.

Or maybe one day ess or akm(or in my wildest dream, chord) comes out with a sigma delta dac that exceeds anything r2r can output.


----------



## KeithEmo

evillamer said:


> Laws of supply and demand at work here.
> 
> Even if one day Ti pulls the plug on pcm1704. There is still plenty of other r2r dacs in the marketplace that will sprout out to fill the demand gap. Example:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Very interesting - and looks to be very well thought out.
  
 Your final sentence suggests that we may be on the same page here after all...... assuming that we can actually determine what performance differences account for the differences people seem to be hearing, there's no reason to assume that we won't be able to "tweak" current D-S DACs to match them...... or that some new type of DAC altogether may not turn out to deliver the best of both.
  
 This is why I would very much like to see this discussion evolve from "R2R DACs sound great, D-S DACs do not, so you should buy an R2R DAC" to something more like "all of the DACs I currently like seem to be R2R DACs, so let's find out what's really different about them as compared to all the D-S DACs I don't like, and figure out how to combine the benefits of both". Perhaps there really is something that R2R DACs do well and D-S DACs simply cannot, or perhaps there's just something that D-S DACs currently do badly because the very smart engineers who designed them didn't consider them to be part of their design, or maybe, just like tubes, they simply sound "a bit different" and some people happen to like that difference.
  
 From an engineering perspective, D-S DACs perform very well in most ways, and the ways in which they are less than perfect are such that we wouldn't expect them to be audible. (For example, some D-S DAC designs are known to deliver a noise floor that is not perfectly smooth under some conditions, and this is a flaw. However, this does occur, we're talking about modulation in a noise floor that's down 130 dB, so it shouldn't be audible.) Either we're not measuring something that in fact turns out to be important, or some of the assumptions we've been making about the performance measurements we have aren't right, or there's something else entirely going on (perhaps the R2R DACs that people like actually share some sort of euphonic coloration).
  
 ESS has a history of designing DACs specifically for use in high-end audio products, and of being willing to consider both specifications and "listening tests" when "fine tuning" their DACs, which suggests to me that it would probably be more likely that they would be willing to expend a bit more effort to develop a specific "audiophile friendly" new DAC chip than for someone like TI to do so.... but I could well be wrong there.


----------



## prot

KeithEmo
"SOmetimes they are able to bakc up that claim in a real double-blind test that excludes their expectations from the equation; other times not."

Would you care to add some links to tests of the former kind? I'm only aware of many of the later kind where those boutique and so called highend parts miserably failed to sound better than similar, off the shelf components. Most of the time they did not even sound different enough to be recognizable in a controlled test. 

 Also great post ..


----------



## Sonic Defender

evillamer said:


> Again:
> 
> I don't think Schitt is purposely selling/marketing r2r because It is rare or unique. They can always slap on 2 or 4 chips of akm4495 and call it their top of the line dac(sigmadrasil?). And they probably can sell at the same price as the Yggdrasil and make even more profits with lower bill of materials. Not to mention they can market it as a dsd dac as well as oppose to the 24/192 Yggdrasil


 
 While I can't be for sure, I am fairly confident that they do quite intentionally leverage the R2R aspect of their product. They would be foolish to not do so; regardless, doing so doesn't mean that an excellent R2R design such as the Yggy requires trickery to market it, but good marketing always helps. In a market where products are very, very similar and consumers seeking out that special device, differentiating yourself from the pack is crucial. I'm quite sure Jason and Mike would agree.


----------



## US Blues

sonic defender said:


> While I can't be for sure, I am fairly confident that they do quite intentionally leverage the R2R aspect of their product. They would be foolish to not do so; regardless, doing so doesn't mean that an excellent R2R design such as the Yggy requires trickery to market it, but good marketing always helps. In a market where products are very, very similar and consumers seeking out that special device, differentiating yourself from the pack is crucial. I'm quite sure Jason and Mike would agree.


 
  
 They go a step beyond the R2R aspect by emphasizing the bit-perfect design, and the fact that all the original data is preserved. That strikes me as the key differentiator, both from DS DAC's and from other R2R designs. It places them a step beyond other designs.


----------



## Ableza

us blues said:


> They go a step beyond the R2R aspect by emphasizing the bit-perfect design, and the fact that all the original data is preserved. That strikes me as the key differentiator, both from DS DAC's and from other R2R designs. It places them a step beyond other designs.


 
 And the fact that they use a proprietary filter that is unlike everyone else's and it was designed by Mike Moffat, which is not a small thing for those of us who understand his credentials.


----------



## Sonic Defender

I don't think anybody who frequents this thread is unaware of the pedigree of design and designer behind the Yaddrasil. Now all that remains is some blind listening tests to see if the results really translate into a product that sounds so much better than well implemented D-S designs. We put our July meet off until September as it was just too hard to get enough attendees with people away on vacation and the like.
  
 To that effect if anybody wants to propose their ideas for how the blind tests should be conducted I would be very happy to take the feedback and where possible incorporate it into my design. I am glad we are waiting until September as it allows for better design and planning.


----------



## Ableza

sonic defender said:


> I don't think anybody who frequents this thread is unaware of the pedigree of design and designer behind the Yaddrasil. Now all that remains is some blind listening tests to see if the results really translate into a product that sounds so much better than well implemented D-S designs. We put our July meet off until September as it was just too hard to get enough attendees with people away on vacation and the like.
> 
> To that effect if anybody wants to propose their ideas for how the blind tests should be conducted I would be very happy to take the feedback and where possible incorporate it into my design. I am glad we are waiting until September as it allows for better design and planning.


 

 Not a blind test but a side-by-side A/B with my Wavelength Crimson and the Yggdrasil sounded sufficiently better to me to replace the Wavelength (which cost significantly more I might add.)


----------



## Sonic Defender

ableza said:


> Not a blind test but a side-by-side A/B with my Wavelength Crimson and the Yggdrasil sounded sufficiently better to me to replace the Wavelength (which cost significantly more I might add.)


 

 Nice to hear. still, there needs to be lots of people doing blind listening tests for many audio claims/beliefs (not just the R2R/D-S debate). Despite the price difference it can easily be suggested (and very reasonably I might add) that you purchasing a new DAC despite having an expensive one already can mean that you were bored with the sound signature you had, or that you enjoy new sound signatures or any other number of reasons. Any, and all reasons could certainly produce an expectation bias or hope that this new DAC is indeed the sound you want, and or a giant killer. I'm not saying it isn't, but simply preferring a less expensive item over a more expensive one does not remove the possibility of new toy joy, and or expectation bias. We need blind listening tests to help overcome those considerations.


----------



## Ableza

sonic defender said:


> Nice to hear. still, there needs to be lots of people doing blind listening tests for many audio claims/beliefs (not just the R2R/D-S debate). Despite the price difference it can easily be suggested (and very reasonably I might add) that you purchasing a new DAC despite having an expensive one already can mean that you were bored with the sound signature you had, or that you enjoy new sound signatures or any other number of reasons. Any, and all reasons could certainly produce an expectation bias or hope that this new DAC is indeed the sound you want, and or a giant killer. I'm not saying it isn't, but simply preferring a less expensive item over a more expensive one does not remove the possibility of new toy joy, and or expectation bias. We need blind listening tests to help overcome those considerations.


 

 No, actually, you cannot make those assumptions about me, although I understand that was not really your point.


----------



## Sonic Defender

ableza said:


> No, actually, you cannot make those assumptions about me, although I understand that was not really your point.


 

 You're correct, I can't make assumptions about anybody at all; however, I can still suggest that for you as with all people, these factors must always be considered as a plausible and possible explanation. That isn't to say they are in your case, but they must certainly could be. We are all cut from the same cloth although it is equally our nature to feel that we are the exception to the rule.


----------



## Ableza

I try out new things all the time.  IMO, it is not necessary to "remove bias" when making a personal choice.  When it's personal, bias and preference is what it's all about.  Your avocation for "blind" testing is only valid if one is trying to make some scientifically or statistically valid conclusion.  But when any individual user is comparing item A to item B, that is really not necessary.  When someone "likes" a thing it is because  - they like it.  No need to decide why or to make some grand conclusions based on that preference (a mistake audiophooles make all the time.)  Preference is all about preference, and the reasons for it can - and should - include all five senses and all of our frames of reference including expectation and anticipation and "new car smell."  And then we need to remember that our preference is personal and has nothing to do with any one else.  I liked the Ygdrasil more than the Crimson (and also more than my Ayre) because I liked it more.  I thought it sounded better.  Simple as that.


----------



## maverickronin

ableza said:


> I try out new things all the time.  IMO, it is not necessary to "remove bias" when making a personal choice.  When it's personal, bias and preference is what it's all about.  Your avocation for "blind" testing is only valid if one is trying to make some scientifically or statistically valid conclusion.  But when any individual user is comparing item A to item B, that is really not necessary.  When someone "likes" a thing it is because  - they like it.  No need to decide why or to make some grand conclusions based on that preference (a mistake audiophooles make all the time.)  Preference is all about preference, and the reasons for it can - and should - include all five senses and all of our frames of reference including expectation and anticipation and "new car smell."  And then we need to remember that our preference is personal and has nothing to do with any one else.  I liked the Ygdrasil more than the Crimson (and also more than my Ayre) because I liked it more.  I thought it sounded better.  Simple as that.


 
  
 If you're buying it because you think it's cool, you want to support the bard, or some other personal reason, then that's fine.
  
 If you're buying a DAC for it's sound then why shouldn't you control for all other factors?


----------



## Currawong

Take it to Sound Science guys, if you want to debate this.


----------



## Sonic Defender

currawong said:


> Take it to Sound Science guys, if you want to debate this.


 

 With all due respect, couldn't you say this for the entire thread? This whole thread has been about what people think and why, and the discussion has been very similar to these last few posts (in spirit and in substance at times) for so many, many posts.


----------



## Currawong

sonic defender said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > Take it to Sound Science guys, if you want to debate this.
> ...


 

 It's a thread about subjective preferences, which has also turned into a discussion of the _why _of those preferences. Not a science thread overall.


----------



## Sonic Defender

currawong said:


> It's a thread about subjective preferences, which has also turned into a discussion of the _why _of those preferences. Not a science thread overall.


 
 I'm still a little confused on how these really differ in substance, but it really doesn't matter as I know it is hard to keep threads on track so I have no desire to make your job harder. Years ago I was a moderator on at the time what was perhaps the busiest Internet community (it was on Search Engine Optimization and web site design/marketing) so I know it is often a thankless job. Cheers.


----------



## strreamix

Hey guys, could use some help.
  
*I need a DAC preferably under 200$ (unless there is one near 300$ that is A LOT better).*
  
 My gear: Audeze LCD-2 Rev 2
 Gustard H10
 Lossless files
 Want a USB connection to computer
  
 My goal is a setup with bass extension, slam, and control.
  
 Thanks.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

strreamix said:


> Hey guys, could use some help.
> 
> *I need a DAC preferably under 200$ (unless there is one near 300$ that is A LOT better).*
> 
> ...




A decent DAC, the amp is not that good, is the iFi iDSD Nano.


----------



## strreamix

wildcatsare1 said:


> A decent DAC, the amp is not that good, is the iFi iDSD Nano.


 
  
 Thanks for the reply. You are the 2nd person to recommend the iFi DSD Nano. My concerns are the following, if using it with the computer full time (I have no need for a portable setup), will it ever need to be recharged if always connected via USB?
  
 Also, will I have the problem of double-amping? Or how can I bypass the amplifier of the iFi DSD Nano?
  
 Also, does anyone have a opinion on the Peachtree Audio DAC-iT X? http://www.peachtreeaudio.com/dac-it-x-digital-to-analog-converter.html
  
 I'd really like to stay away from battery powered / DAC/AMP combos. I just want a DAC that is either USB powered or powered via wall wart. No batteries, no amps, this is strictly for desktop use. And I already have an amplifier.


----------



## artur9

strreamix said:


> Also, does anyone have a opinion on the Peachtree Audio DAC-iT X? http://www.peachtreeaudio.com/dac-it-x-digital-to-analog-converter.html


 
 There are some impressiions over here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/650791/schiit-bifrost-v-s-peachtree-dac-it


----------



## strreamix

artur9 said:


> There are some impressiions over here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/650791/schiit-bifrost-v-s-peachtree-dac-it


 
  
 Appreciate it, although I did already read it.
  
 A lot of people say the Modi 2 sounds quite similar to the Bifrost, I wonder how much weight that holds.
  
 Being a first timer sucks, I have nothing to compare to and really just dont know the price/performance ratio of any of these DACs. If the Modi 2 performs within 75% of the Bifrost; I would have no problem going that route and saving 400$. (400$ that I don't have anyways)


----------



## eddypoon

currawong said:


> It's a thread about subjective preferences, which has also turned into a discussion of the _why _of those preferences. Not a science thread overall.





Wow.


----------



## fritobugger

strreamix said:


> Thanks for the reply. You are the 2nd person to recommend the iFi DSD Nano. My concerns are the following, if using it with the computer full time (I have no need for a portable setup), will it ever need to be recharged if always connected via USB?
> 
> Also, will I have the problem of double-amping? Or how can I bypass the amplifier of the iFi DSD Nano?
> 
> ...




I was cross shopping the iFi iDSD Nano and the SMSL M8. The iFi can run on battery only once charged or from the wall wart once charged. It has better documentation and support than the M8. The M8 is a bit less expensive. There were no iDSD Nano available in my area when I decided to buy. I am happy with M8. It sounds great but support could be much better.


----------



## theblueprint

strreamix said:


> Appreciate it, although I did already read it.
> 
> A lot of people say the Modi 2 sounds quite similar to the Bifrost, I wonder how much weight that holds.
> 
> Being a first timer sucks, I have nothing to compare to and really just dont know the price/performance ratio of any of these DACs. If the Modi 2 performs within 75% of the Bifrost; I would have no problem going that route and saving 400$. (400$ that I don't have anyways)




Modi2 is definitely 75% of bifrost uber. The original modi, however, no. It is scary how good modi2 is, and unless you want upgradeability, I would choose Modi2 (unless you can somehow score a bifrost for cheap).


----------



## Ableza

theblueprint said:


> Modi2 is definitely 75% of bifrost uber. The original modi, however, no. It is scary how good modi2 is, and unless you want upgradeability, I would choose Modi2 (unless you can somehow score a bifrost for cheap).


 

 75%?  I thought it was more like 68%.


----------



## theblueprint

ableza said:


> 75%?  I thought it was more like 68%.




My bad, rounded up. It is actually 74.57926%. Sorry I overhyped it by 0.42074%.


----------



## US Blues

> 75%?  I thought it was more like 68%.


 
  
 Yes, but you can only hear the difference in a blind listening test, trusting your own ears is not permitted.


----------



## theblueprint

us blues said:


> Yes, but you can only hear the difference in a blind listening test, trusting your own ears is not permitted.




That's odd, because I only listen with my eyes.


----------



## miceblue

evillamer said:


> Finally found a technical video that shows Sigma Delta has issues with tracking fast changing(very steep sloping) signals: It is called Slope Overload Distortion. Also Sigma Delta has Granular Noise distortion.
> 
> https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Analog_and_Digital_Conversion/Delta_Modulation
> 
> ...



Interesting to note, but how applicable are granular noise and slope overload issues for multi-bit DS-modulators, which is basically everything out there these days.


----------



## Jozurr

strreamix said:


> Hey guys, could use some help.
> 
> *I need a DAC preferably under 200$ (unless there is one near 300$ that is A LOT better).*
> 
> ...


 
  
 Have the same question. Can you guys please suggest some warm sounding DACs in that price range (closer to $300). I tried the iDSD micro but still doesn't feel as "blended" enough as I imagined it would be.


----------



## haywood

jozurr said:


> Have the same question. Can you guys please suggest some warm sounding DACs in that price range (closer to $300). I tried the iDSD micro but still doesn't feel as "blended" enough as I imagined it would be.



Your best move would be to save coloration for the amplification stage. You want your source to be neutral.

I haven't heard it but the new LH GOv2 is supposed to be very good (and relatively neutral). If you can wait and your budget is 500+ then rumor has it that might be a good idea.


----------



## DecentLevi

Yes the above mentioned DAC has gotten some very good reviews (holding out to say more until I try it).
  
 That's a good point about wanting the DAC to be neutral - this way it can be like a chameleon - presenting everything the way it's supposed to be, so you can let the rest of your source chain do the coloring: the amp and its' tubes or op-amps, any software or hardware EQ'ing and of course the way the headphones present the sound signature. Otherwise a DAC with a character of it's own would plague the rest of your chain by presenting everything falsely.


----------



## BassDigger

jozurr said:


> Have the same question. Can you guys please suggest some warm sounding DACs in that price range (closer to $300). I tried the iDSD micro but still doesn't feel as "blended" enough as I imagined it would be.


 
  
 Well, I think that it's a valid question; hasn't this whole thread been about the varying sound signatures of dacs? Some say that even the mighty Yggdrasil can sound a bit forward (less warm), when compared to some of it's competition!
  
 But of course, there's a lot more to getting the sound that you want than just choosing the right dac.


----------



## jcx

another DAC principles source - recommended by Linkwitz: *Fundamentals of Arbitrary Waveform Generation, AWG Primer *http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/M8190-91050.pdf
  
 written for engineers using their AWG but the 2nd chapter, >60 pages might interest some here - collects some switching glitch system techniques highly relevant to R-2R in particular
  
  
 from scanning down Linkwitz' Links page http://www.linkwitzlab.com/links.htm#Aczel


----------



## jimvibe

Gosh, why does this thread have 400+ pages of comments? Studio ADCs and DACs use D-S modulation and most relatively modern recordings went through numerous analog-digital / digital-analog conversions which means if there do exist D-S imperfections they are already on the recording and nothing can be done with it. Moreover I am willing to bet money that nobody will be able to tell the audible difference if Benchmark DAC1/ADC1 (D-S of course) combo is thrown in the signal chain that ends with say Schiit Yggdrasil.


----------



## jcx

of course you would have cripple the cognoscenti's golden ears here with level matching, blinding protocol...


----------



## Wildcatsare1

jimvibe said:


> Gosh, why does this thread have 400+ pages of comments? Studio ADCs and DACs use D-S modulation and most relatively modern recordings went through numerous analog-digital / digital-analog conversions which means if there do exist D-S imperfections they are already on the recording and nothing can be done with it. Moreover I am willing to bet money that nobody will be able to tell the audible difference if Benchmark DAC1/ADC1 (D-S of course) combo is thrown in the signal chain that ends with say Schiit Yggdrasil.




Ah.....so this is the reason 90% of the recordings made since 2000 or so, sound so bad......


----------



## miceblue

^ Yup, it's totally the DACs that make recordings sound bad. It's for sure not the Loudness War at all, no way Jose. That would be silly.


----------



## frenchbat

jimvibe said:


> Gosh, why does this thread have 400+ pages of comments? Studio ADCs and DACs use D-S modulation and most relatively modern recordings went through numerous analog-digital / digital-analog conversions which means if there do exist D-S imperfections they are already on the recording and nothing can be done with it. Moreover I am willing to bet money that nobody will be able to tell the audible difference if Benchmark DAC1/ADC1 (D-S of course) combo is thrown in the signal chain that ends with say Schiit Yggdrasil.


 

 how much money are you willing to bet ? Set the test, I'll take it.
  
 Hint, I have a Dac1 hdr and a theta dspro genV


----------



## jimvibe

frenchbat said:


> how much money are you willing to bet ? Set the test, I'll take it.
> 
> Hint, I have a Dac1 hdr and a theta dspro genV


 

 Hint: You might want to add a decent voltmeter to that combo before actually agreeing to do a test 
  
 My point is that ADC1/DAC1 will not add any coloration to the sound. And if you prefer the coloration your theta does, you will still have it regardless of analog-digital-analog conversion in your chain.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

miceblue said:


> ^ Yup, it's totally the DACs that make recordings sound bad. It's for sure not the Loudness War at all, no way Jose. That would be silly.




Do you think it could be a combination of both MiceB? Probably, and the "applefication" of creating musical pablum for the "masses".


----------



## frenchbat

jimvibe said:


> Hint: You might want to add a decent voltmeter to that combo before actually agreeing to do a test
> 
> My point is that ADC1/DAC1 will not add any coloration to the sound. And if you prefer the coloration your theta does, you will still have it regardless of analog-digital-analog conversion in your chain.


 

 Details and ambiance cues are not a coloration, but regardless, if you consider there's a coloration, how would it be possible to not hear a difference ?


----------



## jimvibe

frenchbat said:


> Details and ambiance cues are not a coloration, but regardless, if you consider there's a coloration, how would it be possible to not see a difference ?


 

 The soundstage and level of detail will improve if you increase the brightness slightly because you will hear the reverb better and most of so perceived "details" are in treble anyway. That doesn't mean this level of treble was in the original recording though. Increased mid-upper bass will make it sound fuller and richer (for example hd800 + any tube amp), increased compression or worse channel separation will make it punchier. There is nothing bad about this coloration, but it's not transparent. It could have been added at the recording stage.
  
 The main point that's being dicussed here is whether Delta-Sigma modulation based DACs are inferior or not. I think I propose a very reasonable thing to do — throw a high-end S-D modulation based analog-digital-analog conversion (precisely volume matched) in your favorite signal chain and see if it changes the sound (ABX, double blinded, being honest with yourself, whatever). If S-D cripples the sound it should obviously result in some kind of audible difference. If it's transparent there will be no difference and you will still hear the coloration you like.


----------



## frenchbat

jimvibe said:


> The soundstage and level of detail will improve if you increase the brightness slightly because you will hear the reverb better and most of so perceived "details" are in treble anyway. That doesn't mean this level of treble was in the original recording though. Increased mid-upper bass will make it sound fuller and richer (for example hd800 + any tube amp), increased compression or worse channel separation will make it punchier. There is nothing bad about this coloration, but it's not transparent. It could have been added at the recording stage.
> 
> The main point that's being dicussed here is whether Delta-Sigma modulation based DACs are inferior or not. I think I propose a very reasonable thing to do — throw a high-end S-D modulation based analog-digital-analog conversion (precisely volume matched) in your favorite signal chain and see if it changes the sound (ABX, double blinded, being honest with yourself, whatever). If S-D cripples the sound it should obviously result in some kind of audible difference. If it's transparent there will be no difference and you will still hear the coloration you like.


 

 Funny, because the details are there, but the treble is definitely not emphasized compared to the DAC1. As to the test, it's your claim, not mine. I personally don't need it.


----------



## DreamKing

tbf...


frenchbat said:


> how much money are you willing to bet ? Set the test, I'll take it.
> 
> Hint, I have a Dac1 hdr and a theta dspro genV


----------



## skeptic

jimvibe said:


> Gosh, why does this thread have 400+ pages of comments?


 
 Novel concept: try reading it and find out.


----------



## miceblue

wildcatsare1 said:


> miceblue said:
> 
> 
> > ^ Yup, it's totally the DACs that make recordings sound bad. It's for sure not the Loudness War at all, no way Jose. That would be silly.
> ...



It could be both, but the mastering process would make far more of a difference than any ADC/DAC technology would unless it was severely flawed from the start. 

Apple's Mastered for iTunes tools are actually pretty good in today's era. They let the mastering engineers keep the music at a high sound quality and iTunes distributes those masters as high bitrate AAC files.

Daft Punk's RAM album for example sounds nearly as good as the master from HD Tracks at a fraction of the price, in which both sound much better and more dynamic than the CD master.


----------



## jacal01

jimvibe said:


> Gosh, why does this thread have 400+ pages of comments?


 
  
 Post padding run amok, obviously.  Why are you adding to the chaos?


----------



## bixby

jozurr said:


> Have the same question. Can you guys please suggest some warm sounding DACs in that price range (closer to $300). I tried the iDSD micro but still doesn't feel as "blended" enough as I imagined it would be.


 
 slightly on the warm side and very good is the hrt music streamer II+ and sounds best if you have a clean source and decent usb cable.  I prefer it to the modi 2 uber in my system.


----------



## jimvibe

jacal01 said:


> Post padding run amok, obviously.  Why are you adding to the chaos?


 

 Because the title is the thread is very misleading. People tend to believe everything they read and will plop $2k+ thinking they got something vastly superior.


----------



## jacal01

Don't know about 'vastly', but there was enough of a potential differential in my mind to upgrade to the Yggy from yet another R2R DAC, the AGD M7, much less a DS DAC.
  
 Also, being an audiophile means that  a 'vast' difference is not required to upgrade one's equipment to mythical 'endgame' status.  Subtle differences are more than enough in a lot of cases, and 'endgame' is more defined by personal economics than delivered ideal state musical fidelity.
  
 Read the whole thread for total context, already, before weighing in with your own opinion, please.


----------



## hans030390

jimvibe said:


> My point is that ADC1/DAC1 will not add any coloration to the sound. And if you prefer the coloration your theta does, you will still have it regardless of analog-digital-analog conversion in your chain.


 
  
 What makes you think the Theta is adding coloration? Do you think the Yggy applies as well? What's not to say it's more true to the source and that the DAC1 is the more colored DAC?
  
 I've tested enough DACs that measure near perfectly on static measurements (i.e. an objectivist would tell you they'd all be colorless or have inaudible imperfections), yet sound noticeably different in back-to-back tests. Some more detailed than others, some more fleshed-out sounding than others, some more 3D, some with better decay and reverb. I get it, the DAC1 measures great on paper, but so do many other DACs that sound different. The Yggy and even the Theta, both measure excellently (you might be surprised that some TOTL DACs from the mid-90s still measure as, well, TOTL DACs even today). So if they all look colorless per objective criteria in measurements, what explains the sonic differences? And if you think it's just placebo, then why did you get the DAC1 instead of the ODAC?


----------



## jimvibe

hans030390 said:


> What makes you think the Theta is adding coloration? Do you think the Yggy applies as well? What's not to say it's more true to the source and that the DAC1 is the more colored DAC?
> 
> I've tested enough DACs that measure near perfectly on static measurements (i.e. an objectivist would tell you they'd all be colorless or have inaudible imperfections), yet sound noticeably different in back-to-back tests. Some more detailed than others, some more fleshed-out sounding than others, some more 3D, some with better decay and reverb. I get it, the DAC1 measures great on paper, but so do many other DACs that sound different. The Yggy and even the Theta, both measure excellently (you might be surprised that some TOTL DACs from the mid-90s still measure as, well, TOTL DACs even today). So if they all look colorless per objective criteria in measurements, what explains the sonic differences? And if you think it's just placebo, then why did you get the DAC1 instead of the ODAC?


 
  
 If it sounds different from DAC1 then either DAC1 has some coloration or Theta has. I don't know what else to call these differences. Let's say DAC1 is not transparent and Theta is (or both of them are not transparent but different). I propose a very specific test to show that DAC1 is not adding any coloration to the sound and therefore is transparent: run digital-analog-digital conversion on your favorite digital recording with DAC1/ADC1 (maybe even several times - 10x) and ABX that with an original track using Theta or Yggdrasil. Then you can do the same with ADC1/Yggdrasil and compare that too. Unless ADC and DAC cancel each others imperfections somehow (highly unlikely) you will hear the amplified ten-fold difference clearly.
  
 DAC1 measures better than ODAC and has better "objective" specs than Yggdrasil actually too. I own it for different reasons though.


----------



## BassDigger

jimvibe said:


> If it sounds different from DAC1 then either DAC1 has some coloration or Theta has. I don't know what else to call these differences. Let's say DAC1 is not transparent and Theta is (or both of them are not transparent but different). I propose a very specific test to show that *DAC1 is not adding any coloration to the sound and therefore is transparent*: run digital-analog-digital conversion on your favorite digital recording with DAC1/ADC1 (maybe even several times - 10x) and ABX that with an original track using Theta or Yggdrasil. Then you can do the same with ADC1/Yggdrasil and compare that too. Unless ADC and DAC cancel each others imperfections somehow (highly unlikely) you will hear the amplified ten-fold difference clearly.
> 
> DAC1 measures better than ODAC and has better "objective" specs than Yggdrasil actually too. I own it for different reasons though.


 
  
 I think that your 'rose-tinted glasses' may be affecting your ears; even the (very) best dacs will do something that changes the sound; they all have their particular sound signature, so are not transparent. All of them.
  
 Your apparent belief that your DAC1 is the exception, does nothing to boost your credibility. Sorry.


----------



## jimvibe

bassdigger said:


> I think that your 'rose-tinted glasses' may be affecting your ears; even the (very) best dacs will do something that changes the sound; they all have their particular sound signature, so are not transparent. All of them.
> 
> Your apparent belief that your DAC1 is the exception, does nothing to boost your credibility. Sorry.


 

 Of course they do. Even air pressure changes all the time, so every playback is not the same (not even mentioning the more prominent psychological perception changes). The only important question is whether you can hear that difference. Again — I proposed a very specific test.


----------



## Solude

jimvibe said:


> Again — I proposed a very specific test.


 
  
 No need.  Benchmark already ran this test as part of their DAC1/ADC1 development.  They ran the DAC1 into an ADC1 looped over and over 20? times I believe and in the end... absolutely no change to the data.  Meaning yes the DAC1 is literally bit perfect.  Which is not to say that it is pleasant.  Also not to suggest that bit perfect relates to stage focus, smoothness, dynamics or any other none numerical, measured performance.


----------



## jimvibe

solude said:


> No need.  Benchmark already ran this test as part of their DAC1/ADC1 development.  They ran the DAC1 into an ADC1 looped over and over 20? times I believe and in the end... absolutely no change to the data.  Meaning yes the DAC1 is literally bit perfect.  Which is not to say that it is pleasant.  Also not to suggest that bit perfect relates to stage focus, smoothness, dynamics or any other none numerical, measured performance.


 

 It's wouldn't be bit perfect at least because some (inaudible) noise would be injected into the recording at every conversion stage. But it would be audibly indistinguishable from the analog source the digital recording was made from. Which in turn means that DAC1/ADC1 didn't detract "stage focus, smoothness, dynamics" from the analog source.


----------



## judmarc

solude said:


> No need.  Benchmark already ran this test as part of their DAC1/ADC1 development.  They ran the DAC1 into an ADC1 looped over and over 20? times I believe and in the end... absolutely no change to the data.  Meaning yes the DAC1 is literally bit perfect.  Which is not to say that it is pleasant.  Also not to suggest that bit perfect relates to stage focus, smoothness, dynamics or any other none numerical, measured performance.


 
  
 I don't think this can be literally true.  The DAC1 was set, if I recall correctly, to do something called asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) as an anti-jitter measure.  Sample rate conversion (plus the accompanying necessary anti-alias filtering) is mathematically not a bit-perfect process.  Nor, for that matter, is conversion from digital to analog or the reverse.  These processes are also technically "lossy," meaning once the data have been converted, there is no mathematical process for perfectly reconstructing them.
  
 So parts from the ADC1 and DAC1 may have been tested, or a testing configuration different than the consumer unit (without ASRC) may have been used, or a test may have been run where the results were audibly indistinguishable from analog input, but I do not think the circumstances as presented - a full ADC and full DAC, each doing sample rate and digital-analog/analog-digital conversion - could mathematically obtain the same data stream as input.


----------



## icebear

I recently stumbled over an interesting interview with Bob Katz. Someone who I guess really knows what he is talking about.
 The interview is from 2008 but in principle there has nothing much changed.
 I thought it was an interesting read :
  
 http://www.monoandstereo.com/2008/02/nterview-with-bob-katz.html


----------



## Solude

judmarc said:


> I don't think this can be literally true.


 
  
 Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## zach915m

I know I said I would post this a while ago but I got busy and it took a back seat!  I've got a bit of time with both the Theta Gen V and the Progeny and listened to them a bit side by side.  The "Theta" sound is certainly engrained in both of the units as the best way for me to describe the Gen V is just that is has a bit "more" of everything the Progeny has.  The bottom end has more impact without being muddy, the mids are a little more liquid and smooth while having slightly better imaging, and the highs have that effortless quality that reminds me a lot of the Yggy.  The Yggy and Gen V really do have a lot in common, but from what I can remember the Yggy is even smoother without any loss of resolution while the Gen V might be a little more aggressive in some regards.  I don't want to comment further on that as I don't own the Yggy but have only listened to it at a half dozen shows or so.
  
 The progeny really does continue to impress me though, especially knowing how much less I paid for it than the Gen V.  I'm going to keep it for the time being as I still do use it as I have transplanted it from my listening area to my computer rig.  The main difference between the Gen V and Progeny that I notice when going back and forth is what I like to call "THE MEAT."  By that I just mean that the Gen V has more balls to the sound.  This is probably partially the upgrade in PSU and multiple chips etc. 
  
 One thing the progeny does do just as well as the Gen V is portray space, it's uncanny the ability to render live performances and show the size of the arena/space the recording was made in.  The Progeny really is amazing, so just because my general finding that the Gen V is better, doesn't mean the Progeny isn't a fantastic unit.   It's a great bargain too at the sub $400 price you can generally find them at.
  
 Maybe I'll go in depth further soon, I'd also be happy to elaborate more if anyone is interested etc etc.


----------



## negura

zach915m said:


>


 
  
 Nice write-up. Having one Gen V and one V A and compared them side by side with the Yggy many times, the Yggy is indeed having the smooth quality of R2R sound, but it's more aggressive than the Theta imo. The Theta is warmer and nicer sounding, with richer mids and even more bass heft than the Yggy, albeit less resolution and precision across the whole FR. This is using the same USB to Coax interface on both. With its native USB Yggy has even more of its strength areas.
  
 To me they both sound as different DACs in their own right. But there are indeed common traits.
  
 What I agree with most is what amazing value the old Thetas are. Even compared to the Yggdrasil. That said, it's the cost of the USB interface/cables that detract from that.


----------



## wahsmoh

zach915m said:


> I know I said I would post this a while ago but I got busy and it took a back seat!  I've got a bit of time with both the Theta Gen V and the Progeny and listened to them a bit side by side.  The "Theta" sound is certainly engrained in both of the units as the best way for me to describe the Gen V is just that is has a bit "more" of everything the Progeny has.  The bottom end has more impact without being muddy, the mids are a little more liquid and smooth while having slightly better imaging, and the highs have that effortless quality that reminds me a lot of the Yggy.  The Yggy and Gen V really do have a lot in common, but from what I can remember the Yggy is even smoother without any loss of resolution while the Gen V might be a little more aggressive in some regards.  I don't want to comment further on that as I don't own the Yggy but have only listened to it at a half dozen shows or so.
> 
> The progeny really does continue to impress me though, especially knowing how much less I paid for it than the Gen V.  I'm going to keep it for the time being as I still do use it as I have transplanted it from my listening area to my computer rig.  The main difference between the Gen V and Progeny that I notice when going back and forth is what I like to call "THE MEAT."  By that I just mean that the Gen V has more balls to the sound.  This is probably partially the upgrade in PSU and multiple chips etc.
> 
> ...


 

 Thanks Zach. I have been waiting to hear from you and this is what I was sort of expecting with my brief demo of Purrin's Gen V and Yggy at Can Jam. Glad to know that my Progeny can still be king of soundstaging and musicality without spending nearly as much.
  
 I plan on owning my Progeny and never selling it. It was a lucky score(@$276 and free shipping) and to think I nearly bought an iFi DSD Micro or a similar puny sized DAC. My next DAC will be the Yggy and if I wasn't flying to Peru this summer for a few weeks I would have already bought one.


----------



## zach915m

negura said:


> Nice write-up. Having one Gen V and one V A and compared them side by side with the Yggy many times, the Yggy is indeed having the smooth quality of R2R sound, but it's more aggressive than the Theta imo. The Theta is warmer and nicer sounding, with richer mids and even more bass heft than the Yggy, albeit less resolution and precision across the whole FR. This is using the same USB to Coax interface on both. With its native USB Yggy has even more of its strength areas.
> 
> To me they both sound as different DACs in their own right. But there are indeed common traits.
> 
> What I agree with most is what amazing value the old Thetas are. Even compared to the Yggdrasil. That said, it's the cost of the USB interface/cables that detract from that.


 

 Yeah - I think what I should have said is that the Yggy seems more liquid while having at least as much resolving character if not more.  The way I phrased it made it sound like the Theta had more resolution which is obviously not the case.  I haven't been able to compare the two on the same amp, as I've always had my Theta hooked up to my Decware and the Yggy has always been hooked up to a Rag.  Both incredible set-ups.


----------



## AudioBear

+1
  
 I really appreciated his thoughtful logical posts.  And I didn't find them too long because he put a lot of content in the length.


----------



## Sonic Defender

audiobear said:


> +1
> 
> I really appreciated his thoughtful logical posts.  And I didn't find them too long because he put a lot of content in the length.


 

 Spot on brother, couldn't agree more. I actually looked forward to those posts as they seemed like a fantastic balance of science and audio lingo/subjectivity.


----------



## richard51

the humility and competence of guy like Keith Emo merits a respectful thanks and our admiration for his generous contribution


----------



## Sonic Defender

@KeithEmo, as per the last number of posts, we all wanted to really acknowledge the excellent contributions you made to this thread. Your posting style and etiquette in conjunction with your understandable explanations were very welcome. Hopefully you make your way back here once and a while. I know there have been many other quality posters in this thread who waded through the acrimony and provided very solid information, but your contributions I feel deserve special notice.


----------



## diamondears

sonic defender said:


> @KeithEmo
> , as per the last number of posts, we all wanted to really acknowledge the excellent contributions you made to this thread. Your posting style and etiquette in conjunction with your understandable explanations were very welcome. Hopefully you make your way back here once and a while. I know there have been many other quality posters in this thread who waded through the acrimony and provided very solid information, but your contributions I feel deserve special notice.





sonic defender said:


> Spot on brother, couldn't agree more. I actually looked forward to those posts as they seemed like a fantastic balance of science and audio lingo/subjectivity.




+1. I guess they have to bar the science of it to let the commercial/advertisements go on. Tsk tsk tsk...forums should be an NGO...


----------



## Hifi01170

sonic defender said:


> @KeithEmo, as per the last number of posts, we all wanted to really acknowledge the excellent contributions you made to this thread. Your posting style and etiquette in conjunction with your understandable explanations were very welcome. Hopefully you make your way back here once and a while. I know there have been many other quality posters in this thread who waded through the acrimony and provided very solid information, but your contributions I feel deserve special notice.


 
  
 Agreed! Can't say it better than Sonic Defender... "Your style and etiquette..." truly appreciated so please keep it coming!


----------



## strreamix

Anyone have any suggestions for a budget DAC (under 200$) for my setup?
  
 LCD-3 (pre-fazor)
 Gustard H10 (violectric v200 clone) (puts 2.7 W into 50 ohms)
 need dac under 200$ (strict budget) (i know it can perform much better with better dac, but this is the only option i have)
  
 will be running lossless files or 320+ from jriver, i dont use anything higher than flac usually.
  
 was probably just going to go with modi 2 uber..
  
 Thanks


----------



## strreamix

Fellow head-fi'ers keep suggesting the iFi DSD Nano to me.
  
 What makes the iFi DSD Nano so highly regarded around here? (I've been suggested it numerous times)
 It is that it packs a lot of features in for a small price? Or does the Burr Brown chip really have the SQ of higher tier DACs?
  
 I ask this because (and forgive me if I'm misinformed here), but I don't believe I need any of these extra features.
  
 I don't need portability (this is for a desktop rig).
 I don't want a battery, I'd prefer a wall-wart.
 I don't care about DSD or DXM or any of that. I just want to play lossless PCM files.
 I don't need an integrated amplifier, brings me worry about double amping or hurting SQ.
  
 I don't like anything about the Nano. But if it has the best SQ of all the DAC's in this price range, I would still buy it.
  
 And for those in favor of the Nano, what would you say about this? ODAC vs Nano done from someone's review.
 The most important thing to me is sub-bass and this shows the Nano with a hard roll off in the sub bass region.
  
 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90236454/iFi%20vs%20Odac%20comparison.pdf
 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90236454/iFi%20iDSD%20Nano%20vs%20ODAC.pdf


----------



## KeithEmo

First - thanks everyone for the kind words about my posts 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I'd also like to take a moment to expand on my standpoint on "science" and "magic" (or "aesthetics"): I don't think you can safely separate the two in the context of our discussions here. It's fine to say that Van Gogh's painting of the sunflowers is great art, and that my picture of daisies is pretty bad, and to then go on and talk about his great use of color, which is a lot better than mine. That's all a combination of art _AND_ science.(It's art because his is much more "pleasing" than mine; it's science because, underneath it all, there's something in the way we perceive color, or something else about the picture, that _CAUSES_ his to be more appealing than mine to most people.)
  
_HOWEVER_, once we start seeing other painters claiming that their paintings are "as good as Van Gogh's" _BECAUSE_ they use the colors he did, or that their competitors paintings are as bad as mine _BECAUSE_ they use the same colors I did, a line has been crossed. We can't really evaluate their claims and make sense of them until we figure out whether the colors really _ARE_ what makes the difference - because, if the colors are that important, then their claims may be true but, if it's not the colors after all, then their claims are bogus and can't be trusted.
  
 For a given audio signal, the signal with the biggest rate of change will be at the highest frequency and the highest amplitude. So, for a Red Book CD, the signal with the highest rate of change possible will be a 20 kHz sine wave at 0 dB. This is a simple fact; it is _NOT_ in dispute. So, if a Delta-Sigma DAC has "tracking speed problems", as some people seem to be suggesting, then it _MUST_ produce high levels of distortion with a 0 dB 20 kHz test signal. And, to turn that around, if a DAC can deliver a 20 kHz signal at 0 dB with 0.05% THD, then it _DOES NOT_ have this problem. Therefore, if a given Delta-Sigma DAC can turn in THD performance of < 0.05%, from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, at 0 dB, then we know that this _IS NOT_ an issue for that DAC. (And so, whether some D-S DACs theoretically have this problem - we can tell easily enough which ones do and which ones don't.)
  
 Now, as to "speed and pitch". All modern digital circuitry uses clocks that are pretty accurate and stable by human standards; a really crappy quarts clock is accurate to a few tens of parts per million (thousands of times more accurate than most turntables and most record cutters). No human is going to hear this error as a change in pitch, or as a difference in the tempo of the music. If you hear a difference where one DAC seems to have "better pace" or another seems to "slow down the music" - it's the acoustic equivalent of an optical illusion. If you actually measure the speed of the beats, or the tempo, you're going to find that they're spot-on ... or, at the very least, much closer than a human can possibly hear. Therefore, when you _THINK_ you hear that happening, there's really something else going on. (And recalculating a sample here or there, when the samples are as close together as they are, isn't going to make a difference that you will hear as a time difference. A one foot difference in speaker distance produces a delay of about 1 millisecond, which is 44 full samples on a Red Book CD. If you dropped a sample altogether on a CD, it would alter the timing as much as moving your ear 1/4" closer to or further from the speaker. (Now, changing the relationship between the same signal in both channels may shift the image an inch or two - because our brains are very good at picking out such relative shifts, but it would still be pretty minor.)
  
 When we talk about jitter, we're talking about time variations in the range of several hundred _TRILLIONTHS_ of a second. You absolutely, positively, aren't going to hear that. What you hear with jitter is changes in the output that occur because the jitter causes the D/A conversion to work imperfectly.... which creates distortion. 
  
 Now, there _IS_ a type of "timing error" that occurs with DACs, but it's related to oversampling. The digital filters used in oversampling produce ringing - which means that, when you feed a _NON-CONTINUOUS_ signal through them (like a drum beat), the filter "smears" the start and stop of the signal in time. Different filters produce different amounts of ringing, and different filters put more or less of it before or after the original (intended) signal, all of which can make it sound slightly different. This doesn't happen with steady state signals, like sine waves, which is why it doesn't show up on distortion specs; however, it's pretty obvious with transients, so it does show up quite plainly on transient response scope photos. NOTE that this happens because of oversampling; so an oversampling D-S DAC will have the same amount of ringing as an R2R DAC that uses the same oversampling filter. (But there are scientifically valid reasons why a given amount of jitter _MIGHT_ cause different amounts of different types of distortion depending on whether it happens to the signal being fed to a D-S DAC or an R2R DAC.)


----------



## BassDigger

Does a D-S converter typically do more oversampling than an R-2R machine?
  
 As I understand it, there's some part of the process that R-2R does in real-time (all bits processed simultaneously and as a whole), whereas D-S can't do this; it has to process them separately and then put them back together. Does this make sense?


----------



## Thenewguy007

Someone asked this in another topic, but what is the benefit of an external DAC? Less EMI noise and hissing? Better sound quality altogether?
  
 I have a quality headphone with a quality amp & they sound fine coming from my PC & TV
  
 I know there are DACs that selling into the thousands.
 Exactly how much of a improvement will a DAC (entry level to high end) give you, especially if I don't notice anything wrong with my sound?
  
 Their entire purpose is to clean up the sound & not give any distortions or any noise from your source, correct?


----------



## Hansotek

thenewguy007 said:


> Someone asked this in another topic, but what is the benefit of an external DAC? Less EMI noise and hissing? Better sound quality altogether?
> 
> I have a quality headphone with a quality amp & they sound fine coming from my PC & TV
> 
> ...


 
  
 Oh boy. I'll try to give you the short, over-simplified version, and hopefully people won't jump all over me for making too many generalizations here.
  
 The DACs in your TV and PC (though I don't know what they are... first generalization of many), are likely $5 components that were shoved in as an afterthought because most (non-audiophile) people can't immediately tell the difference between good D/A conversion and bad. The headphone outputs from your TV & PC likely have a lot of low-level background noise from the internals of those devices in the signal (oversimplified a little). One thing a good external (or internal) DAC will do is drop that noise to nearly undetectable levels (we commonly refer to this as a "Black background" or "Blackground"). This will help bring forward a lot of the low level detail, clean separation and microdynamics you lose with poor D/A conversion.
  
 Various DACs do various things well. Certain DACs offer better soundstage, extension, musicality, blackground, microdetail, punch, dynamics, etc. You've at least stumbled upon a good thread for learning about which DACs are good at which things. Chips matter, but implementation matters more. In terms of chips, Sabre DACs (Generally. Very generally!) tend to be a little better in terms of detail retrieval, space and extension at both ends, but they also tend to be a little bit harsh sounding. Another very common entry & mid level chip is the Wolfson, which (depending on implementation) is usually more musical, but often times a little less detailed and sometimes a bit rolled off on the far ends of the frequency range. (As I said, this is a very, very broad generalization, but a fairly common occurrence in the mid-priced uber-popular DACs. I have DACs I like with both chips (and others).) 
  
 In my experience, good DACs paired with higher quality source files (and good headphones) will start to give you a sound that starts getting much more akin to vinyl. Instruments begin to separate from one another very, very cleanly. Some instruments that always seemed buried in the mix may seem louder to you upon first listen, because you've never really heard them in a way that wasn't crunched up between everything else and buried in line noise. Sound images occupy their own unique space. You start to notice things like the settings on the bass amp or the size of the room in which vocals were recorded... things that are easily thrown out when you run a uber-compressed file through an afterthought component.
  
 As it says in the OP, a DAC is a very personal thing, and everyone's ears are different, so home much you value or don't value a DAC is really on you. No one can really, truly answer the question of how much it will improve your sound, especially if you don't notice anything wrong with it. The real question is, do you want to try and improve upon your current sound? If so, then an external DAC is certainly worth a try.
  
 I hope I answered your question (and didn't send anybody into a rage with a few broad generalizations for the new guy!). Good luck with your search!


----------



## johnjen

thenewguy007 said:


> Someone asked this in another topic, but what is the benefit of an external DAC? Less EMI noise and hissing? Better sound quality altogether?
> 
> I have a quality headphone with a quality amp & they sound fine coming from my PC & TV
> 
> ...


 
 I'll take a stab at this…
  
_"Better sound quality altogether?"_
 Yes, in spades…
  
_"I have a quality headphone with a quality amp & they sound fine coming from my PC & TV"_
 If you have not experienced 'better sound quality' nor have any desire to pursue this any further then congratulations you have already achieved 'end game' performance.
 Your wallet will thank you, not to mention the hours and hours of time spent researching and pondering and playing with choices of different gear etc.
 And all of this is before you start swapping out gear, to make it better…
  
_"I know there are DACs that selling into the thousands."_
 Not to mention those that cost tens and hundred(s) of thousands…
  
_"Exactly how much of a improvement will a DAC (entry level to high end) give you, especially if I don't notice anything wrong with my sound?"_
 The operative portion of this statement is _"…__especially if I don't notice anything wrong with my sound?"_
 This relates to your experiences and observations with regards to what is desireable for you.
  
_"Their entire purpose is to clean up the sound & not give any distortions or any noise from your source, correct?"_
 This is only a partial explanation.
 This is where the saying 'Rediscovering your entire music collection all over again', steps up to the plate.
 Not to mention plenty of other differences as the Sound Quality increases, and the addiction (upgraditis) takes hold…
  
 In summary, if you are satisfied with your current system there really isn't any NEED to improve it.
 However it only takes listening to a 'better' system before the upgrade bug gets deeply seated in your mind.
 If you are satisfied with your audio system, my advice is to NOT go to a HeadFi meet and listen to other systems.
  
 That is unless you secretly really want to fall down the rabbit hole and learn just what _"__the benefit of an external DAC"_ truly can provide.
 But be aware that once you start this process (you've been infected with 'upgraditis') you can't unknow what you learn and this process can take over and remain with you for months and years and decades.
  
 And it won't stop at just acquiring an "…_external DAC"._
 You will be changing ALL of your system, and probably several times, before you once again reach 'end game' performance.
 Kinda like what you have now, only it will be completely different.
  
 Oh, and sorry about your wallet.
  
 But if you really NEED to find out _"what is the benefit of an external DAC?"_, try a Schiit $99 dac and if it doesn't make a change for the better, return it (you have a 15 day 'trial period').
  
 It's a cheap 'experiment' and if you do get infected with the audio bug, this will probably be one of the least expensive audio experiment you may ever do…
  
 HAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahaha 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 sorry about your wallet…
  
 JJ


----------



## jimvibe

thenewguy007 said:


> Someone asked this in another topic, but what is the benefit of an external DAC? Less EMI noise and hissing? Better sound quality altogether?
> 
> I have a quality headphone with a quality amp & they sound fine coming from my PC & TV
> 
> ...


 

 Do you hear any noise coming from your PC DAC?


----------



## Thenewguy007

jimvibe said:


> Do you hear any noise coming from your PC DAC?


 
  
 None that I can tell.
  
 Of all the research it seems searching for a DAC will be the hardest as there seems to be less reviews & even less comparisons when compared to headphones & amps.
  
 There are ton of people recommending the ODAC & Modi2 as entry level DACs, but what I really want from a external device to compliment my headphone is soundstage.
 I can't get enough of it. The wider & more separation, the better.
  

 Any DAC in the $300 range you guys know of with exceptionally well soundstage enhancement?


----------



## johnjen

thenewguy007 said:


> snip
> Any DAC in the $300 range you guys know of with exceptionally well soundstage enhancement?


 
  
 Just a thought…
 http://schiit.com/products/bifrost-b-stockblack
 (this unit doesn't have the 15 day return offer)
 or 
 http://schiit.com/products/bifrost
 with the full 15 day return option
  
 And for a bit more $$
 http://www.amazon.com/Mousai-MSD192-Wolfson-WM8741-16-24Bit/dp/B00W5AA6SO?tag=duckduckgo-osx-20
  
 I've heard the MSD-192 dac, and was very impressed.
  
 JJ


----------



## jcx

> ...but what I really want from a external device to compliment my headphone is soundstage.


 
  
 get a virtualizer, even the foobar crossfeed plugins at least do something to the sound - DACs that obviously audibly change the soundstage are broken, would have to have laughably bad crosstalk and frequency response errors
  
 I do "get" that the "advanced" commentators here want to go on (and on, and on...) about their subjective impressions - but most when pressed should admit when it comes to "soundstage" differences between DACs they are straining at gnats - the commentary is hugely amplifying minute details
  
 whatever your leaning I think even die hard no controls subjectivists have to recognize:


> There is an explanation. Weird as it seems, there’s some real truth to this reality, and it’s in the psychological realm. It is helpful to understand that truth. As reader Dave Riddle points out, “Humans are lousy quantifiers, but they are great comparators.” And when we listen to program material on an on-going basis, such as in production work or listening for fun, mostly we are just “quantifying,” or making judgements about the general effectiveness of the signal’s quality for our purposes. On the other hand, when we get serious about studying “the quality of the signal,” we turn into high-rez comparators of the first order, deconstructing that signal in an obsessively detailed comparison with a reference version of the same signal. In that testing environment, the differences that are pretty much meaningless in everyday usage loom large. Why, they’re, like, totally, awesome!


 
http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/yeah_i_think_i_can_hear_it/
  
  
 if you want to really hear a soundstage difference look to binaural source, virtualization processing hardware or software and different headphones - DACs should be way, way down on the things that obviously and reliably affect "soundstage"
  
 soundstage changes from the above will be obvious on any competent DAC - even PC motherboard sound chipsets


----------



## jimvibe

thenewguy007 said:


> None that I can tell.
> 
> Of all the research it seems searching for a DAC will be the hardest as there seems to be less reviews & even less comparisons when compared to headphones & amps.
> 
> ...


 
  
 DAC's main requirement is to be transparent which means to sound exactly like the original master would sound. It doesn't "enhance" the soundstage. So if you are listening to a turntable and then throw in a reasonably good ADC/DAC in the signal chain you shouldn't hear the difference. In 2015 it's not that hard to create a DAC that will be sufficiently transparent for differences it introduces in the signal chain to be inadible.
  
 You might be reading all these amazingly detailed reviews of how different DACs sound and think the difference between them is huge. There are a lot of psychological factors at play. Soundwaves hitting your ear drums is just one part of the music perception. If you would listen to the same signal chain for several weeks without changing a thing it will still sound different to you every day - your emotional state, mood, environment will have an impact. The only way to hear the difference properly is to do an ABX test with the volume matched perfectly (check out Fletcher-Munson curves). If you would switch between A and B knowing which one is which you would clearly hear the difference. Ask someone to flip the switch for you randomly and the difference will disappear. That said a realization that you got a limited version of an expensive handmade DAC in a nice casing that got amazing reviews from most regarded audiophiles can really make your music experience different (sometimes better) but don't fool yourself into thinking that it really does something to soundwaves to make it seem better (or improve any of the areas like soundstaging). It's hard to argue that it feels nice to own some beautiful and well-designed gear.
  
 Which headphones do you use right now? Headphones will give you 95% of soundstage differences. The rest 5% would come from tweaking their position on your head, not changing the DAC  If you are after a great soundstage get hd800s and MusicSteamer ii or ODAC for your DAC. Schiit stuff is good too. If you get these headphones you will also need an amp to provide sufficient power for them. I would look into JDSLab's new "The Element" which is a DAC and a headphone amp in one case.
  
 And keep in mind that even mediocre speakers will give you the soundstage unrivaled by the best headphones.


----------



## Hansotek

johnjen said:


> thenewguy007 said:
> 
> 
> > snip
> ...



Also worth noting, the Mousai goes on sale on Massdrop for $300 quite frequently.


----------



## Hansotek

thenewguy007 said:


> jimvibe said:
> 
> 
> > Do you hear any noise coming from your PC DAC?
> ...



ODAC and Modi 2 Uber are both good recommendations, it's also worth noting that they both improve significantly with the Schiit Wyrd USB Decrapifier which help solidify the image positioning and blacken the background. 

Stepping up to the next level, I'm going to agree with JJ - Bifrost Uber with USB 2.0 is well loved and a really killer value around $500. The Mousai MSD-192 is an insane deal when it hits $300 on Massdrop. I haven't tried it, but I have tried the Questyle model it is based off of, and I loved it. Compared to the Questyle there aren't as many options, but for the price, it would be crazy to complain about the ability to get a scaled-down version in the Mousai.


----------



## BassDigger

thenewguy007 said:


> Someone asked this in another topic, but *what is the benefit of an external DAC?* Less EMI noise and hissing? Better sound quality altogether?
> 
> I have a quality headphone with a quality amp & they sound fine coming from my PC & TV
> 
> ...


 
  
 What's the benefit of a separate anything? Why have you bought an external amp? Why doesn't everyone just use all-in-one entertainment systems? Maybe they should start selling all-in-one systems that include the headphones as well. Maybe they do.
 Many people, who listen to just as much music as me, are very happy with B*se type systems that I turn my nose up at. Or even 'worse'; they know that they're not getting the best out of their recordings; they think that they're making a real concession to quality by insisting that all their MP3s are at least 192kb/s! But they don't care; they have different priorities to me. (Fair enough).
  
 If you're truly happy with your sound system, then just be happy with what you've got.
 But the fact that you're here, asking questions, suggests that you're not; you've got the bug. It's gonna cost you money. The challenge is to get the most for that money (or maybe you have different priorities, such as trying as many components as possible, regardless of the final cost). But back to the point; separate usually means better quality, isolated and dedicated components, that will have multiple (positive) effects on SQ, whatever you're talking about. The dac is no exception.
  
 It looks like you've already got some helpful advice, detailed explanations and interesting suggestions. Enjoy your journey.


----------



## Dalgas

I am (or was)  in the market for a new dac. I have a NAD M3 amplifier and since the M51 has gotten a lot of good reviews, the M51 was my first choice. So I began searching the internet for information and Schiit kept coming up (sorry). I got curios and visited their homepage. A lot of fun, but also serious, reading. Since M51 is about $1K (used) here ind Denmark, the Schiit Gungnir seemed tempting. I began searching for reviews and stumbled across this forum - and purrin and his ninjas! Now this is what I call interesting and very informative reading. Comparing dacs across time - and not just the lastest hype. Seems that a lot here hold the Gungnir in high recards. I personally love dynamics and prefer that trompets – and female vocals – have a bit of bite! Up until now I have used a Micromega MyAmp, with an ESS sabre dac-chip, as a dac. Two weeks ago I got a Stello da220 mk2 on loan (still have it). Comparing the two I immediately noticed the artificial highs of the sabre. The Stello is overall far superior to the dac section of the MyAmp – perhaps not surprising giving the fact that the stello is a true stand-alone-dac – and almost $2K a new. I could easily live with the Stello - but then again the Stello is a “True 24Bit Delta-Sigma DAC”. I dont want to settle on the lesser of two evils . So the MyAmp is now sold and I have placed an order on the Schiit Gungnir (I know - also a Delta-Sigma DAC - but hopefully as good as they get).


----------



## Sonic Defender

dalgas said:


> I am (or was)  in the market for a new dac. I have a NAD M3 amplifier and since the M51 has gotten a lot of good reviews, the M51 was my first choice. So I began searching the internet for information and Schiit kept coming up (sorry). I got curios and visited their homepage. A lot of fun, but also serious, reading. Since M51 is about $1K (used) here ind Denmark, the Schiit Gungnir seemed tempting. I began searching for reviews and stumbled across this forum - and purrin and his ninjas! Now this is what I call interesting and very informative reading. Comparing dacs across time - and not just the lastest hype. Seems that a lot here hold the Gungnir in high recards. I personally love dynamics and prefer that trompets – and female vocals – have a bit of bite! Up until now I have used a Micromega MyAmp, with an ESS sabre dac-chip, as a dac. Two weeks ago I got a Stello da220 mk2 on loan (still have it). Comparing the two I immediately noticed the artificial highs of the sabre. The Stello is overall far superior to the dac section of the MyAmp – perhaps not surprising giving the fact that the stello is a true stand-alone-dac – and almost $2K a new. I could easily live with the Stello - but then again the Stello is a “True 24Bit Delta-Sigma DAC”. I dont want to settle on the lesser of two evils . So the MyAmp is now sold and I have placed an order on the Schiit Gungnir (I know - also a Delta-Sigma DAC - but hopefully as good as they get).


 

 I have the M3 and I owned a Gungnir for three years (a year with the M3) and I opted for the M51 which I like more than the Gungnir (however the Gungnir was lovely, just a little warmish). The M51 and M3 are quite nice together.


----------



## haywood

dalgas said:


> I am (or was)  in the market for a new dac. I have a NAD M3 amplifier and since the M51 has gotten a lot of good reviews, the M51 was my first choice. So I began searching the internet for information and Schiit kept coming up (sorry). I got curios and visited their homepage. A lot of fun, but also serious, reading. ... I dont want to settle on the lesser of two evils . So the MyAmp is now sold and I have placed an order on the Schiit Gungnir (I know - also a Delta-Sigma DAC - but hopefully as good as they get).



The cool thing is your gungnir is upgradable and if rumors are right that should be really relevant in the not-so-distant future.


----------



## Thenewguy007

Any chance you guys can recommend a portable DAC (or a AMP/DAC) for objectively good soundstage?
  
 I just noticed that I lug around my heavy desktop amp from room to room for whatever device I need.

 With another large & heavy DAC, it would be very impractical & a smaller portable combo would be nice.


----------



## nicolo

The Geek Out V2 or Geek Out V2+ (inbuilt battery)


----------



## Dalgas

haywood said:


> The cool thing is your gungnir is upgradable and if rumors are right that should be really relevant in the not-so-distant future.


 
 Sounds very interesting - have you heard what kind of upgrade it should be? The fact that gungnir is upgradable was one reason why I chose it. That and the ad-ons like Wyrd and Loki. All in all Schiit are highly flexible gear.


----------



## DecentLevi

Just want to sort out a couple things on Schiit products recently mentioned:
  
 The Wyrd is a USB signal enhancer that is compatible to possibly improve _any _DAC, and while it makes a noticeable improvement on the Modi 1 (speaking from direct experience), it's not necessary to be used with the Modi 2 which already has an improved USB section implemented. Loki is a separate DAC rather than and add-on, and is mainly for DSD (SACD type) codecs.


----------



## Hansotek

decentlevi said:


> Just want to sort out a couple things on Schiit products recently mentioned:
> 
> The Wyrd is a USB signal enhancer that is compatible to possibly improve _any_ DAC, and while it makes a noticeable improvement on the Modi 1 (speaking from direct experience), it's not necessary to be used with the Modi 2 which already has an improved USB section implemented. Loki is a separate DAC rather than and add-on, and is mainly for DSD (SACD type) codecs.



Sorry to have to correct you here, but most of what you just said is flat-out wrong. Wyrd can absolutely have an effect on Modi 2 or any of the other higher-end DACs. Also, what you said about Loki is totally off. It IS an add-on component. You can use Loki to add DSD to any DAC. It can be used as a standalone DAC in a pinch, but you'll need to be using a player that can convert PCM to DSD to use Loki without a separate DAC.


----------



## Solude

hansotek said:


> Sorry to have to correct you here, but most of what you just said is flat-out wrong.


 
  
 Nothing he said was wrong.  Get yourself a dictionary and you'll see why.


----------



## Hansotek

solude said:


> hansotek said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to have to correct you here, but most of what you just said is flat-out wrong.
> ...



To say "Loki is a separate DAC, not an add-on" is tremendously misleading, at best. If you don't believe me, go read the product page. Seriously.

Reading it again, I may have misinterpreted the other part on Modi 2 and Wyrd a little bit, and if so, that's on me, and I'm sorry. I took it to mean that USB 2.0 and Wyrd were solving the same problems, which they are not. Thus, I tried to stop the factual error before it led somebody to make a misinformed buying decision. I realize now that's probably not what he meant by that statement.


----------



## Solude

Loki is a DSD only DAC that has an RCA passthrough.  It is as much an add-on as a PCM only DAC would be.  Which is to say... not.  There are actually a lot of DSD only DACs now that it is the new shiny.  The Loki just happens to be very inexpensive in comparison from a company that couldn't care less about DSD.


----------



## Hansotek

solude said:


> Loki is a DSD only DAC that has an RCA passthrough.  It is as much an add-on as a PCM only DAC would be.  Which is to say... not.  There are actually a lot of DSD only DACs now that it is the new shiny.  The Loki just happens to be very inexpensive in comparison from a company that couldn't care less about DSD.



Ugh. Whatever. This is the problem with people making vague statements, they're open to too much interpretation/misinterpretation. Let's mercy kill this godawful unproductive debate. It's over.


----------



## Ableza

Loki is a shape-shifter and a trickster.  Trust him at your peril.


----------



## wink

The Loki is NOT to be used without rune stones to ward off any skullduggery.


----------



## auvgeek

thenewguy007 said:


> Any DAC in the $300 range you guys know of with exceptionally well soundstage enhancement?


 
 I'd buy this and a Gustard U12 DDC. http://www.head-fi.org/t/774020/parasound-d-ac-1100-hd-vintage-r2r-dac-upgraded-pcm63-k-grade-24-48khz
  
 Just my $0.02.
 EDIT Or this: http://www.head-fi.org/t/774397/fs-sonic-frontiers-anthem-transdac-jk-ci-nas-converter
  
 But I haven't heard any; just done enough research that I think they'd be solid options in that price range. I'm loving my Theta Basic IIIa with U12. (But still lusting after a Tanly DDC.)


----------



## lukeap69

auvgeek said:


> I'd buy this and a Gustard U12 DDC. http://www.head-fi.org/t/774020/parasound-d-ac-1100-hd-vintage-r2r-dac-upgraded-pcm63-k-grade-24-48khz
> 
> Just my $0.02.




Nice suggestion!


----------



## Jozurr

What would be the cheapest R2R dac to buy excluding the vintage DACs? (Which has USB input)


----------



## hans030390

jozurr said:


> What would be the cheapest R2R dac to buy excluding the vintage DACs? (Which has USB input)


 
  
 Maybe the Audio-GD DAC-19? Unless you're interested in Chinese DACs based off the old Philips TDA chips...but I would not expect particularly good performance out of anything like that, especially TDA1543-based. You might like the tone? A lot of those are also NOS (non-oversampled), which can be pretty hit and miss with some people. Seems it's a minority that prefers NOS. Granted, I have seen some people try those cheapy 1543 NOS DACs that still end up liking them enough to move on to and primarily use nicer R2R DACs, vintage or otherwise.


----------



## KeithEmo

I would like to interject one or two "philosophical points" here. (These are sort of in direct response to things mentioned a few weeks ago; I didn't quote them here because my responses are more "general purpose", and so apply to the entire subject in general.)
  
 When we talk about DACs, we often seem to fall into a simple philosophical trap of deciding: "Is a DAC supposed to reproduce _THE SAMPLES IT IS GIVEN_, or is it supposed to reproduce _THE ORIGINAL ANALOG CONTENT_?". Unfortunately, any answer to that question is a sort of paradox. The job of a DAC is in fact to reproduce the original source material. However, _THE ONLY INFORMATION IT HAS TO USE WHEN DOING THIS IS THE DATA WE FEED TO IT_.
  
 One posting quoted a very informative article that suggested that (I'm paraphrasing the actual quote) "a DAC can't accurately reproduce the original signal because the original signal may have information at frequencies above half the sample frequency". While entirely true, this is simply a restatement of sampling theory.... If you play a digital audio signal through a DAC, it cannot reproduce any information in the original content that was above half the sampling frequency. However, this is _NOT_ a limitation of the DAC. The simple fact is that any information in the original sample that was at higher than half the sampling frequency _ISN'T IN THE DIGITAL FILE TO BEGIN WITH_, and the DAC cannot reproduce what isn't there. And, since this is a limitation of basic information theory, rather than a limitation of _ANY_ particular DAC or type of DAC, it is absolute. _NOBODY DOES OR CAN EVER DESIGN A DAC THAT CAN REPRODUCE INFORMATION THAT ISN'T THERE IN THE RECORDING_. (A DAC could be designed that used "fake" information to "fill in" information that it "guessed" was missing, and such synthetic information might sound better in some situations, but it would simply be "an artist's rendition of reality", and not a magical resurrection of the information that was lost when the recording was made. It's sort of like colorizing a black and white movie.)
  
 Perhaps the "safest" way to spell this out would be thus: The goal of a DAC is to reproduce the original analog signal as accurately as possible. Since the original analog signal is no longer available, the best way to do this is to reproduce the information that is contained in the digital audio signal as accurately as possible. (Since we don't know what was lost, we can't add information to replace it without the risk that our added information actually makes the result less accurate rather than more accurate, so the best we can do is to ensure that we don't lose or alter any information that we still have.)
  
 The paradox, or perhaps dilemma, is that we are starting with what are often limited or flawed recordings. A Red Book CD can't contain any legitimate information above 22 kHz - because of the Nyquist limit. Therefore, if there is anything there above 22 kHz, it is either noise or distortion, present because of faulty processing when the CD was recorded. Likewise, if poor quality or incorrect processing has resulted in a digital audio file that sounds "harsh" or "fatiguing" when you play it back accurately, you can't "fix" it - your only choices are to play it accurately, or risk making it even less accurate by altering it in some way to make it "more pleasant" or "less annoying". (And what if the original artist actually _intended_ it to sound harsh and annoying? You can't know for sure, and saying that "you know what a real piano sounds like" in no way proves that the piano on this particular recording is supposed to, or originally did, sound like you believe it did.)
  
 Therefore, when it comes to DACs, as with a lot of other audio equipment, you may well be faced with the decision of whether you want a device which is accurate, or one which sounds good. I suggest that choosing a reasonable answer to that question should and does depend on what you listen to. (If you listen to mostly early, and badly recorded, CDs - then maybe it makes sense to sacrifice accuracy for a little euphonic "smoothing over" of the flaws common in that type of recording. However, if you listen to a significant amount of modern, well recorded, content - then maybe it makes sense to choose a DAC that renders it as accurately as possible.) I have personally never understood how the term "analytical" can be used in a negative sense... but that's probably because my choice is to have the DAC render whatever it is given as accurately as possible.
  
 Also, unlike with analog content, digital content gives me an opportunity to have "the best of both". If I have a digital recording that is actually badly flawed, and I do consider it reasonable to try and correct those flaws, I can do so using one of the many excellent digital editors out there, and a virtually unlimited choice of plugins and modules designed to fix specific flaws, and to add an amazing variety of "euphonic alterations". If I have a neutral "analytical" DAC, then I can always use software to make any euphonic alterations I like, but I can also listen to the recording without altering it. If I have a DAC that adds euphonic coloration to everything I play through it, then I have no way to avoid that coloration, even if I have good quality content that sounds better without it. (And, if I have a pair of headphones that are a bit "sharp", and so sound better when EQed to -3 dB at 20 kHz, I'd rather use the EQ setting on my music player - which I can turn on and off - to do so, rather than own a DAC or headphone amplifier that has a "fixed EQ" that alters everything that way, but which might not sound very good with the next pair of headphones I buy.)


----------



## KeithEmo

hans030390 said:


> Maybe the Audio-GD DAC-19? Unless you're interested in Chinese DACs based off the old Philips TDA chips...but I would not expect particularly good performance out of anything like that, especially TDA1543-based. You might like the tone? A lot of those are also NOS (non-oversampled), which can be pretty hit and miss with some people. Seems it's a minority that prefers NOS. Granted, I have seen some people try those cheapy 1543 NOS DACs that still end up liking them enough to move on to and primarily use nicer R2R DACs, vintage or otherwise.


 
  
 You might check out these guys.... they make those 1543 NOS DACs - and you can usually find them on eBay.
 (and they usually are in fact quite cheap)
  
 http://www.teradak.com/products/17.html


----------



## abartels

keithemo said:


> I would like to interject one or two "philosophical points" here. (These are sort of in direct response to things mentioned a few weeks ago; I didn't quote them here because my responses are more "general purpose", and so apply to the entire subject in general.)
> 
> When we talk about DACs, we often seem to fall into a simple philosophical trap of deciding: "Is a DAC supposed to reproduce _THE SAMPLES IT IS GIVEN_, or is it supposed to reproduce _THE ORIGINAL ANALOG CONTENT_?". Unfortunately, any answer to that question is a sort of paradox. The job of a DAC is in fact to reproduce the original source material. However, _THE ONLY INFORMATION IT HAS TO USE WHEN DOING THIS IS THE DATA WE FEED TO IT_.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I completely agree.
  
 Nice to hear someone talking about "analytical" sounding equipment the way I think about it, just like there are no classical loudspeakers and popular loudspeakers.
 A loudspeaker has to reproduce in the best way, and not adding something, or leave something out,,,,,
  
  
 Maybe a little offtopic, but did someone heard of the new AKM AK4497? Any news on that front?
  
  
 Regards,
 Alex


----------



## BassDigger

What's happened to this thread?


----------



## abartels

bassdigger said:


> What's happened to this thread?


 
  
 Sorry for asking


----------



## BassDigger

abartels said:


> Sorry for asking


 
  
 Chill; I wasn't really getting at anyone in particular. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 (Although....did you really have to re-post Keith's entire comment....?)


----------



## jimvibe

abartels said:


> A loudspeaker has to reproduce in the best way, and not adding something, or leave something out,,,,,


 
  
 A loudspeaker or a headphone driver is much less perfect than Amps and even less so than DACs so there is always some coloration present. Since there is no way to get rid of this coloration anufacturers have to chose the coloration they like most.


----------



## wink

Quote:KeithEmo 





> One posting quoted a very informative article that suggested that (I'm paraphrasing the actual quote) "a DAC can't accurately reproduce the original signal because the original signal may have information at frequencies above half the sample frequency". While entirely true, this is simply a restatement of sampling theory.... If you play a digital audio signal through a DAC, it cannot reproduce any information in the original content that was above half the sampling frequency. However, this is _NOT_ a limitation of the DAC. The simple fact is that any information in the original sample that was at higher than half the sampling frequency _ISN'T IN THE DIGITAL FILE TO BEGIN WITH_, and the DAC cannot reproduce what isn't there. And, since this is a limitation of basic information theory, rather than a limitation of _ANY_ particular DAC or type of DAC, it is absolute. _NOBODY DOES OR CAN EVER DESIGN A DAC THAT CAN REPRODUCE INFORMATION THAT ISN'T THERE IN THE RECORDING_. (A DAC could be designed that used "fake" information to "fill in" information that it "guessed" was missing, and such synthetic information might sound better in some situations, but it would simply be "an artist's rendition of reality", and not a magical resurrection of the information that was lost when the recording was made. It's sort of like colorizing a black and white movie.)


 
 Classic.
  
 Anything that adds to the actual recorded material is spurious information.
  
 I'm awaiting the MAGIC DAC which is not dependent on the recorded material, but accesses the original sound when it was recorded. It comes with a gallon can of snake oil to lubricate the metaphysical machinery manufactured by  Morgul minions securely ensconced within the hermetically sealed Faraday cage casing.
  
 Pixie dust and unicorn tears are not required on this model, but are reserved for the future TOTL model which is currently under intensive ensorcelling to meet the stringent parameters required by this proof-of-concept delving into the ultra-accurate reproduction of sonic reproduction.


----------



## lukeap69

wink said:


> I'm awaiting the MAGIC DAC which is not dependent on the recorded material, but accesses the original sound when it was recorded. It comes with a gallon can of snake oil to lubricate the metaphysical machinery manufactured by  Morgul minions securely ensconced within the hermetically sealed Faraday cage casing.




Does the case need to be hermetically sealed?


----------



## Articnoise

keithemo said:


> Therefore, when it comes to DACs, as with a lot of other audio equipment, you may well be faced with the decision of whether you want a device which is accurate, or one which sounds good. I suggest that choosing a reasonable answer to that question should and does depend on what you listen to. (If you listen to mostly early, and badly recorded, CDs - then maybe it makes sense to sacrifice accuracy for a little euphonic "smoothing over" of the flaws common in that type of recording. However, if you listen to a significant amount of modern, well recorded, content - then maybe it makes sense to choose a DAC that renders it as accurately as possible.) *I have personally never understood how the term "analytical" can be used in a negative sense... *but that's probably because my choice is to have the DAC render whatever it is given as accurately as possible.


 
  

 Okay I will try to explain. If using the word analytical as meaning separating/dissect the sound into its elemental parts - I do think it can be seen as negative. Mind you I don’t think that analytical meaning that it is more or less resolving, more or less neutral or more or less accurately. 

  

 It just means that is not coherent. The coherence factor is a very important quality for me and make the listening fun, logical and musical and I have found analytical to be the opposite if playing at home. If you are in a studio making music, yes then you want a more analytical gear to dissect the music in to pieces.   

  

 It is a bit complicated to explain exactly what makes one gear to sound more or less analytical or coherent, but to me they are the very opposite of each other. The analytical sound separates the music into individual parts that are then easy to detect and a coherent sound is more about the whole and less about the parts. I think of it as the analytical sound lack the low level combining glue which binds the instruments and music together. A good balance between the two is usually the best.


----------



## KeithEmo

articnoise said:


> Okay I will try to explain. If using the word analytical as meaning separating/dissect the sound into its elemental parts - I do think it can be seen as negative. Mind you I don’t think that analytical meaning that it is more or less resolving, more or less neutral or more or less accurately.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think I do understand what you mean, but it also seems to me that different people use the term very differently, and to mean subtly different things... to me the term "over-analytical" seems more accurate to describe "the condition" you're talking about. I agree with you that something that over-emphasizes the separation between individual elements is not a good thing, however I don't see that as being part of the same "scale" between accurate and not accurate. In other words, to me, being analytical means "being totally uncolored and accurate and not covering anything up" - and exaggerating the differences goes past "being totally analytical" and into something else - being inaccurate in the other direction altogether.
  
 I prefer to use the analogy of a picture. When you take a digital photo, it can be sharp or blurry, and the color can be accurate or not, and the contrast and brightness can be accurate or not. These are all things that can be measured, and each can be more or less accurate, but I would say that "being analytical" or "being accurate" means that all of them would be "correct". Now, it may be that, from an _artistic_ point of view, we may _prefer_ a particular photo if it is less accurate (for example, it's common to deliberately blur photos of faces to hide blemishes, and to airbrush entire bodies to de-emphasize obvious flaws, and deliberately exaggerating colors looks very cool in certain cases). However, very few people I know would deliberately buy a blurry TV so old movies look less obviously bad, or deliberately buy a poor quality camera because it doesn't show up the flaws in their subjects. (Many photographers use a "gel" filter to "soften" certain pictures, or use equivalent post-processing in Photoshop, but very few would buy a camera that was _incapable_ of delivering a sharp picture if called upon to do so. Likewise, you might consider a TV that includes a "soft picture" option for watching old movies, but probably only if it has an "off switch" for when you don't want it.)
  
 Now, Photoshop also has an option that allows you to "sharpen" a picture after it is taken. In reality, what this feature actually does is to boost the contrast ratio around edges. (Processing a picture to deliberately add slight halos around high-contrast edges - a dark halo on the dark on the dark edge and a light halo on in the light edge - makes it _appear_ to be sharper.) However, it's really a sort of optical illusion. It doesn't actually add detail but, by making the details that are already there more apparent, it makes the picture _seem_ more detailed. If properly applied, this trick can make a too-soft picture look very good, but, if over-applied, it produces an exaggerated effect that looks unnatural. To me, the way a picture that's been over-sharpened looks is exactly analogous to the way some equipment sounds - and like what you described - almost like someone has artificially outlined the edges of each instrument or note (and this seems to be what some people describe as sounding "etched" - which is a great description of how over-sharpened pictures look).
 My point of that somewhat long winded description was to demonstrate that the two "directions" are _NOT_ really a continuum. Even though it may seem that way to people who've never taken a picture or used Photoshop, there isn't a single "control" that goes from "blurry" to "sharp". There are really two separate controls, one for "added blurriness" and another for "added sharpness". And, to me, if applied to a picture, the term "analytical" would mean - _NO_ added blurriness and _NO_ added sharpness. (No-one would describe the cartoon-like picture you would get if you turned the sharpness all the way up in Photoshop as "analytical" - they would describe it as having _exaggerated_ sharpness - or even as looking like a caricature.) You can add "blur" to compensate for a certain picture being "annoyingly sharp", or to cover up details you'd prefer not to see, and you can add "sharpening" to compensate for a picture that's "too soft", but they are still two distinct colorations, and the the most accurate picture will have none of either (and, with images, there is a pretty obvious point where that is true).
  
 I believe that a lot of audiophiles don't understand this distinction... and to me it seems pretty important. If your headphones and amp blur the details, then the solution is to reduce the problem that causes the blurring, but that's not the same as taking something that's neutral to begin with and add something that artificially boosts the "audio contrast". You can't make the blur go away by adding sharpness - at best you can create an illusion that makes it look superficially better. And, likewise, if something alters the sound in the way you describe, which I would equate to over-sharpening a picture, then the solution is to reduce the flaw that's causing the error in that direction, but that's not the same as simply "adding blur". But you _DON'T_ fix an over-sharpened picture by adding blur. (You might argue that adding sharpening to a blurred picture does in fact improve it, but most photographers would agree that doing so is a last resort, only used after you've done your best to eliminate the original error.)
  
 To me, from a technical perspective, it seem like an awful lot of discussions about headphones and amps come down to "this headphone is too sharp - I need to find a blurry amp to go with it", or the reverse, as if there were in fact a single control that went from one to the other. (To me, this seems rather like trying to correct nuances in frequency response with one of those old "Tone" controls, rather than using more accurate Bass and treble controls... and I can't imagine an audiophile using a Tone control to correct for his overly-bright speakers - because it's obvious that the solution almost certainly won't "line up" with the problem. (If we're talking about a simple aberration in frequency response, then boosting the treble in one device to compensate for a roll off in another may produce a good result, but that's usually _NOT_ what we're talking about, which makes a proper and effective solution somewhat more complicated.) If you agree with my assessment, then it also becomes obvious that we must differentiate between _correcting a problem where a device is adding unnatural and excessive detail_, and starting with something that's simply totally accurate, then reducing the amount of detail because of a personal preference for a softer audio picture, or because we're listening to flawed source material which simply sounds better when we don't hear all the details. 
  
 Personally, I much prefer to do my best to start out with "perfectly neutral", removing as many colorations and imperfections as possible, then adding the precise colorations and alterations I like, rather than to try and find more or less random combinations of flaws and colorations that add and cancel in such a way that I like the result. (Both because it seems like "the more rational way to do things", and because that way I don't have to re-think my entire system every time I "throw off the delicate balance" by changing one component or another.)
  
 (That's why, to me, saying "over analytical" is sort of like saying that a picture is "too perfect"....  in that it sort of doesn't make sense .... To me, a "perfectly analytical" system would make it so each individual instrument, and even each note, was precisely distinct and not at all burred together but, at the same time, wouldn't exaggerate the separation between them either. Anything past that would have crossed from "analytical" to something else... )


----------



## BassDigger

You're comparing two dissimilar adjectives; they do not mean the same thing (no-matter how many analogies you use):
  
  
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accurate

Full Definition of* **ACCURATE* 

 1
*:* * free from error *especially as the result of care <an _accurate_ diagnosis>


 2
*:*  *conforming exactly to truth *or* to a standard* *:  exact *<providing _accurate_ color>


 3
*:*  able to give an accurate result <an _accurate_ gauge>
  


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analytic

Definition of *ANALYTIC*

 1
*:*  of or relating to analysis or analytics; _especially_ *:*  *separating something into component parts or constituent elements*


http://www.yourdictionary.com/analytical
  

The definition of analytical is someone who studies and examines *the elemental parts of something, *or is something related to the study of *small parts of a whole.*
  
  
I'd agree that for something to sound 'analytical' the sound character is somehow emphasising particular parts, or gives the impression that it is doing so, and is evidence of a sound signature or characteristic. This implies that it's unnatural, unrealistic and most probably an indication of an inaccuracy.
  
Accurate sound reproduction should surely mean 'has total similarity to the original event'. The original event is a natural, real or synthesised sound, with only the characteristics that were included, intentionally or not, during the recording process.


----------



## Stillhart

> Originally Posted by *KeithEmo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> snip
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't claim to know anything about audio engineering, I'm just a computer nerd who likes this hobby.  So please take this as it's meant:  just as a point of conversation, not contention.  
  
 It sounds like what you're talking about is the audio version of what gamers call anti-aliasing on graphics cards.  Why wouldn't something like that work well in audio if it works okay in video?  I can certainly see going overboard with it similar to how newer TV's will interpolate entire frames, giving the much-debated "soap opera effect".  But I'd think a little bit of anti-aliasing (where you average the differences between two given samples and stick and extra sample in between to smooth out the transition) could sound good if done right.
  
 Or am I misunderstanding your point and we're talking about two different things?


----------



## Sonic Defender

stillhart said:


> It sounds like what you're talking about is the audio version of what gamers call anti-aliasing on graphics cards.  Why wouldn't something like that work well in audio if it works okay in video?


 
 While I don't know this as a fact, I am not sure the visual system processing system is an analogue for the auditory processing system.


----------



## Articnoise

keithemo said:


> I think I do understand what you mean, but it also seems to me that different people use the term very differently, and to mean subtly different things... to me the term "over-analytical" seems more accurate to describe "the condition" you're talking about. I agree with you that something that over-emphasizes the separation between individual elements is not a good thing, however I don't see that as being part of the same "scale" between accurate and not accurate. In other words, to me, being analytical means "being totally uncolored and accurate and not covering anything up" - and exaggerating the differences goes past "being totally analytical" and into something else - being inaccurate in the other direction altogether.
> 
> I prefer to use the analogy of a picture. When you take a digital photo, it can be sharp or blurry, and the color can be accurate or not, and the contrast and brightness can be accurate or not. These are all things that can be measured, and each can be more or less accurate, but I would say that "being analytical" or "being accurate" means that all of them would be "correct". Now, it may be that, from an _artistic_ point of view, we may _prefer_ a particular photo if it is less accurate (for example, it's common to deliberately blur photos of faces to hide blemishes, and to airbrush entire bodies to de-emphasize obvious flaws, and deliberately exaggerating colors looks very cool in certain cases). However, very few people I know would deliberately buy a blurry TV so old movies look less obviously bad, or deliberately buy a poor quality camera because it doesn't show up the flaws in their subjects. (Many photographers use a "gel" filter to "soften" certain pictures, or use equivalent post-processing in Photoshop, but very few would buy a camera that was _incapable_ of delivering a sharp picture if called upon to do so. Likewise, you might consider a TV that includes a "soft picture" option for watching old movies, but probably only if it has an "off switch" for when you don't want it.)
> 
> ...


 
  

 Yes I expected you to have another definition to the word analytical. But analytical is a common word that is used wildly not only in audio terms and to mean break down and separating the thing you want to analyze into smaller parts. In my line of work we use the phrase put on analytic glasses for the thing we want to resolve or analyze. 

  

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/analytical 

  

 The blur and sharpness you are talking about can be a bi-product of over or under analytical sound but is not analytical per se IMO. The same for neutral or accurately they are separate terms and explain other factors (that can be manifested at the same time as more analytical reproduction), but stand for other SQ effects. 

  

 I know that then increase the contrast in Photoshop you actually make the resolution less in other parts of the picture to get the effect of a sharper edges. More or less the same way the record industry do then remastering a record by lowering the overall dynamic to get more headroom for changing and emphasizing particular leading edge frequencies. The result is good and sharper in many people’s hifi, but often really crappie in a more reveling system. 

  

  “You can't make the blur go away by adding sharpness - at best you can create an illusion that makes it look superficially better.”

  

 Our hearing is not perfect or liner so practically the gear that can make all the fault and artifacts in frequencies that we can’t hear, or at least not hear so good is better than the one that puts them so we can, right? That has to include the fault and artifacts that can interfere with the frequencies we can hear. Normally we distinguish between the distortion/coloration that is harmonic to the one that is non harmonic. The reason is that we normally can like or at least tolerate a bit of harmonic coloration because it follows the music whilst the non-harmonic do not.


----------



## KeithEmo

stillhart said:


> I don't claim to know anything about audio engineering, I'm just a computer nerd who likes this hobby.  So please take this as it's meant:  just as a point of conversation, not contention.
> 
> It sounds like what you're talking about is the audio version of what gamers call anti-aliasing on graphics cards.  Why wouldn't something like that work well in audio if it works okay in video?  I can certainly see going overboard with it similar to how newer TV's will interpolate entire frames, giving the much-debated "soap opera effect".  But I'd think a little bit of anti-aliasing (where you average the differences between two given samples and stick and extra sample in between to smooth out the transition) could sound good if done right.
> 
> Or am I misunderstanding your point and we're talking about two different things?


 
  
 I think you've got it completely right.
  
 My point, though, is that a lot of audiophiles seem to confuse accurate with "overly analytical". You're quite right; anti-aliasing is often used with screen fonts, because it usually makes them easier to read - but you still wouldn't refer to the anti-aliased version as being more accurate. It is in fact a "euphonic visual distortion". You also generally wouldn't refer to anti-aliasing in the more general sense when describing it. (A graphic artist might say "that font is easier to read if I apply a bit of anti-aliasing", but very few would say "I kind of like the way fuzzy monitors look". Therefore, to me, when someone says that a certain device sounds "too analytical", I kind of assume that either:
  
 a) they're using the term to mean that it reveals too many details accurately - in which case it translates as "too perfect" (and, to me, there's no such thing as "too perfect"). 
  
 b) they're saying that it over-emphasizes details - in which case it isn't at all "too perfect"; rather it's unnaturally exaggerating details, which is simply an imperfection of exaggerating details (a flaw)
  
 I guess the term and usage just bug me because it seems to be one of the many ways in which something which, at least to me, seems like an objective claim, is used to describe something subjective. (To me, an amplifier, or a headphone, has a specific job - and it should do it as well as possible. Therefore, to me, saying that a headphone amp is "too analytical" makes no more sense than saying that a good microscope is "too analytical" or the picture on your TV is "too sharp". I can imagine a microscope that is fuzzy, or one that exaggerates the edges of things, but I can't imagine how one could be "too analytical" - the idea simply doesn't make sense to me. A microscope is _supposed_ to be "perfectly analytical".)
  
 On a broader note, I believe that a lot of the reason "objectivists" and "subjectivists" often disagree so loudly is that they are assuming different meanings for terms like this... and I take this as an example. Another prime example of this is "rhythm and pace". In point of fact, rhythm and pace refer to time functions. While a certain amplifier may in fact make it sound as if a certain piece of music is "less lively", an amplifier will never actually alter the timing - and a simple measurement can confirm this. Therefore, no amplifier can ever possibly alter the rhythm or pace of a piece of music, and saying that one does is simply untrue - and quite misleading. (If you want to be accurate, and not say something that technically makes no sense, then you would say that the amplifier alters the sound in some way that makes it sound to the listener as if the rhythm and pace had been altered. This puts the claim fairly in the realm of a subjective difference, which may well be due to some objective difference, rather than of a claim of an objective difference that simply makes no sense - and, since it makes no sense, is of little use in figuring out what's really happening.)


----------



## Stillhart

keithemo said:


> I think you've got it completely right.
> 
> My point, though, is that a lot of audiophiles seem to confuse accurate with "overly analytical". You're quite right; anti-aliasing is often used with screen fonts, because it usually makes them easier to read - but you still wouldn't refer to the anti-aliased version as being more accurate. It is in fact a "euphonic visual distortion". You also generally wouldn't refer to anti-aliasing in the more general sense when describing it. (A graphic artist might say "that font is easier to read if I apply a bit of anti-aliasing", but very few would say "I kind of like the way fuzzy monitors look". Therefore, to me, when someone says that a certain device sounds "too analytical", I kind of assume that either:
> 
> ...


 
  
 I see now.  And I have to say, I agree about your views on the word analytical to an extent.  But then again, whenever I read opinions on these forums, I always assume the implied "in my opinion" or "for my tastes", etc.  "Too analytical" makes no sense.  "Too analytical for my preferences" makes perfect sense.  As you mentioned, a very analytical sound with a bad source recording could sound pretty bad... as anyone would expect.  And as you mentioned, getting an imperfect amp or DAC to make up for your poor source quality seems like a silly way to go.  But hey, lots of people like tube amps; who am I to judge.
  
 To your point about PRAT, I couldn't agree more.  As a drummer, I know that there's literally no possible way your DAC, amp or headphones could change those things.  But I really like when people use that term because it lets me know I can disregard their entire review.  :-D


----------



## ZoNtO

The thing you're missing is that all of this depends on the designer and their implementation of a chip. 
  
 A TV can definitely be too sharp (hence why there is a sharpness setting):
  

  
 I think the comparisons made in the article I snagged the above image from are especially applicable to DACs, and any other electronics in the audio chain: _What does the wrong picture look like?_
  
 Someone may _prefer _the picture on the right as it adds more pseudo-detail and may initially grab your eye more, but that doesn't mean it is more accurate.


----------



## haywood

stillhart said:


> It sounds like what you're talking about is the audio version of what gamers call anti-aliasing on graphics cards.  Why wouldn't something like that work well in audio if it works okay in video?  I can certainly see going overboard with it similar to how newer TV's will interpolate entire frames, giving the much-debated "soap opera effect".  But I'd think a little bit of anti-aliasing (where you average the differences between two given samples and stick and extra sample in between to smooth out the transition) could sound good if done right.



My understanding (mostly from reading the tech-y stuff posted to this thread) is that the sample data isn't directly used like pixel data, but instead represent points on the original waveform and are used with a time-based formula to recreate the original analog waveform (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation). How well they do that is why this thread is so long.


----------



## Jozurr

hans030390 said:


> Maybe the Audio-GD DAC-19? Unless you're interested in Chinese DACs based off the old Philips TDA chips...but I would not expect particularly good performance out of anything like that, especially TDA1543-based. You might like the tone? A lot of those are also NOS (non-oversampled), which can be pretty hit and miss with some people. Seems it's a minority that prefers NOS. Granted, I have seen some people try those cheapy 1543 NOS DACs that still end up liking them enough to move on to and primarily use nicer R2R DACs, vintage or otherwise.


 
  
 Objectively, would the DAC-19 be better than for example a TransDAC, Parasound or the Adcom600?


----------



## BassDigger

stillhart said:


> I see now.  And I have to say, I agree about your views on the word analytical to an extent.  But then again, whenever I read opinions on these forums,* I always assume the implied "in my opinion" or "for my tastes", etc*.  "Too analytical" makes no sense.  "Too analytical for my preferences" makes perfect sense.  As you mentioned, a very analytical sound with a bad source recording could sound pretty bad... as anyone would expect.  And as you mentioned, getting an imperfect amp or DAC to make up for your poor source quality seems like a silly way to go.  But hey, lots of people like tube amps; who am I to judge.
> 
> To your point* about PRAT*, I couldn't agree more. * As a drummer, I know that there's literally no possible way your DAC, amp or headphones could change those things.  But I really like when people use that term because it lets me know I can disregard their entire review.  :-D*


 
  
 I totally disagree with your point about timing. To me (and in my experience), this is the key difference between the two technologies; R-2R is simply more musical, because it seems to be better at conveying rhythmic complexities, that DS even just misses. Since changing to r2r I've even, on one occasion (so far), noticed a more complex tune in some percussion, on a very familiar track (Paranoid Android), that I'd only previously noticed as a simpler beat.
  
 I'm not saying that it's normal for equipment to change the timing of the music, but I certainly think that different components, even cables, can change the way that the music is perceived, and that includes the timing. I found that R-2R and D-S are extreme examples of this.
  
  
 Regarding this ridiculous, quoting and re-quoting long posts, discussion about the meaning of a bl**dy *adjective*:
  
 Firstly, I think that unless someone is trying to state something a some kind of proven fact, every written word is opinion; I think it's more of an onus to state, to justify, why something is a fact, rather than needing to clarify that it's just a personal opinion. _(Although, sometimes it's helpful to soften the tone or your words.)_
  
 To the point: _(As I think Stillhart implies)_ If someone mentions, in a review, that a sound is 'analytical', I'd read it as 'over-analytical'; a deviation from accurate or true to the recording; that's why they've mentioned it. This is a negative in the same way that the use of the term 'under-analytical' would be. Otherwise, surely they'd say 'accurate' (or one of its synonyms). _Wouldn't they???_
  
 If you are to use the word as an adverb (analytically), or as an adjective to describe the way that you can listen, then _*that is different*_. e.g. the sound reproduction is so accurate that you can listen quite analytically (or in a very analytical manner).
  
 I don't particularly mean you Stillhart, but if you all want to go on patting each other on the back, whilst you re-post entire ambiguous comments, I'm having no further part of it.


----------



## jimvibe

bassdigger said:


> I totally disagree with your point about timing. To me (and in my experience), this is the key difference between the two technologies; R-2R is simply more musical, because it seems to be better at conveying rhythmic complexities, that DS even just misses. Since changing to r2r I've even, on one occasion (so far), noticed a more complex tune in some percussion, on a very familiar track (Paranoid Android), that I'd only previously noticed as a simpler beat.


 
  
 To suggest that you just listened more attentively would be a totally crazy idea, wouldn't it?


----------



## BassDigger

jimvibe said:


> To suggest that you just listened more attentively would be a totally crazy idea, wouldn't it?


 
  
 Absolutely. To suggest that I listened _less_ attentively would also be crazy. Wouldn't it?


----------



## Stillhart

jozurr said:


> Objectively, would the DAC-19 be better than for example a TransDAC, Parasound or the Adcom600?


 
  
 I haven't heard the TransDAC or Parasound, but I have the DAC-19 and the GDA-600.  The DAC-19 is definitely better than the GDA-600.  Based purely on what I've read about the Parasound and TransDAC (so take it for what it's worth) it's better than those too.  You have to move up to something like the Theta Basic II to get something that sounds equivalent to the DAC-19.


----------



## jimvibe

bassdigger said:


> Absolutely. To suggest that I listened _less_ attentively would also be crazy. Wouldn't it?


 

 If you have never noticed this "more complex tune in some percussion" before it doesn't mean it's not there when listening to a DS DAC. We tend to not notice a lot of things in music, our attention is limited.


----------



## BassDigger

jimvibe said:


> "If you have never noticed this "more complex tune in some percussion" before* it doesn't matter it's not there when listening to a DS DAC*. We tend to not notice a lot of things in music, our attention is limited."
> 
> Edit: If you have never noticed this "more complex tune in some percussion" before it doesn't mean it's not there when listening to a DS DAC. We tend to not notice a lot of things in music, our attention is limited.


 
 You were right the first time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 And your point: _(I guess about experiences and perception being both finite and variable) _I think that repetition and familiarity, over a long period of time, go a long way to counteracting this.


----------



## jimvibe

bassdigger said:


> You were right the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 If your volume knob is broken then maybe. Volume massively affects the perception of music.


----------



## BassDigger

jimvibe said:


> If your volume knob is broken then maybe. Volume massively affects the perception of music.


 
 I refer the Honourable Gentlemen to the answer I gave, previously.


----------



## 406382

I've already described some of my thoughts on the Schiit Modi 1 vs Metrum Quad in another thread, so rather than crossposting here's the link: http://www.head-fi.org/t/735828/gustard-h10-high-current-discrete-class-a-output-stage-headphone-amplifier/2730#post_11767056
  
 I was surprised to read the Topic Starters' specific opinion on the Modi and Quad. Particularly how the Quad was too polite for him, while he at the same time liked the Modi a lot. The Modi is a lot more polite to my ears. Then again, he was using the Modi with the Wyrd. I wasn't. And I was using the Quad with the seperate PSU and a decent USB / SPDIF converter. Perhaps those chain differences polarized my findings of these 2 DAC's further than it did for him. In any case, the Quad sounded anything but polite to me and at €275 for the DAC + PSU second hand, I find it just as much on overachiever as the Modi 1 is for €50 second hand. 
  
 What I'll do is test the Quad without the PSU, and see if that makes an audible difference. The Quad can also be fed directly from an adaptor. If it doesn't, I have a good reason for selling the PSU again, and I would have to conclude that the USB / SPDIF converter is largely responsible for the increased Quad performance, or the Wyrd improves things a lot for its money


----------



## wink

Quote:Lukeap69 





> wink said:
> 
> 
> > I'm awaiting the MAGIC DAC which is not dependent on the recorded material, but accesses the original sound when it was recorded. It comes with a gallon can of snake oil to lubricate the metaphysical machinery manufactured by  Morgul minions securely ensconced within the hermetically sealed Faraday cage casing.
> ...


 
 Short answer: YES
  
 Long answer: Due to the pervasive manner in which any radiated emanations such as RF has in its ability to impinge upon any susceptible electronic circuitry which is not completely enclosed in a radiation-proof enclosure such as a Faraday cage, it is incumbent upon the builder of said electronic equipment to negate the effects of any spurious radiation which would affect and thus detract from the proper working of the said electronics by placing it in an enclosure which would prevent the radiation from affecting the circuitry by blocking the aforesaid radiation, and thus allowing the circuitry to perform to it's designred and desired manner. Anything less is a negation of the proper construction and usage of the device being manufactured, whether it is a commercial unit or a DIY item.


----------



## lukeap69

wink said:


> Short answer: YES
> 
> Long answer: Due to the pervasive manner in which any radiated emanations such as RF has in its ability to impinge upon any susceptible electronic circuitry which is not completely enclosed in a radiation-proof enclosure such as a Faraday cage, it is incumbent upon the builder of said electronic equipment to negate the effects of any spurious radiation which would affect and thus detract from the proper working of the said electronics by placing it in an enclosure which would prevent the radiation from affecting the circuitry by blocking the aforesaid radiation, and thus allowing the circuitry to perform to it's designred and desired manner. Anything less is a negation of the proper construction and usage of the device being manufactured, whether it is a commercial unit or a DIY item.


 

 Oh that makes sense. I should have known this earlier because my DAC is only semi-hermitically sealed. This is probably why it is half musical and half analytical. Thanks for explaining.


----------



## Stillhart

With a warped record, you will hear changes in pace, rhythm and timing because the record is speeding up and slowing down relative to the needle.  With a digital playback device, there's nothing that would cause those things to change.  Unless there's some sort of DSP in there that's actively changing the signal to speed it up and/or slow it down, I guess.  I'm not aware of any DAC's or Amps that actively change the speed of the playback in order to effect the PRAT.  Can anyone provide an example?
  
 EDIT - Let's say a device does affect PRAT.  Let's say you're listening to "Happy" by Pharrell and somehow it sounds snappier and happier!  What happens when you listen to something chill by Pink Floyd?  Does it get snappier and happier too?  Or does it somehow know that you want it to be more chill?  This makes no sense to me.
  
 But as always I'm happy to be proven wrong if anyone can provide empirical evidence.


----------



## BassDigger

"If no one can measure, explain or even comprehend it, it cannot exist." said the wise scientist.


----------



## Stillhart

bassdigger said:


> "If no one can measure, explain or even comprehend it, it cannot exist." said the wise scientist.


 
  
 I'm not asking for measurements or explanations, I'm asking for a concrete example so I can hear it for myself.  I didn't believe $500 USB cables made a difference until someone let me try one.  I still can't explain that one.


----------



## BassDigger

stillhart said:


> I'm not asking for measurements or explanations, I'm asking for a concrete example so I can hear it for myself.  I didn't believe $500 USB cables made a difference until someone let me try one.  I still can't explain that one.


 
  
 You mention cables; my most recent example is a cable. When trying out a CAT5 networking cable, to replace the standard cable for my lcd2, the cat5 sounds faster. The music cannot possibly _be _faster (the only difference is the cable), but it sounds that way. This is, both new and now burnt in, the biggest difference between the standard and cat5 cables.
  
 I was going to suggest that you do what I did, a few years back, and get a cheap vintage TDA1541 player and compare it to a more 'contemporary' model. But, it seems that you already have some good R-2R stuff. I guess that you haven't noticed any difference in the prat type musicality, when comparing between dacs.
  
 Some time ago I read an article that, as I recall, explained that the differences, in the way that R-2R and D-S dacs process the data, affects the converted signal that's produced. And that the timing aspect is a key casualty of of the DS process. This stuck with me, because of my own impressions.
 Maybe I should have a serious look to see if I can rediscover this source, But in the meantime, I've been hoping that somebody contributing to this forum would have an understanding of this phenomenon and would be willing to explain it (_in terms that I can understand_).


----------



## Josh83

Has anyone who went from the M7 to the Yggy not preferred the Yggy? (I'm just curious as a current M7 owner in the Yggy order queue.)


----------



## US Blues

bassdigger said:


> "If no one can measure, explain or even comprehend it, it cannot exist." said the wise scientist.


 

 What if one *perceives* it?


----------



## Stillhart

bassdigger said:


> You mention cables; my most recent example is a cable. When trying out a CAT5 networking cable, to replace the standard cable for my lcd2, the cat5 sounds faster. The music cannot possibly _be _faster (the only difference is the cable), but it sounds that way. This is, both new and now burnt in, the biggest difference between the standard and cat5 cables.
> 
> I was going to suggest that you do what I did, a few years back, and get a cheap vintage TDA1541 player and compare it to a more 'contemporary' model. But, it seems that you already have some good R-2R stuff. I guess that you haven't noticed any difference in the prat type musicality, when comparing between dacs.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well I'm a drummer with a pretty well-trained sense of timing and rhythm.  As you agree that the music cannot be faster, the only difference has to be in your perception of the music.  Perhaps my training as a drummer makes me less likely to perceive differences in timing that we all agree aren't actually there.  *shrug*


----------



## Sonic Defender

bassdigger said:


> I totally disagree with your point about timing. To me (and in my experience), this is the key difference between the two technologies; R-2R is simply more musical, because it seems to be better at conveying rhythmic complexities, that DS even just misses. Since changing to r2r I've even, on one occasion (so far), noticed a more complex tune in some percussion, on a very familiar track (Paranoid Android), that I'd only previously noticed as a simpler beat.


 

 While you may be correct, this can just as easily (in fact more plausibly) be explained by expectation bias. It is difficult to believe that these tiny machine measureable differences are so apparent that they can be perceived as easily detected differences like that. Sorry, but until we have blind listening data demonstrating such things we need to be quite skeptical. The very notion that DAC architectures can change rhythmic perception is quite hard to fathom. I also play drums and have fairly good rhythm (that's what she said) and I just can't imagine how DACs can alter rhythmic accuracy so much so that it is audible. No disrespect meant.


----------



## BassDigger

> bassdigger said:
> 
> 
> > "If no one can measure, explain or even comprehend it, it cannot exist." said the wise scientist.
> ...


 
  
 Sorry; my bad; it should have read:
  
 "If no one can measure, comprehend or even *imagine* it......


----------



## jcx

yes its fun reading the twisting of logic to "explain" PRaT as a audiophile quality - and especially how digital audio isn't superior in PRaT to all analog recording/playback tech
  
 another interesting factoid from a lecture by a recording engineer that bridged the analog tape to digital transition is that he believed the younger generation of professional studio musicians he records that learned by listening/comparing to much more time stable digital playback now have much superior timing skills themselves over previous generations that had only mag tape an vinyl playback for reference, comparison


----------



## BassDigger

stillhart said:


> Well I'm a drummer with a pretty well-trained sense of timing and rhythm.  As you agree that the music cannot be faster,* the only difference has to be in your perception of the music*.  Perhaps my training as a drummer makes me less likely to perceive differences in timing that we all agree aren't actually there.  *shrug*


 


sonic defender said:


> While you may be correct, this can just as easily (in fact more plausibly) be explained by *expectation bias*. It is difficult to believe that these* tiny machine measureable differences are so apparent that they can be perceived as easily detected differences like that*. Sorry, but until we have *blind listening data demonstrating such things we need to be quite skeptica*l. *The very notion that DAC architectures can change rhythmic perception is quite hard to fathom*. I also play drums and have fairly good rhythm (that's what she said) and* I just can't imagine how DACs can alter rhythmic accuracy so much so that it is audible*. No disrespect meant.


 


jcx said:


> yes its fun reading* the twisting of logic to "explain" PRaT as a audiophile quality* - and especially how digital audio isn't superior in PRaT to all analog recording/playback tech
> 
> another interesting factoid from a lecture by a recording engineer that bridged the analog tape to digital transition is that he believed the younger generation of professional studio musicians he records that* learned by* *listening/comparing to much more time stable digital playback now have much superior timing skills themselves over previous generations that had only mag tape an vinyl playback for reference, comparison*


 
  
 This is just the 'great cable debate', only about a different component.
 Our expectations, realisations, perceptions, beliefs and understandings surely all differ. Actually, we don't really understand how reality works, or even what it is; never mind how we perceive it.
  
 Sure, properly done, bb tests will help to get closer to some kind of conclusion. But I don't believe they can ever be absolute.
 i.e. How would you prefer to make an important assessment?
 Spend years becoming totally familiar with one experience, in the comfort of your own home, alone and in your own time, being totally relaxed and absorbed in the experience, many times, over a prolonged period, before being introduced to the alternative.
 Or would you be more comfortable and perceptive when doing quick comparisons, in the company of others and under some pressure to find _*a result*_, whether it be proof of a difference or proof of no difference.
 In which situation would any possible differences, if they existed, be more apparent to you?
 Yes; I've missed numerous mitigating factors, in this comparison. But these are factors for both sides.
  
 My guess is that this possible phenomenon is perceptible, not because we can hear it, but more because we can hear a difference caused by its effects on the output signal and ultimately to our perception of the music (or mine and many others perception). E.g. As someone has mentioned, we cannot hear jitter. Be we _can_ hear the effects of jitter. What if the effects of jitter are more widespread than we currently understand? This is just one example, that I can think of. I'm sure there are others that I could use, if I had a better understanding of the subject.
  
 What exactly is 'audiophile' anything? I'm sorry, it's just one of those words that I'm reluctant to associate myself with. I guess it's like calling yourself a connoisseur or a gourmet. Does anyone (or anything) have an 'audiophile' certificate? I'm just a music lover who's into hifi. Like most of us, I guess. Please, let's not try and continue to discuss how this word relates to......anything.
  
 Regarding the importance of PRaT: I'd say that it's one of the (perhaps the) key fundamentals of music; timing effects not only when a note is reproduced, but the pitch of the note itself. Actually, I'm not really suggesting that pitch is a factor, between dac technologies (although it could well be). But the timing of musical notes is surely what makes them musical. And musical is what myself, and a growing number of others, find R-2R is when compared to D-S. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has a pretty good idea of why!
  
 I thought that analog timing variations are usually quite obvious and easily explainable. It would be interesting to compare the prat abilities of analog and digital. But maybe that's for another.....discussion.


----------



## pldelisle

Don't know if you remember me, but months ago I bought a Schiit Gungnir + Asgard 2. I had Sennheiser Momentum headphones. 
  
 I recently found a buddy in university that had a pair of BeyerDynamics DT990 250 ohms edition. He accepted to borrow me these ones for the week-end.
  
 Wow !!!!! This is simply not comparable to the Sennheiser. The sound has a LOT more air, better highs and bass, a lot more detailed. The only disadvantage is that I hear my mechanical keyboard while typing  (programmer's inside). 
  
 Just wanted to give reason to anybody here that was saying my Momentum were simply not enough to show the full potential of my system. Well guys, you are completely right !  
  
 Thanks !


----------



## wahsmoh

pldelisle said:


> Don't know if you remember me, but months ago I bought a Schiit Gungnir + Asgard 2. I had Sennheiser Momentum headphones.
> 
> I recently found a buddy in university that had a pair of BeyerDynamics DT990 250 ohms edition. He accepted to borrow me these ones for the week-end.
> 
> ...


 

 You need to go out and buy yourself a planar headphone and you will really be taking full advantage of Gungnir + Asgard 2.


----------



## evillamer

Interesting video on MQA.


----------



## Sonic Defender

wahsmoh said:


> You need to go out and buy yourself a planar headphone and you will really be taking full advantage of Gungnir + Asgard 2.


 

 True, but the 880 is a surprisingly competent headphone. I wish I had never parted with my set.


----------



## wahsmoh

sonic defender said:


> True, but the 880 is a surprisingly competent headphone. I wish I had never parted with my set.


 

 I spent some time last night playing with my DT880. It is a very good headphone and the treble might be slightly etched for my taste but the rest of the sound signature is very balanced. Just don't expect the more pristine imaging and liquid mid-range of the planar with the DT880. The DT880 isn't as wet in the bass department either but it isn't a slouch for an open headphone either. Conclusion, keep the DT880 because it makes a good reference headphone to compare to my newer offerings.


----------



## hipnick

icebear said:


> I recently stumbled over an interesting interview with Bob Katz. Someone who I guess really knows what he is talking about.
> The interview is from 2008 but in principle there has nothing much changed.
> I thought it was an interesting read :
> 
> http://www.monoandstereo.com/2008/02/nterview-with-bob-katz.html


 
 Thank you for sharing this. It was an interesting read, and made me discover some very good recordings from this list:
  
 http://www.digido.com/media/honor-roll.html


----------



## Sonic Defender

wahsmoh said:


> I spent some time last night playing with my DT880. It is a very good headphone and the treble might be slightly etched for my taste but the rest of the sound signature is very balanced. Just don't expect the more pristine imaging and liquid mid-range of the planar with the DT880. The DT880 isn't as wet in the bass department either but it isn't a slouch for an open headphone either. Conclusion, keep the DT880 because it makes a good reference headphone to compare to my newer offerings.


 

 That would pretty much sum up what I feel based on memory of my 880 which was the 600ohm version. I really thought it was an excellent value for the very reasonable price used sets go for and when I paired it with an SPL Auditor it was quite a nice match. I still recommend the 880 for those on a budget who aren't overly treble sensitive. While not bright, the 880 does get very close and with edgy material etched treble is certainly a possibility.


----------



## bmichels

Anyone heard the (ridiously) expensive *Goldmund Telos HDA *headphone Amp/DAC   (supposed to pair very well with the HE1000)
  
 Anyone heard it ? What's so special about it ?


----------



## LancerFIN

josh83 said:


> Has anyone who went from the M7 to the Yggy not preferred the Yggy? (I'm just curious as a current M7 owner in the Yggy order queue.)


 


doyouknowsbmean said:


> Just back home now. The whole day laundry in lab wasted me out... I like M11 more. Conclusion is short for me.I will sell the schiit combo and keep M11


 

 Not even Master 7 but Master 11.


----------



## DreamKing

If the M11 is really exactly like an M7+M9, I don't get how it is cheaper than the Master 7 by itself let alone how it's about half the price of the M7+M9. But I guess it's cool for those that have it and schitty if you bought them separately, I'd reckon the loss when reselling would be considerable  if you switched to an M11. Obviously worth it, though I wonder why a g-d doesn't just discontinue the M7 and M9 at this point. I wondered if this was off-topic a bit but considering the range of topics being discussed here and it being DAC talk central, pretty hard to be blatantly OT.
  


lancerfin said:


> Not even Master 7 but Master 11.


----------



## gevorg

They're similar but not exactly the same. The power section is different, the M7+M9 combo has less power "sharing" between analog and digital sections. Whether they're the "same" from an audible perspective, is another question.


----------



## Solude

dreamking said:


> If the M11 is really exactly like an M7+M9,


 
  
 It's not.  It's very similar but there are differences in power supply, features, dac etc.  How much those things matter is debatable given damn near every other dac/amp/combo doesn't have as overkill a power supply or analog section as most Audio-GD gear.  But the gent that had the M11 and Yggy/Rag combo sold his Schiit.  Which is not to say one is better than the other so much that they are very different flavours.


----------



## LancerFIN

Master 11 is updated Reference 10.32. If people want top of the line gear they'll buy M7+9. It costs double to get those last percents of improvements. Nothing new.


----------



## DreamKing

I see, thanks for the info folks.


----------



## DecentLevi

Good day, I've got some magic audio newz for you all!
  
 So over the weekend at the SF HeadFi meet I finally got a chance to test drive the *Geek Out v2+* portable DAC/Amp from LH Labs. It was a generous member who let me borrow his V2+ and Apple phone to let me test it out. Just seconds prior I had 'trained' my ears to the sound of the Gustard X12 which I consider to be a flagship DAC, then upon hearing the V2+ the first thing that seemed to hit me was confusion of whether I'm listening to a different DAC or not - I mean it was a full bodied, all there kind of a sound and I couldn't discern any shortcomings versus the DAC that is around 50x bigger. I heard good dynamics / punch, spot-on tonal balance, big soundstage and details across the FR. At first I had tried it double-amped by connecting it to my Project Ember 2.0 tube amp, but then after plugging in the headphones directly to the V2+ I seemed to hear better clarity and 'direct'ness for a somewhat more refined sound. I'm sure it could potentially sound even better with a proper double amp implementation, but that has yet to be worked out. The build quality seemed to leave me with a bit of skepticism whether it will hold up thru being 'weathered', but maybe that's just me not being used to the feel of a 3D printed chassis. But overall it really gave a robust, clean sound with an exceptional soundstage, especially for a small portable. I've heard both the v2 and v2+ both have the same specs, except the + version is more portable with it's battery.
  
 The other 'news' is about the *Questyle Q192*. (see link)
 This is a DAC/amp combo. My review "_This thing was totally within it's $799 value and worth every penny even working for it at hard labor min. wage! It's sound is darn comparable to the Liquid Carbon, but with robust and unique features: Wolfson 8740 chip, adaptive technology that auto-detects the impedance of your headphone to ensure that it's giving it the absolute optimal load - this allows it to drive IEMs to the big cans alike, and I even heard it adjusting to the loads of my cans for the 1 second after swapping each headphone. It really gave me a sound of being in a real moment where the songs were recorded, and I even feel like I have a memory of being on the street watching a street band from one of the songs._"


----------



## KeithEmo

bassdigger said:


> I totally disagree with your point about timing. To me (and in my experience), this is the key difference between the two technologies; R-2R is simply more musical, because it seems to be better at conveying rhythmic complexities, that DS even just misses. Since changing to r2r I've even, on one occasion (so far), noticed a more complex tune in some percussion, on a very familiar track (Paranoid Android), that I'd only previously noticed as a simpler beat.
> 
> I'm not saying that it's normal for equipment to change the timing of the music, but I certainly think that different components, even cables, can change the way that the music is perceived, and that includes the timing. I found that R-2R and D-S are extreme examples of this.
> 
> ...


 
  





 You say you disagree with my statement - but, from your explanation, it seems more like you do in fact agree with my point.
  
 I agree entirely with you that a given technology can in fact make what you refer to as "the rhythmic complexities of the music" easier or more difficult to hear. (I find that electrostatic headphones do a better job of letting me hear subtle details than dynamic headphones and planars- at least all of the ones I've heard so far. I'm not convinced that R2R DACs do a better job of this than D-S DACs, although the time errors introduced by oversampling seem like they might have a negative effect on it.) I also agree that pretty much everything anyone says is "opinion" in some form or another - unless it is a simple statement of objective facts (numbers).
  
 However, a basic requirement of any sort of intelligent discussion is that everyone involved be talking about the same thing, and using terms with a meaning that is agreed upon. If we're going to have an intelligent discussion about steak, even one that involves your opinion and mine about which restaurant does a better job of preparing steak, it isn't going to be very productive unless we both agree up front that "steak" is "cooked dead cow meat" and that "well done" means to cook it more than "rare". Likewise, your statement that you believe that certain types of DACs "do a better job of conveying the rhythmic complexities of the music" is concise, and I can tell what you mean - it makes _sense_. You've also stated that you believe it affects_ how we *perceive* timing_, which also makes perfect sense. This allows us to have an intelligent conversation about it.
  
 However, that isn't at all the case when someone says "Amplifier A messes up the rhythm and pace of the music". Using the meanings in any standard English dictionary, that sentence is a claim that Amplifier A alters the timing of the signal - which we both know is simply not likely to be true. The words "rhythm" and "pace" both very specifically refer to timing. Therefore, whatever he _MEANT_ to say, what he in fact _DID_ say is that Amplifier A alters the actual timing of the sound. And, since we all know that amplifiers don't actually introduce audible delays, we both know that what he said simply isn't true - it _doesn't_ make sense. Saying that it _FEELS_ faster to go 50 mph on a motorcycle than in a car is a perfectly valid statement, and conveys actual facts about riding motorcycles; saying that a motorcycle going 50 mph is "faster" than a car going 50 mph is simply untrue - and conveys no useful meaning.
  
 Going back to my particular example, your statement that certain types of DACs "do a better job of conveying the rhythmic complexities of the music" is useful information. Since we know that the actual "base timing" of the signal doesn't change, we can then go on and try intelligently to figure out why one type of DAC might alter the signal in such a way as to make it seem like there is a difference of that type. Since we have all that information, we can avoid wasting time measuring the time between the drumbeats to see if they're really being slowed down by one of the DACs - because we both know that's not what we're talking about.
  
 I guess I have a particular sensitivity to this sort of thing because I have a very technical background. The current "audiophile world" seems to have developed a nasty habit of making up terms, or re-defining terms that already have perfectly well known meanings. Sometimes this probably happens because the person involved simply doesn't know any better (a tape recorder actually could alter the rhythm of a piece of music - if it had poor speed accuracy, but an amplifier cannot). Other times it happens because of a reasonable attempt to describe something unknown using known terms (like trying to describe how steak tastes with some spice added that you're not familiar with). However, other times, it is a pretty obvious transparent attempt to add "mystique" to things - for various reasons. (If you're _SELLING_ a premium-priced tube, it sounds a lot more "significant" to say that it sounds "smoother and darker" than to say that it has 2 pF more grid-to-cathode-capacitance than the one that costs 1/10 as much. It may even make what I'm trying to convey easier to understand to non-technical customers. However, it also helps me sell you my expensive tube - by _NOT_ providing the information you could use to find a cheaper tube that sounds the same because it has similar electrical characteristics.)
  
 This is the part that bugs me. If I were into tube rolling (which I'm not), and I found some particular brand of ridiculously expensive tube that sounded better than all the rest in my particular amplifier, the next thing I would do would be to make electrical measurements of that tube... so I could find cheaper tubes that have the same electrical characteristics, which would enable me to get the exact same performance for a lot less money. Instead, what I find is that many people seem to actually prefer to spend absurd amounts of money on mystique... and pretend as if "there's something else going on".
  
 From a technical perspective, all DACs are _SUPPOSED_ to do the precise same thing. Two "perfect DACs" would sound exactly the same - regardless of what technology they use. Therefore, if you do hear a difference, then one or both of them must be doing something wrong. It only makes sense that, that being the case, we can figure out what that something is - and redesign _EVERY_ DAC out there to avoid doing it. (If we get that right, then, maybe, in a year or two, every $2 D-S DAC will sound just like your favorite R2R DAC - which will save us all a lot of money... or maybe, instead, there will be some new technology altogether - that combines the low cost of D-S DACs with the sound of R2R DACs).


----------



## KeithEmo

haywood said:


> My understanding (mostly from reading the tech-y stuff posted to this thread) is that the sample data isn't directly used like pixel data, but instead represent points on the original waveform and are used with a time-based formula to recreate the original analog waveform (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation). How well they do that is why this thread is so long.


 
  
 Quite so - but the context is also a bit different between a TV and a DAC.
  
 There is an "inherent flaw" in digital photography.... Imagine you're taking a picture of a perfectly sharp black and white checkerboard. Unless you have a ridiculous amount of skill and luck, your digital picture will contain quite a few _GREY_ pixels. This happens because, since each sensor site (pixel) in the camera is perfectly sharp, some of them will be "seeing" an area that falls on the dividing line between a black square and a white square, and so isn't fully white or fully black. Since the camera records the average brightness across the sensor site, that pixel will be stored as a shade of grey (half-white + half-black = grey). Another way of interpreting this fact is that, in the digital image, the edges between the black and white squares will have been "softened" or "blurred". This blurring process happens a second time when that picture is displayed on a normal TV - because most TVs do not maintain a specific 1:1 relationship between pixels in the image itself and display sites on the screen - for several reasons. So, in fact, virtually all TVs "soften" the picture, and all of them therefore apply "artificial sharpening" to offset this effect, and have the picture end up being "visually normal". (This can be avoided with computer-generated artwork, and computer monitors usually do display each pixel as a separate display site if you set the proper resolution, which is why computer monitors often look sharper than "TVs" - sometimes to the point of looking "unnatural".)
  
 In other words, since the processes involved conspire to make all TV images slightly less than sharp, and with most TVs that "sharpness" control really _IS_ a continuum - and controls the amount of artificial sharpening that is added. (There is no setting that actually softens the picture; you're simply dialing in the amount of phony sharpening to select an amount that makes the "pre-softened" picture look "normal" to you.) Of course, the process is a lot more complicated these days since various types of artificial sharpening - or blurring - may be applied at several points in the video compositing and editing work flow.
  
 However, through all that, the video or still image that you're looking at is still, in some sense, "the numbers" or "the original pixels". It doesn't have to be converted into a different format. If your TV had a reconstruction filter equivalent to the one in a DAC, then you wouldn't see dots or pixels - you would see a smooth image that simply resolved to a blur if you magnified it enough. (Some old monitors actually did have a frosted surface to blur away the pixels; but today most people find the softness unacceptable.) Apparently our eyes do a good enough job that no explicit "reconstruction filter" is necessary. (In other words, that TV picture is equivalent to the stair-step output of a DAC missing its output filter - which is why you can still see individual pixels if you look closely enough.)
  
 In contrast, with a DAC, the reconstruction filter _IS_ applied (or should be). The goal _IS_ to deliver an actual analog signal that is equivalent to an original analog signal. And the digital signal is _SUPPOSED_ to contain enough information to allow that original analog signal to be reconstructed perfectly. So, if we started out with a black and white checkerboard, and ended up with a black and white checkerboard with narrow grey lines between the black and white areas on our screen, we don't have an accurate representation of the original image. However, at least theoretically, we _CAN_ reconstruct our digital audio numbers in such as way as to get back _EXACTLY_ the original analog signal - within the limitations of the sample rate and bit depth we used. (You could equate that to making sure that those grey areas in the picture are absolutely narrow enough that they cannot be seen by human eyes.) Getting back to your point, though.... All that counts is how well our reconstructed analog output waveform matches the original - it simply doesn't _MATTER_ whether we've used the original samples or not, as long as the new samples we've calculated are actually related to them in such a way that they produce the same analog output. (With the picture, since we _ARE_ looking at the pixels, it will probably be noticeable if we alter them. With the DAC, since we're _NOT _listening to the samples, changing them isn't a problem - as long as it doesn't mess up the result.)
  
 Therefore, complaining that a certain DAC "throws away all the original samples" is technically meaningless - and being unhappy that this happens is an "aesthetic judgement".  (It's sort of like noting that the salt on your table "came from the earth", rather than being the reaction product of hydrochloric acid and lye in a lab. The latter sounds rather "worrisome", but will actually look, feel, and taste exactly the same.)


----------



## KeithEmo

bassdigger said:


> You mention cables; my most recent example is a cable. When trying out a CAT5 networking cable, to replace the standard cable for my lcd2, the cat5 sounds faster. The music cannot possibly _be _faster (the only difference is the cable), but it sounds that way. This is, both new and now burnt in, the biggest difference between the standard and cat5 cables.
> 
> I was going to suggest that you do what I did, a few years back, and get a cheap vintage TDA1541 player and compare it to a more 'contemporary' model. But, it seems that you already have some good R-2R stuff. I guess that you haven't noticed any difference in the prat type musicality, when comparing between dacs.
> 
> ...


 
  
 All oversampling DACs perform their oversampling using a digital filter - and the type of digital filters used all produce at least some of what I would call "time smear". (This is a non-technical name the "pre-ringing" or "post-ringing" that you see mentioned.) What this means is that, while the correct amount of energy at each frequency is passed through the filter, some of that energy is "offset in time". In other words, what might theoretically start out as a perfectly sharp drumbeat would end up with "a slight reverb tail" and quite possibly a "pre-verb tail" before the actual drum hit. While the time intervals involved are very short, and whether this time error can be heard at all is hotly debated, it is the major difference between the various filter choices offered by many DACs, and a lot of us hear differences between the various choices - at least with some DACs. It makes perfect sense to me that spreading out a sharp transient like a drumbeat in time might make it seem "less lively". (Of course human perception is tricky; it could also be that spreading out a very short transient might make it easier to hear, and so might make the overall rendition seem "more lively".) The point is that this is a way in which the analog output of oversampling DACs is _KNOWN_ to differ from the analog output of _NON_-oversampling DACs, so it seems like a good place to start.
  
 For those who aren't familiar with the details, _ALL_ D-S DACs use oversampling (it's part of the D-S process); _MANY_ R2R DACs don't oversample (because R2R and NOS are part of the same "retro" or "anti-D-S" philosophy), which may mean that a lot of people may be confusing the characteristics of non-oversampling DACs with those of R2R DACs. However, there are R2R DACs that use oversampling - like Yggdrasil. (Of course, Yggy also has lots of other features and design differences, so we shouldn't be too quick to assume how much of the way it sounds is specifically associated with its being R2R.)


----------



## KeithEmo

And what about jitter.....
  
 It just occurred to me that a lot of the attributes I see being applied here to D-S DACs are associated in my mind with jitter.
  
 To me, excess jitter often seems to cause sharp transients to become somewhat indistinct (I like to say that it makes a wire brush on a cymbal sound more like a steam leak). It is also a reasonably well documented fact that D-S DACs are more sensitive to jitter if it is present. (The amount of distortion that results from a specific amount of jitter is dependent on the ratio between the amount of jitter and the sample rate. If you have the same absolute amount of jitter, and a higher sample rate, then the jitter will be a proportionally higher percentage of the time between samples, and so will produce more distortion. D-S DACs operate at a very high sample rate, and so a given amount of jitter will affect them more severely. Whether jitter will be passed from the input to the DAC, and whether or not it will be reduced along the way, depends on the circuit topology of the particular DAC.)
  
 Since actually measuring jitter is rather difficult, my test methodology is to place a "jitter remover" (which reduces jitter but doesn't otherwise alter the digital signal) between the input signal and the DAC and see if it makes a noticeable difference - or not. Since there is a known difference between the sensitivity of D-S and R2R DACs to jitter, and the resistance to jitter of any specific DAC is largely unknown, it seems like we should eliminate this as a possible variable.
  
 (If you have a source with lots of jitter, and it sounds better on an R2R DAC because the R2R DAC is less sensitive to the jitter than a D-S DAC, then you may be able to make them sound the same by simply reducing the jitter to a level low enough to not affect either one. It could also mean that the audible differences between the two DAC types will vary depending on your signal source. And, to put it bluntly, a good jitter remover is a lot cheaper than a good R2R DAC. The Audiophilleo 2 has ridiculously good jitter specs - and it's only around $600; even the jitter performance of the V-Link is a lot better than that of many source components.)


----------



## Articnoise

keithemo said:


> *This is the part that bugs me.* If I were into tube rolling (which I'm not), and I found some particular brand of ridiculously expensive tube that sounded better than all the rest in my particular amplifier, the next thing I would do would be to make electrical measurements of that tube... so I could find cheaper tubes that have the same electrical characteristics, which would enable me to get the exact same performance for a lot less money. Instead, what I find is that many people seem to actually prefer to spend absurd amounts of money on mystique... and pretend as if "there's something else going on".
> 
> From a technical perspective, all DACs are _SUPPOSED_ to do the precise same thing. Two "perfect DACs" would sound exactly the same - regardless of what technology they use. Therefore, if you do hear a difference, then one or both of them must be doing something wrong. It only makes sense that, that being the case, we can figure out what that something is - and redesign _EVERY_ DAC out there to avoid doing it. *(If we get that right, then, maybe, in a year or two, every $2 D-S DAC will sound just like your favorite R2R DAC - which will save us all a lot of money... or maybe, instead, there will be some new technology altogether - that combines the low cost of D-S DACs with the sound of R2R DACs).*


 
  

 I definitely agree with you that it’s better if we can use terms that mean the same thing for everybody. So any attempt to clarify the meaning and definition of ordinary audio terms or audiophile world is a good thing, especially as we often have a bit different backgrounds and ages here.

  

 I can’t say that it bugs me if someone want to buy a truly expensive tube (or anything else for the matter) and I don’t think that the difference between tubes should be seen as “mystique” or pretend as if "there's something else going on".  The high price of some NOS tubes is often related to the fact that they are rear, just as old clocks and whisky. 

  

 As I see it we already have DACs that combines the low cost of 1 bit D-S modulation with the sound of R2R DACs. Not for $2, but for $10-15. Sabre has for example multi-bit hybrid converters like the ES9018-2M. They use delta-sigma modulation and the upper 6 bit is multibit. TI, AD, Wolfson also has multi-bit delta-sigma DAC chip. I don’t know if the true 1 bit DAC chip really has been used much currently in any mid or high end gear.


----------



## artur9

> (It's sort of like noting that the salt on your table "came from the earth", rather than being the reaction product of hydrochloric acid and lye in a lab. The latter sounds rather "worrisome", but will actually look, feel, and taste exactly the same.)


 
 Only if both are pure HCl.  The _salt from the earth_ will almost certainly have impurities that lend it a distinctive flavor compared to the lab version.  Then the lab guys can go off chasing all the barely measurable impurities to get them to have the same flavor.
  
 How relevant this is to DACs?  No idea but in a sense the situation is reversed.  At least theoretically, the DAC will be adding impurities to the pure original sounds. (I hope that's clear.)


----------



## KeithEmo

artur9 said:


> Only if both are pure HCl.  The _salt from the earth_ will almost certainly have impurities that lend it a distinctive flavor compared to the lab version.  Then the lab guys can go off chasing all the barely measurable impurities to get them to have the same flavor.
> 
> How relevant this is to DACs?  No idea but in a sense the situation is reversed.  At least theoretically, the DAC will be adding impurities to the pure original sounds. (I hope that's clear.)


 
  
 As relates to DACs, I was using that as an analogy to the fact that, even if a certain type of digital filter "throws away all the original samples and calculates all new ones", that doesn't specifically imply that the analog output that results will be any less accurate if you do it that way. Many people seem to be "intuitively certain" that calculating new samples must be less accurate than using the original ones when, in act, that may or may not be true. (I know a few people who would never get over an emotional certainty that the lab made salt would somehow "just not be the same" as "natural" salt - with the implication that, because it wasn't "natural", it was inferior for some reason. I even know one fellow with a Chemical Engineering degree who insists that, even though that lab salt may analyze as "pure salt", it is somehow "less healthy" to eat. He might even go so far as to suggest that the impure natural salt tasted "right" and the pure lab salt tasted wrong.
  
 When we're discussing DACs - as compared to other DACs - then the "pure original sounds" are already out of the picture. We have a digital audio file, and no access to any presumed analog original, so the only course we can follow is to do the conversion in as accurate a way as possible. (We can't even reasonably try to compensate for errors introduced in the A/D conversion - because we have no way of knowing what errors might be there, or whether any attempted correction actually made things better or worse.)


----------



## haywood

keithemo said:


> And what about jitter.....
> 
> It just occurred to me that a lot of the attributes I see being applied here to D-S DACs are associated in my mind with jitter.



I think that's a pretty big part of it, along with poor USB implementations. The second highest rated dac on the updated list is now the EAR Acute, though at least some of that was due to tube output stage which they liked better than Yggy's solid state one.


----------



## Lord Raven

Hi,
  
 Guys, I am looking for a DAC to pair it with my Tube Amplifier, what are good options in under 200$. I don't really want to spend a lot of money on different low cost DACs and buy something good in the end, my eyes are set on Oppo 105D atm but I am unable to source it locally. What do you think should I just buy 105D and wait for it or is there something as better as Oppo 105D out there in low cost? I would only use 105D as a DAC and might play movies, that's it. Don't need a lot of 7.1 outputs or XLR's, I am just looking for a decent DAC.
  
 This is going to be my first DAC ever, so I am trying hard not to make a mistake. Thanks for your advice, btw I read the whole first post and still not sure what to do as I am a newbie in DACs.
  
 Regards
 LR


----------



## Stillhart

lord raven said:


> Hi,
> 
> Guys, I am looking for a DAC to pair it with my Tube Amplifier, what are good options in under 200$. I don't really want to spend a lot of money on different low cost DACs and buy something good in the end, my eyes are set on Oppo 105D atm but I am unable to source it locally. What do you think should I just buy 105D and wait for it or is there something as better as Oppo 105D out there in low cost? I would only use 105D as a DAC and might play movies, that's it. Don't need a lot of 7.1 outputs or XLR's, I am just looking for a decent DAC.
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's a bit more than your budget, but I'd recommend an Audio-GD NFB-15.  I tried some cheaper DAC's and wasn't impressed with the improvements until I jumped up to this one.  The warm Wolfson DAC goes really well with tube amps, in my experience.


----------



## bixby

lord raven said:


> Hi,
> 
> Guys, I am looking for a DAC to pair it with my Tube Amplifier, what are good options in under 200$. I don't really want to spend a lot of money on different low cost DACs and buy something good in the end, my eyes are set on Oppo 105D atm but I am unable to source it locally. What do you think should I just buy 105D and wait for it or is there something as better as Oppo 105D out there in low cost? I would only use 105D as a DAC and might play movies, that's it. Don't need a lot of 7.1 outputs or XLR's, I am just looking for a decent DAC.
> 
> ...


 
 you might want to ask your question in the help and recommendations thread:  http://www.head-fi.org/f/7840/introductions-help-and-recommendations
  
 And you may want to be real clear on your budget.  You mention $200, then talk about a dac that is over $1000.


----------



## Lord Raven

bixby said:


> you might want to ask your question in the help and recommendations thread:  http://www.head-fi.org/f/7840/introductions-help-and-recommendations
> 
> And you may want to be real clear on your budget.  You mention $200, then talk about a dac that is over $1000.


 
 Sorry if I did not make my point clear, I was saying if anything as better as 1000$ exists in 200 range, since that 1000 Oppo has tons of other functionalities that I will not use. I just want a DAC. I have almost found a similar unit for 250 with the help of Stillhart!
  
 I will post in the suggested thread. Thanks!


----------



## richard51

lord raven said:


> Sorry if I did not make my point clear, I was saying if anything as better as 1000$ exists in 200 range, since that 1000 Oppo has tons of other functionalities that I will not use. I just want a DAC. I have almost found a similar unit for 250 with the help of Stillhart!
> 
> I will post in the suggested thread. Thanks!


 

 read about  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





bushmaster mk II


----------



## wahsmoh

richard51 said:


> read about
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Pretty sure the guy who was behind the bushmaster DAC was banned from Head-fi a few times for using different usernames and self-advertising his product?? am I mistaken for someone else?


----------



## richard51

wahsmoh said:


> Pretty sure the guy who was behind the bushmaster DAC was banned from Head-fi a few times for using different usernames and self-advertising his product?? am I mistaken for someone else?


 

 i dont know this story..... but the service of this guy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is first class... its that the important thing.......


----------



## HeatFan12

wahsmoh said:


> Pretty sure the guy who was behind the bushmaster DAC was banned from Head-fi a few times for using different usernames and self-advertising his product?? am I mistaken for someone else?


 
  
 LOL.  Yup, you are correct.  Those were some crazy times here.  He would pop up everywhere.  Stanley Beresford


----------



## wahsmoh

Just as notorious as nwavguy, definitely not as elusive.


----------



## HeatFan12

wahsmoh said:


> Just as notorious as nwavguy, definitely not as elusive.


 
  
  
 Hahaha.  True.  I did get into a few tiffs with both through the years (as well as many others did).  I even purchased the TC-7510 years ago from Stanley before everything came out into the light.  It was too 'hot' in the gain section so I eventually sold it.
  

  
  
  
 And I still own the O2, which I think is a great amp.  lol...Go figure.


----------



## Lord Raven

richard51 said:


> i dont know this story..... but the service of this guy  is first class... its that the important thing.......




How will I use bushmaster mkii, it does not have a USB input to connect with laptop or phone :/
I'm seriously inclined towards Audio GD nfb-11 and NFB-15.


----------



## Solude

lord raven said:


> I have almost found a similar unit for 250 with the help of Stillhart!


 
  
 Worth noting that Audio-GD is out of the Wolfson business now.  They've updated their web site to read... *The NFB-15 and NFB-10.33 last for sale ,no successor .*
  
In your price range the Oppo will best everything.  That said, for pure DACs in that price range you're looking at portables, dongles and some Schiit.


----------



## richard51

lord raven said:


> How will I use bushmaster mkii, it does not have a USB input to connect with laptop or phone :/
> I'm seriously inclined towards Audio GD nfb-11 and NFB-15.


 

 read about beresford asynch.... or wyrd schiit.....


----------



## KeithEmo

lord raven said:


> Hi,
> 
> Guys, I am looking for a DAC to pair it with my Tube Amplifier, what are good options in under 200$. I don't really want to spend a lot of money on different low cost DACs and buy something good in the end, my eyes are set on Oppo 105D atm but I am unable to source it locally. What do you think should I just buy 105D and wait for it or is there something as better as Oppo 105D out there in low cost? I would only use 105D as a DAC and might play movies, that's it. Don't need a lot of 7.1 outputs or XLR's, I am just looking for a decent DAC.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The Oppo 105D is a really great Blu-Ray player, and I highly recommend it as such. However, it would be silly to buy the Oppo 105D to use strictly as a DAC, because you're paying for a whole lot of functionality you're not going to use. (In terms of parts count, cost, and complexity, the DAC is probably about 20% of the Oppo 105D; so why pay for all the other stuff if you really aren't going to use it?)
  
 As far as finding a low-cost DAC that still performs well, the first thing you need to know is what you plan to use as an audio source. (If you plan to use a computer, and USB, then there are a huge number of small USB DACs in the $100 to $200 range that are very good - and I'll take the opportunity to suggest that you check out Emotiva's new Little Ego and Big Ego there. If you plan to connect it to a CD or Blu-Ray player, as well as or instead of a computer, then you'll also need a Coax or Toslink input, which cuts down the huge list of available options by about 2/3 - since the majority of low-coast USB DACs have _ONLY_ a USB input - which won't work with a CD player.)
  
 You also need to get your head around the "whole Sabre DAC thing". The Oppo 103D has perfectly nice DACs in it. The Oppo 105D uses Sabre DACs, which, as well as being good DACs in general, have their own distinct "flavor" (sound signature). People generally buy the Oppo 105 because they specifically like the sound of Sabre DACs - but that preference is highly personal and subjective. (They measure very good, and at least as good as other high end DACs, but whether you actually like their distinctive sound signature or not is a matter of personal preference.) It would probably be a good idea to find someplace where you can listen to something with a Sabre DAC in it, and decide if you actually like it or not, before you buy one. (There are plenty of low-cost DACs that use a Sabre chip, like the DragonFly, and the 0DAC, and plenty that don't, including the new Emotiva ones, so it makes sense to listen to one so you can decide which group you should be considering.)
  
 (You should also note that, with the Oppo 105D, you're paying an extra $100 for Darbee video processing (that's what the "D" stands for). If you're not planning to use the video at all, then that extra $100 would be a complete and total waste of money for you.)


----------



## AudioBear

Some great advice there from @KeithEmo. For the kind of cash you would shell out for an Oppo 105D you could buy an Oppo HA-1 which uses Sabre DACs and gets very good reviews.  You don't need to spend that much though and you already have an amp; the HA-1 is stuffed with other goodies you don't need like the 105D.  As  KeithEmo pointed out you don't buy DVD player to use as a DAC and you would be better off listening to gear using the Sabre and other DACS and decide which you like.
  
 This is a very crowed market sector.  Do some homework.  Read the forums here and elsewhere. Trust your ears.
  
 Finally, many stores and manufacturers will let you return gear in 15 or 30 days at no cost, or very minimal cost.
  
 It's also fair to say your tube amp will have a lot more impact on the sound signature than will most DACs.


----------



## Rockcoon

Hey, guys from a "Thoughts on a bunch". What do you think about Arcam irDAC usb? Is it sucks?


----------



## wink

Only if your ears don't like it.


----------



## Rockcoon

wink said:


> Only if your ears don't like it.



I didn't hear it. That's why i'm asking. Currently own v200 amp and HE500 cans. Need from neutral to warm dac to complete this. Budget arround 1k$. Matrix x sabre was on my list, but our russia dealer just sold last one few days ago, and they didn't know when the next party should arrive.


----------



## LancerFIN

rockcoon said:


> I didn't hear it. That's why i'm asking. Currently own v200 amp and HE500 cans. Need from neutral to warm dac to complete this. Budget arround 1k$. Matrix x sabre was on my list, but our russia dealer just sold last one few days ago, and they didn't know when the next party should arrive.


 
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DAC1911/DAC19EN.htm
  
 I wouldn't waste my money on Delta-sigma DAC. At least I couldn't hear any difference between two delta-sigma DAC's using different chips.


----------



## Rockcoon

lancerfin said:


> http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DAC1911/DAC19EN.htm
> 
> I wouldn't waste my money on Delta-sigma DAC. At least I couldn't hear any difference between two delta-sigma DAC's using different chips.



I'm living in Crimea. And can't buy anythig from Audio gd or Schiit. If everythig was that simple, i'd grab Yggdrasil and was happy.


----------



## Sonic Defender

lancerfin said:


> http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DAC1911/DAC19EN.htm
> 
> I wouldn't waste my money on Delta-sigma DAC. At least I couldn't hear any difference between two delta-sigma DAC's using different chips.


 

 You can't draw that conclusion that it is D-S DACs, perhaps they didn't sound different enough to detect, or maybe your hearing acuity isn't that good. The difference between my Schiit Gungnir and my NAD M51 were very clear, and they are both D-S DACs so why would D-S DACs be a waste of money?


----------



## gevorg

rockcoon said:


> lancerfin said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/DAC1911/DAC19EN.htm
> ...




What about:

http://audiogd.ru

or 

http://www.schiit-europe.com


----------



## Rockcoon

> What about:
> 
> http://audiogd.ru



Heard it's one guy, and you better don't mess with him. 



> http://www.schiit-europe.com



Like USA, EU don't trade with Crimea.


----------



## Lord Raven

Hi Guys,
  
 I am also looking for a DAC and came across this guy from Russia, Mike. Runs www.audiogd.ru.
  
 Is there any feedback on this dealer? I was asking him the price and he was like, you are from an oil rich country and rice should not matter to you, What.
  
 Quote:


gevorg said:


> What about:
> 
> http://audiogd.ru
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hi Rackcoon,
  
 Why do you have to say so? Is he reliable or not? I might make  deal with him. He gives like 30$ off on the stuff. But I doubt that there will be any warranty on his products, I asked him twice and he was saying in his Russian-English that this gear is good, no problem. 
  


rockcoon said:


> Heard it's one guy, and you better don't mess with him.
> Like USA, EU don't trade with Crimea.


----------



## Rockcoon

lord raven said:


> Hi Rackcoon,
> 
> Why do you have to say so? Is he reliable or not? I might make  deal with him. He gives like 30$ off on the stuff. But I doubt that there will be any warranty on his products, I asked him twice and he was saying in his Russian-English that this gear is good, no problem.



I read through this forum, and found some people very unpleased with that Audio GD dealer.

http://forum.doctorhead.ru/index.php?s=0d377ddd0ec6b5a56b5b7d955f67e221&showtopic=5456&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1


----------



## Lord Raven

rockcoon said:


> I read through this forum, and found some people very unpleased with that Audio GD dealer.
> 
> http://forum.doctorhead.ru/index.php?s=0d377ddd0ec6b5a56b5b7d955f67e221&showtopic=5456&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1


 
 Dear Rockcoon,
  
 Thanks for the caution, I tried to read 5-6 pages of this Russian forum and could not find a bad review about this dealer. I guess I will not make a deal with him. He pissed me off already, I don't understand his language and I would not recommend him. You can buy from the company directly and have 10 years of warranty and free repair, just have to pay shipment cost. This guy is weird, he opens up the package and tests it in Russia, even though Audio-GD does 100 hour burn in and testing at their facility, why would he open up the packages? It will not be a BNIB stuff, rather an Open Box stuff. I cannot trust this guy for a 30$ drop.
  
 Regards
 LR


----------



## LancerFIN

@Lord Raven Magnahifi sells audio-gd gear and ships worldwide from Netherlands


----------



## LancerFIN

sonic defender said:


> You can't draw that conclusion that it is D-S DACs, perhaps they didn't sound different enough to detect, or maybe your hearing acuity isn't that good. The difference between my Schiit Gungnir and my NAD M51 were very clear, and they are both D-S DACs so why would D-S DACs be a waste of money?


Like everything on this site it was just a personal opinion. I have only owned two different D-S DACs. NFB-15 and X12. Sure that's not many. But It's wolfson vs sabre. Honestly couldn't hear any difference. Even when tried really hard. There has been so much talk about how DACs sound the same lately. I am starting to buy into that. Except for Master 7. Everything should of course be taken with a grain of salt. Heck full salt shaker of it when talking about audio.


----------



## Lord Raven

I wanted to thank your KeithEmo, I read a great review on Wolfson vs ESS Sabree here at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/ess-sabre-9018-vs-wolfson-wm8741-8976/ Clears all the conceptions about the endless discussinon between DAC comparisons (Post #10).
  
 Unfortunately, I cannot audition any DAC in my area and totally have to rely on the reviews. I am checking out the DACs suggested (Emotiva's new Little Ego and Big Ego), they're very handy and convenient, what are the reviews on sound quality. I will mostly use my laptop and phone with the DAC via USB input.
  
 I was only considering the Oppo mainly cause I watch movies, I did mention that I will occasionally watch video on it. Its headphone amplifier will also be a waste since I have a tube amplifier. I think I shouldn't buy Oppo 105D, as it will not be cost effective. 103 is a good option but it does not have Ess Sabre DAC. 105 is a good option but it is discontinued and only available in used.
  
 I am seriously looking into Audio-GD DACs these days, NFB-15 and NFB-11, if you can say a word about these, I would be really grateful. Thanks once again!
  
 Quote:


keithemo said:


> The Oppo 105D is a really great Blu-Ray player, and I highly recommend it as such. However, it would be silly to buy the Oppo 105D to use strictly as a DAC, because you're paying for a whole lot of functionality you're not going to use. (In terms of parts count, cost, and complexity, the DAC is probably about 20% of the Oppo 105D; so why pay for all the other stuff if you really aren't going to use it?)
> 
> As far as finding a low-cost DAC that still performs well, the first thing you need to know is what you plan to use as an audio source. (If you plan to use a computer, and USB, then there are a huge number of small USB DACs in the $100 to $200 range that are very good - and I'll take the opportunity to suggest that you check out Emotiva's new Little Ego and Big Ego  there. If you plan to connect it to a CD or Blu-Ray player, as well as or instead of a computer, then you'll also need a Coax or Toslink input, which cuts down the huge list of available options by about 2/3 - since the majority of low-coast USB DACs have _ONLY_ a USB input - which won't work with a CD player.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Lord Raven

NFB10.33 is balanced DAC, which I don't need. I am considering NFB-15, maybe used if new is not available anymore.
  
 Thanks for your comments  I am also trying to find a deal on Oppo 105, nothing is available. Only option is to buy direct from Oppo.
  
 Quote:


solude said:


> Worth noting that Audio-GD is out of the Wolfson business now.  They've updated their web site to read... *The NFB-15 and NFB-10.33 last for sale ,no successor .*
> 
> In your price range the Oppo will best everything.  That said, for pure DACs in that price range you're looking at portables, dongles and some Schiit.


----------



## Lord Raven

audiobear said:


> Some great advice there from @KeithEmo. For the kind of cash you would shell out for an Oppo 105D you could buy an Oppo HA-1 which uses Sabre DACs and gets very good reviews.  You don't need to spend that much though and you already have an amp; the HA-1 is stuffed with other goodies you don't need like the 105D.  As  KeithEmo pointed out you don't buy DVD player to use as a DAC and you would be better off listening to gear using the Sabre and other DACS and decide which you like.
> 
> This is a very crowed market sector.  Do some homework.  Read the forums here and elsewhere. Trust your ears.
> 
> ...


 
 Thank you AudioBear, I never thought of HA-1 since it is also a HP amplifier and I don't need it as I already have my tube amp sitting next to me 
  
 What do you think about the HA-2? I thought to buy a used HA-2 to test it before I make expensive purchase but nothing is available in the market. Thanks again!


----------



## wahsmoh

lord raven said:


> Thank you AudioBear, I never thought of HA-1 since it is also a HP amplifier and I don't need it as I already have my tube amp sitting next to me
> 
> What do you think about the HA-2? I thought to buy a used HA-2 to test it before I make expensive purchase but nothing is available in the market. Thanks again!


 
 I heard the HA-1 at Can Jam 2015 for 15 minutes and while that may seem like not a lot of time, it gave me enough time to make a decision that it was something I am not buying.
  
 Why? It had a tinge of glare to it, soundstage wasn't the biggest I've ever heard, but the bass and low end was much like the Bifrost Uber. I would buy the HA-1 for amp and skip the DAC section. Oh ya and like always, YMMV


----------



## KeithEmo

lancerfin said:


> Like everything on this site it was just a personal opinion. I have only owned two different D-S DACs. NFB-15 and X12. Sure that's not many. But It's wolfson vs sabre. Honestly couldn't hear any difference. Even when tried really hard. There has been so much talk about how DACs sound the same lately. I am starting to buy into that. Except for Master 7. Everything should of course be taken with a grain of salt. Heck full salt shaker of it when talking about audio.


 
  
 I'm kind of surprised that you didn't hear any difference there - although it depends a lot on your source, and what you're listening through (I find it difficult to tell the difference between DACs with AKG headphones) - but not with many others. The NFB-15 also lets you pick which filter you use in the Wolfie (there are a bunch of choices)... and, while many of them do sound very similar, at least a few of the choices are noticeably different (several have a -3 dB roll off at 20 kHz or so). I had one of their models where you could switch filters with a front-panel switch, and they did sound distinctly different (with the NFB-15 you have to switch jumpers - which introduces a significant delay - and so makes it harder to tell).
  
 AudioGD is also known to voice their individual products somewhat differently - even products using the same chip sometimes sound somewhat different with them - and they also seem to sometimes change the way a product sounds, but keep the same or similar "model number" sometimes. (I would go as far as to suggest that, at least sometimes, with some of their products, their "voicing" makes more of a difference than the DAC chip.)
  
 Also, someone commented that the NFB-15 is discontinued.... but I don't see any mention of that at the moment (although I could have missed it).
  
 http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/NFB1532/NFB15.32EN_Use.htm


----------



## KeithEmo

lord raven said:


>





> I wanted to thank your KeithEmo, I read a great review on Wolfson vs ESS Sabree here at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/ess-sabre-9018-vs-wolfson-wm8741-8976/ Clears all the conceptions about the endless discussinon between DAC comparisons (Post #10).
> 
> Unfortunately, I cannot audition any DAC in my area and totally have to rely on the reviews. I am checking out the DACs suggested (Emotiva's new Little Ego and Big Ego), they're very handy and convenient, what are the reviews on sound quality. I will mostly use my laptop and phone with the DAC via USB input.
> 
> ...


 
  
 We've literally just started shipping the Ego DACs this week, so you should expect to start seeing some user reviews shortly. I'm sure you'll start hearing about them here, or you could drop by Emotiva's forums (we welcome both customers and everyone else).
  
 I've owned several of AudioGD's lower end DACs, and they do tend to sound rather different from each other - to the point where it's pretty obvious that AudioGD is _NOT_ "trying to make them sound as close as possible except for the differences between the DAC chips". (AudioGD used to sell "discrete op-amp modules - and maybe still do. Whereas I would be inclined to suggest that all op-amps _should_ sound the same - neutral - and would design such a device to be as neutral as possible, AudioGD offered a variety of models, with rather lyrical names, and each claimed to sound distinctly different - and therefore _not_ neutral.)


----------



## LancerFIN

keithemo said:


> I'm kind of surprised that you didn't hear any difference there - although it depends a lot on your source, and what you're listening through (I find it difficult to tell the difference between DACs with AKG headphones) - but not with many others. The NFB-15 also lets you pick which filter you use in the Wolfie (there are a bunch of choices)... and, while many of them do sound very similar, at least a few of the choices are noticeably different (several have a -3 dB roll off at 20 kHz or so). I had one of their models where you could switch filters with a front-panel switch, and they did sound distinctly different (with the NFB-15 you have to switch jumpers - which introduces a significant delay - and so makes it harder to tell).
> 
> AudioGD is also known to voice their individual products somewhat differently - even products using the same chip sometimes sound somewhat different with them - and they also seem to sometimes change the way a product sounds, but keep the same or similar "model number" sometimes. (I would go as far as to suggest that, at least sometimes, with some of their products, their "voicing" makes more of a difference than the DAC chip.)
> 
> ...


 

 It says so on the front page. They are discontinuing all the WM8071 products.


> *The NFB-15 and NFB-10.33 last for sale ,no successor .*


 
  
 My chain in the AB test was NFB-15 RCA-> H10 -> LCD-2F and X12 XLR-> H10 -> LCD-2F. It was optimal AB test as there was practically no pause in sound. No need to play with cables. I had so high expectations for the X12. Even with all my "expectation bias" I just couldn't hear any difference at all. I was quite mad about it too. At the time X12 was my second biggest audio purchase only dwarfed by the LCD-2. Not even a single component in my speaker system was as expensive. NFB-15 was newest version at stock settings. I didn't open it to play with the filters.
  
 Because of my experience with X12 I had very mixed feelings about the Master 7 but I decided it was something I had to experience. I thought chances were 50/50 I wouldn't hear any difference. Luckily Master 7 didn't let me down. From the first track I played I knew this was a sound I had never heard before. Now I am confident that Master 7 is bigger upgrade than going from NFB-15 to Gustard X12+H10. I am still using H10 with the Master 7.


----------



## lukeap69

@LancerFIN

I can relate because with all the DACs I've heard, DAC-19 gave me that moment where I thought the difference was very apparent. The difference between other DACs I've heard is, to me, very subtle. Perhaps because ears are not as good as others. Yet.


----------



## Rockcoon

lord raven said:


> Dear Rockcoon,
> 
> Thanks for the caution, I tried to read 5-6 pages of this Russian forum and could not find a bad review about this dealer. I guess I will not make a deal with him. He pissed me off already, I don't understand his language and I would not recommend him. You can buy from the company directly and have 10 years of warranty and free repair, just have to pay shipment cost. This guy is weird, he opens up the package and tests it in Russia, even though Audio-GD does 100 hour burn in and testing at their facility, why would he open up the packages? It will not be a BNIB stuff, rather an Open Box stuff. I cannot trust this guy for a 30$ drop.
> 
> ...



Buy direct from Kingwa is the best decission. He is a good fellow. We tried together find a way, how organize shipment of nfb 10.33 to my cursed land. We failed. But from this experience i can say, Kingwa and his team, are those, with whoom you can make a deal.

P.S
About Russian dealer. Direct link on one of the raging posts

http://forum.doctorhead.ru/index.php?showtopic=5456&st=3275#entry565377

Translate (with mine and google help  )


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






> Better don't mess with audiogd.ru, There sits a redneck . He can't explain nothing . No sese to ask him about devices. He sells them only and as a private person . A typical huckster , who curry favor to Kingwa .
> A month ago, i ordered the unit , he have agreed on the price. As a result, when unit arrived from China to AudioGD.ru , the price has jumped to 3000 . Month lost in the shuffle !
> And he generally speaks in a boorish way : plain text tells me that I should hang myself for 3000 .
> Draw conclusions , gentlemen !


----------



## KeithEmo

lancerfin said:


> It says so on the front page. They are discontinuing all the WM8071 products.


 
  
 You're right - my bad - I went straight to the product page and didn't read the news


----------



## Lord Raven

Rockcoon Bro, you just saved my life  Why Russia is a waste land, you have a dealer sitting over there haha
  
 Thanks for the direct link, otherwise I would have spent a night reading entire forum. I will continue my DAC hunt, since I am still not sure what to get. 
  
 Quote:


rockcoon said:


> Buy direct from Kingwa is the best decission. He is a good fellow. We tried together find a way, how organize shipment of nfb 10.33 to my cursed land. We failed. But from this experience i can say, Kingwa and his team, are those, with whoom you can make a deal.
> 
> P.S
> About Russian dealer. Direct link on one of the raging posts
> ...


----------



## AndyDandy

Hi, in relation to this thread, where would the Audiolab M-DAC rank? If anybody has heard this DAC could they tell me what they think of it?


----------



## whirlwind

Well, I just bit the bullet and ordered the KTE Holo Springs Level 3.

Sure hope it lives up to the expectations....coming from PS Audio Nuwave


----------



## Argo Duck

AndyDandy said:


> Hi, in relation to this thread, where would the Audiolab M-DAC rank? If anybody has heard this DAC could they tell me what they think of it?



Hmm, thought this old thread had been locked.

No direct experience, but googling key words from this thread title together with "audiolab mdac" might work for you since _search this thread_ doesn't seem available any more. Trying this unearthed this very brief impression. There may be others...


----------



## abartels

Anybody read the Denafrips thread? Terminator seems a real dac killer.....

Denafrips R2R thread:
https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/denafrips-ares-r2r-discrete-ladder-dac-close-up-view.833690/

Denafrips Terminator review:
https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/denafrips-terminator-the-king-of-r2r-dac.851085/

Cheers,
Alex


----------



## SearchOfSub (May 16, 2018)

purrin said:


> LMAO. Hahaha. That's EXACTLY how I feel.





What happenned to this guy. He does a DAC shootout saying PS Audio MKll is one of the better DACS (when infact it's on of the worst DAC I've heard with a digital glare) creates his own website with a Schiit founder, continues to bash every Chord DACS just flat out lying about how they sound while giving their own Schiit products an excellence award all the time LOL. What a bunch of clowns - it's like a circle of 4-5 losers who keep claiming they got wronged without cause on HF site when infact it was their own technical limitations that made people go away. And while this guy Purrin has been publicly saying he has been a Schill with no shame at allover the years LOL.


----------



## Sonic Defender (May 16, 2018)

Deleted, irrelevant post on my part.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I remember this thread from 2015. DACs are like fashion, they go in and out of style.


----------



## Ableza

Redcarmoose said:


> I remember this thread from 2015. DACs are like fashion, they go in and out of style.


DACs are like fashion only to the very shallow and brand-influenced.  A good DAC sounds good forever.


----------



## richard51

My Dac is Starting Point Systems  NOS dac of french  designer  M.Mariac with a minimalistic design.... I pay it a low price on Ebay.... it is miraculously good in my  audio system.... After that I throw out any idea to upgrade it....


----------



## Chris J

Wow,
Don’t hold back guys, what do you really think?
I must be stuck in a time warp.
My Beresford Caiman still sounds good........to me.
Perhaps I should trade it in for this year’s model.
What’s the fashionable DAC this year?


----------



## SearchOfSub

If it's the same sampling rate and source I actually think older Hifi audio used higher quality parts and sounded better. Like Vynil sounds much better than digital music. But where it matter now are the sampling rates. There were no DSD back in the day, but DSD is now avaiable to everyone.


----------



## commtrd (May 18, 2018)

Call me narrow minded or whatever, but my Chord Hugo 2 still gets the job done. And the Mojo diminutive in size as it is, still rocks nicely while traveling. H2 with LCD-X and Norne Solvine cable is a magic combination really.

Mojo with LCDi4 and Norne Therium is pretty darn nice out on the road. That being said, someday would love to audition some other DACs and amps.


----------



## mulveling

Last year I got an old prototype DAC from ECP audio, based on Delta-Sigma Wolfson chip, that I ended up slightly preferring to my Yggy - and at less than half the cost. I'm so over this ladder-DAC and Schiit hype machine. And yes, vinyl still rules by a fair margin, and reel-to-reel scales even higher than that!


----------



## intlsubband

Well, I might be walking backwards compared to the trend, but after a couple of years with a bit-pefrect DAC (Schiit Bimby) I've decided to "upgrade"/retrograde to an older, DS-based DAC design - the Antelope Zodiac Gold. These are now popping up in the 2nd hand market for reasonable prices.

A key determinant was the feature set of the AZG, with a seemingly endless array of digital and analog ins and outs. Will be interesting to compare its sound to the Schiit, that's for sure.


----------



## conquerator2

Ever since I purchased the R2R11, I haven't looked at another unit  The price is absurd for the performance on offer, and I much preferred the tonality to the general one that Schiit goes for. As a matter of fact, I prefer this to mid-tier Thetas and any other from the sets that I had the pleasure to own during the years I've been into audio. There's very little I can fault at the performance of this new R2R design, I wouldn't hesitate to pair it with most gear and once again looking at the price, is just damn good buy


----------



## Rhamnetin (Jun 24, 2018)

Ableza said:


> DACs are like fashion only to the very shallow and brand-influenced.  A good DAC sounds good forever.



A great example of this is the Audio Note DAC 5.1. People still swear by it. The D/A conversion is outdated compared to the enthusiast ladder DACs of today, but the output stage is what keeps people hooked.


----------



## Maxx134 (Jun 28, 2018)

Rockcoon said:


> Hey, guys from a "Thoughts on a bunch". What do you think about Arcam irDAC usb? Is it sucks?


It is a good above average performer, with a smooth sound.
Nothing to fault, but not at top level.



Rockcoon said:


> I'm living in Crimea. And can't buy anythig from Audio gd or Schiit. If everythig was that simple, i'd grab Yggdrasil and was happy.


I would suggest Holo Spring, as it is preferable to me, over the yggy (first version).




whirlwind said:


> Well, I just bit the bullet and ordered the KTE Holo Springs Level 3.


Good move as it is at level of yggy.
I still have my Holo Spring lvl1 side by side with yggy (first ver).
The holo edges out slightly in some micro detailing and a bit wider, while the yggy edges out slightly in some depth.



commtrd said:


> Call me narrow minded or whatever, but my Chord Hugo 2 still gets the job done.


Tried the Hugo2 it is a sweet sparkly performer, but still not at yggy level.
Dave is higher and does go to that top level.
Still, cant take nothing away from Hugo2.
It is a sweet unit.



mulveling said:


> I'm so over this ladder-DAC and Schiit hype machine. And yes, vinyl still rules by a fair margin, and reel-to-reel scales even higher than that!


I totally agree from my experience many years ago editing on Otari5050 reel-to-reels (and studio multitracks), they were rediculously clean and dynamic and resolving.

Also realize Schiit ladder dac is actually a ladder chip dac, not a discreet ladder dac.




conquerator2 said:


> Ever since I purchased the R2R11, I haven't looked at another unit The price is absurd for the performance on offer


Yes these are newer discreet ladder dac type , like the Holo Spring, but I am not sure it employ "correction" or "compensation" stage to the ladder resisitors, which Holo and more expensive ladder dacs employ, to correct for the resisitor tolerances and drift.

Cheaper "discreet" ladder dacs DO NOT employ a correction stage, and so rely on the stability of the resisitors and implementation.
They will still be great as they have that "true" type of sound characteristic,
 that discreet ladder dacs can achieve...
But will not match/beat a yggy..

For other great ladder dacs,
Look also at Soekris dacs..


----------



## Rhamnetin

I would really like to see that linear compensation of the Holo Audio Spring DAC be adopted in other DACs since that addresses one of the biggest problems of resistor ladder DACs. Preferably, I would like to see it in a fully differential and balanced high end DAC perhaps with FPGA correction as well, also borrowing from Metrum and Denafrips.

At the same time, said DAC should also have a really nice output stage since this often goes ignored.

I have a Hugo 2 right now, invaluable device to me since I make use of its portability. But next year I want to buy a new DAC for home use, essentially what I described above (and with both NOS and OS modes).


----------



## Maxx134

Rhamnetin said:


> Metrum and Denafrips.


I believe those use error corretion  implementation of different types.

Metrum using some "feed-forward" type of corretion using multiple dac modules,

Denafrips I haven't looked into because of price range,

TotalDac uses overlapping dac modules for correction,

And soekris rely on sign-magnitude implementation...
Not sure about that.

Theres a  few more cheap ladder dacs out there (without correction implementation) as well.
And They all seem to be at a high performance level which was recently unnatainable ..
Look at the massdrop dac as an example,
(2days left):
*Massdrop x Airist Audio R-2R DAC*
*$349.99*

Cheap!


----------



## conquerator2 (Jun 28, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> Yes these are newer discreet ladder dac type , like the Holo Spring, but I am not sure it employ "correction" or "compensation" stage to the ladder resisitors, which Holo and more expensive ladder dacs employ, to correct for the resisitor tolerances and drift.
> 
> Cheaper "discreet" ladder dacs DO NOT employ a correction stage, and so rely on the stability of the resisitors and implementation.
> They will still be great as they have that "true" type of sound characteristic,
> ...



According to Audio-gd, the R2R11 employs "ultra-high speed CPLD processors to correct the discrete resistor ladder". (wihile their higher-end R28 uses an FPGA chip for this which should be more precise still)
So they do seem to employ the correction in some way.
Regardless, it sounds pretty sweet to my ears! But I'll caveat with the fact that I am not a big fan of Schiit's house sound, though I did like what they did with their Thetas back in the day (my previous R2R DAC)


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm seeing what appears to be a lot of misunderstanding about the idea of "correction" in R2R ladder DACs.

I can't say for sure what everyone is doing, but it is not at all practical, or necessary, to correct for the VALUES of the resistors in a ladder network.
The resistors can be LASER trimmed for best accuracy, and the entire circuit could be placed inside a temperature control chamber of some sort, but actually correcting the signal for the accuracy of the resistors is impractical.
(More to the point, in order to do it to any useful degree, you would need to apply such massively complex DSP processing as to defeat the entire purpose of a ladder DAC.)
(It would also be the very antithesis of "bit perfect" since each bit would have to be entirely recalculated to include a correction factor.)

In most of the DAC designs I have had the opportunity to learn about in detail, the corrections are intended to minimize or eliminate what are basically "switching glitches" in the operation of the DAC.
The main weakness of ladder DACs is that, each time the value changes, all of the bits must switch at EXACTLY the same time, or you get a really nasty glitch (rough spot).
(If the bits don't switch at precisely the same time, then, for some tiny instant, after some have switched but others haven't, the output value is very wrong.)
Some of the corrections I've seen involve carefully muting the output signal for the tiny instant between states where the output is incorrect (then smoothing over the gap).....
Others use multiple DACs acting in parallel on the same signal.....
The outputs may then be averaged together to average out the errors.....
Or they may be interleaved.... (with some circuit that essentially is careful to use the output of each DAC when it is correct and avoid using it when it's between correct output states).
This can be especially complicated to do when, like Schiit audio, you're using DACs that were not specifically designed for audio applications.
(Many non-audio DACs are designed so that they stress providing an accurate output after being presented with a sample and allowed to "settle" for some short time...but do NOT worry much about a smooth transition between samples... and this problem can be complex to fix.) 



conquerator2 said:


> According to Audio-gd, the R2R11 employs "ultra-high speed CPLD processors to correct the discrete resistor ladder". (wihile their higher-end R28 uses an FPGA chip for this which should be more precise still)
> So they do seem to employ the correction in some way.
> Regardless, it sounds pretty sweet to my ears! But I'll caveat with the fact that I am not a big fan of Schiit's house sound, though I did like what they did with their Thetas back in the day (my previous R2R DAC)


----------



## Maxx134

KeithEmo said:


> I'm seeing what appears to be a lot of misunderstanding about the idea of "correction" in R2R ladder DACs.
> 
> I can't say for sure what everyone is doing, but it is not at all practical, or necessary, to correct for the VALUES of the resistors in a ladder network.
> The resistors can be LASER trimmed for best accuracy, and the entire circuit could be placed inside a temperature control chamber of some sort, but actually correcting the signal for the accuracy of the resistors is impractical.
> ...


I read your referring to the ladder dac chips that are non-audio, which are mainly the schiit multibit dacs.

But These new "ladder"  dacs are actual resistors, so that has to be different, right?

No where do I read about any "glitch" Problems with the new ladder dacs ( that not using chips.)..

In fact I only read about that with schiit dacs, which I read they solved.

When I looked, I only read about true ladder (resistor) dacs (not chip) concerned about implementing their own methods,
in to keep the resistors stable and accurate.

Please correct if I am wrong because I am way Unfamiliar with these things.

I also see that both AKM and LeSabre have recently come out with new dac chips,
So it will be interesting to see how new dacs perform with those new chips...


----------



## Sapientiam

Maxx134 said:


> No where do I read about any "glitch" Problems with the new ladder dacs ( that not using chips.).



Where you read about 'sign magnitude' architecture in Soekris, its to address this very issue of glitching.


----------



## KeithEmo (Jun 29, 2018)

The way a multi-bit DAC works is that you have a bunch of voltage or current sources - one voltage or current output for each bit.
Each bit is twice the value of the bit below it (so 1v, 1/2v, 1/4v, 1/8v etc...  or 100 mA, 50 mA, 25 mA, 12.5 mA etc...)
The "ladder" is simply the way they've chosen to generate these voltages.
Connected to these in some fashion are a series of electronic switches.
The switches turn on and off to "use" each bit by connecting it to the output - or not.
(These switches are designed to be either ON or OFF... so you can't really fiddle with their values much beyond that.)
It is these voltages or currents that need to be very precise.

If you know a little bit about voltage dividers, you'll realize that "doing this the obvious way" would require a whole bunch of resistors of all different values.
The "ladder" part of the description refers to the fact that someone a long time ago figured out a way to derive these voltages using a whole bunch of resistors of the same value.
This is a huge deal because it's easy to buy precision resistors in big batches of the same value - and to get them really perfectly matched... so it makes getting all those different values correct much easier.
(A typical "ladder network" uses all resistors of two different values.... you can Google for details of exactly how they're connected.)

There are also similar multi-bit DACs that use arrangements of capacitors rather than resistors.

However they ALL share the fact that, at some point, there are switches that must change state as a new number is read in...
And ALL of them have the problem to some degree that the switches cannot switch exactly at the same time...
And, because of the disparity, there is always at least a tiny "rough spot" when the switch actually occurs.
There are various ways of keeping this from affecting the output too badly - and many purpose-designed audio DAC chips have these built in.
And, if you use a chip that does not, or if you build your own DAC using separate parts, it's one of the design problems you have to solve.

There's not much you can do to make the resistors more stable or accurate... other than make the out of the right materials... and control their environment.
When resistors are made, they are often LASER trimmed (which, just like it sounds, means that a machine sits there with a meter and burns little bits off the edge until they measure precisely what they should).
Most resistors vary with temperature, you can shut your resistor in a little box with a thermostat (that's what a "crystal oven" is).
Also, by carefully mounting all of the resistors in your ladder near each other, or on the same plate, you can try to make sure they stay at the same temperature.
(Since all of the resistors in a ladder are the same, they are probably affected the same by temperature; so, if they all stay at the SAME temperature, so their values vary together, the value of the voltages between them will stay the same.)
There is also a reference voltage that feeds the ladder.... and you can design the circuit that makes that very carefully and make sure it's stable.
(But, since everything uses the same reference voltage, if that drifts a little over time, the output level will shift a tiny bit, but it won't cause any real harm.)

Virtually all modern DAC chips these days are actually multi-but Delta-Sigma implementations....
Which means that they are a sort of combination....
They have one or more three to five bit multi-bit DAC circuits, connected to a Delta-Sigma section.... (there are technical reasons why they do it this way).

The way the insides of a R2R DAC works are actually pretty simple... you could draw one on a napkin with a thick pen.
Delta-Sigma chips are very complex... and each manufacturer does it somewhat differently.
Both the Sabre and AKM chips are Delta-Sigma designs, and both include a lot of extra features as well..... so they are VERY complex.
(They also work very well.)

I think you'll find that many manufacturers tend to sort of blur the descriptions....
What they're doing is implementing "deglitching" to eliminate those switching issues....
There's really nothing you can "do" to "keep a resistor stable" other than choose the right one to begin, keep the reference stable, and mount them such that they remain at the same temperature.

The reality is that none of this cool sounding tech stuff really matters.....
All that really matters is how closely the ANALOG output ends up resembling what it's supposed to.....



Maxx134 said:


> I read your referring to the ladder dac chips that are non-audio, which are mainly the schiit multibit dacs.
> 
> But These new "ladder"  dacs are actual resistors, so that has to be different, right?
> 
> ...


----------



## Ableza

When manufacturers "blur the descriptions" I ask what are they hiding, and what sort of non-technical jargon are they using?


----------



## KeithEmo

To be honest, the subject itself is rather complex, which tends to lead to all sorts of simplifications.
Some of them seem to me to be innocuous, while others seem more intended to mislead, at least vaguely.
And some are more misleading is a sort of philosophical or "big picture" sense.
I'm not sure the term "hiding" is appropriate.... "spinning" seems more accurate to me.

In the specific context in which I made that statement.... I was referring to the idea that "an R2R DAC is made up mostly of a series of passive resistors".
The general spin behind that idea is that, being very simple, and mostly passive, an R2R DAC is "a more direct connection to your music" and so will sound better.
The reality is that, while the basic idea is in fact very simple and very elegant, there are some very nasty devils in the details.....
Which is why so many R2R DACs perform so poorly...
And why, even though the idea seems to be simple, the few that perform even adequately end up being so expensive... 
(Most of what you're paying for in something like a Schiit Yggdrasil is the complex design and extra circuitry necessary to get the "simple basic design" to actually work right.)
In short, an R2R DAC that performs well is FAR from "a simple device made up mostly of passive resistors".

In the end, however, most of the "blur" that I find most worrisome is the way many vendors position their products.

For example (I have a specific brochure in mind here - but I won't embarrass anyone by naming it).....

- they start by positing that "an R2R DAC is clearly the most simple and straightforward path from digital audio to music"
- they then state that Delta-Sigma DACs have become so popular because they deliver excellent specifications at very low cost (which is true)
- (however, they manage to insinuate that the companies are somehow foisting something shoddy on you by selling something cheap that performs very well)
- they then go on to explain how oversampling alters the music
- (they do explain the purpose served by oversampling - but downplay the significance of the necessity)
- they then describe their circuit - which avoids oversampling and also avoids "output filters that alter the music"
- (this time neglecting to mention that the output filters are part of the process and that, without them, the output is simply not correct)
- (they use transformers, which also serve as output filters, although not very good ones.... and ones whose performance will vary depending on how you load them.)
- they then conclude that "a NOS R2R DAC is the obvious choice for an audiophile"

(If you find that confusing and incomplete - it is..... but I outlined the brochure exactly as that company printed it.)

The basic principles behind DACs are quite simple... but the details are quite complex...
It would take a thick book to actually tell you everything you need to know about DACs.
Therefore, each manufacturer cherry picks, and provides the information that is most likely to encourage you to buy their product.
Often with a liberal sprinkling of totally unsubstantiated inserts about "why their product should be your obvious choice if you're a serious audiophile".
(And, no, I'm NOT going to get into a list of the actual lies that I've noticed lately.)



Ableza said:


> When manufacturers "blur the descriptions" I ask what are they hiding, and what sort of non-technical jargon are they using?


----------



## Sapientiam

KeithEmo said:


> - they then describe their circuit - which avoids oversampling and also avoids "output filters that alter the music"
> - (this time neglecting to mention that the output filters are part of the process and that, without them, the output is simply not correct)



This is an interesting reversal of the truth - the output filter's _absence_ is what alters the signal (not 'the music'). I find the use of the term 'the music' in technical blurb to be fairly strongly correlated with spin. Circuits know nothing of 'the music' they only work with the signal.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Sapientiam said:


> This is an interesting reversal of the truth - the output filter's _absence_ is what alters the signal (not 'the music'). I find the use of the term 'the music' in technical blurb to be fairly strongly correlated with spin. Circuits know nothing of 'the music' they only work with the signal.


How are the signal and music different? In the context of the discussion isn't the music a signal, and the signal the music or am I perhaps not understanding you?


----------



## murphythecat

my experience

I have a Yggy v1 with eitr and a NOS R2R DAC, the mosaic t by ec designs. the Mosaic T have been compared to the metrum pavane http://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/review/digital-reviews/spdif-dac-reviews/metrum-pavane/  the ec designs was preffered vs the Pavane so I feel I have a good idea what a good R2R dac sound like and what more traditional dac sounds like in the Yggy.

To me, NOS R2R is more musical, nuanced, tonally right. The yggy force a bit details on you, is tonally tilted a bit too more to the trebly side and a bit harsher. for hd650, I feel the yggy is better, for my hd800, ill take the NOS R2R. 
cheers


----------



## Sapientiam

Sonic Defender said:


> How are the signal and music different? In the context of the discussion isn't the music a signal, and the signal the music or am I perhaps not understanding you?



Perhaps its just my ultra-picky attitude but the way I see it, the signal is a carrier for (one channel of) the music, but for there to be music there needs to be a listener whose ear/brain interprets the vibrations in the air as such. I see music as a percept, something meaningful to us as human beings but a signal is just oscillations on a wire, no particular meaning, just information.


----------



## wmedrz

Sonic Defender said:


> How are the signal and music different? In the context of the discussion isn't the music a signal, and the signal the music or am I perhaps not understanding you?



Deep crap bruh


----------



## KeithEmo

You are exactly correct.... the music is the signal.
However, it seems to suit some people better to mentally separate "the signal" (as a physical thing) from "the music (as a sort of abstract). 

Likewise, in a DAC, the math on which digital audio reproduction is based says that the reconstruction filter is a necessary part of the process.
The way in which a DAC works causes spurious "stuff" to come into existence; the reconstruction filter removes that extra "stuff", and what remains is what you wanted - an accurate replica of the original content.
So, clearly, if you omit a proper reconstruction filter, extra junk remains that should have been removed, and your output will be _LESS_ like the original than it should be.
(The spurious "stuff" is_ INHERENT_ in the process; _ALL_ DACs generate it; it is not a flaw or an error; it is _PROPER_ for the spurious images to be generated, and proper for them to then be removed by a filter.)
The fact is that, in simplest terms, what matters is that what comes out is as close to the original as possible - the actual details of how you get it that way really don't matter other than in terms of the final result they produce.
(But, obviously, if you don't do it correctly, then your results will not be accurate.)

However, in the audiophile world, and especially among audiophiles who don't fully understand the technology, there is an "intuitive belief" that, when it comes to circuitry or processing, "less is _ALWAYS_ better".
They will insist, with some justification in "pure philosophy", that "the signal" is merely something that "gets you to the music itself"... 
If you read the sales brochures on many "niche audiophile DACs", especially those that don't employ oversampling, you'll often find an inference that, compared to other DACs, "they are simpler and more elegant".
They will try to convince you that, while that nasty reconstruction filter produces an output signal that "specs better", it actually "gets between you and the music" and so you're better off without it.
The reality is that they are starting with extra spurious high frequency information on the output (just like all other DACs)...
Then, since no circuitry has infinite bandwidth, _something_ is acting as a low-pass filter... and, if you want an accurate output, it should be designed very specifically to meet certain parameters. 
However, instead of employing a carefully designed filter, that produces accurate results, they are relying on a transformer, or limitations in the circuit design itself, to "informally perform the filtering"....
The result is something that sounds interesting, and may even sound pleasing, but may not be very accurate, and which may sound very different depending on what load you connect it to.

Likewise, they will suggest that you ignore how well Delta-Sigma DACs _WORK_ and focus on all the complicated processing they're inflicting on your precious music.
The implication is that, even though the output seems to be very accurate, all that complicated processing_ must_ have caused some subtle harm to the music - if only you listen carefully enough to hear it.
(You will often hear claims that seem to suggest that Delta-Sigma DACs are bad _because_ they seem to deliver very good performance at low cost - as if "great performance really cheap" is an embarrassment or "there must be a catch".)

Similarly, even though DSD is a purely digital format, fans will claim that "it's more like analog" (Sony made that claim in the original marketing literature - because a picture of the digital DSD data "looks more like an analog waveform than PCM data").
A very popular claims was that, "unlike PCM, you can play a DSD signal through a simple capacitor filter and hear your music", or even that "you can play DSD straight to your speaker without a filter at all".
The reality is that, as with other DACs, if you do so, you have omitted the reconstruction filter, and are relying on your amplifier or speaker to act as a filter instead - with predictable poor results.

A similar mythos has built up around "bit-perfect".
Conceptually, it makes sense that devices like digital music players should be bit-perfect if at all possible.
Every time you allow something to alter the bits, you are allowing the signal to be changed; and music players and other devices have a long history of _degrading_ the signal by changing it (think Windows player programs).
However, it's easy to get caught up in the hype, and forget that no DAC is bit perfect (every DAC outputs an analog audio signal - and so discards every single bit of the original digital signal).
Therefore, at that point, all that really matters is that the DAC produces an analog output that is as close as possible to what the digital input signal _REPRESENTS_.
For example, there's no promise that "an oversampling filter that accurately preserves the original samples" will deliver a more accurate analog output than "an oversampling filter that discards all the original samples and replaces them with all new ones".
(There's no specific promise that either option will produce an analog output that's closer to the original - because there are a huge number of other factors involved.)

To go back to the original phrase........
Many audiophile companies would prefer to convince you that "there's more to delivering the music than simply reproducing a signal".... 
(Presumably, some of that "more" is supposed to account for the fact that "two DAcs that measure identical can sound different" and "even if two circuits produce the same identical output one can be 'better' than the other".)



Sonic Defender said:


> How are the signal and music different? In the context of the discussion isn't the music a signal, and the signal the music or am I perhaps not understanding you?


----------



## KeithEmo (Jul 3, 2018)

How you look at that really depends on the context.....

In the philosophical sense I agree with you.
Music is "the experience" and the signal is "how the experience gets to your brain".

However,when we're discussing audio _technology_, the only part we're really talking about is the signal.
(So, when we're discussing audio _equipment_, we generally would say that "the job of the equipment is to deliver the signal to you as accurately as possible".)

And, yes, there is room for asking whether the goal is to reproduce the _signal_ as accurately as possible, or to reproduce the _experience_ as accurately as possible.
Would "a home theater system" be more accurate if it made your floor sticky and wafted the smell of popcorn into the air?
And, if you wanted to light up a Rembrandt, would it be more accurate to use lights that accurately displayed the colors of the paint, or to match the light in Rembrandt's studio?

However, in the specific context I'm referring to - which is "descriptions of audiophile gear".......
We often see various phrasing that suggests that the music is some sort of an intangible part _of the signal_.
As a rough analogy, they seem to believe that there is some sort of "soul" involved that is connected to but separate from "the signal".
For example, we hear of gear "that specs well but doesn't convey the music well"....
And we often hear descriptions of gear "conveying the emotion in the music" (or failing to do so) as if it were something separate from simply reproducing the signal accurately.

And we hear descriptions of things like "rhythm and pace".
The dictionary definitions of those words tell me unambiguously that, if the signal is playing at the correct speed, then the rhythm and pace must be correct.
However, audiophiles will insist that certain equipment can somehow get them wrong - even though acknowledging that the speed itself is dead on perfect.
(I'm inclined to suspect that, with claims about "rhythm and pace", some other characteristic, perhaps an odd frequency response or some form of distortion,
"makes the music sound less lively", which people then _MISINTERPRET_ as affecting the actual rhythm or pace of the notes...
they're really claiming that "it sounds as if the rhythm is wrong", but simply not explaining their experience very precisely.)

As I mentioned above, there is a sort of grey area between conveying the signal and conveying the experience.
For example, a live concert may sound a certain way, but the recording you purchase may sound quite different.
Then, a particular piece of equipment may add a significant amount of second harmonic distortion.
And this may, at the same time, make the reproduction of the signal obviously _LESS_ accurate, but make the subjective listening experience _MORE_ like being at the actual concert.
So do we "rate" it based on the reproduction of the signal, or on the reproduction of the original experience?

My personal impression is that we should rate the accuracy with which the signal is reproduced... and leave it to the mastering engineer to get the signal right.
After all, that added distortion that makes a certain recording sound better, is equally likely to make another one sound worse.
But that is clearly a matter of personal preference.



Sapientiam said:


> Perhaps its just my ultra-picky attitude but the way I see it, the signal is a carrier for (one channel of) the music, but for there to be music there needs to be a listener whose ear/brain interprets the vibrations in the air as such. I see music as a percept, something meaningful to us as human beings but a signal is just oscillations on a wire, no particular meaning, just information.


----------



## Sonic Defender (Jul 3, 2018)

@KeithEmo I completely agree. It isn't how we get there, but that we get there that matters. I couldn't give a hoot how complex, or how simple a topology is. As long as the signal/music reaches my ears and is perceived within the finite ability of my hearing brain as accurate and pleasant, I'm content. I also like your point that even if a technology may be objectively less accurate, if the user likes or prefers that result then the device is successful in bringing musical pleasure to life. Just like operating systems, I don't care Mac or Windows, blah, blah, blah, this is better than that, I don't care, if they both get me to where I want to be in essentially the same manner and time, the differences are just frosting, the cake is the results.

I don't take a position on DS, R2R, NOS DACs, I'm sure I would be able to find implementations of each type that I completely enjoy. I listen to music, what is behind the audio signal reproduction is transparent to me.

I also completely agree with your point that just because technology has given us the ability to produce capable DS chips inexpensively, that isn't an indication of inferiority or a scam. Nobody complains that the multi-core and advanced CPU architectures of today are by way of comparison much less expensive to produce than when the commercial activity began years ago. People just accept the massive performance improvements.


----------



## richard51 (Jul 3, 2018)

I think that between the experience of music by the brain  and the right  conveying of the signal by a dac, there is an area that is not touched often by engineers or audiophile here... My own experience is that ALL piece of gear interact with one another at a level that is not taken into account by many people.... And this is : first the very big difference that  mechanical isolation, and second the electro-magnetic interaction and isolation between pieces of gear,  finally and thirdly, last but not least, the cleaning of the electrical grid of the house...After my experiments I dont trust anymore any reviewer, and I think that the more important factors in audio are these 3 cleaning methods +_room treatment_ …. My NOS dac does not have any of the limitations in my system that many reviewer wrote about... The reason is these cleaning methods in my audio room and the lack of these cleaning methods by some reviewers.... I am  right with you about the marketing methods  by some...Thanks for your posts...





KeithEmo said:


> How you look at that really depends on the context.....
> 
> 
> Music is "the experience" and the signal is "how the experience gets to your brain".
> ...


----------



## Sapientiam

KeithEmo said:


> Likewise, they will suggest that you ignore how well Delta-Sigma DACs _WORK_ and focus on all the complicated processing they're inflicting on your precious music.



Here's where I part company with your view - the WORK of an audio DAC is to deliver a signal which listeners are able to interpret as music. To take one example, ES9023 (a popular cooking S-D DAC with decent enough measurements) doesn't do that for me.

I take it that in your view the 'work' of a DAC is to deliver immaculate measurements?


----------



## Sonic Defender

Sapientiam said:


> Here's where I part company with your view - the WORK of an audio DAC is to deliver a signal which listeners are able to interpret as music. To take one example, ES9023 (a popular cooking S-D DAC with decent enough measurements) doesn't do that for me.
> 
> I take it that in your view the 'work' of a DAC is to deliver immaculate measurements?


Just out of curiosity, to your mind, if a DAC measures really well, what are the mechanisms by which it changes a signal to something different? If it measures well, what else should we go with to determine how it will do? And assume that the DAC chip that measures well is implemented properly. Where will it fail in terms of audio signal reproduction?


----------



## Sapientiam

Clearly with DACs that don't deliver a signal that results in audible satisfaction (various S-D DACs I've tried do not) then there's something being added to the signal which wasn't in the original. My current hypothesis is that its noise being added, modulated by the signal. So I reckon we need to extend the current suite of measurements to include relevant tests for noise modulation.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Sapientiam said:


> Clearly with DACs that don't deliver a signal that results in audible satisfaction (various S-D DACs I've tried do not) then there's something being added to the signal which wasn't in the original. My current hypothesis is that its noise being added, modulated by the signal. So I reckon we need to extend the current suite of measurements to include relevant tests for noise modulation.


To be fair, before we do that even we need to prove that noise modulation is somehow audible and discretely detectable by the brain, and if it is, at what point does it become audible. Measureable does not mean audible, people really over-estimate how sensitive the hearing system in the brain is. It is certainly amazing, but it is still limited. We can't assume something has an impact simply because it might. I am not saying that there is nothing to your point, but these are things that need objective data. Not trying to grind your gears mate so hopefully you don't take this as a personal attack, just a conversation among curious people who enjoy audio.


----------



## Sonic Defender

And we always need to remember the most important criterion for a good theory, if it isn't falsifiable/testable, it isn't a valid theory.


----------



## Sapientiam (Jul 3, 2018)

Sonic Defender said:


> Measureable does not mean audible, people really over-estimate how sensitive the hearing system in the brain is



Yes, I agree, but they also under-estimate how sensitive we are to certain _aspects_ of the 'music'. So for example, using Fletcher-Munson to estimate what's going to be audible and what's not, when those curves are built from the audibility thresholds of single tones, not music. To me, that's a huge leap of faith to assume single tone audibility thresholds should be transferable to music and needs detailed justification which so far I've not seen.

Some of the most promising work in audio perception comes from Al Bregman's 'Auditory Scene Analysis' but IME numbers guys seem strangely reluctant to enter into discussion of it.

As regards your comments on 'needing to prove', I disagree. 'Proof' exists in mathematics only, there's already evidence that some S-D DACs (I'm not extending the discussion to S-D in general) don't deliver the goods sonically.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Sapientiam said:


> Yes, I agree, but they also under-estimate how sensitive we are to certain _aspects_ of the 'music'. So for example, using Fletcher-Munson to estimate what's going to be audible and what's not, when those curves are built from the audibility thresholds of single tones, not music. To me, that's a huge leap of faith to assume single tone audibility thresholds should be transferable to music and needs detailed justification which so far I've not seen.
> 
> Some of the most promising work in audio perception comes from Al Bregman's 'Auditory Scene Analysis' but IME numbers guys seem strangely reluctant to enter into discussion of it.
> 
> As regards your comments on 'needing to prove', I disagree. 'Proof' exists in mathematics only, there's already evidence that some S-D DACs (I'm not extending the discussion to S-D in general) don't deliver the goods sonically.


Interesting post, and thanks for the thoughts. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the need for evidence. While I enjoy the subjective very much, ultimately I know that for any actual phenomenon that is experienced subjectively, it is ultimately tied to biomechanical process systems in the brain and body. People are just biological machines, there is nothing going on that isn't subject to the laws of physics, audio perception is just another process, nothing more, nothing less. There may well be things happening that aren't currently measureable, but because we don't know if they exist at all, or if they do, how to measure them, it is useless to speculate about them in terms of how they impact the perception of sound.

And how do we determine what if any impact these, lets for now call them anomalies, have on music? Even if we determine that some "noise" artifact travels along with the rest of the signal, all the way, what if our brain never evolved the mechanisms to detect and interpret this noise because it is of no consequence? Even if something can be detected again, what is the sensitivity of the brain and what is the threshold of meaningful audibility? 

I look at it this way, we know what we can hear, and clearly the VAST majority of a well reproduced audio signal is not noise, it is meaningful information. Even if there is a miniscule amount of noise that journeys along with it, are we to believe that this tiny, tiny, tiny little fraction of the sound for some reason has a big impact during decoding and perception? If so shouldn't everybody be sensitive to this noise? Our brains are going to be so similar that to assume a difference is not easy to support. And suppose we discover that a tiny fraction of the population is sensitive to this noise, should we call a technology that works flawlessly for the majority a problem? I think from a biological/evolutionary perspective the people with the sensitivity would by definition have the problem due to the rare sensitivity they possess. It is like a rare genetic disorder that makes a person sensitive to any sunlight. Would we say the sunlight is the problem when clearly the vast majority of people do not share that level of sun sensitivity? No, we would say that the person has a rare disorder, not that the sunlight didn't work properly. So given how prevalent DS DACs are, and that most people don't seem to find them to be an issue, I don't think we can simply assume that the technology is the issue. It might be, but we haven't established that. It would be more scientifically plausible to suggest that those that really are measurably able to detect a DS DAC (blind listening trials) have a sensitivity.


----------



## intlsubband

So far I'm really enjoying the AZG. I noticed that it is quite peculiar in that it is DS NOS DAC. All other DS DACs I'm aware of use upsampling/oversampling. It is also of note that the product that replaced AZG, the Platinum, implements DSD and is upsampling all input to its highest DSD reading capacity.

Dos anyone have more info about DS NOS? it seems like a very uncommon application.


----------



## Sapientiam

Sonic Defender said:


> While I enjoy the subjective very much, ultimately I know that for any actual phenomenon that is experienced subjectively, it is ultimately tied to biomechanical process systems in the brain and body.



Yep, no disagreement there though I'd say they're biological rather than biomechanical.



Sonic Defender said:


> People are just biological machines...



There we diverge, there isn't any evidence in support of this claim as far as I'm aware.



Sonic Defender said:


> ...there is nothing going on that isn't subject to the laws of physics, audio perception is just another process, nothing more, nothing less.



Yep - I guess we diverge here because you probably think we already know all the 'laws of physics' however in my view they're still a work in progress.

Incidentally if you're interested in exploring viewpoints which diverge from the mainstream 'man as machine' meme, you could do worse than turn up some of Robert Rosen's work.

As regards noise modulation in S-D converters, we do already know it exists, it shows up in some current measurements just we need more work to be able to identify it happening and quantify it when music is used as stimulus.


----------



## GearMe

Sonic Defender said:


> ...People are just biological machines, there is nothing going on that isn't subject to the laws of physics, audio perception is just another process, nothing more, nothing less.


Not sure if you're implying this but...does this mean all people (biological machines) process audio the same -- assuming you control for their different hearing capabilities?  If so, then wouldn't we all like the same headphone sound signatures?  Seems to fly in the face of the various folks that love/hate the Grado/Beyer/Denon/Fostex/Focal/Audeze/HiFiMan/Senn/AKG/etc. sound.

Am thinking once it gets past the inner ear, there's a fair amount of variability to how it is 'processed' (interpreted) by our brains.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Sapientiam said:


> Yep, no disagreement there though I'd say they're biological rather than biomechanical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do take your point, and agree, we can't possibly know all of the laws of physics. And I will certainly look into Robert Rosen's work. One thing I guard against is the tendency to only look at information that is consistent with what we believe. I do try, I don't always succeed, to keep a truly open mind. Otherwise I would be an arrogant pr**k assuming I have all the answers and nothing more to learn. Just shoot me if I ever get like that.


----------



## Sonic Defender

GearMe said:


> Not sure if you're implying this but...does this mean all people (biological machines) process audio the same -- assuming you control for their different hearing capabilities?  If so, then wouldn't we all like the same headphone sound signatures?  Seems to fly in the face of the various folks that love/hate the Grado/Beyer/Denon/Fostex/Focal/Audeze/HiFiMan/Senn/AKG/etc. sound.
> 
> Am thinking once it gets past the inner ear, there's a fair amount of variability to how it is 'processed' (interpreted) by our brains.


I'll come back and reply properly when I return from a few errands I need to do.


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree with you - at one level.
However - at another level - I disagree.

My background is engineering (let's say "engineering first; audiophilia second").

Here's the way I see it. You are correct. A lot of gear, especially what many of us would term "boutique gear", does in fact experience significant interactions with other equipment, and is sensitive to a little bit of noise on the power lines, and even to the length and sort of interconnects you use, or even to things like vibration. However, from an engineering perspective, those sensitivities are _design flaws_. A properly designed preamp should be able to deliver the performance it was designed to, when connected to the power grid in a typical home, using ordinary commercial grade interconnects, and should do so when connected to any other piece of equipment that has also been designed equally well. 

I don't doubt that many DACs sound best when connected to power that's been filtered by a $2500 laboratory grade power conditioner. However, the reason is not that "they're that good" or "incredibly revealing"; the reason is that the person who designed them was apparently good at designing DACs, but not so good at designing power supplies. The purpose of a power supply is in fact to take whatever commercial grade power you feed it and convert it into power of sufficient quality to get optimum performance from the rest of the system. If that particular circuit requires ultra-clean power, then that should have been considered when the device was designed, and the power supply it comes with should be up to the task. You should not be expected to purchase extra equipment to make up for the shortcomings of his design. Likewise, if a particular product is sensitive to vibration, then that should be taken into account, either by altering the design to eliminate the problem, or including some sort of sufficiently good vibration dampers in the product. And, if it's super-sensitive to electromagnetic interference, then the cabinet should be made out of solid copper, and it should ship with a ten foot copper bar, a sledgehammer to drive it into the ground, and ten feet of triple-zero battery cable to connect it with. Or, at the very least, they should list top-grade EMF isolation as an installation requirement. (I would suggest that, if a certain piece of consumer equipment won't work as designed when plugged into "an ordinary outlet in an ordinary home", then it's specific requirements for proper performance should be included on the specifications page. If that DAC only sounds really good when connected to a high-quality power conditioner, then that should be listed under "requirements".)

I absolutely agree that the room itself is an important part of the system, and room treatment is an often-overlooked and critical piece of the puzzle, but it's also true that room treatment is "generic". Excluding certain interactions with speakers, a properly treated room should sound good with any DAC, or any amplifier or preamp, because room treatments are targeted at removing unusual sound characteristics. So, properly treated rooms should sound quite similar, and individual pieces of electronic equipment should not have specific requirements in that regard. As far as loudspeakers, I would agree that 'the speakers and the room make up the parts of a system", and always need to be considered together. 

Therefore, I would leave it this way.....  

If you are willing to accommodate a specific piece of equipment by making special provisions, or adding specific other equipment to go with it, then you should look for reviews by reviewers who are willing to expend a similar amount of effort to optimize the installation of that equipment when they test it. And, if you are unwilling to do so, then you should probably seek reviews by reviewers with similar priorities. And, yes, it is well worth noting that, for at least some equipment, the conditions under which it is reviewed are going to make a big difference in the results. This is why, at the very least, EVERY review should include a detailed description of the room and associated equipment used for the review.



richard51 said:


> I think that between the experience of music by the brain  and the right  conveying of the signal by a dac, there is an area that is not touched often by engineers or audiophile here... My own experience is that ALL piece of gear interact with one another at a level that is not taken into account by many people.... And this is : first the very big difference that  mechanical isolation, and second the electro-magnetic interaction and isolation between pieces of gear,  finally and thirdly, last but not least, the cleaning of the electrical grid of the house...After my experiments I dont trust anymore any reviewer, and I think that the more important factors in audio are these 3 cleaning methods +_room treatment_ …. My NOS dac does not have any of the limitations in my system that many reviewer wrote about... The reason is these cleaning methods in my audio room and the lack of these cleaning methods by some reviewers.... I am  right with you about the marketing methods  by some...Thanks for your posts...


----------



## KeithEmo

Let's just say it this way.....

There is nothing that can be heard that cannot be measured; if it's real then it can be measured.
However, that's not to say that we always measure everything that's important, or that we necessarily know how to interpret all the measurements we make.

I agree with you about most Sabre DACs... to me they all, to some degree, tend to sound "bright and over-detailed - and as if they emphasize the upper midrange".
(And, no, that perceived difference in sound is not visible in their frequency response measurements.)

However, I would disagree that they deliver "immaculate measurements".
Most modern DACs, including Sabre DACs, deliver exceptionally flat frequency response, exceptionally low noise, and very low THD and IM distortion.
So, in terms of those three or four particular measurements, their response is indeed "exemplary".
However, they vary widely in terms of other performance metrics, including things like the impulse response of their oversampling and reconstruction filters.

Therefore, the reality is that Sabre DACs measure very well, and very much like other high quality DACs, on certain commonly used measurements.
They also measure very differently on other measurements.
But, since those other measurements are more difficult to perform, and their correlation with how a DAC sounds is less well understood, those differences tend to be overlooked.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, if you sum and subtract the outputs of two DACs that sound different, you will find that they _ARE_ in fact different.
And, that being the case, obviously it is possible to measure those differences (probably in a variety of different ways).
However, that doesn't mean that I can tell you which specific measurements will show those differences the best, or enable us to interpret them in a meaningful way.



Sapientiam said:


> Here's where I part company with your view - the WORK of an audio DAC is to deliver a signal which listeners are able to interpret as music. To take one example, ES9023 (a popular cooking S-D DAC with decent enough measurements) doesn't do that for me.
> 
> I take it that in your view the 'work' of a DAC is to deliver immaculate measurements?


----------



## KeithEmo

All Delta-Sigma DACs operate by a rather complex mathematical process that involves altering the sample rate and bit depth.
Part of the process involves the mathematical equivalent of converting the signal to one with fewer bits of resolution at a higher sample rate (which is oversampling).
Therefore, while a particular D-S DAC may choose to bypass oversampling outside of the D-S process itself.... it's really kind of silly to describe a D-S DAC as "a non-oversmapling DAC".



intlsubband said:


> So far I'm really enjoying the AZG. I noticed that it is quite peculiar in that it is DS NOS DAC. All other DS DACs I'm aware of use upsampling/oversampling. It is also of note that the product that replaced AZG, the Platinum, implements DSD and is upsampling all input to its highest DSD reading capacity.
> 
> Dos anyone have more info about DS NOS? it seems like a very uncommon application.


----------



## artur9

KeithEmo said:


> I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, if you sum and subtract the outputs of two DACs that sound different, you will find that they _ARE_ in fact different.
> And, that being the case, obviously it is possible to measure those differences (probably in a variety of different ways).



We need someone to take your Emotiva DAC as the benchmark and do the above with another DAC.  Publish the recording, I guess of the output.  Maybe use the Jil as the benchmark ADC.

Then we can create a library of all the differences from a wide variety of DACs and maybe have a prayer of finding the measurement that actually accounts for all the excitement in the DAC world.


----------



## KeithEmo

I already answered this in more detail - but I would like tom provide a more direct and simple answer.

I agree with you that "the WORK of an audio DAC is to deliver a signal which listeners are able to interpret as music".
However, at its most basic, before being converted into a pressure wave by the transducer, that signal is simply an electrical signal that varies with time.
Therefore, if the signal itself is "perfect", and the DAC performs its job "perfectly", then the result _MUST_ BE perfect.
So, if you start with a specific digital audio signal (a list of numbers), and do a "perfect" job of converting it into an analog signal, then there is only one possible output.
And, from that, if two DACs both do a perfect job, and you feed them the same input signal, then they will both deliver the exact same output signal, and it will sound exactly the same.
(And, if two DACs are even slightly different, then one or both of them must be delivering an imperfect output signal - because its performance is less than perfect.)

In reality, nothing is perfect, and we are always choosing between different flaws, based on which we find most problematic.
The simple reality is that no DAC is perfect... so "immaculate measurements" is a relative term.
(And, if two DACs "measure perfect enough", but sound different, the you simply aren't measuring the right things carefully enough to detect and quantify the differences that must be there.)

Humans, and especially audiophiles, have a habit of picking out a few measurements that are easy to make, and that they're familiar with... and then proudly declaring that "nothing else matters".
Sadly, this oversimplification of reality often leads to errors.



Sapientiam said:


> Here's where I part company with your view - the WORK of an audio DAC is to deliver a signal which listeners are able to interpret as music. To take one example, ES9023 (a popular cooking S-D DAC with decent enough measurements) doesn't do that for me.
> 
> I take it that in your view the 'work' of a DAC is to deliver immaculate measurements?


----------



## KeithEmo

One of the major ways in which DACs vary is in their impulse response.

Note that an actual single impulse is an invalid digital audio signal, which can never occur in a valid band-limited digital audio signal.
However, it works very well as a test signal to visualize the response of the filters used in various DACs.
And, if you look at the impulse responses of various DACs, and even various filter choices in the same DAC, you will see that they are often quite different.

For those less technically inclined.... 
These are differences that occur and are easily seen on dynamic signals like pulses - and music.
They are basically a way of characterizing how the DAC responds to rapidly changing signals rather than to continuous sine waves.
Many devices, but DACs in particular, respond very differently to rapidly changing signals than the do to continuous sine waves.
However, they do NOT affect static measurements - like THD, frequency response, and S/N ratio.

Unfortunately, while the differences are easy to see with the proper tests, how they relate to sound quality is much less well understood.
(And different people seem to vary widely in terms of how they respond to certain differences.)



Sonic Defender said:


> Just out of curiosity, to your mind, if a DAC measures really well, what are the mechanisms by which it changes a signal to something different? If it measures well, what else should we go with to determine how it will do? And assume that the DAC chip that measures well is implemented properly. Where will it fail in terms of audio signal reproduction?


----------



## KeithEmo

That's an excellent idea.

The only catch is that you'll have to figure out a way to do it without the sound being affected by the ADC you use to record it or the DAC you use to listen to it. 

However, in terms of gathering data, it should be possible to have a bunch of different people listen to a bunch of different DACs...
Collect all the measurements...
And all their listening impressions...
And search for correlations between the two.

However, doing so is a lot of work, and doing it well enough to actually produce usable information even more-so.



artur9 said:


> We need someone to take your Emotiva DAC as the benchmark and do the above with another DAC.  Publish the recording, I guess of the output.  Maybe use the Jil as the benchmark ADC.
> 
> Then we can create a library of all the differences from a wide variety of DACs and maybe have a prayer of finding the measurement that actually accounts for all the excitement in the DAC world.


----------



## artur9

KeithEmo said:


> That's an excellent idea.
> 
> The only catch is that you'll have to figure out a way to do it without the sound being affected by the ADC you use to record it or the DAC you use to listen to it.
> 
> ...


Yeah,  throughout.  I wasn't thinking people would listen to the "difference recording", just run FFTs on it or something.  

As to the "affected by the ADC" that's why I specified the Jil as the benchmark ADC.  Known quantity is the touchstone here, no?

Full process something like:
(1) New DAC on the market.
(2) Create "difference recording" with benchmark DAC and benchmark ADC.
(3) People listen to new DAC.
(4) We find some capable person to correlate those listening impressions to the "difference recording"'s meaurements, somehow.


----------



## Sonic Defender

KeithEmo said:


> Unfortunately, while the differences are easy to see with the proper tests, how they relate to sound quality is much less well understood.
> (And different people seem to vary widely in terms of how they respond to certain differences.)


That is the issue, we don't really understand how the sound is affected, how much it is affected, and who is sensitive enough to these differences. I would also suggest that the number of people actually sensitive to these effects is not as high as it may seem. Expectation bias is scientific fact, it can't be denied, denying the impact of expectation bias is akin to denying that ice can melt in the heat. Once people started theorizing and reporting about these DS sound problems, it spread like wildfire all over the Internet and that is all it took to create a contagion effect. Many people would start hearing what they were told to expect to hear and then it builds from there.

I have no doubt that there would be some people more sensitive to such sound anomalies, that is very reasonable to predict. And equally likely some early DS implementations were probably poorly done leading to the notion that DS conversion processing was inherently flawed. This is all likely to result in at least some over-reporting of how audible these sound anomalies are and how-widespread they are. My personal belief is that in blind listening tests, the vast majority of people evaluating well implemented DACs would have a hard time differentiating one from the other. That assumes a general ethos of sound reproduction whereby the circuit designers elected to not deliberately colour the sound.

I'm not representing my ideas as fact, I'm not that arrogant, and I would be interested in your feedback as I always learn from your unsensational, to the point posts.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree that the differences are often very small, and, to be quite honest, not all that significant.

However, because the differences are so small, while I am normally a major supporter of double-blind testing, in this case I suspect that it is not going to serve the purpose. From my experience, many of the differences I hear between various DACs are barely audible when switching back and forth, with no delay at all, and become very difficult to notice with even a few seconds delay between samples. And, in many cases, while I can hear a difference between them, I wouldn't necessarily claim to be able to identify one or the other specifically... simply that there is a difference when switching between them.

As I mentioned, when it comes to major differences, I am a big supporter of double-blind tests. However, when it comes to tiny differences, they often fail to do the job - especially if they aren't carefully designed to detect a particular difference. I'm tempted to make the comparison to our ability to detect differences in color. Let's test how different the colors of foot-square tiles have to be before we can tell that they are in fact different. Hold two red tiles up, one after the other, and you will find that our ability to detect small differences in tint is not at all precise. However, hold them up at the same time, a foot apart, and we can detect much smaller differences. And you will find that, as you move them closer together, we are able to detect smaller and smaller differences. Move them so they touch edge to edge, and most humans can distinguish amazingly tiny differences in tint or hue. (And, when you match swatches, you typically hold one up over the other for the best possible ability to detect the smallest differences.) 

I suspect that many of the audible differences people claim to hear are in fact simply expectation bias, while others are tiny differences caused by other things, and totally unrelated to the architecture of the DAC. And, from what I read in many forums, the majority of audiophiles aren't quite clear on the details of the different technologies anyway. For example, many people seem unclear on the fact that, while the Schiit Yggdrasil is an R2R DAC, it is also an _OVERSAMPLING_ DAC... (The original R2R DACs were developed before oversampling, and so don't employ it, but many modern ones do - because oversampling has major benefits - while avoiding oversampling causes major issues that need to be overcome or simply lived with. So, how much of the difference between a modern AD1955 and a vintage Phillips 1543 chip is because one is only 16 bits, how much is because one is R2R, and how much is because one uses oversampling? Your guess is as good as mine.)

There are also major differences in how different technologies react in different situations. For example, most D-S DACs are more significantly affected by jitter than most R2R DACs. That means that, all else being equal, an R2R DAC will in fact probably perform better if your source has a very high level of jitter. However, because of other limitations, all else is rarely anywhere near equal. And, since there are many modern methods for eliminating virtually all jitter, is this really an issue at all? 

As you noted, different people are simply more or less sensitive to specific types of errors.... Some people are actually better able to hear certain types of errors. Others, while able to hear them, simply find some more annoying than others. (I personally hate vinyl, because the presence of two or three loud pops entirely ruins any enjoyment I get from listening to a song. Others claim not to notice them at all.)

And, yes, many DAC vendors do go out of the way to add various sorts of coloration to the sound. Some do so in the honest belief that the final result is closer to "right". Others do it simply to differentiate their product. It would be difficult to sell a $2500 DAC after admitting that you used a $10 DAC chip, followed the circuit design provided for free in the App Notes, and it worked really great... when someone else is selling the same thing for $250. It's much more feasible to deliberately make it sound a bit different, then convince your customers that your version is "better". (If you read any of the original Sabre DAC white papers, they actually stated that, rather than choose the filter that provided the most accurate output, they held focus groups... and chose the one that "the most people liked the best". I can't fault them for doing it that way, but neither am I convinced that their choice ended up being the most accurate one. I've always personally found Sabre DACs to exaggerate detail to some degree - which I find mildly annoying - but many other people seem to find pleasing.)



Sonic Defender said:


> That is the issue, we don't really understand how the sound is affected, how much it is affected, and who is sensitive enough to these differences. I would also suggest that the number of people actually sensitive to these effects is not as high as it may seem. Expectation bias is scientific fact, it can't be denied, denying the impact of expectation bias is akin to denying that ice can melt in the heat. Once people started theorizing and reporting about these DS sound problems, it spread like wildfire all over the Internet and that is all it took to create a contagion effect. Many people would start hearing what they were told to expect to hear and then it builds from there.
> 
> I have no doubt that there would be some people more sensitive to such sound anomalies, that is very reasonable to predict. And equally likely some early DS implementations were probably poorly done leading to the notion that DS conversion processing was inherently flawed. This is all likely to result in at least some over-reporting of how audible these sound anomalies are and how-widespread they are. My personal belief is that in blind listening tests, the vast majority of people evaluating well implemented DACs would have a hard time differentiating one from the other. That assumes a general ethos of sound reproduction whereby the circuit designers elected to not deliberately colour the sound.
> 
> I'm not representing my ideas as fact, I'm not that arrogant, and I would be interested in your feedback as I always learn from your unsensational, to the point posts.


----------



## intlsubband (Jul 5, 2018)

KeithEmo said:


> All Delta-Sigma DACs operate by a rather complex mathematical process that involves altering the sample rate and bit depth.
> Part of the process involves the mathematical equivalent of converting the signal to one with fewer bits of resolution at a higher sample rate (which is oversampling).
> Therefore, while a particular D-S DAC may choose to bypass oversampling outside of the D-S process itself.... it's really kind of silly to describe a D-S DAC as "a non-oversmapling DAC".



Thank you for the detailed explanation! For the record, this is how the sampling was described in the 6moons review: "the Gold always processes incoming data at its native resolution _without_ internal upsampling. What goes in is what comes out." However, as you note, there is upsampling in the DAC chip itself - in this case, a dual 1792A chips, which according to their spec pages, indeed upsample... so I'm not sure why they are making this claim. http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/antelope2/1.html


----------



## Sapientiam

KeithEmo said:


> Most modern DACs, including Sabre DACs, deliver exceptionally flat frequency response, exceptionally low noise, and very low THD and IM distortion.
> So, in terms of those three or four particular measurements, their response is indeed "exemplary".



Right (IM here being two-tone stimulus I take it).



KeithEmo said:


> However, they vary widely in terms of other performance metrics, including things like the impulse response of their oversampling and reconstruction filters.



This is an interesting avenue of study. The filters in S-D DACs are in general built down to the lowest silicon area possible, which means adopting a half-band filter for the first stage upsampling (1X->2X). Half band filters are a compromise to save on MACs - half the coefficients are zero. The downside is the FR violates Nyquist because instead of the Nyquist frequency being firmly in the stop band, its in the transition band and only single digit dB down (I forget if that digit is 3 or 6)

Summing up so far then we look to be in broad agreement that today's measurements aren't telling the whole story about a DAC's performance as we have the 'Sabre brightness' not being shown up in any measurements so far. I would add to the 'brightness' issue the biggest thing lacking for me in an ES9023 and that's subjective dynamics. I also haven't much clue what measurement is needed to quantify subjective dynamics but my first stab at it would be noise modulation.


----------



## Sonic Defender

@KeithEmo as always, thank you for your very succinct, well written, and well reasoned response. I wonder how much of the notion that DS chips are inherently "unnatural" sounding" or flawed derives from what seems like many people conflating the early egregious errors (depending on one's taste) of the first Sabre DAC designs with all DS architectures? I get the sense that many people with a strong bias against DS implementations erroneously think that they are all essentially Sabre like.


----------



## castleofargh

Sapientiam said:


> Right (IM here being two-tone stimulus I take it).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


we're all similar people presented with the same options. we feel something and get some idea as to why. then from time to time, measurements seem to conflict with those impressions and ideas. and that's where we're not so similar anymore:
-when I'm presented with objective data contradicting my ideas and memories, if I can test my idea with some control, I'll do it and see what happens. when I can't, I consider the conflict to be big enough of a problem not to decide that my feelings and ideas are conclusive. and if I absolutely have to pick a side, I'll side with the objective data(but that's really something I'd rather avoid).
-based on the last few posts, it's pretty obvious that not only you take your feelings and ideas very seriously, but when they conflict with measurements, you decide to suspect the measurements of being flawed or incomplete instead of second guessing yourself and the quality of your experiences.
you bring up some fairly reasonable questions about measurements. we obviously don't get enough specs by default. and with the natural tendency from manufacturers to "forget" the variables showing bad specs for their gears, having apparently good specs are even less of a proof that we'll get transparency. but focusing on that alone is pure fallacy. we obviously also have to deal with our testing conditions and all the possible issues we can just call "human error". from the sighted anecdotal experiences, the accuracy of our memories, the quality of interpretation, jumping to conclusion, etc.  all very real very relevant concerns. trying to find which set of measurements is effectively presenting what we feel, that should obviously come after making sure that what we feel was induced by sound in the first place. something the average audiophile is not going to do, because of ignorance, laziness. or the usual idea that preconceptions, placebo, logical fallacy, etc, all somehow belong in the box labelled "it only happens to others".

I've followed discussions about the sound of delta sigma vs R2R, the specific sound of some chipsets and related stuff. I'm personally very curious about this, I've tried to test my fair share of gears and conditions, but right now I have no confidence claiming that anything is real or more than circumstantial. I've very clearly failed to pass blind tests using DACs with different chipsets. I can blame my low listening skills and my ears not growing younger, but whatever the reason, those DACs were still good enough to fool me. 
I also have been able on rare occasions, to identify some DACs despite them having the same chipset. 
the usual idea that R2R will have less linearity and more aliasing or treble roll off, while delta sigma has more noise, even such generalities based on the designs can be contested if we go pick the right DACs. some R2R stuff have impressive linearity, some delta sigma have impressive SNR.
so all in all, I'm confident that at a statistical level we can find patterns and correlations, but who has gone through enough gears in a rigorous enough way to call his results statistically significant? I sure didn't.


----------



## KeithEmo

I can think of a few reasons....

1) Many DACs, especially more esoteric designs, employ additional upsampling in addition to the oversampling inside the DAC. In fact, many tout it as a feature.... Note how many DACs "upsample to 384k" or "upsample to DSD" using some proprietary firmware or FPGA before sending the data to the DAC, usually claiming some sort of audible improvement as a result...and some customers believe those claims (I'm not saying either way). However, you could take it as a simple statement of fact - that they do NOT do any of that extra sample manipulation.

2) Being more cynical, you might suggest that enough people seem to believe that "not oversampling" is a virtue that they feel they'll sell a few more DACs by encouraging the misunderstanding. (Non-oversampling DACs share several drawbacks, which tend to make their technical performance look relatively poor... competing against them makes the Antelope DAC look better by comparison.) 



intlsubband said:


> Thank you for the detailed explanation! For the record, this is how the sampling was described in the 6moons review: "the Gold always processes incoming data at its native resolution _without_ internal upsampling. What goes in is what comes out." However, as you note, there is upsampling in the DAC chip itself - in this case, a dual 1792A chips, which according to their spec pages, indeed upsample... so I'm not sure why they are making this claim. http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/antelope2/1.html


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm not an expert on the math of designing filters, but I'm pretty sure that, while the overall response is very important, the design of the individual stages doesn't count for much. Therefore, if they're using several stages, it would only be the aggregate response of all of them that matters. Therefore, the design of a single stage could seem poor, but a cascade of several such "poor stages" could actually produce an excellent aggregate response. of course, it also may not. Most DAC chips offer a variety of oversampling options to the designer, many of which may be better or worse in various different ways... and, presumably, some of the choices and combinations simply don't perform very well in important ways.

Sabre DACs are also interesting in other ways. For example, you may be familiar with ASRCs (asynchronous sample rate converter). Many DACs incorporate an ASRC to eliminate jitter (I believe Benchmark was the first). To horribly oversimplify how they work, an ASRC converts the incoming digital audio data to a new sample rate. In the process, the data is re-clocked to a new local clock, so any jitter associated with the incoming clock is eliminated, or drastically reduced. Some people have an aesthetic objection to the fact that "every single sample of the original data is discarded and replaced with new interpolated data". However, from a technical perspective, all that counts is that the analog data that comes out the end is improved because the effects of the incoming jitter are removed. In most DACs that have this feature, it is implemented using a dedicated "ASRC chip" - often an Analog Devices AD1896, a TI SRC 1492, or the equivalent from Cirrus Logic. Sabre DACs have a similar jitter reduction method built in.... it actually introduces corrections into the data as part of the upsampling process. Again, horribly oversimplified, jitter causes problems because you end up with the correct value being submitted to the converter stage at a slightly wrong time, resulting in a wrong output value. A standard ASRC addresses this by correcting the timing. Sabre's method, according to their conceptual description, essentially calculates the error, then adjusts the value of the data sample itself to "compensate" for the error introduced by the faulty timing. I have no particular opinion about which method is "better", but both incorporate complex DSP calculations to make corrections to compensate for errors in the data - so both offer the opportunity for the "corrections" to introduce changes that might be audible... 

Some DACs that use a separate ASRC allow you to bypass it so to evaluate any audible changes it might introduce for yourself. As usual, when it comes to complex digital filters, the actual changes such devices cause tend to be complex and somewhat difficult to describe. For example, several of our Emotiva DACs have included an ASRC, with the option to disable it, and it most definitely produces a subtle alteration of the sound. If you start out with a source that is extremely high in jitter, then the difference is usually what I would consider to be a small but distinct improvement. However, if you start out with a signal that has relatively low jitter, there is still a slight audible difference in sound - but it becomes more difficult to describe, or to identify as "better or worse". As a broad generality, many digital filters produce subtle differences which can be measured using various metrics. Often, however, it becomes a matter of personal taste which one is "better" - and whether a given person notices one or the other at all. 

I should also note that there's a middle ground. Most commercial DAC chips offer the designer the option of using the internal filters, often a choice of several different ones, or of adding their own external filter altogether... and many DAC vendors do just that. However, actually designing digital filters is very complex. Many DAC vendors have their own filter designs which they insist are better than the included ones. Interestingly, if you read a lot of reviews in the sorts of magazines that do serious math, you sometimes find that a certain DAC has "a unique sound" because the filters it incorporates are simply badly designed, or designed to perform very well in certain specific ways at the expense of other important parameters, and the designs of one or two of them have simply been found to be based on faulty math. Companies like Analog Devices and AKM spend a lot of money optimizing the performance of their products; some of us think they know what they're doing, and see little reason to "reinvent the wheel" when the options they provide work really well. (In terms of deliberately "boutique sound", many non-oversampling DACs incorporate gentle roll off filters, which have a very clean ringing characteristic, but also a very slow high frequency roll off. You end up with a DAC that has very little ringing, but a frequency response that is -3 dB at 20 kHz with a 44k input signal. As a result, plucked strings sound clean and sharp, but it becomes difficult to tell if the "smooth sound" you hear is really due to the lack of ringing - or simply to the rolled off high end. And, yes, if your speakers had a rising high end, the two flaws might cancel out perfectly... producing some of that legendary "synergy" people talk about. )



Sapientiam said:


> Right (IM here being two-tone stimulus I take it).
> 
> This is an interesting avenue of study. The filters in S-D DACs are in general built down to the lowest silicon area possible, which means adopting a half-band filter for the first stage upsampling (1X->2X). Half band filters are a compromise to save on MACs - half the coefficients are zero. The downside is the FR violates Nyquist because instead of the Nyquist frequency being firmly in the stop band, its in the transition band and only single digit dB down (I forget if that digit is 3 or 6)
> 
> Summing up so far then we look to be in broad agreement that today's measurements aren't telling the whole story about a DAC's performance as we have the 'Sabre brightness' not being shown up in any measurements so far. I would add to the 'brightness' issue the biggest thing lacking for me in an ES9023 and that's subjective dynamics. I also haven't much clue what measurement is needed to quantify subjective dynamics but my first stab at it would be noise modulation.


----------



## arjuna93

aqsw said:


> $500.00 for a 24/48 WOW
> And people tell me my Hegel is overpriced.



As if that's the most important characteristic LOL.

Most of material for many people is red book anyway, so anything beyond that is a pleasant, but insignificant feature for a DAC.


----------



## arjuna93

wahsmoh said:


> Hey Purrin if you are around what do you think of Esoteric's lineup and PCM63 DACs? I correct myself, they mostly use PCM1704 chips. I saw an Esoteric D-3 and I was wondering if you have heard this one before. It uses 8x AD1862N chips



I am getting Esoteric D-30 with 8 PCM63 chips soon.


----------



## sajunky

Comment on a occasion of refreshing dead thread. There is a new Audio GD DAC powered 8x_PCM1704 HE7MK2 with regenerative power supply released just few days ago. It is a major redesign of the analogue board since the last +8 years, plus the entirely new digital section delivered from other Audio GD DACs MK2 version. It means asynchronous USB transfers through a galvanic isolator synchronised with a fixed frequency internal oscilators, optimised clocking design and more.


----------



## arjuna93

sajunky said:


> Comment on a occasion of refreshing dead thread. There is a new Audio GD DAC powered 8x_PCM1704 HE7MK2 with regenerative power supply released just few days ago. It is a major redesign of the analogue board since the last +8 years, plus the entirely new digital section delivered from other Audio GD DACs MK2 version. It means asynchronous USB transfers through a galvanic isolator synchronised with a fixed frequency internal oscilators, optimised clocking design and more.



Do they make anything on PCM63 or PCM65?


----------



## sajunky (Aug 5, 2021)

arjuna93 said:


> Do they make anything on PCM63 or PCM65?


Not. PCM63 is not selling for number of years. What you see on Aliexpress is coming from recycling facilities and beware of fake chips...

I picked up a Rotel CD player RCD-971 circa 2002 and it was already announcement ending production. PCM1704 is still available from reputable sources, but it could be the last batch, I think.


----------



## arjuna93

sajunky said:


> Not. PCM63 is not selling for number of years. What you see on Aliexpress is coming from recycling facilities and beware of fake chips...
> 
> I picked up a Rotel CD player RCD-971 circa 2002 and it was already announcement ending production. PCM1704 is still available from reputable sources, but it could be the last batch, I think.



Do you know btw which DACs used PCM65? I have read it was the best version of the chip, but rare and expensive one.


----------



## GearMe

arjuna93 said:


> Do you know btw which DACs used PCM65? I have read it was the best version of the chip, but rare and expensive one.


A quick google search didn't mention any standalone DACs but did mention a Pioneer CD player (Pioneer Elite PD 91)


----------



## sajunky (Aug 6, 2021)

Correct. Pioneer PD-91 and few more: Pioneer PD-3000 and Stax CDP Quatttro II comes to my mind.

DAC chip is only a part of the story. There is implementation of digital filters (if any), clock synchronisation, voltage regulation, design layout (i.e. ground distribution) and of course power supply and the analog section. A DAC I linked-in has regenerative power supply, very complex conversion technique working at a low frequency.

Some of design internals are not disclosed in datasheet, it is discovered during years of experience. By example in the PCM1704 the most important clock from jitter perspective is not a word clock as usual. Those who try to optimise word clock jitter do not get the best results.


----------



## arjuna93

sajunky said:


> Correct. Pioneer PD-91 and few more: Pioneer PD-3000 and Stax CDP Quatttro II comes to my mind.
> 
> DAC chip is only a part of the story. There is implementation of digital filters (if any), clock synchronisation, voltage regulation, design layout (i.e. ground distribution) and of course power supply and the analog section. A DAC I linked-in has regenerative power supply, very complex conversion technique working at a low frequency.
> 
> Some of design internals are not disclosed in datasheet, it is discovered during years of experience. By example in the PCM1704 the most important clock from jitter perspective is not a word clock as usual. Those who try to optimise word clock jitter do not get the best results.



Stax CDP Quatttro II – oh wow, never knew such thing even existed. Thanks.


----------



## Sonic Defender

sajunky said:


> Correct. Pioneer PD-91 and few more: Pioneer PD-3000 and Stax CDP Quatttro II comes to my mind.
> 
> DAC chip is only a part of the story. There is implementation of digital filters (if any), clock synchronisation, voltage regulation, design layout (i.e. ground distribution) and of course power supply and the analog section. A DAC I linked-in has regenerative power supply, very complex conversion technique working at a low frequency.
> 
> Some of design internals are not disclosed in datasheet, it is discovered during years of experience. By example in the PCM1704 the most important clock from jitter perspective is not a word clock as usual. Those who try to optimise word clock jitter do not get the best results.


Very good points, but I might go a step further and say that any reasonable DAC has a clock that performs well beyond the capability of any human ear. The whole magic clock tweaking stuff people do is absolutely measureable, but not resulting in audible difference. Not a chance people can hear jitter at all, let alone when music is playing.


----------



## sajunky

Sonic Defender said:


> Very good points, but I might go a step further and say that any reasonable DAC has a clock that performs well beyond the capability of any human ear. The whole magic clock tweaking stuff people do is absolutely measureable, but not resulting in audible difference. Not a chance people can hear jitter at all, let alone when music is playing.


Clock quality do matter. It may be not noticed with supermarket grade $100 devices with fake opamps like my Topping D30, but it will be noticed immediately with better DACs/amps and speakers . Once transparency of the system reaches a certain level, it matters even more. HE-7 MK2 comes with Accusilicon 318B femtosecond clocks, but specialised clock devices have jitter a magnitude lower. Connecting such device removes any sign of digital glare. Look in the high-end section, what people have to say. PM me and I can direct you directly to the members who have such setup.

Measurements? Frequently we do measure wrong things, like ground loops in the measuring gear. Example: Total DAC Six tests on ASR.


----------



## johnjen

Sonic Defender said:


> Very good points, but I might go a step further and say that any reasonable DAC has a clock that performs well beyond the capability of any human ear. The whole magic clock tweaking stuff people do is absolutely measureable, but not resulting in audible difference. Not a chance people can hear jitter at all, let alone when music is playing.


I agree that for some, 'better' clocks may not be discernible, but for others it is easily discernible.
I for one heard a marked improvement when I added an external reclocking board to my PSA PWD MkII. 
The Bridge only did one thing and that was to reclock the incoming USB signal.
It made an immediate improvement everywhere.

JJ


----------



## castleofargh

sajunky said:


> Clock quality do matter. It may be not noticed with supermarket grade $100 devices with fake opamps like my Topping D30, but it will be noticed immediately with better DACs/amps and speakers . Once transparency of the system reaches a certain level, it matters even more. HE-7 MK2 comes with Accusilicon 318B femtosecond clocks, but specialised clock devices have jitter a magnitude lower. Connecting such device removes any sign of digital glare. Look in the high-end section, what people have to say. PM me and I can direct you directly to the members who have such setup.
> 
> Measurements? Frequently we do measure wrong things, like ground loops in the measuring gear. Example: Total DAC Six tests on ASR.


All related discussions have one thing in common IMO. Someone is focused on one thing, and perception of a sound change(real or imagined) is seen as validation that the thing was important. But all I ever see is possible correlation and "dude trust me" level of claims about the cause of alleged audible changes.

As far as I know, better clocks aren't bad objectively, so I see no reason to actively oppose them. But at the same time, we're slowly but surely running after atomic clock level of performance as if our ears could care. Soon enough some dude will come up with a compensation for the altitude of my house, to account for space time curvature. When do we cross over the silly line? 
I'm a simple guy, I believe in hearing thresholds and controlled experiments.


----------



## Sonic Defender

sajunky said:


> Clock quality do matter. It may be not noticed with supermarket grade $100 devices with fake opamps like my Topping D30, but it will be noticed immediately with better DACs/amps and speakers . Once transparency of the system reaches a certain level, it matters even more. HE-7 MK2 comes with Accusilicon 318B femtosecond clocks, but specialised clock devices have jitter a magnitude lower. Connecting such device removes any sign of digital glare. Look in the high-end section, what people have to say. PM me and I can direct you directly to the members who have such setup.
> 
> Measurements? Frequently we do measure wrong things, like ground loops in the measuring gear. Example: Total DAC Six tests on ASR.


Sorry, can't agree with you at all. I respect your right to have an opinion, but that is what that is, an opinion. Opinions matter, but they are not evidence. I have owned a $3000 DAC and played it through very nice speakers and excellent headphones, you can't hear jitter. A device would have to be very poorly engineered or defective to have audible jitter. What does jitter sound like by the way?


----------



## Sonic Defender

castleofargh said:


> ....., I believe in hearing thresholds and controlled experiments.


Then you know that even on an entry level, but adequately designed and specified DAC the clock will be audibly transparent under any condition.


----------



## sajunky

castleofargh said:


> As far as I know, better clocks aren't bad objectively, so I see no reason to actively oppose them. But at the same time, we're slowly but surely running after atomic clock level of performance as if our ears could care.


You don't understand. Believe or not, so popular these days rubidium atomic clocks are not good for audio. If you like confirmation in measurements for everything .... it is measured. I think you had experience only with poor clocks.


----------



## sajunky

Sonic Defender said:


> I have owned a $3000 DAC and played it through very nice speakers and excellent headphones, you can't hear jitter. A device would have to be very poorly engineered or defective to have audible jitter. What does jitter sound like by the way?


This is a confirmation that you wanted to hear jitter... you don't. But you hear a moment where jitter goes away.


----------



## GearMe

UGH...on all fronts!  Honestly, who cares if one person perceives audible differences in (jitter, clocks, cables, DAC chips, etc.) and the other doesn't.

In the end, I hope everyone is enjoying the experience of great music...listening to the artists they love as they ply their craft instead of the perceived nuances between gear (just my perspective )




In all the time I've seen these types of debates on Head-Fi and other forums, I can't recall either side (subjective vs objective) really making significant headway with the other side.  Furthermore, why does it matter?  If someone is enjoying their music (or their gear)...good on them.  




FWIW, over the years, I've owned very expensive, highly ranked/rated 2 channel systems and eventually found that (for me) the best way to improve my listening experience was through transducers once I had a solid (not hyper-expensive) system in place. 

Eventually, I ended up shifting my spend towards speakers and away from hyper-expensive dacs, sources, amps, preamps.  Prior to switching to headphones, that actually resulted in me having multiple systems in various rooms of our house - one geared toward acoustic, one towards rock/blues, and one for home theater.

Now, with headphones, I have multiple 'listening rooms' with a variety of solid (not hyper-expensive) dac/amp setups.  Having a variety of cans has truly added to my enjoyment by allowing me to switch things up when a particular set of cans isn't moving me that day.



Regardless, if another Head-Fier wants to spend mega-bucks on their electronic gear to squeeze every last ounce out of their $200 HD-6XX's because they 'scale' so well with systems that cost 10-20x what the cans cost, I wish them well and hope they also experience great joy when they...


----------



## Sonic Defender

sajunky said:


> This is a confirmation that you wanted to hear jitter... you don't. But you hear a moment where jitter goes away.


Not at all. It was a waste of money having such an expensive DAC. I actually ended up selling it and keeping a DAC that was much less expensive, well under a $1000 because I could not hear any difference so why keep an expensive DAC that offered no audible benefit? You can't hear jitter unless the DAC is very poorly engineered. The idea that people can hear jitter even with entry level, but properly designed DACs borders on ridiculous.


----------



## sajunky (Aug 7, 2021)

GearMe said:


> UGH...on all fronts!  Honestly, who cares if one person perceives audible differences in (jitter, clocks, cables, DAC chips, etc.) and the other doesn't.
> [...]
> Regardless, if another Head-Fier wants to spend mega-bucks on their electronic gear to squeeze every last ounce out of their $200 HD-6XX's because they 'scale' so well with systems that cost 10-20x what the cans cost, I wish them well and hope they also experience great joy when they...


It wasn't a discussion that one person can hear, against the other who can't. Not for a one moment. It is about our hearing abilities in general. When the entire system achieve a certain transparency level (usually associated with enjoyement), our brain switches to the higher level of sensitivity. At a supermarket level all DACs sound the same. You frequently hear such opinion. At a higher level you start to hear differences between DAC chips, going up, you start hear diferences in cables.

BTW, It is not that cables physical properties make a difference, there are, but it is small. A different cables change the way how ground loops and EMI are propagating across the system. External interference (noise) makes a difference in sound, not a cable itself.

Regarding the last comment, I own Sennheiser HD-600 and R2R-11 NOS DAC/HPA combo. While a DAC section is very good and satisfying (especially after clock upgrade), I admit that headamp section could be better. This one has a proper amp it would satisfy my needs. But I do prefer speakers, no matter what headamp does. 

Listening now to this (track 4):


----------



## sajunky (Aug 7, 2021)

Sonic Defender said:


> The idea that people can hear jitter even with entry level, but properly designed DACs borders on ridiculous.


In the post you are quoting it is stated something different, unrelated to this. Please read again.


----------



## Sonic Defender

GearMe said:


> UGH...on all fronts!  Honestly, who cares if one person perceives audible differences in (jitter, clocks, cables, DAC chips, etc.) and the other doesn't.
> 
> In the end, I hope everyone is enjoying the experience of great music...listening to the artists they love as they ply their craft instead of the perceived nuances between gear (just my perspective )
> 
> ...


It only matters in the sense that people propagate ridiculous fiction as fact, and people new to the hobby read the silliness and waste mountains of money. If this truly is to be a community where people can post their views then it is only fair if all views are allowed to be voiced. But yes, your point is absolutely valid, and it isn't that I object to people enjoying the hobby, what I object to is when people state things as if they are fact. I'm fine if they state clearly this is just my subjective opinion, perfectly valid and fine. I think if you look at the wild claims being made in these last few posts clearly the claims are beyond extraordinary.


----------



## sajunky

At least we know what subjective opinion are perfectly valid and fine and which one are the wild claims (beyond extraordinary) being made in these last few posts by people who are unable to read a content they are quoting.


----------



## Sonic Defender

sajunky said:


> At least we know what subjective opinion are perfectly valid and fine and which one are the wild claims (beyond extraordinary) being made in these last few posts by people who are unable to read a content they are quoting.


This is the other way around, I am not making any wild claims at all. I think anybody reading this thread will know that. You seem like a nice person as you are not getting aggressive and throwing insults back. Thanks for remaining civil, cheers.


----------



## sajunky

Sonic Defender said:


> This is the other way around, I am not making any wild claims at all. I think anybody reading this thread will know that.


I am sure anyone had realised it already. Case closed.


----------



## GearMe

Sonic Defender said:


> It only matters in the sense that people propagate ridiculous fiction as fact, and people new to the hobby read the silliness and waste mountains of money. If this truly is to be a community where people can post their views then it is only fair if all views are allowed to be voiced. But yes, your point is absolutely valid, and it isn't that I object to people enjoying the hobby, what I object to is when people state things as if they are fact. I'm fine if they state clearly this is just my subjective opinion, perfectly valid and fine. I think if you look at the wild claims being made in these last few posts clearly the claims are beyond extraordinary.


Totally get your perspective...but as an adult with decent reasoning skills and an inquisitive nature, I don't need to be 'protected' from either side's opinions. 😉

Will evaluate what I read from my frame of reference and make purchasing decisions that I'm comfortable with --- living with the consequences.


----------



## sajunky

Now listenting to:


----------



## Sonic Defender

GearMe said:


> Totally get your perspective...but as an adult with decent reasoning skills and an inquisitive nature, I don't need to be 'protected' from either side's opinions. 😉
> 
> Will evaluate what I read from my frame of reference and make purchasing decisions that I'm comfortable with --- living with the consequences.


Well said, can't argue with that. Cheers.


----------



## castleofargh

Sonic Defender said:


> This is the other way around, I am not making any wild claims at all. I think anybody reading this thread will know that. You seem like a nice person as you are not getting aggressive and throwing insults back. Thanks for remaining civil, cheers.


Yes, thanks to anybody staying cool headed. It's sadly rare enough, that we all noticed it.

@sajunky owns a r2r NOS DAC, brought up another r2r design in a previous point on measuring the right stuff. And mentioned a few times how entry level stuff all sound the same. The implications aren't small.

Using a NOS design today, well it gives some possible insight about the desire for a good clock. After all, when I see a NOS DAC in 2021, I do feel like I’m the witness of massive temporal displacement.
I’m not proud of that joke, but it's in my nature to post it anyway as a self inflicted wound. I would sting the frog and sting myself while drowning.


----------



## Beagle

Sonic Defender said:


> Not at all. It was a waste of money having such an expensive DAC. I actually ended up selling it and keeping a DAC that was much less expensive, well under a $1000 because I could not hear any difference so why keep an expensive DAC that offered no audible benefit? You can't hear jitter unless the DAC is very poorly engineered. The idea that people can hear jitter even with entry level, but properly designed DACs borders on ridiculous.


The good old "Law Of Diminishing Returns". Or "The More You Pay, The More You _Think_ You Should Be Getting So It_ Has_ To Be Better".

I've been taken in far too many times and now prefer to hear what's actually there, which you can acquire for surprisingly little money.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Beagle said:


> The good old "Law Of Diminishing Returns". Or "The More You Pay, The More You _Think_ You Should Be Getting So It_ Has_ To Be Better".
> 
> I've been taken in far too many times and now prefer to hear what's actually there, which you can acquire for surprisingly little money.


So true,
I have found in recent years that the point of diminishing returns comes far more quickly than I once believed. Good for the wallet to be sure.


----------



## GearMe (Aug 8, 2021)

sajunky said:


> It wasn't a discussion that one person can hear, against the other who can't. Not for a one moment. It is about our hearing abilities in general. _*When the entire system achieve a certain transparency level (usually associated with enjoyement), our brain switches to the higher level of sensitivity. *_At a supermarket level all DACs sound the same. You frequently hear such opinion. At a higher level you start to hear differences between DAC chips, going up, you start hear diferences in cables.
> 
> BTW, It is not that cables physical properties make a difference, there are, but it is small. A different cables change the way how ground loops and EMI are propagating across the system. External interference (noise) makes a difference in sound, not a cable itself.
> 
> ...


Glad to see you're enjoying your music!  



For me, having owned a lot high-end gear over the years (Audio Research, Threshold, Krell, Bryston, Luxman, Thorens, Linn, Decca, Denon, Grado, Nakamichi, Quad, Magneplanar, KEF, B&W, Senn, Beyer, Focal, Audeze, HiFiMan, etc.) from sources to dacs to preamps to amps to speakers/headphones, I find my music enjoyment ROI to be much higher when I have a variety of very nice transducers paired with mid-tier or less gear instead of the other way around.  Additionally, I don't get the incremental value from a $5000 amp or dac compared to a $500 one.

I currently own multibit, NOS, and DS dacs along with Class A and AB amps (discrete and op-amp based).  Used to own some OTL amps as well but have switched to Hybrids...too much of a pita to roll 2 pairs of matched tubes imo.

Honestly, the one significant difference that electronics can introduce for me are via tubes.  Definitely a tube's signature can influence my enjoyment when paired with the right transducers...assuming the system is capable of enough, clean power for the transducers it is paired with.



"When the entire system achieve a certain transparency level (usually associated with enjoyement), our brain switches to the higher level of sensitivity." 

I do believe the 'brain switches' for people.  Is the switch due to expectaion bias? nuances that a 'Golden Eared' audiophile can hear that the rest of us can't? system synergy?  Who cares!  If it works for that listener, then good on them!


----------



## johnjen (Aug 8, 2021)

Beagle said:


> The good old "Law Of Diminishing Returns". Or "The More You Pay, The More You _Think_ You Should Be Getting So It_ Has_ To Be Better".
> 
> I've been taken in far too many times and now prefer to hear what's actually there, which you can acquire for surprisingly little money.


Yes this is an all to common 'trap', especially for some, but not ALWAYS for everyone.

By this I mean we all have different motivations, desires, and hearing ability, not to mention end uses for our treasured audio playback systems.
This all makes for a wide diversity of needs and configurations to meet these various system combinations to fulfill the reason for them to even exist.

And there do seem to be those who hear with heightened degree's of resolution, more so than others.
They WILL perceive audible aspects where others can't or won't or don't.

IOW Audio simply isn't a one stop shopping experience and the learning curve seemingly never ends, at least for some.
And the attempt to 'save' someone/anyone from making 'senseless' decisions which can be personally hard won audio lessons, is fraught with logical, common sense, and emotional aspects that 'cloud' and complicate our choices.

And while I agree that clocks ALONE may not make all that much of a difference in SOME dacs, to me it's more a matter how that clock is used, applied, along with it's associated circuitry.
THAT, when executed properly DOES make a difference, and in any digital to analog re/construction device, of ANY type.

Timing is 1/2 of everything in the digital world.

JJ


----------



## Sonic Defender

That is what makes head-fi the Internet home of the subjectivist, and such a nice community. Frustrating as all get out at times, but it is undeniable that the membership here is very nice and open to having conversations, but staying respectful. I do spend more time over at ASR as I am much more of an objectivist now. If it can't be demonstrated in a double blind, multiple trial, level matched experiment I don't believe it. But that is me and my attitude and I should try even harder to understand that for many people, they don't need scientific evidence, they trust their ears that much. Good on them. They probably have a lot more fun with their gear than I do. All I do is research gear that is demonstrated to be designed properly and measures well and combine them in a small system and listen to music. Not as much fun as constantly chasing the next high, or tweaking gear with new internal wiring and clocks. That does sound like a lot of fun.


----------



## GearMe

Sonic Defender said:


> That is what makes head-fi the Internet home of the subjectivist, and such a nice community. Frustrating as all get out at times, but it is undeniable that the membership here is very nice and open to having conversations, but staying respectful. I do spend more time over at ASR as I am much more of an objectivist now. If it can't be demonstrated in a double blind, multiple trial, level matched experiment I don't believe it. But that is me and my attitude and I should try even harder to understand that for many people, they don't need scientific evidence, they trust their ears that much. Good on them. They probably have a lot more fun with their gear than I do. All I do is research gear that is demonstrated to be designed properly and measures well and combine them in a small system and listen to music. Not as much fun as constantly chasing the next high, or tweaking gear with new internal wiring and clocks. That does sound like a lot of fun.


I was a subjectivist early on.  That literally changed for me when I swapped out an ultra expensive amp for a Forte Audio amp and felt like the listening experience didn't suffer at all.  If anything, I thought it improved.

That said, even back then I realized that I might have 'wanted' this to be the case...hence introducing an expectation bias.  Regardless, after having that amp in my system for a while, I realized that (for me) I was fine with mid-priced separates instead of the high-end stuff -- totally changed my spending mix on gear.

The next epiphany I had was that I often enjoyed listening to rock/blues music on my acoustic system and acoustic music on my rock/blues system.  Took a while, but finally figured out that for me it was more about the music and less about the gear.  Gotta say this change in priorities has significantly improved my listening experience and my music collection (more $$$$ for music).


----------



## sajunky (Aug 9, 2021)

GearMe said:


> Glad to see you're enjoying your music!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do enjoy music indeed. I could became a musician, but I was feeling better with my electronics hobby and decided to go with engineering studies. I do understand why tubes sound the best. In contrary to the popular belief about even harmonics, it is something else and has a scientific explanation.

Listening pleasure depends on many factors. There were moments in my life I coudn't enjoy music, even having equipment close to a described. Now when I had to rebuild everything from scratch, I had a problem of accepting the best measuring on the universe Topping D30. A recent bully attack you saw is a result of my complains on the ASR. A resque came from a $42 Nobsound 8xTDA1387 DAC, I was using for one year before getting a right NOS stuff, now I am getting fully relaxed.

I must explain why I use a word 'switching'. It is not a linear relationship between SQ and our hearing. On one side a new equipment needs a burn-in period, but it is continuous process. On the other is our brain, it needs an adjustment, self-tuning (rebooting?).   A sound is improving slowly and then there is a moment when a sound opens up. It brings us to a completely different level of enjoyement. Before it happens we are listening less music.

Some HiFi dealer (he wants to be a good advisor) says that he is also evaluating a client enjoyement from the currently owned gear. There are number of people buying equipment just to stay on the top of a society. So, he is asking a question: "how much your music library has grown over a period you bought this or this". I know it is changing now with a popular music streaming, but it was very important indicator of customer satisfaction.


----------



## castleofargh

Nobody is suggesting to stop enjoying the full experience. Nobody is suggesting that having more fun, or more emotions thanks to extra non audio variables(knowingly or not) is wrong when it comes to entertainment.
But when it comes to testing a specific variable, the other ones cannot be left unchecked if they may impact our results. If we wish to have high confidence in our results, there is simply not other choice but to rigorously control or remove extra variables.
That's experimenting 101.

With all the research done in the last century about human hearing, psychoacoustic, psychological biases, etc, there is simply no way to be somewhat informed, and propose a sighted experience to get objective facts about sound. So I do not understand or accept statements of facts about the sound of a DAC from sighted impressions.
With headphones, the changes are so big between 2 pairs that it would be silly to deny sighted claims of audible sound differences simply because it's poorly controlled. But DAC are, or should be, clean enough to require evidence of audible sound difference.


----------



## sajunky

castleofargh said:


> With all the research done in the last century about human hearing, psychoacoustic, psychological biases, etc, there is simply no way to be somewhat informed, and propose a sighted experience to get objective facts about sound. So I do not understand or accept statements of facts about the sound of a DAC from sighted impressions.


I really don't get it. Is your previous comment on how NOS sounds not coming from a sighted impression?


----------



## johnjen (Aug 10, 2021)

GearMe said:


> I was a subjectivist early on.  That literally changed for me when I swapped out an ultra expensive amp for a Forte Audio amp and felt like the listening experience didn't suffer at all.  If anything, I thought it improved.
> 
> That said, even back then I realized that I might have 'wanted' this to be the case...hence introducing an expectation bias.  Regardless, after having that amp in my system for a while, I realized that (for me) I was fine with mid-priced separates instead of the high-end stuff -- totally changed my spending mix on gear.
> 
> The next epiphany I had was that I often enjoyed listening to rock/blues music on my acoustic system and acoustic music on my rock/blues system.  Took a while, but finally figured out that for me it was more about the music and less about the gear.  Gotta say this change in priorities has significantly improved my listening experience and my music collection (more $$$$ for music).


I still consider myself an objectivist, but also a subjectivist as well.
Each has strengths and weaknesses but the combination gets me closer to learning and understanding more, and how I can reach and then exceed my previous best and turn it into '*better*' still.

And since both approaches have big holes and problematic conclusions in their 'data gathering' and analytic abilities, it does take a while to be able to integrate these 2 disparate sets of 'knowing' to provide useful 'guidance' and provide meaning.

And this is where experience comes into play along with my previously mentioned motivation and desires, and hearing abilities.
And additionally there is the aspect of what I call one's degree of '*calibration*'.
So if we have spent a 'sufficient' amount of time living with a playback system that greatly exceeds our previous 'best', this then becomes our pinnacle of SQ, which we use to compare as our new 'standard' of '*better*' against any/everything else.

Some of us have been '*calibrated*' by very exceptional musical playback systems which becomes our 'standard' to which we can then strive to achieve this same degree of SQ in any subsequent audio systems we deal with.

An example.
I met with a friend who had just set up his secondary system and had us help him dial it in.

We listened and it was apparent the speakers were out of phase, so we corrected that.
Then we checked for absolute phase and corrected for that.
We could have used a portable spectrum analyzer for these adjustments, but listening was clearly easier.

Then I noticed his tone arm was WAY to low at the pivot point.
So he started to raise the arm until it was apparent that he was close(r) to the sweet spot.
Then we adjusted the azimuth to bring it even closer to level.
And kept going back and forth.

There are no measurements available for the arm height, well not unless you have a laser 3d measuring system, or perhaps some cartridge alignment tools are available and you know how to use them…
Or you can eyeball it and listen, which is what worked, and quite well at that.

IOW neither a strict objectivist nor a subjectivist approach alone would have been able to achieve the same degree of success nor as quickly when we used both where appropriate.

But knowing what to listen for and what could be done to tweak the system, does require previous experience and knowledge of what and how to make sometimes minute adjustments.
This is where our degree of *calibration* and experience kicks in to enable a degree of tweaking the system to achieve '*better*'.

And there are plenty of other examples of other sub-assemblies in our systems where dialing them in is a mixture of measurement and listening skills.

Just say'n is all.

JJ


----------



## sajunky (Aug 10, 2021)

I agree with the above, but please don't use a term 'subjectivist' vs. 'objectivist'. These terms had been deployed by those who believe that measurements do deliver objective results. It is not true. Measuring equipment is not able to measure things we can hear and in reverse. In the result measurements are only objective for the machine. we are not machines, right? For our ears these results are subjective if not confirmed by our hearing.


----------



## johnjen

My use of those terms is rather more general.
To me an Objectivist refers to someone who pays attention to measurements, while a Subjectivist pays attention to what is heard.

When I wrote this, it was to draw attention to both of their inherent natures and when combined where the total is greater than the sum of their parts.
"_Each has strengths and weaknesses but the combination gets me closer to learning and understanding more, and how I can reach and then exceed my previous best and turn it into '*better*' still.

And since both approaches have big holes and problematic conclusions in their 'data gathering' and analytic abilities, it does take a while to be able to integrate these 2 disparate sets of 'knowing' to provide useful 'guidance' and provide meaning."_

The above passage refers to your main point, that being that measurements don't really have a direct and causal effect on SQ, especially when playing music.
And that listening alone is not infallible in it's conclusions about SQ either.

JJ


----------



## sajunky (Aug 10, 2021)

Stiil it is better to not use the other camp terms. There were created for your psychological discomfort, placing you in a disadvantaged position from the start, forcing to accept wrong assumptions as a truth.


----------



## Sonic Defender

sajunky said:


> I agree with the above, but please don't use a term 'subjectivist' vs. 'objectivist'. These terms had been deployed by those who believe that measurements do deliver objective results. It is not true. Measuring equipment is not able to measure things we can hear and in reverse. In the result measurements are only objective for the machine. we are not machines, right? For our ears these results are subjective if not confirmed by our hearing.


I'm sorry, but measurements do deliver objective, valid and reliable data. Where are you getting the scientific evidence to back up your claims? I am sorry, but it does seem that you are simply saying what you believe as opposed to what you can reasonably consider as knowledge. Our brains are machines, they just aren't mechanical. Here is part of the definition of a machine from Wikipedia "A machine is any physical system with ordered structural and functional properties.". That is your brain.


----------



## Sonic Defender (Aug 10, 2021)

sajunky said:


> Stiil it is better to not use the other camp terms. There were created for your psychological discomfort, placing you in a disadvantaged position from the start, forcing to accept wrong assumptions as a truth.


Not at all. You are making rather large assumptions that likely stem from how you feel and you are erroneously projecting this outward onto others. Who created these for psychological discomfort? Would you kindly provide some evidence to back up your claims. A claim without evidence is an opinion. If you want to simply state your opinion, please feel free to do so, but would you kindly consider using a qualifier in your writing such as in my opinion ...


----------



## sajunky

Sonic Defender said:


> I'm sorry, but measurements do deliver objective, valid and reliable data. Where are you getting the scientific evidence to back up your claims? I am sorry, but it does seem that you are simply saying what you believe as opposed to what you can reasonably consider as knowledge. Our brains are machines, they just aren't mechanical.


Now the Audiosciencereview member and promoter claims that humans are machines. Stop trolling this thread, go back to Amir.


----------



## castleofargh

sajunky said:


> I really don't get it. Is your previous comment on how NOS sounds not coming from a sighted impression?


 A fact is a fact because it has been demonstrated. 
If a friend comes telling you that his neighbor is a space lizard, I expect you to ask for evidence before you start making plans to hunt it down.
But come to an audiophile forum, and feelings under sighted conditions become the gold standard of truth? No.
Ideas, feelings, facts, they deserve to be different words. Under sighted conditions, I may get the feeling that my latest DAC rolls off the treble. I may get some idea about why that design could cause treble roll off. But do I have facts about treble roll off or its cause? I do not, and if I act like I do on a forum, I’m kind of a fraud.
If I don't care, fine. But if I do care, and wish for the truth about treble or my actual ability to hear it, then I will need some controlled experiment to gather actual facts.


----------



## castleofargh

sajunky said:


> Now the Audiosciencereview member and promoter claims that humans are machines. Stop trolling this thread, go back to Amir.


----------



## sajunky

castleofargh said:


> A fact is a fact because it has been demonstrated.
> If a friend comes telling you that his neighbor is a space lizard, I expect you to ask for evidence before you start making plans to hunt it down.
> But come to an audiophile forum, and feelings under sighted conditions become the gold standard of truth? No.
> Ideas, feelings, facts, they deserve to be different words. Under sighted conditions, I may get the feeling that my latest DAC rolls off the treble. I may get some idea about why that design could cause treble roll off. But do I have facts about treble roll off or its cause? I do not, and if I act like I do on a forum, I’m kind of a fraud.
> If I don't care, fine. But if I do care, and wish for the truth about treble or my actual ability to hear it, then I will need some controlled experiment to gather actual facts.


You want me to believe that your sighted impressions about NOS are true, right. On what basis? A moderator of a different forum should act more responsible. You are a reason that a machine-feeling troll started to spread atheistic ideologies under your umbrella. A moment later we will be fed by a bunch of  Marxism-Leninism ideologies.

Are you talking about NOS treble roll-off? If you do please be more specific. We can discuss this matter in a relaxed atmosphere when trolls go away.


----------



## castleofargh

sajunky said:


> You want me to believe that your sighted impressions about NOS are true, right. On what basis? A moderator of a different forum should act more responsible. You are a reason that a machine-feeling troll started to spread atheistic ideologies under your umbrella. A moment later we will be fed by a bunch of  Marxism-Leninism ideologies.
> 
> Are you talking about NOS treble roll-off? If you do please be more specific. We can discuss this matter in a relaxed atmosphere when trolls go away.


It's my turn to have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## GearMe

OK...so this kind of dialogue is the stuff that seems to be a tremendous waste of time at least to my way of thinking!

Each side (person really) has their unique frame of reference.  A subjectivist's frame of reference may be primarily based on sighted listening while an objectivist's is grounded on data, abx testing, etc.

_Each person's experience is real to them and it's a fool's errand for someone to insist that the other side acquiesce to their terms, methodologies (or lack thereof), etc.  Seems more reasonable to live and let live..._



I say these things with an educational and work background in engineering, business, and more recently analytics...hence my leanings toward spending less on electronic gear and more on transducers.

Regardless, if someone with a different frame of reference from me is enjoying their audio experience, I'm happy for them and feel no need to convince them that their path is wrong...it's just different!



I took some philosophy classes at university as electives while studying engineering.  They were interesting and opened my mind up to thinking about things more broadly.

One simple example that a professor brought up in class was regarding our perceptions and could we really trust them...the Brian in a Vat.  Of course, the dialogue that ensued was varied and spirited. But in the end, it hopefully made us think more deeply and consider alternatives.

I often read these subjectivist vs objectivist discussions and think that the whole lot of us from the most ardent subjectivist to the die-hard objectivist are nothing more than a perfect illustration of...





The Blind Men and the Elephant.


----------



## Sonic Defender

sajunky said:


> Now the Audiosciencereview member and promoter claims that humans are machines. Stop trolling this thread, go back to Amir.


I'm welcome in any thread that I wish to be in here. I don't need your permission mate. I don't promote any community, generally speaking, but I do speak highly of head-fi at ASR and here I speak highly of ASR because both communities are great and are valid. I get it that backing up opinion is hard, hence my suggestion that stating that something is an opinion is not a bad way forward. I could say to you stop polluting this thread with nonsense, but I didn't, nor would I. 

I still think that being responsible or careful with your claims is part of good forum etiquette and the most respected, full-on subjectivist members that have been around here for years are very good at stating when they are offering opinion versus something they believe to be fact.


----------



## Sonic Defender (Aug 10, 2021)

sajunky said:


> You want me to believe that your sighted impressions about NOS are true, right. On what basis? A moderator of a different forum should act more responsible. You are a reason that a machine-feeling troll started to spread atheistic ideologies under your umbrella. A moment later we will be fed by a bunch of  Marxism-Leninism ideologies.
> 
> Are you talking about NOS treble roll-off? If you do please be more specific. We can discuss this matter in a relaxed atmosphere when trolls go away.


You may want to consider how you're presenting yourself. You may feel that your making other people laugh at me, but I would bet that many people are wondering why you are being so rude. I am not saying that my posts were warm and fuzzy towards your expressed opinions, but I don't think that they were rude, nor did I intentionally insult you. I did call on you to consider how you present your opinions here, you didn't like it, I get that, I offered you a valid suggestion and you seem to have decided to make it personal. Shame, at first you seemed very reasonable.


----------



## Sonic Defender

GearMe said:


> ...
> 
> I often read these subjectivist vs objectivist discussions and think that the whole lot of us from the most ardent subjectivist to the die-hard objectivist are nothing more than a perfect illustration of...
> 
> ...


Fair enough, but if you had to try to save the life of your child with medication developed by instinct and feeling, no evidence for efficacy or safety versus a medication with rigorous scientifically derived evidence, which would you rather gamble on? There are levels of blindness after all.


----------



## Maxx134

Sonic Defender said:


> You can't hear jitter unless the DAC is very poorly engineered.


I like to give my perspective.
I do not think jitter is only what you hear, but what you don't hear.

I can believe a NOS dac can sound just beautiful and musical. 
I don't think the "clocks" are simply just for jitter, because I have experience another observation which I believe is due to the clocks.

The difference I have observed, is how believable the presentation was.
Some dacs have a more real sensation
 of  "being there" presence, which I am (naively) holding the clocks responsible for. 😅



GearMe said:


> The Blind Men and the Elephant



 I like this subjective/objective pic better:



😯😯😀


----------



## GearMe

Sonic Defender said:


> Fair enough, but if you had to try to save the life of your child with medication developed by instinct and feeling, no evidence for efficacy or safety versus a medication with rigorous scientifically derived evidence, which would you rather gamble on? There are levels of blindness after all.


Hmmm -- listening to tunes vs a life/death choice -- not really apples to apples...wouldn't you agree?  

This actually seems to illustrate my point in a weird way.  Many on both sides (although more so the objectivists...imo) seem to be far too serious about what is nothing more than a fun hobby / nice diversion from the real world and all of it's very real challenges/problems/etc.



Again...I'm a guy with a data/engineering background that doesn't believe in spending a lot of coin on electronic gear (dacs/amps/sources/cables/etc.) for little to no incremental return...a closet objectivist I guess.   

That said, I definitely don't believe in validating the intense desire that many on the either side of this 'debate' exhibit to be 'right'.



You know, as I spend time in various threads from the overly subjective to the fanatically objective, I'm beginning to think the subjectivists 'won' this argument years ago for the simple reason that they seem to enjoy themselves a lot more in this hobby than the objectivists do!  Purely my opinion of course  

So -- Ignorance is Bliss, Expectation Bias, Snake Oil...whatever it is, I don't see the need to keep tilting at this windmill.


----------



## Sonic Defender

@GearMe you do raise a really good point about what "winning" in these situations really means, enjoyment. You can certainly make a strong argument that the person who goes wild over the newest OpAmp they swapped in (even though the previous one was audibly transparent) is getting more from the hobby than the crusty old objectivist who believes audible transparency has already been reached so why bother? 

You have certainly remained cool as a cucumber which is admirable. As hard as it may be to believe, I actually do enjoy reading from those who post with enthusiasm and excitement about their subjective experience. I do have a problem with those who are so hostile and contrary to evidence such that they speak with such force of conviction as if their perception is proof for all and need not be examined. That does not sound like fun though, so point taken. Cheers.


----------



## sajunky

Sonic Defender said:


> You can certainly make a strong argument that the person who goes wild over the newest OpAmp they swapped in (even though the previous one was audibly transparent) is getting more from the hobby than the crusty old objectivist who believes audible transparency has already been reached so why bother?


There are no crusty old objectivists. They call themselves such way and they are very vocal, but none of them really are.

And as a matter of fact, there is no transparency with high gain opamps. No matter how fast large signal slew rate is claimed. I agree on this point and I do not call myself an 'objectivist'.


----------



## Maxx134

The highlight moments in life, when your in a state of blissful euphoria,  "experiencing" something subjectively better, and are not "corrupted" with factual measurement data...




😯😅


----------



## johnjen

sajunky said:


> Stiil it is better to not use the other camp terms. There were created for your psychological discomfort, placing you in a disadvantaged position from the start, forcing to accept wrong assumptions as a truth.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I.
And if these terms cause you "psychological discomfort" then don't use them by all means.
As for placing me "in a disadvantaged position from the start, forcing to accept wrong assumptions as a truth", well, I simply don't agree.
Why?
Because it is my choice pure and simple to mean what I say, as it is your choice to let such meanings conform to those of others, if you so choose.
And really, do you want to be the grammar police?

And as was stated previously, to which I agree, I see this as a HOBBY, a FUN hobby and the picking of nits usually isn't much fun.

JJ


----------



## johnjen

Sonic Defender said:


> I'm sorry, but measurements do deliver objective, valid and reliable data. Where are you getting the scientific evidence to back up your claims? I am sorry, but it does seem that you are simply saying what you believe as opposed to what you can reasonably consider as knowledge. Our brains are machines, they just aren't mechanical. Here is part of the definition of a machine from Wikipedia "A machine is any physical system with ordered structural and functional properties.". That is your brain.





Sonic Defender said:


> Not at all. You are making rather large assumptions that likely stem from how you feel and you are erroneously projecting this outward onto others. Who created these for psychological discomfort? Would you kindly provide some evidence to back up your claims. A claim without evidence is an opinion. If you want to simply state your opinion, please feel free to do so, but would you kindly consider using a qualifier in your writing such as in my opinion ...


And speaking of opinions…
SOME measurements can "deliver objective, valid and reliable data" but not all.
Making measurements is a tricky business and as has been pointed out by others, can all to often result in impressive looking data that is utterly misleading and does not accurately, nor with precision, nor repeatability, reflect the DUT (Device Under Test).
Those 3 criteria (accuracy, precision, repeatability) comprise the bedrock for 'real' results using the scientific method and are all to often 'overlooked' (to put it mildly).

And as we all know, knowledge is based upon factual data that reflects, with accuracy, precision, and repeatability, the reality it is trying to measure.
So when I see a CFL desk lamp (or is it a led lamp?) in close proximity to a high precision data gathering device, for me it calls into question any and all results obtained by the aforementioned high precision data gathering device setup.
It makes me wonder what other 'quirks' are also in play, like say s/w setup/configuration and other environmental conditions.

AND

Can you tell me of ANY measurements that are designed to analyze and provide meaningfully relevant results, 
for music, as it is being played, 
you know dynamically?

Because THAT is what all of this audio equipment is meant and designed to do, play music, not test tones or sweeps or square waves etc.
Indeed as has also been pointed out recently, all of our 'standard tests' are woefully deficient at describing HOW a device will sound, which when it comes down to it is, the #1 with a bullet, criteria for WHY and HOW we actually use this gear.

Which points right back to what I wrote earlier "And since both approaches (objective and subjective) have big holes and problematic conclusions in their 'data gathering' and analytic abilities"…

Yes, SOME measurements can "deliver objective, valid and reliable data" but not all.
And even the most sophisticated tests available, all of which are mainly used to determine if any specific device is operating according to it's own specifications, these tests which comprise these very same specifications are not meant to relate to it's sound quality.
Why?
Because they weren't deigned for that purpose,
AND,
sound quality is a purely subjective evaluation.

IOW, how does a group of static measurements directly relate to the sound and how are they any different than other similar gear,
and here is the kicker,
which is '*better*'?

Because in the end we ALL will choose what is '*better*', it's just that some make choices that comprise criteria that is FAR different than others.

And this entire 2-sided 'debate' is an example of how we learn what IS and is NOT the best choice for one's personal criteria of what constitutes '*Better*'..

Just some thoughts to ponder.

JJ


----------



## Sonic Defender (Aug 11, 2021)

Hello JJ,

That is quite a bit of information, thank you for the thoughtful reply. I understand about the strengths and weaknesses of measurement. There is always error involved, and error can come from more than one contributing source at the same time. To be fair, in the context of the discussion at hand we are talking pretty specifically about measuring audio devices using well validated methods and tools. The measurements will never be without error, but the accuracy can still be high enough to reliably draw conclusions from. Absolute facts are very hard to come by, and always subject to new investigation. Saying that, the set of objective measurements that are typically deployed by objectivists over at say ASR are pretty robust and have been well vetted for validity and reliability, same with the measurement tools. Are they absolutely perfect? Not to darn likely, but they are clearly more than adequate.

The claim of some special components of sound that nobody can describe, identify or measure is usually what is proposed by subjective proponents in objection to the clinical notion of measuring sound. I certainly cannot refute the existence of such unknown components of sound, or phenomena within the hearing brain, it may even be reasonable enough to speculate of their existence, but nonetheless it is nothing but speculation and as far from fact or true knowledge as can be possible at this point. Your points are well taken though, and I will; however, leave you with this thought. You mentioned the possible variability in measurement results as a reason that you don't like to be too bound by them. Fair enough. I think it may be worth considering how subjective observations are orders of magnitude more variable (look at the difficulty people have describing what they hear) and without any precision at all. Considering those confounds, and they aren't the only confounds found within subjective evaluation, how much confidence should be held in them?

Frankly, we do need both subjective and objective data to better understand and communicate our experiences. I have only pointed out that some claims are extremely speculative and yet are presented as fact, that is a semantic issue, I do not per say have any issue with someone trying to relay their love of the hobby through discussing their subjective experience. It is what drew me to this community many years ago and keeps me part of it still. There is value in subjectivity and I have never felt or claimed otherwise. I feel that people may be taking my words and thoughts and interpreting them a little too broadly.


----------



## GearMe

Interesting discussions on a variety of fronts...

As somebody that leans objectivist for electronics and subjectivist for transducers, my thinking is that a level-matched abx test would resolve the listening differences (if any) for electronics with the additional caveat that, if amps are being compared, they are both are 'up to the task' for the transducers they're being paired with.  

In the end, if the test is well-designed and someone can consistently differentiate two pieces of gear that measure the same from an audibility perspective, then _they_ can hear the difference even though it didn't show up in the measurements.


----------



## johnjen (Aug 11, 2021)

Sonic Defender, wrote…
_"The claim of some special components of sound that nobody can describe, identify or measure is usually what is proposed by subjective proponents in objection to the clinical notion of measuring sound. I certainly cannot refute the existence of such unknown components of sound, or phenomena within the hearing brain, it may even be reasonable enough to speculate of their existence, but nonetheless it is nothing but speculation and as far from fact or true knowledge as can be possible at this point."_

Oh but SOME people CAN describe and identify _"special components of sound"_ and quite well at that.
_
"I certainly cannot refute the existence of such unknown components of sound"_
But for SOME they are NOT _"unknown components of sound"_ at all.
Rather, some simply can't hear them and for a variety of reasons, and no it isn't _"nothing but speculation and as far from fact or true knowledge as can be possible at this point"_ either.

Again SOME people simply can't hear these levels of SQ, while others CAN, and can tell when they are missing.

And to limit the scope of "_true knowledge_" to just gathering "_clinical_" data while in such an unnatural setting and while listening to music also hampers proper data gathering due to the way the brain actually operates while listening to music.

And lastly from those professional sound experts and others whose hearing I know DOES hear these finer details of SQ, they have raised some serious questions about ASR and its means and methods, not to mention it's reputation, which has come under scrutiny multiple times and in multiple ways.

Like I stated its not easy to make accurate, precise, and repeatable measurements in the first place, even from the professionals, and from the examples I have seen, ASR comes up rather short in this regard.
And drawing questionable conclusions all the while not actually listening to or for SQ, tells me his conclusions are fraught with bias which is the death knell for any form of useful information, at least for me who has decades of experience on both sides of this 'debate'.

And finally, we all make personal choices which by definition ARE subjective at there very core.
There is no way around this, we are after all subjective at OUR very core.

JJ


----------



## sajunky (Aug 11, 2021)

johnjen said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I.
> And if these terms cause you "psychological discomfort" then don't use them by all means.
> As for placing me "in a disadvantaged position from the start, forcing to accept wrong assumptions as a truth", well, I simply don't agree.
> Why?


It is a subconscious discomfort, as it affects the process of collecting facts and interpreting results. We are accepting logical consequences which are behind a meaning of the term, not realising that it is linked to the false objectives.

For an example: A hard core objectivist claims that a crusty old objectivist is the one who believes audible transparency has already been reached (_implicated subconsciously by 'objective' measurements_), on the other side would be a subjectivist who goes wild over the newest OpAmp they swapped in (even though the previous one was audibly transparent). A subjectivist is the one who is supposed to argue who has the most pleasure from swapping opamps: objectivist or subjectivist. By accepting a subconcious message behind meaning of the term, a person would like to become an objectivist, as nobody wants to be incredible stupid, isn't? A defense method would lead to the elaborated dispute that measurements do not show what is heard by a human (which absolutely true and a good defense, in fact different opamps sound different). A problem is that a subjectivist forgets that there is no opamps in his/her system anymore, a system has achieved level of transparency that opamps are not able to deliver and that an 'objectivist' use a supermarket type of the equipment, brands like SMSL/Fiio.

Am main goal has been achieved, as a discussion is already diverted from the initial 'objectivists' claim that
"any reasonable DAC has a clock that performs well beyond the capability of any human ear. The whole magic clock tweaking stuff people do is absolutely measureable, but not resulting in audible difference."


----------



## Maxx134 (Sep 1, 2021)

johnjen said:


> Can you tell me of ANY measurements that are designed to analyze and provide meaningfully relevant results,
> for music, as it is being played,
> you know dynamically?


This is a good point. BOTH perspectives are totally valid for me.
I have no longer any mental conflict between the topics discussed here...
Why?
Because I have been able to rationalize all data/measurements as "static" points in time. Very useful & necessary for "data-points" and expected performance of a device measured,
But I also differentiate it from "live". The continuously working/streaming "flow" of music "over time"(moving).
This is where I believe much of the misunderstandings exist between the "subjective" & "objective" sides.

An analogy would be like the physical measurements of an athelete...You can know their "specs" (height, weight, power, health, ratings/averages, like baseball stats...)
these "measurements" describe their "potential" and expected performance.
 Then you observe them play, in actual "realtime".. continuous live streaming, within your variables & settings( your ears, headphones, gear, room, streaming, etc).
Why do we have "correction data" algorithms, even in micro SD cards, if the real world is that simple?
rude awakening,,, ANS=In real world, nothing is simple..


----------



## Maxx134

Another observation which is more on topic with the thread title, is that I am of the opinion that Delta Sigma has reached performance levels, to no longer be any compromise in comparison to an R2R.  
Specifically. in the volatile and fast evolving DAP market, I have observed and tried various R2R & Delta Sigma implementations.
Although with desktop units, anything goes.


----------



## johnjen (Sep 3, 2021)

Maxx134 said:


> This is a good point. BOTH perspectives are totally valid for me.
> snip
> But I also differentiate it from "live". The continuously working/streaming "flow" of music "over time"(moving).
> This is where I believe much of the misunderstandings exist between the "subjective" & "objective" sides.
> snip


One of my, admittedly subjective assessments, is centered around this idea of the "flow of music over time".

I call it having a sound field that plays the music in 4D.
That being, the sound field is stable for each and every *'Voice'* (*'Voice'* means any instrument being played, including singers etc.) in 3D space but also this stability remains thru time (4D) and even if a particular *'Voice'* is supposed to move, it does so with stability (ie no jumping nor uneven movements within the sound field, especially as the *'Voice'* rises and falls in frequency) just like in 'real life'.

I would ask how ANYONE could measure that acoustic trait, yet it is clearly audible, especially when you know to listen for it.

JJ


----------



## sajunky

johnjen said:


> That being, the sound field is stable for each and every *'Voice'* (*'Voice'* means any instrument being played, including singers etc.) in 3D space but also this stability remains thru time (4D) and even if a particular *'Voice'* is supposed to move, it does so with stability (ie no jumping nor uneven movements within the sound field, especially as the *'Voice'* rises and falls in frequency) just like in 'real life'.


 I do never experience a voice positional stability problems, perhaps it is because I am sensitive to false harmonics, my reaction to this comes first. Simplified sound in result of DSP filtering cause bluring individual voices into one, which most of people hear as an increased clarity. However because individual voices carry different harmonics and reverbations, it leads to false harmonics. I perceive it similar to the unacceptable level of THD distortions. Phase linearity problems also cause 'jumping', but it is in result of chosing wrong filters, I don't think you meant that.

All laboratory equipment work on a principle of time averaging. The above mentioned "Voice raises and falls" cannot be detected as averaging time is longer than these events.


----------



## castleofargh

johnjen said:


> One of my, admittedly subjective assessments, is centered around this idea of the "flow of music over time".
> 
> I call it having a sound field that plays the music in 4D.
> That being, the sound field is stable for each and every *'Voice'* (*'Voice'* means any instrument being played, including singers etc.) in 3D space but also this stability remains thru time (4D) and even if a particular *'Voice'* is supposed to move, it does so with stability (ie no jumping nor uneven movements within the sound field, especially as the *'Voice'* rises and falls in frequency) just like in 'real life'.
> ...


I suspect that you're talking about something that stereo albums on headphones cannot do well. 
Tell me if I understand you correctly. If we consider a real sound source in front of you, it will simply feel like it's over there, and if it was to move, it would do in a way that agrees with the actual displacement. No jumping around, coming closer or going up, just the audio impression in agreement with the actual displacement.

But with headphones, that might not be the case. Things might feel like they go up or move closer, or kind of teleport from a position to the next before resuming a more reasonable movement. To make things worst, if you happen to move your head, the already small stage could collapse inside your head(at least for a moment). 

If it's something like that, the best answer would be speakers, or a fairly good HRTF simulation(as in one that is custom to you, or one that happens to work fine for you with some luck). 
I use a Realiser A16. For those not familiar with that toy, you measure some speakers in a room while looking at a bunch of directions while having mics in your ears. You then also measure the FR of the headphone you'll use with the same mics in your ears. Then by the magical power convolution, the A16 tries to make your headphone sound like your speakers, and the signal changes as you turn your head to maintain a correction that comes closest to one you measured in that general direction. My entirely biased opinion is that the simulation works well.

If you can procure some binaural microphones(maybe start with super cheap little mics and some DIY to have them sit near your ear canal), you can use impulcifer which is free. Troubleshootings and discussions here https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rec...ses-for-speaker-virtualization.890719/page-40

And if I'm completely missing your point, well, ooops. ^_^


----------

