AudioCircle
Industry Circles => GR Research => Topic started by: Rivalaudio on 27 Sep 2018, 04:42 pm
-
I don't get it. I have tried, heaven knows I have tried! I have cycled through a number of dac's, cd players etc and just cant hear any worthwhile difference to chat about. When I thought I hear something amazing or special, I busted out my DBL meter only to find out it was slightly louder than the last, even 1db made a significant difference! I just don't understand it.
On the flip side, swapping from an Ortofon red to a decent cartridge, Dyna 20x2l - the difference is NIGHT and DAY.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Digital all sounds the same, prove me wrong.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Thank you for posting this. I'm interested in the responses as well. I would think an upgrade would change your perspective like crossing the street.
-
Get a DAC with a tubed output and I guarantee you'll hear a difference. But IME you are generally correct - modern day DACs all perform at a pretty high level and also tend to sound more alike than different.
-
Well, for starters, which DACs did you compare? I don't mean list all the DACs together. I want you to tell us which DACs were compared to which DACs. What differences did you hear or not hear?
Additionally, list your amplifier, preamp (if any) and speakers. Also, what music do you typically listen to?
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
There's little or no way to respond to your challenge without your first supplying some relevant information.
-
I would tend to agree. DACs do all pretty much sound the same (up to a point $$$)
IMO first off the basis is a strict decoding system that is all there is. Sure a few DACs use 'tricks' to claim they do more. But in reality all of the basics are the same across the board. And the analogue portion is really just a few bits of stuff. Sure some use tubes. cheap tubes in a cheap circuit. No big deal.
The few DACs which DO sound way better also cost a LOT.
I had owned various DACs up until I bought a used Adcom DA700 ($250) and kept that for well over ten years. It was the equal of a highly touted TAS and Stereophile DAc I tried and returned, since the new $2,300 DAC was no better than my $250 DAC.
Finally this year I bought a $7000 SACD player with DAC external access, that is really better.
Marantz SA-10.
So i would agree most DACs are all just on the same playing level... not enough to note much, if any real differences.
On the other hand the folks who say CD is 'limited' (to what they hear from most DACS) are also not understanding the limitations of the hardware is not the limits of the medium. Which is capable of being opened up to really hear what can be there.
-
Yes, there are differences in DACs. Contrary to what some would have you believe, even at the 2K and under price point. The question is, are those differences worth it to you, and do you do enough serious listening to even notice?
Remember, the first 95% comes fairly easy. It's that last 5% where the rubber meets the road. The return on dollars spent is much smaller in that slice of the pie. So if you are looking for an "oh my God" moment, you aren't likely to find it. But there are real differences.......
My advice is to not sweat the ABX bulls*&t and concentrate on which DAC gives you the most long term listening enjoyment. One will rise to the occasion.
Shakey
-
Some of the best DACs do close the gap quite a bit toward the level of quality that vinyl provides. But the best vinyl is still better than the best digital. And I say that from the perspective of someone who doesn't have a vinyl setup.
Historically I'd say that 20 years ago, most digital sucked. I'm sorry, but it did. Over the last 20 years, there's been a massive uptick in quality, and that uptick has trickled down to all levels of digital, so that on average, digital is pretty darn good nowadays :thumb: But the "type" of sound that each DAC presents is pretty similar. Kind of like solid state amps - most of them are pretty good nowadays, but they tend to all sound more alike than different. Yes there are differences, but not as much as between an OTL tube amp and an SET tube amp.
The more interesting question (to me), is if you have 2 different sources and they sound quite different but both sound good, which one is correct? Or, is it that nowadays in the high end, basic quality is high enough that any differences we note come down more to preference instead of better/worse.
-
There are differences in DACs, but compared to the effect the speakers and room have...it's relatively minor with the quality of DACs we have these days.
I've heard great things about multibit DACs having better tonality. That might be where I go next.
-
The more interesting question (to me), is if you have 2 different sources and they sound quite different but both sound good, which one is correct?
Neither one is 'correct'. There is no such animal as correct. there is close to real as you can get. and, 'what I like, better,' or, what I don't like (in a million forms.)
I totally go for what I like. Maybe in some past life I was trying for reproduce the event. Hah! All music is for is making me feel good. The rest? Who cares.
-
Neither one is 'correct'. There is no such animal as correct. there is close to real as you can get. and, 'what I like, better,' or, what I don't like (in a million forms.)
I totally go for what I like. Maybe in some past life I was trying for reproduce the event. Hah! All music is for is making me feel good. The rest? Who cares.
Yes, I feel the same. The "correct" one is whichever one brings out the most emotion.
-
Every CD player, DVD player and DAC I have tried sounded different from one another. Some a lot some little. Better is subjective.
-
Sorry to be a pain, but this thread really ought to be in the Solid State circle rather than in the GR Research Circle. [I just noticed the location.]
-
Also depends on how resolving your system is. If all DACs sound the same, that could mean something in your setup is limiting the expression of the differences in sound.
The other factor to consider is that DAC technology has advanced significantly in recent years, and greater competition has created relative price decreases. So a kazillion dollar DAC 5 years ago may only be slightly better than a $500 DAC today.
-
Sorry to be a pain, but this thread really ought to be in the Solid State circle rather than in the GR Research Circle. [I just noticed the location.]
That's because we're insinuating that Danny should design a GR Research Reference DAC.
-
That's because we're insinuating that Danny should design a GR Research Reference DAC.
:lol:
-
First thought, you spend too much time on AVS forum.
Maybe your stereo is largely immune to problems that inflict DACs differently?
-
I don't get it. I have tried, heaven knows I have tried! I have cycled through a number of dac's, cd players etc and just cant hear any worthwhile difference to chat about. When I thought I hear something amazing or special, I busted out my DBL meter only to find out it was slightly louder than the last, even 1db made a significant difference! I just don't understand it.
On the flip side, swapping from an Ortofon red to a decent cartridge, Dyna 20x2l - the difference is NIGHT and DAY.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Digital all sounds the same, prove me wrong.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
I get the exact opposite on my system. Even a USB cable swap can be really significant.
Tell us about your system and room.
I recently noted just how much difference the room can make and posted about it recently. See this post: https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=159399.0
-
Just a tid bit. I found that if I don't listen seriously often enough I start to lose much of that perspective. I haven't listened seriously for close to three years. And I enjoy music a heck of a lot more now. Plus, the music I like/love is mostly from the 60's, muscle cars and surf music. The 70's is good too as the 80's seem to be. Back in the 60's there wasn't much music that I could sit still while listening to it. Once I signed up with Apple Music I was so grateful I could listen to music from the '60's as often as I liked and can listen to any song ten times in a row if I so chose. So, all of that expensive gear I purchased over the years, I no longer have that hanging over my head. I have hung on to it, just to be sure. I think I'm super sure. If I wasn't so darn lazy, retirement has had that effect on me, I'd start listing the stuff for sale. But, life is too much fun to do anything that may jeopardize this high on life thing I've had for a couple years. Heck, I know I"m being long winded but, I took a nap today, so there. :thumb: :thumb: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: I like love popcorn. Not too many calories but I don't have the will power to say no to butter and salt, so it's always loaded up. And at my age I can do whatever I pls. as I'm really the king of this castle :duh: :P :lol:and have zero responsibilities. And I eat stuff that I want to eat. Anyways....:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Steve
-
Digital all sounds the same, prove me wrong.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Prove you wrong? Nope, you're welcome to your opinion.
Question for you though. Do you enjoy eating popcorn? Or do you chew it to mask all the pops and clicks in your vinyl?
:popcorn:
-
All DACs below around $5k that I have heard in my system do sound basically the same.
-
I get the exact opposite on my system. Even a USB cable swap can be really significant.
Tell us about your system and room.
I recently noted just how much difference the room can make and posted about it recently. See this post: https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=159399.0 (https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=159399.0)
I'm in agreement with Danny here. I recently moved, and with the new primary listening room, the sound is MUCH different than it was at my old place. I was finally able to break out a large set of German tower speakers, and they sound incredible in the new space.
I hear significant deltas with DAC's. Anyone who has listened to a Benchmark DAC-2 or DAC-3 will know what I'm referring to. I'm using a MciIntosh D150 as a DAC, and it sounds excellent. I do hear differences between it, an Oppo BDP 105 acting as a DAC, and the DAC in the Devialet 400's, all of which I have on hand. The Devialet is the most revealing, while the Mac is immensely musical. The Oppo holds it own, but it's not as good as the other two (IMHO).
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=185976) (https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=185976)
-
I don't get it. I have tried, heaven knows I have tried! I have cycled through a number of dac's, cd players etc and just cant hear any worthwhile difference to chat about. When I thought I hear something amazing or special, I busted out my DBL meter only to find out it was slightly louder than the last, even 1db made a significant difference! I just don't understand it.
On the flip side, swapping from an Ortofon red to a decent cartridge, Dyna 20x2l - the difference is NIGHT and DAY.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Digital all sounds the same, prove me wrong.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Nobody can 'prove' you right or wrong, but I do have some thoughts.
I heard Klaus from Odyssey say at a show, "90% of the sound signature of any system comes from the speakers." I agree but would modify that statement somewhat for people running vinyl, and say "90% of the sounds signature of the system comes from the transducers", of which your phono cartridge is obviously also one. The difference between different speakers and different phono cartridges dwarfs the differences between, say, DACs, amps, preamps, tuners etc.. That's not to say there aren't differences, but it's a question of magnitude. I heard differences between my Modi 2 DAC and the Multibit, but they were in some ways subtle. And, as always there's expectation bias involved. If you just spent $5000 on a DAC, maybe those subtle differences suddenly become Night and day, I've heard differences between power cords described that way. Suuuure.... Again, it's a question of magnitude. While an imperfect, electronics generally come a lot closer to their intended goal than transducers do.
-
In the past I couldn't hear much in the way of differences. Now I can, up to a point. I have come to the conclusion that I can hear differences between different items up to the point that that item is no longer the weakest link in my system.
Speaker setup and room interactions are also links in the system. If those are off, it seems to homogenize the sound.
Mike
-
I was previously in the same boat. I had an old DAC that I paid $250 for used, and tried others, no better. But after eight years I upgraded speakers to Magnepan 20.7 Added a pile of better powercords, and Furutech AC duplex, and bought a Marantz SA-10 SACD player I really use as a DAC from the same five disc changer I used to use. The Marantz does sound better.
My take on the digital all sounding the same or similar is it IS all the same. There is only one standard way to decode the signal off a CD. It may have slight variations on the chips et. but it is still all the same in a fundamental way.
DSD is a little different. And I would say the way DSD is decoding CDs in the Marantz IS actually better. Marantz just introduced a new 'trickle down effect' player... $3000 LESS in price with the same spinner and decoding engine. So there is hope.. a few years maybe even cheaper versions.
-
I don't understand why we can't accept that not everyone will be able to pick up on differences between components, and that it's okay. Listening is a complex process, and then add that to cognition... It's no different from how we see. Sure we may agree in a room that a color is red, but it's going to be a different red for every person, and there are people who won't see it at all or may even see *more*.
So many factors. Some of us are more likely to judge based on timing/percussive/dynamics, others harmonics/distortion, others spatial/dimensional placement. On and on.
In a perfect world there'd be a jillion dollars we could spend on all the research to figure this stuff out, but we barely know how the brain works as is. Instead of the usual tribal stance of 'if I can't hear it, it doesn't exist' or 'you just haven't tried out tweak/product X,Y,Z', maybe we should take a moment to acknowledge hey we don't all hear the same way and it's okay. And to help with that maybe focus on what people like Sean Olive have done and focus on *training the ear and education*.
Granted, that sounds like a lot more work than arguing on the internet.
-
Headphones or loudspeakers can change the "personality" of a system in exciting and fun ways, but can never repair or correct damage done by upstream components to the delicate music signal. And they can't "fill in" musical detail that the dac is not providing.
Since a dac is dealing with voltages that represent numbers and an analog amplification stage, both can be easily corrupted. "Bits is bits" doesn't work in real music systems, and the 73 cent dac in my phone does huge damage to the music signal compared to say, a $500 or $2000 dac designed for high fidelity systems.
For me, the "sameness" in the sound of dacs fades once I move away from the standard frequency response comparisons (brighter, etc), and listen to the music. True timbre, texture, and touch, graceful and natural dynamic flow, real instruments in space, the perception of hall sound even in "silence", are obvious.
-
For me, the "sameness" in the sound of dacs fades once I move away from the standard frequency response comparisons (brighter, etc), and listen to the music. True timbre, texture, and touch, graceful and natural dynamic flow, real instruments in space, the perception of hall sound even in "silence", are obvious.
I believe the point some people are making is that musical ques are "obvious" only from your perspective. What does a piano sound like? Well, answering that question begins with, "It depends..."
I believe the most truthful thing we can admit as audiophiles is that our systems will never sound like real instruments, nor should it be a goal.
-
Here is a list of DAC's that I have heard and had in my system or my friends and they have sounded remarkably different-
Luxman DA-06, Bryston, Chord Hugo, Exasound, Marantz NA-11s1, Cary Audio TS-200, Exogal Comet, a couple of AVA DAC's, T+A DSD8, Auralic Vega, W4S DSDse, Emotiva Big Ego, IFI, AQ Dragon Fly.
All these DAC's sound very different. My system is also very sensitive to USB cables which sound remarkably different.
-
I believe the most truthful thing we can admit as audiophiles is that our systems will never sound like real instruments, nor should it be a goal.
Wow. IMO my stereo can sound like a real instrument. And I expect it to. :thumb:
-
I believe the point some people are making is that musical ques are "obvious" only from your perspective. What does a piano sound like? Well, answering that question begins with, "It depends..."
I believe the most truthful thing we can admit as audiophiles is that our systems will never sound like real instruments, nor should it be a goal.
I actually agree with this. I want my system to sound very good and to be able to enjoy the music, to be able to close my eyes and be real enough that I can suspend my critical judge and pretend I’m at the symphony but does it feally sound like Joshua Bell is on stage in front of me with the Tulsa Symphony playing a $4 Million violin?
No, and I wouldn’t want it to. If it did, it would take all the wonder out of the one or two times a year I get to hear something special in person.
Mike
-
Nobody can 'prove' you right or wrong, but I do have some thoughts.
I heard Klaus from Odyssey say at a show, "90% of the sound signature of any system comes from the speakers." I agree but would modify that statement somewhat for people running vinyl, and say "90% of the sounds signature of the system comes from the transducers", of which your phono cartridge is obviously also one. The difference between different speakers and different phono cartridges dwarfs the differences between, say, DACs, amps, preamps, tuners etc.. That's not to say there aren't differences, but it's a question of magnitude. I heard differences between my Modi 2 DAC and the Multibit, but they were in some ways subtle. And, as always there's expectation bias involved. If you just spent $5000 on a DAC, maybe those subtle differences suddenly become Night and day, I've heard differences between power cords described that way. Suuuure.... Again, it's a question of magnitude. While an imperfect, electronics generally come a lot closer to their intended goal than transducers do.
I also think people don't just enjoy the music. You mean to tell us that you can't enjoy music on a Klaus system vs. a V.A.C. system vs a D.I.Y. system vs. any other system?
We all have our tastes, and will buy what we like. But, still.
-
I believe the point some people are making is that musical ques are "obvious" only from your perspective. What does a piano sound like? Well, answering that question begins with, "It depends..."
I believe the most truthful thing we can admit as audiophiles is that our systems will never sound like real instruments, nor should it be a goal.
Agreed! We can't really be fooled into thinking we're listening to live music.
But when I move from "foot tapping" to "foot stomping", I know I'm making progress, doing less mental work to sustain my illusion! :P
-
Just throwing it out there, but what have you done to insure your digital source is up to the task? I messed around with computers for years and was never satisfied with the quality of sound, but now that I've upgraded to a Metrum Ambre it's an entirely different story.
gary
-
Elizabeth, you sound like a voice of reason. While no one should take my opinion as anything other than opinion, I submit that the major and maybe the only difference in the sound of different DACs' (with comparable sample rates and RedBook CD) is the analog output circuitry. In my simplistic way of thinking the analog output is what you are actually hearing. Bits are bits...how they are converted to analog is absolutely done in different ways and I have a feeling that "analog is not analog" in the way "bits are bits".
As Elizabeth pointed out " There is only one standard way to decode the signal off a CD. It may have slight variations on the chips et. but it is still all the same in a fundamental way.
DSD is a little different. And I would say the way DSD is decoding CDs in the Marantz IS actually better. Marantz just introduced a new 'trickle down effect' player... $3000 LESS in price with the same spinner and decoding engine. So there is hope.. a few years maybe even cheaper versions."
So, if you accept that Truth, exactly what else could cause a major difference in sound between properly designed DACs' other than the analog output circuit? I'd guess if one took 10 different digital engines using RedBook specs and gave them all the exact same output circuit they would sound identical.
Just an opinion based on common sense.
Ed
-
Differences in sound...and more specifically improvements in sound between components is relative. One person's "night and day difference" is another persons "I think sometimes I can hear a difference".
-
I don't understand why we can't accept that not everyone will be able to pick up on differences between components, and that it's okay. Listening is a complex process, and then add that to cognition... It's no different from how we see. Sure we may agree in a room that a color is red, but it's going to be a different red for every person, and there are people who won't see it at all or may even see *more*.
So many factors. Some of us are more likely to judge based on timing/percussive/dynamics, others harmonics/distortion, others spatial/dimensional placement. On and on.
In a perfect world there'd be a jillion dollars we could spend on all the research to figure this stuff out, but we barely know how the brain works as is. Instead of the usual tribal stance of 'if I can't hear it, it doesn't exist' or 'you just haven't tried out tweak/product X,Y,Z', maybe we should take a moment to acknowledge hey we don't all hear the same way and it's okay. And to help with that maybe focus on what people like Sean Olive have done and focus on *training the ear and education*.
Granted, that sounds like a lot more work than arguing on the internet.
Well said and exactly right. Having been in music for many years, I can tell you even professionally trained musicians have differences of opinion of how something sounds or "should" sound. I definitely hear differences in DACs which I find significant - especially with the upper midrange and treble. That doesn't mean you can't hear them, perhaps your experience may be telling you its not significant, its scientifically explained away so its not relevant, etc and therefore they all sound the same.
-
Well said and exactly right. Having been in music for many years, I can tell you even professionally trained musicians have differences of opinion of how something sounds or "should" sound.
I've always wondered why there aren't more musicians who are audiophiles. I would imagine that music sounds quite different than a high end stereo system when you're playing with a band, orchestra, or whatever.
-
I've always wondered why there aren't more musicians who are audiophiles. I would imagine that music sounds quite different than a high end stereo system when you're playing with a band, orchestra, or whatever.
I've had many professional musicians hear my system. They are very willing to give opinions on sound quality. The overall opinions usually have something to do with the soundstage being constricted and how "real music" naturally "flows" which my sound system doesn't capture exactly. The main thing holding them back from owning "high end" systems is money! (true for everybody I guess) Unless they are successful composers or conductors they really are dependent on their next or current running gig. If you have an advanced degree and teach at the collegiate level then you can make a little more consistent money. Being a musician in this day and age really is a labor of love.
-
All DACs below around $5k that I have heard in my system do sound basically the same.
Every dac I've heard in my system, all below $5K, have sounded significantly different from each other.
-
Bits aren't just bits on the digital side either fellows.
Differences in USB cables can be pretty significant.
I also have or have had a lot of different playback software packages including iTunes, Amarra, Pure Music, Audirvana, and SB Play. And they all sound different.
How much is buffered into RAM has made a difference.
Switching from a standard to solid state hard drive made a difference.
Maxing out the RAM with gaming RAM made a difference.
Switching out and trying different external hard drives that the music is stored on made a difference.
Power supply upgrades to the MacMini made a difference. The type of power cable used with the MacMini made a lot of difference.
Mine has the power supply removed and it runs on an external battery. The brand and size of battery made a difference.
Adding a Dave Elledge built buffer for the battery made a difference.
Shutting down various operating system that stay on in the background made a difference.
Going from a SPDIF output to an I2S direct output made a difference.
Still think bits are bits?
-
Have you had all these said DACs in your system at the same time with the ability to switch back to each using the same source material.
Every dac I've heard in my system, all below $5K, have sounded significantly different from each other.
-
Bits aren't just bits on the digital side either fellows.
Differences in USB cables can be pretty significant.
I also have or have had a lot of different playback software packages including iTunes, Amarra, Pure Music, Audirvana, and SB Play. And they all sound different.
How much is buffered into RAM has made a difference.
Switching from a standard to solid state hard drive made a difference.
Maxing out the RAM with gaming RAM made a difference.
Switching out and trying different external hard drives that the music is stored on made a difference.
Power supply upgrades to the MacMini made a difference. The type of power cable used with the MacMini made a lot of difference.
Mine has the power supply removed and it runs on an external battery. The brand and size of battery made a difference.
Adding a Dave Elledge built buffer for the battery made a difference.
Shutting down various operating system that stay on in the background made a difference.
Going from a SPDIF output to an I2S direct output made a difference.
Still think bits are bits?
Danny,
How did you go about getting a direct I2S output and what are you connecting it to?
-
Bits aren't just bits on the digital side either fellows.
Differences in USB cables can be pretty significant.
I also have or have had a lot of different playback software packages including iTunes, Amarra, Pure Music, Audirvana, and SB Play. And they all sound different.
How much is buffered into RAM has made a difference.
Switching from a standard to solid state hard drive made a difference.
Maxing out the RAM with gaming RAM made a difference.
Switching out and trying different external hard drives that the music is stored on made a difference.
Power supply upgrades to the MacMini made a difference. The type of power cable used with the MacMini made a lot of difference.
Mine has the power supply removed and it runs on an external battery. The brand and size of battery made a difference.
Adding a Dave Elledge built buffer for the battery made a difference.
Shutting down various operating system that stay on in the background made a difference.
Going from a SPDIF output to an I2S direct output made a difference.
Still think bits are bits?
Don't forget jitter! I think one of the reasons the Benchmark DAC2/3 units are so good is their approach to dealing with jitter.
-
Danny,
How did you go about getting a direct I2S output and what are you connecting it to?
That custom DAC that I have receives an I2S input. I am pretty sure all the clocking is handled at the DAC rather than as the data is sent. If I remember correctly there was some software involved in transmitting the I2S signal through the USB cable.
-
That custom DAC that I have receives an I2S input. I am pretty sure all the clocking is handled at the DAC rather than as the data is sent. If I remember correctly there was some software involved in transmitting the I2S signal through the USB cable.
Interesting. My PS-Audio Stellar DAC/Preamp has an I2S input but it uses an HDMI type connector and is intended for use only with a PS Audio disc player with an I2S output. It won't work with a computer/music server.
-
Since everyone here has an opinion, I will throw mine into the hat. I have had several DACS in the $3000-5000 here in my system, and some lower priced. Every DAC I have ever owned takes about 500-1500 hours to break in for the best sound. And every DAC I have owned, unplug it and it takes about 24 hours to start sounding it's best again. Comparing DAC's to me is a nightmare since they need to warm up first.
Many has sounded fairly good after break-in. And some just so-so. I hear bigger differences in USB cables and the power cords feeding the dacs. But that is just my opinion.
-
Every DAC I have ever owned takes about 500-1500 hours to break in for the best sound.
Ok, I'll bite, please tell us what the devil takes up to 1500 hrs to break in ?? !!
this should be good ..............
-
I also think people don't just enjoy the music. You mean to tell us that you can't enjoy music on a Klaus system vs. a V.A.C. system vs a D.I.Y. system vs. any other system?
We all have our tastes, and will buy what we like. But, still.
I can absolutely enjoy music on a Klaus system. That's precisely my point. I can enjoy music on a table radio. Or a DIY system. Just agreeing with Klaus' point that the differences between speakers (I believe the same could be said for phono carts) are far larger than the differences between DACs, phono pre's, or other electronics. Not to say there aren't differences; I'm talking about magnitude. Hey wait, I just realized I'm repeating my post almost verbatim.... Sorry
-
Ok, I'll bite, please tell us what the devil takes up to 1500 hrs to break in ?? !!
this should be good ..............
Antelope Zodiac Gold took very close to 1500 hours
AMR 777 took about 1000
Lampizator 3 took about 1000
All the other DACs I have owned took 500 hours and more
Sony Music Server HAP-Z1ES took between 200-300 hours
All sound their best leaving on for 24 hours after break-in
-
Ok, I'll bite, please tell us what the devil takes up to 1500 hrs to break in ?? !!
this should be good ..............
I'm not making claims about 1500 hours being magic, but...
There's nothing new about digital devices needing to be run many hours to reach thermal stability. Audioquest has a white paper from several years ago with measurements and listening tests on the Dragonfly showing performance improvements with longer run time.
Yggdrasil owners, myself included, find that new units need a couple weeks plus, and are left on 24/7 for the timbral and spatial realism we love. In fact, mine is hot transported to our Seattle area meets I attend.
-
In fact, mine is hot transported to our Seattle area meets I attend.
As in an inverter in the car to keep it on the whole ride?
-
As in an inverter in the car to keep it on the whole ride?
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=186028)
-
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=186028)
I have often wondered how you could ever take your DAC to a store and give it a fair test to the store DAC. Looks like this could be the solution. If the store DAC has been on 24/7, I would say it might sound better over 98% of the time over your DAC.
-
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=186028)
And I thought I had seen it all...wow. That’s...
Well, it’s good you are SO dedicated to the hobby!
Best,
Anand.
-
We have a great group in Seattle, incredible stuff showing up at our meets. Ultimate headphones, DIY amps (under construction at the meet), atomicbob (who also hot transports) running a Stanford Research Rubidium Reference clock ahead of a Modi MB (!) crazy stuff. Our premier meet is in spring --- at Bottlehead on Bainbridge Island!
-
Antelope Zodiac Gold took very close to 1500 hours
AMR 777 took about 1000
Lampizator 3 took about 1000
All the other DACs I have owned took 500 hours and more
Sony Music Server HAP-Z1ES took between 200-300 hours
All sound their best leaving on for 24 hours after break-in
you still didn't tell what it is that takes 1500 hrs to break in ??
-
I'm not making claims about 1500 hours being magic, but...
thank you, that's way out there .......
There's nothing new about digital devices needing to be run many hours to reach thermal stability.
definition of 'many' is key
Audioquest has a white paper from several years ago with measurements and listening tests on the Dragonfly showing performance improvements with longer run time.
Audioquest ............nuf said
Yggdrasil owners, myself included, find that new units need a couple weeks plus, and are left on 24/7 for the timbral and spatial realism we love. In fact, mine is hot transported to our Seattle area meets I attend.
OK ........
-
you still didn't tell what it is that takes 1500 hrs to break in ??
I sure as heck don't know. 6moons said it took theirs about 1400 hours or so to break in.
Why does it take 500 or 1000 hours on most of these other dacs to break-in? I guess look up AQ white papers that getski mentioned.
-
you still didn't tell what it is that takes 1500 hrs to break in ??
Maybe it just takes a persons brain a long time to break into the noise. :D
-
I sure as heck don't know. 6moons said it took theirs about 1400 hours or so to break in.
Why does it take 500 or 1000 hours on most of these other dacs to break-in? I guess look up AQ white papers that getski mentioned.
15,000 hours equals 625 days, equipment on 7/24. So it takes you 2 YEARS (or more) to hear the audio effect? Tom, might that be stretching auditory memory just a tiny bit?
-
15,000 hours equals 625 days, equipment on 7/24. So it takes you 2 YEARS (or more) to hear the audio effect? Tom, might that be stretching auditory memory just a tiny bit?
1500, not 15,000.
-
I agree that top flight DACs and SS gear takes a long time to fully burn in. For me I've noted about 1000 hours. The difference between top flight gear and mediocre gear is that the good stuff generally takes longer to burn in.
For me, I've noticed that the general trend is it often sounds good for the first 24 hours, then a big drop in sound quality, then slowly gets better and better to around 100 hours. Then it vacillates quite a bit until you hit 300 hours. After 300 hours it sounds good. From 300 hours to 1000 it's mostly just slow, incremental improvements then full stability at 1000.
I've noticed this similar pattern with tube gear, but more dramatic. And of course with tubes you have to go through the same process every time you swap in new tubes. The only silver lining is that new tubes top out at around 300 hours.
-
I’m a believer in burn in, but ya’ll are deep in the weeds on this one.
If I buy a piece of gear and it doesn’t sound good after a couple of hundred hours it is for sale or returned to dealer.
Life is too short to suffer from poor sounding gear. 1000 hours might just be your ear-brain computation adjusting to distortion, jitter, poor frequency balance, phase issues etc.
-
I agree that top flight DACs and SS gear takes a long time to fully burn in. For me I've noted about 1000 hours. The difference between top flight gear and mediocre gear is that the good stuff generally takes longer to burn in.
again I ask...... what is it that takes 1000 hrs to 'burn in' ??
For me, I've noticed that the general trend is it often sounds good for the first 24 hours, then a big drop in sound quality, then slowly gets better and better to around 100 hours. Then it vacillates quite a bit until you hit 300 hours. After 300 hours it sounds good. From 300 hours to 1000 it's mostly just slow, incremental improvements then full stability at 1000.
Oh my Lord, I've been around this crazy hobby / obsession for 50 plus years, I have NEVER had a piece of equipment behave like that, if I did , back it would go !
I've noticed this similar pattern with tube gear, but more dramatic. And of course with tubes you have to go through the same process every time you swap in new tubes. The only silver lining is that new tubes top out at around 300 hours.
Really, please tell us what piece of tube gear ??
-
The tube units in my experience were the AMR 777 and the Lampizator 3. These did not sound crappy the whole 1000 hours, Tyson explained the process very well.
The AMR rep agreed also.
-
I’m a believer in burn in, but ya’ll are deep in the weeds on this one.
If I buy a piece of gear and it doesn’t sound good after a couple of hundred hours it is for sale or returned to dealer.
Agreed. In fact, after a few hours, I determine whether or not a component will make the cut. No amount of burn-in will turn a turd into pumpkin pie.
-
I think for the first 100 hours or so it's mainly the caps forming. After that it's the transformers that slowly evolve. The big noticeable changes happen in the first 100 hours, then the rest of the ups and downs are more subtle, up until 300 hours. At 300 hours it's pretty stable in that it doesn't have any dips in sound quality anymore. But there are more (subtle) improvements till about 1000 hours. If you look at my profile you can see what gear I have now, its been true for all of it. And it was true for the large # of other pieces of equipment I churned through in the past. Some of it was commercial gear, a fair bit was DIY. Similar patterns for all of it.
-
Hi Guys:
I don't have it anymore but the best dac I had was built by Alex Peychev of APLhifi.
Don't know if they are still in business. Their products were not cheap but were well worth the cost.
Cheers
Charlie
-
I think for the first 100 hours or so it's mainly the caps forming. After that it's the transformers that slowly evolve. The big noticeable changes happen in the first 100 hours, then the rest of the ups and downs are more subtle, up until 300 hours. At 300 hours it's pretty stable in that it doesn't have any dips in sound quality anymore. But there are more (subtle) improvements till about 1000 hours. If you look at my profile you can see what gear I have now, its been true for all of it. And it was true for the large # of other pieces of equipment I churned through in the past. Some of it was commercial gear, a fair bit was DIY. Similar patterns for all of it.
I agree about caps burning in. I replaced the PIO caps with the same ones in my BAT VK-51se and I thought I ruined the preamp. It sounded bright and harsh. It took them about 150 hours for the brightness and harshness to go away. The Teflon caps that Conrad Johnson uses takes 500 hours of break in and CJ also says so.
Tubes certainly need 20-50 hours to break in. Even cartridges for TT's need break in. My Nagaoka MP-200 sounded flat for the first 20-25 hours and then bam it came alive and sounded great. Nagaoka say they take 30 hours.
-
1500, not 15,000.
Dyslexia strikes. My apologies, Tom.
Still......
-
Have you had all these said DACs in your system at the same time with the ability to switch back to each using the same source material.
Certainly not. But my the original Dragonfly, DFy Black, DFly Red, Gustard A20H, Marantz SA8005, Brooklyn DAC+, SBox Duets, SBox Touch etc. that I do have on hand certainly do not sound "basically the same" as you say.
I'd guess that DACs <$5K sound more different than those >$5K.
To say that the worst $25 DAC you can get sounds "basically the same" as say a $3500 Exasound is simply preposterous.
If what you are trying to say is "I'm so rich that I can't even participate in the kind of thoughts that you poor people have" then yes your point is well made.
-
I think for the first 100 hours or so it's mainly the caps forming. After that it's the transformers that slowly evolve. The big noticeable changes happen in the first 100 hours, then the rest of the ups and downs are more subtle, up until 300 hours. At 300 hours it's pretty stable in that it doesn't have any dips in sound quality anymore. But there are more (subtle) improvements till about 1000 hours. If you look at my profile you can see what gear I havse now, its been true for all of it. And it was true for the large # of other pieces of equipment I churned through in the past. Some of it was commercial gear, a fair bit was DIY. Similar patterns for all of it.
Good call Tyson. However do not forget the chipset. That alone takes 500 to 750 hours. For break-in try 18 hours on six hours off for dielectrics to cool and form. The most affective break-in is 6 hours off six hours on. Set your clock. :icon_lol:
charles
-
We've hosted some DAC shoot outs: https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=75402.0
The The Music Streamer II https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=80062.msg764994 Later the Music Stramer HD proved to be really good.
More comparisons: https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=51316.0
The DAC-60 was such an over achiever back in the day and I bought a bunch of them. We then had Sonic Craft do some basic mods and we offered them with mods for a pretty low price. It wasn't really a money maker, but more of a service for our customers.
-
Prove you wrong? Nope, you're welcome to your opinion.
Question for you though. Do you enjoy eating popcorn? Or do you chew it to mask all the pops and clicks in your vinyl?
:popcorn:
Cute and funny. Come over and hear three different DACs from the same manf. at different price points. You will hear a difference. Ladder DACs not chip sets used by most. That is why not much difference heard. If all say a Sabre chip then should be close to each other.
charles
-
Nope. Most DACs around about the $5k mark homogenize the sound characteristics. Every recording sounds basically the same without the cues needed to tell you the size of the recorded space, live or studio. This is just my observation and it will definitely differ depending on systems. My current DAC is under $5k as I have a hard time justifying anything above this for an ever changing market. Hope that makes sense.
Certainly not. But my the original Dragonfly, DFy Black, DFly Red, Gustard A20H, Marantz SA8005, Brooklyn DAC+, SBox Duets, SBox Touch etc. that I do have on hand certainly do not sound "basically the same" as you say.
I'd guess that DACs <$5K sound more different than those >$5K.
To say that the worst $25 DAC you can get sounds "basically the same" as say a $3500 Exasound is simply preposterous.
If what you are trying to say is "I'm so rich that I can't even participate in the kind of thoughts that you poor people have" then yes your point is well made.
-
because they are tremendously overhyped
-
Nope. Most DACs around about the $5k mark homogenize the sound characteristics. Every recording sounds basically the same without the cues needed to tell you the size of the recorded space, live or studio. This is just my observation and it will definitely differ depending on systems. My current DAC is under $5k as I have a hard time justifying anything above this for an ever changing market. Hope that makes sense.
Not my experience at all.
-
With so many system variables from one audiophile to the next it is not surprising we come to a different conclusion. In my system it was eye opening to have four DACs operating at once using ROON and be able to switch instantly to each one.
Not my experience at all.
-
Cute and funny. Come over and hear three different DACs from the same manf. at different price points. You will hear a difference. Ladder DACs not chip sets used by most. That is why not much difference heard. If all say a Sabre chip then should be close to each other.
charles
If what you took from my post is, I don't believe there are differences in dacs, then I wasn't clear. The intent of my post is, if a person doesn't hear a difference after comparing several dacs, they're welcome to that finding. My experience says there is a difference. Although, I am in the camp that feels more of the difference comes from the design and build of the dac's analog output stage. I came to this conclusion a few years ago after comparing 3 cd players using PCM1704 dac chips. I attributed the different sound I heard to the implementation of the output stages.
-
If what you took from my post is, I don't believe there are differences in dacs, then I wasn't clear. The intent of my post is, if a person doesn't hear a difference after comparing several dacs, they're welcome to that finding. My experience says there is a difference. Although, I am in the camp that feels more of the difference comes from the design and build of the dac's analog output stage. I came to this conclusion a few years ago after comparing 3 cd players using PCM1704 dac chips. I attributed the different sound I heard to the implementation of the output stages.
Certainly the sound is related to the collection of parts used. I built a Pass B1 preamp and used high end caps. I have swapped out Clarity caps and tried Obbligato Golds and they sound was very different. Also swapped volume pots and there was a huge difference in sound. A good friend of mine built the same B1 with different parts and his sounds different.
Just look at the Musical Paradise DAC and its ability to customize with different DAC chips and caps to your liking.
-
What I am saying is not that all DACs sound EXACTLY the same as there are differences. But they sound more the same than they sound different. A homogenized sound. Here is a list of what I have compared. Yggdrasil updated, T&A DAC8, BDA-3, MP D2MKII, Directstream, Gungnir, Gustard. Current reference is the Denafrips Terminator and it DOES break from the mold. This is just my experience in my system. YMMV
-
I'd bet that if folks aren't hearing much difference between DAC's in their systems that something else (quite possibly preamp) is veiling the signal.
Just rolling the 990 series opp amps in my DAc makes obvious differences,. It took a while but I've become a believer in getting as much out of the signal path as possible. We've taken this to the next step now and eliminated IC coonectors.. now running a high quality Neotech silver/gold patch cable directly from DAC to amp . Volume control is done via 64bit DSD wide software control
Finding that every step taken to eliminate components peels back another masking layer you may not havet even known was there, more " in the room" than ever
Heard an early prototype of a new DAC(Mivera Audio MKII) in my system a couple weeks ago and it sounded amazing......
jay
-
You are so correct. Some systems are not as revealing to allow you to hear the difference between cables and minor adjustments. Having a system highly revealing can be a blessing or a curse.
I'd bet that if folks aren't hearing much difference between DAC's in their systems that something else (quite possibly preamp) is veiling the signal.
Just rolling the 990 series opp amps in my DAc makes obvious differences,. It took a while but I've become a believer in getting as much out of the signal path as possible. We've taken this to the next step now and eliminated IC coonectors.. now running a high quality Neotech silver/gold patch cable directly from DAC to amp . Volume control is done via 64bit DSD wide software control
Finding that every step taken to eliminate components peels back another masking layer you may not havet even known was there, more " in the room" than ever
Heard an early prototype of a new DAC in my system a couple weeks ago and it sounded amazing......
jay
-
Having the ability to run multiple DACs simultaneously and switch quickly between them is eye opening. Expectation bias is a tremendous thing when you are just relying on your memory.
-
With so many system variables from one audiophile to the next it is not surprising we come to a different conclusion. In my system it was eye opening to have four DACs operating at once using ROON and be able to switch instantly to each one.
What did you observe in your comparisons? You had some great DACs in comparo. Would love to hear.
-
Having the ability to run multiple DACs simultaneously and switch quickly between them is eye opening. Expectation bias is a tremendous thing when you are just relying on your memory.
I know what you mean. It kind of reminds me of what I see with movies shot on digital vs movies shot on film. Even when the digital movie looks great (and they often look amazing), there's a common 'digitalness' to the image, for lack of a better term. Same with digital music and DACs. I've not heard a Denafrips DAC, but I have noted some DACs that minimize this particular quality. iFi's iDSD pro with tubed output is pretty good about minimizing this quality. The higher end MSB DACs are also good about dealing with this issue. But many many many other DACs just have this 'digitalness' to a greater degree, even very expensive ones.
Ironically, the one DAC that comes to mind has having the least digital signature over the years was a NOS DAC with tubed output by Scott Nixon a while back. Which is surprising, considering how inexpensive it was and how non-glamorous it's enclosure was.
-
I have known Scott Nixon for many years. I wish I could get him out of retirement to start building high end DACs. He has a great ear and knows how to listen. He has taught me much over the years.
The digitalness you are talking about is a haze I hear over all the DACs I have heard in my system. When I added the Terminator in my system is was amazing to hear digital sound without that overarching haze. I am not saying it is the best in the world it was just the first to create a lifelike presentation.
I know what you mean. It kind of reminds me of what I see with movies shot on digital vs movies shot on film. Even when the digital movie looks great (and they often look amazing), there's a common 'digitalness' to the image, for lack of a better term. Same with digital music and DACs. I've not heard a Denafrips DAC, but I have noted some DACs that minimize this particular quality. iFi's iDSD pro with tubed output is pretty good about minimizing this quality. The higher end MSB DACs are also good about dealing with this issue. But many many many other DACs just have this 'digitalness' to a greater degree, even very expensive ones.
Ironically, the one DAC that comes to mind has having the least digital signature over the years was a NOS DAC with tubed output by Scott Nixon a while back. Which is surprising, considering how inexpensive it was and how non-glamorous it's enclosure was.
-
I have known Scott Nixon for many years. I wish I could get him out of retirement to start building high end DACs. He has a great ear and knows how to listen. He has taught me much over the years.
The digitalness you are talking about is a haze I hear over all the DACs I have heard in my system. When I added the Terminator in my system is was amazing to hear digital sound without that overarching haze. I am not saying it is the best in the world it was just the first to create a lifelike presentation.
It's gonna take me a while to recover from this damn divorce, but maybe by the time I do I can find a Denafrips DAC used, and for a good price. Sounds like it would be something right up my alley.
-
I have known Scott Nixon for many years. I wish I could get him out of retirement to start building high end DACs. He has a great ear and knows how to listen. He has taught me much over the years.
The digitalis you are talking about is a haze I hear over all the DACs I have heard in my system. When I added the Terminator in my system is was amazing to hear digital sound without that overarching haze. I am not saying it is the best in the world it was just the first to create a lifelike presentation.
I sold Scott Nixon's CD players back in the 80's Scott did a wonderful job making those with tubes. They sounded very good for the price, no digitalis.
-
My system is very revealing and sensitive to changes in gear. My Luxman DA-06 is warm, lush with a very musical mid range with great depth and very wide sound stage. Bass is powerful and controlled. It is very dynamic. It does not have the detail or resolution of the PSA DSD or the Exogal Comet. It has good air and transparency without losing depth and fullness of the midrange.
The PS Audio DSD had a lighter sound with better textures and more air and transparency. Almost 3d in presentation. It had better separation of instruments with more air between them. It was more neutral sounding. It had less weight in the midrange compared to the Luxman. I really like the sound of this DAC. I would love to own one. Maybe in the future when I get tired of the Luxman although, I may sell my BAT VK-51se preamp and Pass X250 amp and go with a high power Luxman integrated, so I may keep the Luxman DAC for synergy.
The Hugo Chord was very romantic sounding with warmth and detail but the sound stage was not as wide. It did nothing wrong and was a great performer.
The Exogal Comet was very 3D almost to the point of sounding like surround sound. It is very revealing. It had great air and transparency. It was a bit bright in my system. If not for that, it would be in my system now.
The Marantz NA11s1 had the best and most realistic textures of instruments that I have heard. Piano sounded like it was in the room and vocals were to die for. However, in my system its presentation was too forward and bass was too much and overpowering. It leaned just a hint to the warm and dark side. I hated to return this DAC because the tone and textures were fabulous. It was the most dynamic out of the bunch. It just was not a good match for my system at the time.
The Cary Audio TS200 was not much of an improvement over the AVA Ultra II hybrid tube DAC that it replaced and not worth the price. It was not a good match for my system despite it being a $4K plus DAC.
W4S DSDse with Femto clock upgrade was very musical but it was too bright and sibilant in my system but not in the owners. He eventually replaced it with the Hugo which sounded much better. Now he runs a T+A DAC8 which is just fabulous. It blows the other 2 away and at DSD8x with HQ player it is one of the best DAC's I have heard.
All these DAC's sounded much more different than similar.
-
I’ve at times struggled to hear a difference as well. I had Adio gd and various Squeezebox that I really couldn’t tell any difference while switching between them.
I recently purchased a Modwright Tranporter which I can clearly hear as being better than my stock dac in my 2 channel receiver. However, I would describe the difference as being more pleasurable above all else. It’s hard to put your finger on it in an analytical sense. The change is in the realm of more presence and better soundstage.
Happy journey
Robert
-
What was the time span between having each of these DACs in your system? Any of them at the same time compared using the same source material and cables?
My system is very revealing and sensitive to changes in gear. My Luxman DA-06 is warm, lush with a very musical mid range with great depth and very wide sound stage. Bass is powerful and controlled. It is very dynamic. It does not have the detail or resolution of the PSA DSD or the Exogal Comet. It has good air and transparency without losing depth and fullness of the midrange.
The PS Audio DSD had a lighter sound with better textures and more air and transparency. Almost 3d in presentation. It had better separation of instruments with more air between them. It was more neutral sounding. It had less weight in the midrange compared to the Luxman. I really like the sound of this DAC. I would love to own one. Maybe in the future when I get tired of the Luxman although, I may sell my BAT VK-51se preamp and Pass X250 amp and go with a high power Luxman integrated, so I may keep the Luxman DAC for synergy.
The Hugo Chord was very romantic sounding with warmth and detail but the sound stage was not as wide. It did nothing wrong and was a great performer.
The Exogal Comet was very 3D almost to the point of sounding like surround sound. It is very revealing. It had great air and transparency. It was a bit bright in my system. If not for that, it would be in my system now.
The Marantz NA11s1 had the best and most realistic textures of instruments that I have heard. Piano sounded like it was in the room and vocals were to die for. However, in my system its presentation was too forward and bass was too much and overpowering. It leaned just a hint to the warm and dark side. I hated to return this DAC because the tone and textures were fabulous. It was the most dynamic out of the bunch. It just was not a good match for my system at the time.
The Cary Audio TS200 was not much of an improvement over the AVA Ultra II hybrid tube DAC that it replaced and not worth the price. It was not a good match for my system despite it being a $4K plus DAC.
W4S DSDse with Femto clock upgrade was very musical but it was too bright and sibilant in my system but not in the owners. He eventually replaced it with the Hugo which sounded much better. Now he runs a T+A DAC8 which is just fabulous. It blows the other 2 away and at DSD8x with HQ player it is one of the best DAC's I have heard.
All these DAC's sounded much more different than similar.
-
What was the time span between having each of these DACs in your system? Any of them at the same time compared using the same source material and cables?
And did all these Dacs have at least 500-1000 hr break-in?
I have always heard differences between Dacs, but so very minor if all Dacs are well broken in. My buddy Rex who owns about 7 Dacs now says the same thing. He has owned about 12 Dacs over the years and he has found minor differences. None of the Dacs are unlistenable, I am sure the designers are not going to bring out a lousy sounding Dac. Neither one of us has owned a ladder Dac, so maybe those are significant better, but I am a skeptic on that until I hear one in my system.
-
Do we seriously believe that we can't evaluate a piece of equipment within a 30 day return period because it isn't broken in 1000 hrs? If it takes that long for a device to settle in, then isn't it impossible to evaluate nearly anything?? How good is your auditory memory?
-
Do we seriously believe that we can't evaluate a piece of equipment within a 30 day return period because it isn't broken in 1000 hrs? If it takes that long for a device to settle in, then isn't it impossible to evaluate nearly anything?? How good is your auditory memory?
agreed, besides anyone subscribing to a 1000 hr (or more) break-in, burn-in whatever, I doubt very much has an engineering / science background that can quantitatively explain it.
As for auditory memory, NOBODY's is that good !
-
There is a point to listen to the music several times to hear everything in the music. You listen to a DAC once, then you swap it, hear something different, and think it is because of the equipment change.
-
And did all these Dacs have at least 500-1000 hr break-in?
I have always heard differences between Dacs, but so very minor if all Dacs are well broken in. My buddy Rex who owns about 7 Dacs now says the same thing. He has owned about 12 Dacs over the years and he has found minor differences. None of the Dacs are unlistenable, I am sure the designers are not going to bring out a lousy sounding Dac. Neither one of us has owned a ladder Dac, so maybe those are significant better, but I am a skeptic on that until I hear one in my system.
The Hugo, W4S, Luxman, AVA, Comet and T+A all had 100+ hours on them. The Marantz and Cary had 75-100 hours.
-
What was the time span between having each of these DACs in your system? Any of them at the same time compared using the same source material and cables?
We did a shoot out of DAC's with a Bryston, W4S, Comet and IfI in a friends system. Got to compare the Hugo, PS Audio, W4S to my Luxman in my system. Heard the Hugo against an Exasound in a friends system. Heard the T+A vs Hugo in same friends system. Heard the Marantz and Cary vs my AVA in my system. Compared the Comet to my AVA and Luxman.
-
This goes to my theory re: audio equipment. 1st, the biggest changes come from speaker/room interaction. So get better speakers or treat the room (or get a new room) to hear the biggest changes possible in audio. Next is the speaker/amp interface. Get an amp that's a good match for your speakers.
My corollary theory is that once you get to a certain level of quality, one piece of gear is not hugely different than another. They might sound different from each other, but its more in the realm of flavoring and not really around "better" or "worse". Which is why (once you get to a certain level of quality), it's hard to hear big differences in DACs.
-
I’ve at times struggled to hear a difference as well. I had Adio gd and various Squeezebox that I really couldn’t tell any difference while switching between them.
I recently purchased a Modwright Tranporter which I can clearly hear as being better than my stock dac in my 2 channel receiver. However, I would describe the difference as being more pleasurable above all else. It’s hard to put your finger on it in an analytical sense. The change is in the realm of more presence and better soundstage.
Happy journey
Robert
+1 on your type of listening and evaluating, and your conclusions.
For me, quickie a/b comparisons will (try) to detect frequency response differences, which among many dacs will be inaudible.
However, true timbre, touch, and texture, apparent soundstage (even in silence), and micro dynamic swings are so obvious when listening to music with, for example, Metrum, Holo, or Yggdrasil that I don't work at all to hear it. And when those characteristics are significantly reduced, it's just as obvious.
-
[quote author
However, true timbre, touch, and texture, apparent soundstage (even in silence), and micro dynamic swings are so obvious when listening to music with, for example, Metrum, Holo, or Yggdrasil that I don't work at all to hear it. And when those characteristics are significantly reduced, it's just as obvious.
[/quote]
I could not agree more! Even comparing low end DAC's like the Dragonfly 1.2, Emotiva Big Ego, IFI and Grant Fidelity differences were immediately noticeable.
I use Bug Head music player and HQ Player. And they play a role in bringing out differences in DAC's. These a very detailed music players. I also have JRiver and it is low fi in comparison and homogenizes the sound a little but differences are still readily noticeable among DAC's.
-
I find it pretty easy to hear differences among lower end DACs, but harder and harder to hear big differences as one goes up the quality scale.
-
To way in on this at this point is kind of redundant but when I switched in the new digital boards (DSD capable) in my DAC it took a step forward in pleasure (that is it sounded more warm and ......analog like). Obvious different is sound.
Ric
-
To way in on this at this point is kind of redundant but when I switched in the new digital boards (DSD capable) in my DAC it took a step forward in pleasure (that is it sounded more warm and ......analog like). Obvious different is sound.
Ric
I recommend subscribing to Native DSD.com, they've got a decent library that is growing all the time. They give tech specs / equipment used when conversions from an analog master are required. Starting to get more DSD direct recordings as well, can't wait for the upcoming Yuko Mabuchi Trio tribute to Miles Davis, 256 direct recording :) Have picked up a lbums from other sources as well but they seem to be hit & miss. everything I've purchased from these guys has been great.
The Mivera Audio DACs we run are designed in DSD bybass mode... it's designed specifically for one sample rate , DSD256 64bit/(11.2MHz). All upsampling (everything but DSD256 recordings are upsampledA) is done pre-DACon a dedicated server connected to the audio LAN From there the signal is passed via fiber to a streamer.
very, very easy to tailor sound w/o tube rolling, something I used to really enjoy but wasn't ovelry impressed with the expense.
Will never go back
jay
-
Here is another potential issue with discerning deltas from one DAC to another: The source:
Case in point: Recently acquired a McIntosh MCT 80 to work with the McIntosh D150. There was an immediate and noticeable improvement across the board with both CD and SACD playback. The difference was not subtle. It's as if the D150 was upgraded to a new improved model. I was surprised at the improvement with regular CD playback with this combination. SACD's really shine with this setup.
So, the lesson learned for me was that the source/transport CAN and does make a difference to the sound/performance from a DAC setup. I used to think that the source didn't make all that much difference, but this setup has proven that to not be entirely accurate.
For SACD, the McIntosh is passing the SACD bitstream via a special interface that connects the transport to the DAC. It's easy to hear the difference.
-
I recommend subscribing to Native DSD.com, they've got a decent library that is growing all the time. They give tech specs / equipment used when conversions from an analog master are required. Starting to get more DSD direct recordings as well, can't wait for the upcoming Yuko Mabuchi Trio tribute to Miles Davis, 256 direct recording :) Have picked up a lbums from other sources as well but they seem to be hit & miss. everything I've purchased from these guys has been great.
The Mivera Audio DACs we run are designed in DSD bybass mode... it's designed specifically for one sample rate , DSD256 64bit/(11.2MHz). All upsampling (everything but DSD256 recordings are upsampledA) is done pre-DACon a dedicated server connected to the audio LAN From there the signal is passed via fiber to a streamer.
very, very easy to tailor sound w/o tube rolling, something I used to really enjoy but wasn't ovelry impressed with the expense.
Will never go back
jay
Jay I've been visiting that site since the upgrade....bought a copy Of Ben Webster's Summer Serenade and Herb Tones by Freddie Hubbard. :thumb:
Ric
-
Jay I've been visiting that site since the upgrade....bought a copy Of Ben Webster's Summer Serenade and Herb Tones by Freddie Hubbard. :thumb:
Ric
Haven't grabbed those yet, didi pick up Ben Webster's "Gentle Ben" a while back, will have to have a look at those as well, thanks :beer:
jay
-
A couple other sites with high quality downloads aer Blue Coast Records and AIX Records.
These two are recording companies that record in Hi-Res instead of upsampling from CD
Mike
-
Never seen any upsampling from CD at Native DSD.
And yeah another thumbs up for Blue Coast
-
Here is another potential issue with discerning deltas from one DAC to another: The source:
Case in point: Recently acquired a McIntosh MCT 80 to work with the McIntosh D150. There was an immediate and noticeable improvement across the board with both CD and SACD playback. The difference was not subtle. It's as if the D150 was upgraded to a new improved model. I was surprised at the improvement with regular CD playback with this combination. SACD's really shine with this setup.
So, the lesson learned for me was that the source/transport CAN and does make a difference to the sound/performance from a DAC setup. I used to think that the source didn't make all that much difference, but this setup has proven that to not be entirely accurate.
For SACD, the McIntosh is passing the SACD bitstream via a special interface that connects the transport to the DAC. It's easy to hear the difference.
The ole saying garbage IN garbage OUT holds true to ANY source. Listening to 44.1 no upsampling from a dedicated transport to DAC via Ethernet cable. The difference between SPDIF and Ethernet is huge. Same for streaming, a server [ the right one] will IMO beat ANY laptop.
charles
-
When you mention ethernet vs SPDIF are you talking about using a renderer at the end of an ethernet cable.
The ole saying garbage IN garbage OUT holds true to ANY source. Listening to 44.1 no upsampling from a dedicated transport to DAC via Ethernet cable. The difference between SPDIF and Ethernet is huge. Same for streaming, a server [ the right one] will IMO beat ANY laptop.
charles