[roscoeiii]

This review put this DAC newcomer on my radar:

http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php/equipment-menu/559-exogal-comet-digital-to-analog-converter

It also won a DAC shootout that I Greyhound Fan here at AC wrote up on this thread:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=133217.msg1412742#msg1412742

I also like the clean look of its faceplate, with the headphone out on the side of the unit.

[barrows]

1. The Vega uses at least 32 bits for its volume control (it may be more, I cannot remember): with 32 bits you have 8 bits, which equals -48 dB before you drop any bits with a 24 bit file, and with 16 bits, -96 dBs!, before you drop any bits with a 16 bit file.  At these attenuation levels there is no drop in resolution: this is a physical fact, and not subject to interpretation.  If you think you hear a difference, you are imagining it.

2. If you need more than -48 dB of attenuation to listen at normal levels, then the gain matching of your system is way off, and you are leaving a lot of performance on the table no matter what kind of volume control you use, and you should address your gain matching.  At low listening levels, dropping a couple of bits will  not matter, because those bits contain very low level details which are below the noise floor anyway when listening at low volumes.
3.  If you use a TVC to control volume, and you like the sound, great!  But, you must accept that you are liking the sound because of the color added by the TVC: note that the distortion level of even the best transformers is an order of magnitude higher than that of the Auralic Vega.  There is nothing wrong with this, and I often like the sound of transformer coupled components, but they are not neutral without sound of their own.  And yes, a TVC does do voltage to current conversion, so at high degrees of attenuation it does elevate current drive (a good thing if your amp needs tons of current), but well designed DACs like the Vega already have plenty of current drive.

I get that some people like the sound of a preamp in the chain, and that is fine with me as long as they accept the fact that they like this sound because of the added coloration the preamp brings to the table.

Another thing to consider about digital level control, is virtually all recordings made in the last 20 years use digital level control in mixing: there is not some nefarious inherent "evil" in digital level control, it is well understood and when applied properly it is entirely inaudible.

[barrows]

As I've already invested in the MacBook Air with the idea of using it for the audio system, I'll bypass the server.  And after some more research and soul searching I've decided to scale down my budget to $2000 for a DAC/pre-amp/headphone-amp that could also be used for desktop use.  I'm focusing on:

Benchmark DAC-2 HCG  (this gold standard for this equipment category)

BMC PureDAC (emotionally satisfying but it's big for desktop use)

Grace m920 (another very professional piece)

Hegel HD 12 (serious sound, minimal features)

Mytek 192 (professional, but requires firewire connection for firmware updates)

NuPrime DAC-10H (promising but no professional reviews and almost no reviews period available)

Oppo HA-1 (well reviewed, lots of features)

Of those I would be a little wary of the Benchmark and the Mytek, as they really lean to the dry analytical side, but with plenty of resolution (if your speakers really go warm, maybe this will be OK).  I would lean towards the Hegel and Grace for a more natural presentation.

On DEQX and room correction, etc: sure room correction/EQ can make a big difference if you have a gross problem in that area, but if you do not have a real problem it is just not going to give any advantages.  A simple cheap RTA app for your smartphone or tablet will tell you really quickly if you will benefit from somethign like this.  Really, it is pretty amazing to have a tool like these for so little money.  These things can really help with speaker set up and everyone should have one, they are virtually free!

[Phil A]

This review put this DAC newcomer on my radar:

http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php/equipment-menu/559-exogal-comet-digital-to-analog-converter

It also won a DAC shootout that I Greyhound Fan here at AC wrote up on this thread:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=133217.msg1412742#msg1412742

I also like the clean look of its faceplate, with the headphone out on the side of the unit.

Looks like a really nice unit.

[bladesmith]

I think one of the biggest issues about buying a DAC is, "what amp/speakers you are using with it". And even then, you have "room acoustics", which change the sound substantially. I think thats why audiophiles go though so many changes until they find the right set up... And how the decision making process can be confusing sometimes..

Good luck..

[roscoeiii]

Of those I would be a little wary of the Benchmark and the Mytek, as they really lean to the dry analytical side, but with plenty of resolution (if your speakers really go warm, maybe this will be OK).  I would lean towards the Hegel and Grace for a more natural presentation.

On DEQX and room correction, etc: sure room correction/EQ can make a big difference if you have a gross problem in that area, but if you do not have a real problem it is just not going to give any advantages.  A simple cheap RTA app for your smartphone or tablet will tell you really quickly if you will benefit from somethign like this.  Really, it is pretty amazing to have a tool like these for so little money.  These things can really help with speaker set up and everyone should have one, they are virtually free!

Barrows: DEQX is much more than room correction. See Kal Rubenson's Stereophile review below for more details on the DEQX functionality. And you'll find some in the audio hobby such as Robert Greene at Absolute Sound that swear by EQ to correct speaker imperfections and to allow the customer to voice a speaker to his/her preferences. With digital domain EQ, much, if not all, of the sonic penalty of having an EQ in the chain is eliminated.

We may be getting a bit OT, but I have found this very interesting food from thought. And those of you attending shows or near a dealer owe it to yourselves to check out a DEQX demo.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/deqx-premate-da-processordigital-equalizer

Robert Greene (from his DSPeaker review):

Many speakers, even high-end ones, make surprisingly large errors in response in the frequencies above the bass. And even the best can be tweaked to be better, with very few exceptions. (You might want to look at the first figure here, www.regonaudio.com/Digital%20Correction%20for%20Audio%20Part%20III.html showing what just four parametric EQ filters between 2kHz and 8kHz could do for a speaker that was already quite flat. There are very few if any speakers in the analog-only world that are as flat as this in the range that was corrected. And that is only four filters in action: The DualCore has sixteen available.)

This is a different world from purely analog speaker performance, different and better. (The corrections in the link given were actually done earlier with the Z Systems rdp-1 parametric EQ device, but similar results will be obtainable from the DualCore, parametric EQ being a mathematical and uniform process.)

And from Greene's resaudio Yahoo Group, where EQ's ability to improve speaker performance is much discussed (even for speakers that measure very well):

If people are really serious about speakers, there is no choice but to experiment with EQ. It is a weird feature of audio that people act as if the overall frequency response of a speaker is written in stone. Bad speakers are all screwed up. You cannot fix them by EQ or any other way. But there are lots of speakers that are basically fairly well behaved but just need a little help to get rid of a few broad band errors--or maybe not even errors but things you do not like.

[JLM]

Thanks barrows for your advice on DAC's and digital volume controls.  My speakers are rather warm.  Due to near-field setup, beaming single driver speakers, and use of transmission line cabinets room effects are minimal but I've been using EQ for baffle step compensation to allow for a more direct connection from mono-blocks to the single drivers.  Using my Behringer DEQ2496 I've been able to dial in room/speaker correction.  As a former would be SET/single driver fan, limited bass response and SPL (due to the struggle under so few watts) were a constant near obsession so I have a RS SPL meter (with the published corrections).

Thanks roscoeiii for your input.  I've heard flat(ter) frequency response and it was a revelation.  I'm convinced it's one of the big differences between professional interests (who need accuracy) and audiophile (who want to be entertained).

[bladesmith]

I've heard flat(ter) frequency response and it was a revelation.  I'm convinced it's one of the big differences between professional interests (who need accuracy) and audiophile (who want to be entertained).

Very well said....

[macrojack]

Thanks barrows for your advice on DAC's and digital volume controls.  My speakers are rather warm.  Due to near-field setup, beaming single driver speakers, and use of transmission line cabinets room effects are minimal but I've been using EQ for baffle step compensation to allow for a more direct connection from mono-blocks to the single drivers.  Using my Behringer DEQ2496 I've been able to dial in room/speaker correction.  As a former would be SET/single driver fan, limited bass response and SPL (due to the struggle under so few watts) were a constant near obsession so I have a RS SPL meter (with the published corrections).

Thanks roscoeiii for your input.  I've heard flat(ter) frequency response and it was a revelation.  I'm convinced it's one of the big differences between professional interests (who need accuracy) and audiophile (who want to be entertained).

Okay --- so if the goal is high fidelity, what is wrong with pursuing accuracy? What's the difference?

If you just want to be entertained, there's always Bose.

[*Scotty*]

If you are seriously thinking about getting into computer based audio you might look into HAL's MS-3 Music Server and his dspMusik 6x8 DSP crossover and HiRez DAC's. More about the DAC/DSP crossover can be found in this thread.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=132170.msg1417240#msg1417240
 Complete custom DSP based room correction and EQ is possible. It is essentially a digital Swiss Army knife type product and HAL provides excellent support.
HAL MS-3 Music Server running Windows 8.1 64bit OS  $799.00 + s/h
Danville Signal Processing dspMusik DSP crossover custom programmed $1500.00 + s/h

Links to the signal processing specialist mfgr. that HAL is working with to create the DAC/DSP processor.
http://www.danvillesignal.com/high-performance-audio/high-performance-audio
http://www.danvillesignal.com/

 I am running a HAL MS-2 PC Music Server that purchased last year with excellent results. HAL's product support has been top notch and the server I bought from him has worked without a hiccup from the get go. It about the same size as a MAC mini and has a built DVD drive.
Scotty

[Phil A]

If you are seriously thinking about getting into computer based audio you might look into HAL's MS-3 Music Server and his dspMusik 6x8 DSP crossover and HiRez DAC's. More about the DAC/DSP crossover can be found in this thread.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=132170.msg1417240#msg1417240
 Complete custom DSP based room correction and EQ is possible. It is essentially a digital Swiss Army knife type product and HAL provides excellent support.
HAL MS-3 Music Server running Windows 8.1 64bit OS  $799.00 + s/h
Danville Signal Processing dspMusik DSP crossover custom programmed $1500.00 + s/h

Links to the signal processing specialist mfgr. that HAL is working with to create the DAC/DSP processor.
http://www.danvillesignal.com/high-performance-audio/high-performance-audio
http://www.danvillesignal.com/

 I am running a HAL MS-2 PC Music Server that purchased last year with excellent results. HAL's product support has been top notch and the server I bought from him has worked without a hiccup from the get go. It about the same size as a MAC mini and is has a built DVD drive.
Scotty

+1 - mentioned that and provided a link to the thread in post number 5

[JLM]

Okay --- so if the goal is high fidelity, what is wrong with pursuing accuracy? What's the difference?

If you just want to be entertained, there's always Bose.

IMO most audiophiles are not honest (or are deceived) about what their sonic goals are.  Nothing wrong with deep down simply wanting to be entertained, but most audiophiles don't want to admit to be striving for anything other than accuracy or fidelity, because they'd have to admit not knowing what the original performance actually sounded like.  Honestly most music is "artificial" (and only heard via electronics) so there is no absolute standard.  Even for live unreinforced music the exact performance or venue can seldom be repeated.  So we're left with imagining what the original performance was like, based mostly on experience with other systems, clinging to the systems we prefer and the additions, subtractions, and "enhancements" they exhibited (or maybe just the state of mind we were in at the time).

Studio people are working, not being entertained.  They're trying to find and eliminate all of the warts (as the producer sees fit).  They work only as long as they get the mix right.  So accuracy, even to the point of dryness or forward presentation to aid in the wart hunt is often part of the theme.  Of course all this is a recipe for listener fatigue.  So I look for reviews of studio gear (including your recommended Grace m920, thanks macrojack!) from guys who mention listening at home to find out what gear they use in the studio that would be both accurate and non-fatiguing. 

[*Scotty*]

Okay Phil, I'll admit to not reading every post in the thread and I certainly missed that one of yours. D'oh!
Scotty

[Phil A]

Okay Phil, I'll admit to not reading every post in the thread and I certainly missed that one of yours. D'oh!
Scotty

It's fine - these threads get long and it's hard to follow it sometimes if you have not followed it from the beginning.  The OP apparently wants a DAC/Preamp.  So my last suggestion was Exasound as you can have a 30 in home trial and I heard their old E20 at the 2013 Capital Audiofest used as a DAC/Preamp and was impressed (almost bought it before deciding on my current DAC which I got used).  The Exasound was used in this room -

[Tyson]

IMO most audiophiles are not honest (or are deceived) about what their sonic goals are.  Nothing wrong with deep down simply wanting to be entertained, but most audiophiles don't want to admit to be striving for anything other than accuracy or fidelity, because they'd have to admit not knowing what the original performance actually sounded like.  Honestly most music is "artificial" (and only heard via electronics) so there is no absolute standard.  Even for live unreinforced music the exact performance or venue can seldom be repeated.  So we're left with imagining what the original performance was like, based mostly on experience with other systems, clinging to the systems we prefer and the additions, subtractions, and "enhancements" they exhibited (or maybe just the state of mind we were in at the time).

Studio people are working, not being entertained.  They're trying to find and eliminate all of the warts (as the producer sees fit).  They work only as long as they get the mix right.  So accuracy, even to the point of dryness or forward presentation to aid in the wart hunt is often part of the theme.  Of course all this is a recipe for listener fatigue.  So I look for reviews of studio gear (including your recommended Grace m920, thanks macrojack!) from guys who mention listening at home to find out what gear they use in the studio that would be both accurate and non-fatiguing. 

Here, here!  See my moto under my avatar - "Audio, its all a big fake!"  But that's OK, once you accept this fact, then you can learn to love audio all over again. 

[barrows]

Well, of course it is a big fake, duh, audio playback of recorded music can be nothing but a fake by definition.
So, then, what does the individual audiophile desire for their home playback: clearly this can vary from person to person.
One listener might value imaging/soundstaging above all else, another might place a higher value on realistic tonality/timbre, and another might place a higher value on dynamics and/or realistic playback levels.

[*Scotty*]

Of course ones life is more complicated when one wants all of the above.
Scotty

[MttBsh]

Of course ones life is more complicated when one wants all of the above.
Scotty

How true. Reminds me of how forty years ago I was delighted to enjoy a cup of coffee. Now we need a Caramel Macchiato, Venti, Skim, Extra Shot, Extra-Hot, Extra-Whip, Sugar-Free to be happy. Do we really enjoy it more than the good'ol cupa joe? so much so that we're willing to pay $5.00 more for it? Does our never-ending choices of expensive streamers and DACs really make us enjoy music more, or is the music itself that we love?

I have to admit that I enjoyed listening to music just as much on my old turntable and Sansui speakers 40 years ago as I do on my $10,000 rig today. The music was better too. And the funny thing is, I had no interest in upgrading 40 years ago, I was happy. Now that I have the $10,000 rig, I am perpetually looking to upgrade it. Why????

[Tyson]

How true. Reminds me of how forty years ago I was delighted to enjoy a cup of coffee. Now we need a Caramel Macchiato, Venti, Skim, Extra Shot, Extra-Hot, Extra-Whip, Sugar-Free to be happy. Do we really enjoy it more than the good'ol cupa joe? so much so that we're willing to pay $5.00 more for it? Does our never-ending choices of expensive streamers and DACs really make us enjoy music more, or is the music itself that we love?

I have to admit that I enjoyed listening to music just as much on my old turntable and Sansui speakers 40 years ago as I do on my $10,000 rig today. The music was better too. And the funny thing is, I had no interest in upgrading 40 years ago, I was happy. Now that I have the $10,000 rig, I am perpetually looking to upgrade it. Why????

Because you are chasing the dragon.  As are we all.

[*Scotty*]

I had the disease from the time I was 18 and perhaps a genetic predisposition as well, my father had tube gear in the early sixties and built his own speakers back then as well. Although at this time in my life I'm about done, all that remains is acquiring a couple of subs to solve bass response irregularities in the listening room.
Scotty