[JCarney]

I've been looking for a DAC for between my Macbook and my pre. I have an external hd for all the music. I used an AAIF format to rip the cd's to the hd. I have also recorded a couple pieces of vinyl on the hd using Audacity and a Hagerman Ripper. I'm using the dac section of the Ripper right now for playback. I can't find any info on the Hagerman site as to whether it upsamples or not. Just that it does 16 bit, and 32kHz, 44.1kHz, 48kHz data rates. It does ok, but does leave something to be desired. I don't understand the difference between non sampling dacs, and upsampling dacs. What are the advantages and disadvantages to using one or the other? I've been informed to get the most out of the vinyl I have recorded, I will need at least 24 bit, 96khz sampling. Is this true? I'm kinda confused here, and need some help. Any guidance will be greatly appreciated. I have looked at a plethera of dacs ranging wildely in price. I just want to understand the sampling thing better before I pull the trigger. Not so much interested in a Squeezebox, but have not ruled one out completely.

Thanks,
JCarney

[SET Man]

Hey!

   Well, I will give this one a shot than.... from my own experience

   I've encountered both type of DACs before.. thanks in part for being in New York Rave of which we used to have many DAC shootout. But at the end there was no clear winner some like NOS and some like 24/96+K DAC

   First, I'm using NOS DAC in my own system.

   To me NOS DAC seem to have that smoother more relax feel to it. With a better sense of flow to the sound. But the the 24/96+K seems to have what seem to be a more precision to the sound to it. More defined leading edge to the sound. And some could sound very digitize and lack the sense of flow with mechanical feel to the it.

    But the biggest different between the two for me is that I do feel that the NOS DAC sound better for me. It reminded me more of my analog vinyl. I know this sound strange but that how I see and more importantly hear it.

    I'm talking about this strictly referring to playing back standard 16/44.1K CD. If you have 24/96+K files than you will need a ture 24/96+K DAC for that.

     Here is a little tech side of NOS DAC from Audio Note Kit site..

http://www.audionotekits.com/agrovedac.html

    If I had the money I would love to buy the totally pimped out DAC Kit 2.1 for CD play back 

    Well, good luck

Take care,
Buddy

[JCarney]

Thanks Buddy,
I appreciate your input. This is a lot tougher then I thought it would be.

JCarney

[kck]

FWIW, my personal DAC journey:

I have been playing with DACs for some time, about 2001, although not really a long list.
More or less in chronological order:
Original MSB
MSB half-Nelson
Benchmark
Behringer
Benchmark (again!)
Paradisea (my one and only NOS so far)
Bel Canto DAC2
Bel Canto DAC3
Lavry DA10

I still own the last two and one of them will be a keeper, but I am having a hard time deciding. Apart from those two, the list above is also in order of preference. I think DACs have been getting better (at least the ones in a certain budget; the DAC3 stretches that budget though) over time.

Until the Paradisea, I could not listen to any of the previous DACs and I figured I just don't like DACs. Maybe the jitter introduced by the connection, whatever. But the Paradisea was very nice and relaxed, as many have described. After almost a year though, I found myself wanting more out of it. This was pointing the way to OS, but I was hesitant to go there again. Finally went ahead with the BC DAC2 and realized that yes, OS can be nice. Upgraded to DAC3, then as I had to know, also got the Lavry. The diffs between those two are not so pertinent to this thread, so let me just say they are both terrific DACs but in different ways.

So I think a well-executed OS DAC is a good thing for me. I know the Benchmark gets a lot of love and it really is very nice if you buy into that particular presentation, which I don't. So I guess one should add to well-executed: voiced to your taste.

Maybe this helps a little. I wouldn't hesitate to try out a modern and well-regarded OS DAC.

[mcullinan]

The Lavry is NOS too! It doesnt upsample, but will accept higher resolutions. Also it reclocks.
Mike

[boead]

To me NOS DAC seem to have that smoother more relax feel to it. With a better sense of flow to the sound. But the the 24/96+K seems to have what seem to be a more precision to the sound to it. More defined leading edge to the sound. And some could sound very digitize and lack the sense of flow with mechanical feel to the it.

    But the biggest different between the two for me is that I do feel that the NOS DAC sound better for me. It reminded me more of my analog vinyl. I know this sound strange but that how I see and more importantly hear it.

Buddy

My experience too. The NOS DAC's are just more musical, pound for pound. I've never been much of a fan for upsampling or excessive detail in a system. SACD has loads of detail but complements it with nice deep bass usually but still, I've gotten best results with plain old Redbook. I perfer the soudn of the Ring DAC in my arcam to many other upsampling players I've heard at twice its price. The Scott Nixon NOS DAC I use on my PC sounds much like the Arcam CDP I have right now, just not as refined but just as musical.

[BobM]

I think there's a bit more to the equation also, and it certainly depends on what is important to you. For the most part, and this is a gross generalization, the NOS DAC's are smoother, more laid back (but not necessarily rolled off), with a prettier presentation on simple music like vocals and acoustic guitar and such. Where they seem to leave you looking for more is in the dynamics region. They don't have as much punch to them and many have reported that they can't handle big music as well as upsampling DAC's. This is not tru for all of them. There are some newer NOS DAC's which seem to be tackling this shortcoming.

So if you're listening to rock and roll, or punchy jazz or big orchestral music, then you may find them lacking. If you listen to simpler folk music, or blues or vocals with sparce accompanyment then they may be just your cup of tea, or coffee, or beer or ...

Enjoy,
Bob

[mcullinan]

I would agree wholly with Bob... I entered a whole new world with the explosive dynamics of the Stello vs the Lavry. The differences were obvious. Also the midband detail... was missing in the LAvry. I guess it could come down to what mood you are in. My foot seemed to tap more with the Stello and definitely played Rock and Roll with a more aggressive edge.

Now they are both gone and I am waiting for my Bryston DAC to arrive. I think I have a DAC obsession. Doctor.
Mike
btw.. Both are great DACs I could easily live with either of them, but cant, cuz Ive got mad issue. hehe
Mike

[kck]

The Lavry is NOS too! It doesnt upsample, but will accept higher resolutions. Also it reclocks.
Mike

oops. I knew that but was forgetting, likely due to the 'acceptance' factor.

[boead]

I just had my Scott Nixon USBTD upgraded to Scotts new constant current source, its an “USB-direct-I2S” non-oversampled DAC’s with a constant current sourced tube buffer stage. I also have the upgraded 3Xac power supply with a KWorks power cord and MIT S3 IC’s.
Scott also make the DAC with SPDIF input instead of USB-I2S and both can come with a constant current JFET stage (no opamps) in place of the 6922 tube.

I haven’t gotten the unit back yet with the upgrade but its said to add to what’s already there, throws a big sound stage, nice bass.

I have a 2TB NAS (1TB RAID) network storage device on my home net that serves audio files to a laptop on my main rig. Easy and fast.

The Scott Nixon isn’t pretty but sounds awesome.
http://www.scott-nixon.com/dac.htm