A little upcoming DAC comparison.

genjamon · « **Reply #20 on:** 13 Jan 2010, 09:48 pm »

I might be mistaken, but I think Pardales already has a Tranquility and has the new Vision on order. Or maybe it's reverse that. Anyway, if Frank and Danny can't make the logistics work out, it will at least be very good to have feedback from Pardales. We'll just have to coax (yes, pun intended

) him into telling all of us his impressions

trebejo · « **Reply #21 on:** 13 Jan 2010, 10:54 pm »

Quote from: avahifi on 13 Jan 2010, 09:30 pm

This will be available in about six weeks.

Frank

Well if this is what is required in order to test it against the mentioned DACs, I hope they wait for it.

I wish the test was a little broader. They might be using a Mac Pro if the choices are USB/optical (I know because that is what I got). The way that electronic->optical is implemented inside the Mac could be compared to the way it is done inside, say, a Squeezebox, since one is probably better than the other. I (literally) put my money on the squeezebox, but that was mainly because I needed an interface to the collection and it's good to have a backup DAC anyway... plus the fact that it can output in optical and coax in decoupled parallel which makes it a breeze to do A/B testing of outboard DACs.

The USB test is going to be interesting. The computer has to make the first sourcing there, RAM->USB. I have it on good off-the-record word that a Mac does not like to do this conversion, and that most other computers do not particularly like it, either since it hits the CPU harder than other methods (ethernet is light as a feather on that). However it is probably totally OK on this test since the testers are certainly not going to be doing other stuff on the computer during the test (i.e. no web browsing).

[off topic]
Now imagine that you are not an audiophile, but a computer phile (cyberphile?!). If somebody gives you an alternative between a data bus that hits the CPU 1000% (say) harder than another data bus, he might feel the same as if we are to compare a speaker cable that is run over by a bus to one that is not.

[/off topic]

Danny Richie · « **Reply #22 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 05:40 pm »

I don't blame you Frank. You can say wire is wire, bits are bits, all transports sound the same, and all those input switch boxes, and other devices in theory should not have any sonic effect. But when you get right down to it, I wouldn't want to have any of those disadvantages either. I fully support your decision and wish you the best with your products.

Quote

The USB test is going to be interesting. The computer has to make the first sourcing there, RAM->USB. I have it on good off-the-record word that a Mac does not like to do this conversion, and that most other computers do not particularly like it, either since it hits the CPU harder than other methods (ethernet is light as a feather on that). However it is probably totally OK on this test since the testers are certainly not going to be doing other stuff on the computer during the test (i.e. no web browsing).

Actually the Mac can play a file through the USB and burn another disc all at the same time with no interruption or problems. We have also found that there is often significant sonic advantage in using a USB with I2S direct feed over a fiber optic input using a S/PDIF feed. The Baffalo DAC for instance sounded much better through the USB than through the fiber optic input. We were using a Ridge Street Audio Alethias USB cable though and might have had a little bit to do with it too.

Audioclyde · « **Reply #23 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 06:48 pm »

Danny (or anyone else 'in the know'):

Can the Buffalo DAC do 24/96 via the USB input?

Thanks,

Randy

TomS · « **Reply #24 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 06:55 pm »

Quote from: Audioclyde on 14 Jan 2010, 06:48 pm

Danny (or anyone else 'in the know'):

Can the Buffalo DAC do 24/96 via the USB input?

Thanks,

Randy

The TPA Buffalo 32s board does not include a USB input native. There is a PCM2707 based add on board from TPA that can do 16/48 or you can supply another third party USB 24/96 to I2S or S/PDIF solution.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #25 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 07:12 pm »

Their web site says: "Direct DSD, I2S and S/PDIF inputs supporting up to 24-bit/192kHz."

The problem is that they are out of stock on them right now and the new latest version is being designed. But they could be available before the end of the month.

pardales · « **Reply #26 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 07:22 pm »

I had the opportunity to hear a Buffalo DAC in my system for 4 days a few weeks ago due to the generosity of an audio friend who built one for himself and let me give it a test drive.

It is a most intriguing sounding DAC. Great detail and a very clear window on the music. I liked it very much but also did not find the sound to come through in a "whole" way.

I look forward to hearing the interpretations (DAC's) of some of the high-end manufacturers who will build around this chip.

Audioclyde · « **Reply #27 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 07:31 pm »

I'd like to hear the Buffalo DAC with a tubed output (Gary Dodd indicated it was doable, either earlier in this thread or another here on AC). I'm intrigued by the EE Dac that has its own thread here on AC and should be out soon, but as I understand it, USB input is limited to 24/48. I have most of my library upsampled to 24/96 (and like the improvement IMHO), but would like to use the USB input.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #28 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 07:36 pm »

Quote

I had the opportunity to hear a Buffalo DAC in my system for 4 days a few weeks ago due to the generosity of an audio friend who built one for himself and let me give it a test drive.

It is a most intriguing sounding DAC. Great detail and a very clear window on the music. I liked it very much but also did not find the sound to come through in a "whole" way.

That DAC was very impressive in the first round of our comparisons, but if you only listened to it with the fiber optic input then you never really got to hear it. That one was at a completely different level with the USB input.

roscoeiii · « **Reply #29 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 07:46 pm »

For those of you who may have missed it, there is a discussion of the DACs that have been included in this comparison so far at this thread:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=75402.0

Hopefully more impressions will be posted there soon.

Danny, I'd assume that's the best place to keep looking for updates?

martyo · « **Reply #30 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 07:51 pm »

That Ridge Street cable almost costs as much as the AVA DAC. Always find it interesting.....

pardales · « **Reply #31 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 07:53 pm »

Quote from: Danny on 14 Jan 2010, 07:36 pm

That DAC was very impressive in the first round of our comparisons, but if you only listened to it with the fiber optic input then you never really got to hear it. That one was at a completely different level with the USB input.

I was listening to it with a Macbook Pro as a source, and the M-Audio Profire as a Firewire to S/PDIF converter. So it was S/PDIF (Coaxial-RCA) not optical.

HAL · « **Reply #32 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 08:29 pm »

Quote from: TomS on 14 Jan 2010, 06:55 pm

The TPA Buffalo 32s board does not include a USB input native. There is a PCM2707 based add on board from TPA that can do 16/48 or you can supply another third party USB 24/96 to I2S or S/PDIF solution.

The Buffalo DAC will take 24bit/192KHz data via the available TPA S/PDIF interface, so the DAC portion will work. The M2Tech HiFace will do 24bit/192KHz USB to S/PDIF conversion and should sound very good as an alternative. You would need to use Foobar2000 or MediaMonkey.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #33 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 08:31 pm »

Quote

Danny, I'd assume that's the best place to keep looking for updates?

Yes, and when we document all of the comparisons and comments from all present there will be a new thread on it.

That thread might also be a good place to discuss these other DAC's and not here in Frank's circle.

Quote

That Ridge Street cable almost costs as much as the AVA DAC. Always find it interesting.....

Yeah, in it interesting how when you wind up putting 20 hours or so into the manufacturing and assembling of a cable how much that effects the price.

Quote

I was listening to it with a Macbook Pro as a source, and the M-Audio Profire as a Firewire to S/PDIF converter. So it was S/PDIF (Coaxial-RCA) not optical.

You still never heard what that DAC can do. Jitter reduction appears to be quite a bit better with the USB input on that DAC.

srb · « **Reply #34 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 08:41 pm »

Quote from: Danny on 14 Jan 2010, 08:31 pm

That thread might also be a good place to discuss these other DAC's and not here in Frank's circle.

Danny, I'm not sure why this thread is in the Van Alstine circle to begin with, other than your asking Frank if he wanted to submit his DAC. It seems to me that since you are organizing the comparison, it would be in the GR Research circle.

Steve

Danny Richie · « **Reply #35 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 08:53 pm »

Quote

Danny, I'm not sure why this thread is in the Van Alstine circle to begin with, other than your asking Frank if he wanted to submit his DAC.

Well, that was the reason that I started this thread. I wanted to formally invite Frank, and it also allowed everyone to know that he was invited and not snubbed for the comparisons or anything.

I really didn't foresee this thread being a DAC discussion.

I guess Frank can spilt the thread off if he wishes.

avahifi · « **Reply #36 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 10:04 pm »

I have seen some comments around here recently about the virtues of "NOS" DACs. I assume that NOS means built with New Old Stock (aka discontinued) parts.

Gee, we used some of the same basic digital stuff in our previous generations of DACS so long that the parts turned from New New Stock to New Old Stock before our very eyes.

Did that make them "ripen" into better sound output I wonder, they did keep getting better.

Anyway if any audio manufacturer herein needs some NOS DAC parts, we have some now obsolete for us Philips chips available along with support chips that are well ripened by now.

Best regards,

Frank Van Alstine

gstraley · « **Reply #37 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 10:14 pm »

Nos when it comes to DAC means Non Over Sampling.

avahifi · « **Reply #38 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 10:47 pm »

Sorry, I got my NOSes mixed up.

Frank

Danny Richie · « **Reply #39 on:** 30 Mar 2010, 05:04 pm »

Hey Frank,

An ugly winter now behind us, we are working on another get together to compare some of these DAC's. We were also delayed quite a bit because we were trying to get ahold of an Arye DAC as a reference.

With Arye DAC now in hand, and maybe a PS Audio on the way, we are looking at the 10th of April for the next round.

So if you finally have that DAC of yours ready then you are welcome again to send one if you would like to participate.