Bel Canto Design DAC 1.5 e.One Processor Review

<br />

I’ve sat here reading theu the pages of CA and silently wondered why no press on the BC lineup. Why especially when other similarly priced or not too distantly priced DACs are covering the pages instead. I was astonished only the forums yielded pub for Bel Canto.<br />

<br />

Bel Canto, a leader in the digital realm for years. They release a plug and play DAC with a digital volume control & USB interface years ago. And they’re in the same state as CA resides!<br />

<br />

Why? BC is relatively popular enough, garnering a pretty strong folowing in the upper end audio sphere. Hmmm. Not posh enough? Not pricey enough? Wrong design topology ie., adaptive vs asynch? Bad blood between BC and CA? Stereophile’s JA measured the e One DAC III and said it was the first device he had measured which exceeded the makers specs and tested honestly throughout. Jitter reduction circuitry rests in the analog side where the e one DAC 3 employs it and is exceptionally effective in it’s reduction. Truly balanced from input to output. Remote controled. Sleek appearance and well built. Compact package. Off the grid operation above the BC 1.5 entry level DAC. <br />

<br />

Who else is doing this? Taking the power grid out of the audio heaven equation must be seen as a plus if for no other reason than one need not invest in the power cable hype/arena at all!<br />

<br />

<br />

I got it! <br />

<br />

Snowed in! That had to be it! CA & or BC were always snowed in and could not communicate!<br />

<br />

It has to be it, they’re only able to talk once a year or so according to this article! “… over a year ago…”<br />

<br />

The Bel Canto e One DAC 3 is virtually half the price or less, of the more vaunted and well covered competing DACs gracing these pages routinely… Ala weiss and berkely and dcs. With each of those DACs revealing the shortcomings of their rivals upon closer examination, the perfect OOOOOOhhhh, and affordable to the many rather than to the few, DAC, has yet to be discovered. <br />

<br />

Perhaps with the discovery of the Bel Canto DAC 1.5… a closer look at the top tier BC DAC will soon take place. <br />

<br />

It seems appropriate enough given the top tier DACs from other makers, litter CA pages… and they’re abundance of ‘can’taffordium’ infused into their makeups did not prevent any acounts here of their showings.<br />

<br />

It’s DAC lineup has offered things like a plug and play USB interface, and volume control since the e One DAC 3s release years ago!<br />

<br />

Why BC’s dAC lineup has been ignored so far amazes me. <br />

<br />

I’m quite glad to not have ignored the E One DAC III, myself. I’ve been very happy with it’s performance for some time now, and not have had to cowtow to reputedly other more popular beliefs or trends in order to achieve outstanding sound quality.<br />

<br />

Perhaps the ‘Why of it’ resides in this assertion, <br />

<br />

“only the latest or more glamorous releases” receive pub here. <br />

<br />

Beats me. I am however relieved Bel Canto has finally been able to garner some space on the CA pages even if the recital was not on the top offering BC has released… perhaps there will be yet another day for that, as it is clearly evident the slightest sibling offers much for any audio enthusiast, and it’s sitting on the lowest rung of the BC DAC ladder!<br />

<br />

Thanks for the article Chris!<br />

Thanks for the write-up.<br />

<br />

Just curious, is the 1.5 compatible with the VBS1? Reading through the literature on BC's site, I can't seem to find any indication that it is. <br />

<br />

- Jason

No, only their top end dac 3.5VB which uses either the LNS1 or the VBS1. The DAC 2.5 has the LNS1 built in.<br />

<br />

Note the following from Chris' review.<br />

"....The DAC 1.5 does not feature all the benefits of the full VBS1 power supply but some critical VB technology was implemented in the DAC 1.5. The biggest differences between the DAC 1.5 and it's more expensive siblings is the increased technology and performance put into the power supplies of the other units. ...."<br />

<br />

Cheers,<br />

<br />

savjam

Roch,<br />

<br />

Thanks for the info regarding the BNC/RCA adapter. Its good to know that HD is providing a quality adapter with the Bridge. <br />

<br />

I also wanted to mention that I talked with Jonathan at Halide Design and was able to do an exchange for an RCA Bridge. I can't say enough about how great it was to deal with Halide Design, outstanding customer service! <br />

<br />

As soon as I receive the new Bridge I will do a comparison between the Bridge and the USB input of the Dac 1.5.

To keep my comment as short as possible I'll start with a summary of what I *think* I've read:<br />

<br />

(a) the 1.5 is pretty awesome -- it made the CASH list!<br />

(b) the 2.5 adds an analog input and improved power supply to the 1.5<br />

<br />

Is the 2.5 even awesomer than the 1.5? I know middle children sometimes get forgotten but I can't get too excited about the 3.5 because of the price, ST in place of USB input, and the fact that BC eliminated the headphone jack. Are there other improvements to the 3.5?<br />

<br />

Maybe I could add a cost effective power supply (e.g., Channel Island) to the 1.5 to make a 2.5 on the cheap. Either way it might be worth a listen to keep a pre-amp out of the chain.

that a substantial improvement could be made to the 1.5 by substituting a really good power supply. If one is handy one could DIY a superb shunt regulated supply for around $100-$200 pretty easily, just remember to keep the DC cabling as short as possible to keep supply impedance low.

<br />

My exp with the BC e One DAC III and a couple other DACs, has proven that the better the interface, or signal conduit to the DAC, the better the sound will be.<br />

<br />

Upon arrival of my BC DAC 3 while using USB initially… I bought the German ASIO driver for USB components. $60 +/-… pretty good results. XP & Vista operating systems… no probs. Nice.<br />

<br />

Threw a Stereovox XV2 RCA/BNC onto a USB sound card and fed the BC DAC III that way… better results. Adding the Dutch ASIO driver for the el cheapo Creative USB card? Better still. Very nice.<br />

<br />

Did nothing else but exchange out the coax cable then. Still things improved.<br />

<br />

Got a BNC Hiface… and another upscale BNC cable to feed the BC DAC III…. Hiface + Oyaide silver 1.5M BNC. Best yet! Now using the Kernal Streaming Hiface driver on either Vista, or XP. Great.<br />

<br />

WASAPI vs Kernal Streaming? Six one way half Dozen the other. Each output format laid the sound stage a wee bit differently. I felt the wASAPI a tad more about the music, than Kernal streaming… feeling the KS was aimed at presenting ALL the critical info and sonic cues first, and music second, so pronounced were they in the replay. Albeit, this is a marginal assessment… Neither output introduced any listening fatigue or concerns… it/they were merely differing choices or perspectives on the same cuts.<br />

<br />

Adding the Oyaide Silver BNC cable eliminated the overtly critical reproduction of the music and made it do an about face towards the more natural side of the coin.<br />

<br />

Sometimes press can be misleading. Lending an ear to things is always best.<br />

<br />

Recently stepping up to a Lynx AES 16express PCI card and Gotham AES/xlr CABLE thus eliminating the Oyiade silver BNC, again delivered a closer more immediate account of the musical presentation. The consideration here IMO is the presentation clearly divides the heard of good and bad recordings. <br />

<br />

So in all each step had to be considered on it’s own merits as no honest correlation of the various interfaces could be found out as the sole reason for the gains being delivered.<br />

<br />

Ultimately, the Lynx won out over all other in house channels to feed the BC DAC III. <br />

<br />

The newer version, the 3.5 becomes an actual preamp, has a read out indicating the bit rate and sampling freq on the units face plate, operates off the grid, adds a GLASS optical interface by eliminating the USB, and sort of co-signs my note on using a better interface for introducing your music to Bel Canto DACs. It also boasts better numbers on paper by using 2 stages of even greater jitter reduction. One in the digital domain, one in the analog area.<br />

<br />

There is even an HT bypass for use in an HT setup.<br />

<br />

With over 5 volts of output power, and an output impedance of 200 ohms RCA (100 per leg on XLR), it should drive amps even with lengthy cables.<br />

<br />

The only note I see as a concern is the analog inputs… they have a 12K ohm input impedance… which is pretty low.<br />

<br />

There’s no need for a high cost power cord for it, so there’s that! If you go on to acquire more BC gear, such as Preamp, or disc palyer, *(if current tech) all can be run off the grid!<br />

<br />

No pricey power cords, or power conditioning needed!<br />

<br />

Given an advanced power supply too? I’m thinking the flexibility and performance of the BC DAC 3.5 should make it a quite noteable product, for both the performance elitist and the audio enthusiast who seeks to shorten the signal path and have greater flexibility in their DAC, perhaps using it as a top flight hub or signal router & decoder.<br />

<br />

I use a bit better preamp with my DAC III, though on it’s own as a digital preamp it’s no slouch, especially if you are seeking a more surgical presentation. Albeit, RWV.<br />

<br />

My BNC Hiface now see’s duty in a second system with a BNC to RCA Gold plated adapter, and a 1.5M Belken Gold series USB extension cable… as the Hiface is plugged directly into an RCA coax connector on my Onkyo TXSR 805. I’m quite pleased with both systems… the Lynx + BC DAC III, and my bedroom rig with the Hiface & Onkyo receiver.<br />

<br />

The better the pathway you promote the audio signal, transfer it out, and then into the ???? DAC, the better off you are!<br />

<br />

IMHO… the USB interface on the BC DAC III simply put is not the optimum path for musical recreation. Removing it from the newer 3.5 version, BC sort of admits this.<br />

<br />

To go strickly “ 1394 or USB forever and always” I’d look into Wavelength DACs or some other models.<br />

<br />

The BC DAC 3 & now 3.5 simply offer a lot to think about and great flexibility too. The 3.5 seems to have picked up the DAC 3s performance parameters, and sent them skyward at a much steeper angle and far greater pace.<br />

Hence my inquiry about the VBS1 earlier, albeit an expensive upgrade. According to Bel Canto when asked about compatibility, <i>"the short answer is "yes" you may do this. The improved performance will not necessarily be those differences that can be quantified by specs, however there will be a substantial improvement in sound, which is usually the case with the use of an improved power supply. <br />

You will need a different ($100) power cable to connect the Dac1.5 to the VBS1."</i><br />

<br />

By this point, going with the DAC3.5VB would be the better idea.<br />

I just got my BC 1.5 DAC in anticipation of hooking my Mac up via USB. In the mean time I have it hooked up to my CD Transport via AES just like I had my beloved MSB hooked up. Both have been upsampled to 24/96. Even with the 1.5 not broken in (BC says several hundred hours if you believe that)the diffrences in sound are pretty astounding. Note that I said "differences". There is so much to love about the sound the MSB produces that I would not really want to say one is better than the other, but overall to me the sound from the BC 1.5 is astounding, especially considering the price point, which is very close to the MSB with the power base. Everything is just tighter, more articulated, voices more fleshed out, very tight bass etc. However, if you step back for a moment and just listen to the overall sonic impression the MSB sounds a little more musical due to the very fact that the various instruments and vocals are not so precisely segregated. The BC can sound a little cold and technical, whereas the MSB is more laid back. The MSB also tends to pounce on the bass giving a little more punch than the very precise/tight bass of the BC, which almost seems to understate the bass on some recordings. This all may of course change after "hundreds of hours" of break-in but those are some initial very subjective impressions. Overall I would highly recommend the BC - it is one high performing DAC and I am very pleased with the sound so far. I am now listening through some old CD's that I know very well and use as reference for all my equipment changes and discovering new nuances and somtimes not so subtle cords that I did not know existed before. In short, you need to include this DAC in your shortlist!

After 100 hours it’ll begin to lose its wire sharp leading edge info and begin to sound more realistic…. If it’s like my DAC 3… at 200 you should be really close or in about a week of steady play. By 250 – 300 you ought to be set.<br />

<br />

Following only a few days or 60 hours or so… it should begin to acquire more balance across the bandwidth.<br />

<br />

I just heard an MSB Platinum DAC on some EAR amps, and AZ speakers… with Isoclean conditioning. I actually felt somewhere in that mix someone was being starved for power or had a critical issue in the upper midrange lower treble at times. Otherwise, I liked what I heard then. I’d also have to say given the cost of the MSB Plat, at double or more that of my BC DAC 3? It would not be a DAC I’d get too worried about or interested in. I could easily live with the BC D3 presentation, which I believe relates better with tubes in the arrangement… or a more forgiving affair of audio appliances..<br />

<br />

But then every system is a mix of characters and characteristics. Attributes and adjustments. Concerns and compromises. Preffs and budgets… usually. Having too much of a good thing is well … just too much.<br />

<br />

Enjoy… and congratulations.<br />

Thanks for the advise. I will try to be patient. I am letting my iPod hooked into a Wadia i170 play on random all day so hopefully i will be in music nirvana soon. Cheers!

Jim, can you please clarify something? Since I don't have a DAC yet, I would like to buy something that can potentially play high rez without using drivers or any kind of adapters with a Mac Mini. I'm looking for plug and play as much as possible, and I would like it to sound as good as my CD player. I assume that if I don't have to buy soundcards and adapters, I can put the money into a better DAC.<br />

<br />

Of course, I can't hear all the DACs, but I will always need preamp capabilities due to still having a turntable. So, the clarification I am hoping for is whether I need a soundcard, etc with the BC products? Also, do you know the price point on the 3.5?<br />

<br />

Thanks...

<cite>The RCA at the left is better that that on the right, those are RCA for composite video in the mHz frequencies, and the Halide is 96 kHz.</cite><br />

<br />

It is good to remember that S/PDIF can also reach quite high frequencies. At 96 kHz the S/PDIF signal frequency is 12.288 MHz and at 192 kHz naturally double that at 24.576 MHz...<br />

<br />

Good quality 75 ohm composite video RCA cables work fairly OK.<br />

NickG, all Bel Canto DACs are plug and play and can be used to drive an amp directly.<br />

<br />

The DAC 3.5VB is available with two different power supplies, namely the standard LNS1 and the optional VBS1. MSRP with the LNS1 is $3495 and $5000 with the VBS1.<br />

<br />

<br />

savjam<br />

<br />

Couple things right off… what is your definition of High Res files? Up to 24/96? Up to 24/192? Or anything over 16/44?<br />

<br />

Mac interfaces with anything are not my particular slice of cake…. I understand they have an Optical out jack. TOS. How much info can be streamed or passed via that interface I suspect in part at least depends on the software being used, and the OS to some extent…. But don’t quote me on that.<br />

<br />

I’m a Windows owner only… so far.<br />

<br />

I’ve found regardless the bridge, USB ASIO driver, etc., the better the signal which can be transmitted, the better the audio. USB 2.0 has it’s limitations without a bridge or converter in the mix. 24/96 I believe is that limit… straight from pc to DAC via just a wire. Some DACs do not enable bit depths and smapling rates above 16/48 on their USB interfaces… this is rapidly changing though so do look into it on which ever unit you think you like going in.<br />

<br />

IMHO… on the gear I’ve owned outright in my home… AES/EBU or xlr seems so far as the top nut in the high fidelity rodeo. BNC is right there too… then RCA, and thereafter TOS and USB.. again… IMHO.<br />

<br />

so if you aim to do all the rates up to and including 24/192... a card might be needed to passs those higher rates out of your confuser.<br />

<br />

The BC D3.5 MSRP = $3500…. Likely one can better that figure. <br />

<br />

I’d investigate one more thing however on the BC side of the coin… your output impeadance of your phon preamp… as the input imp of the DAC 3.5 is 12K I think and it’s not a phono preamp per se either. <br />

<br />

I’m thinking this set of RCAs are intended for PASS THRU HT duties… not as an phono pre, or analog pre as a matter of course.<br />

<br />

I’m also very very lucky to have a quite special line stage active preamp. Every source I’ve connected to it so far, and every amp I’ve connected to it so far the quality of the audio was improved upon… and often dramatically…. But always the audio gains. Upstream and down.<br />

<br />

So utilizing any DAC as a preamp is just a bit of fun for a short time to see another perspective on the music. I always revert back to using my Thor MK II preamp with NOS tubes.<br />

<br />

Otherwise, as Chris said in his article, the BC dacs are virtually plug & play items, … and do remember too… in the 3.5 BC dropped the USB connection… and put a Glass Optical in it’s place. Glass opt is indeed different from standard optical as the connectors are slightly different… but it has the other TOS so you should be able to get going immediately.<br />

Jim, thanks for the response. For hi-rez, I was thinking 24/192. I'm under the impression that the Grace m903 and the Ayre both deliver at those rates via USB on a Mac without the need for drivers to be installed. <br />

<br />

I like the idea of the Grace features vs the limited set of features of the Ayre. Chris obviously likes the Ayre and the BC, but has not had the Grace in his system yet. I was supposed to have a Grace delivered two months ago, so gave up on that one given it not likely to be delivered any time soon. I'm also very curious about the Classe product about to hit the shelves.<br />

<br />

Anyway, it sounds like I can't get to the sound quality Chris describes up 24/192 without a soundcard and drivers being installed.<br />

<br />

You want to achieve 24/192 computer playback with any of the bel canto DACs you will need to use the SPDIF input on the DAC. So you will need to have a separate SPDIF interface (soundcard, USB-SPDIF converter, Firewire-SPDIF converter).<br />

The bel canto USB interface only handles data rates up to 24/96.<br />

I would also suggest, as users above have mentioned, that for any data rate you will get the best out of this DAC by feeding it a high quality SPDIF signal. This means, for best computer performance, you should use a really good interface, like the Wavelink, etc.<br />

The Grace and Ayre both offer direct support for 24/192 audio via USB. With any of these DACs, you need to hear them in your system to evaluate them. There are dealers who allow for in home demos out there (even via shipping), I would recommend taking your time, and auditioning the DACs you are considering. All of these models offer good sound, only you can decide which one will be right for you.

For example, Audioquest VDM-5 75 Ohm cable with HCF insulation (dielectric close to air) estate this cable for digital audio with special RCA's for SP/DIF up to 24.576 MHz, then 24/192 capable.<br />

<br />

Upon Bergeron Diagram cooper and optical fiber cables could get in reflections problems, 'similar to jitter problems', regarding cable length and impedance matching . In order to avoid this, some electronic engineers recommends a good dielectric (as HFC) and a minimum cable length of 1.50 meters (about 5'). This length is also recommended for analogue audio interconnects. Some other people believe that 'shorter is better', but I have my doubt since "too much of a good thing could be a bad thing".<br />

<br />

I know there is a lot of bull s..t regarding BNC connectors. The majority of adapters and connectors are not real 75ohms BNC's, but 50 ohms, but they sell it as 75 ohms. I attached 2 files showing the difference between 50 and 75 ohms BNC connectors.<br />

<br />

In my case I do prefer to replace in my DAC the RCA S/PDIF input for a genuine 75 ohms BNC. It's a about $12.50 from Cardas on The Cable Company.<br />

<br />

Thanks,<br />

<br />

Roch <br />

<br />

PS/ I'm sorry if this reply is some 'out of the thread' but I think is knowledge for everybody on CA.

I don't think you are correct. While you are correct that the big difference between the 2.5 and the 1.5 is the built in LNS1 in the 2.5, an engineer at Bel Canto actually told me he liked the 1.5 for it's improved flexibility over the 2.5 because you can 1) leave it the way it is, 2) add an external LNS1 (for about the same price total as buying the 2.5) or 3)add the VBS1 to the 1.5--which might be ideal if you were using multiple Bel Canto components as the VBS1 can support up to three components. That's straight from the guys at Bel Canto--who I spent a good deal of time with on the phone before buying the 1.5.

I am about 3 or 4 months into my Bel Canto DAC1.5 and really believe this is the best my music has sounded in years. I started out in the lower ends with the Cambridge Audio DacMagic moved over to the Wadia PowerDAC150 and now to the Bel Canto DAC1.5 and unlike the others, for my system and ears, I don’t think there is more to be had, or maybe more accurately needed, for me.

As a mac mini owner, my interfaces to the DAC are toslink or USB. My understanding is that Toslink is limited to 24/96 by the Mac and USB is limited to 24/96 by the Bel Canto 1.5. So if I was to purchase this DAC it would be limited to 24/96. Which interface sounds better with this DAC, toslink or USB? <br />

<br />

Mwheelerk - how much of a step up is this from the DacMagic?

@bottlerocket<br />

<br />

When I purchased the DacMagic it was for me the step that made computer based audio a reality. The DacMagic was a superior value but with limitations. One of those limitations for me was the lack of support for 24/96 files via USB. That was one of the instigators in my considering another DAC.<br />

<br />

The Bel Canto DAC1.5 took me from the realm of very good computer audio to excellent computer audio. Its all around sound in every element out performed my valued DacMagic. I am very happy I made the change.<br />

<br />

The Bel Canto does support 24/192 through the connections other than USB.