EMM Labs DAC2X Review

I have no opinion myself, but I do find it interesting that [EMM and MSB], both who seem committed to the best possible sound, have entirely opposite points of view on the best way to achieve the result they are looking for.

I suspect that just adds weight to the argument that there is no perfect solution and that contary to what some people would try and have you believe every option requires compromises...

Eloise

EMM vs. MSB: I could imagine two more fundamentally opposed approaches to D/A conversion. EMM/Meitner, and Ed Meitner himself appear to believe that a single bit system, with very high sample rate, with a Delts Sigma modulator is the best way to go, and so they convert all incoming rates to a single bit high sample rate format for conversion. MSB, on the other hand, appears to believe that Delta Sigma converters are "bad", and so they convert all incoming rates to a multi bit format (including DSD) and then convert to analog using a discrete, resistor based, ladder DAC.

 

I have no opinion myself, but I do find it interesting that these two companies, both who seem committed to the best possible sound, have entirely opposite points of view on the best way to achieve the result they are looking for.

Agreed. Based on the reviews and designs it might as well be the case that emm has the edge on DSD and MSB on PCM. It is difficult for a DAC to do both equally well.

Eloise, sorry for duplicating your post: I had not seen it when I posted.

Edorr, I own the DAC2X and I am also curious about comparison with the MSB Platinum IV. I would have already borrowed one for comparison were it not for the fact that I have decided that my next upgrade will be the addition of an analog front end. I would be extremely interested in reading the result of your shootout.

 

BTW, I was the author of the post from another forum you quoted. I am glad you got confirmation of the upcoming volume control.

Forget the Platinum. The $10K analog DAC would be the one to get. I spoke with their head of sales, and he confirmed it will sound better than the Platinum (unless you have the 10K Femto clock option), at a lower pricepoint.

Interesting:

 

The EMM and Meitner DACs both convert to analog in a single bit architecture, I wonder how a digital volume control is going to work? Most digital volume controls need a large bit rate in which to operate, the best ones use a 32, 48 or 64 bit path in order to maintain high resolution. I wonder what EMM/Meitner is doing here?

 

EMM vs. MSB: I could imagine two more fundamentally opposed approaches to D/A conversion. EMM/Meitner, and Ed Meitner himself appear to believe that a single bit system, with very high sample rate, with a Delts Sigma modulator is the best way to go, and so they convert all incoming rates to a single bit high sample rate format for conversion. MSB, on the other hand, appears to believe that Delta Sigma converters are "bad", and so they convert all incoming rates to a multi bit format (including DSD) and then convert to analog using a discrete, resistor based, ladder DAC.

 

I have no opinion myself, but I do find it interesting that these two companies, both who seem committed to the best possible sound, have entirely opposite points of view on the best way to achieve the result they are looking for.

I have been wondering about this myself. However, I believe DCS uses a proprietary 5 bit architecture, and they have implemented a digital volume control as well, so there is more than one way to skin the digital volume control cat.

I suspect that just adds weight to the argument that there is no perfect solution and that contary to what some people would try and have you believe every option requires compromises...

 

Eloise

Yes, the comparisons would be very interesting, given their almost 180 degree perspectives. Kind of mirrors today's Nobel Prize Quantum Physics announcement. Two scientists (French and American) were awarded for the same discovery (that one could finally isolate and therefore evaluate quantum particles). One used photons to evaluate electrons; the other used electrons to evaluate photons! Same result. Cool stuff.

And yes, now the Firesign Theater motto (they are my signature) comes true: how can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all!

Yes, the comparisons would be very interesting, given their almost 180 degree perspectives. Kind of mirrors today's Nobel Prize Quantum Physics announcement. Two scientists (French and American) were awarded for the same discovery (that one could finally isolate and therefore evaluate quantum particles). One used photons to evaluate electrons; the other used electrons to evaluate photons! Same result. Cool stuff.

 

And yes, now the Firesign Theater motto (they are my signature) comes true: how can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all!

Agreed, I think it would be a interesting comparison. Although I suspect they may sound more alike than different. I have the MSB Dac IV Signature with Signature PS and got to audition a Weiss Medea+. They were both so free of any identifiable characteristic, they were very similar, at least to my ears. I "thought", the MSB had slightly more bass texture and just ever so slightly natural presentation but if there was any difference it was very slight.

Yes, the comparisons would be very interesting, given their almost 180 degree perspectives. Kind of mirrors today's Nobel Prize Quantum Physics announcement. Two scientists (French and American) were awarded for the same discovery (that one could finally isolate and therefore evaluate quantum particles). One used photons to evaluate electrons; the other used electrons to evaluate photons! Same result. Cool stuff.

 

And yes, now the Firesign Theater motto (they are my signature) comes true: how can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all!

Where is Prof. WGScott when you need him :~)

Agreed, I think it would be a interesting comparison. Although I suspect they may sound more alike than different. I have the MSB Dac IV Signature with Signature PS and got to audition a Weiss Medea+. They were both so free of any identifiable characteristic, they were very similar, at least to my ears. I "thought", the MSB had slightly more bass texture and just ever so slightly natural presentation but if there was any difference it was very slight.

No doubt all five figure DACs sound pretty decent. My main interest is finding out how much better this caliber DAC is than a price performance leader in the sub 5K segment, like my PerfectWave MKII. The only way to find out is try one in your own system.

No doubt all five figure DACs sound pretty decent. My main interest is finding out how much better this caliber DAC is than a price performance leader in the sub 5K segment, like my PerfectWave MKII. The only way to find out is try one in your own system.

I hear ya! I felt the same way so instead of trying to figure out if I would like the dac based on reviews I tried many dacs either by purchasing used or on a trial basis so I could hear it in my system. Can't wait to hear about how the EMM Labs stacks up in your system.

My dealer has both DAC2X and Light Harmonic Da Vinci. I listened to a variety of different resolution of music from 44 to 192 to DSD with Audirvana as the player. Both sound very good. However, DAC2x is consistently more musical than Da Vinci in all resolution of music. I decide to buy DAC2X. Get it. You won't have any regret.

My dealer has both DAC2X and Light Harmonic Da Vinci. I listened to a variety of different resolution of music from 44 to 192 to DSD with Audirvana as the player. Both sound very good. However, DAC2x is consistently more musical than Da Vinci in all resolution of music. I decide to buy DAC2X. Get it. You won't have any regret.

Adyc,

I know this is heresy, but try the CAPS 2 with the DAC2X. I was always a user of mac based players. No more.

Interesting:

 

The EMM and Meitner DACs both convert to analog in a single bit architecture, I wonder how a digital volume control is going to work? Most digital volume controls need a large bit rate in which to operate, the best ones use a 32, 48 or 64 bit path in order to maintain high resolution. I wonder what EMM/Meitner is doing here?

 

EMM vs. MSB: I could imagine two more fundamentally opposed approaches to D/A conversion. EMM/Meitner, and Ed Meitner himself appear to believe that a single bit system, with very high sample rate, with a Delts Sigma modulator is the best way to go, and so they convert all incoming rates to a single bit high sample rate format for conversion. MSB, on the other hand, appears to believe that Delta Sigma converters are "bad", and so they convert all incoming rates to a multi bit format (including DSD) and then convert to analog using a discrete, resistor based, ladder DAC.

 

I have no opinion myself, but I do find it interesting that these two companies, both who seem committed to the best possible sound, have entirely opposite points of view on the best way to achieve the result they are looking for.

There is a big difference in the analog section between EMM and MSB. EMM is using ceramic board with a single discrete amplification transistor. MSB is using an op amp for even the most expensive Diamond model.

Correction: According to EMM brochure, the analog section features one active gain stage from DAC to output. The circuitry is discrete (no op-amps) and operates in pure class A.

I find it quite amusing all the time how people think a transformer based volume control will be a good idea. A transformer in the signal path like this adds huge amounts of wire for the signal to travel through, and more distortion than a good active circuit. If one must use an analog volume control, I would suggest that better performance will be had with a really, really good active device, with a really, really good stepped attenuator, using really, really good resistors and switches. Alternatively, some of the newer IC based volume controls appear to be really good (as I believe ARC uses).

Barrows:

He he!

I'd love to see some numbers supporting you assumption that (dollar for dollar especially) a quality TVC adds more distortion than an active circuit plus a resistive attenuator when used properly- especially when no gain is required. Not to derail this thread, but I find it amusing that you are conflating the wire in the transformer as if it were wiring from junction to junction. Put another way, you are comparing a spool of wire to some carbon film or carbon crud passing current in a resistor. There is much more to it than this too btw. I am not saying that transformers are loss less/distortionless devices, but your assertion is patently false. As with many things audio, it is the lesser of two evils in any given circuit- trade offs and choices.

End of rant...

Barrows:

 

He he!

 

I'd love to see some numbers supporting you assumption that (dollar for dollar especially) a quality TVC adds more distortion than an active circuit plus a resistive attenuator when used properly- especially when no gain is required. Not to derail this thread, but I find it amusing that you are conflating the wire in the transformer as if it were wiring from junction to junction. Put another way, you are comparing a spool of wire to some carbon film or carbon crud passing current in a resistor. There is much more to it than this too btw. I am not saying that transformers are loss less/distortionless devices, but your assertion is patently false. As with many things audio, it is the lesser of two evils in any given circuit- trade offs and choices.

 

End of rant...

OK: Ayre KX-R line preamplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

Now the above preamplifier does not use global feedback, so the distortion is not as low as it could be. I would like to see the independent distortion and output impedance measurements for a transformer based volume control which can do as well as the above: into a realistic load, and sourced from a realistic impedance: say from 100 ohms at the source to 100 k at the load, please include the measuremnts with 0 dB, 12 dB, and 24 dB of attenuation.

Now this preamp does have multiple source switching, which adds some distortion, I would prefer a single source device: If I had to use an analog volume control, I would choose an active device, with switched resistor attenuator at the input using TX-2575 bulk metal film resistors (agreed, carbon film or much worse-composition, would be bad choice here with their relative lack of precision and high noise) followed by a very simple discrete buffer fed from a low noise shunt supply. I do not need gain, but an active stage results in better dynamics driving the input stage of any amplifier.

I do not see any measurements of a transformer there, and that is a might pricey device. You are using conjecture due to a bias is my guess, and your view on transformers is archaic and ill informed. You are suggesting that "huge amounts of distortion is added" automatically and you are wrong. There are bad transformers as well as good ones. This is a link to the Jeff Rowland Design Group tech pages on their view towards line level transformers.

Jeff Rowland :: Line-level transformers in high-end audio

Bottom line is that good line level transformers can easily exceed the bandwidths and needs for audio, and considered fairly transparent by many. Your opinion is the outlying one, and it simply is not a fact in the manner you presented it.

I do not see any measurements of a transformer there, and that is a might pricey device. You are using conjecture due to a bias is my guess, and your view on transformers is archaic and ill informed. You are suggesting that "huge amounts of distortion is added" automatically and you are wrong. There are bad transformers as well as good ones. This is a link to the Jeff Rowland Design Group tech pages on their view towards line level transformers.

 

Jeff Rowland :: Line-level transformers in high-end audio

 

Bottom line is that good line level transformers can easily exceed the bandwidths and needs for audio, and considered fairly transparent by many. Your opinion is the outlying one, and it simply is not a fact in the manner you presented it.

You should not guess, and my suggestion was that transformers have more distortion than a good active circuit and switched attenuator. I challenge you to show me measurements of multi-tap volume control transformer which equals the active device I have shown. I am not guessing, and neither do I have a bias. I have seen many measurements for line level transformers, as I have researched them for possible inclusion in DAC output stages, and amplifier input stages. From memory, usually such transformers (like Jensens, Lundahls, and Sowters) have distortion above .05%, and that is under favorable conditions (low impedance drive reduces transformer distortion). I do not recall seeing any distortion specs for multi-tap volume control transformers, and since such units also require switches to select the tap, I think it is fair to conclude that the distortion will be higher than that of straightforward signal coupling transformers.

Now there are some good things brought to the table by very good coupling transformers: namely that they are quite good RF filters, due to their limited bandwidth (generally <150KHz). This can result in them making some component interfaces sound better, especially if a DAC has some RF contamination on its output. Or in the case of class D amplifiers, which are often very sensitive to RF on their inputs. Of course, a better solution would be to fix the problem in the first place, rather than insert a lossy device in the signal path. But, sometimes fixing RF problems can be "difficult", I am struggling with one right now, and am tempted to add PCOCC line level Sowters to solve it...

SOWTER ATTENUATOR TRANSFORMERS TVC VOLUME CONTROL

Sowter is a good company, at least they are willing to publish distortion specs...

Typical distortion, .03%, about ten times higher than what a good active device is capable of...

You are presenting distortion specs from a singular circuit from a very expensive item as it is is the norm. You are also comparing it to a Sowter transformer which is a VERY inexpensive transformer- verging on a piece of shit. If one were to use metallic glass/amorphous cores you might very well be surprised. As it is, .03% is not huge, and that 10x is for the device, not the circuit and certainly not WITH attenuation. Transformer specs always include the losses. With most active circuitry, especially anywhere near the cost of transformers, the distortion goes up as it is attenuated. Who runs their stereo full gain all of the time? Add to that the reviews of people using them. IIRC, even Ted_b was using one recently in lieu of a pricey active.

Think what you will Barrows, but you are presenting a very skewed perception as some sort of fact. I'll not address this further in this thread.

Add to that the reviews of people using them. IIRC, even Ted_b was using one recently in lieu of a pricey active.

 

Think what you will Barrows, but you are presenting a very skewed perception as some sort of fact. I'll not address this further in this thread.

My Bent TAP TVC was nice, but since changing to MG Audio Design cabling my "pricey active" (Concert Fidelity CF-080 with 5814A Sylvania gold labels) is now my Meitner's preamp, and is the most organic, dynamic and musical presentation I've had.

My Bent TAP TVC was nice, but since changing to MG Audio Design cabling my "pricey active" (Concert Fidelity CF-080 with 5814A Sylvania gold labels) is now my Meitner's preamp, and is the most organic, dynamic and musical presentation I've had.

There you go... Sort of proves my point. The CF is about 10x the cost of the Bent Audio, but it took a particular cable in there to best it. The Bent Audio is by no means a "high end" transformer btw. Transformers can easily cost a few grand each as parts. OK, now I am really done, but ultimately the point was that pre amps are a viable solutions in some systems. The best one is no one, but that does not mean that just because something has a volume control (digital or analog) a preamp automatically creates inferior sonics. On paper maybe, but not always from the listening chair IME.

You are presenting distortion specs from a singular circuit from a very expensive item as it is is the norm. You are also comparing it to a Sowter transformer which is a VERY inexpensive transformer- verging on a piece of shit. If one were to use metallic glass/amorphous cores you might very well be surprised. As it is, .03% is not huge, and that 10x is for the device, not the circuit and certainly not WITH attenuation. Transformer specs always include the losses. With most active circuitry, especially anywhere near the cost of transformers, the distortion goes up as it is attenuated. Who runs their stereo full gain all of the time? Add to that the reviews of people using them. IIRC, even Ted_b was using one recently in lieu of a pricey active.

 

Think what you will Barrows, but you are presenting a very skewed perception as some sort of fact. I'll not address this further in this thread.

Hahahaha! I enjoy this little rant... Interesting that you have not come up with any specifications to support your position, and now, you appear to be bowing out without ever presenting any facts. I stand by my position, a good active circuit, combined with a well done switched resistor ladder (or even an IC based resistor ladder) attenuator will be more transparent than any transformer based volume control.

Now, I have no problem with anyone who prefers the sound of using a passive, TVC, for controlling volume. My point is that people who are under the impression that a TVC is more transparent than a good active circuit are misinformed or delusional.

Yes, the KX-R is expensive. But a simple resistor attenuator and low distortion output buffer does not have to be $18K to achieve this level of performance, in fact, a resistor ladder IC (as used by Audio Research and the tall one, Jeff Rowland Designs) could make for a very affordable control with equally low distortion. It could be done for much less. BTW, the transformer spec which I linked to does not indicate the total distortion for a working TVC; one would have to add the switch and wiring losses to see the full amount of distortion, which would be higher.

Barrows:

You are putting words in my mouth and placing the burden of proof on my shoulders. I never said that TVCs were more transparent. I said (dollar for dollar) they are a viable option and do not add "huge amounts of distortion" as you claim. I am not an engineer, and as much as you might think, you are not one either. Things like the switching losses and wiring would exist in either situation, and is a red herring. As I said in the beginning, there are trade offs. The more you spend, the lesser they are in either paradigm. Your example of the Ayre pre amp and the Sowter transformer is off. That is a top tier pre amp and a near bottom tier TVC.

Enough gentlemen.

Feel free to start another thread to continue this discussion.