A DAC appropriate for my system

[acousticsguru]

I'd be curious to hear about users' first-hand experience with the Auralic Vega's volume control, that is, down to what volume level its use has little or no noticeable sonic impact, and at which point it becomes unacceptable to use. Asking because all digital volume controls share this problem as designer Wang readily admits (the dCS gear he and I tend to favour is no exception in this regard, there, below -30 dB would be unacceptable for attentive listening in my book, above -24 dB acceptable especially for high-resolution files, whereas above -18 dB will usually beat using an active or passive preamp), in particular because the Vega's output voltage is rated 4V, translating into (much) more system than one needs in my experience (given modern-day amplification and speakers anywhere near 90 dB efficiency).

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[ejn1]

Hi David, I found it perfectly acceptable down to the mid point (eg 50). My Parasound A21 actually has variable gain pots on the amp and I toyed with the idea of getting the preamp out of the chain and adjusting the gain on the amp so that the digital volume control was in the sweet spot. In the end, I love my Auralic pre too much to take it out but the Vega would be perfectly acceptable as a pre (imho) in many systems.

[Mark Manner]

When using a separate preamp, is everyone setting the Vega volume to 100? Is there a way of doing this permanently so it doesn't get changed accidentally? As I noted above, I don't have the Vega yet, so can't answer this from personal experience. Perhaps it will be apparent when I do get it.

Mark

[ejn1]

When using a separate preamp, is everyone setting the Vega volume to 100? Is there a way of doing this permanently so it doesn't get changed accidentally? As I noted above, I don't have the Vega yet, so can't answer this from personal experience. Perhaps it will be apparent when I do get it.

Mark

 

Hi Mark, no you can't fix at 100 but it really isn't that much of an inconvenience. I just set the dial a max and leave it. Occasionally I bump it down when using the menu but not that often.

[bhobba]

As I consider a dac, would it be worthwhile to get a Benchmark DAC2 HGC to audition?

 

Most definitely worthwhile.

 

Its of the analytic type and will help you immensely in deciding what kind of sound you are after.

 

Thanks

Bill

[bhobba]

Well, I have a Benchmark DAC2 arriving tomorrow, and a Vega Auralic a few days later. Testing these with my system should help me begin to figure out what to do. I will give a report in a week or so about these two, plus whatever else I can round up

 

Excellent - way to go.

 

Thanks

Bill

[Mark Manner]

I have had the Benchmark DAC2 for a few hours now, and am listening to a variety of different material, A/B comparing the internal dac in the C50 preamp to the Benchmark DAC2. So far, they are close, although on some hi quality content I believe I hear a difference. The Benchmark DAC2 sounds 'easier' to listen to, less of an edge on female vocals, a bit more depth when listening to snapping of fingers on the Patricia Barber 'Ode to Billie Joe' song. I am going to carefully volume balance and have someone help me do blind tests so I can minimize any bias I might have. I did blind switch back and forth for my spouse, who isn't particularly tuned in to hifi. She heard a difference, although her preference wasn't always the same as mine. This make me think that my hearing a difference is real and not imagined. The Auralic Vega will be here next week to try as well.

Mark

[ejn1]

I have had the Benchmark DAC2 for a few hours now, and am listening to a variety of different material, A/B comparing the internal dac in the C50 preamp to the Benchmark DAC2. So far, they are close, although on some hi quality content I believe I hear a difference. The Benchmark DAC2 sounds 'easier' to listen to, less of an edge on female vocals, a bit more depth when listening to snapping of fingers on the Patricia Barber 'Ode to Billie Joe' song. I am going to carefully volume balance and have someone help me do blind tests so I can minimize any bias I might have. I did blind switch back and forth for my spouse, who isn't particularly tuned in to hifi. She heard a difference, although her preference wasn't always the same as mine. This make me think that my hearing a difference is real and not imagined. The Auralic Vega will be here next week to try as well.

Mark

 

Many believe the Vega needs many hours of break in... I've heard 500 hrs but my view is 200hrs was sufficient.

[Mark Manner]

What about breakin for the Benchmark DAC2? I started listening as soon as electrons started moving in it!

[ejn1]

What about breakin for the Benchmark DAC2? I started listening as soon as electrons started moving in it!

lol, dont own one but would have to assume you should be put some hours on it before any critical listening.

[Mark Manner]

........ I am going to carefully volume balance and have someone help me do blind tests so I can minimize any bias I might have. I did blind switch back and forth for my spouse, who isn't particularly tuned in to hifi. She heard a difference, although her preference wasn't always the same as mine. This make me think that my hearing a difference is real and not imagined. The Auralic Vega will be here next week to try as well.

Mark

 

Update: I have had the Benchmark DAC2 for 5 days now, powered up the entire time, but maybe only 50 hours of actual music through it. Today I volume matched my McIntosh C50 internal dac and the Benchmark DAC2 using a sound meter (using pink noise), and synched up both sources with JRiver, and had my spouse switch inputs for me (and I listened on my own prior to that). They both sounded very good, and frankly, I don't think I could hear a difference. This was using speakers, not headphones. I do not claim to be a gifted listener, but I am an enthusiastic one. The content was Diana Krall, Patricia Barber, Daft Punk, Beethoven 9th, Christie Winn, Rebecca Pigeon, all source material 24/88, 24/96, 24/176 or 24/192. Benchmark was attached via USB, using its supplied ASIO driver, balanced xlr outputs to McIntosh C50 xlr inputs; the C50 Dac was fed via S/PDIF from a Sonore Rendu. All music served up from a Synology NAS via JRiver. Maybe other things in my supply chain are masking any differences, but at least with my equipment, if there is a difference, it is fairly subtle. This doesn't mean the Benchmark DAC2 isn't good, but does mean the C50 dac isn't bad, at least not when fed via the Rendu/Synology route. I get an Auralic Vega in a couple of days, and will give it a go.

[acousticsguru]

I've had the opportunity to participate in some comparative listening lately, which included a Berkeley DAC 2, three brands/models built around the last Sabre/ESS9018 chip (including one more than twice the cost of the Auralic Vega), including this Sunday matched up so to speak against an even older model dCS Delius/Purcell than mine, this time nicely level matched to within 0.5 dB difference or less with a Goldpoint passive pre and the digital volume control of the Delius, with the possibility to swap back and forth without even minute interruption.

 

I was and still am totally taken aback by the (enormous, at least in terms of relevance to me) differences. Not just what one could tick off on a list gathering audiophile terminology (sound stage width and depth, treble resolution, overall digital versus analogue sound, i.e. realism etc.), but it turned out the audiophile acquaintance who is also a musician (with his opera singer wife serving tea and cookies) has suffered from lifelong migraine problems similar to mine, and perceives most digital reproduction same as I (think of staring into bright - e.g. neon - light, or being pierced/prickled by ice rain). Both the auditory and sensitive effects made it surprisingly easy to tell DACs apart - in particular the dCS sounded so different in context I could hardly believe it.

 

But my main point is to encourage to always try and pay attention to what one could live (that is, long-term) - despite the fact that differences are apparent already in the split second after swapping listening to half a track each of this and that, I found it disturbing how unbearable some high-end digital reproduction, especially played back at realistic volume levels, becomes once one tries to lean back in the sofa and enjoy the music...

 

When I said relevant to me earlier, what I mean is that I expect music playback to be invigorating and/or soothing depending upon the musical content - not the playback system itself to tickle or get on my nerves. This may seem obvious, but apparently it isn't to some who build audiophile equipment, price tag notwithstanding.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[acousticsguru]

To put it another way, if a DAC allows one to listen to e.g. the complete Ring des Nibelungen, make a sandwich and get drinks in the kitchen, and one not only doesn't feel the slightest semblance of a headache, but is actually tempted to comparatively listen to another Ring immediately afterwards (= not a made-up story, but how to spend a weekend with one friend of mine), that'll be a keeper in my book.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[DavidL]

If you can arrange it I suggest you audition the Bel Canto DAC3.5 VB MkII as suggested earlier in this thread. The recent review of the Banckmark DAC2 by Stereophile the Bel Canto was preferred (marginally).

 

I've been very happy with the sound quality of the Bel Canto DAC, David

[Mark Manner]

To put it another way, if a DAC allows one to listen to e.g. the complete Ring des Nibelungen, make a sandwich and get drinks in the kitchen, and one not only doesn't feel the slightest semblance of a headache, but is actually tempted to comparatively listen to another Ring immediately afterwards (= not a made-up story, but how to spend a weekend with one friend of mine), that'll be a keeper in my book.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I agree that 'ease of listening' is very important. I can perceive a difference among some other dacs I have heard (and still have), but on the two I mention above, not so much. The differences in dacs that I have heard (limited though my experience is) have been more of the 'too veiled/muted' variety rather than the too bright/harsh variety. Perhaps this is a reflection of my particular wiring. I do know what you mean, as I recall what early cd players sounded like in my system some years ago.

[acousticsguru]

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I agree that 'ease of listening' is very important. I can perceive a difference among some other dacs I have heard (and still have), but on the two I mention above, not so much. The differences in dacs that I have heard (limited though my experience is) have been more of the 'too veiled/muted' variety rather than the too bright/harsh variety. Perhaps this is a reflection of my particular wiring. I do know what you mean, as I recall what early cd players sounded like in my system some years ago.

 

I'm still curious ("curiosity killed the cat") to try the Auralic Vega in my system as it appears to be a neat and versatile little machine, and looks like a bargain in the context of the DACs we compared, but to have heard the over a decade old dCS stack next to much more recent gear, and to reach the same conclusion I did so many years ago, that swapping to the dCS didn't sound like swapping to another digital source, but each time as if one intermittently heard analogue playback for comparison's sake (minus vinyl groove noise, clicks and pops) - literally, I came away wondering if digital playback evolved in any (to me!) significant way these last fifteen years?

 

Mind you, it's not as if one couldn't put a finger on some detail or other that one (not me) might say was an "improvement" from a more technical/analytical perspective, such as that treble information that to me sounded sharper/more razor-like made some elements of rock music sound more distinct or pronounced, depending on one's perspective (even though even those who liked this effect felt this made the respective instrument sound spatially and energetically compressed as a result).

 

The problem, to me at least, is that one could easily disregard the superiority of any detail whatsoever as the sheer attempt of appreciating it was akin to missing the forest for the trees. Literally: what I learnt about myself almost rather than the DACs is I might (presumably) accept "worse" (whatever that means in this context) sound as long as it eases that buildup of inner tension.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[Paul R]

One thing to remember is that DAC can and do sound difference in different systems. Call it synergy, or system matching, or just plain old blind luck, but a DAC that sounds horrible in one system may be the perfect fit in another.

 

I wish there was a way to standardize and measure that, or rather, an affordable and time efficient way to do that, but there really isn't. Listening is still about the only reliable way to determine if a DAC does or does not fit well into one's system.

 

That inner tension you are talking about always happens when something sounds wrong. I do not think it is necessarily a "digital" phenomena. Same is true for speakers, DACs, cables, amps, preamps, players, and even computers. What exactly each one makes "wrong" in the output sound is open to infinite arguments.

 

 

I'm still curious ("curiosity killed the cat") to try the Auralic Vega in my system as it appears to be a neat and versatile little machine, and looks like a bargain in the context of the DACs we compared, but to have heard the over a decade old dCS stack next to much more recent gear, and to reach the same conclusion I did so many years ago, that swapping to the dCS didn't sound like swapping to another digital source, but each time as if one intermittently heard analogue playback for comparison's sake (minus vinyl groove noise, clicks and pops) - literally, I came away wondering if digital playback evolved in any (to me!) significant way these last fifteen years?

 

Mind you, it's not as if one couldn't put a finger on some detail or other that one (not me) might say was an "improvement" from a more technical/analytical perspective, such as that treble information that to me sounded sharper/more razor-like made some elements of rock music sound more distinct or pronounced, depending on one's perspective (even though even those who liked this effect felt this made the respective instrument sound spatially and energetically compressed as a result).

 

The problem, to me at least, is that one could easily disregard the superiority of any detail whatsoever as the sheer attempt of appreciating it was akin to missing the forest for the trees. Literally: what I learnt about myself almost rather than the DACs is I might (presumably) accept "worse" (whatever that means in this context) sound as long as it eases that buildup of inner tension.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[wisnon]

I'm still curious ("curiosity killed the cat") to try the Auralic Vega in my system as it appears to be a neat and versatile little machine, and looks like a bargain in the context of the DACs we compared, but to have heard the over a decade old dCS stack next to much more recent gear, and to reach the same conclusion I did so many years ago, that swapping to the dCS didn't sound like swapping to another digital source, but each time as if one intermittently heard analogue playback for comparison's sake (minus vinyl groove noise, clicks and pops) - literally, I came away wondering if digital playback evolved in any (to me!) significant way these last fifteen years?

 

Mind you, it's not as if one couldn't put a finger on some detail or other that one (not me) might say was an "improvement" from a more technical/analytical perspective, such as that treble information that to me sounded sharper/more razor-like made some elements of rock music sound more distinct or pronounced, depending on one's perspective (even though even those who liked this effect felt this made the respective instrument sound spatially and energetically compressed as a result).

 

The problem, to me at least, is that one could easily disregard the superiority of any detail whatsoever as the sheer attempt of appreciating it was akin to missing the forest for the trees. Literally: what I learnt about myself almost rather than the DACs is I might (presumably) accept "worse" (whatever that means in this context) sound as long as it eases that buildup of inner tension.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

David, send me an email pLEASE.

[acousticsguru]

David, send me an email pLEASE.

 

Lost my contact details?

 

(You have a PM.)

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[acousticsguru]

One thing to remember is that DAC can and do sound difference in different systems. Call it synergy, or system matching, or just plain old blind luck, but a DAC that sounds horrible in one system may be the perfect fit in another.

 

I wish there was a way to standardize and measure that, or rather, an affordable and time efficient way to do that, but there really isn't. Listening is still about the only reliable way to determine if a DAC does or does not fit well into one's system.

 

That inner tension you are talking about always happens when something sounds wrong. I do not think it is necessarily a "digital" phenomena. Same is true for speakers, DACs, cables, amps, preamps, players, and even computers. What exactly each one makes "wrong" in the output sound is open to infinite arguments.

 

While that may well be the case, there are some DACs (Berkeley, dCS, Weiss) that I've heard several if not many times in very different setups and where my impression as far as the sensory aspect is concerned has invariably been the same. I'm not saying system synergy as a phenomenon does not exist, on the contrary, I agree with what your perception of something sounding "wrong" without necessarily knowing what.

 

It may not be the quality of wrongness I'm thinking of, though. I would not otherwise dare say so because judging from memory and/or having heard a piece of equipment in different systems would seem presumptuous to me - but it seems that would primarily true of the auditory aspect (what it sounds like versus what it does to a - perhaps overly - sensitive person's nervous system). But I do feel whether or not my migraine sensorium starts revolting has very little to nothing to do with system synergy, but a whole lot with certain pieces of equipment, among them, and perhaps highest up on the list, digital sources (some drivers - I remember this from back when I used to build loudspeakers - almost invariably ones made from e.g. modern, hard cone materials, would probably apply next).

 

I'm happy (for others) to realize that very few people suffer from these kinds of problems, and that I may be mentioning it here because I just made a (relatively new) audiophile acquaintance in someone who has been suffering from migraines triggered by light and noise if not exactly like me, so enough to have bought dCS of all DACs for the very same of all reasons! To think of migraine triggers as "brightness" in light and noise alone is a simplification (I envy all those who have no clue of what I'm even talking about here), it is really a quality phenomenon. I can stare at some bright light or listen to many bright sounds and nothing bad happens. It's perhaps futile to even attempt an explanation.

 

Having said that, I do believe, in hindsight, that this helped me fine-tune phase-shifting filters (at the time). People usually perceive time alignment and phase coherence as a combination of loudness (in-phase) and focus (think of a telephoto lens, either way out of focus is "wrong"). But they're very insensitive to negligible differences out-of-phase (think of a telephoto lens: blurry looks blurry to most people either way - I'm not a great photographer myself, and personally couldn't tell which way looking through a camera lens).

 

Part of the irony, to me anyway, is that I'm not a moody listener at all - I cannot get used to what's triggering migraines, so I can't ever say I don't like a certain quality of sound one day that I do on another, or vice versa. It is what it is - to me anyway.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[Paul R]

While that may well be the case, there are some DACs (Berkeley, dCS, Weiss) that I've heard several if not many times in very different setups and where my impression as far as the sensory aspect is concerned has invariably been the same. I'm not saying system synergy as a phenomenon does not exist, on the contrary, I agree with what your perception of something sounding "wrong" without necessarily knowing what.[/Quote]

 

I am not sure I have ever hear two systems that sounded exactly the same, with or without a DAC in the mix, so I disagree with you on that.

 

-Paul

[acousticsguru]

I am not sure I have ever hear two systems that sounded exactly the same, with or without a DAC in the mix, so I disagree with you on that.

 

-Paul

 

There's a misunderstanding here: if there are any two systems out there that sound the same, I haven't heard them.

 

Like I said, I'm ever so happy for everyone who doesn't understand what I'm talking about (the difference between the auditory, which is different for all systems, and the sensory from the perspective of a migraine-sensitive person, which is as if one takes a specific light bulb or neon tube with them, and finds that no matter where one plugs it in, it'll cause a migraine in no time).

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

P.S.

Please note, as this is a common misconception, that migraine isn't the same as a headache (such as one caused by so-called listening fatigue). A migraine-sensitive person, especially an adult who's lived with it for decades, will be able to tell well before it hits - and run! (Or take medication. Do anything for that matter…). But: gear that causes migraines (sorry to say I'm not going to volunteer proving it), I have little doubt, is likely to cause listening fatigue, too.

[Paul R]

There's a misunderstanding here: if there are any two systems out there that sound the same, I haven't heard them.

 

Like I said, I'm ever so happy for everyone who doesn't understand what I'm talking about (the difference between the auditory, which is different for all systems, and the sensory from the perspective of a migraine-sensitive person, which is as if one takes a specific light bulb or neon tube with them, and finds that no matter where one plugs it in, it'll cause a migraine in no time).

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

P.S.

Please note, as this is a common misconception, that migraine isn't the same as a headache (such as one caused by so-called listening fatigue). A migraine-sensitive person, especially an adult who's lived with it for decades, will be able to tell well before it hits - and run! (Or take medication. Do anything for that matter…). But: gear that causes migraines (sorry to say I'm not going to volunteer proving it), I have little doubt, is likely to cause listening fatigue, too.

 

Okay. The primary sensory input from music is, to me, hearing. If I get a different impact from two different DACs, it has to be something related to the way those DACs sound.

 

Beyond that though, I do not believe putting the same exact DAC into two different systems will provide any indication of how that particular DAC sounds, especially not in any absolute sense. However, YMMV.

 

-Paul

[acousticsguru]

Okay. The primary sensory input from music is, to me, hearing. If I get a different impact from two different DACs, it has to be something related to the way those DACs sound.

 

Beyond that though, I do not believe putting the same exact DAC into two different systems will provide any indication of how that particular DAC sounds, especially not in any absolute sense. However, YMMV.

 

-Paul

 

You're taking a scientific approach with which I do not at all disagree in principle, especially thinking it through to its bitter end: obviously, with noise, light, smell, magnetic/static charge, in all likelihood "electric smog" etc. functioning as triggers (guess mileage varies for migraine sensitivity, too), there's got to be a direct relation (as you indicate) to e.g. sound that the likes of me would love to be measurable and recognized by the general public as a quality and thus potential problem (= resulting in e.g. banishing all fluorescent light from public places). But to call it "auditory" in the sense that one could point it out like any aspect or detail is, as of today, wishful thinking: or else you'd immediately notice the same as I. I'd liken it to the chances of a cat explaining what exactly it is it doesn't like about being stroked against its fur. That the sensitive agree on the irritation factor indicates something's the matter - only saying so won't do.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[jglacken]

David,

 

You have PM