A DAC appropriate for my system

[Booster MPS]

Mark I will add that from my experience with my DAC 2 I find that the performance seems to stabilize after a period during my listening session and the DAC might benefit from staying in the stand by mode when not in use rather than powered completely off.

[Mark Manner]

Mark I will add that from my experience with my DAC 2 I find that the performance seems to stabilize after a period during my listening session and the DAC might benefit from staying in the stand by mode when not in use rather than powered completely off.

Thanks, I think the DAC2 sounded very nice, and when doing it sighted, I think I wanted it to sound 'better' than the C50 Dac, and it seemed to, but when blinded, I couldn't tell. I did leave it on standby for 5-6 days before doing the blind test.

[Mark Manner]

As an update, I received an Auralic Vega today, and am getting it warmed up. As I posted on the Vega thread, the CEO of Auralic responded personally to a minor matter I contact the company about. This is really amazing customer attention for a product at this price point.

Mark

[Geardaddy]

 

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...

 

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

Sage counsel. I feel the same way about MOST digital playback. Short term demoes are relatively worthless.

[Geardaddy]

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.

 

That's very interesting. I don't get migraines but I do recognize that inner tension when analyzing a system. There is a reason why vinyl is still living on into the 21st century....

[Geardaddy]

This is a hard one because of what people like.

 

You have Wilson Audio speakers that many find hard, brittle, and analytic, but others go ga ga over because of other qualities that surpass even my speakers (and without going into the details they are pretty wild) such as transparency and detail.

 

I know the sound I like and would want to have a source that is more musical feeding it. The most musical DAC I know is the Killer DAC but it is a hand made DAC built in minuscule quantities, and you will almost certainly only be able to check one out if you are in Australia. In fact the guy that builds them knows Wilson speakers very well and believes the Killer is the DAC for those speakers. But you would likely want a recommendation for gear you can actually audition.

 

My suggestion would be a Lampizator or AMR.

 

But again that's because my taste in system sound is more towards the musical than analytic - if analytic is your bag then the Phasure would be a good choice. Combined with the Wilsons I suspect it would then be very analytical - but, like I said, some really like that sort of thing.

 

To understand what I am driving at check out the following speaker review:

Lenehan ML1 Reference Speaker

 

The guy that thought those speakers blah has Wilson's and is an audio engineer, the guy that thought they were simply the best builds speakers himself. They have different expectations and hence different preferences.

 

Its exactly the same with DAC's - what suits you will depend on your expectations and preferences.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

Also sage advice as usual....

[acousticsguru]

That's very interesting. I don't get migraines but I do recognize that inner tension when analyzing a system. There is a reason why vinyl is still living on into the 21st century....

 

Luckily, not everyone is hypersensitive - one audiophile acquaintance, who owns three of the above-mentioned DACs, doesn't have a problem with either, although of course they all sound different to him, too. Another (whom I referred to earlier in this thread) was the first I ever met who bought dCS for the same reason as I (the day I decided it was what I wanted, it was a matter of a mere split second: when one's "migraine gene" doesn't "revolt" - that total absence of inner tension listening to digital playback - it's just as easy to tell as when something feels inherently "wrong"). Good thing I like it from a sonic (the rational/emotional) perspective, too.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[wisnon]

David, one day when you are in my region, I would love for you to demo my Lampi Dacs and give me your "tension" feedback. It would be interesting to know...

[Geardaddy]

Luckily, not everyone is hypersensitive - one audiophile acquaintance, who owns three of the above-mentioned DACs, doesn't have a problem with either, although of course they all sound different to him, too. Another (whom I referred to earlier in this thread) was the first I ever met who bought dCS for the same reason as I (the day I decided it was what I wanted, it was a matter of a mere split second: when one's "migraine gene" doesn't "revolt" - that total absence of inner tension listening to digital playback - it's just as easy to tell as when something feels inherently "wrong"). Good thing I like it from a sonic (the rational/emotional) perspective, too.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

David, which DSC products do you own and what vintage? Did they need tweaking to get them where they are now?

[acousticsguru]

David, one day when you are in my region, I would love for you to demo my Lampi Dacs and give me your "tension" feedback. It would be interesting to know...

 

I'd love that!

 

I once owned a comparatively passively filtered DAC, by the way (presumably your DSD-only Lampizator is passively filtered?), that managed to achieve this "subgoal" of audiophile playback (what's a "basic" requirement to me may be a mere plus to others - although I agree with Paul that it must be directly connected to sound quality and from this perspective I'll admit I cannot think of it other than qualitative, as hard as it may be to demonstrate to most, so much so I'm sure we'll be looking at measurable proof sometime in the future).

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[acousticsguru]

David, which DSC products do you own and what vintage? Did they need tweaking to get them where they are now?

 

Technically the latest generation each of dCS Purcell and Delius (but without the FireWire/DSD firmware boards), that is, with clocking IN/OUTs and all filter choices including Filter 5 (Gaussian) and 6 (asymmetrical/minimal phase). Tweaks include Hifi-Tuning fine fuses, the new/improved gold-plated internal power connector (contact dCS about it, highly recommended), as well as using half a balanced output stage (the Delius is a non-floating design in contrast to all their other DACs) to drive Spectral power amplification direct in unbalanced mode (6 dB less system gain, relevant mostly using the digital volume control = 6 dB closer to digital zero, roughly equivalent to 1 bit greater resolution for the identical volume level). In my setup all units are externally clocked (starting from the Weiss AFI-1/Mac driver) by an Antelope Isochrone Trinity clock.

 

Note tweaks have nothing to do with the absence of the migraine trigger my new audiophile acquaintance and I detect in most (not all!) digital music playback. His units are so old, his Delius only has symmetrical filters (1-4) - apparently no one ever told him an update is/was available. No other dCS owner I know still uses those filters except for non-upsampled redbook (e.g. pre-emphasis coded) or DAT - and who'd not use a Purcell Upsampler if one were at hand (most Purcell/Delius or Purcell/Elgar owners agree it's more than half the battle for redbook playback)? Another piece of equipment that seemed to defy logic at the time it was introduced, but well-loved by everyone who owns it.

 

What I do know is that there are two camps, the more technical-minded who believe in DSD upsampling, the same who maintain that redbook should be upsampled numerically integer to 176.4 kS/s if done so in PCM mode, and those who, like my new acquaintance and I have independently figured out years ago that redbook sounds smoothest and most "analogue" upsampled to 192 kS/s (British audio critic Ken Kessler is another - he even reached conclusion at the time that if one listens primarily to classical music, there's no advantage to upsampling to DSD at all). To my ears, Purcell upsampling to 192 kS/s effectively "dissociates" redbook playback from those problems we associate with digital music playback, rendering the playback more "analogue" in character, too (I'll admit that 176.4 kS/s or DSD upsampling sounds closer to the redbook in direct comparison). No other type of upsampling, software-based by computer etc., I have heard fully achieves this (sub-?)goal.

 

Note I recognize the irony discussing the mere "absence" of a (seeming?) element of playback when it comes to discussing audiophile gear!

 

Having said that, we're audiophiles - we're entitled to discussing how we perceive reality, and leave proof to others (you should see the grin on my face when I say that, having built loudspeakers for years).

 

As to the external clocking, it primarily sounds better, especially playing back music from a computer - hard to tell if it further improves matters as to our specific problem (it may, however the bottom line is: once it's gone, it's gone). Depending upon the choice of amp (including generation of Spectral amp I use), interconnect cabling makes little or a vital difference (and as with all things Spectral, there's little logic to the result: the Oracle Matrix 50 I currently use putting emphasis on warmth and voluptuousness, for example).

 

It's like I said earlier: I don't in general think of dCS gear as leaving much of a sonic imprint on the signal, same as Spectral amps, and am happy about the absence of a possible migraine trigger associated with digital playback in all dCS digital source based systems I've heard, but sonically, the net result one is going to achieve is another matter altogether!

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[wisnon]

I'd love that!

 

I once owned a comparatively passively filtered DAC, by the way (presumably your DSD-only Lampizator is passively filtered?), that managed to achieve this "subgoal" of audiophile playback (what's a "basic" requirement to me may be a mere plus to others - although I agree with Paul that it must be directly connected to sound quality and from this perspective I'll admit I cannot think of it other than qualitative, as hard as it may be to demonstrate to most, so much so I'm sure we'll be looking at measurable proof sometime in the future).

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

Lets make it happen in the coming months then. At least by the Montreux "Sons et Sens" which is a superb show occuring in October. No need to wait so long though, as I will be available from say at least the Summer after we set up the new home.

[Mark Manner]

my poor thread about a dac for me has gone astray (a little )

[acousticsguru]

my poor thread about a dac for me has gone astray (a little )

 

Sorry!

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[Mark Manner]

Your face is much nicer than mine, and I was really just kidding!

I wish I could visit in person,

Best

Mark

[acousticsguru]

Your face is much nicer than mine, and I was really just kidding!

I wish I could visit in person,

Best

Mark

 

Same here!

 

What about the Vega, by the way? Should be warmed up enough to run in exact mode by now, no?

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[Mark Manner]

Same here!

 

What about the Vega, by the way? Should be warmed up enough to run in exact mode by now, no?

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.[/quote

 

My listening friend is coming over tonight to listen! So far I like it. I have tried feeding it via S/PDIF from a Rendu, usb from a SOtM Miniserver, but so far the easiest way is via direct usb from my pc using the supplied wasapi driver. My data is on a synology 713+ diskstation, and the pc is a relatively high performance Win8.1 system with limited programs installed. I don't perceive any difference using any of the input sources mentioned.

As far as how it sounds, I believe it is smoother without loss of detail than the other dacs I have used. I don't have much experience, so this must be taken with a grain of salt. On your point of listening to something that causes discomfort, I think the Vega doesn't do that for me, so I will probably keep it. Maybe someday I can try a Lampizator or dcs gear.

[acousticsguru]

My listening friend is coming over tonight to listen! So far I like it. I have tried feeding it via S/PDIF from a Rendu, usb from a SOtM Miniserver, but so far the easiest way is via direct usb from my pc using the supplied wasapi driver. My data is on a synology 713+ diskstation, and the pc is a relatively high performance Win8.1 system with limited programs installed. I don't perceive any difference using any of the input sources mentioned.

As far as how it sounds, I believe it is smoother without loss of detail than the other dacs I have used. I don't have much experience, so this must be taken with a grain of salt. On your point of listening to something that causes discomfort, I think the Vega doesn't do that for me, so I will probably keep it. Maybe someday I can try a Lampizator or dcs gear.

 

Glad to hear. Are you running balanced connections, by the way? The symmetrical output stages do not appear to be designed identically (in contrast to e.g. my Delius), but include an additional amplification stage/board, presumably worth giving a try.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[Mark Manner]

Glad to hear. Are you running balanced connections..

.

 

Yes, using balanced. I read about the difference, balanced being different, and according to some, better/more musical. I haven't tried the single ended connection yet.

[wisnon]

Yes, using balanced. I read about the difference, balanced being different, and according to some, better/more musical. I haven't tried the single ended connection yet.

Congrats Mark. I hope you enjoy it.

 

One point though….balanced only really makes sense in the context of a fully balanced system (end to end). IF even one component is single ended, you lose the "benefit" of balanced and might as well run single ended. The good news is that the BEST systems are SE anyway.

[Mark Manner]

Congrats Mark. I hope you enjoy it.

 

One point though….balanced only really makes sense in the context of a fully balanced system (end to end). IF even one component is single ended, you lose the "benefit" of balanced and might as well run single ended. The good news is that the BEST systems are SE anyway.

 

I usually haven't noticed much difference between balanced and unbalanced on short runs. My setup is balanced all the way (unless the volume control in the McIntosh C50 makes it not so). I have noticed that even on short runs, on some components sometimes you can eliminate a pesky ground or other hum by using balanced rather than single ended.

[pooger]

Congrats Mark. I hope you enjoy it.

 

One point though….balanced only really makes sense in the context of a fully balanced system (end to end). IF even one component is single ended, you lose the "benefit" of balanced and might as well run single ended. The good news is that the BEST systems are SE anyway.

 

I'd have to disagree with this. In my experience, with fully differential balanced designs, linking say, just a preamp and amp via balanced still can give benefits--with the caveat that cable quality is similar (although it has also been my experience that balanced cables are less "subjective" than SE cables). Although you could think in terms of a weakest link analogy, I'd think more in terms of each link being a bit more independent in contributing to overall SQ.

 

I won't comment on the good news.

[wisnon]

Pooger, by definintion, the system you describe is NOT balanced. It may still sound good, but its not all it can be. The benefits of fully differential breaks down at that point and you have paid a premium without the just reward.

 

I think you may be describing more component quality than topology effect, but hey, its not religion, so no need to beat it to death. LoL

[acousticsguru]

Pooger, by definintion, the system you describe is NOT balanced. It may still sound good, but its not all it can be. The benefits of fully differential breaks down at that point and you have paid a premium without the just reward.

 

I think you may be describing more component quality than topology effect, but hey, its not religion, so no need to beat it to death. LoL

 

I've even built fully symmetrical passive loudspeaker filters (active may seem a lesser task in this scenario, but sonically debatable at the top level, i.e. outside of a studio or similarly hostile - to hum, failure etc., that is - environment) in the past to try and prove the point (not sure there are many commercial speakers out there). I would still maintain there are disadvantages to either principle. Also, given on is on a budget (and I mean any budget unless literally limitless!) I'd rather put the money in parts upgrades and additional work hours to select (all!) parts (and e.g. amplification and filter stages - let alone drivers!) to well below 1% tolerance (and if necessary, invest into or build better measuring equipment to achieve this) before I double (or quadruple in the case of using phase shifting filters and time alignment) the problem and thus effort.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[elcorso]

............ The good news is that the BEST systems are SE anyway.

 

Totally agree...! Even if they are "balanced" in their internal circuit design.

 

More musicality from balanced connectors? I don't think so, but some people likes more some kind of "inflated" music, but instrument size (for example) could be exaggerated, thanks of an "inflated" midrange (between another things).

 

Roch