Jump to content
IGNORED

Merging HAPI as ASIO output device


Recommended Posts

Hi Michael. Merging touts the ability to merge four channels into one (thereby getting 2 channel output from an 8 channel DAC) as a reason why you should spend an extra $1000 for the MC-8 over the stereo version.

 

Well, the Onkyo DP-X1 DAP (link) is an $899 device that includes TWO ESS Sabre 9018S chips. For less than the cost of the difference between the stereo NADAC and the multichannel NADAC, you could buy a DAP that has two higher end (not base model) chips that offers the exact advantage that Merging are marketing.

 

And the Onkyo DP-X1 converts DSD to PCM before playback. Which helps to explain why other DAPs in that price range - like the Questyle QP1 and QP1R - offer better sound quality. :)

 

As for the NADAC MC-8, you get 8 Channel playback for $1,000 over the price of the Stereo model. A nice bonus that gets serious use here.

 

On the question of which DAC chip is used in a product, you also have to ask what portion of the DAC chip the audio designer is implementing in their product. Not to mention that some DACs play DSD files without a DAC chip at all - making those DAC chip comparisons a moot point.

Link to comment

Dear Keith,

 

Your posts begin to become embarrassing and show, I’m afraid, that you mismatch parts and devices, electronic and music, money and magic.

 

When you buy a bottle of Saint Estephe 1985, you don’t buy grapes, you buy Wine, elaborated by the best Winemakers !

 

When you buy a 30 years old Scottish Malt, you don’t buy grain and water, you buy Whiskey, made probably by the father of the person who actually sells it today !

 

When you buy a Ferrari, you don’t buy wheels, pistons and front beam, you buy an actual marvel, manufactured by the best Engineers on earth !

 

It goes the same when you buy one the of the best DAC on market today. How do you valuate the 40 years of experience and expertise of the engineers who designed it ? How can you compare this or that part with the actual process of carefully selecting it and assembling it with other parts ?

 

Why do you think IKEA doesn’t sell DACs ? Because it doesn’t work that way !

 

I’m pretty sad to have to reply that way to an actual customer of our, specially after such a perfect answer that Michael one, all was said: We are not a part oriented manufacturer, we’re a result oriented manufacturer, we’re a Music oriented manufacturer !

 

As Michael put so well again, our work goes like all the examples above, greater than the sum of all parts, like everything worth it on this planet, like yourself for instance as a human being…

 

… your own ability to enjoy Music is definitely due to something much greater than only your flesh and bones !

 

Now, if you really think that you’ve been ripped off and that the NADAC is not worth more than the price of his parts, my offer to buy it back still stands, but we’ll only buy the parts back, the Magic is yours now.

 

Cheers,

 

Dominique

Link to comment

Dominique, thank you for taking the time to reply. I would like to apologize if you feel embarrassed. Since you brought up those examples, please allow my to reply.

 

I do not wish to seem rude, but I will point out that a Ferrari uses Ferrari engines. They do not join two Fiat engines together and sell it as a Ferrari. If you saw "Fiat" stamped on the engine block of your Ferrari, you would be pretty upset - regardless of how fast it goes, or how many F1 World Championships they have won.

 

In the same way, I bought a NADAC. I open it up and note that it uses two entry level DAC chips, which cost $47 each, in a DAC that costs $12,000. Of course, you also get Merging Ravenna (something I would be happy to pay a premium for), but then you can also get Ravenna in a Hapi.

 

Sun Tzu said that you need to know your terrain, and know your enemy (or in this case, your competition). Let's put aside the experience of your team for a moment - I urge you to take a look at what your competitors are doing. Does DCS use ESS Sabre 9008S chips? Does MSB? Does Andreas Koch put these chips in his DAC? Does Ed Meitner do it? The reason why people are willing to pay thousands of dollars for DCS, MSB, EMM, and Playback Designs is because people believe that they are getting something which is different. As for your 40 year pedigree, may I point out to you that these companies are not short of pedigree either. You have met both Andreas Koch and Ed Meitner. They helped invent DSD.

 

Seeing an ESS 9008S chip alone in a DAC that costs this much should be enough to put people off. But seeing only two of them in an 8 channel DAC is inexcusable. Your marketing material states that there is a sonic benefit from summing four channels into two - one advantage of buying the 8 channel version for stereo use. Why then, does the 8 channel version only have 2 DAC's? If you use it as an 8 channel DAC, you do not gain the benefit of channel summing. The ESS 9008S is a $47 part. If a $899 Onkyo can include two of the 9018S in their DAP, I don't see why my $12,000 DAC can't have 8 of them - especially since Merging is result oriented, and Merging thinks that channel summation sounds better.

 

I have owned a Playback Designs MPS-5 for 7 years, so I know what it is like to own a high end DAC. Incidentally, I also know how the NADAC compares to the Playback, because I have the opportunity to compare them in the same system. Because the Playback uses an FPGA based DAC, they can issue firmware updates that completely change the sound of the DAC. The MPS-5 is a very old product for them, yet they are still supporting it with regular updates. For free. Sadly, Playback don't make an 8 channel DAC with Ravenna - otherwise I would happily continue buying from them and recommending them.

 

You might think I am harsh, but I have not said anything which is untrue. I wear no rose tinted glasses for my own equipment. I have not only criticized the design of my Acapella speakers, but I have modified them to the extent of commissioning custom drivers. When my amplifier developed a fault (based on the design of the socket which on occasion caused 900V to jump between valve pins), I contacted the manufacturer. As a result, they changed the design of the socket. I have been a persistent critic of DEQX over the years, but after looking at their newest product (which addresses all the things I was critical about), I have withdrawn my statements and am now happy to recommend DEQX. I want you to know that I bear no malice, even though Alan Langford of DEQX probably thought so when I was panning his product.

 

I would be delighted if you came out with a replacement for the DAC board on the NADAC using eight of the 9038S. I would be even happier if you took a leaf out of MSB and offer an upgradable clock module with published jitter specifications. These are probably things you should do anyway, because I can't imagine the NADAC lasting very long in the market once people realize what's in it.

 

Rather than buy the NADAC back from me, I would prefer it if you offered upgrades to the NADAC which improved the sound. I would most definitely buy them.

 

Think about what your product strategy is, and where you are placed in the market. Right now, as far as a consumer is concerned, the only reason to choose a NADAC is because they (1) want Ravenna, (2) want an 8 channel DAC, and (3) are impressed by Merging's reputation, and (4) have read the favorable reviews. Consumers will note that everyone else uses better parts, use a more purist design, are cheaper, and don't do silly things like skimp on including more $47 DAC chips and then advertising that channel summation is better. I might point out that with the exception of Ravenna (which is an outstanding product), you are on rather shaky ground. Other 8 channel DAC's will come on the market. Your competitors are not short of pedigree either. And as for the favorable reviews ... wait till next month when the latest and greatest comes out.

 

Given that I am already invested in NADAC, I want Merging to be successful in your new market. If you are going to make an enduring impression in the audiophile market and be mentioned in the same breath as DCS, MSB, EMM, and Playback, you should pay attention to what they are doing. All I did was point this out. It is not a good look to go on a public forum and attack people when you should be paying attention to criticism. Neither does it look good to make excuses for not using the best parts when your competition is boasting in all their marketing that they use the best parts possible. I do appreciate you taking your time to personally come and reply, and would appreciate it even more if you could keep us updated as to what plans you have for the NADAC going forward.

Link to comment

Keith IMHO from a value perspective which I am getting the impression at least some of what your posts are about, the HAPI makes a lot more sense to me. Uli has verified that it works with Acourate. Frankly I would be surprised (stunned) if anyone could tell the differences between the two of them given the design similarities.

 

In my experience the analog output stage makes as much or more difference than the D/A converter and the best sounding converters I've heard use discrete output stages. But I guess heat becomes a problem with so many channels, ie the Emm Labs mch DAC having to use fans.

Link to comment

Good point, Chris. As I understand it, the 9028/38 have improved PLL's, less THD, programmable THD compensation, more SNR, and an improved ASRC when compared to the 9008S model. Also, a few other programmable convenience features (like volume ramping, power saving, etc) - which may not offer a benefit if the designer were to use a 9008S and implement these independently - i.e. outside the DAC chip.

 

Obviously I am not able to quantitatively assess the difference between them, because I do not own a test bench, nor am I able to compare the sound of the different chips in the same circuit. Perhaps Merging has done this - if so, it would have been helpful for Dominique to weigh in with a response detailing the technical reasons for their choice. This would have been much better than try to draw analogies to St. Estephe and emailing my local Merging dealer to complain.

 

On a side note, perhaps I should warn right now to those representatives of Merging who choose to email me that there is a chance I might make your email public. I am interested in helping you make a better product, and/or ask you to explain design decisions that most audiophiles would worry about. It is not my intention to antagonize you.

 

In any case, given that I own both a Playback Designs and the NADAC, I have had the opportunity to listen to them back to back in the same system. I can only dream that Merging would buy Andreas' DAC module (here) and put Ravenna in it.

Link to comment
In my experience the analog output stage makes as much or more difference than the D/A converter and the best sounding converters I've heard use discrete output stages. But I guess heat becomes a problem with so many channels, ie the Emm Labs mch DAC having to use fans.

 

Yes, I agree. I haven't YET said anything about the output stage of the NADAC - you can go see for yourself in the pictures I posted earlier what's in it. If you like, you can even google the part numbers of those op amps and see how much they cost or what other manufacturers use them. That is probably something else Merging might like to pay attention to. Open up an MSB, DCS, Esoteric, Cary, Lampizator, Playback, or Bricasti and see how much effort they have put into the output stage.

 

I have something else to say about the output stage. The maximum output of the NADAC is 6.1V into XLR. If you are using it in a multichannel application like me, you may have to cut the output of some of the channels to achieve balanced sound. In my case, the woofer of my speaker is 15dB down compared to the horns. Once you cut the output to one channel like this, you no longer have enough voltage to drive each amplifier to maximum. And before anybody asks, I have already set the option for high output on the NADAC.

 

I emailed Merging to discuss this, and their response was that it would be possible to modify the board by removing a resistor (at the cost of voiding my warranty). I still haven't done anything about this - possible solutions would be to change that power amp into an integrated, or buy a preamp, or send the power amp for modification (given that it is out of warranty), or just live with reduced volume output! Or maybe take up Dominique's offer to swap the NADAC for a Hapi.

 

Depending on how sensitive the input stage of your power amps are and the configuration of your speakers, you may find the NADAC may not have enough drive for them. Both the Hapi and the Horus output more voltage. I also observe that some products (e.g. DEQX) have dip switches that allow you to increase the output voltage yourself without having to return the unit to the factory - something Merging might like to consider.

Link to comment
Hi Keith - Have you examined the pros and cons to Merging using this DAC chip versus a more expensive chip? To me the price has nothing to do with DAC chip selection and performance.

I think it would help to flesh out the reasons other than price.

Agreed. There is much more to the sonic quality of a DAC than the DAC chip selection. If that was the main determining factor, based on the sound quality from the NADAC, we'd be seeing a rush to replacing DAC chips with the 9008! :)

Link to comment
Good point, Chris. As I understand it, the 9028/38 have improved PLL's, less THD, programmable THD compensation, more SNR, and an improved ASRC when compared to the 9008S model. Also, a few other programmable convenience features (like volume ramping, power saving, etc) - which may not offer a benefit if the designer were to use a 9008S and implement these independently - i.e. outside the DAC chip.

 

Obviously I am not able to quantitatively assess the difference between them, because I do not own a test bench, nor am I able to compare the sound of the different chips in the same circuit. Perhaps Merging has done this - if so, it would have been helpful for Dominique to weigh in with a response detailing the technical reasons for their choice. This would have been much better than try to draw analogies to St. Estephe and emailing my local Merging dealer to complain.

 

On a side note, perhaps I should warn right now to those representatives of Merging who choose to email me that there is a chance I might make your email public. I am interested in helping you make a better product, and/or ask you to explain design decisions that most audiophiles would worry about. It is not my intention to antagonize you.

 

In any case, given that I own both a Playback Designs and the NADAC, I have had the opportunity to listen to them back to back in the same system. I can only dream that Merging would buy Andreas' DAC module (here) and put Ravenna in it.

 

Thanks for the follow up Keith. It would be nice to get some additional information about parts selection, but then we get into the territory of giving away intellectual property. What I mean by this is some chips are selected for reasons that don't seem obvious to armchair engineers or designers who don't have the chops. I know one example of a company using a chip the only supported 24/96 because the radiation pattern of the chips that supported higher sample rates was off the charts. As soon as those rates were played the sound quality took a huge hit. On paper it may look like this DAC doesn't match up, but taken on the whole it was better because of the solid engineering and parts selection.

 

That said, you raise some good points that could benefit from further discussion.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Keith IMHO from a value perspective which I am getting the impression at least some of what your posts are about, the HAPI makes a lot more sense to me.

Merging Technologies has a discussion of NADAC vs. HAPI vs. Horus on the NADAC web site.

Interesting reading.

 

Since HAPI and Horus are pro recording products, they are available for rental from some pro audio dealers. So you can rent a HAPI or Horus (or both) and buy some training on how to use the Pyramix software for recording with these pro units if recording and archiving is among the uses you have in mind vs. playback only.

 

It is a way to compare the three DACs from Merging in addition to the comparison info on the NADAC web site.

 

https://confluence.merging.com/display/PUBLICDOC/FAQ#FAQ-WhatisthedifferencebetweenMERGING+NADACandHAPI,andwhyshouldIbuyaMERGING+NADACinsteadofHAPI?

https://confluence.merging.com/display/PUBLICDOC/FAQ#FAQ-DoesMERGING+NADACsoundbetterthanHORUSorHAPI?

Link to comment

Chris, I should probably own up and say that some of these remarks are not my own. You may or may not know that I have commissioned many custom parts for my system, and I am friendly with a number of engineers who design equipment.

 

I have had a chat with one of the designers of a competing DAC product with a view to cannibalizing a Hapi for its Ravenna board and making my own custom 8 channel no-compromise DAC. For obvious reasons I have to keep their identity unknown. He hasn't gone so far as to put the NADAC on a test bench, but he was very curious about the internals of the NADAC.

 

Interestingly, he made the same remark about the radiation pattern of high frequency circuits. Much of what he said went over my head - I am not so smart as to be able to digest that amount of information in such a short time. I have a vague understanding of short vs. long PLL's and I/V conversion, or the advantages of custom sample rate conversion (instead of relying on the chip) but not enough to understand what he was talking about. For those Australians who are trying to guess who it is, don't bother - he's not Australian. Although I AM chatting to another Australian engineer about the same thing (only that he hasn't offered any remarks about the NADAC yet).

 

Needless to say, I took his remarks with a pinch of salt. Who am I to decide on the merits of one engineering solution over another? If I knew that much I would be designing my own DAC's! Perhaps he was trying to sell me his product by disparaging the NADAC? But what DID stick in my mind was his suggestion to compare the NADAC's implementation with other high-end DAC's. So I did.

 

Oh yes, another thing. I did the comparison of the Playback Designs to my NADAC in an older iteration of my system, where I had an analog active crossover in place. Now that the system has been reconfigured so that the computer is doing the crossover and sending 8 channels to the NADAC, it is no longer possible to compare the Playback with the NADAC in my system. Tomorrow I will be going to a friend's place for a 4 way shootout between the NADAC, the Playback Designs, an MSB, and (hopefully) a DCS in his system which consists of Vivid Giya G1's and Classe Omicron amps in a custom built listening room. We plan to listen blind, and I will bring along my SPL meter to ensure it will be volume matched. I could even bring my laptop and measurement setup to do sweeps to make sure it is REALLY matched, but my friend told me not to bother. It will be interesting.

Link to comment

Thanks for the follow up @Keith_W

 

The added information really helps and your honesty is refreshing. Plus, the fact that you mention taking certain remarks "with a pinch of salt" and you realize you could be getting one sided story, should let everyone know your not a fanboy of one product that's only looking to disparage another product.

 

This is the type of discourse that helps get questions answered and helps people make purchasing decisions.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Yes, I agree. I haven't YET said anything about the output stage of the NADAC - you can go see for yourself in the pictures I posted earlier what's in it. If you like, you can even google the part numbers of those op amps and see how much they cost or what other manufacturers use them. That is probably something else Merging might like to pay attention to. Open up an MSB, DCS, Esoteric, Cary, Lampizator, Playback, or Bricasti and see how much effort they have put into the output stage.

 

I have something else to say about the output stage. The maximum output of the NADAC is 6.1V into XLR. If you are using it in a multichannel application like me, you may have to cut the output of some of the channels to achieve balanced sound. In my case, the woofer of my speaker is 15dB down compared to the horns. Once you cut the output to one channel like this, you no longer have enough voltage to drive each amplifier to maximum. And before anybody asks, I have already set the option for high output on the NADAC.

 

I emailed Merging to discuss this, and their response was that it would be possible to modify the board by removing a resistor (at the cost of voiding my warranty). I still haven't done anything about this - possible solutions would be to change that power amp into an integrated, or buy a preamp, or send the power amp for modification (given that it is out of warranty), or just live with reduced volume output! Or maybe take up Dominique's offer to swap the NADAC for a Hapi.

 

Depending on how sensitive the input stage of your power amps are and the configuration of your speakers, you may find the NADAC may not have enough drive for them. Both the Hapi and the Horus output more voltage. I also observe that some products (e.g. DEQX) have dip switches that allow you to increase the output voltage yourself without having to return the unit to the factory - something Merging might like to consider.

 

With regard to the opamp output stage I have a friend (just no off the street punter; he is IIT/MIT educated in EECS ;) ) designing a DAC/pre and he said ESS own reference design that companies like Resonesence use might be as good as it gets measurement wise with a Sabre implementation with something like roughly -130 db noise floor on an AP. This uses an AD797 opamp in the output stage. You can buy these reference boards from the US distributor for around $800 with a switching power supply. I have had one of the ESS9018 to evaluate against my friend's DAC which uses a discrete output stage. I prefer the sound of the discrete stage but this is not a case of objectively better, but more subjective. If I go with a Hapi/NADAC I would more than likely go with a DHT "preamp" (buffer probably more accurate) to sweeten or add some salt to taste. Not to deliberately mush up the sound, most of these preamps with modern design techniques like filament bias have noise floors in the -90 dB range with low THD, just more second dominant than what we see with conventional DAC measurements.

 

I wish there were more options for us when it came to mch DACs. The MSB is way too expensive and I am pretty sure there is no way to get the Emm DAC8 to work with Acourate. I'm not violating any NDA with these pictures.

 

main1.jpg

2.JPG

3.jpg

Link to comment
If I go with a Hapi/NADAC I would more than likely go with a DHT "preamp" (buffer probably more accurate) to sweeten or add some salt to taste. Not to deliberately mush up the sound, most of these preamps with modern design techniques like filament bias have noise floors in the -90 dB range with low THD, just more second dominant than what we see with conventional DAC measurements.

I wish there were more options for us when it came to mch DACs. The MSB is way too expensive and I am pretty sure there is no way to get the Emm DAC8 to work with Acourate. I'm not violating any NDA with these pictures.

As sales of Multichannel DACs and the number of Multichannel downloads (now over 800 Multichannel DSD Downloads at NativeDSD) increase, we could indeed see more Multichannel DACs. In addition to exaSound, Merging and Oppo disc players, there's always the option of linking 3 of the DACs from Mytek or Playback Designs for Multichannel DAC playback.

 

The sound of your preamp or Keith's special computer based loudspeaker crossovers may be just the ticket to "salt the sound" as you say.

 

Or you could aim for a more neutral sound to reveal what was intended on the original recording as Yarlung's Bob Attiyeh described earlier here on CA Forum in a DAC comparison discussion:

 

"Both Merging Technologies and exaSound have worked with us at Yarlung to make and monitor our recordings. We are very happy with the "sounds" from both companies, whether DSD or PCM. We don't have any of the luscious-sounding converters in our DSD recording lineup because we want our product to be as little colored as possible. We are hoping for neutral, with as little "digital signature" as possible. But listening to playback on sweeter sounding converters is great fun for us as people who enjoy music when we're listening just for pleasure.

 

Cheers,

 

Bob Attiyeh

Yarlung Records"

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/playback-designs-mpd-5-vs-emm-dac2x-vs-msb-platinum-digital-analogue-converter-iv-plus-14519/index3.html#post570334

Link to comment
As sales of Multichannel DACs and the number of Multichannel downloads (now over 800 Multichannel DSD Downloads at NativeDSD) increase, we could indeed see more Multichannel DACs. In addition to exaSound, Merging and Oppo disc players, there's always the option of linking 3 of the DACs from Mytek or Playback Designs for Multichannel DAC playback.

Thanks so much BMoura. Yarlung happens to be in the process of building a new 5.0 playback system this month. For this we will be using the NADAC, and five identical speakers. I look forward to being able to report on the results soon!

Link to comment
Yarlung happens to be in the process of building a new 5.0 playback system this month. For this we will be using the NADAC, and five identical speakers. I look forward to being able to report on the results soon!

When it comes to 5.0 Multichannel playback, using 5 identical speakers is the way to go. It gives you a very balanced soundfield and really lets you hear what is on the original Multichannel recording! Enjoy.

Link to comment
When it comes to 5.0 Multichannel playback, using 5 identical speakers is the way to go. It gives you a very balanced soundfield and really lets you hear what is on the original Multichannel recording! Enjoy.

Thank you for this encouragement, BMoura, and this advice. Tom Caulfield, who compiles Yarlung's albums for release on NativeDSD, is one of our good friends (as are you) guiding us through this process. We'll be using five Unity Audio Signature One loudspeakers for this project, no longer made, unfortunately. They are blessed with what is touted as an almost perfect crossover, and they image very well. I think the results will be spectacular. (Incidentally, I am looking for one more of these speakers, should any of you have an extra sitting in your garage. I have to rob one of my stereo playback systems of one of its speakers to complete the five, which I would greatly prefer not to do!

 

I'm taking Tom's advice and yours about five identical speakers seriously, because the two of you know what you're talking about and have so much experience in this arena. In addition, Tom is now our surround sound recording engineer at Yarlung Records. His recording of the Matheson string quartet was reviewed excitingly by Kal Rubinson in Stereophile before we released it. I look forward to hearing it in all of its glory!

 

Bob

 

Here is Kal's review (which included a lot of information about Merging's NADAC, incidentally:

 

 

I have some unreleased files that demonstrated that the NADAC Multichannel-8 is on top of some formats still not widely available. Tom Caulfield, a Grammy-winning recording engineer who has worked for Channel Classics and other labels, recently sent me a multichannel DSD256 file from a session with Color Field, a group comprising musicians of the Chicago Lyric Opera and the Chicago Symphony, for a recording of James Matheson's String Quartet, to be released this year on Yarlung Records. The opening notes were startling—I had the disturbing but exhilarating feeling that music was actually being made in my room, not merely reproduced. The sound was no more "multichannel" than it was "stereo"—the four players seemed almost within reach, and my room seemed to expand around me. Caulfield had included a few photos of the session, held at the Segerstrom Center, in Costa Mesa, California. When I looked at them—by George, that's exactly what I'd heard. Not only was I completely transfixed: I kept thinking, If others could only hear this, hi-rez multichannel music would take off.

Link to comment
It is too bad that so few DACs have external clock options. That is what prevents them from doing the same 3-DAC stack-up.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/first-multi-channel-direct-stream-digital-playback-solution-mytek-14946/ :)

Link to comment
As sales of Multichannel DACs and the number of Multichannel downloads (now over 800 Multichannel DSD Downloads at NativeDSD) increase, we could indeed see more Multichannel DACs. In addition to exaSound, Merging and Oppo disc players, there's always the option of linking 3 of the DACs from Mytek or Playback Designs for Multichannel DAC playback.

 

The sound of your preamp or Keith's special computer based loudspeaker crossovers may be just the ticket to "salt the sound" as you say.

 

Or you could aim for a more neutral sound to reveal what was intended on the original recording as Yarlung's Bob Attiyeh described earlier here on CA Forum in a DAC comparison discussion:

 

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/playback-designs-mpd-5-vs-emm-dac2x-vs-msb-platinum-digital-analogue-converter-iv-plus-14519/index3.html#post570334

 

I should have been more clear, my use of a multichannel DAC is the same as Keith; using it for two channel music and utilizing the extra channels for active crossovers with Acourate. In which case there is the additional requirement of a single ASIO driver that is compatible with Acourate. Most people post to the Acourate user group to discuss DACs that are compatible.

 

Off the top of my head NADAC, Hapi, Exasound, Prism Titan, Lynx Hilo all work. And some multichannel sound cards from Lynx and RME.

Link to comment
If I go with a Hapi/NADAC I would more than likely go with a DHT "preamp" (buffer probably more accurate) to sweeten or add some salt to taste.

 

I suppose you may have a different audio philosophy to mine, but in general I prefer as few electronics in the analog signal path as possible :) If I was going to flavour the sound, I would do it by choosing different power amps. In fact that's what i've done.

I wish there were more options for us when it came to mch DACs. The MSB is way too expensive and I am pretty sure there is no way to get the Emm DAC8 to work with Acourate. I'm not violating any NDA with these pictures.

I am totally with you on this. Multichannel DAC options are rather thin on the ground. I have not heard any of the others (Lynx, Prism, Exasound, Hapi, etc) - I have only read owner impressions on various threads. It seems as if most people agree that the multichannel NADAC is currently the king of "reasonably priced multichannel DAC's".

 

By the way, it appears that the 8 channel NADAC has summation, of sorts. This is a picture of the DAC board of my NADAC. I have traced the circuit from the DAC to the output stage and to the XLR of one channel in green:

 

DSC00979.jpg

 

It appears that the output of two channels from an ESS9008S is summed into one analog channel. Of course I can't be totally sure unless I were to stick probes into it but that's what it looks like to me.

 

In contrast, this is the best photo of the Merging AD8 module for the Hapi that I could find:

 

Merging Horus AD card.jpg

 

It is unfortunately too small for my to make very much out, but it would appear to have four DAC chips. Or maybe one DAC chip. Merging's website doesn't seem to say very much about what they have used. Probably the only way to tell would be to look at it closely and listen for yourself what the differences are. Others in this thread have compared the Hapi/Horus to the NADAC and report that the NADAC sounds better. I haven't done the comparison myself, so I don't know.

Link to comment

In contrast, this is the best photo of the Merging AD8 module for the Hapi that I could find:

 

Hi Keith,

 

The AD8 photo is the Analog to Digital Converter board, not the D to A. The D to A board is the DA8P shown on this linked page:

 

Merging Technologies | Horus & Hapi Mic-Pre & AD/DA Converter Specifications

 

Personally, I'm not a believer in paralleling/summing DAC channels. There is a theoretical 3dB noise advantage if the noise was coherent between the summed channels (it isn't, it's random white noise). But who would care with the noise more than -120dB. For that advantage, the separate but supposedly identical signals, especially the very low level high frequency, get smeared due to the finite timing and jitter differences between the parallel channels. All theoretical of course; YMMV

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...