ECdesigns

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 hour ago, bodiebill said:

Interesting that you prefer headphones for assessing DACs.

 

It is not that I generally "prefer" headphones for assessing DACs, in fact I generally prefer listening to music on speakers. 

 

Using headphones plugged in directly to the powerDAC is particularly interesting because you experience the benefit of a "direct" connection without cables + external amplifier degrading the sound. 

[realDHT]

5 hours ago, Norton said:

a. is source immunity apparent to the listener?

 

b. if it is apparent, is that a good or bad thing, achieved by liberating or limiting the source? Some really poor DACs are likely also immune to source for the wrong reasons.  Another manufacturer might well promote  their DAC, with some credibility, on the opposite characteristic: warts and all transparency to source 

I think point   b.    summarizes some of the confusion I have seen in the thread about source immunity.

 

My take on this:

 

It is important to separate the

1. source file/recording

2. the source hardware (ie computer)

 

A great DAC should be very sensitive to 1.  If a DAC that is not sensitive to 1. it is for sure a bad DAC.

A DAC that is sensitive to 2. cannot possibly be a good thing, it is always a weakness. Because source hardware can never improve a DAC, only make it worse (by transmitting noice and jitter to the DAC). The Taiko is regarded as a very good source HW because it degrades a source-sensitive DAC to less extent, than a bad source would degrade the same DAC.

 

Yes there are some very good sounding DACs that is also sensitive to 2. but they would be even better sounding of they were immune to 2.   

 

The PD is the only DAC  I have heard so far that is not sensitive to 2. 

 

It seems to me that many people regard "source" to be  1. and 2. combined, this leads to confusion and the misunderstanding that source immunity can be a bad thing. 

 

 

[bodiebill]

17 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

It is not that I generally "prefer" headphones for assessing DACs, in fact I generally prefer listening to music on speakers. 

 

Using headphones plugged in directly to the powerDAC is particularly interesting because you experience the benefit of a "direct" connection without cables + external amplifier degrading the sound. 

 

Trying to understand:

Speakers preferred for listening?

Headphones direct into the PD better for experiencing the qualities of the DAC itself (due to lack of subsequent degradation)?

(As your second paragraph seems to contradict the first.)

 

My point is that the the reviewer quoted above states that assessing a DAC via headphones or via speakers is very different. Not that one is better than the other, but both reveal different qualities of the DAC. I tend to agree with this.

[bodiebill]

34 minutes ago, realDHT said:

It seems to me that many people regard "source" to be  1. and 2. combined, this leads to confusion and the misunderstanding that source immunity can be a bad thing. 

 

Thanks for clarifying, I totally agree. My problem is that I am not always able to differentiate between (f.i.) stridency as a result of bad recording vs stridency as a result of jitter. So in practice the assessment of source independence may not always be clear cut: is the DAC reducing fatigue by covering stridency type 1 ('bad') or by reducing stridency type 2 ('good')?

[Norton]

36 minutes ago, realDHT said:

It is important to separate the

1. source file/recording

2. the source hardware (ie computer)

Agreed, I didn’t imagine source immunity meant immunity to the recording  or source file.  But to me it would include, as an “absurd” example, a CD played via a TOTL CEC transport sounding identical to the same source data (where possible to assure this) via Qobuz Desktop application on a laptop.

 

That's why I’m sceptical about source immunity, as it implies  that all sources are potentially equal, just awaiting the right DAC.

[realDHT]

On the same topic, I think the PD is REALLY sensitive to point 1. (highly resolving)

 

I can recommend you download and compare original 44.1 files vs PGGB upsampled 88.2 and 176.4

 

I did and I heard quite big differences with the powerdac.

And the best thing is that the upsampling improved the sound IMO.

I will probably get myself a licence of the software.

 

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/371931-makes-nos-sound-post6763055.html 

[bodiebill]

46 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

My point is that the the reviewer quoted above states that assessing a DAC via headphones or via speakers is very different. Not that one is better than the other, but both reveal different qualities of the DAC. I tend to agree with this.

 

@hopkins

As my two headphones (Taket and Hifiman) are both way too insensitive for the PD and need speaker posts I got myself a Grado SR325x and just connected it to the PD for the first time. Sounds great indeed. Very nice minimal setup!

[tapatrick]

4 hours ago, Norton said:

The UPL96ETL is the best digital source I have owned to date.  To my ears the UPL/DA96ETF combo remains something very special...

 

2 hours ago, bodiebill said:

So in practice the assessment of source independence may not always be clear cut: is the DAC reducing fatigue by covering stridency type 1 ('bad') or by reducing stridency type 2 ('good')?

Well put - it is not so clear cut but I don't even think you can separate this problem easily into 1 & 2 above. Strident recordings are one thing but they really test digital playback hardware and software systems - both source and DAC. The Fractal DAC (until I hear the PD S) is the first DAC that has satisfactorily solved this single issue of digital playback after many years of looking for a solution. Strident recordings are still strident but less so....

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

4 hours ago, bodiebill said:

My problem is that I am not always able to differentiate between (f.i.) stridency as a result of bad recording vs stridency as a result of jitter. So in practice the assessment of source independence may not always be clear cut: is the DAC reducing fatigue by covering stridency type 1 ('bad') or by reducing stridency type 2 ('good')?

 

Can you give us a few example of tracks where you find there is stridency? 

[realDHT]

4 hours ago, bodiebill said:

 

Thanks for clarifying, I totally agree. My problem is that I am not always able to differentiate between (f.i.) stridency as a result of bad recording vs stridency as a result of jitter. So in practice the assessment of source independence may not always be clear cut: is the DAC reducing fatigue by covering stridency type 1 ('bad') or by reducing stridency type 2 ('good')?

While this is true that we cannot separate Source HW from file in the final sound, it is not relevant to the concept of source immunity, that is my point.  If source immune, the DAC will neither reduce nor increase any stridency type 1, but will always reduce stridency type 2 to undetecable levels.

 

The only thing we need to do to check the source immunity, is to compare several sources, using exacly the same files (bitperfect) and if no-one can detect a difference with statistical significance in a blind test, it is likely immune. If someone can detect the difference, it is not source immune. 

 

 

 

[bodiebill]

7 hours ago, realDHT said:

While this is true that we cannot separate Source HW from file in the final sound, it is not relevant to the concept of source immunity, that is my point.  If source immune, the DAC will neither reduce nor increase any stridency type 1, but will always reduce stridency type 2 to undetecable levels.

 

The only thing we need to do to check the source immunity, is to compare several sources, using exacly the same files (bitperfect) and if no-one can detect a difference with statistical significance in a blind test, it is likely immune. If someone can detect the difference, it is not source immune. 

 

Well said. And as two DACs that both pass this test can still sound different, I would suggest a second test (if at all possible) to show where they are on the veiling/accuracy scale.

[tapatrick]

On 8/23/2021 at 9:23 PM, Bram1103 said:

I have an appointment with ECD later this week to listen to their PowerDac S1 direct connected to their open baffle speakers. They will also demonstrate the PowerDac R with their tube power amps together with the open baffles. They want to let me hear the difference between the two systems. 

 

ECD is very very positive about the PowerDac S1

 

I will send an update of this experience.

Wondering how your visit to EC Designs went and if you have any updates?

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

On 8/29/2021 at 8:13 PM, realDHT said:

On the same topic, I think the PD is REALLY sensitive to point 1. (highly resolving)

 

I can recommend you download and compare original 44.1 files vs PGGB upsampled 88.2 and 176.4

 

I did and I heard quite big differences with the powerdac.

And the best thing is that the upsampling improved the sound IMO.

I will probably get myself a licence of the software.

 

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/371931-makes-nos-sound-post6763055.html 

 

I compared the three version of the "Bach Pastorale" track, in 44, 88 and 176 (24bits) kHz. They pretty much sounded the same to me (with headphones or speakers). I'll make the comparison with some other years to double check, but nothing really stood out. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

42 minutes ago, hopkins said:

with some other years

Some other ears! 

[realDHT]

55 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

I compared the three version of the "Bach Pastorale" track, in 44, 88 and 176 (24bits) kHz. They pretty much sounded the same to me (with headphones or speakers). I'll make the comparison with some other years to double check, but nothing really stood out. 

The easiest way for me to hear the difference on the pastorale is on the cymbals between 1:25-1:35, the 44.1 is a little subdued and mechanical..with the upsampled versions it sounds more "alive" and resolved. Also around 3:40 there is some loud dynamic piano notes that sound a little piercing and "clonky" on the 44.1, but this sharp clonkyness is gone on the 176.4 version. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

5 minutes ago, realDHT said:

The easiest way for me to hear the difference on the pastorale is on the cymbals between 1:25-1:35, the 44.1 is a little subdued and mechanical..with the upsampled versions it sounds more "alive" and resolved. Also around 3:40 there is some loud dynamic piano notes that sound a little piercing and "clonky" on the 44.1, but this sharp clonkyness is gone on the 176.4 version. 

 

OK thanks, will give it another try (with some friends on friday).

[realDHT]

I actually made a little blind testing on these files tonight before I saw your post.

 

In my JRiver media player I tagged each track (12 tracks total, all 4 songs with 44, 88, 176) with a random character sequence as the name, not to remember the name. Then I shut down the display and use my smartphone as remote, it sorts the track list according to the random names and I cannot see the file info, so I cannot see which song is which resolution.

 

Then I compared the versions for each song and wrote down the random names and my corresponding guess for each file.

The switched on the computer screen and had a check in the player, which random name correspponds to each resolution.

 

I got them all right, except for the "Day0", for that song I mixed up the 88.2 with the 44.1.

I have not tried on speakers, I usually hear this kind of things easier with my headphone system.  

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 hour ago, realDHT said:

Also around 3:40 there is some loud dynamic piano notes that sound a little piercing and "clonky" on the 44.1, but this sharp clonkyness is gone on the 176.4 versio

 

Thanks. The earlier segment with the cymbals seemed pretty close to me but that piano part does sound a little different, as you describe it. Will give it a rest and try again in a couple days. 

[Vincent des Champs]

It’s oh so quiet, it’s oh so still…
 

If you really want to treat yourself with a nice upgrade: get the Driade Flow Reference 808 interlinks (and the 405 speaker cables if you are in a good mood). Works extremely well with the PowerDAC.

 

Music will never sound the same.

 

No: I am not a dealer nor am I affiliated with this brand, I am just too excited not to share this with my fellow PD enthusiasts.

[tapatrick]

On 9/7/2021 at 9:35 PM, Vincent des Champs said:

It’s oh so quiet, it’s oh so still…
 

If you really want to treat yourself with a nice upgrade: get the Driade Flow Reference 808 interlinks (and the 405 speaker cables if you are in a good mood). Works extremely well with the PowerDAC.

 

Music will never sound the same.

 

No: I am not a dealer nor am I affiliated with this brand, I am just too excited not to share this with my fellow PD enthusiasts.

Yes very quiet 😎. Thanks for the tip @Vincent des Champs

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

On 8/31/2021 at 11:08 AM, tapatrick said:

Wondering how your visit to EC Designs went and if you have any updates?

 

I asked ECD and they had to make an adjustment to the design around the time that demo was organized. John found a small issue and was able to fix it. I don't know what the time-line is for the release of this model, but based on what I've heard with the R model I am very eager to listen to the S model. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I've had the opportunity to compare the PD with some other DACs recently, so I posted a little "wrap up" of my experience with this fascinating product. Since this hobby is all so subjective :) you won't catch me saying if its better than others, but I hope it will incite some more people to be open, curious, and give it a try.

 

 

 

[tapatrick]

19 hours ago, hopkins said:

I've had the opportunity to compare the PD with some other DACs recently, so I posted a little "wrap up" of my experience with this fascinating product. Since this hobby is all so subjective :) you won't catch me saying if its better than others, but I hope it will incite some more people to be open, curious, and give it a try.

Thanks for the review. I particularly liked this bit of info...

"The forthcoming S models will contain a larger number of Fractal bits, extra volume steps with a much higher maximum volume level and lower output impedance. The higher number of Fractal bits will provide even higher accuracy, and the ability to drive speakers directly from the PowerDAC's outputs will eliminate the need for traditional amplification..."

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

2 hours ago, tapatrick said:

Thanks for the review. I particularly liked this bit of info...

"The forthcoming S models will contain a larger number of Fractal bits, extra volume steps with a much higher maximum volume level and lower output impedance. The higher number of Fractal bits will provide even higher accuracy, and the ability to drive speakers directly from the PowerDAC's outputs will eliminate the need for traditional amplification..."

 

It will be very interesting to see what things sounds like when the powerDAC will be available for speakers. 

 

There were too many variables with the R model for everyone to agree on the results. The performance was really too system-dependent (not a value judgment on any system). 

 

It's taken them a little longer than expected to fine tune the S model, as the higher power requirements, larger size/layout, required some adjustments. I understand they should start selling them soon, but not sure exactly when. I also understand that there will be two models: S1 (3 watts per channel) and S2 (6 watts per channel). All this has to be confirmed. The tricky thing may be to know whether the S1 is sufficient for your speakers or whether you need the S2. When the tilme comes yo should check all this with ECD and probably send them your speaker model/specs. I'll be purchasing the lower power model (S1) and will use the R model in my office. I know my speakers are not the most resolving, so I'll definitely try the S model with other speakers as well. Should be fun! 

 

[tapatrick]

On 9/21/2021 at 12:42 PM, hopkins said:

 

It will be very interesting to see what things sounds like when the powerDAC will be available for speakers. 

 

There were too many variables with the R model for everyone to agree on the results. The performance was really too system-dependent (not a value judgment on any system). 

 

It's taken them a little longer than expected to fine tune the S model, as the higher power requirements, larger size/layout, required some adjustments. I understand they should start selling them soon, but not sure exactly when. I also understand that there will be two models: S1 (3 watts per channel) and S2 (6 watts per channel). All this has to be confirmed. The tricky thing may be to know whether the S1 is sufficient for your speakers or whether you need the S2. When the tilme comes yo should check all this with ECD and probably send them your speaker model/specs. I'll be purchasing the lower power model (S1) and will use the R model in my office. I know my speakers are not the most resolving, so I'll definitely try the S model with other speakers as well. Should be fun! 

 

Looking forward to hearing about the S versions. I may well go for the 6 watt version (depending on finals costs). Even though my speakers theoretically only need 1 watt, I have found extra power in reserve is a benefit to the overall SQ.