AMP vs DAC ...further exploration

[mansr]

What live concerts are you referring to?

I think we should make a distinction between unamplified concerts vs. PA'ed gigs.

 

I was thinking of unamplified (classical, jazz), obviously.

[semente]

I was thinking of unamplified (classical, jazz), obviously.

 

I would tend to agree, then.

But I still can understand that some people might want "more" than what can be had from a "properly" made recording played through a "transparent" playback system.

Just as others would prefer an hyperrealistic close-mic'ed recording to a "properly" made (to sound natural) one.

 

R

[beerandmusic]

It's a matter of convention, I guess.

Vinyl records, tapes or polycarbonate discs have been called supports whilst tuners, record playing systems (cartrige+arm+turntable+phono preamp) , cassette decks, CD players, etc. have been called sources for as long as I remember...

 

R

 

i guess that is in reference to the input on the amp/preamp...the inputs used to say source, so now i get where that comes from...those components are source to the amplifier...but if you look at the entire string, the origin in any playback system is the music itself....i suppose if you are just talking about hardware, then you could say the origin is the dac, but someone else might even argue it's the computer or the hardware housing the media....anyway, for the topic, i "meant" besides the music....i am surprised that nobody suggested the renderer.

If i were to redo the poll, i would just say would you rather have a $200 dac and a $2000 amp or a $2000 dac and a $200 amp. I really wasn't paying enough attention to the amp, thinking the dac would make the biggest difference, even though i tried many under $1k and could hear subtle difference, but no change to date made a bigger differnce than plugging that mcintosh in, and it made a WORLD of DIFFERENCE and on a whole new level. I would even go as far as saying it made a bigger difference than "most" speaker changes i tried. It is that much better. Maybe it's not higher fidelity, maybe that terminology is wrong, but it just sounds so much better on every level. I don't know what you call that (is that separation?), where every instrument, every voice, every sound sounds as though it is on it's own channel...like whisper clean between channels. it just sounds superb...no real words to describe it. it's like i went from a home stereo to a studio or a sound room at ces....its like i went from a $2k system to a $50K system...or as one person called it...music nirvana...

[Jud]

If i were to redo the poll, i would just say would you rather have a $200 dac and a $2000 amp or a $2000 dac and a $200 amp.

 

With the present state of technology, I would say very much the former, because there are DACs in the vicinity of $200 that allow you to offload a great deal of what affects sound quality to external software.

[thrand1]

i audititioned the dacs on several amps, both with and w/o eq...as previously stated i was also content with an NAD 318thx....but no dac was even close to as significant as the difference between the mcintosh and any other sub $1K amp.

 

Were you using the "Pure" or "Direct" mode on the Marantz receiver when auditioning these DACs? My understanding is if you are listening in "regular old 'Stereo' mode", anything fed in via analog inputs goes through an A/D conversion, has any processing applied (i.e. EQ), then a subsequent D/A conversion by the Marantz DAC. In "Pure" mode, essentially all the receiver is serving as is a volume control. I noticed when trying different DACs with my receiver setup that differences were minimal (if any) unless I ran the receiver in the most "Pure" or "Direct" mode.

 

If you already did this, I apologize, but it was something I didn't know of until a few years ago. I run Audyssey EQ on my receiver, and it will "modify" any inbound signals whether fed via HDMI/SPDIF/analog RCA to 48kHz sampling rate for processing unless I engage the "Pure"/"Direct" mode (which defeats all EQ and other processing except for volume control). Now, with "simpler" integrateds this would not be as much of a concern, but on today's receivers it takes a little investigating to really figure out what sort of mucking around it is doing to the signal

[semente]

i guess that is in reference to the input on the amp/preamp...the inputs used to say source, so now i get where that comes from...those components are source to the amplifier...but if you look at the entire string, the origin in any playback system is the music itself....i suppose if you are just talking about hardware, then you could say the origin is the dac, but someone else might even argue it's the computer or the hardware housing the media....anyway, for the topic, i "meant" besides the music....i am surprised that nobody suggested the renderer.

 

Many audio retailers' websites use the nomenclature that I have mentioned previously in their websites, as do audio magazines.

 

If i were to redo the poll, i would just say would you rather have a $200 dac and a $2000 amp or a $2000 dac and a $200 amp. I really wasn't paying enough attention to the amp, thinking the dac would make the biggest difference, even though i tried many under $1k and could hear subtle difference, but no change to date made a bigger differnce than plugging that mcintosh in, and it made a WORLD of DIFFERENCE and on a whole new level. I would even go as far as saying it made a bigger difference than "most" speaker changes i tried. It is that much better. Maybe it's not higher fidelity, maybe that terminology is wrong, but it just sounds so much better on every level. I don't know what you call that (is that separation?), where every instrument, every voice, every sound sounds as though it is on it's own channel...like whisper clean between channels. it just sounds superb...no real words to describe it. it's like i went from a home stereo to a studio or a sound room at ces....its like i went from a $2k system to a $50K system...or as one person called it...music nirvana...

 

In audio, our assessment is always done by comparing what we hear with our references both of reproduced and of live sound, our sonic culture so to speak.

 

It would be interesting to know your references as these would provide a more accurate perspective of the performance of the Mac and perhaps explain your impressions somewhat.

 

R

[beerandmusic]

Were you using the "Pure" or "Direct" mode on the Marantz receiver when auditioning these DACs? My understanding is if you are listening in "regular old 'Stereo' mode", anything fed in via analog inputs goes through an A/D conversion, has any processing applied (i.e. EQ), then a subsequent D/A conversion by the Marantz DAC. In "Pure" mode, essentially all the receiver is serving as is a volume control. I noticed when trying different DACs with my receiver setup that differences were minimal (if any) unless I ran the receiver in the most "Pure" or "Direct" mode.

 

If you already did this, I apologize, but it was something I didn't know of until a few years ago. I run Audyssey EQ on my receiver, and it will "modify" any inbound signals whether fed via HDMI/SPDIF/analog RCA to 48kHz sampling rate for processing unless I engage the "Pure"/"Direct" mode (which defeats all EQ and other processing except for volume control). Now, with "simpler" integrateds this would not be as much of a concern, but on today's receivers it takes a little investigating to really figure out what sort of mucking around it is doing to the signal

 

yes, as stated previously...i did "direct" stereo which is the way i usually like playing it. I do experiment with different modes, but direct is my "go to" for stereo.

 

All i can suggest is for anyone using a reciever or amp in the $500 range, and if you are already familiar with what DSD is sounding through it with a cheap dsd dac (e.g. ifi) and you wish to take your music to the next level, consider trying a Mcintosh amp before trying a $2000 dac (of yesteryear...i cant speak to yggy or ud-503).... I have done tons of experiments and listened to literally hundreds of different pieces of hardware (speakers, amps, dacs)....but none had the significance (or even close for that matter) as upping the ante to this mcintosh...it's a new plateau for me that i wish to improve on. No mistakes or oversights made in this assesment (short of room enhancements....that day will come after my daughter is married and we move into our retirement home).

[LostHighway]

There are certainly audio systems that are voiced to sound warm, rich and perhaps a bit dark. These could also be described as forgiving. They impart at least some of those qualities to all content. The extreme flip side of that would be systems that sound bright, spotlit and perhaps rather clinical, again with almost all content. My personal take is that both are "wrong". A system that leaves a consistent sonic fingerprint across a broad range of material simply isn't truthful. This is not to say that it can't be pleasant, only that it isn't transparent.

 

There is also not one sound to live music. An instrument or a singer at close range, say five to seven meters, in a live room of modest dimensions is a very different experience from that same instrument or singer heard twenty-five meters back in a large, warm sounding hall packed with people. There are also massive differences in recording techniques and equipment. IMO a good system should fully reveal those differences.

[beerandmusic]

It would be interesting to know your references as these would provide a more accurate perspective of the performance of the Mac and perhaps explain your impressions somewhat.

 

R

 

I am not sure what you mean by references? if you mean music, i like jazz and rock and pop. What i like listening to most is separation of instruments. i like dynamic...highs, lows, full range. i like to hear the musical instruments. What this mcintosh does is it seems to separate the instruments on their own channel where they can be heard cleanly. not harsh or bright, but not subdued either. just natural and clean. it seems to take the "mush" out, and make the music dance, each instrument on it's own.

 

I prefer jazz and slow more than full and crowded...love piano and sax...although the first rock i played was the eagles hotel calfiornia when hell freezes over...it felt more live than ever before.

 

These are a few of my baseline songs

Anything Krall...I love Krall.

I also love playing the free dsd sample - David Elias - Acoustic Trio - Rodeo On A Ridge (DSD64)

I love eva cassidy autumn leaves.

pink floyd

 

my music interest are very varied and learn new artists regularly

i discovered beegie adair yesterday.

 

If you didn't mean music, you will need to clarify your question.

[semente]

I am not sure what you mean by references? if you mean music, i like jazz and rock and pop. What i like listening to most is separation of instruments. i like dynamic...highs, lows, full range. i like to hear the musical instruments. What this mcintosh does is it seems to separate the instruments on their own channel where they can be heard cleanly. not harsh or bright, but not subdued either. just natural and clean. it seems to take the "mush" out, and make the music dance, each instrument on it's own.

 

I prefer jazz and slow more than full and crowded...love piano and sax...although the first rock i played was the eagles hotel calfiornia when hell freezes over...it felt more live than ever before.

 

These are a few of my baseline songs

Anything Krall...I love Krall.

I also love playing the free dsd sample - David Elias - Acoustic Trio - Rodeo On A Ridge (DSD64)

I love eva cassidy autumn leaves.

pink floyd

 

my music interest are very varied and learn new artists regularly

i discovered beegie adair yesterday.

 

If you didn't mean music, you will need to clarify your question.

 

By reproduced sound references I meant equipment and systems.

When you describe the sound of your Mac you are doing so by comparing it to the sound of your references (in this case other amplifiers).

Those references will set the benchmark to which all other equipment is compared.

 

R

[beerandmusic]

With the present state of technology, I would say very much the former, because there are DACs in the vicinity of $200 that allow you to offload a great deal of what affects sound quality to external software.

 

+1

 

Fortunately, that is where i came into the game of digital music. Playing DSD through audiogate software via cheap dsd dacs...which is my baseline...although dlna (no usb interface) sounded pretty good too, and even playing dsd on flash drive through marantz internal dac sounded pretty good too. I couldn't best any of those by wide margins until i moved up to the mcintosh.

 

to the other person that suggested different colorations of different amps, i agree. imho, every amp or reciever i tried had their own signature, and of all the ones i tried (at least 20 over the past 3-4 years), the marantz had the best signature to me, although i did regret selling a NAD 218THX. I wouldn't consider the mcintosh a different signature or color....it is far more than that. I wouldn't even say it was warmer or brighter than anything else i have listened to. I would say everything else sounded like mush comparatively...and the others sounded nice...just not on the same level.

[beerandmusic]

By reproduced sound references I meant equipment and systems.

When you describe the sound of your Mac you are doing so by comparing it to the sound of your references (in this case other amplifiers).

Those references will set the benchmark to which all other equipment is compared.

 

R

 

i had tons of amps and recievers. I even had some higher end tube amps at one time, but that was at the very beginning of my journey, and i sold those before i settled on speakers and dacs, so it would be interesting to hear what those Audio Reseach tube amps sounded like now. I would say to be fair most amps i listened to with dacs and current speakers were cheaper recievers (denon, pioneer, yamaha), but i also did comparison with NAD, Rotel, and few others. I also liked some of the vintage high end sony recievers (i forget the line..would have to look them up, but they came recommended on this site, and it was nice), again just not on the same level as this mcintosh.

 

I am sure this thread is not for people that already have 3K+ amps, but if you have an amp under 1K, and want to step up your game, i think the amp is a good thing to consider.

[4est]

I'd say $1100 for each!

With the present state of technology, I would say very much the former, because there are DACs in the vicinity of $200 that allow you to offload a great deal of what affects sound quality to external software.

[Jud]

I'd say $1100 for each!

 

So name them, for the curious among us.

 

Any DIY involved?

[Rexp]

With the present state of technology, I would say very much the former, because there are DACs in the vicinity of $200 that allow you to offload a great deal of what affects sound quality to external software.

Please provide an example of a digital front end that you would be prepared to live with that features a $200 DAC inc server, software player, cables, pwr supplies, USB fixer etc. and if you have the costs that would be great, Thanks!

[beerandmusic]

I'd say $1100 for each!

 

that is the point of my thread...that is what i used to believe and i tried very hard to find a good combination, but i couldn't find a dac at that time (approx 2.5 years ago), that made a big enough difference, and gave up trying...then by accident, i upgraded the amp, and it made a big difference. My summary is i am happier with a $200 nano with audiogate software and a mcintosh, than i was with a marantz DAC and marantz reciever....

 

what combo would you use with products available 2 years ago. (my guess is people would say a ifi micro and NAD) or similar...but this mcintosh with a ifi nano will blow that away imho. I got a bigger step up with the amp than i did with any dac back then.

 

I am willing to try a new dsd dac though....i just bought a ud-503...but i still think i will hear a bigger difference moving up to the mcintosh than moving up the dac. I also believe that the dac will make a bigger difference now though with this mcintosh.

[beerandmusic]

Please provide an example of a digital front end that you would be prepared to live with that features a $200 DAC inc server, software player, cables, pwr supplies, USB fixer etc. and if you have the costs that would be great, Thanks!

 

nobody said $200 inc server, software, cables, pwr supply etc...was just talking dac only. you will need all that other "stuff" most any dac/amp combo....not talking media servers...nobody mentioned $200 with all that stuff.

 

for JUST the dac, korg, nano, ud-301 are all decent cheap dsd dacs that can be had (without all that other stuff) for $200 range that all sound decent with audiogate and dsd files.

[4est]

Why am I the one that needs to actually make choices and then receive the subsequent flak from the peanut gallery? I merely meant balance the expenditures. Since you asked, I'll give it a shot. Bear in mind I have not thought of this much previously- I am largely interested in DIY, and have too many amps and DACs already. Here's shooting from the hip: The Outlaw 2200 or Job 225 depending upon speakers and a DAC of the flavor you like (R2R, DSD/SDM, NOS, ASRC....) in the range of the balance of your allotment. I understand where you are coming from on your 200/2000k choices and feel there is a minimum buy in for both items, not just amps. $1100each is skimpy any way I see it for new gear. The amps at 1k vs the 3k winner its telling. I feel in this range, money can be justified for technical reasons. A well sorted system of 3k-ish items can be seriously good for the long term after you have tired of that $200 DAC.

So name them, for the curious among us.

 

Any DIY involved?

[Rexp]

nobody said $200 inc server, software, cables, pwr supply etc...was just talking dac only. you will need all that other "stuff" most any dac/amp combo....not talking media servers...nobody mentioned $200 with all that stuff.

 

for JUST the dac, korg, nano, ud-301 are all decent cheap dsd dacs that can be had (without all that other stuff) for $200 range that all sound decent with audiogate and dsd files.

I wasn't addressing you.

[beerandmusic]

I wasn't addressing you.

 

First, It's an open forum, so i don't care who you were addressing, i felt like replying.

 

but you quoted Jud's statement "With the present state of technology, I would say very much the former, because there are DACs in the vicinity of $200 that allow you to offload a great deal of what affects sound quality to external software"

 

Jud simply said "DACS in the vicinity of $200......", so I am not sure why you are asking him to tell you all that other stuff...it makes no sense to ask that question, especially since it is not possible.

[Rexp]

First, It's an open forum, so i don't care who you were addressing, i felt like replying.

 

but you quoted Jud's statement "With the present state of technology, I would say very much the former, because there are DACs in the vicinity of $200 that allow you to offload a great deal of what affects sound quality to external software"

 

Jud simply said "DACS in the vicinity of $200......", so I am not sure why you are asking him to tell you all that other stuff...it makes no sense to ask that question, especially since it is not possible.

I asked for a digital front end solution that included a $200 DAC.....

[beerandmusic]

I asked for a digital front end solution that included a $200 DAC.....

 

ok, my apologies...he also didn't say he would live with..he probably has a bigger budget (grin)...but there aren't a lot of dacs in the $200 range....the ones on this board that get decent reviews are the ud-301 and ifi nano in that price range...he likes hqp and audiophile inventory for software and the regen...but i will let him respond...the only reason i butt in was because i misunderstood you...anyway, my apologies.

[Rexp]

ok, my apologies...he also didn't say he would live with..he probably has a bigger budget (grin)...but there aren't a lot of dacs in the $200 range....the ones on this board that get decent reviews are the ud-301 and ifi nano in that price range...he likes hqp and audiophile inventory for software and the regen...but i will let him respond...the only reason i butt in was because i misunderstood you...anyway, my apologies.

No worries, I just think talking about a DAC in isolation without discussing the server etc wont tell you how that digital front end will sound so need to know all the chain.

[Jud]

DACs in the vicinity of $200 that allow you to offload a great deal of what affects sound quality (i.e., sample rate interpolation, the accompanying filtering, and sigma-delta modulation) to software: ifi Nano, Geek Out 450; the Geek Out V2 is coming down to that range ($249 at Audio Advisor).

 

What affects sound quality in a DAC?

 

- Digital design: sample rate interpolation and accompanying filtering, sigma-delta modulation

 

- Analog design

 

- Overall parts quality

 

These days the digital design part of this can be moved to computer software for many DACs - DACs that accept DSD input as high as the DAC uses internally, and PCM DACs that are NOS or accept input at a rate as high as the DAC uses internally. (I'm not aware of any DACs in the latter category in the $200 range. Bifrost Multibit at $600 is the least expensive such non-DIY DAC I know of.)

[jabbr]

My setup with iFI micro and used Firstwatt amp as a few hundred $ above this price point. Haven't used a nano but I'd more likely switch to nano than switch away from Amp.