New Aqua Formula DAC (Multibit R2R)

[Kimo]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'm talking about the analogue filter after the D/A stage.

How would it look different, if the filtering was better?

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, Kimo said:

How would it look different, if the filtering was better?

There would probably be more of a tail of so-called "ringing." Look at the rest of the graphs instead. It's downright terrible. If this doesn't sound dreadful, it only proves that ultrasonics don't matter (because we can't hear them).

[FredericV]

18 hours ago, jacques_racine said:

I really have the feeling the review is botched.

Many big players had this DAC in their booths in Munich, including Innuos.

While I have the Metrum Adagio flagship but also heard several MSB R2R dacs including the flagship at the European distributors place in Antwerp (not far) and on several of shows which he attends, I also believe the review does not describe the sound of a high-end R2R dac.

In the review, it appears the dac is boring & dull. I just can't imagine an R2R dac would sound like this.

The analog filter in R2R dacs should not make the sound dull. In the past I also owned a NOS tentlabs cd player which had some rolloff at the high frequencies (it was not flat like a normal cd player), it certainly never sounded dull.

Playing a track with pseudorandom noise, you could clearly hear that the tentlabs NOS dac rolled earlier on it's analog output, than when sending the SPDIF to his b-dac. But the NOS was not dull, did not lack bass and treble.

[michaelg]

42 minutes ago, mansr said:

That means it has inadequate filtering.

My ears have two analogue filters that can fully do the left-over job. Currently handling - to my full satisfaction -  the output of my Metrum NOS DAC.  My brain is built for listening to music and was  not shipped with an included Audio Precision instrument.  This seems to be the two archetypes  of audiophiles which will probably never fully understand each other.

[Kimo]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

There would probably be more of a tail of so-called "ringing." Look at the rest of the graphs instead. It's downright terrible. If this doesn't sound dreadful, it only proves that ultrasonics don't matter (because we can't hear them).

Can't say I hear anything terrible sounding with Aqua.  My speakers use Raal tweeters, so you would think that I would have a shot at hearing such dreadful things.

 

I guess ultrasonics must not matter that much.  No complaints from any of my 3 Newfys either, but they don't listen very well anyway.

 

I will say that I have already learned more from our brief conversation, than I did from the entire review.

 

 

[sb6]

Here would be the question that I'd ultimately ask WRT this review - There are numerous reviews of this DAC over the past year or so, all a slightly different flavor but all positive irrespective of measurements. So why the slam with this review? Something is amiss IMO.

[rickca]

13 minutes ago, sb6 said:

So why the slam with this review?

Good question.  Does Aqua advertise with Stereophile?  They seem to advertise everywhere.  Then the question goes to the reviewer Jason Victor Serinus.

[mansr]

47 minutes ago, michaelg said:

My ears have two analogue filters that can fully do the left-over job.

Only to the extent IMD in the amp hasn't turned the ultrasonics into audible frequencies. That's one of the main reasons for having the filters. Another is to avoid driving the tweeters with excessive high-frequency energy.

[mansr]

26 minutes ago, sb6 said:

Here would be the question that I'd ultimately ask WRT this review - There are numerous reviews of this DAC over the past year or so, all a slightly different flavor but all positive irrespective of measurements. So why the slam with this review? Something is amiss IMO.

Are we reading the same thing? The Stereophile review seems pretty positive to me: "Aqua Acoustic Quality's Formula xHD is an extremely fine-sounding DAC whose warmth and ability to decode files of extremely high resolution should win it many admirers."

[Kimo]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

Are we reading the same thing? The Stereophile review seems pretty positive to me: "Aqua Acoustic Quality's Formula xHD is an extremely fine-sounding DAC whose warmth and ability to decode files of extremely high resolution should win it many admirers."

It is positive in general, but it sounds like he is talking about a different sounding dac than some of us are used to hearing.  If one was looking for the sound he describes, they might be very disappointed with sound they get in their system.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, michaelg said:

My ears have two analogue filters that can fully do the left-over job. Currently handling - to my full satisfaction -  the output of my Metrum NOS DAC.  My brain is built for listening to music and was  not shipped with an included Audio Precision instrument.  This seems to be the two archetypes  of audiophiles which will probably never fully understand each other.

 

Why not make something that makes BOTH ears AND audio analyzer happy? (and something that doesn't cost a small fortune at it)

 

[Miska]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

In the review, it appears the dac is boring & dull. I just can't imagine an R2R dac would sound like this.

 

I'm yet to hear R2R that doesn't...

 

[sb6]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Are we reading the same thing? The Stereophile review seems pretty positive to me: "Aqua Acoustic Quality's Formula xHD is an extremely fine-sounding DAC whose warmth and ability to decode files of extremely high resolution should win it many admirers."

Here's what I read which is in addition to the conclusion you quoted, "the bass was less heart-stopping, and the extra frisson in the highs that I'm used to hearing was absent" and ,"I didn't hear the level of color saturation I know this recording contains, but that may well be because I was listening to PCM 16/44.1" and "his instrument was less naturally percussive than I'm accustomed to—it sounded as if the soft pedal was depressed. Given that I also heard less bass foundation and natural treble ring than usual, the joy at the center of this superb performance touched me less." and "In addition, the deepest resonances of the voice and the bottom line of the piano were shortchanged" and "the midrange was gorgeous, but the highs seemed less radiant than I'd hoped for".

 

Also, what I realized re-reading his article is he calls the Formula "warm" on several occasions. he Formula (at least in my system) is certainly not warm, so there's that.

 

 

 

 

 

[sb6]

29 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

I'm yet to hear R2R that doesn't...

 

Time for a R2R DAC upgrade... ?

[emcdade]

Looks like Stereophile let Herb Reichert listen to the Aqua this month for a second opinion review on JVS.

 

His impressions were not favorable either, low transparency.

 

The double whammy.

[Jud]

On 5/25/2018 at 2:20 PM, mansr said:

Are we reading the same thing? The Stereophile review seems pretty positive to me: "Aqua Acoustic Quality's Formula xHD is an extremely fine-sounding DAC whose warmth and ability to decode files of extremely high resolution should win it many admirers."

 

Ah, I see you don't fully ken review-speak.  Nearly all reviews are favorable. To discern the reviewer's true opinion, one must parse the text with extreme care to see where he/she might have damned with faint praise.

 

It's an exhausting exercise, and one of the primary reasons I no longer read the review mags.

[matthias]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

Ah, I see you don't fully ken review-speak.  Nearly all reviews are favorable. To discern the reviewer's true opinion, one must parse the text with extreme care to see where he/she might have damned with faint praise.

 

Agree,

it would even say this review was pretty negative. It was a relief for the reviewer to listen at the end to the Rossini, this tells more than thousand words.

 

Matt

[sb6]

I have to shake my head and laugh when reading these reviews. Not at all what I hear with my Aqua. Lack of transparency? Yea, no and I don't even have the xHD upgrade - yet...

 

For what it's worth the only digital I've heard (and I have heard quite a few) that bested the Aqua Formula is the TotalDAC 12 and the Aries Cerat (forget the model). I'm sure the MSB and Nagra best it too justifying their price. The TD 6 is probably on par albeit a different flavor.

[Miska]

27 minutes ago, sb6 said:

For what it's worth the only digital I've heard (and I have heard quite a few) that bested the Aqua Formula is the TotalDAC 12 and the Aries Cerat (forget the model). I'm sure the MSB and Nagra best it too justifying their price. The TD 6 is probably on par albeit a different flavor.

 

Personally, I really liked sound of the Nagra HD-DAC when running at DSD128 (matching it's native rate). That would be the one I'd pick from that set of DACs...

 

[Kimo]

On 12/14/2018 at 12:00 PM, emcdade said:

Looks like Stereophile let Herb Reichert listen to the Aqua this month for a second opinion review on JVS.

 

His impressions were not favorable either, low transparency.

 

The double whammy.

Actually, it was JA.  It was stated that Herb's finding would be coming in 2019.  Not sure what review you read, but I wouldn't call JA's unfavorable.  

[Hyperion]

Comparing a R2R DAC such as the ones from Aqua etc. to any other topology will always end up in different opinions. To me, it's all about preferences rather than "this one is better than that one". Intellectually, other topologies might be superior in hifi-terms of resolution and transparency etc, but musically and emotionally, the R2R DAC's from Aqua, MSB and CAD etc. does bring organic qualities that makes the music more natural and engaging to many.

 

/ Marcus, www.perfect-sense.se

[matthias]

2 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Intellectually, other topologies might be superior in hifi-terms of resolution and transparency etc, but musically and emotionally, the R2R DAC's from Aqua, MSB and CAD etc. does bring organic qualities that makes the music more natural and engaging to many.

 

How do you rate the Mola-Mola DAC vs. your R2R DACs?

 

Matt

[Hyperion]

10 hours ago, matthias said:

 

How do you rate the Mola-Mola DAC vs. your R2R DACs?

 

Matt

 

That's a bit too early to say, but so far the Mola Mola Tambaqui is showing great promise I have to say. I will do some benchmarking over the holidays side by side with APL DSD-MR (my absolute reference), MSB Premiere/Discrete DAC, CAD 1543 MKII, Ayre QX-5 and Lumin X1. As always, careful matching is key, where comparing these units in the same system will not generate any universal truths, as some DACs might perform better (or worse) in a different setting.

 

/ Marcus, www.perfect-sense.se

 

[matthias]

3 hours ago, Hyperion said:

APL DSD-MR (my absolute reference)

 

This is quite the opposite of an R2R-DAC, so it is all about implementation and not about a technical principle.

But I am curious how it compares to the MM.

 

Matt

[Perfect sense]

13 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

This is quite the opposite of an R2R-DAC, so it is all about implementation and not about a technical principle.

But I am curious how it compares to the MM.

 

Matt

 

R2R DACs usually share some specific sonic characteristics.

 

The APL DSD-MR is rather special being partly tube based. It's also much more expensive than the other units mentioned at approx. €40.000.