Did a $79 Behringer mastering interface just outperform the iFi DAC2?

[plissken]

9 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Excellent Dennis!    I'll be in touch.  And yes, not until the very end of July.  All the paid and waiting orders come first.

Best,

--Alex C.

 

P.S. Will you be using this thread's $79 wonder-DAC? 

 

I'll send him mine.

[Panelhead]

3 hours ago, plissken said:

 

I'll send him mine.

  I have a higher spec USB dac sitting collecting dust. Supposedly 21 bit resolution. I would love to hear that all it needs is an ISO-Regen to unleash the sonics. Sound is too hot for my ears stock. 

  

[esldude]

14 hours ago, plissken said:

 

I can get you the Emotiva DC-1 and the Behringer 204HD.

Pretty sure I can get hands on an Emotiva.  Let me see how it goes with what I have before I line up 4 dozen DACs to try.

 

I do appreciate the courtesy of the offer, and may take you up on it for the 204 HD at some point.

[esldude]

14 hours ago, plissken said:

 

I'll send him mine.

Thank you, but I have some time consuming things on my plate for the next 3 weeks.  So after the end of July will fit my schedule very nicely. 

[Rexp]

On 7/5/2017 at 10:38 AM, esldude said:

Actually unless you intentionally rig the test with some sub-par for the price speakers, I see no other result than the $9400 speakers with the cheap front end outperforming the alternate using $5000 speakers.

Most digital source material sounds like crap anyway, not worth spending alot on digital sources.

[Kelly]

Let me preface this by saying that I am not making any claims to technical expertise ... BUT it would not surprise me if the iFi was a particularly poor measuring device. The iFi/AMR philosophy is to playback all material in native format within the hardware as much as possible (hence they were the innovator in introducing a truly affordable, true DSD playback device.) They are very open that doing things in this manner doesn't always lead to the best measurements, as simple techniques like upsampling can dramatically improve some measurements. They philosophically seek to avoid this as much as possible in their implementations.

 

So my question for those more knowledgeable about these things, if the iFi is indeed processing these signals at a native rate, and the Behringer is processing at upsampled 192khz would that, explain the difference in measurements?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Kelly said:

Let me preface this by saying that I am not making any claims to technical expertise ... BUT it would not surprise me if the iFi was a particularly poor measuring device. The iFi/AMR philosophy is to playback all material in native format within the hardware as much as possible (hence they were the innovator in introducing a truly affordable, true DSD playback device.) They are very open that doing things in this manner doesn't always lead to the best measurements, as simple techniques like upsampling can dramatically improve some measurements. They philosophically seek to avoid this as much as possible in their implementations.

 

So my question for those more knowledgeable about these things, if the iFi is indeed processing these signals at a native rate, and the Behringer is processing at upsampled 192khz would that, explain the difference in measurements?

No it would not. 

 

Nor is their philosophical approach sensible if they can't produce gear that performs well.  Unless that performance shortcoming is a preferred coloration.

[semente]

5 hours ago, Kelly said:

Let me preface this by saying that I am not making any claims to technical expertise ... BUT it would not surprise me if the iFi was a particularly poor measuring device. The iFi/AMR philosophy is to playback all material in native format within the hardware as much as possible (hence they were the innovator in introducing a truly affordable, true DSD playback device.) They are very open that doing things in this manner doesn't always lead to the best measurements, as simple techniques like upsampling can dramatically improve some measurements. They philosophically seek to avoid this as much as possible in their implementations.

 

So my question for those more knowledgeable about these things, if the iFi is indeed processing these signals at a native rate, and the Behringer is processing at upsampled 192khz would that, explain the difference in measurements?

 

Have you had a look at Sphile's measurements of the iDAC?

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ifi-audio-idac-amp-iusbpower-usb-da-processor-amp-outboard-power-supply-measurements

[Kelly]

Yeah, that is bad, and I haven't heard one of the iFi units in a long time. But I am in the market for a cheap desktop unit for headphones and powered speakers. If you spend up and get the larger $100 Behringer unit then you get XLR outputs. I might have to try that.

[plissken]

On 7/15/2017 at 8:03 AM, Kelly said:

Yeah, that is bad, and I haven't heard one of the iFi units in a long time. But I am in the market for a cheap desktop unit for headphones and powered speakers. If you spend up and get the larger $100 Behringer unit then you get XLR outputs. I might have to try that.

 

The 404HD also has external power option.

[wushuliu]

Haha, I see Amir tested the $20 Signstek as well. You know what I'm a big fan of that cheap ass dac. I think it sounds better than a lot of other ones I've heard. But in my case I have expended a lot of effort in the source quality. Maybe I'll give the Behringer a try as I do need a mic preamp at some point. 

 

I think once you've sorted out power supply and clock/signal integrity of the source, cheaper dacs start to shine... though they usually require modding anyway.

[jabbr]

On 7/4/2017 at 0:47 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I like this comment because it works great for everyone. 

 

Whether you are 100% measurement based or 100% subjective or somewhere in the middle, you must understand that not all measurements really matter. One must listen to decide if a certain measurement matters to him. 

 

I've got the 404HD. It is a terrific deal at $99 particularly with the 4x microphone inputs. 

 

As a DAC it is very good. Doesn't blow away my iFi iDSD Micro regardless of measurements. Of course it accepts max PCM 192 input.

 

I think, probably, I prefer the SMSL iDEA at this pricepoint, although the Linux driver on the SMSL isn't accepting DSD input so perhaps there is room for it to improve...

[jtwrace]

On 7/17/2017 at 4:02 PM, plissken said:

 

The 404HD also has external power option.

I just ordered one today to try!  While it can't do DSD it should still be very interesting.  

[plissken]

On 7/24/2017 at 11:16 PM, jabbr said:

I've got the 404HD. It is a terrific deal at $99 particularly with the 4x microphone inputs. 

 

As a DAC it is very good. Doesn't blow away my iFi iDSD Micro regardless of measurements. Of course it accepts max PCM 192 input.

 

I think, probably, I prefer the SMSL iDEA at this pricepoint, although the Linux driver on the SMSL isn't accepting DSD input so perhaps there is room for it to improve...

 

I don't think anyone is saying it blows it away in a global sense. It does exhibit a lower distortion profile.  24/192 isn't some sort of a low  ceiling. I have the 204HD for HP duty on a laptop because you can hear all kinds of crap on the supplied HP out. 

 

The really nice thing about this DAC is if you are of a mind to spend as much possible on speakers this unit certainly frees up more than a few hundred.

 

I'm very impressed with this $79 device. 

[plissken]

Amir just benched the Mytek Brooklyn.