Danny Kaey Posted April 24, 2019 Author Share Posted April 24, 2019 1 hour ago, JoeWhip said: Can’t say I am a big fan of where the replies to this review have gone so I will try to steer it back to the sound of the DAC as described by Danny. I am more concerned by the description that the DAC has a sonic signature. I guess that all DACs do to some extent but when I see this type of language used I think that it means that it makes different recordings sound similar in tone. I have heard some DACs do this. You listen to wildly divergent recordings and hear a similar sound with each that shouldn’t be there. It is usually a softness to the top end. I won’t mention any names though so don’t ask. I hope this is not the case with this DAC, especially at this price point. Not sure what else you want me to say Joe - That organic, natural and neutral sonic signature of Echo’s End plays fantastically well with this type of a recording. Where the Playback Design’s MPS-8 is far closer to that presentation, AURALiC’s Vega G2 moves the curve the other way, highlighting the leading transients and giving the entire image a more edgy feel... Link to comment
Danny Kaey Posted April 24, 2019 Author Share Posted April 24, 2019 7 hours ago, PeterSt said: Alex, thank you for pointing this out. I seemed recognize the board but couldn't place it. And without beating around the bush, I think your implied merit has, well, merit. And @Danny Kaey, I am sorry, but the review already was too strange to really be one (I read it ahead of responses). My review is already too strange to really be one. 🙄 Link to comment
Popular Post Louis Motek - LessLoss Posted April 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2019 6 hours ago, mansr said: What is that supposed to mean? I mean that ADCs typically aren't used to convert at 384 kHz. 96, yes, this is ubiquitous, 48 kHz, too, but in recording scenarios it is not a professional standard to record at 384 and therefore anything you see on the music market which claims to be a 384 kHz sampling rate recording is likely a mathematically contrived version of the originally recorded material. This is a heated discussion in the audio recording arena. There might be some scientific applications for recording at 384 like recording bats, but in order for this to be justified, all the gear in the chain needs to have extremely low noise even at ultrasound frequencies in order for the intermodulation effects not to add even more noise to the audible spectrum that we humans can indeed hear. Maybe some rare labs have this capability but for the world of audio this type of extension of sampling rates simply does not add value and can even be (due to interpolation distortions) detrimental to the result. If you ever compare a high jitter recording at high sampling rate vs. a low jitter recording at a low sampling rate, you will always prefer the low jitter recording. In terms of hierarchy of importance with direct relation to sonic quality, low jitter is much, much more important than the difference between, say, 48 kHz and 96 kHz. Today there are even ADCs (AK5397 for example) which can do 786 kHz but it remains disputed as to its usefulness in real-world (human ear) audio applications. Pure Vinyl Club and Summit 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Louis Motek - LessLoss Posted April 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2019 3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Just copied from the LL site. I’m sure they can better answer your question. To answer this: 11 hours ago, BrokeLinuxPhile said: This statement confuses me, what are they trying to say? I don't get why you need an acoustically dead material here. Speakers makes sense but not a DAC. Thick metal would shield better. Depends on the frequency you want to shield. For instance, in microwave applications, a shield needs to be airtight. Even the slightest slit (for example a hole for a wire to get through) will let microwave radiation though.This is why some shields are soldered shut completely, from all sides. The importance of gaskets in shielding is a well established art. But then there is another thing altogether: each metal type has its own "sound". If you shield with aluminum, steel, stainless steel, iron, tungsten, lead, gold, nickel, etc., you will always have differing sonic results. This sonic coloration comes form the electro-magnetic reflections with said shielding material. Through many experiments, we have come to the conclusion that we don't like the sound of aluminum. It is used a lot in audio these days, and we simply don't like its sound. This is not only an acoustical phenomenon. It is also due to the near-field electro-magnetic interactions. Yes, simply being there next to the circuity, everything colors the sound to some extent. Hence, it is an art to create an enclosure that the designer likes. You have to try many things until you come to such understanding. Some speak of shielding "closing off" the sound. Then there are the famous experiments where you take identical circuitry and build two same-sized enclosures, built only with differing materials, and the sonic results differ quite astonishingly. We like Panzerholz as a build material in this regard, but also for its acoustic properties. When you have any current running through any wire, there will be at a very low level some acoustic vibration (charged particles moving are already a form of tiny acoustic turbulence anyway). When circuitry or any connector is mated directly to Panzerholz, the Panzerholz aborbs a lot of this tiny vibration. This is also why our C-MARC wire is over-braided with cotton fiber. High quality professional microphone cable also always has cotton in it, for the very same reason. esldude and Teresa 1 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, Louis Motek - LessLoss said: I mean that ADCs typically aren't used to convert at 384 kHz. 96, yes, this is ubiquitous, 48 kHz, too, but in recording scenarios it is not a professional standard to record at 384 and therefore anything you see on the music market which claims to be a 384 kHz sampling rate recording is likely a mathematically contrived version of the originally recorded material. This is a heated discussion in the audio recording arena. There might be some scientific applications for recording at 384 like recording bats, but in order for this to be justified, all the gear in the chain needs to have extremely low noise even at ultrasound frequencies in order for the intermodulation effects not to add even more noise to the audible spectrum that we humans can indeed hear. Maybe some rare labs have this capability but for the world of audio this type of extension of sampling rates simply does not add value and can even be (due to interpolation distortions) detrimental to the result. If you ever compare a high jitter recording at high sampling rate vs. a low jitter recording at a low sampling rate, you will always prefer the low jitter recording. In terms of hierarchy of importance with direct relation to sonic quality, low jitter is much, much more important than the difference between, say, 48 kHz and 96 kHz. Today there are even ADCs (AK5397 for example) which can do 786 kHz but it remains disputed as to its usefulness in real-world (human ear) audio applications. Sure, recording music at such rates is of dubious benefit. Nevertheless, such recordings are not hard to find. For the purpose of this discussion, I'm regarding 352.8 kHz and 384 kHz as equivalent, the former for some reason being far more common. Link to comment
Popular Post PeterSt Posted April 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2019 4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: @PeterSt you’re a competing manufacturer. Your posts here (this review) are a bit over the top. OK, I thought to give some nice counterweight in favor ot the 20K price and gave some justifications for it. I hope that was allowed or actually a good thing to do. I can't help it much that next (after my post) someone tells that resistors are less noisier than a chip. Then he is overdoing things. If that is not allowed to tell from sheer experience (and a bit of knowledge), then what is. I agree I should not interfere. But isn't there enough BS in audio already ? Danny Kaey and Superdad 2 Lush^3-e Lush^2 Blaxius^2.5 Ethernet^3 HDMI^2 XLR^2 XXHighEnd (developer) Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer) Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer) Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier) Link to comment
Danny Kaey Posted April 24, 2019 Author Share Posted April 24, 2019 23 minutes ago, mansr said: Sure, recording music at such rates is of dubious benefit. Nevertheless, such recordings are not hard to find. For the purpose of this discussion, I'm regarding 352.8 kHz and 384 kHz as equivalent, the former for some reason being far more common. most definitely not the music I listen to. Link to comment
Norton Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 15 hours ago, Ralf11 said: comparison test with a $10k DAC or a $5k DAC is what's needed Or maybe with RBCD vs an EC designs MOS16. Also a “R2R” DAC (using ECD’s own board) , also AFAIK handmade in Europe (Netherlands), but in this case for €363. Useless as a piece of furniture though. Ralf11 1 Link to comment
BrokeLinuxPhile Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 So the enclosure is acting as a dielectric and not a shield. It won't reflect/absorb RF energy, but dissipate/slow it down. I prefer to keep cotton away from wires in my builds. Cotton absorbs airborne moisture, adding to the possibility of corroding of conductors. Unless either the case or cable assembly is hermetically sealed. Also it gets compressed during the harness assembly, thereby losing all of it's real benefit as a mostly air dielectric. Interesting design, good luck with it. Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 12 hours ago, Axial said: The DAC reviewed here is made in Europe. but maybe made in Romania or Bulgaria, no matter where the designer lives... Link to comment
Popular Post Bones13 Posted April 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2019 Different strokes, er DACs, for different folks. There is room for all to play in this arena. Prices are whatever you can get for your products. The Soekris boards have done well in several implementations, and clearly benefit from cleaner power supplies. Congratulations on a very pretty component. Best of luck with sales. Thanks for the review. Pure Vinyl Club, DuckToller and Axial 1 2 [Home Digital] MSB Premier DAC > Modright LS300 > Atma-Sphere "Class D" Monoblocks > Daedalus Audio Muse Studio Speakers [Home Analog] Technics SL-1200G > Boulder 508 (Benz Glider SL) [Office] Laptop > Kitsune R2R lvl3 > Violectric V281 > Meze Liric / Meze Elite [Travel] Laptop/iPad -> Focal Bathys Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 Louis - thanks for responding in this thread. Ultimately, I'd like to see a DAC-off listening test -- you can take on Peter... or one of the others mentioned above. I am also curious if you tried using Lignostone? Link to comment
Popular Post soekris Posted April 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2019 I just want to throw in a couple of comments.... PeterSt, you don't seems to understand the Sign Magnitude R-2R principle, please do a little research before posting those claims.... It's correct that a normal non sign magnitude DAC need very precise resistors as the MSB bit toggle all the time when the signal crosses zero, so THD is always relative to full level, while in a sign magnitude DAC ony the bits used by the signal changes, so THD is relative to the actual signal level. The PCM1704 was sign magnitude and so is the soekris line of DACs and DAC modules. You can just visit SBAF, they have done measurements on a number of my dac1541 showing signal level to be correct down to -140 dB, with harmonics following the level down, the dam1021 will be the same, while a non sign magnitude R-2R DACs signal would be distorted.... On Noise level, the advantage of discrete DACs is that you can use lower resistance part, and the noise level of a R-2R DAC is directly related to the resistors noise, while chips use larger value resistors. The dam1021 noise is that of a 625 ohms resistor. And just for the record, the dam1021 module is manufactured in Denmark, and the important parts, the resistors, are manufactured in the EU. Teresa and Danny Kaey 1 1 Søren Link to comment
Popular Post Danny Kaey Posted April 24, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Ralf11 said: but maybe made in Romania or Bulgaria, no matter where the designer lives... Last I checked, Romania and Bulgaria are both still in Europe for the time being. Pure Vinyl Club and The Computer Audiophile 2 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 you don't seem to understand my post - I listed 2 very low cost labor countries in Europe Danny Kaey 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted April 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2019 Fascinating discussion boys... Just wanted to say that TWENTY THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS after income tax, before sales tax, before shipping costs is still a big number for a DAC. Even to the "liquid" multi-millionaires I know. It does look nice though. Lots of talk again about whether jitter is audible, and IMO dramatic claims. Lots of words but no actual graphs, charts, or demonstration of the technical merits even when comments above by Mr. Motek are referring to picosecond this and that on their test bench. For technically astute audiophiles, there is much to be skeptical about - this is absolutely fair since the device functions based on known physical principles, and a multibit resistor ladder DAC isn't new technology. A simple suggestion. Even if a DAC review is primarily to express a subjective opinion, something as simple as the FFT of a 5kHz 0dBFS sine wave sourced from 24/44.1 showing a bandwidth to ~100kHz would be beneficial for the readership. While obviously far from complete, much can be gathered by looking at that single FFT in regard to noise floor, filter quality, and even jitter performance. As a bonus, give us the THD(+N) of that signal and maybe a frequency response. It would literally take less than 30 minutes with a high quality ADC. By all means, continue to describe the subjective characteristics and share the music used in the review which is of course part of the fun in reading these articles. I suspect that even something as simple as that FFT would likely tell many of us more about the sound quality than literally a thousand adjectives. Plus it will allow certain comparisons to be made if done in a standardized fashion between devices. I don't think that's asking for much nor would this be unfair to manufacturers. mansr, wdw, phosphorein and 4 others 7 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted April 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 24, 2019 3 hours ago, Ralf11 said: Louis - thanks for responding in this thread. Ultimately, I'd like to see a DAC-off listening test -- you can take on Peter... or one of the others mentioned above. I am also curious if you tried using Lignostone? You said DAC-off right 😁 Superdad, Ralf11 and Danny Kaey 1 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
fas42 Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 15 hours ago, Louis Motek - LessLoss said: Meanwhile, we and like-minded audiophiles are still discovering deeper and deeper depths in good 'ol 44.1. The whole question of sonic discovery in digital always was and always will remain the further and further reduction of jitter. It is just that simple. Yes. Except, I don't like the word "jitter", because it parcels up all the degrading influences into one convenient grab-all - turn the anomalies or noise interference into 'jitter equivalents' if you like, but it may distract one from addressing "non-jitter" areas. It was very obvious, to me, 35 years ago, that CD was indeed "perfect" - but playback chains were, and still to a large degree are, weak as sh!t, and only highly focused efforts could, can overcome the numerous flaws in the path; sloppiness and lack of attention to detail will undermine precisely what one is trying to achieve. Link to comment
Axial Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 Archimago brought an essential point; in any subjective audio review of an audio product, particularly when for the majority of us it takes few years of savings, any sensitive audiophile would love to see measurement graphs in real life's performance...on the test bench in addition to a set of ears. It is the least we can ask for as well aware audiophiles. Ralf11 1 Sound Matters Link to comment
Danny Kaey Posted April 25, 2019 Author Share Posted April 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Axial said: Archimago brought an essential point; in any subjective audio review of an audio product, particularly when for the majority of us it takes few years of savings, any sensitive audiophile would love to see measurement graphs in real life's performance...on the test bench in addition to a set of ears. It is the least we can ask for as well aware audiophiles. Certainly something you can ask for; that said, I’m not an audiophile and I’m certainly not an aware audiophile. The last few feet of HiFi (from the cone of your speaker to your ears) is all subjective anyway so even if a set of measurements where provided, who’s to say that you or I won’t hear otherwise. Psychologically speaking, the power of suggestion is immensely powerful a force. Link to comment
Danny Kaey Posted April 25, 2019 Author Share Posted April 25, 2019 9 minutes ago, Axial said: Archimago brought an essential point; in any subjective audio review of an audio product, particularly when for the majority of us it takes few years of savings, any sensitive audiophile would love to see measurement graphs in real life's performance...on the test bench in addition to a set of ears. It is the least we can ask for as well aware audiophiles. Right. When I bought my first mechanical watch that I saved up for, I asked the salesman for a 24h +/- second measurement cycle. Ummmmm. No, I didn’t. Link to comment
Popular Post Danny Kaey Posted April 25, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted April 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Archimago said: Fascinating discussion boys... Just wanted to say that TWENTY THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS after income tax, before sales tax, before shipping costs is still a big number for a DAC. Even to the "liquid" multi-millionaires I know. It does look nice though. Man, where have you been bro? 20k is chump change in high-end land these days. I’m not even joking. Pure Vinyl Club, wdw and Teresa 1 1 1 Link to comment
Jud Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 6 hours ago, Danny Kaey said: most definitely not the music I listen to. Just as an aside, there are some wonderful pieces available. For example, this album, available in DSD64 and DSD128 (the resolution I have it in) features one of the most beautiful versions of Beethoven's Heiliger Dankgesang I've heard: https://crierrecords.nativedsd.com/albums/dreams-and-prayers (Yes I do realize much of the editing is done in "DXD," 352.8kHz resolution.) Danny Kaey 1 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Danny Kaey Posted April 25, 2019 Author Share Posted April 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Jud said: Just as an aside, there are some wonderful pieces available. For example, this album, available in DSD64 and DSD128 (the resolution I have it in) features one of the most beautiful versions of Beethoven's Heiliger Dankgesang I've heard: https://crierrecords.nativedsd.com/albums/dreams-and-prayers (Yes I do realize much of the editing is done in "DXD," 352.8kHz resolution.) I do love classical music, which is likely a candidate for such resolution. That said, I could care less of the kilohertz and megahertz wars. To me, this is the equivalent of arguing over megapixels on a camera sensor. There are so many more relevant factors impacting music reproduction that this is generally speaking utterly meaningless noise. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now