New D/D Converters from Denafrips

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

13 hours ago, barrows said:

There are actually plenty of DACs which will not benefit from a converter like this, unless one prefers the sound of higher jitter.  Just use a good USB source direct into the DAC's USB input, and just do not purchase a DAC which does not have a well implemented USB input, there really is no excuse these days for a DAC to have a poor USB input, the details of getting it "right" are now pretty well understood by most sharp digital engineers.

Now, if one has a "legacy" DAC which they love, the might benefit form  converter like this.

 

I was under the impression that what was well understood was that USB was not suited for digital audio

[Blake]

13 hours ago, barrows said:

There are actually plenty of DACs which will not benefit from a converter like this, unless one prefers the sound of higher jitter.  Just use a good USB source direct into the DAC's USB input, and just do not purchase a DAC which does not have a well implemented USB input, there really is no excuse these days for a DAC to have a poor USB input, the details of getting it "right" are now pretty well understood by most sharp digital engineers.

Now, if one has a "legacy" DAC which they love, the might benefit form  converter like this.

 

Barrows, I must say you really confuse me at times.  You have a lot of knowledge (for example, I am enjoying your Roon settings), but then I read something like this and just scratch my head.

 

You may not realize it, but to me, your post comes across so condescending, like you have everything figured out.  Anyone experiencing an uptick in sound quality must be deluding themselves and those silly people must just like the sound of jitter? Berkeley must be incompetent engineers.  

 

Since you are in the industry, where do I buy your perfect usb DAC?   Also, I assume Sonore's UltraDigital converter gets a free pass, right?  

[Summit]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

I am not in favor of add on gadgets personally.  i prefer a good, designed for high end audio, USB source.  One can hardly expect a consumer grade commercial computer designed for general computer purposes (master of none) to be a good high end  audio source.  One is better off with something designed for the task at hand (delivering perfect USB audio signal integrity, with ultra low noise), not something designed for general computing purposes.

 

Are you saying that the Digital till Digital Converter from Denafrips is a computer designed for general computer purposes?

[barrows]

@Blake, Far from everything is figured out by anyone, and certainly not me.  But just because everything is not figured out, does not mean we should dismiss the things which are figured out.  
Please do not put words in my mouth though... it appears to me that you are reading an awful lot between the lines of what I have said: "Berkeley must be incompetent engineers", umm, not sure how/where you could infer this from my words, for example?

 

On the "Perfect USB DAC" question, I never said anything about any "Perfect DAC" of any type?  BTW, for the sake of discussion, does it really make sense that a really good USB interface could made in a separate chassis, but such could not be achieved inside the DAC itself?

 

On the uDigital, it gets a "free pass" to where exactly?  I do not actually have anything to do with the uDigital product, but the way I look at it, Sonore offers this product because the Rendu Series Renderers have only USB output, and some customers have SPDIF only input DACs, or they might just want to use SPDIF, or I2S for that matter, I do not see anything wrong with offering options for customers?

 

And, please keep in mind that my post was direct response to a question from 57Gold which i feel was a very legitimate question.  No one is under any obligation to agree with me if they choose not to.

 

@Summit, simply, no, sorry for any misunderstanding.

[Blake]

2 minutes ago, barrows said:

@Blake, Far from everything is figured out by anyone, and certainly not me.  But just because everything is not figured out, does not mean we should dismiss the things which are figured out.  
Please do not put words in my mouth though... it appears to me that you are reading an awful lot between the lines of what I have said: "Berkeley must be incompetent engineers", umm, not sure how/where you could infer this from my words, for example?

 

On the "Perfect USB DAC" question, I never said anything about any "Perfect DAC" of any type?  BTW, for the sake of discussion, does it really make sense that a really good USB interface could made in a separate chassis, but such could not be achieved inside the DAC itself?

 

On the uDigital, it gets a "free pass" to where exactly?  I do not actually have anything to do with the uDigital product, but the way I look at it, Sonore offers this product because our Rendu Series Renderers have only USB output, and some customers have SPDIF only input DACs, or they might just want to use SPDIF, or I2S for that matter, I do not see anything wrong with offering options for customers?

 

And, please keep in mind that my post was direct response to a question from 57Gold which i feel was a very legitimate question.  No one is under any obligation to agree with me if they choose not to.

 

@Summit, simply, no, sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

You are saying USB has been figured out.  It hasn't.  Anyone that has been paying attention could tell you that.  Yes, we can get sound from point A to point B, and yes, it can sound pretty damn good. Is it perfect?  No.  If that were the case then there would be one globally accepted solution.  Schiit's new solution would not be necessary, because in your world, you believe USB has been perfected.  Which dismisses any concept of good, better or excellent gradations of USB input performance.  Yes, I am wording things differently than what you wrote, but that is 100% your implication.  

 

Do I really need to connect the dots for you regarding Berkeley?  Earlier in this thread, we mentioned the Berkeley Alpha USB converter.  Berkeley believes using the Alpha USB D/D converter is a better sonic solution that just going USB direct to a Berkeley DAC.  You say a competent designer doesn't need the extra D/D conversion stage because any competent engineer should have figured that out.  Hence, Berkeley are not competent when it comes to USB.  That is why I called you out on what DAC you have produced, that I can buy and compare.  

 

You are making absolutist statements that most DAC performance would be hurt by a product you've never heard.  I think that is a bad idea personally as I prefer to keep an open mind.  What about Dark Matter?  Should people have dogmatic, pre-conceived notions about that product, or should they try it with an open mind? 

 

And don't put words in my mouth.  I didn't object to Sonore offering the ultraDigital (I am a proponent of D/D converters based on my own experiments so I applaud such a product), but given your comments about these sorts of products introducing jitter, well, then that means the ultraDigital also will introduce jitter and harm the performance of "most DAC's" because, well, most DAC's have solved USB, right?

 

[barrows]

@Blake, As this is your thread, I will decline further comment.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Blake said:

 

You [Barrows] may not realize it, but to me, your post comes across so condescending, like you have everything figured out.  Anyone experiencing an uptick in sound quality must be deluding themselves and those silly people must just like the sound of jitter? Berkeley must be incompetent engineers. 

Since you are in the industry, where do I buy your perfect usb DAC?   Also, I assume Sonore's UltraDigital converter gets a free pass, right?  

 

+100 this nails it on the head.

 

What we have is opinion expressed as fact with a little condescending postscript for good measure....'oh feel free to disagree if you prefer jitter' (or distortion as expressed on another topic, but the theme is the same).

 

I agree with "condescending, like you [Barrows] have everything figured out" statement. I note that this was rejected but then it appears to be a case of, 'only what I say has been figured out matters '

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

I was under the impression that what was well understood was that USB was not suited for digital audio

 

 It does the job reasonably well for many people, but " reasonably well" isn't what most members are hoping to achieve, hence the availability of so many aftermarket products .

[Blake]

@barrows, you are free to continue posting here as you like. 

 

I know you say you were just responding to a question, but really, it sure seemed like you were here to answer that question while also taking a shot at Denafrips and possibly Berkeley (I will give you the benefit of the doubt on Berkeley), as well as taking a shot at folks like me, who have experienced performance increases with many different D/D converters (your 'jitter' comment).  You did a similar thing in the preamp thread.

 

I don't mind at all when an industry person promotes their own ideas in any thread.  What does get under my skin though is when that industry person takes pot shots at other manufacturers, or direct or clearly implied digs at consumers.  It is just a really bad look.  Like it or not, you, as an industry rep have to be held to a slightly higher standard IMHO.

 

In some respects, you have an advantage here over most that participate on this forum due to your audio career.  However, our ears are the great equalizer.  If I consistently hear improvements with (most) quality D/D converters, which is backed up by tons of reports online from other users of various brands of D/D converters, well, then I'd say that despite your technical expertise, your blanket statements on the D/D topic should be called into question and at the very least= your opinion is not audio fact.  I have zero problems with differing opinions, I do have a problem with opinion stated as fact, particularly if that person works in the industry.

 

 

[Account Closed]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 It does the job reasonably well for many people, but " reasonably well" isn't what most members are hoping to achieve, hence the availability of so many aftermarket products .

Let us remember that all of the D/D converters allow the option to start with a USB input and go from there so we are not avoiding a USB interface but improving on the implementation. USB interfaces in most DACs were pretty bad but that is improving. My Holo Spring 2 has a very good USB interface. I cannot reliably tell USB from I2s when using my ultraRendu, ultraDigital (which is really a Singxer SU-1), fancy power supply and expensive silver HDMI cable for I2s and straight in USB from my ultraRendu. The difference is negligible. One is not better than the other, they just have a slightly different sound signature.

 

[Account Closed]

32 minutes ago, Blake said:

@barrows, you are free to continue posting here as you like. 

 

I know you say you were just responding to a question, but really, it sure seemed like you were here to answer that question while also taking a shot at Denafrips and possibly Berkeley (I will give you the benefit of the doubt on Berkeley), as well as taking a shot at folks like me, who have experienced performance increases with many different D/D converters (your 'jitter' comment).  You did a similar thing in the preamp thread.

 

I don't mind at all when an industry person promotes their own ideas in any thread.  What does get under my skin though is when that industry person takes pot shots at other manufacturers, or direct or clearly implied digs at consumers.  It is just a really bad look.  Like it or not, you, as an industry rep have to be held to a slightly higher standard IMHO.

 

In some respects, you have an advantage here over most that participate on this forum due to your audio career.  However, our ears are the great equalizer.  If I consistently hear improvements with (most) quality D/D converters, which is backed up by tons of reports online from other users of various brands of D/D converters, well, then I'd say that despite your technical expertise, your blanket statements on the D/D topic should be called into question and at the very least= your opinion is not audio fact.  I have zero problems with differing opinions, I do have a problem with opinion stated as fact, particularly if that person works in the industry.

 

 

@barrows does have some pretty strongly held opinions on this subject but I don't think there is any intent to demean or bully anyone. I do agree that as a representative of a manufacturer he should tone it down a bit.

[Abyss Man]

I took a listen to the Gaia, liked it so much that I bought it. It was that simple for me. 

[Confused]

I am intrigued by the fact that is has external clock inputs for 45.1548MHz and 49.152MHz, rather than the more common 10MHz as used by Mutec, SOtM, Teak, and others.

 

I presume this is for use with some kind of yet to be announced product?  Pure speculation on my part.

 

Is there a technical reason for the choice of 45.1548MHz and 49.152MHz?

[Abyss Man]

Is 45.1548Mhz and 49.152Mhz "purer" in terms of audio timing? Maybe someone more tech savy can enlighten us. 

 

But the OCXO clocks are already doing such a wonderful job I don't think we will require external clock inputs, but of course we will never know till we hear it in action with external clock input.

 

I've been trying to find out what OCXO clocks are being used. Just curious. Anyone?

[Confused]

Looking at the manual for the Mutec MC3+USB, it states; "Scalable to FS1x512 clock rates, 22.5792 MHz & 24.576 MHz, for e.g. high-end audio interfaces" 

 

I note that these rates are exactly half that for the for the Denafrips.  

[audio.bill]

Has anyone tried the Gaia with any other brand DACs than DENAFRIPS? Curious to know if it benefits other DACs to the same degree or if it's ideally suited to their own DACs. Any such experience you can share in this regard would be helpful and much appreciated. It certainly seems to offer a great value if it can be favorably compared to competitive products like the Innuos Phoenix (even though that's exclusively USB.) TIA

[Abyss Man]

A Friend of mine who has mine on loan reported that it made the presentation more coherent, soundstage was larger and details were improved. He is running  a Audio Note DAC.

Personally, I love the 3D imaging and holographic improvements. 

[ggking7]

What was feeding his Audio Note previously?

[Abyss Man]

He was using a souped up Singxer SU1.

[57gold]

Getting back to my observation.  The Terminator DAC is $4,300 and if it needs another $2k box to "fix" its USB input, it's mis-engineered/broken from the outset.  

 

Have learned a bunch of great and useful stuff from this community, like  how to get a MAC to play music on a great vintage CD player with SPDIF input.  Posted the first observation that a studio equipment company was launching a home audio DAC, the Mytek DSD192, which I enjoyed for years. Also learned about and employed software players like PM, A+ and HQP to great and positive effect, which I leaned about here and am grateful.  And as Barrows and Jussi point out, a dedicated music server with no "distractions" and enough computational power is an optimal path to significantly better music.  Perhaps this is my next music listening mission, to the extent somebody comes up with something that can quietly handle HQP at a high level without costing as much as an SUV.

 

All that said, the "gizmo centric", D to D boxes, re-clockers, USB filter/cleaners, cable paranoia, Pis (though I still do not know what they do even after reading a two part review)...BS that has taken over CA/AS is pretty silly for a serious music lover.  It seems to be the stuff of the "audiophile" guy in my office who spent huge $s on his system (Spectral, MIT...) and stumbled when asked, "what's you new favorite album?" He couldn't talk about the musical performances, the song writing, why it moved him, only the recording quality of some audiophile samplers of third rate music.  He said, "he liked to listen to the equipment."

 

Different strokes.  

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, 57gold said:

Getting back to my observation.  The Terminator DAC is $4,300 and if it needs another $2k box to "fix" its USB input, it's mis-engineered/broken from the outset.  

 

Have learned a bunch of great and useful stuff from this community, like  how to get a MAC to play music on a great vintage CD player with SPDIF input.  Posted the first observation that a studio equipment company was launching a home audio DAC, the Mytek DSD192, which I enjoyed for years. Also learned about and employed software players like PM, A+ and HQP to great and positive effect, which I leaned about here and am grateful.  And as Barrows and Jussi point out, a dedicated music server with no "distractions" and enough computational power is an optimal path to significantly better music.  Perhaps this is my next music listening mission, to the extent somebody comes up with something that can quietly handle HQP at a high level without costing as much as an SUV.

 

All that said, the "gizmo centric", D to D boxes, re-clockers, USB filter/cleaners, cable paranoia, Pis (though I still do not know what they do even after reading a two part review)...BS that has taken over CA/AS is pretty silly for a serious music lover.  It seems to be the stuff of the "audiophile" guy in my office who spent huge $s on his system (Spectral, MIT...) and stumbled when asked, "what's you new favorite album?" He couldn't talk about the musical performances, the song writing, why it moved him, only the recording quality of some audiophile samplers of third rate music.  He said, "he liked to listen to the equipment."

 

Different strokes.  

 

A few things come to mind. 
 

1. What does price have to do with your determination that a DAC is broken if the manufacturer offers something better that improves performance? In other words, what if the DAC was $2,300 and a $2,000 D to D converter came out that improved its performance? The cost would be equal to the Terminator’s $4,300. 
 

2. Your comments give me a vibe that you think others who enjoy different parts of this hobby are somehow less than those who place music above everything. Perhaps you don’t mean it this way, but the story about the guy in your office confuses me. I’m not sure why it’s important. I’m also unsure why it’s important to know he spent “huge $$ on his system.”
 

3. Suggesting BS has taken over the site is a bit over the top. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

A few things come to mind. 
 

1. What does price have to do with your determination that a DAC is broken if the manufacturer offers something better that improves performance? In other words, what if the DAC was $2,300 and a $2,000 D to D converter came out that improved its performance? The cost would be equal to the Terminator’s $4,300. 
 

2. Your comments give me a vibe that you think others who enjoy different parts of this hobby are somehow less than those who place music above everything. Perhaps you don’t mean it this way, but the story about the guy in your office confuses me. I’m not sure why it’s important. I’m also unsure why it’s important to know he spent “huge $$ on his system.”
 

3. Suggesting BS has taken over the site is a bit over the top. 

 

You are right, the wording was a little strong, but I do think we sometimes forget the objective (musical enjoyment) and focus obsessively on the gear. Went down that path myself for some time - some personalities may be pre-disposed to this pitfall 😁. CA/AS in itself has nothing to do with this!

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

 

You are right, the wording was a little strong, but I do think we sometimes forget the objective (musical enjoyment) and focus obsessively on the gear. Went down that path myself for some time - some personalities may be pre-disposed to this pitfall 😁. CA/AS in itself has nothing to do with this!

Hi Hopkins, no worries, we all have our own winding path of a journey.  For some people the objective is gear or gear and music or just music. Whatever the objective, it’s ok with me. 

[57gold]

Yes, a little strong perhaps on the word or abbreviation choice, perhaps. Apologies to those whom I may have offended.

 

The guy in the office thing is an observation related to the irony of investing in great music reproduction tools and not actually being a music enthusiast.  Music reproduction gear without the music brings....pride of ownership?  Seems odd, but different strokes.

 

Have a second hobby, playing guitar, and see the same equipment fixation with folks obsessing over vintage guitars/amps, NOS tubes, scores of effects pedals, boutique builders of the above...and then many demo their stuff with a video and they can't play nor know how to use the tools they acquired because what little they can play sounds off.  Seems unbalanced or misguided; perhaps the obsessive energy ought to be spent on learning how to play? Yes, but different strokes.

[justubes]

There is no details if this does bit perfect D2D reclocking? 

 

Something similar to a Mutec Mc3.1 usb.