T+A DAC 200

[bogi]

2 hours ago, stereousa said:

I keep hearing how good the DAC200 is when HQPlayer sends DSD streams to its USB. What about PCM playback or DSD streams from Foobar2000? Anybody has done this here?

 

It's technically of course possible. What's different is quality of PCM to DSD conversion. The difference is significant, but HQPlayer requires much more computer resources to get this result. I of course recommend HQPlayer.

 

HQPlayer Embedded is UPnP capable. That's gives possibility to use it with streaming services. Since you mentioned Tidal, you could stream Tidal content to HQPlayer Embedded from BubbleUPnP or mConnect Player running on your phone, or from JPLAY ... many possibilities.

 

If you have enough strong computer available, just start HQPlayer trial and compare it with foobar2000.

[davidv100]

On 9/7/2023 at 6:01 PM, OE333 said:

 

Of course, as @droffen suggested, the Solitaire P / P-SE are a perfect match with the DAC200.

But the Sennheiser HD800 is one of the headphones which is used regularly by the T+A development dept. for listening tests and it also works extremely well with DAC200.

Thank you very much OE333.
I am more a speaker guy (I have the DAC200 and not the HA200), and therefore, not willing to go the whole way to the T+A headphones (too expensive for my humble use - may reconsider latter).

Now, OE333, If I may, I have another question. I changed my minded and now considering the Arya Organic over the Senn HD800S. Be reassured I am not going to ask your advise about any possible speaker.

 

My question is more generic. I looked about a ton a headphone/amp pairing YT videos, especially regarding the "Impedance" question, and came out more confused than ever before. Some say high impedance headphones (say 300 Ohms) demand more current than lower impedance headphones (says 16 Ohms), and some say the exact opposite.

 

So, since there is such a huge impedance difference between the HD800S (300 Ohms) and the Arya Organic (16 Ohms), and as you said the HD800S would be a good match with DAC 200, would that mean the Arya Organic (16 Ohms, 92Db Sensitivity) would be a poor match ? Or not at all ?
 

("Not at all, David, the Arya Organic would actually be an excellent match for your DAC200, and I will explain you why" being the preferred answer :-)  ).

As a reminder : DAC200 outputs says "8 Ohms, 200mA Class A current".

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge.

 

David, Belgium

 

[OE333]

2 hours ago, davidv100 said:

My question is more generic. I looked about a ton a headphone/amp pairing YT videos, especially regarding the "Impedance" question, and came out more confused than ever before. Some say high impedance headphones (say 300 Ohms) demand more current than lower impedance headphones (says 16 Ohms), and some say the exact opposite.

 

 

A low impedance HP will require higher current than a high impedance HP for a given sound pressure level - provided both headphones have the same sensitivity in dB/mW.

On the other hand the high impedance HP will require a higher voltage.

 

 

2 hours ago, davidv100 said:

So, since there is such a huge impedance difference between the HD800S (300 Ohms) and the Arya Organic (16 Ohms), and as you said the HD800S would be a good match with DAC 200, would that mean the Arya Organic (16 Ohms, 92Db Sensitivity) would be a poor match ? Or not at all ?

 

 

Even though I personally have no experience with the Arya headphone, I don't see any problems for the DAC200 driving it.

 

The DAC200 can deliver about 0.64 W into the 16 Ohms of the Arya and about 0.35 W into the 300 Ohms of the HD800S.

In both cases more than ever will be needed...

 

[OE333]

22 hours ago, Apollo said:

Is there any potential harm when starting HDMI audio (and video) whilst the DAC200 is in Nos2 position?

 

Reason for asking as there is only information on the (small) display of the DAC200, it is easy to forget or make a mistake with filter (OVS) setting when switching input.

 

My request would be to have the Nos1/Nos2 modes disabled when switching to HDMI.

 

I don't see any potential harm when using HDMI with the NOS2 oversampling setting.

You will of course have some more digital artefacts (mirror-frequencies etc) in the output signal but this should be more annoying than harmful --- I even know some people who love the sound with the additional artefacts...

 

Maybe the settings of the oversampling and analog reconstruction filters should be stored for each source independently - perhaps we can add such a feature in a coming firmware version. 

[davidv100]

53 minutes ago, OE333 said:

 

A low impedance HP will require higher current than a high impedance HP for a given sound pressure level - provided both headphones have the same sensitivity in dB/mW.

On the other hand the high impedance HP will require a higher voltage.

 

 

 

Even though I personally have no experience with the Arya headphone, I don't see any problems for the DAC200 driving it.

 

The DAC200 can deliver about 0.64 W into the 16 Ohms of the Arya and about 0.35 W into the 300 Ohms of the HD800S.

In both cases more than ever will be needed...

 

Thank you sooooo much OE333.
Finally somebody with true knowledge, providing understandable science-based answers, and your "watts" answer is so helpful.
Why doesn't everybody refer to U=RI, and P=UI=RI^2, just like you do.

Now I get the global compatibly idea thanks to you translation to Watts.
 
(Why don't all components / headphones makers provide this Power/Watts information).

You reeeeealllly helped me so much !
You made my day.

 

PS:
Then obviously I understand that Z (Impedance) is frequency dependent and makes the whole thing a bit more complicated across the spectrum. I understand high headphone impedance leads to more linear response from this excellent YT video : 

But I guess that part will be ok.
Thanks again, OE333.

[bogi]

1 hour ago, davidv100 said:

Then obviously I understand that Z (Impedance) is frequency dependent

That's relevant for electrodynamic headphones like HD800. High impedance makes easier to pair them with headamps which don't have extra low output impedance.

 

Impedance of planars is known to be constant across frequency spectrum, so 16 Ohm impedance should not cause an issue with any headamp. Because of that constant nature, planars impedance is often not published as graph but only mentioned as a value. Here you can see for example impedance graph of my HE-500:

 

What low impedance and not quite low sensitivity headphones need is enough current.

[davidv100]

29 minutes ago, bogi said:

That's relevant for electrodynamic headphones like HD800. High impedance makes easier to pair them with headamps which don't have extra low output impedance.

 

Impedance of planars is known to be constant across frequency spectrum, so 16 Ohm impedance should not cause an issue with any headamp. Because of that constant nature, planars impedance is often not published as graph but only mentioned as a value. Here you can see for example impedance graph of my HE-500:

 

What low impedance and not quite low sensitivity headphones need is enough current.

Thank you very much, Bogi.
I was not aware of this main impedance distinction between electrodynamics VS planars, and its implications.

Your info indeed does solve the two last questions I was still trying to hide in my mind (ie : "what about this x8 rule ?", and "what about the whole frequency spectrum ?").

But I understand now this mainly applies to electrodynamics headphones, not planars.

You cannot imagine how much I have learned from both of you, Bogi and OE333 today.

So much YT videos out there about this topic, but always with too much blah blah blah, and not enough simple, science-based info, and precision about the use case (ie : electrodynamics VS planars).

I am a more clever person now, and feel way less in the dark choosing headphones.

Thanks.
Have a nice Sunday and a beautiful week.

David

[Shadorne]

4 hours ago, OE333 said:

 

A low impedance HP will require higher current than a high impedance HP for a given sound pressure level - provided both headphones have the same sensitivity in dB/mW.

On the other hand the high impedance HP will require a higher voltage.

 

 

 

Even though I personally have no experience with the Arya headphone, I don't see any problems for the DAC200 driving it.

 

The DAC200 can deliver about 0.64 W into the 16 Ohms of the Arya and about 0.35 W into the 300 Ohms of the HD800S.

In both cases more than ever will be needed...

 

True but the impedance is never exactly flat across all frequencies. Therefore a highish output impedance amp into low input impedance devices can modulate the frequency response. 

[bogi]

25 minutes ago, Shadorne said:

True but the impedance is never exactly flat across all frequencies. Therefore a highish output impedance amp into low input impedance devices can modulate the frequency response. 

 

IMO such thinking is not needed with planars. Frequency response of headphones contains much higher level of imperfections than influence of 1 or 2% impedance deviation from the average.

I found also Arya (not the Organic one) impedance graph:

[Shadorne]

27 minutes ago, bogi said:

 

IMO such thinking is not needed with planars. Frequency response of headphones contains much higher level of imperfections than influence of 1 or 2% impedance deviation from the average.

I found also Arya (not the Organic one) impedance graph:

True! 

[robi20064]

5 hours ago, OE333 said:

Maybe the settings of the oversampling and analog reconstruction filters should be stored for each source independently - perhaps we can add such a feature in a coming firmware version. 

That would be a great feature!

[Asdfgh]

7 hours ago, OE333 said:

 

I don't see any potential harm when using HDMI with the NOS2 oversampling setting.

You will of course have some more digital artefacts (mirror-frequencies etc) in the output signal but this should be more annoying than harmful --- I even know some people who love the sound with the additional artefacts...

 

Maybe the settings of the oversampling and analog reconstruction filters should be stored for each source independently - perhaps we can add such a feature in a coming firmware version. 

Filters for each source stored independently would be great, as would variable of fixed pre setting for HT passthrough

[Miska]

17 hours ago, cpcat said:

Except how do you turn the volume up and down in real time? 😉

 

Oh, ok, on the web interface.  Duh, sorry.

 

IR/RF remote, control application, etc. Web interface as the last alternative.

 

[stereousa]

Thank You @bogi.

But if you were to play PCM stream on the D200 without converting to DSD, how good is the playback, compared to say Chord Hugo TT2 or Holo May KTE? Was wondering if anyone has tried or experienced the difference.

 

Thanks!

[DonaldM]

I listened to both dac200 and holo may kte at two different dealers both with the same pcm and dsd material. Although both installations were not familiar, both a friend of mine and myself preferred the dac200 over the holo may. The dac200 sounded more musical, natural and less digital than the may. My friend designs and builds Aitos tube pre-amplifiers and otl power amplifiers and has very trained ears. I used to work in a hifi shop many years ago and compared many amplifiers, speakers and dacs. This gives some credibility to what we heard, but of course always try to compare at home in your own installation to hear the differences for yourself. 

[bogi]

4 hours ago, stereousa said:

But if you were to play PCM stream on the D200 without converting to DSD, how good is the playback, compared to say Chord Hugo TT2 or Holo May KTE? Was wondering if anyone has tried or experienced the difference.

 

You first asked for a difference between foobar2000 and HQPlayer. Now you are asking for a difference between different DACs.
I will stay on foobar2000 vs HQPlayer topic. If you do no upsampling and you use exclusive audio device access, there is no difference in the stream sent to DAC except of possible differences in dithering (if any) and eventually other DSP, like volume control, applied before dithering.

 

Many people are reporting a bit different sound when playing the same content from different players. These differences could be attributed to different noise profiles generated by different players, or more generally digital audio sources. But this area is not much confirmed by measurements.

 

It's simply on you to install more software players, to buy or borrow more DACs and to do such a comparison self. Different people have different tastes. You may like a different player and DAC combination than I.

[Shadorne]

9 hours ago, stereousa said:

Thank You @bogi.

But if you were to play PCM stream on the D200 without converting to DSD, how good is the playback, compared to say Chord Hugo TT2 or Holo May KTE? Was wondering if anyone has tried or experienced the difference.

 

Thanks!

My observations. Two cents. Depending on your setup results may vary.

 

Good -> Better -> Best

1) Redbook native files with the DAC200 upsampling filters FIR1,2, etc (similar to many other chip DACs but the DAC200 definitely has a slight edge)

2) Redbook native files with the DAC200 upsampling and NOS1 or 2 (audibly hard to distinguish from 1 above on my setup but this may be system dependent)

3) Redbook to PCM 88 or 96Khz on PC to DAC200 any filter (slightly better soundstage, more relaxed, clean lower noise floor)

4) Redbook to PCM 172 or 193  on PC to DAC200 any filter(even better soundstage - focussed but natural)

5) Redbook to PCM 705 or 756 on PC to DAC200 any filter(superb hard to tell between 5 and 4)

6) Redbook to DSD64 on a PC low pass analog output filter only (better yet - can’t put a finger on it - everything is just relaxed yet detailed)

7) Redbook to DSD256 on PC to DAC200 either analog low pass final filter only (best natural sound and soundstage from a DAC that I have heard - laser focus - easy to hear or pinpoint anything)

 

The biggest step in improvement is the jump in upsampling from 44.1 to 4x oversampling on a PC. (Between 4 and 1) This step in improvement is probably true for many chip-based DACs, as the low latency first stage filters aren’t great on any chip and this stage probably has the biggest detrimental impact to sound. The DAC200 is better however fed native 44.1 than I have ever heard from other chip-based DACs. So a great choice even for those who don’t like PC.
 

The icing on the cake is going to DSD256 and although the jump is very subtle, I think this is what sounds to me better than vinyl in every way and every dimension for the first time.  I believe digital has for years already been better than vinyl in many ways but it came with a digital glare and less soundstage than vinyl (so if you could live with all other deficiencies of vinyl then vinyl was still the sweetest and most impressive holographic sound)

 

I don’t have a chord TT2 or May to compare. I cannot say. What I can say is that upsampling is necessary to get the very most out of this DAC, probably due to simple low latency filters used in the DAC chip (like every DAC chip) compared to a powerful PC. That said the DAC-chip in the DAC200 (which processes all PCM) has been implemented in such a way that even simple straight 44.1 sounds slightly better than many DACs I have heard. (T+A seem to know what to do to get the most out of BOTH PCM (from a DAC chip) and also via their bespoke DSD 1 bit converter - they are unlikely to share their in depth understanding of the audibility of filter issues, as it is a competitive advantage/trade secret but a hint could be their use of bezier smooth filters as an option)
 

I believe that pre-echo from the low latency simple equiripple tap filters used in digital upsampling is the primary problem with most chip-based digital (there are other issues too but I hear an effect very much like baffle edge diffraction from these chip-based filters).
 

I am a convert to @Miska way of thinking. FWIW that might influence my views and biases. 

 

 

[cpcat]

17 hours ago, Miska said:

 

IR/RF remote, control application, etc. Web interface as the last alternative.

 

Thanks.  However, it isn’t immediately obvious to me how I would use IR/RF remote to control volume with hqplayer in my application.  Sorry if I am being  dense.

[Apollo]

19 minutes ago, cpcat said:

Thanks.  However, it isn’t immediately obvious to me how I would use IR/RF remote to control volume with hqplayer in my application.  Sorry if I am being  dense.

You don't control 'digital' volume of HQPlayer by the remote control.  You control the 'analog' volume of the built-in preamp of the DAC200. 

From the manual:

PRE Output This menu item allows you to set the analog outputs (ANALOG OUT 1 and 2) to a fixed
output level (LINE), or to an variable output level (VARIABLE) that can be adjusted using
the volume buttons on the remote control and the volume knob on the DAC 200.
For operation in combination with active loudspeakers or a power amplifier, e.g. the A 200,

use only the VARIABLE setting. Otherwise, it may lead to overloading and resulting damage of the
connected loudspeakers.

[barrows]

34 minutes ago, cpcat said:

Thanks.  However, it isn’t immediately obvious to me how I would use IR/RF remote to control volume with hqplayer in my application.  Sorry if I am being  dense.

For volume control when using HQPlayer I do this:  I run Roon and HQPlayer together, Roon just manages the library and provides the remote access (an iPad is my control device).  I use HQPlayer's digital volume control because it is the best way to control the volume, when you run Roon and HQPlayer together the volume slider in Roon controls the HQPlayer volume.  Note that when using Roon and HQPlayer together, Roon has nothing to do with playback, Roon is just managing the library and sending the music file to HQPlayer for processing/playback.

[Miska]

3 hours ago, cpcat said:

Thanks.  However, it isn’t immediately obvious to me how I would use IR/RF remote to control volume with hqplayer in my application.  Sorry if I am being  dense.

 

There are various HID remotes on the market, both IR and RF ones. These send standard HID key events, which is something both HQPlayer Client and the HQPlayer Desktop server application are listening for. So for example volume up/down work from keyboard or from a HID remote.

 

[davidv100]

Dear OE333,

Have you ever thought about building a DSP room treatment module for the T+A DAC 200 ?
- Would it be technically possible ?

- Would it make sense ?
 

More generically, is a DAC the right place to fit-in DSP room treatment ?
My feeling is yes - but I may be totally wrong.

Thank you very much for your answers - will be interesting. 

[OE333]

21 hours ago, Shadorne said:

My observations. Two cents. Depending on your setup results may vary.

 

Good -> Better -> Best

1) Redbook native files with the DAC200 upsampling filters FIR1,2, etc (similar to many other chip DACs but the DAC200 definitely has a slight edge)

2) Redbook native files with the DAC200 upsampling and NOS1 or 2 (audibly hard to distinguish from 1 above on my setup but this may be system dependent)

3) Redbook to PCM 88 or 96Khz on PC to DAC200 any filter (slightly better soundstage, more relaxed, clean lower noise floor)

4) Redbook to PCM 172 or 193  on PC to DAC200 any filter(even better soundstage - focussed but natural)

5) Redbook to PCM 705 or 756 on PC to DAC200 any filter(superb hard to tell between 5 and 4)

6) Redbook to DSD64 on a PC low pass analog output filter only (better yet - can’t put a finger on it - everything is just relaxed yet detailed)

7) Redbook to DSD256 on PC to DAC200 either analog low pass final filter only (best natural sound and soundstage from a DAC that I have heard - laser focus - easy to hear or pinpoint anything)

 

The biggest step in improvement is the jump in upsampling from 44.1 to 4x oversampling on a PC. (Between 4 and 1) This step in improvement is probably true for many chip-based DACs, as the low latency first stage filters aren’t great on any chip and this stage probably has the biggest detrimental impact to sound. The DAC200 is better however fed native 44.1 than I have ever heard from other chip-based DACs. So a great choice even for those who don’t like PC.
 

The icing on the cake is going to DSD256 and although the jump is very subtle, I think this is what sounds to me better than vinyl in every way and every dimension for the first time.  I believe digital has for years already been better than vinyl in many ways but it came with a digital glare and less soundstage than vinyl (so if you could live with all other deficiencies of vinyl then vinyl was still the sweetest and most impressive holographic sound)

 

I don’t have a chord TT2 or May to compare. I cannot say. What I can say is that upsampling is necessary to get the very most out of this DAC, probably due to simple low latency filters used in the DAC chip (like every DAC chip) compared to a powerful PC. That said the DAC-chip in the DAC200 (which processes all PCM) has been implemented in such a way that even simple straight 44.1 sounds slightly better than many DACs I have heard. (T+A seem to know what to do to get the most out of BOTH PCM (from a DAC chip) and also via their bespoke DSD 1 bit converter - they are unlikely to share their in depth understanding of the audibility of filter issues, as it is a competitive advantage/trade secret but a hint could be their use of bezier smooth filters as an option)
 

I believe that pre-echo from the low latency simple equiripple tap filters used in digital upsampling is the primary problem with most chip-based digital (there are other issues too but I hear an effect very much like baffle edge diffraction from these chip-based filters).
 

I am a convert to @Miska way of thinking. FWIW that might influence my views and biases. 

 

 

 

@Shadorne: thank you for sharing your detailed observations.

 

I just would like to add that T+A does not use the chip based filters from the DAC chips. All filtering is done by proprietary algorithms in a DSP.

Besides the FIR filters the DAC200 offers the choice of two BEZIER filters. These filters are no FIR filters, they use Bezier polynominal interpolation instead and these filters do not have any pre-echoes or any pre- or post ringing.

 

 

[OE333]

42 minutes ago, davidv100 said:

Dear OE333,

Have you ever thought about building a DSP room treatment module for the T+A DAC 200 ?
- Would it be technically possible ?

- Would it make sense ?
 

More generically, is a DAC the right place to fit-in DSP room treatment ?
My feeling is yes - but I may be totally wrong.

Thank you very much for your answers - will be interesting. 

 

T+A has a very long tradition in digital room equalization: back in 1995 T+A launched the Solitaire A2D active loudspeakers containing a digital room-EQ  system with 11 DSPs per speaker (quite expensive at that time) and the MEP room measurement system.

 

With this background we of course thought (and think) about digital EQ for the current T+A devices but in my opinion the DAC would be the wrong place for it. Room EQ requires a lot of computing power and I don't like the idea of integrating this much digital computing hardware into a DAC because it would inevitably bring problems with electromagnetic interference and adverse effects to the analog parts of the DAC.

Furthermore there is enormous progress in computing power every year so any room-EQ digital hardware would be outdated in short time.

 

This is why I believe that room-EQ today should be done in a powerful audio-PC. If you use HQ Player or roon, then these systems have already everything on board you need for room-EQ.

The e.m. interference is no problem in this case because all digital processing takes place in a separate box and last but not least a PC can easily and at reasonable cost be upgraded or exchanged when higher performance hardware appears on the market.

 

So my two cents in one sentence: Do the processing in a dedicated audio PC and keep the DAC electromagnetically as clean as possible.

[davidv100]

9 minutes ago, OE333 said:

 

T+A has a very long tradition in digital room equalization: back in 1995 T+A launched the Solitaire A2D active loudspeakers containing a digital room-EQ  system with 11 DSPs per speaker (quite expensive at that time) and the MEP room measurement system.

 

With this background we of course thought (and think) about digital EQ for the current T+A devices but in my opinion the DAC would be the wrong place for it. Room EQ requires a lot of computing power and I don't like the idea of integrating this much digital computing hardware into a DAC because it would inevitably bring problems with electromagnetic interference and adverse effects to the analog parts of the DAC.

Furthermore there is enormous progress in computing power every year so any room-EQ digital hardware would be outdated in short time.

 

This is why I believe that room-EQ today should be done in a powerful audio-PC. If you use HQ Player or roon, then these systems have already everything on board you need for room-EQ.

The e.m. interference is no problem in this case because all digital processing takes place in a separate box and last but not least a PC can easily and at reasonable cost be upgraded or exchanged when higher performance hardware appears on the market.

 

So my two cents in one sentence: Do the processing in a dedicated audio PC and keep the DAC electromagnetically as clean as possible.

OE333,

Thank you very much.

very clear answer again.

I will dig a bit deeper into computer based solutions indeed.

 

Have a nice day,

 

David