T+A DAC 200

[1125FPS]

I respectfully request your kind and generous help for a friend GH considering DAC 200 for GH's 2nd system primarily for TV (may stream Qobuz via M-Connect.)  DAC 200 price is irrelevant to this conversation.   

 

Most of the below Qs relate to labels on DAC 200's rear panel:

 

What is SYS IN?

 

What is USB SYS?  

 

What is HDMI OUT (ARC?)  

 

What is CTRL?  

 

What is CHARGE?  

 

Is there ethernet connector (appears not)?

 

Is TV HDMI > DAC 200 OK?  Ditto TV optical > DAC 200?  Which performs better?  

 

Describe the method for firmware/software updates.

 

Another friend says DAC 200's DSD decoding is "unique."  If possible, please comment.

 

Thank you in advance for your kind help.  

[1125FPS]

Thank you Eric! Very helpful.

[1125FPS]

I just got my DAC 200 working; no direct AB vs. Spring 3 KTE.  But DAC 200 did play a well-recorded Hiromie track I heard last night on Spring 3 KTE.  Using HQ Player, Linux on custom computer (commercial SRP estimate $3k USD,) Roon on separate NUC for library function only.  

 

First impression is that just unpacked DAC 200 is in a different league from S3KTE.  More later.

 

[1125FPS]

My friend has a 2nd system in which his TV HDMI output feeds his Bricasti M21 DAC w/renderer ($16k USD SRP.)  Alternately the TV optical output can feed his M21.  He also sometimes employs M-Connect to stream Qobuz to the M21 renderer.  In this application, how might users compare audio and musical performance of the M21 vs. DAC 200?  

[1125FPS]

My friend has been updating my server system for much of the day and I can hardly wait to hear DAC 200 when he is done.  

[1125FPS]

I finally performed AB test tonight, DAC 200 vs. Holo Audio's Spring 3 KTE, both using a custom HQ Player server with discrete NUC renderer.  I used solely DSD @ 128k.  Output impedances are almost identical.  Output V unbalanced: DAC 200 2.5V, S3 2.9V; I lowered the preamp level 1 dB for the S3.  This system is well sorted.  The SS amp has proprietary technology as does the multiple award-winning wave-guide main satellite speaker.  Bass below about 90 Hz comprises an award-winning distributed array.       

 

I used only one music program so far, Paul Schwartz, Suscepit Israel, orchestra, big chorus, a very good recording.  When the chain is capable the chorus portrays on risers, in a distinct arc 3-5 lines deep.  It took about half dozen or more comparisons to really get a handle on the differences.

 

First, I cannot overstate how good is the S3 and how great a value it is at $3100 USD.  My first impression was that I may have preferred the S3's instrument separation and huge magnitude of musicality; the S3 draws you into the music like a magnet and can quickly make you forget about audio.

 

But by the last comparison, especially focusing on the big crescendo near the end, the DAC 200's advantage was huge and crystal clear.  Both DACs detach well from the loudspeakers, but DAC 200 does so to a much greater degree.  Image density and sound scape size are in a completely different league.  The effect of being immersed in the sound scape is multiples greater.  Musical intensity is higher but there's no down-side to this effect.

 

I'll report more later with other music programs.  

 

I have not heard Holo Audio's May KTE DAC (about $5500 USD) but many if not all who heard May and my S3 (both with HQ Player) suggest the following: HQ Player provides the best performance; the 2 DACs perform much closer to each other than is indicated by the price difference and many call the May KTE a giant killer on an absolute scale.  If those things are true, then DAC 200 for $1700 more than the May KTE appears to be superb value.  There's nothing to criticize about the Chinese Holo's build quality but the fact that DAC 200 is made in Deutschland surely carries considerable cachet.  DAC 200 has considerably more features too; I love the meters. 

 

 

For the record, I used the same high-grade AC mains cable for both DACs, so mains power was off between auditions.  

 

  

[1125FPS]

I searched and found no place to post system description.  Did I miss such?  

 

My engineer recently re-built my server/streamer, allowing me to move the big HQ Player Audiolinux computer from the sound room to my office next door for a welcome lower noise floor.  There's a separate little NUC renderer in the sound room near DAC 200,  He also fixed my separate Roon NUC for library function only, no Roon processing.

 

Last night I upgraded from $2500/pr Infigo Signature RCA to $3500/pr Infigo Signature XLR IC from DAC 200 > $3800 SRP Wyred 4 Sound STP-SE Stage 2 analog preamp with remote phase (a great feature) > $2500 Infigo Signature RCA IC > $20k Infigo Method 6 stereo power amp 100W sliding class A (runs cool) > $30k/pr Illusio Audio Alana wave guide satellites (natural 75 Hz cutoff) atop Illusio LORAstand reverberant field accessory speakers.  Sub system comprises (two) kilowatt amps > four AudioKinesis Swarm subs in distributed array.   

 

After a couple nights and a day of moderately intense use, I can hardly contain my enthusiasm for HQ Player (specifically using Jussi's latest/all-time best DSD modulator) > NUC renderer > Infigo Signature USB > T+A DAC 200 NOS DSD mode.  Based on my experience to date, even if funds existed to spend multiples more, I have no idea what could outperform this specific combination.

 

I have to add, besides modern recordings done very well I also sprinkled in some mediocre recording quality but great music from the 70s.  Re. the latter, there's no question of the lack of quality of the recording chain but DAC 200 just imparts so much density, dynamic presence and musical liveliness that it still massively improved the pleasure quotient vs. my lesser Spring 3 DAC.  It was positively not the unwelcome case of DAC 200's resolution causing me to have to eliminate less well recorded work, in fact the opposite.   

 

  

[1125FPS]

4 hours ago, 1125FPS said:

My engineer recently re-built my server/streamer, allowing me to move the big HQ Player Audiolinux computer...

 

  

Edit: my main computer for HQ Player server runs Ubuntu with Jussi's kernel (not Audiolinux.)

[1125FPS]

3 hours ago, bogi said:

Although I am not T+A DAC 200 owner I would like to add my subjective opinion to the DSD softness debate. It's just an opinion so I don't ask anybody to agree or fully agree with me.

IME instrument attacks (transients) usually sound 'softer' but at the same time more detailed with direct DSD than with oversampled delta sigma PCM. IMO the reason is additional distortion which PCM output contains and which is not present in the case of direct DSD. If that wouldn't be distortion, then with DSD input I couldn't hear more fine detail. That's the only reason why I like to upsample PCM content to DSD with HQPlayer.

I think that the mentioned distortion is result of intermodulation artifacts caused by unfiltered second oversampling stage of delta sigma DACs - that's what one can bypass with direct DSD (as well as with DSD signal fed to ESS chip based DACs). I perceive that additional distortion as some additional hardness on transients. My opinion is that most of people are already used to 'PCM sound' containing such a distortion and consider it to be correct (since we are listening to it for years everywhere). IMO that's the reason why sound coming from direct DSD may be perceived as softer, even if it provides more fine detail and is more accurate. If I am right then it is not by coincidence that such a 'PCM hardness' is not present when playing from vinyl on pure analog chain.

If 'soft' would mean less dynamics and 'hard' more dynamics, then IMO DSD256 or DSD512 is not softer.

I am going to have to agree 100% with this post. 

 

In my teens and early 20s I spent many hours in several then-fine studios, including Different Fur Trading Company (SF, engineer John Viera upgraded their Studer 15ips half track master deck to 30ips,) my friend Kelly Quan's studio and The Record Plant in Sausalito, etc.  My pure analog reference is not cost no object vinyl but rather some of the best magnetic tape.  I hope and presume no one with similar experience debates that the best magnetic tape simply incinerates any vinyl rig Michael Fremer has heard or imagined.  I respect Fremer's accomplishments, but this point prohibits me from sharing his vinyl obsession.  (Software cost and availability obviously favors vinyl over tape.)

 

Miska's HQ Player DSD settings > DAC 200 provides more musical detail and musically pertinent information than any prior digital experience.  I heard the $85k MSB DAC summer of 2019 and dCS's best 3-box $100k rig in the mid-00s.  For unknown reason I am unable to hear PCM on my current system and shall post after I compare DSD vs. PCM later.  I doubt PCM favorably compares to DSD in this system but I'm happy to discover I'm wrong.

 

3 years ago, my wife and I independently and confidentially wrote notes comparing DSD vs. PCM Re. 12 songs, HQ Player > Holo Audio May KTE.  When required we repeated the format switch.  We agreed on all or most songs, preferring PCM about 2/3rds of the songs and DSD on the balance. 

 

Using HQ Player, IMO the May KTE is only about 10% better than Spring 3 KTE.  

 

Used with HQ Player both May Audio DACs are best values at their respective SRPs of $3100 (Spring 3 KTE) and $5500 (May KTE,) the former being the better value.  But at $7200 SRP DAC 200 incinerates both May DACs, not in the same zip code, exceeding the SRP differences as a ratio or absolute amount.  

 

Suppose the AB test comprises HQ Player's advanced DSD settings with:

A: DAC 200 > well chosen $3k power amp and well chosen $10k speakers

B: Holo Audio DAC > virtually cost no object power amp and speakers

 

IMO it would be difficult to impossible to assemble system B with better performance.  I suspect, same as Ivor Tiefenbrun predicted 50 year ago in his "Audio Hierarchy," B has a possibly insurmountable hurdle being that the better the resolution of the amp and speakers, the more it reveals the source's weaknesses.  A has the advantage of supplying among the world's best musical sources to the highest value amp and speakers.   

 

I can still enjoy and appreciate vinyl.  But I suspect if someone compared superb vinyl to my current rig and still preferred the former, the reason is simply because they are more accustomed to the vinyl rig's distortion.  If it's not obvious, all bets off if the digital conversion employed an inferior master tape or inferior ADC.

[1125FPS]

My system is dual use, 2-ch music + front-projector > 92" retractable perforated screen.  Phantom Center ch for HT: our main speaker includes a proprietary discrete high-passed wide range horn for spatial effects, with the best center fill I have heard, better than any HT center ch.

 

The HT receiver is an early-HDMI era Pioneer connected as follows: Pioneer Front L/R pre-out RCA > 2-ch preamp HT bypass > 2-ch amp > L/R main speakers.  Pioneer menu setup: no subs/subwoofer sent to Large Front L/R, phantom center ch.  The Pioneer volume controls HT level.  The Pioneer's rear and side surround speaker outputs > 4 in-wall surrounds.    

 

Will this work instead?  Pioneer HDMI output > DAC 200 HDMI input, XLR output L/R > set preamp level @ pre-determined HT level > main amp > L/R speakers. 

 

The Pioneer volume has to vary level on the HDMI output and the Pioneer's 4 surround speaker binding posts; I suspect volume is always only fixed on all HDMI outputs, but don't really know.  Said another way, I suspect volume is always post-HDMI cable and never pre-HDMI cable.   

[1125FPS]

My system description is HERE.

 

My friend/engineer VL built my server and software system employing HQ Player.  Note that VL said he employs Miska's preferred PCM and DSD settings.  My spouse RD and I finally got to compare PCM vs. DSD.  HQ Player setup for -6 dB for PCM.  

 

First, VL shared his opinion preferring DSD. 

 

I prefer DSD by about 40% margin, RD prefers DSD by "50%" saying PCM sounds "flat."  (Not much detail is needed after "50%" IMO.) 

 

The first item I noticed is PCM dynamics being hugely lacking, sounding flat and compressed.  DSD spatial effects were hugely more convincing with a bigger sound field, instruments sounded more natural.  I have a very hard time imagining anyone preferring PCM in this comparison.  I'd like to say it's impossible but that might be too extreme, esp. for someone unfamiliar w/high end audio.  Surely impossible for anyone accustomed to the best audio systems.  

 

For reference, about 2 years ago, system was much less revealing throughout, we still used HQ Player and did the same comparison PCM vs. DSD > Holo Audio May KTE DAC.  RD and I took confidential written notes over about dozen songs, having to repeat the comparison on some songs.  We made virtually identical choices, preferring PCM about 2/3rds of the music programs. 

 

2 things happened very recently which confirm to me DAC 200's absolutely delicious performance and the all-time highest transparency of my system now: optical isolation was in use, it failed and I since removed it, being redundant with my Intona isolation.  In my diagnostic search for the problem I swapped a generic $5 USB in place of my luxury USB.  When the system was up again later I had forgotten about the generic USB.  I definitely noticed something sounding "drab" while having no direct knowledge of any "problem," which fixed most of the way when I popped the luxury USB back in.

 

But I still thought it was lacking compared to my aural memory of a few days prior.  I looked at HQ Player and saw it was still set for PCM per our test described here.  

 

I'm pretty old and don't mind at all saying my ears are not exactly great.  I still love luxury level high-end but frankly I'm surprised I heard these 2 weaknesses lacking any reference thereof except for a lack of aural satisfaction.  Prior to DAC 200 I think I would not have noticed these 2 items.  

[1125FPS]

Not a trick question!  If you can't stand The Carpenters, stop reading.  If any readers own a DAC other than DAC 200 (even DAC 200 owners,) I request we reserve the first 24 hours for readers willing to use only a DAC other than DAC 200.  DAC 200 owners can listen and note their answers, but please don't reply for at least 24 hours.   

 

Subject music program: The Carpenters, The Masquerade (1990 Remix); I streamed Red Book via Tidal.  List the piano type(s), use and number.  Use means the way the instrument is used, it's musical contribution to the arrangement.  Yeah, Richard was a great pop music pianist and arranger; the recording quality is pretty sweet too.  I adored the original vinyl and it isn't within a mile of this Red Book remix streamed in DSD on HQ Player > DAC 200.    

 

The electric bass player on this program is Joe Osborne of the Wrecking Crew.  In an interview Joe said he de-fretted his Fender Jazz Bass and never changed his nylon flat-wound strings, which together made Joe's soft, unique, "rubbery" effect, probably best sampled in the intro to Superstar, esp. the long, gorgeous slide in the 3rd measure before Karen's vocal entrance.  A pick increased Joe's transient attack; plucking would have sounded too dull and lacked pitch sensitivity.           

 

  

[1125FPS]

A friend considers getting DAC 200.  He finds it strange that firmware update requires USB to DB9 IC > DB9 to RJ45 adapter.  Can anyone explain the logic in T+A's choice for firmware update connection?  Why not just USB?  Why not a LAN connector?  

[1125FPS]

4 hours ago, LowOrbit said:

I don't understand the angst around firmware updates for the Dac200. This isn't a software defined dac like a DCS or Chord, nor a partially finished product from some small company needing to shift a beta product to get some cash flow.

 

It's a fully developed hardware product which sounds fantastic. Updates are likely to be utility changes of no great urgency. Not everything needs constant tweaking so why worry about it.

 

If you choose not to buy a dac like this because firmware changes are a pain you're truly missing the point.

My sentiments match yours exactly. I doubt anyone supports and endorses this DAC more than myself. I also have no control over the fact that a lifetime audio file approaching 80 years old has anxious feelings about updates. At the same time I do not want him to miss the pleasures of ownership, hence my questions. Plus I also want our dear friends in Georgia to make another sale.

 

I presume the brilliant engineers that designed this DAC had very good reasons for using the RJ45 input for updates, which just happens to be a little bit different from the norm.

[1125FPS]

The more I hear DAC 200 the more impressed am I.  If anyone in the vicinity (75 mins. NE of Salt Lake City) wants to AB my HQ Player > DAC 200 rig vs. any cost no object DAC, the system here is more than worthy of such comparison.  

 

A friend GH looked long and hard @ HQ Player but unfortunately decided it's just too much to setup and maintain.  So this system stays:

Qobuz > $16k Aurender N10 music player/server AES/EBU output (solely bit for bit PCM, whatever is Qobuz resolution for any particular music program up to the AES/EBU limit of 24/192) > $25k MSB Premier DAC (no $14k "Director" upgrade). 

 

What do members think of DAC 200 replacing MSB Premier?  Upgrade, downgrade, about the same...? 

 

TX! 

[1125FPS]

On 3/8/2023 at 4:06 PM, Miska said:

When HQPlayer produces PCM or DSD output, the levels are quite predictable. Generally HQPlayer doesn't produce DSD data exceeding 0 dB level, and upsampled PCM outputs are not allowed to clip. But the DSD spec allows periodic peaks to reach +3.5 dB. So if you play some raw DSD from some SACD rip, your levels may be something different. Or from raw PCM source depending how inter-sample overs are handled in the DAC ( @OE333 )?

 

So for HQPlayer the PCM gain compensation for DAC 200 / HA 200 is close to 0 dB.

 

Miska, I cannot adequately thank you for your tireless efforts toward high-end audio perfection.  Audio performance of HQ Player w/Miska's recommended DSD settings > DAC 200 IMO rivals or outperforms cost no object digital front ends.  I want to stress that the following opinion applies only if/when using Miska's recommended DSD settings > DAC 200 NOS: yes, people hear differently; person A may prefer DAC #1 of 2 while person B might prefer DAD #2 of 2.  But IMO, comparing DSD vs. PCM on this particular system, 100% of experienced listeners would prefer DSD.  A visitor/music lover here with no high-end experience preferred DSD after comparing it to PCM.  

 

A wonderful friend/full time network/security systems pro remotely controls all my computer needs for this music system.  I have only the most basic knowledge on this subject, e.g. the ability to switch between DSD and PCM, etc.  

 

Where does Miska list his preferred DSD settings for DAC 200?  What is the easiest method for someone to confirm the minimum computing power required to achieve Miska's recommended DSD settings for DAC 200?  

 

Without betraying Miska's IP (intellectual property,) I respectfully request Miska or anyone else explain the unique nature of DAC 200's DSD NOS modes.

 

Thank you!   

[1125FPS]

Someone who does not own DAC 200 asked if there is already V2.  I suggested that may refer to HA 200 but not DAC 200.  The label on my DAC 200 specifies V1.  

 

What month/year did T+A release DAC 200 in the US?  Same Q for Europe?  

 

Many thanks!