DAC sound signatures: Focused, high resolution presentation versus a Holistic, integrated presentation

[Calvin & Hobbes]

I recently auditioned a dcs Bartok to see is there are opportunities for improvement in my system.  My current digital source is Pro-ject Stream Box S2 Ultra streamer > AQ Jitterbug > Stordiau Lush 1 USB cable > Denafrips Pontus II DAC.

 

I wasn't surprised that the dcs Bartok sounded good. Imaging was super solid. It conveyed primary components of music with a sense of substance. Resolution of tonal quality and timbre was fantastic. It really delivers the tone and substance of voices and acoustic instruments in a very convincing fashion.BUT, as I was listening to music that I knew well, I kept having the feeling that more complex music sounded better via my existing Pontus II based system.

 

I've been hearing a difference between how DACs "present" music and am wondering if others hear similar differences between DACs. I'm hearing that there is a difference between DACs that focus on emphasizing the primary elements of music versus other DACs that are providing a more balanced presentation of all elements in music.

1. DACS that focus on the primary elements of the music: These DAC have a focus on high resolution of the main elements of music and a deemphasis of other elements of music. Key areas of strength tend to be traditional "audiophile" values of placement of voices & instruments, size and precision of soundstage, resolution of tonal quality, overall clarity. 
   1. Examples of DACs that I have heard with this type of presentation: Chord Qutest, perhaps Chord Hugo TT/MScaler, dcs Bartok
2. DACs that present music in a more holistic, integrated fashion: These DACs may not be as good on the measures that the DACs in Category 1 are good at: Focus and resolution of the main elements of music, placement of voices & instruments, size and precision of soundstage, resolution of tonal quality, overall clarity. But, what they do better than DACs in category 1 are conveying all elements of music in a more balanced presentation.
   1. Examples of DACs that I have heard with this type of presentation: Denafrips Pontus II

I feel that DACs in Category 2 may be better suited for music with complex rhythms and interactions between multiple musicians. I found this to be particularly true for jazz music for which the Pontus II had a presentation that felt more agile than that of the dcs Bartok. The Pontus seems to be better at resolving interactions in music with complex rhythms than was the dcs Bartok. I was a bit surprised that I wasn't more wowed by the dcs Bartok with a price tag that is 8x the price of the Pontus II. The dcs Bartok was impressive especially on large-scale orchestral music and opera, but I actually think I prefer the sound signature of the Pontus II for the music I listen to more frequently.

 

Anyone else have similar impressions of how DAC emphasize the primary components of music versus providing a more holistic, integrated presentation of music? 

[Perfect sense]

I believe that the best DAC's can do it all, but perhaps not to the very highest level within the two individual categories that you describe.

 

NOS and R-2R based DAC's usually have the qualities that you describe in category 2 which to me sounds more like real music, being more involving and engaging. These qualities often wins over the initial and often impressive qualities described in category 1 over time to me.

 

This being said, we're all different where system synergy is also key.

 

/ Marcus, www.perfect-sense.se

 

 

[davide256]

Music has complexity… there’s more than just two pieces to this elephant

3 hours ago, Calvin & Hobbes said:

I recently auditioned a dcs Bartok to see is there are opportunities for improvement in my system.  My current digital source is Pro-ject Stream Box S2 Ultra streamer > AQ Jitterbug > Stordiau Lush 1 USB cable > Denafrips Pontus II DAC.

 

I wasn't surprised that the dcs Bartok sounded good. Imaging was super solid. It conveyed primary components of music with a sense of substance. Resolution of tonal quality and timbre was fantastic. It really delivers the tone and substance of voices and acoustic instruments in a very convincing fashion.BUT, as I was listening to music that I knew well, I kept having the feeling that more complex music sounded better via my existing Pontus II based system.

 

I've been hearing a difference between how DACs "present" music and am wondering if others hear similar differences between DACs. I'm hearing that there is a difference between DACs that focus on emphasizing the primary elements of music versus other DACs that are providing a more balanced presentation of all elements in music.

1. DACS that focus on the primary elements of the music: These DAC have a focus on high resolution of the main elements of music and a deemphasis of other elements of music. Key areas of strength tend to be traditional "audiophile" values of placement of voices & instruments, size and precision of soundstage, resolution of tonal quality, overall clarity. 
   1. Examples of DACs that I have heard with this type of presentation: Chord Qutest, perhaps Chord Hugo TT/MScaler, dcs Bartok
2. DACs that present music in a more holistic, integrated fashion: These DACs may not be as good on the measures that the DACs in Category 1 are good at: Focus and resolution of the main elements of music, placement of voices & instruments, size and precision of soundstage, resolution of tonal quality, overall clarity. But, what they do better than DACs in category 1 are conveying all elements of music in a more balanced presentation.
   1. Examples of DACs that I have heard with this type of presentation: Denafrips Pontus II

I feel that DACs in Category 2 may be better suited for music with complex rhythms and interactions between multiple musicians. I found this to be particularly true for jazz music for which the Pontus II had a presentation that felt more agile than that of the dcs Bartok. The Pontus seems to be better at resolving interactions in music with complex rhythms than was the dcs Bartok. I was a bit surprised that I wasn't more wowed by the dcs Bartok with a price tag that is 8x the price of the Pontus II. The dcs Bartok was impressive especially on large-scale orchestral music and opera, but I actually think I prefer the sound signature of the Pontus II for the music I listen to more frequently.

 

Anyone else have similar impressions of how DAC emphasize the primary components of music versus providing a more holistic, integrated presentation of music? 

I’m going to offer a different interpretation. The Pontus was a good match for your source quality limitations, rounding off unpleasant errors; the  Bartok provided greater resolution, of warts as well as stuff you wanted to hear. 

[fas42]

As stated by Perfect sense, a competent DAC "does it all" ... if your objective is to season what you hear, the content of the recording, to suit what you think it should sound like, then make sure that the playback chain is sub-optimal, and then you can mix and match components, to fiddle with the overall signature and create a sound that you like. If you intend to extract the full content of what was recorded, then any capable DAC will sound the same as the next - because the electronics are no longer adding to what you hear; the recording itself completely dominates what you hear.

 

In our current state of play in the industry, manufacturers still struggle with producing components with sufficient integrity - hence the concept of tradeoffs between rounding off the unpleasant stuff and high transparency, which is so common. The truth is that the two sets of gear, which do either one or the other, are still flawed; neither are winners, because they both 'contaminate' the SQ.

 

The hardest thing for most audio enthusiasts to understand, it seems, is that utmost electrical hygiene is necessary for digital replay to tick all the boxes - the slightest misstep can severely undermine the subjective qualities of what is heard; being casual about assembling such a rig is almost certainly guaranteed to damage the SQ ...

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

As stated by Perfect sense, a competent DAC "does it all" ... if your objective is to season what you hear, the content of the recording, to suit what you think it should sound like, then make sure that the playback chain is sub-optimal, and then you can mix and match components, to fiddle with the overall signature and create a sound that you like. If you intend to extract the full content of what was recorded, then any capable DAC will sound the same as the next - because the electronics are no longer adding to what you hear; the recording itself completely dominates what you hear.

 

In our current state of play in the industry, manufacturers still struggle with producing components with sufficient integrity - hence the concept of tradeoffs between rounding off the unpleasant stuff and high transparency, which is so common. The truth is that the two sets of gear, which do either one or the other, are still flawed; neither are winners, because they both 'contaminate' the SQ.

 

The hardest thing for most audio enthusiasts to understand, it seems, is that utmost electrical hygiene is necessary for digital replay to tick all the boxes - the slightest misstep can severely undermine the subjective qualities of what is heard; being casual about assembling such a rig is almost certainly guaranteed to damage the SQ ...

Wrong again, no amount of tweaking will make a intrinsically unmusical DAC (catagory 1) sound free flowing and musical.

[fas42]

31 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Wrong again, no amount of tweaking will make a intrinsically unmusical DAC (catagory 1) sound free flowing and musical.

 

"Intrinsically unmusical"? If a DAC is accurate in some parameters, then there is no reason it can't be 'sorted', to produce emotionally satisfying sound. In fact, DACs in "category 1" are the best candidates for elevating to a decent standard; because important areas of their engineering are well done - an analogy are vehicles of the 60's and 70's: American "land yachts" could sail down a straight road, and leave you blissfully unaware of the road surface; their marshmallow suspensions gave so much padding between your backside and the bitumen that you could be sitting in your lounge chair. By contrast, most European vehicles were far too harsh for many people; you definitely could feel the road! But the tables turned when you went around a sharp corner at speed; the yacht gracefully rolled over onto its roof, while the "roughie" gave satisfaction, by the way you could navigate through the turn.

 

So which method won? Umm, the European way of course ... it was impossible to turn the lumbering dinosaurs into something worth driving; and the companies gave up. Just refining the basically sound engineering of the other approach then yielded solutions which could satisfy all needs ...

[Calvin & Hobbes]

6 hours ago, davide256 said:

Music has complexity… there’s more than just two pieces to this elephant

I’m going to offer a different interpretation. The Pontus was a good match for your source quality limitations, rounding off unpleasant errors; the  Bartok provided greater resolution, of warts as well as stuff you wanted to hear. 

Actually, the Pontus seems to provide better resolution of the parts of music that are not as prominent. The Bartok emphasizes more prominent aspects of music while deemphasizing other aspects. There were parts of the music that I heard via the Pontus that I didn't via the Bartok. I'm hearing more of the music via the Pontus. Perhaps emphasizing parts of the music overshadows less prominent parts of music.

[davide256]

18 hours ago, Calvin & Hobbes said:

Actually, the Pontus seems to provide better resolution of the parts of music that are not as prominent. The Bartok emphasizes more prominent aspects of music while deemphasizing other aspects. There were parts of the music that I heard via the Pontus that I didn't via the Bartok. I'm hearing more of the music via the Pontus. Perhaps emphasizing parts of the music overshadows less prominent parts of music.

I suspect then that you gravitate more to acoustic music where instrument timbre is key. And are more likely

to be  enthralled by a Holo Spring 3 KTE's reputed timbre trueness  than the lauded detail resolution of a Chord Hugo TT.

[Calvin & Hobbes]

33 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I suspect then that you gravitate more to acoustic music where instrument timbre is key. And are more likely

to be  enthralled by a Holo Spring 3 KTE's reputed timbre trueness  than the lauded detail resolution of a Chord Hugo TT.

You sir are 100% on the mark. I typically prefer to listen to jazz, vocals, and smaller scale classical music. And the Holo Spring has been on my radar.

 

It's been a bit of a revelation for me to learn that there are different type of resolution in digital audio. I've been a die-hard vinyl listener for 30 years. In the realm of vinyl playback, resolution is just that. Either you have more resolution and hear more detail, or you don't. Apparently, that's not exactly the same situation with digital audio.

[MarkusBarkus]

I agree with both Calvin and Hobbes ;) that, in general terms, there are two types/styles of dacs. It took a while to get to that point, but about 6-8 months ago, that was my conclusion too.

 

I was using a Chord Dave on an SJ DC4 power supply and a Denefrips Gaia configuration. IMO, this set-up enhances the already transparent, detailed presentation of the Chord Dave. I used this arrangement with and without the MScaler, and ran PGGB files as well. 

 

This system was a detail monster. Holographic imaging and placement within the sonic landscape. Really-quite-nice.

 

That presentation is *very* alluring. It's really audio crack. 

 

But contemplating what I like and what is out there, I decided to test the digital waters. I tried the MSB Premiere dac for about three weeks. 

 

It was musical. Very, very smooth, but still detailed. Very listenable. Not missing anything, but I viewed it as a lateral move to the UberDave. 

 

So, I brought in the MSB Reference dac. I listened for three weeks, and I loved the sound. It had nearly all of the detail of the Dave, but it seemed more liquid, more "organic" with a more integrated landscape. 

 

I had to return the demo, so I went back to my Dave set-up. Going back was revealing, perhaps more so than swapping *in* the MSB. After a week or so, I ordered the Reference. 

 

It was clear to me that the aspects I most valued in music reproduction were better represented in the MSB engineering. Frankly, I liked both Chord and MSB, but I enjoyed the MSB more. 

 

I imagine some readers will disagree that there is a difference among dacs, and will point to the price difference between the Dave and Reference, and those are reasonable points.

 

However, for me, coming to understand what I value most and how I relate to my system emotionally, was a useful guide in finding components I can be happy with for the long-term. 

 

I also think folks that enjoy fuse-swapping and upsampling of all types, seem to really enjoy the super-detail those products and techniques bring out. That is not meant as a negative comment in any way. Some of my best friends like expensive fuses! 

 

I still have the UberDave for a headphone system, so it was/is easy to re-test my assertions and tastes, which still hold for me. Happy Listening.

[fas42]

It turns out that recordings are what's "liquid" and "organic", with the amount of detail that live sound has - but a less well sorted digital setup will hide that fact. So, a reference quality DAC is currently a good method to reach that standard of transparency ... the downside is that it costs a lot of money, at the moment, to acquire one with the necessary engineering to realise that accuracy, straight out of the box.

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

It turns out that recordings are what's "liquid" and "organic", with the amount of detail that live sound has - but a less well sorted digital setup will hide that fact. So, a reference quality DAC is currently a good method to reach that standard of transparency ... the downside is that it costs a lot of money, at the moment, to acquire one with the necessary engineering to realise that accuracy, straight out of the box.

Yeah, I bet a few of your tweaks could get that Dave singing though.

[fas42]

Look

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Yeah, I bet a few of your tweaks could get that Dave singing though.

 

Looking around, I found this clip of the Daves in action,

 

 

I'm not hearing much 'wrong' here - so, probably not much needs to be done ...  .

[Calvin & Hobbes]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

It turns out that recordings are what's "liquid" and "organic", with the amount of detail that live sound has - but a less well sorted digital setup will hide that fact. So, a reference quality DAC is currently a good method to reach that standard of transparency ... the downside is that it costs a lot of money, at the moment, to acquire one with the necessary engineering to realise that accuracy, straight out of the box.

I've been quite surprised to hear that the relatively inexpensive Denafrips Pontus II has that "liquid" and "organic" sound that at least some higher priced DACs do not. Perhaps producing the DAC in China results in a lower production cost for the Denafrips' R2R ladder DAC design?

[Calvin & Hobbes]

23 hours ago, MarkusBarkus said:

I agree with both Calvin and Hobbes ;) that, in general terms, there are two types/styles of dacs. It took a while to get to that point, but about 6-8 months ago, that was my conclusion too.

 

I was using a Chord Dave on an SJ DC4 power supply and a Denefrips Gaia configuration. IMO, this set-up enhances the already transparent, detailed presentation of the Chord Dave. I used this arrangement with and without the MScaler, and ran PGGB files as well. 

 

This system was a detail monster. Holographic imaging and placement within the sonic landscape. Really-quite-nice.

 

That presentation is *very* alluring. It's really audio crack. 

 

But contemplating what I like and what is out there, I decided to test the digital waters. I tried the MSB Premiere dac for about three weeks. 

 

It was musical. Very, very smooth, but still detailed. Very listenable. Not missing anything, but I viewed it as a lateral move to the UberDave. 

 

So, I brought in the MSB Reference dac. I listened for three weeks, and I loved the sound. It had nearly all of the detail of the Dave, but it seemed more liquid, more "organic" with a more integrated landscape. 

 

I had to return the demo, so I went back to my Dave set-up. Going back was revealing, perhaps more so than swapping *in* the MSB. After a week or so, I ordered the Reference. 

 

It was clear to me that the aspects I most valued in music reproduction were better represented in the MSB engineering. Frankly, I liked both Chord and MSB, but I enjoyed the MSB more. 

 

I imagine some readers will disagree that there is a difference among dacs, and will point to the price difference between the Dave and Reference, and those are reasonable points.

 

However, for me, coming to understand what I value most and how I relate to my system emotionally, was a useful guide in finding components I can be happy with for the long-term. 

 

I also think folks that enjoy fuse-swapping and upsampling of all types, seem to really enjoy the super-detail those products and techniques bring out. That is not meant as a negative comment in any way. Some of my best friends like expensive fuses! 

 

I still have the UberDave for a headphone system, so it was/is easy to re-test my assertions and tastes, which still hold for me. Happy Listening.

Great post. I used to also think that musicality in a DAC was a result only of higher resolution. I've also realized that the nature of a DAC's presentation matters in reproducing subjective factors such as Pace, Timing, Tonal Color and the sense of "presence".

[Calvin & Hobbes]

12 hours ago, Rexp said:

Yeah, I bet a few of your tweaks could get that Dave singing though.

With respect to the Chord DAVE, I do have one question. Does the DAVE sound different in character than the Hugo TT/MScaler or the Qutest? I ask that because I found the SQ from the Qutest to be initially engaging but only OK after more extended listening. The SQ from the Hugo TT/MScaler was not engaging to me right off the bat.

 

I've heard both the Qutest and the Hugo TT/MScaler. These were my impressions of both. Of the two, I actually preferred the sound via the Qutest better. The Hugo TT/MScaler was perhaps better from an audiophile perspective, but seemed to be completely lacking in pace and with timing/interaction between different instruments/vocals that just didn't make sense to my ear (i.e., timing was off). My thoughts are that the complex algorithms used in the Hugo TT/MScaler may have altered the fundamental nature of the music file as it's doing the D-to-A conversion.

 

Qutest: The Qutest is exceptionally detailed in its sound. But, the Qutest conveyed that detail in a way that seemed artificially Technicolor. Meaning that there was a lot of detail, but either conveyed to a degree or conveyed in a way that didn't feel natural or lifelike to me. It sounded slightly, and again I do mean slightly, more "audiophile" than musical in sound. The Pontus II actually seems to have even more detail and resolution than the Qutest with greater smoothness and warmth.  What's interesting is that this resolution is delivered in a more lifelike and natural sounding way than via the Qutest.

 

Hugo TT/MScaler: The Hugo TT/MScaler combination sounded perhaps more detailed than the Qutest? But it sounded very flat and lacking in pace. Putting the Pontus in its place (with the Naim NDX 2 used as the streamer for both), was a revelation. Music through the Pontus had so much more pace, timing that sounded correct, and a fuller, 3D view of the music.

[MarkusBarkus]

...I think the Dave does sound materially different from the Qutest. I have not heard the TT.

 

As I was testing the concept of streaming/digital, over time, to see if I liked it, I went from:

---RPi/NAS out to Luxman SACD dac

---RPi/NAS to Qutest

I determined I liked the streaming model so...

---add MScaler

---swap in Aurender ACS10 to Q/HMS

---swap Dave for Qutest

---Deconstruct Dave w/SJ DC4&Gaia.

---swap in Extreme.

---swap in MSB Reference.

 

There were many network tweaks along the way too. Chained switches, Phoenix USB, etc. which I think were net-positives.

 

IMO: each of the above steps provided a bit more icing on the audio cake. Cost/Benefit? You guys will have opinions on that. Sweetie has hers too. ; )

 

But to your question @Calvin & Hobbes I liked the sound of the Q on the HMS quite a lot. In fact, I had a little buyer's remorse when I plugged in the Dave, as it was significantly different to me. More detailed and revealing. My initial take was the Q/HMS was warmer and more musical. Mini-panic.
 

Over the week or so of settling in and playing different types of music, I grew fond of the Dave. 
 

But to speak freely for those considering their own evolution and movement, if I had kids and college and big bills, that Q/HMS set-up is pretty choice and very satisfying. I'm sure other dacs are too. Heck, even the RPi to my D05 dac was very nice. 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Calvin & Hobbes said:

I've been quite surprised to hear that the relatively inexpensive Denafrips Pontus II has that "liquid" and "organic" sound that at least some higher priced DACs do not. Perhaps producing the DAC in China results in a lower production cost for the Denafrips' R2R ladder DAC design?

 

Technology and amazing performance numbers, that cost lots of money, are not the answer to delivering accurate SQ from digital. Attention to detail in the implementation, and putting great effort into isolating the critical areas from noise and interference factors are - but unfortunately these considerations are not sexy in the glossy, promo booklets .

 

This means that a smart company that knows what to pay attention to will be able to deliver a better product, for pennies - the wise buyer will be on the lookout for these items, and will be well ahead of those who chase the expensive, blingy goods .

 

There are enough Chinese based companies who have got the clues, and their manufacturing costs means that a good standard of SQ can be got for less than silly money.

[Rexp]

7 hours ago, Calvin & Hobbes said:

With respect to the Chord DAVE, I do have one question. Does the DAVE sound different in character than the Hugo TT/MScaler or the Qutest? I ask that because I found the SQ from the Qutest to be initially engaging but only OK after more extended listening. The SQ from the Hugo TT/MScaler was not engaging to me right off the bat.

 

I've heard both the Qutest and the Hugo TT/MScaler. These were my impressions of both. Of the two, I actually preferred the sound via the Qutest better. The Hugo TT/MScaler was perhaps better from an audiophile perspective, but seemed to be completely lacking in pace and with timing/interaction between different instruments/vocals that just didn't make sense to my ear (i.e., timing was off). My thoughts are that the complex algorithms used in the Hugo TT/MScaler may have altered the fundamental nature of the music file as it's doing the D-to-A conversion.

 

Qutest: The Qutest is exceptionally detailed in its sound. But, the Qutest conveyed that detail in a way that seemed artificially Technicolor. Meaning that there was a lot of detail, but either conveyed to a degree or conveyed in a way that didn't feel natural or lifelike to me. It sounded slightly, and again I do mean slightly, more "audiophile" than musical in sound. The Pontus II actually seems to have even more detail and resolution than the Qutest with greater smoothness and warmth.  What's interesting is that this resolution is delivered in a more lifelike and natural sounding way than via the Qutest.

 

Hugo TT/MScaler: The Hugo TT/MScaler combination sounded perhaps more detailed than the Qutest? But it sounded very flat and lacking in pace. Putting the Pontus in its place (with the Naim NDX 2 used as the streamer for both), was a revelation. Music through the Pontus had so much more pace, timing that sounded correct, and a fuller, 3D view of the music.

I haven't compared the Chord DAC's side by side but suffice to say I don't find any of them engaging which is the key word.

[SoundMann]

I find the NOS R2R ladder dacs to sound the closest to what live performances sound like.

[Calvin & Hobbes]

8 hours ago, SoundMann said:

I find the NOS R2R ladder dacs to sound the closest to what live performances sound like.

Yes, I think this is exactly what I'm learning about my preferences with respect to DACs and digital audio.

[fas42]

IME, the technology used in the DAC is much less important than the implementation - and, the integrity of the replay chain. Get it right, and the sound of the recording is all you hear - and the latter has all the detail you will ever need to recreate the sense of a live performance, .

[Allan F]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

IME, the technology used in the DAC is much less important than the implementation - and, the integrity of the replay chain. Get it right, and the sound of the recording is all you hear - and the latter has all the detail you will ever need to recreate the sense of a live performance, .

 

I believe that how any particular technology is implemented is more important than the technology itself. However, different technologies can produce different results, e.g. sigma delta vs R2R, etc.

[Calvin & Hobbes]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

IME, the technology used in the DAC is much less important than the implementation - and, the integrity of the replay chain. Get it right, and the sound of the recording is all you hear - and the latter has all the detail you will ever need to recreate the sense of a live performance, .

I would generally agree, but what led me to start this thread was that I had the chance to listen to a dcs Bartok. It certainly sounded good...from a more audiophile perspective. But, I actually think that I like the sound of my Pontus II DAC better. There could be at least two reasons for that:

 

1. The Pontus actually has better implementation than the dcs Bartok at about 1/6 of the price, or

2. The difference is in the D-to-A conversion technology (i.e., R2R vs whatever dcs uses)

3. Something else that I have not considered

[fas42]

The price has little to do with it ... I heard the, at the time, top of the line dSC converter - three boxes worth - nearly two decades ago ... and it was downright awful! Through an excellent rig, which was capable of superb vinyl. So, the company may still have hangovers from their thinking of that time - the Bartok may be capable of better SQ, with further refinement.

 

Best quality digital is hard. The slightest misstep undermines the subjective sense of what you hear; and it can be devilishly hard to work out the cause! Be grateful when you get a rig to a satisfying level, and be very wary of the "latest thing!" having a chance of adding to the experience ... .