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? 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Calvin & Hobbes]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

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 ... .

 

My inclination to be slow to spend money switching out audio gear has served me well over the years! 'Good enough' can often turn out better than striving for an unreachable "perfection" in audio.