Affordable DAC That Doesn't Resample High Rate DSD?

[ericuco]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

T+A comes onto the used market for a not outrageous price

If you are connecting the DAC to a Linux-based computer, make sure the DAC8 DSD has the latest firmware and Amanero USB software because the original version did not officially support DSD, although it could do DoP. Updated units like mine handle DSD (non-DoP) just fine up to DSD512 when connected to Linux-based computer.

[Jud]

41 minutes ago, firedog said:

True. If it was me, I'd see if a T+A comes onto the used market for a not outrageous price. But even that may be above what you want to pay.

 

Another member kindly PM'd me about one that's come up on a used site. But I'm not quite ready to do anything immediately.

[Miska]

9 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

Sorry for going off topic for a moment ...

But, Miska, why do you think DSD64 is bad?

 

Because the noise shaping slope is so close to audio band that it is hard to design a DAC that would work well with it.

 

9 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

In fully understand that DSD256 and higher eliminates the need of a reconstruction filter.

 

No they don't. You always need an analog reconstruction filter.

 

9 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

In fact with my latest DAC I prefer DSD256. But especially with HQPlayer the noise level of the modualtor at DSD64 is way below 60db (with ASDM7/EC - with ASDM5/EC it's even below 70db - if I am not mistaken?) so that even with a wide and relaxed reconstruction filter DSD64 actually sounds really nice (at least for me). Now, with my former DACs I actually prefered DSD64 over higher rates; first with my latest DAC I prefer DSD256.

 

At DSD512 you can already get it well below -100 dB without too much trouble. At DSD1024 it is certainly all gone with correct design.

 

In measurements you can usually see notable improvements DSD64 -> DSD128 -> DSD256 and then it flattens out to DSD512 and over.

 

I know how to make a DAC where performance improve more for the higher rates, but I'm not a hardware manufacturer...

 

[copy_of_a]

9 hours ago, Miska said:

Because the noise shaping slope is so close to audio band that it is hard to design a DAC that would work well with it.

Sorry, I possibly should have asked the other way around.
Why exactly should we worry about -60db ultrasonic noise level that gets slowly filtered out by a gentle LPF with a corner frequency of 50kHz (or even higher) when it actually does not affect the audio band and downstream devices?

I am thinking about this quote from Tom Caulfield @ NativeDSD:
https://help.nativedsd.com/en/articles/94836-nativedsd-s-take-on-dsd64
„every time you double the bit rate (64fs > 128fs > 256fs etc.) of DSD, you shift the un-correlated noise envelope one octave higher. That is, with 64fs where the noise was -120dB at 20KHz and -60dB at 50KHz, at 128fs, it will become -120dB at 40KHz, and -60db at 100KHz. At 256fs those -120dB and -60dB frequency numbers double again. The unfiltered overall noise energy remains the same, regardless of bit rate, its beginning presence just gets shifted proportionally higher in frequency as the bit rate is increased. This makes it easier to passively filter in the audio stages after the D/A conversion.
So what does this do to the audio signal fidelity and accuracy within the audio band? Nothing, in my experience.“
and:
„high frequency noise (…) can affect downstream equipment. That being marginally stable amplifiers principally. This is where it gets its bad rap about the effects of high frequency noise. However, this is actually quite rare, and more an urban legend.“

 

[Miska]

20 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

Sorry, I possibly should have asked the other way around.
Why exactly should we worry about -60db ultrasonic noise level that gets slowly filtered out by a gentle LPF with a corner frequency of 50kHz (or even higher) when it actually does not affect the audio band and downstream devices?

 

Why would you have so much output noise, if you can have much less, or even nothing? You get much better conversion results if you upsample DSD64 to DSD256/DSD512/DSD1024, or even just DSD128 before D/A conversion.

 

As always, first question would be what DAC do you use? How well it works with DSD64 compared to DSD128 or DSD256?

 

[semente]

14 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, thanks, now I remember reading that before.

I have never compared DSD-direct to the signal going over internal DSP on the RME, @Miska if DSD-direct is not used would it be better to feed the DAC upsampled PCM?

[Miska]

30 minutes ago, semente said:

I have never compared DSD-direct to the signal going over internal DSP on the RME, @Miska if DSD-direct is not used would it be better to feed the DAC upsampled PCM?

 

Not necessarily, similar to ESS you would still benefit from proper 256x oversampling digital filters instead of just 16x.

 

But if you must send PCM there, use 705.6/768k input rates. This is much better than 8x it does internally when running from lower input rates.

 

[Currawong]

On 8/23/2022 at 8:27 PM, Miska said:

Do you have any specific model in mind? By quick glance didn't look very promising with 0.1% THD spec.

 

Kingwa doesn't screw up the rest of the performance of his components chasing low THD numbers. I have an R-27HE here and it works very well with poly-sync-gauss-hires-ip (PCM). I tend not to bother with DSD-upsampling myself, but when I've tried it with Audio-gd gear, it added no benefit, but also didn't sound flat and dull DSD can sound out of some other DACs I've tried.

[copy_of_a]

6 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Why would you have so much output noise, if you can have much less, or even nothing? You get much better conversion results if you upsample DSD64 to DSD256/DSD512/DSD1024, or even just DSD128 before D/A conversion.

 

As always, first question would be what DAC do you use? How well it works with DSD64 compared to DSD128 or DSD256?

 

Well, yes - „peace of mind“ is great!
If there‘s nothing to worry about, enjoyment will be even greater 🙂
I don’t question the benefits of higher rates but wonder why you strictly rule out DSD64.
As said above on my current AK4499 based DAC I prefer DSD256. But DSD64 also sounds really, really good - it‘s not „bad“ at all. Differences are there but they are far from being like night and day, quite the contrary.
 

[Miska]

2 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

I don’t question the benefits of higher rates but wonder why you strictly rule out DSD64.

 

DSD64 is a bit like 44.1/48k PCM content - sample rate challenged. Doesn't mean it's totally bad, but both require quite high efforts for D/A conversion. DSD64 of course lacks all the time domain problems of such PCM though.

 

2 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

As said above on my current AK4499 based DAC I prefer DSD256. But DSD64 also sounds really, really good - it‘s not „bad“ at all. Differences are there but they are far from being like night and day, quite the contrary.

 

Those AK chips have more aggressive D/A conversion filter than what is strictly required for DSD. Higher DSD rates still make a huge difference though (20 dB per rate doubling (octave)). But AK4499 is different than the earlier ones. And AK4499 is certainly among that mixed bag where it is hard to choose whether to go with DSD256 or DSD512. You also have two D/A conversion filter settings that are effective at lower DSD rates, use the lower one...

 

[copy_of_a]

37 minutes ago, Miska said:

You also have two D/A conversion filter settings that are effective at lower DSD rates, use the lower one...

On my Singxer SDA6 Pro you can‘t change the filter - it‘s set to the higher one (65kHz @ DSD64) 🙄🙂

Still: DSD64 sounds great! DSD256 sounds even better, though (more „liquid“?)

[mehrdad]

On 8/17/2022 at 9:20 AM, Jud said:

Also: iFi Pro iDSD signature - Price over $3200, and it has tubes.  Those are a non-starter for me, because I can tell you for certain that the day we decide to have a bunch of friends over is the day one of those tubes will burn out.

no they are not , you can activate or deactivate tubes in just a few seconds , also it has a player ,preamp , native dsd 1024 playback and dsd upsampling up to 1024.

you can get neo idsd for 800 $ , it doesnt have the tubes ,its not fully balanced nor can upsample or do more than dsd 512 but its cheaper.

go for pro signature.

[Jud]

58 minutes ago, mehrdad said:

no they are not , you can activate or deactivate tubes in just a few seconds , also it has a player ,preamp , native dsd 1024 playback and dsd upsampling up to 1024.

you can get neo idsd for 800 $ , it doesnt have the tubes ,its not fully balanced nor can upsample or do more than dsd 512 but its cheaper.

go for pro signature.

 

Thank you for pointing out that the tube output need not be used.

 

I don't need upsampling, because I prefer to do that in software.

 

Can you tell me what you mean by "not fully balanced"?

[DuckToller]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Can you tell me what you mean by "not fully balanced"?

@Jud

I would guess that it refers to a "balanced design" not including a dual mono DAC chip implementation.

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

@Jud

I would guess that it refers to a "balanced design" not including a dual mono DAC chip implementation.

 

"PureWave is a new, balanced, symmetrical dual-mono topology with short, direct signal paths."

 

I dunno...

 

Edit: Never mind, got it. IFi marketing speak.

[DuckToller]

27 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

"PureWave is a new, balanced, symmetrical dual-mono topology with short, direct signal paths."

 

I dunno...

 

Edit: Never mind, got it. IFi marketing speak.

That happens after the DAC section, a design used  with the cheaper product lines of iFi, the iDSD Micro line usually uses a true dual mono design with 2 x BB DSD1793 DAC chip to the contrary  the NEO otoh includes a melange of topologies from the xDSD series, afaik.

 

I have written a review on the NEO and the iDSD Signature in 2021, that got lost somehow. I didn't follow up on it as I was occupied with my dying mother back then. I just revisited it now and may think I will publish  it this month in my blog. Here's my verdict on the Neo:

 

" Personally, I’d love to see
- a more potent HPA as we know from the micro iDSD series,
- a fully balanced design including a dual mono DAC chip implementation,
- a filter selection option (which may arrive with an alternative firmware flavor),
- an USB port with iPurifier technology built
- and an analog input. 

These are desired features we already are accustomed to by the existing iFi audio portfolio. If they would be available, the NEO iDSD could have been described as the unit you have wished for.
Presenting the customer a potent adaptive solution to use the 4.4mm balanced output sans paying extra for new can cabling, providing a better USB cabling length and perhaps more functional remote possibility via BT could be considered the icing on that cake.

A love lost, an unsuccessful try to establish an quasi- excellent iFi home audio device, given the opportunities the company has in his own toolbox. Smart choice of competitive market space, however, for audiophiles the choice between purist or proven design may have an interesting point, nevertheless between 500 and 1k $ bitstreaming & a selection of filters may be indispensable.

The NEO teases high hopes with smart exterior design but can not convince due to iFi's choice of components and features. Devils in the detail.Obviously the former philosophy of giving the consumer a choice has turned into favor of  streamlined, purist design selection, which has not necessarily met the reviewers POV / taste"

[Jud]

The newer version of the NEO includes the iPurifier in the package. I don't need a more powerful headphone amp, since this would be in my main system and I have IEMs anyway. And I also don't require a greater filter selection, since I do that in software.

 

The only thing in your list that I would be missing is a dual chip topology, with its pros (completely separated circuitry) and cons (matching chips).

 

Edit: Actually, since I would be upsampling in software and bypassing the DAC chip, the disadvantage of a single chip might be somewhat minimized.

[DuckToller]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

The newer version of the NEO includes the iPurifier in the package. I don't need a more powerful headphone amp, since this would be in my main system and I have IEMs anyway. And I also don't require a greater filter selection, since I do that in software.

 

The only thing in your list that I would be missing is a dual chip topology, with its pros (completely separated circuitry) and cons (matching chips).

 

Edit: Actually, since I would be upsampling in software and bypassing the DAC chip, the disadvantage of a single chip might be somewhat minimized.

I would think that with the basic firmware you can't bypass the GTO filter, which imho were sounding lifeless.  iiirc, @daverich4noted a upgraded fw, but I don't know it's contents.

If you can bypass the GTO filter, the device in its newest incarnation seems pretty interesting.

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, DuckToller said:

I would think that with the basic firmware you can't bypass the GTO filter, which imho were sounding lifeless.  iiirc, @daverich4noted a upgraded fw, but I don't know it's contents.

If you can bypass the GTO filter, the device in its newest incarnation seems pretty interesting.

sorry @daverich4 ... looks like I mixed you up with @dericchan1
Happy festive season to both of you !

[DuckToller]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

The newer version of the NEO includes the iPurifier in the package. I don't need a more powerful headphone amp, since this would be in my main system and I have IEMs anyway. And I also don't require a greater filter selection, since I do that in software.

 

The only thing in your list that I would be missing is a dual chip topology, with its pros (completely separated circuitry) and cons (matching chips).

 

Edit: Actually, since I would be upsampling in software and bypassing the DAC chip, the disadvantage of a single chip might be somewhat minimized.

I tried to find more resilient information on the iFi website, thus even they have listened to critics for the new incarnation, their information level still contains 90% marketing phrases ...
but
"Since it’s original release we’ve added more digital filters for your listening pleasure. The NEO iDSD now comes with the GTO, Minimum Phase, Bit-Perfect and Standard filters. "
on the firmware:

Updates:

1. New audio filter functions. To access audio filter functions, long press Input Selection button for 3 seconds to display filter selection (USB and S/PDIF inputs only), turn Volume knob to select a filter mode, then short press Volume knob to confirm and return to main display.
BP=Bit perfect, MIN=Minimum phase, STD=Standard, GTO=GTO
 

However, according to Miska, the BB1793DSD  should not be capable to do both, PCM and DSD in a real NOS mode sans oversampling, iirc.

There seems to be again some magic potion at work - from the iFi engineering&research department.
I would think the best way is to try at the NEO @  home to find out  if you're happy with the outcome ...
 

[Miska]

8 hours ago, DuckToller said:

@Jud

I would guess that it refers to a "balanced design" not including a dual mono DAC chip implementation.

 

You get fully balanced output also from a single DAC chip. But you gain 3 dB SNR improvement by using two chips in mono mode.

 

Some other DACs use four chips to do dual-differential balanced output. Where one chip is used for each side of balanced output.

 

I have NEO and it works as expected, no complaints.

 

[Miska]

I have of course also measured it. My only wish is firmware update that would let me choose from one of the four on-chip DSD analog conversion filters instead of the single one chosen by iFi. They already have that option for choosing PCM digital filters.

 

I'm running mine with USB3 cable from iMac, without external PSU. Since the device performs better that way and it is easier setup with less cables.

 

[davide256]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Holo Spring 3 in this thread. With analog pre section the level 2 version is $3100, the Kitsune version is $3700

[Miska]

Both Spring and May of course.

 

T+A has currently at least five such devices on their lineup. DAC 200, HA 200, SD 3100 HV, SDV 3100 HV and PSD 3100 HV.

 

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Holo Spring 3 in this thread.

 

It's in the first post, actually. 🙂