Hey. Haven’t auditioned the TotalDAC yet. Still planning on it. I have a few other auditions lined up first. Then I’ll try to make that happen.
Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD
Hi All.
Putting together a reference level system.
My Source is predominantly standard 16/44 played from a MacMini using iTunes and Amarra. Some of my music is purchased from iTunes and the rest is ripped from standard CD's.
For my tastes in music, my high def catalogues are still limited; so Redbook 16/44 will be my primary source for quite some time.
I'm not spending DCS or MSB money. But $15-20k retail is not out of the question.
Upsampling vs non-upsampling?
USB input vs SPDIF?
All opinions welcome.
And I know I need to hear them, but getting these ultra $$$ DAC's into your house for an audition ain't easy.
Looking for musical, emotional, engaging, accurate , with great dimension. Not looking for analytical and sterile.
Putting together a reference level system.
My Source is predominantly standard 16/44 played from a MacMini using iTunes and Amarra. Some of my music is purchased from iTunes and the rest is ripped from standard CD's.
For my tastes in music, my high def catalogues are still limited; so Redbook 16/44 will be my primary source for quite some time.
I'm not spending DCS or MSB money. But $15-20k retail is not out of the question.
Upsampling vs non-upsampling?
USB input vs SPDIF?
All opinions welcome.
And I know I need to hear them, but getting these ultra $$$ DAC's into your house for an audition ain't easy.
Looking for musical, emotional, engaging, accurate , with great dimension. Not looking for analytical and sterile.
4,487 responses Add your response
Hoping To hear an updated Emm DAC2X soon as well as a Merging Technologies DAC. The updated DAC2X is supposedly a really nice improvement. Also hoping my MP-64 Memory Player server will be arriving soon. And trying to arrange an audition with the Audio Doctor for some superb USB cables and maybe an in room listen if the Baetis music server. |
Matt, honestly, you would still like the DaVinci in your system. The Boulder gear is outstanding. That said it is a bit bright. Not fatiguingly so, but musically so. You know that I like it, but can't warm up to it. I'd never own it personally, but many of you guys love that flavor and that's why these shootouts are fun. What I've found out is that digital is the most system dependent gear in our systems. I've heard the same DAC in different systems have the same signature, but not sound the same if that makes sense. You could take your system Matt and put it in the identical room with a different electric feed and it would sound incrementally different. Just change the feet...OH, you did. Just change the power cord.....OH, you have.... We've spoken at length about this off the board, but I wanted to post it here as it ties into your post and update. |
** UPDATE ** Comparing two world class DAC’s: Boulder 2120 and Light Harmonic Davinci2 You all know my room and system. A dealer. A rep. An audiophile and a manufacturer (all with ears I have come to know and trust, with applied interpretation lol) came over after I spent a LOT of time listening on my own. I ran a blind audition. Input names were given “DAC” and “CD”. All power/interconnect/digital cables same. No one knew which DAC was connected to which Input. Everyone who came that day said that they prefer input “CD” overall. Both are incredible and we are talking extremes. But everyone felt that when the critical listening was done, “CD” was the input that slipped them out of critical listening into “Lost in the Music” and was just more enjoyable to listen to long term. We also swapped inputs on the pre-amp to make sure the actual inputs didn’t add a difference in sound. I do have another manufacturer friend who was not there that day that preferred the “DAC” input. “CD” was the Davinci2. Final impression : Boulder - brighter/cleaner (some felt it had a tonal signature that leaned a tad too much towards bright while others felt it just super clean; I believe it to be both), better image specificity with performers existing more clearly defined in their own space. The illusion of more accurate but not, I think, actually more accurate; I think this is a byproduct of the bright/clean issue. More dynamic. It was actually bolder, Lol. Davinci2 - More layered. Better sense of portraying the texture of instruments and their complex harmonics. Better pace and rhythm. More natural sense of timbre. Wider/deeper (although not quite as tall) soundstage. Just more musical (I know, it’s a BS descriptor, but it just is). So everyone unanimously chose the Davinci2 over the Boulder (except my one friend who wasn’t there that day, lol). But everyone said that the Boulder was better with dynamic expression and flat out clarity. THEN I had them help me lift the massive Davinci and we finally put my Stillpoint 5’s under the Davinci and the N10. And WOW! What a difference. It dropped the noise floor and gave the Davinci a boost in clarity and dynamic scale. Fascinating. A good time was had by all!!! Now, to be completely fair I think that when an electronics manufacturer only creates front end equipment, ie. DAC or phono stage, that they have the luxury of creating their own vision of that sound isolated to that component. But if they manufacture front end gear as well as amps, preamp‘s etc. then the entire situation changes. They need to design their DAC and phono stage to sound best with their preamp and amp. With this being the case with Boulder I do believe that the voice of the DAC is not completely independent of the DAC alone and that to get the full flavor of the Boulder system I would really require the Boulder DAC, preamp and amp combined. Of course it can stand on its own, but it’s purpose built to sound its absolute best mated to its brethren electronics. That all said, I do not currently plan on replacing my amps or preamp anytime soon. So my comparisons are DAC only. :) |
MikeLavigne - if you can arrange getting an MSB Select II into my room for 2-3 weeks than I would absolutely give it full consideration. Charles1Dad - Same for a uber Pacific Lampy. The room at CAF featuring the Lampy DAC was engaging and enjoyable. And it was not the Pacific. Essrand - I have been trying for years to hear a Trinity in my room. They have little presence in the US so arranging a demo is nie impossible. And at $45k, even a 50 off preowned piece would still cost well over $20k; and would likely take half a year to move and re-accumulate those funds. I simply can’t do that. Plus, most preowned pieces are in Europe which just adds risk and makes everything more complicated. I am trying. I even emailed the manufacturer yesterday. They don’t have demo units to send out. And I am embarrassed to say I am not familiar with the Wadax Atlantis. Maybe you can contact someone to see if they want to get one to me. ;) Update on the boulder coming up. |
I have heard Trinity a few times and LOVED it. Just a great musical piece. Played through large Rockports and Naim amps. Not a big Naim fan and the Rockports were fairly new to me. It was the first dAC that wasn't 'digital sounding to me. I liked it MUCH better than the dryer and hyper detailed DCS full stack. |
Matt, i'd find a bunch of piano recordings and listen to them, then a bunch of vocals and massed strings or massed voices. these are where digital has a bit of trouble in sorting out detail in the massed strings and voices and the sustain and continuousness of the piano. it's where the MSB Select II separates itself from others. not sure it will work that way for the DaVinci and Boulder, but it might. it's the ease of getting that analog rendering of the whole note. ideally in the system where you have a turntable or tape deck as a reference with the same recording. but even without those piano is the torture test. |
Matt, we can talk off board tomorrow about this, but in reading I also thought about how else I personally look at things. I also look at the companies and will they be around to support said product in 7 years when it needs help. Not sure about Light Harmonics. Boulder most probably. This may mean nothing to you and many others, but you know how I am about this Matt as we've spoke a ton off the board about my feelings. Steve is the only company I've deal with that is smaller if you would and he stood behind his DAC 100% when it needed some help. I am not saying this to dissuade you are anyone as we need all companies to push everyone. Just something that I personally do think about. That's only if things are 'THAT' close ;) |
At this level, both make toes tap and give that “lost in the music” experience. There’s no bad choice here. Just better choice for me. I listened again this evening, briefly. As much as I think the Boulder is more accurate and refined, I think the Davinci 2 is a tad more engaging. I look forward to spending a few hours tomorrow and hearing a few opinions. Stay tuned. |
........and after you have gone thought all of that, just put on a few of your favorite recordings. Are you tapping toes or moving in your seat? Do you forget to listen as a serious reviewer or are you just relaxed and listening for fun? There really is something about not listening critically while listening critically. |
Sounds like you need more "non-music" tracks to compare these two. Falling rain, thunder, canoe paddling in water, wind are all helpful. I use all of these to determine accuracy as well as well-recorded percussion tracks. You need to hear the decay of gongs etc.. Start with a good recording of Doors "Riders on the Storm". Steve N. Empirical Audio |
I think I may like the Boulder more, but I can’t tell if it’s better or just different.....with the Boulder in, it sounds like I’m in the recording studio proper, with the performers. With the Davinci 2 it sounds like I’m in the mixing room. One is cleaner, the other more full and balanced...... The Davinci 2 is mind blowingly good! So for the Boulder to be “better” is sort of boggling my mind. Is it possible? Or am I just willing it to be? I need others to confirm since I’m on the proverbial fence.Reading your words, it seems that for first time in your journey there may not be perfect alignment between the consensus "best" DAC and the DAC that sounds most enjoyable to you. Obviously, both must sound fantastic but the question then becomes what you value most from your system. |
Wow!!!! OK. Light Harmonic Davinci 2 vs Boulder 2120 DAC/server. Both are crazy expensive. The Boulder is crazy expensive times two!!! Both are world class and just amazing. The differences are comparing Ferrari and Lamborghini (Bugatti?) so there are no losers here. I’ve only had two solid listening sessions with both units broken in. Here’s my initial impressions: To be honest, I’m baffled. I’ve never had a hard time comparing gear before. I typically deduce which is better for my system in one session; 30minutes to 3 hours. I’ve had two full sessions and plan on a third this Wednesday. I called in a panel of people to help me confirm or refute the differences I think I hear. A pair of ears I trust felt the Boulder superior during my initial listening session. Jury is out. The Boulder is fan’damn’tastic! It’s natural and seams to remove a veil I didn’t know existed. But when I go back to the Davinci 2 I get a fullness that I like. Is the bass a bit sloppier on the Davinci 2, or it the Boulder a touch overly analytical? My issue is that I can’t tell whether the Boulder is thin or perfect. I have some friends coming over Wednesday. I think I may like the Boulder more, but I can’t tell if it’s better or just different. But at $65k it should be WAY better. I know, law of diminishing returns and all. But $65k !!!!! Interestingly, N10 is WAY better as a source compared to playing usb stick directly through the Boulder’s renderer!!! But Boulder is working on integrating Roon via Ethernet; which should be way better. Sonically, the Boulder is SO accurate. SO correct. So clean. SO detailed. Every time I listen to it, it sounds like the performer is in the room with me; almost eerie. I came up with the thought that with the Boulder in, it sounds like I’m in the recording studio proper, with the performers. With the Davinci 2 it sounds like I’m in the mixing room. One is cleaner, the other more full and balanced. I just can’t decide if it’s SO.... or TOO..... I’m leaning towards SO.... but I need others to confirm since I’m on the proverbial fence. The Davinci 2 is mind blowingly good! So for the Boulder to be “better” is sort of boggling my mind. Is it possible? Or am I just willing it to be ? Stay tuned for more opinions and confirmations. I also have my $55k fully loaded Memory Player finally coming in two weeks. Can’t wait to compare that to the N10, which has beaten all who have challenged it. Good times!!!! |
@audioengr All the problems will be low level as the digital hash from inter-sample overs may not be audible until just after the transient. A bit like amplifier clipping where you don't hear problems on the transient itself as much as the distortion over everything else musical going on (harshness in the mid range in particular). The last link is to a plot showing what looks like typical low level clipping distortion - distortion is low (about 60 to 100 db down) but it is broadband right across the entire spectrum which makes it very likely to be audible as harshness or glare. Notice that there is actually a distortion peak at 80Hz - and we all know that an 80Hz tone lasts an eternity compared to mid range stuff - so even if the transient is a cymbal crash at 11 KHz - you have distortion smeared broadband over at least 1/80 secs (1 cycle of 80 Hz) or more than 12 msec (which is a lot). |
So if this inter-sample overs effect happens only on peaks, why do I hear differences even in low-level signals? I think the SQ issue with upsamplers, albeit small, has to do with hardware implementation of upsamplers. Doing it is S/W seems to deliver better SQ. I use Izotope, supposedly the best S/W resampler, and the SQ is usually great, better than the original. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
Well mathematically there is nothing wrong with upsampling and it measures much better in most cases due to the less aggressive filter and because higher sample rates tend to improve DAC linearity. Perhaps it is the way inter-sample overs are handled on upsampling DACs - since most pop rock digital music has peaks greater than 0 dbfs that cause errors in any DAC that upsamples without having extra bit depth to handle these peaks. This link below describes one error mechanism (perhaps there are others) that begin to explain why upsampling on most DACs sounds worse to you. https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/tagged/inter-sample-overs https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/intersample-overs-in-cd-recordings Benchmark make the following claim about DAC chips "Every D/A chip and SRC chip that we have tested here at Benchmark has an intersample clipping problem!" So unless manufacturers make an effort to find a solution to this oversampling DAC chip limitation then you have at least one pervasive problem with these DACs - this might be why Georgehifi dislikes all of these designs versus ladder DAC with no upsampling. Unlike many small effects at the LSB which arguably might not be audible, this occurs inter-sample over errirs occur at the MSB - so for sure it is easily audible on most pop/rock CD’s produced in the last 20 years. This red noisy signal sure looks easily audible versus the corrected green curve to me, https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0321/7609/files/Inter-Sample_Overs.JPG?v=1469682095 |
I"ve owned DAC's with both and so far I"ve yet to hear an upsampled that I enjoy. I've heard fairly large (For audio terms) differences. I've had a lot of DAC's in the house too and most are talked about in this forum (not the tube ones other than Aesthetix, which is one of the most under rated companies in all of audio for all their gear). JMHO |
shadorne - agreed, however, the devil is always in the details. How to make it sound like analog and not electronic. Upsampling has its own issues, particularly in hardware. There are always compromises made in these designs. My own reclocker is extremely good, rejecting almost all incoming jitter and delivering a low-jitter upsampled output, but when compared to my best USB or Ethernet playback which is not upsampled, the non-upsampled tracks win for best sound quality. Both scenerios use essentially the same clock and power supplies/regulators. This is precisely why I don't put an upsampler in my DAC, as so many other DACs do. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
@audioengr It is a simple matter to use upsampling so that a gentle linear phase anti-alias filter can sit far away from the audio band and where it won’t be audible. There are ways to trick most DAC chips to employ this solution and avoid or bypass the limitations of the DAC chip built-in filter options. |
Yes, that would be a great idea Steve. Most of them need very little to drive them fully and it can cut down on noise/hiss. Empire Ears is so careful that they even put special aftermarket cables on their higher end designs. Interesting on crossfade. My older headroom amp had it and it sounded great. Do you think that small Mac unit does it with DSP? I bet it does as it's also DAC. I never though about that. Now I need to look to see if my desktop one really does have it. I know their really small portable one that I bought years ago, has it. If the desktop one has it, would you want me to send it to you? Just let me know. |
Steve, you are awesome :)....Great response, lol. I may have to call to chat about headphones soon. You also should think about a switch for using IEM's that need much less power to drive them and are subject, at times, to hiss. ;)....also please consider cross fade into the design. Headroom used to do that. I still have a couple of their older models with it and it works. Macintosh has a portable DAC/amp coming out this month that incorporates cross feed. |
Great response Steve. I know that we've chatted about this a few times. Yes, I"m the one who has your server. We spoke for a long time about headphones, amps etc... Since then, I've gotten pretty heavily into portable audio and headphones as has Matt. I'm sure your amp will clobber most. I have already told a few of the top reviewers I know about it. |
Bill - these older D/A chips are very musical, but simply not as accurate as the modern designs, as well as not supporting higher sample-rates. I offered a ladder-DAC tube output DAC myself for several years. It was very sweet sounding, never harsh, but never really live either. I consider the digital filter in most DACs to be the #2 impediment for good digital playback (jitter is #1). These older chips solve that problem. They usually don't incorporate any digital filter or force the chip to automatically select a filter. They make it possible to have only an analog filter and no digital filter. The problem is that even if you only care about 44.1kHz playback, the HF transient response of these older chips is just not like the live performance. The attack and decay never seem to be like the live event. The is why in the Overdrive DAC (one of Matts picks), a newer technology chip was selected that supports up to 192kHz, but allows one to manually select the digital filter. I recommend to select only the 192 digital filter (there are three) on the Overdrive, even when playing 44.1kHz tracks. This is how I use it. This approximates what these older chips do at the same time delivering accurate transient response. A number of companies have gone to extremes over the last 10 years to develop their own digital filtering techniques, in order to eliminate or reduce pre and post ringing on impulse response of their DACs. This was an effort to improve the deficiencies in digital filtering in off-the-shelf D/A chips. So far, I have not been impressed by the sound of these filters. I still believe minimal or no digital filtering is best. There are a couple of modern D/A designs that use the old R2R ladder technology, but also support higher sample-rates. The TotalDAC and the DaVinci II are such designs. I have read great reviews on both, so they evidently have decent transient response. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
I've checked this thread periodically and commend @mattnshilp for putting his money behind these various DACs- it seems like this has taken on a life of its own, with lot's of good comments. I've never done digital seriously, and am now contemplating it for the first time. My question- without wading through all of the thousands of postings- is whether, for Redbook, the r2r type (whether discrete or chip based) no oversampling, no filter type, e.g. Audio Note and the like, are as good as some of the more modern DACs. I have little interest in DSD, SACD, networking, ripping, or streaming. Just playing standard CDs. TIA. bill hart |
Not yet, but they have been in touch with us current DX owners (Gen 2 here) to discuss upgrade paths and timing - excellent customer service IME. http://antipodesaudio.com/dx.html http://antipodesaudio.com/ |
| Post removed |
Chord fans always get upset with me as I say their bass is not as good as my Ayre, my ODSE/SE or any other 10k plus DAC I've listened to. I know many others feel the same way. Steve, just send a demo along for my to review ;)....ha....I know we spoke about you making one. When you are ready, let me know and I'll get you hooked up with the headphone community. Great bunch of guys and from all over the world. Even more so than 2 channel audio I think. |
Hi Steve. I don’t use the Hugo2 on my stereo. Only headphones. It’s sufficient top to bottom using headphones. My stereo system is a different level; and I did try out the Chord DAVE. It was very good but I found its low frequencies couldn hold ultimate control the way your ODSX and ultra high end DAC’s did. |
Matt - I had the Chord Qute here and it needed a better power supply and even then the bass was disappointing. Highs had amazing focus and detail however. Is the Hugo better on bass? BTW, ctsooner - I have designed a dual-mono, fully balanced-only class-A headamp based on the output stage of my Overdrive SX. Really excited about this product. Calling it "Eliminator". First protos hopefully early next year. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
