The benefits I appreciate from a DDC are galvanic isolation, multiple output choices to my DACs, and lower jitter. I have owned the Hermes and now the SU-6, and I am curious what criteria you believe makes one DDC SOTA and others not? Not arguing, just curious.
@mitch2 Yeah, I agree as to the benefits of a good DDC. Frankly I’m surprised you prefer the SU-6 to the Hermes as the latter uses an OCXO clock that I’m not sure the Singxer does, but I could be wrong and there’s also the Gaia that ups parts quality even further, hence my assumption that the SU-6 isn’t SOTA but I could be wrong. BTW, I own a Singxer SA-1 headphone amp and love it so I’m a pretty big Singxer fan outta the box. Regardless, @lanx0003 trying to tell me I don’t hear the benefits I clearly hear with my Iris because he has some measurements is totally bogus to me. I trust my ears, as I believe you do too with your excellent DAC reviews, so the measurements-above-all crowd doesn’t compute with me (pun intended) and I feel sorry for them that they need numbers to tell them what apparently their ears can’t. But that’s me.
|
Well, that’s your individual anecdotal opinion, but I’m not sure how credible that statement really is.
@lanx0003 I never said anything about the improvement the power supply made to my Zen Stream because I never used the stock power supply so you’re making that up. I have no idea if the Pulse Mini is better than my Zen because I haven’t heard it. And many others have experienced significant improvements adding an Iris so it’s not just me, and frankly I don’t give a damn whether you believe my actual experience or not. Maybe you should try one yourself rather than just spouting measurements.
|
If a system already has a clean digital source, like the iFi Zen Stream, which excels in minimizing jitter and electrical noise (see below) as compared to the state-of-the-art DDC like Singxer SU-6 and Holo Red, adding a DDC could indeed be redundant or overkill.
@lanx0003 Well, I use a Denafrips Iris Fed from my iFi Zen Stream (with iPowerX power supply) and the improvement is significant. I bought the Iris used so I could just re-sell it if I didn’t notice a difference, but it’s not going anywhere. So much for measurements being the end all be all. And BTW, an SU6 or Holo Red is far from SOTA as DDCs go.
|
A lot of nonsensical and incorrect information abound. I know what works for me and who is blowing a bit of hot air.
@yyzsantabarbara Well, believing that most DACs just magically 100% “handle” jitter is ignorant and minimizing its impact on digital sound is blowing hot air in my book. Most people here who’ve added a DDC with superior clocks or better external clocks have experienced significant improvements, and if most DACs just simply “handled” jitter as you state that would not be the case. Period. So you can “believe” whatever you want, but that’s a fact born out by many people’s real-world experiences here, and minimizing the effect of jitter is just peddling misinformation.
|
I think jitter is another matter to be concerned with, but most competent DACs (low cost) can handle jitter these days. I do not know how that relates to streaming. I do not care since the DACs can deal with it.
@yyzsantabarbara No! Most DACs can somewhat handle jitter, but most if not all DACs can significantly benefit from a DDC and/or external clock. Michael Lavorgna has written here recently how adding an external clock, even to a very accomplished DAC, can greatly improve performance. Most DACs do not even have an OCXO clock much less completely deal with jitter, so to say most low-cost DACs can just somehow “handle” jitter is just nonsensical and incorrect. You’re inappropriately minimizing a significant issue here that should not be minimized.
|
@herman Here’s part of your prior response and the possible source of our disconnect…
The DAC is doing the exact same amount of processing whether the incoming signal has jitter or it doesn't. The DAC operates exactly the same either way. The DAC doesn't have a circuit that detects jitter or noise and then "does more work" when it detects it.
No it does not do the same amount of processing if it has to deal with a signal that has more jitter. By definition if a DAC receives a more poorly clocked signal it must work harder to clean up the signal than if it received a better signal. That is the DAC having to work harder. A DAC receiving a better signal by definition has less work to do to clean it up and can do it more effectively. Maybe it’s the term “work harder” that you’re having a hard time with, but if a DAC has a clock that can manage 98% of the jitter that comes into it and the incoming signal contains less jitter then the jitter left after it re-clocks that signal has less remaining jitter and the DAC sounds better for it. So maybe it’s just a matter of semantics and we can just agree that the less noise/jitter a DAC has to deal with the better it will sound, otherwise a DAC would sound the same regardless of the quality of the signal it receives, which you and I both have found is not the case. Frankly I’m just happy you and I had the openness to even try a DDC and that we were honest about that the thing actually did provide worthwhile improvements as opposed to some others who’d just rather bury their head in the sand in total denial/ignorance…
As for the dude saying adding a DDC is just adding another box so can’t possibly help and is just a way for a manufacturer to make more profit, well that’s just stupid and not even worthy of a response. Many, many people here have added a DDC and/or external clock and realized substantial sonic improvements, and while all else being equal I’d also prefer to have fewer boxes in the chain, all else is not always equal so sometimes the additional hardware and cables are well worth it. I’ll say again, anyone who has a DAC should at least try a DDC and external clock because IME they can be relatively speaking a very cost-effective way to realize significant improvements. Ok, I think this dead horse has been beat enough, so peace out.
|
I completely agree with the first part, I said several times that I agree a DAC can sound better fed from a DDC. What I said was .... your conclusion that it does so because it doesn’t have to work as hard or has to do less processing has no factual basis so stating that these are the reasons has no basis in fact…I never had any problem with the conclusion that it sounds better. My problem is your statement about WHY it sounds better.
@herman Ok, well fine then. If it’s not the better clocking and noise reduction that makes a DDC make a DAC sound better as both you and I agree that it does, then what exactly is it? Magic fairy dust??? C’mon man. You’re running outta logical options here. It’s either clocking, noise reduction, or magic fairy dust. And as to @sns contention that it’s mainly the i2S connection that’s absolutely bogus. Many people here have experienced significant sonic improvements using a DDC without using i2S, so that argument holds no water whatsoever. Your turn, and please add something tangible rather than it just has to be something magical and as yet unidentified that makes a DDC work other than clocking and noise reduction cause I’m all ears if you got it. Where is your magic WHY if better clocking and better noise reduction isn’t enough for you? Occam’s razor — the simplest (and most logical I’d offer) explanation is usually the best one, unless you have something else. I mean, what the hell else could it possibly be???
|
You have to wonder why so many seemingly reliable and reasonable folks report that strictly digital components (streamers, DDCs, etc.) make a sonic difference when logically they should not. What if the differencse were built in by the designer?
@devinplombier Well, if they reduce noise and jitter, both of which are the well-known and proven enemies of good digital sound, why wouldn’t they sound different/better? What in the world is not logical about that??? IMO it’s completely illogical to think otherwise, so maybe — just maybe — there’s a good reason why so many “reasonable and reliable folks” find significant sonic differences. Hmmm. If you wanna call jitter/noise reduction “voicing” I guess that’s your prerogative, but I’d call that a misnomer.
|
The DAC is doing the exact same amount of processing whether the incoming signal has jitter or it doesn't. The DAC operates exactly the same either way. The DAC doesn't have a circuit that detects jitter or noise and then "does more work" when it detects it.
@herman I’m not going to go track down sources for this here and maybe someone else will chime in, but there are plenty of references out there that will show DACs sound better when fed a higher quality signal with lower noise/jitter, which is largely what a DDC does. Just because you (or I) don’t understand exactly why that is the case doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and the fact that both you and I (and scores of others here) have experienced positive benefits from adding a DDC is pretty darn good evidence that feeding a DAC a better signal has material benefits. If it’s not because the DAC works/sounds better with a lower noise/jitter signal from the DDC they why else would that possibly be?
|
What does "do less work to clean up the incoming signal" even mean? What work is being done? The statement actually makes no sense.
@herman When a DDC sends a signal to a DAC that has reduced jitter and noise from the USB signal the DAC has much less processing to do. That’s the whole point of a DDC (along with providing more connection options) and what makes a DAC sound better. What about that doesn’t make sense to you?
|
If you already own a DAC that has a good clock, galvanic isolation and all the I/O ports you want, you don’t really need a DDC.
@devinplombier My experience along with many others here is a bit different. Adding a DDC can provide a better signal to a DAC, and even a DAC with a good clock benefits and sounds better by having to do less work to clean up the incoming signal. Further, if your DAC accepts i2S and the DDC allows you to take advantage of that input the DAC is also freed from having to separate the clock from the data signal that can also provide significant sonic benefits. I’d bet there are very few DACs that wouldn’t benefit in one way or another from a good DDC and is likely even more true if you’re feeding a DAC from a non-optimized, multi-use computer. I’d encourage anyone with a DAC to at least try a DDC as it can be a relatively cost-effective way to provide very meaningful improvements. That was very much my experience anyway.
|
But a purpose-built computer absolutely does. Usually this means a machine you build yourself of thoughtfully selected components, and properly set up and configured OS and software.
@devinplombier That’s probably true, but how many people here who are audiophiles and not computer techs are qualified or are willing to undertake such a project?!? C’mon man, be real. Sometimes things are just worth paying for.
|
Use your noisy MacBook Pro, no problem. I use a noisy crappy computer too. However, you need a moat in front of your DAC so that the analog noise before the moat does not travel up the USB cable into the DAC.
@yyzsantabarbara Out of curiosity, what dedicated streamers have you compared to your computer?
|
Re computer vs. streamer, once you get an external DAC, the streamer (with built-in DAC) argument evaporates...IMHO, streamers are utterly overpriced for what they are, and you have to take the DAC that the manufacturer slaps in there. The whole "optimized OS for audio" is marketing hype, considering the minuscule computational power it takes to play/decode/transform audio signals compared to processor power in current computers.
This is absolute garbage advice by someone who clearly has no idea what they’re talking about. Listen to the others here (including me) who’ve transitioned from computers to a dedicated streamer and found a night and day difference. You’ve got your answer.
|
