Okay...in another thread I promised to do a side-by-side evaluation of the Audiobyte HydraVox/Zap vs the Rockna Wavelight. Due to the astonishing incompetence of DHL this has been delayed. At the moment, I have a plethora of DACs here and am going to do a broader comparison.
I am going to do a compare of the Rockna Wavelight, Rockna Wavedream Signature, Audiobyte HydraVox/Zap, Chord Hugo 2, Chord Hugo TT2, Bricasti M3, Bricasti M1 Special Edition, Weiss 501 and the internal DAC card for an AVM A 5.2 Integrated amp as a baseline.
For sake of consistency, I am going to use that same AVM integrated amp driving Vivid Kaya 45s. I may branch out and do some listening on other speakers (Verdant Nightshade of Blackthorn and/or Wilson Benesch Vertexes) but want to use the Vivids for every compare as they are the fullest range speakers I have here. For sake of consistency I will use a Chord 2Go/2Yu connected via an Audioquest Diamond USB as a renderer. The only exception is the Hugo 2 which has a 2Go directly attached to it. I will use a Roon Nucleus+ as a server in all cases.
My plan is to use the same five songs on every DAC; In a Sentimental Mood from Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, Be Still My Beating Heart from Sting, Liberty from Anette Askvik, Duende from Bozzio Levin Stevens and Part 1 of Mozart String Quartet No 14 in G Major from the Alban Berg Quartet. The intent is to touch on different music types without going crazy.
I will take extensive notes on each listening session and write up a POV on the strengths of each unit. I am going to start this this Friday/Saturday and will be writing things up over the next month or so. If you have thoughts, comments or requests, I will be happy to try and accommodate. The one thing I am not going to do is make the list of songs longer as that has an exponential impact on this and make everything much harder. If and when other DACs come in on trade I may add to the list through time.
@georghifi. I thought I mentioned that the Vu Jade was an R2R. Definitely a good sounding unit.
@treebeard1 the M3 will be a noticeable step up and will have similar musicality as the PS Audio. It feels like a natural step forward. @milpai the Audiobyte and Bricasti both do pure DSD. I can lend you either. My M3 is off at a customer until their order arrives so It would be maybe 10 days. The Audiobyte could be shipped tomorrow. The TT2 is excellent but yes, it leans a bit cold.
@georghifi. I thought I mentioned that the Vu Jade was an R2R. Definitely a good sounding unit.
No, you only mentioned the cheaper single box was Delta Sigma
verdantaudioOP Today I had a visit from Peter and Karl of Vu Jade. The brought their DAC 100 which retails for $12K and is a two chassis tube DAC. They also offer a single chassis, delta-sigma DAC using 6SN7s and is one I am looking forward to hearing.
Hugo 2 vs. the internal DAC card on the AVM Evolution A5.2 Integrated.
At first I thought this was an unfair comparison. A $2500 DAC/ headphone amp vs. an $800 card. Take away the headphone amp and battery and the Hugo 2 is basically a Qutest. No need for a case and power supply....strong potential these would be pretty comparable. I was correct. They are two very different sounding DACs but in many ways are quite comparable.
This is by far the hardest portion of this to write. I wish I would not have listened to the better DACs before writing it. All DACs in the price tier above (~$5K) are better in every way. It doesn't make them bad. Just not as good as the units that are 2x-6x the price.
The Hugo 2 is a DAC I use for lots of stuff because of its mobility and connectivity but other than with headphones, I rarely listen to it critically. The immediate thing you notice is stable and clear. It is centered but did not extend beyond the speakers. This is not a bass heavy DAC(this does not show up with headphones) and this is what creates the perception that it can be a hair bright. Instrument separation is good. Some massing of string in particularly challenging parts of the Berg piece and the opening of Duende was a challenge but overall, detail is a strength for this DAC.
The AVM is the opposite. It had a lush central image with an emphasis on bass that creates a perceived warmth. The image also did not extend beyond the speakers but it was more layered and delivered more of an experience. Detail is not a strength. Strings massed during more challenging parts of the Berg piece and the opening of Duende was a struggle. Expectations though with AVM are that it will have a richer, warmer sound and it did.
Basically, if you are looking for a good DAC in the $2500 range and below, Chord is going to be on many lists and belong there. Detail retrieval is excellent and if detail is your priority...this is a brilliant DAC (as is the Qutest).
For what is not an inexpensive integrated amp ($6995 list) with two optional cards push price to $8595 (Phono & DAC - each $800) you would hope the DAC would be decent and fit with the brands house sound. It does. It would not be uncommon for someone to pair a Chord Qutest with the AVM integrated or a similarly priced DAC. If you like a warmer sound and want a one box solution, this would not be a bad option.
@axeis1 I don't think I mentioned that I did test the filters. Chord is the brand I am most familiar with so I tested them quickly in this setup but found I liked it best with the filters off. This is not a particularly bright setup and I find the TT2 filters add a touch of warmth in high frequencies, that is it. They are more subtle than say NOS vs linear on the Wavelight.
I rarely use the Chord filters with either system as both have tubes or my headphones that I use most commonly (Thinksound On1 and Focal Celestee). On the rare occasion that I have a demo of another headphone, that may change. I would have the filter on warmest with say Focal Utopias. Probably off for Stellias. You get the idea. Headphones have been hard to keep in stock and I can't open a pair for demo.
Great idea Verdantaudio. Will follow this enthusiastically.
Antigrunge2, I have to agree. I’ve heard great R2R DACs, and know the sound of the Magicwire DAC in the Devialet Expert Pro, which is based around a Texas Instruments PCM1792 (Delta Sigma topology). I believe that its not so much about the DAC chip in and of itself, but the execution of the supporting architecture and the chip together. Having heard several high-end DACs including R2R and FPGA based DACs, I can confidently state that the Devialet Magic Wire DAC is in the same class.
At the risk of being repetitive: it is much more the implementation of the individual design than the basic architecture (R2R, FPGA, Delta Sigma)that differentiates dacs: i.e. quality of clocking and power supplies( foremost), quality of the noise rejection on digital inputs, design of attenuator (if used as a preamp), presence of op-amps or capacitors in the signal path, direct coupling of output stages and on and on. I very much question the ability to differentiate between the different chip sets, be they TI/Burr Brown, AKM, ESS Sabre et al. in an optimised setting on sound quality. Assuming optimal clock accuracy it is really the differences in the analogue domain that determine dac sound quality.
Okay...the Wyre4Sound DAC 2V2 SE arrived on trade. After a little bit of time playing and getting settled, I ran the same test but first a few notes. This DAC has an insane number of settings.
Unfortunately, they are in a menu that is accessible when the DACs main power is on but the DAC is not running. This makes making changes more difficult but you have an immense amount of flexibility to fine tune your sound.
This could take hours and bluntly, I don't have those hours to spend so I made a few tweaks to get the DAC into the system and the thing I found most intriguing was the jitter eliminator though I don't love the net result. It sounds less like true, proper clocking and more like a DSP correcting for a clocking error which it probably is.
Soundstage is great. This blows the Hugo 2 and AVM out of the water in terms of imaging and staging. Overall, detail was very good. I puled out the Audiobyte and Hugo 2 as points of comparison.
Detail in drum rolls are strong but a hair below the DACs in the price class above. Well below the TT2 or the Audiobyte. There is a touch of sibilance in Sting's voice and in certain parts of Liberty. Two or three moments of glare during Liberty that were tough to listen too. This is likely based on the setting I quickly arrived at.
Strings were slightly massed in the Berg piece and due to the size of the soundstage, the intimacy was lost. The opening of Duende was a little bit of a struggle. It did the job, but not at an elite level. It sounded a little muddy.
It is priced in the middle between the Audiobyte and the Hugo 2. Performance is in the middle between the Audiobyte and the Hugo 2. Detail is closer to the Hugo 2 while staging is closer to the Audiobyte.
At $3800, as a new DAC, it is priced fairly and delivers very good performance if you are wiling to spend the time tweaking in what is not the best user interface. Used, in the $2k range...this thing is incredible.
it is much more the implementation of the individual design than the basic architecture (R2R, FPGA, Delta Sigma)that differentiates dacs: i.e. quality of clocking and power supplies( foremost), quality of the noise rejection on digital inputs, design of attenuator (if used as a preamp), presence of op-amps or capacitors in the signal path, direct coupling of output stages and on and on. I very much question the ability to differentiate between the different chip sets, be they TI/Burr Brown, AKM, ESS Sabre et al. in an optimised setting on sound quality. Assuming optimal clock accuracy it is really the differences in the analogue domain that determine dac sound quality.
I agree regarding implementation. There are some limitations with R2Rs and DSD. Otherwise, the only thing I can see against any design is if a DAC uses a particular chip that is discontinued and/or replaced, the older models will drop in perceived value. That obviously doesn’t happen with R2R DACs or FPGAs.
I have done some testing with cables. The AQ Diamond is very good. I swapped in a Clarus Crimson and think it was a pleasant switch depending on the speakers and is a very good substitute. if you have issues with box on AQ stuff fitting, this is a brilliant substitute.
In some cases, I reported a bit of bass emphasis with some DACs. Swapping speaker cables, I think that was the AQ Robin Hoods, not the DACs. It is definitely a more bass heavy cable which is probably why I like it with my stand mounts.
Finally, I have done some additional testing with different servers. I have an Antipodes K40 here (and an open box) along with my sample Nucleus+, a traded in Nucleus and a Wavedream NET that was just traded in with a Wavedream Signature DAC.
The Nucleus+ and Nucleus exhibited no difference as standalone servers. I do think there was a small improvement with the Nucleus+ when they were connected via USB and the Roon unit was used as server and renderer but it was small enough that I am not certain and it could be my internal bias.
The Antipodes K40 as a server used either with the Weiss directly via ethernet or with the Chord (2Go/2Yu) renderer is significantly better. It should be at 4 to 6x the cost of the nucleus but everything is clearer and cleaner. Effects, especially in Liberty, clustered notes like the opening of Duende or bells in Be Still My Beating Heart are just clearer.
The Wavedream NET as a Server vs the Antipodes were a push when feeding the 2Go/2Yu. Feeding the Wavedream Signature takes this DAC to a totally different level. The loss of that last, tiny bit of jitter is just mind boggling. I am using an Audioquest Dragon 48 HDMI to connect them. The idea is that the clock is perfectly synchronized between the two devices and that is completely obvious.
case in point: that’s why reclockers like the InnuOS Phoenix actually have a value. Even better is the scenario where you can connect server and DAC via USB with a 10m OCXO or rubidium clock optimising the DAC clock. Since the DAC on asynchronous USB actually slaves the server, not only do you get a reclocked USB link but also the highest accuracy clock for the actual d to a conversion in the DAC. It’s why Esoteric and DCM offer dedicated clocks in their stacks
@Chorus this really is a matter of taste, system and music preference which is best. For me, the Rockna Wavedream Signature, Vu Jade, Weiss, Bricasti M1 SE and Audiobyte were my favorites in roughly that order. My bias is toward detail because my gear and speakers are very musical and throw a big soundstage. If I had different gear, my order could change.
For perspective, I just had someone trade in the Rockna because what I love about it, they didn’t like. They are going with a new tube DAC from Gordon Rankin. @antigrunge2. I have not played with an external clock personally but am pretty certain I need to get an Antipodes Clock in to understand its impact. No question clocking matters.
To dankef, I’ve owned both the Morpheus and Bricasti M3. In comparison to each other, the Morpheus is slightly soft while the Bricasti is a bit more incisive. I enjoy both DACs and a choice would depend on the rest of your system and what you want to achieve. Also, consider that the M3 is twice the price of the Sonnet.
@rja , I'm realizing the full benefit of all Streamer/DACs that can eliminate USB cables, extra boxes and Power cords, my Bricasti M3 with network board sounds wonderful, and it and my system just got a major transformational upgrade with the addition of a Synergistic Research Ethernet switch and SR Ethernet cables, bigger positive change than changing any other component.
@verdantaudio talks about what might be best according to your preferences but I would add looking at a company that has fantastic support and for me personally made in the USofA. Again I'd prefer USA made for many reasons one of which I like to support local companies. With that being said Bricasti would be at the top of my list. (OK I already own an M1 but will be either getting it upgraded or buy the M3).
@rja Thanks very much. I ended up selling the Sonnet and ordering an M3. I did find the Sonnet a bit soft in my setup so I’m hoping the M3 will be more to my taste. It was significantly more expensive though!
@wharfy i would need to know the balance of your system, your current DAC, understand what you like and dislike about your current setup and what you want more or less of in a new DAC. Without that context, I am merely going to tell you which DAC I like best. That is worse than worthless because my opinion on what I like best might imply it is a better product than another which is simply not true. Gotta find what is best for you in your system.
Ref75 and Ref5SE; ProAc DR30; Ayre Codex DAC; Aurender music server/streamer; Cambridge CXC transport; AudioQuest Cinnamon interconnects and digital connectors; Signal Company speaker wire with banana terminators.
I like how the system creates a large top to bottom, side to side, 3D soundstage that fills the room with detailed and organic sound. I also enjoy the separation of instruments, dark background I believe I am getting from my ARC components.
I'm not fond of the high end glare I think I am getting from my DAC, even though I do like the top to bottom extension.
I would avoid the Chord TT2, the Wyred 4 Sound and the Weiss as I think you will get as much or more glare from them. Then it comes down to balancing detail vs imaging. Audiobyte, Rockna and Bricasti in $5k range should deliver an improvement vs the codex. Audiobyte is most detailed with least impressive soundstage while Bricasti is most detailed with least impressive detail. Rockna is warmest of the three. My inclination is to say Wavelight but I think all three will be a step forward. Because of the ribbon on those Proacs delivering that big soundstage, you are going to need less help from the DAC. Audiobyte might be a good option. It would be between those two to me.
Two more DACs on the way in to get added to this. I just ordered a Khadas Tone 2 as an evaluation unit and I have a trade of a Rockna Wavedream Edition on the way.
I would love to test the Holo May. I have not had one traded in and I am not going to buy a unit of this sort as it is going to cost me a lot of money because I am obviously not going to keep it. If someone wants to lend me one, I would be happy to test it.
That being said, the Khadas has arrived and in an irritating turn of events, ships with a USB C cable. I do not have a USB C wall plug and can't plug it in. I have to order one of those.
Rockna Wavedream Edition is in transit and will be here next week.
Interesting thing happened. I think I have one of the best offerings of DACs in the $4.5K to $17K range among many retailers. Under $4.5K, my offerings are a bit sparse, especially given availability issues Musical Fidelity is having. I have Chord. To that end, I am evaluating the Questyle CMA12 and will include here.
So I have the Questyle and Khadas here and they are getting burnt in. I did a little testing with them and am going to add in the need to evaluate the headphone amp. Specifically I will test the Khadas, Questyle, iPhone 6 since it has a headphone jack, Hugo 2 and Weiss using a pair of Focal Celestee Blues and ThinkSound ON1s.
Secondarily, the Rockna Wavedream Edition is here and that will also be give time to get acquainted.
Regarding the Holo May, everyone says it is great but until I get one in, I have no POV. I have also not heard the Musetec.
I have a Holo Audio May KTE dac in my main system and a AudioByte Hydra Xox dac I plan using for headphone listening upstairs den though waiting for the third part of this digital stack the AudioByte Hub. Both dacs are well run in and with direct comparisons in my main system they are both exceptional performing though there are differences of course especially when listening for human timbre using exceptionally recorded vocals, the AudioByte Vox out performs the May KTE Dac every single time I have demonstrate this to audio friends . I simply ask what sounds more human , more live and realistic to your ears the AudioByte Vox is picked every time . The Holo May outperforms the AudioByte Vox with the 3D like portrait sound stage and much better separation and with a few hundred dollars apart either dac should be pleasing to your ears. Finally both dacs do a very good job along with the other components of keeping your room warm , very warm .
@in_shore Thank you for that compare. That is super helpful!
I just finished testing the Rockna Wavedream Edition. This happened to be the SE but the only difference between the SE and the XLR is a fully balanced (and therefore double) circuit. Thus the price differential.
Like all Rockna products, the image projected is extremely wide. This unit has a surprisingly high level of detail for it's price point ($6500) but that should be more reflective of the fact that it is a simplified DAC compared to its true peers in the ~$10K price range. This lacks a renderer (Weiss) or renderer option (Bricasti M1) and since it is single ended, only offers RCA outputs. The XLR at $9500 is more comparable
That being said, it is a middle ground between the Weiss and the Bricasti M1 SE. It is essentially as neutral as it's big brother, the Wavedream Signature, but with a hair less detail Separation of the drum rolls in In a Sentimental Mood isn't quite as good as The Signature or the Weiss. Soundstage isn't quite as good as Bricasti M1SE.
The opening of Duende has great separation but a Tony Levin's very speedy notes weren't quite perfectly separated. The soundstage and nuance you look for in Liberty was flawless without a touch of sibilance. Same for Be Still My Beating Heart. No massing of strings at all in the Berg piece and it remained intimate without getting too big.
The compromise on this unit is the absolute level of detail and it fits very neatly between the M1 SE and the Weiss 501/502. The SE is tonally between the Audiobyte and the Wavedream in the lower tier, but delivering the TT2s detail level.
@in_shore, Thanks for sharing your listening impressions of the two DACs. Does the Audiobyte DAC superior timbre and realism apply as well to acoustic instruments (Or just human vacals) ? That’s a coveted attribute. Charles
@verdantaudio I’ve been following your thread. Thanks for sharing your findings. A time intensive endeavor, to say the least.
I’m curious about your thoughts on the following:
With Charles’ Yamamoto DAC, my previous ARC DAC7, etc. ... given the time/provenance when they were developed...do you feel the reference points and focus by the development engineers was different (back then) than it is now?
I’m over generalizing here to make the point: Today, many DACs, like the Holo May, deliver / are focused on a different sonic presentation. More theatrics than fidelity to live acoustic performance [again, generalizing to make the point].
Note: I’m not picking on the Holo May...using it for discussion reasons, since it was recently mentioned.
Charles yes I would say so , the AudioByte Vox presents timbre of Acoustic instruments better then the Holo Audio however we’ll recorded vocals are truly breath taking and for the price of the AudioByte Vox it’s a honey with it’s purpose built headphone section and wife accepts it tidy small foot print in her part of the house .
@david_ten This is tough in that I don't have a Holo May and will not comment on that exact product. But I do understand your point. There are a few other brands I can think of (that will remain unnamed) that deliver experience over accuracy. This is not bad, and clearly, lots of people like this. It is a choice. What is unfortunate is that folks can get caught up in enthusiasm around a product and end up with something that is not to their liking and not know why.
I am not sure you can make an industry wide generalization though. I think that the core brands mentioned here, Chord, Rockna/Audiobyte, Bricasti, Weiss and I would add in MSB, dCS & Playback Designs are committed to delivery of an accurate listening experience. The deviations between these brands sound profile is real and obvious, but not so extreme that it is challenging to build a system with them as a source and get a great result.
@in_shore, Thanks. I suspected this would be the case. More often than not if a component can reproduce high quality midrange with human voice it will excel with unamplified/acoustic musical instruments. This is not an easily accomplished task. Kudos to the Audiobyte Hydro Vox. Charles
Temporal reference shift...AND shifts in definitions of "accuracy" by audiophiles are areas I've been reflecting on.
I believe this is part and parcel of the human condition, it's growth, and it's engagement with the world at large. One example of many, for illustration purposes: consider the differences in movies from the 1950s to those of today.
It's a steady, inexorable creep... mostly unnoticed as the changes are incremental and softened by time. Add Up they do.
We are, in my opinion/reflection, at a point where "natural / realistic" [accurate] as "understood" say 40 years ago, would be identified as tilted to experience (using your word) if one were to be transported from that time to today.
Of the core brands you mention, I'd expect many to be found in the experience column...based on the above hypothetical.
I think that the core brands mentioned here, Chord, Rockna/Audiobyte, Bricasti, Weiss and I would add in MSB, dCS & Playback Designs are committed to delivery of an accurate listening experience.
Bringing this up since you've spent a significant amount of time understanding differences in this component type within your system chains.
Perhaps you and others from the industry can comment?
Having a relative, flexible and general understanding of what's natural, realistic, accurate would be helpful. For the many, versus the one. Wishful hope? : )
@david_ten, The vintage movies versus current movie themes and production is a good analogy. I believe that there’s always been a sincere effort in High End audio to pursue sonic "accuracy ". How would one consensusly define this goal of accuracy is an entirely different matter.
No doubt that the definition and means of obtaining it via audio components has changed or evolved over the ensuing decades.l believe that the manufacturers of the various DACs presented in this thread are honestly aiming for their interpretation of digital accuracy in reproducing music in the homes of their customers.
As The OP has clearly and tirelessly demonstrated, very definite sonic presentations/signatures exist in the relentless quest for accuracy. Charles
it is hard to know what sound is exactly accurate, it is also hard to know who’s rendition of an accurate, ’high fidelity’ sound presentation is most true, even if a number of different designers/firms are trying to achieve that same goal (and not a purposely 'beautified' presentation)
some traits can be quickly called out as unwanted and defining of poor implementation - such as a noticeable grain, or electronic haze, or clearly rolled off or smeared frequencies... but there are various presentations that avoid these pitfalls but still sound rather different
i suppose in the end, which version is most accurate becomes unimportant, what matters is what pleases a particular user in their system, their room
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
