@kingbarbuda - hey there, King - I've got the KTE version....
DAC That Punches Above Its Price Point
I’ll make it short. I’ve spent some hours reading the DAC threads on this forum. I am aware quality of digital matters as superior DACs usually the costlier ones will sound better than cheap DACs, making music sound more analog, lifelike, real, believable with all the soundstage and detail etc. All the good things. There are some who thought it’s the music that matters, and although different DACs may sound different it’s the music that makes the most difference. In other words, the differences that exist between DACs are not that important as it's all about the music. I can see the point that people are trying to make.
Back to the topic. I’ve read great things on the Denafrips Ares II and Pontus II, and other costlier high-end DACs. I’ve read about the Chord DAVE. I personally own a Chord QBD76 and have no urge to replace it with anything else since it sounds splendid in my system, for the money. I may be setting up another system and was wondering if there is a DAC in the lower price bracket that punches way above its price point, sounding close to if not better than the costlier designs.
I presume the Audioquest Black, Red or Cobalt are not worthy of consideration and sound noticeably inferior to the costlier options? FWIW I tried the Musical Fidelity M1 DAC and this one really sounded poor to my ears. Very digital sound and I stopped listening to it after a while. The Chord sounds a lot more analog, lifelike and real to my ears.
I would appreciate any advice. Thanks.
Back to the topic. I’ve read great things on the Denafrips Ares II and Pontus II, and other costlier high-end DACs. I’ve read about the Chord DAVE. I personally own a Chord QBD76 and have no urge to replace it with anything else since it sounds splendid in my system, for the money. I may be setting up another system and was wondering if there is a DAC in the lower price bracket that punches way above its price point, sounding close to if not better than the costlier designs.
I presume the Audioquest Black, Red or Cobalt are not worthy of consideration and sound noticeably inferior to the costlier options? FWIW I tried the Musical Fidelity M1 DAC and this one really sounded poor to my ears. Very digital sound and I stopped listening to it after a while. The Chord sounds a lot more analog, lifelike and real to my ears.
I would appreciate any advice. Thanks.
127 responses Add your response
@larsman Which version of the May DAC do you own? Thanks. |
@jasonduke2 I don't think there's a lot of anything that really "punches above its price point", but if you want to get to the next level past the Senn HD 6XX, this is a good place to start.
|
Everybody says that the HD 6xx is one of the best "bang for your buck" headphones out there. And yeah it is justified since it is selling for $ 200, for a headphone that is supposed to be an exact copy of a $ 350 dollar one that also sounds better than its price point. So my question is this, is there a headphone like this that punches more to its price point in the next tier? Like maybe a $ 500 headphones that sound like a $ 1000 dollar one? |
@larsman -- thank you for sharing your impressions. It looks like our preferences when it comes to particular ’flavors’ of DACs are quite alike. I’ve never tried the higher priced DACs like DAVE, but based on what I have heard I too prefer a slightly round, warm and meaty sound even if it comes at a slight expense of ultimate detail retrieval. Last year I tried a number of DACs including RME, Chord Qutest, PS Audio Directstream Jr, Cambridge Audio Azur 851D ... in the end, the one I ended up keeping was a 6-7 year old design - Luxman DA-06. Despite its age and a reputation of somewhat overly romantic or warm sound, this DAC still sounds better (to my ears, of course) anything that I tried under $2K. Next year, I plan to move the Luxman to my study and try something in the $4-6K range for the main system. I’ve added Holo May to the list of contenders. Thanks for sharing. |
@arafiq - yes, I was thinking that this was one of the most hyped up things I'd ever seen a few months ago, both on vids and in forums and articles, but I had to check it out. It all depends on what kind of sound one likes. Somebody who is very into super detailed and uncolored sound would be very, very well served by DAVE, with or without M Scaler, though that thing is amazing. I like a more colored, tubey sound so I've been using tube headphone amps and tube 2-channel preamp; currently it's an Audis Nirvana for the headphones. With Utopia headphones, it puts out a very deep, spacious soundstage that is a delightful listen, and while it's got plenty of detail, that's not it's strong point. Same with 2-channel - just got more of the kind of qualities that I like with the Holo May, but the Chord gear is great too, but a tad 'dry/clinical' for my taste.... |
@larsman this is indeed very high praise for the Holo May. I was planning to buy a new dac next year, and you've definitely piqued my interest. Can you describe the differences between these two setups? |
I'm currently using the Naim NDAC. Refreshed by AV Options. It retailed for $4,000. at debut and uses the same chipset as their $20,000 CD 555. There is one currently listed here on Audiogon. 24/192, FLAC, WAV and Apple Losses. 2 usbs, 4 optical inputs, 2 BNC Inputs, 2 RCA inputs. Charges your IPhone too. N |
If you are enjoying the Chord ($5,000 give or take?), my personal opinion is that you may not be content with any $500 DAC. I worked my way through all sorts of delta sigmas, and until I heard an R2R, I was not happy with my system. My first R2R was a Theta DS ProBasic III and I loved it. The sterile and analytical sound was mostly gone.Cost me like $500 a couple of years ago and retailed for about $2500 when new. I decided to explore R2R a bit more and bought a Sorekris single ended just to try it. In my system, it is more detailed and analytical, while the Theta is more full and organic. My most recent DAC purchase was a Mojo Audio EVO 3 ($3000 used) and it is a definite large step above both the Theta and Soekris. A general comment would be that it provides the detail of the Soekris and the body of the EVO. I can hear emotion in vocals better than before and no treble sterility. I am waiting on a new Mojo Audio Mystique B4B and am counting on the higher quality parts and stronger power supply to get me closer to my version of nirvana. While I am waiting on the new DAC, guess what I am listening to in the meantime? The Theta. FWIW and YMMV Thanks for listening, Dsper
|
Finally the Soekris DAC has been mentioned. But it cannot be compared to all the rest because the owner can set/chose/compare its digital filters. This adjustment can change SQ far beyond any cable, speakers, amps, DAC changes and its still very subtle. It's kind of comparable to the filters which can be set in HQPlayer (with upsampling) but that would need a relatively powerful PC at the beginning of the chain. Over the years CD players and DACs have offered these kind of different selectable filters but the SQ improvement was rather questionable IMO. There must be almost hundred different filters, in the meantime written by DIY audio members which can be downloaded from DIYaudio. The DAC itself comes with 4 different filters. For people who really want to tweak their DAC with some understanding of the details of what they are doing there is also a long thread which explains how to do it. So IMO this DAC has an incredible potential which no other DAC can offer. |
| Post removed |
ryder That will most definitely be one of the discrete R2R ladder dac from Soekris Engineering from Denmark in the Audiophile line or the DIY line.. http://www.soekris.dk/products.html US agent. https://soekris.modhouseaudio.com/soekris-audiophile-line Cheers George |
Jolida Glass FX with new production Mullards, coupled with an Iso Regen, an Oyaide USB cable, connected to a dedicated 2015 MacBook Air, Qobuz, Audirvana, and powered by updated/upgraded vintage MFA all-tube electronics, pre and mono amps, into Sonus Faber Guarneri Homage speakers. IC’s mostly by Virtue Audio except for the long Blue Jeans IC’s from preamp to the amps, which are connected to the speakers with Blue Jeans Belden. After umpteen years at this often silly game, I’m finally beyond happy. |
herman, I agree on final sound check of any audio component in sound system, to make sure if no hum noise, microphonic effect (rubber hammer tap test), etc. the problem is in using “listener" as sound quality assessment, because all humans are not reliable in terms of repeatable sound grading, if they can’t see which unit is put under test. using human ears and brain is the biggest variable in ranking sound, because “listening” is biased by reviews, optical appearance, friend’s opinion, etc. just ask someone to connect different units, presumably with matched signal level etc., and listen the sound without knowing what is playing. repeat the same after cup of coffee, taking break etc. |
My point is very simple: excellent sound component manufacturers know how to test all components, including parts used in product’s assembly, and final product test, in production flow to ensure every unit “meets the spec”, and therefore they have in place all needed test procedures, equipped with accurate test equipment and provide training for staff.For this to be true these manufacturers would need specifications that include everything that affects how something sounds. They do know how to make sure their units meet their specifications. They do not know how to specify everything that affects how something sounds so we are therefore left with one and only valid way to determine how something sounds... listen to it. Before you even go there, yes, listening tests have many problems, but that's all we have as a final test. |
herman, for many ppl here understanding “simple” critical for sound quality path capacitor and it’s electrical model behavior, including nonlinearities, frequency dependencies, aging, dielectric loss, etc., is beyond range. pl ping me privately if you want to discuss sound engineering problem' specifics |
Merason Frerot is an outstanding dac $1349 you can add their power supply too which takes the SQ to a much higher level. If you want to go higher up the food chain the Merason DAC1 is an incredibly musical and detailed dac for $5500. It has transformed the sound of my system and my brother has one too and said it added as much to his system as his Vinni Rossi L2i Signature integrated and his Antipodes K50 did! Pretty amazing |
In the audible frequencies for the example I provided, ESR is insignificant. in your opinion it is insignificant. You acknowledge that R is not a factor in the relevant equationin your opinion this is the only relevant equation your choice to ignore ESR therefore also ignores the fact that ESR is frequency-dependent, temperature-dependent, and changes as components age with some capacitors. I never said your formula for Xc is incorrect, but filter calculations include R, not just Xc, yet all you quote is the formula for Xc while ignoring the formula for cutoff frequency of an RC filter. I’m saying since you are deciding which factors and which equations are applicable while ignoring other factors and equations your conclusions seem correct ... to you. |
| Post removed |
@ herman, I think you may have misread something somehow. In the audible frequencies for the example I provided, ESR is insignificant. I did provide the correct formula, or I’ve been wrong all these years 😳 Specifically for capacitive reactance, Xc is found by dividing 1 by 2xPixfxc. It is frequency dependent so it makes sense that ’f’ is in the equation. Just because R is not a factor in the equation for reactance does not mean it does not exist and certainly does not mean it will not have an effect on how a circuit behaves I am aware of the existence of ESR which I ignore for XO design but I am confused with your claim above. You acknowledge that R is not a factor in the relevant equation so how will it effect the crossover? If you quoted the formula for Xc, then I’m afraid it is wrong. Are you saying Mr. Sigfried Linkwitz who along with Riley developed one of the filters for XO’s is wrong, and would by extension would include Bessel, Butterworth and Chebychev? They are all wrong??? |
The formula for capacitive reactance is: Xc = 1/ 2Pi.f.c This is a fact and as an engineer you know this, or should. There is no 'R' in the equation and therefore ESR is not a factor.Mr. Lemon, this puts you at the top of my ignore list. Just because R is not a factor in the equation for reactance does not mean it does not exist and certainly does not mean it will not have an effect on how a circuit behaves. For a filter the cutoff frequency = 1 / (2 pi R C) ESR is a very real part of that R Maybe it turns out the ESR is so small that it is swamped out by other R in the circuit, but ignoring a very real, very measurable parameter that affects a circuit's performance just because it isn't part of a particular formula you have chosen is a rookie designer mistake. |
@westcoast, I am not sure, beyond your fixation on measurements, what you are trying to do here. Your placatory lecture by way of circumlocution is missing the point. Lets look at the capacitor. We are talking audio here, not radio frequency. As an engineer I assume you know the difference. The ESR you mention is a non-issue so perhaps you need to educate yourself some more. The formula for capacitive reactance is: Xc = 1/ 2Pi.f.c This is a fact and as an engineer you know this, or should. There is no 'R' in the equation and therefore ESR is not a factor. Go to some of the speaker gurus like Joe D'apallito, Vance Dickerson or Sigfried Linkwitz of Linkwitz/Riley fame. Not they nor any others take ESR into consideration, why would they? it's NOT in the formula. You also throw out the resonant frequency of a cap. It will resonate mechanically, everything has a resonant frequency, but it will only resonate, electrically speaking, if in circuit with say an inductor, and behaves according to the parameters of the components and the results are well understood. The series cap in a loudspeaker XO and assuming a first-order filter will create a 6dB attenuation slope dependent upon its value. Take 3 very different caps, paper-in-oil cap, teflon film and a bipolar electrolytic of same value and the plots will be exactly the same, meaning... they measure the same, but now have the audacity to actually listen. Yes to be clear have a listen which is not an unreasonable concept seeing as it's audio. Your bloviating away about a recording studio and coffee breaks is not germane to the discussion. But cheer up old chap, old engineer, you have been promoted to the top of my ignore list. |
I find the difference between Schitt Modius and their much more expensive stuff to be marginal. Use Dynaudio speakers. Generally though it depends on your overall kit. The likes of Hegel 190 already have a DAC built in, and modern streamers like Lumin T2 have stellar equipment inside. A standalone DAC is truly becoming a thing of the past. |
Based on my recent experience, I believe that the Maverick TubeMagic D2 DAC with the op amps upgraded with Sparkos dual discrete op amps results in a DAC that performs well above its $500ish price point. I think the DAC can be had for about $200 and Sparks accepted an offer for $65 (ea.) for three of the op amps. Because the DAC has parallel solid state and tube outputs, you are likely to find something you like and the tube can also be rolled. The Sparkos dual discrete op amps made a significant improvement compared to the burr-brown op amps that were the "upgrade" from Maverick Audio. The DAC chip wasn't changed, so this was really an upgrade of the analog output portion of the DAC. |
I highly suggest listening to any DAC that you are considering. If you can't listen to a DAC locally, perhaps consider buying one used so you can resell it if it doesn't perform up to your expectations. Contrary to what some others are saying that many DACs sound similar, I've struggled to find a DAC that doesn't induce listening fatigue for me. I think that managing EMI/RFI and the impact of both in inducing jitter is a key factor in listening fatigue. On the other hand, I have no such issues when listening to vinyl. But the convenience of listening to streaming music and digital files is difficult to deny. |
herman, I agree with you on as not all measurements, performed on not always perfect testers are telling us whole story. Measurement equipment has many issues by itself, such as temperature drifts, noise floor, sampling accuracy issues, internal reference clock drifts, calibration, user’s training, and more. I worked in recording studio on mixing some tracks in the past, and initially I was really surprised how coffee break can change the sound perfection! At some point in the studio we used simple radio to hear the sound, to make sure it sounds right to everyone. Therefore I am very pessimistic on relying on listeners type of sound quality tests. I would love again to hear “blind test” stories, with more than two people participating in component brand A/B/C/D grading sound “quality” without knowledge of unit under test. My point is very simple: excellent sound component manufacturers know how to test all components, including parts used in product’s assembly, and final product test, in production flow to ensure every unit “meets the spec”, and therefore they have in place all needed test procedures, equipped with accurate test equipment and provide training for staff. |
Please point me to any of sound components “certified” by audition at the end of “measurements based” production line. I have friends who are very highly respected designers/builders of sound components who would not think of shipping a component without listening to it. There are various small shops who do this. I’m not talking about the Marantz’s of the world, I’m talking about smaller shops that care about how things sound and know that measurements can’t tell you everything. I was responding to “measurements mean zero” attitude, not specific posts. Then you were responding (as far as I can see) to an attitude that does not exist. I don’t see where anybody advocates that measurements mean zero. What I and others do advocate is the other end of the spectrum. That is... measurements do not mean everything.. a very different thing. But if you go to ASR that is what you get. If he can’t measure it then it does not exist. Measurements done with his audio analyzer are the only things that matter. He usually does not even say anything about the sound of an audio devices that he "reviews", and if he does and hears something that disagrees with his measurements he discounts it to expectation bias. so to summarize, measurements are very important. Things that don’t measure well will not sound well. However, measurements are not the only thing. The idea that we have identified and can measure everything that affects how something sounds is ludicrous. Can we definitively measure everything that affects our other senses (sight, touch, taste, smell) ?? Of course not. So why would anybody think we have gotten to the point we can definitively measure how something will sound? we can’t |
@lemonhase: "if you are measuring the right things” agreed 100%, tests should be aligned with real sound performance metrics. "I can swap out a cap of same value in a speaker crossover” -capacitor has many electrical characteristics beyond capacitance and max voltage values, to name a few - ESR (equivalent series resistance), inductance, resonance frequency etc. In general, two identical capacitors, matched by all characteristics, will perform the same in speaker with crossover. Some type of capacitors, oil capacitors (I am using those in my speakers) for example, have less resonances, thus produce less distortions, or “coloration” in other words. "Also explain how two different amps that measure exactly the same can sound quite different” -power amplifiers mostly measured using ideal, Re-Z, loads (e.g. 4/6/8 Ohms). Real speakers with cables, crossovers, drivers, and finally resonating cabinets, never match any of ideal loads, and have complex frequency/power-level dependent impedance. |
No one mentioned the Benchmark DAC3. They have 3 levels, just a DAC, or one that you can use as a preamp, and another with a headphone amp, different combo, go to the website. 30 day trial period, 5 year warranty. Sounds great in my system. I use their line amp( preamp) and DAC 3B, all balanced. Amp Peachtree amp 500, audiolab 6000 transport, Tekton Double Impacts, SVS SB 4000 sub. RORY, Great contact. Their reputation for service is great too. Brought out more than I could have imagined. Robert TN |
I’ve been in love with my Berkeley version two. They have had out of version three for a while but the guys at Berkeley tell me it’s pretty tough to tell the difference. I just listen to the Macintosh DA2 and I can’t believe it but I like it better than my Berkeley, if you have an interest I thought the Berkeley was better than my last favorite the PS audio with the new Snowmass program. The Berkeley will be going ASAP |
You almost have to try to find a bad DAC these days. I did fairly detailed listening and measurement comparisons between the Topping D90SE and Gustard X16 not long ago. With identical loads and levels matched to 0.01 dB, it was impossible for me to tell them apart. I wrote about it in several posts in this thread over on ASR. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/topping-d90se-review-balanced-dac.24235/p... The Topping is $900 vs $500 for the Gustard. While they sound identical, the Topping does have a few more bells and whistles. Much nicer display, more filter choices, MQA decoding on all inputs, lower output impedance (100Ω vs 300Ω), selectable 4V or 5V output balanced, etc. Gustard offers a NOS mode that’s not on the Topping. It’s a nice feature for the HQPlayer crowd and folks who like to upsample everything to absurd rates. Given that the X16 has virtually identical objective and subjective performance to the more expensive D90SE, I’d say that it "punches above its weight." However, if you are looking for a digital preamp that can directly drive a power amplifier, the Topping is worth the extra spend for the bigger display and lower output impedance, IMHO. Edit: Here's a link to amplitude and time-domain measurements that I took of the various filter options on the D90SE and X16. There's a comparison of impulse and step response that a few nerds may find interesting. :) https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/topping-d90se-review-balanced-dac.24235/p... |
I had a Codex… it replaced an Ayre QB-9… sold the codex and bought a QB-9 DSD… far more pleasant to me.. Last year I sent the QB -9 in for the twenty upgrade. also bought a benchmark DAC3… The benchmark is excellent, but digital to my ears. Extremely articulate with very tight and forceful bass response. However in my system the detail retrieval Comes at the expense of a relaxed presentation.. The QB-20 ayre is amazing… Very revealing and rich without loss of space and air. soundstage is definitely deeper than the benchmark too.. If you can find a used QB-9 the upgrade results in a remarkable DAC..IMO.. Beware…it’s takes forever to sound right/ break in… I almost gave up on it… SSD Mac mini..D-link switch with an LPS..blue jeans Ethernet to ether regen running in reverse to an optical rendu (Krespi LPS powering both) audioquest Diamond USB cable to the Ayre QB-20 balanced out to Pass XP-20, to Pass 150.8 to Fritz Carrera Be and an REL Gibralter Sub.. |
