I’m in the market for a dac since I bought a Musical Paradise MP701MKII Tube Preamp few months back, does it make sense to buy a tube dac? The seller Garry is suggesting to get the Musical Paradise MP D2 MKIII which is a tube dac with a AK4490 but can be upgraded to AK4499 but I’m leaning towards the RME ADI2 which is almost the same price as the MP tube dac. I’m finding it hard to justify a $1k dac but I have read a lot of forums that suggests the RME or the SMSL M400 and Denafrips Ares II but I’m a sucker for vu meters and spectrum analyzers but if the MP tube dac is a good match for my MP tube preamp I’m willing to give it a go.
@melvinjones, Precisely! There's no neutral audio device. If a tube is a so called "tone control" so is a transistor. Just different versions of distortion. The idea that solid state is the default neutral choice is not logical. Listen to a half dozen solid state DACs and each is different sonically from another. Same outcome with tube DACs in the same scenario. Charles
Tube dacs make sense if you want a bit of coloration to the sound not a bad thing if that's what you are after. I had a Lampi Big 6 and IMHO was too colored only realized it after an audition of a Bricasti M1. Once heard and understanding what the tubed dac was doing I had to have a more neutral and even sounding dac, if this makes sense.
No they don't. If a DACs noise and distortion is so low it's beyond human audible threshold it's considered transparent. I've heard quite a few DACs over the years and when sight was removed from the equation I couldn't tell one from the other as long as were not DESIGNED to have a signature sound.
Understood, Some listeners will say they can not hear a difference, with the same DACs other listeners can easily perceive sonic differences. This shouldn’t be surprising as a fairly wide spectrum exists as to what people are able to detect and distinguish. Measurements at this stage of development can't account for all that the ear-brain neurologic pathway can decipher and process. Charles
charles1dad7,711 posts04-26-2021 1:47pmUnderstood, Some listeners will say they can not hear a difference, with the same DACs other listeners can easily perceive sonic differences. This shouldn’t be surprising as a fairly wide spectrum exists as to what people are able to detect and distinguish. Measurements at this stage of development can't account for all that the ear-brain neurologic pathway can decipher and process. Charles
As djones51 pointed out, there are a class of DACs, the majority, that are designed to not have a "sound". From fairly low cost to super expensive, they won't have a significantly significant sound signature. You will move through levels of refinement, but that refinement hits asymptotic diminishing returns early. Lots of people on this website will claim they could easily hear a difference. Those who have done recent blind testing will know just how hard that is if not impossible. This was not always the case, but has been for quite some time. The price point where these types of DACs can be easily (or at all) told apart keeps dropping.
Then there is a whole class of products intentionally having a "sound". Many products even have setting to give them a sound. NOS DACs have a sound, DACs with different filter implementations have a sound, DACs with low feedback tube output stages have a sound. These can be pretty readily told apart, and from the aforementioned ones that don't have a "sound". Not only can the be readily told apart, but significant differences show up in measurements.
Measurements at this stage of development can't account for all that the ear-brain neurologic pathway can decipher and process.
Unfortunately this statement is conjecture. It is not the 70's-80's any more. That whole only looking at THD thing is well in the past. We can't fully interpret what measurements mean, but we can certainly measure to a level beyond audible difference.
@jjss49 and mahgister, thank you and I appreciate your gracious comments.
@dletch2, You are correct, it is not the 1970-1980s. Science and technology have advanced significantly since then. Yet discovery and rigorous research continue to reveal ever more about human physiology and function. My point in the post above is acknowledging there are still things that lie outside our complete understanding and explanation as it pertains to auditory processing pathways.
I’m unaware of any neurologist or neuroscientist who’d say every aspect of human hearing is fully understood. Far beyond the 1980s level of comprehension yet still unable to account for what humans are capable of hearing by supporting /certifying measurement. I wholeheartedly agree that much can be measured but that’s different from everything can be measured in this regard.
Could you provide a short list of the DACs you are familiar with that lack any sonic signature (As you wrote, Not to have a sound)? I would really appreciate that. Charles
I’m using a Wells Audio Cipher tube dac right now. It replaced a Holo Audio May. Sounds more “real” and “natural” to me. Some will like the former, some the latter. Both $4k-5k. Designer of the Wells says he tubes he uses 12bh7 are more linear than some others. Who knows?
Seems to me the goal of a DAC should be accuracy. It seems like a crapshoot to try to color the sound with tube distortion at the DAC level, especially when you're already coloring it at the preamp level. Who knows what combination of distortion you'll get. You can get an SS DAC with well below audible distortion for under $150, like the
S.M.S.L Sanskrit 10th MK II.
The naysayer that make blanket statements that tube DACs are inferior clearly aren’t speaking from experience. I couldn’t be happier with my MHDT Orchid tube DAC coupled with my BAT VK-5i tube preamp and BAT VK-600 class A solid state amp.
It all depends on how one builds a system. To my way of thinking I want the dac to maximize resolution and minimize coloration. Coloration can be incorporated from elsewhere in system. My Sabre chip dac would likely be considered on analytical side of spectrum. I have the ability to color with various iterations of system, dac direct to amp, dac through two choices of passive preamps, dac through tube buffer, dac through active tube pre. I can get this maximum resolving and perhaps cooler sounding (to some) dac to make music sound rather clinical or bring natural, real human performers into room.
My issue with tube dacs is not with potential colorations, I'm just not convinced they're maximally resolving.
This true signals/coloration debate is very simplistic....
Remind me of the tube/S.S. debate...
Remind me of the vinyl/dac debate...
Remind me of the evolution/ design debate...
Remind me of the male/female superiority debate...
When we debate it is very important to distinguish external duality and internal polarity... and most of the times there is so much aspects to the problem that it is impossible to generalyse from one perspective only...
If we do not take into account all distinctions, we will oppose complementary factors, elements, and we will confuse our taste and bias with reality....
Then a tube dac could make sense in some specific case not in other.... Simple....
My Cary 200ts has remote switchable SS and tube analog outputs. I find that i do switch between them depending on type of music and my or companions mood.
I have the MP D2 MKIII and love it. The stock tubes are kind of dull but get yourself some NOS signal tubes and a good rectifier and it really opens up. Keep in mind you can run 5 and 6.3 volt rectifiers and 12 volt and 6 volt signal tubes. You also have user replaceable capacitors (no soldering required). I'm running the Mundorf siver / oil caps in single ended so I only need two, along with 2 Telefunken 6922 and a Philip's 5u4g rectifier and it's great. If you can swing it get the Crystek clock option. Garry is easy to work with.
Also dacs with tube output don’t drive very well into the next equipment, be it passive pre active pre or direct to poweramp if it is lower than <20kohm input impedance. As tube dacs usually have high output impedance and are capacitor coupled, which "could" also roll off the bass those low input impedances <20kohm.
I have to disagree with this, I'm getting a tube dac that can drive any preamp it's output impedence is 200ohm.
No problem here just want to know some experiences with dacs and tube dacs. To each its own I guess but certainly taken into account a lot of pros and cons but very helpful indeed. Will update if going the route of a tube dac or just a dac. Thanks again to all.
"This is not a whether it is better or not decision, it is a whether you like it or not". Per dletch2.
Agree 100%. Who would buy any audio product (with the purpose /intent of enjoying your music) if you didn’t like the sound it reproduces. That would make absolutely no sense. Measurements of a product are meaningless if you don’t enjoy the listening experience it provides. Charles
A Tube DAC softens the sound. A sound that would not need to be softened if the DAC was able to avoid certain digital distortions. Tubes are a band aid....
A Tube DAC softens the sound. A sound that would not need to be softened if the DAC was able to avoid certain digital distortions. Tubes are a band aid....
Softens? Band Aid? You've obviously not heard a well-executed tube DAC. My Pagoda is anything but softened.
A Tube DAC softens the sound. A sound that would not need to be softened if the DAC was able to avoid certain digital distortions. Tubes are a band aid....
A good tube DAC will produce sound as accurately as a good transistor amp, if not more. Anybody who claims tube amplification is not linear is, to put it mildly, “unfamiliar” with electronics and modern tube amp designs. Go with whichever sounds better to you. I’m not familiar with musical paradise but I own a RME. It’s an excellent DAC but it did not perform well driving my amp directly. I added a preamp and now it performs properly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All my components have tubes. Now depends what tubes the DAC has. My fav pre tubes in a DAC are 12AX and 12AU. These are special tubes which you can roll and yes tubes add a nice nuanace to the sound.
There are no tube output DACs on the market that are as linear as the best solid state output DACs. You could make one more linear, but that would take feedback, more tubes, etc. and you would probably run into noise limits before you the linearity of a SS DAC.
A Tube DAC softens the sound. A sound that would not need to be softened if the DAC was able to avoid certain digital distortions. Tubes are a band aid....
Hi @dletch2, Okay, now I understand your reference point. We will respectfully disagree. Each of these DACs has their own sonic character and aren’t in my opinion "neutral" and bereft of sonic signatures.
Benchmark, I’ve heard only under show conditions on 3 seperate occasions. However each listening session I found the sound to be consistently lean and analytical. This DAC is often touted as the paragon of neutrality (With the prerequisite stellar measurements). I just hear it differently. Some will agree with me and some will not.
Same type sound quality with the Chord Dave(Haven’t heard the Hugo or Qutest). Mola Mola heard twice under show conditions (With other Mola Mola components). My listening impression was dry, clinical and analytical.
Heard the stock Oppo in a friend’s audio system compared to a Modwright version modified utilizing tubes. His modifiefded DAC was substantially more natural sounding and realistic. Stock Oppo was 2 dimensional, leaner and lacked harmonic overtone richness.
Heard the Holo Spring DAC (Loaned to me) in my system. Actually pretty good sounding I thought. In direct comparison to a Yamamoto YDA-1a DAC the latter was more open, dynamic and had fuller tone and body of human voice and instruments. Definitely more emotionally engaging presentation.
I haven’t heard the RME DAC.
There will be no consensus with my listening impressions. Individuals hear and perceive differently. No getting around this fact. What some listeners interpret and declare to be accurate, neutral, clean, lacking an audible signature is sterile, dry, clinical and lacking musical connection to others.
What some listeners perceive as full bodied, tonally rich, authentic reproduction of timbre, harmonic overtones vivid instrumental preservation is to others simply euphonic/pleasing colorations. "Never the twain shall meet". Two polar ends of listening perception and ultimately preference.
I recognized this long ago and happily accept it for what it is. Accurate/neutral crowd versus the organic/natural crowd. I firmly reside in the latter. High End audio accommodates (Plenty of choices for either crowd) both with welcome arms 😊. Charles
@detch2 "It is almost impossible to extract the sound of a DAC from other things in trade show or dealer. The speakers and room dominate the sound. The comparison you did at a friends, different DACs, same systems is the best way to go. ",
Agree, but it is an impossible task to hear "every" audio product in your own or very familiar audio system. That’s why audio shows exist (And dealer showrooms). they have limitations but are better than no listenig exposure at all. Attending C.E.S AXPONA, RMAF etc. has been very informative and worthwhile for me. Manufacturers want you to hear their products. Otherwise they all would just do a silent static display.
You can often get a pretty good general impression of components/speakers in show and showroom environments. At least that’s been my experience over the years. Charles
I used to bring a headphone amp and headphones to listen to CD players. Most trade show setups are pretty awful and with no familiarity with the speakers and electronics, there is little chance to accurately attribute a sound to any one piece.
You are totally correct, it is a difficult task now, especially with fewer bricks and mortar stores. Even more reason to, as a hobby, put a little more emphasis on removing bias from our reviews that other people may use in their purchase decisions.
"you participate on this forum for a while, you realize there are some usernames who are here just to issue blanket dismissals... i suspect they are now pretty much deaf but can still see and can type"
Totally agree with charles1dad that hobbyists often affiliate with either an "accuracy crowd" or a "musicality crowd," and that members of these different crowds are likely to have very different preferences. I expect that divide explains some of the preferences on this thread. Very difficult to see how any discussion of measurements or coloration could resolve that difference of preference -- which doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
But we listen and tweak the WHOLE system not the parts separately.
Yes, I completely concur that ultimately this is true. But to reach this stage (Whole system) an audio system has to constructed and this is usually done via acquiring components piece by piece.
So in essence each audio component/product is individually judged or scrutinize before buying and adding to one’s audio system. I believe that very few people buy a complete system consisting of speakers, source,cables and electronics in a single step.
Once all pieces of the audio system are in place then the tweaking and fine tuning as a whole can be addressed and strategically implemented. This would include room acoustic considerations as needed. Charles
No, we don’t say the same thing. Accuracy is a state of something relating how close it is to being precise. Measurement and auditioning is a process, not a state.
"accuracy by the numbers" is related to a process .... This is common sense and go without saying it...
"accuracy by the ears" is related to the process of human hearing....This is common sense and go without saying it...
My use of the word "accuracy" were in the context of a war between "subjectivist" and objectivist" the word was refering to a confusion between what is accurate in the measuring tool process and what is selected to be accurate like in pitch timbre perception and evaluation by and for the ears....
There is no electronic process known to man that measures the accuracy of music.
Twisting my post because you are more "snippy" than me wont erase reality...
And reality is this: Any engineer must CORRELATE the measure by numbers with what is another "measure" the way his ears judge pitch accuracy for example in his design test....
Then i will write more clearly what you just errenously wrote, twisting in your way true engineering endeavour:
If " there is no electronic process that measure the accuracy of music" there is an enginering process that CORRELATED measures by tool and measures or EVALUATION of music( pitch, timbre, colors,dynamics etc) for the human ears...
This engineering historical process of CORRELATION improvement give us hi-fi.....And some new tools ....
Then "opposing" measure by the numbers and measure by the ears is stupidity, distinguishing them without reducing any of them to the other and "correlating" them is wiser....
Reality is not black or white, subjectivist against objectivist or the opposite...
I apologize for being "snippy" anyway.... Perhaps i was in my tone....
I would say not only does a tube DAC make sense, it’s probably necessary for digital streaming.
Streaming music can be quite unforgiving in a resolving setup. That’s why audiophiles add switches, network isolators, etc.
I find my modwright CXN (with tube output) so much easier to listen to for streaming than a very musical (and expensive) solid state NOS DAC that I own.
The proof is in the pudding and I spend a lot more time listening to music and exploring new music with the modwright CXN.
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.
