I'm not all in on digital systems because I'm not all in on DACs

@musicfan2349 , I completely agree with you. I think we're both approaching this from different angles and vernaculars. 😄 

When all is said and done, I do enjoy The Hunt but now am more of an armchair predator. 

All the best,
Nonoise

@nonoise My apologies for the delayed response. (Family obligations.)

"Now, take into account what you said about DACs being as different as any other component in ones system and I'm back to wondering which one is the most accurate and that designers are voicing them as well, based on their systems, and that's one big monkey wrench I'd rather not deal with.

It used to be that DACs had a particular flavor and that was about it. Nowadays, they can make or break a system, adding to the complexity.

Ah my point precisely! Each component, be it DAC or speakers or whatever, contribute to a system's sonic signature. But concerning DACs specifically you'd said: "Too many flavors and choices don't get me any closer to the musical truth if they all sound different."

For my part, I've never searched for "the musical truth". If one considers it for a moment, there is only ONE musical truth and that is what comes off the instruments themselves, IMHO. I believe the best we can hope to achieve is a reasonable facsimile of a musical performance, a pleasant reminder, but not an exact copy of "the truth".

Is it reasonable to believe that a set of speakers, no matter how costly, can reproduce the sound of a full symphony orchestra? That any room in a residence, no matter how well treated, can fool one into thinking they are in a great concert hall? I believe the answers present themselves.

So, where am i going with this? Every piece of equipment we choose we hope helps to get us to the best facsimile we can put together. And that includes searching for a DAC that we hope will get us the best result for our investment. (I say "investment" because it's not only money but time we spend in the hunt.)

And let's face it, The Hunt is part of why we do this. Looking at it from a 'glass half full' perspective, having so many DACs to listen to, only gives us more opportunities to wander afield... :)

Happy listening.

My CURRENT opinion: we find 'PREFERRED' not 'BETTER'.

What we eventually choose is the results of a particular maker's 'BAG-O-TRICKS', their 'MIXED SALAD':

this DAC, how many DACS?, then the bag-o-tricks: up..., over ... anti.. filter ..... shaping ....

Like Phono, get thee RETURN Options, try till you find a salad that tastes great, to you.

Really good thread here.

 I will stick with my Bel Canto e.One DAC 2.7 I am like @nonoise  here there are to many flavors.

I have had a few DAC over the years a demoed a few and there is just to much out there.

Did like my Border Patrol DAC but limited on inputs, Have the e.One Stream and e.One CDt3 and not wanting to switch sources cable.

Have a great day.

Thanks for the information on DEQX!

I'm afraid they are a little rich for rmy blood and I'll have to stick to miniDSP for a long while.  They do have some with purely digital paths.

Correction.... The above should read "....four stereo channels (up from 3 stereo channels) to diy fully active speakers (8 total channels)."

Erik, you seem to enjoy tinkering (as I have for some 40+ years building passive and active loudspeakers) and DEQX makes tools that are a tinkerer's dream. Go to their website and read up on them. Too many capabilities for a hunt and peck typist like me to explain on this thread. Feel free to DM me if any questions on the what's and how's. 

Regarding the OPPO players, compared the 105 and the 205 balanced analog outputs into powered studio monitors----the 105 very good (I believe same dac as in your 103), the 205 (using newer processor) was an order of magnitude improvement over the 105 IMHO. The 205 also has six filter options (much fun) as well as MQA decoding (hope no one is triggered) if you like. 

DEQX is coming out with newly designed products using newer processors and four channel capabilities (up from 3) to diy fully active speakers (8 channels). Can be used on conventional speakers as well, just not to the full benefit that fully active can provide (at the cost of more complexity).

BTW, I have no financial interest in DEQX or OPPO. Just feel as though I have some useful info/experience for a perceived kindred audio spirit.

This machine will also have you rethinking using a sub with your 2 ways.

Have fun!

@musicfan2349 , I do. It's just that I've found that a number of filter options is all I need to change the sound of the DAC and that is enough for me.

Now, take into account what you said about DACs being as different as any other component in ones system and I'm back to wondering which one is the most accurate and that designers are voicing them as well, based on their systems, and that's one big monkey wrench I'd rather not deal with.

It used to be that DACs had a particular flavor and that was about it. Nowadays, they can make or break a system, adding to the complexity.

All the best,
Nonoise

. I like being an active participant. Let’s say I were to evaluate an all in one package, that went from streamer to speaker. I feel like I give up so much engagement in my hobby.

That's what makes it interesting,  the different perspectives. I became interested in how minimal can I go but still have excellent sound. My latest sold component was the Lumin U1 mini, now it's all ethernet based the roon core connects to the router as well as the speakers.  Everything is done in the speaker. 

@jonwatches1 I have to agree with a lot of what you typed.

I know there was a big jump in performance for RedBook audio around 2000-2005, later I found out there was a change to .... something something capacitive coupled DAC’s which greatly reduced jitter and I attributed it to that.

As I read my own writing and think about what it is I’m not willing to give up it’s control and having my hands in the guts of my system. I like being an active participant. Let’s say I were to evaluate an all in one package, that went from streamer to speaker. I feel like I give up so much engagement in my hobby. I mean, sure it could even be better sounding than anything I’d put together with separates, that’s for sure, but there’s pride and connection and affection that I’d be losing along with it and that’s really at the emotional core of my decision making.

I'm sure if I was a well-heeled music lover, say a movie producer, getting into the dirt would not be the fun part.  Having a great sounding bleeding edge system from Arion that integrates with my home automation and security system would be all the satisfaction I needed. 

I’m just a caveman lawyer, but…technological obsolescence keeps me very cautious on anything digital that is expensive…I have a thesis that a simple $300 DAC released last month is probably better than a five-year old $3,000 DAC, and so I buy simple, well-reviewed DACs at modest prices, and change them up every few years, and really don’t worry about it much.  Using the iFi Zen Signature v2, and it’s perfectly enjoyable day-to-day (I have music on 12 hours a day, low volume, but always there).  I know I am missing out on the quality I could obtain with say a Benchmark DAC3 (and I will buy one used if I can catch it for the right price).  DEQX was apparently transformational to listeners when released (I’ve not heard it), and cost $5,000, but I can’t imagine they survive unless they just sell a $500 downloadable software package at this point

I have a nice vinyl setup on my rig.  I use it to listen to a selection of maybe 90 albums that make sense to me to own on vinyl (love the music, sound quality, understanding the origin of the pressing, and the music is of a scale that it could have been played in my living room. Neil Young at the Cellar Door vs. Zeppelin). I use a DAC and Roon for 90% of my listening

I’m looking forward to the abusive replies, but maybe this point of view is a useful way to think about where to spend money on a system when maybe 10% of our time is really listening, and most of the rest is just day-to-day pleasure

Fun topic

Yes, measuring DACs is quality assurance and as long as a DACs THD+N is beyond human audibility I’m satisfied, the engineering was competent. In my particular system any DAC before the speakers is superflous, every input goes through ADC then DAC. I’ve heard a lot of DACs as well and I make no claims as to which sounds better by memory or sighted listening. The only way to tell if they can be reliably differentiated is level matched blind testing. Not to mention the speakers distortion is exponentially greater than a competently designed DAC so I have no idea how I would "hear"a DAC unless it was really a mess. 

Not to say you can get DACs and amps, preamps that add distortion and coloration but I dont bother with such lousy measuring gear.

I wish my experience was that consistent. It’s not. I’ve listened to DAC’s all over the price spectrum. I have a Mytek Brooklyn and a Topping DX3 sitting side by side in my living room. I only use the Mytek for music. The Topping was out to see if I had an issue measuring but while it's out I tried it for music to see if my memory of the previous comparison held.  It did.  It does not sound as good. Just does not.  This sucks for me trying to buy a cheap HT processor.  

I repeat what I’ve said before, measuring DAC’s isnt’ science it’s quality assurance. If you want to claim you are doing science then do research and discover something new. Don’t just stop and say "we made up these measurements 20 years ago and that is all there is." To further take those old measurements and ascribe them to audio quality or desirability is further, unscientific folly. 

Erik, how familiar are you with DEQX? Also, which model of OPPO did you listen to in your system?

Never heard them. I believe I have the Oppo 103. Not the top of the line, but still the quality of the sound that came out of it, feeding a Parasound P7 was outstanding.

@nonoise you said...

"I'm not a digital guy in that I don't relish the thought of trying out all the different DACs out there. Too many flavors and choices don't get me any closer to the musical truth if they all sound different."

You do realize that statement is also applicable to transports, preamps, amps and speakers, yes? Do you have any qualms about auditioning those other components? Why are DACs different?

Happy listening.

My system, which consists of a Roon Core and active speakers is all digital until conversion and sent to amps then drivers which are controlled DSP active.  This all happens within the speaker as well as volume control. Of course I’m not obsessed with DACs or amps just give me nice measuring components and they all will sound the same after speaker and the room are factored in. Not to say you can get DACs and amps, preamps that add distortion and coloration but I dont bother with such lousy measuring gear.

Try a Border Patrol R2R dac with tubed choke power supply. I think you will like it. Uses the old technology Philips chip.to me it sounds more analog than digital. It is the one I settled on for my rather modest digital front end. Using a Cyrus cdt transport and a Marantz hd cd-1 (as transport). I’m mostly a analog guy, LP’s and Tapes. I use a Grace Digital Link for streaming. It runs into my second dac, a musical fidelity v90, another analog (at least to me) sounding dac. I do not do hi res, at most cd quality. I generally just do pandora and the like, as it sounds good to me and serves my purpose of finding new music. When I do, I go and purchase the actual physical media, whether it be the LP or the CD.

Gary of Border Patrol is a great guy, and you can return the dac if it is not for you.

Erik, how familiar are you with DEQX? Also, which model of OPPO did you listen to in your system?

I think the reviewer is talking about the ADC which upsamples all signals whether they are analog or digital. It's what I've read on every review of it so far.

All the best,
Nonoise

Purists probably want to avoid ADC - DAC chain.

 

I think the reviewer is talking about the ADC which upsamples all signals whether they are analog or digital. It's what I've read on every review of it so far.

All the best,
Nonoise

It’s also worth pointing out that there’s no DAC, no digital to analog conversion, taking place inside the SU-R1000. Incoming digital signals are upsampled

Ok, now they are really splitting hairs.

1 - This applies only to incoming digital signals.

2 - The output stage IS a DAC.

The more I think about it, is it that the GaN-FETs are fast enough to handle the halved digital signal whereas a traditional MOSFET or JFET can't so with the latter, a DAC is necessary whereas with the GaN-FET, it's not?

All the best,
Nonoise

That link helps a lot in understanding what Technics is using. In all of their descriptions, they (naturally) stop short of giving it all away. 

If I remember correctly, there is feedback on the output but it's only the negative feedback that's used after summing everything up. I'm probably wrong but I'm going by my memory. 

The retailer that I have it on order from said from what he can figure out, no one is doing it the way Technics is right now. There are a lot of ways of skinning the digital cat and some are similar, but not the same.

Here's one review of the SU-R100 that may shed more light. 

In fact, here's the passage about there being no DAC conversion being done: 

It’s also worth pointing out that there’s no DAC, no digital to analog conversion, taking place inside the SU-R1000. Incoming digital signals are upsampled (to 32-bit/768kHz), sent through a 1-bit Delta-Sigma converter, followed by another stage, the PWM converter, which forms a so-called “ternary” (2-bit) signal out of the 1.5MHz 1-bit signal. So each transistor only has to handle a switching speed of 768kHz/1-bit which is easier to handle in terms of the natural response time of a GaN-FET. I include this information knowing full well that few people will really understand it, yours truly included, so let’s just say that digital remains digital right up to the speaker binding posts.

Now I'm more confused but still eager to get the Technics.

All the best,
Nonoise

From what I can see, Technics is using a PWM output with feed-forward built into the DSP engine.

Maybe there is feedback on the output as well, but I haven’t heard anything about that portion.

A real shame that after all that work it doesn't actually measure a lot better.

Something like this maybe?

I kind of understand that but it seems that Technics does it all in house without an off the shelf DAC, but through their JENO engine which looks more and more like it has the qualities of a FPGA of sorts. There's a review of the big brother SU-R1000 were the reviewer clearly states there's no DAC in it as well.

All the best,
Nonoise

You do realize that the "filter" is a DAC Digital Audio Converter. Not converting the signal to analog filtering it and then converting it back to analog it theory should be better but would be really interesting in how much better it sounds.

I'm not a digital guy in that I don't relish the thought of trying out all the different DACs out there. Too many flavors and choices don't get me any closer to the musical truth if they all sound different. In the end, I'd just settle on a sound that suits me and may end up being the furthest thing from the truth. That would drive me mad.

I'm the digital kind of guy who settles on a well received brand that has a long track record of getting it right and go from there. My present SACD player has two filter options (which I discovered years after getting it and it did make a favorable difference) and having a few more is all that I'd need.

Saying that, I'm looking forward to getting the Technics SU-G700M2 as it eschews the DAC portion and processes the digital signal as is, all the way to the speaker outputs, where it flips it, via a filter, to an analog signal so the speaker can play it. 

To hear that signal in a less corrupted form is something I'm looking forward to. I have the option to use the digital out of my SACD player or the analog out with the signal fully processed thru the players DAC. Some reviewers preferred it that way and others didn't, but it increases the choices available. 

All the best,
Nonoise