@debjit_g +1 Exactly! Is there an objective best with streaming components and chains, streaming is the wild west these days, so many devices and ways to implement these devices. Only with direct comparisons within one's own system could we begin to develop a hierarchy for so many designs, implementation of those designs. And still, that hierarchy may only hold for that individual. I've read plenty of white papers over at Audiophilestyle forum, the rationale and logic makes sense, does it result in higher sound quality? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, and this based on anecdotal evidence from any number of users. And then we make our choices, add our voices, and so it goes.
Six DAC Comparison
I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.
Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.
Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
417 responses Add your response
@sns you have already experienced the I2S input in your Musetec and how much better it can sound compared to other inputs, given a good source. Its all about the design choices and how much care you take to implement it - some DACs have the common inputs just for the sake of having it to be competitive in the market, some DAC designer simply goes beyond with the implementation. |
@ debjit_g You are 100% correct, which is my point: You have to look at ALL the factors in order to evaluate what is potentially better. But there are some hard and fast facts... One of these facts is that the problem or advantage with this or that clock has to do with the noise they generate that can be heard in the audible spectrum. No one can hear the accuracy difference between a .005% and .000005% clock. There are many approaches to resolving this noise issue: One is using the lowest noise clock like an OCXO. Another is using an external master clock. Another is using well isolated power supplies and shielding to prevent the noise from the clock from effecting the sensitive analog circuitry. Some companies use all of the above. Something to note that most companies don't have equal sound quality on all of their inputs. Some DACs sound better with USB...some sound better with AES balanced/coaxial...some sound better with Ethernet...some sound better with I2S. Those are not criticisms of the specific input formats but rather a specific company's implementation. Another thing that is a FACT is that I2S is not approved by the Audio Engineering Society (AES) as an external data transfer protocol. That alone should make any rational person question what these companies are doing and why they are doing it. Have you considered that those companies who are promoting I2S are putting less $$$ into their other inputs so that their I2S input sounds relatively better? As with most companies, Mojo Audio is attempting to build a high-performance product to meet a price point. As with most companies, in doing so we have to make certain compromises. Of course if you looked at the cost of parts inside of all of the other DACs you named and compared their DACs with our DACs that sell for around the same price point you would find that we spend SEVERAL TIMES the amount on the parts that go into our chassis when compared to those other companies. And that's not to mention the cost of the chassis or packaging. Mostly what we compromise on at Mojo Audio is how fancy looking our chassis and packaging are. We also compromise on the number of inputs we have since each of our inputs is engineered to potentially have the highest level of performance. Did I mention that we also compromise on advertising? Don't think that you're not paying for those fancy ads in audio magazines! Going back to compromising on our chassis... That's not to say we skimp at all on our chassis: every piece of hardware we use is non-magnetic stainless steel, we use laser etching vs screen printing for the lettering on our chassis, we use an EMI shielding Alodine primer, we use extensive anti-resonance treatments, and we use an extremely durable polymerized finish. All things that add to durability and performance as opposed to aesthetics. As for internal vs external + internal clocking... If your internal clock is of a lower performance than your external clock it will degrade performance. Plus any internal clock will create noise that has to be dealt with. By having no internal clocking on AES balanced and coaxial inputs Mojo Audio is eliminating any potential clocking noise inside of our DACs as well as allowing the best-of-the-best of external clocks to meet their full potential. And yes, it is a compromise to save manufacturing cost and allow us to sell our DACs for under $10,000. We certainly could add $1,000 to our MSRP and create an internal clock that will rival (I said "rival" not "beat") the ones in a Jay's CDT-3 MkIII or the dCS network bridge...but why would we do that when those products already have exceptional clocks inside of them which in effect act like a master clock with our DACs? And we could add $1,000 to our MSRP to include an I2S input that would perform as close as possible to our existing inputs. But since over 80% of the streamers and servers on the market exclusively use USB or consider USB to be equal to or better than their other outputs. And since 100% of the CD transports and many servers and streamers have an AES approved balanced and/or coaxial output. Why would we want to raise the price of our products so that we could interface with some fringe technology like I2S that less than 10% of our customers are actually using? |
I do not think anyone claims I2S is the be all, above all interface for audio, in fact, USB wasn’t to be either. It just so happens that in some DACs they simply sounds better for whatever reasons. Most off-the shelf DAC chips will have an I2S interface to talk to and hence some manufacturers thought it would be wise to make it available externally, even though I2S is only meant for short connection, typically few centimeters. Now we see more and more DACs coming up with this interface - maybe they just want to have it for convenience and be competitive or maybe the designer have really put some effort to do it correctly (and there are good examples of it).
I have not seen any manufacturer claim or promote their I2S input sounds better. All I can tell is I had two DACs with I2S input and in both DACs, there was no compromise on the USB implementation from the manufacturer side and I do not typically use AES/SPDIF as my DIY server doesn’t have it. To have I2S or not is a choice for the designer/manufacturer and the market they want to serve. I still believe a well implemented USB both in the DAC and Transport (along with an optimized s/w) would be sufficient in most cases, however we cannot really generalize it and at the same time nobody is bashing Mojo DACs for not having I2S either :-) |
@fuzzbutt17 Thanks again for all the good info, and it makes sense. Could you clear up if using a DDC and SPDIF, AES, or i2S connection to a DAC if both the clocks in the DDC and DAC are in play? The clock in my DDC is better than the one in my DAC, and my hope was the clock in the DDC by sending a better signal to the DAC it would have less “work” to do and help it sound better. Am I off base in that reasoning and are both clocks in play? The sound is notably better with the DDC BTW. Thank you for any thoughts. |
Usb wasn't developed as an interface between streamers and dacs, this interface has no inherent advantage over I2S. I2S interface not universally used due to the fact I2S clock best placed closest to data lines. So, we can then all agree I2S clock in an external device not ideal. Now not being ideal doesn't necessarily mean it can't or won't be superior to usb or some other interface for any specific dac. My Musetec dac has a highly developed custom build usb board, far superior to what I see in vast majority of dacs, Laiv has far more pedestrian implementation, this approximates what I see in most. My specific streaming setup and implementation of both I2S AND USB interfaces provides me with superior results via I2S. I posit quality of any input interface INTO DDC is critical, output is only part of the equation. In direct comparisons of my optimized usb vs optimized I2S, I2S wins out. And I will continue to state YMMV, this just as others should admit. |
@ Soix Clocking is just one of the many factors. Re-clocking doesn’t fix corrupted data. And as I stated, it is not the accuracy of the clock that matters, but rather how little clocking noise it produces that pollutes sensitive analog components in the audible spectrum. So you can have the ultimate low-noise clocking in any number of components in your digital signal chain and then have your digital data corrupted or your analog signal polluted because of the clocking inside of your DAC. Every link in the chain matters. Think of the analogy of taking a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. How much of a difference would it make if you used all high res scanners and printers in the chain but one was low res? All you would end up with is a very accurate reproduction of the worst scanner and printer in the chain. Or what would happen if you had all high res scanners and printers in your chain but then your last scanner and printer was low res? |
@ SNS Your DAC can have a very advanced USB input. But if the output from your digital source and your digital cables are not equal then you cannot make a fair comparison between USB and I2S. All the inputs and outputs on any component are not equal. Companies who are promoting I2S are making sure that their I2S inputs and outputs sound better than the other inputs or outputs. USB may not have been created for music but it was created for component-to-component data transfer. I2S was not created for component-to-component data transfer. Can anyone name a pro audio component that is used in professional recording studios that uses an I2S input? On the other hand, USB is used in professional recording studios. What does that tell you? |
@fuzzbutt17 I'm using the same usb chain with both I2S and usb, so usb>dac vs usb>Denafrips Gaia DDC.I2S>dac.
Neither my Musetec or Laiv dacs promote I2S as superior, Musetec specifically promotes their custom build usb board, again, this one of the best I've seen. This build based on what they had learned via Amamero usb board used in prior model dac.
What pro's use not necessarily always superior. I'd not want a pro system for my home system. And based on mediocre and worse sound quality on so many recordings pro's not generally my reference for best sound quality.
Finally, I'm not stating I2S is universally superior to usb, it is superior in my setup, many other report the same. |
It tells you nothing. The pro audio world also use cheap (compared to audiophile level) well measured and flat response studio monitors, how many audiophiles use those kind of monitors ? They also use Belden xlr interconnect - what percentage of audiophile use Belden in their setup ? They also sit in front of their mixing table with their ears and head in a vice, 4 ft away from the monitors - how many audiophiles do that ? And their are many more....does it matter what the pro audio world uses ? Their environment, purpose, use case are completely different than audiophiles. They do not listen to the music as we do - our purpose is to enjoy the music and to transport ourselves in that venue, their purpose to create that venue. In seems like you keep bringing the pro audio just to justify the lack of i2s in your dac. As @sns also alluded, I have not seen any manufacturer claim one input is better than others. You have your design, other manufacturers have theirs - what sounds best is finally determined by the consumer in their listening chair. @sns +1 |
Have another comparison currently in process with an Aries Cerat Helene DAC. Must say, this one requires consideration during set-up and I doubt I am done yet. Not the least of the considerations are the size and weight - the thing weighs 88 pounds! It has three tubes and a user adjustable bias that does indeed change the presentation. Cables matter too since it is really a single-ended unit and is said to sound best with single-ended output cables. All I can say for now is that IMO this is a real contender in my system. I am not surprised that it doesn't totally change the sound of my system compared to other DACs I have had here, but it does do some things very nicely. Here are a couple of links to additional information (link 1) and some great pictures (link 2). |
I also look forward to your comments. I think you will end up finding it is the best dac for you thus far in your quest! Let us know if it just transports you more into the music with realism. I mean that flesh and blood kind of organic sound that just arrests your senses and captures your entire listening space! |
Before ever encountering this thread I decided to bring in a Linear Tube Audio Aero DAC for the offered 15 day trial. Right now, after three days of extensive listening sessions, trying different connects and cables. (XLR vs RCA) comparing my current DAC to the LTA… Was planning to roll in 6S7N Rays Ultimate tubes but the box they came in remains unopened. Already had a matched pair of Tung-Sol 6S7GTP tubes and they went in the place the stock Westinghouse 12SN7 and happy with what I am hearing. The bass is more refined, the mids more articulate. Overall pleasing which I believe is a baseline in this world. I think DAC’s might be like trying to pick out the best television in Best Buy. You can go in and stare at them, read reviews, bla bla bla, Regardless of which television is brought home we come to accept it and think all is good.
|
I'm looking forward to reading about your experiences with the Helene vs your Mojo Mystique. I just got back from spending 4 days at the AXPONA Show near Chicago. I heard a lot of systems over the few days that I was there. There were systems that were moderately priced to the insanely exhorborantly priced of well over 2 million dollars! It was a great reminder to me that we need to check our preconceived notions at the door. Take the price of the component/system out of the equation and just simply listen with our ears, not our brain. Does the system connect with your emotions? Does it touch your soul? Don't let the cost of the component/s or the number of boxes, etc cloud your perceptions of what it may or may not sound like. I heard the multibox MSB, DCS, WADAX, etc and also Benjamin's Mojo Mystique.and I have to say that I am very impressed with the quality of sound that the Mojo puts out in such a small and unassuming box and for just a small fraction of the price of the aforementioned digital behemoths. It made me very happy that I had recently purchased a new Mystique X-24AM from Benjamin just a few months ago. I don't feel that I am missing anything sound wise, nor do I have to contend with multiple huge boxes, extra expensive cables, worrying about the space they would take up or if my equipment stands would handle their excessive weight, etc. Sadly, Aeries Cerat was not at the show, so I didn't have the opportunity to hear the Helene. I've read many positives things about the AC dac, so I'm very interested in your thoughts after comparing the two dacs. You always do a fantastic job with your descriptions.... you're very articulate and a gifted writer and I trust that you will be a strait shooter as you have been throughout this very informative, multi-page thread. Best wishes. Don |