02-19-12: Learsfool
My main point in this context is to state that too many audiophiles tend to assume that just because component A uses a more expensive part than component B, that it is therefore going to sound better. I think you're probably right about this, Learsfool. And I think you're also right that good build quality, in the sense of excellent parts, doesn't guarantee good sound quality, particularly when the design quality is wanting. Of course I'm speaking from the point of view of a consumer and not a designer, so I don't mean to imply that I have any special expertise on component design. Like you, I know it when I hear it! :-) Bryon |
All it takes is an active preamp and an inferior SD/PDIF cable in the system and all DACs will sound poor and the same.
Get rid of the preamp or replace it with a Music First Transformer passive linestage and get a good S/PDIF cable, such as the Ridge Street Audio Poiema. Drive the DAC with a really low jitter source. Then you will hear significant differences.
The NOS DAC will likely pull ahead of the Delta-Sigma converters. Why? because these older chips dont do any jitter reduction, so they need all the help they can get, plus these dont have digital filtering which is the bain of all digital audio. Apodizing does not fix this IME.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Douglas, thanks for your comments. I've made my points based on the units we heard. I will continue to audition DACs in the coming months and perhaps my perception will change!
Cheers,
Rob |
hi doug:
regarding changes to the opamps, what improvements in sound, or what differences did you perceive from the stock op amps ???
or, another way of asking the question:
what are the sonic deficiencies with the stock op amps ? |
Rob, here's one reviewer's thoughts...
I respect your conclusion/opinion, though my experience has been largely different, even prior to reviewing. I've been through dozens of cdps/DACs now, many before writing publicly. If there were not what I would call an "efficacious" benefit to pursuit of different digital front ends I would have given up on trying them long ago.
My experience is exactly opposite yours; I am finding that digital front end is supremely important and varies vastly more than most people know. As a system is elevated the importance of seemingly small/nuanced differences in cdps/DACs become huge.
I happened to just finish reading a book by Ed Viesturs on K2, a mountain where every "little" decision made can make the difference when climbing between life and death - literally. I've never died building a rig - ;) - but some systems have died an ignominious death due to one thing, a poorer digital front end.
I'm still trying to figure out how you and your friends can hear such fantastic results when switching power cords and using gentle tweaks, but can't hear differences between DACs. It doesn't add up. I would never summarize digital front ends as being less important to shaping the sound than cabling, amp, etc. In fact, I assert that if you pay little attention to the digital source you are asking for mediocrity. Sorry, no offense, but the source in my mind has become far more critical to system building than I thought it to be 15 years ago.
From what you are saying in your posts it's almost as though you're trying to see how close you guys can get these DACs to sound. Well, that's easy. Change a cable, tweak this or that; no problem. A reversion to a mean is always possible. But that hardly means the players cannot be taken in different directions, in fact vastly different directions, even though starting at relatively similar sound.
OTOH, there are players which do sound relatively similar. If that's the case you simply have to keep searching until you find one which is radically better, not conclude that they're all of one shade of performance.
To that end, did you ever try Opamp rolling the EE DAC or DAC Plus? I'll tell you straight up, if you didn't you lost out big time on that DACs potential. And if you did do so and said you couldn't hear a big/vast improvement I would filter heavily everything you said about sound in the future. :)
BTW, did you know that Bill O'Connell of Morningstar was originally quite concerned about my Opamp rolling the EE DAC, but once he tried it he was shocked at the result. Guess who is now offering the DAC Plus with an Opamp upgrade? Yup; Morningstar! He'll sell a ton of them because the DAC Plus sounds radically different with the Opamp change. I wouldn't waste my time on it writing about it if it wasn't worthy. Just ask the others who have tried it; I don't know of a single person who has done the Opamp upgrade and said it doesn't do much, especially for the money.
As far as cost/value/sound ratio - which may be your primary consideration, I have found a loose connection between cost and performance. It is not absolute, however. I have heard $10K players which rock my world, and also $1K players that do the same. I used to think there was not that much difference; I've used enough of them now to not hold that opinion.
I have had amps/speakers/DACs etc. which do sound similar. That in no way, imo, means ALL of a certain component sound similar and are not worth investigation until one which IS radically better is found. I fundamentally disagree with that assertion, and I reached that conclusion long before reviewing; in fact, it was cables, which are considered widely to hold the least potential in system development which changed my opinion about it.
In the end in one sense it doesn't matter; if you enjoy your rig you're doing the audiophile thing well. Who's to say why your four DACs sound similar? I know one thing; I could take those four DACS and make systems which sound similar to a degree, or take them and make systems which sound nothing alike. The slight nuance at the source which seems not so important can be critical to what is heard at the end of the chain. |
Hi Bryon - yes, we are basically in agreement. The whole build quality thing gets argued about much more by vinyl guys, particularly on the asylum. My main point in this context is to state that too many audiophiles tend to assume that just because component A uses a more expensive part than component B, that it is therefore going to sound better. This is of course not to say that many components cannot be improved, just that the cost is not necessarily the issue. |
Just accept that others can hear things you can't and others may choose to spend their money differently. >>>
Chayro,....no one is forcing anyone's values on you or the fellow who thinks you need to spend 10K on a DAC. I've voiced my opinion and experience with equipment in two systems. It's only natural for people, especially those who've POSSIBLY invested in fantasy, to defend their point of view.
Like it or not my friends and I...at least some of them...are experienced listeners. We're also fairly pragmatic about the so-called high end of audio, especially after hearing expensive DACs in the last couple of years. Maybe we can't hear and others can. Or maybe we just all hear differently, which is something I've been saying for years. But the bottom line is that we did not find big differences in DACs, certainly not on the level of Amps (as a simple single example). The only thing I've been saying is that differences between DACs are small, and in many cases pretty hard to hear. I created a bigger sonic change in my system with simple tweaks than I did between certain DACs.
The two systems we used are fairly well balanced and thought out. Our rooms are treated. I have an isolated power leg for my system. We can "hear" subtle stuff and we protected our hearing over the years. I reported in good detail the differences between the units. I just didn't find it a big deal. Not in the way I did with other gear. It's more like the differences between Canon and Nikon DSLR's. As much as fan-boys like to pretend there are big differences...they're just not there. I guess some people don't see what they see either.
Now...what can I buy for 10K? Well that's rather silly! How about a fully isolated power leg in your home for the stereo system? I actually have that and it'll improve your system more than a better DAC and it won't cost 10K (depending on your house). What about all of the music I could buy? Or the room treatments? I bet a lot, if not most folks who pay big for a DAC could do better with their system if they spent that money on other tweaks. C'mon, dude. You missed out on the point of the thread. And again....no one's forcing you to buy a 300 dollar DAC or a 3000 DAC. This is a forum to report and exchange ideas.
I have heard expensive speakers sound HUGELY better than other speakers costing the same money. The same goes for amps, cables and turntables. I have not observed this with DACs. In fact no one I know has except for the salesmen, certain reviewers and the people who bought them.
That's my experience thus far. I like my Rega DAC, even prefer it marginally over others, but it impacts my system the least of all my components. I see that as a good thing.
Rob |
02-16-12: Learsfool
I think many audiophiles place too much importance on Build Quality. This is much more than slightly subjective, IMO. "Better" technology isn't much of the time... I introduced the distinction between "build quality" and "design quality" only to illustrate a tempting way of thinking about the determinants of sound quality. I go on to identify two other determinants of sound quality, and surely there are more factors I didn't identify. So I think we're actually in agreement that build quality isn't a definitive determinant of sound quality. It is one factor among many. 02-18-12: Foster_9
"Build quality" matters, but the most important aspect is always sound quality. Again, I agree. I also agree with you, Learsfool, that build quality may be more than slightly subjective. Even so, I believe it is less subjective than the other determinants of sound quality I mentioned -- design quality, system quality, and listener quality. This point isn't merely academic, and it bears on the topic of this thread in the following way... The build quality of affordable (~$1K) dacs often leaves something to be desired, IME. What I mean by this is that the components of the dac are often chosen for cost, rather than performance. This is not a novel observation, of course. Many folks here on A'gon, particularly those interested in modding, are aware that substituting higher quality parts - i.e. improving build quality - can yield dramatic improvements in sound quality. This has been on my mind lately, as I've been building new crossovers for a set of speakers, replacing not-so-good parts with better ones (yes, better). At this point I've modded 1 of 3 identical speakers, so I can A/B the old and the new crossover with the flip of a switch. So far the results are a major improvement in sound quality. As it happens, I've also been modding my preamp/dac, again with significant improvements to sound quality. The point I'm wandering around to make is that build quality, while not a definitive determinant of sound quality, is a major determinant of it. And to some extent, build quality is something that an audiophile can change, unlike some of the other determinants of sound quality. Bryon |
20k should be a drop in he bucket for you - just think of it as another watch or a handbag for your wife. >>
You mention trolling, but you're the one who introduced 10K DACs into a thread discussing DAC's costing quite a bit less...though the ARC Dac is certainly expensive.
You also ignored my comment, which is 100% accurate, that I've heard pricey turntable based systems than no DAC can touch, let alone sound live. So why would anyone spend that kind of cash on a DAC?
IMO there is high end gear and then there's stuff where the returns are crazy small and simply poor money spent. I've heard very expensive amps and speakers whose cost I could understand. This has not been the case for DACs so far and I've expressed clear concern for expensive products that our outclassed by far less pricey ones. Notice the title of the thread?
BTW, my 36 foot sailboat did not cost as much as you suppose. It's more expensive to maintain than to buy. And my wife wouldn't be caught dead with a silly expensive handbag. ;-)
Rob |
Learsfool, I like what you said about "build quality." It bothers me when people don't provide much detail about what they hear from the addition of a component, but right off the top it's "build quality" that is promoted. "Build quality matters, but the most important aspect is always sound quality. |
If spending a lot on hifi seems stupid, you would be stupid if you spent the money. But there are those who would rather have a 10K dac than a 10K... come to think of it, what can you buy for $10K? A nice vacation? An eight-year old Honda Accord? Once again, you are projecting your personal values and ability to hear onto everyone else. Just accept that others can hear things you can't and others may choose to spend their money differently. |
Assuming you are not trolling. For someone who had spent few hundred thousand on a yacht you can just buy a sota player and live with it for a year (I would recommend pd mps5 or klimax ds/1, should go well with your Merlin ) You can always sell and go back to rega in a year if you want.
20k should be a drop in he bucket for you - just think of it as another watch or a handbag for your wife. |
I'm sorry...did someone just mention a DAC costing 10K is needed for "real sound?"
That's pretty funny! I've heard systems in the 70-80K range and never once did I hear one that actually sounded real, and they had turntables that were better than any DAC made today...and probably tomorrow.
I've heard some pricey DACs and I'm sticking to my story...buy a good one and spend your money and energy on speakers, amps and pre-amps. BTW, the Rega DAC did just fine against the much more expensive and well reviewed ARC dac. Why is that?
10K for a DAC? I own and sail a sailing yacht, which is a fairly useless indulgence, but 10K for a DAC would be a sure sign of my mental decline in the eyes of many.
And they'd be right!
;-)
Rob |
Chesebert
"To OP, if all you do is dither around $1k stuff, I am not suprised you find no difference among DACs - perhaps you do get what you pay for?"
This is earth calling. Your Rolls-Royce has been hand serviced and waxed and is ready for your manservant to pick it up. |
Well Rob I certainly wouldn't disagree with your comment that the differences in 1k budget DACs would compare to differences in say speakers. We have been around on this before and I certainly appreciate you taking the time on various threads to give your impressions based on your listening experiences. What caught my eye is the following in your opening:
"The Rega and the ARC sound pretty much the same. So does the W4S 2 and the Minimax. We STRUGGLE to hear the tiny differences between these units!"
So far as the Rega and ARC units are concerned I can't comment but with regard to the other two units my point is I can now IMMEDIATELY hear the differences, within 10 seconds, so can my friend, there is no struggle at all. Of course the differences will be less apparent depending on the music but there is a difference in tonal balance that is quite apparent to me. Again, I do have a clear preference as it seems you have a preference for the Rega over the other three. My second choice in my stable is the Havana which clearly isn't as detailed but has that image density and weight that I hear in the Wyred. Of course others may come to a different conclusion as to which they might prefer as is the case in all things audio. We pay for the subtle differences, often times a lot more than a budget DAC costs. To my ears the differences are less subtle for the two in question than your impressions and so, here I am again to offer another viewpoint. I only wish I could hear the components in question in your set-up and you hear mine. Maybe at that point we would be in agreement? :) Cheers! |
I am going to break down my own experience over the years into DAC quality vs $ and note my observed threshhold for each level of sound quality (highly subjective and based on my own system or system I am familiar with)
<$2000 - obvious shortcoming in one or more areas (tried a bunch, benchmark, lavry, stello, dacmagic, bunch Chinese-made crap, etc)
$2000 < $10,000 - no obvious shortcomings, generally sounds pleaseant. However, the music does not sound real. Sometime you are trading detail for musicality, focus and solidity for wide-deep soundstage, holographic imaging for intimacy, etc. (also tried a bunch, ECD-1, BADA, Ayre C5XeMP (sub for QB-9), Bricasti, Akurate DS, Transporter (this I have), etc)
> $10,000 - now we are talking! generally superb sounding, not really trading any aspect of sound production, some DACs are voiced differently than others. Sound at this level generally sound real, musical, with all the detail, but presented in a natural and real way. (tried some, Esoteric K-01/2, PD MPS5, Klimax DS (I have this), dCS Puccini/uclock, Orpheus Lab OneSE, etc)
To OP, if all you do is dither around $1k stuff, I am not suprised you find no difference among DACs - perhaps you do get what you pay for? |
Nice post, Bryon. I can't resist commenting, though, that I think many audiophiles place too much importance on Build Quality. This is much more than slightly subjective, IMO. "Better" technology isn't much of the time, if "better" refers to sound quality instead of something else. Many audiophiles will refuse to even listen to a piece of equipment that they think doesn't come up to their often extremely arbitrary "build quality" standards. Many others equate Build Quality with Cost, and assume that higher cost equals "better." For me, the bottom line should always be, does it sound better or not? And of course "better" is almost entirely subjective, as Mr. Tennis has been reminding us alot lately. |
Tubegroover....
Actually, we AGREE! I agree there are differences and certainly they bear out more in long term listening between units. What I'm trying to point out is these differences are VASTLY smaller than the differences between other components at the same price point. Yet we read reviews that seem to give the impression that the differences are big.
I can name plenty of speakers that cost the same, yet have HUGELY different presentations. And I can confidently say the same for amps and pre-amps. But the gap has narrowed down quite bit in the land of digital sources. This was very obvious to me when I compared a modified 300 dollar Oppo player to a Audio Aero Prima CDP and wasn't all that sure that the Oppo was the lesser player. In the end, after extended listening, I did like the Prima better. But I also noted that the little Oppo did nothing wrong, sounding just a tad thin on my system.
I think some folks will prefer the Rega to the W4S 2 and some will like the Minimax + or the far pricier ARC. They're all great DACs. But none are big improvements over the other. Changing the power cable on the Rega made a bigger change in sound than switching between the Rega and W4S 2, at least in the sense of it being instantly audible.
I'll say one more thing...hope nobody wants to shoot me for it! After hearing the pricey ARC DAC and a few others I feel you'd have to be crazy to spend more than 1-2K on a DAC. The leapfrogging may be small, but it's fast and the returns diminish too far for me. You can get so much more by continuing to improve other aspects of the system. I'll upgrade to Merlin VSMs WAY before I'll bother with another DAC...as one example.
I do suggest trying the Rega DAC. It needs a long break-in, but has a solid soundstage presentation and is fairly faultless, at least with my Merlin TSM/Manley system. Other DACs would best it on one point or another, but the Rega is very solid overall and even reminds me of a turntable at times.
Cheers....and thanks for the good comments. This has been a nicely polite thread!
Rob |
The point I attemped to make, aside from subjective impressions is that there ARE clearly differences that I contend can be readily discerned in a substantive manner, in my example, by 2 different listeners in 2 separate systems with the same conclusion over EXTENDED listening. When familiarity with a component in a given system has been established it is easier to discern the differences and can be done so in much less time than say in an initial AB comparison. What does that tell me? Whether or not the differences are better or not is irrelevant for sure. What is relevant is that the conclusion is obvious which raises additional questions regarding system differences and taste perhaps but NOT in my opinion differences in the components. I am not trying to prove anything other than to offer a completely different and hopefully :) objective perspective and conclusion than the OP. I have been at this a while as well and my system and ears are in tune from extended familiarity with one another. I couldn't disagree with him more aside from my value judgement which is totally subjective and irrelevant for the sake of this discussion. |
i don't see how one can generalize that tubes in dacs or cd players affect a minimal difference.
i have heard significant differences using my audio note cd2 (circa the 90's).
then again, what is considered by some to be a small difference may be considered a large difference by others.
i have yet to remove the tube and listen to the minimax that way, becuase i like the tube i am using, a brimar 13d5.
i suppose, i should experiment and remove the tube and then report my experience. |
Lots of interesting comments on this thread. I think there’s some truth in Rob’s observation that dacs in the same price range have similar sound quality. The same thing could probably be said of preamps, amps, and even speakers. The same thing could also be said of other consumer items. Cars in the same price range have a similar build quality and design quality, which largely determines their “drive quality.” Dacs in the same price range have a similar build quality and design quality, which largely determines their sound quality. Let’s treat this as axiomatic… (1) Build Quality + Design Quality = Sound Quality This statement is intended in the same spirit at Steve N.’s comment that… What makes a really stellar component is the other "STUFF", as well as the IMPLEMENTATION.[emphasis added] I agree with Steve, though my opinion about these things is far less informed than his. The point is that Rob’s observation that dacs in a similar price range sound similar can be largely explained by the fact that the similar price reflects similar design quality and build quality, and that results in similar sound quality. You get the idea. Having said that, I think Statement (1) is true ONLY UP TO A POINT. That is to say, design quality and built quality are not the only determinants of sound quality. Another major determinant of sound quality is the SYSTEM in which a piece of equipment is heard. So, to revise… (2) Build Quality + Design Quality + System Quality = Sound Quality That’s more like it. Statement (2) is intended in the same spirit as Al’s comment that… …while it is easy (and very common) to blame THE QUALITY OF A SYSTEM when there is a reported inability to perceive differences, that is not necessarily what is going on. And in fact an inverse correlation may often exist between THE ABILITY OF A SYSTEM to resolve musical information, and its ability to resolve differences between components, cables, tweaks, etc.[emphasis added] I agree with Al. The system in which a component is heard is an essential (and somewhat paradoxical) determinant of sound quality. That would seem to be the end of the story. But it isn’t. There is another major determinant of sound quality, and that is THE LISTENER. To revise again… (3) Build Quality + Design Quality + System Quality + Listener Quality = Sound Quality. You see where I’m going with this. The variables are increasing, the equation is expanding, and “Sound Quality” is becoming less and less easy to determine. But before I get into that, what do I mean by “Listener Quality”? I mean both the listener’s EXPERTISE and the listener’s VALUES, both of which vary widely from audiophile to audiophile. Statement (3) is intended in the same spirit as Audio Oracle’s comment that… …pay me a visit I can demonstrate to you that your findings are only accurate in your limited set of circumstances: your system setup and your EARS, extrapolating your particular BIASES and EXPECTATIONS to the rest of an industry is fallacious.[emphasis added] So where does this leave us? In a state of uncertainty, I’m afraid. Here is the reason: As you move through the various “Qualities” listed in Statement (3), they become increasingly subjective. In other words… Build Quality… slightly subjective Design Quality… a bit more subjective System Quality… more subjective still Listener Quality… largely subjective Sound Quality… quite subjective If sound quality were merely a matter of build quality and design quality, then estimates about sound quality would be quite uniform. But add into the equation different systems, which includes different rooms and different source material. Then add different listeners, which includes different expertise and different values. What you get when you add all that up are estimates about sound quality that vary widely, EVEN FOR equipment with similar build quality and design quality. Some will see the Emperor’s new clothes, and some will not. Some will find his new clothes beautiful, and some will not. I generally don’t like to conclude something so Subjectivist, but I don’t see any way around it. Bryon |
My experience has also been that the impact of a tube in a CD player or DAC is rather minimal. However, I've heard several people state their preference for EE DAC + tube stage after changing out the stock tube. I've ordered a NOS Mullard to replace the EH. Will see how that goes. |
Well then I guess I'm going to have to try the Rega just for the hell of it all to see how what you describe will play out in my rig, really curious now. Interestingly it isn't the extra detail of the Wyred that jumps out at me over say the Oppo or the Plus, in that area there are more similarities, it is tonality and the natural flow of the music plus greater weight, notably brass and piano and of course the bass resolution and weight as well. Those are the obvious differences so clearly discernable a reason I find comments regarding it sounding "analytical" baffling and wonder if system differences are somehow coming into play. Is there anyone else out there that hears these differences? Is is no subtle thing to my ears. On another note the characteristics in the Plus with every premium tube, without the tube in the circuit does not CHANGE the leanness of the unit although I agree that the top end upper frequencies are quite exquisite which is what I was initially drawn to. It is the overall tonal balance of the design, it is just too lean for my tastes and system based on what I suspect a compromised power supply. |
Well Rob, again we have to disagree on this one. I am going to give a different perspective. First off, my listening comparisons are over extended periods. As a matter of fact I still have the 3 DACs I have purchased over the past 11 months and also own the Oppo 95 which was purchased during that period. I have listened extensively to all of them in my system and one other system that is different than mine. There ARE differences. When doing a direct AB comparison the differences aren't as readily apparent but the CONCLUSIONS of those differences over extended listening, again two listeners two separate systems were the same and are now quite obvious, at least the DAC of preference, the Wyred over both the Oppo and the Minimax Plus all three using the same chip. The only thing lacking with the Havana is the detail of the other 3. Tonally it is more similar to the Wyred. What is important and was noted with particularly the OPPO, Wyred and EE Minimax Plus is that they require patience and time to break-in before doing any serious listening comparisons, this can't be overemphasized.
So while I do respect that you feel there are little differences between them and I would concur in a direct AB that this is true, if one is able, willing and inclined to do long term listening there should be a preference in a given system. It is quite clear to me which one is better to me, not just different but a better all around performer. I haven't heard all the DACs you mentioned so my comments are based on the 2 in your comparison that I have. Most importantly critical listening in a system to digest differences takes time. My initial impression of the Wyred is not even close to my impression of it now which was due to the break-in period required. Conversely my initial WOW impression of the Plus went in the opposite direction, go figure. I wonder how many people give up before they get a real handle on things? As a footnote I lent one of the DACs to another audiophile friend. He listened for over one month. I gave him absolutely no indication of my impressions of it just that I had purchased another DAC and he was free to listen for an extended period. When I talked to him about his impressions of it, he came to the same conclusion as both myself and my other audio friend that listened extensively to it,"detailed does nothing wrong that I can put my finger on but why is it so fatiguing?" I still don't have an answer other than I feel that tonally it is too light, lacking weight. I listened to it again last night after 2 months and the difference could be heard almost immediately, its that time thing and familiarity that it takes to make the right choice.
I agree with what audiooracle stated. I have what I consider a highly resolving system that has evolved over 12 years and been pretty much constant over the past 5 other than tweeks and vibration control experimentation. My friends system is also very familiar and has similarly evolved over the same period. Differences, if there are any, can be easily discerned. I would love to hear more but wouldn't you agree that four is enough if I am satisfied, at least for the moment?:) As further thought I would wonder now more than ever how much a system difference comes into play and how conclusions can be so different? Why collectively are three different listeners on this side in agreement on what we hear on two different yet familiar systems and others hear things so contrary. Is it taste or are the systems so different that the DACs in question complement one system over another? |
audioengr, very interesting post with many valid points about the economics of small high-end manufacturers--you're clearly well informed. to be clear, the "only 5% is in the actual electronics" quote is a statement from the mf guy, not my personal view. i also have no absolutely doubt that, for the reasons you list, you'll get better performance from higher cost, better-designed DACs utilizing better parts. the issue, as ever, is whether the incremental improvement in performance is worth the extra cost. personally, i subscribe to the OP's original premise--that (unlike speakers or preamps) the sonic differences between good lower-cost DACs and good higher-cost DACs can be small and, subjectively, may not be worth the extra investment. others with better ears or greater desire for sonic nirvana will disagree. finally, i'd reiterate that cost is an imperfect measure of performance--hificritic (which is generally regarded as one of the more credible professional reviewers) tested the v-dac and rated it higher than a lot of other, much swankier products. |
do you exclude the possibility that a tube dac , with a tube gain stage and a particular nos tube cannot sound very different than a solid state dac ?>>>>
I'd like to address this question, especially given the fact that I heard the Minimax + in two very different systems.
The answer is no. The Mimimax sounded pretty much the same. Extended listening revealed TINY differences in soundstage (weaker in the tube stage), slightly sweeter top end (audible mainly on older harsher recordings) and a bit of thickness in the midrange, especially on vocals. Going the SS mode retained the sweetness and improved other areas.
So the tube added nothing substantial, certainly not in the way my Manley amp does. I've also heard my share of tube CD players now and I'm well convinced that the tubes do little and perhaps even detract from the designs.
My opinion, shared by some and denied by others, is that tubes belong in amps and preamps, but NOT digital source gear. Of course folks will say they heard the greatest tube CDP or DAC, but I believe those units would be even better without the tubes.
Cheers,
Rob |
more detail and resolution, does not intrinsically denote that the sound is better.>>>>
Some recordings are poorly served by the ninth degree of detail and resolution, but when the planets line up I prefer to have a system that gives me everything that was recorded, or as much as possible. I have stated before that the Minimax + is more forgiving and "sweet" at the top end. I liked it, especially on older recordings. But our general feeling was that the tube stage was not doing the rest of the unit any favors, perhaps coloring the unit. I did not hear it with the better tubes, but the owner said it never altered the issues we heard.
In SS mode the Mimimax retained much of the sweetness, gained detail and space around instruments. It really was no contest. It sounded more like live music in SS mode, if less polite on some recordings.
The W4S 2 was (and still is) the detail champ, but then the Rega and Centrance edge it out in midrange presentation. The Rega and Centrance soundstage is really impressive.
Any STILL...with all of these comments above many people would LAUGH at how alike the units are overall. I have to stop listening to music, disengage myself emotionally and listen to the DACs like a mental patient! That can be fun, but in the end...it's the music I'm interested in much more.
Mrtennis, have you removed the tube and tried the SS stage for a while?
Rob |
Mr. T: absolutely not, wouldn't say that I'm in a position to exclude
anything. Just surmising and extrapolating from my admittedly limited
experience -- and hoping to learn and expand said experience in the
process. Way I see it, rambling on as I do at such unnecessary length is
meant as an honest invitation for explanation regarding why I may be
misguided. Best way to empower someone to point out where I may have
gone astray is to lay out exactly where I'm at and how I got there, no?
And, must say, I was also spurred on by your challenge to better
articulate "better." (That said, I've lived with both a tubed DAC and a tubed
CDP for several years, all told, through various iterations of tube-rolling.
Different? Surely. Mind-blowingly different? Wouldn't say that.) |
"more detail and resolution, does not intrinsically denote that the sound is better.
but i appreciate that someone has indicated a reason for preferring the solid state path.
i think that the availability of a tube circuit provides the opportunity to vary the sound of the unit."
Agree with you that more detail and resolution may not be wanted for all systems. I also appreciate the option of both SS and tube modes. In fact, I have ordered a NOS Mullard 12au7 to see if my impression of tube mode changes with a different tube. Regardless, I think the very fact the DAC + offers so much in the way of sonic tweaking is a big advantage in my book. |
hi mezmo:
do you exclude the possibility that a tube dac , with a tube gain stage and a particular nos tube cannot sound very different than a solid state dac ? |
more detail and resolution, does not intrinsically denote that the sound is better.
but i appreciate that someone has indicated a reason for preferring the solid state path.
i think that the availability of a tube circuit provides the opportunity to vary the sound of the unit. |
Very interesting, all. Rob, I've been following your experimentation with various DACs with interest, and, well, my interest remains. I suspect, in the end, however, that we're all more in agreement than otherwise. Marketing hyperbole aside, I submit (surmise?) that there are really a limited amount of variables in play that can meaningfully differentiate one piece of gear from another when it comes to sophisticated, well-considered DAC implementation. When one gets to comparing the differences among the sort of gear that we're all so fascinated with, the bottom line is that the differences are really not going to be all that earth-shattering. Put differently, and as has been observed many times, we’re likely the obsessive few dealing with vanishingly diminishing returns between the 99th percentile (above which most folks never imagine to venture) and the 100th percentile of very-likely mythical “true reproduction” of recorded material.
All that said, I do not for a moment mean to diminish the relevance (or importance) of these small distinctions. They are, after all, what we’re all about. Although I am admittedly guilty of having limited experience on my own digital safari, I certainly identified and developed preferences among various digital sources. My “reference” for years has been a Meridian 508.24. Hardly the last word in anything, but a relatively (and enduringly) nice piece of kit. When I first sought to make the transfer to a computer-based system, spent a little over a year with a MHDT Havana as the DAC. Also nice, but in the end just didn’t think it was in the same league as the Meridian. Warmth and bloom that I so chase after, yes, but clearly at the expense of resolving power, finer detail, and the more-complete sense of presence and recreation of space that these micro-details convey. Minor – very minor – distinguishing details, but on the whole details that convey a materially different experience. I’ve also had in my system a less-expensive Taiwanese DAC (a friend’s, don’t remember the make) that was significantly less impressive than the MHDT. Again, very minor details in the grander scheme of things, but the sum of the parts were materially less capable of conveying presence and the full experience. Following the day spent comparing the MHDT, the Meridian and the mystery DAC with said friend, I became obsessed with finding a more resolving DAC that could run with the Meridian – and to me this entailed moving from the non-up-sampling offerings to something else.
With that, I found myself in a shootout between the Ayre QB-9 and a Bel Canto 3.5 at a local shop (mostly Bel Canto electronics, higher-end Totem speakers, running Amarra on a Mac for a source). Yes, somewhat arbitrary, and arbitrarily limited, but there you go. The Ayre and the Bel Canto were awfully similar, no mistake. Both portrayed a largely indistinguishable soundstage and level of detail and were quite impressive. Ultimately, to my ears on that day, in that room, on that equipment, the Bel Canto was slightly more etched and “sharp” in its presentation, while the Ayre was a touch warmer and more relaxed. A very minor difference, but a material one in my book. Ended up with a pleasantly-cheaper Ayre.
Since then, spent about a year running bit perfect (through Bit Perfect, which is great) in integer mode with no upsampling. Then I started to acquire more and more high res material. Recently, I have converted to a USB 2.0 feed and begun upsampling (by powers of two) to either 176 or 192khz, depending on the source resolution (44khz x4, 88khz x 2, or 96khz x 2). Fascinated by the flexibility this gives one to change really material stuff with only the ticking of a box (on Bit Perfect, did I mention I like that program?). Still not sure there’s a clear preference – often changes depending on the material – but love the flexibility. The bits/transport end supplying what the DAC is fed makes a real difference. And absent a common language regarding that, I suspect that DAC comparisons may be at a real impasse. I will say, however, that the whole experience has severely damaged my belief that there is such a think as “truth” or a meaningful benchmark against which to objectively rate all comers. You can judge X against Y in-system and prefer one to the other, or not, but at least I don’t seem capable of going much beyond that. And one can make and perceive changes, but conveying them to others through words, much less convincing anyone that one may be “better” than another, is so fundamentally context-based and subjective as to be nearly impossible. I will say, apropos of the original premise, that the difference between a $200 Kimber USB cable and the free one that came with my RAID drive – especially running USB 2.0 – is exactly zero. Usual caveats, my system, my room, my ears, but I stand by conclusively zero. (And this from a true believer that cabling elsewhere in the system makes surprisingly significant differences.)
(And if you really want to damage your calm, get ahold of some analyzing software and an SPL meter and run some hard data on your room performance. I’ve had both a professional sound engineer and a world class ballet dancer graciously comment that I can generate some of the best sound they’ve heard outside of a professional recording studio – bless them both, does wonders for the ego – but, let me tell you folks, my room’s a travesty. In the interest of moving from strategic wild ass guesswork (“SWAG”) to actual f-ing data (“AFD”), I’ve seen the AFD and my room’s an unmitigated disaster. Makes quibbling about the finer points of DAC selection seems a total waste of time. Relativity and context is a bitch. Alas.)
Anyway, ramble aside, DACs have one thing going for them that no one can deny – they’re likely more portable than just about anything else in this “hobby.” I’ve got two (the Ayre and the Havana). Anyone in the NYC area interested in continuing the shoot-out? Can’t make any promises, but I could be game.... |
Loomis wrote:
"about four to five percent of the cost of good value high-end electronics is in the actual electronics that do the work"
That may be the case for the V-DAC, because that company has marketing and lots of employees to pay salaries. They probably have 3X margins so they can sell worldwide through distributors etc.. This is a typical model for consumer electronics.
Some high-end companies however have very few employees, dont advertise, and put a LOT of cost into the products, causing their margins to be small and their prices to be higher. Most of these are smaller companies that sell direct. There are actually much better components available, including connectors, internal cabling, multi-layer high-quality silver-plated circuit boards, low dielectric absorption capacitors, low ESR capacitors, low inductance resistors. Clocks (oscillators) that produce lower jitter are expensive, very expensive. When a designer uses these parts in the design, the result is much higher cost, but also lower electrical noise levels, better dynamic slam, more clarity, wider and deeper soundstage and less harshness in the audio output. More analog-like. The performance is definitely better than less expensive designs.
This is not about op-amps and IC's. What makes a really stellar component is the other "stuff", as well as the implementation.
BTW, Read the review of the V-DAC in TAS. You will learn a few things about jitter.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
"So Audioengr, other than the renowned MAC Mini, what are some examples of reasonably price yet quality digital sources with low jitter? Any laptops besides the Macbook Pro?"
With the advent of Async USB interfaces, this has nothing to do with the computer. It has to do with the USB interface. This is the digital source I'm talking about. This is what impacts the jitter.
If your computer uses a soundcard, then yes, the clock and interface is in the computer and this is where the jitter matters. But if we are talking about high-performance playback, this is not about internal soundcards. It's about high-performance external USB converters and USB DACs. This is where the low-jitter master clocks are located and this is what determines the jitter.
Mac Mini and Macbook Pro are certainly a good place to start to get something reliable going, and installation of Amarra or PM etc.. will definitely help with SQ, but this is second-order compared to the interface and clocks. The computer is not what determines the jitter level.
People seem to be fixated on the computer hardware and getting the best one for audio with all of the tweaks. It's not about the computer if one uses the optimum interface. I use a stock 2009 Mac Mini myself. Nothing special. I may put a SSD in it eventually.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Rob - agree with you. I was fully expecting to prefer tube mode, but ss mode just adds more to my system. The added detail and resolution is welcome, especially without the listener fatigue I tend to equate with SS gear. Having tube preamplifier and amp probably helps in that regard. For whatever reason, the tube mode just does not blend in well with my system. As you mentioned, tube mode may work very well in revealing SS system where the goal is to add some warmth at the source. As usual, there are no absolutes and individual system synergy tells the tale. |
Robbob - I'm glad you took my post in the spirit it was intended. When I was studying music in college, one of my professors, an accomplished pianist, was astounded that I couldn't hear the difference between the sound a white key and a black key from across the room. I later learned that, because of the difference in the mechanics of the keys, there is an audible difference in the way the hammer strikes the strings. Brass players can hear the difference in Bach and Selmer trumpets from across the street and experienced drummers can easily tell the difference between Zildjian and Paiste cymbals. I'm sure that, in your tests, for whatever reasons, the differences might have been minimal. It was just the sweeping nature of the pronouncement that all dacs sound the same or minimally different that caught my interest. I personally have no experience with DACs, but a lot of experience with CD players and I have heard very large differences - mostly in the way they capture the sound around the notes. I have a cheap Oppo and an EAR in my system. The Oppo gets the notes just fine - it's the air, the reverb, the tonality of the instrument that lacks when directly compared to the EAR. In any case, enjoy and have fun. That's what this is supposed to be about, I guess. |
Sibelius, sometimes tubes don't match tubes in other components. It's not very scientific, but they can sound tubby and muddy when synergy is poor. My friend sold his Minimax Plus to a fellow using a system using Revel speakers and SS power. He's pretty happy with the tube stage of the Minimax. It just didn't gel with my Manley tubes or the owner's ARC stuff.
I do think more and more people are getting turned on to the minimax plus sans tube stage. You just have to get beyond the "But I bought a tube DAC to use the tube!" angle and realize that it's SS stage was very well designed.
Rob |
Chayro, I agree 100%. It's just that there are more ears than mine who listened to these DACs and no one heard a big difference. Over time the differences became smaller or at least seemed so.
The associated gear is quite good. The listeners are experienced. We HEARD DIFFERENCES, but found them far from impressive and variable depending on recordings, which in turn made some of the differences a wash.
It's also my belief that the average buyer chooses a DAC based on reviews and maybe comparison to 1 or 2 other units. Certainly we cannot evaluate the way we do with speakers. In spite of my carrying on about this, I also bought my Rega DAC with minimal comparison. I got a loaner from Signature sound and compared to a few units my friend had. That's not much of an evaluation against the 30 or more speakers I listened to before I bought Merlins. Show me the showroom that has 10 DACs set up for a clean head-to head comparison. Many don't have any.
I don't doubt people's hearing, but I greatly doubt conclusions made from a very narrow range of listening experience. Hooking up a certain DAC with perhaps the best reviews going, we were sad to hear it was "about the same" as much less expensive DAC. Changing a powercord brought about more significant changes.
My main point is that some sort of "scale" needs to be employed. When people claim the Bazooka 5000 DAC destroys the SuperNova 10 there needs to be a more accurate representation as to what the differences amount to musically.
Rob |
Chayro - Excellent post. I'm not implying that you're implying that Robbob is ignorant though.
Robbob,
I heard a decent amount of difference between the W4S DAC1, Benchmark DAC1 and Rega DAC in my system (Bryston B60 and Audio Physic Yara Evolution Bookshelf).
They're harder to put into exact words though... The Rega just made better sense of the music than the others (and all others I've heard in my system). Music (not just sounds) was easier to follow and subsequently get lost in. My ears were constantly in analyze mode with the Benchmark and W4S (although not nearly as much with the W4S).
If I were to get technical with it, the differences wouldn't be that great. The Benchmark sounded a bit bleached, the W4S sounded yadda yadda yadda. In the technical aspects, their wasn't that much difference. In musical ebb and flow and musical enjoyment, the Rega was far better than anything I've heard at home. Sounds like a cop-out, but it's genuinely not.
Case in point - my wife tolerates my hobby. She doesn't criticize, but she thinks I'm a bit too geeky with this stuff (she's right, btw). I'm not saying even she heard the differences, but in a roundabout way, she did...
When I brought the Rega DAC home, unbeknownst to her, I had it playing a few tunes I love, but she's never cared much for. That was the first time I've seen her foot tap to the music. When I went to turn it off, she asked me to keep it on - another first. She enjoys music in our home more now than ever.
Wierd, huh?
For the record, I didn't sneek the Rega in. She frankly doesn't care what I buy, so long as we've got heat, electricity, food, and our daughter is fed. I just had it set up and running before she got home. |
From my years as a professional musician, I learned to never assume someone else cannot hear something just because I couldn't. That's like assuming someone can't read fine print because I can't. If you cannot hear a difference it would be silly to purchase the more expensive component, but to believe nobody else can is... ignorant? |
"one more thing, regarding the minimax sounding better in solid state mode.
no one says in what respects the sss mode sounds better. "
Mr. Tennis - In my system, the SS mode came across as having more detail and resolution. Tube mode came across a bit muddied or veiled in comparison. This is with the stock tube. Hope that helps. |
To the fellow who has the dealership....you're the first person I've heard say that the Vandersteen 5a's are not a highly resolving speaker. My Merlin TSM-MXr's are also noted for being fairly good when it comes to getting the details.
Naturally...My system, which costs 16K or so is not the end-all system. It's quite modest compared to some. My friends system costs close to 40K and I'll also admit that it's still not the highest end. If this level of gear is holding back these DACs then please stop the world cuz I wanna get off!
;-)
Mr.Tennis....I've posted elsewhere that we found the Minimax Plus more restricted in soundstage, tubby in the midrange and just less musical with the tube stage. The owner borrowed some nice tubes and was never satisfied the way he was in SS mode with tube removed. It just wasn't the top pick with our systems, but it could easily be perfect with others. Listening to the Minimax after so many raves is one of the things that started my skepticism.
Again, I do hear differences, but sheesh, are they small! Perhaps it comes down to language.
Rob |
So Audioengr, other than the renowned MAC Mini, what are some examples of reasonably price yet quality digital sources with low jitter? Any laptops besides the Macbook Pro? |
The founder of Musical Fidelity, which hawks the $300 giant-killer V-DAC, posited that "most high-end components offer incredibly bad value. . . about four to five percent of the cost of good value high-end electronics is in the actual electronics that do the work. The other 95% of the cost is in the metalwork and other items that don't contribute to sound production or sound quality."
I was intrigued enough by his viewpoint to buy a V-DAC, and it is in fact a very good product which to my middlebrow ears sounds as good as better as some much pricier, fancier DACs. I've also discovered some really cheap DACs (most recently the MCM/Behringer 50-774) which do remarkably well. Bottom line, I deduce, is that chips, opamps and the other little electronic bits which actually influence sound are very inexpensive, and most people shouldn't have to invest megabucks for sonic improvement. |
02-14-12: Audiooracle
First of all it depends on the resolution of the system and the acuity of your ears! True, obviously, to some extent. However, it should be kept in mind that the ability of a system to resolve musical information, and its ability to resolve differences between components, while obviously having some degree of correlation, are two different things. For instance, a digital transport that provides a highly jitter-laden signal to the DAC will be more resolving of differences between DACs than a transport that provides a signal having minimal jitter. A transport having an inaccurate output impedance will be more resolving of differences between DACs than one having an accurate output impedance, everything else being equal. A S/PDIF digital interconnect cable that provides poor shielding against emi/rfi pickup, or that has high shield resistance that can contribute to ground loop issues, or that has poorly controlled impedance characteristics, will be more resolving of differences between DAC's than a better cable. A preamp having low input impedance will be more resolving of differences between DAC's than one having higher input impedance, everything else being equal. A comparison between a given group of DAC's may turn out completely differently depending on the happenstances of the risetimes and falltimes of the output signal of the transport, and the propagation velocity of the interconnect cable. Etc., etc. A great many other comparable examples could be cited. My point being that while it is easy (and very common) to blame the quality of a system when there is a reported inability to perceive differences, that is not necessarily what is going on. And in fact an inverse correlation may often exist between the ability of a system to resolve musical information, and its ability to resolve differences between components, cables, tweaks, etc. Regards, -- Al |
It seems to me having followed DAC threads for a while and listening to a few, that a lot of the differences may arise out of connections. DACs and computer audio seem unique in having a plethora of connections, partly because many of them have real problems. These lie of course, in jitter, clocking, whether the clocks in the DAC or computer are utilised as in Synchronous and Asyncronous USB, for example.
May not a lot of the difference be in the care in implementing firwire SPDIF or USB connections and which connection is best to the source? |
The only way to compare DACs accurately is using a really low jitter digital source IME. Otherwise, what you are hearing is the DACs ability to reduce jitter a little, not what the DAC can actually deliver.
Case in point:
A good friend of mine uses a modded NOS DAC based on the TDA1543. Drives it with I2S. With a typical CD player driving this DAC, almost any newer generation DAC will sound better. However, when you drive it with a really low jitter signal, such as a computer source, the NOS DAC takes the lead by a fair margin.
The point is that some DACs need a really low jitter digital signal to shine. If you dont have this, then the other DACs appear to be better. What you are hearing is just the jitter of the source.
Another case in point:
http://www.avguide.com/review/peachtree-audio-idac-tas-214
One of the conclusions here is that the digital source is actually more important than the DAC. I agree.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
To get to a certain level of resolution and quality I think you need to spend $1K for a dac or cd player. Any of the 10 or so popular items will do. Main difference is options you need. To get to another better level you need to spend at least two/three times as much. Then it's the stratosphere for small improvements. IMO |
as have said in the past, the placebo effect is alive and well. you can convince yourself that component a sounds better than component b.
someone else may come along and disagree.
however, i think that when it comes to tubes, there are differences.
i find it hard to believe that a ss piece sounds like a classic tube component.
one more thing, regarding the minimax sounding better in solid state mode.
no one says in what respects the sss mode sounds better.
in my opinion "better" is one of the more misued words in the english language. i think it means "i prfere". it's just a way of saying "in my opinion i prefer" . however, it leaves a sense of ambiguity because since better is so subjective, there is no communication.
so, all i ask, is when someone says a sounds better than b, describe the differnces, please. |
I use the Calyx dac having replaced the original EE minimax. Must admit the Calyx is more open/airly than the EE. Also had a take home experience with the EE and the Moon 300d. Actually quite a different presentation via my iMac/pure music.
However, for TV watching i bought a little Brik DAC ($200) and hooked it up to my NAD blue ray player and Moon i1 amp. Wired up so that I could switch back and forth between the internal NAD dac and the Brik. Absolutely no difference. Then I hooked up the Calyx and did the same thing. Struggled to find a difference, although the Calyx was a little smoother.
My take is the source (player) and front end cables make a 'huge' difference in whether or not DACs sound the same or different. |
