advertisement


Young DSD dac review

OK - I'm 100% happy with the Young DSD.

The remote is great and much simpler than screen sharing to control Amarra.

Sound quality is excellent and I can't see myself needing to upgrade again, however, I'm itching to try some power supplies. I'll probably wait to see if m2Tech release a new one before I plunge into 3rd party options.
 
Just a standard wall wart.

I remember my original Young was dramatically improved by adding an external power supply made by this thread starter :)
 
Interesting. I've definitely had gains addressing SMPS noise in general, so I can understand how it might help in certain contexts.

However, I normally assume that equipment supplied with SMPS power, class D amps, etc, should be fine with SMPS power - I expect such items to be designed from the ground up to accommodate it. Normally, I worry more about equipment with linear supplies being affected by SMPS noise, if you get my meaning.

So it may be that other equipment you use is being affected by the SMPS, rather than the Young itself?

Anyway, just some thoughts, and thanks for the info which I'll bear in mind when looking to upgrade.
 
monty said:
Just a standard wall wart.

I remember my original Young was dramatically improved by adding an external power supply made by this thread starter :)
Click to expand...

I thought it was one of Les's :confused:

darrenyeats said:
Interesting. I've definitely had gains addressing SMPS noise in general, so I can understand how it might help in certain contexts.

However, I normally assume that equipment supplied with SMPS power, class D amps, etc, should be fine with SMPS power - I expect such items to be designed from the ground up to accommodate it. Normally, I worry more about equipment with linear supplies being affected by SMPS noise, if you get my meaning.

So it may be that other equipment you use is being affected by the SMPS, rather than the Young itself?

Anyway, just some thoughts, and thanks for the info which I'll bear in mind when looking to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Paranoia led me to want a DAC with non-SMPS in case it affected the TT!
 
Switch mode power supply (typical wall wart) i.e. produces HF noise. As I said, not a problem if the equipment is designed to accommodate it.
 
darrenyeats said:
Switch mode power supply (typical wall wart) i.e. produces HF noise. As I said, not a problem if the equipment is designed to accommodate it.
Click to expand...

But, as you said, possibly a problem to equipment plugged into the same socket that isn't "designed to accommodate it"? There are "those that know" who say that any well designed HiFi equipment won't be thus affected regardless. But I've no idea!
 
Vital said:
But, as you said, possibly a problem to equipment plugged into the same socket that isn't "designed to accommodate it"? There are "those that know" who say that any well designed HiFi equipment won't be thus affected regardless.
Click to expand...
Right. I can only comment on my perceptions. I do find it plausible that different equipment could behave differently in the presence of SMPS noise.

It might be why someone compares equipment A and B and finds them different (poor mains quality causing a problem for one of them only, the other having an excellent PS that addresses potential issues) yet someone else hears A and B and hears no difference, or perhaps less difference, or perhaps a different difference (good mains quality)!

Just an idea, but not one investigated thoroughly to my knowledge.
 
There is a "psychological noise level" which is a problem, but this doesn't flit about from second to second. I think you can form an impression, based on pyschology, and it can "stick" for a long time. However, if you listen long enough, it will wear off, even if it takes a long time. Hence people raving about "night and day revelations" and then selling the kit two months later ...

The time aspect of this might have some consequences for bake-offs that aren't blind ... despite my reservations about blind testing of the statistical variety. Maybe it's like a Heisenberg thing, the more confident you are in the test's result the less sensitive the test and vice versa!
 
The Young is/was very well regulated from the off, the better external PSU really is/was the icing on the cake. The Young DSD employs similar multiple local regulation layers in the quest for great measured performance.
 
At a guess I'd say it doesn't because the designer doesn't consider it important enough or worth the cost hike.
 
Can anyone explain to me what ‘digitally controlled analogue volume control’ means? I think at some point I’ll got he DAC / Pre to actives but have always been put off digital volume controls since hiss and noise floor is a pet hate of mine. I was thinking something like the Benchmark DAC2 as it seems to have a well implemented analogue volume but what about this new Young? It is clearly not as simple as digital or analogue either, I’m confused!
 
The DAC2's "HGC" stands for Hybrid Gain Control. For the DAC section, the volume control is digital, for the analogue inputs the volume control is analogue.

The Young's volume control is an analogue "stepped attenuator" type but instead of a pot, it's miniaturised on a chip and controlled electronically. To my mind, an analogue attenuator is better - but only if done well ("stepped" and "before the output stage" are both positive attributes of the Young's attenuation IMO). Though I've not heard the Young DAC, so I can't tell you the end result in terms of the whole unit.

Digital volume works well if you don't have too much gain (i.e. as long as the DAC isn't so loud that you're permanently restricted to low volume settings).
 
Bluedroog said:
Can anyone explain to me what ‘digitally controlled analogue volume control’ means? I think at some point I’ll got he DAC / Pre to actives but have always been put off digital volume controls since hiss and noise floor is a pet hate of mine. I was thinking something like the Benchmark DAC2 as it seems to have a well implemented analogue volume but what about this new Young? It is clearly not as simple as digital or analogue either, I’m confused!
Click to expand...

The problem is there's a market perception that digital volume controls are bad. So manufacturers are falling over themselves to emphasise the 'analogness' of their digital volume controls. If there's a rotary button on the front that controls digital attenuation, they can describe it as an 'analog-actuated' volume control.

In reality, it's (inevitably, again) implementation-dependent. Mark Mallinson recently shed some light on this:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/resonessence/2.html
There's also a YouTube video of his lecture exploring similar themes.

The bottom line is that a cheap digital VC is usually better than a cheap analog one. But in extremis, it is possible (though difficult and expensive) to design an analog one that's better. But it always looks like you've tried harder if it's analog. And a stepped attenuator like the Burson DACs wins you real brownie points. There are very transparent, and rather lossy, implementations of either. The true test of a DAC/Pre is its 'preampness'.

The Benchmark DAC1 Pre was a true DAC/Pre with a little Alps pot. It was therefore a no-brainer to add an analog input. Where no analog input is present, chances are it's a digital volume control in disguise - like the Exasound E20. Which isn't a bad thing - but it sounds cheap when you write it on the box!

Similarly, there will always be a whiter white: one minute a DAC is immune to noise and jitter - then along comes an upgrade with a better clock and power supply. You can bet your bottom dollar the next version will wash even cleaner . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top