DAC ignorance

[Felix]

I’ve never had a streaming set up.

Or I do. But it’s in the shed system with a RPi,
DAC hat and streams Spotify. So not very hi in its fi.

Having fallen victim to SSAS (second system aquisition syndrome, as I see it diagnosed elsewhere - in my case brought on by a rebellion of just- teenagers making spending time with my main system less…easy) I’m keen to dip my toes in that water.

probably (such famous last words) I’m building on:
RPi (they’re great)
DAC (I know nothing)
Tisbury passive
Leak TL 12 pluses (modified)
JR149s

so what DACs would you consider plugging plug in there? There are very different schools of thought.

I’d love to hear all of them.

 

[Gervais Cote]

I have a RPi ignorance myself but if connectivity and type of signal allows, I would go for a Chinese DAC with AK 4497 chips.
S.M.S.L. make some very good ones but others are available.
Can’t find anything better for the price.

 

[Sonnyboy958]

I’d think hard about buying something like a Dac from China…fine if there is a dealer here that you can return it to but a ballache if you have to send it back…I bought one and ended up having to become a software/electronic expert over night…I gave up after I learnt I had to start changing motherboards…luckily the fault wasn’t catastrophic but annoying nevertheless…

 

[miktec]

probably (such famous last words) I’m building on:
RPi (they’re great)
DAC (I know nothing)
Tisbury passive
Leak TL 12 pluses (modified)
JR149s

so what DACs would you consider plugging plug in there? There are very different schools of thought.

I am quite happily using an older model Topping DAC with an RPi 2b at the moment in the garage and that works quite swimmingly into a passive/chip amp combo.
For house use - an RPi 4 linked to an RME ADI-2 FS DAC into various Quad pre/power combos - very tasty set up indeed.

Both use Digi-HATs to provide the gubbins to the respective DACs - however, the RPI 4 USB output is seriously good compared to previous generations and works well directly to a USB input equipped DAC without the need for a HAT. The Digi-HATs I'm using at the moment are from Justboom and IQaudio; both more than up to the job.

I'm sure someone else will be along soon with advice on the Allo range in combination with an RPi but my experience with them is limited to one model (Allo Boss) which didn't overly impress me for the price.

 

[clownfish]

Wrt Allo DigiOne Signature and Shanti PSU my experience puts it up in Naim NDX2 territory for SQ as a pure digital source. (It’s nowhere near as full featured or beautifully encased tho).

I use it with a Qutest and to my ears it sounds amazing using Tidal and local rips on my NAS. When choosing the Qutest I compared with an RME DAC and although I preferred the Chord I’m not sure I could pick them out in a blind test. A deciding factor for me was other family members use the DAC and they just would not have been able to cope with the RME’s complex user interface/experience. The RME is incredible vfm when compared with the Qutest though !

I’ve just started feeding the Qutest from a MacBook and I’m not sure I can tell the difference between it and the Allo. I’ll need to sit down and properly compare but at first listen it seems mighty close.

Given the above, I am beginning to suspect an RPI4 with its ‘noise separated’ USB into the Qutest may well produce similar/identical results. I’ll give it a try when time allows.

I think it may be reasonable to say, as many others have concluded, a well sorted DAC will ensure all decent quality streamers sound the same. And an RPI4 might be all the streamer you ever need.

Tin hat on.

 

[Juancho]

Why not use one of the 'hat' DACs made by eg Allo, HiFiBerry etc? These can give very decent results and save a lot of complication

 

[awkwardbydesign]

I use a Xiang Sheng 01A in my second system. Mainly because it has multiple inputs, including USB, a headphone amp, and a choice of SS or valve output. I believe there is a newer version which is even betterer! My Albarry PP2 amp has a passive input.

 

[legacylenslover]

I’ve had 7 different DACs connected to my Rpi4, ranging from a £25 Fiio, to my current Rega DAC-R.
I’ve had it outputting to 5 different sets of speakers, so if there’s any info you’d like (rather than me reciting my life history and flooding this thread with my waffle), then please let me know and I’d be happy to help/give details.

 

[maccar]

RME ADI2 or Audiolab M DAC+
Mac

 

[Rosewind]

Topping D10s - I picked a s/h one up for 500 DKK (=£60). A bonus is that it may be used as an USB to SPDIF-converter into another favorite DAC.

 

[Felix]

I think one of the problems I’m having is working out which DAC is only that - a DAC, not an amp or something that can apply different ‘filters’ etc., or a Bluetooth receiver. And definitely not a streamer.

I just want something that brilliantly coverts digital to analogue. Completely neutrally. A cross all firsts I might fancy exploring.

Exploring various things suggested above (but without the luxury of listening to them!):
- D10 - interesting. Does what I want. Seems too cheap! What a ridiculous concern, you might say
- SMSL (or other) with the 4497 chip: there are great vfm ocrions at 250 with volume control and remote. I just want a box.
- qutest: matches everything I say. Do I need ti spend 850+? Maybe I do. But….I can’t help but feel it’s a great product. I also can’t help but feel it’s hamstrung by being built here…(ducks)…and of all bits of kit DACs are evolving so fast…
- etc

what’s the best people have that is a simple box which does an outstanding job?

 

[tuga]

I think one of the problems I’m having is working out which DAC is only that - a DAC, not an amp or something that can apply different ‘filters’ etc., or a Bluetooth receiver. And definitely not a streamer.

I just want something that brilliantly coverts digital to analogue. Completely neutrally. A cross all firsts I might fancy exploring.

Exploring various things suggested above (but without the luxury of listening to them!):
- D10 - interesting. Does what I want. Seems too cheap! What a ridiculous concern, you might say
- SMSL (or other) with the 4497 chip: there are great vfm ocrions at 250 with volume control and remote. I just want a box.
- qutest: matches everything I say. Do I need ti spend 850+? Maybe I do. But….I can’t help but feel it’s a great product. I also can’t help but feel it’s hamstrung by being built here…(ducks)…and of all bits of kit DACs are evolving so fast…
- etc

what’s the best people have that is a simple box which does an outstanding job?

Most DACs will have a filter or three because they come bundled with the D/A chip. Some DACs allow the user to bypass the filters and small bunch will not have a filter (NOS).
A filter is required to properly reconstruct the signal.

In reply to your last question you'll get a different answer for every one who posts one because ultimately it's down to personal preference.

Usually in these kinds of topics I quote the late Charles Hansen of Ayre Acoustics:

Just about everything affect the sound of an audio product, but when it comes to DACs, I would rank (in order or sonic importance the general categories as follows:

1) The analog circuitry - 99.9% of all DACs are designed by digital engineers who don't know enough about analog. They just follow the app note. The specs on the op-amps are fabulous and digital engineers are inherently seduced by the beauty of the math story. There are minor differences in the sound quality between various op-amps, but it's kind of like the difference between a Duncan-Heinz cake mix and a Betty Crocker cake mix. 99.8% of the op-amps are used a current-to-voltage converters with the inverting input operating as a virtual ground. This is probably the worst way to use an op-amp as the input signal will cause the internal circuitry to go into slewing-limited distortion. http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/anablog/4311648/Op-amp-myths-ndash-by-Barrie-Gilbert

With discrete circuitry, the only limit is your imagination. You are free to adjust the topology of the circuit, the brands of the parts, the active devices, the bias current in each stage - anything you can think of. Think of this as going to a world-class patisserie in Paris and seeing all the different things that can be made.

2) The power supplies - 99.9% of all DACs use "3-pin" power supply regulators, which are pretty much op-amps connected to a series pass transistor. Everything in #1 applies here.

3) The master clock - jitter is a single number assigned to measure the phase noise of an oscillator over a fixed bandwidth. It is far more i important to know the spectral distribution of the timing variations and how they correlate to audible problems. 99.9% of all DACs use a strip-cut AT crystal in a Pierce gate oscillator circuit. It's pretty good for the money but the results will depend heavily on the implementation, particularly in the PCB layout and the power supplies (#2).

It's hard to rank the rest of these so I will give them a tie score.

4) The digital filter - 99.9% of all DACs use the digital filter built into the DAC chip. About a dozen companies know how to make a custom digital filter based on either FPGAs or DSP chips.

4) PCB layout - grounding and shielding, impedance-controlled traces, return currents, and return current paths are all critical. For a complex digital PCB, 8 layers is the minimum for good results.

4) The DAC chip - almost everything these days is delta sigma with a built-in digital filter. Differences between different chips is one of the less important aspects of D/A converter designs. Both ESS and AKM have some special tricks to reduce out-of-band noise, which can be helpful, but not dramatic.

4) Passive parts - the quality of these can make a large difference in overall performance, especially for analog. Not many digital engineers sit around listening to different brands of resistors to see what sounds best.

These are just a few of the things that make differences in the way that a DAC will sound.

 

[Felix]

Thank you.

Umm. I can see that is a really helpful reply. But I think it might be an A level reply when i’m an 11+ student.

what I take out from what you say is:
- don’t get hung up on chips because the analogue circuit makes more difference
- as does power supply
- as does the master clock (which is one of the reasons we got here with DACs in the first place)

but I’m not sure how to apply it.

when you say I’ll get as many answers as people that’s kind of what I’m hoping for. I’m Just narrowing down the criteria in terms of ‘box please’. And (implicitly) budget. I’m no big spender.

then I can go into my own rabbit hole with a few reference points.

 

[tuga]

Thank you.

Umm. I can see that is a really helpful reply. But I think it might be an A level reply when i’m an 11+ student.

what I take out from what you say is:
- don’t get hung up on chips because the analogue circuit makes more difference
- as does power supply
- as does the master clock (which is one of the reasons we got here with DACs in the first place)

but I’m not sure how to apply it.

when you say I’ll get as many answers as people that’s kind of what I’m hoping for. I’m Just narrowing down the criteria in terms of ‘box please’. And (implicitly) budget. I’m no big spender.

then I can go into my own rabbit hole with a few reference points.

DACs must be selling well because new models and brands are constantly popping up on the market.

If you are out for DACs that measure well, look no further than Topping (though some models seem to be having issues) or SMSL as they're good value for money.

If you ignore NOS DACs most other current models are good at rejecting jitter.

Personally I would avoid DACs with ESS chips some of which have implementation issues and the house sound is slightly on the "bright"/"cold" side as is Cirrus, AKM is slightly more "neutral" and Burr Brown slightly "darker/warmer" sounding.
I would also avoid DAC that are power over the USB connection.

There are many different DACs some of which will sound very different. NOS DACs and also DACs with valves on analogue stages will not sound "neutral".

"Neutral" DACs will sound alike with the difference mainly due to the chip and the filter.

Ultimately it's down to personal preference, which is why some people will recommend Audio Note, others iFi, Rega, Cambridge, Audiolab, Topping, Chord, RME or whathever floats their boat.
You may have to try a few yourself.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

FWIW My view is that pretty much that most dacs at or above the level of the Cambridge "DAC Magic" models of recent years are OK and let me happily enjoy the music. Beyond that any audible differences tend to shade into the region between 'slight' and 'irrelevant'. So go on features, your budget, and any specific preferences or requirements you have.

e.g. I like to have das blinken lighten that show me the current sample rate, and also the bit-depth, being played. That's very useful when the source may be something like a computer-based setup which can sometimes 'fiddle with the data' before it reaches the DAC. A few DACs also have a digital *output* which personally I find handy at times. But most people wouldn't need that. Also I like the DAC to have an output level control and a headphone socket as well as line out phono/RCAs/etc. But again YMMV.

That said, I currently use Benchmark for a DAC and an ADC a lot of the time. But this is because I have added reasons because they get used for tests, making recordings, etc, as well as for musical enjoyment.

When it comes to things like being able to fiddle with the DAC 'filter' note that what you get always will be combined with the filter used in the ADCs employed to record. IMHO If you want something to 'fiddle with' the provision of these seems to be a modern replacement for ye olde 'tone controls'. Being old fashioned, I prefer tone controls. Much more scope. To get more, look at room correction, not a DAC reconstruction filter.

 

[Purité Audio]

Contemporary Dac chips don’t have a ‘sound’, just look for decent measurements and the features you require.
Keith

 

[John Phillips]

FWIW My view is that pretty much that most dacs at or above the level of the Cambridge "DAC Magic" models of recent years are OK and let me happily enjoy the music. Beyond that any audible differences tend to shade into the region between 'slight' and 'irrelevant'. So go on features, your budget, and any specific preferences or requirements you have. ...

Writing just for me, I agree. If I go to the Wigmore Hall and listen to a Steinway on stage, then go to the Royal Albert Hall and listen to a Steinway on stage these are very different audio experiences. But still valid piano sound and hopefully a great performance.

When I listen to a recording of a Steinway how do I know how it should sound? How did the recording engineer arrange the microphones and make all of the other essential decisions? I have not heard a DAC that did anything audibly wrong on my own "live piano scale" since CD player auditions I conducted in 2004.

It's fair enough if someone's hobby leads them to tune their equipment for a very specific reproduced sound. For most people I think it's worthwhile understanding whether you are using the music to listen to and tune your DAC to personal taste or using your DAC to listen to perfectly valid range of reproduced music sounds.

I use a piano as my example because IME there can be "elephant in the room"-level defects in reproduced piano sound from loudspeakers, falling outside the range of live experience. But not so IME for a very long time from DACs. YMMV so do understand your own way.

 

[Whizzy]

My experience is some DACs do sound different but it's got more to do with their type than make. e.g. resistor ladder, chip based or field-programmable gate array FPGA (Chord).

 

[foxwelljsly]

I'd be tempted to use either a Pi4 into a Topping D10(s) DAC via usb and a single input volume control from amazon. Or a pi4 via USB into a Topping e30, which is a DAC with a remote volume control. Either will cost you £80-£150 depending on whether you go new or secondhand.

I used a Pi4 and a Topping E30 into a Quad QSP and a pair of old Kef Reference 103.2's and it remains one of the best sounding digital systems I've had.

I've tried a bunch of passive pres from £25 to £350 retail and the audible differences are either imaginary or extremely marginal. Same goes with DACs I've tried that have been from £100 up to £600 retail.

Of course, YMMV.

 

[tuga]

Writing just for me, I agree. If I go to the Wigmore Hall and listen to a Steinway on stage, then go to the Royal Albert Hall and listen to a Steinway on stage these are very different audio experiences. But still valid piano sound and hopefully a great performance.

When I listen to a recording of a Steinway how do I know how it should sound? How did the recording engineer arrange the microphones and make all of the other essential decisions? I have not heard a DAC that did anything audibly wrong on my own "live piano scale" since CD player auditions I conducted in 2004.

It's fair enough if someone's hobby leads them to tune their equipment for a very specific reproduced sound. For most people I think it's worthwhile understanding whether you are using the music to listen to and tune your DAC to personal taste or using your DAC to listen to perfectly valid range of reproduced music sounds.

I use a piano as my example because IME there can be "elephant in the room"-level defects in reproduced piano sound from loudspeakers, falling outside the range of live experience. But not so IME for a very long time from DACs. YMMV so do understand your own way.

Better D/A conversion, better upsampling, better filtering, better SDM modulation, better noise-floor increases perceived "clarity" which is a way of saying that the signal is being reproduced more accurately.

Different filters or filter-types have advantages and downsides, so there it's a matter of personal preference what you choose to listen to.

I disagree with @Jim Audiomisc that they're akin to tone controls. In my view and experience they definitely are not. But some will produce slightly more roll-off than others and also transients will be perceived differently, decays will be more obvious. My file playback software allows me to choose between a dozen filters and as many noise shaping algorithms. In my system with my DAC the differences between most are audible, some of them more than just slight.
Same with using my DAC's SDM on-board modulator vs. upconverting to DSD with the file player.