Alex S
carbon based lifeform
This, or it’s big brother, looks nice: https://www.luxman.com/product/detail.php?id=43
This, or it’s big brother, looks nice: https://www.luxman.com/product/detail.php?id=43
THIS.Just short note. Although the DAC is important, try not to neglect the front end streamer.
It will be just as transparent as many, many others but it has some neat features , pleasant aesthetic and is pretty reasonably priced.
Keith
I'm far from being an expert in digital signal technology, but it seems to me that all of these smaller, specialist DAC makers - Chord, DCS, Meitner, Playback Designs etc - seem to use versions of the same box of tricks. Massive upsampling, mix and match interpolation filters and, frequently, conversion to DSD. I have heard all of these approaches at length, having owned all of the Chord DACs (yes, all of them), and the M Scaler no less than three times, and having spent a week with the Bartok and the Meitner MA3. I also experienced the Playback DSD conversion/upsampling approach with my Nagra Tube DAC, whose digital board is designed by Playback.
My subjective experience suggests all of these approaches are flawed. As always, there are no free lunches in audio or anywhere else, and using technology to produce one "improvement" usually involves a trade off somewhere else. As we know, linear filters measure the best but produce pre- and post-ringing artifacts. Minimum phase filters mitigate this to some extent, but introduce greater post-ringing and other artifacts. Upscaling using the Chord approach - which can be done using Chord's expensive box of tricks, the M Scaler, but can equally be done using any PC - does improve detail but introduces odd tonal artifacts. The same is true of Meitner's and Playback's approach of upscaling and converting to DSD, the latter tending to sound unnaturally smooth and glassy.
Why don't the big chipmakers use these approaches - AKM, ESS, Cirrus, Burr-Brown, Analog Devices etc? They have the resources to do so and I doubt it would be that much more expensive to produce a chip with these capabilities. I suspect they know that there are too many compromises involved and that the result would not sound natural, even though audiophiles are often looking for a distinctive - if unnatural - sound to justify the expense of the DACs.
In my case, having been through so many expensive DACs and remaining unsatisfied, I have "settled" with a Bricasti M3 which, like all of Bricasti's delta-sigma DACs, uses the rather elderly and conventional (and inexpensive) AD1955 chip, but focus their attention on power supplies and implementation. I find this approach sounds more natural than the bespoke FPGA based DACs. I should add that because of the quality of the implementation it also sounds much better than the awful Chinese DAC-of-the month popular on ASR such as the Topping, which I owned briefly.
In my case, having been through so many expensive DACs and remaining unsatisfied, I have "settled" with a Bricasti M3 which, like all of Bricasti's delta-sigma DACs, uses the rather elderly and conventional (and inexpensive) AD1955 chip, but focus their attention on power supplies and implementation. I find this approach sounds more natural than the bespoke FPGA based DACs.
Thanks for the input Ross. I love reading about the long-running trials, tribulations and experiences of others on their journey. Did you ever try any of the R2R based DACs, for example Denafrips or Holo Audio? These all seem to offer an optional NOS mode which would be simpler again from a signal processing perspective than the delta-sigma approach.
Did you ever try any of the R2R based DACs, for example Denafrips or Holo Audio? These all seem to offer an optional NOS mode which would be simpler again from a signal processing perspective than the delta-sigma approach.
Yes, I have had two R2R DACs, a Holo Audio and a Metrum Pavane. They had a similar sound quality in important respects - tonally dense and colourful, and yet a bit slow and lacking dynamics. I infer from other comments I have read this seems to be common for R2R DACs. I can certainly understand why some people are attracted to their tonal qualities, but for me the sense of "slowness" ruled them out. Another case of there being no free lunch in digital - an improvement in one dimension inevitably leads to a loss somewhere else.
It was a little more complex than that, of course. And it's not true that I didn't like the house sound. The Qutest is a decent DAC at the price, and the TT2 is in my opinion the best sounding of all of them (without the M Scaler, of course). As I said, the DAVE on its own is also quite good sounding, although is still a little lean and edgy for my tastes. I actually had the DAVE/Blu 2 before the TT2.Ross, I presume you moved steadily up the line but did you need to acquire the entire Chord range to deduce that you didn’t like the house sound?
I'm far from being an expert in digital signal technology, but it seems to me that all of these smaller, specialist DAC makers - Chord, DCS, Meitner, Playback Designs etc - seem to use versions of the same box of tricks. Massive upsampling, mix and match interpolation filters and, frequently, conversion to DSD. I have heard all of these approaches at length, having owned all of the Chord DACs (yes, all of them), and the M Scaler no less than three times, and having spent a week with the Bartok and the Meitner MA3. I also experienced the Playback DSD conversion/upsampling approach with my Nagra Tube DAC, whose digital board is designed by Playback.
My subjective experience suggests all of these approaches are flawed. As always, there are no free lunches in audio or anywhere else, and using technology to produce one "improvement" usually involves a trade off somewhere else. As we know, linear filters measure the best but produce pre- and post-ringing artifacts. Minimum phase filters mitigate this to some extent, but introduce greater post-ringing and other artifacts. Upscaling using the Chord approach - which can be done using Chord's expensive box of tricks, the M Scaler, but can equally be done using any PC - does improve detail but introduces odd tonal artifacts. The same is true of Meitner's and Playback's approach of upscaling and converting to DSD, the latter tending to sound unnaturally smooth and glassy.
Why don't the big chipmakers use these approaches - AKM, ESS, Cirrus, Burr-Brown, Analog Devices etc? They have the resources to do so and I doubt it would be that much more expensive to produce a chip with these capabilities. I suspect they know that there are too many compromises involved and that the result would not sound natural, even though audiophiles are often looking for a distinctive - if unnatural - sound to justify the expense of the DACs.
In my case, having been through so many expensive DACs and remaining unsatisfied, I have "settled" with a Bricasti M3 which, like all of Bricasti's delta-sigma DACs, uses the rather elderly and conventional (and inexpensive) AD1955 chip, but focus their attention on power supplies and implementation. I find this approach sounds more natural than the bespoke FPGA based DACs. I should add that because of the quality of the implementation it also sounds much better than the awful Chinese DAC-of-the month popular on ASR such as the Topping, which I owned briefly.
I really like my Innuos Mini with LPS, just sounds great. Would like to listen to a Zenith at some point but will upgrade speakers first as I have an irrational urge to upgrade my ATC 40s to 50s.
I think it’s wise to keep Dac separate from streamer in some ways but Linn do seem to have cracked it with the DSM range.
I’ll be the judge of thatUpgrading from 40As to 50As is not an irrational urge in my experience. It’s a night and day difference.
I’ll be the judge of that