Fretbuzz
pfm Member
Have you thought about a Hugo 2 or TT? Using a H2 in to a power amp now and it's a joy. Have used passives with a Qutest before and the H2 is preferable, to me - same qualities bit more body and drive. Remote too.
Is it time for a new DAC?
- Thread starter Brian S
- Start date
tuga
Legal Alien
Together with the brain.
Thanks for suggestion. I do actually have a Hugo, paired with a Toby. It started its life with a valve power amp. I have been quite pleased with it though to my ears failed to outshine the Mytek, or for that matter, a Topping I used when it was returned to Chord. If there was a DAC that in terms of sound was going to excel above the others my prevarications would cease. I was delighted by my first stand alone DAC but sound quality has been pretty constant since. And good.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Unfortunately it leaves less room for the hobby though.
Heckyman
pfm Member
Are you aware of the Holo Spring 3 with built-in pre-amp?
I agree about inferior pre-amps, I've actually been going DAC to power amp direct lately and controlling volume on my server. I think digital vol control has probably improved since 10+ years ago when it was considered a no-no as "bit perfect" was all the rage. It's a little hard to recommend though as it depends on server/DAC/amp all working well together.
Another option is a fixed output DAC plus passive pre as others have mentioned.
Maybe there's not much difference between DACs, but IMO that can't be said for pre amps / volume controls.
On the discussion about distortion, i'd just like to point out that a typical DAC has distortion less that 0.001%, whilst really good speakers have distortion around 1%. You basically get 1,000x the distortion from the speakers.
So if you think changing DAC is going to suddenly give you amazing sound that otherwise is masked by the DAC distortion, I think you'll find you will be disappointed. You might believe you hear something, and i'm not going to tell you that you don't, but use the above distortion figures to realise that what you are hearing is vanishingly unlikely to be due to the DAC distortion being reduced.
So if you think changing DAC is going to suddenly give you amazing sound that otherwise is masked by the DAC distortion, I think you'll find you will be disappointed. You might believe you hear something, and i'm not going to tell you that you don't, but use the above distortion figures to realise that what you are hearing is vanishingly unlikely to be due to the DAC distortion being reduced.
As I have stated elsewhere I hear no obvious difference in sound quality in my DACs costing from £130 to £3000.
There are so many things in our hobby that can influence the sound. I'm almost glad that I don't have to worry about any more with the digital source. This way, I can invest the time I have gained in areas that are much more useful. Starting with the search for good music, and the search to see if there are better versions of it (keyword: loudness war). To influence the sound, I decided to keep my modified naim amplifiers. I like the sound, this is where the sound is made. And then how does the loudspeaker work in the room? There's so much to adust. So, the problem of the DAC has really become unimportant. It was different 20 years ago. But today the issue is as good as closed. New formats that are supposedly better come and go, so you need new generations of DACs that can do that. But 2-channel high-res is at a stage of technical development where no significant audible improvements are to be expected.
tuga
Legal Alien
Nah, only the belief system.
No one takes away your right to buy expensive things. And it is also legitimate to buy a DAC because of its workmanship, its own sound etc. An expensive DAC is often a haptic impression and the idea that expensive = better also has an effect on the subjectively perceived quality.
If, on the other hand, it is only a matter of acoustically objectively reproducible perception, a low-priced device can suffice. Since no one can hear the difference between AD-DA conversion and loop-through from a good interface like the RME ADI-2 or a comparable one, I ask myself why an expensive device should be purchased for sound reasons. However, if you need the DAC to colour the sound, there are other ways to do it that are more effective and more targeted. One possibility would be something like this: https://spl.audio/en/spl-produkt/tube-vitalizer/
If, on the other hand, it is only a matter of acoustically objectively reproducible perception, a low-priced device can suffice. Since no one can hear the difference between AD-DA conversion and loop-through from a good interface like the RME ADI-2 or a comparable one, I ask myself why an expensive device should be purchased for sound reasons. However, if you need the DAC to colour the sound, there are other ways to do it that are more effective and more targeted. One possibility would be something like this: https://spl.audio/en/spl-produkt/tube-vitalizer/
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Not entirely sure it was different 20 years ago. Perhaps not quite so obvious. But already apparent to clear thinkers as regard well-designed dacs.
The last format which really made an audible improvement: cd.
Multi-channel has the potential to be the future. But it could also suffer the fate of 3D television.
I think the market for high-quality playback is even smaller than for stereo. You hardly ever see high-priced (high-quality?) surround systems at hi-fi fairs. In Munich I once heard a 7+1 Manger and a 7+1 PMC set. Very impressive. SACD, a niche (or already dead?), would have been an opportunity. I like looking at photos of listening rooms. In most forum these are my favourite threads. Sorround is only for home theatres. The rest has stereo. Even for people where money and space would hardly matter. The 2-channel heritage is exploited to excess, that's it. I don't see any movement towards multi-channel.
Please don't set the 20 years in stone. Maybe I'm over-glorifying the past and overlooking the products that were technically inferior to well-made, inexpensive ones, despite their higher price. When was the benchmark DAC for the home market discovered? That was probably the moment when many people realised that the boutique manufacturers were not necessarily the yellow of the egg.
I have to agree with you about the CD. The format was ahead of the technical implementation and the bad reputation of the CD is certainly due to the first generations of players. Today, I prefer a well-recorded early CD recording to a later high-res from the era of the loudness war.
I think the market for high-quality playback is even smaller than for stereo. You hardly ever see high-priced (high-quality?) surround systems at hi-fi fairs. In Munich I once heard a 7+1 Manger and a 7+1 PMC set. Very impressive. SACD, a niche (or already dead?), would have been an opportunity. I like looking at photos of listening rooms. In most forum these are my favourite threads. Sorround is only for home theatres. The rest has stereo. Even for people where money and space would hardly matter. The 2-channel heritage is exploited to excess, that's it. I don't see any movement towards multi-channel.
Please don't set the 20 years in stone. Maybe I'm over-glorifying the past and overlooking the products that were technically inferior to well-made, inexpensive ones, despite their higher price. When was the benchmark DAC for the home market discovered? That was probably the moment when many people realised that the boutique manufacturers were not necessarily the yellow of the egg.
I have to agree with you about the CD. The format was ahead of the technical implementation and the bad reputation of the CD is certainly due to the first generations of players. Today, I prefer a well-recorded early CD recording to a later high-res from the era of the loudness war.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
It’s possible (I put it no higher) that you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope with surround. The mainstream is what matters not audiophiles. Lots of people listen with ear pods and sound bars both of which can play atmos (after a fashion) and music is beginning to appear in the format. I wonder whether it may become normal to master in the format. You may be surprised at the stuff that now has atmos mixes
https://www.audioadvice.com/videos-reviews/top-10-dolby-atmos-songs
https://www.audioadvice.com/videos-reviews/top-10-dolby-atmos-songs
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I've lost count of the number of times and schemes the entertainment biz has trumpted to give us "surround sound". In general, the reality is that good audio seems to go on delivering Ok via stereo. Its hard enough to get stereo optimised in a normal sort of domestic setup. And stereo doesn't mean 'two channel'. 
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Also down to many of the early digital ADCs and the ways they tried to use them to master a CD were flawed. Remember that some of the early 'digital' stereo recordings weren't 16bit *or* 44k1! The best way they had of 'resampling' at the time was often to go via an analogue connection from the recorded digital to the CD stream. Using poor convertors with leaky conversion filtering, etc. Just tweaking the level could mess things up.
And many of the digital process systems employed for years were poor. Lots of ways to mangle the audio in the digital domain. Add in clueless use by ignorat/careless people 'mastering' as wizards.
Examples abounded for many years after CD appeared. Documented on my web pages in some cases. But back in the early years almost impossible to analyse. Just to find the result could sound 'odd'.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Yes but- wrong end of the telescope- who has a stereo these days?I've lost count of the number of times and schemes the entertainment biz has trumpted to give us "surround sound". In general, the reality is that good audio seems to go on delivering Ok via stereo.
John Phillips
pfm Member
My impression of modern classical music releases is that the sound is much more often superb and free of audible defects than on releases from the 1980s and 1990s.
I suspect modern studio ADC practice (24 bit 96 kHz rather than 16 bit 44.1 kHz) is responsible, combined with the embedding of good processing practice in digital audio workstation software in such a way that it now takes much more operator effort to "mess things up".