Audio Note Kits support forum, in co-operation with Audio Note UK
Return to Audio Note Kits Forum
199.250.65.69
In Reply to: RE: I do. posted by jmlpartners on June 08, 2009 at 11:18:05
One comment: Gordon makes many products besides DACs and it's quite clear hat he chose USB interfaces for his DACs over other methods because he considers it superior. You may disagree, but to insinuate he's not an objective authority on the matter isn't very logical IMO.
(The Wavelength DACs are nice... and my AN Kit 2.1C runs circles around the Cosecant at 60% the price.)
On second thought, the positive qualities you attribute to USB are misapplied because you are not really listening to a pure USB transport. The auxiliary circuit board you use is translating the USB to S/PDIF and that is what is driving the AN digital receiver. In other words, the recovered clock is passing through two PLLs. Perhaps the S/PDIF PLL is ameliorating the damage inflicted by the USB PLL and that’s why you don’t hear what I hear.
It was quite some time ago when USB audio devices appeared and I was intrigued. One of the first USB DACs with audiophile pretensions was the Stereo-Link. I have one. Technically, it does a lot of things right. Separate AC power supply, RCA I/O instead of a mini phone plug, and galvanic separation of the PC and audio grounds. Unfortunately, it sounds like a USB DAC. At about the same time Wavelength introduced their first USB DAC and Gordon was making extraordinary claims about it. I contacted him for clarification and he apparently mistook me for an audiophile. What he told me was total BS. After I followed up with technical challenges to his most outrageous claims he clammed up saying his methods were proprietary.
DACs are my passion. I have been working with computers and audio since 1973: Before PCs, before CDs, and before it was even called digital audio. I think I know a little more about the subject than the average audiophile. As I see it, Gordon saw an opportunity to be get into the immerging, ‘audiophile approved,’ digital audio market and took it. As a method for transporting audio samples from one device to another USB offers no technical benefit. In its current form, as you well know, USB doesn’t go above 48K without proprietary chips and drivers and, as I’ve described, it has poor clock stability and data integrity. USB’s only selling point is plug’n’play simplicity/portability and that apparently trumps all other considerations for members of the iPod generation.
Have you listened to an AN DAC fed by a USB transport?
Why would I want to do that? What exactly would I learn that I don’t already know? I have listened to quite a few USB DACs. In fact, from where I am sitting in my office I can see three, ‘audiophile approved’ USB DACs. I don’t like the way USB puts its mark on the recovered music. In that regard, it’s worse then the S/PDIF. If you don’t hear the effects of USB or it doesn’t bother you then enjoy your USB-based digital audio system. Why do you want my approval?
I have an Audio Note 1.2 DAC kit in my audio system. I like it because it doesn’t offend. Aside from audio shows and dealer showrooms, the only other AN DAC I’ve properly auditioned is the 3.1x. After reading rave reviews and glowing owner testimonials regarding the 3.1x I thought it would be a nice addition to my growing DAC collection. I contacted my local AN dealer to arrange a demo. Eventually the demo was arranged but the AN distributor, who supplied the equipment, insisted I listen to the DAC with the AN CDT and the hideously expensive, AN digital cable. In other words, I had to immerse myself the total Audio Note Digital Audio Experience. What a joke. If your AN DAC sounds anything like the 3.1x, you can have it.
Finally, as long as you cling to USB as the savior of all digital audio then you have to accept its limitations. If you want a plastic disk transport then you have to accept its limitations. If you are willing to use the dread, dare I mention its name, S/PDIF from a PC sound card, then there is no reason you can’t supply your DAC with 192K/24. My AN 1.2 DAC is fitted with a CS8415A that actually plays music with 192K/24 input even though the chip is only rated to 96K. Truncating to 18 bits is no big deal because the linearity of most R2R-type DACs falls off after 18 bits. (Purportedly heard from a Burr-Brown engineer – “Question: What the difference between the PCM1702 and the PCM1704? Answer: Four marketing bits.” In case you don’t get the joke, the PCM1702 is a 20-bit DAC and the PCM1704 is a 24-bit DAC.)
Hi JML. I get the impression that your modified AN DAC1.2 sounds better than the factory AN DAC3. If it may not be too presumptuous, may I ask whether there was there anything in particular you did? modified? aside from the higher grade receiver chip. TIA
It's not that my 1.2 sounded better; it's that the 3.1x I heard exhibited a quality I cannot abide. After playing for only 30 seconds it went back in its shipping box never to heard from again. That was very unfortunate because I was expecting great things from AN in that price range. It was especially unfortunate for the dealer who acquired all the gear and drove 140 miles to my place. We spent the afternoon comparing transports, digital cables, and LP vs CD. I could not hear a difference between the $3K AN digital cable and my $0.15 wire. The same with the CDT. On the other hand, LPs were a clear winner.
BTW, I hear the same defect in other DACs that omit a proper reconstruction filter.
I vaguely recall that the AN DAC1 used a low pass LC from the DAC Chip to the grid of the output tube, while the AN DAC3, cascaded transformers. Could that matter?
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]