Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: I did a "re-evaluation" of my Schiit Bifrost DAC ; The bad news is ... posted by email@example.com on June 03, 2012 at 21:05:56
"It turns out the Bifrost sounds a lot better than I thought it did ! The only problem is I like it a bit more than the 2x as expensive DAC I replaced it with !"
What 2x as expensive DAC did your Bifrost replace ?
It's the Brittish DAC that is using Burr Brown chips (not Wolfson, as incorrectly stated in the Audio Advisor description of the DACs features , along with an incorrect outdated picture of DACs faceplate displaying the incoming sample rates) (I was worried that it was using Wolfsons , I found out on the manf. website it wasn't)
The first sample rate is not 32khz on the current DACs it is 44.1 & there is also an led for 176.4
The funny thing is I may change my mind once I've switched my source to an Auraliti PK100
I purposely hold on to my components for a little while after I've switched to a different configuration.
Now if that " Money Tree " I planted out back would start growing I'd be in great shape !!
"It's the Brittish DAC that is using Burr Brown chips (not Wolfson, as incorrectly stated in the Audio Advisor description of the DACs features , along with an incorrect outdated picture of DACs faceplate displaying the incoming sample rates) (I was worried that it was using Wolfsons , I found out on the manf. website it wasn't)"
Why not just say it was an Arcam rDac...not exactly 2x the cost.
Posted by firstname.lastname@example.org (A) on December 6, 2011 at 14:19:14
In Reply to: Arcam rDac....No love? posted by Lewis Moon on December 6, 2011 at 07:13:32:
I've had the rDAC in my system now for about 2 weeks now.
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Mainly, because it is not an Arcam rDac. ( I actually do have that one also & I believe it does use a Wolfson chip.). If memory serves me correct the rDAC is only about $129 more & is not quite as good as the Musical Fidelity M1 I was using.
I really did'nt want to come out & name it as I still think the MF is a pretty good product. If the up sampling could be disabled I think it might trump the Bifrost.
Interesting you should say that (the bit quoted in my subject line), because for DACs like that, the upsampling by default is considered a "feature"--essential to both the concept/engineering of the DAC itself, and the marketing strategy. Simply imagining that part of the DAC vanquished, how can you then speculate with regards to the end result?
"Upsampling", which is 16/44 to 24/96 (or 24/192) sample rate conversion, is a "feature" in name only....... It serves no benefit from a technical standpoint. And I personally think it degrades signal fidelity.
One thing that I like about the Bifrost is that it's the most direct DAC that I've heard; no messing w/ the digital signal. A CD scratch sounds much like a record scratch amazingly, compared to the ones that save up the data then let out a screech. I think that this makes it much more analog-sounding.
I figure that if the designer gives you different settings to try for better sound, then they really have not done a good job as far as what I'm looking for.
Now that I think about it the Burr Brown chip they selected for this particular DAC circuit may not have the same strengths as some of the earlier BB chips used in non up sampling designs.
Sloppy thinking on my part I guess ! ( Good thing I'm not building & selling DACs huh ?)
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: