 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
37.19.221.247
Hi,
I am looking to purchase new DAC that offers clarity, detail, PRAT and musicality. My budget is 3000 dollars.
Please suggest a new DAC with or without preamp of headphone output.
Thanks,
t.
Follow Ups:
The Gustard 26 series is where I would stop
A26, X26Pro, R26... according to taste.
Denafrips Venus
Edits: 10/30/23
nt
I'm sticking with my assertion that there's no real need to spend over US$1000 on a DAC -- but it depends on your preferences of course.
morricab seldom explains except in the vaguest terms how his more expensive stuff is better. Anybody, including Morri, is entitled to have their preferences but they need to be clear what those preferences are.
Dmitri Shostakovich
I explain in very specific terms there is nothing vague about my descriptions.
and Amir only measures and does not listen.
The best sounding components I've heard in recent years also measure well.
Dmitri Shostakovich
But do you chose gear that only measure well to listen to? What gear in recent years measured poorly that you listened to?
Cut to razor sounding violins
What does poorly even mean heare? According to the gospel of Amir?
nt
Dmitri Shostakovich
My Denafrips Terminator (one step above the Venus) didn't 'beat the pants off of' the Audio-GD master 7 which has TWICE as many PCM1708 chips Ayon Skylla 2 (but no Russian or Chinese tubes).
So my guess is that the Denafrips Venus is a great sounding DAC but likely not beating-the-pants-off of any other DAC in this conversation.
Please remember that the analog output stage has a profound impact on the sound...not just the chip...although that clearly matters too. The output stage of the Skylla and all Ayon DACs is very very good...such that it serves as a true high end preamp (there are analog inputs)... one of my friends with an Ayon Stratos uses his that way for his analog rig.
As I mentioned before in a much older post....Many modern DACs sound outstanding and very similar with only slight differences. It's not usually a matter of one being so much better than the rest.
When a DAC stands out as being far superior to the rest it's because this outlier leans heavily in alignment with your specific sonic preferences. I would assert that your love affair with the Ayon Skylla and Stratos is likely due to their vacuum tube analog stages. Nothing wrong with that if you like that tube sound.
Others prefer less color or possibly coloring their system with a different component like an outboard preamp, power amp, or speakers.
Edits: 11/02/23
"When a DAC stands out as being far superior to the rest it's because this outlier leans heavily in alignment with your specific sonic preferences. I would assert that your love affair with the Ayon Skylla and Stratos is likely due to their vacuum tube analog stages. Nothing wrong with that if you like that tube sound."
Or...it is simply far superior. You seem to conveniently ignore the most obvious possibility.
"Or...it is simply far superior. You seem to conveniently ignore the most obvious possibility."Or as I already mentioned the DAC is simply an outlier that aligns more precisely with your specific sonic preference. You can't ignore that possibility especially since your "far superior" sounding DAC utilizes vacuum tubes. Are we back to the age old debate of vacuum tubes vs solid-state? I can add some color and soundstage with a nice vacuum tube preamp and thoroughly enjoy the sound (I've done it) but I would simply call it different and not necessarily far superior.
Better or far superior is hard to define in recent DACs and more about personal preference. State of the art design elevates many modern DACs to be excellent compared to just a few short years ago. One no longer needs to buy pricey audiophile branded DACs to achieve outstanding sonics.
Edits: 11/04/23
i didn't discount your possibility but you still don't acknowledge the possibility that I laid out.Vacuum tubes are part of the equation but only part.
"Better or far superior is hard to define in recent DACs and more about personal preference. "
There are objective things that can be compared, such as tone compared to real instruments tone, soundstage and imaging that has 3d and depth compared to flat. Dynamics are another big factor. Most of these cheap DACs sound compressed regardless of the musical content. Perhaps you only realize this once you have heard one that is unbridled. BTW. also some expensive ones sound this way too...but it is a serious issue with low cost DACs.
The DACs you claim are so good for low money are not really very good once you compare them to better designs.
I do not believe the trope that the DAC chips are now so advanced that the rest can be cheap and the sound great. Where most of these budget DACs fall down is in the power supply and the output stage. They simply don't sound very good...again once you compare to superior sounding DACs. On their own, they sound "ok". But if you were listening to CD only, an old Mark Levinson No.360s will sound far better (yes it's all SS) for around $2K used than any of these new DACs. Or an OLD PS Audio.
I have one that uses the UltraAnalog 20 bit chip and has discrete output stage (again all SS) and it sounds VERY good with 16/44. You wouldn't understand why people were so harsh with digital in the past as it is smooth, resolved, nice tone and has plenty of drive...it just won't do high res or USB. Same for the Kinergetics Research KCD-55 Ultra that I have. It is also 16/44 only. It also uses the UltraAnalog chips (2 of them...that still go for hundreds of bucks used!), and once its been on for a few days...damn it sounds good too.
Finally, I also have a Metrum Octave MK2 (I used to also have the two-box tiny MKI as well). This uses 8 unknown R2R chips NOS with no output stage at all. This is resolved, slightly warm but quite upfront and honest and would be my choice (or whatever the company makes now that replaced it) for a DAC under $1K. Or for just over that a Monarchy M24 DAC (20bit version). For under $2K the Metrum Hex (used) would also be an interesting option.
The truth about digital from the past is this: It MIGHT be slightly lower resolution but the care in design of the digital filter, power supply and output stage resulted in DACs that sound GOOD. A used Sonic Frontiers DAC would also be a superb choice. A ML No.35 is also an excellent choice for those who don't want "tube" coloration. Oh, and the Moon Eclipse cd player, which will also work as a DAC, is a superb option as well for the non-tube crowd and can be found used for reasonable money.
I stream with Qobuz and it is possible to limit the streaming choices to 16/44...so, an old DAC could be used with modern streaming as long as your streamer has SPDIF or AES/EBU outputs. I limit my streaming to 24/96 because my DAC doesn't lock very well to 192.
As I mentioned below, I compared my Ayon Skylla with an Ayon Stratos that uses much more up-to-date ESS chips. The output stages are IDENTICAL. the result? More similar than different. Both sound great and better than the chifi I have heard by a large amount.A friend of mine had a Chif Topping DAC and he thought he was happy...until I brought over an APL DSD-AR DAC (again all SS). The difference was stunning to the point that he happily paid me $3500 for the privilege of owning it (I found my Ayon better sounding but the APL is very good).
Edits: 11/05/23
I agree that there were many superb older DACs but my fundamental conclusion is this. You HAD TO pay a good amount of money for a decent DAC back in the day as there was little competition from Chifi and non-Audiophile branded DACs. That has changed. My sweet spot for a high quality modern DAC is somewhere around $1000 - $1500.I have experienced a few modern DACs in that $1000 +/- range that clearly outperform or are at least on par with some audiophile brands from back in the day.
I put my sub-$1000 SMSL D400EX and the $1200 RME ADI-2 DAC FS up against my Luxman DA-06 ($4000), Ayre QB-9 DSD ($3800) and Wavelength Brick ($2200) setup. I have owned all of these DACs and the non-Audiophile brands at around $1000 were better sounding. Go figure. You simply get more for your money these days if you don't need the prestige of audiophile branding.
"A friend of mine had a Chifi Topping DAC and he thought he was happy...until I brought over an APL DSD-AR DAC (again all SS). The difference was stunning to the point that he happily paid me $3500 for the privilege of owning it (I found my Ayon better sounding but the APL is very good)."
I don't doubt it. You didn't mention which Topping as Topping DACs start as low as $75!
Edits: 11/06/23
I don't consider the affordable DACs that I have heard in recent times to be a bargain because they don't deliver good sound.
Affordable DACs in the past just tended to sound boring with their mushy 1-bit cheapo DAC chips. Or they were somewhat screechy. Now they sound ultra clean...and ultra lifeless. If most recordings (even classical and audiophile Jazz) are really that poor then I welcome whatever makes them sound like music. Given that master tape sounds nothing like what these budget DACs produce...I put my money on the master tape sounding more correct...and therefore some of the better, yet pricey DACs.
I think it was the E50 DAC.
... verses essentially no distortion.
But that's OK of course.
Dmitri Shostakovich
You are right in a sense , I prefer certain types of distortion over other types...-preferably the kind my ear/brain simply doesn't hear because it is masked...-thx evolution! Your flaw is thinking that the residual distortion you see in those measurements is inaudible or is the only distortion extant. Those products you like have a sound character and if that is not a product of their deviation from true linearity then what is causing the character?
My system is "distorted" by your standard and yet differentiation between recordings is very high and on good recordings the tonality of instruments is very close to what one hears live. Gear with Distortion that hides in the gaps of the auditory system will sound cleaner and more natural than gear with even minuscule residual distortion that is unpleasant to hear.
This is further helped by the fact that this blind spot increases with SPL. So, the initially obvious problem with zero feedback amps distortion increasing with power is not as long as the increase is in line with the SPL increase. If the distortion surpasses the threshold where masking is not effective before the SPL catches up you will hear the amp or source "struggling" on peaks or congested passages.
I'm talking about the things you mentioned ...
Said morricab, " There are objective things that can be compared, such as tone compared to real instruments tone, soundstage and imaging that has 3d and depth compared to flat. Dynamics are another big factor. "
In the first place I question whether the term, "objective", is really valid in this context. I don't doubt that you're an experienced listener, but even experienced listeners to live music have biases.
Then, of course, there are the recordings, the source of the sound. There are huge variations in overall sound quality and often some specific aspect such as you describe above. My position and preference is that I want to hear the record as recorded, mastered, and distributed on whatever medium. As for 16/44.1 or better is better than vinyl, both potentially and in fact.
In my experience ultra-low distortion components reproduce the sound of the best* recording best. This is why I look at measurements before bothering to listen to, much less buy, equipment.
Tube equipment measurably produces distortion, albeit in especially in case of high-end equipment it might be carefully tuned to somebody or other's preference. That's the bottom line when it comes to that stuff: personal preference. But distortion is distortion no matter how agreeable and it will change the sound of the recording.
( * "Best" recordings are those I've found to sound relatively good consistently best in the very qualities you mention regardless of the equipment used for reproduction.)
Dmitri Shostakovich
In my experience, the best measuring DACs, particularly the ones with wimpy power supplies and basic opamp outputs, don't do anything particularly well regardless of the recording quality. If you can't hear the dimensionless soundstage (flat and 2d images) with relatively gray tonal characteristics and lack of dynamics then I guess count yourself lucky. You can hear this regardless of the recording quality...so much for being invisible and only letting the recording come through.
IMO, describing a sound characteristic can be quite objective...it is not that hard to get people to agree on WHAT they hear. What is subjective in audio is how they think it impacts the quality of the sound. People have different criteria for judging what they hear.
There are exceptions. I have several friends that when we all get together we can mostly agree on what something is doing (like dynamics and soundstage when a rectifier is swapped on a tube amp...yes the rectifier for the power supply and it is scarily obvious) and this often leads to agreement on what is subjectively better as we all have pretty similar goals.
I have one friend; however, who often hears things nearly the opposite of what I an others hear...I haven't figured it out yet why he has hears things often differently. That said, he does have a similar Ayon DAC to me and most of his system is tubes (his amp is a Class A Plinius...although he also owns SETs). His preferred SET, ironincally is a rather warm and rich sounding one from Unison Research (the S6), which I find too far down the colored end of the spectrum.
It is clear that people can be trained to use their senses in a precise qualitative, if not quantitative manner. I think of organoleptic detection in chemistry. This is used in the fragrance industry where trained experts in smell can expertly qualitatively identify components and even have a rough quantitative range accuracy for how much of a component is in the mix because smells change based on concentration.
I have another friend, who after exposure to my system, has completely changed his system other than the speakers (and he is thinking about that). He went from a Topping DAC (upper model, can't remember exactly which one...he added an outboard power supply as well) and a Musical Fidelity SS amp to an expensive APL DSD-AR DAC ($7500 new price) that he bought from me and a Chifi tube amp (push pull EL-34...for sure measures "meh" by your's and Amir's standards) that despite the relatively low price sounds really good (a bit overly rich but resolution doesn't suffer much). Now, his system has dimension, dynamics, tone and is still suitably transparent with good low level resolution. Not the last word in any of these areas but a huge step from where he was with the "amazing" measuring DAC and probably "adquate" measuring amp.
We had that Topping DAC over at my place and it was shocking how badly it dried out ALL recordings and flattened them out spatially. Good recordings, great recordings or even not-so-great all suffered.
To be fair, there are expensive ones that do the same. A different friend had the expensive Nagra Classic DAC (like $15K new) and he brought it over and the first thing I heard was FLAT. Images sounded flat, flat, flat. I couldn't believe that such an expensive DAC made such a basic sonic mistake. It's no wonder they discontinued it...and their new one uses a tube output. The guy now has an expensive Mola Mola Tambaqui that doesn't sound so flat in the soundstage but is tilted up in the highs and I find it also unnatural to listen to.
I have had all SS DACs that also soundstaged well, so it doesn't have to be tube output...the tube output ones just do it better in general.
Many of the sonic characteristics that you described both good and bad can be heard in different $1000 class modern DACs, Chifi or otherwise. Which again supports my assertion that many relatively inexpensive modern DACs are on par with those that cost a lot more from the old guard audiophile brands. It's nice to have competition now with sonics that are not proportional to higher price. In many of those cases you have to be willing to step out of your comfort zone with audiophile brands and be willing to pay less ;-)
Edits: 11/06/23
Two things maybe ...
First, distortion from both tube and S/S components that are designed to produced distortion pleasurable to old-school audiophile are likely responsible for the characteristics morricab is looking for.
Possibly some makers of very expensive components apply their high mark-ups to a fine-tune distortion to yield the preferred effects, likely relatively high low-order harmonic distortion and low high-order harmonics. But since distortion is at the root of those effects they are artifacts , and not true to the recording.
Secondly we are effectively in a "new age" in terms of ultra-low distortion products. Modern products such as Purifi class D amps and Topping/SMSL DACs are totally different kettle of fish. Distortion and noise are far lower than those '70's products.
Folks who say "measurements don't matter", (no need to name names), are living in the '70s when low THD's were advertise without any insights to harmonic spectra for example. S/S components of that era typically had high 4th & higher order harmonics and relatively low 2nd & 3rd order. Also they often had highish noise. Not true in case of the aforementioned current examples.
It silly to rail against op amps or S/S rectification when these techs are demonstrably producing ultra-low distortion results. The "magic" of tube circuits is the distortion they produce. If you like those results, FINE , enjoy your artifacts.
Dmitri Shostakovich
There was a similar revolution in headphone amplifiers with THX making circuitry that measured way better than other amps. All the youtube reviewers jumped on the hype train and raved about those THX amps. Today though those amplifiers are pretty absent on 2023 tier lists. Presumably because as good as they measured, they just didn't sound like music.
If you can listen for long stretches without fatigue and keep your toe tapping, more power to you.
Cut to razor sounding violins
No they cannot be heard...thus my post. Most of the traits I described are largely missing.
As I stated, I have experience with inexpensive DACs as you are describing (not all but many) and they don't deliver like you claim...not in comparison to better higher end DACs and not compared to what one hears in real live music.
"like dynamics and soundstage when a rectifier is swapped on a tube amp...yes the rectifier for the power supply and it is scarily obvious"
Can you explain? Does one rectifier tube produce more voltage? More current? Just what about the two rectifier tubes are different? I assume you mean swapping between two tubes of the same type?
What if the raw supply output voltage is regulated before reaching the audio circuits?
Thanks.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
No, I cannot explain and yes, I am talking about two tubes of the same type.
For example: I have a Marconi (made in Canada) 5U4G and NOS Svetlana Winged C Russian equivalent. In addition, some friends brought over another Marconi 5U4G (but from a different country and looks somewhat different inside), a new Czech made KR Audio anniversary 5U4G and one other one I can't remember.
The Canadian Marconi clearly had better soundstage and imaging 3d, better tone as well with more of the sense of the players "being there" than the others. The KR was surprisingly forthright and direct but losing a lot of what made the Marconi special. THe RUssian one made things sound a big flat (relative to the others) and grey tonally. The other Marconi was sort of in the middle somewhere.
Technically, they all spec the same and are lightly used tubes, so not a case of one being worn out (plus these rectifiers last a LONG time). The voltage drop should be the same (we were also rolling 5R4GYs and 5AR4s as the amp in question will work with all three types). The other rectifiers we rolled also sound very differnt from each other and that could partially be due to voltage drop differences affecting the bias settings on the tubes.
However, we heard similar differences Intra-tube type (as I described above for the 5U4Gs)...the three 5AR4s I had on had sounded quite different from each other as well as quite different from the 5U4Gs. The best one was the 1955 Valvo metal base (very expensive and for good reason).
The best 5U4G was the Marconi (Canada) and the best 5R4GY was a 1940s RCA Blackplate, which sounded more similar to the Marconi than the Valvo.
While the inter tube type could be in part explained by the voltage drop, this cannot be the cause of the sound differences in the same tube type; nonetheless the difference is profound and easily repeatable.
I still shake my head in disbelief. However, the power supply is in the circuit path in a way. So, whatever small differences in distortion, voltage drop or whatever there are...matters.
"nonetheless the difference is profound and easily repeatable. "
Would you say easily heard in a double blind test?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I would think yes, but of course this wasn't done. Do you need that to accept what you hear?
I know that our ears and brains are easily fooled. Many things do influence what we think we hear. We are not in control of these things.
View YouTube Video
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
What is your point exactly? I know you are into tubes and I am pretty sure you have been rolling them in your life... Did you not hear the obvious differences when rolling?
I have done blind tests on interconnect cables and we were able to essentially always spot not only if there was a change but once revealed which ones were which, going back blind could tell WHICH cable was installed.
That was more subtle than a lot of what I heard with rectifier tubes.
For sure the differences can be my imagination...so can all of so-called "reality" for that matter. I listen to long term impact and so if I am fooled it is over months and consistent. I could prove it to myself with blind tests but don't waste my time anymore with such things. I hear what I hear, whether real or imagined and I choose my preference.
It is intersting though that we are talking about mass delusion though. Most of us hear the same thing...how much we like or dislike it is subjective.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
have fully discrete analog output chains.
And MASSIVE power supplies.
Yes, the power supply of the Ayon DACs and other DACs that sound a cut above are large. My DAC weighs a solid 18KG (38 pounds) and it has two power transformers and 2 chokes as well as full wave rectification...with 4 tubes! Never seen it done like how you would do it with silicon diodes.
You've never seen 4 silicon diodes in a full-wave bridge configuration vs an encapsulated bridge rectifier ?
Of course...what does that have to do with what Ayon has done with 4 diode tubes? It is analogous but not common practice with tube gear...normally it is one larger diode for the rectification.
nt
Pretty simple, really.
I'm a huge fan of Chord. The Chord Hugo TT2 is outstanding. They are a little north of 3K used. The custom filtering on the Chord DACs address the issues you identified in spades! Chord uses custom filtering rather than off the shelf sampling. Makes a HUGE difference. Check out Head-Fi.org and read just how many headphone users have Chord DACs. Heaps of them do.A Chord Hugo TT can be had for 1300 to 1500 US. A great buy, IMHO. I currently use one for my headphone setup, driving Ultrasone Edition 15 or Edition 15 Veritas. In some ways, I actually prefer the TT to the TT2 headphone amp section for some recordings.
" Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you"
Satchel Paige
Edits: 10/28/23
I've had both a Chord Qutest and now a Chord Hugo TT2 and both have been really great. I recently upgraded from the Qutest to the TT2 and while I felt nothing could beat the Qutest, the TT2 has been a non-stop revelation in sound quality.I find myself listen to music and thinking, " Wow, this recording sounds better than I remember! " Then it hits me, this is my new DAC that sounds this fantastic.
Edits: 11/07/23 11/07/23
I got mine for 2400 euro.
Reference level sound and build quality using arguably the best DAC chip of all time the 24 bit Burr Brown PCM-1704K (2 per channel).
The power supply is tube rectified and choke filtered with top quality parts in the analog output stage (Mundorf Supreme Silver/gold in oil).
The output stage is 2 x 6N30P triodes per channel.
Transparency, dynamics (oh boy the dynamics!), tonality and soundstage imaging are all top class.
World's away from these budget suggestions below...and far superior.
We have done comparisons to the chi fi DACs, including more expensive ones like Holo Spring and there is really no comparison if you care about music.
"World's away from these budget suggestions below...and far superior. We have done comparisons to the chi fi DACs, including more expensive ones like Holo Spring and there is really no comparison if you care about music."It appears that if you 'care about music', you'll have to upgrade your Musetec MH-DA005 DAC to the Ayon Skylla 2.
Myself, I must not 'Care about Music', I am just happy that any Sound comes out of my speakers at all. Mostly I am satisfied to watch the blinking lights on my Router and Raspberry Pi. I think the wine helps.
Edits: 10/27/23 10/27/23
I must not care about music either, with my lowly Musetec.
Well, for a $9000 DAC, it had better sound better. My next move will probably be to MSB, which is yet more expensive. But before that, I'll probably improve my amplification.
At least your wine is not made out of sour grapes.
I would not have proposed it in this thread if it wasn't available used for a price that is similar to the upper end of what is suggested here.
I got mine for 2400 and it stomps all over the chifi DACs I have heard (haven't heard them all but the ones I have heard all have a similar non-musical character).
It also compares favorably with expensive DACs from the likes of APL and Lampizator. It is significantly more musical than expensive ones from DCS and MSB.
I don't know if you are one of these guys who thinks there is no reason to spend a lot on a DAC but usually those claims are made by those who have little to no experience with really high end DACs.
But you don't recall whether you heard the Musetec, right?
No, I have not heard that one.
Nt
which, as a DAC, I never really fell in love with. Even in the olden days before they became super expensive. That said, I was into vinyl back then so not really on the market for digital.
But $2000 for a PCM1704 based 'tube' DAC has a bit of appeal.
I've had two PCM1704 based DACs, both Audio-GD which I find quite acceptable. Sold the Audio-GD Master-7 when I bought the Denifrips Terminator and kind of wish I hadn't. But there was SO little difference between it and the 'Terminator' and the 'Terminator' allowed for filter changes without lifting the lid to deal with jumpers, so all other things being more or less equal, the Master-7 ended up with a new and happy owner.
Best I've ever heard.
Made those Magico speakers sound fantastic, and that is saying something!
OK, was the most expensive DAC in their line at the time, but still...
Agree that the PCM1704 is a great chip of D to A conversion though.
Have four of them in my Audio-GD Master 11 DAC/Headphone amp, which is now dedicated to headphone use in the 'study' (a 'study' is a bedroom without beds which, where I still working, we would likely call an office).
I've gone the other direction, as you know. I am now running the same DAC as Abe Collins. SMSL D400EX. And for sure there is much more 'Bang for your Buck' in Amplification than in DACs.
And, one thing to keep in mind.... There is more distortion and jitter in the average audiophile than the average DAC.
"It adopts the 3rd generation XMOS XU316 USB Processor along with 9 high-end OPAMP chips for unprecedented audio performance."
What's the point of driving horn speakers with SE 45 monoblocks WITHOUT feedback if you're gonna add BUCKETS of feedback to the audio chain of your DAC's?
You must HATE music, says Ivan! ;-)
nt
find a used Skylla 2 and you might decide the switch is worth it. At 2500 bucks its not a big risk and you can sell it pretty easily for what you paid if you don't agree with my assessment.
The goal in High End audio is NOT great sound.
The goal is for your system to NOT sound BAD.
Components never sound GREAT, at best they don't sound BAD.
YMMV and all that.
What about Chord Qutest, they are always in demand and resell easy. If you were to buy used if you want to change again you wouldn't really loose out. Just find one in it's box and keep the box.
They provide excellent detail without harshness, a great all round DAC.
You may want to consider one of these (DAC chip in parenthesis):Topping DX9 $1299 (AK4499EQ)
SMSL VMV D2R $999 (BD34301EKV)
SMSL D400EX $960 (AK4499EX x 2 + AK4191)
SMSL SU-10 $899 (ES9038PRO x 2)
SMSL D400ES $799 (ES9039MPRO)
Topping D90LE $799 (ES9038PRO) Same as D90SE but without MQA decodingA few notes:
1. I know that there's MUCH MORE to a DAC than its chip, only showing in case someone has a preference.
2. You can find much less expensive DACs with these same chips but I prefer these "mid-priced" units because they usually offer better power supplies, critical parts, features, etc.
3. Consider buying these Chinese DACs from Apos Audio because they are located in the U.S. and offer after sales support.
4. If you want to buy one of these DACs, you may want to wait until November 11th (11/11) Chinese Singles Day. Many retailers offer 10 - 20% discounts on that day only.Gerry
Edits: 10/25/23
"2. You can find much less expensive DACs with these same chips but I prefer these "mid-priced" units because they usually offer better power supplies, critical parts, features, etc."I agree. My sweet spot for excellent sounding modern DACs seems to be right around $1000 +/- a bit. I can go upwards of $2000 but I can't justify spending more unless I require the prestige of an audiophile brand.
I like Apos too but some of the SMSL and Topping can be found on Amazon.
Gustard, Denafrips, RME (German company), and Schiit (US company) also offer excellent sanely priced DACs.
Edits: 10/25/23
You can spend $3000 or more but you don't have to with outstanding modern DACs costing so much less. Here are some of my favorites that won't break the bank:- SMSL D400EX $960
- RME ADI-2 DAC FS $1200
- Topping D90 $900Only you can determine what you like based on your sonic preferences but I prefer these over some more costly DACs I've had in the past.... including one that was $4000.
Good luck
My SMSL D400EX DAC :
Edits: 10/24/23
The SMSL D400EX looks like an excellent DAC. I used to love AKM DAC chips. I own a FiiO M15 with dual AK4499EQ DAC chips and it sounds exceptional. However, my newer FiiO M17 uses dual ES9038PRO DAC chips and it sounds just a little bit better. The Topping DAC you recommended also uses the ES9038PRO DAC chip. What do you think of the Topping compared to the SMSL?
Thanks!
John Elison
I'm not convinced that ESS vs AKM really matters. I've owned different DACs that incorporate each brand of chip and like anything else some sound great and others not so much - but it wasn't due to the chip IMHO.My Topping was the original D90 before the AKM chip plant in Japan burned down so it used AKM [the newer D90SE uses ESS]. Same story for my RME ADI-2 DAC FS. It too used AKM but the most recent ones are now using ESS. On the other hand my long time benchmark is the discontinued 7 year old PS Audio NuWave DSD DAC which I still own and love. The PS Audio NuWave DSD DAC uses much older ESS chip technology.
To answer your question, between the Topping D90 (AKM) and my SMSL D400EX (AKM) I definitely prefer the SMSL.... it seems slightly smoother but not artificially so.
But in my audio rack today I have the SMSL D400EX (AKM) side by side with my old PS Audio NuWave DSD DAC (ESS) and it's a toss up. They are both outstanding with the PS Audio sounding ever so slightly richer and more robust while the SMSL D400EX is perhaps slightly 'faster' on transient attack and with more treble extension. Sound stage is about the same.
IMHO many modern DACs sound excellent and it comes down to very slight differences and personal preference. If you hear a huge difference in a DAC it's probably because it leans heavily in a direction that aligns with your preference...... which could be heavily in the opposite direction of my preference or yours ;-)
As for R2R, I've had two R2R DACs in my setup. I didn't care for either one of them. But that's just me and my personal preference at play.
Edits: 10/25/23 10/25/23 10/25/23
Wow! Thanks for the detailed response. I'd like to hear that SMSL DAC sometime. However, I'm very happy with my FiiO M17 DAP containing dual ES9038PRO DAC chips.
Thanks again!
John Elison
As you know, I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that the analog stage and supporting circuitry in the DAC are just as important (maybe more so) than whether the DAC chip is ESS, AKM, or other.
I agree! I think you're right about the analog output stage being just as important or even more so than the DAC chip.
Thanks!
John Elison
My friend and I compared our two Ayon DACs, me with Skylla 2 and him with the Stratos. Mine has BB PCM1704K DAC chips and his has the ESS Sabre chips (not sure which version). Digital filtration is of course different as would be necessitated from the different DAC architecture.
However, the power supply and output stage of the two DACs is IDENTICAL. Same tube rectification, same output tubes in same design even same output stage coupling caps.
The result? More similar than different. The caveat was that if the Stratos had the upsampling engaged it sounded very different. Much leaner and airy but lacking the tone and substance that makes the Skylla 2 great.
Turning off the upsampling on the Stratos led to a convergence of the sound to the point that, upon first listen, it would be difficult to tell them apart. After a bit longer though that R2R vs. Sigma/Delta difference creeps in. Mainly it has to do with solidness of sound and the feeling of real live instruments vs. ethereal cutouts.
The take away is that the power supply and output stage have a huge effect on the overall sound but that even still the digital section left it's fingerprint on the sound.
I have been toying with changing to an Ayon CD-35II that has been highly lauded in European audio mags. My problem is that it is using the latest AKM chips and I am quite fond of the sound I get from my R2R chips. I am concerned that I will eventually hear that S/D sound and then dislike my digital...because I find that sound very unnatural.
I had a similar issue when I once had an Audio Aero Prima DAC, which was basically their Capitole 24/193 cd player without the transport. Initially listening was very postive, airy, transparent, reasonably dynamic and spacious. Later it sounded too smooth and low level dynamics suffered. It was airy but not realistic in upper energy instruments (cymbals for example). So, I sold it and went back to my R2R DACs with relief.
that is a great explanation and why I ended up with an R2R dac having had an upsampling dac, and a FPGA dac. More like music indeed.
Said another way, the R2R dac has me saying to myself just how good things sound.
Cut to razor sounding violins
Yeah, it was an interesting and enlightening comparison. It was also the first time I heard an ESS based DAC that I could listen to and enjoy...that is how important the output stage is. However, over time the differences shown through and I would still prefer the R2R sound.
You might want to check out Topping. I'm not familiar with Topping DACs, but I just bought a Topping PRE90 line-stage preamp and its possibly the best sounding preamp I've ever owned.
I made that mistake and regretted it. Check out the new Emotiva XDA-3. Good feature set, excellent remote, warm beautiful sound used as a preamp. All for $699.00 with a 5 year warranty.
Do see my post right above yours..., as I do think the everSOLO DAC-Z8 is more than capable of holding its own compared to said more expensive DACs | than some.
Also know I'm very very much into the concept behind P.R.A.T., as someone whom has resided within the camp of Linn | Naim since 1984, and have in fact owned a total of 8 pieces of Naim amplification since said period, having ended my journey with your prized SN3, which was sold a few months ago in favor of the less expensive Heed Audio Obelisk Si MK lll, which to my mind merely offered a more extended | better balanced top end where cymbal detail merely lingers in a more correctly defined manner, whereas on the SN3, it seemed to have deliberately shortened said emphasis on the upper more treble detailing capabilities, and being as I'm an avid acoustic jazz lover, it simply came down to which sounded more accurate.
In all honesty I think you'll come away quite surprised at how this DAC sounds, as I believe the designers implemented its chipset better than most have in the past.
Edits: 10/24/23
here
Gsquared
OCD HiFi guy Mikey says this $2500 DAC will best $10K DACs. YMMV.
That is, if all you want is superbly distortion-free and transparent sound.
Checkoup models from Topping and SMSL; if you want a few extra feature, have a look at RME.
Dmitri Shostakovich
I would question why you'd want a stand-alone DAC these days. DACs have hugely increased in quality while reduced in dimensions. A first-class DAC can be the size of a matchbox, so why not have it within the amp's case? Then you save on cables, the cost of an extra case and the power supply. You can get the quality of your $3K stand-alone DAC for a fraction of that price if built into the amp. Better in fact as cables are omitted.
Separates are rapidly loosing their popularity (I don't have figures but read ads, reviews, etc) and integrated amps with DACs - and often streamers too - are far more popular than a couple of decades ago for very audio good reasons, not just cost.
What kind of inputs do you need and do you need hires?
Cut to razor sounding violins
You would suggest that he spend $3000 and NOT have hi-res? It's not 1989 anymore.
My advice: spend a lot less and get two, and keep the one you like and sell the other. I myself use a $139 Topping E30 and I'm perfectly happy with it.
Hey pal,
I think you need to reread Dawnrazor's post to the OP. Nowhere can I find that he suggested a $3,000 dac.
Also, that remark about 1989 is below the belt. Dawnrazor is one of the most knowledgeable inmates around these parts!!
Thanks for the kind words. You are right that I haven't recommended anything to the OP and was trying to get them to figure out the requirements. Seems Zacster is a measurements guy and maybe in the "all dacs sound the same" camp. Good news is that he can just listen to the measurement graphs. :). Call me envious.
I am certain my dac measures horribly and am happy for it! Though with a press of a button you change the sound by engaging the tube rectification which shows me that a dac is more than just digital conversion and measurements.
Cut to razor sounding violins
Not everyone has hires and certainly one can do better than a topping.
Cut to razor sounding violins
I bought a Topping D70 as a result of rave reviews and the sound quality is actually quite poor with surprisingly gritty treble. Nowhere near my cheap chi-fi AK4490 DAC which I upgraded with a LM6172 op-amp in the output. That sounds so much smoother and more holographic.
I'm curious about Chord DACs myself.....
Yeah that hype train is powerful until the dust settles. IMHO there are 3 types of dacs, chip like the sabre and AKM for instance, R2R/NOS, and FPGA. Sure there are examples that blurr those lines but I think its safe to say most here will understand. So far the R2R and FPGA have been more to my liking in musicality with the chip dacs being more sterile. But the output and psu also matter and it seems that R2R and FPGA dacs tend to focus more on that than SOME of the chip dacs.
I don't doubt the grainy treble. Also my dac has a tube rectifier that you can toggle on and off, and you can hear the difference the tube rectification makes. Basically the bass is more robust and that seems to affect the whole sonic picture and makes it more musical. So that common wisdom you see here that dacs sound the same and don't spend loads of money doesn't apply to all dacs.
When you try the Cutest let us know what you think.
Cut to razor sounding violins
ARe you distinguishing R2R discrete vs. chip? Many of the newer R2R DACs are discrete designs and these I have found have quite different characteristics from Chip R2R (like those from Philips, BB, AD etc.).
Some of the old chip ones are NOS but many are with 8x OVERsampling (different from upsampling) digital filters.
Yes, that was the "examples that can blur the lines" I was referring to. I only have experience with the chip R2R (NOS Phillips) and not the discreet ones. What is the difference you notice?
Cut to razor sounding violins
THe discrete ones seem to be "coarser" and less refined. They have the grunt and drive of the discrete R2R but don't sacrifice the delicacy that the best new sigma/delta or FPGA DACs do well. That earthy grunt and dynamics from R2R sounds more realistic but only when coupled with refinement...this is where chips like the BB PCM-63 and PCM1704 and AD1865 shine. Also, the late great UltraAnalog D2400A 20 bit DAC module was otherworldly when used correctly.
I had the original Topping D90 [AKM version] which was good but the RME ADI-2 DAC FS and my current SMSL D400EX are more to my liking. The treble is smoother in the RME and SMSL for one thing.
I had the Chord Qutest and thought it was OK but I'd take the RME or SMSL over it. The Chord was detailed, transparent, resolving, and offered smooth extended treble but my personal preference is for a slightly more robust full bodied sound. The Chord was almost 'thin' in the lower mids and light in the bass so it didn't fit my needs.
Chord Qutest 2021 :
I also prefer running balanced XLR interconnects which aren't offered on the Chord and I wasn't a fan of those Chord colored gumballs. Cute but unintuitive gimmick that had me always referring to the Chord supplied cheat sheet to determine sample rate based on gumball color.
Same thing with the ifi dacs, you have to guess the sample rate by the colors.
Edits: 10/27/23
Same with the Audioquest dragonfly. Heck, my dac doesn't even tell you what the sample rate is afaict.
Cut to razor sounding violins
My PS Audio NuWave DSD DAC doesn't show sample rate either and it sounds great.
But if a DAC manufacturer IS going to show you sample rate why turn it into a confusing rainbow of colorful gumballs that requires a cheat sheet to decipher?
yeah I agree that the way they show it is problematic. My dragonfly is the same concept and I never know what is going on, but good news, the 3.5mm jack cuts out anyhow.
Cut to razor sounding violins
Once you hear hi-res DSD, it's awfully hard not to like it. DSD256 puts CD to shame. It also sounds better than my best sounding vinyl.
Happy listening!
John Elison
I don't doubt it, and the world is a better place because none of the music I like will ever be in DSD
Cut to razor sounding violins
On the other hand there are those like me who don't care all that much for DSD. I can enjoy DSD but I prefer high quality PCM. DSD to me sounds almost artificially smooth and slightly soft.... like a rock that has been smoothed over in the ocean. It's still a rock but not like God originally intended when it first appeared ;-)
Or something like that.
.
A funny thing about that "snap, crackle, pop" is that when I began recording vinyl to DSD128, the "snap, crackle, pop" seemed to be noticeably less pronounced than on my PCM recordings. I used to fade volume in-between songs in order to eliminate the "snap, crackle, pop" but with DSD128, it didn't seem all that necessary.
Interesting!
Sounds like information getting lost to me...
Sounds like the somewhat artificial smoothing of DSD to me.
Isn't that kind of the same thing?
Well, it sure makes vinyl sound better, unless, of course, you prefer a lot of snap, crackle, and pop. The music is much more prominent without it. Furthermore, I don't hear any of the "rounding" that Abe talks about. There's simply more music and more detail, which was probably originally impaired by all the snap, crackle and pop.
On the other hand, to each his own!
I've found my digital audio nirvana and it's called DSD. Everyone else has to find their own path to happy listening!
Best regards!
John Elison
That's interesting! I wish you could hear my system. DSD doesn't sound at all like your description on my system.
However, to each his own!
Happy listening!
John Elison
You do realize it will be worth $1500 in 3 months?
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
