Review of the Audio-Gd DAC-19 DF / MKIV - Page 5

Originally Posted by sk3383

For some reason I want to take Kingwa's word that the DSP is superior. He seems to be pretty modest when answering questions via email. However he remains steady that the DSP outpreforms the DF1704.

Originally Posted by Currawong

I've found Kingwa to be trustworthy when it comes to asking him about the performance of his gear. That being said, he is the only person using the Altera as a DAC DSP in this manner so outside of his Chinese customers and a few Head-fiers there hasn't been much experience with it or comparison of it.

Originally Posted by Necrolic

That seems like a bit of a waste of time, especially with the DSP version. The DSP has an AMAZING ability to almost completely eliminate jitter, even a change of transport makes very little difference with it. With the DF version it could be more of an issue.

Originally Posted by pfillion

I have just received my DAC-19DSP

Originally Posted by slim.a

I think Patu was just trying to help you take the best decision. While it is impossible to know for 100% certainty which solution will outperform the other before measuring and listening, there are ways to predict with high probability which one is likely to be the best solution (HT Omega Claro Halo vs. Hiface).

The HT Omega Claro Halo wasn't designed to be a transport only solutions so compromises must have been made in its design. For one, it seems to use only one clock. So in order to generate the 44.1 khz frequency on most music, that clock has to be derived which undoubtedly results in an increase of jitter. So even if you put an ultra low jitter clock inside, it will have to go through at least one PLL and it will also be affected by the noise inside the PC, the long traces in the PCB and the spdif connectors.
On the other hand you have a unit like the Hiface which has 2 true low jitter audio clocks (see the importance of true audio clocks here), which is async, which has bit perfect drivers, which has very short signal paths, which has a pulse transformer to galvanically isolate the computer from the dac, and most of all it was designed from the ground up to sound good as a transport.

If I remember correctly, Patu prefered the hiface to the Esi juli@ (which is a well regarded card with 2 true audio clocks). Also measurement shows that the Hiface is slightly better than the LynxTwo sound card (which is one of the best PCI pro sound cards).

So given that data, and if the quality as a transport is the only criteria, one can reasonably assume that the Hiface is a better choice than the HT Omega Claro Halo.

Of course, this just my personal opinion and only reflects the way (logic) I base my purchase decisions on.

Originally Posted by IPodPJ

This is not true. You will still hear differences between transports, even in the Ref1 and Ref7 (although it seems less noticeable with the Ref7, perhaps because the DSP1 is slaved to another clock).

Originally Posted by argentum

I see from your profile that you've owned Lavry DA10. Could you please give generic comparison between these 2 units after the DAC 19DSP has settled down.

Originally Posted by Necrolic

I didn't mean you wouldn't hear a difference, I meant that there is not a huge difference. In comparing my transport (E-Mu 1212m) to a hiFace, while I found the hiFace superior it wasn't that much better, especially not enough to merit $150. All it offered was a slightly clearer sound, which I would not have noticed without extensive A/B'ing.

Originally Posted by slim.a

I think Patu was just trying to help you take the best decision. While it is impossible to know for 100% certainty which solution will outperform the other before measuring and listening, there are ways to predict with high probability which one is likely to be the best solution (HT Omega Claro Halo vs. Hiface).

The HT Omega Claro Halo wasn't designed to be a transport only solutions so compromises must have been made in its design. For one, it seems to use only one clock. So in order to generate the 44.1 khz frequency on most music, that clock has to be derived which undoubtedly results in an increase of jitter. So even if you put an ultra low jitter clock inside, it will have to go through at least one PLL and it will also be affected by the noise inside the PC, the long traces in the PCB and the spdif connectors.
On the other hand you have a unit like the Hiface which has 2 true low jitter audio clocks (see the importance of true audio clocks here), which is async, which has bit perfect drivers, which has very short signal paths, which has a pulse transformer to galvanically isolate the computer from the dac, and most of all it was designed from the ground up to sound good as a transport.

If I remember correctly, Patu prefered the hiface to the Esi juli@ (which is a well regarded card with 2 true audio clocks). Also measurement shows that the Hiface is slightly better than the LynxTwo sound card (which is one of the best PCI pro sound cards).

So given that data, and if the quality as a transport is the only criteria, one can reasonably assume that the Hiface is a better choice than the HT Omega Claro Halo.

Of course, this just my personal opinion and only reflects the way (logic) I base my purchase decisions on.

Originally Posted by IPodPJ

You are using two USB-driven transports. When you use non-USB transports, there will be greater differences.

Originally Posted by pfillion

Yes, sure!

Originally Posted by sk3383

I am also very eager to hear your comparisn.

In the days waiting for my DAC-19DSP to arrive I started researching a bunch of DACs and I am constantly wondering if I made the right choice. There are so many under the $1000 price range that have such great reviews...Stello DA100, Lavry DA10, Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3, CI Audio VDA-2, Music Hall DAC 25.2 ......

How does the DAC-19DSP compare to some of these DACs ???!?!??!?!?