Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Review of the Audio-Gd DAC-19 DF / MKIV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #61 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk3383 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
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.
I totally agree with sk3383 and Currawong, Kingwa is a very trustworthy and modest person.

Back when I was still using the audio-gd dac-100 (Compass dac), I asked him about the dac19mk3. He said that it will be a small improvement. Personally, I found the improvement huge.
So when he says the DSP is much better than the DF1704, I trust him without hestitation.

By the way, having compared both the PMD100 and DF1704 on the dac19mk3, I would have to say that there are things that the PMD100 does better than the DF1704, so there is room for improvement.
Of course, if you compare the performance of the DF1704 to that of buil-in performance of integrated (sigma-delta) dac chips, it is better ... but it doesn't mean it can't get better

Personally, I am very satisfied with the dac19mk3 and I use the DF1704 filter most of the time. The only reason I would change it is to get the DSP filter.
post #62 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necrolic View Post
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.
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).
post #63 of 128
I have just received my DAC-19DSP
post #64 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfillion View Post
I have just received my DAC-19DSP
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.
post #65 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
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.
I am a modest person, not one to gloat, however I will tell you that I have worked in the computer industry for 12+ years as a system admin and network architech, I generally have a good working knowledge of most computer equipment.

That being said...I had my doubts about USB Transports until today...

After speaking with Pascal Ravach of Mutine I can say that I have changed my mind. Pascal owns Mutine, a North American company with their headquarters in Montreal, Quebec.

He named a "who's who" list of high end expensive sound cards (so many that I lost count)... including the ESi, RME, M-Audio, etc.

He states that even after replacing the Digial Coax connector with a top flight connector, no sound card he has tested has come close to the musicality of the M2Tech hiFace.

He was so confident that he challenged me to bring any computer, with any sound card setup...and AB against the M2Tech hiFace.

His extensive knowledge in the audio industry is outstanding and it was a pleasure to talk with him.

Long story short...After a 25 minute conversation I was "convinced" for the most part. What sold me was the fact that he said that he has a number of sound rooms, with different setups rangning from entry level to $100,000 + ..... and even in his most revealing stereo setup he states that the M2Tech hiFace was extremely musical with great balance and transparency. He said if he threw a dirty source on it, or any source with limitations he would be able to tell and so would I. I think I will be taking him up on his invitation very soon as the weather is starting to get really nice here.

I placed my order and will be sending back the HT Omega Claro Halo card.
post #66 of 128
There's an incredible amount of (theoretical) obstacles preventing pci sound cards from being ideal transports, but if you want to take him up on his bet, your best chance to prove him wrong is to adopt the hardware/software advice on cMP² | Main / HomePage . Then ask on the forum for advice on further optimizing a pci sound card transport. Even if a tweaked Juli@ isn't better than a hiface, a computer built and tweaked to cplay recommended components might make him favor the pci sound card transport .
post #67 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ View Post
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).
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.
post #68 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by argentum View Post
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.
Yes, sure!
post #69 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necrolic View Post
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.
You are using two USB-driven transports. When you use non-USB transports, there will be greater differences.
post #70 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
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.
I would've been able to say that PC adds noise and other interference when you use internal PCI sound card. I also knew the design facts about HiFace. Thanks for adding everything else slim.a.

Yes I greatly preferred HiFace to ESI Juli@. No contest really. Juli@ (and Audiophile 192) did decent job but only after HiFace I heard what computer based setup can really do. I strongly doubted HiFace before I tried it out. Actually I had similar arguments with a HiFace user on some other thread.
post #71 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ View Post
You are using two USB-driven transports. When you use non-USB transports, there will be greater differences.
The E-Mu isn't USB driven, it's a PCI soundcard.
post #72 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfillion View Post
Yes, sure!
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, Parasound DAC 2000, Shanling DAC 50, North Star M192 ......

How does the DAC-19DSP compare to some of these DACs ???!?!??!?!?
post #73 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk3383 View Post
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 ???!?!??!?!?
Hello sk...

I have been following this thread and noticed the last few posts in reference to your dilemma. As I understand it, you have not yet received the DAC-19DSP, and yet are looking for another DAC already without hearing it?

I recently jumped on the Audio-GD bandwagon after months of deliberation and undecisiveness and ordered the FUN, DAC-19DF and the New C-2 to go along with it. My advice to you is don't jump ship yet and listen to the DAC-19DSP first, then make your own opinion.
Audio-GD has surprised me and the sound coming out of this equipment is freakin' awesome.

Have I heard other DACs? Yes I have, and unfortunately head-fi has cursed me. I have bought and sold a few and accumulated some and with the Audio-GD delivery, I currently own 14 of them and they are all over the house (used with speakers, powered speakers, headphone rigs, laptops, desktops).

Listen for yourself and you be the judge.
post #74 of 128
Yeah the anticipation is throwing me off my natural cool. Really nervous. Mostly upset that I did not buy a balanced DAC when I already knew I needed a balanced setup to pair with my KRK monitors. But I will refrain from further coment until I actually receive the DAC-19DSP.

Still very curious as to how this preforms compared to the Lavry DA10 as I was really considering buying the DA10 & the Music Hall 25.2 for their balanced outputs.

Thats why I am curious to hear the comparisn between the Lavry DA10 and DAC-19DSP. Guess it would ease my nerves.
post #75 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk3383 View Post
Yeah the anticipation is throwing me off my natural cool. Really nervous. Mostly upset that I did not buy a balanced DAC when I already knew I needed a balanced setup to pair with my KRK monitors. But I will refrain from further coment until I actually receive the DAC-19DSP.
I was in the same position as you. With my dynaudio monitors being balanced, i wanted to hold out for the new balanced dac. But i thought about it and decided to just shoot for the DAC19 DF since the new dac will be twice the price. Even though it's SE, it still sounds pretty awesome.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Review of the Audio-Gd DAC-19 DF / MKIV