Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Review of the Audio-gd DAC-19 DSP & C2 amp - The ACSS connection
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review of the Audio-gd DAC-19 DSP & C2 amp - The ACSS connection - Page 5

post #61 of 981
4/24/10 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sachu View Post
haha..the DAC am listening to says it does
I think the Assemblage DAC 2.7 has more WTB posts than any other DAC on the internet, it just needs an AudioGD analog stage to make it my dream DAC.

Maybe send the PMD200 to AudioGD and he can exract and slip the HDCD code from the PMD200 DSP into his DSP-1, that would be killer
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #62 of 981
4/24/10 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sachu View Post
haha..the DAC am listening to says it does
The PMD200 was an attempt to make the 100 series chip cheaper to manufacture and not a real attempt to improve upon the PMD100. The 200 series ended up being a major failure which is why so few were actually made. The rumors of them being far superior to the 100 series chip is pure crap.

Peete.
Reply
post #63 of 981
4/24/10 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pricklely Peete View Post
The PMD200 was an attempt to make the 100 series chip cheaper to manufacture and not a real attempt to improve upon the PMD100. The 200 series ended up being a major failure which is why so few were actually made. The rumors of them being far superior to the 100 series chip is pure crap.

Peete.
I had the Assemblage DAC 2.6 prior to the 2.7. They have identical circuitry except the DAC 2.6 had the PMD100. But sure if you want to believe that there is no difference (without ever hearing one btw by the looks of it) go ahead.

I owned the AUdio GD DAC1..and I didn't want to speak anything bad about it openly on the forum as I won it as part of the raffle at the last CJ. The honest truth is my DAC 2.6 or DAC 2.7 would have creamed the audio GD Reference -1.
Even the parasound DAC-1100 H/D itself was more balanced sounding than the Reference 1 and with better details.

Heck the DAC 2.7 went up against a Reimyo DAP-777 and came out on par in most areas while beating it on low freq response, transient response and dynamics. The Reimyo was a touch more warmer. And I did this comparision in a friend's place along with another friend who also owned the Reimyo. And I must further note, the input to the DAC 2.7 was being fed through a BNC to RCA adapter since my friend didn't have a BNC cable. Also I was running OPA2227 opamps in the I/V section. I had problems with my TH4031 adapters and tt is my guess that this really made the difference between the DAC 2.7 out shining the Reimyo completely.
SO I don't really give a damn what you think about sources. I have been through enough sources to know what is good.
Reply
post #64 of 981
4/24/10 at 6:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sachu View Post
I had the Assemblage DAC 2.6 prior to the 2.7. They have identical circuitry except the DAC 2.6 had the PMD100. But sure if you want to believe that there is no difference (without ever hearing one btw by the looks of it) go ahead.

I owned the AUdio GD DAC1..and I didn't want to speak anything bad about it openly on the forum as I won it as part of the raffle at the last CJ. The honest truth is my DAC 2.6 or DAC 2.7 would have creamed the audio GD Reference -1.
Even the parasound DAC-1100 H/D itself was more balanced sounding than the Reference 1 and with better details.

Heck the DAC 2.7 went up against a Reimyo DAP-777 and came out on par in most areas while beating it on low freq response, transient response and dynamics. The Reimyo was a touch more warmer. And I did this comparision in a friend's place along with another friend who also owned the Reimyo. And I must further note, the input to the DAC 2.7 was being fed through a BNC to RCA adapter since my friend didn't have a BNC cable. Also I was running OPA2227 opamps in the I/V section. I had problems with my TH4031 adapters and tt is my guess that this really made the difference between the DAC 2.7 out shining the Reimyo completely.
SO I don't really give a damn what you think about sources. I have been through enough sources to know what is good.
Uh WTF does the ^^^ have to do with the PMD200 ? I merely pointed out the truth behind the 200 series chip (contrary to current mythology). IOW stick with the PMD100 if HDCD is important.

Cheers grumpy

Peete.
Reply
post #65 of 981
4/24/10 at 7:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pricklely Peete View Post
Uh WTF does the ^^^ have to do with the PMD200 ? I merely pointed out the truth behind the 200 series chip (contrary to current mythology). IOW stick with the PMD100 if HDCD is important.

Cheers grumpy

Peete.
I attribute the DAC 2.7's prowess among other things to its PMD200 chip. I know the DAC 2.6 wouldn't have done as well against the Reimyo. I already made a reference to this in the first couple of lines in my post above.
Reply
post #66 of 981
4/24/10 at 7:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sachu View Post
I attribute the DAC 2.7's prowess among other things to its PMD200 chip. I know the DAC 2.6 wouldn't have done as well against the Reimyo. I already made a reference to this in the first couple of lines in my post above.
I would say it has more to do with the surrounding circuitry being further optimized and refined (psu's, analog I/V stages, parts upgrades etc etc) than the addition of just a digital filter chip like the pmd200......just like no one in their right mind would judge a dac only by what dac chip it used or forming an opinion (and sticking with it) about something without fully testing it as it was intended...

Peete.
Reply
post #67 of 981
4/25/10 at 1:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
It's set up with a series of DIP switches on the DSP board that allow the various settings, such as oversampling, to be switched off or changed.
Given the DSP can be set to bypass oversampling for "NOS mode", does that actually mean the DAC can be set to operate as a traditional NOS DAC? I ask because I suspect it may not be that simple. There would be an angle for selling Audio-GD DACs with the DSP as switchable to NOS. There are buyers that prefer the combination of NOS and the pre-sigma-delta chips, although I have no idea how that may work with the Audio-GD designs and the PCM1704UK chips. Please enlighten me.

What is the oversampling set on by default from Kingwa? Has anyone here with an Audio-GD DAC and the DSP experimented with the oversampling?

What's the difference between bypass and 1X? Obviously bypass is bypass and 1X is using the DSP at a multiple of 1, but what's the benefit?

What else on the DSP (as is) can be altered by DIP switches to change the audio?

Please forgive me for all the questions but the DAC19 has seriously captured my attention. I've already emailed to get a total to have a 19DSP shipped and I have an itchy trigger finger.
Reply
post #68 of 981
4/25/10 at 1:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pricklely Peete View Post
I would say it has more to do with the surrounding circuitry being further optimized and refined (psu's, analog I/V stages, parts upgrades etc etc) than the addition of just a digital filter chip like the pmd200......just like no one in their right mind would judge a dac only by what dac chip it used or forming an opinion (and sticking with it) about something without fully testing it as it was intended...

Peete.
Man, I don't think you get it. Either you have a problem with reading comprehension or you are just plain not reading the posts at all. I told you, I owned both the DAC 2.6 and the DAC 2.7 which are identical in circuitry save for the filter chip PMD100 in the 2.6 and PMD200 in the 2.7. The parts were identical as well. Both had the platinum upgrades. I already made a reference to this saying that the two DACs were identical save for that one difference. But you with the insistence that I wasn't in my right mind to not realize that the rest of the circuit could have changed and that's why you are hearing the difference is just silly.

It was just an opinion from first hand experience of owning all these products and listening in the same system. If you disagree with my view that the PMD200 is not better than the PMD100,
that's fine. I could care less.
Reply
post #69 of 981
4/25/10 at 1:54am
Classy.
Reply
post #70 of 981
4/25/10 at 2:06am
@Newk Yuler

Yes, DSP-1 OS can be turned off and then you get "NOS" mode. It sounds good, given that you have not listened OS mode before: it lacks HF and (ambiance) details compared to OS, kind of dullish... IMO.

You can switch PLL, stopband attenuation, OS factors and dithering (attenuation and dithering being more interesting than OS... again IMO). Default settings are: PLL active, -130dB stopband attenuation, 8x OS and dithering active. Quite a good setting - do not be surprised to realize that, after several months of testing, the default setting is the best/preferred one.
Reply
post #71 of 981
4/25/10 at 2:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pricklely Peete View Post
I would say it has more to do with the surrounding circuitry being further optimized and refined (psu's, analog I/V stages, parts upgrades etc etc) than the addition of just a digital filter chip like the pmd200......just like no one in their right mind would judge a dac only by what dac chip it used or forming an opinion (and sticking with it) about something without fully testing it as it was intended...

Peete.
Read this if you refuse to believe Sachu:

Listening Comparison Of Digital Audio Filters
Reply
post #72 of 981
4/25/10 at 2:12am
Regal, My issue is not that I want anyone to believe me. That is not why I am on this forum.

I only took offence prickly_peete implying that I was stating the superiority of the filter without taking into the rest of the circuit into consideration. An assumption he repeatedly makes even after I explicitly stated that the two DACs were identical.

I would like to see if he has even heard a DAC with a PMD200 or just going off comments someone made on some other forum. Heresay is all I have seen from him thus far. No indication as to whether he has heard one at all.
Reply
post #73 of 981
4/25/10 at 2:34am
Arguments makes good reading material. No need to be callous though, gentlemen.
Reply
post #74 of 981
4/25/10 at 3:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sachu View Post
Regal, My issue is not that I want anyone to believe me. That is not why I am on this forum.

.
I got the impression he didn't understand that you can swap digital filters without changing the rest of the DAC. Some people have no knowledge that this can be done.
Reply
post #75 of 981
4/25/10 at 3:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post
I got the impression he didn't understand that you can swap digital filters without changing the rest of the DAC. Some people have no knowledge that this can be done.
umm no regal..you can't swap the digital filter on the DAC 2.7. However, On the DAC 2.6 you can swap between the DF1704 and PMD100. Preferred the PMD100 vastly there. I then bought a separate Assemblage DAC 2.7 which had the PMD200 in it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Review of the Audio-gd DAC-19 DSP & C2 amp - The ACSS connection