keithemo said:

   
Absolutely - the DC-1 is very detailed. (I will note that the DC-1 is as detailed as we could make it while still remaining neutral. Some Sabre DACs are detailed to the point where the detail seems exaggerated past the point of being neutral; while some people may find this pleasant with some systems, the DC-1 stops at the point of being very detailed yet neutral.)

Click to expand...

That's interesting, I have not thought of it like that. BTW, I found hifi heaven has your sale and will ship it to me in Canada for FREE! Ordered, can't wait

So, apparently emotiva does not allow Hifi heaven to sell internationally. I had to refund the order. It's like Emotiva doesn't want to sell outside the US. They sure make it hard to buy their stuff...

bavinck said:

  So, apparently emotiva does not allow Hifi heaven to sell internationally. I had to refund the order. It's like Emotiva doesn't want to sell outside the US. They sure make it hard to buy their stuff...

Click to expand...

I sold quite a bit of stuff online and in all the years I had 2 problem orders, both coincidentally from Canada. It didn't take me long after the second one to find the country filter

coli said:

  I sold quite a bit of stuff online and in all the years I had 2 problem orders, both coincidentally from Canada. It didn't take me long after the second one to find the country filter

Click to expand...

Not sure how this is relevant to my post.

So my CD player is not transporting the data well enough? Not trolling here, I'm legitimately trying to figure out whether or not a better cdp would transport the data better. Assuming a better CDp would essentially sound better, I'm am sensing the law of diminishing returns with regard to actually using a separate Dac with a higher end CD player.

I got my DC-1 put into my 2 channel set up today.
 
Using my laptop Windows 10 Foobar2k Wasapi event > USB > Emo DC-1 DAC > Emo X series XLR > Emo Gen 1 XSP-1 pre-amp > Emo X series XLR > Emo Gen 1 XPA-1 mono amps > B&W 684 Mains. I also have my Audio Technica LP-60 turntable into the XSP-1 phono pre. As you can see, I am a huge fan of Emotiva gear.
 
I have been having an enjoyable evening of playing a bunch of random stuff I love for my GF. She went to bed a bit ago, so I am listening to some Diana Krall and loving every minute of it!

Honestly considering the DC-1 (to match my other emo stuff). The problem is I think its a bit redundant with my umc-200 (does alot of the same stuff). I was curious if anyone knows if it has a better DAC stage compared to the UMC-200 because I'm not really satisfied with my UMC-200 in that department (mobo optical out to UMC-200 for music/movies/gaming).
 
I'd also be curious how it drives some planars (my 400S's are pretty easy, but I'll probably be stepping up a tier in the next year). 

happytalk said:

So my CD player is not transporting the data well enough? Not trolling here, I'm legitimately trying to figure out whether or not a better cdp would transport the data better. Assuming a better CDp would essentially sound better, I'm am sensing the law of diminishing returns with regard to actually using a separate Dac with a higher end CD player.

Click to expand...

 
That's an excellent question - and I wish more audiophiles realized that it is a question worth asking.
 
There are basically three "things" that matter when playing digital audio:
1) The numbers (digital audio is basically a long list of numbers)
2) The timing (when the numbers are processed - because, in order to make digital audio back into analog, you have to convert the right numbers AT THE RIGHT TIMES)
3) The actual conversion process (there's actually a lot going on there - but it all falls under "functions of the DAC")
 
To get the easy one out of the way first, if the numbers are wrong, then what you end up with will be wrong too. Now, all CDs have error correction. What this means is that, if only a few numbers here and there are wrong, maybe because your disc has a small scratch, they can be mathematically corrected PERFECTLY. The upshot of this is that, unless your disc is badly damaged, the cheapest $50 CD transport will deliver EXACTLY the same numbers as the most expensive one - period. The only real difference there is that a super-expensive CD transport MIGHT do a somewhat better job of playing a badly damaged disc without screwing up. (Most of even the cheapest $20 computer drives can play most CDs absolutely perfectly; not "sort of"; not "almost"; they will give you precisely THE SAME numbers as the most expensive one.
 
If you're talking about computer files, then you want to avoid resampling, which also alters the numbers (not actual errors - but changes). And, if your connection (USB, optical, or Coax) isn't very solid, you might lose a few numbers here or there (a lot like with a bad scratch on a CD). With computer audio, you're more likely to get obvious dropouts if the data stops for a minute than you are to get subtle alterations. (Note that, when you RIP a CD using modern ripping software, you get precisely the correct numbers. Most modern rippers actually check your results against known checksums. Therefore, those properly ripped CD audio filed are PERFECT. Not "almost perfect"; not "almost as good"; perfect. And, by nature, computers generally don't give you "more or less the same data you put in" - what you get is usually precisely correct - unless you've allowed some software to "deliberately" modify it.)
 
The DAC, the last piece in the equation, is actually quite a complicated piece of hardware these days... but we're not going to talk about it here. Some DACs are a lot better than others; a CD transport is simply a CD player without a DAC (the idea being that, since a lot of the DACs inside CD players aren't very good, you'd rather pick your own separately). DACs can, quite literally, cost anywhere between about $1 and about $100k - and the ones you get in cheap CD players tend towards the lower end of that range.
 
Now, to the part that seems to confuse some people....
 
In "the old days", DACs simply converted the data they were sent as they received it, so the data source controlled the time when each number was converted. In that situation, if the source doesn't deliver those numbers exactly on time, the variation there will result in a form of distortion. (That distortion is NOT "jitter"; jitter is the actual variation in timing; but jitter CAUSES several types of audible distortions. Many people describe the typical distortion caused by jitter as "making the sound blurry".) Old style USB connections were notorious for lousy timing, CD transports varied quite a bit in that regard, and even a funky cable could mess it up a little... so all of those things mattered.
 
HOWEVER, modern USB DACs use an asynchronous USB connection, which means that the timing is controlled by the DAC and not the source. And many modern DACs, like the DC-1, have internal mechanisms that re-clock the data from the other inputs too (they ignore the details of when the data arrives and use their own internal clock to convert it). In either of those situations, since the DAC is using its own timing, the accuracy with which the source delivers the data at the correct time simply doesn't matter any more. This means that, with one of those modern DACs, since a $10k transport delivers the same numbers as a $50 one, they will sound exactly the same (with that DAC). Likewise, even if you're using a USB connection, which is very different..... same numbers = same result.
 
Now, since nothing is absolutely perfect, this is a slight oversimplification. For example, the asynchronous USB input on a modern DAC should remove virtually all jitter coming from the computer, but will then add back a tiny bit of its own; and an ASRC (like the DC-1 uses) can't remove ALL the jitter; it actually just reduces it by a factor of 100x or so at most audible frequencies. (This is still WAY better than the Phase-Locked Loops old style DACs used; and those were WAY better than nothing.)
 
So, the short answer to your question is that, if the DAC has some sort of effective jitter-removal mechanism, then you really shouldn't hear any difference between transports... unless one of them is so bad that it's actually not delivering the proper numbers. And, as I mentioned before, even the cheapest $20 computer CD drive isn't THAT bad. (On the DC-1, you can turn the jitter-removal mechanism on the Coax and Toslink inputs on and off; and, if you turn it off, you'll be able to hear any differences between various transports or other sources - if there's anything audible there to hear. But, since old-style USB interfaces performed so badly, you're stuck with the modern asynch USB input that works right.)
 
Note that there are some modern DACs which, due to the way they're designed, may still in fact be sensitive to jitter. (This may be simply due to poor design, or to a deliberate choice to "go retro" and avoid using modern designs with good jitter immunity.)

happytalk said:

So my CD player is not transporting the data well enough? Not trolling here, I'm legitimately trying to figure out whether or not a better cdp would transport the data better. Assuming a better CDp would essentially sound better, I'm am sensing the law of diminishing returns with regard to actually using a separate Dac with a higher end CD player.

Click to expand...

 
There's something else worth mentioning here....
 
CD players read the data from the CD in short bursts of numbers; those numbers are then stored in a data buffer and "handed out" at a steady rate under the control of an internal clock. These numbers then get sent to the internal DAC via a relatively short internal data path. Since the data is re-clocked at this point, and the wires going to the DAC are pretty short, the jitter performance may actually be pretty good. (This avoids a lot of the complications of getting that data out of the transport, through a cable, and into the DAC, without picking up jitter along the way... and is why a CD player with a decent internal DAC may in fact outperform a mediocre external DAC.)
 
Unfortunately, because makers of "high-end" CD players may assume you're going to use them with an external DAC, the internal DAC they provide may be an afterthought, and may not be good at all... it sort of depends....

happytalk said:

So my CD player is not transporting the data well enough? Not trolling here, I'm legitimately trying to figure out whether or not a better cdp would transport the data better. Assuming a better CDp would essentially sound better, I'm am sensing the law of diminishing returns with regard to actually using a separate Dac with a higher end CD player.

Click to expand...

Depends on the DAC, consumer DAC tends to handle input jitters well so it does not matter.
 
On the other hand, I ran into boutique high-end DAC that just passes input jitters right out the output, I got rid of that DAC at a big loss... BTW Stereophile is a scam.
 
Only other thing I'm aware of is if the equipment is polluting the input power, if it's a linear power supply, watch your dynamics go down as it lowers the overall power factor... And if it's a switched mode power supply, then it depends on how your other equipment handles the high frequency noise injected into the powerline...
 
Edit: another thing is ground loop, although well designed equipment should handle it. Again, consumer mass market equipment tends to handle it correctly, while boutique "high-end" tends not to.
 
Finally, having 0 jitter is not necessary good for enjoyment. Some equipment are designed/voiced with a certain jitter value.

Wow. Thanks guys. Amazing. I will do some more A B-ing. Between just the cdp and the DAC. Who knows, maybe they actually made a good sounding player since it seems to perform the same as the emotiva. When I say they sound the same, I am impressed with both of them. This is an audiophile forum and most would probably dismiss the Sony blu ray player as a cdp, but on the correct 2 channel audio setting, it seems to do well. My sister gave it to me when she moved, and it is in my second system. I was under the impression. That the Dac would be enough with the transport. Maybe I'll try optical out. I'll also try with another transport.

keithemo said:

  Note that there are some modern DACs which, due to the way they're designed, may still in fact be sensitive to jitter. (This may be simply due to poor design, or to a deliberate choice to "go retro" and avoid using modern designs with good jitter immunity.)

Click to expand...

 
Ahh!!! Thank you so much for saying that.  I could not agree more.  It seems that a DAC that is sensitive to jitter or USB cables is not properly isolating/cleaning/reclocking etc the input signal... and has not been designed correctly.
 
I'd personally love to see the logic analyzer traces at the input of the DAC chip (or equivalent) while swapping cables or different "bit perfect" output.  Seems like that would be a great way to actually show that there either is, or isn't any difference.

greenkiwi said:

   
Ahh!!! Thank you so much for saying that.  I could not agree more.  It seems that a DAC that is sensitive to jitter or USB cables is not properly isolating/cleaning/reclocking etc the input signal... and has not been designed correctly.
 
I'd personally love to see the logic analyzer traces at the input of the DAC chip (or equivalent) while swapping cables or different "bit perfect" output.  Seems like that would be a great way to actually show that there either is, or isn't any difference.

Click to expand...

 
I agree that it would be nice to see actual numbers proving that many of the "problems" (real and purported) really are or are not there, and that the "fixes" for them really do something - and do what they're supposed to. Unfortunately, as is sometimes the case, some of it is difficult to measure (or requires expensive equipment), and the reality is that most customers don't understand it well enough for many of the measurements to be "useful".
 
To take one example, jitter itself is very difficult to actually measure, and requires expensive specialized equipment; there also isn't a straightforward relationship between jitter and audio performance. Different types of DACs may be more or less sensitive to the effects of jitter; so, while a given DAC may be very immune to jitter occurring, it may be very sensitive to the itter that does occur, while another DAC, which is itself very prone to lots of jitter, may not suffer much in the quality of its actual output audio because of it. Luckily, while jitter itself is difficult to measure, the effect it has on the analog output is pretty easy to measure.... UN-luckily, actually generating specific calibrated amounts of jitter for test purposes is not simple either. (This is why it's hard to say if a certain DAC is actually "immune" to jitter or not. It's hard to tell whether it's receiving lots of jitter, but not being affected by it, or whether it simply isn't receiving any - or whether it's generating its own jitter internally. The best you can say is that, under given circumstances, it isn't "showing any symptoms of being affected by jitter".) The best you can do is to infer things..... For instance, since different sources, and even different cables, may deliver a signal with more or less jitter, if a given DAC measures or sounds wildly different with different sources, all of which are confirmed to deliver the correct numbers, then it must be responding to differences in jitter. And, if this is the case, then it must both be capable of good performance with a clean signal, and must also be very sensitive to sources that deliver a bad signal. In contrast, a DAC that delivers good performance, and whose performance doesn't seem to change with different sources, probably has good performance of its own, and good immunity to jitter from those sources. (The latter is what I would always look for.) Of course, a DAC that has consistently BAD performance could simply have such poor performance that nothing good or bad about the input signal makes much difference.
 
The J-Test test that you will see widely quoted in DAC reviews is about the best test that most standard test equipment can do. It doesn't actually deliver calibrated amounts of jitter, but what it DOES is to send a sort of "torture test" signal to the DAC, and then see how that signal affects the audio output. Although testing a DAC this way has a few "blind spots", good j-Test performance generally indicates that the DAC is doing most things right, and poor j-Test performance indicates that, at the very least, it has poor performance in some design areas, and/or poor immunity to jitter. (The "blind spots" occur because a DAC that does certain things amazingly well may prevent the test from noticing weaknesses in other areas.)
 
While I can see how this situation makes it difficult to do really useful jitter measurements, I have always been annoyed about the failure of CD mechanisms to provide diagnostic information. Inside a CD player, after the digital information is read from the disc, it is passed through two levels of digital error correction - where extra redundant data stored on the disc is actually used to perfectly repair minor flaws or gaps in the information (like a scratch might cause). In fact, by the standard, the data lost due to a single scratch up to 2 mm wide can be repaired PERFECTLY. After that, a third level of interpolation is used to "patch" data that can't be perfectly corrected. (Digital audio files can actually be checked for "confirmed perfection " very easily - which is one of the things I like so much about digital audio - and modern CD ripping software does this automatically - but the chips used to do the error correction in CD players themselves usually don't have a pin where you can connect the "perfect" indicator LED. If they did, and such a light was included, then you could know that, as long as the light was lit on your $50 transport, and your DAC was relatively immune to jitter, there would be no point in even hoping for better performance from a more expensive transport... because your $50 one was already perfect.

So I did some comparisons today. More to come. One hi res album. 24/96

Bit perfect/iTunes oyaide d+ Class S USB 2 cable (24/96 wav files)

Ibasso DX90 coaxial (24/96) wav files

Apple lossless on iPod Classic to Fostex
HP-P1 toslink

The fostex and Especially the DX90 outperformed the USB setup. I even swapped out the cable for an old tan cheap usb to see if I could get more out of it.

Dx90 coaxial had more treble extension, sparkle. Clear bass.
USB seemed muted, veiled. Still serviceable, but not ideal up against the dX90 coaxial out.
Fostex via toslink also reproduced the full spectrum I was looking for. Even with the ape lossless file.

Do the usb "decrapifiers" really bring more out of the music? Pretty impressed with the digital out of these two portable units. Emotiva DC-1 is sounding great with them.

I have had my 2nd DC-1 (replacing one I sold a long while back) in my system for about a week and a half now, and right from the beginning I was reminded of why i missed my original one so much. Amazing feature set and top notch sound quality to go with it. I have been having extremely long listening sessions with it literally every night, and the more I listen to it, the more I fall in love (for the 2nd time)! 
 
I cannot (for the life of me) figure out why these aren't more popular/talked about on this site. Truly a bargain in hi-fi, and with the current sale, it's a "no brainer". A lot of people seemed to have gathered around Schiit as the "De Facto" brand to recommend to those on a tight budget or just getting started. I am sure Schiit have great gear (never heard any Schiit product but I am VERY interested in their multibit DACs) but I think if more users would give the DC-1 a chance, then it would be one of the more popular/better known units on the site.
 
IMO/YMMV/Etc.