or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › December 2013 Mid-Level DAC Comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

December 2013 Mid-Level DAC Comparison - Page 41  

post #601 of 1331
Thread Starter 

Okay folks:

 

The Metrum and Concero are on the switch, and I can say that one of them does NOT sound like all of the others when level-matched.  But I aint' saying which!

 

Okay, I'll give you a Christmas present.  The Metrum Octave does not sound like anything else I've had in this test so far.  Not night and day different, but different enough that it was readily apparent within seconds. 

 

Enough for now, I've literally only listened to 1.5 songs, but figured I'd put the worriers' minds at ease.

 

Happy Merry!

post #602 of 1331
Hmm, I have just read the page of posts up to #600.

Gary, thanks for a very fine report in post #582. Even though it is a 'negative finding', I appreciate the method and care with which it has been obtained. I note similarities to the method I used in my dac review (of just 3 dacs!) two years ago, which in my case amounted to identifying what tracks were revealing of differences versus the many more that weren't. This was a natural method for me as much of my work involves psychological measurement and finding what 'items' are 'diagnostic' of differences in whatever is being measured. I'm pleased to see you use the same general approach here.

For me the slightly surprising part is that you didn't hear differences, even subtle ones. I'm surprised because I did. Originally, I didn't expect to. The differences I heard were subtle (considered in the overall context of everything each DAC was doing) but unmistakeable all the same.

Therefore, I'm pondering what could explain this? I'm completely satisfied it isn't listening ability, nor is there any question about your care in conducting the process.

This is surmise, but one aspect I was conscious of in the course of my 2-3 week process (remember, with just three dacs) was that differences at first just barely noticeable became considerably easier to identify after 2-3 days exposure. In short, one of the most important aspects of perception - brain learning - may have been involved. This is the process that occurs when one experiences problems and situations one day and finds the next day one can solve them easily. Similarly, distinctions hard to 'see' or 'hear' at one time quickly improve (up to certain limits) within a reasonably short time: this is an aspect of everyday learning that seems to involve literal brain changes.

BTW, it doesn't matter how experienced one is (as Gary obviously is) as a listener overall. Involving oneself in any new experience - especially an intense one such as this - is automatically a new learning experience, or so it was for me! A new context is involved, and the brain has to adjust.

Another smaller difference I note is that in my review I deliberately did not focus on any particular aspect of a track (and took care to suspend listening when tired or when 'brain chatter' interfered). Whilst I'm not a cognitive psychologist I trained in language, memory and some aspects of perception to postgraduate levels. I'm strongly aware of various cognitive aspects of psychological measurement and social dynamics which need to be controlled in the studies and consultancy work I conduct. In my review I attempted to build in some of these controls although it obviously (as a one-person piece of work) couldn't and didn't claim to resolve any of the listening problems involved.

So, Gary, the gist of my comment here is that I'm curious what would happen if you repeated some of the testing of post #582 in another day or two? I think it would be a pity if the ambitious scope of this project (many dacs, short time) was itself masking real differences that may be there.

If you choose not to that's fine! I note you've already moved on and I have yet to catch up with the latest posts. As well, in any scientific or technical field as well as in our hobby, negative results are as or more important than positive ones.

And again, I congratulate you on a well-conducted and fine contribution to head-fi beerchug.gif
post #603 of 1331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary in MD View Post

Okay folks:

The Metrum and Concero are on the switch, and I can say that one of them does NOT sound like all of the others when level-matched.  But I aint' saying which!

Okay, I'll give you a Christmas present.  The Metrum Octave does not sound like anything else I've had in this test so far.  Not night and day different, but different enough that it was readily apparent within seconds. 

Enough for now, I've literally only listened to 1.5 songs, but figured I'd put the worriers' minds at ease.

Happy Merry!
Let me guess: The Metrum sounds like fluid music while all the other just sound like a series of 0 and 1s?
The Concero is etched and brittle by comparison?

Regarding your PC: it seems it's not just about how powerful your CPU is. DPC latency seems to play a role in how your computer handles audio playback. It seems to be more related on motherboard's drivers than pure power.
You can check your DPC latency using this: http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml
post #604 of 1331

It has been my experience that dacs hit the wall of diminishing returns far sooner than amps and headphones/speakers.

 

Going from headphones from $10 up to $1000, there were clear and palpable improvements at each step. With amps, improvements were there but really kind stagnated past $200 once I was reaching sufficient power delivery (not counting the HE-6). With dacs, going from laptop realtek to a $20 Turtle Beach was noticeable. Moving up to a $100 there was some, but not much. At the $400 mark with separate power supply and spdif bridge, ok I can just barely tell the difference (and the power supply made more of a difference than anything else). At the $1k mark... it took me running the dacs simultaneously into a preamp and listening to sine waves before I could just barely start to pick out discrepancies.

 

If I were to start over, I'd try to stick to a 1:2:3 ratio for spending, corresponding to dac:amp:transducer.  Or I'd go with Fibonacci because I'm a nerd... 1:1:2:3:5 which would be cables/power/dac/amp/transducer

and by cables I don't mean the crazy cables, I just mean some stuff of decent quality and durability. Actually, depending on the components and budget level I'd seriously placing power components above dacs.

post #605 of 1331

Gary, first of all let me say that I really appreciate your work here and the effort you are putting in giving us all a better insight into the differences (and sameness-es) of as big a bunch of dacs as this. Thank you for sharing your experiences!

 

I'm not trying to tell you you should hear something you don't. However, and unlike some other guys, I find it surprising that you heard no difference at all between those few dacs. Many years ago I have compared 2 dacs and a soundcard (an Apogee Mini-Dac against Lavry D10 and, in another session, the Apogee against a Lynx soundcard, I don't remember the model). My findings at the time:

1. They were different.

2. The main difference between them was in terms of tonality / equalization. The Lynx and the Lavry were closer tonally (but having not compared them directly against each other I'm not sure how big was the difference between them), the Apogee was... sweeter and rounder, I'd say. Smoother highs than the Lynx, for sure, and warmer overall (the Apogee). The Lavry was a tiny bit... grey sounding compared to the Apogee.

3. There were other differences as well. The Lavry seemed snappier, with more apparent detail and more precise instrument placement, for example. 

4. Very important, and the main reason for my post:

 

The differences were much more obvious through speakers than through headphones!

 

Even if the headphones I used (Stax 303) are definitely more detailed than my speakers (Mackie HR824 powered monitors)! I don't have an explanation, it's not just the fact that the spatial cues are easier to distinguish through loudspeakers, even the tonal differences were more obvious to me through loudspeakers. Which leads me to...

 

...a little suggestion. I fully realize you have a lot of comparison work to do, but for the sake of it, can you verify your findings so far (I mean, the fact that a few dacs sound absolutely the same) through speakers? Just compare 2 or 3 same sounding dacs for half an hour or so, merely finding out if there is any difference at all between them should be much easier than describing it. Do you think you can pull this out? Just as a double check, not of your hearing but of the comparison - through - headphones methodology.

 

Thanks again!

post #606 of 1331

I, for one, am not surprised that Gary finds 3 out of 5 DACs to sound alike, with small differences for the other two.  Armaegis' post, above, makes a lot of sense to me, too.  

 

I once did a three-DAC shoot-out where two of them were so very close to being identical, I could only identify them sonically (in a blind test facilitated by a friend), when playing specific portions of a handful of tracks, over and over again - while the third DAC was blindly identifiable in every set that was played - no matter the track - and that's with rigorous volume matching.  

 

When it comes down to it, if Gary has to pour through dozens of tracks to find a 10-second excerpt that allows one of those three "identical" DACs to be found "better" than the other two, how much more would any of us be willing to pay for that hair-splitting advantage?

 

I'd rather he continue his "holistic" approach and there's something to be said for not psyching him out.  

 

Carry on trusting your ears, Gary. Do your thing. I'm good with that.  

post #607 of 1331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Quichotte View Post
 

Gary, first of all let me say that I really appreciate your work here and the effort you are putting in giving us all a better insight into the differences (and sameness-es) of as big a bunch of dacs as this. Thank you for sharing your experiences!

 

I'm not trying to tell you you should hear something you don't. However, and unlike some other guys, I find it surprising that you heard no difference at all between those few dacs. Many years ago I have compared 2 dacs and a soundcard (an Apogee Mini-Dac against Lavry D10 and, in another session, the Apogee against a Lynx soundcard, I don't remember the model). My findings at the time:

1. They were different.

2. The main difference between them was in terms of tonality / equalization. The Lynx and the Lavry were closer tonally (but having not compared them directly against each other I'm not sure how big was the difference between them), the Apogee was... sweeter and rounder, I'd say. Smoother highs than the Lynx, for sure, and warmer overall (the Apogee). The Lavry was a tiny bit... grey sounding compared to the Apogee.

3. There were other differences as well. The Lavry seemed snappier, with more apparent detail and more precise instrument placement, for example. 

4. Very important, and the main reason for my post:

 

The differences were much more obvious through speakers than through headphones!

 

Even if the headphones I used (Stax 303) are definitely more detailed than my speakers (Mackie HR824 powered monitors)! I don't have an explanation, it's not just the fact that the spatial cues are easier to distinguish through loudspeakers, even the tonal differences were more obvious to me through loudspeakers. Which leads me to...

 

...a little suggestion. I fully realize you have a lot of comparison work to do, but for the sake of it, can you verify your findings so far (I mean, the fact that a few dacs sound absolutely the same) through speakers? Just compare 2 or 3 same sounding dacs for half an hour or so, merely finding out if there is any difference at all between them should be much easier than describing it. Do you think you can pull this out? Just as a double check, not of your hearing but of the comparison - through - headphones methodology.

 

Thanks again!


I was going to suggest testing through speakers as well. For some reason I've always found it harder to evaluate DACs through headphones.

 

They seem to act as equalizers whereas speakers will bring out defects such as tubby bass, timing, etc

post #608 of 1331
Quote:
Originally Posted by AiDee View Post

Hmm, I have just read the page of posts up to #600.

Gary, thanks for a very fine report in post #582. Even though it is a 'negative finding', I appreciate the method and care with which it has been obtained. I note similarities to the method I used in my dac review (of just 3 dacs!) two years ago, which in my case amounted to identifying what tracks were revealing of differences versus the many more that weren't. This was a natural method for me as much of my work involves psychological measurement and finding what 'items' are 'diagnostic' of differences in whatever is being measured. I'm pleased to see you use the same general approach here.

For me the slightly surprising part is that you didn't hear differences, even subtle ones. I'm surprised because I did. Originally, I didn't expect to. The differences I heard were subtle (considered in the overall context of everything each DAC was doing) but unmistakeable all the same.

Therefore, I'm pondering what could explain this? I'm completely satisfied it isn't listening ability, nor is there any question about your care in conducting the process.

This is surmise, but one aspect I was conscious of in the course of my 2-3 week process (remember, with just three dacs) was that differences at first just barely noticeable became considerably easier to identify after 2-3 days exposure. In short, one of the most important aspects of perception - brain learning - may have been involved. This is the process that occurs when one experiences problems and situations one day and finds the next day one can solve them easily. Similarly, distinctions hard to 'see' or 'hear' at one time quickly improve (up to certain limits) within a reasonably short time: this is an aspect of everyday learning that seems to involve literal brain changes.

BTW, it doesn't matter how experienced one is (as Gary obviously is) as a listener overall. Involving oneself in any new experience - especially an intense one such as this - is automatically a new learning experience, or so it was for me! A new context is involved, and the brain has to adjust.

Another smaller difference I note is that in my review I deliberately did not focus on any particular aspect of a track (and took care to suspend listening when tired or when 'brain chatter' interfered). Whilst I'm not a cognitive psychologist I trained in language, memory and some aspects of perception to postgraduate levels. I'm strongly aware of various cognitive aspects of psychological measurement and social dynamics which need to be controlled in the studies and consultancy work I conduct. In my review I attempted to build in some of these controls although it obviously (as a one-person piece of work) couldn't and didn't claim to resolve any of the listening problems involved.

So, Gary, the gist of my comment here is that I'm curious what would happen if you repeated some of the testing of post #582 in another day or two? I think it would be a pity if the ambitious scope of this project (many dacs, short time) was itself masking real differences that may be there.

If you choose not to that's fine! I note you've already moved on and I have yet to catch up with the latest posts. As well, in any scientific or technical field as well as in our hobby, negative results are as or more important than positive ones.

And again, I congratulate you on a well-conducted and fine contribution to head-fi beerchug.gif

Very true.
I agree with the brain learning observation.
I remember how difficult it was to hear the different between turntables when I was first exposed to high end turntables
post #609 of 1331
Thread Starter 

Folks:

 

Let me try to address some of the comments above:

 

@AiDee- The Stealth and DM Source are both still in the system, precisely because I am going to continue comparing them to each other and the other DACs.  They are sort of my "baselines" at this point.  If I start to hear differences between them I'll let you folks know.  The NAD and the PWD are out of the system, because as Mike (Zilch) indicated, I would not pay the premium for them even if I could eventually hear some tiny difference (as I already can with the PWD... it just isn't a difference I want to pay for).  The Arcam is out just because it has fewer features than the others that sound equally good at a similar or lower price.

 

@Clem - Your guess is close but exaggerated.  That's all I'll say for now, since I just don't have enough time on either the Concero or the Metrum to say any more.  As to my computer's latency, wouldn't that effect all of the DACs equally, making it a moot point?

 

@ Don Quichotte and Turn & Cough - The only speakers I could run these through are the little TBI Diamonds that I use as computer speakers.  They are not revealing enough to be of any value in this testing.  They are nice enough for casual listening when I don't feel like putting earmuffs on, or sticking anything in my ear, but they are not going to help distinguish these DACs.  In addition, the whole point of this test is to evaluate performance with headphones... this is Head-Fi after all.  If I can't hear any difference with cans, then there's really no point in using speakers to differentiate if I'm not going to drive speakers with them anyway.

 

I have a few theories about why these DACs sound the same.  First, the technology really has improved over the past few years, and the price of electronics is always coming down.  These guys are all using something as a target "reference" sound -- perhaps a single DAC that was considered an industry leader, perhaps a perfect square wave, or whatever.  With the improvements in technology and the reduction in the price of electronics, more and more of them are able to hit their target right on, or close enough that the miss distance isn't audible, than was the case even a few years ago.  This is a good thing for the consumers of audio equipment -- we can now buy DACs for well under $1K that sound amazingly good, as good as $2K or $4K DACs.  This is bad for the folks trying to sell $2K or $4K DACs, but that's the nature of competition in life.  They need to keep improving, or the guys who build cheaper hardware will catch them and undercut them.  That pressure on the entire industry to improve is also good for us consumers.  We might soon be able to buy DACs that not only sound great, but do the laundry and cook us gourmet meals.  I can't wait!!!

 

There is one other thing that I think is happening.  As the lower rungs of the industry are more capable of achieving excellent performance, some in the higher rungs will seek to differentiate their sound, creating their own flavor.  Technically this might actually be a distortion, just as tubes can be considered to distort the perfect reproduction of the music as recorded -- but it might just sound good to many of us.  So instead of trying to "improve" on the perfect square wave, some designers are intentionally making imperfect waves, coloring them to taste.  That is also a good thing for us consumers, as we get to choose the flavor we prefer, making life more interesting. 

 

Bottom line: All of the DACs tested so far sound excellent.  There are none so far that make any of the songs un-listenable, which is not the case with many of the cans and amps that I have tested.  THIS IS A GREAT THING FOR US CONSUMERS!!!  Go forth and celebrate like it was Christmas Day!!!


Edited by Gary in MD - 12/25/13 at 8:30am
post #610 of 1331

Gary, thank you for all the work you've put into this comparison thus far. I really hope the gungnir works for you, as I've been doing some comparisons of my own between the gungnir and the audio-gd nfb-10es2. I'm a little bit disappointed that my conclusion is similar to yours... I'm just not really noticing the differences between the two, using the hd800 and schiit vali. At first when I got the gungnir, it was a little bit on the loud and obnoxious side but now that it has settled down a bit (~150ish hours), I'm really struggling to hear the differences between the two dacs. On some tracks, the gungnir seems to be a little bit softer and cleaner on the vocals. Some details/instruments also seem to stand out just a LITTLE more on the gungnir as well.

 

But honestly... the two dacs aren't exactly level matched since the gungnir produces 2.0v wheras the a-gd produces 2.5v. I set the volume on the a-gd to 80% to compensate but I'm not sure if that's ideal or not. I have someone with a concero coming next weekend to meet up with me and a few others; I'll get a chance to compare the concero and gungnir. I'm hoping that the concero is a little bit more laid back and more forgiving than the gungnir. Otherwise I'm most likely just gonna sell off the gungnir and stick with the a-gd =/.

post #611 of 1331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary in MD View Post

 

I have a few theories about why these DACs sound the same.  First, the technology really has improved over the past few years, and the price of electronics is always coming down.  These guys are all using something as a target "reference" sound -- perhaps a single DAC that was considered an industry leader, perhaps a perfect square wave, or whatever.  With the improvements in technology and the reduction in the price of electronics, more and more of them are able to hit their target right on, or close enough that the miss distance isn't audible, than was the case even a few years ago.  This is a good thing for the consumers of audio equipment -- we can now buy DACs for well under $1K that sound amazingly good, as good as $2K or $4K DACs.  This is bad for the folks trying to sell $2K or $4K DACs, but that's the nature of competition in life.  They need to keep improving, or the guys who build cheaper hardware will catch them and undercut them.  That pressure on the entire industry to improve is also good for us consumers.  We might soon be able to buy DACs that not only sound great, but do the laundry and cook us gourmet meals.  I can't wait!!!

 

There is one other thing that I think is happening.  As the lower rungs of the industry are more capable of achieving excellent performance, some in the higher rungs will seek to differentiate their sound, creating their own flavor.  Technically this might actually be a distortion, just as tubes can be considered to distort the perfect reproduction of the music as recorded -- but it might just sound good to many of us.  So instead of trying to "improve" on the perfect square wave, some designers are intentionally making imperfect waves, coloring them to taste.  That is also a good thing for us consumers, as we get to choose the flavor we prefer, making life more interesting. 

 

Bottom line: All of the DACs tested so far sound excellent.  There are none so far that make any of the songs un-listenable, which is not the case with many of the cans and amps that I have tested.  THIS IS A GREAT THING FOR US CONSUMERS!!!  Go forth and celebrate like it was Christmas Day!!!

 

This is pretty much true for any technology. The headphone industry is really going through a sort of puberty right now. There were a few "grownups" around (Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic, AKG, etc etc) and they had a few good products but lots of junk too. Then there were all the kids running around, but for the most part most of their stuff was disposable. But now all the kids are starting to come into their own (it took a "cool kid" in Beats to shake everyone up and start pretending to be adults, but thankfully that phase is sort of passing now). The status quo is shifting and everyone is vying for attention. The kids are making a name of themselves, the adults are feeling threatened and stepping up their game. Grado is sort of like that weird uncle who lives out in the woods, but I digress. There's a lot less "junk" these days because the market now cares.

 

Back to dacs, really the whole market itself is new (particularly the usb segment), even moreso than headphones. A few years ago the pocket of affordable dacs exploded and practically everyone had a Wolfson 8740. Before that I think it was a pcm2706? (allt those numbers start to blur together after a while). The thing is though, dacs kinda start off with a leg up in the race. When you make a bad headphone, it can be atrociously bad and the sound that comes out butchered even to novice ears because the audible changes are quite frankly huge. Dacs on the other hand, well those basically come with datasheets telling you how to build a decent one. By their nature they already start off as more precise and their audible differences coming out are several orders of magnitude smaller than those produced by headphones.  One area to be careful right now with dacs is with the input selection. I've found in some cases that switching between the inputs used (usb vs coax vs optical vs etc) actually had audible differences. Most are good, but one might be "less good" than others (I'm looking at you usb...)

 

Blah blah, a lot of people say source first, and to a point I agree with it... but diminishing returns hits hard these days when a $50 dac already takes you near the finish line.

post #612 of 1331
Yes, my bottom line was all three DACs sounded excellent too. One didn't and doesn't meet my preferences, its character almost exactly as Gary describes the HD800: too dry, decay is faster than natural giving great clarity and note-separation but weird with piano (which I play), cello etc...

Another was my personal winner at the time but I didn't say which because they were all good and who would care what I happened to prefer?

Finally, had I not got them side by side I wouldn't have known there were (small) differences. I guess I broadly agree with Armaegis.
post #613 of 1331
@Gary: DPC latency is not a moot point (if it ever plays a role, that is), because it would make all the DAC sound worse than they're actually capable of. In this case, the better DACs would suffer more and probably sound quite similar to lesser DAC (which themselves don't sound their best).

This has been my experience with the Squeezebox Touch SPDif output (which is quite bad). I used to run 3 DACs using this connection:
- Emotiva XDA-1
- Audio-GD NFB-3.1
- Metrum Quad
The first two had a similar warm tonality but they differed in that the Emotiva had tighter bass and the NFB smoother midrange. Bass tightness is a good indicator of good jitter rejection. The Emotiva used a resampler which help reducing jitter. Hence the tighter bass.
Using the same connection, the Metrum Quad already sounded much better than the other two, technically. The tonality was also very different; definitely brighter comparatively (but not bright in absolute terms, rather neutral).
Then I got the Stello U3. Things changed dramatically then! The upgrade was worth much more than the difference I got when getting the Quad. Bass was much tighter and well defined. The NFB-3 greatly benefited in that area, too. Still, the Quad was even more impressive and benefited much more from the Stello U3 than the Audio-GD. It's known that its input stage is very sensitive to jitter. You can say it's not a good DAC if its input is so sensitive. I say it's a terrific DAC when you're willing to pay the extra dough to make it sing (good USB-SPDif converter), and only when you do, it becomes a much better DAC than the Audio-GD.
There will always be people stopping at the first step of the experience (Squeezebox SPDIF output) and conclude that the Metrum is probably a bit better technically, but most of all provide another sound signature (EQ) and this where the DACs really differ.
Then there is people who actually bought a good DDC for it and will say no, the Metrum is MUCH better technically, and in addition, provide a different sound signature.

I know it's not how you intended to use each DAC, but you can try to feed them with the Concero SPDIf output just too see if you can hear more differences between the DACs.
The Metrum Quad sounded brighter with the Concero feeding it, compared to the Stello U3. Strange that a digital to digital converter can change the sound signature of a DAC, isn't it? From this moment I decided to trust my ears and put aside all my scientific preconceptions that ruled what should yield a difference and what should not. From this moment, my $1000 MAX budget limit was lifted and my wallet is crying...

Also, those who can't hear a definite improvement past $100 should consider wax cleaning... I have both the SA-1 ($900) and SA-2 ($1500) and I can tell which one is which in few seconds any day of the week. Again, bass definition and treble extension are things that immediately jump at your ears. Then come soundstage and clarity. "The veil has been lifted" is not a legend, these two DACs are a good proof that more money yield better result (they are 2 DACs of the same family).
post #614 of 1331
Thread Starter 

Folks:

 

I have a process problem that I want you all to think about:  I have multiple DACs with no volume control, and different line out voltages.  For example, the Concero and Metrum Octave are about 3 dBs different in output, which means I can't compare them directly without changing the volume on one of them upstream, using the computer or JRiver.  Has anybody used the JRiver volume controls before?  How much damage am I going to do to the sound by using JRiver to correct ~3dB of volume? The alternative, which I prefer, is to use the Emo and DM as references, and compare everything that doesn't have a volume control to them... that means not really being able to compare the non-controllable DACs to each other, but I don't know any way around this issue.  Note that I haven't done a dB check on the Qiunas or the Chordette, the 2 other DACs without volume controls, but I assume there will be enough difference in voltage to make direct comparison impossible with either the Concero or the Metrum (That's Murphy's 8th Law I think... "Whatever can screw up your comparison test, will").

 

Any ideas?

post #615 of 1331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary in MD View Post
 

Folks:

 

I have a process problem that I want you all to think about:  I have multiple DACs with no volume control, and different line out voltages.  For example, the Concero and Metrum Octave are about 3 dBs different in output, which means I can't compare them directly without changing the volume on one of them upstream, using the computer or JRiver.  Has anybody used the JRiver volume controls before?  How much damage am I going to do to the sound by using JRiver to correct ~3dB of volume? The alternative, which I prefer, is to use the Emo and DM as references, and compare everything that doesn't have a volume control to them... that means not really being able to compare the non-controllable DACs to each other, but I don't know any way around this issue.  Note that I haven't done a dB check on the Qiunas or the Chordette, the 2 other DACs without volume controls, but I assume there will be enough difference in voltage to make direct comparison impossible with either the Concero or the Metrum (That's Murphy's 8th Law I think... "Whatever can screw up your comparison test, will").

 

Any ideas?

Digital control is the last resort as it throws bits away.

What amp do you use in your tests, doesn't it have analogue volume pot? This is always the best way.

 

I also agree with what others say, LCD3 is not the right tool for this kind of job, even if you greatly prefer it sonically over HD800.


Edited by Andrew_WOT - 12/25/13 at 12:12pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › December 2013 Mid-Level DAC Comparison