or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff) - Page 31  

post #451 of 6360

Cold was a bad term. I just meant that comparatively the Gungnir seems more artificial. Its attack to me is overemphasised and its upper registers lacks the smoothness of the NAD. It's less "silky", less natural and "cold" in the sense that I found it less inviting.

 

Your other points are spot on though. If your description of the Gungnir's warmth stems from its low end presence and slam then I agree. This is actually one aspect of the Gugnir that I miss at times. That's not to say the M51's bass rendition is wanting, just that at times it can be a tad too rounded. The best aspect of the Gungnir's attack and leading edge emphasis is the delineation of bass instruments.

 

But for me the NAD's transition from the midband to the smoother and extended upper registers distracted less than the hardness and grain I found in the Gungnir's rendition of this region. Could be that my appreciation of the Gungnir's bass and simultaneous issue with its forward upper register gave the impression of a V signature and its mid body was overlooked as a result. Hence the "cold" and "artificial" descriptors.

post #452 of 6360

Not one owner of a Vega DAC has spoken about the "grain" you guys "report". Interesting that AudioGD has two DACs in your top list. I'd seriously take this whole "report" with a large grain of salt and does of chocolate ice cream. Where do you, and your ninjas, find this grain the most evident in the treble? Any concrete examples?

 

in your profile you discuss "I'm mostly back to speakers now.". Well did you test these DACs on speakers?

 

The two top DACs are DACs you own, or have decided to keep....maybe you have an affinity with their sonic signature?

 

The whole effort strikes me as pointless...and suspect.


Edited by doctorcilantro - 2/11/14 at 11:15pm
post #453 of 6360
There's only one Audio GD DAC in the entire list.

jump_to_conclusions_mat.jpg
post #454 of 6360

I see but why does one DAC get extra treatment?

 

I'm not the one jumping, read the thread, folks stating they won't listen for themselves....

post #455 of 6360
More than one DAC is featured in different arrangements. You keep jumping to conclusions without even making sure you are correct in your statements. Not going to bother with your rants.
post #456 of 6360
I imagine the grain found is the very grain of salt you mention!

But really, you've been around here long enough to know better. All "reports" as you put it have inherent limitations, for reasons I suspect you're familiar with. And strengths. In this case, Purrin and his group employ a method that - overall - combines objective and subjective forms of test. It's very interesting, and worth taking seriously. Or not. Your choice.

To dismiss it in haste as you seem to here, as you've failed to raise any substantive points...well again, your choice. But in that case why not pass on by? Your "whole effort [or lack of it] strikes me as pointless...and suspect.".
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorcilantro View Post

Not one owner of a Vega DAC has spoken about the "grain" you guys "report". Interesting that AudioGD has two DACs in your top list. I'd seriously take this whole "report" with a large grain of salt and does of chocolate ice cream. Where do you, and your ninjas, find this grain the most evident in the treble? Any concrete examples?

in your profile you discuss "I'm mostly back to speakers now.". Well did you test these DACs on speakers?

The two top DACs are DACs you own, or have decided to keep....maybe you have an affinity with their sonic signature?

The whole effort strikes me as pointless...and suspect.
post #457 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorcilantro View Post
 

I see but why does one DAC get extra treatment?

 

I'm not the one jumping, read the thread, folks stating they won't listen for themselves....

Extra treatment to make it rank worse? he could've simply put master 7 in rank 1 and leave out all those extra treatments. I find this one of the better reviews in head-fi, there simply are too much reviews with manufacturers offering rebates/gifts/etc...(of course there's a possibility, but we as consumers just have to buy logically)

 

Of course everyone hears differently, and this review is based subjectively on what purrin hears, that's it, nothing more, nothing less...

He also mentioned there are pros and cons even if one ranks better.

 

Its really not cool to just simply say something is pointless when the reviewer simply did put in a lot of effort to make these ranks. 


Edited by bowtung - 2/12/14 at 12:52am
post #458 of 6360

Still, this review is not really complete as I would like to have heard his thoughts on the BM DAC1 with the USB converter since it supposedly beats the Gamma 2.

 

In fact the majority of the mid-range priced DACs were only tested using USB which is detrimental to their ranking to say the least. I would also have liked to see how the Lavry, the NAD, the Schiit DACs and the Lynx fared when used with a USB converter. If you consider the difference in prices between the top DACs on his list as opposed to the midrange one, having a go at them with a USB converter seems relevant.

 

Seems to me the more expensive DACs in this list were tested more thoroughly, and with more settings. 4 out of the top 5 were tested with the OR5, yet the DACs supposed to benefit the most from a USB converter seemed to have been ignored and worse - used only in USB mode. Or did I misread something?


Edited by elmoe - 2/12/14 at 1:49am
post #459 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtung View Post
 

Extra treatment to make it rank worse? he could've simply put master 7 in rank 1 and leave out all those extra treatments. I find this one of the better reviews in head-fi, there simply are too much reviews with manufacturers offering rebates/gifts/etc...(of course there's a possibility, but we as consumers just have to buy logically)

 

Of course everyone hears differently, and this review is based subjectively on what purrin hears, that's it, nothing more, nothing less...

He also mentioned there are pros and cons even if one ranks better.

 

Its really not cool to just simply say something is pointless when the reviewer simply did put in a lot of effort to make these ranks. 

 

I'd rather read a sixmoons review than this one. At least they mention reference actual music when getting subjective. Sorry, I'm not trying be cool, just saying this is a wholly subjective review, and not very objective. I don't see any loopbacks with ADCs for example. It's completely subjective. Did they try to ABX the DACs? How many ninjas preferred what vs. what. Who is the "we"? How many people were involved in this review?

 

The review was no doubt a lot of work, but I have the right to call ********, and call into question the results which ultimately don't mean much to me. Next time I'll just bite my tongue and keep the rant off.

post #460 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

Still, this review is not really complete as I would like to have heard his thoughts on the BM DAC1 with the USB converter since it supposedly beats the Gamma 2.

 

In fact the majority of the mid-range priced DACs were only tested using USB which is detrimental to their ranking to say the least. I would also have liked to see how the Lavry, the NAD, the Schiit DACs and the Lynx fared when used with a USB converter. If you consider the difference in prices between the top DACs on his list as opposed to the midrange one, having a go at them with a USB converter seems relevant.

 

Seems to me the more expensive DACs in this list were tested more thoroughly, and with more settings. 4 out of the top 5 were tested with the OR5, yet the DACs supposed to benefit the most from a USB converter seemed to have been ignored and worse - used only in USB mode. Or did I misread something?

 

I not 100% on this, but several of the dac listed are no longer in house for comparison (person who owned said dac sold it, returned, etc.) and he did not have the OR5 on had at the time. As for most dacs using the built in usb, I think he said that was mostly done for convenience/ didn't have an OR5/ OR5 didn't improve it much/etc (gungnir doesn't scale much). I'd say most of the dacs simply aren't there anymore to test, so he's going off of what he remembers. As for the top dacs being favored, the OR5 was made for the pwd2, so it makes sense to show how much it can be improved. Master 7 wasn't, but just generally sounds worse without it(a converter) and has ridiculous scaling based on the transport (which is both a good and bad thing). The more expensive dacs are also the ones that he most likely didn't just toss out because they are so capable for his preferences

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorcilantro View Post
 

 

I'd rather read a sixmoons review than this one. At least they mention reference actual music when getting subjective. Sorry, I'm not trying be cool, just saying this is a wholly subjective review, and not very objective. I don't see any loopbacks with ADCs for example. It's completely subjective. Did they try to ABX the DACs? How many ninjas preferred what vs. what. Who is the "we"? How many people were involved in this review?

 

The review was no doubt a lot of work, but I have the right to call ********, and call into question the results which ultimately don't mean much to me. Next time I'll just bite my tongue and keep the rant off.

 

It's been mentioned that the rankings are the averaged opinions of the ninjas, so I'd expect each ninjas personal list to look quite different. As for ABX, I believe most of these dacs were listened to for many weeks if not months at a time by each respective owner before comparisons. I'm not sure if every owner of each dac is a ninja though. And yeah the whole thing is subjective as is every review without measurements/graphs/pie charts. But measurements can be misleading in some cases (bm dac1). These reviews should be viewed as opinions and not perfect truths. Test for yourself instead of following whatever the **** sixmoons is ranting on about. Or don't. 

post #461 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzxgene View Post
 

 

I not 100% on this, but several of the dac listed are no longer in house for comparison (person who owned said dac sold it, returned, etc.) and he did not have the OR5 on had at the time. As for most dacs using the built in usb, I think he said that was mostly done for convenience/ didn't have an OR5/ OR5 didn't improve it much/etc (gungnir doesn't scale much). I'd say most of the dacs simply aren't there anymore to test, so he's going off of what he remembers. As for the top dacs being favored, the OR5 was made for the pwd2, so it makes sense to show how much it can be improved. Master 7 wasn't, but just generally sounds worse without it(a converter) and has ridiculous scaling based on the transport (which is both a good and bad thing). The more expensive dacs are also the ones that he most likely didn't just toss out because they are so capable for his preferences

 

Well, testing for convenience is not testing if the mid range DACs have noticeably worse sound using USB, and noticeably MUCH better sound using the OR5. It basically contradicts ranking them at all... Anyway, I'll buy a USB/SPDIF converter and test things out on my DAC1 myself.

post #462 of 6360
Quote:
 ~Note on OR5 USB Converter: With some exceptions (because of time / effort limitations), if we felt the OR5 didn't improve a DAC significantly enough to change its ranking, we didn't bother with it. The OR5 only improves certain specific aspects of DACs, and even then it can only do so much based on the limitations of the DAC. The few DACs I wished we had a chance to try the OR5 on were the Lavry, M51, Luxman, Gamma2. The Gamma2 would have mainly been out of curiosity since it's DIY and usually obtainable used for a little over two hundred dollars. In any event, only the top three DACs, the Alpha, PWD2, and especially M7, improved significantly with the use of the OR5.

Please read the WHOLE post before jumping to conclusions. Honestly, does it even make sense to buy a OR5 for a mid-range dac that costs less than the converter itself?

post #463 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegunner100 View Post
 

Please read the WHOLE post before jumping to conclusions. Honestly, does it even make sense to buy a OR5 for a mid-range dac that costs less than the converter itself?

I'm not jumping to any conclusion, I read this part, and it says he WISHED he couldve tried it with many DACs but didnt. There are other USB/SPDIF converter that cost 100-200 bucks, the point isn't to use the OR5 specifically but to see if a USB/SPDIF makes other mid range DACs better.

 

So next time please read my WHOLE posts before YOU jump to conclusions.

post #464 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

Well, testing for convenience is not testing if the mid range DACs have noticeably worse sound using USB, and noticeably MUCH better sound using the OR5. It basically contradicts ranking them at all... Anyway, I'll buy a USB/SPDIF converter and test things out on my DAC1 myself.

 

Make sure to post the differences when you get around to it. You could also send it to purrin to have tested with the OR5, to see how it would rank comparatively. And I don't think the posting of the usb impressions is contradictory as it's becoming a very common connection, and considering every dac listed is compared via usb. I already know i'd use only usb at this point (although not everyone does), so it's nice to see how different implementations fair. You also have to consider that the OR5 is really quite expensive relative to many of the "good stuff" dacs, so it doesn't make as much sense to spend so much on the converter. Anyway,

 

"Note on OR5 USB Converter: With some exceptions (because of time / effort limitations), if we felt the OR5 didn't improve a DAC significantly enough to change its ranking, we didn't bother with it. The OR5 only improves certain specific aspects of DACs, and even then it can only do so much based on the limitations of the DAC. The few DACs I wished we had a chance to try the OR5 on were the Lavry, M51, Luxman, Gamma2. The Gamma2 would have mainly been out of curiosity since it's DIY and usually obtainable used for a little over two hundred dollars. In any event, only the top three DACs, the Alpha, PWD2, and especially M7, improved significantly with the use of the OR5."

 

Pretty sure the OR5 wasn't there or the sound didn't change much with his denon during bm dac1 testing.

 

(edit: Most usb converters beneath the audiophilleo level are ****. The audio-gd converters might be an exception with the newest firmwares, but kingwa doesn't sell them anymore. I'm still waiting on purrins impressions of the M7 usb with the newest drivers.)


Edited by blitzxgene - 2/12/14 at 8:01am
post #465 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzxgene View Post
 

 

Make sure to post the differences when you get around to it. You could also send it to purrin to have tested with the OR5, to see how it would rank comparatively. And I don't think the posting of the usb impressions is contradictory as it's becoming a very common connection, and considering every dac listed is compared via usb. I already know i'd use only usb at this point (although not everyone does), so it's nice to see how different implementations fair. You also have to consider that the OR5 is really quite expensive relative to many of the "good stuff" dacs, so it doesn't make as much sense to spend so much on the converter. Anyway,

 

"Note on OR5 USB Converter: With some exceptions (because of time / effort limitations), if we felt the OR5 didn't improve a DAC significantly enough to change its ranking, we didn't bother with it. The OR5 only improves certain specific aspects of DACs, and even then it can only do so much based on the limitations of the DAC. The few DACs I wished we had a chance to try the OR5 on were the Lavry, M51, Luxman, Gamma2. The Gamma2 would have mainly been out of curiosity since it's DIY and usually obtainable used for a little over two hundred dollars. In any event, only the top three DACs, the Alpha, PWD2, and especially M7, improved significantly with the use of the OR5."

 

Pretty sure the OR5 wasn't there or the sound didn't change much with his denon during bm dac1 testing.

 

Will be sure to post.

 

Regarding your last sentence, if that's true, then it goes against pretty much EVERY single review/opinion I've read about the BM DAC1 + USB/SPDIF converter. edit: actually, rereading his BM DAC1 opinion, it is clear he did not try it with a converter, and only used the DAC1's USB input (which is known to be terrible).

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 › Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)