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

thegunner100 said:

  I can vouch for the DC-1 being an excellent dac for the price. It's $500 and you get tons of features for it: USB, Coax, Optical, AES, BNC input, Pre-amp functionality w/ RCA in, both RCA and XLR outs, well built, relatively small form factor, and a nice remote. I think it comes close to the Gungnir's performance but the DC-1 isn't as dynamically capable and the bass quality isn't quite as good.
 
Purrin's comment about liking the AD1955 and the AKM chips in the Schiit dacs makes sense to me, having done a brief comparison between the DC-1 and Gungnir.

Click to expand...

Just wanted to say that I also have a DC-1 and think it’s a really good DAC and amazing value considering the performance and I/O. I don’t find the sound to be bright or glaring or suffer from raspiness. I really like it.
 
To contribute a comparison to the thread, I’ve been doing some listening comparisons this weekend on my recently acquired NAD M51 vs the DC-1. Thought I’d share
 
eqpt: QUAD 12L active bookshelves on isoacoustic stands in a near field setup.
Bakoon HPA-01 and Grado PS1000 (but I’ve done almost all comparisons with the speakers).
HDMI to NAD (tried USB on NAD, HDMI seemed slightly smoother, might be placebo.) USB into DC-1
 
I volume matched as closely as I could with a mic and pink noise. But I might still be off by a dB, although I think any loudness difference might be in favour of the DC-1, anyway. (pink noise level moves around slightly and minor peaks from measuring DC-1 were a bit higher)
 
Key takeaway: I think the NAD is better overall but I think the DC-1 holds up quite well. 
 
I find the sound from the NAD and speaker combo to be larger than with DC-1. The stage extends further outside the speakers and there’s a bit more depth to the soundstage. The size of everything is enlarged but imaging also seems a bit more focused for main vocals. NAD seems more lively overall and I think it has a greater sense of macrodynamics for orchestral music.
 
To my surprise, I think the NAD might be prone to a hint more sibilance (high ‘sss” sounds in vocals) than the DC-1. Just a hint (maybe a good usb/spdif converter will reduce this?) But that little extra bite also comes along with vocals and instruments sounding more prominent and forward than with the DC-1. 
 
I did try moving the DC-1 volume up from the matched levels to see if I could “overcompensate”  and get a bigger stage to match the NAD M51 (since I felt the differences in scale I was hearing was something that a volume mismatch could explain) but it didn’t really work out. sounded louder, yes, but not more expansive. same confines within the speaker boxes. so I just moved it back to the matched levels.
 
One of the differences I noted with headphones was with the bass response of the PS1000 and the HPA-01 amp. The Bakoon’s current output will create a bump at around 100 Hz on the PS1000. The PS1000 already has a boosted response in this area. On the DC-1, I felt the combo was too much for songs with a continuous driving bass line - it got too muddy with a lot of bloom around the notes, clouding the melody of the bass. But on the NAD, the mud is reduced. there’s still a boost in the bass region with the amp/headphone pair but the bloom around a bass guitar is reduced and initial bass strum is more defined. (On voltage output, this extra bloom isn’t there, just the PS1000’s natural bass boost)
 
This probably wouldn’t be as noticeable with a different amp/headphone pair (something better behaved without as much boom) but the exaggerated nature of the HPA-01 and the PS1000 made the difference in the DACs a bit more noticeable
 
For detail retrieval, I’m not capable of telling a difference. All the little whispers and inhales and licking of lips right next to mics sounds pretty much the same from both from my gear. If one of them is missing something I have not yet heard it. But I’ve always felt limited in this area. I don’t think I pick up as much as other people here.
 
In regards to tone and timbre, I think both are very natural sounding. There’s no obvious artificiality or sheen or glare to my ears. That’s really why I like the DC-1 so much. It does a great job with tone and naturalness, even if it doesn't match the NAD in terms of scale. The only tonal difference I heard was with the bass response/impact and that was noted partly due to the headphone and amp pairing I was using. With my speakers, it’s not as easy to hear.
 
So, the NAD gets a big thumbs up from me. I really like it. The DC-1 doesn’t quite match the NAD with my setup but it still sounds great and is an easy recommendation from me.

en_r said:

.. I just assumed.

Well, to me the Hugo sounds flat and lacking in dynamics. Before I would say the DAC section is worth 800$ max (but I understand you are paying a premium for the portability), but now I'm not sure how much the analogue circuitry is coming into play here... since the headphone out is quite bad.

Click to expand...

I believe the headphone amp and line out amp are one and the same.

lcfiner said:

Just wanted to say that I also have a DC-1 and think it’s a really good DAC and amazing value considering the performance and I/O. I don’t find the sound to be bright or glaring or suffer from raspiness. I really like it.

To contribute a comparison to the thread, I’ve been doing some listening comparisons this weekend on my recently acquired NAD M51 vs the DC-1. Thought I’d share

eqpt: QUAD 12L active bookshelves on isoacoustic stands in a near field setup.
Bakoon HPA-01 and Grado PS1000 (but I’ve done almost all comparisons with the speakers).
HDMI to NAD (tried USB on NAD, HDMI seemed slightly smoother, might be placebo.) USB into DC-1

I volume matched as closely as I could with a mic and pink noise. But I might still be off by a dB, although I think any loudness difference might be in favour of the DC-1, anyway. (pink noise level moves around slightly and minor peaks from measuring DC-1 were a bit higher)

Key takeaway: I think the NAD is better overall but I think the DC-1 holds up quite well. 

I find the sound from the NAD and speaker combo to be larger than with DC-1. The stage extends further outside the speakers and there’s a bit more depth to the soundstage. The size of everything is enlarged but imaging also seems a bit more focused for main vocals. NAD seems more lively overall and I think it has a greater sense of macrodynamics for orchestral music.



To my surprise, I think the NAD might be prone to a hint more sibilance (high ‘sss” sounds in vocals) than the DC-1. Just a hint (maybe a good usb/spdif converter will reduce this?) But that little extra bite also comes along with vocals and instruments sounding more prominent and forward than with the DC-1. 

I did try moving the DC-1 volume up from the matched levels to see if I could “overcompensate”  and get a bigger stage to match the NAD M51 (since I felt the differences in scale I was hearing was something that a volume mismatch could explain) but it didn’t really work out. sounded louder, yes, but not more expansive. same confines within the speaker boxes. so I just moved it back to the matched levels.

One of the differences I noted with headphones was with the bass response of the PS1000 and the HPA-01 amp. The Bakoon’s current output will create a bump at around 100 Hz on the PS1000. The PS1000 already has a boosted response in this area. On the DC-1, I felt the combo was too much for songs with a continuous driving bass line - it got too muddy with a lot of bloom around the notes, clouding the melody of the bass. But on the NAD, the mud is reduced. there’s still a boost in the bass region with the amp/headphone pair but the bloom around a bass guitar is reduced and initial bass strum is more defined. (On voltage output, this extra bloom isn’t there, just the PS1000’s natural bass boost)

This probably wouldn’t be as noticeable with a different amp/headphone pair (something better behaved without as much boom) but the exaggerated nature of the HPA-01 and the PS1000 made the difference in the DACs a bit more noticeable

For detail retrieval, I’m not capable of telling a difference. All the little whispers and inhales and licking of lips right next to mics sounds pretty much the same from both from my gear. If one of them is missing something I have not yet heard it. But I’ve always felt limited in this area. I don’t think I pick up as much as other people here.

In regards to tone and timbre, I think both are very natural sounding. There’s no obvious artificiality or sheen or glare to my ears. That’s really why I like the DC-1 so much. It does a great job with tone and naturalness, even if it doesn't match the NAD in terms of scale. The only tonal difference I heard was with the bass response/impact and that was noted partly due to the headphone and amp pairing I was using. With my speakers, it’s not as easy to hear.

So, the NAD gets a big thumbs up from me. I really like it. The DC-1 doesn’t quite match the NAD with my setup but it still sounds great and is an easy recommendation from me.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I found, documented elsewhere on this site

Only the PS Audio PWD II bested these two in my tests.

lcfiner said:

  HDMI to NAD (tried USB on NAD, HDMI seemed slightly smoother, might be placebo.) USB into DC-1

Click to expand...

 
The USB input of the DC-1 isn't galvanically isolated so adding something like a Schiit Wyrd might help improve the sound quality a bit more. I've tried using a jkspdif mk3 converter and going through coax, and also inserting an Olimex usb isolator for the usb input. Both changed the sound a little bit for the better. I can't accurately describe the changes since it's been a while, but I just wanted to add that. I assume the NAD has cleaner power for all its inputs to begin with.

applehead said:

   
The USB input of the DC-1 isn't galvanically isolated so adding something like a Schiit Wyrd might help improve the sound quality a bit more.

Click to expand...

 
not turning you against trying a Wyrd (I have one with a Modi), but your "galvanically isolated" comment is irrelevant for USB 2.0 standards.
so sayeth Jason of Schiit, in the FAQ of Wyrd itself.

jexby said:

not turning you against trying a Wyrd (I have one with a Modi), but your "galvanically isolated" comment is irrelevant for USB 2.0 standards.
so sayeth Jason of Schiit, in the FAQ of Wyrd itself.

Click to expand...

Its fine, I've been trying to confirm the same thing myself although I haven't had the time to do a proper side by side comparison or abx yet. Do you think the modi improved any by adding the wyred?

applehead said:

Its fine, I've been trying to confirm the same thing myself although I haven't had the time to do a proper side by side comparison or abx yet. Do you think the modi improved any by adding the wyred?

Click to expand...

 
just got the Modi a couple days back, and to be honest- haven't tried it without the Wyrd yet.
Purrin and others have sworn by the Wyrd improvement to the "simple USB powered" Modi, almost to the point I don't want to waste a time consuming A/B test only to confirm his results.

 
Note however, I have added the Wyrd inline to my Concero HD --> Lyr 2, and wouldn't say the Wyrd appreciably improved the Concero HD.
Concero HD has a bunch of internal USB "improvements" on it's own accord in the hardware path and USB controller parts.
so it's possible the HD on it's own does "some" of what Wyrd is performing already..... thus, the lack of Wyrd effect.

boatheelmusic said:

This is exactly what I found, documented elsewhere on this site

Only the PS Audio PWD II bested these two in my tests.

Click to expand...

 
Would you mind linking me to your comparison? I’d like to read it and must have missed it when searching through the site for M51 reviews the last couple weeks. thanks 
 

applehead said:

   
The USB input of the DC-1 isn't galvanically isolated so adding something like a Schiit Wyrd might help improve the sound quality a bit more. I've tried using a jkspdif mk3 converter and going through coax, and also inserting an Olimex usb isolator for the usb input. Both changed the sound a little bit for the better. I can't accurately describe the changes since it's been a while, but I just wanted to add that. I assume the NAD has cleaner power for all its inputs to begin with.

Click to expand...

 
I’ve considered getting a Wyrd, wondering if the data rechecking would make any difference (for either amp). But I think I’ll just wait till my wallet recovers from the NAD purchase and then look into an AP2+PP. They have a good return policy in case I don’t hear enough of  a difference with the NAD to justify keeping it.

purrin said:

 
 
 
Includes a few not discussed in the thread - mostly the stuff I don't like.

Click to expand...

 
Is it the metalic treble that you hate from the SABRE DAC's?

lcfiner said:

   
Would you mind linking me to your comparison? I’d like to read it and must have missed it when searching through the site for M51 reviews the last couple weeks. thanks 
 
 
I’ve considered getting a Wyrd, wondering if the data rechecking would make any difference (for either amp). But I think I’ll just wait till my wallet recovers from the NAD purchase and then look into an AP2+PP. They have a good return policy in case I don’t hear enough of  a difference with the NAD to justify keeping it.

Click to expand...

Here it is:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/708858/some-dac-preamp-comparisons-long
 
 
You may wish to audition the PWD, available new for $1,750 or so on Audiogon.
 
IMO, a better DAC for less $$$

mowglycdb said:

  Is it the metalic treble that you hate from the SABRE DAC's?

Click to expand...

 
The SABRE timbre has never sounded quite right to be. That's definitely the number one issue. The second issue, tangentially related, which seems to be less talked about, is that the lesser implementations don't do a good job reproducing low level information, but yet at the same time bring gross details to the forefront. Tons of in your face macrodetail without supporting microdetail. That bugs the heck out of me. It's false advertising. The third issue is that the SABRE implementations don't seem to have good bass pitch differentiation or texture. Rather than a low frequency pitch, we get a thud.
 
A lot of it could be implementation though. SABRE tends to be very popular, especially with the cheap stuff. I don't know the business or engineering reasons why SABRE is so popular. Maybe it's easy to implement with pre-baked basic designs freely given out by ESS once you sign the contract and NDA.

Hi purrin. How does your EC4-45 drive a speaker? Which speaker do you use now?

purrin, when you were talking about the Octave, were you referring to Mk1, Mk2, or both? If Mk2, did you try the USB input, and if so, how was it?

doyouknowsbmean said:

Hi purrin. How does your EC4-45 drive a speaker? Which speaker do you use now?

Click to expand...

 
4-45 has speaker taps. Only 3 watts at most. With the Fostex 6" Sigma BLH, it's used with a sub. With the open baffle:, x'over via single cap at 400Hz to a Moth Cicada driver and 2nd order low-pass via processsor to a power amp to drive the 15" woofer. With the Altec horn, plan is to x'over w/ 2nd order butterworth at 550Hz, and maybe PLLXO to SS power amp to handle the 15". I'm always working on something new or different.
 

hans030390 said:

  purrin, when you were talking about the Octave, were you referring to Mk1, Mk2, or both? If Mk2, did you try the USB input, and if so, how was it?

Click to expand...

 
The mk2 units, but via coax. I've never tried the built-in USB interface on them.

Cool, thanks. I'm thinking about eventually changing to an Octave Mk2 setup. Dunno, I like the extra detail and resolving ability on the NOS1704 when doing direct comparisons, but I think I just prefer the Metrum's presentation in the end. I know the Mk2 has new boards based on what's in the Hex, and I believe it doesn't use output transformers like the Hex does (going back to some impressions I've read stating the Quad/Octave sounded more "direct" than the Hex due to this). Curious to check it out some day. I'm hoping the USB implementation with something like the iFi USB or Wyrd would be good enough to negate the need for a USB->SPDIF converter to both save some money and simplify my setup (still an extra box either way, I guess).