[MLGrado]

not the ZEN DAC, but I had to also take advantage of the new product updates to remove the ZEN Phono from my heavily modified Rega RP3 setup and try out the iFi ZEN Phono V3... cannot wait....

 

[sunjam]

That thread you linked gives me a headache. lol. It inspired me to start writing an easy, fairly concise summary of the 'pure DSD' Dacs, how they ALL work around Thermometer/unary coding/dynamic element matching on my blog at euphonicreview.com. This has just been an idea in my mind but looks like this post may be a start.

The Signalyst DSC is an excellent proof of concept of 'true' 'pure' 'native' 'insert adjective of choice here' DSD DAC, but it's the same technique used (of course with minor variations with different makers) by Burr-Brown, T-A, any AKM DAC that actually has the bypass option available as a choice.

ROHM (a new player on the hi-fi scene as best I can tell. Not new to the IC market. My SMSL D300 is powered by their top chip, and I love it.) They offer no choice how you convert DSD. If you put in PCM, it is converted just like PCM typically is in a Delta Sigma DAC. If you send DSD, the ONLY way it will process it is native DSD via its analog FIR filter. There is no possibility for any DSD DSP. (I love it lol. To be fair, when it comes the DSD conversion Burr-Brown/TI chips work in similar manner)

Holo Audio is essentially the same thing although they use marketing jargon and call their DSD conversion a 'ladder' DAC. In TRUTH, ALL DSD FIR DACs that use resistors have a so called 'ladder' of usually equal weight elements. What confuses/interests me about Holo is how they use a redundant 'ladder' for each filter. I have some educated guesses how that might work, and at the same time I have actually no idea! But I do know that depending on the version, its either an 8tap (9level) or a 16 tap (17 level) FIR moving average filter.

Denafrips uses marketing to muck things up too.... calling it a 6 bit DSD converter?? No its not a mulit-bit delta sigma converter. Its a PURE DSD Direct analog FIR filter with 32taps/33 levels. By MY math, it could technically convert, if you used parallel in parallel out registers just barely over 5 bits.. by 1 tiny level. I guess they like to round up... WAY up lol. Or maybe there is another explanation. I have asked many times to no avail. But as it actually is, its a 1-bit converter, with serial in parallel out shift registers just like the pure DSD DACS mentioned above.

And yes, there are others out there. All the DACs of the above types that I have had the change to evaluate, which is most, sound truly OUTSTANDING with HQPlayer. It's the best of both worlds. The simplest, cleanest Digital to Analog Conversion out there, with the best digital DSP you could have, IMO. This is especially true with the lesser expensive DACS. Realistically, no one in their right mind would have a PC over 1000 bucks, a nearly 400 dollar piece of software to maximize out a 250 dollar DAC lol. BUT, IF YOU DO HAPPEN TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO TRY IT, you would be amazed at the sound you would get. One would swear they were listening to a multi-thousand dollar DAC in a blind-test. And yeah, in a sense they would be lol. Diminishing returns would be found as you get better and better DAC's though. I have not tried it yet, but I don't expect HQPlayer running my iFi IDSD PRO at DSD512 or DSD1024 is going to sound that much better than the already outstanding DSP on FPGA custom made by iFi. Still, these kind of pure DSD DACs can be and are audibly some of the most impressive, especially at the budget level when given the source to shine.


As far as DSD DACS that don't belong with those above.


ESS--YES the actual DAC section is an unary coded 64 element trimmed resistor FIR filter per channel (what many still consider 1-bit conversion, because unary code can be seen as multiple 1-bit streams), but the hyperstream DSM works at 6 binary bits. Getting ahead of ourselves though. back to where things begin in the DAC, not end...

Way back Before all that, ALL DSD first goes to a specific DSP that converts DSD to a multi-bit intermediate via FIR filter.(* see ESS diagram attached)

However many bits comes out of the FIR filter, is multiplied by a 32 binary bit gain control. It would be easy to think if one doesn't use the volume control, the entire DSP of filter and gain control is bypassed. This is incorrect. The FIR filter is the first necessary step to go from a bitstream to something multi-bit. You can go all the way back to Sony's white papers on DSD-Wide, and see this is EXACTLY how they accomplish the same thing. Nothing new under the sun!

Of course the FIR filter will leave redundant samples as in ANY type of filter, although they do NOT remove the redundancies, keeping the sample rate at the same DSD rate that came in. Thats how DSD can go through a ASRC for jitter control as well. Oh, and before the ASRC, there is another more specific IIR filtering stage for noise control before the noise shaper.

Yes, filtering and 'redundancy' in samples happens in a Pure DSD DAC too, but at the DAC side it only happens ONCE (twice if you count the completely different analog I-V or RC filter that will follow). But it happens in the actual digital to analog conversion itself (the analog FIR output filter) and doesn't have the massive amounts of DSP and remodulations attached to it.

Any AKM NOT specifically in DSD DIRECT or BYPASS mode. See ESS above for how it works lol. In the most basic sense, that is. It has its own nuances and functions that lead to the same thing.

Chord... his FPGA DAC isn't Pure DSD in the sense we have defined already with the Signalyst DSC DAC as the example par excellence. Its more like the ESS types, or actually a lot like the PSAudio DirectStream, except the output stage of the PSAUDIO Direct Stream IS a true 128x DSD 1-bit modulator with analog filter.


And there are many others.. and I don't want to knock these things. I am just saying they are not pure native DSD conversion in its simplest form.

Some of them may have BETTER sounding results with their ingenious DSP. Like Mola-Mola which converts all to a PCM rate over 3 megahertz I think for processing, then the final DAC is a true 1 bit Pulse Width Modulator with noise shaping converted via an analog filter with further smoothing accomplished with its I-V converter. I would LOVE to hear one of these. The implementation sounds amazing.

Another GREAT one is DCS and their 'ring' DAC.

Its actually a lot like the ESS chip in how it works. ALL data PCM and DSD is processed by a 5 binary bit delta sigma modulator, that then is (still) on FPGA converted from binary to unary code, uses dynamic element matching to something like 48 elements? More elements than necessary, but all the better for linearity. (yeah, I forgot to mention that ESS in their output stage uses similar dynamic element matching and calls it a revolver DAC)


Now for those who will misunderstand me and get me wrong... I consider all these examples to be actual, real DSD DACS. With different ideas on how to best do conversion.


They are NOT in the category of what I would consider NON-DSD DACS that still accept DSD. Now THAT third if you will category of DSD DAC are non-native PERIOD.

DACS like this tend to be R2R DACs that do a full filtering and removal of all redundant samples, to something like 24bit 176.4khz for direct non-oversampling conversion with their R2R ladder. In other words decimating DACs.

(well, this is what most people think of when they hear decimation, although I could have used that word earlier in this post and still have been correct, but people would not have understood what I indeed meant and a fanboy argument would persist.)

What kind of DACs do this? I know there a few but none are coming immediately to mind that accept DSD, display DSD, yet convert immediately to a standard PCM rate and never look back.


Anyway... there is a start to the next part of my blog series... sorry I fried my brain a bit.. .which was my original complaint about this subject in the first place lol!!!

DSD Direct Discussion Thread

"That thread you linked gives me a headache. lol" <== Yes, I felt the same too when I joined the thread around late March initially. I think Roon's discussion forum system is pretty bad for people to read / follow old posts as the posts are badly organized/structured.

However, I felt better once you joined the discussion for a few days. I could follow new posts easily as it appeared. I asked some stupid questions to start with and the people there is so nice in explaining a lot of things to me, especially, Jussi Laako, the developer of HQPlayer. I learned a lot related DAC internal, DAC details, digital filtering, over- / up- sampling, etc. from that thread (as I ran off-topic from time to time in order to learn more). I need to go back to that thread from time to time in order to keep track of posts there, otherwise, I would be at lost again.

In my mind, Jussi is one of the best DAC experts in the world as he did a lot of tests / measurements of different DACs. The DAC you mentioned earlier, The Signalyst DSC, was desinged by him.

In fact, I was looking at a DSD Direct DAC iinitially for DSD1024/DSD512 (e.g. E30 II, and DIY DAC based on 4499EQ) . I ended up got the iFi Zen DAC v2 based on his (and other pro uses') recommendation. It was one of the great buy for me (the other one I did was the purchase of Fosi V3 class D amp).

I will always go back to him for anything related to DAC (and even stuffs related to the Sampling thoery used in Digita Audio). He is always there in the thread I mentioned earlier. No sure if he could help you for your writing but he is always there for me for any DAC related questions.

(BTW, here may be a nice point to enter if you are interested to try again with the thread regarding "questionable AKM DSD Direct mode")

Native DSD = DSD Direct?
It looks to me there are a lot of confusion regarding the term Native DSD. I suggest in your official writing, you could consider to help people to clearify the term "Native DSD" when they see it on any marketing materisls.

Here is my understanding of these terms are (in the companies’ marketing sense) (please let me know if these are not correct)

1. Native DSD support: means DAC can take DSD data stream natively (i.e. raw DSD data stream) for processing. It has nothing to do with how the DAC handles the DSD data stream internally. This usually requires ASIO driver for Windows and Mac does not support it
2. DoP (aka DSD over PCM) support: means DSD data stream is packed in PCM packets for sending to the DAC (as all the DACs support PCM flow). As it requires larger PCM packets for sending the DSD data, it usually supports lower DSD bitrate under DoP. i.e. DACs support DSD512 (DSD Native) may only support DSD256 (DoP). Moreover, I think most people / companies consider DoP as not “DSD Native” (even it can transfer bit perfect DSD data to the DAC). Again, it has nothing to do with how the DAC handles the DSD data stream internally in the D-to-A process. Windows can support it without any driver installed.
3. DSD Direct, Pure DSD (or something like that): means the DAC would by pass all the DAC’s internal oversampling / Delta-Sigma modulation / etc and would only use very simple / direct way to convert the 1-bit DSD datastream to final analog signal. It could happen or not with the “Native DSD” or “DoP” flow (i.e. non “Native DSD” flow) depends on if the DAC support this DSD Direct option.

Some chips do not support DSD Direct option at all (e.g. ESS)
Some chips only support DSD Direct (e.g. BB’s DSD1793)
Some chips make it optional (e.g. AKM). It depends on the indivdual maker / DAC design

Mis-leading information regarding DACs

During my journey in finding the best DAC for my HQPlayer / DSD upsampling setup, I came across a lot of pseudo science claims from various so-called "Audio Science" discussion forum. The worst one is, no doubt, ASR.

One of these pseudo science claim is:

"if different DACs are measured audibly transparent, it would sound the same"
"if you hear any difference, it is either your brain is fooling you or you are using a poor reconstructed filter that cause it"

Here, they have a very different definition of "audibly transparent". Not the one commonly used in the Audiophiles world.

In my eyes, this pseudo science claim is killing the DAC market for the Hi Fi industry. In the end, if the general public truely believe what they claim, the market would end up with all copy-cat mass produced standard chip-based DACs.

Mis-leading information regarding "Hi-Res is useless"
Another pseduo science claim is that "Hi-Res is useless". The people in the "science based' discussion forum believe this claim in a "religious way" IMO rather than based on factual scientific research.

On these forums, you would hear from the senior members, who seems know audio sciecne well, attempt to brainwash you with comments like "you SHOULD not hear any difference between Hi-Res and CD, if you do it means you don't trust science" or
"science proved that you cannot hear it" or
"science proved that Hi-Res is useless"...

LOL... I attempted to argue with them with scientific facts... In the end, they just kicked me out and deleted all my postings there. LOL....
In my eyes, they are using this pseduo science to kill the Hi-Res market. I understand some people may not be able to hear the difference but why they HAVE TO kill the Hi-Res market and stop other people from enjoying better music? Really, I don't get it.

Worth to mention these mis-leading info while you are talking about DACs?
To me, I feel the obligation to debunk these pseduo science claim (as my background seems to be able to help).

I decided to start my own blog (on my signature) and try my best to debunk all these stupid pseudo science claim. "With great power comes great responsibility?" LOL... I am just a ordinary guy

I attempted to join/create various discussions on supposed-to-be "audio science" based discssion forum in order to do so....

I did that on ASR. Failed.... I was banned totally and they removed all my postings there
I did that on Roon forum. Failed..... I was banned temporarily for a month. My posting there was hidden but still accessible there via direct link.
I am doing it here, on Head-Fi...... I encounter a lot of opposing pressure but the good thing is that the thread is still active. just deleted. Feel free to join and comment there. <=== the moderator just deleted the thread and remove all the old posts in the thread.. Sigh...

Not sure if you are interested in "got involved" in these topics, i.e. "different DACs sounds the same", "Hi-Res is useless". IMO, a few words on your official writing would have a great help on the "dying?" DAC and Hi-Res market.

Worth to mentioned while you are talking about DACs?

"Realistically, no one in their right mind would have a PC over 1000 bucks, a nearly 400 dollar piece of software to maximize out a 250 dollar DAC lol"

In my mind, I would re-writie it like this "Realistically, no one in their right mind would have a PC over 1000 bucks, a nearly 400 dollar piece of software to maximize out a 250 dollar DAC. They could save the money for better amp and speakers as they don't have to worry about the source anymore. lol"

(Sorry for my long post. It may be a bit off topic but my expereince and recent journey in the audio science world help me to make a wise decision IMO, i.e. I end up got the iFi Zen DAC v2 for my upsampled DSD music. I may upgrade to v3 later. Cheers)

 

[MLGrado]

DSD Direct Discussion Thread

"That thread you linked gives me a headache. lol" <== Yes, I felt the same too when I joined the thread around late March initially. I think Roon's discussion forum system is pretty bad for people to read / follow old posts as the posts are badly organized/structured.

However, I felt better once you joined the discussion for a few days. I could follow new posts easily as it appeared. I asked some stupid questions to start with and the people there is so nice in explaining a lot of things to me, especially, Jussi Laako, the developer of HQPlayer. I learned a lot related DAC internal, DAC details, digital filtering, over- / up- sampling, etc. from that thread (as I ran off-topic from time to time in order to learn more). I need to go back to that thread from time to time in order to keep track of posts there, otherwise, I would be at lost again.

In my mind, Jussi is one of the best DAC experts in the world as he did a lot of tests / measurements of different DACs. The DAC you mentioned earlier, The Signalyst DSC, was desinged by him.

In fact, I was looking at a DSD Direct DAC iinitially for DSD1024/DSD512 (e.g. E30 II, and DIY DAC based on 4499EQ) . I ended up got the iFi Zen DAC v2 based on his (and other pro uses') recommendation. It was one of the great buy for me (the other one I did was the purchase of Fosi V3 class D amp).

I will always go back to him for anything related to DAC (and even stuffs related to the Sampling thoery used in Digita Audio). He is always there in the thread I mentioned earlier. No sure if he could help you for your writing but he is always there for me for any DAC related questions.

(BTW, here may be a nice point to enter if you are interested to try again with the thread regarding "questionable AKM DSD Direct mode")

Native DSD = DSD Direct?
It looks to me there are a lot of confusion regarding the term Native DSD. I suggest in your official writing, you could consider to help people to clearify the term "Native DSD" when they see it on any marketing materisls.

Here is my understanding of these terms are (in the companies’ marketing sense) (please let me know if these are not correct)

1. Native DSD support: means DAC can take DSD data stream natively (i.e. raw DSD data stream) for processing. It has nothing to do with how the DAC handles the DSD data stream internally. This usually requires ASIO driver for Windows and Mac does not support it
2. DoP (aka DSD over PCM) support: means DSD data stream is packed in PCM packets for sending to the DAC (as all the DACs support PCM flow). As it requires larger PCM packets for sending the DSD data, it usually supports lower DSD bitrate under DoP. i.e. DACs support DSD512 (DSD Native) may only support DSD256 (DoP). Moreover, I think most people / companies consider DoP as not “DSD Native” (even it can transfer bit perfect DSD data to the DAC). Again, it has nothing to do with how the DAC handles the DSD data stream internally in the D-to-A process. Windows can support it without any driver installed.
3. DSD Direct, Pure DSD (or something like that): means the DAC would by pass all the DAC’s internal oversampling / Delta-Sigma modulation / etc and would only use very simple / direct way to convert the 1-bit DSD datastream to final analog signal. It could happen or not with the “Native DSD” or “DoP” flow (i.e. non “Native DSD” flow) depends on if the DAC support this DSD Direct option.

Some chips do not support DSD Direct option at all (e.g. ESS)
Some chips only support DSD Direct (e.g. BB’s DSD1793)
Some chips make it optional (e.g. AKM). It depends on the indivdual maker / DAC design

Mis-leading information regarding DACs

During my journey in finding the best DAC for my HQPlayer / DSD upsampling setup, I came across a lot of pseudo science claims from various so-called "Audio Science" discussion forum. The worst one is, no doubt, ASR.

One of these pseudo science claim is:

"if different DACs are measured audibly transparent, it would sound the same"
"if you hear any difference, it is either your brain is fooling you or you are using a poor reconstructed filter that cause it"

Here, they have a very different definition of "audibly transparent". Not the one commonly used in the Audiophiles world.

In my eyes, this pseudo science claim is killing the DAC market for the Hi Fi industry. In the end, if the general public truely believe what they claim, the market would end up with all copy-cat mass produced standard chip-based DACs.

Mis-leading information regarding "Hi-Res is useless"
Another pseduo science claim is that "Hi-Res is useless". The people in the "science based' discussion forum believe this claim in a "religious way" IMO rather than based on factual scientific research.

On these forums, you would hear from the senior members, who seems know audio sciecne well, attempt to brainwash you with comments like "you SHOULD not hear any difference between Hi-Res and CD, if you do it means you don't trust science" or
"science proved that you cannot hear it" or
"science proved that Hi-Res is useless"...

LOL... I attempted to argue with them with scientific facts... In the end, they just kicked me out and deleted all my postings there. LOL....
In my eyes, they are using this pseduo science to kill the Hi-Res market. I understand some people may not be able to hear the difference but why they HAVE TO kill the Hi-Res market and stop other people from enjoying better music? Really, I don't get it.

Worth to mention these mis-leading info while you are talking about DACs?
To me, I feel the obligation to debunk these pseduo science claim (as my background seems to be able to help).

I decided to start my own blog (on my signature) and try my best to debunk all these stupid pseudo science claim. "With great power comes great responsibility?" LOL... I am just a ordinary guy

I attempted to join/create various discussions on supposed-to-be "audio science" based discssion forum in order to do so....

I did that on ASR. Failed.... I was banned totally and they removed all my postings there
I did that on Roon forum. Failed..... I was banned temporarily for a month. My posting there was hidden but still accessible there via direct link.
I am doing it here, on Head-Fi...... I encounter a lot of opposing pressure but the good thing is that the thread is still active. Feel free to join and comment there.

Not sure if you are interested in "got involved" in these topics, i.e. "different DACs sounds the same", "Hi-Res is useless". IMO, a few words on your official writing would have a great help on the "dying?" DAC and Hi-Res market.

Worth to mentioned while you are talking about DACs?

"Realistically, no one in their right mind would have a PC over 1000 bucks, a nearly 400 dollar piece of software to maximize out a 250 dollar DAC lol"

In my mind, I would re-writie it like this "Realistically, no one in their right mind would have a PC over 1000 bucks, a nearly 400 dollar piece of software to maximize out a 250 dollar DAC. They could save the money for better amp and speakers as they don't have to worry about the source anymore. lol"

(Sorry for my long post. It may be a bit off topic but my expereince and recent journey in the audio science world help me to make a wise decision IMO, i.e. I end up got the iFi Zen DAC v2 for my upsampled DSD music. I may upgrade to v3 later. Cheers)

yes, getting some clarity on how to define these things would be helpful. So many people seem to be speaking a different language. We need clearly defined terms.

for instance, one major hangup in understanding PCM vs DSD is exactly what we mean by bits. Bits can be defined in different ways. Often they are exchanged or even confused with levels.

An example.... The Delta Sigma section of the BurrBrown DSD1793 Segment DAC is a 5 level modulator. If we call it a 5 bit modulator, which is not necessarily incorrect either, we get complete confusion because of how it can be interpreted. By 5 levels, it is literally five 1 bit streams. As far as 'bits' are concerned, these are bits as would be expressed in 'unary' or 'thermometer' code. If we were to describe the modulator in BINARY BITS, it is just a single level more than 2 binary bits. 2 binary bits is 4 levels.

If we had a hypothetical 3 level unary coded delta sigma modulator, then that could be called 1.5 bit binary code, even if that is an awkward mathematical expression.

The point is, there are similar terms that can, do, and will mean different things when talking about Delta Sigma vs PCM.

Once you understand the way unary code vs binary code can be used, anyone is well on their way to understanding Delta Sigma concepts.

One last example, back to the DSD1793 used in most iFi products. It is virtually in its entirety a unary coded DAC. Which makes it very unique and special. Even when decoding PCM, it will convert to a system of levels rather than binary weighted bits. Because converting 24 bits into its maximum number of levels would be impossible with individual hardware elements, only the top 6 PCM bits, which makes up 64 levels, are converted that way. The bottom 18 are converted by the aforementioned 5 level delta sigma modulator. Both are unary coded at output, and can be combined together in a common code that uses over 64 equally weighted elements that allow for scramble code even with bit perfect PCM for the top 6 bits! The top 6 bits are simple repeated at the same rate as the delta sigma converter. They stay 'bit perfect' even through the scramble code. Its an ingenious system and I intentially described it in a very elementary way, so anyone with clarifications, I probably already know where you are going, just understand I am simplifying.

THEN the other genius thing it can do is use those 64 plus equally weighted resistor elements/switches to convert DSD as Pure 1 bit ala the Signalyst DAC example. Here is where the word bit becomes a matter of confusion again though. We are now talking about a bitstream. To convert the DSD bitstream. 8 of the single bits of the DSD stream are taken up in TIME via serial to parallel shift registers. The end result is 8 exact copies of the original DSD stream stacked on top of each other, but offset in time by one clock cycle for the filtering. Its a moving average FIR filter. Where the burr brown is different that say the Signalyst, is it has over 64 elements to work with but only 8 streams to convert. So groupings of the 64 plus elements are combined into one element, as long as there are always a total of 8 different COMBINATIONS of elements. Hypothetically, one 'element' could have 16 resistors, another 4, another 2, etc. etc. until you have 8 combinations of 64+ switches for your 8 needed elements .In this manner it acts as a non-equally weighted 8 bit/tap FIR converter that allows for multiple filter cuts and rolloffs.


So again, the point for me would be emphasis on how the unary coded world can and does work, and the many conversion possibilities that exist in it. Yes, while it is true that as multi-bit delta sigma converters grow to more and more levels, and bandwidth becomes an issue, they use Binary (PCM or PCM like) coding to represent the levels. But at some point it will be converted back into a unary code before conversion. DCS is the example that comes to mind. Its a 5 binary bit (not 5 level) Delta Sigma converter that before conversion to analog is returned to a 33 level (0-32) unary code that goes through their proprietary dynamic element matching called the 'ring' as part of the conversion to analog.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I am very much a stream of thought writer, so what comes out on the message board can't be what ends up in a planned treatise. I am the world's worst proofreader lol..

and with that I check the clock and see its 2:40am here so time to call it a night.

happy listening as always

Andrew

 

[iFi audio]

not the ZEN DAC, but I had to also take advantage of the new product updates to remove the ZEN Phono from my heavily modified Rega RP3 setup and try out the iFi ZEN Phono V3... cannot wait....

Looking forward to your thoughts in the official thread, here...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ifi-audio-zen-phono-3-turn-on-tranquility.972485/#post-18116342

Cheers!!

 

[nioh]

Zen DAC V3 has finally arrived ! Took a long time.

• First thing I noticed when I took it out of the box is how lightweight it is compared to the original Zen DAC. I looked at the specifications just to confirm and yes it weighs half the original at just 450g.
• The new design is an eye catcher, it's gorgeous !
• Volume wheel is a lot smoother compared to the original, yet it has some resistance. It feels perfect.
• Buttons (XBass and Power Match) have feather touch. Almost feels like operating a touch screen.
• 4.4mm balanced out is at the right corner which is a real smart design in my opinion. It does not obstruct other functions. On the original Zen DAC I had a problem that the 4.4mm port did not properly fit the MDR-Z1R cable pin and I had to twist it a bit. No such problem on the V3 and it fits perfectly.
• As with all IFI products, it works plug and play out of the box with both PC and PS5. No switch or weird combinations to toggle UAC1/UAC2, it's automatic.
• Can be operated on USB-C alone without additional power which is another plus for me. When I shutdown the PC, the DAC also turns off immediately. I remember someone mentioning here that it was not powering off. I don't see this problem.
• It definitely sounds better than the original Zen DAC. Although just looking at the paper I can't say why because they have almost identical specifications.
• XBass is a plus although on my MDR-Z1R I don't need it at all. The Zen DAC already brings out all the lows and highs in Z1R and the headphones sound as it should without any EQing.
• RCA ports at the back are covered by default which is great because I don't use them anyway.
• The DAC also seems to run quite cool (temperature) compared to the original. I will have to use it for longer periods to confirm this.

What has not changed from the original

• At very low volume (like 5% of the wheel), there is still the channel imbalance. This does not bother me however because at such low volume I can't listen to anything anyway.

TLDR: Even though on paper it looks like the only difference between previous Zen DACs (V1/V2) and the latest one is the USB-C port, I can assure you that it is not as you can read above. I would say it's a worthy upgrade for existing Zen DAC owners and definitely can't recommend this enough for any DAC/AMP buyers even 2 or 3 times it's price.

For now I have put my Xduoo XD05Pro away as the Zen DAC 3 is much more compact, light and sounds great with my headphones without any EQ/tweaking required, only one cable for both power and audio and one DAC for both my PC and Consoles !

Well done, @iFi audio ! Still waiting for the Go Blu V2

 

[iFi audio]

Zen DAC V3 has finally arrived ! Took a long time.

• First thing I noticed when I took it out of the box is how lightweight it is compared to the original Zen DAC. I looked at the specifications just to confirm and yes it weighs half the original at just 450g.
• The new design is an eye catcher, it's gorgeous !
• Volume wheel is a lot smoother compared to the original, yet it has some resistance. It feels perfect.
• Buttons (XBass and Power Match) have feather touch. Almost feels like operating a touch screen.
• 4.4mm balanced out is at the right corner which is a real smart design in my opinion. It does not obstruct other functions. On the original Zen DAC I had a problem that the 4.4mm port did not properly fit the MDR-Z1R cable pin and I had to twist it a bit. No such problem on the V3 and it fits perfectly.
• As with all IFI products, it works plug and play out of the box with both PC and PS5. No switch or weird combinations to toggle UAC1/UAC2, it's automatic.
• Can be operated on USB-C alone without additional power which is another plus for me. When I shutdown the PC, the DAC also turns off immediately. I remember someone mentioning here that it was not powering off. I don't see this problem.
• It definitely sounds better than the original Zen DAC. Although just looking at the paper I can't say why because they have almost identical specifications.
• XBass is a plus although on my MDR-Z1R I don't need it at all. The Zen DAC already brings out all the lows and highs in Z1R and the headphones sound as it should without any EQing.
• RCA ports at the back are covered by default which is great because I don't use them anyway.
• The DAC also seems to run quite cool (temperature) compared to the original. I will have to use it for longer periods to confirm this.

What has not changed from the original

• At very low volume (like 5% of the wheel), there is still the channel imbalance. This does not bother me however because at such low volume I can't listen to anything anyway.

TLDR: Even though on paper it looks like the only difference between previous Zen DACs (V1/V2) and the latest one is the USB-C port, I can assure you that it is not as you can read above. I would say it's a worthy upgrade for existing Zen DAC owners and definitely can't recommend this enough for any DAC/AMP buyers even 2 or 3 times it's price.

For now I have put my Xduoo XD05Pro away as the Zen DAC 3 is much more compact, light and sounds great with my headphones without any EQ/tweaking required, only one cable for both power and audio and one DAC for both my PC and Consoles !

Well done, @iFi audio ! Still waiting for the Go Blu V2

Thanks for your initial thoughts, we appreciate it!

It seems to me (could be placebo) but I feel the ZD3 seems to have a slightly larger (wider) presentation to it, do you notice this?

Cheers!!

 

[nioh]

Thanks for your initial thoughts, we appreciate it!

It seems to me (could be placebo) but I feel the ZD3 seems to have a slightly larger (wider) presentation to it, do you notice this?

Cheers!!

Normally I don't write reviews or detailed impressions. This one definitely deserved it !

Sadly I don't have the original Zen DAC anymore as I gave it away to a friend so I can't say what are the differences in sound. From my memory perhaps you are right, it does sound like it has a slightly wider presentation. It also sounds more even across the frequencies compared to the original where I felt it was a bit too warm at times. The highs on the V3 sound much more detailed to me. Again all this could be placebo as I don't have the original anymore to compare.

Cheers !

 

[sunjam]

Zen DAC V3 has finally arrived ! Took a long time.

• First thing I noticed when I took it out of the box is how lightweight it is compared to the original Zen DAC. I looked at the specifications just to confirm and yes it weighs half the original at just 450g.
• The new design is an eye catcher, it's gorgeous !
• Volume wheel is a lot smoother compared to the original, yet it has some resistance. It feels perfect.
• Buttons (XBass and Power Match) have feather touch. Almost feels like operating a touch screen.
• 4.4mm balanced out is at the right corner which is a real smart design in my opinion. It does not obstruct other functions. On the original Zen DAC I had a problem that the 4.4mm port did not properly fit the MDR-Z1R cable pin and I had to twist it a bit. No such problem on the V3 and it fits perfectly.
• As with all IFI products, it works plug and play out of the box with both PC and PS5. No switch or weird combinations to toggle UAC1/UAC2, it's automatic.
• Can be operated on USB-C alone without additional power which is another plus for me. When I shutdown the PC, the DAC also turns off immediately. I remember someone mentioning here that it was not powering off. I don't see this problem.
• It definitely sounds better than the original Zen DAC. Although just looking at the paper I can't say why because they have almost identical specifications.
• XBass is a plus although on my MDR-Z1R I don't need it at all. The Zen DAC already brings out all the lows and highs in Z1R and the headphones sound as it should without any EQing.
• RCA ports at the back are covered by default which is great because I don't use them anyway.
• The DAC also seems to run quite cool (temperature) compared to the original. I will have to use it for longer periods to confirm this.

What has not changed from the original

• At very low volume (like 5% of the wheel), there is still the channel imbalance. This does not bother me however because at such low volume I can't listen to anything anyway.

TLDR: Even though on paper it looks like the only difference between previous Zen DACs (V1/V2) and the latest one is the USB-C port, I can assure you that it is not as you can read above. I would say it's a worthy upgrade for existing Zen DAC owners and definitely can't recommend this enough for any DAC/AMP buyers even 2 or 3 times it's price.

For now I have put my Xduoo XD05Pro away as the Zen DAC 3 is much more compact, light and sounds great with my headphones without any EQ/tweaking required, only one cable for both power and audio and one DAC for both my PC and Consoles !

Well done, @iFi audio ! Still waiting for the Go Blu V2

Cool, it was a wonderful review.

I would add a few words regarding the difference on paper. Other than Type C, the new V3 now supports 768kHz and DSD512 (instead of 384kHz and DSD256).

As the Zen DAC is doing something like "internal upsampling" (depending on the filter used), the max bitrate supported may be one of the reasons why the output of V3 (768kHz, internal auto upsampled) sounds a bit different than the output of V1/V2 (384kHz, internal auto upsampled).

@iFi audio just wondering if you know what filter is used in V3? Is it same as V2?