[D2Cowones]

I am also in burning process of a new DAC19DSP, I guess up to 250hrs more or less. I can just compare it with Yulong D100 (but recently sold) and a benchmark DAC.
Although is too early, but my impressions so far is, as already said, its high neutrality and pleasant listening, nor too coloured nor analytical, but keeping high level of detail and nice timbre and tonal balance. Maybe not as resolving as the Benchmark is, but more musical.
 
Let's see the progress when ending 400 hours recommended for burning ...

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

I am also in burning process of a new DAC19DSP, I guess up to 250hrs more or less. I can just compare it with Yulong D100 (but recently sold) and a benchmark DAC.
Although is too early, but my impressions so far is, as already said, its high neutrality and pleasant listening, nor too coloured nor analytical, but keeping high level of detail and nice timbre and tonal balance. Maybe not as resolving as the Benchmark is, but more musical.
 
Let's see the progress when ending 400 hours recommended for burning ...

If I remember correctly, the "core qualities" were already there at the 200 hours mark, yet there was still subtle improvement until the 400 hour mark... so you are getting close!
 
However, as it has been indicated (probably many times) the DAC19DSP is highly sensitive to the quality of the transport. I personally believe that the Audio-gd DI, for instance, is not up to the task, no matter how much tweaking you do to improve its sound.
The Audiophilleo2 transformed the sound of the DAC19 (you can read my review of the AP2 if you want more details). And recently, adding the AQVOX USB power supply to the mix improved the sound level a little more. The DSP1 was supposed to be relatively immune to jitter in comparison with the PMD100/DF1704 but in my experience and that of many dac19/ref5/ref7 users, it seems that the DSP1 can scale up amazingly with better transports.
 
Some people consider that sensitivity to the quality of the transport as a sign of high transparency. Other people might see it as a sign of poor jitter rejection. Either way, the end result is the same; it is mandatory to use the best transport one can afford to run the DAC19. Otherwise, when the dac19dsp is used with a regular transport, it is still a neutral DAC but it won't have that ultra high resolution it is capable of when driven with a high quality transport.
 
Overall, here is how I would rate the dac19 sensitivity to external factors.
1. transport
2. power filtration (regular filtration or balanced power)
3. vibration control (if the components downstream are transparent enough)
 
However, no matter how much tweaking you do, the DAC19 can still be lacking in the soundstage department. Although, It has a very wide and well defined soundstage, with good 3D rendering, I still find that the Kingrex UD384 (w/ U Power) can have a deeper and more layered soundstage in many tracks (especially when using J River upsampling to 384K). But the DAC19dsp trounces the UD384 in the resolution and low level details department; with a properly set-up dac19dsp, you can hear the traffic noise outside the recording venue of a classical piece of music.
 
In any case, keep us updated on how thing progress after burn-in.
 
 

 

[D2Cowones]

Thanks for the detailed answer slim.a, (and of course for your review which help me to pull the trigger for DAC19!)
 
Actually I am using an hiface, and after reading your comments I guess I will go for an upgrade in the future.

 

[nibbles]

[size=10pt]Thanks for the original review which had me just trigger for one of the last DAC19s (it would seem from the Audio GD site) + an Audio GD C2.1 (getting delivery of these hopefully sometime next week). Must admit, I'm very torn now over the front end, given the perceived high cost of the Audiophileo2. I had actually almost decided to shoot for the Highface, although that's just about to be superceded by the Highface 2, but not sure that will give me much advantage since I'll be using a PC so no audio driver advantage (next to Mac on Linux). I had also considered the V Link but haven't heard Slim.A. chime in on the V link.[/size]

[size=10pt] [/size]

[size=10pt]I'll be using the setup with a NAD C370 (oldie value goodie 120w integrated) and some TDL RTL3s which are lowish end transmission line speakers and some Sennheiser HD650s.[/size]

[size=10pt] [/size]

[size=10pt]I hope Slim.A. wlll chime in with some comment over diminishing returns, with these front ends, but that's not looking likely, from the tone I've just read Or how he perceives the V-Link next to the high face. He did originally give a fairly good review of the highface.[/size]

[size=10pt] [/size]

[size=10pt]OH, ALMOST FORGOT TO ADD, I'LL BE BLIND TESTING MY NEW KIT. I don't want placebo entering into my judgment PARTICULARLY at these prices! My question has been for sometime, can you tell whether a power conditioner for the Dac e.g. is in the system or not when you're wearing a blindfold and say have your partner remove it and replace it, etc. etc. or do you end up getting divorced trying to find out?[/size] 

 

[slim.a]

Regarding the V Link, it seems like a reasonably well built usb device; however, I have never listened to that device on my system, so I can't give any helpful comment about it.
 
 
As for the point of "diminishing returns", when using transports, it is not something that is straightforward to define.
 
First, there is the matter of how resolving the downstream set-up is. For instance, a resolving headphone such as the Beyer T1 will clearly show you the benefits of a "better" transport. A less resolving headphone or speaker system might change your perception of how much "improvement" there was. Hence, spending $600 on a transport might provide a very good cost-effective upgrade in one system and can give mixed results on another system. 
 
Second, there is a big difference between listeners. Personally, I am very sensitive to changes at the source (transport and digital filtering). Other people are more sensitive to other parameters and some people just don't care at all. So depending where you stand on that classification, the same "improvement" in sound can be evaluated as well worth it or as hitting the point of diminishing returns.
 
Third, when one is evaluating the point of diminishing returns, one has to know and define what are the point of references. For example, in a specific system, one way to enhance your listening experience (through a source upgrade) would be to spend $600 on a transport. Another way would be to sell that DAC, add the $600 and get in a totally new direction.
While the AP2 does increase the performance of the dac19dsp considerably, I don't know how the AP2+DAC19DSP compares with something like the Anedio D2 which already comes with a "good" usb input.
My personal justification for getting the AP2 (along with the AQVOX power supply) is that I am planning to acquire the Metrum Octave NOS DAC later on. Given that the Metrum doesn't have a USB input and that I use my notebook as a transport, it would have been necessary anyway to acquire a "good" USB transport down the road. Meanwhile, I am able to enjoy the sound of the AP2 in my current system.
 
As you can see, I don't have any clear cut answer for the point of diminishing returns. Obviously, if someone has a limited budget, getting something like the Hiface or the Digital Interface can make a lot of sense.
 
 
Finally, I am going to make a few comments (once) about your project of "blind testing". I won't come back to this subject nor should it be discussed any further in this thread in my personal opinion, and also according to the forum rules.
Below are some thoughts you might find useful in your evaluation:
 
The DAC19dsp needs a lot of time to "settle-in". I personally find that it sounds more natural, detailed and relaxed after 48 hours of use.
 
The goal of music and this hobby is to relax, enjoy some tunes, and have a good time. I personally find that I have the absolute best listening experience when I am very relaxed and not thinking about anything, especially not the equipment. Most differences between equipment come from the fact that you have to spend less effort to hear more of the music. The better the equipment, the less effort your brain has to make to sort through things and to listen to the music. When listening to a voice through a low quality phone or when looking at a person's shape through a wire netting your brain is powerful enough to "treat" the information and let you identify the voice calling or the person in front of you despite the incomplete information. However that puts a strain on you and is not as easy as having a person in front of you.
The same goes for music. I can pretty much recognize a violin whether played on the stereo of my car or in my home reference system. However, one experience is more enjoyable than the other. The end result is that the combined effect of applying different "tweaks" and upgrades to my system is far from subtle, even for the "non-initiated". So far, most people who have listened to my system find it outstanding and many find it better than the live experience. Many of those people are not regular headphone listeners and far from audiophiles. Yet, I don't have to explain to them that the neutral bass "has to sound" this or that way. Obviously, if I had subjected my self to blind testing and had built my system that way, I would never have been able to achieve such a high level of musicality and naturalness.
 
Our brain is a very smart and powerful "device". It can help us in many things but it can also be of a disservice to us at some points. Here is an easy test to do. Listen to a song you have never listened to in a poor/average system (such as a car stereo for instance). Then listen to the same song a few times in a high end system. Finally, go back to the first system and listen to the same song. You will be surprised to hear more details the second time around you listen to the same song in the "poor" system. Once your brain has identified what some noises actually sound like, it is difficult to "unlearn" that.
That is why I personally think that it is a waste of time to subject yourself to blind testing exclusive for comparing/appreciating equipment.
 
If someone thinks he or she can't trust his or her own opinion when it comes to audio, then he or she should quit this hobby of ours. The most important thing is to enjoy audio. If this hobby is so stressful that someone has to subject himself to such tests, there perhaps better ways to spend someone's time.
My personal philosophy is as follow: even if something that allows me to enhance my listening pleasure (and doesn't hurt me in any significant way) turned out to be placebo, why should I care?
Of course, they will always be (weird) people who enjoy "debunking myths" and spreading their "objective" knowledge as if it were religion.
As always, I only encourage people who are open-minded or have previously heard differences to try things I have reviewed. Those who don't feel that way should not spend their money on audio, and especially not based on subjective reviews.
 
As I said earlier, I won't go back on this subject (my position should be clear by now anyway).
 
Hopefully, we'll have more impressions about the last DAC19dsp units. Too bad this product is being discontinued ... for the second time I believe... so may there may be hope!

 

[petemac110]

Some updated thoughts on the DAC19DSP.
 
I've done some listening comparisons involving the following DACs:
 
DAC19DSP
NFB3.1
Emotiva XDA-1
Rega DAC
Schiit Bifrost
2 x John Keny DACs (Sabre and BB)
 
I, along with a listening partner, felt that the DAC19 sounded the most real and rendered vocals and instruments with just the right amount of 'body'.
 
Some of the DACs using newer DAC chips might offer slightly better detail retrieval, but they sound etched and unnatural in comparison.
 
Suffice to say that I am very very happy with my purchase!
 

 

[nibbles]

Well spotted, it is indeed the second time. Leaved me wondering if it's something  to do with the escalating price of the chips. Which they're reserving for their more expensive Dacs. 
 
Over the rules, they like to encourage debate, so not quite sure where I'm off here. Although perhaps it's more general than specifically about this particular kit. To answer your question, I'd have to bring up the subject again which I think you want left alone, so I'll leave it.Thanks for chiming in with the comments over the front end. Think I'm nearer now to a decision over that.

 

[Soundinista]

Oh, my!...

 Right out of the box, my DAC19 experience gave me the assurance that this is what I’ve been waiting for all along on the DAC front.
 
When I moved from the so-called “Max DAC” in my HeadRoom Desktop amp to the DAC in the Grace m902 (both DAC’s feeding the same amps, both head-amps and speaker amps) several years ago, the improvement was very clear. When I moved, a few months ago, from the m902 to the DAC in the Audio-gd NFB-10SE, the improvement was less obvious but still not very subtle. The 10SE is more three-dimensional, with noticeably greater extension too. There’s better microdynamics (resolution of low-level detail) in the sound of the 10SE.
 
And now, moving from the 10SE to the Audio-gd DAC19, I instantly heard the improvement. No burn-in time at all. I'm talking about out-of-box experience. But the improvement was there, clear, unmistakable. This last upgrade in SQ – from the NFB-10SE to the DAC19, both feeding the same, spectacular Master-5 head-amp – is hard to describe. To put it in context, I’d happily live with the 10SE as my only DAC. That would be easy living! To my ears, it’s a great DAC. But the DAC19 is just…more natural-sounding in a very hard-to-describe sense of the term. I hear the difference, but I’m really at a loss for words to describe it satisfactorily. It’s not obviously more extended in the lows or highs. The soundstage it throws is not obviously more three-dimensional than the 10SE’s. But, somehow, the 10SE sounds just a tad rougher, a tad less lifelike. I’ve seen the adjective “organic” used to describe what I suppose is this very same difference. I’ve also seen the less intelligible word “coherence” used for the same purpose. If such words are any help…
 
In any case, IME, Kingwa does deliver on the promised upgrade. (In my brief and very recent Audio-gd experience, he’s delivered three times in a big way.) The DAC19/Master-5 combo is, simply put, what I’ve been waiting for in my years as a headphile. (Now, let’s hope it’s also durable.)
 
Thank you Slim.a for this thread! (And thank you, Tim, for the Audio-gd heads-up!)

 

[nigeljames]

I can fully relate to what you are hearing, enjoy

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

Oh, my!...

 Right out of the box, my DAC19 experience gave me the assurance that this is what I’ve been waiting for all along on the DAC front.
 
When I moved from the so-called “Max DAC” in my HeadRoom Desktop amp to the DAC in the Grace m902 (both DAC’s feeding the same amps, both head-amps and speaker amps) several years ago, the improvement was very clear. When I moved, a few months ago, from the m902 to the DAC in the Audio-gd NFB-10SE, the improvement was less obvious but still not very subtle. The 10SE is more three-dimensional, with noticeably greater extension too. There’s better microdynamics (resolution of low-level detail) in the sound of the 10SE.
 
And now, moving from the 10SE to the Audio-gd DAC19, I instantly heard the improvement. No burn-in time at all. I'm talking about out-of-box experience. But the improvement was there, clear, unmistakable. This last upgrade in SQ – from the NFB-10SE to the DAC19, both feeding the same, spectacular Master-5 head-amp – is hard to describe. To put it in context, I’d happily live with the 10SE as my only DAC. That would be easy living! To my ears, it’s a great DAC. But the DAC19 is just…more natural-sounding in a very hard-to-describe sense of the term. I hear the difference, but I’m really at a loss for words to describe it satisfactorily. It’s not obviously more extended in the lows or highs. The soundstage it throws is not obviously more three-dimensional than the 10SE’s. But, somehow, the 10SE sounds just a tad rougher, a tad less lifelike. I’ve seen the adjective “organic” used to describe what I suppose is this very same difference. I’ve also seen the less intelligible word “coherence” used for the same purpose. If such words are any help…
 
In any case, IME, Kingwa does deliver on the promised upgrade. (In my brief and very recent Audio-gd experience, he’s delivered three times in a big way.) The DAC19/Master-5 combo is, simply put, what I’ve been waiting for in my years as a headphile. (Now, let’s hope it’s also durable.)
 
Thank you Slim.a for this thread! (And thank you, Tim, for the Audio-gd heads-up!)

I am glad you are having such a nice time with the DAC19DSP!
 
For those looking to an even more natural sound, they can try the -90db and -50db stopband settings. Both settings are far more relaxed and natural sounding than the stock -130db setting: they not only seem to allow for a better flow of the music but they also seem to offer a better impulse response (less pre-ringing?). The -50db has the more "analog feel" but there is a loss of sense of focus. The -90db was the best compromise in my system but other people might have different results.
 
The -130db might provide better measurements but the lower settings (-90db and -50db) seem to offer a slower roll-off filters, with even less "stress" on the high frequencies. 
If Kingwa were ever to release a dsp1v6, it would probably be better to use an even slower roll-off filter characteristics. I believe that most of his PCM1704uk based DAC buyers care more about the sound than the measurements (or else they would have bought one of the newer Sigma Delta chips).
 
In any case, enjoy the sound of your new dac19dsp!

 

[Soundinista]

Thank you both, Nigel and Slim!
 
Cheap wisdom: There is no such a thing as the proverbial "last 10%". When you hear the difference, the last 10% has a way of sounding like so much more! The DAC19 drove the point home for me once again. I had hopes, yes, but the skeptical voice in my head kept the hopes in check. I thought it would be different from the NFB-10SE, but likely not better. And then the DAC19 hit me like a freight train. To my ears, it's clearly better-sounding than the (really good) 10SE. (BTW, the 10SE is a good second or third-tier amp. There's nothing great about it as an amp. I bought it as a DAC.)
 
Now, I can't miss the opportunity to pick your brain some more, Slim. The question I've been afraid to ask: Is there a theoretical advantage to a balanced DAC design (like the new Ref 10) over something like the DAC19, if you're listening to the ACSS output? And, if so, is it really audible?
 

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

Thank you both, Nigel and Slim!
 
Cheap wisdom: There is no such a thing as the proverbial "last 10%". When you hear the difference, the last 10% has a way of sounding like so much more! The DAC19 drove the point home for me once again. I had hopes, yes, but the skeptical voice in my head kept the hopes in check. I thought it would be different from the NFB-10SE, but likely not better. And then the DAC19 hit me like a freight train. To my ears, it's clearly better-sounding than the (really good) 10SE. (BTW, the 10SE is a good second or third-tier amp. There's nothing great about it as an amp. I bought it as a DAC.)
 
Now, I can't miss the opportunity to pick your brain some more, Slim. The question I've been afraid to ask: Is there a theoretical advantage to a balanced DAC design (like the new Ref 10) over something like the DAC19, if you're listening to the ACSS output? And, if so, is it really audible?
 

 
First of all, I do totally agree with your statement about the "last 10%". Once you have heard it and got used to it, it starts weighing a lot more than just 10%. As an example, once I heard how natural sounding were  the Audio-gd DACs based on the PCM1704uk, it was difficult to settle for something else. For instance, some can say that the UD384 is 90% the AP2+DAC19DSP but whenever I have a choice, I only listen the dac19dsp.
 
Regarding you question about the theoretical advantage of balanced vs. ACSS, I would say that there is no straight answer because you are comparing 2 slightly different things.
ACSS just means that the transmission is done in current and not in voltage mode. ACSS can be either single ended (dac19dsp) or balanced (Ref7.1)
 
However, my guess is that you probably wish to compare the line transmissions losses of ACSS vs. Balanced(?). The ACSS is indeed more robust than RCA in my personal experience, yet it seems that ACSS can still "improve" when used in balance mode (Ref7/10...) according to many users.
Stacking multiple PCM1704uk DAC chips has multiple advantages in theory. Most ultra-high end DACs using the 1704 chip stack them in differential or dual differential mode.
It is possible that by going balance (such as in the Ref 10) there might be some of the same benefits as differential mode (?)
 
Audio-gd gear is reported to sound better in balanced mode, and there is no reason to doubt it. Meanwhile, some high end designs, such as those found in Lamm Industries amplifiers, prefer the single ended route. My guess is that there is right or wrong (from a musicality stand point) and that it depends mostly on the designer habits.
 
Since you are using a balanced amp from Audio-gd, my personal guess is that you will benefit from getting a balanced DAC even while using the ACSS method of connection.

 
 

 

[SemiAudiophile]

 
Quote:

About one year ago (before getting the dac19mk3), I was seriously starting considering going to vinyl. Since I listen to a lot of classical music, I started to get tired to listening to violins and pianos that sounded digitized. I went auditioning a few DAC and CD players but wasn’t satisfied. The more revealing the DACs, the more flawed they seemed to me: for a moment I thought that when choosing a DAC, you had a sort of slider where you could either increase warmth or resolution but never both at the same time.

I can't agree with you more here. That's exactly how I felt until I heard my first unit from Audio-GD (NFB-10). Not only do they have a "easy on the ears" analog sound, but also the textures and resolution is so good. It's the closest thing to vinyl of a DAC you can get IMO. 
 
Thanks for the extensively well written and explanation of components in the review. Made for a good read!
 

 

[Soundinista]

Quote:

 
 
[...] However, my guess is that you probably wish to compare the line transmissions losses of ACSS vs. Balanced(?). The ACSS is indeed more robust than RCA in my personal experience, yet it seems that ACSS can still "improve" when used in balance mode (Ref7/10...) according to many users.
Stacking multiple PCM1704uk DAC chips has multiple advantages in theory. Most ultra-high end DACs using the 1704 chip stack them in differential or dual differential mode.
It is possible that by going balance (such as in the Ref 10) there might be some of the same benefits as differential mode (?)
 
Audio-gd gear is reported to sound better in balanced mode, and there is no reason to doubt it. Meanwhile, some high end designs, such as those found in Lamm Industries amplifiers, prefer the single ended route. My guess is that there is right or wrong (from a musicality stand point) and that it depends mostly on the designer habits.
 
Since you are using a balanced amp from Audio-gd, my personal guess is that you will benefit from getting a balanced DAC even while using the ACSS method of connection.

 

 
Yes, Slim, that was the question exactly. (I apologize if I phrased it in an obscure way.) And that was the answer I was afraid you'd give me!

It's the sensible answer, of course, and I really appreciate your taking the time. But I was actually fishing for a report from listening impressions, which I infer you haven't had, comparing a balanced PCM1704-based Audio-gd to the DAC19. (Is there anybody here who has had that listening experience?) The thing is, the DAC19 sounds so good that the question becomes unavoidable: How much better can a PCM1704 DAC get? At some point, the theoretical advantage must fall below the threshold of audibility. In other words, we'd like to know where exactly to start blaming the other links in the chain for any noticeable sonic faults.
 
Thank you, Slim, very much!

 

[Soundinista]

 
This is primarily a footnote to what I wrote above (at #953) in my oversimplified comparison of my three head-amp/DAC’s. In my haste to get to the object of this thread (the wonderful DAC19), I was a bit unfair to my 2007 HeadRoom Desktop and its Max DAC. It’s actually quite a bit better than the Grace m902 as a USB DAC. (I’ve just now paid attention to the USB input in both DAC’s. I’ve used both for years from their optical and coaxial input sockets.) But, USB input aside, the Grace does clearly beat the Desktop on every other front – for my taste. (They do sound very different.)
 
The Audio-gd NFB-10SE is better than both the Grace and the HeadRoom on all fronts. To my mind, as far as amplification, these are all tier 3 amps. You do, however, get first-rate performance from both the m902 and the 10SE as regards noise. These two offer the kind of pitch black background that’s typical of cost-no-object amps.
 
That’s to undo the oversimplification in the above post (I hope).
 
BTW, have I told you I love the DAC19? 

 One of its most endearing traits is the depth of the soundstage. In that regard, to my ears, it smokes the 10SE. But I can imagine the more upfront presentation of the 10SE coming across as more detailed to some. This is one of the most “subjective”, most taste-relative aspects in all of audio, isn’t it? Personally, I side with depth and three-dimensionality every time.