[regal]

TI discontinued the PCM1704.  it was off the shelves and the PCM179x was advertised as superior.   We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the big instrumentation companies hadn't demanded TI bring back the PCM1704 because of the inferior S_D technology.   The audio market is just a small percentage of the sales of these.  I would get an R2R DAC while you can,  they are close to extinction.
 
I've experiemented with many DAC designed and I can tell you for cetain that what makes them special isn't just  the PCM1704,  its the above average power supplies and the best in the world analog stages.  For example (albiet a bad one) the DAC60 had PCM1704's and I tried everything in the book to upgrade it,  but it never came close to AudioGD.

 

[purrin]

Part of the problem is that there are so few good comparisons of Audio-gd DACs against other popular reputable DACs in similar price ranges (Benchmark, Lavry, etc.)  I see a lot of positive reviews of Audio-gd gear, but so far only a handful of good comparisons to other stuff.

 

[regal]

And wha do you expect from such reviews?   Benchmark, Lavry spend millions on advertising,  AudioGD zero.  I can tell you that the $450 DAC19mk3 is miles ahead of the DLII and the Benchmark DAC1,  but your ears have to discover this on your own because everyone is different on how they hear, especially with headphones.
Quote:

Part of the problem is that there are so few good comparisons of Audio-gd DACs against other popular reputable DACs in similar price ranges (Benchmark, Lavry, etc.)  I see a lot of positive reviews of Audio-gd gear, but so far only a handful of good comparisons to other stuff.

 

[3X0]

Quote:

Technically speaking it's all a matter of preference... One man's favorite DAC could be another's least.

Yup. What I mean is that if so many people absolutely love them, they must be doing something right. Very right.
Quote:

And wha do you expect from such reviews?   Benchmark, Lavry spend millions on advertising,  AudioGD zero.  I can tell you that the $450 DAC19mk3 is miles ahead of the DLII and the Benchmark DAC1,  but your ears have to discover this on your own because everyone is different on how they hear, especially with headphones.

Very similar argument for the recent ID companies typically bettering name brands of similar or even higher price brackets. I don't think it's so much the advertising as the distribution chain -- Audio-gd cuts out the middleman and sells directly to the end-user (hence their name, Audio global direct). No inflated MSRPs, no price markups for the reseller to make margins from. You get a better performing product for less money, just like with ID products.

 

[.Sup]

Quote:

Yup. What I mean is that if so many people absolutely love them, they must be doing something right. Very right.
Very similar argument for the recent ID companies typically bettering name brands of similar or even higher price brackets. I don't think it's so much the advertising as the distribution chain -- Audio-gd cuts out the middleman and sells directly to the end-user (hence their name, Audio global direct). No inflated MSRPs, no price markups for the reseller to make margins from. You get a better performing product for less money, just like with ID products.

I bought my ref5 from amp city. Was cheaper than ordering straight from China because of astronomical shipping costs and 20% VAT here.

 

[regal]

One thing to watch is sometimes companies offer outstanding products,  get brand recognition,  then start cutting corners or raise their prices.  Hope AudioGD doesn't take that direction but remember new design doesn't always mean better design.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

And wha do you expect from such reviews?   Benchmark, Lavry spend millions on advertising,  AudioGD zero.  I can tell you that the $450 DAC19mk3 is miles ahead of the DLII and the Benchmark DAC1,  but your ears have to discover this on your own because everyone is different on how they hear, especially with headphones.

 

 
Regal, you seem to be sounding a bit defensive, but was not my intent to attack Audio-gd and support other firms that spend millions of dollars on advertising.
 
To clarify myself, I don't necessarily mean reviews in the audio press (I don't read any of those magazines - Stereophile, etc.)  I mean good reviews here.  I've read one good review comparing the DAC19 to the Assemblage 2.5/2.6 DACs, but that's about it. It seems many people are enjoying their Audio-gd gear and that's great. In terms of what I (and probably many others) expect from such reviews: what are the qualitative differences between the DAC19, DAC 3SE, REF1, etc. compared to other DACs they replaced or had listened to in the past? What are the weaknesses of the Audio-gd DACs?  IMO, the best way to get a good sense about gear is to hear about what the comparative weaknesses are. We rarely hear anything about where Audio-gd stuff fairs poorly, or can do better. This gives me a little pause. I really want to see a well written review from someone who didn't like the Audio-gd stuff - but sometimes I get the sense that if person were to question how good the Audio-gd stuff is, a dozen people would gang up and effectively tell that person that his ears are screwed up.
 
In terms of Lavry and Benchmark, I mention them because they have been out for a while (and for many years considered the FOTM/FOTY). Their weaknesses are known and have been well articulated. There are many high quality reviews of the DAC1, DA10. Folks who don't like those units have explained which aspects they don't like about them. However, for Audio-gd stuff, I mostly see broad statements such as "miles ahead of X,Y,Z", "worth 5 times as much", "completely neutral but that's why it's awesome", "no middleman so they can put all money into quality parts", "SS, but tube like", and of course, the ultimate cop-out term "musical". I'm sorry, but this doesn't cut it. Yes, my ears will have to discover how they sound like; but I (and again probably many others) would like more substantial information before I pull the trigger. System component matching is a big part of the game, so more articulate, better qualitative assessments of the equipment are useful (especially if the equipment doesn't come with a 30 day money back guarantee without $150 per way one shipping).
 
BTW: I am looking for a new DAC and the Audio-gd stuff is near the top my list.

 

[haloxt]

People have said they heard shortcomings in some audio-gd dac's, but their opinions are lost inside very long threads. But like you said, synergy is important, and sound signature, so people shouldn't get too angry at people whose opinions aren't in line with theirs. If the difference is very big though, then a conflict will likely ensue.
 
It's easy to say you like x better than y then disappear from the thread, more difficult to pinpoint differences and feel confidence in your subjective impressions, then share them on threads and defend them if you think that's necessary. This difficulty not only deters people from negatively criticizing dac's, but also deters them from all critiquing. But they shouldn't be afraid to make mistakes in their listening impressions, it's just a hobby and a learning experience and they can always claim "burn in must have changed it!" . Then again if people don't want to contribute in-depth comparisons on dac's because they aren't confident in their listening impressions, that's just fine, especially considering that some headphones or amps might hide the differences between dac's.

 

[jenneth]

purrin, I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm sure Audio-GD make some really great equipments, but some of their fans tend to get a little too defensive whenever someone has less than perfect opinion about Audio-GD.

 

[TigzStudio]

Honestly with any good product that people enjoy, they will get defensive about it.  Human nature, what can you do.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

Honestly with any good product that people enjoy, they will get defensive about it.  Human nature, what can you do.

LOL, as a Grado guy, I usually tell people NOT to get them (or at least provide a special warning), especially the higher end ones which are rip-offs.

 

[TigzStudio]

True there are some companies (in fact a lot) that have certain products that arent all that great compared to their others.  If I buy something I don't find to be that great I would voice my opinion the same way as if I really liked something.  But it just so happens most of the Audio-gd stuff is pretty dam good. lol

 

[regal]

Didn't mean to be defensive,  I just don't think SQ can be put into words and all ears are different,  you really have to try to find what you like.  Try to put your favorite ice cream flavor into words.
 
Quote:

 
Regal, you seem to be sounding a bit defensive, but was not my intent to attack Audio-gd and support other firms that spend millions of dollars on advertising.
 
To clarify myself, I don't necessarily mean reviews in the audio press (I don't read any of those magazines - Stereophile, etc.)  I mean good reviews here.  I've read one good review comparing the DAC19 to the Assemblage 2.5/2.6 DACs, but that's about it. It seems many people are enjoying their Audio-gd gear and that's great. In terms of what I (and probably many others) expect from such reviews: what are the qualitative differences between the DAC19, DAC 3SE, REF1, etc. compared to other DACs they replaced or had listened to in the past? What are the weaknesses of the Audio-gd DACs?  IMO, the best way to get a good sense about gear is to hear about what the comparative weaknesses are. We rarely hear anything about where Audio-gd stuff fairs poorly, or can do better. This gives me a little pause. I really want to see a well written review from someone who didn't like the Audio-gd stuff - but sometimes I get the sense that if person were to question how good the Audio-gd stuff is, a dozen people would gang up and effectively tell that person that his ears are screwed up.
 
In terms of Lavry and Benchmark, I mention them because they have been out for a while (and for many years considered the FOTM/FOTY). Their weaknesses are known and have been well articulated. There are many high quality reviews of the DAC1, DA10. Folks who don't like those units have explained which aspects they don't like about them. However, for Audio-gd stuff, I mostly see broad statements such as "miles ahead of X,Y,Z", "worth 5 times as much", "completely neutral but that's why it's awesome", "no middleman so they can put all money into quality parts", "SS, but tube like", and of course, the ultimate cop-out term "musical". I'm sorry, but this doesn't cut it. Yes, my ears will have to discover how they sound like; but I (and again probably many others) would like more substantial information before I pull the trigger. System component matching is a big part of the game, so more articulate, better qualitative assessments of the equipment are useful (especially if the equipment doesn't come with a 30 day money back guarantee without $150 per way one shipping).
 
BTW: I am looking for a new DAC and the Audio-gd stuff is near the top my list.

 

[shogo33]

"Oppo BDP83SE (transport) via Coax out -> Belden digital cable 75ohm (RCA - RCA) -> AudioGD Dac3SE -> Monster 75ohm RCA Analog cables -> Weston Acoustics Tempest (TungSol 6L6g's, Sophia Electric 6SN7's, Mullard NOS 5AR4 rectifier tubes) -> Modded Fostex 206e's in custom back loaded horn speakers.
Jack Johnson in concert 2008 (16bit @ 44khz)
  -  The Oppo via analog outs had clearly better definition of instruments.  Also lower bass notes were well defined.  Overall the presentation sounded 'clean' and clinical, subtle nuances were clearly distinguishable.  However, the passages in the tracks where the dynamics went up, the sound was almost 'glaring'.  It almost at seems that the dynamics of the tracks were pronounced clearly when it occurs, but the glare disappears when the dynamics tones down.  I would say the sound signature is more of a 'forward' kind.  Sibilance is more pronounced and is quite noticable.  Soundstage is wide, and background details (crowd cheering, singing) came through quite clearly.
-  The Dac3SE has a more laid back, smoother approach to the overall sound.  However, that being said, all subtle nuances were well captured and were played smoothly without attenuating any particulars of the sound.  The highs shimmered and was well controlled.  The bass, especially lower bass is much more smoother but much softer and less tight compared to the Oppo.  The bass however, has 'tone' and quite distinctive. Overall presentation can be said to be more 'natural' or musical sounding without favouring any particulars of the frequencies.  Sibilance is not noticable at all! .   Soundstage is much smaller than the Oppo, but background details were as good but with a touch of warmth.
After a good ear bash from Jack, i decided to try out some 24/96khz HD recordings."
 
Just a quick update.  The DAC3SE has been burning in for the last 150hrs (switched on + play).  The soundstage is improving, bass tones are now very pronounced, midrange dynamics and highs are coming out more. The complex layering of instruments are being presented a lot better with a more blacker background.  I am in awe so far of the DAC3 doing to cd reproduction.  I ran the Oppo on a burning cycle for about 96hrs using a cd on repeat during that period.  The sound from the Oppo hasnt changed much. Still sounds similar to my earlier findings above.  I suspect the DAC3 will improve with further burning.  At this stage, i'm inclining to relegate the Oppo to its HT only duties once more.  May look into getting a dedicated cd transport for the DAC3.  Regal was right about the DAC3 needing heaps of hours to burn...can wait for it to do another 150+hrs..

 

[regal]

Quote:

  Regal was right about the DAC3 needing heaps of hours to burn...can wait for it to do another 150+hrs..

Its improvement with burn in is almost spooky.   Is yours the PMD100 version?