[milford30]

may i ask which dacs are you referring to?
 
Quote:

Lunatique: you should talk to the ortho guys about adjusting the internal damping to change the FR.

Skylab: I have the same pigtail. It's very handy. Definitely a good plan.

As for the Benchmark DAC1, it sounds good until you compare it to a good vintage DAC after which it sounds thin and harsh. There are also quite a number of DACs available new now that sound far better for less money.

 

[Jodet]

Quote:

 
Oh, please enbrighten us and enharshen us about your Benchmark. 

+1

 

[SillyHoney]

Quote:

Perhaps try the coax or optical inputs instead of the USB and see if it is any different?  I know for a lot of DACs in that price range the USB implementation is said to be less than stellar. 
 
Maybe try computer -> uDAC-2 as SPDIF converter -> Dacmagic coax -> Asgard -> LCD-2 first and see how it is.

Quote:

 

Its challenging to match this stuff up sometimes. I am getting a 4-pin to speaker terminal adapter made, to add to a couple of 4-pin to TRS adapters, a 4 foot 4-pin to dual 3-pin adapter, a 4-pin to mini adapter, and I still don't have a dual 3-pin to mini, 1/4", or 4-pin... 

 
 

I did some comparing with similar setups. I compared the uDac2 coaxial output to the toslink output direct from my Mac Pro into a Bel Canto DAC2, and surprisingly preferred the toslink. Then I compared the toslink to the coaxial output of a Firestone Bravo converter, and I couldn't hear any difference between the two. I do like my uDac, but prefer using it as a portable laptop headphone amp/dac to a s/pdif converter or even as a line out. So I am just suggesting that if you have a decent optical signal available, get a glass cable and compare it with the uDac's coaxial output. IMO you would need to step up from the uDac quite a bit to get a better signal into your DAC than toslink. And yes, both forms of s/pdif may be better than the USB implementation in your DacMagic.

 
Somehow the sound get totally distorted when I tried that method.
 
And honestly I'm gonna return my DACMagic. It destroyed my LCD-2. The OH SO GREAT LCD-2's bass get bloated and one-note 

The treble get softened down 

The whole presentation get muddy

 
Every time I switch the uDac-2 back in, I'm amazed how good it is, especially for its price.
 
I'm looking at the silver DACMagic with Asgard on top of it. So beautiful... feeling weird sometimes you really want to spend some money but you can't... I feel regretted selling my Gamma-2...

 

[SP Wild]

Quote:

Problem is I find my uDac-2, which has built-in amp and cost 1/3 price of DacMagic, sound better than DacMagic

 
However both the Schiit and the DacMagic are new to me (less than 10 hours for both) so I think I will give 'em a few days.

Yeah, give it time to settle before making a conclusion - afterwards, trust your instinct, and the LCD2s don't lie.  I read many posts arguing that the first udac was better than the Dacmagic - I am in no position to deny this as I do not own a udac, however recent experiences suggest that this can be very plausible.

 
Quote:

 
The Dac1 is never harsh in my opinion, if anything, it's because the headphones/speakers you're using it together with has a hump in its frequency response within the treble range.
If you mean harsh in the fatiguing sense, it's because it's revealing to you the dynamics that you're not used to listening to, which alot of people consider to be a 'digital sound'.
Tell me what headphones you're using it with or was and I'll see if I can prove you wrong lol
 
- Currowong
You described it as thin, you're hearing a DAC with a quick decay/transcient with less ambience therefore giving you better seperation between instruments when playing a song which people perceive to be 'less musical' - a coloured sound which you obviously prefer but not neccessarily better technically speaking. In music production, it's called reverb.
Also, give me a few DAC's that you know of that that is more accurate in sound without it costing x3 more.

I had an opportunity to directly compare a Benchmark with the Dacmagic on a hi-end speaker system ($30,000 Legacy speakers) - only very briefly and it was obvious to me the Benchmark was smoother, with more rounded, smoother and more natural vocals, better refinement and better detail retrieval.
 
However I do agree with Currawong, I believe all modern high frequency switching 1-bit dacs are "unnaturally colored".  My experiences with true multibit DACS are limited - but even with a cheap one, I preferred it over all my 1-bit DACS - I believe these technologies were superceded purely because 1-bit DACs are much easier and cheaper to manufacture than multibit DACs.  The LCD2s should be able to discern the differences in presentations - so anyone can decide for themselves, and many will prefer the 1-bit DACs for their forward colored sound signature, but no one should write off multibit techniques because they have been discontinued.  The pinnacle of the multibit DAC is the PCM1704UK, for which the Reference 7 contains eight of these rare and expensive processors.

 

[Solude]

For what its worth, Benchmark has benched their DAC1 and ADC1 looping into each other a few times and then comparing it to the original.  They matched.  That's amazing unto itself.  Having never heard one, I'll leave it at that.  It may not be pleasant in ways that would not affect its bit perfect nature, but this much is true... it does no harm to the signal.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

I read many posts arguing that the first udac was better than the Dacmagic - I am in no position to deny this as I do not own a udac, however recent experiences suggest that this can be very plausible.
 

 
Actually I did own both at the same time a while back and man...the udac really came off cheap when compared to the DacMagic. The udac is a very nice amp/dac for around $100. But not mid-fi by any means. A-Bing with the DacMagic showed the sound stage severely collapsed, muddy mids and dark (read: rolled off highs). Again, don't get me wrong, I'm a uDac fan, but when compared to the DacMagic (both USB and spdif inputs), it could not keep up.
 
FWIW, I did the A-B testing with my HD800s/T1s.

 

[SP Wild]

I still own the Dacmagic and that is good news to me.

 

[SillyHoney]

 
Quote:

Actually I did own both at the same time a while back and man...the udac really came off cheap when compared to the DacMagic. The udac is a very nice amp/dac for around $100. But not mid-fi by any means. A-Bing with the DacMagic showed the sound stage severely collapsed, muddy mids and dark (read: rolled off highs). Again, don't get me wrong, I'm a uDac fan, but when compared to the DacMagic (both USB and spdif inputs), it could not keep up.
 
FWIW, I did the A-B testing with my HD800s/T1s.

There is differences between the uDac-1 and uDac-2 right

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 

There is differences between the uDac-1 and uDac-2 right

 
Actually I have heard the uDAC-2...very...very similar to the u-DAC.

 

[Jian]

The DAC1 pre is quite a bit improvement from the DAC1.

 

[YoungAudiophile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
However I do agree with Currawong, I believe all modern high frequency switching 1-bit dacs are "unnaturally colored".  My experiences with true multibit DACS are limited - but even with a cheap one, I preferred it over all my 1-bit DACS - I believe these technologies were superceded purely because 1-bit DACs are much easier and cheaper to manufacture than multibit DACs.  The LCD2s should be able to discern the differences in presentations - so anyone can decide for themselves, and many will prefer the 1-bit DACs for their forward colored sound signature, but no one should write off multibit techniques because they have been discontinued.  The pinnacle of the multibit DAC is the PCM1704UK, for which the Reference 7 contains eight of these rare and expensive processors.

If multibit DAC's offer a better sound, would there not be a demand for it, no? Especially from us audiophiles who are willing to pay almost an arm and a leg for it.
I don't think the cost of manufacturing is the issue here. To cease production of what is supposedly 'superior' for the sake of lowering production cost? I find that hard to believe.
The extra cost can be transferred to us. I'm sure we can afford the difference.
DAC chips cost little to nothing to produce, however you look at it.

 

[Currawong]

The DACs I've used or tried are in my profile. The vintage and Audio-gd DACs (both are similar in design concept) demolished the Benchmark in no uncertain terms. However, as for this discussion, you might want to start a new thread on it, as it is off-topic to this one. YoungAudiophile: I'd be interested to know what DACs you've compared, but in a separate thread.  I'm happy to split the DAC discussion from this one if people are eager to continue it.

 

[n3rdling]

There is a demand for them

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Isn´t your ALO cable satisfactory?
I am a bit tempted as well. btw do Audeze sell their cable separately?

Yeah they do. If I go balanced I will be putting my money in Aueze's pockets. 

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Actually I did own both at the same time a while back and man...the udac really came off cheap when compared to the DacMagic. The udac is a very nice amp/dac for around $100. But not mid-fi by any means. A-Bing with the DacMagic showed the sound stage severely collapsed, muddy mids and dark (read: rolled off highs). Again, don't get me wrong, I'm a uDac fan, but when compared to the DacMagic (both USB and spdif inputs), it could not keep up.
 
FWIW, I did the A-B testing with my HD800s/T1s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SillyHoney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
There is differences between the uDac-1 and uDac-2 right

 
Quote:

 
Actually I have heard the uDAC-2...very...very similar to the u-DAC.

The uDAC-2 is an evolution over the uDAC, not a revolution.  But the built-in headphone amp has a little better treble extension and presence, and the mids are less forward and more spacious.  The uDAC-2 RCA line-out is improved as well, and sounds indistinguishable to my Pico DAC-only which is an excellent DAC.
 
I can see where it would sound better as uDAC-2 > Asgard > LCD-2 than DAC Magic if using USB input.  But the DAC Magic that I heard needed over 200-250 hours to burn-in an open up, and it's optical input sounded much better than it's USB input (I heard it out of the box vs my Apogee mini-DAC, and then compared them again 250 hours later without listening to it during burn-in).  You may want to put more hours on the DAC Magic, and try to use optical or coax after it's burned-in before you give up on it completely.