[atomicbob]

Thank-you for the feedback. I too appreciate system stability, including reliability of Benchmark or Violectric DAC (use both in my studio work.) But always looking to reduce distortion, whatever the source, and it appears that the Auralic does just that. Also tend to appreciate Canare star-quad cables, especially if forced to route mic signals over lighting dimmer packs in venues.

 

[atomicbob]

  I still love my Vega, and have stopped thinking about my DAC (ie-not looking to upgrade). It's extremely musical and checks all the boxes for me. With all my previous DAC's, I always felt like I could find flaws that annoyed me. This is a keeper in my book.
 
As for work-most of the studios I work at are still using Avid (Digi) 192's. Pro Tools is the king DAW in my world, and most places are running the same old gear. Pro audio people are far less concerned about the latest and greatest, and more concerned about stability. They could give a rats ass about the latest DA chips or the fancy cables I use at home.

Having researched a number of DACs it appears that the Vega is one of the few that achieves consensus from reviewers holding diverging opinions otherwise. It measures well, considered to sound good, and looks to be well made. Your opinion considering your profession cements the decision for me. I have relied on Violectric, Benchmark and Lavry for both professional and recreational use. I am going to go down the Auralic Vega path and see how it works for six months. Thank-you again santacore.

 

[santacore]

Happy to help. I have owned the Lynx Hilo, Violectric V800, and Lavry Blue. They are all good in their own way, but to my ears the Auralic is the best.

 

[henwell]

you lose DSD and DXD using Spidf

 

[atomicbob]

Ok, I have had a chance to spend a few hours with the Vega. Some initial impressions:
 
1. effortless presentation - non fatiguing in spite of long hours spent listening per session
2. more air or space around instruments and voices that is diminished when I return to one of my other DACs
3. a feeling of natural clarity, more transparency
4. music is more engaging 
5. voice doesn't have that slight edginess that I hear on my others DACs with long voice over editing sessions.
 
Cymbals, piano upper registers, bells, etc. sound much more like what I hear in the studio without becoming etched or harsh.
 
Now to see if I still feel the same way six months from now.

 

[santacore]

Glad to hear you're digging it atomicbob!! The sound should only get better from here.

 

[atomicbob]

  Glad to hear you're digging it atomicbob!! The sound should only get better from here.

Two months later. You speak the trvth! At this point I have very high expectations for any DAC that would compete.

 

[XVampireX]

  Two months later. You speak the trvth! At this point I have very high expectations for any DAC that would compete.

 
Apparently Schiit thinks it can compete with the Yggdrasil....
 
Here's a link: http://www.head-fi.org/t/752914/yggdrasil-a-p-review-two-days-of-paradise
 
"At no point does the Yggdrasil sound clinical and neutered like the Vega"
 
Right, and how Am I supposed to understand this?
 
Also, lets just say that Yggdrasil is better DAC, ok, but where's that DSD/DXD support (Right, there's no market for it, so you will be dictating me what to listen to and what not to (Not you, just generalizing/ranting)

 

[atomicbob]

   
Apparently Schiit thinks it can compete with the Yggdrasil....
 
Here's a link: http://www.head-fi.org/t/752914/yggdrasil-a-p-review-two-days-of-paradise
 
"At no point does the Yggdrasil sound clinical and neutered like the Vega"
 
Right, and how Am I supposed to understand this?
 
Also, lets just say that Yggdrasil is better DAC, ok, but where's that DSD/DXD support (Right, there's no market for it, so you will be dictating me what to listen to and what not to (Not you, just generalizing/ranting)

The Yggdrasil is one DAC I will be interested in comparing with the Vega.
 
I'm going to venture that those "large differences" in hyper-comparison mode would register as much smaller, yet discernible differences to most people. It is important to remember that these folks are comparing very high end devices that all are quite far up the performance Receiver Operating Curve and exaggerating hair splitting in device stratification while in hyper-comparison mode.
 
Example: If the Vega is clinical and neutered compared to the Ygg, then the Mousai MSD192 must be total crap. Yet several forum high end reviewers note that neither the Vega nor the MSD192 are crap. I use these as examples as I own both and appreciate each for its respective performance on the ROC.

 

[dusk]

How does the vega stack up next to the Hugo TT in your mind?

 

[Randle81]

I have been trying the Vega next to the Chord 2Qute. My initial impressions are that the 2qute had a little more detail on the ends of the sound stage (but not much extra width). It also has a slightly smoother sound. Not extreme in difference.
I'm looking around because I've been disappointed as I've heard little difference after paying 8 times more than my Audio-GD NFB 2.. This is on a very revealing high end system

 

[XVampireX]

I have been trying the Vega next to the Chord 2Qute. My initial impressions are that the 2qute had a little more detail on the ends of the sound stage (but not much extra width). It also has a slightly smoother sound. Not extreme in difference.
I'm looking around because I've been disappointed as I've heard little difference after paying 8 times more than my Audio-GD NFB 2.. This is on a very revealing high end system

 
 
So we got it, you posted it on both forums, what do you want us to say?
 
DACs and Audio in general are very subjective, you might enjoy other DACs, like I said in the other topic about all sorts of DACs, Reviews by Purrin, people shouldn't take his list for granted because if he likes something doesn't mean that everyone else will like it and vice versa.
 
I feel that Auralic Vega is very neutral, also it's solid in terms of build quality. Audio-gd are known to be the Hifiman company of DACs/Amps where you get really great performance for price (Audio-gd Master 9 is coming here in the next 2 weeks) also they use both ESS Sabre 9018 chips and PCM1704UK, which should have completely different sound, with PCM1704UK it's supposed to be a warmer DAC.
 
For me with the Auralic Vega, I hear exactly what the music should tell me, and I expect it to improve even more with switching to balanced IO as it would be using then the special ORFEO Class A Auralic module...

 

[Randle81]

Looking for feedback like that. Thank you
Maybe others have had similar experiences?

 

[atomicbob]

My observations and experiences very are very much in line with @XVampireX.
 
I will add that switching between DACs one may not hear much differences at first. I didn't either at the beginning of my DAC comparisons. It wasn't until I spent a lot of time with the Vega and then went back to another DAC, in this case the Violectric V800, that I noticed what was missing or diminished. I think highly of Violectric and still use the V800 in one of my production systems. It is in the details such as reverb tails, shimmer on cymbals, sense of space around instruments in the mix, better definition of start or finish of sounds, etc. that one notices the differences.
 
These differences are not in-your-face, but the refinements are real. Whether they justify the extra cost to obtain is a very personal choice. Background casual listening may not, but those involved in production and those who look to get as close as possible to what is available in the recordings probably will. Look a couple of posts above in this thread and read my comments about hyper-comparison.

 

[atomicbob]

How does the vega stack up next to the Hugo TT in your mind?

I have not heard the Hugo so I can't comment. Maybe someone else that has heard both will speak up.