[Yumyums30]

I'm considering getting this, lot's of positive talk about it too so it's on the top of my list at the moment for DACs

 

[FlySweep]

I'm considering getting this, lot's of positive talk about it too so it's on the top of my list at the moment for DACs

 
I've got my ODAC paired with the Leckerton UHA-6S MKII (OPA209 opamp).. and it's stunning.  Both are in black cases.. so it looks as sleek & lethal as it sounds.  I'm amazed at the dynamic range & resolving ability this little rig possess.. an absolute beast considering the price & size.

 

[Pojosama]

I sold my creative soundblaster x-fi HD and ordered an ODAC. This is definitely as far as I'm willing to go for something like an amp and DAC, so hopefully I'll hear a difference. I certainly did with the Creative, but you never really get rid of that nagging suspicion that there is something better out there. I've read NWAVGUY's blog from start to finish, so I'm confident in it.

: )

 

[tofu]

while using WASAPI, should I be adjusting volume via foobar or through the sound mixer (win8)? or does it not matter?

or would the best solution be to buy a passive analog attenuator?

 

[hamburgerladdy]

Quote:

while using WASAPI, should I be adjusting volume via foobar or through the sound mixer (win8)? or does it not matter?
or would the best solution be to buy a passive analog attenuator?

100% volume with the software all over and adjust the volume only with the external amp.
 
WASAPI is exclusive also, so the shared mode of Windows 8 is irrelevant.

 

[chrislangley4253]

You can adjust the volume with foobar or windows mixer without doing any harm. The ODAC is 24 bit, so you run no risk of dropping the noise floor enough to make it audible by using software volume control. The ODAC was made 24 bit for this exact reason. 

 

[mikeaj]

nevermind, ^ got it above

 

[tofu]

You can adjust the volume with foobar or windows mixer without doing any harm. The ODAC is 24 bit, so you run no risk of dropping the noise floor enough to make it audible by using software volume control. The ODAC was made 24 bit for this exact reason. 

thanks. much easier to adjust from windows volume for me (foobar volume control would leave everything else blaring loud).

unfortunately I can't control the volume physically with a knob from my desk. every channel has its own level with my amp/crossover setup. I was considering buying a pre-amp or passive attenuator, but digital is definitely cheaper, and probably cleaner

too bad there isn't a wireless version of this griffin knob!

 

[tofu]

100% volume with the software all over and adjust the volume only with the external amp.

WASAPI is exclusive also, so the shared mode of Windows 8 is irrelevant.

can't control with my amp's knob. I'm not running a headphone setup. i'd have to adjust 3 volume knobs if i were to do it this way (left, right, sub)

 

[elektrosteve]

I received the ODAC some weeks ago and I love this thing! It beats the E17 dac easily. Like the people say, great resolution, great soundstage, great dynamics.
 

 

[chrislangley4253]

Quote:

thanks. much easier to adjust from windows volume for me (foobar volume control would leave everything else blaring loud).
unfortunately I can't control the volume physically with a knob from my desk. every channel has its own level with my amp/crossover setup. I was considering buying a pre-amp or passive attenuator, but digital is definitely cheaper, and probably cleaner
too bad there isn't a wireless version of this griffin knob!

I have a similar problem when using my speakers.. I considered a passive pre too, until I researched and found out that software volume control was harmless at 24 bit.

Nwavguy suggests playing some music with your pc volume all the way up and then turning up your amp as high as you'd ever want it (maybe just a touch more in case) and then using software volume control from there. In situations like ours, anyways.

 

[MoonUnit]

Quote:

I have a similar problem when using my speakers.. I considered a passive pre too, until I researched and found out that software volume control was harmless at 24 bit.

 
This is a myth. Software volume control is not harmless. It's theoretically correct for an ideal DAC with perfect 24 bit resolution, but for a practical device, you have to work from 0dB and consider what the device's actual resolution is, because digital attenuation throws away the high order bits first, not the low order bits. 
 
At full scale, the ODAC has 0.0029% THD+N, which means the noise and distortion floor is at -90.7dB. It's irrelevant that the dynamic range is higher than this, unless one believes that dynamic range is more important than distortion. When you digitally attenuate by 40dB (fairly common), you're producing a device whose noise and distortion floor is now at only -50.7dB. This is in the realm of low quality tube amp territory, and will be definitely audible.
 
You can even see this on the graphs on NWAVGuy's site. I realize NWAVGuy makes his recommendation because he believes distortion below 0.1% (-60dB) is inaudible, but he has never given any support for that assertion and it is not consistent with the academic evidence from listener tests, by a wide margin. See, e.g., this peer-reviewed publication: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2962  (0.003% is -90.4dB)
 
The only advantages you get from digital attenuation are lower crosstalk and better inter-channel matching. But the tradeoffs in terms of distortion are not worth it.

 

[tofu]

This is a myth. Software volume control is not harmless. It's theoretically correct for an ideal DAC with perfect 24 bit resolution, but for a practical device, you have to work from 0dB and consider what the device's actual resolution is, because digital attenuation throws away the high order bits first, not the low order bits. 
 
At full scale, the ODAC has 0.0029% THD+N, which means the noise and distortion floor is at -90.7dB. It's irrelevant that the dynamic range is higher than this, unless one believes that dynamic range is more important than distortion. 
When you digitally attenuate by 40dB (fairly common), you're producing a device whose noise and distortion floor is now at only -50.7dB. This is in the realm of low quality tube amp territory, and will be definitely audible.
 
You can even see this on the graphs on NWAVGuy's site. I realize NWAVGuy makes his recommendation because he believes distortion below 0.1% (-60dB) is inaudible, but he has never given any support for that assertion and it is not consistent with the academic evidence from listener tests, by a wide margin. See, e.g., this peer-reviewed publication: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2962  (0.003% is -90.4dB)
 
The only advantages you get from digital attenuation are lower crosstalk and better inter-channel matching. But the tradeoffs in terms of distortion are not worth it.

so, for argument's sake, you would suggest a passive attenuator?

 

[MoonUnit]

Quote:

so, for argument's sake, you would suggest a passive attenuator?

 
It depends. How long of cable are you driving? What is the input impedance of your amplifier?

 

[chrislangley4253]

Okay, I meant to say relatively harmless.. Lol

I'm not suggesting using digital attenuation is completely harmless, but I am suggesting that in most situations it shouldn't make any substantial, audible difference. Especially when using a properly implemented 24-bit DAC.