Cambridge DACMagic, anyone?
Oct 20, 2008 at 2:41 AM Post #121 of 920

Mazz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Posts
295
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Thanks for the ATF link, but they do say in their write up: "...extremely small residual error that is left is designed to be beyond the dynamic range of 24bit audio..". Right. Extremely small... So there is an error as I suspected
wink_face.gif
. They mention 24 bit. I wonder how large the error would then be on a coarser 16 bit signal. Does the wording "extremely" still apply?



If you educate yourself about digital audio and how it represents an analog signal and what the sources of error are, you'll understand that there are errors in every single step of the process. The trick is to keep them low enough to be inaudible. In digital processing phases, the main aim is to keep low enough that they don't change the value of the least significant bit.

I'd imagine what ATF are saying here is that their implementation is designed to do the upsampling process itself in such a way that the resulting errors (due to computation, rounding, perhaps others) are less than one significant bit in a 24-bit value. This is as good as you can get if you're producing a 24-bit result - because there's no way to express any theoretically more accurate result in the 24-bit output format.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Also, why use ATF upsampling to 24/192 when the Wolfsson WM8740 chip used in the DacMagic can already support 24/192
confused.gif
?



If you have a true 24/192 recording, you don't need to upsample because you have a source that's theoretically a little better than an upsampled lower resolution/frequency source. If all you have a 16/44.1 source, you might wish to upsample for reasons covered in other posts.

But the proof is in the pudding. Can you hear a difference, and is it big enough to care about? Different people may have different answers to that question.
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 6:59 AM Post #123 of 920

BigTony

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Posts
984
Likes
13
I've not seen one of these puppies in the wild yet, but I have found one being sold S/H already??? And in the UK.
Maybe someone has had a listen already.
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM Post #126 of 920

apatN

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Posts
5,774
Likes
19
Quote:

Originally Posted by insyte /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Ah, still no reviews
frown.gif



There are some. They are posted here as well. Still, not one is really positive about the sound. It's all like 'nice for the budget' and 'good enough'...
redface.gif
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 10:06 AM Post #127 of 920

BigTony

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Posts
984
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by snejk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The S/H ones would most likely be the old Dacmagic versions. I have one at home which I got S/H for cheaps, SEK 500, about €50.


According to the add its the 2008, bought from Ritcher Sounds.
Humm, i wonder how much better it would sound than my trusty Beresford?
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 5:48 PM Post #129 of 920

mellowbear

New Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
9
Likes
0
"This is very promising since the PS audio is in the same category price wise as the Lavry and Benchmark. The PS audio is modded alot by various USA companies to sound better of what i have read. The rus andrews looks like a re packaged stello100."

Originally Posted by dingwall View Post
"I can personally vouch for the Benchmark and Lavry (which I know off by heart, as I have owned both) knocking the socks off the 840C which I tried as a converter, let alone this new DacMagic.

A real box of tricks to get computer audio (and much, much more besides) would be something like the KRK Ergo.

A good bargain DAC would be Harman Kardon CD players (which, being polite to CA, 'inspired' the design of theirs), or the Lavry itself (its variable outputs are top notch too, and make up for the extra cost).

It's dead easy to try these out at home against each other before keeping, which as ever I recommend."
My thoughts exactly Dingwall.It would appear from reading relevant posts on this and other respected av sites that the new CA Dacmagic is based on,and on a par sonically with the Cambridge 740cd player Dac which is reported to be vastly less refined sonically than the Cambridge 840cd Dac. As the Benchmark Dac 1 and Lavry are regarded as reference Dacs, in that they are often used as a reference standard by which to compare other Dacs ,including; Russ andrews Dac1 (which is reported to be a Stello da100 rebadged with some extra shielding) and the PS Audio DLIII Digital link Dac, and as the Stello Da100 and PS audio are generally regarded to be on a par with the Benchmark and Lavry, albeit with a warmer signature. How did Hi Fi Choice give the Dacmagic a 'Gold' award up against the the RA/Stello 'silver' and especially the PSaudio DLIII 'bronze' ,given that the PSaudio is generally regarded by respected Audiophile circles (in America where it is best known) as being the the best of the lot and, with the best price to performance ratio to boot. Is it possible that in testing these three Dacs that Hi Fi Choice used a system for their test that was so far removed from the higher end systems that Lavry/Benchmark/PSaudio/Stello would normally be used in, that their clear superiority sonically over the Dacmacic/CA 740 c simply could not be heard, due to the restraints placed on the 'Test' by using inferior/ unsuitable ancillary equipment. I can't see logically how they could arrive at such an irrational conclusion unless this was the case, or perhaps there were economic factors other than 'bang for buck' influencing things.
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 6:25 PM Post #131 of 920

1UP

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Posts
1,374
Likes
10
Well, it looks in this case like value for money might be skewing their ratings.

The test systems for HFC's group tests (auditioned by panels) are solid (Richard Black uses high end ATCs, Paul Messenger uses high end Naim electronics), though this looks like a subjective review by one person.

Edit - found out Richard Black did this review and he's generally into neutrality and a pro-audio type sound; which makes sense cause some people have said they found the DacMagic a bit clinical rather than euphonic.

Anyway, at the end of the day, you just use comments like these as a rough guide and you still need to listen for yourself in your system, with your music, your ears.
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 9:40 PM Post #132 of 920

mellowbear

New Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
9
Likes
0
Can anyone comment on how Dacmagic/CA740cDac compares to Bencmark DAC1 which is also described as Clinical but precise? As Dacmacic/ CA 740c has been described as brittle at the top end and recessed in the mids, this would be a useful comparison to get a handle on the actual S.Q.
 
Oct 20, 2008 at 10:57 PM Post #133 of 920

1UP

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Posts
1,374
Likes
10
Mellowbear, you're in London - you can get a DacMagic, 740C AND 840C from Richer Sounds on a return basis!

I've heard the DAC1 and think it can be a bit thin in the upper mids - the highs are fine. Not heard the 740C, but folks generally compare the 840C to the Dac-1.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top