Cen.Grand DSDAC 1.0 Deluxe - ending point in my search for a new reference

[project86]

I don't recall seeing any switches on the bottom of either unit, but I can double check when I get home. I want to say they are voltage specific though.

 

[Rayon]

It's definitely a situation where you are alienating some number of users no matter what you do.

If I use an external headphone amp (or integrated speaker amp) then maybe I don't have any need for volume control on my DAC, and might feel it's a waste of money or potentially hurting the SQ of the DAC with zero benefit to me.

On the flip side, if a device doesn't have volume control, and I need it... well, that DAC is off my list.

This 100%. I'm personally happy that May doesn't have volume control exactly for that reason. It's a bit less about money and more about SQ. However with the case of digital volume control, there could be a toggle for bit-perfect. On the other hand, that would then not only introduce costs, but also introduce complexity.

I guess in the end the design decision was based on the fact that May aims for no-compromise SQ and to me this makes complete sense. I think in many other products the digital volume control is ok, as the difference is not audible anyway. With May, using for example using Roon's volume control is audible already. I was missing volume control in May in the beginning, but now I'm just happy that it's not making any compromises there.

 

[ArthurPower]

Not sure whether all Cen.Grand gears (especially DSDAC 1.0 and Silver Fox) are single or dual (110-230) voltage. I've recently read somewhere that there is a configurable switch underneath the unit, but not sure if it is Cen.Grand ...

Can you help me with this? @ArthurPower

All Cen.Grand products are voltage specific. They have to be ordered in either 115 or 230 volts. Their linear power supply uses a dedicated voltage transformer.

 

[Lucus]

This 100%. I'm personally happy that May doesn't have volume control exactly for that reason. It's a bit less about money and more about SQ. However with the case of digital volume control, there could be a toggle for bit-perfect. On the other hand, that would then not only introduce costs, but also introduce complexity.

I guess in the end the design decision was based on the fact that May aims for no-compromise SQ and to me this makes complete sense. I think in many other products the digital volume control is ok, as the difference is not audible anyway. With May, using for example using Roon's volume control is audible already. I was missing volume control in May in the beginning, but now I'm just happy that it's not making any compromises there.

Digital attenuation is nowadays no longer an issue, and it has no audible impact on SQ, or far less than a dedicated preamplifier....and the story with "bitperfect" is also a legend: Nearly no DAC has a resolution on 24 bits, so using 1 bit for volume attenuation is not a problem
I fear Holo has choosen this way for the May only for commercial/marketing purpose (selling a dedicated preamp with the May)....

 

[Rayon]

it has no audible impact on SQ, or far less than a dedicated preamplifier....and the story with "bitperfect" is also a legend: Nearly no DAC has a resolution on 24 bits, so using 1 bit for volume attenuation is not a problem

I have always heard it if the sound goes through any processing. My guess is it's due to dither.

The thing with bitperfect (to me) has nothing to do with how much it attenuates the sound and number of bits, but that if it's not bitperfect, it went through some processing. Once I've witnessed the changes with my own ears, all the theoretical discussion about no effects goes out of the window. It's definitely not a night and day difference, but again, May is a no-compromise product. To me it doesn't make sense to go crazy with everthing else in the design and then lose that 1-2% due to digital processing. May isn't about convenience. It's a different product for certain type of people.

 

[project86]

Whenever we discuss digital volume control solutions, its critical to note how much attenuation we are talking about.

For example, I've got some headphone amps with too much gain and/or a low number of steps in their discrete volume controls. It's nice to have a DAC with a volume feature to take a few dB off or dial things in just right in between the larger discrete steps. For that sort of use, even the basic integrated solution found in the DAC chip itself is usually good enough, having minimal impact on the SQ in most cases.

But if someone with a speaker-based system wanted to run DAC-direct straight to their amplifier with no preamp in the chain, that's a different story. There is likely to be much more attenuation involved there, and thus we need a really high quality design that will make less impact even when we are 50+dB down. This is where more complex and well engineered solutions can be very beneficial.

So in my experience, digital attenuation is not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it certainly can be depending on the implementation and the job I need it to do.

 

[slazhx]

Whenever we discuss digital volume control solutions, its critical to note how much attenuation we are talking about.

For example, I've got some headphone amps with too much gain and/or a low number of steps in their discrete volume controls. It's nice to have a DAC with a volume feature to take a few dB off or dial things in just right in between the larger discrete steps. For that sort of use, even the basic integrated solution found in the DAC chip itself is usually good enough, having minimal impact on the SQ in most cases.

But if someone with a speaker-based system wanted to run DAC-direct straight to their amplifier with no preamp in the chain, that's a different story. There is likely to be much more attenuation involved there, and thus we need a really high quality design that will make less impact even when we are 50+dB down. This is where more complex and well engineered solutions can be very beneficial.

So in my experience, digital attenuation is not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it certainly can be depending on the implementation and the job I need it to do.

So do you think, in your opinion, the DSDAC 1.0 has good quality of the preamp in terms of attenuation and digital volume control? I am planning for DSDAC1.0 -> "built-in" preamp -> direct to speaker amp in my near future upgrade path.

 

[project86]

So do you think, in your opinion, the DSDAC 1.0 has good quality of the preamp in terms of attenuation and digital volume control? I am planning for DSDAC1.0 -> "built-in" preamp -> direct to speaker amp in my near future upgrade path.

I definitely do. I threw it in my speaker rig for a while and it did an excellent job.

I don't discuss my speaker rig often because the room acoustics are not amazing which makes it clearly inferior to headphones imho. Also I just don't use it anywhere near as often as headphones. But it's a decent setup based around Merril Audio Thor monoblocks and Usher Dancer Mini One DMD speakers. I have various preamps that I use, from Conrad Johnson to Rowland to the Pass Labs HPA-1, and as a generally quieter listener (thus more attenuation required), going DAC-direct doesn't always pan out in this system. The DSDAC 1.0 Deluxe is excellent though. I actually prefer using it alone and skipping the preamp, which is not something that happens very often.

 

[slazhx]

The DSDAC 1.0 Deluxe is excellent though. I actually prefer using it alone and skipping the preamp, which is not something that happens very often.

Very nice and tempting to hear that. Imho, if we can skip the external preamp for the built-in one, we might be able to lower external distortion, I guess ... and of course, the cost of external preamp and other interconnects considering "there are other areas to improve first" (if any)

 

[project86]

Agreed. Obviously it will be system specific, as sometimes an external preamp adds a specific flavor or coloration that benefits the end result. But if transparency is the goal (and I don't mean thin, analytical sound at all), the Deluxe DAC alone is a great way to go.

 

[skylinekursk]

amp deal is done with the silver fox, but I started look at dsd dac now)))
may be someone had chance compare dsd to agd r7he mk2 or mk2?

 

[project86]

Sorry I haven't heard any of the newer AGD DACs. I quite liked the old Reference 7 and 7.1 back in the day, they were loads of fun. I wouldn't say they performed anywhere near a top-tier model like the DSDAC, or Merason, Bricasti, Rockna, etc, but still very enjoyable devices. Then I really disliked many of the subsequent Audio GD DACs which came later, for various reasons.

I honestly don't recall the most recent model I've heard so they could have swung back to a signature I like again.

 

[skylinekursk]

Sorry I haven't heard any of the newer AGD DACs. I quite liked the old Reference 7 and 7.1 back in the day, they were loads of fun. I wouldn't say they performed anywhere near a top-tier model like the DSDAC, or Merason, Bricasti, Rockna, etc, but still very enjoyable devices. Then I really disliked many of the subsequent Audio GD DACs which came later, for various reasons.

I honestly don't recall the most recent model I've heard so they could have swung back to a signature I like again.

Latest generation is on another performance level. I had Rockna signature balanced and r7he mk2 DACs at the same time being back and forth in comparison for weeks. I tried find something that Rockna can do better. Details are better but that it’s. Rockna was sold and external clock to r7he made details much better so I can’t say it worst than Rockna now.
Anyway dsd Dac looking top tier and serious contender

 

[slazhx]

Latest generation is on another performance level. I had Rockna signature balanced and r7he mk2 DACs at the same time being back and forth in comparison for weeks. I tried find something that Rockna can do better. Details are better but that it’s. Rockna was sold and external clock to r7he made details much better so I can’t say it worst than Rockna now.
Anyway dsd Dac looking top tier and serious contender

Adding ext. clock makes AGD fly indeed. Especially if you have DDC in the chain. DSDAC 1.0 Deluxe, however, is tempting too.

It is nice to hear your comparison between Rockna and AGD w/ext. clock, and also shock to hear you decided to sell Rockna!

 

[Aibek]

Gentlemen, today I connected CEN.grand DSDAC 1.0 Deluxe. I listened for a couple of hours to check if everything works. Then turned off and postponed until July 15th. This is due to the fact that until July 15 I have the opportunity to evaluate the sound of Rockna Wavedream Signature SE.
Then, I'll plug the DSDAC 1.0 Deluxe back in, warm it up, and listen. Then you can compare these devices and draw conclusions.