m-i-c-k-e-y
Headphoneus Supremus
IMO, just too many red flags. 
Denafrips Sub-Brand or Rip-off? The case of Musician Audio's Pegasus R2R DAC
- Thread starter m-i-c-k-e-y
- Start date
Sherwood
Headphoneus Supremus
Too early for me to say much except at this point I don’t see the value over Denafrips. I do think that reviewer failed to do his due diligence and give the manufacturer a chance to correct any issues there might have been with the unit.
T 1000
1000+ Head-Fier
I don't like manipulation or theft of someone's work ... but are you sure you have the true facts about the whole case? What if, for example, a technician left the company for some reason of injustice to him and took with him only what was his. In this case, manipulating the adjective "original" does great damage to the truth.
And maybe you are right. If he stole someone else's work, then he only has this dac, but if that is his work, by killing his investments, the entire audio community is at a loss in the form of the following projects.
Putting to oneside the differences between Chinese provisional legal systems and those in the West; the intellectual property in the design and construction of the product is owned by the company. If the technician came up with the design/schematics during the ordinary course of employment then the design and schematics belong to the company. The company can of course licence under contract the use of the design to others.
However, a disgruntled technician leaving the company doesn't get to take the designs he/she worked on out of a sense of perceived injustice. In most legal systems this would be considered intellectual property theft.
However, a disgruntled technician leaving the company doesn't get to take the designs he/she worked on out of a sense of perceived injustice. In most legal systems this would be considered intellectual property theft.
sajunky
Headphoneus Supremus
I see lot of post assuming theft. It doesn't need to be a case. If Denafrips production facility is bigger than demand, then they will make agreement with someone else to setup a brand that charge more for the same product and everyone is happy.
As long Denafrips do not complain for stealing and you are willing to pay more for nothing, it is all legal. Ripping of consumer that way is 100% legal.
As long Denafrips do not complain for stealing and you are willing to pay more for nothing, it is all legal. Ripping of consumer that way is 100% legal.
![]eep](https://cdn.head-fi.org/avatars/m/139/139747.jpg?1273084439){kind=avatar}
]eep
Headphoneus Supremus
I don't know how your remarks pertain to what i said what you quoted. I think I can reconstruct a lot of the whole mystery from press releases, reviews, internal pictures etc. Not forgetting my 15 years with Chinese hifi and business practices (not to mention western globalist exploitation of cheap Chinese labour and engineering and artisanal prowess). This is turning into a real 'whodunnit' detective story.
If, I say if, a disgruntled engineer made the Musician design borrowing on the Denafrips Ares he would have done a complete 180 on 2 very important design features. The one standing out clearly from any design I've seen is the array of power caps. If I would have been on the design of the Denafrips range the departure from the passive output would be even worse. IMO this is the main reason why the Pegasus sounds so brass, stop and go, less spatial and open as the ONLY comparison told (NBT review by Jay).
Original or copy is often easy to spot. Copies are often not as good. People who copy often miss the idea behind a certain design decision. Then they have to make up some bs story like in the Musician press release which totally contradicts what I read/heard about the denafrips dacs. So if, according to Musician press release, a few big caps (like any vanilla design) is an 'improvement' over the array of deliberate small caps... why does the Denafrips Terminator plus flagship ea. use the same array?
That said... I think on the one side intelectual property is overrated, ideas should belong to everybody for the common good. In this I agree with Nicola Tesla. But he died destitute in a shabby hotel while the CIA robbed all his notes and ideas. On the other hand, when you invest a lot of time and resources into developing an idea and someone else is acting like it was his idea... (bad bosses?). That is immoral. What is even worse is abuse of patent rights. When someone like Tesla has his ideas stolen (not to mention his name, fortunately im not namedropping, right Elon?) and his ideas are patented by someone else, the inventor can't even give his own invention away for free,or produce it. That happens a lot, poor inventor vs big business; litigation, army of patent lawers... guess who wins. Fortunately the one thing they can't steal is the genius' mind!
So, stealing is imho a misnomer when it comes to ideas (in corporate vernacular called 'intellectual property') but denying someone the right to make something that they know how to or have an idea for is perculiar, immoral. The love of money is the root of all evil.
T 1000
1000+ Head-Fier
This discussion is completely wrapped up. I do not understand the internal architecture of any music device in general.
When I mentioned the theft, I meant copying ares 2, because you detect pegasus as a copy.
I'm just listening to Pegasus and your comment that "Pegasus sounds so brass" simply can't be attributed to Pegasus, in terms of space in relation to ares 2, I don't know, I don't have ares 2 to compare, but I hear exceptional width as well as height and depth scenes, and you're wrong is not the only comparison, in his review Sandu from "SoundNews" when asked asked gives his view between the two.
I agree with you that goods and various inventions should be available to everyone, but not in the industrial segment where a particular product is used for profit, then intellectual property should be protected (when a particular product, in the form of a patent or other legal protection) , but what I'm trying to say is that someone's knowledge of electrical engineering cannot be considered the property of a company forever.
]eep
Headphoneus Supremus
I'm sorry if I was unclear in rephrasing the comparison between the two from NBT. Please listen to Jays remarks and comment on that. I just tried to rephrase quickly. Sorry if that put you off.
I never said the Pegasus was bad. 'Brass' is just very relative as are ALL comparisons between well made dacs, let alone 2 R2R DAC's. There is a difference though. And an active output has the effect that it sounds louder, balsy, more bass slam, dynamic(ly compressed) and less refined, less spatially correct etc. Every additional circuit makes the total lose musical information, the more complex the circuit, the more loss. This is inherent to any circuit, better quality components reduces it, more components multiplies it.
I have experience with a lot of different output stages and my conclusion is that if it isn't absolutely nescessary (like with delta-sigma low V) a passive output stage (or not even 1 cap if possible) is vastly preferable. There is no argument comparing a straight line to a transistor stage in preservation of information. Mind you: information is NOT the same as output level.
I consider Sandu clearly biased, his comparison is expressly outside the review since he wasn't allowed to do so in the review (i guess to avoid liability just in case). When he reviewed the Ares a year earlier he was raving about it, and now it is like he never reviewed it when it is clearly the big hairy woolly mammoth in the room. I smell financial interest or NDA.
My pegasus was delivered 4 days ago. It is sounding absolutely fabulous and bests my Yamaha A-S2100 cd player in some ways. I am in plain shock that a 1100 dollar DAC is this good. I had never heard a DAC implementation that sounded better than my Yamaha CD player for many years (since it first came out). I was close to pulling the trigger on a $$$$ Meitner not too long ago. But, I decided against it after i had it on loan for a week, because it couldn't do any better to my ears than the A-S2100 . This pegasus is unbelievable value. Man, that soundnews guy is a god send for finding gems like these.
MLGrado
500+ Head-Fier
I don't know where to place this. Since it concerns on a R2R DAC so I decided to place in this section.
This concerns on Musician Audio's Pegasus R2R DAC:
LINK: http://www.musician-audio.com/en/col.jsp?id=103
I came across this DAC as Chris, founder of Audiophile Style (ex Computer Audiophile) posted in their forum about 2 months ago that it is in for a review.
LINK: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/59435-musician-pegasus-r2r-dac/
Few days ago Sandu (of Soundnews) posted his review stating "The best sounding DAC he ever heard under 2K". That it bested his Matix Element X.
LINK: https://soundnews.net/sources/dacs/musician-audio-pegasus-r2r-dac-review/
HOWEVER, (as you will see in the product pictures and specs) its seems to be either a Denafrips sub-brand, or a blatant rip-off of Denafrips.
More disturbing informations coming from editors of various fora:
Srajan Ebaen (of 6 moons): https://darko.audio/2020/06/kih-77-chinese-chimera/
Chris of AudiophileStyle had this to say: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...gasus-r2r-dac/?do=findComment&comment=1063248
Posting this as a informed consumer.
Leaving you with the pictures.
Technical Highlights:
Proprietary R2R + DSD Architecture
True balanced 24BIT R2R + 6BIT DSD (32 steps FIR Filters)
Low Noise Power Supply
FIFO Buffer
Digital Signal Processing via FPGA
DSD1024, PCM1536 Supports On USB & I2S Input (the audio source needs to be compatible with the native interface)
Proprietary USB Audio Solution via STM32F446 Advanced AMR Based MCU
Licensed Thesycon USB Driver For Windows Platform
Driverless On Mac & Linux
DSD
DSD64-DoP On All Input
DSD1024 On USB & I2S Input
PCM
24bits / 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192KHz On All Input
1536kHz On USB & I2S Input
Sampling Mode: Non-Oversampling NOS / Oversampling OS
Digital Input:
Coaxial * 1 via RCA
Optical * 1
USB * 1
AES/EBU * 1
I2S via HDMI LVDS * 1
Analog Output:
RCA为2.2Vrms，625Ω
XLR为4.4Vrms，1250Ω
Technical parameters
Frequency Response: 10Hz~60KHz
THD+N: 0.002%
S/N Ratio: 123dB(A-weighted)
Dynamic Range: >120dB
AC Power Requirement: 110-240VAC, 50/60Hz (Worldwide Voltage)
Power Consumption: ≤20W
Dimension: 280 x 250x 50 mm
Package Dim: 375 x 330 x 115 mm
Package Content: DAC + AC power cable, No remote control.
Weight:3.9 Kg
Color: Silver / Black
Distributed and sold by AOSHDIA AUDIO on Amazon, Aliexpress and Ebay.
Price: $1099.99
What ever the case is, I stay confused about some of their marketing fluff. First of all, R2R DAC will not process DSD natively. Nada. R2R resistors weighted exponentially in two' compliment PCM can't/won't filter DSD.
Now, every spec or ad I have seen on these chinese Dac;s SEEMS to indicate a complete separate stage bypassing R2R for native DSD filtering. Thats a very good thing!
But the 6 bit DSD thing is very confusing. What they are advertising is simply the same basic way most every native DSD chip filters the 1-bit square wave with a moving average FIR filter. They are advertising a 32 bit (which in DSD talk is referring to 32 1 bit samples of the stream) delay line for the filter. That doesn't make it 6 bit. It is still 1 bit that has been filtered with a 32 sample delay line. Further confusing is the propaganda itself! Assuming that DID make it multi-bit DSD, 32 levels is 5 bit!!!! I can only assume they are saying 6 bit because its in, da dumm....stereo. So two channels with 32 levels each would make 64 total levels. Which could in some manner of thinking be thought of now as 6 bit? Or as I am typing that and admittedly being over cynical, I apologize, perhaps the DSD filter section uses differential signalling, meaning its still a 32 level FIR filter but with differential processing there would technically be 64 levels in a certain manner of thinking.
Whatever the case, it isn't 64 levels or 6 bit. Assuming it really is native DSD conversion, sending the 1-bit carrier wave to the conversion filter that has a 32 tap delay line, results in nothing more than the recovered audio sine wave from the modulated square wave. A 1 bit signal stream that is FIR filtered doesn't come out as multi-bit DSD! It comes out as the actual analog audio (once current to voltage and other analog magic is worked of course) you are listening to!
sajunky
Headphoneus Supremus
It is a separate ladder for decoding DSD. The same in Audio GD, Soekris, Ares, so in Pegasus. How it is done and why it is 6 bits, not 5+1/2, I don't remember. BTW, a sign-magnitude format require n+1/2 bits.
If you look close at internals of modern delta-sigma converters, you will surprised to find out that there are no pure one-bit decoders these days. All of them use a partial conversion to 5 (or) 6-bits. Such ladder do not require a great accuracy, details are not published, but it is a known fact.
The only significant difference between modern Delta-Sigma and R2R DACs is when playing PCM format. The former convert PCM to the one-bit (these days a limited multibit) bitstream format and the later do it natively.
Last edited:
MLGrado
500+ Head-Fier
It is a separate ladder for decoding DSD. The same in Audio GD, Soekris, Ares, so in Pegasus. How it is done and why it is 6 bits, not 5+1/2, I don't remember. BTW, a sign-magnitude format require n+1/2 bits.
If you look close at internals of modern delta-sigma converters, you will surprised to find out that there are no pure one-bit decoders these days. All of them use a partial conversion to 5 (or) 6-bits. Such ladder do not require a great accuracy, details are not published, but it is a known fact.
The only significant difference between modern Delta-Sigma and R2R DACs is when playing PCM format. The former convert PCM to the one-bit (these days a limited multibit) bitstream format and the later do it natively.
Sure I am aware that most all ADC's and DAC's are multi-bit delta sigma. The problem is, a ladder dac cannot decode sigma delta, whether it is 1 bit or 1000 bits. We are talking two different kinds of 'bits' here. Sigma delta is unary or thermometer coded. True PCM is a completely different representation of binary values.
The way the DAC is advertised it is a 32 'level' FIR converter. That is exactly how native 1 bit DSD DACs work. It can also be used for multi bit delta-sigma as well. 32 level is equivalent to 5 bits in PCM thinking. But sigma delta is more thought of in levels than bits because of its thermometer/unary code, which has all equally weighted switches that create a moving average FIR filter for the 1 bit DSD. The 1 bit DSD signal is subject in a certain way of thinking to an analog, discrete part digital FIR filter. Therefore for a 32 level filter, it takes a 32 'bit' delay line to feed the 32 taps. Once again, we get confused by terminology, because here 'bit' refers to samples in time... the 1 bit sampled stream overlayed onto itself 32 times each offset by a 1 sample/bit delay.
That is how virtually ALL native DSD converters work, from Burr Brown chips to AKM, even the open Source Sygnalist DAC by HQPlayer.
Perhaps you are referring to the other school of DSD conversion, implemented by ESS, and anyone else who feel that the 1 bit source DSD file must be re-modulated to their proprietary multi-bit sigma delta format. It we skip over time consuming chat about how that is done, and what DSP is used and where in the chain it goes, in the END, PCM and DSD files look no different really once they come out of the final modulator. Of course they are designed this way because the maker thinks taking an extremely noisy and non linear 1 bit DSD file and creating a brand new noise curve via its own modulator(s) leads to a better end result and sound, works better with their post conversion analog design, works better with downstream hardware.
I don't care which one folks think is best; the way the product that is the subect of this thread is advertised, is via separate DSD conversion by a 32 tap FIR filter. Just like Miska at Sygnalist. Same thing. Some folks may want to think this must turn 1 bit DSD in 32 level or 5 bit Sigma Delta, but it isn't! It is simply the 'stacking' of the same 1 bit stream on top of each other so to speak, delayed each by one clock pulse to create a moving average FIR filter. Said as simple as possible, its 1 bit DSD converted by an analog FIR filter that has 32 taps. It isn't or shouldn't be a separate R2R 'ladder' DAC. Nothing here is two's complement or exponential. Actually, the bit switches are all equally weighted. 32 of them. Which allows for scramble code or dynamic element matching to minimize nonlinearities in the resistors or caps. Another way to think about why ladder DAC would not work at all is this... since every switch is equally weighted, it we wanted to convert a 16 BIT PCM file with exponential value increases to create 2 to the 16th power or 65,536 levels, our equally weighted theoretical DAC would need NOT 16 bit switches, it would need 65,536 switches! And wow, if we actually could have that kind of processing power, it would be the lowest distortion 16 bit ladder DAC ever, because we could use dynamic element matching or scramble code and basically eliminate the problem of resistor matching.
So I am still asking, how is this device REALLY processing DSD? To say its both a 6 bit ladder Dac AND a 32 level FIR is very confusing in and of itself. Even more confusing again, is where does the 6th bit come from? 32 level 'processing' of a 1 bit signal absolutely is the equivalent of 5 bits in PCM land thinking. But that isn't what it is. It is still just a one bit signal being filtered in the analog domain.
All that I can think of, speculate is for whatever reason they are filtering 1 bit DSD into something unique. The output of said speculative filter being 6 bit twos complement PCM internal oversampled format with a small amount of noise shaping that can be dithered properly and converted by an actual "miniature" ladder DAC with 6 bit switches converting a 2 to the sixth power, with the oversampling and noise shaping making up the SNR difference.
I don't know why you would want to do it that way, though.. you get right back to the problem of the ladder R2R in the first place.. lack of linearity and distortion. I'm not sure I trust any ladder DAC with only 6 bits and a compromised resolution, apart from the oversampling algos we apply to move that distortion to somewhere we can't hear it, the added distortion from how difficult resistor matching is makes it even less appealing.
I do have to apologize for all of that.. Seems like a bit much to clarify how I still find their method and math confusing. But I am the right brained left handed creative type. The math isn't my thing
Last edited:
sajunky
Headphoneus Supremus
I take your point that dedicated ladder for DSD decoding may have equally weighted resistors. It makes sense. I didn't check it on my DAC.
Last edited:
]eep
Headphoneus Supremus
nevermind.... forgot to refresh
Last edited:
legcramp
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Posts
- 1,014
- Likes
- 149
The YouTube reviewer that gave the Pegasus the bad "review" gave two other DACs "DAC of the year" awards... both were Denafrips. lol not fishy at all.
Users who are viewing this thread
