[mobayrasta]

Since I don't use USB, this DAC is absolutely great. I have yet to hear a DAC in this price range that is even close to the EE. Everybody goes on and on about audioGD, I would love for those people to compare them to this DAC. They might be surprised. I have heard a bunch of Audio GD stuff , none of their Sabre DACS though and I have not heard one that sounds better. Smooth with so much detail. Just unbelievable!  I really don't think there is anything that competes at this price point. 

 

[fredhammersmith]

What I would love is to compare the EE and the Monarchy NM24. They are pretty close un price and I am ready to pull the trigger.

 

[K3cT]

Quote:

Since I don't use USB, this DAC is absolutely great. I have yet to hear a DAC in this price range that is even close to the EE. Everybody goes on and on about audioGD, I would love for those people to compare them to this DAC. They might be surprised. I have heard a bunch of Audio GD stuff , none of their Sabre DACS though and I have not heard one that sounds better. Smooth with so much detail. Just unbelievable!  I really don't think there is anything that competes at this price point. 

Which audio-gd DACs have you compared the MiniMAX with? The EE is interesting but I'm a bit icky with the tube output stage. A friend of mine owns a PCM1794-based DAC with a similar design and as nice as it sounds, due to the tube... it's not as flexible as I'd hope. 

 

[nick_charles]

S/N ratio : Tube 90dB
Solid Sate 95dB
 
This is performance slightly worse than 16 bits
 
yet it boasts a Dynamic Range of 129dB or in excess of 21 bits
 
Is that possible ?
 
EDIT: Well this is a bit of sleight of hand with the specs, the DR is that of the DAC chip not the system which explains the huge disparity. The DR and SNR should be fairly similar for the digital component viz (1.76 + 6.02 x NBits) vs (6,02 x NBits) so the analog system noise nobbles the performance a bit.

 

 

[Joaco]

I also don´t quite understand the great performance with a SNR of 90 dB through the tube output. I don´t doubt of the great performance, I simply don´t understand the correlation of the figures with the performance. Why do they make so much fuss about the 129dB dynamic range when 39dB are lost by the tube´s output noise???

 

[Joaco]

I ask the same question again, which Audio-GD DACs does the EE outperform? Anyone compared it to the NFB-1 or the similar REF-5? Or to the 19?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

I also don´t quite understand the great performance with a SNR of 90 dB through the tube output. I don´t doubt of the great performance, I simply don´t understand the correlation of the figures with the performance. Why do they make so much fuss about the 129dB dynamic range when 39dB are lost by the tube´s output noise???

The overall noise performance despite the technological advances is firmly in the late 1980s/early 1990s, it is marginally worse than my 1989 Rotel RCD855 it's effective dynamic range is a tad under 16bits in SS mode, it also has quite high (relatively) distortion THD : 0.5%(Tube) 0.02%(Solid State). Compare this with even the bottom of the range $350 Marantz CD player

THD	0.002%
S/N Ratio	110dB

and the comparison is not flattering, even my 5 disc 1 bit changer does better.
 
That said, the noise levels and distortion are good enough to not be an issue. Actually I am sure it sounds fine, like any competent DAC.
 
So we basically have a competent if unremarkable ~16 bit DAC hiding in a 24/32 bit shell. So where all these comments about extension and resolution come from is beyond me. It must have some other magical properties that give it the illusion of subjective superiority. Sadly since nobody apart from the manufacturer has measured the perfromance we do not even know what the FR looks like
 


 

 

[Denys]

Hi everyone,
 
Simple question here... I am looking for a DAC for my Woo Audio 6SE.... Could this be the one? As I will use it from a USB connection, I could probably use my M2Tech SPDIF key to compensate for the "cheap" USB connection???
 
Could this be a good improvement from the DacMagic I am using now ???
 
Thanks
 
Denys

 

[realmassy]

 
Quote:

The overall noise performance despite the technological advances is firmly in the late 1980s/early 1990s, it is marginally worse than my 1989 Rotel RCD855 it's effective dynamic range is a tad under 16bits in SS mode, it also has quite high (relatively) distortion THD : 0.5%(Tube) 0.02%(Solid State). Compare this with even the bottom of the range $350 Marantz CD player

THD	0.002%
S/N Ratio	110dB

and the comparison is not flattering, even my 5 disc 1 bit changer does better.
 
That said, the noise levels and distortion are good enough to not be an issue. Actually I am sure it sounds fine, like any competent DAC.
 
So we basically have a competent if unremarkable ~16 bit DAC hiding in a 24/32 bit shell. So where all these comments about extension and resolution come from is beyond me. It must have some other magical properties that give it the illusion of subjective superiority. Sadly since nobody apart from the manufacturer has measured the perfromance we do not even know what the FR looks like
 


 

We should also consider that 99% of modern recordings have a poor dynamic range (50/60 db), so 90db is more than enough.
 
As for THD specifications, according to my ears they mean nothing: think of all those CD players in the 80s (mostly coming from Japan) having brilliant specifications, no distortion...and sounding like c**p
 

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
We should also consider that 99% of modern recordings have a poor dynamic range (50/60 db), so 90db is more than enough.
 
Indeed, in fact 60db is being generous, unless it is classical recordings which can have a decent DR
 
As for THD specifications, according to my ears they mean nothing: think of all those CD players in the 80s (mostly coming from Japan) having brilliant specifications, no distortion...and sounding like c**p
 
Frankly I loved my first gen (1984) Marantz CD63 which was a mere 14 bit machine (with oversampling) technically crap by modern (or even late 80s) standards, I do not buy the early CD players were crap sounding line, I loved CD the day I first heard it and continued loving it through the 80s, of course vinyl set the bar very low

 talk about lifting a veil,  I might agree that some early CDs were a touch sharp.
 
But if you claim some great technological advance which the EE does obliquely via its chipset well the numbers show a slightly different story, I cannot comment on how it sounds but if it does sound remarkable it does so despite the great feat of taking a 21 bit system and downgrading it to a 16 bit system. If it really does represent a pinnacle in sound reproduction then High Res audio is a total waste of time

 

[realmassy]

Quote:

But if you claim some great technological advance which the EE does obliquely via its chipset well the numbers show a slightly different story, I cannot comment on how it sounds but if it does sound remarkable it does so despite the great feat of taking a 21 bit system and downgrading it to a 16 bit system. If it really does represent a pinnacle in sound reproduction then High Res audio is a total waste of time

 
No idea about sound either I hope it's good cause I'm tempted to buy it.
I've read contrasting opinions on Sabre DACs, I'm afraid they could sound 'too modern', with unrealistically tight bass etc etc. Hopefully the tube output will smooth everything out.
 
As for High Res, until there's no real software available, I mean real music with real artists (I want the Berliner!), yes it's a waste of time

 

[Joaco]

Anyone can compare it to Audio-GD dacs?

 

[RedBull]

Quote:

We should also consider that 99% of modern recordings have a poor dynamic range (50/60 db), so 90db is more than enough.
 
As for THD specifications, according to my ears they mean nothing: think of all those CD players in the 80s (mostly coming from Japan) having brilliant specifications, no distortion...and sounding like c**p
 

 
AGREE!

THD is the most useless specification being overly used.  I've heard all MOST SS amp with THD 0.0001% but it sound nothing compared to DV337 with THD 2% in terms of dynamics and imaging, so, I ignore this completely, well, not really ignore, I read them, but just to make me laugh. 

 
My Cowon D2 is noticeably quieter than my laptop headphone out (for Shure SE530), but it just does not have the grunt to give enough dynamic to the sound which is result sounds booooring. That's my opinion about noise.  But I won't sell my D2, just for portability reason

 
 
Quote:

Anyone can compare it to Audio-GD dacs?

Yes please ...  anyone?

 

[Orangecrush]

Quote:

Anyone can compare it to Audio-GD dacs?

That would be most interesting. Somebody, please!

 

[Joaco]

Any new impressions on the DAC? Thanks