[riverlethe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edba2000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am also finding hard to believe that the 0404 USB can beat DAC1. How can a 200$ device compete with a 1300$ one? If this is true then everybody buy the 0404 and save 1100$!! So... changing the question of this thread, what is the best choice to buy with 200$~300$?

Why is this hard to believe? The DAC processor used in a DAC1 costs $2.50. Op-amps are about $0.60. Elias even stated in the Benchmark thread that the face-plate is the most expensive component of the DAC1. The DAC1's claims to fame are driver-less 24-bit over USB, which is almost useless for an end-user (Do you really need 140dB of dynamic range and frequencies a dog can't even hear?), and Ultra-Lock, which reduces jitter that probably wasn't audible in the first place.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverlethe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why is this hard to believe? The DAC processor used in a DAC1 costs $2.50. Op-amps are about $0.60. Elias even stated in the Benchmark thread that the face-plate is the most expensive component of the DAC1. The DAC1's claims to fame are driver-less 24-bit over USB, which is almost useless for an end-user (Do you really need 140dB of dynamic range and frequencies a dog can't even hear?), and Ultra-Lock, which reduces jitter that probably wasn't audible in the first place.

Elias has stated that cost was no object in the design of the DAC1, regarding the audio portion. He picked the best parts available for his circuit, even if they happened to be less expensive than other possible part choices. The design of the DAC1 and how it incorporates upsampling/oversampling is somewhat unique, and it's based on measurements designed to get the best sound quality out of the chosen parts, specifically the AD1853 DAC.

24-bit is not useless; it's the current standard when it comes to recording. Since Benchmark markets to the studio crowd, it's essential to support 24-bit playback. Not to mention that in my experience, a 24-bit signal sounds more dynamically accurate than lower bit-rates. From 0% to 100%, a 16-bit signal has 65,536 possible values, while a 24-bit signal has 16,777,216 values; the signal will have higher resolution even when it's not going from one loudness extreme to another. Consider that even if only the top 10% of dynamic range is used (for example with a limited or compressed recording), a 24-bit signal would still have 1,671,168 more possible values than a 16-bit recording.

 

[riverlethe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Elias has stated that cost was no object in the design of the DAC1, regarding the audio portion. He picked the best parts available for his circuit, even if they happened to be less expensive than other possible part choices. The design of the DAC1 and how it incorporates upsampling/oversampling is somewhat unique, and it's based on measurements designed to get the best sound quality out of the chosen parts, specifically the AD1853 DAC. 24-bit is not useless; it's the current standard when it comes to recording. Since Benchmark markets to the studio crowd, it's essential to support 24-bit playback. Not to mention that in my experience, a 24-bit signal sounds more dynamically accurate than lower bit-rates. From 0% to 100%, a 16-bit signal has 65,536 possible values, while a 24-bit signal has 16,777,216 values; the signal will have higher resolution even when it's not going from one loudness extreme to another. Consider that even if only the top 10% of dynamic range is used (for example with a limited or compressed recording), a 24-bit signal would still have 1,671,168 more possible values than a 16-bit recording.

I'm not saying Benchmark should've chosen more expensive parts- simply that it's not that expensive with modern microchip techology to get incredible performance. I'd be surprised if the DAC1 cost more than $100 in parts.
If there is any audible difference between devices, my uneducated guess is that it would be due to superior power supply and circuit layout, not computer chips with capabilities ranging from beyond human perception to far beyond human perception.

I did say 24-bit is almost useless for the end-user. (I say almost because Elias made a point about multiple audio streams playing at once or various other software manipulations, where 24-bit would be less likely to give audible degradation.) I realize there are various reasons for it in recording, and the DAC1 is also a studio device.

What is "dynamically accurate?"

This is my source regarding 24-bit, etc.:
http://http://theaudiocritic.com/blo...Id=41&blogId=1

The author sounds a little biased, but his source is formidable.

Anyway, I plan to A/B these two devices. If I can't hear a difference I will be selling the DAC1.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverlethe /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is "dynamically accurate?"

Closer to the dynamics of the original performance. But specifically, comparing dithered 16-bit files to the original 24-bit files, I found the 16-bit versions lacking. They were full-band recordings I'd produced, mixed, and mastered, so I was especially familiar with how they were supposed to sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverlethe This is my source regarding 24-bit, etc.: http://http://theaudiocritic.com/blo...Id=41&blogId=1 The author sounds a little biased, but his source is formidable.

I read through the original study back in 2007, and while it was interesting, I didn't consider it to be a terminal blow against high-res. IIRC, a group of older people couldn't hear the difference on mid-range / low-end components, and a group of young college students couldn't hear the difference in a recording studio. I'm not sure that those tests would necessarily be valid for the entire population. I'd start by questioning the resolution of the equipment and then the experience of the listeners, but I understand that can be a slippery slope (i.e. what's good enough?).

But specifically, I can't fathom anyone not hearing the difference between a redbook CD and a SACD on the Pioneer DV-563A, the low-budget universal player that was used for the first official test. It uses the original analog filter method for playing back the DSD stream, which results in significant artifacts in the audible frequency range. In other words, I would expect a CD version of the same audio source to sound better (or at least audibly different) than the SACD version on that particular player. In a test like this, there are a lot of variables!

I think it's great that you're planning to A-B the DAC1 against the 0404 USB. It's the only way to be certain about which you'd prefer. Let us know your impressions! I've never heard a DAC1, so I'm particularly interested. Just be sure to give yourself time to adjust to the DAC1's sound signature.

In the mean time, what's your opinion of the 0404 USB's sound signature / how does it sound in your system?

 

[riverlethe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Closer to the dynamics of the original performance. But specifically, comparing dithered 16-bit files to the original 24-bit files, I found the 16-bit versions lacking. They were full-band recordings I'd produced, mixed, and mastered, so I was especially familiar with how they were supposed to sound. I read through the original study back in 2007, and while it was interesting, I didn't consider it to be a terminal blow against high-res. IIRC, a group of older people couldn't hear the difference on mid-range / low-end components, and a group of young college students couldn't hear the difference in a recording studio. I'm not sure that those tests would necessarily be valid for the entire population. I'd start by questioning the resolution of the equipment and then the experience of the listeners, but I understand that can be a slippery slope (i.e. what's good enough?). But specifically, I can't fathom anyone not hearing the difference between a redbook CD and a SACD on the Pioneer DV-563A, the low-budget universal player that was used for the first official test. It uses the original analog filter method for playing back the DSD stream, which results in significant artifacts in the audible frequency range. In other words, I would expect a CD version of the same audio source to sound better (or at least audibly different) than the SACD version on that particular player. In a test like this, there are a lot of variables! I think it's great that you're planning to A-B the DAC1 against the 0404 USB. It's the only way to be certain about which you'd prefer. Let us know your impressions! I've never heard a DAC1, so I'm particularly interested. Just be sure to give yourself time to adjust to the DAC1's sound signature. In the mean time, what's your opinion of the 0404 USB's sound signature / how does it sound in your system?

Alright, so this test is questionable, according to your description. Such a test couldn't "prove" anything, as Peter Aczel seems to think. Subjective impressions are also highly questionable. Now what?

I currently have the DAC1 USB and am quite happy with its sound. I intend to level match it with an EMU0404 USB and see if I can perceive any differences.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverlethe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Alright, so this test is questionable, according to your description. Such a test couldn't "prove" anything, as Peter Aczel seems to think. Subjective impressions are also highly questionable. Now what?

Good question... I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to objectively test for subjective differences. Everyone hears differently, not always in terms of better or worse; couple those physical differences with subjective preferences and you'll have a million conflicting opinions about what sounds best.

In the end, your own opinion matters the most. Maybe you care about accuracy and want the best-measuring gear, or you care more about musicality and go for gear with known harmonic distortion. Some people can't hear the difference between gear, and for them, anything will do. So, everyone's mileage may vary.

The positive effect is that, given enough opinions from people who have compared gear, we can gain a general idea about how a piece of equipment might sound in our own systems. From there, we can determine if it's worth the cost of upgrading. I imagine this is your reason for testing the 0404 USB vs. DAC1. If you can't hear a significant (or cost-justifiable) difference, then the 0404 USB is the logical choice for you.

 

[andre.beat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't yet understand why, because I have the same versions of Foobar, ASIO, and the 0404 USB drivers, all configured the same way on both my desktop and my notebook, but autosync behaves differently to some degree. I can enable/disable upsampling to 96 kHz in Foobar on my notebook "on the fly" (while I am playing a cut in Foobar) and the 0404 USB doesn't miss a beat--there might be a little click, but the unit immediately resyncs to the higher/lower rate with no problems. OTOH, if I enable upsampling in the middle of a cut with my desktop, the music immediately slows down and the pitch drops. For some reason, the instruction to change sampling rate seems not to make it through to the external box, so it keeps reclocking the data to the d/a at 44.1 kHz. The E-MU control panels shows that it's sync'ed at the higher rate, but that is really untrue--it's just sending the data over at the higher rate. If I stop and restart playback, then the external box resyncs to the new rate. Seems as if the behavior you are experiencing is different from either of my machines--so this all may have to do with some unusual behavior of the driver on various systems?

I can't change the sample rate "on the fly" as the option is grayed out. I don't mind though as it autosyncs

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by andre.beat /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't change the sample rate "on the fly" as the option is grayed out. I don't mind though as it autosyncs

I should have been more clear......what I meant was that I can enable or disable upsampling (or change the resampling rate) within Foobar "on the fly" on my notebook, and the playback, other than maybe a small click or delay, is unchanged--for some reason, the external box gets the message that data is going to be coming over at a new rate. The rate in that grayed-out box in the E-MU control panel changes to match the rate of data being fed forward by Foobar.

With my desktop, if I enable/disable/change resampling, the box still thinks it's getting data at the rate at which it started playing, so the playback speed and pitch change accordingly. The grayed-out rate in the control panel stays the same, but Foobar is feeding it at the rate set in the resampler plug-in.

Strange, eh?

 

[Herr Kaufmann]

I'm definitely going to take something in this price range... what should i go for - EMU 0404 or Beresford DAC + usb-coax adapter

?????????????????

The set-up is going to be as follows

1st source -> PC - ? (EMU or Beresford) - Denon 700AE AMP - KEF iQ3
2nd source -> Denon 700AE CDP - Denon 700AE AMP - KEF iQ3

After i decide what to do with the DAC, i'll go for headphone AMP which is going to be connected through Denon AMP.

 

[riverlethe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good question... I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to objectively test for subjective differences. Everyone hears differently, not always in terms of better or worse; couple those physical differences with subjective preferences and you'll have a million conflicting opinions about what sounds best. In the end, your own opinion matters the most. Maybe you care about accuracy and want the best-measuring gear, or you care more about musicality and go for gear with known harmonic distortion. Some people can't hear the difference between gear, and for them, anything will do. So, everyone's mileage may vary. The positive effect is that, given enough opinions from people who have compared gear, we can gain a general idea about how a piece of equipment might sound in our own systems. From there, we can determine if it's worth the cost of upgrading. I imagine this is your reason for testing the 0404 USB vs. DAC1. If you can't hear a significant (or cost-justifiable) difference, then the 0404 USB is the logical choice for you.

I haven't been able to level-match since the spectrum analyzer/SPL meter I ordered with the EMU isn't working yet. However, I have some initial impressions.

Build-quality is sub-par on the E-MU, with audible squeaking on the headphone volume knob. Driver-less function alone may justify the cost of the DAC1 to some people, as it took me over an hour to get the E-MU to function with beta drivers for Vista.

The DAC1 seems bassier and less shrill with the K701's. The DAC1 doesn't "shriek" as much, even at full volume. I can't be sure without level matching, nor can I comment on which sound is more accurate without having a reference.

Edit: Is the up-sampling of the DAC1 likely to "smooth" over the sound in some way?

 

[riverlethe]

Now that I've got them within a decibel of each other, I'm having some difficulty hearing a difference. Anyone care to suggest what I should listen for?

 

[Herr Kaufmann]

Does anyone has a answer or suggestion to my question?

 

[riverlethe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr Kaufmann /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does anyone has a answer or suggestion to my question?

My impression is that the Beresford is a colored audiophile device and the EMU 0404 is a pro device. I could be wrong...

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by riverlethe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now that I've got them within a decibel of each other, I'm having some difficulty hearing a difference. Anyone care to suggest what I should listen for?

Resolution - can you hear "into" the recording / is there a sense of space?

Detail - how easily can you hear all of the individual instruments / are you hearing things that you've never heard before?

Accuracy - does the timbre change depending on the recording, or does the
device apply its sound signature to everything?

Extension - how clear and open are the extreme highs and lows?

Imaging - how easily can you tell where the instruments are located in the mix?

Soundstage - how wide is the range of left-to-right movement?

--

Those aren't strict definitions, but they should give you some idea of what the differences might be. Your ability to hear a difference will also depend on the characteristics of your playback equipment, though K701s should be good for testing.

Poor upsampling can smooth over the sound and create unrealistic sounding high frequencies, but the way it's implemented in the DAC1 should have a positive effect on sound quality.

You may find that the shrillness (low treble brightness) you experienced with the 0404 USB is the major difference between the two DACs, but with more listening, you may find further subtle differences. Try to listen to them over a speaker system if you can, as speakers often reveal spatial cues that headphones can't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr Kaufmann /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does anyone has a answer or suggestion to my question?

I'd go with the 0404 USB... Better parts, better resale value, doesn't have six revisions.

 

[riverlethe]

I am noticing a "sound" with the EMU0404, but I have no vocabulary for it. It may just be that the DAC1 is able to get more low frequencies out of the K701.

How can upsampling have a positive impact on sound quality?