[Davidv100]

Here's a review of the A26 and an in-depth comparison of the A and the R. https://soundnews.net/sources/dacs/gustard-a26-dac-review-can-it-get-any-better/

BTW I also have the D-Link III with the Cullen IV mod. Great DAC for the money! I bought the X26Pro to replace it. Huge difference. IMHO you won't go wrong with the either the R or the A. I think it comes down to personal preference with the respect to the subtle differences in sound between the two which are outlined in the review.

Thank you HighFive,

In my specific case where I am only listening to Apple Music (ALAC), hence PCM files only,
I am correctly understanding that the R26 is the natural way to go ?

Since :

- R26 is R2R architecture, meant to read PCM natively;
- A26 is DS architecture, meant to read DSD natively, and thus needs to first transcode PCM to DSD.

Does my reasoning make sense ?
I mean : it seems to me that R26 is the shorter way for a PCM only source (no PCM to DSD transcoding).

Or am I missing something ? is it "more complicated" ?

It is this very specific point that I am trying to understand (if it makes sense).

Tank you very much for your help

 

[Dandoudou]

Thank you HighFive,

In my specific case where I am only listening to Apple Music (ALAC), hence PCM files only,
I am correctly understanding that the R26 is the natural way to go ?

Since :

- R26 is R2R architecture, meant to read PCM natively;
- A26 is DS architecture, meant to read DSD natively, and thus needs to first transcode PCM to DSD.

Does this make sense, I mean R26 is the shorter way for a PCM only source (no PCM to DSD transcoding).
Or is it "more complicated" ?

It is this very specific point that I am trying to understand (if it makes sense).

Tank you very much for your help

If you are going to stick to Apple Music, therefore to a bit-perfect PCM stream, I presume that the R26 may suit better your user case.

 

[sajunky]

In my specific case where I am only listening to Apple Music (ALAC), hence PCM files only,
I am correctly understanding that the R26 is the natural way to go ?

Since :

A 'Since' part not really relevant. It is a matter of a type of the music you are listening (1) and your personal preference (2). For a computer generated music you will more likely prefer DS sound. If you attend live performance of classical, jazz or even a classic rock band, you may prefer sound of R2R. It also depends on how music is mastered. It is good to pickup recent releases of leading audiophile companies like ECM, Chesky, Linn and few more.

In other words, you need listen to both. Or pick up an entry level 2nd-hand Audio GD R2R-11, it is very representative of a house sound. If lucky, it will be offered for $250-300, as I found mine. If you don't like it, you can sell it for the same price. If you do, it will open a path and a desire for a product from the higher price range.

 

[Davidv100]

Thank you very much Dandoudou,

It is my understanding that there is a bit of confusion (including with reviewers), about the use cases of this two DACs (coming out roughly at the same time).

My understanding (but I may be completely wrong) is that :

- R26 is primary meant for people having mainly PCM source files (CDs, Apple Music, FLAC files libraries). Although it can also handle DSD files (but will transcode).
- A26 is primary meant for people having mainly DSD sources (SACD (=DSD files format), or DSD files libraries). Although it can also handle PCM files (but will transcode).

This would explain in a simple way why Gustard is selling two new products at the same time : They are just meant for two different user cases, depending on the source preferred by the client.

If (and only if) I am correct, I would wish that reviewers explain this more clearly : R26 and A26 are two different products, depending of what you already have at home to feed them.

Consequently, all the comparisons between R26 and A26 (in some cases the former is better, in others the latter is better), may actually just depend on the source (PCM or DSD) they have been fed with.

At the end of the day, I suspect Gustard is honestly trying to get +/- the same analog output out of both products (R26, A26).
They are just meant for different users, regarding of their legacy/preferred sources to feed the DAC (and can handle the other source format, but will transcode).

 

[Dandoudou]

Thank you very much Dandoudou,

It is my understanding that there is a bit of confusion (including with reviewers), about the use cases of this two DACs (coming out roughly at the same time).

My understanding (but I may be completely wrong) is that :

- R26 is primary meant for people having mainly PCM source files (CDs, Apple Music, FLAC files libraries). Although it can also handle DSD files (but will transcode).
- A26 is primary meant for people having mainly DSD sources (SACD, or DSD files libraries). Although it can also handle PCM files (but will transcode).

This would explain in a simple way why Gustard is selling two new products at the same time : They are just meant for two different user cases, depending on the source preferred by the client.

If (and only if) I am correct, I would wish that reviewers explain this more clearly : R26 and A26 are two different products, depending of what you already have at home to feed them.

Consequently, all the comparisons between R26 and A26 (in some cases the former is better, in others the latter is better), may actually just depend on the source (PCM or DSD) they have been fed with.

At the end, I suspect Gustard is honestly trying to get +/- the same analog output out of both products (R26, A26).
They are just meant for different users, regarding of their legacy/preferred sources to feed the DAC (and can handle the other, but will transcode).

I don't think that the format of the files is really the most important point in this specific case.
For instance, the R26 can be configured to play the DSD files without converting them to PCM. There's a setting for that. And the majority of the users of this DAC report on the thread of the R26 that they get the best sound when they upsample their PCM tracks to DSD512, rather than to 768/705.6.

But if you'll keep using Apple Music, which means without upsampling, I think that the R26 may be a more satisfying option for you. Unlike the D/S DACs, the R2R DACs sound very well when you feed them with PCM files in bit-perfect mode, and upampling brings only an optimization to their sound.

 

[Davidv100]

A 'Since' part ot really relevant. It is a matter of a type of the music you are listening (1) and your personal preference (2). For a computer generated music you will more likely prefer DS sound. If you attend live performance of classical, jazz or even a classic rock band, you may prefer sound of R2R. It also depends on how music is mastered. It is good to pickup recent releases of leading audiophile companies like ECM, Chesky, Linn and few more.

In other words, you need listen to both. Or pick up an entry level 2nd-hand Audio GD R2R-11, it is very representative of a house sound. If lucky, it will be offered for $250-300, as I found mine. If you don't like it, you can sell it for the same price. If you do, it will open a path and a desire for a product from the higher price range.

I don't know, Sajunky (with all due respect - I know I am a greenhorn to this forum).

I do not think that "computer based sources" matters - especially since we are no more talking about hard disk drives (with errors or scratches, needing multiple passes).
All the "elimination of earth vibration blablabla" and other esoteric things are just meant to extract the data in the best way.
We are now in the SSD era (solid state disks, USB sticks) or pure cloud steaming in my case.

It is my shocking understanding (I may be naïve though) that multi-thousand dollars SACD readers cannot compete with a dumb decent USB stick, where the data has already been extracted, bit-perfect.

Once the data is correctly extracted, bit-perfect, you end up with a PCM or DSD file format (The primary source for DSD being SACD).

Obviously, within the range of PCM or DSD file sources, you will find all ranges of quality, depending of the quality of the original master recording and the way this data has been handled on their way to becoming a PCM or DSD file.

So, according to my understanding, once you have your beloved PCM or DSD source, you just want to go the shorter route thru the DAC
- R26 for PCM source
- A26 for DSD source.

Does my reasoning make sense ?

 

[Davidv100]

I don't think that the format of the files is really the most important point in this specific case.
For instance, the R26 can be configured to play the DSD files without converting them to PCM. There's a setting for that. And the majority of the users of this DAC report on the thread of the R26 that they get the best sound when they upsample their PCM tracks to DSD512, rather than to 768/705.6.

But if you'll keep using Apple Music, which means without upsampling, I think that the R26 may be a more satisfying option for you. Unlike the D/S DACs, the R2R DACs sound very well when you feed them with PCM files in bit-perfect mode, and upampling brings only an optimization to their sound.

I don't know Dandoudou,

We all know how difficult it is to navigate between the true gold and the snake oil.
It is unfortunate that a lot of system providers and reviewers navigate on this troubled seas.

About
- R2R DACs being built natively built for PCM, and
- DS DACs built natively for DSD,

I read this extremely interesting, simple, well-written press clip yesterday night.

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

These are two completely different ways to encode music.
I strongly recommend this read.
Facts, no snake oil. Not too technical.
And a bit of interesting music history...

At this end of this reading, I had the satisfying feeling of having learned something structural to the audio world.

It is a soft and pleasant read... just before a guaranteed good sleep.

 

[Dandoudou]

I don't know Dandoudou,

We all know how difficult it is to navigate between the true gold and the snake oil.

I'm not talking about reviewers, but about people who have a R26 DAC and who contribute to this forum on the thread that is dedicated to the R26.
In my case also, the R26 sounds better when I feed it with DSD512, rather than with upampled PCM. And it is possible to set it to not convert DSD to PCM.

EDIT
I know this article from Mojo Audio.
I recommended it on page 7 of this thread.
It is from 2015, and though it is a good read to understand the technology, there were big evolutions in the design of the R2R DACs since it was written.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/gustard-dac-a26-ak4499ex-dac-impressions-thread.966041/post-17342290

 

[Highfive99]

About
- R2R DACs being built natively built for PCM, and
- DS DACs built natively for DSD,

I read this extremely interesting, simple, well-written press clip yesterday night.

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

These are two completely different ways to encode music.
I strongly recommend this read.
Facts, no snake oil. Not too technical.
And a bit of interesting music history...

At this end of this reading, I had the satisfying feeling of having learned something structural to the audio world.

It is a soft and pleasant read... just before a guaranteed good sleep.

I think you may be over thinking things here. The only difference it makes for the most part between DSD and PCM and R2R and DS DAC's is the subtle differences in sound between the A and the R. I don't believe one is 'better' than the other for DSD or PCM.

 

[Davidv100]

I'm not talking about reviewers, but about people who have a R26 DAC and who contribute to this forum on the thread of the R26.
In my case also, the R26 sounds better when I feed it with DSD512, rather than upampled PCM. And it is set to do not convert DSD to PCM.

EDIT
I know the article from Mojo Audio.
I recommended it on this thread a few pages ago.

I totally respect this Dandoudou. Kudos.
As I said, I am a greenhorn and learning here.
But I am very fact based, as an unfortunate consequence of my engineering background (a bit is a bit - there is no such thing as esoteric audio perfume).

My humble question to you is :
- Is it possible that your genuine DSD files are of higher quality than your genuine PCM files.

I mean, it would make sense as DSD files where specifically made for audiophiles.
I guess there should not be a lot a junk SACD recordings.

Would you agree that it remains possible that if the same master recording was encoded in PCM and DSD format by the same sound engineer, the PCM file SHOULD sound better on your R26 ?

This is also what I mean by "snake oil" - I didn't mean to be negative.
I just mean that we all know the whole chain that matters, from the genuine recording to the speakers.

I understand that the whole point of us audiophile, is to be as close as possible to the original - being back in Abbey Road studio for the Beatles recording.
If so, I guess we would both agree that the shortest route (the lesser transformation), must be the best, by design.

Am I correct ?

 

[Dandoudou]

I totally respect this Dandoudou. Kudos.
As I said, I am a greenhorn and learning here.
But I am very fact based, as an unfortunate consequence to my engineering background (a bit is a bit - there is no such thing as esoteric audio perfume).

My humble question to you is :
- Is it possible that your genuine DSD files are of higher quality than your genuine PCM files.

I mean, it would make sense, as historically, DSD files where specifically made for audiophiles.
I guess there should not be a lot a junk SACD recordings.

Would you agree that it remains possible that if the same master recording was encoded in PCM and DSD format by the same sound engineer, the PCM file SHOULD sound better on your R26 ?

This is also what I mean by "snake oil" - I didn't mean to be negative.
I just meant that we all know that the whole chain that matters, from the genuine recording to the speakers.

I understand that the whole point of us audiophile, is to be as close as possible to the original - being back in the Abbey Road for the Beatles recording.
If so, I guess we would both agree that the shortest way (the lesser transformation), must be the best, by design.

Am I correct ?

It's true that the SACD releases are often produced with a greater care for the sound. But it's not the point…

If you take a 44.1 kHz track, and you upsample it to DSD512 with HQPlayer, Audirvana or Roon… the R26 will sound better than if you feed it with the same track, upsampled to PCM 705.6 kHz.
The difference is not big, but it is clearly perceivable. This DAC sounds better with DSD. Go to the thread of the R26 on the forum, and ask other users of this DAC, and you'll see that most of them will tell you the same thing.

 

[Davidv100]

I think you may be over thinking things here. The only difference it makes for the most part between DSD and PCM and R2R and DS DAC's is the subtle differences in sound between the A and the R. I don't believe one is 'better' than the other for DSD or PCM.

Highfive,

Unfortunately, my understanding is that
- R2R being built natively for PCM,
- DS being built natively for DSD

Is a mere pure fact.
It is not a question.
And there is nothing wrong with that.

All your googling studies will confirm this (as I had to do coming to Hi-Fi after years out).

This being said, a very good DS DAC (like the A26) will have a better analog output than a lesser good PCM DAC, and the reverse is obviously true.

But each DAC family (R2R vs DS) is natively built for one family of source files (PCM vs DSD).

It is interesting to note that one of the best overall DACs for both formats is the Chord DAVE, which is based on a totally disruptive approach. It is neither a R2R DAC, neither a DS DAC, it is actually a purposely designed chip acting like a computer, encapsulating more than a million line of codes to handle all known difficult digital to analog transcoding situations.

This shows that when you want to do it all perfectly (PCM or DSD sources), you have to build from scratch.

 

[sajunky]

I do not think that "computer based sources" matters - especially since we are no more talking about hard disk drives (with errors or scratches, needing multiple passes).

I wrote "computer generated music", meaning a music created by synthesisers as opposed to the traditional instruments. It created a confusion. Re-read again, do not jump to the conclusions to early.

So, according to my understanding, once you have your beloved PCM or DSD source, you just want to have to find the shorter way thru the DAC
- R26 for PCM source
- A26 for DSD source.

Does my reasoning make sense ?

R26 is able to play DSD format natively, see the other response. My R2R-11 do the same, there is a separate ladder for playing DSD files. And, frankly, there is very little sonic difference between playing these different format. Not the things that would guide you for chosing a different method of decoding. This is why I pointed out which part of deduction process was irrelevant. Other things which I described are.

 

[Davidv100]

Tank you Dandoudou and Sajunky,

As a newbie,
- I have said all I know (I have already pushed my humble knowledge to 11),
- and I very much value your experienced insight.

I will now put it to rest for a few days, before I pull the trigger on one of those gems (A26 or R26).

Have all a very good night, or a very nice day.
Thanks again.

 

[Dandoudou]

Tank you Dandoudou and Sajunky,

As a newbie,
- I have said all I know (I have already pushed my humble knowledge to 11),
- and I very much value your experienced insight.

I will now put it to rest for a few days, before I pull the trigger on one of those gems (A26 or R26).

Have all a very good night, or a very nice day.
Thanks again.

@Davidv100 , if you have the available cash, the best option may be to order both of them, and to compare them during the trial period. Then to keep the one that you like better.