High End Dac / Pre > Computer as source

[music_man]

mr. lavry is a top engineer. the da924 is one thing i feel is worth the money. many things are expensive and not designed by real engineers. thus, they end up not being so great. the da11 is also great at it's price point. i'd probably consider it over the dac1 for headphones/computer. however the dac1 is certainly better as a studio tool at that price point. he went all out with the da924 though. if the funds are there it is worth it.

 

[Elysian]

Quote:

I honestly don't know where Weiss came up with that price for the INT-202, other than they think people will pay it because it says Weiss on it, and I guess its a "retail" product as opposed to Weiss' professional use products, which means an 80% markup for no reason. There's no way Weiss isn't making HUGE profits on that thing.
 
I should mention that John Kenny's MK2 Hiface has been described as at least matching, if not beating the Wavelength Wavelink, at half the price again. Given all of the improvements in the MK3, I would expect that to easily outperform the Wavelink. There are two more options at the price level of the Berkeley Alpha USB - the Sonicweld Diverter 192, and the Empirical Off-ramp 4. The Diverter is a lot like the Audiophilleo (bus powered, all proprietary stuff) in a much more attractive package. Most of the online audio press raved about the original adaptive mode Diverter, so it may be worth looking in to the new one.
 
The Off-ramp starts at $800 and goes from there. Fortunately you don't need to spend a grand on the Monolith for it, B-P-T makes a battery supply that will work fine, for I think around $500. You can also attach a Hynes power supply rather than opting for battery power.
 

The first batch of Alpha USBs reportedly begun shipment today, after a year delay.  They reportedly are equipped with some of the best clocks you can get on the market for audio gear, and the long delay was due to component issues which have been sorted out.  I think there are quite a bit of people on the waitlist for the converter, so reviews will probably start popping up over the next few weeks as to whether there's enough of a difference to justify a cost comparable to the INT 202.  Just from talking with people and reviewing threads, the Alpha DAC seems to perform much better with a quality converter than the Lynx AES16 card.
 
The hiFace has a lot of mixed reviews.  Some people say it's absolutely stellar, while others feel it actually degraded their system's sound.  The V-Link is comparatively priced but seems to have a higher proportion of positive reviews.  I'd say that would be the best place to start before progressively working up the Audiophilleo 2, Halide Bridge, and Wavelink chain.  A few people have told me the Wavelink outperforms the INT 202.
 
That said, I have the same suspicion that Weiss is making almost pure profit on the INT 202.  I'm pretty live and let live once this kind of gear breaks $1k.  At this point, I think you have to be okay with the knowledge that the price/performance ratio flips, and that you're effectively subsidizing your favorite company's future R&D.  As long as the company isn't lying outright about their specs, hopefully people are going in with the knowledge that the parts they're buying are worth maybe 10% of MSRP at most.
 
Empirical Off-ramp has good reviews, especially with the new clock, but I'm a bit leery of Empirical since I seldom see people with high post counts and established reputations review their gear.  A fully loaded Overdrive set with the Monolith recently sold within 24hrs of posting on Audiogon, which I admit I looked at more than once.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

The first batch of Alpha USBs reportedly begun shipment today, after a year delay.  They reportedly are equipped with some of the best clocks you can get on the market for audio gear, and the long delay was due to component issues which have been sorted out.  I think there are quite a bit of people on the waitlist for the converter, so reviews will probably start popping up over the next few weeks as to whether there's enough of a difference to justify a cost comparable to the INT 202.  Just from talking with people and reviewing threads, the Alpha DAC seems to perform much better with a quality converter than the Lynx AES16 card.
 
The hiFace has a lot of mixed reviews.  Some people say it's absolutely stellar, while others feel it actually degraded their system's sound.  The V-Link is comparatively priced but seems to have a higher proportion of positive reviews.  I'd say that would be the best place to start before progressively working up the Audiophilleo 2, Halide Bridge, and Wavelink chain.  A few people have told me the Wavelink outperforms the INT 202.

Empirical Off-ramp has good reviews, especially with the new clock, but I'm a bit leery of Empirical since I seldom see people with high post counts and established reputations review their gear.  A fully loaded Overdrive set with the Monolith recently sold within 24hrs of posting on Audiogon, which I admit I looked at more than once.

 
The Alpha USB was just reviewed in TAS and they were really positive about it. What sort of bothers me about it is that the input side is USB port powered. For that amount of cash, I would prefer the USB to supply the signal only. Beating the Lynx is also frankly not that hard. I want to see what the Alpha USB can do against its direct rivals, not against a soundcard that's already known to have an average level, jittery output.
 
The standard Hiface is a piece of crap. It's what John does to it that makes all the difference. http://sites.google.com/site/hifacemods/home/mk3-hiface
 
The Bridge is pretty average, and I would expect the MK3 Hiface to stomp it into the ground. The Audiophilleo2 and Wavelink would present a tougher challenge, but they still have the disadvantage of being bus powered. The MK3 runs totally on battery power.
 
The Empirical with the new dual turboclock goes right at the Alpha USB in terms of pricing, and would be a really interesting comparison. With a BPT battery or Hynes linear supply in place of the DC suppy its $2K, and with the Monolith its some $2700, which is frankly getting a bit silly for a S/Pdif converter. At that price you might as well skip the converter altogether, and go straight for the Overdrive.
 
 

 

[Elysian]

Someone who is in regular touch with Berkeley communicated that the Berkeley folks said the new components are better than they had anticipated, and better than the parts in the prototype which Harley reviewed in TAS.  I'm sure the parts are better, but whether they're audibly better remains to be seen   The problem with the TAS review was that it lacked any comparison against other converters.  Anyway, one thing Berkeley knows better than most is clocks, so I have high hopes.
 
I know there are many of us really interested in seeing the Alpha DAC perform on even ground with the DAC202, Reimyo, etc.  Native USB or Firewire isn't really a fair comparison vs. S/PDIF or AES.  I hear a considerable difference between S/PDIF vs. USB on my humble gamma2 (I prefer the S/PDIF, but I don't think the USB implementation on the gamma2 is very good), so I'd expect high-end DACs to be similarly influenced by their transport.
 
Interesting re the hiFace.  I don't know if the negative comments I saw reflected on the Mk3 or not.  Would there be any noise issues if you kept the DC charger plugged into the Mk3 during operation?
 
I'd also love to see the Empirical go head-to-head with the Alpha USB, but am not holding my breath since the people with a turboclocked Off-ramp don't seem particularly talkative.  Actually, as a rule, people with Empirical gear don't seem that chatty, which is too bad for Steve since there just isn't a lot of marketing out there for him.  I'm a bit annoyed about a $1695 converter, but if that brings the Alpha DAC to DAC202 territory, then I'm next in line.  If not, I may end up either trading up to the DAC202 or down to a $1-2k DAC which uses the ESS9018.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Interesting re the hiFace.  I don't know if the negative comments I saw reflected on the Mk3 or not.  Would there be any noise issues if you kept the DC charger plugged into the Mk3 during operation?
 
I'd also love to see the Empirical go head-to-head with the Alpha USB, but am not holding my breath since the people with a turboclocked Off-ramp don't seem particularly talkative.  Actually, as a rule, people with Empirical gear don't seem that chatty, which is too bad for Steve since there just isn't a lot of marketing out there for him.  I'm a bit annoyed about a $1695 converter, but if that brings the Alpha DAC to DAC202 territory, then I'm next in line.  If not, I may end up either trading up to the DAC202 or down to a $1-2k DAC which uses the ESS9018.

I don't believe I've seen anything negative about the MK3, but very few people around here at least have one. John Darko over at Digital Audio Review was extremely positive about the old MK2 version, and the MK3 should be a considerable improvement over that. http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/audio-reviews/digital-source-reviews/item/184-j-kenny-modded-m2tech-hiface-mk2
 
The turboclocks are very new, Steve introduced them over at Audio Circle only a few months ago. That's generally where you see discussion about Empirical products, there's not much around these parts. http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=96058.0
 
I do have to admit that the new fanless version of the Overdrive has me intrigued, as my biggest issue with it was the cooling fan. I sit literally a foot from my EAD DAC, and I've gone to great lengths to keep my PC inaudible. A DAC with a noisy fan is simply not an option.
 

 

[gregorio]

Well done to Elysian for quoting some of the world's top experts in the field (Bob Katz and Dan Lavry). The thread was from 2004 but is just as relevant today as when it was posted. At the time it was posted, it was to designed to dispel some of the marketing myths afflicting the professional audio world, it worked! I'm glad to see it is now being used to dispel the same myths in the audiophile world.

BTW, we do sometimes have use external clocks professionally, especially when we have to synchronise video with sound or sometimes when we need to synchronise multiple ADCs, DACs and other digital equipment. For the consumer though there is no benefit to an external clock.

lavry da924

i use it with a completely passive cooling computer. i feel redbook is better than redbook on it. probably just in my mind though.

This is and has been about the best DAC on the market for years. A surprising number of the world's top mastering engineers and mastering studios use the DA924. What you are hearing is Redbook CD how it should sound. No compromises on jitter elimination, on filter design or on any of the analogue components. I believe one day, when the stupid and counter productive marketing technique of higher and higher numbers has run it's course the market will once again return to reality, and the full potential of CD will be realised by more than a couple of high end DACs like the DA924, and at a much more affordable price point. Here's hoping!

G

 

[khaos974]

This is and has been about the best DAC on the market for years. A surprising number of the world's top mastering engineers and mastering studios use the DA924. What you are hearing is Redbook CD how it should sound. No compromises on jitter elimination, on filter design or on any of the analogue components. I believe one day, when the stupid and counter productive marketing technique of higher and higher numbers has run it's course the market will once again return to reality, and the full potential of CD will be realised by more than a couple of high end DACs like the DA924, and at a much more affordable price point. Here's hoping!

G

Take a look at this

http://www.totaldac.com/principles.htm

It's a lot more Hi-Fi orientated but IMHO, it's the same kind as no technical compromise product. The basic version sells at 3850 euros.

 

[Icenine2]

Wyred4Sound DAC2.  It is a preamp as well.  There are a bunch of us here who own these and they are beyond great!  I love mine and use all computer source!
 
http://www.wyred4sound.com/webapps/p/74030/117839/457975
 
Costs are kept down because of direct sales.  If you really want to spend more I'd go w/the Weiss-someone else suggested that here as well.  If you really want to spend a whole bunch of money go full on DCS.  I think the break down between these three is going to be about $1400 for the W4S DAC2, $3K for the Weiss, $8-?K for the DCS.  If you want to go tube there are the Wavelength DAC's.  You could get a Coscecant with preamp for about $4K and he has a better model for more as well.  Good luck!!

 

[Elysian]

Quote:

Well done to Elysian for quoting some of the world's top experts in the field (Bob Katz and Dan Lavry). The thread was from 2004 but is just as relevant today as when it was posted. At the time it was posted, it was to designed to dispel some of the marketing myths afflicting the professional audio world, it worked! I'm glad to see it is now being used to dispel the same myths in the audiophile world.

BTW, we do sometimes have use external clocks professionally, especially when we have to synchronise video with sound or sometimes when we need to synchronise multiple ADCs, DACs and other digital equipment. For the consumer though there is no benefit to an external clock.

Thanks for the affirmative comments, gregorio!  I've read some of your posts and you have a very good handle on digital audio, so I was hoping to get your thoughs on a related matter.  I was thinking of starting a new thread, but there are already a lot of related comments re this on page 2 and 3, so I think it's better to keep a single thread.
 
Based on my research on professional audio communities, having a word clock directly slaving the DAC (thereby overriding the DAC's internal clock) is counterproductive, particularly for high-end DACs designed by engineers who know how to implement a proper internal clock.  This would be useful for a professional recording and mastering studio which has multiple devices linked together, but has a negative effect for listening to music on a consumer audiophile setup.
 
I've been reading up on jitter and how much jitter is carried by different transports such as Firewire, S/PDIF, USB, etc.  It seems like you don't want to slave the DAC's internal clock, but you do want to minimize any jitter in the signal that reaches the DAC, as the DAC's internal clock will do a better job with a low jitter signal.
 
I've been trying to compare the following two options:
1) High-end USB-S/PDIF converters like the Alpha USB and Wavelink
2) A professional master clock (to clean up the signal) like the Brainstorm DCD-8 and Apogee Big Ben
2a) (2) linked to an atomic reference clock with low phase noise
 
I've read really positive comments on the DCD-8, and have been researching some options like using the DCD-8 in isolation, or using the DCD-8 connected to a rubidium frequency standard clock which has low phase noise (getting the best of both worlds, managing a signal in both the short and long-term), such as SRS's FS725: http://www.thinksrs.com/products/FS725.htm
 
Admittedly, I know that the DCD-8 or DCD8 + FS725 solution would create barely any difference, if any difference is even noticable.  Part of my interest is just learning more about the technology, digital audio, and having new equipment to learn about.
 
What are your, or anyone else's, thoughts on (1) vs (2), and even (1) vs (2a)?  Re (2), I'm not even sure if using a master clock converter, without an external clock, would positively affect signal.  I saw that you have the DigiDesign 192, but I assume you use that as a master clock for multiple devices.

 

[gregorio]

I've been reading up on jitter and how much jitter is carried by different transports such as Firewire, S/PDIF, USB, etc.  It seems like you don't want to slave the DAC's internal clock, but you do want to minimize any jitter in the signal that reaches the DAC, as the DAC's internal clock will do a better job with a low jitter signal.

I've been trying to compare the following two options:
1) High-end USB-S/PDIF converters like the Alpha USB and Wavelink
2) A professional master clock (to clean up the signal) like the Brainstorm DCD-8 and Apogee Big Ben
2a) (2) linked to an atomic reference clock with low phase noise.

You've nearly got it right. You want to minimise any jitter at the point of the actual DA conversion (the DA chip itself). To a very large extent the jitter in the signal which arrives at the DAC's receiver (input) is irrelevant. There is circuitry in the DAC which removes the jitter, usually some sort of PLL (Phase Locked Loop) arrangement but there are a number of different technologies used to remove the jitter. The bottom line is, that a well designed DAC should be pretty much immune to any incoming jitter. So using a cheap external clock compared to say an a massively accurate atomic external clock should not make any difference whatsoever. Unfortunately (or fortunately!), this makes those very expensive external atomic clocks nothing more than marketing hype (true for both the professional and the consumer). This is of course conditional on your DAC having decent jitter reduction circuitry. I refer you again to Bob Katz's words which you quoted: "If you hear differences when you change clocks "controlling" your converters, then you have a defective converter design! A well-designed converter should contain internal phase locked loops whose performance reduces any incoming jitter artifacts to inaudibility."

In other words, if you do hear any differences in your test, your DAC is not performing as it should.

I saw that you have the DigiDesign 192, but I assume you use that as a master clock for multiple devices.

It depends on what I'm doing. In the work I do for TV and film I need to have an external video clock (blackburst) acting as the masterclock to sync both video and audio. This blackburst signal is then resolved to word clock and fed to the 192s. This ensures both the video and audio are sync'ed to an accuracy of 1/80 of a frame (known as frame-edge alignment). If I'm just working on music, I would set my 192 to internal or if using both 192s I would slave the second 192 to the first 192 (IE. No external masterclock). I did test extensively the 192 on internal clock and on external clock using both a cheap blackburst generator and an expensive masterclock (Rosendahl Nanosyncs). No difference at all, even though at the time I expected the Nanosyncs to give the best performance. It was at that point I decided to study up further on clocking to work out if there was a problem with my setup or my ears! Turns out PLL circuits were working as designed and I was hearing what I should have been hearing. Nevertheless, when I'm doing music I still bypass the external masterclock, a slightly irrational "just in case" sort of thing.

G

 

[Elysian]

That makes sense.  I'm receiving a Berkeley Alpha DAC in the next few weeks, and I've been struggling with the best way to do a USB to S/PDIF conversion.  I haven't been able to find good information about the actual engineering design that goes into building a USB-S/PDIF converter to determine whether there's just a lot of markup and black magic going on, or if there's a good reason to get a high-end converter like the Alpha USB or Wavelink.  Or, if there is a real difference between one of the $1k+ converters and the $200-400 ones, if I might be better served going with a pro solution like the DCD-8 or Big Ben.
 
I appreciate the insight into your professional experience!  I didn't know about those frame terms, and it's reassuring to know that a properly designed PLL arrangement should reduce any issues into irrelvance, particularly for a single device system used only for listening.  It makes me wonder whether it's consumers or manufacturers trying to inject FUD into the process.
 
That TotalDAC is something I was keeping a very close eye on, but eventually decided to opt for the Alpha DAC instead.  I felt better about the Alpha DAC since the Berkeley folks are less than an hour away from where I live, and that the Alpha DAC has an improved featureset, balanced outputs, many superlative reviews, and the pedigree of Pacific Microsonics.
 
The design philosophy behind the TotalDAC makes a lot of sense, and my interest in that D/A is higher than the DAC202 and other comparable sources.  There just aren't enough reviews out there for me to feel comfortable about dropping $6000 on a DAC.  I did a very brief BOM analysis and the TotalDAC, even from a pure parts perspective, is an economical buy for that kind of solution.  The fact that it uses a ladder design is also very compelling.
 
I wish there was a way for more information and impressions for the TotalDAC to get out there, as I think there would be a reasonable amount of interest in it (possibly somewhat analgous to Kevin Gilmore's high-end designs) if Vincent had the incentive to do more marketing.

 

[gregorio]

That makes sense.  I'm receiving a Berkeley Alpha DAC in the next few weeks, and I've been struggling with the best way to do a USB to S/PDIF conversion.  I haven't been able to find good information about the actual engineering design that goes into building a USB-S/PDIF converter to determine whether there's just a lot of markup and black magic going on, or if there's a good reason to get a high-end converter like the Alpha USB or Wavelink.  Or, if there is a real difference between one of the $1k+ converters and the $200-400 ones, if I might be better served going with a pro solution like the DCD-8 or Big Ben.
 
I appreciate the insight into your professional experience!  I didn't know about those frame terms, and it's reassuring to know that a properly designed PLL arrangement should reduce any issues into irrelvance, particularly for a single device system used only for listening.  It makes me wonder whether it's consumers or manufacturers trying to inject FUD into the process.
 
The design philosophy behind the TotalDAC makes a lot of sense, and my interest in that D/A is higher than the DAC202 and other comparable sources.  There just aren't enough reviews out there for me to feel comfortable about dropping $6000 on a DAC.  I did a very brief BOM analysis and the TotalDAC, even from a pure parts perspective, is an economical buy for that kind of solution.  The fact that it uses a ladder design is also very compelling.
 
I wish there was a way for more information and impressions for the TotalDAC to get out there, as I think there would be a reasonable amount of interest in it (possibly somewhat analgous to Kevin Gilmore's high-end designs) if Vincent had the incentive to do more marketing.

There was once a jitter problem, many years ago, I think manufacturers take advantage, use half truths and consumers are taken in by it. Can't blame them, it's a complicated area and a consumer can't be expected to be an expert on every purchase they make.

Sorry, can't really help you with most of the rest of your post. Although I would have thought something like the Big Ben would be completely unnecessary just for a DAC. Even in my studio I wouldn't use one and I've spent hundreds of thousands! Did quite a bit a testing a while back and the best to my ears were Prism and Lavry. If money is not too much of a problem the Lavry DA2002 can't be beaten at any price (and don't think about feeding it an expensive clock!).

G

 

[dyl1dyl]

Weiss 202 is great, some of the Antelope products may be worth looking at too.

 

[anetode]

Quote:

The bottom line is, that a well designed DAC should be pretty much immune to any incoming jitter.

 
Thank you! All this bull about jitter is out of control. I have a book on digital audio from the 80s that goes into detail about PLLs and jitter, an introductory course already taught how to solve the jitter problem way back then! Albeit not every manufacturer put effort into testing their PLL and clock's performance, but now a days it's only the occasional inept boutique product that has any jitter problems.
 
It used to be a lack of functionality in mainstream DACs, but now it's only misinformation that has established a market segment for USB/SPDIF converters. Yes, many of them do exactly what they claim to - this isn't remarkable, they're not doing that much and cheap ICs have accomplished the same feat for years now. If you're looking to buy a new system, these converters shouldn't be considered. Get a competently designed DAC. Beyond a price point of a couple of hundred dollars there will be no audible differences, unless the DAC is broken or designed to distort somehow (e.g. tubes). But by all means, the audiophile budget allows for extravagance, so get a DAC from a reputable firm, like I did with the Lavry DA11. It's more than I needed to spend, but the functionality is rock solid and there is a robust feature set. I can see having a DA924 in a studio and if you're an audiophile with a rackmounted system then you're already on your way to debt-ridden insanity

 

[gregorio]

Anetode:- I think you've pretty much got it! Although I wouldn't underestimate the number of "inept boutique products" out there.

The reason I've recommended the Lavry da924 (or the more consumer friendly version, the da2002) is simply because it has been a standard used in many world class mastering studios for many years. Amazing really that in this fast moving area of technology that a roughly 10 year old design is still at the top. However, I'm sure during the last 10 years that technology has allowed for the same or almost the same level of quality for considerably less money. A worrying trend I see though is that many DAC manufacturers are not aiming at the best quality but at the biggest numbers. Presumably driven by marketing departments who obviously feel it's easier to sell bigger numbers than it is to sell quality. Even to the point that bigger numbers mean worse quality! The marketing seems to be working, I wonder how many audiophiles are under the impression that 24/192 (or even worse 32/384) is higher quality than 24/96 or 16/44.1? Might be interesting to find out!

G