[DDF]

Time to replace the MSB Link DAC and its between the Javry DA10 and Stello DA100 or DA220.

My source has a very high quality o/p as far as error correction and analog signal quality is concerned, but its jitter performance isn't really high-end.

Can anyone explain the basic mechanisms these two use for jitter reduction, and how they compete?

Which would be a better choice from a jitter rejection perspective?

PS I understand the DAC1 is superior for jitter rejection, but the SQ tradeoffs of these two units as described in head-fi are more to my personal preferences.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[DDF]

Bump

 

[thomaspf]

The DAC1 is superior in jitter rejection compared to what?

Cheers

Thomas

 

[Garbz]

Stop following the marketing mantra and the DAC1 is not better than any other resampling player. The Lavy uses a good jitter reduction mechanism, but you must also question what you will be using the DACs for.

If you listen to only CDs how about just using a cdplayer which probably sounds better, and jitter becomes irrelevant too.
If you listen to computer sources then the DAC becomes important, but again why choose a DAC based on its marketted jitter response rather than going out and listening to them? See if you can borrow some or buy some with a 30 day satisfaction guarantee to test them.

 

[rumatt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz but again why choose a DAC based on its marketted jitter response rather than going out and listening to them? See if you can borrow some or buy some with a 30 day satisfaction guarantee to test them.

Nothing wrong with trying to narrow down your choices based on the experiences of others.

I'd love to buy all dacs there are, listen to them, and keep the one I like best. But I don't have that much money or time!

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

From my computer source, the DA10 and DA220 had about the same levels of objective sound quality. Specifically jitter-wise, it is hard to say that one did any better than the other. There is a small sound flavor difference between the two; the DA220 leans toward a very slightly weightier sound via an increase in the upper bass/lower mids. Other than that, a decision between the two should largely be based on size, features, and cosmetics.

 

[DDF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz Stop following the marketing mantra and the DAC1 is not better than any other resampling player. The Lavy uses a good jitter reduction mechanism, but you must also question what you will be using the DACs for. If you listen to only CDs how about just using a cdplayer which probably sounds better, and jitter becomes irrelevant too. If you listen to computer sources then the DAC becomes important, but again why choose a DAC based on its marketted jitter response rather than going out and listening to them? See if you can borrow some or buy some with a 30 day satisfaction guarantee to test them.

If I was listening to marketing mantra I'd be asking about Bose.

Thanks guys for the feedback. To clarify my situation:

I've owned DACs for over 10 yrs so I'm a firm believer that they improve on a CDP. I also don't think jitter is irelevant in CDPs. I read a few posts discussing the DAC1 superior jitter rejection and I'm testing that statement by trying to find technical details on how these DACs (Stello, Lavrey, BM) buffer and reclock.

BTW, I'm using an older CD player I converted to transport use and don't want to give up its great features. Reason I asked about these units is that my DAC choices in town are very limited so I'll be going out on a limb and buying one without getting to hear it.

I'd love to hear more impressions like Iron_Dreamers.

Thanks again guys!

 

[Scrith]

I've never heard a Stello, but I just got one of the PS Audio Critical Link fuses for the Lavry and...wow! It has the same Lavry sound signature, but now all the notes have a bit more weight behind them (kind of like the Lavry might have been a bit sleepy before, but now it is really paying attention). This is at least double the improvement I got from the Black Sands cable (vs. my old PS Audio Plus cable, in case you think I'm a PS Audio fan) that I recently hooked up to my Lavry. If you have a Lavry I definitely suggest trying one of these fuses (the 2.5 amp model, $30 at the PS Audio site under Accessories...Critical Link fuses).

 

[thomaspf]

@Iron_Dreamer

Since you have a Stello you might be able to shed some light here. Does the Stello achieve its upsampling via an asynchronous resampler chip?

Cheers

Thomas

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomaspf @Iron_Dreamer Since you have a Stello you might be able to shed some light here. Does the Stello achieve its upsampling via an asynchronous resampler chip? Cheers Thomas

Yes, it uses the common AD1896 chip. But unlike some DAC's, it allows for you to change the rate, and bypass it entirely.

 

[Scrith]

Though I haven't heard one, I'd guess that bypassing the upsampling is probably a good idea (especially if it is being done via a run-of-the-mill chip). But maybe this is a problem...is upsampling the Stello's primary method of dealing with jitter (like the Benchmark DAC1)? If so, it seems like the Stello is a hard sell for someone with a potentially high-jitter source (like a computer).

 

[thomaspf]

Rigth Scrith, that is the follow-up question...

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrith Though I haven't heard one, I'd guess that bypassing the upsampling is probably a good idea (especially if it is being done via a run-of-the-mill chip). But maybe this is a problem...is upsampling the Stello's primary method of dealing with jitter (like the Benchmark DAC1)? If so, it seems like the Stello is a hard sell for someone with a potentially high-jitter source (like a computer).

Well, I used the word common to describe the AD1896 because it is used is most upsampling audio devices. The DAC1 uses it, and the DA10 uses it in "wide" mode, among many others. It was not to say that the chip does a mediocre job. I think the impact of upsampling on the sound has a lot more to do with the individual implementation. For instance: the Aqvox DAC had a very prominent and irritating midrange coloration that went away when upsampling was turned off. However, the DA220 has no such dramatic behavior, only a very subtle shift in the presentation of the high end, when switching from 192khz upsampling to bypass.

On the matter of jitter, all I can say is that I don't hear a change in sound quality when switching upsampling off with the DA220. This could mean that it has secondary means of jitter reduction independent of the ASRC; or that the ASRC does a crappy job of jitter reduction, so switching it off makes no difference. At any rate, I had the DA220 and DA10 side by side for a while, and found there to be no major sound quality differences (only a slight difference in flavor), even when using the DA220 in bypass mode, the DA10 in crystal lock.

 

[LeonvB]

Quote:

I'd guess that bypassing the upsampling is probably a good idea

For the Stello, I found bypassing isn't a good idea most of the time. Upsampling to 192 indeed slightly alters the sound, but in a positive manner: it makes the sound a little "fuller", and a little less harsh. I can almost guarantee you'll leave it in 192 most of the time (seen that conclusion in some reviews too btw). Unless you really like the "CD"-like sound instead of more "music"-like sound of course.

I also can't say there's a noticable difference in SQ between my CE595 vs. USB from the PC. The output level of the CE595 is higher than that of the PC, but that's how I programmed it. The quality is the same, and the reaction on upsampling is also the same. Why should it be different anyway?

 

[ezkcdude]

I'm curious about the clocking in the Stello DAC. The website says, "On-chip PLL eliminates Jitter". Are they referring to the PLL of the receiver or the ASRC? And in either case is there any attempt at using a stable reference clock, or is the clock simply recovered from the SPDIF signal? I'm not sure how they can say with a straight face that an on-chip PLL eliminates jitter, but then again, I'm not the guy buying this stuff.