[JohnFoe]

Hey everyone,
 
I just picked up a Heed CanAMP and picked up an Orei DA21X (Premium) DAC to convert from my computer to the amplifier.  However, it just kind of sounds flat right now (due to it being PCM only) coming from using an actual AV Receiver for TV's.  I'm looking to upgrade this DAC now to compliment the amplifier I'm running and make it sound more dynamic and lively.  There really is no depth to the one I have now which makes many things I'm listening to sound boring. 
 
My music is so varied that most people would be offended by it.  I can go from Classical, to Country, to Pop, to Hip-Hop, to Rap, to Techno, to Dubstep, to Full-ensemble Orchestra, to Acapella, to Rock, to Metal... So yeah...  Almost all music, I listen to.
 
The two DAC's I am currently looking at are the Audioengine D1 & the Aune T1.  Is there anything else within the $200 or less range (possibly a little more as well) - used is fine - that would compliment the Heed CanAMP really well and provide a better sound stage. 
 
Also, can someone explain why DACs are coming as DSD?  Does it provide a significant advantage over non-DSD versions?

 

[JohnFoe]

I forgot to mention that I run AKG K701s as my primary headphone (thus the reason for the CanAMP).  I did pick up a pair of UE6000s just to give them a shot, but they're more of a secondary and more-so portable headphone for me.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

  However, it just kind of sounds flat right now (due to it being PCM only) coming from using an actual AV Receiver for TV's.
 
Also, can someone explain why DACs are coming as DSD?  Does it provide a significant advantage over non-DSD versions?

 
Audio format has a lot less to do with dynamic range when you start playing actual, though presumably properly recorded, music than anything else, whether it's DSD or PCM of any kind, bit depth, and sampling frequency. Also, I can imagine that between a proper stereo system (headphone or speaker) and an A/V receiver that's easily available in any store, the former should in theory have more dynamic range, owing to the power supplies in each component running only two channels while the common A/V receivers (the older ones anyway) tended to have power supplies that barely powered both the amp and DSP section (not to mention many brands cheat with the rating methodology for the amps).
 
What settings were you using before? There's a chance you might have been using some kind of DSP setting that EQs the sound so that by comparison the system you have now sounds flat. For example a DSP setting that actually "flattens" the sound by equalizing loud and soft sound in effect actually reduces dynamic range, but to most people the sound isn't "flat" because all instruments are more audible. On the other end of it, if you have a very flat-sounding headphone that also demands a lot of current like the K701 without such a DSP setting, then it will have a tendency to sound "flat" because the soft sounds are all kept in the background, usually as intended for the recording. Also, while I haven't heard the Can-Amp yet, among the amps I've listened to with the x7xx AKGs, only the Burson Soloist (presumably also the Conductor, and the SL) had insane dynamic range that really made those headphones sound like Dynaudios with a proper amplifier. My Cantate does an impressive job considering the other amps' performance, but then dynamics isn't any better than with the HD600; the Burson really just took the reins on the K701/Q701 and made the HD600 (on the same Burson amp) sound lazy by comparison. Of course, I stuck with my HD600, considering it didn't need a $1,000 to sound that good (unless of course I could afford a K701 and a Conductor).

 

[JohnFoe]

The prior was an Onkyo TX-SR603X with DTS (7.1 surround)...  However either the optical or the 1/4" jack on the unit went out because I lost complete audio with it to the headphones.  It had a really deep stage to it, as well as driving the 701s really well (surprisingly). 
 
I decided to switch over to the CanAMP (aside from the A/V being broken) because it seems to be the amp that many K701 users were using as the base-line amp...  I picked up the DAC assuming it wouldn't make that much different as it was just essentially an analog converter to the amplifier...  but I guess I should have expected that as well.
 
And I meant could someone explain DSD in really REALLY simple terms (for someone clueless like me) and why higher-end DAC's seem to use it more commonly.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

 
And I meant could someone explain DSD in really REALLY simple terms (for someone clueless like me) and why higher-end DAC's seem to use it more commonly.

 
DSD is basically the format for SACDs (the same way a regular CD is loaded with PCM). It is a one bit audio format that uses extremely high oversampling frequencies; like, 70X more than the standard PCM DACs. I wouldn't know about a lot of DACs, but a lot of universal players before were just cheating on the DSD. I had friends who picked up the Pioneer and Philips DVD players before, and at some point I asked in one local forum how a 24-bit Burr Brown DAC can decode DSD when, if I put a true 24-bit CD in there, the players can't even read it (they can read 24-bit, 48khz DVD-A though). Turned out that what these players were doing was converting the DSD signal into 16bit, 44.1khz PCM, and was in no way sampling them at the same rate as a true DSD/SACD player. Without seeing if there is a true DSD-compatible DAC in there, such a trick isn't impossible (aside from a USB or SPDIF receiver chip that can accept DSD) with some dedicated DACs. This is probably one reason why Schiit made the Loki, a DSD-only DAC with a bypass analog input, that way you can hook up your regular PCM DAC's output into it and the output hooks up to the same amplifier/preamplifier.
 
After knowing that trick with the DVDPs I just picked up a dedicated  SACD changer from Sony. Out of the box the bass was too thin, which I initially thought was less distortion or error thanks to the high oversampling, but then when I opened it up I found how cheap the changer mechanism was -  the tower that held the spindle (which picks up the disc from the tray) was wobbling from the vibration of the spinning mechanism. I slapped on some BluTac to prevent it from moving, and that fixed it (those cheating single tray DVDPs up there had better transports than this thing), and when I got to do comparisons between the SACD and CD layers of the same discs, there was barely any difference (including playing the CD layer on other Sony, Philips, and Onkyo CDPs I had or borrowed). If anything the SACDs consistently had a blacker background, but you'd have to listen to them back to back to back and on the same amp simultaneously (and constantly switching) to really notice it. If anything, when DSDs sound better it has more to do with the recording and mastering process than the format itself. A lot of albums that were not strictly audiophile stuff were released on SACD (perhaps Sony trying to make the format take off), and AFAIK the mastering wasn't any better on some of them. Even Telarc IIRC re-released three discs or so that didn't have really good mastering, and obviously those SACDs were noticeably not as good as other SACDs.

 

[JohnFoe]

Bump!  Still looking for a DAC around $200 that will compliment my Heed CanAMP + AKG K701s!
 
Thank you Protege for explaining all of that to me!

 

[ProtegeManiac]

  Bump!  Still looking for a DAC around $200 that will compliment my Heed CanAMP + AKG K701s!

 
You can get the Schiit Loki and just daisy chain your original DAC to it. And since it's by Schiit, I'd trust the quality of the analog output circuit (which in many cases is what really makes one DAC sound worse than another).