[x RELIC x]

Treble aside, I also hear much more realistic timbre and soundstage. Direct comparison, again, R2R=real life..... Delta-Sigma=Digital approximation.

Bass, mids, and treble, all are quite a bit better. Didn't expect the difference and was quite happy with Delta-Sigma until now.

That's how I hear it, as well as pretty much everyone else who has heard both. I suggest everyone sample R2R / multibit / ladder DACs (the same implementation, different names) with resolving headphones, and I wouldn't be posting this here if other Head-fi'ers didn't ask for a direct comparison earlier.

 

[klfl]

In direct comparison it's not a difference of bright vs dark vs mid presence. It's much more than that. Read the link I provided in my edit for a better understanding of what I'm talking about.

The DAC-19 is actually brighter/more impactful on cymbal hits than the HA-1, and just like in real life they can be quite present/forward in the track, but they also sound so natural where on Delta-Sigma DACs they really do not. Like furniture covered in plastic it just doesn't feel the same.

The DAC in the HA-1 is a very good implementation to my ears but again for a Delta-Sigma DAC. They rely on noise and complex algorithms to approximate the incoming signal to convert to an analogue signal (surprisingly well actually). R2R DACs do not, they pass on what they receive. Completely different approaches.

From the link.......the top two images are Delta Sigma sine waves the bottom one is from an R2R sine wave. Which one looks right to you?

The above graphs of the S-D converter are unfiltered. The article is comparing output from S-D modulator (a part of complete S-D DAC signal chain) vs R2R DAC. Which makes the presentation quite misleading. 
 
Actually the article demonstrated how S-D modulator is able to shift noise to a higher frequency band so artifacts can be filtered out easily. Actual S-D DAC have filter after modulator to remove high frequency noise.
 

By design the analog filter is one integral part of the S-D DAC. Without it the rest of the signal chain does not represent a complete S-D DAC. So only presenting unfiltered signal is misleading.
 
The author of this blog post is selectively providing information to give readers (lots of which does not have electrical engineering background) false impression on the two technologies. The purpose of the post is to promote the Tera player(which uses R2R chip) and the info should be taken as a claim rather than research paper or technical document.
 
Actual Sigma-Delta output:
Blue: Signal before filter, corresponds to graph 1 in the above blog post.
Green: Signal after low pass filter, which is the output from a complete s-d signal chain.
 

 
I am not trying to argue here whether the R2R or S-D is better. I merely wish to point out the misinformation in the blog post.

 

[klfl]

Treble aside, I also hear much more realistic timbre and soundstage. Direct comparison, again, R2R=real life..... Delta-Sigma=Digital approximation.

Bass, mids, and treble, all are quite a bit better. Didn't expect the difference and was quite happy with Delta-Sigma until now.

That's how I hear it, as well as pretty much everyone else who has heard both. I suggest everyone sample R2R / multibit / ladder DACs (the same implementation, different names) with resolving headphones, and I wouldn't be posting this here if other Head-fi'ers didn't ask for a direct comparison earlier.

Fairly speaking, both R2R and Sigma-Delta are approximation. R2R and S-D all output discrete signal levels and cannot 100% restore sine waves, in other words, both are digital approximation. The difference here is they are providing such approximation with different approach.
 
With all due respect, your comparison on the HA-1 and DAC-19 is about the final products as a whole picture rather than the chips used. There are too many design differences between the two machines here: analog stage, power supply, firmware... So attributing all sonic differences on the DAC chips is a little bit unfair.
 
The only conclusion here is you like the DAC-19 better than the HA-1. That should not be generalized into "all R2R DACs are better than S-D DACs".
 
As for my own experience, I have tried multiple R2R and S-D DACs and I cannot say one is surely better than the other. There are good and bad implementations of both technologies. And if a DAC sounds good to me, I wouldn't care if it is R2R or S-D.

 

[x RELIC x]

klfl, fair enough, and you raise some great points. You're right about this particular blog glossing over details and I realize there are some comparisons that are misleading. For that I apologize. I didn't want to post more technical articles in the spirit of keeping the general explanations simple.

Also, I agree that the implementation of each DAC unit as a whole is more important than the individual chips used. My conclusion about the different conversion methods is that I haven't heard this level of realism in any S-D DAC before, whether it's Burr Brown, Sabre, Wolfson, etc.. Granted, perhaps the DAC-19 is just the best DAC I've heard, but that doesn't quite sit right with me. There is a certain level of timbre with real instruments that I just haven't heard before from a digital source. It just sounds right and for the first time it was an aha! moment.

I'll cool off on the generalizations regarding DAC implementations, but to these ears there is a noticble difference that I can only peg on the conversion methods given that both units use decent power supplies, quality components, and run classA. Thanks for grounding it though.

 

[vnmslsrbms]

I think that's a more complete explanation.  Seriously, the guys who designed sigma delta are pretty much genius engineers.  To say they made something that is so inferior is pretty silly, which is why I was questioning the graphs initially.  Common sense says this product would not have been validated past engineering stages or approved by the management.  It's cheaper to make maybe, but it wasn't cheaper to design I think.  
 
I'm not sure why there's always this older is better thing (nostalgia?), but this is a similar situation.  I think the analogue amplification etc and the filtering really affects the sound.  One thing that doesn't help delta sigma is that some music recorded with some higher frequencies that weren't even that bad coming from speakers now sound terrible with headphones.  That's what I like about the Taurus because they understand that and toned it down a little.  
 
On the other hand too much emphasis is put on the marketing spin of hi-res, DSD etc.  If DSD was really the breakthrough like CD's were to tape and DVD to VCR, then it wouldn't only be us head-fi seekers who are into it.  Everyone and their grandma would be getting it.  It's not even comparable to Blu-Ray vs DVD. That was a huge improvement too.  Even 4k to HD looks different.  That reminds me, maybe I should just get a new TV rather than the next greatest DAC?  

 

[vnmslsrbms]

 Granted, perhaps the DAC-19 is just the best DAC I've heard, but that doesn't quite sit right with me. There is a certain level of timbre with real instruments that I just haven't heard before from a digital source. It just sounds right and for the first time it was an aha! moment.

Now if only they'll make the DAC-19 or all Audio-GD stuff for that matter better looking!  
 
I don't know about you but instruments sound pretty real coming from my stereo system.  And even say at a concert, all this is amplified digitally one way or another anyway.  I don't think they have tube amps anywhere.  
 
BTW what analogue are you talking about?  Phono?  Tape?  

 

[x RELIC x]

Hey vnmslsrbms, again, I'm not saying all Sigma-Delta is terrible and I have often commented on how much I like the HA-1 DAC. I'll back up a bit here and say that the DAC-19 implementation sounds more real with superior timbre and texture over any DAC I've previously heard, including the HA-1. As I just posted above I can only really peg that on the type of DAC conversion being used given the setup.

As for DSD, didn't it basically start as a cheap archive format for Sony to back up their analogue tape library. Marketing took it and SACD was born. I don't care for it as I hear no difference between DSD and the same file converted to PCM 24/96.

 

[x RELIC x]

Now if only they'll make the DAC-19 or all Audio-GD stuff for that matter better looking!  

I don't know about you but instruments sound pretty real coming from my stereo system.  And even say at a concert, all this is amplified digitally one way or another anyway.  I don't think they have tube amps anywhere.  

BTW what analogue are you talking about?  Phono?  Tape?  

I have a hard time comparing headphone gear to stereo systems as speakers always have the advantage and a more live feel to me given the soundstage, room reflections, etc.

Talking analogue about phono from back in the day when that was all we had in my fathers house. Haven't heard a quality phono system since I've moved out 23 years ago (man, that went by fast)..... Wife, kids, mortgage got in the way and phono fell out of flavour.

 

[aamefford]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Originally Posted by x RELIC x /img/forum/go_quote.gif


Here are my FIRST IMPRESSIONS LINK in comparison to the HA-1 after about 6 hours of listening and comparing.

After a week of listening and comparing my impressions stand.

The short story is the DAC-19(10th Anniversary edition) wipes the floor with the HA-1 DAC. It's not a matter of more or less detail (well perhaps it is) as both units present the same level of detail to my ears. The biggest differences are in the approach each DAC uses to convert the signal coming in. The DAC-19 simply sounds like real life and the HA-1 sounds digital/plastic in direct comparison. I wasn't expecting this kind of a difference but I'm glad I found it. Cymbals, for example, have a much greater impact with an extremely natural falloff that sounds much more like real life, not the usual digital splash I'm used to hearing from all my other sources.

The subtle cues from the DAC-19 give me a sense of the room or space the music was recorded in a much better way than the HA-1. There seems to be no approximation of the recording but rather a true looking glass in to what is in the track. The timbre of the music is turned up a significant amount while retaining all the micro detail I'm used to hearing. There is more going on in guitar string reverberations. More happening with piano key strikes. More subtlety in the air of the music. More texture and impact in the bass as well as the mids and treble. More separation. More layers. It's uncanny and difficult to pinpoint. Again, real life vs reproduction is the focus here.

The R2R DACs can't do DSD but I won't miss DSD as I hear no difference (absolutely none, zero, zip, nadda) when I down sample from DSD to 24/96. Believe me, if I knew the truth about the 'why and how' of how DSD came to be and what it really represents I would never have made it a blip on my audio radar in the first place. I'd rather have a DAC that doesn't throw away all the original samples to only approximate what it receives, so no more Delta-Sigma for me. There is a difference and it isn't subtle to me.

For now I'll keep the HA-1 as it really is a convenient (and well implemented for a Delt-Sigma DAC) piece of gear, but I can say that once my Liquid Carbon comes in I think it may be regulated to a backup solution, a bedside rig, or on the for sale forum. I'm ruined now for everything that isn't an R2R / multibit / ladder DAC implementation. There is a reason why people become fanatical about this type of DAC. I can clearly hear it now.

Edit: This is a good, easy to read, blog on the different implementations - Delta Sigma vs R2R.

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm

 

 
 

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

In direct comparison it's not a difference of bright vs dark vs mid presence. It's much more than that. Read the link I provided in my edit for a better understanding of what I'm talking about.

The DAC-19 is actually brighter/more impactful on cymbal hits than the HA-1, and just like in real life they can be quite present/forward in the track, but they also sound so natural where on Delta-Sigma DACs they really do not. Like furniture covered in plastic it just doesn't feel the same.

The DAC in the HA-1 is a very good implementation to my ears but again for a Delta-Sigma DAC. They rely on noise and complex algorithms to approximate the incoming signal to convert to an analogue signal (surprisingly well actually). R2R DACs do not, they pass on what they receive. Completely different approaches.

From the link.......the top two images are Delta Sigma sine waves the bottom one is from an R2R sine wave. Which one looks right to you?

 

 

Treble aside, I also hear much more realistic timbre and soundstage. Direct comparison, again, R2R=real life..... Delta-Sigma=Digital approximation.

Bass, mids, and treble, all are quite a bit better. Didn't expect the difference and was quite happy with Delta-Sigma until now.

That's how I hear it, as well as pretty much everyone else who has heard both. I suggest everyone sample R2R / multibit / ladder DACs (the same implementation, different names) with resolving headphones, and I wouldn't be posting this here if other Head-fi'ers didn't ask for a direct comparison earlier.

 
@x RELIC x and I both own the D-19 and the HA-1.  I mostly agree, and especially with the quote above that is not in a spoiler.  I will say, that after volume matching (ok, I listened and tried to volume match by ear, so take that with a grain of course), I found the differences still exist, the flavor of the differences is what I have described and what @x RELIC x has described.  I also found that the HA-1 or the Dac-19 have I think a bit hotter signal into the RCA input than the internal HA-1 Dac, so (crudely) adjusting for that, the differences were not as profound.  End result - I like the Dac-19 sound a bit better for most of the music I listen to.  If I do get on an electronica type bender, I sometimes like the HA-1 a bit better.  For the money, the HA-1 is one hell of a good all in one box.  Great amp, great remote, great functionality, cool screen, built like a Bentley Tank.  Oh, and a decent Sabre Dac implimentation, with the good and bad that encompasses.

 

[vnmslsrbms]

@x relic x - oh I'm not trying to argue at all. Sometimes u know internet posts can sound a little crazy. I appreciate you willing to discuss and educate me really. I don't know much about r2r and really dac tech anyway.

I also prefer stereo systems. I'm more of a solid state and digital kind of guy. I like the phono sound too, but usually in someone else's system. I think it's mainly convenience for me and availability. I have some old records stacked up that I am not willing to give up though.

I asked about the analog and systems because I like to consider stereo systems and not just head-fi. And oppo is just a great tool. The versatility is just great.

By the way who has tried the Bluetooth input? I do it for my iPad and it works seamlessly. Sound quality is better than me plugging it straight in via usb too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[aamefford]

@x relic x - oh I'm not trying to argue at all. Sometimes u know internet posts can sound a little crazy. I appreciate you willing to discuss and educate me really. I don't know much about r2r and really dac tech anyway.

I also prefer stereo systems. I'm more of a solid state and digital kind of guy. I like the phono sound too, but usually in someone else's system. I think it's mainly convenience for me and availability. I have some old records stacked up that I am not willing to give up though.

I asked about the analog and systems because I like to consider stereo systems and not just head-fi. And oppo is just a great tool. The versatility is just great.

By the way who has tried the Bluetooth input? I do it for my iPad and it works seamlessly. Sound quality is better than me plugging it straight in via usb too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I use the blue tooth sometimes.  I disagree that it sounds betterr than plugged in via USB, but I don't think it is any worse.  I use the CCK on my iphone into the USB input, and I like that best.  By the way, that is also what I do with the Dac-19 - iPhone/CCK/Dac-19/HA-1 ==> headphones.

 

[gotoma8]

Hi, I have a question regarding the DSP output setting. Do you guys have it set on "None" or "DSD in DoP format"?  Sorry, while using JRiver MC19....
 
Thanks!

 

[HasturTheYellow]

If you are doing DSD64 and DSD128, then DSD in DoP Format is the proper choice for JRiver MC19.

 

[vnmslsrbms]

  I use the blue tooth sometimes.  I disagree that it sounds betterr than plugged in via USB, but I don't think it is any worse.  I use the CCK on my iphone into the USB input, and I like that best.  By the way, that is also what I do with the Dac-19 - iPhone/CCK/Dac-19/HA-1 ==> headphones.

Yeah I tried it some more and I'm not sure why at that point I thought it sounded worse.  I do like the bluetooth freedom.  I'm able to stream bluetooth from the iPad and use it at the same time, no lag.  Interesting that you are using the amp part of HA-1 in your setup.  For a short while I was using the DAC part of the HA-1 and it worked well that way too.  I'm also very tempted to try the Master-11.  On paper it just looks so amazing!

 

[Umeshdhingra]

Some help required :I am currently using HD 800 along with OPPO HA 1 , but want to upgrade my headphones to LCD 3 , please guide me if Oppo HA 1 will be suitable for LCD 3 headphone. I generally listen to western pop , mainly instrumentals, some time western classical and also Indian Bollywood songs. I also own Fiio X5 second generation to play flac and DSD files .