[goodvibes]

Glad you guys are happy but I could never get into 16 bit coming from good analog though the music is more important so did by DCs etc. I've never found digital effectively transparent until 24/192 became viable though anything 24 bit can be pretty musical. I've tended to prefer r2r to delta sigma because I find minor timing errors more problematic than minor amplitude errors which is more characteristic of type. As they get more sophisticated and less error prone, type becomes rather moot and execution is what determines goodness. Of course, I'm talking about $2k+ devices but if you're going to make sweeping statements, using lesser examples of things with wall warts, pc sources etc hardly makes the case.

All that said, I can in no way comment on cost effectiveness of a very inexpensive DAC and will defer to it being a great horse for this course.

 

[richard51]

You are right.... We are right too....

The problem is audio design and audio experience is made of trade-off... There is no absolute here... There is no best component anyway in the absolute... Why? because the acoustical, mechanical and electrical embeddings of components matter more than their price tag and even more than their specs taken in the absolute ... A component cannot give more than his own optimal or sub-optimal embeddings can deliver ....

Glad you guys are happy but I could never get into 16 bit coming from good analog though the music is more important so did by DCs etc. I've never found digital effectively transparent until 24/192 became viable though anything 24 bit can be pretty musical. I've tended to prefer r2r to delta sigma because I find minor timing errors more problematic than minor amplitude errors which is more characteristic of type. As they get more sophisticated and less error prone, type becomes rather moot and execution is what determines goodness. Of course, I'm talking about $2k+ devices but if you're going to make sweeping statements, using lesser examples of things with wall warts, pc sources etc hardly makes the case.

All that said, I can in no way comment on cost effectiveness of a very inexpensive DAC and will defer to it being a great horse for this course.

 

[goodvibes]

You are right.... We are right too....

The problem is audio design and audio experience is made of trade-off... There is no absolute here... There is no best component anyway in the absolute... Why? because the acoustical, mechanical and electrical embeddings of components matter more than their price tag and even more than their specs taken in the absolute ... A component cannot give more than his own optimal or sub-optimal embeddings can deliver ....

Quad 57s set up correctly still can't be beat at what they can do, which is actually a lot more than expected. Try the dig out of a Naim Uniti Core with a local file sometime. It has better bits, LOL.

 

[richard51]

Quad 57s set up correctly still can't be beat at what they can do, which is actually a lot more than expected. Try the dig out of a Naim Uniti Core with a local file sometime. It has better bits, LOL.

Even Quad speakers cannot beat the room where they will be embed, acoustically, mechanically and electrically.... give to an acoustician ANY RELATiVELY GOOD speaker of any brand and he will devise an acoustically dedicated room for it and this speaker/room will beat any other speaker at any price in a living room... This is what i called the embeddings problem.... There is no best in the absolute... All is trade-off and a ratio on the scale S.Q./price....

A dac, any dac, cannot beat or will beat any other dac; This depends and is relative to their electrical,acoustical and mechanical embeddings differing from very bad, good and optimally good...

A great acoustician said it in a sentence: «No speakers beat the room »...

No dac can beat the components around it and the room....It is relative.... It is also a question about the ratio S.Q. / price always...

 

[elvispreasley]

Glad you guys are happy but I could never get into 16 bit coming from good analog though the music is more important so did by DCs etc. I've never found digital effectively transparent until 24/192 became viable though anything 24 bit can be pretty musical. I've tended to prefer r2r to delta sigma because I find minor timing errors more problematic than minor amplitude errors which is more characteristic of type. As they get more sophisticated and less error prone, type becomes rather moot and execution is what determines goodness. Of course, I'm talking about $2k+ devices but if you're going to make sweeping statements, using lesser examples of things with wall warts, pc sources etc hardly makes the case.

All that said, I can in no way comment on cost effectiveness of a very inexpensive DAC and will defer to it being a great horse for this course.

TDA1543 is capable to reproduce 24/96 and in some implementations 24/192

 

[goodvibes]

Even Quad speakers cannot beat the room where they will be embed, acoustically, mechanically and electrically.... give to an acoustician ANY RELATiVELY GOOD speaker of any brand and he will devise an acoustically dedicated room for it and this speaker/room will beat any other speaker at any price in a living room... This is what i called the embeddings problem.... There is no best in the absolute... All is trade-off and a ratio on the scale S.Q./price....

A dac, any dac, cannot beat or will beat any other dac; This depends and is relative to their electrical,acoustical and mechanical embeddings differing from very bad, good and optimally good...

A great acoustician said it in a sentence: «No speakers beat the room »...

No dac can beat the components around it and the room....It is relative.... It is also a question about the ratio S.Q. / price always...

Umm, that's part of set up correctly as stated. I agree that proper interfacing and setup is more than 1/2 the battle but assuming poor setup or interfaced kit is counterproductive here.

 

[goodvibes]

TDA1543 is capable to reproduce 24/96 and in some implementations 24/192

Not native as discussed and while the sample rate is correct as it's capable of 4 x oversampled input, I don't believe it capable of the more significant 24 bit part without some unusual parallel chip arrangement.

 

[richard51]

Umm, that's part of set up correctly as stated. I agree that proper interfacing and setup is more than 1/2 the battle but assuming poor setup or interfaced kit is counterproductive here.

You are theoretically right here... But i am concretely right.... i said the SPS is the best purchase for 100 bucks possible in dac offerings.... I never said it is the best dac.... And anyway most people dont have an audio system so well embedded that they will perceive the difference between 24 bits and 16 bits.... It takes very costly and well embedded system to perceive it without failures....

And trust me room acoustic is way more hugely important than 16 bits versus 24 bits....Consumers are too much conditioned by reviewers and marketing practices and not enough by acoustic...

Electrical design do not replace acoustic if we speak upgrade....I know because i created my own dedicated audio room...

Source matter , you are right, but the room matter even more.... why? Because a good dac in a bad room is trash....Money throwed out of the window by acoustic ignorance, And Pavlov consumers conditioning.... Price tag means alot less than acoustic science in audio....

For dac choice it is very simple .... You chose a basic very good one to begin with , as the SPS for most people , then you work some years around your room/system.... when all is optimized.... You upgrade your dac.... Upgrading a dac BEFORE optimizing mechanically, electrically and acoustically your system is counter productive on all counts...

If money dont count for you forget all i have said....You dont need free advices....

 

[goodvibes]

You are theoretically right here... But i am concretely right.... i said the SPS is the best purchase for 100 bucks possible in dac offerings.... I never said it is the best dac.... And anyway most people dont have an audio system so well embedded that they will perceive the difference between 24 bits and 16 bits.... It takes very costly and well embedded system to percxeive it without failures....

And trust me room acoustic is way more hugely important than 16 bits versus 24 bits....Consumers are too much conditioned by reviewers and marketting and not enough by acoustic...

Electrical design do not replace acoustic if we speak upgrade....I know because i created my own dedicated audio room...

I agree about room but quality kit matters as well and yes, it's all rather pointless if not done well. I don't doubt it's the best $100 DAC but I could tell in almost any room nearfield with good enough kit and speakers in a reasonable position. We can agree to disagree if you like. I personally won't have an unused transducer in my listening room due to sympathetic energy so I get it. And it doesn't mean 16 bit in a better system with better associations and a better space won't beat a 24 bit system as described with poor associations or room. I get that's your point but it's not THE point ( for me) and I did not mean to diminish this device in any way.

Not my purpose built room but a less tidy sort of thing I'm used to with dedicated mains etc. Pic I have on hand after helping with setup. Quads happen to prefer smaller spaces and some proximity. As a system becomes more revealing it also gets fussier, easier to hear what may be lacking as expectation rise. This one uses Naim NAP135s ( regulated supplies with V turned down to effectively +,-36V to help protect the Quads). Naim NDS as DAC(R2R). Dedicated mains with starred configuration at the wall plugs. This fellow does some awesome mixes here.

 

[elvispreasley]

Not native as discussed and while the sample rate is correct as it's capable of 4 x oversampled input, I don't believe it capable of the more significant 24 bit part without some unusual parallel chip arrangement.

It's native (present in datasheet of the chip) and there is no oversampling - that's why the DAC called NOS (None Over Sampling)

 

[goodvibes]

It's native (present in datasheet if the chip) and there is no oversampling - that's why the DAC called NOS (No Over Sampling)

Dude, I didn't say it over sampled. I said it could accommodate a 4 x oversampled input. It's why it was designed for up to 48k devices but can accept a 192k input 4x48=192. It was initially designed this way to be able to allow a (preferred) oversampled input as no consumer 176/192k material was available at the time. Looking at the sheet, it can accommodate a native 192k input which I was not aware of. I thought the limit was 176k before checking but that's immaterial to the discussion.
From said datasheet. The high maximum input bit-rate and fast settling current facilitates application in 4 × oversampling systems.
If you don't understand this stuff, which you clearly do not, please stop.

 

[elvispreasley]

It's about a year have passed, since I've got this DAC (non USB version) and well, it's the first DAC in my many systems, that have survived for such a long time. It producing such a lovely, rich and engaging sound that I simply...lost that audiophile itch, pushing towards the new gears purchase, in hope for the better sound. Glad that I've found mine best - next to this beautiful small DAC, purchased once out of curiosity and never been abandoned since

 

[richard51]

After a year of interruption , i begun again using My starting point system dac...

With my small homemade modified extraordinary small active speakers, M-Audio AV40... They were well reviewed everywhere but trust me they improve a lot modified...

This SPS dac is amazing and sound different because the new speakers are very different... ( people confuse the character of a dac with his sound, but the sound of a dac being related to his basic character change a lot with the components with which they are coupled ) The synergy with my small speakers is better if possible because the fluid organic sound of this NOS Dac accomodate well these very detailed and precise small speakers... With my modification these M-Audio box really sound better than most headphones anyway... Except my TOP AKG K340 the best headphone i own and ever listened to which cannot be upgrade probably short of an Abyss or a Susvara so good and very special is their soundfield ...It will be too costly for me to upgrade them and anyway they are so good i would be afriad to upgrade them anyway... I tried to upgrade my Sansui alpha serving my K340 with a zotl and it did not work at all... the Sansui alpha is a gem by itself...

For casual listening i go with the french dac and the small speakers...It is so good i forgot sound...I lack only deep bass... With my modification i had all the bass extension i need..

For sacred moment of listening i used my AKG K340 paired with a very accurate and cleaner Hidizs dac, because it is also a battery dac then decoupled from the electrical grid, it is a huge files bank then decoupled from computer noise, and its basic equalization tools are needed for the K340 optimization curve...

Each dac here serve the best optimization purpose, not one is better than the other, they are designed for different use ... And because i feel no limitations or lacks in the acoustic factors at their location point in my systems, upgrading them is meaningless for me...

I use hifimedyi basic dacs, one as USB/ optical convertor ( one of the very useful function of this small dac) for servicing the french Nos starting point dac; the other Hifimedyi dac is used for my basically good Fostex TH7 headphone, my casual listening computer tool... No music with this Fostex ...

Then i own 4 dac and each one deserve a praise because i use it at the right place for the work they are able to do ...

I cannot fault them because they are used at the right place... SYNERGY is the key word in audio with acoustics...Price tag means not what people think...