[Howlin Fester]

Sorry missed this on my phone! Look up Benjie S5, great little played for $26

26$? That's reasonable.

You guys are a bad influence. Just ordered one from eBay.

I read three pages of the Benjie thread and saw gapless and resume play within those three pages.

Looks like this will be a good replacement for my fiio M3.

 

[Karendar]

Speaking of bad influence, my free m-15 module with the orange dummy module have shipped for my U8 I'll be able to see just how much Apex affects sound

 

[Fox2twenty]

Speaking of bad influence, my free m-15 module with the orange dummy module have shipped for my U8 I'll be able to see just how much Apex affects sound

So cool!

 

[guisess93]

I reviewed them both, so I'll chime in here. They're both good DAP's with warm, organic sound signatures.
I would give the edge to the M2s in terms of sound quality and appearance (possibly navigation too, but that's a personal preference).

However, the N3 has every conceivable kind of functionality you could possibly wish for.. USB DAC, streaming from a mobile phone, all kinds of stuff. My memory's a bit hazy, but do check reviews. I think there are links to my ones in my signature, but there will also be more comprehensive ones out there somewhere too.

If your main priority is sound quality and you're not that bothered about the bells and whistles, I'd throw the following two DAP's into the mix: the xDuoo X3 (about half the price of the two DAPs you mentioned!) and the Aune M1s (about $50 more? not 100% sure).
Both have beautiful transparent, reference sound signatures, with lots of detail, clarity and good sound stage.
I hands-down preferred them both overall to the two you mentioned, but again, that's a personal preference.
If you prefer a more warm and organic sound signature, then the two you suggested would probably be a better fit.

Although in both cases, it depends on what IEM's you're going to be using.
Often, a transparent, reference, neutral kind of DAP matches well with somewhat warm/organic IEM's, and vice versa.
Too much of the same thing can lead to overkill

Hope this helps, let us know what you choose!

Thanks a lot for your reply. I will be using Harmony 8.2, which has a more warm and organic tuning, together with Ares II, which provides some air and cleanliness.
I'm currently using Sansa Clip Zip with Rockbox, and I'm not actually very happy with it since I really dont know how to can create/edit playlists easily. And I can't, for eg, listening to a track, like it, wanna quickly add it to existing playlists, so yeah I dont know how to do that with Sansa either. I guess Sansa as a very affordable DAP won't be a good match with TOTL Harmony 8.2 either, hence I'm currently in search for a new DAP.
So basically, my requirements are:
1. The playlist related stuff mentioned above.
2. Affordable, should be < $300, cheaper is better, and 2nd hands are actually preferred.
3. Decent enough DAC chip, to be paired with Harmony 8.2 only, and to be used as external DAC for my PC/laptop.
4. Easy to use, bug-free UI.

The last requirement about UI led me to Cayin and Shanling, according to what I've read around so far. I've checked your suggestions of X3 and Aune m1s. It seems X3's rockbox is even more obsolete than my Sansa's rockbox. The Aune doesn't have USB DAC (AFAI understand, this means it can't be used as external DAC for my PC/laptop), and no Bluetooth either (I will be connecting the DAP with my Sena to play music when I'm riding motorbike ). I do feel that my Harmony 8.2 will pair with neutral DAPs better than warm ones, but I guess these 2 wont fill all my needs

Thanks a lot for pointing out that N3 and M2S are on the warm side. I guess my best bet right now is 2nd hand cayin i5 or wait for Shanling M3S :-/ Please correct me if I'm wrong with anything, and/or provide further advice

 

[JaeYoon]

I should point out the idea of a DAC is to be a digital analog converter.

Not sure if I should be putting things I learned from sound science forum.

I would assume all of you would want a dac chip to take your FLAC/WAV/AAC/MP3.
And output it perfectly and accurately

Think of this DAC -> AMP -> Headphone/IEM/whatever.

You have a couple+ ways of coloration. Amp/other components that can flavor audio signal and your headphone.

A really good DAC within 2000s to 2017 ideally should input output an accurate audio stream.

In theory that means all ideal dacs would be the same. Minus the mumbo jumbo of 32 bit dac junk heap. We cannot even listen to full noise floor 144 db of 24 bit without bursting our ears. So ignore that marketing junk.

Now problem is audiophile DAC thats could stray from this idea of outputting an accurate stream and coloring it and then coloring from source device and then to headphones.

I honestly advise everyone here to ignore which dac is better than another from here on out and concentrate on sound signature that the dap outputs instead.

I would be very fearful of any dac that tries to sound different from another when their entire point of existence is compromised.

I also recommend everyone to take what I say in this post with skepticism but please be careful with marketing terms and what companies want to stuff in your mind.

 

[barondla]

I should point out the idea of a DAC is to be a digital analog converter.

Not sure if I should be putting things I learned from sound science forum.

I would assume all of you would want a dac chip to take your FLAC/WAV/AAC/MP3.
And output it perfectly and accurately


Think of this DAC -> AMP -> Headphone/IEM/whatever.

You have a couple+ ways of coloration. Amp/other components that can flavor audio signal and your headphone.

A really good DAC within 2000s to 2017 ideally should input output an accurate audio stream.

In theory that means all ideal dacs would be the same. Minus the mumbo jumbo of 32 bit dac junk heap. We cannot even listen to full noise floor 144 db of 24 bit without bursting our ears. So ignore that marketing junk.

Now problem is audiophile DAC thats could stray from this idea of outputting an accurate stream and coloring it and then coloring from source device and then to headphones.

I honestly advise everyone here to ignore which dac is better than another from here on out and concentrate on sound signature that the dap outputs instead.

I would be very fearful of any dac that tries to sound different from another when their entire point of existence is compromised.

I also recommend everyone to take what I say in this post with skepticism but please be careful with marketing terms and what companies want to stuff in your mind.

I'm very skeptical. For a few reasons.
1. Digital is not perfect. There are numerous flaws. Like anything designed and made by man, there are trade offs. As an example of this, in theory redbook 16/44.1 math has been perfect since the 80's. So why does the dac have to be 2000 or newer? We were told digital was perfect from the start.

2. There are many well designed dacs that allow different digital filters to be selected. This changes the sound. They are all technically correct. Do you optimize for frequency response or time domain? Can't have both with the woefully inadequate 16/44.1 standard.

3. Which digital is accurate? PCM or DSD? They have different strengths and disadvantages and many people consider them different sounding.

4. 32 bit may not be important as a format but it can be very important that the dac runs 32 bit or higher if a digital volume control is used. With a digital volume control more bits are thrown away as the volume is reduced. A good designer starts with enough extra bits so at lowest volume none of the true resolution is discarded.

I'm no electronics engineer/digital theorist so some of this could be worded too simply or might even be my poor understanding.

 

[Podster]

You guys are a bad influence. Just ordered one from eBay.

I read three pages of the Benjie thread and saw gapless and resume play within those three pages.

Looks like this will be a good replacement for my fiio M3.

Always happy to help a brother out @Howlin Fester , on the bright side it is a lot less than a new AK unit (pick one, pretty sure the AK70 is like 23 times more) See it's when I type stuff like this I have to re-evaluate ROI on everything I have But alas the disease is alive and kicking

 

[JaeYoon]

I'm very skeptical. For a few reasons.
1. Digital is not perfect. There are numerous flaws. Like anything designed and made by man, there are trade offs. As an example of this, in theory redbook 16/44.1 math has been perfect since the 80's. So why does the dac have to be 2000 or newer? We were told digital was perfect from the start.

2. There are many well designed dacs that allow different digital filters to be selected. This changes the sound. They are all technically correct. Do you optimize for frequency response or time domain? Can't have both with the woefully inadequate 16/44.1 standard.

3. Which digital is accurate? PCM or DSD? They have different strengths and disadvantages and many people consider them different sounding.

4. 32 bit may not be important as a format but it can be very important that the dac runs 32 bit or higher if a digital volume control is used. With a digital volume control more bits are thrown away as the volume is reduced. A good designer starts with enough extra bits so at lowest volume none of the true resolution is discarded.

I'm no electronics engineer/digital theorist so some of this could be worded too simply or might even be my poor understanding.

1. It doesnt really have to be in 2000s. I put that as most people here besides a few of you dont have older audio systems than that in here. Not that I seen anyhow.
But yes number 1 is a good point

2. (I Re-read digital filters it's not as bad as I thought.)

3. A few posts I seen volume match and abx comparison between dsd and pcm them have not heard many audible differences. Unless you spend considerable time and energy trying to discern such differences.
Not worth time for me I dont care at about differences at such high bitrate and files.
4. There is almost no studio 32 bit. Its already a huge waste of space. But for 32 bit dac in 32 bit mode
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/eff...p-software-at-full-volume-is-nonsense.671220/

This thread has some good reading for those interested. It has arguments for and against.

But Whether those lost bits are audible to human ear is up for debate.

I should really include a chart for format it is way more than 24 bit flacs. Extremely huge.
I mean you can argue we have 400 gb sd cards. But yes I do agree that 32 bit format will be hard to sell. But 32 bit mode can be desirable.

But you bring up seriously good points though.

For number 2 I honestly see appeal why people do DIY dacs.

 

[Brooko]

Point 4 not up for debate - and unfortunately shows complete lack of knowledge regarding bit depth vs bit rate (or more properly sample rate)

16 bit has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB
24 bit has a theoretical dynamic range of 144 dB
32 bit would have a theoretical dynamic range of 192 dB

So why is higher bit depth preferable? Its not for playback. If you have a noise floor of around 20dB (basically inaudible unless you were in an anechoic chamber), then that means the maximum volume is going to be around 116 dB - beyond the pain barrier.

But what about recording? Well thats where 24bit is handy, because by combining multiple tracks, there is the danger of increasing the noise floor. So recording in 24bit gives you more room to play with, and you can adjust the dynamic range back to 16bit for the final master, and still have a perfectly good recording which completely covers human hearing range.

The only advantage to 24bit is recording. As to 32bit - its simply a higher number, and the only ones who may get benefit from it would be with multi track recording/processing.

Point 1 - straw-man. Digital audio is perfectly able to recreate an analog waveform. There can be no debate on this - only from the completely uninformed. Search the net - plenty of info out there.

Point 2 - again, simply shows lack of understanding of Nyquist. Redbook can completely capture the limits of human hearing. We're not dogs. And digital filters are reconstruction filters (not a bad description here). They're designed to deal with reconstruction noise.

Point 3 - the vast majority of DSD recordings were originally PCM recordings - then transcoded. True DSD can't be post processed (remember its 1 bit)! There are some very good pure DSD recording out there, but it has everything to do with the recording, and not the container. The problem is that people will take a DSD recording and a PCM recording (possibly from same store), volume match and notice a difference. Yep - different mastering. Try taking a DSD recording, properly resampling to redbook, and then compare the two (after proper volume matching). there will be no audible difference if the transcode was done properly. The secret to great audio is always the recording and the mastering - the container should be ignored, as long as its minimum 16/44.1.

 

[JaeYoon]

Point 4 not up for debate - and unfortunately shows complete lack of knowledge regarding bit depth vs bit rate (or more properly sample rate)

16 bit has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB
24 bit has a theoretical dynamic range of 144 dB
32 bit would have a theoretical dynamic range of 192 dB

So why is higher bit depth preferable? Its not for playback. If you have a noise floor of around 20dB (basically inaudible unless you were in an anechoic chamber), then that means the maximum volume is going to be around 116 dB - beyond the pain barrier.

But what about recording? Well thats where 24bit is handy, because by combining multiple tracks, there is the danger of increasing the noise floor. So recording in 24bit gives you more room to play with, and you can adjust the dynamic range back to 16bit for the final master, and still have a perfectly good recording which completely covers human hearing range.

The only advantage to 24bit is recording. As to 32bit - its simply a higher number, and the only ones who may get benefit from it would be with multi track recording/processing.

Point 1 - straw-man. Digital audio is perfectly able to recreate an analog waveform. There can be no debate on this - only from the completely uninformed. Search the net - plenty of info out there.

Point 2 - again, simply shows lack of understanding of Nyquist. Redbook can completely capture the limits of human hearing. We're not dogs. And digital filters are reconstruction filters (not a bad description here). They're designed to deal with reconstruction noise.

Point 3 - the vast majority of DSD recordings were originally PCM recordings - then transcoded. True DSD can't be post processed (remember its 1 bit)! There are some very good pure DSD recording out there, but it has everything to do with the recording, and not the container. The problem is that people will take a DSD recording and a PCM recording (possibly from same store), volume match and notice a difference. Yep - different mastering. Try taking a DSD recording, properly resampling to redbook, and then compare the two (after proper volume matching). there will be no audible difference if the transcode was done properly. The secret to great audio is always the recording and the mastering - the container should be ignored, as long as its minimum 16/44.1.

Thanks for vast pot of knowledge! I admit I should've done much more studying

I need to do some more reading.

 

[Richsvt]

I go back and forth on this issue. Sometimes I feel I can hear differences in bit depth but how much of that is due to the master and recording technique? One can definitely hear a poorly mastered song versus a great master. It gets dicey when you have something very sonically similar that the arguments start. Placebo effects cloud much of what/how we perceive.

My take, if the music sounds good, if I can hear the nuances I am looking for, then be damned the bit depth and rates. If one is so consumed to get the 'best' they think they need, I feel you are wasting money on equipment and time trying to discern the differences. I just want to hear good stuff and enjoy it. I want to spend my time tapping my foot, grooving to tunes, not analyzing it death.

I'll get off my soap box now...

 

[Podster]

Point 4 not up for debate - and unfortunately shows complete lack of knowledge regarding bit depth vs bit rate (or more properly sample rate)

16 bit has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB
24 bit has a theoretical dynamic range of 144 dB
32 bit would have a theoretical dynamic range of 192 dB

So why is higher bit depth preferable? Its not for playback. If you have a noise floor of around 20dB (basically inaudible unless you were in an anechoic chamber), then that means the maximum volume is going to be around 116 dB - beyond the pain barrier.

But what about recording? Well thats where 24bit is handy, because by combining multiple tracks, there is the danger of increasing the noise floor. So recording in 24bit gives you more room to play with, and you can adjust the dynamic range back to 16bit for the final master, and still have a perfectly good recording which completely covers human hearing range.

The only advantage to 24bit is recording. As to 32bit - its simply a higher number, and the only ones who may get benefit from it would be with multi track recording/processing.

Point 1 - straw-man. Digital audio is perfectly able to recreate an analog waveform. There can be no debate on this - only from the completely uninformed. Search the net - plenty of info out there.

Point 2 - again, simply shows lack of understanding of Nyquist. Redbook can completely capture the limits of human hearing. We're not dogs. And digital filters are reconstruction filters (not a bad description here). They're designed to deal with reconstruction noise.

Point 3 - the vast majority of DSD recordings were originally PCM recordings - then transcoded. True DSD can't be post processed (remember its 1 bit)! There are some very good pure DSD recording out there, but it has everything to do with the recording, and not the container. The problem is that people will take a DSD recording and a PCM recording (possibly from same store), volume match and notice a difference. Yep - different mastering. Try taking a DSD recording, properly resampling to redbook, and then compare the two (after proper volume matching). there will be no audible difference if the transcode was done properly. The secret to great audio is always the recording and the mastering - the container should be ignored, as long as its minimum 16/44.1.

Absolutely correct on that finale statement and why a well recorded piece sounds great on any rig from a Benjie S5 to an Opus #2 (not saying anything about the individual DAP discrepancies) but the recording itself will sound just as good

 

[JaeYoon]

I go back and forth on this issue. Sometimes I feel I can hear differences in bit depth but how much of that is due to the master and recording technique? One can definitely hear a poorly mastered song versus a great master. It gets dicey when you have something very sonically similar that the arguments start. Placebo effects cloud much of what/how we perceive.

My take, if the music sounds good, if I can hear the nuances I am looking for, then be damned the bit depth and rates. If one is so consumed to get the 'best' they think they need, I feel you are wasting money on equipment and time trying to discern the differences. I just want to hear good stuff and enjoy it. I want to spend my time tapping my foot, grooving to tunes, not analyzing it death.

I'll get off my soap box now...

Really good post!
I try not to pay too much attention to advertising and marketing labels.

I think you have a good mindset in a very rapid change hobby.

Lots of people always on horse saddle looking up upgrades to sound. 1 to 3 months later a new cool dap or headphones come out and we wanna get it.

My habit has changed a lot since middle school. Remember the old ipods I had for like a few years until it stopped working.

I never thought about analyzing it's sound really. I have nightmares at night sometime of mountains of daps people including me have discarded in hopes of finding a better.

Just imagine a dap graveyard where daps haunt and look for owners to own them. Perfectly good audio equipment Being discarded by people like me too in name of searching for great sounding equipment.

 

[Howlin Fester]

Hi there,

I can't decide between cayin N3 vs Shanling M2S, and there's even M3S coming out on top of that. I will only use the DAP to pair with IEMs/CIEMs only btw. Could you provide some thoughts? Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot for your reply. I will be using Harmony 8.2, which has a more warm and organic tuning, together with Ares II, which provides some air and cleanliness.
I'm currently using Sansa Clip Zip with Rockbox, and I'm not actually very happy with it since I really dont know how to can create/edit playlists easily. And I can't, for eg, listening to a track, like it, wanna quickly add it to existing playlists, so yeah I dont know how to do that with Sansa either. I guess Sansa as a very affordable DAP won't be a good match with TOTL Harmony 8.2 either, hence I'm currently in search for a new DAP.
So basically, my requirements are:
1. The playlist related stuff mentioned above.
2. Affordable, should be < $300, cheaper is better, and 2nd hands are actually preferred.
3. Decent enough DAC chip, to be paired with Harmony 8.2 only, and to be used as external DAC for my PC/laptop.
4. Easy to use, bug-free UI.

The last requirement about UI led me to Cayin and Shanling, according to what I've read around so far. I've checked your suggestions of X3 and Aune m1s. It seems X3's rockbox is even more obsolete than my Sansa's rockbox. The Aune doesn't have USB DAC (AFAI understand, this means it can't be used as external DAC for my PC/laptop), and no Bluetooth either (I will be connecting the DAP with my Sena to play music when I'm riding motorbike ). I do feel that my Harmony 8.2 will pair with neutral DAPs better than warm ones, but I guess these 2 wont fill all my needs

Thanks a lot for pointing out that N3 and M2S are on the warm side. I guess my best bet right now is 2nd hand cayin i5 or wait for Shanling M3S :-/ Please correct me if I'm wrong with anything, and/or provide further advice

@guisess93 Hi. Not sure that I'm the best person to help you with this question, but I'll give you my point of view and indicate where I differ.

I chose the N3 for a number of reasons. The N3 was 50 dollars cheaper than the M2s, and the N3 does not have a glass screen protector available. Meaning that if I bought the M2s, it would have cost me 50 more for the unit and 20 more for the glass. So I saved 70 dollars there. Also. I was part of the N3 tour review and I KNEW that the N3 would attach to my RSA Intruder amp. I could speculate that it would attach to the M2s, but I couldn't confirm. I would use either unit as a digital transport, so I can't really comment much on the sound from the headphone port.

If you plan to use the N3 with Digital USB out at a later time, then it is a good option. I have tested and confirmed it can be used with the RSA Intruder DAC/AMP, RSA Predator DAC/AMP, Peachtree Audio Decco 65 DAC/AMP. But it WILL NOT communicate with the Unison Research SH dac/amp. That is all I have tested. I have read that the M2s is good for USB Digital out as well. I know it will attach to the Mojo. But cannot comment much further.

If you plan to use the N3 with line out, i would NOT SUGGEST THIS unit for that function. Because the N3 uses the 3.5mm output for both headphones and line out, the N3 is designed to revert back to headphone out settings every time it is powered off or it times out. So if you plan to stack this with an amp at any point, the resetting of line out every time you play it is a major PITA and I would not ever buy for this function. I cannot speak to the Line out of the M2s.

That is really where my help ends.
1. I don't use playlists with my FLAC DAPs. I use folder play.
2. Both the N3 and M2s are under 300. I think the M3s is slightly more than 300, but you have dual DACs in that one. The M3s may not be a bad choice with your harmony 8.2.
3. DAC chip in N3 and M2s are exactly the same (I believe).
4. From both threads, I do not see anyone complaining about the UI. Some prefer the wheel over the capacitive buttons. But I haven't heard any bugs/glitches/issues.

Final thoughts. From my long thread that you quoted, I was proposing that people may want to look at amps that they like and get Digital Audio Players to use as transport. Then just match functionality you like and pair with the amp you like. I am a huge fan of Ray Samuels Audio and his sound. That is why I have a $700 amp and I connect a $150 DAP to it. I'm not sure where you are from, but if you are in Europe, I also liked the sound of the Meier amps. The Corda PCStep is a nice sounding amp and has USB in (for 16 bit 32, 44 48 KHz according to website) and you may be able to find a used one that fits your needs. Hope this helped.

 

[JaeYoon]

Absolutely correct on that finale statement and why a well recorded piece sounds great on any rig from a Benjie S5 to an Opus #2 (not saying anything about the individual DAP discrepancies) but the recording itself will sound just as good

Thats what haunts me. Imagine throwing a dap away in garbage or somewhere because there's another dap that could "play" it better. Im very certain benjie s5 regardless if its internals can very much fully present everything that is in that audio file you feed it. Whether it's 25 or 1,200 usd. I dont think you are missing out on any detail within that audio file.