Tubes and Solid State <$600 DACs: Same Sonic Qualities as Tube/SS Amps, or Different?

[crazyface]

Hi!

There's a lot of information out there about the sound signatures of tube amps versus solid state amps -- but not quite so much on the subject of DACs.

Is the effect basically the same? Is it of the same intensity? Or does tube/SS matter much less for DACs than for amps -- or does it matter more?

I've been trying to decide what DAC to buy for MONTHS, and I STILL feel like there's so much out there that I can't be confident in any purchase!

My ideal DAC would have XLR connection, 24/96 capability, and a sound that's both euphonic and highly detailed, and less than $500 - but so far I've got no real leads. I ALMOST bought a Paradisea+, but then folks started posting saying that it sounded BETTER with its tube buffer bypassed...!

Anyway, thanks again for reading, bye!!!

 

[tfarney]

What do you want it to do? Do you want it to convert data to voltage in a way that delivers sound that is as accurate a reflection of the intention inherent in that data as possible, or do you want it to alter the sound, during that conversion, to taste? The former isn't very expensive. The latter can be very high and is, arguably, the wrong place to add color, as it colors everything in the system behind it. YMMV.

Tim

 

[crazyface]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking me, in relation to my post.

Can you please explain?

Thank you, bye!

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you want it to do? Do you want it to convert data to voltage in a way that delivers sound that is as accurate a reflection of the intention inherent in that data as possible, or do you want it to alter the sound, during that conversion, to taste? The former isn't very expensive. The latter can be very high and is, arguably, the wrong place to add color, as it colors everything in the system behind it. YMMV. Tim

This post made me realize something Tim .... do you realize how little some tube designs color the sound and how much some SS designs can color the sound?

I have had people listen to my tube and SS amps coming off the same source with intertwined senn 600's so they didnt know which amp was which .... and asked them which amp was more colored? With these two particualar amps, Gilmore GS-1 and PPX3 SLAM, they thought the SS amp was more colored and I have done that trial a number of times with several people. I can tell you why too .... the tube amp has a much more lifelike midrange where most of the music resides.

SS has distortions just like tubes. But, they seem to be of both the subtractive and additive kind .... as in bleaching out/ removing the low order harmonics that lean out the sound and adding high order harmonics that etch and harden the sound. Having tubes in the source is no guarentee you will get less accuracy .... with a well designed tube output you should get more accuracy.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

This post made me realize something Tim .... do you realize how little some tube designs color the sound and how much some SS designs can color the sound?

I do. There is another thread around here somewhere, you may have even been participating in it, in which we talk about how as tube amps get less "tubey," the sonic differences between tubes and SS get smaller (though I don't think they ever converge). I also realize that what constitutes "color" has more to do with the context of the listener, in practical application, than any absolute. If you're accustomed to listening to tubes, or even a very warm "tubey" vintage SS amp, as I am, that very transparent SS, or to go to extremes, digital amplification will sound "colored" toward the bright or lean or etched - choose your adjective. Particularly when playing digital media. But I don't believe that good SS designed for transparency and running well within its limits (adequate headroom for maximum listening volume with the given load) colors sound as much as tubes. There is no data that I'm aware of to support the notion that SS amps cause "subtractive" distortion (digital media subtracts from analog - it subtracts color, and we long to replace it), and the data that I am aware of supports the idea that in well-designed SS amplification, all measurable distortions are below that of the best tube gear and outside of the range of human hearing as long as the equipment isn't driven to clipping. I also believe that the "lifelike midrange," or euphonic, or warm or liquid or...again, choose your adjective...in tube gear is coloration. It is beautiful, seductive, may very well sound better than any SS you ever heard, but it is coloration.

I'm not guessing at that, but basing it on 40 years as a musician, with the ultimate "reference" -- my instruments. I have played all manner of electric and acoustic guitars through all types of amplification from lo-fi tubes to hi-fi tubes to hybrids to SS. We'll keep the discussion to clean tone, as deliberately driving an amp to clipping is not relevant here. I know that if I want a warm, sweet, lush, harmonically rich tone without a trace of anything anyone would call distortion from an electric guitar, I want tubes, with lots of power, lots of headroom, no clipping under normal attack. And I know that if I'm amplifying and acoustic guitar with a really good mic or pickup and I want it to sound as close to the instrument itself as I can get, I want SS, and plenty of it. I know the difference very well. I know what a lot of tube color sounds like and I know what a tiny trace of it sounds like, amplifying my own instruments that I play acoustically every day. And I know it colors the sound of my instruments. Beautifully. Enjoy it.

But back to the OP - the tiny little preamp in the output section of a DAC, that is there only to boost the signal to line levels is, IMO, not the place to add color to your system. YMMV.

Tim

 

[crazyface]

Hello! You both sound like you really know what you are talking about!

I am not inclined to argue with you, but it does seem, when I read reviews for certain tube-based DACs, that many users refer to a "tube sound." So I am curious if you have heard tube DACs yourself and can say from experience that they do not actually add much tube sound? Again, I am not trying to argue, I am just trying to figure this out so that I can finally buy a DAC.

I am very much a fan of what is called often, "analog euphonics," so I suspect that tubes will be a sound well-suited to my tastes. Do you believe, in any case, that it would be entirely unavailing to have a tube-based DAC?

Perhaps you could still advise me on a DAC purchase? My position is this:

I am, of course, a lover of music, and often I undertake audio projects to use in my amateur films. This is primarily voice tracks at present, but I hope to learn instruments and composition so that I may create music as well.

I have an "APHEX 204," which does very well in helping my tracks to sound much more lively when played back on poor systems (television sets for example) and also does much in terms of casual playback to overcome the deficiences of my Bose speakers. The Aphex 204 has XLR input and output, and I would like to utilize these as much as possible, so I would like a DAC with XLR. 24/96 support would also be ideal, but I am beginning to "give" on this feature because it seems to make the matter of finding a DAC in my price range (with good quality sound) much more difficult.

Thank you all very much!!!

Goodbye!

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Hello! You both sound like you really know what you are talking about!

That's an illusion. I have not heard a tube DAC, but having heard lots of tubes amps and preamps, I would guess that it would add a bit of that smooth midrange that is the characteristic tube sound to the output of the DAC. Good tube DACs are very expensive, though, and I would suggest that you can probably get more sound for your money elsewhere - even more tube sound. A tube amp should get more tube sound. Replacing the Bose would probably get you a lot more sound, period, for your money.

Tim

 

[Jolida302]

Tube DACs or integrated CD players with tubes are a joke. Not to say there are all bad. For example the little Jolida integrated CD deck one is said to be good. Much better to use a tube power amp, or an integrated tube amp on your system to have the tube sound, which is so much better than the harsh solid state sound in the mid high.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolida302 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tube DACs or integrated CD players with tubes are a joke. Not to say there are all bad. For example the little Jolida integrated CD deck one is said to be good. Much better to use a tube power amp, or an integrated tube amp on your system to have the tube sound, which is so much better than the harsh solid state sound in the mid high.

The tube guy goes even farther than I do! I wouldn't say they're a joke; I'd say they are an attempt to add analog warmth to digital sound at the source. But I'd definitely agree that if what you want is tube sound, you'll get it a lot more effectively by using a tube amp.

Tim

 

[crazyface]

Ok!

I must solve my DAC problem first though, because my current method of primary playback has gone faulty, so through my PC I can only play the right-side channel, and my CDP has a bad DAC - but thankfully it has optical digital out. I just need a DAC so I can use that, and restore two channel playback to my PC. I cannot afford a DAC more than $500... May I ask why you conclude that a tube DAC in this price will be worse than a solid-state DAC? I had thought that, because tubes are older technology, it is cheaper to make a unit based upon them?

I have been told that it is a good idea to replace my Bose speakers with "near field monitors." I think I like this idea, but it is difficult to find suggestion for which near field monitors are best in my price range. You are a musician - can you help with this question?

Finally, for amp, I must admit that I do not fully understand what an amp will do if it is not a headphone amp. Headphone amps I understand, because you must plug the headphone into them - but where does a speaker amp go? The receiver has the speaker outs - so where will you plug your speaker amp? Can a "tube amp" be both for speaker and for headphones? I am very confused on this matter.

Okay, thank you very much, goodbye!

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif The tube guy goes even farther than I do! I wouldn't say they're a joke; I'd say they are an attempt to add analog warmth to digital sound at the source.

irony, thats the same goal that the exceptionally expensive SS gear has too. crazyness. the differences between the inexpensive tube gear and all the expensive stuff are in the subtlties of this. Either device propelry implimented can give a very subtle coloration that is extremely pleasant, or an "uncolored" pure pass of the DAC chip, which sounds exceptionally digital.

I agree with sacd on the superiority of a tube. Compare a single triode OPTIMALLY LOADED to a single transistor similarly loaded. The transistor costs less to impliment, but it dosnt do anything but economics as well as the triode. You can even use a "transistor in a bottle" triode like 1/2 of a 12a?7 (worst gain triode family ever, according to measurements.)

Anyways, to the OP:
Taking your budget into account ($500) your money will take you MUCH further if you go for a better quality single ended dac rather than a balanced one, whose only quality is being balanced... In this budget range, I would also recommend a full SS dac. I also agree that the DAC is not the place to color the sound, but in this price bracket you are only picking what color you like, and in this price bracket I prefer the colorations of the SS dac options to the colorations of the tube options.

Balanced drive is a benefit when its the last 2% of the system that is missing, when the first is shaky: its only twice as much garbage. A balanced system is no guarantee of quality. When you build a balanced system VERY WELL it can sound exceptional, but the bottom of the heap in balanced-vile dosnt take you nearly as far as the single ended gear in that price bracket.

 

[Golden Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod /img/forum/go_quote.gif irony

Funniest sig EVER, lol...

Well OP, if you want balanced, high resolution, plenty of options for the future, and a good solid non-tube DAC in your budget, have you considered the DIYEDEN Great March 2? Link to Pacific Valve:Pacific Valve & Electric Company Great March 2

$399.00

Audiophile Quality, Jitter-Immune 24-bit DAC

The Great March 2 is designed for maximum
transparency and is well suited for audiophile
quality high end playback systems. The
PCM1798 based Great March 2 Xilinx chip
re-clocks the signal and uses a unique
algorithm to preserve the original signal as
much as possible. This approach greatly
reduces jitter produced by either the transport
or the incoming cable. Next the signal is fed to
a TI SRC4190 sample rate converter to
up-sample the signal so the PCM1798 can
convert in a more linear fashion making digital
filtering "easy on the ears". This technology
makes the Great March 2 ideal for critical
applications where only the highest level of
performance will do.

Revolutionary Design

No shortcuts were taken in the implementation
of the Great March 2. The D/A conversion clock
is totally isolated from the AES/EBU digital
audio clocks in a topology that outperforms
two-stage PLL designs. A fully digital
de-emphasis circuit supports 44.1, 48, 88.2,
96 and 176.4 kHz sample rates and is
automatically enabled in response to the
source signal. A first class band pass filter
features filter attenuation rate of 125 db at the
first pass and 98 db for the second pass. The
result is a linear filtering process that does not
give a scorching high end with digital grunge.
The Great March 2 maybe the smoothest DAC
that you may ever hear.

Features Galore and Military
Specifications

The Great March 2 features Coax, AES/EBU
and optical inputs; balanced and RCA outputs.
The DAC uses 2 PCM1798 DACs for
conversion and a Xilinx chip for jitter reduction
and clocking. The Great March 2 also
features a unique switching circuit that selects
the input source on a first come first serve
basis. The Great March 2 has a signal to
noise ratio > 96 db and total harmonic
distortion of 0.002%

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

irony, thats the same goal that the exceptionally expensive SS gear has too. crazyness. the differences between the inexpensive tube gear and all the expensive stuff are in the subtlties of this. Either device propelry implimented can give a very subtle coloration that is extremely pleasant, or an "uncolored" pure pass of the DAC chip, which sounds exceptionally digital.

Ironic, perhaps, but inaccurate. The recording studios of the world are filled with exceptionally expensive equipment, from AD converters to mixing boards to signal processing equipment to DACs to amplifiers to monitor speakers to headphone systems, the objective of which is transparency, not coloration. And it does not sound "exceptionally digital." When you play it back, it sounds like your instrument. Unwarmed.

And the quest for transparency isn't limited to the studio. Anyone out there using a DAC that does not try to color the source -- Benchmark DAC1, anything from Apogee, many others, I'm sure, into an amp with similar goals...Headamp, comes to mind...in fact, we can make this very simple: The Pico is probably designed for transparency, not color. At least that would be consistent with HeadAmp's approach. All you Pico lovers -- does your music sound "exceptionally digital?"

I didn't think so.

What most people hear as harsh or "digital" is simply the digital media brutally revealing flaws in recording or mastering. To quote Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," we can't handle the truth. And that's ok.

But put on a really good recording - analog or digital - that has been well mastered (Gold discs from DCC are a really safe bet, or anything from Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler after "Making Movies", most Steely Dan, much, much more...), and not compressed or goosed up to sound "detailed." Warm instruments will sound warm, cold instruments will sound cold and silence will sound silent. That does not mean, of course, that you won't prefer it warmed up a bit across the board. But your preference is not the same as a flaw in what you do not prefer.

Tim

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

The Great March 2 is designed for maximum transparency

Tim

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

May I ask why you conclude that a tube DAC in this price will be worse than a solid-state DAC?

Personally, I conclude that a tube DAC in any price range is a bad idea because the only reason I can think of to put tubes in a DAC is to deliberately color the signal at the first output of analog, and I don't think that's a good idea. If you want tube warmth, get a tube amp. But that's just my opinion.

Quote:

I had thought that, because tubes are older technology, it is cheaper to make a unit based upon them?

They are an older technology, but they've reached the point where they've become exotic and are typically much more expensive.

Quote:

I have been told that it is a good idea to replace my Bose speakers with "near field monitors." I think I like this idea, but it is difficult to find suggestion for which near field monitors are best in my price range. You are a musician - can you help with this question?

If you like a warm, tubey tone, I wouldn't recommend near field monitors. They are designed for studio work and are very revealing. In the ears of the average audiophile, they are too bright. Besides they are, as the name suggests, designed for near-field listening, just 3 or 4 feet away and pointed at your ears. They will not image well in a typical listening room.

If we're going to start advising you on speakers, we'll need to know what kind of music you listen to, the size of your listening environment, how loud you like to play your music...that ought to be a good start.

Tim