Perfect DAC, Does it EXIST ?

[A1UC]

I have owned a few Dac's also and my current DAC  Totaldac D1 Dual  is by far the best so far  , I am considering moving up to the Totaldac 12 down the road . I would also like to hear the Golden Gate DAC .

 

Also there was a big difference between the Auralic and the Totaldac not minimal 

 

 

[Schu]

 

 

Also there was a big difference between the Auralic and the Totaldac not minimal 

 

 

 

 

Yes of course there is a "big" difference... that would be the price of admission.

[Rjk1972]

Ladder DACs are cool. A bit out of my price range with the possible exception of the Schiit Ygdrrasil(spelling?) I'd love to hear the Schiit. I'd love to hear a Total DAC too but I just couldn't imagine spending 10 grand on a DAC. Would love to have one though :-)

Edited August 17, 2015 by Rjk1972

[Rjk1972]

I have owned a few Dac's also and my current DAC Totaldac D1 Dual is by far the best so far , I am considering moving up to the Totaldac 12 down the road . I would also like to hear the Golden Gate DAC .

Also there was a big difference between the Auralic and the Totaldac not minimal

What comprises the rest of your system?

[joessportster]

Agreed most dacs in the sub 100 range are pretty close in performance although I ddid find there were some significant sound differences between the chips and the topology used in some of them, I have also found I am a NOS dac fan The Bifrost uber is a steal at its price of 519.00 They show up used time to time at 400 ish and are superb at that price

[A1UC]

 

I have owned a few Dac's also and my current DAC Totaldac D1 Dual is by far the best so far , I am considering moving up to the Totaldac 12 down the road . I would also like to hear the Golden Gate DAC .

Also there was a big difference between the Auralic and the Totaldac not minimal

What comprises the rest of your system?

 

VRD Monoblocks

Totaldac D1 Dual /Totaldac D1 Server Music Storage NAS SSD - Dedicated Router - (2) Paul Hynes SR-5 Linear PSU - Controlled by Ipad 

Speakers :Joseph Perspective's

Cables : Antipodes reference Speaker / IC's - Wywires Silver Juice II - Totaldac D1 USB

Uberbuss/Mongo III Power Cable  All  Furutech GTX-D ®  Rhodium Receptacles 

Headphone/Earbuds Sony MDR-Z7 Shure SE-535

Wywires Red HP Cable 

Edited August 17, 2015 by A1UC

[Rjk1972]

Agreed most dacs in the sub 100 range are pretty close in performance although I ddid find there were some significant sound differences between the chips and the topology used in some of them, I have also found I am a NOS dac fan The Bifrost uber is a steal at its price of 519.00 They show up used time to time at 400 ish and are superb at that price

As near as I can tell I like Wolfson, AKM and Sabre in that order. Though I personally believe that the design and quality of USB input, the analog output stage and the power supply all influence the sound more than the actual DAC chip. But all things being roughly equal I'll stick with that chip order.

NOS DAC chips are interesting. I remember really liking the Cal Labs tube DAC. I'm wondering if there is some merit to the idea that they are better than most modern DACs based on design and/or cost of manufacturing a quality chip today

Edited August 17, 2015 by Rjk1972

[muel]

Hast du ein UberBUSS?!  ...mit MONGO stromkabel ?!  

Auch du Himmel!

Weißt du nicht, es tut nichts?

 

But I ordered one anyway.

[Bubo]

If memory serves me correctly, some of the guys over on the HeadFI forum brought in 4-5 top DACS with each top chip set, perhaps 20 units in all.

 

What they discovered is that they couldn't tell them apart in the $500 and up range, which is what they tested.

 

The conclusion is that all of the chip makers and DAC makers have ironed out the kinks in the products.

 

DACs are data devices not unlike a packet switch with many or all of the same issues that have to be managed.

 

Tosslink could have been great, but the implementation was poor leading to errors with no correction like USB offers. Protocols without CRC ARQ simply drop the data or predict what it might have been, you also have buffer overflows and the data is flushed.

 

USB is a real data protocol and included CRC ARQ, so errors are noticed and the packet is re-transmitted to match the check sums.

 

The fundamental challenge with digital source is GIGO, and there is a lot of garbage including musicians who can't play their instruments and previously good sounding recording that have the noise boosted and the peaks clipped during the "Digital Remaster" butchering job.

 

Quantization Error, compression algorithms, predictive decoding, low bit rates, psycho-acoustics and Loudness Wars are but a few of the problems that become noticeable as a system becomes more clear and accurate. CDs have about half of the information on them that a vinyl record has.

 

IMHO the best sound is from DTS Master, most of which are still at CD word size and bit rates. DTS 24x96 is the clear winner when you can get it.

 

One thing I have noticed is that you have to roll off the high frequencies with digital, my manual on my Pioneer Elite Receiver even talks about the problem and has a setting for managing the roll off with a GUI.

[A1UC]

They must of all been deaf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bubo]

They must of all been deaf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Their test not mine, I always go for a bench test, in this case walking the frequencies up and down the scales, multi-frequencies and various wave forms etc....... I'm sure this is what the Engineers do in the labs, usually it's the error handling that  separates the men from the boys with the better products.

 

My quick test is a female voice and piano from a known recording, if they sound natural that is a good start.

 

Without bench tests it's all subjective.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Bubo

[joessportster]

I am on head fi a good bit and recall the thread comparisons you mention, I know some dacs are quite comparable but there are just as many that have glaring differences in sound example the sabre sounds quite different than say akm.................

 

Measurements are great but I let my ears decide, it seems most NOS dacs measure poorly but to me they sound much more liquid, closer to vinyl

[Rjk1972]

If memory serves me correctly, some of the guys over on the HeadFI forum brought in 4-5 top DACS with each top chip set, perhaps 20 units in all.

What they discovered is that they couldn't tell them apart in the $500 and up range, which is what they tested.

The conclusion is that all of the chip makers and DAC makers have ironed out the kinks in the products.

DACs are data devices not unlike a packet switch with many or all of the same issues that have to be managed.

Tosslink could have been great, but the implementation was poor leading to errors with no correction like USB offers. Protocols without CRC ARQ simply drop the data or predict what it might have been, you also have buffer overflows and the data is flushed.

USB is a real data protocol and included CRC ARQ, so errors are noticed and the packet is re-transmitted to match the check sums.

The fundamental challenge with digital source is GIGO, and there is a lot of garbage including musicians who can't play their instruments and previously good sounding recording that have the noise boosted and the peaks clipped during the "Digital Remaster" butchering job.

Quantization Error, compression algorithms, predictive decoding, low bit rates, psycho-acoustics and Loudness Wars are but a few of the problems that become noticeable as a system becomes more clear and accurate. CDs have about half of the information on them that a vinyl record has.

IMHO the best sound is from DTS Master, most of which are still at CD word size and bit rates. DTS 24x96 is the clear winner when you can get it.

One thing I have noticed is that you have to roll off the high frequencies with digital, my manual on my Pioneer Elite Receiver even talks about the problem and has a setting for managing the roll off with a GUI.

I thought USB Audio standard didn't have error correction. Where are you reading that it does?

I read some of those posts. It was a fun read. Personally I have had similar experiences with DACs. Newer DACs are much harder to tell apart from one another than DACs from say 3 or 4 years ago. That said I will say that it was pretty easy to pick out the Limpizator DAC that I heard when compared to my Peachtree and a Rega DAC. You could do it like 9 out of 10 tries with in the 1st minute of a song without seeing which one was hooked up. Granted it was almost 3 times the price of the Rega but the difference was there. That being said I pretty much agree that most DACs that I have heard between 500 and say 1500 sound incredibly similar and are hard to tell apart from one another. None of the DACs they tested were ladder DACs though, if I remember right.

[A1UC]

They must of all been deaf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Their test not mine, I always go for a bench test, in this case walking the frequencies up and down the scales, multi-frequencies and various wave forms etc....... I'm sure this is what the Engineers do in the labs, usually it's the error handling that separates the men from the boys with the better products.

My quick test is a female voice and piano from a known recording, if they sound natural that is a good start.

Without bench tests it's all subjective.

My quick test is a female voice and piano from a known recording, if they sound natural that is a good start.

+1

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A1UC]

I am on head fi a good bit and recall the thread comparisons you mention, I know some dacs are quite comparable but there are just as many that have glaring differences in sound example the sabre sounds quite different than say akm.................

Measurements are great but I let my ears decide, it seems most NOS dacs measure poorly but to me they sound much more liquid, closer to vinyl

Its all about ones ears all that matters

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pzannucci]

I just purchased the Essence HDACC http://www.essenceelectrostatic.com/

 

I was looking for a DAC that could do HDMI and substitute as a pre-amp with remote and analog input.  It contains the Sabre ES9012 DAC and is quite good sounding for $499 though isn't broken in yet.

 

Nice part is that if you have blu-rays you can use HDMI to get the high res PCM from them if you don't want to use a receiver or don't have a very expensive pre/pro.

[Bubo]

 

If memory serves me correctly, some of the guys over on the HeadFI forum brought in 4-5 top DACS with each top chip set, perhaps 20 units in all.

What they discovered is that they couldn't tell them apart in the $500 and up range, which is what they tested.

The conclusion is that all of the chip makers and DAC makers have ironed out the kinks in the products.

DACs are data devices not unlike a packet switch with many or all of the same issues that have to be managed.

Tosslink could have been great, but the implementation was poor leading to errors with no correction like USB offers. Protocols without CRC ARQ simply drop the data or predict what it might have been, you also have buffer overflows and the data is flushed.

USB is a real data protocol and included CRC ARQ, so errors are noticed and the packet is re-transmitted to match the check sums.

The fundamental challenge with digital source is GIGO, and there is a lot of garbage including musicians who can't play their instruments and previously good sounding recording that have the noise boosted and the peaks clipped during the "Digital Remaster" butchering job.

Quantization Error, compression algorithms, predictive decoding, low bit rates, psycho-acoustics and Loudness Wars are but a few of the problems that become noticeable as a system becomes more clear and accurate. CDs have about half of the information on them that a vinyl record has.

IMHO the best sound is from DTS Master, most of which are still at CD word size and bit rates. DTS 24x96 is the clear winner when you can get it.

One thing I have noticed is that you have to roll off the high frequencies with digital, my manual on my Pioneer Elite Receiver even talks about the problem and has a setting for managing the roll off with a GUI.

I thought USB Audio standard didn't have error correction. Where are you reading that it does?

I read some of those posts. It was a fun read. Personally I have had similar experiences with DACs. Newer DACs are much harder to tell apart from one another than DACs from say 3 or 4 years ago. That said I will say that it was pretty easy to pick out the Limpizator DAC that I heard when compared to my Peachtree and a Rega DAC. You could do it like 9 out of 10 tries with in the 1st minute of a song without seeing which one was hooked up. Granted it was almost 3 times the price of the Rega but the difference was there. That being said I pretty much agree that most DACs that I have heard between 500 and say 1500 sound incredibly similar and are hard to tell apart from one another. None of the DACs they tested were ladder DACs though, if I remember right.

 

CRC ARQ = error correction. in this case based on timers and windows for receiving the ACK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Data_packets Data packets

A data packet consists of the PID followed by 0–1,024 bytes of data payload (up to 1,024 bytes for high-speed devices, up to 64 bytes for full-speed devices, and at most eight bytes for low-speed devices),^[135] and a 16-bit CRC.

There are two basic forms of data packet, DATA0 and DATA1. A data packet must always be preceded by an address token, and is usually followed by a handshake token from the receiver back to the transmitter. The two packet types provide the 1-bit sequence number required by Stop-and-wait ARQ. If a USB host does not receive a response (such as an ACK) for data it has transmitted, it does not know if the data was received or not; the data might have been lost in transit, or it might have been received but the handshake response was lost.

To solve this problem, the device keeps track of the type of DATAx packet it last accepted. If it receives another DATAx packet of the same type, it is acknowledged but ignored as a duplicate. Only a DATAx packet of the opposite type is actually received.

If the data is corrupted while transmitted or received, the CRC check fails. When this happens, the receiver does not generate an ACK, which makes the sender resend the packet.^[136]

When a device is reset with a SETUP packet, it expects an 8-byte DATA0 packet next.

USB 2.0 added DATA2 and MDATA packet types as well. They are used only by high-bandwidth devices doing high-bandwidth isochronous transfers that must transfer more than 1024 bits per 125 µs microframe (8,192 kB/s).

 

http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/

This is the source document for the protocol, or at least it appears to be. I didn't bother to read it but in the past did look over the protocol stacks to see what is in there.

[Bubo]

I just purchased the Essence HDACC http://www.essenceelectrostatic.com/

 

I was looking for a DAC that could do HDMI and substitute as a pre-amp with remote and analog input.  It contains the Sabre ES9012 DAC and is quite good sounding for $499 though isn't broken in yet.

 

Nice part is that if you have blu-rays you can use HDMI to get the high res PCM from them if you don't want to use a receiver or don't have a very expensive pre/pro.

 

 

Or you can purchase a really high quality used receiver or surround decoder, for Peanuts, and use it as your Digital Preamp with lots of interfaces. 120 db SN is not unusual. Pioneer Elites come to mind, just turn off the speaker outputs using the front panel. You also get standing wave cancelling, auto EQ and other room adjustments in the package.

 

Like me, if you have an old school 2 ch pure analog system, run all of the digital stuff through the surround receiver, and the tape decks, radios and phono through the analog pre amp. Or ditch your analog preamp and use the surround receiver as your preamp, you even get a remote volume control. Most have plenty of analog interface and you can get a great phono pre amp for not much $$$

Edited August 18, 2015 by Bubo

[Bubo]

 

I thought USB Audio standard didn't have error correction. Where are you reading that it does?

 

 

 

The problem with USB is that it requires an electrical physical connection which brings its own downside, like grounding and noise issues. This can be mitigated by using matching transformers, which really just masks the problem and could effect fidelity.

 

No perfect solution yet, but USB is the best we have.

[Max2]

When testing equipment I think horn owners have an advantage over conventional and even ribbons speakers due to the fact of the dynamics and efficiency of horns. With the amplified content from the horn itself,  its easy to asses noise floors and the different tone of an amp and/or its source. I haven't messed with DAC's any, but I'm sure a horn setup would be the best candidate to actually pick up on the differences on any equipment.