New DAC?

[tomayresss]

Currently running on a headphone setup (due to lack of space, speakers are in a box).

At the moment I have my digital music going from PC into Behringer UCA-202, into my NAD amp and I'm using the headphone output.

It sounds pretty good. Would upgrading the DAC improve on this sound? Or do people think there wouldn't be much difference...

Thanks

 

[Overdose]

The cheapest DAC that I know to measure as transparent, is the Epiphany E-DAC at <£100. Your Berhringer is pretty good for the money, so don't expect large step ups in the DAC department, but transparent is as good as it gets.

Unless you need any more function than you already have, anything over £100 might as well be spent on other component upgrades somewhere down the line.

Do you use the UCA202 heaphone output by the way, or are you using the amp output? It might be worth swapping the headphone connections to see what changes you have available and to also give you something to use as a benchmark.

 

[tomayresss]

Using the NAD headphone output. Comparing that with the Behringer output, the Behr highs and mids sound harsher, and there's less bass than there is listening through the NAD. The NAD output sounds more 'full'.

 

[BigH]

The Behringer UCA-202 headphone output is poor. My Xonar soundcard is vastly superior, so better off buying one of those for £20.

 

[Overdose]

Using the NAD headphone output. Comparing that with the Behringer output, the Behr highs and mids sound harsher, and there's less bass than there is listening through the NAD. The NAD output sounds more 'full'.

It sounds like the product for you would be a more capable headphone amp/DAC.

Have a look at the Fiio E17, Epiphany headphone amp using the E-DAC and maybe the Focusrite 2i2. These will give you a good place to start.

 

[Bigsounds]

What does measure transparent mean exactly?

What dacs don't measure transparent?

 

[Overdose]

What does measure transparent mean exactly?

What dacs don't measure transparent?

Transparency as the term suggests, means to add no audible artifacts, distortion or colouration. I would imagine that many DACs are transparent in this regard, some might not be, but only the very poor would be especially noticeable.

Another known example of a transparent DAC would be the Benchmark DAC1.

 

[Bigsounds]

Thanks, I see, so at what kind of price point does a dac become poor or not tranparent? If it is not transparent, does that mean it was poorly designed? What if a cheap dac is transparent, does one need to spend more? I mean, if it is transparent that's all that matters? is that right or am i lost?

 

[ifor]

Probably not lost; just being led astray.

 

[Overdose]

Thanks, I see, so at what kind of price point does a dac become poor or not tranparent? If it is not transparent, does that mean it was poorly designed? What if a cheap dac is transparent, does one need to spend more? I mean, if it is transparent that's all that matters? is that right or am i lost?

Transparency has no correlation to price. Two of the DACs I mentioned are transparent, the Epiphany E-DAC and the Benchmark DAC1.

The E-DAC is £100, the Benchmark £1000. Obviously the Benchmark has other features such as more connections and also being a headphone and preamp.

Many people rate and get good results from DACs such as the UCA202 at £30 and there are many others to choose from. How much you spend will in part be dictated by a variety of other factors such as looks and functionality.

I think a design would have to be pretty poor to sound bad and at any rate, differences between DACs in particular, are not so great in real terms, particularly when compared to speakers. I would choose a DAC on the connectivity and function I needed and maybe looks if it were on display, good sound quality should really be a given.

 

[Bigsounds]

Thanks again, it's seems a huge jump in price between the two models considering they are both transparent, i'd feel really ripped off if I was paying that amount of money for something that was basically the same but over 6 times the cost.

 

[Overdose]

You do get a lot more features with the Benchmark, but it does put price into perspective regarding what can be achieved.

Additional functions are bound to cost more money, but it does show that you don't need to spend a huge amount of money to get results.

 

[Bigsounds]

It does seem an awful lots of cash for a few extra features.

These dacs that are all transparent, are they transparent from a listening point of view or from measurements? If they measure the same, does this mean to say they will sound the same?

Sorry for the question, but I'm struggling to grasp this word transparent and what it really means and who decides what is transparent and what determines what is untransparent, what is the correct terminology for something that is untransparent? .....distortion?

Sometimes I think it's easier to just buy something that looks visually appealing.

 

[Overdose]

THIS piece on the development and testing of the O2 DAC is interesting, as are many of the articles on the site.

It is technical and quite long, but should explain all you need to know.

The big question of course, is how do you know if a DAC, or any bit of equipment is transparent? Without measurements, you'd never know, so you have the options of reviews, recommendations and your own listening experience to use alongside any measurements given by the manufacturer to help you decide, but with little to separate the sound of most digital sources in the first place, buying on visual appeal is as valid a reason to buy, as any other.

 

[MakkaPakka]

I skim a few forums and there's a lot of unhappy DAC customers reporting no difference at all.

DACs have been around for over thirty years in consumer products. You get them in mobile phones, freeview boxes and all sorts that cost next to nothing.

The companies that make DAC chips are pretty big. I cannot imagine that any of them would fail to be able to make a transparent DAC in 2013.

 

[lindsayt]

Has anyone here compared a computer with a £100 DAC such as an Epiphany E-DAC to any of the mega-buck streaming devices such as Linn Klimax DS, Naim NDS/555 PS, Devialet D-Premier?

There is potential for an ultimate giant slaying here, or there's the potential to discover that these £100 DACs are not quite as transparent as something costing 100 times more.

 

[ifor]

Surely the quality of a DAC is dependant on what the designer does with the analogue signal after the DAC chip has converted it from digital.

I too struggle with this term "transparent"; I've no idea what it means.

IMO, having had three DACs on home loan prior to making a purchasing decision, anyone suggesting all DACs sound the same should probably just enjoy their music and avoid offering advice to others.

 

[Overdose]

There is potential for an ultimate giant slaying here, or there's the potential to discover that these £100 DACs are not quite as transparent as something costing 100 times more.

Not quite as transparent as transparent you mean?

Also, are you considering the Benchmark in your 100 times calculations, as that too is a transparent DAC, albeit at £1K, if you are, then the 'giants' are only 10 times more expensive than this particular DAC and that in turn is ten times more expensive than the E-DAC.

You could say that the 'giant' killing test has already been carried out with the E-DAC and the Benchmark, with no clear winner in the sound stakes.

 

[BigH]

Has anyone here compared a computer with a £100 DAC such as an Epiphany E-DAC to any of the mega-buck streaming devices such as Linn Klimax DS, Naim NDS/555 PS, Devialet D-Premier?

There is potential for an ultimate giant slaying here, or there's the potential to discover that these £100 DACs are not quite as transparent as something costing 100 times more.

That depends on what soundcard you have in your computer, mine is Xonar DG which is quite good, I have not tried the Epiphany E-DAC yet but I have compared several others and there is not much difference to my ears.

 

[mitch65]

I too struggle with this term "transparent"; I've no idea what it means.

You and me both, Ifor :? :?

 

[davedotco]

I too struggle with this term "transparent"; I've no idea what it means.

You and me both, Ifor :? :?

In this connotation 'transparent' is a term used primarily by 'objective' enthusiasts to describe electronic components that measure to a certain standard, ie distortion or noise measuring 100db below rated output, no frequency response variations and other measurements that I can not be bothered to look up.

The premise being that any unit that measures to these standards is essentially transparent and that any distortion or variation on the outbut will be below audibility.

The implied consequence of this is that any components, dacs for example, that sound different are in effect adding distortion, even if this makes them sound better.

The ODAC and ODA units were designed by an enthusiast as an excersise in building 'measurably transparent' units at minimal cost. They are, reputably, fine units and are built in the UK by Epiphany acoustics.

The ODA headphone amplifier and the ODAC are labled as the EPH-O2 and the E-DAC and cost £99 each.

 

[mitch65]

I too struggle with this term "transparent"; I've no idea what it means.

You and me both, Ifor :? :?

In this connotation 'transparent' is a term used primarily by 'objective' enthusiasts to describe electronic components that measure to a certain standard, ie distortion or noise measuring 100db below rated output, no frequency response variations and other measurements that I can not be bothered to look up.

The premise being that any unit that measures to these standards is essentially transparent and that any distortion or variation on the outbut will be below audibility.

The implied consequence of this is that any components, dacs for example, that sound different are in effect adding distortion, even if this makes them sound better.

The ODAC and ODA units were designed by an enthusiast as an excersise in building 'measurably transparent' units at minimal cost. They are, reputably, fine units and are built in the UK by Epiphany acoustics.

The ODA headphone amplifier and the ODAC are labled as the EPH-O2 and the E-DAC and cost £99 each.

So, if I'm reading correctly, if you are looking for the best DAC you can afford it doesn't have to be 'measureably transparent' as this would not mean better?

Logic would dictate that the general hifi buying public are not really going to know if something is transparent as they are just looking for something that sounds good......at least I am

 

[davedotco]

I too struggle with this term "transparent"; I've no idea what it means.

You and me both, Ifor :? :?

In this connotation 'transparent' is a term used primarily by 'objective' enthusiasts to describe electronic components that measure to a certain standard, ie distortion or noise measuring 100db below rated output, no frequency response variations and other measurements that I can not be bothered to look up.

The premise being that any unit that measures to these standards is essentially transparent and that any distortion or variation on the outbut will be below audibility.

The implied consequence of this is that any components, dacs for example, that sound different are in effect adding distortion, even if this makes them sound better.

The ODAC and ODA units were designed by an enthusiast as an excersise in building 'measurably transparent' units at minimal cost. They are, reputably, fine units and are built in the UK by Epiphany acoustics.

The ODA headphone amplifier and the ODAC are labled as the EPH-O2 and the E-DAC and cost £99 each.

So, if I'm reading correctly, if you are looking for the best DAC you can afford it doesn't have to be 'measureably transparent' as this would not mean better?

Logic would dictate that the general hifi buying public are not really going to know if something is transparent as they are just looking for something that sounds good......at least I am

You're not quite getting it.....

'Measurably transparent' is an objective assessment, 'sounding better' a subjective one. A can of worms by any other name.

I know that some equipment sounds better than anything else, even equipment that is 'measurably transparent', so I accept that this is some sort of contradiction and not at all straightforward.

We have all seen posters on here asking for more bass, effectively distorting the signal by changing the frequency response by (excessively) boosting the bass to suit particular musical styles, but it is clear to anyone with any experience that this will not work with other styles of music and this is in essence a distorted sound.

Those kind of systems, deliberately chosen to favour a certain style of music, are pretty easy to work out, but when you get a system or a component that makes everything sound better, then what on earth is happening there?

 

[mitch65]

I too struggle with this term "transparent"; I've no idea what it means.

You and me both, Ifor :? :?

In this connotation 'transparent' is a term used primarily by 'objective' enthusiasts to describe electronic components that measure to a certain standard, ie distortion or noise measuring 100db below rated output, no frequency response variations and other measurements that I can not be bothered to look up.

The premise being that any unit that measures to these standards is essentially transparent and that any distortion or variation on the outbut will be below audibility.

The implied consequence of this is that any components, dacs for example, that sound different are in effect adding distortion, even if this makes them sound better.

The ODAC and ODA units were designed by an enthusiast as an excersise in building 'measurably transparent' units at minimal cost. They are, reputably, fine units and are built in the UK by Epiphany acoustics.

The ODA headphone amplifier and the ODAC are labled as the EPH-O2 and the E-DAC and cost £99 each.

So, if I'm reading correctly, if you are looking for the best DAC you can afford it doesn't have to be 'measureably transparent' as this would not mean better?

Logic would dictate that the general hifi buying public are not really going to know if something is transparent as they are just looking for something that sounds good......at least I am

You're not quite getting it.....

'Measurably transparent' is an objective assessment, 'sounding better' a subjective one. A can of worms by any other name.

I know that some equipment sounds better than anything else, even equipment that is 'measurably transparent', so I accept that this is some sort of contradiction and not at all straightforward.

We have all seen posters on here asking for more bass, effectively distorting the signal by changing the frequency response by (excessively) boosting the bass to suit particular musical styles, but it is clear to anyone with any experience that this will not work with other styles of music and this is in essence a distorted sound.

Those kind of systems, deliberately chosen to favour a certain style of music, are pretty easy to work out, but when you get a system or a component that makes everything sound better, then what on earth is happening there?

I guess at the end of the day people have different priorites as to how their music should sound whether warm, clinical, whatever. You can't measure what effect music has because it is, by it's very nature, subjective but that's not really the point of the excercise and if every hifi component was transparent then a fair few companies would go out of business very quickly.

 

[lindsayt]

There is potential for an ultimate giant slaying here, or there's the potential to discover that these £100 DACs are not quite as transparent as something costing 100 times more.

Not quite as transparent as transparent you mean?

Also, are you considering the Benchmark in your 100 times calculations, as that too is a transparent DAC, albeit at £1K, if you are, then the 'giants' are only 10 times more expensive than this particular DAC and that in turn is ten times more expensive than the E-DAC.

You could say that the 'giant' killing test has already been carried out with the E-DAC and the Benchmark, with no clear winner in the sound stakes.

If the Epiphany E-DAC sounds at least as good as the Benchmark DAC1 then that is a giant slaying. If it sounds at least as good as the Linn / Naim / Devialet sources I mentioned then that would be an ultimate giant slaying.

Unitil I, or someone whose opinions I trust, compares the Epiphany against extremely high price digitial sources I am still undecided as to whether the Epiphany really is all the DAC I will ever need or not.