New DAC?

[busb]

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.

I agree. What has struck me having used several DACs in my system is how much their mid-bass varies - the r-DAC being a good example of one having a lift. The DAC in my 3yr old Panasonic TV is actually very good, if not as good as my M-DAC. As for some posters stating that most DACs sound the same - they rarely ever also state that their views are controversial.

 

[Overdose]

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.

That depends on why you are buying I guess. If you want quality at any cost, good aesthetics and a bit of cache thrown in, then a high end purchase would most likely be your choice, if you wanted a minimalist USB only DAC that still delivered the sonic goods, then something more pedestrian in price and looks would probably fit the bill.

Given the maturity of this technology now and its low cost, I find it hard to believe that there are great differences between any such devices. I suppose I could get a home demo of a more esoteric DAC and see what the fuss was about, but it would be a bit disengenuous, as I would have no intention to buy.

 

[ifor]

I suppose I could get a home demo of a more esoteric DAC and see what the fuss was about, but it would be a bit disengenuous, as I would have no intention to buy.

But, what if you did hear what all the fuss is about? Maybe you would be tempted.

 

[Overdose]

I suppose I could get a home demo of a more esoteric DAC and see what the fuss was about, but it would be a bit disengenuous, as I would have no intention to buy.

But, what if you did hear what all the fuss is about? Maybe you would be tempted.

It's more a question of justification. Iam quite willing to believe that differences exist, but I simply cannot imagine the sort of difference that would match a speaker upgrade and that's the sort of money we're talking about.

 

[lindsayt]

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.

That depends on why you are buying I guess. If you want quality at any cost, good aesthetics and a bit of cache thrown in, then a high end purchase would most likely be your choice, if you wanted a minimalist USB only DAC that still delivered the sonic goods, then something more pedestrian in price and looks would probably fit the bill.

Given the maturity of this technology now and its low cost, I find it hard to believe that there are great differences between any such devices. I suppose I could get a home demo of a more esoteric DAC and see what the fuss was about, but it would be a bit disengenuous, as I would have no intention to buy.

I'll tell you why I might be buying. I'm looking for hi-fi components that sound as good as anything of their type ever made. Pure and simple. To get the most enjoyment out of my valuable time spent listening to my music collection. I see my hi-fi as a slave to my music collection and to my ears. Whenever I find components that are better sounding than what I already have then it becomes my goal to get them and use them in my main system.

So, if the Klimax DS / NDS-555PS / D-Premier are the best sounding digital sources ever made I will want one. I might have to be patient to wait for the prices to come down 2nd hand, but I would still want one. If, on the other hand a £100 DAC sounds at least as good as them, then I'd buy one tomorrow.

 

[Bigsounds]

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.

Thanks, I'll have a in depth read of that latter.

 

[Bigsounds]

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.

Isn't the 'chip' used just part of the story? what about other important areas such as the quality of the power supply, do you think this has any relevance? Surely though with a larger budget you have more money to spend on other important areas that can't be achieved with low costs designs?

 

[ifor]

Isn't the 'chip' used just part of the story?

Absolutely!

 

[Bigsounds]

Another thing regarding 'transparency' is this nothing more than something made up by a machine?

When buying a piece of hifi gear, it's goal is produce a sound that is a close to a live recording or event possible. Sadly with modern music this is not possible, but if we were to take real instruments and replay them through a 'transparent' system do you end up with something that measures well or something that sound real?

The reason I pose this question is that even though I've heard some nice sounding HiFi's i've never heard one of theses dacs sounding like the real thing.

We really have some way to go still.

 

[Overdose]

Another thing regarding 'transparency' is this nothing more than something made up by a machine?

When buying a piece of hifi gear, it's goal is produce a sound that is a close to a live recording or event possible. Sadly with modern music this is not possible, but if we were to take real instruments and replay them through a 'transparent' system do you end up with something that measures well or something that sound real?

The reason I pose this question is that even though I've heard some nice sounding HiFi's i've never heard one of theses dacs sounding like the real thing.

We really have some way to go still.

HiFi means high fidelity and this is to the recording. There is no way of ever knowing how the music sounded as it was recorded, so the closest you will get, is by having a transparent system, ie one which least distorts the recording on whichever medium you choose.

If you start down the route of trying to second guess the producer or engineer that created the recording as to what you think the music should sound like, you will then add that colouration to all of your music on that system and may well end up with a system that supposedly only sounds good with some music types. Personally, I'll go for as neutral as possible and accept the recordings as is. If I don't like the sound that much, I can use EQ, this way, I find I have a system that sounds good with all music.

As for DACs sounding like the real thing, they shouldn't sound at all. That's the point.

 

[MakkaPakka]

Isn't the 'chip' used just part of the story? what about other important areas such as the quality of the power supply, do you think this has any relevance? Surely though with a larger budget you have more money to spend on other important areas that can't be achieved with low costs designs?

A lof of these DACs are running off USB which means they're drawing no more power than a couple of AA batteries would provide. For such a basic low power task I can't see what an expensive power supply is needed for.

 

[davedotco]

Another thing regarding 'transparency' is this nothing more than something made up by a machine?

When buying a piece of hifi gear, it's goal is produce a sound that is a close to a live recording or event possible. Sadly with modern music this is not possible, but if we were to take real instruments and replay them through a 'transparent' system do you end up with something that measures well or something that sound real?

The reason I pose this question is that even though I've heard some nice sounding HiFi's i've never heard one of theses dacs sounding like the real thing.

We really have some way to go still.

HiFi means high fidelity and this is to the recording. There is no way of ever knowing how the music sounded as it was recorded, so the closest you will get, is by having a transparent system, ie one which least distorts the recording on whichever medium you choose.

If you start down the route of trying to second guess the producer or engineer that created the recording as to what you think the music should sound like, you will then add that colouration to all of your music on that system and may well end up with a system that supposedly only sounds good with some music types. Personally, I'll go for as neutral as possible and accept the recordings as is. If I don't like the sound that much, I can use EQ, this way, I find I have a system that sounds good with all music.

As for DACs sounding like the real thing, they shouldn't sound at all. That's the point.

I kind of take issue with this.

There are plenty of recordings that are made in such way that we do know what they should sound like, and these make a great basis for comparison.

Recently I have been listening to a series of live recordings made by Art Pepper at Ronnie Scott's, a venue I know well, purely for pleasure in this case.

They were made by an independent company called Mole Jazz and are generally considered to be pretty good, similar recordings abound if you cast your net wide enough.

 

[Overdose]

Another thing regarding 'transparency' is this nothing more than something made up by a machine?

When buying a piece of hifi gear, it's goal is produce a sound that is a close to a live recording or event possible. Sadly with modern music this is not possible, but if we were to take real instruments and replay them through a 'transparent' system do you end up with something that measures well or something that sound real?

The reason I pose this question is that even though I've heard some nice sounding HiFi's i've never heard one of theses dacs sounding like the real thing.

We really have some way to go still.

HiFi means high fidelity and this is to the recording. There is no way of ever knowing how the music sounded as it was recorded, so the closest you will get, is by having a transparent system, ie one which least distorts the recording on whichever medium you choose.

If you start down the route of trying to second guess the producer or engineer that created the recording as to what you think the music should sound like, you will then add that colouration to all of your music on that system and may well end up with a system that supposedly only sounds good with some music types. Personally, I'll go for as neutral as possible and accept the recordings as is. If I don't like the sound that much, I can use EQ, this way, I find I have a system that sounds good with all music.

As for DACs sounding like the real thing, they shouldn't sound at all. That's the point.

I kind of take issue with this.

There are plenty of recordings that are made in such way that we do know what they should sound like, and these make a great basis for comparison.

Recently I have been listening to a series of live recordings made by Art Pepper at Ronnie Scott's, a venue I know well, purely for pleasure in this case.

They were made by an independent company called Mole Jazz and are generally considered to be pretty good, similar recordings abound if you cast your net wide enough.

No-one, except those directly involved in the recording of a piece of music and its subsequent mastering will know what amount of EQ was applied, what the level settings were, any additional effects overlayed etc. Even recordings of live events have been altered to some degree.

Just one album can have a different sound across its various releases and rereleases, mixes also vary from region to region, so a recording sold in mainland Europe might have a different mix from the UK release.

One could argue that a recording of acoustic music would be a good example of how something should sound, but this does not take into account any post recording tweaks carried out to make the recording sound better. Very few recordings are simply miked up, recorded and punted straight out for resale.

 

[BigH]

Very few recordings are simply miked up, recorded and punted straight out for resale.

Thats is true, some of the most simple recordings I have heard are by a very small record label in the USA called Mapleshades, you can find some on Spotify or Rdio or samples on their website.

 

[davedotco]

Another thing regarding 'transparency' is this nothing more than something made up by a machine?

When buying a piece of hifi gear, it's goal is produce a sound that is a close to a live recording or event possible. Sadly with modern music this is not possible, but if we were to take real instruments and replay them through a 'transparent' system do you end up with something that measures well or something that sound real?

The reason I pose this question is that even though I've heard some nice sounding HiFi's i've never heard one of theses dacs sounding like the real thing.

We really have some way to go still.

HiFi means high fidelity and this is to the recording. There is no way of ever knowing how the music sounded as it was recorded, so the closest you will get, is by having a transparent system, ie one which least distorts the recording on whichever medium you choose.

If you start down the route of trying to second guess the producer or engineer that created the recording as to what you think the music should sound like, you will then add that colouration to all of your music on that system and may well end up with a system that supposedly only sounds good with some music types. Personally, I'll go for as neutral as possible and accept the recordings as is. If I don't like the sound that much, I can use EQ, this way, I find I have a system that sounds good with all music.

As for DACs sounding like the real thing, they shouldn't sound at all. That's the point.

I kind of take issue with this.

There are plenty of recordings that are made in such way that we do know what they should sound like, and these make a great basis for comparison.

Recently I have been listening to a series of live recordings made by Art Pepper at Ronnie Scott's, a venue I know well, purely for pleasure in this case.

They were made by an independent company called Mole Jazz and are generally considered to be pretty good, similar recordings abound if you cast your net wide enough.

No-one, except those directly involved in the recording of a piece of music and its subsequent mastering will know what amount of EQ was applied, what the level settings were, any additional effects overlayed etc. Even recordings of live events have been altered to some degree.

Just one album can have a different sound across its various releases and rereleases, mixes also vary from region to region, so a recording sold in mainland Europe might have a different mix from the UK release.

One could argue that a recording of acoustic music would be a good example of how something should sound, but this does not take into account any post recording tweaks carried out to make the recording sound better. Very few recordings are simply miked up, recorded and punted straight out for resale.

All true OD but slightly disingenuous, there will always be things that we do not know about a recording, even a relatively simple one like the one quoted.

Microphone choice, eq, even the choice of instruments themselves will make a difference but despite that I think that some judgements can be made.

Of course it helps if you are familiar with the recording environment and if you can trust the production values of the production but mostly it helps if you know the music.

If, as the old saying goes, you can concentrate on the music rather than the sound, then it is often quite easy to hear which system or component is having the least effect on the music, equalising the sound of a guitar (say) has no effect on how it is being played.