Q-Dac vs M-Dac worth the extra £350???

[Kefref]

Got the chance of an audiolab Q-Dac for £250 through Black Friday and this has really put a spanner in the works. I spoke to richer sounds, and they were going to come round and do a home demo of the M-Dac which I was almost convinced that I would buy.

Does the M-Dac justify the extra £350, has anyone auditioned the 2 side by side?

Think ill *** in and audition the 2 of them, but would appreciate a second opinion

Many Thanks

 

[matt49]

I have an M-DAC but I haven't used the Q-DAC. As far as SQ is concerned, in most systems I doubt there'll be much audible difference. I do hear differences between the M-DAC's filters, but they're very slight.

In terms of everyday use, it's the pared-down display and controls, and in particular the lack of a remote control, that would make the Q-DAC a non-starter for me. But whether that's worth £350 is a matter of personal preference.

 

[Ketan Bharadia]

Hello, I've heard both and there's a big difference in performance between the M-DAC and Q-DAC, but you've got to have a revealing system to hear it.

 

[Leeps]

Does anyone have experience with the headphone amp of the M-DAC? And in particular, what headphones make a good match?

I've read that the Audiolab can be a bit harsh in the treble (although I can't verify this personally), so are there any particular headphones that bring out the best characteristics but tone down any harshness? I'm thinking around the £200-£300 mark.

 

[BigH]

Does anyone have experience with the headphone amp of the M-DAC? And in particular, what headphones make a good match?

I've read that the Audiolab can be a bit harsh in the treble (although I can't verify this personally), so are there any particular headphones that bring out the best characteristics but tone down any harshness? I'm thinking around the £200-£300 mark.

There is a separate headphone section on this forum you maybe better asking there, there are many heaphone reviews also.

 

[Kefref]

Hello, I've heard both 2's there's a big difference in performance between the M-DAC and Q-DAC, but you've got to have a revealing system to hear it.

Thanks Ketan, that confirms what my research seems to highlight, ive not had a chance to listen yet which will be the real test, but, after reading up on the dacs in the Q and M-Dac, namely the ESS Sabre 32 9016 and 9018 respectively. There seems to be a fair difference between the 2 DAC chips.

The 9018 provides a dynamic range of 127dB and a Total Harmonic Distortion of -120dB, whereas the 9016 is DNR of 122dB and a THD of -110dB (Still impressive) but I would think enough of a difference between the 2 dacs to be noticable.

Suppose Is another case of get what you pay for.

Cant wait to audition the M-Dac through my 104/2's, should be impressive!

 

[matt49]

I mainly use my M-DAC as a headphone amp. It's great, though n.b. mine is a model that's been modded by the designer, John Westlake. Still, I think the off-the-shelf M-DAC is a fine head-amp.

My headphones are the Hifiman HE-500: quite demanding.

Matt

 

[davedotco]

Hello, I've heard both 2's there's a big difference in performance between the M-DAC and Q-DAC, but you've got to have a revealing system to hear it.

Thanks Ketan, that confirms what my research seems to highlight, ive not had a chance to listen yet which will be the real test, but, after reading up on the dacs in the Q and M-Dac, namely the ESS Sabre 32 9016 and 9018 respectively. There seems to be a fair difference between the 2 DAC chips.

The 9018 provides a dynamic range of 127dB and a Total Harmonic Distortion of -120dB, whereas the 9016 is DNR of 122dB and a THD of -110dB (Still impressive) but I would think enough of a difference between the 2 dacs to be noticable.

Suppose Is another case of get what you pay for.

Cant wait to audition the M-Dac through my 104/2's, should be impressive!

Are you serious?

 

[ID.]

Hello, I've heard both 2's there's a big difference in performance between the M-DAC and Q-DAC, but you've got to have a revealing system to hear it.

Thanks Ketan, that confirms what my research seems to highlight, ive not had a chance to listen yet which will be the real test, but, after reading up on the dacs in the Q and M-Dac, namely the ESS Sabre 32 9016 and 9018 respectively. There seems to be a fair difference between the 2 DAC chips.

The 9018 provides a dynamic range of 127dB and a Total Harmonic Distortion of -120dB, whereas the 9016 is DNR of 122dB and a THD of -110dB (Still impressive) but I would think enough of a difference between the 2 dacs to be noticable.

Suppose Is another case of get what you pay for.

Cant wait to audition the M-Dac through my 104/2's, should be impressive!

Are you serious?

Of course he is. Just look at the numbers. that's 5 whole dB of dynamic range. 5 whole dB more! And -10dB of THD! 10! That's got to be audible.

Of course, maybe most people have never looked at what the real world implications of these figures are and whether such a dynamic range would be even usable without a significant amount of it being below human hearing and whether those differing levels of THD are audible. I mean, I'm sure his Kef refs are pretty revealing.

My personal view and experience is that the implementation (how it is used) and the analogue sections have a much bigger effect than the chip itself. Some chips have differing filters available, which can also make a slight difference.

 

[davedotco]

Hello, I've heard both 2's there's a big difference in performance between the M-DAC and Q-DAC, but you've got to have a revealing system to hear it.

Thanks Ketan, that confirms what my research seems to highlight, ive not had a chance to listen yet which will be the real test, but, after reading up on the dacs in the Q and M-Dac, namely the ESS Sabre 32 9016 and 9018 respectively. There seems to be a fair difference between the 2 DAC chips.

The 9018 provides a dynamic range of 127dB and a Total Harmonic Distortion of -120dB, whereas the 9016 is DNR of 122dB and a THD of -110dB (Still impressive) but I would think enough of a difference between the 2 dacs to be noticable.

Suppose Is another case of get what you pay for.

Cant wait to audition the M-Dac through my 104/2's, should be impressive!

Are you serious?

Of course he is. Just look at the numbers. that's 5 whole dB of dynamic range. 5 whole dB more! And -10dB of THD! 10! That's got to be audible.

Of course, maybe most people have never looked at what the real world implications of these figures are and whether such a dynamic range would be even usable without a significant amount of it being below human hearing and whether those differing levels of THD are audible. I mean, I'm sure his Kef refs are pretty revealing.

My personal view and experience is that the implementation (how it is used) and the analogue sections have a much bigger effect than the chip itself. Some chips have differing filters available, which can also make a slight difference.

You have to be pretty perverse in your implementation of the dac chip to cause an audible difference, different filter topology can be audible but if this is the case, it will most likely be measureable, usually in terms of frequency or phase response.

About 15 years ago I was involved in a series of tests to test the resolution of domestic hi-fi systems. Performance varied a little, but the real eye opener was that an average mid-fi setup would actually struggle to resolve the equivilent of a 16 bit signal.

 

[ID.]

In which case, "implementation" may just mean differing output voltages and a failure to volume match when auditioning 🙂

 

[davedotco]

In which case, "implementation" may just mean differing output voltages and a failure to volume match when auditioning 🙂

Very true. Though some designers insist on extra analogue stages that they can 'tweek'.

Modern chips are very good and usually include an analogue output stage built in, implementation is very simple. A talented amature can (and has) designed a superb dac that is 'open source' so that it can be assembled and sold, in small numbers and decent casework for less than £100. Beresford's Bushmaster builds on that, gives Spdif rather than usb inputs, mains power supply, a good headphone amp and a £150 price tag.

It really does make you wonder why 'audiophile' dacs are so expensive.

 

[Kefref]

lol, talk about putting the cat amongst the pigeons 🙂

Will never really know what the difference would have been between the 2, but I would have to trust the judgement of Ketan, who actually has done an A -B test.

I splashed out and got the M-Dac ordered yesterday from Superfi for £539 in Cyber Monday deal, cant wait to hear that bad boy!

Ill let you know how she sounds through the 104/2's.

And yes, they are very revealing 😉

 

[ID.]

I look forward to your impressions as teh M-DAC is a product that interests me.

 

[unsleepable]

Will never really know what the difference would have been between the 2, but I would have to trust the judgement of Ketan, who actually has done an A -B test.

The responses you got to your post are probably because the differences between the specs you mentioned are so small, and normally beyond what is audible, that are probably no reason to think that these products would sound differently. I think this doesn't rest any validity to Ketan's statement, but the sound differences would more easily be attributable to other aspects, such as the quality of the output stages that the M-DAC and the Q-DAC employ.

In my opinion, this idea that "all DACs sound the same" is lately being taken a bit to the extreme. While I also think that neutral, well-implemented DACs sound often more similar than not, I would also find it difficult to believe that Audiolab would launch two DACs at the same time, with similar features but at difference prices, and there wouldn't be any difference in sound between the two—if only for commercial reasons.

 

[Kefref]

I got the M-Dac today, and must say it is a VERY impressive bit of kit! Glad I didnt go for the Q-Dac, definately a good move, think i always would have regretted buying the Q-Dac...whether it was worth the extra £300 will always be a bit of an unknown i suppose as i never tried it with my system. Getting £60 off a brand new M-Dac sealed the deal!

The upgraded Dacmagic 1 I have sounded pretty good (considering the age of the thing), but WOW is all i can really say about the M-Dac so far, Bottom end is tighter, midrange/vocals have been opened up, the stereo image seems larger (if thats possible with the 104/2's), and the top end is far more detaled.

Not to mention the wealth of features it offers, links in with foobar2000 a treat and you can control foobar with the M-Dac remote. Very handy indeed 🙂 The filters, although subtle offer slight tweaks to the sound, i have only listened for a few hours, but have been using Optimal Spectrum so far. Only problem i have is i dont want to stop listening and may not get to bed this week 🙂

Ordered an optical cable for the ps3 and tivo box, so wait and see how they sound once it arrives. Just a budget cable from fleabay as im not really that fussed about those inputs.

Im now looking at the upgraded psu for my next purchase..Anyone used the Swagmanlab Linear PSU with 2 toroidals? ....its half the price of the others available but cant really find any reviews, it looks the dogs though!

 

[Covenanter]

In which case, "implementation" may just mean differing output voltages and a failure to volume match when auditioning 🙂

Very true. Though some designers insist on extra analogue stages that they can 'tweek'.

Modern chips are very good and usually include an analogue output stage built in, implementation is very simple. A talented amature can (and has) designed a superb dac that is 'open source' so that it can be assembled and sold, in small numbers and decent casework for less than £100. Beresford's Bushmaster builds on that, gives Spdif rather than usb inputs, mains power supply, a good headphone amp and a £150 price tag.

It really does make you wonder why 'audiophile' dacs are so expensive.

A chimpanzee (electronic type) could build a DAC! Really one of the simplest circuits known to mankind. No idea why people pay a lot for them.

Chris

 

[Kefref]

In which case, "implementation" may just mean differing output voltages and a failure to volume match when auditioning 🙂

Very true. Though some designers insist on extra analogue stages that they can 'tweek'.

Modern chips are very good and usually include an analogue output stage built in, implementation is very simple. A talented amature can (and has) designed a superb dac that is 'open source' so that it can be assembled and sold, in small numbers and decent casework for less than £100. Beresford's Bushmaster builds on that, gives Spdif rather than usb inputs, mains power supply, a good headphone amp and a £150 price tag.

It really does make you wonder why 'audiophile' dacs are so expensive.

A chimpanzee (electronic type) could build a DAC! Really one of the simplest circuits known to mankind. No idea why people pay a lot for them.

Chris

The same could be said for quite a lot of things, speakers, amplifiers, to name but a few and yes if one is so inclined a DIY one can be built on a budget.... but as with most things in life, you get what you pay for.

Audiolab and similar companies tend to have slightly higher R&D budgets than your average chimp

Sorry but i have never been a fan of doing things "on the cheap"

Is that not why we are on What Hifi to begin with, ie in pursuit of the best hifi?

I think you chaps are getting mixed up with the DIY Audio forum, thats the place for that sort of kit 🙂