Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD

Guido,

Just click below:

The famous AA+A thread.

Saluti,
Alex

Aplhifi, this is all true of the BMC PureDac for $1790

Tbg, if you say so. :-)

Hopefully you can compare the BMC PureDac with the DSD-S some day soon and give your honest opinion about the audio quality difference.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Bill_k, as I said I have compared DOP with native DSD, and the native is better.

Tbg, please understand that DoP and DSD are both native/pure DSD.

Sabre chip, the DSD goes through an entirely different part of the chip. I did listen to DOP for a long time and enjoyed it but moving the filters out well beyond anything I can hear or sense, it very beneficial

This is true for most DACs that can process PCM and DSD.
Again, DoP is DSD (after a simple decoding that does not affect the sound quality in any way) so you cannot apply the usual digital filters to DoP, just like you can do it with PCM. Also, please do not confuse DoP with DSD converted to PCM, it has nothing to do with it. DoP is DSD "encapsulated" in PCM frames, that's all.

Hope this helps you understand better what DoP is - DSD over PCM=Pure DSD.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Bill_k, to be honest, your posts were the reason why I tried again explaining to Tbg with more detail, hoping he will understand better what's going on.

It seems like many believe that DoP is some sort of DSD to PCM conversion that can be clearly discriminated as inferior compared to "native" DSD.
This, as we know, is not true as DoP=DSD. :-)

Thank you as well for trying to make things clear!

BTW, I do like your disclaimer! :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

To bad,a quality transport would/could add a lot to the mix,at least for us dyed-in-the-wool spinners. Thanks.

This is the reason why the DSD-S has a digital input on the back called DTR.

Using the DTR input with the SDT-M digital transport that reads PCM (converted to DSD128) or native DSD from SD cards, the combo turns to an extremely nice sounding digital front-end that is practically impossible to beat with a computer digital source, at least in my experience.

The DTR input can also be used with a disc spinning CD/SACD transport that has the same capabilities as the SD card one, but it is not yet available for US customers.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

I propose that ALL manufacturers establish the Off Ramp 5 (or whatever Steve's latest and greatest USB converter is) as their USB input processing of choice so that this is no longer an issue!!!

The one that requires a driver for MAC because it is based on the older Cypress Semiconductor chip?

Maybe when he offers XMOS based USB interface that supports 32 bit integer mode, up to 384kHz/32bit PCM as well as DSD64 and double DSD128 I'd consider joining ALL manufactures and use it in my products as a standard USB input.

Wait, but I already have it! :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Steve, as we both know, S/PDIF is a very jittery interface when it comes to a Master Clock recovery. Synchronous or asynchronous re-clocking techniques have been long ago implemented to remedy the issue. So yes, S/PDIF can sound really good too.

Guido, the TAS1020 used as an USB interface inside the Aeris is an older chip that cannot process more than 96kHz PCM rates. So maybe this is the reason they prefer S/PDIF connection.

When it comes to DSD-S break-in, I have sent one that had at least 700 hours to a customer in Canada. He claims that it continues to improve. :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

The other interesting part, if I may add, is that Aeris and ODSE probably use the same Analog Devices DAC chip - the AD1853, except if Steve hasn't gone for the flagship AD1955, but those are the two choices for the ODSE. :-)

So it would have been indeed interesting trying the Aeris with a modern USB to S/PDIF interface, though I personally believe that it still will not be up to the ODSE, IMO of course.

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Guido,

USB and S/PDIF are quite different interfaces. Though the TAS USB chip in the Aeris supports only up to 96k, I believe it also supports asynchronous mode. However, it looks like both S/PDIF and USB are being asynchronously resampled using the AD1895A ASRC chip. So maybe the USB chip is the problem, or the computer audio source used for the comparison was inferior to the S/PDIF source.
So it is tricky. :-)

Sure, I will let Matt stabilize it and then decide, no problem. But most interesting will be what will happen when the DSD-S is connected direct to the amplifiers.

Saluti,
Alex

Hi Guido,

Yes, the Aeris has the FPGA but also the AD1895A asynchronous sample rate converter connected to it.

Sure, I understand that your only digital source is the S/PDIF output of the X-01.
To be honest with you, the X-01 requires some redesign work in order to become a good sounding digital transport, at least to my standards. It is also possible converting the X-01 to a CD/SACD transport that will work with the DSD-S via proprietary digital connection.
CD data is converted to double DSD128, while SACD is native DSD64.
The audio quality achieved is quite nice. :-)

Saluti,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Steve,

My digital products have been featuring custom proprietary 32 bit XMOS interfaces for almost 2 years now.

PCM, PCM and DSD, and DSD only versions are available.

The DSD-S has the XMOS inside, and features the so called "Femto Clocks" too.

Welcome on board, I am happy for you!

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Hi Alex, Are you saying that your DSD-S sounds better running direct to amplifiers?, you have a volume control on it?, explain what type of volume control it has, and how it benefits over a pre-amp.

Hi,

What I am saying is that the non-negative feedback pure class-A MOSFET output of the DSD-S is more powerful than any preamp I am aware of and can drive any power amp direct without a problem.

The built in hybrid attenuator with 0.5dB step is completely lossless and offers exceptional sound quality.

The DSD-S does not sound better running direct to amplifiers, your system will sound better without the preamp. :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Audiolabyrinth,

Sorry about the confusion!

Initially you've asked if DSD-S sounds better direct to amplifiers.

What I tried explaining is that, it is not a feature of the DSD-S to sound better when connected to amplifiers. It sounds as it does regardless of where it is connected.

But with its output stage and built-in attenuator, the DSD-S is perfectly capable of eliminating any preamplifier, except if you need the additional analog inputs (or phono stage built-in), or you like the added coloration/noise/distortions of the preamplifier.

Bottom line, if you have only digital sources, you don't really need a preamplifier with the DSD-S. This will result in purer audio signal path that may be beneficial for many audio systems.

Hope this explains it better. :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Hi Audiolabyrinth,

You are welcome!

There are two choices when it comes to the digital transport.

1. SDT-M reading SD memory cards.

2. CD/SACD player re-designed to a digital transport.

Both send DSD audio data to the DSD-S DAC via a proprietary digital connection, and achieve a very similar sound quality.

Of course, you can also dive in the computer audio based digital sources and use the asynchronous USB input of the DSD-S. :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

To Audiolabyrinth:

Sorry, forgot to mention the option of using any digital transport you like via S/PDIF or AES/EBU digital connections, but I am really thinking high-res only.
DSD to be exact. I don't remember when I listened to PCM last time, seems like never. :-)

Of course, any PCM digital source used with the above mentioned inputs will be converted to DSD64 or double DSD128. You choose which one you like better by pressing a button on the remote in real time. :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Matt,

Thank you for a great and detailed post with your initial impressions of the DSD-S!

It is rather interesting to me that you didn't find much of a difference between Amarra and Audirvana Plus, as well as between yours and my power and USB cables. Especially with the cables that have 5 times price difference as a set, I thought yours will be a lot better.

Though I am sure that the DSD-S will improve with more burn-in, it seems to me that your audio system achieves a certain synergy with DAC products built around Analog Devices converter chips. As all DAC devices, those have a specific sonic character.

Thanks again and can't wait for round two. :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Matt,

I mean the actual D/A converter chip around which the DAC unit is built.

As I've mentioned before on this thread, the ODSE and Aeris most likely use exactly the same D/A converter chip - the AD1853, except if Steve hasn't gone for the AD1955, but it is still Analog Devices and has their "house sound" to it that helps your system to achieve the synergy you desire, similar to the role of your preamp. :-)

Being well aware of Analog Devices converters sonic character, I already suspected this is the case for your system when you liked the Aeris and ODSE so much, but that is probably the truth for any system that is a "mix and match". :-)

Especially the ODSE running the digital filter of the AD chip at 2X or 4X oversampling instead of the normally specified 8X oversampling for CD quality data, it emphasizes midrange lushness even more, while sacrificing noise floor and distortion figures, of course. But we are not in this hobby for perfect measurements; all we care is a good sound that we like. :-)

Hope this explains it.

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Contact me and I will build you a DHT DAC that will blow all these away.

When I started building a DAC with DHT output based on Esoteric P-03/D-03 combo was 10 years ago, but not many could afford it. :-)

In my experience, to build a "proper" DHT output stage of a DAC, it has to be separated on two enclosures, one of which is the bulky power supply. Want one? :-)

But what is the purpose of a DAC with DHT output stage connected to an amplifier with DHT output stage? :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Steve,

I am not throwing out anything else but the truth, and thanks for confirming it.

You can select the digital filter on my DAC and I recommend the profile for 192 to be used for all sample-rates. This simply sounds best.

Usually the digital filter in a delta-sigma converter is set at 2x for 192k, 4x for 96k and 8x for 48k sample rates, resulting in a constant out-of-band noise figure allowing you to use the same analog filter at the output. So you are still using 2x oversampling with 192 mode selected. The D/S modulator speed is fixed and there is nothing you can do about it. Some latest DAC chips support 384k with the digital filter totally bypassed, but this is not the case for the AN DAC device you are using. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, I have read your posts that you don't like the sound of AKM DACs, but try to convince the owners of Esoteric K-01, for example, that their player doesn't sound good because it has AKM inside.

As I said, it is all about preferences (synergy to be exact) and the resulting sound quality, nothing else. This said, there is no universal recipe for anything, including audio.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Paul,

Alex,
Sounds like my kind of DAC.. I'd like to compare your DAC to my Totaldac rig, but we can't all be as cool as Matt ;)

A customer of mine traded-in a TotalDac few months ago (now with a new happy owner in Germany) and I also auditioned the monos at the High-End in Munich this year. In other words, I am well aware of how it sounds, both in my system and at the Munich show system they used.

Matt,

I think I am done showing in the USA for now. The goal here is attending the High-End in Munich Germany as an exhibitor. If you ever have the chance, I am sure you will be thrilled to see it. There were many reviewers and audiophiles from the USA too who I met this year, it was fantastic!

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Hey, my Kuzma is only 140 pounds but be my guest beating it with any digital, cost no object. :-)

Paul,

Sure I understand. Yes, the monos sounded better when I've auditioned them at the Munich show. Better in terms of a cleaner top-end and overall more realistic and natural presentation.

Because of Matt's findings and many other people who are into NOS DACs, I have decided to give you guys an option for zero oversampling (no digital filters) so you get the same type of sound. :-)
To my ears, the top gets a tad blurry, but the mids shine. So maybe this little trade-off coloration will be good for some ears and systems. Shoot me off an email if you'd like to schedule DSD-S audition.

And specially for Guido, I am thinking about Zero, 2x, 4x and 8x selectable options with slow and sharp digital filter roll-off characteristics for CD resolution playback, but that will probably happen in a couple of months from now, right on time for a cool audition in the listening room. :-)

Anything else on the wish list? Just let me know. :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Matt,

DSD-S will come back to you with its output stage biased with twice higher current compared to what it was before.

Also now it has Zero oversampling for PCM, compared to 8x oversampling earlier.

This made a good difference during experiments using all-solid state amplification here, so I've decided to see if you will hear it as an improvement in your system, or not. :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

I were willing to spend $16K for a DAC I would certainly put the Berkeley on my short list.

Fair enough Al, though a $16k converter should at least give the option of DSD64 via S/PDIF. But that is just my opinion, as well as the fact that there is no other reasonable explanation, except for being on a strict budget.

Elaboration will be the fact that there is an additional signal path for DSD (basically bypassing their DSP) necessary for providing the DoP/DSD capability, as well as additional clocking.

And personally even the true statement of yours:

"quality of implementation is likely to trump the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of any particular design approach."

It does not really justify using bunch of OpAmps from DAC chips to output. Sorry, it is again just my opinion.

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Well, IMHO, Trinity and Lampzator can be compared as German and Polish women. :-)

Cold strict and quick, as opposed to warm slow and romantic. :-)

My opinion of course based on internal pictures.

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

I presume that Bulgarian women are somewhere in the middle like your dac….?

Well, maybe, depends on the mood. :-)

But that is probably true when it comes to the little puppy DSD-S.

When it comes to its big brother DSD-M, I am not exactly sure. :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Tbg, I totally agree with you that a regular quality pot brings much better results compared to tiny devices.

Not sure if this will make any sense to you, but the attenuator in the DSD-S is a hybrid one and controlled by "tiny devices" too. However, the sound quality achieved has been tested against quality pots to make sure there is no loss of a sound quality.

Sorry, I cannot elaborate further, but thought you'd be happy to hear that the DSD-S hybrid attenuator does not sacrifice the superb audio quality of a good pot, step attenuator or a TVC.

Hope this explains it, at least to some point.

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Sure, I understand! Thank you for your valuable time, Matt!

Please also don't forget trying the DSD64 setting from the corresponding button on the remote.

Report on the high-res would be very nice. There are so many SACD's available. You can always check what is out there on SACD on this site: http://sa-cd.net/

You can also check: http://www.acousticsounds.com where you can find DSD downloads as well.

This article here gives various links to high-res downloads too, including DSD: http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-abcs-of-dsd-downloads/?page=5

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Matt, thank you for taking the time evaluating the DSD-S!

You are absolutely correct when you said: "it is about accuracy and presence".

Though I understand that certain coloration would be favorable in some audio systems, this is something you will not find with my designs.

I prefer linearity, naturalness and superb extension, while preserving the free-flowing ease of pure analog, and without a sign of digital glare. To make sure this is the case, I am recording from my reference Kuzma vinyl rig and then A-B against the digital using both DSD and PCM formats.

Below is a link to a short video clip made by a visitor at the Sofia Expo 2013 using his digital camcorder. It is not a great recording and also MP3 quality, but it may give an idea about my audio system tonal balance:

Video clip at Sofia Expo 2013 link

Thanks again!

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Matt,

Alex, you definitely lost me on your last post, but I am truly enjoying the back and forth between you and Steve (as long as it stays civil and collegial). I am learning a ton!!!

I know it was a bit more technical. What I tried explaining to Steve is that the DAC chip from Analog Devices he is using still oversample CD data by a factor of 2, even with he 192 option selected. His claim that with 192 option selected there is no oversampling is not exactly correct, at least to my knowledge.

Further more, oversampled in the PCM domain or not, the PCM data from your CD-qulaity source is still converted to something very similar to DSD inside the DAC chip. The Analog Devices converters used in the Aeris and ODSE use the so called Delta-Sigma modulators that convert PCM to a signal similar to DSD but with higher order, so the noise is kept way out the hearing range. With Steve's 192 option selected for CD, the combined digital filer and modulator speed is reduced with a factor of 4, resulting in a noise figure that is a lot closer to the hearing spectrum. This is the reason why I said that it emphasizes the midrange more than the usual. Of course, this is to my knowledge and experience that I believe to be the truth.

If someone here with a better technical expertise can prove me wrong, I will be happy to learn something new.

I would ask all involved to make an effort to highlight their own gear's strength's and not point out any other DAC's weaknesses. Specific descriptions of what tech is used and why you think its best are fine. Let's avoid mud slinging though…

Here is a summary of the DSD-S features that highlights its strengths, as requested:

1. Proprietary XMOS based USB input module accepting up to 384/32 PCM as well as DSD64 and double DSD128.

2. Femto jitter master clocks.

3. Proprietary PCM to DSD encoder with DSD64 and double DSD128, user selectable.

4. Proprietary paralleled DAC module working in a special mode that achieves a better overall sound quality without sacrificing anything.

5. Completely lossless hybrid attenuator working in pure DSD and analog domains, without conversion to any sort of PCM.

6. Pure Class-A output stage with MOSFET devices with no negative feedback and no OpAmps.

As pointed out so many times already, at the end of the day, it all comes to a certain synergy in a certain audio system. So specifications are not always a ticket for the best sound in a given audio system.

YMMV!

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Tbg/Norm,

Nice review you wrote on the Zilplexes! Link here:

Zilplex Resonators Review Stereotimes

As far as I know, Franck Tchang has pioneered the acoustic resonators. Link here: Franck's Resonators

Have you auditioned both and what you think about how they compare?

I was introduced to Franck and his amazing resonators many years ago at Clement Perry's listening room. It was a miracle.

Now I have Platinum (front), Special Gold (rear), Silver (sides) and Pro Copper (low front).

Just curious!

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Matt,

I've auditioned the Synergistic Research Tesla D2 coaxial digital cable and was impressed. Some say the D3 is even better. Link here:

Synergistic Tesla Digital Cables

Also, please note that the DSD-S (as many other DACs) has RCA type connectors for the digital S/PDIF inputs using the WBT NextGen that are 75 Ohms too. This was chosen after experimenting with various BNC connectors. So maybe it will be better to get a BNC to RCA cable that will give you a better flexibility.

Looks like the Cable Company has a Tesla D2 with BNC to RCA.

Link here (scroll to the bottom - Digital Cables): Tesla D2 BNC to RCA digital cable

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Alex, you have a name for yourself modding transports like the Esoteric. What would be needed to bring it up to snuff, and similarly, would could or should Matt do to bring his Mini up to snuff?

Agear, those are tricky questions, especially not knowing the audio system synergy in question.

From experience with older Esoteric units, there are some clocking upgrades needed, as well as digital signal path and digital output circuit redesigns. Power supply upgrades might be helpful too.

The MacMini (especially the later ones) are not very desirable for audio server, at least from what I know. The early examples with Core 2 Duo processor had a dedicated graphics card, while the new ones feature the Intel graphics built into the processor. I have experimented and, in my opinion, when the graphics module inside the processor is used, it takes from the memory and contaminates it (because it uses/shares the same memory controller). Best to me will be an Intel quad-core processor without built-in graphics, and that is what I have as a reference in my audio system.

Also, a MacMini, even with a linear power supply is a very similar solution to a MacBook Pro. Some actually may prefer the latter as it runs on a battery power. However, in both cases the multiple charge pumps (switching power supplies) on the mother board supplying everything remain intact, resulting in somewhat mechanical and lean audio quality, at least to my ears. I personally prefer linear power supplies.

Hope this explains it.

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Steve,

IMO, yes. Implementation is everything.

While I cannot agree more with you, sometimes implementations are not correct by initial design concept. I personally cannot approve the use of any Op Amps on the signal path. Yes you are using Op Amps for I/V conversion, but the Berkeley example has them all the way, from DAC chip to output.

Further more, claiming that S/PDIF is best as well as DSD to PCM conversion (even done by a computer) is way out of line, at least in my experience.

There are many recording engineers who will confirm that DSD even converted to DXD at 352.8kHz/24bit is inferior to pure DSD, not to talk about 176.4kHz/24bit conversion that really truncates DSD.

Another point will be their claim that 99% of the current production D/A converters are using multi-bit configurations inevitably is a false statement. There are many DACs built around Burr-Brown/TI devices that feature 4 sets of FIR filters for the purest DSD to Analog conversion possible.

Lastly, it is always strange to me that, most audiophiles are professionals in certain field, but they never fail to give "expert opinions" for audio. Just amazing! :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Steve,

Op-amps are far from perfect, even though the textbooks would lead you to believe it. However, like most things, the answer is "it depends". It depends on how the power for the op-amp is treated and what op-amp you are using. I have done a lot of experimenting with op-amps in the past and learned a lot of things that are not in the textbooks. If you choose the right one and treat it properly in the design, it can be just as good as a discrete circuit and sometimes better because the layout of most discrete circuits does not allow for optimum power delivery. The compact nature of chips allows for optimum power delivery.

Sure, I have also experimented extensively with OpAmps. The only one I currently admire as much as a discrete circuit is the newer MUSES01 by JRC. But I use it in my phonostage.

Even the reduced out-of-band noise of Sigma/Delta DACs calls for a very high slew rate OpAmp, but those never delivered what I expected. My opinion, of course.

I never claimed that S/PDIF is the best method for DAC input, but again the answer is "it depends". If the circuit is well-designed, a good coax cable is used and the right receiver chip is used, it can be every bit as good as the best internal USB interface. So close that no one can pick it out in A/B comparison. I have done this.

I was referring to the Berkeley claims. Of course, you are correct that USB can be as good as S/PDIF (or vice versa) if done correct. That is also my experience. But USB offers a much higher resolution that is desirable, at least for me.

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Tbg,

I still say the inexpensive BMC PureDac is the best.

Though it is clear that the BMC is another Chinese-made product judging by the way it is built internally, I would agree with you that it packs unique technologies, unlike some "name brands". And I respect that.

I've met Clement Perry and Key Kim at the Munich show this year and promised them a DSD-S review sample. I am not sure when this will happen, but it will for sure. Promise is a promise.

So maybe you can get to listen to it as well, and let us know how you feel about it.

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

Tbg,

Aplhifi-usa, you do know that BMC is a German company and that they have trained all their workers and make most of the parts within the company?

Oh, sure it is a German company. But the product is 100% Chinese-made, at least from what I can see from its internal pictures.

You realize that I'm in Texas and they are in the NYC environment. They are about as far from me as Moscow is from Paris.

But this is not really a problem when it comes to USA-style shipping services, especially when it comes to UPS and FedEx. Truly the best!

I think it is interesting that this started as a cd only dac and now is everything.

It is all, or nothing at all. :-)

Best,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

I would strongly consider the sx and either not bother with dsd or have a dsd dac.

I anxiously awaited the release of a certain Jazz album to be available in DSD. It was recorded in 1958. There are many iterations of it, including a 24 Karat Gold plated CD that you can buy for $300, if you are lucky. Well, I have that CD, as well as the 45RPM vinyl. But you must hear the DSD release.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi Ltd