2. digital
  3. 168893-95151

DAC Shootout Starts This Weekend

Okay...in another thread I promised to do a side-by-side evaluation of the Audiobyte HydraVox/Zap vs the Rockna Wavelight. Due to the astonishing incompetence of DHL this has been delayed. At the moment, I have a plethora of DACs here and am going to do a broader comparison.

I am going to do a compare of the Rockna Wavelight, Rockna Wavedream Signature, Audiobyte HydraVox/Zap, Chord Hugo 2, Chord Hugo TT2, Bricasti M3, Bricasti M1 Special Edition, Weiss 501 and the internal DAC card for an AVM A 5.2 Integrated amp as a baseline.

For sake of consistency, I am going to use that same AVM integrated amp driving Vivid Kaya 45s. I may branch out and do some listening on other speakers (Verdant Nightshade of Blackthorn and/or Wilson Benesch Vertexes) but want to use the Vivids for every compare as they are the fullest range speakers I have here. For sake of consistency I will use a Chord 2Go/2Yu connected via an Audioquest Diamond USB as a renderer. The only exception is the Hugo 2 which has a 2Go directly attached to it. I will use a Roon Nucleus+ as a server in all cases.

My plan is to use the same five songs on every DAC; In a Sentimental Mood from Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, Be Still My Beating Heart from Sting, Liberty from Anette Askvik, Duende from Bozzio Levin Stevens and Part 1 of Mozart String Quartet No 14 in G Major from the Alban Berg Quartet. The intent is to touch on different music types without going crazy.

I will take extensive notes on each listening session and write up a POV on the strengths of each unit. I am going to start this this Friday/Saturday and will be writing things up over the next month or so. If you have thoughts, comments or requests, I will be happy to try and accommodate. The one thing I am not going to do is make the list of songs longer as that has an exponential impact on this and make everything much harder. If and when other DACs come in on trade I may add to the list through time.
128x128verdantaudio

Showing 5 responses by melm

melm
1,057 posts
 
I appreciate this informative thread.  I wonder if I could seek just a bit of clarification.  You've used the term "sibilance" a number of times in your descriptions.  Sibilance is a natural "s" or "sh" sound that I would expect to hear in anyone's speech or song, recorded or not.  When you use the term, though, do you mean "sibilance distortion"? 

Thank you. 
melm
1,057 posts
 
@verdantaudio
Perhaps there's something I do not understand.  I recall sibilance distortion, that is distortion of the "s" and "sh" sound in speaking and singing, in the analog realm.  It arose principally from cartridge mistracking or worn LPs.  However, at least for the last two DACs I have owned ( LKS MH-DA004 and Musetec MH-DA005, neither with US distribution) I don't believe I have ever heard sibilance distortion so described.  I asked some other owners and they agree.  Can it really be that DACs at the level in this thread exhibit this sort of distortion?
melm
1,057 posts
 
@georgehifi

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Don't know how you can find sibilance distortion without sibilance.  

I have 4 or 5 Scheherazades on my hard disk, so not looking for a new one.  Beautiful violin sounds can be found in a great number of places.  Try Ehnes playing the Spring Sonata, for ex.  
melm
1,057 posts
 
@verdantaudio
I agree with @dbb in that accuracy to the sound of real instruments is essential for an audio component to be recommendable.

You have written, "I had an interesting conversation last night on the topic of 'accuracy' with a gentleman who is both an audiophile and a professional musician.
When discussing the concept of ’accuracy’ his concern is tonal exclusively. Does the instrument sound like the instrument in question? Can it reproduce the difference between say a Steinway and Yamaha piano.
Beyond that, ’accuracy’ has no meaning." Exactly.

But what has audio reviewing become? The well known Goldensound on ebay raves about a $1500 DAC being the best in class though he says it cannot accurately reproduce the "timbre" of instruments.

Reviewing has too often become simply an expression of personal taste or an attempt to sell. Many people calling themselves reviewers have rarely heard a musical instrument except through a loudspeaker. I do not include you here as I respect what you have written and you do it with integrity, even including acoustic instruments as part of your listening and writing.
melm
1,057 posts
 
@verdantaudio 
@jjss49 

You are quite right to speak if the importance of imaging.  I just picked up on what verdantaudio had written about accuracy to the sound of a piano, to wit, a piano should sound like a piano,  Better still, a particular piano.

Normally, though, when I write of accuracy as being the bottom line in an audio component I take it directly from HP* who wrote of real instruments in real space.  (He would require his reviewers to be regular acoustic concert goers.)  There's your imaging--and width--and depth.  But a piano MUST sound like a piano; an oboe like an oboe, etc.   One cannot judge accuracy in studio manufactured music.

Anyway, I've tried not to intrude into this very important and well accomplished thread.  I do sense that it is winding down, at least a bit.  Kudos to verdantaudio for his honest and intelligent writing.  

*Whose writing turned me on to the "high-end"

More to discover