I'm not all in on digital systems because I'm not all in on DACs


We were lucky to have the makers of the @Arion1 speaker line join us in another conversation.  One of the points the rep made was he didn't understand what the problem was with digital among audiophiles. 

I am in many ways a digital music guy.  I have no vinyl and use Roon for all of my playback but this all stops when it leaves my Mytek DAC.  I've taken a great deal of care in selecting my integrated amplifier, and my speakers and how they are configured.  I rely heavily on OmniMic and Roon's DSP before the DAC... so why won't I just let go and go 100% digital?  Why don't I use digital crossovers after my preamp and convert my system to fully active?

The answer is in a series of experiences I've had with digital playback.  DAC's can sound wildly different.  I'm staring at two right now.  A Topping DX3 and a Mytek Brooklyn.  One sounds thin and lacking energy and bass while the other sound really good.

The same thing happened to me when I was trying to upgrade from my Theta Casanova.  I was looking for a processor that was HDMI friendly and inexpensive.  I went through a number of them which had the same problem:  Thin and gutless until I got an Oppo BluRay player which sounded better than all of them.  Sadly the Oppo DAC/headphone amp was a horrible ear drill to my ears.

So I'm not against digital signal processing or DACs, but within my budget I'm not willing to give up control over the sound of my DAC to a new crossover in the chain without listening.

What are your thoughts?

erik_squires

Showing 7 responses by nonoise

@musicfan2349 , I completely agree with you. I think we're both approaching this from different angles and vernaculars. 😄 

When all is said and done, I do enjoy The Hunt but now am more of an armchair predator. 

All the best,
Nonoise

 

@musicfan2349 , I do. It's just that I've found that a number of filter options is all I need to change the sound of the DAC and that is enough for me.

Now, take into account what you said about DACs being as different as any other component in ones system and I'm back to wondering which one is the most accurate and that designers are voicing them as well, based on their systems, and that's one big monkey wrench I'd rather not deal with.

It used to be that DACs had a particular flavor and that was about it. Nowadays, they can make or break a system, adding to the complexity.

All the best,
Nonoise

I think the reviewer is talking about the ADC which upsamples all signals whether they are analog or digital. It's what I've read on every review of it so far.

All the best,
Nonoise

The more I think about it, is it that the GaN-FETs are fast enough to handle the halved digital signal whereas a traditional MOSFET or JFET can't so with the latter, a DAC is necessary whereas with the GaN-FET, it's not?

All the best,
Nonoise

That link helps a lot in understanding what Technics is using. In all of their descriptions, they (naturally) stop short of giving it all away. 

If I remember correctly, there is feedback on the output but it's only the negative feedback that's used after summing everything up. I'm probably wrong but I'm going by my memory. 

The retailer that I have it on order from said from what he can figure out, no one is doing it the way Technics is right now. There are a lot of ways of skinning the digital cat and some are similar, but not the same.

Here's one review of the SU-R100 that may shed more light. 

In fact, here's the passage about there being no DAC conversion being done: 

It’s also worth pointing out that there’s no DAC, no digital to analog conversion, taking place inside the SU-R1000. Incoming digital signals are upsampled (to 32-bit/768kHz), sent through a 1-bit Delta-Sigma converter, followed by another stage, the PWM converter, which forms a so-called “ternary” (2-bit) signal out of the 1.5MHz 1-bit signal. So each transistor only has to handle a switching speed of 768kHz/1-bit which is easier to handle in terms of the natural response time of a GaN-FET. I include this information knowing full well that few people will really understand it, yours truly included, so let’s just say that digital remains digital right up to the speaker binding posts.

Now I'm more confused but still eager to get the Technics.

All the best,
Nonoise

I kind of understand that but it seems that Technics does it all in house without an off the shelf DAC, but through their JENO engine which looks more and more like it has the qualities of a FPGA of sorts. There's a review of the big brother SU-R1000 were the reviewer clearly states there's no DAC in it as well.

All the best,
Nonoise

I'm not a digital guy in that I don't relish the thought of trying out all the different DACs out there. Too many flavors and choices don't get me any closer to the musical truth if they all sound different. In the end, I'd just settle on a sound that suits me and may end up being the furthest thing from the truth. That would drive me mad.

I'm the digital kind of guy who settles on a well received brand that has a long track record of getting it right and go from there. My present SACD player has two filter options (which I discovered years after getting it and it did make a favorable difference) and having a few more is all that I'd need.

Saying that, I'm looking forward to getting the Technics SU-G700M2 as it eschews the DAC portion and processes the digital signal as is, all the way to the speaker outputs, where it flips it, via a filter, to an analog signal so the speaker can play it. 

To hear that signal in a less corrupted form is something I'm looking forward to. I have the option to use the digital out of my SACD player or the analog out with the signal fully processed thru the players DAC. Some reviewers preferred it that way and others didn't, but it increases the choices available. 

All the best,
Nonoise