2. digital
  3. 131490-103178

midrange dac / dac with best performance to cost ratio

im not looking to spend more than $3k.

I'm looking at getting either a gugnir multibit or a yggridsdal. I am open to other types of dacs. However I don't know anything about them. Could someone please explain the difference between the two schiit dac's I mentioned? Do they use completely different technology compared to each other? I've been told that the gugnir is 'warmer' then the yggridsdal. Also for around the same price a Yggrisdal would cost me, I could get a Bryston dac-3. I'm wondering if that dac is any good either? It's also very local to me, and it comes with the awesome bryston 20 year warantee.  in case i wasn't clear I am canadian so importing anything schiit is going to cost me quite a bit more then getting something local like that bryston dac. anyway, im open to any and all suggestions, thank you in advance for any help.
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xd2girls

Showing 5 responses by shadorne

shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
+1 Benchmark DAC3 

Performance exceeds that of anything else in the market at any price. This is a neutral highly detailed DAC, so if you are looking for warmth this may not be suitable for you. 
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
I stand corrected I mistakenly left out an important word "specifications". The Benchmark DAC 3 "performance specifications" are market leading. The forward mid is relative. Overall a neutral presentation.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
@ricevs

I don’t understand why the Manhattan II is using sharp filters at 22KHz. Why would anyone do that these days. This is 80’s style design. Mathematically I would just up sample to push the ghost image from 22 Khz to 44 KHz way way up in frequency and then use a gentle anti-aliasing filter. This technique is no longer rocket science and has been around for more than a decade.

Why build a device where you are enjoying audible effects of the filters used?

Surely high fidelity should aim to eliminate filter effects as much as possible rather than accentuate then?

It seems to me the filter selection has been geared into the sound - like a kind of tone control. Strange because the Manhattan performs superbly in all other respects.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
@zuio

I have not heard Crane Song Solaris. It uses the same technique that Benchmark pioneered for jitter rejection but implemented with a 32 bit AKM DAC. Have you done extensive A vs B? I think AKM has slightly more warmth than Sabre (Sabre latest chips are super low on 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion) which may make for a slightly more organic presentation.


shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
@yage

Yes I agree with everything you say. I understand all signal processing for digital.

Since upsampling shifts the image to higher multiples of the sampling frequency then the filter requirements can be relaxed. So why is the Manhattan II so focused on filters - a better design is to keep the filter AWAY from the audible band so the filter does not affect the sound.

Why did they not choose to eliminate filter effects rather than make the filter a tone control???

Great link by the way! Thanks for that. I don't even know where my old time series analysis hardcopy book is anymore. I just go with everything from memory...used to do all this in graduate physics when designing scientific instruments.
More to discover