Thinking about getting a R2R DAC

I recently purchased a Jolida FX2 tube DAC (now Black Ice) and took it to compare with a friend's Qutest.  We found the Jolida to be a more engaging and relaxing listen.  The Qutest certainly was the more open and "airy" of the two DACs, but it's also more analytical at the same time. In fairness, I also don't hear much difference between DACs in general on my system.

I bought a LAB 12 DAC1 SE a few years ago and I'm very pleased with it. And you also have the option to tune it a little by replaceing the 6922 tube. If the limitation to 24bit/96kHz is not a problem you could give it a try.
I also lack that "something" I get from LP:s and this DAC does a good job closeing in the gap between CD:s and LP:s. At least in my humble system and to my ears.

The Chip based are less expensive.

Indeed - its possible to get the flavour of R2R at a very low price

Yes Yes Yes!!!
Just look for the higher end used players that use the PCM1702 or even better the PCM1704 Burr Brown dac chips here,
http://vasiltech.narod.ru/CD-Player-DAC-Transport.htm
and even better if they are used with together with DF1704 or better PMD100 and better again PMD200 filter chips

Cheers George

I have an MHDT Orchid Dac and had a Border Patrol Dac on loan which I didn’t feel was as good. The Orchid is a very nice Dac and LTA is offering a 600.00 Mod for it shortly. The MHDT Dacs - Border Patrol among others are Chip Based R2R Dacs as opposed to a fully formatted R2R Dac like the MSB - Aqua Dacs- Holo Audio etc... a new one from the brains behind the Metrum Dac’s called the Sonnet Morpheus Dac is Approx 3k and better than the 6K Metrum Psvane. The Chip based are less expensive. The new Audial while still chip based is more elaborate but only 2K and supposed to be very nice

I would agree with the above. When I did my own huge DAC shootout, I kept the MHDT(s) and sold the Border Patrol. MHDT units have better nuance, warmth and dimensionality than the BP, and on top of that, you can roll tubes and subtly tailor the sound on the MHDT. (BP uses its tube in the power supply section only, and it uses a unique tube.)

Metrums (even older ones like the Octave) are truly excellent. As is the Morpheus, which I currently have as well. The Morpheus sounds subtly different than the Pavane/Adagio... I would not say it is clearly better, just a subtly different presentation with a clear family resemblance.

 

 The Chip based are less expensive.

Indeed - its possible to get the flavour of R2R at a very low price - try for example Lite DAC-AH, which goes for under $200. Its using the same chip (but 8X as many) as the Border Patrol but the PSU is less elaborate.

I have an MHDT Orchid Dac and had a Border Patrol Dac on loan which I didn’t feel was as good.  The Orchid is a very nice Dac and LTA is offering a 600.00 Mod for it shortly.  The MHDT Dacs - Border Patrol among others are Chip Based R2R Dacs as opposed to a fully formatted R2R Dac like the MSB - Aqua Dacs- Holo Audio etc... a new one from the brains behind the Metrum Dac’s called the Sonnet Morpheus Dac is Approx 3k and better than the 6K Metrum Psvane.    The Chip based are less expensive.  The new Audial while still chip based is more elaborate but only 2K and supposed to be very nice

Recorded music isn't real, so something that plays perfectly (a DAC) may not be to your liking. Nothing wrong with some imperfections to simulate a more lively environment. Embrace it.


The music industry is embracing it. Lots of work being done on adding noise, distortion and other artifacts to music to make it more appealing.  I used to prefer studio recordings. Now I am into live recordings warts and all. I will often pick a YouTube live version over the perfect studio one. It's more emotional.

@audio2design 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject. 

I'm the first owner of the ML39, vintage 1996, which I had upgraded to a ML390S in ~ 2002. 
As for the ML36, I'm the 2nd owner for all I can tell. 
And yes, both are some 25 years old - with one laser unit replacement for the ML390S, about 1 year ago. 

During mid to end 2000 I had A LOT of Systems auditioning going on (semi-professionally), and this across the board of high-end digital systems, culminating in some way-out Bösendorfer-Lyngdorf system. Actually too many to mention. 

All this did for me, was to set-up an analogue side system to my existing digital one, and repurches LPs I'd gotten rid of during end 1980. 

I mention all this for some perspective, as even listening to far more expensive and more sophisticated set-ups, I could not be convinced (by LISTENING) that this so considered 'new'(er) technology sounded any BETTER - different ok, but not better. 

The more resent listening to some full blown latest B&W802D3 diamond tweeter speakers and Esoteric gear failed to make any further 'upgrade' desire as well. 

All I keep hearing is more 'resolution' and less of any 'realness' - more artifice, for lack of a better word. 

That's when I came across that 'ancient' ML36 (R2R) so since it integrates easily into my existing system I decided to give it a go. 

It sounds the least artificial, though a good LP sounds 'easier' on my ears - still.
A question of more real harmonics/timber I'd say. 
In closing, by my personal experience, I'm this far unconvinced, that high-end digital has made the kind of progress that is generally banded about.
Been surching for close on 25 years and good analogue *still* has the edge for me. 

Enough said for now, 
M. 🇿🇦 

ML36 is what 25 years old? In 2005 that would have been considered old tech and not nearly as good as new stuff. Suddenly is is great again? No.

Both your DACs are good but you prefer one. Much different implementations. One thing that has changed in 25 years is you of course if you are the original owner.



Personal preference which is impacted by prior experience, your specific system and environment and yes age.

Never discount flavor of the day and the impact of suggestion either.

I've been reading through all of the post on this subject. Thanks.

Like many I also have an R2R DAC, the Holo Spring Level 1, but also have at my disposal other DS DAC's. CD Player has an Analog Devices chip, and Burr Brown on HT processor. They all sound different for sure. As often as not everything else being equal (if possible) I prefer the rendering of the CDP with Analog Devices chip over the Spring DAC. 

The the big elephant in the room is, all music starts out as analog be it instruments or vocals and these analog signals have to be converted to digital. I know of no R2R analog to digital converters or have never heard of recording studios, or mastering studios using this technology.

The point is, even if using the subjectively best R2R DAC available, and that could be argued till the cows come home, no one will ever experience the full potential benefit of R2R DACs. From my perspective most musicians, recording engineers and others working in the industry consider audiophiles a bunch of nut cases anyway so its probably unlikely the demand for ADC with R2R capability will ever be designed and built.

Just something to consider in the equation.

Thanks

Thanks for this take. 
However, I have an R2R DAC (ML36) 20bit, 44.1kHz and an upsampling CDP (ML390S) hybrid, 24 bit, 352kHz.
(I hope I got that right :) 

So,... in short, I prefer the R2R item - by a small/tiny but important margin. 

Why?

Somehow R2R is sounding more natural/harmonically more complete.
Only referring to red-book CD reproduction. 
M. 🇿🇦 

There is no reason for an R2R to sound better or worse than a non R2R. It's all implementation including the up front signal processing. There is a reason why you may like or dislike a NOS DAC though and it is not because it is more accurate.

So I now do wonder, WHAT'S the bottom line of all this techno squabble?
Is there a bottom-line? At all. 
CAN an R-2R DAC sound better than any NON-R2R one, due to its DAC construction - if the analogue output stages are equally well implemented?
I'm sure this was the intended enquiry of the OP, no?
This also given, that initial analogue/digital and microphone recording limitations are discounted for. 
M. 🇿🇦 

When you pass the very significant ultrasonic content of a typical unfiltered or lightly filtered NOS DAC through a non linear system which all audio systems are especially at ultrasonic frequencies and with tubes, that aliases into the audible band.

Again, misuse of the word 'aliases' - the correct term would be 'intermodulates'.

I will add that the concept of "timbre" in acoustic can never in no way be reducible to high frequencies rendering....

Then what is important is the accuracy of the timbre instrument rendering, not only the high frequencies linked to it....Timbre ask for more than 5 complex concepts to be defined and it is not even a total consensus in science about the relation between all these necessary concepts ordering because it is a complex phenomenon.....

The fact that some NOS dac can give a good representation of timbre is a common experience....The fact that some non NOS dac can give also a good representation of timbre is another fact.... This representation/reproduction of the timbre instrument or  voices in a natural way is linked not only to the dac but MOSTLY to a great number of different other factors, some i called embeddings controls, and there are many others also....


« I prefer to anthropomorphize the world than simplifiying it too much»- Groucho Marx after a reading of Goethe

« Including oneself in reality is not rejecting reality, on the contrary, you are right brother»- Harpo Marx

« We cannot speak about a rainbow without including the man into the equation for example brothers» -Chico Marx

« A fact is NEVER only a fact, except for simple mind »- Anonymus

Also fact that noise / distortion can be pleasing to some and it has been shown, again fact that playing with noise and distortion can give a sense of space that is not in the recording.

All signals that comes from a musician recorded in a studio to the ears of an audiophile(even a deaf one) sitting in his room, are a complex chain of transformations and an imperfect recreation of the original lived event....( and the recording room,the speakers , the microphone,the recording instruments, the electrical grid of our house,the mechanical embedding of our audio system, the acoustical complex setting of the room etc play an enormous role and all this is not reducible to high frequencies rendering by some dac, NOS one or not)

Speaking of the" pure reproduction" of this event without any qualitative transformations and with an alleged and desirable perfect quantitative reproduction is a metaphor that point to an "idealized" situation that can never be realized completely anyway...

Thanks for recognizing the fact that what you called distortion can be pleasing for some...." playing with noise and distortion" is fundamental and the complex trade-off management inherently linked to engineering art....Accuracy is important for correctly using equations in electronic engineering but i hope that all old engineers with experience use their limited ears accuracy also and i hope that they do not always equate pleasing with accurate in the mathematical sense.....Anyway,i know that they do, they are not all dogmatical "religious" zealot character.... :)





My best regards ....

Most audiophiles are old and here that is just fact. Older people have significantly reduced high frequency range almost as a rule. Again just fact.

You are literally anthropomorphising an electrical signal not to mention interchanging sound and electrical signals which is a false pretence.

When you pass the very significant ultrasonic content of a typical unfiltered or lightly filtered NOS DAC through a non linear system which all audio systems are especially at ultrasonic frequencies and with tubes, that aliases into the audible band. That is not theory that is simple fact. Also fact that noise / distortion can be pleasing to some and it has been shown, again fact that playing with noise and distortion can give a sense of space that is not in the recording. 


Why do want to bad to reject reality.

Accusing people of being deaf, especially old audiophiles, is not an argument because too much people are included; and assimilating numbers to phenomenon and reducing them to it dogmatically is more than bad science it is bad philosophy, ignoring the structural complexities of human hearing to reduce it to some very specialized engineering field concerning a very special kind of dac, is not convincing but reflect prejudices....

I make my own controls devices for the embeddings of an audio system with great results, even being old audiophile myself, with success... I bought nothing from the market except after hearing the results.... I devise my own electrical grid device, and my own mechanical control for the speakers, and the many devices i use for active acoustical controls and not only passive one are all homemade, then the "deaf" old audiophile i am smile at your dogmas by the number and this completely free accusation....

All that comes not from super hearing capabilities but from my listenings experiments for 2 years with my ordinary ears....Audio is NOT reducible to some engineering very specialized book about some very special kind of dac....I am perhaps deaf and old but not completely gullible....

Abraxalito made great remarks .... Thanks to him.....

My best to you both....

It matters not one iota what I think a thing is. Aliasing is what happens when an ADC digitizes a signal with frequencies beyond half its sample rate. Aliasing has nothing to do with DACs its entirely an ADC phenomenon.

Took a look at the IEEE link, its entirely in harmony with what I'm saying here. To wit they say :

This paper is concerned with undoing aliasing effects. Such effects arise from discretely sampling a continuous-time stochastic process.

'Sampling' is what an ADC does.

What do you think aliasing is? Please don"t tell other people they are hopelessly inaccurate when you don’t know the subject matter.


https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5495907

More your level see paragraph 2.


https://sonobat.com/understanding-aliasing/

 

NOS DACs are not accurate. They used to have wicked phase issues due to the analog filters now they just have wicked aliased harmonics.

I'd just like to point out that this is hopelessly inaccurate. The OOB (out of band) signals from a NOS DAC aren't 'aliased' rather they are images. Nor are they 'harmonics' rather their frequencies are related to the difference between the sample rate and the reproduced frequency. So for example with a 10kHz signal, the OOB component (image) will be at 34.1kHz (with RBCD : 44.1k - 10k).

I have noticed that older audiophiles seem more attracted to NOS DACs.  I suspect the artifacts compensate for loss of high frequencies that can give a sense of space to recordings. It bears out in the subjective opinions given.

Remember not about accuracy but what you like.

:)

Dannad? You again? Oh boy! You will never let it go, would you 😂😂. Welcome back! 

Accurate meaning what was picked up by the microphone, not what you think it should sound like which is the reference most audiophiles use almost all.

i say the samething with more nuance.....


:)

all that matters is sh^t we buy sounds good to us

the rest is BS

accuracy in hifi is an oxymoron... we are talking about reproduction of music via a recorded medium

I am sure you are not..... accurate in the technical sense is a good thing.....

accurate for my ears is also a good thing....

It is not a matter of confusion, it is a matter of assimilation between the 2 significations....

Nos dac does not mean inaccurate, unless we reduce accurate for my ears to accurate by numbers....
 
And sometimes techical improvement are not the "crux of the matter"  for audiophile experience, especially at moderate cost....Saying otherwise and reducing  the 2 sigification of "accurate" is  misleading....

My best to you....

I can assure you I'm not confused.

Accurate: meaning an engineering measured number...

accurate: meaning a natural timbre, a feeling of the real instrument for the human ears...

Accurate?

Or these 2 meaning of accurate we conflate them and accurate means first and last a number on a measuring tool...

My nos dac cost me 25 dollars new on a bid and the idea to upgrade it seems ridiculous to me ....

After 2 years i cannot fathom his limit they were not audible to me....This dac improve with my speakers and amplifier embedding controls installation...

I dont doubt that there is better dac than mine, i will call them not more accurate but more musical if they are better, for example the Denafrips pontus in NOS mode is certainly better than my actual dac at his price........ Accuracy without musicality is without interest for me....



« I have 2 masters et they serve me well: my ears» -Groucho Marx


« They are not masters nor servants brother, they are your friends»-Harpo Marx

It sounds wonderful to you and that is all that matters and yes you very well may enjoy those artifacts though depending on age may not hear the bulk of them. It gives a light and airy sound to redbook. Some love it.  Embrace it but don't confuse it with accurate.

You didn't answer the question.

FWIW I used a Chord Qute EX DAC for years and, while it's getting long in the tooth, I still think it's a terrific DAC. I must enjoy artifacts considering an MHDT Lab Pagoda replaced it. Sounds great with Redbook.

What happens when you feed them 16/44.1?


Or are you assuming the music is already upsampled as the vast majority of music is not native 24/192. Not just upsampled but filtered as well.



There is not much justification for NOS. None really except for personal preference for artifacts.

NOS DACs are not accurate. They used to have wicked phase issues due to the analog filters now they just have wicked aliased harmonics.

No doubt you realize some NOS DACs are capable of 24/192. Are you saying these DACs suck as well?

Lots of interesting views in this thread. Modern DACs have more than enough resolution in their digital filters to reconstruct the signal at higher sampling rates, well beyond the analog performance.  NOS DACs are not accurate. They used to have wicked phase issues due to the analog filters now they just have wicked aliased harmonics. Pick your poison.   A DAC can have a "voice" if you want that sort of thing. It can also be accurate. It won't be both. Buy what you like. Some of us like accuracy. Some of us don't. Many audiophiles claim to like accuracy but don't really. I would say the majority don't and would not know it if they had it, but claim to seek it out.

I had a Denafrips Terminator (r2r) and recently upgraded to the Terminator Plus.  I have had a Yggdrasil (r2r) and W4S DSDSE v2.2 (ds) dacs and the Terminator is in another league.  FWIW I felt the W4S was the better dac.
I added the Denafrips Iris DDC (USB to I2S converter) to try the I2S on the Terminators, the Iris was a game changer in my system.  Denafrips considers the I2S the best input but have put a lot of work into their USB input.  I wasn't expecting much from the Iris as the USB from my Innuos Statement was supposed to be amazing (and I thought it was).
I have clock cables on order to clock the Iris with the Terminator Plus's OCXO clock.  I have read the benefit is significant.

The problem is a simple digital oversampling and anti-aliasing filtering (used in most DACs) is not accurate enough for music reproduction.
DAC without oversampling and Chord DACs with sophisticated oversampling and anti-aliasing filtering solve the same issue by different approach. The goal is recovery the original analog signal that was before ADC.
So one solution it do pure analog low pass filter.  Other solution is to do sophisticated digital signal processing using modern powerful FPGA and smart algorithms.
The question is what does work better?

Other trick I did to make Chord Qutest sound warm and smooth even on "white" filter with regular power supply, I added Furutech AC GTX-D(Gold) Duplex receptacle.
This  receptacle makes sound more fat and warm in contrast to  Furutech AC GTX-D Rhodium that sounds more neutral.

@hilde45 The Pagoda has a tube. Is there much debate about tubes needing break in? Mine definitely changed over first 40 hrs.  

To add on to your point - 
It's not just the stock supplied tubes that take time settle in, the new caps inside need to settle in as well. My MHDT Orchid is very 3-dimensional, and deep soundstage. Upgraded it again after the first year, even better now once I upgraded the coupling capacitors inside to high $ silver-gold-oil Mundorf caps with Cardas silver soldering, and went with an ever better NOS Tesla tube to replace the decent stock tube. It now challenges DACs at 2-3x the price. Same can be done to the Pagoda.  My buddy uses a Pagoda in a mastering studio.  

Hi @adam8179 ,

I also use Chord Qutest for couple of years. I like it very much. It is a huge step compared to my old Care 303 CD player that use 1704 DAC chip. 
I improved the SQ of  Qutest significantly when I changed BNC digital socket to Audio Note silver RCA and started using NBS Signature cable. Thank a lot to @zipost suggested me to do it. Now CDs sound competitive to my vinyl setup. But vinyl still wons in terms of tone and microdynamics. But CD at least as good in presentation, soundstage, separation and other audiophile attributes.
Did you compared your network streamer to good CD transport with SPDIF cable?

Regards,
Alex.

@cygnus_859

don’t focus solely on the dac chip... the chip affects the sound, but no more than several other factors in what is in a certain dac

mhdt dacs are famous for this... they make 7-8 nos r2r dacs with different r2r chips but you swap output buffer tubes in any of them, you can make all of them sound different or alike from each other (not to mention parts upgrades)

I am looking for a DAC for a while too. R2R came to my mind. Orchid, Audio Mirror and Lampizator, etc. I considered Lampi first, then Lampi changed from R2R to DS and Amber III has very good review. Even their flagship has DS chip. I am confused, is Amber III (DS) better then their old R2R Atlantic? 

@calvinandhobbes

i remember reading one of the people posting here who bought one said they do have a (shortish) money back return policy - think it was something like 10-15 days

you wonder about break in... but better than nothing

Is there any way to demo the Holo Audio DACs? I'm in the Seattle area and have also been looking into the Holo Spring and Holo May DACs.

Mojo Audio Mystique’ V3 + whatever number.  It is a killer.  As mentioned in previous posts, it just gets it right.  It is freakishly dynamic, live, detailed and quick.  The immediacy is scary.  Music appears out of blackness and washes over you.

I had similar issues with my Audio Mirror Tubadour III and started bitching about it too soon. After about 50 hours or so, the change in sound was so dramatic that it could have won an oscar. Hang in there!

don't know if you call it break in... but tubes definitely take a few hours to settle into a circuit

dacs do have distinctive sounds... they are the 'voice' of the digital front end, making the digital bitstream real analog music again

as much as the cartridge and phono stage is for an analog front end...

The Pagoda has a tube. Is there much debate about tubes needing break in? Mine definitely changed over first 40 hrs.  

Breaking in is bullocks man. Just keep your Qutest allright. Check Andrew Robinson on YouTube, he busts the breaking in myth.