I think this is an issue of definition, with @mozartfan seeming to differentiate between a straight DAC and a DAC that includes a tube stage?
What makes a DAC so expensive?
You can buy a Cambridge Audio AXA25 25 Watt 2-Channel Integrated Stereo Amplifier | 3.5mm Input, USB Input for $225, and most DACs seem more costly.
I'm wondering what it is that makes a Bifrost 2 almost as expensive as an Aegir and 3x's as expensive as the Cambridge product, above. I would have thought an Aegir would out-expense a Bifrost by a factor of two or three. What are the parts that make the difference?
I'm wondering if the isolated DAC concept is one that comes with a "luxury" tax affixed. Can anyone explain what I'm getting in a Bifrost 2, or other similar product that justifies the expense...?
Thank you.
I'm wondering what it is that makes a Bifrost 2 almost as expensive as an Aegir and 3x's as expensive as the Cambridge product, above. I would have thought an Aegir would out-expense a Bifrost by a factor of two or three. What are the parts that make the difference?
I'm wondering if the isolated DAC concept is one that comes with a "luxury" tax affixed. Can anyone explain what I'm getting in a Bifrost 2, or other similar product that justifies the expense...?
Thank you.
142 responses Add your response
@mozartfan I have a tube amp and it is a wonderful performer. I also have a class A amp and it is also blissful. My latest DAC - the Schiit Modius - is not a tube product, but it is transparent and the overall sound quality of my system is beyond anything I thought I would ever own. I may play with another DAC in the near future and I have looked at tube DACs, with a couple landing in my price range: the Black Ice products and the Musical Paradise products come to mind. Actually, the $499 model MP DAC is under redesign and will not be available until year-end, so that's not an option, right now. Frankly, I have been blown away at every purchase from Schiit. I never dreamed their $799 Aegir would match so well with my Moabs. For people with lower a lower budget, companies like Schiit are a Godsend. |
@ovinewar I appreciate your comment, concerning the division between the search for "truth" and time protected for enjoyment. More and more I see the limits of endless searching, which seems to be pronounced in a commercial culture, where our desires our endlessly pricked, to the point of inflammation. Perhaps our thread has burned itself out... Much appreciation to all contributors. If you have final thoughts, please send them along... |
When the S.Q. of my system was very bad, i listened to my favorite best music: Bach.... It was possible to concentrate then on music not troubled by the bad sound... When the S.Q. goes from bad to acceptable, i go on with all style and different kind of music.... The recording was not my primary concern because sound quality begins to be acceptable.... The listening habits has 2 parts linked together: concentration on musical composition, or concentration on sound quality.... The concentration on sound quality must relax with time and with a good embed audio system...Concentration on music is the goal.... Listening musical composition shift the attention and the awareness to music not sound ....Sound being no more a restraint or an impediment, music only must grab you but by way of the sound quality it is easier... For the last years my attention focus was dedicated more than half the time to sound... I was in the obligation to create my own audio system, it begins with directing the awareness and attention to sound... The best way to develop sound awareness is to set the stage for listening experiments: what if i change something on the wall? What if i put a piece of quartz on the electrical panel? What if i change the speakers and put something under it to attenuate vibrations? Small step by small step you will develop a greater attention capacity for details perception and this new listening awareness will guide you toward the implementation of better conditions for your audio system.... You will discover that it is not mainly the electronic design of amplifier. or of dac, or even of the speakers that create the S.Q. but on par with it and perhaps even more than the electronic design only, it was what i called the mechanical embeddings(controls of vibrations /resonance), the electrical embedding of your house(the general noise floor of the house where is embedded the noise floor of your audio system) and the acoustical settings of your room... Then you will quit the blind urge to improve your system by buying costly new promising parts... You will trust more your ears in an incremental process of listening experiences linked to some simple experiments about vibrations, noise controls and acoustic....You will read reviewers for what they are : sellers not mainly technical adviser about how to create audiophile experience.... More you will develop a trust in your ears more confidence you will have and you will learn to know the truth about audio by listening not reading about consumers products... I have ZERO hand craft hability, and i am not a master of D.I.Y. at all but at some time if you want badly something without the necessary money you must be creative.... My way was listening and experimenting very simple thing indeed... After 2 intense years i begin to be conscious of the 3 dimensions of the audio system way of embeddings.... Nowhere any article advise seriously people about that.... They speaks most of the times about costly products supposed to be a cure for ONE only of the embeddings....But no single product by itself can resolve the acoustical embeddings and the electrical embeddings.... Perhaps one product like the springs can help for vibrations, but even in this embeddings only one product or device cannot optimally do the job for all pieces of gear.... It is here that learned listenings experiments helped me toward my own original solution, especially with the acoustic embedding... It is more fun to learn to listen between experiments than buying illusions .... It takes only time..... In a word: Try to create the material varying conditions that will gives to you the necessary feed backs variation controls that will transform your passive hearing capacity into an active listening organ.... The room is the ear and the ears are the room, you then must learn to work with the 2 at the same time.... last word: Some people argue that the sound memory is very short lived then illusory....It is not totally true...I dont record sound memory by itself in my body, what is recorded is the pleasure/displeasure associated with certain sounds impression, the emotion is enduring not the sound memory by itself....I remember then not the sound directly, but my body remember his reaction to the sound and recreate the emotion like a response/habit, this is these emotional responses that are encoded in my body and that will serve me like some steps in a feed back loop of learnings experiments.... Then learning to listen is learning also to retrieve in you some past emotion and recreate it....You then became active participant in your own hearing transformative process, not only a passive ear that recorded external facts.... There is no more pure external facts only (sounds); there is music, where any sound is a unique emotional conscious experience.... |
| Post removed |
There is a concept in economics that says "price rations the supply." This is usually brought up in a discussion about crude oil or soybeans. However, the principle will travel. If you manufacture 100 DACs a month and can only sell 35 of them your probably priced to high. But if 99 of them find a new home each month, your right where you should be. |
@mahgister and @duglas and others, I appreciate the thrust of your comments, and there is one significant piece that is left out of much of this discussion, which may be the largest determiner of the music experience: The quality of the listening. You may have perfect ears and still lack the stability of attention to receive the full musical message. This is not a small thing. Why are we not discussing our listening habits - the one component we all have some control over, which can be improved with ongoing reflection... My preference would be to share some discussion about how people listen and how they have worked with their listening over the years. My sense is that people don't notice how they listen, and often follow habitual patterns when listening. One interesting, and I think "audiophile" flavored example, comes from a post I read some months ago, where the person described how difficult it was to listen to his system for more than a few minutes, because he would become absorbed in criticism of his system. That may sound familiar, or it may not, but what is missing is the fact that everyone is facing "habits" in their listening that impact the experience greatly, probably much more than any particular component. If I sit down and my mind is restless the entire time, for example, it may be nearly impossible to enjoy anything coming my way. This shifts the focus ever more away from products and consumption to the person. Many people are chasing the wrong thing, not noticing how poorly or inconsistently they listen. And by the way, you may be able to detect differences at minute levels between various components and still fail to sit and relax enough to truly enjoy the music. So, the listening piece gets more personal, more internal, more real than the next DAC. Any thoughts? |
It’s all hype. There is no challenge to getting a clean accurate signal to the preamp. We don’t need to worry about dedicated power supplies or dampening vibrations. Just consider for a second that all that is needed is a $2 chip part.Amen..... After someone who affirm that only big money can afford audiophile experience, someone who says that there is no audiophile experience, no need of money, no need to think about that anymore at all.... :) What great faith..... I just this week bought cheap springs that increase my speakers isolation controls, am i deluded? The sound is way better....Placebo effect? Or perhaps it is your ignorance or indifference with some blinders to go with? Sleep with that, all is hype....Problem solved..... Amen..... :) By the way IT IS NOT THE PRICE that make audio experience what is is, it is simple cheap intelligent controls of the embeddings.... Read a page about acoustic..... That will enlighten you.... Ok i apologize for my rant.... I will let that like it is here..... My best to all..... |
It's all hype. There is no challenge to getting a clean accurate signal to the preamp. We don't need to worry about dedicated power supplies or dampening vibrations. Just consider for a second that all that is needed is a $2 chip part. But that's no fun for this board. As you move up the price range beyond quallity speakers and amplification you are dealing in mysticism and snake oil. I enjoy stacked Eminent Technology LFT 8b's amplified with two dynaco stereo 400 series ii amps through a B&K cheap preamp mostly listening through audio engine blue tooth receiver. All cheap stuff and when I have listened to $100k systems I do not hear something better or even equivalent. sorry. |
Audio is not about an upgrading race, not about buying costlier components at all... This is a truism, or a common place evidence that costlier gear can be better.... Audio is about creating the best conditions to experience a good S.Q. Thinking that money only can buy that is ignorance.... Saying that costlier gear are better is a common place argument devoid of any originality.... In audio we must use a minimum of brain power to identify the problems and after that solving them.... My experience is that this does not cost much money....It cost fun work and time.... Then am i a fool completely deluded or is it possible to reach something acceptable and very good at low price? yes i know that by my experiments.... ANY system MUST be embedded mechanically, (minimizing vibrations/resonance)electrically (decreasing the noise floor) and very important located in an acoustically controlled room... Any relatively well chosen audio system at relatively low cost may sound marvellous, if its embeddings are well done.... ANY..... Contradicting that saying that i never listen to 100,000 dollars system is logically a sophism.... When you enjoy a good S.Q. it does not mean that there is nothing better than your system, it means that you are no more obsessed by sound race to upgrade at all cost, because you have it in way so satisfying that throwing money is ridiculous.... But i know it by reading all threads all this years most people dont have a clue how to reach some S.Q. level except buying costly gear....I was like that.... And saying to people they will never have a clue about good sound without paying a fortune is not only false it is pure ignorance about audio creativity and experience.... Consumerism is not audio..... My best to all.... |
listening99, forgive me for offending you. I felt offended several times back when I was a budget audiophile. Nearly any honest criticism of my equipment or methods was cause for disgust. But, looking back, those critics were right. FYI, The terms "objectivist" and "subjectivist" are not particularly name calling in the sense of calling someone a fool, but are used widely in the industry and among hobbyists as descriptors of methodology. I have spent enough time on this. Blessings to all. |
@Listening99 This forum is a microcosm of our larger culture. I appreciate your pursuit of truth- in this case in DACs, but I am guessing based on your writing skills this is standard for you. I would probably thoroughly enjoy a shared skull session on a variety of topics. I do get discouraged when I see the attacks, especially when I believe we all have similar goals and a shared appreciation for music. I am not certain how old you are, and please don’t feel disrespected if I offer some unsolicited advice. Days may seem long, but years will fly by. Chasing the truth too vigorously can rob you of simply enjoying. Peace be with you. |
Those discrete R2R DACs are expensive even back in the day when they ruled. Yes and there’s circuit board layout, earthing , filtering, output stages it all adds up. IMO though it’s not relevant to how it sounds unless it’s been purposely designed to not be accurate. The only connection DACs have with the "outside world" is the output terminal. If we measure the magnitude frequency and phase well beyond anything a human can hear does it really matter how it was achieved? DS, R2R , which brand of chip, exotic components? If the output is accurate what difference does it make ? I don’t even know what DAC I have, what chip it uses no idea. I know I have class D amps but no idea what brand. They’re inside my active speakers and all I know they are the most accurate most detailed, smoothest speakers I ever heard. That’s where the rubber hits the road , the speaker, it’s the least accurate component with the most distortion in the chain, along with the room. |
There are many assumptions or assertions buried in the original question and several replies. First, the DAC chip is a small part of the cost of a DAC, and in the case of the R2R Schiits, know that they had to do a bunch of custom work to use those AD DACs since they are designed for instrumentation and therefore glitch. Engineering is expensive. next, for those who think most high end is just marked up a lot - reality check. This industry sucks financially. yep, manufacturers can charge what the market will bear, but the market won't bear much. Why? Lots of people want to be in the business and try their hand at design. When supply rises, prices and markups fall. That’s the invisible hand at work. Want to make money? get into something like cement. Nobody finds it romantic. The cost of almost any piece of electronic gear (speakers, aka furniture are similar but different at the same time) is driven by, in rough order:
R&D is a slower and more prototype-intensive process than most since measurements only take you so far in high end. An aside, I’m beginning my DAC journey. I have three very early prototypes running. All use very different DAC chipsets. And yet, i have managed to make them sound fairly similar with the characteristics i always strive for. Lesson: the DAC is not the determining factor. Not saying I’m happy with any of these designs - they are are early days. I'm only saying that different chips wind up sounding the same when similar engineering recipes are applies to them. In DACs you will find (or ought to!) multiple power supplies, and lots of money spend to contain and reduce noise - ground noise, radiated noise, reconstruction noise, blah, blah. Costly clocks and multiple series timing circuits. Isolation efforts between stages. A few dollars her and there add up. G |
@djones51 Have you paid attention to the new Denafrips GAIA DDC unit that recently came out. From a connectivity stand point it would be very convenient for me. A single Sonore microRendu connected to a GAIA which is then connected to a multiple DACs which as connected to separate preamp inputs. That is the convenience part for someone that is looking to get a few DACs into the system. I wonder about the claims of sonic improvements. I have the Benchmark DAC3B. Looking to add the Audio Mirror Tubadour SE, and maybe something else if I win a lottery. Any opinions on the GAIA? |
Jitter isn't a problem for well designed DACs. Take the little Schiit Modius at $199 on the USB input, even for all the talk about problems with USB, Jitter comes in at -150 dB much better than it's toslink and coax inputs where it hovers around -120dB. Of course none of this is audible. It just shows how far engineers have come if a company can produce a DAC in the US for $199 with the measurements this little DAC has. |
@ovinewar and @cal3713 What (we) faced in here was a discussion thread I had begun that soon turned into an assault on one person's character, not so much their point-of-view, a point-of-view that wasn't asserted with any sort of bellicose tone. Maybe you could infer some head scratching or undertones of disgruntlement in the framing of the viewpoint of the person who was subsequently attacked. In fact, the attack messages went beyond attacking the person to name-calling, using words like "objectivist" in a context that blurred the line between the person that was initially attacked and my own efforts to study the workings and relevance of DACs. For instance, people have made a huge deal about jitter, and I noted that one business has been selling a reclocking device at great expense, from my viewpoint, at $8000 dollars. The latest Schiit DAC, the Modius, is claimed to have extremely low jitter, so what are we looking at in this apparently budget friendly DAC? It sounds like it kills off the reclock giant at this level of application. Hell, maybe the Modius would sound amazing, plugged into a $50,000.00 system. I'd like to see if someone has the guts to try it, because I think it takes serious courage to examine one's attachment to money-results, at all levels, and so it may well be that you or I were caught at a price point, unawares. Unawares that the purchased product ultimately performed much the same as something at a vastly lower price point, etc. The response I received offered no input into my interest in studying DACs, but was fixated on the idea that the motives of my thought were tied up in impulses "chintzy." It was a lovely moment, one outside of any precedent or standard for quality service in the face-to-face world of business in a high-fidelity audio store of the kind I frequented regularly until the pandemic. To be more clear: I've never had a salesman, reviewer, nor a fellow hobbyist accuse me of being "chintzy," and I know the person who lobbed the stone is in the business, although in this instance he has taken up a role that has nothing to do with good business practices, good service, etiquette, etc. So, I'm on track with the question of how we relate to one another, herein. Those attempting to deal with people that make all or nothing claims are advised to keep their focus on issues, on their experience, on the reasoning, on the available data, on the knowledge base that is available for these products, their interactions, their limitations, etc. Treating rudeness, or limited points-of-view with rudeness creates and magnifies the very problem of disagreeable moments in the forum. The sense was that two or three people entered the space, continuing a line of attack started elsewhere, appearing oblivious to the new thread, context, and people, myself among them. I am all for discussing the character of interaction that best serves useful discussion.
|
I bought it in a lucky streak of bids....But if you look for one used, for about 150 dollars you can get one.... Christophe Mariac is the designer of this dac.... His price were upgrade just after i bought mine....I read a lot before buying this dac and never come back.... For my audio journey, the most rewarding part were not the upgrading of some electronic components but the work to embed what i have already.... This completely transform my audio system and my understanding of this hobby....I dont sell anything..... All my device are simple and homemade or very low cost for the springs or the Schumann generators(10 dollars each i own 10 ).... Mechanical embeddings: If you put good isolation under your speakers and gear it is a beginning.... I just put some springs....With success....It is low cost..This embeddings can be take care of with many solutions.... I use a "sandwiches" of different materials(quartz,granite plates, sorbothane duro 70, cork plates, bamboo plates) for my amplifier and dac .... Springs under the speakers and a load to damp them(70 pounds) and to compress the springs.... electrical embeddings: Try my "golden plates" on top of your electrical main panel.... Shungite tile+ copper tape on the external side of the application....I use them on the external electrical meter of my house, on the main touter, behind my speakers electronics, on my conditioner, all along the electrical grid.... This is relatively low cost for the cleaning all along the line.... Cost around 500 dollars....But which device at 500 dollars can lower the noise floor of the house all along the electrical grid and which you can use with this flexibility? Try a couple of these plates and if you enjoy the changes go on with more.... The loss will not be big if not.... Acoustical embeddings: This one is the most impactful embeddings but a bit more complex to do.... I use materials essentially homemade and low cost to do a basic treatment.... I use my ears to do it for my liking...This is PASSIVE acoustic treatment.... I simply use a balance between reflective surface, absorbant one and diffusive devices.... I also devise many ACTIVE acoustics controls but you must read my thread to have an idea and many people would call me crazy.... But it works for me and my system is more than good for me now...But all these active controls are possible in a dedicated audio room not in a living room with your wife to convince :) I cannot describe the acoustic solutions i create for myself here.... My thread is " miracles in audio.... " here on Agon... All my devices are simple, low cost and very efficient... At the end with almost any good electronics you will get audiophile experience if you take care of the embeddings.... If you have questions i will give you the information if i can.... My best to you.... |
@mahgister What I'm understanding is that you propose a very involved process of "embeddings." You haven't gone into it and I'm a little timid about asking, as I don't want to be swamped... But I will bite, lightly: Can you give me a pointer or two that would result in a relatively low cost and low time investment? Or, are you selling this service? You pop in and comment on your DAC, but when I looked it up it cost something like over $200 and I did not see an option for returns... You said you bought yours for something like $25, or did I misread you? |
I have choosen my dac on the basis of the fact that his design is minimal....Not a cell phone dac but not too far i guess with internal battery to lower the noise... (suffice to inspect the internals to see the minimalistic approach) Every electronic component in a piece of gear will add noise, it is always a trade-off...Then a minimal dac seems to me a good idea and it was retrospectively an illuminated choice....( confirmed by no negative reviews at all anywhere.)(the fact that some better dac exist at high cost is not a counter argument for sure) That was a good choice for me....I forgot to underline that in my other posts, and this is the basic fact that guide me in my choice : minimal design then low cost and low noise.... The engineering of dac is very complex and without engineering background very difficult to understand completely.... If someone want to understand all alternatives for dac design one hour reading will not do the job...More like one month to the introduction.... :) For myself i never wanted to immerse myself in this particular study but only to buy the cheapest and the best at the same time to solve my audio problem....My other purchases for a dac being if not atrocious not very good to my ears.... One thing i realized very rapidly is the fact that dac design is a field of audio engineering that is booming and all these cost associated to research must be paid by the customers...And all research is not always about the minimal design with optimal quality but rather the better performance in the absolute at all cost, never mind the price...Normal these dac engineers are enthralled by their research of the top high end results.... Another thing i realized, is that some old piece of technology and cheap piece, like the chip TDA 1543 at the basis for example of my dac, was always seen to be very good and exist since the beginning of this technology.... Then a minimalistic design around one of this electronic chip seems to me a bargain in money and for the given sound quality.... I was right....Like i said no come back.... I dont want today or will not want tomorrow, invest money to beat the quality of my dac with a little margin by paying many thousand of dollars.... The last discovery i made was to be crucial for me and totally underestimated; never mind the price of the dac, the resulting S.Q. of any system is more related to the rightful mechanical,electrical, and acoustical embeddings than from the design of the dac only at any price.... And what is the reviews value of different dacs comparison in a non controlled embeddings? No great value...The first dac i bought believing these reviewers was a bad choice.... I was right for dac, price and S.Q. are not linearly related at all, especially under 2000 dollars....And the booming research make obsolete swiftly the last costly hyped dac of the year.... I decide to go with minimalistic, low price,low noise,universally praised product..... I was right.... I hope my post will be useful, many people look for not only a decent dac but a very good one, at low price like me.... My best to all.... |
We each approach this, including the way we treat others in this forum, in our own way, as we do most other things. We can use the language, "The only thing getting between advancing the training of one's dog is the owner of the dog." Yes, that's right. "The only thing resisting the improvement of aesthetics of one's interior design is the person in charge of that interior design." You can turn that lens on anything, and yet not everything needs that lens - for instance, we probably should be very tactful in applying our lenses to the behavior of others. The art hanging on my wall is my art, fits my desires and preferences. I buy my art based on a very long history with art and yet, I wouldn't walk into your house and say you have bad tastes, when you are on your very own path in discovering and responding to art. I also wouldn't call you names and act as though I was somehow helping you "upgrade" your artistic sensitivities, by calling you a name. Learning just doesn't work well that way. We really have discovered that antagonizing the student, demeaning the student, calling the student names, punishing the student does not, neither in the short nor long terms, produce a better student.
You wish me to apply your lens, @douglas_schroeder , and I think it would have been worth your time to take notice that I fully embraced your call for "data." I applied your lens. It's worth putting more effort into noticing the things that already meet your interests and alleged requests/standards... So, your rendering and application of "chintziphile" rides on your own motives, which appears to be to sell me, and others, more costly equipment. Maybe it's part of a competitive approach that has often worked for you? Maybe you think I "need" your "vision" or experience of high-end components. You certainly aren't, in the preceding content, evidencing a high-end interest in discussing the finery of the available technology, even when it (possibly) shows up in lower cost equipment... That's fine. I've heard your argument. It includes a tendency to call people names when they do not share your value system... I could push the button a lot harder on this, but if you want to roll around in it a bit, I know you are much more intelligent than you initial spitballs reveal... Are you the kind that has decided his value system should be shared by all? I doubt it, because part of this sort of thinking depends on putting others down as though they are somehow less valuable for their own ways of seeing and processing... I would imagine, if I owned a number of $10K+ components from your list of favorites, you would offer a contrasting set of salutary phrases, very uplifting, even exalted phrases, without knowing a real thing about me, and without much caring, by the way. It's fine to be absorbed by high-end Mercedes Benzes and lean "taut" bodies. That's all fine. I get the attraction, the sexual and visceral basis of your thinking and what moves you. Go for it! I've driven many MB's in my life - I get what it's all about - the "image" of it all, the interpretation of "power" that such things appear to command. Not a bad ride, nice 'finish' work, ok motor, but I'm much more interested in other values when it comes to my buying power, and my ownership experience. In here, I'm more interested in understanding the tech - that's one of my values, so when someone made the critique that this thread obviates "learning," I ask you to give me some insight into how my experience enjoying much deeper richer bass from my fire-bottle might be calculated in terms of THD+N or other factors, and how this might be an analog to desirable DAC tech, perhaps evidenced in more AND less costly examples. At some point, the claims to "better" will interact with what we know about things, what we are learning. The engineers are clearly in touch with this... what kind of background do you have, other than "reviewing" the tech? How well do you know the tech? I don't think you really want to be lectured, who does? But I see the importance of laying bare motives. I want to know how DACs work - what is in them and what does it do? I am permitted to develop a thread on this very topic. .... I don't have any interest in endless claims about how amazing things are in the DAC world of $5000 to $90,000 components, or that there's something wrong with me because I don't have the money to spend on a $5000 DAC. If that's your interest, Mr. Shroeder, please move on. You claimed you don't like to argue, and yet you immediately started out within the components of argument, and quickly moved to what is commonly known as the "ad hominem" fallacy, which distracts from the claim and evidence, while moving to a focus on character. You then doubled-down on character, claiming that somehow you have been able to rise from that grave situation, while never addressing any of the interesting points raised in the posts you were allegedly addressing. You found the points agitating and at odds with your values, so you struck out, so let's have the value discussion... I'd like to start with valuing the people I'm talking with. I appreciate many different points of view, regarding the technology. I'm not here to assess your character, based on your buying preferences, or your methods of conducting reviews. When I read one of your articles a few months ago, it was clear to me that I was studying a mind that is strongly drawn toward things that cost and look a certain way, and that's fine. I am also interested in some of that, in some places, but I'm absolutely much more satisfied with my Toyota than I would be owning most of the MB's I could afford. I love that my seven year old car will likely go 200,000 - 300,000 miles without any serious service needs. To me, that's smart shopping, smart tech, smart living. That's part of my value system. I don't feel a need to make $200K a year, nor buy $10,000K stereo components, because I make choices that give me a hell of a lot of mileage for pennies. This is an example of the notion that wealth is relative. How would you feel, driving most Toyotas? Maybe you do see the intelligence of owning such a vehicle, and I would be interested in hearing the values you associate with a Toyota... I found your call for evidence concerning the possible sonic differences between the top 20 measured DACs, from but one reviewer, quite reasonable. I also called upon you, to provide some "data" for the counterclaim that might be drawn out of the thread you had teased out. Your response was to ignore the entire post and ignore all of its substance. Your response was to mostly ignore the call for deeper analysis and discussion. I would love to hear the result of your mind entering into a conversation with the data results of the testing done on the Modius... Your "past self" was a chintziphile? I think he was much better than that, probably preserved a little innocence and sense of adventure in the wide open field of audio. The joy is in the process. In the 80's and 90's I spent day after day, and hour after hour, FOR YEARS, visiting local high-end stereo shops, where I auditioned EVERYTHING and talked to the sales team for hours. They loved it; I loved it. I bought a lower cost pair of Vandersteen (2ce) and kept them for over twenty-five years. Was that chintzy? None of those salespeople every claim the purchase of a Yamaha AVR was chintzy. My purchase of a 15" velodyne subwoofer was also never sold with the added judgment of "chintzy." Never in all of my face-to-face communication with people selling audio in high-fidelity stores have I encountered a person who wrote off my joyful interest in the tech as chintzy. I think it's worth thinking about these encounters as though they are to be valued on par with face-to-face interaction. It is the screen, the anonymity, and other factors I won't describe (I might, if pressed) that are supporting the IMPULSE that it's just fine attack character when someone else is behaving in ways that run counter to one's own values. Can you imagine buying things at on ground stores and having sales people spit on your character because you decide to buy within your own comfort zone? Let people be themselves, let them conduct their audio search in their own way, if they aren't hurting anyone. |
We think the same then for this matter.... My main point, coming from my audiophile listening experiments and experience, is what people think about the sound of their dac, often comes from a wrong mechanical,electrical and acoustical embeddings of their audio system.... Dac are the most difficult component to buy without trying it....And very good one at low cost difficult to spot.... My best to you |
Mahgister I agree some are more transparent than others, sometimes the ones that measure great sound like hifi and not like real music and some that don't measure as well sound closer to real music. I do not believe the measurements we currently use are always an indication of how something is going to sound. |
@listening99 I am not trying to shut anyone down, but it is also important to talk about how people on this forum are constantly taking the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument approach rather than just trying to help educate others by sharing their experiences and impressions. I hope the tone will turn around because this is the place I learned about all of my gear. Never would have found it without the contributions of many posters. And as @grannyring accurately points out, the aggressiveness that's so prevalent has driven away many of the voices who were here just to share, educate, and learn. It's a shame. |
They aren’t even audibly transparent.Some are more audibly transparent than others.... It is a relative quality for which the criterial judgement is linked to the perception of a tonal timbre instrument accuracy.... The more accurate an instrumental timbre will be the more transparent the dac will be.... "Ideally" a good dac disapear to let piano or violin only in existence.... Numbers means something for the designer work, but it is the designer ears who judge at the end....Not numbers written on a white paper .... |
If it results in distortion then it is measurable. If it is above a certain level it will be audible. If it is audible then it’s a lousy DAC sell it to an audiophile and move on. DACs that are well engineered DO NOT have sound signatures they are considered audibly transparent:) I am an audiophile and i said all that a few post ago without insulting all these people who lives by the book of measures or any book........ |
If it results in distortion then it is measurable. If it is above a certain level it will be audible. If it is audible then it's a lousy DAC sell it to an audiophile and move on. DACs that are well engineered DO NOT have sound signatures they are considered audibly transparent I hate to break it to you, but no audio equipment is 100% transparent. |
I am not a fan of shutting down others voices. DJones is technically correct. The measurements are what they are. The difficulty in refuting his absolutes is that “transparency and measurements” does not always sound so great or the same. I have 2 transports with similar measurements- one I use daily the other is in a box. Why in a box? Because it doesn’t sound as good as the other. The one I use does have much better components. Does it sound better due to some yet to be discovered attribute? Don’t know, nor do I spend an inordinate amount of time contemplating. I have plenty of technical background but I also have travelled the world extensively and realize that some things buck current science. I also do not believe that big money is the only path to phenomenal anything. Big dollar components can be trumped by better application and synergy of lesser priced components. What’s wrong with audio being a mixture of science and art and magic? Last point, all of us have varying financial means, and similarly varying definitions of audio nirvana. It isn’t a zero sum game where ones win is another’s loss.i very much like your post and wise comments.... Thanks.... I will add my own comments about "what buck science" : Too much tools use dependency, not enough disciplined perception.....Something that, almost 2 centuries ago, Goethe called "delicate empiricism"..... |
I am not a fan of shutting down others voices. DJones is technically correct. The measurements are what they are. The difficulty in refuting his absolutes is that “transparency and measurements” does not always sound so great or the same. I have 2 transports with similar measurements- one I use daily the other is in a box. Why in a box? Because it doesn’t sound as good as the other. The one I use does have much better components. Does it sound better due to some yet to be discovered attribute? Don’t know, nor do I spend an inordinate amount of time contemplating. I have plenty of technical background but I also have travelled the world extensively and realize that some things buck current science. I also do not believe that big money is the only path to phenomenal anything. Big dollar components can be trumped by better application and synergy of lesser priced components. What’s wrong with audio being a mixture of science and art and magic? Last point, all of us have varying financial means, and similarly varying definitions of audio nirvana. It isn’t a zero sum game where ones win is another’s loss. |
Is my discussion a tactic? At least for me, it's not a "tactic". I was a Chintziphile many years ago. I'm simply discussing the ulterior motive that often accompanies the effort to claim that the differences in performance are not that great. The only thing that changed my perspective was the blessing of being asked to review, and consequently handling equipment in a different class than I ever would have considered buying. Apart from that, I likely would still be arguing along the lines of the objectivists in order to defend the wallet - and frustrated with the sound/experience. :) It's simply not worth arguing about it. Either open your wallet or not, and get the results you are working (or not working) for. If you don't want to spend money, feed your skepticism. If you want to build a superior audio system, get ready - you have to open your wallet. :) |
If you are newer to audio class leading quality per dollar $$ spent Are Denafrips, tons of awards, Schiit audio, Mytek ,and Bench mark, p.s Audio each one will have a different sonic character ,the most analog per $$ spent a Denafrips R2R dacs . the Denafrips Ares2 , the best dac under $1k on the market and best many at $2k , their Pontus at under $1800 IMO class leading In the next upper class like the .Schiit Yggsdrasil,Has also very good value but less forgiving of older,less refined recordings , and depending on what you are loooing for your system as a whole and it’s sonic foot print matter. Read as many reviews on the possible choices to get an idea. I bought several just on one reviewers opinion and it may have sucked in my system . Your budget too will have a lot to do with ultimate refinement . A lot of possibilities, p.s when a company gives you 2 weeks audition it is worthless imo digital takes a solid 300 hours + to truly settle in being so low a voltage say compared to a Power amplifier to be at its best I have had dacs that took 150 hours just to start settling in and being less bright ,several factors there as to why and digital cables too effect the sound ,and take time to runin over 40 years at this ,I hate running in new gear for that is when you have to go through hearing it at its worst ,unless you have a backup system to just put it in .besing an Audiophile can be great but sucks when trying to voice your system to your specific sonic goal,or expectation. Having owned a Audiostore in the past and overspending many times. ,and more then a nice home on Audio .as I get older I look for best value , for when you get to a certain point you may have to spend 2xthe cost or more just for a 5% increase in Fidelity ,there are No guarantees ,cables one area where there are many way over priced out there ,and all sound different . Budget your purchases myself Loudspeakers spend the most you can afford , and digital second IMO for it is the sourse you can’t make up a lost musical signal downstream . Then both amp,preamp,or integrated ,cables never go cheap ,or weak link In the chain. Just my observation ,nothing more. |
There is some things way ver priced but fantastic DCS is a premiere digital company you can spend $90k on their top effort Dac, power supply, and super clock with temp controlled ovens the most realistic in sound quality quite possible but at a extreme cost. If you are that wealthy a $300 k system will put most to shame ,the point is state of the art costs $$$. |
Those are some pretty awesome statements, @cal3713 and @douglas_schroeder and @grannyring Your tactic definitely pinches the sarcasm nerve, in me. So, maybe we can be clear here: there is no space here for conversations that get at the heart of value questions relative to your bottom line? I didn't realize there would be police of this kind, in here, but there certainly is... Let's at least talk, for a moment, as "men," as they once said. I suppose you could have simply tossed me out, so why are you playing with me? Why the group escort? Am I not permitted herein to inquire as to the actual significance of claims related to power supply, OP amps, and compression in the output impression of low cost DACs? This would appear to me to be an excellent place to truly get at these issues, to learn about them, etc... |
@grannyring Sad but true. When I'm building I also spend time on diyaudio and the difference is so stark. People genuinely trying to help each other vs. the cock fights that always break out here. That said, if there's a better place to find out about new gear, I don't know it. I wish we could just fix the culture here. Thanks for all your contributions. I've just about finished replacing all the signal wire and rca connectors throughout my system and thought about you when I gave it a new title: "Nothing is Sacred." Thanks for all your posts and for encouraging people to treat our equipment like the platform it is and not a piece of jewelry. And let me know if you ever find an alternative community... |
I’m fairly new around here, and I think just about everyone comes with a mixed bag, myself included. In the current thread, djones has maintained an argument with a respectable degree of focus. If counter-arguments are worthy of consideration, simply present them and argue them with clarity and useful, as Shroeder put it, "data." I don’t doubt that there are equal, perhaps even better ways of explaining things...? Again, I’m somewhat new, only a little over one-hundred posts. I’m here because I love music. I’m interested in serious scrutiny of the issues at stake. I (I think) have had only one person respond to my questions about how power supply, compression and OP amps might be reflected in measurement data. I’ve heard a number of claims and critiques on the basis of power supply, OP amps and compression, so who has the background to make authoritative claims on these matters. Yes, one person did offer a few quite friendly comments, from what I could detect, but I would love to learn more, if you have a moment... Only one has (apparently) taken up the work of looking over the "data" for the new Modius DAC, which posts a THD+N of as low as .0002 per channel. What does that data contain? One person claims the THD+N would also include power supply noise. @audioman58 claims: ...digital jitter,noise artifacts do matterWith genuine interest, I’d like to ask those of you with considerable experience with these somewhat technical matters, and even those with less than considerable experience, and I include myself in the fairly low of the less end of the latter, to take a look at the "jitter" statistics for the Modius - I’m posting the "measurements" data/process after this paragraph.... It sort of embarrasses me that I might look like I’m trying to sell the Modius. I haven’t even heard it, frankly, but it has received many good reviews, a few exceptional reviews, and a little bit of mixed reviews. I ordered one and it should arrive in a few days. I’m prepared to spend more, but I don’t see a reason to do so if I don’t have some sense of improvement on the basis of my research... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/schiit-modius-balanced-dac-review.13769/ What I read is a claim that the jitter, for the Modius, is VERY low, amongst DACs. I know a guy - must be VERY technically adept - on here was pedaling his $8000.00 reclocker, and I know it addressed jitter, so it seems "jitter" is viewed as extremely important around here. Does 8000K for a reclocker look like a sign of importance, to you? So, does the posted review point to a new level of jitter reduction skill available to the low-cost DAC, at least in this instance? I know so little about the tech that I’m at the mercy of all of you when it comes to the role of a reclocker. I was told it impacted jitter, but it really could impact gamma rays, for all I know... are gamma rays part of the sound experience? @mahgister probably knows. Transparency does seem to be a valuable issue, or standard, in this discussion, and how is this equated with a low THD+N? At what point does it become a concern, if it is abandoned? I do think @douglas_schroeder call for evidence is justifiable, AND certainly we can also ask him for evidence on the capacity to hear significant desirable differences across the top 20 measured DACs on the mentioned site. Data for a similar spread of DACs reviewed in like fashion would also work well, I think...? If the differences extend beyond the basic measurements, what are they really pointing to? Are we claiming that a "maxed out power supply" brings bass of greater weight? Is that weight measurable? Is that weight distortion? Maybe the word distortion has become "bad" and we need to ask out distortion might be helping things out. Nelson Pass seems to have a positive relationship with Distortion. He also says, "Don’t push the river," when it comes to design... Incidentally, I’ve just realized how much more bass weight come through my Dennis Had Fire-Bottle, compared to my Schiit Aegir. I hope I’m not downvoting a Schiit product here, but I’m being deadly honest. With 11watts per channel, the Fire-Bottle easily reveals potent bass. The Aegir, which might be more detailed in some respects, falls down in bass richness, some of the time. On the other hand, that detail can come through the Aegir with a liquidity that I have not heard in the Fire-Bottle. So, would any of these differences in bass come out in measurement? YES - I like the bass of the Fire-Bottle better than the bass of the Aegir, but it would be helpful to learn about what I’m getting, and when it comes to a DAC... would love to hear what you all know...! I will readily admit that there is the CENTRAL ISSUE of what sounds good. I am hearing a large number of people point to "analog" as the sound signature of preference, and it is interesting that some people buying DAC’s are doing so with the aim of achieving digital sources that can be made to sound analog. This probably points to a split in how DACs are designed. I understand - and I’m stretching beyond what I can say I know for certain - but, I understand the Nelson Pass is purposefully using distortion in relation to the second harmonic, which people very much enjoy. Tube amps are also designed with resulting distortion and that distortion (in some designs) imparts a feeling for greater soundstage and the illusion of more authentic substance in the expression of the notes of the various instruments. I mentioned bass, above. I am struck that DACs can be very simple and then they can include a fairly large complement of tubes, and people often pair one tube component with another solid state component. Generally and in my small experience, this has been seen in the amp/pre-amp domain, but some people may be seeking to moisten their systems with an expensive full-tube-complement DAC. So, these DACs may be intended to achieve very different things. Perhaps this is where I ask @djones51 if he may be overstating the value of a totally transparent DAC when some people have systems that lean dry, or very dry...? Perhaps the DAC is where the search for accuracy must be redeemed by some moisture, or some pixie-dust? |
