Six DAC Comparison

@fuzzbutt17 

I have a question that’s been bugging me for a long time, and I would love to hear your perspective as a manufacturer of well-regarded, high-end digital components.

Input choices on 99% of DACs out there boil down to AES/EBU, coax, TOSLink, I2s, and of course USB.

- Coax and TOSLink are based on a deprecated, bandwidth-limiting, early-1980s protocol (S/PDIF)

- I2s is a serial bus protocol intended for IC-to-IC communications over distances less than 10 cm (4") and inside components. Therefore, what audiophiles think of as I2s, running over 2-meter cables, well, it isn’t.

- Nothing wrong with AES/EBU of course, though it is intended as a balanced input yet, as you explained, it is often implemented single-ended.

- USB was developed to connect keyboards, mice, printers and such to PCs back in the day, and for charging small electronics with wall warts. Unlike S/PDIF it was never intended for audio duty.

Making these motley interfaces work in the context of high-end audio is, obviously, fraught. Manufacturers offer several input types on a product but only have resources to optimize one. Audiophiles spend untold thousands on cables, DDS, master clocks (as if they’re going to record Celine Dion and 50 musicians), oven clocks (as though they expect extreme weather inside their listening room). I2s "borrows" HDMI cabling but no one agrees on pinouts so they’re all over the place and components are not compatible. It’s kind of a mess.

Meanwhile, TCP is bit-perfect, uber-reliable, ultra-fast - it can carry multiple DSD1024 streams without even breaking a sweat, does not need a clock, and, when used over SFP, is galvanically isolating and impervious to noise. In other words, the perfect interface. Reliable, high-performing AOIP (audio over IP) protocols (Dante, AES67/Ravenna) have been around for years.

Which high-end audio manufacturers support AOIP?

As far as I know, none.

Why? Many audiophiles don’t understand digital. It would seem that eliminating the existing cluster would make digital audio easier to understand, more approachable, and therefore an easier sell.

@fuzzbutt17 - Very good explanation of you input choices for the new Mystique Z DAC and, like your other customers, I never heard a difference between the RCA/BNC input and the XLR input on any of your DACs that I have owned.

@mitch2 I was checking if you had the new Mystique Z in house?  Are you still enjoying the Helene?  I can't wait to hear what you have to say about the new Mystique Z.    I ChatGPT'd the PCM58P DAC chip and it said that it was a smoother laid back sound and really needed good parts around it to bring out the resolution.  

@brbrock - No, I have not received the Mystique Z DAC yet, but I am not surprised by the AI verbiage you mentioned.  I looked up Google’s AI, which indicated: 

"The Texas Instruments (originally Burr-Brown) PCM58 is a vintage 18-bit R-2R ladder DAC chip, and its sound signature is associated with the classic "multibit" sound. While its performance is not as precise as modern delta-sigma DACs, many audiophiles praise its musicality, dynamic quickness, and natural sound." 

They mentioned key characteristics of the PCM58 sound signature including:

• Warm and organic
• Convincing dynamics
• Natural timbre
• Wide soundstage
• Lower resolution/less detail (compared to modern chips)
• Implementation dependent

Based on comments that Benjamin has shared with me, as well as the AI verbiage, I expect to hear an emotionally musical flow with nuance, that is also smooth and organic sounding.   That description sounds analog-like however, as with many things in our audio hobby, there can be trade-offs between sonic characteristics such as smooth and rich vs. detailed and incisive, as one example.  The success of a design can depend on how well the various polarities can be integrated to result in proportions that are musically satisfying.  Even then, not every sound signature is going to satisfy every listener. 

Regarding the Aries Cerat Helene, in my system and in my opinion, it displays all of the considerable strengths of the Mystique X SE and takes a few of them a bit farther for a wholly satisfying result.  It is every bit as organic sounding as the X SE, with a bit less mid-bass warmth, and a touch purer sounding treble.  Tone is spot-on and there is a sense of liquid clarity overall that always serves the music.  The bass is deep and powerful and, to me, the Helene DAC performs well on all types of music, at least in my system.  

I really look forward to hearing the Mystique Z, and comparing that directly with the Mystique X SE and the Helene.

@mitch2 Another DAC I have interest in is the Audio Mirror Wave DAC.  I have seen a picture of the internals and it looks pretty nicely built.  Vlad the designer keeps his designs pretty close to his chest.  Vlad’s previous DAC’s used the AD1865N-K which is the same chip’s  as the Helene.  He said he wasn’t satisfied with the upper ranges so he switched to this new chip and was pleasantly surprised.  Lots of resolution with absolutely no fatigue.  He said the base has texture which he had never heard that before.  Now I realize he is selling his own product but he claims it’s better than the Helene and competes with the  Taiko DAC.