Dac help

I have no experience with outboard DAC's. Is it worth the extra money. I was thinking of improving my digital spectrum with a DAC.

I will be using the DAC with two items mainly:

-Sony DVP-S7700
-a donated PC from my Dad with a generic sound card. I will run itunes through the PC because I want the option of controlling my itunes library with my Ipod.

What is the deal with bit rates and stuff? I heard that 24/192 is better than 16/92 but then I read this from Stereophile article in 2000:

"Now I am sure. It is important to remember three things about all of these products: 1) other than making active the lowest 8 bits of a 24-bit word, no new audio information is created by any of these products; 2) as susceptibility to word-clock jitter increases with sampling frequency, it is always possible that upsampling audio data can make things worse, not better; and 3) no matter how good these upsampling products can sound—and the dCS, Bel Canto, and MSB products indeed sound excellent—there is no conceptual difference between them and traditional CD playback systems. I am now convinced that the sonic differences we have heard and reported on are due to the different choices in digital filters made by the designers of these products with respect to the number of taps, passband ripple, and stopband rejection (footnote 2), and to changes in the jitter performance."

-John Atkinson

So what gives. I am interested in the following DACs:

Grant Fidelity DAC-11
Cambridge DacMagic
Arcam rDac
MF-V-Dac

Confused.

I would go with the GF DAC-11. It is a multifunction DAC and can be used as a preamp. Plus it is a tube buffer and you can tailor the sound to your liking by rolling tubes. (I cant wait to roll a Vintage 1950's Amprex Bugle Boy E88CC in it). It can be used as a line stage preamp and headphone amp. The sound with the stock tube is nothing short of spectacular. I would say that it sounds at least as good if not better than the $1K Cambridge Audio 740c CDP that I used to own. My only beef with it is that the on/off switch is in the back of the unit integrated with the IEC socket. Ian Grant gave some BS about the sound quality being degraded by a front panel switch. It was just a cost saving measure IMO.

At $325 you could do a lot worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enochrome

I have no experience with outboard DAC's. Is it worth the extra money. I was thinking of improving my digital spectrum with a DAC.

I will be using the DAC with two items mainly:

-Sony DVP-S7700
-a donated PC from my Dad with a generic sound card. I will run itunes through the PC because I want the option of controlling my itunes library with my Ipod.

What is the deal with bit rates and stuff? I heard that 24/192 is better than 16/92 but then I read this from Stereophile article in 2000:

"Now I am sure. It is important to remember three things about all of these products: 1) other than making active the lowest 8 bits of a 24-bit word, no new audio information is created by any of these products; 2) as susceptibility to word-clock jitter increases with sampling frequency, it is always possible that upsampling audio data can make things worse, not better; and 3) no matter how good these upsampling products can sound—and the dCS, Bel Canto, and MSB products indeed sound excellent—there is no conceptual difference between them and traditional CD playback systems. I am now convinced that the sonic differences we have heard and reported on are due to the different choices in digital filters made by the designers of these products with respect to the number of taps, passband ripple, and stopband rejection (footnote 2), and to changes in the jitter performance."

-John Atkinson

So what gives. I am interested in the following DACs:

Grant Fidelity DAC-11
Cambridge DacMagic
Arcam rDac
MF-V-Dac

Confused.

---

For sound quality my bet would be the MF V-DAC2. For flexibility the GF DAC-11.

However, I'd suggest buying from somewhere with a very generous return policy. Some persons swear by cheap DACs and others don't hear any significant improvements over their existing DVD players, Squeezeboxes, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajani

For sound quality my bet would be the MF V-DAC2. For flexibility the GF DAC-11.

However, I'd suggest buying from somewhere with a very generous return policy. Some persons swear by cheap DACs and others don't hear any significant improvements over their existing DVD players, Squeezeboxes, etc...

---

I have heard that they both sound good. That MF-VDAC has a great midrange. Its hard to ignore the flexibility of the DAC-11 especially the head phone amp and the good reviews.

Heeding your advice about a generous return policy and favorable reviews, and a good reputation I think I am going to drive up to Newhall near me and visit Schiit Audio. There Bifrost DAC has sparked my interest. I am ignorant to all of this, so I am soaking all this info in. One thing that Schiit Bifrost does not do is upsample; they do not believe in it. What that means, the hell if I know. We'll see. The build quality looks exceptional though, as well the DAC board and USB board are swappable, so it is future proof. Whenever USB 3.0 comes out or DAC tech improves you can pay for a new board and they'll install it.

Bifrost Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enochrome

I have heard that they both sound good. That MF-VDAC has a great midrange. Its hard to ignore the flexibility of the DAC-11 especially the head phone amp and the good reviews.

Heeding your advice about a generous return policy and favorable reviews, and a good reputation I think I am going to drive up to Newhall near me and visit Schiit Audio. There Bifrost DAC has sparked my interest. I am ignorant to all of this, so I am soaking all this info in. One thing that Schiit Bifrost does not do is upsample; they do not believe in it. What that means, the hell if I know. We'll see. The build quality looks exceptional though, as well the DAC board and USB board are swappable, so it is future proof. Whenever USB 3.0 comes out or DAC tech improves you can pay for a new board and they'll install it.

Bifrost Link

---

I've read lots of good things about Schiit + their money back guarantee gives you the chance to see if the difference is worth it to you...

Please post your impressions if you do go ahead.

I'd go with the DAC-11 due to it's flexibility.

I have some trepidations about a DAC doing too many things reasonably well, but not one thing really well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enochrome

I have some trepidations about a DAC doing too many things reasonably well, but not one thing really well.

---

That has been one of my concerns with many DACs. Loading up with poorly implemented features is not a substitute for good quality. Compare that to say Benchmark; every time they add a feature they charge an extra $300 for it, but the feature is done well (even if expensive). Competitors will offer the same feature set for half the price, but the majority of the features are just mediocre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajani

That has been one of my concerns with many DACs. Loading up with poorly implemented features is not a substitute for good quality. Compare that to say Benchmark; every time they add a feature they charge an extra $300 for it, but the feature is done well (even if expensive). Competitors will offer the same feature set for half the price, but the majority of the features are just mediocre.

---

Exactly.

I wish I had the cash for a Benchmark. One is up for sale for $650 which is a good deal but still out of my price range. I'd like to stay around the 300 dollar range. I am not sure still if this is the way I want to go yet. Apparently my local dealer says that 32 bit is a numbers game. They have the Arcam rDac and the Music Hall 25.3 for sale. The Music Hall is the same as the Dac-11 but at twice the price. The Music Hall is friggin huuuuge! It is almost as big as my integrated. The toroidal in there must be LARGE. He said that the other guys from the shop went to CES in Vegas to see what the new DACs from companies that will be coming out. He said to come in next week and they'll tell me what they heard.

Oh yeah. I emailed Schiit to see about going up there. They emailed to say they have no showroom, just a factory, so I'll have to order from their site.

If you seriously want a good DAC for cheap, I can make a suggestion but wait for it.

Bear in mind that unless you have high resolution files, your source resolution is going to be 16 bits x 44.1 kHz. While most current DACs handle higher rez, input resolution isn't the core issue.

A practical issue is what are your connection requirements? Does the Sony have coax output or optical? How about the computer: does it have a coax or optical output, or (more likely) will you need to use USB?

I'm going to recommend the this DAC which I'm presently using myself. I was astonished by it's transparency although it won't give the sugar-coated sound will might get from certain tube-buffered DACs. It has both coax S/PDIF and USB inputs, (but no optical); personally I use only the coax because my PC sound card has a coax output. This is available on eBay, see HERE. It will handle 24/96 input but not 24/192 (on account of the DIR9001 receiver). You will also need a 9 volt, 0.5 amp, AC wallwort transformer to power it, but you're looking at under $100 with shipping. For that kind of money you could try it and if you happen not to like it, just pitch it.

Feanor, I always have a little problem with your comments about tubes sugar coating the sound. I totally agree with you that tubes add distortion but the fact of the matter is that every piece of electronic gear and speakers place their own unique signature on the sound. Thats why there are so many choices. You certainly have had gear that added warmth to the music- your monarchy amps. And now you are using a Class D Audio amp that has it's own unique sound, open, airely, wide sound stage, unique treble sound. I think we all have to be careful and realize that there is not a right or wrong when it comes to our taste in sound and what is the most correct or natural sounding. To me, the tube sound, sounds most natural and appealing with my Magnepans and even my PSB and Monitor Audio speakers. I even like a little added extra warmth because of the type of music that I listen too. But that's my preference. It doesnt make it right or wrong.

The Grant Fidelity is a bargain of a DAC for a number of reasons. The DAC gives you the option of running in pure solid state bypassing the tube buffer stage so that you don't have that tube "sugar coating" or you can run it through the tube buffer stage. One thing to note about the stock tube is that it sounds more SS than tube.

By the way Bill. I am not wanting to start a big debate. I respect your position on tubes and your audio experience. I am just stating an observation. I think that your recommendation of your DAC is a good one!

Sorry to get off topic here.

Larry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

Feanor, I always have a little problem with your comments about tubes sugar coating the sound. I totally agree with you that tubes add distortion but the fact of the matter is that every piece of electronic gear and speakers place their own unique signature on the sound. Thats why there are so many choices. You certainly have had gear that added warmth to the music- your monarchy amps. And now you are using a Class D Audio amp that has it's own unique sound, open, airely, wide sound stage, unique treble sound. I think we all have to be careful and realize that there is not a right or wrong when it comes to our taste in sound and what is the most correct or natural sounding. To me, the tube sound, sounds most natural and appealing with my Magnepans and even my PSB and Monitor Audio speakers. I even like a little added extra warmth because of the type of music that I listen too. But that's my preference. It doesnt make it right or wrong.
...

---

I quite agree, Larry. My comments are preference-based and need not cause anybody a problem. We're entitled to our preferences: you, me, and anyone.

Possibly even a majority people like the effects of tubes; "sugar coating" is just my pet way to describe those effects. I respect that you allow that tubes somehow add warmth, rather than just insist that the warmth must be natural because tubes are "better" amplification devices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

I respect that you allow that tubes somehow add warmth, rather than just insist that the warmth must be natural because tubes are "better" amplification devices.

---

I certainly disagree. While there are designs that tilt the tonal balance warmer (lower midrange emphasis, HF rolloff), that is NOT inherently what all tube designs do. ARC gear, for example, is anything but artificially warm. Additionally, line level electronics don't suffer from potential damping issues you encounter with tube amps and some speakers which can tilt the tonal balance.

What I find they (zero feedback triodes) do better is unravel the complex structure of harmonics better without sounding dry and artificial. The concept of any buffer "fixing" upstream tonal or distortion errors is a bad idea. As for DACs, I use one that employs a tube analog stage - not one with a pair of op amps doing all the work and relying upon a downstream buffer to somehow "correct" deficiencies. Unfortunately, most "tube DACs", however, fall into that latter category. You cannot build a two channel output stage with a single tube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

I certainly disagree. While there are designs that tilt the tonal balance warmer (lower midrange emphasis, HF rolloff), that is NOT inherently what all tube designs do. ARC gear, for example, is anything but artificially warm. Additionally, line level electronics don't suffer from potential damping issues you encounter with tube amps and some speakers which can tilt the tonal balance.

What I find they (zero feedback triodes) do better is unravel the complex structure of harmonics better without sounding dry and artificial. The concept of any buffer "fixing" upstream tonal or distortion errors is a bad idea. As for DACs, I use one that employs a tube analog stage - not one with a pair of op amps doing all the work and relying upon a downstream buffer to somehow "correct" deficiencies. Unfortunately, most "tube DACs", however, fall into that latter category. You cannot build a two channel output stage with a single tube.

---

I agree that tubes, (at least preamps), do not necessarily add warmth, though the characteristic is often ascribed to tube equipment. The Sonic Frontiers preamp I owned is an example of a tube preamp that does not add warmth.

However it is quite true that people often by tube buffers or tube-buffered DACs in order to warm, or at least smooth, the sound of their systems. Many claim that they are pleased with the results. To me this is proof-evident that this sort of tube equipment adds some sort of distortion to the sound because all the other offending components in the chain are still there.

BTW, the SF preamp did add some of that perceived "depth" also often ascribed to tubes. I;m confident this "depth" as added (rather than just passed) by this component because I didn't hear it when I removed it from the chain in favor of a simple potentiometer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

However it is quite true that people often by tube buffers or tube-buffered DACs in order to warm, or at least smooth, the sound of their systems. Many claim that they are pleased with the results. To me this is proof-evident that this sort of tube equipment adds some sort of distortion to the sound because all the other offending components in the chain are still there.

---

A buffer circuit consists of more than a tube. It contains resistors, capacitors, chokes, etc. which determine the electrical behavior of the circuit. Those passive components can alter the frequency response and thus the tonal balance. They can also change the feedback to tailor the distortion spectra. What I am saying is that you can design in warmth if that is what you want to do. Receivers from companies like Marantz and Pioneer from the 60s and 70s are favored by some because of their smooth and forgiving nature. How did they do that with solid state outputs? Their outputs were capacitively coupled with electrolytic caps which gobbles detail and any intrinsic harshness in its path. That *trick* has been done for decades - independent of the active device used. The buffer products you see on the market are driven by sales perception of folks wanting tubes, not necessarily the innate character of the tubes themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

BTW, the SF preamp did add some of that perceived "depth" also often ascribed to tubes.

---

It is also ascribed to added noise, phase issues and tonal brightness. Many "ambient retrieval" systems deliberately mess with phase response to create false ambience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

I;m confident this "depth" as added (rather than just passed) by this component because I didn't hear it when I removed it from the chain in favor of a simple potentiometer.

---

You eliminated an active gain stage which necessarily introduced a level of noise and less than perfect phase response. No surprise.

As for me, I get *more* perceived depth when I bypass the Audio Research SP-9MKIII with my attenuators because the resolution is slightly improved which renders ambient cues on the recording more evident.

edit: The first time I purchased double Advents was when I was 16 for use in a quad system using the Dynaco QD-1 "Quadaptor". It was the first of many "ambient recovery" devices which worked solely on blending phase difference information into the rear channels. Did it use a tube circuit to "create" the false ambience? Nope. It used two 25 watt resistors, a switch and three rheostats. At first, it sounded kinda cool with some notion of "hall ambience" on some recordings. In the end, I found it confused the image and sounded artificial. That's when I started stacking Advents.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/quadaptor.jpg

Click here for pics

In the latest issue of TAS, Harley is gushing over the new "qøl™ Signal Completion Stage". In a nutshell, it is a modern version of the Quadaptor. Steve Eddy posted the block diagram of it over at AA here. His assessment of the $4000 device was quite amusing.

Just a couple of points. First, clearly a lot of people expect added warmth and ambience from tubes -- and a lot of popular equipment delivers it. Accepting your arguments, which boil down to proper tube designs don't do these things, that doesn't explain either the popularity or the utility of tube equipment.

Secondly the Dynaco Quad adaptor, (which has a successor today in Dolby Prologic), delivered ambience by exploiting recorded out-of-phase info and sending it to rear speakers. (I used the Dynaco device myself for a time in the remote past.) But this has little to do with ambience from tube equipment unless you are contending that it is deliberately incorporated. If that's the case you could illustrate with an example or two. Also, would it not be a simple matter to do the same for s/s equipment?

Thirdly, I don't need to be convinced that s/s equipment can sound horrible. After all, I did own a Phase Linear 400 for quite a few years so I know the worst: ear-bleedingly sharp, grainy, and opaque.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Just a couple of points. First, clearly a lot of people expect added warmth and ambience from tubes -- and a lot of popular equipment delivers it.

---

Sure. Some brands like C-J are clearly voiced that way. Other tube brands like ARC, BAT and current VTL are not. Obviously, it is NOT the tube responsible for the different tonal balance characters using the very same devices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Accepting your arguments, which boil down to proper tube designs don't do these things, that doesn't explain either the popularity or the utility of tube equipment.

---

I'm not sure of your point. Whether the design is neutral or warmly voiced, many folks share the same perspective that they are capable of retrieving natural music harmonics in a superior way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Secondly the Dynaco Quad adaptor, (which has a successor today in Dolby Prologic), delivered ambience by exploiting recorded out-of-phase info and sending it to rear speakers.

---

Isn't that what I said - "which worked solely on blending phase difference information"? We agree!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

But this has little to do with ambience from tube equipment unless you are contending that it is deliberately incorporated.

---

If you were to broaden your exposure with a range of tube gear, I suspect that your perspective would change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

If that's the case you could illustrate with an example or two. Also, would it not be a simple matter to do the same for s/s equipment?

---

In order to do so, I would have to hear the gear that you opine introduces "false ambience" in order to assess that characteristic. I cannot relate. Using examples I've heard in the past year, I do not find that to be the case with Audio Research, McIntosh, VTL or Veloce gear.

I've already explained some ways to achieve false ambience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Just a couple of points. First, clearly a lot of people expect added warmth and ambience from tubes -- and a lot of popular equipment delivers it. ...

---

Sure. Some brands like C-J are clearly voiced that way. Other tube brands like ARC, BAT and current VTL are not. Obviously, it is NOT the tube responsible for the different tonal balance characters using the very same devices.
...

---

I was just repeating some of the most often stated reasons for wanting tube gear. If ARC, BAT, and VTL, (or McIntosh, et al.), don't have these characteristics but do have other, more elusive qualities of tubes, I'm unlikely to find out about it because that enviable high-end stuff is distantly beyond my means.

However I would be very receptive to recommendations for very moderately priced tube gear that lacks added warmth or fake ambiance but does have those other qualities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

However I would be very receptive to recommendations for very moderately priced tube gear that lacks added warmth or fake ambiance but does have those other qualities.

---

Therein lies the rub. Neutral sounding tube gear requires stiff and low noise power supplies along with high quality passive parts - especially the coupling caps. The progression of linearity from electrolytics-->mylar-->polypropylene-->polystyrene-->teflon has involved some expense. Your best bet would likely be used ARC stuff - which is the way I bought my preamp years ago. 'Agon, for example, has a couple of examples for around $1400 - an LS16 and SP16L.

On the other hand - like you, I don't use a preamp/line stage with digital sources since my source and amp are passive friendly and I am firmly in the minimalist camp. That might be different if I were to use a great SS amp like a Pass Labs or Bryston 28 because of their low input impedance and lower sensitivity. The only reason I keep mine (in both music systems) is for listening to vinyl.

I suspect that "traditionalist" tube lovers would find my systems too cold.

I like my tube gear because I can swap tubes and tailor the sound to my liking (I have 8 different pair of 6CG7's and they each have their own very different unique sound). In addition, I can't afford the high end SS gear that would give me the sound that my Van Alstine Tube gear gives me.

As far as the Grant Fidelity DAC-11 goes, the tube stage (even though it is just a buffer) has much more pleasing, smooth and transparent sound than the SS stage. Whether this is due to the tube or just better circuitry is moot. The fact of the matter is that it is a very good buy and a good sounding, versatile piece of equipment at a budget price

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

I like my tube gear because I can swap tubes and tailor the sound to my liking (I have 8 different pair of 6CG7's and they each have their own very different unique sound).

---

I guess I'm in the minority in that I'm not an avid tube roller. I experiment, but settle on what I think works best, both from a sound and durability basis. That is how I chose Amperex 7308s in the preamp, RCA 12AU7 Cleartops in the Manley DAC, SED 6550s in the VTL amp along with Sylvania 12AT7s and Sylvania or RCA 6350s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

As far as the Grant Fidelity DAC-11 goes, the tube stage (even though it is just a buffer) has much more pleasing, smooth and transparent sound than the SS stage.

---

To me, that concept is problematic. I find that transparency never comes by adding devices or stages. Unless of course you have an inherent impedance mismatch and downstream components require a lower Z out for them to sound right. You always have the ADA4075-2 op amps in the circuit doing most of the work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

Whether this is due to the tube or just better circuitry is moot. The fact of the matter is that it is a very good buy and a good sounding, versatile piece of equipment at a budget price

---

Analog Devices makes good op amps. There's an AD712 in the output stage of my GamuT CD-1 along with an OPA2134.

The thing is E-Stat is that both the SS and Tube outs go through the same op amp in the DAC-11. The tube out just plain sounds better.

I don't particularly like to tube roll but I was curious as too how different tubes sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

The thing is E-Stat is that both the SS and Tube outs go through the same op amp in the DAC-11.

---

As I observed about the ADA4075-2s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

The tube out just plain sounds better.

---

As I also observed, the buffer lowers the output impedance. Specifically from 600 ohms (a poor figure) to 20 ohms. The buffer's output is also greater which can reduce noise downstream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

The thing is E-Stat is that both the SS and Tube outs go through the same op amp in the DAC-11. The tube out just plain sounds better.

I don't particularly like to tube roll but I was curious as too how different tubes sound.

---

In some degree I finding it puzzling that adding circuitry to what is, itself, capable circuitry can "improve" the sound.

E-Stat mentions that the tube buffer lowers the output resistance from 600 to 20 Ohms. Fine, but if the downstream device input resistance is, say, the common 47 kOhms, 600 Ohms yields a ratio is 78:1 which is quite acceptable according to the wisdom I've heard. I suggest that the input/output ratio is unlikely to be the cause of the sound difference you hear.

All I can say is that the sound of the Tube output is way better than the SS output on the DAC-11 by a long shot. It's not even close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

All I can say is that the sound of the Tube output is way better than the SS output on the DAC-11 by a long shot. It's not even close.

---

What is better about it? I am still considering the Dac-11. What is the deal with the delivery person collecting the tax for the Dac-11 purchase; it is stated on their website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

All I can say is that the sound of the Tube output is way better than the SS output on the DAC-11 by a long shot. It's not even close.

---

When all is said and done, the DAC-11 sounds enticing to me and I'm thinking of going for one.

It looks like you can route either of the analog inputs through the tube buffer making it easy to evaluate the tube buffer apart from the DAC (as well as the DAC apart from the tube buffer).

I have a few 6922 tubes left over from the sale of my Sonic Frontiers preamp, so I can indulge in some tube rolling if I feel like it.

BTW, if I had the cash, I might indulge myself with the Yulong Sabre D18 DAC ($699; here). I'd like to here a Sabre-based DAC; the other popular option with Sabre chips is the Wyred4Sound DAC-1 or DAC-2 which are pricier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enochrome

What is better about it? I am still considering the Dac-11. What is the deal with the delivery person collecting the tax for the Dac-11 purchase; it is stated on their website.

---

Grant Fidelity ships from Canada so I'd guess they have opted to let the carrier collect whatever brokerage, duty, and/or taxes that might be required by Federal or State law. As I understand, some States collect a sales tax, some don't. Figure all this out and collect the exact amount in advance from the purchaser would be difficult if not impossible. I see they will collect EU VAT but the VAT is uniform across the EU so easier to do.

The tube out sounds smooth and detailed with a neutral sound. It has less digital edginess to it. The SS out seems bright when paired with my Class D Audio CDA-254 amp which is a brighter sounding amp. There seems to be more air and transparency with the tube stage.

I did not have to pay any tax here in Minnesota.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

The tube out sounds smooth and detailed with a neutral sound. It has less digital edginess to it. The SS out seems bright when paired with my Class D Audio CDA-254 amp which is a brighter sounding amp. There seems to be more air and transparency with the tube stage.
...

---

If the CDA is like the SDS then it is a somewhat bright sounding amp, though transparent and grain-free. I could handle the SDS being a less bright, and if the tube buffer makes it more transparent, so much the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

If the CDA is like the SDS then it is a somewhat bright sounding amp, though transparent and grain-free. I could handle the SDS being a less bright, and if the tube buffer makes it more transparent, so much the better.

---

Bill, I had to use 1 ohm resistors in my MMG's with the CDA and the DAC-11 to tone down the high frequency. I am going to try some 0.5 and 0.75 ohm resistors as the 1 ohm took too much energy out for the tweeters. Tube rolling is in my future with the DAC-11.

The DAC-11 certainly cant compete with $1K+ preamps or DAC's but
at $325 it can compete with many more expensive units. Plus it has a lot of versatility.

The Dac-11 is looking more and more appealing. What is really a selling point for me is the three outputs. I can send the direct dac output to my Jolida 502 and the tube out to my Acurus. I think I would avoid altogether sending my phono stage through as to avoid too many links in the chain. Also I personally don't see, and am apprehensive of the reason for adding a tube buffer to any phono stage.

What other DAC's use the Cirrus DAC chip?

Also, is their really a sonic difference in having opamps or discreet fets in the analog output stage? It seems the PS AUDIO DL 3 and Bifrost use discreet analog outputs while everyone else uses opamps. I see that a common mod for opamps is to swap the stock for Bursons.

Lastly, does anyone have a PS3? I ask because I realized that my PS3 gives me an upsampling option for when playing an album from its hard drive. I burn all the albums to the PS3 at 320 kbs AAC files, then play it at 176khz. I have to say that it sounds fantastic. It is smooth, warm with lots of air. I do use an adapter from the PS One I have that lets me use my own rca's. It does however not do well with playing cd's, they sound sterile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enochrome

...
Also, is their really a sonic difference in having opamps or discreet fets in the analog output stage? It seems the PS AUDIO DL 3 and Bifrost use discreet analog outputs while everyone else uses opamps. I see that a common mod for opamps is to swap the stock for Bursons.

Lastly, does anyone have a PS3? I ask because I realized that my PS3 gives me an upsampling option for when playing an album from its hard drive. I burn all the albums to the PS3 at 320 kbs AAC files, then play it at 176khz. I have to say that it sounds fantastic. It is smooth, warm with lots of air. I do use an adapter from the PS One I have that lets me use my own rca's. It does however not do well with playing cd's, they sound sterile.

---

A couple of asides, Eno.

I think opamps get a worse rap then they deserve. Modern opamps are very, very good and if discrete circuits are better at all then it's likely they are the ones in very high-end equipment. If some people like Burson it's likely because Burson has tweaked to sound to popular taste rather than actually improved performance -- which of course means they might be worth it if they are your taste. The Burson opamp replacements are a lot more expensive than opamps but still not all that expensive.

320 kbps can sound very good, though not quite as good as higher resolution depending on the music and the source records. I have a dark suspicion however: that 320 (or 256) takes the "edge" off the sound of many recordings making them sound smoother, which a lot of people will like. People need to decide whether this "dumbing down" is for them, of course.

You mention playing back at 176 kHz: is it your music player that does that and can you choose the oversampling rate?

Regarding DAC's - I recently acquired a Marantz SA8004 SACD player and yesterday tried out it's DAC connected to my PC through it's rear USB port and was shocked at how good it is. My DAC search is over.

Why aren't more players made with access to their internal DAC's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poultrygeist

Regarding DAC's - I recently acquired a Marantz SA8004 SACD player and yesterday tried out it's DAC connected to my PC through it's rear USB port and was shocked at how good it is. My DAC search is over.

Why aren't more players made with access to their internal DAC's?

---

That's a good question. THE answer, (if not necessarily a good answer), is that there is extra cost to interface with an external digital source. The manufacturer needs to add a S/PDIF receiver for coax; if the optical is also to be supported there is extra circuitry again. If USB is to be supported, again additional circuitry. And of course there the additional connectors and selector switches.

These additions aren't all that expensive but the manufacturer may feel that there won't be sufficient demand to generated to warrant even the modest extra build cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poultrygeist

Regarding DAC's - I recently acquired a Marantz SA8004 SACD player and yesterday tried out it's DAC connected to my PC through it's rear USB port and was shocked at how good it is. My DAC search is over.

Why aren't more players made with access to their internal DAC's?

---

In addition to the points Feanor made:

Many persons buying CDPs aren't convinced of the sound quality and/or convenience of music servers. External DACs (especially USB) are really aimed at the Music Server market. Hence manufacturers might feel that there isn't enough demand for CDPs with the extra functionality.

Persons (like me) who have gone the Music Server route would never buy another CDP, since it would be better to just buy a DAC than a CDP with DAC inputs.

Ajani - this will be my next move - into a music server. Basically it's due to my constant traveling that it's simply easier to cart my music in a hard drive or two than it is to try and lug the discs/lps around the world.

Soundhounds had a neat rig around the Soolos however that is far too expensive. Looking at that system closer it seems to me to be more about functionality and a cool touchscreen and I believe I am correct in thinking that something can be done considerably cheaper.

Step 1:

Buy an external hard drive - I did - a 1.5gig Western Digital portable - runs from the laptop.

Step 2: Load CD and copy to hard drive in lossless

Step 3: Buy a D/A converter that accepts USB

The issue is I HATE ITUNES - I hate it loathe it despise it! I really don't like it. I have an iPod and after using iTunes I wanted to throw the thing out the windows (har har - pun sorta intended).

I have a little Trends UD 10.1 USB converter here that I am not really reviewing but they lent it to me to make my connections. Since I have not heard any other such device I can't really review it because I have nothing to compare it against. But I wonder if this is worth buying at $199 6moons audio reviews: Trends Audio UD-10.1 USB

Ajani,

I didn't buy the Marantz SA8004 to use as a music server and didn't realize it had USB, optical and coax inputs. It's mission in life, as far as I'm concerned, is to make SACD's sound even better and that it does.

Here is the new high end Music Hall DAC

This is pretty much the GF-DAC-11 but with async 24/192 for USB and dual triode buffer.
But it's $900 more expensive. I think the difference of taste between the Cirrus dac chip and the Texas 1796 is negligible for $900.

The Bifrost uses the same AKM dac chip that is used in the Esoteric SACD players, from the company that made the infamous PS1 dac chip.

Right now I am interested in the reclocking ability of all these DACs. I guess what DAC chip you use can be compromised by the results of bit clocking if they are not done right.

Is there any difference in the type of transformer or power supply? Some use toroidal, like the GF-11, some use wall warts, and some use R-Core like the Bifrost and Music Hall.