D/A converters

[Guest]

Apologies if this has been discussed before but I'd be interested in MBers experience of/recommendations for standalone DACs. I'm particularly keen on the Arcam rDAC, whose capabilities match my system needs rather well. The HRT Music Streamer II+ looks pretty good too, but only if one wants an asynchronous USB connection and nothing else. Also it's limited to 24/96, whereas the Arcam will crunch up to 192khz.

[Frances_iom]

I have the Arcam (or from related company) CD player with digital + USB inputs - the latter is fed from a little notebook with MP3s (~196kb/s VBR) to my no longer perfect ears it sounds fine for my listening - the CD player works well tho I did have to send 1 unit back because the CD tray mechanism failed. Prior to this I had a Cambridge Audia DAC which again was fine - better than my previous but by then somewhat old CD player which eventually failed hence the upmarket replacement

[jayne lee wilson]

I've used the Cambridge DacMagic since 2009 with wonderful results, in a fairly high-end context with ATC amps and Harbeth speakers, it's fed from a vintage Krell transport for CDs which can almost match the Macbook feeding it 24-bit downloaded files from ...all over. It does very well with AAC and other streams too, it's not so ruthless as to show up their deficiencies. Paul Miller, the excellent HiFi News ed. called the DacMagic (around £225) one of the best under £1000. They're revising it so take care which you choose, the latest version has a preamp attached, but there's a cut-down £170 version too. But to do better than the Arcam or DacMagic you'd need to spend a LOT more, say the Benchmark or Stello.

I've read the rDAC reviews, it often gets favourably compared to my Cambridge, and all the Arcam gear I've owned in the past has sounded pretty good on classical. The DacMagic has usefully variable filter settings, I tend to have "minimum phase" set for most recordings, sweeter and more spacious (default filter for most CD players is "linear").

Are you sure you need 192khz? No, I've never heard such files but there's precious few available ( a few at 2L, HDTT...), bear in mind the huge file size (around 2GB per hour) and download time...

Yes, if you include USB make sure it's asynchronous... otherwise a good optical lead, preferably glass fibre NOT "medical grade plastic" is best for isolating the DAC from electrical interference. I use Wireworld Supernova, but the Chord Optichord wasn't far behind despite being plastic.

Most of the hi-res download sites have pages devoted to getting the best out of 24-bit audio, the eClassical one is very good and actually recommends the Cambridge! You might still find the last model available. It's an exciting time for Classical recordings really, however few 24-bit ones there may be.

Apologies if this has been discussed before but I'd be interested in MBers experience of/recommendations for standalone DACs. I'm particularly keen on the Arcam rDAC, whose capabilities match my system needs rather well. The HRT Music Streamer II+ looks pretty good too, but only if one wants an asynchronous USB connection and nothing else. Also it's limited to 24/96, whereas the Arcam will crunch up to 192khz.

[Mahlerei]

Hi jayne

I was rather hoping you'd reply to this thread :) To be honest 24/96 is fine for downloads but I'm keen to get the most out of Blu-rays as well, the best of which are now recorded at 192khz. I'd probably use the rDAC with my iMac via USB for downloads and toslink or coaxial connection to my Blu-ray player. Any thoughts on coaxial vs optical?

[jayne lee wilson]

Most of the disc-playing digital sources I've tried did better with coax (detail, dynamics), though I should admit that these cables were a bit exotic (read: pricey) Well, I had it then... to get similar high-grade performance out of optical with a disc source it really would have to be a glass one like Wireworld or the top Arcam ones. But individual players vary A LOT (some designers don't take optical seriously at all) can you refer back to a dealer who knows the model? I've never played around with blu-ray, what about researching your model online?There's bound to be someone who's done it before. I noticed some of the Arcam's reviews commenting that the USB was by far the best-sounding connection, so...
Links don't work well for me, but Arcam's website has a good Computer Audiophile review archived.

Oh! If you buy a coaxial digital interconnect, make sure it's at least 1.5 metres long to avoid reflections back up the cable because of the typical impedance mismatch - especially if you don't have BNC (i.e 75 ohms) termination (rarely seen) . Could go on about it but we'll be here all night. I'll try to dig out a ref.

Nope, link don't work... Google on - Positive Feedback online, issue 14, S/PDIF Digital Cable. Good reading!

Hi jayne

I was rather hoping you'd reply to this thread :) To be honest 24/96 is fine for downloads but I'm keen to get the most out of Blu-rays as well, the best of which are now recorded at 192khz. I'd probably use the rDAC with my iMac via USB for downloads and toslink or coaxial connection to my Blu-ray player. Any thoughts on coaxial vs optical?

[Mahlerei]

jayne

Thanks for the tips; 'preciated.

[Dave2002]

There is more on this subject area over at http://theartofsound.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3

I tried the previous version of the DacMagic, and took it back to the shop. It was really quite good, but perhaps the DACs in my CD player and Squeezebox were comparable, so I did not get a significant improvement, as I'd hoped. I think that an external DAC can do good things for some equipment, but the gains will often be less if you start off with fairly high quality equipment to start with.

I did in the end buy a Beresford Caiman, which has been curious. The creator of these units claims that they improve with running in - and although initially sceptical I have to say that I agree, though the burn in period is perhaps only a week or two. Any individual end user cannot really be sure of this however, as one's ears adapt to the sound over time. That said, Stan says that he's run tests by taking a pair of DACs off the production line, doing a short comparison to ensure that they sound similar, then he puts one in a cupboard or drawer for a month or two, while running the other one. After a month or more the two are then compared again, and he assures us that the burned in one does sound different, and usually better.

You might say "he would say that", but I do believe him. His site seems to have been updated at - http://www.beresford.me/PP/Digital_Audio_1.html

Some of the people over at AoS have been trying other DACs, and one seems to reckon that a significant and affordable improvement is to buy a Schiit Bifrost from the USA - http://schiit.com/schiit-faq/about-bifrost/ There has also been interest in some home made units, and some using valves. One DAC which can be obtained from China ready built at under £100 has recently been considered to be good - though quality control and consistency is an issue, and there is maybe no guarantee that you'll get a good one, or even the same model as your friend whose unit you admired. DIY enthusiasts can turn a cheap board available for around £30, also from China, into something really superb, but it only costs about £400 to do the construction! Allegedly!

There has been interest in hi-res formats, and though some claim that 96/24 recordings sound better, most cannot hear the difference between these and 192/24 (or higher!) resolution recordings. Some recordings which have been made and claimed to be released in hi-res formats have in fact been found to be upsampled, or otherwise modded from regular sources,
so using such hi-res issues needs to be considered carefully. Also note that limitations can easily lead to reproduction being still at 44.1/16 or 48/24 if care is not taken, depending on the devices used. Some DACS will only work up to 48 kHz sample rates, while others can go up to 192kHz. Most of the new ones seem able to go up to 96 kHz, with a few up to 192 kHz. Some have restrictions on particular inputs, such as USB.

There have been cases of people connecting computers - e.g iMacs up to DACs with 96 or 192 kHz rates, yet not realising that the computer is still producing output at 48kHz (or 44.1kHz) - sometimes there has to be a change in the software, and sometimes this can keep reverting back to a default.

Other "concerns" which some enthusiasts seem to have is whether the digital connections are better done over optical or coax cable (for the SPDIF input) or what form of transmission protocols the USB interfaces for these DACs support. There does now seem to be much more interest in the use of what are being called digital transports (roughly "computers" to you and me), and these are good if you are prepared to store all your music in digital formats and stream it over networks. For people who just like to have units such as CD and DVD players, and to be able to put in a disc and play it, this can seem like a lot of extra, and perhaps unnecessary, mumbo-jumbo.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i use one of these, had it for some time so probably an older model, but love the sound it helps to achieve from mp3 etc ....

[Dave2002]

i use one of these, had it for some time so probably an older model, but love the sound it helps to achieve from mp3 etc ....

One of which?
Ah - sorry - didn't spot the link before.

After my previous post I found this comment on another board - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/co...s#comment-6011 - apparently from an audiophool!

I think it's very relevant. Although various transmission/storage formats can make a difference, the original recording has to be very good, and with good balance, dynamic range, frequency response etc. in order for most of us to think it really worthwhile.

[MrGongGong]

I usually use two of these

http://med.stanford.edu/ohns/atlas_sb/images/1.1_figure_8.jpg

but am mindful of the quality of XLR's that one finds in studios !
there's so much Hi-Fi woo about that one needs to be very careful indeed

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

apologies i think mood-lab are out of business and can find no web link to them so disregard alas it is a great bit of kit!

[Dave2002]

Mr GG

Not sure that they count as DACs! Arguably they might be ADCs, but then again not!

[Mahlerei]

MrGG

Thanks for the interesting obervations. The asynchronous USB connection bypasses the computer's sound card and lets the DAC do the work, which solves the output problem.

And for headphone listening on your laptop this nifty, bus-powered, asynchronous DAC from HRT looks pretty good:

http://www.audiofreaks.co.uk/boutique/hrt-music-streamer/hrt-headstreamer.html

[Spatny]

My HiFi dealer lent me an MSB Power DAC for a few weeks. This was absolutely amazing. I couldn't believe the audio detail. I must have spent hours listening to various sound sources and audio files through it. I was very sad to see it go. The only drawback was the price tag ..... £4300 !!!! I could not justify paying that much

There is one selling on eBay for £2795 now. I am tempted, but as it is a discontinued product it should be cheaper. The seller won't budge on the price.

[MrGongGong]

MrGG

Thanks for the interesting obervations. The asynchronous USB connection bypasses the computer's sound card and lets the DAC do the work, which solves the output problem.

And for headphone listening on your laptop this nifty, bus-powered, asynchronous DAC from HRT looks pretty good:

http://www.audiofreaks.co.uk/boutiqu...dstreamer.html

Like many people who have worked with pro audio interfaces for recording and live electronics I'm not at all convinced by USB audio, I know its much better than it used to be but firewire is much more reliable in terms of avoiding artifacts etc
I currently use this as a portable

http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/FireWire/AudioFire4/index.php

and borrow one of these when I need more inputs or multiple outputs etc

http://www.motu.com/products/motuaudio/828mk3

though I still use my old analogue ears