Audio streamers

[Beef Oven]

I don't know if £600 is moderately priced (probably not), but I've been very happy with my Audiolab M DAC. Has a volume control and USB in - so could be used with an iPad and the camera connection kit.

Thanks Stunsworth. Was hoping to get out nearer £300!

[Stunsworth]

Something like this then...

http://www.richersounds.com/package/hi-fi-separates/dacs/pah011255

or this...

http://www.richersounds.com/product/dacs/cambridge-audio/dacmagic-plus/camb-dacmagic-plus-b

[Phileas]

Thanks Stunsworth. Was hoping to get out nearer £300!

Try this:

http://www.dv247.com/computer-hardware/focusrite-scarlett-2i2-usb-audio-interface--90034

Or even this:

http://www.dv247.com/computer-hardware/behringer-uca202-2-in-2-out-usb-audio-interface--32730

They're "pro-audio" products which means they'll do more for a lot less than typical domestic hi-fI products.

[Phileas]

I don't know whether such kit really does sound a lot better. My guess is that some may sound better, but £000s worth better is questionable.

I would say it almost certainly does not sound any better than any properly designed low-cost modern alternatives.
If you consider the fact that most of the circuitry in a modern DAC is inside the main chip, and that state-of-the art DAC chips cost a few pounds, you have to wonder what all the rest of the money is being spent on.

(I arrived at this conclusion after extensively "researching" the subject online.)

[jayne lee wilson]

I would say it almost certainly does not sound any better than any properly designed low-cost modern alternatives.
If you consider the fact that most of the circuitry in a modern DAC is inside the main chip, and that state-of-the art DAC chips cost a few pounds, you have to wonder what all the rest of the money is being spent on.

(I arrived at this conclusion after extensively "researching" the subject online.)

But which Dacs have you actually heard? Or lived with? I've trialled or lived with 4, at length in my own system, over the last few years. Heard several others in other systems... Shock, horror! the quality tends to reflect the price! Who would have thought.

To say "most of the circuitry in a modern Dac is inside the main chip" is bizarre. Have you ever looked at a few of them with the lids off? Surprise! The actual Dac chips are quite small. Or considered the manifold arrangements of Dac architecture (some have 1 chip per channel, some have 8), filter design & choices, frequency response shaping, power supplies, op amps (or the lack of them), solidity of build (case and chassis) isolation of digital and analogue sections... all these things impact upon sound quality, and the better the system you feed them into, the more you'll be aware of it, appreciate it and enjoy the result. Whether you think a given Dac is "value for money" is too personal a thing to generalise about.
I wrote at greater length about all this on Beef's other Dac/Digital thread, but as it got ignored (as usual), I'll stop now.

It's an odd prejudice about HiFi, that something seen as "expensive" (compared to what?) is often dismissed as a pretence, a put-on. Giant killers do exist - the Cambridge DacMagic is a great example. But you can do better if you can afford it, and take a bit of trouble to seek out and to listen (always on Sale or Return, of course!)

[Thropplenoggin]

But which Dacs have you actually heard? Or lived with? I've trialled or lived with 4, at length in my own system, over the last few years. Heard several others in other systems... Shock, horror! the quality tends to reflect the price! Who would have thought.

To say "most of the circuitry in a modern Dac is inside the main chip" is bizarre. Have you ever looked at a few of them with the lids off? Surprise! The actual Dac chips are quite small. Or considered the manifold arrangements of Dac architecture (some have 1 chip per channel, some have 8), filter design & choices, frequency response shaping, power supplies, op amps (or the lack of them), solidity of build (case and chassis) isolation of digital and analogue sections... all these things impact upon sound quality, and the better the system you feed them into, the more you'll be aware of it, appreciate it and enjoy the result. Whether you think a given Dac is "value for money" is too personal a thing to generalise about.
I wrote at greater length about all this on Beef's other Dac/Digital thread, but as it got ignored (as usual), I'll stop now.

It's an odd prejudice about HiFi, that something seen as "expensive" (compared to what?) is often dismissed as a pretence, a put-on. Giant killers do exist - the Cambridge DacMagic is a great example. But you can do better if you can afford it, and take a bit of trouble to seek out and to listen (always on Sale or Return, of course!)

You may find that people do read but are so in awe of your technical eminence in the subject that they feel unable to offer anything to the debate.

[Phileas]

Have you ever looked at a few of them with the lids off? Surprise! The actual Dac chips are quite small.

The question is, does all the extra circuitry add anything useful SQ wise? Double blind ABX listening tests are the only reliable way to determine that.

A state-of-the-art DAC chip contains nearly everything required, it will even have a line-level analogue output. A small power supply is hardly going to stretch a competent audio designer. A large case is not required as the small amount of circuitry can easily be included inside a streamer or an amplifier or even inside an active speaker.

It's an odd prejudice about HiFi, that something seen as "expensive" (compared to what?) is often dismissed as a pretence

I don't think it's reasonable to assume I have a prejudice. I'm not talking about audio equipment in general, just DACS and streamers. I could easily afford to spend a bit if I thought it was likely to make a significant difference but I'm confident it wouldn't.

I'm well aware that some people spend a lot of money on these things (DACS/streamers) and as long as they're happy I suppose no harm is done but personally I would spend my money in areas where it can make a big difference e.g. loudspeakers.

But I can see we're not likely to agree on this!

[Thropplenoggin]

The question is, does all the extra circuitry add anything useful SQ wise? Double blind ABX listening tests are the only reliable way to determine that.

Indeed. This has been proven to be the case with expensive wine and cheap wine, when people believe a wine tastes better because of the label, name, etc. ]

That said, one wouldn't want to take Dr Johnson's approach of refuting Berkley's posited non-existence of matter - by kicking it (a stone) - with a DAC costing several thousand pounds.

[jayne lee wilson]

The question is, does all the extra circuitry add anything useful SQ wise? Double blind ABX listening tests are the only reliable way to determine that.

A state-of-the-art DAC chip contains nearly everything required, it will even have a line-level analogue output. A small power supply is hardly going to stretch a competent audio designer. A large case is not required as the small amount of circuitry can easily be included inside a streamer or an amplifier or even inside an active speaker.



I don't think it's reasonable to assume I have a prejudice. I'm not talking about audio equipment in general, just DACS and streamers. I could easily afford to spend a bit if I thought it was likely to make a significant difference but I'm confident it wouldn't.

I'm well aware that some people spend a lot of money on these things (DACS/streamers) and as long as they're happy I suppose no harm is done but personally I would spend my money in areas where it can make a big difference e.g. loudspeakers.

But I can see we're not likely to agree on this!

AS I see it, the problem with ABX testing (especially with brief excerpts) is that we don't listen to music this way - with classical music especially, sonic and musical subtleties become more apparent over time, as the ear/brain learns to hear them. If I switch between my transport and the DacMagic rapidly, I'll think, hmm, a bit better, or just different, or.... Give it a whole movement, the extra warmth and presence of the Dac, the wider dynamic range with the minimum filter etc., is more apparent - harder to do without. (All is relative, of course!).

With Dacs - it's only when you have a choice of filters (linear, minimum, steep etc.) that you come to appreciate how very influential they are on the sound of the Dac. If you have no choice (it's usually linear) it's take it or leave it without quite knowing why. Marantz's Ken Ishiwata no longer wants to use linear filters in his music players - because "designers are now aware that a steep roll-off with a long impulse response rarely delivers a satisfying result for music lovers".
Many recent Dacs offer a minimum phase filter, and it's surprising how much sweeter, more spacious and just "musical" it can sound than the matter-of-fact, slightly hard character linear often has, despite the frequency response being less accurate. Try to get a listen to one!

For me, the problem with speakers is the old cliche - rubbish in, rubbish out. They can't improve on the signal, may well add distortions to it, and may reveal more faults than virtues if the sources aren't good enough or the amplifiers underpowered.

So here I am, Phileas, at the other end of the sonic telescope!

ps - rule no.1 about HiFi - don't listen to it if you can't afford it. Based on personal experience.

[Thropplenoggin]

AS I see it, the problem with ABX testing (especially with brief excerpts) is that we don't listen to music this way - with classical music especially, sonic and musical subtleties become more apparent over time, as the ear/brain learns to hear them. If I switch between my transport and the DacMagic rapidly, I'll think, hmm, a bit better, or just different, or.... Give it a whole movement, the extra warmth and presence of the Dac, the wider dynamic range with the minimum filter etc., is more apparent - harder to do without. (All is relative, of course!).

With Dacs - it's only when you have a choice of filters (linear, minimum, steep etc.) that you come to appreciate how very influential they are on the sound of the Dac. If you have no choice (it's usually linear) it's take it or leave it without quite knowing why. Marantz's Ken Ishiwata no longer wants to use linear filters in his music players - because "designers are now aware that a steep roll-off with a long impulse response rarely delivers a satisfying result for music lovers".
Many recent Dacs offer a minimum phase filter, and it's surprising how much sweeter, more spacious and just "musical" it can sound than the matter-of-fact, slightly hard character linear often has, despite the frequency response being less accurate. Try to get a listen to one!

For me, the problem with speakers is the old cliche - rubbish in, rubbish out. They can't improve on the signal, may well add distortions to it, and may reveal more faults than virtues if the sources aren't good enough or the amplifiers underpowered.

So here I am, Phileas, at the other end of the sonic telescope!

ps - rule no.1 about HiFi - don't listen to it if you can't afford it. Based on personal experience.

Now who's being ignored.

[Phileas]

AS I see it, the problem with ABX testing (especially with brief excerpts) is that we don't listen to music this way

But experiments show that differences are easier to hear in ABX tests.

ps - rule no.1 about HiFi - don't listen to it if you can't afford it. Based on personal experience.

A few years ago (when I had different beliefs) I bought a Benchmark DAC1 and convinced myself it was better than the DAC inside my modest CD player. Since then my views have changed and the DAC1 has been relegated to use as a very occasional headphone-DAC connected to my PC. In my main system I'm perfectly content to rely on the low-cost DAC built into my active speakers.

I think the GIGO argument is a throwback to vinyl days when front-ends were as variable as..erm..rear-ends.

[jayne lee wilson]

All rapid ABXing usually gives me is perceptual confusion and a headache. And a piece of music too familiar to bear!

"Different beliefs... convinced myself... perfectly content..." WEll yes, it IS all very subjective. But that doesn't mean everything's the same. You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes... better-designed Dacs and discspinners are out there somewhere, and some of them do perform better, in all of the musical ways that matter. HIFI Stereo was supposed to make you think "you are really there". Sadly not much of it manages that Grand Illusion. It's bad luck if the Benchmark was no improvement, but if you consistently enjoyed what you already had, it might have been hard to change. The first 2 Dacs I tried (Perpetual Technologies, Musical Fidelty Tri-Vista) didn't stay here long for those very reasons.

If you try sometimes, you can get what you need... more realism, more involvement, more enjoyment . But if you have enough already, well...
I must say though, the R&D into Dacs in the last 5 years, and the sonic results as noted, have really changed the game!

(A personal example - imagery. Always bugged me if it weren't precise or tangible enough (most systems, most of the time). Then finally, last month....:))

[Phileas]

It's bad luck if the Benchmark was no improvement, but if you consistently enjoyed what you already had, it might have been hard to change.

What I meant was that the difference I thought I heard was almost certainly imagined.

I don't care about DACs nowadays because I believe they should all sound essentially the same (if they've been correctly designed!). The same goes for any part of a digital front-end up to at least the power amp (and to a large extent even there).

[jayne lee wilson]

What I meant was that the difference I thought I heard was almost certainly imagined.

I don't care about DACs nowadays because I believe they should all sound essentially the same (if they've been correctly designed!). The same goes for any part of a digital front-end up to at least the power amp (and to a large extent even there).

But what do you mean by "correctly designed"? Ken Ishiwata's designs sound very different from - oh, I dunno, Matthew Bramble's at Cambridge...
Both are very musical and enjoyable. Again, a "correct" flat response may be less enjoyable than rolled-off or lifted one, but are they musically less "correct"? As for power amps, they'll often sound different according to the loudspeaker load & sensitivity, not to mention their own current drive. Or an E/I transformer, a toroid or a switch-mode...

Someone at ATC once told me that "it's all physics and calculation, there's no mysticism at all". That's true, but the designer's choices are of course subjective and creative, according to her knowledge, aims, the music she loves, how she listens etc...
Or if accurate reproduction of the recording is the aim, there's no limit to how close you could get to the original event...

I think it was Bob Katz who said "not everything we hear can be measured, and not everything we measure can be heard"...

Great scientists like Darwin or Einstein had to make a leap - of creative imagination, before they could set to work on necessarily provisional proofs...

CD was never going to be "perfect sound forever" - but digital recording & playback can go on changing & improving as long as there are those passionate enough to care...

[PJPJ]

.....Then finally, last month....:))

So, is it a Mytek, or dCS, or?