Let's Get A Consensus Of The Best DAC's In The Market Today

[microstrip]

Also being just a tubed dac like AN is not what the Big 7 and the GG are - the Big 6 and below were tube dacs - the Big 7 above are DHT, which lets you put the best tubes in audio at the top of the electronics chain. Right now Lukasz is in Czech republic talking to Eunice Kron. He has started selling at great prices KR tubes and specially made for Lampi tubes from EML. Won't be surprised if KR starts designing special tubes for him.

I have no experience at all with Lampizator, but this excessive dependence on tube quality and reported large variance of sound quality on the type of tubes worries me. Do you know what is the "official" factory approved tube?

BTW, the reasons why NOS tubes such as Telefunken are reported to sound better were studied and are well known - better mechanical quality resulting in lower and better controlled microphonics, better surfaces and more accurate building results in lower noise and distortion. But here we seem to be addressing just different tube flavors.

 

[wisnon]

I have no experience at all with Lampizator, but this excessive dependence on tube quality and reported large variance of sound quality on the type of tubes worries me. Do you know what is the "official" factory approved tube?

BTW, the reasons why NOS tubes such as Telefunken are reported to sound better were studied and are well known - better mechanical quality resulting in lower and better controlled microphonics, better surfaces and more accurate building results in lower noise and distortion. But here we seem to be addressing just different tube flavors.

No need to worry.

People who have actual experience are certainly not worried.

Also, why compare Telefunken small signal tube tech to DHTs? Not the same in my opinion.These big bottles are in a different league.

Flavours are different because the DHT range is wide and have very different construction types. You can just eyeball them and see. Besides, audiophiles focus on small differences and prefernces for ALL gear. Go check any cable thread.

 

[bonzo75]

I have no experience at all with Lampizator, but this excessive dependence on tube quality and reported large variance of sound quality on the type of tubes worries me. Do you know what is the "official" factory approved tube?

BTW, the reasons why NOS tubes such as Telefunken are reported to sound better were studied and are well known - better mechanical quality resulting in lower and better controlled microphonics, better surfaces and more accurate building results in lower noise and distortion. But here we seem to be addressing just different tube flavors.

You can play both with flavors and with quality. Getting a JJ 300b, KR 300b, Elrog 300b, and original WE 300b will all change sound. Yes, you can play with the flavor of 300b vs 101d vs 242 etc, and also optimize it for certain voltages if you so choose (like the GG does not work with 242 but can if you specify. He has 2 voltage settings and the factory dac comes with a choice of 300b, 101d or PX4). Cheung, the Hyundai owner who owns the WE mentioned the technical reasons this year on why extremely old WE tubes sounded better - he mentioned the chemicals used for making them and how the quality dropped rapidly.

 

[Jazzhead]

The thing is one doesn't have to buy the GG and Big 7 gets you there, and at a great price. The Cassandra must be good but at the price I would put down a deposit towards a bigger room and get bigger horns or the Grands, or a Thorens reference or Micro Seiki 8000 with all arms and carts set up

The Kassandra Ref retails at 18k € about the same neighborhood as the GG Balanced . The Sig andSig LE , two box models a lot dearer . Demoing the Sig LE in KL tomorrow , should be reports .... Danon , who has the DAC , also owns some top flight TT's says it comes close , mighty close .

 

[bonzo75]

The Kassandra Ref retails at 18k € about the same neighborhood as the GG Balanced . The Sig andSig LE , two box models a lot dearer . Demoing the Sig LE to n KL tomorrow , should be reports ....

Oh so what was the expensive thing from Aries Cerat - maybe I was confusing price of something else. At 18k it definitely makes sense to compare the two. What are you comparing it with

 

[Jazzhead]

Oh so what was the expensive thing from Aries Cerat - maybe I was confusing price of something else. At 18k it definitely makes sense to compare the two. What are you comparing it with

Two box models

Sig : 51k USD
Sig Le : 85k USD ( I think )

 

[bonzo75]

Two box models

Sig : 51k USD
Sig Le : 85k USD ( I think )

Ah yes I was think of the 85

 

[flyer]

I am possibly comparing my Totaldac Twelve with the Kassandra II Ref in August

Can't believe the Twelve can be bettered but I wasn't expecting what the Aries Cerat Impera II preamp would do to my system neither, so definitely worth a try!

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Having a full system of Aries Cerat gear and speakers from the Prestige line all the way to the Signature I can say the LE must be a marvel. I am eagerly awaiting a call from Stavros to tell me about the trip and how it sounds on Danon's top shelf stuff.

The consensus (at least as I have seen here) is geared toward the chips used as the major contributor to the quality of a DAC. A Kassandra analog stage is nothing short of Statement level even in the Reference edition. When you take a moment away from the "chips" focus you don't see much emphasis or quality design to the analog stage.

Then you add in the new converter system of 32 ladder DACs in the digital stage to achieve what I would consider to be the best use of the engineering to date. Will chips be better in 5 to 10 years? For sure. But does that mean that it would need to be replaced? Hardly not.

Much like CPUs die's shrink you could end up using less R2Rs for each channel to achieve the same or improved results, but not to the extent people are suggesting to make a DAC obsolete (at least not how Aries Cerat is built).

I have been so impressed I haven't felt the need to get a Talos Phono from him. I like to promote digital when it can compete with the best Analog. That's when you know it is done right. However, there are those like Ron who swear by Analog and at some point I'll have to go that route too.

 

[fas42]

The consensus (at least as I have seen here) is geared toward the chips used as the major contributor to the quality of a DAC. A Kassandra analog stage is nothing short of Statement level even in the Reference edition. When you take a moment away from the "chips" focus you don't see much emphasis or quality design to the analog stage.

IME all the different chip types are capable of generating excellent sound - where the end product often falls down is that insufficient amounts of engineering is applied to the overall circuit of the DAC; you can't just stick one these chips into an ordinary circuit using a standard combination of parts, with fancy outsides to the boxes, and expect it to perform! So, either work out how to modify one of the off the shelf DACs and otherwise tweak it to get better sound, or buy one of the few units that have had more extensive engineering applied to them - the latter are usually very expensive ...

 

[Ric Schultz]

I had seen the US retail of the Kassandra Ref at $38,000. Is this so?

 

[MtnHam]

Let's Get A Consensus Of The Best DAC's In The Market Today

This can not be answered as it is a constantly moving target. Furthermore, anyone spending $38K or more on a DAC should have their head examined. Not only is it idiotic, it's obcene.

 

[Geardaddy]

In the immortal words of Syntax, a brilliant German audiophile who posts regularly on Audiogon:

The best DAC? Always the next one.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/absolute-top-tier-dac-for-standard-res-redbook-cd/post?highlight=syntax&postid=5431

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

I had seen the US retail of the Kassandra Ref at $38,000. Is this so?

35k and 10% off that if there is not a dealer in the area.

:thumbs up:

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Let's Get A Consensus Of The Best DAC's In The Market Today

This can not be answered as it is a constantly moving target. Furthermore, anyone spending $38K or more on a DAC should have their head examined. Not only is it idiotic, it's obcene.

Can you elaborate? There seems to be a consensus as far as design goes for top shelf DAC's (ie Ladder or custom chips, beefy analog stages, great clocks etc). To say spending a lot of money on a DAC is idiotic I think is relative to the individual and what they expect from their system.

 

[Ken Newton]

I don't think there is anything approaching a design feature or technology consensus. For example, some DAC designers feel that a multi-bit D/A core is best, while others feel that the polar opposite, that a single-bit sigma delta D/A core is best. For another example, while some feel that ultra-low jitter clocking is important, others, such as ultra premium DAC vendors Audio Note and Ypsilon, don't appear to take any special effort regarding jitter supression. For yet another example, some feel that sophisticated digital oversampling is important, while others feel that no digital filtering at all is the key. The examples of this sort of DAC design approach polarization are many. The old adage about the proof of a pudding being found in the eating can be loosely translated here as, the proof of an audio DAC is found in the listening.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

I don't think there is anything approaching a design feature or technology consensus. For example, some DAC designers feel that a multi-bit D/A core is best, while others feel that the polar opposite, a single-bit sigma delta D/A core is best. For another example, while some feel that ultra low jitter clocking is important, others, such as ultra premium DAC vendors Audio Note and Ypsilon, don't appear to take any special care over jitter supression. For yet another example, some feel that sophisticated digital oversampling is important, while others feel that no digital filtering at all is key. The examples of this sort of design approach polarization are many. The old adage about the proof of a pudding is found in the eating can be loosely translated here as, the proof of an audio DAC is found in the listening.

And to that point over a number of years listening to the best DAC's I have formed my aforementioned opinon in design to look for. Delta Sigma DAC's are very inexpensive to manufacture and implement not to mention they are the native language of DSD and not PCM. Best for DSD dac's and are common in most low-mid fi PCM DAC's due to cost.

Jitter is absolute in the digital world. One of the few things we can measure AND hear so it appeases both camps and it hard to dispute as a non issue in design.

Ultimately this still quantifies as my opinion and you mileage will vary but most of the guys that get digital right do it in a similar fashion. The Analog stage however seems to be the biggest separation in DAC design

 

[Geardaddy]

I don't think there is anything approaching a design feature or technology consensus. For example, some DAC designers feel that a multi-bit D/A core is best, while others feel that the polar opposite, that a single-bit sigma delta D/A core is best. For another example, while some feel that ultra-low jitter clocking is important, others, such as ultra premium DAC vendors Audio Note and Ypsilon, don't appear to take any special effort regarding jitter supression. For yet another example, some feel that sophisticated digital oversampling is important, while others feel that no digital filtering at all is the key. The examples of this sort of DAC design approach polarization are many. The old adage about the proof of a pudding being found in the eating can be loosely translated here as, the proof of an audio DAC is found in the listening.

+1

 

[Ken Newton]

...Delta Sigma DAC's are very inexpensive to manufacture and implement not to mention they are the native language of DSD and not PCM. Best for DSD dac's and are common in most low-mid fi PCM DAC's due to cost.

Yes, sigma delta costs less. It also objectively produces much lower distortion and greater audio band dynamic range (utilizing noise-shaping) than straight multibit.

Jitter is absolute in the digital world. One of the few things we can measure AND hear so it appeases both camps and it hard to dispute as a non issue in design.

There is not concensus on the subjective significance of jitter once it is suppressed to below about 500ps. Because a parameter can be measured doesn't necessarily mean it can be heard. This is true regarding a number of technical parameters for an audio system. Engineers quite naturally continue to improve performance along established system parameters, be it harmonic distortion, noise or jitter. Even though such continuing improvement may have long exceeded the perceptual threshold of human ears. For, what else are engineers to do at work each day?

I had specifically mentioned Audio Note and Ypsilon because their DACs are regarded by many to be among the very best sounding, yet neither vendor takes any special effort to suppress jitter in their DACs. My example wasn't to prove jitter doesn't matter, but rather that there is not concensus on the formula for obtaining the best sound.

...but most of the guys that get digital right do it in a similar fashion...

The many examples I've provided argues otherwise.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Yes, sigma delta costs less. It also objectively produces much lower distortion and audio band dynamic range than straight multibit.



There is not concensus on the subjective significance of jitter once it is suppressed to below about 500ps. Because a parameter can be measured doesn't necessarily mean it can be heard. This is true regarding a number of technical parameters for an audio system. Engineers quite naturally continue to improve performance along established system parameters, be it harmonic distortion, noise or jitter. Even though such continuing improvement may have long exceeded the perceptual threshold of human ears, but what else are engineers to do at work each day?

I specifically mentioned Audio Note and Ypsilon because their DACs are regarded by many to be among the very best sounding, yet neither vendor takes any special effort to suppress jitter in their DACs.



The many examples I've provided argues otherwise.

I am curious as to whether you have heard Audio Note/Ypsilon DACS or are just saying they are some the best sounding because of their reputation?