New BADA DAC; DSD Debunked?

[wisnon]

I think Chris like so many others have fallen into a DAC trap. It's the never ending pursuit for a better DAC. It's a trap because it's obvious to me that those who lust after the next über DAC are neglecting the rest of their system. A really dialed in system won't show huge differences between DACs. The differences will really be very small and mostly insignificant. Of course, those trapped will hear differences but those differences are more likely representative of other much more serious flaws in their system. Maybe the "better" DAC makes those flaws less offensive/noticeable. But the underlying deficiency has little, if anything, to do with the digital front-end or DAC. It's what I've experienced having done things both ways.

Yes, the DAC matters but only to the extent it aligns properly with the entire system. Chris only reviews DACs and digital gear. IMO, there's a neurosis that develops from focusing too much on only one part of a system. Many folks on the CA forum suffer from this neurosis. I've owned really expensive digital gear. Now I use a $2,500 a 4CH DAC/ADC which launched my system into another universe compared to the "audiophile" DACs I've owned. This is only possible due to system synergy.

To each his own.

This is true to a large extent. My Boston pal went Spatial and now he says its the best he ever heard in over 50 years and his SQ is in permament orbit. He uses the Prism Titan now. I know you are DIRAC based and concentrate on room treatement. How do you handle DSD though? Is it all PCM conversion? PCM or perhaps multi-bit DSM are the only game in town when fancy DRC is the fulcrum of your system. I think Miska of Signalyst uses mb-DSM.

 

[microstrip]

I think Chris like so many others have fallen into a DAC trap. It's the never ending pursuit for a better DAC. It's a trap because it's obvious to me that those who lust after the next über DAC are neglecting the rest of their system. A really dialed in system won't show huge differences between DACs. The differences will really be very small and mostly insignificant. Of course, those trapped will hear differences but those differences are more likely representative of other much more serious flaws in their system. Maybe the "better" DAC makes those flaws less offensive/noticeable. But the underlying deficiency has little, if anything, to do with the digital front-end or DAC. It's what I've experienced having done things both ways.

Yes, the DAC matters but only to the extent it aligns properly with the entire system. Chris only reviews DACs and digital gear. IMO, there's a neurosis that develops from focusing too much on only one part of a system. Many folks on the CA forum suffer from this neurosis. I've owned really expensive digital gear. Now I use a $2,500 a 4CH DAC/ADC which launched my system into another universe compared to the "audiophile" DACs I've owned. This is only possible due to system synergy.

To each his own.

It is funny that some people consider that their last and current approach to this hobby is the healthy one, and others perspectives are neurosis. But I agree on the perspective that a high degree of synergy is needed in high-end, and until I have reasons to believe otherwise, I consider that "audiophile" components correctly "aligned" provide the top stereo reproduction.

As you said, to each his own.

 

[dallasjustice]

Sold your TotalDAC ?

Yes. I started using DSP and realized it wasn't designed for that purpose. I now use a Lynx Hilo.

 

[dallasjustice]

This is true to a large extent. My Boston pal went Spatial and now he says its the best he ever heard in over 50 years and his SQ is in permament orbit. He uses the Prism Titan now. I know you are DIRAC based and concentrate on room treatement. How do you handle DSD though? Is it all PCM conversion? PCM or perhaps multi-bit DSM are the only game in town when fancy DRC is the fulcrum of your system. I think Miska of Signalyst uses mb-DSM.

I don't use DIRAC anymore. I use Acourate. It's much better. I COULD do DSD with Acourate as well with Jussi's HQplayer.

 

[dallasjustice]

It is funny that some people consider that their last and current approach to this hobby is the healthy one, and others perspectives are neurosis. But I agree on the perspective that a high degree of synergy is needed in high-end, and until I have reasons to believe otherwise, I consider that "audiophile" components correctly "aligned" provide the top stereo reproduction.

As you said, to each his own.

Micro,
DSP is not a new toy for me. I've been working with it a lot for more than a year. I've owned audiolense, Acourate and DIRAC. In fact, I bought and used (for a short time) audiolense about 6 years ago. During this last year, I've had in my system the $30k+ totaldac monobloc, $5,500 DEQX HDP-4, Exasound e28 and now the $2,500 Lynx Hilo. The lynx coupled with Acourate really IS a "game-changer."

 

[adyc]

You'll have to remember too, Chris has had a long standing relationship with BADA and he's not going to sh*t in his backyard.

Can you be more specified about the "long standing relationship"? What does he gain from BA? If he thinks the DAC is no good, he can simply choose not to write about it.

 

[ack]

A really dialed in system won't show huge differences between DACs. The differences will really be very small and mostly insignificant.

My experience has been mostly as you describe it, except for some really exceptional DACs, where the above just doesn't apply. For example, my Alpha DAC far exceeded the Spectral SDR-2000 in performance and by a very wide margin; by contrast, the newer SDR-4000Pro far outpaces the Alpha. And when you bring in the dCS Vivaldi, well, maybe that's what I would call a game-changer. Therefore, to me, like everything else, we have the typical products, and then there is the real high end, where truly worthy products just outshine the vast majority.

 

[dallasjustice]

I guess one person's "game changer" is another person's "change".

 

[Priaptor]

I guess one person's "game changer" is another person's "change".

Michael,

Come on now:

"I think Chris like so many others have fallen into a DAC trap. It's the never ending pursuit for a better DAC. It's a trap because it's obvious to me that those who lust after the next über DAC are neglecting the rest of their system. A really dialed in system won't show huge differences between DACs"

I mean, I agree to each his own. I also agree with you about a "dialed in system". However, how many DACs, etc, have you gone through in the last two years? You may be rationalizing why your changes are different than Chris and/others but every time I come to these threads you have a new digital front end. God bless you and enjoy, but to criticize others for looking for the new "uber DAC" when it seems like you are just as guilty of following a similar path, is kind of stretching it.

My biggest beef with Chris and these reviews in general is as you say about dialing in a system. These reviewers are always listening to a different system. Now he has PASS Preamp/amp combo with a new set of wires while just a few months back he had Spectral/MIT. When these guys use comments like "Chalk this magic up to the Alpha DAC RS and its brilliant designer Michael "Pflash" Pflaumer and the rest of the 'Berkeley' team who took part in creating the best DAC on the market" I want to vomit. Likewise when I read a review I try to evaluate where the person is coming from regarding their tastes in music, their taste in "sound" which is not too hard for those of us who have been around the block for awhile to judge based on the reviewers gear which gives us some insight into the sound they prefer, right or wrong.

I am not sure how old you are or how long you have been into this, but these reviews are a joke already. I really do miss the early reviewing days of HP where he provided a standard that allowed the reader to grasp and understand EXACTLY what he was hearing and why. Sorely lacking in today's "reviews".

Howie

 

[dallasjustice]

To Howie it may concern, My Manifesto

Michael,

Come on now:

"I think Chris like so many others have fallen into a DAC trap. It's the never ending pursuit for a better DAC. It's a trap because it's obvious to me that those who lust after the next über DAC are neglecting the rest of their system. A really dialed in system won't show huge differences between DACs"

I mean, I agree to each his own. I also agree with you about a "dialed in system". However, how many DACs, etc, have you gone through in the last two years? You may be rationalizing why your changes are different than Chris and/others but every time I come to these threads you have a new digital front end. God bless you and enjoy, but to criticize others for looking for the new "uber DAC" when it seems like you are just as guilty of following a similar path, is kind of stretching it.

My biggest beef with Chris and these reviews in general is as you say about dialing in a system. These reviewers are always listening to a different system. Now he has PASS Preamp/amp combo with a new set of wires while just a few months back he had Spectral/MIT. When these guys use comments like "Chalk this magic up to the Alpha DAC RS and its brilliant designer Michael "Pflash" Pflaumer and the rest of the 'Berkeley' team who took part in creating the best DAC on the market" I want to vomit. Likewise when I read a review I try to evaluate where the person is coming from regarding their tastes in music, their taste in "sound" which is not too hard for those of us who have been around the block for awhile to judge based on the reviewers gear which gives us some insight into the sound they prefer, right or wrong.

I am not sure how old you are or how long you have been into this, but these reviews are a joke already. I really do miss the early reviewing days of HP where he provided a standard that allowed the reader to grasp and understand EXACTLY what he was hearing and why. Sorely lacking in today's "reviews".

Howie

Let's start with where I agree with you:
1.Reviewers are worthless. Very few reviewers have systems and rooms that are remotely close to accurate. Just look at their rooms. It's usually a joke.
2.There ARE differences in DACs. I don't dispute that. I've owned more DACs than I'd care to reveal.
3.I was just as guilty as those I now criticize. I was NO different. I sought the most expensive DAC with the coolest "parts" I could find. I heard "big" differences with each upgrade.
4. HP's reviews were stellar. However, times have changed a great deal since then.

Today, the biggest difference between digital and analog is the ability to correctly playback multiple channels. IMO, MCH is THE future for digital playback. The advantages to a MCH system are legion. There are many variations for MCH systems, each with their own advantages depending on the listener's preferences and their room characteristics. In my system, I focus on Stereo with 2 subs. So, I'm using a 4CH system. I use active crossovers for the subs. The subs are placed on the front/back walls each to obtain much smoother bass. I can also achieve MUCH greater dynamics and lower bass distortion. NONE of these systems characteristics would be possible without a MCH DAC/ADC and excellent software to create the FIR filters needed for everything to properly integrate.


Howie, you are correct that I've been down the same path like so many others pursuing the next awesome DAC. But what I've learned in that process is that even though there are differences between DACs, there are MUCH bigger improvements to be had by instead focusing on the DAC/software compatibility. IME, excellent DSP software can make DAC differences seem superficial and unimportant. That's what I mean when I am talking about a "dialed in" system. Just measure your speakers at 1m, >1khz with a good calibrated mic and a really good ADC on axis. ALL speakers have little variations in their responses. Even your left and right speakers will vary slightly. IME, you CAN greatly improve their performance by smartly using DSP/FIR filters. What does it sound like when you do that? It sounds better than the BEST DAC upgrade you've ever experienced. Why? Because you really are improving the stereo image. There are no speakers beyond reproach. They all have imperfections and there's ALWAYS variability. No matter how many times the manufacturer claims the drivers are "matched." They are not matched. If you don't believe me, just measure for your self.

Since I've been using Acourate, my stereo image can resolve back into infinity with some of the better recordings; eg. Keith Johnson recordings. Yes, I used to hear deeper sound stages with better DACs but that's nothing compared to linearizing my speakers above 1khz using FIR filters. I didn't even mention all of the benefits from improved bass dynamics, clarity and resolution. It's impossible to explain it.

And your audio dealer has never demoed it for you. And you've never heard a speaker manufacturer use any of these technologies at an audio show. They don't do it, because they are afraid folks will criticize their gear for doing it. For me, I am used to the criticism and I am not selling anything. I would encourage anyone considering buying their next $30,000+ DAC to remove themselves from the uber DAC tunnel and try a different approach. Ask yourself: What is it that my system really IS missing that I am searching for with this new DAC?

IMO, DSP and MCH are worthy and offer massive improvements beyond that which the best DACs can offer. Having said that, I believe there are still some excellent DACs that could integrate very well with a DSP or MCH system. I would look for any DAC that has a word clock output. eg. DCS, Weiss and Mytek. Why? You can accurately measure your system and also incorporate multiple subs without sacrificing anything else in your system.

The Berkeley gear is typical "parts jockey" gear. There's no account for any new MCH technology. There's no consideration by it's designers for anything beyond the same old 2CH digital systems in use for the last 30 years.. The only considerations are the "parts" and not the whole playback system in which the new "uber DAC" resides.

Michael.

 

[Priaptor]

Let's start with where I agree with you:
1.Reviewers are worthless. Very few reviewers have systems and rooms that are remotely close to accurate. Just look at their rooms. It's usually a joke.
2.There ARE differences in DACs. I don't dispute that. I've owned more DACs than I'd care to reveal.
3.I was just as guilty as those I now criticize. I was NO different. I sought the most expensive DAC with the coolest "parts" I could find. I heard "big" differences with each upgrade.
4. HP's reviews were stellar. However, times have changed a great deal since then.

Today, the biggest difference between digital and analog is the ability to correctly playback multiple channels. IMO, MCH is THE future for digital playback. The advantages to a MCH system are legion. There are many variations for MCH systems, each with their own advantages depending on the listener's preferences and their room characteristics. In my system, I focus on Stereo with 2 subs. So, I'm using a 4CH system. I use active crossovers for the subs. The subs are placed on the front/back walls each to obtain much smoother bass. I can also achieve MUCH greater dynamics and lower bass distortion. NONE of these systems characteristics would be possible without a MCH DAC/ADC and excellent software to create the FIR filters needed for everything to properly integrate.


Howie, you are correct that I've been down the same path like so many others pursuing the next awesome DAC. But what I've learned in that process is that even though there are differences between DACs, there are MUCH bigger improvements to be had by instead focusing on the DAC/software compatibility. IME, excellent DSP software can make DAC differences seem superficial and unimportant. That's what I mean when I am talking about a "dialed in" system. Just measure your speakers at 1m, >1khz with a good calibrated mic and a really good ADC on axis. ALL speakers have little variations in their responses. Even your left and right speakers will vary slightly. IME, you CAN greatly improve their performance by smartly using DSP/FIR filters. What does it sound like when you do that? It sounds better than the BEST DAC upgrade you've ever experienced. Why? Because you really are improving the stereo image. There are no speakers beyond reproach. They all have imperfections and there's ALWAYS variability. No matter how many times the manufacturer claims the drivers are "matched." They are not matched. If you don't believe me, just measure for your self.

Since I've been using Acourate, my stereo image can resolve back into infinity with some of the better recordings; eg. Keith Johnson recordings. Yes, I used to hear deeper sound stages with better DACs but that's nothing compared to linearizing my speakers above 1khz using FIR filters. I didn't even mention all of the benefits from improved bass dynamics, clarity and resolution. It's impossible to explain it.

And your audio dealer has never demoed it for you. And you've never heard a speaker manufacturer use any of these technologies at an audio show. They don't do it, because they are afraid folks will criticize their gear for doing it. For me, I am used to the criticism and I am not selling anything. I would encourage anyone considering buying their next $30,000+ DAC to remove themselves from the uber DAC tunnel and try a different approach. Ask yourself: What is it that my system really IS missing that I am searching for with this new DAC?

IMO, DSP and MCH are worthy and offer massive improvements beyond that which the best DACs can offer. Having said that, I believe there are still some excellent DACs that could integrate very well with a DSP or MCH system. I would look for any DAC that has a word clock output. eg. DCS, Weiss and Mytek. Why? You can accurately measure your system and also incorporate multiple subs without sacrificing anything else in your system.

The Berkeley gear is typical "parts jockey" gear. There's no account for any new MCH technology. There's no consideration by it's designers for anything beyond the same old 2CH digital systems in use for the last 30 years.. The only considerations are the "parts" and not the whole playback system in which the new "uber DAC" resides.

Michael.

You may indeed be right. I haven't made that choice at this time, however, I don't dismiss any of your findings. Many people I trust have come to similar conclusions you have. We also agree about the reviewers, the superlatives, the inane quest for the next greatest "thing".

Right now I am really happy with my system. Ultimately it is about enjoying what you are listening too and I must say, I really really enjoy what I am hearing from my system and have no desire to futz around with anything.

 

[microstrip]

Let's start with where I agree with you:
1.Reviewers are worthless. Very few reviewers have systems and rooms that are remotely close to accurate. Just look at their rooms. It's usually a joke.
(...)

I disagree.

IMHO reviewers are worthless if you do not know how to read reviews and expect a recipe, like a cook book. Although we have now many reviewers that I do not care, my opinion on the class is built on the best of them, and I find their articles worth reading.

 

[awsmone]

I must from my own experience agree with Dallas-Michael

I have been 2 channel stereo guy for 38 years

Had never heard a multichannel system that impressed me other than a meridian 8000 series system years ago

I recently started adding rear channel reinforcement time aligned and subwoofer

The changes wrought were much greater than changing a DAC

I am still not sure why it sounds so much better

But the interesting thing is
How much more information I hear
And how much more natural and relaxing is the sound

I cannot claim this will work for everyone as I have a largish dedicated room

But I think Dallas has a point....

As to the BADA RS well the company reputation is built on building dac's and their designer is legendary with no: " voodoo magic" just electrical innovation

It would seem no surprise that a more expensive version of their DACs would be better

As to Dsd not being there I am wondering if their long lead time in development has caught them out in the recent trend to dsd files or they really think transcoding is not a big issue


Andrew

 

[wisnon]

Micro,
DSP is not a new toy for me. I've been working with it a lot for more than a year. I've owned audiolense, Acourate and DIRAC. In fact, I bought and used (for a short time) audiolense about 6 years ago. During this last year, I've had in my system the $30k+ totaldac monobloc, $5,500 DEQX HDP-4, Exasound e28 and now the $2,500 Lynx Hilo. The lynx coupled with Acourate really IS a "game-changer."

Why not the Prism Titan?

How is Acourate better than DIRAC. I thought you were preaching about the unique DSP ability of Dirac a few months back?

 

[dallasjustice]

Why not the Prism Titan?

How is Acourate better than DIRAC. I thought you were preaching about the unique DSP ability of Dirac a few months back?

When the facts change so does my opinion. Acourate is much more sophisticated. For example, Acourate can do MCH and DIRAC really cannot. Yes, DIRAC can do a HT setup but nothing else as far as MCH. Also, the Acourate 64 bit FIR filters are much more transparent.

The prism Lyra would be a good choice also. Before I bought the hilo I narrowed it down to the prism and the lynx hilo. I chose the Lynx because Lynx's rep is stellar and they are US based. I felt confident I wouldn't have any problems with their mixer or USB driver. The other cool thing about the lynx is the routing capabilities. I could install an über DAC while still using the lynx for other channels and routing. It has an AES output and word clocks in/out. The lynx can do pretty much anything imaginable. It also sounds MEGA.

 

[wisnon]

Thanks DJ.


I heard that all the top hollywood production people snapped up all but one of the first shipment of Titans!

Glad you are enjoying your setup, muct MCH?? I am yet to be convinced. Where so you get MCH material from, except SACD rips?

When the facts change so does my opinion. Acourate is much more sophisticated. For example, Acourate can do MCH and DIRAC really cannot. Yes, DIRAC can do a HT setup but nothing else as far as MCH. Also, the Acourate 64 bit FIR filters are much more transparent.

The prism Lyra would be a good choice also. Before I bought the hilo I narrowed it down to the prism and the lynx hilo. I chose the Lynx because Lynx's rep is stellar and they are US based. I felt confident I wouldn't have any problems with their mixer or USB driver. The other cool thing about the lynx is the routing capabilities. I could install an über DAC while still using the lynx for other channels and routing. It has an AES output and word clocks in/out. The lynx can do pretty much anything imaginable. It also sounds MEGA.

 

[dallasjustice]

I hear what you are saying about surround sound MCH. In my case, I only do stereo. Even movies are stereo.

Thanks DJ.


I heard that all the top hollywood production people snapped up all but one of the first shipment of Titans!

Glad you are enjoying your setup, muct MCH?? I am yet to be convinced. Where so you get MCH material from, except SACD rips?

 

[bmoura]

I am yet to be convinced. Where so you get MCH material from, except SACD rips?

Try NativeDSD.Com and PentaTone for Multichannel DSD Downloads. NativeDSD.Com has over 285 Multichannel DSD Downloads to date. PentaTone has 190 Multichannel DSD Downloads.
Plenty to feed the exaSound e28 DSD DAC!

 

[wisnon]

OOOOOPs,

I forgot! The file sizes are huge though.

 

[bmoura]

OOOOOPs,

I forgot! The file sizes are huge though.

The file sizes depend on the number of channels (3, 4, 5, 5.1) and the resolution (DSD64, 128, 256). When you compare a DSD64 Multichannel file vs. a DSD256 Stereo file, they're very comparable in size.