Bel Canto DACs

Nicholas Bedworth

WBF Founding Member
May 7, 2010
312
0
0
Maui, where else?
Anyone using the new series of Bel Canto DACs, for example the 1.5? Seems like a lovely product sound-wise, and beautiful build quality. Haven't had a chance to try it on the reference system.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,303
1,420
1,820
Manila, Philippines
I installed a 1.5 in my (other) brother's system. It was comprised with an AppleTV as source primary, Lamm LL2.1, M2.2s and VSA VR-4 Mk3s and a JL 212 sub. The sound was pretty good (smooth and on the creamy side) playing AAC files until he tried playing a movie and the 5.1 signal effectively killed the DAC. Apparently he had not set his Apple TV to stereo mode. Ouch. I felt so bad for him I gave him my old ML 360s. The DAC hasn't been repaired yet but I'll let you know when I get it back.

The manual should come with a warning.
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
I'm about to finish a review of the 3.5vb for Positive Feedback -- more soon there but I think it's an excellent piece. I've been A/Bing it wit the the Ayre QB-9, another excellent DAC.
 

Nicholas Bedworth

WBF Founding Member
May 7, 2010
312
0
0
Maui, where else?
@JackD201... what a tale of woe! Seems like that the device should detect the non-stereo signal. Well, be sure to let them know what happened. I'll feed this back through my channels, and perhaps rblnr can as well. But the smooth and creamy quality is apparent even on my office system; haven't put it into the reference system yet. BTW I see you're in RP. I'm in Hawaii, so we're neighbors, at least culturally...

@rblnr I've got the Weiss DAC 202 in house, will have others later, so we can exchange notes offline if you'd like. The build quality of the 1.5 is certainly nice. The volume control is an intereesting implementation, essentially it's a rate sensor. You can turn it extremely slowly (just for fun) and the number won't change. What is the MSRP of these devices?
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,303
1,420
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Yes Nicholas, practically neighbors! I go to Oahu every year but have only been to Maui twice :(
 

Seta

New Member
Dec 7, 2010
29
0
0
I had the 2.5 and was comparing it with the BC DAC3 (on loan from a friend). It is very similar both in tonality and presentation. However, the 2.5 USB input is clearly better than the 3's. The edge is gone. :)
 

Nicholas Bedworth

WBF Founding Member
May 7, 2010
312
0
0
Maui, where else?
@ Seta... thanks for your "real world" observations. This is very interesting. The 1.5 USB goes up to 96; but you can put through 192 on the S/PDIF. Not sure that happens to it internally. Regarding the 2.5 sounding better, how long did you try the 3? Sometimes it takes weeks for a device to be fully conditioned. You can try the XLO and Reference Recordings conditioning track.
 

Seta

New Member
Dec 7, 2010
29
0
0
Nicholas,

My friend has been using the DAC3 for a year, so it is well-broken in. As for the 2.5, I left it running for almost two weeks before really listen. My amp has SE and XLR inputs so I plug both in for A/B (matched level). Reconnect, switched over in case of wire performance, etc. The comparison was done over a week.

I'm not an audio reviewer nor is "golden ear", but I've been listening to equipments and have own my share of DACs. In my humble opinion, the BCs are very very good. Very clean and basically faultless technically. They may not be very exciting, but they're right up there. USB into DAC3 has some edginess to it, and both are better over SPDIF coax inputs.

I have shared a more detailed journal of the DAC2.5 in my personal blog - in case people are interested.
 

Nicholas Bedworth

WBF Founding Member
May 7, 2010
312
0
0
Maui, where else?
List prices for Bel Canto DACs

Anyone have the US MSRP for the 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 VB, and 3.5 VB 192/24? Can't seem to find them!
 

Seta

New Member
Dec 7, 2010
29
0
0
DAC1.5 $1395
DAC2.5 $1995
DAC3.5 $3495 not including VBS1 or LNS1
cheers!
 

Seta

New Member
Dec 7, 2010
29
0
0
Nicholas,
Do you find digital dithered noise shaping attenuation (a-la Audiophilleo) better than a ref quality preamp? To my mind (not yet my ears - have not tested) I understand that it is created by random noises so it's counter intuitive that it can be better. But what's your experience?
Regards,
 

Nicholas Bedworth

WBF Founding Member
May 7, 2010
312
0
0
Maui, where else?
Beneficial dithering

@ Seta

A preamp attenuator, realized with mechanical parts, may eventually degrade. And potentiometers has noise. Left/right tracking, linearity, etc., can be difficult to maintain. Precision passive attenuators are something like $8500 for really good ones. Software attenuators solve some of these problems quite readily. Naturally each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, but very low cost and really high quality is usually a good combination, and this is what the digital solutions do. Digital is way more flexible.

Don't worry about the "counter intuitive" part. Once you understand the reality of the situation, it's quite obvious :) Basically there's always quantization noise, meaning a sample LSB has to be a 1 or a 0, and so, on the average, it's wrong, slightly, all the time. That's how it starts, to simplify things a lot. So the error is correlated with the data, not good, and by adding noise by dithering, one essentially converts correlated noise into uncorrelated random noise, which is easier on the ears.

Instead of nasty spikes in the spectra caused by the quantization process, correctly-dithered data has a much smoother spectra, but with a slightly higher noise floor. One can "move" the noise up into part of the spectra that's less critical. There's a whole world of technology here, but it was pretty much all figured out in the '70s.

These are simply the consequences of working in the quantified, digital domain. What's happened more recently is the advent of extremely cheap computing power, so that all kinds of algorithms may be applied that were theoretically possible, but not that practical, earlier on.

Check out the paper at http://www.users.qwest.net/~volt42/cadenzarecording/DitherExplained.pdf for a good overview.

The Audiophilleo uses a variation of the UV22 scheme. As always, there's no entirely free lunch, but these dithering techniques comes pretty close.

And yes, I really don't like preamps :) at least not in the minimalist systems that we use for reviewing. Anything that eliminates cables seems like a good idea to me. And of course preamps have noise as well. My reference system is digital source, DAC, amplifiers. That's it. I'll be exploring more advanced EQ gear after CES.
 
Last edited:

Seta

New Member
Dec 7, 2010
29
0
0
Nicholas,

Thanks much for the explanation and the link. I'll get my heads around it.

I also dislike traditional pre-amps, and now using LDRs passive volume control (Lightspeed attenuator, EVAII). The EVAII is remote controlled and very very transparent. Problem is very very low level hiss which I am trying to find a way to get rid of. The digital volume control in the BC 2.5 is good, and extremely quite - my ears to the speakers and cant hear anything, but at casual listening levels (lower than live) it is not as dynamic as the LDR volume control. Have not tried autoformers but heard they are transparent as well.

I tried digital volume (dithered?) on itunes and it's terrible! Disastrously noisy at lower levels. Tried it on Pure Music (software for Mac), much better but still not convinced that it is better than passive LDR.
 

Nicholas Bedworth

WBF Founding Member
May 7, 2010
312
0
0
Maui, where else?
Be sure you have iTunes set up to deliver bit-perfect data, and avoid any volume leveling, EQ, etc., and especially rate conversion. Once it's set to bit-perfect, it has been reported that sometimes configuration changes or updates can set it back to a non-bit-perfect status. Use bit-perfect test files. Windows Vista/7 gives you bit-perfect very easily with JRMC in the WASAPI or WASAPI event mode. Guaranteed to work :)

Basically you're discovering on your own why products like the Audiophilleo, M2Tech Evo, Weiss INT 202 were developed. It's a real bear to get to the bottom of the hiss, the jitter, the attenuation, etc., and the MacBooks as you know from the Stereophile article have very high jitter. Personal computers hardware-wise are simply not designed to be high-end digital audio sources.
 

mauidan

Member Sponsor
Aug 2, 2010
1,512
11
36
Pukalani, HI
Nick let me try a Audiophilleo1, which I used with a Macbook (on battery power) with 4gb ram, SSD and the latest beta version of the Audiofile Engineering player, now called Fidelia. The Audiophilleo1 was connect to the SPDIF input of my PS Audio PWD.

This combination was not quite as effortless sounding as my regular digital playback set up- WD HD/WNDR3700-Cat5-PSAudio PWD/Bridge/tagNplay app on iPad.

I also compared it to my prototype ART Legato Asynchronous USB/SPDIF converter: http://www.analogresearch-technology.net/LEGATO.html

The Legato uses asynchronous USB code, licensed from Rankin’s Wavelength company. Unlike the Audiophilleo1, it's not much to look at, just a BNC connector, IEC connector and a Type B USB connector. No display, no LEDs, and no switches.

I used an ART U-Byte SPDIF cable and ART USB cable. Since the Legato runs on its own linear PSU, the ART USB cable isolates the computer from the converter.

In my system Legato has more punch in the bottom end than the Audiophilleo1. It's a fun unit to listen to, but it only does 16/44.1.
 

Nicholas Bedworth

WBF Founding Member
May 7, 2010
312
0
0
Maui, where else?
One thing that I've noticed is that the downstream DAC may sound quite differently as one ascends the sampling rate scale, meaning it might sound one way at 44.1, and another at 192. The decoding filters in the DAC may have a lot to do with this. Generally the differences get larger as the bit rates increase, and the deleterious effects of jitter loom larger. Oddly enough, some high-end DACs don't sound as well at 44.1 as they do at 192; you'd think the 44.1 would be easier to "get right". YMMV.
 

Seta

New Member
Dec 7, 2010
29
0
0
Nicholas and devert,

Since last week I changed my DAC to dB audio labs' Tranquility SE which is a USB-only DAC and can only run at 16/44.1. I understand it uses "normal" USB implementation, not asynchronous.
What is ironic is how this 16-bit DAC sounds better - in most areas accept bass -than the 24/192 Bel Canto DAC 2.5 it replaces in the same system.
The difference is definitely not Placebo and can easily be heard (the wife test). The enhancements are not only confined to 16-bit files, but also 24-bit files, which it down converts.

I also have on loan, in my other system, a Weiss DAC202 which is fantastic. I will do some comparison in the same system this weekend.
 

mauidan

Member Sponsor
Aug 2, 2010
1,512
11
36
Pukalani, HI
Seta-

I haven't heard the Tranquility SE, but I've followed the discussion over on audiocircle:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=74816.0

Looks like it uses the same box as the Legato.


Tranquility SE


Art Legato

I thought about trying the Tranquility SE, but I need more than one digital input and I want a DAC that can directly drive amps.

Look foward to your comparison with Weiss DAC202.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing