Discussions of multi-bit DACs and their clear superiority over regular DACs have recently arisen in certain audiophile circles online. The clear superiority of multi-bit DACs is touted, with links provided to articles online that have red flag (placebophile) buzzword for me.
So, I'm hoping that the community can point me to some decent articles or provide explanations over how multi-bit DACs work compared to their less expensive counterparts.
It's an engineering decision... I wouldn't worry about what's inside the DAC as long as it's better than human hearing (or one that meets whatever specs you're looking for). And with modern integrated electronics, it's cheap & easy to build a DAC that's better than human hearing, so unless your DAC is particularly bad it's not worth worrying about.*
Of course, the marketing team takes engineering/design decisions and touts them as selling features.
* A couple of years ago I did some quick research into a DAC that cost over a thousand dollars. The high-end DAC chip they were using (maybe the "best" available at the time) cost about $5 USD. But you don't need a high-end chip... Almost any cheap audio DAC chip is good enough if the circuit/product is properly designed.
There is a strong belief among "audiophiles" that the DAC can make a huge difference, and if you don't agree, you've never listened to an expensive DAC.
I totally disagree with this belief. I believe there is value in getting an external DAC and getting on the on-board amp out of the equation sometimes. But even that is not always necessary.
Multi-bit DACs sound like the usual placebophile belief that, if it costs more, it's obviously better.
Is there any reason to believe that a multi-bit DAC is going to sound different than the average run of the mill DAC. Forget any belief it may sound better. Is it there any chance there will be a perceived difference in the sound at all?
I've been told off by audiophiles for using a $30 DAC (FiiO D03K) in my system with ~$1500 worth of active studio monitors and subs, because "it's made for simple use only, for TVs that only have toslink output, not for proper hifi". Oddly enough, they can never seem to tell me exactly why that would make it unsuitable for use in a "proper hifi system".
The RMAA measurements are outstanding, and everything sounds fine, so it must be some sort of Wallet Overthickness Factor.
I've been told off by audiophiles for using a $30 DAC (FiiO D03K) in my system with ~$1500 worth of active studio monitors and subs, because "it's made for simple use only, for TVs that only have toslink output, not for proper hifi". Oddly enough, they can never seem to tell me exactly why that would make it unsuitable for use in a "proper hifi system".
The RMAA measurements are outstanding, and everything sounds fine, so it must be some sort of Wallet Overthickness Factor.
The D03K looks very nice. If my laptop had SPDIF or Coax out, it would be a great addition.
I do laugh when people tout a SPDIF out as a great feature of a sound card. SPDIF out means that you're not using your sound card, but passing off the analog conversion to another source.
I've been told off by audiophiles for using a $30 DAC (FiiO D03K) in my system with ~$1500 worth of active studio monitors and subs, because "it's made for simple use only, for TVs that only have toslink output, not for proper hifi". Oddly enough, they can never seem to tell me exactly why that would make it unsuitable for use in a "proper hifi system".
The RMAA measurements are outstanding, and everything sounds fine, so it must be some sort of Wallet Overthickness Factor.
The D03K looks very nice. If my laptop had SPDIF or Coax out, it would be a great addition.
I do laugh when people tout a SPDIF out as a great feature of a sound card. SPDIF out means that you're not using your sound card, but passing off the analog conversion to another source.
The thing is... they add the card when the computer already has S/PDIF, because what's built in
cannot possibly be good enoughAnd
then... Even though they might have bought some fancy, expensive, even professional sound card, they feed digital out to a DAC
because the sound card's analogue out cannot possibly be good enough. Most of them don't even pause to try it. And none of them (a bit guilty here myself)
ever give the onboard DAC even a brief chance.
And none of them (a bit guilty here myself) ever give the onboard DAC even a brief chance.
I did try it, but there was really bad load-dependent noise, I could hear high-pitched squealing when I moved windows around. I've used the onboard sound on other systems that have been just fine, but mine is just a hunk-a-junk, unfortunately.
What's a multi-bit DAC? I thought they all took at least 16 bits at a time.
What's a multi-bit DAC? I thought they all took at least 16 bits at a time.
It is not related to their input wordlength, but their internal way of working. More specifically, we're talking about two different ways of implementing sigma-delta converters. For an "introduction" into how they work and what the "multi-bit" moniker means in this context, see here (http://www.beis.de/Elektronik/DeltaSigma/DeltaSigma.html), for example.
What's a multi-bit DAC? I thought they all took at least 16 bits at a time.
It is not related to their input wordlength, but their internal way of working. More specifically, we're talking about two different ways of implementing sigma-delta converters. For an "introduction" into how they work and what the "multi-bit" moniker means in this context, see here (http://www.beis.de/Elektronik/DeltaSigma/DeltaSigma.html), for example.
That link is over my head. I believe Shiit claims to make one for a paltry $2300.
The BiFrost is their cheapest multi-Bit offering at $599. The current rumor is that Schiit is going to announce a multi-bit version of their Modi2 tomorrow, which is leading to a lot of placebophile chatter about the superiority of multi-bit DACs.
A reddit thread I was reading had someone explain what a multi-bit DAC was, only to have someone hop on and tell them that what they said was completely wrong, and give an explanation that made NO sense whatsoever.
So, at this point I'm feeling that multi-bit falls into the "It costs more so it must be better" logic.
And none of them (a bit guilty here myself) ever give the onboard DAC even a brief chance.
I did try it, but there was really bad load-dependent noise, I could hear high-pitched squealing when I moved windows around. I've used the onboard sound on other systems that have been just fine, but mine is just a hunk-a-junk, unfortunately.
I was perfectly fine with the onboard DAC. Then I bought a pair of Klipsch Promedia 2.1 speakers for my PC and plugged them in my docking station and got a buzzing noise sometimes. So I decided to try an external DAC. I bought a used Schiit Modi for $90 from someone. I figure I can try and see if it eliminates the buzzing. And it will also shut up all the placebophiles that keep telling me I don't have a leg to stand on because I am using "on-board."
Am I going to hear a difference with the on-board DAC? Other than maybe eliminating the occasional buzzing, I would say no.
These Pro Media speakers are disgustingly loud. I usually keep my PC volume at 100% and adjust the volume on my speakers. But when I do that, the lowest volume on the speakers is way too loud. I'm thinking the speaker out jack on my laptop must be amped.
So, at this point I'm feeling that multi-bit falls into the "It costs more so it must be better" logic.
They will invariably use DAC chips from one of the usual manufacturers, and those chips will cost a few dollars at most. It is in no way a reason for such high prices. If they use the multi-bit moniker as a pretext for a high price, they are deluding their customers (no matter what the impact of multi-bit on quality may be).
The Schiit Yggdrasil uses 2x2 Analog Devices AD5791 DAC chips that is 50$ each when i read it correctly.
That link is over my head.
Well, then for a very brief summary:
Originally, DACs in the early years of digital audio were often based on R2R resistor ladders; they converted the digital audio word to a current in one go, so you could call them multi-bit converters. The problem with such converters is their poor low-level linearity, which depends on resistor accuracy (those resistors are on-chip). This makes it impractical to use this technique in its pure form beyond 16-bit wordlength. The amount of precision trimming needed would be excessive.
First, this problem was tackled with oversampling, which could be used to increase the "apparent" wordlength of the DAC using filtering techniques on the digital side.
The next trick carried this idea to its extreme by reducing the DAC to a single bit, and use a noise-shaping sigma-delta loop with high-factor oversampling (*64 or more) to achieve the required dynamic range in the audio frequency band. This technique simplifies the analog circuitry to the max and thuis avoids problems with nonlinearities that had plagued the "parallel" converters used before. The introduction of such single-bit converters created the marketing problem of how to explain to a customer why a 1-bit converter was now supposed to be better than the 16, 18 or 20 bit converters used before. If you worked on the notion that more bits is better (as was done universally by marketing back then), you had a bit of explaining to do. The solution was to call this a "bitstream" converter, and avoid the notion that it is only 1-bit.
The classic sigma delta converter with a 1-bit DAC, however, also has a subtle problem in that it can produce very low level oscillations in some cases. The concept can be generalized, however, by using several bits (2 or 3) in the DAC stage, but otherwise keeping the noise-shaping loop. This yields a multi-bit sigma delta converter. This is completely different from the original multi-bit converters from the old days. Hence perhaps the confusion.
This is a topic that should interest only the DAC designers, because there is absolutely no useful performance information that you can derive from it as a layman.
The Schiit Yggdrasil uses 2x2 Analog Devices AD5791 DAC chips that is 50$ each when i read it correctly.
Those are modern incarnations of an R2R converter (but a more complicated segmented form that combines a 14-bit and a 6-bit segment), which is not aimed at audio, but at instrumentation usage. They are not sigma delta, expensive, and don't offer any tangible advantage for audio.
Except one: They don't have any digital filtering, so the people who are afraid of digital filters can relax.
So, at this point I'm feeling that multi-bit falls into the "It costs more so it must be better" logic.
They will invariably use DAC chips from one of the usual manufacturers, and those chips will cost a few dollars at most. It is in no way a reason for such high prices. If they use the multi-bit moniker as a pretext for a high price, they are deluding their customers (no matter what the impact of multi-bit on quality may be).
From what I am gathering, multi-bit is more than just the DAC chip itself. There is talk of PCB design and resistors.
There is also a good bit of confusion of also around terminology.
There is discussion of R2R DACs, which are claimed to be multi-bit. While Delta Signal DACs are not. Then another discussion starts up around Delta SIgnal DACs that are supposedly multi-bit.
The only article I was able to find was from someone who sells R2R DACs at ridiculous prices. I will admit that I don't understand enough about DACs to read this stuff and come up with an informed decision. And even if I did, there's no proof any of this superiority is actually audible.
But when it comes to Schiit as a company, this is what I gather...
The make a USB DAC called the Modi 2. It costs $99. And they make a headphone amp called the Magni 2 which is also $99. And on their product page they state that these two items is possibly all that you'll ever need. Which is probably right.
They make a whole line of more expensive stuff because there is money to be made from placebophiles. If you can crank out a bunch of high end gear and sell it and make a profit, why wouldn't you?
So, as far as audiophile gear goes, they're not the complete scam artists that most companies are. Their web site shows the specs for their products, has user manual downloads, and shows pics of the front and back. They don't link to placebophile reviews on their products. There is some placebophile marketing fluff on their page. But overall, I don't find them to be as bad as some companies (I'm talking to you, Moon Audio!)
The Schiit Yggdrasil uses 2x2 Analog Devices AD5791 DAC chips that is 50$ each when i read it correctly.
Those are modern incarnations of an R2R converter (but a more complicated segmented form that combines a 14-bit and a 6-bit segment), which is not aimed at audio, but at instrumentation usage. They are not sigma delta, expensive, and don't offer any tangible advantage for audio.
I only wanted to hint to exceptions out there.
They will invariably use DAC chips from one of the usual manufacturers, and those chips will cost a few dollars at most. It is in no way a reason for such high prices. If they use the multi-bit moniker as a pretext for a high price, they are deluding their customers (no matter what the impact of multi-bit on quality may be).
<snip>
But when it comes to Schiit as a company, this is what I gather...
The make a USB DAC called the Modi 2. It costs $99. And they make a headphone amp called the Magni 2 which is also $99. And on their product page they state that these two items is possibly all that you'll ever need. Which is probably right.
They make a whole line of more expensive stuff because there is money to be made from placebophiles. If you can crank out a bunch of high end gear and sell it and make a profit, why wouldn't you?
So, as far as audiophile gear goes, they're not the complete scam artists that most companies are. Their web site shows the specs for their products, has user manual downloads, and shows pics of the front and back. They don't link to placebophile reviews on their products. There is some placebophile marketing fluff on their page. But overall, I don't find them to be as bad as some companies (I'm talking to you, Moon Audio!)
I have to admit that the Schiit story, as published in instalments on Head-Fi, was absolutely gripping. I speak as a guy who detests management/marketing stuff. Can't help but be predisposed towards the company. As direct sellers, they do a lot to make people feel part of the family, whether we buy stuff or not. It is a very effective form of marketing.
I also think that they are sincere.
But hey, I know quite a few audiophiles who are
nice guys
There may be objective reasons for using an external DAC instead of an onboard DAC.
1. Hard to drive headphones in which case a DAC and a headphone amp are purchased, often as a single unit. Most likely symptom is low volume. I suspect this is the source of most happy purchasers.
2. Ground loops which can sometimes be solved by using an external DAC with a Toslink connection. Power comes from a wall wart.
3, Getting analogue audio out of a device having only a digital output, like many TV's. The cheap and popular FiiO Taishan is frequently used for this purpose.
I briefly owned an Audioquest Dragonfly 1.2. I found the sound from this highly rated device to be shrill and fatiguing with my speakers and sent it back. It was acceptable with headphones, which must be what most folks are using it for.
There may be objective reasons for using an external DAC instead of an onboard DAC.
1. Hard to drive headphones in which case a DAC and a headphone amp are purchased, often as a single unit. Most likely symptom is low volume. I suspect this is the source of most happy purchasers.
2. Ground loops which can sometimes be solved by using an external DAC with a Toslink connection. Power comes from a wall wart.
3, Getting analogue audio out of a device having only a digital output, like many TV's. The cheap and popular FiiO Taishan is frequently used for this purpose.
I briefly owned an Audioquest Dragonfly 1.2. I found the sound from this highly rated device to be shrill and fatiguing with my speakers and sent it back. It was acceptable with headphones, which must be what most folks are using it for.
The Dragonfly is a DAC/Amp Combo. It's quite possible the amp was giving you grief. I don'tr think there's a way to get an un-amped line out from that thing.
There may be objective reasons for using an external DAC instead of an onboard DAC.
1. Hard to drive headphones in which case a DAC and a headphone amp are purchased, often as a single unit. Most likely symptom is low volume. I suspect this is the source of most happy purchasers.
2. Ground loops which can sometimes be solved by using an external DAC with a Toslink connection. Power comes from a wall wart.
3, Getting analogue audio out of a device having only a digital output, like many TV's. The cheap and popular FiiO Taishan is frequently used for this purpose.
I briefly owned an Audioquest Dragonfly 1.2. I found the sound from this highly rated device to be shrill and fatiguing with my speakers and sent it back. It was acceptable with headphones, which must be what most folks are using it for.
The Dragonfly is a DAC/Amp Combo. It's quite possible the amp was giving you grief. I don'tr think there's a way to get an un-amped line out from that thing.
You are correct about the Dragonfly. Most likely it did not get along with the input circuit of my power amp which it was directly plugged into.
I'm not finding any credible-sounding articles regarding multi-bit DACs as they apply to audio.
It seems to me that a lot of what goes on in audiophiledom are rhetorical arguments, and many an audiophile product seems designed to address those matters of rhetoric. Science and engineering are only respected insofar as they seem to support existing beliefs.
I'm not finding any credible-sounding articles regarding multi-bit DACs as they apply to audio.
It seems to me that a lot of what goes on in audiophiledom are rhetorical arguments, and many an audiophile product seems designed to address those matters of rhetoric. Science and engineering are only respected insofar as they seem to support existing beliefs.
I think that is what you call a solution in search of a problem.
The latest post I just read said that the difference between an R2R DAC and a Delta-Signal DAC is "night and day" and no blind testing is necessary because of that. Soon as someone says that no blind testing is necessary, alarm bells go off in in my head.
The only thing that didn't make me discredit this completely was that the person said the R2R DAC sounded different and it was up to the individual person to decide if it sounded better. But of course, no one is going to be able to do this because most people don't have a $2300 Schiit YGGDRASIL lying around for the testing.
There is one review on YouTube where someone ABs a Schiit BiFrost Multi-bit and says he can't hear a difference between that and a regular 1-bit delta-signal DAC. I believe the BiFrost is a multi-bit delta-signal DAC, and not R2R. (Wow, I almost sound like I know what I am talking about!) But when someome ABs (not blind) the two DACs and says they sound the same, then I don't have a lot of hope of personally hearing a difference between the two with my non-placebophile ears.
I would like to thank everyone for the great input on this thread. I understand way more than I did before about this.
And none of them (a bit guilty here myself) ever give the onboard DAC even a brief chance.
I did try it, but there was really bad load-dependent noise, I could hear high-pitched squealing when I moved windows around. I've used the onboard sound on other systems that have been just fine, but mine is just a hunk-a-junk, unfortunately.
I was perfectly fine with the onboard DAC. Then I bought a pair of Klipsch Promedia 2.1 speakers for my PC and plugged them in my docking station and got a buzzing noise sometimes. So I decided to try an external DAC. I bought a used Schiit Modi for $90 from someone. I figure I can try and see if it eliminates the buzzing. And it will also shut up all the placebophiles that keep telling me I don't have a leg to stand on because I am using "on-board."
Am I going to hear a difference with the on-board DAC? Other than maybe eliminating the occasional buzzing, I would say no.
These Pro Media speakers are disgustingly loud. I usually keep my PC volume at 100% and adjust the volume on my speakers. But when I do that, the lowest volume on the speakers is way too loud. I'm thinking the speaker out jack on my laptop must be amped.
The buzzing in my onboard would occur every time I moved the damn mouse. It was so bad and irritating to me, I felt the urge to strangle someone over it. Getting an internal sound card with a built-in headphone amp with a break out box to sit on my desk (although it actually sits on top of my computer) saved me a stay at the local insane asylum. I'm using a desktop PC by the way.
From what I am gathering, multi-bit is more than just the DAC chip itself. There is talk of PCB design and resistors.
That's got nothing to do with multi-bit. You need a PCB and resistors in any case. And a power supply. and capacitors. And connectors. And an enclosure. Audiophiles can make a big deal out of everything.
There is discussion of R2R DACs, which are claimed to be multi-bit. While Delta Signal DACs are not. Then another discussion starts up around Delta SIgnal DACs that are supposedly multi-bit.
R2R DACs are multi-bit quasi by definition. Delta sigma (not signal, the name derives from two greek letters) can be either single-bit or multi-bit, depending on their internals.
The only article I was able to find was from someone who sells R2R DACs at ridiculous prices. I will admit that I don't understand enough about DACs to read this stuff and come up with an informed decision. And even if I did, there's no proof any of this superiority is actually audible.
Due to their problems with low-level linearity, R2R DACs were long regarded as inferior for audio. Sure, with enough trimming and cleverness, you can get the linearity problems reduced below audibility. That's an old art, people had to resort to this kind of design in the 70s and early 80s, before the advent of delta sigma converters, but because of this it is expensive. So in a certain sense, the R2R advocates are harking back to the early years of digital audio. It is, so to say, a "vintage" technology. For audiophiles, that means it must be good. :)
They make a whole line of more expensive stuff because there is money to be made from placebophiles. If you can crank out a bunch of high end gear and sell it and make a profit, why wouldn't you?
I wouldn't mind the money, my problem would be the nonsense that I would have to produce to trigger their audiophile buttons. I don't like lying.
There is one aspect that is often overlooked and may account for audible differences. If you drive a DAC with loudness-maximized signals close to clipping, there may be overloads. If anything is being done on the digital side, either an oversampling filter or a delta sigma modulator, which both amount to digital processing, then those filters may be driven into an overload state. That obviously depends on their individual design, and can not be generalized beyond any particular chip. However, extreme cases have become known where digital filters took many milliseconds to recover from such a state, creating nasty distortions in the process. You would expect that more modern chips are a bit more resilient to this phenomenon.
DACs with no digital processing are inherently immune to such problems. But it would be extremely silly to discount everything else summarily, because the cure is simple: Reduce the level of the signal on the digital side by a few dB, and the problem is gone.
1. Hard to drive headphones in which case a DAC and a headphone amp are purchased, often as a single unit. Most likely symptom is low volume. I suspect this is the source of most happy purchasers.
The problem here isn't that the headphone is hard to drive. Higher impedance headphones are typically quite easy to drive, except that they need more voltage than what a typical PC soundchip produces. Headphones with 600 Ohm impedance are so easy to drive that they can work off a conventional professional line output, but they need professional voltage levels. Headphones suited for the low voltages of PC soundcards and portable players typically have much lower impedances, which means (in the usual sense of the word) that they are harder to drive.
The latest post I just read said that the difference between an R2R DAC and a Delta-Signal DAC is "night and day" and no blind testing is necessary because of that. Soon as someone says that no blind testing is necessary, alarm bells go off in in my head.
Rightly so.
There is one review on YouTube where someone ABs a Schiit BiFrost Multi-bit and says he can't hear a difference between that and a regular 1-bit delta-signal DAC. I believe the BiFrost is a multi-bit delta-signal DAC, and not R2R. (Wow, I almost sound like I know what I am talking about!) But when someome ABs (not blind) the two DACs and says they sound the same, then I don't have a lot of hope of personally hearing a difference between the two with my non-placebophile ears.
From what I see on their website it is a 16-bit R2R type DAC with a digital filter (an oversampling filter, most likely) in front of it. This kind of architecture was typical for the second half of the 80s, and into the 90s, until delta-sigma took over.
So, now the whole world gets to see how I carried "delta-signal" through the whole post. I actually typed delta-sigma a few times and then went back and checked my previous post and "corrected" it to what I typed previously. Sigh....
Anyway, I would love to hear it, to prove to myself that it doesn't make a difference. The problem with high end gear is that a lot of stores don't carry it, and you're stuff with online reviews and online purchases. And most retail "audiophile" stores don't contain any low end stuff to compare it to.
There is one "audiophile" store near me that's only open about 10 hours a week. And he doesn't have anything under $100 in there. Getting him to allow you to ABX anything is next to impossible.
Getting him to allow you to ABX anything is next to impossible.
Chances are that he wouldn't even have a setup for proper level matching, let alone the switching gear.
And here is what all the big stink was about:
http://schiit.com/news/news/introducing-modi-multibit
Schiit has a new cheaper multibit DAC.
From the email chain I had with Schiit about this, I'm pretty sure they made this because they know it will sell, not because they actually believe it's superior.
I think it's funny that "audiophiles" won't take a company like SMSL seriously, or even FiiO. But a soon as a company offers a high priced product, the company becomes worthy of audiophile notice.
The pre-hydrogenaudio placebophile in me in screaming to get one of these things to try it out, when the level-headed me knows very well that I'm not going to hear a difference.
The pre-hydrogenaudio placebophile in me in screaming to get one of these things to try it out, when the level-headed me knows very well that I'm not going to hear a difference.
Worse: With some of these expensive audiophile products, you might indeed hear a difference. It wouldn't be a good sign, however. There's a real chance that it is actually worse in quality than what you get from a "normal" product.
The pre-hydrogenaudio placebophile in me in screaming to get one of these things to try it out, when the level-headed me knows very well that I'm not going to hear a difference.
Worse: With some of these expensive audiophile products, you might indeed hear a difference. It wouldn't be a good sign, however. There's a real chance that it is actually worse in quality than what you get from a "normal" product.
But it costs more, so it must be better, right?
Is the whole R2R comeback thing kinda like the resurgence of vinyl?
Is the whole R2R comeback thing kinda like the resurgence of vinyl?
There certainly is a vintage aspect to it. They don't say at Schiit, however. Perhaps because they don't use true vintage parts, but rather their more contemporary equivalents. Hardwired oversampling filter chips are largely extinct, so they use a freely programmable DSP. The old R2R converter chips are long out of production, too, so they pick what they can find now, even though these chips are made for different applications.
At least, I have no reason to assume that their design is neglecting the basic sampling theory, like in the case of many NOS DACs. Without having looked at it in any detail, it does seem that they use a more or less straightforward oversampling setup similar to what was en vogue some 25 years ago. Nothing particularly wrong with that, except that we can have similar performance for a lot less money these days with delta sigma.
The need for R2R may come from the claimed superiority of dsd.
Golden ears hear Delta-Sigma DACs only sound good these days when you convert your PCM to dsd with high-end software players because it is the claimed native format for these chips. You need dsd recordings to get out the best, PCM doesn't cut it.
R2R brings life back into PCM and makes it competetive again.
In reality both systems exceed existing recordings by far.
Well hey, people eagerly ran out and bought NOS DACs during their resurgence. Why not some other throwback design?
I wonder if it will sound better if laid upside down?
1. Hard to drive headphones in which case a DAC and a headphone amp are purchased, often as a single unit. Most likely symptom is low volume. I suspect this is the source of most happy purchasers.
The problem here isn't that the headphone is hard to drive. Higher impedance headphones are typically quite easy to drive, except that they need more voltage than what a typical PC soundchip produces. Headphones with 600 Ohm impedance are so easy to drive that they can work off a conventional professional line output, but they need professional voltage levels. Headphones suited for the low voltages of PC soundcards and portable players typically have much lower impedances, which means (in the usual sense of the word) that they are harder to drive.
That's an entirely semantic argument. The fact is high impedance phones don't produce enough volume off the audio sections of many motherboards and notebooks. You can call that hard or easy, but the result isn't satisfying. The professional voltage levels you refer to are not available in many consumer products. The result is the same, one goes off in search of an alternative solution. At any rate, it isn't the DAC, it is the compatibility of the headphone amp.
Well hey, people eagerly ran out and bought NOS DACs during their resurgence. Why not some other throwback design?
I wonder if it will sound better if laid upside down?
I don't know about turning the DAC upside down, but I am heading straight to my den and will try to listen to music while I am upside down.
If a DAC works better upside down then it's a piece of garbage with either a very dodgey solder job or has serious thermal problems due to very bad design that causes things to overheat to the point of malfunction (hopefully not a fire).
It should work the same if it's right side up or upside down.
It's an on-going joke.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3211-Review-Benchmark-DAC1-%28Modified%29&p=48449&viewfull=1#post48449
It's an on-going joke.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3211-Review-Benchmark-DAC1-%28Modified%29&p=48449&viewfull=1#post48449
LOL!
To put a few things into perspective:
1. Classic R2R multibit DACs actually were used in CD players well into the '90s. This was because 1-bit DACs at the time still had some hurdles to overcome.
First of all, all kinds of DACs have a penchant for outputting ultrasonic garbage that may upset the following stages (read: cause intermodulation distortion). R2R DACs are famous for their glitches, but 1-bit delta-sigma with heavy noise shaping is especially bad. Extensive filtering and/or fast-slewing opamps are required to cope with this. If you were ever wondering why sample circuits liked to use OPA2604s as I/V at the time (despite them not being very good performers on typical +/-12 V), these were a fast-slewing FET-input type, read quite good RF immunity.
In addition, pure 1-bit converters also tend to be terribly sensitive to clock jitter, and only the introduction of synchronous switched-capacitor filtering in the early-mid '90s (and subsequent advances in the technology) made them robust to varying degrees. Jitter could otherwise fold back into the audio band and degrade SNR among other things.
2. Multi-multibit delta-sigma converters were pretty much the last "next big thing" in audio converters. These employ technology that switches between multiple few-bit converters (maybe 4 bit, generally imperfect) in such a way that turns their quantization noise into random noise and linearizes the whole shebang. Their main advantage next to stability is higher inherent converter SNR, so you need less noise shaping to achieve the same output SNR, making them either more output-stage-friendly or achieving higher SNR than possible otherwise. The entire success of Wolfson Micro was built on converters like that.
As you might gather from the above, discussing DAC technology in isolation is of limited use. Whether a DAC performs well ultimately comes down to implementation - the ODAC shows that you can wring good performance from a part that's only moderately high-strung, while any number of China eBay DACs with fancy chips but barely cracking the 100 dB DR demonstrate the opposite.
BTW, the D03K is quite borderline. The LMV358 low-power opamp in the output stage is pretty meh (1 V/µs, 1 MHz GBW, modest current capability) and would need a lot of a following wind, and I don't think the little Cirrus DAC is a miracle in jitter rejection. It's probably good enough, but I'd generally prefer your average Realtek onboard audio unless afflicted by ground loop noise...
all kinds of DACs have a penchant for outputting ultrasonic garbage that may upset the following stages (read: cause intermodulation distortion).
*hi-rez rant to be inserted about here*
Well hey, people eagerly ran out and bought NOS DACs during their resurgence. Why not some other throwback design?
I wonder if it will sound better if laid upside down?
What's wrong with an NOS DAC? New Old Stock products are a great deal. You get a manufacturer's warranty at a discounted price because something has been discontinued. I love buying NOS.\
:-)
What's wrong with an NOS DAC? New Old Stock products are a great deal. You get a manufacturer's warranty at a discounted price because something has been discontinued. I love buying NOS.\
As a consumer or hobbyist, it's fine. But, as a manufacturer you generally don't want to design-in obsolete parts... You may end-up with a shut-down assembly line or you may end-up paying a high price for parts that are in short supply. And you can get into a situation where the products in the field are not repairable
Of course there can be exceptions... If you know you are only going to build 1000 or 10000 units and then re-design, and you can buy (or reserve) all of the parts you need in advance, you may be OK.
But as a rule, design engineers hate using obsolete parts and production planners and production managers hate it too.
What's wrong with an NOS DAC?
Nothing if they are designed competently (far from a given in the boutique market). Then there are the nutjobs who want one without a reconstruction filter.
I guess everyone missed my pun there. In the retail world NOS means "New Old Stock." So, as a retailer I have a brand new in box 1985 Rolex. It would normally sell for $5,000 if it was a 2016 Rolex, but since I just want to recoup my loss, I sell it for $3,000 as 'New Old Stock.' Or selling a discontinued model of something that's never been opened.
Your NOS obviously means "non oversampling" DAC, something I know nothing about. If you could provide me some links, I would like to research them.
A NOS DAC simply outputs a stairstep waveform following the input sample values, zero-order hold. There is no extra interpolation as in calculating in-between sample values. That's why you get droop, i.e. significant FR roll off towards Fs/2. Audiophiles call this roll-off "silky, non-digital highs" when playing CDs (44.1 kHz). :P
Without an additional (analog) anti-imaging filter, you will also get high frequency images potentially harming or degrading the performance of downstream equipment.
As for multi-bit, stephan_g explained it pretty well. Multi-bit sigma-delta is where it's at. 1-bit/DSD have serious problems.
One "bad" solution for those mid-80s releases where the treble has been exaggerated, or perhaps a possible reason as to why those releases got that way?
The true cure of course was to reissue them with different EQ and then crush their dynamics as an added bonus.
I guess they plan on saving the least processed for hi-re$. Sorry that the best available source tapes now have audible degredation, ignoring that they were never that hi-fi to begin with.
Sorry that the best available source tapes now have audible degredation, ignoring that they were never that hi-fi to begin with.
You have spoken audiophile blasphemy! You have been simultaneously banned from head-fi.org, forums.stevehoffman.tv, and https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile.
:-)
What's wrong with an NOS DAC?
They cost more than better-performing current technology.
They confuse people who don't know better.
They are physically larger.
They take more power.
They have limited availability.
They have limited flexibility.
Basically, they are toys.
If you like to toy around with your audio system and don't care about costs or performance, then they are just what you want.
Some of us march to a different drummer and want low cost, high performance, etc.
Most people want to listen to music, spoken word, and drama as opposed to play with toy audio systems.
It is said that NwAvGuy designed the Odac to prove NOS DAC's (and a list of other design features like asynchronous USB claimed to be essential for superior DAC performance) were not needed. Tom's Hardware did their now famous blind test where a motherboard Realtek 889 sounded as good as the Odac and a $2k Benchmark DAC. Makes me wonder how much difference there is between my ALC283 and the ALC889 with it's superior published SN ratio.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html)
There is my favorite test where a consumer DVD player hooked up to a $200 studio amp with a $2 cable was indistinguishable from an $11k stack of gear:
http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm (http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm)
What really blows me away is the A500 input volume controls were shown by some guy to increase distortion from .1% to .4% when turned down, yet these had to be used in the test as DVD players ordinarily do not have variable output.
The moral of the story is electronics usually don't make a difference. If they do it's something like trying to drive 600 ohm cans to high volume with a mobile phone. The playback experience is mostly dependent on the recording, loudspeakers/headphones, and room acoustics, in that order.
What I can guaranty you is high end audio gear will look pretty in your listening area.
There is my favorite test where a consumer DVD player hooked up to a $200 studio amp with a $2 cable was indistinguishable from an $11k stack of gear:
http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm (http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm)
I remember this and I also remembering others attempting to draw the same conclusion.
Suppose I constructed a test in order to determine whether people prefer milk, juice or water. Let's say the results came back using a very limited number of participants showing a preference of roughly a third for each. Would that mean that milk, juice and water are indistinguishable from one another? There is very little daylight between this the above quote.
EDIT: Let me get a bit closer. Let's instead say the test was designed to measure a preference just between beer and wine and roughly equal numbers of people chose one, the other or abstained. Does this show that no difference could be discerned between beer and wine? No, the numbers demonstrated that the preference was split roughly equally between the three categories, no more, no less.
It is said that NwAvGuy designed the Odac to prove NOS DAC's (and a list of other design features like asynchronous USB claimed to be essential for superior DAC performance) were not needed. Tom's Hardware did their now famous blind test where a motherboard Realtek 889 sounded as good as the Odac and a $2k Benchmark DAC. Makes me wonder how much difference there is between my ALC283 and the ALC889 with it's superior published SN ratio.
The ODAC and Objective2 headphone amp were designed to show you that audiophile gear was too expensive. Objective was put in the name, because you were supposed to be able to objectively tell that his product was as good as offerings that were significantly better. The CMOY amp was designed for the very same reason. Chu Moy was trying to show up the big "audiophile" companies at the time, and released the plans for CMOY for free. Before you know it, there were CMOY amps popping up all over eBay for around US$50.
But Chu Moy passed away recently and NwAvGuy seems to have fallen off the face of the planet. And I've seen posts by people that claim were in direct communication with him that said he claimed to have received death threats. His domain name keeps getting renews, so he's probably still around somewhere.
Let's instead say the test was designed to measure a preference just between beer and wine and roughly equal numbers of people chose one, the other or abstained. Does this show that no difference could be discerned between beer and wine? No, the numbers demonstrated that the preference was split roughly equally between the three categories, no more, no less.
The point being that testing for audible differences and testing for preferences are two different things.
They are related in that you must be able to reliably hear a difference in order for the preference testing to be meaningful. "I hear no difference but I prefer one or the other..." is illogical.
However, just because the listeners have no preferences, doesn't mean that they hear no differences.
Also, if differences are so small that they are hard to hear reliably, listeners often have no preferences. The alternatives sound almost the same, so why prefer one over the other? YMMV.
IIRC, there was nothing to randomize in that test. There was just an A and a B. The users knew at all times whether they were sampling A or B, they just didn't know which system was which throughout the test. Then again, if they allowed a sighted audition and there was some audible tell (due to the actual equipment being evaluated, or due to some flaw in the setup or procedure, it doesn't matter), they did know which was which throughout the test. Even if there absolutely wasn't any audible tell (including the actual equipment), a sighted audition gives the participants an opportunity to get impressions and ascribe differences which they are free to apply to either A or B at any time during the test before they ultimately give their answer. These impressions are truly imaginary, of course, but it doesn't matter.
"I hear no difference but I prefer one or the other..." is nothing I would expect anyone to say, but if someone can't actually hear a difference but thinks he can then he can also have a preference. When there is just an A or a B, but never an X (unless you count the one and only time the veil is pulled over the equipment) he can then freely and consistently apply this imagined preference.
There can be differences with preferences, there can be differences without preferences. Differences can be ascribed whether they are due to something actually audible or simply due to placebo.
"why prefer one over the other?"
Humans are silly? I don't know.
"YMMV."
That's the safe bet.
The Tom's Hardware test is problematic as it had only 2 participants.
3, Getting analogue audio out of a device having only a digital output, like many TV's. The cheap and popular FiiO Taishan is frequently used for this purpose.
Yup - my stereo is two channel analog. I don't like surround sound, it makes me feel boxed in like I'm in a closet. Well done surround sound not so much, but movies likes to make you feel like everything is happening around you. Something about me psychologically does not like that.
So I don't need an expensive stereo with digital in, but my TV only has digital out. That device was cheap and solved the problem. Never seems to have a problem, I forget it is there, everything sounds good.
The Tom's Hardware test is problematic as it had only 2 participants.
Yeah too small for a meta analysis, no good.
The Tom's Hardware test is problematic as it had only 2 participants.
A test with only two participants and no other evidence can be problematical when the hypothesis that is supported is negative. OTOH, a test with two participants that supports a positive hypothesis can be the start of something big.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733-18.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733-18.html) which is titled "Page 18:Why Audio Formats Above 16-Bit/44.1 kHz Don't Matter" looks like a negative hypothesis to me.
And none of them (a bit guilty here myself) ever give the onboard DAC even a brief chance.
I did try it, but there was really bad load-dependent noise, I could hear high-pitched squealing when I moved windows around. I've used the onboard sound on other systems that have been just fine, but mine is just a hunk-a-junk, unfortunately.
I was perfectly fine with the onboard DAC. Then I bought a pair of Klipsch Promedia 2.1 speakers for my PC and plugged them in my docking station and got a buzzing noise sometimes. So I decided to try an external DAC. I bought a used Schiit Modi for $90 from someone. I figure I can try and see if it eliminates the buzzing. And it will also shut up all the placebophiles that keep telling me I don't have a leg to stand on because I am using "on-board."
Am I going to hear a difference with the on-board DAC? Other than maybe eliminating the occasional buzzing, I would say no.
These Pro Media speakers are disgustingly loud. I usually keep my PC volume at 100% and adjust the volume on my speakers. But when I do that, the lowest volume on the speakers is way too loud. I'm thinking the speaker out jack on my laptop must be amped.
The buzzing in my onboard would occur every time I moved the damn mouse. It was so bad and irritating to me, I felt the urge to strangle someone over it. Getting an internal sound card with a built-in headphone amp with a break out box to sit on my desk (although it actually sits on top of my computer) saved me a stay at the local insane asylum. I'm using a desktop PC by the way.
Instead of paying money to fix someone else's problem, you should just returned the PC and got a working one.