Q: Do DACs really sound that different from each other? I thought all DAC chips sounded pretty much the same
A: Most DAC chips are indistinguishable from each other, but keep in mind that DACs have analog circuitry too, which changes the sound to a lesser or greater degree.
So for example I cannot tell the difference between Modi and ODAC most of the time but I can tell the difference between my NOS DAC and ODAC every time!
And between my Cambridge Audio DacMagic 100 and Modi every time (different analog circuitry specifically tuned by Cambridge Audio to sound warm for classical music)
Showing posts with label Schiit Modi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schiit Modi. Show all posts
Friday, August 8, 2014
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Now I see it, now I don't....
Q: Do different DACs sound different? What kind of DAC should I get?
A: In theory the DAC should generate the exact identical analog version of the digital source, i.e. the sound is faithfully transmitted to the next link in the chain without any additions or subtractions. This is my definition of a transparent DAC --- a DAC that behaves "like it's not there".
But in reality that's not what happens, since the additional components that make up the DAC add their own "voices" to the signal, as does the DAC chip itself.
Having said this, most DAC chips use the same digital processing method (delta-sigma) and so sound remarkably similar to each other, whether they are made by Sabre or Wolfson or Cirrus Logic or Analog Devices, or any of the other slew of DAC manufacturers. There are some exceptions, for example old-style NOS (non oversampling) DACs sound different than their delta-sigma brethren, because they operate under entirely different principles. But by and large when you read reviews that wax eloquent about the significant and substantial differences in the sound from one DAC chip or another, you are being subjected to, well, bullshit.
Why then is there so much variation recorded between DACs? Why are some dacs felt to be "warm" and others to be "cold"? Well, the biggest reason is that it is a matter of perception: if you approach DAC transparency from an objectivist position, then for you a transparent DAC is ideal and if you are a subjectivist listener then the same DAC is "cold" or "boring".
If you are an objectivist, you want the faithful transmission of a signal, then the coloration imparted by the analog component fo a DAC like the Cambridge Audio DacMAgic 100 is anathema.
And if you are a subjectivist, the coloring of the sound excites you just as much as the faithful transmission of the signal, and the transparent output of a DAC like the ODAC might be "bland" or "cold" or "not energetic" to you. I would argue that for such a subjectivist listener, the tonal variations offered by a tube DAC might actually be more pleasing than "the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth" offered by a transparent DAC. If you don't believe me, ask anyone with a Grado.
Further, a DAC can pick up floor noise -- hiss from, say a laptop via the USB port, that the muddies the sound profile a ta. But the same DAC may be deathly silent when plugged into a desktop USB. Does that mean that the DAC is transparent when it's connected to a desktop but not to a laptop? By my definition, yes.
You can get around noisy USB by including a good power transformer with the DAC itself. But these are expensive, and can drive up the price of the DAC. One DAC brand that has been touted for its sonic neutrality, to the point of becoming a standard reference whenever the term "transparent DAC" rears its head, is the Bench mark DAC1, which is an expensive option.
So from price-performance perspective, does buying a DAC1 make sense? Probably not. You can get a relatively transparent DAC as cheaply as $100 - the Schiit Modi (which uses a wallwart for power), or alternatively the ODAC (which uses USB power, and is priced at $150) and these are perfectly acceptable price-performance options to something like the DAC1.
A: In theory the DAC should generate the exact identical analog version of the digital source, i.e. the sound is faithfully transmitted to the next link in the chain without any additions or subtractions. This is my definition of a transparent DAC --- a DAC that behaves "like it's not there".
But in reality that's not what happens, since the additional components that make up the DAC add their own "voices" to the signal, as does the DAC chip itself.
Having said this, most DAC chips use the same digital processing method (delta-sigma) and so sound remarkably similar to each other, whether they are made by Sabre or Wolfson or Cirrus Logic or Analog Devices, or any of the other slew of DAC manufacturers. There are some exceptions, for example old-style NOS (non oversampling) DACs sound different than their delta-sigma brethren, because they operate under entirely different principles. But by and large when you read reviews that wax eloquent about the significant and substantial differences in the sound from one DAC chip or another, you are being subjected to, well, bullshit.
Why then is there so much variation recorded between DACs? Why are some dacs felt to be "warm" and others to be "cold"? Well, the biggest reason is that it is a matter of perception: if you approach DAC transparency from an objectivist position, then for you a transparent DAC is ideal and if you are a subjectivist listener then the same DAC is "cold" or "boring".
If you are an objectivist, you want the faithful transmission of a signal, then the coloration imparted by the analog component fo a DAC like the Cambridge Audio DacMAgic 100 is anathema.
And if you are a subjectivist, the coloring of the sound excites you just as much as the faithful transmission of the signal, and the transparent output of a DAC like the ODAC might be "bland" or "cold" or "not energetic" to you. I would argue that for such a subjectivist listener, the tonal variations offered by a tube DAC might actually be more pleasing than "the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth" offered by a transparent DAC. If you don't believe me, ask anyone with a Grado.
Further, a DAC can pick up floor noise -- hiss from, say a laptop via the USB port, that the muddies the sound profile a ta. But the same DAC may be deathly silent when plugged into a desktop USB. Does that mean that the DAC is transparent when it's connected to a desktop but not to a laptop? By my definition, yes.
You can get around noisy USB by including a good power transformer with the DAC itself. But these are expensive, and can drive up the price of the DAC. One DAC brand that has been touted for its sonic neutrality, to the point of becoming a standard reference whenever the term "transparent DAC" rears its head, is the Bench mark DAC1, which is an expensive option.
So from price-performance perspective, does buying a DAC1 make sense? Probably not. You can get a relatively transparent DAC as cheaply as $100 - the Schiit Modi (which uses a wallwart for power), or alternatively the ODAC (which uses USB power, and is priced at $150) and these are perfectly acceptable price-performance options to something like the DAC1.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Q: Can DAC s power headphones?
A: Some DACs have circuits on their output side that can run most headphones without issues -- for example the Benchmark DAC1 is a reference DAC that also has a high current, low impedance headphone amp. Now you can use it as a DAC with fixed output to a standalone amp, but in reality you could use it as the only equipment you will ever need, if you wanted to. The HPA2 on the DAC1 is very capable of powering 2 headphones on its dual outputs, including most higher impedance headphones. The volume knob allows you to easily adjust the level of the output, and so you can set your source volume at 100% and use the DAC1 to pretty much manage your entire personal audio experience.
In contrast, you have the Schiit Modi, which outputs a line-level signal via the RCA jacks on the back. The Modi output may not be powerful enough to power many headphones, and you have no way of adjusting output volume unless you modify the source level (which is typically not the best thing to do since the sound quality can degrade).
So the trick, if you want a single unit solution, is to find a DAC/amp combo, or a DAC that has a headphone amplifier circuit built in. Keep in mind that some lower-end DACs don't really splurge on the quality of the built-in headphone amp since they don't see the need (many of their customers will be using standalone amps anyway).
A: Some DACs have circuits on their output side that can run most headphones without issues -- for example the Benchmark DAC1 is a reference DAC that also has a high current, low impedance headphone amp. Now you can use it as a DAC with fixed output to a standalone amp, but in reality you could use it as the only equipment you will ever need, if you wanted to. The HPA2 on the DAC1 is very capable of powering 2 headphones on its dual outputs, including most higher impedance headphones. The volume knob allows you to easily adjust the level of the output, and so you can set your source volume at 100% and use the DAC1 to pretty much manage your entire personal audio experience.
In contrast, you have the Schiit Modi, which outputs a line-level signal via the RCA jacks on the back. The Modi output may not be powerful enough to power many headphones, and you have no way of adjusting output volume unless you modify the source level (which is typically not the best thing to do since the sound quality can degrade).
So the trick, if you want a single unit solution, is to find a DAC/amp combo, or a DAC that has a headphone amplifier circuit built in. Keep in mind that some lower-end DACs don't really splurge on the quality of the built-in headphone amp since they don't see the need (many of their customers will be using standalone amps anyway).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)