~$350 DAC's reviewed by the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/technology/personaltech/a-sound-system-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?_r=1&nl=technology&emc=edit_ct_20120913

Interesting layman observations here, IMO.

 

good article for the masses...maybe it will help explain to some of them why their computer music doesn't sound so hot and that for a few hundred dollars they can significantly make it sound better.

 

It wasn't just his observations but the observations of others also and I thought it was a pretty good review for a budget item.

BTW, we are all 'laymen' here - some have more experience than others but we are layman.

 

I actually enjoyed that article. Usually audio articles in The Times are rather frustrating, but this took a rather lay approach focused on positives and enjoyment. Anything that helps folks better enjoy music is a good thing.

 

Agreed.

It was a great article to find in my Times at lunch. Sitting in sun, eating lunch, reading audio. It's a life.

 

Great list. Thanks for the link.

 

Well that did it, just pulled the trigger on the BIfrost. Let's see what all the fuss is about...

 

Ed Dorsey is a great guy, sold me a pair of Vandersteens years back....nice to see Soundscape mentioned in the NY times...

 

Excellent article. Anything to keep Hi-Fi in the minds of people.

Weird enough, I have owned three of the test subjects--Bifrost, Dacmagic, and an HRT, but an IStreamer. Agree mostly with them--- though, there's certainly more variables involved to maximize the specs on all of them.

 

Indeed. That's why I posted it!

 

interesting.. my DACmagic handles rock just fine though it made a real difference when I upgraded the stock power supply.

 

I am happy to see the Times covering sound again, remember Hans Fantel? There was a ime that articles on good sound were a regular feature of the Times.

Now that everyone has gottne past the novelty of the ipods they will start to think about getting good sound out of these phones and other gadgets.

 

Thanks for the link, interesting article. Good to see the Schiit BiFrost was the crowd favorite, I agree with the assessment of larger soundstage, as well as the "wow" comment.

 

Thanks.

 

Neat to see an article like that in the NYT. Also a bit unexpected given the general audience that would read it. The people who already know what a DAC is should already know about sound quality differences and improvements. The people that don't know what a DAC is would have no understanding or any way to relate to the sound quality improvements and differences of different DACs. To those people all DACs would sound the same. They've never ever listened to a stereo system or headphone system that would allow them to hear or appreciate or even conceptualize those differences.

If a layperson person unfamiliar with DACs read that article would they be able to understand what is going on? Or would it be viewed as phoolery?

 

IMO I don't think the concept of making your computer based music sound better is all that difficult for people to understand. Sure some won't care and some won't believe it but people on the whole understand that Blu Ray is better than DVD so the idea of a piece of hardware making something better isn't all that big of a stretch.

 

Wired magazine also covered the California Audio Show. So there is some mainstream attention from time to time.

 

I remember the days when the major newspapers had strong coverage of hifi. The Melbourne Age used to have a pink section every Thursday (this is back in the mid-80s) which covered music and hifi, and included ads from the local dealers and hifi manufacturers.

It's nothing like that now, of course - but I was very pleased with the NY Times article.

 

I had the Schiiit Bifrost and it was indeed nice.

However, I've just acquired an Audioquest Dragonfly and I am not missing the Bifrost, one bit.

It's a game changer in this fast paced DAC market, IMHO.

 

The mid-80s was also the time of Stereo Review and similar audio magazines. My roommate at the time had Bose floorstanders and a Harman Kardon receiver and subscribed to Stereo Review. So that was the sound I was exposed to at the time. That stagnated my audiophile advancement by years, many years. Reading Stereo Review and listening to systems like the Bose, and whatever else was popular with Stereo Review, never showed me or allowed me to discover how to actually listen to a stereo and even be able to conceptualize what audiophiles were appreciating. What the heck did they mean by soundstage and depth? I had no idea. I thought I had a clue but was so mistaken. What is actual resolution and definition? I had no idea. I thought I did. I was wrong.

Just reading about what is good audio quality in a DAC does no good if you have never heard a system good enough to give you even a smidgen of an idea what they mean by improved soudstage or improved depth or improved definition. And it does no good to be talking about a better DAC if what you are listening to at home is a Bose floorstander or a home theater in a box system or if you consider a Bose Quiet Comfort headphone to be good sound. You'll never get the difference in DACs compared to standard computer onboard sound.

I appreciate seeing these sorts of articles in places like the NYT. It's good coverage. Gets the word out about pursuing better audio quality and that good audio quality now isn't as expensive as it used to be. But I don't believe it actually accomplishes much to be talking about DACs unless people have heard a proper stereo and understand and can conceptualize what the sound quality improvements are that are being discussed.

(feeling a bit out of character as a curmudgeon. i'm usually not like this.)

 

The New York Times had resident audio writer Hans Fantel, for many years. He heavily endorsed Bose, IIRC...

 

Interesting, because the Bifrost is a superior DAC to the Dragonfly, both sonically and functionally. I've owned both (still own my DF), and while the Dragonfly is excellent, it doesn't have anything like the openness, spaciousness and imaging of the Bifrost.

 

The Bifrost sounded more like hi-fi while the Dragonfly delivered a very honest, true to life midrange. Vocals and massed strings like on Buddy Holly's "True Love Ways" sound very lifelike on the Dragonfly.

 

do tell ... I just picked up one of these without much deliberation as I got it for a song, so let that be the deciding factor when looking at DAC's in this price range.

 

I have to respectfully disagree, while I think the DF is excellent, the Bifrost is sweeter, more natural, and more musical...at least in my system.