You’ll want one of the aforementioned R2R DACs that tend to not measure very well, which happens to be why they excel at the 3D trick, similar to a tube amp. It’s distortion and noise that helps generate that perception of atmosphere and a more analog-like sound. There’s nothing wrong with that (I own and enjoy tube gear and poor-measuring DACs also) but wanted to point this out so you don’t waste your time with a Chord, RME, Benchmark, or one of the measurement champs out of China. I’d add the Border Patrol DAC to your list. Edit: Just noticed you already took the plunge on a Benchmark — maybe a good opportunity to allow you to compare these two schools of design and hear the difference for yourself.
Yes - the RME ADI-2 has been in the mix since Saturday, the Benchmark is coming Thursday. I may audition a Gold Note DS-10 alongside them. The Yggdrasil and Denafrips haves a long lead time, and with no return policy, the Denafrips requires a total leap of faith. That makes it difficult to directly compare those two with the others. I may return and rebuy the preferred DAC from the first round to get another few weeks to compare it to an R2R DAC. FWIW, everything else in my system is tube based except for the Node 2i. If I get a wider soundstage from the Benchmark or Gold Note, that may be enough for me. Kind of like a tube pre with SS amplification... might be nice to go that direction for digital, and leave the full tube chain for vinyl.
I’m not following how distortion and noise add to a sense of 3D; I find that it tends to decrease ‘space’ in a recording. Any other info on this that I can check out?
I’m certainly going back to tube pre and SS power. It’s proven to be “magic” for me in the past and hope it will do so to a greater degree in the future. It’s great you have a chance to audition a few different DACs in your own system. Good luck and let the best all round performer (for you) win.
The distortion of a tube amp is what accounts for the sense of increased atmosphere and warmth over SS. In my experience, R2R dacs and those with no output filters can produce a similar sense of space but I’ve yet to hear the same from good-measuring DACs (though they have other desirable traits). This leads me to surmise that the distortion, (intermodulation included) performance is what accounts for the unique sound of R2R DACs. If not, then what? Something we have yet to discover needs measured?
OK I've thought about this too. And while we are all at this point making things up here, what the heck, we all are just guessing about why R2R DACs have a distinct sound. How about because an NOS R2R DAC decodes the entire 16 bit word in one snapshot? No filters. Much better harmonic detail as it is looking at the entire WORD in one shot unlike a Delta-Sigma chip type dac setup. A DAC "Chip" Delta-Sigma type decodes five bits in a chunk (or however many they do) , then another five, then another five etc etc. Then it puts this massively oversampled blenderized mess back together using extreme filtering until it has great specs. Meanwhile the sound is so "blenderized" it becomes dull sounding. But it is very precise due to the extreme manipulation of the data and all that filtering. And it specs out of this world with "accuracy" after tons and tons of filtering and oversampling has been applied to the data. A great chip DS DAC can definitely have tremendous SOUND QUALITY but the ones that I have used that have outstanding sound have fabulous ANALOG line stage circuitry built in to their output sections. If a designer uses a class A high end analog section it can make DOO DOO sound great. So you use a cheap chip, spend a fortune on the filtering and output stage and VOILA! we have the better DS dacs in a nutshell. Maybe. Anyway. I KNOW this is all garbage and speculation and frankly I don't give a damn, Scarlett. But I like me imaginary explanation.. PS I thought up an imaginary explanation for how an EQ works the other day and once I went online and read what science says about EQ I had GUESSED the mechanism by which analog EQ functions right on the nose! Unless the scientists are full of crap. Which many are. Anyway hoo hah! Are we enjoying our sets? That's the only game that counts. Oh by the way Audio Science Review tested the Denafrips ARES II and they had to admit it was one of the best resolution DACs you can buy as it gets 20 bits clean. It also gets extremely competitive numbers in other areas too. Amir quietly shook his head and admitted "it performs well." He sounded shocked as he came into the review expecting a cheap chip to beat the R2R format hands down. No way. Yeah. Like the ARES tested BETTER than most Delta-Sigma DACs test in some respects. And Amir never even figured out how to turn on NOS! Which is a joke, that he didn't know. It's why I use an R2R and he didn't listen in NOS at all---ha! Many of the most revered DS dacs can only hit 18 bits on the test bench. John Atkinson of Stereophile Magazine said the ARES hit 22 bits! But he uses different filtering parameters. In any event your put down of R2R is simply poorly informed. They do NOT test worse than DS in all cases. It is NOT inherently a worse design technically. And mine sounds great. Much more like real music than my best chip DS dac does and it cost three times the ARES price. Cheers!
I've had a Qutest in my system for the past two months and see it as perhaps the opposite of an R2R DAC. I watched a series of interviews with Rob Watts and his explanation of the theory and math behind the design of his DAC is impressive for sure: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpNQNldAzrf5P3oxDUnVhulFOtKCv6aX1 But one thing that I heard when listening to the Qutest is that the impressive amount of detail it was presenting sometimes didn't sound lifelike to me. In contrast, the Denafrips Pontus II that has been in my system for the past week sounds unfailingly organic in its sound while presenting more detail than the Qutest, albeit in a way that sounds real. My sense is that as impressive as the math behind the Qutest is, my ears are picking up something about how it is reproduces music from a digital signal in a way that I haven't heard in real-life. I've accepted that any music reproduction has some sort of distortion compared to the real thing. Between equipment, recording process, and room acoustics, how can you ever exactly capture the sound of hearing Alicia De Larrocha from the front of the dress circle in Carnegie Hall, hearing Dizzy Gillesipie from 10 feet away in an Ann Arbor, MI jazz club that seats 25 people, or hearing Pavarotti sing 'Nessum Dorma' in Central Park with 500,000 other people? I've heard all of those & even not having people around you takes away part of the experience of live music if you want to use that as your absolute truth.
The soundstage is down to the recording and to a lesser extent your speaker/listening position setup. Get a DAC that measures well and is transparent with the functions/hookups you need. A DAC isn't going to create a soundstage where one doesn't exist.
As usual, the "Doctor" is the expert and last word on any topic here. Not sure why we don't merely defer all inquiries and quandaries to you sir.
I will differ and say that my experience in switching from the Denafrips Ares II to the Chord Qutest, and now the Denafrips Pontus II DAC is that my soundstage has progressively gotten MUCH broader and deeper. But I will agree that the recording matters a lot as does speaker/listening position.
I would simply refer you to those nationally respected test benches I mentioned in my post. Which show the exact opposite of what you claim. It pains me to watch serious discussions devolve into personal attacks. Why does this happen so often? Anybody else ready for happy hour? I think drinks and some good music all around might lighten the mood---no?
I met a Scotsman wearing a kilt while I was on snorkel safari in the ABC islands. It's TRUE---there was a Scots gathering going on in the next cabin. He slipped me a large beaker of Highland Park and enjoyed my look of stupefaction as it melted down the back of my throat and blew a hole in my ectoplasm. I think you have a capital idea there old pal. Hoot man!
My current "budget" favorite: Redbreast 12 Year. From Ireland, not Scotland so it costs about 1/2 of a Speyside whisky of similar quality.
There is a difference between 3D soundstage and 3D imaging. Figure out which one is more important to you. Most DACs that are known for 3D sound will fall into one camp or the other. Some of the DACs recommended in this thread are more 3D soundstage and others are more 3D imaging. For example, The Yggdrasil is more about 3D imaging than creating a big 3D soundstage. It isn’t going to win many soundstage size battles against other DACs. But it will win 3D imaging precision battles against many other DACs. I’ve heard some Sabre based DACs that did really big 3D soundstage. Sounds are out there, over there, all around. But imaging precision was not good and tended to have an empty or foggy imaging area in the center where the musicians are. Those DACs will win for 3D soundstage experience, but lose to 3D imaging. Finding a DAC that does both can get expensive. Best I’ve heard that does both is a Chord Dave with the M-Scaler. Expansive 3D soundstage with the best most laser focused 3D imaging within that soundstage. It has crazy good accurate 3D imaging. And an expansive soundstage.
+ From all the professional reviews read [there's not a ton in English]; you would need the new Esoteric DAC's to get an open musical soundstage [3D]. Esoteric had previously been reknown for detail retrieval. Esoteric now has designed FPGA circuitry for the Grandioso line. DISCRETE DAC | ESOTERIC:Japan high-end audio manufacturer | エソテリック Tone review: "Esoteric N-01XD is one of the few digital components that renders digital files so naturally and effortlessly, you might find your turntable collecting a lot of dust once you install it into your system." Esoteric’s N-01XD DAC/Streamer – Reviews | TONEAudio MAGAZINE Can not justify the price though to anyone, that'$ personal!
Another really helpful post (well, to me at least ). Given that a Chord Dave + M-Scaler is beyond the budget of most mortals, myself included, are there any DACS in the cost range of, say, US $1,250 to $2,500 you (i.e. @Ham Sandwich ) think might be worth a listen in the context of the imaging / sound stage equation? For obvious reasons, I'm hoping the rest of this thread can keep to the merits (or otherwise) of DACs rather than the politics of where they originate from (there's already a thread where those matters have been hotly "debated"!).
A DAC is intended to convert a digital signal to analog with as little error as possible (time, noise, distortion). If you have a DAC with a sound signature (ANY sound signature), it is either due to intention by the designer to introduce a certain sound, or an error in implementation/engineering of the device. If looking for a “3D soundstage” from your DAC, you might try out one of the less expensive DACs from Topping or SMSL and compare it to a tube DAC or one designed to intentionally color the sound.
