Deep and tight! No, I haven't compared to those DACs, just the one in my McIntosh amp--the Chord is better in every conceivable way.
Sure. Provably false, but an essential belief. I'll never understand this line of thinking. The power supply design alone of actual hi end DACs has more than $100 into parts.
I've only heard good things about the Qutest. I tend to like slightly warmer sound, so that's my only concern. Bifrost2 is meant to be a bit warmer with solid detail and Ares II even more so but with less detail. I'm using an A-S1200, so I wonder if this will make my chain too neutral overall (for my tastes, that is). But it's definitely in the running for me. Thanks.
DACs have become a commodity, Moore's law should apply, especially to price. A big determining factor to what sounds "different" these days could have as much to do with the component choice / platform around the DAC. For instance, you could take the same DAC and put it in two different packages / platforms and one would be more desirable. Just like the old AMD vs Intel microprocessor choice was secondary to the choice to which motherboard, bus speed, memory speed and more importantly potential bottleneck components like hard drives, video, etc that you put around the processor. You could take two identical processors (well at the lowest level no two are identical ) and put them in two different platforms and have two entirely different performing computers. Maybe not as extreme or pronounced with DACs of course, but the analogy applies. When I shopped DACs, I wasn't looking to spend a ton, but then again I didn't want one where the ports came loose on the back over time, etc. But in all cases the DAC chip itself was relatively inexpensive.
Sure, but this has always been true, and it's true about every component in the chain, so it's independent of the evolution of DAC tech per se.
Also, I don't think CPU choice was ever secondary. Just a question of making sure that your mobo supports the pieces placed on it.
I had the Gumby for a few days and returned it. It sounded pretty darn good but just wasn’t what I was looking for.
Not so, DACs were nowhere near the commodity they are today for years many of the developments were proprietary with things being tried for the first time, breakthroughs... and I'm talking about the late 80's, 90s into the early 2000's. In other words recently. My point was you can get good DACs for cheap these days, and it's a different DAC market than it was 20 years ago.
I see. Any other points or analogy your opinion differs on? Again, the response shows you completely missed the point, but seeing now you just want to refute and discount....
What point did I miss? You are saying that sound depends on the chain. When was that ever not the case? And yes, obviously it's a different DAC market. No one is disputing that. Or even talking about it. Btw, since I've build several computers over my lifetime, I'll trust my opinion on this, thanks.
Good, yes. Great? No. Relative to today's "reference". A really good current production DAC at $2,500 or less in my system won't meet my expectations. On the other hand, my system isn't good enough to fully appreciate what Wadax flagship is capable of. Hi End DACs are primarily analog devices. Power supply design alone should make that obvious. The mega buck offerings are mostly about cost no object power supply.
I'm agreeing with your opinion that the chain makes the difference and pointing out that this has always been the case and is neither new nor a function of DAC tech. Your CPU analogy works for me, too, but I don't agree that CPU choice is secondary.
Well, as one who still like ancient things like the PCM 1702 /4, let's just say they used to make good ones back then too! Overall, technology has improved, more choice... but quality is in the eye of the buyer, it's still there but depends on what you want to spend.
I have a Gumby. Love it. Quite musical, easy to listen to. I had it upgraded from DS to MB. It gets out of the way of the music.
I've actively avoided digital for the past 32 years, but working at home all of last year motivated me to build a digital front end for streaming. tl;dr: I have a Denafrips Pontus II DAC and have been really impressed at its musicality, resolution AND lack of listening fatigue. I listened to the following DACs this past year in my system (unless otherwise noted): Audioquest Dragonfly Red Rega DAC Denafrips Ares II Chord Qutest Denafrips Pontus II Schitt Yggdrasil - Not compared directly. Heard in a friend's system. These are my listening notes on the Pontus II: Note: The other major part of getting smoother sounding digital is your streaming source and associated components. I'll add a 2nd post about what I found to work well in terms of a streamer. I've had a Chord Qutest in my system for the past 2 months with the intention of comparing it to the Denafrips Pontus II. Background on the Qutest as a reference point: The Qutest sounded really good with notably a high level of detail retrieval. There were two shortcomings that stood out for me about the Qutest. With the stock power supply, there was a slight, and I do mean slight, degree of harshness. I found that using a pretty common Anker phone/laptop backup battery both reduced the noise floor and took away that slight bit of harshness. NOTE: if you try this, make sure the battery's output is 5V. The Qutest is exceptionally detailed in its sound. But, the Qutest conveyed that detail in a way that seemed artificially Technicolor. Meaning that there was a lot of detail, but either conveyed to a degree or conveyed in a way that didn't feel natural or lifelike to me. It sounded slightly, and again I do mean slightly, more "audiophile" than musical in sound. My Objectives for getting the Pontus: In my decision to try out the Pontus, my objective was to get 90% of resolution that a Qutest provides with more of the warmth that I heard in the Denafrips Ares II. Harshness and listening fatigue are very real problems for me with digital audio so a balance of detail and warmth is important for me. Impressions of the Pontus: Resolution and Warmth: I always thought that resolution and warmth were traits on two opposite ends of a spectrum. It has already been eye-opening that Pontus actually seems to have even more detail and resolution than the Qutest and also more smoothness and warmth than the Ares II. What's interesting is that this resolution is delivered in a more lifelike and natural sounding way than via the Qutest. I'm noticing this right now with the piano and string bass in the 'Pueblo Nuevo' track on the Buena Vista Social Club recording as well as the trumpet and the tonal quality of metal and wood percussion instruments. The Pontus sounds both smooth and full in its sound. One artist for which this unique combination of resolution and warmth really does justice is Jimi Hendrix. I often have not liked to listen to Hendrix on digital due to harshness and noise from jitter and analog sources, compared to my typically better experience of listening to Jimi Hendrix on vinyl. I'm not finding this to be the case with the Pontus. Jimi Hendrix' Voodoo Child is sounding both engaging and listenable via the Pontus. With the Pontus powered by a Shunyata Venom power cord, I'm hearing no sense of the slight harshness that I heard from the Ares. I also have a Synergistic Research UEF Blue power cord that made the Ares II DAC sound smoother without any loss of detail. I'll try that out on the Pontus DAC in a couple of days to see if it makes any difference to the sound of the Pontus. Presence: Instruments and voices are conveyed by the Pontus with what sounds like an appropriate level of weight for each instrument. On the 'Orgullecida' track on the Buena Vista Social Club recording, the string bass has a greater level of fullness in its presentation than the voices, electric guitar and trumpet as would be appropriate in real life. In contrast, the Qutest communicates the details but seems to be less able to convey the weight and fullness of each voice and instrument's sound. The 'air' around voices are also conveyed by the Pontus in a very palpable way but with a sense of refinement and restraint that sounds realistic when compared to a real-life performance. In the Cowboy Junkies' 'Trinity Sessions' recording, I hear this very clearly in the 'Blue Moon Revisited' track. Soundstage: The Pontus definitely has a broader and fuller soundstage than the Ares and the Qutest as well, I think. The fullness of the Pontus sound might be a major contributor to my perception that it has a bigger soundstage than the Qutest. I hear this in the Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Sessions album. Pace & Emotional Range: What appeals to me most about the Pontus and perhaps what I noticed first was wide range of pace that the Pontus is able to convey. Some DACs like the Qutest have good pace. Other DACs such as the Ares II sound more relaxed. It's intriguing to hear a DAC that can sound both relaxed as well as upbeat and dynamic as needed. For the Pontus, that ability allows it to sound relaxed and calm or energetic and dynamic depending on the music being played. Music through the Pontus seems to be conveyed as the artist or composer intended instead of the Pontus imposing its own sonic signature onto the music. Examples of these two ends of this scale that I have heard are Sara Watkins' new 'Under the Pepper Tree' album versus Les McCann & Eddie Harris' excellent 'Swiss Movement' recording of their performance at the Montreux Jazz Festival. Flow & Continuity: Consistent with my comments on the Pontus' adaptability in terms of pace and emotional range, it is conveys the flow of music really well. Its presentation makes it easy to "follow the tune" when listening to music. For lack of a better way to describe this quality of the Pontus, I would say that it has a lot of patience in how it conveys music. It's not in a rush to get the next note out as the Qutest sometimes seems to be, but can play quicker or slower depending on emotional nature of the music. The 'Murmullo' track on the Buena Vista Social Club recording has a languid pace that the Pontus conveys well while not losing the underlying drive behind the music. Partly this is due to good timing, but the Pontus' ability to convey tonal colors also helps it to provide this sense of drive and forward movement even on music that is not conducive to an insistent sense of pace. I'd like to highlight one recording on which I'm hearing this quality from the Pontus, but the truth is that I hear this sense of flow on everything I'm listening to with the Pontus. Sound quality of streamed versus local files: Something else that I've heard is that the Pontus seems to at least narrow the sonic difference between streamed Qobuz files and local files. Local files have always sounded better to me. I attribute that to a shorter signal chain without the digital and analog (such as EMI) noise that might come in through being sent through the internet and then transmitted through my local network. Listening to local files and the equivalent music track from Qobuz were so very close in sound quality when doing sighted listening, that I'm don't know if I could distinguish the difference in blind testing. What listening preferences would the Pontus fit well: The Pontus would be a great choice for anyone that appreciates the sound and feel of live music. More than any other DAC I heard, the Pontus seems to savor the texture and feel of every note of music. The Pontus does particularly well with reproducing the textures, tonal quality and emotions of voices and acoustic music. What listening preferences would the Pontus not fit as well: Listeners that want a sharp cut-glass feel to their music might not appreciate the Pontus as much. The Pontus digs out a lot of detail, but it presents detail in a way that sounds natural. If you listen to a lot of electronic music and are looking for razor-sharp sounding transients, the Pontus might not fit your preferences as much as the Qutest. Summary: I'm sure there are more expensive DACs that might improve on some of the performance aspects of the Pontus, but I am so impressed by the natural and lifelike way that the Pontus communicates music with no apparent shortcomings in resolution of detail, pace, or tonal quality. I greatly appreciate that the Pontus seems to be causing no listening fatigue for me while still presenting music in a full and detailed sounding manner. Comments on the Yggy vs the Pontus from a friend The Pontus communicates more tonal color. The Pontus is better at presenting all parts of the music with balance. The Pontus also presents with more reverb. The Yggy is more emphatic in how it conveys pace. The Pontus seems more realistic in its pace. The Pontus sounds more relaxed and laid back in its presentation.
Not true, but it is ok to settle for entry level sound. Why is that such a bad thing?! Why is it necessary to need to believe that better sound quality can't exist!?
I use a Topping D70, and it sounds fantastic. Despite the low price tag, it's one of the best measuring DACs in town, and compares favorably to my $15,000+ analog front end when it's fed the right files. I really don't see the point in spending more on digital. Ultimately, all a DAC is doing is math, and the D70 does the math nearly perfectly.
In addition to getting the Pontus II DAC, this is what I did to my streaming source to improve sound quality. Getting the streamer source right was a KEY part of getting smoother as well as more detailed digital sound from my listening impressions. Improvements I've heard from improving the streamer upstream from the DAC were better resolution, better pace & timing. lower noise floor. 1. Computer to a dedicated streamer: Switched from a PC laptop or iPhone 6s to a Pro-ject Stream Box S2 Ultra 2. Added a Audioquest Jitterbug noise filter on the USB output of the Pro-ject streamer 3. Tested 5 USB cables. The Stordiau Lush was the smoothest sounding and most resolving of the USB cables I tried Generic HP printer cable: Free with printer Belkin Gold: $15 Pangea Audio Premier SE: $50 Shunyata Venom: $100-200 Stordiau Phasure Lush: $253 4. Turned off Wi-Fi and the HDMI output on the Pro-ject streamer: I created an Ethernet access point with a $30 TP-Link RE230 Wi-Fi Extender. This allowed me to use an Ethernet connection without having 75 feet of Ethernet cable through the house. 5. Switched from an AmazonBasics Cat 6 Ethernet cable ($15) to a Supra Cat 8 Ethernet cable ($70) 6. Tried 4 power cords on the Denafrips Pontus II DAC. The Shunyata Venom cord sounded best. Tripp-Lite Heavy Duty: $15 Shunyata Venom V14: $135 Audience F3 Forte: $150 Synergistic Research UEF Blue: $499 7. FWIW, local files seem to sound better than streamed files, even when comparing CD-quality local files versus High-Res streamed files. 8. Possible future upgrades: Uptone Audio Etherregen (supposed to reduce noise from the Ethernet input), Uptone Audio IsoRegen (possibly a more effective noise reducer than the AQ Jitterbug. Note: I did try the Wyred4Sound Recovery and that sounded worse than the AQ Jitterbug. The common factor behind why all of these make a difference for digital is rejection of noise (EMI or RFI). Sharing an IEEE journal article on the topic. A simple model of EMI-induced timing jitter in digital circuits, its statistical distribution and its effect on circuit performance, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 45, NO. 3, AUGUST 2003: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/640/1/robinsonmp2.pdf
I've been consistent in my message to you. You've attempted to turn into to mudslinging, taken jabs, made it personal - yes, it's trolling. Own it. In your own thread no less. (I see you deleted a post or two)
