Anyone using the new series of Bel Canto DACs, for example the 1.5? Seems like a lovely product sound-wise, and beautiful build quality. Haven't had a chance to try it on the reference system.
Bel Canto DACs
- Thread starter Nicholas Bedworth
- Start date
I installed a 1.5 in my (other) brother's system. It was comprised with an AppleTV as source primary, Lamm LL2.1, M2.2s and VSA VR-4 Mk3s and a JL 212 sub. The sound was pretty good (smooth and on the creamy side) playing AAC files until he tried playing a movie and the 5.1 signal effectively killed the DAC. Apparently he had not set his Apple TV to stereo mode. Ouch. I felt so bad for him I gave him my old ML 360s. The DAC hasn't been repaired yet but I'll let you know when I get it back.
The manual should come with a warning.
The manual should come with a warning.
@JackD201... what a tale of woe! Seems like that the device should detect the non-stereo signal. Well, be sure to let them know what happened. I'll feed this back through my channels, and perhaps rblnr can as well. But the smooth and creamy quality is apparent even on my office system; haven't put it into the reference system yet. BTW I see you're in RP. I'm in Hawaii, so we're neighbors, at least culturally...
@rblnr I've got the Weiss DAC 202 in house, will have others later, so we can exchange notes offline if you'd like. The build quality of the 1.5 is certainly nice. The volume control is an intereesting implementation, essentially it's a rate sensor. You can turn it extremely slowly (just for fun) and the number won't change. What is the MSRP of these devices?
@rblnr I've got the Weiss DAC 202 in house, will have others later, so we can exchange notes offline if you'd like. The build quality of the 1.5 is certainly nice. The volume control is an intereesting implementation, essentially it's a rate sensor. You can turn it extremely slowly (just for fun) and the number won't change. What is the MSRP of these devices?
@ Seta... thanks for your "real world" observations. This is very interesting. The 1.5 USB goes up to 96; but you can put through 192 on the S/PDIF. Not sure that happens to it internally. Regarding the 2.5 sounding better, how long did you try the 3? Sometimes it takes weeks for a device to be fully conditioned. You can try the XLO and Reference Recordings conditioning track.
Nicholas,
My friend has been using the DAC3 for a year, so it is well-broken in. As for the 2.5, I left it running for almost two weeks before really listen. My amp has SE and XLR inputs so I plug both in for A/B (matched level). Reconnect, switched over in case of wire performance, etc. The comparison was done over a week.
I'm not an audio reviewer nor is "golden ear", but I've been listening to equipments and have own my share of DACs. In my humble opinion, the BCs are very very good. Very clean and basically faultless technically. They may not be very exciting, but they're right up there. USB into DAC3 has some edginess to it, and both are better over SPDIF coax inputs.
I have shared a more detailed journal of the DAC2.5 in my personal blog - in case people are interested.
My friend has been using the DAC3 for a year, so it is well-broken in. As for the 2.5, I left it running for almost two weeks before really listen. My amp has SE and XLR inputs so I plug both in for A/B (matched level). Reconnect, switched over in case of wire performance, etc. The comparison was done over a week.
I'm not an audio reviewer nor is "golden ear", but I've been listening to equipments and have own my share of DACs. In my humble opinion, the BCs are very very good. Very clean and basically faultless technically. They may not be very exciting, but they're right up there. USB into DAC3 has some edginess to it, and both are better over SPDIF coax inputs.
I have shared a more detailed journal of the DAC2.5 in my personal blog - in case people are interested.
List prices for Bel Canto DACs
Anyone have the US MSRP for the 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 VB, and 3.5 VB 192/24? Can't seem to find them!
Anyone have the US MSRP for the 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 VB, and 3.5 VB 192/24? Can't seem to find them!
Bel Canto enthuasiasts, see the 1.5 together with the Audiohilleo 1 here... http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/audiophilleo/1.html
Nicholas,
Do you find digital dithered noise shaping attenuation (a-la Audiophilleo) better than a ref quality preamp? To my mind (not yet my ears - have not tested) I understand that it is created by random noises so it's counter intuitive that it can be better. But what's your experience?
Regards,
Do you find digital dithered noise shaping attenuation (a-la Audiophilleo) better than a ref quality preamp? To my mind (not yet my ears - have not tested) I understand that it is created by random noises so it's counter intuitive that it can be better. But what's your experience?
Regards,
Beneficial dithering
@ Seta
A preamp attenuator, realized with mechanical parts, may eventually degrade. And potentiometers has noise. Left/right tracking, linearity, etc., can be difficult to maintain. Precision passive attenuators are something like $8500 for really good ones. Software attenuators solve some of these problems quite readily. Naturally each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, but very low cost and really high quality is usually a good combination, and this is what the digital solutions do. Digital is way more flexible.
Don't worry about the "counter intuitive" part. Once you understand the reality of the situation, it's quite obvious
Basically there's always quantization noise, meaning a sample LSB has to be a 1 or a 0, and so, on the average, it's wrong, slightly, all the time. That's how it starts, to simplify things a lot. So the error is correlated with the data, not good, and by adding noise by dithering, one essentially converts correlated noise into uncorrelated random noise, which is easier on the ears.
Instead of nasty spikes in the spectra caused by the quantization process, correctly-dithered data has a much smoother spectra, but with a slightly higher noise floor. One can "move" the noise up into part of the spectra that's less critical. There's a whole world of technology here, but it was pretty much all figured out in the '70s.
These are simply the consequences of working in the quantified, digital domain. What's happened more recently is the advent of extremely cheap computing power, so that all kinds of algorithms may be applied that were theoretically possible, but not that practical, earlier on.
Check out the paper at http://www.users.qwest.net/~volt42/cadenzarecording/DitherExplained.pdf for a good overview.
The Audiophilleo uses a variation of the UV22 scheme. As always, there's no entirely free lunch, but these dithering techniques comes pretty close.
And yes, I really don't like preamps at least not in the minimalist systems that we use for reviewing. Anything that eliminates cables seems like a good idea to me. And of course preamps have noise as well. My reference system is digital source, DAC, amplifiers. That's it. I'll be exploring more advanced EQ gear after CES.
@ Seta
A preamp attenuator, realized with mechanical parts, may eventually degrade. And potentiometers has noise. Left/right tracking, linearity, etc., can be difficult to maintain. Precision passive attenuators are something like $8500 for really good ones. Software attenuators solve some of these problems quite readily. Naturally each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, but very low cost and really high quality is usually a good combination, and this is what the digital solutions do. Digital is way more flexible.
Don't worry about the "counter intuitive" part. Once you understand the reality of the situation, it's quite obvious
Basically there's always quantization noise, meaning a sample LSB has to be a 1 or a 0, and so, on the average, it's wrong, slightly, all the time. That's how it starts, to simplify things a lot. So the error is correlated with the data, not good, and by adding noise by dithering, one essentially converts correlated noise into uncorrelated random noise, which is easier on the ears.Instead of nasty spikes in the spectra caused by the quantization process, correctly-dithered data has a much smoother spectra, but with a slightly higher noise floor. One can "move" the noise up into part of the spectra that's less critical. There's a whole world of technology here, but it was pretty much all figured out in the '70s.
These are simply the consequences of working in the quantified, digital domain. What's happened more recently is the advent of extremely cheap computing power, so that all kinds of algorithms may be applied that were theoretically possible, but not that practical, earlier on.
Check out the paper at http://www.users.qwest.net/~volt42/cadenzarecording/DitherExplained.pdf for a good overview.
The Audiophilleo uses a variation of the UV22 scheme. As always, there's no entirely free lunch, but these dithering techniques comes pretty close.
And yes, I really don't like preamps
at least not in the minimalist systems that we use for reviewing. Anything that eliminates cables seems like a good idea to me. And of course preamps have noise as well. My reference system is digital source, DAC, amplifiers. That's it. I'll be exploring more advanced EQ gear after CES.
Last edited:
Nicholas,
Thanks much for the explanation and the link. I'll get my heads around it.
I also dislike traditional pre-amps, and now using LDRs passive volume control (Lightspeed attenuator, EVAII). The EVAII is remote controlled and very very transparent. Problem is very very low level hiss which I am trying to find a way to get rid of. The digital volume control in the BC 2.5 is good, and extremely quite - my ears to the speakers and cant hear anything, but at casual listening levels (lower than live) it is not as dynamic as the LDR volume control. Have not tried autoformers but heard they are transparent as well.
I tried digital volume (dithered?) on itunes and it's terrible! Disastrously noisy at lower levels. Tried it on Pure Music (software for Mac), much better but still not convinced that it is better than passive LDR.
Thanks much for the explanation and the link. I'll get my heads around it.
I also dislike traditional pre-amps, and now using LDRs passive volume control (Lightspeed attenuator, EVAII). The EVAII is remote controlled and very very transparent. Problem is very very low level hiss which I am trying to find a way to get rid of. The digital volume control in the BC 2.5 is good, and extremely quite - my ears to the speakers and cant hear anything, but at casual listening levels (lower than live) it is not as dynamic as the LDR volume control. Have not tried autoformers but heard they are transparent as well.
I tried digital volume (dithered?) on itunes and it's terrible! Disastrously noisy at lower levels. Tried it on Pure Music (software for Mac), much better but still not convinced that it is better than passive LDR.
Be sure you have iTunes set up to deliver bit-perfect data, and avoid any volume leveling, EQ, etc., and especially rate conversion. Once it's set to bit-perfect, it has been reported that sometimes configuration changes or updates can set it back to a non-bit-perfect status. Use bit-perfect test files. Windows Vista/7 gives you bit-perfect very easily with JRMC in the WASAPI or WASAPI event mode. Guaranteed to work
Basically you're discovering on your own why products like the Audiophilleo, M2Tech Evo, Weiss INT 202 were developed. It's a real bear to get to the bottom of the hiss, the jitter, the attenuation, etc., and the MacBooks as you know from the Stereophile article have very high jitter. Personal computers hardware-wise are simply not designed to be high-end digital audio sources.
Basically you're discovering on your own why products like the Audiophilleo, M2Tech Evo, Weiss INT 202 were developed. It's a real bear to get to the bottom of the hiss, the jitter, the attenuation, etc., and the MacBooks as you know from the Stereophile article have very high jitter. Personal computers hardware-wise are simply not designed to be high-end digital audio sources.
Nick let me try a Audiophilleo1, which I used with a Macbook (on battery power) with 4gb ram, SSD and the latest beta version of the Audiofile Engineering player, now called Fidelia. The Audiophilleo1 was connect to the SPDIF input of my PS Audio PWD.
This combination was not quite as effortless sounding as my regular digital playback set up- WD HD/WNDR3700-Cat5-PSAudio PWD/Bridge/tagNplay app on iPad.
I also compared it to my prototype ART Legato Asynchronous USB/SPDIF converter: http://www.analogresearch-technology.net/LEGATO.html
The Legato uses asynchronous USB code, licensed from Rankin’s Wavelength company. Unlike the Audiophilleo1, it's not much to look at, just a BNC connector, IEC connector and a Type B USB connector. No display, no LEDs, and no switches.
I used an ART U-Byte SPDIF cable and ART USB cable. Since the Legato runs on its own linear PSU, the ART USB cable isolates the computer from the converter.
In my system Legato has more punch in the bottom end than the Audiophilleo1. It's a fun unit to listen to, but it only does 16/44.1.
This combination was not quite as effortless sounding as my regular digital playback set up- WD HD/WNDR3700-Cat5-PSAudio PWD/Bridge/tagNplay app on iPad.
I also compared it to my prototype ART Legato Asynchronous USB/SPDIF converter: http://www.analogresearch-technology.net/LEGATO.html
The Legato uses asynchronous USB code, licensed from Rankin’s Wavelength company. Unlike the Audiophilleo1, it's not much to look at, just a BNC connector, IEC connector and a Type B USB connector. No display, no LEDs, and no switches.
I used an ART U-Byte SPDIF cable and ART USB cable. Since the Legato runs on its own linear PSU, the ART USB cable isolates the computer from the converter.
In my system Legato has more punch in the bottom end than the Audiophilleo1. It's a fun unit to listen to, but it only does 16/44.1.
One thing that I've noticed is that the downstream DAC may sound quite differently as one ascends the sampling rate scale, meaning it might sound one way at 44.1, and another at 192. The decoding filters in the DAC may have a lot to do with this. Generally the differences get larger as the bit rates increase, and the deleterious effects of jitter loom larger. Oddly enough, some high-end DACs don't sound as well at 44.1 as they do at 192; you'd think the 44.1 would be easier to "get right". YMMV.
Nicholas and devert,
Since last week I changed my DAC to dB audio labs' Tranquility SE which is a USB-only DAC and can only run at 16/44.1. I understand it uses "normal" USB implementation, not asynchronous.
What is ironic is how this 16-bit DAC sounds better - in most areas accept bass -than the 24/192 Bel Canto DAC 2.5 it replaces in the same system.
The difference is definitely not Placebo and can easily be heard (the wife test). The enhancements are not only confined to 16-bit files, but also 24-bit files, which it down converts.
I also have on loan, in my other system, a Weiss DAC202 which is fantastic. I will do some comparison in the same system this weekend.
Since last week I changed my DAC to dB audio labs' Tranquility SE which is a USB-only DAC and can only run at 16/44.1. I understand it uses "normal" USB implementation, not asynchronous.
What is ironic is how this 16-bit DAC sounds better - in most areas accept bass -than the 24/192 Bel Canto DAC 2.5 it replaces in the same system.
The difference is definitely not Placebo and can easily be heard (the wife test). The enhancements are not only confined to 16-bit files, but also 24-bit files, which it down converts.
I also have on loan, in my other system, a Weiss DAC202 which is fantastic. I will do some comparison in the same system this weekend.
Seta-
I haven't heard the Tranquility SE, but I've followed the discussion over on audiocircle:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=74816.0
Looks like it uses the same box as the Legato.
Tranquility SE
Art Legato
I thought about trying the Tranquility SE, but I need more than one digital input and I want a DAC that can directly drive amps.
Look foward to your comparison with Weiss DAC202.
I haven't heard the Tranquility SE, but I've followed the discussion over on audiocircle:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=74816.0
Looks like it uses the same box as the Legato.
Tranquility SE
Art Legato
I thought about trying the Tranquility SE, but I need more than one digital input and I want a DAC that can directly drive amps.
Look foward to your comparison with Weiss DAC202.
Similar threads
Members online
- Horidori
- gentcan
- hopkins
- Ricco275
- Ron Resnick
- Massimo66
- john2020
- LR319
- Argonaut
- matthias
- samaul
- Dimfer
- Rexp
- avian
- soundgals
- AMR / iFi audio
- djurkk
- the sound of Tao
- parnass
- RCanelas
- rt662
- Petrat
- rich121
- heebrog
- Nataraja
- XV-1
- acousticsguru
- novacdjokotoet
- tom539
- fizzletop
- benito
- Protegimus
- Moiz Audio
- Michael S.
- xored
- cloudcrow
- Ilonatensil
- MusicFellow
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |