I already have a computer that could be a server, just wondering if complexity can be reduced with the new chip... only thing holding me back is price of DAC.
On the 12th Day of Christmas my true love gave to me...
- Thread starter MadFloyd
- Start date
I already have a computer that could be a server, just wondering if complexity can be reduced with the new chip... only thing holding me back is price of DAC.
So now I'm going to chime in with my thoughts.
For quite some time I've been under the impression that digital simply came with artifacts. Maybe that's still true in a way, but I have a different perspective now. I was so used to hearing the same glare and bite on the same portions of the same tracks for years (and not just on the same DAC) that I thought they were either in the recording/mastering or in my playback chain.
I was also under the impression that digital simply didn't capture enough detail compared to analog, especially micro detail in the decay of cymbals, contact between bow and violin strings, texture on mass strings, etc.
Recently I heard a demonstration of the Magico S7 where the source was digital (dCS in this case) and was amazed at not only how smooth the sound was, but how incredibly detailed it was. Prior to this I thought the strategy for digital was to mask its shortcomings. It was enlightening.
This caused me to investigate improving my digital, even though my digital is used just for convenience and I rely on my LP collection for serious listening. I learned about HQPlayer and how it could be emplyed to bypass the upconversion that my Playback Designs DAC was performing on all PCM files. I started using HQPlayer and also employed a Audioquest Jitterbug USB filter. Then, with Blizzards suggestion to try a cheap streamer I improved it even more. Some amount of artifacts disappeared, but not all.
Now with the NADAC I not only no longer hear the artifacts but much of the glare that I thought was in the recordings is simply not there. Nor is it masked for the overall presentation of this DAC, in my opinion) is on the lean side (or at least very neutral). I hear tons of detail that rivals my analog rig and get very nice, smooth decay on cymbals.
Do I think this is as good as my analog rig? No. My analog rig sounds much richer and has more weight and overall sounds more natural (apart from the surface noise
). Alan and I compared Jarlung's Janaki Trio on LP and DSD 256 a couple times. The detail was similar but the NADAC sounded thinner and I preferred the LP. At the time I was using an Harmonic Technologies RCA cable between my turntable and phono stage that sounds very dry (but precise) and not my usual cable that has a lot more bloom, body and richness. I think the HT RCA cable was the reason Alan wasn't as enamored with my vinyl playback. After listening to digital all morning, we listened to 3 of 4 tracks from a few LPs and even I thought it sounded dry. After he left I switched cables and it totally came to life.
My preference aside, I have been mostly listening to digital this past week and playing with the various settings in HQPlayer. This is the first time I've been able to enjoy a string quartet on digital (or solo violin for that matter) and it's fascinating how the various settings play a big role in the sound output. To some extent, it's like an EQ curve and my latest setting has seemed to increase the body closer to what my brain tells me sounds realistic (although I'm not sure if I've sacrificed some detail). It's almost like rolling tubes.
In summary I think I made a very good investment. I'm not in a financial position to purchase an expensive DAC, but I was able to fire-sale my Playback Designs DAC within an hour of listing it and so the additional investment on my part was very reasonable.
For quite some time I've been under the impression that digital simply came with artifacts. Maybe that's still true in a way, but I have a different perspective now. I was so used to hearing the same glare and bite on the same portions of the same tracks for years (and not just on the same DAC) that I thought they were either in the recording/mastering or in my playback chain.
I was also under the impression that digital simply didn't capture enough detail compared to analog, especially micro detail in the decay of cymbals, contact between bow and violin strings, texture on mass strings, etc.
Recently I heard a demonstration of the Magico S7 where the source was digital (dCS in this case) and was amazed at not only how smooth the sound was, but how incredibly detailed it was. Prior to this I thought the strategy for digital was to mask its shortcomings. It was enlightening.
This caused me to investigate improving my digital, even though my digital is used just for convenience and I rely on my LP collection for serious listening. I learned about HQPlayer and how it could be emplyed to bypass the upconversion that my Playback Designs DAC was performing on all PCM files. I started using HQPlayer and also employed a Audioquest Jitterbug USB filter. Then, with Blizzards suggestion to try a cheap streamer I improved it even more. Some amount of artifacts disappeared, but not all.
Now with the NADAC I not only no longer hear the artifacts but much of the glare that I thought was in the recordings is simply not there. Nor is it masked for the overall presentation of this DAC, in my opinion) is on the lean side (or at least very neutral). I hear tons of detail that rivals my analog rig and get very nice, smooth decay on cymbals.
Do I think this is as good as my analog rig? No. My analog rig sounds much richer and has more weight and overall sounds more natural (apart from the surface noise
). Alan and I compared Jarlung's Janaki Trio on LP and DSD 256 a couple times. The detail was similar but the NADAC sounded thinner and I preferred the LP. At the time I was using an Harmonic Technologies RCA cable between my turntable and phono stage that sounds very dry (but precise) and not my usual cable that has a lot more bloom, body and richness. I think the HT RCA cable was the reason Alan wasn't as enamored with my vinyl playback. After listening to digital all morning, we listened to 3 of 4 tracks from a few LPs and even I thought it sounded dry. After he left I switched cables and it totally came to life.My preference aside, I have been mostly listening to digital this past week and playing with the various settings in HQPlayer. This is the first time I've been able to enjoy a string quartet on digital (or solo violin for that matter) and it's fascinating how the various settings play a big role in the sound output. To some extent, it's like an EQ curve and my latest setting has seemed to increase the body closer to what my brain tells me sounds realistic (although I'm not sure if I've sacrificed some detail). It's almost like rolling tubes.
In summary I think I made a very good investment. I'm not in a financial position to purchase an expensive DAC, but I was able to fire-sale my Playback Designs DAC within an hour of listing it and so the additional investment on my part was very reasonable.
What you said are precisely the reasons I prefer LP. The tonal density, richness, real-ness as opposed to the thinness. One area though where digital wins is extremely complex symphony with loads of dynamic range like Mahler 2. I haven't found a good LP yet, they sound too compressed, but the Channel Classics Mahler 2 recording is unbeatable, also a great performance.
That said, Scheherazade, Pictures at an exhibition, Argenta Espana etc have very good LPs of symphonies.
That said, Scheherazade, Pictures at an exhibition, Argenta Espana etc have very good LPs of symphonies.
So now I'm going to chime in with my thoughts.
For quite some time I've been under the impression that digital simply came with artifacts. Maybe that's still true in a way, but I have a different perspective now. I was so used to hearing the same glare and bite on the same portions of the same tracks for years (and not just on the same DAC) that I thought they were either in the recording/mastering or in my playback chain.
I was also under the impression that digital simply didn't capture enough detail compared to analog, especially micro detail in the decay of cymbals, contact between bow and violin strings, texture on mass strings, etc.
Recently I heard a demonstration of the Magico S7 where the source was digital (dCS in this case) and was amazed at not only how smooth the sound was, but how incredibly detailed it was. Prior to this I thought the strategy for digital was to mask its shortcomings. It was enlightening.
This caused me to investigate improving my digital, even though my digital is used just for convenience and I rely on my LP collection for serious listening. I learned about HQPlayer and how it could be emplyed to bypass the upconversion that my Playback Designs DAC was performing on all PCM files. I started using HQPlayer and also employed a Audioquest Jitterbug USB filter. Then, with Blizzards suggestion to try a cheap streamer I improved it even more. Some amount of artifacts disappeared, but not all.
Now with the NADAC I not only no longer hear the artifacts but much of the glare that I thought was in the recordings is simply not there. Nor is it masked for the overall presentation of this DAC, in my opinion) is on the lean side (or at least very neutral). I hear tons of detail that rivals my analog rig and get very nice, smooth decay on cymbals.
Do I think this is as good as my analog rig? No. My analog rig sounds much richer and has more weight and overall sounds more natural (apart from the surface noise
My preference aside, I have been mostly listening to digital this past week and playing with the various settings in HQPlayer. This is the first time I've been able to enjoy a string quartet on digital (or solo violin for that matter) and it's fascinating how the various settings play a big role in the sound output. To some extent, it's like an EQ curve and my latest setting has seemed to increase the body closer to what my brain tells me sounds realistic (although I'm not sure if I've sacrificed some detail). It's almost like rolling tubes.
In summary I think I made a very good investment. I'm not in a financial position to purchase an expensive DAC, but I was able to fire-sale my Playback Designs DAC within an hour of listing it and so the additional investment on my part was very reasonable.
Great impression Ian! Make sure to update the signature
As far as richness is concerned, it's hard to get what you're looking for out of IC opamps, but the NADAC goes to show just how good IC opamp based output stages can be with the proper source before them.
BTW are you running through your pre for the testing? You should try direct to the amps if your cables can reach. Another thing you can try to add richness is unchecking the SDMdirect, and playing around with the filters in that section. They will add richness, but at the slight expense of resolution IMO. But preamps do the same thing, so it will be your call. Maybe amp direct, with those filters could be the best result. Anyways, lots of different things you can try with what you have, without spending another penny.
+1 for CC Mahler 2 and Pictures at an Exhibition - and getting sound starting to approach dynamic range of live.
Great impression Ian! Make sure to update the signature
As far as richness is concerned, it's hard to get what you're looking for out of IC opamps, but the NADAC goes to show just how good IC opamp based output stages can be with the proper source before them.
BTW are you running through your pre for the testing? You should try direct to the amps if your cables can reach. Another thing you can try to add richness is unchecking the SDMdirect, and playing around with the filters in that section. They will add richness, but at the slight expense of resolution IMO. But preamps do the same thing, so it will be your call. Maybe amp direct, with those filters could be the best result. Anyways, lots of different things you can try with what you have, without spending another penny.
I haven't tried bypassing my preamp yet, but I should do that at some point. Thanks for the suggestion.
It may lose a bit of richness, but give it some time and play with the filters. I never use pre's if I'm using a DAC that has output stages that are as robust as preamps. Back in the old days when DAC's had "line level" 2.0V RMS output's, it was another story. The NADAC put's out 6.1V RMS, 12dB of gain, with an additional 12dB of headroom. It can handles input impedances as low as 300ohms without breaking a sweat. So if you do prefer the sound with the pre in the chain, it's only due to additional coloration's being added that you may subjectively prefer.
Last edited:
Perhaps, and unless it was required, I'd not use a preamp if I didn't have too, but that said, preamps can be very transparent devices without much added coloration ... recently I modded the phono section within my pre to supply ~42 db gain, which is very much on the low side considering my particular cartridge. Noise, thankfully, isn't an issue. Still, more gain would be welcome. esp when ripping. I can either add the pre's 18db line stage for gain, or post digital intervention. I prefer adding the 18 line stage to the equation, hardly makes a difference either way.
So now I'm going to chime in with my thoughts.
For quite some time I've been under the impression that digital simply came with artifacts. Maybe that's still true in a way, but I have a different perspective now. I was so used to hearing the same glare and bite on the same portions of the same tracks for years (and not just on the same DAC) that I thought they were either in the recording/mastering or in my playback chain.
I was also under the impression that digital simply didn't capture enough detail compared to analog, especially micro detail in the decay of cymbals, contact between bow and violin strings, texture on mass strings, etc.
Recently I heard a demonstration of the Magico S7 where the source was digital (dCS in this case) and was amazed at not only how smooth the sound was, but how incredibly detailed it was. Prior to this I thought the strategy for digital was to mask its shortcomings. It was enlightening.
This caused me to investigate improving my digital, even though my digital is used just for convenience and I rely on my LP collection for serious listening. I learned about HQPlayer and how it could be emplyed to bypass the upconversion that my Playback Designs DAC was performing on all PCM files. I started using HQPlayer and also employed a Audioquest Jitterbug USB filter. Then, with Blizzards suggestion to try a cheap streamer I improved it even more. Some amount of artifacts disappeared, but not all.
Now with the NADAC I not only no longer hear the artifacts but much of the glare that I thought was in the recordings is simply not there. Nor is it masked for the overall presentation of this DAC, in my opinion) is on the lean side (or at least very neutral). I hear tons of detail that rivals my analog rig and get very nice, smooth decay on cymbals.
Do I think this is as good as my analog rig? No. My analog rig sounds much richer and has more weight and overall sounds more natural (apart from the surface noise
My preference aside, I have been mostly listening to digital this past week and playing with the various settings in HQPlayer. This is the first time I've been able to enjoy a string quartet on digital (or solo violin for that matter) and it's fascinating how the various settings play a big role in the sound output. To some extent, it's like an EQ curve and my latest setting has seemed to increase the body closer to what my brain tells me sounds realistic (although I'm not sure if I've sacrificed some detail). It's almost like rolling tubes.
In summary I think I made a very good investment. I'm not in a financial position to purchase an expensive DAC, but I was able to fire-sale my Playback Designs DAC within an hour of listing it and so the additional investment on my part was very reasonable.
I've been trying to fight the appeal of the NADAC - this is not helping!
I enjoyed reading both Alan's and Ian's observations about this new digital set up. What strikes me as somewhat unique is the impression that it was both highly resolving, yet smooth sounding with little or no fatigue. I have only heard that once from a digital source, and it was the very expensive dCS Vivaldi stack.
Congratulations, Ian. I am really looking forward to hearing this DAC/streamer source one day soon and directly comparing it to your analog. Who knows, in another year or two, when the prices are even lower, and the quality even higher, it may be time to add a digital source to my analog only system. I am already beginning to imagine the possibilities.
Congratulations, Ian. I am really looking forward to hearing this DAC/streamer source one day soon and directly comparing it to your analog. Who knows, in another year or two, when the prices are even lower, and the quality even higher, it may be time to add a digital source to my analog only system. I am already beginning to imagine the possibilities.
It's the filter and modulator algorithms that make it smooth. That combined with super low jitter due to good clocks and the Ravenna interface. The Vivaldi sounds smooth because of the filters and modulators as well. I wouldn't doubt that this unit combined with HQplayer could at least match the Vivaldi stack.
The best preamp is no preamp. Nothing is more transparent than nothing at all. Preamps were designed for a foregone era. Modern DAC's are preamps, only they have built in DAC's and most lack analog inputs.
Why doesn't a company that designs great preamps, like Solution, Spectral, Dartzeel or Pass, incorporate a DSD DAC chip into their preamp and offer it to the high end market as a full function Pre/DAC? Or would this just be too colored in your opinion, Blizzard? I'm thinking a modular design so that upgrading the DAC chip annually would be easy as technology quickly improves. How do you think the volume control, output stage, parts and build quality of the NADAC compare to those functions and parts in the best preamps from Solution, Spectral, Dartzeel or Pass, all solid state designs.
Dartzeel does. I've had it in my system. It was really a 3-in-1 as it included the amps (i.e. integrated amp + DAC/streamer) and it sounded decent.
Theres ton's of preamps with DAC's built in. Pretty much every DAC these days is a preamp. Only some just don't have analog inputs.
Even if theres preamps that are superior to the output stage on the NADAC, you are still running through the NADAC output stage regardless. You can't bypass it. So you can't make it any better. The only way to improve it, would be to bypass it. But this isn't possible.
Say you had a lower end Pass preamp, and you wanted to improve it, would you just connect it together with a higher end Pass preamp, and have 2 preamps daisy chained together? No you would never do that. But for some reason people insist on doing this with DAC's, even when they don't use the analog inputs.
Perfect example right here. Mcintosh decided to call this DAC a digital preamp instead of a DAC. It's the exact same thing as a DAC, only they made the choice to call it a digital preamp instead. Would you use it together with a preamp, if you didn't need additional analog inputs?
Last edited:
I think you missed my point. I'm asking you why a preamp from one of the top companies does not include a DAC chip inside. I'm more interested in a high quality preamp that has volume and switching. That is, a traditional preamp with top volume control, analog inputs, the whole deal. Then just add a chip so that it can process a digital signal or whatever happens inside a DAC. I'm NOT asking about a DAC with a volume control that can drive an amp. It has no switching capability and I presume has lower quality parts and build quality. You skipped over those comments in my post.
Sorry Ian, the topic has migrated to preamp versus DAC in your system page. I might try to move it to another thread, but I don't know which one. This is a bit off topic for here.
I'm having this same discussion on my myth page, why don't we continue there rather than cluttering up Ian's system page?
I started my own thread. You did not answer the questions I posed, and I don't want to repost the same in a thread about busting myths. It belongs in the amp/preamp forum, IMO.
Similar threads
