Six DAC Comparison
I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.
Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.
Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
I'm using the most current USB driver. For Windows it doesn't show up as Mystique but works just fine. I've also tried an older driver which sounded the same so I reverted back figuring they must have a newer version for a reason. Not a lot of differences between USB AES and SPIDF that I can tell. USB might be slightly darker but I feel that could be more about the different sources PC vs PI2AES than the inputs |
I believe Benjamin has spent quite a bit of effort on the quality of the USB input in his DACs and especially since his newer, Mystique Y DAC offers only a USB input. In my case of owning five different Mystique DACs, I heard pretty much the same thing as what you stated, that there just isn't much difference between the inputs except that the "USB might be slightly darker". However, I have never had to utilize different drivers since my servers and streamers have all been Linux based. |
I find it extremely curious Mojo doesn't provide I2S input. On one hand I understand optimizing usb inputs as seems to be de facto output on most streamers. On the other, why do the extra conversion vs. native I2S path in dacs?
Recently I purchased Denafrips Gaia in order to compare I2S vs usb in various dacs. With my Laiv Harmony I2S via Gaia was far superior to usb. Now its fair to say, based on descriptors, usb implementation in Mystique superior to Harmony, so difficult to extrapolate here.
A fairer comparison of I2S vs usb will be with Musetec 006 which has more greatly optimized usb vs the Harmony, something along lines of Mojo. While I understand this is only a single aspect of usb implementation, both Harmony and Mojo use femto clock, Gaia has superior OXCO clock, I believe large part of improved sound quality I"m getting with Harmony slaved to Gaia clock is due to the improved clocking. Seems to me Mojo should at least offer I2S, easy to implement as its native path, doesn't need all the usb complexity. In any case, I'll be comparing better usb in Musetec vs I2S in coming weeks.
Keep in mind I have very similar usb implementation as @mitch2 as I also use full Sonore optical conversion, in other words OpticalRendu is the streamer with usb out, usb optimized in both our setups. |
Benjamin's take on clocking can be found in here - scroll down to Myth #1-Clocking. Regarding I2S, it was primarily designed for internal use - short runs inside of equipment, which may be a reason there is still no universal standard. When I owned Metrum equipment, I heard no improvement when using the I2S input to my Pavane or Adagio DACs. In fact, with my system at the time, I liked the sound of the USB input a little better, but that required taking the Ambre streamer out of the mix so maybe it was apples and oranges. With the Singxer SU-6 DDC, I do have the option of using I2S and adjusting as needed to match specific manufacturer's versions of I2S. Unfortunately, I have not had an I2S capable DAC here since I acquired the Singxer. I wish I had it at the same time I had the Tambaqui here because I heard from a dealer that the Tambaqui sounds best through the I2S input, at least in that dealer's opinion. |
I2S or 110 ohm they both are top for connection. they are not a myth, if that were true then why do Top companies use them ? it comes down to how comprehensive they are implementing the connection plain and simple . For example if you use a xlr that does not mean the circuit is true balanced input to output . That’s my only point , Esoteric for just 1 example makes very $$ expensive and comprehensive dacs ,transports with I2S as their top sounding input , 110 ohm xlr can be excellent also .for a truly Great I2S cable you don’t want a generic cable with video more issues. Tubulus Dedicated just for Audio IMO makes the best per $$ in quality ,value cables .this I2S cable will compete with cables 3-4xthe cost ,this too applies to their USB which I have and next year a statement usb cable too will be coming out. read their formula, they give you the basics about their design ,very sound and make a lot of common sense but very labor intensive.,their top Ximius -I2S is Great I just ordered one as well as their top Ethernet cables ,,they will totally change your opinion of what digital can sound like I highly recommend their top 2 cables ,which have much more in depth shielding and other methods. Unless you own them you have no valid opinion.!!
|
