2. digital
  3. 168893-95151

DAC Shootout Starts This Weekend

Okay...in another thread I promised to do a side-by-side evaluation of the Audiobyte HydraVox/Zap vs the Rockna Wavelight. Due to the astonishing incompetence of DHL this has been delayed. At the moment, I have a plethora of DACs here and am going to do a broader comparison.

I am going to do a compare of the Rockna Wavelight, Rockna Wavedream Signature, Audiobyte HydraVox/Zap, Chord Hugo 2, Chord Hugo TT2, Bricasti M3, Bricasti M1 Special Edition, Weiss 501 and the internal DAC card for an AVM A 5.2 Integrated amp as a baseline.

For sake of consistency, I am going to use that same AVM integrated amp driving Vivid Kaya 45s. I may branch out and do some listening on other speakers (Verdant Nightshade of Blackthorn and/or Wilson Benesch Vertexes) but want to use the Vivids for every compare as they are the fullest range speakers I have here. For sake of consistency I will use a Chord 2Go/2Yu connected via an Audioquest Diamond USB as a renderer. The only exception is the Hugo 2 which has a 2Go directly attached to it. I will use a Roon Nucleus+ as a server in all cases.

My plan is to use the same five songs on every DAC; In a Sentimental Mood from Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, Be Still My Beating Heart from Sting, Liberty from Anette Askvik, Duende from Bozzio Levin Stevens and Part 1 of Mozart String Quartet No 14 in G Major from the Alban Berg Quartet. The intent is to touch on different music types without going crazy.

I will take extensive notes on each listening session and write up a POV on the strengths of each unit. I am going to start this this Friday/Saturday and will be writing things up over the next month or so. If you have thoughts, comments or requests, I will be happy to try and accommodate. The one thing I am not going to do is make the list of songs longer as that has an exponential impact on this and make everything much harder. If and when other DACs come in on trade I may add to the list through time.
128x128verdantaudio
melm
1,084 posts
 
@verdantaudio 
@jjss49 

You are quite right to speak if the importance of imaging.  I just picked up on what verdantaudio had written about accuracy to the sound of a piano, to wit, a piano should sound like a piano,  Better still, a particular piano.

Normally, though, when I write of accuracy as being the bottom line in an audio component I take it directly from HP* who wrote of real instruments in real space.  (He would require his reviewers to be regular acoustic concert goers.)  There's your imaging--and width--and depth.  But a piano MUST sound like a piano; an oboe like an oboe, etc.   One cannot judge accuracy in studio manufactured music.

Anyway, I've tried not to intrude into this very important and well accomplished thread.  I do sense that it is winding down, at least a bit.  Kudos to verdantaudio for his honest and intelligent writing.  

*Whose writing turned me on to the "high-end"

verdantaudio's avatar
verdantaudio OP
1,500 posts
 
@melm You are correct.  This is winding down.  I am going to do one more post on the headphone side of this which is far from my expertise but will offer my rudimentary POV.  

Otherwise, I thank all of the thread participants for being incredibly kind to me and each other.  
tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
2,605 posts
 
imaging, though, is another matter, as nice as it is when well portrayed on our rigs -- but what is real or not is highly debatable (and suspect), in fact it is pretty much entirely ’manufactured’

That’s true, but we are not listening to a live event on our stereos. Imaging is encoded on the recorded music we play. If your system can’t reproduce the imaging that is encoded on the LP, CD or stream you are listening to, then your stereo isn’t playing back what’s on the recording very well.  A good system should be able to do both timbre and imaging well.
sns
3,404 posts
 
Agree with the above. Now, what about microdynamics? Is there much difference in this capability amongst dacs, or is this mostly system dependent? Personally, I find this aspect of sound greatly lends itself to sense of live performers in room. Don't hear much about this aspect of sq in dac reviews.
verdantaudio's avatar
verdantaudio OP
1,500 posts
 
The microdynamics are a huge part of what I have have been focusing on in this thread.  It is the fine details.  Subtleties in the way a drum roll comes together, speedy bass notes, sound effects, separation of notes in bells and piano.  These little things are inherently the difference between very good and extraordinary and they do add up.  

That being said, you do need to have a system capable of delivering those microdynamics to you.  You need a resolving enough amplifier and speakers that are sufficiently detailed.  Years ago I did a demo of a bunch of stand-mount speakers in the $1000 to $2000 range and a couple floor standers.  One test track I used was Don't Give Up by Peter Gabriel off of Secret World Live.  What I discovered in that session was that multiple speakers were simply not capable reproducing the fine details of things like crowd noise in certain parts of that song.  It was an entirely Bryston system with a speaker switch so it wasn't the amp or DAC, the only change was the speakers.  You can get the most detailed DAC in the world and if your speakers are your systems bottleneck you will not benefit.  

Regarding imaging, separation of instruments and soundstage, all of these things vary wildly from dac to dac and there is no objective "this is how it should sound" benchmark to know if your DAC is doing well.  The closest you can come is Q sound recordings but those are problematic in the opposite direction in that virtually any DAC and system should be able to make those sound incredible.  
More to discover