DAC/Pre's Digital attenuation vs. analog

Audioengr:

I find it interesting you prefer digital attenuation with its lack of detail over analog attenuation with its high compression. I would guessed the analog attenuation would be preferable. I assume you mean down to just -9db or even lower?

From my own experimenting with my V-DAC II *I think* I prefer cutting back my amp's gain vs. foobar's. It's something I will have to experiment with, but I plan on getting all new equipment in the next few months anyways.

Maybe your Off-Ramp 5 with a benchmark will work for me?

Dne

I said that I have been told that the W4S DAC-2 sounds better than the Benchmark units. Correct, I have not owned the Benchmark unit. I am sorry if you own the Benchmark unit... you are missing out.

"I find it interesting you prefer digital attenuation with its lack of detail over analog attenuation with its high compression. I would guessed the analog attenuation would be preferable. I assume you mean down to just -9db or even lower?"

Correct, certainly no more than -12dB.

"Maybe your Off-Ramp 5 with a benchmark will work for me?"

It will certainly improve on the Benchmark. I modded them for almost 10 years, but stopped in 2009. For the same money you could have Metrum Octave. I have a few customers that use this combo with great results.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

hi steve:

the zanden which was used in the comparison with the spoiler, was the latest zanden dac, not the original. having heard both, i can say that i don't like the latest zanden dac. it doesn't sound like it has a tube in it when mated with the zanden transport.

so, there are two variables here, the version of the sanden dac and the transport. perhaps there is a better transport for the zanden dac.

it is virtually impossible to compare dacs, because of the interaction with the transport. i wasn't sure if the spoiler was mated with the zanden transport.

one is really comparing a dac/transport combination with another. there are 4 variables.

one cannot conclude the superiority of one dac or another, definitively, unless one can mate it with every transport--impossible.

one can, inductively have confidence if one samples many transports, using two dacs. also, is there not the issue of the digital interface , another variable ??

i think it is pointless to compare dacs, unless one can construct a valid experimental design.

by the way, there are problems comparing components, in general, because of interactions with other components. there are many variables and it is almost impossible to isolate the contribution of each one.

all you can do is specify the variables and let your ears decide which you prefer.

certainly there are mismatches between amps and preamps, and i would conjecture that there are mismatches between dacs and transports.

the fact that a company fabricates a dac and transport does not ensure the combination is optimal

Mrtennis - If you read the last 3 or 4 DAC reviews in TAS, you will see that once you have a really low jitter digital source (not a Transport), the differences in DACs are much smaller. This is the only way to compare DACs. Otherwise, you are mostly hearing the DACs ability to reduce jitter or replace it with other jitter as in ASRC. Without this low-jitter source, many older ladder and NOS DACs will sound really bad.

Its a lot like comparing decent turntables using a really cheap cartridge. Yes, the really expensive turntables/tonearms will sound a bit better, but they a will all sound relatively poor due to the cartridge. With a really good cartridge, the differences are much smaller I think. The cartridge is the most important part, as the Master Clock is in digital.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio