Asr Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 ....hrmm I think I have to try this Dodson DAC now. Damn you, Monkey! And I think you discovered why I returned the BDA-1.
Azazel Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 I like the defeatable upsampling a lot more than I thought I would. Why? Does it change significantly the sound? How does this fit on the tests you described above? If you like the Dodson more I cannot see why more switches and lights on the Bryston box may made the decision (to ditch it) tougher... On the other hand I DO have a problem because my (slightly modded) Benchmark is sounding really nice and is really versatile, but I do like my Pass D1 much as well and, oh, lets not forget how wonderful does sound my Buffalo...
The Monkey Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 Why? Does it change significantly the sound? How does this fit on the tests you described above? In some cases it does affect the sound significantly. I found that with crappy recordings or low bitrate files (of which I have more than a few), turning off the upsampling seems to make the DAC more forgiving. Whether this is real or placebo is anyone's guess. It's a nice option. If you like the Dodson more I cannot see why more switches and lights on the Bryston box may made the decision (to ditch it) tougher... I would have thought this to be obvious. From DACs 101: moar litez = cool. On a more serious note, the multitude of inputs on the BDA-1 is an appealing feature. On the other hand I DO have a problem because my (slightly modded) Benchmark is sounding really nice and is really versatile, but I do like my Pass D1 much as well and, oh, lets not forget how wonderful does sound my Buffalo... I think the Benchmark is a capable device. I liked my stock unit, but I think the DACs I have been using lately surpass it pretty easily. Still, I like the form factor, build quality, and swiss-army type capabilities of the DAC1.
morphsci Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 In some cases it does affect the sound significantly. I found that with crappy recordings or low bitrate files (of which I have more than a few), turning off the upsampling seems to make the DAC more forgiving. Whether this is real or placebo is anyone's guess. It's a nice option. I have found the same thing with the crappy recordings. I have also found that I almost universally prefer upsampling frequencies 176.4>88.2>96>192. Somehow seems a little weird to me.
vlach Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 I continue to like the Dodson more. And tonight, Mrs. Monkey listened "blind." For direct comparison purposes, I have the DACs going through the SkipJack single ended, then into the amps. I didn't tell my woman which DAC was which and let her toggle back and forth with the SkipJack. She was listening to the O2 through the KGSS DX. She spent about 30 minutes listening to various tunes. She preferred the Dodson by a wide margin. Like the ECD-1, she found the BDA-1 "muted." But she also thought the Dodson sounded "brighter," which she preferred. Mrs. Monkey is pretty good at this stuff. I think her comments are right on the money. And while I don't think the Dodson is bright in the negative connotation that we often ascribe to it, I do think it provides more musical insight than the BDA-1, which seems reserved to me. A bit smoother perhaps, but almost artificially so. I think the BDA-1 is very good, but I'm beginning to think that I like DACs with a little bit of edge to them. The BDA-1 would be a very good choice for someone who wants a very smooth, refined sound. There's no glare, and no splash. But based on my time with the Dodson, I think the BDA-1 does have just a bit of haze. That's not always bad. And I think the BDA-1 does a nice job of just getting out of the way. But I'm pretty sure I'll be sticking with the Dodson. Of course, the BDA-1 smokes the Dodson in terms of features, though, which makes the decision a bit tougher. I like the defeatable upsampling a lot more than I thought I would. Hi, I am new to this forum. I own the Cambridge DacMagic and have been salivating at the Bryston DAC ever since it came out. It's been very difficult to find testimonies, descriptions & comparisons from actual Bryston owners and you are one of the very few that i found. Question; i hear the Bryston has a 2.3V output level which is higher than that of other DACs. Therefore, for equal comparison and testing against other DACs this requires proper volume matching. How is the output level of the Dodson in comparison to the Bryston and did you take this into account with your testing? Thanks.
The Monkey Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 Well, according to the specs I can find, the Dodson is also 2.3 V RMS out (unbalanced). And based on some of the other specs I saw on teh interwebs, it seems that 2.3V is not inordinately high. However, I defer to the DAC experts on this one. Regardless, I did not find the need to volume match and the specs seem to provide support for the reason why. As an aside, I note that the DacMagic's output is 2.1V. Is a difference of .2V a significant amount in these applications? Random notes: Output Levels BDA-1: 2.3V unbalanced; 4.6V balanced ECD-1: 1.6V unbalanced; 3.2V balanced DacMagic: 2.1V unbalanced; 4.2V balanced DA217: 2.3V unbalanced; (can't find specs for balanced) Is it reasonable to assume that all balanced output will be 2x unbalanced output? Something tells me it's not that simple.
vlach Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 Well, according to the specs I can find, the Dodson is also 2.3 V RMS out (unbalanced). And based on some of the other specs I saw on teh interwebs, it seems that 2.3V is not inordinately high. However, I defer to the DAC experts on this one. Regardless, I did not find the need to volume match and the specs seem to provide support for the reason why. As an aside, I note that the DacMagic's output is 2.1V. Is a difference of .2V a significant amount in these applications? Random notes: Output Levels BDA-1: 2.3V unbalanced; 4.6V balanced ECD-1: 1.6V unbalanced; 3.2V balanced DacMagic: 2.1V unbalanced; 4.2V balanced DA217: 2.3V unbalanced; (can't find specs for balanced) Is it reasonable to assume that all balanced output will be 2x unbalanced output? Something tells me it's not that simple. Thanks for clarifying, and yes, i can see why volume matching was not necessary in your Bryston-Dodson test. As an example regarding output voltage, when comparing my Naim CD5i player at 2.0V against the DacMagic at 2.1V, the audible difference in audio output level was very obvious and required volume matching. Getting back to the Bryston, which is significantly cheaper than the Dodson, would you say the upgrade is worthwhile purely from a cost perspective? Another question would be where to you place the $ yard stick in terms of where the law of diminishing return kicks in for DACs in general?
Asr Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 Is it reasonable to assume that all balanced output will be 2x unbalanced output? Something tells me it's not that simple. Not all sources with "balanced" output have it at 2X the single-ended output. Accuphase, for example, has it at the same level.
The Monkey Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 As an example regarding output voltage, when comparing my Naim CD5i player at 2.0V against the DacMagic at 2.1V, the audible difference in audio output level was very obvious and required volume matching. Good to know. I did experience problems of that nature when comparing the ECD-1, and it appears that the output supports that. Getting back to the Bryston, which is significantly cheaper than the Dodson, would you say the upgrade is worthwhile purely from a cost perspective? Another question would be where to you place the $ yard stick in terms of where the law of diminishing return kicks in for DACs in general? It's important to remember that the Dodson WAS more expensive than the Bryston. Recall that the DA217 mkII-D is an older DAC (I think it came out in Fall 2000). Accordingly, as of right now, the Dodson appears to be very close in price to the BDA-1, and probably lower in most cases. However, if the DACs were currently trading at their original MSRPs, then no I don't think I would say that the upgrade would be worth the 2.5x price difference. At a couple hundred bucks, it's a different story. However, one also needs to take into account the fact that Dodson is now defunct, though still supported, and the gear is getting old. While built well, it ain't gonna last forever. As for diminishing returns, it seems to me that you can get a very, very good DAC for $1500 or less (much less in some cases) on the used market. After that, it seems to me (without much support for the following conclusion) that the next "rung" probably starts at $2500, but that's speculative at best. Not all sources with "balanced" output have it at 2X the single-ended output. Accuphase, for example, has it at the same level. Is this due to using inversion to achieve the balanced signal out? (Did I say that right?)
deepak Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 Not all sources with "balanced" output have it at 2X the single-ended output. Accuphase, for example, has it at the same level. Umm what's wrong with that? I'd rather have a 2 v industry standard for both single ended and balanced.
Asr Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 Is this due to using inversion to achieve the balanced signal out? (Did I say that right?) I have no idea how Accuphase achieves their identical-level single-ended and balanced output, someone else will have to speak for that. In the past they didn't use dual-differential DACs, that might have changed recently though with their latest CDPs. Umm what's wrong with that? I'd rather have a 2 v industry standard for both single ended and balanced. Well that would theoretically be nice, but I'm not sure Accuphase implements the balanced output correctly. The DP-500 that I used to own did not sound better balanced compared to single-ended, it sounded exactly the same.
vlach Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 It's important to remember that the Dodson WAS more expensive than the Bryston. Recall that the DA217 mkII-D is an older DAC (I think it came out in Fall 2000). Accordingly, as of right now, the Dodson appears to be very close in price to the BDA-1, and probably lower in most cases. However, if the DACs were currently trading at their original MSRPs, then no I don't think I would say that the upgrade would be worth the 2.5x price difference. At a couple hundred bucks, it's a different story. However, one also needs to take into account the fact that Dodson is now defunct, though still supported, and the gear is getting old. While built well, it ain't gonna last forever. As for diminishing returns, it seems to me that you can get a very, very good DAC for $1500 or less (much less in some cases) on the used market. After that, it seems to me (without much support for the following conclusion) that the next "rung" probably starts at $2500, but that's speculative at best. Thank you, those are all very good points. I guess i'm at a point where i'm trying to figure out what is the best way to spend $2K on a DAC...
Voltron Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 Thank you, those are all very good points. I guess i'm at a point where i'm trying to figure out what is the best way to spend $2K on a DAC... Well Monkey should be able to help because he does that every couple of days.
The Monkey Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 Umm what's wrong with that? I'd rather have a 2 v industry standard for both single ended and balanced. deepak, in my quick survey today, it appeared that 2V was common, but not the rule for unbalanced output. I saw numbers all over the place from 2.0 - 2.5, with most falling 2.0 - 2.3, but a bunch outside that range. My methodology was far from rigorous, but is 2.0V still industry standard? Also, it seemed that balanced DAC manufacturers often omit the output of the balanced outs. Weird. Well Monkey should be able to help because he does that every couple of days. I was thinking, "pshaw, Al made a funny." Then I realized that Al pretty much stated a fact.
Azazel Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 Concerning voltage out: one thing is the stated value, another thing is the measured value on some review unit, and yet another thing is the actual value in your unit. Two later ones usually are closer than first one IME, so don not take manufacturer data too seriously... It is the usual practice to have the balanced out at double voltage than unbalanced, hence the 6dB difference here. Accuphase choice is strange however, but -say- the Benchmark itself has a "non-true" balanced output (created from the unbalanced signal with a couple of opamps) and the regular 6dB difference. Good DAC for 2K$? Good question... but I feel there are some very nice options around the 1K mark, both new and used, and then you have to go a bit further to have significantly moar DAC
The Monkey Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 From a post I wrote on HF: Just saw this. I like the BDA-1 very much. I'm not sure whether I love it. As I've said before, I find it difficult to review gear, but here are my impressions. By way of background, the DACs with which I am very familiar are the Esoteric D-70, Electrocompaniet ECD-1, Dodson DA-217 mkII D, HeadRoom UDAC, HeadRoom MicroDAC, HeadAmp Pico DAC, North Star m192 mk2, Parasound D/AC 1000, and Benchmark DAC1. Most have been used with some combo of decent to high end stats and dynamic amps and cans. Balanced and unbalanced. For purposes of some of my head-to-head impressions, I use a Manley SkipJack. I listen to lossless and lossy from my iMac through the optical out to the DAC. I am cable agnostic and don't believe much in burn-in, so I won't dwell on those subjects here. Suffice it to say, though, that much of my gear is used, so burn-in, if any, should not be an issue. Regardless, I do not consider cables or burn-in germane to this post. Of the DACs listed above, the ones that I have found most appealing have been the ones that have what I would call sweet, or perhaps even emphasized, mids. Such DACs include the ECD-1 and the Dodson. The DACs I have liked least have been those that are splashy and bright such as the DAC1 or a bit subdued, like the UDAC. The North Star and the Bryston stand out for their cohesive presentation and detail, while remaining laid back. (Note: I know some think the North Star is bright; I don't agree.) The BDA-1 does not have the mids and mid-bass of the ECD-1 or the Dodson. At first blush and especially when A/Bing, this feels like a real deficiency. However, upon further listening, I felt that the fun mids of the ECD-1 came at the price of some congestion (almost a nasal, shouty quality). The Dodson does this a bit, too. In comparison, the BDA-1 presents a very cohesive but wide soundstage. While the mids seem a bit recessed in comparison to the ECD-1, this is a relative not absolute statement. The BDA-1 seems to get it "right" over long periods of listening. Passages where I used to experience fatigue do not result in it nearly as much. Yet, I do not feel that I am missing details. The background is completely black, so music sounds precise; instruments seem agile; and voices are clear without leaping out from the performance. What emerges then is a listening experience that feels very natural over time. The more I listen to it during a session, the more I like it. If I want to rock out and listen to a few songs with lots of slam, the Bryston is not the source I would go to first. That would be something like the Dodson, which has some of that added midbass slam that can be very satisfying. But I am finding that a sweetened or emphasized midrange can have a price: fatigue. Not the type of fatigue I would associate with the DAC1, but a certain annoyance or ringing to the instruments and voices. This situation simply does not occur when I listen to the BDA-1. It plays it straight, consistent, and without the glare or shimmer that I associate with many other DACs. At first listen, one might be tempted to call the BDA-1 boring. But I recommend a long listening session with it before reaching any conclusions. I find that I lose myself more easily when listening to the BDA-1, which I think is a good thing. By not emphasizing any particular spots, the BDA-1 achieves a level of smoothness that is growing on me. That said, I can easily understand someone preferring the ECD-1 or Dodson or even the D/AC 1000. If your listening sessions tend to be shorter and more intense, with lots of rock, then those DACs may be better choices. However, if you will be listening to lots of different genres over a medium to long session, then I think the BDA-1 begins to outshine the aforementioned. It remains smooth and balanced even at high volumes. The BDA-1 has inputs galore. I have not used the USB input. The BDA-1 can take hi res and while it sounds good to me, I don't have enough hi res to really form a solid opinion. The defeatable upsampling is a nice feature, and I find that it very occasionally sounds better when upsampling is turned off. The thing is built like a tank and looks good, too. Bryston's customer support seems to be very good, and they have a guy who is very responsive to inquiries, which is pretty cool. HeadRoom still takes the customer service award, IMO, but Bryston seems to be doing a fine job, too. Bottom line. I can recommend the BDA-1. It presents a cohesive and refined sound without sacrificing detail. While it may not rock as hard as some of the DACs discussed above, it can rock longer. It seems that Bryston made some choices with this DAC. In many cases those choices seem to be to err on the side of do no harm. I think that was wise. The music flows well out of this machine. Regardless, I am having a difficult time deciding whether to keep it or the Dodson. I like both enough to not want to part with either. Perhaps that's the best endorsement I can give. Finally, and somewhat tangential to these impressions, I read a pretty decent post here recently noting that many of the differences between DACs can be attributed to differences in volume based on a given DAC's output. Some are hotter than others, even when the specs say otherwise. I find this point interesting and valid. I tried to volume match, but it isn't easy (I don't have an SPL meter). Just as I am skeptical of burn-in and cable stuff, I am also willing to acknowledge points such as the volume differential, so take that for whatever it's worth. This DAC is so Canadian.
Looser101 Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 This DAC is so Canadian. Thanks for the impressions.
Looser101 Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 don't the cheese curds it's full of interfere with function? Only in French Canada. We "normal" Canadians don't have that issue.
Dreadhead Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Cheese curds and gravy. YUM. I had poutine for the first time in years about a month ago and mouth is salivating at the memory
Dreadhead Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Only in French Canada. We "normal" Canadians don't have that issue. They eat poutine all over Ontario too, don't remember seeing it out west though.
Hopstretch Posted October 28, 2009 Author Report Posted October 28, 2009 I had poutine for the first time in years about a month ago and mouth is salivating at the memory I like your diet plan. You should write a book.
mypasswordis Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 Speaking of having things inside your DAC which don't interfere with its functionality: Benchmark DAC1 (mutilated repeatedly, found shells of worms inside, still works) Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio - View Profile: Patrick82 Delish.
Looser101 Posted October 28, 2009 Report Posted October 28, 2009 They eat poutine all over Ontario too, don't remember seeing it out west though. If you are ordering poutine in Ontario then you are probably from Quebec. Real men order chili fries.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now