DC-1

[Golden Ear]

This is not related to DC-1 but on some CD when I use XDA-2, I hear a harsh high. Is there anything out there that can make them sound smooth and put depth on them?

[KeithL]

That's a very good question.... and the answer is a bit involved.

If we were talking about a "simple DAC" (which just takes in a digital signal and puts out the correct analog voltage), then there would be no practical advantage in having a DAC that could handle more than 24 bits (you can only get 16 bit or 24 bit content anyway). Beyond even that, even the best S/N ratio I've ever heard claimed for a modern DAC (around 130 dB) works out to a dynamic range of somewhere close to 24 bits (in other words, most of the remaining 8 bits would be lost in the noise even if the DAC could reproduce them with reasonable linearity).

The only practical benefit to having those extra bits - and it's why the Sabres have them - is to be found if you have a digital volume control. With a digital volume control, you change the output level by changing the actual values of the digital audio samples - by doing math. Now, if you take a "full scale" 24 bit audio signal, and then reduce it's value by half, you end up with a result that is only 23 bits (in binary, when you divide a number by 2, you reduce it by one digit). At this point you have reduced the resolution of the signal, and so lost some audio quality - the distortion is now higher. One bit won't hurt much, but, if you keep turning it down, you will soon reach a point where the loss in quality may indeed be audible.

By doing all of their internal processing with a 32 bit data path, the higher-end Sabre DACs avoid this loss in quality - sort of. By turning the 24 bit input numbers into 32 bit numbers "padded with zeros", they can then divide those numbers down into smaller values without losing resolution. This prevents the increase in distortion that would result due to the rounding errors caused by doing that same math in a 24 bit processing path. (Eventually, they run into a loss of resolution, but not for the first 8 bits or so of level reduction, which is more than the amount by which most people would turn the volume down anyway.) Unfortunately, since the noise floor is right around the bottom limit of the dynamic range you would get with a 24 bit number anyway, your "perfectly undistorted" lower bits are mostly lost in the noise floor anyway. The end result is that, when their digital volume control is turned down, they can probably get measurably lower distortion figures - but a lot of that difference in distortion is buried in the noise and linearity floor of the DAC where you can't hear the benefit anyway. It is, however, possible that IN A DAC WITH A DIGITAL VOLUME CONTROL, operating it at 32 bits MIGHT produce an audible improvement.

Of course, none of this matters in the least to a DAC which doesn't use a digital volume control anyway (like the DC-1 or the XDA-2).

So, the short answer is that there are (slight) benefits to having a 32 bit DAC if you use a digital volume control, and pretty much no benefits at all if you use an analog volume control.
Our digitally controlled analog volume control frees us from that requirement, as well as allowing us to losslessly control the volume on the analog inputs on the DC-1.
(The volume control ion the DC-1 is also configured in an especially advanced way to lower the noise floor even further at lower volume settings.....)

Jul 19, 2013 16:10:35 GMT -5 pawsman said:

Keith,

I'm curious, some of the other "leading edge" DACs out there are using 32 bit chips, as I'm sure you're aware.
For example, the 32 bit ESS Sabre & the AKM 4399 are very prominent in higher end DACs, and even some mid priced DACs.
Is there any advantage to these or is it all just "marketing" and hype? I'm sure you guys took a look at these,
and other possible DAC chips as well.

pawsman

[KeithL]

Unfortunately, odds are what you're hearing is the way the CD was mastered. Some CDs, especially older ones, sound harsh - for various reasons. In some cases, it's due to limitations in the analog-to-digital converters used in the early days; in other cases it seems to be due to a deliberate attempt on the part of the engineers who mastered them to "make sure that the CDs sounded different than the records" by boosting the high end. And, of course,some of them just like it to sound that way.

The short answer to your question, though, is that the XDA-2 is pretty well playing you what's there. Likewise, the goal of most solid state equipment is also to be accurate, which again means to play you what's there. If you want to "smooth things over" a bit, you should seriously consider adding some tubes to the mix. Since you already have an excellent DAC, a tube buffer (one that can be switched on and off) would be a good thing to try. Of course, you could move to a tube preamp and/or power amp if you want everything to sound that way.

Jul 25, 2013 15:08:07 GMT -5 Golden Ear said:

This is not related to DC-1 but on some CD when I use XDA-2, I hear a harsh high. Is there anything out there that can make them sound smooth and put depth on them?

[klinemj]

Very glad that the driver, driver documentation, and test results are now on the site!

Mark

[Topend]

I have succumbed, just sent an international quote request for the DC-1 and a 2m optical cable.

I will be connecting my new HTPC to listen to 96/24 music played with JRiver and connecting my Wadia 170i iPod dock. It will then connect to my system through my USP-1.

Dave.

[GreenKiwi]

Topend peer pressure always wins =D

Congrats!!!

[klinemj]

Congrats, Dave!

Mark

[Golden Ear]

Mark, I know some of us want a straight and simple answer. Did DC-1 blow XDA-2 out of the water?

[creimes]

Jul 26, 2013 20:47:36 GMT -5 Golden Ear said:

Mark, I know some of us want a straight and simple answer. Did DC-1 blow XDA-2 out of the water?

Stop humming and hawing and just order it lol...

[klinemj]

Golden ear...I would NOT say the DC-1 blew the ERC-2 out of the water but it is noticeably better and worth it to me.

Mark

[sancho89]

Jul 27, 2013 6:21:18 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Golden ear...I would say the DC-1 blew the ERC-2 out of the water but it is noticeably better and worth it to me.

Mark

Now I have to buy the DC-1 too!

[klinemj]

Sancho89...note important typo now fixed. But, it is still worth it to me!

Mark

[redblue]

Any fresh reports on the DC-1? I am curious if, compared to other DACS it tends to a musical/analog sounding dac, or more towards the detailed/analytical side of things? Or something completely different?

By the way, if anyone is looking for the manual, I found that the link on the PRO Emotiva site does not work, but the link to the manual from their consumer site is correct:
emotiva.com/resources/manuals/stealth_DC-1_manual.pdf

[klinemj]

No update from me, and if I would interpret what you mean by how I think about it...I would say the DC-1 tends toward musical/analog. It is very detailed, but not in a mechanical way at all...very natural and very clear with each note playing more like what I think the instrument should sound like.

Mark

[Deleted]

Klinemj, how does the DC-1 compare to the BDP-105? I just bought a 103, but am considering a move to the 105. The DC-1 intrigues me and would probably afford me more flexibility than the 105. I also just picked up the Sherbourn PT-7030 and am using its internal DAC with the 103. It works well, but I can't help but think it could be better.

[klinemj]

I found my ERC-2 and 105 to sound very, very similar with perhaps a very slight edge if any at all for the ERC-2. So, when I got the DC-1 I focussed my comparisons on the ERC-2 vs. the DC-1, and I found the DC-1 to be superior enough for me to justify the difference. Given this, if I did directly compare the DC-1 to the 105, I would expect the same conclusion that I drew vs. the ERC-2. Mind you that this was with my Maggies, my nCore's, and fully direct from source to amps. In other systems, the superiority may not be as clear.

Mark

[Deleted]

Thanks Klinemj. Guess I'll be fine with my 103 then.

[klinemj]

Just in case my note was confusing, based on my experience - I would expect the DC-1 to outperform the 105 (because the DC-1 outperformed the ERC-2 which was equal to or slightly better than the 105...). See my review for what I felt was better about the DC-1 over the ERC-2 (which, by default is also a comparison to how it performs over the 105...).

Mark

[creimes]

Aug 13, 2013 18:03:11 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Just in case my note was confusing, based on my experience - I would expect the DC-1 to outperform the 105 (because the DC-1 outperformed the ERC-2 which was equal to or slightly better than the 105...). See my review for what I felt was better about the DC-1 over the ERC-2 (which, by default is also a comparison to how it performs over the 105...).

Mark

So what your saying is the ERC-2 over the Oppo 105 but the DC-1 over the ERC-2 so then the DC-1 also over the 105, where does the UMC-1 fit in...lol Too many #'s phew

[klinemj]

I've not listened to the UMC in stereo for too long to make an informed comment...sorry!!!

Mark