Emotiva's next flagship DAC

[Boomzilla]

The late, great Stealth DC-1 is THE component that Emotiva has been promising a replacement for over years and years. Anticipation is strong that the new DAC Is (at least) under development. In anticipation of that introduction, here is a list of features that I'd like to see on the new DAC (and those that I wouldn't care about). Your priorities would certainly vary, so feel free to throw in your own two cents.

STUFF I'D REALLY WANT IN THE NEW EMOTIVA FLAGSHIP DAC:

User selectable digital low-pass filters to tweak the sound of the DAC
Fanatical attention to the analog output section to maximize sound quality
Ethernet input with Roon RAAT compatibility and DLNA
HDMI input with high-quality down mix to stereo output
Both balanced XLR and unbalanced RCA outputs
Wide selection of digital inputs (coaxial, optical, USB)
Anything but a Sabre DAC chip
Switchable oversampling
Reasonable price

STUFF I'D NOT CARE ABOUT IN THE NEW EMOTIVA FLAGSHIP DAC:

Bluetooth capability (the quality isn't sufficient to include it)
Headphone amplifier (outboard units are better & very inexpensive)
Analog input (this isn't a preamp)
Digital volume control (nobody uses it much - a passive, remote-controlled volume box sounds better, or just use a preamp)
MQA capability (looks like this CODEC isn't going to make it)
Remote control (although the ability to swap filters from a remote might be nice)
HQ capabilities (the majority of everyone's music is 44.1/16, and very few listen to high bit-rate material. That said most current DAC chips already have HQ capabilities, so it costs nothing to include it...)

And if I were to make la-la-land wishes, I'd want the option of a silver faceplate rather than the traditional Emotiva black, and maybe even a tube output stage option. But I'm well aware that those aren't realistic for Emotiva products.

And that's my two cents.

Boomzilla

Comments, KeithL?

[mgbpuff]

My advise to Emotiva is to stay out of the DAC business. It is a chip intensive product and chips are controlled by China. There are excellent DACs on the market. SOTA is always impossibly expensive. The DAC I now have (Toppping 90DSE) has nothing but highly praised reviews and has HQ, MQA, DSD, IIS (HDMI), and Bluetooth. And it does use a Saber chip, two in fact and more than that it uses all 8 chip channels in parallel for unprecedented THD+N and SNR. It has 7 PCM filters and 4 DSD filters and it is DAC + preamp capable (no analog inputs however). As for switchable oversampling, or none at all, just buy a NOS DAC (it should be good for ever).

[goodfellas27]

Emotiva will have a hard time beating Topping's value

[jdubs]

RE: Topping; I tried the D90SE and had a small issue with it (crackling sound when changing resolution). Had a hard time getting resolution (pun intended) from Topping or Apos (the retailer), so I returned it. It did sound good when I had it working, but I'm unfortunately done with Topping. One of the problems was the time difference and language barrier for communication. I do agree that they make a good product and are a great value. But that was my second defective Topping item and I've made the decision to not deal with them anymore.

RE: Emotiva DAC; I've wanted Emotiva to get back to the range of electronics they had years ago. Alas, it's their company and they can do what they want. I'm pretty on board with the list the OP posted. Also, they are so deep in the processor business that they are already deep in dealing with Chinese chips, so I don't feel like that is a barrier for them to develop a well implemented DAC like they definitely know how to do.

I'm enamored with both Emotiva and Schiit but they have unique product offerings that often don't fit what I'm looking for. I'd rather deal with an American company but sometimes that product doesn't fit.

[Boomzilla]

But as an aside...

The quality of DACs across the board is SO much better than It used to be, that it's questionable as to whether Emotiva even NEEDS a "flagship DAC." The Big Ego+ that I'm currently using sounds every bit as good as the past several $1K DACs that I've reviewed. The Big is transparent, full-range, and even has selectable filters. I'd put the Big up against the Toppings for sure. In fact, I had a Topping and returned it after I heard the Big. If you're DAC shopping, don't miss the Big Ego+!

Boom

Postscriptum:

I haven't tried the headphone output of the Big, nor have I used the TOSLINK feature. If you have power-hungry cans, I can see that better options are available. But as a main feed for my big system, this little DAC kicks it!

[Deleted]

Sept 7, 2021 6:12:37 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

The late, great Stealth DC-1 is THE component that Emotiva has been promising a replacement for over years and years. Anticipation is strong that the new DAC Is (at least) under development. In anticipation of that introduction, here is a list of features that I'd like to see on the new DAC (and those that I wouldn't care about). Your priorities would certainly vary, so feel free to throw in your own two cents.

STUFF I'D REALLY WANT IN THE NEW EMOTIVA FLAGSHIP DAC:

User selectable digital low-pass filters to tweak the sound of the DAC
Fanatical attention to the analog output section to maximize sound quality
Ethernet input with Roon RAAT compatibility and DLNA
HDMI input with high-quality down mix to stereo output
Both balanced XLR and unbalanced RCA outputs
Wide selection of digital inputs (coaxial, optical, USB)
Anything but a Sabre DAC chip
Switchable oversampling
Reasonable price

STUFF I'D NOT CARE ABOUT IN THE NEW EMOTIVA FLAGSHIP DAC:

Bluetooth capability (the quality isn't sufficient to include it)
Headphone amplifier (outboard units are better & very inexpensive)
Analog input (this isn't a preamp)
Digital volume control (nobody uses it much - a passive, remote-controlled volume box sounds better, or just use a preamp)
MQA capability (looks like this CODEC isn't going to make it)
Remote control (although the ability to swap filters from a remote might be nice)
HQ capabilities (the majority of everyone's music is 44.1/16, and very few listen to high bit-rate material. That said most current DAC chips already have HQ capabilities, so it costs nothing to include it...)

And if I were to make la-la-land wishes, I'd want the option of a silver faceplate rather than the traditional Emotiva black, and maybe even a tube output stage option. But I'm well aware that those aren't realistic for Emotiva products.

And that's my two cents.

Boomzilla

Comments, KeithL ?

Perhaps Emotiva should also consider the ability to switch or invert balanced XLR pins hot and cold too? That way people could compensate for mismatched signals when using Emotiva amps. Especially when mixing  amps built into Emotiva's product lineup consisting of active subwoofers when paired with XPAs.  

[garbulky]

A fully balanced dac with dual balanced stereo subwoofer outs and configurable bass management is what I would want.
If I could have my cake and eat it, I would want it to be able to accept HDMI as a source, but that is unlikely.
Emotiva's DC-1 was so feature full that other than these it's hard to want more.

[Boomzilla]

By the way, garbulky, once the plague is abated, you ought to borrow my Big Ego+. I think it would hold up well sonically against the Stealth DC-1 (but without the flexibility of the Stealth). You could plug the Big Ego+ into the analog inputs of your Stealth and do A/B comparisons.

Boom

[Deleted]

From what I see the Topping D90SE is king of the hill at this time regardless of price point: www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/topping-d90se-review-balanced-dac.24235/

Looks like my SMSL M400 dropped to 3rd in points where there's a 5 way tie for 3rd under 1st in the near half year I've owned it 




Seems to me that the Chinese have surpassed the "manufactured in America" companies where they outsource to China and assemble in America. 

[Boomzilla]

Yes, but ASR measurements don't necessarily reflect what you HEAR. You can have 100% accurate conversion & 100% freedom from jitter, yet the audio can still sound bright & edgy. Fact.

[creimes]

Sept 9, 2021 15:37:13 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Yes, but ASR measurements don't necessarily reflect what you HEAR. You can have 100% accurate conversion & 100% freedom from jitter, yet the audio can still sound bright & edgy. Fact.

Yeah but if the DAC you own has the highest points score that there is bragging rights, who cares about the sound

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2021 20:57:45 GMT -5 creimes said:

Sept 9, 2021 15:37:13 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Yes, but ASR measurements don't necessarily reflect what you HEAR. You can have 100% accurate conversion & 100% freedom from jitter, yet the audio can still sound bright & edgy. Fact.

Yeah but if the DAC you own has the highest points score that there is bragging rights, who cares about the sound

Why is it one or the other? 

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2021 15:37:13 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Yes, but ASR measurements don't necessarily reflect what you HEAR. You can have 100% accurate conversion & 100% freedom from jitter, yet the audio can still sound bright & edgy. Fact.

Wrote my own little amateur review here. www.tekton.design/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=16&p=24#p24
I've only three DACs I've compared to in my system: Onkyo PRRZ5100, Bluesound Node 2i, and the SMSL M400. I happy with my purchase and feel as though I have received the most value for my dollar. And that's despite others defining my patriotism as dependent upon where I shop according to greedy capitalist's marketing which conveys real patriots only buy American. 

[creimes]

Sept 10, 2021 0:00:02 GMT -5 @deleted said:

Sept 9, 2021 20:57:45 GMT -5 creimes said:

Yeah but if the DAC you own has the highest points score that there is bragging rights, who cares about the sound

Why is it one or the other? 

It must be, it's the logical solution.

[KeithL]

The problem is that DACs are quite possibly one of the best examples of how a few specific numbers often don't define how something sounds.

THD, IMD, S/N, SINAD, and quite a few other common measurements are what we call "steady state measurements".

You measure them using a test signal consisting of one or two pure sine waves - and they give you a pretty good idea how accurately a piece of audio gear will reproduce a steady state sine wave.

And, as it turns out, with a few notable exceptions, with relatively simple linear analog circuitry, those measurements also translate pretty well to how a piece of equipment will handle music.

However, when it comes to DACs, those results do not translate very well - or, more precisely, they fail rather spectacularly to give you a complete picture.

DACs perform various sorts of processing on the audio signal in the digital domain... including oversampling...

(Oversampling is quite necessary... and it is virtually impossible to design a DAC that performs even reasonably well on those standard measurements without it.)

However, as a result of this, DACs respond quite differently to transient signals (like music) than they do to a steady state sine wave test signal.

More specifically, you can have two DACs that respond identically to steady state sine wave signals, but that respond VERY differently to time-varying signals, like transients - and music.

And, as it turns out, very few of us spend much time listening to steady state sine waves...

It's just that there are things going on that those steady state sine wave test signals aren't testing...

And, even if you do test them, there is no way to correlate the results of those measurements to how something sounds...

Certain of those things, like noise, we can at least infer that "low is good and lower is better", and "if you can hear a difference then lower will sound better"...

But, when it comes to other things, like the transient response of oversampling filters, the theory isn't quite so clear-cut.

Let's look at different DACs with different oversampling filters (or one DAC with multiple choices there)...

Let's assume that one oversampling filter is a "sharp symmetrical filter", one has "no pre-ringing but lots of post-ringing", and one has "a shallow slope with lots of both pre-ringing and post-ringing"...

If those three filters are designed properly ALL THREE OF THEM MAY DELIVER EQUALLY LOW THD, IMD, AND NOISE, EQUALLY GOOD SINAD, AND EQUALLY FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE.

In fact all three will measure the same with virtually any steady state sine wave based test.

HOWEVER they will sound VERY different when playing music.

There's nothing magical or mysterious about it...

It's not all that difficult to measure that difference with modern test equipment.

The result will be those "impulse response" graphs that many DAC manufacturers publish.

The problem is that you can't always tell exactly how a certain DAC will sound by looking at those pictures.

And, more to our point, it's almost impossible to conclusively define one or the other as "better"...

The "sharp symmetrical" filter will arguably deliver "the most accurate overall power response" with transients...

But the second one, with "no pre-ringing but lots of post-ringing" will consistently "sound more natural with a lot of acoustic music" to most people...

(It seems that we humans are much more sensitive to pre-ringing than post-ringing.... so we find noticeable pre-ringing excessively unpleasant and "unnatural"...)

However that distinction will be much more noticeable with certain recordings and types of music than with others...

And, to some people, with different types of music, the "gentler" filter, with more of both sorts of ringing, may end up sounding "more natural"...

There are obviously two "catches" here....

The first is that these differences won't show up at all with steady state sine wave tests like THD, S/N, frequency response, and SINAD...

The second catch is that, even if you take the measurements, and look at the graphs, they don't tell you which is "better"...

Because different people may simply prefer one or the other (remember that all are EQUAL according to those steady state measurements)....

And, even beyond that, someone may prefer one or the other with different types of music, or with recordings made using different methods...

To give you the most often quoted example...

"Acoustic recordings of plucked instruments, like harps and solo guitars, and sharp transients like bells and cymbals, tend to sound more natural when there is little or no pre-ringing."

"But, since those instruments naturally generate a lot of post ringing, almost any amount of post-ringing contributed by the DAC will not be especially noticeable."

"However, with other types of sounds, excessive post-ringing will often be noticeable as a sort of audible blurring of the sound."

(And, again, remember that none of these differences will show up at all on standard steady-state sine-wave tests...)

A note about those graphs you often see, which show a single spike at a certain frequency, surrounded by "grass" (the noise spectrum)...

Those graphs are showing the amount and type of noise, which can be somewhat interesting with DACs, but that is NOT what we're talking about here...

While some sorts of noise are far more audible or annoying than others you can at least generalize that less is usually better...

(As long as you don't trade reducing a relatively benign sort of noise for increase a more unpleasant type...)

Another note is that jitter itself is VERY rarely measured - because doing so is rather difficult.

The measurements you usually see are "the anomalies in an output signal that are characteristic of jitter"...

Those are then used to INFER how much jitter is present or how much jitter present on the input was able to affect the output.

(Jitter is a measure of clock accuracy... the output of a DAC is analog and so cannot actually contain jitter... it can only contain artifacts suggestive of the effects of jitter upstream.)

Sept 9, 2021 15:37:13 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Yes, but ASR measurements don't necessarily reflect what you HEAR. You can have 100% accurate conversion & 100% freedom from jitter, yet the audio can still sound bright & edgy. Fact.

[Rybo]

Sept 7, 2021 6:12:37 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

The late, great Stealth DC-1 is THE component that Emotiva has been promising a replacement for over years and years. Anticipation is strong that the new DAC Is (at least) under development. In anticipation of that introduction, here is a list of features that I'd like to see on the new DAC (and those that I wouldn't care about). Your priorities would certainly vary, so feel free to throw in your own two cents.

STUFF I'D REALLY WANT IN THE NEW EMOTIVA FLAGSHIP DAC:

User selectable digital low-pass filters to tweak the sound of the DAC
Fanatical attention to the analog output section to maximize sound quality
Ethernet input with Roon RAAT compatibility and DLNA
HDMI input with high-quality down mix to stereo output
Both balanced XLR and unbalanced RCA outputs
Wide selection of digital inputs (coaxial, optical, USB)
Anything but a Sabre DAC chip
Switchable oversampling
Reasonable price

STUFF I'D NOT CARE ABOUT IN THE NEW EMOTIVA FLAGSHIP DAC:

Bluetooth capability (the quality isn't sufficient to include it)
Headphone amplifier (outboard units are better & very inexpensive)
Analog input (this isn't a preamp)
Digital volume control (nobody uses it much - a passive, remote-controlled volume box sounds better, or just use a preamp)
MQA capability (looks like this CODEC isn't going to make it)
Remote control (although the ability to swap filters from a remote might be nice)
HQ capabilities (the majority of everyone's music is 44.1/16, and very few listen to high bit-rate material. That said most current DAC chips already have HQ capabilities, so it costs nothing to include it...)

And if I were to make la-la-land wishes, I'd want the option of a silver faceplate rather than the traditional Emotiva black, and maybe even a tube output stage option. But I'm well aware that those aren't realistic for Emotiva products.

And that's my two cents.

Boomzilla

Comments, KeithL ?

I've been blissfully ignorant of new audio technology for years (other than going all-digital several years ago), so I'm new to the whole MQA debate since switching over to Tidal from Spotify before Spotify went hi-res. So are the forces against MQA strong enough to kill it? I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but just curious. I purchased a cheaper MQA-licensed DAC just to audition for myself, but if it's already a dying codec it wouldn't be of much use as a feature. I like how it sounds, but I honestly haven't performed a blind test and I get the protests against it -- not to open a can of worms on your thread.

[KeithL]

The short answer there is that there is no short answer... because MQA is not a single thing.

(There definitely was a lot of buzz about it for a short while... and that buzz definitely has died down quite a bit.)

MQA is both a streaming CODEC, and a way of processing digital recordings to "improve" the way they sound, and a "DAC feature" that goes with the set.

In the overall scheme, the audio is pre-processed using MQA digital processing, streamed to you using the MQA CODEC, partially decoded to regular PCM audio, then goes through another step of decoding by your "MQA enabled" DAC.

What makes it complicated is that various parts of that process can be mixed and matched.

So, for example, Tidal applies the MQA processing to most of their music lately...

And they then use the MQA CODEC to stream that music to their client, which could be software on a computer, or a client app on your smart phone, or firmware in a streaming device.

Their client receives the MQA encoded stream and performs the initial decode at this point.

At this point you are already receiving "the major part of what makes MQA special".

And, at this point, you have a regular PCM digital audio signal which can be played by ANY standard DAC.

You then optionally pass this PCM signal to an "MQA enabled DAC" - which detects that it is still an MQA signal and applies additional decoding (or post processing) to it.

So, to answer your question, many people seem to like the way the MQA processing "adjusts" the sound...

(While, as you've noticed, many others don't like the idea that, obviously, it cannot deliver sound that is BOTH "accurate to the original" and "improved".)

As it turns out, on its own, the MQA CODEC works pretty well, especially with MQA processed content.

Now, remember that at this point you can connect an ordinary non-MQA-enabled DAC and it will play that output just fine.

So, as long as you have something with a Tidal client on it, to do that initial "receive and decode", you are already getting most of the "advantages" of MQA, no matter what DAC you have.

Considering these facts I expect Tidal to continue to use MQA for the forseeable future.

At this point you can connect an "MQA enabled" DAC which also performs what they consider to be the final step in the decoding process (which they like to refer to as "unfolding").

Most people seem to agree that this part of the process honestly doesn't make all that much difference.

And, as it turns out, in order to meet the requirements to be an "MQA render", and handle this part of the process, a DAC must compromise its performance in other ways...

This is where you see those discussions about "how the MQA renderer is really just a leaky upscaling filter".

This is also the part that is a nuisance to DAC manufacturers...

Not only does MQA require a special filter configuration, which is otherwise somewhat flawed, but they want to be paid a licensing fee to allow you to use it (and show the logo).

This is the main reason why we have no plans to support MQA... (at this point we simply don't have enough customers who care about it to justify the cost and aggravation of obtaining the license).

HOWEVER, regardless of whether your DAC "supports MQA", or DACs stop doing so in the future, you will STILL be able to play that "MQA content" from Tidal on an ordinary DAC...

And so you will be able to play it on any of our equipment (your Tidal client will be "doing the first unfold" - and you can live without the less useful "second unfold".)

In other words, to answer your question, as long as a significant number of their customers like the way it sounds, and that's what they're set up to use, I see no reason why Tidal would STOP supporting MQA.

And whether OTHER streaming services adopt it should not make any difference in that regard.

(Spotify uses a CODEC called Ogg Vorbis... but most of their customers neither know or care what CODEC they use.)

But, from the way things look at the moment, I see no indication that other streaming services see a compelling reason to switch over.

There's enough controversy that other services are unlikely to see MQA as any sort of clear winner... and Apple would never license someone else's standard even if they liked it.

As for how many DAC manufacturers choose to support it... manufacturers always enjoy having one more logo to put on their trophy wall.

And some manufacturers are going to see MQA as one more trophy for their wall...

While others are going to decide that, considering the hoops to jump through, and the cost of licensing it, it isn't worth adding to their list...

(At this point I don't believe that anyone considers it to be "compelling" or "a must-have feature".)

But, again, either way, you'll be able to play that Tidal MQA content on any DAC, whether it "supports MQA" or not... because the Tidal client is handling the MQA CODEC for you.

And, likewise, any MQA DAC should be able to play ordinary PCM content without any problem...

Technically speaking, by MQA encoding content, then playing it on a non-MQA enabled DAC, you are suffering a slight loss in quality...

But, since MQA is NOT bit-perfect anyway, as long as you LIKE the way it sounds, that shouldn't really be an issue...

In other words I don't see any particular down-side to purchasing an MQA DAC - beyond the fact that you are paying for an extra feature that may be of limited value in the future...

Sept 10, 2021 11:21:12 GMT -5 Rybo said:

Sept 7, 2021 6:12:37 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

The late, great Stealth DC-1 is THE component that Emotiva has been promising a replacement for over years and years. Anticipation is strong that the new DAC Is (at least) under development. In anticipation of that introduction, here is a list of features that I'd like to see on the new DAC (and those that I wouldn't care about). Your priorities would certainly vary, so feel free to throw in your own two cents.

STUFF I'D REALLY WANT IN THE NEW EMOTIVA FLAGSHIP DAC:

User selectable digital low-pass filters to tweak the sound of the DAC
Fanatical attention to the analog output section to maximize sound quality
Ethernet input with Roon RAAT compatibility and DLNA
HDMI input with high-quality down mix to stereo output
Both balanced XLR and unbalanced RCA outputs
Wide selection of digital inputs (coaxial, optical, USB)
Anything but a Sabre DAC chip
Switchable oversampling
Reasonable price

STUFF I'D NOT CARE ABOUT IN THE NEW EMOTIVA FLAGSHIP DAC:

Bluetooth capability (the quality isn't sufficient to include it)
Headphone amplifier (outboard units are better & very inexpensive)
Analog input (this isn't a preamp)
Digital volume control (nobody uses it much - a passive, remote-controlled volume box sounds better, or just use a preamp)
MQA capability (looks like this CODEC isn't going to make it)
Remote control (although the ability to swap filters from a remote might be nice)
HQ capabilities (the majority of everyone's music is 44.1/16, and very few listen to high bit-rate material. That said most current DAC chips already have HQ capabilities, so it costs nothing to include it...)

And if I were to make la-la-land wishes, I'd want the option of a silver faceplate rather than the traditional Emotiva black, and maybe even a tube output stage option. But I'm well aware that those aren't realistic for Emotiva products.

And that's my two cents.

Boomzilla

Comments, KeithL ?

I've been blissfully ignorant of new audio technology for years (other than going all-digital several years ago), so I'm new to the whole MQA debate since switching over to Tidal from Spotify before Spotify went hi-res. So are the forces against MQA strong enough to kill it? I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but just curious. I purchased a cheaper MQA-licensed DAC just to audition for myself, but if it's already a dying codec it wouldn't be of much use as a feature. I like how it sounds, but I honestly haven't performed a blind test and I get the protests against it -- not to open a can of worms on your thread.

[brutiarti]

Sept 10, 2021 15:05:40 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Considering these facts I expect Tidal to continue to use MQA for the forseeable future. 

But they might try to charge more. In Australia they put new pricing plans.

[Rybo]

Great explanation and summary.

KeithL said: -----------------------

"Technically speaking, by MQA encoding content, then playing it on a non-MQA enabled DAC, you are suffering a slight loss in quality...
But, since MQA is NOT bit-perfect anyway, as long as you LIKE the way it sounds, that shouldn't really be an issue...

In other words I don't see any particular down-side to purchasing an MQA DAC - beyond the fact that you are paying for an extra feature that may be of limited value in the future..."

-----------------------------------------

About that slight loss of quality when playing Tidal without an MQA-enabled DAC ... it seems like a lot of people were suddenly dissatisfied with Tidal's audio quality once they read/watched the negative buzz a few months back. But I wonder how many compared the incomplete MQA stream with the hi-res of some other service, rather than the fully-unfolded version. Of course, the fully-unfolded, like you mentioned, still isn't bit-perfect, but is deblurred and "fully restored" (in quotes), so it would at least present the best comparison.

My biggest question, though, is this. It took some time during the wild-West days of the internet to put a lid on music piracy. I realize Apple's iTunes and music industry lawsuits, among other things, helped to accomplish this. But if the music industry has signed on to the MQA format, what's to stop its progress? They increasingly tighten the screws on everyone until it becomes the established format. From the perspective of killing off mp3s and other lesser formats, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. But could they also kill off bit-perfect hi-res? I could eventually see Apple jumping on this bandwagon, or creating something similar.

[Boomzilla]

Apple is impossible to predict - except for the fact that they'll want to maximize profit and control of any content or delivery method they offer. Their latest is a proprietary version of Dolby Atmos that requires Apple hardware for playback. Apple can KMA.