XXHighEnd

There are so many external DACs with pc input (usb, firewire and others), that choosing a good-sounding and non-bugged one is getting terribly difficult.

These are the options that I can see viable for my situation (HTPC that i'm building, which will run Vista x32)

-RME FF 400 (pros: firewire is superior to usb, reputable brand; cons: no Vista drivers so far, bad aestethics)
-Aqvox mkII (pros: good aestethics; comments: a friend of mine has the mkI hooked to a mac and sounds good)
-PS Audio D III (pros: reputable brand, cons: usb input section seems bugged)
-Benchmark DAC1 (latest version, pros: praised by many; cons: availability in europe is scarce)
-Bel Canto S300iu (pros: reputable brand, only one device, i.e. less interconnects; cons: older burr/brown DAC chip (not confirmed - I have enquired BC); comments: the DAC3 is not listed because off budget, but the integrated solution covers all my needs)

Other ideas?

My budget is about 2000€ to be split between DAC and amplifier (power or integrated, depending if the DAC can act as preamp). My preference is to os-DACs and to firewire devices.

I think RME was the first to have Vista drivers ... (dec. 2006) ...

:welcome:

Hi Peter, thanks for the welcome. I was playing with foobar and SRC when i found about XX on audioasylum.

Then why is not shown in the product specs? I think they didnt update them for awhile. In the downloads there are vista drivers, even for x64 (that would be just silly to use for a HTPC).

Any other good firewire dacs available?

Also, I'm interested in your opinion because you considered the TwinDAC+ MUCH superior to the FF400(800). The twindac (new) is quite out of my budget, though.

Hi,

Well, to be honest I vented by opinion this morning, but I scatched that because I didn't think you were interested in that, also looking at your budget issues ... So I started with "maybe I'm snobbish, but ..."  :)

And then I said something like a "DAC" like a Fireface (it really being an external soundcard) not fitting in the row of, say, audiophile DACs. Nor the Lynx's, nor any of the other $500 the "AA people" often rave about. They are just in another leage, and "us" who use a Fireface, only use it to pass through (and reclock) SPDIF ...
Now, is that snobbish or what ?! :secret:

Furthermore, it needs the real experience with the DACs you mentioned to have a real opinion.
Anyway, also looking at your response in this other topic (Question about direct I2S DACs (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=270.0)) you seem to be a good candidate for my Audio Note Signature-3 double modded (tube) os-DAC. Hehe. It still would need an SPDIF connection somehow ...
I only replaced it with the (indeed very good TwinDAC+) because I specifically wanted non-oversampling.

Peter

Well, at least you did try the Fireface (as DAC) vs. an audiophile DAC, unlike most people that posts at audioasylum.

I spent all afternoon looking for alternatives in the sub-1000$ range (while checking out also more expensive gear like the Wavelenght Brick and Cosecant (sp) ), so I extend my list with:

-Apogee Mini-DAC (with firewire option)~ $1000
-Promitheus DAC (NOS, considered better than Benchmark and Lavry DA10) ~$400 ($700 tube version)
-Stello DA100 (US/OS) ~$700
-MHDT Paradisea (with tube buffer) ~$550
-Wavelenght Cosecant ~$2500

I dont have a personal opinion about tubes nor about upsampling and oversampling (through software or hardware), I need to try and judge for myself. If i get an os/us DAC i want the option to do it or not
So far what I "like" best in this list are the Bel Canto, because it is an integrated solution (= less money and less hassle) and the two tubed DACs Promitheus and Paradisea (funny names btw).

I own a T.A. 10.1 and one day i may just buy something in this pricerange to see how it sounds compared to whatever i'll get in 2 months (when i finish building my htpc and the new quad cores are out). Considering the €/$ current rate buying from the US has never been more convenient.

Unless you have other reasons than Audio ... don't go for the Quad cores ...
They have problems with switching procecces from core to core and bring nothing effectively. I.e. many people report problems, and I see no people with joy.
But that may be a matter of Googling.  :)

Yes I have. The HTPC will be used 60% for movies and 40% for music. Quad cores are tremendously faster in applying video filters.

How this could cause issues with audio? "Switching processes" teoretically shouldnt happen when a dedicated PC is used for media playback. There wont be antivirus, defrag and other resident stuff running on. While i'm pretty new to audiophile computer audio, i know one thing or two about hardware and windows.

Speaking of which, does XX supports virtualization? That should fix it. Anyway, on the test pc that had problems with terratec drivers I have a dual xeon with HT, which means 4 "cores" for programs like yours (i guess, unless u check for cpus instead of cores).
Vista support virtualization as well as E6x and Qx intel core duos. I have been using Vista since RC1.

VST users report glitches and everything with Q processors, although they blame it on the software they use.
In those cases, *not* spreading tasks over processors, solve their problems.
Besides that, various benchmarks (although from the same environment) show that total power is not more that 2 core processors.

So in theory -obviously- Q processors are good, but in practice it often doesn't work out.
In this case I'm copying orthers' opinions. :yes: But Google shows just too many of them ...

The interesting thing is that if this apply to quad cores, it should for dual cores too (and eventually to all cpus with hyper-threading).
I have an E6600 onto my gaming PC and I could switch with it in case of problems on the HTPC, but I am almost sure that I wont have audio problems due to that.

I was checking firewire soundcards cheaper than the RME to use as spdif transport and found a m-audio in the 200€ range. I also found an even cheaper berhinger but it has no spdif out.

Incurring for (core) switching, is very different from appointing.
My HTPC (for movies) has a HT processor, HT completely (HAL level) eliminated. It works better (for stuttering). Note that the particular softare does not appoint, but spread.

Since I appoint myself in XX, I know how easy it is to do just that for 2 cores, and how impossible it is to do that with 4. So I can dedicate "my" sofware t a core of "mine", but I can't decide for the unknown with 4 cores. I can though with 2. "All of you go to #1 ! excpect for me".

Maybe it's not clear, but never mind then.

I'm not a software engineer, so I will speak in layman terms.
I agree that HT is mostly gimmicks, but sometimes programs see it as a second processor.

Back to the important stuff, does right now XX "dedicate" to core0 or core1? I would go for the second that is generally less used by windows.

Then, I'm not sure if it is possible, but what about a simple command line to set the affinity of a thread (XX) to a given core(s) like I can manually do through the task manager?

That's all happening already (and more) ...

:D

Well, I can say this. Today I finally managed to remove the upsampling from my soundcard on the test computer from 48khz to 44.1, thorugh its control panel.

I still cannot use exclusive mode or assigning cpu "priority" (demo mode), but, I felt a SQ improvement vs asio playback (I use either MediaPortal or foobar 0.9.5beta3). This on terratec dmx6 fire (internal) and decent tannoy active monitors.

I'm sure XX is the way to go for my HTPC when it'll be ready.

I will go to audition the Bel Canto DAC and I will bring a (recent) notebook with XP which is a friend's who's a musician (with bad ears, so he says ;) ). Would use XX with XP and in demo mode still attain a better SQ than foobar with ASIO?
I will play wavs of carefully (EAC) ripped tracks of my reference CDs.

Today I don't know this anymore (the XP versions of back then were compared with Foobar 0.8.3), and as you may know, I can't listen (anymore) to XX at XP at all (plain ugly to my ears).

Do note that the Core Appointment does not work in demo mode.

Funny....

I have a Q processor running here which does not have the slightest problem with the XX. I admit I had some doubt once I had funny clicks and distortion phenomenons occouring, but that came from the FireWire chain having a HW error.

I found out in my corner of the world that the PC shop-shelves is not saturated with dual core MOBOs when you ask for 8 SATA ports for HDD stacking.

My advice is not to be too fast on the trigger if anomalities occour. They can come from anywhere.
So before eventual owners throw out the Q processor MOBO's. hold the breath and see if there could be other reasons for those anomalities.

Gerner

Hi Gerner,

I did my homework and I'm pretty sure that the issues are only in XP, which does NOT support more than two processors and that cause the jimp from one core to the other that Peater described.

I cannot remember having problems with XP with my dual xeon system, because I used XP for no more than one week and then switched to 2003 server ;)
If you guys see the prices at which the new 45nm quad cores will be sold in january wouldn't think to buy a dual core for a multimedia pc anymore :)

Hi Telstar

Well running Vista here, I can't tell for XP and this OS system perculiarities.

I can only say that my Q4 MOBO does'nt have any problems.

It might not apply to others who might use those MOBO's?

But Peter is supicious about them due to some activities to spread the jobs on the 4 cores that might influence the playback?

Gerner

Gerner,

Maybe it comes confusing to you as an "insider", but this is what I said :


which means I just "approved" it for XX audio. The hint is though, to be careful with other software.

Ahh..ok Peter.

I might have lost the overview here at the forum, because what I suggest now, might already excist?

What about a list placed under "Download and releases" naming what kind of alien SW should be avoided for Q processors.

I don't know what you have in your own sleave, but along the way as things developes, such a list could be, well, long enough?

Gerner

Yeah, but I don't think it is much of our business.
The VST people should benefit most from Q processors, that *is* about audio, but how is that related to you or me.

Fact is that I recognize the problems software concerned (e.g. Cubase) have, which they so far can't even solve. This is one of the reasons I introduced the other appointment schemes, and mind you ... they do sound (very) different (so what) but could easily lock out processes on a Quad Core (I tried to explain earlier that with a 2 core this is no problem, for no one).

Let's drop the subject for now.

Did you try XX on a dual core and on a quad, Peter?
If so did you notice any difference in sound? Besides, other programs messing with threads & cores, in Vista, there shouldn't be.

No, I did not try it on a quad myself. But I do know that what is under my control under a Dual, is not under a Quad.
Difficult to explain. But for example, Gerner who has a Quad says he does not hear a difference between settings. In the Quad case this could just be true, because things are not (enough) under my control ...

Oh well .. never mind (?) ...

Yes, it is more clear for me now.

Is it really ? or was it just a funny remark ?  :)

Really.

This topic seems to have been side tracked somewhat with talk of quad cores :) so back to discussing DACs.

Despite using an oversampling DAC (as an integral part of my Tact 2.2x), and being very happy with it, I wanted to explore the nosdac concept without throwing out large sums of money. Secondhand is not a very good option because of the rarity of such beasts but also the fact that the small manufacturers seem to be regularly improving their products so obsolescence plays a part.

In the end I opted for a Shek D2 (1545 chipset) for about £180 inc P&P. I ordered on Ebay, having exchanged a couple of e mails with Derek Shek (he seems a good guy and I have recommended to him to the use of XXHighend).

Any fears of dealing with someone in Hong Kong disappeared when the kit arrived just 3 days after posting. :good:.

Straight out the box it sounded good, and after 24 hours of burn-in it sounds just great, even fed from an old Marantz CD76 transport. On the end of my Fireface 400 and running with XXHighend it moves up yet another level. Digital 'annoyance' is gone completely and the DAC is just so smooth but with a real boogie factor.

Highly recommended. :clapping: :clapping:
 

Now Chris, what about your judgements on os vs. nos ?

Try Yello, or trumpets or anything of which you think you could perceive "squareish" sound. But also the other way around : a flute should not become a trumpet !

Peter

OK Peter will have a critical listen ASAP  :grin:. Somewhere I have a CD of Eddie Calvert (Oh Mein Papa!) so should be perfect.

My system is all over the place at present as I assemble the duplicate system to experiment with layered sound (mentioned under Chatter). Have today received a Flying Mole CA-S3 amp, which needs to be burnt in as well - so much fun on a wet and windy January. :veryhappy: 

Another relatively cheap nos DAC that has got a lot of praise is the Altmann. 750 euros.

About me, I have been lucky enough to find an used TwinDAC+ (Thanks Gerner :)) )

Still debating if to use a fireface or an esi firewire as signal transport to the dac.

Telstar,

Any opinions using USB vs. SPDIF using the TwinDAC+ ?

Edit : Oh, I just saw your post here : http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=339.msg2248#msg2248
I guess you explain it in there, although from theory only ?

You have to wait about one month more for this. ;)

The DAC will be in my hands around the mid of feb and the htpc when intel commands (even later i fear).
Besides, I havent decided to shell out more money for an external soundcard or not. I will start with the USB connection and compare with my modded Teac VRDS to see if the pc audio is up to it (it should be).

Well, you can always buy my dust catching Teac P10 to compare. :old:

hehehe
I think it mounts the very same mechanic as my VRDS 10se, so it's a bit pointless :)
I'm eager to do this comparison. To make it more fair I got a XO3 clock for the poor teac.

Plus an additional 10Kg somewhere. :biglol:

Well, I'm curious for the result ... :)

You will have them :)

At the moment I could not be happier even with the cr*ppy teac TDA1547 DAC, because after I changed speaker cables yesterday the difference is so huge that is like i changed the source or the amplifier.

I don't think the TDA1547 is so cr*ppy, if you only accept the oversampling ... :)

I do think even a single 1543 is cr*ppy. I had a phone chat with an extremely expert friend that modifies cd players and he said that the dac section of the vrds 10 could not be modified due to the chip used and he didn't like it. Anyway, he thinks that the TwinDAC is good. How good both he and I will find out soon.

Peter, I was wondering if you ever did a test using a Lynx internal soundcard for digital signal transport to the DAC. Using as digital transport only the interference and noise may not pass through.

I just read this and I find also the Berkeley DAC very, VERY interesting. You should contact them and propose XXHE ;)
http://stereophile.com/news/010508ref/

Ya, I agree Peter should try to contact them and talk to em about Vista.  This is a quote from the article, "...We're only working with Windows XP, because Windows Vista is currently a disaster for audio," says Martin. "Vista tries to control and play files its way, which is not what we want. . . .Meanwhile, one of the programs we've been using is a free one called Media Monkey. It goes up to 24/176.4 without messing up and changing the files and bits."