You are lucky in that you have another solution with the same chip set. So it is a direct comparison between implementations.
I am of course interested in your comparison with the other solutions you have on hand, especially the ES9008 or ES9018.
A pity that you are still on a 2-clock solution (Shigaclone is on a difference clock) with SPDIF and a PLL in between.
Maybe you could borrow a QA550 from your neighbour and try a one-clock solution one day.
Patrick
I am of course interested in your comparison with the other solutions you have on hand, especially the ES9008 or ES9018.
A pity that you are still on a 2-clock solution (Shigaclone is on a difference clock) with SPDIF and a PLL in between.
Maybe you could borrow a QA550 from your neighbour and try a one-clock solution one day.
Patrick
Last edited:
I found the same thing - not just with voices but instruments too. When compared to my NOS TDA1541A, the images with the 9022 seem to come slightly forward and out of the ambient acoustic. Helps when listening at low levels.
Btw I'm using a EUVL 9022 with an on-board clock that also feeds my QA550. I like the sound a lot.
Last edited:
Fran is using my ES9022 also with on-board clock (48MHz) to feed the WM8804 SPDIF receiver.
BUT he has another 16MHz clock at the source (Shigaclone).
And there is a PLL at the input to the WM8804.
You should try using separate supplies for the QA550, ES9022 Xo and ES9022 DAC one of these days.
Another level of improvement.
Patrick
BUT he has another 16MHz clock at the source (Shigaclone).
And there is a PLL at the input to the WM8804.
You should try using separate supplies for the QA550, ES9022 Xo and ES9022 DAC one of these days.
Another level of improvement.
Patrick
Hopefully over this weekend!
I also plan on comparing with the buffalo and the audiosector NOS one. The audiosector has proved pretty tough to beat in the past- its survived many tryers!
I already know that it pretty much knocks the pass D1 out of the water - and I always liked that DAC
Fran
It's true that the interface is not exactly state of the art, but on the other hand it would be hard to find digital playback that would beat a QA550 via I2S into Patrick's 9022 at anything like the price. And a 32GB SD card that will store about 50 CD's can be bought now for little over £30.
Yes, you are probably right.
I've seen the QA550 and it looks like a very solid piece of kit. I had a quick listen through headphones but not for any length of time. I suppose one of my issues is that I have SPDIF sources, and no laptop/PC source (other than headphones). So to go down the PC route, well, I'd really have to buy a laptop.......
Tomorrow is a day for sorting out the charger and a chassis of sorts that the DAC can live in.
EUVL: have you given the DAC a name?
I've seen the QA550 and it looks like a very solid piece of kit. I had a quick listen through headphones but not for any length of time. I suppose one of my issues is that I have SPDIF sources, and no laptop/PC source (other than headphones). So to go down the PC route, well, I'd really have to buy a laptop.......
Tomorrow is a day for sorting out the charger and a chassis of sorts that the DAC can live in.
EUVL: have you given the DAC a name?
> So to go down the PC route, well, I'd really have to buy a laptop.......
But the QA550 is not PC Audio. In fact that is the whole point of the QA550.
It (including Koon's Ultimate Source, EC Design's Lossless SD Player, ...) allows you to retrieve data from a SD card directly without an asynchronous data interface like USB, or ethernet, or .... So you do not need to run a PC to play music. You only need a PC to rip CDs into WAV files so that you can then copy them onto the SD card. Once that is done you don't need the PC anymore. So certainly no need for a laptop.
Patrick
But the QA550 is not PC Audio. In fact that is the whole point of the QA550.
It (including Koon's Ultimate Source, EC Design's Lossless SD Player, ...) allows you to retrieve data from a SD card directly without an asynchronous data interface like USB, or ethernet, or .... So you do not need to run a PC to play music. You only need a PC to rip CDs into WAV files so that you can then copy them onto the SD card. Once that is done you don't need the PC anymore. So certainly no need for a laptop.
Patrick
Today I got to listen a bit more. I moved to my second room. This one has a different set up. Again, I used a shigaclone, with DCB1 preamp, EL84 tubecad triode amp (one of the best sounding amps I have heard) into Sachiko horns and 2 x REL subs.
The comparison was between the EUVL DAC and my buffalo Mk1. This buffalo has full salas shunt supplies, with discrete couterpoint I/V stages and all the tricks and mods that were added on over time. In short, very good sounding.
The sound from both DACs was actually very similar, however I do think that the bass in particular was a bit tighter from the EUVL DAC. Treble.... well, maybe cleaner, maybe not. I certainly wouldn't be able to blind tell the difference. However, the forward presentation of vocals (or any centrestage instrument) made the EUVL dac a very nice and engaging listen. The Buffalo by comparison, still offered very similar resolution, but sounded more relaxed. I want to go back and tease out this presentation thing. I can't decide if its that the soundstage is deeper with the EUVL dac, or just different.
If it came down to it and I could only keep one? I think I might just side with the EUVL dac. No heat, very simple power supply, no additional output stages to worry about, easy to house and case up, and of course cost..... I reckon I have about 700 euro buried in the buffalo over time. Thats not cheap! But the sound.... its engaging, detailed without being harsh or edgy, very clean and yet easy to listen to over long periods. A winner I would say.
Next up: comparison with the Pass D1 clone......
Fran
The comparison was between the EUVL DAC and my buffalo Mk1. This buffalo has full salas shunt supplies, with discrete couterpoint I/V stages and all the tricks and mods that were added on over time. In short, very good sounding.
The sound from both DACs was actually very similar, however I do think that the bass in particular was a bit tighter from the EUVL DAC. Treble.... well, maybe cleaner, maybe not. I certainly wouldn't be able to blind tell the difference. However, the forward presentation of vocals (or any centrestage instrument) made the EUVL dac a very nice and engaging listen. The Buffalo by comparison, still offered very similar resolution, but sounded more relaxed. I want to go back and tease out this presentation thing. I can't decide if its that the soundstage is deeper with the EUVL dac, or just different.
If it came down to it and I could only keep one? I think I might just side with the EUVL dac. No heat, very simple power supply, no additional output stages to worry about, easy to house and case up, and of course cost..... I reckon I have about 700 euro buried in the buffalo over time. Thats not cheap! But the sound.... its engaging, detailed without being harsh or edgy, very clean and yet easy to listen to over long periods. A winner I would say.
Next up: comparison with the Pass D1 clone......
Fran
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.