The answer is no. The belief is already there that it is no and you say you prefer distorted and noisy sound which are not qualities by any of them. You will not find what you prefer in digital stuff. Analogs distortion and noise are not easy to outperform and it even cost about 10K to get there.
You could avoid a separate DAC (after a struggle of 20 years you just know they are not ok and never will be) and try out a good quality source with internal DAC for a change. A source not meant to phone people but a source meant and designed for audio like the WiiM Ultra and then believe the dilemma is solved. It is as you won't have an external DAC and you can still tell you prefer your analog setup. Internal peace is important.
Last edited:
Regarding spatial sound from vinyl, there is a somewhat frustrated post in another forum that talks about a spatial effect which is more or less consistent with my understanding: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/vinyl-having-better-sound-imaging.861870/page-5#post-13768399
The part I am thinking of starts with the following:
...vinyl is a electromechanical system that creates distortion differently in lateral and vertical directions meaning a monophonic centered sound will be distorted differently from a side-panned sound meaning "fake spatial effects."
It later goes on to say:
...Vinyl colors all music similarly and some people like this "similarity". Everything sounds "warm" the same way, while CDs sound whatever was put on them from warm to cold.
The part I am thinking of starts with the following:
...vinyl is a electromechanical system that creates distortion differently in lateral and vertical directions meaning a monophonic centered sound will be distorted differently from a side-panned sound meaning "fake spatial effects."
It later goes on to say:
...Vinyl colors all music similarly and some people like this "similarity". Everything sounds "warm" the same way, while CDs sound whatever was put on them from warm to cold.
Regarding "compressed" sound in digital audio, IME that can be because of some design defect in a dac which may lead to a muddy/congested and or dynamically flat sound, and or because the particular musical recording was mastered to be a loud as possible. In the latter case its not the mastering engineer who makes the decision to compete in the loudness wars. Its the client who decides it, be it the artist, the record label, the producer, etc., and or some combination of those entities.
The OP clearly was looking for a cheap solution. Interesting as some of the responses are many have no place here.
The best DAC I've owned in my system is the :
SMSL SU-9 Pro
My second favorite and less expensive is the :
Schitt Modi3E
The SMSL is more expensive ($424) and has more detail than the Modi3E ($115) but also warm and smooth sound quality. The Modi 3E may be more forgiving of musical content and also very pleasant sounding. Both measure well, edge going to the SMSL. I tried a less expensive SMSL (DO-200 pro I think) wasn't impressed, much worse than either of the two DACs above. My experience anyway ... good luck!
Buy from a place that 30 day money back, no conditions. So, you can judge for yourself, without risk.
SMSL SU-9 Pro
My second favorite and less expensive is the :
Schitt Modi3E
The SMSL is more expensive ($424) and has more detail than the Modi3E ($115) but also warm and smooth sound quality. The Modi 3E may be more forgiving of musical content and also very pleasant sounding. Both measure well, edge going to the SMSL. I tried a less expensive SMSL (DO-200 pro I think) wasn't impressed, much worse than either of the two DACs above. My experience anyway ... good luck!
Buy from a place that 30 day money back, no conditions. So, you can judge for yourself, without risk.
@Markw4 says:
" I would stay away from RME, its an AK4493 inside there no matter how well it measures."
Can understand this opinion having used RME studio converters for 30+ years; they can be highly sterile and brutally accurate.
Have two of the ADI-2s and, when shifting back and forth from vinyl/R2R tape to CDs found the change unpleasant. This last summer improved my vinyl system with a Pearl 3 phono pre (+ dual PSUs) and a Hana ML cartridge on the VPI Prime. This combination blows digital away and the RME DAC was sounding poor by comparison.
SO...
...tried the various impulse response options thinking at first that RME's NOS-like option might be smoother; it was but hit upon the Short Delay, Slow setting as the ideal choice when moving from analog to digital. It avoids the brittle nature of RME and allows for extended listening sessions without the pain.
Find that many audiophiles these days shun orchestral music for reasons of taste; however, this crowd is missing out on some of the best recorded audiophile sound. Here are three orchestral CDs that will test your DAC and system and provide powerful punches to your mid-riff:
Arnold: 4th Symphony, 1st movement (Chandos, Complete Symphonies)
Nepomuceno: Symphony in g (Naxos, Mechetti)
Adams: Chamber Symphony (London Symphony, Adams)
Urge those of you that are classical haters to try these three and see if some classical might be worthwhile for audio reasons alone. And if you set your RME ADI-2 to Short Delay, Slow you might find the RME converter surprisingly listenable.
But, getting down to reality, nothing beats the feeling of actually being there that vinyl offers and many of us know that pre-recorded reel to reel tape is even better -- when the tape is well preserved. With R2R tape you are there and the sound has a natural quality that draws you into the music powerfully.
" I would stay away from RME, its an AK4493 inside there no matter how well it measures."
Can understand this opinion having used RME studio converters for 30+ years; they can be highly sterile and brutally accurate.
Have two of the ADI-2s and, when shifting back and forth from vinyl/R2R tape to CDs found the change unpleasant. This last summer improved my vinyl system with a Pearl 3 phono pre (+ dual PSUs) and a Hana ML cartridge on the VPI Prime. This combination blows digital away and the RME DAC was sounding poor by comparison.
SO...
...tried the various impulse response options thinking at first that RME's NOS-like option might be smoother; it was but hit upon the Short Delay, Slow setting as the ideal choice when moving from analog to digital. It avoids the brittle nature of RME and allows for extended listening sessions without the pain.
Find that many audiophiles these days shun orchestral music for reasons of taste; however, this crowd is missing out on some of the best recorded audiophile sound. Here are three orchestral CDs that will test your DAC and system and provide powerful punches to your mid-riff:
Arnold: 4th Symphony, 1st movement (Chandos, Complete Symphonies)
Nepomuceno: Symphony in g (Naxos, Mechetti)
Adams: Chamber Symphony (London Symphony, Adams)
Urge those of you that are classical haters to try these three and see if some classical might be worthwhile for audio reasons alone. And if you set your RME ADI-2 to Short Delay, Slow you might find the RME converter surprisingly listenable.
But, getting down to reality, nothing beats the feeling of actually being there that vinyl offers and many of us know that pre-recorded reel to reel tape is even better -- when the tape is well preserved. With R2R tape you are there and the sound has a natural quality that draws you into the music powerfully.
There is not a good and cheap one. However saying that raises questions, such as how do you know there isn't one? But I see one that has an ES9038Q2M chip; it has great specs! Etc., etc.
Those are of course those are two very different things. Well recorded music is not usually sterile. There are dacs which are very accurate, yet not sterile. I am thinking of the same basic thing MoFi uses for editing tape and for transfer to vinyl: DSD256 as rendered on a Pyramix system with Horus hardware. Now also available with integrated HQ Player software 🙂
In short, it doesn't have to be R2R to sound good. Although a lot of people still prefer that R2R sound.
Not true, there are many cheap ones that are good. What is your definition of good? Are you sure you don't mean "made by me"?
I was using good to mean excellent. If SINAD is the measure of excellence then I would be wrong. If world class SQ is the measure, then I think I am right.
.... in your system. Most probably completely different in an other - which with "it's" DAC sounds as good as your system or mighty even better it... no way to know anyways.. 😉
Your again taking a to high ground and making absolute statements - are you really sure you are able to do that?
Kids - don't get to hung up on Utoobers and self crowned super experts ons se webs... your have ears too.... ;-D
//
Its true that price is no guarantee of quality.
However, its also generally true that you don't get more than you pay for. Do you really expect to excel way above the average crowd for less than the average price of the crowd? IOW, there is no free lunch.
However, its also generally true that you don't get more than you pay for. Do you really expect to excel way above the average crowd for less than the average price of the crowd? IOW, there is no free lunch.
I was looking at the new Fosi ZD3 DAC due to its HDMI ARC input, and it looks like one can buy one for like $150-170. Many also-ran reviews praised it, but this review is highly entertaining.
As a lifelong audiophile (60 years and counting) I have been building my own equipment for the last 5 years BECAUSE I want a better sound. And, despite purchasing expensive parts, chassis, and measuring tools, the overall cost of the end product is trivial by comparison to high-end retail equipment.
But, then, the surprise.
If well-built and based upon superb design (like Wayne Colburn's ideas) the sound result is superior to high-end equipment. And not by a little, but, rather, by a lot.
I know because I've got four and five figure boxes in the garage because they do not compete with DIY designs like the Pearl 3 phono pre.
Comments such as "you get what you pay for" are nonsense and worse in my world.
But, then, the surprise.
If well-built and based upon superb design (like Wayne Colburn's ideas) the sound result is superior to high-end equipment. And not by a little, but, rather, by a lot.
I know because I've got four and five figure boxes in the garage because they do not compete with DIY designs like the Pearl 3 phono pre.
Comments such as "you get what you pay for" are nonsense and worse in my world.
You don't know what you don't know. Pass Labs is here in Auburn where I am, actually about a mile away as the crow flies. To be sure, I am taking such things as you are talking about into account. You paid too much for that stuff in your garage, is all. As I said before, price is no guarantee of quality.
Moreover, I have talked a length before about retail markups in the high end audio market, which is about 6x or more. Its largely because of the low sales volumes in that market. Also because some development costs are high, even for poor performing products (like some cables). If you can diy that stuff at a level of outstanding quality, then of course you can do it for less because you don't have the expenses of running a business, paying rent on facility, paying for employees, etc.
That said, it would be very unlikely for you to design a low cost dac that sounds more "real" than the one I have here, or the ones that Bruno Putzeys designed for that matter. Also, I am not aware of Wayne having particular expertise in the area of modern dacs either.
And of course nobody said what you just quoted. Just a strawman?
Moreover, I have talked a length before about retail markups in the high end audio market, which is about 6x or more. Its largely because of the low sales volumes in that market. Also because some development costs are high, even for poor performing products (like some cables). If you can diy that stuff at a level of outstanding quality, then of course you can do it for less because you don't have the expenses of running a business, paying rent on facility, paying for employees, etc.
That said, it would be very unlikely for you to design a low cost dac that sounds more "real" than the one I have here, or the ones that Bruno Putzeys designed for that matter. Also, I am not aware of Wayne having particular expertise in the area of modern dacs either.
And of course nobody said what you just quoted. Just a strawman?
Last edited:
Then what was the comment about "you get what you pay for," and "nonsense and worse?" Where did that come from in the context of the recent discussion?
And how does your post relate to building excellent dacs, excellent dacs being the topic of this thread? Do you claim to have done that for low cost?
If so, then please do tell and we can get back on topic.
And how does your post relate to building excellent dacs, excellent dacs being the topic of this thread? Do you claim to have done that for low cost?
If so, then please do tell and we can get back on topic.
Last edited:
Hana is a nice and not overly expensive. I’ve got around 500 CDs of classical music and around 1000 records but I don’t have a CD player anymore and when it comes to mastering and pressing quality of classical vinyl it is second to none. When I listen to classical on my Micro RX5000/RY5500 fitted with Dynovector501, FR64S or SME 3012R via Parasound JC 3+ I can’t imagine that I can get better sound on my system in my room unless I get better speakers. Like you said the realizm of music reproduction is unbelivable. I dont have golden eras but I know a couple of etseblished classical musicians and they listen exclusively to vinyl.
When I tried to stream classical through my cheap DACs it did not sound terrible. It is jazz and rock that did not sound good.
SMSL SU-9 has internal PS and this is what I probably should 've started with and I will certainly try it as I can get it on Amazon. What I don't understand is how DAC that supposed to be used with $10 switching power supply can sound good. Im not even talikng about DAC part Im taking about amplification which from my experinece always need good power.