X7R is a ceramic multilayer so not polarized. However, may have distortion if used for audio coupling. It’s great for low ESR power supply bypassing though. NP0 or C0G ceramic is better for audio but only available in small picoF values.
There are larger film SMT caps (PPS) that sound good as audio coupling.
Ok so I just realised someone else mentioned putting .1uf across the power rails. So do I do that or use 2x10uf bipolar per opamp?
You want the 0.1uF X7R since it has low ESR compared to electrolytic. You want that for a bypass on a power rail. As close to pins as possible.
Not true wrt COG / NP0 / Class 1 ceramic caps - values well into 10s of nF are available. And higher but cost goes up a lot then.
No. The results will be psychoacoustic in nature only, no measurable acoustic improvement.
Without providing the group any measurements of your electronics and speakers or any information on your room, speakers or their placement, they are really at a loose end helping you with your problem. I'm amazed that you are focusing all your efforts on an exceptionally well designed DAC with superb measured performance and that others are suggesting that lowering already meaninglessly low levels of jitter will improve your bass response.
Your perceived poor bass performance is most likely speaker/room/placement related. It is as simple as that. Unfortunately you have received some pretty poor advice in this thread of yours. The notion that changing bypassing or clocks in a well designed DAC to improve bass quality/quantity is just ridiculous and does not stand up to any level of engineering scrutiny.
The Arcam either has a non flat response (Unlikely, but I have not checked) or the differences are psycho-acoustic only, and will disappear in a level matched blind test.
I kinda agree.
I have read about this clock replacement makes a big overall difference but not bass specially.
Also the Dacmagic is know for having flat bass!
Still appreciate all the advice!!
I have read about this clock replacement makes a big overall difference but not bass specially.
Also the Dacmagic is know for having flat bass!
Still appreciate all the advice!!
The clock upgrade may reduce the already inaudible levels of jitter on the data being fed into the DAC. There are far better ways to spend your time and money.
I would want the entire spectrum coming out of my electronics to be flat (crossover DSP excluded), not just the bass. The electronics (DACs, amps etc.) are not there to tailor the frequency response of my system. It's silly making up for a deficiency in your speakers/room/placement with your DAC.
It has no energy in the low end and thus sounds slightly bright.
The Arcam was opposite. Warm, low end energy.
The Hills album sounded amazing!
The Arcam was opposite. Warm, low end energy.
The Hills album sounded amazing!
Not sure what Arcam DAC you compared it to, but the irDAC-II measures as flat as a tack, just like your DAC. I doubt Arcam would stuff up the response on some model DACs and not others. The differences you claim to hear will vanish in a blind test.
Thank you it was actually the irDAC version 1. The bass was amazing on both my setup and my friends house.
We have different setups, amplifiers to spare too 🙂
The Dacmagic sound is clinical, Arcam warm.
To my ears the Arcam wins hands down. This thread was to add slightly more low end with the improvement of the opamps. I'm certain it can be done as I was helped before about a different amplifier and it worked amazingly. I appreciate the Amplifier and DAC are different but they use the same opamps
We have different setups, amplifiers to spare too 🙂
The Dacmagic sound is clinical, Arcam warm.
To my ears the Arcam wins hands down. This thread was to add slightly more low end with the improvement of the opamps. I'm certain it can be done as I was helped before about a different amplifier and it worked amazingly. I appreciate the Amplifier and DAC are different but they use the same opamps
Ive been reading some more and this is what I found:
ClefChef wrote:
Analog output:
removed C269 and C264, those are HF filtering caps - snip snip.
rayma wrote:
You can try that right now, before working on the DAC.
Just increase the 47k to 200k in both channels of the amp.
It will improve the bass response. There should be no downside.
Does anyone know of these mods??? Thanks
ClefChef wrote:
Analog output:
removed C269 and C264, those are HF filtering caps - snip snip.
rayma wrote:
You can try that right now, before working on the DAC.
Just increase the 47k to 200k in both channels of the amp.
It will improve the bass response. There should be no downside.
Does anyone know of these mods??? Thanks
You really need to check the relative frequency response of the DACs.
You should be able to do this with any DAW / Converter set up.
It could be that the ARCAM has a different response / fall off in the high end rather than the DACmagic being faulty in its bass response.
You should be able to do this with any DAW / Converter set up.
It could be that the ARCAM has a different response / fall off in the high end rather than the DACmagic being faulty in its bass response.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.