For me, amps with 20x voltage gain should be a standard at least for home use. My dynaco st-70 (35W/ch) tube amp has about 20x gain. My hafler 9290 (145W/ch) also has about 20x gain by default. 20x gain just makes it much easier to integrate it to a 5.1/7.1 system. That’s why I modded my Quad 405 to lower the overall gain down to 20x.
Be aware that there 2 different ways that your sources could implement the volume control.
One is through voltage dividers. This has less effect on your sound quality.
The other way is through software before DAC. Let’s say your sound card is outputting 16bit depth. At full volume set in the computer, your amp could output 110dB loudness. You adjust your volume in the computer to get 90dB loudness. You essentially throw away more than 3 bits bit-depth. I would say you should not use software for volume control and should keep it at full volume or near the full volume.
Be aware that there 2 different ways that your sources could implement the volume control.
One is through voltage dividers. This has less effect on your sound quality.
The other way is through software before DAC. Let’s say your sound card is outputting 16bit depth. At full volume set in the computer, your amp could output 110dB loudness. You adjust your volume in the computer to get 90dB loudness. You essentially throw away more than 3 bits bit-depth. I would say you should not use software for volume control and should keep it at full volume or near the full volume.
Last edited:
I think the THS spec for power amps is 28 dB, but many manufacturers spec between 28 and 32 db with most clustered around the 28-30 dB level. This is for amps spec’ing 1V sensitivity. For other sensitivity specs, all bets are off of course.
Most DACs clip on digital recordings of which the highest samples are normalized to full scale, so near full volume is better than at full volume. See https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...h-and-without-intersample-over-issues.419223/ for some examples and a test signal.
So end users should be aware that output level of DACs must be digitally lowered in volume? Unbelievable that such stuff is designed/produced and sold. This would mean that the average consumer connecting that shiny new external ESS DAC (best of this year, better than the previous!) listens to a near perfect measuring DAC that despite stellar AP numbers clips in normal use.
Fine engineering! Don't AKM DACs have 2.5dB of headroom above 0dBFS?
Fine engineering! Don't AKM DACs have 2.5dB of headroom above 0dBFS?
Last edited:
I don't know, I only got a few replies to the thread I just linked to. As DACs with large dynamic range numbers sell well, there is a major incentive not to keep headroom.
One can argue it's really a bad mastering practice, that recordings should not be recorded so loud that the interpolated waveform has to exceed full scale, but be that as it may, many recordings are made with peak sample normalization and many DACs clip on those when you set the digital volume control to 0 dB.
One can argue it's really a bad mastering practice, that recordings should not be recorded so loud that the interpolated waveform has to exceed full scale, but be that as it may, many recordings are made with peak sample normalization and many DACs clip on those when you set the digital volume control to 0 dB.
Many or better said dominantly DAC chips by the same brand it seems. Maybe it is better to call a spade a spade.
Last edited:
Benchmark DAC2 and DAC3 are the only DACs I know of that are advertised not to have an intersample over issue.
Anyway, you appear to have a big collection of DACs. Could you please run the test of https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...h-and-without-intersample-over-issues.419223/ and report the results in that thread? It doesn't require any fancy equipment, but you do need an analogue volume control and ears.
Anyway, you appear to have a big collection of DACs. Could you please run the test of https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...h-and-without-intersample-over-issues.419223/ and report the results in that thread? It doesn't require any fancy equipment, but you do need an analogue volume control and ears.
No collection anymore, just 4. It is all a bit of a waste of time when looking at the actual goal of playing good stuff of which some are recorded worst than the worst DAC may hamper 🙂 Then about 10% of all stuff coming out every month is listenable. So filtering, again filtering and what is left does that really deserve the best DAC in the world? And then that best DAC having the very best 2025 ESS chip may distort with my favorite CD 😀
Will do, promised.
Will do, promised.
Last edited:
Include me in that growing minority, I have the 303 and 405 to compare , and the 306 is the best. the 303 is very appealing , it has a uncanny stereo separation capability , and is very nice, but the 306 subjectively is nicer still, it gets everything right with music replay.
I have a 303, pair of IIs, and have had many 405s, 606s, and 909s here for service to compare with, also several of the 99 power amp. Very happy with my biamp pair of 306s driving my 63s and SWs..
I am truly in awe of our new QUAD 306. I am really shocked that this surprisingly powerful little amp is still largely unknown and undervalued in the land of audiofools - compared to other (often less capable) contenders.
Just out of interest, would anyone like to comment on what a change to 10,000uF smoothing caps would bring to the table - sonically - over the stock cap values?
(Assuming same, decent quality caps...)
Could it possibly upset the delicate design balance and actually detract from the wonderful stock Walker sound?
Just out of interest, would anyone like to comment on what a change to 10,000uF smoothing caps would bring to the table - sonically - over the stock cap values?
(Assuming same, decent quality caps...)
Could it possibly upset the delicate design balance and actually detract from the wonderful stock Walker sound?
Additional power supply capacitance at C10 and C11 presently 4700uf appears unnecessary, We can appreciate good choices by Quad. Which is not to say some distributed capacitance could be used. https://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/HBD854-D.PDF
Under the banner of a small revamp, following in the OP's footsteps for the 306. The following describes how to separate and connect the bias selection of !C1 away from R6 and R7 . If we look at the internal schematic of the TLC271 its bias selection shows circuitry which is not the output on Pin 6, which is not shown in the 306 schematic, is actually how bias selection gets connected as a short to the Pin6 output . The description of bias select for the TLC271 describes it is achieved as a voltage divider, so as to derive a 0v connection from split supplies, and makes no mention of involving the output pin.
The junction of R28 and R29 to the bases of the virtual earth circuit has such a divider feature, but lets leave it to its task. We can though use a non active transistor, arranging the collector of a 2N5089 to the emitters of T11 and T12, and the emitter of the 2N5089 to the junction of bases, as such straddling across from bases to emitters. The base of the 2N5089 then serves as the connection to Pin 8 , however let's make a new voltage divider there first. Using
initially to test two 12k resistors from each rail, this ignores the refinement of slight current mismatch Quad allowed for with R28 and R29 , so allows also our 12k values may change slightly as well . We can then begin a test to have a dedicated divider for Bias select as medium setting to Pin 8 of the TLC271
The junction of R28 and R29 to the bases of the virtual earth circuit has such a divider feature, but lets leave it to its task. We can though use a non active transistor, arranging the collector of a 2N5089 to the emitters of T11 and T12, and the emitter of the 2N5089 to the junction of bases, as such straddling across from bases to emitters. The base of the 2N5089 then serves as the connection to Pin 8 , however let's make a new voltage divider there first. Using
initially to test two 12k resistors from each rail, this ignores the refinement of slight current mismatch Quad allowed for with R28 and R29 , so allows also our 12k values may change slightly as well . We can then begin a test to have a dedicated divider for Bias select as medium setting to Pin 8 of the TLC271
Jean , just spend the money. By used ESS dac from.euro outfit. I find Chinese Auralic Altair ( old ) good enough for bedroom. Who knows but $4000 G2.2 version may be good enough for living room 🙂 Buy Weiss . It should be cheaper in Germany. I have impression you're constantly buying some xingciuan brands ..
To hear properly designed and executed DAC design with ESS Sabre chip. Two I have a personal experience with are Auralic ( old Altair at $2k retail and Weiss 202 at $8k ).are in my opinion good enough to have a pleasant listening experience. I'm not into a dac switching game but unlike the amps and sometimes speakers I never heard a cheap dac that I liked, and I don't believe for a second that due to fast progression of technology a cheapies of today stomp all over the relatively vintage SOTA dacs..