Absolutely. No question. The better the headphone playback setup, the more noticeable the improvement is.
Freaking awesome video. I remember vaguely the floating point standard wars. I’m going to have to see what else this channel has to say.
1 Like
I’ve not tried this software and probably won’t, as PGGB-RT is PC only and I’m running Macs. Still, I’ve heard many upsampling and filtering systems over the years. They can work and indeed take away harshness regardless of the underlying technologies.
When I’ve attended audio shows, every demo room forces a first assessment: Has the vendor (excessively) smoothed the source in the stereotypical audiophile fashion, or does the source retain its original intended edges and bite? If overly smoothed, I take every component with a grain of salt. Smoothed setups present a best case (to the designers’ ears), and do not allow one to hear potential negatives.
Some Delta-Sigma DACs (and every Chord I’ve heard) implement effective filtering or reprocessing technologies, but I often do not like that sound profile. I also felt this way about Tidal’s high-range creamy reprocessing versus original sources. Upsampling and filtering – when it works – often makes everything sound too soft, gentle, and hazy.
Most non-cheap audio systems don’t require much (or any) additional processing to sound very good with acoustic and vocal sources, while intentionally distorted and rough hard rock, punk, noise rock, etc. lose their reason for being if smoothed and filtered. To my ears, R2R tends to hang on to more source definition across sources without being piercing. I’m optimistic that Delta-Sigma technology may soon prove to be superior.
To my ears the DA technology really isn’t the driving factor in the sound of the DAC.
I will admit there is more of correlation between conversion format in the sounds in the rationally priced DAC’s, and I don’t think there is a huge leap between most $100 DS DAC’s and $500 DS DAC’s, but there is to my ear a decent jump from $100 DS DAC’s to entry level R2R (which are just fundamentally more expensive to make).
I think most of the difference is really going to be power supply design, digital processing on the front, any analog output filtering and output section design.
There is a clear audible/easily identifiable difference in sound between NOS DAC’s and DAC’s with oversampling reconstruction filters, and there aren’t any NOS DS DAC’s because there can’t be. But a lot of R2R DAC’s oversample. I don’t really have a preference here (some people love one or the other), I own one NOS R2R DAC and a DAC with a DS Converter, both of which I would espouse the merits of.
Lampizator are an interesting data point because they swapped from R2R conversion to DS conversion, and offered them in basically the same box with the same PSU/Output section etc.
Anecdotally Lampizator DAC’s generally sound like Lampizator DAC’s whether they used R2R or the more recent DS digital boards, the later ones with DS boards tend to present less warm, but that was a trend even before he swapped to using DS boards, I haven’t heard a GG with the 57 Engine board, and that with the R2R board and one with 57 Engine, that would be the only direct comparison.
Having said that I’ve had two different DA boards in my Pacific the 57 Engine and current Engine 11-P, they sound different enough it’s clearly noticeable, though it wasn’t just a board swap, since mine had to digital front end (USB Input board) swapped that the same time.
I guess to rephrase here, while the conversion process clearly has some impact, but unless your comparing NOS to OS, I don’t think it’s the defining feature of the DAC’s sound, at least not once you get beyond things priced based on cost of manufacture.
2 Likes
I went back and read the article again. He makes some interesting points. I’m using the RT version, which upscales the .WAV file in real time. This eliminates the massive storage issue. I did have to purchase a powerful computer to achieve optimum performance with the RT version.
I’ve tried PGGB-RT with four different DAC’s. All four DACs have demonstrated improvements. The amount of improvement varies with the original recording itself, along with each DAC’s filtering from a small amount to a significant difference.
To me, the filtering is what makes or breaks the DAC. R2R is older technology, costs more to make, and it harder to get to be linear. I personally don’t see an upside to R2R.
Which DAC got the greatest improvement from PGGB and which one the smallest, if you can remember?
Frankly, I heard no meaningful differences between Mytek’s expensive ESS DACs and (older) cheap Topping ESS DACs. Both were too bright and sharp and nothing I’d ever use.
My Bifrost 2/64 has a NOS mode. I tried it a couple times, but it made sources harsher and generated wandering, drifting notes. It brought to mind listening to a stereo from around a corner or near a noisy rotating fan – not quite right. I turned oversampling back on and have not pursued NOS further. The Bifrost 2/64 is by no means perfect, but I don’t notice its limitations (e.g., resolution) without trying to notice. In contrast, the old Bifrost 2 (pre 2/64) had excessive warmth, quite obvious roughness, and imaging issues.
Many sources do sound better with filtering. One can functionally filter in several different ways and at different points in the chain. This includes tweaking the source quality, DAC, amp, and driver, plus putting physical paper or felt (e.g. Dan Clark in the box) in the headphone cups. It can be an analog or a digital process.
I agree with @AudioTool regarding a practical upper limit on reproduction resolution. Many sources are poorly recorded, poorly mastered, or artistically sloppy and butchered. The technical limits of some R2R DACs might sidestep issues that require later filtering/processing attention. Consider the Focal Utopia vs. Clear. While the Utopia performs well in the upper range, it’s insanely sensitive to treble issues if present. It made mild Karen Carpenter’s voice too bright and peaky! When compared back-to-back to the Clear, the Clear can’t begin to resolve the upper range and it turns that content into grit and noise. However, this is inoffensive, not piercing, and the limitations won’t be obvious without a direct comparison.
@SSN757: Technology age suggests but does not determine performance. Cost has nothing to do with performance, as achieving the last 10% or 1% may cost more than the first 90% to 99%. Linearity may or may not be hearable. I’m not concerned about measurements unless they are correlated with unpleasantness and/or repeatable identification. I moved away from my old AKM 4490 DAC (and many others) because its treble quirks were instantly recognizable.
Most products have good numbers these days, so I don’t use them for decisions. I test for repeatable perceptual issues, and I test blind if possible.
1 Like
The Canever ZeroUno DAC, along with Topping D900 both benefit significantly from use of PGGB-RT with many recordings. This is readily heard with legacy jazz recordings by the likes of Chet Baker, Art Pepper, many Blue Note recordings, etc.
The DAC in the Devialet Expert Pro also benefits, but to al lesser extent.
Haven’t heard the Mytek, I have heard the older Linn DAC’s that used ESS chips and those were night and day over the SMSL and Topping DAC’s.
There is a huge variation in NOS DAC’s just like OS DAC’s, and those that offer a choice tend to do one or the other better, the quality most people notice in NOS DAC’s is a slight roll off in the treble, that’s measurable, but there more to it than that, good ones tend to sound more rythmic (don’t ask me to explain what I mean by that), and tend to portray instruments with more “edgy” timbre’s better. I again haven’t tried the 2/64’s NOS mode, so I can’t comment, the Holo DAC’s sounded better NOS to me, I liked the Aqua DAC’s, and I think the newer TotalDAC’s, are up there as some of the best sounding DAC’s for the money (their d1-sublime is on my list of, would really like to hear DAC’s). But I’ve heard NOS DAC’s I just don’t like, wasn’t a fan of the Sonnet DAC’s (lots of people love them).
My point was more there is a tendency on the internet for people to draw broad conclusions based on a very small sample and those “facts” just get cut and pasted everywhere. as examples.
Tube amps are warmer, and thicker sounding than solid state.
R2R DAC’s have an inherent Sound.
Class A amps have a sound.
None of those are broadly true, they are sort of true within specific price categories.
Sure, and there are recordings I like I tend to avoid because of this, though that applies to very few recordings in my collection, and I tend to consider it an orthogonal issue. The hobby is fundamentally about enjoyment, and really subtle/nuanced differences once you start comparing equipment.
I think the wrong way to think about it is reproducible resolution, almost any DAC if you just measure frequency response from 0-20KHz is going to be more than good enough. That IME at least just doesn’t correlate to the listening experience in a system
1 Like
Again, it’s the filtering. The Canever ZeroUno uses a legacy ESS 9018 SABRE DAC chip, but sounds nothing like other ESS DACs. Mario Canever developed his own code for filtering, including MQA. He also uses a propriety I/V conversion, and lundhal transformers at the DAC output stage. The ZeroUno has been cited as having tube like characteristics. Andrew Singer of the Sound By Singer high end store in NY, was generally not a fan of digital, but he carried the Canever, as one of the few digital rigs he liked.
To me, R2R DACs may sound more forgiving to some, but just don’t sound as accurate as a proper Delta/Sigma, especially NOS R2R DACs. We all hear differently, and we all focus on different strengths from our playback systems. What bothers one is easily overlooked by another.
2 Likes
I don’t actually disagree. I prioritize forgiving over accuracy.
2 Likes
That’s very well said, we all hear differently and focus on different things.
I’m a HIGHLY subjective person, with over a dozen keeper headphones and a handful of dacs amp’s and tube amp’s, I just like to experience it whatever that is. I’m in a lull for listening prowess right now as I have my most expensive and coincidently my most exhilarating dac and amp being set up for a listening station. But I haven’t used it in a few day’s because the lazy boy wasn’t ready.
I’m trying to learn the scientific side of everything, but it is very overwhelming. Like… what are 3rd and 5th harmonics? Ear gain, Tamber etc etc. I want to learn these thing’s because it is an extension of my hobby. I have side graded for 7 years while preparing for my swan song that is being made currently. Still, when I get my station setup I want to nit-pick these differences. Not because it bothers me when something is one way or another but because I get a huge kick in the pants out of listening to someone describe their experience with hardware I also own and go ohhh yeah yeah, or nope not the same for me. It’s fun to me. I’m not an easily bothered audiophile, so long as something has enough dynamic range and some bass reproduction, it’ll get a pass for me. Oh and I should say build quality does matter, can’t stand something being on my head and creaking or flat out breaking.
I loooove tubes, just something that’s different and wonkey that I can spend some time with. But I think that my preferred content allows for that, I listen almost entirely to electronica music which has no real reference point to “natural”.
All said and done, can you guys throw some educational video’s my way? I listen to resolves reviews and sometimes, if it’s a headphone I know really well I learn terms. But I’m so new to this rabbit hole of definitions that I want to do more homework. I think that I’m going to pick a headphone he has reviewed and listen only to that for an extended period of time. It’s just so high level (same with reading MANY of these posts), that I have to put my brain to 110% to soak it all in.
I’ve never understood many thing’s in this hobby, I learn best by experiencing not having it described, but I know that inside these specific words is a lot of meaning and my little monkey smooth brain wants to experience that AHA moment of getting what is being said.
It’s possible I’m wrong, but I’m 99.99% sure that Linn never used ESS DACs.
Their early integrated CD players, and standalone DACs, used Burr Brown chips, there was a brief, limited, dalliance with CS, a solid run with the Wolfson 8740/8741s, then AKM (which they still use in their non-discrete DACs/streamers) and, of course, their in-house Organik DACs.
1 Like
Your probably right, it was a few years ago when I was listening to what I could source locally, probably the AKM period, this was before they moved to their own in house converters, and for some reason I had it in my head it was ESS.
1 Like
Older AKM = okay
Older ESS = jagged razorblades
2 Likes
Except DAC’s where the designer bypassed the on board filtering and developed their own. I’ve heard older ESS DAC’s that sound outstanding where the designer developed their own filtering code and employed expensive I/V circuitry.
1 Like
Brand and model? Per my comments about Mytek DACs a few posts up, I never heard an ESS DAC that I would choose. I really struggled with a Mytek → HiFiMan demo setup just a year ago.
Canever UnoZero DAC/HPA. Sounds nothing like the off the shelf ESS DAC:
1 Like
This review is a bit long, but full of good information about the design. Mario explains how he implemented the 9018 DAC chip. He basically only uses a portion of the converter, and implemented his own code, I/V, and analog stage. One would never think that this uses a 9018 chip.