• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

DAC Recommendations ~$200

S

siluro

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
336
Looking for a new DAC as the title suggests...

Anyways I need a DAC (can also be an amp/dac combo) that has has two outputs. One to feed my headphone amp (if it's a combo not necessary) and another that will be going to my desktop speaker amplifier via RCA. Budget is ~$250 and lower is preferred.

Some that I've come across that I have some interest in are:
Meridian Explorer
HRT Microstreamer
Matrix HPA-2

So if you have any remarks on the above, or have any others please comment.

Currently I'll be pairing these with an Objective 2 Headphone Amp > Denon D600, and SMSL SA-50 > Polk Monitor 30s.
 
If you can diy - plenty of good $250 kit, over achievers that can perform up to $600/1000+ level grade retail DAC's.

Matrix Mini-i or Pro (used) are pretty good. The Valab NOS (non over-sampling with TDA chips) are still good for it's money. There is also selection from Schiit audio.

Maybe browse for used units on ebay you can grab good bargains there or Audiogon.

A word of caution if you browse on head-fi, too many shills and people who have limited/no experience that speak out of there league on that site.
 
Kueller said:
I didn't think the E09k was a DAC?
Click to expand...

That's why I said it is pretty much a E09K not exactly, the E9 has a dock for the E07 DAC but from the internals I've seen on the original E09, the updated K and the Monoprice they utilize the same Ti headphone amp chip and from roughly sketched schematics I've seen debugged on another site the headphone output stage is about the same. The only difference is where the E09K has a dock for Fiio's own DAC's the Monoprice is an all-in-one.
 
Matthew Kane said:
That's why I said it is pretty much a E09K not exactly, the E9 has a dock for the E07 DAC but from the internals I've seen on the original E09, the updated K and the Monoprice they utilize the same Ti headphone amp chip and from roughly sketched schematics I've seen debugged on another site the headphone output stage is about the same. The only difference is where the E09K has a dock for Fiio's own DAC's the Monoprice is an all-in-one.
Click to expand...
Not surprising, I'd bet they both are using TI's reference circuit design for the TPA6120.
10
Applications and Implementation
10.1
High Voltage, High Fidelity DAC + Headphone Amplifier Solution
10.1.1
Application Circuit:
Click to expand...
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tpa6120a2.pdf

Any insight on the DAC side of things?
 
The monoprice is a decent recommendation, I actually did get one last week however the RCA outputs do not come out enough on my device so I've already sent it in for an RMA. It worked great, but I also managed to find more in my budget so I was hoping to squeeze out a little more in performance.

I am considering the ODAC, but was hoping to get some comparisons between the ODAC and some of the higher end ones that I've listed.
 
siluro said:
I am considering the ODAC, but was hoping to get some comparisons between the ODAC and some of the higher end ones that I've listed.
Click to expand...

The Schiit Modi and Loki is less expensive and sounds better then the ODAC. A used Bifrost can be had for $270 or less.
 
ZeosPantera said:
I don't think the Odac can sound any better or worse than anything else around it. It can do math better which is its entire job. I mean it was designed and built out of spite to beat dac's costing hundreds more and simply by being the most accurate it can be.
Click to expand...

There is more to a DAC/amp then just to have an impressive measurable THD and SNR ratio and the O2 is a bad sounding amplifier with nothing impressive other then a low THD noise ratio which to a point is not possible to hear with the normalised sound frequencies the human ear can detect and hear. Add to that a Magni and Modi would run circles around with ease costing less and better sounding (which can be subjective between users). I'm all for good engineering and measurements but there is nothing new brought to the table by nwavguy, other designers have also criticised his O2 and ODAC designs and improvements can be made.
 
Matthew Kane said:
The Schiit Modi and Loki is less expensive and sounds better then the ODAC. A used Bifrost can be had for $270 or less.
Click to expand...

Second this. Schiit is the "shit" and pun intended. Neutrality in DAC's is a tricky subject. Its all subjective to all of us on an individual level since we all have different preferences. If all you want to do is take sound measurements for the lowest THD then the ODAC will win. But if you want an overall "fun" sounding DAC the ODAC will sound flat as board.

Its the same argument for and against using EQ's to adjust terrible and bass and influence the original source. It simply doesn't matter that much since if you like more bass then go for it and if you prefer crisper sound then go for more terrible or less of both. Its all subjective. Schiit's are easy to use , very reliable and Schiit has the best support department I've ever used for my gear. I've spoken directly to their engineers on a weekend and .. ON A HOLIDAY. That's dedication to service and their products.
 
Matthew Kane said:
There is more to a DAC/amp then just to have an impressive measurable THD and SNR ratio and the O2 is a bad sounding amplifier with nothing impressive other then a low THD noise ratio which to a point is not possible to hear with the normalised sound frequencies the human ear can detect and hear. Add to that a Magni and Modi would run circles around with ease costing less and better sounding (which can be subjective between users). I'm all for good engineering and measurements but there is nothing new brought to the table by nwavguy, other designers have also criticised his O2 and ODAC designs and improvements can be made.
Click to expand...

Why is O2 a bad sounding amp and why would cheaper Magni and Modi run circles around it? Objective and measurable reasons only, please.


Godmachine said:
Second this. Schiit is the "shit" and pun intended. Neutrality in DAC's is a tricky subject. Its all subjective to all of us on an individual level since we all have different preferences. If all you want to do is take sound measurements for the lowest THD then the ODAC will win. But if you want an overall "fun" sounding DAC the ODAC will sound flat as board.
Click to expand...

There is nothing tricky about it. DAC's job is to be neutral, not fun. If it is coloring the sound by itself, it is a bad DAC.
 
Meeho said:
There is nothing tricky about it. DAC's job is to be neutral, not fun. If it is coloring the sound by itself, it is a bad DAC.
Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish. There is nothing tricky about it? Go read up specification data sheets published by Philips for the TDA1541/43/45/47 family from almost 3 decades ago, there has yet to be anyone or any manufacturer can implement those picky bastard of a chip right, even utilizing modern stuff from today. Some have come close but no where near perfection, the chips themselves aren't even neutral sounding to begin with but they are extremely musical sounding. Then study R2R ladder DAC's and various I/V stage converters, read up the effects of PS rippling and noise affect that are feeding Vout rails on the DAC chips. Oh wait there is more. But you should get what I'm saying, right? It ain't easy and is very tricky.

A DAC's job is to process binary from the source be it a computer, cd transport or an ipod, true but no DAC can be called neutral, not even the $9k MSB Analog or the $15k Burmester's. Then there is something called synergy, measurements and subjectivity, the shit goes on and on with problems engineers have been facing since the early 80's.

You won't get a coloured sounding DAC unless it is designed intentionally to sound coloured, mostly with a tube output stage (they have the biggest effect on sound output compared to conventional opamp's or discrete bjt or mosfet circuits). The effect of a source is not as big as changing your amplifier or more importantly changing your speakers or transducers, they have the biggest impact on sound. Don't believe into the bs hype or large hyperboles used to describe differences and improvements shills hear in review's because they spent a weekend afternoon at RMAF listening to a "$30k DAC", expensive != better.

Not to mention most listeners don't want something completely neutral sounding, imagine this combo > neutral sounding DAC (source), neutral sounding amp, neutral sounding speaker/headphone = shit sound quality, lifeless, unbearable and sucked out sounding with no musicality. Been there done that.
 
Last edited:
Either you're contradicting yourself or I don't understand what you're trying to say. Building an accurate, neutral DAC today is not that hard nor expensive. Any influence on the sound to make it more subjectively pleasing/fun is the job of the speakers or processing like EQ-ing, not the amp or DAC.
 
Meeho said:
Either you're contradicting yourself or I don't understand what you're trying to say. Building an accurate, neutral DAC today is not that hard nor expensive. Any influence on the sound to make it more subjectively pleasing/fun is the job of the speakers or processing like EQ-ing, not the amp or DAC.
Click to expand...

Ok I'll break it down.

You said there is nothing tricky about a DAC (i.e including functionality, how it works, design and schematics and all the technical circuitry stuff). I say bs, hell you can make a thread on diyaudio proclaiming a DAC is easy to make and design and the engineers there will call out bs. Building anything is easy but implementation and getting it right are the two key components that are not easy to anything be it a DAC or an amplifier. Ever wondered why the top of the shelf stuff from dCs and MSB (even old school Levinson and Wadia) have proprietary programmed DAC IC's and not your off the shelf Analog Device, Cirrus Logic, Wolfson, Texas Instrument or ESS Sabre? Even these 5 figure DAC's don't sound neutral. How do you know a DAC sounds neutral when it's just 1 part of a sound system? DAC's don't have speakers you can't hear them, most DAC's all measure linearly 20hz-20khz, you have other components that add shit in the signal path i.e your amplifier and finally your transducers.

If you think a DAC is that easy go design and build me a DAC that cost less then a Modi or O2 and sounds better then either. If it measures good and sounds like shit, whose gonna buy it? If it measures bad to ok but sounds very good...then....?
 
Ofcourse there is expertise required, but it has been done and things aren't as complicated and expensive as before. If it measures well and passes ABX, it is as good as it gets. Many "cheaper" (i.e. normal costing) DACs have done that, so...
 
Meeho said:
Ofcourse there is expertise required, but it has been done and things aren't as complicated and expensive as before. If it measures well and passes ABX, it is as good as it gets. Many "cheaper" (i.e. normal costing) DACs have done that, so...
Click to expand...

You can't bring in ABX/AB comparisons and other blind listening in and mix it with objectivity, science, physics and measurements, doesn't work that way and never has, that's more to do with subjective listening, psychoacoustics and placebo/bias. Although the digital domain in audio (i.e DAC's) have improved greatly over the last 2 decades when we were still stuck with 20bit DAC ic's, there was a white paper published by one of the leading engineers at PS Audio or Wadia (can't remember) that we face new problems engineers similarly faced back in the late 80's to 90's. New technology bring in new complications.

Again building something and having it work to building something, designed and implemented properly are two entirely different things with anything. The latter much more cost, effort and knowledge involved.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Kane said:
You can't bring in ABX/AB comparisons and other blind listening in and mix it with objectivity, science, physics and measurements...
Click to expand...
I've heard plenty of subjectivists complain about ABX/blind tests, but your claim is a first for me. What other tools can objectivists - i.e. those who wish to remove sighted bias - use to test what people can hear?
 
Matthew Kane said:
You can't bring in ABX/AB comparisons and other blind listening in and mix it with objectivity, science, physics and measurements, doesn't work that way and never has, that's more to do with subjective listening, psychoacoustics and placebo/bias.
Click to expand...

I think they are complementary. ABX is THE tool for scientists and objectivists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top