Quote from: burnspbesq on September 21, 2012, 02:18:30 AM

Quote from: DaveBSC on September 02, 2012, 04:11:40 PM

The Ayre QB-9 is outdated and outmatched

Really. By what, pray tell?

Anedio, Calyx, probably the NAD and Auralic DACs as well. There's some heavy hitters in the $1500-2000 league, and the QB-9 just doesn't make sense anymore with it's nearly $3K price tag.

The Anedio is interesting but unavailable. Jon iverson's otherwise highly favorable review of the NAD says that it doesn't quite measure up to the Ayre. The Calyx seems like it would be a contendah if I were in the market for a DAC right now, but the Ayre still wins because it has one unique advantage: I already own it.

If I bring anything in for audition any time soon, it will be the Invicta. But I'm not feeling any upgrade lust right now, and you haven't convinced me that I should. Thanks for the info, though.

So I bought the e20 for a trial.  I'll upload some pictures later (although the website pictures will be better quality).

As this is the second DAC I've demo'd in my own home with my own gear and my own music, I only really have the Bifrost to compare it to (I have the ODAC too, but I prefer the Bifrost).

I found that the biggest things that differed between the two DACs, both feeding my HE5-LEs through my Super 7 is that:
- Instrument separation and soundstage were better
- Highs were less fatiguing on tracks where it's a problem with the 5-LEs
- Sound was more 'coherent' from bottom to top
- Bass was crisper and 'popped' better, whatever that means.  It was more visceral.


The main problem I found was that I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless I played with one right after the other.  The improvements were so small that, to my ears, the upgrade wasn't worth the money and you're paying more for the feature set (DSD, 24/384 playback, preamp, etc..) than the sound itself.

It sounded better, sure.  Noticeably better.  But not so much that it would make a difference unless I was A/B'ing.

So I returned it after my trial period was up and will look for an upgrade in headphones and tubes next, rather than a DAC.  Maybe if I go to the speaker route I'll come back to the e20 (or the invicta) when I need the features it provides.

Just my small, inexperienced opinions I felt like sharing.

My blunt take on DACs these days, which anyone is welcome to disagree with.

After the old, great, non-high-res vintage DACs, such as the Parasound I have here were replaced with Sigma-Delta chipped varieties, things have gone down hill sonically, leading to a market of average-sounding DACs that have conditioned people to think they need to spend $8k for decent reproduction.

The Sabre-based DACs MUST have an excellent design with high-end clock to just work at all. With a mediocre set-up (such as with the Calyx DAC 24/192) the music is detailed, but sound flat. Using better power than just USB and the Audiophilleo + Pure Power it sounds excellent IMO, far better than when using the in-built USB does.  I think most people who review it spin CDs for the most part and are behind when it comes to computer rigs (unlike myself, where I refuse to use CDs if at all possible) and very likely even their highly expensive transports are rubbish compared to the top USB converters now, as every one commented that the USB input to the Calyx sounded better than their multi-thousand-dollar transports.

After going through a few ES9018-based DACs, they are definitely only worth it IMO if they are genuinely high-end kit. I did have an NFB-11 and even after the clocks were replaced it sounded a bit flat. The better USB and whatnot in the latest version likely has made significant improvements.  The Dragonfly (which uses a cheaper Sabre chip IIRC) manages to do a good job without making instruments sound dead, though I'd take the NFB-16 over it, as I listen to a lot of jazz and classical and the small differences matter to me. I'm going to compare both to an ODAC/O2 combo in Tokyo next month. Given the new hardware available, it shouldn't be so expensive to build a decent USB-powered DAC or DAC and amp for relatively little money now. It is going to be the new big segment I reckon.

I personally find almost everything I've listened to that uses the latest Sigma Delta BB chips: PCM1792, 3 and 5 to sound unnatural and awful. I've been a Luxman fan for a long time, but when I tried their DA-100 and DA-200, even numerous times, I was shocked that they sounded like total shit to me. I know it sounds crazy to be talking about DA converter chips alone, but in every case we're talking about equipment from companies who know how to do build a component properly. Regardless, the DA-100's output is directly from the chips, which have built-in OPAMPs, so there is no question that the issue has something to do with the digital conversion.

The cheapest DACs I've tried that sounds natural (ignoring NOS and vintage) are the NFB-16 and Fostex HP-P1, which uses an AKM DAC. If I was listening to music on plastic and not from my computer I'd keep my Parasound, but I've now got too many high-res files mixed into various playlists.

I reckon the NAD may be one of the few, if not only genuinely innovative DAC out there (excepting possibly those crazy software-based Chord DACs and the super-crazy Lampizator guy's efforts). Unfortunately NAD doesn't make 100V versions of it so I don't reckon I'll get to hear one unless I visit another country.

These are the DACs I'd take a consider or take a chance on right now, with reasons, from lowest price to highest, approximately, not taking anything else into account, such as balanced or SE or other factors:

NFB-16 (Transportable, most natural-sounding)
Dragonfly (ultra-portability - going to take this with my MacBook Air on the plane with IEMs)
Vintage PCM1704 or PCM63 based DACs from the usual companies that made them with over-built power supplies.
Schiit (any of their DACs. Never tried them, but the right people are saying positive things about them for me to take a chance)
Metrum Octave (If you want the slightly more mellow NOS sound and/or play high-res files, which will negate the need for o versampling anyway, but don't bother if you are just going to use the optical input. Use a good USB converter with it)
Lavry DA-11 (I had the DA-10 and tried the DA-11 in Tokyo. Hyper-clear kind of sound. Would take it over the DAC 1 any day)
Anedio D2 (Would take a chance on this. If it is Sabre done right, it will be excellent. HP amp and pre are a bonus)
NAD M51
Audio-gd Master 7 (Supposed to be more detailed than my Reference 7.1 because of improvements to the digital input)

Add $600-$2.5k (or not) as you wish for a high-end USB converter to the Metrum Octave and higher (in price) for best results (except maybe the NAD, as it is too radical a design to know if it would be improved by one).

Unfortunately NAD doesn't make 100V versions of it so I don't reckon I'll get to hear one unless I visit another country.

I'm pretty sure the M51 accepts 100-240V at 50-60hz.  Unless I missed something?

http://nadelectronics.com/download.php?111221101428-NAD_M51_DataSheet.pdf|Data%20Sheet%20-%20M51%20Direct%20Digital%20DAC