 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.242.169.18
In Reply to: RE: And it will beat the pants off the "Used Ayon Skylla 2 DAC" ? ..............nt posted by Cut-Throat on October 30, 2023 at 13:31:45
My Denafrips Terminator (one step above the Venus) didn't 'beat the pants off of' the Audio-GD master 7 which has TWICE as many PCM1708 chips Ayon Skylla 2 (but no Russian or Chinese tubes).
So my guess is that the Denafrips Venus is a great sounding DAC but likely not beating-the-pants-off of any other DAC in this conversation.
Follow Ups:
Please remember that the analog output stage has a profound impact on the sound...not just the chip...although that clearly matters too. The output stage of the Skylla and all Ayon DACs is very very good...such that it serves as a true high end preamp (there are analog inputs)... one of my friends with an Ayon Stratos uses his that way for his analog rig.
As I mentioned before in a much older post....Many modern DACs sound outstanding and very similar with only slight differences. It's not usually a matter of one being so much better than the rest.
When a DAC stands out as being far superior to the rest it's because this outlier leans heavily in alignment with your specific sonic preferences. I would assert that your love affair with the Ayon Skylla and Stratos is likely due to their vacuum tube analog stages. Nothing wrong with that if you like that tube sound.
Others prefer less color or possibly coloring their system with a different component like an outboard preamp, power amp, or speakers.
Edits: 11/02/23
"When a DAC stands out as being far superior to the rest it's because this outlier leans heavily in alignment with your specific sonic preferences. I would assert that your love affair with the Ayon Skylla and Stratos is likely due to their vacuum tube analog stages. Nothing wrong with that if you like that tube sound."
Or...it is simply far superior. You seem to conveniently ignore the most obvious possibility.
"Or...it is simply far superior. You seem to conveniently ignore the most obvious possibility."Or as I already mentioned the DAC is simply an outlier that aligns more precisely with your specific sonic preference. You can't ignore that possibility especially since your "far superior" sounding DAC utilizes vacuum tubes. Are we back to the age old debate of vacuum tubes vs solid-state? I can add some color and soundstage with a nice vacuum tube preamp and thoroughly enjoy the sound (I've done it) but I would simply call it different and not necessarily far superior.
Better or far superior is hard to define in recent DACs and more about personal preference. State of the art design elevates many modern DACs to be excellent compared to just a few short years ago. One no longer needs to buy pricey audiophile branded DACs to achieve outstanding sonics.
Edits: 11/04/23
i didn't discount your possibility but you still don't acknowledge the possibility that I laid out.Vacuum tubes are part of the equation but only part.
"Better or far superior is hard to define in recent DACs and more about personal preference. "
There are objective things that can be compared, such as tone compared to real instruments tone, soundstage and imaging that has 3d and depth compared to flat. Dynamics are another big factor. Most of these cheap DACs sound compressed regardless of the musical content. Perhaps you only realize this once you have heard one that is unbridled. BTW. also some expensive ones sound this way too...but it is a serious issue with low cost DACs.
The DACs you claim are so good for low money are not really very good once you compare them to better designs.
I do not believe the trope that the DAC chips are now so advanced that the rest can be cheap and the sound great. Where most of these budget DACs fall down is in the power supply and the output stage. They simply don't sound very good...again once you compare to superior sounding DACs. On their own, they sound "ok". But if you were listening to CD only, an old Mark Levinson No.360s will sound far better (yes it's all SS) for around $2K used than any of these new DACs. Or an OLD PS Audio.
I have one that uses the UltraAnalog 20 bit chip and has discrete output stage (again all SS) and it sounds VERY good with 16/44. You wouldn't understand why people were so harsh with digital in the past as it is smooth, resolved, nice tone and has plenty of drive...it just won't do high res or USB. Same for the Kinergetics Research KCD-55 Ultra that I have. It is also 16/44 only. It also uses the UltraAnalog chips (2 of them...that still go for hundreds of bucks used!), and once its been on for a few days...damn it sounds good too.
Finally, I also have a Metrum Octave MK2 (I used to also have the two-box tiny MKI as well). This uses 8 unknown R2R chips NOS with no output stage at all. This is resolved, slightly warm but quite upfront and honest and would be my choice (or whatever the company makes now that replaced it) for a DAC under $1K. Or for just over that a Monarchy M24 DAC (20bit version). For under $2K the Metrum Hex (used) would also be an interesting option.
The truth about digital from the past is this: It MIGHT be slightly lower resolution but the care in design of the digital filter, power supply and output stage resulted in DACs that sound GOOD. A used Sonic Frontiers DAC would also be a superb choice. A ML No.35 is also an excellent choice for those who don't want "tube" coloration. Oh, and the Moon Eclipse cd player, which will also work as a DAC, is a superb option as well for the non-tube crowd and can be found used for reasonable money.
I stream with Qobuz and it is possible to limit the streaming choices to 16/44...so, an old DAC could be used with modern streaming as long as your streamer has SPDIF or AES/EBU outputs. I limit my streaming to 24/96 because my DAC doesn't lock very well to 192.
As I mentioned below, I compared my Ayon Skylla with an Ayon Stratos that uses much more up-to-date ESS chips. The output stages are IDENTICAL. the result? More similar than different. Both sound great and better than the chifi I have heard by a large amount.A friend of mine had a Chif Topping DAC and he thought he was happy...until I brought over an APL DSD-AR DAC (again all SS). The difference was stunning to the point that he happily paid me $3500 for the privilege of owning it (I found my Ayon better sounding but the APL is very good).
Edits: 11/05/23
I agree that there were many superb older DACs but my fundamental conclusion is this. You HAD TO pay a good amount of money for a decent DAC back in the day as there was little competition from Chifi and non-Audiophile branded DACs. That has changed. My sweet spot for a high quality modern DAC is somewhere around $1000 - $1500.I have experienced a few modern DACs in that $1000 +/- range that clearly outperform or are at least on par with some audiophile brands from back in the day.
I put my sub-$1000 SMSL D400EX and the $1200 RME ADI-2 DAC FS up against my Luxman DA-06 ($4000), Ayre QB-9 DSD ($3800) and Wavelength Brick ($2200) setup. I have owned all of these DACs and the non-Audiophile brands at around $1000 were better sounding. Go figure. You simply get more for your money these days if you don't need the prestige of audiophile branding.
"A friend of mine had a Chifi Topping DAC and he thought he was happy...until I brought over an APL DSD-AR DAC (again all SS). The difference was stunning to the point that he happily paid me $3500 for the privilege of owning it (I found my Ayon better sounding but the APL is very good)."
I don't doubt it. You didn't mention which Topping as Topping DACs start as low as $75!
Edits: 11/06/23
I don't consider the affordable DACs that I have heard in recent times to be a bargain because they don't deliver good sound.
Affordable DACs in the past just tended to sound boring with their mushy 1-bit cheapo DAC chips. Or they were somewhat screechy. Now they sound ultra clean...and ultra lifeless. If most recordings (even classical and audiophile Jazz) are really that poor then I welcome whatever makes them sound like music. Given that master tape sounds nothing like what these budget DACs produce...I put my money on the master tape sounding more correct...and therefore some of the better, yet pricey DACs.
I think it was the E50 DAC.
... verses essentially no distortion.
But that's OK of course.
Dmitri Shostakovich
You are right in a sense , I prefer certain types of distortion over other types...-preferably the kind my ear/brain simply doesn't hear because it is masked...-thx evolution! Your flaw is thinking that the residual distortion you see in those measurements is inaudible or is the only distortion extant. Those products you like have a sound character and if that is not a product of their deviation from true linearity then what is causing the character?
My system is "distorted" by your standard and yet differentiation between recordings is very high and on good recordings the tonality of instruments is very close to what one hears live. Gear with Distortion that hides in the gaps of the auditory system will sound cleaner and more natural than gear with even minuscule residual distortion that is unpleasant to hear.
This is further helped by the fact that this blind spot increases with SPL. So, the initially obvious problem with zero feedback amps distortion increasing with power is not as long as the increase is in line with the SPL increase. If the distortion surpasses the threshold where masking is not effective before the SPL catches up you will hear the amp or source "struggling" on peaks or congested passages.
I'm talking about the things you mentioned ...
Said morricab, " There are objective things that can be compared, such as tone compared to real instruments tone, soundstage and imaging that has 3d and depth compared to flat. Dynamics are another big factor. "
In the first place I question whether the term, "objective", is really valid in this context. I don't doubt that you're an experienced listener, but even experienced listeners to live music have biases.
Then, of course, there are the recordings, the source of the sound. There are huge variations in overall sound quality and often some specific aspect such as you describe above. My position and preference is that I want to hear the record as recorded, mastered, and distributed on whatever medium. As for 16/44.1 or better is better than vinyl, both potentially and in fact.
In my experience ultra-low distortion components reproduce the sound of the best* recording best. This is why I look at measurements before bothering to listen to, much less buy, equipment.
Tube equipment measurably produces distortion, albeit in especially in case of high-end equipment it might be carefully tuned to somebody or other's preference. That's the bottom line when it comes to that stuff: personal preference. But distortion is distortion no matter how agreeable and it will change the sound of the recording.
( * "Best" recordings are those I've found to sound relatively good consistently best in the very qualities you mention regardless of the equipment used for reproduction.)
Dmitri Shostakovich
In my experience, the best measuring DACs, particularly the ones with wimpy power supplies and basic opamp outputs, don't do anything particularly well regardless of the recording quality. If you can't hear the dimensionless soundstage (flat and 2d images) with relatively gray tonal characteristics and lack of dynamics then I guess count yourself lucky. You can hear this regardless of the recording quality...so much for being invisible and only letting the recording come through.
IMO, describing a sound characteristic can be quite objective...it is not that hard to get people to agree on WHAT they hear. What is subjective in audio is how they think it impacts the quality of the sound. People have different criteria for judging what they hear.
There are exceptions. I have several friends that when we all get together we can mostly agree on what something is doing (like dynamics and soundstage when a rectifier is swapped on a tube amp...yes the rectifier for the power supply and it is scarily obvious) and this often leads to agreement on what is subjectively better as we all have pretty similar goals.
I have one friend; however, who often hears things nearly the opposite of what I an others hear...I haven't figured it out yet why he has hears things often differently. That said, he does have a similar Ayon DAC to me and most of his system is tubes (his amp is a Class A Plinius...although he also owns SETs). His preferred SET, ironincally is a rather warm and rich sounding one from Unison Research (the S6), which I find too far down the colored end of the spectrum.
It is clear that people can be trained to use their senses in a precise qualitative, if not quantitative manner. I think of organoleptic detection in chemistry. This is used in the fragrance industry where trained experts in smell can expertly qualitatively identify components and even have a rough quantitative range accuracy for how much of a component is in the mix because smells change based on concentration.
I have another friend, who after exposure to my system, has completely changed his system other than the speakers (and he is thinking about that). He went from a Topping DAC (upper model, can't remember exactly which one...he added an outboard power supply as well) and a Musical Fidelity SS amp to an expensive APL DSD-AR DAC ($7500 new price) that he bought from me and a Chifi tube amp (push pull EL-34...for sure measures "meh" by your's and Amir's standards) that despite the relatively low price sounds really good (a bit overly rich but resolution doesn't suffer much). Now, his system has dimension, dynamics, tone and is still suitably transparent with good low level resolution. Not the last word in any of these areas but a huge step from where he was with the "amazing" measuring DAC and probably "adquate" measuring amp.
We had that Topping DAC over at my place and it was shocking how badly it dried out ALL recordings and flattened them out spatially. Good recordings, great recordings or even not-so-great all suffered.
To be fair, there are expensive ones that do the same. A different friend had the expensive Nagra Classic DAC (like $15K new) and he brought it over and the first thing I heard was FLAT. Images sounded flat, flat, flat. I couldn't believe that such an expensive DAC made such a basic sonic mistake. It's no wonder they discontinued it...and their new one uses a tube output. The guy now has an expensive Mola Mola Tambaqui that doesn't sound so flat in the soundstage but is tilted up in the highs and I find it also unnatural to listen to.
I have had all SS DACs that also soundstaged well, so it doesn't have to be tube output...the tube output ones just do it better in general.
Many of the sonic characteristics that you described both good and bad can be heard in different $1000 class modern DACs, Chifi or otherwise. Which again supports my assertion that many relatively inexpensive modern DACs are on par with those that cost a lot more from the old guard audiophile brands. It's nice to have competition now with sonics that are not proportional to higher price. In many of those cases you have to be willing to step out of your comfort zone with audiophile brands and be willing to pay less ;-)
Edits: 11/06/23
Two things maybe ...
First, distortion from both tube and S/S components that are designed to produced distortion pleasurable to old-school audiophile are likely responsible for the characteristics morricab is looking for.
Possibly some makers of very expensive components apply their high mark-ups to a fine-tune distortion to yield the preferred effects, likely relatively high low-order harmonic distortion and low high-order harmonics. But since distortion is at the root of those effects they are artifacts , and not true to the recording.
Secondly we are effectively in a "new age" in terms of ultra-low distortion products. Modern products such as Purifi class D amps and Topping/SMSL DACs are totally different kettle of fish. Distortion and noise are far lower than those '70's products.
Folks who say "measurements don't matter", (no need to name names), are living in the '70s when low THD's were advertise without any insights to harmonic spectra for example. S/S components of that era typically had high 4th & higher order harmonics and relatively low 2nd & 3rd order. Also they often had highish noise. Not true in case of the aforementioned current examples.
It silly to rail against op amps or S/S rectification when these techs are demonstrably producing ultra-low distortion results. The "magic" of tube circuits is the distortion they produce. If you like those results, FINE , enjoy your artifacts.
Dmitri Shostakovich
There was a similar revolution in headphone amplifiers with THX making circuitry that measured way better than other amps. All the youtube reviewers jumped on the hype train and raved about those THX amps. Today though those amplifiers are pretty absent on 2023 tier lists. Presumably because as good as they measured, they just didn't sound like music.
If you can listen for long stretches without fatigue and keep your toe tapping, more power to you.
Cut to razor sounding violins
No they cannot be heard...thus my post. Most of the traits I described are largely missing.
As I stated, I have experience with inexpensive DACs as you are describing (not all but many) and they don't deliver like you claim...not in comparison to better higher end DACs and not compared to what one hears in real live music.
"like dynamics and soundstage when a rectifier is swapped on a tube amp...yes the rectifier for the power supply and it is scarily obvious"
Can you explain? Does one rectifier tube produce more voltage? More current? Just what about the two rectifier tubes are different? I assume you mean swapping between two tubes of the same type?
What if the raw supply output voltage is regulated before reaching the audio circuits?
Thanks.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
No, I cannot explain and yes, I am talking about two tubes of the same type.
For example: I have a Marconi (made in Canada) 5U4G and NOS Svetlana Winged C Russian equivalent. In addition, some friends brought over another Marconi 5U4G (but from a different country and looks somewhat different inside), a new Czech made KR Audio anniversary 5U4G and one other one I can't remember.
The Canadian Marconi clearly had better soundstage and imaging 3d, better tone as well with more of the sense of the players "being there" than the others. The KR was surprisingly forthright and direct but losing a lot of what made the Marconi special. THe RUssian one made things sound a big flat (relative to the others) and grey tonally. The other Marconi was sort of in the middle somewhere.
Technically, they all spec the same and are lightly used tubes, so not a case of one being worn out (plus these rectifiers last a LONG time). The voltage drop should be the same (we were also rolling 5R4GYs and 5AR4s as the amp in question will work with all three types). The other rectifiers we rolled also sound very differnt from each other and that could partially be due to voltage drop differences affecting the bias settings on the tubes.
However, we heard similar differences Intra-tube type (as I described above for the 5U4Gs)...the three 5AR4s I had on had sounded quite different from each other as well as quite different from the 5U4Gs. The best one was the 1955 Valvo metal base (very expensive and for good reason).
The best 5U4G was the Marconi (Canada) and the best 5R4GY was a 1940s RCA Blackplate, which sounded more similar to the Marconi than the Valvo.
While the inter tube type could be in part explained by the voltage drop, this cannot be the cause of the sound differences in the same tube type; nonetheless the difference is profound and easily repeatable.
I still shake my head in disbelief. However, the power supply is in the circuit path in a way. So, whatever small differences in distortion, voltage drop or whatever there are...matters.
"nonetheless the difference is profound and easily repeatable. "
Would you say easily heard in a double blind test?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I would think yes, but of course this wasn't done. Do you need that to accept what you hear?
I know that our ears and brains are easily fooled. Many things do influence what we think we hear. We are not in control of these things.
View YouTube Video
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
What is your point exactly? I know you are into tubes and I am pretty sure you have been rolling them in your life... Did you not hear the obvious differences when rolling?
I have done blind tests on interconnect cables and we were able to essentially always spot not only if there was a change but once revealed which ones were which, going back blind could tell WHICH cable was installed.
That was more subtle than a lot of what I heard with rectifier tubes.
For sure the differences can be my imagination...so can all of so-called "reality" for that matter. I listen to long term impact and so if I am fooled it is over months and consistent. I could prove it to myself with blind tests but don't waste my time anymore with such things. I hear what I hear, whether real or imagined and I choose my preference.
It is intersting though that we are talking about mass delusion though. Most of us hear the same thing...how much we like or dislike it is subjective.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
have fully discrete analog output chains.
And MASSIVE power supplies.
Yes, the power supply of the Ayon DACs and other DACs that sound a cut above are large. My DAC weighs a solid 18KG (38 pounds) and it has two power transformers and 2 chokes as well as full wave rectification...with 4 tubes! Never seen it done like how you would do it with silicon diodes.
You've never seen 4 silicon diodes in a full-wave bridge configuration vs an encapsulated bridge rectifier ?
Of course...what does that have to do with what Ayon has done with 4 diode tubes? It is analogous but not common practice with tube gear...normally it is one larger diode for the rectification.
nt
Pretty simple, really.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
