What I want in a DAC

This topic/threads/discussion is the most comprehensive i have seen on DAC. With that, as it appears a lot of technical effort is going to be applied to the DAC, my inputs follow:
There was a post that indicated ability to switch multiple inputs; ( pre-amp sourse selector). Given the ability to leverage software play lists etc,
i am not sure if this is beyong the call of duty.
Also, looking to the future; as it appears than the days remaining  of CD's is somewhat limited, whatever the DAC includes as functionality/interface should accommodate the growth or road where digital music is going;  itunes.

just some thoughts
 
I hope the upcoming DAC is worth the wait!

My impatience got the best of me and I was couldn't wait to a music server -> DAC into my system.  The only time I actually handle CDs now is to rip them into storage.  I'm using an iPad and iTap VNC to run the Mac Mini headlessly and things couldn't be better/easier.  Like a super remote control accessing approx 1500 CDs worth of music.  My wife came in the other night and said that I was driving her crazy bouncing around and ask me to let something play for longer than a minute:-) 

Now that I've lived with my first outboard DAC for a while, I'd like something that would simply play materiel in it's native resolution without upsampling or at least have that option.  Need lots of input options too including USB, FW, SPDIF, etc...

Be nice to have the 'digital board' modularized and separated from the power and analog sections enough to allow future tweaking/upgrading. 

 
Guys we are making progress. Pretty soon we will be able to rename this thread "What you're gonna get in a DAC". We're in another one of those modes where it's all about budgeting the money to continue to develop the project. Things should be moving again soon. If anyone wants to help propel the project along, a few Paramount orders might help...I'm just sayin'.
 
At this stage, i believe an important stage is go back to "requirements" vs. "functionality", and compare against what is perceived to be the competitive product(s) if any exist. What is more important here is leadership. There should be every attempt to review the "system" and somehow fortify leadership strength in that a competetive product for example , should not be able to  change a connector or cable type and then identify company and product leadership.  The "system" in its completed form should be what others try to achieve.
 
What i am saying is that;  there is and has been so much in this thread that i cannot actually identify all functionality that  readers and potential customers are requesting. It is a task beyond by ability  but certainly a task within your grasp to figure out what everyone is saying and where the product goes.
 
Peter,

The poster starting the thread is a customer.  Doc, Paul J. and John S. have been working on the Bottlehead design.  That is a different thread all together.  

No DAC on the market will include everything that is listed in this thread as what each poster wants.  
 
i would imagine the main goal is, to provide as much flexibility and future upgrade ability as can be reasonably achieved... and then to smoke anything, anywhere near its price with its sonic bodacity!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I'm very interested in seeing how this one continues to progress. How did the Head-Fi meet go? Any impressions? I didn't see any Bottlehead DAC impressions in the Head-Fi threads.
 
I was able to heard the DAC at last weeks Head-Fi meet in NorCal.  It's really quite big and occupies two enclosures which are about the size of the SEX amp.  The sound was really great listening through the Smack and SEX, but it's hard to tell how much the DAC is adding to the sound when you can't directly compare it to another source.  I was also fortunate to meet the creator of the PCB (John) for the DAC and even see the next gen circuit board for the new iteration.  Really cool and unconventional things are in the works but it seemed like production version is still going to be another few months away.
 
I'm curious to hear it. My Juli@ sound card running with J.River Music Console sounds fantastic. I have it doing the DAC. I really can't complain about the sound. Someone on another forum said the Juli@'s internal DAC matched his Naim DAC. Can that be true? In any event, it would be great to hear what BH's DAC (or any DAC for that matter) does for my FLAC.
 
I have been using a modded squeezebox2 for a about 6 years now and have been very happy and felt that it is a great interface for accessing music and to me it sounds better then using a CD player. At least the ones that I can afford. I have been on the fence about upgrading to something else waiting for the BH DAC. I want a DAC that is not limited by the USB interface, i.e. can play 24bit and files up to 192k hz. I have looked at the SB Touch in the past but held off because it only was only able to do 96K. Now there appears to be an app that allows it to stream up to 192K FLAC files via USB and S/PDIF. I'm thinking this is maybe the a very good option that has future potential with the BH DAC. Any thoughts from the forum?
 
The new applet for the Touch works very well. You will be able to use it to send up to 192 to the Bottlehead DAC via S/PDIF, either via coax or optical. The optical is a little iffy, the data rate is theoretically faster than what the optical can handle, but in reality if you use a fairly short good quality cable it should work. But if it doesn't, use coax, that WILL work.

The USB input that will be part of the Bottlehead DAC will only go up to 96KHz. This is primarily a space and time limitation, doing 192 takes a lot more hardware and we just don't have room on the board. In addition it will take a fair amount of work to get it working properly and I don't want to delay the release of the DAC just for that.

The external interface that WILL be a part of the DAC will allow us to add a 192 capable USB input at a later time, exactly how much later, who knows!

John S.
 
In my personal opinion 192k isn't all that important for playback at all. The people at Benchmark who build some fairly serious professional gear that can easily handle 192k data rates tend to agree and have written about it on their website.

High data rates are great for digital processing. Most of the math that gets used in studios - recording, mixing and mastering - works better at higher sample rates, because the audio frequencies that are being manipulated are nowhere near the sampling frequency. DAC's and ADC's on the other hand don't benefit much. 24/96 is plenty good enough. I often go with 24/48 even when I could just as easily use 24/96.
 
I have a Pacific Microsonics Model Two sourced from a DAW loaded with Pyramix Software and a Mykerinos card. The difference between 24 192 and 24 96 is easily detectable when listening to it through a high resolution system.
 
Don't want to stray of topic, but we are discussing DACs. Where exactly do the hi-rez files originate? I know little or nothing about recording and mastering, but my guess would be that the only source suitable for conversion to 24/192 resolution would be the masters or copies of them. I have found that alot of the files available at HD Tracks and others are vinyl rips. I have been doing some vinyl ripping of my own, using a borrowed Benchmark ADC. I was told that converting vinyl to anything above redbook was a waste of time, but I found ripping to 24/96 gives me the best results. The editing software I use, to remove pops and clicks and so on seems to do a better job with more data. Back to my original thought, I noticed NAD has released a DAC that is capable of 32 bit / 384 khz resolution. What for? Are they hoping that at some point the recording studios will begin producing hi-rez along with other formats for general consumption? Just wondering if these capabilities available now are worth spending money for.

Cheers,
Shawn
 
All sounds very promising (John), do you folks have any idea yet if this will be a one or two chassis dac?  I know that one of the recent prototypes shown was in 2 chassis, but was that for prototype purposes, or is the final dac looking like it will need to be configured as such?

I've got some good time on my CEntrance DAC Mini now and I'm not really warming up to it as I had thought I would, which is opening the door for the BH dac to be part of my stereomour/Orcas system, but rack space is at a real premium and I'm not sure I could manage a 2-chassis configuration.

Thanks for any info you can share,

Jim
 
How many boxes is really up to Doc and PJ, but the current thinking is that it will be a single box, with an optional external power supply to get it to REALLY sing.

Power supply isolation is one of the critical issues with DACs, but to do this DAC full bore will take so many power transformers and chokes that there is no way to fit it all in one box. So the idea is that the base unit will include the power supplies needed to make it sound very good, and have a second box that will bring it over the top.

You will be able to add the external supply at any time so you can buy the base unit first then add the external supply if and when you wish to.

I hope you don't get the impression the base unit is going to sound bad, far from it, In the lab right now I have it running with a power supply configuration close to what will be in the base unit and it smokes everything else I've ever heard (I'm just slightly biased). Maybe "smoked" was the wrong word to use for a tube based DAC, but I hope you get the idea.

John S.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
I solved the hum in my SEX 3.0 amp, but that has raised a question
Replies
1
Views
3K
Paul Birkeland
Paul Birkeland
ALL212
Twisted Pear DAC - ESS Sabre PRO Series ES9038
Replies
1
Views
1K
Paul Birkeland
Paul Birkeland
V
Considering Crack as first HA... a cure for headphone apathy?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Paul Birkeland
Paul Birkeland
A
BeePree w/ Integrated DAC
Replies
0
Views
3K
andrewoliverhall
A
D
Xiang Sheng Tube DAC-01
Replies
5
Views
14K
Mike B
M
Back
Top