My redbooks sound great through an audio alchemy DDP-1. It actually amazes me how well they sound. I listen to digital/analog about 50%/50% since I bought it a year ago. Before that I listened to digital very rarely.
Have DAC’s improved for Redbook CD playback?
So I’m contemplating getting a new DAC or DAC-pre. I own an Oppo BDP-83SE player, a Theta DS Pro Basic IIIA DAC and a Logitech Trandporter. I still use my DAC unit’s for Redbook playback.
Have DAC’s improved for Redbook CD playback?
Have DAC’s improved for Redbook CD playback?
24 responses Add your response
I play a lot of redbook CDs off my ARC Ref CD-8 CD player. The CD-8 was discontinued in 2013, but still sounds very good to me. I would appreciate hearing from some of our tech members, but here's a lay person reaction. Redbook CDs are a 30++ year old technology. I am open minded to the possibility that redbook DAC technology got better. That said, I am somewhat dubious that if one has a recent'ish very good CD player, that current redbook CD player/DAC technology will take one to a new quantum higher level. BIF |
It seems like DAC tech has gone sideways with development of alternative digital processing formats. Nothing against that as it relates to streaming. Seems like jitter control via better reclocking circuitry could largely account for the improvement. I ordered an Emperical Audio Synchro-Mesh unit, so I will see how much improvement is obtained using it. |
@celander +1 Mulveling I have tried various cables and clocks with the Benchmark DAC 3 and it makes no difference. Other DACs I have tried did benefit from these devices. Whether you see a benefit from an extra device in front of your DAC depends on how robustly your DAC rejects all jitter and any Logic Induced Modulation. I think the latest round of delta sigma DACs are just like vinyl - no digital glare at all. I found it very hard to tell the difference between any recent DAC with a reclocker vs the Benchmark DAC except in the case of a ladder DAC like the Metrum Pavane. I find the ladder DACs don’t have much glare but they often sound “etched” - IMHO the modern ladder DACs still sound like late 80’s and early 90’s DACs perhaps because the technology is similar. The delta sigmas of the late 90’s and 2000’s tend to sound less etched but often have glare. IMHO recent Delta Sigma DACs (the ESS 9028 and 9038 chips are exceptional) and very high quality ladder DACs are approaching vinyl. I think of glare as being when higher harmonics dominate the distortion that is present. I think etched is when there is more lower harmonics dominating the distortion. I believe the distortion is related to jitter, logic induced modulation and differential non linearity. Neither technology is immune to problems but the latest DACs are much better especially if you avoid USB which has been poorly implemented in many products. |
Your THETA DS PRO BASIC III has 4 x PCM1702-K R2R Multibit d/a converters in it, one of the best R2R Multibit d/a converters before they stopped production because of the high cost of manufacturing them. Then the majority of dac and cdp makers went to the far cheaper to manufacturer Delta Sigma converter, which does sacd and dsd, but myself and many others view it as not as good for Redbook pcm conversion, as it’s not "bit perfect" just a "facsimile" of the real thing, sure they sound sweet and smooth but there’s no jump or boogie factor that gives music life like the R2R Multibit dacs can. My advise to you, keep your Theta DS pro for RedBook pcm 16/44 or 24/96 and don’t forget DXD as DXD is the ultimate and it’s pcm. And if you want to listen to Sacd or DSD get a Delta Sigma based player/dac Cheers George |
@roberjerman Here is a stone fir you! Not true. Many DACs measure quite poorly. Stereophile A+ list doesn’t include every DAC they tested because only a few tested beyond reproach. I agree that audible differences are often nit-picking. However there seems to be a recent trend towards lower accuracy (more euphonic) DACs which has accelerated. I guess after a few market leaders have finally (after 30 years) produced DACs with measurement beyond reproach, the next evolution or alternative is to market euphonic coloration to distinguish your product from others... |
I don’t know over what time period you’re asking, but in the last 20 years dac chips per say have not improved greatly since NOS dac chips like the TDA1541a Double Crown or BB-1704k. Today manufacturers are doing everything they can to "get a leading edge" in technology - instead of focussing on music. Overall the dac chips gives very little to the complete sound. I would say the digital part in total would contribute no more than about 15% or so to the complete sound. The psu and analog stage, combined with pcb layout matters more. So yes, dacs have progressed significantly in the last 20 years, but not because of breakthroughs in dac chip technology. That comes down mainly to better parts (eg: caps, chokes), boards, psu’s, improved manufacturing processes etc & the natural evolution of dac topologies over time. |
Been checking out streaming sources and was thinking about a DAC for that purpose. I currently own an ARC Ref CD-8, which uses a Burr-Brown
PCM1792 chipset D/A converter. As to the OP's question about whether redbook DACs have improved much, I found the following Stereophile ARC CD-9 review interesting. https://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-cd9-cd-playerdac Notably, Fred Kaplan made the following introductory comment: "Now entering its fourth decade, the Compact Disc player seems to have reached a stage of maturity where the best models within a given price range will sound pretty much alike." Some may agree; some may not. At least from Kaplan's perspective, some of the redbook CD bells and whistles that ARC incorporated into the CD-9 didn't make a whole lot of difference. Based on that review and comments elsewhere, if I wanted to stick to redbook CD, I am not sure how motivated I would be to pick up a used CD-9. That said, Kaplan commented that the streaming DAC features of the CD-9 were pretty impressive and offered quite a bit of utility and flexibility. As I mentioned above, I have been toying with the idea of using streaming digital music as another source. If go that route, I may upgrade my CD-8 to a CD-9 for the DAC features only; not for expectations of quantum leaps of performance in the redbook CD side of the house. BIF |
OP, interesting question. IME, yes and no. It’s a very broad question, so the main answer is, “it depends”. ... on all the factors pointed out above - input and output stages, psi, DAC chip. I always used to assume products would evolve and evolve and get better, but I was wrong. Manufacturers (not high end like ARC, ETC) May advertise a NEW DAC chip, a new this or that. But often times, for every penny they put into the DAC to improve it, they will cut costs elsewhere in the DAC to increase profit margins. Two steps forward, one step back. But jitter control in commercial products has been improving, and probably one of the biggest recent tech improvements to improve SQ. IME: i have a Bel Canto DAC 3.7 with external PSU. I can feed the DAC from a SimAudio CDP via SPDIF or feed the DAC via computer via BEL CANTO Ethernet Renderer. 1. The sound from the CDP is very good, since the Sim is also an excellent transport. 2. But the signal going from the Mac via the Renderer to the DAC is a different ballgame altogether. 3. In other words, although the DAC 3.7 is excellent in and of itself, BUT it is the Renderer that takes the DAC to a whole new level in every way, but especially soundstage. 4. So then Bel Canto took all their tech (Renderer, jitter control, DAC and Class D amps, etc) and put it all in one box for $15,000. Bel Canto THEN DCed the DAC 3.7 and the Renderer, because that combo is so good that is was slowing down the sales and hype of the BC “Black EX” - $15000 all in one unit. So, does the BC Black EX offer a “better” DAC than the 3.7? Most likely, but only marginally and for a much greater cost. |
| Post removed |
I just resurrected an old DAC that I had and put it in a different system and am very pleased. I had a PS Audio Digital Link 3 sitting on a basement shelf. It’s about 10 years old and was formerly in my two channel system. It’s major weakness was that it didn’t have an asynchronous USB, and as I started to get into computer audio that became a liability, as the usb sounded awful. I had bought some sort of reclocker device from Musical Fidelity that was a very unreliable device and ultimately I added an Oppo 105 to my system and began to use the Oppo as my DAC and kicked the DLink to the curb. I meant to sell it off but forgot about it My 14 year old Plasma display broke in my Surround Sound System . The Oppo had been moved to this system but now it was incompatible with the new 4K display. I swapped an Oppo 203, which was doing transport duty in the 2 channel system, for the 105 in the Surround system, since the 203 is compatible with the newer display. However, I had been using the 105 as a DAC for a Bluesound Node2 in that System, and the 203 was clearly a step down from the 105 as a DAC. So I dusted off the PS Audio DAC and it was a Wow! moment. The Node2 just snapped into focus. I then used the coax out from the 203 into the PS Audio DAC and Redbook CD from the Oppo 203 sounds great, much better than from just using the 203 DAC. So are newer DACs better? I don’t know, man. There is a lot of life in some of these old geezer components. Now, if that was only true for their owners ad well... |
| Post removed |
mahler123 Data: PS AUDIO DL THREE 2 x PCM1702-J – DF1700P / PMD100 a DAC PCM1702 R2R Multibit dac After listening to Delta Sigma converters with those Oppo's that came after the PS DL III, welcome back to to the sound of r2r multibit, your hearing pcm as it’s supposed to be converted. And that an just ok one, imagine what a PCM1704 based one or even the new discrete ones are like. Cheers George |
The distortion and S/N of modern D/A chips is much improved over that of 10 years ago. Addition of reclockers on the S/PDIF inputs has made inexpensive DAC's better, but I don't like it on high-end DAC's. Some of the biggest improvements have been in the computer interfaces, including USB and Ethernet. These lower jitter significantly compared to transports. It is hit-and-miss though because many of these are designed by third-parties and achieving really low jitter levels is not trivial. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
The distortion and S/N of modern D/A chips is much improved over that of 10 years ago.Yes, that may have improved with Delta Sigma, but they sound bland, and musically disconnected. Proof is in what mahler123 heard in his above post compared to the old PS Digital Link MkIII. We all know that amps can be vanishingly low in distortion just by dumping a s**t load of global feedback around them, and that totally stuffs up the sound. BUT HEY! IT MEASURES WELL!! so it must sound better?? not likely. Compared to a little local feedback instead as Nelson Pass, Dan Agostino ect ect ect do. Cheers George |