February 2015 SAC Meeting
For our February meeting we had a DAC comparison event. On the day we had 5 DACs to compare;
Two lower priced DACs (our lightweight category), the Chord Hugo, NAD M51 and Audio Note Zero DAC and two more pricey DACs (our heavyweight category) the Chord QBD76 and the Bricasti Design M1.
Being realistic a heavyweight DAC category would include the uber expensive DACs like the Trinity DAC (the 2015 POTY DAC winner at the Sound and Image Awards 2015 in Melbourne), the Light Harmonic Da Vinci, the dCS Vivaldi, plus many others. Alas, we didn’t have any of those on the day.
For more information on the DACs we did have;
Chord Hugo Reference – courtesy of Goran Sasic of Sydney HiFi Castle Hill. Refer to https://www.sydneyhificastlehill.com.au/shop/amplifiers-headphones/chord-electronics-hugo-reference-dac-headphone-amp/ and see a review by HiFi+ at http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/first-listen-chord-electronics-hugo-portable-high-res-dacheadphone-amp/
NAD M51 – Refer to http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2012/04/nad-m51-digital-direct-dac-initial-impressions/ for John Darko and friends’ very favourable impression when comparing it to a couple of other DACs.
Audio Note Zero DAC 0.1x – A late unplanned inclusion in our lightweight category courtesy of Bryan Fletcher of Finn Bespoke Technology Pty Ltd. Refer to http://www.audionote.com.au/Audio_Note_Australia/Audio_Note_Australia.html.
Chord QBD76 HDSD – courtesy of Goran Sasic of Sydney HiFi Castle Hill. Refer to https://www.sydneyhificastlehill.com.au/shop/dacs/chord-electronics-qbd76-hdsd-dac/. See a review by HiFi+ at http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/chord-electronics-qbd76-hdsd-digital-to-analogue-converter-hi-fi/
Bricasti Design M1 – Refer to http://i.nextmedia.com.au/avhub/australian-hifi_reviews_2014_2014-07_bricasti_design_m1_dac_review_test_lores.pdf and http://www.audiostream.com/content/bricasti-design-m1-dac
The supporting act included:
Marantz SA-11S1 – refer to http://www.marantz.asia/ap/pages/home.aspx and http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue28/marantz_sa11.htm
Wyred 4 Sound MS-1 Music Server – refer to https://wyred4sound.com/products/music-servers/music-server-ms-1
Classe CP800 pre – connected to the power amp via Vertere XLR. Refer to http://www.classeaudio.com/products/cp-800.php and http://www.stereophile.com/content/class233-cp-800-da-preamplifier.
Plinius SA250 Mk4 amp – connected to speakers with Nordost Frey. Refer to http://www.pliniusaudio.com/Plinius_Range/Power_Amplifiers/SA_Reference.html and http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/506plinius/index.html.
Energy Veritas 1.8 Floorstander speakers – these are older speakers now but still sound good. These were last at the club back in January 2012. Refer to http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/energy-speaker-systems/veritas-v1-8/prd_122534_1594crx.aspx and http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/551/
We chose three tracks to test the DAC with:
First, we compared the lightweight DACs to each other. We played the above three tracks through the NAD M51 and then we switched the cabling and played the same three tracks through the Hugo, then repeated the process with the Audio Note Zero DAC. We then took a vote by a show of hands. The Hugo did have the advantage but possibly because its output was higher and therefore it sounded louder. As you no doubt know, the louder product usually sounds like the better product to most people. This was no exception, the Hugo did sound better. Unfortunately we didn’t have a SPL meter on hand to match levels before the event started. (I will discuss this with the committee to remedy the issue.)
So in summary, the Hugo was voted the best of the lightweight DACs by a fair margin. I am certainly not suggesting it was an unworthy winner, only that the comparisons should have provided a more level playing field.
Next up were the heavyweight DACs. We had intended to play three hi-res tracks (i.e. better than 44.1kHz 16bit). These were to be different tracks from those played in the lightweight DAC comparison but many in the audience wanted to hear the same tracks on all the DACs. As we are a Club run for members and as it was a reasonable request this is what we did, easily organised using the Wyred 4 Sound music server. We played the three tracks through the QBD76 HDSD first and then we switched the cabling and played the same three tracks through the Bricasti M1. We then again took a vote by a show of hands.
The QDB76 HDSD did sound noticeably louder again, possibly 2-3+ dB louder than the Bricasti M1. It seems to be in the Chord DNA. I had to adjust the levels by a couple of dB for the Bricasti to compensate. But nevertheless, the Bricasti won the vote by a large margin; 8 votes for the QBD76 HDSD to over 20 for the Bricasti M1, with some undecided.
I explained one of the reasons that may have helped the Bricasti M1 win so decisively. It was set to use a minimum phase filter rather than the more typical linear filter found in most CD players and DACs. The technology behind the minimum phase filter was developed by Meridian a number of years ago. What it basically does is eliminate the pre-ringing often heard in CD – pre-ringing is thought by many to be the main cause of the CD “sound” or digital harshness that many dislike. The technology actually doesn’t totally eliminate the ringing, but rather it shifts it after the impulse such that the ringing isn’t as intrusive or unpleasant. I explained that the Bricasti M1 has 9 linear phase filter, 6 minimum phase filters and 3 DSD filters.
Lastly, we played a 176.4kHz, 24bit track of Stravinsky’s Firebird (Reference Recordings label) through the music server into the Bricasti M1 to demonstrate what real hi-res can sound like. We chose this track because we knew it did indeed sound impressive and was real hi-res and the expression on the faces of many at the meeting confirmed that. Unfortunately, music promoted as hi-res can sometimes just be up-sampled CD/Redbook. This isn’t doing the real hi-res market any favours – people listen to these purported hi-res tracks, become very disenchanted and then simply go back to their CDs. Whoever markets these downloads needs to take better care and provide providence of their recordings, at the least.
We then announced that we would use the Bricasti M1 for the rest of the meeting. We used the Marantz CD/SACD player as a transport only, feeding the Bricasti M1 with a digital coax cable.
The system tonality, resolution and musicality changed somewhat with each DAC. I quite liked the Audio Note and NAD DACs – both sounded sweet, resolving and not clinical or hard. The Hugo sounded somewhat bright and lean to me but would certainly impress for short periods of time. The more expensive Chord QDB76 HDSD was a definite improvement over the Hugo – it was bolder, detailed, fuller, bigger sounding but ultimately not truly relaxed sounding. The Bricasti M1 sounded expansive, very detailed and precise with excellent tonality and yet sounded relaxed, like it was always well within its limits. I thought that that was partly the reason the Bricasti M1 was voted best on the day.
This month we didn’t have a member’s music segment because we knew that comparing 5 different DACs would be time-consuming.
Apart from the DACs, the remaining gear was mostly provided by Committee member Steven Polley with the additional transport and help of member Marc Dargent. Thanks guys. Much appreciated.
Tom Waters
Summary of member feedback:
Two lower priced DACs (our lightweight category), the Chord Hugo, NAD M51 and Audio Note Zero DAC and two more pricey DACs (our heavyweight category) the Chord QBD76 and the Bricasti Design M1.
Being realistic a heavyweight DAC category would include the uber expensive DACs like the Trinity DAC (the 2015 POTY DAC winner at the Sound and Image Awards 2015 in Melbourne), the Light Harmonic Da Vinci, the dCS Vivaldi, plus many others. Alas, we didn’t have any of those on the day.
For more information on the DACs we did have;
Chord Hugo Reference – courtesy of Goran Sasic of Sydney HiFi Castle Hill. Refer to https://www.sydneyhificastlehill.com.au/shop/amplifiers-headphones/chord-electronics-hugo-reference-dac-headphone-amp/ and see a review by HiFi+ at http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/first-listen-chord-electronics-hugo-portable-high-res-dacheadphone-amp/
NAD M51 – Refer to http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2012/04/nad-m51-digital-direct-dac-initial-impressions/ for John Darko and friends’ very favourable impression when comparing it to a couple of other DACs.
Audio Note Zero DAC 0.1x – A late unplanned inclusion in our lightweight category courtesy of Bryan Fletcher of Finn Bespoke Technology Pty Ltd. Refer to http://www.audionote.com.au/Audio_Note_Australia/Audio_Note_Australia.html.
Chord QBD76 HDSD – courtesy of Goran Sasic of Sydney HiFi Castle Hill. Refer to https://www.sydneyhificastlehill.com.au/shop/dacs/chord-electronics-qbd76-hdsd-dac/. See a review by HiFi+ at http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/chord-electronics-qbd76-hdsd-digital-to-analogue-converter-hi-fi/
Bricasti Design M1 – Refer to http://i.nextmedia.com.au/avhub/australian-hifi_reviews_2014_2014-07_bricasti_design_m1_dac_review_test_lores.pdf and http://www.audiostream.com/content/bricasti-design-m1-dac
The supporting act included:
Marantz SA-11S1 – refer to http://www.marantz.asia/ap/pages/home.aspx and http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue28/marantz_sa11.htm
Wyred 4 Sound MS-1 Music Server – refer to https://wyred4sound.com/products/music-servers/music-server-ms-1
Classe CP800 pre – connected to the power amp via Vertere XLR. Refer to http://www.classeaudio.com/products/cp-800.php and http://www.stereophile.com/content/class233-cp-800-da-preamplifier.
Plinius SA250 Mk4 amp – connected to speakers with Nordost Frey. Refer to http://www.pliniusaudio.com/Plinius_Range/Power_Amplifiers/SA_Reference.html and http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/506plinius/index.html.
Energy Veritas 1.8 Floorstander speakers – these are older speakers now but still sound good. These were last at the club back in January 2012. Refer to http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/energy-speaker-systems/veritas-v1-8/prd_122534_1594crx.aspx and http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/551/
We chose three tracks to test the DAC with:
- He Got You – Sarah K with Chris Jones. (Pop/Folk)
- To Finally, Uncompressed World Vol.2 – Jamie Lynn Noon. (Pop/Rock)
- Chopin Fantaisie Impromptu in C sharp minor, op.66 / Piano Concerto No.1 & Others – Maria Joao Pires (piano), Chamber Orchestra of Europe & Emmanuel Krivine. (Classical)
First, we compared the lightweight DACs to each other. We played the above three tracks through the NAD M51 and then we switched the cabling and played the same three tracks through the Hugo, then repeated the process with the Audio Note Zero DAC. We then took a vote by a show of hands. The Hugo did have the advantage but possibly because its output was higher and therefore it sounded louder. As you no doubt know, the louder product usually sounds like the better product to most people. This was no exception, the Hugo did sound better. Unfortunately we didn’t have a SPL meter on hand to match levels before the event started. (I will discuss this with the committee to remedy the issue.)
So in summary, the Hugo was voted the best of the lightweight DACs by a fair margin. I am certainly not suggesting it was an unworthy winner, only that the comparisons should have provided a more level playing field.
Next up were the heavyweight DACs. We had intended to play three hi-res tracks (i.e. better than 44.1kHz 16bit). These were to be different tracks from those played in the lightweight DAC comparison but many in the audience wanted to hear the same tracks on all the DACs. As we are a Club run for members and as it was a reasonable request this is what we did, easily organised using the Wyred 4 Sound music server. We played the three tracks through the QBD76 HDSD first and then we switched the cabling and played the same three tracks through the Bricasti M1. We then again took a vote by a show of hands.
The QDB76 HDSD did sound noticeably louder again, possibly 2-3+ dB louder than the Bricasti M1. It seems to be in the Chord DNA. I had to adjust the levels by a couple of dB for the Bricasti to compensate. But nevertheless, the Bricasti won the vote by a large margin; 8 votes for the QBD76 HDSD to over 20 for the Bricasti M1, with some undecided.
I explained one of the reasons that may have helped the Bricasti M1 win so decisively. It was set to use a minimum phase filter rather than the more typical linear filter found in most CD players and DACs. The technology behind the minimum phase filter was developed by Meridian a number of years ago. What it basically does is eliminate the pre-ringing often heard in CD – pre-ringing is thought by many to be the main cause of the CD “sound” or digital harshness that many dislike. The technology actually doesn’t totally eliminate the ringing, but rather it shifts it after the impulse such that the ringing isn’t as intrusive or unpleasant. I explained that the Bricasti M1 has 9 linear phase filter, 6 minimum phase filters and 3 DSD filters.
Lastly, we played a 176.4kHz, 24bit track of Stravinsky’s Firebird (Reference Recordings label) through the music server into the Bricasti M1 to demonstrate what real hi-res can sound like. We chose this track because we knew it did indeed sound impressive and was real hi-res and the expression on the faces of many at the meeting confirmed that. Unfortunately, music promoted as hi-res can sometimes just be up-sampled CD/Redbook. This isn’t doing the real hi-res market any favours – people listen to these purported hi-res tracks, become very disenchanted and then simply go back to their CDs. Whoever markets these downloads needs to take better care and provide providence of their recordings, at the least.
We then announced that we would use the Bricasti M1 for the rest of the meeting. We used the Marantz CD/SACD player as a transport only, feeding the Bricasti M1 with a digital coax cable.
The system tonality, resolution and musicality changed somewhat with each DAC. I quite liked the Audio Note and NAD DACs – both sounded sweet, resolving and not clinical or hard. The Hugo sounded somewhat bright and lean to me but would certainly impress for short periods of time. The more expensive Chord QDB76 HDSD was a definite improvement over the Hugo – it was bolder, detailed, fuller, bigger sounding but ultimately not truly relaxed sounding. The Bricasti M1 sounded expansive, very detailed and precise with excellent tonality and yet sounded relaxed, like it was always well within its limits. I thought that that was partly the reason the Bricasti M1 was voted best on the day.
This month we didn’t have a member’s music segment because we knew that comparing 5 different DACs would be time-consuming.
Apart from the DACs, the remaining gear was mostly provided by Committee member Steven Polley with the additional transport and help of member Marc Dargent. Thanks guys. Much appreciated.
Tom Waters
Summary of member feedback:
- Enjoyment of the Meeting: 4.2
- Enjoyment of the Equipment: 4.3
- Enjoyment of the Music: 3.6
- Interesting meeting!
- Great to test so much equipment
- M51 was great for its price
- Bricasti best
- Very good, too much fun
- Pink Martini
- Hugh Laurie
- Chopin