It's a mini adventure in hifi!

I know, I know. I guess what I'm saying is that if you want something substantially better, you usually have to pay quite a bit more, otherwise you end up wallowing in mid-fi limbo. After many years of doing just that, I came to my senses and bought secondhand/ex-dem some really great stuff that would have been way out of my range bought new.

 

I wonder if Dean will lend me his DAC64 for a few days? .

 

Dev thanks for posting your thoughts,

I don't think there is any DAC on this planet that will substantially better the Arcam. They all have to obey they laws of physics and at the price of the Arcam there is no reason it is not doing most things possible to get the best sound. The fact the DEQ was a little better is quite a good sign to me. Yes there is better available than bot the Arcam and the modded DEQ but its that point where you have to pay 10,000% more for another 5% performance IMO.

The unmodded DEQ2496 was every bit the DAC64s equal so I hate to think how it would fair against the modified one.

 

This rather contentious comment should put the cat amongst pigeons very nicely.

I was genuinely surprised by how good the Behringer was in comparison to the Entech, must have been the lousy digital cable we used for the Entech.

 

I refuse to rise to this obvious trolling. A secondhand DAC64 can be had for a grand or so; team it up with a Meridian 500 transport for £500 and Bob's yer uncle.

 

I know, I know... but thats how it was. I was surprised myself so I even went and got hold of the £4k Chord Blu transport to give the DAC64 the best chance of bettering the unmodded DEQ. But it didn't, it just sounded a little different. In fact I think the DEQ sounded more natural and the DAC64 a bit artificial like it had a raised treble just a bit, this sounded good for classical though, more alive. Listening was through a Django Amorphous cored passive pre-amp in to a pair of PMC AML1s (active).

 

I'm sorry you feel that I'm trolling Joe. I recently bought a SB3 and was offered the chance to try a modifed Behringer DAC with it to see what I thought of it. Some of the comments were a bit tongue in cheek but nothing more than that. I'm certainly not in the market for a DAC just yet, simply because I'm skint. Perhaps soon.

 

dont believe it!

happy to be proven wrong, but I just don't believe it's as good as a Dac 64..

 

[bait] Amazing what a pretty box can do, isn't it [/bait]

If you are ever in the market for a DAC Chris then let me know and I will see if I can lend you the modded DEQ.

Actually Isaac was going to have a DAC bake-off at some point, so if that ever happens (or someone else wants to host one) that would be really interesting. I would do it myself if I had the space.

 

I wasn't accusing you of trolling!

 

Oops,I'll shut up now:shame:

 

I don't believe a stock DEQ is as good as the DAC64 either - the Behringer uses the same DAC chip as my M-Audio Superdac, and its other components are about the same level for both the DEQ and the Superdac as standard - damn cheap!

Given how poor my Superdac was when unmodded I can't see the DEQ being much better given its componentry and cost (the behringer and superdac cost the same give or take £50, and use cheap components throughout as standard). A modded DEQ or Superdac, sure, but as stock? Would be most surprised if either got anywhere close to the DAC64

 

Well, quite. Unless of course one was using some duff speakers that made everything sound the same.

 

Well come on then, one of you disbelievers, lets have a DAC bake-off and see what happens!

I can certainly bring the modded DEQ. Maybe someone can bring an unmodded unit. Who has a DAC64? Maybe Julian could bring his AudioSynthesis? What else is out there? NOS dac?

 

Could be, but I don’t think the £4k active PMC AML1s in a fully acoustically treated listening room count as duff.

 

I've owned the DEQ and compared directly to the SuperDAC I used to have. I also compared the DAC64 to the superDAC, and the DEQ was no where close. The unmodded DEQ was trounced by the modded superDAC, and many people heard the superDAC vs the DAC64 both at my place and rob's, and never once was it suggested that the superDAC was better than the 64.

I'm perfectly happy to believe that the DEQ can be modded up quite nicely... some of the bits inside it are very right. However, in stock form it consistently totally killed the music, even without using room EQ.

 

A lot of you are comparing the DEQ against modded dacs and dacs that are many more times the price. But none have tried it modded, so take up Tensons challenge and see. I use mine for the room correction which it does just great. The dac in this machine was the equal of my Eastsound cd player's dac which has very good bass and detailed highs, and my DEQ isn't modded. Jim.

 

Well actually my claim was that the unmodded DEQ is as good as the DAC64. And it certainly was in my system described on the last page. I guess there is system synergy to take in to account but I think its more likely the price tag and a pretty box!

There isn't exactly much of note in the DAC64 you know.. switchmode PSU, opamp output stage and DAC chip made by Chord themselfs. Oh and a buffer - I guess if you have a poor transport it might get the edge.

I'd love to get you guys who say the DAC64 is so good to do a blind comparison! Maybe I will see about doing my own bake-off. I might be able to convert a room at my Dads place to a temporary listening room.

 

You clearly have no clue what is in the DAC64 nor how it works. The buffer is an irrelevance and has no impact on the sound.

 

Really because Chord seem to believe the buffer helps reduce jitter, which hopefully has an impact on the sound.

Also I'm pretty certain the Chord Blu transport has a switchmode PSU so I am guessing the DAC64 does as well. It uses opamps for the output stage and umm.. the DAC chip is a '4th generation Pulse Array' which maybe isn't made by Chord but I have not heard of which company does make it.