[Review] DAC64 £2,000 vs. Behringer DEQ2496 £200

DAC64 £2,000 vs. Behringer DEQ2496 £200

Okay well a while back Ya-Boo bought his TACT RCS2.2x over to my place and I plugged it into my system as a DAC and pre-amp. The improvements over using the DAC in the Behringer DEQ2496 and the Ming Da MC-7R pre-amp were quite obvious.

This lead me to think it was time to upgrade my DAC. The Ming Da pre-amp, I thought, was pretty good as it was but was bettered by the TACT so if I could get a DAC pre-amp then that would be great.

The Stello DAC/pre-amp seemed good and was in my price range but I wanted to hold out for something better like a second hand Wadia or something.

Now I have always liked Thorstens Music First passive pre-amp so when I saw a Django come on to eBay for a good price I bought it. This freed my options up to get any DAC I liked.

The Django bought nearly all the benefits that using the TACT in my system did so I was quite keen to try a better DAC as well to see just how good it could get! The DAC, I thought, was probably more of a bottleneck than the pre-amp.

I went to Rochester Hi-Fi and borrowed the Chord DAC64. Took it home and plugged it in.

I gave it a day of music before making any judgements because it was pretty cold when I got it. However, it was a month run in already.

I wired it up by taking the AES/EBU signal from my transport into the Behringer to do room correction and then on out as AES/EBU into the DAC64.

After listening to it for quite a while and a/b’ing it with the Behringer DEQ2496 main outs…. There was not a lot of difference!

It took a lot of listening to come to the conclusion that the DAC64 did have the upper hand. It had slightly better imaging and slightly better bass control and dynamics. It did also have a slightly brighter sound though and I can see what people mean about the high end having a ‘metallic sheen’. The difference really was VERY small.

This couldn’t be right I thought! How can a £200 Behringer box of gadgets measure up to a £2,000 separate DAC?!

I then tried it plugged directly into the transport in case going through the DEQ2496, even just as digital, was limiting it. … Nope! I thought it sounded a tiny bit better than the DEQ2496 like this but then the DEQ2496 was being fed from an optical calbe and the DAC64 from a AES/EBU so it should have the upper hand.

Thinking about it for a while I decided that maybe my low-end transport was limiting it. I suppose the improvement the TACT RCS bought to my system must have been from swapping out the pre-amp, not the DAC as I had thought.

Back to Rochester Hi-Fi I went to borrow the Chord Blu transport as well! I told John that the DAC64 had not made an improvement on the DEQ2496 and he was quite happy to end the transport as well He was surprised though I think.

Doubtful at this point that the transport would make any difference either (after all, its only 1s and 0s), I plugged it in. Again it had the usual few hours to warm up before I dared to listen critically.

‘Hmm.. it does sound a bit better I think ’

I got down to some serious listening last night and yes… I can say for sure that this transport made an improvement to my system. BUT did it take the DAC64 to a higher level over the £200 DEQ2496?


What do you think??


Nope!

The Chord Blu transport improved the sound considerably, but it improved both the DAC64 and the DEQ2496 equally!! In fact it narrowed the gap between them.

All music had a lot more detail and refinement and just seemed to flow more like ‘real’ music. The soundstage also seemed wider. More dynamics too. Lovely-jovely : )

Listening to jazz or vocal music, the DEQ2496 actually had the edge over the DAC64. Simply because the unnatural treble made the vocals and acoustic instruments sound unnatural. The DEQ2496 sounded more ‘organic’. It is almost like the DAC64 has some harmonic excitement in the treble as well as something like a .25dB boost from about 10KHz up.

On classical the DAC64 did have the advantage though. The treble helped to give better definition to the soundstage and the slightly better dynamics helped as well.

Now one of the reasons I thought the DEQ2496 might be able to keep up with the DAC64 with this new transport is because it upsamples to 88.2KHz, thus letting the DEQ2496 work in a higher sample rate. This is why I asked about transports with upsampling.

On the back of the Chord Blu transport there is a little switch as it happens. This switch changes between 44.1KHz and 88.2KHz so I switched it in to 44.1KHz to se if ti was sounding better because of higher sample rates or because it was simply a better transport. Weeeelll…. I think 88.2KHz has a slightly more open and detailed soundstage and treble… but it is really very hard to tell. It may just be my imagination. So yeah, the improvement was just because it was as better transport, not because of the up-sampling.

Throughout all of these different settings and tests the DEQ2496 kept a steady pace with the DAC64. Also throughout all of this the DAC64 had slightly better imaging and dynamics but was brighter and had a slightly unnatural ‘excited’ sounding treble. But the DEQ2496 was more natural and somehow easier to listen to and maybe more enjoyable. Oh, and one tenth the cost!

I believe with some mods to the DEQ2496 it could actually surpass the DAC64.

I am now on the lookout for a transport I can actually afford (£4k is too much!) and sounds about as good as the Blu.

Now… I know a lot of you peeps here will say I am talking rubbish or can’t hear properly. I was very surprised as well and completely expected the DAC64 to beat the DEQ2496 in to the ground. But it didn’t. I am happy to show this to anyone who wants to drag a DAC64 down to my place or can come to hear it in the next week before I take it back to the shop. I would actually like someone to confirm what I am hearing!

Also, before anyone suggests that my system jst isn’t revealing enough t show the difference… well that’s rubbish. My system is VERY, VERY revealing. To me, most of what Hi-Fi is about is to hear the most detail possible on the disc. In a pleasant sounding way of course. I won’t brag too much about my system, anyone who doubts it or wants to hear it is more than welcome to turn up and do so.

 

Nice write Simon.
All I will say, in my system (And bear in mind I don't like either of the 2 pieces) the Dac 64 was significantly better.(And I find the 64 totally un natural LOL!!!)
Different system different result, thats Hifi !!!!

 

I am not surprised at all.

 

Really... hmm.. I was under the impression that the DAC64 was supposed to be very good and impressive sounding apart from having an unnatural high end and being a bit fatiguing.

What would you expect to beat the DEQ2496 and DAC64 then?

I think after hearing the improvement from the Chord Blu, @I am going to put whatever money I can gather to a transport and mod the DEQ2496 to the extreme under Thorstens guidance. (Because he is ever so kind and I'm sure he will help me do it or I stand no chance lol )

 

If the DIY approach appeals, maybe any cd player you like and one of Guido Tent's little X03 boards could be the answer for your transport? It's one of the places I'd look first...:

http://www.tentlabs.com/ProductEntities/XO-2/XO2.html
http://www.hificollective.co.uk/kits/tl_xo-23.html

 

Or... I could use a wordclock.
Would this solve jitter problems and basically mean I can use external DAC's without the problems usually associated with doing so? All I need then is any old transport with a word clock input right? Word clocks are normally pretty expensive but I saw one made by a company called Lucid which seems good and is pretty cheap.

..thats one advantage of using studio gear

Does anyone have experience of using wordclock's?

 

I'm new to the DEQ2496 and a bit confused about how it connects. Can you use it as a DAC direct from the CD transport ouput or do you have to use the phono outputs?

 

You can use it as a DAC.... it only has toslink (optical) or AES/EBU (XLR) digital inputs, but can accept SPDIF data on the AES/EBU input if you use an xlr adapter on the coax cable from your CD player.

 

This should help

 

Hi,

The DEQ supports the wordclock input only with analog sources, not digital.

MY PERSONAL recommendation would be rather unusual.

First, hack the analog outputs of the DEQ as already discussed.

Second, get a transport that is "known good" for excellent error handling (eg all the old Philips Swingarm types, a simple PC with EAC and ripping and bitaccurate Digital output) and provide a good quality clock to the unit, ideally with S/P-DIF reclocking.

Reconfigure the Output to AES/EBU Standard, that is fully balanced drive and 5V P-P instead of 0.5V PP.

Ciao T

 

Sorry you lost me on that one! ... are you saying a good transport such as the swingarm type OR a PC? Not that I want both?

What do I provide the clock via S/P-DIF to? Surely I want to provide the same clock to both the DAC and the transport. (my current transport accepts a wordclock on an optical cable but I have not seen any wordclocks that output optiacal!)

Could I not pump the clock directly into the DAC chip so it clocks the digital input from that?

BTW I had a look at the board in the 2496 today and I can't see any opamps after the audio outs from the DAC chip at all. Maybe I am just blind but it looks to me like they go right into the ribbon cable and then to the outputs?

 

Hi,

Using a PC with CD's ripped (direct DAE usually shows very poor error correction!!!) via EAC to the HD will have ideally no errors and with a suitable digital output low jitter.

The whole wordclock thing is a fundamental issue. You cannot use the word clock to drive the DEQ2496 wordclock input, UNLESS you use analog inputs.

Your transport's clock input may actually not be wordclock but systemclock. It was meant to be used with the matching DAC.

In order to improve the DEQ's clock you would have to hack main PCB to reclock the data out from the receiver and then send that clock suitably "processed & formatted" to your transport.

That is major hacking and is not neccesarily or reliably better than not doing it.

The DEQ has a rather uncommon AKM Tranceiver whith an unhackable PLL. All in all the best thing is to send as good a signal into the DEq and hope for the best....

There are on the board with the XLR connectors and are below the board....

Ciao T

 

Ahh.. those tricky under-board components! That must by why my soundstange is upsidedown

I actually find that my computer sounds worse than my transport. I guessed it was because I was using an optical out rather than AES/EBU from my transport. That and the power supply to the audio interface is not that good. It seems like a tricky job to get a low jitter output from a PC. Easier to just buy a transport.

To be honest I think I might be getting close to the limits of CD. I would love to go SACD or DVD-A but I get the impression it is not going to take off. Who knows, maybe I will go to the dark side next, but I can't find much of my music on either format.

I got some of the bits for my mod today. (though I forgot two resistors and some heatshrink so had to make a second order, ****!) I am going to make a nice pure silver cable to do the connection as well, since I have to make it for the 5pin XLR anyhow. Since you explained the shield isn’t doing much I am scrapping that and it will be balanced anyway so fingers crossed I wont have any interference problems. It then goes though 4m of copper wire to the amps anyway so.. yeah maybe I am mad!

 

DEQ2496 modification phase 1 complete!

The heatshrink I order 2 weeks ago finally arrived today so I made the mod to the Behringer.

Now since adding the Django preamp I had found the sound slightly more harsh than I was used to. It was still by no standards 'harsh' but it was more than I was used to. Adding a Chord DAC 64 wasn't any better and while adding a Chord Blu transport improved the soundstage, imaging, detail significantly, once I removed it I realised it was actually making the harshness A LOT worse! Having only added the Django a week or so ago, I had not quite realised it until I removed it from my system.

I bypassed the main output stages completely which Throsten tells me consists of 3 op-amps in series which are not only poor quality but drive the output of the DAC chip into low levels of IMD. I took a line directly from the DAC chip itself (well a little bit down the circuit board actually) and fed that via a simple RF filter to a 5pin XLR plug I installed on the side of the DEQ2496. I then made a pure silver braided cable to take the signal from that 5pin XLR to two standard L/R XLR's.

As I was only planning to make this mod once, I used the best components I could get. Precision wire-wound resisters, Suflex foil caps and cryogenically frozen AND heat treated pure silver 0.4mm wire, PTFE insulation and Neutrik plugs and sockets.

So, I was pinning a lot of hope on modding the DEQ. Especially as Thorsten commented on the IMD, this is exactly what I thought I could hear. Very similar to what I don't like about the valve power amps I have heard.

It worked first time Nothing was broken!

Now after 10min just to warm up the new components a little, WOW! I can play music much louder than before without it making me uncomfortable. The way it should be! I have been able to put the treble levels back closer to a flat response on the DEQ now, which I had turned down a bit due to the harsh sound, but hadn't found it really fixed the problem. It had been more of a plaster!

40min in to listening now and immediately I can tell the imaging is better. It is truly scary now! Kev - its even better than it was with the TACT. Bass detail is improved as well, I can hear more of the 'fingers' on the bass guitar and its tighter, more dynamic (it makes me jump a bit actually, I need to get used to it!) Detail is also much improved. Perhaps due to being able to have the treble/midrange levels higher without it being fatiguing. I think there is simply more detail as well though. The trailing decay of notes and all that.

If you have a transformer based pre-amp, the DEQ2496 can be a FAR better DAC than a Chord DAC64 or many others for that matter. All you need is a little bit of solder and a steady hand.

Thank you Evil Samurai! :buddies:

Now I said 'phase 1' because I would also like to upgrade the power supply at some stage. Thorsten, I know without using the main output stages only one power line is required for the digital section, but would it be possible to keep the existing supply for the analogue sections and use a better one for the digital? I am guessing if they have different voltages, then they are completely separated circuits anyway?

Now if I get a DCX Xover, I will have to make the mod TWICE to that!

Anybody at all interested may come and listen. I am always happy to meet new people.

 

Hi,

eXcellent. Well done.

If you don't have a TVC pre you can still get a lot of this performance.

You could add an outboard box with a pair of S&B TX-101 (the granddaddy of the 100 series and in effect largely a 102 without taps).

Or you can fit internally a suitable transformer (1:1 or 1:2) that can handle +8dbu @ 20Hz on the "1" side and has around 10K nominal impedance (in a pinch a 2k5:10K unit could be used) of suitable quality. I am working with Stevens & Billington on a unit specifically designed for this application.

As the DAC used in the DCX/DEQ can drive a 1K2 AC load between it's two balanced output lines without problems the worst case allowable load after the transformer would be around 5KOhm with a 1:2 transformer (and a quarter of that for 1:1), good enough for pretty much any audi application.

FWIW the output level with a 1:1 transformer is around 1.75V (+7dbu) RMS and 3.5V (+13dbu) with the 1:2 transformer, so well suited to domestic audio systems.

You are most welcome, glad I could help.

You really want to eliminate that switch mode supply and if you want to fit a linear supply inside to give 8V (unregulated), 5V & 3.3V (regulated) you will need the realestate.

I would suggest that having had a good idea what performance is possible you might want to consider giving the idea of a comprehensive re-build a go.

Replace both input and output analog stages by transformers, having the extra wordclock input and the passive transformer based analog stage on the inputs will give you an exceptional quality A2D converter, keeping your direct outputs but adding an internal transformer analog stage would give you full functionality.

Then remove the swiched mode supply and build an excellent 2-piece supply, a transformer and basic rectification in an external box (commercial supply with minor mods will do) and use the space formerly occupied by the switch mode supply to get excellent regulators for the 3.3 & 5V analog supplies for ADC & DAC chip's plus a nice clock & receiver supply.

This is a major effort, BUT it should max out the capabilities of the unit without major mechanical mods.

Ciao T

PS, for others, don't ask me to do these mods for you or to give detailed instructions. If Simon likes he can commercialise a mod package once we develop it...

 

That is something I'd find pretty interesting, so long as the mods aren't too difficult.

 

I feel a T & T partnership word be good what do you say guys?

 

Hi,

It's up to Simon. With the more major commercial ventures absorbing more and more time (and unlikely to change soon) I won't be doing much mod work anymore, at least untill I can quit the dayjob. If Simon wants to pick up some of that, fine with me.

Ciao T

 

I'd order one if you also put in the clock as per the PF forum.

 

Mine arrived today - how much would the mods cost?