Bel Canto DAC3

[humanflyz]

So I was reading the manufacture's literatue on the DAC3 when I came across this:

"100 dB of digital level control in accurate 0.5 dB steps"

Does that mean the volume is digitally controlled? And if so, does this mean that a lower volume will result in a loss of resolution?

Wait, then I came across this: "The noise floor of this DAC/processor is so low and so clean that the Dac3 is optimally used as a complete DAC/Preamplifier with a digital level control. Because of dither applied to the 24bit word there is no loss of effective resolution."

I am not really a technical-minded person, so I was hoping someone can tell me if what Bel Canto is saying is true, or if it's just marketing.

[Dusty Chalk]

Well if they apply their dither post-upsampling, there's nothing stopping them from providing the digital volume control post-upsampling as well, so there's less loss of resolution (try saying that three times real fast). I mean, if you cut the volume in half after you upsample, you've still lost one bit of resolution, but that's after you've added 8. Sort of (you haven't really added any information). But in terms of pure math it's accurate.

But it all depends on the gain of the amp you have after it. If that gain is ridiculous (such as the Musical Fidelity A300^CR, which has enough gain to hear a circuit "shifting" [compensating for something -- I don't remember what]), you're still going to have to turn the volume down a lot, which means you're still going to be back down in low res territory. But that might mean that you're back down in 16 bit territory, so -- no loss, no gain. Well, you will gain fidelity, because then you've bypassed the entire preamp stage(s) -- accomplished entirely in the digital arena.

This is all hypothetically speaking -- I need to hear the thing, which I haven't.

[grawk]

And of course bits don't affect resolution, just dynamics.

[TheSloth]

Well if they apply their dither post-upsampling, there's nothing stopping them from providing the digital volume control post-upsampling as well, so there's less loss of resolution (try saying that three times real fast). I mean, if you cut the volume in half after you upsample, you've still lost one bit of resolution, but that's after you've added 8. Sort of (you haven't really added any information). But in terms of pure math it's accurate.

But it all depends on the gain of the amp you have after it. If that gain is ridiculous (such as the Musical Fidelity A300^CR, which has enough gain to hear a circuit "shifting" [compensating for something -- I don't remember what]), you're still going to have to turn the volume down a lot, which means you're still going to be back down in low res territory. But that might mean that you're back down in 16 bit territory, so -- no loss, no gain. Well, you will gain fidelity, because then you've bypassed the entire preamp stage(s) -- accomplished entirely in the digital arena.

This is all hypothetically speaking -- I need to hear the thing, which I haven't.

That's exactly how Wadia have always done it, but they give the volume level at which you will be going below 16bit, so at least you know what you're getting without having to measure it.

[Dusty Chalk]

And of course bits don't affect resolution, just dynamics.

No, actually it affects resolution as well.

[TheSloth]

No, actually it affects resolution as well.

Correct, assuming you mean that more and more music signal is being pushed into the noise floor as you decrease the bit rate.

[grawk]

Except that you're not pushing anything into the noise floor when you use a digital volume control. Bits is dynamics, sample rate is resolution. Once the recording is mastered, the noise floor is set.

[Dusty Chalk]

No, sample rate is frequency response. Resolution...think of it this way -- if you have 24 bits, it doesn't just increase the range of values from the loudest to the softest, it also increases the number of steps between two very close sets of values -- that, to me, is resolution. Literally.

Think this hypothetical example through: if you have a 16/44.1 recording, and the same recording at 24/44.1, what have you gained? Your frequency response is going to be exactly the same (best case == brick wall at ~<22kHz). But the waveforms are still going to be able to be more precise.

When I listen to a 24/96 recording (e.g. a "DAD" or DVD-Audio), I don't just hear an increase in frequency response, I hear better separation between instruments. I don't hear different dynamics, because if it's the same recording, the dynamics are roughly the same. There might be a better noise floor, but the real improvements are in the microdynamics, not the macrodynamics.

[Dusty Chalk]

Correct, assuming you mean that more and more music signal is being pushed into the noise floor as you decrease the bit rate.

Technically, you're not decreasing the bit rate until you chop off the top 8 bits.

[deepak]

jhm731- We didn't directly compare the DAC3 with the Transporter, however we did compare the DAC3 with the Lavry. It wasn't exhaustive, just a quick comparison since we had both units in the same room. I can tell you that I would choose the Lavry over the DAC3, but without a more thorough listen I hesitate to try and remember the details that went in to my decision. Keep in mind that on a scale of 0-100, if the Lavry is a 99, then the DAC3 is a 98.999.

The Transporter/Dodson/Blue Circle combo was 99.4 compared to the SB2/Lavry.

-Ben

Someone on the Slim Devices forum that did a direct comparison of DA10 vs DAC3 for anyone that cares.

Seeing how both have preamp capabilities the DAC3 is looking really overpriced right now.

[philodox]

Those numbers... so accurate... this 'Ben' guy must really know his stuff!!!!!!111!!!!!one

[deepak]

Those numbers... so accurate... this 'Ben' guy must really know his stuff!!!!!!111!!!!!one

I think he's just trying to say the DACs are very similar...I don't think that hurts his credibility

[humanflyz]

There are several things which the DAC3 have that make it more appealing to me than the Lavry.

1) USB input: not a make or break thing, but nice to have

2) Single-ended AND balanced output: Sometimes I am too lazy to switch cables for the Lavry if I want to switch amps.

3) Fixed AND variable output: This would make it easier to integrate if I ever change the rest of my gear.

4) Remote control: Yes, I'm lazy

If the DAC3 manage to sound just as good as my Lavry, I feel the rest of the features will give it an edge over the Lavry.

[deepak]

edit: the entire thread has some good info because they had 2 people listening and switching back and forth. But the thread was mainly for Lavry vs Transporter.

(aahhhh why is there limited time for edits)

There are several things which the DAC3 have that make it more appealing to me than the Lavry.

1) USB input: not a make or break thing, but nice to have

2) Single-ended AND balanced output: Sometimes I am too lazy to switch cables for the Lavry if I want to switch amps.

3) Fixed AND variable output: This would make it easier to integrate if I ever change the rest of my gear.

4) Remote control: Yes, I'm lazy

If the DAC3 manage to sound just as good as my Lavry, I feel the rest of the features will give it an edge over the Lavry.

No kidding it pretty much sucks since Dan Lavry himself shot down the idea of a remote for the DA10

[philodox]

Those features are great... but this thing costs more than twice as much right?

[tiberian]

Those features are great... but this thing costs more than twice as much right?

it retails for $2500, but if you get it from todd, it is a bit cheaper.

[granodemostasa]

Hi.

i'm wondering if there hvae been any reviews or other impressions of the unit yet? Thanks