Finally, the two in the pit: DAC1 and MiniDAC

[Ruphus]

Disclaimer:
Please keep in mind, that it was my personal pit. Nothing objective and far away from scientific.


As we had a convertor comparison here URL, Max from Apogee contacted me and asked whether I was willing to compare their MiniDAC too. First of all checking gear is fun and secondly, because I knew from the past when I wanted to know myself while musing about which to shop ( better to say after the buy. The MineDAC was quite delayed in production ) that there is hardly any review about how these two boxes relate to each other while many have been asking this question … So, I said why not.

Please take note that on the bright side the preconditions of this listening session are entirely impartial. The DAC1 I had already here and for checking the MiniDAC I received absolutely no benefit. In the opposite the German distributor who called me up first wanted me to deposit a check and at best pick it up myself at a dealer. I said, if they want me to spend my time with it they can´t expect me to undertake any additional steps for it. That´s how it came and so the unit arrived here yesterday and will be picked up again next Monday.

And it wasn´t really love on first sight. There comes a flat bread bin, light, in about similar weight class like one of the bigger mics, with a skinny power cable to a transformator and from there to a second power cable. Guess it´s planned for remote gigs. None of the heavy sorts with fat PSU coils and such.

Next thing not so great is that it has no calibrated output which would had been wellcomed for the test. Even cranked the analog outputs would stay 3,9 to 4 dB beneath what the other devices put out and to adjust it would had needed to open the box and jumper and trim in there. Though not optimal I rather decided to compensate inside the DAW.

Someone else might have done the opening thing though before me and not remounted correctly, because there seems some grounding problem with this very box. When touching the volume knob with plugged in headphones there appeared a buzz and while leaning over to touch the rack lightly resting my arm on the MiniDAC which was laying on the table when suddenly … you know that battery feeling when current starts tingling and in the next moment it burns like a nettle? Well, I pulled the arm like a praying mantis and must say that me felt better when finally could pull the AC cable from the socket after the tests.

Setup

From a session inside the DAW per AES into the individual convertor, analog out into a Lavry blue A/D and recorded back into the DAW.

Listening and stuff

The re-recording was done at relatively hot input level. When wanting a convertor to sound best one probably shouldn´t do that, but I thought things should be checked between optimal and “worst case scenario”-level which would be that you were theoretically sending back a mix coming through your outboard limiter, in such a case depending on the devices consistency you might be wanting to deliver as hot as possible, before adding the last 0 point something dB through digital limiting inside the DAW.

First I checked the levels with which the signal had come back through the units and aligned them. In relation to the Lavrys output level the DAC1 needed to be reduced for about 0,1 dB to match, the MiniDAC required to be boosted for 3,9 dB.

Spontaneous impression: The DAC1 sounds better. Like brighter, arier and spatial.

But the idea swayed soon and I must say that at the start I would had really wished someone had been here to switch back and forth for me to blindly listen. You just hear better with closed eyes. Unfortunately nobody was here since yesterday. But from switch to switch the difference and the circumstances which make the difference became more evident.

Just like with the former made test between the Lavry and the DAC1 it seems like there came masking into play ( an encreased occurence of one FQ range being classified as more important in the higher receptive regions of the brain can let other FQ regions appear like being less present. - Rather low FQ masking HF than vice versa, depending on individual intensity. This phenomenon can even happen in advance BTW [ post classification so to say ]).
And so in the beginning I thought the MiniDAC to sound dull. Thought the test to be over, already. But it ended up with many hours.

Because the Mini is a Cinderella. When you lift her rugs you see that she is more buxom than you first thought. The funny thing is that the Mini has not less highs, but is even hyped. Probably to particularly even out that “dull” impression through the lows.
The Minis LF is richer, it seems to have more information in the ~ 200 Hz range up to around 1000 Hz. This includes the 200-400 Hz range, in Germany called “rehearsal room frequency” which says it all.

But it is not just about a raised volume in that area rather than a higher density. Higher resolution if you want. For the auditioned track it ment more tail of the mid guitar tones and more room reflections.


I guess it sounds weird, but the supposed lack of lower mids with DAC1 lets it appear to have more highs and upper highs and sound more airy. The trade in is less notes tail like mentioned above.

While fiddling around the idea came up to try and see if graphical measuring confirmed what I thought to be hearing.

Here you can see that the Mini appears to be hyped in the upper department. In this optical example the DAC1 seems closer to the king, the Lavry blue.


Whereas when zoomed into the pic below it to me looked like the Mini was closer to the Lavry. But have a look yourself and see what you think.

In the end graphics often don´t say too much anyway. Just thought it could be interesting to you too.

Sonically indeed the Mini to me seems closer to the big convertor brother.

Finally, I wanted to know more accurately what the ranges were I thought to be hearing and tried to additively EQ the DAC1 example and to get it close to the Minis sound. For that purpose I tweaked on the already recorded DAC1 track which is far from ideal to do and likewise more prone to the rule that you can´t emphasize what isn´t there.
Unfortunately, a better way to trying adapt the source which would had been to online EQ on the DACs signal was not possible. For to send out two digital lines my Lynx failed as it has no optical S/PDIF ( only ADAT ).

This test is not to claim scientific conditions anyway and so I went on and tried the tweak on the recorded track.
Here is how it looked like when I tried to make the DAC1 signal appear similar sounding to the MiniDACs track.


You can see that I had to raise the frequencies mainly around 220 Hz and 4,3k.

Personal Conclusion

First of all that you shouldn´t entirely rely on what I wrote here. You know that this field is highly subjective in general and this has been a free style procedure on top of it.

Secondly, that to me the MiniDAC seems slightly coloured, but to contain more information, sound fuller and in the consequence more like analog.

The DAC1 appears brighter and arier.

If I was to use either for postprocessing through outboard the Mini would be preferred for most of acoustical tasks and probably all of the electro acoustics. The DAC1 would likely shine on applications for electronic music. Hiphop and techno and maybe industrial rock ´n stuff. And besides I like its build, look, toggle switch, great connectivity and ouput switch for variable, none and calibrated level.

Appendix

I tried to compare the headphone outputs of the two. And thought the DAC1 to take the contrary role on that. Containing more of the dark spectrum while the Mini might have been more upfront but in the same time appearing brighter and with less body.
However, as I had to plug and unplug the digital inputs, the time it took to switch from one to the other was too long to have anything near to an immediate comparison. So, don´t quote me on that one please.

Hope you enjoyed the read.

Ruphus

[matucha]

I just bought Ivo's miniDAC... I was upgrading from delta44 ;-) so the difference is obvious. Funny, the first thing I spotted was the fullness (the bass - lowmids - mids), the top was the last thing. I find the top to be revealing, but not screaming "i'm here, i'm here!!". Ugly rasps, that wasn't obvious on delta just sticked out.

Is Lavry lighter sounding? I mean is minidac a bit on the heavy side compared to lavry? I'm monitoring through it, so I'd like to know if I may compensate a little.

Thanks for review

[ISedlacek]

Comparing to mini DAC, Lavry has a bit more detail, more air in the HF and generally the sound spectrum is a bit more distinguished, i.e. for example the instruments are more concrete as if ... Just my spontaneous impression after listening to the same music sources. I would not say it has less bass or it is lighter etc. Generally said Lavry brings a bit more sophisticated sound. Somebody said "more analogue"

[Ruphus]

Hi Matucha,

Yep, Ivo nailed it very correctly in my opinion. I would describe it in the very same way.
And there is something else to the Lavry too which I find hard to describe, like if the other convertors I experienced were made up brides, but the Lavry in comparison a true beauty who´d touch you through her silky negligee if you know what I mean. Silk is indeed the first word that comes to my mind for it.

In the night when I listened to the first takes made with it through a great pre, not only that I couldn´t stop listening until early morning, but it was an emotional event.

Lately I had a guy here who is used to his digital mini recorder from Zoom or something. When I played his tracks back he didn´t show a sign of surprise and I was really perplex about that. Told him that he should bring a track of his over so that he could listen to the two qualities side by side and recognize what the difference is.
But then again that guy is total ignorant anyway with no taste. He insisted to track with his shitty sounding Takamine guitar, although he could had used much better instruments here, and besides behaved so disrespectful against AE realm ( didn´t even let me position mic and tweak the gear for more than 5 minutes ) that I understood him to be the wrong person for colaboration anyway.
I´m telling this to say that listening to a track made with such a convertor should show an obvious difference to people with ears.

Only deafs like the guy mentioned above wouldn´t.

To answer your question: The Mini is not on the heavy side compared to lavry. I think you don´t need to compensate the Apogee, because its balance is fine the way it is. The difference the Lavry makes is based on encreasingly captured tonal information.

Greets,

Ruphus

PS: And besides, Matous, wanna thank you one more time for the kind tip you and Milan gave me. That was so helpful. Thanks a bunch!

[Oortjes]

Hi Ruphus,

Thanks so much for your thorough review. Please allow me to make a few comments on your test.

Indeed the Mini-Dac and its power supply are “light” in the sense of weight. There is a very good reason; we designed this unit not only for a fixed setup, but also to make it as portable as possible (it even runs on batteries). As any experienced travelers knows any extra weight is a nuisance. It hurts your shoulders.

The maximum output level of the Mini-Dac is as you noted adjustable from the inside. We ship the units calibrated at +4dBu = -16dBfs. Meaning the maximum output will be +20dBu. Of course the Mini-Dac has way more gain and can go up to +26dBu. We don’t align it that way because most analog gear cannot handle these levels. Through experience and the feedback of users we found our current setting to be sufficient in most situations. An extra benefit: it will allow you to use the entire range of the front panel volume control.

It seems you have a grounding problem in your studio, since you are experiencing noise when touching the volume control of the Mini-Dac and even feel a light shock. The Mini-Dac, since it is a portable unit is of the floating ground type. In other words there is no direct connection between mains and its ground to the circuitry of the Mini-Dac. Just like an electric guitar the unit is being grounded through the I/O connectors. So if you feel current touching the unit, it means your body is making the connection between your studio ground and the physical ground (earth).
To verify this, disconnect all I/O to the Mini-Dac, plug in a headphone and listen for noise again when changing volume. If it is quiet and you don’t feel current, there is nothing wrong with the Mini-Dac. If not, then there is something wrong with the unit.

The Mini-Dac outputs have a choice of a fixed and an adjustable level as well. On the inside you can configure each line output the way you prefer it. Also we added a line output mute on the frontpanel! So you can mute your speakers instantly (without reaching to the back and guess where the switch is or having to shut down your power-amps) if you want to listen to headphones only.

Just for the record, if you do a frequency response measurement on the Mini-Dac you will see it is totally flat from 10Hz to 20kHz (and higher, dependent of the sample rate). I have no doubt the other converters you tested have the exact same response. The “hyped” lower mid-range, as you call it, is one of the many qualities that makes our converters stand out. As you noted later in your test, it is not really boosted, on the contrary, it is lacking in other converters. You hit the nail on the head there.
One thing I never liked about converters in general and therefore spend a lot of time on, in my own designs, is to make sure the lower midrange is as truthful as can be. It is a rather difficult frequency range and very often “undervalued”. But exactly that range contains “energy”, punch and a lot of the imaging. A good example are electric guitars or snares. When you eq the lower mids out, suddenly they start to sound wimpy and harsh.
A good converter maintains the energy and does not widen the overall image. Especially the latter is very often seen as an advantage; wide seems better at first. But in the end it is not, as a matter of fact the worse the converter the wider the image. A good converter should give you depth, the width as intended and a solid mono response for parts mixed to the center. (The vocal should be upfront in the middle)

Hope this explains a few things. Thanks again,

[matucha]

Lucas,

what other Apogee unit uses the same DA as miniDAC? Is it PSX100SE? Or Rosetta 200? Or?

just curious,

thanks

[Ruphus]

Hi Lucas,

You´re wellcome, it has been fun!

After reading your post I tried about the grounding things in the way you recommended. The hum is still there when touching the volume knob. Maybe someone had opened it and when closing it had a cable in contact with chassis or something like that or maybe this box was a Monday unit ( just speculating, what do I know ).

I found your explanation about widened images very interesting. Your words after passing through my vague layman synapses sound plausible in a way. Like if inaccurate reproduction could be meaning sounds spreaded all over the place.

But somehow it makes me wonder. I havn´t made explicite tests comparing image width among different convertors. But the first thing I realized with my Lavry blue when it was new was that a stereo track made in my room ( two cardiods spaced ~ 1,8 meters away from each other ) here sounded fantastic in many ways, but also seemed very wide. ( The panning I believe must have been like each channel around 50% of its scale or so.)

Now, I don´t want to provoke you to judge about Lavry convertors, but I´m sure that you agree that they are great sounding stuff.

The track was made with a very good pre which I hadn´t experienced before that take, though.
What do you say, is the image of width only determined by convertors or also by the pre before it? And would the rule about image width apply in the same way to pre amplifiers?

Just curious.

Greets,

Ruphus

[matucha]

I expirience no hum or noise when I touch the volume knob or chassis.... It is connected via USB (for the moment).

[Oortjes]

Matous,

The Mini-Dac is its own design. We hardly ever reproduce the same circuitry in different units. Because they all have their own requirements and needs. But just like any family, they do share the same styling or...genes, if you wish…

Ruphus,

On the hum you’re experiencing: in that case there seems to be something wrong with your unit, there should be no hum when touching the volume control. Sorry, about that.

On your question of width and if a preamp can contribute to it. A too wide image is always accompanied by a lack of a clearly defined center (I like to call it the “hole in the middle”) and is the result of phase errors/distortion. Any analog circuitry and digital processor can create this. The bigger the phase error, the wider the image. To check for “reality”, know what is real, the best thing is to listen for the mono information you get from a stereo-signal. Because that is easier to detect and more objective. Listen for a very narrow center. The mono information should be like a vertical line right in front of your speakers. The more focused this center is, the better your phase response.

Note that using a stereo mike setup may not always give you a good center. Especially the standard X-Y. Better for testing phase response would be an MS-setup, since that will give you a true mono part.

Cheers,

[Teacher]

its funny how the lavry and the benchmark graphs look exactly the same but sound different(at least from what people say)

[atticus]

Ruphus,

I am attaching a link to the DAC1's owners manual. On the bottom of page 22 and the top of page 23 there is a little insight into the design goals of the DAC1. It might be an interesting thing to look at considering the topic of this thread.

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/digita...AC1-Manual.pdf

[Ruphus]

Very interesting, Lucas, thanks for the details I will make sure to imprint them under my skull.

Yep, Teach, first I thought they were slightly differing, but after a while I realized that they were appearing exactly the same.

Hi David,

I followed the link and believe that this is now getting very interesting, especially if everybody stays as reasonable and expounding as it is. Discussions like these can be very interesting especially for us users but they at best shall be constructive for manufacturers too. At least as long as it is about good production which is the case here without a question.
The famous options through todays communication shall benefit all parties if possible in any way if I may wish so.

I gathered the following in the DAC1 manual to be what you were mainly pointing to:

Jitter creates “new audio” that is not harmonically related to the original audio signal. This “new audio” is unexpected and unwanted. It can cause a loss of imaging, and can add a low and mid frequency “muddiness” that was not in the original audio.

I must admit in advancce that I´m not educated to detect jitter ( although, if a turned off external clock to a PT system and a resulting wobble in timing and alteration in tone was to be jitter then I know what jitter is. It was driving me crazy to rearrange a session all the time on a nasty floating ground until I realized at that time that a turned-off external clock would let the DAW run unclocked despite presence of internal clock. [ no automatic switch as I had expected.] blabla ).
However, I must say that what was meant with more information in the lower mids in the MiniDAC compared to the DAC1 seemed not about artifacts. I thought that it to be contents of the source and would be surprised if it was anything else.

Next thing I found interesting in the manual text was this:

Jitter induced sidebands can be measured using an FFT analyzer.

This made me go and print FFT pics. I hope to have done it right. If they show enough maybe you can explain to us what they are saying.

Greetings,

Ruphus

[Ruphus]

MiniDAC

[Ruphus]

Lavry blue

[Ruphus]

For some reason the above picture of the MiniDAC analysis in conjunction with to too low output missed the tail of the note after the plugin. Went back and checked for the tracks levels, which were found to be equally set. Maybe this has to do with software. The other other two tracks are set to 0 dB and -0,1 dB the Minis track is on +3,9. Maybe the software in the plugins processing gets unlinear with rising volume slider? Or i. i. c...........?


Made another pic, so that we can see the notes tail now. As you will note it needed another 4 dB.

[Ruphus]

For a better view.

It feels to me like if I was about to learn something.
Always great.

[Ruphus]

Seems the thread is at its end already. About throwing away the notes I had written down I found a point I had forgotten to mention. Thought I add it as one more piece of info.

The units differ in speed.
The fastest is the MiniDAC, the Lavry comes 69 samples later and the DAC1 113 samples after the Mini.

Ruphus

[matucha]

Hm, I have some comments about miniDAC too. Firstly I'm satisfied.

I'm running it via USB, it has some troubles running so. It takes more than 10% of CPU more than Delta44 drivers (or RME HDSP). Sometimes it does crackle or clip... this is strange, but selecting different input and returning it to USB seem to work. One time I needed to restart computer to get rid of it. However, it is working most of the time without problems and it is the most reliable USB device I know. Other (m-audio things I heard at the friends pits) were terrible.

I can't wait to connect it to RME when it arrives...

[newlyformedmind]

Originally Posted by matucha

Hm, I have some comments about miniDAC too. Firstly I'm satisfied.

I'm running it via USB, it has some troubles running so. It takes more than 10% of CPU more than Delta44 drivers (or RME HDSP). Sometimes it does crackle or clip... this is strange, but selecting different input and returning it to USB seem to work. One time I needed to restart computer to get rid of it. However, it is working most of the time without problems and it is the most reliable USB device I know. Other (m-audio things I heard at the friends pits) were terrible.

I can't wait to connect it to RME when it arrives...

Glad you are satisfied with the Mini-DAC. When you say connect it to your RME, does that mean you are using RME for your A/D? I'm trying to research all of the professional Digital to Analog converters and of course checking the prices. I'm not mixing anything here at my home studio. I just do tracking here. But I still recognize the importance of a good D/A for accurate monitoring and playback. Does the USB version of the Mini-DAC cost more like the Mini-Me with USB does? I really need a good stereo D/A. I've narrowed my choices to Apogee Mini-DAC, Lucid D/A, Mytek 96k D/A, and if I can save more- a Benchmark DAC1 with USB. But how does the USB capability produce latency?