New Wireless Usb D/A Converter From Nad

[stgrhe]

The eminent Canadian HiFi company NAD have released a new wireless USB D/A converter called DAC-1. This is a product I will be buying once Conice, the NAD distributor, have released it here in Thailand.

I am currently using the Squeeze Box from Logitec, originally developed by Slim Devices, but this unit depends on my wireless router and for some of the functions one must be connected to internet, which is a drawback given the unstable internet connections we have in Thailand.

You can read more of the DAC-1 here:

http://nadelectronic...logue-Converter

[Darrel]

Surely it's more to the point to use a digital amp?

[astral]

I believe the OP already has an excellent analogue amplifier setup.

Some reports suggest that staying purely in the digital domain

can lead to rather a bright sound which may not appeal to all listeners.

There is still a lot to recommend a totally analogue setup,

from Vinyl - Valves(Tubes) - Speaker

[Darrel]

I believe the OP already has an excellent analogue amplifier setup.

Fair enough, though I think I would be tempted to go digital.

Some reports suggest that staying purely in the digital domain

can lead to rather a bright sound which may not appeal to all listeners.

The accuracy of the frequency response can be measured precisely, and it would be pretty clear from the measurements if the sound from digital equipment really was over-bright.

So it's more likely that the digital "bright" sound is actually the absence of analogue "mellow" sound.

People will buy whatever equipment they want to get the sound they like, of course, but for accuracy you cant beat digital.

[OriginalPoster]

I believe the OP already has an excellent analogue amplifier setup.

Fair enough, though I think I would be tempted to go digital.

Some reports suggest that staying purely in the digital domain

can lead to rather a bright sound which may not appeal to all listeners.

The accuracy of the frequency response can be measured precisely, and it would be pretty clear from the measurements if the sound from digital equipment really was over-bright.

So it's more likely that the digital "bright" sound is actually the absence of analogue "mellow" sound.

People will buy whatever equipment they want to get the sound they like, of course, but for accuracy you cant beat digital.

It's great that sound quality can be measured so precisely these days. No need to listen to equipment anymore, all that you have to do is look at the measurements and you'll know that it sounds good.

But I've been burned by buying into that type of dogma before - bought things that measured perfectly and got sterling reviews from publications whose central premise is that all competently designed electronic components sound the same if their measurements meet certain criteria, only to find that no matter how hard I wanted to like my new purchase and knew that it must have perfect sound, it was just missing the mark terms of reproducing music.

[stgrhe]

The digital sound has a much better dynamic and is for sure theoretically more pure than analogue. However, our hearings are far from perfect and also quite individual so what is right for one person may be wrong for another. I personally am of the opinion that a too dry (perfect) sound easily leads to listening fatigue. Also I generally find German loudspeakers too bright and can not stand the sound from Klipsch. Still many people buy these products and enjoy them so they can not be totally wrong.

The music I listen from my computer is mostly compressed Mp3 or flack loss-less at best. The nearness and quality of such sound is actually not very good compared to when I play my best audiophile CDs or SACDs and using the players built-in D/A-converter and then pure direct mode. Still I do enjoy listening to the computer stored music too but that will always be under different circumstances. Hence, I think this new product from NAD, and being from NAD I am sure it will deliver, will be a asset to me as I find there are too many draw-backs with the squeeze box I now have.

[Darrel]

People will buy whatever equipment they want to get the sound they like, of course, but for accuracy you cant beat digital.

It's great that sound quality can be measured so precisely these days. No need to listen to equipment anymore, all that you have to do is look at the measurements and you'll know that it sounds good.

You do still need to listen, but only to the speakers. Everything else should have no influence at all on the nature of the sound, and if it does have an influence then there is something wrong with it.

I think that part of the problem that some people have with "bright" digital sound is that they are listening on speakers that were designed for playback from analogue systems. Such speakers often have some built-in brightness to counteract the duller analogue sound, and when playing back from digital equipment it adds an extra layer of brightness, putting it over the top.

The other solution is just use an equaliser to get exactly the sound you want (and to which you are entitled, as it's your money). But don't blame digital equipment for being perfect.

[stgrhe]

NAD claim that the DAC-1 doesn't compress the music, which is good for flac files.

[OriginalPoster]

People will buy whatever equipment they want to get the sound they like, of course, but for accuracy you cant beat digital.

It's great that sound quality can be measured so precisely these days. No need to listen to equipment anymore, all that you have to do is look at the measurements and you'll know that it sounds good.

You do still need to listen, but only to the speakers. Everything else should have no influence at all on the nature of the sound, and if it does have an influence then there is something wrong with it.

I think that part of the problem that some people have with "bright" digital sound is that they are listening on speakers that were designed for playback from analogue systems. Such speakers often have some built-in brightness to counteract the duller analogue sound, and when playing back from digital equipment it adds an extra layer of brightness, putting it over the top.

The other solution is just use an equaliser to get exactly the sound you want (and to which you are entitled, as it's your money). But don't blame digital equipment for being perfect.

Yes, I know. I used to read Stereo Review also and found it to be quite reassuring.

[snarky66]

Maybe you could tell us what speakers compensate?

I know I like listening to Dynaudio, Aerial Acoustics, Wilson & my current pair Meadowlark Audio Osprey.

The Dynaudio Audio Contour 3.0 looked to be nicely replaced by the Focus 340 or Focus 380.

Digital Amplifiers? Never in my house thanks. I'm saving up for Boulder 850 monoblocks.

Proac would be fine as long as they are 3 ways.Which currently begin at the D-80.

Edited August 23, 2011 by snarky66

[Darrel]

Yes, I know. I used to read Stereo Review also and found it to be quite reassuring.

Sorry. Don't know what Stereo Review is or why it should be reassuring.

[stgrhe]

You do still need to listen, but only to the speakers. Everything else should have no influence at all on the nature of the sound, and if it does have an influence then there is something wrong with it.

That happens unfortunately only in the ideal world as most popular music produced today are corrupted already during the recordings. Having said that I get what you mean although I also like to add that that the speakers should reproduce the sound as pure as possible without colouring the sound, something most, if not all do to some degree. Therfore IMO the choice of speakers have much more influence on sound colouring than any other part of the chain.

[Darrel]

Therfore IMO the choice of speakers have much more influence on sound colouring than any other part of the chain.

That was what I said.

[OriginalPoster]

Yes, I know. I used to read Stereo Review also and found it to be quite reassuring.

Sorry. Don't know what Stereo Review is or why it should be reassuring.

It was a long running US stereo magazine founded by Julian Hirsch in the early days of stereo that every month published numerous reviews of electronics that they measured on a test bench but didn't even bother to listen to because they were so certain that all properly functioning audio electronics with similar specs sounded the same. They also were known for their editorials arguing that anyone buying highend electronics was delusional and had more dollars than sense. It was reassuring because if you were on a budget you could be confident that had you spent any more you would have just been wasting your money. I think that they stopped publishing in the late 90's.

Edited August 25, 2011 by OriginalPoster

[Darrel]

It was a long running US stereo magazine founded by Julian Hirsch in the early days of stereo that every month published numerous reviews of electronics that they measured on a test bench but didn't even bother to listen to because they were so certain that all properly functioning audio electronics with similar specs sounded the same. They also were known for their editorials arguing that anyone buying highend electronics was delusional and had more dollars than sense. It was reassuring because if you were on a budget you could be confident that had you spent any more you would have just been wasting your money. I think that they stopped publishing in the late 90's.

Ah. Had they stuck it out to the digital age, they would have been proven right about there being little point in listening to a decent digital amp that works to spec.

Ahead of their time.

[OriginalPoster]

It was a long running US stereo magazine founded by Julian Hirsch in the early days of stereo that every month published numerous reviews of electronics that they measured on a test bench but didn't even bother to listen to because they were so certain that all properly functioning audio electronics with similar specs sounded the same. They also were known for their editorials arguing that anyone buying highend electronics was delusional and had more dollars than sense. It was reassuring because if you were on a budget you could be confident that had you spent any more you would have just been wasting your money. I think that they stopped publishing in the late 90's.

Ah. Had they stuck it out to the digital age, they would have been proven right about there being little point in listening to a decent digital amp that works to spec.

Ahead of their time.

They did stick it out into the digital age, and they we big proponents of CDs when they first came out. I think that the main reason that they fell by the wayside was after a while there started to be less interest in "stereo" as a hobby amongst the general public and because after awhile there really was no reason to read their reviews as you already knew what they were going to say. Most people would subscribe for about a year and then drop it because the articles became repetitious.

But I did go way wrong a couple fo times buying something that they reviewed glowingly. One was a FM tuner with incredible sensitivity specs but that in reality couldn't pull in distant stations as well as vintage tuners, another was a brutishly powerful MOSFET poweramp that fell way short of sounding good on the big ATC speakers that I had at the time. Took me 2 years to figure out that the problem was that the amp wasn't living up to the hype and that the speakers weren't at fault. The amp was just so dam_n perfect on paper that I couldn't believe that it was inadequate. and I had the amp checked out by the manufacturer and it passed all tests with flying colors, so I lived in denial for 2 years before I started borrowing other other amps from local hifi shops to see if it would change the situation. It did, and I do know that it makes me sound like a lunatic or a Luddite to say so.

Edited August 25, 2011 by OriginalPoster

[astral]

Reading through Hi Fi News, a UK magazine, shows very little

support for the totally digital approach.