Subjective Listening - Arrrgh!
For audio playback, we use Foobar 2000 alongside Windows Media Player. All music is transferred first to the hard drive in WAV format using Exact Audio Copy at a 4x read speed. Before we continue with subjective listening impressions, let's take a look at the measured room response of both DACs and listen to a couple of tracks without any DRC engaged.
The lowish output voltage of the passive I/V configured TDA1543 means we have to attempt to balance volume as best we can with the 2V output of the tube/transformer output of the Opus DAC for comparison purposes. After some adjustment and re-attempted measurements, we get a close enough match to see how the room responds to the Opus. Microphone gain and placement was kept at exactly the same point throughout the course of taking measurements. Each measurement was taken a number of times to see if any drastic changes could be observed.
Doede DAC Red=Left speaker, Blue=Right. Due to furniture placement, there is a 10dB offset between the channels at around 162Hz. |
The response is of the Transparence speakers with the TDA1543 is pretty much as expected, rolling off sharply under 60Hz and over 13.5k.
Opus |
Unsurprisingly, there's little to divide the two room sweep responses. The question is how both DACs sound when compared subjectively, both with and without DRC.
Listening tests are conducted using tracks from Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite and Embrya albums. Both albums feature music containing deep articulate bass lines, with vocals and instruments that should stress every part of the Bicone Signature frequency response.
Firing up "Til The Cops Come Knocking" on the Doede DAC first, the thing that strikes me is its directness. Soundstage height and depth can be best described as compact with a focused central image. This creates the perception of the vocalist sitting a couple of feet in front of the speakers. Instruments also have a "hang in the air" factor, without any real overemphasis on the finer details or decay of sounds. If "in your face" reproduction of micro details is important to you, you'll find you'll have to concentrate on hearing them with this unit in the loop. Everything's there, but you don't get buckets of spatial information that enhances micro-detail presence. Maybe that's the way it's supposed to be?
Rendition of high frequency sounds such as cymbals is on the smooth side compared to what I can recall from the Legato DACs of the Pioneer. I guess this may be a trait of non-oversampling. Overall, I'm quite impressed by the sound, considering the uncomplicated approach of Doede's implementation of the TDA1543. Subjectively, the sound has a very neutral character yet still manages to present itself without a fatiguing nature.
Now it's time to check out how the Opus fares in comparison. Both DACs are connected to the preamp simultaneously so that I can switch over quickly between the two while memory is still fresh. I spin up the same tracks from Maxwell and I'm amazed to find the perceived difference in presentation is far more apparent than I'd expected. The vocal forwardness of the TDA1543 is gone; the same vocal rendition sits further back between the speakers but has gained the impression of extending past the height of the baffles, and background instruments seem to have shifted back by a good few feet. The compact soundstage impression that the TDA1543 gave has been replaced with something far more expansive and spatial and the focus is now on all the elements of the recording. The finer details are readily apparent with the Opus; everything is projected in its own space and draws your attention. Mid-bass does not sound as prominent as it did on the TDA1543, the notes seem to be a little leaner and perhaps more analytical. Vocals and cymbals are especially alluring, something that we can put down to the sonic traits of the 3A5s on the output of the WM8741 DACs. To confirm the perceived differences I keep switching back and forth between the two units, each time amazed that the change is so apparent.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
Clauzii - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
.. I can recommend a Terratec Phase 22. No computernoise whatsoever. Pure, clean sound. I don't have a surroundsetup, but movies through this card sound brilliant, with a lot of detail and no digital 'fnitter-fnatter'.Clauzii - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Have to correct myself: With the card You can actually hear all the bad mixing of the movies themselves.daar - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Honestly, for a tech review site, I'm very disappointed that you nixed any pro sound cards and went for the audiophile kool-aid. Proper regulation and filtering can deliver clean enough juice for the best audio applications and while the USB option is kind of interesting, it creates more clutter, is more expensive, and the supposed better quality can't even be objectively tested.There wasn't even an attempt to build a measurement procedure, and while some sustain the notion that audio is beyond measurement, since when does AT throw out standard science and efficient engineering in favor of pseudoscience?
RobinBee - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
"Proper regulation and filtering"Yes. A good motherboard does this. And: A hi-fi sound card such as ASUS Xonar D2 (PCI bus) delivers »clean juice«, very much better than Creative's x-fi. And: A good case makes a pc rather quiet.
RagingDragon - Saturday, December 6, 2008 - link
And a sufficiently powerful amp and/or headphones with good isolation make PC noise irrelevant.Servant of Shodan - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Not meaning any disrespect to the author - it was a good article - but I've notice a lot of camera reviews recently, and now a review about audiophile stuff... and it just seems so out of place for a PC enthusiast site.There are hundreds of credible sites for both cameras and stereos/speakers/amps/etc.; and I feel that it sort of muddies the waters here to have these types of articles, when there are other excellent places where they fit in perfectly.
I come to Anandtech for computers. I think it should keep to that topic.
SpeedyVV - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Holy cow, audiophiles i think are THX certifiable!!!Can you guys actually hear yourselves???
All joking aside, I love music, and sound, and guitar tube amps, a nice hi-fi.
But the stuff you guys talk about is way, WAY, beyond me ;-)
Boushh - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
DRC does realy work. Last year I exchanged my old SONY AV receiver for a new Denon AVR-3808 with Audyssey. With the SONY I was unable to get a good sound at my listning postion (specialy the rears never actually worked). And even though I had my reservations for things like Audyssey, I ran it on the Denon. And low and behold: Now I was in the middle of everything. I was realy amazed that taking some samples with a microphone could have such impressive results.The second thing: DAC's for computers. I recently saw that Cambridge Audio released a DAC for (among other things) computers (http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=320&...">http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=320&.... Maybe a good idea to compare that to the setup used in the article. It seems to me that instead of all those components it would (for the most of us) be alot easier if it was just in one box. But maybe that is just me :-)
Anyway, nice article. It shows that people who are intrested in audio and are willing to do something for it are always on a never ending road B-)
strikeback03 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
... that this article shows that looks are not everything, as those drivers look like the cheap junk that comes in stock car systems.jabber - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
They probably are! Remember in the world of 'high-end hi-fi' you build a component out of $20 worth of bits, stick a bit of varnish sanded wood on it then add on the 2000% 'hi-fi mug tax'.Its one of the best businesses to be in if you are unprincipled and lazy.
Your customers are easy because they have invested so much money in their systems they are always open to fear and doubt about it. Easy prey!