I’m one who uses headphones a lot. . . they allow me to expand my listening sessions considerably in my real world household (I don’t do “audio on the go” with portable players etc.)
I have several great sounding tubed headphone amplifiers and the listening experience, though different, is on par with my speaker listening experience. I wouldn’t want a headphone amplifier built in to my “dream” DAC. . . or a preamplifier for that matter, as I have those components of a high quality already. But then I’ll probably never be able to afford a 20,000 dollar DAC anyway so . . . my two cents are not keeping up with inflation.
It’s really not about snob appeal. Just the opposite… Don’t think I could afford much past the DS but if I could I wouldn’t want to pay extra for a headphone option. I’d much rather spend my money on whatever it takes to get the most out of the DAC’s performance. I had an all in one dac (brooklyn) and I never used the extra options - headphone included. If you’re looking for all that stuff built in it’s a great one stop solution. The DS is a large step forward in performance and I’m happy to pay the additional cost to get the performance. Just don’t understand why anyone with the means to afford a “statement” DAC would want to muddle it up with a built in headphone amp. If you had the cash why wouldn’t you want a stand alone solution that would most likely be a lot better anyway. The Chord and others like it do have the portable factor so they make a little more sense, if you must have headpone amp dac combo, I suppose.
The new exaSound PlayPoint DM is a $14,000.00 DAC with a built in headphone amp. I wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole, though, as it lacks a four-pin XLR headphone output and it has only a one-year warranty.
The Ayre QX-5 Twenty DAC has a well-regarded built-in headphone amp for $9,950.00 with all the digital input options.
I love my Schitt Jotunheim headphone amp for $399.00, and I doubt seriously that any of the headphone amps built into the various DACs we are discussing can touch the Schitt for power, resolution and detail. Despite being a headphone enthusiast, I am in the camp of keeping the headphone amp out of the DAC.
This implies Chord Dave is not a statement DAC and it’s sound is muddled.
Chord Dave is not portable… it’s the size and shape of a loaf of bread. I don’t understand any comments about portability and size issues…
Adding any separate headphone amp to it only adds noise and distortion.
Hence my wishing out loud for a Ted DAC with headphone output built in. The coupling/path to the FPGA is shorter and therefore significantly more transparent.
I can make the same comment for Playback Designs Merlot DAC too.
Anyway I’m sure Paul will look at the size of the headphone market, rather than just a handful of comments here (mine included).
Yea I get the Chords mixed up. Portability is the most important factor with headphones for me because I like to listen to quality sound on the road. At home I really have no reason to listen to headphones. Sometimes when on a laptop or something that’s about it. I’ve tried a bunch of different amps\headphone set ups over the years and I always eventually get bored with them and stop listening. Don’t get the distortion issue you keep bringing up with a stand alone AMP. Would think the dedicated amp would be so much better than built in it would be a non issue. Either way I’m not into headphones in a DAC - you are. As long as I don’t have to pay extra for something I don’t want it’s all good.
The Brinkmann Audio Nyquist Mk. II is $18,000.00, and it has a built-in headphone amp. It is the most expensive DAC that I know of with a built-in headphone amp.
It’s similar to the argument about adding a separate preamp to the DS. Similar but not the same.
Sticking to the headphones side (because the separate preamp thing can be more complicated), shorter and simpler paths should result in better transparency. If the headphones output is done well…
The ‘done well’ part is really for Ted to think about because it’s beyond any of our expertise here. My very first post about this (before going in circles) was wishing for a high current output. Something to drive Ted’s Audeze LCD-4 planars directly and really well.
Maybe it doesn’t need to be this 2-box DAC. Maybe Ted can work on a desktop DitectStream DAC/headphone amp, specifically for the headphones market (If Paul’s research says there is a market…)
Wouldn’t Sprout100 cover the headphone market in their product lineup? There is the risk of doing too many things and diluting everything. They have been pumping out so many new products, plus there are old products which they still need to devote attention too.
Respectfully, it doesn’t make sense for anyone of us (me too) to comment on what makes sense for PS Audio.
And before anyone brings it up, I’ve never said it makes sense for Ted to include a headphone output - I was just wishing out loud. Anyway Ted’s said he’s think about it and that’s all I can hope for.
Of course everyone is free to un-wish my wish too, as a few here have done and that’s ok
If there is an improved PS Audio DAC that betters the current DS DAC, and it isn’t 3x the price, I’d be very interested. I eagerly await more info on this project.
The BHK Pre-amp already has a headphone amp, so (for me) I’m not interested in that option, and would prefer as others have commented that the DAC focus on being the best DAC possible and not add too many other features that are found in other products.
I second the suggestion that the DAC include high resolution room EQ processing though. That would be killer.
Ted explained occasionally how EQ processing would compromise the DSD converting concept of his design. As interesting as it would be for tweaking bad recordings or strong room problems with no chance of treatment by other measures, I guess it will not happen. Do others with DSD converting concepts offer it?
Good idea - an output that can drive sensitive speakers would be a big plus. My dealer also builds speakers and he is looking at designing a speaker built around those Seas exotic drivers that are 94 db sensitive - 9w would drive them just fine. In fact I have a 89db speaker of his and for the hell of it got a 4W valve amp a guy down the road builds for Aus $2.5k using his own output transformers. I thought there is no way it will drive my speaker - surprisingly it did. It was surprisingly close to the BHK in quality terms as well - but sorry no cigar I think most would say the BHK has the edge in dynamics. Still low powered amps and sensitive speakers is a good way to go value for money wise. This hobby can get expensive - anything to reduce the overall cost would be welcome.
EQing the analog part of a DAC to voice it is definitely something that I’m very opposed to. However doing some filtering in the digital domain is an option that’s always possible (at least with a big enough FPGA.) Tho as jazznut alludes to, the amount of noise generated in the FPGA is directly related to how many features are included, so that has to be taken into account.
My speakers have a sensitivity of 92.5dB. Still I found that having 750W continuously available sounds noticeably better than only 200W - I suspect it’s related to having absolute control in very dynamic music.
I’m driving multi-driver 92.5 db speakers with a simple crossover with 2.7 watt per channel mono blocks with massive power supplies and getting the best sound I’ve ever had. And not in a tiny room either. The DS makes this sound fascinating.
Help me out here - as I’m trying to get my head around the “add-on” discussions. I’m sort of following this at a certain remove, as I don’t anticipate needing an Uber DS, but isn’t the basic concept that it be more than one box? It could end up being an analog box, a digital box and probably separate outboard PS’s for each (see Paul’s comment near top).
I understand both the reasons for having everything in one chassis and the reasons for separating them. As such, I’m not sure I get why those who want to add things to the DAC unit (HP out, parallel outs, DEQ, etc.) would be opposed to those things being separates, where they would potentially be of higher quality and isolated from the guts of the DAC (which I thought was the idea in the first place)? Having to use ICs?
I appreciate that not wanting a preamp may play a role in this. Since Redcloud, I’m not using one at the moment, but I know from experience the system will be improved by a good one. I have a VTL, and the system is better in many ways with it, in certain ways sonically and definitely functionally. My VTL is good, but both tubed (4 of ‘em) and single-ended…I want to get a balanced and possibly tube-free unit next. I just can’t deal with long warm-up periods, and I like to leave my system on all the time, so I’m not great with using tube devices except in the studio, where I know I will turn them on and off as needed. Though I recently left a 4 channel tubed mic pre on overnight…; )
The BHK may be a suitable compromise for me, you can leave it in standby, so at least everything but the tubes are powered. I may also just find 9,000-hour tubes I like, and deal with the cost of leaving them on. New tubes every Christmas. Life is short : )
So - is it that those of you wanting these “add-ons” to the Uber actually want to end up with a “minimal system”, such as a server and the DAC - despite being OK with a multi-chassis DAC?
