I keep my audio budget rather modest so i'll likely never own a DAC of this caliber, however I still enjoy getting a look at the internals. I find all the components and engineering put into these fascinating. Just for fun I've been upgrading my $60 FX AUDIO X6 DAC circuit board with larger amp power supply, higher value caps, removed the RCA outputs and soldered 14 AWG wire directly to the board, etc. Even replaced the optical jack with one that has a larger lens inside from a spare DENON receiver. List goes on. In the end I have a incredibly clear and full sounding system. Keep up the great work sir! It's much appreciated.
I've had the R-1 for over five years now. Feeding it with the Audio-gd DI-20. It is a tremendous sounding DAC. Tried to love any of the OS modes but I keep returning to full NOS, it being a R-2R ladder DAC 'n all.
I had one in my system but didn't like it very much. No matter which setting I tried, I always felt that something was missing... The nice folks at Magna Hifi recommended I try the Singxer SDA6 Pro which I find to be an excellent match in my system.
I am currently using this dac in my system but i prefer the NOS mode. To my ears it sounds warmer and has a stronger bass compare to OS. OS on the other hand indeed sounds cleaner.
Thank you Hans. I was wondering if you have any opinions in general on ladder DACs versus DACs that use a chip? I think you use a Brooklyn Bridge which has a chip, the Denafrips Ares II which uses a resistor ladder and a dragonfly which also uses a chip. Is there a difference in tone or warmth using a ladder or are the differences just what you might expect using a higher priced component compared to cheaper?
I think you can “voice” a solution with a single chip or FPGA+ladder as you like if you design everything from ground up. A DAC chip is basically most of the digital chain already implemented by a IC manufacturer. I.e. a lot of the digital side is already implemented by the IC manufacturer; implementors typically only control the analog face. In this case they have an FPGA controlling the ladder so they clearly have full control over the last stage of the digital chain. I.e. they control the very last bit of the digital voicing exactly. Hope that make sense; DAC chip => IC manufacturer do digital voicing. Controller + ladder: implementer do digital voicing. And in both cases analog chain is voiced by implementer. (There’s one more digital engineering peep who comments occasionally on audio videos who think there’s a lot of great audio processing chips now with great audio outs, so you can build controller by processor instead of FPGA these days. But many of us more old school peeps prefer FPGA or ASIC to do zero/low latency applications. That’s why you very often find FPGAs low volume in audio and video equipment; digital engineering folks are used to using them in custom hardware designs with low latency & clock requirements.)
@@sc51153826 so, hmm, two problems; the question doesn’t make sense if I understand correctly, and even if it did I’m not the right person to answer. I’m the wrong person because I’m not that into hifi and don’t have the equipment or ears to distinguish between two quality component. FPGA vs ladder makes no sense I think, because you always have a ladder I think? Inside or outside the chip. And I don’t know much about different ladder configuration. If you look at what Audio-GD states the FPGA is utilized for, they say they remove clock jitter etc from the input sources. (They might also do other digital processing/filtering/corrections. But that isn’t clearly stated by manufacturer) Finally they control the chips that power the ladder. (All DACs have a ladder of some sort (I believe, unless there’s some other means of leaving the digital domain that I’m not aware of), either inside the chip or outside the chip. There are apparently some different ladder designs, and well, honestly I suck at analog electronics and wouldn’t be able say much useful about them.)
@@sc51153826 FPGA in this design is stated to do 3-4 digital things according to manufacturer if I read their marketing more closely; correct for the minuscule imperfections in ultra precise resistors, high speed spdif (input from the digital input stage), control the ladder, reclock/FIFO to remove input jitter/glitches, oversample and apply digital filters. And it powers the op-amps that power the R2R ladder. FPGA’s never should have their own sound as they are in the digital domain. But the functions (jitter removal, filters etc) designers can implement in the FPGA can have huge impact. Basically (1) what the FPGA does and (2) how it interacts with the analog electronics; that’s what affects the sound. Theoretically you could replace the FPGA with some other controller circuit, if it effectively does the same digital operations to the same timing precision, it should be impossible to hear any difference as they should be equivalent.
Such generalisation is often used by people that need 'rationalities' for a buying decision. But I strongly disagree. Generalisations - especially in audio - are almost always wrong, with the exception of price. Cheap equipment always sounds cheap. So a good tube amp doesn't sound warmer than a solid state one, a good turntable doesn't sound better than a digital source and a good ladder converter doesn't sound warmer than a good chip based converter. (or vice versa). They just are different ways to the same goal (I hope): perfect sound.
Hi Hans..this is one of good dac.. so from your review. what is your best PCM (1-7) setting that you prefer? For DSD (4-7) .. which you found that very pleasant listening and suit to your choice most of the time..thanks Hans
No, I never use optical for it has limited bandwidth and has to be converted form electric to optical and back in a cheap component. That's why optical often also is restricted to 96 kHz. If you go for quality use any other input.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel Thanks. I am using WireWorld Optical, but will check other options between Sigh, no better options between my Oppo 105 Audio Alchemy DDP-1 Ins, which is pre HDMI.
Seems to me that Hans is far more impressed by the Denafrips than he is by the Audio GD R-1. He grades this in the mid tier, whilst Denafrips goes all the way into the high tier.
Try hdmi option instead, As it is best digital input option we can get. To me usb input was not good, worst in my opinion. Best is hdmi, followed by spdif with schiit eitr. I use tanly tam's audio interface to pull out hdmi signal.
The I²S input on HDMI is not necessarily the best input. On lower quality sources (streamer, computer) it might be the best output but on a high quality streamer SPDIF or USB can even be better, depending on the DAC, the cable and other peripheral conditions.
I don’t fully agree with Audio-GD calling FPGAs “processors”. FPGA is soft defined hardware... not processors working in very high MHz or GHz to sequentially execute a sequential programming instruction. Not that it matters much, kind of telling people an orange is a tomato; it isn’t entirely wrong, only mostly wrong :-)
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel hmm, perhaps it is just a language question. It may be an audio processor while it isn’t a digital processor. Their marketing is directed to audio folks, so they choose audio lingo even if it breaks the digital circuit lingo.
The problem is the lighting. I had to temporarily move the lights and still haven’t found the right setting after placing them back. But thanks for your concern.
![Audio-gd DAC Master 7 Singularity Review [How NOT to Design a DAC]](/img/1.gif)
I keep my audio budget rather modest so i'll likely never own a DAC of this caliber, however I still enjoy getting a look at the internals. I find all the components and engineering put into these fascinating. Just for fun I've been upgrading my $60 FX AUDIO X6 DAC circuit board with larger amp power supply, higher value caps, removed the RCA outputs and soldered 14 AWG wire directly to the board, etc. Even replaced the optical jack with one that has a larger lens inside from a spare DENON receiver. List goes on. In the end I have a incredibly clear and full sounding system. Keep up the great work sir! It's much appreciated.
Enjoy the music.
I've had the R-1 for over five years now. Feeding it with the Audio-gd DI-20. It is a tremendous sounding DAC.
Tried to love any of the OS modes but I keep returning to full NOS, it being a R-2R ladder DAC 'n all.
Thanks for sharing
I had one in my system but didn't like it very much. No matter which setting I tried, I always felt that something was missing... The nice folks at Magna Hifi recommended I try the Singxer SDA6 Pro which I find to be an excellent match in my system.
Fair enough!
I am currently using this dac in my system but i prefer the NOS mode. To my ears it sounds warmer and has a stronger bass compare to OS. OS on the other hand indeed sounds cleaner.
They are two approaches to the same ideal sound and both are not perfect (otherwise they would not have been there in the first place).
@Alex Defender I use NOS 1.
@Alex Defender Yes but i didn't care for it really. If i want TDA sound i will get a TDA dac. Your mileage may vary though.
Thank you Hans. I was wondering if you have any opinions in general on ladder DACs versus DACs that use a chip? I think you use a Brooklyn Bridge which has a chip, the Denafrips Ares II which uses a resistor ladder and a dragonfly which also uses a chip. Is there a difference in tone or warmth using a ladder or are the differences just what you might expect using a higher priced component compared to cheaper?
I think you can “voice” a solution with a single chip or FPGA+ladder as you like if you design everything from ground up.
A DAC chip is basically most of the digital chain already implemented by a IC manufacturer. I.e. a lot of the digital side is already implemented by the IC manufacturer; implementors typically only control the analog face.
In this case they have an FPGA controlling the ladder so they clearly have full control over the last stage of the digital chain. I.e. they control the very last bit of the digital voicing exactly.
Hope that make sense; DAC chip => IC manufacturer do digital voicing. Controller + ladder: implementer do digital voicing. And in both cases analog chain is voiced by implementer.
(There’s one more digital engineering peep who comments occasionally on audio videos who think there’s a lot of great audio processing chips now with great audio outs, so you can build controller by processor instead of FPGA these days. But many of us more old school peeps prefer FPGA or ASIC to do zero/low latency applications. That’s why you very often find FPGAs low volume in audio and video equipment; digital engineering folks are used to using them in custom hardware designs with low latency & clock requirements.)
@@randomgeocacher Regarding the system architectures, do you hear any sound quality differences between FPGAs vs R2R and which do you prefer?
@@sc51153826 so, hmm, two problems; the question doesn’t make sense if I understand correctly, and even if it did I’m not the right person to answer.
I’m the wrong person because I’m not that into hifi and don’t have the equipment or ears to distinguish between two quality component.
FPGA vs ladder makes no sense I think, because you always have a ladder I think? Inside or outside the chip. And I don’t know much about different ladder configuration.
If you look at what Audio-GD states the FPGA is utilized for, they say they remove clock jitter etc from the input sources. (They might also do other digital processing/filtering/corrections. But that isn’t clearly stated by manufacturer) Finally they control the chips that power the ladder.
(All DACs have a ladder of some sort (I believe, unless there’s some other means of leaving the digital domain that I’m not aware of), either inside the chip or outside the chip. There are apparently some different ladder designs, and well, honestly I suck at analog electronics and wouldn’t be able say much useful about them.)
@@sc51153826 FPGA in this design is stated to do 3-4 digital things according to manufacturer if I read their marketing more closely; correct for the minuscule imperfections in ultra precise resistors, high speed spdif (input from the digital input stage), control the ladder, reclock/FIFO to remove input jitter/glitches, oversample and apply digital filters. And it powers the op-amps that power the R2R ladder.
FPGA’s never should have their own sound as they are in the digital domain. But the functions (jitter removal, filters etc) designers can implement in the FPGA can have huge impact. Basically (1) what the FPGA does and (2) how it interacts with the analog electronics; that’s what affects the sound.
Theoretically you could replace the FPGA with some other controller circuit, if it effectively does the same digital operations to the same timing precision, it should be impossible to hear any difference as they should be equivalent.
Such generalisation is often used by people that need 'rationalities' for a buying decision. But I strongly disagree. Generalisations - especially in audio - are almost always wrong, with the exception of price. Cheap equipment always sounds cheap. So a good tube amp doesn't sound warmer than a solid state one, a good turntable doesn't sound better than a digital source and a good ladder converter doesn't sound warmer than a good chip based converter. (or vice versa). They just are different ways to the same goal (I hope): perfect sound.
Hi Hans..this is one of good dac.. so from your review. what is your best PCM (1-7) setting that you prefer? For DSD (4-7) .. which you found that very pleasant listening and suit to your choice most of the time..thanks Hans
Thank you Hans !
👍🏻
the Ares ll does not have "clocks" for about the same price.
Of course it has clocks!!! It wouldn’t work without.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel i was referring to the Femto oscillators that the Pontus has to eliminate jitter errors. thanks.
But what about the sound quality????
Hi Hans, great review, and I've been watching your reviews for a while now. I'm just wondering about how this compares to the Ares 2?
Watch ruclips.net/video/05bH4m-XmfA/видео.html
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel Thanks. But it's hard to understand the sound differences between the two models.
did you try optical?
No, I never use optical for it has limited bandwidth and has to be converted form electric to optical and back in a cheap component. That's why optical often also is restricted to 96 kHz. If you go for quality use any other input.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel Thanks. I am using WireWorld Optical, but will check other options between Sigh, no better options between my Oppo 105 Audio Alchemy DDP-1 Ins, which is pre HDMI.
Does this unit run hot?
Handwarm
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel ok thanks!😊
How does it compare to the Denafrips? Thank you for your videos.😊
See my reviews. That’s what I make them for.
Seems to me that Hans is far more impressed by the Denafrips than he is by the Audio GD R-1. He grades this in the mid tier, whilst Denafrips goes all the way into the high tier.
They are in the difference price level. Denafrips is more expensive.
@@ericho4843 Not really. - Ares is about 150 Cheaper than R1.
Nice
Try hdmi option instead,
As it is best digital input option we can get.
To me usb input was not good, worst in my opinion.
Best is hdmi, followed by spdif with schiit eitr.
I use tanly tam's audio interface to pull out hdmi signal.
The I²S input on HDMI is not necessarily the best input. On lower quality sources (streamer, computer) it might be the best output but on a high quality streamer SPDIF or USB can even be better, depending on the DAC, the cable and other peripheral conditions.
I don’t fully agree with Audio-GD calling FPGAs “processors”. FPGA is soft defined hardware... not processors working in very high MHz or GHz to sequentially execute a sequential programming instruction. Not that it matters much, kind of telling people an orange is a tomato; it isn’t entirely wrong, only mostly wrong :-)
Symantecs. It does the work of a processor: it processes audio data.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel hmm, perhaps it is just a language question. It may be an audio processor while it isn’t a digital processor. Their marketing is directed to audio folks, so they choose audio lingo even if it breaks the digital circuit lingo.
@@randomgeocacher Indeed it is a DSP Digital Signal Processor.
Hans, your eyes look tired. Take care of them :)
The problem is the lighting. I had to temporarily move the lights and still haven’t found the right setting after placing them back. But thanks for your concern.