Since cthart was raising the question of DAC compatibility with Hauptwerk setup ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12051&p=89101&hilit=dac#p89101 ) it remained on my mind as one direction to explore.
Actually the question might seem silly. sound boards contain DAC, and indeed DAC are equipped with DAC. but the point is a bit more subtle than that. In the sometimes difficult question of how to interconnect IT and audio, two answers came so far. One from the IT world - the sound board - and one from the audio board - the DAC. Two worlds that do not communicate easily - even the concerns are not the same. Jitter is an obsession on DACs, latency is the main issue for sound boards. Although jitter can also be an issue on sound boards, and latency on DACs!
Yet manufacturers do not always communicate on those aspects which are not "theirs". If we happen to know Cambridge has used Wolfson WM8742 DACs in his Magic 100, we even do not know which brand has been selected to equip the Motu unless we dig on the net.
A friend a mine had a Cambridge Audio Azur DAC Magic 100. He lended it to me graciously, which allowed me to compare it with my Motu UltraLite-MK3 Hybrid.
Actually I didn't know what to expect. I was afraid of the latency, somehow unsure it would be working well with the other components of my Hauptwerk setup - somehow complex, I'll come back to it later. The price gap ($ 549 vs. $ 299) also made me anticipate a better result for the Motu. Last but not least, the tiny box containing the DAC looked out of comparison with the sound board solid appearance -
(unfortunately not as the same scale)
My first surprise came with the connection. I had nothing to change in Hauptwerk itsellf, since Reaper is the output to which it is connected. In Reaper, the change from the Motu to the Cambridge Audio was sooo easy - just go to preferences, output, and select the Cambridge Audio Azur DAC Magic 100 in the drop down menu. Macs are amazing for that - no need for drivers, it works and is reconginsed by the Mac as soon the USB is connected. I then selected the input in the DAC to 48 kHz, and it was done.
Unlike the Motu which allows USB2 and FireWire800 - the latter being used in my case - the Cambridge can be connected with USB2 only. Good point for the DAC, it allowed a direct RCA connection. This is an important aspect for me, since my amps are fully analog.
I then checked the latency values in Reaper. For the Motu, for 512 spls the value was 11 / 11 ms. For the Cambridge, I was astonished to read for the same 512 spls setting a value of 10 / 11 ms!
It was not going to be my last surprise. I then played a piece on Saint-Michel-en-Thiérache, first with the Motu, then with the Cambridge. It was not a A/B Blind Test indeed, especially as I shut down both the computer and the audio setup between the change of interface - not really keen to try plug and play with this kind of equipment.
As a result, the Cambridge was much, much better than the Motu. More presence in the sound - a highly subjective statement indeed - but also much cleaner, richer bass. They were more defined, and precise in the audio rendering. I was previously considering to change my subwoofer, but with this experience there is no need to go for it any longer...
As for the rest of the spectrum, I had the feeling it was better, but it's really hard to tell to which extent my opinion might be biased since I knew which product was connected.
The conclusion of the test was simple - I bought a Cambridge Audio Azur DAC Magic 100 this afternoon itself...
Nevertheless, I would stress this "comparison" is to be considered in the very specific context of my setup, i.e. -
- my audio system is fully analog - when it goes through the source's DACs, it remains analog till it reaches the speakers (electrostatic panels).
- my Hauptwerk setup works in 2.1 (stereo + subwoofer). Not sure how DACs can work with multichannel configurations. I don't recall I have ever seen a DAC with 5.1 analog input. For digital signal, it's a different story of course.
- Hauptwerk is interconnected with Reaper, which is used as a VSTI host for Arc 2, a software specialized in room acoustics correction. DIgital signal comes out of the Mac after the full processing is done.
- the Motu was connected through XLR to RCA cables of standard quality. The Cambridge Audio was connected though RCA to RCA audophile one. The test was biased in thie domain - unless one believes cables are all the same.
- not sure what is the real consequence of it, but the Motu analog output is balanced, whereas the vintage Harman Kardon Signature 1.0 pre-amp inputs are unbalanced. On the other hand, the DAC output are unbalanced.
- the Motu was used for its DAC capacities only, in stereo - though it has 14 output channels! I was not using the reverb - I prefer to use very wet sample sets - or any mixes features. Its extreme versatility especially with the support of CueMix FX software (explaining its price tag) was more a liability than an asset to me. There is no option available with the Cambridge - it's perfectly goof proof.
In some other cases the benefits might not be as obvious!
Actually the question might seem silly. sound boards contain DAC, and indeed DAC are equipped with DAC. but the point is a bit more subtle than that. In the sometimes difficult question of how to interconnect IT and audio, two answers came so far. One from the IT world - the sound board - and one from the audio board - the DAC. Two worlds that do not communicate easily - even the concerns are not the same. Jitter is an obsession on DACs, latency is the main issue for sound boards. Although jitter can also be an issue on sound boards, and latency on DACs!
Yet manufacturers do not always communicate on those aspects which are not "theirs". If we happen to know Cambridge has used Wolfson WM8742 DACs in his Magic 100, we even do not know which brand has been selected to equip the Motu unless we dig on the net.
A friend a mine had a Cambridge Audio Azur DAC Magic 100. He lended it to me graciously, which allowed me to compare it with my Motu UltraLite-MK3 Hybrid.
Actually I didn't know what to expect. I was afraid of the latency, somehow unsure it would be working well with the other components of my Hauptwerk setup - somehow complex, I'll come back to it later. The price gap ($ 549 vs. $ 299) also made me anticipate a better result for the Motu. Last but not least, the tiny box containing the DAC looked out of comparison with the sound board solid appearance -
(unfortunately not as the same scale)
My first surprise came with the connection. I had nothing to change in Hauptwerk itsellf, since Reaper is the output to which it is connected. In Reaper, the change from the Motu to the Cambridge Audio was sooo easy - just go to preferences, output, and select the Cambridge Audio Azur DAC Magic 100 in the drop down menu. Macs are amazing for that - no need for drivers, it works and is reconginsed by the Mac as soon the USB is connected. I then selected the input in the DAC to 48 kHz, and it was done.
Unlike the Motu which allows USB2 and FireWire800 - the latter being used in my case - the Cambridge can be connected with USB2 only. Good point for the DAC, it allowed a direct RCA connection. This is an important aspect for me, since my amps are fully analog.
I then checked the latency values in Reaper. For the Motu, for 512 spls the value was 11 / 11 ms. For the Cambridge, I was astonished to read for the same 512 spls setting a value of 10 / 11 ms!
It was not going to be my last surprise. I then played a piece on Saint-Michel-en-Thiérache, first with the Motu, then with the Cambridge. It was not a A/B Blind Test indeed, especially as I shut down both the computer and the audio setup between the change of interface - not really keen to try plug and play with this kind of equipment.
As a result, the Cambridge was much, much better than the Motu. More presence in the sound - a highly subjective statement indeed - but also much cleaner, richer bass. They were more defined, and precise in the audio rendering. I was previously considering to change my subwoofer, but with this experience there is no need to go for it any longer...
As for the rest of the spectrum, I had the feeling it was better, but it's really hard to tell to which extent my opinion might be biased since I knew which product was connected.
The conclusion of the test was simple - I bought a Cambridge Audio Azur DAC Magic 100 this afternoon itself...
Nevertheless, I would stress this "comparison" is to be considered in the very specific context of my setup, i.e. -
- my audio system is fully analog - when it goes through the source's DACs, it remains analog till it reaches the speakers (electrostatic panels).
- my Hauptwerk setup works in 2.1 (stereo + subwoofer). Not sure how DACs can work with multichannel configurations. I don't recall I have ever seen a DAC with 5.1 analog input. For digital signal, it's a different story of course.
- Hauptwerk is interconnected with Reaper, which is used as a VSTI host for Arc 2, a software specialized in room acoustics correction. DIgital signal comes out of the Mac after the full processing is done.
- the Motu was connected through XLR to RCA cables of standard quality. The Cambridge Audio was connected though RCA to RCA audophile one. The test was biased in thie domain - unless one believes cables are all the same.
- not sure what is the real consequence of it, but the Motu analog output is balanced, whereas the vintage Harman Kardon Signature 1.0 pre-amp inputs are unbalanced. On the other hand, the DAC output are unbalanced.
- the Motu was used for its DAC capacities only, in stereo - though it has 14 output channels! I was not using the reverb - I prefer to use very wet sample sets - or any mixes features. Its extreme versatility especially with the support of CueMix FX software (explaining its price tag) was more a liability than an asset to me. There is no option available with the Cambridge - it's perfectly goof proof.
In some other cases the benefits might not be as obvious!
Last edited by pat17 on Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.