Yes, since it is analog. T+A DAC 200 doesn’t even have anything else than DSD Direct, since it’s DSD side is discrete implementation without any DSP. (like Holo Audio too)
On T+A the volume control is relay switched resistor ladder. It also allows bypassing this volume control stage if you need just fixed output.
Yes, because RME has only the DAC chip’s digital volume control. It doesn’t have analog one at all…
Yes, this is a possibility. But you have the choice, you can choose which one you prefer.
If you choose DAC purely based on couple of measurements instead of listening to it…
But it is not as good fit for a class-D amplifier. Both because it leaks it’s built-in SMPS switching noise to analog outputs and also because it doesn’t have as good analog filter overall, compared to DAC 200 or Holo Spring 3 / May. It also doesn’t have analog volume control option.
D-6 is good for it’s price level. But nowhere near overall quality of the better DACs.
My recommendation was based on the particular setup in question…
For my ADI-2 vs D-6, it is practically same for all measurements, not only a couple… I can’t find any ADI-2 measurement that is significantly better than D-6…
Yes my comment is about someone’s ADI-2 recommendation only, not all DACs
I just ordered some from Thomann. I already had such for my two ADI-2 Pro’s.
Yes, that’s the case.
In some ways the 503 is better and in some worse, but has better build quality. 503 is limited to DSD256 though because it uses different chip variant. Unfortunately 503 is a bit more flimsy than 501. 701 improved build quality again, but at steep price difference.
Interesting debate, hypethetically, if you were to rank 3 DACs, the two I own, the RME ADI-2 DAC FS, the Topping D90 and then the SMSL D6, what order would you put them in, in terms of quality? I might be putting together another system in the house, so one way or another a new DAC would be needed, so a new SMSL would not go to waste. I could then consider my next moves and save up if needed!
That was with PCM input.
I generally don’t do the full suite of tests with DSD input on DACs as there isn’t a way to upsample the audio being fed from the analyzer software in real time (the AP software only supports ASIO devices, so no WASAPI virtual cables can be used to route into HQP), and I don’t have HQPlayer Pro to make an upsampled hard-copy. So I wasn’t able to test with DSD besides some stuff where I could create a file via other means, then play that through HQP, so I often did basic 1khz THD testing etc as one can use REW or the APx Waveform generator to create a WAV file then run that through HQP in real time.
I’ve got a new method of capturing DSD audio now to a file though and so in future will be able to do more comprehensive testing with DSD playback.
You can configure DUT delay in the AP software, had to do that when testing stuff with things like MScaler, but yeah, with stuff like DSD it’s easier to just do it closed-loop.
It does, though when doing a virtual cable passthrough method the delay with HQP should remain fixed no?
It’d only change I assume if you were actually playing different files
Input to output delay may vary, since it is completely asynchronous with huge FIFO buffers in between. Especially because virtual cable kind of things run from software timers which vary depending on scheduling delays of the OS. For that reason, the processing can withstand up to about ±500 ms of jitter.