Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Playback Forum => Topic started by: Thelonious on January 25, 2025, 12:09:19 PM
-
I recently pulled out an old set of two way bookshelf speakers (totem rainmakers) that had been in my main system about 10 years ago, but had been in storage, to set up in a secondary system. My main system for ~5 years has been a small tube amp (30w) and ~1978 Klipsch La Scalas. This set up takes up a lot of space, and has an incredibly low WAF, but provides a very lively experience that I really enjoy, particularly for the live recordings that make up so much of my listening time.
I had the rainmakers kicking around and I thought I should start by trying them in my other room to build a system with some imaging. I paired them with an old Marantz 1060 integrated that I found for cheap locally and I was instantly struck by the imaging. I love my main system but imaging, and in particular image depth, is not what it does well. With the bookshelf speakers I can close my eyes and the speakers disappear. I initially set up this system with a schiit modi 3 DAC and the imaging was immediately noticeable. I decided to swap in a Denafrips Aries 2 and I was shocked by the difference. I think that the imaging is much clearer than with the Aries than the modi. In particular the image depth. There are other differences between the DACs (clarity, tonality, etc.) but the image clarity is what struck me the most. For most of my live recordings, this was my first chance to really hear the depth as it’s not as noticeable for me on my headphones or monitors, or in my main room. I can really feel the audience between my listening position and the music. This had me going back to albums that I had been listening to but had forgotten how good the imaging was on the recording. The intro to Time and Money on DSOTM, etc. are obvious examples of recordings that I find have significant depth. I will say that the downside of this is that recordings I made, and was quite happy with before, now can feel off centre in a way that was not nearly as noticeable before.
I was struck by two things.
First, the difference in the DAC made a much bigger difference than I thought, particularly given the modest nature of the system and, second, the biggest difference (imaging) would likely not even be that noticeable on my main system, or on headphones, because they don’t really image that well. My suspicion is that small two way speakers have this ability and, in general, it is less present as speakers get larger.
I recognize that the difference DACs make can be contentious, and are certainly system dependent, but I was caught off guard as I wasn’t expecting the difference to be that obvious, particularly on a relatively inexpensive system.
I am curious what DACS others may use and why people may like/choose them.
-
Apogee ensemble and apogee element.
-
I am using an Audio-gd FUN awesome DAC which kindms has loaned me on a permanent basis for several years now.
It pushes my headphones and Audio Engine A-2's and is a great tool for me mixing and finishing live recordings.
I recently switched to open back Hi-Fiman Sundara phones and the change in imaging using these vs my old AT-50's is marked.
I have been searching for another DAC/headphone amp as the Audio-gd seems to need 25-30% more gain to push the Sundara's.
thanks for the detailed input and question.
-
Apogee ensemble and apogee element.
That looks like an interesting solution. It looks like an audio interface so I’m assuming that you are playing music back directly from computers.
I am using an Audio-gd FUN awesome DAC which kindms has loaned me on a permanent basis for several years now.
It pushes my headphones and Audio Engine A-2's and is a great tool for me mixing and finishing live recordings.
I recently switched to open back Hi-Fiman Sundara phones and the change in imaging using these vs my old AT-50's is marked.
I have been searching for another DAC/headphone amp as the Audio-gd seems to need 25-30% more gain to push the Sundara's.
thanks for the detailed input and question.
A friend of mine has a pair of Sundara's that I thought sounded great. I do find that planar magnetic headphones benefit from a good amount of power in general. It’s great that you are finding the imaging good with the Sundaras. I’m going to go back and try my larger headphones as I have been thinking about how to clearly hear the imaging when doing post on shows and my computer monitors and headphones I normally use for that task don’t really convey the image that well and therefore I’m not considering it when balancing levels etc.
-
I primarily use computers and my turntable for playback, but the ensemble is basically a stand alone converter at this point.
-
Focusrite 18i20 - it's a workhorse.
-
HRT Music Streamer HD 24/192 and USB Audio 2.0
Discontinued and hard to find, but worth hunting for because of the USB Audio 2.0.
https://positive-feedback.com/Issue67/hrt_musicstreamer.htm
-
I've been very happy with this Cambridge DAC
https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/usa/en/products/hi-fi/dacmagic/dacmagic-200m
-
Living room: the one built into my Parasound P6 preamp
Office: the one built into my Yamaha A-S801 integrated amp
-
Those details of depth and dimension are some of the top things that differentiate really good mics, really good mic setups, and really good playback systems from otherwise good ones for me. There are other aspects that are more fundamentally important, but are easier to get right or correct for.
-
MixPre6 model I, mini out to RCA
-
Really enjoyed reading this. It’s funny how a setup you didn’t expect much from can end up opening your ears in a new way. What you described lines up with my own experience too — small two-ways in the right spot can create a shockingly precise image. Compared to something big and lively like La Scalas, it’s a very different kind of presentation. Fun in its own way, but not really about depth.
Your reaction to the DAC swap also rings true. Not every DAC changes imaging, but some definitely shape the sense of space. The Aries II has that smoother, more open feel to it, so I’m not surprised it helped the Rainmakers stretch out. When the speakers already image well, those differences pop out fast.
And yes — the “curse” of good imaging is suddenly hearing every little imbalance in older recordings you were perfectly happy with before.
On my end, I’ve gone through a few DACs. I use a Topping D70 for everyday listening because it’s clean and predictable, and an MHDT Orchid in another system because it gives a softer, more spacious vibe that works well with smaller speakers. I don’t think there’s a single best DAC, but pairing the right one with the right system makes more of a difference than I used to think.
Thanks for posting this. It makes me want to pull some of my old speakers out of storage and play around again.
-
I used to own LaScalas back when i was first in the hifi biz. I got to meet Paul a couple of times. A character. I enjoyed the LaScalas a lot but eventually bought Quad ESLs and sold the Klipsch speakers to a guy who was going to move to Alaska. I like to think of them singing away in the frozen north.
I use my MixPre10 II as DAC via USB in my computer/recording room, using the mini-TRS output to an NAD integrated amp and SPICA TC-50 speakers. The imaging is really excellent. Using the MixPre instead of the computer's DAC was like buying new speakers in terms of clarity and imaging. I'm still surprised sometimes.
tg
-
Denafrips ARES 2 Ladder DAC. I have had alot of topping stuff, but this one tops them all
-
Benchmark. Great price point on used models and easy to find
-
Really enjoyed reading this. It’s funny how a setup you didn’t expect much from can end up opening your ears in a new way. What you described lines up with my own experience too — small two-ways in the right spot can create a shockingly precise image. Compared to something big and lively like La Scalas, it’s a very different kind of presentation. Fun in its own way, but not really about depth.
Your reaction to the DAC swap also rings true. Not every DAC changes imaging, but some definitely shape the sense of space. The Aries II has that smoother, more open feel to it, so I’m not surprised it helped the Rainmakers stretch out. When the speakers already image well, those differences pop out fast.
And yes — the “curse” of good imaging is suddenly hearing every little imbalance in older recordings you were perfectly happy with before.
On my end, I’ve gone through a few DACs. I use a Topping D70 for everyday listening because it’s clean and predictable, and an MHDT Orchid in another system because it gives a softer, more spacious vibe that works well with smaller speakers. I don’t think there’s a single best DAC, but pairing the right one with the right system makes more of a difference than I used to think.
Thanks for posting this. It makes me want to pull some of my old speakers out of storage and play around again.
This really does mirror my experience. In particular, small standmounts can image well (when placed correctly of course) and that once you start using them then the difference in upstream components (and the recording chain and mic configuration) become really apparent. I find imaging a really fun rabbit hole and one of the the advantages of OMT 6 recordings for me is the ability to evenly spread the soundstage and adjust for the angular distorion.
Denafrips ARES 2 Ladder DAC. I have had alot of topping stuff, but this one tops them all
I really do think this DAC images particularly well of the few I've tried. I also find almost any external DAC, including ones in an audio interface or a MixPre, make a huge difference compared to ones built into a computer provided your speakers highlight the image.
-
grace sdac. i have the balanced out here in my office and unbalanced in the house.
I run the Grace SDAC balanced out in to a Grace M902 and then use that to drive the outlaw 2200 mono blocks.
ive been very happy with the dacs and pricepoint was "cheap"
-
I use a fiio m17 DAP wich serves as a DAP too.