A New DAC for $349!*

I'm not questioning your decision, John, the Bifrost sounds great either way, I just didn't understand the context of the use of the word "stable" in your post.

Cheers,
PC

 

which is better optical or coax?

 

Digital coax is generally regarded by many to be superior to optical.

 

Have any of you folks directly compared the Bifrost to the Grant TubeDAC-11?

 

I've been living with the demo unit for just over a week now and have put around 150 hours on top of what it already had on it. The mid-range is still prominent, but I'm actually liking this now because it's adding an eery realism to vocals that just wasn't there before. It seems crazy but EVERY track I play now has fantastic vocal presence.

If I was being really picky, if the top end was a tiny bit crisper with more attack, the Bifrost would be a perfect to my amplification and speakers IMO, which already lean to the smooth/liquidy side of the sound spectrum. I briefly flirted with both the Parametric and 31-band Graphic EQ's provided by my playback software to compensate for this but felt this messed up the cohesion of the sound, even when used judiciously (I think you really need to be aware precisely aware of the type and degree of adjustment required or else by correcting one issue you can end up causing yourself a whole set of new problems!). So in the end I settled for a simple 1dB boost on the Treble knob on my amp and now everything has snapped into place!

Needless to say I am sold on the Bifrost, and I've pretty much decided to go for the w/USB option. At least then I'll have no regrets in the future if I end up downloading 24/192 material.....

 

Just an FYI to Squeezebox Touch users:

I got a chance to do a very good A/B between the SBT analog out and digital to the Bifrost. Given that both outputs are active simultaneously, it was just a matter of hooking up to two inputs on my amp and then switching back and forth during playback. (I used an AQ 2-m coax cable for the digital connection and AQ Diamondback cables for all analog interconnects.)

The result? I could hear absolutely no difference between the two. This included near field and normal seating distances with lots of material that I know extremely well. This was a shock to me. On my headphone rig, the Bifrost easily bested my Squeezebox 2. The conclusion either speaks to the high quality of the SBT internal DAC or it speaks to the resolving capabilities of my amp/speakers.

It looks like I will be waiting for the Statement DAC for use in the big rig. The Bifrost goes back to the headphone rig where it has produced many hours of blissful listening.

 

Cheers Dave. Very useful info.

 

I've put nearly 200 hours of burn-in on my Bifrost now. Soon I'll be hooking it up to my main system for a critical listen. I can already tell that it has a wider soundstage, with smoother highs and more of a bass extension than my Simaudio Moon 100 D. Anyone else come to the same sonic conclusion of the Bifrost? Choruses sound eerily holographic too. Right now it's burning on Elvis' SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY...and the Jordanaires sound like they're huddled around my computer desk

 

I've found that glass optical (not plastic fiber) can be as good as coaxial.

 

Is glass optical prohibitively expensive? Where can it be found? I have to use optical for streaming my foobar playlists from my netbook to the Bifrost.

 

No, not prohibitively expensive. A few years ago I bought two 2 meter lengths of Amphenol cables for less than thirty dollars each. I notice they are no longer available, but cables with the same specs seem available from other manufacturers, the one that seems closest to the Amphenol is the Sonicwave from Cables to Go, and I've seen these available from online dealers and ebay.

I compared my Amphenol cable to a 100 dollar Creative Concept Black Knight coaxial cable (which I had been using quite happily for some time) . . . the same component as a transport into the same DAC. I really heard no significant difference between the inputs and respective cables, which surprised me. That is not the case with plastic fiber optic Toslink in my experience. Glass Toslink is definitely worth investigating.

 

In your experience, what are the sonic differences you've heard between glass and plastic optics?

 

I've never bought or heard a REALLY expensive plastic Toslink cable, but I've used two that were about the same price as this glass cable, thirty dollars or so. In comparison to the glass they were dull and flat sounding, a little thick. Also in comparison to coaxial digital cables. Now for a thin or harsh sounding system, this can be helpful. But they don't seem "neutral" to me and they seem to be dark or dull.

As a result I just avoided using Toslink whenever possible. But I had a system set up where I needed two digital inputs to use, and only had one coaxial and a Toslink. A friend suggested I try a glass Toslink cable as he found them to be superior and as good as coaxial. So I did, was able to make a comparison with the same material using the same two machines and selecting the two inputs by remote and was surprised to hear no reason not to use the glass Toslink cable. This was the first time that Toslink has sounded as good as coaxial to me. I've used these cables with three different sources and three different DACs and have been more than satisfied.

 

Cool. Thanks for your input. Wouldn't a glass optical cable cause problems with the plastic plugs since glass and plastic have different refractive indexes?

 

Ihere's no inherent problem.

 

Ok. Fascinating stuff. I guess glass would sound more neutral than plastic, as I'm sure it's less clouded.

 

2 Glass Toslinks and 1 High End Plastic:


http://www.uniqueproductsonline.com/6ftgltodiauc.html

http://www.lifatec.com/toslink2.html

http://www.sysconcept.ca/product_info.php?products_id=365&osCsid=28dkh5or5i89v87ek50gc4lob3

 

.

 

For those interested, I have started another thread where I will be documenting the break-in of my new Schiit Bifrost DAC: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=285693