Ciúnas DAC USB DAC Review

[YoniV]

May I ask why the attenuation of frequencies beyond ~22kHz is at all important?

 

[amirm]

Sorry Correction, l believe this is the battery version

It is.

 

[amirm]

May I ask why the attenuation of frequencies beyond ~22kHz is at all important?

Based on sampling theory, you have to truncate everything above half the sample rate. For 44.1 khz, that would say nothing above 22.05 kHz should be left there. The wiki is good write-up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter

 

[audio_tony]

<snip>
in my listening I find the unit to be very engaging musically, and thought this was one of it's good attributes
<snip>

In my general experience, there is a lot of gear out there that people say sounds satisfying, but measures poorly.

I realise this (subjective) view is the polar opposite of this forums' intentions, however the above comment really does echo my real life experiences.

For some 20 years before I diversified into IT, I repaired a wide variety of audio equipment (high end and low end), and was frequently surprised to hear gear that sounded good when it shouldn't.

Who knows why, as I don't.

 

[amirm]

Who knows why, as I don't.

The simple explanation is that what is heard is not what is produced by the equipment.

 

[audio_tony]

The simple explanation is that what is heard is not what is produced by the equipment.

Expectation bias aside - this doesn't explain it though?

I've even had similar experiences with in car stereo - some gear just sounds amazing (in the context of what it is) but yet in the same vein I've heard car systems where $$$$ have been spent, but although there is plenty of power and clarity - it just doesn't sound "right", where the cheaper system did.

I've experienced this many times, across a broad spectrum of gear - even when I've not known what I was listening to, that excludes any kind of bias.

 

[KMN]

oh wait i think i have it....he is trying to do RC filtering of the power from the switcher. The rising distortion with frequency is a result of using batteries , films (low quality) as decoupling and avoiding ceramics which would have presumably helped that problem. Cant wait for the unveiling.

 

[audio_tony]

@KMN I'm keen to see if it runs on battery only, and to see what the test results reveal then, if @amirm will run some more tests on battery only (if viable)

 

[amirm]

@amirm Could you try testing it just on battery power alone?

It doesn't work that way. From the instructions:

"It needs a 5V supply through it's charging socket at all times except when the unit is put into storage."

 

[pkane]

Expectation bias aside - this doesn't explain it though?

I've even had similar experiences with in car stereo - some gear just sounds amazing (in the context of what it is) but yet in the same vein I've heard car systems where $$$$ have been spent, but although there is plenty of power and clarity - it just doesn't sound "right", where the cheaper system did.

I've experienced this many times, across a broad spectrum of gear - even when I've not known what I was listening to, that excludes any kind of bias.

You can start to glimpse the explanation for this when you listen and hear the night and day differences, only to realize later that the same exact equipment was playing both times.

 

[Veri]

You can start to glimpse the explanation for this when you listen and hear the night and day differences, only to realize later that the same exact equipment was playing both times.

Here a good example in a schiit bifrost review...:

So I was ABing (preamp switching) with the Gungnir Multibit for the last couple days as I mentioned. The rest of the chain was identical. Roon is awesome for this. All my findings were that the gungnir still had more bass punch, weight, voices had a nicer richness to them that made them sound natural and more realistic. Usually with DACs the thing I notice is drums, particularly snares. Here there was no difference. The highs also exactly the same between the two. The gungnir was seemingly louder due to this heavier bottom end. I said earlier I thought the gungnir was louder. I have a rather honest and transparent setup, and will favour a dac with just a little warmth.
After two nights of back and forth, I was done and thought nah, this bifrost ain’t for me. Got up to unplug it. Lo and behold I had confused myself. I got my ABs the wrong way round. Holy crap I am an idiot. All my findings..were the wrong way around.

What basically happened is psychological bias when he was listening to the cheaper gear. Then realized he actually had the more expensive one plugged in. Instead of concluding that our brain/ears are quite easily fooled and non volume-matched, sighted tests are crap he instead just concludes his finding were "the wrong way around". lol

 

[Timola]

It doesn't work that way. From the instructions:

"It needs a 5V supply through it's charging socket at all times except when the unit is put into storage."

This is my understanding too. I was told by JK to keep the charging PSU on, unless I was not going to use it for some time, in which case the PSU needs to be disconnected from the DAC (presumably because the batteries may discharge through this, but I'm not sure). I was also told that the PSU just needs to be good enough, that a better (cleaner, linear) supply makes no difference. I wonder how the DC from the batteries that powers the DAC is not affected by noise from the PSU. I guess it does as Amir can see the 60Hz spikes from the mains.

The unit will operate from the batteries alone ( I have tried this and it works), i.e. without a PSU but only for a few hours...and probably sounds best when fully charged. To my ears there was no benefit from battery only use.

 

[audio_tony]

You can start to glimpse the explanation for this when you listen blind and hear the night and day differences, only to realize later that the same exact equipment was playing both times.

I think you misunderstand my point though.

To cite an example; back in my audio repair days, I had a pair of speakers mounted in a vertical panel (part of a shelf) on the rear of my bench.

Some speakers (we would replace them quite frequently!) would sound "right" with certain amplifiers - by that I mean the sound wasn't superfi, but it was inoffensive, good even - and yet you could connect another source and they would just sound bad.

So what should sound bad actually sounded ok...

I'm not really sure how else to explain it!

EDIT: Corrected my sentence: "could connect source" ---> "could connect another source"

 

[audio_tony]

All my findings were that the gungnir still had more bass punch, weight, voices had a nicer richness to them that made them sound natural and more realistic.

<snip>

After two nights of back and forth, I was done and thought nah, this bifrost ain’t for me. Got up to unplug it. Lo and behold I had confused myself. I got my ABs the wrong way round.

From that I read that he thought he was listening to Gungnir but was actually listening to the Bifrost - and preferred the Bifrost.

What's the relevance by the way?

 

[pkane]

I think you misunderstand my point though.

To cite an example; back in my audio repair days, I had a pair of speakers mounted in a vertical panel (part of a shelf) on the rear of my bench.

Some speakers (we would replace them quite frequently!) would sound "right" with certain amplifiers - by that I mean the sound wasn't superfi, but it was inoffensive, good even - and yet you could connect source and they would just sound bad.

So what should sound bad actually sounded ok...

I'm not really sure how else to explain it!

There are good explanations for speaker differences that don’t require belief in magic or faith in audiophile myths. Of course I can’t tell you what was different with the speakers you tested. Unless you’ve done some measurements and properly controlled blind testing, there is not much to discuss, I’m afraid.

 

[audio_tony]

There are good explanations for speaker differences that don’t require belief in magic or faith in audiophile myths. Of course I can’t tell you what was different with the speakers you tested. Unless you’ve done some measurements and properly controlled blind testing, there is not much to discuss, I’m afraid.

I'm not referring to A/B comparisons here.

What I'm trying to convey (quite badly apparently) is that some gear just sounds "right" regardless of how it measures.

This is not in A/B comparisons - it's just 'having an ear' for a good sound, and hearing something that sounds good / right even though it's not that good.

 

[Timola]

So what should sound bad actually sounded ok...

I'm not really sure how else to explain it!

In my youth, when I had a pioneer cassette/radio in my car (Ford Cortina MK3), I mounted an external amp, a rather small diminutive Murphy with just a few graphic equalizer knobs that cost around £25 and this really improved the sound rather massively. All my friends were impressed too. To go one better, I tried and wasted a lot of money on much more expensive amps (upto £100, one by Pioneer that was huge about 5 times the size and weight of the Murphy) but they just didn't play my music like the Murphy. Sometimes you stumble on a set-up that you like and find it difficult to improve. I still have fond memories of that Murphy.

As for expectation bias, this Ciunas ISO-DAC is very modest looking and rather small in stature and cost. From it's looks and 'presence' my bias was fully on the wrong side. It won me over rather quickly and now I wonder maybe it's the simplicity that I appreciate and found impressive. I guess expectation bias can work in all sorts of ways some subconscious. I was however not happy with the 'sibilance', 'harshness' and 'digital' sound of my Audiolab MDAC and was looking for something different for a while, so maybe I was primed subconsciously. Perhaps the ISO-DAC arrived at the right time for me, but when I played it I knew it was streets ahead of the MDAC almost from the first track.

 

[pkane]

I'm not referring to A/B comparisons here.

What I'm trying to convey (quite badly apparently) is that some gear just sounds "right" regardless of how it measures.

This is not in A/B comparisons - it's just 'having an ear' for a good sound, and hearing something that sounds good / right even though it's not that good.

You may well have a good ear, but what sounds good to you may sound awful to me. Or, maybe you are hearing things that are not really there. Or maybe the position of the speakers and your room make one sound better than the other. Or maybe the better sounding speakers really are better. My point is that without proper testing we’ll never know.

 

[amirm]

New teardown just posted: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/ciúnas-iso-dac-usb-dac-teardown-2.9809/

 

[audio_tony]

You may well have a good ear, but what sounds good to you may sound awful to me.

I completely agree. Again this is subjective.

I'm referring to a broad spectrum of devices I have heard over the years. Budget CD players that sounded better than they had a right to - same with amplifiers.

My point was - that devices that have poor specifications (within reason) can still sound good, for whatever reason.