Denafrips ARES II USB R2R DAC Review

[Frank Dernie]

Sometimes I wonder and should put back my old Wadia in the system and compare ...

Mine is an old Goldmund, the only reason I don't use it any more is because it can't decode higher than 48kHz files and whilst I don't have many I do have some.

 

[Harmonie]

Mine is an old Goldmund, the only reason I don't use it any more is because it can't decode higher than 48kHz files and whilst I don't have many I do have some.

Same for me, plus, it's a pure dac (no variable output), no usb , no ... But I enjoyed it for decades.

 

[all24bits]

if all properly implemented dacs sound the same, no need to review new ones.. just recommend the cheapest properly implemented dac on the market at the time and call it a day.

exceptions: you’re willing to pay a premium for superior build materials or you are looking for some specific features, then maybe a new review would be worth it. otherwise, what’s the point of reviewing other dacs just to say “this one is implemented correctly and its measurements are so great that it exceeds human ability to hear any improvement from the DAC that we last tested which previously had the best measurements”?

Why are you even on this site or in the hobby then?

 

[Frank Dernie]

Why are you even on this site or in the hobby then?

PMFJI
I am on this site because it doesn't talk complete bollox about record players like every other hifi site, or at least most of the time.
I have been into the hobby for over 50 years because I am a music lover.
Based on my own tests of myself I know that I can't hear distortion if it is below -60dB or noise of less than -80dB so anything better than that is good enough for me.
With the best low level analogue hifi electronics at around -120dB ~20-bit performance is indeed possible but, for my use, pointless.
If it costs no more money that is fine by me, if it ends up being more expensive then that is not. I own several audibly transparent DACs now.

My main interest here is the speaker measurements, there have always been big differences between speakers IME.
The electronics measurement have so far confirmed that the listening tests I have done with a dozen or so DACs applies to pretty well every one of the huge number of DACs tested here.

 

[terasankka]

OK, why are you commenting in the Denafrips Ares II thread if DACs make no difference for you? Maybe stick to the threads that are interesting to you. I found quite a difference in Topping D90 and Ares II in my system (Musical Fidelity M6si and Klipsch Heresy IV). Yes, I did blind AB test where I level matched the DACs with SPL meter. I had two Rpi 4:s running Ropiee feeding the DAC:s, Then Roon was playing the same song to the both endpoints same time and I could just switch the input prom the Amp. My friend was doing the switching and I found the D90 to be quite a bit harsher in the high frequency notes. (the Klipsch Heresy IVs are really dynamic, so that was not a good combination) Ares II was really pleasing to my ear and that was the DAC that I kept.

I also AB tested Ares II with Node 2i (this was not blind) and Node 2i was like there was a cloth in front of my speakers compared to Ares II.

 

[Veri]

My friend was doing the switching and I found the D90 to be quite a bit harsher in the high frequency notes. (the Klipsch Heresy IVs are really dynamic, so that was not a good combination) Ares II was really pleasing to my ear and that was the DAC that I kept.

I also AB tested Ares II with Node 2i (this was not blind) and Node 2i was like there was a cloth in front of my speakers compared to Ares II.

Ares II wasn't in NOS mode was it? Would make sense it has less "harsh" highs in this mode..

 

[Frank Dernie]

OK, why are you commenting in the Denafrips Ares II thread if DACs make no difference for you?

Trying to be helpful and stop people wasting as much money as I have.
IME people imagine the difference they expect, and if there actually is an audible difference it has always been either due to the filter or the output voltage of the compared DACs not being the same.

Some reconstruction filters sound quite different from others, at a guess because of roll-off in the upper octave.

 

[terasankka]

Ares II wasn't in NOS mode was it? Would make sense it has less "harsh" highs in this mode..

No, it was in OS and slow filter, both D90 and Ares II oversampling to the max with Roon.

 

[Harmonie]

PMFJI
I am on this site because it doesn't talk complete bollox about record players like every other hifi site, or at least most of the time.
I have been into the hobby for over 50 years because I am a music lover.
Based on my own tests of myself I know that I can't hear distortion if it is below -60dB or noise of less than -80dB so anything better than that is good enough for me.
With the best low level analogue hifi electronics at around -120dB ~20-bit performance is indeed possible but, for my use, pointless.
If it costs no more money that is fine by me, if it ends up being more expensive then that is not. I own several audibly transparent DACs now.

My main interest here is the speaker measurements, there have always been big differences between speakers IME.
The electronics measurement have so far confirmed that the listening tests I have done with a dozen or so DACs applies to pretty well every one of the huge number of DACs tested here.

Adding as commented elsewhere:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...d90-balanced-usb-dac-review.10519/post-566025

BDWoody said:


It will sound like every other competent DAC.

The other things you describe are either part of the recording or part of the room/speakers. Not the DAC.

Spend money on stuff with moving parts to find dramatic differences. If you can hear it, you can measure it. Beyond some point, it becomes purely academic.

Transparent is transparent... Doesn't need to be more complicated. There is no hidden physics, and these are engineered boxes, not musical instruments, nor are they supposed to be fuzz boxes.. At least none of the good ones.

Very interesting, indeed room interactions, speakers, microphone, stylus aso are moving parts and make huge differences.

Reason I'm looking for well recorded music and let the system reveal it.

Regarding dacs:
Not 100% sure yet that all dacs sound the same. I'm still exploring my D90 and just yesterday found that I'm missing some micro details that I heard on my previous dac. I still have to look for it's reason, but tend to believe that the filter or roll-off is indeed the reason as @Frank Dernie says. To be followed.

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

Adding as commented elsewhere:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...d90-balanced-usb-dac-review.10519/post-566025

BDWoody said:


It will sound like every other competent DAC.

The other things you describe are either part of the recording or part of the room/speakers. Not the DAC.

Spend money on stuff with moving parts to find dramatic differences. If you can hear it, you can measure it. Beyond some point, it becomes purely academic.

Transparent is transparent... Doesn't need to be more complicated. There is no hidden physics, and these are engineered boxes, not musical instruments, nor are they supposed to be fuzz boxes.. At least none of the good ones.



Regarding dacs:
Not 100% sure yet that all dacs sound the same. I'm still exploring my D90 and just yesterday found that I'm missing some micro details that I heard on my previous dac. I still have to look for it's reason, but tend to believe that the filter or roll-off is indeed the reason as @Frank Dernie says. To be followed.

But you can't compare the sound of a dac you listened to minutes / days /weeks ago to the one you just heard.

 

[Harmonie]

But you can't compare the sound of a dac you listened to minutes / days /weeks ago to the one you just heard.

It's not the "sound" or SQ.
it's micro-details. A squeak on the recording.
Anyhow, I need to check further.

 

[BDWoody]

OK, why are you commenting in the Denafrips Ares II thread if DACs make no difference for you?

Because it's a science forum, and an open one at that.
It's not about whether a DAC is interesting because of it's sound, because really any competent DAC will sound like another, but for any of a variety of reasons.

When people come here looking for feedback on the sound of these things, they may be disappointed.

Maybe stick to the threads that are interesting to you.

Why don't you let others decide what's interesting to them, and what they may or may not post on.

 

[terasankka]

Fair enough. I just do not find value on off-topic posts and as it is an open forum I stated my opinion. Peace and Love.

 

[ethanhallbeyer]

By spending a lot of time plugging them into my reference system, and listening to the same tracks over and over again; I level-match the volume, and I think I do a halfway decent job of it.
A tedious process, but I think I learned a lot from it. The Ares II has something that my other Dacs do not have - which is that 'plasticity' for lack of a better word. I hate the term 'holographic', because I think it's overused, but that kinda describes it. Having said that I wouldn't use the Ares II on a set of 'bright' speakers, since the Ares II will add to any sibiliance inherent in the recording, or the system.

i am noticing that with my kef ls50 and purifi amp.. maybe it is due to ares ii being somewhat edgy as they say.. or maybe it is impedance difference between my chifi dual burr brown dac and the ares ii.. i notice when dac->amp direct with ipad pro usb source i have to turn up volume quite a bit with the burr brown dac and with the purifi i have to set at minimum since it is too loud otherwise.

 

[ethanhallbeyer]

Appreciate the reply Ok, I do not make any claim that what I'm about to say has any validity outside my own personal experience and preferences. Before I decided to try a wide range of DACs, I ran the Topping D30 for about 2 years. The D30 measures well, and for the money it's an absolute bargain, like most Topping offerings. So then, around xmas last year, I got the Wharfedale Diamond 11.5's. Great speakers, but I could not listen to them for extended periods of time, most recordings sounded outright shrill, and harsh. Before the 11.5's I was running a pair of Zu Audio Omen DW II's which due to their eccentric design do have the advantage of being able to play a wide variety of recordings without my ears falling off. Nothing 'wrong' with the Wharfedales in comparison to the Zu's, but the Wharfdales are definitely more resolving, and will do a much better job at producing the recording, without any obvious coloration, or emphasis of any particular frequency range. The Zu's just kind of 'mask' harsh treble, particularly on poor recordings.

Ok, so I have a decent range of amps of all classes - Class A, A/B, Class D - some DYI, and in terms of brands I own amps by Rotel, Oddyssey Audio, Schiit, Emotiva and others. Tried them all, still couldn't get to the point where I could listen to the Wharfedales and find the sound 'enjoyable'. I even tried tone controls, using a Schiit Loki, but there was still this 'harsh' edge that I just couldn't eliminate from the sound. Next I ordered a pair of JBL Studio 590's, thinking that for whatever reason, I just couldn't warm up to the Wharfedales. Well - I'm really annoyed at this point - the same thing happened - it still sounded harsh, shrill and 'etched' - no difference between the two sets of speakers in that regard. I really didn't expect that the DAC would make any difference, the D30 measures well, and DACs aren't supposed have a 'sound' - but at some point I decided to try a different DAC - some old no-name 'Ambery' brand DAC I had flying about in the garage, with some old Burr-Brown Chip, I don't remember which one. Well, imagine my surprise when this ancient, but well-built DAC sounded considerably better than the D30. Oh yes, some of the detail was lost, but what was there sounded considerably 'warmer' and fuller in the midrange, while making the treble bearable. So, while the D30 measures well, I don't like the way it sounds on a set of 'revealing' speakers.

I have funds, what I don't have is much time, for anything beyond work. That's why rather than selecting just one or two DACs I ordered a whole bunch of them, and tested them over a period of several months. I like the Ares II, the SMSL M400, the Topping D90, the Audio GD R1, and one DYI DAC based on dual AD1865R NOS chips - in that order. I particularly don't like the Topping D30, the Topping D10, and the Topping D50s - on anything other than the ZU Omen DW II's. I'm still missing the RME ADI-2 DAC FS, which I'll get soon.

... and that's it really - using 'revealing' speakers - some DACs enable me to be able to listen without having an urge to turn the music off after a short period of time : )

dont know what is with no name burr brown dacs but mine just sound so right.. i dont feel like the instrumentals are overhwelming the vocals or vice versa, and they dont sound shrill or bright.. i didnt find the smsl m400 that way either.. but the ares ii fresh out of box with 1x os via usb just didnt sound right to my ears. maybe i ned to burn in or find more synergidtic gear for them.

 

[ethanhallbeyer]

I don't know which psychologists you've been reading but you cannot "eliminate" confirmation bias. You can be trained to be aware of it and that can mitigate against its impact. But that's not the same as eliminating it. It would be impossible to eliminate it as you have no base to compare against.

Unless...
you use measurable data!

Confirmation bias is excluded because measurable data exists outside of your own experience.


Facts do not need to be experienced. The facts surrounding DACs (pardon the rhyme) can be verified through data/measurements.

our ears, unique environments and overall happiness with the musical experiences with any particular gear will always trump measurements. after all the end goal is musical enjoyment and appreciation, for most. it is of little use to me to know gear x measures way better than gear y if i clearly do not enjoy the experience i get from gear x, by a significant margin. kind of like women!

 

[Killingbeans]

our ears, unique environments and overall happiness with the musical experiences with any particular gear will always trump measurements. after all the end goal is musical enjoyment and appreciation, for most.

Absolutely. But I appreciate knowing what other factors are the main contributors to the enjoyment.

Three scenarios:

A. The gear is presented with a narrative that shows it as something magical/mystical that transcends known measurements, and I blindly accept that as the reason for my enjoyment.

B. The gear has horrible measurements, but tests show that they have an audible impact I find enjoyable and it seems practical for me to get this effect by using this particular piece of gear.

C. The gear has horrible measurements, but tests show that they have zero audible impact. I accept that other factors like aesthetics and reputation are the reason for my enjoyment.

Personally I see the A scenario as an insult to my intelligence. B is a little better, but still somewhat nonsensical since intentional mangling of an audio signal is a cheap and simple thing to do, and I don't understand the logic behind using the "auditioning" of gear as a way to reach this goal. C makes perfect sense to me. I fully understand that a piece of gear that looks good and is built to outlive my grandchildren can give great satisfaction. It might even give the illusion of higher SQ, and that's fine.

it is of little use to me to know gear x measures way better than gear y if i clearly do not enjoy the experience i get from gear x, by a significant margin.

I'm definitely getting the feeling that the point of diminishing returns is reached shockingly fast. 99.99% of the time when people mention a "night and day difference" it turns out to be non-existent. I enjoy crazy good measurements from a technical point of view, but mostly I really like the fact that they show me how vanishingly little I have to worry about when shopping audio gear.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Absolutely. But I appreciate knowing what other factors are the main contributors to the enjoyment.

Three scenarios:

A. The gear is presented with a narrative that shows it as something magical/mystical that transcends known measurements, and I blindly accept that as the reason for my enjoyment.

B. The gear has horrible measurements, but tests show that they have an audible impact I find enjoyable and it seems practical for me to get this effect by using this particular piece of gear.

C. The gear has horrible measurements, but tests show that they have zero audible impact. I accept that other factors like aesthetics and reputation are the reason for my enjoyment.

Personally I see the A scenario as an insult to my intelligence. B is a little better, but still somewhat nonsensical since intentional mangling of an audio signal is a cheap and simple thing to do, and I don't understand the logic behind using the "auditioning" of gear as a way to reach this goal. C makes perfect sense to me. I fully understand that a piece of gear that looks good and is built to outlive my grandchildren can give great satisfaction. It might even give the illusion of higher SQ, and that's fine.



I'm definitely getting the feeling that the point of diminishing returns is reached shockingly fast. 99.99% of the time when people mention a "night and day difference" it turns out to be non-existent. I enjoy crazy good measurements from a technical point of view, but mostly I really like the fact that they show me how vanishingly little I have to worry about when shopping audio gear.

Spot on in every way.

 

[lhimelfarb]

Still, apparent performance no better than $90 D10, and arguably (imo) not much better - if any - than the $9 Apple dongle.. Look at all that grass! Why would anyone in their right mind pay $680 for this thing???

Well... because it is a killer DAC. It is currently one of the least fatiguing pieces of digital equipment I have ever lived with... besides being more revealing than any DAC I have heard under $3000.

 

[Veri]

Well... because it is a killer DAC. It is currently one of the least fatiguing pieces of digital equipment I have ever lived with... besides being more revealing than any DAC I have heard under $3000.

Can't come up with any viable reason why Ares II should sound less fatiguing than say a Topping E30 or D90..
Perhaps if you like NOS mode treble roll-off but one could argue if that's really worth the cost.