Denafrips ARES II USB R2R DAC Review

[zepplock]

I love this DAC. Running it into an LA4 and AHB2. Beats the pants off the D90 for my preferences. People wanting to inject a tube sound into their SS system should ignore the buffers and other such devices and get a Denafrips.

all you are saying is that you prefer distortion to clean sound. It does not mean one dac beats the other. Some people like to have sound just as close as possible to what artist intended. You like it changed. Both are ok. But not better.

 

[AllenW]

all you are saying is that you prefer distortion to clean sound. It does not mean one dac beats the other. Some people like to have sound just as close as possible to what artist intended. You like it changed. Both are ok. But not better.

Okay man. You win. You know more than me about how it sounds.

 

[zepplock]

Okay man. You win. You know more than me about how it sounds.

It's your hobby and your money, you can spend it on any gear. But if you claim that one is better than other, you need to provide proof, that's how this forum works.

 

[AllenW]

It depends on what you prefer. It's analog verses digital sound. You also have to consider what speakers are used as well. My Cornwallis 2's don't like bright sources at least my ears don't. And the denafrips is the least bright dac I have heard.

 

[zepplock]

It depends on what you prefer. It's analog verses digital sound. You also have to consider what speakers are used as well. My Cornwallis 2's don't like bright sources at least my ears don't. And the denafrips is the least bright dac I have heard.

None of that is even remotely related to this conversation. Both dacs are digital on one side and analog on the other. We can also don't consider speakers, just like humidity, moon phase tonight and what you ate for breakfast.

 

[AllenW]

It's your hobby and your money, you can spend it on any gear. But if you claim that one is better than other, you need to provide proof, that's how this forum works.

I also think the gustard has a Very airy top end as well but it's just to bright in my setup.

 

[AllenW]

You have a good weekend bud.

 

[Xulonn]

It just sounds better to me than sigma delta DAC's. How can I explain it to someone who hasn't heard it? What's the point?

This is a science-based forum. There is no indication in @amirm 's measurements of the Denafrips ARES II DAC that It would sound different than any other well-designed DAC, so the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that it does indeed have a different "sound" than the other DACs you list. It is very highly unlikely that the Gustard and Topping DACs are defective and therefore sound "bad".

Have you conducted double-blind listening tests in the rigorous manner described by @amirm in his recent video? If not, you are likely fooling yourself and are caught up in the trap of the known faults of sighted listening comparisons. Your use of audiophilia euphemisms to describe known fantasy-based "sonic qualities" lacks authority.

If you can indeed hear differences between DACs in a properly controlled, level-matched double blind test, either one unit has audible distortion and the other one doesn't (e.g. one is accurate and transparent) - or they have different type/levels of audible distortion. That would imply that you like your music playback to be colored rather then accurate and true to the source.

 

[Teroz]

How you can tell from those graphs how big the soundstage is or how good instrument separation is or how good layering the soundstage has? Can you show us that? Sure the frequency respond is about 99,9% same as any DAC and distortions 0.0001% or what ever but show us the graphs on those.

 

[kchap]

It just sounds better to me than sigma delta DAC's. How can I explain it to someone who hasn't heard it? What's the point?

I've heard a R2R ladder DAC. It was my original CD player, a Sony CDP-101, purchased in the 1980s.

 

[zepplock]

How you can tell from those graphs how big the soundstage is or how good instrument separation is or how good layering the soundstage has? Can you show us that? Sure the frequency respond is about 99,9% same as any DAC and distortions 0.0001% or what ever but show us the graphs on those.

Soundstage is largely a bit of crosstalk (practically non-existant in modern dacs) and spearks+room. How's this related to DACs?

 

[dc655321]

How you can tell from those graphs how big the soundstage is or how good instrument separation is or how good layering the soundstage has?

Do you think those might be properties of the recording, and maybe not imbued by a device whose sole purpose is to produce an analog voltage?

 

[Teroz]

Soundstage is largely a bit of crosstalk (practically non-existant in modern dacs) and spearks+room. How's this related to DACs?

Idk, but ARES II has HUGELY better soundstage than my 13€ chinese DAC dongle. And yeah no need "volume to 0.001Db balanced" on DACs. DIfference is as clear as with 15€ chinese headphones and HD800.
Can i prove it? I sure cant cos they measure 99.999% same..

 

[Zensō]

Why do audio subjectivists feel compelled to come to a science based forum and wax poetically about their personal preferences and beliefs? There are plenty of other forums where that is welcome.

 

[Teroz]

So IF all DAC are the same then why even bother to buy anything but those 13€ chinese DACs.? Or why even bother measure them? Those kind on distortion levels no one can even hear..

 

[kchap]

So IF all DAC are the same then why even bother to buy anything but those 13€ chinese DACs.? Or why even bother measure them? Those kind on distortion levels no one can even hear..

I'm not sure about 13€ but, when you get to 100€ I doubt if anyone can tell the difference. Between 100€ and 1000€ you might be looking features like room EQ, built in HP amps etc. Over 1000€ I think it does get harder to justify so don't bother, it's your money spend it how you wish. Me and others might be saying the Denafrips is an overpriced DAC but, it's not a bad DAC.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Idk, but ARES II has HUGELY better soundstage than my 13€ chinese DAC dongle. And yeah no need "volume to 0.001Db balanced" on DACs. DIfference is as clear as with 15€ chinese headphones and HD800.
Can i prove it? I sure cant cos they measure 99.999% same..

The only thing I found to give a bigger stereo image so far is background noise.
We did an experiment to try to work out why record players didn't sound absolutely dire, given their poor actual performance, by going one by one through their shortcomings.
Most of the surprises were that raising distortion and crosstalk levels to LP levels were mostly inaudible, ie the improvement of digital actually wasn't audible since we couldn't discern any improvement over -30dB of crosstalk.
These were a surprise but the biggest surprise was that adding extra background noise increased the depth of the sound stage.
The noise was quiet enough to be completely inaudible as noise with music playing but it repeatedly increased stereo image size.

I am always amused when silly "grounding boxes", which are actually just aerials attached to the signal earth of a system and add noise, are advertised as "draining away" noise whilst actually and inevitably adding it.
I have not listened to a system with them added but can easily believe, based on my experience adding noise, that they may well give a bigger stereo image - just not for the reason they are claiming.

 

[Belker]

The only thing I found to give a bigger stereo image so far is background noise.
We did an experiment to try to work out why record players didn't sound absolutely dire, given their poor actual performance, by going one by one through their shortcomings.
Most of the surprises were that raising distortion and crosstalk levels to LP levels were mostly inaudible, ie the improvement of digital actually wasn't audible since we couldn't discern any improvement over -30dB of crosstalk.
These were a surprise but the biggest surprise was that adding extra background noise increased the depth of the sound stage.
The noise was quiet enough to be completely inaudible as noise with music playing but it repeatedly increased stereo image size.

I am always amused when silly "grounding boxes", which are actually just aerials attached to the signal earth of a system and add noise, are advertised as "draining away" noise whilst actually and inevitably adding it.
I have not listened to a system with them added but can easily believe, based on my experience adding noise, that they may well give a bigger stereo image - just not for the reason they are claiming.

Really interesting findings! Can you tell us more about these tests?

 

[Jimbob54]

It just sounds better to me than sigma delta DAC's. How can I explain it to someone who hasn't heard it? What's the point?

Fair enough. But I have a feeling many here would suggest its your eyes that hear the difference between this DAC and that DAC, especially if you read other reviews and comments about the pros and cons of different conversion methodologies.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Really interesting findings! Can you tell us more about these tests?

It was just over 20 years ago.
We listened to files with background noise levels at LP level, crosstalk reduced to 0 in steps and increased distortion levels.
I don't remember every detail of values but the stand out were the noise giving a bigger stereo image and crosstalk being more than -30dB making no difference because they were surprises.
The distortion levels one can hear are very music and expectation dependant so not sure if the test was broad enough.