Khadas Tone Board -Thank you ASR!!!

[Aldoszx]

Are you ordering the generic or the vims edition? Which one is meant to go with a PI setup?

Generic edition is all you need for Pi.
Vim's edition only has pins attached for vim connection, which you don't need for Pi.
Anyways, generic edition comes with unsoldered pins.

 

[cburbs]

Which Pi 4 - 1g, 2g, or 4g of ram?

 

[Aldoszx]

As far as I know, Pi4 with 1GB Ram is not produced anymore. So, 2gb is fair enough for audio streaming.
If you want to use it also for video streaming, 4GB version is more suitable.
You have to take into consideration a good cooling for Pi4, because is running hot easily.
A good option is Argon One case.
Another option is custom cooling. I have a few Pi's looking like in the attached picture.
The temp is around 34 degrees Celsius.

 

[cuchu]

After living with the Khadas Tone Board for the past several days, as well as using it with some different amplifier and speaker configurations, I have following updates/impressions:

1) The Khadas Tone Board is an impressive DAC for the price. However, it is a highly-detailed DAC - for those who love great levels of detail in their listening.

2) The Khadas Tone Board was an excellent match for my B&W DM602 S1 and S3 speakers as well as the Paradigm 200B speakers. Both of those speakers have a slightly laid-back approach in their sound - especially the Paradigm 200B.

3) The Khadas Tone Board wasn't the best pairing when used with my Elac DB6.2 and Monitor Audio Bronze 2 speakers. I find that these two models offer an extremely detailed presentation. For those speakers, my ears prefer the sound of the Schiit Modi 3 Multibit DAC.

Hello, first of all I want to thank you for your contributions to the forum, they are very helpful.

In the last few days, every time I'm interested in a hifi component, you appear on the forum, so I think you're the right person to ask for their opinion!

Currently my dac is the khadas tone board. I was totally determined to swap my speakers, an old three-way sony, for the Elac Debut B6.2.

Coincidentally, my amp looks like it's dying, it's an old Kenwood KA 3020, so I'd noticed the Behringer A800.

My chain would look like this: Rpi4 - Khadas Tone Board - Fx Audio Tube 01 - Behringer A800 - Elac debut B6.2.

After reading this post, I have some doubts.
Do you think the Elac debut reference dbr62 would be a better option?
Do you think the Fx Audio Tube 01 can be a good preamp for the Behringer A800?

Thanks in advance!!

 

[richp4003]

I'm using the SP/DIF input on the tone board as it's being fed a signal from my Bluesound Node 2i network music player.

How does it compare to the internal DAC in the Bluesound node? I am currently using a Node2 in my bedroom setup, and would like a better DAC without getting too crazy. This Khadas board sounds idea.

 

[wje]

How does it compare to the internal DAC in the Bluesound node? I am currently using a Node2 in my bedroom setup, and would like a better DAC without getting too crazy. This Khadas board sounds idea.

Without doing a true "double blind" test, I still tend to prefer the Khadas Tone Board DAC.

 

[richp4003]

Without doing a true "double blind" test, I still tend to prefer the Khadas Tone Board DAC.

Thanks for the reply.. mine should be here tomorrow!

Ill be curious to put it up against the internal Bluesound one, along with a Luxman I have sitting here on my desk.

 

[richp4003]

So a quick review of this thing.. it is GOOD. Way better than it should be for the price. It definitely outdoes the stock DAC in the Bluesound Node 2. It seems to have a much greater dynamic range, and a better control and definition in the bass region. Nicely musical, yet seems pretty neutral sonically.

Compared to my Luxman DA100, its very close. The Luxman is a bit warmer overall, smoother sounding, whereas the Khadas is a bit more analytical sounding compared to the Luxman. The bass is a bit better defined on the Khadas than on the Luxman. Its sort of choosing which sound you might prefer between the two, but considering the Khadas at 100 dollars is holding up to a DAC that was 1500 when new.. thats a very strong showing.

Thanks everyone for the thorough recommendation here!

 

[krabapple]

When new members migrate to threads full of typical 'audiophile' sighted-comparison hoohah, an ASR angel loses its wings

 

[skepticaltoo]

When I gathered my DACs to finally found the guts to tell them face to face that they all sounded the same, the Linn suddenly became disconsolate, the Cambridge audio became lugubrious, the KTB heartbroken, the Fiio cheerless, the Marantz were mortified.

The first time I measured and equalized two very different speakers (the Focal Utopia and the Giyas) in the same room I spectacularly failed a blind test (partner switching the source). I would have almost bet a finger that I would pass it with flying colors. Two different speakers, two different amplifiers and the equalized FR and matched levels made them almost indistinguishable. I trained myself to tell them apart again by focusing on different issues but it remains amazing what you can learn from a half baked blind test.

There is, however, one DAC I can recognize as really inferior for some reason, and that is the AKM in the Chromecast Audio. I don't even think it is because of the DA conversion itself, because according to most measurements, I shouldn't be able to notice but I haven't really investigated since the Chromecast analog out is only useful on older, not so good, hardware.

Apologies, catching up on the thread and trying to better understand the methodologies for comparisons. (BTW, I'm interested in this DAC and therefore reading the whole chain just now).

The test you're referencing is with regard to the same source, presumably, and then fully equalized (frequency response-matched, volume-matched) set of speakers? I guess it could be assumed that you were able to discern (even if through training) that the speakers sounded a little different to each other because the matching wasn't perfect (as the leveling tool used probably can't do a perfect job matching the physical differences in the speaker enclosures/cross-overs/drivers for two different speakers)?

You bring up an interesting point with regard to the DAC, too. Perhaps different DACs even when perfectly level-matched do in fact, have flaws that are audible?

 

[PierreV]

Apologies, catching up on the thread and trying to better understand the methodologies for comparisons. (BTW, I'm interested in this DAC and therefore reading the whole chain just now).

The test you're referencing is with regard to the same source, presumably, and then fully equalized (frequency response-matched, volume-matched) set of speakers? I guess it could be assumed that you were able to discern (even if through training) that the speakers sounded a little different to each other because the matching wasn't perfect (as the leveling tool used probably can't do a perfect job matching the physical differences in the speaker enclosures/cross-overs/drivers for two different speakers)?

You bring up an interesting point with regard to the DAC, too. Perhaps different DACs even when perfectly level-matched do in fact, have flaws that are audible?

I have a dual setup in my main room (I posted a picture of it earlier somewhere on this board) so, basically, all my partner had to do was switch source in Roon (at the time). The speakers were level matched, and equalized to roughly the same target (Harman).

What was really eye-opening was that, on the basis of my sighted experience, I could have sworn I would be able to tell the speakers apart with something like a 90% hit rate. When we went blind - basically my partner asking "OK, which one is playing now?" while I wasn't looking at potential visual cues - I failed miserably. It felt a bit unreal: before, I was thinking "that one has more punch", "that one is more defined" and all kinds of similar subjective assessments. That was kind of obvious and blatant to me, those were my boxes after all . But the differences I expected seemed to collapse in a blind test (even a half baked one). As I said above, I was able to train myself into telling them apart, but that required some active listening and effort. And yes, one of the differences was the side woofers of the Giya and the front woofer of the Utopia and the way they interacted with the room.

The point (at least for me) is that while I can be fooled by two different speakers in a blind test, while I can't tell the difference between the KTB, the Linn and the Cambridge Audio Dac Magic Plus, I can pass a blind test between CCA Optical and CCA analog both fed to the Linn Akurate DSM (and in other systems too, but obviously not the KTB and Dac Magic since they won't do both optical and analog). As far as I am concerned, the difference between CCA Optical and CCA Analog (going through its internal DAC) is more obvious than the differences between speakers.

So yes, I would say there is a potential difference between that specific DAC and others maybe simply because the analog part of the Chromecast is messier for some reason. I guess it could be measured in some way to settle the issue, but I am not equipped for that.

EDIT: a view of the config https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../member-profile-pics.10928/page-3#post-307504

 

[skepticaltoo]

That makes perfect sense--thank you for confirming. I was trying to follow all the arguments from many of the contributors, and it seems some were implying (stating emphatically, even, perhaps) that blind testing with level matched DACs was a guaranty to not hear differences in DACs. That didn't seem to be what you were concluding, which you clarified--super helpful.

 

[skepticaltoo]

Sorry, and your point about double-blind testing being a super useful tool to focus on real differences is also a great one.

 

[richp4003]

When new members migrate to threads full of typical 'audiophile' sighted-comparison hoohah, an ASR angel loses its wings

What a useless post.

If this were all a numbers game.. then this audio stuff would be a lot easier. I'm providing my listening experience, based on common "audiophile" terms that people use when describing equipment.