• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Review and Measurements of Okto DAC8 8Ch DAC & Amp

Music1969

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
620
Likes
183
If you talk to pro audio engineers, they'll tell you that modern DAC's are very, very good, but don't all sound the same.
Yes but you may be attributing too much to the DAC chip of choice, by talking about ‘Sabre glare’.

The difference in sound might have more to do with analogue section and power supply sections designs... ie everything that’s around the DAC chip...
 

phoenixdogfan

Active Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
115
Likes
146
Yes but you may be attributing too much to the DAC chip of choice, by talking about ‘Sabre glare’.

The difference in sound might have more to do with analogue section and power supply sections designs... ie everything that’s around the DAC chip...
Maybe the ESS hump is to blame? ;)
 

Music1969

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
620
Likes
183
Maybe the ESS hump is to blame? ;)
Check page 1 of this thread. There is no hump.

But there is still audible “Sabre glare”?

I suspect if DACs sound different it’s more to do with everything around the DAC chip (analogue section design and power supply sections designs)
 

Hugo9000

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
296
Likes
722
View attachment 31129
Hello everyone, here is the long-awaited launch of our 8-channel D/A converter, the DAC8 PRO!

After the ASR review, we received a lot of questions, feedback and suggestions and so we thought it would be a big shame to miss the chance to implement some of them into the production version. In the end, it took much more time than planned so thanks everyone for the patience, continuing support and interest in our products.

Let’s dive into the feature list, starting with the most noticeable one:

More compact enclosure
The difference visible at the first sight is the more compact enclosure (448x183x50mm excl. feet), made from AW6082 aluminium alloy. This change only applies to the DAC8 PRO, not the upcoming DAC8 Stereo.

Dust-proof and spill-proof design with conductive cooling
Speaking of enclosure… we thought what other improvements could we make to increase the durability of the product. We wanted to get rid of the vents that allow dust to get trapped inside and pile up, eventually causing overheating and possibly even killing the electronics, not to mention an accidental spill of your favorite beverage. But our DAC module produce an amount of heat that needs to be taken care of. So instead of relying on convection, we have implemented a conductive cooling using a CNC-machined aluminium heatsink that transfers heat away from the DAC module to the enclosure. Additionally, the DAC8 PRO does monitor the temperature on the DAC module and will shut down in case of overheating.

View attachment 31138

Now for the electronic sweetness inside:
View attachment 31130
Our own XMOS implementation
No 3rd party modules in the DAC8 PRO! Our own XMOS-based board controlling the USB input and AES/EBU inputs is a result of our work for the last few months. It allows for a low-latency transfer, direct control over the data flow and is tightly integrated with the user interface and the DAC board. Based on a 16-core XU216 MCU, it gives us a solid foundation for future products. Huge thanks to our software team!

4xAES/EBU inputs routed to DAC and DAW + 1 AES/EBU output
In addition to the USB connectivity, 4 XLR AES/EBU connectors provide another 8 input channels. The data flow can also be routed to the DAW USB host for additional processing before looping back to the DAC. The AES frame clock is recovered by a precise receiver and the ESS’s time-domain jitter eliminator does remove any remaining jitter. The first pair of channels is available as an AES/EBU output on a dedicated connector.

All incoming AES/EBU signals are expected to come from a single source domain. The DAC8PRO is not a quad stereo DAC, but an 8-channel DAC without any ASRC. The 8 AES/EBU dataflow is reassembled bit-perfectly by the XMOS processor and passed to the Sabre chip.

Next-generation DAC board
DAC8 PRO has received a next generation of our DAC board optimized for the task, including improved power supplies and shorter signal paths. As our other products, DAC8 PRO is designed to directly drive balanced amplifier inputs.

Ability to receive firmware updates
To add new features or fix bugs, DAC8 PRO is able to receive software updates through USB using a standard DFU protocol and an utility available for Windows, Linux and MacOS.

New functions
A powerful 8x8 routing matrix is available separately for USB and AES inputs. Individual volume can be assigned to each output channel using a 32-bit Sabre volume control

Rack mounting brackets
Our custom-designed 2U rack mounting brackets come with every unit. They are equipped with a soft lining so you don't scratch your DAC8 PRO when mounting them.

Designed for reliability, handmade in Prague
With a relay-free design and just 3 large electrolytic capacitors in the power supply, DAC8 PRO is designed for a lifetime of 10+ years. The intention during the design process was also to streamline the production and allow us to make the product in more significant numbers. But we continue to handmade all the units for you in Prague.

We are looking forward to your feedback!
Thank you for providing the update, it looks wonderful. I love the clean and elegant look of it all, down to the font choice! Can't wait to see @amirm 's next review of your products!
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
22,603
Likes
34,894
Location
Seattle Area
Yes, sidewall reflections produces subjective image widening -- I'm a familiar with the research -- but early reflections also color the sound and disrupt the image, as you'll hear if you suppress them. The reason is readily apparent in this wonderful illustration from Floyd Toole's book:
You didn't read the text explaining that graph, did you? Here is what it says:

1565580449350.png


And later:

1565580567734.png


Go to a live concert and then tell me that you hear the kind of imaging you are wishing for. It is not real.

Anyway, I am going to stop these side discussions at this point. Please focus your posts on Okto DAC. If time permits, I will move these posts to another thread.
 

josh358

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
116
Likes
60
Yes but you may be attributing too much to the DAC chip of choice, by talking about ‘Sabre glare’.

The difference in sound might have more to do with analogue section and power supply sections designs... ie everything that’s around the DAC chip...
The DAC designers I've spoken to say that other factors do have more of an effect on the sound than the DAC chip, e.g., Charles Hansen wrote that the chip itself contributed maybe 20% of the sound (I may be remembering the number wrong). But it has to be remembered that most modern pro DAC's (not the cheap semi-pro ones) are going to be pretty well engineered, so you shouldn't hear huge differences. If you do hear a difference, it's going to be quite subtle.

But when I say DAC's (and ADC's, remember we're talking pro here) sound different, I'm not just talking about "Sabre glare." To put that in perspective, let me repeat what the guy at Emotiva said:

"Note that the surrounding circuitry has a major effect on how a DAC chip will sound... and different products that use the Sabre DAC chips seem to exhibit this characteristic sound [Sabre glare] to different degrees. (However, it would be accurate to say that, in most situations where someone does notice a difference, this is the way they describe it.) "
 

josh358

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
116
Likes
60
You didn't read the text explaining that graph, did you? Here is what it says:

View attachment 31170

And later:

View attachment 31171

Go to a live concert and then tell me that you hear the kind of imaging you are wishing for. It is not real.

Anyway, I am going to stop these side discussions at this point. Please focus your posts on Okto DAC. If time permits, I will move these posts to another thread.
Understandable and I apologize because I responded to another one of these posts before I saw this post of yours. Not that I'm not interested in responding to this, you understand. :) You've raised some very interesting issues to which I think there are some very simple answers.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
227
Likes
200
Location
Co. Durham, UK
View attachment 31129
Hello everyone, here is the long-awaited launch of our 8-channel D/A converter, the DAC8 PRO!

After the ASR review, we received a lot of questions, feedback and suggestions and so we thought it would be a big shame to miss the chance to implement some of them into the production version. In the end, it took much more time than planned so thanks everyone for the patience, continuing support and interest in our products.

Let’s dive into the feature list, starting with the most noticeable one:

More compact enclosure
The difference visible at the first sight is the more compact enclosure (448x183x50mm excl. feet), made from AW6082 aluminium alloy. This change only applies to the DAC8 PRO, not the upcoming DAC8 Stereo.

Dust-proof and spill-proof design with conductive cooling
Speaking of enclosure… we thought what other improvements could we make to increase the durability of the product. We wanted to get rid of the vents that allow dust to get trapped inside and pile up, eventually causing overheating and possibly even killing the electronics, not to mention an accidental spill of your favorite beverage. But our DAC module produce an amount of heat that needs to be taken care of. So instead of relying on convection, we have implemented a conductive cooling using a CNC-machined aluminium heatsink that transfers heat away from the DAC module to the enclosure. Additionally, the DAC8 PRO does monitor the temperature on the DAC module and will shut down in case of overheating.

View attachment 31138

Now for the electronic sweetness inside:
View attachment 31130
Our own XMOS implementation
No 3rd party modules in the DAC8 PRO! Our own XMOS-based board controlling the USB input and AES/EBU inputs is a result of our work for the last few months. It allows for a low-latency transfer, direct control over the data flow and is tightly integrated with the user interface and the DAC board. Based on a 16-core XU216 MCU, it gives us a solid foundation for future products. Huge thanks to our software team!

4xAES/EBU inputs routed to DAC and DAW + 1 AES/EBU output
In addition to the USB connectivity, 4 XLR AES/EBU connectors provide another 8 input channels. The data flow can also be routed to the DAW USB host for additional processing before looping back to the DAC. The AES frame clock is recovered by a precise receiver and the ESS’s time-domain jitter eliminator does remove any remaining jitter. The first pair of channels is available as an AES/EBU output on a dedicated connector.

All incoming AES/EBU signals are expected to come from a single source domain. The DAC8PRO is not a quad stereo DAC, but an 8-channel DAC without any ASRC. The 8 AES/EBU dataflow is reassembled bit-perfectly by the XMOS processor and passed to the Sabre chip.

Next-generation DAC board
DAC8 PRO has received a next generation of our DAC board optimized for the task, including improved power supplies and shorter signal paths. As our other products, DAC8 PRO is designed to directly drive balanced amplifier inputs.

Ability to receive firmware updates
To add new features or fix bugs, DAC8 PRO is able to receive software updates through USB using a standard DFU protocol and an utility available for Windows, Linux and MacOS.

New functions
A powerful 8x8 routing matrix is available separately for USB and AES inputs. Individual volume can be assigned to each output channel using a 32-bit Sabre volume control

Rack mounting brackets
Our custom-designed 2U rack mounting brackets come with every unit. They are equipped with a soft lining so you don't scratch your DAC8 PRO when mounting them.

Designed for reliability, handmade in Prague
With a relay-free design and just 3 large electrolytic capacitors in the power supply, DAC8 PRO is designed for a lifetime of 10+ years. The intention during the design process was also to streamline the production and allow us to make the product in more significant numbers. But we continue to handmade all the units for you in Prague.

We are looking forward to your feedback!
Great news!

I understand that now production is underway the Europe evaluation tour will also start. I'm really looking forward to hearing this DAC.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
28
Likes
9
OK, so I've spent several days now listening to the demo unit and thought I'd pass on my conclusions.

In a nutshell, this is a wonderful DAC at an amazing price, and I'm buying one. It almost equals the best DAC I have here, an Yggdrasil, which is twice the money for a quarter the channels and is frankly a hard act to follow, beating out even a $4000 DAC I had here. In fact, for the first half of my listening, I thought the Okto = would beat the Yggdrasil, and in the end, there were still some things it did better and some cuts as well.

All comparisons were level matched with a balanced A/B switch. I fed the Yggy from my Lynx E22 card, a slightly better source than my AES16e, and of course the demo version of the DAC8 is USB (but I'll be using it with the AES3 outputs of the AES16e, so hope they're as good as the USB one is). I usually triamp, but since my A/B switch has only two channels I went back to the passive crossover. I used my A21 rather than my AHB2 and the source was JRiver, using linked zones (damn, I wish JRiver would fix that feature) to feed the two DAC's.

The comparison was a challenging one, because there are so many filter options on the Okto. I had to familiarize myself with the sound of the filters first. That, though, was an interesting experience. I ended up preferring the linear phase apodizing filter, with the brick wall filter my least favorite -- which is curious, since they measure very similarly (in fact, it could be said that the apodizing filter measures worse since it has some probably inaudible ripple). Otherwise, overall, I found I preferred the linear phase filters, and the fast to the slow. It's hard to be absolutely sure, though, since you can only cycle through the choices, limiting A/B comparisons.

Anyone interested in how the various filters measure can check here:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/02/measurements-look-at-hqplayer-325.html

A friend sent me that link after I'd listened and in retrospect, it seems I preferred the filters that had less high frequency garbage, and of course linear phase.

Once I'd settled on the apodizing filter, I used it for most of my comparisons. (Interestingly, piano was better on the Yggy with all filters but the apodizing filter, but better on the Okto with the apodizing filter.)

Anyway, overall, the main difference between the DAC's was in tonal balance. The Yggy had more midbass, and the Okto had more pronounced highs. I don't think that frequency response measurements account for this, since while the Yggdrasil has as I recall a downslope, it's very slight. (Though as I recall someone wrote a paper some years back claiming that such gradual slopes were responsible for perceived differences in the tonal balance of electronics.)

Unlike most of the other differences I noticed, this one was not subtle. As with every Sabre DAC I've listened to -- e.g., my Exasound e28 (ES9018), and the Exasound e38 Mk II that I had on trial here a few months ago (ES9038), the sound seemed hollowed out in the middle. It is a very light, bright, clean sound that's often exciting. However, at the top, it exhibits a high frequency emphasis, the infamous "Sabre glare." At its worst, violins and sopranos literally screeched (OK, screeched more than they usually do), and when that happened, switching to Yggdrasil was like running cold water over a burn.

That said, the Okto had its own virtues. It was cleaner on quiet passages (as was the Gungnir that I compared to the Yggy some months back), including chorus. It had more solid lateral imaging -- instruments were easier to pinpoint (I didn't notice much if any difference in depth). As I said, it was better on piano -- in general, the Okto had more pronounced attacks than the Yggy, perhaps because of the underdamped filters in ESS DAC's (which may be responsible too for the Sabre glare).

The Yggdrasil, on the other hand, was cleaner on orchestral climaxes. It had more and cleaner midbass, and of course less prominent highs. It also had more detail -- the Okto seemed to homogenize instrumental detail, so you'd hear the valve noise on an instrument through the Yggy but not on the same passage played through the Okto. (Based on experiments with HQPlayer, this may have to do with the closed form filter.) Curiously, it also had more reverberation than the Okto. I believe that I read a recording engineer say that when he tried a Benchmark (don't quote me on that) DAC in his studio, it stripped away the reverb. If so, there's an issue here.

The Okto sounded compressed and hard on massed strings -- not just violins, but violas as well. It had a slight layer of hardness overall.

I don't want to give the impression that these differences are huge. Except for the difference in the highs, which can be so pronounced you'd think someone had messed with tone controls, most were subtle. And I suspect that for many, the choice would be a matter of taste, other components, and the music you prefer.

Something that may not come through is that on some cuts, I prefered the Okto overall, and on others the Yggdrasil. I won't bore you with my nauseatingly exhaustive notes (will I ever even read them myself?), but I think some people would prefer one or the other on the basis of the music they listen to (I didn't listen to any rock but I did listen to some jazz and the Okto sounded great).

In the end, I preferred the Yggy for its rounder, glowing, more relaxed tone -- both because of subjective frequency balance and the lack of a slight hardness of the Okto. At essence, the music just sounded more real, and I found myself more and more inclined to keep that A/B switch on the Yggy side. So I'll be keeping the Yggy for the mid/tweet panels and using the Okto lower down. But hell, level matched A/B comparisons tend to show up things you'd never notice if you just sat down and listened -- the Okto is a wonderful DAC and if it weren't for the occasionally painful Sabre glare, I'd probably be selling the Yggy and vacationing in France. :)
It was very courageous of you to publish your findings in this forum. The minute I read your post, I knew your were going to get some heat. It is my impression that these forums are more focused on measurements, and unfortunately the Schitt DACs did not measure so good.

Each individual has his/her own set of ears, and listening taste is different for each one of us. I mean, just drive around downtown in any major city, you encounter these cars with so much bass that it feels their rear tires are jumping off the ground. I probably could not stand being inside those cars, but that is the way those people enjoy their music.

I like reading about listening tests because I do not have several units at my disposal for comparison. Of course the measurements are necessary, because it can help us point in the correct direction as to which unit to consider. However, measurements are not an indication of quality and durability. This is why I am so skeptical of the many Chinese branded DACs, with impressive measurements, that are tested in this forum.

I guess your findings and conclusions open a pandora box, if electronic measurements are true measurements of sound quality. I believe you referenced that the measured noise in the Yggy is outside the audible range, in other words, that Schitt did not clean up their design outside the audible range (Is this good or mediocre engineering?), and that is why it sounds so good. But the testing equipment measures everything, inside and outside the audible range. It is difficult to grasp that a unit that is 32db noisier sounds better. But it sounded better to your ears, and I respect that.

Ears are really the ultimate valid test, because we must buy what is most pleasurable to our hearing.
 

BDWoody

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,251
Likes
1,993
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
It was very courageous of you to publish your findings in this forum. The minute I read your post, I knew your were going to get some heat. It is my impression that these forums are more focused on measurements, and unfortunately the Schitt DACs did not measure so good.

Each individual has his/her own set of ears, and listening taste is different for each one of us. I mean, just drive around downtown in any major city, you encounter these cars with so much bass that it feels their rear tires are jumping off the ground. I probably could not stand being inside those cars, but that is the way those people enjoy their music.

I like reading about listening tests because I do not have several units at my disposal for comparison. Of course the measurements are necessary, because it can help us point in the correct direction as to which unit to consider. However, measurements are not an indication of quality and durability. This is why I am so skeptical of the many Chinese branded DACs, with impressive measurements, that are tested in this forum.

I guess your findings and conclusions open a pandora box, if electronic measurements are true measurements of sound quality. I believe you referenced that the measured noise in the Yggy is outside the audible range, in other words, that Schitt did not clean up their design outside the audible range (Is this good or mediocre engineering?), and that is why it sounds so good. But the testing equipment measures everything, inside and outside the audible range. It is difficult to grasp that a unit that is 32db noisier sounds better. But it sounded better to your ears, and I respect that.

Ears are really the ultimate valid test, because we must buy what is most pleasurable to our hearing.
It only opens a Pandora's box if you think uncontrolled subjective reports are worth more than established audio science...and/or expect what should be a transparent part of the audio chain to do some sound shaping to taste for you.

Otherwise, it doesn't change a thing...
 

josh358

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
116
Likes
60
Agree with rickyhgarcia, although I wouldn't have posted my impressions here if I'd known people would get upset -- it isn't my forum and they have a right to choose their own emphasis.

It's true as well that blind testing is more reliable than sighted testing, even exhaustive level-matched A/B testing of the kind I did, and that is the kind of listening test that they prefer here. I prefer it too, but I didn't have the DAC long enough to try it (I did order one, so maybe I can try it when it ships in the month or two).

Vis-a-vis the measurement issue, I think there's general agreement that some of what is measured can't be heard and some of what is heard can't be measured -- not because the instruments aren't more sensitive than the ear, but because we don't always know how to evaluate them and measurement suites are incomplete. I do think it's clear that something below the threshold of hearing (something like -10 dB SPL in the midrange) can't be heard, and in a real world room at typical levels the threshold is even higher (research suggests that we can listen about 10 dB down into the noise). Questions start to arise on the margins, forex, can we hear in practice the second harmonic distortion in the Schiit DAC, which is about 80 dB down? That's above the threshold of hearing, but it's going to be lower on anything but a very loud passage which I'd expect to mask it.

That said, I think it's important to note that most of the differences between good DAC's (and I think all of the DAC's measured here) is very, very subtle even if, as I and some others believe, it can actually be heard.
 
Last edited:

BDWoody

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,251
Likes
1,993
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
Vis-a-vis the measurement issue, I think there's general agreement that some of what is measured can't be heard and some of what is heard can't be measured -- not because the instruments aren't more sensitive than the ear, but because we don't always know how to evaluate them and measurement suites are incomplete.
I'm not sure I agree with that summation of general agreement...

If it can be heard, it can be measured.
 

josh358

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
116
Likes
60
I'm not sure I agree with that summation of general agreement...

If it can be heard, it can be measured.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't be. Instruments are more sensitive than the ear. The problem is that they aren't always easy to interpret, and that we don't always measure everything that counts, or interpret them correctly (which can be very complex, e.g., how many use the formula for the audibility of harmonics?)

I'll give you an example -- a loudspeakers ability to reproduce a sensation of depth. There's no single measurement for that, because it depends on a number of factors -- cabinet diffraction, polar pattern (see among other things Linkwitz's paper on the topic), phase response (allegedly), etc. So it isn't easy to look at the measurements and say "Speaker A will be better at reproducing depth than Speaker B." AFAIK, there isn't even a way to weight the factors numerically. And yet it's a significant contributor to our subjective impression.

That's where a listening test comes in -- and to be sure, a blind test to ratify the results (one speaker manufacturer I work with won't put any change into production unless it's been found both audible and superior in blind tests by two listening panels, one expert, one not -- and not surprisingly, their speakers are highly regarded).
 

BDWoody

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,251
Likes
1,993
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't be. Instruments are more sensitive than the ear. The problem is that they aren't always easy to interpret, and that we don't always measure everything that counts, or interpret them correctly (which can be very complex, e.g., how many use the formula for the audibility of harmonics?)

I'll give you an example -- a loudspeakers ability to reproduce a sensation of depth. There's no single measurement for that, because it depends on a number of factors -- cabinet diffraction, polar pattern (see among other things Linkwitz's paper on the topic), phase response (allegedly), etc. So it isn't easy to look at the measurements and say "Speaker A will be better at reproducing depth than Speaker B." AFAIK, there isn't even a way to weight the factors numerically. And yet it's a significant contributor to our subjective impression.

That's where a listening test comes in -- and to be sure, a blind test to ratify the results (one speaker manufacturer I work with won't put any change into production unless it's been found both audible and superior in blind tests by two listening panels, one expert, one not -- and not surprisingly, their speakers are highly regarded).
We aren't talking about evaluating motors... (Drivers...) That's a very different endeavor.

Evaluating DAC's? Nothing unknown there.
 

josh358

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
116
Likes
60
We aren't talking about evaluating motors... (Drivers...) That's a very different endeavor.

Evaluating DAC's? Nothing unknown there.
I don't know how to answer that, because I don't know if it's true. In my career, I've seen some significant developments in our knowledge of what we can hear. Jitter, for example, wasn't on the radar when digital audio was introduced. Or consider transient intermodulation distortion, which was first identified by Otala when I was young. We didn't know it even existed, so didn't measure it, and today's solid state amplifiers and op amps are better because we discovered it.

I think we do get a better handle on what to measure as time goes on, and that since electronics are so much more accurate than loudspeakers, any audible effects are bound to be more subtle -- although by the same token, that makes them hard to hear and ABX. Today's converters are largely a result of that process of technological discovery. Some would say that they're audibly perfect, some would say not, and if the latter is true there's a certain degree of uncertainty about why it's so (though it's possible to make some informed guesses).
 

josh358

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
116
Likes
60
PS -- I think we should end this discussion because Amir rightly wants the thread to focus on the Okto, so despite the temptation I'm going to bow out.
 

BDWoody

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,251
Likes
1,993
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
Today's converters are largely a result of that process of technological discovery. Some would say that they're audibly perfect, some would say not, and if the latter is true there's a certain degree of uncertainty about why it's so (though it's possible to make some informed guesses).
Well, I guess it's back to disagreeing with the central premise, that today's converters are a result of technological discovery, rather than the result of adhering to Nyquist-Shannon and letting the math handle the details instead of personal preference.
 

MWC

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Messages
116
Likes
44
Re: miniDSP U-DAC8
This can in no way be compared to the Okto DAC8, nor considered an alt option to the Octo simply to get RCA out instead of XLR. It can only do up to 192kHz PCM and no DSD at all. My PC sound card (Asus D2) can do that perfectly well for 3/4 the price!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top Bottom