Soncoz LA-QXD1 Balanced DAC Review

[MechEngVic]

I just received mine and I'm having trouble with the bit rate on my Mac. I have it set to 32 bit/768 in my midi setup, although Amazon HD shows device capability as 24bit/768. Additionally, I am unable to get sound via Google Chrome when the bitrate is set this way. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

I don't think Amazon HD will show the 32bit capability of the device since Amazon HD maxes out at 24bit. Unfortunately, I know nothing about MAC.

 

[mt196]

I just received mine and I'm having trouble with the bit rate on my Mac. I have it set to 32 bit/768 in my midi setup, although Amazon HD shows device capability as 24bit/768. Additionally, I am unable to get sound via Google Chrome when the bitrate is set this way. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Any reason to have the bitrate so high? You know setting it so high can also be worse for the final sound quality? I would not go higher than 24/192 that is more or less the max a SACD will go. Other than that there is no point going, I even think 16/44.1 is enough, but some recordings are done better on SACD so 24/192 is necessary sometimes

 

[Veri]

Any reason to have the bitrate so high? You know setting it so high can also be worse for the final sound quality?

There's actually no downside to higher bit depth it won't have any negative effect. But 24-bit should suffice, it allows up to -144dB DR...

 

[ShiZo]

the measurements on their website are a bit different...

 

[mt196]

There's actually no downside to higher bit depth it won't have any negative effect. But 24-bit should suffice, it allows up to -144dB DR...

Technically the more khz the more audio band you have so, since you cannot hear above 20khz at best, you are just processing a lot of useless informations above 44.1khz that is the double of 20, that was what I wanted to say. About bit depth, the downside of having it too high is that the DAC chip will be more stressed and if you look at some datasheets they show that distortion rises with the rising of file complexity, so I am for keeping things simple 16/44.1 is the best overall, and 24/192 is for me the best compromise since a lot of music is better mastered/recorded on SACD

 

[JIW]

I have an early 2015 retina MacBook Pro running macOS 10.15.5.

I also don't get sound from Chrome at 768 kHz. In Firefox, I do get sound but it's quite distorted.

Anyways, there is no reason for you to set the sample rate to the DAC's maximum. Since all the components above half the original sample rate need to be filtered out for accurate playback, all you end up doing is using the oversampling algorithm of macOS's Core Audio rather than that of the DAC. Thus, it is likely best to set the sample rate of the DAC to the original sample rate of what you want to listen to.

Regarding the number of bits, Audio Devices tends to only show the maximum number of bits for USB devices. If the DAC's sample rate is that of the audio file and the volume is set to full, it will not add or subtract anything, i.e. the least significant bits are all zero.


First posted here.

 

[Veri]

so I am for keeping things simple 16/44.1 is the best overall

24/44.1 is objectively better though, 16-bit files will simply losslessly be padded and you'll get benefits of 24-bit noise floor, much larger digital volume headroom and better jitter: 16-bit async connection tends to have substantially more jitter than the same thing transferred over 24-bit.

So no, I wouldn't recommend 16-bit. I mean it's fine but it's not ideal. If you were to do the same argument against 32-bit then yeah I'd agree that there's no real point but well, if people want to use that... it's also fine. I'm personally always on either 24/44 or 24/48.

 

[Brab]

I just plugged and played my DAC. It seems to be using a generic Windows USB driver. Is there any advantage to using the updated USB driver referred to above?

 

[Veri]

I just plugged and played my DAC. It seems to be using a generic Windows USB driver. Is there any advantage to using the updated USB driver referred to above?

Windows and most other OS have a general purpose driver. It is fine and has proper WASAPI support etc. If you need ASIO however for whatever reason, you will need the driver

 

[Techno Peasant]

I just plugged and played my DAC. It seems to be using a generic Windows USB driver. Is there any advantage to using the updated USB driver referred to above?

In addition to what @Veri said, I'd imagine the official driver probably also includes DSD support if that matters to you.

 

[Veri]

In addition to what @Veri said, I'd imagine the official driver probably also includes DSD support if that matters to you.

I think foobar supports DSD over WASAPI even, if you set it up correctly

 

[Brab]

Thanks all above. The general purpose driver has all I need then.

 

[NCX]

Is point #4 true? (pressing F to doubt)

LA-QXD1 can be easily used in pure DAC mode，to do so, simply raise the volume to the maximum.

Source=Hifi Go. This claim is absent from the official LA-QXD1 manual and product page, and the higher end SGD1 as well

This is a very important feature to me since I plan on connecting the XLR out to my Violectric V281 clone, the Accurate Audio HPA-A281 and do not want to double amp my amp. I know the Schiit Modius has a pure DAC mode, but I want the better Optical input performance since both units are the same price.

 

[ChrisUK]

I had this dac on trial for a few days. It was OK but nothing special IMHO. In other words it did nothing bad or anything exceptional. A good choice for a low priced dac, but don't expect it to sound any better or different to other circa $200 dacs.

 

[turbotuff]

I had this dac on trial for a few days. It was OK but nothing special IMHO. In other words it did nothing bad or anything exceptional. A good choice for a low priced dac, but don't expect it to sound any better or different to other circa $200 dacs.

So what do you feel is the better DAC in the $200 price range?

 

[Purité Audio]

I had this dac on trial for a few days. It was OK but nothing special IMHO. In other words it did nothing bad or anything exceptional. A good choice for a low priced dac, but don't expect it to sound any better or different to other circa $200 dacs.

Actually it is as good as any other ( contemporary oversampling ) dac at any price.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/soncoz-la-qxd1-balanced-dac-review.13459/

Keith

 

[ChrisUK]

Actually it is as good as any other ( contemporary oversampling ) dac at any price.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/soncoz-la-qxd1-balanced-dac-review.13459/

Keith

As I said no better or different, maybe it has better build quality then some others.

 

[mt196]

As I said no better or different, maybe it has better build quality then some others.

The problem is you said to be equal to other 200$ DACs while I can show you a lot of DACs with higher prices that perform way worse than this

 

[ChrisUK]

The problem is you said to be equal to other 200$ DACs while I can show you a lot of DACs with higher prices that perform way worse than this

But do they sound worse? Measurements are only one metric to consider.

 

[Purité Audio]

Measurements completely characterised the dac, there is nothing else.
Keith