Compared to the built-in DAC and external DAC input of Devialet 440 Pro, the external input sound is much better than the built-in DAC. It seems that Devialet's built-in DAC level should be average. Currently, my solution is LUMIN X1--- Devialet 440 Pro RCA LINE, perfect
As far as I remember, Devialet does analog to digital conversion on all analog inputs. If it is true, then not only can you not avoid the DAC in Devialet, but in the original digital signal it goes through 3 conversions: D to A (your DAC), then A to D (Devialet), then again D to A (Devialet DAC).
(31-Jan-2024, 06:34)daniel.avasilichioaei Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I remember, Devialet does analog to digital conversion on all analog inputs. If it is true, then not only can you not avoid the DAC in Devialet, but in the original digital signal it goes through 3 conversions: D to A (your DAC), then A to D (Devialet), then again D to A (Devialet DAC).
Thank you for your reply, which has given me a deeper understanding of the working principle of Devialet DAC! But in actual comparison, the external RCA input method has a better sound than the native built-in one, although I am not sure how it works.
@
jackyan
IN THEORY (I put that in capitals because practice does not always agree with theory) feeding a digital signal from your Lumin to your Devialet should sound no worse than and possibly better than having your Lumin convert the signal to analog, feeding that to the Devialet and having the Devialet convert the signal back to digital, passing that through the Devialet's internal DAC and then converting it back to analog. By passing a digital signal to the Devialet you avoid a digital to analog conversion in the Lumin and an analog to digital conversion in the Devialet. In both cases the end result is going to be the output from the Devialet's DAC.
IN PRACTICE, what could contribute to the result sounding better if you feed the Devialet an analog signal from the Lumin than a digital one? I can think of 2 things. The first is the digital input you used on the 440 Pro. People on this forum commonly report having different preferences for which digital input they use.
I can think of one other possibility. When your Lumin converts the digital signal to analog, is it doing any upsampling or other digital processing and was the digital output you fed to your 440 Pro given the same processing? Was, for example, the signal upsampled to 192/24 before being converted to analog in the Lumin and sent as a 44.1/16 digital signal from the Lumia to the 440 Pro? If the digital to analog conversion in the Lumin involved upsampling to a different resolution than the resolution of the digital signal you sent to the 440 Pro, then try comparing the 2 signal streams when the same signal signal processing is applied in each case and see if that makes a difference to your preference.
I can remember years ago when I still had a disc player in my system, having my SACD player connected to my 140 Pro via both analog connection and digital. If I was playing a CD I used the digital connection. If I was playing an SACD I used the analog connection because the player could not output the DSD data stream and analog was the only output I could get from the player. I compared the digital output from the CD layer of several 2 layer SACDs with no upsampling to the analog output from the CD layer and also to the analog output from the SACD layer. They all sounded slightly different but they all also sounded good. I could happily listen to any of them if I didn't have a choice but I did have a choice and I preferred the sound from the SACD layer which was analog to the digital output from the CD layer and I preferred both of those to the analog output from the CD layer.
There's a lot more going on with digital signals than many people believe. Different devices handle the digital signal differently, there are different ADC and DAC approaches, some devices use upsampling and others don't. What kind of digital connection you use can make a difference and you've got a number of options on the 440 Pro. There's a lot going on "under the hood" and what processing gets applied along the way, where it's applied, and how the device doing the processing does it can all make a difference.
You didn't say what processing was applied in the Lumin in relation to either the digital output or the analog output and you didn't say which digital input you used on the Devialet. There's a lot of options in all of those factors. If you only tried one option for the analog route and one for the digital route then you certainly haven't explored all of your options and while the analog path you used sounded better to you than the digital path, that may not be the case if you compare a different digital path or even change something in the analog path.
Digital offers us a lot of options and they aren't all equal. You probably haven't tried all of your options yet and, if you do try them all, you may still come to the same conclusion but you also may not. It's up to you just how far the rabbit hole you want to go when it comes to playing with digital audio.
...and that's before you bring psychology into the picture as well.
In addition:
Devialet once told me NOT to activate any upsampling/interpolation of data by the source device as they are doing it themselves (digital input plus -i expect- digitized analogue input signal).
But techology improved and there may be superior algs topday...
Nevertheless, if the Lumin's way feels better to your ears ... why not?
Devialet converts every analog signal in entrance to digital with an adc.
Unless the double conversion introduces some kind of distortion (let me say: impossible with Devialet),
no chance that there are differences. And even in this case, it would happen with every analog source connected, Lumin, Wiim or Aurender.
Anyway, it is a measurable ant it is a measure quite simple to be taken.
When I came across this paper from Devialet
https://www.devialet.com/media/wysiwyg/d...warev8.pdf saying something about their DAC:
==
MAT® DSD Core technology converts the DSD format into Expert internal native PCM 40
bits / 384 kHz format thanks to an optimized algorithm, limiting the amount of computational operations on the audio stream. Using only 15 bit perfect additions (no multiplication, no storage), the MAT® algorithm performs a 128 taps, linear phase FIR (Finite Impulse Response) digital
filter ensuring the conversion of the DSD format into internal native PCM format with truly outstanding performances.
==
So is DSD as well as any PCM input internally upsampled to 40bit / 384 khz ?
I have listened to Lumin X1, I think the Devialet DAC is very good, and up to standard of certain current high end DAC (at least in the way I use it with an external 10mhz clock), although may not be as natural as the top MSB or Playback Design DACs. I don't have very good impression on Lumin X1, I don't think Lumin DAC will overall beat Devialet.
As mentioned by others, Devialet converts RCA signal into digital anyway, so what you have gained with Lumin DAC in between is the sound signature of the Lumin DAC. In doing so, inevitably you will lose out in transparency as signals are going through a lot more unnecessary paths. I don't suggest gaining sound signature that way, it is a far more efficient way to tune the sound signature via power treatments (power supply and power cables) and speaker cables. FYI, Devialet responses very well to power products, I use Audioquest Niagara 1200 with Nordost QV1 and QK2 to tune the sound to my liking.
Also how do you connect to Devialet? Network cables and play via Roon? Personally I don't use Roon and I don't like the Roon sound, although I love the Roon interface. I am only using Devialet 400, and play through a computer with a Matrix Element H USB card and then go through a DDC and go to Devialet via AES from the DDC. I also connected an external 10mhz clock to the DDC, somehow the clock is passed to Devialet DAC via AES and improved the overall sound. In terms of vocals, details and soundstage, I don't think I can have any complaints on the Devialet DAC, it is still up to current high end DAC levels. The only thing it is lacking compared to current high end DACs is the naturalness from DACs like Playback Design, giving a close to LP feel.
Very interesting to hear! I also experienced a massive improvement when using the Devialets with an Audioquest Niagara power conditioner (using the 3000/5000 will provide even more performance) and also using AQ power cords which had another great effect.
Regarding the DAC I also think the used Texas Instruments 1792 is a classic and offers a very solid and timeless performance. In the Pro/CI version they even further tweaked the DAC with their Magic Wire.
Currently the Devialet Master is connected via AES/EBU from a Holo Audio Red running HQPlayer NAA (the HQPlayer upsample options to 192/24 and filters offer even more sound quality tweaking possibilities). And what also had a considerable performance was to connect the Devialet Slave via an iFi iPurifier2 (which has a high quality reclocking too).
So seems regarding DAC we are still quite competitive on the market
