Reading the DAC thread, I see (for the first time in my experience) an explicit reference to balanced connections yielding better sound, assuming balanced equipment.

I'm going to be connecting the single-ended outputs of a balanced DAC to a CSP325. I always thought balanced connections were mainly for avoiding ground issues. So this is new.

The solution suggested in the thread was a ZBIT. Which also "acts as a preamp."

I'm sure the range of pluses offered by the CSP325 (on order and not coming for many months at least) vs. the ZBIT, in its role as a preamp, are legion. OTOH everything I listen to is going to be coming through that DAC. I won't be using other sources.

Would I REALLY benefit from putting a ZBIT between the DAC and the CSP325? My listening environment is well-treated but very small. I also wonder about the advisability of putting another unit in the chain.

Or should I jettison the CSP325 and go with a ZBIT instead?

Kind of looking here for some technical justification, more than a "as soon as I plugged it in, things sounded spacious, richer, etc." type of comment. After the usual mods and shipping to Japan, the ZBIT is Not. Exactly. Cheap. Like, half the cost of a Pontus. I could almost buy a Denefrips DDC for that money. So I'm wondering.

Thanks in advance for any insights!

Thanks CA. Very clear!

The DAC is the Pontus II, so yes, it is fully balanced.

Your input makes sense technically, so I guess I can now ask if anyone has an opinion on the sound... Will I be able to hear the ZBIT I wonder, between a Pontus II and a CSP325, both fairly pricy pieces of gear.

I'm not a skeptic per se but it sure seems that putting new kinds of components between existing components -- to solve problems we didn't know needed solving -- is a growth area in high-end audio. Even the guy at Denefrips was kind of laughing on YouTube at his own justification for their DDC, kind of like "I guess what I'm saying is you might actually need this if you think you do..."

Hi Burgermeester,  

I'll leave the more technical discussion to others, and FWIW, here is my experience with two Denafrips DACs over the past year. First, I am using a CSP 2+ preamp to Torii MKIV amp. My first DAC was the Ares II, and when I first installed it, there was a significant improvement in sound quality over the Cambridge CXN v2 streamer/DAC.  

I could again hear and appreciate the improvement in SQ when I added ZBIT to that setup.  

Last month I purchased the Pontus II and realized a noticeable gain in SQ over the Ares, but the improvement was more subtle. I don't mean that as a criticism of the Pontus. I prefer Pontus over Ares. I initially thought I would sell the Ares II, but I installed it in a downstairs system and now could not part with it.

Just to follow through more with the thread discussion... Improvements from changing to a ZBit and balanced outs from my modified Gustard were pretty notable as I recall. My "ZBIT" is not stock, so I should add this qualifier. I made it with extra resolving RCAs, and no connectors at all on the balanced in, the cables from DAC soldered direct to the transformers. Also I used a really nice volume pot, extra resolving wires, careful damping..... So it is especially transparent and resolving. But I think my descriptions of what I hear sound quite similar to descriptions of what folks seem to hear with stock ZBITs, so I hope this helps.

I think three basic things are happening that have been pointed to. For my Gustard, voltage out RCA is 3 volts, and it sounds really good here just like that. I happily used it this way for quite a while, loving the sound for the most part. But balanced outputs from the Gustard are 6 volts, and that jump from 3-6 volts via the ZBIT transformers "signal filtering" was a notable shift.

The ZBIT is not really a gain stage like the CSP3. It does not put out more voltage than the DAC supplies. But it lets us use the higher voltage balanced DAC circuit, and is variable downward with the pot. I prefer mine usually around 2-4 o'clock. I don't know what voltage this ends up being, but it is less than 6 and more than the RCA 3. I just like the sound better dialed back some than with the ZBIT full open here. Full-on is impressive in my system, but it just makes everything a little much for me.

Here, with Decware gear, starting with more voltage into whatever is next, it sounds like there are more dynamics, space, lucidity, density and resolution. These are things you can tune with your coming CSP3, and somewhere in its voltage and tube settings, it just sounds best for balancing a system/room, while also "conditioning" the sound with the CSP3 tubes and other design beauty. The CSP3 being a pretty intense gain stage, going way up in voltage if wanted, and having a number of adjustments with tubes and pots, it offers loads of tuning possibilities. So really a different thing, but the voltage hit is a big part of it, and you get potential to raise voltage with the ZBIT also via the higher balanced out of the DAC.

And not least... those high bandwidth transformers in a ZBIT have some sound, but it is pretty transparent to me, while adding pretty notable voltage tuning qualities. So I subtly hear the "addition" here when listening for it as "an addition," but it is subtle with mine. More of what I hear is how the ZBIT enhances the sound, the transformers "conditioning" the signal in beneficial ways, while giving flexibility in how much of those qualities I want by tuning the gain reduction pot.  

So functionally, for sonic adjustments, the ZBIT, acts on the signal similarly, but more simply than the CSP3, having less voltage range and a very simple path. To me it offers pretty transparent and quite useful voltage tuning enhancements.


That said, I rarely run just the ZBIT to amp, usually having a CSP3, or ZRock, or both in as well. I find they all have sonic tuning variations based on their designs, each having its own flavor of pretty clean voltage adjustment. So tuning to tastes offers more or less of whatever each specifically focuses on... giving interesting variations in higher and lower end articulation, dynamics, spatial and harmonic revelation and complexity, density....

And tuning for each of their voltages and tubes to sound best together can be quite illuminating. For each, there will likely be a "sweet spot" area in a given system/tube setup. Then, once found, individually and collectively, the overall system sound can be more complete, flexible and seductive. But there is more. I am also always "gain riding" from this baseline a little to optimize recordings to this system/room. Some recordings, already pretty lively and clean, often benefit from more voltage, but need less "enhancement" overall. While duller, leaner, less dynamic or clean (etc) recordings benefit from more ZBIT or other pre stage "gain."

So to me, with more than one adjustable and transparently setup pre stage between DAC and amp, when all is right, each of their particular traits can be integrated to tastes, offering flexibility and complexity. But also these basic voltage gain qualities add up, and adding gain in more than one place, "gain balancing" becomes more of a thing. So I end up running one or more of the "gains" lower, and in combination, making similar voltage enhancements as compared to just one pre stage with the gain higher, and working with the amp on its own.

To "solve" "transparency" ideas that more is less in audio, to me the thing is to start with all things in the system as fast, transparent and resolving as is possible while remaining musically realistic. Then adding complimentary resolving things can contribute qualities that make the music more complete and beautiful..... For me this includes most importantly room balancing and front end, but all components, speakers, power treatments, all cables, vibration mitigation tuning, tubes, etc, etc. Then, adding good things that fit with the system resolution and speed, I hear the enhancements and rarely take much notice of degradations that may be there to some degrees, but are "under the radar" compared to enhancements.


I also use a modified Singxer SU-1 USB interface with the Gustard, converting USB to I2S. This was a notable improvement here also, mainly subtler things, but wide coverage on them. The obvious differences were less with this as I recall, and I am assuming this was in part due to my DAC, tuned up Mac Mini, and digital cables being pretty good at USB anyway. But the Singxer helped enough to want to keep it for me, giving less smearing and more refinement in space, resolution, harmonic complexity, smoothness, density.... not at all small considerations in the big picture. So again, an addition improving things, not degrading them.


I like it simpler too though. In recent weeks, gradually fine tuning a ZRock2, I am running my NOS USB/RCA DAC, the ZRock as the only pre stage, and the Torii. Another qualifier, in my ZRock (and most everything else really) I have gradually changed lots in the power and signal path, making speed more complex and complete, and increasing transparency and resolution, etc, by using carefully chosen and tested parts and wires... And my ICs are made similarly... notably transparent, fast, smooth, resolving... So with my ZRock the bypass switch is a pretty accurate bypass.

This is especially useful when tuning the ZRock since my reference is my amp sound by itself, and in ZRock bypass mode, it sounds very close to as if the amp were connected directly with the DAC using really good cables. And lately I love the sound in ZRock bypass mode, with no pre effects between DAC and amp. But I love the sound with the ZRock as I have it tuned in live mode even more... and I don't use it so much for bass enhancement, more for general enhancement. Also I have run the Singxer, Gustard, ZBIT, ZRock, CSP3, Torii for extended periods and loved that once all was tuned together...

Some more thoughts anyway.

I feel you Burgermeester.... lots of new stuff coming, and too long a wait for Decware to be easy to make conceptual choices without the system up. It does seem you will have plenty to play with and learn! Fun coming!

Yep, one would certainly think that a separate, faster production line for non-amp electronics would make sense, given the lower parts count and assembly complexity.

I wonder if the turnaround really is faster, though. Well, something else to track on the list...

Hey Steve,

I am glad you find that post useful. Thanks. And yes, if you end up wanting to use a link to it on a webpage, go for it.

I agree, the essence of this world you have created/facilitated can be quite illuminating, especially when we dig in... a life-enhancing love of mine for sure!

I really like your analogy about stacking components also.

Will

Could anyone try to clarify which part of the sound might be magnified by the addition of a zrock2 vs a csp vs strapping another se84 ufo25.  I have a 6 volt fully balanced dac output through a zbit to a se84ufo25 to caintuck lii15. The sound is great but I am looking for a bit more grip on the lower end of the drivers?  @lon and @will seem to have a lot of experience with this stuff!

Andy

Quote:


(I feel like I might have had this discussion with you once before )

I can't speak to a zrock or csp but I have 2 UFOs configured as balanced mono blocks and they are fantastic. My whole signal path is fully balanced, Denafrips Terminator2 -> Woo Audio WA22 -> UFOs -> Omegas SAMs, so it is hard to compare to anything else but I can tell you that dynamics and bass (for a 40 Hz single driver speaker in a smallish room) are be very impressive. No one will confuse it for a Who concert, but I don't feel like need any reinforcement from a subwoofer, zrock or what have you. Better than the 100 watt Pass Aleph 2s that I had for many years before I went Decware. It is so good I got back on the waiting list for a pair of UFO25s.

Now, early on I did spend some time with the RCA out from my DAC straight into the UFOs strapped as "conventional" monos and was not as impressive, but I didn't have a tube preamp in the chain, or as nice interconnects and I don't think the RCA output from a fully balanced DAC is as good as the balanced. So nothing like an apples to apples comparison.

Hope this helps.

Have you rolled any tubes? Try putting a pair of OB3 VR in the back positions.

The input tube and front VR tube are worth exploring too.

Has anyone tried OD3 in the back position on the UFO25TH? I tried them and they buzzed like crazy. In the Torii MKIV the same OD3 tubes were fine.

I don't know if it was the specific tubes or the UFO25TH doesn't play nice with them. Besides the buzz—bass was taut.

Yes, with the Torii IV and III, if the room/system/amp/tube compliment, etc, are over saturating the bass, though more of it, it can sound thick, soft and recessed with OA3s. Tone that power down with a little with an OB3, and more so with an OC3, and more yet with an OD3, progressively the signal becomes less full and bassy. In this situation, reducing bass thickness/muddle, the bass can feel and sound tighter/faster, and stronger, though it is actually weaker in the balance. Meanwhile, as the mids and highs open progressively, getting clearer and more complex, they can become more present in the balance from being less overwhelmed by bass, as well as being more open/spacious. If needed, this can allow more complex articulation, harmonic nuance and spacial information throughout. So a range of VRs can be a nice tool. Does it work about like this with the UFOs and monos?

Hey Will,

Thanks for describing the potential change in bass by rolling different 0_3 tubes.  I have been considering experimenting with alternatives to the current 0A3s in my Torii IV but was not sure what to expect.  Since the bass is, to my ear, a little too much (thick is a good word for it), I am more curious to give 0B3 or 0C3 a try.