TOPIC:

Hello,

Is it planned to replace the 4490eq Dac with the better successor 4493eq Dac for SHD full-featured I/O in the near future?
Is there a reason why it is not installed?

Thanks
Tom

This question already asked in another thread:
www.minidsp.com/forum/shd-series/16507-a...-chip-update-for-shd

I believe the SHD design pre-dates the AK4493 introduction.
Regardless, the AK4493 is just a minor improvement (spec-wise) and it wouldn't make any sense to change devices on an existing production unit.

I suspect if a new version of the SHD (with more channels) emerges in the future, it might be spec'd with a newer DAC.

Dave.

It's all about DAC implementation. You could have the very latest DAC installed but if it's poorly designed and implemented then you're achieving nothing at all.

The AKM 4490EQ has been around a while yes but that means it's capabilities have been fully realised and implemented. It's a bloody good DAC.

Replacing the DAC is going to make no difference. The DAC is almost certainly better than anything you could hear. Maybe there's somebody in the world who can, double blind, hear the difference between the DACs. I doubt it.

I have tested and compared 3 DACs, ranging from $500-$1800 retail. Each of these including the SHD outputted with varying levels of quality and detail. The DAC is absolutely distinguishable and matters to me. As a result, I have decided to use the SHD DAC and preamp for my 2.2 channel system. I am bypassing the preamp section on my Octave 110SE integrated (subject to change). Yes, I endorse the DAC section on the SHD and will be selling at least one DAC I really like.

This is called psychoacoustics. You will likely hear no difference in a blind, level matched shootout, unless one of DACs is broken. Nevertheless, the SHD is a quality DAC, so good for you.

@Jsimon7777 ... We get it. You don't think DACs make a difference. You can use the DAC on your smartphone through your headphone jack if you think it's up to your standards. But using a term like 'psychoacoustics' is insulting and clearly your own theory not shared by most people with sensitive systems and a good ear. Please keep it respectful.

writesds wrote:

@Jsimon7777 ... We get it. You don't think DACs make a difference. You can use the DAC on your smartphone through your headphone jack if you think it's up to your standards. But using a term like 'psychoacoustics' is insulting and clearly your own theory not shared by most people with sensitive systems and a good ear. Please keep it respectful.

It works both ways.
If subjective evaluation is your criteria, then someone else's is beyond your discussion.

It's insulting and disrespectful for a person to adopt a one-way (regardless of which side they're on) view of this.

Dave.

writesds wrote:

@Jsimon7777 ... We get it. You don't think DACs make a difference. You can use the DAC on your smartphone through your headphone jack if you think it's up to your standards. But using a term like 'psychoacoustics' is insulting and clearly your own theory not shared by most people with sensitive systems and a good ear. Please keep it respectful.

I wasn't disrespectful. I was pointing out the truth. Your subjective experience is almost certainly utterly biased. Just as mine has been when I listened to different DACs. I get there's disagreement on this issue, but it's scientifically settled. Just as it the fact that the world is round. And believe me, I didn't come into my buying experience with all this in mind. Thankfully I heard others, doubted my senses, and learned a lot. Then I ended up with a fantastic sounding system.

It can work both ways, but the subjective way is about as good a sorting process as rolling dice. Sure, you can get all sixes, or you can get all ones. It's just a matter of luck and whatever salesman grabs you.

As for saying things are one way, I don't think that's insulting. Insulting is criticizing him, which I'm not doing at all. I'm simply saying that his experience is bupkus. Why? Because it is. He arrived at a fantastic preamp/DAC anyway, so good for him. And hey, if I manage to keep him from going down the rabbit hole of stupidity that cables represent, more the better.

Actually, I quoted the wrong reply. Sorry about that.
I wanted to quote "writesds" with my reply......but failed. Ha!

Cheers,

Dave.

What you appear to be saying is that it is scientifically proven that there is no audible difference to the analog output between DACs. Am I misunderstanding you? Because the output quality and sound signature I deed varies between DACs, and not just in the subjective. It is easily measured. Different components, design and engineering produce different results. I cannot even believe that is a point of contention.

Doesn’t Exponential’s post mean both are right. It’s true surely that it’s not just about the chip but about how well the DAC chip is implemented. A poorly designed unit vs a well designed one will have sonic differences. Two well designed units going up against each other may be much more difficult to tell apart.

I notice miniDSP’s latest product (C-DSP 8x12 DL) uses a 4456 DAC. Different to the SHD. Would that in itself make the two units sound different? Probably not but the overall design might.

Thanks for clarifying. I have been referring to DAC units such as my Chord Qutest and Arcam irDac, no the chipset. My original comments refer to the differences in the output of those components as compared with the SHD. The importany point here, is while there are slight but clear differences between what I hear from the units, MiniDSP did an excellent job implementing their conversion and I see no reason to use an external DAC at this point. With regard to the DAC chip itself, I have no argument.

Interesting. So do you hear the SHD as being as good, or better, than the Qutest sound-wise?