What is best external dac for hifi rose 150b?

Function IN/OUT Settings
#15

That’s because you have no clue actually. Quite typical audiophile snob who thinks that because he can afford some moderately pricey equipment his ears get gold-plated.

You can argue about ASR measurements all you want, they are certainly not the be-all solution to all audio questions, but blind tests are the one and only way of showing presence or absence of audible differences. They work. Just like they work for medicine and everything else. The “I don’t need no testing, I can hear tyhe difference” is just pathetic excuses of people trying to justify to themselves buying too much snake oil.

PS Rattling off some unofficial mass-market cognac designation does not make you into a connoisseur. lambic, is that your claim to fame? You have tried a lambic once? Talk about letting your ignorance shine through.

PPS Try some Japanese whisky, some will go against anything from Scotland (Fujisanroku is quite good).

PPPS For cognac try Kelt

PPPPS If the only kinds of tests you are aware of are deceitful ones, well, didn’t you say you worked in high-end audiophile industry or something? Of course you wouldn’t be aware of anything as plebeian as well-designed honest tests, scientific method, or anything like that.

#16

For fucks sake. Enough Jeep, take a hard look at yourself.

#18

Wow, this got rather heated. To answer the OP’s question, I’m using a dCS Lina for the DAC stage connected by USB. I also have the matching dCS wordclock and the combination is significantly superior to the DAC in the 150B.
Without too many superlatives it is much more musical and takes away the brightness without losing any detail, in fact there is more detail. It is night and day.

1 Like
#19

There are some people who, if poured Bud Light in a Pauwel Kwak glass, would write 5 pages of flowery purple prose praising the delicate aroma, lingering body and exquisite head. Never forgetting to add references to some exotic locales, or foods, or drinks that they have seen mentioned somewhere on YouTube. There even might be a few anecdotes, older than dirt, cribbed from the internets and passed off as personal experience. And a healthy dose of barely hidden contempt for people who only drink Bud, of course. What do they know, having never tried that magnificent liquid in the fancy glass standing before them, clearly saying “Pauwel Kwak” right there!

Of course such people get extremely aggressive when hearing about something as basic as blind tests. Who wants to be exposed as a sham?!

I am sure that dCS sounds nice, for the astronomical money dCS wants for it it’d better. Whether it is superior to 150B very much depends on what you want from the DAC, a pleasing sound, or an accurate one. That it needs an external clock for over 7000 quid, on top of the price of the DAC puts it squarely into the category of products driven by marketing first and engineering last (if at all)…

#20

I have tried several DAC’s that I own, but find that the Chord Qutest sounds by far the best, connected via usb cable. It adds more weight and body to the music while preserving the detail. Not saying the stock DAC in the Rose sounds bad, just that, to me, the Chord DAC sounds better.

2 Likes
#21

Thanks all friends. still waiting for your suggestion and experience :smile:

#22

At least Jeep tried to answer op. What have you contributed with?

And I agree, the T+A 200 is a great match to Hifi Rose.

1 Like
#23

What about Gustard’s R26 r2r DAC? It’s as good as the Venus and some say close to the Terminator. HOWEVER, HiFi Rose’s iis profiles unfortunately do not accept the Gustard iis pinout.

StandardModel

#24

As you know I love the Gustard r26 but yes the 150b is lessened due to the fact that i2s is only two profiles neither of which work with the Gustard. Hifi Rose continues to claim that a custom cable will work with no proof. It is a poor way to advise customers and they will feel that pain when 130 users hoping to use the Gustard will only be able to use the combo via USB not i2s.

That being said I have auditioned many DAC’s including Denafrips, Holo and Chord and for the money the R26 packs a lot of value along with superior sound. Too bad that it won’t work with Hifi Rose via direct i2s as Hifi Rose claims.

@ROSEHAN @ROSEHAN

#25

Mmh, I don’t agree, that using I2S (it’s more a current hype) is a must.
Better USB-DACs are tending to have also a good USB in.
My best DAC (but here I’m using mostly HQPlayer, which you can’t in this constellation with it, because there isn’t any NAA client for android available) is the Holo Audio May, which is connected to the Holo Audio Red through USB and I2S.
Also with the small Cayin (with USB and I2S input) iDAC -6 MKII or the Matrix Audio element i2 (USB and I2S in) I can’t hear any difference between USB and I2S.

If you can’t upsample (Roon upsampling is ok, but HQP does it a lot better) your sources, I would not buy a NOS DAC for the RS150.

#26

Wouldn’t it make sense to have the fewest possible signal conversions and mixes when moving data and timing signals between devices? It’s my understanding that USB and all methods of signal transmission other than iis must make at least two such conversions (one outgoing and one incoming) in the movement between devices. Unless one can say that these conversions and mixes of signals are perfect which is unlikely then they can introduce error.
You may be saying that the errors/distortion which is introduced can’t be heard but why do it at all?
In your case would’ve it be better if you didn’t need to use the Holo Audio Red and just connected the iis directly?

StandardModel

PS your equipment is great. I’m jealous.

#27

I think, there is a lot misunderstanding, what the external I2S LVDS output is.
For this you’ve also at least one conversion from the internal I2S bus and again on the receiver side.
We’h on other places a lot of discussions about that and then there also arguments, that USB is for PCs and nof for audio, but that’s mostly marketing and not physics.
I’m using also a DDC (a lot of more conversions) from Matrix Audio and with it you can hear a difference to the direct USB connection, if you’ve not a decoupled USB port and a really bad USB out (e.g.from some older PCs).

#28

Thank you for this information. My understanding is that a USB requires a little computer to prepare for USB transmission (XMOS etc) which is bound to produce internal noise. I2S on the other hand is very lightweight. I liken i2s LVMS to replacing skinny temporary short distance tires on a car with regular tires. The vehicle remains intact. A USB has its own computer for conversion and transmission. That’s like disassembling the car as a whole before sending it and reassembling it at the destination.
A very well designed USB could be quite good. Nevertheless, my philosophy is that the less manipulation of a signal, the less noise, jitter and distortion will be introduced. I could be wrong and I’m here to learn.

StandardModel

#29

Using I2S for external data transmission is more like replacing good all-season tires with roller blades. You could do it, but… why?!

That I2S was popularized by PS Audio, company with great marketing but not a single actual competent engineer is quite telling.

Ironically (or not, because again, PS Audio) using I2S for external connectivity involves more electrical conversions than using USB which is designed expressly for this purpose.

And while you probably could find some DAC that would be affected by “jitter” (and you’d most likely have to pay super high price for such a hand-crafted boutique device) it is not an issue with any properly made c=modern DAC exactly because it has its own clock and does not care what the jitter is.

#30

Conclusion of this test is clear.
But i2s also isn’t any worse compared to spdif or usb

#31

It’s not necessarily “worse.” It’s just absolutely useless, and it is amazing to see people expending this much time and effort trying to get it working.

The very fact that there isn’t even a connection standard for external I2S should tell one that this is not something you should use for external connections. It’s not designed for that.

#32

I’m a great fan of Amir and Audio Science Review.
When he says it with regard to measurement, I accept it.
As I said, I’m here to learn.

#33

Yes, but ASR only does measurements, sometimes a worser measurement can sound better.
He also tested an Audio -GD DAC which did measure very bad but which sounds very good.
It isn’t all about measurement!

#34

In this test i2s is the winner
So conclusion, use whatever your ears seems to like :slight_smile:

#35

There’s a difference between producing the sound that is as close to the original recording as possible (which is what a device measuring well at ASR would do) and producing sound with pleasing (to someone) distortions. Some people pay big money for DACs with vacuum tubes, too. Generally however, when not blinded by price tags people do pretend sound that is accurate

Sorry, not seeing any tests there, just lots of blather from someone who does not seem to have much of a clue but does believe in cables.

Having said that, there are actual measurements and blind tests of Denafrips using both connectors. As is to be expected, USB vs. I2S measures the same well beyond anything that could be audible to any real person, and noone can hear any difference when unaware which connection is used.

If you already have equipment with I2S connectors might as well use that, but any effort spent on getting it to work beyond plugging in a cable would be far better spent on… actually listening to music.