The new FIIO Warmer R2R Tube Buffer DAC

Quadaptor! said:
I am beginning to believe that it may be next to impossible finding a DAC that , by design, doesn't impose some sort of electronic signature or enhancement on the sound.
Click to expand...
No, it's not impossible, and it doesn't even have to be expensive either. The ASR forum, which gets pretty scoffed at around here (a bit unfairly, if you ask me), is dedicated precisely to this purpose. You can find there precise measurements of many DACs, along with detailed explanations of what they mean and how they affect (or not) the sound.
There are many transparent DACs. I'm using this one. As you can see from its measurements, it's perfectly transparent - provided you use the first filter.

I understand your point of view perfectly. That's precisely what I want from a DAC, too. And I couldn't be happier with the Topping. Actually, I could. I would be happier if it weren't Chinese. But that's a different topic. Technically it's exactly what I was looking for.

On the other hand, one might say that the lack of a signature is a signature in itself. :)
 
Last edited:
Vlad Soare said:
No, it's not impossible, and it doesn't even have to be expensive either. The ASR forum, which gets pretty scoffed at around here (unfairly, if you ask me), is dedicated precisely to this purpose. You can find there precise measurements of many DACs, along with detailed explanations of what they mean and how they affect (or not) the sound.
There are many transparent DACs. I'm using this one. As you can see from its measurements, it's perfectly transparent - provided you use the first filter.

I understand your point of view perfectly. That's precisely what I want from a DAC, too. And I couldn't be happier with the Topping. Actually, I could. I would be happier if it weren't Chinese. But that's a different topic. Technically it's exactly what I was looking for.

On the other hand, one might say that the lack of a signature is a signature in itself. :)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information. Coincidentally I bumped into ASR the other day. Now I'll go back and take a deeper dive. Which Topping DAC are you referring too? As for sound signature, I would take a nominal view and categorize DACs into groups having no sound signature and those having signatures via mechanisms such as tube buffers, op amp replacement, etc...

PS - I find it ironic that preamps used to commonly contain devices that allowed the listener to modify the sound of their system. Those devices were called bass and treble controls. Those devices wouldn't make your system sound "warmer", but they certainly would make it sound more "bright" and/or "punchy" depending on how you used them. Even tough those devices seem to have fallen out of favor, the desire to modify sound doesn't seem to have gone by the wayside, hence the preponderance of DACs we have these days that will do that. But I digress...
 
Quadaptor! said:
Anyway, for purposes of marketing I think the Warmer is doing things that are not necessary for a DAC and , in this situation, one might be better served pursing the world of tube amplification. I'm not condemning it, but instead questioning its need from a consumer's and stereo enthusiast's perspective.
Click to expand...

If someone wants to inject a bit of harmonic distortion into their system, does it matter whether it's occurring within the source, the preamp, power amp (or integrated amp)? The sonic outcome should theoretically be the same?

I also think there's a difference between enjoying the character imposed by a particular tube implementation versus simply adjusting a tone control - frequency response vs harmonic distortion is not the same thing.
 
pete_mac said:
If someone wants to inject a bit of harmonic distortion into their system, does it matter whether it's occurring within the source, the preamp, power amp (or integrated amp)? The sonic outcome should theoretically be the same?
Click to expand...
Fair point. Basically, it doesn't really matter where you inject the distortion. I think it's more a matter of order and elegance, for lack of better words. A matter of having each component perform its own task, rather than try to mimic the behaviour that's traditionally the job of another component. Why use a modern, high quality, solid state amp and preamp, which are by nature designed to be as accurate and transparent as is technically possible to be, and then ask a digital-to-analog converter, whose job is totally different, to artificially and intentionally produce some extra distortion? Why not use a tube amp and/or preamp in the first place, which produce that distortion naturally, by their own design, and then let the converter just convert as well as it can instead of asking it to be something it isn't?
Sure, the end result may be the same, but it looks like a graceless way of obtaining it.

That's like buying a 400 HP car, and then placing a wooden block under your gas pedal, because you like to drive slowly. There's nothing wrong with wanting to drive slowly (unless you're doing it in the fast lane), but then you're better off just buying a car with a smaller engine to begin with, which has a good, accurate throttle.
 
Last edited:
Vlad Soare said:
Fair point. Basically, it doesn't really matter where you inject the distortion. I think it's more a matter of order and elegance, for lack of better words. A matter of having each component perform its own task, rather than try to mimic the behaviour that's traditionally the job of another component. Why use a modern, high quality, solid state amp and preamp, which are by nature designed to be as accurate and transparent as is technically possible to be, and then ask a digital-to-analog converter, whose job is totally different, to artificially and intentionally produce some extra distortion? Why not use a tube amp and/or preamp in the first place, which produce that distortion naturally, by their own design, and then let the converter just convert as well as it can instead of asking it to be something it isn't?
Sure, the end result may be the same, but it looks like a graceless way of obtaining it.

That's like buying a 400 HP car, and then placing a wooden block under your gas pedal, because you like to drive slowly. There's nothing wrong with wanting to drive slowly (unless you're doing it in the fast lane), but then you're better off just buying a car with a smaller engine to begin with, which has a good, accurate throttle.
Click to expand...

I respect your personal philosophical approach, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Tube amps aren't for everyone - some people like the vice-like grip provided by high powered Class AB or Class D amps, and might want to smooth over some of those hard edges with a bit of upstream goodness. Whether it happens through a preamp or DAC (tube or otherwise) designed or tuned to inject a little warmth really shouldn't make 4/5th of bugger-all difference and we should only judge the system on the end result. There isn't "one true way" of achieving sonic nirvana. :)

I don't get your analogy, as regardless of where the harmonic niceties are created within the system, the net result should be the same. If the DAC injects the warmth, its's not being hobbled - it is a function of its design.
 
pete_mac said:
I respect your personal philosophical approach, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Tube amps aren't for everyone - some people like the vice-like grip provided by high powered Class AB or Class D amps, and might want to smooth over some of those hard edges with a bit of upstream goodness. Whether it happens through a preamp or DAC (tube or otherwise) designed or tuned to inject a little warmth really shouldn't make 4/5th of bugger-all difference and we should only judge the system on the end result. There isn't "one true way" of achieving sonic nirvana. :)

I don't get your analogy, as regardless of where the harmonic niceties are created within the system, the net result should be the same. If the DAC injects the warmth, its's not being hobbled - it is a function of its design.
Click to expand...
Agree. There is no absolute path to enjoyment.

I don't like to use the work distortion. It implies value. That is a word for engineers who use distortion as a measurable guide. But we hear the end result as color and tonality.

I like the term color, or tonality. Color and tonality is what we hear. There is no absolute value to color or tonality. Only what we like. The lack of color and tonality is not necessarily a good thing.

Color and tonality can come from anywhere in the system, likely effecting the system differently in different places. So I guess "where" makes a difference. But there is not inherent value on the "where".

Words lie transparency, drive, PRAT, soundstage depth and width etc. are equally useful.

The end value is on the result as it interacts with the room, the other components, and ultimately, your own individual perceptual machinery (our hearing is not electronic). Though some of this is measurable, we really don't know what those measurements mean within the context of that system.

No absolute paths to audio satisfaction.

I should add, that though distortion is "injected" in some cases. It is most likely that distortion is a byproduct of a topology. For example, low or no global feedback is a design parameter that is desirable to many because it is believed to effect desirable sonic character. But low feedback also means that there is more distortion. Because feedback suppresses distortion. But it is not "injected". I thinking adding plate starved tube distortion is an injection, however.
 
Last edited:
It’s fascinating to hear people claim all DACs sound the same—I assume they are basing that on objective measurements, but I’m certainly no expert. All I know is that the moment I plugged in FiiO's original R2R DAC, I was hooked. Even to my old, untrained ears, the difference was immediately obvious; it is incredibly warm compared to the Schiit DAC I was using.
 
lms said:
It’s fascinating to hear people claim all DACs sound the same—I assume they are basing that on objective measurements, but I’m certainly no expert. All I know is that the moment I plugged in FiiO's original R2R DAC, I was hooked. Even to my old, untrained ears, the difference was immediately obvious; it is incredibly warm compared to the Schiit DAC I was using.
Click to expand...
People claim that all DACs which are measurably transparent (at least above the threshold of audibility) sound the same. R2R DACs are not among those, and the "Warmer" one even less so. The latter was specifically engineered not to sound the same.
So yes, you will find DACs that sound differently, that's for sure.
 
Just for $hit$, I just swapped my FiiO BR15 in place of my Denafrips Ares II, I would say the FiiO is about 90% of the Ares II…….not bad for 1/5th of the cost.

Not a Warmer, but an R2R nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious about this DAC. I have a MHDT Orchid and it sounds great. I much prefer it to most CD players I've heard and some SS DACs. I have a friend who borrowed and liked my Orchid, thought it was great for the price, but wanted more resolution so he bought a Lampizator DAC of some sort. He is not a big fan of warmth. Though the high end of his hearing test is like a waterfall from competitive shooting back in the 80's. They measured it and considering his love of volume, I would say they measured correctly.

Speaking of value, I see this FiiO and it has more tubes than the Orchid and more is better, right? My DAC cost nearly three times that and has three less tubes. And the FiiO has 24 bits to my 16. I'm definitely measuring a lack of value here though I bought mine years ago so I suppose you could say manufacturing has lowered the price of R2R entry.

Speaking of tonality, when you guys were talking about ASR, I was thinking of some photo buddies I have. They love to test. The test different film stocks in different developers and those same developers at different dilutions. They make lots of step-wedges and scan them and plot the tonal scale out on graphs in Excel. Then they print them on different paper types, using different paper developers and those same developers at different dilutions. Then they print the step-wedges with different toners, gold, selenium, etc. Sometimes they take a camera out and take some pictures to develop and print along with their 31 step step-wedges to see how many steps of separation they get in their tones.

Often I can't tell the difference between the different images. They'll offer me a loupe to get closer and I say, no thanks. I just wanted to look at a picture. But they get a lot of joy out of what they do, so more power to them. I love tubes and warmth and what I perceive as "musicality" though that's obviously utterly subjective. I can't measure it, but I can sure feel it.
 
TheClassical said:
Speaking of tonality, when you guys were talking about ASR, I was thinking of some photo buddies I have. They love to test. The test different film stocks in different developers and those same developers at different dilutions. They make lots of step-wedges and scan them and plot the tonal scale out on graphs in Excel. Then they print them on different paper types, using different paper developers and those same developers at different dilutions. Then they print the step-wedges with different toners, gold, selenium, etc. Sometimes they take a camera out and take some pictures to develop and print along with their 31 step step-wedges to see how many steps of separation they get in their tones.

Often I can't tell the difference between the different images. They'll offer me a loupe to get closer and I say, no thanks. I just wanted to look at a picture. But they get a lot of joy out of what they do, so more power to them. I love tubes and warmth and what I perceive as "musicality" though that's obviously utterly subjective. I can't measure it, but I can sure feel it.
Click to expand...
That's not quite the same thing.

Firstly, that you can't tell the difference between the different images doesn't mean that other people (particularly those interested deeply in photography) can't. Many can.
Secondly, what you're describing is not quite equivalent to our preference for accurate equipment. Staying in the realm of music, their working process is more like a violin player who's very particular about the maintenance of his violin, the kind of strings he uses, how often he replaces them, the kind of rosin he treats his bow with, the precise length and shape of his nails, or the extremely precise way he tunes his instrument, all in order to produce the best kind of sound he can. You're saying, "I don't care about that, all I want is to hear the music and delight in the beautiful melodies", which is totally fair, but those who do care about those things and who can hear them will really appreciate his attention to detail. The exact same piece can (and will) sound very different to me when it's played by a second-tier orchestra conducted by a nobody, and when it's played by the Berlin Philharmonic conducted by a a great conductor, who can take months of rehearsals to prepare for one concert, during which he does with his baton exactly what your buddies do in the darkroom with their step wedges. The former performance can be pleasant, I can enjoy listening to it and can appreciate the melody, but the latter can give me literally goosebumps.

Our interest in well-engineered, transparent audio gear, which measures well in the lab, is more like their desire to have a good enlarger, correctly aligned, with a good lens, that does justice to the negative. Or a safelight that's really safe and doesn't cause visible fog. Which is nothing out of the ordinary, but rather something that every darkroom printer worth his salt cares about. No photographer will ever say, "I want to have a safelight that produces just a tiny bit of fog, in order to make the prints look warmer or dreamier". If he wants a dreamier image, then he will incorporate that dreaminess in the photo to begin with, or will induce it intentionally during printing, but he will never want his tools to induce it by themselves due to bad design.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. On the internet, a slight humorous note can sometimes get lost in translation, especially in a thread and on a subject that many tend to take seriously. :)
I am often guilty of missing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom