-=YMMV=- (
your mileage may vary)
Hello Y’all (happy new kitmas for you I hope, may you and yours’ have been well looked after..)
I just wanted to throw up a reminder to headfiers that when playing with kit that is new (to us at least), that it rewards the end user to check for themselves whether a slight change in how they use the kit might bring noticable improvements to the playback chain....
As a recent example of how rewarding ‘trialing’ alternative configurations can be; I recently had the fantastic fortune to find out that the COAX input on the Diablo will sound very different to the USB input (I believe in my case it is simply due to the clock on the source kit being better than the clocking that the USB method gives) (YMMV).
I recall becoming disillusioned with the Diablo for a couple of months when I had moved over to trialing ‘on the fly’ DSD conversion; the music COULD be improved by going from PCM to DSD, sure.. but VS using the clean transport quality of a Questyle QP1R: I couldn’t get USB to give the same level of performance... (and I mostly forgot this, over time, due to finding out that GTO filter sounded better than ’on the fly’ DSD formated sound,
and therefore sticking with the USB method to get GTO access)
BUT....
“Wowsers”; the improvement (in my instance; again ‘YMMV’) of switching in some horrible frankenstein project of a cable config (2 adapters and ‘the wrong sized’ COAX cable for the task at hand) that was given to the sound!!
Thought/Reflection (hindsight?):
I did feel that a Denefrips R2R DAC had a liveliness to it that I knew I had heard before, and that previous kit (/configs) had given me this sort of ‘wetness’ that GOOD digital sound can (an oxymoronic proposition mostly when the market is filled with parts built for spec sheet bullet points /manipulated ‘sales’).
When I switched back to using the Questyle (and the toslink connection) music would instantly regather, I can only hint at a description by infering the exhibition of ‘speed’ that changes when changing the processing path, or rather ‘handling’ through the Diablo...
I sometimes assume that what I have found with one setup must be true of others, or that the science of a setup dictates that such things might not matter (or matter ‘much’), but the “proof of the pudding, being in the eating..”, the Diablo sounds absolutely like ‘a step up’ DAC in terms of quality, as if it almost climbs a TIER in terms of audio performance quality given...
When I compared a FiiO M11+ digital output to that of the Questyle QPRR1, it was an easy win to the QP1R (music just rendered more transparently). When I did this previously it was apples to oranges comparison though as the M11+ was using USB and the QPR1 using TOSLINK. Still using different CABLE methods, now COAX from the M11+ (vs the previously used TOSLINK from the ‘gold standard‘ QPR1 for passing the SPDIF data), the music clearly sounds ‘the best’ that I have heard through the Diablo.
The improvement, in this instance, was as substantial as upgrading a DAC ‘TIER’; say between an entry level DAC to a step up model (or maybe greater).
?YMMV?
previously when I compared the inputs on a Chord Hugo (USB vs SPDIF over COAX and TOSLINK methods), the differences were subtle and hard to discern without spending time doing critical listening, and likely in specific ’stand out’ moments. It wasn’t a ‘night/day’ difference like doing so with the Diablo has proven.
WHY does this happen?
USB as a transport cable forces the Diablo to use an internal clock, whereas the cable change allowed me to switch to using the clock chip in my DAP.
(for any who like believe that others aren’t scientific enough or ‘jump at shadows’: I am aware of differences between GTO and DSD / PCM and how they are handled by the Diablo.
Also I noticed that using hyper expensive (vs their equipment chain total cost) USB cables could help on the USB front, same as using a filter on the USB line, but those differences are suble at best (I‘d describe as <10%, or ‘marginal’), vs the switch to an offboard clock (in this instance feels like a 30-40% improvement and very overt (obvious) change to the output sound given)
How to:
I had success with all three of these cables, all of which were lying around the house (stored in drawers and cable ‘chests’).
As can be seen in the above shot, all three tip types worked, but I did have to trial which phono end was the Digital line feed.
Differences observed went from staging and soundfield to much cleaner/clearer discnerment of clustered instruments (USB) vs ‘everything in its own airspace’ (COAX).
Liveliness in the highs was such a substantial improvement that it felt like a kit upgrade.
