I have Trinity DAC.
I also have ECDesignes, Lavry Gold and Accuphase 81L (10 R2R chips).
And some time ago I've experimented with 1540 and 1541 with tube output stage (1540 is better BTW)
I've also compared Trinity with dCS Debussy and MSB Signature.
I really tried to find better alternative to Trinity DAC, but failed.
It is too crazy expensive, but I still can't see better choice.
If interesting, I can give links to recordings of Trinity vs MSB vs Accuphase.
I also have ECDesignes, Lavry Gold and Accuphase 81L (10 R2R chips).
And some time ago I've experimented with 1540 and 1541 with tube output stage (1540 is better BTW)
I've also compared Trinity with dCS Debussy and MSB Signature.
I really tried to find better alternative to Trinity DAC, but failed.
It is too crazy expensive, but I still can't see better choice.
If interesting, I can give links to recordings of Trinity vs MSB vs Accuphase.
Your experience sounds interesting - are you able to describe what it is which makes the Trinity DAC top of the DACs? I mean in terms of the sound quality. I've been working on DAC designs for a number of years and from looking at the internals of the Trinity I haven't noticed anything which seems to me to make it stand out from the crowd. So do you think the upsampling algorithm is the 'secret sauce' to its success?
With the notice that I am not trying to be the commercial guy but instead reply to what I see as a cry for help, you could try the Phasure NOS1a DAC (8x R2R (1704U-K)). I have two customers who prefer the NOS1a over the Trinity by far.
I myself never heard the Trinity.
Regards,
Peter
(sales phasure com)
PS: Mods, If this is inappropriate, please delete.
I myself never heard the Trinity.
Regards,
Peter
(sales phasure com)
PS: Mods, If this is inappropriate, please delete.
I think, that oversampling technique with 8 chips per channel, implemented by Trinity is really good. Not unique, but very rare as I can see. And even more important thing is that somehow Trinity doesn't have output stage. I found out that major problem of DACs is the quality of output stage. For example, my friend who use MarkLevinson 30.5 got signal directly from UA module and got incredible result. I also had DIY DACs based on 1540/1541 just because I was trying not use typical OPamps/transistors output stage. And quality depends on quality of output stage. So, with Trinity I have no additional stages of amplification. It is connected directly to SE pentodes with transformer volume control and result is amazing!
I do agree that a DAC (as in the box, not the chip) is often going to be limited by its output stage. This was the case with my own designs for a number of years. But now my output stages seem to have gotten better than the DAC chip I've been using I've gone in search of a new chip. Transformers do indeed make the best output stages, this is my finding.
In terms of sound. It is not only have highest resolution, but also very smooth. This is not typical. Some people prefer resolution, but sound often harsh and grainy. Some prefer smooth, comfortable with musicality, but muddy and distant.
Trinity is not just good balance. It is best in resolution and best in musicality!
The sound made like from very thin lace!
I even can predict that with some not well resolthing systems (amp+speakers) Trinity will not sound impressive from resolution point of view, because structure of sound it gives really very fragile.
So the Trinity has sound. 😛
My pose was about all owners of the NOS1a are not able to describe a thing about the sound and I combine that with the topology of the Trinity being quite similar. So there's sufficient talk about the NOS1a, but really nowhere about how it sounds. I too am not able to describe it.
In my view it is correct that the output stage is about the most crucial (though the interface to teh PC has its share too). I have been working for a year in a row to get it "right" before the first ones went out (this was in 2010) and today I am again just over a full year into trying and listening to improve on the previous version (of the output stage). I feel it is now done.
Nobody will recognize his NOS1a when it is upgraded - so much is the difference. And that only from a different output stage.
So I fully agree.
My pose was about all owners of the NOS1a are not able to describe a thing about the sound and I combine that with the topology of the Trinity being quite similar. So there's sufficient talk about the NOS1a, but really nowhere about how it sounds. I too am not able to describe it.
In my view it is correct that the output stage is about the most crucial (though the interface to teh PC has its share too). I have been working for a year in a row to get it "right" before the first ones went out (this was in 2010) and today I am again just over a full year into trying and listening to improve on the previous version (of the output stage). I feel it is now done.
Nobody will recognize his NOS1a when it is upgraded - so much is the difference. And that only from a different output stage.
So I fully agree.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.