Any Digital Impressions of the Caiman yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therockst4r

@Labarum: So do you think that the Caiman is comparable to a budget preamp, or would there be a big improvement if I use a dedicate preamp?

---

By rights the Caiman driving a power amp ought to offer the cleaner sound because there are less components in the analogue chain, but the precise input/output impedance characteristics can sometimes mean the sound is better with a pre-amp.

I can only share my experience with the Beresford 7510. I have not repeated the experiment with the Caiman, which is reputed to have a better analogue output section.

Cleanest option:

Squeezebox > Standac (fixed out)> Quad 405-2 > Speakers

Relies on 24 bit digital remote volume control in Squeezbox.
Input/output sensitivity need to be matched so as to run at about 90% volume or else the digital volume control may degrade the sound. If the Standac had overdriven the power amp I could have inserted high quality in-line attenuators to the same effect.

I do not use this option because I also need a feed from a Virgin Cable TV box, which has no volume control. You would need to be very sure of your hardware and software to omit an analogue volume control - one digital crack could blow your tweeters.

My Chosen option:

Squeezebox and Virgin Box > Standac (variable out) > Quad 405-2 > Speakers

Very marginally less clarity on my most revealing recordings. Caiman may have closed the gap. Uses manual volume control on Standac about which my daughter complains bitterly when she is watching TV!

Least clear option.

Ssqueezebox and Virgin Box > Standac (fixed output) > Quad 77 Integrated Amp > Speakers

This option gives a remote analogue volume control and the ability to play analogue sources, but lacks the clarity and drive of the other options. The power amplifier in the Quad 77 Integrated amp is quite a few years younger than the 405-2, but that has been very recently upgraded and has all new capacitors and central op-amp. The 405-2 is the better, more powerful, amp and that shows. The 77 Integrated is renowned for a smooth laid back presentation, and that it delivers, but the power amp lacks the clout of the 405, and the pre-amp introduces its losses.

I have once driven the 405-2 from the Pre-out on the 77 integrated amp. The sheer power 405-2 shows, but so does the marginal clouding of the pre-amp.

Conclusion

All these options achieve very acceptable standards and I will happily listen to any. They trade clarity against convenience. You can only make your own judgements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Labarum

Thanks Rich.

And to advance the question.

Has anyone using a Windows PC with S/PDIF (coax or optical) made a comparison with the USB connection.

---

I had a quick play around yesterday comparing USB to coaxial from the PC into the Caiman which feeds my AV9 Processor.

My initial feelings are that coaxial provides a smoother and less sibilant sound than the USB but i need more time for a proper comparison, i also have the problem in that the Caiman is probably settling in over the first 10-20hrs and using some new IC's also so the differences could be down to that. I remember comparing USB to coax a little while back with my stock 7520 and finding little to zero difference but that was with an Arcam A90/P85 combo so it was short of quality versus my current AV9/P7.

The more time i get on the Caiman the better it is sounding though, it's really pulling some detail out of some recordings i've never heard before and bass lines that definitely weren't as nearly pronounced :)

Labarum: Thanks for the advice, I think I may consider using it as a preamp, if it's as clear as you say. You have me scared about blowing my tweeters though. How exactly would I prevent this from happening if I use the variable out on the Caiman to my power amp?
Thanks for the help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therockst4r

Labarum: Thanks for the advice, I think I may consider using it as a preamp, if it's as clear as you say. You have me scared about blowing my tweeters though. How exactly would I prevent this from happening if I use the variable out on the Caiman to my power amp?
Thanks for the help.

---

If you have no analogue volume control in the analogue chain you are effectively working with the volume control at maximum all the time.

That is fine, because you can reduce the volume in the digital domain, but there are two cautions.

1. If you use too much digital attenuation, you start to degrade the bitstream. You might or might not hear the effects of this depending on the resolution of your analogue chain, and the amount of digital attenuation applied. My Squeezebox has a 24 bit volume control and most of the time it is passing 16 bit data - there are noughts and ones to spare. Advice I have seen elsewhere suggests I can run the Squeezebox volume control down to 85% with no problem - in practice I can go much lower, because at low volumes the ear looses acuity anyway - like listening to a band on the other side of the valley! But it is is important to have the output of the DAC well matched to the input sensitivity of the amp - and to use in line attenuators to achieve that match, if necessary, so the average volume setting is higher than 85%.

2. If there is an error in hardware or software the output can go instantly from 00000000 to 11111111 (for an 8 bit system). This digital crack would deliver a highly energetic pulse to your amp which would pass it on to your speakers - the tweeters might not survive (remember the amp is always at max volume.) Don't test anything on full volume, and only turn it up or remove the volume control when you are sure of the stability of your system. In practice this will not be an issue for you because, I guess, you will be using a Standac's variable output which has an analogue volume control - a simple but effective potentiometer. Start at zero volume on the Standac and wind it up gently, just as you would if the Preamp were in circuit - it's no different.

Thank you for clearing that up Labarum.

I don't think relying on a computer program's digital volume is worth the risk if you love your equipment. Computer glitches happen, period. As Brian said, the result could be very expensive damage. (you might be surprised how much replacement tweeters or crossover boards are)

I wouldn't use the line out, so that wouldn't really be an issue. The potentiometer would prevent it from reaching maximum volume, also I am pretty sure that my power amp isn't even powerful enough to do any damage.

I have been reading about the Caiman with interest and have a question. I am currently using a Cambridge Audio DACMagic. Is the Caiman likely to be any superior to the DACMagic, as it's apparently using a single WM8716 chip whereas the DACMagic is using dual WM8740s? According to the Wolfson spec sheets they are basically the same chip, but the WM8740 has a better SNR, especially when they're running in stereo?

I'm asking because I'm interested in getting another DAC, but I've recently tested a very expensive DAC that uses the same WM8740 chip as the DACMagic and it sounded identical.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therockst4r

I wouldn't use the line out, so that wouldn't really be an issue. The potentiometer would prevent it from reaching maximum volume, also I am pretty sure that my power amp isn't even powerful enough to do any damage.

---

If you are talking about the variable output of the Standac, yes, as it sits in the system, its volume control offers the same degree of protection as that of any pre-amp or integrated amp.

A power amp does not have to be powerful to do damage. If it is driven so hard it "clips", the tweeters are at risk. Clipping occurs when an amp runs out of steam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipping_%28audio%29

The hard leading edge of a clipped signal is full of high frequency energy - like a cymbal, only much much worse. That's why the tweeters can be blown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junglist

I have been reading about the Caiman with interest and have a question. I am currently using a Cambridge Audio DACMagic. Is the Caiman likely to be any superior to the DACMagic, as it's apparently using a single WM8716 chip whereas the DACMagic is using dual WM8740s? According to the Wolfson spec sheets they are basically the same chip, but the WM8740 has a better SNR, especially when they're running in stereo?

I'm asking because I'm interested in getting another DAC, but I've recently tested a very expensive DAC that uses the same WM8740 chip as the DACMagic and it sounded identical.

Thanks!

---

I used a DACMagic for a week and i compared it to a 7510 that i also had, there wasn't much in it but the DACMagic had more detail although it sounded a little thin to me.

There is not much doubt to me that the 7520 is a better DAC than the DACMagic imo however and once you add some better opamps it is clearly a better performer and the 'Caiman' improves on the 7520 again by quite a bit.

You can't really go by SNR numbers and the like, some of the enthausiast soundcards (Xonar/Auzentech) have good DAC's and decent specs but they still don't cut the mustard for me.