Are DAC's overpriced?

Massdrop Grace SDAC, Topping D30, Schiit Modi 3, Khadas Tone Board (can be used bare, but would advise using a case). All are excellent and are <$150.

EDIT, seeing as your CD player pliekly only has digital coax or Toslink, then scratch off the Grace DAC, as it’s USB only.

@captbeaver 
 
The P6 is good if you want that.

@rbstehno  
 

Also, if you like a cold/analytical sounding dac, get a benchmark. 

 
A device can not be cold (emphasizes kids and treble; opposite of warm) and analytical (transparent, no color) at the same time. The Benchmark is indeed the latter.  

@rbstehno

Shrill sounding again is about emphasized treble. Analytical doesn’t mean cool, cool means cool. Analytical is the same as transparent, you can’t analyze something if the tool adds color. If you don’t wanna hear what your music/speakers/room sound like like, then maybe a transparent DAC isn’t for you, get a tube one or something that has a lot of distortion, like some Audio-GD products. If you do want to hear no added colorations, then the Benchmark, and any other transparent DAC, is an excellent choice.

@brucenitroxpro

Also remember most rooms don’t have more than ~60-70dB of dynamic range. So Steve, in another thread, saying that using his reclocker to go from 22psec (-120dBFS) to 7psec (-130dBFS) resulted in a difference he could hear, that already is a huge red flag. I’m not calling him a snake oil peddler as his product works (well, Audioholics did measure his >$700 speaker cables, which he says addresses the issue of skin effect, which plagues cheap cables, yet his measured identical to lamp cord in that respect), but I’m just saying that it doesn’t add anything over a modern, competent DAC (the $80 Grace SDAC has a Jitter-Test result of better than -125dBFS); maybe if you had an older DAC that you absolutely didn’t want to get rid of, or a modern incompentant one, then maybe his $700 reclocker would be useful.

@geoffkait

In terms of music mastering (like the DR Database may score one song a 6 and one song a 12). This is the comparison of RMS vs peak levels (or some variant).

In terms of digital audio as a format, it’s the amount of bits. CD is 16Bit, so, if undithered, it has ~96dB of dynamic range (20*log10(2^16)). Meaning from the loudest sound possible all the way down to the lowest noise possible (due to the noise floor), it is a difference of ~96dB.

If you haven’t, I suggest watching this video by Chris Montgomery.

@elizabeth 
 
Yes, there are many songs I like where the vocalist going from average singing levels to belting results in only a slightly increase in volume.

When the dynamic range is increased, it’s not just at the extremes where they are heard and appreciated. It’s across the board. You’ve gone from hiding behind your slide rule to openly using tactics that would work on the uninitiated or those who are ignorant of that fact to work your case

No, an increase in dynamic range only results in a lower noise floor. To suggest it has any other benefit (effecting the sound “across the board”) shows that you do not know what dynamic range is on a fundamental level. We are not talking microdynamics here.

grudge against @audioengr with your several (so far) digs at him. You’re not as clever as you think you are.

He gives out some good advise, but certain claims he makes can easily be seen as untrue if you know simple facts about digital audio (he may believe it’s true, in which case I suggest he does some quick-switching level-matched double-blind listening tests).

@nonoise  
 
An increase in bit-depth only lowers the noise floor, that’s it.

@jerrybj 
 
The thread is about overpriced DACs, so when you look at the performance of say an SMSL SU-8, then yes, something like a Chord Dave, Vivaldi, etc. are overpriced from a pure performance standpoint. 

 @nonoise

16Bit has its noise floor limit at -96dB (it still can have audio embedded lower than that level). Almost all music is mastered to 0dBFS (clipping) is 105dBC, this your room must have a noise floor lower than 9dBC, even the most optimistic values for orchestral/classical recordings aren’t mastered higher than 120dBC, in which the room noise floor would have to be lower than 24dBC.

My living room is open-concept, so a bit noises than normal, but it’s noise floor is about 46dBC. In terms of speaker wattage, a difference of 22dB (46-24) is the same as a speaker being fed 1W vs 160W, it’s a staggering abount or difference, I don’t know any residential rooms that quiet.

Also keep in mind those mastering values are for only that genre of content (and not even the whole genre, only a portion) and most people don’t listen at reference levels (like for movies I’m usually -8dB or -12dB below reference). It also isn’t taking into account that no meaningful data is that low, especially when music >70dB louder is being played, masking it

So no, you won’t hear any benefit going from 16Bit to 24Bit. 
 
Oh, and also remember I didn’t even talk about noise-shaped dither, which can make a 16Bit signal have a noise floor of like 105dB-120dB. So again, 16Bit is enough, and further showing that things like jitter have been a non-issue for many years, even Apple’s USB-C dongle DAC has a Jitter-Test of better than -110dB. Now, not saying no modern DACs are immmune,  but any competent one (even the $9 Apple dongle) has no audible issues with jitter.

@geoffkait  
 
Again no, it has multiple definitions. 
 
A CD has 96dB of dynamic range available, it does not have a 96dB SNR, that’s a measurement of gear (amplifiers, DACs, etc.).

@captbeaver 
 
ESS Saber chips (9018 and newer 9038 are very popular) 
 
AKM chips (4458 is probably the most popular chip out there, they have higher end ones like the 4490 and such). 
 
There’s a few other brands, but nowadays these two make up the majority, and for good reason.

@audioengr

The Oppo 203 uses AKM 4458’s , should people avoid that? As you said, implementation is everything, which is why the Benchmark DAC3 using the ESS 9018 still outclasses cheeped products using the better 9038 (of course this is measurement wise, they audibly won’t be too different).

@yyzsantabarbara

You sold your $5000 Benchmark gear because it sounded worse than a $12,000 integrated?

Mark Levinson is owned by Harman, who also believes in designing gear based science/specs/human trails. Revel is also owned by them.

Samsung bought Harman, for $8,000,000,000.

@bo1972

Just utter baloney. USB has no faults besides not having 100% noise rejection and only working well to a few meters (where AES does a better job). In terms of just data transmission, it is 100% fine on its own. The benefit of 75ohm with BNC is also not a concern.

There are countless of DACs that are transparent when using USB. You can only say they are not if you have unconscious bias, which a double-blind listening test will get rid for you.

The simple fact is what modern DAC you have >$200 is really a non-issue.

You may know the $10,000 amp challenge, I may start a $4000 DAC challenge to anyone who can tell the difference between the Chord DAVE / DSC Rossini vs the $400 March Audio DAC1 (slightly modified $100 Khadas Tone Board DAC in a case). 
 
Your speakers and room are 90% of the issue, 6% your amp, 2% preamp, 1% DAC, 1% song format.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-dac3-hgc-da-preamplifier-headphone-amplifier-measureme...

https://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-electronics-qutest-da-processor-measurements

Show me where they lack dynamics or resolution. You obviously have never properly tested yourself to see if you can actually hear what you are claiming. Just like how 24/96 provides no consumer benefits over 16/44.1, yet people claim otherwise.