Are DAC's overpriced?

Not that you need to spend a fortune to achieve this. On the contrary, if you are smart and selective and take advice from the RIGHT people, you can get there on a budget. I think for an entire system, the threshold is probably $20K-$30K. Anything below that will tend to be mid-fi with 2-D presentation between the speakers IME.

Biggest load of nonsense.

Under $500, buy a schiit bifost multibit.
Under 2 k, buy a Chord  2qute or Qutest.
It will make a difference, how much is up to ur ears......it is relative.
Good luck.

@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).

I learned that many of these so-called vintage chips only support 16/44.1 Redbook rates. Not saying they’re bad, just saying they were designed for CD players as opposed to support the current hi-rez content at higher rates such as 24/96 or 24/192. Lots of folks prefer them over the ESS chips more targeted for hi-rez playback.Your ears/brain is the best judge.

Burr-Brown PCM1704U-J and PCM1704U-K are vintage R2R chips that people seem to prefer to the currently ubiquitous ESS Sabre chips.

The Burr-Browns were something like $20 each at one time.

Looking for a DAC based on the chip is fraught with problems.  SQ is  more affected by the implementation than the chipset.

I did a shootout of several chips a few years ago and I didn't like the switched-capacitor sound of the AKM chips.  The only chip I ever disliked.  I would avoid those.

Steve N.

@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.

I think the question about audio products being over-prices are pretty meaningless unless you explain your thinking in more detail. If you don't think you can hear any difference at all between a $100 dac and a $10 000 dac you can just buy the cheap one and be happy. Many people listen to cheap bluetooth speakers and are happy.

If you mean that a specific piece of gear is overrpices you could elaborate a bit more why you think so. I think that TotalDACs and dCS dacs are expensive but I did like them when I heard them at an audio show. At the same time I don't have the financial means to buy any of them so I don't really care. I hope that some of the technologies inside ripple down to cheaper dacs sooner or later.

If I had a stereo bought for about $10 000 I would probably be looking for dacs around $2000 up to $3000. If I had a stereo bought for +$100 000 and had the money to buy new things to it (I wish) I would also look at the expensive dacs but try to listen and compare them to some $3000 dacs.

If you just want something and don't think dacs matter you could by a Chord Mojo or a iFi Micro Black Label and use that for a few months. Then you can try to find something better and try to compare it with your current dac. Those are easy to carry around if you want to bring them to a store and compare there (some stores will let you do that).

What are “the” chips to look for?

Possibly yes if it's built around a Sabre chip. Possibly no if it's R2R or FPGA.

chayro... "Just a little point here - I had a 2900 and it was a well-built unit with a smooth, non-offensive sound. I hope you find a nice dac you are happy with, but don't automatically assume you will prefer it to what you have. That's why you really have to try and see for yourself. Personally, I prefer 1-box units for their simplicity and not having to deal with digital cables, reclockers, whatever. But I'm a simple guy. :)"

I received a "Box O Goodies" today from my mentor In the industry and I will say this... I don't need a DAC with the 2900... not with my simple two channel system! I changed the speaker wires and that made a very nice, much more open sounding rig. I'm not going Tidal or buying a new computer to listen to something I don't own! 

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy302/thegainster/49667060_235612500648601_5983303984981475328_n....

FORTUNATELY, before I pulled the trigger, I got to hear my system via a prototype coax (not at liberty to say whose) but the cable was TRANSFORMATIVE

This is simply jitter reduction, and probably not much of it. If you think that is good, try a really good silver BNC terminated coax cable with a Synchro-Mesh reclocker.  7psec of jitter directly measured. You eyes will pop out of your head.

I used to mod AA DAC's and resamplers BTW.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

I’m afraid I must disagree. 😬

@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.).

@elizabeth 

Believe we have. Just don't necessarily need a 7k dac for that  :-)

Just a little point here - I had a 2900 and it was a well-built unit with a smooth, non-offensive sound.  I hope you find a nice dac you are happy with, but don't automatically assume you will prefer it to what you have.  That's why you really have to try and see for yourself.  Personally, I prefer 1-box units for their simplicity and not having to deal with digital cables, reclockers, whatever.  But I'm a simple guy.  :)

mzkmxcv289 posts01-06-2019 6:38pm@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.

>>>>The dynamic range is independent of noise. It’s the ratio of two levels of loudness. Loudless level to softest level. Noise has nothing to do with it. Signal to Noise ratio provides the relation (ratio) of signal level to noise level. Dynamic range compression has nothing to do with noise.

When my trusty warhorse and high moded  Pioneer PS65 (stable platter) died, I went into a deep search mode as my budget was/is limited. after days of searching and reading, I settled on a Marantz HD CD 1.(MSRP $650) In addition to being a player it has toslink AND coax out.

My dac/pre is Audio Alchemy, which even has inputs for a streamer. My intent was/is to use it as a transport, so I never listened to the player circuit.

I had been using it all long with toslink but something in my system was not as it should be. I started a hunt to replace my AA DPA-1 amp with AA monos, then PS Audio 700 monos, or Nord Ice/N Core

FORTUNATELY, before I pulled the trigger, I got to hear my system via a prototype coax (not at liberty to say whose)  but the cable was TRANSFORMATIVE

SO, IMHO, MAKE SURE WHATEVER YOU REPLACE IT WITH HAS COAX

HTH

There seems to be a strong odor of ASR Forum emanating from this corner of Audiogon. Or is that eau de Hydrogenaudio?

@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. 

Yes, I feel a bit guilty responding as a certain someone wouldn't stop interjecting after being asked not to and to start his own thread. I would have been happy with that but I got a bit fed up as well. I shouldn't have and I won't any longer.

All the best,
Nonoise

My listening changed once I started using DACs.

Now use a Beresford SEG, with Beresford Dorado power supply.
Very smooth, quiet, (cheap), with a low noise floor.

The OP must be so pleased; reading your irrelevant arguments.
And so off topic, considering his original question.

 @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.

If that’s it, then what are the benefits of doing so if not to improve the sound quality of the music?

From what I understand, noise floor is the threshold from which lower signals can not be resolved. Those signals are music that can’t be differentiated from the noise.

Ridding the noise that clouds musical signals, harmonics and spatial clues doesn’t benefit anything like the music you can now hear?

I think the problem is you only "see" things mathematically, without art or it’s contributions that the math can only approximate. Music can be measured linearly but when it’s actually played, it’s a different animal. You really should get to know these animals. They’re beautiful.

I’ve always believed that 16bit recordings are all one needs, when done correctly. Take Tony Manasian’s work that I’ve mentioned in other threads. His work rivals any high rez junk out there, and betters most.

I know we all have to deal with high noise floors in our rooms which limits dynamic range so we really only have so much to play with. But any way one can reduce the noise floor betters the sound, or so everything I’ve read says, except you.

Call me dense, but I’m used to it. 😄

All the best,
Nonoise

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

I’m so relieved that the Rams will not have to face the Bears. Now, as to:

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.

So when there is a lowering of the noise floor and the sound improves (microdynamics included), it’s all incidental?

(congrats ont the Chord Dave)

All the best,
Nonoise

Chord Dave.  I rest my case for that expensive DACs make a difference.

@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.

@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.

mzkmxcv
“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.”

>>>>Dynamic range is a ratio of loudness levels and is independent of noise.

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).

You are so misleading with your specs (when it suits you). Yes, a room wouldn't have more than 60-70db of dynamic range, if that. But to say that if one can increase the dynamic range that the additional bits would be of no consequence is a flat out lie.

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 and what seems to be a grudge against @audioengr with your several (so far) digs at him. You're not as clever as you think you are.

That, and if you truly believe that having more dynamic range is a futile endeavor, then why do you promote cheap DACs with class leading specs (including increased dynamic range) as the way to go?

Enjoy your lamp cord and <$200 DACs. 👍

All the best,
Nonoise

@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.

Steve N,
Your comments about buying a DAC without a re-clocker are interesting, but perhaps a tad misleading. The world of sound is no better than the recording studio builds into it. So, there ya go.

Yep...

@ audioengr 

Jitter is not the real problem today. Bad recordings are and probably will always be. 

And some CD players and transports do sound better than others. Folks call it ’jitter’ but that is just guessing. But maybe good enough.  

It's not guessing.  For transports is IS JITTER and ONLY JITTER.  I don't just call it jitter.  For CD players, it's everything in the DAC, including jitter.  I know this for a fact.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Will you hear a difference? Depends on your golden ears. Takes a lot of experience. When some are talking of huge differences, in my opinion, these are subtle for most of us. 

I believe it's more a function of the rest of the system and the acoustic treatments, if any.  I routinely have people tell me they have tin ears and then when they hear the system, they get it immediately.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Measurements don't mean dick unless it's properly implemented. That, and you're following folk who admit they can't hear all that well.

+1
Measurements are only one piece of the characterization, but can be useful if they are the right measurements.

Overpriced I think would be when a company have choosen a price for its dac product so that they will show a smaller profit or eventually loss on that product compared to a better outcome if it was priced lower.

Maybe we should talk soundvalue? This is a hobby of very high diminishing returns (even loss) if you’re not careful.

"I don’t know much about DAC’s as a component and came here to learn a few things... do I need one with such a simple setup? :)"
No!

Should I buy a new cd player or get a new DAC for my old player?  

There’s an Oppo 205 for sale on another auction site for $2500, that’s the best of both choices . Great DAC chips (ES9038PRO), solid disc spinner and it streams. At $2500 you’re almost guaranteed your money back if you decide to sell it and take a different direction.

@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.

"At past audio shows, in every room with the benchmark dac, I spent an average of 2 minutes listening,"

Completely baseless conclusion. You can not isolate what you didn't like to just the DAC. You'd need to switch the DACs while keeping everything else the same, including the volume, in order to draw any meaningful conclusions. That said, Benchmark DACs can sound too revealing - garbage in garbage out. 

Analytical is associated with cool sounding, with the benchmark I’ll go with shrill sounding. The Benchmark is way too analytical IMO. At past audio shows, in every room with the benchmark dac, I spent an average of 2 minutes listening, sometimes walked in and turned around. It wasn’t only me, my friends with me that have good sounding dacs left too.