Benefits of an external DAC
They should sound extremely close if everything is working properly. Especially if the electronics is all built and tested to a high standard. You might need to invest more to get a subtle difference. Try a Benchmark DAC3 straight into the balanced input of your power amp. You can return it if you don't find an improvement. |
Back in the Stone Age Peter Aczel (The Audio Critic) did a comparison test between a Sony Discman and Mike Moffat's Theta DAC. Pre and power amp were Boulder driving Quad 63's. He reported hearing no discernable difference! He postulated that as long as all the CD Redbook criteria were met then ALL Digital to Analog conversion sounds the same - no matter whether the DAC's were multibit or single bit! This is certainly something to ponder, considering today's proliferation of DAC's - some of which are very pricey indeed (Chord's Dave and the Nagra)! After all, present-day DAC's meet the Redbook standards and measure equally well! So if their are differences, what could the X factor be? Jitter, rise time, slew rate, filter anomalies (phase shift)? God (Nyquist) knows! |
I bought my first CD player in 1992 because I thought that previous iterations were inadequate compared to good LP playback. I still remain unconvinced of Digital's vaunted superiority over Analog - even though I have listened to many CD's! But I am curious to try out some of today's touted DAC's (DCS, Shiit, Lampizator ... ) to hear if there is any difference compared to a good one-box player. |
You should be able to discern a difference with the Jolida tube DAC if it's a good design. IME, all solid state DACs sound the same except for extremely minute differences that are probably attributable to psychoacoustics. I finally heard an honest and obvious difference with a Line Magnetic tube DAC. The DAC allows switching between SS and tube output. In SS mode, it sounds like every other SS DAC. |
The tube DAC may be different but is not necessarily superior. Did you measure the frequency response? CD red book is the product of the largest research effort ever into audio reproduction, by one the worlds best physics labs of the time. The DAC chips inside these modern external DACs are manufactured by a handful of chip makers, and have now all reached audio perfection at very low cost (they only cost a few dollars each if bought in volume). Implementation is straightforward as long as the DAC designer follows the instructions of the chip maker. Hence I think your observations are what was to be expected. I did a similiar test with a range of different DACs (some very cheap) in a system with Quad 2805 electrostats. I was unable to discern any difference. |
I have an Oppo 105 and have used it with 2 external DACs, the Bryston BDA-3 and the Mytek Manhatten. The Oppo is a pretty good DAC but there is no question that the other 2 DACs each best it. perhaps the rest of your setup is not revealing, or perhaps you do need to go up in price for DACs to start detecting differences |
OP > One poster already hit the nail. Try stepping up to better DACs. Why? The argument on every DAC uses effectively the same chips is a whole other thread. The idea behind this is ‘how’ everything is implemented in any DAC, not just that all are using virtually the same chips. The biggest aspect to supposedly better DACs is the same issue with nearly every electronic device, its power supply. Period. Well, mainly. It’s the usual starting point for nearly every component’s upgrade. Better, read, ‘more expensive’ DACs normally will have better PS, and better shielding, more PS dedicated to this or that, etc. reputedly better analog output stages, etc. In order to hear these supposed improvements it would or does behoove one to investigate at least somewhat the interfaces and ICs being used for connectivity. This includes sincere consideration of stepping up the Power Cable the DAC or what ever else, uses. 7500 HP dragsters don’t get down the track on Street tires. All that Horse power has to be able to hook up effectively to the track, or it’s a severe waste of time and money. Oppo is a honest to goodness over achiever. You already said your’s was previously upgraded. Hmmm. I did not experience OMG improvements using DACs until I stepped up from the $2K class of DACs and got into the $3K models. . It might mean today more than $3K DACs should get auditioned, but there’s been real world gains in digital goods since then. At the end of the day however, its gonna take a fairly good step into DAC-land to boost the sQ, IMO. New models are out that deserve consideration and two of them getting a lot of pub are the Yegersol, and Comet. Both are less than $3K. To continue running about the $1500 or less DAC playground will IMHO not hand you the results you desire. They will essentially deliver only ‘different’. Different ain’t bad, but its ordinarily not ‘better’. Bridges are another path people are saying here that aids escalating SQ using either Ethernet or USB interfaces. To my earlier point, each of these gizmos have been said to definitely gain by improving upon their own Power supplies. Even the Comet DAC has an upgrade option for a better power supply at point of purchase, or there after. Go figure. Good luck in this venture. |
@mahler123 I suspect the Mytek and Bryston DACs you tried are both Stereophile Class A or A+ ? My suggestion to the OP is to try a Class A+ DAC. IMHO that will yield a subtle improvement over the Oppo. The Oppo is obviously very good value so a lot depends on the OP willingness to spend 1000+ extra dollars to get somewhat diminishing returns. Obviously in the $1000 range the Oppo holds its own. I’d suggest Stereophile Class A+ in the $2000 to $5000 range and not too expect "day and night" improvement but more of a subtle difference. A difference that can be appreciated by a discerning listener but not necessarily blindingly obvious in A to B switching against the Oppo. I would also recommend to NOT use the preamp between DAC and poweramp but minimize the signal path - each additional set of electronics risks adding unwanted noise and distortion and Class A+ products will have excellent quality output in their own right. |
Wisdom in that last post shadorne re: expectations. IME, there are the step-function improvements that result from moving step by step from mi-fi to hi-fidelity equipment, especially speakers and sources. Also getting the room right. Lots of "Holy Cow" moments during that phase. Lots of fun. This is the "audio enthusiast" phase. Then the path becomes one of discovering the strengths and weaknesses of what was created in phase one. Some changes are usually inevitable depending on how wisely you chose and frankly how lucky you were re: the extent that changes are necessary. Lots of fallout in this phase so I think of it as the "sorting out" phase, both of equipment and also "the listener" that has now evolved (or fallen away). Once that is sorted, then comes the phase of "the serious listener", comparing different very-good to excellent source components, improvements in cabling and the quality of AC power, vibration elimination, etc. Differences/improvement is often subtle compared to the earlier phase, but are just as significant to a serious listener as these things then determine whether you created a microscope, a telescope or merely some sunglasses. All along the way, one learns, or should learn, not to hastily judge changes as it is almost always a mistake. I do not agree however with prescribing things such as whether or not to use a preamp between DAC and amplifier as there are too many variables in each system and listener preferences, so others should simply be encouraged to experiment and decide for themselves. Dave |
Oppos only good for background music? That's some serious elitism right there. They're great sounding digital players at their price and are fine for serious listening. I'm sure the chord Dave is better.. doesn't mean you have to dis a lower priced product that is an established solid player. OP - I'm interested to see if you'll drop the coin on a high price DAC. If you do, please post back with impressions. I'm unendingly curious about this stuff. |
The tube DAC may be different but is not necessarily superior. Did you measure the frequency response? CD red book is the product of the largest research effort ever into audio reproduction, by one the worlds best physics labs of the time.The DAC chips inside these modern external DACs are manufactured by a handful of chip makers, and have now all reached audio perfection at very low cost (they only cost a few dollars each if bought in volume). Implementation is straightforward as long as the DAC designer follows the instructions of the chip maker. Hence I think your observations are what was to be expected. I did a similiar test with a range of different DACs (some very cheap) in a system with Quad 2805 electrostats. I was unable to discern any difference. Yes, different, not necessarily better. I do perceive a wider soundstage and more fleshed out midrange, not unlike going from a SS amp to a tube amp. |
Thanks for the insights very much. Some years ago, I was at the CA Audio show and the particular vendors were using a Bricasti DAC, selling for $5K-$6K. They also had a Jolida Tube DAC which they were able to switch back and forth with the Bricasti DAC. After a couple of minutes of switching back and forth, I looked that the fellow doing the demo and simply shrugged my shoulders... they both sounded the same to me. He heard the same thing I heard and agree the Jolida was quite good. I figure others are right that if i move up the food chain of DACs, I will hear a difference... whether that difference is better or not is subjective. The cost of such a DAC is out of my sensible budget for audio gear. What amazes me it that I hear absolutely no difference with or without my CIA DAC in the path. There is not one aspect the music that is different with the DAC in the path. Literally, the sound is indistinguishable to my 64 year old hear. How swapping my McCormack amp for my Pass Labs amp yields sonic difference that I could spent a long time describing. Same thing with tube rolling... the differences are immediate and often very dramatic. I am going to audition the modestly-priced Denafrips AresDAC in my system soon to see if it creates the sort of sonic wonders that devotees of external DAC's are hearing. If not, I conclude that I will be happy living with the sound of the Oppo sans DAC. Thanks again for the comments. |
I have a 103 D with a NAD M51 and love it....i had DACs years ago before hi rez audio and always enjoyed having a digital hub for lack of a better word. I have everything digital connected to it including a blutooth receiver to stream via my tab. Newer dacs may have internal blutooth or wifi not sure but ive always been a big proponent of outboard dacs..... my first was an Audio Alchemy and then i quickly upgraded to a Cal Audio Labs Alpha tube dac and ive had several since. I had a CIA VDA 2 which was a killer dac, awesome for the money...... |
Helomech, I guess my system is about $10K, and is the most revealing ensemble of gear I have ever had... and I have gone through a boatload of electronics and speaker in the past 20 years to arrive at this magical set-up. I can honestly live very happily with the sound of my Oppo player. "Cheap and cheerful", that is the way I roll these days. |
| Post removed |
@shadorne. I don't really know where Stereophile ranked my two DACs, the Mytek Manhatten and Bryston BDA-3. I imagine that since they reviewed each DAC very favorably that they have them high on the pecking order. Regarding cost, the Manhatten was going for 5K new (mine was a demo so I paid less) and the Bryston was $3.5 K. I've written on this before so I hope that I'm not being redundant but I purchased the Bryston specifically because it has HDMI. I own a lot of SACD and Blu Ray Audio and wanted to play the DSD and DTS streams in my two channel system. I thought that I would be selling the Mytek but found I can't live without it! If only it had HDMI it would have been the perfect DAC. The Mytek is much more transparent than the Bryston on Redbook or when accepting digital feeds from my Bluesound Vault2, but the Bryston is no slouch with Redbook and has enhanced my SACDs. The Bryston certainly bests the Oppo with both Redbook and SACD, and I lived very happily with the Oppo as a DAC for 2 years or so. So based on comparing the Bryston, the Oppo, and the Manhatten, my experience confirms that as one ascends towards the $5K mark in DACs they just keep getting better. I wish that I could go all the way until dcs territory but I've hit my limit |
Stfroth, You have a solid take on my dilemma. so thanks for the erudite post. The Denafrips Ares audition is in the works at the moment and I am keen to audition it. What totally perplexes me is that in the comparison of my CIA and Gungnir DAC's to the Oppo straight into the preamp, I frankly could perceive no difference in the SQ either way. Trying as I could, with a pal switching back and forth on the selector switch, there was absolutely no perceptible difference in SQ in any fashion with or without the DAC in the path. Bring on the Denafrips DAC and let's see what I hear. :-) |
If you don't hear a difference then be happy. Chips have sound characteristics but it comes down to implementation such as the power supply, etc. already mentioned above. My friend recently compared two R2R Dacs, one tube DAC $7500 and one SS DAC $2500. The higher priced tube dac has a 30 lb power supply with top quality caps and resistors, chokes, copper chassis, etc. While the SS R2R was nice sounding, it could not reproduce what the tube DAC did in his system. I don't remember his exact words but the tube dac had a bigger soundstage, tone was better, details and layering was better, definition was better and it was quieter, etc., etc. Worth the extra money? That is up to what you want your system to sound like. For a casual listener maybe not, to a person who really values those attributes, probably. He also tried the DACs direct into his amp and using a SS preamp. Without the preamp the details were amazing BUT with the preamp the soundstage was much larger. Again preferences. So it really comes down to what you are hearing and how the DAC is designed. If you don't hear a difference than try something else or just be happy. Happy Listening. |
bigkidz, I do have a Denafrip Ares en route to me for a demo, similar in price to my CIA DAC, so I will give the a listen to it in my system. I can hear clear differences in SQ swapping amps, preamp, tubes, cables and speaker wire, but I will be damned if I hear any difference with modestly-priced DAC such as I have or have had compared to my Oppo. I will get back to you guys early next week with my impressions of the Denafrips DAC. If it doesn't improve the SQ of my system, then as you suggest, I am going to "just be happy". I am enthralled with the sound of my system as it is. Thanks. |
The main benefit of an external DAC is that you at least have a chance to feed it a low-jitter source. Jitter is the #1 thing that can prevent digital from sounding like analog. If your transport does not low enough jitter, you can add a good reclocker, like a Synchro-Mesh. If you decide to go computer audio or a server, you can use the DAC for this. Secondary benefit is better power subsystem and less sharing of this if they are separates. This is the benefit of any separates, including preamp/amp versus integrated etc.. A world-class S/DIF cable for $275 is the BNC-BNC cable with RCA adapters. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
Whitestix - Let me know if you really hear a difference. That DAC is a chip R2R and imo you should hear a difference in the mids mostly. Lots of caps in there for the PS but nothing really new or innovative. The CIA is a basic dac that seems to use filtering for noise, not much info on the unit. I would imagine that it has a smooth sound for digital but nothing special for the price. Let us know what you are hearing please. |
If you after really care about how the DAC sounds and not math I would very much recommend finding an older used DAC. One that is very well built with a good analog output stage and an extremely robust power supply. At the end of the day those things make more of a difference than sampling rates. Not knowing your budget perusing the listings here a few things jump out. https://www.audiogon.com/listings/da-converters-lector-digicode-2-24-multi-bit-r2r-dac-2017-10-10-di... https://www.audiogon.com/listings/da-converters-free-shipping-230v-50-60hz-2017-09-30-digital https://www.audiogon.com/listings/da-converters-audio-logic-model-34-tube-dac-d-a-converter-10040-20... https://www.audiogon.com/listings/da-converters-museatex-bidat-dac-2017-10-11-digital It really seems like the industry has turned into a bit of the "DAC of the month club" with everyone chasing whats new and "hot". There is a lot of value, and great sound, in older DACS. Good luck! |
OP, I don't think you or your buddies for that matter, are missing anything. DACs don't seem to make much a difference. I did a similar experiment comparing DACs from a cd player, DVD, BluRay, Digital Pre-amp and even my TV using the same cd's and they all sounded pretty much the same. The cd player also had a tube output which I really expected to change things but sadly it didn't. Had a few friends over and none of us could pinpoint the differences. There were slight variations, but not enough that you could reliably tell which was the source in blind testing. The good news is that you can get by with a lot less boxes. Just route the iMac to your Oppo or the TV, either should work, then to the pre-amp. |
@audioengr Interesting. You advocate feeding a DAC with low jitter. However we all know that this is next to impossible as jitter is inherent in cabling and the way the clock timing is detecting at the receiving end. I would say it makes equal sense to focus on a DAC that has the technology to reject all and any incoming jitter thoroughly below -140 dB. Is there something you don't agree with in designing robust mathematical algorithms and electronics to reject all jitter? |
I have become convinced that all of the difference in sound between DACs is usually a result of differences in the analogue domain after the D/A conversion takes place. We did a comparison awhile ago in my main system, which is very good for analytic purposes. We listened to a Cambridge Dacmagic against a Hegel HD12 and the latter clearly had better sound staging and better reproduction of treble and 'air'. I'm not saying that there are no differences between DACs you listened to, just that maybe your system isn't revealing them to you. Maybe the sound just isn't different enough for you to detect on your system? |
bigkidz - Empirical Audio makes the cable. It was offered primarily as an upgrade to add to other products because customers were complaining about the high cost of decent cables. It's an option on several product pages, on the pulldown. The best way to audition one is to send an email and a PayPal invoice will be sent. 30-day money back too. It's a giant-killer. |
whitestix wrote: "Some years ago, I was at the CA Audio show and the particular vendors were using a Bricasti DAC, selling for $5K-$6K. They also had a Jolida Tube DAC which they were able to switch back and forth with the Bricasti DAC. After a couple of minutes of switching back and forth, I looked that the fellow doing the demo and simply shrugged my shoulders... they both sounded the same to me." stfoth wrote: "In my limited experience, decent DACs often sound more alike than different." These experiences are common, but not for the reasons that you expect. The unfortunate fact is, that most systems include an active preamp that introduces so much compression and distortion that any differences in even expensive DAC’s will be masked. Even after this preamp is replaced by a really good one, there are probably 3-5 ground-loops in the system, all adding noise that masks any differences. Then there is the source. Most digital sources have WAY too much jitter to deliver a pinpoint focused soundstage. Then there are the sub-optimal cables, both digital and analog. Many times being used as filters to mask out system distortions from components that should be replaced. This is a system effect, where all of the constituent parts matter and they all add up causing musical soup. In order to prevent people from going down the garden path and spending a LOT of money on one thing that they believe will solve ALL of their system deficiencies, it is a good idea to partner with someone with a lot of experience in the business that can help you optimize the system and prevent you from going down the garden path. Help you get the most bang for your buck. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
Shadorne wrote: "Interesting. You advocate feeding a DAC with low jitter. However we all know that this is next to impossible as jitter is inherent in cabling and the way the clock timing is detecting at the receiving end." We don’t ALL know this to be true. Digital cables certainly add jitter, but this can be minimized by using a well-designed proper length cable. Also, if the driver of the cable has a fast enough risetime, insignificant jitter will be introduced by the external cable connection of source to DAC. Not the strategy, but the implementation. Once you have such as DAC, you are locked to the internal clocking, which is usually sub-par. It may reject MOST incoming jitter, but it’s own internal jitter is always there. Furthermore, there is nothing you can do externally to improve on this DAC as technology improves clocking techniques in the future. This is precisely why I don’t put a reclocker in my own DAC. As the jitter technology improves and different sources become available, I can take advantage of this and hear improvements in my DAC, without needing to replace it. It seems to be doing pretty well at generation 3: Steve N. Empirical Audio |
blindjim wrote: "The biggest aspect to supposedly better DACs is the same issue with nearly every electronic device, its power supply. Period. Well, mainly. It’s the usual starting point for nearly every component’s upgrade. Jim has it right. This is the difference, aside from aesthetics and features. Power supply should better be stated as "power subsystem" or "power delivery" because it includes regulators, wiring, board design and decoupling. This is the difference in most components, including DAC, preamp and amps. It's also a knowledge of what it takes to "feed" each chip the power that it needs in order to meet the written specs. Steve N. Empirical Audio |
As I posted on my Denafrips thread, I heard zero difference running my Oppo 103 through the Denafrip, the lowest-priced DAC they sell, vs using the analogue output from my Oppo to my preamp. Other listeners validated my listening comparison. Today I swapped a new Oppo 205 for my 103 and did the same A/B comparison with the Denafrip. Again, zero sonic difference in what I could hear coming out of my speakers. (I will be keen to compared my 103 to the 205 to discern differences.) So, lads, I am folding up my tent, sending the Denafrips back and am going to live happily with the my current set up. I think it sound stunning as it is and as I will be a pensioner soon, I can avoid the cost of the new DAC. My Channel Islands DAC functions perfectly for the stream from my iMac, but as will the Denafrip, does nothing to enhance the signal from my Oppo CD player. Cheap and cheerful, that is my motto. |
Perkadin wrote:
It's likely that your CD transport is preventing you from hearing the differences, as well as the CD disk itself. Unless you are treating and coating disks and have a really expensive CD transport, all DACs will likely sound similar because you are listening to too much jitter. Start with a treatment like Ultrabit Platinum or similar for your disks. Your CD transport can output lower jitter too if it is reclocked with a Synchro-Mesh or other high-quality reclocker. Then you don't need to worry about the jitter from the transport or the disks. It becomes a "don't care". Steve N.Empirical Audio |
