2. digital
  3. 181134-6055

Built-in vs. Standalone DACs

The general consensus here seems to be that standalone DACs are generally better than those built into an integrated amplifier. Many also agree that standalone DACs provide more flexibility, i.e., you can swap DACs without changing the amp.

For the sake of discussion, let’s set aside the flexibility argument and only focus on sound fidelity for now. The primary advantage of a standalone DAC is that it provides better isolation (reduction in electrical noise) since it’s not sharing its architecture with other shared components like power supplies and chassis, etc. I’m also assuming that service and repair is a bit easier as well. What other technical advantages can you guys think of?

Another salient point that I’ve come across is that many manufacturers treat a built-in DAC as an afterthought, and so while the DACs might not be bad per se they are never the star of the show. As a result, the manufacturers don’t go the extra mile in a way that a company producing standalone DACs might. I think you can put Krell, Hegel, McIntosh in this bucket. If you disagree, feel free to correct me.

But on the other hand, we see some high-end manufacturers providing built-in DAC modules and charging quite a bit for it. Examples include Accuphase, Gryphon, Aavik, Soluution, Audio Research, etc. In many cases, the addition of a DAC module can set you back an additional $5-7k. Do you guys think the high cost is basically a ’convenience’ surcharge, or can these high-end built-in DACs compete with DACs that cost about the same, e.g. standalone DACs in the $5-10K range.

So let’s say someone is ordering a Gryphon Diablo 300 and have to decide between adding their DAC module, or buying a separate DAC. Ignoring the flexibility argument for a minute, which route provides better SQ?

 

128x128arafiq

Showing 1 response by ghdprentice

ghdprentice
6,465 posts
 

If you are on a journey for the very best sound quality, then you want separates. All high end companies build the very best they can into a single box solution… often two box solutions. Then they may combine.  Assaults at the high end are never boxes with lots of functions. For instance, my Audio Research Reference 160m monoblocks sound better than my Reference 160s stereo one box solution.

Multifunction boxes are those of compromise. There is a market for people that do not have the room or are more concerned with aesthetics. So as all the effort goes into single function components, it only makes sense to put them together and offer this to a less discriminating audience.

 

Of course, then most audiophiles work over decades to build better and better systems and so need to be able to make improve a single component at a time or the cost to upgrade becomes too large.

 

More to discover