DAC Shootout Starts This Weekend

From the Peanut Gallery, I’m glad I found this thread! I stream through Roon almost exclusively, and just got a Pass x250.8 to pair with my Aerial 7T’s. I am blown away by the differences I’m hearing, which is leading my wandering eyes (ears?) to look at the source next. I’m especially enjoying the discussions on personal preferences in terms of ‘accuracy’ and the sub-definitions of that. I’ve not been able to experience a variety of similar level components and ‘taste’ the various flavors, so it’s hard to know, never mind articulate, what ‘flavor’ I would like. I’ll be watching this thread with interest as my bank balance recovers from the new amp:)

Thanks for continued testing and updates 

As new things come in, I will continue to update this thread.  The latest unit to roll in on trade was the Lumin T2 DAC/Streamer.  This was a customer trade and the unit was completely broken in.  I did my formal test and have listened to it for a couple  days.  

I mentioned in another thread that I was exploring Lumin as a brand partner.  This is not going to move forward.  They have a model that protects certain dealer's territories.  As I am largely web based, this will not work for me and I am not going to sign up for a brand knowing I am going to violate my agreements.  

That being said, this is a nice DAC/Streamer.  I briefly tested the Lumin software which seem stable and competent.  But I moved back to Roon for the bulk of my testing and it is flawless as a Roon endpoint.  

In A Sentimental Mood sounded wide.  There is some speaker localization which is to be expected at this level.  Top end sparkle is great.  

Be Still My Beating Heart sounded wide but not massive.  Depth of soundstage was good but not great.  Sibilance in stings voice became immediately obvious and overall, this (and Liberty) expose this to be a relatively bright DAC.  This is not a bad thing but needs to be accommodated as you build your system.

Soundstage on Liberty is very good.  Wide, again but not deep.  Some of the effects are wanting but overall detail levels are good. Definite moments where her voice comes across as sibilant. 

At the beginning of Duende, separation, particularly in Tony Levins bass solo sounded muddy but not distorted.  

String separation in the Berg piece was good, not flawless.  There was a small amount of massing.  

The list price on this unit is $4500 and I would say that as a standalone DAC, it falls a bit short of other units in this price range.  The Audiobyte and Chord are more detailed while the Rockna and Bricasti have much larger soundstages.  The thing to remember is this is not a standalone DAC.  This is a fully functioning streamer that needs no server and that makes it a bit unfair to compare it to other $4500 to $6000 units.  

I would definitely say this is a nicer unit that the Hugo2 and 2Go as a standalone DAC and streamer.  Obviously, the Hugo 2 has a strong Headphone amp and is great in other places.  

This is very fairly priced at $4500 when you consider it's functionality.  Standalone DACs without a streamer at this price and above will deliver more but when you consider its full feature set, this is a great unit.  Just make sure you integrate it into a system where the overall balance is warmer.  

On a side note, there was another thread that discussed an absence of bass with this unit.  I did not hear that at all.  Admittedly, this unit has 100's of hours on it and I can't speak about how it sounds when it comes out of the box.

Coming soon I will cover the Musical Fidelity M3s CD and soon the Canor DAC 2.10.  

Understood.  IMO, By far the weakest link in your system is the Mac Mini.  A server will do more than a new DAC.  

Nucleus's are not crazy expensive.  Depending on your data needs they start at $1459 and virtually all of Roons retailers sell them with a 30 day free trial.  Your risk is return shipping.  

I do think a DAC will help and you are right, the two speakers are very different.  A big part of this might be which speaker your listen too more.  If it is the Magicos, I would lean toward Bricasti and/or a Rockna Wavelight.  If it is the Thiels, I might lean toward the Rockna Wavedream.  A middle groung or one of the more flexible units is the Weiss 501/502 due to its built in DSPs that could make it more of a hybrid fit.  

sorry, I intended "say lack of coloration and emphasis on micro dynamics..."

 

Thank you again for the excellent advice.  I wonder if before I upgrade the dac I should upgrade what goes into the dac.

Re speakers yes Magico does not give the deepest soundstage compared to some of other speakers I have auditioned.  Their qualities lie elswhere and often their lack of coloration and micro dynamics can seem a little cold.  On the other hand Thiel 3.7’s are a very very different speaker- and indeed have more depth.  Both speakers benefit from pass labs amplification though the Thiels could arguably use even more current.

In any event,  I might look into a nucleus before actually changing the dac.  Doing both at same time might be tough from a budget perspective.  

 

I know a lot of folks have been asking about tube DACs.  I have a new Canor DAC 2.10 arriving in January which uses four 6922s in the output stage and will retail at $4k.  I will get added here once it arrives.  

@jjss49 +1 A solid perspective, for sure. Thanks for the additional clarification.

I should have expressed that last para in my previous post better via: " had one..." instead of ’had you’ which I meant to be universal...

Restated:

For example, had one optimized their reference system around that "rejected" DAC...could they be certain of the outcome in that now optimized system with their current reference DAC. Maybe yes, maybe no.

@david_ten  We are not talking about optimization and I think a big part of that stems from the fact that "optimal" is personal and there is no objective truth.  With people I talk to, there is a split between folks who want an image/soundstage laid out in front of them and others who want an immersive experience.  

The choices you make to achieve this in terms of system building are very different and optimization down to room treatments, cable choice, etc... is quite specific.  At a root level, none of these DACs is inherently "better" than the other.  One may be a better choice based on it's sonic characteristics vs another for a particular problem you are trying to solve.    

@david_ten

your points are well taken and valid

please note that the process i set forth is meant to understand differences (as did scott’s), and not to immediately make value judgements on whether a piece of gear is good or bad in said reference set up (i purposely did not mention establishing superiority or inferiority in my a/b process description)

one needs to understand the differences first, then, based on that understanding, think about how best to integrate a new piece into the system, or decide not to, given what may be needed as next steps

sometimes upon comparison, overall quality differences are obvious, but when one reaches a certain level of gear, it’s more about differences and nuances in presentation than straight ’a is better than b’... such as your query about soundstage differences among dacs

happy holidays to you!

@jjss49  Thanks for sharing your approach. It's one I have used in the past but am cautious with now.

Why the caution? The conundrum(s) posed by optimization... and the resulting false negatives.

With an optimized reference system:

- if the exchanged component (like a DAC in the above posts) outperforms your "reference" DAC...the approach works.

however,

- if the exchanged component (like a DAC in the above posts) under-performs your "reference" DAC...the approach may yield a true negative OR a false negative.

For example, had you optimized your reference system around that "rejected" DAC...could you be certain of the outcome in that now optimized system with your current reference DAC. Maybe yes, maybe no.

@verdantaudio  Your answer is very helpful and furthers my understanding of where you are coming from. Thanks for that!

+1 to the extremely pertinent point(s) you shared above....especially this one >>>

this does raise  an important point and something everyone should be reminded of.  The particular results in this thread are from a system that is intentionally held constant to provide relative characteristics.  And I think that is the key here, results are relative.  When you change a variable (speaker, amp, etc…), you do need to think through the implications.  

@david_ten I have been lucky to have heard dozens of these premium DACs with a variety of speakers in my home and in many friends and customers homes.  I am lucky.  

On a relative basis, certain brands/DACs exhibit certain properties.  In any system, I would expect a Rockna DAC to sound wider and flatter than Chord DAC which would be narrower but much deeper.  There are many ways to compensate but if everything is held equal, I would expect this relatively to be true.  
 

you are right though.  A combination of room treatments or different speakers and system components could achieve different results.  If depth of soundstage is a concern, MBL or Raidho speakers would have a bigger impact than a Bricasti DAC.  But, that necessitates rethinking amplification and a variety of things.  And it is true that a Rockna DAC in a system with Raidho speakers would probably sound deeper than a Chord or Bricasti DAC in a system with Magico speakers.  but that isn’t the exercise in this case.  The only variable proposed was DAC.

this does raise  an important point and something everyone should be reminded of.  The particular results in this thread are from a system that is intentionally held constant to provide relative characteristics.  And I think that is the key here, results are relative.  When you change a variable (speaker, amp, etc…), you do need to think through the implications.  

 

I’m curious how you attribute an aspect like soundstage depth to a DAC, in context of the uniqueness of various systems, the rooms these systems are in, the listener positions, and the use / lack of use of room treatment (for the purchasing party)?

I’m not challenging...just trying to understand and learn.

@david_ten

am sure scott will answer, but my 2 cents, my own process:

- have my system set up ideally in my room (see my system page for pics)

- have my standard ’reference’ dac in place, know how music i know well sounds, how the soundstage is presented, in terms of size (width, height, depth) and separation / layering / relative distance of voices/instruments etc

- swap in new dac being evaluated, adjust for correct (same) volume level, listen and perceive how the sonic ’image’ is presented differently, if at all (don’t change anything else, even cabling)

- btw - having a well selected playlist of familiar music helps alot in this...

hope that helps

@verdantaudio   I'm curious how you attribute an aspect like soundstage depth to a DAC, in context of the uniqueness of various systems, the rooms these systems are in, the listener positions, and the use / lack of use of room treatment (for the purchasing party)?

I'm not challenging...just trying to understand and learn.

Thanks. - David.

"Regarding DAC, if soundstage depth is your concern, I would avoid..."

I know it doesn't seem obvious a server would make that much difference.  Part of it is the quality of the parts.  Part of it is the higher processing power and parts selected specifically for audio performance.  Servers make a difference more than most people think.  Think of it this way.  I have had quite a few people order Nucleus's while being skeptical if they actually make a difference.  I have never had one returned on my 30 day return policy.  

The M1 SE is going to be a bit more detailed than the M3.  Soundstage in both cases is huge.  I have not sold an M1 and have not heard it.   Bricasti said few people ever buy it vs. the M1 SE so I ordered and M1 SE and M3 for my initial samples.  The M1 SE is quite a step up from the M3 though the M3 is quite competitive in its price tier.  

Thank you for your response-  very very helpful.  I kind of thought Bricasti would likely be the way to go- and have been debating between an M3 and an M1 SE (assuming I could find a used one and within my budget).  A straight M1 would probably be in range but then wouldn't an M3 with MDx be a somewhat better sounding DAC?
What I had not realized is that a Nucleus vs a Mac Mini would make such a difference- I simply assumed the Nucleus, while a more tailored solution, would still have the same characteristics of using a computer.  Also, I thought that once a Dac with a network card was in place + using an ethernet connection then the Mac Mini (or similar) issues would be taken out of the loop (I guess I was thinking mostly of Usb "noise").
As someone posted already getting digital right is as complicated as analog.  I am just starting to get up to speed all the intricacies and have quite a way to go.

 

I have never heard the Manhattan II nor have I heard the Denafrips which is why they weren't covered off on.  

Based on your setup, I would look to replace the Mac Mini as part of any upgrade.  Even a Roon Nucleus will be a huge upgrade and will do more to improve sound than your DAC upgrade.  Over the weekend I had a customer swap in a Nucleus for a Mac Mini and he was just floored at the improvement.  

Regarding DAC, if soundstage depth is your concern, I would would avoid Rockna.  Rockna soundstage is very wide but not as deep as others.  Chord probably has the best soundstage depth, especially between the speakers, but a TT2 will do little to address the clinical nature of your sound.  

Bricasti is likely your best option.  It has great depth and width of soundstage.  Is detailed and very musical.  You might be able to find a used M1 or M1 SE on your budget.  You can get a new M3 on budget.  I would get either with the network card.  Either combined with a Nucleus will have a huge, positive impact on your soundstage.  

Hello,

Apologies for joining this thread so late.  I have read it with great interest and have found i very very helpful as I have been thinking of upgrading my dac (Moon 280d connected to Mac Mini through usb- Mac mini is hard wired to ethernet cable- no wireless streaming).  What brought me to this is that for a while I have been focused on my analog rig but now I am replacing my cartridge so I went back to listening digital- and I plan to continue listening to digital regularly because of the wealth of music available on Tidal and Qobuz (I mostly stream)
However the difference is sound quality is noticeable so I am looking to address that.  For a DAC I am trying to stick to a budget of $6k so I have to look for something used if I am going to try to jump on some of the better DAC mentioned in the discussion - have been considering Rockna Wavedream.and Bricast M1 SE. I did notice there was no mention of the Manhattan II and I would be interested in your input on one this relative to Rockna, Bricasti etc.  The new Denafrips Plus also seems interesting though a bit above my budget. 
 

To me a key element is soundstage depth and correct placement of the players- but with intimacy when called for.  And  timbre and tone are also key elements I look for. Generally I have found that with higher end dacs detail is generally impressive so I am somewhat less worried about this aspect.

Currently my system feels a bit clinical and missing nuance/inttimacy.  To some degree I have to chalk that up to the direct usb connection from the Mac Mini and I will have to address that if I stick with USB by adding something like a Sonore.  But before doing any of this I would 1st have settle on a dac and whether it has a bridge/network card.

Anyway, thanks in advance and let me now about the Mytek Manhattan or any other thoughts I should consider.

The rest of my system consitsts of the following:
Speakers: Magico S1mk1 and Thiel 3.7
Power Amplification: Pass labs 60.5 mono's
Preamp: Vinnie Rossi used in passive configuration and Prima Luna Dialogue
Cabling: Nordost Heimdall II (including USB)



 

In regard microdynamics. I do understand it as integral with resolution. But I  also believe I hear it as separate sound quality not allied to resolving powers. Its what I'd call the breath of life. I exclusively use tube amps and preamp, and Iike the Brits, I like to think of tubes as valves. Valves also connote what our lungs do, thus, I like to think of microdynamics as the breath of life. And its part of the reason I prefer tube amps and pre's.

Now, I've long considered my system to have this breath of life, but my latest dac improved upon prior dac's performance in this aspect.  I can now more clearly hear formerly masked inflections and vibrato in the voice and wind instruments, more nuance in the fingering and bowing of string instruments, and strength with which struck instruments are hit.  What I'm describing is the dynamic changes down to the millisecond, these minute dynamic changes could also be descibed as elasticity. It is at once both natural, soothing, yet salient in that it demands your attention. I find it nearly impossible to listen casually anymore,and far less work to have the illusion of performers in room.

Certainly this is understood as greater resolution, but the improvement  I'm hearing is more likely allied to the power supply of the dac. I posit conversion schemes and output sections carry more weight in resolving powers, while PS certainly have a role in this,  PS carries more weight in micro and macro dynamics.

Reviewers commonly speak about power supplies when reviewing amps, and sometimes preamps, but I rarely hear reviewers compare power supplies in dacs. My take is dac power supplies are critical to optimum performance of dacs. Take two dacs with identical or virtually identical conversion schemes and output sections, the dac with better power supply will outperform the other in microdynamics, and perhaps other measures of sound quality.


I do observe  manufacturers paying more attention to design, and increasing capacitance of dac power supplies, its obvious they hear the benefits here.

@fsonicsmith    I don’t disagree that choice of server, cable and even the connection between server and DAC (USB, AES, etc…) matters and can have an impact.  
In the end, I am limited in that I don’t have an infinite number of servers lying around or cables. It is not perfect but do think it has value.  

I have been following this thread from the beginning. My very subjective opinion is that you can not "intuit" your way into audio assumptions. This thread involves an assumption that if you keep the music server constant the DAC comparisons are valid. The reality, imho, is that the choice of music server, connecting cable, and DAC all play a significant role. The folks that shun vinyl as being too complicated fail to realize that at the highest level, digital playback is equally complicated. As just one example, my Aurender W20 and my SW1X DAC III Balanced will sound radically different simply by substituting very highly regarded S/PDIF cables. 

Thank you for this civil and informative discussion.

@jjss49 That is one of my favorite descriptions I’ve seen yet regarding detail — “detail that is present in an easeful way, without a trace of edge or harshness - lots of systems produce detail in a highly unnatural, extruded, pressure washer shooting at you way - nooo buenoooo”

ime microdynamics are tricky - there is no right or wrong, sometimes more detail is better, sometimes it is for the worse

what matters a lot here is low noise floor, black background (sometimes it is the gear, sometimes it is power feed/conditioning, sometimes it is cabling), and detail that is present in an easeful way, without a trace of edge or harshness - lots of systems produce detail in a highly unnatural, extruded, pressure washer shooting at you way - nooo buenoooo

listening for microdetail is tricky too... it can really get one to focus on the system rather than the music as a whole

The microdynamics are a huge part of what I have have been focusing on in this thread.  It is the fine details.  Subtleties in the way a drum roll comes together, speedy bass notes, sound effects, separation of notes in bells and piano.  These little things are inherently the difference between very good and extraordinary and they do add up.  

That being said, you do need to have a system capable of delivering those microdynamics to you.  You need a resolving enough amplifier and speakers that are sufficiently detailed.  Years ago I did a demo of a bunch of stand-mount speakers in the $1000 to $2000 range and a couple floor standers.  One test track I used was Don't Give Up by Peter Gabriel off of Secret World Live.  What I discovered in that session was that multiple speakers were simply not capable reproducing the fine details of things like crowd noise in certain parts of that song.  It was an entirely Bryston system with a speaker switch so it wasn't the amp or DAC, the only change was the speakers.  You can get the most detailed DAC in the world and if your speakers are your systems bottleneck you will not benefit.  

Regarding imaging, separation of instruments and soundstage, all of these things vary wildly from dac to dac and there is no objective "this is how it should sound" benchmark to know if your DAC is doing well.  The closest you can come is Q sound recordings but those are problematic in the opposite direction in that virtually any DAC and system should be able to make those sound incredible.  

Agree with the above. Now, what about microdynamics? Is there much difference in this capability amongst dacs, or is this mostly system dependent? Personally, I find this aspect of sound greatly lends itself to sense of live performers in room. Don't hear much about this aspect of sq in dac reviews.

imaging, though, is another matter, as nice as it is when well portrayed on our rigs -- but what is real or not is highly debatable (and suspect), in fact it is pretty much entirely ’manufactured’

That’s true, but we are not listening to a live event on our stereos. Imaging is encoded on the recorded music we play. If your system can’t reproduce the imaging that is encoded on the LP, CD or stream you are listening to, then your stereo isn’t playing back what’s on the recording very well.  A good system should be able to do both timbre and imaging well.

@melm You are correct.  This is winding down.  I am going to do one more post on the headphone side of this which is far from my expertise but will offer my rudimentary POV.  

Otherwise, I thank all of the thread participants for being incredibly kind to me and each other.  

@verdantaudio 
@jjss49 

You are quite right to speak if the importance of imaging.  I just picked up on what verdantaudio had written about accuracy to the sound of a piano, to wit, a piano should sound like a piano,  Better still, a particular piano.

Normally, though, when I write of accuracy as being the bottom line in an audio component I take it directly from HP* who wrote of real instruments in real space.  (He would require his reviewers to be regular acoustic concert goers.)  There's your imaging--and width--and depth.  But a piano MUST sound like a piano; an oboe like an oboe, etc.   One cannot judge accuracy in studio manufactured music.

Anyway, I've tried not to intrude into this very important and well accomplished thread.  I do sense that it is winding down, at least a bit.  Kudos to verdantaudio for his honest and intelligent writing.  

*Whose writing turned me on to the "high-end"

@verdantaudio @melm

https://www.psaudio.com/askpaulvideo/the-audience-is-all-wrong/

interesting take on the subject

i agree on valuing correct reproduction of timbre/tone, esp. of real (non electronic) instruments we play and hear live... the real thing and how it sounds is unambiguous

imaging, though, is another matter, as nice as it is when well portrayed on our rigs -- but what is real or not is highly debatable (and suspect), in fact it is pretty much entirely ’manufactured’

@melm You make a very interesting point and I think it raises a bigger question.  And that is, what is your actual preference.  

If a DAC can't accurately reproduce the timbre of instruments and that is your preference, great!  Alternatively, if you are looking for accuracy in reproduction and want to be able to tell the difference between a Yamaha and Steinway piano, great!  The key is being intellectually honest with yourself.  

An example - for years I wanted an "accurate, transparent system that simply let me hear what the artist and engineer intended."  I think I achieved this to my great dissatisfaction.  I got to a point where I didn't enjoy listening to my music on my system.  I engaged in a long thread with a few folks over in the Stereophile forum at that time and realized I was pursing the wrong thing. 

What I really wanted was accurate reproduction of the timbre of instruments with an augmented soundstage that helped correct the flatness and generally poor presentation one finds in a huge percentage of recordings.  Since then, my system has changed 100% and my approach and thinking has changed 100%. 

I have spent a lot of time talking about the differences between these DACs and very little time talking about the similarities.  One thing that is universal across all of these units including the tube based Vu Jade is that all of them are tonally pretty neutral.  The difference between the warmest (Rockna Wavelight) and brightest (Weiss 501) is a relatively small difference in high frequency extension.  All of them are reproducing instruments in a way that sounds realistic and are basically uncolored.  

There are definitely products out there that do not reproduce sound accurately but I have been fortunate enough not to bump into them recently.  

You are correct that reviewing has become a matter of persona taste and reviewers tend to pick products that they like to review.  That is even largely reflected here in that most of what I wrote about are products that I carry.  I only really carry products that I like which is why heavily colored DACs aren't making this list.    

My taste is not everyone's taste which is why I have been focusing on differences and was so clear about the gear I am using.  The ultimate goal is to help folks make a good choice.  These small differences across multiple pieces of equipment add up and can be the difference between being pretty happy with your system and being in audio nirvana. 

I know what audio nirvana is for me and it would be great to see others get there.   

@verdantaudio
I agree with @dbb in that accuracy to the sound of real instruments is essential for an audio component to be recommendable.

You have written, "I had an interesting conversation last night on the topic of 'accuracy' with a gentleman who is both an audiophile and a professional musician.
When discussing the concept of ’accuracy’ his concern is tonal exclusively. Does the instrument sound like the instrument in question? Can it reproduce the difference between say a Steinway and Yamaha piano.
Beyond that, ’accuracy’ has no meaning." Exactly.

But what has audio reviewing become? The well known Goldensound on ebay raves about a $1500 DAC being the best in class though he says it cannot accurately reproduce the "timbre" of instruments.

Reviewing has too often become simply an expression of personal taste or an attempt to sell. Many people calling themselves reviewers have rarely heard a musical instrument except through a loudspeaker. I do not include you here as I respect what you have written and you do it with integrity, even including acoustic instruments as part of your listening and writing.

Khadas Tone 2 - This is a $210 DAC on Amazon with an onboard headphone amp.  In what might be a test of the two tiniest external components in the history of audio, this paired with the 2Go/2Yu is amazing.  The Tone2 is about 3" wide by about 2" Deep.  Yet they have squeezed in a pair of RCA Outs, an digital coax in, a USB C in/out and and a USB C I2S out with a headphone amp that accepts standard mini plugs and has a 4.4MM balanced output.  

Sound is shockingly good.  It is miles from the $5000 units is closer to the Queststyle than I would have guessed when you consider the Queststyle is 7x the price.  

Compared to the Questyle the soundstage is narrow and the level of detail, particularly in terms of treble, is not in the same league.  Drum rolls on In a Sentimental Mood are a little muddy and the bass is a little underemphasized.  Tonaly though, the Piano has sparkle and the mids are thoroughly enjoyable.  

On Be still my beating heart, it is much narrower than the Questyle in terms of soundstage.  Especially the bells that you hear during the chorus in some cases are missing or are very quiet.  Yet tonally it is superb and there is no sibilance in Sting's voice.  

During Liberty, effects are too quiet and too close to the speakers.  Where they should be coming directly from my right or left, they are localized at the speaker.  But there is no sibilance in her voice.  Strings and horns are smooth.  Piano has sparkle.  

During Duende, precise detail is off just a touch at the highs.  Air around the strings and some of the detail between the drums is missing but detail in the bass was surprisingly good.  Good separation between Tony Levins notes in the opening.  A bit too much localization of the cymbals in the right speaker about 4:30 minutes in.  

In the Berg piece, sizing was very good.  The piece sounds intimate and tonally is is very good.  When they are playing together, there is some massing of strings but not as much as I expected.  

The thing to remember with this test is that I am trying to push these DACs too extremes and have picked songs that should highlight flaws.  As audiophiles, we tend to listen to music in more extreme circumstances and are more aware of these flaws.

I would not recommend this DAC to anyone in the $1500 budget or above as that would clearly go to Queststyle or Chord.  Under $1500....it seems pretty compelling.  On a tight budget...and you need an external and maybe a headphone amp for an easy to drive pair of headphones (will cover headphone performance separately), this thing is awesome.  

  @verdantaudio  I agree generally with you and your musician friend to the extent that there is no reality and hence accuracy in conncection with electronicly produced music. No base line exists. The recording is an artifact made by the musicians and especially the recording engineer. There is no natural event in the real world.

This is not so in the realm of natural unamplified acoustic music. The base line is what it would sound like if you were at the live performance. Yes, there is no absolute single correct sound, because the sound changes according to your seat in the venue. The recording engineer’s job is to take the multiple tracks and mix them down to approximate a live concert from the perspective of a real location in the venue. Accuracy has meaning in this context. It has none when the music is electronically processed in the first instance. To the minority of music lovers who enjoy live unamplified concerts (classical, opera, etc.) "accuracy" has real, if not precisely exact, meaning.

Questyle CMA 12 is in and has been tested.  This is the least expensive unit tested so far other than the internal DAC of the AVM.  

This is an extremely impressive unit for the money if you ignore the headphone amp.  With the headphone amp and overall versatility, it is insane.  

First off, not the be all, end all in terms of detail. It is a step down from the ~$5K DAC but this is not alarming since it is $1500. 

The overall experience is that the DAC is neutral with a wide but relatively shallow soundstage.  There is no emphasis on treble of bass.  Tonally, reminds me a bit of Bricasti but the central image is lacking vs. the much larger units.  

There is sparkle in the piano.  There is good, not great separation in the drum rolls in In a Sentimental Mood.  The soundstage in Be Still My Beating Heart is wide.  Bells and most of the detail is there but not as clean and well separated as with the higher end models.  Effects were obvious and came from where they should during liberty and the opening of Duende was a hair muddy.  The Berg piece sounds a hair bigger than is ideal and string seemed a hair massed in certain places.  

Compared to the more logical price comparison of the Hugo 2 and the AVM Internal, the Hugo 2 offers more in terms of detail but the soundstage on the Questyle is much wider and bass extension is deeper.  Vs the AVM, it is more detailed than this internal DAC but lacks the deep central image that the AVM has. 

Very simply, if you are looking for a DAC in the sub $2K range and are looking for a good all around performer, this should be on your list whether you are a headphone user or not.  Take away the headphone amp and the price on this unit is fair.  Add in the headphone amp and it is an incredible value.   

@david_ten

all good!

i had to look up 'chimera'... learn something new every day

some of you guys here are just too smart for me ... philosophy lessons from hilde45, and vocab expansion from david and chasdad!!!  ... :)

I had an interesting conversation last night on the topic of "accuracy" with a gentleman who is both and audiophile and a professional musician.

When discussing the concept of "accuracy" his concern is tonal exclusively.  Does the instrument sound like the instrument in question?  Can it reproduce the difference between say a Steinway and Yamaha piano.  

Beyond that, "accuracy" has no meaning.  Most studio recording are not recorded live.  More often than not, each artist is recorded individually and the tracks are merged.  If it is recorded live, it is in a weird space (studio) and not reflective of anyone's listening experience.  

If it is a live performance and it is electric, then reproduction of sound is not where the musician is but where the amps are and microphones capturing crowd noise.  If it is an acoustic, live recording in a venue rather than a studio, then you could discuss accuracy, but to whom?  Microphones are on-stage, often near the musicians.  Not in the crowd.   

You get the point.  Imaging and the experiential nature of a recording is all fictional and driven by the engineer and record company,  This can even be at odds with the preference of the artists.  Unless you have the engineer available to tell you exactly what they were trying to accomplish, we are all guessing at what image they were trying for.  

I spend a lot of time talking about imaging and I definitely have preferences in this space.  Others may disagree which is why I have tried (not always successfully) to simply state what the experience is and not whether it is good or bad.  My preferences are mine alone and are not more or less valid than anyone else's in defining good.  

"Chimera" excellent choice of term in this context.😊
Charles 

@jjss49 My posts are not to challenge what you and verdantaudio are doing. I’m supportive of your efforts and find them valuable.

This thread has been healthy and and productive. I don’t want to detract from that.

The points in the two posts (I tried to make) are probably better served in a thread dedicated to tackling the chimera of accuracy v. the ascendancy of experience.

"Chimera: a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve

Not: a fire-breathing female monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail."

: )

@david_ten

i am not sure where you are coming from in your latest comments regarding ’purpose’ (or at least i am in the minority here in missing your point, which seems somewhat intellectual and existential in its nature...)

scott/@verdantaudio and i, over some time, and on opposite coasts, have been working our way through a number of reasonably expensive ($5000-10,000) well reputed dacs to understand how they present the music, and then we have tried to present/share our findings as our comparative processes progress, we try to find the words to describe how they sound, in absolute and relative terms...

... the purpose of which is to hopefully benefit others on this discussion forum who may be considering upgrading into this tier of dac, so they can pursue the one(s) that might work well in their systems, for their needs and tastes

So, a case of:  Accuracy is Dead, Long Live Accuracy!  : )

i suppose in the end, which version is most accurate becomes unimportant

So, as with (most) current mainstream music a move from mastery of musical elements to purely entertainment values (?)

what matters is what pleases a particular user in their system, their room

Subjective (dystopian) reductionism to 'n' as absolute 1 (?)  

I (have faith) expect that there is an emergent, higher ordered structure that we can have relative agreement on/around.  Otherwise, the OP's efforts lack purpose for anyone other than himself.

@jjss49 

" i suppose in the end, which version is most accurate becomes unimportant, what matters is what pleases a particular user in their system, their room."

Agree, and can not see how in the end it can be any other way.
Charles 

@jjss49 +1 well stated

it is hard to know what sound is exactly accurate, it is also hard to know who’s rendition of an accurate, ’high fidelity’ sound presentation is most true, even if a number of different designers/firms are trying to achieve that same goal (and not a purposely 'beautified' presentation)

some traits can be quickly called out as unwanted and defining of poor implementation - such as a noticeable grain, or electronic haze, or clearly rolled off or smeared frequencies... but there are various presentations that avoid these pitfalls but still sound rather different

i suppose in the end, which version is most accurate becomes unimportant, what matters is what pleases a particular user in their system, their room

@david_ten,
The vintage movies versus current movie themes and production is a good analogy. I believe that there’s always been a sincere effort in High End audio to pursue sonic "accuracy ". How would one consensusly define this goal of accuracy is an entirely different matter.

No doubt that the definition and means of obtaining it via audio components has changed or evolved over the ensuing decades.l believe that the manufacturers of the various DACs presented in this thread are honestly aiming for their interpretation of digital accuracy in reproducing music in the homes of their customers.

As The OP has clearly and tirelessly demonstrated, very definite sonic presentations/signatures exist in the relentless quest for accuracy.
Charles

@verdantaudio  Thanks.  

Temporal reference shift...AND shifts in definitions of "accuracy" by audiophiles are areas I've been reflecting on.

I believe this is part and parcel of the human condition, it's growth, and it's engagement with the world at large. One example of many, for illustration purposes: consider the differences in movies from the 1950s to those of today. 

It's a steady, inexorable creep... mostly unnoticed as the changes are incremental and softened by time. Add Up they do.

We are, in my opinion/reflection, at a point where "natural / realistic" [accurate] as "understood" say 40 years ago, would be identified as tilted to experience (using your word) if one were to be transported from that time to today.

Of the core brands you mention, I'd expect many to be found in the experience column...based on the above hypothetical.

I think that the core brands mentioned here, Chord, Rockna/Audiobyte, Bricasti, Weiss and I would add in MSB, dCS & Playback Designs are committed to delivery of an accurate listening experience.

Bringing this up since you've spent a significant amount of time understanding differences in this component type within your system chains. 

Perhaps you and others from the industry can comment?

Having a relative, flexible and general understanding of what's natural, realistic, accurate would be helpful. For the many, versus the one. Wishful hope?  : )

@in_shore,
Thanks. I suspected this would be the case. More often than not if a component can reproduce high quality midrange with human voice it will excel with unamplified/acoustic musical instruments. This is not an easily accomplished task. Kudos to the Audiobyte Hydro Vox.
Charles 

@david_ten This is tough in that I don't have a Holo May and will not comment on that exact product.  But I do understand your point.  There are a few other brands I can think of (that will remain unnamed) that deliver experience over accuracy.  This is not bad, and clearly, lots of people like this.  It is a choice.  What is unfortunate is that folks can get caught up in enthusiasm around a product and end up with something that is not to their liking and not know why.  

I am not sure you can make an industry wide generalization though. I think that the core brands mentioned here, Chord, Rockna/Audiobyte, Bricasti, Weiss and I would add in MSB, dCS & Playback Designs are committed to delivery of an accurate listening experience.  The deviations between these brands sound profile is real and obvious, but not so extreme that it is challenging to build a system with them as a source and get a great result.  

Charles yes I would say so , the AudioByte Vox presents timbre of Acoustic instruments better then the Holo Audio however we’ll recorded vocals are truly breath taking and for the price of the AudioByte Vox it’s a honey with it’s purpose built headphone section and wife accepts it tidy small foot print in her part of the house . 

@verdantaudio I’ve been following your thread. Thanks for sharing your findings. A time intensive endeavor, to say the least.

I’m curious about your thoughts on the following:

With Charles’ Yamamoto DAC, my previous ARC DAC7, etc. ... given the time/provenance when they were developed...do you feel the reference points and focus by the development engineers was different (back then) than it is now?

I’m over generalizing here to make the point: Today, many DACs, like the Holo May, deliver / are focused on a different sonic presentation. More theatrics than fidelity to live acoustic performance [again, generalizing to make the point].

Note: I’m not picking on the Holo May...using it for discussion reasons, since it was recently mentioned.