I have a strong personal policy of not making "ad hominem" arguments, i.e., debating a point by attacking the person making the point, rather than the point itself. However, in this case it should be pointed out that the comment quoted in Dangelod's initial post was made by Peter Aczel, The Audio Critic.
Twenty-five or so years ago, Mr. Aczel's reviews routinely and intensively delved into the subtle sonic nuances and differences which he perceived as characterizing the sound of electronic audio components. In more recent years, however, he metamorphosed to the extreme opposite end of the audiophile ideological belief spectrum, maintaining very assertively that all electronic components meeting basic measurable standards of performance will sound identical.
Mr. Aczel is a very intelligent person, and he writes extremely well and very persuasively. His "day job" long ago was that of an advertising writer. But nevertheless he can often be completely wrong, as evidenced for starters by these diametrically opposed positions he has taken about electronic components over the years.
And (to Shadorne), no he was not talking about just the analog preamp section. Here is a quote from his concluding paragraph, to cite just one of many statements in the review which make that clear:
Kijanki said:
I second this 100%.
To get an idea of the kinds of complexity and subtle technical factors which are involved, begin by flipping through this 39 page datasheet for a family of advanced dac chips:
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm2707.pdf
And then take a look at these excellent whitepapers from Ayre:
http://www.ayre.com/PDF/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf
http://www.ayre.com/PDF/Ayre_USB_DAC_White_Paper.pdf
And consider that the dac datasheet is just for an integrated circuit chip, and doesn't begin to address the complexities and potential design pitfalls of the surrounding circuitry. And consider that the least significant bit of just a 16-bit dac provides a resolution of 1 part in 65,536, which is 0.0015% of the upper limit of its output range ("full scale"), and the least significant bit of a 24 bit dac provides a resolution of 1 part in 16,777,216, which is 0.000006% of full scale. There are innumerable ways in which the accuracy which that resolution can theoretically provide can be and will be vastly degraded, both within the dac device, and in the surrounding circuitry. Real-world devices simply aren't that accurate.
Regards,
-- Al
Twenty-five or so years ago, Mr. Aczel's reviews routinely and intensively delved into the subtle sonic nuances and differences which he perceived as characterizing the sound of electronic audio components. In more recent years, however, he metamorphosed to the extreme opposite end of the audiophile ideological belief spectrum, maintaining very assertively that all electronic components meeting basic measurable standards of performance will sound identical.
Mr. Aczel is a very intelligent person, and he writes extremely well and very persuasively. His "day job" long ago was that of an advertising writer. But nevertheless he can often be completely wrong, as evidenced for starters by these diametrically opposed positions he has taken about electronic components over the years.
And (to Shadorne), no he was not talking about just the analog preamp section. Here is a quote from his concluding paragraph, to cite just one of many statements in the review which make that clear:
All in all, the Benchmark DAC1 HDR is damn close to a perfect piece of equipment. Neither its digital performance nor its analog performance could be meaningfully improved. That’s really all that needs to be said.
Kijanki said:
Important to remember is that there is no perfect DAC and everything is a compromise (and very complicated). Listening test will give you much more than reading specs.
I second this 100%.
To get an idea of the kinds of complexity and subtle technical factors which are involved, begin by flipping through this 39 page datasheet for a family of advanced dac chips:
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm2707.pdf
And then take a look at these excellent whitepapers from Ayre:
http://www.ayre.com/PDF/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf
http://www.ayre.com/PDF/Ayre_USB_DAC_White_Paper.pdf
And consider that the dac datasheet is just for an integrated circuit chip, and doesn't begin to address the complexities and potential design pitfalls of the surrounding circuitry. And consider that the least significant bit of just a 16-bit dac provides a resolution of 1 part in 65,536, which is 0.0015% of the upper limit of its output range ("full scale"), and the least significant bit of a 24 bit dac provides a resolution of 1 part in 16,777,216, which is 0.000006% of full scale. There are innumerable ways in which the accuracy which that resolution can theoretically provide can be and will be vastly degraded, both within the dac device, and in the surrounding circuitry. Real-world devices simply aren't that accurate.
Regards,
-- Al