2. digital
  3. 1249049553

DACs and reproduced sound

I am trying to understand how to think of DACs effecting reproduced music (I am new to the hobby). I think of a DACs "role" as taking a digital input (1s and 0s) and a cleanly as possible processing that digital signal to an analogue output - goal is not impart anything on the processed data. The difference between a good and bad DAC seems like it should be on how well it does that. Or, said another way, from a review of a Benchmark DAC:

"The old regulars know exactly my position regarding the stupidity of ascribing a “character” to the sound of an utterly neutral signal path. Oohing and aahing over the vast improvement in soundstaging, front-to-back depth, bass delineation, or treble sweetness obtainable with this or that electronic component may sell high-end magazines but is totally unscientific and delusional. What the Benchmark DAC1 HDR adds to or subtracts from its input signal is borderline unmeasurable, so the sonic character of its output is obviously the sonic character of its input. It’s as simple as that. It has no sound of its own."

I sort of think of amplifiers and speakers (I am digital only listener)as being more important in "imparting" a particular musical flavor (warm, bright, etc.).

I am a bit new to the hobby so I would like any insights or be educated on DACs some more.
Ag insider logo xs@2xdangelod

Showing 5 responses by dgarretson

dgarretson
2,593 posts
 
The Benchmark has some good things as well as some budget compromises inside. There is an active aftermarket of modifiers offering upgrades in areas like soft recovery diodes, Bybees, op amps, and chassis sheilding. Modified units have received good reviews.

http://www.odysseyaudiohk.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1246198439
dgarretson
2,593 posts
 
It's a panglossian notion that the failings of one area of a system can be ameliorated by the failings in another. Not IME.
dgarretson
2,593 posts
 
Pettyofficer, in the long course of modifying my CDP I found that every RBCD sounded better than before-- including some '80s masters that I had written off completely. Various magazine reviewers have made similar observations regarding the better players. I can't recall a reviewer ever stating that a top player made a CD sound worse than before. Admittedly there are wide variations in the quality of A/D and D/A. However, good luck finding one CDP that can "euphonize" the defects of a poorly mastered CD, while sounding resolving with a well-mastered one. A player should be both highly resolving and musical.

When the discussion turns to the theoretical "damage" done in A/D and D/A conversions, I fall back on my empirical results modding the SCD-1. There have been some big leaps forward with this machine to the point that RBCD rivals vinyl. And yet of all the changes, the one that matters the least is toggling between the five digital filter options. So to the degree at least that the stock player allows variability in the way digital is handled, it is much ado about nothing.

dgarretson
2,593 posts
 
In simple terms, a DAC's analog section is no more or less compromised than any preamp or amplifier circuitry, except for the presence of high-frequency analog filters. In contrast, the adverse signature of the digital domain and digital/analog converter sections, results from jitter, compromises in digital filtering, and characteristics inherent in the DAC chipset. If your DAC has treble glare, hard or flat treble and upper midrange, has a smeary non-resolving quality, sounds synthetic, or becomes fatiguing, you are most likely hearing weaknesses in the digital section and digital/analog conversion. To say that "the sonic character of its output is obviously the sonic character of its input" is just Benchmark marketspeak.

Finally, there are the inherent limitations of the RBCD medium itself. Sadly much RBCD mastering is done poorly and is over-compressed, leading to some of the above symptoms regardless of playback equipment. However, with the right front end, much RBCD can approach SACD and vinyl.

Fortune cookie say that until you get right with CDP or have a good vinyl front end to compare to your CDP, you will experience much restlessness and waste of time & money swapping downstream components.
dgarretson
2,593 posts
 
My idea with pangloss was to question the thought that a "perfect DAC" would be too revealing of the underlying flaws of CD format. IME the idea that there are ruthlessly revealing components is generally misconceived. Any such observation about a component more likely reveals a problem in the component than it does flaws inherent in RBCD.

Also, measured distortion is only one among many criteria that determine sonics, whether in loudspeakers or in CDPs.

As the price of good digital gear has come down, some opinions are returning to the early days of RBCD, in which conventional wisdom was that there were few if any audible differences between CDPs. I agree that there have been improvements, but there is still a fairly wide gap between budget and upmarket CDPs. At local audio club meetings it never ceases to surprise me how much effort is put into systems building in all areas except for the digital source. You can hear the difference.
More to discover