Is the DAC the digital equivalent of a cartridge.

I mostly agree with this.  the importance of a DAC is underestimated by some.

The room and speakers are the instruments you hear from, but the DAC is how the signal gets created.

There are people who can hear through bad rooms and mediocre speaker selections but I sure can't.  While this is in a way a debate similar to "which would you rather have, a heart or a pair of lungs?" the room biases everything else.

It's a fun analogy, but I really don't know how true or significant it really is. Also, doesn't the gospel regarding analog components proclaim that it is the turntable...the thing that spins the record around...that is the most important?

The streamer is the closest thing and equivalent to the turntable. DAC = Phonostage. The sound relationships are pretty much analogous as source and first stage processing, with the addional point being if you don’t get it right at the source it is not going to get better. In upgrading and learning about digital since the advent of the CD, it has become more obvious how analogous they are… particularly now that high end digital can compete with analog.

My analog and digital ends have outstanding and very very similar sound quality. The cost breakdown (and I did not just arbitrarily throw money at it )

Streamer $22K - DAC $17K

Turntable $20K - phonostage $17K

I assure you that if the streamer value was halved the sound quality to ~$10K, the digital end sound quality falls precipitously. I have tried it. Also I increased the DAC cost from $17K to $22K and got virtually identical results. Of course you cannot abstract this to all systems… but I have done a lot of work to minimize the cost of each of my components and get the most sound quality.

There has been and continues to be a strong intellectual attraction to thinking bits are bits and the streamer can’t matter. I was seduced for a very long time by that concept although my 50 year history showed me over and over again never to let that be your guide… listen to the sound. What can I say, logic can get in the way.

I guess you could say the DAC combines elements of the cartridge (generator) and phono stage (processing and output stage). But yeah, like @edcyn said it may be a fun analogy for a minute, but not really worth further exploration.

I run analog only here, and everything matters. However I can express at least some surprise that the cartridge and even table (past a certain point - basic tables and cartridges will hold you way way back) don’t matter MORE than they do, in the face of the specific matching of cartridge to an arm, and also the proper matching of that to a top-class phono stage (and SUT where applicable). Then you have isolation considerations, which can either matter a whole lot or not that much depending on context.

When I’ve played with digital, I didn’t go very far, but I’ve been consistently surprised how much the transport seems to matter, even more than the DAC itself in some cases.

Don’t mean nothin’.

I mean, what can you do with it and why should any producer or consumer care?

Besides mulveling is correct and the transport is closer, like a table, arm & cart combo.

A cartridge change is a big change, not quite as big as a loudspeaker change but right up there. DACs do sound different but not to the same extent as a cartridge change. 

file/silver disc = vinyl----media

transport/streamer = cartridge----reading + tiny signal

dac = phono stage---converting + boost + analog output

Both are transducers. So yes, and….?

I mostly agree with this. the importance of a DAC is underestimated by some.

@carlsbad yeah it is mostly ignored by the people in the 80s who were told ads naseum about how great digital was.

And some of that is from posts like this:

My analog and digital ends have outstanding and very very similar sound quality. The cost breakdown (and I did not just arbitrarily throw money at it )

Streamer $22K - DAC $17K

Turntable $20K - phonostage $17K

I assure you that if the streamer value was halved the sound quality to ~$10K, the digital end sound quality falls precipitously. I have tried it. Also I increased the DAC cost from $17K to $22K and got virtually identical results. Of course you cannot abstract this to all systems… but I have done a lot of work to minimize the cost of each of my components and get the most sound quality.

I have a $1500 DAC, which measures as good as it gets.
And an Intel NUC.
Why do I need all that other crap to get sound?

DACs and ADCs are pretty easy things to do.
They have been telling us for 35 to 40 years that it is better and cheaper.

It is cheaper to distribute files on the internet, but the rest is not really a benefit to me.

all analogies have limits, as does this one

Well the stylus reads the information in the groove, and the the DAC is supposed to read the digital 1 and 0.  How well an instrument does these tasks makes me think that's why they're so important in the chain.  

I was watching Mike the OCD hifi guy and he ways adamant about the DAC being the thing you build your system around.  If you're intro digital I would probably agree.  I really don't get why a lot of people are still touting the myth that speakers should be the the most important component thus the one that requires the biggest budget.  

DAC is digital phono preamp and cartridge is the transport.

@jjss49 So it is like a car? 😎

The cartridge is literally a generator (motor).

The DAC is more like a graph paper to electrical plotting. And the ADC like the signal to the graph paper.

@czar2000 

DAC is digital phono preamp and cartridge is the transport.

The DAC is probably more like the cartridge.
The phone stage is like the buffer at teh end of the DAC which outputs the signal.
And the RIAA is not in the ADC at all.

The transport would be like the TT itself, and if one has a streamer or a file based system,, then there is no transport.

I think dac to cartridge is a pretty good analogy. Both make the last most meaningful conversion between information types (digital to analog; groove to analog electrical). Not a perfect analogy, but pretty darn good imo

the cartridge I suppose has a broader scope, converting a mechanical info source to electrical, whereas the dac just converts one form of electrical info to another, but in either case the last meaningful conversion

(yes I know the very last is electrical to sound waves by the speaker, haha)

a dac is absolutely not like a cartridge. a cartridge reads media, like a transport or server, a phono stage then interprets and amplifies, exactly like a dac.

you don’t hook your cartridge directly to your preamp, and your server and transport are not hooked directly to your preamp either.

hello?

In my opinion, the DAC is the digital equivalent of a phono preamp... 

@jjss49 So it is like a car? 😎

more like a walrus 

or a salt shaker 😂

There is no analogy to cartridges. All cartridges are different and impart a different taste/color to the modulations in a record.

Digital music is perfect. All DACs are the same. They are incapable of imparting a taste, or color to the digital files. Because digital music is perfect. 

The transport is the equivalent of the table, arm & cartridge combined. They both spin a disk hopefully at an accurate speed, align a device to “ read” the disk, read it & send that  information on its way. The phono preamp & the DAC are then sort of equivalent in that they take the signal they receive and make it useable to a pre amp or possibly a power amp itself. 

Though the cartridge is the closest to the media, other components in the readback system is as, if not, more important.

- The turntable- to present the media to be read at the correct and precise speed. Insulated from external (environment) and internal (motor) vibrations.

- the tonearm-to support the cartridge smoothly across the vinyl without hindrance and insulated from extraneous resonances.

The above two needs to do a good job for the cartridge to give of its best.

BTW, the dac box is the phonostage.
Cause that’s where line level signal is outputted.

The phono stage just takes takes the information from the cartridge and amplifies it to line level; however, the DAC actually is in charge of decoding/converting/ reading the digital information that is fed into it.  The DAC does no amplifying to the signal as far as I know.  

I know all carts have a different sound, and the range of is crazy.  Carts have a huge effect on the sound, I just want to know if the DAC has as big an effect as a cart  

Sorry, the phono stage does not decode anything, all it does is boost/amplify the small electric signal given to it by the cartridge. No way is a DAC anything like a phono stage, there’s no boosting or amplifying in a standalone DAC.

If you feed a DAC a good digital signal: streaming, cd, files, etc.. it should behave exactly like cartridge does as it is fed the grooves of a record, except digital signals don''t need to be boosted because they already line level.  

Sorry, the phono stage does not decode anything

wrong. ever heard of the RIAA equalization curve? what do you suppose it does?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

some phono stages have multiple output curves besides RIAA for optimizing various early pressings. but your records would sound like crap without any output ’decoding’ circuit. lp groove cutting realities and playback technology realities require this equalization to work.

there’s no boosting or amplifying in a standalone DAC

wrong again. the only way a dac does not have an analog output stage to amplify the dac output is if the dac chips develop enough voltage on their own (very rare) or the dac is feeding an amp inside an active speaker system (very rare). dac chips rarely develop sufficient voltage to raise the signal to line level to feed the preamp. that is what the analog output stage circuit inside the dac does.

maybe the dac in your phone might develop enough gain to power your ear buds, as everything is miniaturized. but likely it has an output stage of some sort too. but it’s a special case.

The question asked by the poster is if a DAC has have "the same influence on the sound because it's as close to the source as the cartridge is?". What makes the question problematic is that a cartridge's signal has to be amplified and equalised to bring it to line level so any meaningful comparison is between a cartridge/phonostage and a DAC. As a related comment, I don't really buy the "closest to the source" argument. Back in the day, when Linn were preaching this, people were spending big money on an LP12 with an Ittok, sticking a vile K9 cartridge on it (having spent all their budget on the turntable and arm) and getting dreadful sound for the investment involved. Hi-Fi systems are exactly that - systems - so the relationship between the parts is critical.

in your analogy:

1. stylus = dac

2. cartridge innards = over-clocking; up-scale; anti-jitter; filters; the mix of all the other things that are happening to the 1s and 0s.

3. critical arm/cartridge alignments =  not required: a great appeal of digital to many  

@tyan42 

For most of us, “yes” - start with the DAC, which I think will create the largest difference (and thus closest to impact of changing a cartridge). But think about the DAC/streamer as an integrated chain - I wouldn’t let the quality of one lag too far behind the other (in the same way it wouldn’t make sense to put a $2,000 cartridge on a $200 table)

Based on very sophisticated engineering and psycho-acoustic analysis (a “guess”), for me, I’d probably go 4:1 on dac vs. streamer on a first try (I think ratio smaller on cartridge/table).  DAC is the piece really chewing up the bits. Accumulate more money, and try a better streamer. (n.b., the lower the budget, the closer the dac and streamer will get in price, in any event)

I just went from a six year-old Meridian Explorer2 to a Benchmark DAC3 HGC, and it was a fun “wow” moment. Better in every way - put a smile on my face.  So for me, a recent big leap in DACs made me very happy

Let us know what you decide to do!

Have a great day

@holmz I agree with you on the streamer. I too run roon on a NUC and am having trouble finding any real evidence that a streamer improves digital performance. There are people I respect who say it does so I’m keeping an open mind. I would go out and plop down $10k on a streamer tomorrow if I thought it was an improvement but so far, can’t see it.

As for the DAC, there are lots of great DACs out there that sound great. Glad you found one you like. There is a lot of difference in the various analog renditions that are presented by various manufacturers. While measurements tell you a lot, I’m in the clear, transparent, vivid soundstage camp of enthusiasts so I find some DACs muddy that. My DAC is the most expensive component in my system.

Jerry

@holmz I agree with you on the streamer. I too run roon on a NUC and am having trouble finding any real evidence that a streamer improves digital performance. There are people I respect who say it does so I’m keeping an open mind. I would go out and plop down $10k on a streamer tomorrow if I thought it was an improvement but so far, can’t see it.

As for the DAC, there are lots of great DACs out there that sound great. Glad you found one you like. There is a lot of difference in the various analog renditions that are presented by various manufacturers. While measurements tell you a lot, I’m in the clear, transparent, vivid soundstage camp of enthusiasts so I find some DACs muddy that. My DAC is the most expensive component in my system.

Jerry

@carlsbad thanks Jerry.

I got the Octo Research DAC8 (ordered) mostly because it measured best, and because it has 8 channels… and I believe that need at least 7 channels for the new project. So I do not have any evidence that I like it so far ;) just evidence that I should, and that it is fit for purpose.

I am pretty much of the mindset that most of what many hear is what we want to hear, and is therefore psychological.

Most of what I tend to like is also gear that measures good, so I am sort of lucky as that it gives me a way to avoid listening tests to weed out a lot of gear. Most of the time I am in Australia and a long way from shops. I am in the US for another week, and have went to one shop so far, and will be headed to another one this weekend. 
(I’ll call them today and set up an appointment,)

Been considering a new phono stage, which will become the most expensive part of the system if I decide to get it. The used AVR is currently the most expensive part of the system, and I have not even had time to put it in yet with the Covid lock downs and travel restrictions. (And it being at the second house.) The second most expensive part is the LP cleaner ;)

I don't understand why one would need and/or rely on an analogy for any aspect of audio performance.  What any given change in component would do to the sound is so specific to the particular components being compared and the nature of the system and the personal taste and priority of the listener as to render any such generalization by way of analogy utterly meaningless.

Most DACs, even quite low budget ones, do their task reasonably well so the differences between them tend to be somewhat subtle as compared with the difference between speakers which are so widely different in design approaches, interactions with their environment, etc.  To me, speaker choice, by far, affects the sound system the most.  I generally find the choice of amplifier to be the next most significant in terms of differences in sound.  I hear substantial differences between most low-powered tube amps and high powered tube or solid state amps. My own subjective judgment is that differences in amp types and specific amps tend to make at least as big a difference as between digital vs. analogue--I can be quite happy with both analogue and digital sources, I am less inclined to be happy with the wrong choice of amp.  I can live with almost any choice of decent DAC, almost any choice of turntable, and tonearm.  Cartridges vary substantially enough that particular choice does matter a lot.  I find cables to be surprisingly different in such fundamental characteristic as tonal balance that choices made have substantial impact (e.g., try substituting anything Nordost with anything Audio Note).

analogies are used in life, in education, to help those with no understanding develop one, if sometimes in only a rudimentary way... a basic understanding is better than none at all

in this respect, analogies are useful, but if one starts to dive into detail, analogies can fall apart, fall short in its explanatory power - but once again, a discussion of these shortfalls can be quite beneficial if one seeks a detailed, specific, complete understanding of a subject/concept

in that respect this thread is a good one

This thread is based on a “straw man” proposition, and therefore is of value to those who like a good pointless argument. Period. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

I could not say it better....Especially after all the posts lost in this metaphor....

😁😉

The room and speakers are the instruments you hear from, but the DAC is how the signal gets created.

There are people who can hear through bad rooms and mediocre speaker selections but I sure can’t. While this is in a way a debate similar to "which would you rather have, a heart or a pair of lungs?" the room biases everything else.

mahgister, That's an interesting thought if the question was not what the question is.  For the question that is, the thought is irrelevant.

I am snooping alll the time. What the cartridge does with a record is similar to what the DAC does with the digital signal it recieves. What has schocked me is how important  the USB cable is. I have 5 DACs near my writing position. With a particular cable, one of them sounds nearly identical to another one using a different cable, If I switch the cables they are very different. The match between a cable and a DAC is more like romance than science!  You don't have to spend a fortune on a cable. My best cable (on my two best DACs, not all of them) cost only $149 from Zavfino in Canada. The improvement in "Transparency" and "depth" is immediately obvious. If you buy a used cable you save $$ and don't have to break it in.

@mikelavigne I'm not an engineer, but an RiAA curve is nothing like converting digital info into analog signal.  From my understanding an RIAA curve adjusts the high and low frequencies of the signal boosted by the phono stage.  Phonostages are super important, but they are nowhere near what DACs do.  

Nobody said RIAA EQ was anything like the number crunching, filtering, and shaping of DACs. This is a weak analogy to begin with - and the idea was that both phono stages and DACs do "signal processing", in a VERY broadly general sense. Which is true, if not very useful.

And personally I feel that the SONIC impact of phono stages in a high-end rig is extremely large - typically much more than the differences I’ve experienced between DACs. We're talking about voltage amplification factors beyond 1,000x (60dB), so there's that. But again, I’ve gone way further into analog playback than I ever did with digital.

Depending on the quality of the digital source you listen to, thru a good DAC, you will realize how much better the dynamics, noise floor, soundstage and accuracy of the music is, which you would never be able to get via listening to vinyl. Simply by the limitation of the technology and what you can ’cut’ into the groove of a vinyl, you are limited in the dynamics of the sound by at least about 6-8dbs in comparison to even the 44.1khz CD recordings. It is also a medium which gets destroyed every time you play it.  Furthermore, note that almost all vinyl after the 90’s is actually pressed from a digital recording anyway :-)

A good DAC is obviously very important not to add fatigue and or ’harshness’ to the sound.

Schiit bifrost2, Gungnir, Chord Qutest, RME ADI2 are some of the affordable and best DACs out there in the medium price range. There are a lot more, some cheaper and/or some more expensive ones obviously but these are smack in the middle of the range which would satisfy about 95% of listeners.

I’ve had two Schiit Yggdrasils and they don’t approach the musical satisfaction of ANY of the dozens of analog combinations I’ve had at home in the last 10 years. I don’t care about how wonderful digital is on paper. The Schiits also break down...a lot. And their customer service sucks worse than their name.

@mulveling

Are you aware that you are most likely listening to a digital recording thru your vinyl ? 95% of all vinyl pressed after the 90s is digitally recorded first.

But good if you are enjoying your sound. I personally moved from a Linn Sondek with an MM Nagaoka MP500 cartridge on an SME 3009R to digital and never looked back.

I still occasionally like listening to vinyl too but what I realized eventually (came to admit to myself) is that I like ’watching’ it more than actually listening to it. There is something nostalgic and nice about watching a nice sophisticated tonearm gliding on vinyl. But for me, the sound does not even come close.

@mulveling

Are you aware that you are most likely listening to a digital recording thru your vinyl ? 95% of all vinyl pressed after the 90s is digitally recorded first.

But good if you are enjoying your sound. I personally moved from a Linn Sondek with an MM Nagaoka MP500 cartridge to digital and never looked back.

@cakyol 

Yes, of course I realize much vinyl is digitally mastered. But there you go - many 70s and earlier recordings DO tend to sound better (at their best, simply sublime to me). The 80s has some rough sounding vinyl, but it’s not like the CDs didn’t have massive problems too. I still enjoy vinyl more overall, even from the 80s to modern era. The main problem I have is the expense or nonexistence of good material from the 90s to early 2000s on vinyl.

I’m OK with digitally sourced/mastered vinyl. It can still sound really good. Don’t know why that doesn’t extend for me to digital media, and don’t really care anymore. I’ve tried enough over the years and settled on what works for me too.

I still occasionally like listening to vinyl too but what I realized eventually (came to admit to myself) is that I like ’watching’ it more than actually listening to it. There is something nostalgic and nice about watching a nice sophisticated tonearm gliding on vinyl. But for me, the sound does not even come close.

I listen to vinyl in the dark a lot, so that must not be a factor for me.

I’m glad you enjoy your digital more. I certainly DON’T want to convert anyone from digital to analog. Good vintage vinyl is already expensive enough!

@mulveling

Yes you touched a good point about ’availability’ of material. It is difficult to find vinyl pressings for most music created after the 2000s...