Next best exponential DAC quality level?


I recently did a shoot out of three DACs using my Hint6 + routing each of the other DACs to analog input on the Hint6:

(1) Hint6: ESS Sabre32 -- Integrated 

(2) SMSL M500: ES9038PRO D/A   ~$400 

(3) Khadas ToneBoard(v1): ESS ES9038Q2M - ~$99

I played the same song passages on Amazon Music and was able to cycle through each Hint6 input corresponding to each DAC.

The result?  Very small difference in terms of rendering.  Maybe a more open sound stage with better overall balance using the Hint6 DAC.  The Khadas was more bass / midrange pronounced w/ a more narrow soundstage.  However, I wouldn't suggest that any were head-and-shoulders "better" over the others.  In fact, they were all pretty decent with only small nuances (certainly not worth the price differences.   

I decided to keep the Khadas for my small headphone listening area. 

But it got me thinking - how much would one have to spend to realize an exponential difference in quality?  Is the Khadas that good, or is DAC technology differences more nuanced than I originally thought (meaning, we're paying 10x for only 5% better).  

 

martinman

Showing 7 responses by seanheis1

Cindy is actually not wrong. Here is my opinion on the disconnect. 

What sounds good or best with DACs and other electronics is mostly art. Art IMO sounds better than transparency. That is why I don't buy products based on measurements. I don't care for accuracy products such as Benchmark, Genelec, Kii 3, etc.  

If you have $100 the Schiit Modi 3 DAC is transparent. There are less transparent DACs that cost much more of course, and IMO they DO sound better.

I like tubes, 2nd order harmonics, low feedback circuits, vinyl, and even some frequency response artistic voicing that is non-linear. 

For me, the goal of hifi is to make the original recording sound better and more life-like or believable in my room.

The goal for me is NOT to faithfully reproduce the sound as the artist and engineers intended. 

Cindyment I appreciate you bringing your perspective to the table. Most objectivists who come here are obnoxious trolls with bad social skills, but you are an exception! 

Being pragmatic, the image should be confined between the speakers. That is all that is possible on the recording. What the Audionote creates is artificial. Again, I do not mean that disrespectfully, the goals are just different.

Agreed. My tube amps do the same thing and I love them for it. Deeper and wider feels more real...the art creates the magic.

It's hard to get the magic with IC chips and switcher power supplies. Linear power supplies, ladder DACs with discreet parts...that I believe gives us the harmonic distortion that makes everything sound better....unless you like clinical and exacting sound. 

I think it comes down to how you define better. Better measuring or subjective enjoyment of euphonic colorations? Euphonic doesn’t have to be syrupy. 

Same with amps. Better measuring go with nCore Hypex or Benchmark ABH2. You want the sound that makes you smile and toe tap? Go with First Watt or McIntosh.

The exaggerated instrument separation that audiophiles such as myself crave would also most likely be a harmonic distortion artifact. Same with the added depth, width, and texture.

Who are you Cindyment? How do you know so much? 

Are you NW AV Guy? Amir? Archimago? 

It is partly a question of understanding how sensitive the ear is to odd harmonics and dealing with that as a point in emphasis.

This is Ralph from Atmosphere’s philosophy. I definitely think it holds water with power amps….but is IMD really much of an issue with a well measuring DAC from a company like Benchmark? 
 

And do R2R NOS DACs have less IMD than well measuring DACs? And if they do have more IMD, is it masked by other harmonics?

 

the relentlessness and a lack of resolution indicates that your are missing something.

What is he missing? Is it something metaphysical? Only explained by philosophy perhaps?

I am referring to DACs of course...converting digital to analog....nothing personal.