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).
@cindymentIt appears you are regurgitating a load of stuff about DACs from Wikipedia or wherever, your incites don't seem to come from experience or first hand knowledge.
Here we go: A $99.00 DAC is a turd and you can't put lipstick on it you probably have a better DAC in your laptop or car.
What makes a good DAC? Firstly it needs as good a signal as possible, so just sticking a computer USB into it isn't going to cut the mustard. If you're using a computer you need JPLAY or similar to reduce computer jitter and provide drivers for the DAC.
Secondly to get the best sound you need a re-clocker such as Mutec to put the USB into before the DAC. Then an AES/EBU or COAX into the DAC.
Please don't worry about OP amps or valves or trannies if the signal and jitter are taken care of properly you'll get a great sound. A big clean linear power supply is more important than what OP amps you use.
The icing on the cake is a Word or Master clock so you can either slave your system to the Master or output separate Word signals.
Some good cables both digital and analogue will help enormously.
I have demoed the Hint6 and it is very good for what it is. I call it the Swiss Army knife of integrated amps. It does everything ok. That’s just it. It doesn’t do anything great. I am going to suggest you listen to a Hegel 190. The Hegel 120 will do very well to. Hegel goes great with KEF speakers. The DAC, preamp, and amp section inside will put the Hint6 to shame. Once you demo a Hegel you will get it. This store in the Chicagoland area is a dealer for all of this if you want to check this out or demo things in your home. Actually Holm Audio is having a KEF, Ayre, and Nordost demo event this Thursday, December 2nd from 12:00 to 9:00pm. If you call the store they will give you details.
I have a feeling many will be quite happy to engage with me. Perhaps a breath of fresh air. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Nothing I am saying should be contentious. They are simple truth. Uncomfortable truths perhaps, but simple truths non the less.
It appears we need a trigger warning on my posts ^^^^^
I have a feeling many will be quite happy to engage with me. Perhaps a breath of fresh air. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Nothing I am saying should be contentious. They are simple truth. Uncomfortable truths perhaps, but simple truths non the less.
"I think the best way to sum up this thread is ... you can get a lot of DAC for very little $$$".
I'd suggest that depends upon what you like and more to the point, what you've heard.
A 2K DAC may sound incredible compared to a $300 DAC but less so when compared to a $10K DAC.
I have heard $500 DACs that arguably sounded much better than $10K DACs, and I have heard $10K DACS that sound virtually the same as $1500-2000 DACs. It does not take a lot of money to make a DAC that properly recreates an analog waveform. Above a relatively small amount of money, it is purely specmanship and not audible differences. However, if you choose to make a DAC that does not accurately recreate the waveform, something that a lot of expensive DACs intentionally do, then there really is no price/performance curve as it is all personal preference. However, human nature is to assign a higher quality to something purely on price.
The cost for achieving state of the art sound, however, is high for both (at this point in time).
I will repeat using different words. In a clear, concise, easily understood, and repeatable, i.e. I can easily say something is state of the art or not, what defines a digital playback system that is "state of the art".
I think the best way to sum up this thread is ... you can get a lot of DAC for very little $$$. I do agree that at some point it becomes art - which is a good way to put it - and for that you spend. And really, the cost to entry for a quality digital setup is vastly (IMO) lower than that of vinyl.
OP, I have had a Schiit Bifrost for a few years and it sounds good. I bought a Hegel H390 and the built in DAC sounds every bit as good as the Bifrost. I just bought a Denafrips Pontus ll and it blows both other DAC’s out it the water. Is it the different tech, or is it that the Pontus ll costs more? Maybe, but they are all sound great and they all sound different.
It's regrettable that you inadvertently stepped on a hornet's nest.
The best approach would be to listen to DACs at various price points and of various architectures in your system and let your ears decide. DACs cover quite a wide spectrum, in terms of sonic presentation so it's a matter of personal taste. You can't learn what will most please your ears from anyone else-- you have to listen and figure that out for yourself!
@martinman, I typed two responses, but when they posted, they both came out blank so I deleted them. Maybe a browser issue.
The $99 DAC obviously lacks electrical isolation that will ensure the best performance in all systems, but the chip in that DAC is the result of decades of integration, and modern semiconductor processes and advancements in how to make a DAC. The advancements are not as dramatic as digital semiconductors over 30 years, but they are substantial hence why a $99 high performing DAC is possible. The chip does not require $1000's of supporting components around it to extract near its best performance assuming fidelity to the original analog signal is your goal. If you want instead art, that is going to cost you big bucks, and like any art, you may like it or you may not.
All things said about measurements and blah blah blah. One of my favorite DAC's was a Border Patrol SE DAC. On paper you would through it in the trash. In application it is one of the best sounding non up-sampling DAC's to ever grace my listening room. Have owned several others since including Simaudio, Merason, Denfrips and now the Bel Canto DAC2.7. (love it)
@martinmanHey Buddy a lot of folks have been in this hobby a long time and I do apologize I shouldn't of said what I did. However we are talking apples and oranges here. Our Nirvana is getting breathed upon by Lennon, Jagger etc. Can you imagine how it feels sitting next to John Lennon? It's yours for $50k+. It really isn't possible much short of that price point. Please go and make an appointment with several dealers that sell really high end gear and realize what is possible. : )
$99.00 laughing my tits off! I've spent over 20x that on speaker spikes. Ffs get with the program or have a ear transplant.
OP here...
But that's the whole point of the thread -- for $99, in my listening space, with my setup, I was surprised that it held it's own so well. Sure there were differences, but none worth 4x / 8x the price.
Which brought the original question: For $99, the Toneboard was decent and well respected in my listening space. What's the next level DAC (considering my setup)? I had originally thought that the M500 or Hint6 would be that next level, but was surprised that it was not.
I appreciate the thoughts on source material. I'll have a look at Qobuz this weekend and run another test.
Devices using the ES9038PRO chip include the ~$99 Khadas tone board, the ~$14,000 Lumin X1, and many others at price points all over the map. Same DAC chip (or different versions of the same DAC chip) with many different implementations and collateral features. What do you get for nearly $14K with the Lumin X1?
You get transformers on the output complete with hysteresis and all kinds of other nice "tubey" artifacts. It does not cost a lot of money to implement an accurate DAC. It is when you don't want it accurate that it costs a lot of money. This is the art/reproduction thing. Their marketing blurb is impressive (Dual Sabre DAC featuring 140db dynamic range --- yes, the chip can, their unit?), and all kinds of superlatives, all rendered meaningless by transformers.
That’s absolutely correct. Then why do you and others keep insisting that a tube based DAC is inferior, has poor SQ compared to SS? Oh yeah, it’s the specs.
An example of a well built, well implemented DAC is made by Audio Note. The designer has said they measure and spec the device, then they tweak it during a listening session until it sounds like real music. They use masters as their sources.
What exactly is "well-implemented" in Audio-Note DACs? It is quite obvious that measurements play little into Audio-Note's design process. These are not DACs designed remotely for accuracy. Their performance w.r.t. accuracy would put them right about 1983. Here is there 4.1x CD player:
Devices using the ES9038PRO chip include the ~$99 Khadas tone board, the ~$14,000 Lumin X1, and many others at price points all over the map. Same DAC chip (or different versions of the same DAC chip) with many different implementations and collateral features. What do you get for nearly $14K with the Lumin X1? The same DAC chip but 2 of them (one per channel); more sophisticated LEEDH volume control; optical fiber network input (in addition to RJ45 ethernet); a separate linear power supply; solid billet CNC casing. But no Toslink, Coax, or USB inputs. I think you have to pay extra for an IR remote.
FWIW, at least one device with that chip ranks near the top of the Audio Science Review comparisons. I have one of them, which cost me about $3K. I suspect the Lumin X1 might produce a noticeably bigger sound stage and maybe more precise/holographic imaging. In somebody’s listening room, to somebody’s ears, but not necessarily mine.
There isn’t a person in all of this site (or any other site) that could tell the architecture of the DAC if designed to be accurate just from listening.
That’s absolutely correct. Then why do you and others keep insisting that a tube based DAC is inferior, has poor SQ compared to SS? Oh yeah, it’s the specs.
An example of a well built, well implemented DAC is made by Audio Note. The designer has said they measure and spec the device, then they tweak it during a listening session until it sounds like real music. They use masters as their sources.
That first Hitachi CD player sounded good in 1982 - and at a retail price of $1000 it should! But no cigar! That high-end store had the TOTL Denon TT/arm/mc cartridge into the Levinson JC-1 head amp clone. No.contest - LP playback was clearly way better! I think it took about 10 years for consumer-level CD playback to challenge the LP (1991/92).
I listened to a DAC for the first time in 1984. That was two years after the arrival of the first CD player to the USA - the Hitachi vertical-loader. In 1983/84 Adcom came out with the first made-in-the-USA audiophile CD player, soon followed by the Adcom DAC. That's what I listened to in a high-end store. Sounded pretty good - but no cigar! I went back home to my turntable and LP collection. I waited until 1992 to buy my first CD player - a Technics using the MASH circuit. Up till then I didn't think that digital could compete with analog - the reason that I waited ten years to get into digital playback.
@phill55 My preference is in the following order ...
Luxman DA-06> Audio Mirror Tubador 3 > Node 2i
It's too early to comment on the differences between T+A and Luxman yet.
One thing I did not mention earlier was that right around the time I bought the Luxman DAC, I went through a number of DACs in a 6 month period. Based on stellar reviews and great measurements, I bought the Topping D90. It seemed to do everything right ... on paper. Probably my least favorite DAC, despite it measuring better than many others. At first it impressed, but I just couldn't connect with my music emotionally. It never moved me. I would get bored after maybe 30 minutes of listening.
Then a used Luxman DA-06 showed up in the used market and I decided to give it a shot. Now mind you, the DA-06 is at least a 6-7 year old design. Within the first 30 seconds, I knew it was a keeper. Sold the Topping within a week, no regrets. There's a reason DA-06 still commands $2k or more in the used market.
However, the best DAC that I have heard in my home is the one that is included in Audio Research GSi75 integrated amp. The level of finesse and balance on that DAC was outstanding. I ended up selling the GSi75 for other reasons but sill miss that DAC.
At the end of the day, it really depends on what one is seeking. If specs and measurements are the end all and be all for you, then more power to you. I see the usual suspects - the graph-readers, the 'everything sounds the same' crowd has raided this thread in full force. The rest of the discussion will only go one way now. No further comments from me. Good luck!
That’s like saying once amps reach a certain point there’s no difference.
Once they do, there isn't.
@djones51— you’re absolutely delusional. ASR is calling.
Why this toxicity? This is easy to show. @djones51 is correct. That does not mean you can pop out one op amp in a circuit and just replace it with a "better" one. The circuit must match the op-amp for best performance. Within the limits of their performance envelope, you would never be able to tell many op-amps aparts, even some relatively inexpensive ones.
So many love the old pre-digital recordings. Do you know how many cheap 5532 and 5534 op-amps were in the signal chain before you got that record?
What should be compared is sound signature of a Delta Sigma Dac vs a multibit or ladder Dac.
Once you reach a particular level of accurate reproduction and you use the same reconstruction/analog filters, there is no sound signature for Delta-Sigma, multi-bit or ladder DACs. Differences in reconstruction filters/analog filters that take the result away from an ideal response will have more difference.
There isn’t a person in all of this site (or any other site) that could tell the architecture of the DAC if designed to be accurate just from listening.
Those who don’t use tubes assume a tube DAC, or tubes in general, are always syrupy and full of distortion. Topology and tube selection matter; it’s very possible for a Dac using tubes to sound detailed and neutral. I’ve heard some SS Dacs that have a warm presentation, not reproducing music realistically.
What should be compared is sound signature of a Delta Sigma Dac vs a multibit or ladder Dac. Not tubes vs SS.
You can make a SS DAC that has distortion making it sound warm or whatever you want. While not impossible, it is impractical to make a tube output DAC with distortion levels anywhere near the best SS DACs. Most tube DACs are inherently going to a "sound", so this is not necessarily in their best interest from a marketing standpoint. If you make a tube DAC you want to sound different.
I couldn't believe the added detail when hearing the same song on Qobuz. The volume increased when he switched to Qobuz. I asked him why and he told me the increased resolution acts like increasing the volume because of the added resolution.
This is poppy cox. Odds are it was a different mix, the TIDAL levelling is lower than Qoboz or set lower or your DAC is doing something due to the MQA of TIDAL. The added detail is because Qoboz was louder. When you play louder, there is more detail as there is a bigger difference between the signal and noise.
Those who don't use tubes assume a tube DAC, or tubes in general, are always syrupy and full of distortion. Topology and tube selection matter; it's very possible for a Dac using tubes to sound detailed and neutral. I've heard some SS Dacs that have a warm presentation, not reproducing music realistically.
What should be compared is sound signature of a Delta Sigma Dac vs a multibit or ladder Dac. Not tubes vs SS.
DAC chips are so good today, that you can make a DAC for a few hundred dollars that is better than human hearing will ever be.
Rrrrriiiiiiight. Maybe better than your hearing, but not most humans. Plus, for a few hundred dollars you’re gonna get a crap power supply and output stage, but I guess those little details don’t concern you at all. Go figure. Please go back to ASR where you clearly belong.
A tech rep from the Harmon Luxury Group came out to our house to diagnose my system. While he was there he played my system at 35% volume and compared a song played on Tidal and Qobuz. I couldn't believe the added detail when hearing the same song on Qobuz. The volume increased when he switched to Qobuz. I asked him why and he told me the increased resolution acts like increasing the volume because of the added resolution. I am now researching Qobuz to see if they offer the libraries offered by Tidal. So far, most of what I have in my Tidal library is available on Qobuz. I have a few hours left to continue my research then decide.
seems like we have some same ol same ol losers back with yet another username, post-expulsion for the umpteenth time... oh well... the holidays’ grace period was nice while it lasted -- trolling / argumentation for its own sake is back in full force...
let's watch 'cindy's' post count skyrocket in the next week or two after 'she' joined, er, today...
A DAC has to translate digital to analogue with leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
No, it leaves no room for accurate interpretation and can be done today with near perfection, at least as far as any human can tell. However, some companies do "interpret". That is art, not reproduction. If it suits your desires, it is worth the money to you.
DAC 1 -- Bluesound Node 2i (owned for more about 2 years)
Known poorly performing DAC with performance < human hearing range, and some noted issues where performance drops.
DAC 2 -- Audio Mirror Tubadour III (non-SE version; owned for 1.5 years)
Tube DAC, of course it is going to sound different.
DAC 3 -- Luxman DA-06 (owned for 1.5 years)
DAC 4 -- T+A DAC 200 (loaner)
Set to play back accurately, with the same filters, you would not be able to tell these apart without knowing what is playing. They both have controls that let you stray from accurate reproduction in which case you could tell them apart. They are no longer "state of the art" in that instance, they are just "art".
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
