I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.
Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.
Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound.
Or everything that impacts sound isn’t measured or measured fully, which is very likely the case. Please share what other DACs are in the comparison — no reason not to at this point and would be good to know.
Also, for lower level DACs part choices are made on just choosing appropriate parts or on cost not sound. Also, it takes a lot of experience to just figure out the “sound” of different capacitors and resistors and where they are put in the design… etc. different competence is critical as well as being able to hear the results and on what system one hears the results… it goes on and on… and everything is time consuming.
The Benchmark DAC3 was SOTA when originally released. Its measured performance was surpassed by cheaper DACs years ago. These days there exist $200 “Chi-Fi” DACs that objectively outperform the DAC3.
@yyzsantabarbara My modest Hyperion HPS-938 speakers (that I believe you're familiar with) work great with DAC3HGC+AHB2, Sometimes warmer sound (2nd or even euphonic 3rd harmonic) helps to cover "hot" tweeter or distortion in the system at the cost of very little loss of transparency (no right or wrong here). Benchmark gear is extremely revealing - punishing in some systems and wonderful in others. I believe you graduated to higher end speakers, but proper matching still remains true
@ghdprentice"part choices are made on just choosing appropriate parts or on cost not sound". I guess youve never actually done a value-based design before. Component decisions are made based on value - optimizing the design within the budget. Cost is a consideration, but only in the context of the entire project budget. Will a modest DAC chip surrounded by premium resistors and capacitors sound better than a premier DAC and more modest supporting componentry? Is an advanced filter algorithm in the budget? Can it be used as market differentiator? How much can be allocated to casework? Do you want it to look like a d'Agostino baroque steam punk device or the much more mundane (and cleaner and quieter) Topping Pre 90 for less than 1% of the cost? Cost is not value and vice versa.
BTW - you should have a listen to the new SimAudio 761 amp. I love the AHB2, and I think the 761 is what the hypothetical next version of the AHB2 should sound like.
@helomech I did not find the top end Topping DAC (forgot the model) sounded better than the DAC3B. I had both at the same time and was using them with my uber revealing RAAL SR1a earphones. Both DACs were not ideal with this phone, but DAC3B was the lesser of 2 bad matches.
I don’t totally let measurements dictate results for many are way out of the Sonic capability of humans , that is what audio science review does saying a $800 Topping i dac with a delta sigma Sabre dac chip iis better because it has bettered
measurements then several R2R ladder dacs totally untrue these R2R dacs sound more natural look at the classic 1704K Multibit dac chip that was a Bur Brown standard for years until they stopped making it..
iits like a good solid state amp is going to measure better then a good vacuum tube amp
but many people prefer the tube amps .I have decades in Audio ,have owned a Audio store and now semi retired and go out of state to many audio get togethers and shoot outs , it’s all in the design implementation ,Listen first, lots of good designs out there for every budget.
Dacs are like wine in a way and how we respond to them. for some, there's not alot of difference, for others, they can go on and on about this difference or that in a critical, comparative assessment .
This is not a Product Plug, as the Design to be mentioned is not a sale item.
A EE minded Friend with many years of experience of Building Audio Devices. Today has a very clear understanding of what they are looking for as a End Sound from a particular Audio Device they build.
Amp's both Pre and Power, Phonostages, Head Amp's, DAC's, CD Transport and a large selection of Speakers are all produced by this individual.
For a very sensible outlay of money, a DAC has been produced that over the Past Year has been compared and come out much more in favour of a Denafrips Ares II and a Venus II. It required the latest FW Update to be put on the Venus II to create a comparison where the Venus was to present itself as a worthwhile alternative consideration.
Home Built DAC approx' £300, build knowledge, careful schematic design and topology, along with knowing how to isolate within the Circuit, will create a lot for little. Fortunately these skill sets do not all belong to the main influencers of a design for the Big Brand Names.
Was not the not too long passed Ken Ishiwata from Marantz a Pioneer of this way of thinking with works he undertook for Digital Sources produced his Employer of 41 years.
Hey Jim, glad you asked since I was going to list the pricing anyway, along with the chipset used in each, and provide a link to additional information. Three of them are R2R DACs, and one is a hybrid R2R topology. None of them use discrete resistor ladders. There is no link or published information on the specific SMc DAC-2 GT-24 as it is my understanding there are only about a dozen of them in existence.
For purposes of this post, I will stick with original retail list price of each, and will not add the additional cost of the chip upgrades in the Mojo Audio DACs, which would increase their list prices by about $1K each.
Linear Tube Audio Aero $3,950, one AD1865 chip, R2R
@helomech I did not find the top end Topping DAC (forgot the model) sounded better than the DAC3B. I had both at the same time and was using them with my uber revealing RAAL SR1a earphones. Both DACs were not ideal with this phone, but DAC3B was the lesser of 2 bad matches.
In my personal experience, some Topping DACs, such as the E70 Velvet, subjectively outperform some much pricier units that also perform quite well objectively. For example, the Chord Qutest and Electrocompaniet ECD-2…especially the Qutest.
In fact, it was the DAC within the $2K Eversolo DMP-A8 that inspired me to try the Topping E70 Velvet. After which, I sold both the Eversolo and Electrocompaniet (the latter which objectively measures a little better than the Benchmark DAC3 IIRC).
No, I am not an ASR Zealot who believes that SINAD is the end-all, be-all of sound quality. However, I also strive for an open mind and go through the hassle of level-matching my components when conducting comparisons. I do my best to not let the retail price of a given component influence my judgement. Similarly, I do not presume a component will sound good simply because it measures well. Somewhat recently, after acquiring some Børresen speakers, I sold my Revel towers despite them qualifying as an ASR readers’ wet dream speaker. I don’t need to see graphs to hear that the Børresens are not as objectively accurate as the Revels, however, the former are without question the all-around better speakers to my ears.
Regardless, as for all known OBJECTIVE measurement parameters, there are indeed some DACs from Topping, SMSL, and the like that measure better than the DAC3, and by a rather wide margin in terms of noise and distortion. That is simply an indisputable fact. It seemed the OP was unaware of this fact. I am not here to claim that one should not subjectively prefer the DAC3 to those performing better in a bench test. I am merely pointing out that the DAC3 is no longer state-of-the-art, even by Stereophile’s measurement battery.
Based on my subjective experience, I do believe many audiophiles would benefit from giving some benefit of doubt to these “Chi-Fi” components, and judging them by sound rather than impact on the bank account. I realize that some avoid these brands for sociopolitical reasons, which is perfectly fine, but to conflate that stance with a component’s actual performance, subjective or otherwise, qualifies as implicit prejudice.
I will occasionally post on my progress here starting with the purpose, which is to share my subjective observations based on my direct comparisons of the listed DACs. This is NOT a play-off or “best DAC” competition, and I will probably not select a “winner” as I will be keeping at least two of them. Readers should understand that anything I observe and report is through the lens of my personal auditory preferences, my home system (virtual system posted here), my musical choices (to be listed), my methodology (or lack of), and is not intended to be interpreted as an authoritative “last-word” or an analysis following the scientific method. I am certainly open to suggestions and questions, and I don’t mind if people disagree with me, but if anyone simply wants to complain or argue because they don’t like my methods or reported observations they should conduct their own evaluation and post their own results.
FWIW, assuming that the digital section of a DAC is competently designed, I feel that the topology and parts selection of the analog output stage is more influential on the final sound quality of the DAC.
The comparisons you make will be interesting. The fact that "DACs sound different from each other", even at what most would consider "high end" prices, does bring up a question. Why isn't there something like the RIAA curve for DACs? How can we ever know that a manufacturer is shooting for "neutrality" or not?
In other words, say the output from your DAC is from 0 to 2 volts (RCA jacks). How can we ever know that for any of the thousands of volume levels at thousands of frequencies from 20Hz to 20KHz, that a DAC outputs exactly the level it should based on the digital input signal?
Or is that at best a "pipe dream" and all DACs will always sound different, and some are accidentally or intentionally "voiced" to sound a certain way?
What is "truth"? And if we could get "truth", would we want it?
@porchlight1- There is something to that based on the SMc Audio DAC which uses 1990's technology with a Crystal Semiconductor CS8412 "E" Version receiver and CS4328 DAC. The DAC-2 sounds very good in spite of the older digital technology.
The process of upgrading my original McCormack DAC-1 to an SMc Audio DAC-2 included installing a new/upgraded receiver but it still uses the same CS4328 DAC chip, which was rated as "good odnobitnik" by the reviewer in their 2012 DAC Chip List, while the AD1862 chip in my Mojo Audio DACs was rated "one of the best of the world’s Audio" and the PCM1794 in the Merason was rated "best of odnobitnik."
I think the designer has to get both the optimal performance from whatever DAC chip (or ladder) they use as well as nailing it with however they choose to implement the output.
On a serious note DACs in the 2.3K-10K price range may not knock your sox off as a very expensive /DAC/clock/Power source most likely wood? Can you get your hands on such too (asking for a friend)?
What's the streamer, cabling, etc. feeding/exiting the DAC(s)? With digital, the back of the house matters greatly. What's up there please?
I've been interested in the Linear Tube Audio Aero, I have B&W 702 S2 speakers that are very accurate and currently just use my bluesound vault as a streamer and DAC. Thinking adding the Aero would be an improvement. I just need to go hear this i believe to see the difference it can make. Also interested in the Schitt Yggdrasil, but not sure why everyone says to go with the "less is more" version. Anyone know?
These days there exist $200 “Chi-Fi” DACs that objectively outperform the DAC3.
says who? And what specific DACs are you referring to?
Sounds like ASR propaganda…
If you never listened to any how would you know? Maybe there is. 'Thomas and stereo' has reviewed and compared some of these Chi-Fi dacs very favorably with much pricier units placed in higher end systems. His reviews were very positive.
The price tag doesn't dictate the sound quality of the component.
Will be interesting to hear how the Linear Tube Audio Aero stacks up against the others costing 2X or more its price. Most reviews I've seen of it have been favorable. Have fun. Take your time though. Such comparisons can be difficult to ascertain given the fleetingness of audio memory and the time necessary to switch between them.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
Personally, IMHO, I believe that measurements can assist in determining whether a given component "makes a difference," but measurements don’t do much to determine what people enjoy.
This is my main reason for discounting ASR methodology. There is an assumption that perfect measurement is the end goal. Not for me!
This is always the biggest can of worms. If you follow ASR, then it would be evident that the benchmark is quite far from the best and measured performance, although the mola is better by a good bit on ASR. Personally, I have eight different Dacs And out of curiosity, I had purchased two units that measured very near the top of the scale or at the top of the scale at the time from the ASR ranking. To tell you the truth, I wasn’t as thrilled by the Unit that ranked quite high on ASR compared to some of my other units. I am quite convinced that it has much more to do with the output stage And that the digital sections of most of these units are fairly good. I even have. Units that have identical, digital sections and very different output stages (Audio Note Dacs) and there is a massive difference.
while I wasn’t incredibly thrilled with the Topping and SMSL units they were quite good sounding, but not the best I had ever heard and clearly in stark contrast to the mantra of the people on ASR who rely completely on their SNAD metric.
my observations seem to indicate that the impact of the output stage is profound, and in our current world of specification based criteria, which almost all of which is digital specs. It seems the role of the output and IV stages if so equipped is largely overlooked.
The Old Measured Performance as the Criteria to decide if the Design for a Model is to supply the ubiquitous end sound that all who hear cannot deny themselves from purchasing
Years Spent taking the time to meet a large selection of Audio Enthusiasts. Ones Like Myself, as well as those who are EE Skilled, being very Capable of Building Audio Devices. Has shown to me, that a knowledge of how a Audio Device can be voiced for the end sound to be produced is the ultimate method to produce a Audio Device.
When voicing is done correctly, the Designer / Builder will have the say on the end sound, in a commission build the end user can also contribute to the devices voicing. It is having this understanding of Schematic - Topology and the needs for the devices Structure, that really makes a Audio Device wanted to be heard more in use and most likely will for many become a Device that is a Keeper.
The Measurements across many devices can be seen to be in the Ballpark of the Spec' that are usually looked at as being required. Skilled EE's see through the Published Spec' and can see where the complications with the Schematic is creating typical unattractive influences on the Signal being produced and having gain added.
As said in a previous post, a DIY Built DAC costing not too much monies, has sat very comfortably in the Company of more expensive Branded Models. On one occasion the DIY was instrumental in encouraging the owner of one model of a Branded DAC to sell their DAC. On another occasion the new Purchased DAC that was a replacement for the sold DAC, was a increased in purchase Model from the same Brand. This new upgraded model was not able to compare favourably either with the DIY DAC. It was only when a FW Update was added that the Branded Model was to be much improved match for the DIY DAC.
My subjective evaluation of the comparisons, especially following the most recent demo's of each in use, left me feeling either as SS Designs, either could be easily lived with in conjunction with my own commission built Valve Design DAC.
Having the 'sat in front off experience', not assessing measurements, goes a very long way to assist with finding the place that one would be best represented when deciding to direct their monies at a purchase.
@mitch2 Your review and your rules so have fun with the process. Many will get bogged down and debate your observations and thats okay. Glad you are moving forward with this as its been several years since a multi DAC comparison has been done! Thanks in advance.
Thanks @norust- I am simply going to post what I hear from the DACs listed in my system. I have been here about 25 years so will not be surprised regardless of the comments, but I also know some here will appreciate my observations.
All six of the DACs sound good in their own way and I have no doubt that each one of them would have their fans. That is going to be the hardest part, not to let my biases overly influence my comments so that they come off as judgements. I will try and factually describe what I hear but, yes, I am going to like some of them more than others. Some here seem to get wound up over which of something is the "best" when there are so many variables such as the room, partnering equipment, musical selections, and listening biases and preferences, that "best" becomes an individual choice. I cannot tell somebody else what is best for them. Each of these DACs have professional reviews (which I will link), except for the SMc Audio DAC, so I will try not to overly repeat what has already been written and would urge those who are interested in a certain DAC to read the reviews.
Just scanned these comments and didn't see the obvious thought. The biggest influence on the sound of a DAC is the analog output circuit. After it converts, it's that small Amplifier that outputs your 2-6 Volt signal. My excellent dCS Bartok now sells for $22K due to a $9K price increase partially due to refinement in its analog output section.
Please elaborate. I don’t hear anyone arguing the importance of the output section. Each DAC is the sum of its parts and design topology. You get the whole thing, which is why they sound different from each other.
@coppy777 The analog output is a great way to get sound color if you're using a discrete circuit...R2R is another way....tubes another way.
If you don't want sound color in the DAC though...using an OP amp is fine. That's what Benchmark is doing. If there is brightness in your system or room, the Benchmark isn't going to be a tone control...it won't add harmonic richness or dimensionality that's not there to begin with.
I like Chord DACs...my room is treated and my amp is warm sounding...so in my situation I'm not looking for sound color in my DAC. If my amp was lean, something like the Border Patrol DAC would be on my short list.
As someone who is just starting to look for an upgrade for my denifrips Pontus ll DAC, I am very interested in your thoughts on the six DAC’s you have chosen to review.
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.
