2. digital
  3. 191150-21

Six DAC Comparison

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.

mitch2

Showing 4 responses by ghdprentice

ghdprentice
7,978 posts
 

I look at it like this: there are probably a hundred variable involved in sound quality that the human ear / mind can perceive and only ten or so have measurements. So there is enormous room for variability. We are only measuring the big stuff.

There is reproduction of sound at each frequency, how different frequencies interact, attack and decay... it goes on and on. This is why after my first couple years in high end audio I stopped looking at measurements (with a few exceptions on amps and speakers) and just listen or read the qualitative stuff.

Just a couple comments about myself I was trained as a scientist and worked as such for ten years. I am always a scientist at heart... I have a home seismograph, weather station, pollution sensors. I track all my vital health variables, blood pressure, heart rate, VO2...etc. So, I am very pro analytical when it is useful... it is not very useful for high end audio.

ghdprentice
7,978 posts
 

I doubt that many folks go for PRaT only. Over my time pursuing the high end I ran into PRaT only systems, and was shockingly moved… but kept going because while they were incredibly emotionally involving… but they had wacko tonal balance and and or the absence of detail. But I also found details and slam are about the easiest thing to get in a system… then tonal balance and imaging. But if you get these without PRaT… you end up with a great sounding system without soul… one that will not emotional involve the listener.

If I were to do it over again… I would follow PRaT as an absolute requirement and midrange bloom with good tonal balance and then look for better detail and more slam. I think I would have had more enjoyable systems along the way. But I had to learn and evolve and honestly PRaT was the last parameter I learned to hear / identify. Then it all fell into place. Now I have it all great PRaT, tonal balance, detail, imaging and nuanced bass. I am sure I would have got here one way or another… I guess I am just happy I did.

 

One of my friends that I helped assemble a great system over the last few years sent me a message last week. It said that he is not an outwardly emotional guy (I agree). But he was brought to tears several times listening to a song. That had never happened to him before. I am really happy to hear this, because it was the great PRaT in his system that did it.

ghdprentice
7,978 posts
 

OP… “but something that requires the reader to be more sensitive to the words written and sometimes “read between the lines” to identify both negative as well as positive aspects of the equipment being reviewed.”.

 

Just in case this isn’t obvious to anyone… this very true and critical to understand reviews. If you are sensitive to this then professional reviews are very very valuable. I have been reading The Absolute Sound and Stereophile since they began… and they are great sources of information. Damned by faint praise is a big reality. I don’t hold it against reviewer for not being really direct… but most are very obvious about shortcomings. High end audio is about subtitles, and it starts with reading.

ghdprentice
7,978 posts
 

@soix  +1

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.

More to discover