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.
I agree, one who actually has the LTA AERO dac currently order, I am very interested in hearing what @mitch2 has to share regarding its sonics, etc. This should be very interesting to many of the forum members and I truly appreciate him taking on this endeavor! Best wishes to all, Don |
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 most tonally correct DAC I know of is from LAiV. |
