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.
@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.
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?
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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
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 .
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.
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.
@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.
@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
