The sound quality from DACs - is it all the same?

Thanks very interesting article indeed ...

It is very true and i experienced it when tuning my room ....

Timbre of voice and instrument is determined by a time envelope and a spectral envelope...But by amplitude of certain frequencies range too...

Then a Dac is one thing ... Acoustic magnification of any good dac power is another thing...

@mahgister

I think this would help to explain:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33873218/

I was speaking of the limitation of the SPS by itself for my ears in my room ..

I know that you are right about your dac ... I dont doubt it a second...And i thank you because it is interesting recommendation ....

Acoustic treatment and control are for me the most important factors in audio experience...And remember that a minimal threshold of quality exist and i have it already... 😊

"Garbage in and out"  is true, but being inferior for the SPS compared to the Audio Note dont means it is garbage in my room...

I know that you are respecful and i appreciated discussing with you.... And i really like your recommendation because the price is good and you alreay know the SPS...

Thanks very much my friend...

But I will say with confidence that the AN DAC is so much better than the SPS DAC in every respect not just in detail alone but from top to bottom in everything that it does.

You are perfectly right and i am conscious of the limitation of the SPS because my room is acoustically under my control and not only treated...

The SPS lack in the high range, it is less resolving thats all compared to many  very costly dac ...

My imaging, soundstage and LEV/ASW ratio are over the roof and under my control and this dac dont impede my acoustic at all..

But it is not a microscope...

Then even if the Audio Note will be better resolving i dont need it for cost reason and anyway if i bought it my old Sansui so good it is, should  be replaced and even my speakers would be not so much efficient now at the level of  this more resolving source...

i dont miss this potential  improvement at all, because there is a minimal objective  treshold od acoustic satisfaction  for what we call an audiophile experience acoustically and i enjoy this minimal experience so much now anyway , that any upgrade even for the better have no appeal....

But you are probably wrong about my Sansui AU 7700 sorry ... I dont bought it by chance... The Grundig V1700 will not beat it ....Sorry....😊 I even own a Sansui of the alpha series supposedly better ....If i wanted a real upgrade from these Sansui amplifiers  which are top FLEXIBLE  Sansui with separated amd-preamp section, with tone controls rivallling others, i must buy a ZOTL Berning tube amplifier and yes  i will beat the two amplifier i own at relatively low cost... But with your suggested new dac and this ZOTL  amplifier i will want to buy very costly speakers now, and to beat the Mission Cyrus 781 bass and beautiful sound with more resolving power guess how much money i will need to pay?

A big amount.... 😊

I am not in an  upgrade mood anymore after my ecoustic experiments in my dedicated audio room...I dont need to....I could not even use my 8 headphones now because they dont beat my system/room... Then ?

No problem Mahgister - I too remain open minded with regards some low cost items sounding very good in the right environment (hence why I purchased the SPS DAC3 but now finding that inadequate once you have listened to something like the AN 0.1x).

Mahgister - I know you have the very good SPS DAC 3 - I also own that DAC but the Audio Note 0.1x is so so much better - I think if you are going to work your magic then work on AN’s affordable DAC, it’s light years better than the already good SPS. Just try it and see!

I am sure that you are right.... Thanks for the recommendation...

But you know i pay 20 bucks my SPS Dac3, 😁😊...

It work marvel in my small acoustically dedicated room...

my other components cost me peanuts too and are on the same level of quality: Mission Cyrus 781 and Sansui AU 7700 ...

Then this ratio S.Q./price is very good and adding a piece that will cost me 4 times thge basic cost of my complete system, which is under 500 bucks will not be rational for me...

i enjoy a very good experience so much i dont want to improve it with  very higher cost... It will costme 15,000 bucks to substantially improved the three components... And even if i had the money i will not do it.... The orchestra already filled my room...

I dont own the best system there is, but the best ratio S.Q./Price system possible...

my actual system beat my 8 modified headphones...

it is enough and it was my goal to begin with not to compete with higher costlier system... Anyway i dont need to....

my deepest respect to you....

I am operating under the assumptions that we MAY discuss without insulting each others... Arguments matter...

I dont "butt in" like you pretend, i observed that your answer with an insult in a "biases" matter discussion is inappropriate especially with annoying children like cartoon...I dont like stupid cartoon... Sorry....

You can mute yourself and not answering to my observation or apologize for insulting someone... But i can make my observation, i am not perfect either, insults annoy me... Even if they are not  directed against me...

You’re operating under the mistaken assumption that I’m somehow obligated to talk to you, even when you butt in, looking for ways to argue with me.

Silly.

I dicuss if you remind my posts...I always give arguments, not ad hominem attacks...

I ceased to discuss with someone when someone used insults and insinuations like you just did because you are unable to any rational thinking sometimes...Save to appeal to scapegoating me because i dont appreciate cartoon insult poster of any kind ...

mahgister, the world was a better place when you were arguing with highfijack.

«A wise person recognize himself with or without a mirror, a fool cannot even with a mirror»-Anonymus smith

i am able to apologize when i am wrong...

Imitate me...

Your cartoon is an insult not the two lines of jessmith...What is my mess? my observation about your habit to post cartonnish insult? 😁😊

You have probably not understood the link between biases and cognitive resonant/dissonant behaviour and take it to be an insult instead of going on with this very important point about LEARNED biases positive and negative role and function in perception...

Then take a mirror....

mahgister....what a lame attempt to clean up your mess.

for example this is an insult:

Stupid people dont mind to look stupid because the pleasure associated by the liberation of their anger toward something they dont understand superseeded their self social control and pride...

Wise people are too ashamed to systematically insult someone or about something they dont understand...

I prefer to be "schyzo" instead of writing post like that... it is not a shame at all to be a schizophren, but posting this is a shame...

@mahgister

you do not KNOW ANYTHING. MILLER CARBON! tech him a lesson.

your AUDIO room LOOKS like a crazy persons room or somebody who has skitsofrenia.

psycho-acoustic relation...ya i think you are psycho in relation to acousics

A  two line remark of jessmith  about biases and cognitive dissonance which is also a part of the analysis when we think about biases as LEARNED habits and not only simple prejudices but also cognitive resonant/dissonant  mechanism is not an insult...

Save for someone ego who react by a patent cartoon image insult instead of answering about the question linked to biases and the  cognitive dissonance mechanism related to biases learning histories...

In a word jessmith was notinsulting you but pointing to you something about what  are biases in a more general way...

Wow mahgister, what part of

Then you obviously don’t understand the concept of confirmation bias, nor I suspect cognitive dissonance either.

don’t you seem to comprehend as insulting?

First he stated his viewpoint without insulting YOU...

Second i think you are right about biases, but why not explaining your point of view? Instead of posting an insult against his intelligence...

Third, yes i admit that i answered to some of your posts...I try to be kind, i dont succeed all time, and no i am not above people, i am above political ideolologies, ...

Four i always substantiated my answers to your post with arguments...for example in another thread you have denounced people turning audiogon into "facebook" wars of images and insults cartoons i only suggest here to your own reflection : why do you do it yourself ?

For example explain your viewpoint about biases to this poster instead of insult... I will approve your post because i think the same about biases as you i think....

Anyway i will not answer with an insulting cartoon toward you if i am in disagreement with you for sure... I dont like image cartoon with insults associated to someone like you seems to like it...

I am sorry if we differ in taste....

By the way i dont have facebook...

Gee mahgister.......if you cared to actually read what he wrote, you’d find it very insulting in it’s insinuation. I used humor to deflect.

What you should do is stop jumping at every chance to try to get back at me, which makes it clear what your motives are.

For all the pontification you do about being above it all and being kind, you don’t practice it so much. Is that not a contradiction?

All the best,
Nonoise

Nonoise even if you are right about the bias question here, and i think you are right, why posting image insults like in "facebook" instead of EXPLAINING why he is wrong?

In another post you described how you hate people here turning audiogon into facebook ?

Is it not a contradiction?

It is incredible that people can think that sound is ONLY an illusion in our mind...

Complete ignorance of the importance of acoustic for survival of mankind and ignorance about how to learn to listen because listening is a learning experiment..

The exploitation of human frailty is often the marketers goal.

It is a good intention but who decide which is snake oil and which is not?

I prefer to go on without someone protecting my human frailty...

Especially nowadays when corporations vouch to do it even if i dont want to .....

@cd318, the difficult part is getting the people who know how to implement audio reproduction to accept that "perfect" does not mean "good sound", and the people who don't implement audio (but think they do) to accept the other side actually knows what they are doing.

Precisely.... It is important to listen others and discuss...

I dont use statistic for my room tuning....😁😊 and for sure i dont sell anything...But statistic is only a tool, not a proof of anything...

Unless they can statistically prove over a larger population that it sounds better, it don't mean jack. 

I wish i had written this sentence myself...  😁😊

 They don’t play with blind tests any more than the top birders in the world need to refer to google to make sure of the correct identification of a sparrow.

Audio magazines are there to sells new costly gear if possible...

Not one spoke about the primacy of acoustic...Acoustic is secondary addition for them... Anyway the reviewer change pieces of gear each week and cannot bent the room qualitatively adapted to ONE system anyway...His room is a changing show place and he likes change... We like music in a room designed to serve it , not "sonic" character changes...

If they did spoke about the primacy of acoustic instead of suggesting upgrading multiple times each audiophile would learned to direct his focus on other less costly acoustic solutions than electronic upgrades only ... There is many acoustic solutions even for living room...

Magazine will loose their share of publicity if they did otherwise...

All people are not in the obligation to create a dedicated "ugly" room like me, they can pay more for esthetical acoustic devices put at the right spot...

😊

Me i dont give a damn about my mad scientist ugly room... My money is counted anyway.... God is with me listening music in my room, he likes Nietszche few musical composed pieces, i dont know why... He listen him more than Bach... Know your enemy but love him, this is his motto, i think ... He love him a lot....I prefer Bach...

😁😊

You are very kind with me thanks...

Is it possible that if we all listened really close to the speakers that we would want perfect measurements but once we get beyond a certain distance away, that’s where components can sound different from one another? In other words, sound waves close to the source look similar or even identical, as confirmed by ASR measurements, but the better sounding gear is designed around sounding better at a certain listening position and in a certain environment? That’s why something can sound great at a dealer but not in one’s own house and vice versa?

In my room the two position sound good...

But they sound very different... One is more like an headphone but better than all my headphone because all is 3D out of my head with depth... 3 feet from the speakers position.... But i must be clear, all my acoustic treatment and control improved greatly the S.Q. even so close to the direct wavefront ...

¸Why?

Because the speed of sound and my small room of 13 feet make the sound cross my room 13 times each seconds... Then some reflected sound play a big role too for the imaging depth creation ...

In my regular position at 8 feet, the soundscape is different completely not better but different... It is more natural life like sound , less detailed but more natural, more bass, more dynamic, an intimate sensation with the sound too which is surprizing for me...I cannot choose between these positions... I go half the time in one or the other...

I like my room very much.... For sure it look like a mad house laboratory of a dement or mad scientist with hundred of tubes but i dont give a damn... It is better that than paying 60,000 bucks for an acoustician to do it if not more higher price and had all my tubes hidden in wall... Anyway almost no one did what i did... Almost no one use 30 Helmholtz diffusers for example and most audiophile dont know what it is and confuse it with a resonators of the same name... I know because i read that nowhere in any audio articles in the last 10 years...

It is the reason why people "taste" gear without paying attention to the acoustic...They think the sound come from a cable... Read me right here no cables sound the same, but it is monir differences compare to the ocean of changes coming from acoustic control especially...

😁😊

My deepest respect for your kindness toward me...

What were those characters in Ibsen's Peer Gynt called again?

"What is the difference between troll and man?"

None which is measurable......

All DACs sound the same, a cactus needle works as well as a moving coil stylus, all turntables go around and around, all amplifiers sound the same, tube preamps are just the same as solid state, and Bose makes the best speakers. Have I missed anything?

Yes you missed something, sound does not exist, only abstract wave numbers exist...

And even that does not exist ....

When we die it is finished ...

Anyway we are all deaf...

Between the nothingness where we come from and the nothingness where we go, happily our measuring tool work well even for the deaf people...

We only need eyes for the dial reading but tomorrow we will need only A.I.

😁😊

«Humans are very overestimated »-Anonymus historian of technology and evolution which wrote many booksellers

«I never overestimated my public enough »-Groucho Marx 🤓

«We dont need ears to evaluate sound, a sharp knife is sharp but not necessarily a "knife"»- Anonymus sophist

«Most clowns are not clown»-Harpo Marx

A measure is not only a number interpreted on a dial , like reading a sound level for example..

It can be a specific measures related to  the dimensions of a device , like the specific measures associated to an Helmholtz resonators for example and the way it affect the S.Q. for OUR EARS...(perimeter/volume/lenght ratioof the device and his neck)

There is no electronic measure of imaging and soundstage, but there is ACOUSTIC/PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC MEASURES linked to the experience of imaging and soundstage in acoustic...Like the precise relation between the timing of the wavefronts coming from each speaker and their sound level intensity FOR EACH EAR...I use these OBJECTIVE facts to create imaging and soundstage at will...

These measures are used in the headphone technology like the Smyth realizer for example... I use mechanical devices myself instead of electronical one  after  the Helmholtz method, who is the father of acoustic/psycho-acoustic...

Please show me/us an example of these measures and how they are related to the soundstage, imaging, instrument separation, ... discussed here. Absolutely fascinating if these measures exist.

These car comparison with gear high end versus lower costing gear make no sense... Why?

Imagine that acoustic conditions are the "road"....

The road is not less important than the gear...

Then yes sometimes lower cost gear can beat a Ferrari if the terrain is prepared for it and not for the other...

Acoustic rule over electronic design... Because we listen to  the gear+room not the gear alone...

Money alone  cannot beat acoustic science...

I always like these discussions it makes those people that own a kia think that is is better or at worse on par with a rolls Royce or a Bentley. Or if they fill it with premium gas it will run hard against a Ferrari. Thank you for the entertainment. 

I am credulous toward people and lend them good faith...

😁😊

But you are right it is probably not a serious thread created by the OP  BUT  i am not a dupe because i answered seriously to a bait...

Sometimes being wise is acting like we have not see the string behind the clothes...But staying  silent is always the best politic... I am not as wise as i think i am  either anyway...

😁😊

"Indeed"....

Can the width, depth and height of soundstage be measured accurately in spite we know the SS is created/affected by the delay of sound arriving at ears? How can one measure imaging, separation of intruments, the quality of bass such as speed and weight of bass, etc.?

I measured these acoustic factors rigorously with a finely tunable and precisely located grid of Helmholtz resonators and diffusers, their placement changed the pressure zones signature of the room, all these devices are precisely mechanically adjustable by hearing experiments like a piano tuner tune progressively a piano in a room and for a room...More than only measuring these acoustic factors i can change them at will in my room... 😁😊

Our brain/ears can measure all complex aspects of sounds together better than tools ask an acoustician...

How is it possible to "measure" the complexity of a musical timing event on all acoustical and musical counts at the same time ? Ask your brain...

😁😊

Because i listen natural sounding timbres together as a whole, not microscopic detached details, i choose a low cost Dac, a non oversampling one, TDA 1543 old mythical low cost chip , with a complete minimalistic design , low noise internal battery, connected to a non linear supply, i never look back... His cost was peanuts... Happiness is not an enough strong word for my emotion description....

😁😊

And i look more with pity than envy to any other option... Why?

Because the ratio S.Q./price is over the roof and anyway i cannot fault this dac...It recieve ONLY good reviews all over the internet... i bought it for that reason and for his low price at the time...A lucky day 6 years ago ...

The gear specs sheets  matter less than acoustic knowledge in audio journey...

Astounding!

What we say here about our experiences with products is meaningless as it relates to your ears.  

Do you ever read about acoustic/psycho-acoustic relation?

Wise post... thanks daveinpa..

I dont know... 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉

«The earth is a sphere who want to be flat...»-Groucho Marx 🤓

Very well said... thanks

What is said in this video is probably relatively true...It is a question of perspective...All is not black or white here...

But the audio system of Jay is at the other end of 99 % of all users here on the price scale ... For most of us ordinary mortal, like me, the most important factor is the room acoustic...Not an upgrade of my good low cost dac to a few thousand dollars new one which will be "trash" anyway compared to a 100,000 dollars one like in this video which only prove by the experience of this reviewer the impactful importance of a dac over costly speakers and very costly amplifiers in a minimally treated and non acoustically controlled room...I dont contest that...

But i would be curious to try this dac in a nude room or minimally treated one and compared it to his working in a completely controlled room... 😁😊

People forget ALWAYS the room impact, we listen the speakers/room quatitave relation AT THE END ...Even if the source is in some case the more important component...It is not true in ALL CASE at all...You cannot pair a 100,000 bucks dac with my very good speakers for sure but which are at another level of design than Jay 100,000 bucks speakers...

I am sure the difference will be staggering if we use this dac in an ordinary room and compare it to a controlled one......

Then i am not convinced by Jay about his claim that DAC is the most important factor, it is not generally true for all audio system, even if i dont doubt his complete honesty and the relative truth of what he say in the context of top high end product...

In the case of products generally sold for most audiophiles, on a way lower porice scale, the most important upgrade will not be a dac but a new room...

Acoustic never lie and cannot be bought...it only can be painfully installed...At no cost in my case, but with great time cost for the tuning...Most people feel that they not able or not in the situation to tune a room for sure...This fact dont change the truth of what i claim about acoustic...No more than my claim could destroy the personal experience of Jay in ultra high end costly design journey...

Watch this repeatedly until you’re convinced.

I think you are right...

But i will say half of the people here not "most"... 😁😊

It is the reason why "tool measuring fetichists " are the most deluded of the two groups...Some of the "gear brand name tasting fetichist" also try to pick gear with minimal specs sound numbers to begin with  for sure...

My best to you....

That’s not really accurate. At ASR, they can’t be bothered to listen to some of the devices they test. For them, measurement alone is sufficient. On the other hand, I don’t think most users here reject measurements carte blanche. Rather, I think most here know that measurements have their place and most understand how to interpret the essential measurements.

Sorry but price is not related in a direct way to S.Q.

Acoustic science is...

A minimalistic low cost design in dac can be very good... Mine is...

Assuming that brand name of gear and price determine sound quality is not better than measuring piece of gear without listening them...

In the 2 cases the most important factor is forgotten : acoustic methods...I prefer science to fetichisms of the gear brand name or of the measuring tools...

By the way even if my gear is low cost my hearing must be good because i tuned with success my room acoustic by ears only, adjusting more than one hundred Helmholtz devices by listenings to create a timbre experience, imaging, soundscape, dynamic, clear bass experience at the Schroeder dimension and LV/ASW right ratio...Is it not a listening at "very high level" on my side ? if you think the opposite try to tune your room by your ears alone you will understand what it ask for... 😁😊

And you will never attribute to your ears the quality borrowed from a costly audio system brand name reputation ...No acoustician or musician ever concluded they have good ears because their instrument and devices are costly... This is ridiculous at best...

Some people here with 500,000 audio system did not even know what a timbre perception is, they listen to the gear sound ALONE not to the speakers +room+ timbre sound, not knowing HOW to tune them AT WILL anyway ...They boast about their gear...And they attack some others who boast about their measuring tools... This is ridiculous battlefield between two erroneous positions...

Acoustic/psycho-acoustic CORRELATE in an ongoing process subjective and objective measures and devices which are more sometimes than only mere tool but essential parts of the room like an Helmholtz resonator is for example...

I prefer to promote acoustic training and experiments...And low cost well chosen piece of gear instead of non sense fetichism ...

My perspective is listening experiments through a room...

His claim about a $400 DAC shows that he isn’t listening at a very high level.

I prefer  not judge or accuse  a poster to be  a troll BEFORE he prove to be one sorry... Then i answered him without prejudice...

I prefer to appear naive or credulous than being injust...

The sound of all Dac differ like differ any system sound where we introduce new piece of gear...

Easy to hear...

The sound we hear is not a bunch of frequencies spectrum added one to another...Sorry psycho-acoustic is not simple matter...

We also hear change in phase... And we hear through the timbre experience some information related to the acoustic condition of the recording theater or room...And this recorded timbre will changed accordingly in our own room acoustic...

Timbre perception change from the musician who play the instrument to any location near him around him and far from him and the room where he play will affect the timbre also...Timbre is not reducible to an  objective resonant  sound source you must add the environment information in the spectral envelope and in the time envelope  and you must add the specific structure of our own  ears/brain...

I am happy  then with a dac which have a minimalistic design and without oversampling...Because say Christophe Mariac the dac designer :

«Let me give you a simple example: it is generally assumed we hear the spectrum of sounds, but can’t hear the phase.
Now try "binaural beats" on Google and listen for yourself. These clearly show the phase information IS sensed, AND remains present far inside the brain.
So maybe the spectrum-only approach to DAC design is not telling the whole story...Traditional non-oversampling DACs from the past did not make any assumptions about hearing mechanisms, they just tried to replicate in analog what you fed them digitally as closely as possible...»

I prefer a natural lived timbre sound to my ears instead of a " microscope" with unnatural aura of detailed " planktons "...

In particular in low cost audio system it is the better why? there exist probably not oversamplig good dac at cheap price...

Then i am more than happy with my dac because in my acoustically controlled room i cannot attribute to it any defect at all...

The last time Christophe Mariac sell it new his price was near 500 bucks... I pay it 20 bucks new on Ebay...

And i forgot about any other dac...

"microscope" at high cost have no appeal to me, and other NOS design will cost pricier and i doubt that they can beat it really...

His minimalistic design and low noise is remarkable... I connect it to a non linear power supply then the internal battery are always charged and powered it very well for 6 years now 12 hours a day...I listen music even sometimes reading... 😁😊

it is the greatest luck in all my audio purchase and it is irreplaceable at this S.Q./price ratio...More a deal than my Mission Cyrus speakers at 50 bucks and my marvellous Sansui Au 7700 at 150 bucks...

I consider my system in my acoustically controlled and treated room Hi-FI or not too far from anything i listen to in my life... because of acoustic method not because t my gear is well chosen, any other well chosen piece of gear would have been good IF THE ACOUSTIC OF THE ROOM IS TAILORED FOR THE GEAR...

😊I think exactly the same as you... You said it well...

My two different main dac are relatively low cost but i optimized everything around them and especially put them where the synergy is good and upgrading is meaningless for me , it will be marginal and very costly... I do0nt even dream it because it appear meaningless acoustically ...

I own a Nos TDA 1543 dac , and an Hidizs dac ; each one with battery internal...The NOS one with my active speakers, the most analytical one with my headphone...All is perfect...

@mahgister , A lower cost dac will benefit a lot from certain types of tweaks, vibe isolation, usb filters (IFI, audioquest, etc), ethernet filters, better power supply, power filters, cables, dedicated power lines and so on....If your overall system infrastructure tweaks are up to a certain certain standard, you can narrow the gap a lot between lower priced dacs and higher priced dacs. The higher priced dacs don’t benefit that much from above such tweaks perceptibly. If you understand circuit design/and are handy, you could tinker with some components in the output stage and so on...

Reviewers exaggerate differences they heard between dacs at different price brackets. It is a lot more subtle than what these guys claim. Guys in untreated spaces with poor or restricted setups (no distance between speakers/frontwalls, listener/backwall, etc) have already nullified most benefits of higher end dacs...might as well work with the room, i.e., get other fundamentals right before coming to the dac.

Basic dac technology is mature ...

This dont means that there is no higher quality dac offerings, there is plenty...

this means that the ratio S.Q. / price has improved in an extraordinary way compared to  what it was more than 10 years ago...

And BACCH filters can be associated with a dac , it is a DSP technology but not a dac even if Choueiri offer to put it in his own dac concept...

Then my point is if you are happy with a basic good dac , upgrading it is not necessarily the best option , buying another piece of gear can be the better road or improving your acoustic , electrical and mechanical system embeddings controls... ...

I spoke for people like me with very limited budget...

I like your last post and i am OK with it by the way...

@mahgister , IMO, any DAC, i.e. digital/analog conversion --> filter deployment, etc is DSP. There is no such thing as a purist DAC really. Any DAC that uses FPGA is certainly not a purist DAC and is very much in the DSP domain. Even the common R2R dacs rely heavily on FPGA. Manufacturers don’t openly use the word DSP in their product lest they scare off the "purist" audiophiles. Low info audiophiles seem to be a bit too confused and/or conflicted when it comes to their understanding of what constitutes DSP or not.

BACCH, HRTFs and all other proprietary FPGA intervention, etc is an attempt to evolve/enhance a DAC’s function such that it begins to realistically portray the presentation of a 3D soundfield, layering, spatial cues, detail, etc to the ears (as would be respresentative of live great acoustic spaces with unplugged instruments playing and no PA equipment involved)

Lower cost DACs can easily match core SINAD measurements, noise floor, etc of any 10k, 20k, 40k, 80k whatever "high end" DAC. The real enhancement of the listening experience comes from the implementation of different types of DSP mentioned above. The latter comes down to the knowledge base/competence level of the individual manufacturer. In that respect, i have more faith in some of the bigger dogs (Sony, Yamaha, Sound United, Technics, etc) to come up with something worthwhile over the years. For example, Yamaha just invested ~100 million USD in audio R&D. I don’t care to waste my time (not a chance) with the fluff manufacturers a.k.a 1 guy tinkering in his garage and coming up with a price tag of 20k somehow! (he must think he’s that much of a genius!).

For now, i have a Denafrips Venus (~3k), Technics SL-G700 SACD player/DAC/Streamer combo unit (~3k) and a TAD D1000TX SACD player/DAC (~15k msrp, you could get it for 8 to 10k, if you are tactical 😏). I can justify a higher cost for CD/SACD player/DAC/streamer type of combo units when they are built like a mac truck and last for life. If the DACs become outdated in 10 years, they could still serve as top notch quality transports. But, i couldn’t justify that level of cost for stand-alone DACs, a constantly evolving tech.

For sure you are right ... 😊

BACCH Filters coupled to a dac or integrated with one is the next level technology...

Classical dac technology is mature in the perspective of the ratio sound quality versus price...

Thats all my remark meaning...

There is less difference between low cost dac and higher costly one than a decade ago...

Then upgrading a relatively good dac to another relatively good dac, if you like your acutal synergy experience with the other components, makes less sense than upgrading  immediately to BACCH system the next level where two technology are integrated to  another type of general DSP level...

I own 4 basic low cost dac and the differences between them is immediately perceptible but each one has his own function and synergy potential  but throwing many, many thousand dollars to upgrade any of them make less sense now than investing in BACCH filters  or way better other  investing in other components or investing in  embeddings mechanical and electrical or acoustical controls which will be more impactful together than any classical dac of any type upgrades... Better to buy BACCH or transform your room acoustic...If with your actual dac the synergy please you already for sure...

Dac is a mature technology now...

@mahgister , not necessarily.....I don’t wanna mention any specific brand names here.... But, some of the "higher end" DACs, i.e. if a manufacturer gets into the FPGA enigma, for example, he can do many things depending on his level of knowledge/competence. Perception of an enormous, immersive ’virtual surround like’ soundstage coming from 2 speakers can be attributed to proprietary algorithms, HRTFs and so on (that’s atleast one case i know of). I assume you are familiar with the BACCH cross talk filters, which is a different strategy than the former.

It is the 3D sound field that eventually gets to your ears and a lot of things can be done in the digital domain to modulate it. If you think of it along those lines, it is not necessarily a mature technology and has much room for improvement.

Wait for big boys like Sony to put something like their 360 reality audio inside a 2 channel hifi dac. You may get something for a 1000 bucks or 2000 bucks that took your listening experience a few notches higher than a 80k donkey dac.

Dac is a mature technology now...

I bought 4 basic very different low cost dac... Each one serve in my 2 system now at the right place for the right job...Each one is different not only in sound but in possibilities...

I dont need any COSTLY dac upgrade ...

There is a marketing scam here by OMISSION : the rightful electrical, mechanical and especially acoustical embeddings controls are the key to audio once a synergetical choices of relatively good basic components is done...

The rest is hype conditioned by ignorance and marketing strategy on reviewers ....

There is a difference in dac this is evident but so slight compared to the embeddings controls i just described that people buying a dac after another are simply deluded... They confuse a hobby based on acoustics with a compulsive obsessive disorder...

Buy a low cost or a costlier dac after studying users and specs review and call it a job done... Dont go on a buying spree...buy books about acoustics and search articles on acoustics on google scholar...

Nothing else will help so much...

Try to understand the acoustic definition of all music, audio and acoustic terms and concepts and their specific differences in these three fields......

Set a few experiments for yourself in your room or in your system  it is costless and fun ...

This is the hobby. the hobby is  not purchasing as a joyful widow with a full wallet in the lucky event of his husband death ... I suppose you had a family to serve with your money... 😊

And dont conclude that i miss anything in sound quality with my audio systems, there exist a minimaql qualitative threshold that any acoustician can DEFINE ...

Dont look for beyond this threshold by buying upgrades you will fool yourself... Upgrades cannot replace acoustics no more than acoustics can replace the absence of synergy between components..

To understand and recognize this minimal acoustic threshold uyou must learn how to identify aspects of your sound experience with controls over acoustic concepts... There is many ways to degrade or improve these  acoustic controls...

Buying a dac to control your acoustic experience is preposterous and illusory...