I've been talking to my cousin brother about sound quality. He is a self-proclaimed expert audiophile. He says that Audio Science Review has all of the answers I will need regarding audio products.
In particular, he says an inexpensive DAC from any Chinese company will do better than the expensive stuff. He says fancy audio gear is a waste of money because the data is already bit-perfect. All DAC chips sound the same. Am I being mislead?
He also said that any DAC over $400 is a waste of money. Convincing marketing is at play here, he says.
He currently owns a Topping L30 headphone amplifier and D30 Pro DAC. He uses Sennheiser HD 569 headphones to listen to music. I'm not sure what to think of them. I will report my findings after listening one day! (likely soon, once I get some free time)
Absolutely not but, if they all sound the same to you, that is a very good news because you could just save yourself tones of money and effort and be content with the most affordable one. One new audiogoner even said the entry-level Dac is indifferentiable to the built-in PC Dac to his ears. Then that is a even greater news since no external Dac is needed for him.
But that is definitely not the story here. When you make transition from the entry-level ($100ish, well-received) Dac to $200ish Dac, and to $500 level Dac, they all sound differently starting from each individual freq. signature, to tonal balance, dynamics, SS width and depth as well as the imaging/separation within the SS. I have purchased and auditioned a total of 7 Dac up to $500 during the past year after extensive reviews reading and in-home trials for at least 30 days, and finally settled with Schiit Modius and Smsl Do200. Both of them have the balanced design and they definitely sound their best when connected through XLR cable. So if you have balanced amp, it is highly recommended you have also purchased the balanced Dac to go with it. The dynamics provided by the 4 volts or higher output stage is just on the other level.
If I think I hear something different, my inquiring mind wants to know more about what is going on. I know some just want the result and don't care to know the technical differences about the soundwave that is actually reaching their ear, but I want to know. If a dac creates a different sound then that means it causes the driver in the speaker to move differently than another dac, which means the pressure variations that my ear detects in the air are also different. I'm hard pressed to believe that differences in the sound reaching my ear that I can detect are not measurable with a good calibrated microphone and some software. Nearfield testing of a small speaker should easily do the trick. If the dacs are changing things then we can measure minute differences in level at any frequency, as well as phase, timing, distortion, and noise. Any ringing, reverberance, decay. Certainly it would show up and we could more clearly define what is creating the "good" sound. Is it increased accuracy or some kind of euphoric distortion? If it's a departure from linearity then we are off into a confusing world where people who are making albums are hearing something different than those playing it back, and components are all adding an array of colorations to each other to create effects that may appeal to some and not to others. I'd rather we all get as close as possible to a standard so we can hear what the content creators had in mind for us. I don't want my system to sound good. I want it to not have it's own sound so the creative content can be delivered to me as intended. I want the content to sound like it should, and my system to sound like nothing. Or if it does sound like something, it should be the same something the content creators had in mind. I'm not doubting that there might be some real differences, and that something is indeed getting better as dacs go up in price. But I'd like to see exactly what it is, not just an explanation of how well the circuits are implemented and how good the clocks are, etc. Exactly what about the sound that is reaching my ear has changed?
However, as with anything else in the audio world, it follows the path of diminishing returns.
A $20,000 DAC does NOT usually sound 10 times better than a $2,000 DAC.
Get a Chord Qutest at around $2000 (one of the best DACs around) and skip the dcs Bartok at $20,000 coz most likely, you will not be able to tell the difference.
Yesterday yet again one of the ASR minions stated that there is no difference in Dacs. I purchased a new Dac some weeks ago. Prior to this I listened to about 8 different Dacs to make up my mind. Interestingly the Dacs that rated very highly in the master minion's tests appealed the least.
I listen to a lot of opera and have gone to many many live performances. Topping made the female voice sound shrill in the mid range. It was quite unpleasant after a while and not remotely lke a live performance. I would suggest you listen to a recording such as Richard Strauss, Die Vier Letzten Lieder, Jessye Norman, , Kurt Masur, Gewandhaus Orchestra. In my opinion this is an excellent recording to compare the nuances of the female voice.
The minions at ASR state that R2R Dacs are distorted. Well I guess then live performances are also distorted. They probably only listen to heavy metal. They really disparage R2R dacs, preferring Delta Sigma. If you want to purchase a delta Sigma, at least get one with an AKM chip if you can. This is superior to Ess in my opinion.
your cousin's brother is very ill-informed, that's do indeed sound different but you don't need to pay $110,000 for one like audio note charges, 45,000 can buy you incredibly good analog sounding dac.
@asctimI’m hard pressed to believe that differences in the sound reaching my ear that I can detect are not measurable with a good calibrated microphone and some software.
I really wish all SQ elements are measurable such that, like I mentioned in other topics, a matrix can be established as a basis to more objectively assess the performance of speakers and other gears. But, so far, other than decay, SPL and related vertical/lateral responses, distortion/noise such as SNR or SINAD, etc., what other sound traits have been scientifically measured/reported? The dynamic range can possibly be done easily but was never reported at least to my knowledge. 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.?
The sound color created by adding odd/even order of distortions (as shown below for example) also makes a difference too, but that is usually not the difference we discuss here. I always turn these effects off or set it to Standard when auditioning the DACs. Anyway, I can not afford $5k, $20k or $150k DACs referred by rich audiophiles here but I could ensure you that even the entry-level or mid-tier DACs up to $500 can sound differently from each other.
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...
Even if you think the sound differences are subtle in your system, consider basing your choice on how easy it is to get service if something goes wrong, whether or not the power cord is detachable IEC without a wall wart, etc. Even those two parameters might cause you to rule out >>90% of existing DACs, especially the cheapies.
I agree with many of the posts on this thread that different DAC's will sound different to some people and the best policy is to choose the one in your price range that sounds best to you providing you have an opportunity to compare different DAC's in the same setting. If you don't have an opportunity to audition the DAC's select a few with features you like in your price range and read a few different professional reviews on each DAC to see if that helps with your selection.
I have an onboard DAC in my Preamplifier and an onboard DAC in a CD Transport and I can stream music from a separate Streamer through both devices and can say they both sound good but they definitely sound different. To my ears I prefer the matchup of the Streamer with the DAC in the Preamp.
For CD's I prefer the sound of the DAC in the CD Transport possibly because it was designed to work as a system.
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...
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.
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.
While I feel the measurements over at ASR have some merit (e.g. if a product is grossly flawed, or measures horribly for its price point) the conclusions drawn solely on measurement numbers are deeply flawed. It's been said a million times-- measurements do NOT equate sound quality. One example of a bogus review on ASR would be when Amir measured the effect on tube rolling on an MHDT DAC. He found no difference in distortion numbers and concluded:
'"I would not waste time "rolling tubes." You are likely to suffer more from "rolling placebo" by your brain than any variation in such tubes." '
This is one unit, one set of tubes, with irrelevant measurements (measuring distortion?). Also, how the hell could he jump to that conclusion with an N=1? Depending on the type of equipment, the circuit design the tubes are in, and the type and quality of tubes used, tube rolling obviously, and sometimes drastically results in sonic differences. It was that "review" that sealed the deal for me at ASR. There is NO real science there.
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...
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.
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.
Your cousin brother is mostly correct and ASR just reports the measurements - good or bad. We know what distortion is audible from measurements. If it doesn't pass that threshold then by definition it is inaudible. Measurements will show that. I don't know of any DACs today that have audible distortion. Almost all DACS use the same digital conversion chip. And the formula for analog conversion is also well-established. As a former software engineer I can tell you that conversions are always done by using a well-established formula. Otherwise, they're just plain wrong. There's no magic to it.
However, some DAC makers purposefully make their DACs inaccurate. If you read the book Schiit Happened, Schiit actually tweaked their analog conversion programming after listening to the output through headphones, which is purely subjective. This shows up on measurements.
Personally, I use an SMSL Sanskrit 10th MK II because it has the best measurements for the lowest price.
I have been watching a lot of videos from the ASR YouTube channel. Amir seems to be very honest about products. For example, there was one pair of headphones that measured really well, and he reviewed it even though it was very costly. So he’s not against high cost audio products. That’s for sure.
I’ve also watched some Audioholics videos with their president talking about audio gear, cables, etc. And I was thinking...here’s an example:
You go to a car dealership to test a car. While driving it, you ask the salesperson how much horsepower and torque. Those are numbers (measurements) right?
So if machines can measure what we need to know about vehicles (that are more complex with more parts than audio gear) then why does it seem that so many audiophiles are against audio measurments?
I would also wager that audio companies/engineers who design the amplifiers, CD players. etc. also rely on the audio precision analyzer, or something that provides really accurate measurements - well beyond what we could ever know given our limited human perception.
We as humans have poor hearing compared to other living things on earth. I honestly believe those who claim measurements don’t matter have hearing loss or extreme brand loyalty syndrome.
Oh my god, it's you again. Don't waste your breath on this person. I remember you from the Esoteric bashing, headphones as the preferred method of amplifier auditioning thread from a few weeks back attempting to find someone who agrees with you. Your back with the same question in a different package. What are you really here for, just to argue for the sake of argument?
Hmm .. as someone who has tried -a few DAC’s hugo2 . Lumin D2 ,Denafrips And now have a Holo Audio May KTE .. and have a pretty nice treated room .. RooN on a NimitraS. ..Aries G2.1 . HOLO May KTE .. Modright KWH225i Integrated Hybrid Amp.. .. with Almost all components Upgraded by Dan Wright to anything he wanted .. .and Boenicke W8se+ speakers ... I can say .. Chord ..has a flavor ,, .Denafrips.. .Holo Audio has one My next flavor is a used mola Mola .. ..
I really wish all SQ elements are measurable such that, like I mentioned in other topics, a matrix can be established as a basis to more objectively assess the performance of speakers and other gears. But, so far, other than decay, SPL and related vertical/lateral responses, distortion/noise such as SNR or SINAD, etc., what other sound traits have been scientifically measured/reported? The dynamic range can possibly be done easily but was never reported at least to my knowledge. 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.?
Dynamics are a point of interest for myself, as I think I’m hearing a dynamic difference if I digitally attenuate the signal before I send it to the DAC, and then turn up the pre-amp volume. Technically you’d expect a loss of dynamic range by doing this, but my perception is the opposite. I guess I should try to come up with a way to measure this. My DAC chips are missing their output stages so there could be some self limiting compression going on with a full strength signal. As far as sound stage width, depth, and height are concerned, my experience is that room reflections, speaker placement, speaker dispersion, and equalization have dramatic effects on these. The known factors in the recording are timing and level between the two channels. If both are playing the exact same thing it should create a phantom image at center. There is no depth cue that can come into the recording other than echoes and equalization and relative level. Our ears don’t directly calculate a sound source distance in the same way that our eyes can do it by vector calculation of how crossed our eyes are, or how large an object of known dimension is appearing on our retina. With the ears it’s just timing and level, for direction left to right, reflections and equalization for height, depth, and determining if a sound is in front of us or behind us, along with comparing how things change when we move our heads. I don’t doubt it could be quite helpful if both channels are immaculately matched in all areas of performance throughout the audio chain. Now that I've said all that, anybody please correct anything that you think is wrong. It occurs to me that any level compression effects could reduce the sense of depth by making quiet echoes and distant sources sound too loud.
do not be lazy ! until you experience it yourself, you won't know... audio is an industry of deceit (you need to check everything)... why do you need the opinion of people you don't know? - go to the store and ask to turn on several DACs
It's a valid question and I'm a little disappointed to see such hostility and defensiveness expressed in some of the responses.
It's a fact that DACs use different components, especially processing chips, but is it also a fact that any of us can actually hear these differences?
Can anyone routinely identify a $100 DAC from a $10,000 one if both were hidden from sight?
Well, can they?
Can anyone?
As for ASR, instead of being grateful for all the all of the brilliant work Amir is doing in sharing his valuable knowledge with us and shedding some much needed light in areas that were previously obscured, again many of us seem to be adopting a defensive mindset in the face of what is perceived as a threat.
I have a vintage Linn system: LP12/Basik LVX, AT95SA, Lingo 1, Akurate Kontrol, AV5125/Aktiv Keilidh LS300s. Digital is Mac Mini M1 running Roon Core, Qobuz and Apple Music, fed through an iFi Zen Signature V2 DAC. The $300 DAC may be a limiting factor, but I find the system to be dynamic, lifelike, non-fatiguing and very enjoyable. I still listen to FM radio through an Arcam T61, so sources are different in discrete ways. Would I like to test a $10,000+ streamer/DAC? Sure. Would it make my listening life better? Not sure. The endless agon-y of the upward spiral of improvement will never yield perfection, just as any live performance may not excite us like the last one. I tell my clients that I am an "imperfect perfectionist". Usually that means I know when to stop, that my work will not improve beyond a certain point. The same can applied to this pursuit of "imperfect" perfection.
If someone says they cannot tell the difference in DACs, their system is probably not very revealing. In digital EVERYTHING matters! Interconnect included.
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?
To the folks who believe that we ALL hear the same, I am posting a link to a scientific study. There are other scientific articles, if you keep your minds open, that are available on the net, if you search:
There are so many differences when it comes to different humans. Hence one should not assume that what one hears, the next person hears the same. Maybe it our "hearing" that makes us audiophiles - that our family/friends and acquaintances do not have. Rely on your own "hearing" senses, rather than checking out the measurements. Finally, if it does not make it a difference to you, then good for you - save that money instead of upgrading the components and buy music or spend on something that you find worthwhile spending on. But folks should stop preaching that people should rely on measurements to know the difference.
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
Given that DACs contain an analog section, it's pretty clear that they can indeed sound quite different, if that's the intent of the designer. I mean you can tweak, or even omit, the reconstruction filter if you like the way out of band aliasing sounds.Wouldn't be the first time.
The question is, do you want one that *has* a distinct sound of it's own? Or one with the most accurate reproduction? The former will be a form of fixed tone control you may not want if you're an equipment junkie and change components frequently. Maybe it fits with the next gear iteration, maybe not. This type of "voicing" is one likely culprit for what I consider to be the "system synergy" canard.
Most new DACs are good and closer to sounding similar than in the past but surely not all sound the same. Good sounding ones are a dime a dozen though these days. Almost hard to find a bad sounding DAC anymore. Good times for music lovers.
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.
