I'm about to find out what moving from a SMSL SU-9 to a Gustard X26 sounds like. It is the analog part of the DAC and its design that should/could/may make a difference.
The sound quality from DACs - is it all the same?
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)
- Jack
232 responses Add your response
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? The "trick" the component designer is getting paid to implement is making it sound better in room than close to the source, sometimes to the detriment of sound at the source. Maybe the only way to make it sound good in room is to make it look or sound bad at the source, i.e., up close measurements? I really have no idea but just a thought. I think @mahgister understands this more than anyone else on this thread as he is doing the component designer's job in the room, rather than paying the designer to do it for him. |
You are very kind with me thanks...
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...
|
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.
Yes, this remains a key question for any budding audiophile. It's quite important in that knowing exactly what you want can save you a lot of time and money in the coming years ahead. It's also the kind of question that I never once considered. For some unknown reason I just assumed that the more highly regarded equipment espoused by the magazines that I was reading would inevitably be more accurate. Obviously, that was not the case back then, and I doubt whether it's the case now. |
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... 😁😊 |
The Border Patrol dac measured poorly, according to John Atkinson of Stereophile. However, upon listening to it, Herb Reichert gave it a glowing review. Lots of people own and love the Border Patrol dac, including myself. The Musical Fidelity V90 dac is shockingly good @ only $299. I think it is now unavailable/discontinued. I thought it sounded so good, I bought two...I use one, the other is put away. It is considered a class A component according to Stereophile. In my opinion, my short post covers the gamut of measuring, subjective listening, and price. Just looking at the 2 examples above, you can see that there is no rhyme or reason why something sounds good, weather it be a measurement or price. |
@markahall I’d be very interested in your findings once you hear the mola mola, against the previous DACs mentioned. I too own the ARIES G2.1 and at some stage wish to upgrade from the internal dac of the Hegel H390, Chord and Mola Mola were on the list. While I had also considered the May KTE, in the end I’ve removed it as I’d prefer the peace of mind purchasing from a dealer gives you. |
| Post removed |
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...
Yes, it can be a real eye opener if you ever see the cluttered listening rooms that some rather well known reviewers use at home. Fair enough they may have the same space restraints as the rest of us, but purpose built, carefully set up and treated, they're not. |
Before making such a strong statement, you have better listen to "all" DACs and present all "scientific facts" to prove "all DACs are exactly the same." Don’t use big words that you do not understand, please. After doing all that, if you still conclude all DACs are the same. Great news to you because you do not need to make any investment on external DACs. Just output the sound from PC to your system BECAUSE all DACs will include the internal dac inside your PC, right by your argument? |
JackHiFi why ask here , join ASR and be done with it . I follow every bit of their suggestions when I have a question and just recently saved a bundle of cash on several key components most other audio forums wouldn’t even mention. Amazon is my go to audio store for practically anything I need for my audio system though a couple of recent topics of MQA over on AudioPhileStyle surprised me where some ASR members wholeheartedly defend MQA including the owner of the ASR site it was almost shocking how they were humiliated and ridiculed. Anyway if you need extra power cords Amazon seller Pinhead has a package of three for $9.99 free shipping. |
it seems like so many of you guys have subjective-only opinions about what "sounds good" Can we all agree that machines used for measuring audio gear are more accurate than human ears?
arbitrary audiophiles.
For example, if the vocals sounded "shrill" or "harsh" then maybe, just maybe, it was recorded that way and counts as error in the song? it’s like so many of you guys are full of ideas of smooth, warm, wonderful sound. Real or not, you just want things to "sound good" Romanticizing subjective ideals of what it "should sound like" won’t get this hobby anywhere. I want to hear what the recording sounds like after post production. The full event - even if it doesn't sound great. |
Do you use machines to decide whether art is visually pleasing or not? Do you have machines taste your food for you? Do they tell you what smells good? |
How a given piece of gear acts/reacts to test tones is important to all to varying degrees. Since most here listen to complete musical works, the data point is just that, a data point. There are other factors at play which I wont get into nor take a stance ie country of origin, intellectual property rights, aesthetics or perceived quality of construction and an expectation of service after the sale.
Your posts seem to indicate an inital veiled attempt at an objective dialogue, accellerating into a tone otherwise. I’m not speaking for anyone else but allow me to relieve you of the extraordinary burden to save us from something. Most everyone here understands there must be a balance between measurements and listening. Since the beginning of time there have been products offered which were just as good in the eyes of some. Dwell where you like, others will dwell where they like. |
i will bet my system sounds at least as good as yours playing an 800 hz tone... in fact, my friends and i listened all weekend to 100 hz, 800 hz, 1.3 khz and 2 khz tones and we chose the best cables and room positioning, we have it optimized!!!! now i just need to find a great dsd recording of a 400 hz tone and then i will be officially in audio nirvana yo, pass the pipe please... 😂🤣 |
It’s the psychology in play when a person reaches their internal limit. We all fall back on animal aspects of safety in life. where we require ’facts’. Facts of ’safe’ or ’not safe’. Is there a lion in the tall grass? Will I die, or not, in the face of this unknown? the coloration of the carrier (the body) becomes an overt factor in the fundamentals of forms of query. Things become binary at the intellectual limits, for humans and our given individualized capacities. The utilization of objectivity as a concept, can defang complexities that may be due to given individual mental construction. Great for the ideal of science, but it’s still all expression through a meat monkey of some given kind. It can only go so far due to the carrier existing as coloration that increases to an infinity - of turning into being desirous of being binary (yes/no-safe/not safe) at the given real human limit. Declarations in sharpness of speech and projected meanings... can, and many times do become - the given individual norm, at said limits. Many times we fail to understand the psychology at play, even the idea that subjectivity is the only reality we possess, and that objectivity is a figment of the human mind’s design. Down to the point that most humans don’t really know what the real world applications of the meaning within the word ’consciousness’ are. We leave that to Descartes-like dissertations and conjecture, without ever referencing, reading or dealing with the works at all. The encapsulation if it can resemble Einstein’s exclamation that problems of/in the world cannot be effectively tackled by the intellectual and consciousness envelopes that created them... (Godel's incompleteness theorem as applied to the realm of human psychology in situ) This is normal and expected. This further breaks down into mind types, re the idea of liberal/lateral vs conservative/linear, but regarding intellectualism and it’s connective tissue, not that of western/American politics in particular. And so on. |
DACs do sound different (I know I am biting here but there you go ...) - go compare a Topping with a Metrum Octave for example - I don't know if the Topping measures better within the measuring parameters/confines of ASR - but the Metrum just walks all over it musically. Here at home we ran blind listening tests (involving my wife and son) - level matched (according to the iPhone) - same cables etc - and heck - 100% of the time we knew which DAC was which. We didn't need to perform this test because it was so darn obvious from the outset with our eyes wide open - but thought on one rainy day - what the heck - let's see what these hecklers on ASR are on about. So yes - please let your ears decide. I have this pet theory that many use ASR as a comfort blanket supporting their choice of cheap DAC being as superior as more expensive alternatives because they don't have the funds or will just find and excuse not to spend - then gang up and regurgitate it to the rest of the World. There are bargains to be had - but it's not via cut and dry measurements as reference.
|
I was casually involved in the (given local moment of) creation of the fundamentals of AI training via English language structure, regarding the creation of software that could pass the turing test. I was working with a mathematician/coder who ended up being hired as a mathematician by the given local world class university. We were trying to create an effective administration program for websites that could integrate with the public, effectively. I had to help him understand how English language rules were also a form of variable complex code, and as such, were a core part of the coming interaction of software and humans. We were also live, in that coding, the feedback was instantaneous and daily. This was the early 1990’s.
As we move to having work forces being replaced by robotic automaton, the same is happening in the world of internet interactions. Eg, this bot design we were working on was also being picked up by things like the military, who had committed to ruling the airwaves, as it were, as their hundred year mission.. To be in command of the internet via bots, groups of bots, under the command of a given set of singular military personnel members (working in large groups, together). Enter Edward Snowden, et al. That one person could command hundreds of bots (single bot core, multiple facades as ’persons’), maybe 2-5-10 connected to a given website, and to do spot problem work in the bot interactions with the public. As the given AI becomes better, and better, the human aspect of correction or training, becomes less and less necessary and the programs become more independent and move toward being more universal in application. Not human, but ultimately predictable software, with controllable coloration and patterns. then we are dealing with the interpretation of human psychology in such areas. as the two meet and steadily integrate to high levels, we find that the give and take between the two begin to dance together and the mating is almost complete. This is now fairly ubiquitous in some global circles of attempts in influence. Twitter and Facebook spaces and other similars, like tiktok, can be of this nature. This is the world we live in now, so don’t get caught up in on line interactions in those big swinging and swaying spaces. Try to stick to real world interactions for forming one’s opinions and ideas on ideals. |
I am not sure who makes that suggestion. ASR is a forum that emphasizes the measurements much more so than any other forum including Audiogon. The topics discussed in Audiogon are mostly in merchandizes, experiences using them with some forms of promotions behind from the dealers mingled in the community. A suggestion from a member affiliated with a non-technical forum to change the name of a technical-oriented forum is a bit ridiculous. It is kind of insult to the ASR host. I suggest whomever makes that suggestion reflect on his credential first. |
I thought I did point out, be it almost obliquely, of the dangers of ’factualization’ of the world via linear minded thinking... ...and how this is a core component of the current levels of human stressing, in integration/interaction, and how it is being manipulated into forcing itself upon all others as an enforced reality. ’Truth’ as a sword. Nothing new in that one... How we are all being led to believe, via radicalized enforcement in mental conditioning... that it somehow represent all facets of a given reality. The entirely normal levels of simplification that occur at individual limits, and in this case, in the mid levels of human intellectualism. Center of the bell curve ’mass action/reaction' aspects. Normal is for Average. Commonality is not truth, it is simple commonality. Boxes are like walls for safety... but also exist to hold puppies and be in control. Danger Will Robinson, Danger. |
@lalitk , OP is not here for learning. Check his other threads. He is learning from his "cousin brother" who is a self-proclaimed expert audiophile. And he says that fancy audiophile is no good compared to Chinese stuff. There are these few posters on Audiogon who are actively pushing some agenda here. It is pretty clear from their posting and language. Nothing wrong with that. But don't preach what your "cousin brother" or ASR thinks. Use your senses and then come to senses 😃 |
+1 @big_greg People should not forget that - machines don't have senses or aren't "alive". Sad that people needs machines to tell you what you like Vs what you don't. Machines should be used to "make" stuff (like components). But the "experience" should be entirely human. It is almost like saying "the ventilators are precise instruments, while my breathing might not have the precise timing to breath in-out. And hence I would like to be on ventilator". |
@big_greg + 1 |
Just my 2 cents: Worked with several internationals from India (all very intelligent and well educated) some had family come over from India for a tour of USA and spent a few days at our work site. Joquime introduced his family visitors by name and called them his cousin brothers and cousin sister. When I asked what he meant, he explained that they were in fact his cousins (his father’s brother’s children) but in their culture consider all family other than parents and grand parents, as a brother or a sister - thus their term "Cousin Brother or Cousin Sister, etc. Before we insult people and expose our own lack of intellect, we might consider that not everyone on this planet shares our same culture or manor of expression. As far as specs - I use them to get a basic comparison, but still it comes down to good sound (they don’t all sound the same) and a history of reliability and performance........Jim |
Agree with most of Hansen's post. However point 4 is not correct: ") The DAC chip - almost everything these days is delta sigma with a built-in digital filter. Differences between different chips is one of the less important aspects of D/A converter designs. Both ESS and AKM have some special tricks to reduce out-of-band noise, which can be helpful, but not dramatic.". Firstly, there are still many R2R Dacs that are manufactured. Secondly a number of high end manufacturers do not rely on off the counter chips but make their own. Thirdly manufacturers using ESS chips tweak the chip so that it sounds differently. Personally I do not really like Ess chips, preferring AKM or Burr Brown. Ess to me often, but not always, sounds shrill in the mid range and is hard to listen to after a while. This is what the minion leader on another site in particular, finds difficult to understand.
|
@jackhifiguy You do you. If the ASR crowd makes you happy, hang there. |
I just upgraded from the DAC listed below to a Gustard x26 Pro. I'm aware the price and build quality are not comparable, but there is a remarkable difference between these two DACs. Some audiophiles would consider this overkill in my system, but it's a completely different level of listening. |
Hi! I went from a Benchmark DAC1 USB to a Lampizator Amber DAC. The sonic difference in favor of the Amber Dac was HUGE! Really, everything changed for the best, i.e., more detail, more space between instruments, The soundstage became wider, deeper and more forward the listening position. The bass with the Amber Dac has more impact and goes deeper. I mean the difference is night and day!
Greetings! |
I went from the DAC in my laptop to a $168 DAC/AMP to a $99 standalone DAC to a $360 DAC to a $3500 DAC to my current $11,000 DAC. And yes, there was a significant and easy-to-hear improvement with each step upward in cost, so all is right with the world in that I got what I paid for. That being said, the cost differences in sonic improvement escalated exponentially. Or as Stereophile once put it, it was a phenomenon of the ever increasing cost of the ever decreasing difference. |
The $3500 DAC is the Auralic Vega, the $11,000 DAC the Bricasti M1SE with network streamer. It seemed that the sound improvement between the lesser DAC steps were maybe 40% improvement, the Vega to M1SE was about 20-30%. I wonder how much more improvement there might be over the M1SE but I seriously doubt I will have funds to find that out. |
The thing about increasingly expensive DACs in a really good system is that small differences are increasingly significant in the sound presentation. I have the most pleasing DAC I have heard in my system (the Audio Research Reference CD9SE).. before that a Sim Audio 650D (now replaced by the newer and better sounding 750) and a Berkeley Reference Alpha 3 ($17K, $18K, and $22K). Each were excellent and sounded far better than notably less expensive ones. Each worthy of their cost because of their sound quality. |
So it seems this thread is coming to the conclusion that better sounding DACs don't meet any objective engineering requirements better than cheaper dacs. It's not that they produce the signal more precisely, but that they add some special sauce that creates a more pleasant stereo listening experience for some listeners who find the experience worth the extra cost. |
I would refine what you said a little. Designers start with solid design that produce great sound with in high level requirements (watts per channel, gain… etc.). Then they will swap sub components like capacitors, resisters, special placement… etc to make it sound great… often the end product will sound much better… but not test as well. It doesn’t take anywhere the engineering time to create a component that just tests well as one that sounds great. Hence higher cost. Also why choosing equipment by specs will seldom sound good. So, the “secret sauce” is upgrading sub components and listening over and over and over during the design process and using much higher quality components. |
Sounds great according to them. You would wonder how they assess what sounds great. If it’s done by swapping components and then blind testing that would be most interesting. Then of course I’d re-test to see exactly what changed because it may be possible to achieve the same result in a more cost effective fashion. This would also add to a body of knowledge about which deviations from linearity sound great and which don’t. If the change passes a blind test but nothing measurably different can be found then that is also an extremely interesting finding that would expand science and engineering in ways that would extend past the field of hifi. I see little of that kind of contribution from the world of audio reproduction happening, so I’m convinced that the "secret sauce" has to be some audible deviation from linearity that offers nothing new to the general fields of science and engineering, and it seems unlikely that expensive sub components would be required to create the most pleasing effect unless one grooms one’s tastes in that direction. This gets me thinking of moissanite vs diamond. Moissanite actually exceeds diamond for fire. It diffracts light more strongly. This would seem desirable but since it is known that moissanite is cheaper than diamond the extra fire is seen by some as a tale tell of it’s cheapness, thus it is not as beautiful as the more restrained fire of diamond. |
Each major high end audio company has a house sound.. B&W, ARC, Sonus Faber, Conrad Johnson, Wilson, etc. They know what they are trying to achieve.
I read an interview with the head designer at MBL (?), Burmeister (?). Anyway, one of the most highly respected high end audio company. He talked about how he approached design and that he could achieve what ever sound he wanted. He knows that brand x capacitors sound like this… and brand y sounds like that… so he can make the equipment sound like anyway he likes. Their high end (very high end) was designed to be an assault on what is possible… but that there was a limited market for that sound. So he just completed a design for folks with less refined tastes, for a lower level markets (not remotely cheap). Additionally these are trade secrets. A company / design engineer that understands the characteristics of different components within different design has proprietary knowledge. This is the stuff of competive advantage. Over time it becomes widely known in the community, the company moves on, to say, using cryogenic treated wire… or machined solid blocks of unobtainium for the case. Design engineers capable of that level of sound quality engineering are exceedingly rare. I have had the pleasure of managing and working with truly incredible minds… literally geniuses. Those that make smart people look stupid. These are the kind of people capable of creating leading edge designs. Companies that produce really high end equipment are not unaware or stumbling around. 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. |
good discussion and good points made @ghdprentice great companies in this field know exactly what they are doing, just as great car companies, great winemakers, great chefs are expertly competent and in control of their processes and end goals... over time these may change to meet their view of market and business requirements but their new products and how they perform don’t come about by their shooting in the dark i repeat this every and now and then on this discussion board, great durable companies that have sustained success in this field - like conrad johnson, audio research, pass labs, magnepan, vandersteen, sonus faber, audio note, msb, sme and so on... they have not been stealing money from the deaf all these years... |
