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 

 

 

jackhifiguy

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?

+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".

Yes, it is now a proven scientific fact, all DACs are exactly the same.

Did this turn into open mike night at the Comedy Club?

 

@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 😃

@teo_audio 

 

Thanks for "clearing that up"! I just knew that it was Edward Snowden's fault that my tube amplification sounds better but measures worse than a Topstard WE replica silicon SS amp that ASR will test shortly and proclaim it best.

I wish that site would change it’s name to something other than "science" because it isn’t science, it is, at best, quality assurance.

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.

I wish that site would change it's name to something other than "science" because it isn't science, it is, at best, quality assurance.

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.

“Most everyone here understands there must be a balance between measurements and listening.”

I agree but then there are folks like OP who just can’t seem to comprehend anything beyond measurements, you know the type…bits are bits, 1’s and 0’s, etc. etc. It’s like having a conversation with a bot 😂

 

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.

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.

 

 

“Most everyone here understands there must be a balance between measurements and listening.”

I agree but then there are folks like OP who just can’t seem to comprehend anything beyond measurements, you know the type…bits are bits, 1’s and 0’s, etc. etc.  It’s like having a conversation with a bot 😂

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?

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?

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.

@ghasley

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... 😂🤣

@jackhifiguy 

 

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 wish that site would change it's name to something other than "science" because it isn't science, it is, at best, quality assurance.

I think I'm going to now, going forward... refer to them in all communiques that involve their invocation, as 'Quality Assurance Review'.

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?

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?

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.

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. 

@alphonsodamato Yes, it is now a proven scientific fact, all DACs are exactly the same.

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?

Myself and all the audiophiles I know try to work on increasing our investment in electronics, placing speakers, placing equipment, implementing tweaks, and room treatments to get the best possible sound. This is the basic passion of an audiophile. 

@mahgister 

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.

Post removed 

@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.

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.

[[ All DAC chips sound the same.]]

Probably true, but a DAC player has many more components than the DAC chip itself usually.  The power supply, the buffers, the different digital inputs, all are distinct from the actual DAC chip, and all can influence the way the device sounds.

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...

😁😊

@khughes 

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.

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...

 

Click click push.  There, just changed from sigma delta to NOS DAC.  Sounds different.

Even my wife sister can hear the difference.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Whichever floats your boat.

I saw advice in this thread and agree with it. Go to a dealer, compare and listen for yourself.

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

 

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:

We're All Hearing Differently, and Here's the Proof

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?

Dacs do sound different.  Those who say otherwise have some combination of poor ears, poor amplification, poor setup and especially poor speakers.  

"Are your brothers cousins eyes really close together or really far apart?"

The two on the right are very close together. The one on the left is in the middle.

If someone says they cannot tell the difference in DACs, their system is probably not very revealing.  In digital EVERYTHING matters!  Interconnect included.

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.

@jackhifiguy 

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.

A threat to what?

Knowledge or vested self interests?

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

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.