When Will the DAC Singularity Be Reached?

Borrowed this explanation, paraphrased from threads on ASR.

A class-D amplifier is an analog amplifier. It uses analog circuits, with an analog signal as the input, to turn transistors on and off.

A 1-bit sigma-delta DAC that switches 5V power rails (or whatever they use), is a DAC.

A 1-bit sigma-delta DAC that switches 50V power rails is a digital amplifier. It uses the digital input signal to turn transistors on and off.  To avoid any misconception, there is not a separate DAC chip and class-D amplifier. I assume the digital logic that would be in a DAC chip would need to be in there somewhere, but not the the DAC chip.

I don't think @yage is arguing semantics, @carlsbad2. The statement you made,  Peachtree GaN1 is a "digital amp".  There is no such thing.  Inside the PT amp, there is a DAC.  My guess is it is a common chip and if you open it up you'll find all the markings polished off of it. , is incorrect, specifically the "There is no such thing." comment.

This is not a distinction on integration. A so-called true digital amplifier will not have a DAC chip followed by an amplifier stage. To me the misnomer is calling it an amplifier at all. It is a DAC that can drive speakers instead of a pair of interconnects. That is the confusion. It does not amplify anything.

Whenever I hear amplifier companies touting GaN technology, I think "Fine Carinthian Leather". Purifi and Hypex don't seem to have a problem making amplifiers with almost unbelievable performance with regular transistors. I think many other companies have to use GaN because they don't have the technology to make a good amp without it. GaN is probably easier to market.

@mathiasmingus,

I used to be on the equipment ferris wheel, going around and around and around. Maybe equipment roulette is more fitting? This DAC, that DAC, this cartridge, that cartridge, amps, etc. Never quite happy. Once I learned all the nuances of speakers in a room, got appropriate speakers, subs, and fixed my room, then I finally got off the equipment merry go round. All those changes I thought I was making, that never seemed to quite do it, were not doing anything. I have easily spend over $20K on DACs over the last decade. Now every DAC in my main system sounds good. 

Maybe I am the man out in this discussion, but I would rather be happy and confident in my system than yearn for yet another lateral change. One spot I do agree with @melm is that good headphones are more revealing than speakers.

Because of my journey, like the op, I question the value of expensive DACs. They may be different but different is not better, it is different. Maybe that works for you, maybe it does not. It is working for some people here, but I wonder what are they putting a bandaid over.

@8th-note , I participated in an informal -formal DAC blind test around 2000. Can't remember all the models, but we could tell differences. It was not easy, but they were there. I had a Lampizator through here for a while, model 7 if I remember, it had a noticeable sound to it. It was not my thing. I have had a Mola Mola Tambaqui in my system which some claim is one of the best DACs made, but both standalone and fed from the Lyngdorf digital output, could I honestly say it sounded better or even different compared to my other DACs? No, and I really wanted to 🤗. I liked the way it looked. Had a PS audio in system for a few weeks too. Was fun to play with the filters. They sounded different. But then it just felt like work so I left it on the basic one, which was the best anyway.  I am now down to some pretty pedestrian DACs, and don't have any regrets. Did the merry-go-round, and found out the grass was not greener, and just varied with the angle of the sun. I think today you could set up a blind test and pick 10 DACs that all sound different, or 10 DACs that sound all the same. For me, there are enough variables without worrying if my DAC is adding something I don't want or not so I go for the latter, ones that all sound the same. Call me boring. I am inclined to explore these filters again. I hear you can accomplish the effect in Roon. Would save me getting up and hitting buttons.

@creativepart ,

Better DAC topology, better power supplies, better clocks, better components, better pre and post analog stages and better input types all have a huge impact on what we universally call a DAC. It could be true that all digital to analog converters sound similar (not the same) but that all the other factors mentioned above make up the huge differences in DACs

I am not directing this specifically at you @creativepart as several other people have written this and I frequently see this written.  However, the skeptic in me says if all these things are true, then the results should be easy to demonstrate. Take clocks and jitter. Apparently engineers have quite a handle on how to measure jitter even at the analog output of a DAC. DACs << $1,000, even in our near worthless Canadian dollar have so little jitter we could never hear it. If power supplies are an issue with $1-2,000 DACs, why is there no 60Hz and harmonics in the outputs (or a very very small amount). If the analog stages are no good, why is there no distortion?  I used to accept these things as of course it is better, but the more I learn, the more skeptical I am.  Don't get me wrong, I don't have cheap DACs, but I was prepared to buy what most would consider expensive, tried, listened, and I could not see any value.

@creativepart ,

You are reading into what I wrote what you want to think, not what I said.

Imagine being in a room, the left wall is one shade of blue. The right wall is a different shade of blue. You can see the shades and clearly identify them as different. I now lower the lights. It will get harder and harder for you to tell the two walls are different until at some point you cannot tell that the walls are two different shades. If I keep lowering the light, at some point you will not even be able to clearly identify walls. I could have started with red and green walls and at some point you will not be able to tell they are different colours.

Why do you readily accept a very finite and limiting range for your sight, but insist on an infinite range for your hearing?

I acknowledge DACs can sound different and I even discussed preference in filters. How can you interpret that as black and white and not seeing greys?  I accept, as it is reasonable, that just like there is finite range for our sight, there is finite range for our hearing. For that reasonable reason, I am skeptical that it takes a large sum of money, to make a DAC that exceeds the range of our hearing. If it does, DAC vendors are doing a poor job of proving their case.

What I don't understand is why some are so attached to this idea that to get the basic function right, it must take a lot of money?  Filters, tube output stages, and I am sure many more ways exist to create a differentiated sound. Attractive cases, nice displays, added functionality. So many ways to differentiate your product. Why the need to insist getting the basics right is expensive?