Why most $3000 and lower DAC’s sound almost identical

Interesting theory. I've found consulting with a good AI agent is a useful way of answering questions like this. I start by telling the AI that's it's a professor of electrical engineering and focus on the special questions with follow up for better explanations. 

I have 4 low cost dac none sound the same...

One is  NOS TDA 1543...

The three other are from some ESS chips variety, one AKM chip...

 

 Their difference is greater for the good if i optimize them, relative to the pairing with other pieces of gear(cable,equalizer, tube, op-amp, linear power supply etc)

I do not claim they are high-end but they are not trash...

I use them all for different goal and coupling...

 

Most people "idolize" the gear and even if there exist impactful differences in design for the better or the worst, mechanical,electrical,acoustical working dimensions  are more important than most audiophile reviewers plug and play evaluation which goal is to sell the gear...

 

 

Sigh

I think that the degree of difference in the sound of Dacs can be pretty small compared to other components but there are differences. My current Dac a Yamamoto YDA-1 was I think $2500 retail back when I picked it up it sounds very good and no digital glare it is D-S but a very good minimalist design overall.

Similar parts and designs 

My point is dac differences exist not only because of different design "per se",

But also by the synergy with other gear pieces...

The same dac paired with different gear may be judged differently...

Add to that the complex and huge variations in acoustic  speakers/ room settings,

And you have the story :

Objectivist claiming dac made no difference (transparency)

Subjectivist claiming their dac is better than others...

 

I claim that no piece of gear sound the same embedded  in different mechanical,electrical and acoustical working dimensions...

I claim that sound qualities are acoustically described and analysed with many different concepts all at work...

 

But then what is it about ultra costly DACs that make them different, custom filters or better analog electronics?

@dynamiclinearity the cost commands instantaneous better sound that can't be achieved lower than $3000

Kofibaffour That's not an answer. Are the differences digital or analog or both? And what are they? Plus more expensive gear usually is better if it's well designed for obvious reasons. How was the $3000 barrier defined?

Jond, that is a special dac. I had one for several years and had to sell it when I started a company. 

Bricasti is much better, but I miss the way the Yamamoto sounded. Simply wonderful. 

I never worry about it. I'm using the DAC onboard my Peachtree PreDac and I like it. There's a handful of DAC chip manufacturers everybody uses. It is not cutting edge technology.

Isn’t eliminating the “pre echo” exactly what Meridian’s apodising filters (circa 2008) were designed to eliminate? Not mitigate, eliminate - at the expense of higher artifacts on the post side. I also thought that has been largely replicated now as “minimum phase” filters in other DACs.

The Meridian apodising DACs do sound quite good to me, but then so does its old 566 - Delta Sigma chips, and way before the apodising filters. 

I’ve heard the sterile, etchy nature you cite in other DACs, and certainly, I do not like it at all! 

OP  $3000 and lower DAC’s sound almost identical

$3k? To almost people, 260k DAC sounds a lot better than #3k DAC. But to my ears, $260k DAC sounds same veiled and bright as cheap DACs. They are small differences behind thick veils anyway. Simply, they all are unlistenable to me. The source is as important as speakers. Alex/Wavetouch audio

I dispute the premise.  I have heard significant variability in sound in sub $3K DACs even amongst ones using the same chip

 

Isn’t eliminating the “pre echo” exactly what Meridian’s apodising filters (circa 2008) were designed to eliminate? Not mitigate, eliminate - at the expense of higher artifacts on the post side. I also thought that has been largely replicated now as “minimum phase” filters in other DACs.

The Meridian apodising DACs do sound quite good to me, but then so does its old 566 - Delta Sigma chips, and way before the apodising filters. 

I’ve heard the sterile, etchy nature you cite in other DACs, and certainly, I do not like it at all! 
 

@mulveling 

Excellent point - especially about sterile etchy sound - and yes an MQA style apodizing filter might improve things but it is what I would call a Band-Aid and this is why:

The ringing you refer to above is in the time domain. It happens at the cut off frequency. It only occurs on signals that exceed the Nyquist frequency. Properly produced music should not have transients above 21 KHz. It’s actually a non issue and unnecessary. 

However, an apodizing filter will change the sound and energy distribution - so it will sound less accurate but may be arbitrarily preferred by the listener - especially on poorly produced material that has many non-musical transients at 22.05 KHz (which will ring).

 

$3000 is arbitrary to be the cost at which ladder-R2R and discrete DACs become available. Obviously older DACs with TDA 1461 may be found used for less than that but I am generalizing with respect to current DACs being manufactured.

@mahler123 

Indeed there are differences due to the upsampling filters used and other designer tweaks - that said there is usually no way around the upsampling function built into these Delta Sigma chip DACs where EVERYTHING ultimately ends up converted to high rate DSD in the final stage. However, the difference between these Delta-Sigma upsampling chip DACs and a modern R2R ladder DAC or PC upsampled audio to DSD256 to a discrete DSD DAC (no chip) is in my experience much more dramatic.

 

I've heard all sorts of DACs except R2R. Personally I dont' think the issue is delta sigma so much as the current to voltage converters.

DACs have universally gotten much better at playing Redbook in the 21st century than almost anything that went before them, to the point where upsampling and similar technologies barely make a difference when older DAC s really demanded high rez material to sound their best.

Interesting post. I'm wondering about a couple of thigns.

First, have you oversimplified the factor of Delta-Sigma DAC.

While it's true that many Delta-Sigma DAC chips employ oversampling and digital filters, the implementation and quality of these components vary significantly between manufacturers and price points, even within the under-$3000 range. Claiming they *all* sound almost identical due to the chip design ignores the crucial roles of analog output stages, power supplies, and overall circuit design in the final sound.

Second, are you equating measured specs with audibility?

Your argument heavily relies on the mathematical link between equiripple in the frequency domain and time-domain echoes. While this is a valid theoretical point, the audibility of these pre- and post-echoes at -60dB is debatable and wouldn't it be highly dependent on individual hearing sensitivity, the specific audio content, and the entire playback system? Simply stating it's a "fundamental design issue" doesn't definitively prove its perceptual significance for all listeners.

What most of us want is something that sounds beautiful or wonderful versus something that is over-anatical for extended pleasure.  A $15 bottle of wine can be just as pleasureable as a $40+ bottle.  Beg pardon to the wine snobs.

This is great news for you, as you can choose the most economical DAC and save $2,900. But trust me—and many others—if your ears are trained, you'll still be able to detect even the subtlest differences, from high to low notes across the soundstage in all dimensions: X, Y, and Z. Having trained ears/mind truly does justice to the appreciation of sound and music.

Even DAC's that use the same chip set all sound different. Think the less revealing the system is the less you will hear the differences. Also source makes a huge difference. If we are talking about low-rez streams vs hi-rez streams, there is less difference in the sound of the low-rez between DAC's as there is less information to process. 

Also MQA is dead.

@hilde45 

True - it’s a generalization but it is also true that upsampling Delta Sigma DACs totally dominate under $3000.

The mathematical link is a fact. The audibility is indeed system dependent and probably listener dependent. That said - there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence for R2R sounding smoother and for files upsampled to DSD on a PC to image better.
 

Take for example rectangular box speakers with a wide 12 inch baffle. These will have post-echos arriving at the listener from the baffle edge diffraction - so this might dominate soundstage and reduce the imaging quality more than the post and pre-echos from the upsampling algorithms used on every DS-chip DAC.

And yes your comments are valid, accepted and appreciated! 

Maybe your system isn't very sensitive to DAC changes?  I have noticed massive differences between say a Gustard R26 vs a Topping D90 vs a yamaha receiver vs many other DACs.  Tried probably 10 different DACs in that price range and noticed some huge differences.  You really can't hear a difference?  Fairly shocking to me.  Do you have a treated room with high end equipment?

The best DAC I've heard is the T&A D200 to my ears.  Retails for like $7400 but can find em for around $5k - I would even think the "no digital" guy above may even like it... but I have yet to try any of the $10k+ DACs

I certain;y don’t think DACs under $3K sound the same. They tend to sound more like the technology used in them, but still different. 
 

They do tend not to sound as natural as higher priced DACs. Typically not as full sounding with highs hardened, sounds not as discrete with a higher noise floor.

The ringing you refer to above is in the time domain. It happens at the cut off frequency. It only occurs on signals that exceed the Nyquist frequency. Properly produced music should not have transients above 21 KHz. It’s actually a non issue and unnecessary. 

I was aware that the full-scale single sample test the apodising filter was "white-papered" on is an unrealistic use case, but I didn’t know about pre-ringing in other scnearios. Thanks for that! I’d certainly like to know more about the technicalities, but the math gets specialized pretty quick.

Incidentally, I have a Meridian 808.2i which the apodising filter was originally released on. It’s very much on the warm, smooth side of the spectrum, especially for using Delta-Sigma chips. Sounds great, but certainly errs on the side of smoothness at the expense of some fine details. In later iterations, culminating in the Ultra DAC, Meridian clearly scaled this "smoothness" back. The Ultra sounds like a hybrid of classic Meridian and modern "accurate" DACs.

I’ve also had a couple of Yggdrasils (R2R chips), and that one must push towards the "analytical, detailed" side of the range for R2R DACs. The Meridians (other than Ultra) are generally warmer and smoother, despite using D-S chips. Yggy is still a really good sounding DAC, though.

My LEAST favorite DAC I’ve heard recently is RME ADI-2 Pro "Black Edition". NO thanks!!!

@dynamiclinearity I guess my sarcasm was lost.

@ghdprentice 

Yes - exactly what you said 100%. ‘Tend not to sound as natural” - exactly what I meant

 

@jrareform 

Absolutely agree the T+A D200 is outstanding, especially when fed DSD256. However it’s like $5K so although $3000 is my arbitrary price point it’s well above. The Gustard R26 is an R2R DAC and it should definitely sound more natural than the Topping D90. The D90 is the typical ESS chip-based DAC - great spec, low latency but “digital glare” or unnatural sound from the upsampling pre and post-echos.

 

@kofibaffour 

Totally agree $3000 is arbitrary. What I really mean is to draw a line between chip-based DS DACs (typically under $3K and as cheap at $50) and that of R2R ladder, ring and other discrete designs (anything typically $3K and up)

Each time I upgraded my DAC/Streamer I experienced a significant improvment in sound, soundstage, and detail. I first started with an Arcam ST60 (ESS based), then moved up to a Cary DMS-600 (AKM based), and as of several weeks ago my new Naim ND555 (Burr Brown 1704 based) with it's outboard 555DR PS. My constant the entire time has been the rest of my system; CJ Gat S1 preamp, CJ LP275M monoblocks, Wilson Alexia speakers, Rel 212/SX sub's, with all Audience Front Row cabling (except for the Rel's). Yes, each step up was considerably more expensive then its predecessor, but it has been a worthwhile journey to me, I really like how the R2R Burr Brown 1704 sounds in its application by Naim. The same level DCS and MSB units sounded quite lovely as well, but not as pleasing to me in my system as the Naim. I will say that for the money, Cary makes a very good product.. 

@awise1961 

+1

awise1961. How do you separate the affects of the DAC from the rest of the piece, the analog section, the power supply, etc. as the price goes up? 

I can’t comment on the OP’s premise in terms of technology and methodology but I’m not in agreement that arbitrary price points matter. 

As an example, I recently listened to a $300k Nagra system with Wilson speakers - I think the DAC is almost $20K.

Incredible detail and resolution but there is no way I’d listen to that sound for long, never mind spend that kind of money on a DAC.

It made me realize how good my digital set up is to MY EARS.

Bluesound Node N130 with LHY LPS and a Black Ice Tube DAC, also using a Burr Brown chip. Mullard NOS tubes made a massive improvement at relatively low cost even at $450. All in including DH Labs cables and Stack Audio smooth lan maybe $3500.

my analogue source at 10x the cost is my reference.

So I guess I enjoy the distortion from the tubes. But only certain tubes. (I’ve rolled about 8 variants).

Anyway, I guess my point is that setting a price point to get to your own version of digital audio nirvana isnt a meaningful metric.

 

@macg19 

The Burr Brown chip is my preferred Delta Sigma chip - smooth and detailed. That said it still doesn’t image quite as well as a NOS DAC. 

Interesting…I recently watched a review of the LAB 12 reference NOS Tube DAC and was intrigued.

Your "theory" doesn't match my experience.  I've yet to hear two DACs that sound identical at any price point.

dynamiclinearity; I'm not astute enough to be able to discern between the impact each aspect of the Naim contributes. However, in the near future, I will learn more with regards to the impact of the power supply as I plan to purchase a second 555DR PS to have one to supply power to the digital section of the ND555 and one to supply power to the analogue section. However, for now I'm really enjoying what I have and it is still burning in.

@macg19 

You bring up an important point about kind of sound. 

There are many different kinds of sound created by vendors. You may think of them on a continuum from details forward - holographic - sound spectacular to musical - focused on exact reproduction of natural musical sound. Of course many vendors sit in different positions on this continuum. 

So for instance companies like dCs, Nagra, Burmeister, Roland and Wilson sit on the former side and Conrad Johnson, Audio Research, Cary, Sonus Faber sit on the later. Pass actually has an offering on both sides with X series amps on the detailed side and XA on the musical side. 

To me sound spectaculars are fun to listen to... but not the sound I want to own and listen to daily. I want musical, where my system gets out of the way and completely involves me in the music instead of compelling me to listen to the system. 

You can mix pieces and end up with hybrid systems. But, it is best to know what you are looking for and shop among the products intent on providing the sound you are looking for, otherwise it can be a real struggle. 

A technology can evolve by itself electronicacally  this evolution may be independent of audible positive evaluation...

 

 My low cost old NOS Dac TDA 1543 SPS is so good i failed to upgrade it with a Douk Q11, a low cost dac... ( my French Nos SPS dac suddenly stopped working but   happily  i repaired it after ordering the Douk)

 

The technology of the Douk is more sophisticated though than the minimalistic French battery dac...

 

But in term of S.Q. on all acoustics factors the TDA 1543  win on all front in a so evident manner i was shocked...

 My system is low cost but very good, i cannot pay 600 bucks for a new dac in a system which value  300 bucks...

I lost 150 bucks on this Douk Q11, listening everyone raving about his good sound...

Reviewers, most of them, if honest  had no idea what is a good sound (acoustically ) or they sold at all cost what any company ask them to sold...

 

I know how a good dac must  sound through a controlled room with an optimized system...

 

 I had another chinese dac (Hidizs) which sound very well this one for my main headphone system with the TOP K340 very picky headphone which need a very clean dac not a warmer one as the SPS NOS TDA 1543...

 

I will test My K3340 soon again with  my repaired SPS French NOS dac versus the Hidizs dac i like a lot...

 

i heard an immediate difference in my system with all the dacs i bought ...

If someone dont hear a difference his system is acoustically problematic...

Or there is not much difference when we  compare two high end dac, near transparency perfection  on a high end system in a dedicated acoustic room.,.The difference here will be minimal...

 

But the differences between my SPS TDA 1543 and the Douk Q11 is the difference between night and day...

I know the  American Geshelli would be better but it will cost me more than my system price +tariffs...

 

 

 

I've had the Lab 12 for three years.  It's a great sounding DAC.   

https://pt.audio/2023/03/12/lab12-dac1-review/

It's been on their best of digital the last few years.  

 

 

@oddiofyl Thanks for the link, interesting review. 
Regarding the topic of this thread, I only own one stand-alone DAC, the venerable Yggdrasil in it’s latest incarnation (although I upgraded from the Garage Sale version) under the $3,000 USD, but, as I understand it, an R2R design which employs an AKM chip. Schiit calls it a ‘Multibit’ design, whatever that means, and it’s definitely not a Delta-Sigma according to the designers. It sounds clear and neutral in my opinion, and the sound stage has definitely improved over the original design. I also have an ESS Chip set in my Oppo 105 Darbee, dual Burr-Brown in my McIntosh 550 SACD player, and a 1741 in an old VCR/DVD player. But I think my latest acquisition, an Auralic Altair has them all beat. I listened to Miles Davis ‘Kind of Blue’ on vinyl today through the Altair’s phono stage, and was utterly transported. Of course, the signal path, in this case, did not pass through the DAC. I’m going to have to hook up my Madrigal PT-1 CD transport and report back. :-)

Its not just the Sigma Delta DAC chip. Most cheaper DAC's under 3k use the same 3-4 op-amps for the output stage, and the same 3-4 onboard power regulators.

So this contributes to them all sounding the same as well.

The sound difference between a Topping D90 and Denafrips 12th was quite obvious.   If a system sounds crappy, not set up right, then yeah, they all sound the same.  I saw all the science reasoning but real world listening is another thing

Normally there is a 4-1 ratio or more between parts,R&D and overhead ,dealer markup , at this price point there is limitations in parts quality ,fancy cases when you start getting near $6k or up then much more monies can be dedicated to bigger better power supplies parts quality ,much better clocks implementation of the dac chips ,casework and many other technical features. Itis a clear step up in resolution ,sound staging  and realism.

I went from a $300 Geshelli Labs J2 to a $1300 Denafrips Ares 15th. The sound was completely different. 

I went from a $15k DAC to the $2800 Schitt Yggdrasil+ OG. Sold the $15k DAC immediately and got great speakers with that money.

The concept of glare is trickly to address. Sometimes you get a veiled sound that does not have glare and is considered musical. However, that does not work for me since I find that sound too rolled off.

Staying with the Schitt DACs the Yggi+ LIM is veiled and considered musical. In a non-bright setup, it had to go. I converted that to the Yggi+ MIB which is not as veiled and has no glare either, yet it was not at the pantheon of the clean sounding OG.

These Yggi+’s are all $2-3k DACs and I am comparing them to $15-$20k DACs. The warm musical DACs come across to me as rolled off.

The Mola Mola Tambaqui is similar to the OG I have.

BTW - a new Schitt DAC called the Byggi+ is coming out in Aug. I have already put my money down to convert the MIB to the Byggi. The DAC designer at Schitt, Mike Moffet, seems to have some DAC genius in him.

 

 

I tried using an inexpensive DAC through my BlueSound Node 2I and it sounded better played just through the BlueSound.

I agree—Bluesound’s offerings didn’t truly impress many reviewer until the $650 Node X. Nevertheless, it was soon outperformed by its more affordable sibling, the Node Nano ($299–$380), offering smoother sound and robust streaming features in a compact design. Eventually, the $1,200 Node Icon surpassed both. 

As for how it compares with its competitors, I’ll leave that for you to determine through your own due diligence.

Not everyone can hear the differences, but filters do have an impact on the quality of analog to digital conversion. Most DS DACs below $3k allow the user to select from among several filters. The Hybrid Fast filter has virtually no pre-ringing and usually sounds the best to me.

Here's what the ESS specs show:

This agrees with my own measurements (step and impulse) from the Topping D90SE:

Virtually no pre-ringing and minimal post-ringing. If folks are hearing "digital glare" from this filter and implementation, there's something else going on in their system. Could be simple, like an impedance mismatch between DAC and amplifier or they are just accustomed to more veiled sources.

incorrigable   I’m using the DAC onboard my Peachtree PreDac and I like it. There’s a handful of DAC chip manufacturers everybody uses. It is not cutting edge technology.

I agree. My WT bdp-95 (modded Oppo bdp-95) is 16 years old tech and sound better than everything new regardless of price. I have Chord Hugo2 and topping D50 DACs and I modded them with my best. And still my WT bdp-95 is way better than Hugo2 and D50 DACs. The good audio sound isn’t by the technology. To me, the new technology is for mostly removing the irritating reproduced sounds - not about music. I know this because I know how to make the closest to the original music reproduction audio. Alex/Wavetouch audio

https://youtu.be/6_Pd65RVCR4?si=Pi7cV_24SPwssRf8