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


I have a theory as to why all modern DACs essentially sound so similar these days, making it difficult to differentiate between them. IMO modern Delta Sigma chips have homogenized DACs into close to the same sound, making it very easy to take any DAC under $3000 and find it will sound good as another.

What I have discovered is that ladder R2R DACs and fully discrete DSD DAC’s are creating a better soundstage and less digital “glare”. An observation supported by countless others - nothing new. Anything with a Delta Sigma chip-based DAC that does oversampling will have less soundstage and more glare.

Nothing new so far - most of you will likely agree that that the above is a common consensus but here is the new bit, so read on if you are curious…

The dissatisfaction with this sound has led to a band-aid solution where Delta Sigma DAC manufacturers now offer a plethora of filters from sharp to smooth, linear phase to minimum phase. All of this is hand waving nonsense that offers a band aid to what is an absolutely fundamental design issue.

FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN ISSUE:

All oversampling with Delta Sigma offers superb measured spec at very low cost - it’s the logical choice for anyone using Precision test equipment to design a DAC. Typical chip filters use about 60 taps in their filters. They also ALL use Parks-McLellan filter designs (which has best “spec” and the short tap length is required for low-latency and easy processing). The result is a filter that has equiripple through the entire pass band. Mathematically it is a fact that an equiripple in the frequency domain equates to two echoes in the time domain - a pre-echo and post-echo. The “digital glare” heard is because of these echoes, likely the pre-echo is most audible. Our ears brain are processing the echos because unlike noise they are a complete reflection of the entire audio signal - low in level but lasting long enough to be detected by our acuity to locate the source of a sound. It is the same reason our speakers sound and image much better when moved out into the room and away from any close proximity to reflective surfaces. Despite these echoes being 60 db down from the primary signal, my listening sessions have convinced me of their audibility, particularly the echoes caused by the first 2x upsampling for 44.1 Redbook data (less so for higher resolution files).

CONCLUSION

Those who are trying MQA and various filters with typical Delta Sigma DAC’s are using band aids. A growing number of critical listeners have discovered that ladder R2R sounds better than typical DS DACs or, alternatively, that high precision conversion to DSD256 on a computer fed to a true one-bit discrete Delta Sigma converter (no chip) sounds equally great too. 
 

Basically any conversion that eliminates oversampling/upsampling done on a chip is going to have less digital glare and better soundstage because of this absolutely fundamental design flaw in ALL Delta Sigma DAC chips.


 

shadorne

Showing 1 response by hilde45

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.