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

 

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.