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

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.