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

After my last adventure trusting reviewers who has no idea about a "natural organic timbre sound" who sell dac which are  artificial sounding, i will stuck to my SPS dac (i succeeded to repair)...

By the way all these people selling dac not one said that a dac must be well grounded to sound the best, not one...

 

 By the way i had seen grounding box sold for many thousand bucks...

I created mine for peanuts and total success...

They sell product and do not inform most of the times....

 

 

@shadorne 

I started out as a test engineer in the late 1970s and remember using, I think it was called, an Audio Precision System One, the standard high-end signal analyzer at the time, and probably the predecessor of the type of device you’re referring to as  Precision Analyzer products.

I remember that even back then, those analyzers could operate in both the frequency and time domain.  I even remember using our System One to perform Fourier transforms.

So I’m not sure about the "sad truth" you cite re:Precision Analyzer’s current product line operating in only the fr domain.  I could certainly make the kind of measurements you describe with a pro signal analyzer 50 years ago.  In fact, I half-remember someone like Atkinson routinely publishing such measurements years ago in the slick audiophile press (although I may be misremembering after all this time).

To be clear: I’m not trying to start a debate.  Just hoping to learn something about the current state of an art (of great interest to me) that I haven’t followed since retiring.

Hey, thanks for the Holo/Stereophile link.  I sorta recall reading that piece years ago, but will take another look, given the new context of this thread.  Not sure how much of the articles conclusions still hold up half a decade later, but I'll check it out.

 

@mapman  Don’t hate me, but if you’re looking to get defiitive buying recommendations from an authoritative source, IMHO, Audiogon is not the place.  The value of this thread, e.g., is its discussion of under-the-hood D/A tech, which as I’m sure you know, doesn’t necessarily tell you anything definitive about SQ.  The idea, I think, is that, if this thread increases your understanding of a technical issue, you’ll be able to ask more educated questions when you go shopping.  IMHO, that’s a heckuva lot more valuable than plowing through dozens of "I really like this DAC!" messages from strangers who use a product with systems, rooms, cables, and power that may be nothing like yours.  

Over the years, I’ve found that the real value of fora like Audiogon -- other than providing a platform for masturbatory proclamations of conclusory opinions -- is more along the lines of "Teach a man to fish...".  My 2c.

Jeez, wouldn’t "MPoCO" be a great name for a band?

@cundare2 

 

All I am saying is that most analyzers tend to look at frequency response and do a lot of averaging to get precision.

There are some capabilities to plot time domain signals like square wave or impulse response but largely the focus is towards applying known signals at input and measuring output and comparing output to input.

An echo is not going to show up as distortion in any measurements - after all it is exactly like the input arriving early or delayed at much lower signal level.

We don’t even have guidelines for phase distortion except that less than 2 msec is important and smooth gradual changes in phase are preferred - though obviously phase has to affect timbre no matter how small and phase distortion is added by guitarists to get bigger sound (it makes locating the sound that much harder)

I'd love to hear if anyone that is a fan of the T+A D200 in their system likes a comparable DAC in the sub $5k or $3k range.  Hungry for that sound but don't wanna pay the big bucks nah mean?  K thread hijack over