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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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)
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.
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!!!
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
$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
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!
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
