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

The Haas precedence effect is one of the guiding principle in applied acoustics at all scale for Hall acoustics and as in our smaller room...We must takes it into account to adress the reflections points roles...

I cannot add anything to your post with which i concur...

 

It is proven that human audition beat the Fourier uncertainty  principle limit or the Gabor limit because Human hearing extract information working in his own non linear time domain... Then you are right... Timbre is way more than just a "color" or a taste but a mirror of the way ears/brain create music and extract  objective information from the vibrating sound source.

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

 I also confirm that your idea about dac are mine too even if i had less experience with different dac design than you...

@mahgister 

Absolutely agree about human hearing complexity. I am utterly convinced we hear sound as a complex interpreted amalgam of the different responses at both our ears analyzed over a short period of time. This is called the Haas effect - that the Haas effect exists is absolute proof we do NOT hear the transient instantaneous signal - we hear a processed result of some kind of analysis of approximately 40 milliseconds of sound - almost an eternity when you really think about it relative to a “transient”.

I believe the differences we hear in modulators and filters for digital upsampling are almost entirely due to the equiripple in the pass band that creates echos in the time domain. Engineers believe that a tiny ripple at 70 db below the noise floor isn’t audible but they are forgetting that this ripple is across the entire frequency domain and leads to a highly correlated pre and post echo not random noise. And our ears brain are super sophisticated at locating sound origin - ESPECIALLY if the echo is occurring across the entire frequency domain (which is the case with equiripple from digital processing)  - the entire original source sound is echoed exactly at a low level and we hear it - it directly affects timbre and soundstage.

 

 

@mahgister 

Absolutely agree about human hearing complexity. I am utterly convinced we hear sound as a complex interpreted amalgam of the different responses at both our ears analyzed over a short period of time. This is called the Haas effect - that the Haas effect exists is absolute proof we do NOT hear the transient instantaneous signal - we hear a processed result of some kind of analysis of approximately 40 milliseconds of sound - almost an eternity when you really think about it relative to a “transient”.

I believe the differences we hear in modulators and filters for digital upsampling are almost entirely due to the equiripple in the pass band that creates echos in the time domain. Engineers believe that a tiny ripple at 70 db below the noise floor isn’t audible but they are forgetting that this ripple is across the entire frequency domain and leads to a highly correlated pre and post echo not random noise. And our ears brain are super sophisticated at locating sound origin - ESPECIALLY if the echo is occurring across the entire frequency domain (which is the case with equiripple from digital processing)  - the entire original source sound is echoed exactly at a low level and we hear it - it directly affects timbre and soundstage.

 

 

@acman3 thanks for your nice comment agreed it is a special Dac. And I agree with larryi that sound quality over everything. And chips aside both analog output stages and power supply matter just as much if not more than whether a Dac is DS or R2R.

The human hearing cannot be understood by modeling it with a set of Fourier maps and calling it job done...

It is way more complex...

This is why the measures set of a dac is not telling all the tale and why you are right...

 

 Among the very best sounding DACs, to me, are Audio Note DACs that measure spectacularly poorly.

 

While I am interested in the debate about different technologies, and why various approaches are superior or measure better, in the end, I make choices based on what sounds good to me, and that almost never correlates with measurements.  Among the very best sounding DACs, to me, are Audio Note DACs that measure spectacularly poorly.  Yet, they sound relaxed and natural and deliver a “saturated” sound, not sound that seems stripped of harmonics.  Am I liking resonance/ringing?  Perhaps, but I don’t care.  
 

What I own is not a tube DAC, but it is one whose sound I like.  It is the DAC built into the Naim ND555 server.  It delivers a rich sound for solid state.

All this typing and not a single word towards the analogue amp in every DAC that also has a huge impact on sound 🙄 (or power supply, etc). 
 

Your “theory” is myopic and doesn’t show you have really done listening. 

@jrareform 

I stream Tidal as well as 6 Terabytes of personal CD collection using Roon.

Roon can convert to DSD64

I highly recommend investigating on the fly upsampling to DSD on a PC and feeding that to a good DAC with true one bit conversion (avoid chip-based DACs unless the upsampling processing path can be avoided - for example all ESS have their characteristic glare due to forced internal upsampling on their chips)   - the results can be mind boggling.

@shadorne thank you for this info!  I had the Gustard R26 for a while and it was a nice sounding unit so I am interested in other technologies from the same group.  I don't currently have a way to run DSD that I know of - I prefer streaming from Tidal than downloading giant files but I am not opposed to running DSD for my favorite stuff.

How does this AH90 do with PCM signals?  I honestly never tried the T+A with DSD files, just streaming Tidal in max quality and was absolutely blown away by albums like Bill Evans live recordings and anything with ambience was just so palpable.

What are your thoughts on running standard files/streaming on this DAC vs the T+A?

@jrareform 

I suggest to look into Audalytic (Gustard) AH90. There is a firmware update to allow it to run DSD Direct. Anecdotal reports are that there are excellent results obtainable if you feed this DSD256 (needs high precision upsampling of source files on a PC with HQPlayer or similar and then feed that data via USB to this DAC). 

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

@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)

@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?

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....

 

 

Not seeing much here that would clearly help me choose a DAC. 

Then there is the issue that many say R2R DACs in the $2K to $3K range are soft sounding and don't have punchy bass, even if they have great natural tone and a nice body to that tone and a deeper soundstage. That often seems to be the main qualifier:  That R2R DACs give a slightly wider and deeper soundstage - if it is in the recording. But others would ask, are they "creating" that or presenting it as an artificial "artifact", and it wasn't really what the recording engineer heard in his headphones? Choose your poison at whatever level of price you are willing to pay. Or go back to analog vinyl and be happy. All engineering design considerations (and the company bean counters) color the sound of all digital devices one way or another. DACs at nearly the same price points often do NOT sound the same. But I think we can all agree that today, that most all do sound much better than even 10 years ago, so we have that going for us. 

But that is the one thing no audio electrical engineer has explained: Why do the old school R2R ladder DACs have this "soundstage" and "natural tone" compared to similarly priced "chip based" DACs? I'm not arguing that you can't hear it, just curious as to the why.  And if they really are so much better, then why doesn't someone like PS Audio have an R2R DAC in their lineup, instead of focusing on FPGA chip-based ones?  I mean, tariffs aside, they could set up a communist Chinese manufacturing site and use cheap labor to make them just as easily as Denafrips or Holo Audio if they wanted. 

@cundare2 

Holo May KTE measures superbly

https://www.stereophile.com/content/holoaudio-may-level-3-da-processor-measurements

But then again, almost every DAC does because every designer or chip designer uses Precision Analyzers. Listeners seem to rate this DAC very highly and there seems to be a growing community of R2R proponents  since 10 years or more.
 

The sad truth is that Precision Analyzers rely on frequency analysis and large windows of analysis to achieve their precision. And a pre or post-echo will not be detected at all because it’s just time domain distortion - it’s the exact audio signal at much lower level delayed or earlier than the main signal. (A true echo and a completely different animal from pre- or post-ringing at the Gibbs single frequency tone)
 

It is NOT so much the shape of the upsampling filter (smooth etc) that affects what we hear but the equiripple added to pass-band. Anyone who thinks a very slight roll off at 15-18 KHz on a smooth filter is going to change much is mistaken. It doesn’t. What changes is the equiripple which is well audible as a pre or post echo that our hearing detects as fatiguing digital glare and makes stereoscopic interpretation (imaging/soundstage) more laborious and tiring (it’s why we tire of digital more quickly than analog)

I’ll have to check out that Holo DAC.  Sounds interesting.  Any technical papers you’re aware of that detail what’s under the hood?

One thing that continues to amaze me is the lack of T+A awareness among street-level audiophiles.  See, e.g., this thread itself.  One reason might be T+A’s low profile at American shows.  I was speaking to a colleague who visited two AXPONA booths that featured T+A gear last month, and he reported that neither setup produced SQ anywhere near what I hear at home from my T+A integrated, which is the sole source driving a pair of Harbeths through mid-fi (like $1K) cables.

@cundare2 

 

T+A, one of Europe’s ’s most highly regarded manufacturers of high-end DACs (well-known on the continent and now starting to establish a rep in the US) sells sophisticated $5-9000 dual-path DACs that process PCM with Delta-Sigma circuitry, but run DSD through an independent bespoke R2R DAC. 

T+A D200 DAC is incredible. I was wildly lucky to get one. It does have separate PCM (using a Burr Brown chip) and a discrete DS DAC that accepts DSD up to 1024. The DSD side of the DAC runs without upsampling and is the best aspect of this DAC, although PCM sounds pretty good. 
 

Another, similarly priced DAC is the Holo May KTE - this one supports DSD and NOS via an R2R DAC. It is equally highly regarded as the T+A D200. 
 

Both overcome the upsampling limitations of the short tap filters of a typical chip-based DS DAC.

As mentioned, elsewhere in this thread, not all filters in DAC chips are optimized by Parks-Mcllelan - yet this approach yields the best specs - so it’s been almost a standard approach for years. However even those filters without this design will suffer from equiripple. Even “smooth” filters have equiripple. Only NOS R2R or 1 million+ taps upsampling  (like Chord Dave) or super high precision conversion of PCM to high rate DSD on a computer (also using high number of taps) can sufficiently reduce pass-band equiripple and the echoes it generates. Only R2R can do so and not introduce latency.

 

 

My goodness. A $1k DAC super duper awesome. The Schiit Modi 3 for $100 does good for me compared to my Gustard X26pro.  $3K must have something special.

I went from a $300 Geshelli Labs J2 to a $1300 Denafrips Ares 15th. The sound was completely different. 

@halfastro Is that Ares better than the J2 or just "different"?

@dsnyder0cnn 

 

Unfortunately, the ESS chips all have pass-band equiripple just like other DS upsampling chips. This results in echoes (exact copy of entire audio at lower level just like a reflection)

Ringing is not the same as echo.

Ringing is a Gibbs phenomenon and mathematically it occurs at the corner frequency of the filter - unless you can hear 21KHz (typical corner) then pre or post ringing will be inaudible anyway. In truth it should not be on any digital audio mastered file/CD because those frequencies above 20 KHz should have been filtered out prior to A to D.

The problem with any filter other than a sharp linear phase at 21KHz is that 

1) It changes the phase of high frequencies compared to low frequencies which changes the timbre.

2) any smooth filter with slow roll off can be leaky and frequencies above nyquist can get through, resulting in intermodulation distortion.

This is just from a technical perspective. Of course what sounds better to the listener trumps everything else.

 

Although Parks-McClellan-type FIR filters are common in delta-sigma DACs, they are not universally required, and many high-end or professional models intentionally avoid them. Also, several non-R2R DACs avoid using Parks-McClellan FIR filters by employing alternative filtering strategies that prioritize time-domain performance and minimize pre-echo. Chord Electronics uses custom FPGA-based designs in models like the Hugo 2 and DAVE, implementing long-tap minimum-phase WTA filters that do not rely on standard FIR algorithms such as Parks-McClellan. RME’s ADI-2 DAC FS, built on a delta-sigma architecture, offers user-selectable filter modes including minimum-phase and NOS-like options, which bypass symmetrical linear-phase FIR filters. Schiit’s Multibit DACs, like the Bifrost 2/64 and Yggdrasil, employ a proprietary DSP approach known as the "MegaComboBurrito" filter, specifically designed to avoid the pre-ringing associated with linear-phase FIR filters. PS Audio’s DirectStream DAC uses an FPGA-based delta-sigma architecture with fully custom up-sampling and filtering, steering clear of the Parks-McClellan method. Similarly, the Benchmark DAC3, based on the ESS Sabre chip, which eliminates symmetrical pre-ringing behavior. Not entirely sure at this moment how the mentioned units’ relate to your $3000 price limit.

P.S. No idea why I get my post doubled here.

Although Parks-McClellan-type FIR filters are common in delta-sigma DACs, they are not universally required, and many high-end or professional models intentionally avoid them. Also, several non-R2R DACs avoid using Parks-McClellan FIR filters by employing alternative filtering strategies that prioritize time-domain performance and minimize pre-echo. Chord Electronics uses custom FPGA-based designs in models like the Hugo 2 and DAVE, implementing long-tap minimum-phase WTA filters that do not rely on standard FIR algorithms such as Parks-McClellan. RME’s ADI-2 DAC FS, built on a delta-sigma architecture, offers user-selectable filter modes including minimum-phase and NOS-like options, which bypass symmetrical linear-phase FIR filters. Schiit’s Multibit DACs, like the Bifrost 2/64 and Yggdrasil, employ a proprietary DSP approach known as the "MegaComboBurrito" filter, specifically designed to avoid the pre-ringing associated with linear-phase FIR filters. PS Audio’s DirectStream DAC uses an FPGA-based delta-sigma architecture with fully custom up-sampling and filtering, steering clear of the Parks-McClellan method. Similarly, the Benchmark DAC3, based on the ESS Sabre chip, which eliminates symmetrical pre-ringing behavior. Not entirely sure at this moment how the mentioned units' relate to your $3000 price limit.

Although Parks-McClellan-type FIR filters are common in delta-sigma DACs, they are not universally required, and many high-end or professional models intentionally avoid them. Also, several non-R2R DACs avoid using Parks-McClellan FIR filters by employing alternative filtering strategies that prioritize time-domain performance and minimize pre-echo. Chord Electronics uses custom FPGA-based designs in models like the Hugo 2 and DAVE, implementing long-tap minimum-phase WTA filters that do not rely on standard FIR algorithms such as Parks-McClellan. RME’s ADI-2 DAC FS, built on a delta-sigma architecture, offers user-selectable filter modes including minimum-phase and NOS-like options, which bypass symmetrical linear-phase FIR filters. Schiit’s Multibit DACs, like the Bifrost 2/64 and Yggdrasil, employ a proprietary DSP approach known as the "MegaComboBurrito" filter, specifically designed to avoid the pre-ringing associated with linear-phase FIR filters. PS Audio’s DirectStream DAC uses an FPGA-based delta-sigma architecture with fully custom up-sampling and filtering, steering clear of the Parks-McClellan method. Similarly, the Benchmark DAC3, based on the ESS Sabre chip, which eliminates symmetrical pre-ringing behavior. Not entirely sure at this moment how the mentioned units' relate to your $3000 price limit.

+1 @curthuff  T+A highly qualified seasoned engineers creating solid dependable high value components - consistently performs above their price points

"Yes - exactly what you said 100%. ‘Tend not to sound as natural” - exactly what I meant" ... "The Gustard R26 is an R2R DAC and it should definitely sound more natural than the Topping D90."

It's important to note that the concept of "natural" sound is subjective and can vary based on individual preferences and experiences. Some listeners may equate naturalness with warmth and smoothness, while others may associate it with accuracy and detail. My preference for a sound that closely mirrors live performances, capturing the true character of instruments like the violin, is a valid and common perspective among audiophiles. 

The OP raises a lot of detail that may indeed be relevant. But as is the case so often in audiophilia, the issue is not whether an effect merely exists, but whether it’s significant enough to be audible. IOW, an argument like this is credible only if it establishes quantitative, not merely qualitative, support. 

I realize that that’s not easy in our field, where even testing methodologies are hotly contested. Having said that, I do offer a counterexample that may add another wrinkle to the issue. I realize that I’m merely making an inference. But it is an inference that is worth considering and is apparently supported by empirical data generated by some of the world’s most respected DAC designers.

T+A, one of Europe's ’s most highly regarded manufacturers of high-end DACs (well-known on the continent and now starting to establish a rep in the US) sells sophisticated $5-9000 dual-path DACs that process PCM with Delta-Sigma circuitry, but run DSD through an independent bespoke R2R DAC. 

The only reason I can think of for this complex design is that T+A engineers confirmed that, within the context of their design methodologies, each topology produced better results with one type of content. I doubt that this solution was adopted for reasons of cost or complexity. 

That suggests that the DS v. R2R controversy can’t be resolved conclusively by focusing on one, or even just a few, isolated factors. That is, "R2R is better across-the-board than DS in a certain price range." is too reductive, too conclusory, too Wikipedia/ChatGPT, to make me run out and replace my T+A (which, FWIW, is the best four-figure DAC I’ve heard. Check out Stereophile’s R 2500 R review, in which Tom Fine compares a stripped-down embedded version against his $20K reference DAC.)

Nonetheless, the OP does raise interesting issues. Interesting enough, in fact, to make me want to go out and further research the topic. Thanks for starting this thread.

I completely concur with your experience...

I used an old NOS dac which is better than many costlier dac with new technology...

I tried and failed to upgrade my dac in the price category and the new product was completely artificial and bad sound...Even couple with a good power supply...

As you said it well :

I agree. My WT bdp-95 (modded Oppo bdp-95) is 16 years old tech and sound better than everything new regardless of price. I have Chord Hugo2 and topping D50 DACs and I modded them with my best. And still my WT bdp-95 is way better than Hugo2 and D50 DACs. The good audio sound isn’t by the technology. To me, the new technology is for mostly removing the irritating reproduced sounds - not about music. I know this because I know how to make the closest to the original music reproduction audio. Alex/Wavetouch audio

 

@dsnyder0cnn  I believe the ESS ES9028PRO chip includes linear-phase filters (LPFs) as well. While LPFs can introduce pre-ringing artifacts, they maintain phase accuracy across all frequencies. In contrast, minimum-phase filters (MPFs) minimize or eliminate pre-ringing by allowing phase shifts, which can affect phase accuracy. This presents a trade-off between temporal precision and phase linearity. Without empirical data, it’s challenging to determine which effect—pre-ringing or phase distortion—has a more significant impact on perceived sound quality within the limits of human hearing. Have you experimented with LPFs in your listening tests? 

Not just the Digital to Analog conversion that makes a difference but also how the Analog output of the DAC is implemented. IMHO up sampling contributes to a less transparent digital sound. Probably why most Ladder DACs sound more analog like. 

incorrigable   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.

I agree. My WT bdp-95 (modded Oppo bdp-95) is 16 years old tech and sound better than everything new regardless of price. I have Chord Hugo2 and topping D50 DACs and I modded them with my best. And still my WT bdp-95 is way better than Hugo2 and D50 DACs. The good audio sound isn’t by the technology. To me, the new technology is for mostly removing the irritating reproduced sounds - not about music. I know this because I know how to make the closest to the original music reproduction audio. Alex/Wavetouch audio

https://youtu.be/6_Pd65RVCR4?si=Pi7cV_24SPwssRf8

Not everyone can hear the differences, but filters do have an impact on the quality of analog to digital conversion. Most DS DACs below $3k allow the user to select from among several filters. The Hybrid Fast filter has virtually no pre-ringing and usually sounds the best to me.

Here's what the ESS specs show:

This agrees with my own measurements (step and impulse) from the Topping D90SE:

Virtually no pre-ringing and minimal post-ringing. If folks are hearing "digital glare" from this filter and implementation, there's something else going on in their system. Could be simple, like an impedance mismatch between DAC and amplifier or they are just accustomed to more veiled sources.

I agree—Bluesound’s offerings didn’t truly impress many reviewer until the $650 Node X. Nevertheless, it was soon outperformed by its more affordable sibling, the Node Nano ($299–$380), offering smoother sound and robust streaming features in a compact design. Eventually, the $1,200 Node Icon surpassed both. 

As for how it compares with its competitors, I’ll leave that for you to determine through your own due diligence.

I tried using an inexpensive DAC through my BlueSound Node 2I and it sounded better played just through the BlueSound.

I went from a $15k DAC to the $2800 Schitt Yggdrasil+ OG. Sold the $15k DAC immediately and got great speakers with that money.

The concept of glare is trickly to address. Sometimes you get a veiled sound that does not have glare and is considered musical. However, that does not work for me since I find that sound too rolled off.

Staying with the Schitt DACs the Yggi+ LIM is veiled and considered musical. In a non-bright setup, it had to go. I converted that to the Yggi+ MIB which is not as veiled and has no glare either, yet it was not at the pantheon of the clean sounding OG.

These Yggi+’s are all $2-3k DACs and I am comparing them to $15-$20k DACs. The warm musical DACs come across to me as rolled off.

The Mola Mola Tambaqui is similar to the OG I have.

BTW - a new Schitt DAC called the Byggi+ is coming out in Aug. I have already put my money down to convert the MIB to the Byggi. The DAC designer at Schitt, Mike Moffet, seems to have some DAC genius in him.

 

 

I went from a $300 Geshelli Labs J2 to a $1300 Denafrips Ares 15th. The sound was completely different. 

Normally there is a 4-1 ratio or more between parts,R&D and overhead ,dealer markup , at this price point there is limitations in parts quality ,fancy cases when you start getting near $6k or up then much more monies can be dedicated to bigger better power supplies parts quality ,much better clocks implementation of the dac chips ,casework and many other technical features. Itis a clear step up in resolution ,sound staging  and realism.

The sound difference between a Topping D90 and Denafrips 12th was quite obvious.   If a system sounds crappy, not set up right, then yeah, they all sound the same.  I saw all the science reasoning but real world listening is another thing

Its not just the Sigma Delta DAC chip. Most cheaper DAC's under 3k use the same 3-4 op-amps for the output stage, and the same 3-4 onboard power regulators.

So this contributes to them all sounding the same as well.

@oddiofyl Thanks for the link, interesting review. 
Regarding the topic of this thread, I only own one stand-alone DAC, the venerable Yggdrasil in it’s latest incarnation (although I upgraded from the Garage Sale version) under the $3,000 USD, but, as I understand it, an R2R design which employs an AKM chip. Schiit calls it a ‘Multibit’ design, whatever that means, and it’s definitely not a Delta-Sigma according to the designers. It sounds clear and neutral in my opinion, and the sound stage has definitely improved over the original design. I also have an ESS Chip set in my Oppo 105 Darbee, dual Burr-Brown in my McIntosh 550 SACD player, and a 1741 in an old VCR/DVD player. But I think my latest acquisition, an Auralic Altair has them all beat. I listened to Miles Davis ‘Kind of Blue’ on vinyl today through the Altair’s phono stage, and was utterly transported. Of course, the signal path, in this case, did not pass through the DAC. I’m going to have to hook up my Madrigal PT-1 CD transport and report back. :-)

I've had the Lab 12 for three years.  It's a great sounding DAC.   

https://pt.audio/2023/03/12/lab12-dac1-review/

It's been on their best of digital the last few years.  

 

 

A technology can evolve by itself electronicacally  this evolution may be independent of audible positive evaluation...

 

 My low cost old NOS Dac TDA 1543 SPS is so good i failed to upgrade it with a Douk Q11, a low cost dac... ( my French Nos SPS dac suddenly stopped working but   happily  i repaired it after ordering the Douk)

 

The technology of the Douk is more sophisticated though than the minimalistic French battery dac...

 

But in term of S.Q. on all acoustics factors the TDA 1543  win on all front in a so evident manner i was shocked...

 My system is low cost but very good, i cannot pay 600 bucks for a new dac in a system which value  300 bucks...

I lost 150 bucks on this Douk Q11, listening everyone raving about his good sound...

Reviewers, most of them, if honest  had no idea what is a good sound (acoustically ) or they sold at all cost what any company ask them to sold...

 

I know how a good dac must  sound through a controlled room with an optimized system...

 

 I had another chinese dac (Hidizs) which sound very well this one for my main headphone system with the TOP K340 very picky headphone which need a very clean dac not a warmer one as the SPS NOS TDA 1543...

 

I will test My K3340 soon again with  my repaired SPS French NOS dac versus the Hidizs dac i like a lot...

 

i heard an immediate difference in my system with all the dacs i bought ...

If someone dont hear a difference his system is acoustically problematic...

Or there is not much difference when we  compare two high end dac, near transparency perfection  on a high end system in a dedicated acoustic room.,.The difference here will be minimal...

 

But the differences between my SPS TDA 1543 and the Douk Q11 is the difference between night and day...

I know the  American Geshelli would be better but it will cost me more than my system price +tariffs...

 

 

 

@macg19 

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.

Your "theory" doesn't match my experience.  I've yet to hear two DACs that sound identical at any price point.

Interesting…I recently watched a review of the LAB 12 reference NOS Tube DAC and was intrigued.

@macg19 

The Burr Brown chip is my preferred Delta Sigma chip - smooth and detailed. That said it still doesn’t image quite as well as a NOS DAC.