When Will the DAC Singularity Be Reached?

I think we maybe close to that singularity point. Though a lot of differences in DACs are related to the purposeful coloring of the sound.

and while you’re at it, make sure you have all the mofi records, for the pure, unadulterated digital experience!!! 😂🤣😅

Actually one could as those units are highly praised by vinyl enthusiasts and reviewers for how beautiful it sounds when playing records back through them.

With the SU-R1000, you can pick from a variety of vinyl settings as well as match your favorite 3 cartridges using the "record" provided to level match it to the integrated.

All the best,
Nonoise

@creativepart ,

Better DAC topology, better power supplies, better clocks, better components, better pre and post analog stages and better input types all have a huge impact on what we universally call a DAC. It could be true that all digital to analog converters sound similar (not the same) but that all the other factors mentioned above make up the huge differences in DACs

I am not directing this specifically at you @creativepart as several other people have written this and I frequently see this written.  However, the skeptic in me says if all these things are true, then the results should be easy to demonstrate. Take clocks and jitter. Apparently engineers have quite a handle on how to measure jitter even at the analog output of a DAC. DACs << $1,000, even in our near worthless Canadian dollar have so little jitter we could never hear it. If power supplies are an issue with $1-2,000 DACs, why is there no 60Hz and harmonics in the outputs (or a very very small amount). If the analog stages are no good, why is there no distortion?  I used to accept these things as of course it is better, but the more I learn, the more skeptical I am.  Don't get me wrong, I don't have cheap DACs, but I was prepared to buy what most would consider expensive, tried, listened, and I could not see any value.

Objectivists always see the world in black and white terms. There are no grays, no preferences and no hierarchy of qualities. It tests good - on the tests we apply to the item - so it must be good.

If this thinking was verifiably true everything would be reduced to a single set of measurements and a requirement that everyone agree to this unnatural logic.

@creativepart ,

You are reading into what I wrote what you want to think, not what I said.

Imagine being in a room, the left wall is one shade of blue. The right wall is a different shade of blue. You can see the shades and clearly identify them as different. I now lower the lights. It will get harder and harder for you to tell the two walls are different until at some point you cannot tell that the walls are two different shades. If I keep lowering the light, at some point you will not even be able to clearly identify walls. I could have started with red and green walls and at some point you will not be able to tell they are different colours.

Why do you readily accept a very finite and limiting range for your sight, but insist on an infinite range for your hearing?

I acknowledge DACs can sound different and I even discussed preference in filters. How can you interpret that as black and white and not seeing greys?  I accept, as it is reasonable, that just like there is finite range for our sight, there is finite range for our hearing. For that reasonable reason, I am skeptical that it takes a large sum of money, to make a DAC that exceeds the range of our hearing. If it does, DAC vendors are doing a poor job of proving their case.

What I don't understand is why some are so attached to this idea that to get the basic function right, it must take a lot of money?  Filters, tube output stages, and I am sure many more ways exist to create a differentiated sound. Attractive cases, nice displays, added functionality. So many ways to differentiate your product. Why the need to insist getting the basics right is expensive?