2. digital
  3. 187947-21

Good measuring DACs vs.

I recently owned and compared a number of DACs in my system and was particularly interested in the sound of two "perfect measuring" DACs, the Mola Mola Tambaqui and the Benchmark DAC3 HGC. With either of those, it seemed every note came out clearly, cleanly, and accurately, without a hint of distortion. Both have been reviewed by Stereophile, and John Atkinson concluded his review measurements with,

"The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance. I am not surprised HR liked its sound."

and,

"Benchmark’s DAC3 HGC offers state-of-the-art measured performance. All I can say is "Wow!"

So, why is it that neither of these two objectively perfect DACs seem to emotionally engage me to the same level as my Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro, which is an R2R design using (basically antique) AD1862 "Z" chips? How can I not perceive the same levels of body, tone, or dimensionality from two DACs which exhibit "state-of-the-digital-art measured performance" and that really do nothing wrong?

mitch2
carlsbad2's avatar
carlsbad2
1,375 posts
 

@czarivey thanks for agreeing with my post, even though you apparently (or purposely) don't understand it.

czarivey
5,691 posts
 

@carlsbad2 

It does seems more like you apparently (or purposely) don't understand your own post and I kinda clarified that in details.

asctim
434 posts
 

@erik_squires 

Do you buy a painting based on the purity of the oils used??

That's an interesting quote, and I'm not sure how to take it. My first thought is that it's like asking if you buy a piece of equipment just because it uses expensive components. There is something to that. It might be more reliable and last longer. But it won't necessarily measure or sound any better. But it could be that the pallet of oils you are referring to are the measured results themselves. It could be that the DAC measures as it should in every parameter, as the creator intended to give the desired perceptual effect. Or it could be that the measurements that look bad weren't intentional, but were deemed acceptable and were necessarily compromised to get something else right that typically isn't measured because it's more difficult to measure. I suspect the former is more common. Intentional distortion that has a good overall perceptual effect on a lot of listeners with systems at a particular level. 

helomech
1,516 posts
 

I’m one of a minority around here who finds that poor measuring gear is typically less engaging. My only hypothesis is that it’s because I’ve lived with systems, (speakers through to the source) that produced practically zero audible distortion the bass frequencies. 
 

 

 

 

Ag insider logo xs@2x
bruce19
214 posts
 

Truth and beauty are two different things.

More to discover