Is Digital Really Improving?

I read many posts here and elsewhere that claim digital is always improving. I also encounter this claim in "professional" reviews. The typical argument is that digital is constantly evolving and therefore, that DAC you bought 3 years ago is already nearing obsoletion.

What's the root of these assertions? Is it subjective sound quality? Measured performance? The fact that they continue marketing allegedly new and better chips?

I recently bought a simple and cheap DAC that's based on very old tech. It's possibly the best DAC I've owned and easily competes with my ESS Sabre-based LM 502CA, though they do have different strengths. I've also noticed a rising trend toward R2R ladder DACs and NOS DACs like the Border Patrol. Many such DACs are based on old tech yet they're receiving rave reviews.

Which leads to the question of measurements, and further, audible measurements. These old-school DACs apparently produce a lot of distortion above 20kHz, but does that really matter? I'd be surprised if 10% in this hobby can hear above 16kHz. Measurements of newer DAC implementations appear very similar in most cases - nearly all posting SNR figures well below the threshold of human hearing. And hasn't the problem of jitter long been solved in all practical sense?

I'm no expert in digital, hence these questions. It just seems to me that practical DAC tech is now as antiquated as just about any other aspect of hi-fi.
DSD, Hi-Res, and MQA have been met with plenty of detractors, so why the continued postulation that digital is constantly improving?

 

its getting more and more refined. Take PS Audio for example, they come out a few time per year with a better software upgrade, schitt "upgrade" their dac every other year with improvements across the board, same with Chord, ect.

R2R is a approach, there's also newer chip dac being designed.

also, more and more designer realize how bad Sabre dac are

measurements when it comes to dac is meaningless, and i mean that in the most positive way, the only way to test a DAC is to listen to it and try it in your system.

 

I do get amused when DACs are described like its cancer research - I hear the "we can do things today we never dreamed of 10 years ago for less then <absurd price>!!!" a lot.

I think the rise of baroque DACs with R2R and tubes has to do with the growing popularity of vinyl and tube amps, people taking a liking to second order harmonics.

I have to agree on measurements. Nothing really measures bad, so measuring a bit higher or lower doesn't mean much. If you want to measure something, measure the cost of the capacitors in the output section, the twists in the power supply, etc.

 

They determine these updates based on their subjective listening tests, measurements, or both? Wouldn't it behoove them to continue marketing updates regardless of actual improvement?

 

Innovation in audio sound quality is a tragically vexed subject. The high-end audiophile mindset is so maniacally invested in an ignore-the-forest-and-look-at-this-gold-plated-tree-I’m-reviewing approach that it actively suppresses authoritative macro coverage of real innovation and implicitly argues all excellence is purely artisanal and luxe-centric rather than rigorously technological. It’s really a Tower of Babel out there if you’re looking for any independent scientific authority on audio innovation that isn’t focused on nastily debunking “myths” or upselling or tribal wrangling or regurgitated press releases. So many things in digital sound have profoundly improved but good luck getting a clear picture of the truth.

 

What's wrong with Sabre?

 

Mine came with the most recent update, but I get the impression some of the updates have been pretty significant changes to the sound. To the extent where it might actually behoove them to eventually decide they've gotten it right vs. having the DAC just sort of randomly change EQ settings once a year. The nature of the FPGA is they can claim better software, but with the hardware never changing, it seems there has to be a ceiling.

 

Yes,no,Maybe! I have heard a lot of DAC's over the years. Newer DSD playback DAC's that play from computer files have really improved over the years. That being said, I still enjoy my 1994 Adcom GDP600 20bit DAC. I also have my PSAudio Link Dac III and use it as well.

 

Nothing. They can be bright in some implementations. I think there is a lot of hair splitting going on and good DACs can be made to sound good or bad depending how much design work and good stuff goes into the final product.

 

My Parasound Halo Integrated DAC has a Sabre chip and is not bright at all. I suppose the implementation on this amplifier was well done.

 

It is getting a lot better. Even records recorded digitally are sounding much better I think. The main problem is albums still being mastered hot.
It is baffling that the newest Elvis Costello album CD was mastered so hot, doesn't make sense cos it's not like he is on top 40 radio.

 

Better take this on over to Archimago's Blog site he'll have PLENTY of justification for ya.....

 

In my opinion audiophiles are becoming more critical of the audible differences between DACs as time goes by and they compare the sound from one to another.
Improvements in digital extraction methods (lowering jitter, asynchronous whatever) are being coupled with better analog circuitry and sometimes tubes to improve the depth, clarity and 3D quality of the tired old redbook CD standard.
Even with all that, the improvements depend on your priorities.
I have some ancient studio DACs by Lucid that are much warmer than several newer designs simply because Lucid put more effort back then into their overall tone.
The new Mytek Brooklyn with MQA sounded technically very interesting and I was all set to investigate one until I read how "cold" they sound, according to several reviewers.
It's tough to know what to do about buying a DAC unless you have actually compared it to a known unit in your own system.
In my case I went with a Bryston DAC and a Benchmark DAC as I appreciate their clarity and ability to precisely place instruments in space.
The Bryston is slightly less fleshed out and 3 dimensional sounding than I would wish however but I try to ignore that fact and appreciate what it does well instead of carping over what it lacks.
That's life.
Makes this forum invaluable as we can all share our experiences.

 

Yes
The technology that was previously extremely expensive has now filtered down to become hugely more affordable.
Suppliers have a greater understanding of how to manipulate the various digital data streams and the continuing availability of ever more powerful and cheaper processors
allows the manufacturers greater freedom to manipulate and clean the analogue output
Agree re the generally sub par ESS DAC chip implementation but the fan boys love them (Or their gear cant resolve the glassiness_ )

The OP mentioned most here wont be able to hear above 16KHZ - agree in principal. But this statement deceives and misleads when discussing music.
Nothing apart from electronica makes a pure tone at a single frequency - there are always harmonics.
Music is a complex mix of tones delivered simultaneously - it is this mix of tones that makes music enjoyable.
If all the 16khz plus signals are filtered off the music may seem flat.

Please disregard my last paragraph if you are n the habit of or regularly enjoy listening to a single frequency sine wave or similar.

 

I recently added a Cambridge DacMagic Plus and I can attest to a significant improvement in sound from my NAD C542 CD player (12 years old). Using the digital output from the CD player to the DAC (with preamp mode disabled) and feeding it to my SPL Phonitor headphone amp = major improvement.

 

DAC's are improving but quality DAC's from the 90s are still very very good. When I recently compared a 90s meridian dac203 to my 2010 Bryston sp2 to a 2016 emotiva and finally a 2018 benchmark, I found the benchmark just barely maybe beat my 2008 bryston, the bryston and the meridian were tied for second with one being a little more euphoric and the other a hair clearer (I could live with either) and the emotiva coming in last being just a little better than the built in dac of my mac mini.

 

it's fine the way it is...

 

Placebo effect to sell more product to audiophiles, whom are never happy.

 

Haven't perused his blog in a while. This was an interesting post on the topic:
Archimago's Musings: NOS vs. Digital Filtering DACs: Exploring filtering turned off, implications, fidelity and subjective audibility. (Recent BorderPatrol DAC chatter...)

He basically concludes NOS DACs based on the old Phillips chips are junk, and the euphoric distortions are what make them preferable to some.

My Pro-Ject DAC based on a quad of 1543s produces the tightest, most well-defined bass of any DAC I've had through my system. I wonder how he'd explain that one.

 

I think the means to playback digital has improved tremendously in the last three years. You can get great sound from a relatively expensive DAC.

My problem is with the production and mastering. Kacey Musgraves new album is good on vinyl, but the cd will make your ears bleed. Mitski's new album is the same way.

 

That all depends on a given manufacture. In PS Audio's case Ted Smith is always aiming to come up with some new ways to optimize his FPGA code inside of the Direct Stream DACs so as to things such as lower the internal switching noise inside of the FPGA, or to lower the internal jitter inside of the FPGA, or to tweak the filter algorithms to have even better phase response, etc.

Some of these improvements have indeed been measurable, while others show only demonstrated theoretical improvements inside of the FPGA when modeled inside of programs like SPICE, but can't actually be measured in the real world though. Both ways however, these changes have seemed to produce a surprising level of subjective improvement.

 

I hear that a lot myself.

Strange that companies like the revered Oppo, on their top of the line player's, always' base them on what happens to be the latest generation of ESS Saber DAC chip that are available at the time.

Peachtree Audio, uses the top of the line Saber DAC chip in their high end Nova's and previously in their iNova.

Then we have John Curl's, Parasound amps, which also use the Saber DAC's.

So, none of these "audio" companies know, that the Saber DAC chip that they are using is bright and is not audiophile approved?

Shame on them!

 

The apparent brightness of Sabre DAC designs depends on the gear the DAC is plugged in to. With some gear the Sabre DACs will sound fine if you're after that style of sound. With other gear the same Sabre DAC can sound bright, or have glare, or thin, or other problems. I tried several different Sabre based DACs with my Cavalli Liquid Fire headphone amp. All of them had a glare or brightness when paired with that amp. With some other amps I don't notice that. But with that amp I do. I think a lot of this has to do with system synergy. If you're playing with amps like that you have to search for a DAC with the right synergy to match with the amp. If the DAC doesn't have the right synergy then it is not a good DAC to choose. Doesn't mean it's a bad DAC. But does mean it's a very poor choice for you if you plan to pair it with that amp.

 

Hard for me to quantify, but I think Redbook digital has improved quite a bit. Thing is, external DACs are really a pretty recent phenomenon in the annals of audio gear. They were once the domain of the very wealthy (I think?) but now you can get a very, very good DAC for around a hundred bucks.

I had a very nice, file-based setup five years ago. It was very resolving, very quiet, and provided great enjoyment. Then I heard vinyl and went... wait, WTF have I been doing? And that story played out here for a few years. Then a few months back I took a shot on the latest Yggdrasil* and a decent CD player-as-transport and was very, very happy with the sound. I can't quite explain it in technical terms but it immediately reminded me of that quality I got from vinyl that I appreciated so much.

So then I add a better transport, better digital cable, and oh my. I am spinning and buying CDs like I have 6 months to live. Many of those CDs have very direct competition in my vinyl library and a surprising amount, probably 70%? I prefer CD to the vinyl edition. Never thought I'd say that from the humble CD.

*The big change to the latest Yggy is a better analog output stage. I think attention in that area, DAC chip implementation (with experience of 20+ years now for externals), scaling of filters and how they impact sound, some out of the box thinking (see: Border Patrol), an understanding that "measurements" only tell so much of the story, and more attention paid to clock accuracy and purity and noise-rejection of signal (e.g. "bits aren't just bits") are the main reasons digital continues to improve.

That's just my theory and whether it's true or not, I can say I am very happy I decided to branch out and give the CD a chance.

 

I use and have been using an iNova as my system source selector, DAC and class "A" preamp. I don't use it's power amp section, preferring instead to use outboard power amplifier's for my different systems.

I use my Oppo 203 as a transport into the iNova, with it's older ESS Saber DAC and, in general, don't notice a brightness issue. I comment on this, because I do not do brightness well at all.

I note that well recorded, engineered and mastered CD's and record's sound excellent on my system.

I do note that there is a lot of poorly recorded vinyl and not so good CD's that are overly harsh sounding.

One of the projects that I had been thinking about is to try an outboard DAC, like the Border Patrol, to see it it might increase the listening ability for some of those other "overly bright" CD's.

Other than that specific issue, which I have not positively determined, if it has to do with system issues or just not so good CD's, I don't have brightness problems in my system.

Some forward sounding speakers can have a tendency toward brightness, byt that is more their nature, as specially, if driven by SS amps.

Other than that, I don't have any issues with the Saber DAC's and I wonder if it is the DAC chip itself or its implementation.