When functioning properly, you should not “hear” a properly-implemented DAC. The chipsets are engineered to be transparent. If you “hear” a DAC, then it’s either not SOTA, there’s something wrong with it, or the company implementing the chipset has modified the output stage. Could be other possibilities as well. When comparing DACs, it really comes down to implementation and level-matching.
Yup. And ALL loudspeakers are the same. As long as YOU can afford it it is all good. Anything more expensive than YOUR price range is garbage. You own a $200 DAC---the Topping D50 which I own two of them. They are cheap sounding. But since YOU like spending $200 bucks on a DAC they are SOTA. HAHAHAHAHA. Got it.
I also own $10K speakers. Not like one has anything to do with the other... I use the Topping bc there is no or extremely marginal benefit to buying anything much more expensive. Which I have tested and level-match A/B’d. Zero discernible difference to my ear, which supports the measured data. To claim an inaudible DAC is “cheap-sounding” is just a nonstarter for me. You can’t hear it. THD+N is -110db.
Does ANYBODY have a clue what he is saying? I THINK he is saying anyone spending more than $200 bucks on his Topping D50 is a clown. According to HIM---all DACs are identical sonically AFTER you spend $200 bucks. I'm totally unconvinced about his demeanor or his opinion on the subject. But he DOES sound earnest so I have to give him THAT....
Im saying I personally can’t tell a difference between a $2K DAC and a $250 DAC. Maybe my ears are bad? I dunno. The data supports my position but I could be wrong. I’m just conveying my experience, and well as understanding on the subject. I couldn’t care less what other people do with their money. But if someone asks for advice, I’ll provide mine.
Well you sure don't sound like you are a bad guy so let's start over. I KNOW there is a lot of BS in the industry. But better audio circuitry and more expemsive components really DO matter. Dual channel dual mono circuits cost twice as much as cheaper versions. But they can SOUND better and clearer. It's all about money and brains. Some companies are fat with these qualities . Some stuff is marketing BS. I own your D50s. PLEASE.....Go buy an ARESII or better yet the Pontus II. With the quality gear you otherwise own I bet you will fall down on the floor and your jaw will hit the ground and whatever they always say.. Veils will be lifted? Ha! Ridiculous. Entire CITIES will be revealed.... You do not sound like a stupid person. Please take my advice as soon as possible and if you don't like the ARESII or better yet---the Pontus II you can perhaps sell either for exactly what you paid as they take time to build!
The Benchmark DAC3 L is here and in service. Initial impressions are very good, but I’ll reserve any further comments for the moment.
So you used one dac with coaxial and the other with optical cable ? That in itself is a flawed and incorrect setup for a test.
DAC threads and conversations always tend to generate a lot of strong opinions. I would like to believe that DACs are so mature now that there is no audible difference once you get to a certain level of measurable performance. However, my ears do tell me differently. I've found that DACs that don't alter the frequency response and measure flat from 20Hz to 20KHz can sound different to my ears. I don't know what is accounting for the difference to be honest, whether it is some type of distortion or something else. I can only go by comparisons of what I have heard in my own setup at home, and I do have strong favorites in regards to what I like. My favorite DAC I have is not a standalone DAC, but rather a Sherwood-Newcastle CDP-980 cd player. This is an older CD player that has a R2R architecture with Burr Brown PCM1702-K, 20-bit DAC chips, which are highly regarded chips. I don't have any "audio science review" type measurements of this player, so I could not tell you if it measures poorly. This is the most 3D sounding player/DAC that I own. It presents front-to-back depth in the soundstage and every instrument and voice is in its own unique space. It separates the layers in music better than anything else I own. I also have a Schiit Bifrost Multi-bit DAC that is my 2nd favorite device. I guess I just like R2R architectures, even if they technically measure poorly compared to inexpensive Delta-Sigma DAC designs. I also have a couple Oppo universal players as well. They all sound good, don't get me wrong, but I clearly find those R2R devices better in sound and that they present a better 3D soundstage.
I have such concern too. But, how else could I get my helper to easily help me doing blind tests? Would love to hear your own "correct" setup idea for easy blind test.
More points from me. : ) The "flaw" would be serious if we "hear" a difference. In my case, we can't hear a difference once voltage matched. Thus, I brushed off that potential "flaw" concern for my first blind test. Once voltage matched, both my kids can't tell which is which. Both my kids could tell a difference when one DAC has slightly lower voltage output and was using a filter that curves down in the highs more than other filters.
I honestly think a lot of it comes down to what you’re accustomed to hearing. If you listen to vinyl for 50 years, digital very well may not “sound right”. Much of that has to do with the level of noise and distortion you are accustomed to hearing. The noise floor for vinyl is -72db, which is borderline audible. For any TT not SOTA, you will hear noise/distortion, often as even harmonics. Many people prefer the sound of included even harmonics FWIW. So I don’t think the discussion is particularly useful in the context of “which is better,” because “better” is subjective. You can only show what measures better, but that may not align to personal preference.
Optical and Coax sound different on my set with Coax typically a little bit meatier. Difference in galvanic isolation? I have no idea. But I have a power strip loaded with wall warts and a bag full of those cheap-ass plastic "convertor" boxes that cost ten bucks. They switch formats for me as most of my stuff is optical. I should experiment with the new Pontus and see what it likes. It will be in my post once I am done comparing DACS. I'll try to mention it only in passing because I know this kind of weirdness doesn't sit well with the scientists among us. They will tell you that is impossible. Coax and optical are just a signal. Bits is bits. OK. Sure.
I think this is a possible explanation. I recently turned 50, but as I got into music at an early age at the age of 7 the first ten years of my life were spent listening to vinyl before CDs came into the picture. I like both formats though, so I have never been a "Vinyl is the Best" person even though I have quite a bit of it. CDs and vinyl live peacefully alongside one another in my home. One thing I am surprised has not come to the audio marketplace yet is a more complex DAC device that has different signatures/filters that can be selected which "mimic" devices from the past. I know there are DACs where a person can select from a few different filters (slow roll off, sharp-fast filters, etc.), but I am talking about something broader than that where there are much more noticeable sound changes. The best analogy I can draw is to a piece of computer software that I have used as a guitar player called 'Amplitube'. It is a guitar amp-modeling software, and when I first tried it I was stunned as just how close it sounded to famous guitar amps of the past. It could mimic very well a Fender '65 Twin Reverb, or the famous Marshall JCM 800 from the 80s, or an old Marshall plexi. I am thinking that there should be digital devices/DACs that could do this for music to which we listen. In other words, if someone wanted even order harmonic distortion there could be a sound profile to add it in varying degrees to the signal. Maybe I am crazy and there would be no market for such a thing when it comes to audio. Its also possible there already is software that does this on a PC when the PC is being used to decode and generate the analog signal. I've never looked into it as I don't use a PC to play audio to my main stereo.
I close my eyes when I listen, is that blind enough for you?! Sorry, life is too short to do blind tests, don't need to prove anything to anyone, I know what I enjoy.
I did the blind tests because I wanted to save money. If DAC ($100, $150, $500 with different chips and from different manufacturer) that measured transparent sounded the same to me when doing blind tests, then, I would only pay extra for features and looks. At the end, all this DAC discussion is kind of moot for me. Like you said, we know what we like. What I value more is clean, loud bass down to 20 hz. To do that, my DAC outputs goes through minidsp anyway......
Thanks for pointing out how worn out and abused old ears are after 50 years of listening to horribly distorted analog. Hahahah! Great! But listening closely and monitoring for distortion is sort of EXACTLY what I have been doing all that time. It happens to be important in the recording business. Ever hear of the recording business? Truth is, I was already equipping 24/192 PCM digital recording equipment for studio use way back in 1999. It was (and is) competitive with real good analog sound and the cost of one inch tape was killing the small studio owners. I worked with Harmon/JBL/Sony/Lexicon/Panasonic and other manufacturers installing new equipment to replace the more expensive analog machines. I had zero problems with recommending the higher res digital formats over tape. Some of my clients would still run analog for taping drums because digital would blow out from dynamic overload---but that was pretty much the exception. It isn't that digital sounds BAD. It is that it had better be well designed IF it isn't going to strip out the REAL harmonics of the instruments. With analog one thing WAS a given. The harmonic structure of notes was IN the medium. NOT "reconstructed" out of some algorithm or filter setup. Great digital gear like the new ARESII can reconstruct harmonics pretty darn well and I for one look forward to having convenience AND good sound by using it to enjoy great playback at home. Even order harmonics, by the way, are IN the instrument's sound envelope. Good equipment doesn't gin up some phony harmonics. I don't know why this canard has been allowed to live so long. It is simply misinformed. Good equipment merely REVEALS what the instrument had in the "harmonic overtone" department. It reveals what makes the instrument unique. Which is it's harmonics! Great digital can do it. Great analog ALWAYS could do it. Overloaded tube sections that are distorted are popular with folks specializing in "extra" harmonic tone which some tubes can impart to the signal. True. But a LOT of really expensive true tube designs are clean as a whistle in that department. They just manage to "sing' cleanly and that's what makes them desirable. Please don't educate us old guys that have been in the business training and using digital and analog practically forever. This debate happened. I dunno, 20 YEARS AGO? Good sound won out back then and it still is the gold standard. At least bring some new information to our attention. Not the same old tired worn out explanations for why old stuff is no good and new stuff is always BETTER. It ain't so. Oh and back to the thread please. Ladder DACs seem real good at harmonic reconstruction. Sounds pretty good digital or smidgital---IMO. That's what matters. Good sound. Still matters after all these years.
You brought up a lot of mis-information about sound quality. You claimed the elimination of distortion is frightfully important. You used specs like you knew a lot. I tried to inform you about what matters. And you are correct that none of this including your post and mine is in the right thread. Actually most of it is old tired back and forth between those that love good audio SOUND and those that like to prove a few odd specifications determine the overall success of a system. I just get tired of the same old tired hackneyed ideas floating around masquerading as knowledge. So I blurted out my experience. Cheers!
This to me is the essence of why digital does not sound good to some people. I would guess that a higher percentage of those people have a lot of experience listening to live music. I had a Qutest DAC in my system before a Denafrips Pontus II went in about 1.5 weeks ago. The Qutest sounded great in traditional "audiophile" aspects (resolution, detail, pace, soundstaging), but it sounded somewhat artificial in terms of tonal color of voices and instruments and in the flow of music. My sense of why it does well in the "audiophile" aspects of its performance is because of Rob Watt's complex mathematical algorithms that recreate the analog sound wave from a digital data stream, but my perception is that this complex math also colors the sound or fails to fully recreate some aspect of the original analog sound wave so that an aspect of the sound does not sound believable in a sense of being lifelike. (Note: What you hear, what you can hear, and how you perceive what you hear may be completely different from what I hear. I am sharing this as only my perspective.)
I’m not the one trumpeting their personal opinion over factual information, and calling anything that undermines that opinion “misinformation.” I’m fine disagreeing, but your opinion is nothing more than that, and your claims cannot be substantiated beyond your personal experience. This is home audio, hardly a big deal. But there are facts they exist in this world and just because you don’t agree, does not make those things any less true.
Oh stop. Don't apologize for having good hearing and an opinion. That is what folks on this forum are LOOKING for. Me especially. I want to know what folks HEAR. Scientific explanations are for geeks. If it ROCKS that is ENOUGH IMO.
