Best DAC?

[NonPlayableCharacter]

Opinion is theoretical too.

[aussievintage]

3 hours ago, muon* said:

Should is for the theoretical, the reality is they do IMO.

 

Look up the meaning of "by definition".   He is simply saying that anything that has a sound of it's own, does not meet the definition of a good DAC.   He is not saying that there aren't any that fail.

[muon*]

Would be great is they all sounded the same, and also sounded good, then we could all use $100 DACs and be done with it.

 

Yet that is not to be, and these threads will continue to be duplicated again and again.

[sir sanders zingmore]

3 minutes ago, muon* said:

we could all use $100 DACs and be done with it.

See my first post in this thread

[muon*]

3 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

See my first post in this thread

That's great for you, I would not listen to my system if I had a Topping DAC.

[aussievintage]

9 minutes ago, muon* said:

Would be great is they all sounded the same, and also sounded good,

 

 

Many good ones do.

Edited November 18, 2024 by aussievintage

[sir sanders zingmore]

4 minutes ago, muon* said:

That's great for you, I would not listen to my system if I had a Topping DAC.

Viva la difference

[muon*]

5 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

Viva la difference

I agree, and in the sentiment of "Viva la difference" there would not be a need for debates like this.

[aussievintage]

16 minutes ago, muon* said:

That's great for you, I would not listen to my system if I had a Topping DAC.

 

But then, to be fair, you like extremely coloured music via a 1980's DAC with added H2 harmonics (according to your signature).   I can understand that.  I put an H2 generator in the software chain in my Puredata phono preamp program.  I know what it sounds like and can understand the preference. That's why you don't actually like hearing what a "good" by definition DAC sounds like.

 

However, you should not project that onto what a modern DAC should be doing for the mainstream.

Edited November 18, 2024 by aussievintage

[klm]

13 hours ago, a.dent said:

Exactly. A DAC, by definition, shouldn’t have a “sound” of it’s own if it is if it working correctly.

Maybe I am not reading this correctly but given all dac units involve an output stage in their design, the quality of that surely comes into play in determining the sonic nature of the complete design rather than evaluation of a chip set.

I use a 27 year old dac which only does 16/44 and will see me off. Haven’t heard anything yet to make me spend. Before anyone suggests I have old ears and a low rent system, I just replaced my main speakers with new models that equate to the cost of 83 sets of titanium wheel bolts for a Porsche 911.
Bugger.

[aussievintage]

4 minutes ago, klm said:

Maybe I am not reading this correctly but given all dac units involve an output stage in their design, the quality of that surely comes into play in determining the sonic nature of the complete design rather than evaluation of a chip set.

 

That output stage is trivially easy to design correctly to be transparent and not have any significant (audible) effect on the sound.    You can choose to use it to colour the sound - even chuck a couple of triodes in there if you want, but most designs make it invisible.

[andyr]

7 minutes ago, klm said:

Maybe I am not reading this correctly but given all dac units involve an output stage in their design, the quality of that surely comes into play in determining the sonic nature of the complete design rather than evaluation of a chip set.

 

Absoloootely!  

 

7 minutes ago, klm said:

I use a 27 year old dac which only does 16/44 and will see me off. Haven’t heard anything yet to make me spend.

 

Can I urge you to find someone with an Abbas (tube) DAC and go and listen.  Having heard one recently ... I am now a fanboi!  

 

[Assisi]

4 hours ago, muon* said:

Should is for the theoretical, the reality is they do IMO.

A sound signature is not just applicable to DAC.  Many system components have signature. Warm, inviting, musical, emotional, detailed, transparent, clinical, and fatiguing.  The list goes on.

 

 

A DAC and its overall relative quality can be a very important element of a digital based setup outcome.  Other important features are the source of the digital files and their quality plus their treatment prior to reaching the DAC.  Those two aspects are critical too and will make a benefit or otherwise to the overall outcome. 

 

 

Whether a DACs have signature is definitely up to the perspective of the listener. The sound signature of DAC can vary due to many factors. They include the DAC design layout and componets, brand/types of chips used, the implementation of the chips and the number of chips. Sampling rates, power supplies and possibly in some cases the OS and more.

The variation in DAC sound signature is partly the reason this thread exists. There just is variation resulting from the several factors above.  I would expect that a signature would become more obvious relative to the quality of the DAC.

 

John

[sir sanders zingmore]

2 hours ago, muon* said:

I agree, and in the sentiment of "Viva la difference" there would not be a need for debates like this.

There’s no requirement for anyone to participate in “debates like this” if they don’t wish to. 

[SSEGRUB]

OK so I went off the deep end and got a Aries Cerat Helene DAC and that's it for me. I wanted a DAC that would match my analog front end in sound quality so that whenever I play either I am happy, and it will see me out and no more upgrades.

[klm]

4 hours ago, andyr said:

 

Absoloootely!  

 

 

Can I urge you to find someone with an Abbas (tube) DAC and go and listen.  Having heard one recently ... I am now a fanboi!  

 

Thank you for the Abbas suggestion. I have heard the phono stages and digital units previously and they are very good value for the coin. If I was to replace what I currently use with a new version, I’m in for about 45 sets of titanium wheel bolts and my wife has her limits as to generosity.

[Artnet]

5 hours ago, andyr said:

Can I urge you to find someone with an Abbas (tube) DAC and go and listen.  Having heard one recently ... I am now a fanboi!  

 

What a TDA 1541 chip with a tube output stage  that can sound like real music? Crazy stuff

 

 

[Artnet]

1 hour ago, klm said:

I have heard the phono stages and digital units previously and they are very good value for the coin.

 

Interesting !! For 2 very  different components they can sound  similar in their  voicing or at least was my experience and agree great value also.

[POV]

10 hours ago, muon* said:

That's great for you, I would not listen to my system if I had a Topping DAC.

 

Just because of the brand on the DAC box, that seems odd.

[POV]

9 hours ago, klm said:

Maybe I am not reading this correctly but given all dac units involve an output stage in their design, the quality of that surely comes into play in determining the sonic nature of the complete design rather than evaluation of a chip set.

I use a 27 year old dac which only does 16/44 and will see me off. Haven’t heard anything yet to make me spend. Before anyone suggests I have old ears and a low rent system, I just replaced my main speakers with new models that equate to the cost of 83 sets of titanium wheel bolts for a Porsche 911.
Bugger.

 

Nope, you are reading right.  It's the input and output stages of DACs that contribute to the differences more than anything else.   This is why these discussions often end up at cross purposes in my view.  People are talking about how the DAC process doesn't have a sound signature which is fundamentally true for the most part, but then discuss why two DAC components sound different, where this comparison adds power supply, input stage, and output stage into the mix.

[muon*]

11 hours ago, POV said:

 

Just because of the brand on the DAC box, that seems odd.

Incorrect assumption.

[surprisetech]

On 19/11/2024 at 11:49 AM, klm said:

Maybe I am not reading this correctly but given all dac units involve an output stage in their design, the quality of that surely comes into play in determining the sonic nature of the complete design rather than evaluation of a chip set.

I use a 27 year old dac which only does 16/44 and will see me off. Haven’t heard anything yet to make me spend. Before anyone suggests I have old ears and a low rent system, I just replaced my main speakers with new models that equate to the cost of 83 sets of titanium wheel bolts for a Porsche 911.
Bugger.

 

I can relate to that.  The only dedicated DAC I own is a 16 year old Musiland MD10 that had an RRP of US$299 when released and I don't feel any need to update.

A look under the hood reveals why.  Highly regarded chips for USB I/F (BB PCM2704), S/PDIF Mux/Reclocker (CS8416), DAC (CS4398) and buffer (AD OP275G).  It handles up to 24/192, which can be handy.  The ac input section has comprehensive filtering & is isolated by a steel divider, Overall layout and the PCB layout in particular are really well thought-out, high-quality parts are used throughout, outputs are Class A and all regulators and output devices have decent heatsinks.  Wiring, solder joints and build quality are also excellent.  It's a little beauty.

 

The MD10 was used in the main system before I updated my Integrated Amp, but is now used in a 2nd system and also works a treat between a laptop and powered PA speakers at party time. 

I'm following this thread with interest for some general perspective, but for what it's worth, I no longer have a dedicated DAC in my main system.  I've been more than happy with the excellent built-in DACs in the Amp, BluRay Player & AVR, and the 751BD and the AVR also provide perfectly capable streaming functionality for local network files, internet radio and qobuz.  So, no dedicated streamer either!

 

I like your point of reference for the speaker spend!  My purchases are related to my wife in terms of equivalent bags of horse feed, vet bills & farrier visits, etc. (Mine is the cheaper hobby )

[Tobes]

On 19/11/2024 at 10:40 AM, muon* said:

That's great for you, I would not listen to my system if I had a Topping DAC

On 19/11/2024 at 9:18 PM, POV said:

 

Just because of the brand on the DAC box, that seems odd.

He's using a 14 bit dac, so resolution and accuracy are not his priority - which is fine.

There certainly is a great divide between the 'how I like it' and the 'how it actually is' supporters, but there needn't be. I probably used to be in the former camp (with vinyl) but I'm now firmly in the latter accuracy camp.

I've owned a bunch of dacs, from a few hundred bucks to nearly $10K, and that list includes a few Topping dacs - which are good value for money if you're in the accuracy camp. 

I think the problems begin when the 'how I like it' listeners try to argue that less linearity and more distortion is more accurate to the recording (not saying @muon* is arguing this, most likely he just likes the sound his dac makes ).

[muon*]

5 hours ago, Tobes said:

He's using a 14 bit dac, so resolution and accuracy are not his priority - which is fine.

There certainly is a great divide between the 'how I like it' and the 'how it actually is' supporters, but there needn't be. I probably used to be in the former camp (with vinyl) but I'm now firmly in the latter accuracy camp.

I've owned a bunch of dacs, from a few hundred bucks to nearly $10K, and that list includes a few Topping dacs - which are good value for money if you're in the accuracy camp. 

I think the problems begin when the 'how I like it' listeners try to argue that less linearity and more distortion is more accurate to the recording (not saying @muon* is arguing this, most likely he just likes the sound his dac makes ).

I do like it, it sounds more natural and like real music to me.

 

Plenty of detail and dynamics with great tone.

 

For me listening is a subjective activity, and what we all like can be different in this aspect, there really is no right and wrong way.

Edited November 27, 2024 by muon*
Grammar

[Tobes]

@muon* as long as you're enjoying your music that's all that counts.

 

Tone and dynamics are fundamental but I've found that I also appreciate transient precision and fine detail and like to hear into mixes and hear the different nature of recordings and tracks. A neutral, resolving dac does this best for me. 

Even though I was enamoured with the Holo May (which I owned for about 6 months) and that dac had a somewhat more robust sound and other positive traits over my Benchmark Dac 3, the latter did better with transients on some types of music and (overall) I missed some of the things the Dac 3 could do with certain genres. So ultimately I didn't keep the May. 

 

Full disclosure, I should say I recently acquired a Topping D70 Pro Sabre (the horror! ) - to see what the newest Sabre chip (ES9039 Pro) might offer over the es9028 in the Dac 3. 

I have both the D70 and Dac 3 connected with the same Neo d+ usb cables and Canare balanced interconects and level matched them using the input adjustment available on my HPA4 preamp.

I then grouped the dacs in Roon enabling me to switch between them with a button press while playing music. The D70 had the fast rolloff linear filter enabled, which is what the Dac 3 uses.

The dacs sound similar but Initially I thought the D70 Pro actually lacked a bit of transparency and focus compared to the Dac 3. However - audiophile neurosis warning - while fiddling with options I tried the D70 in 'auto' screen off mode and was surprised that things flipped and the D70 then seemed more transparent and focused than the Dac 3! 

I been listening to the D70 Pro for hours today, I really like it and I'm preferring it to the Dac 3, which has seen off a few other dacs in similar comparisons.