Do all DACs sound more or less the same?

[astrotoy]

I could easily hear the difference between the Meridian Explorer and BADA2 + BA USB in my system using A+ in my Mac Mini, playing my own rips at 192/24 and other commercial rips. I didn't answer the poll because I have no idea why they sound different. I am not an engineer and don't understand the design of the different chips, etc. It is like driving my two cars - they are very different, but I don't know why (they have different engines, etc.) I don't have the ability or inclination to take out parts to see which of them make what difference.

 

Larry

[gmgraves]

Except Meyer/Moran was not a DBT comparison of DACs, it was a DBT comparison of two different music track resolutions that involved the use of three different disc players (so not DACs alone, but DACs incorporated with different transport mechanisms) in three different systems at different places and times in separate listening tests of those music tracks. So it really did not test what I am talking about. But thanks (I mean that sincerely) for the attempt to find something corresponding to what was asked for.

 

 

Doesn't matter what the goals of the "study" were, the results are totally transportable to the question of DAC audibility. If no one could hear any difference between a signal that had been quantified and decoded and then re-quantified X number of times, compared to the original signal, this says that the AD/DA process was totally transparent SEVEN years ago. I don't buy it, needless to say, but that's what the results of that particular study indirectly show.

[lazy]

I think there is some confusion regarding DACs and filtering. It's been a long time since I designed PCM IC DACs and ADCs so I hardly consider myself an expert anymore, but from what I recall the filters required for reconstructing an analog signal transparently are extraordinarily simple, and different from DSP signal shaping for convolution that involve more complicated IIR and FIR filter concepts. In other words, I consider EQing, DSP and convolution (signal shaping) aspects to be distinct from what I expect from a DAC (signal reconstruction), and I'd want something like Acourate to manage IIR and FIR considerations separate from what's hardcoded in my DAC.

[sandyk]

Guys

You had better flog off your new DSD DACs and try to sell your latest high res DSD DLs to other unsuspecting suckers before news of that study becomes mainstream ! (grin)

[Jud]

I think there is some confusion regarding DACs and filtering. It's been a long time since I designed PCM IC DACs and ADCs so I hardly consider myself an expert anymore, but from what I recall the filters required for reconstructing an analog signal transparently are extraordinarily simple, and different from DSP signal shaping for convolution that involve more complicated IIR and FIR filter concepts. In other words, I consider EQing, DSP and convolution (signal shaping) aspects to be distinct from what I expect from a DAC (signal reconstruction), and I'd want something like Acourate to manage IIR and FIR considerations separate from what's hardcoded in my DAC.

 

It's the (nearly always 8x) oversampling filters, not the final reconstruction filters or any DSP, that I'm talking about.

[Jud]

Doesn't matter what the goals of the "study" were, the results are totally transportable to the question of DAC audibility. If no one could hear any difference between a signal that had been quantified and decoded and then re-quantified X number of times, compared to the original signal, this says that the AD/DA process was totally transparent SEVEN years ago. I don't buy it, needless to say, but that's what the results of that particular study indirectly show.

 

The analog signals from the DACs in the disc players were run through an A/D/A conversion using a professional CD recorder. This does show people could not distinguish the output from the disc players from that of the CD recorder. This does not show D/A conversion in general was "transparent" at the time. It could show, for example, that the filters in the DVD-A player and recorder were of similar design, so though neither was transparent neither could be discerned as different from the other. It could show that the filters in these early SACD and DVD-A players and the filter in the CD recorder all managed to remove distinguishing features from the resulting playback to the extent that none stood out as clearly better or different.

 

George, I don't know if you've bothered with any of the software players, but I invite you to try the same free auditioning as I mentioned in the thread previously. It's easy enough to do blind if you have a friend to help. And if you have DSD playback capability I have some files you might be interested in, a single track run through 5 different DSD recorders.

[AudioDoctor]

What about the option that says they can sound different for one reason or multiple reasons, and I will instead listen to it as a whole and make my mind up for myself?

 

[sandyk]

What about the option that says they can sound different for one reason or multiple reasons, and I will instead listen to it as a whole and make my mind up for myself?

 

 

AudioDoctor

What's that got to do with hamburgers ? (grin)

[AudioDoctor]

AudioDoctor

What's that got to do with hamburgers ? (grin)

 

I have to admit, you have completely lost me here.

[sandyk]

See Post 57 (above yours) .

 

Do you think he is trying to change the subject ? (grin) )

Perhaps Jud has him all flustered in that other thread ?

[Paul R]

Hey! Lay off White Castle you guys - they make a great substitute for Krystal Burgers when you are in the cold cold north! Besides which, I like the little devils. Not as good as Millgans, but then, you can't find a Milligans anymore. Mr. Milligan passed away in the 1970s.

 

And yes, I can tell by taste and smell the difference between a White Castle and Krystal burger. Indeed...

 

-Paul (aka Wimpy...)

[wgscott]

-Paul (aka Wimpy...)

 

[AudioDoctor]

See Post 57 (above yours) .

 

Do you think he is trying to change the subject ? (grin) )

Perhaps Jud has him all flustered in that other thread ?

 

HAHA, ok now I get it.

 

Hey! Lay off White Castle you guys - they make a great substitute for Krystal Burgers when you are in the cold cold north! Besides which, I like the little devils. Not as good as Millgans, but then, you can't find a Milligans anymore. Mr. Milligan passed away in the 1970s.

 

And yes, I can tell by taste and smell the difference between a White Castle and Krystal burger. Indeed...

 

-Paul (aka Wimpy...)

 

Paul, you are a braver man than I. I won't even set foot in that place. I am a bit of a snob I am told...

[esldude]

So let me try to untangle this a little.

 

 

Dennis, the goal is still to try to get to straight wire with gain. But we weren't at the recording sessions, so how can we tell what is most accurate? Well, the component that allows different recordings (or even different tracks on the same recording) to sound most different from each other has the least sound of its own masking the different recordings, and therefore is most accurate. (Simple concept. Intentionally mis-set EQ to be bass-heavy and everything sounds the same, bass-heavy. A correct EQ or correct equipment will get out of the way and allow different tracks to sound like themselves, i.e., different.)

 

Edit: Dennis, just by way of a practical illustration - comparing two different builds of Audirvana Plus (I know, how can they sound different, but just bear with me here for the sake of my example), Build One had this really nice addictive bass sound on every track I listened to, and I initially preferred it for that reason. But then I heard great bass sound on a few tracks with Build Two, but not on other tracks. So I would either have to believe every track I listened to had the same bass playing and production, or that Build Two was more accurate.

 

Yes, I don't disagree with what you are saying Jud. But what I read is among top flite amps or DAC's etc. that rather than converging on a common sound they begin to differ more. That isn't high fidelity. Whether the recording is good, bad, bass heavy or light, a given recording should begin to sound more similar as better equipment performs closer to the ideal. The idea on the same music they diverge indicates at most one of them is more accurate the rest not whatever the input signal was.

[Boris75]

What are "Direct Digital" implementations?

[Paul R]

So you are assuming that high end gear sounds different because it is diverging more and more from - what standard exactly?

 

Are you also saying that lower end gear is truer to this standard because they sound more alike?

 

What would this theory predict low end gear would sound like?

 

I think you are making assumptions here that may be true, but I think you need to identify and lay out those assumptions for other people to evaluate. They may not be true.

 

For example, cost may, at least in some cases, be driven by component choices and distribution as well as the cost of custom software. Some high end DACs are custom built as they are ordered, which affects cost. So does buying up a long term supply of needed parts, like particular resistors, caps, or tubes- that front loads cost.

 

Are these DACs high end because of cost, construction, or sound? Can you have a high end DAC with a lower cost? Where do they deviate from your theory, if at all, other than sounding different?

 

So again, there are plenty of sensible reasons for DACs to sound different. What is this standard you are suggesting high end gear is deviating from where they should all sound the same?

 

I have noticed that low end DACs do tend to sound the same to me, at least mostly. The DragonFly certainly stands out from the crowd to me, as does the Schiit Loki. But the general run of $39 - $199 DACs all sound pretty much identical to me. And I greatly prefer somewhat more expensive DACs.

 

Yes, I don't disagree with what you are saying Jud. But what I read is among top flite amps or DAC's etc. that rather than converging on a common sound they begin to differ more. That isn't high fidelity. Whether the recording is good, bad, bass heavy or light, a given recording should begin to sound more similar as better equipment performs closer to the ideal. The idea on the same music they diverge indicates at most one of them is more accurate the rest not whatever the input signal was.

[wgscott]

What are "Direct Digital" implementations?

 

eg: NAD M51

[firedog]

White Castle, purveyors of the most vile fast food hamburgers, used to has an advertising slogan "Without White Castle, all Hamburgers Would Taste the Same"

 

And maybe they were right: White Castle=vile; everything else=good (at least relatively)

[Boris75]

eg: NAD M51

 

Thanks. I see. It is a NAD trademark.

[NOMBEDES]

Yes, I don't disagree with what you are saying Jud. But what I read is among top flite amps or DAC's etc. that rather than converging on a common sound they begin to differ more. That isn't high fidelity. Whether the recording is good, bad, bass heavy or light, a given recording should begin to sound more similar as better equipment performs closer to the ideal. The idea on the same music they diverge indicates at most one of them is more accurate the rest not whatever the input signal was.

 

 

 

+1.

[VandyMan]

Thanks. I see. It is a NAD trademark.

 

Tact used to describe their amps similarly. It just means that there is no traditional D>A stage.

[esldude]

So you are assuming that high end gear sounds different because it is diverging more and more from - what standard exactly?

 

Are you also saying that lower end gear is truer to this standard because they sound more alike?

 

What would this theory predict low end gear would sound like?

 

I think you are making assumptions here that may be true, but I think you need to identify and lay out those assumptions for other people to evaluate. They may not be true.

 

For example, cost may, at least in some cases, be driven by component choices and distribution as well as the cost of custom software. Some high end DACs are custom built as they are ordered, which affects cost. So does buying up a long term supply of needed parts, like particular resistors, caps, or tubes- that front loads cost.

 

Are these DACs high end because of cost, construction, or sound? Can you have a high end DAC with a lower cost? Where do they deviate from your theory, if at all, other than sounding different?

 

So again, there are plenty of sensible reasons for DACs to sound different. What is this standard you are suggesting high end gear is deviating from where they should all sound the same?

 

I have noticed that low end DACs do tend to sound the same to me, at least mostly. The DragonFly certainly stands out from the crowd to me, as does the Schiit Loki. But the general run of $39 - $199 DACs all sound pretty much identical to me. And I greatly prefer somewhat more expensive DACs.

 

Is the concept of simple fidelity to the source that lost now?

 

Lets say I have a Super Duper Recording (SDR). I use it as a reference.

 

I play SDR with a very old low quality tube amp. Restricted bandwidth, audible distortion on peaks. I then play SDR on an old SS amp like the first SS Dynaco with lots of nasty TIM distortion. I then play SDR on a modern very good SS amp. Those three instances will sound obviously and very different. Next I play SDR on a second good modern amp. It may still differ a little bit, but would be pretty close to the other good modern amp as both have higher fidelity to the source. As there is some perfect manner of reproducing SDR as equipment improves it would converge on the same sound. It would not diverge as quality improves when reproducing the same source SDR.

 

Note this is very different than saying better equipment shows greater differences between recordings.

 

The idea that as playback equipment improves the resulting sound diverges more is brain damaged. It would be an indication that the more expensive equiment is not higher fidelity, but is being designed toward a sound preference away from fidelity. That actually is fine and valid enough. What will mislead one is confusing the preference for better actual fidelity.

 

And yes at least in theory it is possible to get fidelity high enough that things all sound the same unless intentionally made to do otherwise. I would prefer reaching that point and then altering to preference and taste.

 

High end, low end these days mostly just referes to cost. Fidelity should be what one looks at for comparison.

 

Do low cost DACs sound the same because they have become truly hifi? That is one possibility. I would not say I quite have that opinion though it isn't far off with the better DACs in the few hundred dollar range. It would be most refreshing and beneficial if we had an agreed upon standard so that at some point we could say this given piece of gear is audibly full fidelity to source. No reason to spend more except for looks or features or for a boutique sound preference.

[gmgraves]

HAHA, ok now I get it.

 

 

 

Paul, you are a braver man than I. I won't even set foot in that place. I am a bit of a snob I am told...

 

I haven't seen either a White Castle or a White Tower since I was a kid, and I have to admit that I've never eaten at either. In fact, until today, I was unaware that either even still existed. And what is a Krystal Burger, or for that matter, a Milligans? We don't have those chains out here in California. There are dozens of fast-food franchises that are not represented here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

[gmgraves]

Is the concept of simple fidelity to the source that lost now?

 

Lets say I have a Super Duper Recording (SDR). I use it as a reference.

 

I play SDR with a very old low quality tube amp. Restricted bandwidth, audible distortion on peaks. I then play SDR on an old SS amp like the first SS Dynaco with lots of nasty TIM distortion. I then play SDR on a modern very good SS amp. Those three instances will sound obviously and very different. Next I play SDR on a second good modern amp. It may still differ a little bit, but would be pretty close to the other good modern amp as both have higher fidelity to the source. As there is some perfect manner of reproducing SDR as equipment improves it would converge on the same sound. It would not diverge as quality improves when reproducing the same source SDR.

 

Note this is very different than saying better equipment shows greater differences between recordings.

 

The idea that as playback equipment improves the resulting sound diverges more is brain damaged. It would be an indication that the more expensive equiment is not higher fidelity, but is being designed toward a sound preference away from fidelity. That actually is fine and valid enough. What will mislead one is confusing the preference for better actual fidelity.

 

And yes at least in theory it is possible to get fidelity high enough that things all sound the same unless intentionally made to do otherwise. I would prefer reaching that point and then altering to preference and taste.

 

High end, low end these days mostly just referes to cost. Fidelity should be what one looks at for comparison.

 

Do low cost DACs sound the same because they have become truly hifi? That is one possibility. I would not say I quite have that opinion though it isn't far off with the better DACs in the few hundred dollar range. It would be most refreshing and beneficial if we had an agreed upon standard so that at some point we could say this given piece of gear is audibly full fidelity to source. No reason to spend more except for looks or features or for a boutique sound preference.

 

 

I would say, that all things being equal, the amplifier with the fewest components between input and output should be the most transparent. I suspect that's the reason everybody seems to agree that one of these transformer-coupled "passive" preamps sounds better than the most expensive "active" preamps - they're nothing but a source-selector switch, a multi-tap transformer for a switched volume control, and some input and output jacks. Simple.

 

But the ideal amplifier, I think, would be one where, irrespective of the methodology used, all measurable parameters such as noise, distortion of all types, linear and non-linear would be below the threshold of human hearing under all operating conditions. Better than non audible, would be gilding the lily. Nothing has ever reached that as of yet; some are at that point with some parameters, but not all. IOW, close, but no cigar.

 

This applies to DACs as well as any other component with active stages in it, too.

 

The world's finest, state-of-the-art stereo system still sounds nothing like live, unamplified music, played in a real space, and I suspect strongly that it never will. It will continue to get closer, but each step forward has, for a long time now, been smaller than the step before it and has cost more to achieve. But no matter how close the state-of-the-art-gets, it will never fool anyone into thinking it's real. It's really strange. One can walk down a street (Like Bourbon St. In New Orleans) and pass the open doors to the many clubs and bars found there, and as one passes, music comes out of each establishment. One can instantly tell, without even seeing inside, which establishments have a live, unamplified band, and which establishments are using SR or canned music. It's that unmistakeable and that palpable. Such a level of realism will never be achievable artificially, and because of that, I get the feeling that many manufacturers have given up on the "realism" goal and have wandered off of the true path toward a sound that is, in some way, unique to their line of equipment. And why not? Few listen to live, unamplified music anymore, and even the stuff that the vast majority of the denizens of CA seem to listen to is almost wholly electronic in nature, and who knows what that is supposed to sound like? The short answer being whatever the hell the musicians want it to sound like! So, my guess is that accuracy is no longer that important when the buyer of the equipment doesn't really know to what he's trying to be accurate.

 

Thoughts? Criticisms?

[wgscott]

That is why I asked about the NAD m51 (and also the NAD C390DD and NuForce DD100). It seems to me if there is going to be an obvious difference, it would show up in one of these shortest signal path devices.

 

(The one obviously audible difference between the C390DD, which a fellow member graciously let me borrow, and my own system, is the NAD C390DD was absolutely dead silent when no music was played through it. I did hear other differences, but just attributed those to my low-end system, home-made amp deficiencies, and differing wattage.)