[R. Daneel]

A specific set of measurements may not be sufficient to capture what is "good sound". In fact I don't really care about the measurements and I trust my ears.

I invite you to one day come and listen to a "better" dac. We can do an A/B vs the BDA 3 (or at least the version that I have in my preamp) and then you tell me which one sounds better.

Hello!

To say you don’t care about measurement because you trust your ears kind of nullifies the whole purpose of this discussion, doesn’t it? What is there to disprove if you already have a proof of your own? It is nothing substantial, mind you, and is based on superficial observation rather than empirical data but what the hell, right? Once upon a time, people believed fire was one of the Earth elements and everything that was warm to the touch contained fire.

Your statement is an attempt at gaining moral high-ground, one that is made by people who have exhausted their pool of arguments, providing they had any to begin with.

Second, if not for what you so casually call “measurements”, the device would not work and/or would be dangerous to use, both to the customer and to the connected equipment. Measurements are an integral part of every industry. I don’t know what you do for a living, but there.

Finally, wilful ignorance is never a smart thing. Don’t forget, despite this being a forum, there are still people here who design and manufacture these things. If they give you empirical data i.e. proof in a form of measurements and they challenge you to disprove them, you either engage with them argumentatively or you put a wet towel over your head and hope no one read your comment.

I do own other DACs, including some custom-built ones, and some of these do indeed sound better than the BDA-2. I, however, do know why that is. But, since you already have all the proof you need, I won’t be making any arguments for you.

Cheers – Antun

[James Tanner]

A specific set of measurements may not be sufficient to capture what is "good sound". In fact I don't really care about the measurements and I trust my ears.

I invite you to one day come and listen to a "better" dac. We can do an A/B vs the BDA 3 (or at least the version that I have in my preamp) and then you tell me which one sounds better.

Totally disagree - measurements are the way to accuracy. The rest is subjective opinion.

There is a difference between Accuracy and Preference.

james

[Twiga]

 

How does the OP know that his hearing is accurate? Particularly if he is middle-aged or older. You are correct, without having tested his hearing as to linearity of frequency reponse, etc. what he considers to be "good sound" (definition?) is what he prefers to hear.

[GSDaudio]

How does the OP know that his hearing is accurate?

Google "online hearing test".   There is a simple formula predicting frequency range loss degradation by age.     Formula was pretty close to the "hearing test".    I'm in the upper 50s and my frequency upper range is 16 KHz.....no industrial or other factors for me.

So,  when you hear aging audiophile's describe subjectively the "highs" it's probably in the 15 kHz range....FM.

Cheers

[Rusty Jefferson]

....In my system I heard the Denafrips Terminator Plus and it was clearly better than the Bryston DAC.

There's a clearly obvious solution here. Sell your Bryston dac and purchase a Denafrips Terminator. Everyone on this forum has sold a piece of gear and purchased something else they prefer the sound of. 

After James told you there were no plans to build a new flagship dac why would you press the issue? Why would you expect a new Bryston dac could satisfy you more than the Terminator, and if it did, would you ask Denafrips if THEY were going to build a new dac that YOU would like more than the new Bryston dac? Do you see where this is going?

[MetalAudio]

There's a clearly obvious solution here. Sell your Bryston dac and purchase a Denafrips Terminator. Everyone on this forum has sold a piece of gear and purchased something else they prefer the sound of. 

After James told you there were no plans to build a new flagship dac why would you press the issue? Why would you expect a new Bryston dac could satisfy you more than the Terminator, and if it did, would you ask Denafrips if THEY were going to build a new dac that YOU would like more than the new Bryston dac? Do you see where this is going?

I can't sell it - the dac is in my preamp

[gwhphoto]

This is such an interesting discussion.  Glad I joined this forum!

I got into high fidelity/audiophile listening in the early 1980s.  These same discussions were going on then.   "I can hear differences" versus "if you can't measure it, you can't "really" hear it."

The consensus used to be that standard measurements could not fully explain the differences in processing a signal through complex circuits and the complex physical areas of tonearm/cartridge and speaker interfaces.  The consensus was that that sonic differences were indeed real and that the human ear, exquisitely sensitive and more versatile than one-dimensional measuring tools, could in fact detect differences that an oscilloscope would not show.  Indeed, the entire audiophile industry, including Bryston, developed on this premise.  Why else would Bryston post glowing reviews of listening tests that focus on sound quality as opposed to measurements?

it was the same when CDs and digital recording came along.  "You are only transmitting 1s and zeros, so nothing could possibly sound different."  Again, not true.  More precise optical reading, heavier disc transports, and differences in changing those 1s and zeros back to analog (the first DACs) did indeed make differences in the sound that measurements did not show.

For the "you have to measure it to hear it" camp, it rapidly became clear that things like THD and flat frequency response were in fact woefully inadequate to explain sonic differences when faced with actual listening comparisons, even for folks without "audiophile ears."  Then intermodulation distortion, then slew rate, then damping, etc, etc, etc. became ever more refined measurement factors.  The more complex and diverse measurements that were developed, the more it was thought that, eventually, comparing measurements might indeed become a valid way of predicting sonic differences between electronics.   

But, this has not proven to be the case.  Indeed, my choice of Bryston's 4B and 1B units in the 1980s was based on listening comparisons to electronics that measured every bit as good in every single area.  Once I reached this level of sonic excellence, I settled on my system for 30 years, because I was just not going to keep spending ever more dollars chasing less and less evident differences.  But, I could tell, the differences were there, but not worth Mark Levinson prices.

And, i say differences.   Electronics sound different from one another, even with the same measurements.  My ear tells me this and measurements can't explain it.  Different does not mean better.  One person's different is better, another's different with the same electronics is worse, for their subjective taste and the type of music they listen to.  That does not mean it is all in their heads.   Their ears detect the difference, how they feel about is something else, and even if the feel it is "better" whether it is worth spending more for is yet something else.

So, I respectfully disagree with James' assertion that if you cannot "outmeasure" Bryston's DAC, you cannot hear a difference.   Hundreds of audio salon audition rooms and sophisticated listeners worldwide will show this not to be true.  Indeed, Bryston's many changes in its circuits over the years has resulted in what people uniformly say is "better sound" culminating on the cubed series and now the BR-20, even though there has only been a relatively small advance in measurements.

For me, I am in my 60's.  My hearing is still pretty acute but not what it was when I was younger, although.  I can still hear differences in electronics.  But very few "better" the Bryston sound.  So when I have superb sound (reference level), bulletproof reliability hardly matched in the industry, strong warranty that is unmatched in the industry, and great service, I am not going to go audition electronics all over again to see if spending twice as much on an obscure unit will give me a subtle difference that I like "better." 

And, I am moving from my 4b and 1b (1985 vintage) to a new 4b3 and BR 20.  I expect the sound to be much "better!"

[MetalAudio]

This is such an interesting discussion.  Glad I joined this forum!

I got into high fidelity/audiophile listening in the early 1980s.  These same discussions were going on then.   "I can hear differences" versus "if you can't measure it, you can't "really" hear it."

The consensus used to be that standard measurements could not fully explain the differences in processing a signal through complex circuits and the complex physical areas of tonearm/cartridge and speaker interfaces.  The consensus was that that sonic differences were indeed real and that the human ear, exquisitely sensitive and more versatile than one-dimensional measuring tools, could in fact detect differences that an oscilloscope would not show.  Indeed, the entire audiophile industry, including Bryston, developed on this premise.  Why else would Bryston post glowing reviews of listening tests that focus on sound quality as opposed to measurements?

it was the same when CDs and digital recording came along.  "You are only transmitting 1s and zeros, so nothing could possibly sound different."  Again, not true.  More precise optical reading, heavier disc transports, and differences in changing those 1s and zeros back to analog (the first DACs) did indeed make differences in the sound that measurements did not show.

For the "you have to measure it to hear it" camp, it rapidly became clear that things like THD and flat frequency response were in fact woefully inadequate to explain sonic differences when faced with actual listening comparisons, even for folks without "audiophile ears."  Then intermodulation distortion, then slew rate, then damping, etc, etc, etc. became ever more refined measurement factors.  The more complex and diverse measurements that were developed, the more it was thought that, eventually, comparing measurements might indeed become a valid way of predicting sonic differences between electronics.   

But, this has not proven to be the case.  Indeed, my choice of Bryston's 4B and 1B units in the 1980s was based on listening comparisons to electronics that measured every bit as good in every single area.  Once I reached this level of sonic excellence, I settled on my system for 30 years, because I was just not going to keep spending ever more dollars chasing less and less evident differences.  But, I could tell, the differences were there, but not worth Mark Levinson prices.

And, i say differences.   Electronics sound different from one another, even with the same measurements.  My ear tells me this and measurements can't explain it.  Different does not mean better.  One person's different is better, another's different with the same electronics is worse, for their subjective taste and the type of music they listen to.  That does not mean it is all in their heads.   Their ears detect the difference, how they feel about is something else, and even if the feel it is "better" whether it is worth spending more for is yet something else.

So, I respectfully disagree with James' assertion that if you cannot "outmeasure" Bryston's DAC, you cannot hear a difference.   Hundreds of audio salon audition rooms and sophisticated listeners worldwide will show this not to be true.  Indeed, Bryston's many changes in its circuits over the years has resulted in what people uniformly say is "better sound" culminating on the cubed series and now the BR-20, even though there has only been a relatively small advance in measurements.

For me, I am in my 60's.  My hearing is still pretty acute but not what it was when I was younger, although.  I can still hear differences in electronics.  But very few "better" the Bryston sound.  So when I have superb sound (reference level), bulletproof reliability hardly matched in the industry, strong warranty that is unmatched in the industry, and great service, I am not going to go audition electronics all over again to see if spending twice as much on an obscure unit will give me a subtle difference that I like "better." 

And, I am moving from my 4b and 1b (1985 vintage) to a new 4b3 and BR 20.  I expect the sound to be much "better!"

Enjoy, this will be a nice upgrade. Which speakers are you using?

[gwhphoto]

I have Martin Logan Montis electrostats.  The panel covers 200 hz and above, and it has an integrated woofer with its own amp.   The 4b3 will be great, even overkill, for the panel II checked with Martin Logan due to the weird impedance, below 2 ohms at higher frequencies), but I got a deal and it will have the ability to cover any speaker upgrades I might make (although I am pretty happy with these!).

Rega Planar 3 with Grace 707 arm and Blue Point Special high output MC.   This will be my next area of upgrade.

Meridian 508 CD player.   Still sounds great.   Will probably drop it eventually, burn my CDs to a hard drive and play through the BR-20, assuming that will give me improved sound quality.

I was thinking about getting an SACD player, but will see how I like the high resolution streaming and downloads before I get any more hard media (vinyl excepted-I will always add records).

Is there a way to put our gear in our profiles?

I am a newibie here but could not figure out how to do that.

[sfraser]

I follow the Tanner doctrine in that there can be a difference between "accuracy "  and "preference" . It has to be mentioned upfront that there is nothing wrong with building a HiFi based on strictly  measurements, or strictly preferences , or a combination of both.   I will speak only for myself , but  I have  too many variables that are constantly effecting me to trust my ears over measurements to  determine accuracy . Particularly, when discussing components such as DAC's   I won't even get into effective marketing, changes in sound pressure level, different rooms, music styles, recording and mastering styles etc. I will just mention biological issues such as age,  emotions , concentration level,  and blood sugar .  There is too much out of my control. As "Scrooge" mentioned, a bad piece  of meat at supper can affect your perception and therefore your preference. 

[pnut]

Particularly, when discussing components such as DAC's   I won't even get into effective marketing, changes in sound pressure level, different rooms, music styles, recording and mastering styles etc. I will just mention biological issues such as age,  emotions , concentration level,  and blood sugar .  There is too much out of my control.

All of those elements are components of what Dr. Floyd Toole calls the "circle of confusion".

These days, DACs are so good and so capable that the audible difference between any two DACs is so small that it is dwarfed by simple changes to loudspeaker positioning, listener positioning, adding heavy drapes, adding bookshelves for diffusion, and many other things, most of which are FREE.  And yet, people pay thousands of dollars to get a miniscule increase in perceived sound quality, which may be only imagined, by purchasing more gear.  Lots of so-called audiophiles are merely gearheads who are more interested in their gear than in the music.  It used be Stereophile's policy that any equipment reviewer have more money invested in their music collection than in their gear.  I don't know if it's true anymore, but that is a policy I supported back in the 90's when I was a subscriber.

[sfraser]

Absolutely! I fall into both those camps , and I am not ashamed to admit it. But I do  make and honest attempt  not to listen to my gear ; ). I am just finishing up rebuilding my " future retirement" system in my family room. My goal was to build a system as neutral and accurate  as my room would allow for .  My "preference" is to stay married,  therefore room treatment is not really an option. My wife did allow for some ergonomically  ridiculous speaker placement for some butt ugly big/heavy  speakers and stands, so at least I have that going for me.  It took a couple of years  of askign questions ,  room consideration,  studying  component measurements, determining  which measurements are most important,   listening, swapping things in and out etc.. But I  also relied on preferences, mine as well as others,  as it is hard not too. When you are throwing in a lot of variables, namely different listening rooms and components it really becomes difficult . At some point the Engineering side of me said, "ok those specs are good enough, that S/N ratio is beyond what I can hear"  therefore take the cheapest , or what ever is currently available which meets those spec's. Ideally with a vendor or brand you have a relationship (preference??) with.   I ended up with a small chain of equipment which I think  is similar to what many Mastering Studio's would have, minus the mixers/compressors on the front end of  course. As it turns out my system overshot my room's capabilities, but the music  does sound incredible and the components do tend to disappear .....at least when the content is well recorded. So I am content that I have achieved my goal, a system as accurate as my room will allow for. Happy to say a BDA-3 is at the heart of it all. 

[MetalAudio]

All of those elements are components of what Dr. Floyd Toole calls the "circle of confusion".

These days, DACs are so good and so capable that the audible difference between any two DACs is so small that it is dwarfed by simple changes to loudspeaker positioning, listener positioning, adding heavy drapes, adding bookshelves for diffusion, and many other things, most of which are FREE.  And yet, people pay thousands of dollars to get a miniscule increase in perceived sound quality, which may be only imagined, by purchasing more gear.  Lots of so-called audiophiles are merely gearheads who are more interested in their gear than in the music.  It used be Stereophile's policy that any equipment reviewer have more money invested in their music collection than in their gear.  I don't know if it's true anymore, but that is a policy I supported back in the 90's when I was a subscriber.

What do you mean by perceived? You can clearly do an A/B test in the same room and all other things being equal.

The OCD nature of this hobby is what drives a lot of people into it. Many people are interested in constantly improving the sound in their system.

[pnut]

What do you mean by perceived? You can clearly do an A/B test in the same room and all other things being equal.

Google "cognitive biases" and spend a day studying the subject.  Ever heard of placebo effect (expectation bias) or confirmation bias?  They are two of the most well-known and documented biases (of which there are many).  These and other biases are unconscious, meaning you are not, and cannot be, aware of how they are affecting your perceptions.

You need to understand that the perception of what you hear occurs in the brain, NOT in the ears.  Your ears simply translate the sound pressure waves into a signal that travels to your brain, where the brain interprets that signal.  That is what perception means.  The ears hear, and the brain perceives.  And the brain is very easily fooled by all sorts of influences, including the various cognitive biases that come into play.  That is why perception and hearing are two different things.

Blind testing is the ONLY way to eliminate the effect of biases.  You cannot compare two components legitimately when you know what you're listening to and comparing.  The "fooling" effect of these biases, particularly expectation bias, have been proven for many decades.  Wine tasting competitions, where expert judges rank wines in terms of quality, are some of the most widely reported examples of how expectation biases drastically affect the judgement of the wines being tested.  When the judges know what wines they are tasting, because they can see the labels, know the prices, and may be familiar with other wines from the same wineries, always come to different judgements than when the wines are evaluated blind.  In addition, numerous other studies have shown that ordinary consumers who are wine connoisseurs are frequently fooled by decanting a cheap wine into a bottle with an expensive label and comparing it to the expensive wine into the cheap labeled bottle.  These are examples of how powerful the biases are.  And one of the problems with these biases is that they are always subconscious, which means that you cannot dismiss them through conscious effort.  You cannot say "okay, I'm aware that I may be biased toward this component or that, but I'm not going to allow the bias to affect my judgement when I do my A/B test.  I'll be fair and open-minded."  That is impossible.  In addition, even if it WAS possible to eliminate the bias through conscious effort, how would you know if you were successful, given that the biases are unconscious?

Ever heard of a hallucination?  The experience is real, but differs drastically from reality, and is as convincing as real life to people who experience them.  Again, big difference between seeing and perceiving.  All of our senses send the brain information, where the brain interprets the information, and often does so in error.  As I said, the brain is easily fooled.  How can you say for certain that what you think you heard is actually real?  You cannot, unless you eliminate the ever-present biases through blind A/B testing.

Read Dr. Floyd Toole's comprehensive book on psychoacoustics called "Sound Reproduction".  And if you don't know who Toole is, Google his name.  He is widely regarded as the world's foremost expert on the subject.  He devotes a sizable portion of his book on the discussion of biases in his decades of research at the NRCC and at Harman int'l's research facilities as pertaining to loudspeaker evaluation using ordinary humans.  The difference between how various loudspeakers are ranked in terms of sound preference in a sighted test vs the same speakers in a blind test are ASTONISHING.  He sites and presents the results of many such tests.  Brand preference, speaker size, and the speaker's looks were all shown to significantly skew the outcomes.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between what we sense and what we perceive to be real.

I challenge you to compare the Bryston and Denafrips DACs in a properly conducted BLIND test, and see if you still "hear" the difference.

Again, study the science of cognitive biases, as I have done.  Read Toole's book.  Google "bias revealed in wine tasting" for many hours of fascinating reading.  Your eyes will be opened wide.

[pnut]

The OCD nature of this hobby is what drives a lot of people into it. Many people are interested in constantly improving the sound in their system.

And as a result, they are never satisfied, and keep spending more and more money on things that make little difference.  They never reach a point where they admit that good enough is good enough, and stop obsessing over GEAR, and concentrate on just enjoying the music.  Instead of spending 5 grand more on a different DAC, how much more music could you buy with that money?  Is the 1% improvement in sound quality provided by the new DAC worth more than the enormous amount of music you could buy with the same money?  If so, you're an obsessed gearhead, not a music lover.

[MetalAudio]

And as a result, they are never satisfied, and keep spending more and more money on things that make little difference.  They never reach a point where they admit that good enough is good enough, and stop obsessing over GEAR, and concentrate on just enjoying the music.  Instead of spending 5 grand more on a different DAC, how much more music could you buy with that money?  Is the 1% improvement in sound quality provided by the new DAC worth more than the enormous amount of music you could buy with the same money?  If so, you're an obsessed gearhead, not a music lover.

I stream so the cost is the same regardless of what gear I use

[MetalAudio]

Google "cognitive biases" and spend a day studying the subject.  Ever heard of placebo effect (expectation bias) or confirmation bias?  They are two of the most well-known and documented biases (of which there are many).  These and other biases are unconscious, meaning you are not, and cannot be, aware of how they are affecting your perceptions.

You need to understand that the perception of what you hear occurs in the brain, NOT in the ears.  Your ears simply translate the sound pressure waves into a signal that travels to your brain, where the brain interprets that signal.  That is what perception means.  The ears hear, and the brain perceives.  And the brain is very easily fooled by all sorts of influences, including the various cognitive biases that come into play.  That is why perception and hearing are two different things.

Blind testing is the ONLY way to eliminate the effect of biases.  You cannot compare two components legitimately when you know what you're listening to and comparing.  The "fooling" effect of these biases, particularly expectation bias, have been proven for many decades.  Wine tasting competitions, where expert judges rank wines in terms of quality, are some of the most widely reported examples of how expectation biases drastically affect the judgement of the wines being tested.  When the judges know what wines they are tasting, because they can see the labels, know the prices, and may be familiar with other wines from the same wineries, always come to different judgements than when the wines are evaluated blind.  In addition, numerous other studies have shown that ordinary consumers who are wine connoisseurs are frequently fooled by decanting a cheap wine into a bottle with an expensive label and comparing it to the expensive wine into the cheap labeled bottle.  These are examples of how powerful the biases are.  And one of the problems with these biases is that they are always subconscious, which means that you cannot dismiss them through conscious effort.  You cannot say "okay, I'm aware that I may be biased toward this component or that, but I'm not going to allow the bias to affect my judgement when I do my A/B test.  I'll be fair and open-minded."  That is impossible.  In addition, even if it WAS possible to eliminate the bias through conscious effort, how would you know if you were successful, given that the biases are unconscious?

Ever heard of a hallucination?  The experience is real, but differs drastically from reality, and is as convincing as real life to people who experience them.  Again, big difference between seeing and perceiving.  All of our senses send the brain information, where the brain interprets the information, and often does so in error.  As I said, the brain is easily fooled.  How can you say for certain that what you think you heard is actually real?  You cannot, unless you eliminate the ever-present biases through blind A/B testing.

Read Dr. Floyd Toole's comprehensive book on psychoacoustics called "Sound Reproduction".  And if you don't know who Toole is, Google his name.  He is widely regarded as the world's foremost expert on the subject.  He devotes a sizable portion of his book on the discussion of biases in his decades of research at the NRCC and at Harman int'l's research facilities as pertaining to loudspeaker evaluation using ordinary humans.  The difference between how various loudspeakers are ranked in terms of sound preference in a sighted test vs the same speakers in a blind test are ASTONISHING.  He sites and presents the results of many such tests.  Brand preference, speaker size, and the speaker's looks were all shown to significantly skew the outcomes.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between what we sense and what we perceive to be real.

I challenge you to compare the Bryston and Denafrips DACs in a properly conducted BLIND test, and see if you still "hear" the difference.

Again, study the science of cognitive biases, as I have done.  Read Toole's book.  Google "bias revealed in wine tasting" for many hours of fascinating reading.  Your eyes will be opened wide.

I agree with many points here. While I have not done a full blindfold listening test, let me make a few comments on the comparison.

First of all, I actually wanted the Bryston DAC to sound better to my ears than the Denafrips since I am a big fan of the brand. Unfortunately it just did not perform at the same level in a few important areas. The last thing I wanted to do is to spend more money on a DAC, but here we are.

I invited a few others to listen to the difference between the two. One person I know who is into audio clearly heard the differences between the two and preferred the Denafrips. My wife also heard the difference between the two and actually preferred the Bryston sound because the Denafrips "had more going on".

This proves that preferences matter but it's clear that the Terminator Plus has more detail and better layering among other things. If one does not hear a large difference then their system is most likely not resolving enough.

[James Tanner]

Folks - believe me you have to do blind tests.

One interesting point that has been proven a number of times that is interesting is that in A to B demos most listeners will prefer B 

james

[pnut]

I agree with many points here. While I have not done a full blindfold listening test, let me make a few comments on the comparison.

First of all, I actually wanted the Bryston DAC to sound better to my ears than the Denafrips since I am a big fan of the brand. Unfortunately it just did not perform at the same level in a few important areas. The last thing I wanted to do is to spend more money on a DAC, but here we are.

I invited a few others to listen to the difference between the two. One person I know who is into audio clearly heard the differences between the two and preferred the Denafrips. My wife also heard the difference between the two and actually preferred the Bryston sound because the Denafrips "had more going on".

This proves that preferences matter but it's clear that the Terminator Plus has more detail and better layering among other things. If one does not hear a large difference then their system is most likely not resolving enough.

It proves nothing of the sort.  But, you're obviously not going to be convinced otherwise, and I'll wager a large sum you won't take any of my advice to do the actual research on the subject, so there's no point in debating further.  If you're convinced the Denafrips sounds better, then you have a simple choice to make. 

[WGH]

In my system I heard the Denafrips Terminator Plus and it was clearly better than the Bryston DAC.

I'm not surprised that the Denafrips sounds different than the Bryston in your system, it's always about synergy.

But you are comparing apples and oranges. The Stereophile review says the Bryston uses dual AKM chips whereas the Denafrips is a R2R NOS (non-oversampling) DAC.
R2R NOS DACs slowly roll off the highs starting earlier than the AKM chip.

The Stereophile Denafrips Terminator measurements are a good example:

Denafrips Terminator, NOS mode, frequency response at –12dBFS into 100k ohms with data sampled at: 44.1kHz (left channel green, right gray), 96kHz (left cyan, right magenta), and 192kHz (left blue, right red) (0.5dB/vertical div.).


The Stereophile Bryston BDA-3 measurements show an extended high frequency response with the 44.1kHz brick wall filter

Bryston BDA-3, frequency response at –12dBFS into 100k ohms with data sampled at: 44.1kHz (left channel green, right gray), 96kHz (left cyan, right magenta), 192kHz (left blue, right red), 384kHz (left green, right gray) (0.5dB/vertical div.).


The measurements by Golden Sound raise doubt that the Denafrips Terminator Plus is even a NOS DAC, his analysis concludes the Denafrips does linear interpolation oversampling, that doesn't mean it doesn't sound great, it just isn't a true NOS DAC.
https://goldensound.audio/2021/10/07/denafrips-terminator-plus-with-gaia-measurements/


Another reason for the difference in sound is how the digital signal is filtered. Different filter choices change how a DAC sounds.

JA's Bryston BDA-3 measurements state:
"The impulse response with data sampled at 44.1kHz (fig.1) revealed that the digital reconstruction filter used by LG was a minimum-phase type, with all ringing occurring after the single sample at 0dBFS."

Sound Stage measured the Denafrips Terminator Plus and found "the  NOS mode also yielded a symmetrical impulse response, but with less pre- and post-ringing effects. Of note here is that this is not the shape of NOS DAC impulse response (it should be a square), but that of a typical sinc filter."

In oversampling mode the Denafrips has a Sharp and Slow filter which have more pre- and post-ringing effects than the NOS filter.
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2612:denafrips-terminator-plus-digital-to-analog-converter-measurements&catid=434&Itemid=577


I completely eliminated the "which DAC sounds best" quandary by buying a true NOS DAC and using HQPlayer to upsample PCM to DSD256. Why DSD? The simplest answer is it just sounds better. The Bryston does DSD so it is easy to prove it to yourself, don't believe me, believe your ears.

Start with the HQPlayer poly-sinc-gauss-long filter and ASDM7EC-light to upsample to DSD256. The combo has been optimized for all types of music. The learning curve can be steep, the Audiophile Style HQPlayer thread is dauntingly long but the rewards are worth it. Hint: instead of reading the entire thread, read the last 5 pages and plug in the filters everyone else is using as a starter. You may never need to change.

Other filters can closely approximate other manufacturer's DAC sound characteristics.

[Chord DAC] "Chord-style filters sinc-L group and sinc-short/medium/long the length also affects stop-band attenuation."

[In the latest HQPlayer 5.2.0] "...find new linear phase halfband filters.
"I found the xs one to be very interesting. IMO it shows some similarity to xtr-short."

Miska (HQPlayer's developer) replied:
"It is something I actually made because someone asked what would be closest to Mola-Mola filter, and there weren't any. So this one fairly closely matches the one used by Mola-Mola. And it is very similar to most DAC chip filters (ESS etc) in terms of response as well. Relatively slow roll-off and fairly low attenuation.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=179643.msg1963005#msg1963005


Interesting stuff but most audiophiles would rather buy a new DAC every couple of years to get a new sound. When I talk about HQPlayer and it's 165 filters, dithers, noise shapers, and Delta-Sigma (DSD) converters to the guys in our audio club I can watch their eyes roll.