[Freo-1]

If I could I would invite everyone to my house who does not think that there is a difference in sound between DAC's and improvement in sound as you go up in price I would.  My system is so revealing of changes in DAC's and USB cables.

If you look at the recommended components regarding DACs at Stereophile,  the majority of them do not use off the shelf filtering.   Instead, many of them use custom filtering,  upscaling,  or both.  This is why DACs have improved markedly over time. 


Rob Watts of Chord explains that what motivated him to develop his version of DACs in the Master Design Class video, available on YouTube. He basically said that digital music at that time just didn't sound very good.  He worked out mathematically that it would take one million taps in order to get CD quality files to sound like music.   He also explains that he needed to modify filtering significantly to get snr down below audibility.


The custom filtering gets the time-domain playback right,  which to me, has been one of the Achilles heel of digital playback.  At one million taps, digital harshness disappears, so whatever harshness is heard is on the recording itself.

[JimJ]

All I know is that the Benchmark DAC2 has been good enough for me to not worry about upgrading

[Tom Bombadil]

I can understand why people think there is no difference.  I have participated in CD player and DAC blind comparisons where I and others have failed to discern differences.   

I have passed a number of blind comparisons too.  I have found that I can more reliably discern differences when I relax and just listen to the music as compared to concentrating on some aspect of the sound, like definition on deep bass notes or the air around cymbals.  Put on a great recording and disappear into the music.  When Norah Jones' or Diana Krall's voice makes the hairs on my arms stand up.  When it sounds so natural, unrestrained, open. 

I have failed comparisons using this method too, but it has really worked for me on a number of occasions.  Including a recent comparison between an older TOTL DAC vs a newer Stereophile A list DAC and after listening to both for a couple of hours (and equalizing volume levels), I correctly identified the DACs on 10 of 10 trials.  Much better than some kind of "technical" attempt where I'm playing some short passage (5-10 seconds) over and over again, trying to pick out a difference.

I do feel that in many systems that there isn't much of a difference.  I own some inexpensive speakers where I would not bet upon my ability to hear differences. 

[morganc]

reading other peoples comments and experiences, watching youtube videos, etc etc, while useful, only gets you so far, and does not substitute for personal effort and trial - trouble with trying to figure this out with second and third hand sources is that sometimes it is hard to know the credibility and motivations of those who are broadcasting such info...

After enjoying this hobby now for more years than I'll volunteer here. I'll say the reason I love AC is that I have now found a group of high integrity members here with better ears than I have who have the same taste in systems that I have and from whom I can therefore trust their thoughts and musings and experience. I don't mean everyone here, I mean select posters that inresonate with, some of which I have met in person and some of which I have not. 

Having done this has helped me slow down the merry go round of gear swapping that I used to do and instead let others do that for me!

Having said that, many such friends have deeper wallets and more expertise than I have, so I do my best to keep up. 

[Cheytak.408]

I can understand why people think there is no difference.  I have participated in CD player and DAC blind comparisons where I and others have failed to discern differences.   

I have passed a number of blind comparisons too.  I have found that I can more reliably discern differences when I relax and just listen to the music as compared to concentrating on some aspect of the sound, like definition on deep bass notes or the air around cymbals.  Put on a great recording and disappear into the music.  When Norah Jones' or Diana Krall's voice makes the hairs on my arms stand up.  When it sounds so natural, unrestrained, open. 

I have failed comparisons using this method too, but it has really worked for me on a number of occasions.  Including a recent comparison between an older TOTL DAC vs a newer Stereophile A list DAC and after listening to both for a couple of hours (and equalizing volume levels), I correctly identified the DACs on 10 of 10 trials.  Much better than some kind of "technical" attempt where I'm playing some short passage (5-10 seconds) over and over again, trying to pick out a difference.

I do feel that in many systems that there isn't much of a difference.  I own some inexpensive speakers where I would not bet upon my ability to hear differences.

It all comes down to performance and anticipation bias.  I learned some years ago from a former Circle/ owner how to perform listening tests.  A true evaluation is not a listen, rinse, repeat (ABX) exercise.  To truly discern differences and superior changes one has to make a change, live with it for a week and then go back to the original configuration.  Itis then when an educated, unpresured choice can be made.  At that moment in time you (we) can make a decision as to what configuration is best.  I that few minutes the listener will KNOW what is better. 

It ain't brain surgery. It is educated, experiential determinations.  Ya' gotta' listen...deeply... listen.

The biggest stumbling block to this is the impatience of the "gimme now" mentality too prevalent these daze.  The methodical determination of system consist takes time.  Get over this.

[lokie]

Resolution and hearing minute details is one character of a home audio system. For a lot of us it's way down the list of most important qualities. Resolute and detail oriented or "hifi" type systems are interesting for a while, but then the petals fall off the rose. I get it... if you buy a $4k cartridge, you want to hear how different or "better" it is than the $1500 cartridge.

Getting into arguments as to what's "best" is a fools errand. So, I'll just say there is whole nuder sound people are aiming for and a digital signal being whitewashed through algorithms takes them further away from the original recording's "essence".

[rbbert]

...I have found that I can more reliably discern differences when I relax and just listen to the music as compared to concentrating on some aspect of the sound, like definition on deep bass notes or the air around cymbals.  Put on a great recording and disappear into the music.  When Norah Jones' or Diana Krall's voice makes the hairs on my arms stand up.  When it sounds so natural, unrestrained, open...

Resolution and hearing minute details is one character of a home audio system. For a lot of us it's way down the list of most important qualities...

This POV can (and should) also be used to evaluate different digital formats for music.  The idea that differences between (for example) 320k MP3, Redbook 16/44.1, DSD64, 24/96 or 24/192 PCM, etc. should be "resolution and hearing minute details" is completely inappropriate IMO.  The advantages of higher "data flow" in a digital recording is that it should get you more into the music and less into the recording; the same reasoning applies to  the design and use of upsampling and filtering pre and post the actual D>A conversion.  Some of that can be measured (the time domain accuracy that Freo-1 alludes to), most of it can only be appreciated through listening.

[I.Greyhound Fan]

It is more than just detail with DAC's.  It is also depth and width of sound stage, musicality, tone, texture, bass punch and speed, air and transparency, the ability to separate instruments and not sound congested, high frequencies, sibilants and more.

I have heard many DAC's and the cheap ones just don't have the texture, tone, depth and width of sound stage and great space between instruments.  If you can't hear those differences in your system, then it is not good enough to discern the differences between DACs.  This is not expectation bias!

[Tyson]

It all comes down to performance and anticipation bias.  I learned some years ago from a former Circle/ owner how to perform listening tests.  A true evaluation is not a listen, rinse, repeat (ABX) exercise.  To truly discern differences and superior changes one has to make a change, live with it for a week and then go back to the original configuration.  Itis then when an educated, unpresured choice can be made.  At that moment in time you (we) can make a decision as to what configuration is best.  I that few minutes the listener will KNOW what is better. 

It ain't brain surgery. It is educated, experiential determinations.  Ya' gotta' listen...deeply... listen.

The biggest stumbling block to this is the impatience of the "gimme now" mentality too prevalent these daze.  The methodical determination of system consist takes time.  Get over this.

This is how I demo gear.  Drop it in the system, live with it for at least a week, then swap.  IME, ABX tests are almost worthless as they tend to obscure the ability to discern small but important factors that contribute to things like soundstage. 

To me it's exactly like getting to know a new single malt scotch.  A-B blind tests will not allow you to really know the character of a new (to you) scotch.  Gradual embibing over time in a relaxed environment is what's really needed.  And repeat that over several days/weeks and eventually you will know it very well. 

I no longer drink, but this process is the same method needed when trying out a new piece of audio gear.  Take the time to really get to know it before passing judgement. 

[Freo-1]

To me, we are all involved with this hobby for one primary objective,  which is to recreate the music performance in such a manner to sound as close as possible to the original event,  be it a live event or a studio recording.  Great systems can get the listener fairly close, but will never quite get there. 


Because the systems never quite get there, and we all have different priorities as to what's important with recreating music, audio enthusiasts wind up having diverse opinions regarding system playback.  Digital has many technical advantages,  but it also has technical drawbacks,  many of which audio enthusiasts are familiar with.  DACs certainly has improved markedly over the years,  but IMHO, the off the shelf filtering only go so far. 


I stumbled onto custom filtering/upsampling DACs via the Head-fi.org website.  The headphone crowd is perhaps more particular regarding sound playback than other audio enthusiasts.   There is great love for custom filtering and upsampling with DACs for headphone listening.  I suspect it's because high end headphones can reveal more than speakers at a lower price point.   


Based on the headphone threads,  decided to audition some Chord gear.  The difference compared to other DACs in house (ADI-2,  Benchmark) was significant.   The differences were a lack of any digital harshness,  time domain correction,  natural sounding instruments,  etc.  Had I not been exposed to the custom digital setup,  would have a completely different view of the subject.  I use to think DACs could only provide a small amount of improvement,  but didn't realize the scope of improvement a higher quality DAC and upscaling digital setup can provide. 


As always,  YMMV.

[I.Greyhound Fan]

If anyone does not believe there are differences among dac's and that high end dacs don't sound different, they need to give a listen to the Bricasti M1 dac.  Anyone that went into the Bricasti room at Axpona about 4-5 years ago was blown away.  There was no digital sound at all.  The music was holographic and floating in air.  It was stunning.  It was the best sounding room at the show as far as I was concerned.

Also, give a listen to the PSA Direct Stream.  It has tremendous air and transparency with a huge sound stage and spacing between instruments is the best I have heard.  Also listen to the Exogal Comet Plus.  I wrote a review on this DAC for Exogal and it was holographic and 3d sounding to the point it sounded like there was surround sound in my system.  I have also heard some of the higher end Aqua DAC's and they are beautiful sounding and have a very analog sound.  The best tone and texture that I have heard with piano and vocals was the Marantz NA11s1 DAC that I owned briefly.  It was just stunning.  Unfortunately, it was too forward in my system with overpowering bass, otherwise I would still own it.  My current Luxman DAC is warm, detailed and analog sounding.  It has excellent depth and big sound stage. It is a little colored and has a touch bass bloom which I like.  Vocals are sublime sounding. One of the most detailed and resolving DAC's that I have heard was in a friend's system and fellow AC'er is the T+A DAC8 using HQ player at 8x DSD.

Other DAC's that I have owned or heard in my system or friends are the Cary 200t, Hugo Chord, Qutest (which is a fabulous dac if you upgrade the power supply), Exasound,  Bryston BDA-1, Lampizator,  W4S DSDse with femto clock upgrade, Yggdrasil, ifi tube dac, Big Ego, AQ Dragon Fly, Modi 3, Vinni Rossi, AVA Ultra hybrid DAC the last gen AVA DAC, and a few others that slip my mind.  All sounded remarkably different!

Another thing to keep in mind is that the computer or server you are using influences the sound and especially the music player.  JRiver IMHO is midfi sounding compared to Audirvana, HQP, Hysolid and Bug Head.  From what little I have heard of Roon, it is very good sounding but sounds better with HQP embedded.  To me, many of the various versions of Bug Head sound the best but it is a pain to use.  I use Audirvana for more casual listening and I like how airy and transparent it sounds. And lets not forget about the type of music and quality of the recordings.

I did not need to live with these DAC's to hear the differences.  They were readily apparent within a minute of listening.

I really don't get this discussion as CD players can sound remarkably different.  If you don't believe that, give a listen to the Marantz SA-8001 and the Cambridge Audio 840c back to back.  I owned both at the same time.  Ended up keeping the 840c.

[TomS]

Yup, I agree. I have a Bricasti M1 SE with the MDx board upgrade and ethernet renderer (using Roon). It has a choice of a dozen or so filters, works very well, and sounds terrific.

[VinceT]

If anyone does not believe there are differences among dac's and that high end dacs don't sound different, they need to give a listen to the Bricasti M1 dac.  Anyone that went into the Bricasti room at Axpona about 4-5 years ago was blown away.  There was no digital sound at all.  The music was holographic and floating in air.  It was stunning.  It was the best sounding room at the show as far as I was concerned.

Also, give a listen to the PSA Direct Stream.  It has tremendous air and transparency with a huge sound stage and spacing between instruments is the best I have heard.  Also listen to the Exogal Comet Plus.  I wrote a review on this DAC for Exogal and it was holographic and 3d sounding to the point it sounded like there was surround sound in my system.  I have also heard some of the higher end Aqua DAC's and they are beautiful sounding and have a very analog sound.  The best tone and texture that I have heard with piano and vocals was the Marantz NA11s1 DAC that I owned briefly.  It was just stunning.  Unfortunately, it was too forward in my system with overpowering bass, otherwise I would still own it.  My current Luxman DAC is warm, detailed and analog sounding.  It has excellent depth and big sound stage. It is a little colored and has a touch bass bloom which I like.  Vocals are sublime sounding. One of the most detailed and resolving DAC's that I have heard was in a friend's system and fellow AC'er is the T+A DAC8 using HQ player at 8x DSD.

Other DAC's that I have owned or heard in my system or friends are the Cary 200t, Hugo Chord, Qutest (which is a fabulous dac if you upgrade the power supply), Exasound,  Bryston BDA-1, Lampizator,  W4S DSDse with femto clock upgrade, Yggdrasil, ifi tube dac, Big Ego, AQ Dragon Fly, Modi 3, Vinni Rossi, AVA Ultra hybrid DAC the last gen AVA DAC, and a few others that slip my mind.  All sounded remarkably different!

Another thing to keep in mind is that the computer or server you are using influences the sound and especially the music player.  JRiver IMHO is midfi sounding compared to Audirvana, HQP, Hysolid and Bug Head.  From what little I have heard of Roon, it is very good sounding but sounds better with HQP embedded.  To me, many of the various versions of Bug Head sound the best but it is a pain to use.  I use Audirvana for more casual listening and I like how airy and transparent it sounds. And lets not forget about the type of music and quality of the recordings.

I did not need to live with these DAC's to hear the differences.  They were readily apparent within a minute of listening.

I really don't get this discussion as CD players can sound remarkably different.  If you don't believe that, give a listen to the Marantz SA-8001 and the Cambridge Audio 840c back to back.  I owned both at the same time.  Ended up keeping the 840c.

This is a great thread, we need our own DAC circle on AC. There is tremendous value here from this community regarding dacs you cannot find on the interwebs.

[FullRangeMan]

These people that dont like DACs are using vinyl so they dont need DACs.

[VinceT]

I have a lot of vinyl, but the cost of records has become cost prohibitive. I was purchasing records when they were cheap, now cheap is $10-15.00 a record and for the cost of 100 records you can have a nice Dac. Once in a whille you get lucky and score some cheap records but that is getting harder and much less frequent.

[WGH]

If you look at the recommended components regarding DACs at Stereophile,  the majority of them do not use off the shelf filtering.   Instead, many of them use custom filtering,  upscaling,  or both.  This is why DACs have improved markedly over time. 

Rob Watts of Chord explains that what motivated him to develop his version of DACs in the Master Design Class video, available on YouTube. He basically said that digital music at that time just didn't sound very good.  He worked out mathematically that it would take one million taps in order to get CD quality files to sound like music.   He also explains that he needed to modify filtering significantly to get snr down below audibility.

The custom filtering gets the time-domain playback right,  which to me, has been one of the Achilles heel of digital playback.  At one million taps, digital harshness disappears, so whatever harshness is heard is on the recording itself.

Over the last couple of months I have been exploring the 1,000,000 taps idea, along with upsampling and custom filtering. Most DACs don't have the horsepower or filter choices needed to make a synergistic pairing with your system. And if, just by luck, you find the perfect DAC, then changing something like an interconnect throws everything out of wack and you are back into a new DAC hunt.

I.Greyhound Fan prefers Audirvana, HQP, Hysolid and Bug Head to JRiver. What he is saying is he doesn't like the stock filters and noise shaping/dither algorithms JRiver software is using.

HQPlayer's 30 digital algorithms and 15 NS/dither settings allow a user to fine tune the sound to your system and the music. HQPlayer becomes the engine, the music player software is now just the pretty face. What DAC is used is almost secondary, as long as it is a good DAC. But HQPlayer won't make a Topping sound like a Bricasti M1.

Many of my ripped CDs are old so an "apodizing filter" sounds best. A "closed form filter" doesn't have apodizing but has the potential to sound better on new digital downloads using state-of-the-art recording software.

• closed-form-M: closed form interpolation with one million taps
• closed-form-16M: closed form interpolation with 16 million taps
• sinc-M: sinc-filter with one million taps. Very sharp cut-off and high attenuation with an apodizing filter

Using a streaming player is like driving a Ford Focus (I got one, it's nice, easy on the pocketbook and gets me where I want to go). Then the DAC can make a difference.

A high powered music server with HQPlayer is like a Tesla (which I don't have). A DAC discussion almost becomes moot.

I posted some stuff about HQPlayer here:
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=182724.msg1919415#msg1919415

[VinceT]

Thanks for sharing WGH and pointing this back to your other thread. Very well thought out and thorough post. I am learning a lot every day in the hobby and this has definitely lead me down a rabbit hole of more research and can see that this can be the future of ultimate playback. I have been exclsuively streaming digital and I see HQP now supports Quboz. I would assume this type of system is most beneficial when playing back downloaded material versus streaming. Overall benefit when utilizing the processing power of a PC versus a dac in any playback scenario.