Benefits of an external DAC

whitestix wrote:

"Some years ago, I was at the CA Audio show and the particular vendors were using a Bricasti DAC, selling for $5K-$6K. They also had a Jolida Tube DAC which they were able to switch back and forth with the Bricasti DAC. After a couple of minutes of switching back and forth, I looked that the fellow doing the demo and simply shrugged my shoulders... they both sounded the same to me."

stfoth wrote:

"In my limited experience, decent DACs often sound more alike than different."

These experiences are common, but not for the reasons that you expect. The unfortunate fact is, that most systems include an active preamp that introduces so much compression and distortion that any differences in even expensive DAC’s will be masked.

Even after this preamp is replaced by a really good one, there are probably 3-5 ground-loops in the system, all adding noise that masks any differences.

Then there is the source. Most digital sources have WAY too much jitter to deliver a pinpoint focused soundstage.

Then there are the sub-optimal cables, both digital and analog. Many times being used as filters to mask out system distortions from components that should be replaced.

This is a system effect, where all of the constituent parts matter and they all add up causing musical soup.

In order to prevent people from going down the garden path and spending a LOT of money on one thing that they believe will solve ALL of their system deficiencies, it is a good idea to partner with someone with a lot of experience in the business that can help you optimize the system and prevent you from going down the garden path. Help you get the most bang for your buck.

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

Shadorne wrote:

"Interesting. You advocate feeding a DAC with low jitter. However we all know that this is next to impossible as jitter is inherent in cabling and the way the clock timing is detecting at the receiving end."

We don’t ALL know this to be true. Digital cables certainly add jitter, but this can be minimized by using a well-designed proper length cable. Also, if the driver of the cable has a fast enough risetime, insignificant jitter will be introduced by the external cable connection of source to DAC.

"I would say it makes equal sense to focus on a DAC that has the technology to reject all and any incoming jitter thoroughly below -140 dB. Is there something you don’t agree with in designing robust mathematical algorithms and electronics to reject all jitter?"

Not the strategy, but the implementation. Once you have such as DAC, you are locked to the internal clocking, which is usually sub-par. It may reject MOST incoming jitter, but it’s own internal jitter is always there. Furthermore, there is nothing you can do externally to improve on this DAC as technology improves clocking techniques in the future. This is precisely why I don’t put a reclocker in my own DAC. As the jitter technology improves and different sources become available, I can take advantage of this and hear improvements in my DAC, without needing to replace it.  It seems to be doing pretty well at generation 3:

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

blindjim wrote:

"The biggest aspect to supposedly better DACs is the same issue with nearly every electronic device, its power supply. Period. Well, mainly. It’s the usual starting point for nearly every component’s upgrade.

Better, read, ‘more expensive’ DACs normally will have better PS, and better shielding, more PS dedicated to this or that, etc. reputedly better analog output stages, etc"

Jim has it right.  This is the difference, aside from aesthetics and features.  Power supply should better be stated as "power subsystem" or "power delivery" because it includes regulators, wiring, board design and decoupling.  This is the difference in most components, including DAC, preamp and amps.  It's also a knowledge of what it takes to "feed" each chip the power that it needs in order to meet the written specs.

Steve N.

Empirical Audio