Is there any such thing as a bad sounding DAC these days?

All that I have heard sound good, though relative to cost...had a $200 SMSL that sounded good and had great feature set, but for me the Schiit Bifrost at $800 and the Denafrips Ares at $900 clearly sounded better...and I would have preferred to like the SMSL more than those...currently using a Schiit Modi+ ($129) on desktop and it's awesome for the price and all I need for that use..

I use one of these portable dongle dac/amps with earphones and gotta say it sounds absolute top notch.

https://www.tempotec.net/products/sonata-bhd-pro-usb-dac?srsltid=AfmBOoq7cfgu5t0PI7n5yMOvbZ6MKKB24Z7nvVeCb6IsMXIuvwQ_Wb9U

Also have an older Chord Mojo that cost a lot more and has a “warmer” sound.

At home currently using a couple Cambridge Audio streamers with integrated DAC and have an older mhdt Constantine NOS DAC that is very “musical”. I like them all.

Have heard many others all the way up to DCS, a company that has always helped to set the benchmark for top notch DACs.

Most likely the OP’s question misses the more important question and reality for us Audiophiles. Couple of things to consider. First, a dac cannot play music in your home all by itself as it is part of a complete audio system. Second, what sounds good is very subjective and influenced by system synergy and personal sonic preferences. I have listened to current production dacs that are well reviewed and priced up to $3000 (Benchmark) that just sounded awful to my ears in my system. At the same time I have heard current $1200 dacs (MHDT Lab) that I felt sounded good to my ears and in my system.
My point is this, not all modern day dacs will sound good to all people in all systems. Too many preferences and variables at play making it just impossible. So a modern dac can indeed sound bad in a given situation. To another person in another system my dac findings may be opposite of his. Crazy reality of this passion/hobby.

was surprised how good my Cambridge CXN V2 streamer sounds with internal DAC, was going to be a temporary, but decided to keep it...

I am not strictly an ASR measurement guy—I value the listening experience much more than the measurements.  However, for an (R2R) DAC that measures as poorly as any I’ve ever seen and yet sounds good in your system, I would say there is no single DAC on the market that sounds bad.

I think I get your point. In comparison to ten or twenty years ago, most DACs sound much better. There were some truly hideous sounding DACs back then.

Now, each level up sounds better... absolutely. Every step in increased price in major DAC lines nets much better sound.

Then there is a question of does the sound characteristics match your tastes. Like for me, a Benchmark or dCS DAC is not even close to a sound I want for music and however Audio Research or Berkely is. But I can’t really say any of them are bad.

I can’t believe there are not some really inexpensive DACs that don’t still sound bad. But I don’t have any now, and can’t think of any reason I would audition any.

You might be surprised by hearing some very nice sounding DACs / players from long ago. They will absolutely measure like dog crap compared to modern. But our ear-brains do not process information via Fast Fourier Transform!

I tried an RME ADI-2 Pro "Black Edition" and hated it. Measures great. I hated the Benchmark DAC-1 too, back 20 years ago when that was all the rage - great measurements for its time, and was being dubbed "best DAC at any price" etc. Have a 30 year old Meridian 566 DAC. A real dinosaur. Very rich, warm, vibrant and natural tonality. Musical. More like my vinyl playback, in these aspects. Not as refined nor detailed as great vinyl, or modern digital. But probably more enjoyable (to me) than most modern digital. I had a R2R DAC too (Yggdrasil) and it didn’t have this quality, at all.

The technical progression of DACs over the past fews decades, from a mathematical and engineering standpoint, has been immense. But when metered as enjoyable listening devices - the progression has been far from linear, and not always in the "right" direction. There have been gems and dogs in every era. 

All DACs contain an analog amplifier stage, There are plenty of differences there. 

@lanx0003 my point seems to have been lost on you. The ASR review has nothing to do with my point. ASR reviews of Benchmark and Topping dacs are stellar, but they sound bad to my ears and in my system. This supports my point all the more.

I am talking about subjectivity being a reality with Audiophiles while you introduce only objectivity? 

Well, the 49c dac in consumer electronics isn’t much of a quality piece.

But if you speak of DACs made for the audio enthusiast, there probably isn’t a bad one, but there are some that are much, much better.

Jerry

PS  ASR...LOL

I agree there is probably no “bad” dac for audio enthusiasts in general.

A DAC that measures well and pleases others but does not please me may be deemed "superb", but what’s the relevance of such an assessment if I don’t want to listen to it?

I understand the OP was speaking in general terms. And in general terms, DAC technology/digital/streaming sound quality has greatly advanced over the past 15 years or so. There’s now a ton of great sounding DACs out there on the market to choose from, at all price points. The good news is, nowadays, you don’t have to spend a ton of money on a DAC to achieve near reference quality sound quality. With all the wonderful advances in technology over the past 10-15 years in high end audio, especially on the digital side of the aisle, life’s gotten pretty doggone good for the modern audiophile, simply because, generally, you can get a higher level of sound quality for less money than you could in the past. Happy listening.

@ghdprentice hit the nail on the head when he said “Then there is a question of does the sound characteristics match your tastes.”

Like him a Benchmark DAC sends me running for the door.  A friend of mine who has been in the hobby/industry for decades really likes it.

So there’s the rub, it depends on what you want to hear.  Aggressive?  Smooth?  Hyper detailed?  Syrupy (is that a word)?  The answer to your question depends on what you’re chasing.

To my ears yes there bad sounding DAC’s.

Yes many lower cost dacs are flat not that warm sounding to start with.under $1k

“Is there any such thing as a bad sounding DAC these days?”

Yes. 
 

Evary one that I own as they never stay around  for long. 

…but do any that really matter these days not sound “good”?…

Depends, DACs nowadays is MUCH better sonically than before and can be very satisfying.  However, to get a DAC up to the sonic level of my analog rig, I had to spend more.  

I think the question is there such a thing as a good sounding DAC? 

I had a Bryston BDA-3, a great sounding DAC in my system. LUMIN U-1 streamer with upgraded power supply. Can not be beat for dollar value. Good luck finding one on the preowned market. I rate some equipment by looking for it on the preowned market. If it’s hard to find, there must be a reason why.

I now have an Aqua LaScala DAC. Wanted to get into the tube side of the hobby.

Would like to edit my post. Just checked on the preowned market and found several BDA-3’s for sale. Try it you’ll like it.

@mapman 

I’m not sure how far back you want to go, but I have the original Schiit Bifrost and it is pretty bad. 

Current Bifrost is awesome for the price...when was original released?

@njcardave 

I’ve sort of been looking at replacing my Denafrips Pontus ll and the La Scala is on my list, but with no dealer anywhere near me, I’ll probably have rely on the magazines, YouTube and Agon for reviews. I have definitely been smitten with the R2R sound, so Would you message me at tell me your thoughts on your La Scala?  Thanks in advance.

@jl35 

 Think the original Bifrost Multibit DAC came out in 2018 or 2019, I think.

I bought a SMSL DO100 Pro based on a recommendation on some Reddit forum. It sounds like crap. I think it depends on your system and what you’re used to. I really wanted it to sound good and expected it to, but sadly the placebo effect wasn’t enough to overcome what my ears told me.

Was it “bad”? I think so. Did it literally damage my speakers or something? No, just an edginess and high frequency grain that made the music unenjoyable. I was just using my desktop system, a set of Focal Chorus 706 (which honestly pretty warm, I couldn’t even imagine using it with something more detailed and revealing).

I think you would need to define “bad” to have any reasonable chance at useful answers here. I’m kind of defining it as “I don’t think it sounds any better than what’s in my phone”, which may not mean “bad” per se, but I expected more for something that has an additional cost and is presumably meant to be plugged into a home stereo system.

Referencing my comment above. For comparison I was using a PS Audio Sprout 100. The DAC in that is much much better. On my main system I was using PS Audio Digital Link III, then a Chord Hugo 2, now a Yggdrasil. And yes each change made a clear difference. Massive gulf between Digital Link III and Huge 2, substantial but not earth shattering between Hugo 2 and Yggy. Now with the Yggy I feel like I’m set for a good long while. Time to look at amps.

@curiousjim 

FYI, Last time l looked at TMR, they had a used La Scala. They accept returns although they now charge a 5% restocking fee.

Wow, just want to say, I wrote my comment almost defensively and hadn’t read the rest of the thread.  I was ready to be attacked by the ASR folks.  It’s refreshing to read comments by others who judge their sound system based on listening rather than graphs and charts.  I’m not anti measurement at all, but I do think pure objectivity is a very peculiar way to approach listening to music.  And I don’t love being attacked for liking something they don’t think I should like.  

Apologies for cluttering up the thread with an off topic post, but thank you for being accepting and, well, … having a conversation like actual audiophiles!
 

After reading some of these opinions, it's obvious that you just need to spend more and more to get the best sound. 

@ghdprentice : What DAC's from the early years of digital sound "hideous"? Inquiring minds want to know!

I agree that most DACs $500+ sound good.

What matters now is synergy with DAC and the rest of the system. My Benchmark DAC3B which is bright on top is incredible on my warm RAAL VM-1a tube headphone amp. Not so great on more neutral gear I have owned.

I had the $24k Playback Designs Dream DAC in my sights but I had a nagging feeling it was not the best way to elevate the overall system since there are a lot of great DACs for a lot cheaper. I spent that money on my amp, a CODA #16, which was a very wise move. I got a Schitt Yggi+ OG DAC which has me totally happy with the DAC ($2800) and the PBD Dream is long forgotten.

What DAC’s from the early years of digital sound "hideous"? Inquiring minds want to know!

The Benchmark DAC1 is hideous compared to today’s DACs. I owned it for a long time, as well as the DAC2, DAC3 HGC. 

This brand many have not heard and is very good in all his price groups the MK2  i

am purchasing this week ,it is the most rewarding dac I have found under $10 k 

https://en.merason.com/

@audioman58 Great choice! I have considered the same one when I upgraded from the (Swiss) Merason Frérot. But then decided for the (French) Métronome Le Dac 2 which sounded a little better to my ears.

My subjective observation is yes, but...

Around 2000 DAC's universally improved how well they played Redbook.  The days of big jumps in sound quality between a 44.1/16 bit recording and 96/24 have all but vanished with only very small differences probably brought on by the digital filters.

Can you still make a terrible DAC?  Not sure, but while the Topping D90 (or whatever I have in a box) measures great I don't listen to it for long. 

Don't forget about how improvements in ADC;s have contributed to this.

I am of the opinion that competently designed DACs have been sounding the same for over 10 years (provided the design goal is total linearity).
If a user prefers a certain coloration, a certain design, or certain features - hey, all the power to them and that’s also why there are many choices.
My last DAC acquisition was in 2023 or so, a JDS Labs Element 3 for my home office workstation. It has all sorts of filter tuning and you can do things like EQ or add H2/H3 harmonics... but I simply haven’t touched anything after the novelty of having those choices wore off.

The sound-quality range, if you will, of digital audio is far more narrow than analog audio's, and it continues to narrow down.

I agree with the Benchmark comments. Owned the DAC 3 and found it cold and clinical. More than the D to A conversion the DAC needs a clean Analog output. That’s what separates the best from the good. 

My primary current setup is Roon->Cambridge Audio mxn10 streamer/DAC analog out-> Schitt Freya balanced XLR out -> Class D Audio Premium GaN 6.5 Balanced 2-Channel Amplifier 200W RMS into 8 OHM -> KEF ls 50 meta + powered sub or Ohm Walsh F5 series 3.

I listen to the KEFs nearfield in a small 12X12 room and the Ohms non-nearfield in a much larger L shaped room.

I couldn’t ask for anything more regarding sound quality and performance in either listening scenario. The nearfield setup with the KEFs in particular allows one to really listen in detail into the recording. The detail, soundstage and imaging, and dynamics at all levels is just incredibly good on the grand scale of things. Tone overall is very neutral, which is what I like. Every nuance seems to be delivered...things I never noticed before even with old familiar recordings. Different remastered releases of the same content sound clearly different as well. From listening experience, I can say with confidence the new GanFET amp in particular is a big contributor, but the DAC is certainly holding up its part very well indeed.

I may play with the DAC part a bit just for fun to see what differences I might hear.

Open for suggestions!

The digital part is thoroughly transparent, always. The only thing that matters is the analog output, and that's where we measure the transparency (or not) of a DAC. Of course there could be some sort of contamination (as with everything analog), but it would be captured in measurements. DACs imo have been a thoroughly solved problem for a long time. It's not where I'd want to tune my system to have a signature... amp and speakers... sure. I am not saying I believe utter transparency should be everybody's ideal. :-)

You might be surprised by hearing some very nice sounding DACs / players from long ago. They will absolutely measure like dog crap compared to modern. But our ear-brains do not process information via Fast Fourier Transform!

Perhaps surprisingly, our ears and brain DO process sound almost exactly like a Fast Fourier Transform.

Our cochlea and our auditory cortex are tonotopic.  When a complex wave gets to our inner ear, different frequencies within the complex wave have peak resonant points at different physical locations along the basilar membranes of our cochlea which have different stereocilia bundles connected to them. Our inner ear actually breaks down the complex wave into component frequencies based on where each component frequency maximally excites the basilar membrane, and we have separate nerve firings for each of those component frequencies based on the hair cell bundles connected to the basilar membrane at those locations. The tonotopic geography continues into the auditory cortex in the brain, which Dr. Nina Kraus of Northwestern likens to a piano, where you see different physical regions in the auditory cortex responding to different frequency components of the complex waveform.

So, yeah, actually, our ears and our brains are breaking down incoming complex waveforms into their component frequencies very much like an FFT, and, further, actually converting them into binary-like neural spikes -- when a stereocilia bundle is deflected it creates a nerve spike or no spike, functionally like a 1 or a 0 -- and those go up to higher centers of our brains where the physical separation continues until other processes take place to create a perception of an integrated sound (or multiple separate sounds).

It's a sidebar to matter of what people prefer in terms of the particular sound of a particular piece of equipment. But our ears and are brains, when we hear, are very much doing something very like an FFT.

Thanks @stuartk 

I did hear that shiny new DAC calling out to me.😃

@chervokas 

Thanks, very interesting, I did not know that.

our ears and our brains are breaking down incoming complex waveforms into their component frequencies very much like an FFT, and, further, actually converting them into binary-like neural spikes -- when a stereocilia bundle is deflected it creates a nerve spike or no spike, functionally like a 1 or a 0

So, if I'm reading you correctly you are saying that our brains re-convert (analog) sound waves into digital?

FFT is a mathematical transformation from time to frequency domain. Our ears respond to frequencies over time. The details of how they do that is a whole different story.  chervokas  seems to have a good handle on it.

So, if I’m reading you correctly you are saying that our brains re-convert (analog) sound waves into digital?

It’s not really digital, though Susan Rogers, who was Prince’s recording engineer then went on to get a PhD in music cognition and psychoacoustics and now is the director of the Berklee Music Perception and Cognition Laboratory, quaintly does describe our stereocilia as the inner ear’s little A to D converters. There are aspects of our hearing and our auditory processing that are like analog audio signal processing, and aspects that are like digital audio signal processing. Better to say that our ears convert mechanical motion into nerve impulses and those nerve impulse are generated when little channels open and let ions flood in, and those channels are either open or closed, and that train of either/or electrochemical impulses are the stuff the higher order areas of our brain uses to form a perception of the sound -- Psychoacoustics: Hair Cells in Ears are Analog-to-Digital Converters | Susan Rogers | Berklee Online

@curiousjim 

Looking again, I no longer see a used one listed. They are an Aqua dealer so you could conceivably get a new one and return it if you can stomach/afford the restocking fee. 

FFT is a mathematical transformation from time to frequency domain. Our ears respond to frequencies over time. The details of how they do that is a whole different story.  chervokas  seems to have a good handle on it.

Not to derail the thread, but one of the cool things about our hearing that's different than a Fourier Transform is that, yes, we process the separate frequency components of the complex wave separately, but we process them at the same time that we process the timing, because, at least up to about 5kHz, the nerve impulses generated by the movement of the stereocilia are phase locked to the input wave,  so our hearing is simultaneously using information about which location on the basilar membrane/which hair cells/which neurons are being activated and also the phase locked/timing neural spike pattern of that activity. 

When the very first CD players came out, Philips (who as co-inventors of CD had an inside run, after all) were widely deemed to have a better sound than their competitors.

Philips used quadruple oversampling which allowed much more gentle filtering than the sharp brick-wall filters needed for a hard cut-off around 44-kHz.

On the other hand, with the laser resistor-trimming technology used back then, it was hard to get monotonic increases in output to match the input bit settings.  Philips simply dropped the last two bits.

@stuartk 

I was surprised at the price, as it’s over $1000 LESS than retail!  Unless something has changed,  it was supposed to go for around $10,000 here. I haven’t sprung it on my wife yet, but there’s no time like the present.😉😉

My first DAC was a Scott Nixon USB. It was limited to 44k/16, but sounded very good.