Six DAC Comparison


I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.

Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.

Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.

My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.

mitch2

I don’t totally let measurements dictate results for many are way out of the Sonic capability  of humans , that is what audio science review does saying a $800 Topping i dac with a delta sigma Sabre dac chip  iis better because it has bettered 

measurements then several R2R ladder dacs totally untrue these  R2R dacs sound more natural look at the classic 1704K  Multibit dac chip that was a Bur Brown standard for years until they stopped making it..

iits like a good solid state amp is going to measure better then a good vacuum tube amp 

but many people prefer the tube amps .I have decades in Audio ,have owned a Audio store and now semi retired and go out of state to many audio get togethers and shoot outs , it’s all in the design implementation ,Listen first, lots of good designs out there for every budget.

Dacs are like wine in a way and how we respond to them. for some, there's not alot of difference, for others, they can go on and on about this difference or that in a critical, comparative assessment . 

Which if the two are the fortunate ones?

Post removed 

This is not a Product Plug, as the Design to be mentioned is not a sale item.

A EE minded Friend with many years of experience of Building Audio Devices. Today has a very clear understanding of what they are looking for as a End Sound from a particular Audio Device they build.

Amp's both Pre and Power,  Phonostages, Head Amp's, DAC's, CD Transport and a large selection of Speakers are all produced by this individual.

For a very sensible outlay of money, a DAC has been produced that over the Past Year has been compared and come out much more in favour of a Denafrips Ares II and a Venus II. It required the latest FW Update to be put on the Venus II to create a comparison where the Venus was to present itself as a worthwhile alternative consideration. 

Home Built DAC approx' £300, build knowledge, careful schematic design and topology, along with knowing how to isolate within the Circuit, will create a lot for little. Fortunately these skill sets do not all belong to the main influencers of a design for the Big Brand Names. 

Was not the not too long passed Ken Ishiwata from Marantz a Pioneer of this way of thinking with works he undertook for Digital Sources produced his Employer of 41 years.