2. digital
  3. 191150-21

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
mitch2 OP
3,897 posts
 

@brbrock -

  • Here is a list of DAC chips from 2012 with performance comments by Antonino Scozzaro of Soundbsessive
  • The SMc DAC-2 uses the CS4328 chip (good odnobitnik)
  • The Mojo Audio DACs use dual AD1862 chips (20-bit – one of the best of the world’s Audio)
  • The LTA Aero uses the AD1865 chip (18-bit, very good multibitnik, 2 DACs in one case - stereo)
  • The Merason uses the BB PCM1794 chip (best of odnobitnik)
  • The Benchmark uses the ESS Technologies ES9028PRO chip
  • A DDC 1. provides multiple output options from a USB input, 2. reduces jitter, and 3. may allow the connection of a master clock or sync directly to the clock in a particular DAC (I believe, but am not sure, certain Denafrips DDCs/DACs may be used in this manner)
  • The SMc DAC-2 does indeed have an optical input (Toslink), as well as S/PDIF via coax
soix
9,358 posts
 

A DDC 1. provides multiple output options from a USB input, 2. reduces jitter, and 3. may allow the connection of a master clock or sync directly to the clock in a particular DAC

I’d add a DDC can also add galvanic isolation for further noise reduction that many DACs sadly do not have. 

mitch2 OP
3,897 posts
 

@soix - Galvanic isolation - good add.

In the digital audio world, a decent DDC offers tangible improvements for an $800 box! In the world of DACs, I believe there can be quite a variance in the quality of the USB input, which can also be negated by using a good DDC to accept the USB input and then output to the DAC using another type of connection..

zlone
591 posts
 

@soix I have to disagree with adding a DDC. I feel that the DAC’s should be compared based on their abilities, without having the DDC safety net. The Merason has its own galvanic isolation built into the unit. If others do not include this, they may suffer in comparison, as it should be. 

no_regrets
470 posts
 

I think I agree with zlone, and feel that the ddc should not be used and should hear how each dac performs based on its own merits.  
 

However, this is Mitch2 experiment and can conduct it as he desires to.  
I feel grateful that he is sharing his experiences with us!

Best wishes,

Don

More to discover