DAC specs versus sound quality potential

I have two non-oversampling DACs, mhdt Paradisea and Constantine. I have no idea how they measure, but the sound quality speaks for itself and both compete well with anything at any price that I have heard to date.

The Paradisea has a tube output stage and the resulting sound will vary greatly depending on specific tube used, I have found.

No doubt there are many implementation details with DACs that matter, but frankly, most newer DACs I hear these days tend to sound quite good overall. That was not so much the case I think just 5-10 years ago. SO maybe DAC designs have matured quite well of late and excellent performance not hard to find? Kind of like how most modern computers are well suited to leverage the internet? OR most digital cameras can take very high quality photos that would have cost a lot more to produce in teh past with older technologies?

DACs are pervasive and are used everywhere similarly these days, so that would not surprise me at all if good sounding DACs are commodity items now these days for the most part.

Not to say that any two designs will sound exactly the same, so there still is some decision making involved there for discriminating ears I would say.

Having gone through the 42 page datasheet for the AK chip,thanks to almarg's post above,I have a better understanding of the myriad functions dac chips perform as well as their specs and tolerances. The spec sheet is obviously not comprehensive as it lists functional parameters/characteristics but not manufacturing details and material specifications. I'm not the least qualified to evaluate the chips even provided all relevant data. I remain interested in a comparison of the chips in a way I can understand. For example; which would be like the best Porsche motor and which like a Mercedes Formula 1 engine.

The differences between dac chips are hard to tell apart given the same topology and specs.

But the differences in topology is another story when both are converting the same media.
The different topologies are Multibit and Single Bit (Delta Sigma) These two when compared can be quite different if both are implemented well.

To me Multibit does PCM (dxd, redbook 16/44 24/96) the best, there are some very expensive ones that can also do DSD as well I have not heard these, doing dsd.

Where Delta Sigma does DSD well, it falls short on doing pcm right when compared to Multibit, it’s very smooth and non intrusive and to me a bit boring, it lacks that live dynamic jump factor that well implemented Multibit is capable of and can put out in spades.

Cheers George

When it comes to DACs, it is all about implementation of a DAC chip in the overall design.  Some designers use only portions of the functionality available in a DAC chip, and design their own filters, oversamplers, etc. to achieve their design goals.  And then you have the whole output stage to worry about too, and that makes a huge difference in sound quality....  

You have that so right cedargrover

That’s why I always state "well implemented" when ever I talk about differences.

Most mainstream big or small dac makers copy the implementation straight of the DAC chip manufactures data sheet, usually in the last 3 or 4 pages, it’s sometimes only diyers with knowledge (not the voodoo'ists) a couple the boutique manufactures, that go to the trouble of eg: discrete I/V, discrete buffer outputs, and better than the norm power supplies ect ect.. Which would add huge extra cost to those production units, that maybe big dollars and look the goods, but are just data sheet copies on the inside.

Cheers George