2. digital
  3. 131878-4358

Benefits of an external DAC

I need a sounding board from you folks.  I have a slightly upgraded Oppo 103 CD player that was a big SQ improvement over my Consonance tube CD player.  I need a DAC to take the stream from my iMac, turn into an analogue signal to my preamp.  Lots of folks rave about the benefits of an external DAC so, in progression, I got a Jolida tube DAC, a Schiit Gungnir, and a Channel Island Audio DAC.  I connect the Oppo to the CIA DAC with a coaxial cable.  I input the analogue signal from the Oppo into my preamp with RCA IC's.    

It is easy to switch between DAC in the path vs. the Oppo analogue signal straight into the preamp.  I tell ya, I have done the comparison between all three DAC's vs. the analogue signal run from the Oppo to the preamp and have been unable to discern any difference.   Zero, zip, nada.  I have done the comparison with lots of audio pals and nobody hears a wits worth of difference.

There clearly are lots of devotees using external DAC, but in my system (with a Don Sachs tube preamp, Pass Labs First Watt F5, and Spatial Audio M4 Turbo S speakers, with good cabling), I am perplexed as to why the use of an external DAC makes no difference in the SQ in my system. It sounds exactly the same.  

I am awaiting a demo of a Denafrips Ares DAC to see if this well-regarded DAC does something to the SQ -- one way or another.  So far, the employment of a DAC to improve the SQ of the signal from my Oppo has been an utter waste of time.  What am I missing?
whitestix
audioengr
3,282 posts
 

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

audioengr
3,282 posts
 

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

whitestix OP
724 posts
 
As I posted on my Denafrips thread, I heard zero difference running my Oppo 103 through the Denafrip, the lowest-priced DAC they sell, vs using the analogue output from my Oppo to my preamp.  Other listeners validated my listening comparison.  Today I swapped a new Oppo 205 for my 103 and did the same A/B comparison with the Denafrip. Again, zero sonic difference in what I could hear coming out of my speakers.  (I will be keen to compared my 103 to the 205 to discern differences.)

So, lads, I am folding up my tent, sending the Denafrips back and am going to live happily with the my current set up.  I think it sound stunning as it is and as I will be a pensioner soon, I can avoid the cost of the new DAC.  My Channel Islands DAC functions perfectly for the stream from my iMac, but as will the Denafrip, does nothing to enhance the signal from my Oppo CD player.  Cheap and cheerful, that is my motto.    
audioengr
3,282 posts
 

Perkadin wrote:

DACs don't seem to make much a difference.

It's likely that your CD transport is preventing you from hearing the differences, as well as the CD disk itself.  Unless you are treating and coating disks and have a really expensive CD transport, all DACs will likely sound similar because you are listening to too much jitter.

Start with a treatment like Ultrabit Platinum or similar for your disks.  Your CD transport can output lower jitter too if it is reclocked with a Synchro-Mesh or other high-quality reclocker.  Then you don't need to worry about the jitter from the transport or the disks.  It becomes a "don't care".

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

More to discover