Best practices when conducting a DAC comparison

I have MQA in my beloved DAC, and it's disabled. I find I prefer high resolution with a different filter than it demands. I don't hear a benefit of MQA. Sorry.

As for auditioning, make sure both components are 24 hours warm and broken in. YMMV, but that's a more fair test. Ice cold, some DAC's do better than others.

Next, compare red book as much as high resolution. Don't assume that the DAC which has the most difference is the better one. The last generation of DAC's play red book exceedingly well. The previous generations only played high rez well.

Best,

E

I agree with bigkdz.  If you can't tell which one is better within the first 30 seconds there really isn't a significant difference.

Level matching may make a fair comparison if you are switching back and forth, but if at that point you are straining to hear a difference you're wasting time.

Another approach would be to play a familiar cut for a short time at different volume levels, then do the same for the competition.

....If you can't tell which one is better within the first 30 seconds there really isn't a significant difference....

Nor should there be if you already have a highly-decent sounding system.

I agree with bigkdz. If you can’t tell which one is better within the first 30 seconds there really isn’t a significant difference.

What????? Jesus. What exact test tones are you using? It takes several tracks just to fully exercise a DAC. Bass, air, imaging, impact which is not to mention some issues like fatigue, take much longer than 30 seconds to set in. Then how will you compare the Redbook, High Rez and DSD performance? 30 seconds is barely long enough to eliminate a DAC you will never like, assuming it is warmed up but is not a fair way to choose among good performers, unless you believe they all sound the same, and specs are all that matter. If this is you, buy the cheapest you can find.

Best,

E

Erik,
I do not listen to test tones or specs.  I only use red book as digital source.  There are few innovations in the digital conversion world that truly separate one product from another.  Most use the same chip sets with various number of chips deployed and specific parts implemented in the circuit.  

I have four four digital sources available in my main system.  Three of them resemble one another in that they posses a more noticeable tell tail digital signature.  The least desirable to my ears is the Oppo 105D circa  2015.  Next up an early nineties Sony followed by a mid nineties tube dac from VAC.  Then there is one that within that first 30 seconds of playback sounds that much more realistic to me that further comparison is pointless.

 I also have an analog system while not state of the art is far above an entry level setup.  If both the the analog and digital sound more similar than different this is a good thing in my experience.

However, the main goal for both is to sound like real music and convey the emotions and content to make me sit back and get lost in what's playing which is happening now as I type.  Type a bit, stop and listen, then a few more words on the page.

An example of the 30 seconds test is track 2 of Holly Coles  Don't Smoke in Bed.  It's not a complex piece but revealing of digital nasties.

OBTW, I can afford more but what I have pleases me and that is all that I require.  You're invited anytime for a listen.