Does a Tube Dac make sense?

charles1dad7,711 posts04-26-2021 1:47pmUnderstood,
Some listeners will say they can not hear a difference, with the same DACs other listeners can easily perceive sonic differences. This shouldn’t be surprising as a fairly wide spectrum exists as to what people are able to detect and distinguish. Measurements at this stage of development can't account for all that the ear-brain neurologic pathway can decipher and process.
Charles

As djones51 pointed out, there are a class of DACs, the majority, that are designed to not have a "sound". From fairly low cost to super expensive, they won't have a significantly significant sound signature. You will move through levels of refinement, but that refinement hits asymptotic diminishing returns early.   Lots of people on this website will claim they could easily hear a difference. Those who have done recent blind testing will know just how hard that is if not impossible.  This was not always the case, but has been for quite some time. The price point where these types of DACs can be easily (or at all) told apart keeps dropping.


Then there is a whole class of products intentionally having a "sound". Many products even have setting to give them a sound. NOS DACs have a sound, DACs with different filter implementations have a sound, DACs with low feedback tube output stages have a sound. These can be pretty readily told apart, and from the aforementioned ones that don't have a "sound".  Not only can the be readily told apart, but significant differences show up in measurements.

Measurements at this stage of development can't account for all that the ear-brain neurologic pathway can decipher and process.

Unfortunately this statement is conjecture. It is not the 70's-80's any more. That whole only looking at THD thing is well in the past.  We can't fully interpret what measurements mean, but we can certainly measure to a level beyond audible difference.

@jjss49 and mahgister, thank you and I appreciate your gracious comments.

@dletch2,
You are correct, it is not the 1970-1980s. Science and technology have advanced significantly since then. Yet discovery and rigorous research continue to reveal ever more about human physiology and function.
My point in the post above is acknowledging there are still things that lie outside our complete understanding and explanation as it pertains to auditory processing pathways.

I’m unaware of any neurologist or neuroscientist who’d say every aspect of human hearing is fully understood. Far beyond the 1980s level of comprehension yet still unable to account for what humans are capable of hearing by supporting /certifying measurement. I wholeheartedly agree that much can be measured but that’s different from everything can be measured in this regard.

Could you provide a short list of the DACs you are familiar with that lack any sonic signature (As you wrote, Not to have a sound)?  I would really appreciate that.
Charles

I’m using a Wells Audio Cipher tube dac right now. It replaced a Holo Audio May.  Sounds more “real” and “natural” to me.  Some will like the former, some the latter. Both $4k-5k.  Designer of the Wells says he tubes he uses 12bh7 are more linear than some others.  Who knows?

Seems to me the goal of a DAC should be accuracy. It seems like a crapshoot to try to color the sound with tube distortion at the DAC level, especially when you're already coloring it at the preamp level. Who knows what combination of distortion you'll get. You can get an SS DAC with well below audible distortion for under $150, like the  S.M.S.L Sanskrit 10th MK II.

The naysayer that make blanket statements that tube DACs are inferior clearly aren’t speaking from experience. I couldn’t be happier with my MHDT Orchid tube DAC coupled with my BAT VK-5i tube preamp and BAT VK-600 class A solid state amp.