2. digital
  3. 169752-3610

DAC That Punches Above Its Price Point

I’ll make it short. I’ve spent some hours reading the DAC threads on this forum. I am aware quality of digital matters as superior DACs usually the costlier ones will sound better than cheap DACs, making music sound more analog, lifelike, real, believable with all the soundstage and detail etc. All the good things. There are some who thought it’s the music that matters, and although different DACs may sound different it’s the music that makes the most difference. In other words, the differences that exist between DACs are not that important as it's all about the music. I can see the point that people are trying to make.

Back to the topic. I’ve read great things on the Denafrips Ares II and Pontus II, and other costlier high-end DACs. I’ve read about the Chord DAVE. I personally own a Chord QBD76 and have no urge to replace it with anything else since it sounds splendid in my system, for the money. I may be setting up another system and was wondering if there is a DAC in the lower price bracket that punches way above its price point, sounding close to if not better than the costlier designs.

I presume the Audioquest Black, Red or Cobalt are not worthy of consideration and sound noticeably inferior to the costlier options? FWIW I tried the Musical Fidelity M1 DAC and this one really sounded poor to my ears. Very digital sound and I stopped listening to it after a while. The Chord sounds a lot more analog, lifelike and real to my ears.

I would appreciate any advice. Thanks.


ryder
lemonhaze
416 posts
 
@westcoast, I am not sure, beyond your fixation on measurements, what you are trying to do here. Your placatory lecture by way of circumlocution is missing the point.

Lets look at the capacitor.  We are talking audio here, not radio frequency. As an engineer I assume you know the difference. The ESR you mention is a non-issue so perhaps you need to educate yourself some more. The formula for capacitive reactance is: Xc = 1/ 2Pi.f.c  This is a fact and as an engineer you know this, or should.  There is no 'R' in the equation and therefore ESR is not a factor.

Go to some of the speaker gurus like Joe D'apallito, Vance Dickerson or Sigfried Linkwitz of Linkwitz/Riley fame. Not they nor any others take ESR into consideration, why would they? it's NOT in the formula.

You also throw out the resonant frequency of a cap. It will resonate mechanically, everything has a resonant frequency, but it will only resonate, electrically speaking, if in circuit with say an inductor, and behaves according to the parameters of the components and the results are well understood.

The series cap in a loudspeaker XO and assuming a first-order filter will create a 6dB attenuation slope dependent upon its value. Take 3 very different caps, paper-in-oil cap, teflon film and a bipolar electrolytic of same value and the plots will be exactly the same, meaning... they measure the same,  but now have the audacity to actually listen. Yes to be clear have a listen which is not an unreasonable concept seeing as it's audio.

Your bloviating away about a recording studio and coffee breaks is not germane to the discussion. But cheer up old chap, old engineer, you have been promoted to the top of my ignore list.


herman
2,259 posts
 
The formula for capacitive reactance is: Xc = 1/ 2Pi.f.c This is a fact and as an engineer you know this, or should. There is no 'R' in the equation and therefore ESR is not a factor.
Mr. Lemon, this puts you at the top of my ignore list. Just because R is not a factor in the equation for reactance does not mean it does not exist and certainly does not mean it will not have an effect on how a circuit behaves.

For a filter the cutoff frequency = 1 / (2 pi R C)

ESR is a very real part of that R

Maybe it turns out the ESR is so small that it is swamped out by other R in the circuit, but ignoring a very real, very measurable parameter that affects a circuit's performance just  because it isn't part of a particular formula you have chosen is a rookie designer mistake.




lemonhaze
416 posts
 
@ herman, I think you may have misread something somehow. In the audible frequencies for the example I provided, ESR is insignificant.

I did provide the correct formula, or I’ve been wrong all these years 😳

Specifically for capacitive reactance, Xc is found by dividing 1 by 2xPixfxc. It is frequency dependent so it makes sense that ’f’ is in the equation.


Just because R is not a factor in the equation for reactance does not mean it does not exist and certainly does not mean it will not have an effect on how a circuit behaves

I am aware of the existence of ESR which I ignore for XO design but I am confused with your claim above. You acknowledge that R is not a factor in the relevant equation so how will it effect the crossover? If you quoted the formula for Xc, then I’m afraid it is wrong.

Are you saying Mr. Sigfried Linkwitz who along with Riley developed one of the filters for XO’s is wrong, and would by extension would include Bessel, Butterworth and Chebychev? They are all wrong???



Post removed 
herman
2,259 posts
 
In the audible frequencies for the example I provided, ESR is insignificant.

in your opinion it is insignificant.

You acknowledge that R is not a factor in the relevant equation
in your opinion this is the only relevant equation

your choice to ignore ESR therefore also ignores the fact that ESR is frequency-dependent, temperature-dependent, and changes as components age with some capacitors.

I never said your formula for Xc is incorrect, but filter calculations include R, not just Xc, yet all you quote is the formula for Xc while ignoring the formula for cutoff frequency of an RC filter.

I’m saying since you are deciding which factors and which equations are applicable while ignoring other factors and equations your conclusions seem correct ... to you.




More to discover