2. digital
  3. 172704-1665

Next best exponential DAC quality level?

I recently did a shoot out of three DACs using my Hint6 + routing each of the other DACs to analog input on the Hint6:

(1) Hint6: ESS Sabre32 -- Integrated 

(2) SMSL M500: ES9038PRO D/A   ~$400 

(3) Khadas ToneBoard(v1): ESS ES9038Q2M - ~$99

I played the same song passages on Amazon Music and was able to cycle through each Hint6 input corresponding to each DAC.

The result?  Very small difference in terms of rendering.  Maybe a more open sound stage with better overall balance using the Hint6 DAC.  The Khadas was more bass / midrange pronounced w/ a more narrow soundstage.  However, I wouldn't suggest that any were head-and-shoulders "better" over the others.  In fact, they were all pretty decent with only small nuances (certainly not worth the price differences.   

I decided to keep the Khadas for my small headphone listening area. 

But it got me thinking - how much would one have to spend to realize an exponential difference in quality?  Is the Khadas that good, or is DAC technology differences more nuanced than I originally thought (meaning, we're paying 10x for only 5% better).  

 

128x128martinman
cindyment's avatar
cindyment
351 posts
 

I couldn't believe the added detail when hearing the same song on Qobuz.  The volume increased when he switched to Qobuz.  I asked him why and he told me the increased resolution acts like increasing the volume because of the added resolution.

This is poppy cox. Odds are it was a different mix, the TIDAL levelling is lower than Qoboz or set lower or your DAC is doing something due to the MQA of TIDAL. The added detail is because Qoboz was louder. When you play louder, there is more detail as there is a bigger difference between the signal and noise.

 

djones51
4,947 posts
 

 That’s like saying once amps reach a certain point there’s no difference.

Once they do, there isn't. 

cindyment's avatar
cindyment
351 posts
 

Those who don’t use tubes assume a tube DAC, or tubes in general, are always syrupy and full of distortion. Topology and tube selection matter; it’s very possible for a Dac using tubes to sound detailed and neutral. I’ve heard some SS Dacs that have a warm presentation, not reproducing music realistically.

What should be compared is sound signature of a Delta Sigma Dac vs a multibit or ladder Dac. Not tubes vs SS.

 

You can make a SS DAC that has distortion making it sound warm or whatever you want. While not impossible, it is impractical to make a tube output DAC with distortion levels anywhere near the best SS DACs. Most tube DACs are inherently going to a "sound", so this is not necessarily in their best interest from a marketing standpoint. If you make a tube DAC you want to sound different.

cindyment's avatar
cindyment
351 posts
 

What should be compared is sound signature of a Delta Sigma Dac vs a multibit or ladder Dac.

Once you reach a particular level of accurate reproduction and you use the same reconstruction/analog filters, there is no sound signature for Delta-Sigma, multi-bit or ladder DACs. Differences in reconstruction filters/analog filters that take the result away from an ideal response will have more difference.

There isn’t a person in all of this site (or any other site) that could tell the architecture of the DAC if designed to be accurate just from listening.

soix
9,702 posts
 

 That’s like saying once amps reach a certain point there’s no difference.

Once they do, there isn't. 

@djones51 — you’re absolutely delusional.  ASR is calling. 

More to discover