You want a DAC that sounds *different.* What factor helps you find it?

Over the past year or so, I have either owned or had extensive in-home auditions of the following DACs:

Audio Mirror Tubadour IV SE

Audio Note 3.1x/II Balanced

Bricasti M3

Bricasti M1 SE

EMM Labs DV2

Holo Audio May KTE

Mola Mola Tambaqui

Rockna Wavedream Edition Balanced

In several instances, I had two DACs in my system simultaneously, and they were compared level-matched. They were all fed by a Rockna Wavedream NET streamer, with the Bricasti DACs additionally auditioned using their LAN inputs.

All the DACs sounded more similar than not. Yes, there were differences, but my preferences didn’t consistently align with one DAC topology over another.

My conclusion thus far is that specific DAC chip, or R2R vs. Delta Sigma doesn’t matter as much as one might believe. At least to my ears.

What matters is the DAC builder’s circuit design and implementation...and how the DAC sounds to you.

The answer to this question:

You want to get a DAC that sounds much different than what you have. What factor helps you find it?

Reading and interpreting reviews/user comments, and then listening in my system. However, the bottom line from my experience is that I have yet to find a DAC that sounds much different from what I own.

I am a tube person as that is my preference.  I have not heard a SS DAC that compares for dimension, air and separation, etc.  All of the comments above have some truth in the price range those DACs fall into.  R2R is my preference but we have build Sabre 32 BIT Chip DACs that also are fantastic. We also have modified or heard most of them many times.  What makes a reference component is the power supply and the parts used.  Most DACs use many capacitors in the power supply, nice but nothing special (think the $43,000 DaVinci - Light Harmonic).  Excellent sounding DAC but to our ears not reference quality.  The design separates them apart and like mentioned above most sound very similar.  Once you get into the design of the power supply and how the parts are used in the design then you will understand what makes something sound the way it does.  The use of chokes versus resistors and capacitors, V-Capacitors, Audio Note, etc.  Even the Audio Note while using really good parts to our ears is not a reference sounding DAC.

Happy Listening. 

First, I only base my decisions on the sound qualities. Never the technology used. I have had components basses on ESS DAC chips and they have sounded everything from terrible to great. It isn’t the technology, it is the implementation that matters. The designer has to choose the design, technology, components, material… etc. I pay absolutely no attention to the technology.

I never have a stable. I always trade up, and never less than 2x in cost from my last component because if well chosen it will sound much better than the last. Otherwise you trade one set of weaknesses (and strengths) for another. Trading up, all aspects get better.

I read professional reviews and listen to everything I can, including lots of live acoustic music. This approach has led me step by step moving towards better and better systems.

Now, being retired and having the time to really enjoy the system I have built over fifty years is really rewarding! The only larger investment I have made is the house in which it sits… which by luck has the best audio space I have heard (better to be lucky than good).

So would an Ethernet DAC, be a streamer with a built in DAC? 

Lets start with what we have and then we can discuss how we are going to use it."CD quality” audio resolution uses a 16 bit word for each sample. The sample rate is 44.1 kHz. This is often described as simply “16/44.1k.” This translates into an analog dynamic range of approximately 96 dB, and an analog bandwidth of approximately 22 kHz.

Designer is limited to work with 16/44.1k format whether it is multi-bit or 1-bit (delta-Sigma) implementation. Of course the clock to reduce the "jitter" play a very important role. There are a number of designs available in external DACs for re-clocking the bit stream. Another important element is the analog filter and there are many to choose. Some designers also emphasize of on channel separation > 100db. I am not one of those who can hear differences between 100db versus 105db, but that may be important to some.  The there is issue with tube versus SS output stage.

It is unclear what you mean by DAC sound "different." My objective was DAC should reproduce my jazz and classical CDs from way past sound close to my records. Some of the best multi-bit DAC chips from past include but not limited to Burr-Brown PCM63, PCM1704, Ultra Analog D20400, all 20-bit implementations. Krell, Stax, VTL, Mark Levinson, etc., all have used above DAC chips with or without tubes.

For me, Audio Research DAC2 with D20400 sounds most natural and in my humble opinion sounds close top the analog counterpart. I also have Audio Research DAC3 with Crystal Semiconductor CS4328 1-bit DAC with a tube stage, and Cary Audio 303/200 with PCM7104. For well recorded more modern CDs, AR DAC3 adds tube magic in the chain if that is my preference that day or I can also settle down with Cary 303/200 with/without upsampling to fit my taste.

So I assume you are thinking along the same lines when you say DAC with "different" sound. Yes, they all have their pros and cons. Some you like and some you don't. But I have enough DACs so that I can make more than 90% of my CD collection enjoyable. Now mind you there are some CDs not even the Good Lord can make it sound good. But that's life. Hope this helps.