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

@tvad @bigkidz @ghdprentice

Thanks for your replies detailing how overall implementation is the only thing which makes a DAC sound different. So many threads focus on this or that chip or other single factors responsible for achieving something in a DAC, it’s nice to hear your accounts of why a *specific* element is not at work — in your experience.

@pwerahera

You’re unclear about what I mean when I say "different."

I didn’t want to specify what character of sound I’m searching for. I only want to learn what people’s experience is when they came across a DAC which didn’t sound like their other DAC’s.

In other words, I have no specific content in mind for "different." Different just means "different from the DAC in one’s system." If that’s not clear, I don’t know how to explain it further. You’re seeking "natural" in your system; that’s another word which cannot be broken down further, I assume.

@jjss49 Good point about "convergence." After all, if the system is not optimal in the regards you mention, differences may be hiddent by bottlenecks in the system.

@sgreg1 Good point about neutrality. I have a tube DAC now, and I’m curious about other non-tube Dacs. Then again, others have stated here that the specific technology of "tube" doesn’t make a big different (in their experience).

Something to think about.....I have 2-R2R ladder Dacs, one from Denafrips and one from Schiit Audio...was very happy with both until Underwood Wally asked me what Digital coax cable I was using... Pangea $ 80 I told him. He sent me a $500 cable ( discounted of course) and the difference is so great, especially in clarity and soundstage...I'm not looking to upgrade at this time.

@hilde45

i’m not sure if this is at the heart of your original question but i would point out that in my looong road traveled with numerous dacs, high and low, is that i learned alot from what features any dac had (some more than others) in terms of being allowed toggle key variables in and out that affect the sound

as examples, denafrips units have rca and xlr outputs, as well as switchable nos/oversampling, soekris, chord and bricasti have various selectable dsp filters (of course with the chord stack w/ m scaler, the scaler itself can be toggled in and out at various oversampling rates), and a great one, a real sleeper i learned so much from was the audio gd master 7 (a real bargain btw), where os/nos, various os rates, and dsp could ALL be switched in and out, along with xlr/rca outputs, and you can hear the effect of each change on the sound... very very informative

i think a key here is to do experience this with dacs that are at a certain price level ($2000+ at minimum, imo, maybe $3,000) so that one can be reasonably assured that such things as clock management, output section, power supply are not being cost engineered out of necessity such that they hurt sound quality

@jjss49 This is very helpful. Thanks. I suspect I am seeking out difference (not upgrade, necessarily) but as you're articulating, it is a complex quest which not likely to be effectuated (as is my tendency, qua audiophile) with a simple purchase. This means I need to learn more concretely what some of these terms imply -- oversampling, dsp filters, os rates, etc. I know what they mean nominally but I don't know whether they are levers I can pull with my lower-tier BS Node streamer.

@pwerahera

I’m glad you brought up Audio Research DACs. I own an Audio Research Reference CD9SE DAC. It is simply phenomenal, musical, and detailed. It made a huge difference (positive) in my system.

My dealer lent me a Berkeley Reference Alpha 3 DAC to try and buy if I wanted ($22K). I was fully prepared to shell out the additional $5K for this very well respected DAC.

I was very surprised when there was no obvious difference. I really had to listen carefully and for long periods of time to detect differences. There was a difference in my system… very very small… the ARC was very slightly more musical and warm in the midrange and upper bass, and the Berkeley had ever so slightly more detail. But the difference was very small. To my partner (she has better hearing… but with little interest of knowledge in sound) the ARC sounded better. I also preferred the ARC sound.
 

Wow, that was a first… I liked the less expensive component. But then the rest of my system is Audio Research… synergy perhaps.

But definitely look a ARC.