Good measuring DACs vs.

A number of DACs have come through my system (most not owned by me) and I couldn’t tell much if any difference between them. The two I have, use chips nearly 20 years apart in design and I can’t make out predictable difference. I know, that’ll likely get me banned 😉

I chalk it up to DACs do their job and any “flavor” through distortion or anything else must be pretty darned finite (again, if it’s there) for the device to be working as it should. I would also suspect it’s as simple as many speakers, rooms, or speaker x room interactions just exact more influence on overall sound than kit further upstream. Could be wrong, but doesn’t make much sense otherwise given how sound waves and reflections (vs. electrical signals) work. Amps and speakers have both had serious (albeit model-limited) investigation on the correlation between certain measurements and listener preference. I know of no such thing for DACs, disappointing.

Obviously measurements are only useful for this sort of kit if they can be demonstrably correlated with listener preference (and on a meaningful scale). Using uncorroborated measurements to predict/determine suitability of a device is about as well-informed and free of bias as expecting one DAC to sound better than another because of chassis color. And here’s a real pitfall: if one tests/studies measurements (that you understand) before listening to the device, irreversible bias has been introduced. Measurements and consumer pref studies are like turkey and dressing - different groups might prefer one or the other, but relatively few will argue they’re gonna go better together.

@czarivey thanks for agreeing with my post, even though you apparently (or purposely) don't understand it.

@carlsbad2 

It does seems more like you apparently (or purposely) don't understand your own post and I kinda clarified that in details.

@erik_squires 

Do you buy a painting based on the purity of the oils used??

That's an interesting quote, and I'm not sure how to take it. My first thought is that it's like asking if you buy a piece of equipment just because it uses expensive components. There is something to that. It might be more reliable and last longer. But it won't necessarily measure or sound any better. But it could be that the pallet of oils you are referring to are the measured results themselves. It could be that the DAC measures as it should in every parameter, as the creator intended to give the desired perceptual effect. Or it could be that the measurements that look bad weren't intentional, but were deemed acceptable and were necessarily compromised to get something else right that typically isn't measured because it's more difficult to measure. I suspect the former is more common. Intentional distortion that has a good overall perceptual effect on a lot of listeners with systems at a particular level. 

I’m one of a minority around here who finds that poor measuring gear is typically less engaging. My only hypothesis is that it’s because I’ve lived with systems, (speakers through to the source) that produced practically zero audible distortion the bass frequencies.