2. digital
  3. 187947-21

Good measuring DACs vs.

I recently owned and compared a number of DACs in my system and was particularly interested in the sound of two "perfect measuring" DACs, the Mola Mola Tambaqui and the Benchmark DAC3 HGC. With either of those, it seemed every note came out clearly, cleanly, and accurately, without a hint of distortion. Both have been reviewed by Stereophile, and John Atkinson concluded his review measurements with,

"The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance. I am not surprised HR liked its sound."

and,

"Benchmark’s DAC3 HGC offers state-of-the-art measured performance. All I can say is "Wow!"

So, why is it that neither of these two objectively perfect DACs seem to emotionally engage me to the same level as my Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro, which is an R2R design using (basically antique) AD1862 "Z" chips? How can I not perceive the same levels of body, tone, or dimensionality from two DACs which exhibit "state-of-the-digital-art measured performance" and that really do nothing wrong?

mitch2
asctim
437 posts
 

@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. 

helomech
1,519 posts
 

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. 
 

 

 

 

Ag insider logo xs@2x
bruce19
214 posts
 

Truth and beauty are two different things.

pickindoug
43 posts
 

I really didn't discover DACs until I started ripping CDs to a NAS.  The improvement vs using the CD player wasn't subtle.  First DAC I bought was an Emotiva.  Impressive thing with a hefty remote control, sounded fine.  Then I bought a Modi Multbit (older version), and there was a difference, particularly in the highs.  Then a Modi so I could run it off the USB power of a NUC.  It had better SINAD based on ASR's reviews, so I thought it would be a cheap way to see/hear if SINAD mattered.  The difference was subtle, but getting rid of a wall wart power supply was worth it.  But I missed the remote control of the Emotiva, and bought a SMSL SU-9.  Again, a subtle but definite improvement based on blind testing.  In each case, improvement was heard in a better measuring DAC.  The spend wasn't necessarily linear with the perceived improvement, but I wonder at what point it has more to do with voicing than accuracy....

More to discover