2. digital
  3. 1249049553

DACs and reproduced sound

I am trying to understand how to think of DACs effecting reproduced music (I am new to the hobby). I think of a DACs "role" as taking a digital input (1s and 0s) and a cleanly as possible processing that digital signal to an analogue output - goal is not impart anything on the processed data. The difference between a good and bad DAC seems like it should be on how well it does that. Or, said another way, from a review of a Benchmark DAC:

"The old regulars know exactly my position regarding the stupidity of ascribing a “character” to the sound of an utterly neutral signal path. Oohing and aahing over the vast improvement in soundstaging, front-to-back depth, bass delineation, or treble sweetness obtainable with this or that electronic component may sell high-end magazines but is totally unscientific and delusional. What the Benchmark DAC1 HDR adds to or subtracts from its input signal is borderline unmeasurable, so the sonic character of its output is obviously the sonic character of its input. It’s as simple as that. It has no sound of its own."

I sort of think of amplifiers and speakers (I am digital only listener)as being more important in "imparting" a particular musical flavor (warm, bright, etc.).

I am a bit new to the hobby so I would like any insights or be educated on DACs some more.
dangelod
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
if no component is perfect it follows that no preamp is neutral.

By neutral I mean it does not add coloration deliberately. There are plenty of examples of audio equipment that add coloration deliberately to create an effect or a particular sound.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
It's a panglossian notion that the failings of one area of a system can be ameliorated by the failings in another. Not IME.

Agreed. My point was that worrying about the performance benefit of an incremental reduction of 0.0001% distortion seems like worrying about a pimple on a cows butt when you are drinking the milk. Considering that speakers already add far far more distortion why worry.
dgarretson
2,599 posts
 
My idea with pangloss was to question the thought that a "perfect DAC" would be too revealing of the underlying flaws of CD format. IME the idea that there are ruthlessly revealing components is generally misconceived. Any such observation about a component more likely reveals a problem in the component than it does flaws inherent in RBCD.

Also, measured distortion is only one among many criteria that determine sonics, whether in loudspeakers or in CDPs.

As the price of good digital gear has come down, some opinions are returning to the early days of RBCD, in which conventional wisdom was that there were few if any audible differences between CDPs. I agree that there have been improvements, but there is still a fairly wide gap between budget and upmarket CDPs. At local audio club meetings it never ceases to surprise me how much effort is put into systems building in all areas except for the digital source. You can hear the difference.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
Also, measured distortion is only one among many criteria that determine sonics, whether in loudspeakers or in CDPs

Agreed good point - like phase for example - you can get a big difference in soundstage/imaging even though timbre may be the same and distortion negligible.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
if all components are imperfect, they exhibit coloration.

the fact that coloration is unintentional and a consequence of many factors implies that configuring a stereo system is essentially creating a balance among colorations.
More to discover