2. digital
  3. 191150-21

Six DAC Comparison

I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.

Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.

Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.

My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.

mitch2
mitch2 OP
3,966 posts
 

@porchlight1 - There is something to that based on the SMc Audio DAC which uses 1990's technology with a Crystal Semiconductor CS8412 "E" Version receiver and CS4328 DAC.  The DAC-2 sounds very good in spite of the older digital technology. 

The process of upgrading my original McCormack DAC-1 to an SMc Audio DAC-2 included installing a new/upgraded receiver but it still uses the same CS4328 DAC chip, which was rated as "good odnobitnik" by the reviewer in their 2012 DAC Chip List, while the AD1862 chip in my Mojo Audio DACs was rated "one of the best of the world’s Audio" and the PCM1794 in the Merason was rated "best of odnobitnik."

I think the designer has to get both the optimal performance from whatever DAC chip (or ladder) they use as well as nailing it with however they choose to implement the output.

wsrrsw's avatar
wsrrsw
1,003 posts
 

If only they had flags and were in Texas.

On a serious note DACs in the 2.3K-10K price range may not knock your sox off as a very expensive /DAC/clock/Power source most likely wood?  Can you get your hands on such too (asking for a friend)?

What's the streamer, cabling, etc. feeding/exiting the DAC(s)?  With digital, the back of the house matters greatly. What's up there please?

fuzztone's avatar
fuzztone
5,586 posts
 

Measured?

The analog back end affects the "sound" often more than the digi stage.

katzenjammer27
39 posts
 

I've been interested in the Linear Tube Audio Aero, I have B&W 702 S2 speakers that are very accurate and currently just use my bluesound vault as a streamer and DAC. Thinking adding the Aero would be an improvement. I just need to go hear this i believe to see the difference it can make. Also interested in the Schitt Yggdrasil, but not sure why everyone says to go with the "less is more" version. Anyone know?

gdaddy1
122 posts
 

audphile1's avatar

audphile1

 

@helomech

These days there exist $200 “Chi-Fi” DACs that objectively outperform the DAC3. 

says who? And what specific DACs are you referring to?
Sounds like ASR propaganda…

If you never listened to any how would you know? Maybe there is. 'Thomas and stereo' has reviewed and compared some of these Chi-Fi dacs very favorably with much pricier units placed in higher end systems. His reviews were very positive.

The price tag doesn't dictate the sound quality of the component.

 

More to discover