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

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.

Personally, IMHO, I believe that measurements can assist in determining whether a given component "makes a difference," but measurements don’t do much to determine what people enjoy.

This is my main reason for discounting ASR methodology. There is an assumption that perfect measurement is the end goal. Not for me!

 

This is always the biggest can of worms. If you follow ASR, then it would be evident that the benchmark is quite far from the best and measured performance, although the mola is better by a good bit on ASR. Personally, I have eight different Dacs And out of curiosity, I had purchased two units that measured very near the top of the scale or at the top of the scale at the time from the ASR ranking. To tell you the truth, I wasn’t as thrilled by the Unit that ranked quite high on ASR compared to some of my other units. I am quite convinced that it has much more to do with the output stage And that the digital sections of most of these units are fairly good. I even have. Units that have identical, digital sections and very different output stages (Audio Note Dacs) and there is a massive difference. 
 

while I wasn’t incredibly thrilled with the Topping and SMSL units they were quite good sounding, but not the best I had ever heard and clearly in stark contrast to the mantra of the people on ASR who rely completely on their SNAD metric.

my observations seem to indicate that the impact of the output stage is profound, and in our current world of specification based criteria, which almost all of which is digital specs. It seems the role of the output and IV stages if so equipped is largely overlooked.

For me it comes down to where I want to color the sound. The DAC, pre, and power amp are all viable contenders. 

The Old Measured Performance as the Criteria to decide if the Design for a Model is to supply the ubiquitous end sound that all who hear cannot deny themselves from purchasing frown

Years Spent taking the time to meet a large selection of Audio Enthusiasts. Ones Like Myself, as well as those who are EE Skilled, being very Capable of Building Audio Devices. Has shown to me, that a knowledge of how a Audio Device can be voiced for the end sound to be produced is the ultimate method to produce a Audio Device.

When voicing is done correctly, the Designer / Builder will have the say on the end sound, in a commission build the end user can also contribute to the devices voicing. It is having this understanding of Schematic - Topology and the needs for the devices Structure, that really makes a Audio Device wanted to be heard more in use and most likely will for many become a Device that is a Keeper. 

The Measurements across many devices can be seen to be in the Ballpark of the Spec' that are usually looked at as being required. Skilled EE's see through the Published Spec' and can see where the complications with the Schematic is creating typical unattractive influences on the Signal being produced and having gain added.

As said in a previous post, a DIY Built DAC costing not too much monies, has sat very comfortably in the Company of more expensive Branded Models. On one occasion the DIY was instrumental in encouraging the owner of one model of a Branded DAC to sell their DAC. On another occasion the new Purchased DAC that was a replacement for the sold DAC, was a increased in purchase Model from the same Brand. This new upgraded model was not able to compare favourably either with the DIY DAC. It was only when a FW Update was added that the Branded Model was to be much improved match for the DIY DAC. 

My subjective evaluation of the comparisons, especially following the most recent demo's of each in use, left me feeling either as SS Designs, either could be easily lived with in conjunction with my own commission built Valve Design DAC.

Having the 'sat in front off experience', not assessing measurements,  goes a very long way to assist with finding the place that one would be best represented when deciding to direct their monies at a purchase.