Every DAC sounds different simply because each has different filter after the actual chip.
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.
- ...
- 332 posts total
@mitch2 When I read comments about the Holo Audio May and the Terminator II DAC's they seem to be bested by the Mojo Audio DAC's and the AYRE QX-5 twenty DAC. Now I'm not sure which level of May DAC they are comparing but most seem to have the KTE. With the May DAC you get two DAC's in one. Several talk about running the may with HQ player. With the Ayre it comes with a streamer and volume control. You can also upgrade your Ayre QX-5 twenty as technology improves. I have talked to Ayre and they have said sound improves slightly when adding a good preamp. They also have an AC conditioner that they build that improves the sound. When I read the comparisons of other DAC I am not sure if they are streaming to the network bridge or if they have a separate streamer. |
Based on my research the Mojo dacs have the technology to be top tier, chokes in power supply, nude Vishay resistors, I use both choked linear power supply for some of my streaming components and nude Vishay in my present 300B amps, have used them in my previous Art Audio 845 amp and a totally modded dac. Both provide an easily heard upgrade over commonplace cap based PS and resistors. Totaldacs should also be top tier, very impressive technology there as well.
One thing I find curious is Linear Tube Audio rather agnostic take on digital inputs. I've always been of a mind that I2S should provide best sound quality with ladder dacs. Still, gets very nice reviews. I've yet to try I2S with my Laiv Harmony so I'm just surmising at this point (only usb at this point). |
@mitch2 Many, many and many thanks for your incredibly detailed reviews of all these DACs! Truly a gift to us all as mentioned above. I was very interested and leaning towards upgrading to the LTA Aero but after reading your reviews I pulled the trigger on buying a used Mojo Mystique Evo. Wow what a nice sounding DAC just as you reviewed. Very happy with my choice and extremely appreciative of you spending your time and expertise to help us understand the performance of these DACs. Threads like these are so helpful to less seasoned audio addicts and the reason I follow Audiogon. Cheers! |
Thoughts on Audio Equipment Reviews While researching information about each of the DACs I compared, I came to appreciate the reviewers who authored the reviews that I linked with my write-ups. No different from my comments in this thread, none of them are a “final authority” on audio subjects or the particular objects of their reviews, and readers should be careful not to mistake a review for fact. Reviews are more like editorials, which are basically opinions, and inherently slanted toward the proclivity, or bias, of the reviewer. One commonality to most reviews seems to be a reluctance by the reviewer to overstate weaknesses in the gear under review. IMO, this is not a failing of the review, but something that requires the reader to be more sensitive to the words written and sometimes “read between the lines” to identify both negative as well as positive aspects of the equipment being reviewed. It is almost impossible for someone, such as a reviewer, to pick winners and losers for somebody else, any more than I can tell you what type of coffee you like. In other words, just because a reviewer says something sounds “great” doesn’t necessarily mean you will agree when you hear it in your system. On the other side of that coin, just because the reviewer finds some aspect of the subject equipment to sound off, not to their liking, or deficient in some way, doesn’t mean everyone will view it the same. I believe most reviewers are sensitive to the potential impact their words have on consumer purchases and the resulting tangible financial impact that can have on manufacturers. Therefore, most are at least careful not to overplay possible negatives that may be reflective of their personal preferences as to how something should sound. In short, take any review with a grain of salt, whether professionally published or simply posted in a forum. There are so many things that can affect a reviewer’s impression of a specific product, such as partnering equipment, the room, the music they listen to, and the bias of the reviewer to a certain type of sound. Therefore, read reviews for informational purposes but whenever possible listen to the gear (preferably in your own system) and decide for yourself what you like or don’t like. |
- 332 posts total