Some of these comparison posts catch my eye and peak my interest enough to read a few of the posts. My take away in the end is all that is accomplished a lot of the time is a bleeding corpse lying on the operating room with no definitive cause of death… In my case I find myself using the ole adage “if you find yourself tapping your foot and bobbing your head to the tune,” your ahead of the game and chances are your DAC is performing well enough to make you happy. Toe tapping provided by, Denafrips Pontus II with most recent upgraded board and RME ADI-2-Pro. A side note, my newly acquired Sound Artist LS3’s (desktop setup) are pretty damn impressive, glad I took the risk..
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.
- ...
- 370 posts total
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, there's a lot more to satisfying sonics than PRaT. For example, I've found DACs can vary significantly in terms of tonality, which is a very high priority in my case.
|
@stuartk +1 I know some people who are big into PRaT and I confess I just don’t get it. Give me tonality and a good 3D soundstage and I’m a happy camper, so this toe-tapping PRaT thing is just totally lost on me if someone here can actually explain it. And here’s the thing — I’m a drummer so if anyone should be sensitive to PRaT I’d think it’d be me so I think it’s just something else maybe I’m just not sensitive to that others perceive. What gives??? |
@mitch2 , Thank you for your thorough and informative efforts. I also compared 6 dacs, but it was 5 years ago. The Benchmark DAC3 was a contender but I ended up choosing the Mojo Mystique v.3. I later traded it in for my current dac, the Mojo EVO B4B. I have been very pleased with the B4B, but your thread has given me a roadmap should I ever feel the urge to upgrade. Your description of the Benchmark DAC3 and the house sound of the Mojo dacs are similar to what I have experienced. Having owned 2 dacs that John Atkinson owns, and which he rates as class A+, and having also owned 2 Mojo dacs, all I can say is that my listening tastes are very different than his. It pays to listen for yourself to discover the type of sound you like best. |
I doubt that many folks go for PRaT only. Over my time pursuing the high end I ran into PRaT only systems, and was shockingly moved… but kept going because while they were incredibly emotionally involving… but they had wacko tonal balance and and or the absence of detail. But I also found details and slam are about the easiest thing to get in a system… then tonal balance and imaging. But if you get these without PRaT… you end up with a great sounding system without soul… one that will not emotional involve the listener. If I were to do it over again… I would follow PRaT as an absolute requirement and midrange bloom with good tonal balance and then look for better detail and more slam. I think I would have had more enjoyable systems along the way. But I had to learn and evolve and honestly PRaT was the last parameter I learned to hear / identify. Then it all fell into place. Now I have it all great PRaT, tonal balance, detail, imaging and nuanced bass. I am sure I would have got here one way or another… I guess I am just happy I did.
One of my friends that I helped assemble a great system over the last few years sent me a message last week. It said that he is not an outwardly emotional guy (I agree). But he was brought to tears several times listening to a song. That had never happened to him before. I am really happy to hear this, because it was the great PRaT in his system that did it. |
- 370 posts total