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

Benjamin from Mojo Audio again.

I hadn't read this thread in a while so I'm playing catch up a bit.

I've been seeing things about USB input issue, I2S, and clocking, that I thought I should address.

First of all, we've never had any problems with customers connecting to our JL Sounds USB input module who were using any form of Windows, Apple OS X, or Linux.

The Rose 150B streamer uses an odd-ball Android OS which is the problem. 

Most of the modern streamer manufactures us Linux which we find to not only be 100% compatible without any need to download a driver, but we also find to be the best sounding. There's a reason why nearly all the major streamer manufacturers have switched to Linux in recent years. 

As for clocking, to say that OCXO is better than femto clocking is like saying that all-wheel-drive is better than front-wheel-drive or rear-wheel-drive. The applications of each can vary considerably and each has its advantages and disadvantages in certain situations. Do they use all-wheel-drive in NASCAR, F1, or Drag Racing?

We've compared every popular and many less well-known USB input modules on the market and have consistently found the JL Sounds modules sounded the best.

And I'm not talking about sounding better by a small factor.

We did blind A/B tests of several different brands of USB input modules. We build a DAC that we could plug in and out different USB input modules like you could roll tubes. We did extensive listening tests with a number of local audiophiles playing through their own systems.  The results were quite consistent: 100% of them picked the JL Sounds module as #1 and the M2-Tech module as #2. All commented on how close those two sounded to each other. There were a number of different responses as to which was #3, #4, and #5, but 100% of the people who made the comparison selected the same as two USB input modules as #1 and #2.

One of the most unexpected things we experienced and heard comments about was how blown away these audiophiles were as to how much of a difference in sound quality the USB input module actually made. One person even commented that if he didn't know better he would have thought that we had switched speakers. 

So clocking is certainly important, but it is one of many factors to consider.

As for I2S...

I'm sorry to burst some of your bubbles, but I2S is one of the stupidest things to come to digital audio in as long as I can remember.

First of all, the technical specification for I2S is "less than 4" from the DAC chip" which means it was engineered as a protocol to only be used inside of a DAC.

All component-to-component digital music transmission protocols are data embedded with clocking: USB...S/PDIF...AES...optical...Ethernet...all of them. 

The flawed logic the promoters of I2S give is "the clocking gets corrupted" which is why in I2S they have three channels: data with embedded clocking, bit clock, and word clock. 

OK...see if this makes any sense to you: if clocking gets corrupted with a single channel traveling on one wire then how would it make any sense to attempt to coordinate three separate clocks on three separate wires?

It makes no sense.

If I2S was actually better they would be using it in recording studios and they most certainly do not.

If I2S was actually better then nearly every company in the audiophile industry would be promoting it and they most certainly do not.

There are a small group of Chi-Fi manufactures who started promoting I2S and the audio-fools bought into it hook-line-and-sinker.

If I2S sounds better in a specific DAC it is only because the other digital inputs on that DAC are lacking, not because I2S is inherently better.

And I've lost count of the number of customers who owned and loved one of those Chi-Fi I2S DACs who upgraded to one of our Mystique DACs and are now back to using the USB input. 

I think that says it all. 

BTW, I never bought into all that MQA hype either.

Refreshing to hear a no BS commentary from a manufacturer once in a while.  Thanks.  

@fuzzbutt17 Thank you for the detailed USB and I2S explanation. Very helpful in that there is quite a bit of chatter using a DDC to covert USB to I2S, coax, AES… I never understood or had the need and have used USB on all my DAC’s. I am currently really enjoying your Mojo Mystique EVO B4B 21 happily using USB. Keep the Mojo rolling!

If I2S was actually better they would be using it in recording studios and they most certainly do not [...] a small group of Chi-Fi manufactures started promoting I2S and the audio-fools bought into it hook-line-and-sinker.

😂😂😂🤣😂

There are a small group of Chi-Fi manufactures who started promoting I2S and the audio-fools bought into it hook-line-and-sinker.

I don’t completely agree with this. I2S is not a Chi-Fi branding but I would agree that most of Chi-Fi DACs supports them today. PS Audio was a very early adopter of I2S (and they had two of them) and having owned their DS DAC when it was first released, their I2S input did sound a bit better than the USB. Admittedly, my USB source was not as sophisticated back then as it is today. IMO, I2S vs USB is a game of a combination of how good or bad your USB source in conjunction with the DAC’s usb implementation.