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.
The state of the art measuring DACs are great if you have a balanced room and a balanced system...most of us don't have that. Less precise DACs give us a softer sound...rounder edges...they are more forgiving and can add meat to the bone. Similar to but much more subtle to what a First Watt amp does...these DACs are art and can add beauty to a recording.
|
A few words about the Benchmark DAC3 HGC. The Benchmark is like an elusive concept for me. How can a DAC that provides "state-of-the-art measured performance" not sound perfect and, why doesn’t it sound like every other DAC that provides "state-of-the-art measured performance"?
I am currently playing Benjamin’s Mystique Y AM in my system and I have been comparing it to my Mystique X SE NCZ. For personal calibration purposes I pulled the Benchmark out the other day, let it warm up, and then listened. I was amazed at how comparatively flat and sort-of lifeless it sounded. Sure, it played music, the bass was low, the highs were all there, it didn’t distort the sound, and it wasn’t noisy. However, sort of like fabric on a chair after too much time in a sunny spot, it simply didn’t "pop". Compared to Mojo Audio’s DACs, the Benchmark wasn’t as much fun because it didn’t express the same sense of body, fullness, depth, and tonal color. Does this mean the Mojo Audio DACs are distorting the truth to the benefit of listening enjoyment? Benjamin would probably say not, but, maybe. Hey, so what, they sound better! The other thought I had was about the Tambaqui, which is another DAC that supposedly provides "state-of-the-art measured performance".
Why then, is my recollection of the Tambaqui’s sound so different than what I hear from the Benchmark, when they both provide "state-of-the-art measured performance"? I remember a greater level of purity, refinement, and musical involvement from the Tambaqui than I hear from the Benchmark. At the time I owned it, I felt the Tambaqui was arguably "perfect sounding." I wouldn’t say that about the Benchmark, which doesn’t really do anything wrong, but just isn’t that exciting or fulfilling for me. Ultimately, I sold the Tambaqui when I decided that its version of "perfect sounding" wasn’t really doing it for me - you know, the old Jack Nicholson thing about handling the truth. I like the extra meat on the bones, tonal color, and physicality of the Mojo Audio DACs. I typically tell folks "buy what you like", and so I did. |
I look at it like this: there are probably a hundred variable involved in sound quality that the human ear / mind can perceive and only ten or so have measurements. So there is enormous room for variability. We are only measuring the big stuff. There is reproduction of sound at each frequency, how different frequencies interact, attack and decay... it goes on and on. This is why after my first couple years in high end audio I stopped looking at measurements (with a few exceptions on amps and speakers) and just listen or read the qualitative stuff. Just a couple comments about myself I was trained as a scientist and worked as such for ten years. I am always a scientist at heart... I have a home seismograph, weather station, pollution sensors. I track all my vital health variables, blood pressure, heart rate, VO2...etc. So, I am very pro analytical when it is useful... it is not very useful for high end audio. |
So true. I had a chance to demo the Mystique XSE and to my ears, in my room, with my gear, It was a stunning disappointment. The unit was used but in great shape. I just shipped it back to Hawthorne Stereo in Seattle so if anyone here is looking for one, they should still have it.
|
