View Full Version : Has DAC development run its course?
Although I am not a big digital fan I have always kept an eye on development of digital technology since I bought my first CD player back in the early 1980s ( Philips CD 104). That was nearly 40 years ago and since then I purchased numerous CD players throughout the 80s and 90s and indeed heard a lot more at friends houses. Of course back then we were all hostage to the internal DAC supplied with the CD player but it wasn't long before the off board DAC became available.
But just to go back a little to CD players. Obviously there were numerous manufacturers and designs with a few sounding reasonably good and as CD evolved and engineers tried to iron out some of the issues with digital nasties I think I was one of many folk who kept on swapping hoping newer technology would make them palatable to listen too. In fact I actually swapped more parts none CD related in my system to try and get a good sound out of CD but that's another story. I know some folk still use and enjoy the sound from their CD players but I think the biggest leap forward in digital audio came about when we were free to choose different DACs.
This for me was the next big improvement in digital audio sound quality and again numerous implementations of DAC designs evolved all sounding slightly different with different emphasis in the audio spectrum, ie either forensic and hyper detailed or warm and more analogue sounding. All the chip manufacturers seem to have a different house sound from Burr Brown to Sabre to AKM DAC chips and again their implementation in DAC designs was also multi varied. So obviously digital had so many flavours but which ones were closest to approximating the true nature of the original mastering?
Wind forward to the present day and we now have a state of play where DAC power supplies, clocks, and every aspect of DAC design has now been seemingly exhausted in the pursuit of eliminating RFI and any electrical noise. We are told jitter is now inaudible in some designs and they all seem to "measure" exceedingly well.
So have we now reached the end of DAC development and indeed have we got to the point where there is nothing more to be gained in digital audio.
In other words is this as good as it gets or does anyone think there is some eureka moment still to happen which will move digital audio onto the next level?
Sherwood
30-06-2023, 21:21
Hardly
narabdela
01-07-2023, 05:49
So have we now reached the end of DAC development and indeed have we got to the point where there is nothing more to be gained in digital audio.
In other words is this as good as it gets or does anyone think there is some eureka moment still to happen which will move digital audio onto the next level?
Good question. Tbh, it's pretty much as good as it gets at the moment, providing you can afford the best, but hi-fi enthusiasts being what they(we) are, I'm pretty sure the industry will continue to flog us
'improvements'.
walpurgis
01-07-2023, 07:16
Nothing has ever reached a point where it can't improve. Anyway, what comes after digital, Quantum?
Good OP.
To answer the question, I would say "I hope so", but I'm inclined to agree with Hugh.
Given that you can spend £8K on a cartridge, it wouldn't surprise me to see 'high end' DACs being sold for £20k or more.
Yes, but as middle aged to older gentlemen, are you really benefiting from these, or is the HiFi industry benefiting from your greater spending power?
HiFi is a cruel hobby. When you are young and have excellent hearing, you don’t necessarily have the means to exploit your hearing, but when you are older and are starting to lose your hearing range, you can afford to buy equipment you could enjoy better when you were younger.
Good OP.
To answer the question, I would say "I hope so", but I'm inclined to agree with Hugh.
Given that you can spend £8K on a cartridge, it wouldn't surprise me to see 'high end' DACs being sold for £20k or more.
The full DCS stack was $108,000 back in 2014 https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-digital-playback-system
It's measured performance is, for practical purposes, perfect, but this is also true of DACs that can be bought for under £200 - but does it sound any better? IME and IMO - no.
lots of dfferent flavours to come i guess. sure a new 'super' dac module will appear too. dont really mean they are better or even new
Like the car industry, the hifi industry always has to keep reinventing wheel in order to sell more. I feel digital audio is a classic example of this where it has moved from a simple DAC in a CD player to stand alone DACs, Hi Rez, DSD,MQA, R2R, Galvanic isolation, better PSU, re clocking etc etc. I am sure much of this technology has benefits in digital audio and has moved the SQ obtained from digital along way from CD? Surely?:)
I agree with the sentiment of some who have suggested digital audio still has some way to go but I feel the development of new DACs is slowing and many are just going round in circles.
Like the car industry, the hifi industry always has to keep reinventing wheel in order to sell more. I feel digital audio is a classic example of this where it has moved from a simple DAC in a CD player to stand alone DACs, Hi Rez, DSD,MQA, R2R, Galvanic isolation, better PSU, re clocking etc etc. I am sure much of this technology has benefits in digital audio and has moved the SQ obtained from digital along way from CD? Surely?:)
No, not really. It's not easy to find a CD player, even one from the 1980s, that has audible issues. It's not hard to buy one off ebay for little money and do this comparison for yourself. Do they all sound the same? No, I don't think so, but a different presentation is not the same thing as different quality of reproduction
Digital audio is mathematics so the parameters are completely defined. Is it possible to do this even better than we have now - to the extent we could hear it? I don't see how that can be possible.
You may be able to find a DAC or CD player that has a lot of noise from the power supply that degrades the sound but that has nothing to do with the DAC itself, or any of the intrinsic technology, it's just poor implementation.
I know a number of folk who have returned to a simple CDP set up and actually prefer it to all the FBA, HiREZ, seperate DAC, seperate Clock, separate PSU set up.
I know a number of folk who have returned to a simple CDP set up and actually prefer it to all the FBA, HiREZ, seperate DAC, seperate Clock, separate PSU set up.
well I personally just use a £130 DAC and a £470 transport, nothing else because on paper it's perfect.
But subjectively? Well I go to the shows and the meets etc, I've even had people bring their own equipment here for comparisons. If I ever do find something that sounds better to me I will be buying it. The money is not an issue. But I'm not holding my breath for that.
Streaming is more complex, more potential pitfalls. I don't think that intrinsically streaming will sound better or worse than CD playback, but keeping it simple means less chance of screwing it up.
I agree simplicity is often the key to good sound quality. The more complex a set up the more areas you have to introduce glitches and issues as I have found out with File based audio.
Like you I am not holding my breath expecting a leap in digital technology or a move that improves digital audio SQ any time soon. I think it has plateaued as a technology and any new gear seems to be more of the same as it were.
I know a number of folk who have returned to a simple CDP set up and actually prefer it to all the FBA, HiREZ, seperate DAC, seperate Clock, separate PSU set up.
I have compared the internal DAC of a Sony CDP with an external DAC (one by Stanley Beresford). I was able to switch between the two in real time.
There were differences in the soundstaging but neither was better overall; so for the sake of simplicity I kept with the internal DAC of the player.
implementation, implementation, implementation.
implementation, implementation, implementation.
not just in the source components but in the rest of the system.
My early experience of CD (late 1980s) on a couple of systems was poor. (CD players from Technics and Marantz) Then heard a system using a Technics portable player - fantastic!
That puzzled me for a long time. Was there something special about that Technics portable player? But the answer was no, it was the systems the other players were hooked up to that were the cause of the poor sound. Yet they sounded good with a turntable (Linn Sondek and a Systemdek IIX). CD was just exposing their problems.
Lots of tail chasing in digital audio.
not just in the source components but in the rest of the system.
My early experience of CD (late 1980s) on a couple of systems was poor. (CD players from Technics and Marantz) Then heard a system using a Technics portable player - fantastic!
That puzzled me for a long time. Was there something special about that Technics portable player? But the answer was no, it was the systems the other players were hooked up to that were the cause of the poor sound. Yet they sounded good with a turntable (Linn Sondek and a Systemdek IIX). CD was just exposing their problems.
Lots of tail chasing in digital audio.
indeed although dacs possibly more so. amazing how 2 dacs using same chips can sound so different, or 2 completely different dacs sound so alike
When CD players were introduced, many amplifiers at the time did not have a dedicated CD input - the 'aux' input was not able to cope with the higher output from the player.
When CD players were introduced, many amplifiers at the time did not have a dedicated CD input - the 'aux' input was not able to cope with the higher output from the player.
yes there were sometimes issues with gain and still can be. Anyone who has discovered that it is impossible to get an output level that is not too quiet or too loud from CD when their TT has no such issues knows that.
I'd also add some of the piss-poor but highly feted loudspeakers of that era being shown up, underdamped rooms not responding well to the high frequency output from CD (compared to cassette tape or vinyl). Also 'loudness wars' excessive limiting and compression on some CD masters.
indeed although dacs possibly more so. amazing how 2 dacs using same chips can sound so different, or 2 completely different dacs sound so alike
have to say of all the DACs I have compared (which although it's a fair few is admittedly only a tiny fraction of what is available) at best I've found the differences to be marginal. Some CD players though I could not live with (e.g Rega) - soft and a bit mushy, but I know some like that as it sounds more 'analogue'. For me they just sound like rubbish turntables.
indeed although dacs possibly more so. amazing how 2 dacs using same chips can sound so different, or 2 completely different dacs sound so alike
That is very true.
From what I have heard listening to a very wide range of DACs ranging from very cheap to megabucks there are not night and day differences rather differences in presentation. I watch a Youtube site that has reviewed hundreds of DACs and they seem to fall into just a few categories. They are either ultra detailed and etched with little tonal quality or warmer sounding with good tonal quality. Soundstage seems to be quite variable but the emphasis in the reviews is on resolution and the subtitles around this.
I know improving power supply and clocking may alter the sound somewhat but again I think the differences are exaggerated. Again this if from my experience.
The ability of DACs to play Hi Rez or DSD or MQA are just red herrings or marketing ploys in my book as I have heard digital recordings played back using this technology / bit rate and been non plussed.
The full DCS stack was $108,000 back in 2014 https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-digital-playback-system
It's measured performance is, for practical purposes, perfect, but this is also true of DACs that can be bought for under £200 - but does it sound any better? IME and IMO - no.
And according to Fremer it is acoustically perfect. But he was 66 years old at the time of the review, and by the law of averages his hearing would be declining - certainly it would not as good as that of a 'twenty something'.
Even if I had the money to spend on that DCS system, I would probably decline: two many boxes; too much cabling, and too many mains outlets required.
Chord Dave with Mscaler kinda stood out for me?
Bit too forensic (at expense of musicality) for my tastes, but sounded terrific.
Have to think that would have sounded "noticably better" than a 200 quid dac?
Not because of the price, but the implemetation and atention to detail.
From what I have heard listening to a very wide range of DACs ranging from very cheap to megabucks there are not night and day differences rather subtle differences in presentation. I watch a Youtube site that has reviewed hundreds of DACs and they seem to fall into just a few categories. They are either ultra detailed and etched with little tonal quality or warmer sounding with good tonal quality. Soundstage seems to be quite variable but the emphasis in the reviews is on resolution and the subtitles around this.
I know improving power supply and clocking may alter the sound somewhat but again I think the differences are exaggerated. Again this if from my experience.
The ability of DACs to play Hi Rez or DSD or MQA are just red herrings or marketing ploys in my book as I have heard digital recordings played back using this technology / bit rate and been non plussed.
Chord Dave with Mscaler kinda stood out for me?
Bit too forensic (at expense of musicality) for my tastes, but sounded terrific.
Have to think that would have sounded "noticably better" than a 200 quid dac?
Not because of the price, but the implemetation and atention to detail.
sounds like a great pairing... no doubt expensive too.
Chord Dave with Mscaler kinda stood out for me?
Bit too forensic (at expense of musicality) for my tastes, but sounded terrific.
Have to think that would have sounded "noticably better" than a 200 quid dac?
Not because of the price, but the implemetation and atention to detail.
I have heard the DAVE with M-Scaler and agree it does sound fab but I agree a bit too forensic and certainly better than a £200 DAC. We are talking two extremes here though and the extra £15800 should buy something a tad better?:lol:
Interesting too hear the DAVE without M-scaler, soundstage shrinks and DAVE becomes a bit harsher, less analogue?
I have heard the DAVE with M-Scaler and agree it does sound fab but I agree a bit too forensic and certainly better than a £200 DAC. We are talking two extremes here though and the extra £15800 should buy something a tad better?:lol:
DELIBERATELY putting that out there James :eek:
as always with all things Hifi
"It depends"
Back to your OP
I wouldn't discount design inniovation quite yet,
and as somebody else pointed out, theres all the other "non-digial" stuff that goes into a dac as well?
Always room for improvement,
though the gap betwen budget and higher end is coming closer recently, a good thing.
Interesting too hear the DAVE without M-scaler, soundstage shrinks and DAVE becomes a bit harsher, less analogue?
Interesting...
Shows that even the higher end stuff can be improved I guess?
Of course nowadays with all the measurement boys looking at DACs the numbers are available to compare specifications quite easily and some of the budget DACs apparently measure exceedingly well so they should sound excellent? This would suggest that the gap between the top and low end is indeed narrower?
Yes my original post really was about the future for DAC design and improvement and considering all the areas DAC designers have now covered I was wondering where else they could go. After sorting PSU, electrical noise isolation, analogue output and clocking I am not sure.
More expensive casework?:lol:
More expensive casework? :lol:
Not for me - the dCS gear is expensive enough, although it is somewhat stylish in appearence. The Chord stuff just look horrible to me - it always did, and continues to do so.
I don't want equipment that draws attention to itself visually.
Pieoftheday
01-07-2023, 19:08
Like the car industry, the hifi industry always has to keep reinventing wheel in order to sell more. I feel digital audio is a classic example of this where it has moved from a simple DAC in a CD player to stand alone DACs, Hi Rez, DSD,MQA, R2R, Galvanic isolation, better PSU, re clocking etc etc. I am sure much of this technology has benefits in digital audio and has moved the SQ obtained from digital along way from CD? Surely?:)
I agree with the sentiment of some who have suggested digital audio still has some way to go but I feel the development of new DACs is slowing and many are just going round in circles.
My fave CD player was a Sony 520 something or other, built like a biscuit tin but just so natural, think I d prefer it to my roskan k3 or my novafidelity x40, rose tinted glasses?
My fave CD player was a Sony 520 something or other, built like a biscuit tin but just so natural, think I d prefer it to my roskan k3 or my novafidelity x40, rose tinted glasses?
The Sony CDP-520ES ? It got very good reviews for a CDP in the medium price bracket: https://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-cdp-520es-cd-player
https://www.hifi-classic.net/images/488/sony-cdp-520es.jpg
In the past I have owned a couple of Sony players and still have one, kept as a 'back up'. What I like about Sony players is the silky smooth and quiet drawer action. I have players costing a couple of thousand pounds, yet their drawers 'rattle' as they open and close.
More expensive casework? :lol:
Not for me - the dCS gear is expensive enough, although it is somewhat stylish in appearence. The Chord stuff just look horrible to me - it always did, and continues to do so.
I don't want equipment that draws attention to itself visually.
Don't like the DCS it's over-styled for me, I would rather have the DAVE - it looks a lot better in real life than in photos (I didn't think it did anything special sound-wise. Neither did the DCS. But it does look quite cool).
The Chord DACs that look like the lights off of Captain Pike's wheelchair I would not go near. I hate that sort of design.
If you believe all the hype about the latest digital audio systems you will no longer have just a 1 box CD player with a DAC in it.
You will end up with a phone /iPad - streamer - network switch - laptop - DAC - Separate power supply - Separate clock - router - NAS - ethernet filter. Not necessarily in that order but a large assembly of different boxes and gear.
If you believe all the hype about the latest digital audio systems you will no longer have just a 1 box CD player with a DAC in it.
You will end up with a phone /iPad - streamer - network switch - laptop - DAC - Separate power supply - Separate clock - router - NAS - ethernet filter. Not necessarily in that order but a large assembly of different boxes and gear.
don't forget adding linear power supplies for every single thing and then hanging 'grounding boxes' off of everything. And of course the data cables have to be special too.
I saw someone (on another forum) state (not suggest or speculate) that you needed to spend about ten grand to get 'state of the art' digital replay. It makes me feel bad for the people who are misled into spending all their money on that stuff by claims like that, but it's their money I suppose and if you lie down with dogs you will get fleas.
More expensive casework?:lol:
But the Gustard R26 looks like a set top box from 1980.
But the Gustard R26 looks like a set top box from 1980.
They need to cut back somewhere to keep the price reasonable:lol:
But the Gustard R26 looks like a set top box from 1980.
It does but on the plus side it has proper 'Japanese feet' which seem to have mostly fallen by the wayside these days.
Edit - christ it's sixteen hundred quid! Yes I'd want better aesthetics for that kind of money. I thought they were about £350.
yeah, it looks like any other piece of crap around. sad that they think so little of both their gear and their customers. i wouldnt buy it at half the price as its inelegant.
I thought they were about £350.
:lol:
If it was £350, I would have bought one months ago.
At €1600, it is likely to be different, and not massively better to my current DAC.
:lol:
If it was £350, I would have bought one months ago.
At €1600, it is likely to be different, and not massively better to my current DAC.
you can deduce that just from the price tag?
I see it is also a streamer so I suppose that makes it slightly better value. Measures impeccably too. Still look like a Sky box from the 1990s though.
It measures as well as my current DAC.
The pricetag does not have much to do with it.
It measures as well as my current DAC.
The pricetag does not have much to do with it.
What is your current DAC Kevin?
But the Gustard R26 looks like a set top box from 1980.
Looks OK to me:
https://soundnews.net/uploads/r26_16.jpg
No 'tin box' construction here, and is a damned sight better looking than anything from Chord!
What is your current DAC Kevin?
RME ADI-2 DAC FS - The AKM version.
I think the dilemma you may have Kevin will be the Gustard DAC maybe just different but not necessarily better than the RME?
This looks like a very good DAC for the money? £500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGrWtYB9G38
Wakefield Turntables
02-07-2023, 18:03
I've never bothered with streaming, file based audio or anything else like that and I can honestly say that I'm happy just sticking with vinyl. So, I think I'll stay that way.
I've never bothered with streaming, file based audio or anything else like that and I can honestly say that I'm happy just sticking with vinyl. So, I think I'll stay that way.
I try to keep an interest in digital but 99% of my listening is vinyl. I live in hope that one day I might find a digital set up I can listen too with the same amount of enjoyment as the plastic and rock.:)
Wakefield Turntables
02-07-2023, 19:24
I try to keep an interest in digital but 99% of my listening is vinyl. I live in hope that one day I might find a digital set up I can listen too with the same amount of enjoyment as the plastic and rock.:)
I've never really been that bothered with tinkering around the CD players. Anyway, all things reach an apex of development and then something else comes along to replace and the cycle continues. The trick is to wait for the apex and then buy all the equipment you've ever wanted on the second hand or NOS market for considerably less, this way you save loads of money and heartache from the wasted time of auditioning kit that didn't reach the apex.
RME ADI-2 DAC FS - The AKM version.
Looks good to me:
https://www.rme-usa.com/files/uploads/RME-Products/Converter/ADI-2-DAC-C.png
Small size, good cosmetics and it's made in Germany. :) The only downside might be the use of a 'wall wart', but I'm sure a linear power supply could be found. Or perhaps use a rechargeable battery?
I am using it with a linear PSU.
This looks like a very good DAC for the money? £500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGrWtYB9G38
It is another ESS9038Pro DAC. It should sound similar to any other 9038Pro?
I must admit Jimbo, interesting hypothesis there.
The said the same of vinyl lol, now just look at the big ticket (top tier Volvo pricing) of spinners?
Quite a few D2A being sold for over 20K I can think of at least 20 units off the top of my head, having a few of them recently.
Martin cited DCS that stack is now over £140K, the Wadax is $160K on its own without the source!
Now this is not a urinating contest, my point is that this year the cost of quality audio has gone up by a significant margin my flying visit to Munich this year was quite a shock.
They is with any hobby or interest a point where people will pay what they feel the product is worth and that’s how many manufacturers base the RRP's I'm sure of this.
One thing was certain, now it’s not hip to be a Russian oligarch, it’s those crazy rich Asians and Indians with the thousands of multi-millionaire / billionaires now out there that are now sought out for those ultra exclusive audio jewellery
Does it offer anything new over the say three years ago top sounds, if you have the system and inclination then yes, however in the land of reality it bears little or zero commonality to the day to day musing of real music lovers.
The question is do they all sound the same when level matched?
I have three so called reference dac's we keep just for the purposes of demonstrating the so called influencer metric, a chord dave/ Holo May / Topping D90 all of these dacs measure very well indeed no question at all. Even better than the dacs I use by a fair margin.
However, one is leading edge detail heavy centric solid 2-dimensional naim sound alike from yester year, the other is a real audiophile's pipe and slipper wet dream that’s been engineered to sound really good, lovely mid band texture, the other is a s dull as ditch water and makes vanilla sponge sound appealing.
Does that make them bad, its merely personal preferences here.
So like having 15K cartridges and £10K SUT’s and match cabling its business as usual.
The AI situation is interesting Im mean I can ask it to design an dac circuit and it will not bad either, but there’s the rub, pretty soon the mass population will realise that not having a job because the AI can do it better/faster and more productively then world may not be that better place and Skynet is very much a reality than an a crass 80’s film
Interesting take on the subject from someone in the industry MR C.
The fact a DAC measures very well seems to have no relevance to how it sounds anymore with your descriptions of the 3 DACS you hold as reference models.
It is as you say all down to personal preference and if you are very wealthy then preference maybe about appearance and the fact it needs to be expensive!:)
Interesting take on the subject from someone in the industry MR C.
The fact a DAC measures very well seems to have no relevance to how it sounds anymore with your descriptions of the 3 DACS you hold as reference models.
It is as you say all down to personal preference and if you are very wealthy then preference maybe about appearance and the fact it needs to be expensive!:)
Jimbo
For a few people it is important to have a certain 'badge' on their their equipment / watch / vehicle motorcycle / apparel / footware etc. It is a status point for those individuals.
Cost on thw whole (their are exceptions) is no ultimate arbitor of improved sound quality or is having 650Bhp more useable and eco frinedly than say a 250Bhp car tuned for road conditons?
But the street cred is way down in hommie lard compared to the Beemeer M4 with its hot snot engine reprogramme, big stainless big bore road shaker exhaust pipes and g/box remap et al. But the cost is significantly more, you get what you wish to pay for.
Being a bit of a digital whore for many years I have mange to amass a fair few D2A units over time, and yes the tehnology and implimentation has changed markedly, for the better? or just different? Again that choice is yours to make
Oddly enough I use a 26 year dac which makes mighty fine music just right, I do have a few dacs which more than fall into the cost areas that were mentioned this morning. THis preference thing is quite interesting from many aspects, you just need to be a practicing phycologist just to understand each peron rationale.
Mr C.
Considering you still use a 26 year old DAC, this may suggest there has not been that much sonic advancements in the past few years? :).
Maybe there has been some technological advancement but SQ has not necessarily got much better?
This is probably true for most hifi components from turntable to speakers?
kirstysdad
03-07-2023, 17:41
Like the car industry, the hifi industry always has to keep reinventing wheel in order to sell more. I feel digital audio is a classic example of this where it has moved from a simple DAC in a CD player to stand alone DACs, Hi Rez, DSD,MQA, R2R, Galvanic isolation, better PSU, re clocking etc etc. I am sure much of this technology has benefits in digital audio and has moved the SQ obtained from digital along way from CD? Surely?:)
I agree with the sentiment of some who have suggested digital audio still has some way to go but I feel the development of new DACs is slowing and many are just going round in circles.
From a tech perspective, yes, I suspect so. It has got as near perfect as I can't hear.
I suspect it's the analogue side that makes the difference, and analogue differences are a matter of taste.
Same with orchestras and concert halls.
I am playing a bit here.
We have been arguing about analogue for years. It is inherently flawed as a recording method on vinyl or tape, yet I love it. Often because the engineers have "engineered it".
I remain open minded and open eared.
Lawrence001
03-07-2023, 17:43
If you believe all the hype about the latest digital audio systems you will no longer have just a 1 box CD player with a DAC in it.
You will end up with a phone /iPad - streamer - network switch - laptop - DAC - Separate power supply - Separate clock - router - NAS - ethernet filter. Not necessarily in that order but a large assembly of different boxes and gear.If it was in that order I'm not sure it would sound that good. Or sound like anything for that matter [emoji23]
kirstysdad
03-07-2023, 17:43
Jimbo
For a few people it is important to have a certain 'badge' on their their equipment / watch / vehicle motorcycle / apparel / footware etc. It is a status point for those individuals.
Cost on thw whole (their are exceptions) is no ultimate arbitor of improved sound quality or is having 650Bhp more useable and eco frinedly than say a 250Bhp car tuned for road conditons?
But the street cred is way down in hommie lard compared to the Beemeer M4 with its hot snot engine reprogramme, big stainless big bore road shaker exhaust pipes and g/box remap et al. But the cost is significantly more, you get what you wish to pay for.
Being a bit of a digital whore for many years I have mange to amass a fair few D2A units over time, and yes the tehnology and implimentation has changed markedly, for the better? or just different? Again that choice is yours to make
Oddly enough I use a 26 year dac which makes mighty fine music just right, I do have a few dacs which more than fall into the cost areas that were mentioned this morning. THis preference thing is quite interesting from many aspects, you just need to be a practicing phycologist just to understand each peron rationale.
Brilliant. We seek what we hope others will approve of.
kirstysdad
03-07-2023, 17:48
If it was in that order I'm not sure it would sound that good. Or sound like anything for that matter [emoji23]
Sounds adequate. I use it but I equate it with "listening to the radio". Convenient, like right now, but not for "listening". But I get what you mean.
Lawrence001
03-07-2023, 17:48
not just in the source components but in the rest of the system.
My early experience of CD (late 1980s) on a couple of systems was poor. (CD players from Technics and Marantz) Then heard a system using a Technics portable player - fantastic!
That puzzled me for a long time. Was there something special about that Technics portable player? But the answer was no, it was the systems the other players were hooked up to that were the cause of the poor sound. Yet they sounded good with a turntable (Linn Sondek and a Systemdek IIX). CD was just exposing their problems.
Lots of tail chasing in digital audio.
Actually there's one thing many portable players had, a buffer of data in case it got knocked or jolted. It may not be the same as the modern transports that have a similar buffer but it could be one advantage it had. Probably many disadvantages too.
Mr C.
Considering you still use a 26 year old DAC, this may suggest there has not been that much sonic advancements in the past few years? :).
Maybe there has been some technological advancement but SQ has not necessarily got much better?
This is probably true for most hifi components from turntable to speakers?
DACs may measure better these days but as far as human hearing ability goes they were a solved problem in 1980. That's the answer to your OP :)
Ironically it tends to be some of the expensive ones that have high noise and distortion sometimes reaching the threshold of audibility. Not enough to sound bad and so maybe some will prefer the slight difference that might make. Otherwise I think we listen to the price and the reputation.
My Sony portable Cd player still sounds awesome.
If it was in that order I'm not sure it would sound that good. Or sound like anything for that matter [emoji23]
:)
DACs may measure better these days but as far as human hearing ability goes they were a solved problem in 1980. That's the answer to your OP :)
Ironically it tends to be some of the expensive ones that have high noise and distortion sometimes reaching the threshold of audibility. Not enough to sound bad and so maybe some will prefer the slight difference that might make. Otherwise I think we listen to the price and the reputation.
There is an almost frantic pace of DACs released on the world market, OK a lot from China but something gets released almost monthly. All of them are variations on a theme either chip based or R2R. Features and casework seem to dictate the price.:)
Mr C.
Considering you still use a 26 year old DAC, this may suggest there has not been that much sonic advancements in the past few years? :).
Maybe there has been some technological advancement but SQ has not necessarily got much better?
This is probably true for most hifi components from turntable to speakers?
Or it could be I just prefer the Wadia sound, there is a sence of correctness to what being played then even the much vaulted MSB Select MK II can't achieve in terms of actually putting you in the recording space, in all other aspects its pretty flawless, but that's the rub how do you like your coffee, flat white of triple expresso and no sugar.
Would like to point out said dac doesn't have many of the original parts it left the factory with back in 1996 lol.
Would like to point out said dac doesn't have many of the original parts it left the factory with back in 1996 lol.
Trigger's DAC.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.