Jim Naseum Posted September 10, 2015 Author Share Posted September 10, 2015 The difference between a $500 DAC and a $5000 DAC is not $4500 of electronics. It's a lot less of a difference than that. Asthetics and name brand, you will for example see dacs that cost thousands using a sabre XXXX and amps costing only a few hundred using the exact same chip set (a lot of what you are paying for is pretty box and a name) amen. realistically, marketing value is the dominant consideration of final price. that's cool, that's the way commerce works. no one really thinks a rolex is 1,000 times betteer than a timex. it's just perception and status value which is deep within human natrure. the old McIntosh company rode that horse for all its worrth back in the day. its a rare human that is immune to these effects. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzannucci Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 The real issue is that a DAC is more of an analog device than a digital device, and many people forget that the DAC must have good analog output electronics. -------------------------------------------------- Ahhhh. That certainly explains a lot. Any of the digital parts in a DAC can be rationally examined against specific measures, but the analog parts rule the day and determine the final perceived quality! Put simpler, we never escaped the magic of analog! LOL! I think the implication unless I missed the point is that the digital parts can be picked off a spec sheet by any engineer and tested to be as stated, but that the analog stuff which actually determines the sound will be subject to all the mystery of capacitors and wires and weird flooby dust, just as it always has been. so the difference from a $500 dac and a $5000 DAC is probably in the analog, since digital chips don't cost very much? Just a guess. 1. the more expensive, typically the prettier the jewelry. 2. Analog output section is a major issue as stated above 3. Filter topography - steep or minimum phase or apodizing, etc ..... 4. Chipset and number of bits / sample rate 5. Over sampling / Up sampling vs Non-oversampling 6. No chip such as the Sabre 32 but all the filter and conversion done in silicone large scale / programmable 7. Direct conversion such as NAD / Ti I believe All the above can have something to do with the sound quality, even the jewelry. So bits might be bits, but there are a lot of things that can have an effect on the overall presentation and sound. The thing is that the changes are not typically huge like changing loudspeakers or room treatments. Figure out where you want spend your money. The last 5-10%. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted September 10, 2015 Author Share Posted September 10, 2015 final reduction - - - "the best audio systems always require the most analog magic." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) I don't think it's proper to say "how can two dacs sound different"... I think the proper idea is "how can two dacs NOT sound different". Most of the "reasons" are already listed in this thread... suffice to say, the flavor of the week chipset seems to really rule the roost of cost versus performance for now because the 9018 really does make the best of it's capabilities... until something better comes along. I am not one that will chase a sound by buying my way into and out of product merely because the may be a chance that someone out there makes a unit that subjectively would be a 1% upgrade in performance. Edited September 10, 2015 by Schu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul79 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 My monies comparison was for perspective. Don't read too much into it, but I think I made my point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joessportster Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 A fact based on What ?? I use Headphones and there are substantial differences between some dacs I have heard, 1 & 2 (above) would have zero bearing in my situation. Pick any set of measures posted above. Compare those for a DAC to variations in loudspeaker + room performance. It's not even close. Headphones aren't really loudspeakers, so room acoustics are not part of that equation. I actually hate listening through headphones:they have always given me headaches--all of them. (YMMV). I would hazard a guess that the differences that you are listening to are not the DAC chiip itself, but rather the downstream electronics that everyone seems to forget about. All those electronics are analog, and usually not part of the performance specifications that silicon-based DAC manufacturers publish. There, when using a high input impedance device like headphones, great differences in listening performance are possible. However, that's not an area that appeals to me for the reason given above. Chris I get that but you can not separate the chip from the total of the design so an off the shelf consumer DAC can sound quite different from the next but the chips themselves maybe not so much I was commenting on the whole not the Part / Chip, I also believe the OP was basing his ? on the whole There is no doubt room acoustics can make a substantial difference in sound and possibly as big or bigger than swapping gear amps, dacs' pre-amp, etc... Not clear on where one could hear the same chip in an otherwise constant topology / design in order to come to the conclusion that the chips are all pretty much equal, unless we are basing this on measurements of the various chips Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Parts is parts. NOT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Sometimes we call what we don't understand "magic." Or FM The M stands for magic, I'll let you determine what the F stands for Edited September 10, 2015 by babadono 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) Sound Source--->Microphone---->Analog Fun and Magic and Mystery --->Some Generic Digital Chips---->More Analog Fun and Magic and Mystery----->Your Speakers And we get right back to fully subjective words like resolution and harshness and transparency and smoothness, which mean absolutely nothing, except to the ONE person using the word to describe sounds he is hearing. The audiophile world didn't lose a single lever over our sound systems. Still as irrational as they were in 1948! Love it. EDIT: I hope I didn't offend anyone. It wasn't my goal. I just got fascinated when I read a couple posts and realized that digital chips, which are incontrovertibly measureable, didn't change anything about how we choose audio gear! In other words, there was no subjective advantage to go digital. Edited September 11, 2015 by jo56steph74 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Still as irrational as they were in 1948! Love it. It can be traced back even further as I suspect that 1948 wasn't much different than the 1920s either. You may enjoy this link to a blog titled, "Is It Live or Is It Edison?" Thomas A. Edison held "Tone Tests" from about 1915 to the early 1920s where a blindfolded audience was presented with an actual person singing compared with the Edison diamond disk playing. Most participants reported hearing no difference. It would seem that expectations, the power of suggestion and test conditions can have a significant influence. http://blogs.loc.gov/now-see-hear/2015/05/is-it-live-or-is-it-edison/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 More money= higher accuracy? Sounds very fishy. sounds like PLACEBO to me. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 Still as irrational as they were in 1948! Love it. It can be traced back even further as I suspect that 1948 wasn't much different than the 1920s either. You may enjoy this link to a blog titled, "Is It Live or Is It Edison?" Thomas A. Edison held "Tone Tests" from about 1915 to the early 1920s where a blindfolded audience was presented with an actual person singing compared with the Edison diamond disk playing. Most participants reported hearing no difference. It would seem that expectations, the power of suggestion and test conditions can have a significant influence. http://blogs.loc.gov/now-see-hear/2015/05/is-it-live-or-is-it-edison/ cool. I used 1948 because it was the birthday of the "accurate Klipschorn." I love Mr. Malletes pitch that it's already accurate and nothing better than accurate can be done even after all these years! If they had it, they'd be selling it! LOL I read that Edison stuff a couple years back and got a jolt out of it. My frined had a cylinder player and we'd play the thing and yell out, "Yup! I can't tell this from live! Howzabout you?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay L Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Most of the difference will be in the ADC prior to the DAC, the rest of it on the output filtering. Unless you start digital, then it will mainly be the downstream components. No magic involved in this stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 No magic involved in this stuff. The magic is this: A guy says DAC A is "super smooth and more resolving" than DAC B. The digital chips used in each do precisely and exactly, the same thing. Let's say they are sigma-delta 96/192 chips from two comapnies. BUT, because of all the analog sections, which use all sorts of so-called "special parts," the A unit sounds different than B, but not by any way which can be measured, quantified or rationalized. Ergo, magic is at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay L Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 No magic, that is just a guy selling buffalo chips. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrickdj1 Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 There are a lot of good DAC's on the market without giving up a kidney. Chip technology has advanced a long way. Chasing that last few percents for improvement can be costly. If you are over 50, your hearing is going down the tube anyways, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1UC Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 My current DAC is the only DAC that I have listened to that made me get out of Vinyl , one also needs to consider other gear in the chain which will have a great effect on the sound of the DAC . Power Supply's IC Cables Power Cable etc . Also the system as a whole 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzannucci Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 The same chip, ES9018 say, will sound the same but the analog section and chip usage (the same chip can sound different due to different usage). The Sabre chips have their own volume control and voltage output required to not have outboard op-amps. They also have different filters built in so depending on how much you move off the chip to another digital or analog circuit, the sound will change accordingly. Some use multiple DAC chips to achieve other requirements such as lower noise floor. If you compare two chips, ES9018 and Ti 1796, these will also sound different at the chip level and due to associated analog back end. Let's not bring up the fact of native DSD.... DAC differences are typically subtle but noticeable. It all will have to do with the downstream equipment, type of connections, features such as upsampling or NOS, and your wallet which one you will be happy with. I currently own three, Anthem AVM-30 (processor), Emotiva XDA-2, and Essence HDACC (I've had others also). They all have their place and sound. No DSD but at least HDMI and USB2 on the HDACC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joessportster Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Sound Source--->Microphone---->Analog Fun and Magic and Mystery --->Some Generic Digital Chips---->More Analog Fun and Magic and Mystery----->Your Speakers And we get right back to fully subjective words like resolution and harshness and transparency and smoothness, which mean absolutely nothing, except to the ONE person using the word to describe sounds he is hearing. The audiophile world didn't lose a single lever over our sound systems. Still as irrational as they were in 1948! Love it. EDIT: I hope I didn't offend anyone. It wasn't my goal. I just got fascinated when I read a couple posts and realized that digital chips, which are incontrovertibly measureable, didn't change anything about how we choose audio gear! In other words, there was no subjective advantage to go digital. Convenience, I can hold 10,000 albums in the palm of 1 hand, Try that with Vinyl or tape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.