Why are DAC's so controversial ? - Page 2  

Because when people show up with an opinion that they consider wring, they will want to educate/convince them.

It's just basic human nature at work.

It's well and good to know which DAC chip is being used, so I can understand that question.

However, I think there's an implication in asking that question (which may or may not be true) that you're expecting that (1) two devices with the same DAC chip will have more or less the same performance and (2) two different competent DAC chips will sound different in general.  Both (1) and (2) are not true, so there's often not much practical reason to know which DAC is used.  From the perspective of some people, you're on the wrong track and are one of "those" people, hence the hate-mail or opinions to the contrary.  I don't think it's warranted, but at least that's my interpretation of the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbomustang84 

I posted a question on another forum looking for a new media player that had a specific DAC chip because on a previous unit I had owned and was quite satisfied with  had the same manufacturers chip.

 

I was not wanting to debate  the validity of one chip sounding better than another ,I was simply wondering if any present units available now used that manufacturers chip.

 

instead of getting an answer to the question asked I was bombarded with opinions and insults .                         then I came here did a search and found the information I was seeking ,posted in the other forum thanks for replies but I found the information on Head-Fi

 

Hi,

Anyone with a name like "TurboMustang84" is OK by me.

I used to own a '90 5.0L Mustang..............incredible!

Respectfully:

My personal advice is stay off the Science Forum.  This is all about fact, not opinion. No offence intended, that's just the way it is.

I think you would be happier posting in the Source Components forum. Those folks don't mind talking subjectively about different DACs.

Cheers,

CJ

Well, there's no DAC brand sound signature per se and implementation is king.

You could have the top ESS9018 chip and an oscillating opamp after it, goodbye sound quality

I thought you wanted to know about a specific chip. But what's the name of the chip?

Dacs aren't controversial, they're well understood pieces of technology.  The problem is snake oil salemen and people that don't understand them.
 

Some dacs can make an audible difference, but this is usually due to their inferior quality or implementation.  There's some that do a large drop-off into 20khz using a slow rolling filter, but I've found that these can be audible under certain (strained) testing conditions (requires lots of cymbals cycling on a loop to really get an accurate handle on it).  On the other hand a linear filter worked fine and I couldn't pick up pre-ringing in comparison at all which is a much more suitable trade.  Ones that suffer from inferior quality that create an even larger roll-off, distortion, etc. also are out there.  I actually have a CDP with said inferior chips, and while it's interesting to listen to it isn't exactly must have tech by any stretch.  Given, these chips are from what . . . the 80's?  Not really standard production materials today except for eccentric exotica junk or "cheap" (see: overpriced in reality)  NOS junk from fleabay/etc.

The difference is the cost to make a sufficient DAC isn't all that high anymore since most R&D has been hammered out.  No one's got closer to perfect than the DAC1 as far as I know, and there's many before that that while are not the same performance should equally be transparent audibly.

If you came here to bash another forum, then you're really just coming here to post this out of spite which is disrespectful to both forums.  If you're interested on knowing WHY people are saying there isn't a difference between modern properly implemented ones, then you'll find out just the reason why.  If your question is why your opinion is being questioned, not whether it's actually right or wrong, then you're posting in the wrong sub-forum entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris J 

I think you would be happier posting in the Source Components forum. Those folks don't mind talking objectively about different DACs.

 

I think you mean "subjectively."

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain 

I think you mean "subjectively."

 

schizzle.....you're correct.

I'll edit and fix my post.

Designs have got closer to perfect than the DAC1; technological progress of that sort, is, however, only really interesting due to the "trickle-down" effect rather than revelations in sound quality.

Is quality power supply essential to a dac ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audio-Omega 

Is quality power supply essential to a dac ?

Yes, power supply is almost king in dac performance. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audio-Omega 

Is quality power supply essential to a dac ?

If you mean a good power supply and circuit within the dac, then yes. If you are referring to "power conditioners" and expensive "audiophile grade power cables", then no. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetsuma 


Like Logitech's Squeezebox?
In all seriousness, i'd be curious to read about other DACs' technical performance compared the BM's DAC1. He-who-must-not-be-named uses it as a reference and reveres John Siau and his designs.

Stereophile do measurements on things like DACs and if you trawl the web a few other outfits do actually test kit - the DAC1 however does measure very well

http://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-dac1-usb-da-processor-headphone-amplifier-measurements

though some things do measure better

http://www.stereophile.com/content/weiss-dac202-firewire-da-converter-measurements