watchnerd said:

That's an understatement...that's horrible!

Click to expand...

Good example of why an outboard DAC can improve sound.

will f said:

Good example of why an outboard DAC can improve sound.

Click to expand...

 
Sure, but once again, it's because the analog side sucks.

watchnerd said:

Sure, but once again, it's because the analog side sucks.

Click to expand...

How do you mean? That the DAC is good but the onboard amp sucks? probably so, but it doesn't change the solution, assuming the Oscillascope trace was with a high impedance load on the output., If so, the only way you'll get a good output is to bypass the onboard amp.

will f said:

How do you mean? That the DAC is good but the onboard amp sucks? probably so, but it doesn't change the solution, assuming the Oscillascope trace was with a high impedance load on the output., If so, the only way you'll get a good output is to bypass the onboard amp.

Click to expand...

 
In this specific case, it doesn't change the solution.
 
However, in other situations the user may not need a DAC, just an external amp if the internal amp is basically fine to act as a line out, but just not as powerful as they like relative to their headphones.

watchnerd said:

In this specific case, it doesn't change the solution.

However, in other situations the user may not need a DAC, just an external amp if the internal amp is basically fine to act as a line out, but just not as powerful as they like relative to their headphones.

Click to expand...

I would agree with that. Every quality technical resource I've read says consumer DAC technology exceeded the limits of human hearing back in the 1980s. I bought a DAC / amp capable of way better than 16 bit / 44 kHz, but subsequently discovered that any difference in sound is inaudible. Marketing strikes again.

will f said:

I would agree with that. Every quality technical resource I've read says consumer DAC technology exceeded the limits of human hearing back in the 1980s. I bought a DAC / amp capable of way better than 16 bit / 44 kHz, but subsequently discovered that any difference in sound is inaudible. Marketing strikes again.

Click to expand...

 
Your headphones / speakers aren't revealing enough then. There's always exaggeration from marketing, but I can perceive a huge sound quality difference between laptop/tablet on-board dac/amp and my mid-fi class setup (consisting of iFi iUSB 3.0, iFi Gemini USB cable, Audioquest Golden Gate RCA, Schiit Bifrost Multibit DAC and Asgard 2 Amp) when listened from the AKG K712 headphones. The sound went from boring and lifeless to extremely detailed, euphonic and engaging which is very impressive that it's being played on a very analytical headphone like the AKG K712.

theveterans said:

   
Your headphones / speakers aren't revealing enough then. There's always exaggeration from marketing, but I can perceive a huge sound quality difference between laptop/tablet on-board dac/amp and my mid-fi class setup (consisting of iFi iUSB 3.0, iFi Gemini USB cable, Audioquest Golden Gate RCA, Schiit Bifrost Multibit DAC and Asgard 2 Amp) when listened from the AKG K712 headphones. The sound went from boring and lifeless to extremely detailed, euphonic and engaging which is very impressive that it's being played on a very analytical headphone like the AKG K712.

Click to expand...

 
You haven't isolated the variables.
 
My Hifiman 400i’s sound the same through my Mjolnir 2 whether I’m doing a line-out from the Mac Mini jack or using my Apollo Twin DAC over Thunderbolt.

theveterans said:

   
Your headphones / speakers aren't revealing enough then. There's always exaggeration from marketing, but I can perceive a huge sound quality difference between laptop/tablet on-board dac/amp and my mid-fi class setup (consisting of iFi iUSB 3.0, iFi Gemini USB cable, Audioquest Golden Gate RCA, Schiit Bifrost Multibit DAC and Asgard 2 Amp) when listened from the AKG K712 headphones. The sound went from boring and lifeless to extremely detailed, euphonic and engaging which is very impressive that it's being played on a very analytical headphone like the AKG K712.

Click to expand...

 
 
Perhaps...
 
What we perceive does not always correlate with more objective measures. There are any number of ways in which a casual sighted comparison of components, even with the best of intentions,  can be misleading, including but not limited to:
 
1.Not carefully matching the volume levels (this is far and away the most common of the routine problems) , level differences are often misinterpreted as changes in 'quality', most often slightly louder is perceived as 'more dynamic', 'more detailed' and so on..
2. Too much time elapsing between comparisons. Human memory for details is pretty short and expecting to be able to do a valid comparison of anything other than *gross* changes with a gap of  more than a few seconds is pretty doomed , hours forget it completely
3. Not comparing the same exact signals, should be obvious but there you go
4. Unwanted electrical mismatches such as impedance, the pages of Stereophile are full of reviews of valve amps where you cannot use speakers with impedance that drops below 8 ohms (ever) or the FR curve goes to poopy and you get even more distortion/noise than expected, also some speakers cables especially exotic designs (broken) can have a similar undesired effect
 
Assuming the above are dealt with competently we get to 
 
5. Cognitive biases (confirmation, expectation and many many others)
 
Have you ever done any DBTs?  

theveterans said:

   
Your headphones / speakers aren't revealing enough then. There's always exaggeration from marketing, but I can perceive a huge sound quality difference between laptop/tablet on-board dac/amp and my mid-fi class setup (consisting of iFi iUSB 3.0, iFi Gemini USB cable, Audioquest Golden Gate RCA, Schiit Bifrost Multibit DAC and Asgard 2 Amp) when listened from the AKG K712 headphones. The sound went from boring and lifeless to extremely detailed, euphonic and engaging which is very impressive that it's being played on a very analytical headphone like the AKG K712.

Click to expand...

i noticed the same when i used to own the K712pro
 
i tested 3 dacs and heard the difference.
 
Motherboard - way to cold, harsh and sterile
 
Hifiman hm101 - warmer but with distortion and hiss
 
Hifimediy 90182km - the best sound of all, a nicely layered crystal clear sound but the bass was too overwhelming for me.

Bass Quantity is subjective. I prefer a very slight boost than accurate bass. Still, the "alive" or "engaging" sound is a lot of what differentiates an on-board audio and a external DAC/Amp setup.

theveterans said:

Your headphones / speakers aren't revealing enough then. There's always exaggeration from marketing, but I can perceive a huge sound quality difference between laptop/tablet on-board dac/amp and my mid-fi class setup (consisting of iFi iUSB 3.0, iFi Gemini USB cable, Audioquest Golden Gate RCA, Schiit Bifrost Multibit DAC and Asgard 2 Amp) when listened from the AKG K712 headphones. The sound went from boring and lifeless to extremely detailed, euphonic and engaging which is very impressive that it's being played on a very analytical headphone like the AKG K712.

Click to expand...

You're combining other variables besides the DAC. In any case, in blind testing (philips golden ears challenge) my 50 year old ears can't hear the difference between 192 bit rate recordings and anything better on my current $200 amp and $400 headphones, so I don't see much point in looking for a more capable DAC. if I do decide I want to improve sound further I know where to do it- the only part of my system not capable of less than < 0.01% distortion- my headphones.

I cannot bypass the on-board amp (it doesn't have a 2v line out) on my laptop so that's the reason for the highest difference in sound. I'm well aware that change in DACs have a far less effect on sound than amps based on people's experiences here, but I don't have a choice myself so I must have a DAC to bypass the low-fi amp from my laptop/tablet. I would bet that instrument separation and crystal clear microdetails are mostly affected by DAC.
 
To my experience, amps is what converts the boring to engaging while DACs are icing on the cake. The power isolator is also another icing on the cake which only shows its benefit if the device's USB output is noisy.

will f said:

You're combining other variables besides the DAC. In any case, in blind testing (philips golden ears challenge) my 50 year old ears can't hear the difference between 192 bit rate recordings and anything better on my current $200 amp and $400 headphones, so I don't see much point in looking for a more capable DAC. if I do decide I want to improve sound further I know where to do it- the only part of my system not capable of less than < 0.01% distortion- my headphones.

Click to expand...

 
Yes. I can barely (and only on specific songs) tell the difference between 192 and 320 kbps MP3. Mostly the difference is microdetails on upper mids to treble on complex songs, but you must listen A/B them many times to pinpoint it. IMO, 192 Kbps MP3 is the minimum for high end audio reproduction.

I started by buying a new pair of headphones. Even though they are 50 ohms, they are not very sensitive 90 dB/mW. My PC analog outs could not provide enough power. At 100% on the digital volume "knob", they were medium loud to me (I listen at about 70-75, so I'm guessing 80-ish dB), but massively distorted. My only amp was an A/V receiver from the late 1980's that only has analog inputs. So I decided I wanted to buy a new amp. The amp I ordered was a dedicated headphone amp, the Liquid Carbon, which also did not have any digital inputs. It did allowed balanced inputs to reduce external noise, which I needed since I intended to use this next to 3 computers, 2 UPS, external storage enclosures and 2 monitors. Headphone out was going to be noisy and was already carrying digital processing noise (like the click and buzz from cellphone carrier signals) from my media server. So, I decided I needed an external balanced DAC with digital inputs and input selection to eliminate computer noise and RF/EMI noise. I have now reached the end of "Because my analog section was bad".  Afterwards, it will be "Because I like nice-ish things that I use for decades".
 
Balanced outputs with input selection was going to cost me. Schiit Gungnir was expensive (relative to where I was coming from), but not horribly so (compare to "Hi-Fi") and had the stuff I wanted: balanced output, multiple digital inputs, and an input selector. So I planned on buying the Gungnir with USB upgrade when the Liquid Carbon shipped. The DS/Multibit war was being waged due to Yggy and PCM1704s, and then Carbon was delayed. Then the Schiit Show happened and Gumby was released. I said, why not and bought it. That is how I ended up buying a Gungnir Multibit, an external DAC.
 
I can't even say if I hear anything different because now I know hard it is to properly setup hardware ABX without even more hardware. I can say that Balanced is less noisy than SE, so that seemed like a good decision. USB out has eliminated noise from my motherboard being amplified and transmitted out. My headphones are properly driven. I can select between my 2 computers (lower energy media server and a high power gaming machine) with a touch of a button. I expect the Gumby to last for many many years, and I don't plan on upgrading unless there are some major technological improvements that warrant a new DAC. However, the small Uber Schiit Stack might have been just as good at $300 with a $250 transformer isolator.

Fifth answer - My sources do not interface to the systems I play through without an external DAC.
 
And the analog quality is lacking..