[thecrow]

...would it be correct to assume something like a Modi or Bifrost is within 98% of the uber expensive ones in terms of all things measurable and audible?

No.

Go demo, ie go have a listen

All the best

<unsubscribed>

 

[flargosa]

You can demo, but it doesn't guarantee you get a more accurate dac, however it guarantees you get a dac you like. You might like a dac because of certain characteristics(wider soundstage, bigger bass, better timbre, etc…), but you don’t know if those characteristics are more or less accurate than your old dac since there isn’t a measurement for it. You depend on a reviewers ear and your ears which we know is opinion base. My definition of neutral bass is different than yours. Well anyway, it’s just a hobby and we spend our money on what we believe is a better product.

 

[sajunky]

You can demo, but it doesn't guarantee you get a more accurate dac, however it guarantees you get a dac you like. You might like a dac because of certain characteristics(wider soundstage, bigger bass, better timbre, etc…), but you don’t know if those characteristics are more or less accurate than your old dac since there isn’t a measurement for it.

It implies that measurements give objective rating of the device. It is not true. Your ears give a right answer, but not immediately. This doesn't happen during couple minutes of a listening session, even couple days. The ultimate answer gives your response to the simple question: How much your music library has grown during a time. It is a clear indicator for the experienced salesman whether it is a good system or you just stopped listening to music.

 

[]eep]

No. Period. Most people are stupid, but not thàt stupid. It can't be.

Yes, my €45 dac (+mods) outperforms even a McIntosh dac I heard in a show in a 100k+ system (Mc Intosh/Focal). But that doesn't mean that it applies in general. Totally not. And it really depends on your system (level of quality). Most of the time the dac is far from the weakest link.

But it really depends on how you learned to listen (or how far you drifted off by bad habits and listening to crap). If you are of the rare breed that still likes to listen to live acoustical music in a natural setting you will probably prefer an R2R DAC, NOS, filterless with passive I/V. And those 'measure' terrible (very bad sales pitch). But with (classical!) music... it comes very close to really good vinyl, or live.
My journey started when i bought that €45 R2R dac and while still stock, didn't like it much. Until that summer I walked into the 13th century gothic church in my towns centre that was open to the public where there was a small group performing Renaissance music. Then I had an epiphany... I could not hear every voice where i saw the singer or every detail of the bowing of the violin. But i heard everything including the ambiance. There's no arguing with the real world. This was real. And my little cheap R2R came much closer to reproducing that than my tweaked out tube delta sigma (the best dac/cd-player i ever had so far, even rivalling my vinyl setup). So I got hooked on R2R and started researching and modifying. So you cant really buy any like this for this price.

And as far as measurements go... first the jist of it; measurements are meaningless especially with dacs. Usually they measure all the wrong things. It's not about amplitudes of frequencies or this or that distortion. It's about phase and temporal integrity.

Here is a nice example of how meaningless stats and measurements are if you do not know what to measure or how to interpret. It's really ridiculous if you think about it. Look up 'share dna with bananas' and 'share dna with siblings'. It turnes out that science says that humans share 60% of their dna with bananas, but siblings share only 50% of the same dna. Conclusion: I share more dna with any banana than with my brother... Yeah. Interpretation is a bi.... That's about the level of most people on audiosciencereview. Totally bananas.

Things to make you go 'hmmm'

 

[sajunky]

Well said. I had my CD player heavilly modded around 2000, it was based on PCM-63 chip, it made me happy. Two years ago I wrongly assumed that technology advanced to such level, so I could pickup any reputable DAC with good measurements. Nope, it didn't work. I settled for a while for $42 Nobsound 8xTDA1387 before I could collect information to get something better. It was a hudge pleasant surprise. This little current source R2R DAC with a passive I/V conversion outperformed number DACs around $200 and probably even more expensive I didn't test. What more important, I can listen to music much longer and not being fatigued. This is a very good indicator for a good setup. I listen to various types of music with preference of acoustic instruments. It is all around good DAC. I would stay with Nobsound longer if it had better headphone amplifier. Still serve me well when traveling, as is a portable device. For desktop I needed something to drive my HD600, a DAC came as a bonus. Then it was another surprise. A modern R2R NOS DAC reveal so much joy in recordings I never expected.

 

[bifcake]

Just wondering with all the advancement in dac technology. I would guess something like the Schiit Modi, for example, is probably as good as $2k dacs of 5 - 7 years ago? I don’t have the latest and greatest dac, but would it be correct to assume something like a Modi or Bifrost is within 98% of the uber expensive ones in terms of all things measurable and audible? I would guess now the magic of dacs isn’t in increasing accuracy but in the tuning, maybe tune for wider soundstage, more real vocals, etc…along with correct equipment matching?

If you're listening through your computernas a source, I would argue that the driver plays a bigger role than the actual DAC. Any DAC is only as good as its driver.

If you're listening through an optical or coaxial connection, the difference among DACs is minima, assuming both th expensive and inexpensive DACs were made with the focus on sound quality. I wouldn't spend a lot of money on a DAC. Other components play a bigger role.

 

[supersonic395]

In addition, Chimpanzees and Humans share 99% of their DNA, but it's that last 1% that makes all the difference in the world.

I think, given history and trends, the Chimps are the winning team.

 

[thecrow]

I think, given history and trends, the Chimps are the winning team.

 

[penguinofsleep2]

If we say "98% as good", I would argue absolutely not, assuming the "rest of the chain" is at a high enough level. However, if you mean "98% there", I would argue it's more than 98% there.

By "98% there" - whether I use say a cheap iphone dongle and even do something dumb like plug in inefficient planars VS I use an actually good DAC for say $5k-25k (not necessarily the most $$$ out there, but well beyond the realm of "merely competent") + complementary amp, I'm still going to be able to tell what the song is, hear the melody, the main notes, etc. both ways. Even without a DAC, say we just use an AM radio, I'm going to get 98%+ there assuming the signal is not obstructed.

By "98% as good" - let's just say the iphone dongle is not going to give me 98% of the nuances, details, subtleties, etc. that said favorite DAC + amp beyond the "merely competent" levels are going to give. Don't believe me - try it.

 

[sajunky]

A discussion may end up with conclusion that DAC doesn't matter. But when a Realtek codec chip in a Sony Vaiio laptop outperformed Topping D30 ($130) by a mile, it is something you need to be aware of.

 

[driftingbunnies]

The ability for the DAC to affect your system is directly related to how well the rest of your system can produce details and nuances. The pattern that I've found when people say that DACs make no difference is that 1) they've never tried a DAC >$500, 2) they've only tried chip based dacs, 3) their amp/headphone is lacking in one area or another, 4) they only care about measurement. Don't you think it's highly improbable that all the members in this forum and other forums that hear a difference and talk about the differences don't actually hear a difference and it's all made up?

 

[sajunky]

+1.

My DAC is Audio GD R2R-11 ($350). The other DAC that makes difference is $42 Nobsound 8xTDA1387, it replaced Topping D30 for a year. Still good on the road...

 

[bifcake]

I find that the differences that people talk about when they talk about DACs tend to be exaggerated. They're not night and day differences. They're mostly differences of subtlety. Changing headphones makes the most dramatic difference. Matching a proper amp to the headphone makes a difference, albeit less profound. Having well written drivers (when using a computer) makes a smaller, but audible difference. When all the other components have been optimized, switching DACs, affects the sound subtly. That subtlety may be important, but it's not the same as claiming a profound difference among DACs.

 

[driftingbunnies]

I find that the differences that people talk about when they talk about DACs tend to be exaggerated. They're not night and day differences. They're mostly differences of subtlety. Changing headphones makes the most dramatic difference. Matching a proper amp to the headphone makes a difference, albeit less profound. Having well written drivers (when using a computer) makes a smaller, but audible difference. When all the other components have been optimized, switching DACs, affects the sound subtly. That subtlety may be important, but it's not the same as claiming a profound difference among DACs.

Could it be possible that your description of differences are exaggerated as well? How do you define subtle? How do you define exaggerated? Numbers are never a great way to explain music from my experience. If I told you that this dac was 95% of another dac, what does that even mean? If you're expecting the same profound difference between no sound and sound, obviously a dac isn't going to give you that big of a jump. Once you get into components over $1k, subtlety is the name of the game.

 

[bifcake]

Could it be possible that your description of differences are exaggerated as well? How do you define subtle? How do you define exaggerated? Numbers are never a great way to explain music from my experience. If I told you that this dac was 95% of another dac, what does that even mean? If you're expecting the same profound difference between no sound and sound, obviously a dac isn't going to give you that big of a jump. Once you get into components over $1k, subtlety is the name of the game.

This is how I would define things:

When you switch headphones, you hear a difference right away. You don't have to sit there and listen into the music, you spend very little time discerning the differences. The more time you have to spend to discern the difference, the more subtle the difference.

Another aspect that can be used to judge whether the difference is subtle or not is to blindly switch components. You can be blindfolded, but there won't be even a millisecond of confusion or indecision when switching headphones. You will most likely be able to tell right away that a headphone was switched on you (even if it's the same fit). When you get the DACs switched, there will be a moment of indecision, a moment of confusion. Were the DACs really switched? Is it the same DAC or is it a different one? The longer that moment of confusion, the more subtle the difference.