No, I am not disputing that DAVE is superior to Mojo. I am just stating that the differences were not pronounced as I expected.
It appears expectation bias is certainly at play here. There is another group of very respectable audiophiles who are presently doing a DAC shootout between a Hugo, DAVE and TotalDac d1-dual which are being used to feed both a BHSE/SR009 and what appears to be a very high-end speaker setup consisting of late model B&W speakers, Mark Levinson monoblocks, etc. A Macbook Pro running Roon was used to feed each DAC. During their blind testing with the BHSE/SR009, they have indicated that no one in their group of 4 individuals were able to discern any difference at all among these 3 DACs and so in this portion of the shootout, it would appear the Hugo was the winner given its low price. As they moved to the speaker setup, the DAVE and TotalDac were able to distinguish themselves more readily with the DAVE sounding more "precise" and the TotalDac sounding "warmer and sometimes more enjoyable."
Should we be surprised by this finding? During Tyll Hertsen's Big Sound 2015, a group of experienced audiophiles including Bob Katz, a professional sound mixer and Tyll himself were unable to distinguish during a blind test whether they were listening to a $2,300 Schiit Yggdrasil or a $13k Antelope Audio Zodiac Platinum DSD DAC with Rubidium Atomic Clock. To be clear, during the blind testing of these two DACs, a 10-second portion of a Brazilian vocalist singing in Portuguese was looped and that's all each person had to listen to but, nonetheless, this led many to conclude that the DAC doesn't matter much. Should we be concluding the same thing?
Last year, as an owner of a very fine Bricasti M1 DAC, the opportunity to audition a TotalDac d1-dual came up and I was just stunned by how much more I preferred the TotalDac to my Bricasti. It was smoother, blacker and more resolute and it took 30 seconds for me to hear it. Of course, the Bricasti has a very characteristic sound and I suspect many of us here can blind test this DAC against another DAC but regardless, since I couldn't unhear what I had heard, I committed to buying a TotalDac. Now here is where things get interesting. TotalDac has several models in their product line. At that time, their entry level DAC was the d1-single (about $7,200), their most popular DAC was the mid-level d1-dual ($10,300) and then there was the d1-monobloc with reclocker (about $25k). There was an even higher level d1-twelve which sold for as much as $35k but because it couldn't drive headphones directly like the others, I never considered this DAC. I was torn as to which DAC to buy since I didn't want to have to upgrade again. Vincent Brient, the creator of these DACs offered to sell me the d1-monobloc but provided me the instructions so that I could downgrade the d1-monobloc to a d1-dual and even a d1-single and then he gave me 3 weeks to decide which one I wanted to keep. This gave me the opportunity to easily A/B/C three different DACs that varied in price by nearly $20k. Of course, like many, I expected great differences among these DACs given their price differences although from a design standpoint, what distinguished these DACs was the number of resistors used (100 vs 200 vs 400).
To my surprise, upon initial listening, there wasn't much difference at all. This actually made me happy because I felt I could just go with the d1-single and save a considerable sum. As I buckled down and began doing some serious critical objective listening over the span of 3 weeks, the differences became quite clear. The tonality of each was nearly identical but from the d1-single to the d1-dual to the d1-monobloc, the sound became more relaxed and effortless and it became quite evident that the d1-monobloc exhibited the most air and the greatest depth of the 3 DACs. The music had come to life more and it was like going from 2D to 3D. While these differences were not readily evident on many studio tracks, with my acoustical tracks, it was quite evident. While the differences were never night and day, the cumulative differences were meaningful and worthwhile enough to me that I went ahead and bought the d1- monobloc. I had found my end-game DAC and since no other high-end DAC including the more expensive d1-twelve or any of the MSB DACs could drive headphones directly, I considered the d1-monobloc the finest headphone DAC in the world, bar none. By this time, I had heard both the Hugo and TT and I still preferred my TotalDac.
In November of 2015, Rob Watts and the DAVE came to town. As the dealer is a friend, he invited me to come by. I was unavailable for Rob's presentation but I decided to give the DAVE a listen although I was convinced that there was no way this tiny thing could compete with my 3-box TotalDac that cost twice as much. By this time, I was so tuned-in to what to listen for in a DAC that within literally 5 minutes, I knew that I had stumbled across something very special. While it was a pre-production model that was shipped in advance of Rob's presentation for him to use, I convinced the dealer to allow me to take the DAVE home for 2 days so that I could directly compare it against my TotalDac. For 2 days, I got almost no sleep because I wanted to maximize my time with the DAVE against my TotalDac and while both DACs were very close in most areas, in every important area, I found the DAVE to be superior.
My point with this story is I believe there is a proper methodology to assessing a DAC that should be very intentional. Some have shared with me that they look for the DAC that moves them emotionally and while this is what we all want our systems to do, when evaluating the performance of a DAC, it should be more objective than subjective. We also have to remember what a DAC is supposed to do and not unfairly burden it with responsibilities that belong to another component. It is supposed to extract information from a digital file and faithfully convert it to an analog waveform. The best DACs retrieve not only the subtlest details but should be capable of presenting these details in the proper timing. The best DACs should be invisible meaning they should have no sound of their own. This is why comparing a DAC can be so difficult. Unlike comparing headphones, speakers or even amplifiers, how are you supposed to assess something that shouldn't have a sound of its own? And so I agree with
@Christer, when comparing DACs, more than with any other component, the recording absolutely matters. From the built-in DAC in your iPhone to a $110,000 dCS Vivaldi stack, depending on the recording or even the part of the recording you are listening to, sometimes there will be zero difference and other times, the differences will be more significant. You also have to be able to have a point of reference, otherwise, how do you know how a recording should sound?
Here are some of the things I intentionally listen for when I evaluate a DAC and I suspect many of you listen for these things also:
1. Tone and timbre
2. Air
3. Depth
4. Focus and clarity
5. Delineation of complex details and ability to present fine detail
6. Layering of details
7. Macro and microdynamics
8. Coherence and flow
9. Musicality
For each area, I use a specific portion of a track (10-20 seconds) that I know well. It's important to have a reference and so I will typically use a combination of recordings that I know very well including my own recordings where I was present at the event. As a benefactor of our local symphony hall, I have the privilege of recording a number of performances for my personal use (with permission, of course). These are 2-mic recordings of unamplified performances and just so you know the quality of the talent that comes by, they include the likes of Joshua Bell, Alessio Bax, Sam Haywood and the Vienna Boys Choir, just to name a few. I also host concerts in my home and I record all of these sessions. The point is that I know exactly how these tracks should sound. When I assess for depth, I use a recording of a concert performed at my home last year. It is an Ecuadorian Jazz trio comprised of a guitar, stand-up bass and percussion. When I listen to this track, the DAC should convince me that the guitar, bass and percussion are located exactly as I experienced it that night.
When assessing timbre, because I play the piano and I know the timbre of the piano better than any other instrument, I use simple piano tracks. I have yet to hear a completely accurate reproduction from any DAC of the piano. For example, when I press a key on my Steinway and I close my eyes, I have yet to hear a music system regardless of price that can reproduce this exact same sound but some DACs do it better than others and the DAVE has done it better than any DAC I have heard. Once again, I am not looking for "pleasing," I am looking for "real" and "accurate."
When I assess for air, I listen to both small and large ensemble. Instruments and voices should sound dimensional and not flat. When I listen for delineation of complex details, I want to be able to discern the presence of all the various instruments playing in a large orchestra and that a violin, viola, and cello are each playing at the same time. Even tougher, I have a track of two friends who are concert violinists. They both play different brands of violins and each has a slightly different timbre. I want the DAC to be able to tell me that there are two violins of different timbres playing and the DAVE provides this delineation.
What I do isn't the only way to assess a DAC but it has been effective for me and it has allowed me to more easily discern even subtle differences that when added up, can be very meaningful. For some criteria, with the right track, you can tell within a few seconds how good a DAC is. For other things, like coherence and flow, it can take a long time to figure out that one DAC is better than another. Because speakers are better at imaging and depth, this would be the best way to test these areas. Because headphones are often better at presenting subtle detail, I believe both should be used when possible. One also has to remember that each of these criteria are influenced by every other component in your audio chain and so what you're really trying to do when evaluating a DAC is gauging how well that DAC will fit in your system. This is why listening to equipment at shows is not a great way to evaluate anything.
For one of the best primers on listening that I have come across, I will direct you to Rob's post. It doesn't get better than this:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/800264/watts-up#post_12457933
