[gregorio]

If you do learn to listen, ...

That's the thing though, most people don't learn to listen. In fact, the vast majority of audiophiles don't even seem to understand the basics of hearing and listening or the role of perception, let alone actually learn to listen.

If you put some miles on the road and get the chance to hear what some very creative members have developed in their quest to sonic perfection, you'll find there's a lot of ways to that end.

I have listened to what "some very creative audiophiles have developed in their quest to sonic perfection". Generally, what they've achieved is a long way from sonic perfection because they haven't learned to listen and they have no idea what "sonic perfection" is!

[1] Some of us need to control the metallurgy of the wire and solder used on our ICs. [2] To that end, yeah there are differences if it's important to you.

1. Sure but then that conflicts with your first point, because if you do learn to listen, then there's no difference!

2. To what end? If the end is sonic perfection (and one learns to listen), then "No" there are no differences. If on the other hand, the "end" and what's "important to you" is visual appearance, status symbol, keeping up with the fashion of audiophile marketing or anything other than audible sonic performance, then "Yes" there are many differences.

[1] My enjoyment of recorded music improved a lot when I changed from the DAC in an Oppo BDP 105 to a Dangerous Convert-2 converter, (both via USB). [2] The improvement in resolution was spectacular.

1. That's entirely possible.
2. That's not possible, unless one of the units was defective.

[1] Would be interested in any input as to the possible technological reasons for this difference.
[2] EDIT: Resolution was even better when bypassing the volume control on the Convert, but only to a relatively slight extent.

1. There are no technological reasons for that difference, you're looking in the wrong area. The areas to look for those differences are user error and/or perception error.
2. That's possible, if it's a digital volume control and if, for example, you are lowering it by a significant amount and compensating with much higher amp gain. However, this would come under "user error"; poor gain staging.

G

 

[PointyFox]

Here you can hear the difference between DACs.

Holo May Dac _(Z Reviews)_ TheCrownJewelofExcess​

Didn't he NOT hear a difference? The comments section is filled with people calling him a pleb and telling him he's just not sophisticated enough to hear the difference and comparing DACs to fine wine, Ferrari tires, etc.

Thank you! So it seems you need this expensive player to hear the difference?
Zeos has used some Pi-whatever crap.

Of course not. A signal is a signal. A DAC is either going to degrade it or it's not.

 

[magicscreen]

I have bought a 4xTDA1387 true-multibit NOS DAC. It sounds totally different than my delta-sigma DACs.

 

[theveterans]

I have bought a 4xTDA1387 true-multibit NOS DAC. It sounds totally different than my delta-sigma DACs.

That should not come to a surprise. NOS in itself with any true NOS DAC would sound totally different (in both presentation and tonality). Even in DS DACs with NOS filter selection (aka super slow roll-off) would sound slightly different than Linear Phase fast roll-off filter of the same DAC usually in presentation where the super slow roll off would collapse soundstage with smoother edges while the fast roll-off would sound more tactile but with rougher edges. The filter differences aren't just limited to 15KHz and up, there are low level distortions from the super slow filter along the lower audible frequency range that can contribute to the sonic differences heard between DAC filters of the same DAC

 

[bigshot]

You could probably make a modern DAC sound like an old NOS DAC with a little EQ.

 

[redrol]

In terms of DAC -> Line out -> amplifier I can't hear any differences with anything modern. Go figure. The rest of the equation matters is my opinion. The DAC just need to be decent.

 

[bigshot]

My experience is the same.

 

[gregorio]

I have bought a 4xTDA1387 true-multibit NOS DAC. It sounds totally different than my delta-sigma DACs.

All bets are off when it comes to NOS DACs. While some are half decent and don’t sound any different, others, namely the filterless designs, are effectively broken and can sound different.

Not having a reconstruction filter obviously means the waveform is not reconstructed. In addition to the HF roll-off others have mentioned, which can start as low as 2kHz, distortion is much higher, quantisation error is much higher, timing is inaccurate and the chances of inducing IMD are much higher due to ultrasonic “images”. All of which can result in significant audible differences with these types of NOS DACs. Why anyone would deliberately not comply with Nyquist/Shannon requirements is beyond me but the audiophile world can often be a nutty place!

G

 

[bigshot]

I only know about the very early CD players that had an audible high end rolloff. They actually make DACs with no filter at all? That is nuts.

 

[gregorio]

They actually make DACs with no filter at all? That is nuts.

I’m not sure if filterless NOS DACs are available any more and if it’s only restricted to DIYers these days but a few years ago it was a bit of a thing in certain audiophile circles. And “Yes”, it was/is nuts!

G

 

[magicscreen]

I’m not sure if filterless NOS DACs are available any more

Yes, they are available, this very cheap L1387 DAC has only one resistor as the I/V converter.
I only bought it for the experience what is the fuss about these true-multibit NOS DACs.

 

[bigshot]

Defective by design! Yow. How dumb do they think their customers are? no... don't answer that. it's like selling a car without a transmission and telling the buyer that the power is more direct and pure without gears.

 

[magicscreen]

Defective by design! Yow. How dumb do they think their customers are? no... don't answer that. it's like selling a car without a transmission and telling the buyer that the power is more direct and pure without gears.

Yes, this design causes the sound to be very dependent on the amplifier connected afterwards.
With Loxjie P20 and MCTH hybrids is very muddy, syrupy.
With Atom and Marantz integrated SS has beautiful, wonderful, great sound. This way it is much better than any delta-sigma DAC I have heard.
Of course very subjectively!

 

[bigshot]

There is something to be said for accuracy. It isn’t hard to achieve. There’s no excuse for building something that is obsolete and inferior on purpose. That goes for both DACs and amps. Even cheap ones can perform well enough to achieve transparency. Why would anyone want one that sucks by design?

 

[gregorio]

Yes, this design causes the sound to be very dependent on the amplifier connected afterwards.

Not really. Some amplifiers might not produce IMD in response to the ultrasonic images the reconstruction filter should have removed but they won’t do anything about all the other reconstruction errors; quantisation error, timing error and HF roll-off.

This way it is much better than any delta-sigma DAC I have heard.
Of course very subjectively!

It is of course much WORSE than pretty much every delta-sigma DAC, including ones that only cost about $10!

If you think it sounds better subjectivity, that can only mean that subjectivity you prefer much higher quantisation distortion, inaccurate timing and frequency response and possibly IMD. In other words, you subjectively prefer very low-fi digital reproduction. That’s entirely your choice but of course very low-fi reconstruction isn’t “better”, let alone “much better”!

G