[Moose246]

Have a general questions about DAC performance and impact using EQ may have on said performance. I read reviews, both from "professionals" and the average user, and it seems like a DAC's sound is often evaluated on it's pure output - which, from a comparison point of view is the appropriate way. Also, it's sometimes mentioned that a DAC should produce the sound exactly as the recording was transferred - with no coloration...as natural as possible. I can appreciate how people would seek that result.

But what if, like myself, someone prefers to have EQ applied? Although as my gear has improved (technically, at least) I've found less EQ is needed, I still find music sounds far better with some applied than none.

So the question is, if a DAC's fundamental purpose is to output music as uncolored and pure as possible, but for my tastes EQ needs to be applied to meet my sonic needs, does whatever DAC used make a significant difference? Particularly since I'd simply adjust the EQ to match my preferred sounds on any specific DAC....some might need more, some less tweaking?

I imagine there are qualities of DAC that may be non-EQ specific and impactful....sound stage, timbre, spaciousness, but don't know how much those might be impacted by EQ. And there is also likely performance differences between a $100 DAC and a $10k DAC that go beyond EQ.

Right now I use a RME ADI-2 as my main DAC/amp, and I also have a Mojo. My headphones are Utopias and Empyreans. I use JRiver as a player and utilize it's internal EQ.

You'll ask whether I can answer my own question and hear a difference between them....when I have the EQ optimized for each - not really. Maybe the RME is a little more "crisp", but it's by no means blatantly obvious. So what if I went to a "better" DAC than the RME? Like a Yggdrasil or something in that price/performance range. If I'm just going to EQ whatever that DAC is back to my preference, does it's technical differences and performance matter?

 

[ST33L]

“Significant difference”? No. There are differences, but not significant. Plenty of reviews and blind tests where some cannot tell the difference between $100 DAC and $1,000 DAC. Nonetheless, if EQ’ing, then the differences are even more muted. I like to EQ as well. Some complain that bass is lacking w/Focal Elegia. EQ up the lows, and Voilà… Byerdynamic DT1990 are to bright. EQ down the treble… BAM! Many like neutrality, which is great. I prefer some color

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Have a general questions about DAC performance and impact using EQ may have on said performance. I read reviews, both from "professionals" and the average user, and it seems like a DAC's sound is often evaluated on it's pure output - which, from a comparison point of view is the appropriate way. Also, it's sometimes mentioned that a DAC should produce the sound exactly as the recording was transferred - with no coloration...as natural as possible. I can appreciate how people would seek that result.

But what if, like myself, someone prefers to have EQ applied? Although as my gear has improved (technically, at least) I've found less EQ is needed, I still find music sounds far better with some applied than none.

Using an EQ can be a way to compensate for the speakers or headphones, since a completely flat response from 20hz to 20,000hz hasn't happened yet.

It gets more complicated in a car. Apart from separate left and right channel EQ, you can't have a single large cabinet with a tuned port, so you add a subwoofer, which usually goes in the back (unless you have something like a Lotus, some Ferraris and Porsches, etc, so you can have a firewall bulging into the front trunk above the tank and have a subwoofer on the dash), so now you need time alignment to delay the output in front and to the driver's side (unless you have a McLaren F1). Want to cut the crossover lower out front? Put 8in midwoofers in the doors and properly dampen it (weight, not have rattles, have each side of the diaphragm isolated, etc) and midrange drivers on the A-pillars. Surprise, now you have the driver side midrange and treble louder than the passenger side, so you also need independent channel gain controls, and to make T/A and gain/balance control work (not to mention tweeters and midrange drivers have much higher sensitivity), you'll need seven independent amp channels for each transducer. Fun.

So the question is, if a DAC's fundamental purpose is to output music as uncolored and pure as possible, but for my tastes EQ needs to be applied to meet my sonic needs, does whatever DAC used make a significant difference? Particularly since I'd simply adjust the EQ to match my preferred sounds on any specific DAC....some might need more, some less tweaking?

If you use a bad DAC then you're either going to have to try to use EQ to compensate for the DAC on top of the headphones/speaker response.

Not to mention EQ doesn't work in making for a compensation that will make for a perfectly flat response anyway, ie, you can't just match the EQ boost or cut to perfectly match the deviation in the response.

Or you can have a bad DAC with noise or too low output signal voltage, forcing you to crank up the amp that it becomes the noise source or it distorts/clips.

So yes a good DAC is still necessary even if you use EQ. Or tubes, which is the EQ for purist audiophiles.

I imagine there are qualities of DAC that may be non-EQ specific and impactful....sound stage, timbre, spaciousness, but don't know how much those might be impacted by EQ. And there is also likely performance differences between a $100 DAC and a $10k DAC that go beyond EQ.

Not a lot.

Unless of course your DAC has a midrange boost, the headphones have a midrange boost too, and now you have artificially forward vocals in the image as opposed to moving the percussion farther back from the vocals, so if you start EQ-ing out the midrange boost you can end up with a more 2D image.

Otherwise you'd really have to skew the response (as opposed to flatten it) by a lot for the "soundstage" and "imaging" on a headphone to be affected since apart from binaural recordings or some compensation like Crossfeed, much of the soundstage in a headphone has to do with response imbalances since your ears aren't hearing both drivers like hearing both channel speakers in a room.

Right now I use a RME ADI-2 as my main DAC/amp, and I also have a Mojo. My headphones are Utopias and Empyreans. I use JRiver as a player and utilize it's internal EQ.

You'll ask whether I can answer my own question and hear a difference between them....when I have the EQ optimized for each - not really. Maybe the RME is a little more "crisp", but it's by no means blatantly obvious. So what if I went to a "better" DAC than the RME? Like a Yggdrasil or something in that price/performance range. If I'm just going to EQ whatever that DAC is back to my preference, does it's technical differences and performance matter?

Well first off how exactly is the Yggdrasil a much better DAC?

I might be able to hear a difference between some DACs, but unless it's such a huge difference that one DAC is sharper or markedly far worse in having soundstage width and depth, I wouldn't sweat it. Once you have a decent DAC just don't unless you have usability/connectivity requirements, whether you want to use EQ or not.

 

[chesebert]

Have a general questions about DAC performance and impact using EQ may have on said performance. I read reviews, both from "professionals" and the average user, and it seems like a DAC's sound is often evaluated on it's pure output - which, from a comparison point of view is the appropriate way. Also, it's sometimes mentioned that a DAC should produce the sound exactly as the recording was transferred - with no coloration...as natural as possible. I can appreciate how people would seek that result.

But what if, like myself, someone prefers to have EQ applied? Although as my gear has improved (technically, at least) I've found less EQ is needed, I still find music sounds far better with some applied than none.

So the question is, if a DAC's fundamental purpose is to output music as uncolored and pure as possible, but for my tastes EQ needs to be applied to meet my sonic needs, does whatever DAC used make a significant difference? Particularly since I'd simply adjust the EQ to match my preferred sounds on any specific DAC....some might need more, some less tweaking?

I imagine there are qualities of DAC that may be non-EQ specific and impactful....sound stage, timbre, spaciousness, but don't know how much those might be impacted by EQ. And there is also likely performance differences between a $100 DAC and a $10k DAC that go beyond EQ.

Right now I use a RME ADI-2 as my main DAC/amp, and I also have a Mojo. My headphones are Utopias and Empyreans. I use JRiver as a player and utilize it's internal EQ.

You'll ask whether I can answer my own question and hear a difference between them....when I have the EQ optimized for each - not really. Maybe the RME is a little more "crisp", but it's by no means blatantly obvious. So what if I went to a "better" DAC than the RME? Like a Yggdrasil or something in that price/performance range. If I'm just going to EQ whatever that DAC is back to my preference, does it's technical differences and performance matter?

You can’t EQ your way to a high end dac. You can’t EQ resolution, bass quality, sound density, weight, soundstage, perception of space, micro dynamics, macro dynamics, time domain coherency, jitter. The only aspect of the dac you can EQ is frequency response and that is it.

I EQ everything and I evaluate everything on an EQed basis - I like a certain frequency response.

The step up in sound quality from $1k to $10k is to put it lightly transformational.

 

[Redcarmoose]

The difference between an Apple Dongle DAC and a TOTL desktop DAC can’t be obtained just with EQ. Reason being is the Apple Dongle only gets you so far. So it’s impossible. What does the desktop do different?

Soundstage
Anti-noise
Better imaging
Timbre
Realism
Better pace
And on and on.

But what if, like myself, someone prefers to have EQ applied? Although as my gear has improved (technically, at least) I've found less EQ is needed, I still find music sounds far better with some applied than none.

So the question is, if a DAC's fundamental purpose is to output music as uncolored and pure as possible, but for my tastes EQ needs to be applied to meet my sonic needs, does whatever DAC used make a significant difference? Particularly since I'd simply adjust the EQ to match my preferred sounds on any specific DAC....some might need more, some less tweaking?

EQing will do basically two things for you.

A) Bring alignment to your hearing/preferences.
B) Possibly make the signal seem more high quality.

I’m one of the ones that believes that every DAC is slightly different. Difference due to tone. But just ever so slightly. Also diffidence due to ability. Meaning some DACs seem to do a better job at resolution and timing along with other things of course. Much comes from a variation in output stage. But also each DAC process has a fundamental character. Some more analog and some more digital. Some warmer and some cooler.

Basically there is no such thing as no color. In a way yes, but the problem is the music is not recorded as an exact artifact of reality.

Meaning of course the signal can be too bright, or too dark? But your not going to find all that much variation in a DAC. What is happening is the recording is an approximation of a live musical event. Or of course a series of tracks compiled to become an artistic statement. No studios are standardized (in speaker playback) so it’s anyone’s guess what the tone of playback is. Maybe it’s closer to correct, maybe not. It doesn’t matter as the actual musical event is gone. All we have and all we can possibly find is a character of playback which suites us.

More times often than not we are EQing due to the transducer. The DAC is maybe fine. Though amps also will bestow a color onto your playback. None of this matters to a point! Just EQ a small amount to correct to what you enjoy. But also remember that you can come back another day and not necessarily need EQ.

I would just keep rotating DACs and living with them. There is no right or wrong, simply sound preference and technical ability. Just find one that makes you feel at home.

The tweaking your doing isn’t necessarily making the DAC better. It’s getting the music to fit your personal sound profile. Also the tweaks may make your system (as a whole) seem more accurate? Still it could be something as simple as correcting for a lower midrange bass bump that you feel (diminished) adds to pace. Again that’s a whole system thing and not necessarily the DAC. Though DACs have a personality! Just find one that talks to you and dial any EQ to your wants.

In general I EQ almost not at all. I have been able to forget about EQ. My main system doesn’t even offer EQ, and I’m OK with that.

 

[surfgeorge]

Rob Watts, the man behind the CHORD DACs, has recently developed what he claims to be the first EQ with no impact on SQ in the new Mojo 2.
He describes his experiences with EQ here:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/watts-up.800264/post-15768818

I did not replicate that, but based on my experiences with Rob Watts' DACs I trust his statements.

 

[castleofargh]

Have a general questions about DAC performance and impact using EQ may have on said performance. I read reviews, both from "professionals" and the average user, and it seems like a DAC's sound is often evaluated on it's pure output - which, from a comparison point of view is the appropriate way. Also, it's sometimes mentioned that a DAC should produce the sound exactly as the recording was transferred - with no coloration...as natural as possible. I can appreciate how people would seek that result.

But what if, like myself, someone prefers to have EQ applied? Although as my gear has improved (technically, at least) I've found less EQ is needed, I still find music sounds far better with some applied than none.

So the question is, if a DAC's fundamental purpose is to output music as uncolored and pure as possible, but for my tastes EQ needs to be applied to meet my sonic needs, does whatever DAC used make a significant difference? Particularly since I'd simply adjust the EQ to match my preferred sounds on any specific DAC....some might need more, some less tweaking?

I imagine there are qualities of DAC that may be non-EQ specific and impactful....sound stage, timbre, spaciousness, but don't know how much those might be impacted by EQ. And there is also likely performance differences between a $100 DAC and a $10k DAC that go beyond EQ.

Right now I use a RME ADI-2 as my main DAC/amp, and I also have a Mojo. My headphones are Utopias and Empyreans. I use JRiver as a player and utilize it's internal EQ.

You'll ask whether I can answer my own question and hear a difference between them....when I have the EQ optimized for each - not really. Maybe the RME is a little more "crisp", but it's by no means blatantly obvious. So what if I went to a "better" DAC than the RME? Like a Yggdrasil or something in that price/performance range. If I'm just going to EQ whatever that DAC is back to my preference, does it's technical differences and performance matter?

Forget you ever worried about something like that. Just take care to avoid clipping the signal if you're using a digital EQ. And if you ever consider applying really massive boosts, then you might have to also check that once you've reduced the gain(again to avoid digital clipping), then your amplifier is still able to get you as loud as you want.
beyond that, there is nothing that an EQ will do to the signal that can be worst than a tuning that's not for your ears. I believe this to be true objectively and subjectively.
In term of data, the end result is obviously a different signal, but it's no more than each sample being given a different amplitude. the DAC doesn't care if you did it or if a sound engineer did it while making the album, or if nobody touched anything. Except of course if you start clipping the signal(telling some samples to go above 0dB when sooner or later, they won't be able to).

Rob Watts, the man behind the CHORD DACs, has recently developed what he claims to be the first EQ with no impact on SQ in the new Mojo 2.
He describes his experiences with EQ here:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/watts-up.800264/post-15768818

I did not replicate that, but based on my experiences with Rob Watts' DACs I trust his statements.

Try finding a sound engineer who will not facepalm reading that post of his. Or just anybody with the smallest understanding of EQ.

Step one: make up a nonsensical axiom saying that a parametric EQ should do nothing but be a global gain setting when all(how many, I can go from one to 32 on mine?) bands have the same gain. But of course, the way to test an EQ is to have it not EQ... brilliant!
Step two: make some BS function that turns off the EQ when all bands are in the same setting.
Step three: profit

He's ignoring the very role of a parametric EQ, the concept of Q and frequency setting for a given band(and on fairly good digital EQ there may be more settings, type of filter, impulse length...). It's a complete misrepresentation and a nonsensical EQ test.

 

[chesebert]

Companies just can't help themselves when it comes to making outlandish claims, made-up marketing terms and face palming statements. It's like they don't trust their customers to rationally compare products based on listening

 

[HWB3]

I use DACs and EQ and if it sounds good, then it's good enough for me. I don't worry about how it got there.

 

[Moose246]

Using an EQ can be a way to compensate for the speakers or headphones, since a completely flat response from 20hz to 20,000hz hasn't happened yet.

It gets more complicated in a car. Apart from separate left and right channel EQ, you can't have a single large cabinet with a tuned port, so you add a subwoofer, which usually goes in the back (unless you have something like a Lotus, some Ferraris and Porsches, etc, so you can have a firewall bulging into the front trunk above the tank and have a subwoofer on the dash), so now you need time alignment to delay the output in front and to the driver's side (unless you have a McLaren F1). Want to cut the crossover lower out front? Put 8in midwoofers in the doors and properly dampen it (weight, not have rattles, have each side of the diaphragm isolated, etc) and midrange drivers on the A-pillars. Surprise, now you have the driver side midrange and treble louder than the passenger side, so you also need independent channel gain controls, and to make T/A and gain/balance control work (not to mention tweeters and midrange drivers have much higher sensitivity), you'll need seven independent amp channels for each transducer. Fun.




If you use a bad DAC then you're either going to have to try to use EQ to compensate for the DAC on top of the headphones/speaker response.

Not to mention EQ doesn't work in making for a compensation that will make for a perfectly flat response anyway, ie, you can't just match the EQ boost or cut to perfectly match the deviation in the response.

Or you can have a bad DAC with noise or too low output signal voltage, forcing you to crank up the amp that it becomes the noise source or it distorts/clips.

So yes a good DAC is still necessary even if you use EQ. Or tubes, which is the EQ for purist audiophiles.




Not a lot.

Unless of course your DAC has a midrange boost, the headphones have a midrange boost too, and now you have artificially forward vocals in the image as opposed to moving the percussion farther back from the vocals, so if you start EQ-ing out the midrange boost you can end up with a more 2D image.

Otherwise you'd really have to skew the response (as opposed to flatten it) by a lot for the "soundstage" and "imaging" on a headphone to be affected since apart from binaural recordings or some compensation like Crossfeed, much of the soundstage in a headphone has to do with response imbalances since your ears aren't hearing both drivers like hearing both channel speakers in a room.




Well first off how exactly is the Yggdrasil a much better DAC?

I might be able to hear a difference between some DACs, but unless it's such a huge difference that one DAC is sharper or markedly far worse in having soundstage width and depth, I wouldn't sweat it. Once you have a decent DAC just don't unless you have usability/connectivity requirements, whether you want to use EQ or not.

"Well first off how exactly is the Yggdrasil a much better DAC?"

Great question, and largely the overriding question of the post. Some great insight above on the things that can't be solved with EQ...., particulary from @chesebert: You can’t EQ resolution, bass quality, sound density, weight, soundstage, perception of space, micro dynamics, macro dynamics, time domain coherency, jitter. The only aspect of the dac you can EQ is frequency response and that is it.

Whether a Yggdrasil can do that "better" than another DAC may be part technicals, part perception. Nobody can answer the perception part since it's a sense, and whether someone views a technical part "better" is influenced by perception. I don't think anyone can answer if DAC A is better than DAC B any better than someone can argue whether thin crust pizza is better than deep dish (of course it is).

I guess from my point of view I'd take an output that may be inferior from a detail, density, and dynamics but I can EQ to my sound preference than something that's better in those regards but with a completely flat EQ. Maybe heresy in a forum like this, but that also doesn't mean that I don't aspire to have the best of both....a DAC with all those things that I add EQ to. The question is how much EQ may influence those factors. Might a treble reduction diminish perceived detail, might a bass boost increase perceived weight, etc. Not looking for a definitive conclusion, more just an interesting discussion topic.

 

[chesebert]

That’s why you compare everything on a volume matched and fully EQed basis.

You can visit mastering engineering forums and get some EQ tricks from them. For example a slight dip in upper midrange could be perceived as increased soundstage, and things like that. Still loads of trial and error to get it right and that’s headphones and music dependent.

If you are skeptical about dacs I would just stick with dacs used or derived from studios dacs. Dangerous Music, Weiss, dCS, Emm Labs for example.

I am not aware of any studio that uses r2r dac and Yaggy is a seudo r2r dac. hmmm I wonder why

 

[Redcarmoose]

"Well first off how exactly is the Yggdrasil a much better DAC?"

Great question, and largely the overriding question of the post. Some great insight above on the things that can't be solved with EQ...., particulary from @chesebert: You can’t EQ resolution, bass quality, sound density, weight, soundstage, perception of space, micro dynamics, macro dynamics, time domain coherency, jitter. The only aspect of the dac you can EQ is frequency response and that is it.

Whether a Yggdrasil can do that "better" than another DAC may be part technicals, part perception. Nobody can answer the perception part since it's a sense, and whether someone views a technical part "better" is influenced by perception. I don't think anyone can answer if DAC A is better than DAC B any better than someone can argue whether thin crust pizza is better than deep dish (of course it is).

I guess from my point of view I'd take an output that may be inferior from a detail, density, and dynamics but I can EQ to my sound preference than something that's better in those regards but with a completely flat EQ. Maybe heresy in a forum like this, but that also doesn't mean that I don't aspire to have the best of both....a DAC with all those things that I add EQ to. The question is how much EQ may influence those factors. Might a treble reduction diminish perceived detail, might a bass boost increase perceived weight, etc. Not looking for a definitive conclusion, more just an interesting discussion topic.

It’s truly a rabbit hole. As that’s true that the EQ has the qualities to mask and transform what we take as technicality. Yet the double edge sword is the fact that maybe tone (FR) is 80% of why we like a headphone/response. So?

Maybe tone wins out over technicality?

So the general quality of the Yggdrasil in relation to other DACs doesn’t really matter. Due to the issues of qualities being ultimately personal preference to a point. Of course basic technicalities matter and add to realism but tone wins out in the end.

So much of this depends on other gear outside just the DAC. The amplifier, all the headphones. In reality it’s the final results of the whole system that matter. Yet, there is also a synergy which takes place where one piece of equipment could in-fact enhance or diminish a character trait of another piece of equipment.

We as a group would like to rely on a standardized methodology of recording, but none exists. Which means for the listener that some recordings will ultimately sound better and some not so good. There is no-way to fix this as recordings vary in character due to being judged by different playback systems in the studio. Also it’s ultimately what the producer “feels” the tone quality and technicality of the recording to ultimately be. Along with the ability to capture the sound quality with equipment.

All that can possibly be achieved is a tone and technicality quota which seems to satisfy the owner. It’s also difficult to subjectively judge this. Meaning subjectively the member could in fact have spent the last 6 months listening to too much bass, when in fact that will make the more reference (DAC/Amp/Headphone) system sound thin.

So it takes time to know what you want. Maybe a month to come to terms with what is new, in contrast to what you have been listening to.

You can’t EQ resolution, bass quality, sound density, weight, soundstage, perception of space, micro dynamics, macro dynamics, time domain coherency, jitter. The only aspect of the dac you can EQ is frequency response and that is it.

In fact the perception of many of these things can actually change with EQ.

1) Bass quality can be both boosted and removed.

Though the ideas of timbre and texture can’t be added or removed, but the perception of them can be altered.

2) Sound density can be altered by EQ.

3) Weight can be changed with EQ.

4) Soundstage is maybe one of the greatest effected by EQ. The midrange and treble areas of the signal can be boosted to create an effect of greater soundstage.

5) Micro and macro dynamics perception can be influenced by EQ.

6) If time domain coherency is altered by EQ, it would be pace as an example being brought into focus by less bass. But similarly the rest of the spectrum could be perceived as different by use of EQ.

7) Maybe the adverse effects of jitter could be masked? Not sure.


As you can tell I believe there are many effects of EQ which alter your hearing of technicalities of a DAC. It’s not just tone, as all these things have dynamic interrelationships. It seems it is the perception of these issues which is beyond knowing there true and quantitative level.

So DACs need to be chosen by listening and spending time with them. Eventually you will find one which seems to go with your amp, headphones and music. But beyond that a DAC has to match up with your personal sound perception. That being the actual physical quality (shape) of your ear. With full-size, the shape of your outer head. The psychological and physiological reaction to sound that takes place with you. Such qualities go beyond simple measurements of tone (FR) and technicality.

 

[Moose246]

It’s truly a rabbit hole. As that’s true that the EQ has the qualities to mask and transform what we take as technicality. Yet the double edge sword is the fact that maybe tone (FR) is 80% of why we like a headphone/response. So?

Maybe tone wins out over technicality?

So the general quality of the Yggdrasil in relation to other DACs doesn’t really matter. Due to the issues of qualities being ultimately personal preference to a point. Of course basic technicalities matter and add to realism but tone wins out in the end.

So much of this depends on other gear outside just the DAC. The amplifier, all the headphones. In reality it’s the final results of the whole system that matter. Yet, there is also a synergy which takes place where one piece of equipment could in-fact enhance or diminish a character trait of another piece of equipment.

We as a group would like to rely on a standardized methodology of recording, but none exists. Which means for the listener that some recordings will ultimately sound better and some not so good. There is no-way to fix this as recordings vary in character due to being judged by different playback systems in the studio. Also it’s ultimately what the producer “feels” the tone quality and technicality of the recording to ultimately be. Along with the ability to capture the sound quality with equipment.

All that can possibly be achieved is a tone and technicality quota which seems to satisfy the owner. It’s also difficult to subjectively judge this. Meaning subjectively the member could in fact have spent the last 6 months listening to too much bass, when in fact that will make the more reference (DAC/Amp/Headphone) system sound thin.

So it takes time to know what you want. Maybe a month to come to terms with what is new, in contrast to what you have been listening to.



In fact the perception of many of these things can actually change with EQ.

1) Bass quality can be both boosted and removed.

Though the ideas of timbre and texture can’t be added or removed, but the perception of them can be altered.

2) Sound density can be altered by EQ.

3) Weight can be changed with EQ.

4) Soundstage is maybe one of the greatest effected by EQ. The midrange and treble areas of the signal can be boosted to create an effect of greater soundstage.

5) Micro and macro dynamics perception can be influenced by EQ.

6) If time domain coherency is altered by EQ, it would be pace as an example being brought into focus by less bass. But similarly the rest of the spectrum could be perceived as different by use of EQ.

7) Maybe the adverse effects of jitter could be masked? Not sure.


As you can tell I believe there are many effects of EQ which alter your hearing of technicalities of a DAC. It’s not just tone, as all these things have dynamic interrelationships. It seems it is the perception of these issues which is beyond knowing there true and quantitative level.

So DACs need to be chosen by listening and spending time with them. Eventually you will find one which seems to go with your amp, headphones and music. But beyond that a DAC has to match up with your personal sound perception. That being the actual physical quality (shape) of your ear. With full-size, the shape of your outer head. The psychological and physiological reaction to sound that takes place with you. Such qualities go beyond simple measurements of tone (FR) and technicality.

Perfectly said! Appreciate the response.