[coinmaster]

There's also the possibility that perhaps only high level equipment can hear the differences. I notice quite a lot of people say a lot of stuff against "snake oil" subjects when their profile suggests they own low-mid-fi gear that probably wouldn't hear it anyway.
 
I wouldn't expect an HD650 to hear the difference between a $600 dac and a $2000 dac for example. Especially without a good amp. But a HD800 might.

 

[tomb]

 

  The main difference is from the actual dac chip used and beyond that the quality of the filters and to a very minor degree the analog stage components. Bottom line is you don't want to go too cheap, but within reason most dacs are going to sound pretty good. Main thing you need to ask yourself is do you want a more warm musical dac or a more analytical sounding unit.

One can take a great chip and ruin its performance in a bad design or PCB layout. IMO the musical vs. analytical story is more hype than reality. A bad implementation will stink a good one will sound good. A flat FR, low distortion and good transient response is all you need, all of this is easy to get.

 
Good comment up until that last phrase.

 

[tomb]

 

So what are you connecting your Little Dot MKVI+ to now?

An O2/Odac combo. It sounds truly bad

. loads of feedback and distortion, not to mention I'm amplifying an inferior source. I'm basically just burning in the stock tubes with it at the moment, replacing those soon though anyway.
 
To be honest, I was hoping someone would tell me there is a difference between dacs.
I'm afraid of buying a lower priced dac only to find out later that there is some truth to it all. For example, maybe it takes top end equipment and headphones to hear the difference.

Yes, there are differences.  The ODAC itself suffers from depending completely on USB power.  I have run specific tests that indicate the ODAC does better when not on USB power.  I also have DACs that do better than the ODAC when quality power is provided.  It's why many people report significant sound improvement in the ODAC with a USB hub - preferrably, something with a linear-regulated power supply.

 

[StanD]

   
Good comment up until that last phrase.

You can buy bad kit, there's plenty of that on eBay. But there's tons of great stuff. It is not hard for a competent engineer to achieve "a flat FR, low distortion and good transient response."

 

[coinmaster]

 
Yes, there are differences.  The ODAC itself suffers from depending completely on USB power.  I have run specific tests that indicate the ODAC does better when not on USB power.  I also have DACs that do better than the ODAC when quality power is provided.  It's why many people report significant sound improvement in the ODAC with a USB hub - preferrably, something with a linear-regulated power supply.

I've heard this before as well. Something along the lines of the best dacs have the most comprehensive power supplies.

 

[tomb]

I'm also in the camp that believes the differences in good quality DACs is vastly exaggerated. I suspect there's almost always one or more other possible sources of "improvement" from folks who wax poetic about the night & day differences between any two $100-$200 DACs. Expectation bias, differences in output levels, not using the same source material, etc, etc.

I agree that headphone differences are paramount.  After all, the headphone transducer is the final element in the audio string that's closest to your ear.  It's also the most difficult to optimize.  Those two things combined mean the headphone sound will always have the greatest difference.  However ...
 
Say you're satisfied with your headphone and you want sound improvement.  The source is the most significant change possible.  These days, that means a DAC ... unless you want to go vinyl and there are cartridges out there that can sound better than a number of DACs.

 

[tomb]

 

   
Good comment up until that last phrase.

You can buy bad kit, there's plenty of that on eBay. But there's tons of great stuff. It is not hard for a competent engineer to achieve "a flat FR, low distortion and good transient response."

Are you a competent engineer?  I think you're assuming a lot, especially to imply that what you state is easy to achieve.  Just curious, but how do you judge "transient response" in the typical specs for a DAC?

 

[StanD]

  There's also the possibility that perhaps only high level equipment can hear the differences. I notice quite a lot of people say a lot of stuff against "snake oil" subjects when their profile suggests they own low-mid-fi gear that probably wouldn't hear it anyway.
 
I wouldn't expect an HD650 to hear the difference between a $600 dac and a $2000 dac for example. Especially without a good amp. But a HD800 might.

I didn't know that equipment or headphones hear anything. I suspect that you didn't phrase things right. 

Go right ahead and buy a $2000 DAC, etc. if that makes you happy. Someone has to keep these guys in business. Our human abilities of perception are far less than you would believe and are easily eclipsed by electronics. We are also overly susceptible to suggestion and the marketing geeks know all about that.

 

[tomb]

 

  I'm still on the fence about dacs though. I'd hate to be paying for snake oil but I'm of the belief that if enough people hear the same thing, there must be some merit to it. I mean not everyone can dumb enough to let imagination influence their conclusions right? At least not in a review.
 

The chanting of a flash mob is overrated. Too many people are influenced and repeat the storyline. Most people expect to hear something due to this and thus hear things. Since audio memory lasts a few seconds how can one expect correct comparative reviews unless they are conducted properly and within seconds. Too many innocent people get sucked into the storyline.

 
"Seconds" are not sufficient.  It's been proven that the aural memory of human beings is the most fleeting of senses.  Mere seconds are all it takes to completely forget sound impressions.  More than that, it takes much, much more than seconds to properly distinguish true quality differences in sound.  Measurements, of course, are a great guide, but "guide" is the key.  It takes living with a device for awhile to really determine whether that sound quality is something you prefer or reject.

 

[tomb]

 

  There's also the possibility that perhaps only high level equipment can hear the differences. I notice quite a lot of people say a lot of stuff against "snake oil" subjects when their profile suggests they own low-mid-fi gear that probably wouldn't hear it anyway.
 
I wouldn't expect an HD650 to hear the difference between a $600 dac and a $2000 dac for example. Especially without a good amp. But a HD800 might.

I didn't know that equipment or headphones hear anything. I suspect that you didn't phrase things right. 

Go right ahead and buy a $2000 DAC, etc. if that makes you happy. Someone has to keep these guys in business. Our human abilities of perception are far less than you would believe and are easily eclipsed by electronics. We are also overly susceptible to suggestion and the marketing geeks know all about that.

This is ridiculous (not counting the grammar correction which is valid).  You are assuming that we can measure everything that the human ear can detect.  Au contraire.  We've only scratched the surface of measuring equipment relative to what the ear can hear.  Yeah, electronics can exceed frequency response, signal-to-noise, etc., but there's more in hearing than the few tests that are used to specify audio equipment.

 

[StanD]

 
Are you a competent engineer?  I think you're assuming a lot, especially to imply that what you state is easy to achieve.  Just curious, but how do you judge "transient response" in the typical specs for a DAC?

I happen to be an EE. I designed a lot of analog and digital computing equipment, measuring down to 125 nV per bit. I worked on electronic music synthesizers when they were all analog and difficult to design.
This is the year 2015 and electronics for the audio band are easy for a competent engineer. We have come a long way from 709 and 741 opamps, FR, transient response, etc are easy to achieve, snake oil even easier.

 

[tomb]

 

 
Are you a competent engineer?  I think you're assuming a lot, especially to imply that what you state is easy to achieve.  Just curious, but how do you judge "transient response" in the typical specs for a DAC?

I happen to be an EE. I designed a lot of analog and digital computing equipment, measuring down to 125 nV per bit. I worked on electronic music synthesizers when they were all analog and difficult to design.
This is the year 2015 and electronics for the audio band are easy for a competent engineer. We have come a long way from 709 and 741 opamps, FR, transient response, etc are easy to achieve, snake oil even easier.

Interesting, but you didn't answer my question.

 

[StanD]

 
Interesting, but you didn't answer my question.

The reason I mentioned the 709 or 741 of yesteryear is that they had poor slew rates and their open loop gain rolled off well within the audio band. Today's components used for audio are capable far above the audio band and have slew rates that deliver very fast responses. Open a spec sheet for modern components and look.

 

[coinmaster]

Can you even measure things like sound separation?

 

[tomb]

 

 
Interesting, but you didn't answer my question.

The reason I mentioned the 709 or 741 of yesteryear is that they had poor slew rates and their open loop gain rolled off well within the audio band. Today's components used for audio are capable far above the audio band and have slew rates that deliver very fast responses. Open a spec sheet for modern components and look.

Slew rates are valid for transient response ... I'll agree to that.  How many DACs include that in their specs?