[Bhk1004]

Just spend and keep what you like. No point arguing tbh. If a cheap dac gives you sound you like stick with it. If you have an expensive dac and it gives you the sound you like stick with it. Very simple. You really arent going to convince someone that thinks higher end is good or lower end has everything need that the opposite is true.

Just be happy and listen to your music as that is the most important. R2R and tubes make me very happy, but that may not be the same for others. So be it. Who cares.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

it produces a 20k sine wave _exactly_ with no deviation from the original signal

If you listen to sine waves with oscilloscope, any DAC will do the job. Listening to music with human hearing is “slightly” more complicated process.

 

[sajunky]

Wait, if I am understanding your post correctly are you saying since most of the music I listen to, EDM, pop, for example, are synthesized by computers, the music won't actually benefit from a higher quality DAC as opposed to if I listened to music with more piano and acoustic instruments? Some songs I listen to do have acoustic guitars/pianos and such, though granted most of them do not.

This is my from my experience. I can play Calvin Harris for hours without fatigue, but when I try to play my favourite music on the same Topping D30, it comes as a garbage, I stop listening soon. Should I change my taste and keep Topping? Wrong.

This is not only a loudness war (as indicated by others), but a matter of how our brain recognise sound. Natural sound is identified by templates. When natural sound is altered by the extensive DSP processing (which is using different algorithm than our brain), it is not helping, but confusing and templates are not used. Our brain is switching to the more resource consuming method. It cause that an initial positive impression about good clarity and details turns to a fatigue after couple of minutes. It is why young people prefer electronic production. Such music do not carry the same complex information as a natural music does, our brain is not running out of resources. It is closing the circle. Artists produce more such music, studios are mastering more such music. Cheap, garbage DACs are claimed to produce good sound.

Now you are indicating that some of your music is played on guitar and pianos. Are you sure these are not keyboard synthetisers? Are these quality recordings? Maybe you should try it, but I would not target the most expensive DACs, not from the beginning. I am very satisfied with a $42 Nobsound 8xTDA1387 DAC/HPA. It doesn't give Whooow effect, but I can listen to music for hours without fatigue. For $350 you can get Audio GD R2R-11. It is my current gear and I can tell you for sure that no other DAC in this price range produce more natural sound. In US it is convenient to order (and return if you don't like) local production like Schiit Asgard with multibit DAC module ($399) or Bitfrost 2 ($699) for a better DAC, but no HPA. I don't mention cheaper multibit models as these use opamps buffers, not appropriate to handle a ladder HF switching noise. Actually all Schiit DACs are oversampling, but there are very popular NOS devices like Denafrips Ares II or Audio GD R-1 (R28 with HPA). These are audiophile DACs, but return involves a cost, your risk.

 

[audioandy]

If you listen to sine waves with oscilloscope, any DAC will do the job. Listening to music with human hearing is “slightly” more complicated process.

What do you mean by this? What will a human perceive in a 20khz sine wave (or other wave type) that - and I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your meaning - isn't objectively measurable? Or are you referring to other waveform types, like a square wave built from different fundamentals?

In the video at 3:08 what he says makes a lot of sense to me. Even for things we *can* measure, we might not be able to hear them, and a ~20 year old device is already at the limit of what is transparent (to human hearing) in digital audio conversion.

 

[Shahrose]

What do you mean by this? What will a human perceive in a 20khz sine wave (or other wave type) that - and I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your meaning - isn't objectively measurable? Or are you referring to other waveform types, like a square wave built from different fundamentals?

In the video at 3:08 what he says makes a lot of sense to me. Even for things we *can* measure, we might not be able to hear them, and a ~20 year old device is already at the limit of what is transparent (to human hearing) in digital audio conversion.

It's interesting. I know so many people who talk like this until they actually hear high-end DACs or equipment. Then their efforts switch to explaining why they're hearing what they shouldn't (ie. significant improvement from DACs as they move up in quality).

I'm a man of science and had the exact same prediction and opinion before years of experience changed it. DACs make a difference in the audible range, and not just a difference but can provide very noticeably better SQ. Also, the more transparent the downstream gear (transducers, amps, cables), the more easily these variances are discerned. Now, it's our job to find equipment (or technique or science) that is sufficiently resolute/sensitive to measure these changes reliably.

My friend (a very bright computer engineer) posted the same types of videos and explanations. Fast forward a few years A/B testing audio gear and he's a different man.

If you're satisfied with what you have or truly cannot hear the differences, then all the power to you. You're blessed to have saved a lot of money and time.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

What do you mean by this?

Music and human hearing does not work as sine wave and oscilloscope. Real science behind human perception of sound is very complicated topic. The guy in that video is just oversimplifying facts to "prove" his theory. This "all DACs sound the same" theory is as scientific as the flat earth theory. Unfortunately, it is very easy to say that the Earth is flat, but it would take a lot of time and knowledge to explain why it's not.

 

[bluecar]

What do you mean by this? What will a human perceive in a 20khz sine wave (or other wave type) that - and I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your meaning - isn't objectively measurable? Or are you referring to other waveform types, like a square wave built from different fundamentals?

In the video at 3:08 what he says makes a lot of sense to me. Even for things we *can* measure, we might not be able to hear them, and a ~20 year old device is already at the limit of what is transparent (to human hearing) in digital audio conversion.

A 20k sine wave is eminently measurable, but not a good simulation of music. Sines are mathematically predictable, and the equivalent of a 'free pass' for a sampling/interpolation algorithm. Accurately resampling and converting a complex multi-frequency signal is a bit harder than that

The 20yr old device theory ain't correct, except perhaps in the mathematical fundamentals. Modern DACs, running on modern silicon have much more headroom for digital pre-processing, and much more accurate translation of the time-modulated output signals to the OpAmps/Outputs. Pre-conversion upsampling is more complex and done at higher sample rates, leveraging higher processing power in the chips, and analogue filtering works to higher tolerances, especially at the upper and lower ends of the pass filters - less fine detail (and there's a lot in a 16/44 file) is lost from the original digital data is lost in processing (better interpolation algorithms), giving output signals that are a better simulation of the original analogue mix that was digitised. Clocks are more accurate, and create less phase-noise, giving better time-domain control across digital transformations, which improves the time-accuracy of the output wave - that's pretty "sciency", but the engineering treatments can (and do) add up to a better reproduction of music. The advantage of being an electronics engineer is that biases work both ways - I can accept the rational physics and maths, but can also easily spot the 'snake oil' )

Happily for me, DACs do make a difference, and I enjoy trying different DACs to experience a 'better' simulation of the recording. My own experience is that high-end DACs deliver better enjoyment of music for me, both at a rational (engineer) level and in my lizard brain.....

Don't know if you've been in there, but the Sound Science section of the forum has some pretty robust discussion on this type of topic - lots of data and well-voiced arguments for and against matters such as DAC impact, cabling, formats, psycho-acoustics and testing regimes.

 

[rangerid]

This is my from my experience. I can play Calvin Harris for hours without fatigue, but when I try to play my favourite music on the same Topping D30, it comes as a garbage, I stop listening soon. Should I change my taste and keep Topping? Wrong.

This is not only a loudness war (as indicated by others), but a matter of how our brain recognise sound. Natural sound is identified by templates. When natural sound is altered by the extensive DSP processing (which is using different algorithm than our brain), it is not helping, but confusing and templates are not used. Our brain is switching to the more resource consuming method. It cause that an initial positive impression about good clarity and details turns to a fatigue after couple of minutes. It is why young people prefer electronic production. Such music do not carry the same complex information as a natural music does, our brain is not running out of resources. It is closing the circle. Artists produce more such music, studios are mastering more such music. Cheap, garbage DACs are claimed to produce good sound.

Now you are indicating that some of your music is played on guitar and pianos. Are you sure these are not keyboard synthetisers? Are these quality recordings? Maybe you should try it, but I would not target the most expensive DACs, not from the beginning. I am very satisfied with a $42 Nobsound 8xTDA1387 DAC/HPA. It doesn't give Whooow effect, but I can listen to music for hours without fatigue. For $350 you can get Audio GD R2R-11. It is my current gear and I can tell you for sure that no other DAC in this price range produce more natural sound. In US it is convenient to order (and return if you don't like) local production like Schiit Asgard with multibit DAC module ($399) or Bitfrost 2 ($699) for a better DAC, but no HPA. I don't mention cheaper multibit models as these use opamps buffers, not appropriate to handle a ladder HF switching noise. Actually all Schiit DACs are oversampling, but there are very popular NOS devices like Denafrips Ares II or Audio GD R-1 (R28 with HPA). These are audiophile DACs, but return involves a cost, your risk.

Got it... that makes a lot of sense. When I was just listening to music with my old CIEMs out of my laptop, I thought most of the EDM/Techno songs sounded really good. With the better headphone/amp I have now they sound even better, but it wasn't like they sounded bad before with CIEMs. I do have a small amount of metal/rock and roll tracks that I occasionally listen to and those seemed to have improved a lot more in quality when I upgraded my headphones compared to the electronic music I usually listen to. I also I remember now either from a video or article that a lot of modern music now is compressed and mastered to sound just as good on cheaper equipment just like you said. Would you say a R2R or Delta Sigma type DAC is better suited for the type of music I listen to? In regards to buying and returning Dacs, I will have to look into that a bit more carefully since I live in Canada and a lot of retailers are based in the US, so it might be trickier.

 

[sajunky]

Got it... that makes a lot of sense. When I was just listening to music with my old CIEMs out of my laptop, I thought most of the EDM/Techno songs sounded really good. With the better headphone/amp I have now they sound even better, but it wasn't like they sounded bad before with CIEMs. I do have a small amount of metal/rock and roll tracks that I occasionally listen to and those seemed to have improved a lot more in quality when I upgraded my headphones compared to the electronic music I usually listen to. I also I remember now either from a video or article that a lot of modern music now is compressed and mastered to sound just as good on cheaper equipment just like you said. Would you say a R2R or Delta Sigma type DAC is better suited for the type of music I listen to? In regards to buying and returning Dacs, I will have to look into that a bit more carefully since I live in Canada and a lot of retailers are based in the US, so it might be trickier.

Upgrading headphones make a difference, also proper amplification. I am lucky that R2R-11 drives HD600 easily and accurately, I have lot of enjoyment from this setup. The best pairing for a ladder DAC is a tube amp or SS class A amplifier with only a local feedback. Low feedback is a key for success, some better opamps with a hudge open loop may work with oversampling DACs, but now there is a trend for a nested loopback amplification, examples are THX789, Topping A90/L30. This doesn't work well with ladder DACs, sound is sterile clean, but there is very little music.

My old rock CD's work very well on R2R-11, while didn't sound well on Topping. Despite of my age I still do enjoy Led Zeppelin, Grateful Dead, King Crimson, just to mention few. Some Pink Floyd recordings are audiophile quality, but I can't recommend it for tests as there are so many poor mastering versions, finding one that matches soft body substance of old LP's is a challenge. Unless you find a Russian-made LP rip, it sounds very good. I mean it. It is a proof that problem is not in my DAC, but with mastering. It is why I focus on new music production, supporting artists, not major labels that keep releasing the same stuff over and over. At the moment listening to this:

 

[JDFlood]

Audio systems are systems. As such are highly sensitive to all components. However, all things being equal they are somewhat more sensitive to components early in the signal path. So the streamer, DAC, Amp and headphones. If your system is really good, then the interconnects matter. If the signal isn't right at the beginning then it isn't going to get fixed along the way. Problems are just multiplied... like noise and distortion. I can't recommend the Yggdrasil too much in the below $5K range. It is natural sounding as well as dynamic. Sounds exactly what you are looking for. Each component makes a big difference.

Last year I purchased a streamer only for $22K. Any doubts about the thing “that is just slinging bits“ makes a huge difference got erased in the first few seconds of listening. Finally, something that sounded as good as my turn table. I have had similar experiences with DACs as I went from iPhone to portable, and finally desktop. The DAC then takes that bitstream and crafts it into the potential sound you are going to hear. If you like discussing electronics and theory that may or may not have a thing to do with the sound you perceive then there are lots of folks willing to provide. But I have alway purchase audio equipment based on how they sounded and not on specifications and theories. Nothing wrong with looking at specs and designs, but what they provide for you to hear is what is important.

 

[rangerid]

Upgrading headphones make a difference, also proper amplification. I am lucky that R2R-11 drives HD600 easily and accurately, I have lot of enjoyment from this setup. The best pairing for a ladder DAC is a tube amp or SS class A amplifier with only a local feedback. Low feedback is a key for success, some better opamps with a hudge open loop may work with oversampling DACs, but now there is a trend for a nested loopback amplification, examples are THX789, Topping A90/L30. This doesn't work well with ladder DACs, sound is sterile clean, but there is very little music.

My old rock CD's work very well on R2R-11, while didn't sound well on Topping. Despite of my age I still do enjoy Led Zeppelin, Grateful Dead, King Crimson, just to mention few. Some Pink Floyd recordings are audiophile quality, but I can't recommend it for tests as there are so many poor mastering versions, finding one that matches soft body substance of old LP's is a challenge. Unless you find a Russian-made LP rip, it sounds very good. I mean it. It is a proof that problem is not in my DAC, but with mastering. It is why I focus on new music production, supporting artists, not major labels that keep releasing the same stuff over and over. At the moment listening to this:

Thank you, I have a tube amp and it sounds like R2R dacs will pair well with it.

Audio systems are systems. As such are highly sensitive to all components. However, all things being equal they are somewhat more sensitive to components early in the signal path. So the streamer, DAC, Amp and headphones. If your system is really good, then the interconnects matter. If the signal isn't right at the beginning then it isn't going to get fixed along the way. Problems are just multiplied... like noise and distortion. I can't recommend the Yggdrasil too much in the below $5K range. It is natural sounding as well as dynamic. Sounds exactly what you are looking for. Each component makes a big difference. Last year I purchased a streamer for $22K. Any doubts about that thing that is just slinging bits makes a huge difference got erased in the first few seconds of listening. Finally, something that sounded as good as my turn table. I have had similar experiences with DACs as I went from iPhone to portable, and finally desktop. The DAC then takes that bitstream and crafts it into the potential sound you are going to hear. If you like discussing electronics and theory that may or may not have a thing to do with the sound you perceive then there are lots of folks willing to provide. But I have alway purchase audio equipment based on how they sounded and not one specifications and theories. Nothing wrong with looking at specs and designes, but what they provide for you to hear is what is important.

I will look into the Yggdrasil, thank you for the recommendation. Makes sense if signal isn't right at the beginning it will get multiplied along the way. Tbh I don't really care at all about measurements and I have never looked at a piece of audio equipment and thought to myself I wonder how well this measures; it's interesting but at the end of the day the sound quality is all that matters.

 

[BassicScience]

Generally speaking, R2R DACs are more fussy and expensive to implement well than Delta Sigma designs. The latter got a bad reputation based on many issues in the early years, but modern DS designs can be highly-refined, and very accurate and musical, at a lower price point. Personally, I see R2R as an antiquated strategy to avoid problems with DS that no longer exist, and I wouldn't consider buying one in the present day. All that said, a well-executed R2R DAC will sound better than a poorly-executed DS one. I would eliminate DACs that exhibit clearly substandard test measurements, but after that, you really need to audition them to determine what best suits your ear.

 

[sajunky]

Generally speaking, R2R DACs are more fussy and expensive to implement well than Delta Sigma designs. The latter got a bad reputation based on many issues in the early years, but modern DS designs can be highly-refined, and very accurate and musical, at a lower price point.

This is not true, and other points (not quoted) are not worth to discuss. The same problems do exist on every Delta Sigma DAC on the planet: smoothing (simplifying) sound which is losing natural reverbations on a decay, producing false harmonics of non-dominant tones and poor timing.

It was a long time ago (around 2000) when Delta Sigma DACs has evolved from a pure bitstream to a few parallel streams. Since then there is no changes in technology, just small refinements. There is still no scientific mathematic model for dynamic waveform reproduction (which is music), only static one (single sine wave of a fixed amplitude or a few). However if you only listen to a music Calvin Harris type, you will be fine with DS DAC, as discussed earlier.

 

[BassicScience]

This is not true, and other points (not quoted) are not worth to discuss. The same problems do exist on every Delta Sigma DAC on the planet: smoothing (simplifying) sound which is losing natural reverbations on a decay, producing false harmonics of non-dominant tones and poor timing.

It was a long time ago (around 2000) when Delta Sigma DACs has evolved from a pure bitstream to a few parallel streams. Since then there is no changes in technology, just small refinements. There is still no scientific mathematic model for dynamic waveform reproduction (which is music), only static one (single sine wave of a fixed amplitude or a few). However if you only listen to a music Calvin Harris type, you will be fine with DS DAC, as discussed earlier.

What are you credentials (or evidence) for making the bolded statements above, may I ask?

 

[Mikem53]

I agree with you 100% about how piano sounds on R2R converters including any other acoustic instruments. Actually Yiggy is not the best example, NOS converters do it better along with reproducing true harmonics and timing which is messed up by deploying unnecessary DSP oversampling engine. It is perhaps a topic for another thread.

Problem is that OP do not listen to such type music (it has been repeated three times in a row), but a synthetised waveforms by computers, then such material is mastered for mass consumption, it means mastered to sound equally well on a cheap Delta Sigma equipment. Most of the most popular hits are prepared that way. In this case recommending audiophile type R2R converter for this user doen't make any sense. There will be very little difference between $500 and $5K DAC as the only difference comes out from the quality of the analog stage.

So he should by a cheap DAC on the premise that he will only listen to music that works well cheap DS DAC’s ? that’s ridiculous.. Everybody “grows” as they develop their sonic tastes.. The Yggy is only $2500 or $1600 if you get the GS version. Why wouldn’t he want something ”better” to begin with ? It all matters in the audio chain..
The Yggy has a great analog output stage that’s worthy of a high end system for not much money... the Yggdrasil can hold its own when it comes to SQ regardless of price.. You can always pay more, but you won’t get much more.. A true high end find that belies its price tag..