[Atriya]

Here's a question that may be interesting. I currently have a very "analytical" stack: Topping D90SE+Topping A90. If I wanted a more "musical"/"refined"/"smooth" sound, I could:

(1) Switch the D90S with a "smoother" or more refined DAC, say an R2R (though I'm considering a Qutest), while keeping the clean and transparent A90. This might be like hearing the "pure" sound of the DAC without any "extra" sound signature added (or at least it seems that way to my naïve intuition).

OR

(2) Keep the D90SE, but switch the A90 to a smoother amp, say a tube amp (though I'm considering the SA-1). Here it seems I'd be hearing mostly the sound signature of the amp, with the D90SE providing a neutral and detailed "base" to that signature.

My point is not to ask for specific recommendations (though they are welcome), but to bring up the general question of which of these two options is better motivated from both a musicality and technical standpoint.

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

Are you sure you posted this in the right part of the forum?
Sound Science is a place where you will get challenged..and if you have ever read a thread here before you will know that the first thing people will be asking you is: have you tried a blind levelmatched listening test in order to find out whether or not you are hearing what you are hearing and not just conjuring up change and sound quality in your head.
My experience tells me that dacs and amps do not colour the sound..unless there is something genuinely funky going down like high output impedance or distortion numbers.

 

[bigshot]

Equalization and DSPs are best applied at the last stage between the preamp and the amplification. That way the coloration will be applied the same across all your sources. If you get a colored DAC (assuming such a thing exists- I doubt it.) only the music you play through that DAC would have the EQ, not your TV or video player. Most people want calibration to be across all of the sources, not just one. You want everything upstream to be clean and accurate. Then apply coloration with a DSP at the very end.

If you want the coloration of a tube amp, that would be across all your sources, so that would work fine. But I still think that euphonic coloration like that is best done with DSPs, not distortion hard wired into the equipment.

 

[castleofargh]

Here's a question that may be interesting. I currently have a very "analytical" stack: Topping D90SE+Topping A90. If I wanted a more "musical"/"refined"/"smooth" sound, I could:

(1) Switch the D90S with a "smoother" or more refined DAC, say an R2R (though I'm considering a Qutest), while keeping the clean and transparent A90. This might be like hearing the "pure" sound of the DAC without any "extra" sound signature added (or at least it seems that way to my naïve intuition).

OR

(2) Keep the D90SE, but switch the A90 to a smoother amp, say a tube amp (though I'm considering the SA-1). Here it seems I'd be hearing mostly the sound signature of the amp, with the D90SE providing a neutral and detailed "base" to that signature.

My point is not to ask for specific recommendations (though they are welcome), but to bring up the general question of which of these two options is better motivated from both a musicality and technical standpoint.

Depends on what you’re actually looking for. From a purely objective point of view, you should find yourself the DSP(starting with a nice EQ) that does what you want, or find a headphone that sounds closer to what you enjoy. Or change the amp for one with tubes if you think you’re after that. And finally maybe change the DAC for something weird.
In term of magnitude of change and variety of sounds, you should consider things in that order!

Because no amp or DAC should drastically alter the frequency response, but FR is a leading variable in term of personal preference. At a different level, it’s not too hard to get some old tube design that would reach 1 or 2% distortions. But if a DAC did that, everybody would recommend to shoot it with a rifle. Even the worst DAC is expected to be more accurate than everything else.

So in term of amount and variety of change, my order of progression is logical. But that doesn’t account for what you want in particular(if you even know it). A more musical sound means nothing. It’s a completely subjective notion where just the album being played would have different people reach different conclusions. Refined? IDK what that is. I would assume that a nice album on a fairly transparent system can bring plenty ”refinement”. Of course a given headphone will almost never have the right frequency response for you, so, using some EQ seems to be the common and necessary step. The first one I take when I get a new headphone or IEM.
About”smooth” sound, again, many ways to interpret and handle that. A smoother, maybe warmer FR for the headphone(or a headphone that is already like that)? Maybe some good old tube distortions would do the job for you? If you have some amount of nostalgia about tube of even turntable sound, then go for it. You might still have to try a lot of gears to get something similar, if similar ever existed(the danger of good memories is that they're usually not accurate). But at least you’d know what to look for.

Finally, if what you’re really after is speaker sound, that’s a different problem. It would be good to know if that’s your actual target or not, because headphone playback is significantly different.


When I said finally, I lied.
I feel the need to mention that I don’t know those Topping products. Only that Amirm made them(too?) famous. It’s great to have some measurements of gear, and I’m grateful that he decided to do it. But by being almost the only one on the web to provide such measurements, he becomes the only judge of what’s good. Which is a risk, regardless of who his friends are, or how seriously he does the measurements. Replication is a key part of science. One that even real research has slowly abandoned... The result is de facto a much lower confidence in the data. And while most scientists consider that when shopping for data, I do not think the average Joe does.
Not being part of the solution, I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Atriya]

Thanks for the very informative responses. I assume I can do equalization and DSP with Roon, which I have and use. And yes, I primarily use headphones (Hifiman Arya at present), though I do have a pair of Bluesound speakers as well.

 

[MohawkUS]

It's a question of preference and what you're trying to achieve. While both an R2R/NOS DAC & a tube amp can provide a more smooth sound they don't sound alike in my experience. The different techs also bring different things into the picture. Personally I prefer a smooth DAC with a clean amp as while smoothness is one of my priorities I'm not in love with the soundstaging tricks of tubes nor higher than required OI as I like the lows on the tighter side. I also don't like most OS filters in DACs & find that their prickliness will carry through most downstream gear making the DAC the easy choice for coloring the sound. On the other hand tubes are popular for a reason and while not all tube containing amps will be smooth or full sounding they do usually all add a certain coherence factor & more legible soundstaging anchoring instruments around a virtual room of sorts. They also slightly blunt transients which can make the sound more lifelike & natural.
To oversimplfy to the point it won't hold universally DAC 'smoothness' is more about beating treble nasties or addressing lean sound whereas tubes modify the presentation at large making it sound less like a recording studio and more like a live performance. Colored SS amps fall closer to the DAC category although trade off the ability to fix the treble with an ability to enhance dynamics.

The first question to ask would be are you trying to 'fix' something in your system or are you just looking for a new sound to try out? If it's the first you'll need to identify the offending component and replace it, you'd have to get a HEAVILY colored amp to drown out a treble problem from a DAC or vice-versa. If it's the second then sorry for your wallet as you're in for experimenting with various types of gear to see how things change.

 

[Atriya]

It's a question of preference and what you're trying to achieve. While both an R2R/NOS DAC & a tube amp can provide a more smooth sound they don't sound alike in my experience. The different techs also bring different things into the picture. Personally I prefer a smooth DAC with a clean amp as while smoothness is one of my priorities I'm not in love with the soundstaging tricks of tubes nor higher than required OI as I like the lows on the tighter side. I also don't like most OS filters in DACs & find that their prickliness will carry through most downstream gear making the DAC the easy choice for coloring the sound. On the other hand tubes are popular for a reason and while not all tube containing amps will be smooth or full sounding they do usually all add a certain coherence factor & more legible soundstaging anchoring instruments around a virtual room of sorts. They also slightly blunt transients which can make the sound more lifelike & natural.
To oversimplfy to the point it won't hold universally DAC 'smoothness' is more about beating treble nasties or addressing lean sound whereas tubes modify the presentation at large making it sound less like a recording studio and more like a live performance. Colored SS amps fall closer to the DAC category although trade off the ability to fix the treble with an ability to enhance dynamics.

The first question to ask would be are you trying to 'fix' something in your system or are you just looking for a new sound to try out? If it's the first you'll need to identify the offending component and replace it, you'd have to get a HEAVILY colored amp to drown out a treble problem from a DAC or vice-versa. If it's the second then sorry for your wallet as you're in for experimenting with various types of gear to see how things change.

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to learn: how clean DAC+wonky amp differs from wonky DAC+clean amp. I really like the (very relevant to this thread!) sentence in your signature, btw.

I am indeed not looking to modify the presentation at large (like a tube amp would do) but rather fix a certain harshness and flatness in the sound (at least on my Hifiman Aryas) - "lean", as you say. It is not so much the treble (which is bright, but tolerable), but the midrange. Vocals are often harsh and thin with a metallic edge to them. The flatness (lack of depth) has been mentioned by multiple reviewers of the D90SE DAC. I'm not sure I want to get an R2R DAC, and so was looking at the Chord Qutest. But then, if a simple EQ can solve my problems, that is certainly convenient!

 

[gregorio]

I currently have a very "analytical" stack: Topping D90SE+Topping A90. If I wanted a more "musical"/"refined"/"smooth" sound, I could:

(1) Switch the D90S with a "smoother" or more refined DAC, say an R2R (though I'm considering a Qutest), while keeping the clean and transparent A90. This might be like hearing the "pure" sound of the DAC without any "extra" sound signature added (or at least it seems that way to my naïve intuition).
OR
(2) Keep the D90SE, but switch the A90 to a smoother amp, say a tube amp (though I'm considering the SA-1). Here it seems I'd be hearing mostly the sound signature of the amp, with the D90SE providing a neutral and detailed "base" to that signature.

Not sure what you mean by "analytical", that's an audiophile description rather than a scientific audio term. Certainly your DAC and Amp are very accurate, very little noise or distortion is added to the input signal. Therefore:

1. Again, "smoother" and "refined" are audiophile descriptions rather than audio terms. However, while your current DAC appears particularly accurate, pretty much all DACs are accurate beyond the thresholds of audibility, even those far cheaper than the topping. In other words, in order to be audibily more "smooth, "refined" or just audibly different in any way, you'd need to find a DAC with levels of inaccuracy (noise and/or distortion) so high that it's actually audible. There really aren't many of them around, I haven't seen such a poorly designed DAC for quite a few years but maybe there are still some esoteric designs out there that are far less accurate than the built-in DAC in an average smartphone!

2. Almost the same thing here. Even a relatively esoteric design like a tube amp should manage to keep noise and distortion below audible levels, unless you over-drive it. Although there certainly are some tube amps where the noise/distortion levels are well into the audible range.

The different techs also bring different things into the picture.

If you mean the picture of say a jitter response graph, then sure but if you mean "picture" metaphorically, as in the audible picture, then not at all. Unless it's extremely poorly implemented tech!

Personally I prefer a smooth DAC

Do you really mean you prefer a DAC with significantly more noise/distortion than an average smartphone?

I also don't like most OS filters in DACs & find that their prickliness will carry through most downstream gear making the DAC the easy choice for coloring the sound.

Not sure what the audiophile term "prickliness" means, does it mean "inaudible"? If you're talking about "colouring" the ultrasound, that's visible in a spectogram but inaudible, then yes, a DAC would be an easy choice.

On the other hand tubes are popular for a reason

But they're not popular, I used to see them all the time when I was a kid but only extremely rarely now.

and while not all tube containing amps will be smooth or full sounding they do usually all add a certain coherence factor & more legible soundstaging anchoring instruments around a virtual room of sorts.

Not sure what any of that means! Do you mean they add so much phase and frequency distortion that they seriously damage the stereo imaging?

To oversimplfy to the point it won't hold universally DAC 'smoothness' is more about beating treble nasties

What "treble nasties"? Even the DAC in my iPhone is pretty much ruler flat in the treble.

G

 

[FYFL]

A90 is lifeless. Not an amp if you’re looking for more character or that musical connection. Too sterile and boring for my taste.

 

[MohawkUS]

Not sure what you mean by "analytical", that's an audiophile description rather than a scientific audio term. Certainly your DAC and Amp are very accurate, very little noise or distortion is added to the input signal. Therefore:

1. Again, "smoother" and "refined" are audiophile descriptions rather than audio terms. However, while your current DAC appears particularly accurate, pretty much all DACs are accurate beyond the thresholds of audibility, even those far cheaper than the topping. In other words, in order to be audibily more "smooth, "refined" or just audibly different in any way, you'd need to find a DAC with levels of inaccuracy (noise and/or distortion) so high that it's actually audible. There really aren't many of them around, I haven't seen such a poorly designed DAC for quite a few years but maybe there are still some esoteric designs out there that are far less accurate than the built-in DAC in an average smartphone!

2. Almost the same thing here. Even a relatively esoteric design like a tube amp should manage to keep noise and distortion below audible levels, unless you over-drive it. Although there certainly are some tube amps where the noise/distortion levels are well into the audible range.


If you mean the picture of say a jitter response graph, then sure but if you mean "picture" metaphorically, as in the audible picture, then not at all. Unless it's extremely poorly implemented tech!

Do you really mean you prefer a DAC with significantly more noise/distortion than an average smartphone?

Not sure what the audiophile term "prickliness" means, does it mean "inaudible"? If you're talking about "colouring" the ultrasound, that's visible in a spectogram but inaudible, then yes, a DAC would be an easy choice.

But they're not popular, I used to see them all the time when I was a kid but only extremely rarely now.

Not sure what any of that means! Do you mean they add so much phase and frequency distortion that they seriously damage the stereo imaging?

What "treble nasties"? Even the DAC in my iPhone is pretty much ruler flat in the treble.

G

1. Yes I'm using audiophile terms & I strongly disagree that all DACs sound the same. I've owned(and own) a number of DACs at the top end of Amir's SINAD list as well as DACs which I'm sure would score very badly and find them all different from one another.
2. Could be noisefloor or microphonics that give tubes their stage, all I can tell you is that I perceive it like a halo or echo effect.
I do prefer DACs worse measuring than my phone, whether the poor FR measurements are 'why' I prefer it is unknown.
Prickly/treble nasties means fatiguing, it's fatiguing because it's harder for me to mentally track individual notes & transients in fast music. I don't know if it's an equipment failure or brain failure, they thicken the sound of gunshots in movies because the brain struggles to track such instantaneous transients, it's possible some instruments benefit from the same added distortions.

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to learn: how clean DAC+wonky amp differs from wonky DAC+clean amp. I really like the (very relevant to this thread!) sentence in your signature, btw.

I am indeed not looking to modify the presentation at large (like a tube amp would do) but rather fix a certain harshness and flatness in the sound (at least on my Hifiman Aryas) - "lean", as you say. It is not so much the treble (which is bright, but tolerable), but the midrange. Vocals are often harsh and thin with a metallic edge to them. The flatness (lack of depth) has been mentioned by multiple reviewers of the D90SE DAC. I'm not sure I want to get an R2R DAC, and so was looking at the Chord Qutest. But then, if a simple EQ can solve my problems, that is certainly convenient!

Don't buy a NOS DAC if it's depth you're after! Soundstage is the primary causality of eliminating oversampling although the sound does become more full & the images more 3D they tend to end up sounding close to you. If increasing depth is your priority I'd look into Soekris for R2R or other AKM DACs(although I found it harsh the SMSL M300 I owned was one of the deepest & less thin stages I've heard.)

 

[Atriya]

1. Yes I'm using audiophile terms & I strongly disagree that all DACs sound the same. I've owned(and own) a number of DACs at the top end of Amir's SINAD list as well as DACs which I'm sure would score very badly and find them all different from one another.
2. Could be noisefloor or microphonics that give tubes their stage, all I can tell you is that I perceive it like a halo or echo effect.
I do prefer DACs worse measuring than my phone, whether the poor FR measurements are 'why' I prefer it is unknown.
Prickly/treble nasties means fatiguing, it's fatiguing because it's harder for me to mentally track individual notes & transients in fast music. I don't know if it's an equipment failure or brain failure, they thicken the sound of gunshots in movies because the brain struggles to track such instantaneous transients, it's possible some instruments benefit from the same added distortions.


Don't buy a NOS DAC if it's depth you're after! Soundstage is the primary causality of eliminating oversampling although the sound does become more full & the images more 3D they tend to end up sounding close to you. If increasing depth is your priority I'd look into Soekris for R2R or other AKM DACs(although I found it harsh the SMSL M300 I owned was one of the deepest & less thin stages I've heard.)

Isn't it the R2R DACs that are NOS, whereas the delta-sigma DACs like the Qutest or D90SE are not NOS?

 

[MohawkUS]

Isn't it the R2R DACs that are NOS, whereas the delta-sigma DACs like the Qutest or D90SE are not NOS?

No, R2R can be NOS while S/D must oversample. Most companies will use oversampling regardless of tech as it measures better and carries less compromises. There are also some S/D DACs like my Gustard which have NOS emulation modes which attempt to mimic the sound of NOS R2R using other methods(to varying degrees of success.)

 

[Atriya]

No, R2R can be NOS while S/D must oversample. Most companies will use oversampling regardless of tech as it measures better and carries less compromises. There are also some S/D DACs like my Gustard which have NOS emulation modes which attempt to mimic the sound of NOS R2R using other methods(to varying degrees of success.)

Ah, you probably have the X26Pro. I'm also considering that.

 

[MohawkUS]

Ah, you probably have the X26Pro. I'm also considering that.

Nah, I have the X16.

 

[bigshot]

I have no idea why anyone would want an obsolete DAC when a simple EQ high end rolloff would accomplish the same thing, with the added benefit of being adjustable and defeatable.