[KeithEmo]

   
You mention cables; my most recent example is a cable. When trying out a CAT5 networking cable, to replace the standard cable for my lcd2, the cat5 sounds faster. The music cannot possibly be faster (the only difference is the cable), but it sounds that way. This is, both new and now burnt in, the biggest difference between the standard and cat5 cables.
 
I was going to suggest that you do what I did, a few years back, and get a cheap vintage TDA1541 player and compare it to a more 'contemporary' model. But, it seems that you already have some good R-2R stuff. I guess that you haven't noticed any difference in the prat type musicality, when comparing between dacs.
 
Some time ago I read an article that, as I recall, explained that the differences, in the way that R-2R and D-S dacs process the data, affects the converted signal that's produced. And that the timing aspect is a key casualty of of the DS process. This stuck with me, because of my own impressions.
Maybe I should have a serious look to see if I can rediscover this source, But in the meantime, I've been hoping that somebody contributing to this forum would have an understanding of this phenomenon and would be willing to explain it (in terms that I can understand).

 
All oversampling DACs perform their oversampling using a digital filter - and the type of digital filters used all produce at least some of what I would call "time smear". (This is a non-technical name the "pre-ringing" or "post-ringing" that you see mentioned.) What this means is that, while the correct amount of energy at each frequency is passed through the filter, some of that energy is "offset in time". In other words, what might theoretically start out as a perfectly sharp drumbeat would end up with "a slight reverb tail" and quite possibly a "pre-verb tail" before the actual drum hit. While the time intervals involved are very short, and whether this time error can be heard at all is hotly debated, it is the major difference between the various filter choices offered by many DACs, and a lot of us hear differences between the various choices - at least with some DACs. It makes perfect sense to me that spreading out a sharp transient like a drumbeat in time might make it seem "less lively". (Of course human perception is tricky; it could also be that spreading out a very short transient might make it easier to hear, and so might make the overall rendition seem "more lively".) The point is that this is a way in which the analog output of oversampling DACs is KNOWN to differ from the analog output of NON-oversampling DACs, so it seems like a good place to start.
 
For those who aren't familiar with the details, ALL D-S DACs use oversampling (it's part of the D-S process); MANY R2R DACs don't oversample (because R2R and NOS are part of the same "retro" or "anti-D-S" philosophy), which may mean that a lot of people may be confusing the characteristics of non-oversampling DACs with those of R2R DACs. However, there are R2R DACs that use oversampling - like Yggdrasil. (Of course, Yggy also has lots of other features and design differences, so we shouldn't be too quick to assume how much of the way it sounds is specifically associated with its being R2R.)

 

[KeithEmo]

And what about jitter.....
 
It just occurred to me that a lot of the attributes I see being applied here to D-S DACs are associated in my mind with jitter.
 
To me, excess jitter often seems to cause sharp transients to become somewhat indistinct (I like to say that it makes a wire brush on a cymbal sound more like a steam leak). It is also a reasonably well documented fact that D-S DACs are more sensitive to jitter if it is present. (The amount of distortion that results from a specific amount of jitter is dependent on the ratio between the amount of jitter and the sample rate. If you have the same absolute amount of jitter, and a higher sample rate, then the jitter will be a proportionally higher percentage of the time between samples, and so will produce more distortion. D-S DACs operate at a very high sample rate, and so a given amount of jitter will affect them more severely. Whether jitter will be passed from the input to the DAC, and whether or not it will be reduced along the way, depends on the circuit topology of the particular DAC.)
 
Since actually measuring jitter is rather difficult, my test methodology is to place a "jitter remover" (which reduces jitter but doesn't otherwise alter the digital signal) between the input signal and the DAC and see if it makes a noticeable difference - or not. Since there is a known difference between the sensitivity of D-S and R2R DACs to jitter, and the resistance to jitter of any specific DAC is largely unknown, it seems like we should eliminate this as a possible variable.
 
(If you have a source with lots of jitter, and it sounds better on an R2R DAC because the R2R DAC is less sensitive to the jitter than a D-S DAC, then you may be able to make them sound the same by simply reducing the jitter to a level low enough to not affect either one. It could also mean that the audible differences between the two DAC types will vary depending on your signal source. And, to put it bluntly, a good jitter remover is a lot cheaper than a good R2R DAC. The Audiophilleo 2 has ridiculously good jitter specs - and it's only around $600; even the jitter performance of the V-Link is a lot better than that of many source components.)

 

[Articnoise]

 
 
This is the part that bugs me. If I were into tube rolling (which I'm not), and I found some particular brand of ridiculously expensive tube that sounded better than all the rest in my particular amplifier, the next thing I would do would be to make electrical measurements of that tube... so I could find cheaper tubes that have the same electrical characteristics, which would enable me to get the exact same performance for a lot less money. Instead, what I find is that many people seem to actually prefer to spend absurd amounts of money on mystique... and pretend as if "there's something else going on".
 
From a technical perspective, all DACs are SUPPOSED to do the precise same thing. Two "perfect DACs" would sound exactly the same - regardless of what technology they use. Therefore, if you do hear a difference, then one or both of them must be doing something wrong. It only makes sense that, that being the case, we can figure out what that something is - and redesign EVERY DAC out there to avoid doing it. (If we get that right, then, maybe, in a year or two, every $2 D-S DAC will sound just like your favorite R2R DAC - which will save us all a lot of money... or maybe, instead, there will be some new technology altogether - that combines the low cost of D-S DACs with the sound of R2R DACs).

 

I definitely agree with you that it’s better if we can use terms that mean the same thing for everybody. So any attempt to clarify the meaning and definition of ordinary audio terms or audiophile world is a good thing, especially as we often have a bit different backgrounds and ages here.

 

I can’t say that it bugs me if someone want to buy a truly expensive tube (or anything else for the matter) and I don’t think that the difference between tubes should be seen as “mystique” or pretend as if "there's something else going on".  The high price of some NOS tubes is often related to the fact that they are rear, just as old clocks and whisky.

 

As I see it we already have DACs that combines the low cost of 1 bit D-S modulation with the sound of R2R DACs. Not for $2, but for $10-15. Sabre has for example multi-bit hybrid converters like the ES9018-2M. They use delta-sigma modulation and the upper 6 bit is multibit. TI, AD, Wolfson also has multi-bit delta-sigma DAC chip. I don’t know if the true 1 bit DAC chip really has been used much currently in any mid or high end gear.    

 

[artur9]

 (It's sort of like noting that the salt on your table "came from the earth", rather than being the reaction product of hydrochloric acid and lye in a lab. The latter sounds rather "worrisome", but will actually look, feel, and taste exactly the same.)

Only if both are pure HCl.  The salt from the earth will almost certainly have impurities that lend it a distinctive flavor compared to the lab version.  Then the lab guys can go off chasing all the barely measurable impurities to get them to have the same flavor.
 
How relevant this is to DACs?  No idea but in a sense the situation is reversed.  At least theoretically, the DAC will be adding impurities to the pure original sounds. (I hope that's clear.)

 

[KeithEmo]

  Only if both are pure HCl.  The salt from the earth will almost certainly have impurities that lend it a distinctive flavor compared to the lab version.  Then the lab guys can go off chasing all the barely measurable impurities to get them to have the same flavor.
 
How relevant this is to DACs?  No idea but in a sense the situation is reversed.  At least theoretically, the DAC will be adding impurities to the pure original sounds. (I hope that's clear.)

 
As relates to DACs, I was using that as an analogy to the fact that, even if a certain type of digital filter "throws away all the original samples and calculates all new ones", that doesn't specifically imply that the analog output that results will be any less accurate if you do it that way. Many people seem to be "intuitively certain" that calculating new samples must be less accurate than using the original ones when, in act, that may or may not be true. (I know a few people who would never get over an emotional certainty that the lab made salt would somehow "just not be the same" as "natural" salt - with the implication that, because it wasn't "natural", it was inferior for some reason. I even know one fellow with a Chemical Engineering degree who insists that, even though that lab salt may analyze as "pure salt", it is somehow "less healthy" to eat. He might even go so far as to suggest that the impure natural salt tasted "right" and the pure lab salt tasted wrong.
 
When we're discussing DACs - as compared to other DACs - then the "pure original sounds" are already out of the picture. We have a digital audio file, and no access to any presumed analog original, so the only course we can follow is to do the conversion in as accurate a way as possible. (We can't even reasonably try to compensate for errors introduced in the A/D conversion - because we have no way of knowing what errors might be there, or whether any attempted correction actually made things better or worse.)

 

[haywood]

And what about jitter.....

It just occurred to me that a lot of the attributes I see being applied here to D-S DACs are associated in my mind with jitter.

I think that's a pretty big part of it, along with poor USB implementations. The second highest rated dac on the updated list is now the EAR Acute, though at least some of that was due to tube output stage which they liked better than Yggy's solid state one.

 

[Lord Raven]

Hi,
 
Guys, I am looking for a DAC to pair it with my Tube Amplifier, what are good options in under 200$. I don't really want to spend a lot of money on different low cost DACs and buy something good in the end, my eyes are set on Oppo 105D atm but I am unable to source it locally. What do you think should I just buy 105D and wait for it or is there something as better as Oppo 105D out there in low cost? I would only use 105D as a DAC and might play movies, that's it. Don't need a lot of 7.1 outputs or XLR's, I am just looking for a decent DAC.
 
This is going to be my first DAC ever, so I am trying hard not to make a mistake. Thanks for your advice, btw I read the whole first post and still not sure what to do as I am a newbie in DACs.
 
Regards
LR

 

[Stillhart]

  Hi,
 
Guys, I am looking for a DAC to pair it with my Tube Amplifier, what are good options in under 200$. I don't really want to spend a lot of money on different low cost DACs and buy something good in the end, my eyes are set on Oppo 105D atm but I am unable to source it locally. What do you think should I just buy 105D and wait for it or is there something as better as Oppo 105D out there in low cost? I would only use 105D as a DAC and might play movies, that's it. Don't need a lot of 7.1 outputs or XLR's, I am just looking for a decent DAC.
 
This is going to be my first DAC ever, so I am trying hard not to make a mistake. Thanks for your advice, btw I read the whole first post and still not sure what to do as I am a newbie in DACs.
 
Regards
LR

 
It's a bit more than your budget, but I'd recommend an Audio-GD NFB-15.  I tried some cheaper DAC's and wasn't impressed with the improvements until I jumped up to this one.  The warm Wolfson DAC goes really well with tube amps, in my experience.

 

[bixby]

  Hi,
 
Guys, I am looking for a DAC to pair it with my Tube Amplifier, what are good options in under 200$. I don't really want to spend a lot of money on different low cost DACs and buy something good in the end, my eyes are set on Oppo 105D atm but I am unable to source it locally. What do you think should I just buy 105D and wait for it or is there something as better as Oppo 105D out there in low cost? I would only use 105D as a DAC and might play movies, that's it. Don't need a lot of 7.1 outputs or XLR's, I am just looking for a decent DAC.
 
This is going to be my first DAC ever, so I am trying hard not to make a mistake. Thanks for your advice, btw I read the whole first post and still not sure what to do as I am a newbie in DACs.
 
Regards
LR

you might want to ask your question in the help and recommendations thread:  http://www.head-fi.org/f/7840/introductions-help-and-recommendations
 
And you may want to be real clear on your budget.  You mention $200, then talk about a dac that is over $1000.

 

[Lord Raven]

  you might want to ask your question in the help and recommendations thread:  http://www.head-fi.org/f/7840/introductions-help-and-recommendations
 
And you may want to be real clear on your budget.  You mention $200, then talk about a dac that is over $1000.

Sorry if I did not make my point clear, I was saying if anything as better as 1000$ exists in 200 range, since that 1000 Oppo has tons of other functionalities that I will not use. I just want a DAC. I have almost found a similar unit for 250 with the help of Stillhart!
 
I will post in the suggested thread. Thanks!

 

[richard51]

  Sorry if I did not make my point clear, I was saying if anything as better as 1000$ exists in 200 range, since that 1000 Oppo has tons of other functionalities that I will not use. I just want a DAC. I have almost found a similar unit for 250 with the help of Stillhart!
 
I will post in the suggested thread. Thanks!

read about 

bushmaster mk II

 

[wahsmoh]

 
read about 

bushmaster mk II

Pretty sure the guy who was behind the bushmaster DAC was banned from Head-fi a few times for using different usernames and self-advertising his product?? am I mistaken for someone else?

 

[richard51]

 
Pretty sure the guy who was behind the bushmaster DAC was banned from Head-fi a few times for using different usernames and self-advertising his product?? am I mistaken for someone else?

i dont know this story..... but the service of this guy 

is first class... its that the important thing.......

 

[HeatFan12]

 
Pretty sure the guy who was behind the bushmaster DAC was banned from Head-fi a few times for using different usernames and self-advertising his product?? am I mistaken for someone else?

 
LOL.  Yup, you are correct.  Those were some crazy times here.  He would pop up everywhere.  Stanley Beresford

 

[wahsmoh]

Just as notorious as nwavguy, definitely not as elusive.