Understanding the Role of DACs in a Simple Audio Setup

[bigshot]

Reference sound isn’t necessarily “good sound”. It involves consistency and headroom, which are necessary for production, but is meaningless in your living room.

You don’t need to spend a fortune on Krell Generators and Gunga Dins. There are a million ways to achieve optimal sound, and many of them can be accomplished without spending five figures… in fact it’s possible without spending four figures.

People in audio forums spend all their time justifying their own purchases to themselves by telling others “You need a Krelm Valkyrie X-1.” instead of telling them the process they should go through to assemble a good system. The secret to great sound isn’t a brand name, and as soon as someone starts rattling off model numbers, you can safely discount most of what they say because their knowledge comes from advertising copy, not practical science.

Some parts of an audio system matter to the sound and some don’t. The best systems aren’t the most complicated and expensive. They’re the ones that are convenient and efficient at solving the problem.

Here’s a clue… if you find the right headphones, and match them with the right amplification, you can go to Amazon and throw a dart at the screen at a list of DACs and it will sound great. Every set of cans sound different. Find the one that sounds best to you and you won’t need coloration.

One of the best measuring consumer DACs is the $8 Apple dongle. Why pay a lot of money for what amounts to magic beans. Leave the expensive stuff to the chumps.

 

[gregorio]

My gear (any gear) can colour my sound, period.

So you have broken/faulty or especially low fidelity gear (DAC and amp) then. Thanks for clearing that up.

G

 

[Daiyama]

I don‘t know or better I don‘t care but to me music played through my gear sounds like angels singing from the sky.

 

[bigshot]

Every angel a different color!

 

[gregorio]

I don‘t know or better I don‘t care but to me music played through my gear sounds like angels singing from the sky.

If I’m playing say the Rites of Spring or death metal (or various other similar pieces/sub genres), then the very last thing it is supposed to sound like is “angels singing from the sky”. If your gear makes it sound like that, that’s so bad it’s broken!

Personally, I want my gear to sound like the music was intended to sound (IE. Have good “fidelity”) but maybe that’s just me?

G

 

[DrMorbius]

All I can say is with my 12 year old Marantz CD player, which I thought to me sounded great, well when I added a new Schiit Modi 3E DAC from my old but good and faithful Marantz to my HH Scott tube amp - It opened up sound wise like I couldn’t believe! I’m so glad I experimented adding a DAC cause I almost didn’t but for $129 I said why the hell not?

 

[bigshot]

If you didn’t do a blind, level matched, direct A/B switched comparison, odds are your expectation bias colored your perception. And it’s a LOT more likely that your tube amp is distorting the sound than the DAC.

 

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

Hi everyone,

I’ve been diving into the world of DACs and wanted to share some insights and get your thoughts. Starting with a basic setup of PC -> DAC -> AMP -> Headphones, it’s clear that we need a DAC that offers:

1. Uncolored Sound: The DAC should not add any coloration to the sound.
2. No Audible Distortion: It should have minimal to no audible distortion.
3. Linear Output Across All Frequencies: The output should be linear across the entire frequency range.
4. Balanced Output with 4Vrms: This ensures a strong and clean signal.

These specifications are measurable in lab conditions and can be clearly defined. For instance, the Topping D10 Balanced, which costs just over $100, meets these criteria excellently.

Despite this, I still see threads and messages where people claim that a DAC sounds “good” or “bad,” and discussions about DACs costing thousands of dollars that, in some cases, measure worse electronically than the Topping D10 Balanced.

So, my question is: Do audiophiles prefer a DAC that adds color to the sound, or do they seek a perfectly linear and accurate output? From a common-sense perspective, I believe a DAC should be as transparent as possible, leaving any desired coloration to the AMP.

Am I wrong in thinking this way?

I don’t consider myself an expert and could be completely mistaken. If so, I’d love to hear your opinions!

Well that's just not true at all. It might have been true like 10-15 years ago when the "All DACs sound the same" argument was popular (And mostly true) but it certainly doesn't hold up today. An R2R DAC has softer note edges than a delta sigma DAC, for example. Some DACs sound lush, or warm, or bright, or cold, or otherwise "shape" the sound. If all DACs sounded the same everyone would just throw $99 at a Schiit modi and be done with it. Honestly, having been into head-fi for 10 years now the LAST thing I want is a totally flat, zero coloration DAC. My iFi Zen DAC has a very holographic sound to vocals with a very pleasing prolonged decay, my K7 has a very clean sanitized but full bodied sound. My K11 R2R's (I have 2) have a very soft presentation that is also a bit warm and quite thick with very gentle attack and decay. My Gustard X16 is what I would describe as an "Angry and enthusiastic" DAC with very stiff and hard note edges and a very delightful natural sounding decay to the notes, visceral treble, and what feels like a better "accuracy" and fidelity to the notes in musical recordings. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. No, all DACs don't sound the same. And no, you don't always want a fixed output at 2V (RCA) or 4V (XLR). iFi Zen dacs for example have variable voltage out the RCA ports ranging from sub 2V to something crazy like 4V which is way out of spec for RCA but it allows you to tune the "aggressiveness" of the attack end of notes to your liking then output it to a Zen headphone amp.

 

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

Quite literally, I think the only statement we can make with 100% certainty is that perception is everything. Confirmation bias and an appetite for colored sound are both rampant in this hobby. But I think this take, while not wrong, is a bit cynical.

The main problem, as I view it, is trying to get everybody to ignore the hump of quasi-science that attempts to explain away sound differences we each perceive differently with regards to timbre. Because harmonic overtones in the mids and treble are reliant on clean playback in the 10 kHz+ range in the spectrum, preference, tolerance, and age-related hearing loss all factor heavily in how timbre is perceived.

For example, clearly there are differences between planar, balanced-armature, and dynamic drivers in the onslaught of IEMs now flooding the market and the hobby itself. Each of these have a distinctive characteristic which shouldn't be any more controversial than declaring that middle C sounds different on a baritone versus a clarinet. When it comes to DACs, the processing has a lot of latitude when converting the source into a signal, which we perceive as attack, sustain, and delay on individual notes - even if that signal is distortion free. The analogue here is the difference between playing a scale on a piano with the sustain pedal depressed, and then playing it without. And how hard are the key strikes as the scale is played? And what wood species is the sound board? The nuance is similar between DACs, but the changes are so absurdly small that detecting it with our ears is all but impossible for the majority of music lovers, without even starting to question the abilities of self-proclaimed audiophiles.

Which begs the question when moving on from those obvious examples, at exactly what point our ability to detect changes in timbre, speed, and polytonal differences approaches zero is necessarily unique to our age, our anatomy, and how developed our sense of hearing may or may not be. Listening, as a neurologically supported skill, can spot tonal and timbre differences that an untrained listener cannot. Audiophiles, even the ones that believe in voodoo, still have a highly developed sense of hearing, and it is wading through these murky waters that we find differences between amplifiers, pre-amplifiers, tubes vs. discrete / solid-state, DACs, and then of course, cables.

It could be worse: you could be a guitarist chasing tone! If you're both a guitarist and an audiophile they your life is a purgatory and you're cry-laughing at this already.

So rather than attempting to rush to jump-to-conclusion inferences with basic physics, or reach for some kind of sci-fi nonsense invoking quantum voodoo to impress readers, I'm of the opinion that first and foremost we have to agree that there is a matrix for each listener that can account for:

* physical abilities, mainly limitations wrt to hearing loss
* neural abilities (eg the trained or golden ear, sense of pitch etc),
* the perception of one's abilities (consider tinnitus itself, which is perceptible noise that does not exist. also, brain burn-in is real.)

How many scalars exist in these three categories, and what kind of combinatorial complexity arises from it? Even a basic grasp on linear algebra should have you reeling. So these arguments about DACs and cables that play out, ad nauseum, have little to do with the hardware and everything to do with perception. In my view, the kind of simplistic measurements made by crude electronic equipment on an improvised lab bench we often see on forums is close to meaningless.

At best, we could approach some kind of mean calculation for what is deemed an average pair of ears for an average audiophile's background and sensibilities. We'd still be left with a high number of wild variables. This would be an interesting experiment for machine learning, sans voodoo and absent of commercial pressure and sales promises, but I digress.

so just ... yes - the cables do matter, and those DACs do sound different. Up to a point. We just can't be sure of where that point actually is when talking among ourselves.

edit, after getting carried away with defining the Neutral Zone:



I agree with that assessment, but only you can answer that for yourself. If you want neutral, transparent sound, then sure. But look at this new wave of R2R DACs coming onto the market. Any device that warms up the mids and attenuates high treble is going to be a crowd-pleaser, regardless of the method it uses to achieve that, or what place in the audio chain it actually sits. There's no wrong and no right as the base case. The fun part of this hobby is exploring the combinations.

Excellently written. Agree 100%

 

[bigshot]

All DACs are supposed to sound the same. If they don’t, they’re defective either by manufacture or design.

 

[BobG55]

All DACs are supposed to sound the same. If they don’t, they’re defective either by manufacture or design.

Excellently written. Agree 100%

 

[Dragonmilenario]

I was testing different DAC options in the store for my new Violectric and didn’t find significant differences apart from the volume. I tried, among others, my Fiio K7 via RCA with a much more expensive Questyle series 18 via XLR, and when matching the volume, the sound experience was similar to my ears. It might be more noticeable with ultra-sensitive IEMs. What I did notice easily was the change in amplification, with evident differences in quality, tone, and coloration.

 

[gregorio]

Well that's just not true at all. It might have been true like 10-15 years ago when the "All DACs sound the same" argument was popular (And mostly true) but it certainly doesn't hold up today.

I don’t think one can accurately state that’s “just not true at all”, it may not be entirely true but it was largely true. “All DACs sound the same” is not true today, there are a few, effectively faulty, outlier DACs today that do not sound the same, some Tube and NOS DACs or those DACs with a filter option that emulates a NOS DAC (provided that option is selected of course). However, these DACs represent a minuscule fraction of all DACs in use, so it would be more accurate to state “the vast/overwhelming majority of DACs sound the same”.

An R2R DAC has softer note edges than a delta sigma DAC, for example. Some DACs sound lush, or warm, or bright, or cold, or otherwise "shape" the sound.

If a DAC had “softer note edges” or results in sound that is “lush, warm, bright, cold or otherwise shaped” then it would be quite easy, even with simple/basic tools, to measure the DACs’ output and ascertain if the magnitude of these differences/effects is sufficiently high to be audible or potentially audible. With the exception of the outlier DACs mentioned above, the differences are not of sufficient magnitude to be potentially audible. In fact, in many cases the differences are not of sufficient magnitude to even be resolved into sound, let alone be potentially audible.

Honestly, having been into head-fi for 10 years now the LAST thing I want is a totally flat, zero coloration DAC.

I’m not sure you realise that’s effectively a self contradiction? The “fi” in head-fi stands for “fidelity” and fidelity is defined as the lack of deviation/distortion in the output signal compared to the input signal. So if you are into (head) fidelity then by definition what you want is a totally flat, zero colouration DAC! Maybe you just meant you were into this website but not into (and actually very anti) fidelity itself?

Excellently written. Agree 100%

It was well written and generally quite correct but unfortunately it did contain one or two important inaccuracies/misunderstandings. So, you’d be somewhat wrong to agree 100%.

G

 

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

I don’t think one can accurately state that’s “just not true at all”, it may not be entirely true but it was largely true. “All DACs sound the same” is not true today, there are a few, effectively faulty, outlier DACs today that do not sound the same, some Tube and NOS DACs or those DACs with a filter option that emulates a NOS DAC (provided that option is selected of course). However, these DACs represent a minuscule fraction of all DACs in use, so it would be more accurate to state “the vast/overwhelming majority of DACs sound the same”.

If a DAC had “softer note edges” or results in sound that is “lush, warm, bright, cold or otherwise shaped” then it would be quite easy, even with simple/basic tools, to measure the DACs’ output and ascertain if the magnitude of these differences/effects is sufficiently high to be audible or potentially audible. With the exception of the outlier DACs mentioned above, the differences are not of sufficient magnitude to be potentially audible. In fact, in many cases the differences are not of sufficient magnitude to even be resolved into sound, let alone be potentially audible.

I’m not sure you realise that’s effectively a self contradiction? The “fi” in head-fi stands for “fidelity” and fidelity is defined as the lack of deviation/distortion in the output signal compared to the input signal. So if you are into (head) fidelity then by definition what you want is a totally flat, zero colouration DAC! Maybe you just meant you were into this website but not into (and actually very anti) fidelity itself?

It was well written and generally quite correct but unfortunately it did contain one or two important inaccuracies/misunderstandings. So, you’d be somewhat wrong to agree 100%.

G

So, is your goal to eternally be unhappy or do you also have a secondary goal of ruining the fun of the hobby for other people? Please don't tell me what I can and cannot hear, or what I want to hear. If people didn't have varying preferences there would only be one desktop DAC and one mobile DAC on the entire market and that'd be it. If all DACs sounded the same nobody would spend more than $100 on a DAC. If R2R didn't sound different than Sigma Delta, people wouldn't spend big bucks on R2R. Honestly, and respectfully, I think you're being disrespectful, spiteful, and dismissive towards your fellow audiophiles. Yes, Hi-Fi means high fidelity, and when that term was coined there was no such thing as high fidelity to speak of. People were listening to records that wowed and fluttered and had hideous noise floors, cracks and pops, etc. So that's kind of a non-argument. Also I don't think you understand what NOS mode is on a DAC. There's no such thing as a "NOS DAC" its not a product category that exists. Any decent DAC will have a NOS mode, an OS mode, and possibly several filter options. NOS just means non oversampling. It's playing back the same sample rate it's being fed. In oversampling mode the dac takes several "snapshots" of each sample similar to how old 600Hz plasma TV's worked where it would take ten samples of each frame in a 60Hz signal. Saying that NOS DACs are a product category is like saying that 120Hz TVs are a different product category than 60Hz TVs. They're not. A TV is a TV. And 120Hz TVs have 60Hz and 30Hz (and often 24Hz) modes. Calm down please and stop being so aggressive. This is not conducive to pleasant conversation and this is a silly hobby for arguments. When I was into aquariums, if I was on a forum and saw people harming their fish through ignorance or poor care, sure, I'd argue with them. Dacs and amps have no feelings and there's no harm to be done so aggression is uncalled for.

 

[2leftears]

Also I don't think you understand what NOS mode is on a DAC.

You must be new here.