AVS Forum banner

To DAC or not to DAC

11K views 184 replies 30 participants last post by  FMW 
#1 ·
As a relative newbie to this arena, I am interested in learning about whether or not it would make sense for me to purchase a standalone DAC.

First, here is my setup:


Receiver: Denon 2808CI

Speakers: Mains: Tannoy Saturn S8's, Centre: S8C, Surrounds: S8LR's, Sub: REL T1


The majority of my audio listening is via streaming FLAC files (backed up from my CD catalogue) from my DNS-323 NAS unit to a media streamer (either Patriot Box Office or PIVOS AIOS). The signal is sent via HDMI (raw) to an hdmi hub and from there via hdmi to my receiver for decoding and playback.

I have been largely satisfied with my system, however, I do note quite a harshness, for example when listening to Florence and the Machine at mid to higher volumes.

When I was at my local high-end audio shop, it was suggested that using a DAC would help make the "leap" in quality of playback. The DacMagic 100 and DacMagic Plus from Cambridge audio were suggested as entry points. I've also been doing a bit of looking online at units by Schiit and DAC HD from Halide. All this learning about reclocking, jitter, sampling rates is proving to be a little overwhelming.


I'm sure dozens of people have posted queries such as this on this board, but I would appreciate some feedback, even if it is to link me with prior discussions.


My end goal at this point is to find a solution costing less than $500.

Cheers and thanks for your feedback.
 
See less See more
#53 ·
From personal experience, I introduced a DAC between my thinkpad and Rotel 2-channel receiver. The differences in sound were subtle, and likely related to the weak amp stage in the laptop's analog out. In some cases a DAC can be of benefit (either because of the DAC itself, or pre-amp quality), but I can easily impagine cases where there is no noticeable difference.
 
#54 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/30#post_22809968


It would appear that any improved palatability would be completely psychological.
Dude, just because YOU don't hear the difference it doesn't mean that it does not exist. I can tell the differences between my DAC's on certain CD's that have the right amount of high frequency spectrum.

Remember? A $1 DAC chip sounds exactly like that - like a $1 DAC chip.


PS: Luckily here you cannot put your fist in mouth of the ones that disagree with you, like you do on the hydrogenaudio form... where an 'heretic' thread like this is just another an opportunity for warnings.
 
#55 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/30#post_23054950

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/30#post_22809968


It would appear that any improved palatability would be completely psychological.

Dude, just because YOU don't hear the difference it doesn't mean that it does not exist.

That is very true. Please let me clarify. Just because a certain individual cannot hear a difference is not reliable evidence that the difference does not exist.
Quote:
I can tell the differences between my DAC's on certain CD's that have the right amount of high frequency spectrum.

Again depending on the DAC, this can be true. And, there is no doubt that some music makes differences easier to reliably detect than others.
Quote:
Remember? A $1 DAC chip sounds exactly like that - like a $1 DAC chip.

I remember taking apart a very inexpensive (ca. $40) DVD player some years back. The DAC in it was branded by a well-known US source, and its specifications were online. Bench tests showed that within the realm of operation of the DVD player, its DAC was meeting spec and was unhindered by its analog buffers, etc. I did some research as to what production quantities of this DAC cost. As befits a DVD player in this product's price range, the DAC chip cost about $1. The chip was capable of 24/192 sampling and had better than 90 dB dynamic range. In short, it could reasonably be expected to be sonically transparent - that is have no audible degrading effects on the highest quality commercial recordings. In short, it had no sound as such.


So, as far as "A $1 DAC chip sounds exactly like that - like a $1 DAC chip" this is true, and the sound can be excellent.
Quote:
PS: Luckily here you cannot put your fist in mouth of the ones that disagree with you, like you do on the hydrogen audio form... where an 'heretic' thread like this is just another an opportunity for warnings.

If you've got problems with the moderation over on HA, please document your complaint and PM me.
 
#56 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lespurgeon  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/30#post_23035784


From personal experience, I introduced a DAC between my Thinkpad and Rotel 2-channel receiver. The differences in sound were subtle, and likely related to the weak amp stage in the laptop's analog out. In some cases a DAC can be of benefit (either because of the DAC itself, or pre-amp quality), but I can easily imagine cases where there is no noticeable difference.

IME some laptop internal sound facilities seem to have sound quality that lags that of desktops. I've been known to use my USB audio interface with some of my laptops for critical work. I also have an older desktop whose sound facility has obvious audible flaws - the one I'm typing on right now.
 
#57 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/30#post_23055827


If you've got problems with the moderation over on HA, please document your complaint and PM me.
Why, so you can arrange to bump my warn to 100%?


Is hard to explain a blind guy how sweet the sun light is in the morning as compared to the mid-day sun. For him, the measured heat is better in mid day, so it must be better...
 
#58 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/30#post_23058526

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/30#post_23055827


If you've got problems with the moderation over on HA, please document your complaint and PM me.
Why, so you can arrange to bump my warn to 100%?

?????????????????
Quote:
Is hard to explain a blind guy how sweet the sun light is in the morning as compared to the mid-day sun. For him, the measured heat is better in mid day, so it must be better...

?????????????????
 
#59 ·
on a totally different note, in my experience if u wanna take the harshness out of your tannoy's some good tube amplification might be for u.


a dac is not going to make or break your system, the only 'obvious' differences are that some dac either excel in detail (read : analytical sound, studio like) and other dac sound more musical (wich in essence means there is actually less detail).


it is actually possible that a dac can give u a different perception of the image, but this is mostly due to a not so compatible output level of the dac, ie the strength of the signal expressed in volt, wich it then sends to your preamp or in some cases directly to your amp.


99 percent of your image is created by good speakerplacement in our room and the correct amps for those speakers, the other 1 percent is the correct input levels between your separates, and the correct resistance in ohm of your cables connecting those separates. If u are not happy with it now, it's probably not a dac or cables that gonna help u out, u need to look at speakersplacements and amps.
 
#60 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvppsu  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac#post_22803074

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthazar2k4  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac#post_22795879


I didn't. The simple fact of the matter is that the differences heard were not attributable to volume. The fact that vocals went from sounding as if they were coming from a left and right speaker to sounding like a focused singer in between them is all I need. The difference was far from subtle.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want and naysayers who spend their time finding reasons to fault others about their hobby should consider a different hobby themselves. If you aren't enjoying it, then don't do it.

I agree, the difference between many DACs goes far beyond what can be attributed to volume.

Most audiophiles compare DACs without matching levels and via plugging and unplugging equipment. That's guaranteed to create a strong impression that everything sounds different, even 2 samples of the same product.


Ever do a time-synched, quick-switched, level-matched, double blind listening test of anything audio? Few audiophiles actually have.
Quote:
As Balthazar2k4 observed, the biggest differences can usually be heard in the quality of the stereo imaging.

That reaction is typical of the kinds of impressions people get when they do casual listening tests. It goes away when the test is done carefully.
Quote:
Beyond that there are differences in tonality and resolution.

Again that reaction is typical of the kinds of impressions people get when they do casual listening tests. It goes away when the test is done carefully.


Everybody I know of who has actually participated in good listening tests involving DACs has had years of experience which they can revisit easily enough, doing casual listening tests. We all know the primrose paths and golden meadows that casual listening tests take you down.
Quote:
My system using the PS Audio Perfectwave DAC has a rock solid stereo image no matter what volume I play at. The same cannot be said when I switch to the other DACs in the system. Anyone sitting in the room would hear the difference regardless of volume. It is very obvious.

Either your room is full of junk or you are skipping down the usual primrose path and into the usual golden meadow. The only thing that is missing is the wife in the kitchen who likes the new magic DAC. ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinkeldink 


on a totally different note, in my experience if u wanna take the harshness out of your tannoy's some good tube amplification might be for u.

More to the point would be a good equalizer or appropriate room acoustic treatments or even just repositioning your speakers so you aren't looking down their throats.
 
#61 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by dinkeldink


on a totally different note, in my experience if u wanna take the harshness out of your tannoy's some good tube amplification might be for u.



More to the point would be a good equalizer or appropriate room acoustic treatments or even just repositioning your speakers so you aren't looking down their throats.





That too dinkeldink, although i do prefer to have my system sound the way i sound it without an equalizer, but again, i guess one needs a lot of resources ( read people who wanna let u borrow their equipmen in your room for as long as u need it ) but a good equalizer would definitely be a valid option too imho and ofcourse like i stated earlier, placement of speakers in your room. (again i value good placement in a good room so that equalizing and roomcorrection becomes irrelevent, even degrading).
 
#62 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvppsu  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac#post_22803074


Anyone sitting in the room would hear the difference regardless of volume. It is very obvious.
Unless that 'anyone' has marginal/poor hearing (age will do that) and is embarked on a crusade of convincing the rest of the world that they cannot have a better hearing.


Now, I cannot do a serious comparative listening with speakers. Only (some) headphones can reveal the differences properly to me. Grado is one of the brands of headphones that helps with this.
 
#63 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23548986

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvppsu  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac#post_22803074


Anyone sitting in the room would hear the difference regardless of volume. It is very obvious.
Unless that 'anyone' has marginal/poor hearing (age will do that) and is embarked on a crusade of convincing the rest of the world that they cannot have a better hearing.


Now, I cannot do a serious comparative listening with speakers. Only (some) headphones can reveal the differences properly to me. Grado is one of the brands of headphones that helps with this.
 
#64 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23548986

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvppsu  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac#post_22803074


Anyone sitting in the room would hear the difference regardless of volume. It is very obvious.
Unless that 'anyone' has marginal/poor hearing (age will do that) and is embarked on a crusade of convincing the rest of the world that they cannot have a better hearing.


Now, I cannot do a serious comparative listening with speakers. Only (some) headphones can reveal the differences properly to me. Grado is one of the brands of headphones that helps with this.

Sighted evaluations, right?


You might be hearing a real difference or your perceptions might be strongly affected by what you what marketing you have received including most listening tests.
 
#65 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face2  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac#post_22713098



Have you performed any testing yourself? If so, which models, etc...?

I have, although it was about a dozen years ago. We tested cheap and expensive CD players as well as separate DAC's in bias controlled tests. We weren't able to get any consistent read on differences in audibility. Our conclusion was that DAC's were right behind cables as audiophile fantasies. My adivce is always to look to speakers and room acoustics for sound improvements. The digital input devices are pretty well perfected.
 
#66 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac#post_22796020


The volume difference you describe has repeatedly been proven to influence perception of SQ. Unless you aren't human, you're as susceptible to that as the rest of us - that's why the focus on level matching.
So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".

This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23565758


Sighted evaluations, right?


You might be hearing a real difference or your perceptions might be strongly affected by what you what marketing you have received including most listening tests.
Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.
 
#67 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23591990


Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.

You forgot to add that some may know a lot more about this subject than you do.
 
#68 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23591990

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac#post_22796020


The volume difference you describe has repeatedly been proven to influence perception of SQ. Unless you aren't human, you're as susceptible to that as the rest of us - that's why the focus on level matching.
So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".

This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23565758


Sighted evaluations, right?


You might be hearing a real difference or your perceptions might be strongly affected by what you what marketing you have received including most listening tests.
Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it.

I'm sure that some people can hear better than I, which is I many of the DBTs I've been involved with used a listening panel composed of many experienced audiophiles. We looked at their individual scores to see if there were any golden ears, and we summed them together to get a more sensitive test with more trials. No joy!


We've found is that many true believers who thought there were mind-blowing differences between DACs and CD players were reduced to random guessing when they couldn't use their eyes to "hear" what item was playing.


Based on your comments, you've never had the pleasure of listening tests where your biases and best wishes meant nothing, and it was all up to just your ears.
 
#69 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23591990

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac#post_22796020


The volume difference you describe has repeatedly been proven to influence perception of SQ. Unless you aren't human, you're as susceptible to that as the rest of us - that's why the focus on level matching.
So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".

This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23565758


Sighted evaluations, right?


You might be hearing a real difference or your perceptions might be strongly affected by what you what marketing you have received including most listening tests.
Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.

Just because person A has a better measurable range of hearing then person B does not mean there are audible differences amongst modern competently designed dacs. All it proves is that one person has a greater range of frequencies that he can hear over another person. Even at that there are limitations to human hearing that all humans are forced to abide by.


So far the best way to achieve provable audible differences between dacs and other audio components is utilizing DBT methods. Anectodal experiences are not evidence. If one truely thinks the can prove a difference then why the resistance to the DBT tests? The difference are obvious and easily heard right?.....right?
 
#70 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23591990


So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".

This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.

How does one go about "educating" their ears? Don't you mean educating your brain? Because that's where the processing is happening. The ears are just a transducer. And yeah, some people's transducers are better than others, but all are limited. And all brains are subject to lots of preconceived notions, biases, subconscious thoughts, etc, that affect what we hear, or rather, how we process what we hear.
 
#71 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23591990

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. 
 

How do you know he can't hear better than you? Not that it makes any difference, as Arny's 'golden ears' blind test results demonstrate. 
 
#72 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23592745

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23591990


So when you turn the volume up with 3dB you think the music sounds BETTER? Then you have to educate your ears more. Only somebody that has his brain washed by years of compressed mp3's blasting from in-ear buds can say that "louder is better".

This is one of the worst legends that I keep seeing circulated on the net.

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. Some people can run faster than me, some can play better golf than me, some can do better math... that's life. I don't try to convince them that they have hallucinations.

How does one go about "educating" their ears? Don't you mean educating your brain? Because that's where the processing is happening. The ears are just a transducer. And yeah, some people's transducers are better than others, but all are limited. And all brains are subject to lots of preconceived notions, biases, subconscious thoughts, etc, that affect what we hear, or rather, how we process what we hear.

Good point about the fact that hearing is very much a brain thing. The ears are just relatively simple mechanical-chemical interfaces to the brain.


But to answer the question, so called ear training is much like athletic training, and I think there is a lot of similarity between the two.


Basically, you set up a series of challenges ranging from easy to hard, and you repeat your attempts at accomplishing them until you have a high level of proficiency at doing them. Then you go on to a more difficult task.


Just like any other training, one key is having an reliable, objective test to determine proficiency. It turns out that ABX is a good example of such a thing.


One common form of ear training is teaching people how to use an equalizer. Probably one of the most obvious uses of an equalizer is to have people use an equalizer to stop acoustic feedback in a sound system. There are downloadable programs that train people this way.

http://sft.sourceforge.net/


In this case the effect of a correct adjustment is so obvious that no ABX is needed.


When you are good at running this program you will probably enhance your ability to listen to a piece of music and know a priori which equalizer knob or slider to adjust to obtain the desired change.


For other kinds of audible changes, it is usually easy to simulate them or capture them, and then use an audio editor to create audio files that contain the change(s) in various degrees. You start people out comparing unprocessed files to processed files with large changes, and have them ABX them using one of the many software ABX comparators that you can download on the web. When they easily obtain accurate results comparing files with gross differences, you move on to files with more subtle differences. You can take people right down to the threshold of hearing by this means.


Another approach that can be used with lossy audio file compression programs is to start out with low bitrate compression and work up in steps to high bitrate compression.
 
#73 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23593619

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23591990

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. 

How do you know he can't hear better than you? Not that it makes any difference, as Arny's 'golden ears' blind test results demonstrate. 

Sighted evaluations are very susceptible to end up crowning the biggest optimist (or liar) as the chief golden ear.


Think of a race where we don't time the participants or look at some other boring simplistic objective measure such as who crosses the finish line first.


Instead we interview the runners and ask them who they think ran the fastest. To simulate how audiophiles do it, we would have all of the runners run the course separately, maybe 5 minutes apart.


This is obviously balderdash, but it is a good representation of how most audiopiles and subjective reviewers work their magic. ;-)
 
#74 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23593752

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23593619

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23591990

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. 

How do you know he can't hear better than you? Not that it makes any difference, as Arny's 'golden ears' blind test results demonstrate. 

Sighted evaluations are very susceptible to end up crowning the biggest optimist (or liar) as the chief golden ear.


Think of a race where we don't time the participants or look at some other boring simplistic objective measure such as who crosses the finish line first.


Instead we interview the runners and ask them who they think ran the fastest. To simulate how audiophiles do it, we would have all of the runners run the course separately, maybe 5 minutes apart.


This is obviously balderdash, but it is a good representation of how most audiopiles and subjective reviewers work their magic. ;-)
 

In fact, I think that is a terrific analogy. Very apt.
 
#75 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23594710


In fact, I think that is a terrific analogy. Very apt.
+1
 
#76 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23592745


How does one go about "educating" their ears? Don't you mean educating your brain? Because that's where the processing is happening.
If you would read my next sentence after word "ear" you will find the reference to brain that you missed...

I absolutely think that one need to train his brain to be able to "hear" what ears are providing.

And no, I don't think now I hear better now than anybody, just I can filter with my brain, better that average Joe, what I need to concentrate on. Now I know I used to hear much more when I was 18 year old (I was doing hearing tests on me and friends at that age). So all that mombo-jumbo about "panels of audiophiles" means nothing to me without qualifications.

If they are my age, their ears are probably "done" too. Especially if they don't remove the ear wax at least once a year. If they are young, but with brains used to lossy music coming from ear-buds, their input means jack too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1445724/to-dac-or-not-to-dac/60#post_23593752


Sighted evaluations are very susceptible to end up crowning the biggest optimist (or liar) as the chief golden ear.
My tests are done just to evaluate my own equipment. I am in no competition, I have no interest in favoring one over another since I paid for all of them and I have no intent of selling them. I buy different DAC's just for my pleasure of hearing the differences. I agree that many sound similar at first, but using my favorite songs selection and concentrating only on some instruments, I can hear differences. And the players/DAC's that "loose", end up in my garage. That's all.


Not capable of any tests as I am now, my right ear got in trouble last week when I flew back from Europe (at landing, coming down from 40000ft with a running nose from allergy). ENT visit scheduled...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top