I sense a hint of truth and a touch of irony in Extreme_Boky's comment, but I could be wrong.
Outstanding dacs have been produced, no question. The only problem is best ones cost over $10,000 for only two channels. The remaining problem is to get the cost down for an outstanding dac.
In my opinion, speakers and their interaction with the room are, by some margin, the game changers in sonic quality.
A DAC is not in that league when it comes to making a difference, and I have heard many.
There are many excellent products out there, and I have not met many audiophiles willing to blind test 10k DACs against budget, mid-range, and expensive ones, for fear of 'consequences'! I also doubt there are many here who have tried the sheer range and depth of DACs on the market.
A DAC is not in that league when it comes to making a difference, and I have heard many.
There are many excellent products out there, and I have not met many audiophiles willing to blind test 10k DACs against budget, mid-range, and expensive ones, for fear of 'consequences'! I also doubt there are many here who have tried the sheer range and depth of DACs on the market.
I will agree with that. But a good dac can unambiguously kick it up to the next level. Also problems with electronics can have adverse effects. For one example, layout problems in electronics can produce asymmetrical crosstalk. In fact, I have a superbly measuring amplifier with that exact problem. Checking for crosstalk symmetry was apparently not done by the manufacturer. Ruins the soundstage despite speakers and room.
About room and setup true, but also one and the same DAC will have another imaging and sound stage with different clocks, especially when we speak about inexpencive devices in which we won't even get quality NDK 2520 (only 3USD/pcs)
I said something on this earlier in the thread: "I bought a Topping D50S DAC for my desktop system, based on its pristine measurements. Compared to my other budget DACs (Schiit Modi 3 & Modius, iFi nano iOne), the sound was boring and music was uninvolving (poor PRaT). I returned it for a refund."
If it measures impeccably and sucks the life out of music, what good is it? Lab instrument maybe?
Best one cost max $2.000. Anything more for two channel is scam or fancy cabinet etc. Take a Benchmark DAC3 as the ultimate reference, and some cheap chinese like SMSL SU10 or Topping DX7 for price/performance DAC's
That's exactly what I did. I then compared the DAC-3 to an original Topping D90 (with AK4499 chip). Neither one sounded right, but the Topping sounded better. I gave the DAC-3 to my daughter.
Main problem with DAC-3 is that the soundstage was narrow and forward. That is, narrow between the speakers and out in front of them. IME that soundstage effect indicates a jitter problem, likely random-noise jitter which does not show up well in J-Test. The other problem with DAC-3 was that it only supported up to DSD64, which sounded especially bad.
The D90 is now out on long term loan to a friend. I don't have any use for it, given the flawed sound from it.
Now I have a diy dac for which the true SOA clocks alone cost me $1,400. It easily sounds in another league above D90 and DAC-3. This is with Sound Lab large panel electrostatic speakers in a treated room.
Its not blind tests themselves that are the problem so much as how they are conducted by amateurs. ITU has a good standard which is pretty demanding on the experimenter to do it well, but that's what is required for scientifically plausible results.
As for me, I have compared different DACs and I did not hear a difference. I would rather save the money and put it toward better speakers - that is where you will get more bang for your buck.
Nonethless, DACs are like watches. You can spend a lot of money on a watch that doesn't keep better time than a quartz watch, but people still buy expensive watches - it makes them happy. A $10k DAC may not sound any better than a $300 DAC, objectively speaking, but the person who bought the $10k DAC will hear a difference - it is the placebo effect, which too often is underestimated. If spending thousands of dollars on a DAC makes you happy, then go for it. Use the placebo effect to your advantage.
Nonethless, DACs are like watches. You can spend a lot of money on a watch that doesn't keep better time than a quartz watch, but people still buy expensive watches - it makes them happy. A $10k DAC may not sound any better than a $300 DAC, objectively speaking, but the person who bought the $10k DAC will hear a difference - it is the placebo effect, which too often is underestimated. If spending thousands of dollars on a DAC makes you happy, then go for it. Use the placebo effect to your advantage.
Seems to me the above reads like it was copied directly from ASR. Wherever it came from, its incorrect on multiple counts. For one thing, what is described would not placebo effect. Maybe someone is thinking of "expectation bias?"
Also, to compare all expensive dacs to jewelry is a scientifically unsupported claim.