What is the benefit of very expensive DACs?

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
I think we can all agree that DACs don't sound the same be it by 1% or more. My personal belief having had DACs using the same chips is that it is the analog output stages that are the biggest differentiator between DACs. It does get more blurry when different chips or even the rarer discreet D sections are used and if algorithms used are different too. Regardless, I still think the analog output stages are a huge contributor to the differences.

Output voltage varies for one, with some as high as low as 1v and some as high as 6v. WIthin one unit, you can get two different reference voltages between SE and Balanced. These alone will affect the sound when connected to a pre-amp or amp because of gain matching.

More expensive DACs will have more robust analog stages and the attendant power supplies. They SHOULD be using better passive parts given the price they are asking for. As such they SHOULD be more reliable too. Power supplies SHOULD be quieter be they linear or switching supplies. All this costs more money to design, source and build. Might as well throw in some good industrial design in terms of form and function as well.

At the highest levels of execution from what I've heard, differences are down to preference and one's required feature set.

The downside has been mentioned by Micro. Digital is moving fast and obsolescence is a dark shadow that is always looming. It is only a problem however for those that aren't satisfied with the performance of what they have now whatever the DAC's price point.

Just my opinion.
 

Andre Marc

Member Sponsor
Mar 14, 2012
3,970
7
0
San Diego
www.avrev.com
At a certain point the differences between DACs vary only based on system synergy and the type of sound you like. There's alot of variability in price to performance with DACs. The $10k plus DACs are for the experienced DAC buyers that are looking for particular sound. I would never make my first DAC purchase at the uber high price end. I would narrow things down by listening to polar opposites first to see what you prefer.

Agree. But I also feel that like cable makers, DAC designers try to pretend they have some sort of magic potion or fairy dust that they have discovered
and have reinvented the wheel. You cannot change the basics...DAC chips, filers, analog output stages, power supplies..everyone has the same
ingredients, it is how they are assembled.

DACs have no moving parts and it is hard to justify some of the prices we are seeing, except for the fact that these prices create a mystique.
 

Andre Marc

Member Sponsor
Mar 14, 2012
3,970
7
0
San Diego
www.avrev.com
I think we can all agree that DACs don't sound the same be it by 1% or more. My personal belief having had DACs using the same chips is that it is the analog output stages that are the biggest differentiator between DACs. It does get more blurry when different chips or even the rarer discreet D sections are used and if algorithms used are different too. Regardless, I still think the analog output stages are a huge contributor to the differences.

Output voltage varies for one, with some as high as low as 1v and some as high as 6v. WIthin one unit, you can get two different reference voltages between SE and Balanced. These alone will affect the sound when connected to a pre-amp or amp because of gain matching.

More expensive DACs will have more robust analog stages and the attendant power supplies. They SHOULD be using better passive parts given the price they are asking for. As such they SHOULD be more reliable too. Power supplies SHOULD be quieter be they linear or switching supplies. All this costs more money to design, source and build. Might as well throw in some good industrial design in terms of form and function as well.

At the highest levels of execution from what I've heard, differences are down to preference and one's required feature set.

The downside has been mentioned by Micro. Digital is moving fast and obsolescence is a dark shadow that is always looming. It is only a problem however for those that aren't satisfied with the performance of what they have now whatever the DAC's price point.

Just my opinion.

Well said!

Btw, in my conversation with DAC makers that I respect, a common theme was the quality of the clocks.
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
My favorite DACs are discrete resistor DACs. I can't say why I like them better, from a technical standpoint. My experience tells me that the engineers that can design a discrete resistor DAC with proprietary digital filters or properly dithered volume on a powerful FPGA and discrete output sound better to me. I am not saying they are technically superior due to their design. I am saying that the design is an indication that the designer has a good understanding of both the digital and analog sides of the equation.

Andre, I understand what you are saying. There are some engineers that I would say are parts jockeys. They think that folks will buy their gear if they just use all the "right" parts. Parts AND design are equally important for my money.

Agree. But I also feel that like cable makers, DAC designers try to pretend they have some sort of magic potion or fairy dust that they have discovered
and have reinvented the wheel. You cannot change the basics...DAC chips, filers, analog output stages, power supplies..everyone has the same
ingredients, it is how they are assembled.

DACs have no moving parts and it is hard to justify some of the prices we are seeing, except for the fact that these prices create a mystique.
 
Last edited:

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
"I would hope that, in part, your pursuit of audio excellence is an attempt to get closer and closer to the music, not merely accumulate items to impress others. Music should be at least one place where we can suspend our cynicism. " Henry Rollins As We See It Stereophile 10/2013
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I think we can all agree that DACs don't sound the same be it by 1% or more. My personal belief having had DACs using the same chips is that it is the analog output stages that are the biggest differentiator between DACs. It does get more blurry when different chips or even the rarer discreet D sections are used and if algorithms used are different too. Regardless, I still think the analog output stages are a huge contributor to the differences.

Output voltage varies for one, with some as high as low as 1v and some as high as 6v. WIthin one unit, you can get two different reference voltages between SE and Balanced. These alone will affect the sound when connected to a pre-amp or amp because of gain matching.

More expensive DACs will have more robust analog stages and the attendant power supplies. They SHOULD be using better passive parts given the price they are asking for. As such they SHOULD be more reliable too. Power supplies SHOULD be quieter be they linear or switching supplies. All this costs more money to design, source and build. Might as well throw in some good industrial design in terms of form and function as well.

At the highest levels of execution from what I've heard, differences are down to preference and one's required feature set.

The downside has been mentioned by Micro. Digital is moving fast and obsolescence is a dark shadow that is always looming. It is only a problem however for those that aren't satisfied with the performance of what they have now whatever the DAC's price point.

Just my opinion.

Good post, jack. It should come as no surprise that I think that many DACs, most DACs, would sound the same in blind listening tests, and while I whole heartedly agree that the analog stage should be the dominant differentiator, and that better parts, more robust power supplies, etc. should be quieter and more reliable, I wonder if it really makes a difference once you get past a level of quality many thousands of dollars below the high end. The numbers say no. I come back to the Benchmark, for two reasons; 1) it has been very thoroughly measured and the data is on the net for anyone to read. Based on those measurements, it's analog output stage is transparent. 2) I have an interesting listening experience with that particular product. The DAC built into my active speakers uses the same Wolfson chip as the Benchmark, I've A/B'd, blind, to compare them, for myself and a couple of audio enthusiast friends (one in his mid 20s, trained as an audio engineer at Full Sail, GREAT ears), and none of us were able to ID which was which with any reasonable consistency. Scientific? No. But formative in my opinion that when it comes to DACs, the point of returns diminishing below the level of audibility, falls well below the price of a Benchmark, which falls dramatically below the high end.

One man's observations.

Tim
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
A reel to reel tape recorder contains much more complex analogue electronics than a DAC and larger power supplies, plus things that a DAC doesn't need: moving parts (motors, rollers, belts, gears). The tape recorder is huge, containing a lot of hardware in general, needing high precision alignment and calibration, and while much more complex than the DAC, a small subset of its functions is the same. And yet, the audio industry manages to create the demand for a glorified laptop sound card based on a $10 chip with no moving parts which costs the same, and more, than the tape recorder. You've got to hand it to them.
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
Don't remember, I keep my reading on the iPad, and it's not near me right now. My main concern was the interface, not sound quality, since I'd be using my own DAC, and the review had less than flattering words for that aspect.

I've heard the SA-11 (s2 and s3), SA-15 (don't remember the iteration), and the (I believe) top of the line SA-7. They were all very pleasant, but in the end, quite dull.


alexandre
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
Agree. But I also feel that like cable makers, DAC designers try to pretend they have some sort of magic potion or fairy dust that they have discovered
and have reinvented the wheel. You cannot change the basics...DAC chips, filers, analog output stages, power supplies..everyone has the same
ingredients, it is how they are assembled.

While I agree there's no "magic potion", there are different topologies to take into account. Discrete DACs versus chip DACs, for instance. And, same as Dallasjustice here, I found I prefer discrete DACs. Obviously, there's a noticeable difference between them and chip DACs, which accounts for my preference for the first.
 

Andre Marc

Member Sponsor
Mar 14, 2012
3,970
7
0
San Diego
www.avrev.com
My favorite DACs are discrete resistor DACs. I can't say why I like them better, from a technical standpoint. My experience tells me that the engineers that can design a discrete resistor DAC with proprietary digital filters or properly dithered volume on a powerful FPGA and discrete output sound better to me. I am not saying they are technically superior due to their design. I am saying that the design is an indication that the designer has a good understanding of both the digital and analog sides of the equation.

Andre, I understand what you are saying. There are some engineers that I would say are parts jockeys. They think that folks will buy their gear if they just use all the "right" parts. Parts AND design are equally important for my money.

I agree again. Your comment about "parts jockeys" is funny. I also see some DAC makers are trend chasers. They load up their DAC with the "hottest"
features, filters, and parts du jour regardless of if they are the best for the job. Well, I guess that is what you call marketing.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I think we can all agree that DACs don't sound the same be it by 1% or more. My personal belief having had DACs using the same chips is that it is the analog output stages that are the biggest differentiator between DACs. It does get more blurry when different chips or even the rarer discreet D sections are used and if algorithms used are different too. Regardless, I still think the analog output stages are a huge contributor to the differences. (...)

Jack,

In all fairness I can not a agree or disagree with this statement. I have seen cases of both - same analog stages that sound very different just because of a changes in the digital section, and same digital section with different analog stage also sounding very different. Sometimes I find that people try to find systematic that are non existent in high end. In this case we should also consider that what we call as "chips" is a mix of digital and analog, most of the time using a common power supply, that will also strongly influence sound quality.

I also have seen very well engineered DACs changing their type of sound according to the CD transport (supposed to be bit exact) that was connected to them. I think that most of the excellence of a great DAC is due to the tuning of a digital and analog part as an whole, and we can not separate which is doing what so easily. If things were so simple, I would spend the weekend making a few patches and connections to my Korg MR2000s and Audio Research CD8 to have a the versatility of the Korg with the ARC tubed output stage ... All IMHO.
 

Andre Marc

Member Sponsor
Mar 14, 2012
3,970
7
0
San Diego
www.avrev.com
Good post, jack. It should come as no surprise that I think that many DACs, most DACs, would sound the same in blind listening tests, and while I whole heartedly agree that the analog stage should be the dominant differentiator, and that better parts, more robust power supplies, etc. should be quieter and more reliable, I wonder if it really makes a difference once you get past a level of quality many thousands of dollars below the high end. The numbers say no. I come back to the Benchmark, for two reasons; 1) it has been very thoroughly measured and the data is on the net for anyone to read. Based on those measurements, it's analog output stage is transparent. 2) I have an interesting listening experience with that particular product. The DAC built into my active speakers uses the same Wolfson chip as the Benchmark, I've A/B'd, blind, to compare them, for myself and a couple of audio enthusiast friends (one in his mid 20s, trained as an audio engineer at Full Sail, GREAT ears), and none of us were able to ID which was which with any reasonable consistency. Scientific? No. But formative in my opinion that when it comes to DACs, the point of returns diminishing below the level of audibility, falls well below the price of a Benchmark, which falls dramatically below the high end.

One man's observations.

Tim


Hey Tim:

I can't agree here at all. I have had roughly three to four dozen DACs through my system, and virtually NONE of them sounded exactly alike. I current have 4 DACs in the house. My
reference and 3 review samples. Easily distinguishable.

I also had the Benchmark in my system for 3 months 2 years ago. It has its own take on things.

I dare say you may be wishing things to be a certain way.:cool:
 

Andre Marc

Member Sponsor
Mar 14, 2012
3,970
7
0
San Diego
www.avrev.com
Don't remember, I keep my reading on the iPad, and it's not near me right now. My main concern was the interface, not sound quality, since I'd be using my own DAC, and the review had less than flattering words for that aspect.

I've heard the SA-11 (s2 and s3), SA-15 (don't remember the iteration), and the (I believe) top of the line SA-7. They were all very pleasant, but in the end, quite dull.


alexandre

Your response is quite vague and puzzling I can tell you that nobody purchasing the NA-11S1 would use an external DAC. There are dozens of
streamers to choose from that have far less features and less expensive that would be better suited if one was going to use an external DAC.

Secondly, calling the SA-11S3 "dull" is just a head scratcher to me. But certainly you are more than entitled to your opinion.
 

Andre Marc

Member Sponsor
Mar 14, 2012
3,970
7
0
San Diego
www.avrev.com
A reel to reel tape recorder contains much more complex analogue electronics than a DAC and larger power supplies, plus things that a DAC doesn't need: moving parts (motors, rollers, belts, gears). The tape recorder is huge, containing a lot of hardware in general, needing high precision alignment and calibration, and while much more complex than the DAC, a small subset of its functions is the same. And yet, the audio industry manages to create the demand for a glorified laptop sound card based on a $10 chip with no moving parts which costs the same, and more, than the tape recorder. You've got to hand it to them.

Currently DACs are the one area that manufacturers have the ability to gouge, other than cables. Its because they can dazzle with BS and elaborate casework.
And there are more than enough shop by price folks out there.
 

Andre Marc

Member Sponsor
Mar 14, 2012
3,970
7
0
San Diego
www.avrev.com
While I agree there's no "magic potion", there are different topologies to take into account. Discrete DACs versus chip DACs, for instance. And, same as Dallasjustice here, I found I prefer discrete DACs. Obviously, there's a noticeable difference between them and chip DACs, which accounts for my preference for the first.

No argument here. The difference in various topologies does not explain the prices of certain DACS, which seem to be arbitrary.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Good post, jack. It should come as no surprise that I think that many DACs, most DACs, would sound the same in blind listening tests, and while I whole heartedly agree that the analog stage should be the dominant differentiator, and that better parts, more robust power supplies, etc. should be quieter and more reliable, I wonder if it really makes a difference once you get past a level of quality many thousands of dollars below the high end. The numbers say no. I come back to the Benchmark, for two reasons; 1) it has been very thoroughly measured and the data is on the net for anyone to read. Based on those measurements, it's analog output stage is transparent. 2) I have an interesting listening experience with that particular product. The DAC built into my active speakers uses the same Wolfson chip as the Benchmark, I've A/B'd, blind, to compare them, for myself and a couple of audio enthusiast friends (one in his mid 20s, trained as an audio engineer at Full Sail, GREAT ears), and none of us were able to ID which was which with any reasonable consistency. Scientific? No. But formative in my opinion that when it comes to DACs, the point of returns diminishing below the level of audibility, falls well below the price of a Benchmark, which falls dramatically below the high end.

One man's observations.

Tim

You are certainly free to think what you like Tim. The only price that is important to me is the price I'm willing to pay for the performance and after sales service I'm getting.

My philosophy is a bit different from other audio enthusiasts. I have two priorities. The first is to hear the most I can from a recording regardless of medium. The second is that I can do this with the least possible amount of distracting signatures. I downsized my CD playback by half just because I liked the new player better. I would do so again if I could find something better whether it is more expensive but obviously I'd love it if it were cheaper.

The thing is, these small differences, at least in my case, are significant enough to make a session good or great. What I am willing to pay more for is the value of my listening time. I don't have enough as I would like and what I do have, I want to be awesome not passable.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Hey Tim:

I can't agree here at all. I have had roughly three to four dozen DACs through my system, and virtually NONE of them sounded exactly alike. I current have 4 DACs in the house. My
reference and 3 review samples. Easily distinguishable.

I also had the Benchmark in my system for 3 months 2 years ago. It has its own take on things.

I dare say you may be wishing things to be a certain way.:cool:

That's completely possible, Andre, I'm no more immune to expectation bias than the folks who believe everything, even the immesurable, Is audible. There are, of course, a reliable ways to verify audibility, but the audiophile community - users, manufacturers, journalists and all, don't seem to have the will, so we'll probably never know.

Tim
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing