Monoprice Monolith THX 887 Balance Headphone Amp: New Champ?

[Willhelm_Scream]

"No one here is concerned with "what sounds better" simply because of the endless semantic and philosophical argumentation that can be brought up arguing "better" endlessly"

So no-one is concerned with "what sounds better" yet measurements are discussed because you think good measurements mean the equipment sounds....what? worse? You can't try to separate conversation about sound between sound as it exists in a vacuum and perceived sound, because in order for someone to actually hear the sound they have to perceive it, and sense perceptions are inherently subjective. Now your argument might be that equipment that measures better tends to sound better, but that still is subjective, because some people prefer equipment that measures poorly.
I know that you think that dacs and amps that measure well are simply "preserving the original source", and that the only thing standing in between the original source and your ears is distortion in the equipment. But remember that that source is just a bunch of 0s and 1s and is meaningless until it is translated by a dac, and then amplified into your ears by your amp and headphones, and processed by your brain. An amp can amplify the sound into your headphones in a way that is pleasing to you or not pleasing to you. There are a million different ways the amp or headphones can do it, and there is no way to say that one way is closer to the original digital source or not other than by measuring the distortion, which in the case of the 789 is inaudible or practically inaudible. Personally I'd rather have a system that sounds better to me, than one that measures better, because usually the differences that show up in measurements aren't even audible. But that's just me.
In conclusion this is what I think: There is most likely no objective difference that can be heard and discerned in a double-blind test between good to excellent amplifiers operated below clipping. There is definitely no objective difference that can be heard between well engineered dacs. Therefore there isn't much utility in performing measurements, except to prove there is no point in buying $20K amps and dacs. The greatest cause of actual differences in sound systems is from the headphones themselves. There is no way to objectively measure headphones. Therefore, measurements are of little use to someone looking to maximize utility of their setup, other than to rule out the need to buy astronomically priced gear

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

J


The only deliberation possible here is why a device performs good or bad, what design flaws exist that cause it such, and the economic and psychological factors in how some devices can exist when in any other industry they would be doomed to failure in the market.

There are examples of conspicuous consumption and Veblen goods in many other industries. Nothing new here, although I must admit that some of the examples in this industry like $10,000 headphone cables from Kimber, are especially egregious.

 

[KimbaWLion]

I am aware that there is always something better but I do not play that game as a whole... To me 1 yr vs. 5 yr warranty IS a big deal. My Schiit BiFrost went haywire 4.5 years into its warranty and it was honored. I RARELY buy headphone amps. I have a Cavalli LQ 2 which I posted and TBH It was a LOT more hype that anything else. I want a stronger and in this case better amp. THX 789 vs 887, I will never hear a difference but things DO break down. I DO keep things OVER 5 years. I RARELY get "amp itches" Heck the D1 I bought was my first NEW DAC in 7 years... They are still taking orders for the THX 789 now there is NO reason I've have heard yet why they can not stop the order, Heck its NOT EVEN DUE here for over a month in a half! I HAVE done refunds with MassDrop before. I guess I will find out. As I AM going to try and NOT because the 887 is better or worse, that is just about impossible prove and 99.999% sure I would never hear the difference. 1 year vs. 5 IS a big deal!

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

I am aware that there is always something better but I do not play that game as a whole... To me 1 yr vs. 5 yr warranty IS a big deal. My Schiit BiFrost went haywire 4.5 years into its warranty and it was honored. I RARELY buy headphone amps. I have a Cavalli LQ 2 which I posted and TBH It was a LOT more hype that anything else. I want a stronger and in this case better amp. THX 789 vs 887, I will never hear a difference but things DO break down. I DO keep things OVER 5 years. I RARELY get "amp itches" Heck the D1 I bought was my first NEW DAC in 7 years... They are still taking orders for the THX 789 now there is NO reason I've have heard yet why they can not stop the order, Heck its NOT EVEN DUE hear for over a month in a half! I HAVE done refunds with MassDrop before. I guess I will find out. As I AM going to try and NOT because the 887 better or worse. 1 year vs. 5 IS a big deal!

True. I suppose it is always better to go with the one under warranty even if you aren't going to keep it for all 5 years. There is a pretty good chance that you'll keep it for at least a year or more, and even if you don't keep it for 5, at least you will have the option.

 

[Tks]

So no-one is concerned with "what sounds better" yet measurements are discussed because you think good measurements mean the equipment sounds....what? worse?

No, we simply know that things that measure better, are simply free from "colorations" or the byproducts mentioned prior (jitter, noise, distortion etc..). That's what folks that value things here are looking for - for the most part.

Now your argument might be that equipment that measures better tends to sound better, but that still is subjective, because some people prefer equipment that measures poorly.

That's not my argument, and I told you prior, the word "better" needs to either be dropped, or you need to stop using it nebulously. When you say better, define it. Better in the context here when measurements are concerned, are simply performance metrics with respect to preservation of fidelity. I don't understand where I have created confusion where you're still puzzled as to what "my argument might be". There is no argument, I don't disagree with what you say. All I wanted to draw attention to was not to dig to deep without specifically defining or explaining to others when you say "better" - what that precisely means in the context you use it. Otherwise you have confusion onset as you're seeing now with your reply.

I know that you think that dacs and amps that measure well are simply "preserving the original source", and that the only thing standing in between the original source and your ears is distortion in the equipment. But remember that that source is just a bunch of 0s and 1s and is meaningless until it is translated by a dac, and then amplified into your ears by your amp and headphones, and processed by your brain.

I don't think anything, I am a newcomer to this hobby, I can only rest my understanding upon folks who have defined the terms. There is no need to "think" about what well measuring Amps and Dacs do, the measurements precisely demonstrate what they do by objectively verifying their performance based on metrics like distortion that you mention, any added distortion runs contrarian to what you're implying (you imply that distortion has no bearing on preservation of source material, otherwise you wouldn't have said "i know you think distortion in the equipment has to do with preserving the source").

Now unless of course you mean to rabbit hole the whole conversation with existential poisoning of the well where you say things like you did in the following sentence like: "0's and 1's mean nothing" ... I have nothing to say to you. I'm not going into deliberations on the science because I am not versed with electrical, computational, aucoustic, and physics theories enough to objectively dismantle this sort of handwaving away of the past century of progress in these fields. Please don't misrepresent the topic of contention by mentioning things of this nature. No one is going to disagree simply because what you say isn't untrue - it just misses the point of what I was trying to say about attaching words like "better" while creating equivocation fallacies when folks aren't picking up the grammatical connotations of what you're implying in one sense, and using the conclusions of such in another sense by employing the same word when their meanings are changing in fact.

An amp can amplify the sound into your headphones in a way that is pleasing to you or not pleasing to you. There are a million different ways the amp or headphones can do it, and there is no way to say that one way is closer to the original digital source or not other than by measuring the distortion, which in the case of the 789 is inaudible or practically inaudible.

First part is irrelevant, (the whole what amps can do), the only thing that is of concern is what the purpose of an amp is, and does it satisfy such purpose. And if said purpose is fulfilled, then any secondary or tertiary aspects can be considered but not at the expense of the main purpose of Amps themselves. That being, just amplifying the signal.

"Amplifying the sound in a way that is pleasing to me" is stupidity - flat out. As it runs contrarian to the purpose of the device. In the same way having a two-door convertible car that can serve as a winter home better than it can as a vehicle for transport/speed is a betrayal of terms, and can be disregarded as rational if the main purpose's ability is sacrificed for this secondary purpose appropriated. Now if you like cars that that can be used as winter homes, while still getting all the great benefits of the car's primary function - then you're in the clear. In the same way if you can have an amp that can perform like a THX 789, but also had modes in creating the "color" of "the amplification sort you prefer", then that's fine. But when "the amplification that I prefer" lowers the performance metrics of the amplifier and can't be fixed, then that's not fine, and that was the irrationality I spoke about in my opening of this paragraph (and of the sport car serving as a winter home).

Basically put, if you're willing to take performance metrics being hit in an amplifier, for the sake of "coloration" you're irrational in your expectation for what amplifiers were concived for and their primary purpose from their textbook definition as the sort of devices they are. Especially today with all the DSP and such that can grant you the coloration you speak in software even. Folks ought try that instead of buying devices and seeing if they hit the lotto on something that is "colored to their preference" from a device who's purpose has no basis to fulfill such requests if undertaken with honesty in the engineering and creation stage.

Personally I'd rather have a system that sounds better to me, than one that measures better, because usually the differences that show up in measurements aren't even audible. But that's just me.

This isn't "just you" though. And no one is against such a thing, nor is it wierd, nor is it perplexing. At the end of the day, that's what every consumer wants, only scientists would want something else for the sake of exploration. But for consumers we all want this. You seemed to have miss what my point was and is why I went now at length explaining. There is no problem with wanting "what sounds better to you", but don't use that word "better" in a subjective stance here, but then also in an objective context at the same time with your subjective underpinnings still present contextually. Maybe if I give an example it would make more sense:

You can enjoy a device that looks better than a THX 789, and also performs worse, but has a sonic quality that you find pleasing for whatever reason (placebo or not). And you can deem that to be "better" than the 789 in terms of looks, in terms of sonic quality, etc... for you.

But don't bleed such declaration to also think it means "better" than the 789 also means "better" performance metrics, or "better" preservation of fidelity (unless you're going to reply by resurrecting the potential contradiction you implied by saying distortion doesn't have much influence on preservation of the audio transmission). The potential contradiction I am talking about in case you missed it, is when you said this:

"I know that you think that dacs and amps that measure well are simply "preserving the original source", and that the only thing standing in between the original source and your ears is distortion in the equipment." (I never actually said this "only" part, that is a false attribution)

VS what you said later:

"There are a million different ways the amp or headphones can do it, and there is no way to say that one way is closer to the original digital source or not other than by measuring the distortion, which in the case of the 789 is inaudible or practically inaudible."

EDIT: Typos and some boldening to text.

 

[solderdude]

Well, there are plenty of people who think stuff like this: https://raalrequisite.com/about/ or Stax flagship headphones + one of their electrostatic amps, sound better than say an hd800 + thx 789. Are they wrong?

In this case it's the headphones that provide the different sound (by large) and there can be a subjective preference for any of the mentioned headphones.

 

[Julf]

There is no such thing as a science that says what is better in audio reproduction.

You are clearly not familiar with all the research done at Harman by Sean Olive and others.

there is no way to prove that thd+n score = transparency.

There is. Have you ever heard of double-blind listening tests? Ever heard of ITU BS.1116?

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

You are clearly not familiar with all the research done at Harman by Sean Olive and others.



There is. Have you ever heard of double-blind listening tests? Ever heard of ITU BS.1116?

Like I said before, all the double blind tests I have seen show that people can't even tell the difference between good to excellent amps when operated below clipping, so what is the point in even talking about them anymore? (not that I have much faith in that type of soft-science empiricism anyway, but in a field like "audio science" it's the best you can really do. It seems to me like no link in the chain makes a difference until the sound actually goes through the headphones and into your ears. So why not focus on the stuff that actually makes a difference in what people hear?

 

[Julf]

Like I said before, all the double blind tests I have seen show that people can't even tell the difference between good to excellent amps when operated below clipping, so what is the point in even talking about them anymore?

So what, in your view, is the difference between a "good" and an "excellent" amp?

It seems to me like no link in the chain makes a difference until the sound actually goes through the headphones and into your ears. So why not focus on the stuff that actually makes a difference in what people hear?

What do you think makes a difference?

 

[KimbaWLion]

I am not an expert plain and simple. When I plug in a set of cans into an amp and try switching between them it's almost impossible for me to hear a even a small difference. Some of these changes are so subtle it hard for me to even call it better or worse. So as long as as an Amp is clean and quiet when I turn the POT, makes no sounds that do NOT belong when playing I am pretty much set. This may be a rather simplistic view here but that is my view on things after all the audio amps I have own in 40+ years.

To me, and i STRESS me, speakers and headphones make the biggest difference, and after hearing Senn Orpheus as well as a lot of Stax cans over the years this is how I tend to view things. Quite a few may disagree with this and that's fine. Everybody can view and spend how they see fit. That is what makes this a great hobby! It's ALL about what makes YOU happy, or at least it should be...

 

[attle]

"No one here is concerned with "what sounds better" simply because of the endless semantic and philosophical argumentation that can be brought up arguing "better" endlessly"

So no-one is concerned with "what sounds better" yet measurements are discussed because you think good measurements mean the equipment sounds....what? worse? You can't try to separate conversation about sound between sound as it exists in a vacuum and perceived sound, because in order for someone to actually hear the sound they have to perceive it, and sense perceptions are inherently subjective. Now your argument might be that equipment that measures better tends to sound better, but that still is subjective, because some people prefer equipment that measures poorly.
I know that you think that dacs and amps that measure well are simply "preserving the original source", and that the only thing standing in between the original source and your ears is distortion in the equipment. But remember that that source is just a bunch of 0s and 1s and is meaningless until it is translated by a dac, and then amplified into your ears by your amp and headphones, and processed by your brain. An amp can amplify the sound into your headphones in a way that is pleasing to you or not pleasing to you. There are a million different ways the amp or headphones can do it, and there is no way to say that one way is closer to the original digital source or not other than by measuring the distortion, which in the case of the 789 is inaudible or practically inaudible. Personally I'd rather have a system that sounds better to me, than one that measures better, because usually the differences that show up in measurements aren't even audible. But that's just me.
In conclusion this is what I think: There is most likely no objective difference that can be heard and discerned in a double-blind test between good to excellent amplifiers operated below clipping. There is definitely no objective difference that can be heard between well engineered dacs. Therefore there isn't much utility in performing measurements, except to prove there is no point in buying $20K amps and dacs. The greatest cause of actual differences in sound systems is from the headphones themselves. There is no way to objectively measure headphones. Therefore, measurements are of little use to someone looking to maximize utility of their setup, other than to rule out the need to buy astronomically priced gear

if we forget everything about audio, If we look at the definition of amplifier alone, then amplifier is intended to amplify a certain signal into a larger signal. Usually this is a ratio, everything else that gets added into this mix is not intended. In a perfect world a 1V signal might get amplified into a 2v signal and nothing else. But damn we live in the real world and stuff do get added into the mix (sometimes alot). Now in the sense of defining the amplifier the more random noise or signal you add then the worse performance the amplifier is.

So subjectively we can only get measurement of amplifiers to test if they are good. Ampifiers only care amount how faithful they can amplify the signal, how much unwanted noise they add into the signal. Amps just amplify a signal and nothing else, it doesn't produce music, you can connect a coat hanger with a resistor to the output and loop it to gnd and the amp will happily feed it signal. ofcourse a sane person would connect a headphone to the output and THAT produces the music and then that's a crapshoot from there on out with all the audiophile catch phrases. ofcourse the unwanted signal will some `"color" to your headphone of choice and you might light it and there is nothing wrong with it. But in the sense of defining the Capability of the amplifier alone and only the amplifier then it's not a very good amplifier.

sent from my phone so pls dont be a gramma nazi

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

So what, in your view, is the difference between a "good" and an "excellent" amp?



What do you think makes a difference?

If you have a decently engineered dac, and a decently engineered amp with enough power, it comes down to either the headphones or speakers. That's why I can't understand what the fuss is about measuring equipment, when that won't really tell you if your system is going to sound good enough. Obviously measurements are good to the extent that they keep you from spending 20K on a stupid dac, but beyond that I don't really see the utility. The quality of headphones is always going to be up for debate, because it is subjective. To say it is subjective though doesn't mean it's relative. If someone tries to say they think a $3 shit pair of earphones from china are better than a pair of utopias, obviously they are wrong. But it is subjective in the sense that everything is filtered through your unique ears and sense perceptions, emotions etc. So people are going to always have different opinions comparing between the best equipment, like comparing between empyreans, utopias, abyss or whatever it might be. It's like, say someone is well read enough to acquire taste in literature. You aren't going to think Dan Brown or whoever is better than Shakespeare, but you might think Virgil or Dante is better than Shakespeare. In the same sense, you might need to listen to a good variety of headphones to know what you like, and to understand that empyreans are better than Sundaras or something. Or maybe you'll know right away, but you get my point.

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

if we forget everything about audio, If we look at the definition of amplifier alone, then amplifier is intended to amplify a certain signal into a larger signal. Usually this is a ratio, everything else that gets added into this mix is not intended. In a perfect world a 1V signal might get amplified into a 2v signal and nothing else. But damn we live in the real world and stuff do get added into the mix (sometimes alot). Now in the sense of defining the amplifier the more random noise or signal you add then the worse performance the amplifier is.

So subjectively we can only get measurement of amplifiers to test if they are good. Ampifiers only care amount how faithful they can amplify the signal, how much unwanted noise they add into the signal. Amps just amplify a signal and nothing else, it doesn't produce music, you can connect a coat hanger with a resistor to the output and loop it to gnd and the amp will happily feed it signal. ofcourse a sane person would connect a headphone to the output and THAT produces the music and then that's a crapshoot from there on out with all the audiophile catch phrases. ofcourse the unwanted signal will some `"color" to your headphone of choice and you might light it and there is nothing wrong with it. But in the sense of defining the Capability of the amplifier alone and only the amplifier then it's not a very good amplifier.

sent from my phone so pls dont be a gramma nazi

True. And double-blind tests will even show you that the types of amps people think of as "colored", aren't actually even colored. Like tests have been done where tube amps below clipping were compared with solid state amps below clipping, and people couldn't tell the difference. Thats not to say I necessarily believe in this type of test, but I'll bet you this is true. It certainly wouldn't surprise me. I'd still like to test it myself though, and might buy a tube amp for this reason. I honestly have no idea what different amps sound like, because all I have heard is the 789, but I'm guessing as long as you match the power and volume, and the amp isn't all jacked up, I won't be able to tell the difference. I find this stuff boring though. What I really want to know about is what headphones sound the best, and why some people prefer some headphones over others.

 

[amirm]

Like I said before, all the double blind tests I have seen show that people can't even tell the difference between good to excellent amps when operated below clipping, so what is the point in even talking about them anymore?

Well, there are some exceptions: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

Well, there are some exceptions: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

That's really interesting. I'd really like to hear some more amps myself to try to get some perspective. I know my thx 789 sounds a lot better than my topping nx4 dsd, but I assumed that was because the nx4 doesn't really have enough power. I have to turn the knob all the way up to like 1PM to really hear everything, and by then it's like distorting and very fatiguing. With the thx 789 I put it on 2nd gain mode, and turn it up to maybe 1, but at that point everything is projected very well and it all sounds crystal clear. Once I get a 2nd powerful amp I'll try to do some critical listening to see if I think I might be able to hear a difference between that and the 789. I'm pretty sure I can't hear the difference between dacs, although it is really hard to tell, because w the shittiest dac I own (headphone output on an old 50 dollar phone), I have to put the gain switch on my 789 up to 3 before it even gets loud enough, so it is tough to compare with other dacs at the same volume. I end up having to switch connections and switch the gain switch and turn the knob, and at that point any comparison I try to do kind of falls apart. I was able to do a decent job matching volumes between the dac in my laptop vs the dac in my topping, and I'm 99% sure I can't tell the difference. I think the next thing I'll try is going to be a tube amp. I think it is highly unlikely I'll hear anything special, but my curiosity is just calling me. It's more interesting to me to compare different headphones, because I know for sure they sound different, although I've noticed they surprisingly don't sound as different as people will lead you to believe. I was comparing my Sundara and my Mr Speakers Aeon Flow Open, and I thought they were way way different just going off memory. Then once I listened to them back to back there really wasn't as much of a difference as what my memory was trying to tell me, or what you would expect based on reviews. I kind of have a feeling most of the drivers themselves are very similar in quality, but much of the difference lies in the tuning. I still honest to god believe that all Grado headphones have the same physical driver (either none of them are different or there are only differences between series aka prestige series is all one driver, reference series is all one driver etc.)

 

[amirm]

That's really interesting. I'd really like to hear some more amps myself to try to get some perspective. I know my thx 789 sounds a lot better than my topping nx4 dsd, but I assumed that was because the nx4 doesn't really have enough power. I have to turn the knob all the way up to like 1PM to really hear everything, and by then it's like distorting and very fatiguing.

That is quite real and why I perform listening tests on headphone amps. It is the clipping/max power distortion that sets them apart. It is usually not very subtle.

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

That is quite real and why I perform listening tests on headphone amps. It is the clipping/max power distortion that sets them apart. It is usually not very subtle.

That's probably how people get confused and end up spending 20K on an amp. They buy something like a chord mojo for $600 or whatever it was when it first come out, and it doesn't have enough power, but they assume that's actually some type of subjective sound difference. Then they start scaling up and up and up till they have some ridiculous piece of equipment when all they really need is like an Aune x7s or something. There is also probably a conspicuous consumption aspect to it where they want to show off their wealth and class and style by owning an expensive European amp. It's like $20K Swiss watches.

 

[1984]

I going to buy jds atom then I seen this. I dont plan to use balance so should I wait for THX 887 or just buy atom?

Thank you

 

[Willhelm_Scream]

I going to buy jds atom then I seen this. I dont plan to use balance so should I wait for THX 887 or just buy atom?

Thank you

I've heard that the unbalanced headphone jack of the JDS Atom had more power than the unbalanced jack on the thx 789. Not sure if this applies to the 887 too.

 

[Tks]

If you have a decently engineered dac, and a decently engineered amp with enough power, it comes down to either the headphones or speakers. That's why I can't understand what the fuss is about measuring equipment, when that won't really tell you if your system is going to sound good enough. Obviously measurements are good to the extent that they keep you from spending 20K on a stupid dac, but beyond that I don't really see the utility. The quality of headphones is always going to be up for debate, because it is subjective. To say it is subjective though doesn't mean it's relative. If someone tries to say they think a $3 shit pair of earphones from china are better than a pair of utopias, obviously they are wrong. But it is subjective in the sense that everything is filtered through your unique ears and sense perceptions, emotions etc. So people are going to always have different opinions comparing between the best equipment, like comparing between empyreans, utopias, abyss or whatever it might be. It's like, say someone is well read enough to acquire taste in literature. You aren't going to think Dan Brown or whoever is better than Shakespeare, but you might think Virgil or Dante is better than Shakespeare. In the same sense, you might need to listen to a good variety of headphones to know what you like, and to understand that empyreans are better than Sundaras or something. Or maybe you'll know right away, but you get my point.

I think you missed the question about what the way is you're able determine between good and excellent amps are though? All you said was "if you have a decently engineered amp with enough power, it comes down to the headphones or speakers".

Also, the utility of measurements isn't so that "they keep you from spending 20K on a stupid dac". I haven't seen anyone here buy DACs in that range, so for those that do, I doubt this site is created for them to make use of. People spending 20K on a DAC could spend 40K and still not care - these people aren't the ones this site, conumers, or even the industry at large needs to worry themselves over simply because at those price brackets, even the biggest audiophile myths couldn't be enough to create a problem for the majority of consumers.

Quality of headphones isn't "always up for debate because its subjective", the only subjective parts are sonic character (FR preferences) and things like build quality/ergonomics that have nothing to do with measurements (aside from one measurement that reveals the FR response which is simple). Likewise you also say subjectivity has no baring on things being relative to something. That simply doesn't make sense. Without relativistic comparisons, you could never deduce or formulate a preference.

Again, I have to insist you not terms interchangeably between context. There are people who would hate the Emyereans, and would rather take their iPhone Earbuds simply due to confounding factors having an effect on their enjoyment (ergonomics of having some massive pair of cans on your head vs little buds that make it easy to engage with). But lets say we're talking about pure sonic quality, obviously those people would have their senses questioned if they said iPhone Earbuds sound better than the Meze's.

Oh and headphones are the bottleneck as you state in the start of your post. The only thing is, it's irrelevent because headphones are also at the point where differentiation between one or the other is basically down to FR(and this has nothing to do with quality as FR can eb corrected with EQ, but a bad FR does show lazy development of a headphone if that's something you would count, which I would agree wtih) and not actual other serious sonic qualities we somehow can't measure as some deluded audiophools claim (aside from distortion metrics sometimes due to headphone rig differentiations or headphone geometry construction that lead to undesired effects like resonanaces that may require a tad better gear to measure, or having parts that are created stupidly not taking into account things like contact with the ear and the driver). Barring that, headphones have also reached nearly the same status as DAC's and AMP's, audible transparency essentially. Take a pair of iPhone Earbuds and try to get them sealed off while wearing them, and notice how much better they sound (bass instantly appears and with serious omph), so even a pair of cheap listening devices like them can actually be compared to Meze's in the same way a cheap iPhone doggle can be compared to standalone dacs. That's how good things have become.