• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Benefits of using expensive DACs

Every other intersection around where I am visiting at the moment has people panhandling with signs saying, “Veteran, Homeless, God Bless.”
Are you suggesting I get rid of the RME and Gove them the money for beers or something?
(They don’t need it for a roof.)
No, my post was not related to charity.
 
The original Topping D90 was the only non-true balanced piece in my system. The Topping had a single DAC chip broken out to two channels

The AK4499 chip used in the Topping D90 was a 4-channel DAC chip with current loop outputs. External circuitry on the D90 was used for I-V conversion into both differential (a.k.a. balanced) XLR and single-ended RCA outputs. What Topping got wrong with the D90 was the polarity of the XLR outputs, but that was easy enough to work around, if you knew about it.
 
I've got the RME ADI-2 DAC FS and I'm using it with a Purifi 1ET400A amp. It's one of the only DACs I know of able to output 6.9V and so use the Purifi without buffer gain. Is this an advantage? A lot of people say it is. I bought the RME for two reasons, the other one being the excellent remote control. I compared it to a SOTA Topping at 4V, not a blind test, and I don't know if there was a difference.
1) No need to conduct a blind test between RME and mass-market DAC to find a difference.
2) The topic of this thread is discussion of alleged benefits of "expensive" DACs against budget ones. Topping vs RME is another matter.
 
Benefits of using expensive DACs are mainly:

  • Placebo effect is real and works really well so you might perceive a better SQ where there is none knowing something is recommended in luxury (web)magazines/sites.
  • Looks may be important for the owner to get enjoyment (feelgood effect)
  • Knowing something expensive may be important for the owner to get enjoyment (pride of ownership,feelgood effect).
  • Owning something 'special' may work wonders for someone (pride of ownership, feelgood effect).
  • Most benefits go to the manufacturers, importers and retailers and are financial in nature.
  • Very few manufacturers actually produce something that measures/performs objectively better. That does not mean it will objectively sound better too but maybe a reason to buy a product.
Feeling good about a product (knowing it is among 'the best' according to [insert reviewers/individuals one trusts] is an important part of enjoyment as is pride of ownership to some.
One gets some 'insurance' it does not get 'better' than that (within or even above their budget).
In a similar way as owning 'objectively good' and 'ASR recommended' gear kind of works (people buying on recommendations and SINAD for instance and buying something new the moment a device has a slightly higher SINAD or a good number one aspires but suddenly falls within budget.

In the end it is a 'dream' one buys. A dream our eyes/brains are perfectly willing to believe.
 
Last edited:
  • Placebo effect is real and works really well so you might perceive a better SQ where there is none knowing something is recommended in luxury (web)magazines/sites.
  • Looks may be important for the owner to get enjoyment (feelgood effect)
  • Knowing something expensive may be important for the owner to get enjoyment (feelgood effect).
  • ....
.....

In the end it is a 'dream' one buys. A dream our eyes/brains are perfectly willing to believe.
While that is perfectly true in many cases, the beauty of ASR is that it can take a quite different route.
You might understand that
  • recommendations in luxury (web)magazines/sites do no change the sound
  • looks do not change the sound
  • price does not change the sound
  • being a rare item does not change the sound
  • having SNR 130 dB instead of 110 dB will not change the sound (in any significant way)
So you can have a perfectly good feeling about a cheap, "ugly" mass product well below SOTA SINAD.
And enjoy the music just as much.
 
Last edited:
Considering the habits of many men, it is much better both for themselves and for the society in general, that they use all extra money they receive immediately to expensive electronics, instead of something much more harmful.
 
So you can have a perfectly good feeling about a cheap, ugly mass product well below SOTA SINAD.
And enjoy the music just as much.

While that is true for ASR (afficionado) individuals I am sure the 'placebo' works really well the other way around for others as well.

The 'SINAD' and 'measurements' will 're-assure' some people thinking that is the best and not exceed a low budget. That brings enjoyment because the owner knows it does not get better and sets the mind at ease (resulting in enjoyment).
When something new comes out with better specs or lower price, better connectivity, nicer looks chances are part of the ASR crowd will buy it where others (who know good enough is good enough) won't and just keep using it.

The higher price and 'positive reviews' of expensive gear will do the same for people that 'believe' (and have a larger budget) as it will bring them insurance it will sound 'even better'. That will bring 'more enjoyment' but also insecurities with the owner when something more expensive comes out that it 'sounding even better' according to [fill in person/mag].

So what works for person A may not work for person B.
 
Considering the habits of many men, it is much better both for themselves and for the society in general, that they use all extra money they receive immediately to expensive electronics, instead of something much more harmful.
What will the people who benefit from this spend their revenues on?
 
Considering the habits of many men, it is much better both for themselves and for the society in general, that they use all extra money they receive immediately to expensive electronics, instead of something much more harmful.
Maybe you can spell out what that is that these people are spending their money on?
(I am guessing that you alluding to drugs)

What will the people who benefit from this spend their revenues on?
Good Onya for understanding the repsonse enough to ask a question.


This whole topic seems to have descended into values of people that buy expensive DACS, and how a $100 China-DACS is smarter/enough/etc.
And these dummies that spend more are duped.

However it seems like a free country, so people can spend up on whatever they want.
Or is it some cancel culture against people that can afford an expensive DACs?
(I wish I could afford one too.)
 
I have relatively crappy old man hearing and I can hear the difference between 320 and lower files versus lossless files in multiple blind tests[...]
Firstly, without any intention to insult, the first part might be the very reason you succeed in blind tests, given the premise that the procedure holds up to scientific standards which is rarely the case, as the psychoacoustic models of lossy formats is calibrated on people with normal hearing. With any deviation from that median, their efficiency naturally drops.

Secondly, your report is way too vague as it doesn't specify what format, what encoding parameters, etc. were used or neither whether the same holds true when using VBR at this rate. "Lossy is not lossy", there are tons of different algorithms and parameters and even the decoders can produce different results.
 
I've also got hearing loss [...]
Well, who hasn't if looking closely enough? I find it also very interesting that frequency ranges of electronics and especially DACs in the fraction of a dB are seriously discussed (ESS bump and whatnot), but then, sitting at a doctor's place being handed a diagram, offsets of 10 dB at a certain sine are still considered to be in the normal range.
 
I've also got hearing loss and I can hear the difference between MP3 and lossless. I think that includes 320k vbr but I don't usually keep MP3s long enough to look at them closely.
Well, you're in luck and can do this online:

 
@peaceonearth: Quite the contrary, actually. As with any transmissions: what one receives (or interprets for that matter), isn't necessarily what has been sent.

If you however prefer to flee yourself into pouting instead of showing interest what the other might have actually meant and thought, you should rethink your discussion style (which more and more seems to go to hell these days with a society continuously feeling insulted, sigh).
 
I not looking to prove anything.
Well, don't be surprised if such a suggestion comes up here and there, as after all - this forum is called Audio Science Review.

All I'm saying is that from my experience I've heard the difference.
Which per se is legit to share, however provides hardly any real information without any additional remarks about the used codec, settings, etc. as mentioned before.

And most of my MP3s are 320k.
In the 90s, were were tons of terrible encoders out there, even bad at that bitrate so it is only a nice anecdote so far.
 
I not looking to prove anything
Apparently you are making an unfounded claim. Around here, we prefer to have something to backup claims.

In any case, I fail to see the relevance to the topic at hand. Differences between lossy and lossless files are orders of magnitude larger than the differences between functional DACs, regardless of bitrate. And the differences themselves are of a totally different nature. You cannot extrapolate one to the other.
 
Some DACs are more expensive than others. Some DACs sound better than others. Some DACs are more expensive than others and sound better than others. So it would be possible that a more expensive DACs could bring better sound quality than a less expensive one.
 
@peaceonearth: Well, I am guilty as charged having picked up @fritobugger's (actually already off-topic) comment on his 'lossy experiences' (some pun intended) and drifting even more off-topic, granted.


So @voodooless is right and we should get back on track.

To reply to the original thread question, what I see is:

- haptics (e.g. Benchmark DACs)
- features (e.g. RME DACs and interfaces), especially proper de-emphasis support although that isn't anything expensive to implement
- longevity
- error-tolerance (as in muting quickly on errors and not producing clicks and pops when errors occur)
 
Maybe you can spell out what that is that these people are spending their money on?
(I am guessing that you alluding to drugs)
I guess I should have added a smiley at the end of the sentence. It was just meant to be a light-hearted comment on generally unwise, or even unhealthy, spending habits of many young (and some not so young) males. Drugs are an extreme example.
 
Back
Top Bottom