• 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!

DAC NOS vs DELTA SIGMA, Who is the real winner...

widemediaphotography

Active Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2023
Messages
173
Likes
42
Hello Everyone,
I've always been a fan of the well measuruments Delta-Sigma DAC and that they sound neutral to my ears. I currently have a DO300 SMS. I also tried some R2R DACs, such as Gustard R26 (NOS and Oversamplig mode) and HIFIMAN EF400. The latter seemed a little "colourful", while the R26 didn't seem very different from my D0300.

Reading the theories you would find that a NOS DAC would be preferable because of many things that in practice are never achieved, unlike the Delta Sigma which require oversampling.

How are things really?
Thank you all.
 
NOS DACs are broken by design. This is all that is needed to know that the real winner based on your title alone is Delta Sigma
 
I'll just repeat one of my earlier posts:

R2R DACs are like mechanical watches.

Cheap ones are garbage, ludicrously expensive ones can be surprisingly accurate, but anyone claiming their Grand Seiko is more accurate than some G-Shock Quartz watch is a clown in my book.

You buy them for their novelty or because you appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into them. Not because they're better at telling the time.

You buy R2R DACs for their novelty or because you appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into them. Not because they're better at turning Digital into Analog.

Anyone who claims they do hasn't done their research.



In other words:
If you want no nonsense, accurate time keeping, you buy a Quartz watch.
If you want no nonsense, accurate D->A conversion, you buy Delta-sigma.
 
Last edited:
Hello Everyone,
I've always been a fan of the well measuruments Delta-Sigma DAC and that they sound neutral to my ears. I currently have a DO300 SMS. I also tried some R2R DACs, such as Gustard R26 (NOS and Oversamplig mode) and HIFIMAN EF400. The latter seemed a little "colourful", while the R26 didn't seem very different from my D0300.

Reading the theories you would find that a NOS DAC would be preferable because of many things that in practice are never achieved, unlike the Delta Sigma which require oversampling.

How are things really?
Thank you all.
I know what you mean by Delta Sigma, but I'm unsure what you mean by NOS. NOS gets caught up with different "interpretations".

If you mean a "ladder DAC" only operating at the incoming clock (i.e. 44k for CD) fitted with a high quality reconstruction filter, then these can work well, but are often expensive to get right.

If you mean a DAC with no reconstruction filter, then these are broken.
 
I know what you mean by Delta Sigma, but I'm unsure what you mean by NOS. NOS gets caught up with different "interpretations".

If you mean a "ladder DAC" only operating at the incoming clock (i.e. 44k for CD) fitted with a high quality reconstruction filter, then these can work well, but are often expensive to get right.

If you mean a DAC with no reconstruction filter, then these are broken.
I understood your point of view. So, you could consider best solution available for both kind of DAC.
 
I understood your point of view. So, you could consider best solution available for both kind of DAC
I don't understand your question.

You can build DACs based on Delta Sigma or based on R2R ladders which measure well as long as they have proper reconstruction filters. Accurate and thermally consistent ladder DACs are much harder to build and so much more expensive than Delta Sigma DACs. Meanwhile any DAC without a strong reconstruction filter is totally flawed.
 
I don't understand your question.

You can build DACs based on Delta Sigma or based on R2R ladders which measure well as long as they have proper reconstruction filters. Accurate and thermally consistent ladder DACs are much harder to build and so much more expensive than Delta Sigma DACs. Meanwhile any DAC without a strong reconstruction filter is totally flawed.
In other words, if you had to choose without budget limits, which of the 2 technologies would you turn to to obtain the best audio performance, in terms of coherence and fidelity? Is there an overall winner?
 
In other words, if you had to choose without budget limits, which of the 2 technologies would you turn to to obtain the best audio performance, in terms of coherence and fidelity? Is there an overall winner?
Already responded several times above : Delta Sigma.

The end. ;)
 
Last edited:
In other words, if you had to choose without budget limits, which of the 2 technologies would you turn to to obtain the best audio performance, in terms of coherence and fidelity? Is there an overall winner?
All my DACs are Delta Sigma. I've never heard any benefit from ladder DACs which would justify the expense. Finally, building high-slope filters in the analogue domain is very difficult without artefacts - filtering in the digital domain is more flexible and less prone to artefacts.
 
Hello Everyone,
I've always been a fan of the well measuruments Delta-Sigma DAC and that they sound neutral to my ears. I currently have a DO300 SMS. I also tried some R2R DACs, such as Gustard R26 (NOS and Oversamplig mode) and HIFIMAN EF400. The latter seemed a little "colourful", while the R26 didn't seem very different from my D0300.

Reading the theories you would find that a NOS DAC would be preferable because of many things that in practice are never achieved, unlike the Delta Sigma which require oversampling.

How are things really?
Thank you all.

The DO300 has everything you need.
It can emulate (the best) R2R DACs
It even has MQA
It also has other filter options even the better ones.

All DACs that sound (and measure) audibly different are just that, an inaccurate version which some might prefer and some even claim 'sounds better'. To them different = better.

As others have explained... the used technology is a selling point, not a quality point even though manufacturers, reviewers and owners are of the opinion it is about quality.

In the end... you should buy what you prefer, regardless of the reasons. It is your DAC, who gives a hoot what other people's opinions are when only you are using it ?
 
Last edited:
I'll just repeat one of my earlier posts:

R2R DACs are like mechanical watches.

Cheap ones are garbage, ludicrously expensive ones can be surprisingly accurate, but anyone claiming their Grand Seiko is more accurate than some G-Shock Quartz watch is a clown in my book.

You buy them for their novelty or because you appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into them. Not because they're better at telling the time.

You buy R2R DACs for their novelty or because you appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into them. Not because they're better at turning Digital into Analog.

Anyone who claims they do hasn't done their research.



In other words:
If you want no nonsense, accurate time keeping, you buy a Quartz watch.
If you want no nonsense, accurate D->A conversion, you buy Delta-sigma.
Reading up on NOS DACs and came across this thread and your watch analogy.

Did you know most Rolex's lose time due to various issues? Long term they aren't very accurate. Friend bought a Rolex several years ago and even today it will lose up to 10 minutes every 3-4 months--even while wearing it daily. Went to authorized dealer to complain. Was told all the issues that can cause it to lose time and basically got a "is what it is" answer. My Blue Angel's Citizen never loses time. HIs cost 20 times more than mine. Guess my Citizen is a NOS DAC?
 
I don't understand your question.

You can build DACs based on Delta Sigma or based on R2R ladders which measure well as long as they have proper reconstruction filters. Accurate and thermally consistent ladder DACs are much harder to build and so much more expensive than Delta Sigma DACs. Meanwhile any DAC without a strong reconstruction filter is totally flawed.

Yup, but the reconstruction filter implies oversampling. Thefore NOS if flawed.
(Unless you mean an output filter, but if the digital input is 44.1Khz, you end up with attenuations in the audio band.)
 
Analogue to digital conversion in modern recording is based on delta-sigma modulation relying on the principle of oversampling. 1-bit recording (DSD) is different, though. When musics are edited, mixed and mastered, majority of processes (close to 100%) are PCM-based. Analogue summing is sometimes used in mastering stage - but then it gets converted to digital domain via delta-sigma modulation. When such digital musics are played back, the most natural way is to reverse the method used for recording and editing.
 

In a practical sense. Most music is at 44.1khz sampling rate.

A low pass filter would therefore have to remove the images at around 22.1khz and the filter would either attenuate frequencies in the audible range or be if such a high order that there would be significant phase rotations — according to some studies the latter could audibly affect transients.

Therefore it is better to push first the spurious images as high as possible with suitable OS. Then the images can be filtered away with an analog output filter without affecting the audible band (for me at least, not for a cat — I am told by the vet that my kitten can hear at least 75Khz – the little bastard!)
 
Analogue to digital conversion in modern recording is based on delta-sigma modulation relying on the principle of oversampling. 1-bit recording (DSD) is different, though. When musics are edited, mixed and mastered, majority of processes (close to 100%) are PCM-based. Analogue summing is sometimes used in mastering stage - but then it gets converted to digital domain via delta-sigma modulation. When such digital musics are played back, the most natural way is to reverse the method used for recording and editing.

Actually, their is no most natural way. There are ways that work well and ways that work less way and this does not depend on “reversing” the recoding process.
 
In a practical sense. Most music is at 44.1khz sampling rate.

A low pass filter would therefore have to remove the images at around 22.1khz and the filter would either attenuate frequencies in the audible range or be if such a high order that there would be significant phase rotations — according to some studies the latter could audibly affect transients.

Therefore it is better to push first the spurious images as high as possible with suitable OS. Then the images can be filtered away with an analog output filter without affecting the audible band (for me at least, not for a cat — I am told by the vet that my kitten can hear at least 75Khz – the little bastard!)
That's not an answer to my question : why "Yup, but the reconstruction filter implies oversampling. Thefore NOS if flawed."
 
Back
Top Bottom