DAC/streamers do influence sound. Tested in home and in a recording studio. It's not your imagination.

[Wolf11Man]

The differences in DAC's are there, but people don't understand what they are. This is the point that doesn't find much attention.
We live in a world that wants simple, short answers. Populistic answers. Most readers stop after the second sentence.

A DAC has an output. Useless for audio. This output is then processed by analouge circuits that influence what we call "sound".
So you don't listen to a DAC, but to analogue filters, capacitors, transistors, op amps,resistors and wires. All analogue.

If you buy an expensive DAC or CD player, the designer will sure use a more expensive, exclusive DAC-chip.
Now, to produce the output signal, there will be more care used in selecting the components. By the way, the power supply has an influence on the performance of the analouge stages too. There is a lot of analouge parts you can combine in endless variations until the "sound" leaves the machine.

If it was the DAC chip deciding about good or worse "sound", it would be pretty easy. We choose the best chip, maybe an AKM product called ABXY. Now any complete DAC usind this chip will sound identical and better than any device not using the ABXY chip?
Is this right? Certainly not. The answer is in the parts and their combination. So all the "DAC sound" is like a dog chasing its tail.

 

[Purité Audio]

Oh dear!

 

[Coltr@ne]

and after a century we don't know how to make an exit stage?
what cavemen

 

[MAB]

The differences in DAC's are there, but people don't understand what they are. This is the point that doesn't find much attention.
We live in a world that wants simple, short answers. Populistic answers. Most readers stop after the second sentence.

Yeah, your answer is about as simple as simple gets.
To find out the truth, you do have to work much harder.

 

[RandomEar]

The differences in DAC's are there, but people don't understand what they are. This is the point that doesn't find much attention.
We live in a world that wants simple, short answers. Populistic answers. Most readers stop after the second sentence.

A DAC has an output. Useless for audio. This output is then processed by analouge circuits that influence what we call "sound".
So you don't listen to a DAC, but to analogue filters, capacitors, transistors, op amps,resistors and wires. All analogue.

If you buy an expensive DAC or CD player, the designer will sure use a more expensive, exclusive DAC-chip.

While there is some correlation between the device price and the price of the selected chip, there is sadly no correlation to sound quality past a certain (very reasonable) price point. You will get more and more boutique and unusual DAC designs past ~1000 $, but especially those for 10000+ tend to use non-standard designs like custom FPGAs which - ironically - often perform measurably worse than bog-standard ESS or AKM chips. Throwing more money at the DAC non-problem will give you worse results. Don't do it.

Now, to produce the output signal, there will be more care used in selecting the components. By the way, the power supply has an influence on the performance of the analouge stages too. There is a lot of analouge parts you can combine in endless variations until the "sound" leaves the machine.

If it was the DAC chip deciding about good or worse "sound", it would be pretty easy. We choose the best chip, maybe an AKM product called ABXY. Now any complete DAC usind this chip will sound identical and better than any device not using the ABXY chip?
Is this right? Certainly not. The answer is in the parts and their combination. So all the "DAC sound" is like a dog chasing its tail.

It is not one chip which decides about the output, that is correct. However, you don't need custom high-end capacitors harvested during a full moon between 23:55 and 23:57 to build an absolute top end DAC. As shown by dozens (hundreds?) of reviews around ASR, you can go to any DAC chip manufacturer, get a chip from the current line-up with the specs you like and simply implement the reference design on your PCB. Done.

That's the beauty of engineering: Thousands of engineers from different backgrounds have invested hundreds of thousands of man hours into these chips. They came up with well-balanced chip designs and blueprints for the circuits around them. If you simply use that collected knowledge to your advantage, which luckily most DAC manufacturers do, you'll end up with a good device without sacrificing 100 virgins to the golden capacitor gods.

All this talk about "output stages" and "good capacitors" and whatnot is 100% missing the most trivial point: We can and do measure the output of DACs with insane precision. If the output is as transparent as it should be, clearly, the circuits and components inside the device have been chosen correctly. There is zero logic in analyzing them in detail or worrying about EE tech you do not understand. If the output is audibly perfect, it does not matter at all what's inside the little black box (apart from non-audio considerations like longevity or serviceability).

 

[Leporello]

To be truly scientific you need to look for and be willing to accept information that disagrees with your views as well as supports your views and be open to other possibilities outside of what is generally accepted. Not just what you want to believe and hear. That is what the research I refer to finds.

Yes, this is a necessary condition but not sufficient. Surely you understand the difference?

 

[Friedk]

What's an analouge?... honestly I don't want to know.

 

[Chester]

Well, who wouldn't rent a recording studio on the East Coast because someone on a forum told them two DACs sound the same?

We’ve all done it.

 

[danadam]

Sorry I’m obviously not contradicting particle physics

Huh? No one said that you do. Where did this come from?

although they would never claim they have all the definitive answers

Sure, that's the same what Mart68 implied. They would never claim that they have definitive answers, because particle physics is not a done deal, while audio mostly is (at least on the electrical level).

 

[ahofer]

But let’s be honest clearly there is a belief held by some to be unshaken by real world facts that (digital) signal processing is cookie cutter. DACs, streamers, etc sound the same. Or should I say for their world view "must sound the same" if not it's your ears fooling you. Nonsense

You keep pursuing this without providing adequate testing data. To the point where I’m not sure I believe you anymore.

Even if your test is legit, the *facts and evidence* are still overwhelmingly supportive of “all well-measuring DACs sound the same to human ears”. Have a look at the “Catalogue of Blind Tests” thread.

If you had discovered a sound difference that can’t be measured, your “professional” friends would be RACING to publish.

In the meantime, you remain in the subjective zone, which is fine. But you should stop asserting that your anecdote overturns decades of audio and audiology science on measurements and thresholds of audibility. It’s ridiculous.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

The differences in DAC's are there, but people don't understand what they are. This is the point that doesn't find much attention.
We live in a world that wants simple, short answers. Populistic answers. Most readers stop after the second sentence.

A DAC has an output. Useless for audio. This output is then processed by analouge circuits that influence what we call "sound".
So you don't listen to a DAC, but to analogue filters, capacitors, transistors, op amps,resistors and wires. All analogue.

If you buy an expensive DAC or CD player, the designer will sure use a more expensive, exclusive DAC-chip.
Now, to produce the output signal, there will be more care used in selecting the components. By the way, the power supply has an influence on the performance of the analouge stages too. There is a lot of analouge parts you can combine in endless variations until the "sound" leaves the machine.

If it was the DAC chip deciding about good or worse "sound", it would be pretty easy. We choose the best chip, maybe an AKM product called ABXY. Now any complete DAC usind this chip will sound identical and better than any device not using the ABXY chip?
Is this right? Certainly not. The answer is in the parts and their combination. So all the "DAC sound" is like a dog chasing its tail.

lollllllllllllll

 

[kemmler3D]

The differences in DAC's are there, but people don't understand what they are. This is the point that doesn't find much attention.
We live in a world that wants simple, short answers. Populistic answers. Most readers stop after the second sentence.

A DAC has an output. Useless for audio. This output is then processed by analouge circuits that influence what we call "sound".
So you don't listen to a DAC, but to analogue filters, capacitors, transistors, op amps,resistors and wires. All analogue.

If you buy an expensive DAC or CD player, the designer will sure use a more expensive, exclusive DAC-chip.
Now, to produce the output signal, there will be more care used in selecting the components. By the way, the power supply has an influence on the performance of the analouge stages too. There is a lot of analouge parts you can combine in endless variations until the "sound" leaves the machine.

If it was the DAC chip deciding about good or worse "sound", it would be pretty easy. We choose the best chip, maybe an AKM product called ABXY. Now any complete DAC usind this chip will sound identical and better than any device not using the ABXY chip?
Is this right? Certainly not. The answer is in the parts and their combination. So all the "DAC sound" is like a dog chasing its tail.

I used to go around saying stuff very much like this, and believing it, but it turns out that as @RandomEar says, above a pretty low bar, DACs are very performant and even analog-induced distortion is extremely minimal to the point of true irrelevance. Reading a few of Amir's DAC reviews was pretty enlightening.

This is not to say you can't find a pair of DACs with genuine audible differences between them, but the evidence shows that you actually have to look pretty hard for that pair.

 

[ahofer]

lollllllllllllll

The advantage of ignoring science is that one can run around pontificating nonsensically.

In my business the analogy is when people want to talk about predicting interest rates. Deep down they all know nobody can predict market directional turns reliably, but the mystery allows everyone to play. They pull their chin and pull up some data point they’ve read recently and suggest that the market’s direction is beholden primarily to that variable they happen to know about. Like their own little TED Talk.

We call it “the show”.

Audiophilia seems similar. At all costs, keep it shrouded in mystery, otherwise people who listen to lots of equipment can’t be experts without doing the boring controlled science stuff and grappling with the less satisfying and occasionally humiliating results it provides.