Denafrips ARES II USB R2R DAC Review

[snaimpally]

There *should* be no *audible* difference in those two DACs . Can I go on your ignore list?

Yes of course - the 2 DACs measure the same so how can there possibly be audible differences? Why do the reviews on this forum even bother including a listening test? The reviews should just publish the measurements, because that is all that counts.

 

[Jimbob54]

Yes of course - the 2 DACs measure the same so how can there possibly be audible differences? Why do the reviews on this forum even bother including a listening test? The reviews should just publish the measurements, because that is all that counts.

The reviews of dacs don't include a listening test.......

 

[Jimbob54]

Still funny how we got no answer how you can measure soundstage, imaging and instrument separation. Yeah some say they can but no actual measurement is shown..

Start by doing controlled tests identifying 2 different electrical components that produce differences in those attributes blind and level matched. Then measure the shit out of them

 

[18inch]

i dont think every single aspect of a dac can be measured.. hence why some dac measuring very similarly can sound different.. there are so many variables involved. ive had a matrix x-sabre (the first), matrix mini-i pro 2 and burson virtuoso v2+. they all sounded differently, to me the burson's soundstage and frequency range always sounded much much larger, deeper and open, airy, whereas both matrix sounded very clinical and boring, boxed, granted the x-sabre was extremely detailed. And i did go back and forth between these 3 dacs in course of years and i always end up with same conclusion
Havent found a Burson measurement here sadly, they are discontinued anyways so there is no point in that regardless. but even the new Burson stuff i cannot find any
Been looking for something new to change from the burson recently and im amazed how many new dacs are out, it is so hard to decide, was interested in this Denafrips but took the plunge on a nuprime dac9 on sale and will compare that first

 

[Xulonn]

i dont think every single aspect of a dac can be measured.. hence why some dac measuring very similarly can sound different.. there are so many variables involved. ive had a matrix x-sabre (the first), matrix mini-i pro 2 and burson virtuoso v2+. they all sounded differently, to me the burson's soundstage and frequency range always sounded much much larger, deeper and open, airy, whereas both matrix sounded very clinical and boring, boxed, granted the x-sabre was extremely detailed. And i did go back and forth between these 3 dacs in course of years and i always end up with same conclusion
Havent found a Burson measurement here sadly, they are discontinued anyways so there is no point in that regardless. but even the new Burson stuff i cannot find any
Been looking for something new to change from the burson recently and im amazed how many new dacs are out, it is so hard to decide, was interested in this Denafrips but took the plunge on a nuprime dac9 on sale and will compare that first

Really?? Please describe the double blind testing methods that you use to avoid the influences of the ear/brain/emotion matrix of interactions. I have seen no evidence that claims like yours have any validity when subjected to objective blind testing.

Then again, perhaps you don't understand that audio-related science and psychoacoustics utterly demolishes claims like yours, and stumbled into the wrong audio forum site.

 

[18inch]

Really?? Please describe the double blind testing methods that you use to avoid the influences of the ear/brain/emotion matrix of interactions. I have seen no evidence that claims like yours have any validity when subjected to objective blind testing.

Then again, perhaps you don't understand that audio-related science and psychoacoustics utterly demolishes claims like yours, and stumbled into the wrong audio forum site.
View attachment 158365

i understand that there is lot of psychology is involved in audio and would agree that there is lot of bs bias out there especially outrageously priced cables lol but there are limits to this thinking. To say dacs, amplifiers, preamp etc all sound the same as long as measurement are good, its like saying all speakers sound the same as long as measurement are good and flat and their purpose is to move air and thats it... which is very shortsighted. not every single aspect can be measured... if that was the case though, there wouldnt be endless designs in the audio world, be it electronic device or speakers or headphones... you really dont believe that components, materials used, dac, preamp, amp designs and class, etc can affect sonic signature that cannot be fully measured ? im not trying to start a war here, just trying to understand different point of view

 

[voodooless]

To say dacs, amplifiers, preamp etc all sound the same as long as measurement are good, its like saying all speakers sound the same as long as measurement are good and flat and their purpose is to move air and thats it...

What’s wrong with that? There has never been a speaker that measure the same (within the boundaries that any difference would be inaudible) as another, so I’m not sure what your argument is? I’ve even seen some blind test with midrange units that were perfectly EQ’es to sound the same: guess what: nobody could keep them apart. Multi-way is much more complex though.

not every single aspect can be measured...

Audiophile of the gaps argument…

if that was the case though, there wouldnt be endless designs in the audio world, be it electronic device or speakers or headphones...

Ever heard of marketing and the ever present need of companies to distinguish themselves from others?

you really dont believe that components, materials used, dac, preamp, amp designs and class, etc can affect sonic signature that cannot be fully measured ?

There Is no reason to think otherwise. I think you can win quite some prize money with various blind tests if you can proof otherwise.

 

[BDWoody]

i dont think every single aspect of a dac can be measured.. hence why some dac measuring very similarly can sound different.. there are so many variables involved.

It produces an electrical signal that has phase, amplitude and frequency. Those signals can be measured and compared. There isn't more hiding. Once you get to speakers (or any transducer) in a room, that's different.

And i did go back and forth between these 3 dacs in course of years and i always end up with same conclusion

Did you always know what was playing?

To say dacs, amplifiers, preamp etc all sound the same as long as measurement are good, its like saying all speakers sound the same as long as measurement are good and flat and their purpose is to move air and thats it... which is very shortsighted.

It's really not like that at all.

 

[MaxBuck]

Really?? Please describe the double blind testing methods that you use to avoid the influences of the ear/brain/emotion matrix of interactions. I have seen no evidence that claims like yours have any validity when subjected to objective blind testing.

Then again, perhaps you don't understand that audio-related science and psychoacoustics utterly demolishes claims like yours, and stumbled into the wrong audio forum site.
View attachment 158365

The fact that confirmation bias exists is not proof that all perceived differences are attributable only to confirmation bias. And the assumption that the measurements performed here are both necessary and sufficient to entirely characterize audio performance isn't a proved thing. (And before anyone jumps down my throat, no one has proved that they're not sufficient, either.)

 

[Xulonn]

The fact that confirmation bias exists is not proof that all perceived differences are attributable only to confirmation bias.

Nice strawman - I never made that claim. However, confirmation bias is one of the primary causes of false conclusions in audio and other subjective evaluations of sensory perception. And those "perceived" "unmeasureable" differences of which you speak are actually people's brains playing tricks on them.

"Unmeasureable" perceived differences that are claimed to be audible when listeners know in advance what components are being listened to - but cannot be identified in rigorous blind testing - suggests that something other than physical differences in sonic phenomena is causing the false conclusions of many audio "subjectivists". (The previously mentioned tricks of the human brain.)

If you are infatuated with R2R DACs for whatever reason and attracted to this Denafrips unit, buy one and enjoy it. It is a bit expensive for what it offers, but not grossly so compared to many outrageously-priced boutique DACs.

However , it is almost guaranteed that you would not be able to identify it in a double-blind, level-matched comparison with any other competently-designed DAC of whatever architecture.

 

[MaxBuck]

Nice strawman - I never made that claim. However, confirmation bias is one of the primary causes of false conclusions in audio and other subjective evaluations of sensory perception. And those "perceived" "unmeasureable" differences of which you speak are actually people's brains playing tricks on them.

"Nice strawman" back atcha. And BTW, I have no interest in this DAC, nor especially with R2R DACs more generally. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to distinguish it from any other competent DAC, though I haven't tried any blind AB tests (and nor do I intend to).

 

[18inch]

has there been that many blind test done? it definitly requires more time and proper setup, organizing. measurement are important and love them as a reference as to what to expect for sure, but dont believe they are be all end all, i wish anyone of you lived nearby here and we could do real blind test (in quebec, canada). i understand the psychological involvement, even when your tipsy, high, sober, relaxed, depressed, happy, anxious, tired, etc.. you will perceive sound differently. which is why measurement are an excellent common ground and reference for said component.

having said that, i mean there cant be that many crazy people comparing dacs and different sound, espiecially when there is a lot of common ground between different people and audio equipment(referring to real people, not paid reviews etc).

also, going with your argument that of "confirmation bias", whos to say that your way of thinkin and confidence of that thinkin indirectly forces your brain to not hear a difference between components, even though there is?

 

[BDWoody]

having said that, i mean there cant be that many crazy people comparing dacs and different sound

They aren't crazy, any more than the medical patient who feels better from the placebo he was given is crazy.

The brain is incredible in what it does, and fills in lots of blanks we are never aware of. To compare two similarly capable/competent pieces of solid state gear, assuming both are functioning properly isn't trivial, as you say.

That said, with what is to be gained from a self-described golden ear to do more than provide anecdotal 'evidence' of hearing what can't be measured, one would think someone would have stepped up to the plate and actually DONE it. Anecdote isn't evidence.

Until someone shows with real evidence we are missing something audibly meaningful, I will happily continue buying based on more than the sales propaganda that passes for reviews in most of the audio world.

 

[Killingbeans]

Havent found a Burson measurement here sadly, they are discontinued anyways so there is no point in that regardless.

Amir did one of the Play models: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-burson-play-dac-headphone-amplifier.2399/

 

[Xulonn]

also, going with your argument that of "confirmation bias", whos to say that your way of thinkin and confidence of that thinkin indirectly forces your brain to not hear a difference between components, even though there is?

I've learned to not argue with those who deny - or are ignorant of - the repeated, confirmed, and accepted findings of science. In this case, audio science.

Bye...

 

[Lambda]

This is actually unbelievable good performance for a r2r DAC!
I wonder what kind of resistor network they are using.

 

[Killingbeans]

having said that, i mean there cant be that many crazy people comparing dacs and different sound, espiecially when there is a lot of common ground between different people and audio equipment(referring to real people, not paid reviews etc).

Like BDWoody says, they aren't crazy. They are just completely ignoring the biggest source of error in human perception. It's the natural thing to do, since it's an uncomfortable truth. Denial is the easiest way to handle it.

And "common ground" is the mother of expectation bias

also, going with your argument that of "confirmation bias", whos to say that your way of thinkin and confidence of that thinkin indirectly forces your brain to not hear a difference between components, even though there is?

Absolutely. But by that logic, any person who truely believes in differences should be able to ace a double blind test, and I've never seen a single example of that. In fact I've never seen anybody do that with DACs that didn't measure horribly, no matter their flavor of expectation bias. Most golden eared audiophiles fail miserably even when they are tasked with detecting a DAC implementation, that by their standards would make the sound unbearable.

The idea that DACs hold sonic qualities that can't easily be measured is nothing but wishful thinking. Sorry to put it that bluntly, but until I see a shred of evidence pointing in another direction, I'll reserve the right to do so.

 

[raif71]

When one does the double blind voltage/volume matched conditions, differences becomes inaudible but after that when practical easy listening and all controls are gone, audible differences start to occur. This is easier to accept as people don't really listen under control conditions. For example, if I like my amp volume to be at certain position for me to enjoy music listening and have ample volume headroom to play with, I would prefer the gears that will give me that satisfaction. There maybe some dacs that might make me use the amp in such a way that volume of the amp pass my normal position which makes me anxious thus spoiling the listening mood but yeah, when they volume matched, they sound the same.

 

[lordvader]

I don't go deep on other DAC reviews (not enough time), but other review threads don't seem to get down to this level of argument (for example, read a review of any Topping DAC).
I mean, these dacs are priced similarly (eg, Ares II and D90), and technically, the differences should be inaudible when compared to a much cheaper dac.

So ...

Why is it OK to like one DAC which measures phenomenally well, but should technically sound the same as a cheaper DAC, but not OK to like another DAC which "only" measures very well, but also should technically sound the same as another DAC?

 

[voodooless]

So ...

Why is it OK to like one DAC which measures phenomenally well, but should technically sound the same as a cheaper DAC, but not OK to like another DAC which "only" measures very well, but also should technically sound the same as another DAC?

I think it's only you making this assertion? The argument is about claims that these DAC's sound different from others.