I agree with what is expressed in this post. Whenever anyone asks for opinions on a dac because they like the sound, invariably denizens of this forum aggressively attack him, demanding WHY he wants to buy that particular dac, and then the chanting starts about how all dacs sound the same. You probably don't realize it, but this is most evident when someone says they like the sound of an akm dac over another brand.
But dacs have to sound different, at least on the infinitesimal level, because they are human constructs, made by different groups of people, attempting to accurately replicate the original sound of performances, which is then transferable across all genres of music. And bringing their own biases to the process. And really, how can they truly replicate the original sound of all performances, when to hear them in their lab where they are making the dac, most of the time they likely have to hear it reproduced through a dac anyway.
Listening to music is an emotional experience, and a persons emotional response is affected by pretty much unquantifiable factors, including the functioning of their hearing, the listening setting, and their emotional state at the time they are thinking an ESS or an AKM dac sounds better. And what is better?
And the talk about how blind tests PROVE that people can't hear the difference between dacs. Your blood pressure readings are different in the doctors office than they are at home after listening to calming music for a while. So why should people hear BETTER when they are in a blind test environment than somewhere else?
And then you usually start talking about how the sound isn't the dac but how it's implemented in the particular piece of equipment. But the dac is an integral part of the implementation that makes it all work on an emotional level. Another dac in the same equipment might sound different and draw a different emotional response from the listener. Even the name and the hype of a dac draws a different emotional response. And the appearance, and the brand, of the equipment.
You guys need to lighten up, and accept that everybody's opinion about sound and equipment is subjective. That's why you are here anyway.
You're misunderstanding something altogether, and that's precisely a problem, or several problems, for many users.
We're mostly talking about DACs with TOP measured values, i.e., devices that rank very high on the ASR SINAD list.
Most of these devices are developed using AP analyzers, so so-called "sounding" is very unlikely.
DACs with a SINAD above 100 (even equal to or better than 115) are available for well under €100, so the transparency is in a range that is no longer audible/distinguishable to humans, even on the best systems.
That's the first point.
The second point is even simpler.
We're talking about a digitized audio signal that is converted back to analog.
These are absolute values with no room for interpretation!
There are only two possibilities for the result: right or wrong.
Anyone who believes otherwise has neither understood the physics nor the mathematics behind it.
And both the computing power and the correct evaluation in DAC chips have been a solved problem since the late 1980s.
The third point can indeed make a minimal difference, but it is very small, and if audible at all, then at best a marginal difference. This concerns the DAC's analog output circuitry, i.e., I/V converters, filter stages, etc.
But these are also optimized on the AP analyzers to achieve the best measured values.
An audible difference is also reflected in the measured values at this point, i.e., a deviation from the optimum and therefore also an error.
So, if you can clearly and repeatably distinguish between two DACs in a blinded test, there are actually only two possibilities. One of the DACs has significantly worse measured values (i.e., in the audible range), or it is defective. The "actually" refers to the third possibility: both DACs are defective.
There are actually only three types of DACs on the market (of course, these aren't so clearly defined):
- Flawless and accurate conversion with good measured values (low noise)
- Flawless and accurate conversion with poor measured values (high noise)
- The conversion result no longer even remotely matches the output signal. These DACs can only be described as defective, as they fail to fulfill their actual basic function.
The "sounding" of a device always means an intervention and a change in the original music signal. This intervention always occurs, regardless of the musical genre or music signal.
Everyone has to decide for themselves whether such a device is useful. Because this change cannot be reversed in the subsequent chain.
In my opinion and my experience, targeted intervention with EQ/PEQ is much more useful.
Once people understand these simple fundamentals, and perhaps even hear them in a blind test, it will save them a lot of money and a huge amount of time wasted on nonsense.
Otherwise, take a look at the construction of DACs. On the digital side, the data must not be altered, otherwise the device will be defective.
After the DAC chips, there are only a few components through which the analog audio signal passes. If the signal is audibly altered on this short path, then the developer has really screwed up and failed.
Think about it.
What I'm writing here isn't just theory, but 35 years of experience, 25 of which are based on real blind and absolutely level-controlled blind tests with over 200 DACs in price ranges between €5 and €25,000.
.
