If DAC's like Topping D10 measure so well, what do the better DACs offer?

[Berwhale]

Same as saying the Compact Disc existed in 1979. You couldn't buy one, they weren't manufacturing discs, the format hadn't even been standardized upon, but yes, a digital optical disc existed.

You couldn't buy internet access from an ISP until 1991 anywhere in the world. Even then, it was just email. So the internet as consumers know it did not exist. How hard is it?

I didn't say the Compact Disc existed in 1979. I said that your statement that the internet didn't exist 30 years ago was incorrect. How hard is that?

 

[danadam]

I wonder what the toaster equivalent of the Mola Mola Tambaqui would be like?

 

[raif71]

One feature that future DAC could have is a temperature sensor located above or below it so that if you stack an amp under or above it, it can detect the amp's temperature and show it on its lcd display by toggling a button or somewhere fixed on the lcd.

 

[raif71]

He'd make a fine additon to the toastmaster's club

 

[raistlin65]

One feature that future DAC could have is a temperature sensor located above or below it so that if you stack an amp under or above it, it can detect the amp's temperature and show it on its lcd display by toggling a button or somewhere fixed on the lcd.

Why not just get an amp that doesn't have a cooling problem?

 

[restorer-john]

Why not just get an amp that doesn't have a cooling problem?

Like one of the millions produced before basics like ventilation, heatsinking and thermal management got forgotten?

 

[Astrozombie]

I wanted to wait for a matching Schiit Modius to go with my Magni, but i caved and got an SMSL since it's pretty much the same thing.

 

[raif71]

Why not just get an amp that doesn't have a cooling problem?

True, but idea is just to know the temperature of the amp

 

[jhwalker]

I didn't say the Compact Disc existed in 1979. I said that your statement that the internet didn't exist 30 years ago was incorrect. How hard is that?

You're obsessed with proving you're right - but you're wrong: the Internet as we know it did NOT exist 30 years ago.

Yes, some nascent precursor to the Internet existed, but it was NOT accessible to the general public and was NOT sold as a service. And there was no streaming music, etc., one could have listened to.

Get over it.

 

[Wes]

Perhaps, but not anything you could get music from into a DAC ;-)

Hmmm... interesting - I am now trying to recall if Space Wars on networked VAXes had any sound effects. I'd swear they did, but maybe it was the drugs in the physics dept.

 

[raistlin65]

You're obsessed with proving you're right - but you're wrong: the Internet as we know it did NOT exist 30 years ago.

Yes, some nascent precursor to the Internet existed, but it was NOT accessible to the general public and was NOT sold as a service. And there was no streaming music, etc., one could have listened to.

Get over it.

Actually, the Internet has not changed dramatically in a long time other than its bandwidth and speed. What you're thinking of is the commercialization that's happened using it as a platform.

And you are incorrect. The Internet was accessible to people 30 years ago who wanted to buy a modem and internet service. CompuServe began first offering dial-up to consumers in 1979.

Maybe watch Halt and Catch Fire? While the characters are fictional, as are their companies, the timeline of computer development and internet service progression is fairly accurate. It will give anyone who didn't live through it a better sense of history.

 

[Daverz]

Actually, the Internet has not changed dramatically in a long time other than its bandwidth and speed. What you're thinking of is the commercialization that's happened using it as a platform.

And you are incorrect. The Internet was accessible to people 30 years ago who wanted to buy a modem and internet service. CompuServe began first offering dial-up to consumers in 1979.

According to Wikipedia:

"CompuServe was the first online service to offer Internet connectivity, albeit with limited access, as early as 1989[12] when it connected its proprietary e-mail service to allow incoming and outgoing messages to be exchanged with Internet-based e-mail addresses."

But that was just relaying email to and from the Internet, so it was very limited access. No telnet, ftp, irc, usenet, etc. (anyone remember gopher?)

There seems to be some dispute over the first actual commercial ISP, since only partial access was allowed for commercial dial-up users for the first couple of years. These guys claim to have started the first commercial dial-up ISP in late 1989:

http://www.theworld.com/world/about/history/our_version

But according to

http://web.archive.org/web/20100603211424/http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/1999-2/isp.html

"In 1990 the NSF still ran the Internet backbone [...] and you still had to be an institute of higher learning or a defense contractor to be connected.[...] in late 1992 [...] NSF allowed companies to sell dialup access to the Internet with some lame disclaimer about how those customers would probably be working with an institute of higher learning or defense contractor. [...] by the next year the rules had been pretty much thrown out all together."

So I'm going to go with late 1992 for the first commercially available dial-up access to the Internet.

 

[FeddyLost]

then what to the more expensive DACs offer in terms of sound quality that this little DAC does not have

You must make correct DBT with competent contestant to find it out.
I'd recommend to use some experienced, but not too old conductor, working everyday with orchestra, preferably with absolute pitch and good studio control room.
It will be more or less objective difference.

Technically wise, more expensive DAC might offer not mentioned here better USB/AES/Spdif receiver with better noise/jitter rejection. Maybe with total galvanic isolation and reclocking/ASRC/buffer.
Don't know how to formalize scenery and all other spatial cues, but there are also some differences between equipment. Don't know for sure what is "right", anyway.

Real life, unfortunately, is not an Audio Precision loopback. For example, you can look at results of Topping D10, made with Android phone and laptop https://www.ixbt.com/live/digs/topping-d10-dobrotnyy-cap-so-smennym-usilitelem.html
It's very far from 105 Db Sinad, measured here.

 

[Colonel Bogey]

Balanced output,
Good headphones amp,
Flexible EQ,
Bass + Trebble,
Loudness-related compensation curve,
Choice of output ranges,
Beautiful (and useful) display,
Brand prestige,
Higher confidence in device Reliability,
User-error-resistance (efficient protections),
Frequent firmware improvement,
...

Pick your choice(s)...

Performance-wise:
Wider tolerance for amp sensitivity, power supply, digital input signal quality

Audio-wise:
For me, the EQ, itself, justifies the cost different. It definitely improves the sound quality / listening pleasure

Sorry for responding to an old post... But aren't you describing the RME ADI-2 Pro FS? BTW, I agree...

 

[richard12511]

What do a $300 pair of sneakers have over a $40 pair. I guarantee its not the speed at which the wearer can run.

As a formerly competitive runner, I have to disagree. It doesn't make a huge difference(most Kenyans train barefoot until high school, after all), but it can help shave off a few seconds per mile. For the way I run now(non competitive), I don't think it really matters.

 

[Rja4000]

Sorry for responding to an old post... But aren't you describing the RME ADI-2 Pro FS? BTW, I agree...

Well, that's one I own
The RME ADI-2 DAC shares those features too.

 

[Colonel Bogey]

Well, that's one I own
The RME ADI-2 DAC shares those features too.

I figured ;-) So have I - a really great product with a long list of features that motivate a higher price.

 

[Jimbob54]

As a formerly competitive runner, I have to disagree. It doesn't make a huge difference(most Kenyans train barefoot until high school, after all), but it can help shave off a few seconds per mile. For the way I run now(non competitive), I don't think it really matters.

You are right, it was a bad analogy

Hence : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...at-do-the-better-dacs-offer.15792/post-505465

 

[richard12511]

You are right, it was a bad analogy

Hence : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...at-do-the-better-dacs-offer.15792/post-505465

Yeah I read that after I had already replied

 

[JohnYang1997]

You must make correct DBT with competent contestant to find it out.
I'd recommend to use some experienced, but not too old conductor, working everyday with orchestra, preferably with absolute pitch and good studio control room.
It will be more or less objective difference.

Technically wise, more expensive DAC might offer not mentioned here better USB/AES/Spdif receiver with better noise/jitter rejection. Maybe with total galvanic isolation and reclocking/ASRC/buffer.
Don't know how to formalize scenery and all other spatial cues, but there are also some differences between equipment. Don't know for sure what is "right", anyway.

Real life, unfortunately, is not an Audio Precision loopback. For example, you can look at results of Topping D10, made with Android phone and laptop https://www.ixbt.com/live/digs/topping-d10-dobrotnyy-cap-so-smennym-usilitelem.html
It's very far from 105 Db Sinad, measured here.

AP is real life. It's quite the opposite. When you have a loopbak measurements, you can't avoid ground differences. As it's usb powered. It's more likely to have ground related issues. AP has input and output isolated. Even AP's single ended inputs and outputs are not directly connected to ground. A less ideal loop back measurement will usually case problems. Unless you measure the headphones (well) you can't say it's real life.