Is the Performance of a DAC Linked toCost?

[fpitas]

My view is in most cases the manufacturer did not, in fact, develop a highly sophisticated power stage, but they want potential buyers to a) believe they did, and b) pay a hefty premium for that belief.

Yes. I'd want to see the schematic before I accepted that.

 

[Berwhale]

There are many old scatter plots of performance vs price in this thread... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/sinad-vs.9329/

PowerBI graphing tool: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/Audio_Equipment_Reviews/

I don't know if this data is current, it says the last review was in 2021.

 

[AaronJ]

I Am Rich - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is why some DACs are more expensive than others.

 

[fpitas]

I Am Rich - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is why some DACs are more expensive than others.

It was a great app. Useless and expensive, but great.

 

[Mitch]

For me there's more to it when choosing a DAC. A few examples:

- Reliability. Some electronics last 20 years or more, many don't last even a few years.
- Ability to directly drive power amplifiers to high power levels, if you use DACs that way.
- Quality and ease of use of the volume control function, unless you use it to feed a preamp.
- Ditto for the remote control. Some electronics have poor remote control solutions that don't allow one-grained volume control.
- On-off thumps and noises. Not allowed in my system. (Some expensive electronics do this too, so it's not necessarily price-dependent).
- Wall warts. I despise wall wart power supplies, but that's just me.

Yes I agree, but in this case I just wanted to consider SQ. thanks for your post.

 

[Mnyb]

By used normally audiophiles are suffering from upgradeitis and are likely to change DAC a bit to often .

The absurdity is that the DAC is often the best performing part of the whole system and yet they insist on changing it for “reasons” it can even happen here at ASR someone needs a new toy for “reasons” .

 

[Mitch]

My view is in most cases the manufacturer did not, in fact, develop a highly sophisticated power stage, but they want potential buyers to a) believe they did, and b) pay a hefty premium for that belief.

Thanks, this is my fear. Only by rigorous blind testing and of course equally rigorous measurement can we get to the bottom of this. The measurement can only be done by professionals, but others can do the blind testing, given access to to DACs. I am surprised that that testing is not very much in evidence, but may be I am looking in the wrong place. It still seems like a lot of trouble and expense for the manufacturers

Imo the only things that really matter in a dac (having owned quite a few over the years) is:

*Enough input connections, especially multiple spdif. Hdmi would be great, but sadly only one or two dacs have them.

*Ease of use. Is it easy to operate? Does it have a nice remote with a good range?

*And last but certainly not least, the possibility to apply eq. This is imo the feature that seperates the worthy dacs from the rest. The reason is your speakers will sound different in a different room; eq will help a lot to make it closer to ideal and closer to your liking.

Eq makes the rme and the minidsp flex the only dacs that make a real difference in sound quality to me. The rme is a superb dac but limited to 5 bands of equalisation. It also has dynamic eq option (applying more bass when lower spl, less when higher spl), which I would probably like very much, given my current speakers have that too.
(I recently bought the minidsp flex eight dac for eq purposes.)

If you only listen to digital music and happen to have Roon, you already have the possibility to eq in Roon. Then it doesn't really matter anymore which dac you choose. I would still buy rme or benchmark but that's more about customer service and pride of ownership than anything else, to be honest.

thanks, a most interesting set of observations.

 

[Mitch]

May I go back to my original post please. If some manufacturers can make a state of the art dac without an elaborate power supply stage, but others consider the power supply stage essential to creating an equally effective dac - what is the audio science behind that. In terms of electronic design and engineering can two such disparate approaches be explained? It would be revealing if we could get an explanation of the audio science.
Thank you all for your replies.
Mitch

 

[Mnyb]

You could also say the engineering for sound quality alone is a solved problem since decades and tests to figure out human hearing limits has also been done decades ago .

Then it can be generalised to any low level electronics with flat frequency response very little noise and very low distortion why would DAC be a special case ?

Possibly due to a couple of reasons .

For marketing reasons a modern DAC seems to have a plethora of filters for you to use , some of them have impact in the treble, if you are young you may possibly hear this ( IMO the designer should pick the correct filter solution and stick the DAC to that )

Broken by design ? filterless NOS DAC and some of the modern R2R DAC’s might qualify there is an universe of high end products who are designed by “ear” ( myths and imagination) .
You can searc h ASR for Totaldac .

Review and Measurements of Totaldac d1-six DAC

This is a review of the Totaldac d1-six DAC and headphone amplifier. It was kindly shipped from europe to me for testing by a member at a high shipping cost of over 200 euros. The d1-six costs 13,500 euros including VAT in Europe and $12,400 for export. The latter translates into US $13,816...

www.audiosciencereview.com

IMO a DAC should be a commodity part of another product like some pre amp or headphone amp with built in EQ or rooom correction .
My current active digital speakers ofcourse has DAC’s in them I’m clueless to what they are

 

[Mnyb]

And it has been a surge for external DAC’s the current decade but that’s more a need of a solution , personal headphone solutions computer audio solutions with USB .

 

[FrantzM]

To answer directly to the question:"

Is the Performance of a DAC Linked to Cost?"​

No!

Performance should be defined before I shouted NO, but .. NO
For the purpose of Digital to Analog Conversion the best DAC reviewed here, so far its the Matrix Sabre_X Pro (SINAD 121 dB) about $2400.oo for 3 times less and just one (1) dB, lesser SINAD, is the Topping (D90 or??/)at 3 times less about $800.oo. Both convert a digital signal to analog with the least amount of deterioration, measured on AsR so far..
Mola-Mola Price ratio to the Matrix' is 8; for the Topping' >15... Audible differences if level-matched? Inexistent
Now if we are looking for great performance and best features, nothing comes close to the RME; One of the best DACs, One of he best Headphones Amplifier, comes with a PEQ, has a superb variable loudness control, is by all accounts reliable, etc... You buy it, end of the DAC story, and of the Headphones amplifier, and 2-channel preamplifier stories, I believe it can even "do" RIAA equalizing for the people with Vinyl ..., You don't need an external EQ and the so important Fletcher Munson curves are taken care of. It is end-game.. whether you have a speaker or headphones-based 2-Channel audio system. The RME is the king.

Almost no competition.

To repeat: NO!!



Peace.

P.S.
For comparison sake. One very good, popular and extraordinarily inexpensive DAC is the Apple dongle, yes, the one that is also a decent headphone amplifier, is $9.95 and audibly transparent. It doesn't have any power supply to speak off , yet beats out a $15,000.oo dac.

 

[amirm]

The answer to the question varies depending on price range. Getting to the top of our SINAD chart costs money. You have to use the best DAC chip and combine multiple channels. And spend good money on regulators, etc. I don't see a DAC that costs $700 in that ranking be doable for $70.

Above $1000, the cost is not justified by electronics cost. You have to then include the cost of fancy enclosure, dealer channel, cost of marketing, support, etc.

All of this is about measured performance. Subjective performance is harder to quantify but clear you don't need to go above a few hundred dollars to get assured transparency.

 

[Xulonn]

Like choosing between Corolla GR & Cayman.

Both are sports car, both go fast, both handles well. But they are built differently.

Same dilemma

I'll take a Cayman, thank you.

 

[JustJones]

some manufacturers can make a state of the art dac without an elaborate power supply stage, but others consider the power supply stage essential to creating an equally effective dac - what is the audio science behind that.

Marketing babble. It's a DAC not a 1000 watt amplifier. Produce enough power for the purpose, filter noise from entering and leaving with the simplest design should be the goal.

 

[Elitzur–Vaidman]

May I go back to my original post please. If some manufacturers can make a state of the art dac without an elaborate power supply stage, but others consider the power supply stage essential to creating an equally effective dac - what is the audio science behind that. In terms of electronic design and engineering can two such disparate approaches be explained? It would be revealing if we could get an explanation of the audio science.
Thank you all for your replies.
Mitch

If you're referring to the online view that RME products need expensive or "high-end" linear power supplies, there's not really any science behind it. "Audiophile" linear PSUs are such a common high-end (snakeoil) feature that many will claim they provide benefits, but it's not something to concern yourself with imo.

 

[MRC01]

Obviously, one DAC might have superior build quality, features you need, or even a prettier case.

... From 100$ you can't hear difference, it's now your choice of look, build quality and support

Build quality is often undervalued by buyers and reviewers. It determines how long it lasts and how reliable it is during its lifetime. Also, the quality of the software/firmware matters.
I've seen cheap DACs with excellent measurements that fail prematurely or have buggy firmware that doesn't work properly with source devices.
So if these are included in "performance", then yes they are linked to cost.
I agree with @amirm that paying for high build quality, reliability, well tested software, and good support, can get you close to the kilobuck price range. But there's little or no measurable or practical value beyond that.

 

[Elitzur–Vaidman]

I am very attracted by the RME Pro, and it is at least half the price of my other contenders, some of which have slightly worse measurements. But am I missing something?

Not only in the RME Pro an absolutely phenomenal DAC/AMP from both build and performance perspectives, but it also has built in PEQ functionality, something that very few other DACs offer (and none as high quality).

 

[boxerfan88]

May I go back to my original post please. If some manufacturers can make a state of the art dac without an elaborate power supply stage, but others consider the power supply stage essential to creating an equally effective dac - what is the audio science behind that. In terms of electronic design and engineering can two such disparate approaches be explained? It would be revealing if we could get an explanation of the audio science.
Thank you all for your replies.
Mitch

Back to your OP, here are my views relating to PS stage.

What's the objective/role of the PS stage? To provide a very stable DC voltage at whatever demanded current, with minimum noise.
(DAC's demanded current is quite low, unlikely to heavily stress the PS of today).

How is this objective achieved? One can use the traditional stepdown transformer + filtering circuit; or newer switching method; or some other exotic method (battery, solar).

What are the Cons of mainstream methods?

• Stepdown transformer+filter = LF noise (hum)
• Switching PS = HF noise (switching noise)

Based on today's engineering capability, both cons have been eliminated. Therefore, a DAC using either method, provided it's well engineered, should be fine.

My current R2R DAC uses 3 miniature switching power supply. Some may consider this cheap or simple engineering. To my ears, the R2R DAC sounds very very good even with such PS in them.

In my opinion, for a DAC, the analog stage engineering plays a far bigger role in achieving great sound quality.

 

[Mitch]

The short answer is, if they have SINAD beyond about 80dB, flat frequency response etc then human ears cannot tell them apart. There's a giant thread:

Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

I know there are people out there that think cables affect sound, which is much worse, but there really is no response to something like that, but just to smile and nod. But what about people who talk about DACS as if they were headphone drivers or speakers, and talk about the SOUNDSTAGE...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Thanks, I have now read the other thread. My intuition is that the the principal argument is correct. It does not specifically however address my question of internal power supply architecture being so different between similar sounding DACs. So here is a theory:

All DACs that are properly implemented sound the same. The only way high-end audio manufacturers can continue to update, and so sell, their dacs is to: create more complex and expensive internal power supplies, offer even more ascetically pleasing cases and displays, improve functionality and increase connectivity, make them more reliable, etc. Some of these may be good reasons to buy the product, but the internal power stage, no matter how well engineered, cannot be seen and, beyond a certain fundamental level, adds nothing to the sound; just like all the external power cables and conditioners on offer.

This may well be a very controversial theory and I would be interested to know your views. Bearing in mind the scientific nature of this forum, does the theory hold up under scientific scrutiny?

 

[antcollinet]

My main interest here is to get views on why a manufacturer would go to huge effort to develop a highly sophisticated and consequently expensive power stage in their dacs, if exactly the same performance could be achieved by a dac that did not have such a feature.

2 possibilities.

1 (Least likely) their design skills for the analogue design are insufficient to filter out any noise coming from the PSU so they build a very low noise PSU to enable them to achieve the same results as another manufacturer who have the skills not to need it.

2 (Most likely) it enables them to tell a marketing story about how their "advanced" power supply will lift veils - regardless of reality.