Recommendation for MOST DETAILED, ANALYTICAL, X-RAY - 3D HOLOGRAPHIC DAC available?

[polmuaddib]

But forget about theory. If you can't hear the differences you really must have something wrong with your ears...[/QUOTE]

I am sorry, but this kind of argument is relly old and tiring. Also not civilized. Please don't do that anymore.

 

[Wombat]

Thank you. What else should one find apart from “the closeness to objective perfection”? Wouldn’t a DAC that can’t achieve said objective perfection be a flawed DAC or a DAC with intentional colorations?

Not necessarily such that your hearing can tell.

 

[Cahudson42]

@insoc ,
After all too many hours spent in the weeds and reading Rob Watts in considering 'the perfect DAC', I concluded 'perfect is the enemy of the good' - and a modern AKM or ESS-based high SINAD DAC (like the E30) is plenty good enough.

It's nice if you can 'tweak the coloration' to your liking via choice of Reconstruction Filter. I settled on 'Minimum Phase Fast Rolloff' and moved on. (Happened to be for a Qudelix 5k DAC/Amp..a nice device for $110)

http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en...ophile-dacs/pre-tuned-reconstruction-filters/

Edit: It certainly doesn't help that the ESS and AKM manufacturers use different terms for essentially the same filters.

For example, the AK4490 has four kinds of digital filter:

Sharp roll-off filter (ESS Linear Phase, Fast Rolloff')
Slow roll-off filter (ESS Linear Phase, Slow Rolloff')
Short delay Sharp roll-off filter (default) (ESS Minimum Phase, Fast Rolloff)
Short delay Slow roll-off filter (ESS Minimum Phase, Slow Rolloff)

 

[Wombat]

This thread has too much over-thinking re DAC performance.

 

[insoc]

Not necessarily such that your hearing can tell.

Invisible differences? Who would like to pay more for something intangible? A crazy person?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Thank you. What else should one find apart from “the closeness to objective perfection”? Wouldn’t a DAC that can’t achieve said objective perfection be a flawed DAC or a DAC with intentional colorations?

Sadly I’m also of the view that any DAC on that list that isn’t in the red zone will sound indistinguishable from any other. Or to put it another way, I would only call noise/distortion “colouration” if I thought it could be (at least potentially) audible.

Having said that, if your goal is objective perfection, this article explains in-depth what to look for in the measurements.

Hope that helps

 

[tw99]

Hello. I love detailed and analytical "sounding" DACs. The kind of DAC that let you examine your music like if it was an X-RAY machine. The one that does not left any subtlety or sound behind or left and that reproduce it the way it sounds in real life, that's it, in the most possible precise and exact way. I'm heading towards the CHORD QUTEST but would like to know if there is one better. My AMPS are a NAD M22 V2 and a PRIMALUNA DIALOGUE PREMIUM HP with ATC SCM7 speakers and REVEL M106 speakers. Thank you very much!!

Please go and ask your question on any other hifi forum where a) you will get the answer you clearly want and b) you will stop wasting everyone's time here.

 

[tw99]

The issue with this site is that no effort is made to correlate measurement with what we perceive we hear. Theres no wider endeavour, and measurements are only half the story. There's blind acceptance that a limited set of steady state measurements of sufficiently low value completely define audibility and a total dismissal of anything that doesn't parallel that narrative.

While I largely align with that view, blind and level matched ab tests of nc400 and mod86p amps, with figures that are beyond reproach, has shown clearly audible differences that on the face of it the numbers don't support, but the confidence intervals don't lie...

Would be great if you can fully document these results in another thread so they can be evaluated.

 

[StefaanE]

Invisible differences? Who would like to pay more for something intangible? A crazy person?

Now that’s a good question, and points to the essence of the luxury goods industry.

 

[boXem]

Invisible differences? Who would like to pay more for something intangible? A crazy person?

Interesting confusion between audible and visible.
Take Hypex based amplifiers (totally random example ) . Quite sure there are no audible differences. But a lot of visible differences (aesthetics, quality of assembly, functionalities...).

 

[Objectivist01]

Topping e30

 

[VintageFlanker]

Invisible differences? Who would like to pay more for something intangible? A crazy person?

Just any random audiophile. Including myself.

 

[ahofer]

But forget about theory. If you can't hear the differences you really must have something wrong with your ears...

I am sorry, but this kind of argument is relly old and tiring. Also not civilized. Please don't do that anymore.[/QUOTE]

I wish I could like this post more than once.

 

[Phorize]

Topping d90 seems a good deal for analytical (distortion free) preformance. However chord will hold value better and likely have better long term service back up if somthing goes wrong.

I sold my 2 year old qutest for 75% of its new price and bought an rme. I felt conflicted knowing that I was profiting from the failure of the human brain to defend itself from audiophile marketeers, but I now have parametric eq and a headphone output, so I feel a bit better.

 

[Phorize]

I like TOPPING DACs and I don't really care about warranties because I don't live in the US so I would not get a warranty for the QUTEST either. I like the sound of my Topping E30 but no better than the sound of my Chord Mojo... Maybe comparing how good is the D90 versus the E30 would give me a light...

It sounds like you already know what you want.

 

[Phorize]

I'm trying to better than MOJO and/or get the DAC that could give me the most DETAILED (X Ray like) sound possible! Thank you!

Have you considered going to hear some live music?

 

[ahofer]

The issue with this site is that no effort is made to correlate measurement with what we perceive we hear. Theres no wider endeavour, and measurements are only half the story. There's blind acceptance that a limited set of steady state measurements of sufficiently low value completely define audibility and a total dismissal of anything that doesn't parallel that narrative.

You haven't read much on this site, have you? Had you not noticed that the speaker measurement is based precisely on a decadal experimental history of correlating measurements to preferences? Performed, no less, by a forum participant, @Floyd Toole ?

You might have a look at his book-https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092

 

[Leporello]

All very true, but the sword cuts both ways. Those who want to claim that there IS no difference between "competent" DACs should also have to come up with ABX tests, not graphs, to "demonstrate that they can['t] hear a * difference *". If "buzzwords" can't suffice, then graphs shouldn't either.

It does not cut both ways. You can only have positive evidence. This is a common error in audiophile debates.

 

[sq225917]

You haven't read much on this site, have you? Had you not noticed that the speaker measurement is based precisely on a decadal experimental history of correlating measurements to preferences? Performed, no less, by a forum participant, @Floyd Toole ?

You might have a look at his book-https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092

I was referring solely to the type of digital product and measurement spread under discussion in the thread, sorry if I didn't make that clear enough by forgetting to include a list of everything that has ever existed in the entire history of the universe that I wasn't referring to.

As to your assertion that I might not have read much on the forum, congratulations for going straight in at the ad hom with anyone who presents a criticism you don't line up with..

Nice move, classy.

 

[Killingbeans]

Why, if ZEROS and ONES sound the same, there are DACs that sound different? Because colorations aside, there must be SOMETHING WRONG in the design of those DACs that does not allow the DACs to create a faithful rendition of said ZEROS and ONES.

Any such failure would result in clearly measurable noise. If it was able to "sneak past" measurements, it would be defying the laws of physics. Don't go digging for improbable explanations when the most obvious one is right under your nose.

So, I want a PERFECT DAC that can PERFECTLY reproduce the ZEROS and ONES as they were recorded and by perfect I mean without any kind of elements or artifacts that don't belong to the original ZEROS and ONES.

This is what I'd call the dark side of ASR. The kind of reasoning that the "subjectivist crowd" is rightfully bashing

Don't use measurements as a means to enforce your fear/anxiety. It's best used as an indicator of what can safely be ignored.

So don't come here telling me that ALL DACs SOUND THE SAME because that would imply that all DACs are perfectly made, without any flaw that could alter the sound and so the great effort of the DAC COMPARISON CHART the owner of this forum have made wouldn't have any reason to exist.

I think you're making som pretty wild assumptions about Amir's goals and motivations.

As I know NOT ALL DACs are the same, I'm asking for the DACs most close to perfection that you can recommend.

If you are asking for the DACs that measures most overkill on this site and allow for a couple of dB of wriggle room in SINAD, then it's a tie between Mola Mola Tambaqui, Matrix Audio X-SABRE, Topping D90, Matrix Audio Element X, Soncoz SGD1 and Sabaj D5.

EDIT: Forgot about the Octo DAC8 Stereo.