Review and Measurements of Audio-gd DAC19 DAC

[maxxevv]

I'm far from being an expert but aren't they supposed to at least twist the mains wire to reduce magnetic field? For that matter even the signal output lines should be twisted too.

But twisted cables don't look good when you open up the case !
(Besides it being a pain to work on during assembly ... )

 

[Shadrach]

I don't understand how this company can still be in business. I bought two different op-amps from them, and they were horrible. Fully discrete components and the old NE5532 was many times better, but You can get it for pocket change. I’ve never seen a good measurement of any equipment from that company. Goes to show you that the audio field is the only field I know where reviewers get less educated the longer they work in the business. Steve Guttenberg comes to mind...

Audio GD are still in business because despite all the golden eared audiophiles and the objectivists horror at the measurements, if you bought this dac and took it home you would probably be delighted with it's performance.
It's a strange thing about many objectivist forums, the mantra if it measures bad, it sounds bad, is just as bad as the subjectivists mantra, trust your ears.
I'm not defending the company. It would seem fairly easy to produce a dac that measures well. But, the simple fact is even the golden eared, I've got a truly resolving system, heard everything under the sun types, would probably not pick this dac as worse performing in an ABX against many other dacs.
There are a few manufacturers many small concerns like March Audio who will take enough pride in their work and find a niche market for a truly high performance dac. The horrible truth is such companies do in reality waste a proportion of that extra performance because no one will notice. For the rest of us, we just won't know how it measured when we listen to it.
Perhaps some companies have realized this and worked out that if it's in a nice box, with the right price tag for the market it's aimed at, 99% of the 'audiophiles' will be waxing lyrical about the wonderful sound.
All the graphs, the highly technical discussions, the endless debates about components may impress the writer and the novice reader but the horrible truth is, the electronics are not the problem. The problem is in your head.

 

[Ralf Stocker]

The problem is that even engineers don't know what certain measurements mean. And if people don't know anything because of a lack of education, then the golden ears have to serve.

 

[Nango]

This ripp-off is a case for the F.B.I. !!

 

[GrimSurfer]

Audio GD are still in business because despite all the golden eared audiophiles and the objectivists horror at the measurements, if you bought this dac and took it home you would probably be delighted with it's performance.
It's a strange thing about many objectivist forums, the mantra if it measures bad, it sounds bad, is just as bad as the subjectivists mantra, trust your ears.
I'm not defending the company. It would seem fairly easy to produce a dac that measures well. But, the simple fact is even the golden eared, I've got a truly resolving system, heard everything under the sun types, would probably not pick this dac as worse performing in an ABX against many other dacs.
There are a few manufacturers many small concerns like March Audio who will take enough pride in their work and find a niche market for a truly high performance dac. The horrible truth is such companies do in reality waste a proportion of that extra performance because no one will notice. For the rest of us, we just won't know how it measured when we listen to it.
Perhaps some companies have realized this and worked out that if it's in a nice box, with the right price tag for the market it's aimed at, 99% of the 'audiophiles' will be waxing lyrical about the wonderful sound.
All the graphs, the highly technical discussions, the endless debates about components may impress the writer and the novice reader but the horrible truth is, the electronics are not the problem. The problem is in your head.

That's what I like about Amir placing products into tiers or quartile buckets. Anyone claiming to hear sonic differences between DACs with proximate scores either has superhuman abilities or is a victim of expectation bias.

I'm inclined to accept, to a point, that the majority of critical listeners may be able to discern clear differences between fourth quartile and second quartile products at certain listening levels. The same thing may apply between third and first quartile products.

The differences become irrelevant at a certain point. A product whose noise floor lies in the -130 dB range may be measurably better than one whose noise floor is -120 dB, but they share the common descriptor of generating "inaudible" noise.

Getting fixated on figures is less helpful than considering what the figures mean in the proper context.

 

[pwjazz]

Outperformed by a 9$ Apple dongle

In an age of ubiquitous digital audio, it shouldn't surprise us that DACs are a commodity product.

That said, the comparison to something like CPUs falls down when considering that while we can always find ways to take advantage of faster CPUs, or own hearing limits the maximum useful performance of audio DACs.

A better analogy might be refined sugar. No matter which brand you choose, they'll all taste basically the same.

 

[Jimster480]

In an age of ubiquitous digital audio, it shouldn't surprise us that DACs are a commodity product.

That said, the comparison to something like CPUs falls down when considering that while we can always find ways to take advantage of faster CPUs, or own hearing limits the maximum useful performance of audio DACs.

A better analogy might be refined sugar. No matter which brand you choose, they'll all taste basically the same.

I definitely understand this case.
Listening to different DAC's really had me puzzled about how the performance differed. All the DAC's I owned sounded about the same despite so much testing.
A couple months back I tested my friends (sold now) Metrum Amathyst against my Topping DX7 and well.... we couldn't tell the difference (atleast with the amp we were using) and a pair of mrspeakers Aeon closed...

 

[mi-fu]

I agree very much with @Shadrach.

But exactly because my ears can't tell the difference. I rely on measurements when I spend my money. I want my money goes to where good engineering is.

It is a little bit like collecting watches. The best watches won't tell more accurate time in any practical term. But *knowing* that it is more accurate is psychologically soothing.

 

[invaderzim]

But twisted cables don't look good when you open up the case !
(Besides it being a pain to work on during assembly ... )

Sadly, that is probably true. It also wouldn't look symmetrical if the power socket were on one side and the outputs on the other.

I can accept the idea that the boutique brands are going for a 'sound' and that some people search that out and enjoy it. But this just lazy and bad building that would be so easy to fix

If someone posted pictures of a build with power and signal wires looking like that on a DIY forum the first comments would be to move the power socket and twist the wires.

We can discuss all day if measurements or listening are the best way to shop but how can someone give money to people that are that lazy with their assembly?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Audio GD are still in business because despite all the golden eared audiophiles and the objectivists horror at the measurements, if you bought this dac and took it home you would probably be delighted with it's performance.

You probably couldn't say the same for the other Audio-GD DACs Amir's measured though - they had distortion levels far worse than most amplifiers. In this case though I completely agree with you; very unlikely it would sound any different from any other DAC.

Perhaps some companies have realized this and worked out that if it's in a nice box, with the right price tag for the market it's aimed at, 99% of the 'audiophiles' will be waxing lyrical about the wonderful sound.

Throw in a specious claim (zero feedback, R2R, etc) and that about sums it up I think. Audio-GD goes one step further even and includes some almost-certainly fake measurements on their product pages.

 

[Jimster480]

You probably couldn't say the same for the other Audio-GD DACs Amir's measured though - they had distortion levels far worse than most amplifiers. In this case though I completely agree with you; very unlikely it would sound any different from any other DAC.



Throw in a specious claim (zero feedback, R2R, etc) and that about sums it up I think. Audio-GD goes one step further even and includes some almost-certainly fake measurements on their product pages.

Well I mean this has another linearity problem too.... it goes well into CD territory so. I think that you would definitely be able to tell that it resolves worse when the error is that large.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Well I mean this has another linearity problem too.... it goes well into CD territory so. I think that you would definitely be able to tell that it resolves worse when the error is that large.

My hunch is it would take the right listener, the right test track, and fair bit of work to hear that

 

[Jimster480]

My hunch is it would take the right listener, the right test track, and fair bit of work to hear that

I'd take the challenge

Of the DAC's I owned; I was pretty accurate on the linearity (not the number but the level of resolving) before I ever found this site. Later on Amirs testing confirmed hunches.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I'd take the challenge

Of the DAC's I owned; I was pretty accurate on the linearity (not the number but the level of resolving) before I ever found this site. Later on Amirs testing confirmed hunches.

Haha fair enough.

I would say the near-absence of an anti-imaging filter is more likely to be audible than the <-80dBdB linearity error.

 

[March Audio]

Audio GD are still in business because despite all the golden eared audiophiles and the objectivists horror at the measurements, if you bought this dac and took it home you would probably be delighted with it's performance.
It's a strange thing about many objectivist forums, the mantra if it measures bad, it sounds bad, is just as bad as the subjectivists mantra, trust your ears.
I'm not defending the company. It would seem fairly easy to produce a dac that measures well. But, the simple fact is even the golden eared, I've got a truly resolving system, heard everything under the sun types, would probably not pick this dac as worse performing in an ABX against many other dacs.
There are a few manufacturers many small concerns like March Audio who will take enough pride in their work and find a niche market for a truly high performance dac. The horrible truth is such companies do in reality waste a proportion of that extra performance because no one will notice. For the rest of us, we just won't know how it measured when we listen to it.
Perhaps some companies have realized this and worked out that if it's in a nice box, with the right price tag for the market it's aimed at, 99% of the 'audiophiles' will be waxing lyrical about the wonderful sound.
All the graphs, the highly technical discussions, the endless debates about components may impress the writer and the novice reader but the horrible truth is, the electronics are not the problem. The problem is in your head.

I think in this obstensively objectivist forum most accept that if it measures beyond a certain level the item will be pretty much transparent. Measuring "bad" is a relative term. Even a relatively "bad" measuring product can be sufficiently transparent to be un-noticeable to subjectivist audiophiles that are often hopelessly optimistic about what they think they can hear.

Thing is for a manufacturer to release a poor performing product doesnt make much sense to me when it is clearly possible to produce superb performing kit at very reasonable prices. Making a poor product isnt necessarily cheaper, so what is the advantage of doing so?

Due to the high level of performance and transparency of most electronics (ignoring speakers), perhaps the only way to differentiate a product by subjective sound "quality" these days is to deliberately make it have audible performance defects. It needs to have a "character" and not actually be transparent. In similar vein to TVs having a "shop" mode with over saturated colours, brightness and contrast to make them stand out.

 

[maxxevv]

Can't say that I disagree BUT.... it would make much more sense to me at least to spend on technical excellence knowing that nothing in that equipment is limiting my listening. And then tweak whatever signature I desire via DSP instead.
Why put oneself into a tight corner with little to no wriggle room in the first place ??

 

[gvl]

Bit Truncatino from Torino.

 

[March Audio]

Can't say that I disagree BUT.... it would make much more sense to me at least to spend on technical excellence knowing that nothing in that equipment is limiting my listening. And then tweak whatever signature I desire via DSP instead.
Why put oneself into a tight corner with little to no wriggle room in the first place ??

Oh personally I totally agree with you, but its not the way many subjectivist audiophiles think.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Can't say that I disagree BUT.... it would make much more sense to me at least to spend on technical excellence knowing that nothing in that equipment is limiting my listening. And then tweak whatever signature I desire via DSP instead.
Why put oneself into a tight corner with little to no wriggle room in the first place ??

But then people couldn't imagine the secret to their "high-fidelity" system was some ladder of resistors or a feedback-free circuit

 

[Shadrach]

I think in this objectivist forum most accept that if it measures beyond a certain level the item will be pretty much transparent. Measuring "bad" is a relative term. Even a relatively "bad" measuring product can be sufficiently transparent to be un-noticeable to subjectivist audiophiles that are often hopelessly optimistic about what they think they can hear.

Thing is for a manufacturer to release a poor performing product doesnt make much sense to me when it is clearly possible to produce superb performing kit at very reasonable prices. Making a poor product isnt necessarily cheaper, so what is the advantage of doing so?

Due to the high level of performance and transparency of most electronics (ignoring speakers), perhaps the only way to differentiate a product by subjective sound "quality" these days is to deliberately make it have audible performance defects. It needs to have a "character" and not actually be transparent. In similar vein to TVs having a "shop" mode with over saturated colours, brightness and contrast to make them stand out.

I agree 'bad' is relative.
I can't prove this but given some of the 'trade' contributions to this forum where their products have been measured and found wanting in various areas, it seems there are a few possibilities.
Lack of competence and equipment. We (general) tend to assume that the producers of products are competent in their field and test what they produce, and test for the right things. We, the consumer seem to have this idealized vision of those who produce audio equipment spending countless hours testing, developing and listening to what they produce until as near to a state of perfection is reached. I know, that some designers don't use, test, or listen, in the case of audio equipment, to the final product. They don't need to. The physics and calculations are so well understood that listening is unnecessary and so is much of the testing.
Particularly in audio it seems that some designers get locked into a particular mindset about how something should be made; those who swear that a valve amplifier will always sound better, those who are locked into class A equipment, others who believe that a music server kitted out with linear power supplies etc is going to sound better than a laptop.
So, it's not often a question of price, it's a question of conviction in the above.
If I may, without causing offense, take yourself as an example. From what I've read your products perform far beyond what is audible. You have a few posts where you've gone to the trouble of producing a rather nice milled aluminum enclosure for a dac I think.
On a much more modest scale, I've built a number of loudspeakers for people I know. I have no measuring equipment at all now. I build from data and experience. In order for me to test and develop say a loudspeaker and provide any specifications regarding their performance I would need to acquire a lot of measuring equipment and spend countless hours doing the measuring.
The notion of the angst ridden audio designer sweating over whether or not a particular type of capacitor sounds better than another is largely an audiophile fantasy.
Rationality doesn't seem to feature big in audiophile circles.
It is true to some extent that making a poor product is not necessarily cheaper. Illogical though this may seem though, making an excellent measuring product is considerably more expensive because of the necessity of development to achieve this.
The Audio GD is not a poor product imo. It's on par with many of the products in its range. It's easy to let the outstanding performing products blind us as to what the average is in fact like.