Review and Measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell DAC

[BillW]

A) It's because their listening 'tests' are not done rigorously. If you match levels and hide brands, differences disappear. In fact, some tests have demonstrated that listeners 'hear differences' between the same component, if they think they are comparing different gear.

B) With very few exceptions, all the 'magazines' (print or on-line) and their hirelings have a vested interest in keeping the party line. If they told readers they couldn't tell the difference between the twenty thousand dollar amplifier (see the ad on page four) and the thousand dollar amp (no ad this issue) do you think 1) ad revenue would continue, and 2) companies would continue to send long-term loaners for reviewers to play with?

And here's the irony: when Gordon Holt started Stereophile it was because he didn't like the way advertisers were 'controlling' the reviews at the mainstream magazine (High Fidelity) where he was working. But it's the same damned thing now at Stereophile. They'll review an obviously crappy design, but tell you how good it 'sounds'. And you'll find the product's ad on the next page.

On the other hand, there is a difference in kind. When Len Feldman and Julian Hirsch were testing amps, manufacturers wouldn't send in a garbage tuner or amp, because they wouldn't get a review. Nowadays, tweako builders know what tweako magazines like, so they cater to those prejudices. It has been said that the reason most high end preamps in the '70s got rid of tone controls was because Harry Pearson claimed his SP-3 'sounded' better without them. Soon after that, you couldn't get a high end preamp with a tone control because of the possibility of a less than good review. And so on and so on.

The big question: do reviewers actually believe the stuff they write? The way you can probably tell:

1) Any reviewer who gets to play the game for free, but then turns around and writes that you, his reader, should buy the high-priced spread because 'it's a bargain at that price' is a shill. No if's ands or buts.

2) The more tweako the review/reviewer, the more likely they are to actually believe the party line. The guy who writes that the pholigston free red kryptonite cables on the interocitor risers improve an amplifiers soundstage, and then brings his wife in from the kitchen to confirm the sonic experience, is probably a true believer... but that means you shouldn't believe him (or his wife).

3) The more technical oriented the reviewer is... the guy who measures the stuff and sees what's going on... well, who really knows about that guy? You'd think that at some point cognitive dissonance would push him over the cliff. Or maybe he just doesn't care. I mean, after all, it pays the bills, and the toys keep on coming.

Note that this does not include loudspeakers, which are usually easy to differentiate in a blind test. And if the amplifier is obviously mismatched to the speaker there will likely be auditory and (eventually) electrical problems--say, running something like a power hungry low impedance speaker such as the old Apogee with a current limited tube amp like the old NYAL Futterman OTL.

Thanks for the insight

It does seem like a losing situation for the audio consumer. One on hand there is an active paid for industry to sell you stuff (Capitalism at work - all good) but no objective way to discern actual "high fidelity" from lower fidelity equipment or the truth behind some Woo products. And then I suppose the distinction is probably meaningless in the actual sound output since if people like what they hear they get the enjoyment. I've read the brochure for the PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell and DirectStream DAC's and if it were to be believe the laws of physics have been altered by Ted Smith.

It's a puzzle since as a consumer I can't make proper buying decisions without reliable information.

I just started reading the thread on room acoustics and now really want to try it out! (though the Boss won't let me rearrange furniture, glue foam to the living room walls, sigh )

 

[RayDunzl]

• A plot THD vs level would reveal smooth vs abrupt distortion

Question: Does any of the graphs on ASR have this type of plot?

Many of them?

Look for this style graph. Distortion on the left, vs level on the bottom.

 

[SIY]

B) With very few exceptions, all the 'magazines' (print or on-line) and their hirelings have a vested interest in keeping the party line. If they told readers they couldn't tell the difference between the twenty thousand dollar amplifier (see the ad on page four) and the thousand dollar amp (no ad this issue) do you think 1) ad revenue would continue, and 2) companies would continue to send long-term loaners for reviewers to play with?

Let me give a shout-out to my editor at AudioXpress, who has never, ever, ever asked me to sugarcoat or change anything because of advertising concerns. And I know he's lost some advertising because of it. One manufacturer, after reading my less-than-enthusiastic review, actually complained, "This will not help me sell product," with an honest aura of surprise that that wasn't our goal in running the review.

 

[scott wurcer]

Many of them?

Look for this style graph. Distortion on the left, vs level on the bottom.

Correct me if I'm wrong these plots are distortion + noise. I suggest remove the noise and look at only the distortion. I know there is no button on the AP to do these other measurements so they must not matter.

 

[LTig]

Many of them?

Look for this style graph. Distortion on the left, vs level on the bottom.

View attachment 37544

That's IMD, not THD - just nitpicking.

 

[LTig]

Correct me if I'm wrong these plots are distortion + noise. I suggest remove the noise and look at only the distortion. I know there is no button on the AP to do these other measurements so they must not matter.

I think it's more a problem of separating HD from noise. I tried this with my old Maranz AV7701 (review to come) and had to increase the number of averages in REW to 32 below a volume of 35 to get a reliable THD reading:

Is there an explanation for the increase of THD below Volume 35? Or could it be a measuring artifact?

 

[JJB70]

We have never had it so good in terms of SQ. You don't even need to buy a source anymore as any device or computer does the job. DACs were commoditised years ago and the market is slowly moving to active speakers which provide a system in a couple of boxes (actually, the mainstream moved to wireless speakers and soundbars years ago). And you don't have to pay that much for good speakers (active or passive). If you just want good SQ this is a golden age, which is not to say that there is no attraction in excellent industrial design and build quality from going a bit upscale.

 

[Deleted member 65]

We have never had it so good in terms of SQ. You don't even need to buy a source anymore as any device or computer does the job. DACs were commoditised years ago and the market is slowly moving to active speakers which provide a system in a couple of boxes (actually, the mainstream moved to wireless speakers and soundbars years ago). And you don't have to pay that much for good speakers (active or passive). If you just want good SQ this is a golden age, which is not to say that there is no attraction in excellent industrial design and build quality from going a bit upscale.

Agree in everything you write, still want this ...

 

[BillW]

We have never had it so good in terms of SQ. You don't even need to buy a source anymore as any device or computer does the job. DACs were commoditised years ago and the market is slowly moving to active speakers which provide a system in a couple of boxes (actually, the mainstream moved to wireless speakers and soundbars years ago). And you don't have to pay that much for good speakers (active or passive). If you just want good SQ this is a golden age, which is not to say that there is no attraction in excellent industrial design and build quality from going a bit upscale.

I appreciate the idea. My smartphone hooked to a large Bluetooth speaker I have in my garage sounds decently fine to enjoy music while working on my car.

If I understand correctly then the modern audio market is really just choosing decoration since the function regardless of price is already almost indistinguishable? The PS Audio SGC even though it has poor specs it doesn't matter in end. Then the market segmentation about hi-end is really just about jewelry. I suppose that's both reassuring and slightly depressing at the same time. No more hills to climb and so on.

Does the same situation hold true for content? I've read about FLAC vs MQA, Redbook vs Hi-res, etc. None of it matters? For the record I cannot tell the difference between a 24/96 file and Spotify Premium so I suppose that's a good thing? Well my wallet will certainly be happier

Thanks for your thoughts,
Bill.

 

[anmpr1]

Agree in everything you write, still want this ...



View attachment 37547

I would never say that there are no good reasons not to buy something like the Burmester (or Accuphase, or Lux, or a lot of other luxury brands) if you can afford the ticket. Even if you can't tell the difference among them and something cheaper in a controlled test, your luxury purchase gets you something else. You get aesthetics. You get pride of ownership. You likely get a dealer that will help you out if something breaks. So there are certainly valid reasons to own this class of gear. That said, things a 'reviewer' writes about front to back depth, soundstage, low end slam and pace and timing are not the reasons.

 

[BDWoody]

I would never say that there are no good reasons not to buy something like the Burmester (or Accuphase, or Lux, or a lot of other luxury brands) if you can afford the ticket. Even if you can't tell the difference among them and something cheaper in a controlled test, your luxury purchase gets you something else. You get aesthetics. You get pride of ownership. You likely get a dealer that will help you out if something breaks. So there are certainly valid reasons to own this class of gear. That said, things a 'reviewer' writes about front to back depth, soundstage, low end slam and pace and timing are not the reasons.

I would also add that the speaker world is not quite as buttoned down...and there is still plenty of fiddling you can do in terms of room treatment, using DSP for correction/effects (2nd harmonic distortion filter to 'mimic' 'tube sound' for example), sub integration, etc...

There's plenty that still matters, but the 'sound signature' of one good DAC vs another? Not so much...

 

[anmpr1]

Let me give a shout-out to my editor at AudioXpress, who has never, ever, ever asked me to sugarcoat or change anything because of advertising concerns.

Back when the three major hi-fi magazines were still in business, people complained that you never read a 'bad' review. And that was true for a reason. Anything that came across Len Feldman's or Julian Hirsch's test bench that didn't perform was sent back, sans review. The readers of the magazines were not told that such and such a unit did not perform to specs. Now, an argument can be made that that policy was an act of dishonesty via omission. But we'll never know how many items fit into that category. A lot or just a few. However it was, the average stereo consumer looking for a decent receiver or cassette deck stood a good chance of getting something that represented solid value from any of the brands that were reviewed.

 

[JJB70]

I appreciate the idea. My smartphone hooked to a large Bluetooth speaker I have in my garage sounds decently fine to enjoy music while working on my car.

If I understand correctly then the modern audio market is really just choosing decoration since the function regardless of price is already almost indistinguishable? The PS Audio SGC even though it has poor specs it doesn't matter in end. Then the market segmentation about hi-end is really just about jewelry. I suppose that's both reassuring and slightly depressing at the same time. No more hills to climb and so on.

Does the same situation hold true for content? I've read about FLAC vs MQA, Redbook vs Hi-res, etc. None of it matters? For the record I cannot tell the difference between a 24/96 file and Spotify Premium so I suppose that's a good thing? Well my wallet will certainly be happier

Thanks for your thoughts,
Bill.

I think there are big differences between speakers which are clearly audible (ditto headphones), and in the case of speakers positioning and room interaction are crucial. You can do quite a bit with EQ and DSP to adjust the sound signature of speakers and headphones and to my mind this is the point to adjust it to your preference, not trying to buy coloured DACs and amplifiers. Buy neutral and transparent amplifiers and DACs then adjust the sound signature of the system. There is no right or wrong in terms of individual preferences for sonic signature, tools like EQ and DSP are great and they work, and unlike locking yourself into a coloured amplifier with no tone controls you can change your mind or adjust it depending on music genre. Therefore, my philosophy would be buy a decent amp and DAC with good performance and uncoloured stock sound and put your real effort and the bulk of your money into the speakers. Then put a bit of effort into setting up the speakers and your listening room and don't be afraid to play with EQ and DSP, you can always easily reset to default. The amplifier needs to be suitable for the speaker load, but as long as this is OK then I do think that amplifiers and DACs are solved problems, and if you buy active speakers someone else has worried about making sure the amp is appropriate for the load.
This is not to say I would never spend a lot. I still lust after Accuphase, I'd happily buy Benchmark and I love the statement pieces from the golden age of Japanese hifi in the 70's through mid 90's, but I would be buying for the aesthetic, the build quality, depth of engineering and...well just because I like them. I wouldn't be buying for sound quality.
Even some of the wireless speakers and soundbars now perform well. It is normal for audiophiles to collapse into fits of rage at the very thought but I have listened to music on Samsung and Yamaha (and, whisper it.......Bose...OMG!) soundbars and Sonos speakers and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Yes there is a lot of crap in those segments but to just dismiss it all as crap is very wrong in my view.
The irony is that as the equipment has never been more affordable and accessible the software has nose dived in many cases because of the loudness wars and mastering for car audio and small wireless speakers. The great Peter Aczel was right all those years ago, the biggest determinant of sound quality by far is the recording itself, over compressed crap is still over compressed crap no matter how beautifully reproduced by the audio equipment or how high res it is (personally I see no point to go beyond RBCD for two channel). If people want better sound then the limiting factor to address is software, not hardware. Apologies for a rather verbose reply.

 

[Soniclife]

Now, an argument can be made that that policy was an act of dishonesty via omission.

It is dishonest, and it's not journalism. It's the same as not publishing drug trial results that don't give the answer people were looking for.
If only good results get published it's advertising, not reviewing.

 

[Wombat]

It is dishonest, and it's not journalism. It's the same as not publishing drug trial results that don't give the answer people were looking for.
If only good results get published it's advertising, not reviewing.

There is no way of differentiating the rejected products from the untested good ones. If a product has not been reviewed it is therefore suspect. The reviewed products are thus overly advantaged.

 

[anmpr1]

It is dishonest, and it's not journalism. It's the same as not publishing drug trial results that don't give the answer people were looking for.
If only good results get published it's advertising, not reviewing.

Their policy might not have received the Ivory Snow 99.44% Pure award for solid journalism, but I don't think it's the same as not publishing drug trials. I mean, I don't think anyone ever died or got liver cancer from not reading a bad review in Stereo Review. Maybe they could have gotten electrocuted when the thing shorted out due to faulty wiring. But I don't think even the worst of components were built that badly!

Anyhow, the counter argument would be to just buy what they recommended and then you wouldn't likely go wrong. But really, in those days, anything from Pioneer, Marantz, Sony, Sansui, Kenwood was likely to be decent quality. It was the tweako stuff pushed by the undergrounds that would more likely get you into trouble.

 

[Soniclife]

Their policy might not have received the Ivory Snow 99.44% Pure award for solid journalism, but I don't think it's the same as not publishing drug trials. I mean, I don't think anyone ever died or got liver cancer from not reading a bad review in Stereo Review. Maybe they could have gotten electrocuted when the thing shorted out due to faulty wiring. But I don't think even the worst of components were built that badly!

Anyhow, the counter argument would be to just buy what they recommended and then you wouldn't likely go wrong. But really, in those days, anything from Pioneer, Marantz, Sony, Sansui, Kenwood was likely to be decent quality. It was the tweako stuff pushed by the undergrounds that would more likely get you into trouble.

The risks are different, but I don't see an ethical difference, you either publish your findings when you have them, or don't.

 

[LuckyLuke575]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell DAC. It is on kind loan from someone who read my review of PS Audio DirectStream DAC and wanted to know how this model of PS Audio DAC performs. The Stellar Gain Cell costs US $1,699 which as high-end audio DACs go is a "bit of a bargain."

The industrial design is good:

View attachment 35199​

There is quite a lot of heft to the unit. Not a great fan of blue OLED display with tiny font for sample rate and filtering. Then again, I take this over blinking/color LEDs you are meant to interpret yourself on some other units. Volume control and associated display value is responsive which I appreciated.

The back panel shows the true value of this unit:

View attachment 35201​

In addition to usual set of digital inputs we also have a set of analog inputs! For people like me who have Reel to Reel deck and others who have turntables, being able to integrate everything into the DAC and thereby eliminating an external pre-amp, this is great!

Inclusion of an analog pre-amp and switcher presents a problem for volume control though. Standard way of using the volume control built into the DAC chip (ESS in this case) doesn't obviously work for analog inputs. So companies resort to an external analog variable gain output stage. This brings is up to the name of this product, "Gain Cell."

The Gain Cell is the PS Audio name for a differential mixer circuit called Gilbert Cell. Using 6 transistors in a clever differential configuration, you can either mix two analog signals together, or use DC on one pair of inputs and control the gain of the other. The latter is what is used here. By controlling that DC unit using the front-panel microprocessor, you can now have control of the attenuation including the ability to have a remote control.

PS Audio contrasts this with using a potentiometer which could have longevity issues. That is true, but PS audio goes further, saying this scheme puts nothing in the signal path and hence is "pure" in execution:

View attachment 35202

Well, if anyone is able to test for "zero-loss" and "pure analog signal path is us." With instrumentation it is easy to see if the paper concept of Gilbert cell is realized in practice. While Gilbert cell is used in IC designs to good effect, there, matching of the transistors is easy. Not so in a discrete design as is used here. The transistors used to control the gain have their own non-linearities so the concept that there is no loss is quite dubious. But again, measurements will tell us all so let's get into that.

Pre-amplifier Audio Measurements
I fed a set of XLR signals to the Stellar Gain Cell from my Audio Precision APx555's analog output which has a SINAD well above 120 dB, with distortion products at vanishingly low levels. The signal is at 1 kHz so an ideal, zero-loss device under test would just produce a single sharp line and nothing else. This is what the Stellar Gain Cell (SGC) produces instead:
View attachment 35203

You are seeing what I am seeing? PS Audio, what the heck have you done to my pristine input signal?

Starting with the worst offenders, second and third harmonic distortions are way up at near 70 dB, resulting in SINAD (signal over noise and distortion) of just 68 to 71 dB. The distortion is asymmetrical between the channels showing lack of precision that way too.

But look at what else is going on. The button of our 1 kHz tone has been broadened. This indicates noise modulation of our signal much like can happen with DACs and jitter. Gilbert cell is also a modulator so any noise fed to its second input will modulate the primary (music) signal giving us what we are seeing. Not good.

Likewise, any power supply noise and spikes will also modulate our main signal creating sidebands on each side of our desired signal, creating that spray of spikes all around our 1 kHz tone we fed to the unit.

Put simply, we fed the Stellar Gain Cell one tone, and got dozens and dozens of unwanted tones and distortion product. The modulated ones are by definition not harmonic in nature so let's not have the argument that these are "good distortions."

At any rate, no way, no how this pre-amp and its core circuit can be called "zero loss" or "pure." There is nothing pure about it. Imperfect and non-matching transistors are in the circuit fed by noise and distortion that modulate them. The cure for potentiometer is far, far worse than the disease.

There are voltage controlled amplifier ICs used in Audio/Video Receivers and they perform far better than this.

We can test the non-linearities by feeding the unit dual tones: one low frequency and one high and compute the "intermodulation" distortion relative to the level of input signal:
View attachment 35204

Up to about 0.3 volt input, the Stellar Gain Cell is dominated by high level of noise. After that, distortion starts to take over. At full output level, one channel goes nuts far worse than the other (light green). At the nominal 4 volt output used in the dashboard and most of these tests, that doesn't happen but we suffer from higher levels of distortion than full output! This is backward of what typically happens in amplifiers.

Changing our tones to 19 and 20 kHz, we get high intermodulation distortion there as well:

View attachment 35205

Only the two tall spikes are the signal tones fed to the unit. Everything else is "non-pure" contributions from the Gain Cell giving us a usable distortion-free range of 70 dB (SINAD) which agrees with our dashboard.

Fortunately in some other areas things are not as broken. Frequency response is very flat and good:

View attachment 35206

Dynamic range is good too especially at full output although I am not sure how often you would use that:

View attachment 35207

Notice that both here and in our THD+N in the dashboard we are getting almost the same specs PS Audio advertises. This means our testing very much matches theirs and they are well aware of the poor measured performance of this unit.

Crosstalk audibly is fine as well:
View attachment 35208

DAC Audio Measurements
I was surprised to find out that the PS Audio chose a very low-end offering from ESS to use in this DAC: the ES9010K2M mobile DAC:

View attachment 35209

THD+N translates into a SINAD of 106 dB which is way, way better than the pre-amplifier in the PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell. So I thought we would get the same dashboard view as the pre-amplifier. I was wrong:

View attachment 35210

What? What??? How did the digital path cost us another 10 or more dB of distortion? What have you done PS Audio?

This is nothing short of disaster, placing the SGC DAC third from the bottom of over 175 DACs tested:
View attachment 35211

The SGC DAC uses an FPGA to supposedly clean up jitter. It is a wasted effort:

View attachment 35212

Noise floor is very high (in best DACs it goes under the AudioScienceReview tag). And we see countless sources of noise, jitter and unwanted spurious tones. No doubt many of these are contributed by the output gain stage but why bother with any digital jitter clean up when you are analog stage sprays a good bit on it?

Linearity is poor graphically:
View attachment 35213

But looking at the spectrum as the test was running showed that the actual tones produced by the DAC were fine but high amplitude spike at 180 Hz shown in FFTs was interfering with it. Linearity test uses a very sharp bandpass filter to exclude almost all noise and distortions but is wide enough to let the 180 Hz in. In other words, the little ESS DAC is trying to do right but the actual implementation steps on its output.

Multitone test simulate "music" with 32 tones shows the problem with this DAC vividly:

View attachment 35214

Since music has even more tones than 32, this means that no detail below -70 dB or so will be resolvable. Converting that to bits, you have 12 of them. Yes, 12 bits. Anyone who thinks they are hearing new detail they had not heard before with this DAC, should know that it is not the DAC that is doing that. It is your brain listening better than before and hearing detail that is well above -70 dB. Don't confuse perception with what your ears pick up.

There are only 3 filters for the DAC unlike the usual 7 or so:
View attachment 35215

The F1 filter is basically no filter. F2 and F3 are similar. F3 was recommended for best measurements and that is what I used for my testing. And would be my choice if I were to use this DAC.

The one benefit of digitally controlling gain is that channel matching should be good and is:

View attachment 35216

Listening Tests
I have to run out to our Audio Society meeting in half hour so no time for this. Will perform tests and update the review later. Owner was anxious to see the measurements so here they are.

Conclusions
The words on PS Audio website for Stellar Gain Cell DAC paint a super seductive picture of this DAC. The words "pure," "zero loss," etc. are music to everyone's ears, mine included. Going into this review I didn't think it would be exciting. Due to use of ESS DAC I thought the performance would be good. Nothing prepared me for the disaster that unfolded in front of me in test after test.

This DAC and pre-amp spray your beautiful recordings with a ton of noise, and distortion caused by non-linearities. The pre-amp/output stage is so bad that it gives you digital-like distortions while using a completely analog stage!

Then we have a DAC stage whose performance has been degraded by whopping 50 dB! Engineers kill themselves to get 3 dB improvement in noise and distortion at times. Yet, PS Audio destroys the purity of what comes out the ESS DAC by incredible 50 dB. Is there any hope that companies respec the word "high-fidelity" anymore?

I hear it: "but it sounds great to my ears." I am sure it does because a) audiophiles are terrible when it comes to critical listening abilities and hearing non-linearities and b) you don't know how to do proper listening tests.

So no, don't help bastardize this hobby any more than it already is by paying a fortune for a DAC and pre-amp which destroy any hope of fidelity to what the talent and engineers produced for us.

My head is down on behalf of the industry I participate in. Needless to say, I cannot recommend the PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell in any form or fashion. There is nothing that is stellar about its measured performance.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Please consider supporting reviews like this (I have to pay to ship this back) by donating using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Based on the ongoing performance failures of these expensive DACs, and things I've seen on YouTube, I'm starting to get the picture that "high end" audio companies rely on exhibiting at audio expos and selling their products through sophisticated dealers that manipulate and bullshit audio enthusiasts into buying this kind of equipment without question; almost like an 'the Emperor has no clothes' and if you question the equipment, you don't get it, because 'everyone is saying this is the best sounding DAC they've ever heard' and then proceeding to confuse with technical and design jargon.

It's a total joke. After seeing all this, I'm becoming even more of a budget minded audio guy.

 

[anmpr1]

The risks are different, but I don't see an ethical difference...

In my book there is a huge ethical difference between 1) selling someone a pill that won't work on a disease when they know it won't or, alternately, selling a pill that might bring on another unrelated but debilitating disease down the road, when they know it will, and 2) not publishing a tuner review because it doesn't meet its claimed alternate channel selectivity spec. To use a theological analogy, the first is a mortal sin, the latter a species of venial sin. Therefore, I'm not going to harp too much on Stereo Review's policy of silence.

In any case, those magazines covered enough 'good' gear to atone for any sin of omission. To use my previous soap analogy, while their policy was certainly not 99 and 44/100 % eithically pure, they were arguably less wrong than, say, Stereophile or Absolute Sound... magazines that can be likened to the famous Ivory Snow girl--perhaps starting out with good intentions, but who eventually became seriously compromised.

For example, check out Fremer's gushing review of the $350,000.00 Wavac amplifier. Then check out Atkinson's measurements. Tell me, which magazine did the most potential damage to their readers? Stereophile running a positive review of an obviously garbage amp (an amp that Dick Burwen wrote, "its measured distortion is shameful for even the cheapest amplifier"; an amp that even had Atkinson scratching his head over what Fremer was talking about), or Stereo Review, whose technical editor would would have just packed it up and sent it back to the distributor without comment?

In the best of all possible reviewing worlds, a one hundred percent honest magazine would have combined Atkinson's measurements with Dick Burwen's analysis..., and then fired Michael Fremer for turning in such idiotic buffoonery. That is what makes reviews here worthwhile. @amirm (and some of the others on this site) pull the top plates off, show how things are put together, wonder about the thinking of the designers, and then run 'em through a test bench so we can compare. And no one is afraid to call out idiotic buffoonery when they see it.

 

[BillW]

I think there are big differences between speakers which are clearly audible (ditto headphones), and in the case of speakers positioning and room interaction are crucial. You can do quite a bit with EQ and DSP to adjust the sound signature of speakers and headphones and to my mind this is the point to adjust it to your preference, not trying to buy coloured DACs and amplifiers. Buy neutral and transparent amplifiers and DACs then adjust the sound signature of the system. There is no right or wrong in terms of individual preferences for sonic signature, tools like EQ and DSP are great and they work, and unlike locking yourself into a coloured amplifier with no tone controls you can change your mind or adjust it depending on music genre. Therefore, my philosophy would be buy a decent amp and DAC with good performance and uncoloured stock sound and put your real effort and the bulk of your money into the speakers. Then put a bit of effort into setting up the speakers and your listening room and don't be afraid to play with EQ and DSP, you can always easily reset to default. The amplifier needs to be suitable for the speaker load, but as long as this is OK then I do think that amplifiers and DACs are solved problems, and if you buy active speakers someone else has worried about making sure the amp is appropriate for the load.
This is not to say I would never spend a lot. I still lust after Accuphase, I'd happily buy Benchmark and I love the statement pieces from the golden age of Japanese hifi in the 70's through mid 90's, but I would be buying for the aesthetic, the build quality, depth of engineering and...well just because I like them. I wouldn't be buying for sound quality.
Even some of the wireless speakers and soundbars now perform well. It is normal for audiophiles to collapse into fits of rage at the very thought but I have listened to music on Samsung and Yamaha (and, whisper it.......Bose...OMG!) soundbars and Sonos speakers and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Yes there is a lot of crap in those segments but to just dismiss it all as crap is very wrong in my view.
The irony is that as the equipment has never been more affordable and accessible the software has nose dived in many cases because of the loudness wars and mastering for car audio and small wireless speakers. The great Peter Aczel was right all those years ago, the biggest determinant of sound quality by far is the recording itself, over compressed crap is still over compressed crap no matter how beautifully reproduced by the audio equipment or how high res it is (personally I see no point to go beyond RBCD for two channel). If people want better sound then the limiting factor to address is software, not hardware. Apologies for a rather verbose reply.

Thank-you for your insights. I'm of similar mindset when it comes to transparent equipment and using DSP or EQ to color as needed. This seems intuitive to me and proper use of the right tool for the job. The sheer amount of the websites, blogs, videos etc on DAC's that produce "Big Sound Stage" or cables that produce more "Air" etc etc seem counter to what an "audiophile" should really want. I agree with Subjectivists in that its the pleasurable listening experience we're really after not just specs but as a rational person of science I want to know my equipment is performing as transparently as possible. Then I would adjust the sound output with EQ and DSP. I have no fear of it and as they say "in science nothing is sacred".

Really enjoying the audio journey so far,
Bill.