• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Shootout - Superb Measuring cheap DAC against hi-end DAC - measuring tool - the "ears"

OP
S

snapcrackle

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
76
Likes
26
I haven't got my cheap DAC yet - I did buy some high quality support furniture and will start my auditioning once I have the new rack built. I know some folks don't agree with purpose built Hi-Fi racks (hence the wobbly chair video linked earlier) - not me - I'm not taking any chances after hearing a difference a mere platform can make in my setup ...

I thought this audio site's headline was interesting: https://audiosector.com/ - The purpose of audio is the communication of the original musical inspiration rather than simply obtaining impressive measurement results.

Obviously it won't wash well here :).
 

VintageFlanker

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,939
Likes
19,689
Location
Paris
I thought this audio site's headline was interesting: https://audiosector.com/ - The purpose of audio is the communication of the original musical inspiration rather than simply obtaining impressive measurement results.
Haem.

The major problem is: audiophiles seem to do not understand this very simple point:

First : Emotion/communication/inspiration/soul or whatever are in the music itself, not in the gear.

Second: that is the music reproduction abilities which are measured, not the music itself. Then, you cannot distinguish music reproduction (fidelity) from measurements.
 
Last edited:

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
I thought this audio site's headline was interesting: https://audiosector.com/ - The purpose of audio is the communication of the original musical inspiration rather than simply obtaining impressive measurement results.

Obviously it won't wash well here :).

Well, it's a lovely sentiment. It sounds almost like an apology in advance.

If they aren't trying to communicate the 'original musical inspiration' by attempting to minimize any alteration to the signal as received, it seems they are opposing themselves, if they are justifying high levels of noise or distortion, rather than...you know...through less noise and distortion...like...Hi-Fi(delity). Not sound shaping to the designers taste.

I don't know their products at all. The wording...like how they select their resistors based on the best sonic signature...just raises questions.

When an engineered product is sold as if it is a musical instrument beyond such mundane matters as 'simple' measurements, it's hard to start with much optimism.

Otherwise, the pictures looked nice...:rolleyes:
 
OP
S

snapcrackle

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
76
Likes
26
Interesting replies thank you. Following on from that - why is it that some audiophile engineers are obsessed with the shortest signal path and having as few electronic parts in that signal path as possible? Not only that - but to simply things further take away oversampling and filtering? Is all the aforementioned incrementally detrimental to sound quality. Less is more?

On the other end of the scale (more is more) - do you find that other manufacturers are chucking in as many electronic parts as possible with to objective to improve how the Hi-Fi component measures, and not bother auditioning because the equipment measures well so there's no point in listening to it as long as it functions as intended with of course and excellent "technical" performance?
 
Last edited:

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,778
Location
Oxfordshire
Interesting replies thank you. Following on from that - why is it that some audiophile engineers are obsessed with the shortest signal path and having as few electronic parts in that signal path as possible? Not only that - but to simply things further take away oversampling and filtering? Is all the aforementioned incrementally detrimental to sound quality. Less is more?

On the other end of the scale (more is more) - do you find that other manufacturers are chucking in as many electronic parts as possible with to objective to improve how the Hi-Fi component measures, and not bother auditioning because the equipment measures well so there's no point in listening to it as long as it functions as intended?
There is no merit in simplifying a circuit to the point where it becomes non-linear, see the ACA amp review. I have not seen people chucking in a lot of parts unnecessarily except where people have decided to make a ladder DAC or one using a programmable device rather than an off the shelf DAC chip.
Both more marketing propaganda than engineering.
 

majingotan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
1,509
Likes
1,781
Location
Laguna, Philippines
Not only that - but to simply things further take away oversampling and filtering?

AFAIK 99% of DACs out there oversample and filter. Some company even go as far as million taps for filtering or some oversample to DSD1024 before filtering. Most DACs that are NOS are the ones that put more electronic parts to the signal chain and cause more distortion than absolute transparency
 

Sweet Bippy

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
2
Likes
5
Location
New York City
Anyone put their Topping up against their beloved hi-end, maybe Chord DAC or similar and said - nah - can't hear a difference?

Hi all,

Long-time lurker, first-time blah blah... Yes, I did exactly as above: when my Chord Hugo 2's power supply decided to start working only when it felt like it, I came here to ASR and looked up cheap DACs that measure well to serve as an interim replacement while I got the Hugo fixed. (Can't be without internet radio!)

I got a Topping D10 and swapped it in -- absolutely no difference whatsoever. I then put the Hugo in a drawer and had it fixed like 6 months later, when I began to feel a bit ashamed at having this expensive thing sitting around, doing nothing.

All best,
Joe
 
OP
S

snapcrackle

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
76
Likes
26
Hi all,

Long-time lurker, first-time blah blah... Yes, I did exactly as above: when my Chord Hugo 2's power supply decided to start working only when it felt like it, I came here to ASR and looked up cheap DACs that measure well to serve as an interim replacement while I got the Hugo fixed. (Can't be without internet radio!)

I got a Topping D10 and swapped it in -- absolutely no difference whatsoever. I then put the Hugo in a drawer and had it fixed like 6 months later, when I began to feel a bit ashamed at having this expensive thing sitting around, doing nothing.

All best,
Joe

Wow - there you go then! That really is a huge gap price wise! A Topping equalling the venerable and audiophiles' favourite manufacturer Chord. I take it your speakers are up to the job in revealing differences between kit? What speakers do you own?

I'm tempted now to buy the little D10 after what you say - and put it up against a Chord Mojo I have.
 
OP
S

snapcrackle

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
76
Likes
26
AFAIK 99% of DACs out there oversample and filter. Some company even go as far as million taps for filtering or some oversample to DSD1024 before filtering. Most DACs that are NOS are the ones that put more electronic parts to the signal chain and cause more distortion than absolute transparency

Just not the TDA 1543 chip commonly used now by very high end manufacturers like Vertex (the £11,000 Alethia) and CAD (Computer Audio Design).
 

Sweet Bippy

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
2
Likes
5
Location
New York City
Wow - there you go then! That really is a huge gap price wise! A Topping equalling the venerable and audiophiles' favourite manufacturer Chord. I take it your speakers are up to the job in revealing differences between kit? What speakers do you own?

I'm tempted now to buy the little D10 after what you say - and put it up against a Chord Mojo I have.

I have Devore Fidelity Gibbon 8 speakers, which I think are up to the task! (They also look nice.)

But yes, the D10 is very much worth a try.
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,049
Likes
12,147
Location
London
Just not the TDA 1543 chip commonly used now by very high end manufacturers like Vertex (the £11,000 Alethia) and CAD (Computer Audio Design).
Sadly ‘high-end’ is just a euphemism for expensive and not necessarily technically competent.
Keith
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,778
Location
Oxfordshire
Wow - there you go then! That really is a huge gap price wise! A Topping equalling the venerable and audiophiles' favourite manufacturer Chord. I take it your speakers are up to the job in revealing differences between kit? What speakers do you own?

I'm tempted now to buy the little D10 after what you say - and put it up against a Chord Mojo I have.
I got a similar result when I compared DACs over a £1000 to £14,000 range.
I compared them on these Goldmund Epilogs:
Epilog 1&2 with grill.jpeg

using matching preamp and mono amps.
When I matched levels and got my daughter to switch between DACs any difference I had thought I might hear was absent.
I do own a Chord Hugo since I like the styling and manufacturing quality but found I didn't need it to get great SQ without carrying extra boxes etc.
 

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,088
Likes
7,544
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
Interesting replies thank you. Following on from that - why is it that some audiophile engineers are obsessed with the shortest signal path and having as few electronic parts in that signal path as possible? Not only that - but to simply things further take away oversampling and filtering? Is all the aforementioned incrementally detrimental to sound quality. Less is more?

On the other end of the scale (more is more) - do you find that other manufacturers are chucking in as many electronic parts as possible with to objective to improve how the Hi-Fi component measures, and not bother auditioning because the equipment measures well so there's no point in listening to it as long as it functions as intended with of course and excellent "technical" performance?

The only reason to keep the signal path short is to minimize noise and distortion. And that can be measured.

If a short signal path with a simple topology gives the best measurements, you go with that. If a long signal path with a complicated topology gives the best measurements, you go with that. And if a mix of the two gives even better measurements, you go with that. That's the life of a good engineer.

If an engineer gets tunnel vision and thinks that a short signal path is the only way to get better measurements, then he/she is handicapping him/her self. It's a very ineffective way of applying your skills as an engineer.
 
OP
S

snapcrackle

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
76
Likes
26
I got a similar result when I compared DACs over a £1000 to £14,000 range.
I compared them on these Goldmund Epilogs:
View attachment 38409
using matching preamp and mono amps.
When I matched levels and got my daughter to switch between DACs any difference I had thought I might hear was absent.
I do own a Chord Hugo since I like the styling and manufacturing quality but found I didn't need it to get great SQ without carrying extra boxes etc.

Those are fantastic speakers - I heard the modern version of these (they look like little robots) at the Hi-Fi show held at Ascot recently. The framework bound around the new speaker boxes are designed to ground and remove unwanted resonances (or so I was told).

Did you go as far as putting in even cheaper but well measured DACs like the Toppings, instead of starting off at £1k?
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,778
Location
Oxfordshire
Those are fantastic speakers - I heard the modern version of these (they look like little robots) at the Hi-Fi show held at Ascot recently. The framework bound around the new speaker boxes are designed to ground and remove unwanted resonances (or so I was told).

Did you go as far as putting in even cheaper but well measured DACs like the Toppings, instead of starting off at £1k?
I heard those at Ascot too, thought they were best in show. Those were slightly smaller than mine the new equivalent to mins is the next model up. At the time I did the test it never occurred to me that cheaper DACs would be competitive. I wasn't unhappy with the Goldmund converter but it was old and only went up to 16/48 files.
I had never heard of Topping back then.
My only concern with something like this is reliability. I prefer to buy European or US made stuff, though the US stuff is stupidly expensive here.
 
OP
S

snapcrackle

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
76
Likes
26
I heard those at Ascot too, thought they were best in show. Those were slightly smaller than mine the new equivalent to mins is the next model up. At the time I did the test it never occurred to me that cheaper DACs would be competitive. I wasn't unhappy with the Goldmund converter but it was old and only went up to 16/48 files.
I had never heard of Topping back then.
My only concern with something like this is reliability. I prefer to buy European or US made stuff, though the US stuff is stupidly expensive here.

I agree - one of the best sounds of the show for sure. Just find 75,000 Euros and you can have a pair! But the price includes DSP, amplification, DAC, the speakers of course - so it's a complete HiFi - just add a music source. Bargain!!

Or you could buy a Topping DAC - NAD amplifier - plus a good pair of passive speakers and save a fortune :)
 

Pluto

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
990
Likes
1,631
Location
Harrow, UK
Linn announced that the only way to evaluate kit was in single speaker demos, removing at a stroke the ability to do valid and proper comparisons and leaving the way open to manipulation of customers
Indeed. That was, possibly, the single most destructive move of all time contributing to the ultimate demise of high-end audio as a serious consumer pursuit; entirely akin to removing the test drive as a necessary step in the purchase of a car.
 

Aprude51

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
68
Likes
94
Location
San Francisco
Wow - there you go then! That really is a huge gap price wise! A Topping equalling the venerable and audiophiles' favourite manufacturer Chord. I take it your speakers are up to the job in revealing differences between kit? What speakers do you own?

I'm tempted now to buy the little D10 after what you say - and put it up against a Chord Mojo I have.

What do you mean by “revealing”?

When I see someone use that term, it puts me on alert because it has no agreed upon meaning and is often used to explain away an inability to distinguish options in blind testing. The speakers you’ve promoted as being “revealing” have inaccurate frequency response and relatively high levels of distortion: Role Audio Windjammer - Soundstage Measurements, not the exact model you mentioned, but still quite similar
 
OP
S

snapcrackle

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
76
Likes
26
Revealing means revealing. It means that if you change something upstream and the speakers are transparent enough your will hear that change - therefore revealing.

It seems a sensible term. Shouldn't put anyone on alert. it's a simple enough concept.

My speakers are certainly transparent to change (revealing?) - they are equivalent to the Role Audio Enterprise SE's currently on sale (https://www.roleaudio.com/enterprise-se).

Although unbelievable to most - I'm messing around with equipment feet - I put a set of Carbon Fibre Isolators under my streamer (Auarlic Aries Mini) and the improvement is obvious. I'm just toying while waiting for my new (well lightly used) equipment rack. I had those carbon isolators in a drawer for more than 10 years because I didn't believe in all that rubbish... until now.

To be fair - I'm experimenting with a very sensitive to change DAC (not a modern par-excellence race tuned budget Chinese DAC) - an old 90's Arcam Black Box 1. I like how it sounds - but it's dead fussy.
 
Last edited:

MediumRare

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 17, 2019
Messages
1,949
Likes
2,275
Location
Chicago
Although unbelievable to most - I'm messing around with equipment feet - I put a set of Carbon Fibre Isolators under my streamer (Auarlic Aries Mini) and the improvement is obvious. I'm just toying while waiting for my new (well lightly used) equipment rack. I had those carbon isolators in a drawer for more than 10 years because I didn't believe in all that rubbish... until now.

To be fair - I'm experimenting with a very sensitive to change DAC (not a modern par-excellence race tuned budget Chinese DAC) - an old 90's Arcam Black Box 1. I like how it sounds - but it's dead fussy.
Would you be willing to do an REW before/after measurement to show the effect of the feet on FR and THD?

Once you get the hang of it it's pretty easy and any audible differences will show up right away.
 
Top Bottom