The Best DAC Award 2020 !

[vhild§]

I just got one, and well the sweet spot starts at $129!

I´m trying to resist switching from D30...

 

[Harmonie]

All of my analog gear (LP, reel-to-reel) measures poorly compared to my digital gear.

My small collection of tube gear measures poorly compared to my solid state gear.

I still have fun with and enjoy all of them.

I agree so much and therefore my profile name - Harmonie
After all, what guides you is (the figures/specs you read) your brain = emotions = your pleasure .

 

[North_Sky]

I just got one, and well the sweet spot starts at $129!

For some the sweet spot starts above 20Gs. ...Fly baby fly ...

 

[digicidal]

We might need to clarify definition of transparency but I’ll try to convey my understanding of it (or how or when I refer to it).
- when reproduced detail retrieval is closest to the real thing. Overall picture of performance but including faintest of micro-details. Detail that is always there (recording) but can appear slacken, harder to distinguish or make up on lesser gear.
Now, your understanding or use of this word might be different. It could be more helpful if we agreed on the term.
Don’t know if everything we hear can be measured or not but I don’t want to get into hypotheticals.
I’ll be happy to try entertain this question after term “transparency” is a bit more clearer (if I am using it incorrectly, just let me know what you mean by it).

I would mostly agree with your term... however it strays a bit too far into the subjective interpretation of the sound itself - which is subject to a vast amount of cognitive bias. I would define transparency simply as the full, complete and accurate recreation of the original (recorded) signal. "Micro details" or for that matter "detail" in general is a bit too amorphous in this context for me to embrace. This isn't directed at you - it's that way for every human on the planet... brass ears all the way up to unobtanium ones.

Although there are a variety of factors involved in achieving/failing it, the simplified version would be:
1) An ADC converts Waveform A into a bitstream.
2) A DAC converts that bitstream into Waveform B
3) A:B is the amount of transparency - i.e. if they are differenced, the result would/should be absolute silence.

Or if you prefer, the deviation from the original wave is the amount of "occluded/lacking transparency".

As long the differences are below the level of human audibility, there is no possibility for me to hear the difference - so I must resort to measurements (either my own or those taken by others with greater experience, budgets, and access to gear). Note that I don't mean access to audio gear... I mean access to higher resolution instruments for taking the measurements themselves.

I would also argue that attempting to even measure the differences in a DAC which has matched or surpassed the ADCs used initially should be considered a form of "technical masturbation" IMO. It can't "resolve" something which never made it into the bitstream in the first place. In almost every case, what is described by reviewers (at least like the ones in question) is what the rest of their system - most notably the speakers/headphones were capable of... not the source itself.

Now for a question of my own:
Supposing that this DAC had "absolute perfect transparecy" - in this case we'll say simply beyond the capabilities of even an APx555 to measure any deviation from the source - how would you know this, and how could that matter? That will already be well beyond the level of the studio's gear that converted the original recording into digital form AFAIK, and it will be significantly beyond the capabilities of any system (regardless of price) to reproduce that result into the air in your room (and it goes downhill rapidly from there).

There is magic in music, but there is only engineering in music reproduction. If an immeasurable quality existed in the original performance, it was lost by the simple fact that mics, ADC's, mixing consoles, and even the instruments themselves - were produced by "un-magical" engineers, factories, etc.

The rest is stuff our brains make up every day, millions of times (but it can make things interesting I'll happily admit).

 

[cistercian]

I would mostly agree with your term... however it strays a bit too far into the subjective interpretation of the sound itself - which is subject to a vast amount of cognitive bias. I would define transparency simply as the full, complete and accurate recreation of the original (recorded) signal. "Micro details" or for that matter "detail" in general is a bit too amorphous in this context for me to embrace. This isn't directed at you - it's that way for every human on the planet... brass ears all the way up to unobtanium ones.

Although there are a variety of factors involved in achieving/failing it, the simplified version would be:
1) An ADC converts Waveform A into a bitstream.
2) A DAC converts that bitstream into Waveform B
3) A:B is the amount of transparency - i.e. if they are differenced, the result would/should be absolute silence.

Or if you prefer, the deviation from the original wave is the amount of "occluded/lacking transparency".

As long the differences are below the level of human audibility, there is no possibility for me to hear the difference - so I must resort to measurements (either my own or those taken by others with greater experience, budgets, and access to gear). Note that I don't mean access to audio gear... I mean access to higher resolution instruments for taking the measurements themselves.

I would also argue that attempting to even measure the differences in a DAC which has matched or surpassed the ADCs used initially should be considered a form of "technical masturbation" IMO. It can't "resolve" something which never made it into the bitstream in the first place. In almost every case, what is described by reviewers (at least like the ones in question) is what the rest of their system - most notably the speakers/headphones were capable of... not the source itself.

Now for a question of my own:
Supposing that this DAC had "absolute perfect transparecy" - in this case we'll say simply beyond the capabilities of even an APx555 to measure any deviation from the source - how would you know this, and how could that matter? That will already be well beyond the level of the studio's gear that converted the original recording into digital form AFAIK, and it will be significantly beyond the capabilities of any system (regardless of price) to reproduce that result into the air in your room (and it goes downhill rapidly from there).

There is magic in music, but there is only engineering in music reproduction. If an immeasurable quality existed in the original performance, it was lost by the simple fact that mics, ADC's, mixing consoles, and even the instruments themselves - were produced by "un-magical" engineers, factories, etc.

The rest is stuff our brains make up every day, millions of times (but it can make things interesting I'll happily admit).

This is an excellent comment! Bravo!

 

[ezra_s]

Question from ignorance so please be polite, just trying to understand it all. If we have two DAC with different DAC Chip, like one is AKM and another is.. Burr-Brown, SINAD is perfect, lack of noise, jitter, etc close to perfection in both, as in, if we could discard differences in this part...

Will there be a difference in the analog waveform output since they are different chips, etc? Can this be measured somehow? Could anyone tell the difference?

EDIT: Correction to my question. Sorry I asked it backwards, thanks @cistercian for correcting me! (darn I'm silly)

 

[cistercian]

Question from ignorance so please be polite, just trying to understand it all. If we have two DAC with different DAC Chip, like one is AKM and another is.. Burr-Brown, SINAD is perfect, lack of noise, jitter, etc close to perfection in both, as in, if we could discard differences in this part...

Will there be a difference in the digital signal (bits) once both DAC's convert the same analog waveform (or whatever it is called) to bits since they are different chips, etc? Can this be measured somehow? Could anyone tell the difference?

Correctly implemented there would be no difference. And DACs convert digital signals to analog ones.
Once the conversion takes place the analog signal chain could be different. Some might add distortion for example.
But done correctly there should be no difference.

 

[raif71]

I agree so much and therefore my profile name - Harmonie
After all, what guides you is (the figures/specs you read) your brain = emotions = your pleasure .

Owh, I thought you're a fan of Hermione Granger from the the Harry Potter series

 

[cistercian]

Question from ignorance so please be polite, just trying to understand it all. If we have two DAC with different DAC Chip, like one is AKM and another is.. Burr-Brown, SINAD is perfect, lack of noise, jitter, etc close to perfection in both, as in, if we could discard differences in this part...

Will there be a difference in the analog waveform output since they are different chips, etc? Can this be measured somehow? Could anyone tell the difference?

EDIT: Correction to my question. Sorry I asked it backwards, thanks @cistercian for correcting me! (darn I'm silly)

No worries. I enjoy dyslexia myself from time to time!

 

[North_Sky]

From somebody (Caesar) ...

"High end audio isn't about the best engineering. It's about winning the battle for influence of one's preferences.

A good number of guys online really like the Lampizator and are very passionate about Lampi. The "media", on the other hand, has pretty much ignored it. It's sold only direct. Audioshark used to sell it, I think, but I think went all in on MSB.

The Wilson guys and Stereophile guys really push dCS hard. But dCS is pretty analytical, and one needs a really musical system to make it listenable.

The Magico guys really like MSB. Valin gave MSB a huge assist with his product of the year recently.

Robert Harley and Computer Audiophile geek have been pushing the Berkeley Reference DAC as the BEST, but Berkeley Ref is hang-yourself-from-the-chandelier analytical. Swing... Swing.... Swing...

The measurement guys are happy with something like the benchmark DAC for a several hundred bucks.

So yes, in this hobby, state of the art has nothing to do with superior engineering. No one can prove they have superior engineering. Instead it is all about influencing the crowd and influencing the influencers - that their DAC is state of the art."

 

[Phrangko]

Man, there is something about that guy and that channel that I just cannot stand. Gutenberg is a weirdly charismatic guy, Darko is entertaing, Thomas is endearing, ect. I don’t particularly take anything they say seriously, but there’s a personality there.

This guy has the driven psychosis and production values of an Instagram influencer and the all the charm of the DMV. Just joyless product worship and pretending there are significant differences between boutique audiophile nonsense.

Sorry if this is hugely negative, I’m just so tired of all these YouTube guys.

Chill! He was merely forwarding an opinion on a DAC he thought was fantastic. He has too. He is a reviewer

 

[Phrangko]

I'm a bit disappointed in this topic and attack on that youtuber; but then again; what do you expect on a website that focuses absolutely on performance. it's like going to a website supporting a political party vs the other.

First, I have RME adi-2 dac; ; Hedd type 5 for desktop speakers; Kef LS5 for home theater audio/music; so All European brands; but it wasn't intentional. I value simplicity and space so I prefer RME's ability to be a DAC, AMP, Pre-Amp all in one instead of buying a bunch of separates. I'm also a bit closer to Zeos's or Josh Valour's thinking in that I just can't see me every buy 5,10, 20, 40K Audio equipment separates; there are just way to many other things that I need to do with my money; but to each their own.

Now I'll talk about Youtubers. I don't get the hate on youtubers. First, in this modern world where things are released way more via the web that physical published flyer or Add or journal that you subscribe to or comes to your house. They will simply reach a larger audience and ultimately will make these things a bit more mainstream than previous. Let's be honest; Audiophile is already and extremely niche segment; so anything that sheds a bit of light on it should be supported. Second; whether it is Steve Guttenberg, Zeos, Josh Valour, Metal 571, DMS, The Romanian guy out of Soundnews (forgot his name), Currawong, Max Settings, Thomas and Stereo, Audiophile heaven, Paul McGowan and PS Audio, Andrew Robinson, Zero Fidelity, John Darko and Others; They all bring with them their point of view; their preference in style; their combination of equipments and focos on the type and style of music reproduction they are aiming to achieve. Some are more focused on IEMs, some Headphones, others with baseline speakers, others more with extremely High end separates and speakers.

Then there is how things are measured; is a 1 KHZ Sine wave the best way to measure a Headphone or speaker? Or When you measure the full range of a headphone to plot it's Harmon Target Curve; if you see your particular headphone fairly closely follows the target (or Diffuse field Target) does that also mean it sounds good? Meaning; when complex music; instead of sterile Sound is played; does that particular headphone also performs the same. What I've seen personally, and what I've watched with All of the guys listed above and more; these are not one and the same. 20 years ago; you can make a case on getting performance good enough so that you aren't hearing baseline hiss due to excessive Noise; but Audio products now are so much better now that for most things; your human ears simply cannot hear noise anymore; unless it is a very inefficient tube amp or something. So then Naturally; what then will begin to matter is how does it sound; stuff that isn't so well measured; but are obvious once you start A+B the equipment. I think ultimately that is why you keep seeing things like Denafrips or musician audio getting rave reviews; or 4-5 years ago; some audio DG stuff getting great reviews, when they don't measure well at all due to the nature of their DAC. Same basic things when you hear some people prefer Analog vs digital; or tube amps vs Delta Sigma Amps and so forth.

In the end; I think to each their own. Currawong for example reviewed Topping D90; clearly a well measured DAC that has gotten Rave reviews everywhere; and in his review; he said while it's good; it doesn't compete with some of his higher end stuff; one of which was Audio DG; but in that review he directly compared it with Schiit Bifrost 2 and it was clear he preferred the Bifrost 2; What gives?? To each their own. I'll continue to love my RME.

Sandu Vitalie

 

[CraigShaw]

Sod it, ill chime in.

Personally i think recommending spending 2k on a DAC is ridiculous. Unless you have the pre and power amp to do it justice ALONG with a correctly sized acoustically treated room WITH well matched speakers you are wasting money.

All I heard was 'this is the best DAC in 2020 because i listened to it and it gave me a hard on because it sounded better than another DAC in my room with my gear so you should buy one' bollocks.
The kid is a rich beardless hipster jumping on the bandwagon like 90% of audio reviewers.
He likes the warm analog sound? WTF? He must mean muffled because the tape heads need cleaning! I have a modest vinyl setup and it sounds anything but warm.

The reason i love this forum is you get measurements, and you can choose to do what you want with that information, no hard sell. Some people like a bit of extra bottom end, they choose the gear with that measurement. Some folks like roll off at the top end because they know their speakers can be harsh, guess what, they can go for whatever bit of equipment that measures a treble roll off.

I think im trying to say there is no best anything, only what measures best, and with that information people can decide objectively.

 

[CraigShaw]

Totally.

Or vintage sports cars. Or whiskey.

Im all those!

 

[Killingbeans]

Some people like a bit of extra bottom end, they choose the gear with that measurement. Some folks like roll off at the top end because they know their speakers can be harsh, guess what, they can go for whatever bit of equipment that measures a treble roll off.

Or they could use gear that measures flat as roadkill and use EQ

 

[North_Sky]

...Or they could go back analog.

 

[CraigShaw]

Or they could use gear that measures flat as roadkill and use EQ

I agree, I toyed with saying that but the post was getting lengthy

 

[watchnerd]

...Or they could go back analog.

That tape head bump.

Nothing like some junk in the trunk.

 

[TimF]

What do you do now?

Maybe go for a modern take on these!

View attachment 79636

Ooh...

I inherited a clock that is very similar to that one.

Regarding the inherited clock: there is just enough clock there to identify it as clock, but mostly it is not a clock. What is it then? I imagine the clock mechanism is the size of one-half of a pack of cigarettes, and there are a couple clock 'hands.' Does it function as a clock for you? Do you need a time piece there in your home? I raise the same question about a room display we are all familiar with: an array of audio gear in a room laid out like a reliquary. The arrangement and display supersede the mechanical function and purpose of the items, and a larger purpose changes the items in a manner similar to the clock being perverted to another function and a different thing. So how much you want for the clock? Huh?

 

[GeorgeWalk]

Regarding the inherited clock: there is just enough clock there to identify it as clock, but mostly it is not a clock. What is it then? I imagine the clock mechanism is the size of one-half of a pack of cigarettes, and there are a couple clock 'hands.' Does it function as a clock for you? Do you need a time piece there in your home? I raise the same question about a room display we are all familiar with: an array of audio gear in a room laid out like a reliquary. The arrangement and display supersede the mechanical function and purpose of the items, and a larger purpose changes the items in a manner similar to the clock being perverted to another function and a different thing. So how much you want for the clock? Huh?

Thank you for the new word, reliquary! At least there was one good reason to read this thread.