Topping D90 vs Denafrips Ares II?

[PETERPAN]

The issue is features cost a lot, and since they already cost a lot, it's hard to not look at the measurement ladder if you are already paying for these. Plus QC is another thing that you have to consider, better QC usually = more money. I wanted both usb and optical in, XLR out, both balanced and unbalanced head amp, and MQA. USB, optical and XLR are must have for me, so with limited budget I had to cut out MQA or balanced headphone amp.

This still put me at a higher price range than I waned, so why not pick something measures better than the others?

I am A LAYMAN, but any time this issue of DACs not sounding the same is raised, the explanation is more of why they do not sound the same. DACs do not sound the same, period. the evidence is in the implementation, as all the explanations suggest. You cannot ignore filters, audible levels of distortions, output voltages etc, these are all factors in the design of DACs and therefore their impact on sound.

 

[Veri]

I am A LAYMAN, but any time this issue of DACs not sounding the same is raised, the explanation is more of why they do not sound the same. DACs do not sound the same, period. the evidence is in the implementation, as all the explanations suggest. You cannot ignore filters, audible levels of distortions, output voltages etc, these are all factors in the design of DACs and therefore their impact on sound.

What about inaudible levels of distortion? Like this Ares 2. 'R2R' should not sound any different, here. Relatively free distortion...
"DACs do not sound the same" is easily said, but looks like you do not have anything to back that up besides the "period".

 

[PETERPAN]

What about inaudible levels of distortion? Like this Ares 2. 'R2R' should not sound any different, here. Relatively free distortion...
"DACs do not sound the same" is easily said, but looks like you do not have anything to back that up besides the "period".

Gentleman you are talking about "INAUDIBLE LEVELS OF DISTORTION" Does Audible levels of distortion exist? if it does, will it impact sound, are there a deferenece in dynamics, are there a deference in the implementation of output stages? why do implimentation of the same DAC chip give deferent readings. Why does Amir recommend and praise some DACs and not others? "DACs do not sound the same" Period. I dont know what you call "back that up". Talking about one good implemented DAC with "inaudible levels of distortion" should have informed you better. Not all DACs are created the same.

 

[Veri]

Why does Amir recommend and praise some DACs and not others?"DACs do not sound the same" Period. I dont know what you call "back that up". Talking about one good implemented DAC with "inaudible levels of distortion" should have informed you better. Not all DACs are created the same.

-Because some are objectively terrible? Like, straight up garbage not worth spending money on. Some are overpriced. Some are good value. Some are excellent due to many features and great performance (think RME-ADI2). This Ares II has only got "boutique R2R" going for it... for example.

-No not all DACs are created the same, but I feel you are suggesting the "impact on their sound" makes them have a "sound signature"
there are already 44pages and counting of discussion on that subject... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...le-thinking-a-dac-has-a-sound-signature.9245/

 

[BDWoody]

Not all DACs are created the same.

That's why it's important to measure them. No one is arguing that they are all the same or sound the same.
Only saying that those that measure as being transparent will all sound equally transparent.
If one gets mucked up through bad engineering or a bad starting premise, that will show up through the suite of measurements taken.
Competent DAC's should sound like other competent DAC's.

 

[PETERPAN]

That's why it's important to measure them. No one is arguing that they are all the same or sound the same.
Only saying that those that measure as being transparent will all sound equally transparent.
If one gets mucked up through bad engineering or a bad starting premise, that will show up through the suite of measurements taken.
Competent DAC's should sound like other competent DAC's.

AH!! Someone who understand what I am saying. Thank you

 

[turbotuff]

For anyone else interested, here's a recent comparison

 

[Lord Victor]

I did not believe DACs sound differently going into my listening comparison, nor did I hope to hear a difference - I wanted to keep the less expensive DAC I bought. But was I surprised.

I'm an MSEE and I'm more obsessed with numbers and measurements than most people I've met. That said, can we put all acoustic and psychological theories aside for a moment.

If one has actually listened to different DACs in a revealing system (Stereophile Class A speakers and amp for example), blind test or not, I would respect his opinion whether he says he hears a difference or not.

How's that for being open-minded?

Let me preface this by saying I greatly appreciate what this site does in terms of measurements and technical evaluations, and its why I'm here - but with that being said:
Shangri-La, I would not recommend going to an anti-vaccine forum and ask for recommendations on where to get a vaccine, or to a conservative catholic site and ask where to get an abortion, and expect a rational or useful answer to that question. In much the same way I wouldn't look for advice on choosing a component on any other basis than the specific measurements done here; it evidently won't end well, for much the same reasons.
(Sorry if that analogy seems like hyperbole, simply making a point clear here.)
Based on having worked with people who actually design and build these things, I can without shadow of a doubt say that there are differences, and that they are audible, and of course measurable, as anything is at the end of the day - however even those at the forefront of designing these products are still trying to figure out exactly which characteristic shows up in which measurement, in which way. Right from speakers, to amps, to dacs, to cables - listed from best to least commonly understood and agreed upon in terms of measurement and how evident the differences are. The fact that even they don't feel they have a sufficiently comprehensive description in the form of measurements yet, is a big part of the reason most audio products are finished/tuned by ear in the final stages of its design.
I've been in the room observing an entire group, agreeing on the characteristics of two different DACs and even speaker cables, based upon level matched blind tests, with no communication during the test, in a controlled listening environment. They each described essentially the same differences between the components being evaluated. These were professionals who make their living off of designing and tuning equipment - some of them for longer than I've been alive!

Believe them/me or not, I think this argument or even premise for a thread is clearly pointless in this forum, per the analogy earlier, as sad as I find that fact... So lets just get back to what we do best around here, shall we? And drop the meaningless bickering - I think everyone has said their piece, and successfully scared away the heretical member from any further discussion.

 

[Human Bass]

I did not believe DACs sound differently going into my listening comparison, nor did I hope to hear a difference - I wanted to keep the less expensive DAC I bought. But was I surprised.

I'm an MSEE and I'm more obsessed with numbers and measurements than most people I've met. That said, can we put all acoustic and psychological theories aside for a moment.

If one has actually listened to different DACs in a revealing system (Stereophile Class A speakers and amp for example), blind test or not, I would respect his opinion whether he says he hears a difference or not.

How's that for being open-minded?

It is very probable that the amp has way more distortion than any of the dacs.

 

[Lord Victor]

It is very probable that the amp has way more distortion than any of the dacs.

And the speakers have far more still. The room adding even more again. That doesn’t negate the difference to the end result caused my a less impactful link in the chain - simply adds to it. Wether it complements or negates from it s characteristics is where system synergy comes in - but assuming amp and speakers remain the same, the component being replaced will be the source of any alteration heard at the end of the day.

 

[Human Bass]

And the speakers have far more still. The room adding even more again. That doesn’t negate the difference to the end result caused my a less impactful link in the chain - simply adds to it. Wether it complements or negates from it s characteristics is where system synergy comes in - but assuming amp and speakers remain the same, the component being replaced will be the source of any alteration heard at the end of the day.

Or much more probably the cognitive bias of expectations when you change the equipment.

 

[Lord Victor]

Or much more probably the cognitive bias of expectations when you change the equipment.

Aah yes the “or maybe you are just always wrong, if you don’t agree” argument, which is so conducive to a discussion.
Then humor me: how exactly is it that 5 acoustic engineers described the same characteristics, in quite some detail, for each of the two tested components, when the components were swapped, without having communicated, prior to giving their discription, and never having heard the two prior? Is that the psychoacoustic telepathic mass-hive-mind’s bias, doing its dirty deed?

I can agree that expecting a change can cause you to look for one, where none might exist - but when multiple people, who are respected professionals in this field, consistently, identify the same alterations, without communicating, and without having heard the equipment prior, it would take some serious mental gymnastics to discredit this.
Outside of simple ad hominem of course.
Not to mention some of them even knew the components and characteristic in the circuit causing the differences, upon seeing it, as well as having guesses as to which measurements/tests would show it - because they've done this for a living for decades.

 

[Shangri-La]

Let me preface this by saying I greatly appreciate what this site does in terms of measurements and technical evaluations, and its why I'm here - but with that being said:
Shangri-La, I would not recommend going to an anti-vaccine forum and ask for recommendations on where to get a vaccine, or to a conservative catholic site and ask where to get an abortion, and expect a rational or useful answer to that question. In much the same way I wouldn't look for advice on choosing a component on any other basis than the specific measurements done here; it evidently won't end well, for much the same reasons.
(Sorry if that analogy seems like hyperbole, simply making a point clear here.)
Based on having worked with people who actually design and build these things, I can without shadow of a doubt say that there are differences, and that they are audible, and of course measurable, as anything is at the end of the day - however even those at the forefront of designing these products are still trying to figure out exactly which characteristic shows up in which measurement, in which way. Right from speakers, to amps, to dacs, to cables - listed from best to least commonly understood and agreed upon in terms of measurement and how evident the differences are. The fact that even they don't feel they have a sufficiently comprehensive description in the form of measurements yet, is a big part of the reason most audio products are finished/tuned by ear in the final stages of its design.
I've been in the room observing an entire group, agreeing on the characteristics of two different DACs and even speaker cables, based upon level matched blind tests, with no communication during the test, in a controlled listening environment. They each described essentially the same differences between the components being evaluated. These were professionals who make their living off of designing and tuning equipment - some of them for longer than I've been alive!

Believe them/me or not, I think this argument or even premise for a thread is clearly pointless in this forum, per the analogy earlier, as sad as I find that fact... So lets just get back to what we do best around here, shall we? And drop the meaningless bickering - I think everyone has said their piece, and successfully scared away the heretical member from any further discussion.

Thank you for the sensible post. Much appreciate you taking the time. I kinda figured out your analogy myself thus refrained from further posting.

 

[Incursio]

Aah yes the “or maybe you are just always wrong, if you don’t agree” argument, which is so conducive to a discussion.
Then humor me: how exactly is it that 5 acoustic engineers described the same characteristics, in quite some detail, for each of the two tested components, when the components were swapped, without having communicated, prior to giving their discription, and never having heard the two prior? Is that the psychoacoustic telepathic mass-hive-mind’s bias, doing its dirty deed?
....

Or you can just be making this up. Or you two anonymous gentlemen could be members of the same insane audiophile clown posse for all I know.

The point being, everything you wrote is just completely anecdotal.

Comparing the reactions of a science based site to that of an anti-vaccine or far-right pro-life group is illogical.

If what you said is true, in any other field of commercial endeavor, the manufacturers would be going out of their way to prove and publicize the benefits of their product.

They wouldn't have to rely on on-line shills or trolls do it for them.

 

[Lord Victor]

Or you can just be making this up. Or you two anonymous gentlemen could be members of the same insane audiophile clown posse for all I know.

The point being, everything you wrote is just completely anecdotal.

Comparing the reactions of a science based site to that of an anti-vaccine or far-right pro-life group is illogical.

If what you said is true, in any other field of commercial endeavor, the manufacturers would be going out of their way to prove and publicize the benefits of their product.

They wouldn't have to rely on on-line shills or trolls do it for them.

(Edit to mod, since this is apparently being evaluated: This will be my last message in this thread, no point taking it further - clearly. If I’m not allowed to ask challenging questions and try to further knowledge/understanding of the topic around here, let me know, and I’ll refrain from doing so in the future.)

The consistent denial of anything outside of the limited scope of the measurements and agreed upon dogma used here, and assumption that anyone who would dare challenge it, must be lying, some sort of mental case, troll or shill - I.e. trying to discredit the person rather than actually disproving the argument in any scientific manner, is the exact reason the comparison is accurate - it’s the same behavior as conspiracy theory groups, even if what is believed at least does have some actual basis here. It’s simply not complete, and suffers from a disturbing lack of open mindedness.
Like I said earlier, I greatly respect the measurements and technical evaluations being done here - even though I could just as well start assuming they are all doctored troll posts as well; but that wouldn’t get us anywhere.
And sorry to burst the bubbles of many an audio conspiracy theorist; in my limited experience, people in the audio industry don’t generally publicize their work, not to be secretive and hide flaws, but because most of it is well known within the industry itself, it is just work to them - they aren’t university professors.
Some of them don’t do it because they know most of their customer base is too dogmatic to be swayed anyway. As can be seen in behavior people still display towards cables and even DACs. Even though material has been published on differences in both - both often related to time domain behavior. Similar story with MQA which apparently a can of worms for some reason.

it’s perfectly fair you yourself wouldn’t purchase a product based on auditory evaluation, but pretending something isn’t real based on incomplete data is questionable at best. And even when presented with evidence just going “humans can’t hear that!”. Then proceeding to call them trolls, when someone does hear it...
That said, this clearly isn’t going anywhere, so I’ll leave it here. Believe what you want - it just disturbs me greatly that what is supposed to be the bastion of science in a hobby dominated by myths, turns out to be just as dogmatic and close-minded as those they seek to counteract. Peoples tendency to gravitate to groups of black/white, with no interest in gradients, is dangerous at the best of times - even more so under the guise of science.

 

[Veri]

It's not "when someone does hear it", that by itself is incomplete data. Anyone can say anything on the internet, that's why you will get called out on bullshit with "where's the proof". This is a science forum, not head-fi.

If you think there are differences that have zero proof to be there, we will assume they aren't there. Anytime you get new gear you will listen to it very carefully, it's all too easy to then seemingly hear and think this and that is different, when unless verified, it's really not.

 

[PETERPAN]

(Edit to mod, since this is apparently being evaluated: This will be my last message in this thread, no point taking it further - clearly. If I’m not allowed to ask challenging questions and try to further knowledge/understanding of the topic around here, let me know, and I’ll refrain from doing so in the future.)

The consistent denial of anything outside of the limited scope of the measurements and agreed upon dogma used here, and assumption that anyone who would dare challenge it, must be lying, some sort of mental case, troll or shill - I.e. trying to discredit the person rather than actually disproving the argument in any scientific manner, is the exact reason the comparison is accurate - it’s the same behavior as conspiracy theory groups, even if what is believed at least does have some actual basis here. It’s simply not complete, and suffers from a disturbing lack of open mindedness.
Like I said earlier, I greatly respect the measurements and technical evaluations being done here - even though I could just as well start assuming they are all doctored troll posts as well; but that wouldn’t get us anywhere.
And sorry to burst the bubbles of many an audio conspiracy theorist; in my limited experience, people in the audio industry don’t generally publicize their work, not to be secretive and hide flaws, but because most of it is well known within the industry itself, it is just work to them - they aren’t university professors.
Some of them don’t do it because they know most of their customer base is too dogmatic to be swayed anyway. As can be seen in behavior people still display towards cables and even DACs. Even though material has been published on differences in both - both often related to time domain behavior. Similar story with MQA which apparently a can of worms for some reason.

it’s perfectly fair you yourself wouldn’t purchase a product based on auditory evaluation, but pretending something isn’t real based on incomplete data is questionable at best. And even when presented with evidence just going “humans can’t hear that!”. Then proceeding to call them trolls, when someone does hear it...
That said, this clearly isn’t going anywhere, so I’ll leave it here. Believe what you want - it just disturbs me greatly that what is supposed to be the bastion of science in a hobby dominated by myths, turns out to be just as dogmatic and close-minded as those they seek to counteract. Peoples tendency to gravitate to groups of black/white, with no interest in gradients, is dangerous at the best of times - even more so under the guise of science.

LOL. A wise man once said, ' You can deceive a man, but it will be very difficult to convince a man he is being deceived' LV, save your breath.

 

[214bobd]

Obviously these two are very different in that the D90 is a DS DAC, whereas the Denafrips is an R2R. They're both around the same price and both test very well. Anyone have experience with both? Looking to make an upgrade from my Modi 3. All help is greatly appreciated!

Just purchased the D90. The last time I checked the Ares II, it was over $1,000 so I ruled it out.

 

[Marlowe]

Just purchased the D90. The last time I checked the Ares II, it was over $1,000 so I ruled it out.

I don't think you checked that carefully, though I guess it could be confusing. If you check the site of their only distributor (Vinshine Audio), you will find the price of the Ares II just over 1,000--in Singapore dollars. If you look more carefully, there is a separate available option to buy products in US dollars. The Ares II goes for $768 USD. I'm planning to buy a new DAC in mid-June and have seriously considered the Ares, but am probably going to go with the D90 MQA for various reasons that do not include price since they are so close as to make no difference.

 

[Lord Victor]

Once more, unto the breach... If there is a more appropriate thread for this debate, do let me know.

LOL. A wise man once said, ' You can deceive a man, but it will be very difficult to convince a man he is being deceived' LV, save your breath.

Very true sadly, Its just a shame, because I saw so much potential in this forum.

It's not "when someone does hear it", that by itself is incomplete data. Anyone can say anything on the internet, that's why you will get called out on bullshit with "where's the proof". This is a science forum, not head-fi.

If you think there are differences that have zero proof to be there, we will assume they aren't there. Anytime you get new gear you will listen to it very carefully, it's all too easy to then seemingly hear and think this and that is different, when unless verified, it's really not.

No you're right, this isn't head-fi, but it is just as little of a science forum, which is my issue:
Science is about the pursuit of new knowledge, openly, and without prejudice, observing reality, and describing it, in an as comprehensible and quantifiable manner as possible, such that it may be tested.
Buying a ruler and measuring the length of something, and then denying anything you can't measure with that ruler, has very little to do with science - you're using a basic tool of science as a comfort blanket, rather than for conducting scientific work.
Not saying the measurements here are not 'science' or useful, rather the practices surrounding them. There is no hunger for new knowledge - rather for confirmation.

"If you think there are differences that have zero proof to be there" Those are your words, not mine. Straw-manning is a weak form of argumentation, and certainly shouldn't be used on a 'science forum'. My exact point is that the measurement used here, clearly aren't comprehensive, and that measurement of audio in general is not developed to the point of being satisfactory in describing what we hear.
I'm not an expert in this field, nor do I own the necessary equipment to test these things, but from speaking to people who are experts, and professionals at that, I find that there are areas that still need exploring, especially with regards to time domain responses, such as the impulse behaviour in various materials and geometries.
This was experimented with by people hired externally by fx. Nordost, and then replicated by B&O as well as Gamut, and showed varying impulse behaviour in different cables, which happened to coincide fairly well with what people claimed to be hearing.
And now you can deny that as anecdotal all you want, though I know there are papers released at least some of the above on the matter, but that is my exact point: the methodology of science is to test whether this is falsifiable, not simply denial - that is the method of a zealot or extremist.

I obviously don't expect you do prove or disprove anything on the spot, much like you should not expect me to - we aren't 'scientists' last I checked. Rather I'd hope someone independent, with the proper expertise and equipment, would continue to explore these areas, and release their findings.

On that note - is there a more dedicated thread for this sort of thing? For discussing the actual methodology and measurements being applied here?
Because it would be great to see this site grow to its potential, of the independent exploration science of sound reproduction, rather than become yet another bastion of inexorable dogma in the world of hifi, because we've got enough of those...