do i need a new DAC


i have a NAD D1050 which is now 5 years old but still sounds fantastic.  just upgraded my amp to the new Rega Brio 3.  was considering a Chord, Rega, or the new Audiolab MDAC+.  but i can't imagine it making much of a difference. for a DAC that is 5 years old the little NAD is holding up well?  what has happen in the last 5 years?  have their really been such great strides in digital playback made? i think SS is evolving faster.  any suggestions?
thanks,
128x128jag
OP seems to take a lot of potshots at DSD.  I listen to Classical and for me DSD has been the biggest innovation of the past 20 years.  MQA doesn’t do much for me, but there is another innovation that your current DAC doesn’t cover.
  So imo the answer to your original question is Yes— you need a new DAC
"i have a NAD D1050 which is now 5 years old but still sounds fantastic."

Relative to what other DACs you’ve heard???

"what has happen in the last 5 years? have their really been such great strides in digital playback made? i think SS is evolving faster"

Um, no. Not even close. SS has been dead in the water relative to what’s been happening in digital-to-analog conversion IMHO. There have been very exciting new entrants into the DAC realm over the past 5 years that offer very different approaches to converting digital data to analog. If you haven’t listened to the latest R2R, NOS, etc. DACs from the likes of Schiit, Mytek, Metrum, Chord, etc., you need to do some listening. Whether it’s through the Chord approach of refining filters or the Metrum approach of improving the non-upsampling path, there has been a bit of a revolution that has recognized and is looking to surpass the limitations and artifacts of the "delta sigma" era that your NAD DAC and many others were a part of.

I’m gonna make my own pedestrian and oversimplified observation of what’s going on in today’s DAC world that hopefully translates and is roughly analogous to the tube vs. solid state debate that’s been going on for over 40 years.

I think the purveyors of the NOS/non-upsampling faith are analogous to the tube pres and amps of today in the analog world. This camp is striving to preserve the essence of the initial analog waveform in the digital world and transfer as much of that analog-ness as possible into the listening experience with as little processing possible. On the other hand, there’s the digital side that is trying to take every electronic bit available and best interpolate all those captured bits into the best analog waveform possible with as few as possible digital artifacts. In short, one camp is trying to preserve the best of analog and preserve it into the digital world, while the other is trying to capture the advantage of every last digital bit and use it to enhance the analog listening experience. Both are laudable and valid approaches IMHO, and to be perfectly honest, at this point I’m agnostic and haven’t planted my flag in either camp. But I’m vigorously rooting for both!

So, here’s my ultimate analogy and observation for you: Both of these digital camps have realized that the "old school" delta-sigma DAC process (of which your NAD DAC is one) is compromised or at least not completely natural sounding to most audiophiles. But, as with the best of solid state and tubed amplifiers and preamps, as both sides improve they are starting to sound more and more alike at their pinnacles.

So, the short answer to your question from my perspective is this -- your DAC, while maybe good for its time and price, has been left in the proverbial digital dust. Your main question now should be, should I go NOS (tube-like) or upsampling (solid state-like). And, maybe not coincidentally, the trade-offs seem to be right along the same traditional party lines as solid state versus tubes in our current industry -- and both converging as we speak. Maybe, as with our political parties, it will and should always be thus to get the best end result for the people.


the other two DACs i am interested in are the Rega and the Audiolab MDAC+, these two still use the same architecture that they have used for the last 5 years. in the case of the Rega DAC-R they are comfortable with sticking with the trusty Wolfson 8740 in fact. NAD has not upgraded the D1050 in 5 years. their must be a good reason for these large companies not embracing the new technology and sticking with delta-sigma? wonder why Audiolab, Rega, and Nad have not changed their approach. hey if it’s not broken why fix it? i guess it’s the smaller companies that are making these perceived advances. wish someone would write a good article on these advancements.
@jag

5 year old DACs are indeed pretty good. However those with the latest 9018 ESS Sabre chips are more technically advanced and measure better. The slight improvement may or may not be audible. I heard a subtle improvement in Benchmark DAC 3 over prior technology (or at least I thought I did). The new ESS chips offer lower distortion and noise floor.

You may also be better served looking for a DAC with correction for inter sample overs (few DACs offer this) and excellent jitter rejection....rather than the latest chip.

+1@soix

The sound converges with different topologies as the technology improves. In the end it boils down to taste. I prefer the most natural sounding DACs and the latest round of DACs in many flavours of topology are very close. The Digital “glare or etched” sound is becoming a thing of the past.

Finally , if you have a Roon or similar you can test your DAC at various sample rates. A good DAC will sound identical on all sample rates. Only poorly implemented DACs sound different due to changing filters and changing conversion methodology or changing jitter and distortion which is modulated between the music and sample rate. A good DAC should convert native red book 44.1 equally well as 192KHz and does not require any software upsampling to sound its best. The software upsampling business is the ugly stepchild born from a multitude of poorly designed DACs that sound different at different sample rates (when mathematically they should not!).