Analyzing DACs

@mastering92 And not all DAC chips are created equal. The easier it is to implement/ it can withstand all kinds of substandard parts tolerances and teperature variations/ the worse it will sound. Rather than have all parts when, which measured, do not vary wildly and will compliment eachother to create a high-performace unit

The tried and true formula seems to be cheap and low quality level parts then utilization of off the shelf OP-amps. One thing is for sure, these OP-amps will consistently provide very good test measurements.That’s the apparent objective target, measure good.

The sound quality reproducing music can be subpar. But that seems besides the point, and not the important criteria. The game plan is great measurements at a very low retail cost. OP-amps and their generous NFB will get the desired result.

Charles

@jasonbourne52 - There’s a review by Goldensound for the Denafrips Ares II that includes measurements that demonstrate the oversampling slow filter having some very unexpected and the fast filter appearing to measuring as expected.  The recommendation was to not use the slow filter.  I don’t know if the specific unit being reviewed had an issue, but it’s very interesting that the nearly unanimous consensus is that the DAC sounds the best using the slow filter.  I have not spent a lot of time comparing the two, but switched to the fast filter based on the review and recently went back to the slow filter and also preferred it’s sound. 
 

Experiences like this challenge my natural tendency to believe that something that measures better should sound better.  I’m starting to believe that measurements have little meaning because it’s become unquestionably clear that individual preferences simply do not align with measurements.

Objectivists accuse subjectivists of being subject to expectation bias, placebo effect, etc.  Is it possible that the primary factor in objectivists preferring the sound of equipment that they believe to be superior based on measurements is a result of the same factors?

I’ve tried different scenarios:

Topping D70s dac acting as a preamp straight into a GoldNote PA10. Then a Creek integrated amp acting as a preamp preceded by the same dac switched to pure dac mode, Then eventually purchased an SPL Elector for a dedicated preamp instead of the Creek (same configuration).

This particular dac as pre sounded…pretty good. Decent stage, good clarity, bass weight ok.

with the Creek, sounded…pretty good. Just wider stage, more interesting tonally, but not as fast.

Enter SPL preamp…huge improvement, by several factors, at least. Wider and deeper, more balanced while being more tonally rich, but also more accurate/there. Much more clarity, bass weight, bass quality, presence, center image, believability, pace, speed, dynamics, refinement, smoother. Sometimes even have trouble stopping the music to pee, it’s so good.

It’s interesting how nuanced and variable sampling different components in the chain can become. But to me, a very well designed output stage (or series of very good output stages) can be a game changer.

Topping dac as a dac is great in this arrangement. Better than as a pre/dac. But a Chord Dave as a pre/dac? I would assume a whole other animal much much better than a topping pre/dac. But I’d still stick with my SPL pre, given the choice. Always with the prospect of getting an even better dac down the line.

I would say that the one advantage to following the ASR sheep is that the units recommended by ASR can be resold very quickly and without taking as much of a haircut in the process. 

I was revamping a system last year and the first two units that sold "measured very well".  Those were the units I liked the least and thought would take the longest to sell.

For my next test I am going to try the GD Audio R-27 HE as a preamp/DAC combo.  It fit my needs for where it was going and the sources that would be connected.  Also, their latest DAC did very well in Stereophile which does not usually lavish praise on units in that price point.