Why most $3000 and lower DAC’s sound almost identical

@cundare2 

Holo May KTE measures superbly

https://www.stereophile.com/content/holoaudio-may-level-3-da-processor-measurements

But then again, almost every DAC does because every designer or chip designer uses Precision Analyzers. Listeners seem to rate this DAC very highly and there seems to be a growing community of R2R proponents  since 10 years or more.
 

The sad truth is that Precision Analyzers rely on frequency analysis and large windows of analysis to achieve their precision. And a pre or post-echo will not be detected at all because it’s just time domain distortion - it’s the exact audio signal at much lower level delayed or earlier than the main signal. (A true echo and a completely different animal from pre- or post-ringing at the Gibbs single frequency tone)
 

It is NOT so much the shape of the upsampling filter (smooth etc) that affects what we hear but the equiripple added to pass-band. Anyone who thinks a very slight roll off at 15-18 KHz on a smooth filter is going to change much is mistaken. It doesn’t. What changes is the equiripple which is well audible as a pre or post echo that our hearing detects as fatiguing digital glare and makes stereoscopic interpretation (imaging/soundstage) more laborious and tiring (it’s why we tire of digital more quickly than analog)

Then there is the issue that many say R2R DACs in the $2K to $3K range are soft sounding and don't have punchy bass, even if they have great natural tone and a nice body to that tone and a deeper soundstage. That often seems to be the main qualifier:  That R2R DACs give a slightly wider and deeper soundstage - if it is in the recording. But others would ask, are they "creating" that or presenting it as an artificial "artifact", and it wasn't really what the recording engineer heard in his headphones? Choose your poison at whatever level of price you are willing to pay. Or go back to analog vinyl and be happy. All engineering design considerations (and the company bean counters) color the sound of all digital devices one way or another. DACs at nearly the same price points often do NOT sound the same. But I think we can all agree that today, that most all do sound much better than even 10 years ago, so we have that going for us. 

But that is the one thing no audio electrical engineer has explained: Why do the old school R2R ladder DACs have this "soundstage" and "natural tone" compared to similarly priced "chip based" DACs? I'm not arguing that you can't hear it, just curious as to the why.  And if they really are so much better, then why doesn't someone like PS Audio have an R2R DAC in their lineup, instead of focusing on FPGA chip-based ones?  I mean, tariffs aside, they could set up a communist Chinese manufacturing site and use cheap labor to make them just as easily as Denafrips or Holo Audio if they wanted. 

Not seeing much here that would clearly help me choose a DAC. 

After my last adventure trusting reviewers who has no idea about a "natural organic timbre sound" who sell dac which are  artificial sounding, i will stuck to my SPS dac (i succeeded to repair)...

By the way all these people selling dac not one said that a dac must be well grounded to sound the best, not one...

 By the way i had seen grounding box sold for many thousand bucks...

I created mine for peanuts and total success...

They sell product and do not inform most of the times....

@shadorne 

I started out as a test engineer in the late 1970s and remember using, I think it was called, an Audio Precision System One, the standard high-end signal analyzer at the time, and probably the predecessor of the type of device you’re referring to as  Precision Analyzer products.

I remember that even back then, those analyzers could operate in both the frequency and time domain.  I even remember using our System One to perform Fourier transforms.

So I’m not sure about the "sad truth" you cite re:Precision Analyzer’s current product line operating in only the fr domain.  I could certainly make the kind of measurements you describe with a pro signal analyzer 50 years ago.  In fact, I half-remember someone like Atkinson routinely publishing such measurements years ago in the slick audiophile press (although I may be misremembering after all this time).

To be clear: I’m not trying to start a debate.  Just hoping to learn something about the current state of an art (of great interest to me) that I haven’t followed since retiring.

Hey, thanks for the Holo/Stereophile link.  I sorta recall reading that piece years ago, but will take another look, given the new context of this thread.  Not sure how much of the articles conclusions still hold up half a decade later, but I'll check it out.

@mapman  Don’t hate me, but if you’re looking to get defiitive buying recommendations from an authoritative source, IMHO, Audiogon is not the place.  The value of this thread, e.g., is its discussion of under-the-hood D/A tech, which as I’m sure you know, doesn’t necessarily tell you anything definitive about SQ.  The idea, I think, is that, if this thread increases your understanding of a technical issue, you’ll be able to ask more educated questions when you go shopping.  IMHO, that’s a heckuva lot more valuable than plowing through dozens of "I really like this DAC!" messages from strangers who use a product with systems, rooms, cables, and power that may be nothing like yours.  

Over the years, I’ve found that the real value of fora like Audiogon -- other than providing a platform for masturbatory proclamations of conclusory opinions -- is more along the lines of "Teach a man to fish...".  My 2c.

Jeez, wouldn’t "MPoCO" be a great name for a band?