Let's Get A Consensus Of The Best DAC's In The Market Today

[Believe High Fidelity]

It also objectively produces much lower distortion and audio band dynamic range than straight multibit.

Can you provide any measurements to back this up? It was always my understanding that Delta Sigma was never designed for audiophile applications and as such comparatively could not measure better than an multibit chip. If things have changed in this department I would sure like to be in the know

 

[Ken Newton]

I am curious as to whether you have heard Audio Note/Ypsilon DACS or are just saying they are some the best sounding because of their reputation?

In what way does that matter? If I heard them and liked or disliked them, that would just be one person's opinion. Both Audio Note and Yspilon are regarded by a number of experienced listeners as outstanding, and no doubt, not so regarded by others. You, for example, may not prefer their sound, but that alone wouldn't necessarily mean they do not sound outstanding to the equally experienced ears of others. Personal preference plays a role. The point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to DACs, and pretty much every other kind of audio component, I don't think there is a consensus on a set group of technologies that provide the best subjective result for all listeners. I would think this truth should be plainly evident.

 

[Ken Newton]

Can you provide any measurements to back this up? It was always my understanding that Delta Sigma was never designed for audiophile applications and as such comparatively could not measure better than an multibit chip. If things have changed in this department I would sure like to be in the know

Yes, I can. Google the data sheets for a good sigma delta DAC chip, like the PCM1794A, and then a good multibit DAC chip, such as the PCM1704. Look at the charts or figures depicting distortion, especially at low signal levels, such as -60dB. Even the best straight multibit chips will be around 1%THD @ -60dB. The sigma delta units will be around 0.1% @ -60dB. An order of magnitude lower. Straight multibit would have lower in-band quantization noise than would sigma delta except that noise-shaping techniques give sigma delta the in-band noise advantage. None of that by itself dictates that sigma delta sounds better than multibit. There are so many other factors involved.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

In what way does that matter? If I heard them and liked or disliked them, that would just be one person's opinion. Both Audio Note and Yspilon are regarded by a number of experienced listeners as outstanding, and no doubt, not so regarded by others. You, for example, may not prefer their sound, but that alone wouldn't necessarily mean they do not sound outstanding to the equally experienced ears of others. Personal preference plays a role. The point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to DACs, and pretty much every other kind of audio component, I don't think there is a consensus on a set group of technologies that provide the best subjective result for all listeners. I would think this truth should be plainly evident.

In every way my friend. As the thread suggests we are proposing a consensus of the best DAC's on the market today.

Having listened to the best DAC's I can comfortably say that there is a design element that is synonymous with falling into this category irregardless of price but entirely in design. I am also one who believes in a consensus in amplifier design, preamplifier design etc.

I am not a measurement guy but from listening to many examples of gear I start to notice a trend in design choices and all the best gear design in a similar form or fashion from an engineering perspective.

Naturally it is my opinion and you can take it or leave it. Just adding my .02 to the thread discussion...

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Yes, I can. Google the data sheets for a good sigma delta DAC chip, like the PCM1794A, and then a good multibit DAC chip, such as the PCM1704. Look at the charts or figures depicting distortion, especially at low signal levels, such as -60dB. Even the best straight multibit chips will be around 1%THD @ -60dB. The sigma delta units will be around 0.1% @ -60dB. An order of magnitude lower. Straight multibit would have lower in-band quantization noise than would sigma delta except that noise-shaping techniques give sigma delta the in-band noise advantage. None of that by itself dictates that sigma delta sounds better than multibit. There are so many other factors involved.

Well both examples given are not the best from each camp. Even still, no manufacturer who cares about the bottom line would choose a ladder design over a DS design if it were all about measurements. Hell you can add a **** ton of feedback to a design to have the best measurements in the world (as most AV receivers do) and it sounds like crap. Measurements can easily be manipulated so in any scenario of top shelf gear comes down to what I see in the design parameters of the engineer and specs are just a afterthought..

 

[Ken Newton]

In every way my friend. As the thread suggests we are proposing a consensus of the best DAC's on the market today.

Having listened to the best DAC's I can comfortably say that there is a design element that is synonymous with falling into this category irregardless of price but entirely in design. I am also one who believes in a consensus in amplifier design, preamplifier design etc....

For each design feature or design philosophy which you might conclude is a requirement for top tier DAC sound, I would be able to give you examples of successful polar opposite design features or design philosophy. I've already provided a number of such examples up-thread. It seems that you have concluded a list of design features that appears correlated with the kind of sound you enjoy. Which is a notion I don't object to. I do, however, object to any suggestion that some particular list of design features that appears to correlate with your individual listening enjoyment can be declared as a consensus on the universally applicable best design features or approach.

To be fair to you, I'm a bit unclear as to whether you are suggesting that, or are merely suggesting that you believe you've identified a particular list of design features that seems to consistently produce the most enjoyable sound to your ears. If it's the latter, I have no issue with that, so long as you don't harbor any notions of your sense of listening enjoyment being an universally applicable standard of evaluation.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

For each design feature which you might conclude is a requirement for top tier DAC sound, I would be able to give you examples of top tier DACs which utilize polar opposite design features or design philosophy. I've already provided a number of such examples up-thread. It seems that you have concluded a list of design features that appears correlated with the kind of sound you enjoy. Which is a notion I don't object to. I do, however, object to any suggestion that some particular list of design features that appears to correlate with your individual listening enjoyment can be declared as a consensus on what necessarily are universally the best design features or approach.

To be fair, I'm uncertain as to whether you are suggesting that, or merely suggesting that you believe you've identified a particular list of design features that seems to consistently produce the most enjoyable sound to your ears.

I think it goes without saying it is relative to my experiences and ears as I can only speak for myself. I have been fortunate to have owned a number of great DAC's and have heard even more in great systems.

I don't believe in price as an absolute, but in terms of design I have narrowed down parameters and engineering that is consistent to my ears.

You have indeed suggested Top Tier DAC's using polar opposite designs, but they are only top tier because of reputation and not because you have formulated that opinion based on listening to them. In my case I have listened to a lot but due to my industry affiliation you can take any of my suggestions with a grain of salt.

A good example of this is Class D. I don't hate it, but I do not consider this type of amplification to be reference or statement level design topology. Even when I owned Kharma MP150's which were among the best class D I have heard I would always attribute the best sounding gear to Class A design. No personal interest, just happens to be that way

 

[Ken Newton]

You have indeed suggested Top Tier DAC's using polar opposite designs, but they are only top tier because of reputation and not because you have formulated that opinion based on listening to them. In my case I have listened to a lot but due to my industry affiliation you can take any of my suggestions with a grain of salt.

You state that it goes without saying this is with regards to your own ears, but then you make other statements which, whether or not you realize it, seem to assume that what you hear is some universally applicable standard of enjoyment. Your declaration that the Audio Note and Ypsilon DACs are only top tier by reputation is merely your opinion. One person's opinion. While it is no more or less valid than any other one person's opinion, your subjective enjoyment can only be a standard for your listening. This same rule would apply to my opinion on those same products, just one person's view, valid only for me. Enough experienced listerners feel that those are top tier DACs to serve my point that upper tier DACs can take polar opposite, yet effective, design approaches. I have not suggested that the Audio Note and Yspilon DACs are the very top two available, just that they are well regarded enough to serve the point of successful alternate design approaches. You seem to be attempting to invalidate my point about polar opposite design appraches both being able to give excellent subjective results for different listeners by instead seeking to discount the subjective results of the Audio Note and Ypsilon DACs.

A good example of this is Class D. I don't hate it, but I do not consider this type of amplification to be reference or statement level design topology. Even when I owned Kharma MP150's which were among the best class D I have heard I would always attribute the best sounding gear to Class A design. No personal interest, just happens to be that way

It's the same with amplifiers. There is no concensus on design features for everyone. I have a Tripath based class-D amplifier which, in my opinion, absolutely killed a pair of Audio Research tube monoblocks I once owned. This result was true both with dynamic driver speakers and with my Martin-Logan electrostats.

Just a friendly discussion.

 

[wisnon]

The Kassandra Ref retails at 18k € about the same neighborhood as the GG Balanced . The Sig andSig LE , two box models a lot dearer . Demoing the Sig LE in KL tomorrow , should be reports .... Danon , who has the DAC , also owns some top flight TT's says it comes close , mighty close .

Its $35 to $40K in the US.

 

[morricab]

You state that it goes without saying this is with regards to your own ears, but then you make other statements which, whether or not you realize it, seem to assume that what you hear is some universally applicable standard of enjoyment. Your declaration that the Audio Note and Ypsilon DACs are only top tier by reputation is merely your opinion. One person's opinion. While it is no more or less valid than any other one person's opinion, your subjective enjoyment can only be a standard for your listening. This same rule would apply to my opinion on those same products, just one person's view, valid only for me. Which is why my individual opinion doesn't matter in making the point that upper tier DACs can take polar opposite, yet effective, design approaches.

I didn't suggest that those Audio Note and Yspilon DACs are the very top two available. In fact, I'm arguing something quite different from an this is best, or that is worst assessment. You seem to be attempting to invalidate my valid point about polar opposite design appraches both being able to give excellent subjective results for different listeners by seeking to discount the Audio Note and Ypsilon products. I would characterize this as an attempt at putting forth a red herring.



It's the same with amplifiers. There is no concensus on design features for everyone. I have a Tripath based class-D amplifier which, in my opinion, absolutely killed a pair of Audio Research tube monoblocks I once owned. This result was true both with dynamic driver speakers and with my Martin-Logan electrostats.

Just a friendly discussion.

Hi Ken,
While it is clear that different people end up having different "tastes" in sound I do think that this is only because no one product has managed to eliminate audible distortions completely. Given this there will always be some subjectivity about what is better and what is not. However, I do not subscribe to pure subjectivity because we do in fact have live, unamplified, music as a form of reference and based on psychoacoustic studies, there will be particular distortion patterns that are more, or less, correct to the majority (but of course not all) listeners. This can be derived from the mechanics of hearing and the brain as a pattern recognition system. It has been clearly determined that humans have preferences for sound with primarily low order distortions and this of coure impacts the choices in amplifier design, output stages in sources, digital "artifacts" etc. Since elimination of these distortions, in the here and now, is an impossible task the best one can do is find a way to "hide" distortions in the human perception blind spots.

I think that this is particularly hard with digital because the kinds of distortions generated are so alien to our evolutionarily derived hearing mechanisms. The most successful designs find ways to minimize these distortions without generating new (and potentially worse) distortions in the process (this is a particular problem of negative feedback). Perhaps why more and more people are "turning back" to multi-bit chips is that they do not require such mathematical gymnastics like noise shaping to achieve low distortion and high linearity. Perhaps noise shaping is not audible...but perhaps it is audible. Afterall, jitter seems to be audible at least down to the sub nano-second range. Noise shaping is doing, something...but what exactly within the noise band? Interestingly, I have some settings on my Behringer DEQX 24/96 (love this machine as a learning tool even if it sounds pretty crappy) that can be instructive. One is noise shaping and the other is dither. For Noise shaping it is either one or off and for the dither it is either off, 16bit, 20bit or 24bit. All experiments I will describe were done feeding a Monarchy Audio M24 DAC (that has 20 bit PCM63K chips and DF1704 8x oversampling) coming first though through a Monarchy DIP to reduced input jitter to the DAC.

The effects of the Noise shaping are...weird. It seems to expand the soundstage and makes the images more "whispy" and less 3d solid. Sometimes I liked it and sometimes not but mostly not so I turned it off after living with it on for weeks at a time and then switching back.

The Dither is a clear win though for going to the highest bit rate of Dither. This opened up the highs (not brighter just "less dark") and had a positive effect on soundstage as well. I leave it in 24bit mode although the difference between 20 and 24 was small. 16 is quite noticable and off clearly closes things in by comparison. Dither seems to be a desireable additive.

I have tried some really good sigma/delta DACs in the past, like the Audio Aero Prima DAC (it is the DAC section from the Capitole 24/192 MkII cd player), which uses very powerful processing. It had this "whispy" sound to it as I have also heard with the older DCS Elgar DAC, which is some sort of 5 bit hybrid but still needs the complex processing. I keep going back to the multi-bit DACs, particularly those with a good tube output stage, as they seem to have less "artifacts" that can identify the sound as digital. It is not that the better ones don't sound pleasant to listen to but also not quite "right". The Audio Aero was almost a keeper...almost but something bothered me about what it was doing that I didn't hear live and didn't hear with good R2R dacs.

Now, with amplifiers the distortions can be more easily characterized and I think a clear listener preference (for the majority of course...never 100%) can be, with some effort, established. For digital though, I think we still don't have a good handle, with perhaps the exception of jitter, what all this computer processing of the signal is doing to the audible distortions. Maybe nothing, but from my listening experience, the more the signal is manipulated in the digital domain the more one can hear this on the output.

 

[Ken Newton]

Hi Ken,
While it is clear that different people end up having different "tastes" in sound I do think that this is only because no one product has managed to eliminate audible distortions completely.

Hi, morricab, thanks, for such a thorough and thoughtful reponse.

While I tend to agree with your above point, I also think that certain kinds of distortions may never be removed. I feel that such distortions (or, is it omissions in this case?) are related to the relative importance to which a given listener places upon certain aspects of sound presentation. Such as distortion of the reproduced ambient field due to the so-called second venue effect. Whch is where the listening room overlays it's own acoustic character onto the sound of the original event's location acoustic.

It's my suspicion that much of the difference in top tier equipment preferences among audiophiles has much to do with the relative emphasis a given listener places, whether consciously or unconsciously, on certain aspects of acoustic presentation. Those who are more drawn to full and flat bass will prefer equipment delivering that. Those drawn to stereo imaging will prefer equipment well delivering that illusion. The same is true for dynamic realism, and so on. None of the people who prefer equipment that better delivers one aspect of musical presentation versus another are wrong. They simply are more drawn to sacrifice some particular aspect over another, given that the musical whole is likely not attainable to them. Not having every piece to a jig saw puzzle doesn't render incorrect the pieces which are held. The better music reproduction systems can accurately deliver some piece or pieces of the musical whole, but usually not all of it. Someone preferring to hold one particular piece while necessarily omitting another piece is no more or less correct than someone who prefers to hold some differing piece.

Amateur philosophizing finished.

 

[Al M.]

Hi, morricab, thanks, for such a thorough and thoughtful reponse.

While I tend to agree with your above point, I also think that certain kinds of distortions may never be removed. I feel that such distortions (or, is it omissions in this case?) are related to the relative importance to which a given listener places upon certain aspects of sound presentation. Such as distortion of the reproduced ambient field due to the so-called second venue effect. Whch is where the listening room overlays it's own acoustic character onto the sound of the original event's location acoustic.

It's my suspicion that much of the difference in top tier equipment preferences among audiophiles has much to do with the relative emphasis a given listener places, whether consciously or unconsciously, on certain aspects of acoustic presentation. Those who are more drawn to full and bass accuracy will prefer equipment delivering such. Those drawn to stereo imaging will prefer eqipmemt well delivering that illusion. The same is true for dynamic realism, and so on. None of the people who prefer equipment that better delivers one aspect of musical presentation versus another are wrong. They simply are more drawn to sacrifice some particular aspect over another, given that the musical whole is likely not attainable to them. Not having every piece to a jig saw puzzle doesn't render incorrect the pieces which are held. The better music reproduction systems can accurately deliver some piece or pieces of the musical whole, but usually not all. Preferring to hold one particular piece while necessarily omitting another piece is no more or less correct than someone who prefers to hold some different piece.

Amateur philosophizing finished.

Excellent post, and I fully agree. Every listener has different priorities, that is why there are so many different system approaches.

No one system can do it all, and you have to choose. There is no audio without compromise, regardless of how much money you throw at it. Alas many live in the delusion that they can have it all 'some day', and are perennially unhappy as a result. The search for 'audio nirvana' is futile. At some point you have to be content with what you have.

 

[Alrainbow]

And covering them with something like a thick towel wouldn't solve this problem because?

I can't believe they don't include the Femto 33 clock for that price...so it's really a 100k DAC with their best clock.

This will give me a chance to see if what I have heard is true. Two separate people (although they may have had the same source) claim that they were told that MSB doesn't like "clocks" in the system. Neither person was technical enough to explain exactly what that meant i.e. any computer will have a clock. Seemed to be saying that MSB does not recommend any word clocks anywhere in the system. If thrue that's most likely why no femto clock in a $100K DAC.

I don't know. I haven't found the PS Audio DirectStream to be in the same league as the Lampizator Big 7 and the Playback Designs DACs.
And then there is the NADAC....

From Bruce Brown on this forum:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?t=16548&goto=newpost

I found the PS Audio DS within striking distance of the $30K MSB Signature in a direct shootout, one year ago and BEFORE the pikes peak FW upgrade. With the new firmware it is easily equivalent if not better to my ears. The MSB replaced the EMM Labs DAC2X, so this would make the DS superior to that $15K DAC as well. So to me the DS earns a place between the 5 figure top dogs. I also believe the differences between these very high end DACs are relatively small, and all the jaw dropping differences reported are heavily hyped.

This is a nice thread a good read even if I do agree it's all in our own perspective what better . I think it's healthy to read objectivity , with that said I am sorry to,say how edor can post the ps audio DS in the league of most all of the other dacs puzzles me . No disrespect either . Is a DAC I owned with the hugo another DAC praised needlessly. Both have been sold and for the Hugo was a level below the DS DAC . As I a selling my msb stack now the big part not added to this thread is the source . Not just the material or music , I know there is good bad and the ugly . But a music server is key perhaps more key then the DAC itself . I leaned this the hard way and it's why I bought a UMT plus with my msb DAC . This allowed me to hear great digital playback . The only server I have heard to date that beats the umt plus is my custom built one . Regardimg the clocks msb does say yuse there's even if exported but not to use others . As for better sound until recently I felt the msb beat my lampi in someways on PCM . The msb just had more low level details perhaps the dither they add for this purpose helped . But now my new r2r beats this too . As such it's going away . I do think the msb would measure better and most likely is the most technically made and measured DAC on the planit . But after all what we hear as better is the end game right , and with tube rolling and better tubes becoming avalible there is more . And lampi is a fraction of the cost and does his own upgrades cheap as well. Only with my reference server did a mytek DAC sound ok never great but ok . Overall I see the point of a combination server DAC combo sold as a package . I think it's a great decision and one that msb leads in. Lampi now does this too again much cheaper . I would like to hear the new select and a few others in my room though.

 

[Ken Newton]

I feel that, perhaps, I should clarify my perspective regarding objective measurement versus subjective evaluation. When it comes to an audio system intended for human listening, measured technical parameters should be in service of the human listening. Conversely, listening should not be in service of parameter measurements. Said another way, music is for the benefit of humans to experience, not for the benefit of spectrum analyzer readouts. This is an important distinction. In order for measurements to effectively serve the human listening experience, the context, relevance, and inter-relationship of those measurements with respect to the human ear-brain system must be well understood. As seems too often the case, designers reverse this proper arrangement and design on the basis that measurements dictate what sounds best. The implication being that if measurements appear good, but the ear doesn't appreciate the result, then the ear is necessarily in error. The designer's understanding of exactly what should be measured, the context in which it should be measured, and how to interpret those measurements are what should be instead questioned.

Should a designer be in possession of a full and complete understanding of how each measurment relates to and affects the human perception (unlikely), such measurements can indeed serve as a parametric guide to the technical design of products, without further reference to the human element. Of course, this is the objective of current measurement practice, however, the subjective result often suggest an less than full and complete knowledge by many designers. In summary, the human ear-brain system should be the master, parameter measurement the slave. Not the reverse.

End of my pompous soapbox postulating.

 

[marslo]

N

I feel that, perhaps, I should clarify my perspective regarding objective measurement versus subjective evaluation. When it comes to an audio system intended for human listening, measured technical parameters should be in service of the human listening. Conversely, listening should not be in service of parameter measurements. Said another way, music is for the benefit of humans to experience, not for the benefit of spectrum analyzer readouts. This is an important distinction. In order for measurements to effectively serve the human listening experience, the context, relevance, and inter-relationship of those measurements with respect to the human ear-brain system must be well understood. As seems too often the case, designers reverse this proper arrangement and design on the basis that measurements dictate what sounds best. The implication being that if measurements appear good, but the ear doesn't appreciate the result, then the ear is necessarily in error, but the designers understanding of the what should be measured, the context in which it should be measured, and how to interpret those measurements.

Should a designer be in possession of a full and complete understanding of how each measurment relates to and affects the human perception (unlikely), such measurements can indeed serve as a parametric guide to the technical design of products, without further reference to the human element. Of course, this is the objective of current measurement practice, however, the subjective result often suggest an less than full and complete knowledge by many designers. In summary, the human ear-brain system should be the master, parameter measurement the slave. Not the reverse.

End of my pompous soapbox postulating.

+1

Just to give the example and the confirmation of your thoughts from my personal experience.
I ordered a few month ago the installation in my lampi B7 of the new amanero usb board together with more precise clocks both for dsd and pcm playback.
After a week or so I sended it back and asked Lukasz to downgrade my Lampi. I am sure new board and clocks measured better but my ear- brain combo was not happy, the magic desappeared.
I am of the opinion that the audiophile circle is a bit to much measurement oriented, we chase for the new toys and loose sometimes the simple pleasure of the listenning to the music doing to much of tests and comparisons.
The quality of the recording is by far more important factor than a more precise clock, of course imo.

 

[Apogeelover]

Probably the best DAC out there at least as far as technical performance must be the MolaMola DAC.
This has a snr of 140dB with HMD and IMD below noise at full level plus super low jitter.
The DAC consists of 32 1bit types operating at 100Mz.
There`s a video on Youtube explaining its operation by its designer Bruno Putzeys.

 

[wisnon]

Probably the best DAC out there at least as far as technical performance must be the MolaMola DAC.
This has a snr of 140dB with HMD and IMD below noise at full level plus super low jitter.
The DAC consists of 32 1bit types operating at 100Mz.
There`s a video on Youtube explaining its operation by its designer Bruno Putzeys.

If its a specs/measurement race, then the DAVE would likely win with its -350db noise floor. See some tech blurb here:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...om-Aries-Cerat&p=354045&viewfull=1#post354045

 

[audioblazer]

Put Aries Cerat Kassandra LE in the list . Weigh 120kg 2 chassis . Quite sure it's the heavy Dac in the market

 

[bonzo75]

Probably the best DAC out there at least as far as technical performance must be the MolaMola DAC.
This has a snr of 140dB with HMD and IMD below noise at full level plus super low jitter.
The DAC consists of 32 1bit types operating at 100Mz.
There`s a video on Youtube explaining its operation by its designer Bruno Putzeys.

Good to see an apogee lover here. You might enjoy reading a couple of threads on Apogee Full Ranges and Grands. If you start with this Grands thread, it will lead you to the main apogee thread. http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...apogee-grands!&p=390547&viewfull=1#post390547

That should lead you to this http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19104-Apogee-Full-range&p=355730&viewfull=1#post355730

 

[microstrip]

If its a specs/measurement race, then the DAVE would likely win with its -350db noise floor. See some tech blurb here:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...om-Aries-Cerat&p=354045&viewfull=1#post354045

The 350 dB addresses the mathematical performance of the noise shaper, not the noise floor of the DAC. I think it is just a different way of referring the precision of the algorithms. Anyway a great argument for the "small differences" believers.