I keep hearing this... and I cannot agree

[scott1019]

"DAC technology is changing so rapidly that it's too hard to keep up, and it's pointless to own the latest and greatest when something new is already in the works"

My experience tells me that, while there are always improvements to be made, there are only very small progressions to be made on the actual D/A conversion. I find it somewhat comical that many are repurposing DAC chips from the late 80s (ie the TDA1541 and 1543) and finding creative ways to use them in a new way and present them as the "latest and greatest".

I feel lost in an endless sea of DSD, Hi-Rez, USB, and a multitude of other fads in the DAC world (recently NOS being all the rage).. I realize that everyone is just scrambling for market share with the burgeoning PC audio market, but at some point one has to ask themselves are these actually advances in technology, or just another sales gimmick.

I've heard many of these so-called "reference" DACs and many have not lived up to any of the claims. I found that when PC audio is concerned, at least currently, that decoupling the PC from the DAC itself seems to yield the most gains, as in using a USB>SPDIF converter. Doing so allows you to use any DAC you wish... and lessens the need to continue to consider the "latest and greatest", most of which are focused on USB, DSD, and Hi-Rez.

Yes, there are benefits to PC audio, but it's not the "end all" when it comes to digital source transmission, the good old CD is certainly a viable media source. A solid transport with a quality DAC will still get you very high up the ladder.. and sound quality rivaling, and often exceeding, PC audio.

I understand fully there are other factors at play here, like the ripping process, file codecs (.AIFF, .FLAC, .WAV etc.) and even the source software you use. And on the CD side of things... read errors, laser diffraction, clocking etc.

Anyone else feel the same way?

 

[lizard84]

People do get hung up on the supposed superiority of a dac chip from what they perceive to be the golden age of dac's, this normally leads to opinions that everything after a TDA1541 is junk or whatever. It's bs and ignores years of improvement and advances in technology.

Lukasz Fikus who started Lampizator says the chip is about 10% of the equation, the rest is where the gains and improvements are to be realized

 

[Gibsonian]

I do know they have improved and if you don't jump in the pool somewhere you won't be swimming. I have taken advantage of gains and will again sometime. If you could get out and hear a few you might change your tune.

 

[scott1019]

I started with a rudimentary PC audio rig about 7-8 years ago at first using a Creative Labs external USB DAC, which allowed me to hook my computer up to my stereo as it had both SPDIF and RCA outputs. I still have this somewhere if I look hard enough, but the gains were very minimal in comparison to just running a 3.5MM-RCA cable from the headphone jack. I then ran the SPDIF out with a repeater to my stereo rig and my Sony EP9ES "DAC". It was about 20' away from my computer along with a VGA cable ran to my projector so I could watch movies that I cue'd up on my computer. This was before the days of Netflix and digital streaming and I played a lot of DVD's on my computer at the time mostly because my projector accepted VGA and made this simpler for me. I later went to an Acoustic Alchemy DDE for it's i2s interface, and the sound improved, then went to a server based system with a Escient Fireball and a 400-disk DVD player, and finally to a Popcorn Hour.

Over time I realized that saving DVD's to a hard-drive for playback was just too time consuming and not worth the effort for the limited number I had and mainly the sheer cost of DVD's dropping so drastically (and the cost of the Hard-drives at the time), but I continued with archiving my CDs onto my hard drive, and at the same time upgraded my monitor, the video card, my PC's power supply to an excellent and hardly recognized or acknowledged Audiotrak Prodigy HD2. I upgraded to the latest op-amps on the output side (do not recall exact model #), which made a LOT of difference. My monitoring speakers then were JBL L36's.. and I got a Behringer A/D/A connected via USB (model # alludes me too) to allow me to connect my turntable to my PC to rip my vinyl for archival. (Again I'm speaking of what I was up to over 7 years ago!) And not much has significantly changed in terms of sonics, at least in my experience.

I've been at this for awhile now, and USB, while convenient, has always caused me fits to a certain extent. The moment I went to the TeraLink to decouple my PC from my DAC, is when everything changed for me. I experienced similar results with a Dlink wireless receiver (model # escapes me currently), as well as the Squeezebox Duet. There were no more drop outs, none of the noise that always seemed to bleed through was there, and the resultant sound reminded me of what I was hearing on my dedicated CDP. I won't cover all the CDPs I've heard or went through as that's not what this thread is all about.

I have, however, been trying out and testing MANY new DAC's with USB and Hi-rez capability, and the DAC I was using for awhile with my MacMini, the dBlabs Tranquility totally turned ALL these ideas of higher resolution in it's head, it's a 16/44.1 NOS DAC... I've since graduated and tried many others, old and new, especially now that I have the Teralink. Have had some friends bring over their DACs to test/compare etc. And I feel I'm getting lost in the "endless sea of DACs".. wading through them has been really telling of the market share that is happening. 7-8 years ago there were maybe 20-30 "go to's" to consider. Now there are literally hundreds.

I will put it simply, every time I have had the chance to test a DAC that has both USB and Toslink/Coaxial inputs, the Toslink/Coaxial has won out when connected to my PC or Mac Mini or whatever the case may be with the Teralink in between. Yes, this does limit me to 24/96, but I simply have not felt the need, or have the need for anything higher resolution than this.

I agree that it's great for the mastering process to use these higher resolutions and DSD, but I simply cannot agree that it translates to better sound on the playback side, unless it's already captured on the source material. I would have zero concerns about sound quality for a track mastered in this way and "down-sampled" to 24/96. I know this term by itself makes most people cringe, but there is nothing at all wrong with dropping off bits when the files are as large as DSD files. And while we're discussing, DSD is a transmission protocol, not a "source file", but it's being labeled as such. Again, more confusion abounds and it's making my head spin.

No, I really don't know where the future is heading with all of this, and just trying to gain some stable footing when selecting which DAC to try next, if any.

If you all knew what DAC I am going to be using shortly, you would question my evaluation process, but will easily compare to anything and everything available and it's about 15 years old. This very statement may lend itself to down-playing my credibility, but it's why I posted the statement I keep hearing over and over when talking to people about DACs.

"DAC technology is changing so rapidly that it's too hard to keep up, and it's pointless to own the latest and greatest when something new is already in the works"

The perception is seemingly that the latest and greatest always trumps anything else that came before it.

 

[Ohighway]

"DAC technology is changing so rapidly that it's too hard to keep up, and it's pointless to own the latest and greatest when something new is already in the works"

........ if you don't jump in the pool somewhere you won't be swimming. I have taken advantage of gains and will again sometime.

I like Gibsonian's take on this.

 

[scott1019]

I am quoting/paraphrasing a statement given to me by several different people and it got me thinking.. I just don't really understand fully what gains can possibly had beyond what I've already used and am familiar with and my limited exposure thus far has not proven anything, yet, to me. And again, just getting lost in the endless sea of DACs.

 

[Gibsonian]

If u were local I'd give u my dac to borrow.

 

[scott1019]

What DAC might that be, I've tried a ton of them recently..

 

[lojyo610]

DAC's Taking the plunge

I recently bought a discontinued Arcam r-link for $199. One reason it was so cheap is that it only has Toslink and Coax inputs, no USB. Even though Arcam was on the frontier of stand alone DAC development in the 80's, I'm sure they have been surpassed by some high end brand or another.

I use an okay Denon streamer for one of my digital sources. It connects to internet radio stations, has a USB port that will read hi and low res files off of a thumb drive and has some resident on-line stations like Pandora, etc. My other digital source is a NAD CD player from 1999.

While this DAC is pure entry level, the sound difference between it and the on-board DAC's of the Denon and NAD is significant and audible. All I can say is that $200 was well spent because my two main digital sources sound so much better. That's what audio upgrade-itis is all about.

 

[Gibsonian]

What DAC might that be, I've tried a ton of them recently..

Current DAC I am using is a Valab 4395 Platinum

 

[scott1019]

Never heard of it Gibsonian... sounds interesting

 

[BOUXY]

If I like the sound I currently have no matter what others say,I stay put with what I have

 

[Gibsonian]

I paid around 500 for it maybe 5 years ago and have made some small mods (new opamps including the Burson all discrete, replaced some capacitors with "audio grade" caps. Someday I'll jump again but speakers are weak point at moment so they be next.

 

[sKiZo]

Granted, there's been some real significant improvements over time, but there's a point where the differences don't necessarily outweigh your satisfaction level. I'm right happy with 96/24, and the Tenor USB chipset on the Maverick DAC is more than adequate to provide a right realistic and jitter free playback. :thmbsp:

Biggest improvement I've made since getting the DAC is upgrading to Windows 8. Next best thing to bit perfect playback and in most cases, no drivers required unless you're using legacy equipment.

And ya ... S/PDIF can be a bit of a crapshoot. There's the standard, and the way it's implemented in your system. Mine flat out sucks compared to what I get from USB. :thumbsdn:

Oh. One other MAJOR improvement. Onboard USB can get saturated with all sorts of noise and garbage from competing devices on the buss. I was getting some weirdness on mine (courtesy of a Gyration wireless keyboard and mouse), so I installed an add on card that creates it's own USB channel and pulls power directly from the power supply. Only devices hooked to that are my DAC and ADC, and no problems since. Big step up for only $20 ...

 

[AlphaEcho35]

In line with Scott1019's original comments in this thread, I am lucky enough to currently have a Philips DAC960 in my system (on loan from a good friend.) This one has the Philips TDA1541A chip with a production date of December, 1987.
As far as the way it sounds - let me just say that I had the Metrum Hex in my system for a good while before the DAC960, and I would prefer the DAC960 over the Hex any day.
I really didn't know much about the hype surrounding the 1541 chip until I plugged this thing in and started googling it.

So, I would have to agree with the OP - it seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same when it comes to DACS. Is less more? I don't know - I only know what I hear.

 

[SoundOfSound]

Even the best chip can be foiled by a poor PCB design and other system problems.

If your only chasing the latest name dropping you may very well be disappointed.

 

[restorer-john]

Even the best chip can be foiled by a poor PCB design and other system problems.

If your only chasing the latest name dropping you may very well be disappointed.

Exactly. There is more BS in the DAC world than even the cable world these days.

It's only when every facet of the DAC's complete design is engineered properly, do you get the benefits of the capability of the DAC chip itself.

NOS is complete rubbish and an utter waste of time (especially modifying an OS CD player to be NOS) as is opamp rolling and as for the Burson discrete opamps- I won't even go there. I put tube output DACs in the same category. I mean, let's put a great DAC chip in a cheap box, not enough effort on PSU or decoupling and strap a few tubes on the end to deteriorate the performance even more. It's hilarious.

If you can hear the difference between one DAC and another- one is faulty, badly engineered or both.

 

[RichPA]

I am on my 10th DAC in the past 24 years, and each has been a significant improvement over the last. So, my experience differs. So I disagree with some of you who have posted.

 

[Gibsonian]

I am on my 10th DAC in the past 24 years, and each has been a significant improvement over the last. So, my experience differs. So I disagree with some of you who have posted.

Agreed. I have not had the benefit of getting better with every change, but definitely have noticed a pattern going forward, i.e. we are getting better with digital audio. Changing a significant part of an audio circuit can surely change the result.

 

[Raynald]

I think there is a lot of truth on both sides of the argument.

Restorer-John is right, there is a ton of BS out there surrounding DACs but that is not unique to the category. Being a hot area right now a bit more of the BS is gravitating there as many try to cash in.

However, that does not mean that everything about DACs is BS, there could be some advances happening amid the junk.

Finally, it could be argued that conversion done properly should all give the same result but since DACs are audio devices and have output stages it is still possible to agree the output of the final devices could sound different. Unless we accept that all output stages sound alike, but that is another discussion.