DACs: Cheap vs Expensive

[ssmith3046]

I've never spent over $500 on a DAC to use with my Audiolab CD transport. I'm retired so I won't be spending thousands of dollars on a DAC. The Schiit Modi multibit gets a lot use. I think it's hard to beat for $250. I like all my budget DACs.

 

[mozcho]

I've never spent over $500 on a DAC to use with my Audiolab CD transport. I'm retired so I won't be spending thousands of dollars on a DAC. The Schiit Modi multibit gets a lot use. I think it's hard to beat for $250. I like all my budget DACs.

Yeah me too lean more toward the budget end of the spectrum, because who knows what new formats will appear next year, that will render the current device obsolete?

 

[Funky54]

I’m very new to the party… trying to learn and understand hi-Rez, streaming and DAC’s. I’m a vinyl guy. But sometimes an artist or label goes for a cash grab and has vinyl cut from a mp3 mastered version… yuck. So reality is I might wanna get a decent (after thought) digital playback version for those artists who have good digital masters but no vinyl master.

Currently I use streaming (Spotify paid, Pandora free) from a Sonos into a dragonfly into my whole house audio matrix analog inputs. So I listen through in-ceiling speakers while barbecuing, cleaning, working around the house. I’m now thinking about streaming at a higher quality and through a better DAC into my main two channel system.

Even after reading this thread I only have more questions and still hardly any answers. 1st, what’s the general consensus.. is a new Modi 3 or Dacmagic ($200 range solution) better than a 7 year old used ($5000 solution) DAC? 2nd, do I really care about hires since so much of it is fake faux lies? Am I better off with Qobuz or Amazon HD music? Seems I have more questions… and on top when I do get an answer there isn’t even a general consensus….

 

[GChief]

do I really care about hires since so much of it is fake faux lies?

Not sure where this idea comes from but ok

I get decent play back from a $99 Modi, I prefer it over my $200 at the time SMSL M8a and my Biforst is the only one used now.

Spotify is the weak link if your starting down the streaming path.

 

[spark1]

I’m very new to the party… trying to learn and understand hi-Rez, streaming and DAC’s. I’m a vinyl guy. But sometimes an artist or label goes for a cash grab and has vinyl cut from a mp3 mastered version… yuck. So reality is I might wanna get a decent (after thought) digital playback version for those artists who have good digital masters but no vinyl master.

Currently I use streaming (Spotify paid, Pandora free) from a Sonos into a dragonfly into my whole house audio matrix analog inputs. So I listen through in-ceiling speakers while barbecuing, cleaning, working around the house. I’m now thinking about streaming at a higher quality and through a better DAC into my main two channel system.

Even after reading this thread I only have more questions and still hardly any answers. 1st, what’s the general consensus.. is a new Modi 3 or Dacmagic ($200 range solution) better than a 7 year old used ($5000 solution) DAC? 2nd, do I really care about hires since so much of it is fake faux lies? Am I better off with Qobuz or Amazon HD music? Seems I have more questions… and on top when I do get an answer there isn’t even a general consensus….

An MP3 master for vinyl? Please provide an example.

In the world of streaming, the term "high resolution" has been bastardized to mean CD bitrate or better. Technically, high-resolution/high-definition refers to files with sample sizes and/or sampling rates greater than those used for CD.

A useful way of understanding digital music sound quality is to divide it into four categories:

1. Lossy - files reduced in size from the original (for easier transport and storage) by use of a "lossy" codec; one which removes some amount of content. The most common of these are MP3 and AAC. Within the lossy category, common bitrates range from 64K to 320K bits per second. Spotify is a lossy service, running at 96-160Kbps. They have announced a higher resolution service, but to my knowledge it is not yet available.
2. Lossless - files reduced in size with no reduction in actual content or sound quality, using a lossless codec. The most common of these are FLAC and ALAC, yielding files that are quite a bit larger than those produced with lossy codecs but still only half the size of CD-format files.
3. CD resolution - music produced per the Red Book standard; 2 channels, 16 bits per sample, 44.1K samples per second. CD bitrate is therefore 1.411Kbps (2 x 16 x44.1K).
   
4. High resolution - music produced using either more bits per sample (bit depth) or more samples per second (sample rate), or both, than CD. Most common is "24/96" (24-bit samples, 96K samples per second).

It is important to understand that CD and higher-resolution files can be encoded losslessly. This allows streaming services to offer higher quality music (as compared to lossy files) while reducing the network bandwidth and data storage needed to do so. Note that in this case, bitrate (bits transported per second) is reduced, but sound quality is not.

Obviously, they can also be encoded with a lossy codec...but with a corresponding reduction in sound quality due to loss of actual content.

As far as I know, Amazon HD and Qobuz both offer a mix of CD-quality and higher-resolution music, losslessly encoded. They do not use MP3 files (or any other lossy format). Not sure what you mean by "fake faux lies". Please explain.

Some folks will say that they hear no improvement from higher resolution streaming services. In my experience, this is is not the case. If listening only via earbuds, PC speakers, ambient systems like your "whole house audio matrix", etc, the difference might be subtle or even indistinguishable. But with a high fidelity system, I find the difference to be significant.

Of course, nothing fixes a poorly produced recording; this is the case in both the analog and digital domains. High-res does nothing to improve a poor recording, but some high-res recordings are the result of re-engineering/re-mastering the original recording. In this case the sound quality might be better vs the original. Then again, it might not!

As for modern DACs; audible differences are primarily a function of their analog amplification/output stages and power supplies. They can all handle any stereo music files up to 24/96. Most can handle 24/192, and some can process files up to 32/384 and/or DSD.

DACs, like all audio gear, are more than their specs. I think about them in much the same way as power amps....all are more alike than different, but there are certainly differences between them.

 

[SomeGeoffGuy]

Yeah me too lean more toward the budget end of the spectrum, because who knows what new formats will appear next year, that will render the current device obsolete?

I would just make sure you go listen to what you buy first. You will get 1000 opinions on the internet, but nobody will like the exact same sound you do.

For example, I have two DACs built into two devices I own - one is in the MAC6700 and the other in the Oppo DVD player. The Oppo has been heralded as the ultimate DAC with dual channel ESS Sabre chips etc with an audiophile grade preamp section (according to Oppo at least!). I hooked up an Emotiva bluetooth to both that could switch in real time with the Oppo feeding the 6700 through balanced cables. I found that I like the 10 year old DAC in the 6700 better than the Oppo. I thought the Oppo made the synthesizers sound "Funny" compared to the 6700. Maybe McIntosh vs Oppo is a pretentious example, but the point is that the highly lauded DAC didn't sound better to me, it actually sounded worse.

So all I can think, is what if I spend $5500 on a Denafrips Terminator and still like the McIntosh better. Is there something wrong with me? Probably, but as long as I like how it sounds - who cares!

-Geoff

 

[Weejub]

We are enjoying the Dragonfly Cobalt with my set-up. I can also take it anywhere and use it. It looks dorky next to the laptop and the Mac, but, it is what it is

Edit - sounded great with the Pioneer SX-626, as well. With .wav files on a SanDisk 1TB SSD as the source, Wife and I are enjoying a lot of music right now.

 

[slow_jazz]

I purchased a used Denon DVD-5000 with a broken laser I use as my standalone deck.

The dvd player is bad but you can use the dac separate. Paid less than $100 for it.

 

[Funky54]

An MP3 master for vinyl? Please provide an example.

I’m probably not using the correct terminology. I simply mean, an artist or production person decides to mix and master so the music sounds it’s best through earbuds.. it’s very compressed. Then as a cash grab to sell vinyl they don’t bother redoing it so a good quality vinyl record can be cut. They just use the same horrible master

In the world of streaming, the term "high resolution" has been bastardized to mean CD bitrate or better. Technically, high-resolution/high-definition refers to files with sample sizes and/or sampling rates greater than those used for CD.

A useful way of understanding digital music sound quality is to divide it into four categories:

1. Lossy - files reduced in size from the original (for easier transport and storage) by use of a "lossy" codec; one which removes some amount of content. The most common of these are MP3 and AAC. Within the lossy category, common bitrates range from 64K to 320K bits per second. Spotify is a lossy service, running at 96-160Kbps. They have announced a higher resolution service, but to my knowledge it is not yet available.
2. Lossless - files reduced in size with no reduction in actual content or sound quality, using a lossless codec. The most common of these are FLAC and ALAC, yielding files that are quite a bit larger than those produced with lossy codecs but still only half the size of CD-format files.
3. CD resolution - music produced per the Red Book standard; 2 channels, 16 bits per sample, 44.1K samples per second. CD bitrate is therefore 1.411Kbps (2 x 16 x44.1K).
   
4. High resolution - music produced using either more bits per sample (bit depth) or more samples per second (sample rate), or both, than CD. Most common is "24/96" (24-bit samples, 96K samples per second).

It is important to understand that CD and higher-resolution files can be encoded losslessly. This allows streaming services to offer higher quality music (as compared to lossy files) while reducing the network bandwidth and data storage needed to do so. Note that in this case, bitrate (bits transported per second) is reduced, but sound quality is not.

I get all that. But it’s upsetting that those should be standards are manipulated for cash grab. Seems more than half the “so called” hi-Rez is just unconverted and software voodoo to claim hi-Rez for money. On top of that very little content of music I prefer (Rock) has hi-Rez available… so why bother? Another layer is it’s hard to know what truly is and what isn’t until you play it. That’s confusing. It makes me feel it’s not worth the trouble. Either just set everything for cd quality or better and forget worrying about it or spend massive amounts of research (not fun to me) to find out.

Obviously, they can also be encoded with a lossy codec...but with a corresponding reduction in sound quality due to loss of actual content.

As far as I know, Amazon HD and Qobuz both offer a mix of CD-quality and higher-resolution music, losslessly encoded. They do not use MP3 files (or any other lossy format). Not sure what you mean by "fake faux lies". Please explain. See above. It’s either real or it’s not.. don’t give me software enhanced up conversions and nonsense.

Some folks will say that they hear no improvement from higher resolution streaming services. In my experience, this is is not the case. If listening only via earbuds, PC speakers, ambient systems like your "whole house audio matrix", etc, the difference might be subtle or even indistinguishable. But with a high fidelity system, I find the difference to be significant.

My Whole House Audio is for casual non-critical listening, and I do enjoy hearing new music that way. I can defiantly hear the difference between HDtracks, or using not using the dragonfly in the source path. For a living I do home automation so I’m using good quality gear even for WHA. True 60wpc class D, Triad Silver in-ceiling 6.5 or 8” speakers.

Of course, nothing fixes a poorly produced recording; this is the case in both the analog and digital domains. High-res does nothing to improve a poor recording, but some high-res recordings are the result of re-engineering/re-mastering the original recording. In this case the sound quality might be better vs the original. Then again, it might not!

This gets into my Faux comment some. The master version for digital and vinyl are different.. often an artist or production person doesn’t care and just uses the same digital version to cut vinyl. It’s a selfish cash grab… they are demonstrating they don’t really care if people enjoy their music.. they just want money. To me that’s pretty low. Don’t talk to me about the cost either.. I’m happy to not pay $18 and pay $34 if the quality is high.

As for modern DACs; audible differences are primarily a function of their analog amplification/output stages and power supplies. They can all handle any stereo music files up to 24/96. Most can handle 24/192, and some can process files up to 32/384 and/or DSD.

Yes & Yes. Streamer:


DACs, like all audio gear, are more than their specs. I think about them in much the same way as power amps....all are more alike than different, but there are certainly differences between them.

But is a 7 year old $5000 dollar DAC generally better than a new $200 DAC? Just throwing numbers out to express my question. What’s a better sound. Old high end or new cheap?

My reply and conversation is in bold with your comments

My streamer:

 

[Funky54]

Not sure where this idea comes from but ok

I get decent play back from a $99 Modi, I prefer it over my $200 at the time SMSL M8a and my Biforst is the only one used now.

Spotify is the weak link if your starting down the streaming path.

All the games plaid upconverting to label and sell as hi-Rez when it’s just software nonsense applied for example to a brick walled cd version master. Too much of this nonsense happens so providers can act like they have a big hi-Rez catalog.

 

[GChief]

All the games plaid upconverting to label and sell as hi-Rez when it’s just software nonsense applied for example to a brick walled cd version master. Too much of this nonsense happens so providers can act like they have a big hi-Rez catalog.

Plenty of new stuff being recorded “hi-res”. Just wondered about the generalization

 

[GChief]

But is a 7 year old $5000 dollar DAC generally better than a new $200 DAC?

You may need to try it for yourself, that’s the only way to know for sure what is gonna work better for you.

 

[Weejub]

All the games plaid upconverting to label and sell as hi-Rez when it’s just software nonsense applied for example to a brick walled cd version master. Too much of this nonsense happens so providers can act like they have a big hi-Rez catalog.

It seems like my .wav files sound better than Tidal Hi Res - sometimes a lot better, sometimes, like with the "master" files, almost the same. If the source is a .wav, then it can only go downhill from there, yes?

 

[spark1]

It seems like my .wav files sound better than Tidal Hi Res - sometimes a lot better, sometimes, like with the "master" files, almost the same. If the source is a .wav, then it can only go downhill from there, yes?

Well, yes...but this does not mean that it is better than the same file, converted to lossless format.

I believe that Tidal does some amount of equalization or other processing, in addition to all of the processing involved with MQA. Not a fan.

For consistently good sound quality, I have been impressed with Qobuz.

 

[spark1]

But is a 7 year old $5000 dollar DAC generally better than a new $200 DAC? Just throwing numbers out to express my question. What’s a better sound. Old high end or new cheap?

My reply and conversation is in bold with your comments

My streamer:

Inserting replies into my post makes it difficult to respond.

You seem to have a number of somewhat unrelated complaints and concerns. As best as I can tell they include vinyl recording quality, DAC selection, and sound quality of music streaming services.

The sound quality of the lossless streaming services, particularly Quobuz but even Tidal and Amazon HD, is better than that of the services using lossy files. Complain all you you want about whether they are using CD--quality vs true high-resolution files...in either case, it is better than MP3 (in my experience, and referring to playback via high-fidelity gear as opposed to PC speakers, earbuds, etc).

I have no idea of the basis for your claim that half of recordings marketed as high-resolution are "voodoo and upconverted", but I have not found this to be the case when looking at file information.

Re poorly mastered vinyl...while I have a large collection of LPs, I buy fewer than 20-30 a year anymore, and only those getting good reviews for recording quality. So I have little to add. Even if this is a common issue, it seems to me there is nothing new about shitty business practices, and has little to do with DACs or streaming.

I cannot answer your question about a 7 year old $5K DAC vs a new $200 DAC. As with all gear, you only know if you listen and compare. Many people are happy with $100-200 DACs. Some people, like me, believe that some DACs sound better than others. I have been through 8 different stand-alone DACs over the past ten years or so, and kept 2 of them.

 

[Capitol C]

Bullshit. Really. Your opinion, I will respectfully disagree because I have said exactly that and was shown to be wrong. If they use the filters on the DAC chip or have there own, also, makes a huge difference.

As I said, that is YOUR opinion, not an actual reality. I am not talking expensive DAC's but there are more out there than SMSL, Schiit (which are 2 gens behind the times and why they are cheap). Buy what you want but if your digital playback sounds bad to you, it is more than likely your playback system is the culprit (change out the DAC).

" Bullshit. Really. Your opinion, I will respectfully disagree...: (Italics added.) That's why I love discussions on audio forums. Before the internet, you couldn't get this kind of entertainment!

 

[Funky54]

Inserting replies into my post makes it difficult to respond.

You seem to have a number of somewhat unrelated complaints and concerns. As best as I can tell they include vinyl recording quality, DAC selection, and sound quality of music streaming services.

The sound quality of the lossless streaming services, particularly Quobuz but even Tidal and Amazon HD, is better than that of the services using lossy files. Complain all you you want about whether they are using CD--quality vs true high-resolution files...in either case, it is better than MP3 (in my experience, and referring to playback via high-fidelity gear as opposed to PC speakers, earbuds, etc).

I have no idea of the basis for your claim that half of recordings marketed as high-resolution are "voodoo and upconverted", but I have not found this to be the case when looking at file information.

Re poorly mastered vinyl...while I have a large collection of LPs, I buy fewer than 20-30 a year anymore, and only those getting good reviews for recording quality. So I have little to add. Even if this is a common issue, it seems to me there is nothing new about shitty business practices, and has little to do with DACs or streaming.

I cannot answer your question about a 7 year old $5K DAC vs a new $200 DAC. As with all gear, you only know if you listen and compare. Many people are happy with $100-200 DACs. Some people, like me, believe that some DACs sound better than others. I have been through 8 different stand-alone DACs over the past ten years or so, and kept 2 of them.

There isn’t generally a recording for vinyl or digital. They take it recording, usually digital, and then create a mix and a master for the media that will be playing it. It’s not the media of vinyl that is the problem. Is somebody taking a master prepared for earbuds typically MP3 or at best usually CD-quality and then using that to cut the vinyl.

 

[GChief]

master prepared for earbuds typically

Can you site, give an example where this actually happens? I only ask because this is more than likely and Audiophool Urban Legend . If this was a thing new pop would be where it’s probably happening and even though it’s not my thing I have heard plenty of hi-res new stuff that is very well done.

 

[Funky54]

Can you site, give an example where this actually happens? I only ask because this is more than likely and Audiophool Urban Legend . If this was a thing new pop would be where it’s probably happening and even though it’s not my thing I have heard plenty of hi-res new stuff that is very well done.

That’s a better question for our host or other professionals who contribute here… because those are the sources for my comment.

Sorry.. I am a member on the Steve Hoffman forum and forgot where I was lol.. Lots of recording engineers over there and that’s what they say.

 

[GChief]

That’s a better question for our host or other professionals who contribute here… because those are the sources for my comment.

Sorry.. I am a member on the Steve Hoffman forum and forgot where I was lol.. Lots of recording engineers over there and that’s what they say.

Maybe more genre dependent ?? I help out (troubleshooting, sound treatments and such) at a couple studios and they do not do that. Not saying it does not happen, just think it’s maybe closer to a generalization, but who knows.