• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

DAC's under $150?

sugarshack

sugarshack

my favorite beer is free
Is it possible to buy a "very good" DAC under $150?
SMSL comes to mind when I think of these: SU-1 , and others or Topping D10s.
I have a limited budget and would like to buy 3 to upgrade my systems. I did buy an SMSL (M8) many moons ago and am pleased with it, but as technology changes much, I do believe it is possible
Thoughts please.
 
Register to hide this ad
Go to Amazon and do a search. Do not worry about sound quality consider features that match your requirements. For instance Topping D10 has 1 input USB and can output optical (convert usb to optical). Modi3+ has 3 inputs and 1 output RCA.
So figure out a list of requirements. If you need optical input for instance you want Modi over Topping. I seriously doubt you can hear the difference.
 
There are a number of decent ones, and one is about as good as the other in that price category. I wouldn't rank them as being "very good", but they'll get the job done. Just get one that has the inputs and outputs that you require.
 
Last edited:
I’m about to say something controversial about spending big money on DACs.

DAC chips start off as software. That software is written to convert 0s and 1s into an analog electrical signal as accurately as possible. Then that DAC software is etched onto a chip. Whether they are AKG or ESS Saber chips or Burr Brown or whatever, in theory they should sound identical.

In practice, Modern DACs sound more alike than different. The major difference is in the OP Amps or discreet circuitry used to amplify the signal from the DAC. Of the top ten OP amps used in DACs, Texas Instruments makes 9 of them. Analog Devices make one of the top ten OP amps. The truth is that op amps sound extremely clean.

Are discreet circuits cleaner sounding than TI op amps? I don’t think so. It’s a myth that is perpetuated by marketing. Chip companies like TI spend a ton of money on R&D to create the cleanest op amp chip possible.

Here’s a link to one engineers opinion: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/op-amps-myths-facts.html

Delta Sigma vs Non-Oversampling DACs is another controversial topic. Personally, I would not spend the extra money on a Non-Oversampling DAC. In conclusion, I would not spend more than $200 on a DAC. My current DAC is a SMSL DO100, about $200.
 
Jim Creek said:
I’m about to say something controversial about spending big money on DACs.

DAC chips start off as software. That software is written to convert 0s and 1s into an analog electrical signal as accurately as possible. Then that DAC software is etched onto a chip. Whether they are AKG or ESS Saber chips or Burr Brown or whatever, in theory they should sound identical.
Click to expand...

That's not quite how a DAC chip works. The closest that writing software comes to being "etched" on a chip is when a FPGA (field programmable gate array) is used as the DAC.

Jim Creek said:
In practice, Modern DACs sound more alike than different. The major difference is in the OP Amps or discreet circuitry used to amplify the signal from the DAC. Of the top ten OP amps used in DACs, Texas Instruments makes 9 of them. Analog Devices make one of the top ten OP amps. The truth is that op amps sound extremely clean.
Click to expand...

Some op-amp based amplifiers do sound pretty good. However there are some op amps that don't sound all that good. I'm reminded of the NE5532 that's so prevalent in a lot of pro gear. There are lots of drop replacements that sound a lot better. OTOH those chips cost a lot more than an NE5532.

Jim Creek said:
Are discreet circuits cleaner sounding than TI op amps? I don’t think so. It’s a myth that is perpetuated by marketing. Chip companies like TI spend a ton of money on R&D to create the cleanest op amp chip possible.

Here’s a link to one engineers opinion: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/op-amps-myths-facts.html

Delta Sigma vs Non-Oversampling DACs is another controversial topic. Personally, I would not spend the extra money on a Non-Oversampling DAC. In conclusion, I would not spend more than $200 on a DAC. My current DAC is a SMSL DO100, about $200.
Click to expand...

Suffice it to say that a lot of designers do not use op-amp based designs. Their general consensus is that discrete circuits sound better. Those designers are the "stars" of the industry. Names such as Nelson Pass, Jim Bongiorno, David Berning and Keith Johnson all use very few op-amps and never in the analog output stage. I'm inclined to defer to their thinking.
 
The FPGA is an integrated circuit programmed with software developed by the DAC manufacturer.. The point I was trying to make is that the code used to convert digital to analog is designed to be accurate as possible. All DACs are designed to be as accurate as possible. Some of the newer DAC chips like ESS Saber chips have selectable filters that can change the sound profile slightly.

As far as discrete circuits sounding “better” than op amps that is not what the measurements tell us. When DACs from Topping and SMSL are measured the SINAD (distortion + noise) is above 120db. Anything above 115db is inaudible. Frequency response is ruler flat.

Discrete circuitry measures no better and usually performs a bit worse.
 
Jim Creek said:
The FPGA is an integrated circuit programmed with software developed by the DAC manufacturer..
Click to expand...

I think you may misunderstand the nature of digital electronics and DACs. These things are not 'software', running on a Turing/von Neumann architecture processor, with shared memory and ALU. It is logic gates and registers, operating in parallel. Older, R2R DACs used digital electronics, feeding the R2R tree, in a mixed-signal design. Modern sigma-delta DACs are predominantly digital, with the S-D filter DSP. Now, this could be implemented by a DSP processor, but I think most are still implemented as parallel, digital logic (it's smaller, cheaper & cleaner to do it that way). The S-D digital filtering then feeds an analogue conversion section, be that single-bit or multi-bit pulse, to generate the analogue output signal.

Likewise, an FPGA, although it might be designed using a language such as VHDL or Verilog, is also not 'software' that is executed on a processor in the FPGA; it is, again, logic gates, registers and memory elements, deployed to the logic array of the FPGA. There's a clue in the name of VHDL: it's a Hardware Description Language, and is used to generate digital hardware, which is then deployed to the FPGA logic array.

Selectable filters are easily implemented using programmable FIR filters, simply by changing the set of coefficients in the FIR filter.

The subsequent analogue processing is a more difficult topic to address, given the degree to which the 'the sound' of different, apparently flat-measuring electronics is found to vary.
 
Semantics. The point is the FPGA is still programmed as accurately as possible to the specification of the manufacturer of the DAC. There must be some blueprint to do the programming. You have to start with something. If it’s not software what is it?

“Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) are integrated circuits often sold off-the-shelf. They’re referred to as ‘field programmable’ because they provide customers the ability to reconfigure the hardware to meet specific use case requirements after the manufacturing process.”


cpt_paranoia said:
.
The subsequent analogue processing is a more difficult topic to address, given the degree to which the 'the sound' of different, apparently flat-measuring electronics is found to vary.
Click to expand...

Now there’s the argument. Does the the measurement of DAC or any piece of electronics coincide with its sound? Is it good to have a SINAD measurement of above 120db? Or is that meaningless to you? Non-over sampling DACs measure much worse than Delta Sigma but many listeners believe the Non-oversampling DAC sounds better/warmer. I can’t argue with that. If that’s what you believe then that’s what you believe.
 
Jim Creek said:
The point is the FPGA is still programmed as accurately as possible to the specification of the manufacturer of the DAC.
Click to expand...

Most FPGA-based DAC manufacturers design their own digital signal processing logic. There is no third party source of the design (unless subcontracted). I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make.

They are not 'programmed as accurately as possible'. They are programmed, or configured, with a bitstream generated from the HDL or other design tool. The bitstream is deployed perfectly, every time.

I've been designing digital ASICs and FPGA logic since 1988, amongst other things. That's my day job...
 
cpt_paranoia said:
Most FPGA-based DAC manufacturers design their own digital signal processing logic. There is no third party source of the design (unless subcontracted). I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make.

They are not 'programmed as accurately as possible'. They are programmed, or configured, with a bitstream generated from the HDL or other design tool. The bitstream is deployed perfectly, every time.

I've been designing digital ASICs and FPGA logic since 1988, amongst other things. That's my day job...
Click to expand...

I don’t doubt your expertise. When you say: “They are programmed or configured with a bitstream”, so there is programming involved in the process somewhere along the line. You are arguing how it’s programmed. I believe you. I am arguing there is programming. Programming means somewhere along the line someone had to write code.
 
Jim Creek said:
I’m about to say something controversial about spending big money on DACs.

DAC chips start off as software. That software is written to convert 0s and 1s into an analog electrical signal as accurately as possible. Then that DAC software is etched onto a chip. Whether they are AKG or ESS Saber chips or Burr Brown or whatever, in theory they should sound identical.

In practice, Modern DACs sound more alike than different. The major difference is in the OP Amps or discreet circuitry used to amplify the signal from the DAC. Of the top ten OP amps used in DACs, Texas Instruments makes 9 of them. Analog Devices make one of the top ten OP amps. The truth is that op amps sound extremely clean.

Are discreet circuits cleaner sounding than TI op amps? I don’t think so. It’s a myth that is perpetuated by marketing. Chip companies like TI spend a ton of money on R&D to create the cleanest op amp chip possible.

Here’s a link to one engineers opinion: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/op-amps-myths-facts.html

Delta Sigma vs Non-Oversampling DACs is another controversial topic. Personally, I would not spend the extra money on a Non-Oversampling DAC. In conclusion, I would not spend more than $200 on a DAC. My current DAC is a SMSL DO100, about $200.
Click to expand...
that is a looooong read. ha
but was interesting indeed!
 
Jim Creek said:
Programming means somewhere along the line someone had to write code.
Click to expand...

Someone had to design the digital logic; that is done using an HDL. I will be writing some VHDL today.

I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make about FPGA DACs; they do what their designers designed them to do. Just like other DAC chips. But all those different DAC implementations have different characteristics, and make different compromises.
 
My point was going to apply to chip DACs (ASICs) not FPGA DACs. My point was that teams of software engineers spend years writing and debugging source code before etching it on a chip. ESS Saber DACs are chip DACs as an example. The code that converts digital to analog is extremely accurate. The same applies to AKM DAC chips. My point is that the difference in modern DAC chips is next to nothing because the code is that perfect, accurately converting 0s and 1s into analog..

You brought up FPGA dacs. I didn’t realize (before you brought it up) that FPGAs were being used as DACs. So I investigated and found Cord, Deltec and DPA.

IMHO, whether a chip DAC or FPGA DAC, comparing modern DACs makes no sense because they are all going to convert to analog perfectly. Paying big money for a DAC makes no sense either. That was my point.
 
They should all sound the same. A DAC converts discrete digital codes to a corresponding number of discrete analog output values. The 0s and 1s from the digital source have only one correct analog output. If the DAC is programmed correctly and has an excellent op amp you will get that one tone, and only that one tone.

I will admit that most people here will swear there is a difference between DACs. Hence, few people will agree with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom