Comparison of 2 DACs

[Ralf11]

I will list some features of two different DACs that may be of interest for their SQ.  I will let people know which two DACs are 'compared' later on, so please don't reveal the brands or models if you think you know.

 

This is the sort of thing an ordinary or somewhat clued-in consumer might do in order to narrow choices for a (subsequent) listen test.

 

See if you think one feature is better than the other for SQ...

 

Let's start with the Clock:

DAC #1 has a femto clock system.

DAC #2 advertises that it has circuitry that analyzes the digital input for both jitter and center frequency, then routes the signal to one of several "clock systems" that will regenerate the signal in the most optimal manner.

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

DAC #1 has a femto clock system.

That describes every "audiophile" DAC made in the last 5 years or so.

[Nordkapp]

#2 is likely way over engineered, over kill and may be from England. 

[Pibroch]

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I will list some features of two different DACs that may be of interest for their SQ.  I will let people know which two DACs are 'compared' later on, so please don't reveal the brands or models if you think you know.

 

This is the sort of thing an ordinary or somewhat clued-in consumer might do in order to narrow choices for a (subsequent) listen test.

 

See if you think one feature is better than the other for SQ...

 

Let's start with the Clock:

DAC #1 has a femto clock system.

DAC #2 advertises that it has circuitry that analyzes the digital input for both jitter and center frequency, then routes the signal to one of several "clock systems" that will regenerate the signal in the most optimal manner.

 

Don’t think one feature is better than other. I mainly narrow down choices based on comments of impressions of how products sound.

[mansr]

16 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

DAC #2 advertises that it has circuitry that analyzes the digital input for both jitter and center frequency, then routes the signal to one of several "clock systems" that will regenerate the signal in the most optimal manner.

That feature only makes sense with synchronous connections like S/PDIF.

[mav52]

1 hour ago, 4est said:

I just don't get the point of this thread. The notion that anyone could come up with much to say beyond what mansr just did is beyond me. Then again one needs to consider the OP and the subsequent drive by postings.

I like the "drive by posting" comment ?

[Ralf11]

please avoid personal attacks & stick to the topic

 

assuming everyone is done with clock comments, let's move on to the power supplies...

 

DAC #1 uses a Low-noise linear regulator

 

DAC #2 is more specific, and uses 2 transformers (one for digital, one for analog)

The analog PS is a discrete, dual mono, shunt-regulated.

The digital PS has 12 separate local regulated supplies for DACs and digital sections; high-precision, low-noise LM723 regulation in critical areas.

[Sonicularity]

None of that is required to keep the noise amazingly low.  Can you provide a price range for these DACs so that I can fully appreciate the bias I have already asserted?

[Nordkapp]

I'd guess DAC #2 should be a better PS, but is there an audible difference? Nonetheless, in a cost no object scenario, then #2. 

[Ralf11]

ok, prices... one dac (I'll save which one for later) costs about 8x the cost of the other one

 

3-4 more factors to go, so please no guessing yet!

 

BTW, I am quoting from, or paraphrasing info from the manfs. ...

 

back to the PS issue... 

[esldude]

With these and recent posts I think I see what your point is.  But you are missing the mark really.  

 

I think people decide upon a few DACs to consider mainly for one of two reasons:

 

They are looking for some functionality they currently lack. 

Or they are looking for improved quality (which is a hazy concept). 

Or a combination of those two of course.

 

Once they are this far they have a price in mind.  At this point they begin to narrow the field.  Probably looking a bit above their desired budget at least a little bit. 

 

It is only at this point your questions begin to have some validity as to how one approaches the DAC decision. 

 

Now me, once I have my feature set and price, I'd like to see some really good measurements.  They are often hard to come by.  So I'll look for specs and have to guess in a Bayesian sense how much I think I can trust them.  The entire process really is rather Bayesian.  

 

Now other people may want written listening reviews or to listen for themselves.  Hands on/ears on is always very good for sound and other reasons. 

 

At this point once we have it down to 5 or less, often 3 or so, it is then helpful in making a decision to look at clocks or PS methods or DAC chips or pretty boxes whatever.  "Hey these two are virtually the same, have everything I want, not sure, but one has a heroic femto clock in an Oven. For the same price why not that one then?"

 

Lots of people pass thru stages of the "gotta have it" aspect.  It has to have tubes only tubes really sound good.  Or NOS chips rules nothing else is worth considering.  No chips are good everything must be discrete. Or DSD is the only true path.  Or USB only or SPIDF only.  So on and so forth.  Then if you get enough experience something with all the wrong boxes checked will kind of blow you away at how good it is.  You'll frightfully realize all the status bits in your check list may have given you comfort, but aren't worth a hill of beans. You'll wonder how many possibles you eliminated when maybe you missed out on something wonderful.  

 

There are multiple ways to skin a cat, and multiple reasons for wanting it skint.  

 

So I sort of get your point, and yet we aren't quite there yet somehow.  

 

At times there have been products that I knew exactly what would meet my requirements, and more or less how it needed doing.  But nobody made that product.  So you mod something, or compromise, or go upscale a little bit or start making your own perfect super DAC.  

 

Oh, and sometimes you buy something without hearing it, on reputation and curiosity and because you get it second hand at a screaming deal.  So worst case, you learn something and sell it for a profit.  Only yet get it, you hear it, and use it to find it does things you didn't even know you wanted in neat ways you wouldn't have otherwise understood until you had the ownership experience.   How do you account for that?  My personal background is to have had that experience with a Wadia 25 DAC.  Those products usually are the kind which might be popular in a sense, but you almost never can get your hands on one second hand.  Nobody with one is willing to let it go.   Such products for long stretches seem to disappear down a black hole never to be heard from again.  

[Ralf11]

it's a question, more than a point - can a consumer use features (or ads) to help in the penultimate selection of a group of DACs?

 

(I assume the final choice will be done via listening comparisons, and a test comparison esp. if $$$ involved)

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

it's a question, more than a point - can a consumer use features (or ads) to help in the penultimate selection of a group of DACs?

 

(I assume the final choice will be done via listening comparisons, and a test comparison esp. if $$$ involved)

I once arrived at the conclusion having heard much gear, that if well chosen, the price to performance ratio of audio gear followed a 4th power function.  To get twice the subjective result required 16 times the money.  

 

The curve for amplifiers might be still be about that.  Speakers probably still trend about that way though the whole market for speakers has improved.  I think everything else is much steeper than that.  Higher than a 4th power function.  

[Ralf11]

aka, The Law of Diminishing Returns

[esldude]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

aka, The Law of Diminishing Returns

Yes, but arrived at scientifically via extended subjective listening experiences. 

 

So maybe 800% gets 40% subjective improvement.  I estimate DACs are a 6th power thing. 

[jabbr]

11 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

please avoid personal attacks & stick to the topic

 

assuming everyone is done with clock comments, let's move on to the power supplies...

 

DAC #1 uses a Low-noise linear regulator

 

DAC #2 is more specific, and uses 2 transformers (one for digital, one for analog)

The analog PS is a discrete, dual mono, shunt-regulated.

The digital PS has 12 separate local regulated supplies for DACs and digital sections; high-precision, low-noise LM723 regulation in critical areas.

 

Not easy to evaluate based on a subset of features alone.

#1 is likely better when proper Async clock domain crossing is used. #2 would be beneficial for SPDIF or I2S etc but still likely uses a PLL. I’d assume #2 isn’t a purely USB input.

 

If the multiple power supplies are used properly, this could be an advantage. A single power supply likely feeds multiple onboard DC/DC converters and or LDO so #1 is not supplying these details in the marketing literature. 

[Ralf11]

I've collected about 5-6 features from the info they put out.  Will post the next feature after the PS is discussed, but I suspect it will always be a subset...

 

Yes, #2 has various different input types.  IIRC, #1 does also.

[esldude]

So if we are talking about an 8:1 ratio in price, is the exercise to see if an audiophile could make a decision to spend 8x the dollars on specs, component subsets, and advertising?

 

Stupid car analogy, but that would be like a potential Ford Focus buyer trying to decide if he should buy a Porsche 911 GT3 instead.  He'll probably end up with the Ford Focus RS instead.  That is truly sad.  

[Ralf11]

Not really.  The way this idea came to mind  is something that might give away the identity of the DACs, so let's wait on that.  I'll explain it later tho...

[esldude]

You are not thinking of a Schrodinger's DAC are you?

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

You are not thinking of a Schrodinger's DAC are you?

 

You mean it simultaneously sounds great and sounds like crap—until you plug it in? 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

 

You mean it simultaneously sounds great and sounds like crap—until you plug it in? 

Something like that.   You've got the general idea.  Now did I have the general idea?  We'll have to wait on Ralf11 to find out. 

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Superdad said:

You mean it simultaneously sounds great and sounds like crap—until you plug it in? 

Almost. It sounds simultaneously great and crap until you check the price tag.

[Ralf11]

For the 3rd Design Feature:  The Output Stage

 

DAC #1 uses a "new output buffer design"  (obviously not too helpful, and likely relates to the digital side), but they go on to tout a fully balanced design with dual output transformers

 

DAC #2 uses an Output Stage that is Class A, with fully discrete JFET buffers

 

[mansr]

41 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

output transformers

Not promising.

 

41 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

fully discrete JFET buffers

As if discrete is automatically better than integrated.