Does DAC quality really matter?

[eazyryder]

I was reading up on different DACs in various cd players, and came across this website -http://vasiltech.nm.ru/CD-Player-DAC-Transport.htm

I noticed some of the really expensive players using cheaper DACs than those sometimes half the price, is this insignificant?

How important is the role of a DAC in the modern cd player when it comes to highest quality sound output?

 

[stevebrock]

IMO

Not really

 

[ifor]

I was reading up on different DACs in various cd players, and came across this website -http://vasiltech.nm.ru/CD-Player-DAC-Transport.htm

I noticed some of the really expensive players using cheaper DACs than those sometimes half the price, is this insignificant?

How important is the role of a DAC in the modern cd player when it comes to highest quality sound output?

Presumably when you say DAC you mean DAC chip? My understanding is that there's more to a good DAC than just the chip.

 

[ESLee]

After owning a number of expensive seperate DACs and still preferring a circa 92 CD player, I continue to use my ears and have not yet been 'blown away' with anything modern.

I'd still favour a 90's Philips player over many current offerings. However, Marketing seems to do the trick for most.

 

[eazyryder]

I was reading up on different DACs in various cd players, and came across this website -http://vasiltech.nm.ru/CD-Player-DAC-Transport.htm

I noticed some of the really expensive players using cheaper DACs than those sometimes half the price, is this insignificant?

How important is the role of a DAC in the modern cd player when it comes to highest quality sound output?

Presumably when you say DAC you mean DAC chip? My understanding is that there's more to a good DAC than just the chip.

Yes i mean the actual DAC chip.

When building a cd player costing thousands of pounds, surely you would start with the highest quality DAC chip for that particular brand? (BURR BROWN, WOLFSON, ECT).

 

[hg]

I was reading up on different DACs in various cd players, and came across this website -http://vasiltech.nm.ru/CD-Player-DAC-Transport.htm

I noticed some of the really expensive players using cheaper DACs than those sometimes half the price, is this insignificant?

How important is the role of a DAC in the modern cd player when it comes to highest quality sound output?

To sound quality in the sense of a blind test it is irrelevant. To the marketing of the product to audiophiles it is important that it is one of the DACs that is considered good in the eyes of a significant proportion. Good numbers on the spec sheet is going to help.

 

[NHL]

The internal pre amp probably plays an important part of the sound.

 

[Womaz]

Good post and I would be very interested to hear others views on this.

I upgraded my gear about 2 years ago and have often wondered if I would have been better off buying a cheaper network player, and spending more on the amp and speakers. Dont get me wrong I am happy with my system, but I would love to stick a budget streamer in to it to see if I can hear much diference.

Its got me tinking too as I have some cash in a few months and my dealer thinks I would be better off with a better network player. To be honest I am not convinced. I would love to demo a cheap streamer and say something like a Linn Akurate at about 4k, all playing through my system to see what difference there is.

It used to be the case that spending more on the source was deemed best, I am now wondering if amps and speakers should be where the hefty part of the budget goes. The reason i am also wondering this is recently I connected my sky box to my amp and the music through there sounds pretty good to me too. Its no way as good as my Network player, but I was very surprised how good it sounded.

Look forward to this message developing

 

[matt49]

I upgraded my gear about 2 years ago and have often wondered if I would have been better off buying a cheaper network player, and spending more on the amp and speakers. Dont get me wrong I am happy with my system, but I would love to stick a budget streamer in to it to see if I can hear much diference.

This is the way I've been going: a simple NAS drive for streaming with much more expensive integrated DAC + amp and speakers. The system I currently have on home demo has a price ratio of 1 : 20 : 30 (streamer : DAC + amp : speakers).

OK, that's RRP and not the actual cost to me, but you get the idea.

Once I've decided on the speakers, I might consider a more expensive streamer. I'm open to the idea that a "proper" hifi streamer (e.g. Linn) might be worth the extra expense, but on balance I'm sceptical.

Matt

 

[eazyryder]

Good post and I would be very interested to hear others views on this.

I upgraded my gear about 2 years ago and have often wondered if I would have been better off buying a cheaper network player, and spending more on the amp and speakers. Dont get me wrong I am happy with my system, but I would love to stick a budget streamer in to it to see if I can hear much diference.

Its got me tinking too as I have some cash in a few months and my dealer thinks I would be better off with a better network player. To be honest I am not convinced. I would love to demo a cheap streamer and say something like a Linn Akurate at about 4k, all playing through my system to see what difference there is.

It used to be the case that spending more on the source was deemed best, I am now wondering if amps and speakers should be where the hefty part of the budget goes. The reason i am also wondering this is recently I connected my sky box to my amp and the music through there sounds pretty good to me too. Its no way as good as my Network player, but I was very surprised how good it sounded.

Look forward to this message developing

I have always read in various forums and hi fi magazines "source first".

But have found the biggest improvements have been changing amplifier, then speakers a close second , changing source (which in my case was my cd player ) made a smaller more subtle change to the overall sound.

Maybe "source first" mattered more in the days of vinyl in the case of turntables?

 

[mitch65]

Good post and I would be very interested to hear others views on this.

I upgraded my gear about 2 years ago and have often wondered if I would have been better off buying a cheaper network player, and spending more on the amp and speakers. Dont get me wrong I am happy with my system, but I would love to stick a budget streamer in to it to see if I can hear much diference.

Its got me tinking too as I have some cash in a few months and my dealer thinks I would be better off with a better network player. To be honest I am not convinced. I would love to demo a cheap streamer and say something like a Linn Akurate at about 4k, all playing through my system to see what difference there is.

It used to be the case that spending more on the source was deemed best, I am now wondering if amps and speakers should be where the hefty part of the budget goes. The reason i am also wondering this is recently I connected my sky box to my amp and the music through there sounds pretty good to me too. Its no way as good as my Network player, but I was very surprised how good it sounded.

Look forward to this message developing

I have always read in various forums and hi fi magazines "source first".

But have found the biggest improvements have been changing amplifier, then speakers a close second , changing source (which in my case was my cd player ) made a smaller more subtle change to the overall sound.

Maybe "source first" mattered more in the days of vinyl in the case of turntables?

I agree with that, 'source first' was drummed into me in the 70s and 80s when turntables ruled but now with digital it seems to be amp, speakers, source........works for me

 

[eazyryder]

Good post and I would be very interested to hear others views on this.

I upgraded my gear about 2 years ago and have often wondered if I would have been better off buying a cheaper network player, and spending more on the amp and speakers. Dont get me wrong I am happy with my system, but I would love to stick a budget streamer in to it to see if I can hear much diference.

Its got me tinking too as I have some cash in a few months and my dealer thinks I would be better off with a better network player. To be honest I am not convinced. I would love to demo a cheap streamer and say something like a Linn Akurate at about 4k, all playing through my system to see what difference there is.

It used to be the case that spending more on the source was deemed best, I am now wondering if amps and speakers should be where the hefty part of the budget goes. The reason i am also wondering this is recently I connected my sky box to my amp and the music through there sounds pretty good to me too. Its no way as good as my Network player, but I was very surprised how good it sounded.

Look forward to this message developing

I have always read in various forums and hi fi magazines "source first".

But have found the biggest improvements have been changing amplifier, then speakers a close second , changing source (which in my case was my cd player ) made a smaller more subtle change to the overall sound.

Maybe "source first" mattered more in the days of vinyl in the case of turntables?

I agree with that, 'source first' was drummed into me in the 70s and 80s when turntables ruled but now with digital it seems to be amp, speakers, source........works for me

This brings me back to my original query about DACs, there doesnt seem to be 'as much' of a difference sound quality wise, in modern digital sources that use various branded, priced DAC chips as there is in different branded, priced turntables.

 

[BenLaw]

I upgraded my gear about 2 years ago and have often wondered if I would have been better off buying a cheaper network player, and spending more on the amp and speakers. Dont get me wrong I am happy with my system, but I would love to stick a budget streamer in to it to see if I can hear much diference.

This is the way I've been going: a simple NAS drive for streaming with much more expensive integrated DAC + amp and speakers. The system I currently have on home demo has a price ratio of 1 : 20 : 30 (streamer : DAC + amp : speakers).

OK, that's RRP and not the actual cost to me, but you get the idea.

Once I've decided on the speakers, I might consider a more expensive streamer. I'm open to the idea that a "proper" hifi streamer (e.g. Linn) might be worth the extra expense, but on balance I'm sceptical.

Matt

What's the system on demo?

 

[CnoEvil]

I have always read in various forums and hi fi magazines "source first".

But have found the biggest improvements have been changing amplifier, then speakers a close second , changing source (which in my case was my cd player ) made a smaller more subtle change to the overall sound.

Maybe "source first" mattered more in the days of vinyl in the case of turntables?

I'm of a similar vintage to Mitch, and agree with his assessment. Back in the day, it was recommended that you spent as much as 50% on the TT and split the rest between amp and speakers.

I think digital has changed that, though the more revealing a system gets, the better the source needs to be. FWIW. My source makes up about 14% of the cost.

 

[Per-Sony-fied]

I suspect that a well designed power supply and good screening of all the appropriate signals go a long way to the cost and improvement of more expensive dacs. The analogue circuitry in particular is where sound quality can suffer and with good isolation of power from the digital feed and more money spent on it's design I feel can improve a dacs quality.

All that said I'm all ears to know how much one really needs to spend to compete with the expensive big boys.

I compared a few dacs at the recent S&V show and I must say to my ears Arcams £700 irDac sounded better than the £170 bluetooth rBlink when listened to through headphones using 320kbps Spotify tracks.

 

[Per-Sony-fied]

I suspect that a well designed power supply and good screening of all the appropriate signals go a long way to the cost and improvement of more expensive dacs. The analogue circuitry in particular is where sound quality can suffer and with good isolation of power from the digital feed and more money spent on it's design I feel can improve a dacs quality.

All that said I'm all ears to know how much one really needs to spend to compete with the expensive big boys.

I compared a few dacs at the recent S&V show and I must say to my ears Arcams £700 irDac sounded better than the £170 bluetooth rBlink when listened to through headphones using 320kbps Spotify tracks.

 

[matt49]

This is the way I've been going: a simple NAS drive for streaming with much more expensive integrated DAC + amp and speakers. The system I currently have on home demo has a price ratio of 1 : 20 : 30 (streamer : DAC + amp : speakers).

OK, that's RRP and not the actual cost to me, but you get the idea.

Once I've decided on the speakers, I might consider a more expensive streamer. I'm open to the idea that a "proper" hifi streamer (e.g. Linn) might be worth the extra expense, but on balance I'm sceptical.

Matt

What's the system on demo?

The bit that's on demo is the speakers: Martin Logan Montis.

I already have the rest: Synology NAS feeding Devialet 170 via USB.

Matt

 

[matt49]

I suspect that a well designed power supply and good screening of all the appropriate signals go a long way to the cost and improvement of more expensive dacs. The analogue circuitry in particular is where sound quality can suffer and with good isolation of power from the digital feed and more money spent on it's design I feel can improve a dacs quality.

I think that's right.

I understand the theory as follows.

The DAC needs to have proper galvanic isolation, so as not to be affected by the PSU upstream. That needn't be expensive, although some good DACs don't have galvanic isolation (e.g. the Audiolab MDAC).

Assuming you have galvanic isolation, it's better to feed a DAC via USB than SPDIF or optical, because USB allows the DAC to control the clocking of the (asynchronous) signal.

The money goes on the analogue output of the DAC (that's where the MDAC really scores), though cheap DACs may also give good results. YMMV.

Matt

 

[Womaz]

The only way to answer the OP is to demo a cheaper and more expensive DAC in the same system. I would love to do that' but can't see any dealers being up for this experiment. If say a linn akurate at 4.5k made a huge difference then I would consider buying it.

 

[steve_1979]

I think that's right.

I understand the theory as follows.

The DAC needs to have proper galvanic isolation, so as not to be affected by the PSU upstream. That needn't be expensive, although some good DACs don't have galvanic isolation (e.g. the Audiolab MDAC).

Assuming you have galvanic isolation, it's better to feed a DAC via USB than SPDIF or optical, because USB allows the DAC to control the clocking of the (asynchronous) signal.

The money goes on the analogue output of the DAC (that's where the MDAC really scores), though cheap DACs may also give good results. YMMV.

Matt

You're quite right that a USB connection is technically better because it allows the DAC to control the clocking of the (asynchronous) signal. But I've never actually heard a DAC that produceses enough jitter for it to be audiable when using an SPDIF connection.

Personally I prefer SPDIF because it sounds identical to a USB connection (to my ears with the DAC's I've heard) and has the added safety benefit of electrically isolating the DAC from the amp. With a USB connection which is electrically conductive if you get an electrical fault with either the DAC or amp there is a small chance it could damage the other components in your hifi. But with a SPDIF cable it's made out of non-conductive optical plastic so it adds an extra layer of electrical isolation between components.

 

[matt49]

You're quite right that a USB connection is technically better because it allows the DAC to control the clocking of the (asynchronous) signal. But I've never actually heard a DAC that produceses enough jitter for it to be audiable when using an SPDIF connection.

Personally I prefer SPDIF because it sounds identical to a USB connection (to my ears with the DAC's I've heard) and has the added safety benefit of electrically isolating the DAC from the amp. With a USB connection which is electrically conductive if you get an electrical fault with either the DAC or amp there is a small chance it could damage the other components in your hifi. But with a SPDIF cable it's made out of non-conductive optical plastic so it adds an extra layer of electrical isolation between components.

But galvanic isolation provides enough protection, so assuming your DAC has galvanic isolation, there's no point in not using the theoretically superior connection, i.e. USB.

Matt

 

[steve_1979]

But galvanic isolation provides enough protection, so assuming your DAC has galvanic isolation, there's no point in not using the theoretically superior connection, i.e. USB.

Matt

True.

 

[Womaz]

You're quite right that a USB connection is technically better because it allows the DAC to control the clocking of the (asynchronous) signal. But I've never actually heard a DAC that produceses enough jitter for it to be audiable when using an SPDIF connection.

Personally I prefer SPDIF because it sounds identical to a USB connection (to my ears with the DAC's I've heard) and has the added safety benefit of electrically isolating the DAC from the amp. With a USB connection which is electrically conductive if you get an electrical fault with either the DAC or amp there is a small chance it could damage the other components in your hifi. But with a SPDIF cable it's made out of non-conductive optical plastic so it adds an extra layer of electrical isolation between components.

But galvanic isolation provides enough protection, so assuming your DAC has galvanic isolation, there's no point in not using the theoretically superior connection, i.e. USB.

Matt

it might be technically superior but can we actually hear a difference. I have the CLIC and in a mag review it said the USB port gave the best results. I honestly can't hear a difference between the CD, the networked CLIC and the USB

 

[Womaz]

You're quite right that a USB connection is technically better because it allows the DAC to control the clocking of the (asynchronous) signal. But I've never actually heard a DAC that produceses enough jitter for it to be audiable when using an SPDIF connection.

Personally I prefer SPDIF because it sounds identical to a USB connection (to my ears with the DAC's I've heard) and has the added safety benefit of electrically isolating the DAC from the amp. With a USB connection which is electrically conductive if you get an electrical fault with either the DAC or amp there is a small chance it could damage the other components in your hifi. But with a SPDIF cable it's made out of non-conductive optical plastic so it adds an extra layer of electrical isolation between components.

But galvanic isolation provides enough protection, so assuming your DAC has galvanic isolation, there's no point in not using the theoretically superior connection, i.e. USB.

Matt

it might be technically superior but can we actually hear a difference. I have the CLIC and in a mag review it said the USB port gave the best results. I honestly can't hear a difference between the CD, the networked CLIC and the USB

 

[spiny norman]

Personally I prefer SPDIF because it sounds identical to a USB connection (to my ears with the DAC's I've heard) and has the added safety benefit of electrically isolating the DAC from the amp.

You're thinking of TOSLINK – S/PDIF can use either a 75ohm coaxial electrical connection or an optical one terminated with TOSLINK connectors.