I find this a fascinating topic. Lasy year I spent quite a bot of time on the ASR forum and I was sort of convinced that all DACs sound the same
Then I tested the theory.
I already had the Qutest and the Eversolo DMPA6 which I was using as a streamer. So I thought I could trim my box count. The DMPA6 could act as both my straemer and DAC. The Qutest and the TQ USB cable could be sold to raise some funds.
Well I tested it of course and the differnce was not subtle. The Qutest is in a differemt league to the DMPA6 as a DAC. It was not even close and trust me I so wanted it to be as I was after a pair of Susvaras at the time.
No I did not level match the volume exactly so I would not dare post my findings on ASR
The DMPA6 was thin and quite sterile sounding in comparison. The bass from the Qutest was just on another level, and to be honest I think most people would have come to the same conclusion.
So I really dont think all DACs sound the same.
At present I am consideirng an R2R DAC and I would be amazed if it was not different to the Qutest
The major difference in sound between DAC’s is the filtering involved with generating the analog signal, the I/V conversion process, and the analog output stage. The main point is that in casual listening, discerning the differences in DAC’s is not all that easy.
Having a high end headphone setup does allow listeners to hear differences with DACs. I have a total of four different DACs, and they all have their own sonic signature. One DAC is built into my integrated power amp that drives speakers. The other three I use for headphones.
I can’t reliably state that any one DAC is markedly superior to another, as each one has their own strengths and limitations. They are all delta/sigma types. I’m not a big fan of R2R, as I value neutrality and detail, which delta/sigma seems to sound more to my liking, especially the two that have custom FPGA filtering.
If you like your Qutest, not sure you will like the R2R better. You need to listen and judge for yourself.
Yeah I agree we all hear differently as we all have different preferred sound signatures I guess.
However I can absoluely state that I can hear a differnce in the Qutest DAC and the DMPA6 DAC.
I have a decent set up I guess, the DMPA6 feeds the Qutest and the Niimbus US5 Pro amp. I have the 1266TC and the Susvaras.
I love my Qutest , but then its the only DAC I have heard in my present set up. However I am intrigued to hear more DACs . The logical step is an R2R DAC as it will be totally different to the Quest I would imagine. I cant audition at home up here in the NE of England so would have to buy to find out.
Main contender is the Spring 3 KTE, possiblly Denafrips Pontus 15th or maybe the LAIV Harmony.
Also as a wild card a DAC that looks very different, a tube DAC Fezz Equinox, but dont know a great deal about it.
I was at the same point this time last year and just decided to stick with the Qutest. This time I feel a little more enthusiastic
The differnece between the Qutest and the DMPA6 is not subtle. So yeah this has got me thinking , can I improve on the Qutest. It just might cost me a bit of cash to find out I maybe cant
Some of us once tried to listen to music with our eyes, but we then learned that listening requires use of the ears. Many armchair philosophers and victims of confirmation bias there…
Yes, DACs with seemingly good measurements vary and often by a lot. This includes perceived roughness/graininess, soundstage, tone and body, struggling to process complex passages/brief drop outs, filtering (ranging from edgy to creamy), and treble artifacts/whining.
My preferences are only modestly correlated with price, as the most expensive models often have heavy filtering and rounded off edges.
Qutest’s weakest point is the bass quantity/impact IME, so it’s a bit surprising Eversolo has even worse bass. My Gustard X26Pro bass is at least twice as good as Qutest, but when I power the Qutest from Eneloop AA batteries, the overall sound is so good it’s difficult to dwell on technicalities
we’ve come to a point where even the Chinese are producing cheap world class DACs. Companies are all using the same chip sets. The specs on these chip sets are producing InAudible distortion and noise. You can’t argue that these DACs are much better than DACs of previous generations. Headphones are subjective, DACs are not.
DAC/amps can be subjective though, because of the amp sections, and most modern “DAC chips” are actually integrated DAC/amps with full headphone amplifier sections in them. (DAoCs? DAC/amps-on-chip? We should find a new term for them, maybe it will remove some of this confusion leading ASR-type “objectivists” to make untenable claims about them as if they were all still “pure DACs” like back in the day.)
Not to mention widespread cases of errors in implementation. Just because state-of-the-art chips exist doesn’t mean that every company will put them in SotA implementations, for various reasons (skill issues, “house sound” tunings…). You can’t even rely on a majority of companies making SotA DAC implementations, so even just for this reason your claim is more often false than not.
Listen with your own two ears. The audio hobby is packed with snake oil and tiny variations that are loved by some and denied by others. Those who seek to reach conclusions through numbers alone and without actually listening tend to gravitate to ASR and similar forums. The rest of us simply listen to products to assess (1) can we hear it and (2) do we care. Half the time I do hear differences but don’t care. Half the time the differences are too subtle to notice.
To my ears DACs absolutely, positively vary and absolutely, positively are not interchangeable. Still, I don’t like a lot of very expensive DACs. This includes audiophile brands such as Chord and dCS.
It’s not a marketing tag, I used it to mean the same thing you described as all DACs performing the DAC function exactly correctly and therefore sounding the same. State of the art = as close to mathematically perfect as is possible given the current state of engineering knowledge and technological development. It’s the current state of the art-of-engineering [product type xyz], regardless of commercial or marketing concerns. And it’s not what we get when we buy most products out there.
I don’t like using Names because the point is “What makes DAC quality”.
But here goes. My SMSL RAW-MDA-1 is world class specs and operation. It cost a fraction of my RME ADI-2 DAC but the are identical to my ears. Even though the RME is more expensive I use them to EQ my HD800s to perfection.
Both are targeting the technical/analytical market. There are always lower cost alternatives to expensive European brands like RME. Some would characterize later models as clones, copies, or knock-offs. This is a universal pattern, and the reason why patents were invented.
That’s IMPOSSIBLE because some brands based their business model on proprietary technology (e.g., Border Patrol and Chord). They consciously avoided being comparable to common, commodity chipsets. Whether this matters to you is up to your own ears.
