Have dacs changed so much in 10 years.

[tuga]

It’s funny isn’t it.
Some people who used to be able to afford to shop in M&S, Waitrose etc who now shop in Aldi etc due to lack of income often comment saying the meat etc is just as good.
It isn’t but maybe it makes them feel better about their current situation.
Point being entry level dacs/hifi has always been perfectly adequate.

Always is overstretching it a bit.

I was an early adopter, buying my first DAC, an Audio Alchemy DDE v1, when it came out in 1991. This was later incremented by one of the first jitter 'filters', the original Audio Alchemy DTI, and I also added the higher performance power supplies that the manufacturer made available for both boxes.

Funny how it looks like things haven't changed that much (clocking, power supplies), although jitter is no longer a serious issue because most DACs re-clock their S/PDIF inputs and asynchronous USB doesn't suffer from jitter. USB is not an ideal interface but it (potentially) is a much better option (if well implemented) than S/PDIF (whether coaxial or Toslink).

Where I feel things have moved on significantly is in the reconstruction stage: in my experience upsampling and noise-shaping have improved Redbook reproduction significantly.

So what you get with a new DAC is next to no jitter when using a flawed interface (S/PDIF) and a (measurably) more accurate reconstruction of the signal.

But with audio being a preference-driven hobby, higher fidelity doesn't always equate to increased listening enjoyment.

 

[Curtis]

Seeing as most people enjoy music rather than hifi I do wonder if separate’s will become a thing of the past.
Seems like the market is moving towards wireless active speakers & phones.

 

[tuga]

I kind of think that Philips and Sony had the right approach for digital at 16bit 44.1k.

I disagree entirely.
Not only was the 16-bit depth too short for editing and mixing, which is why now most music is captured at 24-bit and mixed at 32-bit floating point, but 44.1KHz put the filter too close to the audio band and, because the perfect filter is not feasible in practice, all of the available different filters are compromised and have audible effects.
Meridian's Bob Stuart wrote a paper many years ago about coding where he defended that you'd need at least 18-bit / 60KHz to achieve audible transparency.

 

[oldius]

My main DAC is from 1989.
As I get older, my only real measure is whether I enjoy the sound.
There are things that I look for in particular tracks, like us all, but overall the balance has to be right.
The DAC I have chosen to keep gives me the sound that I want to hear, and I have chosen to keep it despite hearing a number of modern DACs. Of course, it can only deliver CD standard playback, but I don't feel I am missing out: I have a modern unit that can deliver the high-resolution if I want it.
So, have dacs changed much? Probably, in specification, but it doesn't mean that you will enjoy them more. The DAC I use had huge investment made to the power supply and output. I am not sure that the DAC chip choice makes anything like the audible difference that investment in those areas can.

 

[tuga]

My main DAC is from 1989.
As I get older, my only real measure is whether I enjoy the sound.

I still have a modded PD-91 also from 1989 and it's a great-sounding player, but my current software + DAC playback combo is a few steps higher up, both in measured performance as well as listening enjoyment.

Have you listened to a few recent high-performance DACs in your system?

 

[oldius]

I still have a modded PD-91 also from 1989 and it's a great-sounding player, but my current software + DAC playback combo is a few steps higher up, both in measured performance as well as listening enjoyment.

Have you listened to a few recent high-performance DACs in your system?

Not in the last couple of years, in my own system, though I do have a modern unit to compare to.
In that time, a number in homes and in dealers' systems, which I appreciate is not the same.
I suppose I reached a point where I realised that the chase was no longer worthy of the result, for me. In other words, the differences that I was hearing were no longer, for me, worth the financial outlay nor the energy of the pursuit. My findings were:

In terms of software - the mastering and production outweigh the benefit of high-resolution output.
In terms of system, the DAC's impact is smaller than other investments, especially in loudspeakers.

I admit to not having explored software changes - I am not a luddite, but I do wish to sit and listen to music, not experiment too much.
I also appreciate that in my mid fifties, after four decades of high-volume listening, live and recorded, I may not have the same capacity to determine small 'improvements' in outright quality; I imagine that is the position of many of us. Interestingly, a friend of mine borrowed one of my high-end vintage DACs (not my main one). After a few weeks of listening he came to the conclusion that he preferred it to the sound of his high-end, modern unit with upgraded power supply. He didn't go down the same route but he aimed for a new DAC that could give him more of what he enjoyed in mine. His ears are younger and more golden!

I wish everyone good luck in their journey, and I am certainly not qualified to tell others what they can hear, nor what they cannot. Best wishes.

 

[adamdea]

I kind of think that Philips and Sony had the right approach for digital at 16bit 44.1k. I now only buy cd's for digital playback after shifting all my streaming kit.

They didn;t have a lot of room to play with at the time, but the fundamental point that it is probably enough remains undented in the meantime. Despite many attempts, there is no cogent evidence that any more is required for a distribution format. Of course in commercial, hobbyist and OCD consumer terms, somethign more is always required.
There are arguments that one would use 24 / [60/88/96] to be on the safe side, but almost everyone who claimed that 24/88 sounded better then went to to say that 24/192 dsd blah blah sounded even better. And there you have it.

 

[camverton]

They didn;t have a lot of room to play with at the time, but the fundamental point that it is probably enough remains undented in the meantime. Despite many attempts, there is no cogent evidence that any more is required for a distribution format. Of course in commercial, hobbyist and OCD consumer terms, somethign more is always required.
There are arguments that one would use 24 / [60/88/96] to be on the safe side, but almost everyone who claimed that 24/88 sounded better then went to to say that 24/192 dsd blah blah sounded even better. And there you have it.

Sony/Philip were probably right from a theoretical point of view in that 16/44100 is all that is required. The snag is putting the theory into practice, hence the work of Rob Watts and others. Whether their developments, taking what is good enough for many to a more accurate level, is necessary or worthwhile is down to individual perception. What is amusing is how people who are of a measurements tell all outlook get so incensed by those looking to get the best from the format.

 

[chartz]

Interesting thread. The real question is, have DAC changed this much since the introduction of CD?
Sometimes I wonder – when I listen to my 40 year-old Philips CD 100, a real music maker, even through the mighty ESLs.
I was listening to an original CD pressing, the Pictures by Solti (Decca, 1982) and it sounded gorgeous.

 

[tuga]

Despite many attempts, there is no cogent evidence that any more is required for a distribution format.

Well, since different filters are audible I would say that there's some evidence that 44.1KHz is inadequate for distribution.
It's also a lossy format if resulting from a downscaling of a >16-bit and >44.1KHz master, meaning extra processing and dithering which may or may not have been properly carried out. Original file resolution is not something that I am actively chasing but only because of the premium cost.

 

[Henricus]

I just got a Opera Consonance dac 16 (tad-1543) which is more than 10 years old. Sounds pretty, pretty good..

 

[tuga]

I just got a Opera Consonance dac 16 (tad-1543) which is more than 10 years old. Sounds pretty, pretty good..

That is a good example of poor measured performance sounding good to some people.
There's no oversampling and the TDA1543 was Philips budget low-performance chip. I had the Shigaraki DAC on which the Opera and other TDA1543 NOS DACs got their inspiration from. I didn't sound good to me.

 

[Juancho]

That is a good example of poor measured performance sounding good to some people.
There's no oversampling and the TDA1543 was Philips budget low-performance chip. I had the Shigaraki DAC on which the Opera and other TDA1543 NOS DACs got their inspiration from. I didn't sound good to me.

As I measure your comment I conclude you're a sample of one, so it's just your humble opinion.........

 

[tuga]

As I measure your comment I conclude you're a sample of one, so it's just your humble opinion.........

I merely stated facts.
The datasheet informs that the TDA1543 is a monolithic integrated dual 16-bit digital-to-analog converter (DAC) designed as an economy version. It also specifies a mediocre THD+N of 75dB vs. 95dB of the TDA1541. As for measured performance of a NOS implementation head over to Stereophile and have a look at the Shigaraki DAC's measurements.

 

[Juancho]

I merely stated facts.
The datasheet informs that the TDA1543 is a monolithic integrated dual 16-bit digital-to-analog converter (DAC) designed as an economy version. It also specifies a mediocre THD+N of 75dB vs. 95dB of the TDA1541. As for measured performance of a NOS implementation head over to Stereophile and have a look at the Shigaraki DAC's measurements.

But as always: have you actually heard one?

 

[tuga]

But as always: have you actually heard one?

One what? I owned a Shigaraki DAC. Also their cråppy transport and the amplifier.

 

[Juancho]

One what? I owned a Shigaraki DAC. Also their cråppy transport and the amplifier.

So for ther record you've never heard the Opera Consonance DAC referred to and are basing your judgement on a completely different product

 

[tuga]

So for ther record you've never heard the Opera Consonance DAC referred to and are basing your judgement on a completely different product

You can only do so much with a given set of ingredients. Also the (NOS) topology defines the (limited) potential.

 

[tuga]

As I measure your comment I conclude you're a sample of one, so it's just your humble opinion.........

You may have missed it but I wrote that the Opera is "a good example of poor measured performance sounding good to some people".
I am not contesting that it sounds good to some people, in spite of its performance being mid-fi.

 

[allthingsanalog]

Seeing as most people enjoy music rather than hifi I do wonder if separate’s will become a thing of the past.
Seems like the market is moving towards wireless active speakers & phones.

I sincerely hope not but get where you’re coming from. Ever since I can remember I hankered after hifi kit, now younger people are only interested in one thing, phones. I can’t imagine ever spending £1250 on a phone for examples, I’d rather buy a cartridge!