Best practices when conducting a DAC comparison


Reaching out for general advice on how Agoners have compared DACs in their own systems.....

....and how you have determined the 'better' or the 'preferred' component, based on your comparison.

This will be my first in-depth comparison.

Feel free to mention whatever you believe will help and stuff I may need to look out for / be aware of.

Thank You.
Ag insider logo xs@2xdavid_ten
I agree with bigkdz. If you can’t tell which one is better within the first 30 seconds there really isn’t a significant difference.

What????? Jesus. What exact test tones are you using? It takes several tracks just to fully exercise a DAC. Bass, air, imaging, impact which is not to mention some issues like fatigue, take much longer than 30 seconds to set in. Then how will you compare the Redbook, High Rez and DSD performance? 30 seconds is barely long enough to eliminate a DAC you will never like, assuming it is warmed up but is not a fair way to choose among good performers, unless you believe they all sound the same, and specs are all that matter. If this is you, buy the cheapest you can find.

Best,

E
Erik,
I do not listen to test tones or specs.  I only use red book as digital source.  There are few innovations in the digital conversion world that truly separate one product from another.  Most use the same chip sets with various number of chips deployed and specific parts implemented in the circuit.  

I have four four digital sources available in my main system.  Three of them resemble one another in that they posses a more noticeable tell tail digital signature.  The least desirable to my ears is the Oppo 105D circa  2015.  Next up an early nineties Sony followed by a mid nineties tube dac from VAC.  Then there is one that within that first 30 seconds of playback sounds that much more realistic to me that further comparison is pointless.

 I also have an analog system while not state of the art is far above an entry level setup.  If both the the analog and digital sound more similar than different this is a good thing in my experience.

However, the main goal for both is to sound like real music and convey the emotions and content to make me sit back and get lost in what's playing which is happening now as I type.  Type a bit, stop and listen, then a few more words on the page.

An example of the 30 seconds test is track 2 of Holly Coles  Don't Smoke in Bed.  It's not a complex piece but revealing of digital nasties.

OBTW, I can afford more but what I have pleases me and that is all that I require.  You're invited anytime for a listen.
GeorgeHIFI is so right about volume ,many would choose any higher level even the tiniest amount over the other component ,

.Someone mentioned MQA and why would anyone not choose a dac that didn’t feature this ?  Recording engineer and owner of AIX Records Mark Waldrep including others in the industry have plenty to say about MQA overthe past couple years , RealHD-.com is a great place to start ,

David 10 , have fun with your evaluation,.
First, thanks for the additional thoughts shared via the previous few posts.

Second, I will try to consolidate everyone’s suggestions on approach and put together a summary.

Third, the Denafrips Terminator is broken in and is performing very well. I’ll be swapping in the Schiit Yggdrasil to get some listening time with it (and the new Gen 5 USB board).

Fourth, a major UPDATE:

I thought I’d conduct the comparison over the Thanksgiving Holiday...but other priorities got in the way. I wish I had, because I now have a new element in the system. I’ve been waiting for a speaker delivery, which was planned and scheduled for before the Denafrips DAC was delivered. The speaker was delivered yesterday.

My original plan was to have the new speaker fully broken in as well as to have a significant amount of personal listening time with it. Since I plan to keep the new speaker (and the DAC that performs / has the best synergy with it) I think the best approach is conduct the DAC comparison once the speaker is broken in and I’m familiar with the new speaker.

Thoughts in agreement or contrary to this? If otherwise, I’m interested in how you would proceed? Thanks.
David,
I have now owned and auditioned a Bryston BDA-3, Luxman DA-06, and the Oppo 105d with its internal DAC.  Each, as you know, uses a different DAC chip: respectively AKM, Sabre Burr- Brown.
I now use exclusively the Bryston, sourced via USB by a Bryston BDP-3 streamer, or the Oppo disc player via HDMI.
The characteristics of these DAC's has been described by others, and there may be general agreement that the Luxman is 'very smooth', the Oppo (sabre) detailed but harsh, the Bryston in-between.
My personal impressions:
1. The Luxman employed for chamber music...string quartets, piano trios and quartets...
is 'muddy'....the lack of detail increasingly becomes annoying.  Its employ for solo piano invites similar comment.  Try as I might to persuade myself that the 'more expensive sound'...ie, the Luxman's...should be better than the Oppo's, I had to throw in the towel and
avoid the Luxman for strings and piano.
2. The Luxman employed for voice is a delight.  I've read of various hi-fi components
that a 'smoother' high frequency response decreases listener fatigue.
Such comment applies to the Luxman used, for instance, for listening to an
opera DVD.
3. That virtue is such that even 'downrated' DVD audio sourced to the Luxman via the Oppo's coaxial audio output was superior to the Oppo's internal audio decoding of opera DVD's,
including blu-ray DVD's.
4. The Bryston BDA-3 is a good compromise...' 
I struggled to parse the foregoing impressions in respect of digital source format...standard CD, SACD, hi res PCM, double speed SACD.   The sound quality seems to improve as one progresses from the beginning to the end of that list, but the DAC comparisons...at least my ear...are the same.