The Emperor DAC has no Clothes

Lots of interesting comments on this thread. I think there’s some truth in Rob’s observation that dacs in the same price range have similar sound quality. The same thing could probably be said of preamps, amps, and even speakers. The same thing could also be said of other consumer items. Cars in the same price range have a similar build quality and design quality, which largely determines their “drive quality.” Dacs in the same price range have a similar build quality and design quality, which largely determines their sound quality. Let’s treat this as axiomatic…

(1) Build Quality + Design Quality = Sound Quality

This statement is intended in the same spirit at Steve N.’s comment that…

What makes a really stellar component is the other "STUFF", as well as the IMPLEMENTATION.[emphasis added]

I agree with Steve, though my opinion about these things is far less informed than his. The point is that Rob’s observation that dacs in a similar price range sound similar can be largely explained by the fact that the similar price reflects similar design quality and build quality, and that results in similar sound quality. You get the idea.

Having said that, I think Statement (1) is true ONLY UP TO A POINT. That is to say, design quality and built quality are not the only determinants of sound quality. Another major determinant of sound quality is the SYSTEM in which a piece of equipment is heard. So, to revise…

(2) Build Quality + Design Quality + System Quality = Sound Quality

That’s more like it. Statement (2) is intended in the same spirit as Al’s comment that…

…while it is easy (and very common) to blame THE QUALITY OF A SYSTEM when there is a reported inability to perceive differences, that is not necessarily what is going on. And in fact an inverse correlation may often exist between THE ABILITY OF A SYSTEM to resolve musical information, and its ability to resolve differences between components, cables, tweaks, etc.[emphasis added]

I agree with Al. The system in which a component is heard is an essential (and somewhat paradoxical) determinant of sound quality. That would seem to be the end of the story. But it isn’t.

There is another major determinant of sound quality, and that is THE LISTENER. To revise again…

(3) Build Quality + Design Quality + System Quality + Listener Quality = Sound Quality.

You see where I’m going with this. The variables are increasing, the equation is expanding, and “Sound Quality” is becoming less and less easy to determine. But before I get into that, what do I mean by “Listener Quality”? I mean both the listener’s EXPERTISE and the listener’s VALUES, both of which vary widely from audiophile to audiophile. Statement (3) is intended in the same spirit as Audio Oracle’s comment that…

…pay me a visit I can demonstrate to you that your findings are only accurate in your limited set of circumstances: your system setup and your EARS, extrapolating your particular BIASES and EXPECTATIONS to the rest of an industry is fallacious.[emphasis added]

So where does this leave us? In a state of uncertainty, I’m afraid. Here is the reason: As you move through the various “Qualities” listed in Statement (3), they become increasingly subjective. In other words…

Build Quality… slightly subjective
Design Quality… a bit more subjective
System Quality… more subjective still
Listener Quality… largely subjective
Sound Quality… quite subjective

If sound quality were merely a matter of build quality and design quality, then estimates about sound quality would be quite uniform. But add into the equation different systems, which includes different rooms and different source material. Then add different listeners, which includes different expertise and different values. What you get when you add all that up are estimates about sound quality that vary widely, EVEN FOR equipment with similar build quality and design quality. Some will see the Emperor’s new clothes, and some will not. Some will find his new clothes beautiful, and some will not.

I generally don’t like to conclude something so Subjectivist, but I don’t see any way around it.

Bryon

i don't see how one can generalize that tubes in dacs or cd players affect a minimal difference.

i have heard significant differences using my audio note cd2 (circa the 90's).

then again, what is considered by some to be a small difference may be considered a large difference by others.

i have yet to remove the tube and listen to the minimax that way, becuase i like the tube i am using, a brimar 13d5.

i suppose, i should experiment and remove the tube and then report my experience.

The point I attemped to make, aside from subjective impressions is that there ARE clearly differences that I contend can be readily discerned in a substantive manner, in my example, by 2 different listeners in 2 separate systems with the same conclusion over EXTENDED listening. When familiarity with a component in a given system has been established it is easier to discern the differences and can be done so in much less time than say in an initial AB comparison. What does that tell me? Whether or not the differences are better or not is irrelevant for sure. What is relevant is that the conclusion is obvious which raises additional questions regarding system differences and taste perhaps but NOT in my opinion differences in the components. I am not trying to prove anything other than to offer a completely different and hopefully :) objective perspective and conclusion than the OP. I have been at this a while as well and my system and ears are in tune from extended familiarity with one another. I couldn't disagree with him more aside from my value judgement which is totally subjective and irrelevant for the sake of this discussion.

Tubegroover....

Actually, we AGREE! I agree there are differences and certainly they bear out more in long term listening between units. What I'm trying to point out is these differences are VASTLY smaller than the differences between other components at the same price point. Yet we read reviews that seem to give the impression that the differences are big.

I can name plenty of speakers that cost the same, yet have HUGELY different presentations. And I can confidently say the same for amps and pre-amps. But the gap has narrowed down quite bit in the land of digital sources. This was very obvious to me when I compared a modified 300 dollar Oppo player to a Audio Aero Prima CDP and wasn't all that sure that the Oppo was the lesser player. In the end, after extended listening, I did like the Prima better. But I also noted that the little Oppo did nothing wrong, sounding just a tad thin on my system.

I think some folks will prefer the Rega to the W4S 2 and some will like the Minimax + or the far pricier ARC. They're all great DACs. But none are big improvements over the other. Changing the power cable on the Rega made a bigger change in sound than switching between the Rega and W4S 2, at least in the sense of it being instantly audible.

I'll say one more thing...hope nobody wants to shoot me for it! After hearing the pricey ARC DAC and a few others I feel you'd have to be crazy to spend more than 1-2K on a DAC. The leapfrogging may be small, but it's fast and the returns diminish too far for me. You can get so much more by continuing to improve other aspects of the system. I'll upgrade to Merlin VSMs WAY before I'll bother with another DAC...as one example.

I do suggest trying the Rega DAC. It needs a long break-in, but has a solid soundstage presentation and is fairly faultless, at least with my Merlin TSM/Manley system. Other DACs would best it on one point or another, but the Rega is very solid overall and even reminds me of a turntable at times.

Cheers....and thanks for the good comments. This has been a nicely polite thread!

Rob

Nice post, Bryon. I can't resist commenting, though, that I think many audiophiles place too much importance on Build Quality. This is much more than slightly subjective, IMO. "Better" technology isn't much of the time, if "better" refers to sound quality instead of something else. Many audiophiles will refuse to even listen to a piece of equipment that they think doesn't come up to their often extremely arbitrary "build quality" standards. Many others equate Build Quality with Cost, and assume that higher cost equals "better." For me, the bottom line should always be, does it sound better or not? And of course "better" is almost entirely subjective, as Mr. Tennis has been reminding us alot lately.