These Dacs sound so close....or Err maybe not :)

[Yelamanchili manohar]

There are a lot of comparison videos on the Net. But below is a great video I came across with different dacs playing at the same SPL's, in a well setup and optimised system. The differences between dacs is so really close to my ears. We all will have our preferences of course. But for those bat eared...what do you prefer

 

[prem]

Based on above clip, I liked RME and Metrum. RME times very well. Metrum appears a little slower but seems to have better tone and timbre.

Left to me I would have gone with RME.

 

[Yelamanchili manohar]

Based on above clip, I liked RME and Metrum. RME times very well. Metrum appears a little slower but seems to have better tone and timbre.

Left to me I would have gone with RME.

I think it just goes to show how we all want different things from our music

I liked the Audio-GD best, as it had a rich tone ( a lot of distortion probably ) and a larger stage perhaps. But then since i like a rich lush tubey sound, and prefer warmth and colour to neutrality, my preference in hindsight is obvious

 

[prem]

Agreed. We all hear differently and have our own preferences. Nothing right or wrong in that. My taste is more towards neutral

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

I am more bat-eyed than bat-eared, but FWIW, here are my impressions. I hadn’t read on these DACs, so less likely to have any preconceived notions about any of them.

At the outset, I’d say the differences were not prominent, and I had to keenly listen on my reasonably neutral ER4SR earphones to start noticing them.

If I were looking for a neutral, resolving and musical (rhythmic) sound, I’d go with the RME based on the evidence in the video. I imagine it’d be the more popular choice too as most audiophiles look for these qualities more than others.

The Metrum is sweet sounding, and the voice sounds more life-like, but it suffers through some smoothening of the transients. I can imagine those preferring analogish sound and listening mostly to vocal music might like it. I’d be tempted to, but wouldn’t like to settle for the loss of definition I perceived.

The Ifi was the easiest for me to rule out, it felt strident. The Audiolab sounded like there was something awry with the timing. I wouldn’t upgrade from my Cambridge CXN to either of them.

It was the Audio GD that piqued my interest in particular. It didn’t have the low end resolution of the RME, but wasn’t fuzzy either. Somehow it felt rightly balanced to my preference and organic sounding too. It wasn’t slow like the Metrum, and had reasonable musicality. While the RME would give more insight into the music, I feel I’d enjoy listening to the Audio GD for longer hours. I liked how it sounded in my head too, which might be a function of its sound staging. If I think of upgrading my DAC, I’d consider these two options.

 

[mbhangui]

I liked Audio GD the best and metrum amethyst the worst (the highs were subdued).

 

[Yelamanchili manohar]

I am more bat-eyed than bat-eared, but FWIW, here are my impressions. I hadn’t read on these DACs, so less likely to have any preconceived notions about any of them.

At the outset, I’d say the differences were not prominent, and I had to keenly listen on my reasonably neutral ER4SR earphones to start noticing them.

If I were looking for a neutral, resolving and musical (rhythmic) sound, I’d go with the RME based on the evidence in the video. I imagine it’d be the more popular choice too as most audiophiles look for these qualities more than others.

The Metrum is sweet sounding, and the voice sounds more life-like, but it suffers through some smoothening of the transients. I can imagine those preferring analogish sound and listening mostly to vocal music might like it. I’d be tempted to, but wouldn’t like to settle for the loss of definition I perceived.

The Ifi was the easiest for me to rule out, it felt strident. The Audiolab sounded like there was something awry with the timing. I wouldn’t upgrade from my Cambridge CXN to either of them.

It was the Audio GD that piqued my interest in particular. It didn’t have the low end resolution of the RME, but wasn’t fuzzy either. Somehow it felt rightly balanced to my preference and organic sounding too. It wasn’t slow like the Metrum, and had reasonable musicality. While the RME would give more insight into the music, I feel I’d enjoy listening to the Audio GD for longer hours. I liked how it sounded in my head too, which might be a function of its sound staging. If I think of upgrading my DAC, I’d consider these two options.

Thats some excellent insight Sachin. Loved reading every bit of it

 

[rwnano]

Controversial opinion: you will not hear difference between DACs, unless one is completely broken.

Even more controversial opinion: Spotify with 320kbps AAC encoding sounds as good as modern CDs. The main problem with modern music is not lossy compression, but dynamic range compression - but this is a problem on new CD releases as well.

And another one, slightly less controversial: MQA is snake oil, makes false promises and mathematically doesn't add up.

From reddit.com

 

[mbhangui]

Controversial opinion: you will not hear difference between DACs, unless one is completely broken.

Even more controversial opinion: Spotify with 320kbps AAC encoding sounds as good as modern CDs. The main problem with modern music is not lossy compression, but dynamic range compression - but this is a problem on new CD releases as well.

And another one, slightly less controversial: MQA is snake oil, makes false promises and mathematically doesn't add up.

From reddit.com

True. The difference between the dacs were too minute to loose sleep over it. Personally, I would invest in a good amplifier and good speakers and most importantly the source material. Definitely not cables . Rest all is dictated by the individual psychology.

 

[Yelamanchili manohar]

Controversial opinion: you will not hear difference between DACs, unless one is completely broken.

Even more controversial opinion: Spotify with 320kbps AAC encoding sounds as good as modern CDs. The main problem with modern music is not lossy compression, but dynamic range compression - but this is a problem on new CD releases as well.

And another one, slightly less controversial: MQA is snake oil, makes false promises and mathematically doesn't add up.

From reddit.com

Was it ASR who said the above .

I am more bat-eyed than bat-eared, but FWIW, here are my impressions. I hadn’t read on these DACs, so less likely to have any preconceived notions about any of them.

At the outset, I’d say the differences were not prominent, and I had to keenly listen on my reasonably neutral ER4SR earphones to start noticing them.

If I were looking for a neutral, resolving and musical (rhythmic) sound, I’d go with the RME based on the evidence in the video. I imagine it’d be the more popular choice too as most audiophiles look for these qualities more than others.

The Metrum is sweet sounding, and the voice sounds more life-like, but it suffers through some smoothening of the transients. I can imagine those preferring analogish sound and listening mostly to vocal music might like it. I’d be tempted to, but wouldn’t like to settle for the loss of definition I perceived.

The Ifi was the easiest for me to rule out, it felt strident. The Audiolab sounded like there was something awry with the timing. I wouldn’t upgrade from my Cambridge CXN to either of them.

It was the Audio GD that piqued my interest in particular. It didn’t have the low end resolution of the RME, but wasn’t fuzzy either. Somehow it felt rightly balanced to my preference and organic sounding too. It wasn’t slow like the Metrum, and had reasonable musicality. While the RME would give more insight into the music, I feel I’d enjoy listening to the Audio GD for longer hours. I liked how it sounded in my head too, which might be a function of its sound staging. If I think of upgrading my DAC, I’d consider these two options.

I have a pair of Audio-GD amps which sound very organic, natural and lifelike. I was pleasantly surprised when I first switched them on. Their mid range and treble is beautiful. But their bass is completely flawed. So not an amp I would recommend without reservations. This house sound of Audio-GD is what i like. Zero negative feed back, so it leaves the tonal colours intact. Strings and voices sound like real guitars and humans, more than any other amp that I've heard.

Even I'd like to add a Audio-GD dac only for the enjoyment part it brings, though i suspect it will not compare technically with other dacs, due to its deliberate implementation choices.

 

[Kannan]

Can't make out any worthwhile difference.

 

[Yelamanchili manohar]

Can't make out any worthwhile difference.

haha...yeah its pretty close sir

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

I have a pair of Audio-GD amps which sound very organic, natural and lifelike. I was pleasantly surprised when I first switched them on. Their mid range and treble is beautiful. But their bass is completely flawed. So not an amp I would recommend without reservations. This house sound of Audio-GD is what i like. Zero negative feed back, so it leaves the tonal colours intact. Strings and voices sound like real guitars and humans, more than any other amp that I've heard.

So then this must be the house sound of Audio-GD, Manohar. My impressions of the DAC based on the video and yours with their amp are on similar lines. Now that you explained the R2R and the zero feedback, it’s understandable that this must be their ideology towards sound. And they seem to be living it in the design of their range of products congruently. I also prefer components that don’t allow tinkering with their house sound by providing end user with tone settings (in amps) or filters (in DACs) for the same reason. I’ve never missed the absence of tone settings in my Audiolab amp.

Even I'd like to add a Audio-GD dac only for the enjoyment part it brings, though i suspect it will not compare technically with other dacs, due to its deliberate implementation choices.

Isn’t that the ultimate goal - the enjoyment? It is, at least for me. Though I can understand the other goals - like getting the perfect sound that motivate many audiophiles.

 

[keith_correa]

Now imagine the creator of this video/recording laughing his butt off at the comments for the video/audio, knowing that there were no different DAC's used at all but a cheap $50 Chi-Fi board off Alixpress and it's only the labels on the screen that changed. What fun!

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

Now imagine the creator of this video/recording laughing his butt off at the comments for the video/audio, knowing that there were no different DAC's used at all but a cheap $50 Chi-Fi board off Alixpress and it's only the labels on the screen that changed. What fun!

And a facepalm for myself and others who deliberated upon the differences and nuances. You Keith, have dry humour that can have egos come crashing like a pack of cards! The creator of the video however, would be risking the ire of the entire audiophile community.

 

[prem]

If it’s the same dac that has been playing and only labels changing, I really need to have my ears checked

I normally follow only one instrument when comparing. The instrument should ideally be the one leading the song. In the first track I followed the guitar. Heard it again. To my ears only the RME sounded rhythmic. Even the lower notes of the guitar were coming through more clearly. To my ears the Audio GD was thickening the mids making it fleshier but I was losing the immediacy and the rhythm.

But I can completely understand why someone would love the Audio GD sound.

 

[Kannan]

Now imagine the creator of this video/recording laughing his butt off at the comments for the video/audio, knowing that there were no different DAC's used at all but a cheap $50 Chi-Fi board off Alixpress and it's only the labels on the screen that changed. What fun!

Now it is 5 dollars

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

I normally follow only one instrument when comparing. The instrument should ideally be the one leading the song. In the first track I followed the guitar. Heard it again.

@prem , thanks for sharing your technique.

To my ears the Audio GD was thickening the mids making it fleshier but I was losing the immediacy and the rhythm.

I’d like to know your impressions of the Audio GD vis-à-vis the Metrum on this - purely for my learning.

 

[keith_correa]

I normally follow only one instrument when comparing. The instrument should ideally be the one leading the song. In the first track I followed the guitar. Heard it again. To my ears only the RME sounded rhythmic. Even the lower notes of the guitar were coming through more clearly. To my ears the Audio GD was thickening the mids making it fleshier but I was losing the immediacy and the rhythm.

You're absolutely right! The guitar strums were the only consistent parts by large across the track to compare against - for me. The rest of the track were not - for my ears to discern any differences. I thought that the RME was the only one among the rest that reproduced the crispness and tone of the guitar strums.
It would have been much better to discern differences if a short track had been played in a loop for all DAC's.

 

[Fiftyfifty]

Just for fun, I tried these 2 tests:

1. Close eyes and tell when the DAC changes.
I could tell when the RME or the AudioGD were playing but fumbled with the other changes

2. Which DAC sounds closest to 'live' sound?
My foot started to tap whenever the RME played but it lacked the lush midrange of the AudioGD. The Audio GD brought the guitarist into the room but it was as though the other artistes were playing on a background recorded track

If i was to select just one, I'd pass