Rebutting "All DACs Sound the Same"

Online we frequently come across this claim that "DACs are a solved problem" and people acting like you just get the JDSLabs Atom DAC and stop worrying about it. As someone who owned the Atom and compared it with other DACs, this is obviously wrong, but I was wondering if anyone had ever properly laid out the case for why this argument is nonsense? Like for example on the YouTube video where Rob Watts is explaining how he designs DACs, you get this comment:

"All we actual audio science guys know to be rubbish and just a product of imagination of a person because there is no measureable difference -- unless the DAC is faulty"

Like it seems easy to get into a back and forth where you're saying "well, I heard a difference" and they say "you're fooling yourself/placebo effect/confirmation bias/etc" or, alternatively, "the DAC is faulty" (as if sounding better is a fault). Has anyone just written up with evidence and actual measurements why this is wrong?

 

Don't interact with those folks. Just enjoy what you enjoy and don't waste any brain cells on figuring out how to "win" an argument with measurement fascists. Life is too short.

 

At the risk of wading into an objectivist vs subjectivist sh*tstorm...the very question comes from a place of effective marketing, and nothing more.

There are very powerful financial incentives for certain DAC manufacturers, and their objectivist shills, to push the narrative that "all DACs sound the same" and "DACs are a solved problem, buy the best measuring DAC you can afford." It's a snappy message that puts the onus on the "subjectivists" to disprove under the veneer of "science", while simultaneously creating a fear of missing out.

"Oh no, is my DAC good enough? Some new DAC just came out and it measures 1/100 of 1 percent better! Maybe I need that DAC." Rinse and repeat ad nauseam.

On the flip side, there is almost no financial incentive from any manufacturers to do as you suggested - whether they're producing measurement-focused DACs, or trying to craft good sounding DACs at the expense of some measurement. The fact that the objectivist camp is the loudest one demanding the evidence and measurements to the contrary (without actually taking the burden of proof upon themselves to run the experiments) is a big red flag.

One big reason it's not worth it for anyone to try and even set up an experiment is that the goal posts will just be moved as soon as the results prove anything to contrary for those who are measurement focused. "Yeah, but the study wasn't triple-quadruple-quintuple blind!", or "It's just one study! It needs to be replicated again, and again, and again independently to mean anything!", or "But, look who funded the study, of course it's biased!" And on, and on. And that's the best outcome if you're selling a DAC based on sound quality, and not distortion figures! If the results prove the objectivists right, then what's even the point.

If you thought some DAC sounded different than another DAC you heard, then, keep the one you like better. If you A/B'd two DACs and couldn't hear a difference, keep the cheaper one and be happy.

Enjoy the music, ignore the noise.

 

If it's any consolation, I get faced with exactly the same type of question regarding cables.
I don't make any bold or outrageous claims but simply offer clients the opportunity to loan them and find out for themselves if there is a synergy in their system/headphones. Simples.
Life's too short to be arguing about such subjective things.

My AudioGD DAC/amps are totally berated / hated by some who claim they can measure a high level of background noise. Maybe that's true, maybe it's just misinformation and bias but hey, guess what? I like them so much I bought 2! Do I hear that background noise? Do I diddly!

 

This is a waste of time. Anyone that’s put in the effort to critically listen to different DACs already knows there are many ways DACs can sound different.

 

They say the same but about us.

 

This is obviously wrong. If the Objectivists are claiming that you only need the simplest DAC because it's a solved problem, and manufacturers are selling more expensive DACs, they have a powerful financial incentive to prove that the claim is wrong so that people will buy their gear. This is, in fact, the argument the objectivists use against the subjectivists--that expensive DACs are all a scam to make money.

Whether or not it's a productive conversation, it's surprising to me that no one would take the time to say "oh you think all DACs measure the same? Here, let me show you measurements that show otherwise." At the least, you'd think DAC manufacturers would do something like this to prove that their equipment isn't snake oil.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not looking to get into some argument here about whether or not all DACs sound the same. I'm specifically asking if anyone has laid out the evidence in a way I can link to. If the answer is "no, no one's done that", then that's the answer.

 

That's the answer. (there have been blind test attempts, but goalposts are shifted as mentioned above).

As to the question: we could be back in the 1990s in the rec.audio.* Usenet newsgroups asking about CD players or amps. The main difference is many of the protagonists from each side (eg Arny Krueger, Steve Zipser) are dead.

 

There are many aspects of sound reproduction that we don't have easily digestible measurements for (like a neat and tidy SINAD number) so what's the point? Size of soundstage, imaging precision, micro dynamics, macro dynamics, resolving ability, immediacy, separation, etc.

If someone wants to listen to different gear and figure it out for themselves, great. If not, prob not worth feeding the trolls.

 

Okay, so the evidence to the contrary is in blind testing, not in measurements. (I'm fine with that result, it's just interesting to know.)

 

Yeah, which is a weird place to be, because obviously the proof is in the testing, right: If people can hear differences, then absolutely the differences exist, and the only question is why. But having no causal theory that can be tested, and no measurable indicator that maps up to the human-tested result is... well, it makes people suspicious, for good reason. The world mostly isn't full of "here's a straightforward electrical signal that can be measured in exhaustive detail, but where we can't identify a single thing that maps up to observed experience."

When you pair that with the reality that the differences are subtle -- I have very little confidence that I personally could hear a difference between DACs in blind testing, as I've only barely managed to convince myself that I've heard differences between DAC + amp chains in sighted testing, and I'm like in the extreme 1% of audiophilia obsessiveness among people I know -- it's not surprising that lots of people conclude that they just must not exist.

EDIT: And I think that drives a lot of the "goalpost moving." Like, it is a notable fact that there have not been public successful blind tests. Nobody's gotten up in front of a group of people who were watching them and carefully set up the experiment and actually done an ABX test of DACs successfully ever. And so if you're someone who's like "you've got no theory and no measurements, and the only evidence you have is that this one bunch of weird guys say on the internet that they did a thing at home and it worked?" then it's easy to see why some combination of "they're lying/mistaken/screwed up" is a parsimonious explanation. Even if you don't think it's right, it should be understandable how people get there with good will and honesty.

 

I've heard dacs with tube filters and dacs with op amps.
NOS, 4x, 8x, 16x. I've even wasted my time and upsampled to 64 bit double precession requiring m3a files to just play a single track.(Imagine the inconvenience of having to build a NAS, buying multiple software's costing thousands of dollars just be inconvenienced. Maybe we can get a Digital Nut jobs thread)

It all sounds different, the argument that dacs sound the same is always in bad faith. Maybe the same topologies sound similar, but that is excluding many other factors that don't sell 80 dollar dacs on SZA.

 

“DACs are a solved problem.”

So are hamburgers, but I’d rather eat at Five Guys than McDonalds and so do the people with the kind of myopic thinking that created that quote.

Similarly I’d rather listen to an Yggdrasil or Holo May than some cheap Topping DAC that has “solved the DAC problem”.

 

It's been a long time since I've cared about winning arguments about hobby stuff especially. I have more important stuff occupying my mental bandwidth.

EDIT: I only mean to convey that I'll let others better equipped than I engage in the debate.

 

Best analogy ever.

To contribute: not worth engaging. You won't win. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...obable-start-up.701900/page-690#post-12447731

 

ha yeah, Colt with the post of the year and it's only May.

 

Thanks, Jason! This is exactly what I was looking for. The important part for my purposes:

 

Our experience with blind listening: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...bable-start-up.701900/page-3798#post-15486474