I come here to listen and learn. There are a lot of audiophiles out there who give their thoughts and opinions freely on all types of equipment , but there are very few people who are engineers that design and build these systems, have brought products to market, and enjoy explaining how the stuff works. Paul is clearly an expert in this field.

Every time I watch your video’s I’m mesmerized by the fact how much knowledge you have about audio equipment. Another pro is that you explain it in a way that anyone can comprehend it without delving into hard to pronounce words and terms. Respect! Best, Emiel.

Im not an audiophile, I just enjoy music, but these videos are really insightful and just good to watch.

Never heard about this company or this guy, was just looking for an answer on the difference between ESS Sabre 9118 and 9018 DAC’s (got a 9118 on my Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master motherboard, the SteelSeries Arctis Pro + DAC headset comes with a DAC that uses the 9018)....but I instantly fell in love with this guy. Seems like the nicest dude, with lots of knowledge. Gonna watch some more of his content now. Thanks for the info too...it answered my question - that I don’t need to worry about the DAC chip itself, but rather the overall implementation of the system. So even if my motherboard is technically running a “better” DAC chip, that a stand-alone exterior DAC can still offer an improvement in audio (even if it has a technically “worse” DAC chip).

Recently I've changed the DAC which carries AK4497EQ. The result was amazing! High and mid range became being clearer, as I supposed. And low range became crisp without any boominess. So I can hear precise attack note of wood Bass and Bas drum.Very satisfying!

Hi paul,i follow about 10 days now and just to say i'm really happy to found you out here andmake great moments to listen to you.You are nice person to listen .King regards from Netherland.Csaba

thanks Paul. I would love to stop by the mothership someday.

Nice one and all true! Thanks! On the other hand I always thought that the high current dedicated DAC in my PS Audio Ultralink II was big part of the very good sound. I Loved it.

Yes, agreed! You are saying, it's not the sword (or Sabre?) but the swordsman that's the key. It is how the technology is applied when creating a good DAC? Why so many dislikes?

What i got from this video is I can come in and listening to music on an awesome system anytime I like. Great news!

I really enjoy your easy to understand way of explaining complex hifi. Thanks Paul

In Germany, PS Audio is unfortunately not a popular brand and many high end stores they dont even know about it, which shows lack of real Hifi expertise. I love your videocast, because awesome product to need great brains, thx!! Cheers from Hamburg/DE!

Great discussion. Agree whole heartedly. Lampizator started as a hobbyist upgrading CD players. He got famous by bypassing the op amps and installing a triode based output. Also upgraded power supplies. His work on vintage CDPs is still online. Having Lampizated several CDPs I can vouche for the substantial impact on sound an upgraded output stage makes. That led to making my own DAC/streamer using 30 year old TDA1541a chip but has over the top power supplies, clocks and triode output that will rival most megabuck commercial products.

Nice to see Dan Wright mentioned. I have his excellent PH 150 Reference tube phono stage. I use a Schiit Yggdrasil Analog 2 DAC and it is also impressive. Paul's right. Folks should obsess with the implementation of the conversion, not necessarily the conversion itself - though it is still very important.

Well explained! A dac is very complex system and therefore many things can happen to the (over all) soundquality. The I to U converting stage is very important.

Amazing explanation, definitely things I have never known...!

Wow before I watched I already knew the answer and you sir are on the money no surprise thanks again Paul

I love it when people dont read from a script and are actually genuine and real with everything they say. (:

Analog output stage is the most important. Best DAC I heard is the Forssell MDAC-2. Discrete Class-A out. Minimalist design.

I'm with you, Paul. Great stuff as usual. The analogue output stage, is the difference; I would very much believe it. 👌🏼

Its all about good engineering And how well all the parts Work together

This guy seems like a nice dude.

I love learning, just learned a lot. I'm new to HiFi and hopefully I'll have one of your DACs one day.

I just got into DAC's a few years back. I can't afford the really expensive one's but I do have a few. I also like to listen to my DAC in my receiver. He did this vid back in 2017 and it's now 2022. One of my DAC's allows the owner to change out the output amp. It's a simple chip swap. Without changing the DAC chip you get a different sound. Also like he mentioned software upgrades can change the sound.

This is def true which there is a reason why Black Lion Audio offers modifications that swaps out factory op-amps, capacitors and decoupled the power supply input and output stages for higher grade components to improve sound quality. I own a MOTU 828ES that shares the same ESS Sabre DAC chip as the Apogee Ensemble. The specs maybe nearly identical but I don't expect the two units to sonically sound identically the same due to the differences of implementation and the quality of the components for the analog output stage. I also still own a Focusrite Forte with a CS4398 DAC chip and notice that the Forte has a slightly more wider stereo imaging than my 828ES but it's also more on the brighter side with a little bit of the mids and lows rolled off. The MOTU has a bit more depth and clarity in the mids with a tigher low in. Both interfaces sound great but I do hear a subtle difference as all manufacturers have thier own characteristics in terms of sonics. Some will sound more clinical, analytical, Brighter etc.

These videos are extraordinarily informative and fun to watch, thank you!

thank you for this. excellently explained

Well, just simplify what's he mean... If you have a good Digital Chip, it's not automatically having a good sound if you don't have a good "Analog state" ... But if you don't have a good "Digital Chip" then doesn't matter what's your "Analog state", you won't get good sound... Both Digital and Analog are very much equally important for good sound at output stage, that's why we're called DAC, however the "D" is in front of the "A" which mean Digital stage is the 1st stage given or determine the quality of the sound.

Paul mentions the output stage of the DAC but omits to mention the low pass filter which because of phase shift at the filter poles has a considerable bearing on the sound. There are also several different types of analog filter designs Chebyshev, Sallen Key, Butterworth, to name but three, each type has advantages and disadvantages.

Coming across this video now is quite a coincidence. Just last week, I had an inane argument with some tool on a home theatre enthusiasts Facebook group (as an enthusiast myself, we are just the worst) about how DACs don't affect the sound because as per his "benchmarking equipment", they all offer incredibly low distortion and therefore do not change the signal in any way. Oh boy. He got particularly riled up when I said that in my experience, Sabre DACs have a cold, analytical sound to them (that's just the way it's been in every implementation I've listened to) while AKMs that I've listened to tended to lean slightly on the warm side of neutral. But of course, 0.00000000002% distortion means everyone can pack their bags up, because the DAC business is over, right!? I personally use a Chord DAC (also FPGA-based) and it just sounds "precise" compared to the more traditional DACs I've listened to (I can only imagine what the more expensive stuff sounds like). I've also learned that double blind testing or AB testing is really not a valid way to determine how you hear something. I think Paul gives a great reason in these comments as to why such tests are useless. When I compared the Chord DAC to what was at the time my favourite DAC, a Burr-Brown, I did not discern any immediate differences and dismissed the Chord as wasted money. Three months later of listening to the Chord DAC, and then switching back to the Burr-Brown, I was blown away at how bloated and "slow" the Burr-Brown sounded. It's not that the Burr-Brown was bad, but listening to the Chord over time, I started perceiving how much tighter everything sounded, and I could listen for hours without getting fatigued (something I cannot do with a Sabre DAC). It's one thing to tick all the boxes on a bunch of specs, it's another to actually listen to something and "feel" it. That's something a lot of "enthusiasts" simply don't do - listen (the irony). It's much easier to wave a bunch of measurements they barely understand, shout "snake oil", and mock people for spending more money than them - who are you trying to convince, exactly? Thanks Paul, really appreciate these videos!

I'm in the market for a new DAC myself and have listened around a lot. Basically I come to the conclusion that DAC's based othe Sabre ES line does not appeal, on average, to me as much as the AKM AK4497EQ based ones. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but there is something basic in the DAC chip that just does not disappear no matter what electronics surrounds them.

Indeed a great question!

ABSOLUTELY agreed to Paul.

Your shirt emblem reminds me of the Philips bit-stream symbol. One of these days I am going to have one of my Marantz (Philips) CD-Players modded

Thank you so much, Paul. Now I understand exactly. Let me give you guys another very familiar example. There is an onion. Onion is the onion. But a western chef and an Asian chef cook it very differently. Furthermore, other ingredients added up, the taste of the food will be different. So, onion is not important? No, it is still important. But also you have to think about the chef and other ingredients. The taste of the food is the art of the mix & match. USB chip, DAC chip, amp chip, analogue stage, power supply, circuit philosophy, designer, all of them are very important to make the sound.

I love your style!

Thank you sir for sharing your knoledge across the globe. Is it posible in future for a little video sharing your opinion regarding bbc rogers ls3/5a speakers?

Years ago I used to work with those HP test equipment on your test bench

I agree with better low noise power supply and analog output plus a ultra low jitter clock may also make a difference as well

I am tempted to buy a dac but running a PMA amp and focal speakers from just HP flagship laptop aux output sounds incredible with no noise and a soundstage where I can see the whole band if the recording is correct, I wonder how much better a proper dac can be. pretty sure speakers are the most important factor then the amplifier and only then a DAC but I am convinced modern dacs are already so good that the improvement a few grand give in dac value are marginal.

As a consumer, how do you know if you have a good analog output stage in your particular equipment?, The Yamaha integrated network receiver that I am wanting to purchase has the ESS Sabre 9006A I believe ( number or letter could be off but I think that's it.) So from what I've read and seen, that's a pretty great chip - so that's cool! but looking inside of the chassis, how can we tell as a HiFi enthusiast that the output stage is a decent quality? And as you stated, what if say, Onkyo, Pioneer, Cambridge Audio or others used that exact same chip in THEIR integrated amps? How do we know who is using the "better" quality components when it comes to everything _outside_ of the chip itself??

Cool video. I would say, the difference between putting the same dac into 2 different analog design solutions sounding different, is the same like, using 2 different usb sticks, but with the exact same file on it, will sound different, put into 2 different hifi systems. The dac does the digital stuff, the 0 and 1 stuff. What counts for quality is all the rest. And the bigger the dac, the more info those files can have, samplerate etc. Am i getting this right so far ? What i want to know is, is it still like in the past, soundcards made a system more stabil, and maybe even a bit faster ? And why ? If calculating the sound is done by some dac chip anyways, no matter if onboard, or on some card ? Isn't it just an analog quality difference ? Meaning you cannot get a performance boost for gaming, for example, but a better quality of the same calculated sound informations ? And how do i know wich of the dacs is faster, if that's my priority ? All that is said, ''Hmm, it is good for gaming.'' , not telling if they mean the analogal quality, or the dac's speed, or both. Me , i got an Z390 AORUS MASTER motherboard - with this onboard solution ESS SABRE reference DAC (ESS 9118) Hypertream Dynamic Range (SNR 125dB) High-Res music (32bit, 192KHz PCM) Super low THD+N (THD+N -112db) . But is that faster than my X-FI pci soundcard i use at the moment ? Getting weird noises when i turn v-sync off and my 2080 ti really starts pushing out 400 - 600 frames . I guess that is because both communicate through the pci lanes, and the work the GPU does produces static electricity , sry if that's a wrong term to use, i am german. What i want to know, is a soundcard really faster in calculating the sounds, compared to an onboard solution ? Or did the onboard solutions improve, compared ? Did they even HAVE to improve according to calculation speeds ? Is the connection via usb, using an external dac slower, regarding realtime sounds in a game ? I hear so often people complain about, they hear no footsteps of an enemy closing in etc. . And i thought that is maybe because they use an external dac for streaming to have the lowest noises in their broadcast, but they are connected with usb, and that maybe causes such issues. Or is that a format problem of some sounds ? It is interesting.

Can a class-D amp be driven directly from digital signal? I am asking this as class-D is sampling input and PWM-ing FETs, like an ADC.

Good example is the implementation of the AK4497, the Topping D70 is anemic with no dynamics and attack yet the Gustard A20H is excellent.

Off Topic question - I would like you to talk about building a TWS powered Bookshelf Speaker Set with the TinySine, TWS Bluetooth Audio Receiver Board or the Sure AptX board

Do you know how the Pcm5102a compares to the ak4458? I’m considering returning a 2021 Denon (with PCM5102a) for last year’s model if the AK4458 is better. Thank you for your time.

hi paul.whens the next dac upgrade? i cant wait for it to be here..

Fully agree !!

Hi Paul, i use a cd player with Philips TDA1541A S2 Double Crown Dac´s. Yes the output stage is the most critical part for sound quality. But nothing and nobody can beat a true and genuine Double Crown . In a direct comparison, the modern Dac-chips sounds poor! Except the Burr Brown 1704-K.Both are 2R2 Dac´s. There are out of production because it´s to expansive to make them!

As usual spot on.

I wish I lived in Colorado to learn. There have been some things you've mentioned I'm not sure I agree with or understand and would love to see measurements. But I'm not sure why people would argue with you on the significance of the analog stage of a DAC.

Is the new Schiit Bifrost good enough guys?

you can get a good sound even with a cheap pcm2706, but you have to make a good power supply and you have to interface well the audio output of the chip. pcm2706 works fine with resistive output impedance 10k ohms and you need to make a good buffer. good also a USB filter to clean the USB signal before entering the chip. the chip can work with 2 power modes and the distortion gets worse with one of the 2. even the poor can be happy :)

Well, only an absolute beginner doesn't know that what matters in a "DAC", is that capital 'A" in the middle... But what can you do... New people are born every day... and internet "educates" them from the first day of their life...! :-)

So intentional distortion sounds good and low noise and distortion sounds like crap? What happened to the "fidelity" in high fidelity?

That DAC A with al tube output and Lundhall transformers will cot arm and leg

We are not supposed to have a big analogue stade aren't we? what is the purpuse of that stage? As soon as the signal is analogue the signal treatment is a kind of preamp stade to me it is not propely a DAC.

Yes, most certainly Paul, circuitry matters. Be the better circuitry is in a DAC, pre-amp, power amp, or speaker crossover. Its the implication, that counts.

I bought my Shanling UA2 and they said the key was the additional amp inside the dongle 🤔

hmm ok, so the dac chip is important but the analog output is even more so. Can you tell, for example in this hypothetical exercise, lets take two different analog sections and two different dac chips. Let's begin with this: Someone takes one analog section and swap the dac chip inside. In a blind test, can you guess whether it is the dac chip or the analog section that has been swapped. Let me clarify, I would like to understand what exactly the dac chip makes to the sound compared to the analog section. Do they both affect the same attributes or can you tell them apart? Thanks for any info.

Thank you

ES9218 vs ES9218P VS ES9219 is there a real difference?

Some some dacs have big capacitor and some don’t, why is that

Not a audiophile but I love music n sound

I would say the DAC is just as important as the amp. If you have a good DAC but a weak amp you are only going to get ok sound at best.

What do dac chip do why we need it?

This man reminds me of Battery Mooch quite a bit :D

I get someone is putting time into the development, however charging for software updates on high-end $$$$ audio equipment would just be ludicrous.

One day we're preaching snake oil but today your right. I contend that the usually very short path from the output of the DAC chip to the output connectors makes up at least 95% of the sound quality of the system. So if your not playing with digital filtering, colorizing and up converting, it may be really hard to hear the difference in different DAC chips assuming the analog sections are comparable. They're all pretty darn linear.

Jeeezzz with that intro

I have a very cheapo DAC device that uses a ESS 32 bit, and it came with cheap JRC OP AMPS, that configuration sounds "meh" i swaped the op amps to some Burr Brown ones or a discrete ones, and the diference is toooo much better.

Not sure how anyone could think that two identical DACs with completely different implementations would sound the same

Classic example is the Digital Camera Sensor used by Nikon. The sensor is made by Sony but Nikon has a way better output and color processing than Sony itself.

There is a serious argument how the design really change the sound of amplifier of “DAC” brand change from very full sound to poor sound quality. I’ve never heard such an argument but I’ll take into consideration

One of the most important components in a system is the DAC, because if the DAC does a bad job, the bad work it did goes all the way to the speakers. I had a denon dvd player once, I thought it was ok, until I bought a sony high end Blu-ray player. The Blu-ray player is so much better. But I'm using an external DAC now, which is even better than the Blu-ray player. I am very reluctant to get rid of that Blu-ray player, because it's so good, and it's difficult to find very good sounding Blu-ray players.

You should talk to Roger Sanders and listen to his amps. When you get a true and perfect amplifier, the source do not matter anymore...

Hi Sir,what DAC would you recommend (max 500$)..for best sounding music-quality please?

Made a double blind randomized controlled test with equal levels on the same Tidal preamp comparing a 110 Euro Xiangsheng dac 01 with the solid state outputs against a 65.000 Euro MSB dac which additionally had esoteric cables, was attached to a Isotek power conditioner etc. It consisted of 60 rounds and took up to 3 hours. No difference was detected. Absolute guessing. Poqer calculations gave us enough confidence for the 60 trials. Music came from the same digital source, also from msb/ oppo. While listening, the dacs could be switched with interuption of less than 1 second with spl alignment. Add to that the msb dac was upconverting whilst the xiangsheng was not. It did the same sort of tests with different gear, no perceivable difference! I am very well aware that mostly audiophiles are reading this and you will have the last word on that matter. You are an authority in the myth industry. But a very modest and friendly person. I am sure you believe in the faulty and circular argumentation. The same way as a slaughter will not be able to get insight into why killing animals might philosophically be wrong. I hope you excuse the analogy.

The dac chip determines the top limit. If the complete system is not close to the performance it's meaningless.

what abot the ATD convertor in peoples brains ??

I guess it is pivotal since you used world best DACs in digital link, ultralink huh?

Well. I can hear the difference between DAC chips. I can't stand the sound of ESS.

It should be remembered how important a DAC is when recording - especially when recording DSD and high bit/sample rate PCM. Yes, good regulated power supplies and decent analogue stages are important for playback, but even that is dependent on what it gets from the DAC. Recording is kind of different. Everything before the DAC needs to be pristine and then the DAC needs to retain the input quality during recording, which ideally needs replicating on playback. Its a difficult and very fine balancing act to get right. Analogue breaks into the digital data stream during recording or playback is always a compromise too.

hammer

MQA format : 13 bit x 48 khz x 2 = 1248 kbps + 4 bit x 48 khz x 2 = 384 kbps 1248 kbps + 384 kbps = 1632 kbps ( master hi-res : 24 bit x 96 khz x 2 = 4608 kbps ) so, the MQA can"t be an hi-resolution format... " To reduce the size of the MQA file well beyond the current compressions (FLAC and ALAC), Meridian had to opt for a so-called lossy compression. The original stream (24/96, 24/192 ...) has its sampling reduced to 48 kHz and its quantization to 17 bits. However, this reduction is sophisticated, since the first 13 quantization bits are compressed without loss and the following 4 are deteriorated. In other words, an MQA file contains a lossless digital audio data core (13 bits / 48 kHz) and lossy metadata (4 bits / 48 kHz).

ofc a seller of expensive DACs will try to convince you its wayyyyy more than the chip. Well i dont know much about sound, but i know little about IT- and electronics. And i see nothing special inside a "highend DAC", the dac chip probably the most expensive part....the rest?..Inductors, a few dirtcheap controller chips, a little bit of power delivery, the majority just capacitors. The price for this stuff just got incredible cheap over the last 3 decades. Theres just no fair basis on which a DAC can be sold for several 1000 dollars...

Funny how he equals the size of the analog board to the effort put into the work creating it.

What may be an improvement to you may not be to me I had a Hugo for a while brought Ward winning power supply to go with it slightly more detail but lost upper mids borrowed teddy Pardo power supply slightly more detail lost pace and drive switching power supply was far superior do not believe anything people tell me and do not believe my ears until a period of time has passed

I'd like to be your friend, but we're so far apart physically.

You start by saying the DAC chip is certainly important, that it contributes quite a bit to the sound, and end with, you betcha, but you spend most of the video speaking about how the analog stage is (seemingly more) important than the chip itself. Obviously both are important, and the overall design of the DAC itself is of paramount importance in terms of sound quality, but if you had to say one is more important than the other, which is it, that the DAC chip is of primary importance, or that the power supply and analog stage matter more? It seems to me from listening to this that you lean more towards the latter. And if that's the case, what is the point of buying a high-end DAC chip?

I realize this post is slightly dated, and my response is a bit slow. Sorry, I just found it. My frustration with the post is this: At the outset and in the conclusion you say, "Yea, you betcha" to the question does the DAC CHIP matter. In between those comments you spend a great deal of time discussing the Power supply and most importantly, the attention paid to the analog output stage as being keys to performance. In essence, you undermine your conclusion that DAC chips matter or at a minimum you do not discuss the differences between chip performance characteristics. I perceived the question being: all things otherwise equal (if that were even possible) does the DAC Chip shape the listening experience? if so how? As a consumer, who can not possible try out each and every chip and their unque applications, How am I to know distinctions betweens DAC chip "sounds"? If each phase, power, DAC, and analog stage were a chain link, which is the weakest?

I certify this video to be snake oil free, unlike a couple of other videos he has done, like the one on AC mains conditioners.

Listening to all this.... I have to ask... What are you actually listening to?. How many 'audiophiles' have heard what band sounds in a studio... Aha. Don't lie... They don't all play at the same time... You guys are listening to your systems and not the music... Live bands are even worse. It sounds nothing like the recordings.... And then there's this.... Every audiophile has a Diana Krall CD... 🤔

You can not see sound so i hate that most stupid analogy.