I found this
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...g-converter-measurements&catid=434&Itemid=577
Am I reading the measurements right, by placing this DAC in the 100-110 range of DACs?
Thanks
Well, this is where it gets interesting.
If you believe that better objective measurements reliably equals better sound, all ifi products I designed will do poorly, next to a copy/paste job from the datasheet for a more recent DAC Chip sold cheap.
But does that mean those relative numbers will make it sound worse?
As it so happens, I know (not believe) different. For example appx. -90dB 2nd harmonics @ 0dBFS is reliably inaudible (harmonic masking etc.) never mind that very few speakers and headphones even manage 60dB SINAD (0.1% THD) at rated power input or say 112dB SPL.
So in my view lowering the Harmonic distortion of a DAC further serves no purpose if we desire a device to use to listen to music.
Similarly, having (say) 112...113dB(A) (meaning A weighted) SNR is low enough noise that it will be reliably inaudible when playing music at 112dB peak at the listening position in an absolutely quiet (background noise = 0dB absolute).
To note, 112dB peak equals about 100dB average SPL with modern recordings that are quite compressed and around 92dB average with less compressed older recordings and audiophile drivel. That is pretty loud.
And rooms with 0dB background noise do not exist, even using IEM's which block noise you will find the noise of blood moving in your body louder than the "0dB" absolute SPL.
So again, in my considered view, very low noise much beyond appx. 112dB cannot be a valid design goal.
Of course, someone else may argue that even if there no audible benefit to lower distortion or noise, it does no harm. And if we have two devices that sound identical, cost the same but measure differently the better measuring one is a better choice.
Here I even agree. If a device is better than it needs to be objectively to be audibly transparent and does so without giving a poorer subjective perceived result, by all means.
BUT the issue of audibility of difference, emotional response to reproduced music (after we do not listen to music because we want to be bored) etc. are far from clear-cut.
Of course that is the point where usually an ABX fanboi cuts in and points out that in an ABX test pretty much everything sounds the same.
To which I reply that that the ABX test works as designed to combine expectation bias and poor use of statistics to hide relatively subtle differences, at which point the discussion often goes off track, so I will leave it at that.
I would suggest one should ask if the device measures objectively well enough that it noise and distortion (and frequency response deviations, crosstalk etc. et al) are of sufficient quality to not cause audible problems withusic and after to simply based on listening, personal preference and even looks...
Thor