It has been more than a year since I last measured or reviewed a DAC!
To be honest, in 2026, DACs are IMO boring from the perspective of expecting any sonic progress when it comes to high-fidelity audio. They are very much a "solved problem" and will not pose any challenge for the audiophile who desires accuracy. Unless there's some new technology to evaluate or must-have features, digital-to-analogue conversion has clearly matured to allow extremely high resolution playback - perceptibly perfect even - within reach of basically everyone in the last decade.
[In the big cultural-level picture, I think we're at the phase now with less expensive products (eg. Chi-Fi) where more than adequate function has been achieved and we're going to be seeing an emphasis on "Design-Driven Innovation" where emotional, symbolic, and esthetic significance become more important with each generation for product differentiation. I think we're already seeing this with the FiiO line-up as I describe related products to this at the end of this post. In time, I suspect this will be an existential threat to many current High-End brands.]
Because of that lack of excitement around evaluating yet another DAC objectively, for more than 6 months now, this FiiO K11 R2R DAC (US$176, Canada link) has been sitting on my table for evaluation! 🙄 I bought this with the plan of using it in my office at the hospital for desktop speaker playback and headphone listening which I'll do after publishing this.
Make sure not to confuse this model with the slightly less expensive FiiO K11 non-R2R DAC (US$145) which uses the Cirrus Logic CS43198 chip. Feature-wise, I think they're very similar and look identical other than the stylized "R2R" stamped on the top of the case.
Okay, let's put this through its paces...
As you likely already know, R-2R refers to the digital-to-analogue conversion being done through a discrete resistor ladder built from two resistor values, one pair per data bit, rather than more modern techniques like sigma-delta modulation with its high frequency oversampled bit-stream that usually will achieve better linearity with less expense.
R-2R ladders are based on old technology (back to the '80s, reminiscent of stuff like the Philips TDA154x multibit chips) but are typically more expensive because precise resistor matching across each rung of the ladder must be maintained in order to achieve accuracy. This is particularly important for the more significant bits in the ladder since each level controls 50% of the full-scale output voltage. To frame the difficulty, to achieve full resolution, the circuit (not just individual resistors!) needs to be as accurate as the least significant bit. This means for 16-bit digital it has to be down to about 1/65,000 accurate and for 24-bits 1/16.7M accurate (realistically impossible). So, to keep a DAC at a competitive price point, compromises like the resistor precision will be sacrificed at some threshold for a classic passive resistor ladder design.
We've seen this sacrifice before. For example, the Cayin RU6 R-2R dongle measured in 2022 utilizes a total of 96 x 0.1% thin film resistors. While this FiiO model also uses 0.1% resistors, the internal differential design doubles the total number of resistors to 192. In principle, this could be a more accurate/resolving device than the Cayin by reducing common mode noise, suppressing even-order harmonics, and perhaps improving SNR - we'll see.
While the internal design is balanced, the only balanced output on this K11 R2R unit is the front 4.4mm headphone jack.
The headphone amplifier section is based on SGM8262-2 x 2 chips, rated as 460mW/ch into 32Ω at 1% THD+N through the single-ended 6.35mm output, spec'ed at <1Ω impedance. And up to 1.3W/ch into 32Ω at 1% THD+N through the balanced 4.4mm jack with <1.5Ω output impedance reported.
![]() |
| DAC dimensions: 5.25" x 5.25" x 1.25" approximately. Milled aluminum case, ~430g. |
The K11 R2R sports only single-ended RCA outputs at the back for your desktop or sound room audio system. There's the power jack, USB-C, TosLink, and Coaxial S/PDIF digital inputs.
It accepts up to 24/192 through the S/PDIF Coax and TosLink inputs. I noticed the FiiO specs sheet says TosLink up to 24/96 only, but on my unit 192kHz works fine. The USB-C can handle a wider range of sample rates up to 24/384 and up to DSD256.
As a basic DAC, it's missing amenities you might see elsewhere like a remote control or Bluetooth playback. Here are the box contents including the 12V/2A power supply, a USB cable, 6.35mm to 3.5mm headphone adaptor, and basic but nicely printed "Quick Start Guide":
The default top "FIIO" translucent logo indicator lights up with a few colors when in use, corresponding to the sample rate (like Chord's products with their bulbous translucent buttons) - cyan ≤48kHz PCM, yellow >48kHz PCM, green DSD:
![]() |
| Yellow logo indicator, 96kHz sample rate. |
There's a front LCD display that shows the details, mainly sample rate and volume level (99 = max volume), and which output is selected. Using the knurled push button knob, we can turn it ON/OFF by holding down for something like 5 seconds, double click to switch outputs (variable line preamp, 100% line out, headphone out), turn for volume control, hold down the button for 2 seconds and there's a menu system to change various options like screen/logo brightness, logo color selection +/- pulsation, UAC1/2 mode, and also whether you want standard oversampling (OS) or NOS mode.
In use, the case does get slightly warm, nothing to be concerned about and as I recall, it's less warm to the touch than what I remember of the Cayin RU6 in that small dongle form factor.
![]() |
| A look at the bottom of the unit. Rubberized base. |
As I mentioned, this DAC has been sitting on my table for awhile already which probably meant that the firmware was out of date. Indeed, there's a M79 firmware which I downloaded and installed before all measurements and listening.
The interesting thing about this new firmware is that it adds 1-bit DSD decoding as per the discussion on the firmware page. Prior to this new firmware, the DSD data was always converted to PCM for playback. We'll take a look at this a bit later.
Okay guys and gals, let's run some measurements to see how it works and how accurate this DAC is.
I. Oscilloscope & Impulse Response
Let's stick the DAC's RCA output into a digital oscilloscope and have a look at 1kHz 0dBFS sine waves to see the maximum output level with the 2 channels overlaid:
II. RightMark Comparisons:
Let's see how this DAC scores compared to others that I have around here. To start, let's consider standard resolution 16/44.1 and compare it to the Cayin RU6 R2R dongle DAC with OS and NOS modes:
The frequency responses are almost exactly the same between the two. Response is flat with OS. As we've discussed years ago, turning off filtering will result in a frequency response that rolls off -3dB into 20kHz which is what we see with both R2R DACs.
Otherwise, the FiiO is capable of slightly lower noise, better crosstalk, and lower distortion as per the IMD+N sweep. As expected, the oversampling (OS) setting is able to achieve lower distortion for both units.
Obviously, these days with high performance devices, it's not how something measures with standard CD-resolution signals that separates the truly "high fidelity" DAC from those that aren't. Let's look at 24/96 performance and this time let's add an inexpensive chip-DAC into the mix, the old Topping D10s (based on ESS ES9038Q2M chip), and also let's compare with an example of a state-of-the-art resolution DAC - my Topping DX9 (based on the AKM AK4499EQ):
The first thing to notice is that the FiiO K11 R2R DAC is capable of low noise performance (below -110dB) which is something that the Cayin RU6 was not able to muster when fed 24-bit data. The Cayin is not a truly "hi-res" DAC.
However, look at the distortion figures (THD and IMD) of the K11 R2R compared to even the very inexpensive Topping D10s. This spread is a good example of what can be accomplished with more modern technology found inside a sigma-delta device compared to R-2R at this kind of price point.
With a bit more money, tapping the XLR output from the Topping DX9 DAC provides even better low-noise, low-distortion performance:
![]() |
| Notice the poor noise floor performance of the Cayin RU6. Thankfully, the FiiO K11 R2R has low noise level similar to Topping D10s. |
After all these years, I still think the Topping D10s remains quite a remarkable and good-sounding little DAC. There's a clear gap in measured fidelity between the inexpensive R-2R DAC and the chip ΣΔ DACs.
III. A deeper looking into distortion - THD+N, stepped sine sweeps, Multi-Tone
As you can imagine, with that IMD+N sweep result for the K11 R2R, we're not looking at a DAC with very low distortion. Let's see what a 0dBFS 1kHz tone at 16/44.1 looks like captured through both channels; comparing oversampling (OS) and NOS modes:
While the noise floor is cleaner with oversampling turned on, the average THD+N however does not reflect a significant change as it's dominated by the high harmonics. Notice the ENOB (Effective Number of Bits) score - it means that this DAC playing a 16-bit 0dBFS 1kHz tone, with combined noise and distortion is equivalent to an 11.5-12-bit device.
Let's look at this as a THD vs. Output Level graph, 1kHz tone, 1dB steps from -120dBFS:
As we saw above with the 0dBFS 1kHz tone, the best THD(+N) hovers around the -70dB point. The third harmonic predominates until about -23dBFS, above which the 2nd harmonic is strongest.Let's now have a look at the output level linearity:
Again, this is not unexpected given the limitations we're seeing elsewhere. In comparison, a modern very high performance DAC like the Topping DX9 deviates by 0.5dB way down below -127dB and even a modern AV receiver like my Integra DRX-8.4's pre-outs using its internal DAC achieves -115dB before the same amount of deviation.
Now, instead of running the stepped sine across output levels, let's step across the audible frequencies to see if there's anything unexpected at 3 output levels (0, -9, -20dBFS):
Harmonic distortion remains pretty high and we see some noise level (N) fluctuations at the higher frequencies. However, the harmonic distortion amounts appear predictably flat.
Beyond looking at single-tone harmonic distortion, we can quickly look at a multitone test. Here's a Triple-Tone test (48/960/5472Hz) I've used over the years to add complexity. I think this is a better single-number measurement of DAC distortion than just 1kHz THD+N/SINAD as it spans a number of frequencies from the bass to higher treble and will stimulate intermodulation:
As you can see, the TD+N comes out to around -67dB. As a comparison, the Cayin RU6 DAC was only able to achieve -56dB for both its OS and NOS modes. With modern hi-res ΣΔ DACs, like even the inexpensive SMSL DO100 from a few years ago, TD+N is better than -110dB.
A complex multi-tone pattern might be able to unmask distortion better in R-2R DACs with DNL-related issues since single tones might be only of a fixed pattern representing a smaller set of resistor states.
IV. Jitter
Quickly, let's have a peek. When it comes to jitter, asynchronous USB is typically better than S/PDIF.
![]() |
| DSD playback = green top color. Display shows specifically DSD128. |
V. Quick look at DSD playback
As a R-2R multibit DAC, the K11 R2R is not really designed for DSD's multi-MHz 1-bit switching playback natively so the initial release firmware always took the 1-bit data and internally converted it to PCM through the FPGA; they call this the "D2P" mode.
![]() |
| Using standard UAC2 Windows WASAPI driver playback, maximum DSD128. ENOB 12-13-bits. |
Overall, the distortions remain high so there's not much difference in the THD+N at around -70dB. But clearly the 1-Bit mode (right) noise floor is substantially higher than D2P and the output level of the 1-Bit mode is about 5.5dB lower than conversion through PCM.
Regardless of what we do, to achieve good quality sound from 1-bit quantization requires a way to manage the noise so it's outside the audio band through noise-shaped integrator feedback, typically of multiple orders (high-order noise-shaping filter). As you can see, the ultrasonic noise is there with DSD playback whether through the DSD-to-PCM route or their 1-bit-FIR filter method. DSD128 pushing the noise further ultrasonic than DSD64.
![]() |
| Roon ARC playing via USB-C from Android phone to FiiO K11 R2R. AKG Q701 headphones. 49/99 on the volume control with high gain is plenty loud enough. |
VI. Headphone output
Let's have a look at the unbalanced 6.35mm headphone output since this is all I'll be using at my office where this DAC will live.
First let's check the output impedance:
![]() |
| Notice frequency response drops quickly below 15Hz. |
I'm doing the above sweep at High Gain, -3dBFS in 24/96. Notice the scale of the graph is just 3dB on the Y-axis so we're zooming into the output level to separate those curves. Blue is 75Ω load, Red is 20Ω load and as per previous measurements, I used my old Polk Ultrafit 2000 headphones as a test load of an actual headset with fluctuating impedance that dips down to 15Ω (previously measured and discussed):
Using this data, we can estimate the 6.35mm single-ended headphone output impedance (at High Gain) to be around 1.3Ω. The specs officially say <1Ω.
Next, here are the THD vs. 1kHz output level stepped sine from -60dBFS with the device at High and Low gain settings into low impedance (20Ω) and moderate impedance (75Ω) loads, both channels driven:
I did not measure the Medium gain setting since it'll just be intermediate to those above and I'll forego the high impedance (560Ω) load that I've used in the past.
[For the record, measured maximum Vrms at the various gain levels on my unit: Hi = 3.97V, Med = 2.55V, Lo = 1.28V.]
The main thing we want to see is whether the headphone amp is able to provide adequate current into the low-impedance load. Indeed, this DAC/headphone amp has no problem providing enough current into 20Ω without clipping at maximum output which equates to about 800mW/ch.
For those who have very demanding headphones with low impedance and/or low sensitivity, use the balanced 4.4mm headphone out - this should get you another 4.5-6dB based on FiiO's data (I did not measure). It's good that these days many companies like FiiO already publish quite a bit of data such as this so I'll leave you to explore further.
I've used my AKG Q701's shown above as a benchmark being one of my less sensitive headphones. The K11 R2R's headphone amp was certainly loud enough through the 6.35mm output at high gain.
VII. Subjective sound quality
Ultimately the question is "How does this sound?", right?
I went back and had a look at the notes from my listening sessions with the Cayin RU6 in 2022. And also the follow-up post I made about audible distortions from that headphone DAC so I can revisit listening to some of the same songs with the same headphones.
Overall, my impression of this FiiO DAC/headphone amp is certainly better than what I thought about the Cayin RU6. Most importantly is that I could not hear the distortion on the "A Million Dreams" track from The Greatest Showman (2017) using the very detailed and unforgiving Sennheiser HD800 headphones.
Yeah, I guess there's a general subjective sense of enhanced "body" with this DAC likely thanks to the non-linear distortions. I would not say it's an extensive "bloom" though compared to some tube amps or vinyl, but I think it can add euphonic character to the sound quality. For example, Ella Fitzgerald sounded great on Pure Ella with really nice timbral details and midrange heft to her voice.
Likewise, The Modern Jazz Quarter's Blues At Carnegie Hall (1966) was rendered quite well through my modded Dekoni Blue headphones conveying the ambient sounds in a live venue. As an old analogue recording, the tape hiss on this album was easily heard and IMO can be a bit distracting with the intimacy of headphones, less so through loudspeakers.
I made sure to listen to other more modern stuff of course. For example the insanely intense "Techno Syndrome 2021" from the Mortal Kombat (DR8, 2021) soundtrack. I have no complaints about how well this DAC can deliver sub-bass content. As usual, when it comes to DACs capable of delivering flat frequency response from 20-20kHz, limitations to bass depth and realism are way more than likely due to the transducer, be it headphones or loudspeakers+room, than blaming the DAC. With a track like this, having subwoofer(s) that goes down to 20Hz is mandatory for the full experience. 😉
Beyond headphone listening, I plugged it into my main speaker system one evening and enjoyed Eva Cassidy's Live At Blues Alley (DR11, 1997). On songs like "People Get Ready", the soundstage was rendered nicely with Cassidy's voice anchored front-and-center, instruments demonstrating good positional depth, great "microdynamics" with instrument attacks on percussion and guitar with smooth decays, claps and other audience sounds come across clearly and detailed with unhindered dynamics. The K11 R2R rocks on tracks like The Offspring's "Staring At The Sun" from Americana (1998); no issues with complex, loud, compressed rock music.
For classical music lovers, Ayako Tahara's viola and Kaoru Jitsukawa's piano sounded fantastic on Arpeggione Sonata (DR13, available as DSD64, 2026). Deeply moving music, warm tonality, excellent technical depth! Check out the first track, Schubert's "Sonata for Arpeggione and Piano in A minor, D 821" for a taste. While we can see the elevated noise level on the K11 R2R 1-Bit decode setting above, at normal listening levels, this did not intrude into the enjoyment of the music when I listened to the DSD64 recording.The effect of NOS mode to me is a subtle reduction in the extreme treble. A small amount of loss of "air" maybe - often not noticeable because not every song contains extended treble content >8kHz. Usually I prefer listening with OS but on occasion I believe NOS might be able to reduce some of the fatigue when listening to harsher-sounding compressed content or maybe older thin-sounding stuff - Culture Club's Kissing To Be Clever (1982) comes to mind, check out the sizzle in "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me". On high resolution DACs, the imaging distortions from NOS might create intermodulation anomalies in the audible band during playback. However, with this DAC, the intrinsic R-2R distortion is already likely at a higher level than intermodulation from ultrasonic imaging.
While I could go on, these are all just my subjective sighted impressions.
I invite you to listen for yourself using neutral playback gear. Here are my Archimago's Musical Performance Track (AMPT) recordings of the FiiO K11 R2R DAC in OS and NOS settings.
[As usual, my belief is that sighted listening discussions like this usually is meaningless because so much is just derived from our own psychological projections and limited echoic memory. Still, I guess such videos could be somewhat entertaining if one has nothing else to do.]
VIII. Summary
Well guys and gals, I know that there's plenty of "literature" out there talking about the magic of R-2R DACs - like this one from LAiV "What Is an R2R DAC?". While it's always exciting to think about different (not particularly new in this case) technology, I think we need to make sure to be sober in the face of advertising claims and subjective testimonies and contrast that with evidence of audible superiority. I do not believe that the article's claims of the benefits from a "more direct conversion path", the "more evenly distributed" noise floor, or claims of less listening fatigue have ever been proven to be actual advantages of R-2R technology.
![]() |
| Summary of the usual chatter online about R-2R vs. Sigma-Delta DACs. |
As I said in my Cayin RU6 DAC review previously:
I'm happy to take the "minority report" and state that I don't particularly find multibit R-2R +/- NOS DACs that I've heard as being particularly "natural" or "real" sounding as some people seem to claim.
[As I suggested at the beginning, notice the product differentiation FiiO is doing here as it expands the line-up beyond the generic box and embraces things like symbolic significance with esthetic retro styling (wood panels, analog UV meter, classic-looking knobs), not pushing technical qualities as much. Per earlier, the core DAC function is a "solved problem" that's unlikely to be a strong differentiator for many music lovers.]

































Nice review! I'll start by repeating what I said in an ASR thread on the K11.
ReplyDelete> 72 distortion-dominated SINAD is fine. -72dB down from uncomfortably loud is extremely quiet on its own. The idea that it will cause problems when masked by music is something that should concern precious few of us.
> R2R is fun, “retro cool,” if you will. It gets the job done, and there’s something to be said for technology that’s easily understandable. People are happy with it, the FIIO stuff costs peanuts compared to a lot of stuff people drool about over here, and of course it doesn’t get in the way of music nirvana. What’s not to like?
As the above comment indicates, I'm pretty skeptical that what you and others are hearing is euphonic distortion. Much more likely, our ears cannot distinguish and our minds do the rest. There's lots of studies (David Clark, Boston Audio Society, etc.) showing that most people can't even differentiate 1% THD. This is 30x less THD than that.
Ideally we'd supplement the subjective listening test with blind results using a competent ABX comparator. But speaking of which... I don't think I've seen you comment on Josh Mound's A/S article where he reported being able to distinguish between DACs with incredible accuracy using the Van Alstine comparator.
https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/updated-can-i-tell-audibly-transparent-dacs-apart-blind-testing-with-the-van-alstine-abx-comparator-r1440/
Well, Amir at ASR procured that very same comparator, and reported yesterday a) the relays caused different sounds for different channels; b) ~0.02% THD+N introduced by the comparator; and c) FR deviations in the analog attenuator. Spicy!
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audio-by-van-alstine-abx-comparator-review.73737/
Unfortunately, to my mind, his review does not definitively discredit Mound's report. The FR deviations are exceedingly small. Many (most?) subjectivists have abandoned distortion as the probable cause for the differences they detect. So to my mind everything rests on the differences in relay sound. But Amir has not as yet provided a recording of the differences in clicks, so right now both sides can just say "my guy is more trustworthy."
I like Amir a lot. I also adore Mound's TVBO series, and thought he had the better side of the argument in the "Let 1,000 FRs bloom," controversy. So mom and dad are fighting. I'm inclined to believe Amir, probably because it matches my priors. I just wish he'd back it up by making a recording.
Hey there Neil, thanks for the note!
DeleteYeah I know about the recent Josh Mound article on AS well, along with some of the back-and-forth with the ASR folks. Honestly, I didn't read all the comments but I think I got the gist.
Thanks for the ASR post by Amir measuring the procured ABX Comparator.
I didn't say much about the article although a few of my comments on AS can be seen here and more direct opinion here.
As I noted in one of my other comments there, I don't like giving fellow audiophiles a hard time unless there's some kind of snake oil being peddled or Industry motivation. Eventually others will test things out for themselves and we'll have multiple opinions; whether other fellow audiophiles agree with Josh will be known one way or another through multiple ABX's. However, I did say back on August 10th:
"The issue to me which you're addressing isn't one of science at this point. I would hope that most audiophile readers in 2026 who know a thing or two about how the technologies work will already be considering in their minds what is more likely after reading all these pages of back and forth here and on ASR:
1. Josh's hearing defies the statistics and indeed is able to blind-test these DACs; to have succeeded in multiple ABX's with very high fidelity devices, and we have our "N-of-1" case report here.
or
2. Among all the variables involved, something was overlooked in the testing procedure, the ABX box, or the set-up such that something was introduced into the process to bias the recognition of one vs. the other device being tested.
For me, the overwhelming likelihood is that #2 is the answer. This is not a slight against Josh whatsoever since I know he worked hard at it, tried his best, and reading his articles over the years appreciate that he knows he (like all of us) can be wrong."
I think that opinion continues to be a reasonable one which I hope offers grace to a fellow audiophile since to err is human.
Not surprising at all that measurements of the box show limitations on how "transparent" the signal is able to pass through given the single-ended, complex switching mechanism with its own added distortion (SINAD ~75dB). The sound of the relays is an interesting "tell".
Maybe I missed it, but did Amir's measurements show whether there were differences between SRC A vs. SRC B input? I wonder if one of the inputs might have consistently had more distortion or noise issue.
Personally, I believe that "perceptibly perfect" means that frequency response is flat, noise level very low (like say a noise floor below -110dB thru audio band), distortion miniscule (like the THD+N below say -100dB), and no other obvious anomalies (decent filter, THD vs Output level consistent, no jitter worries, etc.) - already the Topping D10s has these characteristics in an inexpensive RCA-out package which was why I spoke about it being "perfect" in a $100 package back then in 2021 although there would have been others before of course. The Van Alstine ABX Comparator itself is not "perceptibly perfect".
For a DAC like this, whether "euphonic distortion" is audible or not, I agree that psychological projections are probably at least as powerful if not substantially more! 😉
I'm fully in agreement with your comments, and was before Amir published his measurements.
DeleteHey, did you know that as a 50yo with below-average hearing I can hear a 20KHz test tone using Airpods on my iPhone? I can! But on my computer with wired headphones I can only hit 13KHz. Obviously something either in Apple's DSP or the real-time AAC encoding is causing an audible artifact at a much lower frequency.
> Maybe I missed it, but did Amir's measurements show whether there were differences between SRC A vs. SRC B input? I wonder if one of the inputs might have consistently had more distortion or noise issue.
Distortion and noise were the same for both inputs.
Thanks for the follow-up Neil.
DeleteInteresting about the AirPods. Yeah, most likely either intermodulation distortion (like the ultrasonic warble demo discussed previously) or as you postulated some AAC encoding anomaly.
That was fun review to read. It's nice to see various technologies being offered at good price points. No need to spend thousands anymore. I think it would be interesting to see the DAC companies come out with a larger portfolio of built-in DSP EQ profiles. A few years ago I was playing around with HiFi Berry's DSP and combo dac/amp board. I recall that they had a couple of playback modes available (detail mode, warm mode) on their UI. It was quite useful and satisfying to use those modes for various recordings. To me, those types of settings would be easier to operate and a bit more purposeful/obvious than trying to achieve a more euphoric experience with a different D/A conversion process.
ReplyDeleteHey there Doug,
DeleteVery true what you said. Leveraging the power and quality of modern DSP is naturally the progressive way to go. That is the future - not mindlessly putting $50k into streamers or $100k into DACs thinking these will satisfy.
I think unfortunately the "traditional audiophile" community/culture shoots itself in the foot by hindering hobbyists from achieving the desired euphonic goals because of implied beliefs that taint progress and foster allegiance to the Industry. To some extent, this is IMO an outcome of the commercial nature of this hobby and media sources acting as salespeople to get corporate interests across as to how amazing their products are and how brilliant their designers - trust us, we know about good sound, come and buy our latest DAC and speakers!
For example, if we take a few common beliefs that are held by some "old-skool" audiophiles and magazine reviewers:
1. Analogue is the best sound. [Therefore there's something special, or natural, about tape, vinyl, analog preamps, etc.)
2. Digital audio chops the analogue audio into little disconnected bits. (Therefore it's not the full sound and you've lost stuff, so be careful about anything that digitizes, there are all kinds of scary things to be worried about like filtering, jitter, sigma-delta processing, etc.)
3. Digital Processing (DSP) furthermore usually damages sound with its math. Therefore be super careful about manipulations with EQ, room/speaker correction processing, even digital volume control because that's never as good as doing it the analogue way.
All 3 of those are IMO false beliefs that even to this day, I see repeated in one form or another among forums and among local audiophiles. I do what I can to correct strongly held beliefs like these but as we all know, "faith" - a certainty in something without evidence - is a hard thing to change! (And it goes beyond audio of course.)
IMO, an audiophile who is free of dogmatic beliefs like those above I think would be liberated from an Industry that thinks we should find our euphonic satisfaction through buying and trying all kinds of devices, cables, power accessories, snake oil tweaks - a special shout out to Synergistic Research as a great example. When instead, we already have the ability to perform digital processing at resolutions well beyond human hearing ability which we can use to "tune" the sound to our liking without buying a new tube preamp, switching amps, or engage in the fruitless search for the next best cable and tweaks (beyond otherwise capable wires).
An escape from this old audiophile culture IMO is needed and something I hope the younger generations of audiophiles learn to understand to their benefit by having the wisdom to separate technical and scientific truths from ephemeral psychological experiences, from unfounded beliefs that might have originated from a very different time.
Lol DSP is easily the most exciting thing in modern audio by far.
DeleteI have IK Multimedia/Adam speakers that are DSP'ed to the brim (Precision 6 , OG Micro, D3V). No passives even performs close if taking into account the form factor and price.
Hi Arch
ReplyDeleteGreat Summary and also great 1:1 comparison with your recorded examples. Yes, the R2R DAC has (for some kind of music) some pleasant euphonic „enhancements“, no doubt, but this is not the „truth“. Great work.
All the best
Juergen