What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Fëanor]

A relay-controlled volume selector and a metal volume knob for 1,400 US dollars, without even a headphone amplifier? And not the slightest improvement in sound?

It rather seems that this company, Topping, which you promote here, is engaged in little more than swindling and parting well-heeled buyers from their money...

Yeah right 

In the first place I'm not "promoting" Topping other than as one of a number of companies creating high value products;  others would be SMSL and Fosi for instance.

Repeat:  Topping products are "high value" in general, maybe some more so than others.  As for "swindling" well-heeled buyers, the aforementioned makers are rank amateurs compared to the likes of dCS, McIntosh, Audio Research, Accuphase, Krell, Boulder et al.

It's quite alright of you want to indulge yourself in high-end products for reason of cosmetics, ergonomics, minor functional improvements, or to impress your friends, family and clients, but you shouldn't kid yourself that you're getting better sound.

[Todd]

Is Rolex (or other luxury watch brands) swindling their customers because their watches do not tell the time more accurately than far cheaper watches?

Rolex markets prestige, distinction, taste, etc, not accurate timekeeping.  My el cheapo cell phone tells time more accurately than a Rolex.  All luxury brands do something similar, including audiophile brands.  The phenomenon is not new, of course.  During the Gilded Age, Thorstein Veblen wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class, in which he wrote of "invidious distinction" amongst the wealthy, wherein various wealthy folks would have ever larger mansions built, throw ever more lavish balls, buy ever more elaborate yachts, to show off their wealth, to demonstrate their superior refinement, to establish their more sophisticated taste.  In the intervening century plus since then, due to continued economic growth and greater, more diffuse prosperity, the phenomenon has become more common.  I refer to it as the democratization of invidious distinction.  The trillion dollar marketing industry exploits this reality.  Now, of course, it is not uncommon for people to simultaneously acknowledge that marketing works, but then to also engage in the same behavior.  Very often such people will claim it does not apply to them, that their powers of discernment are genuine, that they are not swayed by the same psychological processes and manipulation that entraps others.  These people will sometimes/often/always claim that marketing does not work on them, when clearly it does.  The English language idiom "keeping up with the Joneses" is more commonly known, and people who consume the best in a given category merely want to be, or think they are, the Joneses.  No doubt similar idioms exist in other languages. 

[AnotherSpin]

Rolex markets prestige, distinction, taste, etc, not accurate timekeeping.  My el cheapo cell phone tells time more accurately than a Rolex.  All luxury brands do something similar, including audiophile brands.  The phenomenon is not new, of course.  During the Gilded Age, Thorstein Veblen wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class, in which he wrote of "invidious distinction" amongst the wealthy, wherein various wealthy folks would have ever larger mansions built, throw ever more lavish balls, buy ever more elaborate yachts, to show off their wealth, to demonstrate their superior refinement, to establish their more sophisticated taste.  In the intervening century plus since then, due to continued economic growth and greater, more diffuse prosperity, the phenomenon has become more common.  I refer to it as the democratization of invidious distinction.  The trillion dollar marketing industry exploits this reality.  Now, of course, it is not uncommon for people to simultaneously acknowledge that marketing works, but then to also engage in the same behavior.  Very often such people will claim it does not apply to them, that their powers of discernment are genuine, that they are not swayed by the same psychological processes and manipulation that entraps others.  These people will sometimes/often/always claim that marketing does not work on them, when clearly it does.  The English language idiom "keeping up with the Joneses" is more commonly known, and people who consume the best in a given category merely want to be, or think they are, the Joneses.  No doubt similar idioms exist in other languages. 

The belief that all DACs which tick a few measurable boxes sound the same strikes me as rather like believing that every pianist plays Albéniz's Ibéria identically, provided they manage to hit all the right notes in the right order within the allotted time. Do you, by any chance, believe White Kloud boots are indistinguishable from a pair costing ten times less, so long as both will carry you five kilometres in an hour?

[Todd]

Invidious distinction is a powerful motivator and an endless source of rationalization.

[AnotherSpin]

Invidious distinction is a powerful motivator and an endless source of rationalization.

Exactly, people just love to stand out. There's this social quirk where being good isn't enough, they have to be better than everyone else, for example by showing off their 'taste' in long-winded tales of entirely subjective comparisons of various performers' renditions of the same piece of music

[Todd]

Language barriers are sometimes insurmountable.

[ritter]

Gentlemen, stop the snarks and personal attacks (however veiled) right now!

[71 dB]

The belief that all DACs which tick a few measurable boxes sound the same strikes me as rather like believing that every pianist plays Albéniz's Ibéria identically, provided they manage to hit all the right notes in the right order within the allotted time. Do you, by any chance, believe White Kloud boots are indistinguishable from a pair costing ten times less, so long as both will carry you five kilometres in an hour?

Are DACs different from each other the way pianists are?

Was piano playing developed to be identical no matter who are playing? No. For that we have mechanical pianos. Analog audio devices are different from each other to audible levels. Digital audio was developed to be free of this, to have transparent audio reproduction. Digital audio has matured for decades and has long ago reached a level where hearing (real) differences is near impossible if not impossible for humans, no matter how good hearing one has.

DACs are not like pianists. They are like mathematicians. Ask a Field medal winning top mathematician and a high school math teacher to evaluate the definitive integral of the real function f(x) = x² from 1 to 3 and both will have the correct answer 26/3. DACs take the digital input data and convert it to analog signal. There will be extremely small differences between DACs bacause of the analog part and because different DACs may use different upsampling etc. strategies, but those differences are more or less below the thresholds of human hearing these days (exotic "hi-end" devices may have their unique sound, because they are designed to do so, but DACs that are designed to be transparent are transparent to human ears).

When there aren't differences audible to human hearing, but people still hear differences, it is about placebo, confirmation bias etc. Some people just aren't willing to admit this and keep insisting they have supernatural hearing and can hear things science can't measure...

[AnotherSpin]

Are DACs different from each other the way pianists are?

Was piano playing developed to be identical no matter who are playing? No. For that we have mechanical pianos. Analog audio devices are different from each other to audible levels. Digital audio was developed to be free of this, to have transparent audio reproduction. Digital audio has matured for decades and has long ago reached a level where hearing (real) differences is near impossible if not impossible for humans, no matter how good hearing one has.

DACs are not like pianists. They are like mathematicians. Ask a Field medal winning top mathematician and a high school math teacher to evaluate the definitive integral of the real function f(x) = x² from 1 to 3 and both will have the correct answer 26/3. DACs take the digital input data and convert it to analog signal. There will be extremely small differences between DACs bacause of the analog part and because different DACs may use different upsampling etc. strategies, but those differences are more or less below the thresholds of human hearing these days (exotic "hi-end" devices may have their unique sound, because they are designed to do so, but DACs that are designed to be transparent are transparent to human ears).

When there aren't differences audible to human hearing, but people still hear differences, it is about placebo, confirmation bias etc. Some people just aren't willing to admit this and keep insisting they have supernatural hearing and can hear things science can't measure...

If all DACs are the same, why does the company Topping, alongside a $300 DAC that already has fine measurements, makes a $1,700 DAC?

[Todd]

For profit companies that sell consumer goods typically offer an array of products at different prices.  Higher priced options typically generate more profit.  The basics of capitalism have been known for centuries now.

[71 dB]

If all DACs are the same, why does the company Topping, alongside a $300 DAC that already has fine measurements, makes a $1,700 DAC?

To maxi-maze profit. If they can get $1,700 from someone who believes a $1,700 DAC must have a better sound than a $300 DAC then why would they offer only $300 DACs?

Sometimes higher price gives you better value. A $5,000 sofa is probably much better/higher quality than a $500 sofa. However, that's not always true. Audio particularly is a market where price and performance not always correlate that well. A $10,000 High-End DAC with weirdo design may actually have poorer performance than a $10 Apple dongle!

[AnotherSpin]

To maxi-maze profit. If they can get $1,700 from someone who believes a $1,700 DAC must have a better sound than a $300 DAC then why would they offer only $300 DACs?

Sometimes higher price gives you better value. A $5,000 sofa is probably much better/higher quality than a $500 sofa. However, that's not always true. Audio particularly is a market where price and performance not always correlate that well. A $10,000 High-End DAC with weirdo design may actually have poorer performance than a $10 Apple dongle!

My question was more rhetorical.

I think the price difference is due to genuine improvements in design and the components used, which ultimately result in better sound quality. Besides, as far as I know, Topping is not considered a status brand. There are other Chinese companies with a much more appealing image among audiophiles. For instance, Denafrips, whose range starts at around $600, and for about $1200–1500 one can get their popular Pontus model. Other Chinese brands respected by enthusiasts of good sound include Gustard and Musician Audio, and there are surely other interesting manufacturers as well.

That said, if I were in the market for a DAC, I would be more inclined to look at European or American manufacturers.

[71 dB]

I think the price difference is due to genuine improvements in design and the components used, which ultimately result in better sound quality.

Intuition may understandably say this must be the case, but sometimes it just isn't. With analog(ue) audio this kind intuition is on point, but DACs minimise the analog(ue) part. The heavylifting is done in the digital realm were the price tag doesn't matter so much. A very cheap pocket calculator gets 2+2=4 just as correctly as the most expensive calculators on the market. The more expensive calculator are of course more sophisticated and can do things the cheap calculators can't. The higher price is justified. However, a cheap Apple dongle is able to do what it is for: Convert digital audio into analog(ue) audio. It can't vacuum clean your house or make you coffee. On the other hand so can't the expensive DACs either.

Digital technology can be(come) brutally efficient. This means that it is "cheap." Supercomputers that cost millions a few decades ago are useless (other than being attractions in museums of technology) today, because your phone has as much processing power.

[StudioGuy]

The belief that all DACs which tick a few measurable boxes sound the same strikes me as rather like believing that every pianist plays Albéniz's Ibéria identically, provided they manage to hit all the right notes in the right order within the allotted time.

And that assertion, in a nutshell, demonstrates the fundamental issue within the audiophile community: Consumers' ignorance of the basic facts of digital audio is entirely natural/understandable but the problem with the audiophile community is that this gap in understanding was filled solely by audiophile marketing (both direct and indirect) which deliberately misrepresented and mislead that community in order to sell overpriced or entirely snake oil products. This inevitably leads to the sort of assertion quoted, which may seem entirely rational to a misinformed audiophile but is completely ridiculous relative to the actual facts, which are:

In 1948, on the back of other scientists and his own work in cryptography during WWII, a genius scientist (electrical engineering and mathematics) called Claude Shannon developed a set of proven theorems which not only mathematically completely defined "information" (which includes analogue audio signals) but the communication of it without loss. His theory ("A Mathematical Theory of Communication") coincided with the invention of the transistor, which enabled Shannon's mathematical theory to be implemented in practice, so not only does it form the basis of "information theory" but the basis of all digital data, which is why Shannon is often referred to as "the father of the digital age".

The "equivalence" in the quote above is therefore obviously false. Were pianists scientifically theorised, proven mathematically and then living pianists invented by implementing that theory in electronic technology? Wouldn't such an assertion be "completely ridiculous relative to the actual facts"? For the quoted assertion to be true, Shannon's proven theorems would somehow have to be proven false, in which case the internet wouldn't exist, the banking system and world economy would collapse, all modern airliners would fall out of the sky and the rest of the digital age would not exist.

The fundamental fact is that digital audio is itself a measurement, specifically: A set of discrete measurements of voltage amplitude over time. So of course this set of measurements (digital audio) are entirely encapsulated by some measurements ("measurement boxes") because that is exactly and only what digital audio is. Digital audio data, the "zeroes and ones", are binary encoded measurements, so if it cannot be measured, it cannot be digital audio!

[AnotherSpin]

Intuition may understandably say this must be the case, but sometimes it just isn't. With analog(ue) audio this kind intuition is on point, but DACs minimise the analog(ue) part. The heavylifting is done in the digital realm were the price tag doesn't matter so much. A very cheap pocket calculator gets 2+2=4 just as correctly as the most expensive calculators on the market. The more expensive calculator are of course more sophisticated and can do things the cheap calculators can't. The higher price is justified. However, a cheap Apple dongle is able to do what it is for: Convert digital audio into analog(ue) audio. It can't vacuum clean your house or make you coffee. On the other hand so can't the expensive DACs either.

Digital technology can be(come) brutally efficient. This means that it is "cheap." Supercomputers that cost millions a few decades ago are useless (other than being attractions in museums of technology) today, because your phone has as much processing power.

You most likely know the technical specifications of such devices far better than I do. Even so, aren't there different modules and approaches for converting digital into analogue, which may vary in cost - Delta-sigma,  R2R Ladder, Multibit, Discrete FPGA? And of course, a DAC also contains other elements, such as the power supply, which can influence the outcome as well.

[StudioGuy]

In the first place I'm not "promoting" Topping other than as one of a number of companies creating high value products;  others would be SMSL and Fosi for instance.

Repeat:  Topping products are "high value" in general, maybe some more so than others.  As for "swindling" well-heeled buyers, the aforementioned makers are rank amateurs compared to the likes of dCS, McIntosh, Audio Research, Accuphase, Krell, Boulder et al.

Topping is an interesting case, along with some other brands you've mentioned. They do provide higher performance for their higher price (compared to cheap DACs), however it's only effectively on paper/theoretically. To measure that additional performance requires expensive test equipment and that higher performance only exists in the analogue output, NOT in the sound ultimately reproduced. So it is therefore obviously not audible. However, it is still valid that some people might be willing to spend that extra, simply to own the highest performance on paper, regardless of whether it can be reproduced in sound. Just as it's valid to buy an expensive DAC due to say a consumer preference for a finely milled magnesium case or other visual enhancement, which also of course has no effect on the reproduced sound.

Also interesting is your list of audiophile manufacturers. In the pro-audio world the list of manufacturers is quite different; Avid, Prism, Apogee, RME, DAD and few others have been the main players. Some of these have produced certain products that can/could be used by audiophiles but generally it's a separate market, because the functionality of pro equipment is significantly different and the BS audiophile marketing simply does not work on the pro-audio community. So the audiophile manufacturers don't even market their products to the pro-audio community and you won't find any of those products in commercial studios, with the rare exception of a handful of studios catering only to the audiophile community and/or they've been given the products free. For the same reason, there's no audiophile cables (power, analogue or digital cables), audiophile Ethernet switches or USB "decrapifiers", audiophile fuses, capacitors or magic rocks. dCS is an interesting inclusion as they started in the 1990's as a pro-audio manufacturer but they couldn't compete and eventually became a purely audiophile manufacturer.

Denafrips (as mentioned by AnotherSpin) is also an interesting audiophile manufacturer because along with a couple of others, they employ the old audiophile marketing technique of taking a more expensive, superseded/outdated, inferior technology (R2R) and falsely claiming it magically results in better sound. Again, none of these R2R products exist in the pro-audio world, because we're interested in high recording and reproduction fidelity and not so easily suckered by false marketing.

[71 dB]

You most likely know the technical specifications of such devices far better than I do. Even so, aren't there different modules and approaches for converting digital into analogue, which may vary in cost - Delta-sigma,  R2R Ladder, Multibit, Discrete FPGA? And of course, a DAC also contains other elements, such as the power supply, which can influence the outcome as well.

I don't claim massive expertise of these issues, but I have a university degree in electric engineering which gives a general understanding of these things. I also listen to people who know better than I do (and I have the scientific literacy skill/critical thinking skills to pretty accurate tell when someone actually knows something about what they are talking about. As an intuitive introvert, I have higher than average skills to point out conmen. This is an ability I have discovered having in the resent years and it explains why I have wondered my all life why most other people seem to fall for conmen and other BS so easily.)

There are indeed different approaches in how to digital-to-analog(ue) conversion, but many of them have reached the level of audible transparency. Power supply can affect sound quality, of course, but decent power supplies should be fine. A rather cheap DAC can have a power supply that doesn't affect the sound. If the DAC has headphone output, the power consumption requirements are higher and the power supply is more important. It is up to the manufacturer, how much they want to emphasize this.

[Fëanor]

Topping is an interesting case, along with some other brands you've mentioned. They do provide higher performance for their higher price (compared to cheap DACs), however it's only effectively on paper/theoretically. To measure that additional performance requires expensive test equipment and that higher performance only exists in the analogue output, NOT in the sound ultimately reproduced. So it is therefore obviously not audible. However, it is still valid that some people might be willing to spend that extra, simply to own the highest performance on paper, regardless of whether it can be reproduced in sound. Just as it's valid to buy an expensive DAC due to say a consumer preference for a finely milled magnesium case or other visual enhancement, which also of course has no effect on the reproduced sound.
...

I'd be interested to know what some of those "higher performance", measurable but non-audible, attributes would be.  I could imagine, for example, service life being one,  That people -- audiophiles -- might pay more for these attributes I can certainly imagine, but how would find out about them?

Certainly, as I said in my post above, people are entitled to pay more to get more according to whatever criteria they choose, (whether or not they are fully conscious of them).

[Todd]

I'd be interested to know what some of those "higher performance", measurable but non-audible, attributes would be.

For DACs, the most obvious are bit depth and sampling rate.

[AnotherSpin]

I'd be interested to know what some of those "higher performance", measurable but non-audible, attributes would be.  I could imagine, for example, service life being one,  That people -- audiophiles -- might pay more for these attributes I can certainly imagine, but how would find out about them?

Certainly, as I said in my post above, people are entitled to pay more to get more according to whatever criteria they choose, (whether or not they are fully conscious of them).

What is audible yet not measurable may prove no less, and perhaps far more, intriguing...))) Step back for a moment and reflect, and an interesting thought arises. We are invited to judge sound by measurement, but can figures truly capture the way we perceive music? At best, only in part, and never in what matters most.