I can't say that I'm at all surprised with your conclusions.
And, yes, it can often be difficult to tell whether a piece of gear is "doing a better job of accurately delivering a beautiful wide sound stage"
or whether it is merely "artificially spreading around a sound stage that wasn't that wide to begin with".
And some gear may actually sound better with low quality content because it is less revealing of flaws.
There are a few things I would like to point out about "music files at different sample rates".
They all hinge around the reality of how difficult it is to actually "compare the same track at different sample rates".
For one thing, as we all know, even different printings of the same CD can sound different, and "remasters" can sometimes sound quite different.
However many folks may not be aware that, when you purchase a hi-res file from someone like HDTracks, it is virtually always "a remaster" to at least some degree.
Since the original CD was 16/44k any copy at any higher resolution is going to be from a different source.
It could be that the original version was actually digitally mastered at 16/44k and it has simply been "upsampled" with as little difference as possible.
Or it could be that the original conversion was at a higher sample rate... and the CD is 'the down-sampled version"...
Or, as is often the case at HDTracks, some of their hi-res releases have been
EXTENSIVELY remastered and remixed.
Their 24/192k remasters of The Grateful Dead Studio Recordings have been totally remixed... and some, like American Beauty, are
A LOT better than the originals.
And, when it comes to things like SACD discs and DSD files, those versions are often remastered quite differently "to appeal to audiophiles".
And, even in situations where someone offers "the same track or album in different sample rates and formats" there are conversions and other potential differences involved.
Either each different version was digitized separately (in which case there could be slight differences because of that)...
Or there is one "master digital copy" which was then converted to provide the other versions (in which case there is the
potential for each conversion to change the sound)...
And, as you might expect, some software used to convert between sample rates is extremely accurate, but some is... not-so-accurate...
And, on streaming services, different things, like "MQA encoding" or "track volume normalization" may be different on different versions.
And, of course, if you download a bootleg copy, or "get a copy from someone", there are an almost infinite number of options which could be different.
Therefore, if at all possible, when comparing equipment like DACs, your best bet is to start by playing the same physical file on each, using the same player software (or streamer).
The "debate" about whether "humans can really hear the difference between 16/44k and higher sample rates" has been going on for years...
And there is really no end in sight...
But it is absolutely the case that, for various reasons, the differences between specific 16/44k and 24/96k or 24/192k versions of the same content are often clearly audible.
Something else worth pointing out is that, when it comes to "ordinary DACs", which don't do any sort of DSP processing, "differences in audible dynamics" is essentially an illusion.
"Dynamic range" is simply a description of the difference in loudness between the quietest and loudest spots in a given song or track.
And, unless some sort of "dynamic compression" or "volume levelling" is being applied, then a DAC is not going to change the level of the content you play through it.
(Streaming services, and some player programs, may vary the actual level of the content they're playing, but a DAC should not do so on its own.)
So, if two DACs play both the quiet spots and the loud spots at the correct levels, then they are playing that content with the exact same dynamic range.
So, in that case, what we
perceive as "a difference in dynamics" is really something else... (perhaps something is making the dynamic differences in level less obvious).
Another thing that is actually an illusion is "rhythm and pace".
The clocks used to record and play back digital content are based on the same technology as your digital watch.
Unless something is flat out broken that is not going to vary do a degree that could conceivably be audible.
(It is possible for a song to be resampled at the wrong speed... or be deliberately altered "to fit a time slot"... but that is "deliberately broken".)
Therefore, if you hear something that perceptually sounds like "the pace is off", you are almost certainly hearing something else.
(For example, if a song lacks treble, or has filters that cause excessive time blur, which tend to obscure fine details, you may perceive that as "not sounding lively enough" or as "a slow pace".)
![]()
Well, decided to do my own review between the XDA-3 vs a Schiit Audio Modius DAC. The audio system used to do the review is a Bluesound Node 2i streamer (using Coax and Optical),Emotiva XSP-1 gen2 preamp, XPA-DR2 amplifier. Speakers are Legacy Audio Focus 20/20 (full range) and two Klipsch R115sw 15 inch subwoofers crossed over at 50hz. For the XDA-3 it was tested only using XLR cables but I tested the Modius using both XLR and unbalanced cables since the outputs have different op-amps on that unit. I level matched the DAC's. Doing so I had to set the XDA-3 to a volume of 7.0 to match the output of the Modius DAC. The music sample rates and bit depths used ranged from 16/44khz to 24/192khz. I listed to a range of music from country, electronic, rock, indie, classic rock, classic, blues, with a range of instruments and vocals. My first impression was the XDA-3 had significantly deeper bass. If I would have turned the subs off it may have not have been noticed but on a song by "The Trip, Black Lagoon) you could really feel the bass in your feet it would vibrate the floor pretty good on the XDA-3 but it was more laid back on the Modius, sounding more flat. Some audiophiles may prefer the laid back bass but I personally prefer a dynamic live sound. The next thing I really noticed is the Modius has more air with a wider feel to the sound stage. I struggled with this one since I could not tell if the sound stage sounded wider due less control of separation or more control. The XDA-3 seems to have a more refined, focus of the musical instruments. This may be why did not sound as wide. For lower quality tracks with 16/44khz I preferred the Modius. It was a little more dynamic, minus ultra low bass and was less fatiguing to the ears. The XDA-3 was so critical that it had more of a digital feel, harshness compared to a more analog feel for the Modius. I was really leaning toward the Modius at this point right up until I found some music sampled at 24/192khz. At this quality the XDA-3 won hands down. The harshness was gone and It just sounded better. I would have guess there would be no noticeable difference to my ears between 16/44 and 24/192 but it did sound different. More detailed, open and less fatiguing. I tried all the filters on the XDA-3 and could really tell no difference. If there was a difference it was so close that you were not sure if there was or your ears just playing tricks on you. I went back and forth on them on drums, cymbals, acoustic guitars, and all sounded the same. My review conclusion is the XDA-3 is a keeper but the Schiit Audio Modius (entry level DAC from Schiit) holds it's own and if you did not have some very dynamic speakers you probably would have a hard time telling the difference between them. I would have not noticed the extra bass from the XDA-3 if I was not running some large mains and overkill subs for my small room. I would love to see how it compares to a Schiit Audio Bifrost 2/64 or Gustard DAC R-26.
