Active / Powered Speakers + USB DAC Vs Passive Speakers + Integrated Amp with built-in DAC: what's best? Discuss

[Bill_Janssen (Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)]

it raises two sets of questions, namely: 1) In that case, what makes for the price difference between a £65 Dragonfly and a >£1500 DAC produced by the likes of dCS or PSAudio or whoever… the entire PiHAT adventure seems to prove that circuitry, in and of itself, isn’t it? Then what?

I started a whole thread on that topic, last year.

High-end DAC really necessary?

Well, now I’m regretting spending 50 albums worth of dollars on a high-end DAC: This kind of makes sense. We’ve been building and engineering DACs for 30 years to put in CD players; their mysteries should be sorted out by now.

But you know, there really are some reasons. USB-powered DACs can pick up whatever electrical noise might be on the USB cable, so devoting some engineering to signal isolation makes some sense. The filters necessary for proper shaping of the analog signal from the digital input can be compute-intensive, so some pre-processing with the equivalent of a GPU can improve the signal. And you need to do that for two channels. And many audio companies don’t sell a lot of units, so the built-in markup is phenomenal.

2. Why would anyone then opt for the specialised, differentiated, entire-unto-itself DAC box over a more ‘integrated’ solution, be that housed in an amp or an active speaker?

What James says is the general rationale (upgrade separately), but I agree with Craig on this: the pace of advancement in DAC technology has slowed enough that buying something with a built-in D/A is probably OK. If I recall correctly, the Dutch & Dutch system has some kind of pull-out tray with the DAC/preamp on it which theoretically can be upgraded separately from the speakers.