Reference DACS: An overall perspective


There has been many threads the last few months regarding the sonic signature of some of the highest regarded reference DACS (Dcs,Meitner,Ensemble,Audio Note,Zanden,Reimyo,Accustic Arts) here on the GON. I have been very fortunate to audtion many of these wonderful pieces in my home or friend's systems. I wanted to share, in a systematic way, my impressions/opinions with you GON members for a two reasons: 1)That my experiences might be helpful to fellow members interested in audtioning these DACS. 2)Starting an interesting discussion regarding the different "sonic flavors" of these reference digital front ends. I totally agree with the statement, "if you have not heard it you don't have an opinion". Therefore, I have no comments regarding DACS from Weiss,Goldmund,Audio Aero and Burmester because I have never had the pleasure of audtioning them. I would love to hear from members who have and share their experiences with us. My overall impression is that these DACS(Dcs,Meitner,Ensemble,Audio Note,Zanden,Reimyo,Accustic Arts) can be grouped into two molar categories regarding their overall sonic signature. By the way, all of them can throw a large/deep soundstage with excellent layering in the acoustic space with "air" around individual players on that stage. However, than they start to part company into two major categories. Category #1) These DACS "flavors" revolve around pristine clarity, fine sharp details,speed,very extended top/bottom frequencies,and great PRAT. These DACS never sound "etched" or "in your face" but are more "upfront" then "layed back" in their presentation. The DACS, to my ear's, that go into this bracket are Dcs,Ensemble,Meitner. My personnal favorite in this group is the Ensemble, which I owned for two years. These DACS remind me of the sonic signature of speakers such as Wilson,Thiel,Dynaudio, Focal/JM Labs. Category #2) These DACS "flavors" revolve around a "musical/organic" sense, natural timbres,and an easy flowing liquidity. Their "less forward" presentation my give the impression of less detail, but I think in this case its an illusion fostered by their more relaxed/organic manner. The DACS, to my ear's, that go into this bracket are Audio Note,Zanden,Reimyo,Accustic Arts. I did find that the tube DACS did not have the top/bottom frequency extenstion and PRAT of the SS DACS in this bracket. For me, the Accustic Arts DAC1-MK3 gave me the best of both categories, therefore it is now the resident DAC in my system. These DACS remind me of the sonic signature of speakers such as Magnepan,Von Schweikert,Sonus Faber. Well, it's all just my opinion regarding these digital pieces, but I hope this post was at least informative/somewhat interesting and would lend itself to other GON members sharing their impressions, not about what DAC is the "BEST" in the world, but your personnal taste and synergy with your system.
teajay

Showing 9 responses by dazzdax

Hi Teajay, none of the so called reference DACs is bad actually: that's why they are called reference. Even oldskool reference DACs, like the older Accuphase, Stax or Wadia DACs are still competitive with current DACs. My opinion is: the most musical DAC is not a "reference" DAC, but a heavily modified non-oversampling DAC (47-Labs Shigaraki DAC), together with a top notch CD-transport.

Chris
Mike, in the context of reference DACs, that means no compromise DACs, I have to say that, albeit a steady improvement in red book CD technology, the differences between those reference DACs (from 1992-today) are not very large compared to differences between mid fi and lower high end DACs (from 1992-today). I think it is because even older reference DACs are no compromise designs (Wadia 9, Krell Reference 64, Accuphase DC-91). They might have older digital technology, but the analog part (which is also very important) was and is still superb. I'm not saying they are comparable or better than today's SOTA DACs, but they are at least still no slouch sonically speaking (and certainly not "outdated" in my opinion). If you spend $3000 for a Krell Reference 64 DAC (from 1992) nowadays, I think it is still a good investment.

Chris
To me all the contemporary reference DACs are more similar than different, whether non oversampling or over- and upsampling technologies are being applied. With each new generation DAC there is a small improvement, which is often not worth the cost of upgrading or replacing the older DAC. It is still amazing that at hifi shows people tend to like analog more than digital, even if the digital equipment used is state-of-the-art. The strange thing is also that with vinyl with passing of time and developement of new (material) technologies, there is a real and steady improvement, whereas in digital each developement wouldn't necessarily lead to improvement. I think in red book CD there wouldn't be any (real) improvements to be expected in the near future.

Chris
Hi TJ, although this is a bit off topic, I would like to address to the Attraction DAC, designed by Charles Altmann (www.altman.haan.de/). This is one weird DAC (in terms of cosmetics), but it could be the giant killer among the lower priced (and certainly not $$$ reference) DACs. Have any of you heard this DAC btw.?
PS: I always thought the Audio Note DAC 5 Signature is the king among the referece DACs, followed by de Boulder reference DAC, or am I wrong?

Chris
TJ: I wonder if the Accustic Arts Mk 4 DAC is lush and warm sounding? With other words, does it sound tubelike (with a bit Audio Note "technicolor" quality) or very detailed and accurate, but also a bit understated and laid back (Mark Levinson type of sound)? Does it have great PRaT?
Thanks.

Chris
Hi folks, today I compared my Accuphase DC-91 DAC (a 14 year old design!) with the contemporary April Music Stello DA-220 DAC. I must say, although the Stello is a very good and musical DAC, that the old Accuphase is still no slouch. The Stello didn't crush the old DAC, which is fortunately for me. Therefore I don't have any reason to replace this old DAC with a contemporary one. Maybe I should compare the Accuphase with the Nagra, Metronome or Weiss, or... the Accustic Arts MK IV DAC.

Chris
Guido: the Accuphase DC-91 sounds smooth in the treble, has plenty of "air" around the voices and instruments. It also has very good bass. It is a very natural sounding unit, that doesn't draw attention to itself at first listening. The Stello is also a very good unit, with a sound that has high density in tonal color, very smooth and dynamic. The presentation is slightly more forward. The accuphase has a bit "soft" presentation, while the stello is more "incisive". The differences are not very big but sufficient for me to draw the conclusion that even if the Accuphase might be old in terms of DAC design, it is by no means "outdated" in terms of sonics. In my opinion it is therefore at least controversial that more up to date DAC design and circuit topology also automatically mean improvements in sonics.

Chris
Anyone familiar with the Weiss Medea? What is the main sonic difference between this DAC and the Accustic Arts?

Chris
To me there are two types of DAC's. DAC's that have smooth but somewhat dark (more at the "ying" site) sound with less detail retrieval but often with great PRaT and DAC's that are more "yang" with enormous amounts of detail but at the same time less PRaT. But to be honest current SOTA DAC's are neither "ying" or "yang" sounding: they mix the characteristics of both types.

Chris