TEAC UD-701 vs NT-505 vs ?


I stream Quboz and Tidal via a Bluesound Vault 2. Vault transmits to Parasound JC2 to modded A21 to Vandersteen Quatro CTs. (See my profile for complete description of system.) Happy, really very happy, with Vault 2 but it is likely best point at which to upgrade my system.

Considering TEAC NT-505 ($2K) and new TEAC DAC/streamer UD-701 ($4K), which has some very attractive features: in-house-built discrete Delta-Sigma DAC with FPGA circuity, dual-mono signal path, four separate power supplies... Have seen enthusiastic reviews for NT-505 from owners here. Only one review by Moon Audio out about UD-701, and they are not an uninterested party. Curious if any out there have heard UD-701?

Open to other suggestions, including used with roughly $6K price ceiling. See TMR has used Aurender A-10s for sale. Used PS Audio Direct Wave DAC with bridge is another consideration, although I have seen owners comment negatively about the bridge.

Not wed to DAC/streamer combo but that has appeal to me because it eliminates a box, connecter, and power cord, all of which add to cost and connector makes signal path less direct.

Also not wed to SS but a tube DAC appears to me to introduce an additional source of distortion into my otherwise SS system, so it will then be affected by both SS and tube distortion.

Thoughts?

Bosssound

128x128bosssound

Onto to notes from DAC shootout at my dealer, HiFi Buys in ATL.

First session compared dCS Bartok to Chord Hugo to HiFi Rose RS150.

Setup:

Not sure about how streaming was set-up. Selected music using Roon. I used same set of tracks to test DACs as I did at home.

Believe that pre-amp was D'agostino Momentum. Amp was Parasound JC5. Speakers were Vandersteen Kentos. ICs and power cords were higher end Audioquest products.

 

Okay. The results from this listening session were weird. Perhaps they reflect bad taste on my part, a problem with my ears, or a problem with the set-up. (However, in my experience the folks at HiFi Buys know what they are doing.) Hence, I will use terms like and dislike as opposed to better or worse.

I did not like the sound of the Bartok. The soundstage and sounds were large but the individual sounds were diffuse, as opposed to precise and intense. The sound was also somewhat dull and grey to my ears.

I did not like sound of the Hugo. Although notes were precise, the music just sounded wrong and lacked some life. Digital. I had the impression the end of notes were being cut off. (Sustain and decay is supposed to be a strength of the Hugo, so this was also strange.)

I liked the sound of the Rose RS150. Notes were defined. Sound was colorful and live. Engaging. A negative feature was that the translation of the bass notes in Beyonce's Partition. Just sounded weird/wrong.

To circle back to my comments at top, my impressions here are strange. At odds with the glowing reviews of the Bartok and Hugo by many both pro and user reviews and hence my own expectations.

In my defense, when David White of HiFi Buys played a record on the $12K turntable that is part of the set-up in that listening room I could immediately hear what analog fans cherish- big soundstage with big notes with both precision and intensity. Emotive, engaging sound. (I had not listened to a record since I was a kid listening to my father's Bang & Olufson straight arm, lateral tracking turntable so this experience was a revelation.)

There is also some consistency in my preferences. The RS150 employs an AKM DAC, as does the TEAC NT-505. The two units sounded very similar, which speaks well for the NT-505 since it is less than half of the cost of RS150 (<$2K vs $5K).

The second listening session at my dealer put the winner from my in-home shoot-out, the TEAC UD-701-N, up against the winner from the first session at my dealer, the HiFi Rose RS150.

A Bluesound node functioned as the streamer. Audioquest Earth ICs were used to connect both the UD-701 and RS150 to the pre-amp. Settings on the UD-701 were the same as for my home listening tests except for selection of variable line out volume. Volume level adjusting was necessary, since at the 0db line out setting on the UD-701 the signal sent to the pre-amp was stronger than that for the RS150. Listening was done with only the right channel active for both units since left channel on the UD-701 was dead. Other components of the set-up were the same as for the first listening session. Hence, this shoot-out was head-to-head, apples-to-apples.

I preferred the UD-701 sound over that produced by the RS-150. Given that sound of RS-150 was very similar to NT-505, advantages of UD-701 over RS-150 were very similar to its advantages over NT-505 (see post on 3-19-22 at 5:38 pm in this thread). UD-701, relative to RS-150, was more natural, engaging, and conveyed emotion in music better. Note UD-701 is $4K vs. $5K for RS-150. Discernment of advantages required careful listening but once heard were distinct.

Note my impressions regarding UD-701 at dealer confirmed what I heard at home.