Are "vintage" DAC's worthwhile, or is this a tech that does not age well
Hello, whether it’s worth looking into old dac such as Spectral SDR 2000, Mark Levinson No.35 (36) or so Sonic Frontiers Sfd-2 Mk2 DAC.
Digital audio is the fasted moving, now improving category out there Because to this day they have no usb connection or other options. But is it necessary? Or is it better to still focus on a truly time-tested sound?
Here's the right answer: DAC's before 2010 were almost universally worse sounding with Redbook than with high resolution files.
At a certain cut-off DAC's at all price ranges got universally better. Performance with CD quality jumped up and digital glare and other issues vanished. I suspect this has to do with much more accurate clocks and anti-jitter technology in the underlying silicon. So for DAC's, not streamers, there's a real difference around this time frame.
The other part of this, music services. are more prone to changing. If you can get a streamer that is separate from the DAC, and your DAC is at least post 2010 you can get state of the art for cheap.
My dac progression went from Audio Alchemy to Theta Pro Basic to Audio Aero Capitole 24/192 to Antelope Zodiac Gold +Voltikus to Zodiac Platinum + Audiophile Clock. They all were converting bits but they don‘t sound the same.
I have a Kora Hermes II (tube DAC) that is very analog sounding. It’s gotta be at least 20 years old? I put a couple of 1963 Bugle Boys in it and love the sound. Some May wince when I say it sounds very analog, but its smooth as silk and clear as mountain spring water. I know-weird analogy?
My first DAC was a new PS Audio Ultra Link... that was followed by an Ultra Link II which was much better. From there I moved into one box with a high-end Marantz player ($3500) I didn’t care for and sold after about a year. I replaced it with a Sony XA 5400 ES, which was a Stereophile A+ component and extremely good on Redbook and SACD. I’m streaming now with a Cambridge CXN (V2) feeding a Benchmark DAC 3b. I listen to lots of internet radio at 256 and 320 kbps and then go to Tidal and listen to albums when I hear an artist I like. The Benchmark is also Stereophile A+ rated. As far as source material goes the Cambridge and Benchmark are significantly better than the Sony and both are A+ rated. The only thing I would add is that I spend lots of time on wire and if you haven’t spent time with different digital cables (and interconnects) you don’t really know what you system sounds like. I’m presently using the best of 9 digital cables tried so far and have #10 coming to try. Funny thing is #9 is very popular in Japan but not sold here, #10 is a 75 ohm digital cable also not available here
Where I think you will find significant differences are not necessarily confined to tonality, the differences are quite apparent in the sound-stage presentation. Width and depth of the stage ... the definition of performers outline and their location in the performance, not only side to side but front to back and their isolation from each other within the performance, as well as the layering of depth of stage. These are the areas I have noticed huge improvements in with one of today’s top DACs while still using the same amps, speakers and pre-amp as I did 25 years ago.
Any R2R Dacs will sound good. I like the Holo Spring Wadia 64.4 Sonic Frontier SFD Mk3. I haven’t heard Denafrips As far as inputs i prefer SPDIF and AES/BU The only thing the new Dacs have are I2S etc. which I don’t find musical.
I cannot attest to vintage vs new but feel compelled to assure you there are SQ differences between DACs. I believe most have/would agree. My limited experience is using a Bluesound Node2i with my Audio Research GSi75. The comparison of analog out of the Node to optical out is beyond night and day.
I listen to an old (late 90's?) Theta ProBasic III DAC and use digital for CD's only.
Sounds great to me and much better than the half dozen ESS DACs my local audio dealer let me audition at home about a year and a half ago.
I was in his store yesterday and he was playing Sonus Faber speakers, (higher model range than Sonnetos) through Prima Luna electronics, and a Lumin streamer. The sound was veiled and the bass was muddy.
Now there are tons of variables, but I got home and enjoyed my Thiel CS5's with the Theta DAC. My sound was better.
If the DAC is implemented well and has a good analog output on it, it will still sound good.
There was an almost identical thread recently. You ought to look it up. I wont repeat the lengthy post i made, but i will say: 1. I have no dog in this fight, yet.2. I totally disagree that DACs sound alike. And i run single blind experiments all the time.3. Some excellent old DACs still can equal or outperform many current DACs. I have two that do, from 1991 and 19994. Lots of DACs are datasheet engineered and suck. The fact that they get good (typically user anecdotal) reviews supports the hypothesis that its all snake oil. LISTEN!5. Overall, tat said, DACs have progressed steadily over the years6. Most advances int he last 10 years have been in up/oversampling algorithms and timing/jitter, IMNSHO.
BTW DACs have no wear parts to speak of except for electrolytic caps, typically only a few int eh power supply. So they can last a long time. The DAC caps are mostly ceramic and film which last pretty much forever. G
yes, you read it correctly. You would however forego the opportunity to slave the server’s to the dac‘s clock as well as DSD and higher resolution formats. Using a OCXO or rubidium clock on the dac via USB has major benefits on the server. Alternatively there are reclockers for the USB connection only (e.g. Innuos Phoenix); they however do not benefit the dac.
The old vintage dacs will sound absolutely wonderful but you will not be able to hook them up to all the new forms of digital equipment or computers but if you want to hear the best digital sound a vintage converter will stomp all over the new stuff no contest.
@curlyhifi. Those Krell SPB 32x, Studio and Ref.64 dacs were some outstanding units! Thanks for the audio flash back...been a long time since I had them but man did they leave an aural impression. Oh boy, guess this guy is going to start hunting one down to play with again.
I have been listening to Theta Casablanca III then IVa ... both with extreme DACS. I have had recording personnel listen to them as well. They agree that there is simply no better DAC out there. New "digital dacs" are difficult to do right. Now that the IVa has their calibration done in the Netherlands...sound is absolutely perfect. Thetas are built like a tank and like a computer at the same time. If I have difficulty, I send the unit back to Theta, they replace a board and I am back in business. Their extreme dacs are the best I have ever heard. I don't like sending power over wire so I use active speakers...ATC to be exact!
It was noticeable improvement in SQ streaming Tidal when I switch to Dragonfly Cobalt from Dragonfly Black in my mobile setup.... so DACs sounds differently to me.
@antigrunge2 yes but if you have some sort of USB to SPDIF converter between the computer and DAC then it would take care of the jitter. Once that's done, it could go to any DAC chip. Unless I read your post incorrectly.
In my opinion the analogy of comparing a 15 year old PC to an older DAC is not a good example. If the priority is good sound quality then numerous vintage DACs are still desirable. This has been confirmed by many responses in this thread.
If the priority is functionality and connectivity then they do have some limations relative to current production DACs. For me, Redbook sound quality is the more important criteria. Depends on what you're seeking. Charles
one doesn’t need golden ears to hear that different dacs present the music differently, just properly working ones... 😂.... but folks will believe what they want to believe and some can find reason to not trust their own ears
that been said, for most in this pursuit, a modern dac makes much more sense, given the compatibility to all sorts of input formats (most specifically usb fed from computers serving as the streamer) and bit rates and resolutions of various audio files folks may use or buy in the present day
that doesn’t mean that older dacs are poor sounding, quite the contrary ... that is a different question -- as with anything in this hobby, one just needs to know what any item does, does well and does not do...
notions of power supply isolation and jitter management are not recent discoveries, recently addressed through recent technology -- for example, even peter madnick’s very affordable audio alchemy gear from the 1990’s was properly addressing jitter, clean power in digital and proper transmission of digital datastreams
Just ask yourself the question whether you would buy a 15 year old PC: there is your answer....
....most likely no asynchronous and certainly no high speed USB, no precision clocking, no DSD or high res decoding. All of this matters because you ideally want the DAC to slave the source to minimise jitter.
Doesn't matter what side you're on it has no affect on the DAC. It either measures beyond human audibly so you are hearing the other components in your system or it doesn't. DACs have been a solved problem for a while now of course this doesn't mean some companies create filters or add tubes to create what some term pleasant distortion.
I wouldn’t put much money into an older dac. I had a lovely theta basic and had it serviced because the power button and a sources selector button were inoperable. I don’t recall the price but it was very high including shipping: Also a notice that they would no longer support the device. The chip will last forever, the supporting architecture will not.
Testing shows most DACs don’t have sonic signatures as long as they conform to basic engineering principles. I’m tired of the willfully ignorant who dismiss standard testing protocol and crown themselves golden ears.
I apologize for being in total opposite side from the "gold dial" side...
Dac dont give the same sound in all environment, like amplifier or speakers...Dacs are not like one another at all like other piece of gear...
The only way to test a dac is creating the rightfully controlled environment, and in this environment a good dac will disapear to some degree....Like other piece of gear to some varying degree related to the quality of their design...
My 20 bucks dac bought with a bid on Ebay give me ALL qualities associated with great dac: imaging, details, holographic sound, even analog flavor and is so good that upgrading it seems silly and dangerous idea...For those who think my S.Q. because of the lowest price of my gear limit my experience, my system for his price rival anything which top him for sure but not being so distant behind that most would think...
I deduced from that 2 things: there is difference between dac, and a good dac COULD or CAN cost peanuts and give a totally satisfying acoustical experience if the environment is under control in his 3 working embeddings dimensions : mechanical,electrical and acoustical....
I know most will not believe me....
Pricing a design means that often it is a better one but there is a ceiling where the implementation of the design begins to be way more important than the electronic design sophistication itself....
A controlled room is the more precious part of any gear at any price...
I own several DACS . Some current and some Vintage. Not to promote one against the other. i.e. My Krell SBP 32X sounds way better then some of todays moderately priced DAC's. The ones you're considering are very good. If you can get them at a reasonable price (Check some of the reviews behind them) you will be very satisfied.
Testing shows most DACs don't have sonic signatures as long as they conform to basic engineering principles. I'm tired of the willfully ignorant who dismiss standard testing protocol and crown themselves golden ears.
I own 4 DACs- a mid-90’s California Audio Labs Alpha (tube amplification), a circa 2010 Halide Designs, an Audioquest Red Dragonfly, and a Schiit Yggdrasil GS. The Cal Alpha was renowned in its day for being analog like, and it’s sound remains pleasant. The Yggdrasil totally smokes it in all regards, it is profoundly more transparent with better dynamics and imaging, while remaining musical. I would be astounded if the average person off the street wouldn’t immediately notice the vast improvement of the Yggdrasil.
This thread is reminiscent of a certain Julian Hirsch, possibly the worst and most deluded audio reviewer of all time. His ears seemed to be filled with lead. His “Hirsch-Houck Labs) in his basement lacked equipment to measure dynamic features of amplifier performance, so he likened the measurements of slew-induced distortion and TIM distortion, both major advances in addressing how amplifiers actually perform, as “belief in the Easter Bunny.”
I guess that I am really tired of the willfully ignorant who claim no differences in gear when any modicum of listening or testing will show that they exist.
DACs sounds differently. Depends on chips used, codec, technology and resolution supported. DACs r different animals... DSD, MQA, tubed or R2R... all of them sounds differently and vintage too.
Myself and two buddies had a DAC "listening test" at one of their homes. All Rogue tube gear and Martin Logan with a USB feed from Roon. Three DACs: Chord Qutest, Mytek Brooklyn+ and Bryston BDA-3.
Honestly didn't have to go past one track (Linda Ronstadt: What's New) the difference was so obvious. Please don't bother trying to punch holes in the test or say it wasn't fair. If your ears work you would have had to agree. BTW the order of DACs above was the way they sounded from good to better to best.
To the OP, If you like the sound of an older DAC and you can be assured that it can be repaired if needed, then I say go for it. Can't comment on any one in particular as I have no experience with them.
Why would it not age well? If you bought a cd player 10 years ago of good quality, it also contains a dac inside. If it still works, then what is the issue? Honestly, the only dac you need is the musical fidelity v90 dac. $299 and worth every penny. Sounds just as good as a $1000 dac. Small form factor, well designed, plenty of connection options, a burr brown chip, and it’s a stereophile class A component. To spend much much more on a dac is ridiculous. I've owned my v90 dac for 2 years now, it sounds wonderful. I use it in conjunction with both a Marantz hd cd1 cd player/transport, as well as with the audiolab cdt6000. I also have my grace digital internet radio connected to it, as well as my topping bc3 bluetooth module. Great versatility.
Apart from ageing parts i do not see any reason for not sounding excellent in redbook. I bet a SFD2 can show a clean pair of heels and then some to modern dacs. And yes there is a big difference between a 5k to a 0,5k value dac.
I have also heard dacs sound different from each other. I even had an old dac upgraded and it became much better.
Regarding the question I would guess that something like a ML dac that was very advanced for its time still sounds good. Maybe not as good as the latest equally advanced and expensive dacs. If you can get it for a good price it may be worth it.
On the other hands there are now dacs for $1k - $2k that are said to sound great. You would probably have to compare the old and the new next to each other to hear which is best and which one you like the best.
DAC chips age well, in fact many of the best DACs made today employ old chips. My personal favorite is the CAD 1543 MK ii which uses 16 of the old Philips 1543 chips. Advances in understanding of power supply isolation, usb integration, and EMI/RFI, mean that new DACs using the old chips is often the sweet spot.
The current generation of DACs are all measurably better than their predecessors, but you may not feel that is important. There is better understanding of clock architectures including phase behaviours. There is also better understanding of how noise is handled. For Red Book discs and files (44100Hz), how the "brick-wall" filters are implemented should have audible impacts.
I currently own the Denafrips Ares II DAC and it sounds very good. More 3-dimentional, wide and deep soundstage with good separation of the players. And it has a phase reversal switch for those discs that were recorded in reverse phase. I listen to classical and operatic music where its strong points can be appreciated. I've had many DAC's in the past and I feel their entry level is very good. Don't forget the SPDIF cord; it's quality is very important.
dacs definitely have distinct sounds... obviously one needs a good, resolving, proper set up system, decent recordings and some listening experience (and good hearing, of course)
dacs are not just about converting 1’s and 0’s to analog waveforms (even this process has several discrete steps)... they also generally contain an internal line level analog amplifier (and thus, also, a power supply to that amplifier)... these output buffers and/or amplifiers, just like all amplifiers, have output impedance which must work with the input impedance of the receiving device -- this is why they sound different, just like different active preamplifiers/linestages sound different
the sonic differences are certainly more subtle than differences between loudspeakers, or phono cartridges, but are more distinct than among, say, different solid state amplifiers or phono preamps
I own 6 DACS of varying shapes sizes and usages, ranging in price from $100 to $500, and I sheepishly admit that I can't hear any differences between them.
That said; I can hear the difference between a budget DAC/amp and a pure DAC paired with a decent amp.
My most recent purchase was the Gustard X16 because I wanted a decent DAC with Bluetooth for my YouTube friends.
Heavily modified MSB Link DAC and outboard power supply here. Very, very nice sound. Picked it up for a song. Only downsides are 2 inputs and missing input switching via a switch or button. Sound quality wise, it is unbelievable.
If you can't distinguish the sound between a $100 dac and a $1,000 dac you better get your ears checked and get the wax taken out, and you're an idiot for saying that, obviously your system isn't good enough to be able to hear the difference. LOL
The job of a DAC is convert the digital signal to an analog signal without loss of information and adding audible distortion and noise. There are DACs from fairly inexpensive to outrageously expensive that can accomplish this and have been able to for quite a while now. It is possible to hear differences in DACs but it isn't easy unless the DAC has been purposely built to distort the signal or the DAC is simply junk. The reason it isn't easy to tell DACs apart is they generally measure better than your other components. Amplifiers, pre amplifiers almost always will have more distortion than a DAC, even ones that measure well. Speakers are the weakest link they swamp everything else. Add your room acoustics to the speakers and it's very unlikely anyone hears differences in competently engineered DACs. If they tell you they can ask if they listened with their ears only or their eyes and ears in other words did they pick a DAC better than chance without knowing which one they were listening to.
Different DAC chips and different implementations leads to different sounding DAC, sometimes it's subtle, sometimes not. I experienced enough that I cannot take seriously anyone claiming the opposite. For example the W4S DAC-2 and ifi Pro iDSD sound very different, and the difference is easy to notice within seconds. One is neutral-cold while the other leans more on the warm side. Perhaps some people start to have enough of cold and analytical modern DAC and think that vintage is the only way to go. But some modern DAC do sound musical and engaging and are not that expensive.
FWIW I tried a few of the top DACs recommended by Audio Science Review from Topping and others. Thought they were clean and measured well, to my ears, they were completely uninteresting and added nothing. To many that’s exactly what they want and I can’t fault that. However, I ended up with a MHDT Orchid using a “vintage” NOS DAC chip. It captured more of the “analog” and “vinyl-like” smoothness and life that vinyl has and added something to the music which I enjoy and which the Topping DACs did not possess. An engineer or a measurements fanatic might cry heresy but hey, it’s all about what sounds good to you.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
