DAC's from the past, are any of them really worth much today?

DACs have come really far and really fast of late.  While you may be able to find a jewel from yesteryear from the likes of Wadia, etc., why, when there are so many excellent options out there today at relatively very reasonable prices with USB inputs and warranties?  I don’t see it, and I think you’ve answered your own question already.

There has been a lot of progress in making DACs sound much better in the last ten or fifteen years. Like all audiophile gear, really high end gear stays relevant much longer than the lower level stuff.

Given the equipment you own, you should probably be looking at contemporary equipment (say less than 6 years old). Like all things, in general, the better quality the better it will sound as long as you buy one in the “sound camp” you are in… if you are a natural / musical camp you don’t want to buy a Benchmark, if you are in the details means everything, then you don’t want to buy Audio Research. You want natural presentation and great detail, then think Berkeley Reference Alpha.

I can’t think of why anyone interested in high end audio would want to have anything to do with USB. It was brought on board because of the PC. No high end system should have a computer in the loop… hence no use for it.

Ric Schultz's original DACs were quite good and for the pittance one pays for one today, they are a steal.  I paid $100 for one used and it would easily compete with a $700-1,000 DAC today.

I think the first ones were simply DAC 1 and DAC 2.

This may help.  http://tweakaudio.com/EVS-2/Company_Info.html

I agree that some very good modern dacs are available for under $1k, but I totally disagree that the modern dacs are necessarily better than the best dacs of the past. The Naim 555 and CDS3, the Vekian, Wadia, Zanden were incredible. As far as “new technology”, many of the hot dacs today are using the oldest dac technology- resistor ladder and old R2R chips. That said, buying older digital products may not be a good idea from a repairability standpoint. I know Naim supports its old products, but good luck with much else. And anything with a transport is very risky as well.

@soix 

+1

the ok’d ines still have a limited useful life with optical input functionality out of the TV panel in my 2.1 TV “B” system.

The Audiophilleo USB-to-SPDIF converter was popular ~ 10 years ago, and it sounded better (sometimes much better) than direct USB inputs of DACs at that time. It can also be used to support USB for older DACs - just stick it into the coax input of any DAC. Denafrips makes newer, higher end digital converters that will convert USB to SPDIF. And I think Matrix makes a more affordable one. 

Sure, digital keeps getting better by miles but somehow never really satisfies analog guys like me. I expect some of the old DACs would hold up pretty well in their sound quality, especially if you pursue a more "analog" sound, but will get absolutely trashed in the measurements game. The top Stax and Sonic Frontiers DACs of yesteryear still might be interesting, and I believe Philips Crown DAC chips are still sought after.

I really liked the sound of old Theta D/A, so I think that is mostly Burr-Brown DACs. However, post 2000 DAC jitter rejection and playback of Redbook (44.1/16) got significantly better.

Older DAC's really like hi rez signals, while the best new DACs perform very similarly.  If you want to try out some old DACs you might want to explore Wireworld's Remedy reclocker. The limitation there is everything gets converted to 96kHz/24 bit, regardless of the incoming signal (can be higher, or lower).  I have found that, for instance, with the ARC DAC 8 this really improved performance.

My main system for music listening is connected on only one point on the wall electrical plug with a recent dac ( Hidizs AP 80 pro) which i use as a bank and which is only battery powered ...It is a very clean dac ...

It contain a fraction of my many thousand music files ...

For my casual music listening all day exploring all my files i must use my active speakers , which i modify, in their acoustic corner , because it is where all my files are in a bank connected to the computer ...

i use an USB connection shielded with my homemade "golden plates" to my french battery dac TDA 1543 a minimalistic more than good dac Starting point systems, which is very organic and match more than well with M-Studio AV40 speakers...

The sound is so good that it beat all headphones for intimacy and details anmd imaging i ever listened to save my actual modified one the AKG K340 which beat them on timbre naturalness and bass (25 hertz/50 hertz)

Now my question is : why claiming that audiophile experience is impossible for a system connected to a computer ?... you may be right for almost all systems but there is exception ...My embeddings controls are so well done that upgrading appear ridiculous or too costly with my 700 bucks system... I compute that a real upgrade will cost me 15,000 for my speakers system ...Less for my headphone system because i cannot change my headphone nor my amplifier , they are optimized old unique design in the world with a SPEAKER-LIKE soundfield and natural timbre ...there exist no other hybrid as the K340 ...The Sansui alpha just beat the tube ZOTL amp i tried to upgrade it with ... synergy matter ...This is the lesson ...

Now my question how do you use 10,000 musical lossless files without a USB connection ?

I did not use cd for a decade and i transfered automatically all i had owned for a decade ...

Price tag dont define the sound quality of most average system here on display ... Synergy and acoustic,electrical and mechanical embeddings do ...

There is a minimal acoustical satisfaction treshold where i am...

There is an optimally higher acoustical satisfaction threshold where you probably are ... Marc Lavigne system is more certainly there ...

But the difference between these two acoustical experiences is more defined by synergy and embeddings controls than by price tag in my experience for most people ...

High end system definition imply an acoustical dedicated room in my book ...This cost much money when done by an acoustician than most audio high end system cost ...😁

Am i deaf?

I consider my system audiophile experience not top high end experience for sure ...Cost : 700 bucks...Sorry if my post is considered insulting for some ...😊

From all the time i had been here , i advocated about synergy and acoustic , electrical, and mechanical embeddings knowledge over price tag or mere separate component design ... most people advocate here for miraculous branded name new component, being it a cable, a new dac, or some speakers or amplifiers , always more costly ......😁

The only miraculous component i would buy someday will be the BACCH filters ...

Psycho-acoustics and acoustics rule the gear experience not the reverse ...

It is fascinating to read audio threads... All is about the gear proposed to the consumers not so much about the way to use it for the optimal results... i know because i learned it the hard way ...Nobody said to me 10 years ago what i just claim in this post as a result of my experience ...I learned it ...

 

 

 

I can’t think of why anyone interested in high end audio would want to have anything to do with USB. It was brought on board because of the PC. No high end system should have a computer in the loop… hence no use for it.

 

 

I must add that for sure you are right ... Any high end system will operate from a file bank in a dac not from the computer...Once this is said ...

My point is that at low cost an audiophile experience is possible even from a USB connection from the computer ...😁

The electrical noise floor level of the house for example can be also a factor more impactful than the computer noise... The speakers resonance can also be way more impactful ... The room acoustic can be way way more negative too ... Each case differ ...many factors are at play ...

My USB computer connection is not ideal but the acoustic experience is so good already i cannot even think of upgrading it ...

I can’t think of why anyone interested in high end audio would want to have anything to do with USB. It was brought on board because of the PC. No high end system should have a computer in the loop… hence no use for it.

Funny your comment @ghdprentice all the high end streamers/ servers from Innuos, Taiko, and the like use USB, using usb is not for pc any more.  Take a look around even Grimm has USB capabilities. 
 

I can’t think of why anyone interested in high end audio would want to have anything to do with USB. It was brought on board because of the PC. No high end system should have a computer in the loop… hence no use for it.

@jacobsdad2000  The DAC I am demo'ing has no usb connection, because it is too old! This will prove to be a considerable detriment to usage as it cannot really connect to today's better streamers, along the lines of what you post. It does have Co-ax, which I am hearing differing things about, some folks tell me that Co-ax sounds worse than today's USB, others better?? Nonetheless, since the better streamers use usb only, it is not a connection option. 

.... some of the lowest price DAC’s are to be had from yesteryear.

WRONG

And many new cheapies out perform most of the 20th century designs.

Only for enjoying music.

@daveyf Hey it's what works for you. Digital wise I have used them all and AES/ Balanced, Optical, USB and SPDI/F Coax, key is use a good 75 ohm cable.  Signal makes some fine digital cable as do DH Labs. Better yet buy used. Look here and on USAM. 

Lots of DAC threads recently.  I agree, the better new cheap DACs are better than the esoteric from only a few years ago.  Much has been learned in the filters implementation. 

Based on my listening, all the Chinese mass-produced DACS are excellent and all sound almost the same. Splitting hairs. Just returned a Qutest as it is more detailed on only a couple tracks, but edgier than my JDS, Topping, Schiit, SMSL, and Sabaj DACs. 

I don't know what is different if you jump to the $4000 and up range or if you have access to true DSD or ultra high bit rate that actually has more information, not just the format. Almost all of my music is old enough to have been mastered on tape, so there is no such thing as highly detailed.  

The above is for just listening, If you want to get your microscope out and look for the tiniest of details, then you will find them.  I have a new test.  If I listen to a piece, walk out of the room and something is changed, or not, and I come back in, do I hear a difference reliably? If not, any difference is irrelevant.     If you goal is ultra perfection, audible or not, or bragging how much you paid, then none of this matters.  If I had to buy another DAC,

PS: Older DACS with only SPDIF rely on the host clock. Newer DACs with USB, if well done, use the DAC clocking which can be far more accurate.  A "good" DAC will have  a galvanic isolated USB to prevent any host or cable interference.  The Qutest does, as do the newer Schiits. 

Excellent post and i concur with your experience...

Most people had no idea about the acoustic concept of timbre for example and the conditions of his experience in a room ...

Then when we dont know by understanding and experience what is "timbre" acoustic definition and perception what can we do ?

We focus on "details" for the sake of details as a alleged  meaningful artefact induced by the dac superior design ,  not on our controlled experience of "timbre" in the relation between our ears/speakers and the room and we forgot that the dac/ amp is only a small part of this experience so important they could be for sure  ...   ...

We focus on gear then  and on upgrade at all costs and we are the ideal candidate victim of mass market because the price tag  will  always tell the story for us , not   the acoustics basics and learnings and experiments so impactful they could be  ... And anyway other embeddings control may impact way more than a  dac, if this dac is already good to begin with , as the ratio of signal/noise in the house/room or the speakers vibrations and resonance ...

Lots of DAC threads recently. I agree, the better new cheap DACs are better than the esoteric from only a few years ago. Much has been learned in the filters implementation. Based on my listening, all the Chinese mass-produced DACS are excellent and all sound almost the same. Splitting hairs. Just returned a Qutest as it is more detailed on only a couple tracks, but edgier than my JDS, Topping, Schiit, SMSL, and Sabaj DACs. I don’t know what is different if you jump to the $4000 and up range or if you have access to true DSD or ultra high bit rate that actually has more information, not just the format. Almost all of my music is old enough to have been mastered on tape, so there is no such thing as highly detailed. The above is for just listening, If you want to get your microscope out and look for the tiniest of details, then you will find them. I have a new test. If I listen to a piece, walk out of the room and something is changed, or not, and I come back in, do I hear a difference reliably? If not, any difference is irrelevant. If you goal is ultra perfection, audible or not, or bragging how much you paid, then none of this matters. If I had to buy another DAC, PS: Older DACS with only SPDIF rely on the host clock. Newer DACs with USB, if well done, use the DAC clocking which can be far more accurate. A "good" DAC will have a galvanic isolated USB to prevent any host or cable interference. The Qutest does, as do the newer Schiits.

 

 

 

tvrgeek

... Almost all of my music is old enough to have been mastered on tape, so there is no such thing as highly detailed ...

Either there's something wrong with your system or you've been listening to the wrong material. Or both. Some of the most extraordinary recordings ever made originated on analog tape.

Current lower end DACs almost definitely have eclipsed a lot of the high end offerings from the past decades. The DAC is absolutely the wrong piece of gear to consider using most anything from the past unless one of the really high end and well reviewed pieces show up as a drop-dead cheap bargain ;-) Even then, if it were me, I'd spend my time and money on the newest and best I could afford. 

You are right in my book in spite of my  limited experience with dac ...

Current lower end DACs almost definitely have eclipsed a lot of the high end offerings from the past decades. The DAC is absolutely the wrong piece of gear to consider using most anything from the past unless one of the really high end and well reviewed pieces show up as a drop-dead cheap bargain ;-

 

 

cleeds,   

I don't listen to the "wrong material". I listen to what I like, not find music that shows of the kit.  I don't "train my ears" as some have suggested to find defects. A recording or mixing engineer would, but I want to enjoy music, not pick it apart. 

All of my music is Redbook.  I think I made it clear my analysis did not include true high bit rate original mastering. Don't have any. That may make a bigger difference though when demonstrated to me in stores, it did not. A 24 bit/192 remastered file of some worn out old tape or early digital is no better than a 16/44 as the detail is not there no matter how many bits you pad it with. 

Much of what I listen to preceded even Dolby A. 80 dB dynamic range about max on the masters, but likely less as the target was LP with only a 60 dB dynamic range.  Then mixed on boards that by todays standards would be bettered by a Berhringer semi-pro.  Even into the 80's boards were mostly NE5532's.  Then the first generations of digital. 14 bit Sony,  took a few years for the 18 and 24 mastering, as well as a big learning curve.  Adding the loudness wars where modern music has less than 60 dB dynamic range.  Let's not forget the pitch boxes.  Garbage in, garbage out even if you carry it in a gold plated bucket and wear rose colored glasses.  Fortunately that garbage can be totally involving music!

I do want to call out domestic small businesses that make the extra effort over chasing specs and actually listen to their products but don't add an ego price tax. Geselli, JDS, and Schiit for examples. There may be others.  They also provide support. Good luck getting that from China-Inc. 

 

I agree that DACs have made a lot of progress… but be careful. There is no question there are significant differences in budget DACs and high end DACs. Taking for example Schiit Yggdrasil as a budget DAC and >$5K (depending on exact brand) like Linn, Berkeley, Audio Research, etc. Real high end stuff sounds a lot more like real music.

 

As an example over the last week I compared Schiit Yggdrasil, Schiit Gungnir.  Linn mid range Selekt, Audio Research 9, and . The Schiit DACs were far inferior DACs. The treble was primarily high frequency hash, the brass not natural sounding and the bass, muddled together three bass line notes onto one. 

Aesthetix Pandora….. was and still is a giant killer….. HRS isolation, tube outputs, custom, FPGA filters, faraday cage, galvanic isolation…erc……. Jim White…. an engineer w ears….

We should talk about specific models and not in broad terms. For example, Dcs Bartok, even in apex variant (with R.Nucleus) is product that does not come close to Dcs Puccini (playing discs)...I think, like in many other things, (except perhaps with new d class amps) 'new is better' is only a marketing slogan

I have a Wadia 321. They can be had for around $1k. Im sure there are better sounding units available but im content with my 321.   

Come on GHD, first generation CD players were not that bad.  Yes differences, but come on now. 

Most people would not consider an Yggy' as entry level. $2300 is real money.  A Modi ( $130 ) is entry level.  Maybe $5K is where a bigger step is, but I'll never have one to know. Listening to music is not only for the 1/2 or 1/2 of 1% income level. 

I will take a 20+ year old Audio Note DAC 5 Signature over just about any other DAC on the market today.  It was crazy expensive then, and the current Audio Note DAC 5 Signature is much more crazily priced.  I bet this model has not changed much in 20 years.  To Audio Note's way of thinking, the most important part of a DAC is its analogue stage.  I don't know if this is true  or not, but I've heard their old and new DACs and they are very good sounding to me--relaxed and natural sounding without being murky or lacking in dynamics.  

There are other companies that build modern DACs around very old vintage chips because they sound better with such chips.  Most of the advancement in chip design has been to make them smaller, make them utilize less power and offer more functions that support there use in mobile devices--sound quality is hardly a priority.  Companies like Audio Note, Naim, and Lampizator horde old chips because they deliver the sound these companies seek.   Whether or not that is your sound too is a matter of personal taste; but one really has to hear such machines to decide this.

DAC chips became a lot better, analogue output not that much. That's where vintage DACs more superior and let people keep them vs. newer models.

Let the new DAC chip perform in the vintage chassis with the rest of electronics same, things may change quite a-bit.

 

I could not found any defects at all with my very resolving speakers of the NOS battery dac S.P.S. with a single TDA 1543 chip ...

The only people who criticize it speak about more "details" with other more complex architecture and i know for a fact that i hear all details there is with this dac but the organic musicality, the soundstage and imaging and timbre naturalness is spot on also ...

Then why these people spoke so much about way better dac than it because it lack "details" ?

I believe that most people with costlier system had forgotten that the house/room signal ratio level matter , EMI shielding matter too , that speakers resonance is there even if you dont know it and vibrations control is madatory , and i believe that they own system in a living room with not much acoustic controls if there is one ...

In the opposite all that is adressed in my system then i hear what this simple dac is able to do in optimal environment without the need to buy a more resolving useless dac... If i could and want to buyone i will buy only a more musical one and this will be hard and very costly ...

Upgrading often appear silly ...It is often the case when all three embeddings are relatively under controls with a relatively already good system ... I own one ...

There are other companies that build modern DACs around very old vintage chips because they sound better with such chips.  Most of the advancement in chip design has been to make them smaller, make them utilize less power and offer more functions that support there use in mobile devices--sound quality is hardly a priority.  Companies like Audio Note, Naim, and Lampizator horde old chips because they deliver the sound these companies seek.   Whether or not that is your sound too is a matter of personal taste; but one really has to hear such machines to decide this.

One of the things that seems to be a factor with older DAC's, besides their older chip design ( which may or may not be a detriment), is the inability of the older units to support the current connection protocols. For example, the DAC i am demoing has no USB connections. As a result, to connect it to most current streamers is not possible. This severely limits the usability of the unit. Apple are good at consistently changing their connectors in order to supersede and antiquate their older product line. This seems to be a factor here in digital audio as well.

Well folks, I ended up purchasing the Esoteric D-05. It occurred to me that the lack of USB connection, for my circumstance, was really not a big deal. 

Here's the thing, comparing it to a friends almost new Benchmark, the Esoteric essentially ran away in the SQ department and was an eye opener! Possibly due to the synergy with my Esoteric SACD player, but nonetheless, a significant bump up in SQ. Plus, the Esoteric DV60 was no slouch to begin with! 

So, to conclude, it is not always the best way to go with the newer DAC, clearly depending on price paid.