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
Branimir,

Would you mind elaborating further on the differences between the Accustic Arts combo, Audio Research CD-7, and Lindemann 820 on redbook? Also, have you heard the Bluenote Stibbert? I'm looking for something closer to #2 sound.
No slouch,
I did not audition Bluenote. If you need RBCD sound very close to #2 flavor(or #2 flavor) then you can decide between ARC REF CD7 or Lindemann 820. Both are very good, ARC is little bit more organic in midrange to my ears. Both players are sounding very best via its balanced outputs. Lindemann is also little bit more user friendly(front loader, no tubes inside) for most people.
Try to audition both for yourself if possible.
Hi, Branimir, hope you are doing well and are looking forward to the holiday season(that goes for everyone else too).

Just wanted to share that I again auditioned the Esoteric X-01 SE and share my experience, and see if it agrees with your opinion.

The X-01 SE is a great sounding CDP with fantastic macrodynamics/slam and details. However, compared to the Acoustic Arts reference combo(Drive 1 mk2/DAC1 mk4), I still found it not as "organic/musical" to my ear's. I did not found the Esoteric machine to be what some critics have called "ruthless" in its presentation, just not as subjectively pleasing like the Acoustic Art pieces.

So, I would definitely put the X-01 SE in the type #1 group and the Acoustic Arts combo towards the type #2 with very good dynamics/extension/details.

Would this jive with your experience? I still think, that while not inexpensive at $13500.00, that the Acoutic Arts combo offers alot of performance for the money, and one would have to spend another $5000.00 to $7000.00 to really gain in overall performance. It will be great to hear your opinion.
Branimir,

Thanks for your active information-sharing and generosity in this wonderful thread. I agree with many of your postings here, and kudos for obviously having made great efforts to collect experience with a wide range of equipment.

I own the non-signature EMM combo, and though much more detailed and obviously a 'tier above' my Lindemann CD1 player in most 'audiophile' qualities, I found the older Lindemann to be more emotionally involving and also cleaner sounding. I've auditioned at length the Esoteric P-01/D-01/G-01, P-03/D-03/G-01, and X-01LE units, and found the separates to be astonishingly detailed (much more so than my EMM), but somehow uninvolving or distant. To add my data to this thread, I found the X-01LE to be quite far from the P-03/D-03 separates in overall sound quality, at least in the dealer showroom (though I suspect the X-01LE was relatively even more broken in). I would rate the three setups as more like 100/90/70%, with the P-03/D-03 possibly being the best value. I've also heard the EMM directly A/B'ed against a DCS stack with various configurations of amps and speakers, and in a direct #1-type equipment comparison, the DCS was more detailed yet more fluid, on both redbook and SACD. Only in the bass department did the EMM rate better, possibly having greater weight and authority, though less tightly defined and controlled. The differences were slight, however, within 10-15%. The store owner concurred with these observations, and pointed out the DCS combo was much more expensive.

I called a Lindemann dealer today to enquire about the 820, since this would be a logical upgrade from my CD1 (hopefully retaining the sweetness and musicality, but adding detail, timbre, soundstaging, etc.). He is also the distributor for Zanden, Audionote, and Bluenote (which I had never heard of) in his region, and he suggested I go for the Bluenote instead, which he claimed was sweeter and more organic/cohesive/musical than all his other equipment. Possibly not a totally unbiased opinion, as he may have figured the Zanden/AN gear was a difficult sell, but he seemed straightforward and honest, and did encourage me to actually buy a cheaper machine than what I originally wanted. For the record, he thinks more highly of Zanden DACs than his even higher priced Audionote DACs. He was adamant that the Bluenote bested the 820 (both appear to be #2, so apples-to-apples in this sense) on redbook, and estimated the 820 was only about a 25-30% improvement from my CD1 (but improvements being mainly in the areas I am seeking).

I'm interested in the CD7 for its reported near #2 sound and nearness to Weiss in many sonic qualities, but I use tube amplification, so can't use the balanced connectors. You suggested the CD7 may be better in balanced mode, while the AA combo may be better for single-ended operation, except the sound may be more towards #1 (though I'm not certain how far I lean on this scale).

For single-ended operation with tubes, and for someone possibly being #1.6 (this is really guessing, but it's also right between where you labeled the CD7 and AA), do you think the CD7 would still be the best option, price aside?
Personal auditioning is obviously the best and possibly the only way to discriminate such close players, but the more information as I can gather here the better.