2. digital
  3. 1126769860

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
gliderguider's avatar
gliderguider
294 posts
 
Sorry, I was just being flippant with the "short shrift" comment.

I had an interesting experience a few weeks ago that illustrates just how much of a part our mental wiring plays in setting our preferences for "Type I" or "Type II" sound. I had the opportunity for a reasonably thorough audition of a Meitner CDSD/DCC2 in a system I otherwise know very well and like very much. I found I just couldn't get past the clinical nature of the sound, even on SACDs. All night it failed to draw me in, and I spent the evening sitting there relentlessly analyzing and wishing I was elsewhere. Obviously it was a sheer relief to return home to my AN gear.

Experiences like that make me want to ask for a definition of terms when someone uses the word "reference", because it appears to me that there are two very different, and possibly even incompatible value systems at work here. The "Type I and Type II" distinction hints at this, but I wonder if there isn't something deeper going on in our brains to cause some of us defend so fiercely sound that others find fundamentally lacking.
teajay OP
1,691 posts
 
Gliderguider, I greatly appreciate your remarks regarding the subjective aspect regarding how/why an individual responses to the sonics of a specific piece of gear or the overall perspective of a total system.

I, too, have had the experience of listening to gear/systems that I respected regarding specific parameters, such as details, clarity, dynamics,etc., but left me "cold" on an emotional or visceral level. It's a similiar experience I have with certain jazz players, I'm a serious jazz fan, were I admire their skills, but do not connect on a psychological/feeling level.

What we are discussing is often described by many reviewers as the difference between an "audiophile" amp or speaker in comparsion with a "music lover's" piece of gear.

I believe there are pieces of high end gear that have all the analytical components along with what I and my audiophile/music lover friends refer to in our lexicon as a "musicality/liquidity/organic sense" that many other pieces lack. We do not believe this is the same as an "euphonic warmth" find in many systems when the individual is trying to get rid of a brightness/harshness by warming things up.

Finally, regarding digital front ends, my categories of type I or II was an attempt to offer a structure that hopefully could lead to an ongoing, respectful interesting discussion, which to my delight it has, regarding these sonic prespectives found in the different reference DACS.
ajahu
306 posts
 
Actually, today I have heard the Altman dac (the system: Avantgarde Trio, Ear 864 integrated, shakti, mana,). The dac was connected to a Mac notebook. This system is sounded not like a hifi system, but real music. I have heard this system earlier, where the Tro was driven by an AN Kageki and Accuphase Dp 100-101 dac. That was a wonderful hifi reproduction of music. This time, the system sounded completly differently, but closer to real concert than any system I have ever heard.
tmhaudio
122 posts
 
I discovered this thread and would like to respectfully add the Metronome "C2A Signature" DAC. It has a tube output, a separate matching chassis for the elaborate power supply as well as other advanced features.

The Metronome C2A Signature seems to capture very low level resolution quite spectacular but sounds more analog than digital. I am convinced the robust power supply contibutes mightily to this achievement.

If anyone has questions, please contact us off board through our website http://www.tmhaudio.com

Jim Ricketts/tmh audio
exlibris
438 posts
 
In his article Digital Zen Dick Olsher wrote:
"In my experience, zero oversampling gives the impression of a more believable soundstage. The spatial impression in terms of depth and width perspectives is typically better defined relative to oversampling designs. It is as though the auditory system is presented with a better set of cues with which to synthesize a 3-D impression of the auditory stream."

This is what I've experienced as well. This is a quality that is outside of our "Category 1 vs. Category 2" dichotomy. Some DACs get this right and some don't.

If we were to present the "Category 1 vs. Category 2" model as a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being extremely Category 1 and 10 being extremely Category 2, then I'd might rate my preference as a 7. Having said this, I would rather own a DAC that registerd a 1 on this scale, and got the spatial impression right, than a DAC that was a 7 and got the spatial stuff wrong.

As Ajahu says, it is the difference between listening to "real music" as oppossed to a "wonderful hifi reproduction of music."
More to discover