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
elberoth2's avatar
elberoth2
1,223 posts
 
I audition it and honestly do not know what all fuss is all about. Some reviewers may like it but, appart from clean and powerfull sound it is nothing special. It sound just too 2 dimensional for my taste. In fact I do not like Naim sound at all.

I have to disagree with you. To my ears, CD555 doesn't sound like a typical Naim at all !

Simply put, the $32k Naim CD555 is the best RBCD player I have tried so far. However, the difference between the 555, and Accuphase DP-78 in RBCD mode (which is another excellent player, BTW) although noticable, was not huge by any means. I was expecting to be (literally) blown away, but what I got instead was a bit better bass, better PRAT, slightly wider soundstage with better defined outer edges. Nothing really major.

I have to say though, that the player is VERY complete sounding. With all other players, there were things that I did like and which I could identify almost instantly (Accuphase may be a bit too smooth and safe sounding at times, EMM has problems with bass and PRAT), things that in a long term may eventually lead to the lack musical satisfaction. The 555 was different. It doesn't have the obvius "flaws" or sonic traits. It is just ... complete.

Having said that, I have problems with persuading myself that the player is actually worth that much of money. The price premium over the Accuphase DP-78 (which costs ~ 1/3 of 555) is hard to justify, unless you are you have money to burn or are looking for the best of the best, irrespective of cost.

It is also worth mentioning, that I have not have a chance to try some of the very best players discussed in this thread (Esoteric and AA stuff), so my comments are based on my expirience with EMM Labs DCC2 se / CDSD se and Accuphase DP-78.
branimir
236 posts
 
I asume that you audition Naim 555 with single ended connection and Accuphase DP-78 via balanced connection(BTW, ARC use PIN2+ and Accuphase PIN3+). Just to tell you DP-78 is not even in top ten digital playback systems that I audition, same thing about Naim 555 despite its price tag.

Accustic Arts combo is a must for you to audition as well as Esoteric X-01 D2.
elberoth2's avatar
elberoth2
1,223 posts
 
I auditioned the DP-78 via a balanced pair of 1,5m AQ Sky XLR ICs. The Naim 555 was auditioned via its unbalanced outputs (there are no balanced outs) using 1,5m AQ Sky RCA ICs. I know about the different pin assigment on the Accuphase gear, so I used the INVERT mode in Ref-3 to re-invert the phase.

I'm not claiming that DP-78 belongs to the top ten, but EMM DCC2/CDSD combo, at least for some ppl, certainly does (build quality aside). And since the EMM is so popular among AgoN users, I just thought that they may find this comparo useful.

But as I said - I haven't heard the higher end Esoteric or AA stuff. So it is perfectly possible, that Esoteric and AA are simply better performing products than both EMM and Naim CD555.
henryhk
648 posts
 
Personally never had an issue bass nor PRAT w/ EMM.
larryi
4,110 posts
 
I've heard the EMM and Esoteric in a familiar system (but not at the same time) compared to a system with the Audionote DAC-5 signature DAC (sorry can't recall the transport). On strictly redbook material, the Audionote was distinctly more musical and "whole" (harmonically rich and integrated) without being sluggish. I find both the EMM and Esoteric, by comparison, a touch more analytical. But, they are both terrific, probably less prone to requiring maintenance, play high definition formats, etc., so they can be easily considered superior if those things matter more.

I own a NAIM CD555. This is a terrific, very musical and complete player. It actually does NOT have the typical NAIM sound, to me anyway. In one sense, it has less of what some call PRAT and sounds less dynamic. What it lacks is that artificial edge to the the attack of each note that becomes annoying by its omnipresence. I think this is what gives some NAIM gear its "Pace and Rhythm." The soundfield with this player is expansive, yet not everything sounds solid and grounded and not diffused. By the way, a CDS3 comes pretty close at a lot less money.

Which would I prefer, the CD555 or an Audionote DAC-5/transport combination? I don't know because I never made a head-to-head comparison in my own system. For practical reasons (space in the rack and cost) the NAIM won out.
More to discover