2. digital
  3. 1237515477

New vs. old DACs - opinions?

I'm on the market for a new DAC. I've noticed that you can find used DACs from, say, 8 years ago that are heavily marked down from their original price. I just saw one sell for $400 that was originally $1500, for example.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the progression of DACs seems very different from that of amps... an old amp, like McIntosh, is still highly competitive today... but it seems that newer DACs are more evolved, refined, and use higher quality parts for less money, right?

Another thought is - before DACs were as widely used as they are today, perhaps the mark-up was much greater in the past...? Where-as now, with the influx of foreign manufactured DACs, there is a healthy bit of competition that keeps prices down by limiting the manufacturer mark-up. Correct me if I'm off here as well.

So, overall I'm wondering if I would be better off buying something new like a Keces or MHDT DAC or finding something older that is heavily marked down.
djembeplay
rhljazz
1,255 posts
 
DAC, after the D comes the A and C which is the analog signal coming out. Just because the digital part has the latest and greatest chip set doesn't mean the analog part of the signal is anything special. You still need a quality analog output stage. Some manufacturers (Zanden) even prefer ancient chip sets.

I like my mid nineties VAC 22.1 DAC just fine. I haven't done any side by side direct comparisons, but I am not blown away when I hear the same disc played on a CD7 at the dealer. In a side by side maybe the CD7 is better. I don't know. I do know the VAC outperforms my slighly older Linn Numeric which was a more expensive unit.
bikerduud
75 posts
 
You guys are right: old computing-technology IS better. I just compared my Commodore 64 to my Macbook Pro, and it was way better! If I could only figure out how to install Itunes now.
larryi
4,169 posts
 
It is hard to generalize about old vs. new, but, the generalization that new means more advanced technology is certainly NOT the case.

DAC manufacturers rely on microchip sets that come from a handful of manufacturers. Unless they stocked up on favorite chips (a handful of manufacturers actually do that), they MUST be using currently produced chips. The digital to analogue chips used in DACS are also used a whole bunch of other digital devices. So, an "improvement" that warrants the manufacturer replacing a chip with a new one is not necessarily an improvement in sound quality when used in audiophile gear. These days, an improvment means improvement in other functions the chip provides, smaller size, and lower power consumption (key improvements when used in cell phones, etc.).

People pay BIG bucks to get players and DACs that have certain vintage chips, such as Zanden machines. Naim also uses long discontinued model of chips in their premium machines.

Some DAC makers, particularly those that don't use any kind of oversampling, or even filtering for that matter, rely on careful design and premium parts in the analogue part of the chain. Even older models of these manufacturers sound great (to me, at least) today. I particularly like Audionote (uk) DACs and stuff from 47 labs, for example.
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,433 posts
 
Some new DACs like Benchmark DAC1 do asynchronous upsampling with very strong jitter rejection. They sound great with any transport and any digital cable. It is very flexible (I use DVD player), allows long runs of digital cable or connection to less than ideal jitter-wise sources (computer card, ipod etc).

Since your intention is to buy DAC I would advise to get factory new one. Older versions of Benchmark, for instance, had some problems (they are at rev. G or higher now). I know of two. One was usage of Signetics NE5532 thin sounding OP-Amps until factory burned down (around 2001/2002)and Texas bought license for NE5532. They designed larger die and sound became fuller. Second problem was way to high output impedance on unbalanced (RCA) outputs. USB version has also better (stronger)output driver (LM4562) for XLR outputs allowing lower output impedance (important).
Additional factor is warranty - 5 years but only for original owner.
stanwal's avatar
stanwal
3,147 posts
 
My own DACs are the Audio Synthesis DAX and Musical Fidelity TriVista 21, which sounds better at 96 than 192. This is also true of my friends MF 324. I have heard new DACs on other systems but not been motivated to purchase any. My own experience was reinforced for me by tests conducted by HIFICRITIC, which, like the early Stereophile, takes no ads. They found that the Zanden three box system was far and away the best with a rating of 105 on their scale. My 1992 DAX score is 45, the MF hasn't been tested. In a recent test of players the Moon Equinox RS scored 20, the Naim CD5i 11, the Bel Canto CD-2 25 and the Rega Saturn 29. They also tested a Rotel CD855 from 1990 and it scored 25. They also tested the MSB Platinum DAC 111 which is a very expensive DAC (10,000 pounds over there) and it scored 47. The reviewers conclusion was that "The current generation of DACs might have a great measured specifications, but they don't necessarily reproduce music as well as earlier technologies with less impressive measures performance. '24' bit DACs generally have excellent linearity, a low noise floor and the ability to draw power off low voltage supplies that make them useful in some applications, but musically I feel that they all gravitate toward blandness." He adds "the really good audio DACs in my opinion are all multi-bit types. Alas, few are now in production, and those few are expensive which means that you only find them in high priced players." This scenario should be familiar to you tube users [ I am not one] where a developed technology is discarded in favor of a new one that measures better and is cheaper and more convenient to build. The Zanden, Lab 42 and Audio Note UK are all multi bit chip users and sound very good despite inferior measured performance.
More to discover