2. digital
  3. 190867-191157

dCS Bartok Apex vs McIntosh DA2 - Trouble Hearing the Difference

I am currently playing a new set of Focal Scala Evos with a McIntosh MA9500, fed by a Wiim Pro playing Tidal Direct. This set up uses the McIntosh DA2, which sounds remarkable to my untrained ears. 

I borrowed a dCS Bartok Apex from my local dealer. Given that I can run balanced out (using Transparent Reference Gen 6 cables) to the MA9500, I can switch inputs to compare the DA2 & Wiim vs the Bartok (DAC & Streaming) very quickly. I level matched the best I could.

What I am confused about, though, is just how close the DA2 sounds to the Bartok. The most noticeable difference is how forward and prevalent vocals are with the DA2. They seem anchored to the center image and several feet more forward into the room, whereas in the Bartok they are a bit more recessed, and integrated into the rest of the music. The Bartok soundstage is also wider, but not shockingly so. The sound is definitely smoother or "rounder" with the Bartok as compared to the DA2. 

I admit I am relatively new to critical listening, but I think I expected the difference between the $20K Bartok and the built-in DA2 to be more profound. I'm not anxious to spend the money on the Bartok, but am willing to do if it is a significant step up, which I think it should be. 

So what am I missing? Am I perhaps limited by the MA9500? My dealer doesn't love autoformer-based Mc products, but many do, so I would have thought the MA9500 is sufficiently resolving. Room acoustics are not the best, but certainly not terrible. 

Interested in any thoughts or feedback.

ripordaff
mdalton's avatar
mdalton
487 posts
 

If you think about signal-to-noise ratio as a proxy for how resolving a piece of equipment is - recognizing that this may be an oversimplification, but useful nonetheless - then the attached HiFi News review might provide insight:

McIntosh MA 9500

Notice in the lab reports section that while the A-weighted SNR of the DAC2 is 111 db, the SNR of the amp is only 87.4 db.  So while the SNR of the Bartok Apex is about 117 db, I think, consistent with what some others have suggested, the Amp may not be sufficiently resolving for you to hear much of a difference.  For the record, I do not believe all you need to know about a DAC or amp is SNR - don’t want to get flamed! - but it is a very helpful data point, particularly when we talk about low noise floors, highly resolving dacs and amps, etc.

jastralfu's avatar
jastralfu
441 posts
 

 @mdalton having just read that review I’m not sure where that amp SNR is coming from.  The MA9500 specs read as 114db for the amp SNR. What am I missing?

mdalton's avatar
mdalton
487 posts
 

@jastralfu 

lab reports section, reads wtd S/N ratio (DAC/Amp, 0dBW) 111.0dB / 87.4dB

jastralfu's avatar
jastralfu
441 posts
 

@mdalton I saw that in the review but I don’t see those numbers reflected in McIntosh’s specs, I see 114db for the amp.  Just not sure where the reviewers are getting their numbers.

mdalton's avatar
mdalton
487 posts
 

Paul Miller of HiFi News is one of the most respected people in the industry.  Has been doing measurements on gear on his custom modified test equipment for years.  His stuff is by far the most reliable and consistent in my experience.  You should reach out to him if you want to understand better.  I am not an expert, but I wonder if the manufacturer publishing the SNR “at input” isn’t actually giving you their estimate of the DAC SNR.  Regardless, when comparing across different brands, always best to use reliable 3rd party estimates so you’re seeing apples to apples.  

More to discover