2. digital
  3. 1034344538

BelCanto DACs vs transport/IC quality

I've seen several threads here generally asking about how much difference a good transport makes, but I'll ask my specific question. BelCanto suggests their upsampling and jitter reclocking makes transport quality far less an issue.

What have BelCanto DAC 1/1.1/2 owners found when upgrading their transport from a generic CD player to a good quality transport (say <$1K used)? Or even sensitivity to digital interconnect upgrades?

My DAC2 is driven by a 1990 Philips CD60 ($400 MSRP) which is a well-designed cdp for the price and era, and uses their base CDM4 transport. IC is Digiflex Canare. Downstream equipment is generously revealing.

While I'm sure all answers will have to be subjective, the consensus may be 'put the CD transport $$ into a newer multi-format transport/player'. I don't own the alternate formats nor can the BelCanto decode them, but if it sounds better than the Philips, the same as a high-end CD transport, and offers more flexibility, why not? Any suggestions on a great-sounding DVD player-as-CD-transport that I can 'borrow' from a Best Buy or Circuit City to see if differences can be heard?

I DID compare a $200 JVC DVD player as a transport, it sounded slightly poorer than my cdp. And I recently compared a $500 NAD cdp vs a $3800 Krell cdp as transports driving a BC DAC1 in a showroom and heard vanishingly little difference. It would seem I've answered my own question, but neither is a SFT1 or SST1 overbuilt transport.

All relevant experiences appreciated!
sdecker
gunbei
2,327 posts
 
My experience with the Bel Canto DAC 1.1 and my current Kora Hermes DAC seems to confirm Soix's advice to a point.

I noticed some subtle but definite differences when switching between Cardas Lightning L15, Kimber Illuminations D60 and Mapleshade Golden Helix with the Bel Canto.

However, I've noticed more pronounced differences especially in the area of soundstaging when comparing the D60, Virtual Dynamics Audition and Nite, and Acoustic Zen MC2 with my Hermes.

Recently, the overall state of my system I feel is more "locked down" and coherent which includes the addition of the Hermes, and that may be the reason I perceive more pronounced changes between the digital cables.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that not all the differences may be attributed to my choice in digital cables and may be also associated with other moves I've made within my setup.

I still think auditioning other digital cables should also be considered.
sdecker's avatar
sdecker OP
143 posts
 
Took your responses to heart and replaced my Digiflex Canare with the ubiquitous Kimber Illuminati D60. Most of the differences are not subtle!

Notably, a more 'relaxed', effortless presentation, 'blacker' silences, with a richer mid-bass and seemingly rolled-off treble. Still not certain whether the latter is due to digital 'glare' from the Digiflex or just less treble energy from the Illuminati, but it makes my Thiel 2.3s sound almost 'dark', almost too much of a good thing. I think I can get used to it:-)

To a lesser degree, HF transients can seem a little less crisp, more 'rounded', with the Illuminati, which would fall in line with reduced HF response pre-DAC. And to an even lesser degree, a little more space around instruments and voices.

All in all, a significantly more analog presentation from a previously un-digital-sounding DAC. My ears thank you for your responses!
gunbei
2,327 posts
 
Glad to hear it Sdecker! I liked using the D60 with my DAC1.1. Nice sonic combo and being such a thin cable the D60 never had the tendency to suspend the little Bel Canto in the air like some of the other thicker cables were capable of doing.
More to discover