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
branimir
236 posts
 
Jim,
ARC Reference CD7 is wonderfull player. It is only short in overall detail level and soundstage size comparing to three reference combos from Esoteric, Metronome and Orpheus Lab. Differences, specially is soundstage size are not that dramatic, but it is not as wide as Metronomes for example or its depth is not hall like as Orpheus Lab. For tube cd player CD7 has excellent bass power and definition and is also pretty big sounding. As a matter of fact it is IMHO overall value champ.
Just a warning-it is very warm running player. Placement on top shelf of rack is a MUST! Also do not use it with too warm sounding cables-you will get too much of "warmth".
tmhaudio
99 posts
 
B,
Thanks for your comments. Metronome has a new model (CD5-Signature) that also has a tube (6922) output + a varible volume out. "It's simply irresistable"! (cue the dancing girls with guitars)

Jim Ricketts/ tmh audio
petland
71 posts
 
Great thread. nice to see some usefull exchanges without things falling apart. I would love input from this group on a decision I have been considering.

I have owned a heavily modified Resolution Audio Quantum dac for some time now. Imagine the GNSC mods to an Opus but on steriods. I have really never heard a DAC with the old UltraAnalog dac set that I did not like to be honest.

I have not at all cared for the recent generation of upsampling DACS and digital sources that I have heard.

The only dacs that have had me curious are the AN Dacs. I have an opportunity here on Agon for the 3.1 that is listed and am tempted. I worry though that as has been written, I will give up a significant amount of extension and low end authority. I would not be surprised if my Quantum has some of the best macrodymanics and scale possible at any price it is that good. The only thing it lacks, and this is nitpicking, is that last bit of body in the midband, particularly on stringed instruments, less on vocals. Overall this dac is on the warm side of neutral but with an incredibly expansive soundstage and all the other good stuff. I recently borrowed a CD7 and felt I had the same overall tonal balance but with better extension and much better slam, if that lends any perspective.

I've got Willie Nelson playing right now with all his great tone, and really nothing is missing.

any thoughts?
teajay OP
1,333 posts
 
Petland, I believe what you are concerned with, losing extension on the top and bottom, to get maybe a little more "warmth/liquidity" in the midrange, would be the end result with the Audio Note 3.1 DAC.

When I auditioned an Audio Note 3.1 in my system I found it to have a very musical midrange, almost like a SET tube amp, but lacked detail,dynamics, and extension, therefore it was not my sonic cup of tea.

If you tried the AR CD7 and felt that your present DAC had the same tonal balance, but offered better dynamics and extension, I think you would not be enamored by the AN 3.1, which might offer a touch more of what you like in the midrange, but at the loss of the other sonic virtues of your present digital front end.
petland
71 posts
 
Thanks for your response Teajay.
Just a comment on low end "extension". It has been my experience that among other things one of the easiest ways I can identify great analogue from great digital is not in the deep bass but in the low / midbass. this is where I have found almost all digital to just be "off" most of the time. Funny thing is that the best digital is usually quite a bit more extended but almost in an unnatural way. Throw an old cassette player into your system for an experiement. The first thing you will notice is a foundation and pace in the midbass that just sounds right and propels the music. To me it is the easiest thing to identify when hearing master tape for example. I do not think I have truly ever heard this from digital, ever. And I have heard a lot (not trying to bark up another tree, just commenting on the "extension" I may lose if I switch Dacs)

sometimes you learn the same lessons more than once about what you sonically prefer. It seems like an easy thing to pin down but that is not always true.

One of the interesting things for me in the past six months is that I have been searching for my first real full range speaker which by default bumps me into a three way. I have demoed some of the most highly regarded and have not wanted one of them. The take home message for me personally is that I love the coherence, particularly in the midband, of a great two way and am willing to live with the limitations that come with that design.

This applies indirectly to my intial post as in some ways the best "type 1" dacs are striving to include it all that digital can muster, at full scale, often at the slight expense of the best possible in the midband depending on someones taste. I know for certain the 3.1 will have tradeoffs and I'll bet I'm pretty accurate as to where they will be. What I am not sure of is whether I will care or not. I may just have to give it try.
More to discover