New DAC Not a Dramatic Improvement?


Ok, So after much thought and asking questions here on audiogon as to whether I should get a new cdp or DAC, I decided on a DAC because I plan on implementing a music server with a Mac Mini. I got it last week and hooked it up so that I could do A/B comparisons with my cdp as is, and through the DAC. My cdp is a 1-2 year old Onkyo dv-sp405 dvd/cd player. At first I was impressed. The bass and vocals were more defined, and there seemed to be more space. Not a lot more space, but just a little bit more openess. The vocals were also moved forward in the soundstage and had more thickness. The thing is, none of these things were very dramatic. THe more time I have sat and listened and done comparisons on many cd's I find the results vary. On some cd's there is significant improvement, and on others, hardly noticeable. In a blind test, do I think I could reliably say whether I was listening to the cdp directly or through the DAC? Let's just say I wouldnt bet my life on it. I probably wouldnt even bet 20$ on it, unless I could hear the two back to back, and on some recordings, not even then.

Now I know about diminishing returns, but I would think the difference between a 150$ dvd/cdp and a 2K$ DAC would be pretty obvious. On top of that, My DAC is hooked up with Transparent Cables (MW Super) and my cdp with 50$ Monster Cables.

Continuing.. I expect some people with say that a good dac needs a good transport. Some will probably say that the dac is being held back by the onkyo as a transport. I have also compared the cdp through the DAC against apple lossless files played from my computer through USB. They are identical.

What could be the weak link? I do not want to say what DAC I am using but lets just say it is a very recent one and around 2K. It is from a very respected company and very well reviewed. My other gear is a McIntosh MA6450 integrated, gallo ref 3.1 speakers, transparent cables. Could it be that my amp is not very revealing? I am thinking about selling the DAC and getting a cheaper one (DAC MAGIC, PS AUDIO DL3) since I will need one for my Mac Mini anyway. Honestly, I just dont think I can justify having 2K in my current DAC for the minimal difference.

Thanks for any insight you can provide.
farjamed
Cerrot, This is NOT a flame. It just happens to occur after your's and Mapman's posts, but is driven by a collection of reasons not assignable to either of you.

FWIW, I actually thought the OP had said all he had to say in the original post. He compared the two seperate digital units, heard some differences, questioned the value of these difference especialy in view of the cost spread involved, and asked, if anything, why he wasn't hearing more substantial differences as he had, for what ever reason, expected.

Folks (including me) offerred a variety of possibilities - 1)inadequate equipment, 2)poor synergy 3)inadequate developement of listening skills, and ultimately 4) unrealistic expectations.

When it is all said and done, IMHO, if I were looking for a dramatic change in the sound of my digital front end the last thing I would consider is an expensive transport connected to an entry level CDP. I'm not saying there is no difference, only that the difference would be relatively small. Important to those who already have their ducks in line for sure, especially the appropriate DAC, just like wires, cables, etc, but consider that there are many experienced audiophiles who claim that with their DAC's the use of a 'cheapo' transport, like some of the universal ones, are perfectly adequate.

Then I think it is reasonable to conclude that his equipment was transparent and synergistic enuf for evaluative purposes, that his listening skills were adequate. He did hear differences afterall. All that is left is were his expectaions excessive. I would suggest that they might have been.

Interestingly, consider that he apparently came to this site and discussed the issues and based his decision to go with the @2000 transport on the resulting encouragement. I was not a part of that thread but would ask, did any of the responses point out that, at least arguably, a $2000 purchase of a CDP or DAC would in all probability substantially exceed the value of a $2000 transport and an inexpensive DAC?

To my way of thinking the original premise that he could get value out of a $2000 transport and an entry level DAC was faulty and the results predictible. Now if some one raised this issue and he chose to ignore it and take the advise of other more seeming knowledgable posters without further exploration of the alternatives then he has perhaps learned a lesson in critical analysis, but can take some solace in the fact that many of us have preceded him. :-)

Needless to say, IMHO his money is best spent, not on new/different wires, a different amp, different speakers, etc, but a much higher quality CDP which is capable of producing the sonic's he is looking for. They exist.

These comments may be too blunt for some here, and too redolent with 'arrogant audio snobbery' for others, but is my honest, unvarnished, opinion. The OP stands in the shoes of a lot of folks who came here looking for gold advise and left holding nothing but fools gold.

FWIW..........
The better CD player theory versus the better integrated amp (preamp/amp) theory would be an interesting test.

I don't think anyone can be certain one choice would be superior to the other.
Tvad, I agree, sort of.... Normally I would always recommend getting the best pre-amp/amp or integrated first, in fact this is what I always do. I would never build a system around a source.

But my point was that he didn't need to change his present integrated to assess the value (or lack of value to him) in combining a $2000 transport to an entry level DAC (or CDP). The obverse, or a CDP, would likely be of far more value and in the future that could be enhanced by improving the amplfying components. IMHO.
Newbee, somehow you got upside down. The OP bought a $2k DAC, not transport. He's comparing the expensive DAC to his cheap Onkyo universal and not finding much difference.