Are "vintage" DAC's worthwhile, or is this a tech that does not age well
Hello, whether it’s worth looking into old dac such as Spectral SDR 2000, Mark Levinson No.35 (36) or so Sonic Frontiers Sfd-2 Mk2 DAC.
Digital audio is the fasted moving, now improving category out there Because to this day they have no usb connection or other options. But is it necessary? Or is it better to still focus on a truly time-tested sound?
Just ask yourself the question whether you would buy a 15 year old PC: there is your answer....
....most likely no asynchronous and certainly no high speed USB, no precision clocking, no DSD or high res decoding. All of this matters because you ideally want the DAC to slave the source to minimise jitter.
one doesn’t need golden ears to hear that different dacs present the music differently, just properly working ones... 😂.... but folks will believe what they want to believe and some can find reason to not trust their own ears
that been said, for most in this pursuit, a modern dac makes much more sense, given the compatibility to all sorts of input formats (most specifically usb fed from computers serving as the streamer) and bit rates and resolutions of various audio files folks may use or buy in the present day
that doesn’t mean that older dacs are poor sounding, quite the contrary ... that is a different question -- as with anything in this hobby, one just needs to know what any item does, does well and does not do...
notions of power supply isolation and jitter management are not recent discoveries, recently addressed through recent technology -- for example, even peter madnick’s very affordable audio alchemy gear from the 1990’s was properly addressing jitter, clean power in digital and proper transmission of digital datastreams
In my opinion the analogy of comparing a 15 year old PC to an older DAC is not a good example. If the priority is good sound quality then numerous vintage DACs are still desirable. This has been confirmed by many responses in this thread.
If the priority is functionality and connectivity then they do have some limations relative to current production DACs. For me, Redbook sound quality is the more important criteria. Depends on what you're seeking. Charles
@antigrunge2 yes but if you have some sort of USB to SPDIF converter between the computer and DAC then it would take care of the jitter. Once that's done, it could go to any DAC chip. Unless I read your post incorrectly.
It was noticeable improvement in SQ streaming Tidal when I switch to Dragonfly Cobalt from Dragonfly Black in my mobile setup.... so DACs sounds differently to me.
I have been listening to Theta Casablanca III then IVa ... both with extreme DACS. I have had recording personnel listen to them as well. They agree that there is simply no better DAC out there. New "digital dacs" are difficult to do right. Now that the IVa has their calibration done in the Netherlands...sound is absolutely perfect. Thetas are built like a tank and like a computer at the same time. If I have difficulty, I send the unit back to Theta, they replace a board and I am back in business. Their extreme dacs are the best I have ever heard. I don't like sending power over wire so I use active speakers...ATC to be exact!
@curlyhifi. Those Krell SPB 32x, Studio and Ref.64 dacs were some outstanding units! Thanks for the audio flash back...been a long time since I had them but man did they leave an aural impression. Oh boy, guess this guy is going to start hunting one down to play with again.
The old vintage dacs will sound absolutely wonderful but you will not be able to hook them up to all the new forms of digital equipment or computers but if you want to hear the best digital sound a vintage converter will stomp all over the new stuff no contest.
yes, you read it correctly. You would however forego the opportunity to slave the server’s to the dac‘s clock as well as DSD and higher resolution formats. Using a OCXO or rubidium clock on the dac via USB has major benefits on the server. Alternatively there are reclockers for the USB connection only (e.g. Innuos Phoenix); they however do not benefit the dac.
There was an almost identical thread recently. You ought to look it up. I wont repeat the lengthy post i made, but i will say: 1. I have no dog in this fight, yet.2. I totally disagree that DACs sound alike. And i run single blind experiments all the time.3. Some excellent old DACs still can equal or outperform many current DACs. I have two that do, from 1991 and 19994. Lots of DACs are datasheet engineered and suck. The fact that they get good (typically user anecdotal) reviews supports the hypothesis that its all snake oil. LISTEN!5. Overall, tat said, DACs have progressed steadily over the years6. Most advances int he last 10 years have been in up/oversampling algorithms and timing/jitter, IMNSHO.
BTW DACs have no wear parts to speak of except for electrolytic caps, typically only a few int eh power supply. So they can last a long time. The DAC caps are mostly ceramic and film which last pretty much forever. G
I listen to an old (late 90's?) Theta ProBasic III DAC and use digital for CD's only.
Sounds great to me and much better than the half dozen ESS DACs my local audio dealer let me audition at home about a year and a half ago.
I was in his store yesterday and he was playing Sonus Faber speakers, (higher model range than Sonnetos) through Prima Luna electronics, and a Lumin streamer. The sound was veiled and the bass was muddy.
Now there are tons of variables, but I got home and enjoyed my Thiel CS5's with the Theta DAC. My sound was better.
If the DAC is implemented well and has a good analog output on it, it will still sound good.
I cannot attest to vintage vs new but feel compelled to assure you there are SQ differences between DACs. I believe most have/would agree. My limited experience is using a Bluesound Node2i with my Audio Research GSi75. The comparison of analog out of the Node to optical out is beyond night and day.
Any R2R Dacs will sound good. I like the Holo Spring Wadia 64.4 Sonic Frontier SFD Mk3. I haven’t heard Denafrips As far as inputs i prefer SPDIF and AES/BU The only thing the new Dacs have are I2S etc. which I don’t find musical.
My first DAC was a new PS Audio Ultra Link... that was followed by an Ultra Link II which was much better. From there I moved into one box with a high-end Marantz player ($3500) I didn’t care for and sold after about a year. I replaced it with a Sony XA 5400 ES, which was a Stereophile A+ component and extremely good on Redbook and SACD. I’m streaming now with a Cambridge CXN (V2) feeding a Benchmark DAC 3b. I listen to lots of internet radio at 256 and 320 kbps and then go to Tidal and listen to albums when I hear an artist I like. The Benchmark is also Stereophile A+ rated. As far as source material goes the Cambridge and Benchmark are significantly better than the Sony and both are A+ rated. The only thing I would add is that I spend lots of time on wire and if you haven’t spent time with different digital cables (and interconnects) you don’t really know what you system sounds like. I’m presently using the best of 9 digital cables tried so far and have #10 coming to try. Funny thing is #9 is very popular in Japan but not sold here, #10 is a 75 ohm digital cable also not available here
Where I think you will find significant differences are not necessarily confined to tonality, the differences are quite apparent in the sound-stage presentation. Width and depth of the stage ... the definition of performers outline and their location in the performance, not only side to side but front to back and their isolation from each other within the performance, as well as the layering of depth of stage. These are the areas I have noticed huge improvements in with one of today’s top DACs while still using the same amps, speakers and pre-amp as I did 25 years ago.
I have a Kora Hermes II (tube DAC) that is very analog sounding. It’s gotta be at least 20 years old? I put a couple of 1963 Bugle Boys in it and love the sound. Some May wince when I say it sounds very analog, but its smooth as silk and clear as mountain spring water. I know-weird analogy?
My dac progression went from Audio Alchemy to Theta Pro Basic to Audio Aero Capitole 24/192 to Antelope Zodiac Gold +Voltikus to Zodiac Platinum + Audiophile Clock. They all were converting bits but they don‘t sound the same.
Here's the right answer: DAC's before 2010 were almost universally worse sounding with Redbook than with high resolution files.
At a certain cut-off DAC's at all price ranges got universally better. Performance with CD quality jumped up and digital glare and other issues vanished. I suspect this has to do with much more accurate clocks and anti-jitter technology in the underlying silicon. So for DAC's, not streamers, there's a real difference around this time frame.
The other part of this, music services. are more prone to changing. If you can get a streamer that is separate from the DAC, and your DAC is at least post 2010 you can get state of the art for cheap.
@jond I have no idea. I am only able to guess at changes and the date. The big feature that is different pre/post this period (and 2010 is a guess due to lack of enough samples) is the sudden improvement in Redbook playback, and the vanishing gap between Redbook and high resolution files after this.
I still use my Weiss DAC202 which I have since 2011 and I am not changing it any time soon. The DAC chip(s) influences the sound of the DAC but there are other factors that are just as important, like the quality of the clock and jitter control cct, the power supplies, the analogue stages, the overall quality of the design, the components used and much more. I agree with most, DACs do sound different but the whole system should be resolving enough to let you hear the difference.
I definitely don’t agree with the pre 2010 Dacs sound worse playing Redbook CD. @Jond his Audio Note DAC and my Yamamoto DAC are pre 2010 models. They are wonderful with Redbook and sonically compete with or exceed many current generation DACs. So it seems that the listening experiences differs amongst us. Charles
I suspect this has to do with much more accurate clocks and anti-jitter technology in the underlying silicon.
My experience with my stable of DACs is that the DAC itself is the least important component - anything can b made to sound good, or bad. I agree with the above about timing and jitter, but have a hard time proving it with measurements and sufficient subjective data, but am trying.
Other stuff matters a lot too - power supplies, ground isolation, filters, analog drivers, blah blah. All lots of work too :-(
Its very similar with active devices. People go off on mosfets vs JFETS vs BJTs vs whatever. In general all my designs, using all the above sound more similar than different, unless I f-ed something up.
Another good DAC for the money, BTW is the Allo revolution with the USB bridge and excellent power supply (theirs or yours, been down both roads), if you can deal with their kit-car mentality, documentation (lack), customer service (lack) etc.
I suspect itss why i have finally made my 30-year-old Theta DSpro II sound so good - the clock, USB I/F, SPDIF I/F, power supply, are all mine. And the basic DAC and analog filter were top notch (well there are chip buffers, but very good ones), and there's no magic in either.
I have a PS Audio Ultralink I purchased in 1995. Stereophile Class A over $2 grand at the time and as good as there was back then. I just purchased a Schiit Modi 3+ which is a highly regarded inexpensive dac today. No contest..The Ultralink sounds better and not by just a little bit. Most folks just consider the digital technology, the chip. My experience indicates the analog section probably plays a greater role in the sound quality than people think.. Just my humble opinion..
@runkster, Your "humble opinion" is on the mark in my opinion 😊. For some reason the crucial analogue output stage is frequently overlooked and downplayed. Conversely the DAC chips are over credited in determining sound quality.
I'm not surprised that the older PS Audio Ultealink sounds better than the Schitt Modi, Not at all. I'd bet the Ultealink very likely has better quality analogue output stage and power supply. Charles
I wouldn’t disqualify
older DAC's, there are some fine DAC's that were made in the past.
However, you need to ask yourself some questions, such as: do you want
DSD\MQA or maybe even Ethernet connection?
If your answer is yes to one of the above then you probably find the
answer in newer DAC's
The big difference in DAC sound in the analog output, while you can
argue that all DAC'S are doing the same (converting digital information) there
are several methods for that which will affect the sounding, but the biggest
sound different relay in the analog section which in the end is responsible
for the signal that gets out of the DAC – and there, not all are created equal.
I worked in the audio industry in the mid 80s and had the opportunity to hear many of the early attempts at audiophile grade CD sound. The results ranged from miserable to listenable, but in most cases a good FM receiver would have them licked. It wasn't until the early 90s that CD players started to perform at a level I considered comparable to a good vinyl source.
Back in the mid 2000s I was listening to a friend's audio system. He had a pretty nice DAC
(can't remember the name for reasons I will soon reveal)
that cost several grand being driven by a pretty decent digital source. I really liked the sound of that DAC and seriously thought about getting one, but there was no way I could afford it at the time.
He also had a Sony DVP-S9000ES that had the added advantage of playing SACDs, a format that was still relatively new but held great promise. We decided that I should do a blind test between his DAC and the Sony. He picked out CDs and SACDs of the same music, being sure each had the same mastering. When comparing the two using Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, one was clearly more realistic with an improved bass foundation and dynamic range. I made the assumption that the better sounding unit was the DAC since it was an "audiophile" product made with better components and bla bla bla. Of course I was wrong and I had actually preferred the Sony player. From that day I was convinced that red book CD was limited sonically and that higher resolution formats were needed to go to that next level in sound. That lead me to completely forget about the DAC and to purchase a 9000ES along with as many SACDs as I could get my hands on, paying less paying less for the lot than that one DAC would have cost. It still sounds great with CDs, but really shines with SACD.
Long story short, my advice would be to stick with a DAC built this millennia, but do as another poster suggested and buy a DAC that will allow you to play higher resolution formats.
I'd be really curious to know if you did that test again what you'd find.
Another side effect I've found of modern DAC's' is that upsampling isn't that much of a benefit, but older DAC's consistently benefit from upsampling.
Don't get me wrong, there is a difference, but the difference is much more narrow, and in the very top octave. I can explain the benefits today by looking at the frequency response of 44.1/16 vs. 96/24 or higher. There's just a hint more air, sometimes hardness.
In older DAC's everything seemed better with high res signals. Bass, imaging, tonal complexity and the ability to play complex musical passages without becoming mushy.
@charles1dad You are so right about that and the guy I sold my Yamamoto Dac to raved over it so much I almost wanted it back ;) And yes analog output stages and power supplies are probably more important than the Dac chip and its implementation.
Hi @jond, One key similarity between the Yamamoto YDA-01 and your Audio Note DAC is the choice to go with a very simple circuit and discrete analogue output stages. They avoided OP-amps in this stage and also shunned them for I/V conversion.
Rationale given was to have a zero NFB DAC circuit. All these years later and neither has saw the need to change the circuit design. . They’ve both have stood the test of time successfully. Charles
My ancient Wadia 15 (redbook only) outperforms my Bryston BDP-1 even when it's playing hi-res!
Endlessly chasing detail, detail, detail is a mistake! A friend proudly using an uber expensive dCS agrees that my old Wadia is better but only on redbook and says if we tried hi-res on his unit there would be no comparison. I said OK lets do it. He explained that his hi-res files were at the office and that we could try another time.
Never happened. I found it very clean and detailed but would not want that soulless sound.
So yes, vintage DACs are definitely worthwhile and the good ones do age well. I get the impression my heavyweight Wadia will outlast me and just about everything else.
@lemonhaze, Yes keep your Wadia I see no reason to replace it, a classic piece. I understand your characterization of the DCS. That is how they struck me as well. Always will be horses for courses. Charles
Not a dac, but my former Sony XA7ES CD player built in 1998 stood proud against any currently built CD player. I’m wondering how much of digital is about smoke and mirrors? I regret selling that player which had a proprietary disc drawer which was at least on par with high dollar Wadia decks.
Interesting post. Very interesting responses and observations.
My contribution:
1. All dac do not sound the same. 2. The analog output section (basically a pre-amp) and the thought and effort put into the power supply matters greatly.
Also, something that i did not see listed in the responses is; as for comparisons of any piece of equipment vs any other, if the volume of the system isn't exactly matched while doing the comparisons, one will make the determination that the differences they hear are based on whether one piece is better than the other, when actually if the gains weren't matched first, the determination is false.
It is not simply plug, play and listen then plug the new piece in and listen again. most equipment has different gains, and to be honest in the A/B comparison, gain/volume matching is a must.
I do that anytime I compare equipment for potential purchase. Another important part is that one must listen to the equipment to be compared in the same system, swapping only that piece, adjust the volume to match and listen.
I've listened to and compared many DACS and I can tell you each and every one I've listened to sounds different in the same system with volume matched. Some subtle differences, some major. Depends on the analog section (how well thought out and constructed it was) and how robust the power supply is.
Would I take a previous top of the line high end DAC today? maybe. But my current Aurender music server/ripper/streamer only has USB output. So, my current DAC had to have a USB input.
you make a very important point: the analogue section of a dac is actually a preamp. In most cases a simple attenuator will suffice to regulate volume to the power amp. Ideally therefore, the manufacturer of the dac should include analogue rather than digital lossy attenuation.
This might lead one to conclude that rather than endlessly speculate on delta-sigma vs R2R technologies as well as the merits of various DAC chips, more focus should go to the quality of the analogue stage.
It would be very interesting to analyse DACs with a digital out via a reference preamp vs their own analogue stage. While one would still have to speculate about the implementation quality of the digital out- and inputs as well as the cable, it would become a very worthwhile route to better focus on the analogue stage, which after all is the source of most RFI/EMI as well as ground level distortions in dacs.
@tomic601, Hi Tom, may I assume you own or have owned the 'Pandora' and if so what did you upgrade from and have you ever heard the Mojo Mystique kit. The superseded V3 interests me at about 50% the cost of pandora.
Classic Statement , In controlled A/B tests nobody can distinguish a $100 DAC from a $1000+ one. Try a PeachTree DAC It. to a low priced Schite Audio DAC many examples Borris, listen to a Audio Quest Dragon Dac to a Small Beater And a Good day to you Sir
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
