George, et al: I have the Esoteric D5 dac. I do not entirely agree that the D5 dac will only work at its best with the P3 or P5 transport. Esoteric does use a unique way of decoding SACD sound via dual XLR connections. In this sense, to get the best of SACD decoding in the DAC you would have to use either of the before mentioned Esoteric transports. That being said, aside from SACD which as I understand it, no other transport + dac system can do anyway, the D5 is like any other dac. It can accept signals via a single run of xlr, rca, etc. So for redbook or digital music input, I believe you will be getting the best the Esoterics have to offer.
Something else to consider, is if you want to use the dac not only for a transport but also for digital music and upsampling is important to you. For some odd reason, the D3 cannot upsample. In the P3D3 combo, upsampling is done in the transport. I would have imagined that upsampling is done in the dac. The D5 is capable of upsampling. I use my D5 with my P3 transport and digital music server. |
Anyone heard the Naim CDS 555 ? I just brought one home and was curious how it compares to top of the range Esoterics and AA stuff. |
I audition it and honestly do not know what all fuss is all about. Some reviewers may like it but, appart from clean and powerfull sound it is nothing special. It sound just too 2 dimensional for my taste. In fact I do not like Naim sound at all. BTW, Naim is single-ended and your ARC gear will not sound very best(specially REF3) in SE mode. |
the new dCs Puccinni & Paganini looks good btw. |
Tboooe...just for comparison, how does the server-D5 vs using the P5? |
Henryhk, good question. In my system, my Sonos+D5 combo sounds VERY good, nearly as good as when I am listening to the cd via the P5. The main differences I hear is a bit of loss of dynamics, detail, and layering. It should be noted that I encode at VBR 256, MP3. Because of my large music collection, >30K songs, it is impractical for me to encode in a lossless format. That being said, I could happily live with my Sonos-D5 combo, though there is something I like about opening a cd and actually putting something into a cdp. I like the experience of looking at the cd cover and booklet. This was the only way I knew how to enjoy music, until recently when digital music became available. I now know why some people prefer vinyl, aside from the sound of course. |
Thanks, Tbooe, Saw u also in the music server thread....I have Sooloos with 2 terabytes so everything in lossless FLAC. Will investigate the D5. Can u apply the various filters via the DAC or is this only when u use a transport, I do gave the DV-60 for home theatre and definitely the filters do make a difference IMO. Upconverting to DSD I guess is a no go though (for the music server that is). |
Is the contrast of a compressed digital format with the sound of an uncompressed source on vinyl a meaningful instantiation of the digital vs analog debate? |
I audition it and honestly do not know what all fuss is all about. Some reviewers may like it but, appart from clean and powerfull sound it is nothing special. It sound just too 2 dimensional for my taste. In fact I do not like Naim sound at all. I have to disagree with you. To my ears, CD555 doesn't sound like a typical Naim at all ! Simply put, the $32k Naim CD555 is the best RBCD player I have tried so far. However, the difference between the 555, and Accuphase DP-78 in RBCD mode (which is another excellent player, BTW) although noticable, was not huge by any means. I was expecting to be (literally) blown away, but what I got instead was a bit better bass, better PRAT, slightly wider soundstage with better defined outer edges. Nothing really major. I have to say though, that the player is VERY complete sounding. With all other players, there were things that I did like and which I could identify almost instantly (Accuphase may be a bit too smooth and safe sounding at times, EMM has problems with bass and PRAT), things that in a long term may eventually lead to the lack musical satisfaction. The 555 was different. It doesn't have the obvius "flaws" or sonic traits. It is just ... complete. Having said that, I have problems with persuading myself that the player is actually worth that much of money. The price premium over the Accuphase DP-78 (which costs ~ 1/3 of 555) is hard to justify, unless you are you have money to burn or are looking for the best of the best, irrespective of cost. It is also worth mentioning, that I have not have a chance to try some of the very best players discussed in this thread (Esoteric and AA stuff), so my comments are based on my expirience with EMM Labs DCC2 se / CDSD se and Accuphase DP-78. |
I asume that you audition Naim 555 with single ended connection and Accuphase DP-78 via balanced connection(BTW, ARC use PIN2+ and Accuphase PIN3+). Just to tell you DP-78 is not even in top ten digital playback systems that I audition, same thing about Naim 555 despite its price tag.
Accustic Arts combo is a must for you to audition as well as Esoteric X-01 D2. |
I auditioned the DP-78 via a balanced pair of 1,5m AQ Sky XLR ICs. The Naim 555 was auditioned via its unbalanced outputs (there are no balanced outs) using 1,5m AQ Sky RCA ICs. I know about the different pin assigment on the Accuphase gear, so I used the INVERT mode in Ref-3 to re-invert the phase.
I'm not claiming that DP-78 belongs to the top ten, but EMM DCC2/CDSD combo, at least for some ppl, certainly does (build quality aside). And since the EMM is so popular among AgoN users, I just thought that they may find this comparo useful.
But as I said - I haven't heard the higher end Esoteric or AA stuff. So it is perfectly possible, that Esoteric and AA are simply better performing products than both EMM and Naim CD555. |
Personally never had an issue bass nor PRAT w/ EMM. |
I've heard the EMM and Esoteric in a familiar system (but not at the same time) compared to a system with the Audionote DAC-5 signature DAC (sorry can't recall the transport). On strictly redbook material, the Audionote was distinctly more musical and "whole" (harmonically rich and integrated) without being sluggish. I find both the EMM and Esoteric, by comparison, a touch more analytical. But, they are both terrific, probably less prone to requiring maintenance, play high definition formats, etc., so they can be easily considered superior if those things matter more.
I own a NAIM CD555. This is a terrific, very musical and complete player. It actually does NOT have the typical NAIM sound, to me anyway. In one sense, it has less of what some call PRAT and sounds less dynamic. What it lacks is that artificial edge to the the attack of each note that becomes annoying by its omnipresence. I think this is what gives some NAIM gear its "Pace and Rhythm." The soundfield with this player is expansive, yet not everything sounds solid and grounded and not diffused. By the way, a CDS3 comes pretty close at a lot less money.
Which would I prefer, the CD555 or an Audionote DAC-5/transport combination? I don't know because I never made a head-to-head comparison in my own system. For practical reasons (space in the rack and cost) the NAIM won out. |
anyone tested dCs new paganini/puccini gear? |
The "Type 1 vs Type 2 sound" continuum proposed early on in this thread I believe has some merit.
I've owned and enjoyed an Audio Note DAC 4.1x Signature (the pre-transformer coupled version) for four years now. Source is an Ensemble Dirondo upsampling transport, though the AN DAC only accepts up to 96 Hz input and truncates to 18 bits. Digital cord is a Stealth Varidig Sextet, the only cable (analog or digital) that has made a profoundly audible improvement with my tin ears.
I'm set to receive a dCS Purcell/Elgar Plus firewire combo in a few days. I look forward to making my own "Type 1 vs Type 2" comparison. Hope to share my impressions down the road.
jb |
I heard it, briefly.
The setup was the new dCS stack, a gigantic Boulder amp, Transparent Audio Cable reference MM speaker cable, and Magnepan MG 20.1 speakers.
The CD was a redbook Patricia Barber CD I was not especially familiar with. The player upsampled it to DSD.
However, because it was in my dealer's room and with gear I am not familiar with I really can't make any assessment.
I have known the dealer for a long time (Audio Consultants) and I usually get pretty good advice. Everyone working there is an enthusiast and I always get an enthusiast perspective, and they seem to think the new paganini/puccini gear is "a lot" better than the older Elgar generation gear. And when they say it is "a lot" better they are usually right.
I would be more impressed if it was a lot better and priced more like Elgar generation gear. |
I am currently using a Squeezebox feeding a dCS Purcell upsampler via Transparent Audio Reference Digital Coax Cable upsampler and Delius D/A combo, directly into a Mark Levinson 336 Amplifier via Transparent Audio interconnect, and into a pair of B&W Nautilus 802s via Transparent Audio Reference speaker cable.
Squeezebox .WAV----(Transparent Digital Cable)--->Purcell----1334 Firewire--->Delius------(Transparent)----Levison 34---(Transparent Reference)----->B&W N802
As a preliminary matter, note that the Squeezebox replaced a formidable Goldmund transport. After comparing the two, whatever advantage the Goldmund might have offered was de minimis and more than offset by the convenience and value of the Squeezebox. I can't overstate how much switching to a hard drive based server has enhanced my enjoyment of this setup.
With respect to the Delius DAC, it originally replaced a Goldmund Mimisis DAC and Threshold T2 preamplifier. The Goldmund/Threshold combo was a very good setup, but there was always something about it that I did not like. It had incredible resolution and detail but there was a hardness or edginess on non-audiophile quality recordings. Only the best recordings (Brothers in Arms, DCC and Mobile Fidelity remasters) survived the scrutiny.
Enter the Delius, which replaced the Goldmund and Threshold. Significant improvement but again, there was something I did not like. It still was an unforgiving system if the recording was not perfect.
What brought everything into focus was the Purcell upsampler, which takes redbook CD and upsamples to DSD. With the Purcell/Delius combo, every CD in my collection sounds good. Bad recordings are now listenable. Good recordings are now great recordings, and great recordings sound better than ever. It is a phenomenal setup.
For example, I have the original CD version of the first Crosby, Stills and Nash album, which I never considered to be a good recording. With the Purcell, the CD really came alive, with a simply huge soundstage and lush, pristine sound. I never would have believed that disc could sound like that. That is just one example.
On recordings that I regard as good or very good, I noticed a dramatic improvement in dynamic range and bass response, among other things. It can be as laid back or in your face as the recording provide for.
The biggest difference, however, is in the imaging and soundstage. With the Goldmund DAC and even the Delius by itself, there was excellent imgaging and separation, but with the Purcell in the mix, it is much, much better.
For example, on Al Di Meola's Elegant Gypsy album, the instruments are separated with such precision that it sounds like each instrument is coming from its own speaker. Not only does the guitar itself have its own position in space, but the reverb and delay effects on the guitar also assume an appropriate position and are completely distinguishable from the ambient sounds of the other instruments. And that is just redbook CD upsampled to DSD.
The words neutral and analytical come to mind to describe the dCS components. What I hear sounds more like music than anything else I've heard, and unlike normal digital gear there is nothing I hear that I don't like. Even mediocre recordings are no longer hard on the ears. But, if you were to ask how I would tweak this setup if I could, I would say fatten it up a bit, perhaps darken it a bit.
For example, on Flight Over Rio, Di Meola's guitar lick before the head of the tune is more distinct from the other instruments than ever before, but the guitar itself also sounds thinner than expected. Is that the dCS's analytical sonic signature, or is that simply the way Di Meola's Les Paul bridge pickup and Marshall Stack were recorded? The mix as a whole is not thin at all, the bass is fantastic, and I know from experience that a guitar's bridge pickup is a thin sound that is supposed to cut through the mix.
Thus, at this level it is almost impossible to know if there is really a sonic signature, you are being bottlenecked by other components in the chain, or you are actually hearing what the artist and recording engineer intended. Sometimes, especially with electronic music, you could pull the mix apart and find that the synthesizer or electric guitar that is being used doesn't deserve the type of scrutiny the system is giving it. There is really no way to know if you are hearing your system or the brush the artist is painting with, other than by borrowing and comparing gear over an extended period of time.
I do think that the original poster's assessment of the dCS is pretty good. But I would add that the dCS is capable of giving pristine detail AND being fluid and organic. Fluid and organic are two words I would use to describe the Delius/Purcell combo.
For example, on Larry Coryell's Tricycles album, he is obviously using some sort of high-end stereo chorus effect on his guitar. Stereo chorus effects are designed to make the guitar sound lush and organic through delay and pitch modulation. I have always thought of it as twisting bands of yellow and blue together--from a distance it would look green. With the dCS I can hear more of what I would describe as "the modulation", not just the effect of the modulation. I can hear the yellow and the blue, so it sounds a little drier. But it is still lush and organic sounding. The dCS manages to pull things a part like that and still presents the big picture in a way that is pleasing to the ear. I really like this setup.
No wonder when I asked my dealer about the new dCS Puccini/Paganini components in the high end room he said, "Don't go in there!" The new setup is too expensive for me to even be interested in how much better it is.
At this level it comes down to taste, and unfortunately, your pocketbook. :) |
I own a cello system with reference dac I hesitate between a purchase of transport or resale my dac to buy a cd player dcs, nagra, emm labs ....or other cd player i need help to choose betwwen these configuration |
To me there are two types of DAC's. DAC's that have smooth but somewhat dark (more at the "ying" site) sound with less detail retrieval but often with great PRaT and DAC's that are more "yang" with enormous amounts of detail but at the same time less PRaT. But to be honest current SOTA DAC's are neither "ying" or "yang" sounding: they mix the characteristics of both types.
Chris |
Are there dacs that do dsd? |
The new Theta Digital Generation VIII Series 2 should be put on the "must audition" list. This piece is absolutely incredible, and the best digital I've had in my system. I recently compared it, albeit briefly, to a one box CD/SACD player that is getting a lot of hype on these forums lately.
I preferred the Gen VIII by a wide margin, even comparing the same songs with Redbook only on the Gen VIII versus SACD on the other player.
The analog volume control and two analog inputs are also exemplary, allowing me to eliminate the Audio Research Ref 3 preamp from my system.
Give this one a listen..... |
Fsarc, what combination of transport, ICs and PCs did you use with the Theta Gen VIII? And could you give us some detail on how this combination may have exceeded in your view the performance of the single box PD MPS-5? [I can only guess that this is the single box player you are referring to] G. |
Hi G. I've only used the Theta with the Transporter, Audioquest Panther balanced I/Cs and Michael Wolff power cord.
As I said, it was far from a definitive "shootout", bit it was really, really obvious to myself and two other listeners which sounded better on the same cuts. It was easy to switch back and forth through the Theta.
The Theta had smoother and yet more detailed highs, better separation and focus in the soundstage, and a more "open" sound. The other player sounded flat and one dimensional in comparison.
I just think it's worth an audition based on what I'm hearing and previous digital I've owned (Pass Labs D-1, Wadia 861SE GNSC Statement, Cary 306 SACD, Emm Labs DCC2/CDSD, EMM Labs CDSA, Modwright Transporter).
YMMV. |
Thank you Fsarc, I assume that by not denying the identity of 'brand B', you confirm my hypothesis of it being a PD MPS-5. Do you know if both configurations were equally broken in?
I'd be interesting in you commenting further about the sonic advantages that you found in removing the ARC Ref 3 from the system.
Guido |
Fsarc,
this is really interesting is this because of the mkII upgrade of the GenVIII you think or is the MK1 also a better DAC? Have you compared the Theta to the Weiss Combo? |
Does anyone know if the Theta Genration III can be upgraded to Series 2? |
In keeping with Theta's tradition, an original Gen VIII can easily be upgraded to a Series 2. I know of at least two owners of original Gen VIIIs that did the upgrade to Series 2. I believe the price is $1500 for original owners, slightly higher for second or third owners. I bought an original Series 2. Theta also announced an exciting HDMI 1.3b upgrade for Casablanca owners at Cedia, propelling the Casablanca back to the top of processor crowd. |
Fsarc, the GenVIII got good review in Stereophile but it lacked some bass, whats your experience with this? |
I would like to revice this thread, that among the best threads I've read over the past few years. With digital changing so rapidly, I'd like to hear what experiences the group has had since the last post in September 08. My goal is to have the very best Redbook replay, I don't care about hirez or SACD, but if the best DAC happens to do those as well, so be it. Still using my trusty AA Dac MkIV. |
Accustic Arts Ref Hybrid Tube Dac via Stealth Sextet digital cable with a MBL Ref 1621A transport, Very Happy!
I have tried a few other dacs costing substantially more along with the matching Ref MBL Dac and still preferred the AA combo with the 1621A so that saved me a bundle, I swap the tubes once in a while in the AA to just get a different flavour which is allot of fun and always in the end providing endless amazing performances. |
Is it fair to say that the DAC that can handle Redbook and SACD like EMM, dCS, and Esoteric don't handle Redbook as well as those DAC committed to Redbook? |
No Pubul57, your notion is a fossil from several years ago. For several years now, there has been no performance penalty on twin format players. fact is that some recent design upsample Redbook to DSD with extremely good results. . . e.g. TEAC X-01 D2 |
The Berekely Alpha obviously has a lot of press buzz, and given the folks behind it, I assume it is more than just another flavor-of-the month product. Has anyone been able to compare this $5,000 player with top gear from EMM, dCS, Esoteric, Accustic Arts... |
If Pubul57, had not beat me to the punch, I was going to add to this thread way I still find the Accustic Arts Tube DAC to be a keeper in my system.
I have spent a considerable amount of time listening/auditioning the following new crop of either DACS or CD players: 1) Berkeley Alpha DAC 2) Weiss Medea DAC 3) PS Audio Perfact Wave combo 4) Meridian 808i2 5) DCS Puccini 5) EMM reference player
All of the above were used for red book, I don't care about SACD or other high rev formats, and I did not find any of them to be better to my ears then the AA Tube DAC. They are all quite good and offer different sonic signatures, my favorite among them was the Weiss and Berkeley, I would put them in the type one sonic category, and was surprized at the performance of the Meridian 808i2, it just was ok, yet John Atkinson of Stereophile thiks its the best on redbook he has ever heard. But then at the end of the sonic day, I did not find any of them surpassing the musicality or over all performance of the AA Tube DAC in my system. |
The Playback Designs DAC or player should be added to the list.
In the computer audio world, there are some who proclaim the very reasonably priced pro unit from Metric Halo, the ULN-8, to be very special. |
I own a Playback Designs MPS-5 and second your suggestion. It is a remarkable piece of equipment. If there is any shortcoming,it is minor at most and that is the lack of firewire inputs although every other possible input is present |
Has anyone compared the ARC CD-8 with Playback Designs? |
Teajay,
Did the PS Audio come in last or in the middle? |
Teajay,
Did the PS Audio come in last or in the middle? A friend has the 808.2 and has a tweak that makes a substantial difference. |
Yes, I'd like to know how the PS Audio did also. |
Hi teajay, your review is top drawer. Don't you wish you could meld the B crowd with the A crowd, and have it all? I have an Audio Note DAC. It has all the qualities you enumerated for it. What is really cool though, the AN DAC has a lot of room for improvement, a real AB DAC. |
Hi Muralman1, the reason I still like the AA Tube DAC in my system is that it comes the closest for me to blending the best sonic traits of type one and type two that I have heard so far on redbook CD. I know that it sounds sick to call a piece that retails for over $11000.00 a "bargain", but it competes with much more expensive DACS that I have heard.
As far as were I would rate the PS Audio combo compared to the rest of the DACS I have heard, it would be some were in the middle of the pack. I think its quite good for the money, but it's from the best I have experienced and found it amazing that some think it's the "best" in the world at the moment. The website Stereomojo did the first major review on it, gave it a postive recommendation and then decided that the digital piece of the year is the Aryon 2 player. I always remind my self it really comes down to personnal taste and system synergy. |
Teajay,
Thanks for reapearing and embellishing your thread.
Sgr |
Teajay and others,
Srajan Ebajen and Jean-Paul Hiraga from a French high end magazine both listen to a combination from an Esoteric VRDS-transport model, going into the Yamamoto DAC. Ebajen found this combo to sound better than even the much more expensive Zanden combo. Has any of you guys listened to the Yamamoto and can elaborate?
Regards,
Florian Hassel |
Teejay and everyone else, great work on this thread. Ive read though it all and narrowed my choices down to the Acoustic Arts tube dac, Acoustic Arts DAC I MK4 and the Playback Designs DAC
My system consists of a Sonus Faber Amanti Homage speakers, Pass Labs x600 amplification, a Cullen modified sonos ZP90 zone player (clock stabilization and 192k output) and a Tact mini room processor. Im currently using the Tact as a DAC and while the sonic benefits of the room correction make my system sound better than ever I still feel like Im missing some (maybe a lot) of purity/clarity in upper mid and hi frequency ranges. My guess is the Dac in the Tact is average as best and so Im looking for something to use at the end of the chain.
Zp90->Tact mini->New Dac
I think my ears prefer Category #2 as outlined by Tejay in the original post which appears to be backed up by my current selection of equipment.
My thinking so far without hearing any of them is as follows:
Acoustic Arts tube dac
PROS: Very interested in adding back some of the warmth I used to get from an audio research setup I had in the past and was hoping the Tube in this Dac might help add it back in.
CONS: Appears to only supports low sample rates and I guess I would have to get the Tact to sample rate convert its output back down from 192k to 44.1. No way of automatically controlling the standby/tubeon switch which would be somewhat painful as my electronics are in a separate room
Acoustic Arts DAC I MK4
PROS: High sample rate, No need for standby
CONS: no tube?
Playback Designs DAC
PROS: Andreas Koch designed it. I know some of the professional equipment developed by Andreas in the past and its always been fantastic.
CONS: trying to find one to listen too.
As this point Im trying to arrange to get all three in my system for a side by side test but would be interested in peoples thoughts, suggestions and comments on anything Ive missed.
Thanks in advance
Karl |
Karl and Teajay, I do wonder about this issue of warmth, which I suspect is somewhat attenuated or enhanced by system context, I wonder if a tube dac in an all tube pre/amp combo is too much of "something" versus an SS based system. I've always thought of "warmth" as a pleasant deviation from neutral, with somehow less resolution and detail -- I think that for me, with two tube-based pre/amp combos, that neutrality at the source proabably serves me best, whereas if I were using SS, yes, even Pass gear, something on the warm/organic side might match better. Which as Teajay says, system matching and context is an important part of assessing a piece of gear; change the context and your conclusions may vary. |
Hi Pubul57 and Karl, you both have had me thinking about the issues of what Pubul57 refers to as "warmth" vs less resolution/detail. I totally agree with what Pubul57 says about system matching/context, I have heard very good pieces of gear not shine in different systems.
Karl, your concern regarding having to switch the standby/tubeon, I leave my DAC on all the time. The type of tubes, 12AX7's, and how this DAC uses them means that they should last about 3 to 4 years before you have to retube.
Since, I have had the AA tube DAC, and recently hearing/auditioning some of the most highly regarded CDPs and DACs, I still struggle to put in words the difference between the AA tube DAC and what I hear when listening to the other digital front ends. I believe that it has much resolution and details as anything out there on redbook CD, however, it also offers an "ease" and "fluidity" that is not euphonically tube-like in its sonic signature. So, I don't know if it would be to much of a good thing in an all tube system or better matched in a SS system. I also still find that it offers the most natural/beautful timbres of all the DACs I have listened to.
Pubul57, I see that you replaced your AA combo with the EMM Labs CDSA SE player. I'm quite interested in what you heard in your system that lead you to make the move. Please share some details regarding the sonic differences between them. I do know that when a friend auditioned a totally broken in EMM Labs SE in my system in comparsion with the AA Tube DAC, he returned the EMM to the dealer and then purchased the AA Tube DAC. In my system the AA DAC was much more musical/natural, all on redbook CDs, and that's way my friend chose to purchase the AA Tube DAC. I realize your AA DAC was not the Tube reference, however, it is a terrific sounding piece, so what did you hear that lead to making the move?
|
Hi Teajay. Of course I did not ever hear the TubeDac, so I have no idea if I would have liked it better than the DAC IV or how it might compare to the EMM CDSA SE (current version with upgraded transport and feet). Like the AA gear, I bought it essentially without an audition, but did hear it for a while in a similar system to my own with Merlin speakers. I liked what I heard and was of a mind to move from seperates back to an integrated CD player (the SACD was just added value, though I as of yet don't own a single SACD, but for the demo SACD provided with the EMM).
First I will say that just about any of the DACs and digital gear mentioned in this thread would undoubtedly sound good to me; this is afterall all good/great gear. My reason for going integrated is that I own two preamps and I could not get them both on my equipment rack with the transport/dac combo; so the change was ergonomic and not for thinking I was going to improve the sound much, I was very satisfied with the AA combo, no doubt. I'll say this for the CDSA SE, it in no way makes me feel like I have taken a step backwards and in a few specific regards it betters the AA to my ears and in the context of an all tube preamp/amp combo (Joule, Atmasphere, Music Reference). I listen to a lot of jazz and the sound of a trumpet and saxaphone is what I usually fixate on; when I come from a live concert, it is usually the fall of in the timbre of these two instruments that makes me really feel the difference between live and recorded (and dynamics); the EMM gear seems to handle these two instruments in a way I prefer over the AA combo. The simplest way I can say it is that it is much easier to hear that these instruments are metallic, and I can more easily hear the blattiness (I think that was HPs word for what I am referring to) of the trumpet and the bite of the saxaphone come across in a more realistic manner to my ears. I also notice that the cymbals, and percussive instruments seems to have a more incisive portrayl of their dynamics, with fast and detailed transients, making them sound more like real instruments.
That is all I have been able to focus on so far listening to Mingus, Tijuana Moods and Blakey's Moanin'. That being said, there was nothing wrong with the AA at all, but I think one can safely purchase the CDSA as an alternative to the combos and feel they have first-rate digital production. Let's put it this way, it is more than good enough that I'm not worrying about it. I'm afraid to actually start buying SACDs as this is suppose to be the EMM gears raison d'etre and I can see myself buying all my favorite jazz cds all over again. Ugghhh.
Anyway, this is a thread on DACs so that's all I'll say on this player. It does beg the issue in my mind whether the advantage of seperate DACs is mostly flexibilty and the "advantage" of separate power supplies between transport and DAC, versus the thorny issue of jitter connecting them. Anyway, I'm happy (for now). |
Hi Teajay, great to read that you are still enjoying the AA Tube Dac as I am. Have you made any further tube changes, if so what and your thoughts. I'm really enjoying my latest being the MBL 1621A but still feel the the Oracle 2000 I had surpassed it in musicality slightly, not a lot but ever so slight. In every other area the MBL's improvements are most welcome and obvious. You should check out the thread titled What is the best DAC ever made? I tried putting some info. here but for what ever reason again they would not allow it and didn't post the thread.
There are some interesting responses specifically one which has left me scratching my head, still trying to get some more info. but in the end just feel it's a different flavour thing which is okay. |
Hi Dev, I have not changed the tubes in the AA DAC because I still find the long plate Bugle Boys still sound best to me. I also have read what you posted on the thread regarding the "BEST" DAC in the world, which is so silly of question to begin with, and found your responses right on target. If any would find the AA Tube DAC shrill or disorganized regardless of what there system gear is, something very strange indeed had taken place some were along the line. That is not negating that based on personnal taste/synergy someone else could like the performance of other DACS better, but I find it hard to believe that the above descripters coming from the AA tube DAC regardless of what it's being compared to. As I stated on this thread I have listened recently to some of the highest regarded DACS/CDPS and none sounded better to me then the AA tube DAC, different yes, very good sound, but not to the point when you know you have heard something which is better then your present reference. And as Hamberg stated on the other thread if you want to customize the sound of the AA tube DAC you can roll the right tubes to get what you want. |
