Submitted by The Computer Au... on Thu, 06/17/2010 - 21:50
Over the last couple years I’ve listened to people utter the phrase, “I’m waiting to see how it all shakes out." Without context it’s entirely appropriate to assume we were discussing the global economic meltdown. However these conversations revolved around music servers, interfaces, and differing computer audio technologies. People were frequently delaying the purchase of a new DAC because of their uncertainty about the future of the marketplace. Specifically uncertainty about interfaces such as USB, FireWire, Ethernet, AES/EBU, and S/PDIF. These interface options have caused serious hesitation from the same people who eagerly accepted Compact Disc technology as if it offered perfect sound forever. Equally hesitant are audiophiles feeling a bit burned by SACD and DVD-Audio. Audiophiles shouldn’t let the past halt their potential heightened enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. There’s no format war going on. Many different interfaces and technologies will flourish in the years to come. Falling victim to analysis paralysis or suffering from alligator arms are two easily curable conditions. Ambivalent audiophiles, It’s time to fish or cut bait.
What’s The Hold Up?
There’s little doubt that computer based audio is the future of high end playback. In a nod to Rusty and Audrey Griswold, the only remaining question is “Are we there yet?" The answer to that question is yes, as long as the right combination of software and hardware are selected. The perpetual naysayers who won’t be satisfied until a music server is easier to operate than a toaster should also look at a traditional dCS system with three or four separate boxes and say the spinning disk isn’t there yet because they can’t operate the dCS system with these ease of a cassette player. I’ve never heard anyone suggest the latter and I don’t see why the argument should hold true when it comes to music servers. Music servers, like most technology, can be placed on a continuum from simple to complex. Logical factors in the “Are we there yet" analysis should be related to sound quality, sample rate support, feature sets, interface design, and bit transparency.
What does all this have to do with the Weiss Engineering DAC202? The DAC202 could easily be the component to knock audiophiles off the fence and on to the next phase of high end audio. The DAC202 may be the best antidote for the aforementioned audiophiles suffering from alligator arms and analysis paralysis. The sound quality, sample rate support, feature set, interface design, and bit transparency testing built into the DAC202 should satisfy audiophiles from the most jaded old schooler to the early adopters looking to replace an existing DAC.
Weiss Engineering DC202 Evolution And Lineage
Computer audiophiles who’ve been using music servers for weeks, months, and years are likely familiar with the name Weiss Engineering and eponym Daniel Weiss. Professional engineers, even more familiar with Daniel Weiss, have used his components for decades. In fact a recent visit to Paul Stubblebine Mastering in San Francisco demonstrated Weiss Engineering’s penetration into the “audiophile" facilities where many of our favorite albums are mastered. Needless to say Daniel Weiss is one of the best engineers in the business at designing components that have made and played high quality music.
In June 2008 I reviewed DAC202 predecessor the Minerva. It was a great component but at the time options for computer audiophiles were much more limited. The Minerva was a big fish swimming in a little pond. That certainly doesn’t diminish the Minerva’s performance but it places proper perspective on my assessment. In December of the same year I reviewed the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC and subsequently crowned it my favorite DAC. I placed the Alpha above the Minerva for a few reasons namely soundstage, volume control / preamp capability*, HDCD indicator**, and sample rate display.
Nearly two years later Weiss Engineering has responded in true leapfrog fashion. The DAC202 was not built to equal the competition or as a minor tweak of the Minerva. The DAC202 was built to surpass the competition and previous Weiss DACs. After investing well over two hundred hours actively listening through the DAC202 in every sensible configuration I unequivocally state Weiss Engineering has handily surpassed the competition and all previous Weiss DACs in its class.
* At the time of review the Minerva did not have volume control. Weiss Engineering did enable volume control in later releases of the Minerva, but the implementation was clearly an afterthought and awkward to use.
** The HDCD indicator on the Alpha DAC is a rudimentary indication of bit transparent audio reproduction. When playing an HDCD encoded file the indicator should illuminate. If the indicator remains dark this signifies playback is not bit transparent. However, there remains a slim chance that the indicator will illuminate without bit transparent playback. In other words, if the indicator is off and it should be on something is wrong. If the indicator is on there is a good chance playback is bit transparent, but bit transparency is not guaranteed. I have successfully played an HDCD encoded file that produced major distortion and short drop-outs yet consistently illuminated the HDCD indicator. Thus the rudimentary categorization of the HDCD indicator.
Weiss Engineering DAC202 In Detail
At $6,670 USD the Weiss DAC202 has increased in price as much as performance over its predecessors. I’ll leave judgements of value up to individual readers as each of our monetary decisions involve vastly different variables. I will say a significant percentage of audiophiles have spent many times the amount of the DAC202 price premium on “upgrades" with far less overall impact.
The fit and finish of the DAC202 has been improved nicely over previous Weiss DACs. The new headphone socket, volume control, and LCD display elevate the look of this unit to the audiophile standard. The Minerva and to a much greater extent the DAC2 look very utilitarian even though their lackluster form doesn't enable enhanced function. The rear of the DAC202, although very compact, is laid out ergonomically. I had no problems during the review period inserting and removing all types of cables. The addition of a gold headphone socket to the DAC202 raises the versatility of the unit to another level. Most manufacturers don’t offer a headphone output on products at this price point. Weiss Engineering has wisely considered the continually growing high quality headphone market with the inclusion of a standard quarter-inch (Tip, Ring, and Sleeve connector) headphone output. The addition of a rotary encoder knob, referred to here as a volume control, was a must not only to improve upon previous designs but to enable menu navigation with ease. The knob itself is of high quality and spins in the overly obvious clockwise and counter-clockwise directions using detents for every half or full db adjustment. These detents, unlike the new Antelope Zodiac DAC controls, enable the listener to recall an exact volume level when desired. In addition the volume control is used to select menu items by pushing the knob inward. The DAC202’s three inch LCD display (measured diagonally) is somewhat easy to see from a nine to twelve foot listening position and a appropriately understated when when automatically dimmed. Significant information such as volume level, phase, and filter are easily visible while the active interface and sample rate may be more difficult for some listeners to read at a distance. The display is nicely recessed into the solid aluminium faceplate. This faceplate that will also be available in black once the second production run is underway. The DAC202 ships with a nicely built substantial but not over engineered remote control. After a few hours of use the important buttons such as volume and power can be memorized as they are not lost in a sea of useless buttons. The DAC202 remote offer ten buttons, all of them either discreet or toggle selectors with the exception of volume up and down. It’s very nice to select a specific interface instead of scrolling through the list of available interfaces.
The feature set and technical capabilities of the Weiss DAC202 are extremely good. Directly addressing three of the four reasons I previously selected the Alpha over the Minerva are the new volume control, bit transparency check, and seemingly mundane sample rate display. In addition to these three features and capabilities the Weiss DAC202 offers a critically and consumer acclaimed asynchronous FireWire interface. The DAC is also capable of sending word clock out to an audio card in an asynchronous-like fashion. Either way the Weiss DAC202 retains the critical role of master clock.
More and more audio systems consist of digital only sources and are less dependant on a traditional preamplifier. Digital to Analog converters with volume control have thus become increasingly popular. In 90% of audio systems this popularity (bypassing an analog preamp) serves the system well. It’s a rare occasion when inserting a preamp improves sound quality but it does happen. The volume control implemented in the Weiss DAC202 may increase that percentage to 99% because of its flexibility and superior design. The DAC202 features a coarse analog / fine digital volume control on both the main and headphone outputs. The DAC is capable of four selectable coarse settings via relay in the analog domain and fine level adjustments in the digital domain. Listeners who insist on using a preamp can defeat this level control on the main output only. One of the beauties of coarse analog level control is the capability to closely match the input sensitivity of an amplifier. My McIntosh MC275 has a sensitivity of 1.2 volts via unbalanced RCA inputs and 2.5 volts via balanced XLR inputs. Using the balanced XLR outputs of the DAC202 I set the coarse analog level to 2.12v With a closely matched voltage setting the digital volume attenuation does not have degrade the sound quality like it can with an unmatched pair of components. This matching allows use of the digital volume control over its entire range. The maximum bearable listening volume is reached at 0 db, not a level near -12 db of attenuation. For example a DAC with fixed output voltage of 6v feeding 2.5v MC275 power amplifiers will require either a preamp or major volume attenuation at the DAC to achieve proper listening levels. DACs with well implemented 32 bit or 24 bit digital only volume controls and proper dithering techniques can handle quite a bit of attenuation without deleterious effects to the sound quality [Digital Level Control PDF]. However a coarse analog / fine digital volume control allows the ideal balance of analog voltage matching with limited or no digital attenuation or sonic degradation. The 7.6 db difference between 6v and 2.5v may seem minimal at first blush, but consider the difference just 1 db can make during listening evaluations. The DAC202’s four selectable coarse analog settings are 1.06, 2.12, 4.15, and 8.15v. The fine digital level adjustments are full db steps from -60 db through -20 db and half db steps for levels between - 20 db and 0 db of attenuation. The coarse analog / fine digital volume control is by far my favorite feature of the Weiss DAC202.
A very popular question on the Computer Audiophile forum is, “How do I check for bit transparent output?" Until recently a true test of bit transparency required very expensive and sophisticated engineering test equipment. Now this test can be accomplished with a couple mouse clicks and absolutely no engineering knowledge. The Weiss DAC202 features a built-in bit transparency check that works in conjunction with Weiss Engineering supplied test WAV files. This feature is easily the most underrated and most needed feature in all of computer based high end audio. If the source signal is not perfect there’s no way to make it perfect down the line. Sound quality can only get worse when starting with a sample rate converted or reduced bit depth digital signal. Bit transparency is akin to playing lossless files. Most people easily realize the sonic consequences of ripping, storing, and playing lossy MP3 files. But, many people don’t realize when their bits are butchered because they’ve never heard their system produce bit transparent audio. Depending on the level of processing done to the digital signal by the computer operating system or playback application there may be no difference between the sound quality of a lossy MP3 and heavily processed non-transparent digital signal [bit opaque :~)] . Perhaps injured equally by the lack of bit transparency in user’s systems are the DAC manufacturers. Countless times I’ve talked to people who’ve completely written off great sounding DACs because of perceived poor sound quality. Yet these same users had no way of knowing if playback was bit transparent. Judging the quality of a component further down the chain with irreversibly broken, terribly processed music is a disservice to the listener, the manufacture, and anyone who comes in contact with the user’s opinion whether verbal or written online. The Alpha DAC has its HDCD indicator and as I’ve already mentioned it’s far from infallible. The Weiss DAC202’s built-in bit transparency check works because Weiss Engineering supplies audiophiles with the test audio files. The DAC202 is programmed to look for the exact bit pattern delivered in these files only when playback is bit transparent. Running the bit transparency check is quite simple. All that’s required is setting the DAC to a specific sample rate, selecting Run from the Transparency Menu on the LCD, and playing one of the test files from a computer. When playback is bit transparent the DAC202 indicates the bit depth of the given test file either 16 or 24 bits. If something on the computer isn’t configured correctly the DAC202 simply displays the word Fail. I tried to trick the DAC202 into displaying the bit transparent indicator, but I was unsuccessful after many attempts. Weiss Engineering supplies test files in both 16 and 24 bit word lengths at 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192 kHz sample rates.
The third feature that formerly put the Alpha DAC over the top is a simple sample rate display. This seemingly mundane feature can actually help indicate software configuration problems on the fly. Displaying the sample rate of the current track is far from a perfect way to indicate bit transparency, but it’s a step in the belt and suspenders direction. This feature is mainly helpful when an audio output device such as the DAC202 is not configured for Exclusive Output Mode in Windows Vista or 7. As I recommended in my Windows 7 / J River Media Center article, it’s wise to set the default Windows sample rate to something like 24 bit, 48000 Hz (Studio Quality). This default format is only used in Shared Output Mode as opposed to Exclusive Output Mode. Shared Output Mode equals compromised sound quality for audiophiles. Thus, when there is an output mode software misconfiguration the Weiss DAC202 clearly indicates 48kHz on the front LCD display no matter what sample rate is actually being played. Since there is virtually no content available at 24/48kHz this is a nice indication that something is wrong.
In high end audio master clocking has traditionally been reserved for the extremely exclusive components from companies like dCS and Esoteric. Now that computer based audio continues to gain in popularity more audiophiles are able to experience and afford a properly master clocked system via asynchronous interfaces on D to A converters. The Weiss DAC202 FireWire interface, when used in conjunction with the internal DAC202 word clock, operates asynchronously. This means the DAC202 is the master clock when playing files from a computer. Currently asynchronous interfaces are all the rage and rightly so. Asynchronous transfer mode can reduce timing inaccuracies by a factor of 100 in well designed DACs. The sonic benefits of certain asynchronous interfaces are well documented by listeners the world over. These positive listening experiences are also backed by solid engineering principals. In the simplest terms timing is critical to the reproduction of recorded sound involving digital to analog conversion. More accurate timing can produce more accurate sound. As of this writing all DACs using FireWire interfaces require third party software to function. The Weiss DAC202 uses a Dice FireWire chip from TC Electronic. Weiss Engineering supplies the Dice software on a CD with the DAC202 and offers the newest versions of the Dice software via its website (password required). Installation of this software is simple frequently requiring a couple clicks and a restart. This software is completely independent of all playback applications like iTunes and J River Media Center, and doesn’t require user intervention after installation. It’s also very important to note that not all devices with FireWire interfaces operate asynchronously like the Weiss DAC202.
In addition to using the DAC202 via asynchronous FireWire in master clock mode it’s possible to use the DAC202 as the master clock with high quality audio cards such as the Lynx AES16, RME HDSPe AES, and Merging Mykerinos. Many engineers that I’ve talked to about word clocking suggest the master clock should remain as close to the DAC as possible. Yet others are adamant about externally clocking all digital devices with a separate word clock. The DAC202 can accommodate either configuration as it offers word clock input and output. When using the word clock output the DAC202 is the master clock and sends a word clock signal to the audio card. These “slaved" audio cards are simply configured to acquire clocking information from an external source instead of using an internal clock. This method keeps the word clock as close to the DAC as possible in an asynchronous-like fashion. Listening through the Weiss DAC202 for hundreds of hours I determined this configuration sounded nearly as good as using the FireWire interface. More on that later. Like all good DAC designs the Weiss DAC202’s audio interfaces are all galvanically isolated. The BNC word clock input is not galvanically isolated.
Two additional differences between the Minerva and the DAC202 are the newly designed analog output stages and newly designed D to A converter. Peaking inside the DAC202 one can see the nicely segregated main analog output stage. The DAC202 offers separate output stages for the main and headphone outputs. Weiss elected to use very good operational amplifiers (opamps) with a high slew rate, and a low impedance topology. According to Daniel this makes the DAC202 even more impervious to cabling and impedance mismatches between DAC and amplifier. The new redesigned D to A converter uses two converters per channel as well as separate converters for the main and headphone outputs.
Using The Weiss Engineering DAC202
There are a number of DAC202 options available via the front LCD display. The DAC202 User Manual is very thorough and offers a detailed technical description of each of the following options. Here is a list of the options in order and some of my notes that correspond to each option.
Main Screen
Full or half db steps depending on attenuation level. Matching my MC275 input voltage allowed me to listen at or near 0 db.
Changing the digital source is easily accomplished via the discrete remote commands, and is available via the front panel. This is done right on the main screen without any menu navigation. Software switching of the input source is not available.
The sample rate cannot be changed as this is simply an indicator of the current sample rate.
Options Menu
When using the FireWire input I use the Internal word clock exclusively. The 1394 Bus option is only used when multiple DAC202s are connected to the same computer via FireWire. One DAC would be set to Internal and the other would be slaved by setting its sync source to 1394 Bus. Using Lynx AES16 and AES16e audio cards I used both the Internal and WC BNC sync sources. Using the Lynx to send clock to the DAC202 (WC BNC) is not recommended when other options are available. The reverse, sending clock to the Lynx from the DAC is very good sounding. I also set the sync source to XLR but the auto sample rate adjustments by the DAC202 necessitate a one to two second mute while the DAC changes rates. Missing the first couple second of a track can get annoying.
This option switches the sample rate of the DAC. Manually navigating the menu is the slowest way to accomplish these changes when not running in an auto sample rate switching mode. The simplest method of changing the sample rate is via the Weiss software interface. Simply click the drop-down menu and select the desired rate. The software interface requires a FireWire connection operate although the FireWire interface doesn’t have to be used for audio. During my listening sessions with the Lynx cards running into the DAC202 via AES I always used the Weiss software interface to change the sample rate. It really made no sense to have an XLR connection if a FireWire connection is already present, but this shows the ease of which the software interface works.
I used the 15 setting as it was just bright enough to read in my rather dark listening room. This setting is only active while the LCD is in use for menu navigation or when a setting on the panel (Volume, Sample Rate) is changed. The LCD switches to the LCD Dim Level after around ten seconds.
I used this setting at 0 as I had no need to continually read the display. During settings changes the LCD illuminates so there is no need, other than aesthetic, to keep the Dim Level above 0.
Not used for this review. The DAC202 handles all sample rates via single wire.
Set to Audiorate during this review.
This is a anti-audiophile option more likely to be used by professionals. It enabled the insertion of external devices like equalizers between the source and the DAC.
I used the Engaged setting exclusively as I had no need to use a preamp between the DAC202 and amp. When set to bypassed the main volume attenuation does not work.
This is the very nice coarse analog setting for the main output. As I stated earlier the MC275 sensitivity is 2.5v so I set this level to 2.12.
This is the coarse analog setting for the headphone output. The default is 0.2v. I used Sennheiser HD600 headphones during the review. these headphones required the 2.7v setting for comfortable listening levels while keeping full use of the fine digital volume control.
This is where the built-in transparency check is run. Selecting the Run setting and playing a Weiss supplied file is all that’s required. It’s very easy to use, but was not extremely intuitive. I did have to read the manual.
System Info
Music Servers, Storage, And Source Material
During the review period I used three main music servers and three types of storage. Two Windows 7 machines, one Mac OS X computer, a NAS drive, external bus powered drive, and internal SSD.
- The Computer Audiophile Pocket Server (C.A.P.S.) [Details] Since the C.A.P.S. machine does not have a FireWire port I purchased an internal PCI FireWire card to connect to the DAC202. Some CA readers have reported issues using certain FireWire chipsets. The card I purchased uses the VIA 6307 PCI to FireWire IEEE1394a controller chip and worked flawless. There was no software installation required under Windows 7. The card is manufactured by SYBA, model number SD-VIA-FW1E1H. The best part about this card is the $7.99 price from NewEgg [Link]. This card offers a single external FireWire 400 port and a single internal FireWire 400 header to connect a FireWire port to the computer case if necessary.
- MacBook Pro 13" [Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,5] running Mac OS X 10.6.3 and 10.6.4 Snow Leopard. An Intel Core 2 Duo processor running at 2.26 GHz and 4 GB of RAM. The internal Solid State Drive (SSD) is a 120 GB OCZ Vertex Turbo (MLC). Amarra version 2.0, iTunes 9.2 (61), and Songbird 1.7.3 Build 1700. To connect the DAC202 I started by using a noname FireWire 800 to 400 converter and a Monster Cable FireWire 400 to 400 (6 pin to 6 pin) cable. Most of my listening through this MacBook was done on battery power only and wired Ethernet or no network connection at all.
- MacBook Pro 13" [Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,5] running Windows 7 Ultimate 32 Bit. An Intel Core 2 Duo processor running at 2.26 GHz and 4 GB of RAM. The internal Solid State Drive (SSD) is a 120 GB OCZ Vertex Turbo (MLC). J River Media Center v14 and v15. Started using a noname FireWire 800 to 400 converter. After a few issues where the DAC202 disappeared from the computer I switched to a single FireWire 800 to 400 cable. This did not resolve the issue 100% but I am currently unable to reproduce the issue at the time of this writing. The issue was only present under Windows 7. According the Weiss FireWire software the following informatioin is available about the drivers and FireWire chipset in my MacBook Pro. Drivers - Microsoft 1394ohci.sys [6.1.7600.16385], Microsoft ohci1394.sys [6.1.7600.16385] (legacy), Microsoft 1394bus.sys [6.1.7600.16385] (legacy). I tried all three even though they look awfully similar. OHCI 1394 Host Controller - Vendor : (11C1) LSI (Agere, Lucent), Chipset: (5901) FW643, Revision: 07, Status : Active, Details: Subsysten VendorId: 11c1, Subsystem DeviceId: 5900, Max # isoch Rx contexts: 8, Max # isoch Tx contexts: 8, Max 1394 Speed Capability: S800, Support: Compatible, no known issues. Most of my listening through this MacBook was done on battery power only and wired Ethernet or no network connection at all.
- I used three different NAS drives during this review. A. Thecus N5200B Pro, B. QNAP TS-559 Turbo NAS Pro, and C. Synology DS710+.
- The external drive used was an Oyen Digital MiniPro 750GB 5400RPM External 2.5-in FireWire 800/400, USB Portable Hard Drive [Link]. This drive is powered from the USB or FireWire bus and uses the Oxford 934 chipset (OXUF934SSA). A switching power supply is available but not recommended for high end audio applications. I had success using the daisy chain capability of FireWire when connecting this FireWire 800 drive directly to the MacBook Pro and connecting the DAC202 via FireWire 400 to 800 cable to the drive. Note the faster FireWire devices should be connected closer to the computer when daisy chaining with devices of differing speeds.
Much of the source material used during this review was either 16/44.1 kHz or 24/96 kHz, with a small dusting of 24/176.4 kHz HRx material. 90% of the files were encoded in FLAC and copied to memory before playback in J River Media Center. The main Windows audio output method used was WASAPI. ASIO and Kernel Streaming both worked just as good as WASAPI through JRMC v15. I was unable to discern a sonic difference during the review period between either of the three output methods.
During the course of the review I up the firmware and Weiss software once. The process was simple. A rare software bug that only manifest itself under a twisted concoction of configuration changes was fixed and there was no change in sound quality.
Weiss DAC202 Sound Quality
During the several weeks I spent listening to the DAC202 there was nothing more I wanted to talk about then its sound quality. I enjoyed being contacted by Weiss dealers, who had yet to receive their DAC202s, to discuss how good this DAC sounds. The DAC202 actually takes the cake for the component I’ve spent the most time listening through. Even after removing my reviewer’s hat for the evening I often felt compelled to listen to more music. I’ve had other components in here that enabled me to listen to a lot of music, but nothing like the DAC202 that compelled me to listen. Listening critically to more music that sounds fabulous elevates the whole experience to another level. It seems like every time I listened it was critical and in a good way. I was sucked into the music, yet I could explain the detail that I was hearing in every instrument. At no time did I listen to the DAC202 and get sidetracked by life’s daily distractions. After listening to several other components over the years I clearly remember not being able to answer sound quality questions until I sat down with a notebook and scratched a few words on paper. The music definitely leaves an imprint on one’s mind when listening through the DAC202.
The two sonic characteristics that won’t leave my mind for a long time are full, vibrant, and cohesive soundstage, and fabulous, full, nonbloated, midrange that’s to die for. The aforementioned adjectives are what the music sounds through the DAC202, not what the DAC202 sounds like. It just doesn’t seem right to discuss the sound of a component when the music is all I could thinnk about. I won’t even suggest the DAC202 is without a sonic signature. In fact all of this describes its sonic signature. It’s just that the music is what sticks in my head. The DAC202 has a way of presenting the music instead of presenting itself. Listening to the 24/96 download of Ella and Louis over and over again caused me to chuckle a bit in my listening chair. When something sounds good it’s hard not to get giddy. The coherency and illusionary image presented when listening to this album was astounding. Shelby Lynne’s new album Tears, Lies, and Alibis, mixed by Al Schmitt at Capitol Studios in Hollywood and mastered by Doug Sax & Sonny Nam at the Mastering Lab in Ojai, California, sounded superb through the DAC202. I felt as though I could hear everything. Like nothing was really between me and the music. The midrange detail that came through reminded me of the Shelby Lynne concert I attended May 2nd, 2010 at the small Dakota Bar and Grill in Minneapolis. In no way was my system producing sound as real as the concert, but the thought to compare live v. recorded Shelby Lynne entered my mind several times.
Since the DAC202 supports all reasonable sample rates including 176.4 and 192 I could listen to my Reference Recordings HRx material in its native resolution. My go-to album Crown Imperial by the Dallas Wind Symphony (HR-112) revealed a bit more about the Weiss DAC202. The higher frequencies are smooth yet accurate as far as I can tell. This smoothness is possibly rounding the leading edge of transients. I say possibly because my McIntosh MC275 tube amplifier isn’t known for tack sharp transients and ear piercing pings. The bottom and mid to lower frequencies appeared to be right-on. I didn’t notice any annoying bass exaggeration or emphasis. I’m guessing the low jitter FireWire interface has a lot to do with this low end clarity and appropriate punch. Listening to Marcus Miller’s Silver Rain album, specifically track one, through the Weiss DAC202 is enough to solidify anyone’s opinion that this DAC has great control in the bottom end.
The best sounding interface to listen through was FireWire. Using a Lynx AES16 card into the DAC202’s AES/EBU input and slaved to the DAC202’s word clock was a close second place. The externally clocked Lynx configuration just wasn’t as cohesive as listening through the FireWire interface. The Lynx was a bit sloppy sounding. Plus, the FireWire interface is incredibly convenient compared to a Lynx card and only requires a computer with a FireWire port not a PCI slot.
The fourth factor I considered back in December 2008 that sunk the Minerva in my mythical rankings was its soundstage. In the Alpha DAC review I said, “In my opinion the major sonic difference between the two [Alpha and Minerva] is soundstage...The Minerva has a much more focused soundstage that may be narrow to some listeners. On the other hand this focussed and tight soundstage is exactly what some listeners are seeking. In a way the Minerva is like plugging into the soundboard to make a live recording and the Alpha DAC is like placing microphones elsewhere in the venue. “ Comparing the soundstage of the Alpha to that of the DAC202 was almost painful for me. The Alpha has been my old faithful for a couple years. It’s always been an overachiever. After listening to the DAC202 for long enough it was time to face the music. The DAC202 has a much more cohesive soundstage than the Alpha and has lost any overly narrow characteristics present in the Minerva. Comparing recording after recording revealed the same results. The appropriately sized and high cohesivity of the DAC202’s soundstage and its superior imaging schooled the Alpha DAC.
Are We There Yet?
Back to the hovering question. Are we there yet? The combination of a good Windows 7 or Mac server and the Weiss Engineering DAC202 is enough to transport anyone into the world of high end computer audio. The DAC202’s support of all reasonable sample rates via a ubiquitous and low jitter asynchronous FireWire interface, impeccably implemented coarse analog / fine digital volume control, built-in transparency checking, sample rate display, and sound quality to plan this year’s bonus around make it the vehicle that gets anyone “There" and well beyond the capabilities of traditional transports. The DAC202 not only offers all the features required for the foreseeable future it’s the sound quality valedictorian of its class and the latest entrant to the C.A.S.H. List. Now that we’ve answered the “are we there yet" question it’s time to ask, What are you waiting for?
Product Information
Associated Equipment:
Verity Audio Fidelio loudspeakers, McIntosh MC275 amplification, Richard Gray's Power Company High Tension Wires, Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC, Wavelength Audio Proton, Ayre AX-7e Integrated Amp, C.A.P.S. server, Bel Canto USB Link, Halide Design Bridge, dCS Debussy DAC, dCS Puccini U-Clock, Kimber USB Cu, Kimber USB Ag, Benchmark DAC1 PRE, Kimber Select KS1011 Analog Cables, Kimber Select KS2020 Digital Cable, Kimber Monocle X Loudspeaker Cable, ASUS Xonar HDAV 1.3 Slim, Apple iPad, Sonic Studio's Amarra, M2Tech hiFace, Weiss Engineering DAC202, Lynx Studio AES16 Digital I/O Card.
__________________
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
Nice Review, it sounds like a leap forward to displace the likes of the Alpha Dac.
Nice review, well written, good job!
A lot of your comparison with the Minerva/DAC2 is based on the earlier model without the added functionality of the new updates (i.e. digital volume control, the 4 way switch for setting ouput level on the back, the bit perfect test in the latest firmware update). Apart from the obvious remote control, what would you say the sound quality differences are between the two, given the 3k difference between the DAC2 and 202?
Nyal Mellor, Acoustic Frontiers
Mac Mini 10.6(iTunes --> Pure Music --> Flux EPURE linear phase parametric EQ). Weiss DAC2.
Chris, will that firewire pci card work on my older pci G5?
The Weiss DAC202 sounds like a wonderful piece. $8 for a high quality sound output vs. $700 for the Lynx AES card,( along with a Berkeley combo I was going for.) And the Weiss isn't that much more. (Got to hear the Berkeley dac about 2 wks ago and was much impressed, so to here this beats it, is well, almost unbelievable ;) )
But anyway, just curious about that card with a pci G5.
Great review Chris too.
Interim setup: Battery driven Macbook Pro with 4G Ram, running PM ->Tact 2.2 (with no processing from the Tact), -> Bryston 78-ST monoblocks, or Canary CA-339 300B monoblocks -> Tidal Audio Piano's.
A work in progress...
Chris said... "Comparing the soundstage of the Alpha to that of the DAC202 was almost painful for me. The Alpha has been my old faithful for a couple years. It’s always been an overachiever. After listening to the DAC202 for long enough it was time to face the music. The DAC202 has a much more cohesive soundstage than the Alpha and has lost any overly narrow characteristics present in the Minerva. Comparing recording after recording revealed the same results. The appropriately sized and high cohesivity of the DAC202’s soundstage and its superior imaging schooled the Alpha DAC."
So has the DAC202 knocked the Alpha off it's spot as your "reference" DAC? How does it compare to the dCS stack you tested previously?
Eloise
Mac OSX 10.5 with iTunes (mostly ALAC) --USB--> Musical Fidelity A1008 --> B&W CDM 7NT (iPhone remote)
Dear Chris,
Great Review! thanks for your comment about the DAC202
I got mine already and agreed to all of your comment.
Cheers!
Kim
Dear Chris,
thank you for your great review.
I would like to give some informations from Asia Weiss concerning firewire cables for the 202:
http://www.asiaweiss.com/main/?p=1649
Kind regards
matthias
Interesting review and product.
Having the DAC report accurately the received bitrate and frequency is a great feature and something all high end DACs should be looking to have as a feature.
I see they're still offering that terrible RCA output connection option ;)
Independent clock sync ability also seems a smart idea.
I was thinking about the price; way out of my league unfortunately but not unreasonably priced given, I assume, the headphone stage matches the overall performance. One could easily spend £3500 ($5250) on a top range CD player and a further £500 on a decent headphone amp.
I just wondered about being able to hear a 1db difference, especially in the 300Hz to 3Khz range (?)
1)Cond dis block. Sony Viao(xp32+ASIO4all+foobar) Belkin Pro USB. HRT Music Streamer Pro. Custom balanced XLR interconnects. Exposure 25RC integrated (XLR input mod+caps/res+transformer mods). Modded World Audio HD83 HP amp.HiFi Cables air lock speaker cables. Custom 3 way 52 litre monitors,Volt bass&ABR, Scanspeak mid&Hi. HD595 cans.
2)Quantum Elec based active system self built.
Chris,
I appreciate the insight you've provided, as your reviews frequently buck the stereotypical fluff and stuff in so many rags, I mean mags...
And your input into the DAC202 certainly gives me pause about some upcoming purchases. But, candidly, I have to wonder if there is more shaking out to come. As it stands, the vast majority of music that might appeal to me is either (currently) only available via CD or vinyl. I can't help but to wonder how long before music mastered over the past 20 or so years to CD will get redone at higher sampling and bit rates. But until it does, then aren't we still limited to the inherent issues within the CD? Does the DAC202 really draw out that perceivable missing mid-range? Does it find the missing element to CD that was patently obvious to a vinyl lover? Does it eliminate or significantly reduce the compressed sound? These are, arguably, my biggest complaints about digital today. I'm longing for the fullness that comes with the introduction of vinyl and tubes.
Having said that, I'm not unmindful of your comments about endless listening. I just wonder if at the end of the day this product is not ahead of its time. It's almost like buying a plasma tv back in 2002. Do you go for HD or ED. Since at the time HD was still up in the air, and there was not a lot of content, I chose ED, and saved a bunch of money. Good thing, too. 1080p wasn't even on the scene for another 3 years, or so. And blu-ray is only now finding its stride. I have since upgraded to a beautiful 1080p, and will similarly sit tight while 3d works its kinks out. The point being is that it still seems to me that we're all waiting for the source material to become more available. It is telling, though, that remasters of classics, like Analogue Productions' Nat King Cole series are being remastered by Steve Hoffman to vinyl and SACD. Again, time will tell, but I'd be curious if you feel that this product REALLY makes a difference for the 90%, or so, of us that have the vast majority of the digital music in either CD or ripped lossless CD form. Or are we a few years away.
Jonathan
PS This is NOT intended to take anything away from this DAC by Weiss. It sounds AMAZING. And at the end of the day, I may actually buy it. Or I may chose something that's a little lighter on the budget and wait for this field to settled down more. I would just welcome some input on whether we're going to be getting ahead of ourselves, like we might if we bought a hydrogen fueled car. Just my 2 cents!
Jonathan
-------------------
Still finding my way, but soaking it all up like a sponge!
Jonathan i think you have a point there. My own thoughts about this subject is the same as your's. At this point i'm in the middle of testing Amarra and you don't get all the benifits of different high-end DAC's playing digital music with 44.1/16 material as if you play high-res files, now i am from Denmark and we don't have any access to high-res download in Europe legally!:-)
Because of that i will hold my horses regarding exspensive players.
I'm sure that we within some years will see more and more ways of playing hi-res files and hopefully more artist will go the same way..
There is also some technical difs and hard work to go complete digital
but that's the way being pioneers.
NB: Thanks to Chris for a always deep and investigated review
Kristian from
Copenhagen/DK
Kristian,
Exactly, and thanks for getting my point (and not flaming me here). I'm not trying to be heretical.
But I do think all of us who have invested in music servers, initial equipment, and the like, are still on the frontier of this. Take, for example, those of us who have used Apple's Apple TV. With the new Mac Mini, that is now going to go by the wayside. And what of the transfer of music via HDMI cables? PS Audio uses a variant to separate the signal out in its newer products. I think it is called i2s2 or something like that.
It's really freaky to me how similar this all seems to HD and HDTV. Most of us have our CD collections, just like many have their DVD collections. Now, nearly 10 years later, or so, manufacturers are looking at moving more and more material to Blu-ray. Old classics are getting restored into Blu-Ray, and there is so much more HD content everywhere you turn. Also, TV's are now HDMI standard, and HD is common place. Yet the codec for HDMI is still a mess. And then there is the introduction of 3D.
Still, for me, that seems more settled. Yet in the music field, we're still dealing with 16 bit, 24 bit, and possibly 32 bit. Sampling rates run the gambit, too. Yet most of the content out there is 16 bit, 44.1. Hz. I can't help but to wonder when we will start to see releases by organizations like Mobile Fidelity (www.Mofi.com) releasing material in a higher bit-sampling rate or in digital file format with "ultra high resolution" that blows this all out of the water. Their vinyl is incredible, as are their CD and SACD's.
So, as good as the Weiss DAC is, I have to ask, is it worth being out there on what I believe is still the frontier with this product, purchasing what might, arguably, be the current 720p of HD for audio? Clearly, it is vastly superior to 480p DVD, but there's room for improvement and the source material is still lacking. So I do wonder if the entry cost into this level may not yet justify the substantial cost differential in my book from products out there that are at a fraction of the cost. And by fraction, I mean the solid products in the $1-2K range.
Then again, what do I know, I have Rega P9 turn table... And I think vinyl rocks. You know, FWIW, ask yourself this, why did Pearl Jam release their latest album on vinyl! Or why is Steve Hoffman remastering so much on vinyl (and yes I know, SACD, too). I'd submit that it's because digital is not quite there yet. But give it time!
Jonathan
-------------------
Still finding my way, but soaking it all up like a sponge!
Thanks for a well written review Chris.
Wavelength Silver Crimson/Denominator USB DAC, Levinson 32/33H, Synergistic Research Cables and AC cables, Shunyata Hydra V-Ray II with King Cobra CX cable, Wilson Sasha WP speakers with Wilson Watch Dog Sub. Basis Debut V Vacuum turntable/ Grahm Phantom/Koetsu Jade Platinum. MacBook Pro 17" 2.93 GHz. 8GB RAM, Pure Music, Amarra.
There truly is a big difference in redbook performance, but you cannot shine a turd. Redbook has lower resolution than vinyl, and will probably never be as good due to that. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't look to get the best of it. A lot of modern vinyl starts life digitally. One needs to discover for themselves whether higher res digital converted into vinyl and played back is better than a digital down conversion to redbook played on a state of the art DAC. My loose observations are to play it in the medium it was recorded in the first place. It gets fuzzy when one looks at remastered reissues.
Forrest
Headless Mac mini 10.6/4g>iTunes+PMw/HM>Weiss DAC2>
EAR 509>Custom Tannoy 3836 or
Parasound JC-1>Soundlab A3
Lower resolution than redbook! How are you measuring that, dynamic range, distortion?
Keith.
http://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/
Great DAC. If it only costed 1/3 of what they charge...
...and yet I stand by my opinion- and it is just that. Are you saying that you think/know that 16/44 has as much or more information in it than vinyl does in a groove? If I understand the math, at 14-15 k there are only three points to describe the wave form, the rest is shaped. Please educate me if I am wrong
Is there not a push towards hi resolution digital? Why would that be if redbook sufficed? I am not attempting to put down digital, nor promote vinyl. Even the name "compact disc" speaks of compromise. Why is it then that the picture you associate with your account is that of a turntable and not a transport? MY Weiss DAC2 was a big step toward the organic-ness of vinyl and better at some things, but it cannot draw me into the music in the same manner as a good vinyl rig. Maybe his DAC202 does?
Really that is the makings of another thread. The gist of my post was to not make digital analog or vice versa, but to use both when appropriate.
My question to you Keith, is how does the DAC202 compare to MH LIO/ULN 8 (Sonic Studio 4) as a stand alone DAC? I value your opinion as you seem to be thoughtful and reasonable, but also realize that you have a business to run.
Forrest
Headless Mac mini 10.6/4g>iTunes+PMw/HM>Weiss DAC2>
EAR 509>Custom Tannoy 3836 or
Parasound JC-1>Soundlab A3
And talking about vinyl, there is no doubt in my mind that vinyl is far beyond digital it dosen't work in 0 and 1's and has a greater bandwith so my way of getting Hi-res files in Denmark is to play my vinyls in to computer thru riaa with usb etc..
But as a hi-fi importer i am allways in the seek of new ways to do things better, that's why Computeraudiophile is a good place to hang around. And digital music as files on servers/mediaplayers and so on is the future no one uses CD's in 10-15 years or less, the thing has not evolved since birth in "82-83" still compressed and bad jitter, that what makes Hi-res audio interresting.
What we need is just a more user friendly/interactive way of getting our music into the system in those 192/64 and i don't think Steve Jobs is planing on that at the moment, they all thinking about new player gadget and gismos instead of making the music sound better...YEAH it's getting religious now, but my point is that we need to get more music available in Hi-res and for the industry it's all about money and copyright so it could be a long one..but of course i'll be ready.
Sorry for spelling mistakes i'm not a native:-)
Best regards
Kristian
Copenhagen/DK
In the past, you've defended the cost of audiophile equipment by computing the cost per year, saying that one can use great equipment for literally decades.
I don't think that's true in this case. I think it will be fewer than five years before you'll be able to get dramatic improvements for less money. For instance, vinyl can still provide a better experience than 192/24. So it's reasonable to expect we'll increase sampling rate and depth over time.
So this may be a great DAC, but it's only for those who don't mind spending a lot and replacing as frequently as they replace cars.
4est Hi, I am not sure you can measure resolution, but CD has much greater dynamic range, better channel seperation less distortion, etc etc, anyhoo back to the thread,
VB Keith.
http://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/
I agree with those assessments, but what about comparing MH/SS with the DAC202 as DACs? Contrary to what one might think from my last post, I LOVE my Weiss DAC2. It is the first digital that I really thought gave analog a run for its money. The MH 8s/SS 4 or the DAC202 appear to be the kingpins in computer audio, at least on the firewire front. One of which is likely to be my next digital purchase. You are one of the few, that I am aware of, that has both. Do tell!
Forrest
Headless Mac mini 10.6/4g>iTunes+PMw/HM>Weiss DAC2>
EAR 509>Custom Tannoy 3836 or
Parasound JC-1>Soundlab A3
Yours may not be a fair assessment. With all do respect, I have at least double into my vinyl rig vs digital if you tally the parts, including the phono section that you will not need with most top end DACs. Furthermore, the phono cartridge is expendable with a life of say 1000-2000 hrs. I'd have to think that in the aforementioned 5 year period you would use up at least one, if not two cartidges. Rhetorically, what are you using and what is it's value? Do you re tip, or replace etc...
I will agree that digital is still evolving, whereas analog is pretty mature.
Forrest
Headless Mac mini 10.6/4g>iTunes+PMw/HM>Weiss DAC2>
EAR 509>Custom Tannoy 3836 or
Parasound JC-1>Soundlab A3
Chris,
Nice detailed review as we expect.
I have to say the value proposition of the Weiss DAC 202 is not complelling for me personally given the price and the industrial design relative to other alternatives for the discriminating audiophile.
Let me be frank here; the Weiss DAC 202 is butt ugly (I say this in the most respectfully way possible) and looks like a recording engineer designed the outside as well as the insides.
Given your review it appears that serious attention was paid to the technical details to leap-frog the Alpha DAC. However, No attention was paid to the industrial design. Given the $64XX price tag the value proposition has to be questioned on looks alone.
As an aerospace engineer the technical aspects are complelling, but as an audiophile the looks and industrial design are a real turn-off. I would not consider putting this unit in my living room unless I could cover it up with a lot of lipstick. Lets face it audiophiles are picky, detail people (ok, anal is the other word).
At $6400.00 for a DAC (volume control) only, I would strongly consider the Classe SSP-800 ( http://www.classeaudio.com/delta/detail-ssp-800.htm) which has a re-clocking DAC, pre / processor, ....etc as a better alternative and a nice living room worthy industrial design for $7K.
If Weiss Engineering target customer is the audiophile (Anal and otherwise) they should consult a industrial designer for a visually and Aesthetically pleasing facelift. I would advise the following for starters:
1. Make it audio component or rack size (Like the Alpha DAC, Perfect Wave DAC....Classe SSP-800....etc.)
2. Consider another color....like black or silver
3. Think living room component design. at $6k, I want something that I can be proud to look at and show off to friends and to help justify the price. For this price I expect the complete package...nothing missing.
In my opinion it appears Weiss has provided a technically great design with a lack luster look. It's simply not enough to have the best technical design (for the moment). I would suggest that the value proposition and therefore sales would improve with a reconstructive make-over.
Ed
New (2010 w/ HDMI) Mac Mini > Rotel RSX-1560 > B&W 805Di>JL Audio F112
Chris,
90% of the files were encoded in FLAC...
Are you listening to the files as FLAC? I thought you only used FLAC to archive and used uncompressed AIFF or WAV for listening?
...and copied to memory before playback in J River Media Center.
How do you do this?
Jeff
Hi Jeff - Very good question. In this job I have to try everything as they say. I wish I could only use one file format, one operating system, one playback application, one DAC, etc... You get the idea. I still use uncompressed files and recommend uncompressed files. Lately I've been listening to a ton of FLAC encoded files as part of some research I'm doing. It's entirely possible that I'll use 90% WAV during the next review.
In the J River Audio settings there is a check box to Play files from memory instead of disk (not zone-specific). Check the box and you're good.
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
I too would be interested in the views of people who have had a chance to listen to both the DAC2 and SS Model2/MH8.
Interim setup: Battery driven Macbook Pro with 4G Ram, running PM ->Tact 2.2 (with no processing from the Tact), -> Bryston 78-ST monoblocks, or Canary CA-339 300B monoblocks -> Tidal Audio Piano's.
A work in progress...
Chris:
Were the Ayre AX-7e and McIntosh MC275 the only power amps used in the review?
Was a substantial part of the review conducted in an environment where both media storage and data transmission shared firewire?
These are just yes or no questions and imply no expression of an opinion.
Thanks,
John
Hi John - No and No :~)
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
"I don't think that's true in this case. I think it will be fewer than five years before you'll be able to get dramatic improvements for less money. For instance, vinyl can still provide a better experience than 192/24. So it's reasonable to expect we'll increase sampling rate and depth over time."
I think we are already getting alot for the money with Metric Halo. According to Barry Diament the ULN-8 sounds like the Microphone feed. I haven't heard anyone say this about vinyl or analog. So I'd say digital is pretty good now.
The place where vinyl beats Red Book CD is in low level detail. Though this is a very important advantage, I think high resolution digital is very good and with some equipment may actually exceed the performance of analog.
Seems like it took a long time for digital to get as good as it has (most of my adult life). Hopefully, Metric Halo's next product will have 8x sampling rates or other technology which creates a greater contrast with analog.
I'll wait. Despite my audiophile label/status I still think these DAC's are too pricey. Before I'd spend on the Weiss I'd be heading to DCS land instead. Better yet I'm going to hold off a bit until I hear about the Arcam. $500 and Ansync USB. I just know someone can produce this stuff for this dollar amount.
K
If only Metric Halo would make a 2 channel 24/192 Firewire DAC. No special features (mic pre's, A-D, EQ, etc.)- just a kick-ass Firewire DAC for playback. They should be able to produce it a price even better than the LIO-8 and blow the pants off everything else out there. Barry??
The Weiss products are really great in many ways, but it sounds like we all seem to think that their price point seems out of line.
Tom
_________
MacBook Pro with Pure Music/ iTunes & PS Audio PWT --> PS Audio PW DAC; Spiral Groove SG2 TT w/ Triplaner arm & Ortofon A90 Cartridge --> ARC Ref 2 Phono Pre --> Concert Fidelity CF-080 Preamp --> Silicon Arts ZL-200 Monoblock amps --> Kingsound "King" full range electrostatic speakers.
I second the call for a great 2 channel 24/192 firewire DAC with NO bells or whistles. No display, no volume control, no extra inputs or outputs ... Just great, hassle-free sound!
I'm not afraid to say, I think Weiss is overpriced.
I'm curious about the Arcam also. I read somewhere that they license the asynch technology from DCS. Not that the asynch transfer is the whole DAC but it's good to know the transfer won't be the weak link in the product. Anyone know if the DAC will actually do 4X sampling rates. The little bit of literature I found doesn't say.
Yeah, it would be be cool if MH produced a great 2 channel product designed with audiophiles in mind, but I wouldn't hold your breath for that since they make products for the pro market.
The good thing about digital is that it is only going to get better.
At the end of the day, I'm all for having great sound. But at this stage of the game, for a individual DAC, I just can't see plunging down the money required for the Weiss, MH Lio8, Naim, etc. I have to say that for me, I'm going to have to stick with the items in the 1-2K range. For the price of the Weiss, and others out there like it, I'd prefer to have a full blown pre-pro, like the Classe or an ADA Cinema or Suite HD. The benefits of something like that far outweigh this for me at this stage. I HAVE to (or choose to) believe that the price of spectacular DAC's will come down in years to come. But until the source media is full blown, I, respectfully, can't see splurging like this. Having said that, I think it's fair to say that if this was a singular passion, I would pull the trigger immediately. However, I have vinyl and thoroughly enjoy my home theater system for new blu ray concerts and movies.
Just my 2 cents.
Jonathan
PS Chris, any comment on just how close the Weiss brings CD's, ripped or disc'd, to vinyl? Also, what are your thoughts on the Weiss' pairing with the Tube's. How significant was and or is that to its success?
Jonathan
-------------------
Still finding my way, but soaking it all up like a sponge!
The Weiss 202 is expensive, but so far, reports are that it offers a lot of sonic performance for the price. Consider that the most affordable decent preamps are at least $2K, and most are more like >$4K, and the price of the 202 seems a little more reasonable. Then add the fact that it handles all sample rates in native resolution via an asyncronous Firewire interface, and compare with, say the dCS Debussy: at $10K, the Debussy only handles USB audio at up to 24/96. Then consider that the Weiss also offers a built in, good quality, headphone amp, and does not require an additional component to interface with a computer to produce its best performance (unlike a BADA, for instance). A good stand alone headphone amp is going to cost $600 to $1K or more.
Now consider that the Weiss is designed, engineered, and built in Switzerland-the cost of living and the cost of doing business in Switzerland is quite high-and the quality of Swiss products is world renowned for good reason.
Considering all of the above, I believe the Weiss 202 offers good value for those audiophiles who can afford a source product in this price range, this does not mean it is for everyone, as much as I would like to own one it is very unlikely that I could afford it.
For a bargain DAC I think folks should give a listen to the Wyred 4 Sound DAC2, I have not heard it yet, but I suspect that it will offer the best sound for a USB DAC under $2K, and they claim it has an asyncronous interface that will handle all resolutions.
No one DAC is going to satisfy the needs of every audiophile, but I believe there will be a lot of happy Weiss customers, who will be enjoying the performance and features of the DAC 202.
barrows
MacBook, Pure Music, 4 G RAM-bel canto CD1-Modded DLIII-Ayre K5xeMP-Pass X 150.5-Focus Audio FS888-
DIY Parallel AC Filter-PS Audio Modded P-300 @ 90 Hz-DIY power cables-Nordost Frey Audio Cables
Hey Chris, any extended listening through the headphone out? When compared to line out to a headphone amp?
Also, I'm going to agree with an above poster that the design could use some work. It still looks to me on the utilitarian side (like a piece of pro gear) which is not all that surprising. I would like to see a shot of it with the display in action, it looks so big and dopey sitting there with nothing on it.
As for price I think that's a tough call. I certainly can't afford it, but then I can say the same thing about Meitner, DCS, or most of the other companies in this business. Honestly, I think we are lucky that computer audiophile products come as much from the heritage of commodity priced computing as they do from boutique audio. And I imagine there will always be a home for a range of price points. And for that reason I'll be looking forward to Wyred4sound and HRT reviews hopefully to come. ;)
PS Audio Quintet > Powerbook (iphone with apple remote app) > Kingrex Pre-amp > Kingrex QS-01 > Devore Fidelity Gibbon 7.1's
Jonathan,
CD's will never be as good as vinyl. At least until they do high resolution remasters. But then they won't be on redbook CDs anymore.
Barrows,
The brands you compared it to are overpriced too. The Weiss Minerva was overpriced compared to their own identical DAC2. I'd bet Weiss won't make the mistake of offering a product identical to the 202 in their pro line for nearly half the price. Virtually all the "audiophile" brands are overpriced and overhyped.
I own a QB-9, Benchmark DAC 1, Grace 902 and a Bel Canto 3.5vb.
I've owned a Weiss DAC2, Ayre CX 5e and many Wadia products.
I've chased the high end BS for 40 years and still keep a state of the art vinyl play back system in the rig.
Current power amp is BAT 75 SE, current preamp BAT 52SE
Speakers Audio Physic Virgo's and Avalon Eidolon's
Never see any Bel Canto reviews here.
Always see lots of Weiss love.
Never see any Bel Canto advertising here.
See Weiss ads plastered all over the site and constant feedback from Daniel.
Coincidence?
I am sorry, but this statement is just plain wrong:
"The brands you compared it to are overpriced too. The Weiss Minerva was overpriced compared to their own identical DAC2. I'd bet Weiss won't make the mistake of offering a product identical to the 202 in their pro line for nearly half the price. Virtually all the "audiophile" brands are overpriced and overhyped."
If this statement was correct I would expect the owners of the comapnies making these products, and the dealers which sell them, to be laughing all the way to the bank-but that is not the case. What exactly is your level of expertise that makes you an authority on pricing? Do you feel a Porsche Carrera GT is overpriced, or a Ferrari?
"audiophile" (your quotes) brands are not, in most cases overpriced. These products are low volume production items, and as such the pricing reflects the higher margins necessary for a company making a low volume product to stay in business.
I am not sure what your agenda is with making inflammatory and incorrect statements such as this, but the insinuation that somehow "audiophile" (your quotes) companies such as Weiss are overcharging for their products is incorrect.
barrows
MacBook, Pure Music, 4 G RAM-bel canto CD1-Modded DLIII-Ayre K5xeMP-Pass X 150.5-Focus Audio FS888-
DIY Parallel AC Filter-PS Audio Modded P-300 @ 90 Hz-DIY power cables-Nordost Frey Audio Cables
Nice job Chris, thanks. However, hope you allow a few observations:
"There’s little doubt that computer based audio is the future of high end playback." As editor would have suggested 'one of the' futures.
"I unequivocally state Weiss Engineering has handily surpassed the competition and all previous Weiss DACs in its class." I suppose the 'its' means that the Weiss Medea/DAC1 remains in another, higher, class. I once had both the Medea and Minerva here for comparison from a friend, so we opened them up to see internal componentry: the differences were huge, the Medea full of transistors and circuitry, the Minerva a dwarf in comparison and full of integrated parts and opamps. The sound of both was very good, but the older Medea was no doubt better in terms of soundstage and palpability.
"I had no problems during the review period inserting and removing all types of cables." Neither do I with the DAC2. In fact, connectivity on both units is essentially the same.
I also have no problems whatsoever with the fit'n'finish of the DAC2. Agree with those who pointed out that for people using other sources a good separate preamp will stay in the chain, therefore no need for extra volume control feature. Also agree that with those who commented on the need for yet another headphone socket.
"the Weiss DAC202 offers a critically and consumer acclaimed asynchronous FireWire interface. The DAC is also capable of sending word clock out to an audio card in an asynchronous-like fashion. Either way the Weiss DAC202 retains the critical role of master clock." The review would have benefitted from a more thorough comparison with previous or current Weiss DACs in this particular domain.
"The third feature that formerly put the Alpha DAC over the top is a simple sample rate display." I agree with a previous post, you could have at least mentioned that this can be added to many of the older Weiss DACs. My DAC2 has it now, sincere thanks to Daniel Weiss for having offered this extra little feature to older customers, for free.
"Two additional differences between the Minerva and the DAC202 are the newly designed analog output stages and newly designed D to A converter." This is probably the heart of the matter for people considering to move up from older Weiss DACs. The proof will be in the sound. The rest is cosmetics.
roberto
I thought it read like one great long advert on behalf of Weiss.
Doesn't have much credit with me.
If it sounds better to you then it is better...
Roberto,
there are some reports from the Far East that the DAC202 is superior to the Medea.
But in the future Daniel will certainly do some work on the Medea and it will stay on top of the range.
matthias
Just saw my previous post had a quote from the sample rate display but commented on the bit transparency feature, hope people understood the comments were about bit transparency. The DAC2 does in any case show sample rates, although not in a display (I couldn't care less how it is done).
Andrew someone should ask John Atkinson to hire Chris for Stereophile, this would alleviate at least some of the suspicions that people might have when reading online reviews. See JA's latest editorial on the benefits of printed stuff versus online stuff discussed in forums - I thought JA was way over the top with his arrogant, or perhaps defensive, remarks about online crap, however some - not all - of what he said there was correct.
Matthias the Asian crowd may be right, only our ears would tell. I continue to consider a 10 years old and 'only' 24/96 capable Medea one of best DACs out there.
roberto
"Never see any Bel Canto reviews here.
Always see lots of Weiss love.
Never see any Bel Canto advertising here.
See Weiss ads plastered all over the site and constant feedback from Daniel.
Coincidence?""
jhbpa - Please browse the site a bit more and you'll be happy to find a Bel Canto review. Now that I've reviewed the DAC202 there are two Weiss reviews and one Bel Canto review. I'm working on a review of the DAC 1.5 as well. There is only one Weiss ad and it's on the right side of the site. Daniel has only provided feedback on the forum, mainly to direct user questions, ten times in the last six months.
The last review I published from an advertiser was on January 26, 2010.
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
"reads like advertising copy
I thought it read like one great long advert on behalf of Weiss.
Doesn't have much credit with me."
Andrew S. - What are you looking for in a review? Can you provide any example of reviews that do have credit with you? Also, what about this review makes it read like advertising copy as opposed to a review?
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
There is NOTHING wrong with this review. I just question how serious we need to be about spending our money on ANY dac that costs more than $3,000 or even $2,000. I just don't think we're there with the material. So I can't see myself being on the bleeding edge. I'll happily spend $1-2,000 for a good DAC that gets me through the next few years. But for now, I can't see spending this kind of loot. Plus, I fully expect prices to drop. Can't wait for some of the other products to trickle further down...
And let's be fair to Chris. Advertising is what it is. But it's unfair to jump on him as though he has compromised his integrity about this product. FWIW, he's not the only one that has reviewed the 202 with such high praise. It is likely an incredible product, just freakin' expensive. Daniel needs to deliver something like it for about 1/4 the price!
Jonathan
-------------------
Still finding my way, but soaking it all up like a sponge!
he's not the only one that has reviewed the 202 with such high praise. It is likely an incredible product, just freakin' expensive. Daniel needs to deliver something like it for about 1/4 the price!
Typically by spending 1/4 of the price; you'll get 3/4 of the performance.
As for the cost, there's a lot of audio products a lot more expensive which people feel are worth the cost: compared with a dCS Scarletti stack (DAC, Upsampler and Clock) it's a bargain - and many people consider that is worth buying (with suitable other kit).
Eloise
Mac OSX 10.5 with iTunes (mostly ALAC) --USB--> Musical Fidelity A1008 --> B&W CDM 7NT (iPhone remote)
Again, it all depends on how much money you have. $5000 is a lot to me, it might not be to you.
It also depends on your system. I have an audiophile level system, but it certainly isn't what audiophiles would call "reference" quality.
I think these super hi-end components are "worth it" if you pair them with suitable equipment. I'd bet the Weiss would make an improvement to my system, but I'm not sure it would justify the premium price in my system. I'd probably be better off at this point putting the same money into even better speakers than the ones I have now. Probably more bang for the buck for me.
A good review of a high end DAC. Chris stated that he preferred the Weiss over his previous favorite the Berkeley. Both companies advertise here. What more do you want from him?
Chris reviews a wide range of products in terms of price. He's doing a great job in my opinion.
Wavelength Silver Crimson/Denominator USB DAC, Levinson 32/33H, Synergistic Research Cables and AC cables, Shunyata Hydra V-Ray II with King Cobra CX cable, Wilson Sasha WP speakers with Wilson Watch Dog Sub. Basis Debut V Vacuum turntable/ Grahm Phantom/Koetsu Jade Platinum. MacBook Pro 17" 2.93 GHz. 8GB RAM, Pure Music, Amarra.
I would guess fewer than one person in one hundred could hear the difference between this DAC and a great one in the $1500 range. And those people who could, would only hear the difference on a fraction of their library (certainly of their pop music library). It's probably the same between a $1500 and a $400 DAC.
When you buy audiophile equipment, you're striving to hear music as close to what the performer created as possible. And based upon your budget, you calculate your own point of diminishing returns
rjplummer: "..I would guess fewer than one person in one hundred could hear the difference between this DAC and a great one in the $1500 range.."
I think the more expensive and better you equipment is the easier it is to hear differences. If 100 people all owned Wilsons/Krells etc and were familiar with their system's sound, I'm pretty sure a large proportion would be able to hear the difference between a $1500 DAC and a $6000 one. Additionally at that level you are looking for a sound you like, and I'm sure the presentation of a dCS DAC is different from the Weiss and it might come down to personal preference.
On the other hand if the 100 people had budget systems and were trying to compare two budget DACs (or one budget and one slightly more up market), I would bet that it would be much harder for them to form a preference. To me budget HiFi components sound much more similar to each other that exotic components do. The more you spend the larger the differences are, and the easier it becomes to tell components apart. Expensive components don't 'approach perfection' by all sounding similar. In fact, the exact reverse often happens. Maybe more so with speakers or amplifiers, than DACs.
(MacBook/HRT Music Streamer II+; Marantz CD7; Gyrodek/SME V/Dynavector 10x5/Pure Sound P10) > Glow Amp One > modified Tandy Genexxa LX5
$6,400 for a DAC and preamp isn't a killer amount(we still haven't heard from Antelope which can do all this too suposedly at about 1/3 the cost). Leaping now for a computer DAC at this price. No. You still need a computer that's up-to-date + software and some are calling for $800 Amarrra?!? Plus the guys I spoke with called for SSD in the computer plus a big drive to store. If you include the Amarra then you are talking another $2500. That brings you to $9,000....oops a remote too...another $200 for an iTouch or similar. Last add in all your time to sort it out and rip everything. That is Sooloos/Meridian territory and they to me have it together. That would also buy one nice optical player and preamp. I do believe great computer based systems will be the standard but it is going to take time. We here are early adopters and want it all now. I think we just need to be patient. Yes you can have a system now. The way this is all evolving I would expect an easy to use DAC within the next year that is inexpensive. To me that is my goal: a great DAC using my computer system without having to buy a Sooloos.
K
Chris,
Oh my... the king is dead... long live the king. Reminds me of this other 'web-known' audiophile devorcing his long-term fav's (Kharmas for VR-9's) :-)
..back on-topic..
You stated...
The best sounding interface to listen through was FireWire. The externally clocked Lynx configuration just wasn’t as cohesive as listening through the FireWire interface. The Lynx was a bit sloppy sounding.
The DAC202 has a much more cohesive soundstage than the Alpha....
Comparing the DAC implementation only, excluding the interface (take away the advantage of the a-sync FW) how do you think the 202 and BADA compare when both driven by the Lynx (without wordclock)? Is the difference smaller / reversed perhaps..?
Also, I remember you preferring the AES feeding the Minerva over the FW (pls./ correct me if I'm wrong). Is the FW interface implementation different between the Minerva & 202, or am I seeking consistency in the wrong place?
Thanks for what seems like a thorough review to me!
Hans
QNAP 439 (raid5) → MacMini (PureMusic, iTunes, AIFF) → HiFace (BNC) → BADA → KAV280p → Nemo's → Hales T8
Chris you asked Andrew what he was missing in the review, almost funny that you didn't ask me. My earlier observations could be translated into: omissions of important information, and lack of consistency when comparing the 202 to earlier Weiss DACs. Also, generally I like reviews when they comment on componentry and circuit choices. And finally, would have liked to read more on the sonic differences and possible explanations of these. I realise that yours was not a PhD thesis, but still.. anyway, please take this as constructive criticism.
The over-the-top John Atkinson editorial lashing out against online "crap" is here: http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/as_we_see_it_ipad_daze/ Just to clarify: am not totally supportive of his view, but he has a point when stating that publishing brings responsibilities and, thus, needs more rigorous editing.
roberto
Chris
In addition to the points made by Roberto ( with which I agree) please note the following extracts of your text which are not reflective of objectivity, at least in the aggregate.
"Falling victim to analysis paralysis or suffering from alligator arms are two easily curable conditions. Ambivalent audiophiles, It’s time to fish or cut bait.
What’s The Hold Up?
There’s little doubt that computer based audio is the future of high end playback.
“Are we there yet?" The answer to that question is yes, as long as the right combination of software and hardware are selected.
The DAC202 may be the best antidote for the aforementioned audiophiles suffering from alligator arms and analysis paralysis.
The sound quality, sample rate support, feature set, interface design, and bit transparency testing built into the DAC202 should satisfy audiophiles from the most jaded old schooler to the early adopters looking to replace an existing DAC.
Needless to say Daniel Weiss is one of the best engineers in the business at designing components that have made and played high quality music.
I unequivocally state Weiss Engineering has handily surpassed the competition and all previous Weiss DACs in its class.
At nearly $6,450 USD the Weiss DAC202 has increased in price as much as performance over its predecessors.
In high end audio master clocking has traditionally been reserved for the extremely exclusive components from companies like dCS and Esoteric.
I’ve had other components in here that enabled me to listen to a lot of music, but nothing like the DAC202 that compelled me to listen.
Now that we’ve answered the “are we there yet" question it’s time to ask, What are you waiting for? "
Undoubtedly the Dac 202 is very fine dac. If you had reviewed it as such I would no issue. Instead you have, I suggest, moved from reviewer to spruiker.
An online review with credit with me? well this site mirrors my experiences.
http://www.hifi-advice.com/reviews-CD-DAC.html
On the other hand I give you credit for allowing free and open comment on your review even, as is the case with me, when it negative. Try that on the Harbeth Forum and see how long one lasts. Kudos to you for that.
Regards
Andrew
If it sounds better to you then it is better...
Thank-you Chris, for a very thorough and fair review.
I expect the 202 sounds great, as I found the Minerva with Nordost cabling and Conrad Johnson power last year at a dealers showroom. I heard the same piece of music at increasing higher resolutions up to 24/192 and at each step I could hear the music produced becoming more and more life like, wonderful. I have been a vinyl man for a long time and that experience made me realize how good high resolution digital is becoming.
The recordings were from a Kent Poon DVD, which had been copied to a Macbook Pro.
Australia
Quantum Qx4 & Qbase power system } Mac mini/AIFF/Pure Music (HOG mode) on Sort Kones } Weiss DAC2 } Sound Reference tube pre (hand built David, Caxton Audio) } DH Labs Silver Revelations (they are) balanced interconnects } Mark Levinson 331 amp } Tannoy Gold Monitors & SuperTweeters (biwired) } (:-))
"I would guess fewer than one person in one hundred could hear the difference between this DAC and a great one in the $1500 range."
I'll disagree with this. I had a great DAC in the $1500 range (I paid $1495 new retail for it), and upgraded to a $4000 retail DAC (which I paid only $3000 for due to a loyalty discount).
I believe my ears to be average (amongst audiophiles), and I easily heard a significant difference. I'm not saying this is ALWAYS the case, but it was in mine and I'm "not one in a hundred".
FWIW, I'm betting that the Weiss DAC is on a par sound-wise with my DAC, albeit with a different feature set (mine being being intended for purely pro audio).
cheers,
clay
Kudos to Dan Weiss for making such a great DAC - the best of pro audio for audiophile tastes.
Kudos to Chris for sharing his "opinion" of it with all of us.
As for criticisms, I understand Andrew's point about it being (a bit) over the top, but on the other hand, I accept that as Chris' poetic license. It's his site, and HIS opinion.
Let's face it - it took a LOT for Chris to move away from the Alpha as his reference DAC. So let's forgive his exuberance about his new reference.
Chris is 'one of us', not some paid reviewer presenting pablum for pampered subscribers while trying to keep his editor happy!
BTW, Chris, welcome to the world of Async Firewire! ;0
Clay
PS, what Firewire cable did you use - I didn't see a reference, but might have missed it in all that prose!
I'm not saying that people need better ears anatomically to hear differences. Nor am I talking about only the audiophile population.
My point is that 99% of the general population aren't used to listening critically enough to hear differences among high end components.
I also note that nobody's objecting to my statement that most of one's music collection isn't recorded carefully enough to benefit from the difference among audiophile-quality DACs
I completely disagree with your entire post, I just didn't bother to comment on it.
Forrest
Headless Mac mini 10.6/4g>iTunes+PMw/HM>Weiss DAC2>
EAR 509>Custom Tannoy 3836 or
Parasound JC-1>Soundlab A3
to see all the criticism here. That's OK as long as it remains constructive, but some of the above is a little over the top. The last thing I would want is to read a review that agrees with all my uninformed opinions-but it appears that some people want Chris to just validate their views. I am glad that Chris calls it like he sees it, in his system, and does the work to let us know what he is hearing, and I hope that he continues to do so as honestly as he can.
Personally I see nothing wrong with Chris' review, in fact, I find his enthusiasm genuine, and it goes a good ways to making me feel the Weiss 202 likely sounds very good indeed.
And what is wrong with calling Daniel Weiss ONE of the most respected digital engineers? Anyone who knows anything about this topic knows that is just a true, factual statement.
Weighing with 2cents:
I agree with Clay, hearing the differences between good sub $2K converters and great more expensive converters is not difficult, and hearing this difference does not require $100K systems either. While I still believe speakers are the most critical component in a system, the source component is the second most critical. A simple system, like a Wyred 4 Sound intergrated or power amp, driving an affordable speaker like a Maggie 1.7 will show the differences between DACs quite handily.
A review is just a review, and subject to reviewers tastes, and biases, and should only be taken as a general recommendation on whether a given product is worth hearing. A buying decision should only be based on direct experience with the product at hand.
I also wonder if this review was of a Firewire DAC costing $2K if the crticisms would be so vehement? It seems there are some folks who do not like to accept that sometimes spending more money is necessary to get better performance, and in this non-acceptance they want to "shoot the messenger" so to speak.
barrows
MacBook, Pure Music, 4 G RAM-bel canto CD1-Modded DLIII-Ayre K5xeMP-Pass X 150.5-Focus Audio FS888-
DIY Parallel AC Filter-PS Audio Modded P-300 @ 90 Hz-DIY power cables-Nordost Frey Audio Cables
rjplummer: "..My point is that 99% of the general population aren't used to listening critically enough to hear differences among high end components.."
Why on earth is it relevant to post that on an audiophile site where I think we can assume that 95% or more of the readers are used to listening critically to HiFi components? I can't afford a Weiss, but I'm pretty much 100% certain that if you plugged it into my system I could hear a large difference between it and my current very good inexpensive DAC.
rjplummer: "..I also note that nobody's objecting to my statement that most of one's music collection isn't recorded carefully enough to benefit from the difference among audiophile-quality DACs.."
Actually no, this is completely wrong. A big reason for getting a high resolution musical system is that it makes it easier to get into music you aren't familiar with, or music that is not so well recorded and needs all the help it can get with you hearing what is going on.
(MacBook/HRT Music Streamer II+; Marantz CD7; Gyrodek/SME V/Dynavector 10x5/Pure Sound P10) > Glow Amp One > modified Tandy Genexxa LX5
"My point is that 99% of the general population aren't used to listening critically enough to hear differences among high end components."
On a site dedicated to audiophiles, using the 'general population' as a point of reference does absolutely nothing to justify one's opinion as to whether differences (relevant to audiophiles) can be heard between components.
"I also note that nobody's objecting to my statement that most of one's music collection isn't recorded carefully enough to benefit from the difference among audiophile-quality DACs"
In that you can only speak with any knowledge about your own personal music collection, who are we to argue that most of YOUR OWN music collection "isn't recorded carefully enough", etc.?
clay
I'd argue if your system is "helping" the music, it's not accurately reproducing it.
rjplummer: "..I'd argue if your system is 'helping' the music, it's not accurately reproducing it.
You are saying that making the best of (ie 'helping') a row resolution recording by using a high resolution reproduction chain to listen to it, is somehow wrong? I really don't know where you are coming from on this.
(MacBook/HRT Music Streamer II+; Marantz CD7; Gyrodek/SME V/Dynavector 10x5/Pure Sound P10) > Glow Amp One > modified Tandy Genexxa LX5
Hi Guys - Just a quick note. I just purchased Herbie Hancock's new album The Imagine Project. It was released today 6/21/2010 (yes on a Monday instead of the industry standard Tuesday). In the liner notes Herbie states the following.
My deepest appreciation to the following manufactures:
... Daniel Weiss - A/D, D/A Converters.
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
"On a site dedicated to audiophiles, using the 'general population' as a point of reference does absolutely nothing to justify one's opinion as to whether difference can be heard between components."
I'm responding to the comment that for 1/4 the price you can get 3/4 the performance. I claim that you can get 99% of the performance for 1/4 the price. I have no idea how the poster intended to quantify 3/4, so I gave one possibility for my 99% claim: 99 out of 100 people can't hear the difference.
"In that you can only speak with any knowledge about your own personal music collection, who are we to argue that most of YOUR OWN music collection "isn't recorded carefully enough", etc.?"
I'm assuming audiophiles, have at least a moderately large music collection. I further assume (although with less certainty) that they base most of their music purchases on the quality of performance. I probably shouldn't have said "recorded carefully enough," since often degradation occurs in the digital remastering. And since an audiophile system shouldn't be adding anything to the recording, most recordings just don't have the information present that one audiophile component can achieve perceptible benefit over another.
"...most recordings just don't have the information present that one audiophile component can achieve perceptible benefit over another."
clearly you are either clueless or a troll.
I don't wast my time with either.
have a great day *
clay
thanks for the Herbie Hancock tip, just ordered it on double vinyl. ouch! :-)
Had the CD of the Joni letters, then got the vinyl version, somewhat slightly less good sounding but much nicer to hold in your hands. Then foolishly also bought the HDtracks 24/96 download, not at all better than the CD, another download disappointment, am getting fed up with their stuff.
But nice to know Herbie appreciates Daniel Weiss DACs.
roberto
"Undoubtedly the Dac 202 is very fine dac. If you had reviewed it as such I would no issue. Instead you have, I suggest, moved from reviewer to spruiker.
Chris has produced a fine review where he was extremely impressed with a product.
What on earth is wrong with that?
It seems to me you have a bit of an axe to grind.
Mac Mini..>Amarra Mini..>..Firewire..>..Weiss DAC 2..>..Conrad Johnson CA200..>..Martin Logan Aeon I's
I believe there was some controversy regarding the 24/96 download of the Joni Letters. Initially it turned out that the source had a problem (as I recall it may have been upsampled from 16/44.1). This problem was the discoved by some folks over at Audio Asylum, and prompted HDTracks to become much more vigilant into what they were really getting from the record companies. You may have one of the problem downloads, and you might want to contact HDTracks to confirm, they have fixed the problem, and the current downloads are all true high resolution with no up conversion.
barrows
MacBook, Pure Music, 4 G RAM-bel canto CD1-Modded DLIII-Ayre K5xeMP-Pass X 150.5-Focus Audio FS888-
DIY Parallel AC Filter-PS Audio Modded P-300 @ 90 Hz-DIY power cables-Nordost Frey Audio Cables
Gang,
After the initial curiosity, I was struck with some dissapointment, having a STACK of mail notifications in my inbox r.e. postings in this thread, finding out that (vertually) NONE of them pertained to the DAC202, the actual review or Q&A on the topic. Instead, it was a back & forth of 'quotes' on the relevance of and subsequent bashing of opinions on what seem subjects not specifically related to subject of this thread...
I think that is a pity. Am I alone in this? Perhaps I'm bound to be the lurker type afterall..
Apologies for the off-topic remark & for any (unintended) offence.
Hans
QNAP 439 (raid5) → MacMini (PureMusic, iTunes, AIFF) → HiFace (BNC) → BADA → KAV280p → Nemo's → Hales T8
"My deepest appreciation to the following manufactures:
... Daniel Weiss - A/D, D/A Converters.
Wow ! What was I thinking ? If it's good enough for Herbie Hancock then who am I to question the value of the product.
According to Elias Gwinn, Sywalker Sound uses Benchmark converters. I don't feel like I need to buy one of those.
I've seen Lavry credited and on equipment lists for studios. I guess they only do 24/96 recording since Lavry doesn't believe in higher sampling rates.
Everyone has to use someone's converters if they're doing digital recording. I don't know if I'd take album credits as an endorsement of a product.
labjr - Feel free to downplay the significance or insignificance of Herbie's personal appreciation to Daniel Weiss. Everyone has their own standard. Herbie's mention has nothing to do with the value of the product or your questioning the value.
By the way Skywalker has, or has had, just about every good converter ever made. Some of them are actually in use while others are up in the dusty rafters. Studios often have tons of equipment.
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
Hi Hans - I agree with you 100%.
We have a wonderful hobby that should bring enjoyment to all of us. When comments give readers headaches that's not good and is antithetical to how CA works.
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile
Some commentators have called Chris' enthusiastic review of the Weiss DAC 202 a paid advertisement because Weiss is a prominent advertiser. These people seem to forget that by boldly proclaiming the Weiss DAC 202 as his new reference he is also risking upsetting other advertisers in that price range. Not JUST kissing up to advertisers like some have stated.
From what I have heard the enthusiasm is well deserved. And Daniel Weiss is a class act all the way if anyone has dealt with him. Personal and engineering credentials.
Because of Chris' review I will give the Weiss Dac202 serious consideration. He was certainly right about Verity Audio speakers! One of the best purchases I ever made! :^)
Thanks for "telling it like it is" Chris and not worrying about upsetting other advertisers. After all the Weiss DAC 202 is setting a new standard for others to meet.
James
is not just a superbly talented and gifted musician, but it is interesting to note that he is also well known as being an audiophile. The fact that he is an audiophile might give some insight as to his motivations in mentioning the converters used in the recording/mastering/monitoring of this album.
Back to the Weiss 202: one very interesting feature to me is the fact that the Weiss offers two choices for digital filtering-Chris, did you happen to audition the two different filter settings?
I also read in the user manual that it is likely that new digital filters will be available in the future, and owners will be able to implement new filter options through software updates-to me this is a great feature as different digital filters can make for significant performance improvements. It also indicates that Weiss uses their own proprietary filters/oversampler, rather than using the stock filters available in the hardware (DAC chips).
barrows
MacBook, Pure Music, 4 G RAM-bel canto CD1-Modded DLIII-Ayre K5xeMP-Pass X 150.5-Focus Audio FS888-
DIY Parallel AC Filter-PS Audio Modded P-300 @ 90 Hz-DIY power cables-Nordost Frey Audio Cables
Chris-
It is amazing to me how f.u.so many commenters are. It's not pretty enough, it's too expensive, you aren't honest, on and on.
I get it. You love CA and you want to educate us, as well, I'm sure to make a living at doing something you love.
Have heart,
Best,
G
Hi Chris, i think your review is very good. It is obvious to me that it has taken a great deal of effort to write it.
Was there no negative aspects of the sound in your opinion?
In my experience, a dac is usually a compromise, and is not normally best at everything.
And how was this dac in comparison to the dcs gear?
Thanks:)
Mini > BADA > Nuforce ref v3 > Martin Logan Spire
Dear fand1
I am glad you liked Chris's review. I did not. I am sure the 202 is an excellent product. I have no axe to grind. I would be delighted to have a 202 in my system.
Regards
Andrew
If it sounds better to you then it is better...
"I'm responding to the comment that for 1/4 the price you can get 3/4 the performance. I claim that you can get 99% of the performance for 1/4 the price. I have no idea how the poster intended to quantify 3/4, so I gave one possibility for my 99% claim: 99 out of 100 people can't hear the difference"
I think I made that comment...
The figures of 3/4 of the performance as pretty arbitrary figures. There is just no objective way to apply numbers to the performance of a piece of audio equipment so they can be compared in this way - however the 3/4:1/4 ratio is something thats often commented on. To (significantly) improve on a good £200 CD player - there's no point spending £500, you need to spend £800. Equally to improve on a £1,500 DAC that means spending £6,000 or so. Not that there aren't some products that are absolute bargains!
As for if £6,000 is expensive - well you can buy a small car for that yes - but then you can equally spend £60,000 on a car which isn't much bigger and for day to day use won't get you "there" any quicker.
Eloise
Mac OSX 10.5 with iTunes (mostly ALAC) --USB--> Musical Fidelity A1008 --> B&W CDM 7NT (iPhone remote)
Chris,
Sorry for being late to the party... Have been at NAMM showing my new guitar amps. Great show... utterly crazy music.
Anyways... I did a lot of development with Oxford Semiconductor back in 2004 with their OXFW970 Firewire controller and then the 971 which is the basis for the DICE II as the Oxford stuff was sold to TC when Oxford wanted to work primarily on their USB/Firewire bridge products.
In looking at the DICE data sheets I really cannot see how this can possibly accomplish an Asynchronous link. First how is feeding a word clock back to the computer going to accomplish this. This is only a reference the DICE chip locks the output I2S signal on the incoming stream which means... even if you do the word clock feedback that the resulting I2S clock going to the dac will not be exactly the same as the word clock output. Second as I can tell from the work I have done with sound groups for both MAC and PC that this is a generalized concept and not a finite one.
Does the Weiss have fixed Master Clock oscillators?
Really the only true way to accomplish an Asynchronous method for a dac is to have fixed oscillators at the dac chip and use these oscillators to derive the I2S feed going to the dac chip. Therefore the only real protocol between the Computer and the DAC would have to have some inherent feedback or flow control to make for an asynchronous link.
Please explain???
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
~~~~~~~~~~
Wavelength Audio
http://www.usbdacs.com/
http://www.wavelengthaudio.com/
http://www.guitar-engines.com/
Gordon: I cannot help thinking that at best it is inappropriate to question a reviewer about the technical possibilities of a product. At worst it is disingenuous-verging on a shill for you or your products. If I were Chris, I'd have pulled that comment and strongly warned you...
Forrest
Headless Mac mini 10.6/4g>iTunes+PMw/HM>Weiss DAC2>
EAR 509>Custom Tannoy 3836 or
Parasound JC-1>Soundlab A3
Obviously 4est, you need to read Chris' review again. Chris mentioned that the Weiss 202 used an asynch interface with the computer. Gordon asked how this was accomplished.
Why don't you answer this question for us?
Wavelength Silver Crimson/Denominator USB DAC, Levinson 32/33H, Synergistic Research Cables and AC cables, Shunyata Hydra V-Ray II with King Cobra CX cable, Wilson Sasha WP speakers with Wilson Watch Dog Sub. Basis Debut V Vacuum turntable/ Grahm Phantom/Koetsu Jade Platinum. MacBook Pro 17" 2.93 GHz. 8GB RAM, Pure Music, Amarra.
Wow,
I am more than interested in the issue this question has arisen.
I am right now testing the weiss int202 on my dCS rig, and there is no benefit at all against my belcanto usb link.
Could that be an explanation ? (I am desperate to find one).
Elp
You missed my point. I do not feel it is appropriate for Gordon to draw attention to himself and draw speculation towards his competitor. Chris is not an engineer, but a reviewer.
It smells funny to me. I do not know the answer, but question the reason why it is asked in this fashion. It seems self promotional. He may have asked how this was accomplished, but only after touting his own expertise.
Forrest
Headless Mac mini 10.6/4g>iTunes+PMw/HM>Weiss DAC2>
EAR 509>Custom Tannoy 3836 or
Parasound JC-1>Soundlab A3
"If I were Chris, I'd have pulled that comment and strongly warned you..."
Gordon made not one but two very cogent, and appropriate comments about specifics in Chris's review, although admittedly Chris might not have the answer at hand (to Gordon's questions), nor should he be expected to.
1) He pointed out that Weiss' Firewire DAC might not be operating asynchronously (per the definition normally used by posters here on CA). This is important due to the fact that Firewire is not always Asynchronous, and, in fact, requires effort by the manufacturer to implement it thusly.
2) He also pointed out (or rather, reminded all of us) that Asynchronous transmission is not the best manner in which to describe the design characteristic that is normally attributed to Async - i.e. use of fixed oscillators by/in the DAC (as the master clock).
In other words, a DAC might be using an Async interface, but NOT be using fixed oscillators as the master clock, and thereby not be benefiting from the gains many here associate (incorrectly) with Async interfaces.
Clay
Jeez- Come on, Weiss doesn't need me to promote his products, nor defend them. It just seems a bit bush league to have done it in this fashion. Rightly or wrongly, there was a less self promotional way to ask this question.
If I am the only one whom feels this is a bit "off", then please forgive me.
Forrest
Headless Mac mini 10.6/4g>iTunes+PMw/HM>Weiss DAC2>
EAR 509>Custom Tannoy 3836 or
Parasound JC-1>Soundlab A3
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but my Weiss AFI1 uses the 'DICE' chip, and not the 'DICE II' chip. I suspect the DAC202 uses the former.
Gordan, do your comments apply to the 'DICE' chip also?
Mani.
"Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific." - Bertrand Russell (1959).
XXHighEnd -> W7 -> Zalman TNN300 with i7 -> RME AES-32 -> Pacific Microsonics Model Two
This from the DAC202 manual, explaining how the DAC202 suppresses jitter.
"... the D/A converter has to run synchronous to the incoming digital audio signal and thus the frequency of the internal sampling clock generator has to be controlled so that it runs at the same sampling speed as the source (e.g. CD transport). This controlling is done by a Phase Locked Loop (PLL), which is a control system with error feedback. Of course the PLL has to be able to follow the long term fluctuations of the source, e.g. the sampling rate of the source will alter slightly over time or over temperature, it will not be a constant 44.1kHz in the case of a CD. But the PLL should not follow the short-term fluctuations (jitter). Think of the PLL as being like a very slow-reacting flywheel.
In the DAC202 we employ a two-stage PLL circuitry, which very effectively suppresses jitter."
Doesn't seem like either Asynchronous transmission OR fixed rate oscillators are in use to me.
Further in the section of the manual referring to Sync Sources are details on using the DAC's Clock as Sync SOurce (i.e. Master)
"- Internal: The DAC202 generates the sampling rate clock internally. Note that in this mode the source has to be synchronized to the internally generated sync. With Firewire as input source this is done automatically via Firewire. With the other inputs the source, e.g. a CD transport has to by synchronized via e.g. the sync out
BNC connector at the back of the DAC202."
Kudos to Daniel Weiss for putting together a great manual, complete with details on the theory (as seen by Weiss).
clay
has brought up some relevant points here, and I for one would like to know the exact answer. Does the Weiss 202 use fixed frequency oscillators for the firewire input, or is the clock derived from the PLL circuit? In other words, is the Firewire interface used in a truly asyncronous fashion (as understood by those here to mean fixed frequency oscillators, controlling both the flow rate of data from the computer and the DAC chips)?
On the other hand, Gordon's post does seem a little self serving (even more so if he is incorrect) and it would probably have been better for him to contact Chris, and/or Daniel Weiss through private e-mail to discuss whether there is an error in the review, and then allow Chris to make revisions if necessary.
Ultimately a Stereophile review of the DAC 202, with a measured jitter spectrum would likely be the best answer, as then the measured jitter performance could be compared directly with that of the Ayre QB-9 (as also measured by John Atkinson, Stereophile).
barrows
MacBook, Pure Music, 4 G RAM-bel canto CD1-Modded DLIII-Ayre K5xeMP-Pass X 150.5-Focus Audio FS888-
DIY Parallel AC Filter-PS Audio Modded P-300 @ 90 Hz-DIY power cables-Nordost Frey Audio Cables
Hi guys - I don't want to hinder any discussion but I do want readers to carefully think about posting armchair engineer "answers" to this developing async question. This statement is not directed at anyone in particular.
I asked this exact async question before publishing the review to exercise due diligence. I am now working hard to find a definitive answer for the CA readers.
Please be patient.
Chris Connaker
Founder
Computer Audiophile