Thread: TAS Audio Research DAC8 review

First of all, I want to make something very clear. I generally like Audio Research products. I have used them at various times in my personal system for many years. I am an Audio Research dealer. I had a DAC7 in my system and now have a DAC8, along with a REF5 SE preamp. OK, disclosure complete.

The September issue of The Absolute Sound has a review by Alan Taffel of the DAC8. He doesn't like it at all. Astonishingly, he has nothing but good things to say about his DAC7. I can't even begin to tell you how disconcerting this is. We all have different tastes and possibly brands that we gravitate towards. I'm not going to tell you that the DAC8 is the best there is. Frankly I don't know what is the best. And even if I thought I did, you might not agree with me. That's part of what makes this hobby fun. The other part is the music, which is my passion in life.

I don't know if Mr. Taffel is a competent reviewer. Perhaps he simply lives in a different universe than me and a number of other people I respect. His comments about the DAC7 being superior to the 8 are absurd. I like the DAC7. I didn't like it through the USB input but I liked it. The DAC8 is far superior. His big complaint is about noise in the DAC8. I know of no one who has made that observation. The objective reality is that noise was substantially reduced in the DAC8. His review makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Again, don't misunderstand me; if he had said it's a good piece but not for me, I would have been disappointed but understood that we all look for different things. As it is I question his ability as a listener and as a reviewer. I say that more as an enthusiast than as a person in the industry. I also hate the fact that his questionable assessment may make some DAC8 owners question their purchase. Please don't. It's a fine piece and is the best digital I've ever lived with, including the $26,000 Levinson 31.5/30.6 CD playback system I once owned.

Rant over. Sorry, but this is just so far off base....

Thanks for reading.

Rick

PS Perhaps he doesn't know how to optimize computer/USB playback - I guess that is a possible explanation. Maybe he needs to talk to Chris.

I agree wholeheartedly with rom661 about the errant review on the ARC DAC8 by Alan Taffel. I own both the DAC8 and the Bryston BDA-1 and have listened to both quite a lot. In fact after reading that review I pulled the BDA-1 out of storage and set it up to do some comparative listening. As a bit of background, several years ago I went shopping for an upgrade to the Benchmark DAC/Pre that I was using. I listened to both the DAC7 and the BDA-1 and, in the end, chose the BDA-1. I liked the slightly better focus and precision of the BDA-1 while admitting that, overall, the DAC7 was probably a little more "musical". I did not regret my purchase and also bought the excellent BP-26 pre-amp to complement my new DAC. Fast forward several years later, I am now running the Bryston BDP-1 into the BDA-1 with an ARC Ref 5 pre-amp, Bryston 28B mono blocks and KEF Reference 207/2 speakers. I brought home the DAC8 to compare with the BDA-1 and it was immediately obvious to me that although the BDA-1 was a very fine DAC, the ARC DAC8 was better and the BDA-1 went into storage then later got loaned out to a friend who ended up liking it so much he bought one for himself. Now back to the present where the Ref 5 has been replaced by the Ref 40 and all cabling has been upgraded to Cardas Clear with full Shunyata King Cobra and Anaconda power. After listening to both DACs again I am amazed at how off the mark Alan's comments are. The DAC8 is very dynamic and engaging, with an deep and wide soundstage yet excellent focus of the instruments and voices. While the BDA-1 may be a little smoother on the top end, it achieves this with a smaller soundstage, less focus and reduced dynamics, in my opinion. Overall, the DAC8 is the more engaging presentation and the one I prefer. Interestingly, my friend who owns the BDA-1 does prefer it's more reserved presentation. Nonetheless, the review of the DAC8 by AT was not correct, in my experience.

Originally Posted by Audio_ELF

While it sounds like the review was contary to other people's experience I think this comment is very below the belt. There are other explanations without resorting to insinuations like this...

Eloise

They have deflected critisism like that for years and for them it's old hat. I don't belive they are going to get too worked up over this, in fact a good controversy now and then doesn't hurt. Brings them back into the limelight.

Wow! I have not read the review, but will be sure to do so now. When a reviewer states that a product has objectionable noise levels, it is time to contact the manufacturer and do some testing to make sure that the review component is not damaged in some ways. Additionally, the editor of the piece should also be prompted to do some fact checking before publishing something like this. Noise levels can be objectively measured, and I very much doubt that an Audio Research, solid state, DAC in good working order actually has a noise problem???? IMO, when the editor reads such things, red flags should go up, and the review should be delayed from publishing until the component in question can be objectively checked by the manufacturer. Poor reviews like this only harm the industry as a whole. Did Audio Research publish a manufacturers comment?

Eloise is correct. Manufacturers place the advertisement you refer to because they have received the "Editor's Choice Award", this is good marketing on their part, attempting to capitolize on the award.
They do not receive the award becuase of the ad placement.

Originally Posted by chg

Maybe so, but I remain skeptical.

Seems like a waste of advertising dollars if you ask me. The manufacturer already has the full page "ad" in the award. Why follow with a paid ad? Hmmm!

Generally in this type of publishing, they are given an option for an add at that spot.

Originally Posted by chg

Maybe so, but I remain skeptical.

Seems like a waste of advertising dollars if you ask me. The manufacturer already has the full page "ad" in the award. Why follow with a paid ad? Hmmm!

Belt and suspenders my man, belt and suspenders. It is a competitive world out there for audio companies, and a chance to distinguish themselves does not come along that often, they will do everything they can to capitalize on this kind of exposure.

Wow, TAS actually said something negative about a piece of audio gear. That in and of itself is a miracle! Even a turd gets a favorable review in TAS so Im not sure what to make of this.

I've never heard the DAC8 but it was on my short list not too long ago for purchase but decided to go another route. In any case, I find it hard to imagine that the DAC8 would sound bad even on its worst day.

Umm… It is not required to advertise in TAS to be reviewed. See the quite complimentary PS Audio review in this issue… PS Audio has not placed an ad in TAS for years…

Myth, that is all you are talking.

I don't get it! For years the major Hifi rags get blasted for rarely critizing a product, believing in all kinds of conspircy theories. Then when a product does get critize they are blasted for a bad review."Dam if you do dam if you dont" I found the review refreshing, honest, and straight forward. No doubt AR owners will be offended, but hey it's one reviewer opinion. Sam

Originally Posted by shum3s

I don't get it! For years the major Hifi rags get blasted for rarely critizing a product, believing in all kinds of conspircy theories. Then when a product does get critize they are blasted for a bad review."Dam if you do dam if you dont" I found the review refreshing, honest, and straight forward. No doubt AR owners will be offended, but hey it's one reviewer opinion. Sam

Well, for sure I need to read the review. But from what has been posted here this sounds more like an inaccurate review, where there was some kind of problem in the system, set up, or, a faulty product. Personally I do not criticisize reviewers for a lack of negative reviews, I think negative reviews do no one any good. The fact is, most products these days are pretty dam good, and the differences are generally ones of taste or related to system matching: good reviewers will mention this. Now, there are a couple of reviewers who seem to find a new "best speaker ever!!!!" with every review, I am not so happy about that, as it just is not true, and hyperbole should only find its way into a review when the product is truly outstanding and a significant step above what has come before (and that is very rare indeed, these days)

Readers should understand that the value of reviews is quite limited. I find Stereophile reviews more valuable, as their reviewers tend to make direct comparisons with relatively well known products when they can, and they usually state their sonic preferences as well, making their sonic biases known. Over time, when reading reviews from guys like Michael Fremer, John Atkinson, and Wes Phillips, one can pretty much decode what kind of sound those guys each like, and apply this knowledge as a way to interpret their reviews. The fact that Stereophile publishes a pretty good set of measurments, which is consistent over time, allowing comparisons, is valuable to me as well; not because I expect the measurements to dictate how a given product might sound, but becuase the measurements will indicate if there are any general "problems" with the engineering of the component under review.

Well, there's the problem:

"I think there is value in negative reviews. It pushes manufacturer abilities and ensures only their best efforts reach the market. Plus, the occasional negative review can also demonstrate to readers that there is no bias on the part of the publication. If a product is objectively bad, it should be exposed for what it is."

As the reviewing process is almost entirely subjective, as well as system dependent, I just think a negative review can be really unfair to a product which might sound great in another system context. With some reviewers, if a component from a reputable manufacturer really sounds "bad", the publication will often contact the manufacturer, to find out if the component might perhaps be damaged in some way. In any case, if a review is cancelled because of really poor performance, the manufacturer will know about it. A really bad review could put a manufacturer out of business pretty easily, many audio companies making really great products are on the edge of financial viability as it is, so a reviewer should be really careful to be sure about what they are saying (investigating every possibility) before publishing a truly "bad" review.

Perhaps he doesn't know how to optimize computer/USB playback - I guess that is a possible explanation. Maybe he needs to talk to Chris.

See Alan Taffel article from 2009 TAS 194: The State of USB Audio | AVguide

Where he comments on the state of USB audio and concludes that

I regret having to report that, at this stage in its development, USB does not rise to the level of an audiophile-quality interface. With carefully chosen equipment and accessories, USB can sound perfectly pleasant. At the other end of the quality spectrum, it is nearly unlistenable.

But if you read the article, he didn't use the newest USB equipment optimized for audio, and doesn't seem to be really aware of how to properly setup computer audio. On that basis he makes a sweeping generalization, including saying that SPDIF is superior to USB for audio.

Ever since I read that amateurish review, I don't take any review of his seriously.