Esoteric D-07 DAC Review

nigel · October 8, 2010

Yes, blindjim, you were the other proponent of adding a high priced pre-amp to improve the signal quality.

We're not going to agree on this. I want to remove all sources of noise, distortion and non-linearity from my signal path, and you believe that some such sources (namely, high priced pre-amps) can improve the sound. That's up to you, just like some people like the sound of vinyl or tube amps, despite the well-known defects of both.

However, you appear to be confused about my NAD M2 Direct Digital Amplifier, which you refer to as a "NAD int". However, is has nothing in common with NAD's excellent range of budget HiFi integrated amplifer. It is a brand new, all-digital product. It is essentially a high tier DAC, where the analogue output is 200W of loudspeaker power instead of the line level of conventional DACs. It wasn't cheap either - at $6,000 it is quite a bit more expensive than most DACs mentioned here, but since it replaces a DAC, pre-amp and power amps, I think it's very reasonably priced. I think it would hold its own again any DAC, pre- and power- amp that you care to specify.

<cite>Why do you nay say higher tier components from being added to the signal path ? …it’s because you don’t have them… that’s all.</cite>

No, it's not because I don't have them, it's because they are totally unnecessary in my signal path. In fact, there is no analog line-level path anywhere in my system (including inside the NAD M2). The NAD does have a couple of analog line inputs for legacy sources, but they are immediately fed into an ADC, because the M2 only operates in the digital domain.

To use your automobile analogy, you are trying to persuade me that I need to add better fuel injectors to my Tesla Roadster!

Anyway, further discussion of the NAD M2 probably doesn't belong here. I started a thread on it in the DAC forum a few weeks ago.

blindjim · October 8, 2010

Nigel

.... my auto analogies were I felt appropriate. I don’t recall saying you needed to super charge anything.

My statements on the use of a higher quality preamp being added into the signal path, in my rig, in my home, and at the dealership, as well as at other's homes in their outfits, and with all our ears said, Putting my Thor TA 1000 MK II with NOS tubes into the mix where either another one was previously or there was none at all, , made a positive difference to the quality of the sound being produced regardless the system, room or ears that heard it….

That’s simple fact. You can not deny this.

It’s almost like me saying I wore black shoes yesterday…. And someone I’ve not met says, “No, they were brown.”

What?

I did not mean to slight your amp, at all. Forgive me please, but isn't an amp which contains both preamp and power amp (s) called an integrated amp?

Or am I still missing your point… your amp only has a digital to analog converter ahead of the gain stages, and no volume control?

Regardless it’s design… I’ll not argue something I don’t know much about… only those things I do know about.

Check out many of the reviewers online, and in actual printed magazines... a very large contingent of them prefer the use of tubes for their own listening pleasures.

Even in this review.... tubes make up that MC275 input and gain stages which are coupled to it's output autoformer thingy.

OK.. so what? tubres or not tubers... improving the quality of the sound itself isn't always done best by subtraction only.

This is about my sole salient point here.

I see no other satisfactory explanation, given the results I've seen first hand by adding more at times into the signals travels, and thereafter realizing a better quality has been infused into the sound itself..

Neither will I deny your outfit does for you what you want it to do.

I'm simply saying... subtraction of elements from the signal path is not always the best method to wind up having outstanding audio reproduction. I went so far as to say that in fact it can be made better by adding in more or different items into that same exact signal conduit, only because I’ve found this to be true. As have several others.

Truth, in and of itself, does not require that I either ackknowledge it, or even agree with it for it to be true. yet in the case I submit here, as have some others, it has been repeatedly validated.

I added that until one finds out for themselves by experiencing such things first hand, those without knowledge of that thing, can't possibly deny it's result.

Well, they can actually... lots of people said the earth was flat for a long time.

Ever been to a live rock & roll show? There's plenty of distortion going on therre... the very acoustic can and is often distorted or is poor to begin with... the amplified sound is raging on and contains it's own distortion.

But often... it feels good and sounds good too. Right?

I'm about a palpable organic natural sound wherein the artists appear in my home. I've achieved it in the build of the components I now own. Doubtless it is not the only avenue this sort of enterprize can yeild similar or better results.

but my DAC is pretty good DAC, so are the balance of the goods in my audio setup, and it's sound is noticeably better with the addition of my line stage preamp, another set of ICs, another power cable, and positioning & using isolation footers.

Easily.

But I'm cool with whatever you choose to do. I simply say, until you try it, you do not really know.

For myself, were I to ordinarily or utterly discount the addition of any item with which the audio quality might be improved upon with, and refuse to accept some other outcome, is pure obstinacy and ignorance. At the very very least, it's a blatant display of my own contempt prior to investigation.

It ain’t what we know that hands us the greatest number of problems, it’s what we know that just ain’t so, that usually is our undoing.

nigel · October 8, 2010

Blindjim,

Sorry you didn't get my Tesla analogy, or my explanation of the new digital technology in my system, but I'm sure we'll both enjoy the music anyway.

kenreau · October 8, 2010

Hey Nigel & Blindjim, can you guys take your off topic preamp thread crap elsewhere please?

The Computer Audiophile · October 8, 2010

I wouldn't call it crap, just off topic :~)

Audio_ELF · October 8, 2010

To all those commenting that the Esoteric may improve if used with a pre-amp: It may be the case there is a mismatch between the output of the D-07 and Chris' power amp, however Esoteric themselves say ... "The D-07 also has an attenuator for controlling the level of analog output. This can be combined with selector functions that are used for a variety of digital inputs, and allow the DAC to serve as a high-end digital preamplifier."

So Chris can't be moaned at for using the D-07 in this combination.

Eloise

blindjim · October 8, 2010

Chris

Eloise

I asked Chris very early on a couple questions regarding his take on what went into his choice of using or not using a preamp in his reference system??

…..for this, or any other review.

it/they went without answer… and remain that way todate.

At no time did I seek to denegrate this thread by clouding it with off topic materials.

I merely asked a question, then was aided by some other poster and ultimately denounced by Nigel as to the actual benefits of employing one in a playback system, yet Nigel had never tried out the scenario I suggested

So how could he or anyone without personal knowledge commit to such a position?

The only other incredibly germaine and fascinatingly crucial line of info being bandied about herein amounted to just what is a PC DAC and what is not….

Which has exactly what to do with the comments Chris made on the Esoteric DAC?

My whole, entire, and complete aim was to point out as Chris has recently begun adding into his accounts of equipment on these pages, one must try a thing before one can denounce it out of hand. As most true.

This “see for yourself” facet of PC or any other aspect of audio for that matter, is exactly what one should do prior to passing judgements on those items they know nothing about.

One review or some other should not ever be the Holy Grail for any product or justify why someone may or may not buy it.

Predominately, any outlay of near $5K ought be made following some up close and personal audition with it in your own home, if at all possible!

Then my new BFF and self appointed thread cop, Kenro so eloquently spit out his/her apparent attempt to censor anymore input or debate aligned with the merits or demerits surrounding the use of a dedicated upper tier preamp in a stereo system, in nearly as crass a manner as could be allowed to be posted..

Even though at that point , the preamp discussion was apparently concluded.

Child, please! Go see if you can push some little kid off the see saw at the park.

MikeJazz · October 8, 2010

I would just like to underline my thinking about burn-in.

I personally thing that something must be wrong with a electronic device, if they require a considerable amount of burn-in hours.

If they do, then the vendor should take care of it before leave the factory.

More that 500 hours seems to be an incredible amount.

Who can honestly identify how much comes from the listening habituation and ear adaptation and how much comes from burn-in?

What needs burn-in is other mechanical objects, like loudspeaker drives, for obvious reasons.

Are there parts in a DAC that need "mechanical burn-in"?

Just my 2cents.

danielaparker · October 8, 2010

Re "I wouldn't call it crap, just off topic :~)"

On the contrary, I would say largely on topic, as the issue is whether the D-07 would have sounded better through a preamp. I don't see a problem with being reminded that there are differing views about this. But it would be interesting if Chris tried both and reported back.

-- Daniel

Fyper · October 8, 2010

It is refreshing and reassuring to see that some reviewers have the honesty to say that not everything sounds great, even if it remains a subjective view.

The burn in time question comes back again and again, I must say that I wonder if, after 500 hours, one is just so used to one's system that it has become the norm and whatever thing was displeasing at the beginning has just become normal.

The comment of John van Spijker might explain some of the disappointment around this DAC: if you change the box, the brand and reduce the price by 60% you may have a nice and competitive DAC. I suspect that Esoteric may have pushed the marketing game a bit too far.

I have been using a D-05 for some time now. I assume that the conception is better than the D-07 (?), I do have the feeling that the sound is alive, that there is much transparency and a lot of details, etc. It is definitely better than mid-range DAC like the MF V8, but how it compares to similarly priced DACs, I don't know.

I use it with an integrated amp (Pass Int150) so I wouldn't know the interest of using a preamp or not. However, as Eloise said, Esoteric do say that their DACs can be used without a preamp and that their 32bit DAC chip allow digital gain management without tampering with the data.

cfmsp · October 8, 2010

"Child, please! Go see if you can push some little kid off the see saw at the park."

The "crap" was your attitude and your "the lady doth protest too much" pontificating style, as far as I can tell.

have a great day*

clay

Encore · October 8, 2010

MikeKazz and Fyper. Well, you have a very valid point about burn-in--how much is habituation? I'm pretty convinced it isn't (just) habituation. I had my system turned off for three weeks this summer. When I got back from vacation, it sounded very harsh, but this time it only took 3-4 days to regain the normal smoothness, whereas the initial burn-in time for DAC and speakers is indeed several hundred hours.

Of course, it might just be that my habituation kicked in earlier because of the previous habituation. I don't think so, though, because I don't think you habituate to harsh sound. Habituation, IMO and experience, more affects soundstage and perspective.

hifitubes · October 9, 2010

I thought he simply meant DAC chips in PCI/PCI-E cards vs. standalone DACs....

One and a half · October 9, 2010

you can license the Mac logo, and it's royalty free. The license allows you to use the Mac logo, provided the applicance or equipment works on OSX...

/>

I was curious & looked at the interior of the Esoteric and the quality of the build looks as though it is made to mass market consumer rather than for high end build quality that the price is being charged at. Whether it uses cheap components or not, I can't make the out from the photo which they are, but the boards themselves don't do the price justice.

Still, with some people loving the sound from the Esoteric D-07 and others like Chris much the opposite really, is there inconsistency on the build quality that would cause the vast differences?

blindjim · October 11, 2010

I think I’ll always remain amazed at what and how people can get by so far into life without acquiring good reading skills…. OR how people can read one thing and see it as something else completely… Paranoid? I’ll go with poor reading skills instead.

Use a few words in the dictionary you don’t always find in the high school parking lot, to further illustrate your point of view and past experiences, , and you’re pontificating. Sheessh… I’m not even Catholic! But I have been to the Vatican.

Ask why a particular device is or has not been implemented into a reference review system when the overwhelming majority of audio reviews do incorporate the use of one, and it’s both ignored by the reviewer and seen as a different question from other’s.

Apparently the bias and inexperience levels around here by some more avid posters are greater than I initially thought. As well as is the stage of their maturity.

I meant nor indicated any harm, malice or otherwise negative content to anyone here. Eloise, Chris, or Nigel, at all, as none of them made anything less than adult coments…. And both Chris and Eloise have been instrumentally helpful to me in my strides to lift up the performance of my own system.

I suppose anyone can read into something that which does not exist, and in so doing view only a reflection of themselves, in the process. Oil well.

cfmsp · October 11, 2010

"Use a few words in the dictionary you don’t always find in the high school parking lot, to further illustrate your point of view and past experiences, , and you’re pontificating."

Looking at the dictionary for the definition of pontificate, we get this:

"pontificate: to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way"

For pompous, we get:

"pomp·ous/?pämp?s/Adjective

1. Affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important: as in, a pompous ass.

2: having or exhibiting self-importance : arrogant as in, a pompous politician"

And for dogmatic, we get:

Definition of DOGMATIC

1: characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts"

Those words sum up how your posts came across to an objective observer, "objective" given that I don't have a dog in the fight (in fact, I own a tube preamp and a tube Integrated amp).

The evidence for my comment "the lady doth protest too much" (as it relates to your writing style here) is based on your response to a simple request:

"can you guys take your off topic preamp thread crap elsewhere please?"

Your response (along with many other words):

"Then my new BFF and self appointed thread cop, Kenro so eloquently spit out his/her apparent attempt to censor anymore input or debate aligned with the merits or demerits surrounding the use of a dedicated upper tier preamp in a stereo system, in nearly as crass a manner as could be allowed to be posted.. [...]

Child, please! Go see if you can push some little kid off the see saw at the park."

Referring (as you did) to the mere use of the word "crap" to describe off-topic (as confirmed by Chris) postings as "in nearly as crass a manner as allowed to be posted" is mind bogglingly naive, as well as a gross over-statement.

"I suppose anyone can read into something that which does not exist, and in so doing view only a reflection of themselves, in the process."

On this we agree, BlindJim

In my experience, the words "view only a reflection of themselves" are ALWAYS relevant and appropriate to those who refer to others as "childish", or "less than adult".

"I think I’ll always remain amazed at what and how people can get by so far into life without acquiring good reading skills"

One might want to consider that communication is entirely a two way medium - and therefore blaming others for not comprehending exactly what one has intended is rather, well, pompous & arrogant.

Further, assuming that others don't understand/comprehend what you are saying simply becuase they disagree seems likewise (i.e. arrogant).

clay

kenreau · October 11, 2010

Excellent summary Clay, thank you.

Fwiw, to clarify my original intent with using the term "thread crap", please refer to the UrbanDictionary.com

<dd>

Thread crapping occurs when a person comes into a thread and posts something contrary to the spirit/intent of the thread, often derailing the discussion or turning it into an argument.</dd> <dt>

Imho, the exchange/debate regarding upper tier preamps was contrary to the DAC review thread.

Time to move on...

Kenreau

aljordan · October 11, 2010

See this link for a 'inside' picture :

http://www.teac-europe.eu/fileadmin/project_data/esoteric/products/converters/d-07/GALLERY/d-07-02_GALLERY.jpg

and compare it with this $1860 DAC:

http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/RE7/RE78.jpg

stillone · October 11, 2010

Thanks for the photos. What is your point? Why would you think audio is different from automobiles, watches, wine etc. What one pays for a product has little to so with the Bill Of Materials. These are not cost plus businesses.

aljordan · October 12, 2010

When I purchase audio equipment, my main objective is good sound quality. Beyond that, I hope to be paying for good design and implementation, good ergonomics, and quality construction.

The second photo shows a very well executed design which implements separate transformers, multiple power supplies and multi-stage regulation for digital and analog circuitry, separate power supplies and regulation for each channel, sheilding between analog and digital circuit paths, and abundant filtering to ensure quality power feed.

In my experience, I don't think that good digital sound requires such a stiff power supply as shown in the second photo, but having auditioned the D-07 at a dealer a few weeks back, in my opinion I can't say the sound quality justifies the cost of the unit. It is very pretty though.

bpchia · March 4, 2011

Hi Chris,

Wondering if you could review the Esoteric K-01 or K-03 to see if the new async USB 24/192 input on these players has addressed any or all of your concerns in the D-07?

Thanks.

Esoteric D-07 DAC Review

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites