Weiss Engineering DAC202 Review

artk · July 9, 2010

When the PC business started out, everywhere you looked, there was a computer retailer. They all talked about how educated they were, and how the customer wanted personal service, and what a valuable service they provided. One by one, all of them went out of business. The customers found that buyer guides were better than a sales person working on commission, that you didn't need a high school graduate computer store employee to give you the secret of setting up your pc.

I live in NY, we used to have dozens and dozens of hi fi stores, we're now down to a hand full. In both cases, the market has already spoken. If true high quality computer audio becomes successful, the few remaining stores will be shut.

labjr · July 9, 2010

Please provide data to backup this assertion.

Well how about there are only a couple high end dealers left in New England. I don't know anyone who shops for their hifi locally. I look for the deal when I purchase a new guitar or piece of hifi gear. So does most everyone else I know.

I service appliances and even customers with million dollar homes who have to replace their refrigerator ask me where to the find the cheapest price for a replacement. Everyone is accustomed to low price no service businesses these days. I can't imagine they are much different when buying some stereo equipment.

Sorry but people's attitudes have changed. They are working for less money than they were a few years ago. Everyone shops at Walmart now. Do you?

The Computer Audiophile · July 9, 2010

@labjr - "Virtually everyone" is vastly different than "the people [you] know." Thanks for clarifying.

Edit: Also, I never shop at Walmart. I don't like poor quality. In fact yesterday I walked one mile each way to a local farmer's market to purchase vegetables. I picked out the vegetables I wanted and talked to the farmers who grew them. My only wish was that the vegetables were organic.

@artk - Your experience and examples are all related to mass market goods. That really doesn't translate to a niche market of high end goods no matter what industry. There still is a niche for high end computers even though the mass market has settled for something less. It's the same for high end audio, cameras, shoes, clothes, guns, watches, food, and nearly every industry.

I have to ask what is the purpose of you comments here?

labjr · July 9, 2010

Virtually everyone" is vastly different than "the people [you] know." Thanks for clarifying.

It's not just the people I know. It is virtually everyone.

How many people do you know who avoid large discount stores? I'll bet not very many.

The Computer Audiophile · July 9, 2010

"How many people do you know who avoid large discount stores? I'll bet not very many."

Hi labjr - It's about the same number of people I know involved in high end audio although not the same people. We are talking about niches here.

This one has gone way off topic. If you want to continue this discussion I suppose you could open a thread in the forum, but I doubt many readers will be interested in our conversation. This is a laid back site where people come to increase their enjoyment of high end audio using computers. When conversations start to give people headaches, things have gone terribly wrong.

barrows · July 9, 2010

do not, ever, shop at Walmart! Walmart is a symbol for just about everything that is wrong with the economic structure of this company. I try to buy high quality products, produced in the US when possible, and I try to keep those products as long as possible-instead of buying cheap imported crap that does not satisfy in the long run.

While one is entitled to their own opinion, please do not make inferences about what everyone does.

There are still quite a few ethical people that I know of.

Yes, I will bargain for the best price when buying a high ticket item, nothing wrong with that, and to be sure traditional audio dealers usually have more room to move on price than online retailers.

cfmsp · July 10, 2010

..but in your case, artk, I'll make an exception.

"The fact is that high end audio is a technology business that repackages high volume low margin microelectronics into low volume high margin equipment with questionable added value."

As for this comment, I don't think I've ever bought a piece of audiophile gear which matches your 'fact' above.

Examples include:

Richard Vandersteen's 2C loudspeakers

Michael Anthony's Musical Fidelity A1 (the original from 1984)

Harvey Rosenberg's NYAL Super IT (tube phono preamp)

(Dean something?) PSE Studio IV power amp

Joachim Gerhard's Audio Physic Virgo

various Joe Grado cartridges & headphones

BJ Buchalter's Metric Halo ULN-2

BJ BUchalter's Metric Halo LIO-8

Gordon Rankin's Proton DAC

Don Garber's Fi Super X 300b int. amp

Arcam's FMJ CD 23 CD player with RingDAC

Nelson Pass Aleph 30 amp

Nelson Pass First Watt J2 amp

John Devore's Devore 9 loudspeakers

Kara Chaffee's Dehavilland Ultraverve tube preamp

Ray Kimber's 8TC, 4TC, PBJ, etc.

Franck Tchang's ASI Liveline cables

Alan Maher's AC conditioning gear

Junji Kimura's 47 Labs Gaincard int. amp

As you can see, the vast majority of the audiophile items I've bought are from a company led by a craftsperson, with only the Arcam having (more of) a corporate identity.

Only one of those craftspeople did anything like what you've accused an entire industry of doing.

And even in that example, Junji Kimura's Gaincard, a simple device was designed and put together in a remarkably clean way that no one else had ever done before. As it was expected to be sold in small volumes, and as a huge amount of work was done to refine the quite simpe circuit, a high margin was employed.

It was a quite controversial piece that was copied by many and produced more cheaply by others (who were) standing on Junji's shoulders and only having to further refine the simple circuit.

The Gaincard reproduced sound remarkably for such a simple design and was groundbreaking in a number of ways - shortest signal path being one. It (still) sounds incredible with high efficiency speakers (in the dual power supply model that I picked up used for a fraction of it's original cost).

However, there was no 'questionable added value' (as you state) with the Gaincard. This amplifier was noted for providing a near perfect balance between tube and solid state sound. It sounds better than numerous amps with much more complex (and therefore more expensive to produce) designs and many more expensive parts.

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/120147/index1.html

enjoy,

clay

PS, re parts prices, everyone knows that the single most expensive part of an audiophile piece is the front panel. ;0

PPS, based on my experience, I'd pay twice as much for an amp that uses half the number of parts.

artk · July 10, 2010

After spending 10s of thousands of dollars on High End Equipment, your emotional investment in your self perceived connoisseurship is probably insurmountable. I’m sure that, with the exception of speakers, if someone swapped equipment in and out and you had no way of know that, you would find that you wouldn’t be able to reliably tell the difference between your super overpriced equipment and much more modestly priced equipment.

barrows · July 10, 2010

It is time for you to stop wasting your time here:

"your self perceived connoisseurship is probably insurmountable. I’m sure that, with the exception of speakers, if someone swapped equipment in and out and you had no way of know that, you would find that you wouldn’t be able to reliably tell the difference between your super overpriced equipment and much more modestly priced equipment."

This statement proves two things: you have no worthwhile experience with high end sound reproduction, and you have no respect for the opinions and experiences of others.

Given these two facts, you are entirely wasting your time and ours with your posts on this forum. I will not be responding to your posts further, and I suggest that others here do the same.

cfmsp · July 10, 2010

Artk, you've proven that you're nothing but a troll here!

Well done.

An interesting 'fact' is that we all perceive things differently based on our own personal experiences. When we share our opinions, they are based on one of two things - one is either speaking from personal experience, or one is speaking completely out of their ass.

If your experience with audiophile experience is as you contend, then I could almost feel sorry for you, except that, in your case, you seem to have gotten exactly what you deserve.

If your experience is NOT what you contend, then you are, as I said above, speaking completely out of your ASS!

Since my experience is so different than yours, I can only assume it's the latter.

have a great day *

I'm done here,

clay

wgscott · July 10, 2010

<code>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</code>

You are right, but you only need two. (Nyquist/Shannon). So that is 50% redundancy.

Charles Hansen · July 11, 2010

>> Have you experimented with the ESS DACs for use in Ayre Products? I'm wondering if their DAC chips would make a big change to the sound of your products. <<

In our experience designing D/A stages we have found that the importance of things in is the following order:

a) Analog circuitry

b) Power supplies

c) Digital filter

d) DAC

e) Clock

This is not definitive, but rather a rough guide. We have not tried the ESS DAC. It was released in the middle of our work on the QB-9. It is quite expensive, and not suitable for that product so we didn't evaluate it.

Just looking at the specs, it seems that a lot of the cost is that it is a "Swiss Army Knife" product. The DAC has good specs, but not really any better than the DSD1792A we use in the C-5xeMP and DX-5. It has the ability to use custom filter coefficients, but we already do that with our FPGA. It has an asynchronous sample rate converter, but I would never use one of those. It has multiple inputs, including S/PDIF decoders which might be nice in certain situations.

So I can see why some designers might be drawn to it. With one part you can put together a complete DAC except for the analog circuitry. But if you aren't planning to use all of those functions, you are paying a lot of money for a questionable return.

If we ever do a more expensive DAC, I have my eyes on a part that should outperform the ESS or any other DAC I am aware of.

artk · July 11, 2010

First, what do you actually know about the working conditions at Chinese assemblers? I’ve visited quite a number of Chinese factories. A number of the companies I’ve founded use them extensively. It’s not a perfect environment, but in general they produce very high quality work at low prices and the workers are treated quite well. I can understand you saying that you don’t have the production volumes needed to use offshore manufacturing, but that “prison camp” statement is simply untrue. If you’re making a moral statement, does that make you a hypocrite if you buy an iPhone or an iPad or pretty much any piece of consumer electronics, all of which are manufactured offshore?

You also mentioned what you paid for resistors. My first question is what the measured performance advantage of the high priced spread vs the el cheapos? How much do supply chain issues drive that decision, do your low production volumes force the decision. Third, I don’t know how many resistors you actually use, but how much does that actually add to your parts cost?

jhbpa · July 11, 2010

Will someone who has auditioned the QB-9 and the DAC 202 step up to the plate and compare only their sonic characteristics, strengths and weaknesses.

Chris has reviewed both units in great detail in the past year or so and I've requested this comparison twice, but he seems reluctant.....

Please, no commentary about one only has USB and requires a pre, just how do they sound in comparison to each other.

Chris, why not just delete artk's posts, they have no relevance to the thread, especially when he decides to jump Charlie for no apparent reason.

It seems we have a very important new product that many of us are considering, let's get back to the review.

Thanks

bluedy1 · July 11, 2010

jhbpa,

on the 7th of July I made a comment comparing both units, short but clear

jhbpa · July 12, 2010

bluedy1, thanks for the reference, got it.

I'm a bit confused about the upsample filter as documented in the manual.

Does upsampling always occur either with the A or B filter or can it be turned off?

I'm currently using a Bel Canto Dac 3 with Pure Music/iTunes. I let Pure Music control the Audio/Midi setting on the Mac based on the native sample rate of the recording, which for me is just about always 16/44 or 24/96.

With the 202 am I going to be required to interact with Mac when the sample rate of one recording is different from the previous recording?

Sorry if these are remedial.

The Computer Audiophile · July 12, 2010

Hi jhbpa - You'll be able to use the DAC202 the same way as you use the DAC3. No manual intervention required.

jhbpa · July 12, 2010

What about the upsample filter?

gmgraves · July 17, 2010

Nice review, Chris. I'd like to elaborate on a Q I asked you last week at your seminar in San Jose.

I asked you if you thought that DACs all sounded different, and you said "yes, absolutely".

Are you aware that many AES papers have been written over the years about double-blind listening tests in which various DACs were submitted to the "straight-wire" bypass test, and all of them, regardless of price or complexity pass that test? IOW, no listeners were able to discern any difference in any statistically significant way between the sound of any of the DACs and the same signal through only a straight wire (intimating that the DACs changed the sound of the original signal in no significant way)?

Apparently, the test works like this: an analog signal is put through an ADC and the SPDIF output is then fed into one of the DACs under test. The output of the test DAC was then fed into one pair of inputs of a preamp/amp combo and fed to a pair of speakers. The same original analog signal was then fed directly into another pair of inputs of the same preamp/amp combo (after being trimmed for equal amplitude with the DAC (within 0.1 dB)). The preamp was then switched between the two by someone who did not know which input was the "straight wire" and which was the ADC/DAC loop. The listening panel, likewise, did not know which was which. This was done to eliminate any sighted bias from the test. In all of these tests the results have been consistent and the same. No one has ever been able to tell the difference, statistically (that is to say, the tabulated results fell into the area known as "blind chance" - meaning that those who said that they thought they "could" hear a difference, were, essentially, guessing), between the straight analog signal and that same signal passed through an ADC/DAC chain. In other words, the analog-to-digital/digital-back-to-analog round-trip has no audible effect on the sound. These tests have found this to be true regardless of the brand, cost, or bit-depth/sampling rate of the DAC under test!

Do you have any comments on this?

Charles Hansen · July 17, 2010

>> In other words, the analog-to-digital/digital-back-to-analog round-trip has no audible effect on the sound. <<

Gosh, if you believe that, why do you waste your time reading Chris's reviews? And why do you waste even more of your time posting in these forums?

jonmarsh · July 17, 2010

He's probably enjoying himself doing something other than reading email forum updates.

I am a former card carrying member of the AES, though, as well as a published one, both at conferences and in the journal. That and $3.75 will get you a grande latte at almost any Starbucks in town.

I could pick apart the methodology on several levels, starting with using S/PDIF as the digital transmission medium. (you'll have to pry my Firewire interfaces, cables, and Mac's out of my cold dead hands to get them away from me...)

Second, I bet I could duplicate that scenario, no problems, digitizing the output of any analog source, running it into a Technics CD player and Technics HD receiver, and then "proving" there's no difference in sound played back on a pair of little JBL bookshelfs, right? Because the specs on that receiver and even the Technics CD player look pretty damn flat across the normal audio band?

But you know what?

When I brought up an Ayre based playback system for my ex nephew in-law, a guy doing band sound until an accident rendered him a partial quad, and we played back his mom's technics reciever and CD player with a CD through a set of speakers built custom for her, then did the same thing on the electronics I brought up for him (including "just" a mid level DAC), on the same speakers, even his mom was stunned at the difference in sound quality.

Of course, maybe these ordinary people have have more golden ears than whoever was attending that AES demo. And if they weren't using an ADC of quality similar to a ULN-8, I wouldn't give warm spit for the results, either. And since they were using S/PDIF, an inferior digital interface for playback, (it was originally designed just for testing systems, not for playback, and for data transfer), well, you get what you pay for, right?

We don't want to change your mind. Enjoy what ever floats your boat.

But you'll likely find that most of the folks on this forum will pay a lot more attention to what they hear in real life than what they see posted in a forum.

And if you can't hear any difference between a Cambridge Audio DAC magic, a PS Audio DLIII, a PS Audio PWD, a Berkely Alpha DAC, and a Metric Halo LIO-8, you can MOST definitely save yourself a bunch of money and time!

barrows · July 17, 2010

like more proof that "scientific" blind testing is totally irrelevant to the actual listening experience.

gmgraves · July 18, 2010

When you take things out of context, you can give them any meaning you like. I did not say that *I* believe that DACs have no sound of their own, I was merely explaining the DBT methodology that many of the more "scientific" audio engineers and critics use to demonstrate to their own satisfaction (and that of other like-minded individuals) that all DACs sound the same. Since DBT is considered the "Gold Standard" in all branches of scientific research where the point is to ascertain whether or not some procedure or result is true, then it stands to reason that when all listener bias is removed from a sonic evaluation, then the inability of those involved in said evaluation to discern any difference must mean that there is no difference. Right?

So I was asking Chris what his stand is on the subject of DBT vs long term listening when sighted or other expectational biases are not removed from the equation*

* Example – "This interconnect is $4000/meter. It just HAS to sound better than a $40 pair of Monster cables." Guess what? The expensive spread will ALWAYS sound better when those doing the evaluation know what it is that they are listening to. Take those same two cables, put them in a DBT where no one listening has any idea which two cables they are listening to, and suddenly, no one can tell the difference and the results are mere guesses. IOW, blind chance. I use this example purposely, because it's a DBT in which I have participated many times. These double-blind cable tests have been done for years, all over the world, and time after time the results are always the same. No difference can be heard between any pair of interconnects or any pair of speaker cables. At audio frequencies, wire is wire. The math tells us so, and so do the DB tests.

The jury is still out on DACs, amps and preamps as far as I'm concerned.

gmgraves · July 18, 2010

How can it be? If you can only discern one device from another when you KNOW what the two devices under evaluation are, and can't do the same when you don't know, it seems to me that any differences heard are likely in one's head. That's what DBT is supposed to eliminate - the possibility that those doing the evaluation are being influenced by expectational and sighted biases.

barrows · July 18, 2010

"then the inability of those involved in said evaluation to discern any difference must mean that there is no difference. Right?"

Emphatically, wrong.

There is a whole thread on these forums that brings up the many problems associated with so called "scientific" blind testing. If you would like to learn why blind testing is largely irrelevant, I would suggest reading the thread that already exists, and commenting there. No need to start a whole new discussion on this topic here.

Back to the Weiss 202...

Weiss Engineering DAC202 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

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