Weiss Engineering DAC202 Review

hojen · October 25, 2010

The amp gurus out there are probably laughing at me for even trying this little experiment: driving a high impedance, power-hungry headphone with an output meant to feed a power amp probably makes no sense. I guess a more proper comparison would be to drive the HD800 via the conventional single-ended jack up front, with an HD800 headphone that has NOT yet been converted to balanced mode.

I think I can predict the outcome of that experiment before I even try: you can't seriously expect the modest headphone circuit of the DAC202 to compete with the brute force monster power of a dedicated power amp like the Rudistor or any other good dedicated headphone power amp.

Jakob H · November 8, 2010

This might be a little of the subject of using the Weiss DAC 202 as power amp on head phones, but I am really interested in hearing from other user experiences of this DAC directly with a power amp.

I received my Weiss DAC 202 only 4 days ago (burning in night and day) and as you can see from the below equip. list, I have plugged it directly in my power amp. And man, it sounds GREAT.

I noticed another thread (called Audio Research DAC 8) where these two mentioned DACs were compared, but it has not yet summed up on use directly connected to a PA.

So please share your findings on the this matter

Purite Audio · November 8, 2010

The 202 is the most transparent 'preamp' I have tried, some listeners will prefer the addition of a traditional preamp, personal taste.

Keith.

TimDH · December 29, 2010

Hi Keith and others,

I was curious if you can compare the 202 to the Weiss Dac1/Medea. The Dac1 has a class A discrete output stage. When John Atkinson measured the Medea, he found nearly 20 bits of resolution and 141 ps jitter, some of the best specs he ever measured.

Thanks,

Tim

Opsman · December 31, 2010

Many thanks to Chris for his review of the Weiss 202 DAC. I purchased the Berkeley Alpha before reading Chris' very favorable review of the Alpha. (Isn't it great to read a laudatory review of something that you already own?!) So,I was intrigued that Chris reported being so happy with the Weiss' functionality and, evidently, tickled by its sonics.

So, I asked Mike Kay, owner of Audio Archon, for the opportunity to audition the Weiss in my listening room. Mike told me that I would buy it. I did.

For starters, both of these DACs have wonderful sonics. Yes, I bought the Weiss; but that doesn't mean that you should.

Although I enjoy A/B testing, I began by listening exclusively to the Weiss for a couple of days, using the firewire output of my G5. A few things struck me initially and remain today: wide soundstage, excellent transients, detail, and treble extension. In combination, these things mean that it is very easy to hear different voices and instruments.

Then I fired up the Alpha, using the Lynx soundcard as the source, via the Sonore cable. At first listen, I thought: Oh, oh: the Alpha is better?! But, after adjusting for gain and learning the quickly switch between DACs, the Weiss prevailed. Indeed, the Weiss prevailed in every dimension: bass depth and impact, soundstage, dynamics, treble extension, more natural timbres, etc., etc..

In combination, it was easy for me to decide to buy the Weiss and sell the Alpha. The king is dead. Long live the king!

gmgraves · December 31, 2010

I do a lot of recording. I use a Korg MR-1000. It will record at 5.56 MHz DSD, 2.28 MHz DSD, or, in LPCM: 24/192, 24/96, 24/48, 16/48, 16/44.1, etc. It also has software for Mac/PC which will convert any of the above mentioned formats to any other of the above mentioned formats. I have recorded rehearsals of the Stanford University Jazz Band using pretty much every viable format. I have made sure that the microphones were the same each time, placed in the same spot, recorded in the same venue, with the same mixer and the same settings. All that changed was the recording format. And while not strictly scientific, I have done my best, under the circumstances, to insure that the only variable was the recording format.

What I have found after months of critical listening to these sessions, is that while there is NO discernible difference (as far as I can tell) between 24/192 and 24/96, there is a slight difference between 24/96 and 24/48. It manifests itself as a slight reduction in high-frequency detail at 24/48 that is especially noticeable on piano, and on cymbals and on brushed snare drums. Where the BIG difference comes to light is the difference between 24/48 and 16/48. Everything sounds better at 24-bit; transients, the bite of the brass, ambience, everything. 24-bit sounds more open, more spacious, with better low-level ambience retrieval and 24-bit recordings actually image better and have a wider, more realistic soundstage than 16-bit is capable of.

So, for what it's worth, while the advantages of moving the upper limit of the digital passband to a region that's way outside of the audible range by increasing the sample rate are real, to a point (and that point seems to 96 KHz (or it might be 88.2 KHz. I've never tried that), going from 16 to 24-bits is a MUCH bigger deal.

To that degree, I have to agree with Mr. Hansen and others who maintain that the 192 KHz sampling is overhyped, but I find that 24-bit is a necessary upgrade to digital audio is we truly want to advance the state-of-the-art.

gmgraves · December 31, 2010

I simply don't think it's necessary to spend that kind of money of a DAC. The laws of diminishing returns works for DACs just as it does for anything else. I have been privy to several DAC DBT shootouts and will say this. Anybody who maintains that all DACs sound the same simply does not know what to listen for. In short, they have not trained their ears to notice small details in the character of reproduced sound. In layman's parlance, they have a "tin ear". There ARE differences. These differences are easily heard in a DBT, and the results are consistently repeatable. What is not so clear (at least to me) is the worth of these differences. They are subtle and price is no guarantee of sound quality. I've heard cheap DACs that I thought sounded excellent, I've heard expensive DACs that I thought sounded no better than the ones in a cheap, mass-produced CD player. And frankly, I see nothing beyond build-quality (and even that has it's limits) that would justify what some makers are charging for stand-alone DACs. After all, all DACs, regardless of price, use somebody's DAC chip. Burr-Brown, ESS, Analog Devices, each family has its characteristics and it's adherents. There is a lot to be said for power supply design, and yes, this affects sound. Better power supplies generally manifest themselves by giving slightly better bass response. The rest is down to the analog stages and the digital timing circuits. Some of the latest op-amps are every bit as good (or better) than the best discrete circuitry, so having a discrete component analog stage is no longer the endorsement it used to be.

In short, a $15,000 DAC is not 10X better than a $1500 DAC, and it, in turn, is not 10X better than a $150 DAC. In fact, I recently heard a $100 DAC, bought as a bare circuit board from China and mounted in a generic plastic box by the buyer put a Benchmark DAC-1 to shame!

I am reminded of the cable debates here. While it is just a fact of physics that cables and interconnects can have NO sound of their own unless the manufacturer has purposely designed them to be fixed filters (in which case they are no longer, just conductors, are they?), nonetheless, those who insist that all cables sound different speak in terms of the differences being subtle (so subtle, in fact, that they disappear completely in double-blind tests, but that's another subject for another debate. This kind of subtlety, real or imagined leads to the question: at what point is one counting angels on the head of a pin? After a few minutes listening, these subtle differences become moot. One no longer notices them, it becomes a case of "It's just what my system sounds like". Be very careful buying this kind of stuff. You'd do better to put your money in something that will make a REAL and lasting difference to your stereo system. Something like speakers, or even room treatment.

Just my opinion, you understand.

DKennedy · January 26, 2011

The DAC202's soundstage improvement really is something special, isn't it?

We've just begun to carry it..truly a pleasure to carry a product that stands up so well for itself. Our review is fleeting in comparison, but we did get to meet Daniel Weiss at CES..

Thanks!

dk

labjr · January 26, 2011

"The DAC202's soundstage improvement really is something special, isn't it? We've just begun to carry it..truly a pleasure to carry a product that stands up so well for itself."

How else would you describe something you're trying to push? Pound for pound it's like the most expensive DACs out there. It should sound good.

dvavc · January 27, 2011

You know, about two months ago i purchased amazing phono ($2800 used $7500 MSRP) and one amazing cart ($300 new) and some professional equipment ($500 used, to finish the magic of pure music). Ever since i'm not listening to CD's or reading these forums.

I'm not even interested anymore in any DACs (especially for that ridicules prices) unless they will sounds 100% analog (not just "analog like", or "closer to analog" B.S.). All digital is wrong when you compare it critically to really good phono/cart combo. All DAC's differs in some tricks but they all inherently wrong in general, not just this DAC or that DAC, but the whole digital to analog conversion. None can match the analog rig in correctness of sound. Interestingly enough just couple month ago i have thought otherwise. It because unless you go to the really top phonos the difference between two is less apparent.

"Amazing sound stage", "details", etc. hi end tricks which in most cases ruins the music.

Does your setup really plays the music? This is s the ultimate test, the rest is just toys.

Took me just 20 years to understand. :~)

The Computer Audiophile · January 27, 2011

Hi dvavc - There's nothing wrong with preferring analog to digital.

I do question your opinion about DACs when you say, "None can match the analog rig in correctness of sound." One reason I question this is because at the Audio Engineering Society convention in San Francisco last year one of the best mastering engineers in the world made a comment about this. Doug Sax of The Mastering Lab is now using 24/192 digital instead of analog of any kind because it is more accurate (correctness to use your term). Doug was giving a presentation with Michael Fremer to a very large audience. Doug questioned why people still listen to vinyl when 24/192 done correctly is much more accurate. Doug only restarted his cutting lathe because people want vinyl, not because it produces more accurate products.

Also, Bill Schnee the Grammy wining (Steely Dan Aja & Gaucho) recording engineer who really knows what the music should sound like is using 24/192 digital only. I talked to him about the sound at some of the rooms at RMAF and CES and he said the people playing tape are not hearing the music like it's supposed to sound. Granted this is tape not vinyl, but the two are not that far off.

What I'm really saying is there's no way for an audiophile to judge correctness unless he was in the recording studio. We may know what a violin sounds like, but not the violin used in the recordings we are listening to and on that day(s) in the studio.Plus, the room plays a huge role in the final sound. Even going to live performances doesn't tell us what our recordings are supposed to sound like or what is more correct. I used to think this was good enough, but after talking to the people who've recorded and mastered some of my favorite music I realize it's off quite a bit.

Looking at the technical/engineering aspects of vinyl versus digital and listening to the final output through both methods of playback, and especially after talking to people who make and master the recordings I can't agree that vinyl sounds more accurate or correct.

I like vinyl. It has a great sound. Just not more accurate when compared to really good (and better) digital.

The Computer Audiophile · January 27, 2011

Dear DK - I've removed the disingenuous link to your Weiss DAC202 "write-up" as it violates just about every website's rules (written or unwritten). An establishment like yours that has been in business over 24 years and sells some very expensive equipment should not be advertising by trying to sneak comments under the radar on a site like Computer Audiophile that a whole slew of potential customers read. If you were new kids on the block I might have let it slide as just an over excited error in judgment. But that is not the case here. One proper way to accomplish your goal is to take out an advertisement like Weiss dealer Ciamarra, and Daniel Weiss himself have done. There are many other creative ways to get new customers, but I will leave that for you to figure out.

dvavc · January 27, 2011

Chris

I agree, "correctness" was not a good word to use. I'm sorry i used it because that is not what i meant to say. It is very hard to describe in words the difference between digital and analog sound. "Closer to the real music" "more musically engaging" will probably be better words to use. It is something in that analog sound which makes listener to prefer analog to any digital sound at any time, without any regards to which one is more accurate. And after you've heard that difference once it is very hard to go back to digital.

Difference is so substantial that now I'm buying same items on vinyl which i already have on CDs. And trust me i would rather pay $6000 for some miracle DAC which sounds exactly like LP because inconvenience of flipping LPs every 15-20 minutes, and inability to skip or even pause the music is not a miscellaneous issue to me.

I just thought of a really interesting subject of a thread - "Why digital does not sounds like analog ?"

That would be very interesting what all those engineers who always debating "advantage" of 192/96 etc. have to say on that. Forget arguments which one is better, just why can't you people build the DAC which sounds exactly 100% analog? :~)

The Computer Audiophile · January 27, 2011

"Forget arguments which one is better, just why can't you people build the DAC which sounds exactly 100% analog? :~)"

I believe a sarcastic answer would go something like this.

"We can build a DAC that sounds exactly like analog. We will limit the dynamic range severely and add surface noise. We can also degrade the sound of each track the more you listen to it."

All in good fun :~)

losingmyreligion · January 27, 2011

"All in good fun :~)"

there's also the follow-up question:

Exactly which cartridge would you like your DAC to sound like?

Metric Halo DACs have a feature called "Character" which allows one to colour the digital sound with that of well known (types of) microphone sounds.

again, all in good fun,

clay

skyline · January 27, 2011

"Then I fired up the Alpha, using the Lynx soundcard as the source, via the Sonore cable. At first listen, I thought: Oh, oh: the Alpha is better?! But, after adjusting for gain and learning the quickly switch between DACs, the Weiss prevailed. Indeed, the Weiss prevailed in every dimension: bass depth and impact, soundstage, dynamics, treble extension, more natural timbres, etc., etc.."

I would do the comparison with a low jitter USB -> SPDIF converter connected to the Alpha. On the Chord dac I use, there's no comparison in sound quality between a low jitter source (Off Ramp 3 superclock) and a medium to high jitter source. Medium = Halide Bridge, High = toslink from macbook.

gmgraves · January 28, 2011

I've been following this recent thread with some interest. As an avid recordist who has made location recordings as a professional, semi-professional, and an avocational recordist, using both analog tape (1/2-track 15 ips) and even a direct-to-disc or two through various digital formats (from the Sony PCM-1 to the Korg MR-1000 DSD recorder), I think I can say with some experience and conviction that analog vs digital debate has little or no merit. Most audiophiles make their decision about digital sound from commercially available CDs. I'm here to tell you that any relationship between commercial CD releases (even so-called "audiophile" quality releases from the likes of Telarc or Reference Recordings) and what the medium is actually REALLY capable of when it comes to 'fi' is purely coincidental. I can make great sounding CDs from my hi-res masters which, at 5.6 MHz sampling rate/1-bit DSD sound so stunningly lifelike and real that I challenge anyone to tell the difference between it and the original mike feed. The CDs I can produce from these masters, while they lack a little bit of the "air" around high-frequency instruments and the pinpoint image specificity that the wider bandwidth masters have, nonetheless are breathtaking in their realism. The differences between the CD and the master from which they are made are differences of OMISSION rather than commission. IOW, that last little soupcon of "you are there-ness" might be missing, but would only be noticed on direct comparison - which most people would never have the opportunity to hear, so it's a moot point. Suffice to say, that if we assume that the microphone feed, being analog, is the closest electronic approximation of the original sound-field in the whole recording/playback chain, then we have to admit that a digital recording of that mike feed which is indistinguishable from the mike feed itself, is by definition, the equal of analog. It is at this juncture that the debate between analog and digital becomes meaningless. They are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

When I used analog tape in the guise of machinery such as an Ampex 300 with custom record/playback electronics, the Sony 880-2 recorder, or an Otari MX-5050/2, I could never switch between source and tape and NOT hear a difference. Even without looking I could always tell whether the tape monitor switch was in the "tape" or the "source" position because of the tape noise. Even when using Dolby 'A' noise reduction round-trip, one could always hear the noise floor from the tape, as well as the anomalies inherent with audio tape such as noise modulation and scrape flutter. Even miniscule amounts of these were audible on direct A-B comparison.

With modern hi-res digital, there is NONE of this. The mike feed and the master recording (on hard disk) are IDENTICAL.

The problem with CD is that they are all over-produced. They are signal processed, compressed, limited, screwed with and go through so much electronics on their way to to being mastered in glass, that by the time the CD comes out of the press, it has little in common with the master recording from which it is made.

So, if you think that analog, by definition, sounds better than CD, it's not the CD medium's fault. Red Book CD can sound fantastically, palpably real. It's the commercial production process that makes it so mediocre. hi-res downloads? Nine times out of ten, the master tapes (analog or digital) given to the hi-res producers to digitize and post on-line are as overproduced and compromised as the CD master. Giving the recording more bits and a higher sampling rate cannot correct the problems introduced earlier in the process.

So while many here argue the merits of the many different and expensive DACs available to the audiophile market, you might keep in mind the old adage: "garbage in, garbage out." IOW, a milky, out of focus film isn't going to look any better broadcast and viewed on a high-definition TV than it will on a regular TV, because the HD cannot fix the source.

Part-Time Audiophile · January 28, 2011

I think a lot of folks are doing this -- comparing the Alpha DAC to DACvX from CompanyY and saying, wow, this new DAC beats the pants off that old Alpha!

It's a pity, really.

The "problem" (if you can call it that) with these comparisons isn't the DAC. It's the "transport". Your Lynx card + your computer = terrible transport.

I submit that those folks really ought to go about selling that Lynx card for whatever you could get for it and swapping it for a Wavelink or even an EVO and then try the comparison again. I'd wager that your opinion would reverse.

This is really too bad for Berkeley -- honestly, I have to acknowledge that they did have a rather large window of opportunity in which to get their own converter to market, but it seems that computer-audio boat is sailing on without them. When that converter does finally ship, my suspicion is that the Alpha will "perform" a bit better than has been recently reported by those trying out the new crop of DACs that are currently bludgeoning it's reputation.

Now, this takes nothing away from the Weiss -- they've been playing their cards right all along in this space. So, kudos to them for upping the ante with this new DAC -- and to those lucky souls with the DAC202, congrats on scoring some great kit.

But based on what hit at CES, and what's likely to hit in the next 18 months, things are just now "getting interesting".

dvavc · January 28, 2011

Chris, come on, are you just anticipating their answers or that is what you believe in?

Unfortunately this is exactly the problem with hi-end market - complete denial of the obvious wrong and substitution of the real thing for some meaningless and irrelevant measurements and tricks.

labjr · January 28, 2011

From what I've read, digital done right seems to have surpassed analog. What I don't understand is that some people profess that vinyl is what makes analog better as if it restores something that's missing in analog when it seems to me to be the weakest link in the record and playback chain.

Another thing I don't understand is the people who think that an analog recording always sounds better on vinyl. What's the difference between digital recording and digital remastering of an recording on analog tape? If good digital recording sounds like the mic feed as proclaimed by several well known engineers than I don't see any reason why Hi-res digital remastering of an old analog recording doesn't bring us closer hearing what's on the master tape.

dvavc · January 28, 2011

George

What are you comparing? Some hypothetical nonexistent CDs to the really existing LPs? Firstly, LPs (really existing) sounds allot more pleasant to the human ear, more musical, more natural, more emotionally engaging than existing in real life CDs with the same material. Secondly i can almost bet that even that hypothetical, hand made "perfect" digital recording of yours will eventually irritate human ear and brains with those digital "artifacts" if listened for a long time.

And guys, please drop that argument about noise with analog. This is obvious. The point is that even with that noise LP more pleasantly sounding to the human ear medium.

BTW, is it possible to get some sampler of your hypothetical CD? I'l pay for shipping ;~)

The Computer Audiophile · January 28, 2011

Hi Guys - Lets move this conversation over to a new thread just created. I will move the comments over. Here's the link.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Analog-and-Digital-Comparison

dvavc · January 28, 2011

Comment removed as off topic and new thread has been opened for this purpose.

- Editor

The Computer Audiophile · January 28, 2011

dvavc - Please post your comments in the new thread.

gmgraves · January 28, 2011

Comment removed. Please post your analog / digital comments in the other thread. - Editor

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