Article: Weiss Engineering DAC202 Review

[dvavc]

Chris, isn’t the goal of the review to compare most obvious contenders/competitors? The issue at bar is not whether or not $6700 is allot of money for peace of electronic, but whether one can match or bettered that sound quality for less. <br />

Couple of people here was asking the same question how DAC 202 compares to LIO-8, but this went unanswered. You have both DAC's in your setup, so can you please answer this question? I mean which is more musical, transparent, live like, engaging etc.? You know the drill. <br />

If it is a hard one because none is better, but they just different in the same league, than what are cons and pros of each one and how they differ? You answered this pretty simple in case of DAC-202 v. Alpha. Or you don't want to answer this one because of some political reasons. <br />

Thanks.<br />

P.S. Guys, please, stick to the point, stop those dog fights. One have to read tons of useless info in order to get to the point. . <br />

P.S. Just a thought; shouldn't extensive engineering discussions be in the separate thread? To make it easier for dummies like me to read the thread and understand which DAC sounds better, cuz that's all i care about .<br />

Cheers

[barrows]

It is not Chris' job to compare a given component under review to every possible contender, that would be impossible, as he does not have these DACs at his disposal, nor has he heard them all in his system.<br />

It would be doing us a disservice if Chris tried to make sonic comparisons based on aural memory. What he did do is compare the DAC202 to his current reference, the DAC he owns, the Berkeley Alpha (to his credit, this is more than a lot of reviewers would dare to do, and he opened himself up to being critisized by the Alpha lovers-kudos Chris). I do not think that Chris has any Metric Halo products at his disposal for comparisons, but he has noted his preference for the sound of the Alpha to the MH ULN-8 (others disagree). By extension one might conclude he would prefer the DAC202 to the ULN-8 as well, although he has not made the direct comparison: Alpha "beats" ULN-8, DAC202 "beats" Alpha, therefore: DAC202 "beats" ULN-8 as well. Before the MH lovers swoop in, I said "might conclude".<br />

The most important thing to realize here is that DACs at this level are all very good, and if you are considering DACs at this price point, you need to hear them for yourself, in your system. The differences are going to be small, but significant in a good system, and you may have a different preference than other listeners (as well as system matching coming into play).

[labjr]

Geez barrows you get right to the point. Why aren't you doing reviews? <br />

<br />

Is it a coincedence they are rated in the same order as the MSRP?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I do not have any Metric Halo products here. At least twelve months ago I had a Sonic Studio Model 4 and Model 5 here. There's really no way I can compare these with the DAC202 because of the lengthy time between listening to the Sonic products and the DAC202 review.<br />

<br />

[27Globes]

No, that's exactly what my notation referred to. The external HD that I had in mind has (2) Firewire 800s - one to the Mac would be 800/800... and the one to the DAC202 would be 800/400.<br />

<br />

Thanks so much for the input and clarification.

[27Globes]

No, that's exactly what my notation referred to. The external HD that I had in mind has (2) Firewire 800s - one to the Mac would be 800/800... and the one to the DAC202 would be 800/400.<br />

<br />

Thanks so much for the input and clarification.

[27Globes]

If the external HD has 2 firewire connections is it considered <i>the same bus</i>?

[Audio_ELF]

Yes, all firewire connections on a device are the same bus.<br />

<br />

Even if you have a MacPro (for example) with 2 physical firewire connections, usually these are on the same bus.<br />

<br />

Only if you add a PCIe FireWire card would you have two busses.<br />

<br />

Eloise

[4est]

Eloise is correct.

[27Globes]

Thanks, Eloise... Appreciated... So since it isn't a question of sound quality/performance... with all considered, it is preferential to have the firewire dedicated to the DAC202... and the usb to the HD.

[dvavc]

Chris, i thought that picture in the review of 202 is your recording studio or something. It shows LIO-8 in the console, so i decided you own it. Hm.. its a shame. Well, may be somebody else compared them and will express his thoughts than.

[dvavc]

barrows <br />

Ye, I hear what you saying. Tks.

[hojen]

Dear Chris:<br />

<br />

Thank you very much for your detailed, informative and very persuasive review of the DAC202.<br />

<br />

I am a computer audiophile "headfier", with the following setup:<br />

<br />

Weiss DAC202<br />

Headroom Balanced Ultra Desktop Amp (BUDA)<br />

Senheiser HD800, modified for Balanced mode.<br />

Custom (DIY) silver foil Headphone cables and interconnects (Allen Wright's design).<br />

Custom (DIY) power cords and power conditioner ("Felix" project).<br />

Various PCs (XP, Win7 64x)<br />

NAS units from Netgear<br />

FLAC library: 16/44 - 24/192<br />

<br />

<br />

I always knew, 2 decades ago, that digital music would someday reach this level of performance.<br />

<br />

I have been a fan of your website for some time, now. It is how I learned about such sites as HDTRACKS, which allowed me to build up my current FLAC-based music library stored on NAS units.<br />

My previous DAC was Headroom's Ultra DAC (UDAC), which had some very respectable specs. I was very happy with the performance of my system, and didn't think there would be much room for improvement, in theory. I often wondered what difference a higher end DAC unit would make, and had some doubts.<br />

<br />

But after reading your review of the DAC202, I obtained one (within a week), and WOW!!! I agree with every one of your comments, from the robustness of the software installation, to the spectacular imaging and stability of the midrange (the senheiser HD800 is particularly revealing !). It is truly a computer audiophile's dream come true, for several reasons as you described. I especially agree with the comment "what are you wating for ....". <br />

<br />

I understand some of your readers concerns about its cost. Of course, cost/value is a personal judgement, that should be made on an individual consumer's basis. Ideally, that judgement should be made AFTER you experience the product. In comparison with my prior DAC unit which was excellent for its price range ( <2k) , I would probably pay even a few more k for the DAC202 above its current price, for its level of performance.<br />

<br />

Again, thanks for yor very accurate, and justifiably persuasive review. I am very grateful to you, my local distributor, and Mr Weiss, to whom I have also sent a 'thank you' note.<br />

<br />

<br />

[Purite Audio]

I have both the Amarra Model 5 ( metric Halo ULN8 ) and the Weiss DAC202 ,I did post a short review some time ago.<br />

Keith.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Hojen - Thank you so much for the kind words. I'm glad you are very happy with the DAC202. I certainly was while it was here for review.

[Audio_newb]

I know you stated you were rigged for running balanced, but any comparisons between using the headphone stage of the 202 and using it as simply a dac to your headamp? I'd be curious to hear how well the 202 acquits itself versus a dedicated headphone amp with the 800's.

[dvavc]

Quote: "I have both the Amarra Model 5 ( metric Halo ULN8 ) and the Weiss DAC202 ,I did post a short review some time ago.<br />

Keith."<br />

<br />

Keith, i think you forgot to post a link to you review.<br />

Thanks.

[hojen]

Haven't tried it yet. I did a brief, non objective, non scientific comparison of balanced vs single ended use of the HD800 a while back on my Headphone amp, and much preferred balanced. <br />

<br />

What would be MORE intriguing is to use the DAC202's balanced XLR outputs to drive the HD800 in balanced mode, and see how it does. I can't do this now, since both the output XLR ends from the DAC202 and the HD800 are male. I just need an adapter. Will let you now as soon as I get one..<br />

<br />

My headroom balanced desktop amplifer SHOULD be better, since it's a dedicated class A amp, built specifically for this job. But who knows? Given the solid build of the DAC202 in all respects, it wouldn't surprise me if I find no difference when simply using it to drive my headphones. The selectable course adjustments for the analog output is fabulous in this regards.<br />

[jhbpa]

I have the 202 and Sennheiser 800s, along with Grace m902 and Benchmark DAC 1 DAC/Headphone amps. I recently sold a Bel Canto 3.5vb and an Ayre QB9.<br />

<br />

Other gear currently in use includes BAT VK-52SE, BAT VK-75SE, Bel Canto REF500S, Basis 2800 TT, Graham 2.0 arm, Koetsu Urishi, Ayre phono stage, Avalon Eidolons and Audio Physic Virgos.<br />

<br />

For the last 15 years or so I've been in love with Ayre gear, having owned three of their power amps, three CD players, K1X preamp and the phono stage. I mention this so I don't offend Barrows (whose posts I always enjoy) when I compare the 202 to the QB9.<br />

<br />

I've been chasing this hobby for over 40 years.<br />

<br />

When I first read Chris's review of the 202 I was skeptical and thought it just sounded too good to be true. I was dead wrong. <br />

<br />

For me the 202 is the most exciting audiophile product in at least 20 years. It is enabling me to dump the tubes, the Ayre C-5xe, the preamp, and I'm about halfway through archiving about 2,500 LP's at 24/96 and 24/192. It's liberating and I'm listening to more music than I have in years.<br />

<br />

As a DAC (and where the comparison is applicable a preamp) it is significantly superior to all of the ones mentioned in the first paragraph. IMO, the QB9 would be next (though extremely feature limited), closely followed by the Bel Canto 3.5, with the Grace 902 and the Benchmark in an overall dead heat.<br />

<br />

That said, I think the 202's weakest link is its headphone amp, and actually just barely prefer the Grace and the Benchmark, and this week I think I currently prefer the Benchmark to the Grace. The 202 is certainly satisfactory as headphone amp and I use it that way regularly.<br />

<br />

Note, I am not a real serious headphone listener but am longing to hear my 800's with a balanced cable hooked up to a WooAudio 22. I like hojen's idea of using the DAC202's balanced XLR outputs to drive the 800's.<br />

<br />

I don't want to sound like I'm trashing Grace or Benchmark. I think they are both tremendous values. For those wanting to put together a reasonably priced server system, sans separate preamp, the Grace is hard to beat, especially if you need analog inputs. I've had both for years and plan on keeping them. However, I do not recommend these products with the USB input.<br />

<br />

I also highly recommend the firewire cable from AsiaWeiss.<br />

<br />

John B.<br />

<br />

[barrows]

thanks for posting your thoughts! No offense taken my man. At less than half the price of the Weiss DAC202 I am not surprised the QB-9 loses out to the Weiss to your ears. It does make one wonder what Charlie might come up with if he makes a "5" series (or, shudder, a "R" series) DAC though. From all reports the Weiss DAC202 is very special. It uses the ESS 9018, as a coincidence I am now listening to a Twisted Pear Audio Buffalo II (DIY) DAC I built up, and it is sounding incredible in my system-I do not know if I should contribute this great sound to the ESS chip alone, but it certainly is not doing a lot wrong!

[artk]

Every Weiss owners bank account should hope that there's much more to their perception of its quality than the ESS chip. That’s a $20 part. That would mean that pretty much anyone could reproduce its performance for a fraction of the cost.

[barrows]

artk, while do you continue to make these ridiculous comments? Actually, the ESS 9018 we are referring to is closer to a $35.00 part than $20.00. But really, do you think you can just plop the 9018 down on a board and be done with it? It is very difficult and requires a lot of engineering to get the best out of this chip, as it requires very sophisticated power supplies (4 separate, isolated, low noise, low impedance, tightly regulated supplies, plus a 5th for the clock module) and clocking to achieve good performance, as well as a superbly designed I/V-output stage and power supply.<br />

Honestly, I am really at a loss as to what you are attempting to contribute to this discussion?

[artk]

I have no doubt that Weiss adds lots of additional engineering to justify their pricing. The real question is if all that over engineering actually adds anything. It’s well documented that people’s perception of quality is changed their knowledge of an item’s price. Tell someone that something is more expensive, there’s a demonstrable physical reaction. I’ve attached research on wine tasting, what make’s you think that audio is different.

[barrows]

nothing subtle about the performance improvment I am hearing with the Buffalo II versus other DACs/CD players. There is a huge obvious difference. If I were to compare this to wines, the difference would be comparable to that of the cheapest jug wine to that of a fine Bordeaux. This is the kind of difference that anyone would hear, within the first couple of notes.<br />

As an example, what I am hearing from the B-II would absolutely, definitively, blow something like a Benchmark DAC completely away. Not a subtle difference that could be explained by "perception of quality". I am done with this discussion, I have listened, if you are not willing to, and have nothing constructive to add, perhaps you should not.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Oh art, your glass just can't get beyond half empty. There is no need to comment any more. Everyone can just assume what you would say. <br />

<br />

WWAS -> What Would Art Say :~)