Article: Weiss Engineering DAC202 Review

[Lowlands]

Chris,<br />

<br />

Oh my... the king is dead... long live the king. Reminds me of this other 'web-known' audiophile devorcing his long-term fav's (Kharmas for VR-9's) :-)<br />

<br />

..back on-topic.. <br />

<br />

You stated...<br />

<br />

<cite> The best sounding interface to listen through was FireWire. The externally clocked Lynx configuration just wasn’t as cohesive as listening through the FireWire interface. The Lynx was a bit sloppy sounding. <cite><br />

<br />

<cite> The DAC202 has a much more cohesive soundstage than the Alpha.... <cite><br />

<br />

Comparing the DAC implementation only, excluding the interface (take away the advantage of the a-sync FW) how do you think the 202 and BADA compare when both driven by the Lynx (without wordclock)? Is the difference smaller / reversed perhaps..?<br />

<br />

Also, I remember you preferring the AES feeding the Minerva over the FW (pls./ correct me if I'm wrong). Is the FW interface implementation different between the Minerva & 202, or am I seeking consistency in the wrong place?<br />

<br />

Thanks for what seems like a thorough review to me!<br />

<br />

Hans

[tresaino]

Chris you asked Andrew what he was missing in the review, almost funny that you didn't ask me. My earlier observations could be translated into: omissions of important information, and lack of consistency when comparing the 202 to earlier Weiss DACs. Also, generally I like reviews when they comment on componentry and circuit choices. And finally, would have liked to read more on the sonic differences and possible explanations of these. I realise that yours was not a PhD thesis, but still.. anyway, please take this as constructive criticism.<br />

<br />

The over-the-top John Atkinson editorial lashing out against online "crap" is here: http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/as_we_see_it_ipad_daze/ Just to clarify: am not totally supportive of his view, but he has a point when stating that publishing brings responsibilities and, thus, needs more rigorous editing.

[Andrew S.]

Chris<br />

In addition to the points made by Roberto ( with which I agree) please note the following extracts of your text which are not reflective of objectivity, at least in the aggregate.<br />

<br />

"Falling victim to analysis paralysis or suffering from alligator arms are two easily curable conditions. Ambivalent audiophiles, It’s time to fish or cut bait.<br />

<br />

What’s The Hold Up?<br />

<br />

There’s little doubt that computer based audio is the future of high end playback. <br />

<br />

“Are we there yet?" The answer to that question is yes, as long as the right combination of software and hardware are selected. <br />

The DAC202 may be the best antidote for the aforementioned audiophiles suffering from alligator arms and analysis paralysis. <br />

<br />

The sound quality, sample rate support, feature set, interface design, and bit transparency testing built into the DAC202 should satisfy audiophiles from the most jaded old schooler to the early adopters looking to replace an existing DAC.<br />

<br />

<br />

Needless to say Daniel Weiss is one of the best engineers in the business at designing components that have made and played high quality music.<br />

<br />

I unequivocally state Weiss Engineering has handily surpassed the competition and all previous Weiss DACs in its class.<br />

<br />

At nearly $6,450 USD the Weiss DAC202 has increased in price as much as performance over its predecessors. <br />

<br />

In high end audio master clocking has traditionally been reserved for the extremely exclusive components from companies like dCS and Esoteric. <br />

<br />

I’ve had other components in here that enabled me to listen to a lot of music, but nothing like the DAC202 that compelled me to listen. <br />

<br />

<br />

Now that we’ve answered the “are we there yet" question it’s time to ask, What are you waiting for? "<br />

<br />

Undoubtedly the Dac 202 is very fine dac. If you had reviewed it as such I would no issue. Instead you have, I suggest, moved from reviewer to spruiker. <br />

<br />

An online review with credit with me? well this site mirrors my experiences.<br />

<br />

http://www.hifi-advice.com/reviews-CD-DAC.html<br />

<br />

On the other hand I give you credit for allowing free and open comment on your review even, as is the case with me, when it negative. Try that on the Harbeth Forum and see how long one lasts. Kudos to you for that.<br />

<br />

Regards<br />

Andrew<br />

<br />

[Blu]

Thank-you Chris, for a very thorough and fair review.<br />

<br />

I expect the 202 sounds great, as I found the Minerva with Nordost cabling and Conrad Johnson power last year at a dealers showroom. I heard the same piece of music at increasing higher resolutions up to 24/192 and at each step I could hear the music produced becoming more and more life like, wonderful. I have been a vinyl man for a long time and that experience made me realize how good high resolution digital is becoming.<br />

<br />

The recordings were from a Kent Poon DVD, which had been copied to a Macbook Pro.

[cfmsp]

<br />

<br />

"I would guess fewer than one person in one hundred could hear the difference between this DAC and a great one in the $1500 range."<br />

<br />

I'll disagree with this. I had a great DAC in the $1500 range (I paid $1495 new retail for it), and upgraded to a $4000 retail DAC (which I paid only $3000 for due to a loyalty discount).<br />

<br />

I believe my ears to be average (amongst audiophiles), and I easily heard a significant difference. I'm not saying this is ALWAYS the case, but it was in mine and I'm "not one in a hundred".<br />

<br />

FWIW, I'm betting that the Weiss DAC is on a par sound-wise with my DAC, albeit with a different feature set (mine being being intended for purely pro audio).<br />

<br />

cheers,<br />

clay<br />

<br />

<br />

[cfmsp]

<br />

Kudos to Dan Weiss for making such a great DAC - the best of pro audio for audiophile tastes.<br />

<br />

Kudos to Chris for sharing his "opinion" of it with all of us.<br />

<br />

As for criticisms, I understand Andrew's point about it being (a bit) over the top, but on the other hand, I accept that as Chris' poetic license. It's his site, and HIS opinion. <br />

<br />

<br />

Let's face it - it took a LOT for Chris to move away from the Alpha as his reference DAC. So let's forgive his exuberance about his new reference.<br />

<br />

Chris is 'one of us', not some paid reviewer presenting pablum for pampered subscribers while trying to keep his editor happy!<br />

<br />

BTW, Chris, welcome to the world of Async Firewire! ;0<br />

<br />

Clay<br />

<br />

<br />

PS, what Firewire cable did you use - I didn't see a reference, but might have missed it in all that prose!<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[rjplummer]

I'm not saying that people need better ears anatomically to hear differences. Nor am I talking about only the audiophile population.<br />

<br />

My point is that 99% of the general population aren't used to listening critically enough to hear differences among high end components.<br />

<br />

I also note that nobody's objecting to my statement that most of one's music collection isn't recorded carefully enough to benefit from the difference among audiophile-quality DACs

[4est]

I completely disagree with your entire post, I just didn't bother to comment on it.<br />

[barrows]

to see all the criticism here. That's OK as long as it remains constructive, but some of the above is a little over the top. The last thing I would want is to read a review that agrees with all my uninformed opinions-but it appears that some people want Chris to just validate their views. I am glad that Chris calls it like he sees it, in his system, and does the work to let us know what he is hearing, and I hope that he continues to do so as honestly as he can.<br />

Personally I see nothing wrong with Chris' review, in fact, I find his enthusiasm genuine, and it goes a good ways to making me feel the Weiss 202 likely sounds very good indeed.<br />

And what is wrong with calling Daniel Weiss ONE of the most respected digital engineers? Anyone who knows anything about this topic knows that is just a true, factual statement.<br />

Weighing with 2cents:<br />

I agree with Clay, hearing the differences between good sub $2K converters and great more expensive converters is not difficult, and hearing this difference does not require $100K systems either. While I still believe speakers are the most critical component in a system, the source component is the second most critical. A simple system, like a Wyred 4 Sound intergrated or power amp, driving an affordable speaker like a Maggie 1.7 will show the differences between DACs quite handily.<br />

A review is just a review, and subject to reviewers tastes, and biases, and should only be taken as a general recommendation on whether a given product is worth hearing. A buying decision should only be based on direct experience with the product at hand.<br />

I also wonder if this review was of a Firewire DAC costing $2K if the crticisms would be so vehement? It seems there are some folks who do not like to accept that sometimes spending more money is necessary to get better performance, and in this non-acceptance they want to "shoot the messenger" so to speak.

[Richard Dale]

<p>rjplummer: <i>"..My point is that 99% of the general population aren't used to listening critically enough to hear differences among high end components.."</i></p><br />

<br />

<p>Why on earth is it relevant to post that on an audiophile site where I think we can assume that 95% or more of the readers are used to listening critically to HiFi components? I can't afford a Weiss, but I'm pretty much 100% certain that if you plugged it into my system I could hear a large difference between it and my current very good inexpensive DAC.</p><br />

<br />

<p>rjplummer: <i>"..I also note that nobody's objecting to my statement that most of one's music collection isn't recorded carefully enough to benefit from the difference among audiophile-quality DACs.."</i></p><br />

<br />

<p>Actually no, this is completely wrong. A big reason for getting a high resolution musical system is that it makes it easier to get into music you aren't familiar with, or music that is not so well recorded and needs all the help it can get with you hearing what is going on.</p>

[rjplummer]

I'd argue if your system is "helping" the music, it's not accurately reproducing it.<br />

[cfmsp]

<br />

"My point is that 99% of the general population aren't used to listening critically enough to hear differences among high end components."<br />

<br />

On a site dedicated to audiophiles, using the 'general population' as a point of reference does absolutely nothing to justify one's opinion as to whether differences (relevant to audiophiles) can be heard between components.<br />

<br />

<br />

"I also note that nobody's objecting to my statement that most of one's music collection isn't recorded carefully enough to benefit from the difference among audiophile-quality DACs"<br />

<br />

<br />

In that you can only speak with any knowledge about your own personal music collection, who are we to argue that most of YOUR OWN music collection "isn't recorded carefully enough", etc.? <br />

<br />

<br />

clay<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[Richard Dale]

<p>rjplummer: <i>"..I'd argue if your system is 'helping' the music, it's not accurately reproducing it.</i></p><br />

<br />

<p>You are saying that making the best of (ie 'helping') a row resolution recording by using a high resolution reproduction chain to listen to it, is somehow wrong? I really don't know where you are coming from on this.</p>

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - Just a quick note. I just purchased Herbie Hancock's new album The Imagine Project. It was released today 6/21/2010 (yes on a Monday instead of the industry standard Tuesday). In the liner notes Herbie states the following. <br />

<br />

My deepest appreciation to the following manufactures:<br />

... Daniel Weiss - A/D, D/A Converters.

[rjplummer]

"On a site dedicated to audiophiles, using the 'general population' as a point of reference does absolutely nothing to justify one's opinion as to whether difference can be heard between components."<br />

<br />

I'm responding to the comment that for 1/4 the price you can get 3/4 the performance. I claim that you can get 99% of the performance for 1/4 the price. I have no idea how the poster intended to quantify 3/4, so I gave one possibility for my 99% claim: 99 out of 100 people can't hear the difference. <br />

<br />

"In that you can only speak with any knowledge about your own personal music collection, who are we to argue that most of YOUR OWN music collection "isn't recorded carefully enough", etc.?"<br />

<br />

I'm assuming audiophiles, have at least a moderately large music collection. I further assume (although with less certainty) that they base most of their music purchases on the quality of performance. I probably shouldn't have said "recorded carefully enough," since often degradation occurs in the digital remastering. And since an audiophile system shouldn't be adding anything to the recording, most recordings just don't have the information present that one audiophile component can achieve perceptible benefit over another.<br />

<br />

[cfmsp]

<br />

<br />

"...most recordings just don't have the information present that one audiophile component can achieve perceptible benefit over another."<br />

<br />

clearly you are either clueless or a troll.<br />

<br />

I don't wast my time with either.<br />

<br />

have a great day *<br />

<br />

clay

[tresaino]

thanks for the Herbie Hancock tip, just ordered it on double vinyl. ouch! :-) <br />

<br />

Had the CD of the Joni letters, then got the vinyl version, somewhat slightly less good sounding but much nicer to hold in your hands. Then foolishly also bought the HDtracks 24/96 download, not at all better than the CD, another download disappointment, am getting fed up with their stuff.<br />

<br />

But nice to know Herbie appreciates Daniel Weiss DACs.

[fand1]

<i>"Undoubtedly the Dac 202 is very fine dac. If you had reviewed it as such I would no issue. Instead you have, I suggest, moved from reviewer to spruiker.<br />

<br />

Chris has produced a fine review where he was extremely impressed with a product. <br />

<br />

What on earth is wrong with that?<br />

<br />

It seems to me you have a bit of an axe to grind.<br />

[barrows]

I believe there was some controversy regarding the 24/96 download of the Joni Letters. Initially it turned out that the source had a problem (as I recall it may have been upsampled from 16/44.1). This problem was the discoved by some folks over at Audio Asylum, and prompted HDTracks to become much more vigilant into what they were really getting from the record companies. You may have one of the problem downloads, and you might want to contact HDTracks to confirm, they have fixed the problem, and the current downloads are all true high resolution with no up conversion.

[Lowlands]

Gang,<br />

<br />

After the initial curiosity, I was struck with some dissapointment, having a STACK of mail notifications in my inbox r.e. postings in this thread, finding out that (vertually) NONE of them pertained to the DAC202, the actual review or Q&A on the topic. Instead, it was a back & forth of 'quotes' on the relevance of and subsequent bashing of opinions on what seem subjects not specifically related to subject of this thread... <br />

<br />

I think that is a pity. Am I alone in this? Perhaps I'm bound to be the lurker type afterall..<br />

<br />

Apologies for the off-topic remark & for any (unintended) offence.<br />

<br />

Hans

[labjr]

<i> <br />

<br />

"My deepest appreciation to the following manufactures:<br />

... Daniel Weiss - A/D, D/A Converters.<br />

<br />

</i> <br />

<br />

Wow ! What was I thinking ? If it's good enough for Herbie Hancock then who am I to question the value of the product. <br />

<br />

According to Elias Gwinn, Sywalker Sound uses Benchmark converters. I don't feel like I need to buy one of those.<br />

<br />

I've seen Lavry credited and on equipment lists for studios. I guess they only do 24/96 recording since Lavry doesn't believe in higher sampling rates.<br />

<br />

Everyone has to use someone's converters if they're doing digital recording. I don't know if I'd take album credits as an endorsement of a product.

[The Computer Audiophile]

labjr - Feel free to downplay the significance or insignificance of Herbie's personal appreciation to Daniel Weiss. Everyone has their own standard. Herbie's mention has nothing to do with the value of the product or your questioning the value. <br />

<br />

By the way Skywalker has, or has had, just about every good converter ever made. Some of them are actually in use while others are up in the dusty rafters. Studios often have tons of equipment.<br />

<br />

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Hans - I agree with you 100%. <br />

<br />

We have a wonderful hobby that should bring enjoyment to all of us. When comments give readers headaches that's not good and is antithetical to how CA works.

[icebreaker]

Some commentators have called Chris' enthusiastic review of the Weiss DAC 202 a paid advertisement because Weiss is a prominent advertiser. These people seem to forget that by boldly proclaiming the Weiss DAC 202 as his new reference he is also risking upsetting other advertisers in that price range. Not JUST kissing up to advertisers like some have stated.<br />

<br />

From what I have heard the enthusiasm is well deserved. And Daniel Weiss is a class act all the way if anyone has dealt with him. Personal and engineering credentials.<br />

<br />

Because of Chris' review I will give the Weiss Dac202 serious consideration. He was certainly right about Verity Audio speakers! One of the best purchases I ever made! :^)<br />

<br />

Thanks for "telling it like it is" Chris and not worrying about upsetting other advertisers. After all the Weiss DAC 202 is setting a new standard for others to meet.

[barrows]

is not just a superbly talented and gifted musician, but it is interesting to note that he is also well known as being an audiophile. The fact that he is an audiophile might give some insight as to his motivations in mentioning the converters used in the recording/mastering/monitoring of this album.<br />

Back to the Weiss 202: one very interesting feature to me is the fact that the Weiss offers two choices for digital filtering-Chris, did you happen to audition the two different filter settings?<br />

I also read in the user manual that it is likely that new digital filters will be available in the future, and owners will be able to implement new filter options through software updates-to me this is a great feature as different digital filters can make for significant performance improvements. It also indicates that Weiss uses their own proprietary filters/oversampler, rather than using the stock filters available in the hardware (DAC chips).