Article: Weiss Engineering DAC202 Review

[Charles Hansen]

>> I'm curious about the Arcam also. I read somewhere that they license the asynch technology from DCS. Not that the asynch transfer is the whole DAC but it's good to know the transfer won't be the weak link in the product. Anyone know if the DAC will actually do 4X sampling rates. <<<br />

<br />

My understanding is that the Arcam uses the TI TAS1020B USB receiver chip. This is only USB 1.1 capable and tops out at 96/24.

[labjr]

<i><br />

My understanding is that the Arcam uses the TI TAS1020B USB receiver chip. This is only USB 1.1 capable and tops out at 96/24.<br />

</><br />

<br />

Well that stinks. Seems like it's difficult for everyone to get beyond 24/96. It's gonna be forever too before there's a lot of 24/192 material to play.

[Charles Hansen]

>> At the risk of sounding like I'm biting the head of another manufacturer commenting on a competitors products, do you know for a fact that the Arcam R-DAC is made in China (or other Far East country) as generally Arcams products are made in the UK. They did go through a period where their AVR line was made in China but the recent (AVR600 and 500) have returned to UK manufacture. This includes (afaik) the Solo range which superficially the R-DAC is part of. <<<br />

<br />

Bite away!<br />

<br />

I was under the opposite impression, and that all of their products have been made in China during recent years. But I well could be wrong. Perhaps I was thinking of Cambridge (manufacturers of the DAC Magic).<br />

<br />

Don't believe everything you read. I don't know where the new Arcam DAC will be made, so take what you read with a grain of salt.<br />

<br />

But it still provides about a 2:1 price advantage to have something made in the Far East compared to North America or Western Europe.

[barrows]

" And some of the best are more generous than others and their products are more reasonably priced."<br />

<br />

Exactly what kind of analysis are you basing this statement on? I have worked in high end audio, and in other businesses that manufacture and distribute products. I have never been in any meeting where a manufacturer priced a product in order to be "generous", this is preposterous. A manufacturer tries to price a product in a way that allows for reasonable profit, and the best possible value for the consumer, period.<br />

I find the hidden implication in these kind of remarks (that some manufacturers are somehow overpricing their products, and ripping off consumers) to be completely without any basis in the reality of designing, producing and marketing audio components.

[Charles Hansen]

>> Well that stinks. Seems like it's difficult for everyone to get beyond 24/96. It's gonna be forever too before there's a lot of 24/192 material to play. <<<br />

<br />

Our new DX-5 has a USB receiver board that will go up to 192 kHz (thanks, Gordon!). There are two problems:<br />

<br />

a) Lack of operating system support. Apple just released 10.6.4, which is *supposed* to support Class 2.0 Audio up to 192 kHz. We haven't confirmed that yet.<br />

<br />

b) There are literally only about 8 files that go beyond 96 kHz. A couple by 2L, a couple by Linn, and a handful of discs (not downloads!) from Reference Recordings.<br />

<br />

I think the whole thing is severely over-hyped.

[Charles Hansen]

>> Does quality really have anything to do with the cost of parts? or whether or not opamps are used? How much more can discrete circuits cost? <<<br />

<br />

Well, most people use cheap Chinese resistors that cost about 2/10 of a cent to buy. In the audio section of our DAC we use US-made resistors that cost about $0.30 to buy, a factor of 150x.<br />

<br />

I'd love to sell a DAC for $500. But I'm not going to use Chinese prison camps to do it. And I'm not going to cut corners with cheap parts.<br />

<br />

>> Metric Halo seems to be a good example of brilliant engineering combined with generosity. You get a lot for the money. And people are raving about the sound of those opamps! <<<br />

<br />

That's the beauty of our system. You have all kinds of choices. If you find something that satisfies your ears and meets your budget, by all means you should buy it.

[Charles Hansen]

>> I find the hidden implication in these kind of remarks (that some manufacturers are somehow overpricing their products, and ripping off consumers) to be completely without any basis in the reality of designing, producing and marketing audio components. <<<br />

<br />

I mostly agree. But there are some that offer better value than others, if nothing else by virtue of clever engineering. But when you make a blanket statement like that, I think that you are forgetting the cable companies. Many of which do overprice their products, in my opinion....

[Charles Hansen]

>> Do you know if in fact they are licensing dCS Async USB? <<<br />

<br />

Yes, Arcam is licensing the technology from dCS.

[barrows]

"But when you make a blanket statement like that, I think that you are forgetting the cable companies. Many of which do overprice their products, in my opinion...."<br />

<br />

I agree with you regarding some cable companies; before I made the post I actually edited it to use the word "components" instead of "products", as I thought using "components" would exclude cables from my comment.

[cfmsp]

<br />

<br />

Interesting, thanks for posting this.<br />

<br />

I'll refrain from comment as Daniel might implement a bit differently.<br />

<br />

Clay

[labjr]

<i><br />

"I think the whole thing is severely over-hyped."<br />

</><br />

<br />

Well don't you think there's a point where digital will sound better than analog?<br />

<br />

[jhbpa]

nm

[chrille]

Charles Hansen said:I think the whole thing is severely over-hyped.<br />

<br />

You may be right in your statement that 192 is overhyped.<br />

<br />

But I think you are a bit wrong regarding availablity of such material for download.<br />

<br />

We are not talking only a couple...<br />

<br />

From 2L many releases are 24/192. <br />

<br />

From Linn there are also quite a few on their own label and also from other labels selling via Linn.<br />

<br />

Acousence has a handful and so does Channel Classics.<br />

So as far as availability goes the numbers are growing.<br />

<br />

How many will hear a difference?<br />

<br />

Now that is a completely different matter. <br />

<br />

all the best Chrille

[Pere Barceló]

I must say I am quite disapointed at this review. We are moving all the illness of traditional hi-fi to future technologies. Does anybody need a 6K DAC? Can anybody tell the difference from a well designed $100 Dac?<br />

<br />

I just build my new hometheatre pc, connected it straight my receiver with a single HMDI cable. It sounds at least as good as any cd player I've ever owned (some above the $3.000 braket). Don't even have a soundcard. The hdmi is from the pc motherboard.<br />

<br />

It's obviously just a personal opinion but it's my real life experience. In my view a DAC that sounds (subjectively) better than any other well designed DAC has been voiced. Just like tube rolling.<br />

<br />

I'm sick of hocus pocus. There isn't a bit of serious science to support that a 5K DAC is better than a 100 dolar dac given the human hearing capacity.<br />

<br />

Sorry if I offended somebody.<br />

[Audio_ELF]

<em>I must say I am quite disapointed at this review. We are moving all the illness of traditional hi-fi to future technologies. Does anybody need a 6K DAC? Can anybody tell the difference from a well designed $100 Dac?</em><br />

<br />

This web site is dedicated to the Highest End of Computer Audiophile. While a lot of lower end equipment is discussed I have always had the impression that Chris' aim was to discuss the pinnacle of Audiophile systems using the highest end equipment.<br />

<br />

<em>I'm sick of hocus pocus. There isn't a bit of serious science to support that a 5K DAC is better than a 100 dolar dac given the human hearing capacity.</em><br />

<br />

Many people would agree with you, but it is a generally accepted fact that you can get better sounding system using a £5k DAC (or CD player) than a £100 one. It's not hocus pocus at all. In fact you can scientifically measure a DAC (or other device) and see differences in their response.<br />

<br />

The cost of a DAC (or other component) has very little to do with the component costs - it's about the research and development costs trialing various components, writing firmware, etc.<br />

<br />

<em>Sorry if I offended somebody.</em><br />

<br />

No offence ... if you're happy with HTPC into AV Reciever via HDMI that's good for you ... but why criticize those people who wish to spend their money on high end equipment? Just don't read the reviews! It's like with cars - a £10,000 Astra will do everything that a £60,000 Mercedes does ... but both exist and sell well!<br />

<br />

Eloise

[kaka]

Chris - some of the earlier posts asked if you had compared the dac202 with the Metric Halo/Sonic Studio products (or intend to). Obviously they also offer a firewire interface and word clocking, and have an enthusiastic bunch of CA owners.<br />

<br />

Are they on your radar? <br />

<br />

Your review makes the 202 sound tempting, but how does it compare with the LIO-8? <br />

<br />

Thanks<br />

<br />

[chrille]

Pere Barceló said:<br />

<br />

"Does anybody need a 6K DAC? Can anybody tell the difference from a well designed $100 Dac?"<br />

<br />

You are raising an interesting question here Barceló, but from my point of view I claim that not all DACs sound the same. <br />

<br />

And that yes there ought to be a difference between a 100 Dollar DAC and a 6k one.<br />

<br />

On the other hand I am also aware that there is a lot of conning going on in the HIGH End market, but anyway.<br />

<br />

<br />

I can confirm partly from having heard music I know from the recording sessions all the way from live mike feed and DXD to played back via various DAC combos.<br />

<br />

There can be a difference and it can be audible.<br />

<br />

But only,and I repeat, only if you start with source material that has got enough complex information spectrally/ harmonically and dynamically to be of any real relevance in the context of HIGH END SOUND.<br />

<br />

Ie acoustic music preferably large scale symphonic and/or opera. <br />

<br />

If all you play is 16/44.1 pop/rock/rap material with 20 db dynamic range and effing loud all the time, the Weiss or any other high quality DAC would basically be a waste of money IMO.<br />

<br />

Some posters here who seem to concentrate more on Estetics than the sound quality, have suggested that Belcanto or DCS look better than the Weiss and therefore are better.<br />

<br />

I suppose they belong in the category of "true High End music lovers" where the equipment is mainly there to impress friends rather than for any true value as HI FI products.<br />

<br />

HI FI for decoration ..<br />

<br />

Britney Spears and her kind shriek even more painfully out of tune on a good looking multi K dollar system.<br />

<br />

So what is the point? <br />

<br />

I am stepping on toes,all the time here, by claiming things like that.<br />

<br />

But the fact remains that crap in will always equal crap out,no matter how much money you spend.<br />

<br />

But if your base criterias are there, yes again, different DACs deliver different sound out.<br />

<br />

And yes again, the differences seem, within reasonable limits to correspond quite well to the price asked.<br />

<br />

Money no object, I for one, would have a DAD Denmark and a Meitner and/or Grimm DSD in my home. <br />

<br />

But money is an object,and therefore I am looking for the best possible value for money solution to my "wet Computer Audio dreams" .<br />

<br />

Right now it seems my little DACport was one of the best investments I have made in the realm of Computer Audio.<br />

<br />

It does quite an excellent job via headphones at least, and on some very well recorded symphonic material! <br />

<br />

And I am not absolutely certain that I will even be able to hear any MAJOR difference between it and the Weiss on material up to 24/96?<br />

<br />

But that remains to be heard.<br />

<br />

I live quite far from the nearest place where I can audition the Weiss.<br />

<br />

Meanwhile regarding the new Weiss there has been some talk here about the new analogue circuitry compared to the Minerva.<br />

<br />

Maybe the real Achilles heel here is not only how the actual DAC performs.<br />

<br />

But more a question of how much the analogue parts influence sound quality? <br />

<br />

I am using my DACport in conjuntion with a high quality headphone amp and very heavy separate PSU.<br />

<br />

And I have to repeat, I am quite impressed with the way things sound that way, compared to the somewhat leaner, but still highly resolved sound directly from the DACport.<br />

<br />

One thing I miss in Chris' review of the DAC 202 is any mention of the headphone amp?<br />

<br />

I am maybe stepping on some toes again here.<br />

<br />

But here I go again:<br />

Unless you have stratopherically expensive speakers, and amps the best way to actually hear how good, or bad, a recording is ,is to use high quality headphones!<br />

<br />

Very,very few speakers and home listening rooms get anywhere near the dynamic range,lack of distortion and high resolution, and real sense of the venue as good headphones can do.<br />

<br />

Basically all labels that record classical music in high res use headphones as a way to monitor sound quality at sessions.<br />

<br />

Recording engineers that I know of,use either Sennheisers from 600 to 650s and now more and more the HD 800 ,that I too will take to sessions and use at home.<br />

<br />

Jared Sacks at Channel Classics who records in pure DSD uses Stax Electrostatic headphones.<br />

<br />

He has recently started to offer some of his recordings as both 24/96 and 24/192 downloads via LINN.<br />

<br />

I am a bit surprised that Chris didn´t even mention how the DAC 202 sounds via headphones?<br />

<br />

Nor does he say in his review what speakers he used?<br />

<br />

And very little about the music material used.<br />

<br />

In the whole review he mentions only one title recorded at 24/176.4 and not a single 24/192 recording?<br />

<br />

IMHO the most obvious benefit of the Weiss versus a lot of the competion at much lower prices ought to be with the highest sampling rates?<br />

<br />

Correct me if I am wrong.<br />

<br />

All the best Chrille<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[Audio_ELF]

Chrille said... <em>"Nor does he say in his review what speakers he used?"</em><br />

<br />

<em>Associated Equipment:<br />

<em><strong>Verity Audio Fidelio loudspeakers</strong>, McIntosh MC275 amplification, Richard Gray's Power Company High Tension Wires, Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC, Wavelength Audio Proton, Ayre AX-7e Integrated Amp, C.A.P.S. server, Bel Canto USB Link, Halide Design Bridge, dCS Debussy DAC, dCS Puccini U-Clock, Kimber USB Cu, Kimber USB Ag, Benchmark DAC1 PRE, Kimber Select KS1011 Analog Cables, Kimber Select KS2020 Digital Cable, Kimber Monocle X Loudspeaker Cable, ASUS Xonar HDAV 1.3 Slim, Apple iPad, Sonic Studio's Amarra, M2Tech hiFace, Weiss Engineering DAC202, Lynx Studio AES16 Digital I/O Card.</em><br />

<br />

Chrille also said... <em>But only,and I repeat, only if you start with source material that has got enough complex information spectrally/ harmonically and dynamically to be of any real relevance in the context of HIGH END SOUND.<br />

Ie acoustic music preferably large scale symphonic and/or opera.<br />

If all you play is 16/44.1 pop/rock/rap material with 20 db dynamic range and effing loud all the time, the Weiss or any other high quality DAC would basically be a waste of money IMO.</em><br />

<br />

I see you're on your soapbox that people with high end audio equipment should only be listening to "proper" music!!<br />

<br />

And carried on... <em>Basically all labels that record classical music in high res use headphones as a way to monitor sound quality at sessions.<br />

Recording engineers that I know of,use either Sennheisers from 600 to 650s and now more and more the HD 800 ,that I too will take to sessions and use at home.<br />

Jared Sacks at Channel Classics who records in pure DSD uses Stax Electrostatic headphones.</em><br />

<br />

Monitoring audio is a completely different process to listening to it for pleasure (IME). You'll also find that different equipment is used when monitoring a session for multi-track recording and the mixing and mastering stages.<br />

<br />

Personally I couldn't listen for more than half and hour, maybe an hour to headphones but thats just me.<br />

<br />

Eloise<br />

<br />

[labjr]

<i><br />

"You may be right in your statement that 192 is overhyped.<br />

<i><br />

But I think you are a bit wrong regarding availablity of such material for download."<br />

</i><br />

<br />

I'm not sure 192 is hype. Barry Diament has been saying that he hears a bigger difference going from 96 to 192 than he did from 44.1 to 96. That it finally sounds like the mic feed. So I'm thinking there may be something to 192 if the DAC is well designed. Most say that listening to vinyl is still better than their DAC. So isn't the goal for digital to sound equal to or better than the best analog some day?<br />

<br />

I think Charles was being a little sarcastic when he said eight. But there's not a lot. I haven't seen any 192 material that I would buy and I'm not buying recordings I wouldn't otherwise listen to just because they are 24/192. Been there, done that with CD. <br />

<br />

[weiss2496]

First thanks to Chris for his favorable review. Very much appreciated.<br />

<br />

Here is an explanation of how the Firewire (or IEEE1394 or 1394 for short) transmission works in the case of our Firewire based units.<br />

<br />

The Firewire bus is used in the so called isochronous mode. This mode has the advantage that a fixed amount of the bus bandwidth is reserved for audio transfer. The remaining amount is available for possible control data. This means that it can not happen that there are sample losses due to bus congestion. <br />

<br />

The devices hooked up to a Firewire bus are called Nodes. I.e. the computer is a node, the DAC202 is a node, there can be several DAC202 units on the bus for multichannel playback, each of them is a node.<br />

<br />

Each node has by Firewire standard a fixed 24.576 MHz clock with a +- 50ppm tolerance built in. In each node that clock drives a a counter counting the 24.576 MHz clock cycles. This is the “local timer” as referred to below.<br />

From the DICE manual:<br />

“All nodes on a 1394 network must be synchronized to one clock called the cycle timer, which is determined by the master node on the network. One cycle of the master nodes’ cycle timer defines a 1394 cycle. At the beginning of each 1394 cycle the master node transmits a clock sync signal that allows all nodes on the 1394 network to be synchronized to the cycle timer. This maintains synchronicity among all the 1394 nodes. Each 1394 node receives the clock sync signal and uses it to update or correct its local timer.“<br />

<br />

So in essence there is a master node which broadcasts a clock sync signal every 125 microseconds to all other nodes. This sync signal resets the “local timers” in all nodes in order to realign them to the master node. As the 24.576 MHz oscillators are obviously not synced between the nodes, there will be jitter in the local timers due to the sync signal coming from the master node. If a slave node has a D/A converter running off the Firewire bus, the associated PLL has to cope with that jitter. I.e. the PLL has to be very well designed to get decent jitter figures. The so called JET PLL used in the Dice for that purpose is described in (1).<br />

The DAC202 is potentially a slave node if there are more than one DAC202 on the bus. If there is a single DAC202 on the bus, it is the master node and thus the source of the wordclock (sampling rate). This is the case with the wordclock generated internal to the DAC202. Alternatively with the DAC202 slaved to an external sync via its AES/EBU inputs or Wordclock input, the external sync source is the master for the Firewire transmission. The case where a AES/EBU source is connected to the DAC202 and the data transferred to the computer for recording, shows that the DAC202 obviously can control the Firewire bus and thus is not synced to a clock coming via Firewire. <br />

<br />

The JET PLL also generates all standard sampling rates out of a single crystal oscillator when in internal sync mode. This shows that the JET PLL has the necessary quality in terms of jitter performance.<br />

<br />

(1)http://www.tctechnologies.tc/downloads/jetpll/docs/jetpll_aes_paper.pdf<br />

(2)http://www.tctechnologies.tc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=14<br />

<br />

Daniel<br />

<br />

[Pere Barceló]

Well, first I'd like to apologize if I was too blunt in my initial comment regarding the need (or lack of) for 6K dacs.<br />

<br />

I appreciate the kind responses and opinions that followed.<br />

<br />

I guess everybody's experience and situation is different, creating an almost unlimited number of opinions.<br />

<br />

Just to give you a bit of background, I've been a Hi-Fi enthusiast for about 15 years. I supose I could have bought a couple of nice cars in this period if it wasn't for my equipment purchases! So, I do have a bit of a baggage although I've never bought anything above 10K.<br />

<br />

When arguments like this arise, I believe it is due to serveral things. For once, value is important to me. If you look at specs of jitter, the 6K dac will be superior (it better be!) but can you really tell the difference at a certain "lack of jitter level"? Therefore, and IMHO, it's not better anymore and the additional cost is meaningless.<br />

<br />

Another point that is never brought up, is that most hi-fi specialty brands are trully SMEs operations. This puts them at a serious disadvantge to provide value. It's not the same to support 15 engineers on 1.000 unit sales than on 1.000.000 units sales. This is a luxury industry such as exotic sports cars and anybody thinking a 6.000 CD player is value...well, I just plaintly disagree.<br />

<br />

Finally, it is a fact (at least to me) that snake oil exists in this business. So sometimes it's hard to separate the honest companies from the not so honest. In my opinion, there is a big problem with the general accepted specs being used today. I would define them as fairly useless in helping anybody assess the performance merits of equipment, let alone be helpfull in making a buyer's decision. Another "failure" is that blind testing is ignored and put down just because it endangers a business model that is based on image and exclusivity. If these issues were addressed, snake oil would not be able to hide so easily and more people would be drawn to the hobby (as they wouldn't be disapointed with their purchases)<br />

<br />

Oh, and one more thing. I myself have heard differences in equipment. I must then admit that it must also be true for DACS, in some cases and in some situacions. But as someone kindly pointed out, unless you are doing it in almost "lab conditions" (the closest is a good pair of headphones to me too!), then you really don't know why those differences arise; because of the room?, the volume?, a person's mood and predisposition?...or any number of factors that can affect the end result.<br />

<br />

Again, just my two cents to an almost century old debate that pops-up once in a while in forums like this.<br />

<br />

PS: I admire greatly what Chris has brought to the scene, his passion and effort. Did not mean to come across as disrespectfull to his review.

[Audio_ELF]

<em>Just to give you a bit of background, I've been a Hi-Fi enthusiast for about 15 years. I supose I could have bought a couple of nice cars in this period if it wasn't for my equipment purchases! So, I do have a bit of a baggage although I've never bought anything above 10K.</em><br />

Some context is always useful...<br />

<br />

<em>When arguments like this arise, I believe it is due to several things. For once, value is important to me. If you look at specs of jitter, the 6K dac will be superior (it better be!) but can you really tell the difference at a certain "lack of jitter level"? Therefore, and IMHO, it's not better anymore and the additional cost is meaningless.</em><br />

But (to my mind anyway) jitter specs are one of the least important factors in choosing between DACs. What is more important is how the analogue parts of the DAC is constructed (and not this isn't a Op-amp vs Discrete circuitry discussion). The power supply. And yes (to me) the appearance and user friendliness in use!<br />

<br />

<em>Another point that is never brought up, is that most hi-fi specialty brands are truly SMEs operations. This puts them at a serious disadvantage to provide value. It's not the same to support 15 engineers on 1.000 unit sales than on 1.000.000 units sales. This is a luxury industry such as exotic sports cars and anybody thinking a 6.000 CD player is value...well, I just plainly disagree.</em><br />

Actually, your question of value is an important one. You can think of (at least some) HiFi equipment as comperable to a finely crafted sports car. What is better value, the Astra that costs £15,000 and takes 15 hours to construct, or the Ferrari that costs £100,000 but takes 200 hours to construct?<br />

<br />

<em>Finally, it is a fact (at least to me) that snake oil exists in this business. So sometimes it's hard to separate the honest companies from the not so honest.</em><br />

I think this is being very negative - there is an element of snake oil in some accessories (and I include cables in this) which are sold. However the vast majority of components you purchase are well engineered with solid scientific basis.<br />

<br />

<em>In my opinion, there is a big problem with the general accepted specs being used today. I would define them as fairly useless in helping anybody assess the performance merits of equipment, let alone be helpful in making a buyer's decision.</em><br />

Specs should never be used to compare products ... most manufacturers will say they only include them because purchases demand to know them!<br />

<br />

<em>Another "failure" is that blind testing is ignored and put down just because it endangers a business model that is based on image and exclusivity. If these issues were addressed, snake oil would not be able to hide so easily and more people would be drawn to the hobby (as they wouldn't be disappointed with their purchases)</em><br />

Blind testing has arguments for and against. For me, the best way to demo equipment is to begin in a relaxed situation at a good dealer, then once you have whittled down a few choices then home demo with your own equipment, room, etc.<br />

<br />

<em>Oh, and one more thing. I myself have heard differences in equipment. I must then admit that it must also be true for DACS, in some cases and in some situations. But as someone kindly pointed out, unless you are doing it in almost "lab conditions" (the closest is a good pair of headphones to me too!), then you really don't know why those differences arise; because of the room?, the volume?, a person's mood and predisposition?...or any number of factors that can affect the end result.</em><br />

I must disagree here ... you can hear the differences in DACs, amplifiers, speakers, etc in real world. Yes your room will influence how you hear the audio, but the differences will be there. In the ideal world we would all be listening in an acoustically fairly dead room with our speakers positioned well and be sat int he ideal listening position. However not many of us can attain this, but that doesn't mean we can't listen to and enjoy music via speakers. To me, a pair of headphones is completely artificial. But then maybe I've not heard the right pair of headphones.<br />

<br />

At the end of the day there are some very good pieces of equipment at under £500, but (for me) I still aspire to equipment such as the Weiss DAC202, Naim NAC552 / NAP500 amplifiers, B&W 802Di speakers, etc (not necessarily together) which I have heard and find draw me into the music even more than my current system does.<br />

<br />

Eloise

[chrille]

Eloise said:"Personally I couldn't listen for more than half and hour, maybe an hour to headphones but thats just me."<br />

<br />

Oops , I missed the speakers used, there was an awful lot of technical stuff that I just scrolled through to find ,things that interested me more, how does it sound...and such.<br />

<br />

<br />

Regarding what you label as my "proper music" I would of course also include ,acoustic jazz, world music,folk music and some really great artists in the mainstream and pop genre.<br />

<br />

Talking of world music ,ever heard Balinese Gamelan music?<br />

<br />

It sounds absolutely thrilling live, with tremendous high frequency energy ,and absolutely boring on CD. <br />

But good on SACD.<br />

<br />

The kind of music that would really benefit from a DAC of the calibre of the Weiss and similar.<br />

<br />

16/44.1 truncates a lot of its high frequency energy .<br />

<br />

Solo voices of any genre provided they are naturally recorded are also included in my list of "proper music" in a HIGH END context.<br />

<br />

And of course one of the most difficult instruments of all to record realistically, after the violin, is the piano.<br />

<br />

A Grand piano can generate recordable energy up to at least 30khz.<br />

<br />

And all those complex sonorities of piano chords demand analogue or high res digital recordings to do them any justice ! <br />

<br />

On the other hand, Electric guitars, and many other amplified or synthetically derived sounds in the general genre of commercial music for the masses, has no place in my "proper music" list, and is of little value in any HI FI context ,and certainly of no real value in any HIGH END context.<br />

<br />

Regarding headphone listening, unlike you I do enjoy it because it brings me closer to the real live recorded sound than any speaker system I can afford.<br />

<br />

Once again, money no object I would have five full range Electrostat or similar quality speakers in my listening room and would probably listen less via headphones then.<br />

<br />

But alas I haven´t, so headphones it is,for pure musical enjoyment in my case.<br />

<br />

I hear far too much live music to settle for less in serious listening.<br />

<br />

But I am tempted to audition a pair of Beweridge full range Electrostats that are for sale at a "decent price",10 grand second hand.<br />

<br />

I am afraid, true studio quality full range monitors is what it takes to keep me happy enough to give up my headphones. <br />

<br />

Then again, what people listen to for personal enjoyment is of course entirely up to them to decide!<br />

I am not preaching musical taste only what really matters in this context. <br />

<br />

For any real benefit to be noticed in the elusive realm of HIGH END HI FI, you need to have certain basic requirements fullfilled that is all I am trying to get through here.<br />

<br />

Don't get me wrong, I am also greatful for all Chris is doing here and especially all the help he has given both me and many others.<br />

<br />

His review is good but IMHO a bit lacking in important details .<br />

<br />

<br />

My "proper music" is only a means, in trying to maintain and reinstate the basics of what HI FI and HIGH END used to stand for.<br />

<br />

All the best and happy listening Chrille

[KDinsmore]

Wow! Who would have thought this DAC would have brought many to fist-to-cuff's here?<br />

<br />

For the record I think this is probably one sweet piece of gear. My only objection is the price. All others please take a deep breath and move along! It's a long ride on the bus with many stops on the way.<br />

<br />

Keith<br />

<br />

BTW-like Stereophile letters to the editor this is great entertainment. Thanks to Chris for letting it linger!

[Wavelength]

Daniel,<br />

<br />

Thanks for the details and this is what I understand to be true also.<br />

<br />

I would first like to say to the rest of the group that there are going to be good products and bad products for asynchronous and other interfaces used in computer audio. Go out and listen... don't try and be Monday morning quarterbacks.<br />

<br />

Ok... that being said Daniel I still don't see any possible way of being asynchronous.<br />

<br />

First even if the unit is the master node, 24.576 can only be used for 48/96/192. Therefore the resulting clocks for the other frequencies will be of lesser quality as they will have to be synthesized by a digital PLL/VCO circuit.<br />

<br />

Really none of these PLL/VCO's are really any good. They all have to change on a regular basis which means more jitter.<br />

<br />

But gang don't freak out.... as Daniel has said and someone quoted here they do have a secondary PLL/VCXO to clean up this signal.<br />

<br />

But really in the end I don't see this as an async system. All async systems would require some sort of flow control so the use of a selected (dual) fixed oscillators can be applied to the dac. The dual frequencies required for the two separate sampling rate groups:<br />

<br />

a) 44.1/88.2/176.4 = 22.5792Mhz or 2x, 4x depending on dac.<br />

b) 48/96/192 = 24.576Mhz or 2x, 4x depending on dac.<br />

<br />

One or the other oscillator would have to be selected when the node is told of a sample rate change.<br />

<br />

Am I correct in my interpretation?<br />

<br />

There is an specification for async isochronous transmission inside of Firewire. But from what I understand the DICE does not support this and neither does any of the operating systems. So really the only way to do async in a Firewire solution would be to use the bulk method with a device driver that makes it look like an audio device.<br />

<br />

Thanks<br />

Gordon