Article: Arcam rDAC Asynchronous USB DAC Review

[Lakefield]

Hi Chris,<br />

<br />

thanks for the review. It's a really neat piece of kit. I'm waiting to audition one, but my dealer doesn't have the rDAC yet.<br />

<br />

<br />

It was tested in German HiFi Magazines and they measured a very high Jitter rate through Coax input. 4356 ps ! While the USB input only got 145 ps.<br />

So i can imagine that the USB input was clearly the best in your test. <br />

Do you did any measurements? Maybe it was just that one DAC the German testers had, some kind of pre-production Version.<br />

<br />

<br />

Thanks

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Lakefield - Good questions. I didn't have any measurements taken of the rDAC. Dis the German magazine test the optical input? I'd be interested in that measurement as a data point. However, jitter measurements can be very misleading.

[shum3s]

Chris thanks for the review. I was wondering if you could comment on what would be a better route to take? Using a Halide Bridge connected to a sub $1000.00 dac ! or the rDac? The reason I ask because I wonder if it is always ideal to go the USB route providing that it is not adaptive?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi shum3s - I wish I had an answer for you but it's really an unanswerable question. I could configure either option to sound better than the other on different days of the week.

[shamu144]

Thank you for the review. <br />

<br />

It looks like the audio industry is finally embracing the asynchronous USB as a new standard for tomorrow computer playback. Offering from different brands are popping up every week (Ayre, Esoteric, Grace Design, Audiolab, now Arcam).<br />

<br />

In my system, asynch USB is far superior to adaptive USB (using Audiophilleo2 and Lavry DA11). So your conclusions are not so surprising, though most welcomed.<br />

<br />

I feel digital playback is having a second birth !

[Lakefield]

I understand from the test they did measured it via Coax, not sure if it's the same for optical.<br />

<br />

If you want to take a look at the figures check out this pdf. It's from a german shop who put the measurements online (page 2).<br />

I know it's german but not that difficult (with google).<br />

<br />

<br />

http://www.hifisound.de/oxid/out/oxbaseshop/html/0/test_pdf/ARC-2200005.pdf

[zerung]

Chris<br />

Thanks for the review. The price is not reasonable, it is unreasonable low for one from a well known company.Perhaps suitable for bed room music....<br />

Lastly at every breath we use to cite Jonathan Ives, we also need to bless Dieter Rams.

[Elberoth]

I have tried one in my system. IMO it represents an outstanding value. Haven't noticed that much of a difference between coax input (fed from dCS Puccini) and USB input (XP / J River 15 / ASIO) though. Need to listen some more.

[santiago]

Has anyone had the chance to compare it to other options in the $300-$600 pricerange?<br />

How do you think it compares to something like HRT MusicStreamer II+ ($349) regarding just SQ?

[fds]

Great review, Chris. <br />

<br />

Due to its great design, its features (async USB DAC, various inputs, upcoming wireless capacities), and its price tag, I have had high hopes that the Arcam rDAC would be a bargain that gets close to the Ayre QB-9 but with more features. However, in an A/B comparison (USB only), the QB-9 showed that it is in a different league (of course as also its price tag): much more organic, real, with more details, better spacial (3D) resolution, and a wider stage. In fact, whenever the rDAC was playing, I had the desire to turn up the volume probably to hear more details, i.e., the details the QB-9 had showed already at lower volumes. Having heard the QB-9, I find it now impossible to go back to the rDAC. <br />

<br />

As you are mentioning the Grace Design m903 in your review, I am very much looking forward to your review of that device. On paper, it looks very interesting and offers exactly some features (e.g. volume control embedded with optional remote control) I would love to see realized in the QB-9 but for a better price. The key question will then again be how good the sound quality of the USB DAC in the m903 will be. Will this one then be a serious competitor for the QB-9?

[dummy]

No disrespect to you fds, since you mentionned It on your note, but the Ayre is 5 times the price of the Arcam. Not twice nor three times more, but five. That's quite another league in my opinion. I have no doubt that It sounds better, much better even. But I don't think that comparasion game is always helpful to either product. Even though, oddly enough, I think both the rDAC and the QB-9 are great value in their own respective leagues. <br />

<br />

On that same thought, I don't think It would be fair to compare Ayre's QB-9 to something like the Weiss DAC202 either even though, both are considerate truly high end products. But I guess It's the nature of the beast to always do so... <br />

<br />

Just so you know, I didn't read your comment as an attack against the Arcam at all. I own the Arcam, love it very much and agree 100% with Chris review. Great value, very good sound and a fatigue-free little bugger. <br />

<br />

Just like your hopes, mine are to make more money to be able to afford an Ayre, Weiss, Audio Research, dCS or whatever new darling will be the *IT* kid when that day comes...<br />

<br />

[JDFlood]

I personally like comparisons between equipment of largely different value. It serves to confirm the disparity in price which can disappear over time as technology advances. It sounds like fds was hoping to hear a great leap forward in cost/performance. Honestly I would say it was a comparison between the inexpensive apples and the premium ones. Helps me figure out which level to spend at.

[santiago]

In my humble opinion, the ideal scenario would be to compare with 3 other products.<br />

A cheaper one to see if it is worth the $ difference.<br />

A similar one to see how it compares to a direct competitor.<br />

A more expensive product to see how close it gets to it performance-wise.<br />

<br />

That way one can get a more accurate reference of the product's value and performance.<br />

Again, just my humblest opinion. <br />

<br />

<br />

[JDFlood]

Sure, agreed. The wider the sample the better. But having more data points helps. Given every ones biases, different systems and limited exposure (I do as little evaluation as possible, it is a means to an end, not an end in itself) the more info the better. So glad to hear has comments, they are helpful.

[jdjaye]

Hi Chris-<br />

<br />

Great review! Have you heard the Cambridge Audio Dac Magic?<br />

If so, how would you compare the rDAC with the Dac Magic?<br />

<br />

Many thanks!<br />

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi jdjaye - No contest. rDAC is much better.

[Miska]

<cite>No contest. rDAC is much better.</cite><br />

<br />

Over S/PDIF optical?<br />

<br />

I think DacMagic is a really good performer over optical link. I wouldn't even bother to try it's USB interface...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Very good point Miska. <br />

<br />

I'd say using each DAC via its best input, rDAC's USB and DacMagic's Optical?, the rDAC is superior.

[santiago]

Hi Chris,<br />

What other USB DACs in this price range do you think are similar or superior to the rDAC? Or is it the best one you can buy for this kind of $?<br />

Thanks!

[Gregor Samsa]

This is one of the things that makes this site one of my very favorites. Stereophile or TAS would compare it with the QB-9 (OK, I guess TAS wouldn't talk about the QB-9) and say "While it did not sound as good as that 5-times-more expensive processor, it came much closer than I expected". They wouldn't make any meaningful comparisons with something in the same price range. Thanks for callin' 'em like you see 'em, Chris.

[hrbacek]

And if you would compare the rDAC's optical input with the USB input of DACMagic, would rDAC be still better?<br />

<br />

I search for an external DAC in this price category and I plan to use both inputs - optical for a CD player and USB for a computer (iTunes as a source). <br />

<br />

Thank you for the interesting review.

[Snoozer]

Hi Chris, great review thank you !<br />

<br />

I purchased the recording you mentioned in the review "Equalization—Are You Getting the Most Out of this Humble Effect." <br />

<br />

Do you happen to have the slides or pdf of this presentation ? (the audio is great, but very difficult to understand without the graphics).<br />

<br />

Thank you and best regards,<br />

Pepe

[soundscape]

> "It was tested in German HiFi Magazines and they measured a very high Jitter rate through Coax input. 4356 ps ! While the USB input only got 145 ps."<br />

<br />

The link in your second message doesn't describe how they made the measurement. I'd think that the jitter might come from the input source, without knowing anything else about it.<br />

<br />

In so far as I understand, the asynch USB removes the jitter which would potentially come from the USB input source's clocking, by providing its own clock. That means it doesn't have any effect on the Coax input source's clocking. So isn't it likely that the Jitter is a result of the Coax input source device's clocking, and would be different if you connect a different source to it?<br />

[Brand B]

"The asynchronous USB input supports from 32 to 96 kHz and all frequencies in between. "<br />

<br />

A user review elsewhere said only the windows driver supported up to 96 kHz over USB. I assume since you reviewed this using macs for playback, that is false, or at least no longer true. Did you have to install a driver even for use with Windows?<br />

<br />

That limitation was the only thing keeping me from buying the EE minimax DAC, and if this unit can do 96, I will likely try it.

[Andy]

A good honest review. Thanks. <br />

<br />

Whilst I have not had the opportunity to compare this unit with other DAC's (Other than the VDac), it has succeeded in passing the test that satisfies me the most. That is, that the money spent has been more than returned in improved listening enjoyment. <br />

<br />

Granted, the change for me has been dramatic, having turfed out a 1990's era Kenwood 5 disc changer which was doing its best to send something like a signal to a Marantz SR6300 running a pair of B&W DM602S3's and replacing it with a humble asus laptop with a USB cnx into the RDac.<br />

<br />

Prior to this I was convinced that my 602's were in need of replacement, now I am finding that they are more than satisfying me. The addition of J River has taken it to a whole new level with subtle cymbal trails and vocal nuances coming out that were just not there when using Foobar (probably more to do with my driving of Foobar than Foobar itself).<br />

<br />

I am certain that as my knowledge and experience in the Computer Audio world grows, I will find that I have yet to get the best out of this little silver box.<br />

<br />

The simple joy of having my entire cd collection on a 1TB HD and being able to hit Random play, whilst nothing to do with the RDac specifically, is an element that would not have been given such appreciation had the RDac not delivered such a dramatic improvement in sound.<br />

<br />

For me, it has the ability to convey a song so well that you then have to dig out the album just to check that it wasn't a fluke... and a fluke it was not. From Michael Jackson, Led Zep, Ozzy and Vai, to all flavors of girlie Diva types, the albums came out.<br />

<br />

Well, that's my first post. Hopefully my simple and somewhat uneducated appraisal of the RDac in some way manages to do it the justice that it deserves.<br />

<br />

Andy<br />

<br />