Weiss DAC2 vs Prism Orpheus

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Some interesting things to note over at 10audio.com. Jerry has a review of the Weiss DAC2 up there now and does a head-to-head comparison to his reference DAC, the Prism Orpheus.

 

The fact that the Weiss doesn't fare well in the comparison tells me a couple things. One, the Prism is a really nice DAC, and one that happens to get short-shrift around here. (Reading about the Prism, I do get the feeling that this is one that the MH-curious ought to hear.) Two, he's also got a review of my old reference DAC up there, the Cullen-modded PS Audio DAC III. Interesting that that "old, tired" DAC also beat the crap out of the Weiss. Said it before and I'll say it again, that was a hot DAC! But one that was clearly, if not overwhelmingly, bettered by the Alpha.

 

Interesting reading and always good to get an alternate view.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

is the 6moons review of the Wyred4Sound DAC2. Srajan feels that the DAC is fantastic, but not quite as fantastic as his reference, the Weiss DAC2.

 

Assuming that the reviews of two different reviewers are capable of being compared directly (ha!), that puts the Wyred DAC a bit down the page from the current Weiss offering.

 

Always good to collect data, folks, that's all I'm sayin'. ;-)

 

[Erwin S]

"The Weiss DAC2 benefits from the experience and technology of the well-received Minerva digital-to-analog converter (DAC). The DAC2 is distributed in the US by Vintage King Audio, a well know dealer of pro audio equipment. At a list price of $2995, it has fewer features, but the same audio and digital circuits, as the $5000 Minerva which the DAC2 has replaced."

 

Above the first paragraph of the review of the DAC2. I haven't read the rest yet, but already several faults are obvious enough to make me jump:

 

1/ DAC2 does not "benefit" from the Minerva, it's the technical TWIN, with the looks of the professional GAMBIT line (which will look very nice in our mid-century modernist style new house, BTW)

 

2/ Fewer features? It's the same, unless circular buttons are considered a feature above rectangular design...

 

3/ Replaced? The Minerva was replaced with the DAC 202, not the DAC2.

 

 

[Erwin S]

I obviously respect his opinion and I am happy to read once again (came up in every single review I read) that the Weiss DAC2 has excellent bass reproduction, which is very important to me, since I have the Jamo R909 - probably the tightest bass transducers that money can buy and this is favorable with the kind of music I like.

 

And we already know the DAC2 is NOT the best DAC on the market in 2010, because that's the DAC 202, unless Chris is a fool, which he is definetely not! Maybe the next review?

 

[roscoeiii]

I don't mean to denigrate the 10audio.com review, but it is worth noting that most other reviews are much more favorable of the DAC2. That said, they don't compare it to the PRISM Orpheus (which I'd love to hear myself at some point based on his preference for it over the DAC2). And the Orpheus is a more expensive DAC than the DAC2.

 

As much as I love the proverbial giant killer, I don't think we should be surprised when a more expensive product is preferred to a less expensive one. MSRP of the Orpheus is 50% higher than the DAC2. Likewise, we shouldn't be too surprised that the Weiss DAC2 was preferred to the Wyred4Sound. However, since the 10audio.com review didn't directly compare the Cullen modded PS Audio DAC to the Weiss, I'm not sure we can make that conclusion about the Weiss vs. the Cullen modded unit. Especially since the Cullen folks say their Wyred 4 Sound DAC sounds better than their modded PS units.

 

[barrows]

One must learn to "read between the lines" a little bit when trying to interpret reviews. All reviewers have their own biases, and use the products under review in a limited context of their system(s). Most good reviewers are very upfront about these issues, and are reluctant to make direct conclusions of one product absolutely being better than another; they often base their conclusions on their preference, in their system, and advise readers to listen in their own system (I respect Wes Phillips a great deal for instance, as his reviews reveal a lot about how something sounds to him-if you read his reviews regularly, you find he is quite consistent, and this allows for a good interpretation of his reviews).

My reading of Srjaen's review of the W4S DAC2 vs. Weiss DAC2, tells me that these two DACs are very close in terms of resolution and quality of sound, and that the W4S has a better feature set (display, etc). In fact the only difference he seemed to hear was a slight difference in perspective-with the Weiss providing a closer perspective, and the W4S a slightly more distant perspective. These slight differences are the kind of things that come down to listening and system preferences, rather than one product being "better" than another. It is pretty clear to me from this review, that anyone considering either of these DACs should give them a listen, of course, the $1500.00 saved by going with the W4S could make for some significant cable upgrades elsewhere in the system (wink, wink).

Sounds like the Prism is worth consideration, especially for those inclined to do some recording, or to use it as a digital phono preamp.

 

[juanitox]

for me it's clear that the Weiss dac2 is the best digital gear i have listened .. but it still sounds digital to me. it remains me the excellent old WADIA 9 converter with this unsurpassed solid bass and definition.

anyway a good SET amp behind the Dac 2 and the little "digital" sounds problem is gone.

 

noow it would be interesting to have a Prism orpheus/ weiss 202 shout out!

 

[Tipper]

The reviews

Interesting; I think I’m going to have to try to listen to the Wyred4sound Dac. They seem to have gone to some effort to ensure any customers outside the US get equivalent value for money. It’s £1250 over here. More often than not American import pricing seems to only involve changing the $ sign to the £ sign with no numerical adjustment.

 

Reading the Six Moons Review of the above Dac, particularly compared to the current Weiss offering one can’t help but get the impression that the reviewer struggled to find any sonic differences between the two.

Okay, the Weiss is the current HiFi press darling; not convinced that actually means much when it comes to the realities of sound quality, particularly if the Dac comes from an established manufacturer. Build a competent Dac, put it in an expensive case, punt it out to a few tame reviewers and unless you’ve built a pig, they’ll probably love it.

One has to bear in mind that the majority of reviewers don’t actually buy (spend their money) on the majority of the products they review. Also bear in mind a bit of industry “old boy” networking, an interest in supporting the audiophile industry; (they make a living within this industry) and the fact that an honest but negative product review probably means a few bitchy phone calls and no more products from that company and possibly not from other companies fearful of such honesty.

It would seem from the review that the Wyred4Sound Dac is the more versatile of the two.

From what I’ve seen they both look equally impressive.

The impression I get from the review is there is really nothing to choose sonically between them.

 

Can someone then explain to me why the review didn’t end something like this?

 

Forget about the Weiss. This Dac does everything and more than the Weiss, but it’s HALF the price.

 

(Tipper wanders off looking very perplexed scratching his head)

 

 

[Erwin S]

How I see it:

I just want my gear to sound as accurate as possible, loyal to the intended sound.

 

*Vinyl vs digital: I have a good mid-price TT and I can understand and like the charm of the sound (musicality), but as a Hi-Fi device vinyl as a source is a flawed concept. It can be improved substantially for audiophiles with deep pockets but digital is superior, especially with a limited budget. Redbook CD 16/44.1 also has inherent limitations (difficulties actually) that were rectified with 1-bit SACD or hi-res up to 24/192.

 

*SS vs tubes: again, tubes sound sweet and musical. But if I read reviews about tube amps with "use tube x, it sounds better than tube y" then I know at least one and probably both tubes are not producing proper Hi-Fi. With SS, it's rather simple: get a good heavy amp with ample transformer size and sufficient output stages and you can't go wrong, especially if you don't mind the electricity bill to run Class A. A reference tube amp costs an arm and a leg and the tubes need replacing in time. There's a group test in Hi-Fi Choice Sept 2010 magazine with five SS and one tube pre-amp/amp combo's. The tube combo was the most expensive (1450+1450£) but came dead last! It's measured 1.5% distortion is useless, even if it was better @ low level. The guy that sold me the Jamo R909 speakers was using tube amps. My bargain XPA-1 duo (1600$ for both during stock sale) has way more slam! He wasn't hearing their full potential.

 

*Speakers (while I am at it...): boxes are a flawed concept - that's why small speakers often sound better than big ones even if there's no substitute for cubic inches for bass reproduction, passive crossovers are a flawed concept. Not having room correction is a flawed concept.

My open baffle Jamo R909 are incapable of boomy bass! With their oversized woofers in order to reach down to the 25-30 Hz region with good slam, they need a filter however to reduce the upper bass to produce an even responce across the frequency range. Room correction is something for the future. A Hi-Fi speaker needs to sound neutral, detailed (not the same as excessive, tiresome high frequencies), not boomy.

 

For all this reasons, I don't care much for system matching. Revelator is the name of the tweeters of the Jamo. Music, reveil yourself to me! I admit that the "pro" approach by Benchmark or Weiss is very appealing to me, even if I admit a "homely" brand can produce devices of the same quality and added convenience.

 

IMO, it would certainly be possible to get the same SQ of the Weiss for a lower price. Have you seen those Swiss labour quotes? Most gear is produced in the far east these days, even some of those All American brands. I am not here to do the numbers for Weiss or others. Maybe he does not fancy to sell 10,000 items, but instead likes to respond to each client's e-mails in person...

 

[Tipper]

In general I would agree with you concerning the imperfections of enclosed drivers.

As a self confessed bass lover I’m surprised you chose an open baffle speaker.

How on earth do you manage to get 25Hz out of the 909’s ?

Jamo specify 35Hz max and from what little I’ve read the reality is more in the region of 45Hz.

 

(appologies for the topic diversion)

 

[Erwin S]

It's the frequency range in the OM. But this indeed not specified if this is withing the reference 3dB bracket or the 6dB bracket or so.

 

The OM is 9 MB, to big to attach, but I will PM if you like it. Here's the catalog.

 

The idea is to use a much bigger bass cone surface than you would with boxed speakers, because the lower in the frequency range, the more you loose because the absence of the box. This leads to another problem: to much upper bass. Hence the bass filter that reduces the upper bass.

 

[Tipper]

@ Erwin S

Thanks for the link. I’ve read the blurb from Jamo some time ago being very interested in open baffle designs. In fact, speakers, particularly speakers that provide accurate bass are a bit of a passion, hence the Volt drivers in my system (Reputedly the best bass drivers money can buy )

For some reason I had assumed you had measured the bass response you get from your Jamo’s.

Your reference to the Linkwitz/Riley site was probably partially responsible for this assumption given the authors emphasis on measurement rather than acceptance of product specifications.

May I suggest you construct the very cheap microphone with the modification Linkwitz suggests and take some measurements?

Given your enthusiasm for uncolored, accurate bass, much like me, you might be surprised at what useful frequencies the Jamo’s do and don’t provide.

If you find as I suspect that audible bass response falls away at around 45Hz you might be interested in this company with a view to building quality subs.

http://www.speakercity.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=SC&Category_Code=mccauley

Of course I can’t help but also suggest you look at Volt

http://www.voltloudspeakers.co.uk/

I think you will find both makes of drivers will, with a correctly designed cabinet provide fantastically clean and controlled bass down to below 20Hz which is what I consider to be bass.

 

Feel free to PM me if any of the above is of interest to you; probably best not to further derail the original topic.

 

 

[barrows]

Not that I do not agree with you in theory, but for discussions sake:

 

While neutrality as a goal can be a good thing, in practice no audio component is entirely neutral: every component adds its own color to some extent. Additionally, because recording quality varies so much, many audiophiles would be better served by having a system that treads a little (just a little mind you) on the side of being warm and a little forgiving. Unless one is willing to only listen to the best recordings, an audiophile system needs to be a little forgiving to allow for recording quality imperfections. Because no component is neutral, system matching is a reality that should be addressed when choosing components, as should impedance and gain matching, especially if one is considering the DAC direct to amp approach.

 

SACD: this is no Holy Grail, in fact, their are many respectable digital engineers who believe that DSD/SACD is a flawed format, becuase of the high order noise shaping, and very high level of out of band noise, that must be done, many believe that high sample rate PCM is a better sounding option.

 

Flawed boxes: yes, this is a challenge for speaker designers to get right, and it is expensive to build boxed speakers that do not suffer from box coloration, but it is not impossible-speakers like Avalon, Wilson, Magico, YG, etc. have proven that if special care is taken in box engineering/construction that color from boxes can be a non-issue. This is just another case of implementation at work. Where I do agree with you on this topic is that large box type speakers cannot be made at a low price, and that people shopping for very affordable speakers are better served looking at small models, or open baffle variants.

 

Tubes/Solid State: This is another case of implementation, although most Tube gear is flawed technically, take a listen to the VTL Siegfrieds, or the Audio Research big Reference amps-these exhibit no "tube colorations" that I can hear, and are as fast, detailed, and precise as any Solid State amplifier. On the other hand, there are some Solid State amps that are grainy, opaque, and chalky sounding. Once again implementation and good engineering can result in stunning sound from either topography.

 

Like I said, I actually agree with you more than not, but I think it is important not to generalise too much on an open forum, and to encourage audiophiles to keep an open mind.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"SACD: this is no Holy Grail, in fact, their are many respectable digital engineers who believe that DSD/SACD is a flawed format, becuase of the high order noise shaping, and very high level of out of band noise, that must be done, many believe that high sample rate PCM is a better sounding option."

 

Plus, 99.9% of SACDs are converted to PCM for production work than converted back to DSD for SACD authoring. Finding a true DSD SACD, that isn't a Scottish nose whistle recording, is nearly impossible.

 

[barrows]

Chris, so dissappointing! They tried to sell us on SACD, and then did a #### job of delivering even what the format is capable of. All the more recent telarc discs are DSD recordings though, not too hard too find, and some good music for those who love classical.

 

[barrows]

One other thing, the DAC202 is not the top of the line DAC from Weiss, their line is:

 

DAC2/Minerva, DAC202, DAC1 Mk. II/Medea

 

The DAC1 Mk. II/Medea are the top of the line, and are now available with the Weiss Firewire interface.

 

[Erwin S]

Chris,

 

I looked at the download catalog from Linn Records. Not impressed. I wrote them an e-mail that I was aspecting some proper Rock & Roll before I'd become a client. I got a friendly e-mail back that they are expanding and aiming for a wider variety of music. Fingers crossed! Maybe some Pearl Jam in 24/192 possible after all...

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Barrows - Do you know if the Telarc stuff remained DSD throughout the entire process? My understanding is that there are no decent production software tools for DSD. Thus the only pure DSD from performance to playback must remain "unedited."

 

I hope I am wrong.

 

[Gary]

I've had the Prism Orpheus for about ten days now, and I really like it. Great detail and imaging, smooth mids -- it's a pleasure to listen to. I play and record my own music as a hobby, and I bought the Orpheus, in part, for its "studio-in-a-box" features, such as mic preamps and instrument inputs. The average "audiophile" won't need these features, but it's worth checking out for the sound quality if you can find it.

 

I haven't heard the Weiss Dac 2, but based on Chris's review of the Minerva, I'm sure that it's also a great dac.

 

Gary

 

[barrows]

one would call decent:

 

"My understanding is that there are no decent production software tools for DSD."

 

Not all the Telarc stuff is DSD all the way through, but I am almost certain that their recent stuff (before their demise) is, I would have to contact Michael Bishop for confirmation. My understanding is that to do DSD you use the Sonoma system. As we have discussed in other threads, there is the possibility that digital editing systems like ProTools are doing damage, whether the end format is PCM or DSD/SACD. Of course, if one is working on pop music from artists who cannot actually sing, and musicians who cannot actually play, perhaps more processing is necessary than what the Sonoma system can do?

Perhaps some of our CA readers who are recording engineers can comment on this?

 

 

[f1eng]

In my recent marathon streaming DAC evaluation the Orpheus and Weiss DAC2 were amongst the devices I listened to at home. I clearly preferred the Orpheus to the Weiss in my system. A more complete discussion of what I tried is in another thread. I bought a LIO8 over the Prism because it was cheaper for me with a MH owner launch discount. The difference was small.

I bought a Resolution Audio Cantata later on as it was the best of all that I auditioned. I probably should have waited for the demo Cantata before buying anything, but I was convinced the LIO8 would not be significantly bettered and the discount ran out on 30th May... The Cantata was a long time before it was available, I gave up on the Ayre DX5 ever being available after waiting 6 months.

The Cantata is more expensive but much more domestic looking than the MH!

I preferred the Cantata to the twice as expensive Linn Klimax DS in my system.

Frank

 

[barrows]

I would love to hear more details as to your listening impressions of the Cantata in your system, and vs. the Prism and LIO-8.

I have loved Resolution Audio's past players...

 

[f1eng]

I hear more detail from the Cantata (and Linn Klimax DS) than on the Prism or LIO-8. I can hear low level detail more clearly. The Linn sounds "slower" than the other three, for some reason, though.

Frank

 

[earflappin]

It'd be interesting to put the Cantata up against the new Weiss DAC202 which some have also reported has slightly more resolution and smoothness compared to the LIO-8.

 

[Purite Audio]

Hope to make that very comparison this week, I will post something.

Keith.