T+A DAC 200

[Allan F]

On 8/11/2022 at 9:31 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Fund a typo on the T+A DAC200 page :~)

 

I think I found a typo in the above. :~)

 

I am really looking forward to your review of the T+A DAC200 as it is on a short wish list of DACs below $10,000CAD.

[Allan F]

I don't know if I am imagining things or not. Has anyone else noticed a difference between the sound of the latest T+A Windows driver, ver. 2.24.0.0, and the earlier ver. 1.13.0.0? I don't know what changes have been made, or if those changes can affect the sound. Although both sound great, I think I may prefer the earlier version. I am running HQPlayer v.3 Desktop on a Windows 10 Pro PC, automatically upsampling to either DSD512 or PCM768.

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, OE333 said:

 

Hi Allan,

 

I'm not sure where you found the above DAC200 driver version numbers - could you please give me a hint ?

 

The current Windows driver for the DAC200 has the version number  V 5.40.0.

You can download this latest version from the T+A website or directly from here:   https://www.ta-hifi.de/wp-content/uploads/TA_3rd_Gen_USB_audio_driver.zip

 

Hi @OE333

Thank you for replying to my post. I downloaded the latest version of the Windows USB driver from this link https://www.ta-hifi.de/en/support/series-200/support-dac-200-2/

At that link, I clicked on "Driver download" under "Software". The unzipped setup file from that link is the same as the one provided by clicking on the link in your post.

 

Mea culpa. The source of the confusion is entirely my Fault. My apologies. I am embarrassed to confess that I did not really look at the full name of the unzipped setup file, which I now see includes "v5.40.0". Rather, I had right clicked the file on "Properties" and then left clicked on "Details". Under Details, "File version 2.24.0.0" is displayed and that is what I posted. I did the same thing for the earlier unzipped setup file and obtained "File version 1.13.0.0". However, I now see that the latter setup file name includes "v5.30.0".

 

Are there particular technical reasons for updating to the latest USB driver? Or. perhaps the better question is: are there negative implications in sticking with the earlier USB driver version? I am aware that updating to the latest version is normally recommended. The reason I ask is that on my system my subjective impression, FWIW, is that I think I slightly prefer the sound of v5.30.0. Thank you in advance for your interest and assistance.

Regards, Allan

[Allan F]

8 hours ago, OE333 said:

 

Hi Allan,

you can stick to the v5.30.0 version if you like. This has no negative implications.

The driver is (and was) always very stable through all the time. The reason for new driver versions is normally that new devices come on the market and need to be included in the driver. So there is absolutely no need for updating the driver in your case.

 

Best,

Lothar

 

Many thanks for your explanation and advice, Lothar. I had written to T+A regarding the differences between v5.40.0 and v5.30.0 and the following is from the reply I just received:

 

"There are improvements regarding stability and integration with Windows operating systems. Please have a look to the following list:

V5.40.0 (May 5, 2022)

-----------------------------------------------------

* New: multiple ASIO instances are now handled

* New: control panel supports multiple ASIO instances

* New: several registry parameters added

* New: new API version 5.9, some API functions added

* New: Installer now MSI based

* Fix: ASIO did not work if device is connected with invalid clock and then switched to a valid clock

* Chg: volume control names can be configured in the control panel

* Chg: Documentation"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Allan F]

Until recently, I have left my DAC 200 on all the time. I decided to try using either ECO mode or manually turning the unit off, both of which I believe are supposed to place the DAC 200 in Standby mode.

 

I play all my music with HQ Player installed on my music server PC. It was my understanding that initiating playback was supposed to send a signal to the DAC 200 to activate it from Standby mode. However, this is not taking place regardless of whether I start playback via HQP from my music server PC or remotely via HQPD player. In order to initiate playback, I first have to manually turn on the DAC 200 and reboot my PC.

 

I don't know if this is a DAC 200 issue, an HQ Player issue, or a lack of understanding on my part.  Obviously, I can eliminate the problem by simply leaving the DAC 200 on all the time, but I would like to know why things are not working as I believe they should.

[Allan F]

7 hours ago, OE333 said:

 

It is neither a DAC issue nor a HQP issue.

The DAC200 needs to be switched ON manually - either by the front power button or by remote control. There (currently) is no automatic Switch-ON function triggered by the incoming music signal. Also the PC or HQP do not "send a signal" to switch the DAC ON.

 

Please note: When switched OFF the DAC is really off, not just in a standby state with darkened display but lots of circuitry still running. To save energy (as required by the European "EuP" regulations, only a minimalistic reactivation logic is kept running.

 

Thank you very much for the reply and explanation, Lothar. Mea culpa. I don't know where I got the idea that there is an automatic switch-on function. I must have read about an auto turn-on function for some other device and somehow conflated it with the automatic switch-off function of the DAC 200 in ECO mode, if no operation is detected for more than 30 minutes.

 

The DAC 200 User manual uses the term "standby-mode". However, under "Notes on Energy Saving", a more detailed explanation of operation under the EuP directive is provided:

The internal micro-processor constantly ensures that sub-assemblies which are not currently required are automatically switched off. The micro-processor itself operates in standby-mode at a relatively low clock speed, and only responds to the remote control receiver.

In standby-mode the current drain of the DAC 200 is less than 0.5 watt.

[Allan F]

I have to comment on T+A's excellent customer service. After writing to them and receiving a reply describing the differences between Windows USB driver versions 5.30.0 and 5.40.0, I subsequently received another email offering a link to download and test new version 5.50.0, which I am now using.

[Allan F]

On 12/20/2022 at 2:40 AM, OE333 said:

There is good news about the PC based firmware update for the DAC200.

T+A is willing to support this and they will offer the required USB -> E2Link  programming adaptor through the T+A webshop.

 

I will give an update on this topic as soon as all details are clear.

 

Any recent news about when this will be available?

[Allan F]

On 2/12/2023 at 5:03 PM, linuxprophet said:

As @jonniema suggested, if you don't own an MP200, please find a dealer who does, and take your prized device there for an update.

 

Not necessarily so easy. I bought my T+A DAC 200 from the same out out of province dealer from whom I bought my DAC 8 DSD five years ago when there were no T+A dealers in Vancouver.  I only recently became aware that there is now a local T+A dealer. I contacted him to see if he would do the firmware update for me. He wanted to know when and from whom I bought my unit. Perhaps naively, I provided the information that he requested.  He then informed me that he became a T+A dealer in June of last year, and that he would have done he update if I had purchased my DAC before then. However, since I bought my unit in September, he refused to do the update and told me to have it done by the dealer who sold it to me.

 

I do not intend to do that as 1) I would be without my DAC for almost two weeks, and 2) I would incur the expense of shipping and insuring the unit to and from that dealer. As a result, it would appear that the only other option would be to purchase the E2link>USB adapter from T+A and do the firmware update myself on my PC.

[Allan F]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

Is the DAC 200 a significant upgrade over the DAC 8?

 

IMO, in my system it is!

[Allan F]

15 minutes ago, linuxprophet said:

I wouldn't buy stuff from that fellow.

 

I made it very clear to him that he had eliminated himself from consideration for any future audio purchases. He gratuitously replied that I am welcome to purchase from anyone I choose. I advised him that he was correct, and that my choice would be based on dealers who valued me as a potential future customer.

[Allan F]

On 3/3/2023 at 12:45 PM, ericuco said:

 Perhaps you can find most of your answers on pages 44-45 of the Users Manual. 

 

Direct link to T+A DAC 200 User Manual

[Allan F]

12 hours ago, 1125FPS said:

I searched and found no place to post system description.  Did I miss such?  

Click on your name icon in the upper right corner of the page. Click on Profile. Click on Audio System. Click on Edit Profile and enter the components of your system.

[Allan F]

On 3/21/2023 at 4:32 AM, jrsub said:

Design/implementation engineering trumps the actual chip used in my experience.

 

Design/implementation engineering trumps the actual chip used...period!

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, nmcleod said:

Had an opportunity to listen to the T+A DAC200 while also having the following dacs in house:   holo may, denafrips t+, and mola mola tambaqui.

 

In my opinion and in my system the TA is a better buy than the May or the T+.  All are excellent DACs but the TA brings most of what what is special about those R2Rs and then some in terms of clarity and naturalness.  However, it didn't quite exhibit the soundstage depth of the May or the complete width of the T+.  But, different filters can accommodate different tastes and the overall presentation was superior.  

 

I listened to ANADIALOG TA review where he described it as a leap over the May.  I don't agree it was a leap, but certainly a progression.  

 

In terms of it being a giant killer vs the likes of tambaqui, I don't think so.  Tambaqui has a holographic nature and rhythm and drive that the TA cant quite match. 

 

All that said it's a great product for it's price range and had I not had the Tambaqui would gladly live with it over the May or T+.

 

Nothing personal and perhaps I am somewhat dense, but I found your use of abbreviations very confusing in terms of knowing which DACs you were referring to in your comparisons until I had read your post about five times. 🙂 Of course, the Tambaqui sells for almost twice as much as the DAC 200 - $13,500 vs $7,125.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, nmcleod said:

I really doubt most people are buying these dacs solely to use hqplayer to upsample then convert to dsd then feed the dac.  That's a niche area and overly complicated for most general users.  The DAC should stand on its own in a normal streaming environment.   Maybe you could argue the T+A = Tambaqui with certain specific dsd settings, but that overcomplicates it for me personally.  They designed their own filters and own OS, so it should be fair to assess the DAC on those alone.  If that's not a fair assessment in someone else's eyes that's fine too.

 

Perhaps "most general users", whomever they may be, might not be buying these DAC to use HQPlayer to upsample, but that certainly does not apply to most members of this forum. T+A's DAC 8 DSD was widely known for the optimized SQ it produced with HQPlayer upsampling to DSD, and was the reason that I and many other members of the AS community bought it. IMO, that applies even more to the DAC 200. However, the DAC 200's PCM output is clearly superior to that of the DAC 8 DSD, and I can see why some might prefer to upsample in the original file's format, although I personally prefer DSD for all.  I must say that I find it somewhat incomprehensible, if not a "travesty", that you did not test the DSD output of these DACs. As it is, according to @Miska, you did not use optimum settings when you upsampled to PCM.

 

People have different priorities in what they value most highly in music playback. For me, "proper tone for key instruments like piano" is at the top of my list. While it may be "fair" to assess these DACs with their own filters, etc., assessing them with HQPlayer  upsampling is certainly not "unfair", and presents a more complete picture of the most these DACs have to offer..

 

 

[Allan F]

19 minutes ago, nmcleod said:

 

So the argument here is because I didn't listen to DSD according to Miska's settings I have no idea how good these DACs are or aren't.  Ok.

 

I would not phrase it that way, and that is not my argument. Rather I would say that, notwithstanding how good you know these DACs are, you unfortunately did not avail yourself of the maximum benefit they have to offer. IOW, they are even better than you observed.  

[Allan F]

37 minutes ago, nmcleod said:

 If it is true that the T+A and the May both are superior being fed DSD and using their respective DSD dacs  what sense does it make that they would even include PCM?

 

I understand what you're both saying about using all the products features, but I don't buy the argument.

 

Reducing it to an all or nothing approach as you apparently do above makes no sense to me. Just because one may not get the absolute best these DACs have to offer does not mean that efforts to optimize PCM are wasted. AS members and similar enthusiasts represent a very small niche market for these DACs, and there will be many users who enjoy PCM using the DAC's own settings. And, obviously, the expense of a computer music server with the processing power to take advantage of HQPlayer will be a factor in how these DACs are used.

 

 

[Allan F]

On 4/9/2023 at 10:55 AM, Nkam said:

im hardly the only one who thinks DSD is softer. 

 

Are you sure that you are not confusing "smoother" with "softer"?

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, Nkam said:

sorry I didn’t mean to mention that as a snob.  

 

"No worries" as the Aussies say. 🙂 I didn't mean "smoother" in a negative sense, i.e. just less "harsh". In any case, we all don't hear the same things.

[Allan F]

On 5/8/2023 at 3:00 PM, SPAZ said:

I've ordered the DAC200 and now the hard part of waiting the 4 to 6 week delivery time to get to my dealer.

 

Patience is a virtue and will be rewarded when you hear your new DAC 200.

[Allan F]

9 hours ago, Aspirant Audiophile said:

Is it correct that no one on this forum has compared the two DACs? For me this is surprising, as surely there are T&A 8 DAC owners looking for an upgrade.

 

I am not aware of any detailed comparison between the two DACs but many, including @The Computer Audiophile, @Miska and myself, have posted that the DAC 200 is a definite upgrade from the DAC 8 DSD.

[Allan F]

12 hours ago, Nkam said:

but if you like it. That’s all that matters.  
heck all our ears are shaped differently even. 
get what YOU want and don’t let anyone tell you any different.  

 

All valid assertions! But, at the same time, not to ignore the potential difference between opinion and fact.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, Aspirant Audiophile said:

Can you please direct me to the posts you mention which compare these two DACs? Are the comparisons in this thread or another one I should look at?

 

In his review of the T+A DAC 200, @The Computer Audiophile states, "Going solely by memory, which is fraught with issues, I'd say the DAC 200 is in a completely different class from the DAC 8. It really isn't a fair comparison. The DAC 200 is far better than the price difference between the two suggests".

 

@Miska and I did not post comparisons, so there is no point in trying to find those posts. We only provided statements that the DAC 200 is a definite upgrade from the DAC 8 DSD.

 

[Allan F]

7 hours ago, Aspirant Audiophile said:

Have you and Miska directly compared the 8 DAC and 200 DAC? Or are your opinions also based on memory? 

 

I can't speak for Miska or others, but my opinion is based on memory after listening to the DAC 8 DSD for years, and then listening to the DAC 200 after letting it run 24/7 for several days. I did not do any direct comparisons as I permanently removed the DAC 8 DSD from my system after I installed the DAC 200. All my listening is done through stereo loudspeakers. In addition, virtually all my listening with both DACs was done with HQ Player upsampling all files to DSD 512.