Why not use a top-tier DAC from 1990s? Looking for your comments...

[usernaim250]

Well we do know this--a still working DAC from 1996 has already worked for 12 years. On what basis, then, do you impugn its reliability?

 

On the other hand, how long has yours lasted? On what basis do you assure its long-term reliability?

 

Oh, robots and ad hominem attack--call the other side "snake oil."

 

Classy.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Seriously though guys, how enjoyable is it to get into a pissing match. There are plenty of other sites where these types of conversation are the norm. Not here. This is a laid back site for the enjoyment of our wonderful hobby. Expressing your opinion is greatly appreciated and encouraged. But, passive aggressive and sophomoric comments are for the birds.

 

[hokhost]

Hi,

 

I have been lucky with all my old gear, none have malfunctionned yet. My Dac is more than 16 years old now and still works like new even though it is ON 24/7.

Strangely enough, the only one that has been a pain was a NEW Halcro Logic amp.

 

If I had the cash I would buy a new Dac but for now, I will keep on looking for older (and less expensive) ones.

 

[Ashley James]

I really meant no offence and I unreservedly apologise for any I may have caused. I am a manufacture and my business partner Martin Grindrod does have proper experience of accelerated age testing of defence electronics, so I thought my advice might be appreciated.

 

If you look at a graph of the reliability of good quality electronic devices, you'll see that they start life with a high risk of failure and that this lowers with time until between 3 and 6 years, when reliability is at its peak. However from then on, the risk factor rises again until by 10 years, you're on borrowed time, although we all know things can last far longer and that most of us can live with the risk. But it's not acceptable in Military applications so they put everything through a series of test cycles of usage and temperature change to simulate at least the first year and sometimes more and then throw it away a few years later in the hopes of avoiding problems.

 

As a manufacturer we see older equipment back for repair and its condition varies surprisingly. Some units are as new and well worth repairing, while others have been installed badly, bits of circuit board can be burnt, they can be full of dust and dirt or nicotine and dust can cover it all in a sticky mess and so on. They are best scrapped.

 

Therefore I listed the reasons why older electronics will not perform as well as new and warned of the risks. I know it's a fascinating part of this hobby and lots of people enjoy it and I don't want to spoil it for anyone, I just want to make them aware of potential problems.

 

I'm sure all of you are all too aware that the life expectancy of bottom of the market consumer electronics is probably 2-3 years maximum.

 

Ash

 

 

 

 

[hokhost]

Thanks for sharing your experience :-D

 

I guess that I can lower the risk by:

- not smoking,

- removing dust,

- keeping it away from liquids,

- having no kids and/or pets,

- and most importantly, not letting my wife come close to my audio rack.

 

[Ashley James]

Mostly the last one! And if you're buying second hand, try to get an idea of how the previous owner might have used it.

 

In the UK there is a huge trade in second hand higher priced hi fi and it changes, not always safe, hands many times. We often have to tell some poor chap that what he's paid good money for has been destroyed by a predecessor. The damage they do has to be seen to be believed: Snapped off speaker terminals, damaged phono sockets, bizarre component changes, signs of oscillation or one channel being driven into the other, blocks of wood glued to cases, feet removed and nuts rattling around inside and so on. It's all "tweak" related and remarkably destructive, even compared to what my wife can do!

 

Ash

 

PS. We did have a CD player labelled "damage caused by ingress of cider!"

 

[nipsip]

are not high end today, u.e AD843, LT1364 or Burr-Brown OPA627.

 

In the 1990's putting two opamps in the space for one was not standard.

 

OPA627x2

 

 

In fact, in some DACs, opamps are being replaced by HDAMs which replaces the thing that replaced transistors in the first place.

 

 

 

Not bad for ~$200

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Abstraction]

Have you heard the ZERO DAC?

 

[Abstraction]

Have you heard the ZERO DAC?

 

[elrod-tom]

A couple of points:

 

1) I've always felt like the DAC chip, while important, was subject to wildly different results depending upon the implementation. A DAC as an audio component is a LOT more than just a DAC chip (where, in fairness, much improvement has been made over the years).

 

2) I've heard a lot of comments from folks about how a $400 DAC today can out-do a $4000 DAC from 10 years ago. I'm not so sure...I think a $400 DAC from today could consistently outdo an $800 DAC from 10 years ago, but I've also heard a LOT of older DAC's in that price range that sound awfully good. When you start talking about DAC's that went for $2K or more 10 years ago, I've not heard a $400 DAC yet that could measure up. Any DAC that commanded that kind of money was necessarily going to be musical, engaging, and likely built like a tank. You can't do that for $400 IMHO, regardless of the DAC chip.

 

3) IMHO, the thing that makes the high-end 90's DAC's worth having is the construction of the analog out stage and the power supply. These technologies are by no means new, and are as costly to build to audiophile standards today as they have ever been. In fact, I suspect that if you opened up both a brand new DAC and a similar 10-year old DAC by many high-end manufacturers, the analog out stage and power supply would be nearly identical.

 

There are a LOT of very nice older DAC's out there. My personal taste runs to the Wadia house sound, but there's plenty of others to choose from. I think that we sometimes tend to overlook the older DACs (and even some newer ones) because of the lack of a USB port. There are a number of products to remedy this shortcoming...so don't look past an older DAC because of it.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi elrod-tom - I think you are right-on about the importance of the analog out stage and power supplies.

 

It's very convenient to narrow a complex discussion on DACs down to just the DAC chip. But, we really need to consider the whole component including power supply, analog stage, DAC chip, input interfaces, etc...

 

Thanks for the opinion.

 

[iansen]

Not sure about dacs from the nineties, but I am using a machine from the eighties! [i think the expression “everybody wang chung tonite” might be appropriate…]

 

It’s the Marantz CDA-94, the standalone dac to match the Marantz CD-94 [which I also have]. A classic, over-engineered monster weighing about 12 kg, complete baroque wooden cheeks. I still have the original box somewhere with a sticker on it stating that each unit was individually “soak tested” - whatever that may mean!

 

Through my current system I have noted the following:

 

The cd player sounds better without the dac player: through the dac [irrespective of the type of connection] there is some veiling.

 

The dac machine has the ability to invert the phase. I cannot hear the difference but at least one person, a singer friend of mine, can.

 

Optical Connection vs digital Connection:

 

There is the option to interconnect the cd and dac machines via either digital or optical.

 

Feeding the cd player into the dac player via optical toslink cable - the notes had greater decay and more ambience than when feeding the cd player through the digital cable. The digital connection felt cleaner but also colder.

 

So, for example, playing the opening 45 seconds of Massive Attack’s "Unfinished Sympathy" via each method: the cavernous, low bass reverb of the opening scratch underneath the instruments had more ambience via optical toslink; that the sample was a record being scratched and then being allowed to slow down of its own accord was apparent. Not so through the digital connection.

 

Having said that, my preference over the long run was to use the digital interconnection. [Although every time I have done this I inevitably, within 3 or 4 days, removed the dac from the equation, allowing the cd player to feed directly into the preamp.]

 

Macbook / Airport Express into the DAC

 

The following 3 combinations were considered:

 

1. macbook streaming to airport express basestation [AE Plug] fed directly into pre-amp. [ie using the onboard dac within the AE Plug]

 

2. macbook streaming to AE Plug, fed into the Marantz dac via optical, then onto the pre-amp

 

3. macbook fed directly into Marantz dac via optical, then onto the pre-amp

 

 

The sound quality differences in all 3 methods was stark.

 

Method 1 was appalling. Music was lost. Most noticeable was the loss of bass tones. The polyrhythmic complexity of UK Jungle was clearly beyond it. Instead of hearing sub-bass notes, it sounded like someone was hitting the back of my speakers with a wooden mallet. Method 2 and method 3 restored the tonality of bass and sub-bass notes, and thus differentiated them from bass drums.

 

Method 2 was reasonably good. And this is how I am currently running my system [thus allowing me to move my laptop around my apartment]. I will, eventually, use my current laptop as a dedicated “itunes reader” - with the machine permanently next to and connected to the dac- as and when I chose to upgrade my mac.

 

What I think readers of this website will find most interesting is the difference between method 2 and method 3.

 

Dynamic range was notably greater with method 3: intentionally louder pieces of music were clearly discernable as such. Again with UK Jungle in its dark core phase - with certain notes deliberately louder at specific moments - method 3 delivered the requisite body blows while method 2 was akin to a gentle tap on the shoulder. Similarly, treble delivery was more accurate with method 3. For example, with early Detroit techno: in method 3 the different drum machines used, and the separation in space and tone of live drums and synthesized drums was apparent. Less so with method 2. There was a certain "flatness" through method 2.

 

Taking other genres: I wouldn’t be able to listen to the entirety of Talk Talk’s "Spirit of Eden" through method 2, but can do through method 3. The Wu-tang Clan’s latest album "8 Diagrams" actually doesn’t make musical sense though method 2. Sly and the Family Stone’s “There’s A Riot Going On” sounds too shiny via method 2, compared to the more organic feel via method 3. Early New York Electro was robbed of its space, echo and futuristic harshness vie method 2. Via Method 2 Burial's "Untrue" became merely interesting, rather than arresting.

 

I can say with certainty that if it hadnt been for the sound quality of method 3 I wouldn't have burnt all my cds into itunes. Method 1 and 2 just weren't good enough for long term listening.

 

I am sure someone can supply a reason for these difference: probably something to do with the processing power of conversion within the airport express plug and jitter and so on….

 

I have a Stello signature dac coming through in the immediate future so it will be interesting to compare and contrast.

 

 

 

System Used:

Linn Cairn

2 x Linn LK140 Power Amps [active configuration]

Linn Ninka Speakers [active configuration]

 

 

 

[sastusbulbas]

I use mainly 16/44 digital such as CD, and wav files, I prefer not to oversample and such, and find I enjoy many of the older Dac's. I currently have in use an old Technics SU-MA10 amp with an on board Mash Dac, may not be the best in the world, but it is enjoyable, and most important, silent and capable of being used with 103db sensitivity speakers. I have a couple of others, one of my favourites being an old Theta Pro Basic IIIa which resides in it's box in the bottom of an upstairs cupboard at the moment.