Weiss 202 - a few thoughts.
Posted by: james n on 26 July 2010
Ok i though it was time to put fingers to keyboard now that i've had a few days to play with the 202.
My DAC history up until now has been the n-Vi internal DAC, The Lavry DA10 and then the Weiss DAC2. I'd seen a review in Hi-Fi News of the Weiss Minerva (the DAC2 in fancy clothes) which got me interested. A quick chat to Keith at Purite got me a loan of a DAC2. My DA10 went to its new owner (who now has a DAC2) and the DAC 2 took it's place.
The Weiss via optical from the Mac was not that different to the DA10 and I could have quite happily gone on living with the DA10 which to me combined all the virtues of a Naim sounding front end married to the convenience of iTunes. Via Firewre it was a whole different ball game the Weiss clearly better than the DA10. Amarra and Pure music have been icing on an already rather nice cake and up until a few weeks back i'd arrived at a rather fine sounding front end.
Enter the 202. I'd not been too interested in this thinking it was just a minor update of the DAC 2 with the addition of a nice front panel display and remote control. Not much benefit to me i thought. A Google around found some internal shots - the DICE Firwire implementation is the same but from there on - Twin transformers for more isolation of the digital section and a completely new DAC / Analogue stage using the Sabre ES9018 DAC chip. The 202 like the 2 / Minerva keeps the DAC section in a screened 'quiet room' - good to see in a device with a lot of high speed digital noise flying around inside its box. The 202 has two built in, user selectable filter settings, A and B. Filter A has a steeper frequency response than B and more filter settings will be added in future software updates. The other nice feature is the transparency checker which uses the playback of test files to check out whether the playback chain from the test file stored on the computer to the the DAC is bit transparent (of which Amarra and PM are when volume is set at 0dB)
Last year i popped over to Joe Bibb's to have a listen to his DAC2 / Berning / Art Emotion Signature system and we had an enjoyble day listening to his system - its a fine system and it also changed my mind with regard to valves. Like me, Joe had used the DA10 and moved onto the DAC2 so i found we had pretty similar tastes. I know if he's discovered something then its worth giving it a try. When Joe got his 202 and mailed to tell me how good it was i thought i'd better get one and have a listen.
The sound ... if you like the DAC2 then you'll love this. It just takes all the good things of the DAC2 and builds on them. A number of things really stand out on this DAC on familiar music. The sheer clarity for a start - all sorts of minor inflections in a voice are just so clear, cymbals just shimmer and have a very natural sheen and minor instruments way down deep in a mix are clear and easy to follow. I've also noticed that vocals that sometimes could be indistinct are now crystal clear and just sound so real. Close miked Cash (American recordings) or Shelby Lynne sounds superb. Tracks that may have originally have sounded harsh are now clear and detailed - its not a bright sounding DAC. The other thing of note is just how quiet the 202 is - it has an extremely low noise floor which translates to an inky blackness which particularly noticeable when a track is coming to an end and is slowly faded down - musical information is still there even though it can be just a whisper right up until the track stops. It just drags up low level detail i've not heard before.
You can probably tell i'm pretty pleased with my new purchase and if you already have a DAC2 and like the Weiss way of doing things then it's well worth a listen. The DAC2 is still a very fine DAC and with the Fiewire connection to the Mac its a neat plug and play solution.
How does the 202 compate to the Naim DAC ? - to be honest I dont know as i've not heard the Naim DAC for a while now but i'm sure given the level of engineering that's gone into the Naim design its a very fine DAC and in full battle configuration with the 555PS i'm sure there would be little to choose from between the Naim and the Weiss - its down to personal preference / system matching in the end.
Hope that's of interest to some
James
Posted on: 26 July 2010 by js
Nice write up. Glad you like it James.
Posted on: 26 July 2010 by Graham Russell
Very interesting read James. Would be interesting to get together again sometime to compares DACs
I'm wondering whether the Naim DAC is right for me...
Posted on: 26 July 2010 by Right Wing
I wonder how the 202 compares to the 555CD...
Posted on: 26 July 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
I'm wondering whether the Naim DAC is right for me...
If you're throwing it out then I'm up for a free extra one - it's perfect for me
Great to hear you are enjoying your DAC, James.
ATB Rotf
Posted on: 26 July 2010 by rich46
should all this be on the weiss forum and not on this
Posted on: 27 July 2010 by JYOW
I think we are generally skeptical when someone mentions non-naim equipment in this forum. However, my take is that we are discussing non-naim equipment in the context of its role in a Naim system. (e.g. speakers discussion.)
In terms of the DAC202, I personally am very impressed with its performance. And I do not think that Naim has ever claimed that the Naim DAC is the best DAC in the world. The DAC202 is twice the price of the Naim DAC standalone so it'd better be better than the Naim DAC.
The Naim DAC represents spectacular price/performance ratio. But despite all the praises showered by us natives, it does not precludes all the other manufacturers to come up with good products.
IMHO, it is beneficial for us to be more open minded and be a bit more mindful of what other equipment is out there. It doesn't pay to be closed minded.
Posted on: 27 July 2010 by james n
Thanks folks - its been an interesting few days.
Graham - i'll drop you a mail. You're very welcome to come over.
Rich - congratulations on your promotion to moderator - well deserved.
James
Posted on: 27 July 2010 by paremus
James
Has the 202 changed your listening behaviour in any way.
Posted on: 27 July 2010 by james n
Yes - i'm spending too much time listening (oh to work from home more !)
Posted on: 27 July 2010 by naimUnT
It is not quite fair to compare the Weiss 202 with the nDAC cos' not only is the price difference quite substantial, the Weiss uses the ESS Sabre 32-bit DAC chip while the nDAC uses 24-bit! While I have heard a 20-bit DAC sound better than a 24-bit DAC (so it is not just in the number of bits), more nits does not necessarily translate to a better DAC. There is, however, no denying that if a 32-bit DAC is properly implemented, it should sound better than a 24-bit DAC. It would be interesting to know if Naim will one day use the Sabre 32-bit topologys. And, when that day dawns, the comparison would be fairer!
Posted on: 27 July 2010 by John R.
It is not correct that a 32bit DAC chip is technically superior to a 24bit DAC chip when converting music with word lengths ranging from 16 to 24bit. Besides that the Naim DAC handles 32bit floating point and this is all that it is needed. The SABRE chip is probably not bad at all, but to be honest I much prefer the BB 1704 multi bit chip used by Naim over any delta sigma DAC chip around including the SABRE.
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by AMA
quote:
It is not quite fair to compare the Weiss 202 with the nDAC cos' not only is the price difference quite substantial,
Add XPS or 555PS to nDAC and it will outprice Weiss202.
Will it outperform it? I don't know.
I value the softness of sound presentation more than the ultimate transparency.
Shall I get it with 202 more than with DAC/555PS. I would like to get a positive answer as I'm not happy to invest into 555PS
Another vote for Weiss -- I can ditch Headline with PS to free a shelf.
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by Keith L
quote:
I value the softness of sound presentation more than the ultimate transparency.
Shall I get it with 202 more than with DAC/555PS. I would like to get a positive answer as I'm not happy to invest into 555PS
Adding 555PS to Ndac doesn't provide softness of sound presentation. Look elsewhere.
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by ferenc
quote:
Originally posted by naimUnT:
It is not quite fair to compare the Weiss 202 with the nDAC cos' not only is the price difference quite substantial, the Weiss uses the ESS Sabre 32-bit DAC chip while the nDAC uses 24-bit! While I have heard a 20-bit DAC sound better than a 24-bit DAC (so it is not just in the number of bits), more nits does not necessarily translate to a better DAC. There is, however, no denying that if a 32-bit DAC is properly implemented, it should sound better than a 24-bit DAC. It would be interesting to know if Naim will one day use the Sabre 32-bit topologys. And, when that day dawns, the comparison would be fairer!
Hmmmmm. I like MSB Technology DACs a lot and value their knowledge a lot as well, and this is what they write about the Sabre DACS on their home page:
"A DAC is a circuit that converts digital measures of audio amplitude in discrete steps into a continuous analog electrical equivalent of the sound to be reproduced. We have been taught to associate the number of bits in that digital word with the quality of the calculation, but the rate of the converter also comes into play. If we do conversion at 16 bits, 48,000 times per second, it is not the same as doing conversion at 16 bits and 96,000 times per second. Along comes 1 bit DACs and SACD that convert at a much higher rates and the whole idea of performance and bit depth falls apart. But in a ladder DAC like MSB uses, the performance of the DAC is directly linked to the precision of the ladder, and the number of bits in that ladder are critical. MSB has been shipping a true 24 bit DAC for many years, and now has produced a true 26 bit DAC in the Diamond DAC IV. But we are now facing bold product claims about a new 32 bit DAC availible, namely the Sabre 32 DAC chip. This is a DAC chip just like any other from Burr Brown, AKM or Analog Devices. Lets look a little deeper to avoid any confusion about what this DAC actually is. Here is what their web site says.
“The advantage of using this 32-bit process to reconstruct a 16-bit digital signal (i.e. Redbook CD) is simple; This process interpolates the digital information more accurately by calculating the finer steps with 32-bit resolution that were lost during the analog-to-digital 16-bit mastering process. “
Notice that they use the word “process “ not DAC. Notice they talk about “reconstruct “ and “interpolate “ - both digital terms, not analog conversion. All this is saying is that they are using a digital filter with “32 bit resolution “ to do their math. Big Yawn. The DAC in question is the Sabre DAC with a retail price of $39. According to the ESS web site, this DAC is designed to bring “true professional digital audio to the mass consumer home entertainment market “. Lets look at the Sabre Datasheet. Input resolution is 32 bit. Digital filter: 32 bit architecture. Thats all it has to say except it has a THD of -110 dB. So what is the DAC technology? They do not even say! We dig deeper and find a White Paper. Ah, it is a delta sigma DAC just like everyone else's. Then we find this quote. “After all the DSP and complex noise shaping of the signal is complete the digital number must be converted to an analog output. In principle the typically six bit number may be applied to a six bit DAC and the analog output is produced. “ So the hot new 32 bit DAC is actually a 6 bit DAC! Right from their own white paper. It is undoubtably a good DAC for the mass consumer market it was designed for. It is certainly nothing of interest to the high-end community, especially as the the DAC, digital filter and sample rate converter that cannot be dissabled are all bundled in a single chip so no opportunity exists to improve its performance. So be informed and do not be fooled by the over-the-top advertising made by the audio companies who actually use this $39 chip. "Posted on: 28 July 2010 by james n
To be honest Ferenc i'm more concerned about the final result than what DAC chip is inside - you can take the best converter in the world and totally f*ck up the final result with poor implementation.
I'm suprised at MSB given their excellent reputation, rubbishing others work. Are they suffering a sales slump ?
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by Eloise
Very interesting ferenc...
As MSB say, the Sabre is just a DAC chip. It has different headline features than others but features don't always make for improved sound quality. Don't just a book by it's cover, and don't just a DAC component by it's DAC chip.
quote:
Originally posted by james n:
To be honest Ferenc I'm more concerned about the final result than what DAC chip is inside - you can take the best converter in the world and totally f*ck up the final result with poor implementation.
I'm surprised at MSB given their excellent reputation, rubbishing others work. Are they suffering a sales slump ?
Your first part of your comment sounded very measured ... more interested in sound quality than the technology ... but why by explaining this do you feel MSB is rubbishing others work (except possibly their last comments about for consumer not high end). Most of the MSB "article" is more akin to a response to a "why don't you use 32bit DAC when ESS Sabre do?" FAQ question. It's a response to comments from (quite frankly) ill informed posts/reports like...
quote:
It is not quite fair to compare the Weiss 202 with the nDAC cos' [...] the Weiss uses the ESS Sabre 32-bit DAC chip while the nDAC uses 24-bit!
Eloise
PS. I'm not saying that the DAC202 isn't good, but it's goodness isn't JUST down to the choice of it's DAC chip.
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by james n
quote:
Most of the MSB "article" is more akin to a response to a "why don't you use 32bit DAC when ESS Sabre do?"
Its a very informed article which as you say is there to correct the more bits is not always better arguements but its tone suggests a $39 device made for the mass market can't be any good.
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by naimUnT
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
It's a response to comments from (quite frankly) ill informed posts/reports like...
quote:
It is not quite fair to compare the Weiss 202 with the nDAC cos' [...] the Weiss uses the ESS Sabre 32-bit DAC chip while the nDAC uses 24-bit!
Eloise
Ill-informed posts? I don't think that anyone would argue that the potential of a 32-bit DAC is theoretically better than a 24-bit chip! If you read my post carefully, you would have appreciated my caveat that at the end of the day it is down to implementation! I even mentioned a 20-bit DAC sounding better than a 24-bit DAC and that it is not just about numbers that makes a DAC sound good!
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by naimUnT:
Ill-informed posts? I don't think that anyone would argue that the potential of a 32-bit DAC is theoretically better than a 24-bit chip! If you read my post carefully, you would have appreciated my caveat that at the end of the day it is down to implementation! I even mentioned a 20-bit DAC sounding better than a 24-bit DAC and that it is not just about numbers that makes a DAC sound good!
Though MANY people would argue that a multi-bit DAC is better than a Delta-Sigma DAC.
Your comment was that you can't compare the Weiss and the Naim DACs fairly as one is advertised as a 32bit DAC and the other only 24bit. In many ways that is totally wrong as both DACs accept only 24bit inputs. Yes the Sabre then can use 32bits to process the digital signal, applying digital volume, up-sampling, etc. but this is not the DAC part - this is equivalent to the SHARC processor in the Naim DAC.
To me (I can't speak for others) even mentioning the 32 vs 24bit is sounding like you are perpetuating the "more is better" myth.
Eloise
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by ferenc
quote:
Originally posted by james n:
To be honest Ferenc i'm more concerned about the final result than what DAC chip is inside - you can take the best converter in the world and totally f*ck up the final result with poor implementation.
I'm suprised at MSB given their excellent reputation, rubbishing others work. Are they suffering a sales slump ?
I did not realize they "rubbishing" others work, probably my English is not sensitive enough? If it was only a general "rubbishing", I am sure there would be an easy technical explanation, why MSB Tech is not right. So I am waiting for one...
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by naimUnT
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
To me (I can't speak for others) even mentioning the 32 vs 24bit is sounding like you are perpetuating the "more is better" myth.
Eloise
You might want to read posts more carefully before you accuse others of being ill-informed! The keyword in my posts was IMPLEMENTATION!Did you understand that?
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by james n
quote:
I am sure there would be an easy technical explanation, why MSB Tech is not right
I didn't say that and i'm not disagreeing with what their technical explanation at all. I just don't like the way its written. It just reminds me of a certain other (UK) company (3 letter name) that used to hang around on PFM.
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by Eloise
quote:
Originally posted by naimUnT:
You might want to read posts more carefully before you accuse others of being ill-informed! The keyword in my posts was IMPLEMENTATION!Did you understand that?
Then why mention the 32 vs 24bit part at all?? Your initial post we are discussing was...
quote:
It is not quite fair to compare the Weiss 202 with the nDAC cos' not only is the price difference quite substantial, the Weiss uses the ESS Sabre 32-bit DAC chip while the nDAC uses 24-bit! While I have heard a 20-bit DAC sound better than a 24-bit DAC (so it is not just in the number of bits), more bits does not necessarily translate to a better DAC. There is, however, no denying that if a 32-bit DAC is properly implemented, it should sound better than a 24-bit DAC. It would be interesting to know if Naim will one day use the Sabre 32-bit topology. And, when that day dawns, the comparison would be fairer!
What I am saying is that it IS possible that 24bit DAC (the PCM1704)
properly implemented can sound better than the (headlined) 32bit (ESS Sabre). You questioned whether one day Naim will use the ESS Sabre - but I would think the ESS Sabre was probably available for Naim to test when designing the Naim DAC and they chose to still use the PCM1704 instead of the ESS Sabre (or any other newer design). Does your comment "that if a 32-bit DAC is properly implemented, it should sound better than a 24-bit DAC" mean that you consider the Weiss NOT properly implemented?
For example - HiFi News recently reviewed the Simaudio Moon 750D, another design which uses the ESS Technology ES9018 (a.k.a. Sabre32). Repeatedly in comparison to the "marginally costlier" Naim CDx2/DAC/XPS they preferred the Naim - what does that say? Maybe nothing, maybe the chip technology used in the Naim however old (data sheets I could quickly find are dated 2000 for the PCM1704 and 2008 for the ES9018 but I think the PCM1704 is older). is still better?
Eloise
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by js
quote:
Originally posted by ferenc:
quote:
Originally posted by james n:
To be honest Ferenc i'm more concerned about the final result than what DAC chip is inside - you can take the best converter in the world and totally f*ck up the final result with poor implementation.
I'm suprised at MSB given their excellent reputation, rubbishing others work. Are they suffering a sales slump ?
I did not realize they "rubbishing" others work, probably my English is not sensitive enough? If it was only a general "rubbishing", I am sure there would be an easy technical explanation, why MSB Tech is not right. So I am waiting for one...
I could be wrong but I believe the Sabre uses a multiple delta/sigma arrangement to actually be a 24 bit dac in use. I don't know if the 6 bit comment is valid but I don't doubt Weiss is achieving true 24 bit performance. The units I've heard with the Sabre have been informative but euphonic and a bit smoothed out overall but i agree with James N that implimentation is everything. There doesn't appear to be too much tweaking available but that's not to say there isn't a good solution available. I've also always favored ladder DACs to delta/sigma but I've heard both be good and not so good.
Posted on: 28 July 2010 by tonym
Implementation is all. An ESS Technology ES9018 DAC can be had for £40 or so, and although it could be argued this makes the price of the Weiss 202 seem even more outrageous, it's better to consider it a relatively minor part of the whole device. It's a tiny little thing anyway!
The trick AFAIK is to get the smoothest voltage and current in to power the DAC, feed it with the purest digital signal possible, then get the analogue out in a similar manner, all working within the parameters of the chip. Lots to get right.
My only real beef is that many manufacturers of DACs insist, probably as a result of customer requests, to stuff all this into a small enclosure along with a headphone amp, display electronics, lots of inputs etc.
It'd be nice if you could specify a DAC based on your specific requirements & didn't have to fork out for the stuff you didn't need. Chances are it might also benefit sound quality too.
