[Zoide]

Are there any Ack! dAck! vs. DAC1 comparisons around?

The seach function seems to be working very intermittently.

I did find this (http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr...6387&read&3&4&) on Audiogon but it's scant on details.

And there's also this (http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81497) on Head-Fi but it just shows how badly we need to hear from someone who's listened to both

 

[Zoide]

OK, so almost 100 views and no reply!!!

Let's make it more flexible. Doesn't have to be Ack! dAck! vs. DAC1.

It can be Ack! dAck! vs anything, or just a new Ack! dAck! review

 

[stryker]

Having auditioned both, I can say that the DAC1 offers a brighter and more forward sound. I think I liked the upsmpling and what it did to the sound, particularly on more complex passages and with transients.

Theoretically, one is more independent of jitter-related limitations, etc.

One upsamples (DAC1), the other one is filterless and applies a different process to those 1s and 0s.

I think my dAck! needed a little more burn-in than I gave it but it had a fairly relaxed and smooth presentation. I preferred the more upfront presentation of the DAC1 as I felt it balanced my 600s a bit more. However, to each his own. Others here loved it. It seemed to have good feedback from Hirsch's meet, but I think that was coming out of a Wadia, not exactly a cheap transport!

In the end, I ended up with another soruce completely but that was because I wanted to go one-box and I couldn't get past the belief that one needs a very good transport and digital cable to get the most out of these dacs. Even the DAC1 sounded better coming from my sacdmods 222es vs. my stock marantz. I didn't have that kind of money to have the setup I was happy with. YMMV.

 

[Wodgy]

I haven't heard either, but from reading various reviews, the Ack! Dack is smooth and bassy, with a very gentle high end. The Benchmark DAC1 is almost the polar opposite: detailed, with a clean, clear high end, and a leaner but still realistic bass. Some find the DAC1 to be a little bright (a couple people on Head-Fi) or very slightly bass-shy (Stereophile's review). I'm sure others will find the Ack! Dack to be a little too smooth or too lush. Pick what sound you like.

 

[PhilS]

Man, I was this close to having an Ack Dack and a Bel Canto 2 DAC to compare, but just lost out to getting the Ack Dack on audiogon.

I am looking for a way to get both in my system for trial, and suspect within a month or two I will accomplish it.

 

[Zoide]

Thanks for the info, guys.

PhilS: But you did buy the Ack! dAck!, right? Maybe you could post some impressions when you get it

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoide PhilS: But you did buy the Ack! dAck!, right?

No, I got the Bel Canto, but missed the Ack! dAck! But I got my eyes open for one.

 

[Zoide]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stryker Having auditioned both, I can say that the DAC1 offers a brighter and more forward sound. I think I liked the upsmpling and what it did to the sound, particularly on more complex passages and with transients. Theoretically, one is more independent of jitter-related limitations, etc. One upsamples (DAC1), the other one is filterless and applies a different process to those 1s and 0s. I think my dAck! needed a little more burn-in than I gave it but it had a fairly relaxed and smooth presentation. I preferred the more upfront presentation of the DAC1 as I felt it balanced my 600s a bit more. However, to each his own. Others here loved it. It seemed to have good feedback from Hirsch's meet, but I think that was coming out of a Wadia, not exactly a cheap transport! In the end, I ended up with another soruce completely but that was because I wanted to go one-box and I couldn't get past the belief that one needs a very good transport and digital cable to get the most out of these dacs. Even the DAC1 sounded better coming from my sacdmods 222es vs. my stock marantz. I didn't have that kind of money to have the setup I was happy with. YMMV.

What types of music did you use these DACs with?

 

[setmenu]

My experience with non oversampling dacs [my own diy ventures]is similar to those posted by others.
Due to their natural HF roll off , they need to be partnered very carefully
with other equipment.
They could be considered a bit of an acquired taste....
Obviously it all depends on how the designer has implemented their particular
nos design.

As for types of music, to my ear it is really a matter of how it was recorded.
Music that is leaning toward a dark sounding recording , does have potential
to sound even darker!

The nos design approach can cause heated debate amoung the objective V
subjective camp, but ultimately it is down to personal taste, nothing beats
hearing one.
[they are not too difficult to diy, There a also a few kits available, one
well regarded being the Scott Nixon dac]


Setmenu

 

[stryker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoide What types of music did you use these DACs with?

Mostly jazz and rock but a few classical selections. I made a point of listening to well-mastered (imo) albums of more recent vintage but I did play a few cds from the 80s that had that crappy compressed sound to them. One that stood out was a Stevie Ray Vaughn album whose masterer got a little crazy with the attack and release function of his compressor/limiter.

Anyway, the results were fairly consistent for me.

 

[Zoide]

So from what you guys have said, NOS sources like the Ack! dAck! tend to have a HF roll of and consequently smoother, more relaxed sound.

That makes sense, but I'd expected something slightly different.

I'd read elsewhere that it was supposed to have a very "vinyl-like" sound, and in my search for what a "vinyl" sound would be (I don't have a TT), I read that vinyl sounded much more "live" and in a sense more groovy. But the way you guys describe it it just sounds like a more restrained, mellow experience.

 

[setmenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoide So from what you guys have said, NOS sources like the Ack! dAck! tend to have a HF roll of and consequently smoother, more relaxed sound. That makes sense, but I'd expected something slightly different. I'd read elsewhere that it was supposed to have a very "vinyl-like" sound, and in my search for what a "vinyl" sound would be (I don't have a TT), I read that vinyl sounded much more "live" and in a sense more groovy. But the way you guys describe it it just sounds like a more restrained, mellow experience.

I have had little experience with top end vinyl setups, but those I have heard I certainly would not describe as having a nos dac sound! far from it!

My own nos dac can be mellow, and it can be very forward and exciting, the
roll off does not necessarily equate to mellow.[maybe distancing]
Again it depends on recording etc.

Setmenu

 

[photobob]

Has anyone had a chance to compare these 2 dacs yet?
I have an Ack Dac and was wondering if the Bel canto represented much, if any upgrade. I may upgrade the Ack Dac to Version 2.o, as it is now available.
Thanks
bob

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoide I'd read elsewhere that it was supposed to have a very "vinyl-like" sound, and in my search for what a "vinyl" sound would be (I don't have a TT), I read that vinyl sounded much more "live" and in a sense more groovy. But the way you guys describe it it just sounds like a more restrained, mellow experience.

Zoide,

You have read right. I have never heard the Ack dAck, but NOS DACs from 47 Laboratory and Audio Note (I own an Audio Note CDP) do sound more organic, more dynamic and emotionally more engaging than up- or oversampling DACs to my ears. And they are much better than SACD by the way. Describing the NOS sound as more "vinyl-like" or "analog" is justified in my opinion. If push comes to shove, nothing beats a great turntable in terms of musical satisfaction and emotional involvement, though. Unless you have an analog master tape, of course.