[sacd lover]

I was going to bump an old thread regarding this dack dac but I decided to start a new one. There was recently a great close out deal on this dac bundled with a digital cable and shipping for $409. I had noticed this sale and when overlunge posted a nice little review on this unit I decided to get one. I have always been curious about the non-oversampling dac's so this seemed like the perfect time to satisfy my curiosity. Luckily, I got the very last unit.

Now much has been written on this dac by head-fier SeanH and most recently overlunge. There are many positive comments on this unit in the digital archives over on Audio Asylum. I will just say I concur. This is one musical dac thats incredibly well built and engineered. This units well thought out battery implementation is easy to use and results in the dac exhibiting a complete lack of noise. I just wanted to say if you are in the market for a good low cost dac.... a used dack is an exceptional buy.

The only downside to the dack is a slight treble roll off. However, in most systems... especially solid state setups..... this dac may be just the missing piece to add that elusive musicality to your music. The dac is still very detailed and the midrange is as good as I have ever heard from any source using my Slam ppx3.

I am so impressed by this product I have a demo dack v2.0 on the way. The new v2.0 version is a complete redesign that is said to address the slight rolloff at the frequency extremes and add more soundstage size and upper register air. With my Slam I heard no lack of bass and the treble sounded more smoothed that missing. However, hooking the dack up to the mpx3's did reveal the treble lacked the full extension of my other sources. I still found the bass excellent.

I am interested if anyone has the new v2.0 and your opinions on this unit. If the new v2.0 dack is truely an improvement over the original..... more head-fiers need to hear about this unit. I see people spending $3-4k on sources. A good transport... especially one with an upgraded clock like my sacdmods or Sound Odyssey players can be had for well under $1k.... and combined with this $795 dac.... I can see the potential for a much less expensive but equally proficient source. Given how good the original dack sounds with my the three sacd/cd players I have used for transports I have very high expectations for the new v2.0.

I will report back in a couple weeks with an update. But in the meanwhile why dont some of you current dack v2.0 owners give us your thoughts? I like to give back to head-fi and report when I find something I consider "special". But I am usually the early adopter and the only one commenting. However, in this case I know there are some of you out there ahead of the curve who have this unit already. So let us know what you think.

 

[Covenant]

I'd be very interested to hear your oppinions on the upcoming Dack! 2.0, sacd. I'm looking at source upgrades currently, and atm the two strongest contenders i've seen appear to be the Dack! and the Eastsound cdp.

 

[aug1516]

I would love to hear more about the 2.0 model myself. Can't wait to hear your own impressions when you receive it.

 

[kmcdonou]

Earl, as you know I have the Ack Dack 2.0 and am surprised that more people don't recommend this dac. I compared it to the Benchmark Dac-1 for 2-3 weeks before selling the Dac-1. The Ack has a more weighty midrange compared to the Dac-1 and the highs seem as extended. And, this comparison was before I upgraded to the high resolution caps (Sonicap Platinum).

Now, the detail I get is quite remarkable. On my Alice In Chains Unplugged album, there is a brief exchange between the lead singer and one of the band members between tracks. Before, I knew there was dialog, but now I know what they said. The upgraded caps seem to change the emphasis a bit. There is a lot more sparkle on the top end and a more airier sound.

This sparkle can be deceptive. My initial thought was it made the Ack brighter, moving away from its richer, more organic sound. Now I realize it is not brighter per se, but rather I am hearing the sparkle on the upper mids and highs. It shifts your attention to this, which is fine unless your system is on the bright side. In which case, this sparkle MAY become distracting or fatiguing. I emphasize may because when I hooked up my Ack to a home made Pimeta at the Detroit meet (which was definitely a forward sounding amp), it actually made the sound smoother and increased the resolution, but did not make the overall sound brighter. I thought the addition was an improvement.

Ideally, I would like the attention to remain on the darker, richer midrange, but with the higher resolution one gets with the teflon caps. Don't get me wrong, the midrange doesn't lose its richness with the teflon caps. It's just that your attention is directed to the resolution and sparkle/extension in the highs.

I can definitely say I can't see needing any more resolution or a better dac for that matter. All this can be had for under a $1000. It's one of the great values out there in my mind.

 

[sacd lover]

Here we go.... I tried to get a hold of you to ask some questions but I missed you. You answered the big one though. Chris was talking to me about the teflon caps and I was hesitant. I ended up just staying with the stock auricaps.... and from your description.... I am glad I did. I dont want the emphasis to shift to the upper mids/ highs. I just want a little more extension on par with my usual sources.

However, I will know soon enough if the teflon caps are something I will go for once I hear the stock dack v2.0. I am not ruling them out I just dont know if I need them in the unit. If the original unit had just a little more treble extension it would mate fine with any of my amps.

Thanks for the response.... I appreciate you taking the time to give me a your input.

 

[kmcdonou]

Earl, I think you will be more than happy with the stock Auricaps. The treble extension is there. It's only if you want greater resolution would I go with the teflon caps.

The teflon caps do not make the dac bright. It simply shifts your attention. It's hard to describe without hearing it. If you ever consider the teflon, let me know and I'll send you my dac so you can hear it firsthand.

 

[overlunge]

Hi sacd lover,

I am glad to see that you are liking the dAck!. Unfortunately I gave in to my upgraditis and found a good home for my dAck!. I often miss the organic sound of the dAck! 1.2e (natural tone and timbre, airy bass resonance) when I listen to my Grace m902 (which adds more clarity and less warmth to my rig).

I will be most interested to hear your impressions on the 2.0 and maybe in term convince me to go back to the dAck! again.


Overlunge

 

[sacd lover]

I will post impressions a few days after I get the v2.0.

I have high expectations if the v2.0 does indeed have a more extended treble.

 

[Sean H]

I've had a 2.0 since last February or so and owned a 1.2e before that. There is definitely more treble extension up top. I echo what kmcdonou said. The dAck 2.0's presentation is a bit more neutral now, still weighty, full and natural but the treble is well open and extended. Along with that the other most notable changes in the 2.0 are an even punchier bass that to me sounds deeper too, a bit more pace throughout, and increased resolution. The sound has shifted a bit, a bit away from being the organic and ever so slightly rolled sound to being more "wide-band" and neutral sounding but keeping most of the sound through the mids that it is known for. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the 1.2e vs. 2.0, Earl!

 

[evil-zen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean H I've had a 2.0 since last February or so and owned a 1.2e before that. There is definitely more treble extension up top. I echo what kmcdonou said. The dAck 2.0's presentation is a bit more neutral now, still weighty, full and natural but the treble is well open and extended. Along with that the other most notable changes in the 2.0 are an even punchier bass that to me sounds deeper too, a bit more pace throughout, and increased resolution. The sound has shifted a bit, a bit away from being the organic and ever so slightly rolled sound to being more "wide-band" and neutral sounding but keeping most of the sound through the mids that it is known for. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the 1.2e vs. 2.0, Earl!

I have the 1.2e for quite sometime now. I tried upsampling to 88.2khz and heard an extension of both ends. Very similar to what is described by Sean H on the difference between 1.2e and 2. RMAA measurements verified the same thing too. So those with computer setups and older dack may want to try this at no cost!

 

[sacd lover]

Sean, you snuck that post by me.

If the v2.0 has more treble extension added to basically the same sound I cant wait. Losing a little warmth wont hurt at all. I can always add some back with a tube or IC change.

I really hope it gets here this week now.

 

[Sean H]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover Sean, you snuck that post by me. If the v2.0 has more treble extension added to basically the same sound I cant wait. Losing a little warmth wont hurt at all. I can always add some back with a tube or IC change. I really hope it gets here this week now.

The most noticeable difference between the 1.2e and 2.0 to me is the bass and treble, and resolution. It's more neutral, bass has more punch, depth and definition, treble is more prominant and extended, more low level res and it sounds quicker and maybe more dynamic. That's what I hear anyway.

 

[Hirsch]

I had a brief opportunity to compare the dAck! 1.3, 2.0 and 2.0 high resolution at a meet. The sounds of these are very close, and some people did not even hear the difference in a meet environment. I thought the high-res had a sweeter high end and a trace more detail. I decided not to upgrade from my 1.3, but it was a close call. I tried a Benchmark DAC-1, and decided not to keep that, since I had the dAck! and didn't hear the DAC-1 as an upgrade. I also tried a Musical Fidelity X-DAC stack (X-DAC, X-10, X-PSU) but those didn't even come close.

 

[babyoh]

Is the high output option necessary for driving Baby O only (HEV-70)?

 

[kontai69]

I've been using my Ack! dAck! v2.0 for several months now and am loving it. My opinions on its sound are the same as others have noted. This is the first and only DAC I've listened to so I don't have any comparative opinions. I do know it sounds alot better than the analog output from my $100 Sony DVD player.

sacd_lover...Did you notice any differences when you tried the various CD players you had on hand as a transport with the dAck? I'm currently using a $100 Sony DVD player with the dAck and it sounds pretty good as it is. I'm considering getting either a high-end DVD player (Denon 2910 or Sony ES) or the transport-modded Music Hall CD player from Sound Odyssey.