Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It's not an "over-exaggeration" at all to say the highs are sizzly, thin and grainy. I compared the uDAC extensively to other, better DACs using Georg Friedrich Handl's Water Music suites, Archangelo Corelli complete op. 6 Concerto Grossi, and the Bach Brandenburg Concertos - both the Trevor Pinnnock and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment versions -- and the uDAC high end is simply awful. Thin, fizzy, grainy - I could almost hear the dropouts in random high frequencies. The other two dacs I tested with - the Hotaudio DAC-Extasy and the Musical Fidelity V-DAC did not exhibit those weaknesses at all. Listening to classical on the uDAC is not an experience I would like to repeat. If you can't hear that, you either have not heard any other DACs that are better, or you're just not being honest.
The presentation of the uDAC *is* aggressive and forward -- it's voiced that way intentionally to give a "wow" factor instead of being neutral -- and there is also a recession in the upper mids that is part of that "U" shaped sound and contributes to it. You can hear it especially on vocals, where I compared Pearl Jam, REM, Stereolab, the Jam, and others on the uDAC with the DAC-Extasy and the V-DAC, and vocals on the uDAC are definitely more recessed, thin and distant. I explicitly even mentioned in it my notes for Eddie Vedder and the Jam's That's Entertainment specifically. Again, if you can't hear that, you either have not compared the uDAC properly to other, better and more neutral dacs, or you are not being honest for some reason.
Pearl Jam - Even Flow - udac: midboost, vocals sound a little hollow; ex: much more "even" sounding, vocals more natural and prominent, less midbass, overall better balance
The Jam - That's Entertainment - vocals more recessed, midbass boosted, hotter high end; extasy more natural sounding
The same goes for the mid-bass hump, which makes the uDAC virtually unlistenable on DT880s, and by the reports on HD650s, too. Other, better and more neutral DACs don't have that problem. They present that frequency more accurately and neutrally.
The uDAC is a mediocre, mass market DAC at best, in the same league as bose or skullcandy. It has a bloated midbass, thin and sizzly highs and recessed upper mids to give a "U" shaped "wow factor" sound. Some people might like that sound, like with Ultrasone headphones, which is fine. However, with the uDAC it goes beyond just the sound signature to being actual defects in the high frequencies.
You can say "but it's good for the money." I say it's a waste of money at virtually any price. There are much better DACs out there for the money, or even less, including the Bit Perfect and others. Those don't have the sexy marketing behind them, though, and that seems to be what people here are more interested in than sound quality.
I challenge ANYONE with a decent set of headphones to compare the uDAC to better dacs like the ones I mentioned, listening to classical music, midrange vocals, etc. and say they don't hear the flaws I outlined. If you say you don't hear them, you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're just not being honest. And that's no exaggeration.
The sad fact is that it is you who have actually exaggerated the sound quality of the uDAC, which in reality is mediocre at best, and unfortunately have misled a lot of people in the process who could have gotten better DACs for less money. And that is what is really too bad, not to mention newbies getting into the hobby who will think the uDAC is some kind of benchmark when in reality it's not even audiophile grade, but more like skullcandy and bose.
|