[Covenant]

They both use ESS Sabre dac chips, albeit different models (ES9018 on the Buffalo, ES9008 on the UDAC), which makes me wonder how much their performance will differ.

The Buffalo is obviously much more configurable, and cheaper as its DIY, but for the non-DIY skilled head-fi'er, would the UDAC provide a roughly equal level of sound quality?

 

[johnwmclean]

X2

Would be a great comparison.

 

[atothex]

Kinda off topic, but has anyone compared the latest Buffalo to any well-known good DACs? I'm talking like Parasound 1100 or maybe the Electrocompaniet.

 

[johnwmclean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atothex /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kinda off topic, but has anyone compared the latest Buffalo to any well-known good DACs? I'm talking like Parasound 1100 or maybe the Electrocompaniet.

I think any comparison would be an asset, information seems rare as hens teeth.

 

[atothex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwmclean /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think any comparison would be an asset, information seems rare as hens teeth.

Yeah, I don't really know what to think. I'm definitely lukewarm on the older Buffalo, though, and this new one still uses a version of the IVY... That doesn't exactly get me excited. But I'm pretty much a vintage source kinda guy.

 

[Covenant]

Bump, no solid information/impressions/comparisons anyone?

 

[grawk]

I spent a few hours with a rockhopper twisted pair buffalo dac and the headroom udac, both balanced into a balanced m3 and balanced hf2s at canjam this year. I found the sound signature of the buffalo more to my liking, but both are excellent dacs. The udac is more analytical and the buffalo more musical, to my ears.

 

[Covenant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I spent a few hours with a rockhopper twisted pair buffalo dac and the headroom udac, both balanced into a balanced m3 and balanced hf2s at canjam this year. I found the sound signature of the buffalo more to my liking, but both are excellent dacs. The udac is more analytical and the buffalo more musical, to my ears.

Thanks grawk

I wonder why that was so, is the ESS chip used in the UDAC actually inferior to the model in the Buffalo, or is it all in the implementation/output stage?

Question, was the UDAC you heard at Canjam using the DPS?

Edit: w00t, 2,000th post.

 

[grawk]

The difference, as with most dacs, is definitely in the analog front end.

I had the brick power supply for the udac. There was definitely nothing wrong with the udac, it's a wonderful dac, and I'd be happy with it long term. But I preferred the buffalo, as put together by thrice. If I'd had the money, I'd have bought it from him on the spot.

 

[johnwmclean]

A little off topic but for anyone that would like to know, the Mcintosh MCD500 uses the 9008, apparently this was one of the first commercially available machines. It’s received a favourable review in Stereophile recently.

 

[DoYouRight]

Some say the UDAC sounds a little dry I heard with HD800 at canjam impressions.

My buffalo sounds anything but, very perfect along with my current (last SS) AMP.

 

[gilency]

How about a comparison between Sabre based DACs versus Wolfson?

 

[twsmith]

The DAC is just one link -- the front end and amp are just as critical to determining the overall sound. The HR UDAC and BUDA (amp) happen to match very well -- I have both and can attest that this combo is very musical and not dry-sounding at all. Whatever differences there are between the Buffalo DAC and UDAC are most likely due to the associated electronics and how the DAC chip is utilized rather than the chip itself.

 

[DoYouRight]

The combo I am referring to from CanJam was a UDAC and BUDA, where the HD800 sounded dry to many. But that could have been musical choices.