probably you are right. still......
I would love to compare the MSB Select to the Trinity dac on PCM. I would assume/expect the twice as spendy MSB Select would be better by some degree.....but any result would not surprise me.
Last edited:
Let's Get A Consensus Of The Best DAC's In The Market Today
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
probably you are right. still......
I would love to compare the MSB Select to the Trinity dac on PCM. I would assume/expect the twice as spendy MSB Select would be better by some degree.....but any result would not surprise me.
Stay tuned, we might make that happen 
The problem right now is that the SELECT is heavily backordered. Since the tolerances are ridiculously low to manufacture those DAC modules, it's taking MSB forever to fulfill orders for actual paid for product, let alone produce demo units...
But as I said, let's try to make that happen!
I still remember the period we had the SELECT in the store as some of my best listening sessions ever. I vividly remember playing Ramones' self-titled on regular Redbook, and it was real, organic, like I didn't even remember the LP sounding.
DSD was no slouch on it either, with the classical stuff particularly thrilling, gorgeous tone colors.
The problem right now is that the SELECT is heavily backordered. Since the tolerances are ridiculously low to manufacture those DAC modules, it's taking MSB forever to fulfill orders for actual paid for product, let alone produce demo units...
But as I said, let's try to make that happen!
I still remember the period we had the SELECT in the store as some of my best listening sessions ever. I vividly remember playing Ramones' self-titled on regular Redbook, and it was real, organic, like I didn't even remember the LP sounding.
DSD was no slouch on it either, with the classical stuff particularly thrilling, gorgeous tone colors.
Stay tuned, we might make that happen
The problem right now is that the SELECT is heavily backordered. Since the tolerances are ridiculously low to manufacture those DAC modules, it's taking MSB forever to fulfill orders for actual paid for product, let alone produce demo units...
But as I said, let's try to make that happen!
cool; that would be fun to do.
and I totally understand about the difficulty to meet the high tolerances building a no-holds-bared PCM dac; Trinity can only build 3 dacs a month due to the same challenge and is also heavily backordered. overcoming the inherent nasties of PCM does require some extreme tech.
I always dislike, 'which is best', type audio questions. What's best will vary by person. It will also vary by system context, as we don't listen to DAC boxes by themselves. This type of question also assumes that everyone responding has heard every possible candidate product vying for the title of best, which, of course, will not be true. That said, I would like to offer the following observation or two about the direction of leading edge DAC development. Should you have the patience, I have some rather rambling thoughts I'd like to share
It seems that vendors of the highest end products take one of two routes. They spend the great majority of their product's cost budget either on the digital/mixed signal processing side, or on the post conversion analog processing side. On the digital/mixed signal processing side, great effort and expense is typically applied to things such as increasing the dynamic range of 24-bit playback by a few extra dB, even though it is likely over 100dB to start with. Another common area of focus is trying to lower clock jitter from picosecond to femtosecond levels. Yet another area of focus is on delivering ever higher up/oversampling rates.
On the analog processing side, we see much the same efforts as are seen in analog preamps. Analog side implementation can become much more costly than that of the digital side, especially when transformer coulled tube circuits are employed, ala' Audio Note and Ypsilon. Both of those ultra expensive DACs feature digital processing which could fairly be described as being quite primitive. Alternatively, some of the top DACs that focus on the digital processing side feature IC op-amp based analog stages, such as those from Berkeley Audio Design and Bricasti. It would seem that more than one road can be taken to Rome.
So, why did I take the effort to lay out these rather well known facts? It is because I have a larger audiophile's concern (aside from stratospheric product pricing) that I feel applies to audio electronics seeking 'very best' status in general. Which is, that we seem to have arrived a the point of greatly diminishing returns (some would say we arrived there quite some time ago) with each subsequent increase in some common performance specification, or exotic part upgrade. The DAC situation mirrors what happens with amplification chain products, with their ever lower measured THD, noise and ever wider signal bandwidths, but things are even more specification focused with DACs today. However, where is the conmensurate audible benefit of this effort and expense? Is there ANY audible benefit?
This state of affairs is not uncommon across many types of products. Performance and features are steadily improved, if only by minuscule amounts, along established dimensions. What isn't asked enough, it would seem, is whether those established paths will eventually lead to fully closing the gap between current product performance and the users desire for product satisfaction. Perhaps, the current paths establishd for audio design in general, and DAC design in particular, will deliver us the home musical experience satisfaction we all seek but just can't seem to get sufficiently satisfied.
Would products having absolutely zero distortion, noise and jitter, infinite dynamic range and perfectly flat bandwidth then sound like real instruments? Some products are extremely close to delivering perfect specifications, yet are we even close to enjoying fully satisfying sound from them? Is some key factor not being measured, or it simply a case of the home stereo reproduction paradigm itself being irretrievably flawed?
It seems that vendors of the highest end products take one of two routes. They spend the great majority of their product's cost budget either on the digital/mixed signal processing side, or on the post conversion analog processing side. On the digital/mixed signal processing side, great effort and expense is typically applied to things such as increasing the dynamic range of 24-bit playback by a few extra dB, even though it is likely over 100dB to start with. Another common area of focus is trying to lower clock jitter from picosecond to femtosecond levels. Yet another area of focus is on delivering ever higher up/oversampling rates.
On the analog processing side, we see much the same efforts as are seen in analog preamps. Analog side implementation can become much more costly than that of the digital side, especially when transformer coulled tube circuits are employed, ala' Audio Note and Ypsilon. Both of those ultra expensive DACs feature digital processing which could fairly be described as being quite primitive. Alternatively, some of the top DACs that focus on the digital processing side feature IC op-amp based analog stages, such as those from Berkeley Audio Design and Bricasti. It would seem that more than one road can be taken to Rome.
So, why did I take the effort to lay out these rather well known facts? It is because I have a larger audiophile's concern (aside from stratospheric product pricing) that I feel applies to audio electronics seeking 'very best' status in general. Which is, that we seem to have arrived a the point of greatly diminishing returns (some would say we arrived there quite some time ago) with each subsequent increase in some common performance specification, or exotic part upgrade. The DAC situation mirrors what happens with amplification chain products, with their ever lower measured THD, noise and ever wider signal bandwidths, but things are even more specification focused with DACs today. However, where is the conmensurate audible benefit of this effort and expense? Is there ANY audible benefit?
This state of affairs is not uncommon across many types of products. Performance and features are steadily improved, if only by minuscule amounts, along established dimensions. What isn't asked enough, it would seem, is whether those established paths will eventually lead to fully closing the gap between current product performance and the users desire for product satisfaction. Perhaps, the current paths establishd for audio design in general, and DAC design in particular, will deliver us the home musical experience satisfaction we all seek but just can't seem to get sufficiently satisfied.
Would products having absolutely zero distortion, noise and jitter, infinite dynamic range and perfectly flat bandwidth then sound like real instruments? Some products are extremely close to delivering perfect specifications, yet are we even close to enjoying fully satisfying sound from them? Is some key factor not being measured, or it simply a case of the home stereo reproduction paradigm itself being irretrievably flawed?
Last edited:
The DAC of the Week is a constantly moving target. Since most of the contenders are in the Mega$ category, it seems to be a fools game. Add in the necessity of determining the best USB and other cables required, it becomes even more so. I prefer to focus on the music.
speaking for myself, i would probably add a minor qualification to the above...which is that if you are in the market for a DAC...then i suppose asking 'whats best' seems quite reasonable and is part of what started this entire Forum in the first place...and i have benefited from being able to ask that question about lots of things (video projectors, flat screens, cables, etc)...and been grateful that the deep well of knowledge here has answered my question usually within 48 hours.
However, once you have a DAC...then unless you love swapping every month, i think digital is probably the last place i would look to flip products over and over. For me, the differences between good and great DACs is separated by very little real estate...and a LOT of money. My prior 'dac' was a $50 Daewoo player, and although there was clearly plenty of 'better stuff' out there...none of it inspired me to actually open my wallet to buy it...and it took something far beyond it (in performance but also cost even 2nd hand) to get me to switch. And now i am very happy and consider myself very blessed...and have again no inspiration for switching at all.
Yes, improvements are overrated in some ways. I was happy with my 20-year old Wadia 12 DAC (albeit modified in 1997 with the Wadia 860 op-amp), but for technical reasons (long story) needed to switch to a DAC with variable volume output. Two years ago I auditioned two highly regarded DACs in the same price range ($2 - 2.5 K, inflation adjusted), the NAD M51 and the Hegel DAC25. Granted, the bass of these newer converters was much fuller, but overall I preferred my 20-year old Wadia 12 DAC. Approximately same resolution, but much more drama and vividness in the musical presentation than those newer DACs.
Ultimately I settled for my current Berkeley Alpha DAC2: same drama and vividness in the musical presentation as the Wadia DAC, but much more resolution -- not even close. Also, much better bass, and it killed the bass of the NAD and Hegel DACs as well (control, blackness).
But if you would believe the reviews over the years, DACs have gotten so much better in all respects, with one great leap forward over another all the time. So based on that I should have expected the NAD DAC (a reference DAC for John Atkinson!) and Hegel DAC to be completely superior to the 20-year old Wadia DAC. Nope, I preferred the Wadia.
The Berkeley DAC though is an entirely different beast altogether. But it also costs much more (yet is still ridiculously cheap compared to today's mega DACs).
Al M.
A better DAC does not mean a DAC that sounds better when inserted in our system, replacing another DAC. In general, we have finely tuned our system to the old DAC and the system will not show immediately the "better" qualities. But if we accept to make a few changes and optimize the system for the "better" DAC we find we can get an overall better system than it was possible with the previous DAC.
Prior to the Forsell CD combo I went briefly through 20-year old Wadia's. An immediate swap and comparison would suggest that the Wadia had much more punch and drama, even detail. However, upon some optimization and a few changes in cables we could notice that the Forsell system had better microdynamics and nuance, much better holography and imaging, better presentation of details and sounded much more like life music, particularly in chamber music and instrumental recordings. As I preferred it by a lot of reasons, it was enough for me to say it was a much better transport + DAC system.
Very recently a friend's Wadia 561SE made a short stay in my system. A good player, but in no way I would return to it.
In fact I think source is the most important after the Speakers, so the source has to be well sorted out. If someone doesn't want to invest in a quality TT and vinyl, then I find most SS digital to sound the same, with minor improvements in quietness, detail, and bass that I wouldn't pay over an Oppo for, no matter if the dac is 2k or 100k. These 'hifi' attributes don't add to my musical experience. Hence I like the Lampi B7, which with its DHT and NOS valves provides realism and musicality with better speed and slam than most SS, and with stellar ability to handle complex music and 50 instruments, and at much less money. If I give up the Lampi, it will only be for a high quality TT
I understand your argument, but my findings with the Berkeley DAC do not support it, at least not for the DAC comparisons mentioned. This DAC shows that the drama and vividness of the Wadia was not an artifact, but the lack thereof a weakness of the other two DACs auditioned. And the Berkeley was superior in all other respects to the other DACs (including the Wadia) as well, especially timbral resolution, nuance and imaging.
I believe this is not one MEGA DAC best for all of us, it must integrate well with other components of our setups and respond the our prefered balance between resolution and timbre, dynamics and smoothness , and so on. Sometimes we argue just because we forget that we do not listen to the same music and our perception and sensitivity are different as well.
Last edited:
Simple preferences are always a factor, I agree. Even for the same music different people like to sit in different seats in the concert hall.
Hello,
I´ve basically experienced the same phenomenom. I own a Wadia 861 SE for more than 7 years now and have been using it as DAC-Preamp for most of the time using a Logitech Transporter as streamer. It always had some shortcomings to me, which also are well known, like a rather soft bass and a little lack of space between instruments for example in symphonic concerts.
With that said I started auditioning new DACs a year ago. It started with a PS Audio Directstream, an AMR DP 777 SE, the Ayon Audio Stealth and finally the Lampizator Level 5 balanced with preamp.
I don´t want to go into the details but especially the Directstream and the Ayon failed completely. Only the bass was slightly better with these machines but the rest was just a long way behind the performance of the Wadia. The AMR was basically on the same level with no real advantage over the Wadia, so why change a running system? Besides that the AMR really has major quality problems, which two friends of mine experienced over months befor all faults of their units where eliminated.
Then came the Lampi 5 banlance DSD with pre.
I was able to buy it used for a very reasonable price so I figured there would be no risk buying it without prior auditioning it.
Now this is a completely different ballgame. It bests the Wadia in every aspect there is. And it´s not like you have to make an effort the hear the differences (if you have there probably aren´t any in reality). They are there very directly and without any questions.
The Lampi 5 reveals details whcih just are not there with the Wadia. The soundstage is wider and deeper, the bass has much more punch and is deapan and the midth have an unbelievable presence.
And I´ve only listened to Redbook until now which I probably will continue since I don´t see any advantage of DSD.
If the Lampi would not have bested the Wadia, I would have only tried one other alternative before just sticking with it: The Wadia 931/922 combo.
I generally think that very good "legacy" DACs (which normally will be Multibit) are still hard "to beat" and only really well designed recent DAC can be better. Most of the Delta Sigma based DACs just don´t sound bearable to me.
Cheers
Kai
Interesting, Kai. Try and get to hear a Golden Gate - I think you will find it remarkable.
Actually, he doesn't need a golden gate. A big 7 is sufficient. I owned the level 5 and the SOTA dacs were better. Since I got the big 7, except for the golden gate, I haven't heard a cdp or dac, including uber priced stacks, come close to it.
The thing is level 5 is a tubed dac. But big 7 is a different design, it is a DHT dac, that allows much more higher quality NOS valves than what are used in normal valve equipment like lower levels of Lampi, total dac, AR, Jadis, etc.
The GG is big 7 with better parts.
The thing is level 5 is a tubed dac. But big 7 is a different design, it is a DHT dac, that allows much more higher quality NOS valves than what are used in normal valve equipment like lower levels of Lampi, total dac, AR, Jadis, etc.
The GG is big 7 with better parts.
Interesting comments, Keith. But perhaps herein lies the beauty of these non conventional designs - if this "emphasis" is responsible for the absolute musical connection that Kai has found, then surely this is a good thing. No different to turntables IMHO - not wholly accurate in the numbers sense, but renders a believable and extremely enjoyable performance that better connects with many many people.
Last edited:
Funnily I went the same way: Owning a fantastic GNSC S7i Wadia, I considered the final jump to the series 9. Glad I did consider it long enough to see how Wadia behaved. I got out of Wadia spheres as quick as possible, not liking their strategies, and sold the S7i. I still own an exquisite Bow ZZ8, but nowadays professionally use a Metric Halo ULN8 , which does most, if not more that I expect of a DAC.
I have an extensive collection of historic LP's as well as 78's, listening to those with any digitalisation has no style.
Enjoy your Lampizator!
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |