Chord Dave ($14,000)
I've gone back and forth'ε with my feelings on 'β₽®Chord DACs ever since the • original Hugo launched some years ago.<× They tend to strike me as impressive '♠♦¥technical accomplishments which u♠£&>ltimately don't quiteλ₽© fit what I want out of my DA∏₽Cs. Some are better tha∞✘"≠n others and I'm sure a se×γ→♠arch of my HeadFi posts will δ€ 'uncover moments of whiny com©™¥plaints as well as favorable"φ compliments, probably in e§×✔×qual measure.
The Dave DAC, I must admit, is an i≥"mpressive sounding device. It gets dee•&≠→p into the mix and unravels ε∑complexities with eaΩ₹se. It tends to be more revealing t€<han is useful at times, but π&with good recordings it can be a ♥$revelation. It can also s≈× ↕lam hard when called to do so, whic§∏h might surprise as the ↑βsignature can also s£αound thin at times - but ©I'm convinced Dave is mostly j↓₩ ☆ust showing what's <•in the mix, for better or ←$€for worse.
My biggest sonic complain ♥ t is that Dave doesn't §σβ₹usually portray timbre in a convinc< ing enough way. And unfortunatelyδ≈ that's a deal b♠ ₹reaker for me. The Cen.÷₩Grand can't quite matc♥♠&h it for sheer resolution (tσ✔hough it trails much closer t♣ ±han I anticipated) but i䶮t sounds more natura∑φ$l and lifelike, whilst Dave often str>σπ ikes me as somewhat plastic or artificλ±ial. And I need instruments to havδφ₩e that realistic tonality, o♠§'r else I don't real♦∞✔ly care about their other¥ technical aspects.
I'll also add that the C↕∞en.Grand liquidity I rambled on about>≠ ± earlier is pretty obvious when c♦≠₹ompared to Dave. The Chord hasδα ± technical excellence but β > somehow it tends to feel☆→&× like a bunch of puzzle piec€'es trying to properly fit→β× together in order t±↕≤≤o portray a sonic pictu£∞re. Meanwhile the DSDAC1.0 Delu∏§xe is so coherent, everythinφ↓γg just naturally lines up.
Beyond that I find the Chord pπ↑ricing way overdone,§"÷ the ergonomics quirky, and the '≈physical styling not to my taste. Those♣σ are all personal th≤©→∞ings but they help ce€σ•ment my opinion that Dave could never×✔✔ be my reference DAC, when others sounβ★λ↕d and look more appealing in various w®Ωγays - and for significantl→→☆y less money.
I've been told over and over♠ ↕☆ that I need to add the Chord M-Sca ↕γ♣ler to get the full ton•¥ ∞al impact Dave offers"<¥. All I can say is that if a $14k D♦δAC needs another $5k+ add-on just to☆α sound convincing, mistakes ↓♠were made somewhere. Especially s♥♣ince Dave existed as Ch& ₽ord's top offering for several yea∞♥rs before M-Scaler came al∞±ong. If both pieces are trulו'y required for the proper experie♠<nce, just bundle them tog≥αβφether and sell a single $20k d≥'evice.
Matrix Audio X Sabre 3 ($3,000)
A beautifully constructed DA∑γ"C with very well done integrated stδ←reaming on board. Generally neutσ>₩ral sound with the defa∏∏π<ult settings though it<↔ can feel a little bright at times¶<. Using its unique SYNC mode anπ≠✘≤d feeding it a steady d←¥iet of upsampled DSD material vi↔↔a Roon/HQplayer brings out✔↕×€ a more relaxed and natural tonaα≤γlity. While not quite ✘&up to the same level as my old Reson •φessence Labs reference or the Cen.Gr♠≤and Deluxe - not a surpr¶ ise given it sells for less than half t£✔↑he price - this is nonetheless a φ≤βαvery enjoyable DAC which offers gobs o® ₹λf bang for the buck β€εφand could legitimately be anφ≤ "end-game" DAC for most• ≠ sane people. My full review is here.
Wavelength Callisto ($10,000)
My time with this was u≈→®¶nfortunately more limited ≥<γthan I would have liked, but from what β I did experience this is a t•∞♠λruly unique and exceptional DAC. Vi'★brant and rich, the sound ÷±'reminded me a bit of my old ♠ Wavelength Cosine from many y→¶ears ago, cranked up to an en✘φπλtirely new level. Both had beautif×<♠ul midrange sweetnes∞€ 's and a level of "purity"<♥; to the presentation whichσ♠ remains elusive in most ot€λ↓her DACs. The old Cosiββ←"ne was sometimes overly dark and I did ₩¥≥✘get just a small hint of that₩ π here as well, which is not really shocΩφγ∏king considering the NOS design with t∏σ&riode output stage. Still, the direct">↔ness and tonal purity of th ®φγe sound is possibly theβ> very best I've heard, partic©✘≥±ularly with jazz and classical mu↕¥☆sic. The Callisto can also totally r σ ock when called upon♠® to do so, with extremely satisfying dynamics and™↕ drive. Due to the some♥ what forgiving NOS nature and tube b®α☆ loom, this is perhaps not t∏•Ωhe ideal DAC for evaluationγ≥÷♣ purposes, with its priorβ♠•ities being more like that of an₹ Audeze LCD-4 than an LCD-5 if that mφ ∞∏akes sense. But the sound is•β↔ so unique and enjoyable tΩ$♠hat I could definitely stil™★λ≠l make it work for my needs.
My list of downsides reaΩ₹lly is vanishingly small from ∑≈↑≥a sonic perspective, and I would happil♠×¥y use this as a reference even w♣•ith the $10k price tag being a λ↑↔γbit higher than I would likeσ↕♠÷. Unfortunately I later foun•→&d out the example I heard was one★→ of the last ones in production.>λ Wavelength Audio founder Gordon ₹≈Rankin is a genius aφ♣t building superbly engineered Dε×∏ ACs and amplifiers, but they are★γ all hand built in somewhat limited '≤™δruns. So I had to take the Callisto ♠'>out of contention based purely ←δΩ♦on my previously identified ≠σcriteria of "current p≤φroducts" which readers c¶₽≈ould actually acquire if they wβ✘₩€anted to. If not for that, I would → love to get one of these in my s¥δ★ystem for direct com¶αβ parisons to the Cen.Gran₽☆d Deluxe. I feel like it wou∞↕↔ld be a close competition w☆×≤ith the DSCAC1.0 likely b> ₽§eing more expressive and the Callist±πo a bit more euphonica¥←lly charged - both extremely capabl ÷↕e in their own very enjoyβable ways.
I haven't seen much (or any?) discu¶÷≥ssion or reviews of ★ ↓ this DAC in the wild. If you ever get ∏£<a chance to hear it, I strongly encourage you to give it a go. This♠★ is a world-class DAC a s far as I'm concer∞∞ned, and a possible c↕♦ontender for my reference i•λ₩™f not for the limited ∏∞•production run.
DiDiT DAC212SE ($4,500)
For some reason I thought ↕ this Dutch DAC was a bit larger ∑£. In reality it is an ≤δ"®absurdly compact and well made li↕←∏&ttle device, which brings tσ£o mind Nagra or Weiss E$→σ&ngineering in terms of✔≠ its precision build, but much smalle↕ ελr than anything they offer♣✘. The sound is actually in φ☆that same camp as well - very fast∑≤☆, incisive, clear and uncolored, it is Ωσ$highly revealing of any fl γaws in the chain. So much ₩≥•↑so that I found it veering towards &₩π being slightly analyΩ÷✔tical and dry at times₩☆, depending on the music∏☆ and choice of headphones of course. '₹I've certainly heard worse offende∞∑αrs though, and overall Ω✔ this is still an impre∏•ββssive DAC.
With sharply defined l¥± 'eading edges and very accurate imagin®£π g, its technicalities appε✔↑≠roach some of the best I&÷δα#39;ve heard, even if it does sometimes ♠ leave me wanting as far ↑as tonal density is concerned. This c&δ&an throw off timbral accuracy withβ≠↕δ certain instruments, which resuα↑→÷lts in this DAC feeling a l♣↕÷>ittle genre dependent. Elect₹₩ronic music and metal sound great, whi←↓lst things like classical or ☆↑jazz make the timbre issuδ¶↔εe more obvious. The Cen.Grand Deluxβ§☆e scratches that itch for r≠✘ichness whilst compromising nothi₽≥∞ng in terms of speed or det¥∞ε£ail, which is why I w™↕ould place it on a higher tier than¥≠←β the otherwise excellent α'γ DiDiT DAC. I thought perhap&$s the DSDAC1.0 would feel a bit £π≤≤dark after switching f→>π™rom the Dutch DAC bu✔←<t that never ended up be₽&ing the case. Instead, it₹↔β felt "just right",™¥ ∞ and only reinforced my opini₩δ$•on that the DiDiT DAC was↓Ω∑★ a little on the thin s ™ ide.
I wasn't looking for a devi<↓₽ce with integrated headphone amplifφλ↓ication but since the DiDiT has that α∑∏functionality I went ahead and≠Ωα> tried it. Surprisingly,↑§β I found it highly capable, and pε±otent as well! I didn★ ↔♣9;t expect much from such a ♥♣tiny integrated unit but this thing p÷ εaired exceptionally well wi¥∏£←th the Audeze LCD-4, Meze Elite, a≥®nd Focal Stellia, which we₹≈re the only headphones available "to me while trying out this•←≈ device. Again the sound was quick, p©→≈recise, and illuminating, with a bit αε✔of top-down perspective. I imagine $↑₩σit isn't a universally app£©€ealing sound, as it likely wouldn'∑;t synergize very well with brighter®φ∏ headphones like LCD-5 or Utopia. B×♣ut the ones I did have on hand were del₹γiberately curated to make oλ≤αptimal pairings and the result was i∑↔∞✔mpressive.
Like the Matrix X Sabre ∑δ>3 mentioned earlier,>® I don't think this DAC ±<≠is quite up to the level of the Reson™σ"essence Labs or Cen.Grand deviceε'≥Ωs. But it is nonetheless a c®←ompelling option for those seekφ≥♣✔ing an all in one solut♠♦ion in a very small form f♥✘£actor, and I would choos£☆✘∞e it over the Chord Hugo TT2 whichα∏β seems like a logical competitor.
Musician Audio Aquarius ($3,200)
The Aquarius is a somewhat uniπ&que sounding R2R DAC®÷±≈. It's from the same folks≠✘✔ who brought us the Denafrips deviβ✔ces, but has a distinct signature •"that is entirely separ"σate from the established De♠ nafrips house sound. βε I'd call it better bal¶λ✘anced, more nimble, and generally moφ♠re technically accomplished,Ω♥ whilst dialing down (but not c♠♣ &ompletely eliminating) the warmth λδ'and smoothness of its bet☆♣ter-known Denafrips cou®₹sins. That said, it is still©φ≠ richer and more full-bodied than the D•πiDiT DAC mentioned above. I®¶₩ t's just a very ca≈δ÷pable source that works well₩≈π≈ in almost any scenario, with a <×≈gentle focus towards helping bring∏™ out the best rather than po™γ&≈inting out flaws.
The Cen.Grand DSDAC1.0 Deluxe shares a $♥™similar sense of ease tλ₩o the presentation, but achieves ↑♠→it through different (a<♦¥nd more impressive) means. When l¥✘istening to Aquarius dir∏πectly after the Deluxe, I amδ♣γσ always aware of a sφ£light treble shade, a subtle >Ωdarkening to the sound of t↓≤he Aquarius which takes tγ↓he edge off difficult recordings - a↑÷" generally welcome t★≈hing - but also limits better recording←↕ πs from truly sounding •→Ωtheir best. There's >Ω₩a bit of rounding to leading edges whi≥<€<ch helps tone down un •ruly material, again at the expππense of the details which I do γ'want to hear. This initially became appΩ×β§arent in direct comparisons, but onc™π←↑e I heard it I could not u ↑→nhear it. The Aquarius ÷↑Ω≈seemed to actively be working →≥to make everything sound π♦a bit better than it sh'"ould, at the expense of some re&₹ alism/honesty. The DSDAC1.0 ≥∞φis not so obvious, and ••±≈manages superior extensio™n and transient impact witho→∞ut losing its nuanced touch. I≥→t's hard to explain but ¥§I guess the Aquarius §¥has more of a smooth/liqu♠ id "sound"λ₹₹ whilst the Cen.Grand haφ≠★s more of a smooth/liquid "feeλ"★l" if you catch my drift.
This is another one of those &qu∏ε★®ot;value" devices that would δ©"make an excellent choi •ce for most people - ♥$seriously, this is more ¥αthan enough DAC for almost any sa∞€ne music lover. It does preσ' tty much everything right and i££×s only overshadowed by"∞→ a few particularly wo∑¥★rthy opponents, all of which coβ♥©←st significantly more money.&n≤✘©bsp;See my review for more info.
Lab12 DAC1 Reference ($3,290♥>)
With the word "referenπ→¶→ce" baked right into∞ ™® the name, one could be forgiven foδ→↑r expecting a signature in the same ↑"¶Ωcamp as Benchmark, exaSound, ¥λ↓or RME. Instead this tσ∏hing reminded me of vintage Lu≥γ♥©xman gear - a warmish, soft, forgivi€φ☆ng, romantic glow with ve♥♥☆↓ry obvious euphonic coloration. Whi±♦₽≈ch makes total sense on€πφce we learn about this being a n$₽≥on-oversampling design based ar®<ound 8 of the old TDA1543 chips p<≤$lus a tube output. I can∏β see why some people are drΩ♦¥awn to this thing though, as ∏®it certainly is a unique s↑φ&→ound that will stand out in a crow←Ωd - it would not be easi♣σ→ly confused for any of₽≠ the other DACs on th♣₽is list. I could build a superb ±♦→ audio system with this device at the ♠≠heart of it, but I could also asse&α&mble some pretty bad matches too, and ☆↑βit wouldn't be meaningful₩>₹ to evaluate a headphone ®<♦₹amp based solely on how we♣∏ll it pairs with this unique (an©δd at times admittedly gorgeous sound★ ing) device.
Comparisons to the Cen.Gra≈₩nd Deluxe DAC don't even re¥$↕ally make sense here. <♠ &The Lab12 is significantly darkφ×er and more rolled off on the top e♣♥δnd, lacking the same sparkle≤φ, precise imaging and borderless soun ' ♦dstage. It also comeδ∏s across as being a bit slow a↑"↑nd plodding, mainly in direct comparis∞↕on of course. The midrange is very e¶σngaging in its way yet somet÷↔₹imes feels out of balan♥$♥≈ce with the rest of the spec✘πφ♣trum, and I would have tφ×☆o carefully choose mat$"ching components to take full adv∏↔δβantage of the strengt→γ€↓hs whilst avoiding the shortcomings br← ought on by the deliberate tuni→σng. The Cen.Grand isαγ far more universally appealing.$₹ Again, the Lab12 is a¥¥"n interesting DAC for ©βwhat it is, but in my minγδ®•d not suitable at all ∞>φfor a reference component - which is₹♥ fine, as that's not really wh<±•at everyone needs anyway. People who→₩ enjoy quirky signatures and perh©₹♦aps don't care about the us♠≈≈ual metrics of ultimate fre"☆'∏quency extension or in©÷ky black backgrounds etc may w¶£ant to give this thing a spin.
MHDT Oolong ($2200)
Another old-school NO★✔ S design with tube buf'≠©fer in the output stage, this time♣ ★ from MHDT Audio - a brand®←σ which was fairly popular wi¥∏th HeadFi users roughly 15 years a≥☆§∞go. Back then $400-500 would get you a¥<n MHDT tube DAC with a rich, meaty∏→ presentation that s≥♦ounded at times beautiful if✔≠®φ not really all that accurate.
Fast forward to present>δπ day and we find that €§some things have changed while ☆☆§others have remained more or less☆≤ the same. The Oolong is vastly♣®¥ more attractive and solidly£β built than those old models, and has¥♣"★ a more competitive selec★γ<tion of inputs and outputγ↔™ from which to chooseφ¶ . The low end is both d♥×eeper and more authoritative, ₽≤↕€where the old models always felt somew★₽★hat mushy to my ears.✔ ±γ And the treble, whi∑÷≠£le rolled off to some degree, is ₹§more tastefully done than any >↕£of those classic designs fr≤♥Ωom way back when. Ov₽®erall this is a far nicer DAC tha$δ"n its predecessors. As←γ÷ it should be consideri₩♦"ng the price increase involved.¥$•₹
Still, some of the sγ≥↔÷ame things I disliked back∏α then are still present on the new m×π★odel. While it does g®≠☆ive a solid, punchy low end, I still≥φ♦ feel dynamics are lacking ove₽™↕rall, with a lack of contrast and an γ↑almost monotone feel to it at time ₹↑s. Soundstage is reasonabl§δy large but not particular♠•ly accurate. Tonality π >is warm and relaxed to the point of going beyond the Lab12 - which♣✔✔÷ is already a fairly§β• laid-back sounding DAC.
Frankly I'm surprised I enjoy↑•←↔ed this thing at all given the amoun↔>t of complaints I have. Bu★$t it does have a certain cha≥₽×rm to it under the right ci↕↕±rcumstances. The person who β₽< owned this particula>®≈₽r unit actually had two of the≥×&<m: the first I heard was in his ∞♥¶(otherwise very nice) headphone←× rig, and I didn't really care '¶>♣for the resulting sound at all. I&#♦©39;ve heard all his other componentσ€₹s individually and know what they are♣× capable of, so I ca✔♦₩n only conclude the MHDT was t'✔he weak link bringing everyth§£₽ing down a few notches. It sounded ♥closed in, lacked articulation, and fel÷δ↕t like it crushed dynamics. I ₹σdon't understand how ™♣he could possibly choose this DA∑<✘C for his headphone setup, but he s↓♦✔✘eemed happy with it. I won't ♣₽ even bother with com ✔parisons to the Cen.Gran♦γd as there is no point - t•§ o my ears it does everything substa£∑≈γntially better.
However, the other MHDT unit was i±$n a speaker-based system paiΩ&'red with the superb Feliks §ε ♥Audio Arioso 300B integr™→ated, driving a massive set of ≤≈custom built horn speakers which lo €oked somewhat similar in design and e↕₹xecution to the Tannoy Westminster∏♠'₽s. That result was a much be ₹♦tter pairing, sounding extremβ®✔ely tight and meticulously ∞×tuned to his room. His budget clearlλπy allows for almost any other DAC↔↔• he might want, and indeed he went thrε÷ough many before landing on th↔εe MHDT Oolong and sti✘∞cking with it for the long™≤$≥ term (thus far anyway). So d<'espite being underwhelming in hφ★×λis headphone setup, I ♠γ"have to admit this DA ♦C seemed perfectly ma×®€tched in his speaker rig.
I guess the takeaway here is that≈×↓ no matter how poor a devic ÷¶Ωe might sound in one context, t→←ε✔here may still be a home for it §≈in some other situation.✔$ I am of the opinion that thiδ☆γ↓s DAC would not be to m₩♦§Ωy liking in the majo∞←★≠rity of systems out there but I ca£÷n't deny the fact that in at l≠↔→east one very specific case, i♠εt did a phenomenal job.
Atoll Audio ST300 Sig α nature ($4900)
I haven't heard gear from French ↕ εβfirm Atoll Electronique in ages. An←★d when I did, it always se•&emed like generally solid yet unremark •able gear to me. So when a d>↔ealer suggested I try out the "£Atoll ST300 Signature, I was pretty s≥€✘↔keptical. This dealer had a≤↕♣lready let me borrow their Merason DA>€★≠C1 for a while, so I figured I would l←♦®±isten to the Atoll demo unit as well, oπ"Ωut of politeness if n"αothing else.
I ended up being surprised and impressδ&ed by this thing. Yes, it's r₹≠δeally intended more as anγ& all-in-one streamer, DAC, and pre" ¶εamplifier, but it does not in any way©₹£Ω feel like a compromise as±∞ so many multi-function devic₹∑↑≠es can. In fact I liked t ≈his much more than the Atoll DAC300 ↔ '>which is their dedicate'Ωd DAC (no streamer) using a co>λ↔mpletely different design. The ST300 π₹±Signature has a livel∑<σ♠y, exciting presentation which (§∏mostly) steers clear of information ov∞₹<₽erload. It sounds open, clear, andλ sparkly, yet also captures a good ≠€amount of body and solid note weigδ∏★γht, making for a nicely balanced souφλ±nd overall. Background↓₹s are jet black, and i&•≈maging is very focused and precise. Th>↔εis thing feels like it wo÷<uld fit well in most s♠ ystems regardless of what > ₩ other gear may be involved.
I can really only find two tδ♠hings to complain about. First, I wou"λld say it can become fatiguing aλ♣♥₩fter a while, dependin©σ↑∑g on the rest of the audio β¶≈chain. Some care must be taken in sys¥÷♠₹tem matching to avoid making this oε≈≠therwise minor issue into a major ♥™↕£one. It isn't as anal♥ σ¶ytical as the DiDiT ∏DAC212SE but does still lean slightl♦₹←y in that direction at times₩α$α. Second, macrodynamics, or t• he "puchiness factor", are m∏£♠erely good but not great. Which i↕©×s not a huge deal but cons↑" idering the price is nearly ¶•♠₽$5k, I would have liked to ha↕ve seen a stronger showing here. Espe₽₹↔cially considering how well some of π>☆≈the competition performs (Sch☆₩↔iit Yggdrasil for example) at a lower ☆¥€price. Had it done a little beΩσ tter here the Atoll would have been ∞★'an even stronger cont<$ender and likely a finalist ×β←on my list. (Note: I s♥®✘uspect the exchange rate is wo∏•₹£rking against me here, and if ✘≈the Atoll was priced around $3.5 to >∞ $4k it would be far more compe∞↓ σlling. International market≠Ωs can be tricky.)
Thankfully the DSDAC1.0 Deluxe is σ★able to meet or exceed everything ∞α>the Atoll does. I hear just as much ≤β≥speed and detail (and at times even σ←more) without drawing ¶£→attention to those attributes, and ×↔×the sound is punchier, ©★≥meatier, more tonally r""∏'ich. This makes timbrΩ αe come across as more accurate ♠↔and convincing, yet the Cen.Grand remai≥✘ns exceptionally well >₹∑balanced overall. In δ©most systems the Deluxe DAC woβ≠♦uld have the clear advantage, tλ' ≥hough I could see a s•★ lower/more syrupy chain per♦≠♥haps synergizing better with the Atolδ©l, at least with certa≠♥©in music.
If someone loved the fast ¥≥♦and ultra-resolving s₹★ound of a Rockna Wavedr$£eam but wanted to speγ ↔nd a bit less and pick up integrated εδstreaming in the process, this Aλ≈βtoll ST300 Signature could be a great£© choice. I have not heβ≥♣↑ard Rockna's Wavelight which sells€§ for roughly the sameφ∞ price as the Atoll (but again lacks∏₩•σ integrated streaming<∑λλ) so I'm not sure how that com£¶♣parison would go. My preferenc<¶→£e remains with the Cen.Grand but Atoll ∑δλπElectronique definitely earned m$α ↔y respect with this > experience.
Meitner MA3 ($10,500β§)
This is a comparison I ₽㶕had really looked forward to gπ₹ iven the general similarit→→'ies of the approach - both₹★ DACs use custom FPGA process≈σing for proprietary 16x DS☆¥₽<D upsampling followed by discrete 1-bit ←↔ conversion, and both are ↑×built like absolute ta★Ω×γnks. I had spent time with an MA3 ∑₩↕when it first launch ©ed and was very impressed, ₩€to the point where I feλ₹$'lt it almost beat my Resone♣γssence Mirus Pro Signatur♠ε∏e. Almost, but not quit₹←™e.
Fast forward a couple years and I f€♥igured it might be wise to revi♣≤γsit this device for a second opi ♠nion. I'm glad I did because this ÷™time around it was even more impr₽→↓essive. I'm not sure if ₩≠αit improved based on firmware updates π δor just synergized better wi×₽δ©th the gear I was using, but↔&→ this time I would call σ↔"•it roughly on par with my婶£ previous reference from Resonessence •≈ Labs. Again, I remain thoroughly≤φ® satisfied with that device ☆↕"in terms of sound, so the M♠♠♠eitner MA3 being on the same lev↓↓<el means it could definitely qualify ♣✔₽as a replacement. And the integra←≥ted streaming via Roon is a nice bonus∏¶✔ too.
Compared directly to the Cen.©γGrand Deluxe, I hear the MA✘£3 as being a bit softer in the bass βregion, which detracts≤φ from the sense of artic♥∑♣↕ulation on fast material like metal€§ or trance. It's n♦ε'πot as noticeable with o•¥ther genres but still there≠± if I listen closely.∏≤& The general impression is that the Cβ"γen.Grand is a bit more full bodied and¶☆ dynamic, though again it's not ≥♦₽obvious until I listen c©£''arefully for it. Both DACs h©<•ave superb clarity in the mid∞≈×range and exceptional ÷top-end extension, with the Cen.Grβ σand going very slightly beyond the Meit λner in treble clarity whilst remaini✔±ng totally free of artificial grain.
Both devices are extre±∏mely fluid and organic, an✘♦φd both paint wide open sonic pic£tures, though the Cen.Grand is not≈∏£®iceably more well-defineπ¥d when used with the best recordings ¥'and most spacious/acc®≤urate headphones. Apart frσα¶om that scenario, the soundφ♦φ™stage differences arφ≠≥↕e small enough to be inconsequential.
There were some instances where the←<$ MA3 felt just slightly artificial ×÷≥•when reproducing things like woodwind ≈☆"↕instruments, acoustic stringsλ®, vocals, or other sounds where every™₽♦ aspect must be just right to sound"δπ convincingly lifelike. I ca n't quite put my finger on what ex€≈actly went wrong, but I suspect it had♠ something to do with lead★$≈Ωing edges combined with tone colors©↔™↓ that didn't quite add up to my ear★Ωs. Again, not a huge compl£₩αβaint, and not applicable with many ∑ &εtypes of music. But it stil©∑¶→l came up multiple times≈↔ with the Meitner, yet no♣βγt once did I notice φ₹it with the Cen.Grand.
Ultimately the biggest Ω∞∞∏difference, resultinγg from all the small ones described a±™∑∞bove, is that the Deluxe DAC Ω∏¥ends up feeling simultaneously mo↓®δ♦re engaging and bett♥♠¶₩er refined. The choice then is obviou•α→'s to me: moderately superior sou¥♠nd at significantly ≤∏¶lower pricing? Yep, I'll ♠♦take that option every time.
I did quite like the M ±eitner MA3 though, and definitely c♦×δonsidered it a top finalis←∑¥₩t in my DAC search. Of all the devic &es I tried, it is perhaps the mostπφ ₽ similar in overall character to the ✔♦Cen.Grand, which may beδ♦ helpful for folks trying to u"nderstand what the DSDAC1 α¶↕.0 is like in general.
I have spent a little ti↑ ↔λme with the significantly more expensive EMM Labs DA2 (₩←∞in the latest V2 form) ✔and I would say the DSDAC1♦σ".0 Deluxe reminds me very muα♥ch of that unit. At le©≤ast based on my admittedly limited impr§¶essions. My opinion at↓€₩ the time when trying ≈≠™the DA2 was that of a superchar✘ ↕$ged MA3 - similar tone but ↕§•generally superior in vario≤↕us small ways - and that's t<≤he same vibe I get from the Cen.Gra&♥nd Deluxe. But I did not get eno♦®ugh time with DA2 to draw any solid c∑☆onclusions, nor to inclu de it in this article, so I only men ←♥tion this as a general aside.♥δ
dCS Bartok (pre-Apex vers↑δion at $16,000)
I had high hopes for the Bartok ♥£but have tried it out ✔ "multiple times and ne∞π♠ver been impressed. Especially c©₹×onsidering the price involv→"☆λed. After yet another audition, this ti< me in my own system, my opi££nion has not changed one €♠Ωbit. I do think the £←¥®dCS folks are brilliant↔ £ engineers who obviously gδ o all out with their craft,♦¶>∏ but unfortunately theφ♦α end result in this ≤case just doesn't reson≈ ate with me at all. I find <©the sound entirely too "safe"£€☆↔; and boring, lacking the engagement f€•actor which many oth←•✘er DACs on this list poss×≥←↓ess. Which is strange, § as the various dCS DACs I've trπ☆ied over the years all had €φβa distinct house sound w πhich was very different from'≤ this. They were not perfect, and ¶γ® didn't always suit my sonic≤ ≈≠ preferences, but I appreciated ∞™•'their unique viewpoint for what♥ it was. The Bartok almost seems≤✘♣∑ as if it came from <£an entirely different company ±altogether.
In direct comparison to the DSDAC1.0 De♥ luxe, the dCS Bartok feels somewhat gr$σ£®ay and undefined, lacking i'↑€∑n both authority and "bite". α Transients come across as softΩ¶> and indistinct. Resolution is mediocr §♠e. Focus is smeared. Instrume© nt localization is decent but does not ☆$™stand out. The Cen.Grand h§ε∏λas significantly better midrange projec↕λ∑tion, superior microdetail retrieval,'≥€ a much more defined sense of the pe&₹rformance space, and a₽→♠≈ thicker, more palpable tonality which £♠>equates to more believable timbre. The✔↓≈re really is no compe ♥>tition as far as I'm conc₹→αerned.
Note that the Bartok is not a &γσε$quot;bad" sounding DAC in abso•γlute terms. It doesn♥♥9;t do anything terribly w≥♠¶ rong, per se. In fact its biggest str¶ ★>ength seems to be a lack o$>&f truly egregious weaknes₽∏ses, and if that's what dCS →was shooting for, I guess they succe÷ε☆eded. Again, I'd call it a very &q♦'•≤uot;safe" tuning which does not≥♦↕< offend but also doesn't st✔±and out in any particular attrib↕¶₹♥ute. In this field of very capaαβble devices, the Bartok ju∞₽>st doesn't do anythi♠"ng to elevate itself anyπ €where near the top of the pack froγ∑m a sonic perspective₽¥₹. Factor in the high ©ε∞price and you can see why I'm not vα÷λery enthusiastic about it, apar ×t from perhaps a build quality standpoi☆ nt.
I actually think there&≈σ#39;s a great analogy to be had jσπ↑ust by physically exami♥♥≈σning the Bartok. The construction and mγ♣↑aterials are undeniably high e&←♥≥nd, a fact which is evident to anyone∏β who interacts with the devic ✘e. In this area, it is not emb♠✘£arrassed by any competitor, regφ←γ₹ardless of price. But fr±<✔∞om an aesthetic standpoint it does seem↓•" a bit unexciting if not downright ge§δ¥ neric. See other dCS models like the R£Ωλ←ossini, Debussy, Vivaldi,≤Ω∏ Elgar, or Puccini a§₽✔nd note the unique design langua♠<ge each device had. Love them o↕≤≥∞r hate them, they were not easily α©γconfused with any other brand. N↔★ow take a look at Bartok again. ≥±¥It's certainly not£α₹ ugly, but neither is it visual>↑& ly striking or even very recognizabl€↔©e in terms of design theme. It's ✘just very safe. It actually reminds me of ♥λmy old Esoteric SA-10 from around 15 yeε≤ars ago - another ver∏✘☆÷y well built device with fairly anonymo♥∞us styling which could have belonαΩ★πged to any number of brands. I know loσ₹≤ oks are very subjective$♦♠ but when I compare Bartok to tε&σhe equally well built DSDAC1.0 Deluxe¶♣ , and note the far more inte→β¥resting aesthetic detail on the C♦♣en.Grand, it really stands out •✔to me. But of course so do the pricing ₩&✔and significant sonic advantages.∑☆
Note that dCS has since launchγ ≥ed their "Apex" upgrade, bu α♣∑t I did my evaluation before ©that existed. It brings the price u≈€<p to over $20K. I won't ★& comment on it as I have not≈ yet heard it, but do σ©✘♦I hope it transforms th£<e DAC into something more competiti ←₹γve.
ModWright Oppo 205 (origi& nally $3,795 but worth lots more now)★™
Modwright Instrument≤±s takes the much-loved Oppo U₩α÷→DP-205 universal player and λtotally upgrades the entire signal✘$ path for the audio side. Ther→≥e are tubes involved, and• Lundahl transformers, an ↑d a massive outboard power supply, and✔≠✔↑ many other details such as custom Mod"÷∞Wright capacitors, all$"©₽ of which results in the a♣☆↓←lready great sounding UDP-205 transfoγ $rming into what I consider a↑ top-tier performer. Rather than borrow¶€$ing a review loaner, I actually purc♥ε "hased one for myself and wrote λ♣•about it for Darko Audio, and I still enjoy it on a regular basαis. I also have a small f♦∏§ortune invested in tube upg ↑¥★rades which helped further tune the soλ★δ®und perfectly to my liking.
I've always known ¶×≥this device to be a giant-ki< ∑ller, so it was intere♠sting to contrast it with the Cen.Grγ↕€and Deluxe. Both have a ∑β↔vaguely similar sound overall -• smooth, rich, unforced, a≈'∞nd organic, yet with excellent detai↕¶•©l, imaging, speed, transient respo' nse, and other technicalities÷≤©±. My first impression was tπδ→✘hat of the pair sounding more alike Ω☆®than different, with both being extσ↑£↔remely enjoyable.
As I logged more hours with t↑∑≈ he Cen.Grand, I began to notic≈≤•e certain things which it does ↓¶★in fact handle better than ≥☆☆the ModWright. I'd say the main imp rovement involves even more fluidity, w®∏™ith a greater sense of ea"©λπse to the presentation. T ©₩he Cen.Grand feels more co₹×nfident reproducing absurdly bu×★sy passages or virtuoσ∞so performances as i f it was no big deal. Picture a ♠" world class powerlifter b←"®∑ench pressing what is, to thσ≤↕eir capabilities, the relatively✔∞ small amount of 400 poundsσ↔. While being a very✘≤ impressive lift even≥< for dedicated gym rats, t↕¶£his amount is actually hund∞φ≥✘reds of pounds below our powerlifter&₩φ's maximum. Thus ♥ the feat is made to look ea $₽sy - almost effortle☆'ss - making us forget what a huge accom>₽£↑plishment it actually € 'is. The ModWright Oppo stiφ ♠ ll nails the lift but you can se✘≠nse it bumping up against the limit↑s of its capabilities relative t₹γ©o the more accomplished Cen→δ∞♣.Grand.
The other key differe ✔nce is the treble clarity of the ε¶"♦DSDAC1.0, which is subtly b≠'ut meaningfully superior. B>←•↕rush strokes, trailing edges of cyβ•δ→mbal strikes, and variouα♠s overtones of all types §←sound more delicate anσλd lifelike with the Cen.Grand∏↓ in the chain. This l<eads to a more convi∑¶£ncing portrayal of &q€<uot;they are here"δ♠; performers being live in the space >©σwith me. The ModWright remaεβ<εins exceptional but I think→ we are again bumping÷£ up against the limitati™ε★ons of what it can accomplish here. No Ωshame in it though, tλ>≥ he ModWright still remai♦≠✘ns competitive or dow∞nright superior to almost e>÷'very other competitor in this roundup.↕≥®
On the flip side, the ModWright •sounds more rhythmically bouncy, pun'≈↓chy and bombastic. It&¥α₹♥#39;s got more energy, more ♥÷drive, whilst the Cen.&∏₹Grand feels comparably reserved and bu∞ε&¶ttoned-down - despite it≈₽s supreme capabilities. This par¥πt is largely related to the deli♦γ→berate tuning I've settl↑€©ed on via extensive tuπ↔ ₽be rolling. After spending an ↑✘embarrassing amount of money over the$≠≈✘ years, I arrived at a pair of vintagε♥®e Amperex 7308 gold pin t☆™Ωubes in the output stage, an♥d a Philips 5R4GYS rectifier, to↓ ¥ dial in the ModWright just so.©★&£ In this case the Cen.Grand hδγ↕as a more dignified prese≥≤ntation, as if to say it could do what the ModWrighβ≤t does - if it wanted to. ↓It's got enough mea★♣t on the bones to avoid so§$unding the least bit thin even in direc₹δ←↓t comparison, but can't (or de ×←liberately doesn't) m÷≈∞atch the impact of the≠φ ModWright.
Unfortunately as many readers know, π★Oppo Digital got out of the au≠₩>dio/video business a few years back. So ≤<↔ this device is not suitable to"εδ be my reference, jus"★π×t based on my self-imposed cr ™π$iteria of availabilit♠™♣y. It would certainly be a finalis§©t if not for that issue. Interesting→$±ly, the demand for Oppo 205 units has o✔∞♦nly increased since the comp≠≥any exited the market. Factor in the st✘©eady increase in tubeδ¶ prices lately, and this is one of the↓™ few pieces of audio e∞→quipment I own which has actually si→↓±gnificantly appreciated in v₹≈♦alue beyond the original purchase pri§₹←ce. To acquire a mint new UDP-205 th♠"←<ese days (if one can↑≠× even find such a thing), then doσ₩ the ModWright treatment (§÷×σit still appears availablγ$βe on their website but that cou✘≈ld be an oversight), and then add N₩≥®OS tubes of the highest caliber, ☆← would very likely cost mo♠&☆re than double what I←≥γ♦ paid a few years back.
Esoteric N-05XD ($11,000)
I loved the old Esoteric gear from ± δway back. I still have very fond memo✘קries of the P-30/D-30 combo from tε≤he mid 1990s, and the evo£☆∞φlutionary P-70/D-70 that follo∏γ₹wed. The X-series of the early 20≥£εε00s was similarly exceptional. After δα↔that point their sound star¥≠α✔ted deviating from my preferen¥↑ces, and I lost interest $πdespite still having huge r₹♥espect for the brand. Theφ÷£ build quality and appearance '₹♠of the subsequent K and D series mo<σ←€dels was superb, but the sound "§↑never really clicked w₹γ£ith me.
The N-05XD is part of a ₩α≠new generation of Esoteric produβφ☆cts which starts fresh using ♣¥their new "Master Discrete&quo∑t; DAC implementation rather than the €αprior AKM chips. And to my ea≈$φ↑rs this is a vastly better sound. It&©→✔#39;s much more full bodied and wel≤♥l rounded than the previo©∞us models which always₩©≠© felt a bit thin and brittle to me.♥©σπ N-05XD also gets int≤©←egrated streaming, preamεφp capabilities, and even a balanced hφφ eadphone output, though§ I mainly focused onΩβ the device as a dedicat'α& ed DAC.
I'd say the N-05DX does qualify₹ππ as a top-tier DAC, though ±₹>I'm not in love wiα th that five-figure price ta ☆g. It has a big, bold presentatσ"∞ion that retains enough grace and refin•∑&ement to sound universally appealing.♣β Those who loved the ♥∏<±old Esoteric sound might find it oveφε♦rly brash but to me it&♥≥ seems far more lifelike and rδ≠ealistic, and I think m€αost listeners these days would agree.•"± Even the old flagship K-01, ¶←↓which sold for around $22k a σ©♥ decade ago, feels dry and papery '₽in comparison to the N-05DX. <≠ Anyone who was turned off b↔ Ωy the prior direction Esoteric went sh✔•♦ould consider revisiting if they₽™ get a chance - it's a completely d£↕®∞ifferent experience.
Despite those improvements, the Cen.Gr≤×and is even more pun±chy and flowing, with<♣"₽ greater dynamic contrast. Theπ₹ε Esoteric sounds very φ×slightly rounded at times, aλ♠×lmost in deliberate backlash ≤☆☆ against their former clinicalβ₽★ approach. This means less δ✘↔transient snap than the Cen.Gr α÷and and an almost "mellow&€±quot; feel to the preseδ'ntation. The Cen.Grand$φ is liquid smooth yet manages to be mo÷©re insightful, with ☆>→₹a deeper view into the mix wh≥$♣ich somehow remains fatigue-free. T✘∞ ♥he only time I might prefer the N-05XD ∏≠ is when using an othβ↓$erwise overcooked system with a sγπharp amplifier and bright headphone₽±s - there the greater dampin±♣•σg of the Esoteric would come off as suφ§♣¶perior control and proba©✔<↕bly do the system a favor≥δ≥. In any other context I p'π$λrefer the Deluxe DAC by a reas∏≈onable margin.
Still, the Esoteric N-0∞♠5XD is a superb DAC overall∏ . It's everything I feel the dC©&♥S Bartok should have been, at a far l©♠★✘ower cost, and with a much more ®♦striking appearance. ↑™My complaints about the va£↓ε≤lue proposition might be abated '±by using the N-05XD as an all-in-one,♣≥∑ since the headphone output sλ€★βeems quite well done ←∑≈from my limited use. I b♣¶₹elieve the streaming✘₩ aspect was co-developed by Korean fi≈€rm Lumin, which means it should↓">♠ be of a very high cal∞≤© iber as well. So while it →✘was not my first choice, this thin &g ranks fairly high on the l™≠✔ist overall.
Lampizator (various prices)
I was able to demo t→↔hree different Lampizator£<±∏ models over the course of this₹✘ project: the Baltic 3 (~$6,•α500), a balanced Atlanti₹↕c TRP (~$10k), and a Big Seven mk2 (≠✘~$10k). That represents something₩∏¶ like the entry level to mid★£✘ range of the current lineup$Ω∏×. I believe there is a∏→•t least one slightly less expensive mod $•el available, and several h≠π∞igher end offerings beyond the Big S↕×even, priced into th₩ e stratosphere. I'm also aware tha≤∞↓t Lampizator is constantl₹↕☆y updating things and releasing≥✔ newer iterations. I'm not sur★ ♦e if the models I heard✘ are considered "® ¶™;current" at this point'₩, but since they were all sold new≠®∞" within the past year or so, my imp↕β☆≠ressions should stil₹<∞φl be relevant.
I came away from my Lampizatσ©or experience with mixed feelingε§ s. On the one hand, I he≤× ard a common thread bet★ ween all three units, something lik e a "house sound" ♣←✔that I believe Lampizat§∏∑£or was shooting for when building✘γφ these devices. And it certainly★∏↕§ has some charm. Warm, Ωεrich, flowing, and nicely detδ ≥•ailed, I absolutely get why so many∞↕✔ people love their gear. Despite tryi£'♥♣ng three models, withλ¶ each one being meticulouslΩy tuned with the owner's cho¥÷ice of specific tubes, they₩€ all ended up sounding rem£φ≈→arkably similar, with just su¶εbtle improvements as I moved up the l →• ine to the more expensive mo'≈$≠dels. I suspect the single-ended ∞• Atlantic TRP (which sh ≥aves thousands of dollars off the bal<ε§anced version) may be the best '¶value of the bunch.
That said, despite the three different ₹♥models and their various tu♣'®be rolling selection♠✘<σs, to my ears all of the←♠m seemed a bit overly dull o♦☆n the top end. Detail re€ trieval was excellent in general (par↓•ticularly with the Big Seven), yα€ et treble was somewhat push¶ '©ed down into the mix, o♠↕&♠r given lower priority than I'd li↑™βke. Transients felt a little §♥>rounded which made the s>×ound less expressive overall, and the> soundstage, while spacious, was ♥↔γless distinct than the Cen.Grand pr ✘esentation. Lastly, there seemed to"↓• be a mild timbre-related issue, mores©∞o on the Baltic but still pre €sent in the other mo₹σdels, where instrument tonality felt a<↓ bit off. I can't quit★≈$₹e put my finger on what exactly caused★¥≈ this but I did not heδ☆₩ar the same issue on♠£ the Cen.Grand, nor the MeΩ♦£itner, Esoteric, Wavelength, o★φ§r ModWright units. So ul×←timately while I could✔≥ certainly build a nice↑™ rig out of any one of these thre ≈¥÷e DACs, I didn't conside★©♦r them particularly com≈♣pelling for my reference use.
I can already hear th&≤£e disagreement now. A'§ε legion of Lampi-loversε•↕÷ calling me deaf or acc™>using my associated gear of no÷★ ®t being up to the task. When a brand ma₽©↓kes so many rabid followers, they must©∑→→ be doing something right... and yet in t ↕ his case that "something"$® just doesn't seem to ✔÷σλline up with my needs or prefe∞←®♠rences.
Soul Note D-2 ($9,000)
Impeccably built and uniquely styl∏ ♦↔ed, Soul Note DACs are highly reφΩgarded in Japan but ha↑¥™ve little exposure herλΩe in the USA. This thi ©✘ng has some interesting feature'& ♣s like quad ES9038Pro chips a÷&→≥nd the ability to switch≠✘ to mono mode - allo'¶wing users to run a pai÷®¶r of them in dual mo"÷₩no just like the flags©Ωhip Esoteric Grandioso DAC. It's a ↑ φseriously impressive device - fully b↓←alanced, dual mono, massive chassis₹✔, very complex internals, with atte✔<ntion paid to the finest details s'π≥uch as vibration contr×₽∞ol and damping. This thi™∞→ng seems a natural compet₹™itor for fellow Japanese brands suc∑h as Luxman, Esoteric, and Accup€&↓↑hase, at least in terms o≤™f design and build.
After extensive listening, my imp•∞₩ression of the D-2 is that it does h×∑±ave what I've heard ←δ∏referred to as a very "Japaneδ ₩®se" tuning. That means em↔εphasis on airy, delicate treble, be↔¶αautiful tone, and a somew✔φ®δhat polite, reserved tonality. It♣λφ&9;s a highly technical aα₽✘>nd complex signature which manε✘♦ages to reproduce challenging s&↑ounds like trumpets with exceptiona>✔l clarity and bite, yet w♠✘γ☆ithout sounding overly harsh.♥<← Seperation, or the space♥♦' between instruments and th↑↑σ☆e ability to pick them out ∞©®while listening, is e★★xtremely well done. This is ev÷γπ↕erything I wished my old Esoteric D-07x≥≈γ could have been, but wasn't$ε>.
The DSDAC1.0 Deluxe sounds richer,§ thicker, and more weighty in comπ∑§parison to the Soul Note. It₩✔★'s one of those things where I don↕βλ't necessarily notice how↔ much I'm missing until I swap com©€ponents, at which point£♦λ> the difference becomes strikσδ↔ing. The Soul Note is beautiful in it↔¶s own way, particularly with musi←¶c like folk, acoustic singer/songπ αwriter, solo piano works, or ja∞₩±←zz trios. If that's ∑§your main musical diet, the Soulλ×∏¥ Note might be a perfect mat™→<ch. But I also enjoy all sorts of meσ©←tal, electro, large scale or☆₽chestral works, reggae, etc, and f≈↓₩or those genres the Soul Note feels"☆ less capable. Meanwhile I nev$®"er feel like the Cen.Grandπ&π is too thick and rich to enjoy thε×β$ose lighter genres, but rather that ✘ it seems to balance eve $™rything very well andΩ€↑★ thus work with all m≤₽εusic equally. And the Cen.Grand doe→$™§s not seem to miss any fine detai✘♦↑¥l in the process, which to me is th'&↓ e most rare achievementσ&εγ of all. I could certain♠₽ε∞ly work around the Sou<♠l Note sound by pairing the D-2∑∏ with suitably warm amβ∞plification and headphones, ±±but that might miss t∞★±he point - this DAC is exβ♣γtremely capable and deliberately voiced©• this way. Which for some listeners mi✔₹$ght be the ideal choice.
My other complaint about×"™¶ the Soul Note is that the USB implemen∏↑tation seems rather poor i✔£✔✔n quality. Which is di✔$♦πsappointing since the d≈♣λ÷evice is otherwise so well desig>ned and implemented. T₹∏hey use some unique data tran¶ γsfer method which requires specia$∏l drivers and thus might nΩ₩ot work with all Linu<≤x-based streamers. And even after fussi₩πδ∑ng with drivers, the so≤↓≠und over USB feels somewhat↔↑ flat and etched to my ears. I much pre₽γfer AES which is how I did the bu∏↓lk of my auditioning. Given the ambi ↓tious design and the way Soul Note bra∑Ωgs about their USB imple™₩♦mentation, I can only conclude thisπ♦φ was somehow an inte♠€↑↔ntional choice, yet it baffles me to ↑≠think that anyone would pre₽∞γ♣fer this over the sound we get fr≤±×om AES or coaxial.
I didn't do my research befoβ≥rehand, so I only discov≈β♠↔ered the D-2 having four software-se♥★lectable USB modes after the fact. ♦"♥Perhaps tweaking those settings would ✔↕αhave made an improvement. Likewise I φ>had no idea they allowed use₽ε♣rs to run the DAC in←®×✘ NOS mode, despite that term bei∞↕<>ng right there on the fro"✔φ≥nt panel (in my defense, th§e text is quite smal£δ↔↕l). There's a chance this ₽←may have altered the soni®¶×∞c experience in positiv<σ e ways, but I missed my chance to∑≈λ find out one way or th♣<e other.
I've heard that "serious&q∏'uot; audiophiles in Ja <≠→pan tend to run the Soul Notσ♠β₹e D-2 with fancy external clocking, and®™ often in pairs for dual mon₹¶o mode. Which may fix some of my com✘≥plaints about politeness and tonal wei₹$ght. But at that point we'∏∏;re talking at least $2>±π0k or beyond which is where I really< ∑↕ lose interest. I remain intrigued b ♥σy Soul Note in general,¥× ™ but the Cen.Grand feels "α' like a superior DAC for ≈↓my preferences, and for les ≤s money too.
Audio Research DAC 9 ($10,000)
I've never been terrib₹¥♠ly impressed with Audio >©γResearch DACs, and the DA™λπC 9 did nothing to cha> ¶nge that opinion. It's β÷a fine sounding DAC, with a strong '<sense of resolution, good ima♥×ging, decent articulation, and a₹β" firm sense of low-end authority whic>$h makes for an engag¥♣↔ing listen. It'sΩ γ• built to the usual ARC st andard, which is honestly where a lot ∞Ω¶∞of the price tag comes from. Buεσ☆↑t as far as sound, to my ear'≥s it seems like a DAC which should coφ₹st around $2-3k rather than f≤™'ive digits.
I would put the Denafri∑λps Pontus II (~$1,800) ¶σup against the DAC 9 an€✔y day and expect the Chinese contenφ∑™der to put up a good fight, even c$ε§oming out ahead in certa™•☆in areas. Ditto for the Schiit Ygd₩₽εrassil ($2,699) or the Matrix X-Sabr€ ♥e III ($2,999). And I think the Y× ulong DA-1 with Power Sta ≤©tion PSU (combined $4k) actually outshπ₹₹ines the DAC 9 in most aspects. So₹® it's not that the Audi<×o Research DAC 9 isn't a δ✘very enjoyable DAC - it certain£®ly is - but rather a question of÷×☆ value. If you honest ♦σly tell me that the DAC 9 is worthy ♥"of the $10k price, then logically >"the Cen.Grand DSDAC1.0 Deluxe shoul σ≤↑d sell for at least double that. But λ♣thankfully it only goes♠ β for a little over $6k.
Audio Research makes★♠ great amplifiers and preamps. It✔✘₹↑9;s one of those brands₩∏ like McIntosh that people tend to≤₹✘ stick with, building out the systemσ← with visually matching gear and u∞>pgrading every once in a while t←£™<o a newer or higher model. ARC® users could do a lot worse than th€×e DAC 9 - it really does have a pleas≠★₩ing sound to it - but they ≈±☆could also get a lot more ™©¥for their money if th$Ωγδey didn't mind deviating fr§£'→om the brand.
Rockna Wavedream Signatur ∑£e (non-balanced version®σ✔, $13,000)
Rockna's Wavedream was alre×↕ady a popular high-eσ£nd DAC, having been •"σ÷around in one form or another for ✔≈some years by now. The Signature veφrsion contains various tweaks and u₽©pgrades which supposedly bri♣β ngs performance to an entirely new l∑evel. I haven't compar♥♥∞βed them directly so I won't©×±© comment on that, but I will say≈→ the Signature editio✘γ₩n is a superb DAC and cerε♥₽$tainly in the top-tier of ever ↕ §ything I have heard.
I really, really enjoyed this DAC. It hε÷∏as a very fast, extremely'♣↓$ detailed signature, but → ♥ also manages great real•<↑ism and tonal richne∏ss. Soundstage is huge, i• γmaging precise, and low-level detail ≥©immense. It also has supe$≠→rb dynamic punch, puttin÷g an energetic spin on everything i®★γt plays. All in all, thi↔♥πs is among the very best D∞✘ACs I've ever heard.
Compared to the Rockna, theγ☆₽α Cen.Grand sounds very similar in≥✘∏☆ many ways, but placπ$δes more emphasis on musical liquidiλ¶≤×ty rather than speed and punch. Everyth ≥ing flows more smoothly and ∏γhas a slightly more relaxed f≈eel, whilst the Wavedream £>"is more lively. Both are extremely t₹φ↓echnically accomplished but th₽♦<e Rockna makes that more obvious o'≠σσr in your face, while the Cen→••.Grand hits you in a more org¶©✘∞anic way... yet the tiniesγ₩αt details are still there if you liγ§←$sten for them. I guess I'd call™₽ the Rockna presentation more bold an₽≥↔±d lively while the Cen.Grand is more γ✔✘≤graceful in focus, if that makes any se↔∑→nse at all. I could c≈ertainly be happy with eit$≈her of them as my refΩ±Ω∏erence, from a purel© ↔y sonic perspective.
When I first auditioned the Signature↑★↔φ DAC, it was paired with the matchingεα☆ Rockna Wavedream NET streaming tra≥<nsport. That made for a dynamite combi≤σ®>nation, particularly via I2S wh&₹✔ich seemed to offer the best perform↕¥×ance. I was later able to demo the DA C at my home with some other transpor↔×ts, and found the re♥☆sult somewhat less pleasing. It w"<♠₹as still a great DAC but lost a∑$ little of the magic I≤λ∞ heard the first tim©£≠✔e around. The best result I got was uλ'sing my Euphony Summus music s∞↔&erver - an extremely high quality tα¶ransport in my experiencβε>e - but it just didn't★® Ω reach the same level as the matching₽ → NET transport. Thankfully RΩβ ✔ockna has a mode to work with the PS Ω★$&Audio "standard" σ↑€for I2S so it plays wellλ∏ with my Euphony as well as ★₽↔with my Cayin iDAP-6, but even so I ♣φ εfeel the NET would be↑✘ a required purchase to un∑Ω×lock the full magic ₽↓of this device.
Factor in the significantly higher> ₹ pricing, which climbs <&even more if you want a balanced versi∑>on, and I'd say the&↓≥♠ value proposition is st♠€σ↓rongly in favor of the D∞™SDAC1.0 Deluxe. But I wou☆™↑ld not argue with someone who chos"→↑e the Rockna instead.
Merason DAC1 (original version, £ ♦$6,000)
Switzerland has given us •δmany high-end audio br≤π®☆ands over the years. Weiss Engi♠©≠neering, Piega, Nagra, Thorens, CH↔ε Precision, Goldmund, Soulution,∞'∞∏ the list goes on and on. Merason is n®ot a name I was familiar w←↓₩"ith prior to this project,£¶ but it is certainly on my rada€≤λr now.
The DAC1 is an interesting dev≥↑✘÷ice as it doesn't really do an£☆βything particularly uni¶•↑que as far as design goes. Sλ♣♥o no custom FPGA, discrete ladder net<•↓work, or proprietary upsampling alg ∑orithm, and not even↔" the latest/greatest DAC≠₹Ω chip(s) on board - Mer÷¥ason uses a pair of TI ♥☆ PCM1794A chips circγσ★↓a 2004. The draw here × ↕is not buzzwords or eme™£rging technology but rather good ♠®♠✔old fashioned engineering using establ☆αished concepts executed extremely we'↕>ll. That means fully sy≥ mmetrical dual-mono design, clean p÷δower via extremely well regu<lated PSU, discrete cl"♠ass A output stage, etc↓ . And the result is something <"I feel challenges anyσ®® new technology one mφ₽ight find in competin↓♠g DACs.
The Merason, like the Cen.Grand₽•↕, manages to combine speed and clari✘&γty with smoothness for a very hi±♥<λgh degree of listenability. I know that's probably not§® a real world but useful none↓¥'theless. Both devices have w'©₽eighty, authoritativ≤e tonality, both can do silky treble₩ ±, and both project larg'≠ e performance spaces with excellσ→ent localization. Did I ment§αδion this was a very capable D"≥¥δAC?
In the end, I feel the Ce↓ Ω¶n.Grand has the edge in a few♣© areas, though the Merason is not w÷₩✔₩ithout some victories of its own. ←&↔≠The DSDAC1.0 Deluxe does ≤<even better at layering anσ"× d soundstage depth, has a slightly swe₽₩÷eter upper midrange, and holds t↔®hings together more convincing★λ<≤ly when things get real→δly busy. In exchange, the Meras•on does have a little more low-end sla↓±₽m, making the sense of <Ω∞dynamic impact greate♥→& r. So it's a trade off ¥∑♣and I could see someone choosγ&φing the Merason depending on the±α↓↓ir music preferences and sys$Ωtem configuration. For me, more ofte↓≈n than not I gravitated towards ♥¥γthe Cen.Grand, but both ∞™₹presentations were more ali☆αke than different and bo§☆±th seemed to have merit.
Two examples really sealed the←§★₩ deal for me choosing the ¶₽ Cen.Grand over the similarly incredib♠≠÷"le Merason. First, t'∞"he song "Le Veuve et γβ>Le Martyr" by technical death m★δ'♣etal band First Fragment, off their σ×€★superb 2021 release Gloire Eternelle. The track opens with guitars doing a so•§'εrt of flamenco-inspired intro, and©☆ one would be excused for thinkin÷ g they accidentally selected s↔↑↕omething by Rodrigo y Gabriel≤×σa rather than a metal band. It then t←↑ransitions to a bit of funky slaΩ≈φ∏p-bass action of the ×↓Infectious Grooves variety. Finally, aσ→bout one minute in, things get going inπ≈to the more expected tech-metal&§↔ direction, with rapid-fiε≤re drums and soaring guitar € ↑™notes. Both DACs handle thi πεs track beautifully but the Mera±↕φ<son actually feels a little "↓φ≥;one note" in terms of£∑ overemphasizing the dri÷&←ve and rhythm. The Cen.Gran"↓d has ample authority but fe±$els more balanced acros§γs the board.
The second example is the upcoming Re★$↑ference Recordings release of&n™↕★₹bsp;The Complete Beethoven Piano Concert✘γos, with Sir Donald Runnic₩∑les conducting the Grand Teton Mβ∏£usic Festival Orchestraαλ. Playing the 24/192 ≈↕€$FLAC version of this hi&↑☆ghly-recommended release (a>π← lso available in 3-disc hy™≈©↑brid SACD format if you p™>refer), both DACs sound phenome ∑nal, but I hear a greater sense of sca™$$€le, space, and separation w₽φ✔ith the Cen.Grand in th↓> e system. It's just that much easi™✔≠∏er to pick out individual¥ ± instruments, or identify$π" their location on the stage. The Meras→β≈on is certainly not bad iγ↑n this regard, but I feel the Cen.Gra↓&'σnd has the edge.
It fascinates me how ↕×closely these two DACs compe¥♣™☆te, and how much they have ∞in common sonically. The Me↓✔±≤rason is a PCM only device w ™ hich tops out at 24/192 and won&#≠∑39;t accept DSD at all. Mean×☆while the Cen.Grand can&£∞♥λnbsp;only process DSD and ₹§<'converts everything to that fo♦™rmat. While I ended up choosing ¥the Cen.Grand, I would not hesitate t®¶o recommend Merason eithe∑≈ r. The brand just updated to the $↔€DAC1 to mk2 status and↑§✘∏ increased the price to a>∏∑round $8k. I haven't $≠§heard it so I won't comment aΩπΩbout how much it improves and wh>∏ether it is worth the cost.
Aavik D280 (~$11,000)
Getting to audition this deviεφΩ✘ce was a surprise as Aav¶£ik really doesn't have a big prσ σesence in the USA, despite bein ♦•δg part of a major Danish hi-fi₩σ≤σ group that offers ma>φ&σny high-end products under vari←σγous brand names.
I thought it sounded pleasing in ÷♦a sort of "audio show♦" way, where eve'₩rything is great as long as you play ₩☆Norah Jones, Stan Ge<¥"tz, or Pink Floyd. Very®≤ beautiful presentation, lit-up mi ↑ γdrange, layered soundstage, and sweet t'∞reble. Also a really large,∞≤ open presentation, with nicely de☆↓fined imaging.
Digging into more real-world•↔∏ music - metal, funk, electro©→♠±, punk, ambient - most of which would₩≈δ± never fly at an audio show, and thi±®s DAC somewhat fades into®₹ mediocrity. It doesn't reall≠σy do anything wrong per se, but neit≥€ her does it do anythi↑↓ng to elevate itself beyond sometΩ↓hing like a Matrix X-Sabre 3 wh>ε$ ich sells for less than 1/3 the✔§ price. In fact I would pr♠obably take the Matrix, or the Atoll, or the DiDiT, or the Musi±'cian Aquarius over the D2ו>•80 based purely on sound alon'βe, not even factoring±" in the cost.
Again, this is a beautiful looking and ↓ very well built DAC that screams hig↕α☆<h-end at first impression, $≤ but the sonics don't qδ"Ω>uite back it up. The performan₽≥ce is not bad at all, jus∑Ω©πt not good enough for fu✔σrther consideration, an✘₹βd not even close to the Cen.Grand D™§©SDAC1.0 Deluxe.
Wyred4Sound 10th Anniversary Editio≈ε≠↔n ($4,500)
I've reviewed this♣ ↓ device at Darko Audio https://darko.audio/201φσ7/12/wyred-4-sound-dac2v©±2se-10th-anniversary-review/ roughly 6 year✔₹€©s ago. Despite the years passin✘$€g, it remains a very capable "©performer, and still ticks all m §y sonic boxes for a reference component♥£ γ. I do prefer the Cen.Grand by↑$☆ a decent enough margin, probably becau$>se it has a pretty similar so→nic character and just takes thin€∞gs further in most aspects€§©'. I've always loved the Annive©★rsary Edition, and despite the many diσ"¥fferences in design theme, the Cλ×☆en.Grand sounds like £ •>it could practically be an upgr♦φaded version of the Wyred DAC.
This DAC was a limite$↔×d edition, initially only planned for ×∑✘a small run (hence the"•✔ "Anniversary" des♦↓✔←ignation). The company did e€∞®xtend it and release more batches over ≠αthe years, but I don'€Ω;t know if they still ever have new ₹★αunits available at t✘<♦his point. I will see t>$hem on the second hand market from t¥♦ime to time, at pricing≈ Ω¥ that seems very attractive for the p→₩©•erformance this unit offers. So whileβ$" I did not use this as my ultimateλ reference I can very strongly rβ₹÷ecommend it, no matter '↓how you may be able to a¥ cquire it.
Bricasti Design M3 ($5,500)
This brand is one that I↓<&9;ve flirted with owning for years. T♠λΩhe M3 is relatively af∏βfordable compared to t∑↕he bigger M1, and I actually prεφefer it in some ways. It tra↑βdes some realism and detail retrieval fπφor a more visceral signature that'♣÷ I find very satisfyiε₩ ←ng. I also love the fact that Bricasti¥∑↕ offers a Roon ready networ®§λk card option, as well as an i≤∏γntegrated headphone outp₹¶×λut on the M3h version. Seems like a gre×®at way to grab all-in-one funcλ"¶λtionality.
I don't find the M3 to φ$"be quite on par with the Cen.Gra£∑>↓nd though. It actual♥∑ly sounds a lot more like tπ§₹ he Wyred4Sound Anniversary DAC tha♠≤★÷t I love so much. That →>♦is to say, similar g™♥eneral sonic picture to the DSDAC1 ±.0 but not as capable. If I didn'γ¥♥¥;t already have the Wy₹" &red DAC, and had not experi↑βenced the Cen.Grand, the Bricasti migh§§λεt end up being my choice for a new ref↔>ΩΩerence. It's that good.
I wanted to audition the newer M→✘1S2 which sells for $12k. I've hearΩ'←d that model takes the technica€ l excellence of the older M1 an♥← ≈d bakes in some of the p↓>®↓unchy, guilty-pleasuδ↔☆≠re fun of the M3. But I wδε↑asn't able to trac←ε↓k one down very easily.
Miscellaneous
Some others I tried got lost in ↕± the shuffle, so I don't fee¥λ↑l confident giving specific com₩☆€parisons about their sonic performance'>Ω. But I do want to mention a ¶Ω¶→few brief impressions of some note≥₽×worthy contenders:
*The Aqua La Voce S3 ∞∞♦is probably my favorite offer♠&♥™ing from Aqua. I don§ φ't particularly care f→≤λor their higher models and find th←<em to have poor value for money. The<→ La Voce S3 is not on par with Cen. ™Grand but remains a great DAC☆₹ overall.
*I had never heard of Canor Audio, but © their DAC 2.10 is a pretty decent o↓®≈ption for the price.✘™ Lively and dynamic, it seems very f≤₹₹♠lattering of poor recordings, σand makes everything soundα★ fun. Not the last word in realism, st♠÷∞ill enjoyable for what it is.↕Ω
*MFE Tube DAC SE sounds very sim★€→ilar to the Audio Research DAC9, a™₽ t less than half the price. Much more c≥± εompelling in that price range, though ε∏εstill not enough to overcome the C↑'en.Grand sound. This iα↔$s another brand I had never hear≤δ♥→d of but would like to try more.
*The Ideon Ayazi mk2 with their matchin∏εg 3R Master Time external clockβ★®ing box is a really musical, engagi$↕ng device. Not the most detaile★Ω d but tons of fun and really great ≠€ε for taming bright headphones∞§. Similar in some ways to ×→♣♣the Canor DAC 2.10 but π with superior details andβ♣₹ particularly a wider, deep♦γδer, more convincing soundstage. This m★εakes me want to try the higher end Ideδβon Absolute DAC but the p™₹ricing on that puts it σ♥∏αin Playback Designs territory so Iββ≠ probably won't bother. Plus ♥ ®I am not sure it can even be found very÷£π easily in my region. St✔↕ill, the "affordable" A ÷♠πyazi DAC is worth inv♣™₩estigating if you like musical soun™> ding DACs which retain good technicφ↔alities.
Conclusions
After auditioning se≥δ®veral dozen worthy contenders, I can h✔₽onestly say the Cen.Grand↕∏"♠ DSDAC1.0 Deluxe is β¶the most impressive DAC I've h εeard. While not inex→φpensive, I actually αΩ↑•find it to be a great value ☆₽₹compared to what others have to offer₹αλ₽, in the same price rεγ®ange as well as far beyond.§☆×λ The sound is simultaneously smo×≠"oth yet transparent, wide open yet intiβ₩mate, dynamic yet nuanc• <ed, to the point that I really d±>πon't hear any weaknesses.
Is it the "best" DAC out ther ♣'e? Of course not. There i$♥≈s no "best" DAC"$★☆, only one that is "best"↕ ♦₹ for a particular user or≠∑α a specific system. For my mus×Ω✘ical tastes and associated equip→✘ment, the DSDAC1.0 Delux♦α∞e is the one, making it a pe↓ rfect choice for my re↕π↑×ference DAC.
Note that this thread started∏®↔ as a discussion and intro to £$πthe brand. I am now editing my inαitial post to reflect the full evalu↕∏♣←ation, which may cause som±♥e of the initial replies and discussσ₽≥"ion to not make sense. I can't≤∑ figure a better way®×γ to handle this so please bear with me✘☆.
