A rare review or a rare misstep?

[microstrip]

DaveyF.

Can you tell us briefly what the reviewer did not like in the DAC8? Almost all of us did not read the review.

I have had the DAC8 side by side with the ARC CD8, and kept the CD8 in my system - the CD8 type of sound is, IMHO, more adequate to my all ARC system.
But what I listened from the DAC8 using some HiRez files played using JRivers media player made me dream about a DAC8 with tubes.

 

[asiufy]

What issue of TAS is that? Didn't see it in the July/Aug issue #224

 

[DaveyF]

What issue of TAS is that? Didn't see it in the July/Aug issue #224

This article is in the new edition ( September) with the new Wilson XLF's on the cover. In the review, Alan Taffel states that the new DAC has more features than the older DAC 7 but he then goes on to say that the biggest problem of the new DAC is noise vs. the older unit. Apparently, the new unit's noise floor is considerably higher than the old unit. In addition, Alan complains that the new unit has less ability to render timbres and is less able to render dynamic nuances. Alan concludes that the DAC 8 is not as involving, musically informative or relaxing as the DAC7 or even the much less pricey Bryston BDA-1.

ARC rebuts the review in the Manufacturer's comments section stating that the DAC8's noise floor issue doesn't add up, stating that the DAC8 measures much lower in noise than the DAC7. They then say that the DAC8 was designed as a technological advancement over the DAC7 and the same design team worked on both units. Only thing that ARC didn't say was whether anyone actually listened to the new unit prior to making these claims or bringing it to the market

 

[JackD201]

It wouldn't be the first time a unit with less noise or distortion was less liked.

 

[opus111]

Apparently, the new unit's noise floor is considerably higher than the old unit. In addition, Alan complains that the new unit has less ability to render timbres and is less able to render dynamic nuances. Alan concludes that the DAC 8 is not as involving, musically informative or relaxing as the DAC7 or even the much less pricey Bryston BDA-1.

Do you know if they changed the DAC chip(s) between the 7 and the 8? The description of the sound of the DAC8 is typical for S-D type devices. I did a quick search and couldn't find out what chips were being used in the DAC7 other than 'BB, 24/192 capable'.

 

[DaveyF]

Do you know if they changed the DAC chip(s) between the 7 and the 8? The description of the sound of the DAC8 is typical for S-D type devices. I did a quick search and couldn't find out what chips were being used in the DAC7 other than 'BB, 24/192 capable'.

opus, I have no idea as to whether they changed the DAC chip. I would presume that since Alan apparently heard such a large difference between the two units that they did.

BTW, Andre did bring up a good point in an earlier post, one cannot automatically assume that since Alan Taffel didn't like this piece that it is definitely flawed. Although, he did substantiate his reasoning very well, I don't think one can without doubt, state that Alan's system and taste are the same as yours/mine. As example, looking at his assoc gear that he used to review the piece, it is highly weighted towards ss, (albeit good IMO),the transport used was apparently his Goldmund #36 along with a HP Windows 7 server. I would question if there is possibly some kind of a mismatch between the DAC8 and these front end pieces.

ONLY way to really know what this DAC sounds like is to listen in one's own system at home and determine.

However, this isn't the point of my OP. My point is that it is too rare to see such a review and I question why, since audio history is littered with pieces that initially got rave reviews only to be later determined to be less than stellar. IMHO, most reviewer's could and should be far more discriminatory than they are. Alan's review, if he got it right, is a breath of fresh air...again, IMHO.

 

[mep]

Only thing that ARC didn't say was whether anyone actually listened to the new unit prior to making these claims or bringing it to the market

Do you honestly think for one minute that ARC didn't listen to their new DAC before they released it??

 

[MylesBAstor]

Do you honestly think for one minute that ARC didn't listen to their new DAC before they released it??

Through all the iterations.

 

[DaveyF]

Myles, who knows? It wouldn't be the first time that a company has released a "better" product without putting it to the listening test first, and I doubt it will be the last.
Even if ARC did listen to the new piece, doesn't mean to say that whoever listened to the piece has the same values as say, Alan Taffel, or even the majority of a'philes out there.
If we are to believe what Alan wrote, then this new DAC is purely and simply a step backwards.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles, who knows? It wouldn't be the first time that a company has released a "better" product without putting it to the listening test first, and I doubt it will be the last.
Even if ARC did listen to the new piece, doesn't mean to say that whoever listened to the piece has the same values as say, Alan Taffel, or even the majority of a'philes out there.
If we are to believe what Alan wrote, then this new DAC is purely and simply a step backwards.

It would be a first for me though. Could you cite a couple of examples?

 

[microstrip]

I feel guilty of not having listened the DAC8 with more care, but I was not considering it. There are many enthusiastic reviews of the DAC8 around - I remember that I read plenty of good opinions, even at computeraudiophile. From what I heard from my local ARC distributor some time ago, the DAC7 was never a success, but the DAC8 had much better acceptance, even from people who did not own ARC systems.

 

[Bruce B]

It would be a first for me though. Could you cite a couple of examples?

I'll give you one... Dan Lavry does not have a listening room. He has a workbench and he told me first hand he relies mainly on feedback from the field on what his units sound like.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I'll give you one... Dan Lavry does not have a listening room. He has a workbench and he told me first hand he relies mainly on feedback from the field on what his units sound like.

Sorry to show my ignorance but I'm really not familiar with Dan's stuff. That and it's digital Guess that's great if you like being a Beta tester but don't think that business model is successful for the long term in high-end audio (can't speak for Pro audio)

OK that's one Bruce. But do you think the vast majority of successful designers or take your speakers never listened to them? Or your Pass amps? Or your Playback Design components? Or your past Wilsons? Or Steve's Lamms. Or any leading high-end company? More to the point, don't you even think they send product out to some trusted listeners for feedback? That's a fact.

More to the point. Do you think that any product is laid out on CAD, assembled and then shipped w/o listening to it? You've given an example of one person but no leading high-end audio company like ARC would do that. Most products go through many iterations before being released. Manufacturers may make a wrong choice, but I would that if something doesn't sound good, it's not because it wasn't listened to.

I certainly know that the manufacturers of all my gear listened to their products before taking them commercial.

 

[Bruce B]

OK that's one Bruce. But do you think the vast majority of successful designers or take your speakers never listened to them? Or your Pass amps? Or your Playback Design components? Or your past Wilsons? Or Steve's Lamms. Or any leading high-end company?

Yes, you are correct in stating that "most" designers measure AND listen. But I will have to say that for Playback Designs, Andreas nor Jonathan have listening rooms. They rely on other listeners and their room/equipment. From the success that Andreas has had, seems to working for him at least.

 

[Andre Marc]

Yes, you are correct in stating that "most" designers measure AND listen. But I will have to say that for Playback Designs, Andreas nor Jonathan have listening rooms. They rely on other listeners and their room/equipment. From the success that Andreas has had, seems to working for him at least.

I really find that hard to believe. I personally would not trust my reputation or business to "other" listeners.

Would you trust "other" listeners on god knows what equipment with your mastering jobs?

It also seems to me the examples you gave are of straight ahead engineering types.

 

[DaveyF]

I really find that hard to believe. I personally would not trust my reputation or business to "other" listeners.

Would you trust "other" listeners on god knows what equipment with your mastering jobs?

It also seems to me the examples you gave are of straight ahead engineering types.

Andre, we both know that Bose and Polk have been doing just that for years. Seems to have worked for them

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre, we both know that Bose and Polk have been doing just that for years. Seems to have worked for them

Yes, indeed!

 

[MylesBAstor]

Andre, we both know that Bose and Polk have been doing just that for years. Seems to have worked for them

Since when are those two companies high-end? And you know that the reason they succeeded has nothing to do with their sound, but marketing. The people who bought their product couldn't tell a speaker from a wall outlet.

And let's look at Harman who's put big bucks into their testing program, as delineated here by Amir and Sean Olive. Agree with their methodology and/or results or not, this is the way things have to go. Another example is Transparent Audio who had their listening room custom designed.

 

[Bill Hart]

Doesn't Vlad design entirely based on his proprietary algorithm? That isn't to say he doesn't listen to it, but I'm not sure what part, if any, listening has to his design process.

 

[rbbert]

Andre, we both know that Bose and Polk have been doing just that for years. Seems to have worked for them

Unfair jab at Polk, which has both exhibited at RAMF (with the designer present) and had products favorably reviewed in Stereophile, with comments about how listening tests affected the final speaker design.