Acoustic amplifier test: a DAC from the music department vs. a DAC from Hi-Fi

Way back in the Soviet school, in my youth, when every classmate had the need to buy an amplifier with speakers we all went to the Electron bookstore. Murmansk and carried out, in modern parlance, market research. The results often puzzled me: some Radiotechnica amplifier and 30-watt loudspeakers of the same name from the “Hi-Fi department” cost one and a half times more in total than similar devices amplifier of the same first class, speakers of the same power, only more terrible in the “Musical Instruments” department.

The more experienced older students in the school smoking room advised us: “You see, by the sound, they may be similar. But there are more music lovers than musicians – at least look at our school. That’s why the prices are lower for music equipment”. Actually, there was only one band in the school, though nobody ever saw it on stage, but its members vividly described their rehearsals and even let us listen to some of their work.

After such explanations in order to keep within the budget allotted by parents sometimes bought devices from “musical department” and the question was closed.

Today, remembering that distant time we will also try to compare two devices of different purpose – one is made for small “progect” studios and the other is created by a well-known Hi-Fi manufacturer. Both are based on chips by well-known in the world of Hi-Fi companies, Burr Brown and Wolfson Microelectronics, which is not surprising, since only a few companies in the world produce analog-to-digital converter chips.

ESI Audiotrak Dr.Dac Prime

The device is realized in the metal case of an original form – the sides are rounded as if emphasizing its “not hi-fi” origin. There are rubber feet on the bottom, the rear and front surfaces are flat, – except for the protruding toggle switches, volume control, and – behind, connectors. The design seems to emphasize the fact that the device is designed for work, not for decorating the room.

The device is designed for home studios, lovers of home computer work with sound and has a rich functionality. There is an S/PDIF input and output coaxial digital jack is combined with an optical, which requires an optical cable with a special connector , a USB port, an analog RCA input and output.

The presence of an analog input and a digital output in the DAC is a bit surprising, because their use is still unclear – whether they are intended for the organization of a through path, or whether the functionality of the device can be significantly expanded.

On the front panel of the device there is a profusion of switches, knobs and indicators. There are two headphone jacks 1/4″ jack type 6 .3mm and a 1/8″ mini-jack 3.5 mm , output volume control and on the rear panel – adjustable or fixed output level switch , bypass switch, source switch. You can turn the mute signal off temporarily and even use the unique upsample upsampling feature, which lets you sample rates as high as 192 kHz.

Of course, the device is not a professional piece of equipment, because unlike the analog to digital converter, the most important component of a recording studio, the D/A converter in its pure form is practically not needed in the studio, combined ADC/DAC units are usually used there, but Dr.That’s not what Dac Prime pretends to be.

Specifications

DAC

Burr Brown PCM1796 24bit/192kHz

Frequency range:

Inputs

Optical S/PDIF Toslink socket , coaxial S/PDIF, RCA, USB

Output

RCA, optical S/PDIF, coaxial S/PDIF, 6.3 mm headphone, 3.5 mm headphone

Signal to noise ratio

110 dB

Power

12V, 1.5A

15,850 Dollars.

Arcam rDAc

Specifications

DAC

Wolfson 8741 24-bit Multilevel Delta-Sigma DAC

Frequency range

22 – 22 000 Hz

Inputs

Optical S/PDIF Toslink socket , coaxial S/PDIF, USB

Output

RCA

Signal to noise ratio

104dB

Power

6V, 600mA

The device has an aluminum case with rounded corners and a rubberized base that prevents it from slipping on surfaces. On the top panel there is a button that switches the inputs, and the indicator that corresponds to the active inputs turns green. There is also a power button on the rear panel – no other switches or controls on the device. On the same place on the rear panel are three digital inputs, S/PDIF, optical Toslink and USB, and an unbalanced analog output. The unit is designed for 6 V and 600 mA power supply, an external power adapter is included – the connection jack is also in the back.

The device is implemented on a chip from Wolfson Microelectronics, – WM8741. We must remind you that this chip was launched by the company back in October 2007 and was flagship for more than a year – in January 2009 the WM8742 was released.

By the way, the Burr Brown PCM1796, which is a competitor in our test, is also quite familiar to amateur technicians – it can be found in digital-to-analog converters several times more expensive than the tested.

But back to Arcam rDac. As you can see from the interface, a digital signal can be fed through USB, – in this case an asynchronous technology is used, patented by Data Conversion Systems, designed to reduce digital signal transmission errors.

By the way, Arcam company produces a more expensive model based on this device in America it is 4 thousand more expensive – Arcam rDac Wireless that is able to receive a signal through Wi-Fi. Otherwise the models are identical. In our simpler variant, in the place where the Wi-Fi antenna is supposed to be located, the DAC has a hole on its back wall, closed with a stub. The LED on the far right under “Wireless” is also, of course, off.

19 990 Dollars

Listening.

Aural testing of digital devices, particularly converters, is not an easy task. Unlike comparing by ear electroacoustic transducers, which are loudspeakers, the difference in the sound of electronic devices is minimal and elusive. If the difference is noticeable and perceptible it means only one thing – the devices obviously belong to different quality classes and it is incorrect to compare them. In other words, for a good technique there should be almost no difference.

Does it make sense to compare electronics by ear?? It is clear, that it is possible and necessary to make purely laboratory measurements of the electronic circuit with the help of measuring equipment, and they will show real difference, but what to do with the listening test?? I think that despite the subtle difference, it is still worth listening to. Because even a minimal difference can manifest itself in some circumstances, for example, when using specific instruments in powerful sound amplification systems, when this minimal difference is multiplied, as under a magnifying glass, and becomes noticeable.

The devices presented for testing belong to the same class by their circuitry, components and price category, so the difference in their sound should be minimal.

In our listening session, we used our Denon DCD-2000AE editorial CD player as a transport – the digital signal was picked up on coaxial. By the way, I liked the sound of his on-board DAC better than the sound of the guests. In both machines the scene and details are not bad, but the tonal balance is shifted to the midrange. It was especially noticeable after switching the selector of amplifier from the input to which “Denon” is connected to the input of one of the DACs.

We listened to very different material from experimental “live” jazz to Edvard Grieg “Peer Gynt” for several hours on both devices, trying to catch the

the elusive difference in the sound – that was the main purpose of the listening, – because the devices initially have a different purpose.

As a result, strangely enough, the sound of both devices is almost indistinguishable, the difference on the verge of subjective error.

Results.

Does that mean that the converters are equal and interchangeable? But this is unlikely, because you also need to consider the functionality, and they both devices are significantly different.

Of course, many of these features are excessive for a simple home listening, but an active audiophile, interested in experimenting with sound, trying different ways of connection, using the device with multiple signal sources and amplification systems, this unit will be more interesting than a simple DAC without any adjustments.

In addition, having the ability to adjust the signal level allows us to use the ESI Dr.Dac Prime as a preamplifier combined with a DAC, headphone output would also not be out of place. From all this it follows that a functionally “smart” DAC Dr.Dac Prime has a great perspective.

In sound quality it is just as good as the simpler Arcam rDAc, though not better. Its multifunctionality – by the way, at a lower price – is achieved not to the detriment of the sound.

Certainly Arcam rDAc finds its buyer – in the world of hi-fi fans Arcam brand is much better known than ESI – as we used to say at school: “there are more music lovers than musicians”. But our little research clearly shows that, to use the language of my youth, “goods from the music department can be just as good”. And the question is closed.