ARC Ref CD-9 vs. Ref DAC

[PlanarSpeakerFan]

I spoke with Audio Research and they have decided not to update their Reference DAC, Reference CD-9 Player and CD-6 Player to an SE version. They were considering placing the DAC9 digital board in these components to give them PCM 384 kHz and DSD 128 capability but they have opted not to do it. So for the intermediate term, the DAC9 is going to be their only DAC with these enhanced capabilities. According to Audio Research, there is no new Reference level DAC in the pipeline.

I'm planning to do a direct comparison of the DAC9 and the Reference CD-9 in my system. I feel the DAC9 has superior digital circuitry (most current Burr Brown DAC chip), while the Reference CD-9 has the superior analog output stage (four 6H30 dual triodes) and power supply (6550 rectifier tube and one 6H30 dual triode). The DAC9 has an analog output stage with two dual triodes and a solid state power supply. It should be an interesting comparison. I'll report back on my results.

Ken

[Lars-Ola]

Crap, I was waiting for the Ref CD9SE in order to get a good deal on a demo or used Ref CD9, or possibly go for the SE if it was significantly better and/or gave me more worthwhile format flexibility.

I have the Ref CD7 now and it's a wonderful olayer but I miss digital inputs.

I'm definitely interested in comparisons between the Ref CD9 and the DAC9.

[JBT]

couple reviews of CD9


http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/arc5/1.html



http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...cMtwQeqiM9L.97

[PlanarSpeakerFan]

Last Saturday I auditioned the Berk Ref2 DAC, ARC DAC9 and ARC Ref CD-9 player head-to-head. The dealer had it set up so I could change instantaneously between digital sources by using the Ref CD-9's transport to spin redbook CDs. The system was Magico S7, ARC Ref 250SE monoblocks and ARC Ref6 preamp. They had the system optimized as well as I've seen. I primarily listened to jazz vocals, jazz piano and small jazz combos.

The Berk Ref2 is the smoothest sounding and least fatiguing DAC I've ever heard. There is zero digital artifice. It is extremely organic sounding with gorgeous tonality on vocals. It is very neutral in presentation and does little editorializing. Midrange density is extraordinary and bass is tight and impactful.

Its imaging is pinpoint, placing vocalists and instruments in their appropriate places. However, soundstage width and depth were noticeably less than the ARC digital sources. I also felt that the highs weren't as extended and some of the harmonics or overtones of female vocalists were absent. I wondered if this was a bit of a trade-off in order to attain such an organic sound.

The DAC9 sounded similar to the Berk Ref2 in tonality but I would give the edge to the Berk Ref2 in both smoothness and refinement. What I preferred about the DAC9 to the Berk was its treble extension and bass texture. I also preferred the warmth, body and bloom it provided, although it didn't have the Berk's amazing midrange density.

The DAC9 had a noticeably deeper soundstage with superior layering of instruments. There was wonderful space around vocalists and instruments. What I didn't like was on certain tracks, imaging was too forward and sometimes misplaced.

The Ref CD-9 player had a similar sonic signature to the DAC9 but was superior in a number of ways. Its soundstage was wider and deeper with terrific layering, we're talking 3D! Imaging just sounded right. It also had more refinement, finesse and delicacy, bringing out subtleties of the performance that make music sound live as opposed to reproduced. It also produced wonderful warmth, body and bloom that even exceeded the DAC9. It had the same treble extension and wonderful bass texture as the DAC9.

What I didn't like about the Ref CD-9 was there was less purity and tonal accuracy in the timbres of the music than the Berk and DAC9. The DAC9 also produced more air around instruments and vocalists. I feel this was due to the Ref CD-9's five-year old DAC chip compared to the others' newer DAC chips. I couldn't help but wonder what combining the Ref CD-9's superior analog gain stage (2 input tubes, 2 output tubes & tube rectification) with the DAC9's superior digital circuitry would yield in sound quality.

So which did I prefer? Each component had its own strengths and weaknesses and I would be extremely satisfied with each of them in my system.

Please keep in mind this review is only my opinion and your mileage may vary due to system synergy, music preference and personal taste.

All the best,
Ken

[2fastdriving]

Have you tried any esoteric products? I feel arc is much better at amplification than digital sources...Berkeley is supposed to be excellent but so are esoteric dacs and transports.

[PlanarSpeakerFan]

Originally Posted by 2fastdriving

Have you tried any esoteric products? I feel arc is much better at amplification than digital sources...Berkeley is supposed to be excellent but so are esoteric dacs and transports.

Hi Marc,

I currently own the Esoteric K-01X, ARC Ref 10 preamp, Vandersteen M7-HPA mono amps and Vandersteen 7 Mk2 speakers. Right now I'm borrowing the ARC DAC9 and having the K-01X transport feed a digital signal via an AES/EBU cable to the DAC9. It sounds wonderful. As my system is primarily tube gear, I'm looking to get the more organic ARC tube sound at the source. There is terrific synergy between the ARC DAC9 and my ARC Ref 10 preamp.

Best,
Ken

[2fastdriving]

Ah...then you know what's up. I can't imagine any audio research dac can outperform your k-01x though. Maybe step up to the d-02x? I understand loving tube gear, but with digital, the clock and dac accuracy seems to be paramount. This is where I believe that esoteric wins.

But with your level of gear, you know what you are after.

[PlanarSpeakerFan]

Originally Posted by 2fastdriving

Ah...then you know what's up. I can't imagine any audio research dac can outperform your k-01x though. Maybe step up to the d-02x? I understand loving tube gear, but with digital, the clock and dac accuracy seems to be paramount. This is where I believe that esoteric wins.

But with your level of gear, you know what you are after.

Thanks Marc! The K-01X is the superior digital component and sounds excellent in my system. It is more a question of system synergy than anything. The DAC9 combined with the Ref 10 produces a very organic sound with tube warmth, body and dimension. It works very well with the jazz vocals, jazz piano and small jazz combos to which I primarily listen. I'm still listening to my SACD collection through the K-01X.

Best,
Ken

[2fastdriving]

Originally Posted by PlanarSpeakerFan

Thanks Marc! The K-01X is the superior digital component and sounds excellent in my system. It is more a question of system synergy than anything. The DAC9 comboned with the Ref 10 produces a very organic sound with tube warmth, body and dimension. It works very well with the jazz vocals, jazz piano and small jazz combos to which I primarily listen.

Best,
Ken

Ok, understood. I agree there will be a bit more warmth in the combination you are seeking.

[Harlequin]

Ken....Whilst I have not had an opportunity to do so, It would be most interesting to compare a stock CD9 with the same unit sporting an NOS GE6550A as power regulator, of course one could take such experimentation even further should one have a set of DR's going spare.