DIGITAL SOURCE COMPONENTS

go to: Contents | Feature | On The Horizon | DACs | CD Players | Music Servers | Integrated Amps with DACs | Portable | Our Top Picks
Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2 DSDse
I found that with DSD material the differences
between the two DACs in matched level A/B
comparisons were still so close that I could not
reliably tell which was which. But with 44.1/16,
streaming and MP3 sources I found the DAC-2
DSDse was more cohesive, nuanced, and listenable
overall, and I could reliably tell which
DAC was which during matched-level A/B
comparisons. What I found most interesting
was that the kind of sonic improvements I
heard were very similar to the improvements
I heard while I was reviewing the Antelope Audio
Zodiac Platinum DSD DAC when I switched
from its internal clock to Antelope’s external
“atomic” clock. While I certainly don’t have
a wide enough sample set yet to make any
sweeping generalizations, my own experience
so far using different or better clocks with a
DAC is that I’ve heard greater sonic improvements
with the lower bit-rate and Red Book
material than I did with DSD sources.
Was it a shock going from the $13k Antelope
Audio Zodiac Platinum DSD to the Wyred 4
Sound DAC-2 DSDse No, it was not. And while
I think the Antelope was a better performer
on lower resolution, streaming, and Red Book
material, the DAC-2 DSDse wasn’t far behind
it, and on 64x and 128x DSD material I
couldn’t hear any difference between the two.
They both made it easy to listen into DSD mixes
without having to strain. On PCM sources I
preferred the more relaxed and organic way
the Zodiac Platinum DSD presented music. In
comparison the DAC-2 DSDse delivered just
as much musical information, but on lower-res
material that information was a bit more strident
and less suave in overall presentation. If
I had to listen to MP3s all day I’d prefer to do
it through the Zodiac.
During the review period I had an opportunity
to listen to the new PS Audio Perfect
Wave DSD DAC in my system and compare it
to the DAC-2 DSDse. Once more the sonic differences
between the two DACs were more
pronounced on 44.1/16 and lower-resolution
streaming sources than with DSD and higherres
PCM. Like the Zodiac DAC the PS Audio
DAC manages to upgrade all source material
in a way that I haven’t experienced on older,
earlier-generation DACs, except for the Meridian
800 and 860 with their apodizing filters.
I recently had an opportunity to record the
superb Brazilian ensemble Choro Dos 3, (www.
facebook.com/chorodas3) made up of three
sisters and their father. The band’s orchestration
is a seven-string guitar (which handles
the bass lines and contrapuntal rhythms),
flute, mandolin, and percussion (which is a
single-miked tambourine). I recorded them
during a live concert in a small church. The
results went far beyond my sonic expectations
and have become a very useful review
tool. Their Choro music is rhythmically dense
with multiple overlapping patterns. I record
in 128x DSD and then made lower-resolution
versions as needed—usually at 192/24, 96/24,
and 44.1/16 sample rates. Through the DAC-2
DSDse I could easily tell the difference between
the 44.1 version and the original. Even
the 96/24 files lacked a bit of decipherability
when compared to the originals on the DAC-
2 DSDse. But when I moved up to the 192/24
files and compared them with the 128xDSD
files I was hard-pressed to hear any differences
in the overall presentation, including
subtle micro-dynamics and low-level inner details.
Also both the 192/24 and DSD versions
had equal levels of decipherability through the
DAC-2 DSDse.
In the past I’ve often had to resort to an
outboard USB converter, such as the Empirical
Audio Off-Ramp 5, to pull the best performance
out of a DAC/pre. I connected the
Off-Ramp 5 to the DAC-2 DSDse via its I 2 S
connections and compared it to the DAC-2
DSDse’s built-in USB implementation. I found
that in matched-level A/B comparisons I
could not reliably hear differences on 44.1/16,
96/24, or 192/24 material. Finally I’ve heard a
mid-priced DAC that doesn’t require an additional
device to optimize USB sources.
Conclusion
After living with the latest version of the DAC-
2 DSDse for more than a month, and having
had some version of the DAC-2 in my possession
for the past four years, I would be remiss
if I didn’t urge anyone who owns an original
version of the Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2 to upgrade
it to DAC-2 DSDse, or at the very least
to the DAC-2 DSD with Femto clock. It’s the
equivalent of jumping four years ahead in
time, from what was a very good DAC with an
okay USB implementation to an excellent DAC
with a well above average USB implementation.
Early adopters are usually the ones who suffer
the most financially when purchasing components
in a rapidly changing product category
such as DAC/pre’s. Some consumers are
lucky to get a year’s use from a DAC before
the need for a newer, more capable one begins
to manifest itself. And while there have been
upgradable components such as NAD’s line of
preamps with MDC modules, few manufacturers
have been able to make a DAC that can be
updated to be competitive four years after its
initial release. Bravo Wyred 4 Sound for keeping
your promises and making it possible for
early adopters to remain at the leading edge
of DAC technology.
Wyred4Sound
DAC-2
Awards
$1495
The DAC-2 delivers high-quality digital
to analog conversion; it is also a very wellthought-out
preamplifier that can replace
a separate preamp and DAC in an all-digital
system. The DAC-2’s obvious value and
reasonable price makes it an enticing control
center for either a high-end near-field desktop,
or two-channel room-based system, or even
in a multichannel system via its pass-through
option. All the circuit boards can be upgraded
to allow for some degree of future-proofing.
And Wyred4Sound recently offered an upgrade
for the DAC-2 to a DSDSE version that offers
DSD capability along with improved PCM
performance. SS, 239
33 Buyer's Guide to Digital Source Components 2014 www.theabsolutesound.com
previous page
NEXT page