[Danny Richie]

from your description, it sounds like yure talking about what folks call the ack! 1.2 wersion.

Yes, I have one of the early models.

yure the 1st person i've heard who sez even this iteration is more detailed/dynamic/extended than a modded di/o. makes me even *more* anxious to hear a 2.0!

Well, it wasn't in its stock form. Originally the bottom end was not as extended or as tight as the DI/O, and the highs were slightly rolled off. The cap changes made all the difference.

I'd say that the 2.0 with cap upgrade will give you everything you like about the DI/O but with a smoother and more involving mid-range, lower noise floor, and higher resolution in the top end.

[peakrchau]

.
.
...I'd say that the 2.0 with cap upgrade will give you everything you like about the DI/O but with a smoother and more involving mid-range, lower noise floor, and higher resolution in the top end.

The original Rev 1.2d that I have continues to surprise me. While I did not use Sonicaps or bypasses, an externally powered supply allows the the  unit to be powered on for a continuous amount of time...in excess of 500 hours.  I would say that the dAck midrange is more fully developed with improved attack on vocals. Cymbals now seem just a bit more real (dynamic). In comparison, the  smoothed out sound of the  Toshiba 3950 with the Swenson Mod that is somewhat  remiscent of the pre-burnin dAck seems too distant. Some of the lushiness is missing but on my system, I like the added liveliness.

Listening to an assortment of CDs it just sounds right. The flip side to this is comparative listening when its sibling DAC is substituted. With freshly turned on dAck 2.0 (10 minutes warmup)  is inserted into the chain, a wealth of new detail and information is revealed. On complex passages, the presentation is  totally natural and unforced  that allows one to follow and notice  (ie. start/end/decay)  of individual notes without effort. It is the appreciation of this not so subtle quality  that makes the 2.0 a worthwhile addition to the dAck family. The front and center reproduction of the voice/midrange of the older revision is seemingly pushed back for a pacier sound coming from the improved detail and speed in the other regions.

Give a listen to the first couple of cuts of Aaron Neville's CD called "Warm your Heart" (Louisiana 1927 and Everybody Plays the Fool). In Lousiana, Aaron's voice is an acid test for naturalness as well as the tone of the accompanying violins. On the second cuts (Fool), the synthesized instruments have added dimensionality and localiztion as if controlled by the grip of the 2.0 unit.

The last cut on Jann Arden's hits album is well mike live version of song "Insensitive". Both dAcks do a tremendous job on this cut of redproducing her full voice.  The three songs mentioned are but a few of the newly introduced cuts brought in by people who have audition the dAck recently. I be remiss not to mention Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" (a.k.a soundtrack from "Remember the Titans")  by the Dallas Symphony and Ani DiFranco's "Up up up up up up" album. Listening to new music...what more can you ask of a piece of equipment to drive you to do?

Partnering and older/used Rev 1.2d model in the future with teflon caps is a very attractive proposition but still remember that the 2.0 with the very  same Auricap coupling capactior (as in the 1.2d) is definitely retrieving more musical information from the pits. Digital is definitely getting better.

Transports and their clocks are two areas that presently hold the greatest mystery/potential for improved general playback  for me. The Toshiba was close but held back by design budget...the design is great/Great/GREAT. It seems as if good quality digital cables, proper terminations, wide bandwidth/low noise analogue stages, and well design compact CDP boards have gotten fairly far...a few good men/products can go far.


PeAK

[Bob A (SD)]

Chris' revision numbers tend to confused me.  I bought my first dAck! in October '03 which was v1.0.  After the capacitor experiments by others, Chris offered a mod which in e-mails was referred to as v1.3.  I had him install that in November '03.  Where the v1.2d fits in all this I honestly don't know.  More to the point I now have v2.0 (no high output or super-caps) which I believe is now fully broken in.  Chris' descriptions of how the latest version compares to the earlier ones has been born out in my listening.  It is a DAC that anyone in need of a digital-to-analog converter simply must audition.  With Chris' try it before you buy it program there really are no excuses.

I'm using an antique CDP with a Philips CDM12 transport and although it continues to perform admirably I'm taking a queue from others who have indicated that a Monarchy DIP can have a very positive impact.  I found a used DIP Classic which incorporates its own precision 44.1kHz clock so we'll see what it brings to the mix:)

--Bob

[doug s.]

Well, it wasn't in its stock form. Originally the bottom end was not as extended or as tight as the DI/O, and the highs were slightly rolled off. The cap changes made all the difference.

I'd say that the 2.0 with cap upgrade will give you everything you like about the DI/O but with a smoother and more involving mid-range, lower noise floor, and higher resolution in the top end.

hi danny,

have ya ever heard the 2.0 compared w/your 1.2 (or is it 1.3?).  it seems that what ya said prewiously about how much ya like yer modded older ack!, this may in fact *also* give me what i like about my di/o, along w/the ack!'s benefits.  and, since the 2.0 has been introduced, the earlier ack!'s are a relative bargain on the used market.

regards,

doug s.

[Jay S]

Does anyone have a summary of the various versions of the dACK?  

Also, is the battery charger by any chance multi-volt... or does it only work with 110v?  (Hong Kong uses 220v).

Thanks,

- Jay

[Danny Richie]

have ya ever heard the 2.0 compared w/your 1.2 (or is it 1.3?).

As a matter of fact, Chris brought three different versions he was working on, including what is now the 2.0, down here to GR Research last December.

He wanted me to give them all a listen, hear them all through a pair of Alpha LS's, try out the new Teflon film and foil caps, etc. He brought a good friend with him and we had a great time.

it seems that what ya said prewiously about how much ya like yer modded older ack!, this may in fact *also* give me what i like about my di/o, along w/the ack!'s benefits.

In my system I like what I am now getting out of the unit that I have.

and, since the 2.0 has been introduced, the earlier ack!'s are a relative bargain on the used market.

This is true. I know of a early version that is upgraded with Sonicaps and new Teflon by-pass caps that might be for sale. It belongs to a friend of mine. I'll see if he'll chime in.

[Bob A (SD)]

Maybe one of you guys can weigh in here.  

I'm using a 13 year old Philips CDP which utilizes a CDM12 mechanism which is still to be found on newer units (e.g. Music Hall MMF CD-25, etc.).   It was also used in some jitter lab measurement instruments years ago.  Not sure of jitter specs from this old unit, I recently added a Monarchy Audio DIP Classic between it and my dAck! v2.0 as an "insurance" measure.  I honestly don't seem to hear any difference with it at all.   Could it be that my old Philips unit inherently had decent enough jitter specs that the DIP adds little or nothing?  Or is jitter more discernable to "younger" ears?

  --Bob

Maybe I should have started a new thread with this post but I know Chris Own has commented that other dAck! users have reported good results when using a Monarchy DIP with older CDPs used as transports.

[ctviggen]

Interesting point about the jitter.  I'm buying a Proceed PMDT, which is a DVD/transport.  I currently use a Pioneer Elite DV-38A as transport.  I'll be interested to hear whether there's any difference between the two.

[JLM]

I'm nearing the 100 hour mark on my Ack dAck! v.2 with high output and high resolution options (that Chris says will take up to 200 hours to fully burn in).  I selected these options as I'll be using a 6 wpc battery powered Clari-T digital amp with full range single driver speakers (Bob Brines' FTA-2000, these are the original/first pair).

The dAck is sounding better all the time.  Mid/treble detail has come in and is wonderful with no digitial harshness.  Bass just now has become deep and solid.  Dynamics are very good.  I'm currently listening via a 7 year old Rotel (a plowhorse compared to modern race horses).  The dAck! makes the system sound like the much more expensive tube amp I had for an extended in home audition last fall.  My transport is a stock Sony S7700 (one of the last made).  Can't wait to get the Clari-T in.  Still on the fence between EA modding the S7700 or going audio PC, but with this sound quality I can wait a very long time to decide.

[ctviggen]

Why does one need the high resolution option?

[JLM]

Bob,

The Ack site indicates that the high resolution option, "... enhances texture and speed in the high frequencies...", but that most systems won't need it.  I added it because:

1.  I use 8 inch full range drivers with no whizzer cones that might need some "help" on the high frequencies;

2.  Chris said it would be easily defeatable by snipping a couple of wires;

3.  Of course you also have the option of soldering it back together later;

4.  It was only $50 extra.

Note that other speakers that offer a super tweeter option could avoid the cost/complication with this simplier alternative.

[ctviggen]

If it's that easy to defeat and add back in, you might as well buy it now and figure out if you need it.