First reviews are in: dAck 2.0 DAC

peakrchau · « **on:** 9 Feb 2005, 01:29 am »

Some of the early adopters of the 2nd generation battery operated non-oversampling DAC have received the first shipments of the dAck 2.0 with very favourable comments. I have compiled the links to these reviews on my dAck page.

Ack! Industries has also completely revamped its web site. The most important thing to remember is that their special promotional offering of the dAck 2.0 runs out on February 15, 2005. After that the price goes up from $695 to $795. It now includes a quality digital cable ($65 value) so that the base unit can basically had for $630. I think this is a reasonable increase over the Rev 1 version that used to sell for $525. I predict that the unit is going to be back ordered some 4 to 6 weeks (like the first unit) based upon the positive reviews to date.

I've also had a chance to evaluated their interconnect called "The Analog Connect" using the older Rev 1 dAck and my impressions are posted here. Enjoy.

cheers,
PeAK

JLM · « **Reply #1 on:** 9 Feb 2005, 09:55 am »

Just ordered my Ack dAck! v.2 with high output and high resolution options.

Chris indicated that he ships out batches every two weeks via FedEx ground (shipping & handling costs included in his pricing) and that mine would arrive either next week or in three weeks.

He doesn't have a phone number listed, but if you P.M. him from here, he'll get tickled. (He called me back later that same day.)

Based on the early reports I'm even more eager to hear it. We're building a house that will include a dedicated listening room, so I'm putting together a new system for it. I'll start out with my stock S7700 and replace with a CEC TL-51 belt drive or audio PC later on.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #2 on:** 9 Feb 2005, 10:34 am »

A much improved website now !!!

BeeBop · « **Reply #3 on:** 10 Feb 2005, 10:59 am »

Two weeks. He must be pulling a Henry Ford. My version 1 dAck! took 6 weeks.

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #4 on:** 10 Feb 2005, 03:15 pm »

I was a beta tester for dack 2.0 and just received my new version this week. You guys really need to hear this dac. It's absolutely unbelievable IMO and I'm not very prone to hyperbole. Great stuff. I had one with the high resolution caps in, but it took soooooooooooo long to break in for my system, I had to cut the caps out to review the dack in time for Chris. I put about 60 straight hours in on it and it was pretty harsh in the upper mids. Chris says they smooth out after about 150-200 hours, but I didn't have time to hear that. My speakers have pretty damn extended highs (MMDCI), so I did not get the high res cap option. I personally don't think most people will need it, unless they have a soft system.

Michael

Michael

Jay S · « **Reply #5 on:** 10 Feb 2005, 05:07 pm »

Sounds quite interesting. What other dacs have you heard and how does the Ack 2.0 compare?

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #6 on:** 10 Feb 2005, 05:27 pm »

When I was testing dAck 2.0 for Chris, I compared the dack 2.0 in my own system and 2 other systems that retailed between 60K and 80K.

1) Meitner Bi Dat- dack 2.0 is faster more resolving. It has more extension at both ends, but is not quite as cohesive as the Meitner. The Meitner had a more full bodied sound and gave up a tinge of articulation in the bass for roundness. Both are great- I'd have a hard time choosing, though 2.0 is much cheaper than the Bi-Dat, which are going for pretty high prices on audiogon.
2) Bel Canto DAC 1- this wasn't even a contest. The dack 2.0 blew it away in almost every parameter but soundstage size, but this parameter was really close.
3) Musical Fidelity Tri Vista DAC 2.1- MF had the best bass- just wicked in dynamics and weight, though the dack 2.0 was slightly quicker. Both had fantastic involvement and PRAT, but the MF had a dry character in the upper midrange that bugged me. The dack 2.0 was more liquid in the midrange. I definitely liked the 2.0 better overall.
4) Dack 1.0- dack 1.0 has the best midrange of any of the dacs- absolutely liquid and conitnuousness.. I've been beguiled by this midrange for over a year- overlooking it's somewhat slow bass and rolled off highs, because within it's small operating range, the dack 1.0 is magic and cohesive. The 2.0 extends the frequencies, gives incredible transients/decays that are involving as hell (i.e., PRAT), and keeps I'd say 85% of the dack 1.0 midrange. Pretty damn good and an absolute stunner IMO.

Michael

yeldarb · « **Reply #7 on:** 10 Feb 2005, 07:16 pm »

Are you comparing the 2.0 with the 1.0 that has the larger output caps? Just curious as I have a late model 1.0, which I enjoy.

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #8 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 08:17 am »

Yes. I was comparing to dack 1.2e, which was the last ack revision circa august, 2004.

Michael

peakrchau · « **Reply #9 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 04:35 pm »

Quote from: mcrespo71

When I was testing dAck 2.0 for Chris, I compared the dack 2.0 in my own system and 2 other systems that retailed between 60K and 80K.
.
.
.
4) Dack 1.0- dack 1.0 has the best midrange of any of the dacs- absolutely liquid and conitnuousness.. I've been beguiled by this midrange for over a year- overlooking it's somewhat slow bass and rolled off highs, because within it's small operating range, the dack 1.0 is magic and cohesive. The 2.0 extends the frequencies, gives incredible transients/decays that are involving as hell ...

Hi Michael,
Sounds like I'll have to hear the final version for myself. I agree about the midrange with the provisio of the right cable. Which interconnects are you using ? Not surprisingly, I find I like the dAck (rev 1) best with Ack!'s very own silver interconnect.

P.S. Where do you "students" get the $$$ for your hobbies...the time part I understand. Once a grad student myself

cheers,
PeAK

OBF · « **Reply #10 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 04:59 pm »

This is probably a dumb question but I'm hoping someone can answer it anyway.

Can the Ack convert a PCM stream that comes from a DVD? My preamp only has one set of inputs and it's already bad enough (especially with others occasionally using my system) to have to switch wires for tv and CD/DVDs. With my ART DI/O, it'll output analog from CDs and DVDs so I only have to swap wires if I want to watch tv. Can the Ack do that, or would I have to have 3 sets of interconnetcs (cable box, Ack, DVD player analog outs)??

Thanks.

ctviggen · « **Reply #11 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 07:18 pm »

The Ack will only do 44.1 kHz. Any higher, and it freaks out. I put in a DVD one time while on the input to the Ack, and the sound was quite disturbing. You'll need another set of interconnects.

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #12 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 07:30 pm »

Quote from: peakrchau

Hi Michael,
Sounds like I'll have to hear the final version for myself. I agree about the midrange with the provisio of the right cable. Which interconnects are you using ? Not surprisingly, I find I like the dAck (rev 1) best with Ack!'s very own silver interconnect.

P.S. Where do you "students" get the $$$ for your hobbies...the time part I understand. Once a grad student myself

cheers,
PeAK

As for $, I left a very good job in the consulting industry here in NYC, so I was doing fine until I went back to get my PhD- and much of my purchases in the hobby were done far before grad school. I'm still pretty tapped into my industry and do freelance work on the side, which has paid for the few changes I've done. Plus, I'm not a flipper of equipment unless there is some serious reason for me to do it. Audiophile nervosa is just a money pit.

I'm using MIT shotgun 3 IC's and the Ack digital cable works great.

Dmason · « **Reply #13 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 07:46 pm »

Has anyone compared the Ack 1.0/2.0 with either the older or newer Scott Nixon DACkit, Chibi Saru, non-tube DAC.

csown · « **Reply #14 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 08:10 pm »

Quote

Can the Ack convert a PCM stream that comes from a DVD?

As long as the PCM stream is stereo 24/96 or less it will work. A lot of DVD players package the data as multichannel S/PDIF streams and you get mostly static as a result. Most DVD players should be outputting PCM when a CD or MP3 disc is inserted, but some older ones don't. A lot of players nowadays have an option where you can downmix to PCM and that will be ideal. The SD3950 is a good example (and incidentally, I've found the downmix quality is damn fine for multichannel DVD's as far as these things go so I use this to watch movies in 2-channel w/ the dAck!).

I've wanted to do a digital mux for a while but to keep it really clean one has to do a lot of ugly buffering and there is a jitter generation element there... Most products with a switch feature use ugly relays or simply tack multiple signals onto a common point, both of which have very poor transfer characteristics (PCB trace spurs in digital electronics are *bad*). 99% of people don't need to mux in a lot of sources and it would increase cost to do it right but one of these days...

-csown

JoshK · « **Reply #15 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 08:20 pm »

Chris, a digital mux is a cool idea if done right and one I'd be interested in.

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #16 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 08:29 pm »

Quote from: Dmason

Has anyone compared the Ack 1.0/2.0 with either the older or newer Scott Nixon DACkit, Chibi Saru, non-tube DAC.

There is a comparison between the ack 1.0 and SN on this site. Look in the archives.

Michael

OBF · « **Reply #17 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 10:31 pm »

Quote from: csown

As long as the PCM stream is stereo 24/96 or less it will work. A lot of DVD players package the data as multichannel S/PDIF streams and you get mostly static as a result. Most DVD players should be outputting PCM when a CD or MP3 disc is inserted, but some older ones don't. A lot of players nowadays have an option where you can downmix to PCM and that will be ideal.

Hey that's good to hear. The DI/O can handle 48/96 so based on that I don't know enough to be sure I could substitute the Ack (would a DVD player ever output more than 24 bits?) but I'm guessing I could as the DI/O has worked (2ch PCM) with both an older Sony S7000 and a newer Samsung 841. I don't have a manual for the Sony, but the Samsung says:

Digital Output: PCM - Converts to PCM(2ch) 48kHz audio. Select PCM when using the Analog Audio Outputs.

PCM Down Sampling: On - Select this when the amplifier connected to the player is not 96kHz compatible. In this case, the 96kHz signals will be down converted to 48kHz.

PCM Down Sampling: Off - Select this when the amplifier connected to the player is 96kHz compatible. In this case, all signals will be output without any changes.

****So, none of this mentions the bit component, only the frequency, but to me this means if use the down sample option the Ack would not have any problem. What I don't understand is why the PCM option says it outputs 48kHz specifically, making the downsample option redundant, but that's probably a mistake in the manual where they really mean it will output 2ch PCM at whatever sample rate is on the disc unless you force it to 48kHz only??

Hogg · « **Reply #18 on:** 17 Feb 2005, 10:25 pm »

But Michael did you play "Duende" by Black Light Syndrome?

Bob A (SD) · « **Reply #19 on:** 19 Feb 2005, 03:38 am »

I'm very anxious for my v2.0 to arrive. Hopefully Saturday.

I've been through 1.0 and v1.3 with my bi-amped Maggies and have no doubts about what Chris has wrought with this latest version. Why? Because in my dealings with him he's never pulled punches and has always given me accurate informationn from which to base my decisions. Of course the proof has been in the listening with each progressive dAck! version I've owned. Accordingly I've not been at all surprised at the overwhelmingly positive comments those who've been able to conduct comparative sessions have posted.

My vinyl and tape (reel and cassette) sources are key to my system but with the dAck! my enjoyment of CDs has been much more fully realized.

--Bob