Van Alstine Ultra DAC...Thumbs UP!!!

pearsall001 · « **on:** 5 Dec 2006, 01:46 am »

Let me preface this by saying that my 2 channel system before the addition of the Ultra DAC consisted of: Conrad Johnson PV14L tube preamp, Consonance CD120 player, Van Alstine OmegaStar 440EX amp, & AAD 2001 monitors. The musicality of the system was superb to put it mildly. I was extremely satisfied, "BUT". Here we go, you know what that means. The never ending quest, the relentless need to squeeze that something extra out of my system. Already being amazed at the performance of Frank's amp, I just had to try his Ultra DAC. So order it I did. The wait is finally over & here it is on my door step. I get it all hooked up & load my first CD. Bam!! what happened to the broken glass??? No, not to worry, nothing broke. What's missing is something that I never realized was there in the first place. That nasty digital edge that is the devil as far as recorded CD's are concerned. Something I suspect is there on a lot of CD players regardless of price. Some more than others. The Ultra DAC totally eliminated it. In trying to get as close as possible to analog sound from a digital CD, the Ultra DAC is a marvel. What comes to mind is absence of fatigue, with no digital glass breaking, the music is just so much smoother. I also noticed a better separation, depth, & amazing dynamics. The voices are so crisp & addicting. Now don't forget, the CD120 as a stand alone player is a stellar performer, but with the addition of the Ultra DAC it's now a world class performer. Extremely pleased & highly recommended!!! Good job Frank, (kudo's to your DAC gal) who is she?

Zheeeem · « **Reply #1 on:** 5 Dec 2006, 02:58 am »

Yup. 1995 was the year Frank introduced his standalone DACs (under $500 for an Omega!). The Omega 3 was the single biggest change I ever made to my system. The digital grunge disappeared. When I bought an ultra last year it was yet another step forward.

Frihed91 · « **Reply #2 on:** 5 Dec 2006, 10:06 am »

What is the technology? I see a tube ouput stage. What is the actual D-A conversion technology?

avahifi · « **Reply #3 on:** 5 Dec 2006, 02:01 pm »

16-bit parallel processor, thank you.

FVA

BrianM · « **Reply #4 on:** 5 Dec 2006, 08:51 pm »

Can I ask a stupid question? If it's a 16-bit parallel processor does that mean it can't read everything that's on HDCD? Does/should this matter? Thx.

avahifi · « **Reply #5 on:** 6 Dec 2006, 12:04 pm »

AVA DACs are designed for Redbook CDs and the audio portion of DVD video. They are not designed for HDCD or SACD as both are essentially dead formats.

Frank Van Alsine

modular747 · « **Reply #6 on:** 7 Dec 2006, 06:38 am »

Quote from: pman on 6 Dec 2006, 04:52 pm

Quote from: avahifi on 6 Dec 2006, 12:04 pm
AVA DACs are designed for Redbook CDs and the audio portion of DVD video.

I don't think this is strictly correct. The audio portion of normal DVD videos can be in 96k and 24 bits. I thought the UltraDAC could only do up to 44.1k and 16 bits.

Yet they play vastly better than the "96k, 24 bit" DAC's built into DVD players.

pman · « **Reply #7 on:** 7 Dec 2006, 07:25 pm »

Quote from: modular747 on 7 Dec 2006, 06:38 am

Yet they play vastly better than the "96k, 24 bit" DAC's built into DVD players.

It's not the DACs that I'm talking about-it's the format. If you play a DVD video where the audio is regular 2 channel 96k 24bit audio (not many but they are out there) the UltraDAC won't decode at all. (96k 24bit is allowed by the DVD video standard without using AC3 or DTS or whatever.) So strictly speaking, the UltraDAC can't play the audio portion of DVD video outputs-unless the audio limited to 44.1k 16bit.

avahifi · « **Reply #8 on:** 7 Dec 2006, 10:32 pm »

The Ultra DAC handles 44K and 46K data streams, but not 96K or others. We would suggest that the audio performance on standard Redbook material will be obviously better than anyones "hi-bit" DAC because we think we have a real handle on how to do the D to A conversion, Digital filters, analog filters, and audio output stage better than than done in any "hi-bit" self contained CD player. Try it, I bet you will keep it.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

Charles Calkins · « **Reply #9 on:** 28 Dec 2006, 12:14 am »

Frank:
I'm just curious About the DAC chip you use in the Ultra DAC. Some guys use the Burr-Brown's others the Crystal or AKM's What do you use?

Cheers
Charlie

defec · « **Reply #10 on:** 29 Dec 2006, 12:35 am »

I'm also curious to what dac chip is used in both the Ultra and Omegastar dacs and also what the differences is sound are between the two. I've been looking for a good Van Alstine dac used for a bit but I haven't seen one as of yet. I guess the people are hanging onto them.

Toka · « **Reply #11 on:** 2 Jan 2007, 09:16 pm »

Also, is it possible to have the digital input jack switched from coax to BNC?

avahifi · « **Reply #12 on:** 3 Jan 2007, 05:07 pm »

I suppose we could substitute a BNC connection on an Ultra DAC on a no return, no satisfaction guarantee basis. It should make no sonic difference at all.

However, I can relate that I am much more likely to see a signal dropout from my BNC connected scope probes than I am from any old RCA Jack/Plug combination. The BNC fitting depends upon a spring loaded contact, rather than a solid pressure fit, and appears to be less long term reliable, unless you are worried about someone jerking plugs out of the unit on the fly.

Chips used? Not for announcement at this time. They work. Whether you know what they are or not won't change the way it sounds. I can relate that our DAC is the only production unit we have measured that does not clip or badly distort the top and/or bottom of a full scale test square wave CD signal. For whatever that is worth.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

Toka · « **Reply #13 on:** 3 Jan 2007, 07:56 pm »

Thanks for the info Frank, was not aware of such problems...coax it is.

DavidDG · « **Reply #14 on:** 3 Jan 2007, 09:37 pm »

Frank,

Are the differences between the Ultra and Omegastar dacs the analog stage or are there differences in the Digital section as well?

Regards,

Dave

richidoo · « **Reply #15 on:** 5 Jan 2007, 01:08 am »

Interesting article about various DAC techniques: http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm

Rich

avahifi · « **Reply #16 on:** 5 Jan 2007, 12:37 pm »

Great article!

Both the Ultra DAC and OmegaStar DACs are true 16-bit R2R DACs of course.

Frank Van Alstine

defec · « **Reply #17 on:** 10 Jan 2007, 12:23 am »

Frank, I have a Fet Valve EC preamp and a 300EX amp. I believe the amp was originally a 300hc in a Dynaco st-150 chassis that you had upgraded. In your opinion with my equipment would the Ultra be a better choice for me than the Omegastar dac? What would be the trade off of picking the Omegastar over the Ultra? Thank you.

avahifi · « **Reply #18 on:** 10 Jan 2007, 02:32 pm »

I think you would be happiest with the Ultra DAC. Consider that the difference in price is only a small percentage of the cost of your entire audio system, and that the performance improvement is really outstanding.

There are things we can do with dynamic range, inner detail, resolution, and capturing the spirit of the musician with our hybrid designs that we can't quite reach with all solid state. The OmegaStar will be glare and grain free, balanced, dynamic, and pure, but without the "balls" of the Ultra DAC.

I think you will appreciate the difference and the value.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

defec · « **Reply #19 on:** 11 Jan 2007, 03:11 am »

Thank you Frank. I'll continue to put money aside for the Ultra and maybe I'll even luck out and receive a post card about a sale or one will pop up on your webpage in the Used/Special section that I can take advantage of. How long generally is the wait for a new unit after it is ordered? Thanks again.