Digital Processor Reviews

T+A Elektroakustik DAC 8 DSD D/A processor Associated Equipment

Sidebar 2: Associated Equipment

Digital Sources: Apple MacBook Pro computer (2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD) running OS 10.11.5, Roon v.1.2 Build 142, JRiver Media Center 19, iTunes 12, Amarra Computer Music Player, VLC, Reaper 5.20.100, XLD; Western Digital NAS device (2TB); Oppo BDP-103 universal BD player; Meridian Sooloos Control 15 & QNAP TS-669 Pro NAS; Apple iPad Air & iPhone 6; Benchmark DAC1 USB & DAC2 HGC DACs, Ayre Acoustics QB-9DSD & Codex digital processors; AudioQuest DragonFly USB DAC.
Preamplifier: Marantz AV7005 in Pure Direct Mode.
Power Amplifiers: Classé CAM 350 monoblocks (2).
Loudspeakers: MartinLogan Prodigy & BalancedForce 212 subwoofers (2). Desktop & recording monitoring system: Emotiva Airmotiv 5S, Velodyne Servo-F subwoofer.
Headphones: AKG K 240, Audeze LCD-X, AudioQuest NightHawk, Grado Labs HP1, MrSpeakers Ether, NAD Viso, Sennheiser Amperior.
Cables: Interconnect: AudioQuest Victoria (for DragonFly) & Diamond USB & HD6 Carbon S/PDIF (studio to listening room), Cardas Clear USB & Neutral Reference S/PDIF & Clear Balanced Headphone, Kimber Kable line level (various), XLO HT Pro line level & S/PDIF. Speaker: Kimber Kable BiFocal XL.
AC Power: Dedicated 40A line (amplifiers), separate dedicated 15A lines (digital & analog components).—Jon Iverson

COMPANY INFO
T+A Elektroakustik GmbH
US distributor: Rutherford Audio Inc.
12649 E. Caley Avenue #116
Centennial, CO 80111
(303) 872-6285
www.rutherfordaudio.com
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
georgehifi's picture
Submitted by georgehifi on October 4, 2016 - 6:01pm

Can anyone say when this unit does PCM (redbook) is it using DS (1bit) type or Multibit converter, as that looks to be over looked in the review.

Cheers George

hb72's picture
Submitted by hb72 on October 4, 2016 - 10:32pm

Double-Differential-Quadruple-Converter with 4 D/A-Converters per channel, 32-Bit Sigma Delta, 352,8 kSps/384 kSps. Eight times oversampling.

georgehifi's picture
Submitted by georgehifi on October 5, 2016 - 6:42pm

Gross for PCM replay conversion.
From what the gurus in the industries say only Multibit can do PCM without making a facsimile of it.

Cheers George

tonykaz's picture
Submitted by tonykaz on October 5, 2016 - 3:39am

Thats probably the most accurate thing anyone could say or has said about good quality Consumer DACs! Maybe you should be awarded the "King's new Suit" Award.

I admire your bravery

Tony in Michigan

ps. I've heard it said that if a DAC is doing it's job properly you can't hear it.

Marc210's picture
Submitted by Marc210 on October 5, 2016 - 4:10am

I own two old DACs (more than 10 years age) purchased used at less than 80 per cent of their retail price, and really it's hard to tell differences, even subtle ones. First is a one bit, other oversamples at 96, compared to newcomers well you know what's the answer is...

CAminion's picture
Submitted by CAminion on October 5, 2016 - 10:34am

reminds me of when in the 80's people would say all turntables are the same. Digital transport solutions will make DAC's sound alike if they aren't up to snuff.

TJ's picture
Submitted by TJ on October 5, 2016 - 12:16pm

... for the most thoughtful and well considered DAC review I've ever read. It's an interesting comment that as the technology matures, digital filters will become more significant than other design factors.

Archimago's picture
Submitted by Archimago on October 6, 2016 - 11:52am

Disagree with this. Realize that the comment is about the Ayre Codex vs. a DAC a few years old. The difference is primarily the filters. Yet sounds "damn close". If that's the difference filters make (especially something so significantly different like the Codex/PonoPlayer), then it's not unreasonable to say that filters are not all that different sounding, right?

Anton's picture
Submitted by Anton on October 5, 2016 - 5:48pm

I see things like, "DSD64 appears on the display as either "2M8 DSD" or "3M1 DSD" (2.8MHz or 3.1MHz), depending on whether the base clock is 44.1 or 48kHz; DSD128 is displayed as "5M6 DSD" or "6M1 DSD"; and so on, all the way up to "22M6 DSD" or "24M6 DSD," for DSD512," or "four S/PDIF (RCA), BNC, optical, AES/EBU, and USB. The USB input accepts PCM up to 32-bit/384kHz and DSD up to DSD512; DSD256 and DSD512 are possible only with USB streams from Windows operating systems..." and my brain just goes all dial tone.

I figured out Tidal into my Explorer DAC to the real Hi Fi and that was a major accomplishment!

;-D

If it ever gets idiot-level easy, I will hit the button!

Archimago's picture
Submitted by Archimago on October 5, 2016 - 6:34pm

It just sounds like the DSD naming scheme is unnecessarily pretentious in trying to sound *different* instead of sticking with convention and what most would recognize.

It's rather ridiculous, as if there's something special about those labels. Likewise, all those acronyms that companies tend to use for techniques that are essentially just variants of well-known algorithms/technologies end up falling flat as well...

Marc210's picture
Submitted by Marc210 on October 6, 2016 - 9:23am

"CAminion :reminds me of when in the 80's people would say all turntables are the same. Digital transport solutions will make DAC's sound alike if they aren't up to snuff."

audiodoctornj's picture
Submitted by audiodoctornj on October 10, 2016 - 9:25pm

As a T+A dealer, with one of the largest collections of dacs on the East Coast, I am very puzzled by this review! I have been in professional audio retailing for 27 years or since the beginning of the digital revolution, and I can say unequivocally that I am at odds with this review.

To say that two digital front ends sound alike is saying that two sports cars drive the same, sure they are both fast, but the feeling of say a BMW vs a Mercedes is totally different.

If you look at two different dacs unless they are using the same decoding chips and on board filters, then the only difference might be the analog stage, I find there is generally a world of sonic difference between two dacs with carefully level matching.

Take an Auralic Vega vs an NAD M51 these are totally different animals, with completely different technologies, and yes they both sound very good the more expensive dac does sound better, with a wider and more defined sound stage, and greater resolution.

To lump the T+A in with some of these other dacs is doing the T+A dac a disservice. The writer said he did not play with up sampling redbook to Quad Rate DSD, when on all the forums that are talking about this dac are saying that you must hear it at that frequency and decoding type.

I ran J River and took a 16 bit 44k CD and through J River spit out a Dual rate than Quad Rate DSD file on the fly for the T+A DAD 8 DSD to decode, and the difference between the two sampling rates was very audible, Dual DSD was good, Quad rate DSD was amazing!

Many people reading the review might think that the DSD decoding engine can only be used with DSD files when you can easily convert PCS to DSD and vice versa.

The DAC 8 DSD sound great on PCM but feed it a Quad Rate DSD track and you will be absolutely floored, and it moves this little $4k dac into the big leagues, I would say under $10k the Dac 8 is very hard to beat, there is an organic sound and a spooky real sense of presence that once you hear it you will be shocked at just how special the DAC 8 is.

hifial's picture
Submitted by hifial on November 4, 2016 - 6:50pm

If you really want to hear something special then feed this DAC any music file up-sampled to DSD512 using HQ Player software and with Roon as the manager.

It is sad when the professional reviewer barely scratches the surface of what a piece of equipment can do.

But then the professional dealer also misses the mark on the best part.

Thank goodness for the audio forums.

PS How would I know. Because I am one of the ones using it as such. And I have a huge smile from the enjoyment.

X