Ooo-er..... Dacmagic 2 vs CD192..... but what does it mean?

[admin_exported]

My Dacmagic 2 just arrived.

Although I have ordered a toslink it has not arrived yet.... so I decided to use the included Cambridge Audio BNC to Coax to use the digital out on the CD192 to test the unit...

I have put the DAC into the DVD line out and can, therefore, switch between the two and compare a single song.

The Arcam is certainly high quality and has a control to it.... but, on first listen, the Dacmagic takes it in terms of seperation and it sounds livelier. The CD192 is not being left for dead... but the Dacmagic is certainly beating (I would say that it might be too lively in some ways - I am listening to Blur 'No Distance Left To Run' single with a 'Tender' remix on the back... the triangles on 'Tender' are brilliantly pronounced but might be too much so for prolonged listening).....

Is this shocking anyone? Or am I being niave in expecting a CDP dac to compete with an external DAC?

Is there a theory behind this? Or is it simply my ears prefer the Dacmagic whereas someone else would prefer the CD192? I mean, to me, it is pronounced... so much so that in the initial shock of it I am wondering if I should sell the CD192........ after all perhaps I can realise its value and buy a less expensive transport.....

 

[Anonymous]

BTW the Dacmagic that we are referring to is not the modern one.... it is the old one, this fella

It should be good as I read somewhere that it was designed by Mr Pink Triangle..... but so good to defeat a modern machine like the CD192?

 

[JoelSim]

Weird, as someone else said their CD192 sounded better than the new DACMagic in an A/B test.

 

[chebby]

bloatedgut:

BTW the Dacmagic that we are referring to is not the modern one.... it is the old one, this fella

It should be good as I read somewhere that it was designed by Mr Pink Triangle.....

Mr Pink Triangle was busy producing their own 'Da Capo' DAC (£1400 in 1995 and HDCD capable.)

I think Stan Curtis designed the Cambridge Audio DAC 1. Not sure if he was around when the first DacMagic was designed.

 

[the record spot]

bloatedgut:

BTW the Dacmagic that we are referring to is not the modern one.... it is the old one, this fella

It should be good as I read somewhere that it was designed by Mr Pink Triangle..... but so good to defeat a modern machine like the CD192?

Not surprised it's a good performer at all; very highly rated DAC and suspect it's better than the current one!

Perhaps it's just a different sound than a better one maybe, but happy to accept your opinion. Heck, if I think a PS1 I picked up with a good DAC onboard can give my SA7001-KI a run for its' money...

 

[Andy H]

Yeah it was me Joel.

If I remember correct the 192 was more controlled in the base and sweeter in the treble, but the dac magic was more dynamic.

Like I say this is going from memory so without retesting I wouldn't take it as gospel.

I do use the dac very regular on the Sonos but when I want to be in HiFi nirvana (usually when I'm on my own) on goes the 192.

I did say at the time it was my opinion but I do still stand by it. This does not mean the OP is wrong but that's his opinion, fair dues.

It was a very close thing though I recall, I did actually prefer the dac untill I did the back to back and to me it was the small subtle things that the dac misses.

 

[Anonymous]

JoelSim:Weird, as someone else said their CD192 sounded better than the new DACMagic in an A/B test.

I know, I know... I am as big an Arcam fan as you.... virtually everything that I own is Arcam (hearing that you were selling your CD192 was like hearing that the Queen was abdicating and emigrating to Greece with Phil) and I believe in their audio philosophy... high end but affordable... so this did knock me.... however I have listened more now and so I have a better idea....

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:bloatedgut:

BTW the Dacmagic that we are referring to is not the modern one.... it is the old one, this fella

It should be good as I read somewhere that it was designed by Mr Pink Triangle..... but so good to defeat a modern machine like the CD192?

Not surprised it's a good performer at all; very highly rated DAC and suspect it's better than the current one!

Perhaps it's just a different sound than a better one maybe, but happy to accept your opinion. Heck, if I think a PS1 I picked up with a good DAC onboard can give my SA7001-KI a run for its' money...

I think that it was different, but also better than expected, much better... and more of a competitor... which really made my jaw drop.

 

[Anonymous]

Andy H:Yeah it was me Joel.

If I remember correct the 192 was more controlled in the base and sweeter in the treble, but the dac magic was more dynamic.

Like I say this is going from memory so without retesting I wouldn't take it as gospel.

I do use the dac very regular on the Sonos but when I want to be in HiFi nirvana (usually when I'm on my own) on goes the 192.

I did say at the time it was my opinion but I do still stand by it. This does not mean the OP is wrong but that's his opinion, fair dues.

It was a very close thing though I recall, I did actually prefer the dac untill I did the back to back and to me it was the small subtle things that the dac misses.

Well... it is close and it is opinion based... and I think now I have more of a handle on it...

The DAC is brasher and has a lot more vitality than the Arcam... so the sound virtually jumps out at you... when you put on a rock cd or a dance cd it really sounds more lively than the Arcam... but that said it can also be too bright and too brash for long listening... so where it makes the Arcam sound a little duller... in a longer listen I think that the Arcam wins out, it is mellower and more controlled... but the bass and the mid-tones really are shiny and exciting on the DAC... so it really grabbed me by the balls..... it was a shock.

 

[Anonymous]

I once A/B tested a Beresford 7150 v5 vs my Arcam CD192. Only a tiny scrap of difference to me in favour of the CD192.

Certainly brings you back down to earth when the original RRP of the CD192 at £900 and the Beresford at £100.

Makes me think of how much bang for buck difference any mid to high CD player really has, doesn't it?

 

[Anonymous]

Graham_Thomas:I once A/B tested a Beresford 7150 v5 vs my Arcam CD192. Only a tiny scrap of difference to me in favour of the CD192.

Certainly brings you back down to earth when the original RRP of the CD192 at £900 and the Beresford at £100.

Makes me think of how much bang for buck difference any mid to high CD player really has, doesn't it?

Well I was lucky to get a really good deal on the CD192 (£250) so I am keeping it.... but my first instinct (before the brashness of the CA DAC jangled my ears a bit) was to sell the CD192, realise the money on it and just buy a cheap CD transport with a coax out.... it is such an easy way to get value you for money....

 

[Mr Morph]

I am not shocked by your findings.

Had to post in this thread because it reminded me just how good the Dacmagic 2 is. I bought my one from new in 1996 and it was an immediately impressive piece of kit. The first time I switched the thing on, the music sounded like it was being processed by some kind of 'linear accelerator', and then 'propelled' out of the speakers! The shear immediacy of the sound told you that you were dealing with a 'no nonsense' product. On lesser well-recorded material it can sound 'brash', but feed it with good recordings and it will usually deliver a breathtaking performance.

Although there is nothing that can be done to turn a bad recording into a good one, it is possible to tame the Dacmagic for long term listening if you are prepared to start experimenting with the cables in your system. In the Dacmagic 2, you have discovered a 'Wild Horse' of a converter, and it does take some tailoring to the system it's being used with. As long as your amp isn't 'bright sounding' there shouldn't be much of a problem. The first thing I'd probably do is change the speaker cable. Standard QED Qudos can be harsh sounding stuff when used with good quality equipment. If you are not using the 'silver plated' version of the Qudos, I'd swap it out for some 'QED Silver Anniversary' and that should calm down the top end a bit.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with the interconnects you are using, but I'm currently using a good pair of 'solid core' ones. From personal experience I've often found that some multi-strand interconnects can colour the sound unfavourably, especially with more dynamic sounding equipment. I'm not that up to date with the interconnect scene at present, but from what I gather 'solid core' cables are not 'in vogue' at the moment. So worst case scenario, see if you can lay your hands on some old 'Audioquest Topaz' (highly rated cable of it's time, imported from the USA by Arcam). The older Audioquest cables have great stability and control with dynamic sounding kit, and if anything, get better with age! They also come from exactly the same era that produced the DAC, so it will complete your 'time warp' experience back to the late 90's! I hope this advice is of some use?

At the end of the day, the real test of any hi-fi component is if it manages to move you emotionally. If it achieves that objective on a regular basis, you'll never feel the need to upgrade it. 14 years on, I have no intention of surrendering my Dacmagic 2i, and in my opinion it should be considered a hi-fi 'classic'. Maybe if people keep talking about it for another 10 years they will overlook it's cheap retail price, and finally give it the credit it deserves?

 

[stephennic]

Hi,

My friend had a dacmagic 2i, I put it on my marantz cd-63se. The bass extended quite dramatically and dynamic too, the sound became smoother it just sounded more analogue, open and natural, the top end extended too. I heard the new dacmagic isnt as good as the old 2i model - leaner, brighter balance.

It certaintly upgraded the marantz cd63se. I listened to other cd players, like arcam cd73t, creek evo, marantz cd7001 and sonically I liked the dacmagic 2i better. To bad that I had to give the dacmagic 2i back.

There is a good review on it on star online, and hifi world raved about it too, they gave ideas how to tweak it etc.

Cheers

Steve.

 

[JamesOK]

This is a really interesting thread for me. I currently have a CD82/A85/P85, after having changed back to Arcam from another system. Although the overall sound from this kit is smoother and an easier listen than my previous setup I am missing certain areas. Others have suggested the CD192 would be leaps and bounds ahead of the CD82, but even on ebay theyre very expensive. Ive recently discovered Spotify, so the DacMagic seems like a step forward. Having said this, there are other threads on the Forum which are the opposite, ie much prefer the Dacmagic.

 

[Andy H]

Hi James

It's a personal thing, everyone prefers a different sound. The fact that I think the cd192 edges it is my pref, someone else may prefer the sound of the dacmagic. Don't get me wrong the dacmagic has worked wonders for my Sonos system.

I'm looking forward to trying out the Arcam rdac to see if this is closer to the cd192 sound, if it is then I'll probably change from the dac magic.

When I first posted that I thought the cd192 sounded better than the dacmagic, a lot of people were surprised, but this is my findings and my pref'.

I prefer the bass and dynamics of the dacmagic but it's just a little "too in your face" with vocals and treble.

I prefer the smoothness of the cd192 in these areas.

I think you can get a Dac magic and return it if you don't like it (I would check first) then you can see for yourself, you never know you might prefer it.

 

[Andy H]

Graham_Thomas:I once A/B tested a Beresford 7150 v5 vs my Arcam CD192. Only a tiny scrap of difference to me in favour of the CD192. Certainly brings you back down to earth when the original RRP of the CD192 at £900 and the Beresford at £100. Makes me think of how much bang for buck difference any mid to high CD player really has, doesn't it?

I couldn't agree more, I paid £900 for mine and when you think a £230 dac can push it very, very close.

 

[JamesOK]

Andy H:
Hi James

It's a personal thing, everyone prefers a different sound. The fact that I think the cd192 edges it is my pref, someone else may prefer the sound of the dacmagic. Don't get me wrong the dacmagic has worked wonders for my Sonos system.

I'm looking forward to trying out the Arcam rdac to see if this is closer to the cd192 sound, if it is then I'll probably change from the dac magic.

When I first posted that I thought the cd192 sounded better than the dacmagic, a lot of people were surprised, but this is my findings and my pref'.

I prefer the bass and dynamics of the dacmagic but it's just a little "too in your face" with vocals and treble.

I prefer the smoothness of the cd192 in these areas.

I think you can get a Dac magic and return it if you don't like it (I would check first) then you can see for yourself, you never know you might prefer it.

All good points Andy. As I said, Ive only recently discovered Spotify, so have never really considered a DAC before. The only side by side demo I have seen was between a Naim CD player and their new DAC. Cant remember the models, but it was in the Bristol show this year.

My own opinion was that the CD player just edged it, slightly more full sound, but there wasnt much in it. I'm thinking for a reasonably small outlay I could get a sound more to my taste, but like you mention, I need to listen to it really!

 

[stephennic]

Hi,

This is the link to the cambridge audio dacmagic 2i review, http://sites.thestar.com.my/audio/story.asp?file=/1996/5/05dac

I think its better sounding than the new dacmagic.

Cheers,

Steve.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

stephennic:
Hi,

My friend had a dacmagic 2i, I put it on my marantz cd-63se. The bass extended quite dramatically and dynamic too, the sound became smoother it just sounded more analogue, open and natural, the top end extended too. I heard the new dacmagic isnt as good as the old 2i model - leaner, brighter balance.

It certaintly upgraded the marantz cd63se. I listened to other cd players, like arcam cd73t, creek evo, marantz cd7001 and sonically I liked the dacmagic 2i better. To bad that I had to give the dacmagic 2i back.

There is a good review on it on star online, and hifi world raved about it too, they gave ideas how to tweak it etc.

Cheers

Steve.

I'd better step in here or people will think I've left the country. I've said many times before that the DacMagic really begins to shine when fed lossless files. Recently I had a Penguin for lunch and he brought over his Arcam cdp (one if the 63 versions mentioned I think). There was really no comparison so to say the older DM is better than the 15 year old mk 2 is a bit hard to believe. It might be different and it might sound better to some but I don't think you can say it's better outright.

 

[stephennic]

Gerrardasnails:stephennic:

Hi,

My friend had a dacmagic 2i, I put it on my marantz cd-63se. The bass extended quite dramatically and dynamic too, the sound became smoother it just sounded more analogue, open and natural, the top end extended too. I heard the new dacmagic isnt as good as the old 2i model - leaner, brighter balance.

It certaintly upgraded the marantz cd63se. I listened to other cd players, like arcam cd73t, creek evo, marantz cd7001 and sonically I liked the dacmagic 2i better. To bad that I had to give the dacmagic 2i back.

There is a good review on it on star online, and hifi world raved about it too, they gave ideas how to tweak it etc.

Cheers

Steve.

I'd better step in here or people will think I've left the country. I've said many times before that the DacMagic really begins to shine when fed lossless files. Recently I had a Penguin for lunch and he brought over his Arcam cdp (one if the 63 versions mentioned I think). There was really no comparison so to say the older DM is better than the 15 year old mk 2 is a bit hard to believe. It might be different and it might sound better to some but I don't think you can say it's better outright.

Hi,

At times I have found the older equipment sounds more musical than the new on my system. I had a cambridge audio 640c v2 for around 9 months. I originally bought it to replace my old marantz cd-63se, but after awhile I kept going back to the marantz, it had a more natural sound and warmth in the mids the cambridge didnt have. Yes the cambridge had heaps of detail but I felt fatigued after 20- 30 mins listening to it. I end up selling it and bought a consonance cd-120 linear, but also kept my old marantz cd63se.

The old dacmagic even though I had it for a short peroid of time, was great and easily beat my cambridge audio 640 c v2. The new cambridge dacmagic is clearly better than the 640c v2 but it has similar tonal characteristics, and slightly lean. I just found the old dacmagic 2i better balanced for my system - has more warmth to the sound - so maybe its not better but better suited to my system.

Hope that clarifies what I mean.

Cheers

Steve.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

stephennic:Gerrardasnails:stephennic:

Hi,

My friend had a dacmagic 2i, I put it on my marantz cd-63se. The bass extended quite dramatically and dynamic too, the sound became smoother it just sounded more analogue, open and natural, the top end extended too. I heard the new dacmagic isnt as good as the old 2i model - leaner, brighter balance.

It certaintly upgraded the marantz cd63se. I listened to other cd players, like arcam cd73t, creek evo, marantz cd7001 and sonically I liked the dacmagic 2i better. To bad that I had to give the dacmagic 2i back.

There is a good review on it on star online, and hifi world raved about it too, they gave ideas how to tweak it etc.

Cheers

Steve.

I'd better step in here or people will think I've left the country. I've said many times before that the DacMagic really begins to shine when fed lossless files. Recently I had a Penguin for lunch and he brought over his Arcam cdp (one if the 63 versions mentioned I think). There was really no comparison so to say the older DM is better than the 15 year old mk 2 is a bit hard to believe. It might be different and it might sound better to some but I don't think you can say it's better outright.

Hi,

At times I have found the older equipment sounds more musical than the new on my system. I had a cambridge audio 640c v2 for around 9 months. I originally bought it to replace my old marantz cd-63se, but after awhile I kept going back to the marantz, it had a more natural sound and warmth in the mids the cambridge didnt have. Yes the cambridge had heaps of detail but I felt fatigued after 20- 30 mins listening to it. I end up selling it and bought a consonance cd-120 linear, but also kept my old marantz cd63se.

The old dacmagic even though I had it for a short peroid of time, was great and easily beat my cambridge audio 640 c v2. The new cambridge dacmagic is clearly better than the 640c v2 but it has similar tonal characteristics, and slightly lean. I just found the old dacmagic 2i better balanced for my system - has more warmth to the sound - so maybe its not better but better suited to my system.

Hope that clarifies what I mean.

Cheers

Steve.

The new DacMagic leans toward warm rather than lean in my opinion.

 

[Dan Turner]

When I had a (new) DacMagic I took it to my mate's house and compared his CD192 as a CDP and as just a transport going through the DM - we set them up into 2 different inputs on his amp so we could switch between them instantly. To my eternal surprise neither he or I could tell any difference whatsoever.

 

[Mr Morph]

Quote Steve,

'At times I have found the older equipment sounds more musical than the new on my system.

Most manufacturers have always designed 'digital' to a 'safe' commercial balance, mainly because nobody wants to pay £1000 for a player that sounds awful with lesser well-recorded material. The DM2 didn't have to suffer this 'compromise' because at its retail price nobody would mind given the machines performance (as mentioned in the review Steve posted). Unfortunately, back in the nineties and even eighties 'digital' generally did sound dull, and given the OP's comments it looks as though very little has changed. Although I never heard it, I'm told the Marantz CD63KI Signature shared a similar balance to the DM2, which was very adventurous by Mr Ishiwata! Ironic that they were both produced in the same year.

I thought your comments about the 2i sounding more 'analogue' to be very true, which is the reason it's found a home in my system for so long. Now that a generation have grown up without turntables, and downloading and playing music via computer, the standard of equipment was inevitably going to fall to meet those users demands. Hi-Fi reviewers predicted this would happen as far back as the late eighties.

 

[John Duncan]

On the contrary, my standards have risen. Which is why I listen to computer-based music and sold my turntable.

 

[John Duncan]

Dan Turner:When I had a (new) DacMagic I took it to my mate's house and compared his CD192 as a CDP and as just a transport going through the DM - we set them up into 2 different inputs on his amp so we could switch between them instantly. To my eternal surprise neither he or I could tell any difference whatsoever.

Agreed - did the same with my Primare, which is why I came to the conclusion that the means of digital transfer was the deciding factor. Hence a fifty quid DVD player didn't sound as good as the CD player, which in turn didn't sound as good as hard disk (though the latter was very close, and not in all cases). Whilst I know others who have more experience than I have said the CD player in the Uniti 'slaughters' (direct quote) wireless streaming, I personally can't tell any difference.