Bel Canto DAC 2 and Musical Fidelity A3 24 D to A Converters

Tag : Transparent Cable

(Reprinted from the Summer/Fall 2002 Audio Ideas Guide )
Since audio reviews generally rely heavily on comparisons,and, more specifically from the cataloguing of differences gleanedfrom such comparisons, this review might be a little shorter thanusual. You see, the products in question here are similar in moreways than any two I’ve reviewed before.
We have here two digital to analog converters aspiring tohigh-end status, priced almost identically, and at roughly the US$1200 mark, nestled squarely in the moderately affordable zonebetween multi-thousand dollar “reference” processorsand multi-hundred dollar “entry level” boxes.
Closely in step with current digital audio fashions both areup-sampling converters, bumping up incoming data signals to 192 kHz(user selectable 192 or 96 kHz in the case of the Musical Fidelity)and increasing the word length size to 24 bit before turning thesamples into analog waveforms. Both accept digital data at 96 kHzor less from either coaxial or toslink optical inputs and outputanalog audio through gold plated RCA outputs only. The MusicalFidelity, however, also provides a digital output allowing you tofeed another device or system if desired, the signal from which isfully re-clocked in the process.

Both DACs employ multi-bit, Delta-Sigma converters (The BelCanto’s is from Burr-Brown) and, since the higher samplingfrequencies push the nasty digital harmonics created by theconversion process much further out of the audible frequencyspectrum, both machines take advantage of much more gradualroll-off filters rather than the “brick wall” filtersin 44.1 kHz DACs (44.1 kHz DACs clamp down hard on any signal above20 kHz whereas 96 and 192 kHz devices can roll of the top end muchmore gently at closer to 96 kHz, helping to preserve analog liketransient response). This, many believe, is the main reason behindthe perceived increase in resolution gained by up-sampling, aprocess which increases the clock speed but cannot, withoutcomplicated interpolation technology, actually increase thetemporal resolution of a signal that was originally recorded at alower sample rate. For a more thorough discussion of up-samplingand interpolation see my review of the Perpetual Technologies P-1A and P-3A digital converters .
The Same, but Different
For all their commercial and technological similarities no oneis likely to confuse these two boxes based on their physicalappearance. Housed in the same chassis as the rest of the A3 linethe Musical Fidelity is big for a DAC, and, like my A3 CR preamp and power amp surprisingly heavy. It’s also very pretty, assuming you likeshiny things with nifty looking blue LEDs. The full-size aluminumchassis and beefy, silver faceplate are certainly contributors tothe A3 24’s 10 Kg mass, but the bulk of the heft comes fromMusical Fidelity’s signature choke regulated power supply.These chokes, basically brick wall filters for incoming AC power,can be found in most MF components and are often credited for thelively and transparent sound of Musical Fidelity’s recentgear. With lots of empty space inside the relatively small DACcircuit board can be kept well away from the power supply.
As with most DACs operation is dead simple. Plug it in viadetachable power cord, connect a digital source (or sources) to oneof two input jacks, push the power button, choose 96 kHz or 192 kHzupsampling via the rear mounted button and watch the beguiling blueindicator lights telling you you’re powered up and locked onto the source. With the unit drawing only ten watts and runningcool, I had no compunction about leaving it on all the time, whichis exactly what I did.
Like Perpetual Technologies, and Audio Alchemy before them,Bel Canto has opted for the smaller is better approach. Thebrick-shaped DAC 2 is functionally minimalist, designed to keepsignal path lengths to a minimum. Input and output connectors aremounted directly to the narrow internal circuit board, coax andoptical inputs at one end and RCA outputs at the other. With cablessprouting from both ends, and its non-descript black chassis, theDAC 2 is less elegant than the A3 24. Points lost for style,however, are picked up for efficiency. Being a DAC it doesn’tdemand much user interaction and with its compact size, can betucked away behind or beside other components, ideally positionedvery close to your CD transport to minimize cable lengths.Similarly simple in operation the DAC 2 has only one control, aswitch selecting either the optical or coax input. A light on theoutput side of the brick changes from red to green when the DAC 2locks onto an incoming signal. Like the Musical Fidelity it drawsonly 10 watts and, with no power switch, is on whenever it’splugged in. Neither machine ever acted up, failed to lock up to anincoming signal or otherwise behaved aberrantly in any way.
Similar Sounds
When the Musical Fidelity processor arrived I still had thePerpetual Technologies digital to digital processor (P1-A) and DAC(P3-A) on hand for a brief period overlap so sonic comparisons werecertainly in order. With both processors fed by the P1-A (whichup-samples to 96 kHz, mounts multi-pronged attacks on jitter, andactually interpolates data that would have been recorded if thesource were 24/96) the two DACs sounded truly excellent, anddefinitely revealed subtle, but distinctive characteristics.Slightly darker tonally, the Musical Fidelity also sounded a touchmore refined than the less expensive P3-A. At the same time the P3had a very slight edge in overall detail, owing in part to aslightly brighter, drier sound. Both DACs unequivocally blew awaythe internal DAC in my Rotel RCD-951 CD player but I came away with the feeling that the MF was the smootheroperator, it’s suave, more analog-like sound making it morenatural sounding and less fatiguing over the long haul. Thisimpression only increased when the P3-A was stripped of theadvantage of the US $349 Monolithic Sound power supply designed todrive both it and the P1-A. Running on its internal power supplythe P3-A sounded decidedly coarser and a touch aggressive bycomparison with bass now a little underdamped.

When the A3 24, this time without the aid of the P1-A, was pitagainst the Perpetual full court press (P1-A, P3-A and theMonolithic power supply, a combination costing over US $2000), theadvantage shifted to Perpetual. With the P3-A synergisticallymatched to the P1-A, the MF lost some smoothness, air, andmusicality by comparison, the P3 benefiting considerably more fromthe P1 than the A3 24. As you can already infer, however, the bestsounding combination was the P1-A (powered by the Monolithic powersupply of course) feeding the A3 24. This chain was the smoothest,most musical, most “un-digital” sounding digitalI’ve ever enjoyed in my system. It also helped revealsomething which set the Musical Fidelity processor apart from somany others: long term freedom from listener fatigue. I’m notsure it’s as quite at the level of SACD or DVD-A, asMF’s ads claim, but digital gear at this level can certainlyinspire joyful excavations of long-unplayed CDs.
Since I was getting such sweet sound from the Perpetual/MFcombo I was sorry to see the P1-A go back to the manufacturer. Withthe A3 24 now left to its own devices a little of the magic wasmissing, but not enough to keep me from enjoying it thoroughly. Noflash in the pan, the A3 24 seemed to get better the more Ilistened to it; a combination of vanishingly low listener fatigueand a slow break in period perhaps. This is not something than canbe said of most other digital gear I’ve auditioned.
A late joiner to the party the Bel Canto Dac 2 showed up a fewweeks after the Perpetual pieces had left. After a week or more ofbreak in I substituted it for the A3 24 and, over another couple ofweeks formed some general impressions without doing any directcomparisons. Luckily recent trips to Hollywood’s Amoeba Music(easily the best record store I’ve ever patronized, and thisin a town with more great record stores than any city I can thinkof) had furnished me with ample fodder for the formation of saidimpressions, namely in the form of some excellent sounding CDs.Cornershop’s Handcream for Generation , Wilco’s Yankee Hotel Foxtrot , and Neil Young’s Are You Passionate? for example are not only great discs which I urge you to add toyour collection, they also sound fantastic and particularlyun-digital, even on CD. And, just to give you an idea of how deep adeep catalog store Amoeba is, I found two excellent CDs by Torontoacoustic guitar phenom Don Ross which I had never even heard ofbefore ( Passion Session and Huron Street are the titles). These, from a label called Narada, are minimallymiked, audiophile grade ammunition and sound correspondinglyexcellent. Since they were used I got em’ for 7 bucks a popto boot.
Listening to these discs, and many others through the DAC 2,it was pretty clear that Bel Canto had no intention of beingembarrassed by the likes of Perpetual Technology or MusicalFidelity. My initial impression was of velvety, analog-style soundwith excellent soundstaging capable of putting instruments welloutside the speakers. I was particularly enthralled with the Wilcoand Neil Young records, the latter having a “live off thefloor” quality that puts Neil and his band (in this caseBooker T’s MG’s have been substituted for Crazy Horse)in the room to an almost eerie degree. Transparency? Mostdefinitely. When that kind of thing starts happening, and you justkeep pulling out disc after disc, it can usually be chalked up tothe musicality of the system (not to suggest that the quality ofthe music doesn’t play a huge part). When you can close youreyes and have the room melt away it’s about as good at“virtual reality” gets.
So, yes, as these listening sessions proved, the DAC 2 wasimpressive right off the bat. For all its strengths, however, itdidn’t leave me feeling that it had necessarily outclassedthe Musical Fidelity. And here, my friends, is where we return tothe theme of similitude. Once I started making direct comparisons(via remote control on the MF A3 CR preamp) it became clear justhow similar these two DACs sounded. When comparing DACs this way itgenerally doesn’t take terribly long to establish a feel forthe character of each machine, especially when long passages areplayed without switching. In this case it was frustratinglydifficult to even hear the switch! With my Rotel as transport, orwith my Panasonic DVD A-310 DVD player, via optical or toslink,when compared back to back from the same transport the two DACssounded almost identical (I used two identical runs of UltralinkUltima interconnect cable to the preamp and the stock power cords,by the way). Even when I thought I had some consistent sonicdifference to latch onto, repeated back and forth comparisons wouldrarely reveal something repeatable. Never before have I encounteredtwo components so sonically deadlocked.
Even more concentrated, intent listening, with the mostchallenging source material in my collection did, over time, startto reveal some very subtle, but identifiable differences betweenthe two DACs. On Air’s 10,000 Hz Legend , for instance, the DAC 2 seemed just a hair more open with aslightly wider soundstage and somewhat crisper transient edges fora vaguely more three dimensional effect. Tonally, in terms ofoverall resolution, imaging and bass control, however, Icouldn’t hear any consistent differences. They both soundedgreat. More or less the same, but great.
On the Kundun Soundtrack and Patricia Barber’s Cafe Blue , as good a test of digital resolving power as I’ve comeacross, the sound was sumptuous on both processors, with maybe anextra whiff of air and a centimeter of stage width from the BelCanto. At the same time I felt that the A3 24 delivered a slightlysmoother sound, the top end and mids ever so slightly lusher. Bothfeatured fast, engagingly tactile microdynamics and extraordinaryresolution with extended, firm, and well damped bottom end. Theymay lack the sophistication of digital from the likes of dCS andLevinson, but there were few faults to find in this pair ofprocessors.
Aaron Marshall