Cambridge Audio Launches New Dacmagic

[Ajani]

Finally. Those links above for the "reviews" of the CA DAC were a little thin on substance. What I want to see is some real comparisons. 'Sure hope Stereophile doesn't just dismiss this one because of price or embeds it deep in some editorial.

Hopefully Stereophile will treat them the way they normally treat DACs and Musical Fidelity Gear, with proper comparisons with the best available... What I really want to know is how the V-DAC (now $300!!!! on Audio Advisor) compares to the $1500 X-DAC V8 (now discontinued)....

Despite the less than impressive look of the V-DAC (I can always hide it behind my squeezebox) and the fact that WHF rated the CA DACMagic higher (as an "all-rounder"), I'm still far more interested in the V-DAC as I get the impression that it sounds more like a real high-end DAC than the DACMagic... I can't wait to see what Stereophile thinks of the V-DAC...

Seriously, $300... Wow

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=MFVDAC

[nightflier]

Yeah the V-Dac is a little lower on my list. It definitely looks like something that should be tucked away, kind of like those cheapo phono preamps.

Regarding the Stereophile review, I'm going to guess they are going to compare it to the Evo and the Benchmark, since those are the two DACs the mag's reviewers have been touting for the past year (and that they probably have on hand as a result of the many reviews they've done of those two DACs). My guess is that they will also have more interest in the CA Dac, mostly because of the balanced outputs and the way they've also sung the praises of the 740 & 840 CD players.

[Ajani]

Yeah the V-Dac is a little lower on my list. It definitely looks like something that should be tucked away, kind of like those cheapo phono preamps.

Regarding the Stereophile review, I'm going to guess they are going to compare it to the Evo and the Benchmark, since those are the two DACs the mag's reviewers have been touting for the past year (and that they probably have on hand as a result of the many reviews they've done of those two DACs). My guess is that they will also have more interest in the CA Dac, mostly because of the balanced outputs and the way they've also sung the praises of the 740 & 840 CD players.

Are you sure you're talking about Stereophile and not The Absolute Sound? TAS is the one that can't stop worshiping at the feet of Cambridge Audio... Stereophile gave the 740A & C a rather luke warm review with the amp rated as Class C (while the similiar priced NAD C372 is Class B) and the CD player fairing slightly better as Class B (with the $100 cheaper Marantz SA8001 rated as Class A)....

I agree with you that they will probably find the balance outputs on the Cambridge intriguing....

I really want to see the review of the MF, since they rated both of MF's previous DACs as Class A (the X-DAC V3 & X-DAC V8)... So I really wonder if MF can produce a Class A DAC for just $300 (instead of the $1K and $1.5K of their last 2 DACs)...

I think the DACMagic is going to outsell the V-DAC (depite the $100 price difference) simply because the DM has much better features and doesn't look like crap... I wish MF had charged the extra $100 and made the V-DAC at least look respectable...

[tony340]

So whats the conclusion? I mean, how good is the Cambridge DAC after all? I'm looking at upgrading my Marantz CD 5001 and would like to know whether this particular DACMagic will greatly improve the sound by adding it into my system and making the marantz the transport?

[Feanor]

So whats the conclusion? I mean, how good is the Cambridge DAC after all? I'm looking at upgrading my Marantz CD 5001 and would like to know whether this particular DACMagic will greatly improve the sound by adding it into my system and making the marantz the transport?

... for sure if you try it.

The DacMagic has had good reviews and is likely to be very good-sounding DAC in its price range or anywhere close. The Marantz is a decent but entry level CDP whose the sound might well be improved by a good DAC.

Notwithstanding, the DacMagic's improvement might turn out to be very small to your ears. Personally I have found digital sources changes to be quite subtle relative to speakers, amps, preamps, or even different tubes in the same preamp. But Mr Peabody, for example, might disagree with this assessment.

[blackraven]

Just be aware that the Cambridge sound in general tends to lean slight on the bright side and Marantz tends to be on the warmer side.

In comparing a high end DAC like the Van Alstine to my Cambridge 840c, I noticed that the differences depended upon the music I was playing. On some music the differences were dramatic and on others you really had to listen hard for the differences.

[Ajani]

So whats the conclusion? I mean, how good is the Cambridge DAC after all? I'm looking at upgrading my Marantz CD 5001 and would like to know whether this particular DACMagic will greatly improve the sound by adding it into my system and making the marantz the transport?

No Conclusions... especially since no-one in this thread has bought a DacMagic yet...

However, it just got another review:

5 Stars from HiFi World (another UK review mag)...

Their review pretty much said that the DacMagic will make a fine upgrade for older mid-priced CD players and current cheapo dvd players, cables boxes and computer soundcards... but don't expect it to give ultra-expensive DACs a run for their money...

Based on that, I wouldn't expect the DacMagic to give a huge improvement over the Marantz... as the Marantz CD5001 is an excellent budget CD player... it might just alter the sound (as BlackRaven mentioned) making things less warm and more neutral to bright...

But the only way to know for sure is to try one out yourself....

[nightflier]

Their review pretty much said that the DacMagic will make a fine upgrade for older mid-priced CD players and current cheapo dvd players, cables boxes and computer soundcards... but don't expect it to give ultra-expensive DACs a run for their money...

...because of their chicken-sh1t way of not wanting to tick off their advertisers (i.e. the companies that give them uber-expensive toys to play with)? I'm having a tougher time everyday swallowing their more-expensive-is-better drivel. My last issue of Stereophile had some grossly overpriced gear that I really don't thing should be priced as high as the MSRP suggests. I know this is an age-old argument, but what if that CA audio DAC really is a giant killer, would they have the guts to come out an say it?

[blackraven]

There's alot of lower priced audio gear that sounds as good as more expensive gear. Some publications have rated the Cambridge 840c better than CDP's costing a few thousand more. Now how much of that is hype for the Manufacturer and advertising we will never know.

[Ajani]

5 Stars from HiFi World (another UK review mag)...

Their review pretty much said that the DacMagic will make a fine upgrade for older mid-priced CD players and current cheapo dvd players, cables boxes and computer soundcards... but don't expect it to give ultra-expensive DACs a run for their money...

Here's the exact quote:

an excellent tonic for older budget or mid-priced (CD) players, and a great upgrade for modern budget computer/AV set-ups

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/produc...=Press+reviews

[Ajani]

...because of their chicken-sh1t way of not wanting to tick off their advertisers (i.e. the companies that give them uber-expensive toys to play with)? I'm having a tougher time everyday swallowing their more-expensive-is-better drivel. My last issue of Stereophile had some grossly overpriced gear that I really don't thing should be priced as high as the MSRP suggests. I know this is an age-old argument, but what if that CA audio DAC really is a giant killer, would they have the guts to come out an say it?

You can never tell... Some mags (much like some Audiophiles) would die before admitting that a lower priced product sounds as good as (or even nearly as good as) their ultra-expensive reference gear.... Other mags and audiophiles have so many "best in class", "as good as products costing 5 to 10 times the price" products that it's hard to take any of their claims seriously...

And that issue of Stereophile you mentioned has been the source of some heated debate on the Stereophile website... Many of us Stereophile readers, were not impressed with the prices of the products reviewed in the that issue....

[nightflier]

PS, I tried to order the Dac Magic from several online sites and they are all out of stock. Even AA put me on a waiting list and can't even guarantee they'll get it to me before x-mas!

[Ajani]

PS, I tried to order the Dac Magic from several online sites and they are all out of stock. Even AA put me on a waiting list and can't even guarantee they'll get it to me before x-mas!

I'm not surprised... With all the glowing reviews it's getting, combined with good features, decent looks and a really good price... also since it's only real competitor (the V-DAC), though a $100 cheaper, looks like the 2 way splitter that you hide behind your cable box and lacks all the extra features... The DacMagic is gonna be on a lot of 'Audiophile' Christmas Lists this season...

[hubsand]

...because of their chicken-sh1t way of not wanting to tick off their advertisers (i.e. the companies that give them uber-expensive toys to play with)? I'm having a tougher time everyday swallowing their more-expensive-is-better drivel. My last issue of Stereophile had some grossly overpriced gear that I really don't thing should be priced as high as the MSRP suggests. I know this is an age-old argument, but what if that CA audio DAC really is a giant killer, would they have the guts to come out an say it?

What HiFi is notorious for championing anything by Arcam, Nad and (particularly) Cambridge Audio. Every DAC, speaker, amplifier, cable, and plug is a five star product of the year, according to What HiFi. I auditioned one a couple of weeks ago: in 16-bit it was OK, but nothing to write home about. Fed 24-bit, it really flew, though!

[Ajani]

What HiFi is notorious for championing anything by Arcam, Nad and (particularly) Cambridge Audio. Every DAC, speaker, amplifier, cable, and plug is a five star product of the year, according to What HiFi. I auditioned one a couple of weeks ago: in 16-bit it was OK, but nothing to write home about. Fed 24-bit, it really flew, though!

That's a heavy exaggeration, but NAD, Cambridge and Arcam usually get good reviews from What HiFi?, but they also usually get good reviews from many other HiFi Mags across North America and Europe...

The Brands What HiFi are most in love with at the moment are Cyrus (who swept all the CD Player awards) and Roksan (The Kandy has one won so many amplifier of the year awards from WHF? that you might believe it was the best amp ever made)

[hubsand]

Can we fail to assume that Richer Sounds, historically one of the magazine's most lucrative supporters, and practically sole UK agents for Cambridge Audio, are not unconnected with What HiFi's unwavering promotion of the brand? Compare also What HiFi's unflagging 'Best Buy' support for Gale over the years . . .

If nothing else, might we safely contemplate the idea of wondering about the suggestion that there is some pro-home-grown bias at work? You're right: Mission have always been WHF darlings, too.

I don't want not to be saying that Cambridge, Mission and NAD are not improperly rated (I've happily owned many of their products down the ages), but I am saying that the picture drawn by What HiFi of the great hi-fi landscape is bigoted, one-dimensional and betrays evidence of a commercial, not educational, agenda.

[Ajani]

Can we fail to assume that Richer Sounds, historically one of the magazine's most lucrative supporters, and practically sole UK agents for Cambridge Audio, are not unconnected with What HiFi's unwavering promotion of the brand? Compare also What HiFi's unflagging 'Best Buy' support for Gale over the years . . .

If nothing else, might we safely contemplate the idea of wondering about the suggestion that there is some pro-home-grown bias at work? You're right: Mission have always been WHF darlings, too.

I don't want not to be saying that Cambridge, Mission and NAD are not improperly rated (I've happily owned many of their products down the ages), but I am saying that the picture drawn by What HiFi of the great hi-fi landscape is bigoted, one-dimensional and betrays evidence of a commercial, not educational, agenda.

I hear conspiracy theories and accusations of advertiser pay-offs for almost every major HiFi publication.... If I was to take all of those claims seriously, I'd have no HiFi mags to read... Also, keep in mind that even brands such as Cambridge, Arcam and Mission get the odd really bad review from What HiFi? For example the highly acclaimed Cambridge 840A Version 1 Amp got a pathetic 3 star review from What HiFi? (despite other mags across Europe and North America giving it best buy status)... Also, the new Mission 7 Series bookshelf speaker recently received a 3 star review for being overpriced for what it offers..

EDIT: Not to mention KEF (another major advertiser) got a round of exceptionally nasty 2 and 3 star reviews for their new C Series speakers and the IQ50 & 70 speakers as well... The reviews were so bad that forum member on the WHF? site started several complaint threads defending the new KEFs...

[blackraven]

You've heard the term "Beauty Is In The Eye's Of The Beholder",
well the same is true for audio. "Good Sound Is In the Ear's Of The Beholder"!

[Ajani]

Stereophile finally reviewed the DAC Magic and loved it... (check the current issue).... I'm guessing Class B rating when the recommended components issue springs forth...

[nightflier]

Stereophile finally reviewed the DAC Magic and loved it... (check the current issue).... I'm guessing Class B rating when the recommended components issue springs forth...

They also reviewed the YG Acoustics $100K+ speakers and, barring a few minor quibs, they said that these are the best speakers they've ever heard (echoing the manufacturer's own ads that they've been running for the past year). Problem is, they had nothing else to compare them to. My question is this: does a speaker costing $100K sound better than one costing $75K or does it just sound different? Imagine what kind of gear that extra $25K would buy. This review was a crock of crap - same old ego-stroking, rationales, and audiophile-speak. And I don't even want to bring up that we're in a major world-wide recession and that such an article in beyond unconscionable when hundreds of thousands of folks are being handed pink slips.

So yes, it was a mostly positive article on the Cambridge DAC, but how much of that can I believe? Would they really be willing to say that it beats the Benchmark at twice the price, or even their current fav, the Bel Canto? I bet if you blindfolded Fremer, Mejias, Phillips, and the rest of the gang and do an extensive A/B set of tests between these DACs, they couldn't tell you which one was which.

And I'm not saying that the advertising dollars are the main driving force, either. I actually think that these reviewers' own relationships with the vendors who provide them samples is the bigger problem. Kind of hard to get Conrad Johnson to lend you a $30K amp when your last review was les than stellar. I've read a few letters that they've actually published from disagreeing reviewers (Roy Hall is always a colorful chap), but I bet that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I also followed with interest their tiffs with regular folks (i.e. not audiophile golden ears) at WSJ, Add-busters, and a few other outfits who called their bluff. One was about some uber-expensive speaker cables, I think, with a challenge to do a blind test, and guess what? Stereophile backed down. With the WSJ, we're talking about the one demographic that can still afford $100K speakers, and they basically stuck to their line that there is value in such extravagances, even though more and more people are finding out (mostly because their shrinking dollar isn't buying much anymore and thus settling for less expensive gear) that this is all hogwash.

Now Stereophile is on this arrogant and quite possibly imaginary high that they somehow are not affected by this economy - apparently subscriptions are up and so are ad dollars. Yeah, that was the mantra of the Sheiks in Dubai, too, and guess what? You can now buy silver-plated Audis on eBay for a boatload of crude less than what they paid. Likewise, I seriously doubt that glowing write up of YG is going to be taken seriously or translate into record sales.

I'm finding a whole lot less of value in my subscription. Let's hope they change their tune.

[Ajani]

They also reviewed the YG Acoustics $100K+ speakers and, barring a few minor quibs, they said that these are the best speakers they've ever heard (echoing the manufacturer's own ads that they've been running for the past year). Problem is, they had nothing else to compare them to. My question is this: does a speaker costing $100K sound better than one costing $75K or does it just sound different? Imagine what kind of gear that extra $25K would buy. This review was a crock of crap - same old ego-stroking, rationales, and audiophile-speak. And I don't even want to bring up that we're in a major world-wide recession and that such an article in beyond unconscionable when hundreds of thousands of folks are being handed pink slips.

So yes, it was a mostly positive article on the Cambridge DAC, but how much of that can I believe? Would they really be willing to say that it beats the Benchmark at twice the price, or even their current fav, the Bel Canto? I bet if you blindfolded Fremer, Mejias, Phillips, and the rest of the gang and do an extensive A/B set of tests between these DACs, they couldn't tell you which one was which.

And I'm not saying that the advertising dollars are the main driving force, either. I actually think that these reviewers' own relationships with the vendors who provide them samples is the bigger problem. Kind of hard to get Conrad Johnson to lend you a $30K amp when your last review was les than stellar. I've read a few letters that they've actually published from disagreeing reviewers (Roy Hall is always a colorful chap), but I bet that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I also followed with interest their tiffs with regular folks (i.e. not audiophile golden ears) at WSJ, Add-busters, and a few other outfits who called their bluff. One was about some uber-expensive speaker cables, I think, with a challenge to do a blind test, and guess what? Stereophile backed down. With the WSJ, we're talking about the one demographic that can still afford $100K speakers, and they basically stuck to their line that there is value in such extravagances, even though more and more people are finding out (mostly because their shrinking dollar isn't buying much anymore and thus settling for less expensive gear) that this is all hogwash.

Now Stereophile is on this arrogant and quite possibly imaginary high that they somehow are not affected by this economy - apparently subscriptions are up and so are ad dollars. Yeah, that was the mantra of the Sheiks in Dubai, too, and guess what? You can now buy silver-plated Audis on eBay for a boatload of crude less than what they paid. Likewise, I seriously doubt that glowing write up of YG is going to be taken seriously or translate into record sales.

I'm finding a whole lot less of value in my subscription. Let's hope they change their tune.

So am I to assume that you weren't happy with this month's issue of Stereophile?

Well yeah, Stereophile gets lots of heat for consistently reviewing overpriced audio porn.... but that's the nature of the mag... We either accept it for what it is or don't renew our subscriptions....

[BillB]

I'm seriously considering dumping my Rotel RCD-1072 for one of these mated to my AppleTV controlled with the Remte app on my iPod Touch.

I've begun re-ripping my entire CD collection (in WAV) to a 1TB LaCie Ethernet Disk mini Home Edition with iTunes Server software. It would show up in iTunes as a shared drive/library and stream over ethernet to the AppleTV and use the optical out to the CA DacMagic before going on to my preamp.

For less than the cost of a Benchmark DAC1 I'd have a pretty formidable setup:

Cambridge Audio DacMagic: $400
AppleTV (40GB): $230
LaCie Ethernet Disk mini Home Edition (1TB): $160
iPod Touch (8GB): $230

I think the DacMagic, and the MH DAC25.2 for that matter, are targeted at people like me. People in the 25-34 age bracket that have embraced the convenience of the iPod, love music, and want a good system at home. The limiting factor is the quality of the software (music). There's no doubt that there are much higher levels of fidelity out there but modern rock/pop music is too compressed during mastering to shine on that equipment.

What do you all think of the setup?

Bill

[Feanor]

I'm seriously considering dumping my Rotel RCD-1072 for one of these mated to my AppleTV controlled with the Remte app on my iPod Touch.

I've begun re-ripping my entire CD collection (in WAV) to a 1TB LaCie Ethernet Disk mini Home Edition with iTunes Server software. It would show up in iTunes as a shared drive/library and stream over ethernet to the AppleTV and use the optical out to the CA DacMagic before going on to my preamp.

For less than the cost of a Benchmark DAC1 I'd have a pretty formidable setup:

Cambridge Audio DacMagic: $400
AppleTV (40GB): $230
LaCie Ethernet Disk mini Home Edition (1TB): $160
iPod Touch (8GB): $230

I think the DacMagic, and the MH DAC25.2 for that matter, are targeted at people like me. People in the 25-34 age bracket that have embraced the convenience of the iPod, love music, and want a good system at home. The limiting factor is the quality of the software (music). There's no doubt that there are much higher levels of fidelity out there but modern rock/pop music is too compressed during mastering to shine on that equipment.

What do you all think of the setup?

Bill

I haven't used or seen the Apple TV / iTouch, but reports I've heard have been quite good.

It's up to you whether you keep your CDP for the occassional convenience of poping in a visitor's CD -- of course you can route the digital signal through the DacMagic.

I rip to ALAC (Apple Lossless) usually. It takes half the space of WAV (or AIFF) and fits a bit better on my old iPod if I want to listen on the go. And, of course, you can recreate a bit-perfect WAV file if you want to burn a CD.

I prefer to rip using dBpoweramp Ripper, secure mode, but that isn't available for the Mac. For a player I use FooBar2000, there again not available for Mac.

[Ajani]

I'm seriously considering dumping my Rotel RCD-1072 for one of these mated to my AppleTV controlled with the Remte app on my iPod Touch.

I've begun re-ripping my entire CD collection (in WAV) to a 1TB LaCie Ethernet Disk mini Home Edition with iTunes Server software. It would show up in iTunes as a shared drive/library and stream over ethernet to the AppleTV and use the optical out to the CA DacMagic before going on to my preamp.

For less than the cost of a Benchmark DAC1 I'd have a pretty formidable setup:

Cambridge Audio DacMagic: $400
AppleTV (40GB): $230
LaCie Ethernet Disk mini Home Edition (1TB): $160
iPod Touch (8GB): $230

.....................

What do you all think of the setup?

Sounds like a very good setup.... AppleTV is raved about quite frequently as a music server (check out PS Audio's website for example - they recommend using it with their Digital Link iii DAC)...

I think the DacMagic, and the MH DAC25.2 for that matter, are targeted at people like me. People in the 25-34 age bracket that have embraced the convenience of the iPod, love music, and want a good system at home.

I'm also in that age group, and I agree that many of these products are designed for persons looking to ditch the old CD player for the convenience of a music server, but still want to retain quality sound....

The limiting factor is the quality of the software (music). There's no doubt that there are much higher levels of fidelity out there but modern rock/pop music is too compressed during mastering to shine on that equipment.

I have to disagree to some extent here: Not all Quality setups make your recordings sound worse... I have a large collection of modern pop/rock that sounds brilliant through my Benchmark DAC1/AKG K701 setup..... You would be truly surprised at how much better Usher, Madonna and Green Day sound through a quality setup.... A lot of the complaints about modern music not deserving 'audiophile' quality systems is little more than audio-snobbery by older generations of audiophiles.... Compression is a real problem, but it doesn't automatically mean that the music will sound worse on a better setup....

[BillB]

I haven't used or seen the Apple TV / iTouch, but reports I've heard have been quite good.

It's up to you whether you keep your CDP for the occassional convenience of poping in a visitor's CD -- of course you can route the digital signal through the DacMagic.

I rip to ALAC (Apple Lossless) usually. It takes half the space of WAV (or AIFF) and fits a bit better on my old iPod if I want to listen on the go. And, of course, you can recreate a bit-perfect WAV file if you want to burn a CD.

I prefer to rip using dBpoweramp Ripper, secure mode, but that isn't available for the Mac. For a player I use FooBar2000, there again not available for Mac.

I figure if I rip to WAV they're pristine. I can then downconvert them to MP3 if I want. In fact I'll probably end up ripping new CD's twice, once to the 1TB external as WAV and once to our iMac's internal as MP3 for syncing with our iPods.