Digital Processor Reviews

Jason Victor Serinus wrote about the DAC502 in October 2020 (Vol.43 No.10):

"Good morning Jason," began the email from Technical Editor John Atkinson. "I have just reviewed the $9850 Weiss DAC502 for the August issue of Stereophile. I thought this D/A processor sounded superb, ... and I wish I had been able to compare it with the dCS Rossini. "Would you therefore be willing to follow up my review with that comparison? [Editor-in-Chief] Jim is cool with that idea, and I can have the Weiss shipped to you. It has balanced outputs and a high-resolution volume control, so would be compatible with your system."

Me, willing? I love doing follow-ups, because I can cut right to the chase: how equipment sounds. As a so-called sharpener who has striven to assemble a system that can reveal subtle differences, I relish diving deep into those differences. I equally enjoy switching off mental-dissection mode, closing my eyes, and reveling in the music.

Afterward comes the challenge of adequately describing the visceral, emotional, and spiritual journey that unfolds as I audition the same recording through different components. What's especially useful in this regard is that, because I review classical recordings, I regularly break out of the 3-minute reference-track rut to review compositions that can last from 15 to 140 minutes, or even more.

Both the Weiss DAC and the Rossini DAC ($23,999; $31,498 with optional Rossini Clock) have volume controls and a host of inputs and outputs, can process up to 32/384 PCM and DSD128 through their Ethernet and USB inputs, and are Roon-ready. While only the Rossini processes MQA, accommodates an outboard clock, and offers a choice of digital filters, only the Weiss has a headphone amp with specialized DSP functions. Rather than become fixated on the apples vs oranges game, it's perhaps most useful to say that both offer a bountiful harvest of features.

My reference components—Rossini DAC/Clock, D'Agostino Progression monoblocks, and Wilson Audio Alexia 2 loudspeakers—work synergistically and are often coupled at dealers and shows. Hence, I kept on the lookout for observational bias, went back and forth between DACs numerous times, and evened the playing field by ensuring that all settings, cabling, supports, and other variables were identical. Because I was reviewing the Musical Fidelity M8xi integrated amplifier during the same period, I enlisted it at times to determine whether the differences between DACs that I heard with the Progressions held true with a very different amplification source.

I also made sure that the Weiss was updated to the latest software, which became available after John had finished his review. In an email exchange with Daniel Weiss, I learned that the update only affected DSP functions, which I did not engage; those updates would not alter the sound John praised. I set the DAC502's output to 0dB, taking the Weiss's volume control out of the circuit.

Once the Weiss DAC502 had settled in, I concurred with just about everything John felt about the DAC502. "Extraordinary clarity," he wrote. "The DAC502 cleaned the window into the recorded soundstage to an impressive extent"; "the differences in perspective, ambience, and tonal character from each of the microphone pairs [I had used] were superbly audible"; "soundstage clarity [combined with well-differentiated] soundstage layering, with various different instruments accompanied by different amounts of reverb, was also very audible"; "low frequencies combined clarity with an excellent sense of what the late Art Dudley used to call 'force.' " John concluded, "The Weiss DAC502 retrieves more information from the digits than any other DAC I have auditioned, with the possible exceptions of the Chord DAVE, MBL N31, and dCS Vivaldi...But the Weiss's resolution does come at a price: It is intolerant of problems with the rest of the system it is used with that would not be noticed with lesser DACs. During the six weeks I used the DAC502, I found I was continually fine-tuning my system before I could get the most enjoyment from my music."

I say "just about" everything because after I completed weeks of back-and-forth listening, I would amend those conclusions just a bit. I found that all the fine-tuning I did to maximize the Rossini's sound had a similar and complementary effect on the DAC502: Their tonality and degree of illumination are fundamentally the same. The Rossini doesn't project as wide or deep a soundstage as the Vivaldi, its images are a bit smaller and less weighty, and, subjectively, the much-more-expensive Rossini "retrieves more information from the digits" than the Weiss.

Taken on its own merits, with signal fed from the Roon Nucleus+ by either Ethernet or USB, the DAC502 sounded wonderful. Feeding the Progression monos, it conveyed the speed, color, and resonance of bass on "Fit Song" from Cornelius's Sensuous: la musique du 21éme siècle (16/44.1 FLAC, Tidal/Warner Bros. EVE016) and "Electrified II" from Yello's Toy (24/48 WAV, Polydor 4782160/HDtracks). I loved the texture and color of Yo-Yo Ma's cello and the natural warmth of Edgar Meyer's bass on their Bach Trios recording with Chris Thile (24/96 WAV, Nonesuch 558933).

But when I began going back and forth to the Rossini DAC/Clock combo, and compared both DACs' presentations of the final movement of Seattle Symphony's well-engineered recording of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring (24/96 WAV, SSM1005), the DAC502's huge percussive thwacks seemed just a bit lazy compared to the Rossini's sharper, deeper, and more gut-shaking presentation. (Yes, John, I do like it loud.) Loud orchestral slashes in the final movement felt more savage, and pulses in its quieter section more sudden and distinct. The intentionally noisy discord when everything gets going at once was more upsetting through the Rossini. The Rossini also delivered more natural reverb around instruments, which seemed a bit larger and more massive, with more saturated colors.

On "Electrified II," bass reverberated more and felt bigger with the Rossini, vocals had more resonance, and the soundstage was more 3D. Even in very different music, the ultra–hi-rez recording of "Secret Love" on Patricia Barber's Jim Anderson–engineered Higher (32/352.8 WAV, Artist-Share AS0171)—music that allows space between notes rather than filling it wall-to-wall with electronic effects—high-pitched sounds of brushes on high hat and drum were clearer, and notes on the piano and guitar were richer and more color-saturated. Bass seemed firmer, if perhaps for no other reason than the leading edge of bass and percussion was more clearly defined. The DAC502 sounded really, really, really good on this music, but the Rossini DAC/Clock combo excelled in conveying how sublime the musicianship was and how impeccably it was recorded.

The Rossini DAC certainly benefitted from its outboard Rossini Clock. Listening to The Rite of Spring without it, the soundstage wasn't as deep, quiet, transparent, or coherent; images seemed a bit less weighty, perhaps because the space around them wasn't as clearly defined; and the lowest octaves of instruments weren't as sharply focused. But the soundstage was still wider, the images weightier, than through the DAC502.

When I switched amplification from the D'Agostino Progression monos to the far less costly albeit excellent Musical Fidelity M8xi integrated—we're talking $38,000/pair vs $6499, which is closer to the DAC502's price—the perfect opportunity to see if these differences between DACs remained audible arrived in the form of an assignment from San Francisco Classical Voice to review the 24/192 hi-rez files of Handel's Saul (PVP-14), performed by the Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra & Chorale, conducted by Nicholas McGegan and Bruce Lamott. This is a massive oratorio that would normally fill at least two CDs, performed by seven soloists, a good-sized chamber chorus, and a full baroque orchestra of "historically accurate instruments." Those instruments, including 12 baroque violins, valveless trumpets, flute/oboe/bassoon, timpani, theorbo, harpsichord, organ, and a delicious keyboard glockenspiel, exhibit a far greater and more clearly differentiated range of timbres than their modern counterparts.

Using the M8xi, I listened to the first half of Saul on the DAC502 and the rest on the Rossini. The first thing I noted upon switching was that the soundstage opened up—it was deeper and airier. I also heard more detail in the massed voices of the chorus. Onstage placement was better defined, revealing how far in front the soloists were, and how the chorus at the very rear benefitted from the greater reverberation of the First Congregational Church of Berkeley's ultraresonant acoustic. (Having attended numerous concerts in the venue, I can say with confidence that the recording is true to the source.) Undertones were more present, which lent voices and instruments more weight and authority. With a deep bow to Gertrude Stein, there was more there there with the Rossini.

Would I recommend the Weiss DAC502? In a heartbeat. It doesn't merely sound clear, alive, full, and supremely musical; it also offers a headphone jack and a host of DSP options that can address issues in many rooms, speakers, and equipment configurations. Those added features—and the large price difference—will make it an ideal choice for many music lovers.

While I don't know how the DAC502's sound compares with the far more comparably priced dCS Bartók DAC ($13,500), which also has a headphone amp, I do know that if I didn't have access to the three-times-as-expensive Rossini DAC/Clock (plus all the expensive cabling and supports demanded by that two-unit setup), and if I were willing to forgo MQA playback (whose sound I love), I would be more than content to live with the DAC502 for many years to come.—Jason Victor Serinus