This article was originally going to be a survey of several inexpensive DACs we received at the magazine over the past year. The problem is that when it came time for side by side comparisons. When I equalized playing levels and listened to the same material on all the DACs back to back, this unit beat the others so badly. I was faced with the prospect of writing very negative reviews and damaging the companies. Am I going to name them? No! I can hear the yowls and screaming from out readers even now. Let me make two points.

    When the Audiophile Voice was conceived, it was with the idea that our goal was the promotion of high-end audio. This entails an obligation not only to our readers as consumers, but to high-end manufacturers, the developers of the products we enjoy. We felt our philosophy would be to nurture the development of the best products available (and consequently the health of high-end companies). What do you do then with a fledgling manufacturer who puts out a first product not really competitive with the market? A first round draft choice (and nowhere near as well paid) in his rookie year? Do you bring him along slowly or let him fail? In this case we had just such a product and such a company. For that matter, two other companies that submitted products are not so huge and wealthy either.

    So l returned these products with explanations of what I thought their shortcomings were, to the disappointment and possibly anger of the people involved. But it leaves them alive to continue development and fight another day. What would be accomplished by putting them out of business? Their next product may benefit you.

    "Ok," you say, "but how can I know what to avoid?" Simple. You take the magazine's best recommendations and compare them to anything else you are interested in. You have to do your own homework in all cases. High-end audiophile is a craft which must be practiced to get it right. Nobody has your ears, your tastes, your system. Subjective review magazines can help you narrow choices, but you cannot literally accept recommendations of reviewers. After all, I'm the only perfect person I know of so how can all the others be right?

    A similar situation occurs when I review jazz recordings for the magazine. Do I waste space reviewing every bad recording we get or do I recommend as much good stuff as possible? The latter is what I'd want as a reader. So on to the good stuff.

    In the early days of digital, the hardware was bad and the software was bad. Everyone has heard bad digital: grainy, raspy strings, piano notes that give you the fundamental but not the harmonics, an overlaid mechanical, one dimensional, forward quality to the music. The early methods of dealing with these defects are still being employed. The use of tubes as coloring devices (rather than legitimate amplifying devices) is one. Another is the use of a consciously chosen (I believe), false, distant/dynamically compressed/"smooth" format which belies truth and naturalness in recordings in favor of that which would wallpaper over defects.

    In aggressive sounding systems attempting to play digital, the listener mistakenly substitutes this distant, smooth, un-dynamic, sound for improvement in digital reproduction. So the audiophile purchases such a device and sits in his listening chair after two weeks with the vague feeling that something is missing. Damn right something is missing! Treble information, transparent fast bass, natural texture, micro-dynamics? the natural lilt, the rise and fall, the easy immediacy of instruments. Closely miked recordings take on an a concert hall perspective with little life and seem sluggish and uninvolving, orchestral recordings become more distant and homogenized than they should. Even transparency is affected with the sound appearing out of a grey fog.

    Maybe this is my area of sensitivity, but I don't think we are near having enough dynamics in our reproduced music. I'll always remember the old commercial for Accent, "the flavor enhancer." The camera shows a housewife holding a chicken under the kitchen tap with the cold water running over it. She's slapping the bird and saying, "wake up, wake up." I feel like getting up and slapping the speakers when I get one of these processors in the system and, with one exception (the now deleted Museatex Melior bitstream player), I've always run into this formatted sound in conjunction with the use of a bitstream chip. I've never run into it with the use of a multi-bit (so-called ladder DAC) chip. [This does not constitute an across the board recommendation since anything can be executed badly.]

    Bottom line. I'm not willing to cover up digital's failings with a "filter." I want them cured. And I want it done in an affordable processor.
I stumbled upon the Monarchy Model 22A DAC about a year ago at the suggestion of a manufacturer who has high regard for the unit. Usually this kind of word-of-mouth recommendation produces little in the way of sonics, but that is not the case here. I called Ching C. Poon, the president of Monarchy, who was willing to accommodate the magazine by shipping a unit. Not knowing anything about the product, I had no expectations.

    The faceplate is the standard black rack mount type, but with sculpted features and a raised gold emblem with a lion's head on it. A toggle switch with two amber LEDs select between Toslink optical and coaxial inputs. Another toggle/LED set allows a choice between in phase and inverted phase output. I never found that control of much use, nor was it on other processors I auditioned. Unless your equipment is situated at your listening position, you will not be able to properly assess any changes which might occur. Flicking that toggle switch back and forth and returning to my listening spot proved frustrating and inconclusive. A remote is really needed for this feature, and I’m not sure it's really necessary. It's my understanding that digital recording and mastering messes up phase information so badly, that recovery of the original information is probably impossible. But it's there for you to play with.

    The rear of the Monarchy has balanced and unbalanced outputs, TosiDnk optical and coaxial input jacks and a ground screw. I used the unbalanced outputs since my preamp has no provision for balanced inputs. Three coaxial cables, Monarchy's own and the Music Metre Silver and Fidelis were used for testing all processors Yes, folks. Coaxial digital cable has a very definite effect on the sound and some highly touted ones have some pretty brittle highs? just one more thing to match to your system by ear.

    The Monarchy puts out a whopping 6 volts from it's analog outputs. Plenty to drive any amp through a passive preamp and enjoy the purity and economy of that kind of operation. If you use the balanced outputs you will find an IC chip in series with the inverted phase signal while the "hot" signal runs direct. So you may not miss anything if your preamp, like mine, does not have balanced "ins." Try it both ways if you have the capability.

     This unit and all pieces of electronic circuitry benefit greatly from internal cabinet damping (no the cabinet isn't flimsy) and placement on a sand base with a weight on top of the chassis. All circuitry, especially active circuitry is microphonic. Vibrations reaching the circuit board are transmitted as low level noise. Significant gains in the realm of transparency and dynamics are bestowed with set-up in this fashion. Use of sand bases has become a personal campaign of mine and I often harass friends into buying or building them. [See The Audiophile Voice, issue 2 or call Barry Kohan at Bright Star, 805 375-2629]

    OK, here's the payoff. I’ve used the Monarchy for close to a year and in the course of that time I've acquired several other affordable processors for review and had several more pass through the system. None were more musical, nor combined more individual sonic assets into one chassis than the Monarchy Model 22A. Since it decidedly trounced other processors in the "affordable" range, I can assure you it competes with processors at $2500 and up. It became the reference to judge other units and the DAC I returned to time after time for my personal listening.

    My full appreciation of the Monarchy came in two stages. First, in the listening phase, I found myself consistently enjoying the musicality of my software. I actually got that old fashioned thrill listening to the music reminiscent of analog days when I'd forget the equipment, "spin some wax” and "groove" to the sounds, singing drunkenly with Sinatra or falling between the organ notes of Jimmy Smith's "Walk On The Wild Side." I quickly accepted the Monarchy's performance as the norm for digital processors until I began comparing and taking notes during my second phase of testing.

    Need I run through the checklist? When used with a good transport the highs were extended and smooth. The midrange, the richest of any of the processors. The bass was deep and transparent without sounding bloated and coloring the upper octaves. No other processor put all three areas together as well. But I think the characteristics which immediately attract the listener are the superior dynamics, the huge soundstage, and separation of instruments. They combine to give the feeling of immediacy, of the presence of musicians in the room, without sounding aggressive or forward. Most pleasing is that this is not the distant/`'smooth"/compressed sound format which seems to accompany bitstream processors of my acquaintance.

    Immediate, transparent, smooth, naturally dynamic, present, are the words which describe the sound of the Monarchy with a good transport driving II. One need not avoid "digititis" in CDs by purposely choosing a processor which compensates for deficiencies In the software, unless your system is inherently bright or aggressive. Used directly into the amp through a passive preamp, the Monarchy decoded enough information well enough, and smoothly enough, that deficiencies in the software were heard as merely that, not as prohibitive factors to listening. The days of compensatory colorations are gone for those persons wanting affordable CD reproduction.

    The real key is that I find the unit as musical one year after receiving it, as I did Initially. And If you think about it, that's quite a statement. How quickly have we each become accustomed to the "sound" of a new component or wire before we recognize and grow tired of it? Two weeks? A month? How long does it take to identify the flaws and begin focusing on them? Things like one note bass or etchy highs can become the focus of the listening experience very quickly and cause disappointment. Not so with the Monarchy. I've "forgotten" it was there in the truest sense of the idea.

    While I have no doubt that multi kilobuck DACs can decode that last little bit of treble information in the nth degree.  I will judge their worth by how well they compare with the Monarchy in putting together tonally correct frequency balance, dynamics, transparency, soundstage, and ask: "Is the improvement truly worth the kilobuck price?"

    Just before press time I received from Monarchy a "DIP" (Digital Interface Processor), $199. This device is connected between the transport and the DAC. It re-clocks the signal entering the DAC, minimizing jitter (timing enrors). If you don't have a transport with a re-clocking circuit (which I did), this device will make a good thing even better. I can tell you that it is completely uncolored, unlike the Audio Alchemy DTI which has a definite sonic signature. I thought that even with the re-clocked signal supplied by the Mellor CD-D1 transport, I gained an extra smidgen of transparency and stage size.

    Monarchy Model M-22A 20 bit D/A Converter, $980; Monarchy International, Inc., Ching C. Poon, President; 388 Swift Ave., Unit 21, South San Francisco, CA 94080; 415 873-3055, Fax 415 588-0335.

    The reference system: Mirage M1si speakers Flatline Design Model 175 speakers; Tara Labs RSC speaker cable, parallel wired; Krell KSA-250 amp; Kimber Kable KCAG, Music Metre Signature, Tara Labs RSC Master interconnect cables; passive preamp (matching resistor), Purest Sound Systems passive preamp, Melos 333 line and phono stage preamp; Museatex CD-D1 CD transport Bright Star Audio isolation system - Little Rock and Big Foot on each component; Clear Image Audio T-4 Power Line Isolator (on front end components); Absolute Power Power Line Purifier (on the amp).

MONARCHY   Model 22A                 Dual 20-Bit D/A Converter

Download Review From The Audiophile Voice In Adobe PDF Format

Download Adobe Reader 3.01 For Windows