Computer Audio Now Bests The Best Transports

bhobba

Over the last year or so I have seen first hand the humbling of computer audio by a heavily tweaked Marantz player as transport in a reference system at a local audio manufacturer/retailer - Lenehan Audio.  I took my various incarnations of mac mini and DAC - including my Tranquility DAC's - down only to have the Marantz laugh in my face.  Others have taken up the challenge with the same frustrating result. 

Now for the first time an acquaintance, previously humiliated, took a battery modified Audiophilleo2 down for the confrontation, and it bested the Marantz. This actually preempted my latest foray in taking up the gauntlet - I was getting a PDX Level 2 DAC built with a John Kenny I2S Hiface inbuilt.  Now the question is how will that DAC go against the Audiophilleo2.  I will keep you guys posted.

Thanks

Bill  

ted_b

But Bill, the Audiophilleo2 is not a transport, it's a USB to SPDIF converter.  What USB source (transport) did he use?  And what is this Marantz a transport for (i.e what DAC has been the backend of this up-till-now champion system)?

"Now the question is how will that DAC go against the Audiophilleo2?"  I'm confused.  It won't!  The Audiophilleo needs a DAC too. 

bhobba

Hi Ted

Generally a Mac Mini was used to supply USB although others were also tried including some windows machines and various notebooks.  A Auraliti was also tried.  A few USB DAC's were tried and when a USB only DAC was used the Marantz was usually fed into a PDX Level 2 DAC - but at least once into a Killer DAC.  These are the two best DAC's myself and others have heard - although some acquaintances think a Lite DAC 83 or Audio GD Ref 7 may have a slight edge. Up until this point nothing touched the modified Marantz.  Obviously we have not heard all the stuff out there.  But this was a significant challenge a number of us took up after having our computer audiophile illusions shattered by the Marantz.

Thanks

Bill

sq225917

How were they level matched?

bhobba

How were they level matched?

With an SPL meter when we were being very careful.  But really I think this level matching thing is a bit of a furfy.  You see what you normally do is vary the volume of one above and below the other and if the difference is still heard then it is not a level matching issue.

For example I recently got a Burson DAC that 6 Moons raved about.  Within an instant of turning it on you could hear it has a warm sound that some people liked -  but I didn't particularly like it.  As one person described it - it was like placing a blanket over the speakers.  No level matching required here.  I preferred my WFS DAC2 and that is far from my favorite DAC due to a slight coldness issue.  Yet 6 Moons said it was uber close to some much more expensive DAC's like the Wiess.  Its the type of thing that really makes you wonder and leaves you scratching your head.

Thanks

Bill

sq225917

Bill, agreed re the matching sometime s a sonic signature stands out above issues of level, like you i'd only match level carefully if they were too close to call otherwise. As an example the Linn Uphorik I had recently sounded grainy at hard at all volume levels, no level matching needed.

I think you've touched onto a universal truth of hifi reviewing- the opinions generated by the majority of reviewers on 6moons bare no resemblance to reality whatsoever. But what do we expect when he charges reviews by the written page...  ;-)

Si

bhobba

I think you've touched onto a universal truth of hifi reviewing- the opinions generated by the majority of reviewers on 6moons bare no resemblance to reality whatsoever. But what do we expect when he charges reviews by the written page...  ;-)

Aren't that the truth.  Its just not the Burson - they did something similar with the WFS I have.

Thanks
Bill

uglymusic

Bill, agreed re the matching sometime s a sonic signature stands out above issues of level, like you i'd only match level carefully if they were too close to call otherwise. As an example the Linn Uphorik I had recently sounded grainy at hard at all volume levels, no level matching needed.

I think you've touched onto a universal truth of hifi reviewing- the opinions generated by the majority of reviewers on 6moons bare no resemblance to reality whatsoever. But what do we expect when he charges reviews by the written page...  ;-)

Si

Are you saying the reviews on 6moons are advertorial?

coops

David honestly!

uglymusic

Just asking. I can be a bit slow on the uptake when people are imprecise with their claims ;-)

sq225917

Are you saying the reviews on 6moons are advertorial?

Surely not?

uglymusic

Are you saying the reviews on 6moons are advertorial?

Surely not?

That's OK then?

bhobba

Over on Audiocircles that I also have a thread about this one guy was a bit confused because he didn't understand some of the acronyms I was using. For you guys that aren't up with some of the acronyms for DAC's that have been thrown about the PDX is a DAC made by Lenehan Audio - a small manufacturer on the Gold Cost probably most famous for their ML1 speakers.  Each speaker they make is hand tuned on their reference system which was the system used to check out the DAC's.  The WFS stands for Wyred For Sound and is one of the DAC's people speak about in the $1K-2K price range.  I have the WFS DAC in my system right now, and it is actually quite good, but to my ears it has a slightly cold top end that other DAC's like the Trainquilty and PDX solve.  Here is a link to a review these and other DAC's:

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net.au/index.php/audio-reviews/digital-source-reviews

I was down at the Gold Coast with owner of the reference system yesterday (Lenehan Audio) with a friend and guess what - the owner of the Audiophilleo2 was kind enough to have left it down there. The Audiophilleo was playing through my level 2 PDX (I had left it down there for that purpose - they are in such short supply even the guy that makes them aren't got one yet).  I thought it sounded very transparent and detailed - to my ears it had a slight grainy quality that I didn't mind since I thought it was probably part and parcel of the extra detail. When we put the transport on it became thinner, less convincing, and less detailed - the bass was less defined as well - but the grainy quality was absent. My friend preferred its absence in the Transport to the Audiophilleo but I preferred the Audiophilleo. Then it was realized the battery power supply was not being used on the Audiophilleo so we switched back to that and engaged the battery - the grainy quality diminished quite a bit and now everyone thought the Audiophilleo was better.

The next thing will be its comparison to a John Kenny I2S built into a PDX.

Thanks

Bill

jkeny

Hi Bill,

Glad that you heard a difference between the USB powered & battery powered Audiophileo. As I said before, it all starts with the PS in audio & if this isn't carefully considered everything else is a band-aid. Nada challenged me on StereoNet that any mods to a Audiophileo were likely to be detrimental - I believe that this simple external power tweak proves otherwise. But as I said, that is just tinkering at the edges - the real work would be changing the internal DC-DC converter as this probably adds noise so the advantage of batteries is somewhat diluted.

Anyway, looking forward to the comparison between the PDX equipped with JK I2S Hiface & the Audiophileo. 

bhobba

You are not the only one.  There seems to be considerable interest in the comparison.  Of course I will keep everyone updated.  The main issue is the level 2 PDX it is being inbuilt into uses Duelund capacitors and there is a bit of a wait to get them.  I have been told they are slated to arrive at the end of the month - but basically you get them when you get them.

Thanks

Bill 

ItemAudio

It's not entirely unfair to compare the Audiophileo with a CD transport, 'coz much of what matters is happening precisely at that stage . . . a really good CD transport is quite a tough act to follow, but the key is to isolate the DAC from the computer, which can't help but screw things up!

bhobba

It's not entirely unfair to compare the Audiophileo with a CD transport, 'coz much of what matters is happening precisely at that stage . . . a really good CD transport is quite a tough act to follow, but the key is to isolate the DAC from the computer, which can't help but screw things up!

Precisely.

Thanks

Bill

bhobba

Hi Guys

Well the comparison has now been done.  I can give you a link to the posts on SNA (Stereo Net Australia) where it was written up but to save you wading through it all I will post a sort of edited cut down version with the main points.

First a post of a person (Kdoot) that was at the comparison to set the scene:

I just got back from an evening spent comparing the AP2 to jkeny's modified HiFace using a PDX. The AP2 was plugged into a BNC socket on the back and going through a Cirrus Logic SPDIF receiver chip which converts to I2S, whereas the modded HiFace provided I2S directly. The AP2 was using my NiMH AA battery pack and the HiFace had a very prototype-quality LiFePO4 battery source.

- on initial listening, all except one person in the room greatly preferred the AP2 to the HiFace, and they really did sound different

- even a Wadia CD spinner via SPDIF was preferred by some over the HiFace, early on

- the HiFace was perceived by most to be "warm", "dark", "lacking energy", "technical"

- the AP2 was perceived by most to be "fuller", "more present", having better "body" and being more engaging

A surprise result, no? But wait, there's more!

We changed amps. Disconnecting the McIntosh 501 monoblocks, we first swapped in my Rega Elicit with the PDX connected to the power amp stage. Suddenly the general consensus swung towards the HiFace, as the Rega presented the sound in a more "musical" way but highlighting the modded HiFace's advantage in detail over the SPDIF-constrained AP2. Then a Trafomatic 8W SET valve amp got a chance to play, and offered up a Diana Krall live recording with absolutely stunning quality. You wouldn't want to throw anything too dynamic at it, but oh my god the HiFace/PDX/Trafomatic/ML3 combination did something magic together.

My personal opinion is that by bypassing the Cirrus receiver chip and all the inherent challenges of SPDIF, the I2S battery-powered internal HiFace delivered a cleaner, more accurate I2S data stream to the DF1704's input. The initial perceived lack of performance was, in my opinion, a problem in the analogue parts of the system - and we seemed to confirm that when we then swapped amps around and found a preferred tonal balance albeit with a compromise in resolution, control and/or dynamic power.

Hopefully there'll be some testing shortly to see whether swapping out the Cirrus SPDIF receiver chip for a TI or Wolfson one gives a boost to the AP2 performance. 

Bottom line: the AP2 is still bloody excellent, it's completely simple, tidy, backed by warranty and available "off the shelf". It works with any DAC that has a BNC or RCA SPDIF input and delivers top-quality results. However it's still hampered by the inherent weaknesses in the SPDIF protocol and can be beaten in careful implementations by avoiding SPDIF and going straight to I2S.

Ok now my take.  I agree entirely with the conclusion the AP2 is likely delivering some euphonics due to its SPDIF implementation - it is not in the AP2 but rather the receiver in the DAC.  I beleive the AP2 is rated at 8ps jitter but the receiver chip used is 50ps.  But after hearing the pairing of the Trafomatic SET and JK its the JK for me.

Regarding the comparison to a transport we managed to wrangle a Wadia which is the best transport we know of out our way - it even beats the hotted up Marantz that was being used previously.  Some preferred the Wadia - but to my ears the Wadia was left far behind.  I was actually at another comparison with a friend who is getting the PDX with the JK built in and we carefully compared the Wadia and JK. Mike Lenehan explained carefully to my friend what was going on - pointing out the distortion and lack of detail in the Wadia - for example you could hear the foot pedals in the piano with the JK but not the Wadia. After that it was obvious the JK was the winner hands down. However to be fair a couple of very knowledgeable and experienced listeners who did not need any 'hand holding' by someone like Mike still preferred the Wadia. Exactly what is going on there I don't know - other than of course different strokes for different folks - but the majority of people - especially after they have had it explained to them - preferred the JK.  

Thanks

Bill

bhobba

Hi Guys.

Mike Lenehan just completed the results of his evaluation - the John Kenny won out.  His write-up will be attached at the and of the post.

Thanks

Bill

Hi All I have just finished over 9hours of comparitive listening using the standard Mac Mini with standard USB cable as source into the following Audiophilleo2 ! Audiophilleo2 battery powered by 4 of 1.2volt NiMH ! KennyHiFace direct to I2S. ! Wadia WT3200 CD Transport.

We all conducted the initial comparative listen on Friday night using ML3Reference which were fitted with Mundorf Silver oil capacitors which were brand new ! (Silver oils don't sound good when their new they need to be hit pretty hard for about 3 to 400hours before that they produce a strange combination of sweetened presence range and lower treble coarseness ! some people love the sound and get hooked on it then when they run in and improve many audiophiles have changed their system sufficiently to not notice.) In any case I swapped to ML1Reference and Tunestands which were in a run in and more neutral state.

I would liken the results ! and in this order to be just like walking up a flight of stairs . first step MarantzCD95 disc transport ! Wadia WT3200 disc transport ! Audiophilleo2 ! Audiophilleo2 Battery ! JKennyHiFace I2S.
For SPIDF input comparisons we can only compare directly the disc spinning transports with the Audiophilleo2 which also ran on the same CS8416 reciever chip . (more on another higher performing reciever chip from Clay Geisler the PDX designer in the form of an attachment at the bottom of this post)

The CD95 was just wonderfull untill I heard the AP2 (remember both on SPDIF) lay down mezzere I'm afraid ! the smoothness, resolution and bass articulation of the AP2 made me question why I loved the CD95. The Wadia WT3200 closed the gap about one third of the way toward the AP2 but still had saw tooth distortion on the leading edge of heavily struck middle C and above piano notes. Bass from the disc spinners is to my mind indistinct slow and just unable to keep up with the signal. Vocals also seem to have a mild ragged bloom to them (could we just use a larger countershaft sprocket and spin the disc at higher RPM ? silly Joke )

The AP2 on batteries sounds a tad faster and more tactile ! less bloomy if you like ( sometimes that bloom sounds goooooood though !! is this a touch of jitter being sent down the USB cable on the non battery powered AP2 doing this ? )

The JKenny Hiace on I2S rules ! I'm saying this not so much because of the comparo on Friday night where we were using the Mundorf Silver Oil equipped ML3Reference(the new Silver Oils were slightly skewing results) but because over the next two days with the Duelund equipped ML1's the I2S device showed it's true character !! in other words None !! No bloom no lean mids no slow bass just JUST music. This new technology is just what my ref system requires because it is neutral NEUTRAL with a capital N You will of course be required to set your system up so it has even less glitches than before ! less leeway for errors brothers ! With these new source devices the audio world is your oyster just dont cut yourself whilst shucking. This new experience may be like jumping out of a hot 

I hope we don't start getting posts like ! I don't like accurate sound it's too clinical for me ! or I prefer a more tonally fleshed out mid or a bit more bass. I've always believed in making an audio system sound as much as possible like live unamplified acoustic instruments and vocals not the way I may have subjectively prefered the sound at any given time. Kdoot pointed out to me on friday night that I had said to him last year that I tune a system to sound like real live music and not nessessarily something that is true to the source ! I guess thats true ! but then last year the source was not up to it in many ways and perhaps ! just perhaps ! I saw no other options at that time. Well I'm here to tell you fellow OCD's that paradigms have changed. Best Regards Mike Lenehan
LenehanAudio 

coops

The best conversions of course is no conversion, async USB or FireWire direct to dac.
Keith.

bhobba

The best conversions of course is no conversion, async USB or FireWire direct to dac.
Keith.

Hi Keith

Since all DAC chips use I2S that conversion is there whether it is explicitly stated or not.  This JK is asynchronous USB direct to I2S.  If that's what you mean then yes of course.

Thanks

Bill

coops

Bill Hi, you have to use the format that the particular dac chip demands.
Keith.

sq225917

Yeh, why not just skip the i2s stage altogether, not bother with the DAC chips onboard input filter and feed the raw oversampled data straight into the DAC chips registers directly from a buffer onboard the FPGA that handles the Async input to the DAC.

Then you skip loads of stages and get better sound quality. This might not be possible of course if your favoured solution is cobbled together from old DAC chips and modified Async units, it probably requires a higher level of software and hardware integration.

Alan

This is so technical I can't decide if it's sarcastic?...
:-?

coops

It is!
vb Keith.

sq225917

Sarcastic, not at all, just pointing out that one makes a solution from the parts at one's disposal. 

It's up to the reader to decide if he feels that a solution made from a piecemeal assemblage of old and modded hardware is as likely to be fit for purpose as a new design integrating the best of currently available hardware and software into a finished package as one would find in a typical 'new product'.

I applaud the ingenuity displayed in attempting to make the best out of both old and new hardware.

bhobba

Sarcastic, not at all, just pointing out that one makes a solution from the parts at one's disposal. It's up to the reader to decide if he feels that a solution made from a piecemeal assemblage of old and modded hardware is as likely to be fit for purpose as a new design integrating the best of currently available hardware and software into a finished package as one would find in a typical 'new product'.I applaud the ingenuity displayed in attempting to make the best out of both old and new hardware.

I am still scratching my head about the exact intent of this and similar comments.  Virtually all pieces of equipment that offer USB these days do it by the cludge of converting it to SPDIF and then onto the DAC's receiver chip which degrades performance.  The Young DAC and a DAC fitted with the modified Hiface my post was about are amongst the few that do not.  All DAC chips I am aware of operate via I2S - although a few also have a SPDIF input as well having the receiver chip inbuilt.  Technically this is the preferred approach and I have on doubt this is one of the reasons the John Kenny performed so well.

I see zero reason for sarcasm in any of this as I am simply reporting on something that has created a lot of excitement out my way.

Thanks

Bill

bhobba

Yeh, why not just skip the i2s stage altogether, not bother with the DAC chips onboard input filter and feed the raw oversampled data straight into the DAC chips registers directly from a buffer onboard the FPGA that handles the Async input to the DAC. Then you skip loads of stages and get better sound quality. This might not be possible of course if your favoured solution is cobbled together from old DAC chips and modified Async units, it probably requires a higher level of software and hardware integration.

I will tell you what it would require - a complete brand new design not based on freely available parts.  If that what you are after - good luck in finding one at a sane price.  I think MSB and DCS go down that path and look at what they charge.  I know guys who have heard that stuff (and so have I) and without disparaging it think cheaper stuff designed using more conventional items is better.

Thanks

Bill

sq225917

Well yes it would require a new design if your Aussie dac guy was going to implement it. My point was why bother when exactly that solution already exists in the field already- no need to take a 3rd party USb interface and modify it then plug it into a dac from another party.

What we both see as the optimal process is exactly what the Young DAC does, and that's based on a mid range Spartan and a PCM1795 from BB. Data is piped in 'left justified' after the filters at 768khz. Both the Spartan and the DAC chip are in the $20-30 range per chip- perfectly sane pricing and both freely available parts.

bhobba

Well yes it would require a new design if your Aussie dac guy was going to implement it. My point was why bother when exactly that solution already exists in the field already- no need to take a 3rd party USb interface and modify it then plug it into a dac from another party. What we both see as the optimal process is exactly what the Young DAC does, and that's based on a mid range Spartan and a PCM1795 from BB. Data is piped in 'left justified' after the filters at 768khz. Both the Spartan and the DAC chip are in the $20-30 range per chip- perfectly sane pricing and both freely available parts.

Why do it?  Because it sounds better.  I had an acquaintance borrow my Level 2 PDX without the John Kenny to try against other DAC's.  He tried the Citypulse and Havana and I know he is going to try others.  Here is what he said:

'John from coem Audio also came by to let me trial two of his dacs - the CityPulse and the Havana. You will probably not be surprised to learn that the PDX quite handily outperforms them in every way. I thought this may have just been my ears, so I enlisted my girlfriend and her sister (both of whom have nice, young ears). I didn't tell them what I was doing, but whenever the PDX wasn't involved, they described the music as either being "echoey" (the CityPulse) or "flat" (the Havana).'

I have tried the PDX against other DAC's and know others that have.  For example last Friday it was pitted agiasnst the new Rega DAC people are raving about.  The Rega actually sounded quite good but the John Kenny PDX easily bested it in every way.  The only DAC's I have heard about to touch it were the Lite 83 and Audio GD Ref 7 - and even then it is a matter of opinion.  The Signature Tranquility is also quite close - and that uses very old technology indeed with DAC chips way out of production.  However when fed with the John Kenny as one guy put it - the Tranquility is caught with its pants down. Of course that is not the Young - and it will be interesting to try it against that if I get the chance.  But I have a DAC in my system right now that is similar to the Young in that it uses the latest greatest technology in the form of a the top of the line Saber chip - the WFS DAC 2.  That DAC is actually quite good but compared to my PDX has a cold top end and some sibilance issues.  I have also lent it to some acquaintances and they all report the same thing - good DAC - but nothing really grabs you about it.

The point however is what looks the best on paper is not what necessarily sounds the best.  The Citypulse, Havana, WFS and Rega all look good on paper but where it counts in the sonics a simpler DAC based on 'old' technology bested them.

Thanks

Bill

coops

Why don't these guys just design their own dac, with async transfer and their own chip implementation rather than hobbling something together, surely the diy market is already well catered for, just buy the boards and power supply from Twisted Pear,
You are pushing this product pretty hard Bill across multiple forums. we have had the Rega ( ok but no USB connection to speak of) and the MDHT Havana ( typical NOS) here, they are not by any means state of the art.
If you really want to hear something hook up the new Weiss Medea.
Keith.

bhobba

Why don't these guys just design their own dac, with async transfer and their own chip implementation rather than hobbling something together, surely the diy market is already well catered for, just buy the boards and power supply from Twisted Pear,
You are pushing this product pretty hard Bill across multiple forums. we have had the Rega ( ok but no USB connection to speak of) and the MDHT Havana ( typical NOS) here, they are not by any means state of the art.
If you really want to hear something hook up the new Weiss Medea.
Keith.

First I am not 'pushing' anything I am simply passing on some interesting stuff we found out. You are correct I have posted this on a number of forums I frequent and what I usually hear is exactly what I intended - namely - thats interesting - keep us updated.  Not from you though - what I get is self admitted sartcastic comments.

And they did design their own DAC using off the shelf components.  This is an account of the evaluation of one of those components - the JK modified hiface.  Exactly what is your beef with doing that?  Are you suggesting there is something magic in designing stuff from scratch rather than using third party stuff?  If that was required virtually no small manufacturer would exist.  You are correct the Rega and Havana are not state of the art but the WFS is (well suppoedly anyway) - and this old fashioned non state of the art DAC (again supposedly anyway - I probably have a different conception of what state of the art is than you possibly do) easily bested it.  No I have not heard the Wiess but know of people who have compared it to DAC's I am familar with and there does not seem to be a clear preference - typical of what I hear is - ' This weekend I had the opportunity to listen and experiment with the Weiss, Tranquility and Ayre and all were affected more by their ancillary equipment like power and input cables than the character of the dac itself.  All did change with one simple ancillary change.'

Thanks

Bill

uglymusic

Sorry, I'll have to put my Mod's hat on. Can we cut back on the name-calling and sarcasm, please?

We seem to be getting a little overheated.

Thanks everyone.

coops

Bill Hi, why not send the dac to David (uglymusic) I respect his opinion , he is completely imperial, (that should be imparial but imperial works too) I am sure I can get hold of any of the other dacs you mention for comparison.
Keith.

Alan

Hi Keith -

Surely that would only be one more opinion in the pot, so to speak? I respect David's opinion too, and if I were more experienced with the gear Bill describes I might find I share some of his views also - but they are all just views!

We are kidding ourselves if any of us think we can 'get to the bottom' of anything, however rigorous our evaluations are and imperial (Minty!) our approach.

In practical terms, sending someone else's DAC to the UK so some bloke on a two bit forum can also have an opinion on it might not be so practical...

uglymusic

Hi Keith -

Surely that would only be one more opinion in the pot, so to speak? I respect David's opinion too, and if I were more experienced with the gear Bill describes I might find I share some of his views also - but they are all just views!

We are kidding ourselves if any of us think we can 'get to the bottom' of anything, however rigorous our evaluations are and imperial (Minty!) our approach.

In practical terms, sending someone else's DAC to the UK so some bloke on a two bit forum can also have an opinion on it might not be so practical...

But it would give us something to talk about :-)

No I agree with everything you say, except 'two bit forum' ;-)

bhobba

Bill Hi, why not send the dac to David (uglymusic) I respect his opinion , he is completely imperial, (that should be imparial but imperial works too) I am sure I can get hold of any of the other dacs you mention for comparison.

Keith.

Hi Kieth

Well before saying yay or nay on that there is a few things I want to be clear about.  I am a private hobbyist and if I do something like that it will cost me a significant amount of money - a two way trip will be something like $300-400 out of my own pocket.  Virtually anyone would say no way - and understandably so.  Actually I am not worried about the honesty and integrity of Coops, Uglymusic or really anyone I have conversed with here.  In my experience committed audiophiles that post to forums like this are honest.

That said I am retired now and one of the fun things I like doing is sending my gear around for people to hear even though it costs me money.  I have given thought to sending my PDX DAC to John Kenny to check out as well as a pair of ML1 References because of the interest he has shown in what we are doing.  Ml1's are well known out our way but you may not know them so here is a review to check out:

http://www.audiophilia.com/hardware/Loudspeakers/reviews/lenehan.htm

That review was done quite a while ago and they have been upgraded since then with stuff like being lined with steel and using very expensive Duelund capacitors.  I am having a pair built for my second system and possibly could be persuaded to send them on a road trip before they take up permanent residence in my system.  The other issue is the availability of PDX's with JK USB inputs.  We only have one available right now and that is going into a friends PDX that is being built.  That should be done in a few days and I can report on that when finished.  My PDX will be upgraded as soon as some more JK Hifaces are available which may take a while since John suspended production for a while.  But anyway that will eventually be done but will take time.

The bottom line here is yes that may be possible along with some ML1's.  But it will be at significant expense to me and will take a while so patience will be required.  If I did it it would be for a significant gathering of Audiophiles who would seriously evaluate all the DAC's and the ML1's.  Could you guys arrange something like that?

Thanks

Bill

Docfoster

Q

Hi Keith -

Surely that would only be one more opinion in the pot, so to speak? I respect David's opinion too, and if I were more experienced with the gear Bill describes I might find I share some of his views also - but they are all just views!

We are kidding ourselves if any of us think we can 'get to the bottom' of anything, however rigorous our evaluations are and imperial (Minty!) our approach.

In practical terms, sending someone else's DAC to the UK so some bloke on a two bit forum can also have an opinion on it might not be so practical...

But it would give us something to talk about :-)

No I agree with everything you say, except 'two bit forum' ;-)

That's great news. Last I heard audiochews was but a one bit forum...

Docfoster

Or was that a 16 bit forum?
I can't remember...
:-D

uglymusic

64-bit, quad-core, mate...

Alan

16 valve quad cam?

uglymusic

16-valve twin-turbo!

coops

Bill Hi, sorry I didn't mean to offend there is so much schilling on the met, sometimes it is difficult to separate genuine enthusiasm, my sincere apologies,Keith.

bhobba

Hi Guys

No offence taken with any stuff said on this thread.  I am enthusiastic about stuff I am involved in and yes some have accused me of shilling because of it.  I think the way to tell shiller's from genuine enthusiasts is if they are asking people to contact someone with a view of purchasing.  I know of some on other forums that whenever they get the chance point posters to a certain manufacturer saying stuff like - contact so and so and they can build or sell you something.  I am careful not to do that.  The most I generally would suggest is to seek out something and listen to it.

But just to get it on the record I will detail the ordering of DAC's I have heard, or others whose ears I trust have heard, that I would put in the top echelon, from worse to best, and tell you which DAC's I own: 

Tranquility, Tranquility Signature, Normal PDX, Lite DAC 83, Audio GD Ref 7, PDX Level 2, John Kenny equipped PDX and the Killer DAC.

I own a WFS DAC 2 which is a good DAC but I would put it just a bit below the top echelon.  I own a Tranquility, Tranquility Signature, Level 2 PDX and soon will have access to a John Kenny Level 2 PDX that is being built for a friend.  The  Lite DAC 83 and Audio GD Ref are from reports by trusted acquaintances. The Tranquility Signature, Normal PDX, Lite DAC 83, Audio GD Ref 7 are very close to one another and the exact order would depend on personal preference eg the Tranquility has a very mercury like liquid and fluid mid-range that is addictive and that may be your preference.  The PDX Level 2 and Killer are in a different class and have performance I would classify as sounding 'real' - they are also much more expensive. The Killer, as the best DAC I have ever heard, was from a comparison to an early version of the PDX and exactly how it compares to the PDX now is not really known - but it really is an astounding DAC and I would be happy if my PDX just gets close to it - and I would be a bit shocked if it exceeds it - it really is that good.  Here is what one guy said about it (the Conner24 was a precursor to the PDX):

'I found that when the KillerDAC was playing purely acoustic unamplified program, I mean by that naturally recorded vocals and acoustic only intruments like guitar, violin,cello,and percussion of all types the Kdac was unassailable !! When listening to the ConnorNM24 on nylon string guitar I thought to myself this is so dang good ! the instrument is there ,nothing will touch this. Ahh Haa, I was wrong the Kdac actually showed me what a nylon string guitar really sounds like.  Back to the Connor NM24 and although it was still very very good the nylon string guitar sounded just ever so slightly like someone had tightened the strings a semitone and smeared the strings with warm honey. There was a just perceptible piquedness. Vocal and harmony presentations for the Kdac were nothing short of real ! ones mouth could sometimes become unhinged ! as Steve Garland explains it , The Beauty ! The music has heart !'

The other thing I will mention about the Killer is direct comparisons have been done to uber expensive stuff like a DCS stack and the result was it depends on your poison - do you like clinical detail retrieval - then go for the DCS (and be prepared to spend a lot of money) but if you like musicality go for the Killer.  Indirect comparisons have been done with the PDX and similar DAC's, and here is what was said (the PDX is above the Conner24):

'I’ve spent time with a full DCS stack and I can tell you the Connor24 smacks it down simple as that. The 24 is a DCS stack with a velvet glove.'

Anyway what has got people out my way really excited is just how will the Level 2 PDX with John Kenny input perform - will it be able to take on the Killer?  That hopefully will be answered soon with the Level 2 version being built for a friend.

Oh and one thing I usually get when I talk about the Killer is they have never heard of it. Guys who have that DAC are so enthusiastic about it they have created their own forum that gives the detials:

http://killerdac.com/forum/index.php?topic=22.0

Thanks

Bill