Post by optical on Jul 24, 2023 9:38:35 GMT
The upgrade path continues . . . .
One thing that has been niggling me over the past few months, is my system 'complete' without a valve in sight (bar the phono stage used for MC carts)? Could the presentation benefit from a hint of added bloom, is it missing that "je ne sais quoi" that some systems seem to have and others just don't?
I don't think that it necessarily comes down to SS vs valves, as depending on your listening preferences, I think an all SS chain can be as intoxicating and 'real' sounding as any iteration.
I do however, think that hifi 'tuning' (slight tweaks towards your musical preferences and favoured presentation), can end up being as important as any component in the chain, I think valves are a superb way of achieving this.
Other factors have to be in place, such as achieving enough of a transparent signal from components (plus low distortion amplifier/speakers) so as to provide high enough resolution to give a platform for an introduced distortion (valve/buffer) to slot in without losing coherence and resolution and in fact appearing to 'enhance' it.
Current top billing goes to the Holo Spring 2 level 3. It's clean, huge sounding and textured, not just for an SS (albeit R2R) DAC but compared to any I've heard. It would take something rather special to dislodge it . . . .
Enter an Audio Note 1 X oversampling DAC. Limited to 16/44 with a single ECC82 valve on the output, it's more than a little left-field compared to the recent competition. It does not however, come without pedigree.
The reviews tend to be a little esoteric. A DAC that measures fairly poorly (especially by todays insane standards in regards to measurements), won't play at over 16bit and uses 'old' chips and technology as well as being vastly over-priced compared to something that on paper has significantly superior performance (at least in the departments that seem to take precedent in the published 'specs' area). Is not going to be well received by many (in fact hardly any) enthusiasts, and somewhat understandably so. However as above (in reference to 'balancing' resolution vs introduced distortion) I'm trying to put an argument forward as to why more people may benefit from giving these a second look . . . the people whom personally review and rate these DAC's make a lot of noise in regards to how it is exceptionally musical and engaging they are. Comments such as 'measurements be damned' and 'the most realistic I've ever heard instruments' are commonly associated, fair enough a lot of people say that about a lot of gear both good and bad, and admittedly it can often be a load of hype about nothing special, but sometimes those so staunchly vocal regarding a product, can be on to something.
Audio Note themselves acknowledge that their DAC's are not made to measure particularly well, they are designed to make listening to digital files enjoyable. That is their only goal in the brief. It's a simple mantra, one I can appreciate and that approach certainly trickles down to the design of the DAC, the circuit, parts used etc . . . however the sound coming from it is anything but simple I would say.
It's early days, and it's still got to topple the Spring (which is exceptional in itself) but if engaging and soulful is the yardstick of listening to music, this DAC has it.
Of course I couldn't leave it be, swapping out the original wires for some Triple C on the output signal path and some OCC on the power/filter sections. Also managed to neaten it up a bit from the original rats-nest it resembled when I received the DAC. Turns out using the slightly thicker gauge OCC was not the best choice as the characteristics of the DAC changed from fast and tight, to a lot slower and less coherent, not something you want with a valve DAC as their inherent traits of being slower than their SS counterparts were exacerbated. So I changed all of the wires to Triple C and everything returned, and got better actually, although that's no surprise given that Triple C seems to bring across the board improvements in most applications where it's applied. Although I returned the power/filter wires back to their original rats-nest configuration after reading how tightly twisting the cables could also have occasional undesired effects on capacitance and skin effect etc. Can of worms opened for sure, most of which I simply do not understand, so I just thought, well I liked it how it sounded before, the wires were all over the place, so I just continued that approach (leaving the output wire path twisted to ensure I could guide them away from any high power sections of the DAC).
Before:
After (with OCC power/filter wires):
After (with full Triple C wiring):
I also had a couple of unused Audyn True Copper Max caps going spare so as ever (can't leave things alone), I've popped them in too . . . . further audible improvements.
In addition I have also fitted a pure copper Furutech IEC socket just as I had it around as a spare.
There are other upgrade paths available, the SOIC pin digital receiver (CS8412) can be easily upgraded to CS8414 giving it the capability to receive 24/96 files with supposed reduced jitter measurements too . . . . however, after reading a few reviews of DIYers having carried out the mod, a few commented that there was an upturn in dynamics along with some other improvements, however, the overall musicality of the DAC suffered. That 'thing' which made the DAC so engaging in the first place was gone. Backed up to their return to a more enjoyable sound after swapping the original (lower spec and 'poorer' performing) board back in. Does this mean we should ignore measurements and just use our ears to design and tweak equipment? No, of course not, however it does indicate that there are many other factors at work defining what is enjoyable to listen to and what may end up sounding less enjoyable overall, although the theory dictates that it shouldn't be.
It's now an absolute music maker pure and simple. Further A/B-ing with the Holo will be ongoing as that's the point of this exercise, to have a champion I'm constantly trying to dethrone. This way I'll always be left with the one I prefer currently whilst having an eye on whatever might improve my listening pleasure. I've sold things I wish I hadn't in the past so don't want to fall foul of that whilst still feeding my box swapping to a satisfactory level. The rest of my system doesn't really need too much tweaking, at least until major turntable upgrades occur, so I'll be down to the more 'icing on cake' tweaks here and there.
Will be writing more about that in the blog soon hopefully.
Cheers
One thing that has been niggling me over the past few months, is my system 'complete' without a valve in sight (bar the phono stage used for MC carts)? Could the presentation benefit from a hint of added bloom, is it missing that "je ne sais quoi" that some systems seem to have and others just don't?
I don't think that it necessarily comes down to SS vs valves, as depending on your listening preferences, I think an all SS chain can be as intoxicating and 'real' sounding as any iteration.
I do however, think that hifi 'tuning' (slight tweaks towards your musical preferences and favoured presentation), can end up being as important as any component in the chain, I think valves are a superb way of achieving this.
Other factors have to be in place, such as achieving enough of a transparent signal from components (plus low distortion amplifier/speakers) so as to provide high enough resolution to give a platform for an introduced distortion (valve/buffer) to slot in without losing coherence and resolution and in fact appearing to 'enhance' it.
Current top billing goes to the Holo Spring 2 level 3. It's clean, huge sounding and textured, not just for an SS (albeit R2R) DAC but compared to any I've heard. It would take something rather special to dislodge it . . . .
Enter an Audio Note 1 X oversampling DAC. Limited to 16/44 with a single ECC82 valve on the output, it's more than a little left-field compared to the recent competition. It does not however, come without pedigree.
The reviews tend to be a little esoteric. A DAC that measures fairly poorly (especially by todays insane standards in regards to measurements), won't play at over 16bit and uses 'old' chips and technology as well as being vastly over-priced compared to something that on paper has significantly superior performance (at least in the departments that seem to take precedent in the published 'specs' area). Is not going to be well received by many (in fact hardly any) enthusiasts, and somewhat understandably so. However as above (in reference to 'balancing' resolution vs introduced distortion) I'm trying to put an argument forward as to why more people may benefit from giving these a second look . . . the people whom personally review and rate these DAC's make a lot of noise in regards to how it is exceptionally musical and engaging they are. Comments such as 'measurements be damned' and 'the most realistic I've ever heard instruments' are commonly associated, fair enough a lot of people say that about a lot of gear both good and bad, and admittedly it can often be a load of hype about nothing special, but sometimes those so staunchly vocal regarding a product, can be on to something.
Audio Note themselves acknowledge that their DAC's are not made to measure particularly well, they are designed to make listening to digital files enjoyable. That is their only goal in the brief. It's a simple mantra, one I can appreciate and that approach certainly trickles down to the design of the DAC, the circuit, parts used etc . . . however the sound coming from it is anything but simple I would say.
It's early days, and it's still got to topple the Spring (which is exceptional in itself) but if engaging and soulful is the yardstick of listening to music, this DAC has it.
Of course I couldn't leave it be, swapping out the original wires for some Triple C on the output signal path and some OCC on the power/filter sections. Also managed to neaten it up a bit from the original rats-nest it resembled when I received the DAC. Turns out using the slightly thicker gauge OCC was not the best choice as the characteristics of the DAC changed from fast and tight, to a lot slower and less coherent, not something you want with a valve DAC as their inherent traits of being slower than their SS counterparts were exacerbated. So I changed all of the wires to Triple C and everything returned, and got better actually, although that's no surprise given that Triple C seems to bring across the board improvements in most applications where it's applied. Although I returned the power/filter wires back to their original rats-nest configuration after reading how tightly twisting the cables could also have occasional undesired effects on capacitance and skin effect etc. Can of worms opened for sure, most of which I simply do not understand, so I just thought, well I liked it how it sounded before, the wires were all over the place, so I just continued that approach (leaving the output wire path twisted to ensure I could guide them away from any high power sections of the DAC).
Before:
After (with OCC power/filter wires):
After (with full Triple C wiring):
I also had a couple of unused Audyn True Copper Max caps going spare so as ever (can't leave things alone), I've popped them in too . . . . further audible improvements.
In addition I have also fitted a pure copper Furutech IEC socket just as I had it around as a spare.
There are other upgrade paths available, the SOIC pin digital receiver (CS8412) can be easily upgraded to CS8414 giving it the capability to receive 24/96 files with supposed reduced jitter measurements too . . . . however, after reading a few reviews of DIYers having carried out the mod, a few commented that there was an upturn in dynamics along with some other improvements, however, the overall musicality of the DAC suffered. That 'thing' which made the DAC so engaging in the first place was gone. Backed up to their return to a more enjoyable sound after swapping the original (lower spec and 'poorer' performing) board back in. Does this mean we should ignore measurements and just use our ears to design and tweak equipment? No, of course not, however it does indicate that there are many other factors at work defining what is enjoyable to listen to and what may end up sounding less enjoyable overall, although the theory dictates that it shouldn't be.
It's now an absolute music maker pure and simple. Further A/B-ing with the Holo will be ongoing as that's the point of this exercise, to have a champion I'm constantly trying to dethrone. This way I'll always be left with the one I prefer currently whilst having an eye on whatever might improve my listening pleasure. I've sold things I wish I hadn't in the past so don't want to fall foul of that whilst still feeding my box swapping to a satisfactory level. The rest of my system doesn't really need too much tweaking, at least until major turntable upgrades occur, so I'll be down to the more 'icing on cake' tweaks here and there.
Will be writing more about that in the blog soon hopefully.
Cheers
