Jump to content

autoformer

  • Posts

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Freshman Member
  1. With all due respect to Jud's otherwise sound advice, I wouldn't discount the W4S mINT or the uDAC that it incorporates so quickly. I actually own a uDAC, a W4S DAC2, a Benchmark DAC1 USB, a Wavelength Brick & Proton, an Ayre QB-9 and a Halide Bridge, among others, so I have some basis for comparison. And while I don't own a mINT, I spent some extended time with one just a couple of weeks ago while visiting a friend, who had just purchased one. Bottom line is that W4S have done an exceptional job on the uDAC, and the mINT itself is a very good sounding unit. It is a step above the well-regarded Bel Canto C5i, which I also own. In my family room system, which consists of Zu Omens connected to a single ended pentode amp and tube preamp that I built, I have tried the DAC2, Wavelength Brick and Proton, the Benchmark and the PS Audio Digital Link III. All things considered, for that application (which is very space-limited), the uDAC is my preferred choice. Yes, there are subtleties that the DAC2 and Wavelength DACs handle better, but honestly, few people would notice. The uDAC performs well above its price point. The trouble I have with this thread is that I feel we've confused the OP with our esoteric discussions about NOS DACs, integrated amps vs outboard DACs, etc. The reality here is that most people just want to listen to music on a good quality system. Sometimes, as audio enthusiasts, we get so far into the minutiae that people just get confused and shut down. That is why I recommended the mINT- a good quality unit with plenty of output power and a good quality DAC that supports USB, coax and TOSlink. Sure, the USB port only supports 24/96, but seriously, do most people really need more than that? I'm deep into audio and honestly, when I buy HDTracks and have a choice, I usually just go with 24/96 as opposed to 24/192. I'm finding that mastering makes more of a difference than these high sampling rates. Besides, the OP's primary concern is playing her husband's collection of ripped CDs, which will all be Redbook anyway. And even if down the road they decide they want to get into content beyond 24/96, a good integrated like the mINT can serve in myriad applications around the house.
  2. @Davisra: I'm sorry that the discussion here has caused you some stress. The path to great sound is not so complicated as it may seem. If I were you, I'd simply purchase the new Wyred4Sound mINT integrated and hook it up to the speakers you already have. Start off like that and see if it meets your needs. Don't get too wound up with NOS vs oversampling and all that other stuff. The mINT has quite a good DAC built right in in addition to a very good class D amplifier. I'm sure you'll love it. You never did say what your budget is, but if you can, please look at the Harbeth speakers. The Compact 7ES-3 in particular would be a good match for the mINT and I think you'd have to spend a lot more to get better sound than that. So there's a simple and pretty much guaranteed-to-sound great recommendation: MacBook Pro with your lossless rips, connected directly via USB to a Wyred4Sound mINT, driving your existing speakers, or a pair of Harbeth Compact 7ES-3 speakers ($3500) if your budget will accommodate.
  3. @HiFiGuy: The uDAC uses USB power when connected to your computer. When you're using the optical or coax interfaces, the supplied power supply provides power to the DAC via the USB port. It's just a little wall wart with a USB cable. You can also purchase it from Walter Lederman at Underwood HiFi, which is based on the East Coast. Give him a call. Walter runs a good outfit.
  4. The uDAC seems to share its powerful low end with its other Cullen Circuits/Wyred4Sound siblings. In that regard, it is similar to the DLIII and DAC2. Whether or not it's too much will depend on your system. Wyred offers a 30 day money back guarantee with only a 15% re-stock fee. That's $60 if you really decide you don't like it, but I doubt that'll be the case.
  5. I had a chance to hear one of these over the weeekend at a friend's house. He had his paired up with a pair of Castle Severn MkII speakers and it sounded very good to me compared to my own small reference setup of McIntosh MC275 + Harbeth Compact 7 speakers. And Wyred4Sound is a lot better to deal with than McIntosh, I can tell you...
  6. I have not yet done an A-B comparison between the Proton and the uDAC and should not have had the Proton in my list. I used the Brick as a reference for my comments on the proton which was a bad idea. I have compared the Brick to the Proton many times and always come away with the impression that the Proton has a more refined sound. I seem to hear more detail and atmosphere with the Proton. To my ears, the Brick has a more prominent midrange and a little less extension at either end than the Proton, though it is also very good. I have a sensitivity to overly hard midrange, and the Proton seems a little more laid back in this regard. I will be able to do a uDAC/Proton comparison in about a week, but my expectation is that the uDAC will have more powerful bass and maybe a touch less high end detail than the Proton. It will be a little tricky to compare because the output level of the Proton is so much lower than the uDAC. For my application (Squeezebox + Decware Zen Torii + Zu Omen), the uDAC is perfect, since it has optical and coax inputs. I would not be able to use the Proton in that room as it is USB only. And don't forget, the Proton also has the advantage of being battery powered vs USB powered, and it has a headphone jack built-in. The Proton really is very, very good. To be honest, of all my DACs, it's the closest to my current favorite - the Ayre QB-9. I think the Stereophile review called the Proton "scarily close" to the Wavelength Cosecant, and based on my own experience, I don't doubt it, though I have not heard the Cosecant for myself. One other note about the uDAC's bass. It really is very pronounced. In fact, for the first time, I am starting to have problems with the Omens reacting with the room. I've now got a nasty problem with a lower mid-bass boom that just wasn't there before with the V-Link I used previously on this system.
  7. Under $1k, I don't think anything compares to the Proton. Downside is that it is USB only. You might have a look at the new uDAC from Wyred4Sound. It's a very innovative and well-made product with great sound and a very small form factor.
  8. I received mine a couple of weeks ago and am using it in my family room. Here are some quick and subjective impressions. Amplifier: Decware Zen Torii Mk III Speakers: Zu Omen Sub: REL Britannia 3 Source: MacBook Air 13" running Decibel and iTunes I compared the uDAC to a few other DACs I have hanging around here, including: Wavelength Brick Wavelength Proton Wyred4Sound DAC2 Benchmark DAC1 USB PS Audio Digital Link III (with Halide Bridge) Musical Fidelity V-DAC (with V-Link) Of all these, the one that sounds the most similar to my ears is the PS Audio DLIII. Maybe I'm a tin ear who can't tell a 2006-era DAC from one designed in 2011, but I don't think I could tell them apart blindfolded. DLIII still seems to be a very good sounding DAC that must have been ahead of its time when first introduced. Between uDAC and V-DAC, there is no comparison. The soundstage is audibly and very obviously more expansive with the uDAC, highs are more extended, and bass more powerful. uDAC conveys loads more detail and midrange energy. Wyred DAC2 also shares these characteristics, which is not surprising, given their respective lineages. DAC2 conveys more fine detail and has an overall more refined sound. DAC2 seems a little "laid back" in comparison to the uDAC, especially in the midrange. The uDAC sounds better to me than the Benchmark, but the Benchmark still has a certain energy in the midrange that I find very exciting. I have always liked the Benchmark for vocals. uDAC seems to have better extension on the extremes than the DAC1 The uDAC has a very different sound from the Wavelength Brick. Highs and lows are more extended with the uDAC, which sounds a little artificial compared to the Brick's natural, balanced presentation. Wavelength Proton is, in my view, even better than the Brick, with a very detailed high end that is not at all fatiguing. My only gripe with the Proton is its relatively low output signal. Bottom line is that the uDAC is a very nice sounding DAC that is an amazing value for the money. The form factor is a big plus for me, since the new Decware Zen Torii takes up so much room on my shelf, that there's no space left for even a DAC as compact as the Benchmark, never mind the huge DLIII. The uDAC sits comfortably behind the Torii, out of sight and doing its job very well indeed. You may wonder why I'm not using the Brick for this system, since I like it so much in comparison. The answer is that I have so little room on the shelf in this room that there is no room for a computer. So we are using a Squeezebox Touch which works perfectly with the uDAC and is simple and stable enough to be used by everyone in the house. So there you have it. Take my opinions with a grain of salt since everyone's ears and preferences are different. One final word... The silkscreened labels for L and R outputs on my early production uDAC were reversed! Wyred are providing what they say is a very nice (and rather expensive) appliqué that can be stuck on, covering the silkscreened labels. Highly recommended!
  9. What amp and speakers will this DAC be used with? And in what kind of room? How big, type of floor, ceiling height, windows, etc? Knowing that, maybe we could come up with some better recommendations.
  10. Hi Jeff, I do most of my serious listening through my mid and near-field systems. The key points for me: 1) As you put it, the relative volume compared to room reflections makes the room less of a factor. 2) Because you're listening close to the speakers, you can achieve a pleasing volume level, even with a low-powered SET amplifier. And once you get addicted to a good SET, you're done. 3) The soundstage is simply incredible. Better than headphones, unless you have a good head amp with crossfeed. 4) Maybe it's my near field speakers, but the amount of detail is simply incredible. I've attached a photo of my near field system just after the speakers were completed. They are "Orcas", handmade in Seattle by Clark Blumenstein. The amplifier is a Bottlehead S.E.X. amplifier, which is a DIY single ended triode amp based on the 6DN7 tube. It is a truly wonderful match. The Orcas are designed to work with a subwoofer. Clark makes his own very nice matching ones, but I use mine with a REL T5. At the moment, I'm using a Wavelength Proton DAC on the desktop. Of all my systems, this one comes the closest to offering true sonic nirvana. No, it's not the loudest thing in the world, but it gets loud enough that I find the 12 o'clock position on the amp's attenuator to be comfortable. The Blumenstein Orca is a remarkable little speaker. I'd bet that one of Steve Deckert's SE84C amps would be a beautiful thing with the Orcas. http://www.blumenstein-ultra-fi.com/ http://www.bottlehead.com/store.php?crn=44&rn=433&action=show_detail
  11. I'm helping a friend of mine spec out a 2.1 system for music and home theater. My first instinct was to recommend what I'm doing, in which the A/V sources are hooked up to an A/V Receiver, which drives the center channel and surrounds. Then, the front right & left preamp outputs from the A/V receiver are connected to a McIntosh preamp via its home theater bypass feature. The Mc preamp is connected to an MC452, which drives the front right & left speakers. The difference in my friend's setup is that he only needs 2 channels. What we're trying to figure out is whether he will need some sort of A/V processor to mix-down the surround and LFE information into 2 channels. Do most flat pane displays do this? For example, let's say we use the flat panel display as the A/V switcher. We could connect the A/V sources to it via HDMI. So far, so good. But what happens if we connect a 2 channel integrated amp (with internal DAC, like the Wyred 4 Sound MINT)? Are we getting a 2 channel mixdown from the flat panel, or just the two front channels with all the LFE and surround info all missing? Thanks!
  12. When I describe the Benchmark as forward, what I mean is that vocals and certain instruments seem to be emanating from the plane of the drivers rather than somewhere behind them, if that makes any sense. It is as if, with the Benchmark, I am sitting closer to the stage.
  13. It's very difficult and probably fruitless to choose a DAC without taking your overall system into account. A few months ago, I went through a big DAC selection process and the need for system synergy became obvious. I ended up with an Ayre QB-9 because it suited the particular system I was building so well. This afternoon, I was comparing my Benchmark DAC1 USB to my Wyred 4 Sound DAC2 in a system comprised of Zu Omen speakers driven by an Elekit TU-879S single ended 6L6 tube amp. The two DACs were markedly different in their presentations. The DAC2 was smooth and laid back - too smooth and laid back for the amp/speaker combination. It sounds great with a SS amp on a pair of electrostats, though. The Benchmark DAC1 USB, with its more forward and punchy presentation suited the 9 watt tube amp and the full rangers much better. The music seemed more present and better articulated to me. I never understood why so many people criticize the Benchmark DAC1. By the numbers, it is still an exceptional performer. And to me, it still sounds great, even with its adaptive USB port, which is much better than people give it credit for. While async USB certainly has benefits, I think it is a bit overhyped. My bet is that Benchmark will introduce an async USB unit soon, but for marketing rather than sonic reasons. In fact, I'm thinking of selling off my DAC2 and getting a DAC1 HDR. They really are great-sounding units in my opinion.
  14. In transitioning to streaming-only music in my house, I ripped a few hundred CDs. I have not listened to them all. While ripping, I usually spot checked a track or two, but some not at all. Some could be affected by this bug. Of course, FLAC is not supported by iTunes. However, it can be considered an archival format from which you can derive other audio encoding formats as needs change. This could also be done with Apple lossless files, using Max or some other utility that could convert from ALAC to other formats. However, if the ALAC source file is distorted, and you've gotten rid of the original CD, as I would like to do, you are screwed. As we prepare to get rid of our hundreds of CDs, I want to be sure that I have accurate rips and for a while now, I have been thinking about re-ripping all of them in FLAC format with Max, just to be sure. Apple's announcement indicates that some of my rips could be distorted. Going through the whole collection to check could be as time consuming as just re-ripping each CD.
  15. This will be worrisome for those of us who have imported hundreds of CDs using iTunes in Apple Lossless. I was about to get rid of most of my CDs, but now I'm wondering if I should embark on a project to re-import them all in FLAC format with Max. From Apple's upgrade notes for 10.5.2: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What's new in iTunes 10.5.2 iTunes 10.5.2 includes several improvements for iTunes Match and fixes an audio distortion problem when playing or importing certain CDs.
×
×
  • Create New...