New digital front end

Class boxes !!! and a E-frame tranny excellent, spray me baby one more time
Now the chips specs, just a part number, we know how it sounds we placed in certain enviroments, an earwiggin' observation! nothing more!
I've not heard the Dx51, JU feels its good, your thoughts please?
What drew you to a Mr Franks's non invaisive blue glowing ear wax removal system in the first place? I'm curious for such a indepth studier of digital topology, surely this would have set alarm bells ringing? Wm

 

He first heard my DAC64 and then bought one as soon as he could. He absolutely loved it until he got those Yamaha NS1000M speakers. Beryllium tweeter and mid-driver. Agressive? There's no paint left on the walls in his listening room

The piece of kit that convinced him the DAC64 was for the chop was a heavily modified, oldish, Marantz. Modified by the guy who calls himself "Tube Dude" on diyAudio.com

Michael.

 

I get the feeling that people complaining about the DAC64 being aggressive and hard probably have a speaker issue.

The Shigaraki transport has 2 digital outputs so I've been experimenting today with both the DAC64 and the Shigaraki DAC. They do give different presentations, the DAC64 is upfront and lively, the Shigaraki more relaxed. Interestingly, the non-oversampling no-filter 47 Labs doesn't seem to lose out on any detail, it just presents it in a slightly less upfront way. Both seem to have their strengths. I think you can get too hung up on chip differences, frankly.

The transport is cool as feck btw, just need to get some longer shelf supports so I can get to it properly (no top shelf it can go on).

-- Ian

 

What, you mean you dont have it sitting on coloured pebbles? Shame on you.

 

In an A/B test cherry veneered MDF proved to be superior to the handful of gravel that was the nearest I could get to pebbles.

-- Ian

 

Ian, Russ Andrews sells..............

Was the testing done double blind, maybe the differences you heard were pshycoaccoustic!

 

I am seriously disappointed no one got the joke regarding finding a special plaice for a 47 Labs transport

 

Well are ya gonna let us in on it?

 

it's called a 'flatfish'. the joke smelled like week old tuna in the sun so we ignored it.
cheers


julian

 

[I've not heard the Dx51, JU feels its good, your thoughts please?]

I heard the integrated TL 51z and, as I said earlier, I liked it.

[What drew you to a Mr Franks's non invaisive blue glowing ear wax removal system in the first place? I'm curious for such a indepth studier of digital topology, surely this would have set alarm bells ringing? Wm]

It has something to do with the blue light...

But Beryllium and its true magic dust intoxicated me to the point of blindness and now all I can do is hearing the truth!

[Beryllium tweeter and mid-driver. Agressive? There's no paint left on the walls in his listening room]

Mike,

Those who can see are those who can't ~hear!

 

I must pay more attention to the posts you run Yammy's 1K's they are worse than the atc's, Mike for once we may agree on something!!!

 

Yes they are. They even managed to show me how wrong DAC64 sounds. Worse than everything else I have ever heard... but boy those 15" woofers in sealed enclosures can really give lightning fast deep bass. Forget about transmission lines and paper cone mid-range drivers... cause if the words are fast and alive you only be able to get it with the mighty Beryllium Dust. I've been intoxicated, I know.

 

Really? Worse than everything else?

So, you liked the DAC64, you bought a pair of Yamahas and then thought it sounded aggressive. Do you have any other sources (turntable, for example). Did they undergo the same transformation? There's just the faintest whiff of a possibility that the harshness problem is the speakers. Damned near a certainty in fact, IMHO...

-- Ian

 

I'd go along with S/Show's post, having had a pair for evaluation tests at work, They do exhibit some intersting tendancies, some can be likened to cats craws on a black board tis true. But they served their purpose and were passed on.
Just pair up with valhalla/chord amps and hey ho, you could start a very lucrative redecoration business, the paint stripping abilities would outshine any industrial steam paint remover by a factor of 10, intoxicating, humm in a morning after the night before serious hang over way quite possibly.

 

IMHO, those Berylium drivers are wasted on any CD system - they are simply exposing the weaknesses in the format. If something is fast and accurate (which they undoubtedly are), surely the fault must lie with the source? Of course there are many who simply don't want that level of transparency, giventhat the prime purpose of speakers for most of us is to allow us to enjoy our music collection.

 

Merlin old bean, sounding like a bag of spanners does not transparency make...

-- Ian

 

Yes. I was under the blue light spell. I liked what I now reckon as being the WOW factor (which is very different from long term satisfaction). I know someone here who is now cursing the glowing blue big time but only after he has taken one home... it is a strong spell indeed.

But the revelation came with an heavly modified Phillips CD202 player from 1983 with TDA1540 multibit DAC. That's how much we made progress...

I have Dyn Crafft's right next to them... so I know what I'm talking about.

 

THAT bad huh

Lots of people seem to dislike Berylium drive units and yet they are held in awe by some. Haven't heard the NS1000's for a decade or so, so not really qualified to comment these days. Do you think it is system matching or simply poor drive units?

 

No argument with that. The Shigaraki uses what Philips describe as their "economy" TDA1543T, has no oversampling or filtering, only about 20 components in total, couldn't get much simpler, yet it sounds great.

-- Ian

 

Yes, and with the Craffts you thought the DAC64 sounded amazing and you also said you didn't know how anyone could call the DAC64 harsh

Vasco, you need to find your own way and not get too influenced by Tube Dude...

Michael.