-
Yeah I know, but it's still quite a departure from your last two; they were more peaceful, I guess.
-
Is..................................
<====== this better NF.
-
Much better Avatar. I liked the SMB also, but this if fine, LOL.
Regarding the DAC, does the volume only control the headphone output or also the rear outputs?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Much better Avatar. I liked the SMB also, but this if fine, LOL.
Regarding the DAC, does the volume only control the headphone output or also the rear outputs?
Just for a change of pace, I thought I would swap my Avatar from time to time with album art.
To answer your question, the literature indicates that the volume control is for the headphones only.
"Headphone output with adjustable volume control "
-
Darn it. That eliminates the possibility of using it as a volume control and eliminating the preamp.
Just got word that mine is shipping today.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Darn it. That eliminates the possibility of using it as a volume control and eliminating the preamp.
Just got word that mine is shipping today.
You'll probably get yours before me since mine has to clear customs.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Darn it. That eliminates the possibility of using it as a volume control and eliminating the preamp.
Just got word that mine is shipping today.
You could always return it and get a Benchmark :devil:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
You could always return it and get a Benchmark :devil:
I would be interested in how it stacks up to the Benchmark.
-
Ajani, doe the volume on the Benchmark control the rear outputs, or just the headphone output?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Ajani, doe the volume on the Benchmark control the rear outputs, or just the headphone output?
It controls both... you can set the rear outputs to either fixed or variable (controlled by the volume knob)...
-
I'm sitting here listening to the MH DAC as we speak. And no custom charges. :thumbsup:
Haven't received my XLRs yet so I'll reserve any comments till then.
-
Well I've spent the better part of the weekend playing around with my MH DAC, and maybe it's just my hearing or impatience, but I'm underwhelmed. My Arcam Black Box (an old standby with lots of convenient features) sounds about the same. Now maybe it's one of those burn-in stories that I need to wait for, but for now, I'm not thinking this DAC is all that impressive, even at the 192KHz setting with balanced outputs.
LDB, any thoughts?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Well I've spent the better part of the weekend playing around with my MH DAC, and maybe it's just my hearing or impatience, but I'm underwhelmed. My Arcam Black Box (an old standby with lots of convenient features) sounds about the same. Now maybe it's one of those burn-in stories that I need to wait for, but for now, I'm not thinking this DAC is all that impressive, even at the 192KHz setting with balanced outputs.
LDB, any thoughts?
My first impression exactly. Then I ran it for approx. 30 hours straight with a combo of tunes and tones. I still wasn't impressed until I powered it down and warmed it up again.All I can say is it really has come into it's own. I have never heard horns, pianos, acoustic guitars, drums/cymbals,etc. sound better on my rig, even comparing to my TT.
This is with SE cables (my XLRs haven't shown up yet). I hope you have the same results I have. I found the 192KHz puts a little too much edge on things.
-
So you're confirming that burn-in is real, the ongoing controversy of that other thread. Interesting....
I hate burning things in, it seems like such a waste because I "shouldn't" listen to it until it's burned in.... Well I guess I'll let it run for a while. If that doesn't improve things, it's going back and I'll probably spring for the Benchmark.
By the way, what are your thoughts on the headphone amp?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
So you're confirming that burn-in is real, the ongoing controversy of that other thread. Interesting....
I hate burning things in, it seems like such a waste because I "shouldn't" listen to it until it's burned in.... Well I guess I'll let it run for a while. If that doesn't improve things, it's going back and I'll probably spring for the Benchmark.
By the way, what are your thoughts on the headphone amp?
Probably my crappy system but I'm thinking it's just the tube that needed a couple of warm up cycles to "seat". Are you using the USB inputs also? This DAC gives a depth to the music that wasn't there with the old SC as well a nicely reproducing the timbre of acoustical instruments. I've also notice a nice improvement to the lower range, more defined and a bit more slam on the lowest octaves.
I don't listen to cans so I haven't tried that yet.
-
I guess my Arcam Black Box is better than I thought. I used to have an Acurus DAC that was significantly better, but I kept the Adcom because it's got all sorts of inputs, dual outputs (although no XLR), and volume control. Anyhow, I never thought it sounded as full or deep as the better DAC. Now that I have the MH, I'm stumped that it sounds as ordinary as the Arcam. I'll leave it running all weekend, but if it doesn't improve it's going back.
Right now, $600 is a steep price for me to pay for a DAC that doesn't sound much better than something I bought used for $60. I'm also kind of bummed that the volume is only for the headphone output since I really wanted to go straight into my amp via the XLRs. Speaking of the headphone output, it's also just OK - nothing to write home about. And again w/o inputs, it can't be used as a standalone headphone amp for other inputs. I'm almost wishing I would ave gone with the CA DAC instead.
Oh well, we'll see what happens after the weekend.
-
Well a few things to consider,
I was running a Phillips SC so I can only compare to that and my TT. The TT has a slight edge in overall presentation but the MH's not far behind.
Could you have a faulty tube?
There might be a synergistic thing going on with my system that your nor achieving with yours? This DAC is compensating for/or enhancing my systems shortfalls/strengths and visa versa.
Your system is more revealing than mine?
Your reference datum is higher than mine?
I'm just an old fart that doesn't have a clue, can't hear and every improvement sounds good?
-
Nightflier, Audio Advisor is running a sale on the PS Audio Dgilink III DAC with I believe $300 off. Its something to consider if you don't like the Music Hall.
-
I haven't heard the Blackbox but Arcam makes very good digital playback. $60.00 was a steal. I would think there should be a significant difference between the Arcam and MH at least in presentation. Wasn't the Blackbox around when Arcam offered the Alpha line? There has to be some difference. What set up are you using when listening to the two?
-
MrP,
I am using a Tascam CD writer right now. While I also have an Audio Refinement CD player, the Tascam is more detailed and accurate, even if the AR is more pleasant to listen to. I figured that with the tubed DAC, that would be a better match. The Tascam has two digital outputs, so I send one to each DAC. The DACs are then sent to my Threshold preamp. The Threshold isn't my fav, but it is again, more detailed, and detail is what I'm after when I evaluate. From there the preamp goes to the amp via XLR and to the speakers.
I am using RCAs from the DACs to the preamp, but I also tried XLR cables and got the same results (hence the reason I am using all the more detailed equipment rather than the more pleasant equipment to try and figure out what's going on).
-
Good set up but there should be a big difference in presentation between an Arcam and a tube DAC.
-
That's just the thing....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Good set up but there should be a big difference in presentation between an Arcam and a tube DAC.
...there isn't.
-
Hey NF, what exactly is not pleasing to you?
Maybe I'm just having good "luck" with mine. The lowest octave blooms, the cymbals have that little metallic sound, you can hear the sticks slappin the heads,vocals are forward and natural, guitar strings sound like there in my room and the piano has a great percussive sound to it, etc. Detail and depth are excellent. I wonder if they switched to a different production run of 6922 tubes.
-
I wonder if the preamp is some how coloring or EQ'ing the signal some how to where they sound similar. If the Black Box is true to Arcam's character, they should be close to opposite ends from a "classic" tube sound. The Arcam should be faster, thinner bass line, maybe not as three dimensional, better defined images or less diffuse. I guess if the MH is as fast as an Arcam while using tubes it is a pretty good DAC but if being more modern don't reveal more detail, that's not good. What a mystery.
I doubt if it's different tubes, you all both bought very early models and close to the same time.
NF, did you send yours back?
-
Different tubes
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
...there isn't.
Tubes can make a difference, (as LDB mentions). If the MH uses a Sovtek 6922 (or two?) it sound won't be a good as it could. Electro Harmonics ought to be better according to reputation. There is, of course, burn-in with tubes: believe this even if you don't believe in burn-in for, say, cables.
But I suggest you try some older tubes, NOS or gently used. I managed a significant improvement with my Sonic Frontiers preamp going to these Amperex USA white label 'PQ' tubes. The sound was as detailed as others I tried but a bit warmer and with a remarkable sense of depth
...
http://ca.geocities.com/w_d_bailey/AmperexPQ.JPG
But note that these are earlier production. I have some late production, (though I believe genuine), PQs that don't sound as good. They look as follows; note the 'E88CC' on the package and tubes themselves. Note too that the pins aren't gold plated ...
http://ca.geocities.com/w_d_bailey/Amperex-new1.JPG
|