advertisement


MDAC first listen (part XIII)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its logical evolution...
have you seen this : http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...pono-digital-to-analog-music-service-20120927
What i found very suspect is when you read that rhcp's fleas talks about this music improvment .... seeing the mastering of their last albumS.....
Good luck to Neil Young taking on iTunes and MP3s, trying to raise the bar of recording SQ! Don't know about the yellow triangular brick 'Pono' though. Hopefully we'll just need a Foobar/JRivers/whatever software decoder, and an MTRANS to feed 192KHz 24 bit to the MDAC. :)
 
Good luck to Neil Young taking on iTunes and MP3s, trying to raise the bar of recording SQ! Don't know about the yellow triangular brick 'Pono' though. Hopefully we'll just need a Foobar/JRivers/whatever software decoder, and an MTRANS to feed 192KHz 24 bit to the MDAC. :)
Currently, there are few hard facts about Pono or its files.

My guesses -
  • that it will involve a new (possibly proprietary) codec i.e. you can only play it on a Pono-licensed device.
  • That this might entail an attempt to reintroduce some sort of DRM - this could be why the likes of Warners are interested and...
  • ...the use of DRM would justify the expense of re-mastering which is the essential USP of Pono.
We'll know the answers within a couple of months.
 
Yes I understand ,thanks for the reply.

I've limited listening tests with HD650, HD800. Read a review on the SRH940 and they seem good value. The HD800's were heavenly after trying the HD650's , but were out my price range , I ended up with nothing so far. I have a wish list of purchases at the moment and its trying to decide where I allocate funds . Thanks again.

Have you considered the HD700?
 
Currently, there are few hard facts about Pono or its files.

My guesses -
  • that it will involve a new (possibly proprietary) codec i.e. you can only play it on a Pono-licensed device.
  • That this might entail an attempt to reintroduce some sort of DRM - this could be why the likes of Warners are interested and...
  • ...the use of DRM would justify the expense of re-mastering which is the essential USP of Pono.
We'll know the answers within a couple of months.
After a set of reading on the internet news i'm afraid that your'e right. If the "new" format would be DRM free they will have emphasized that fact....
Moreover if remastering means over compressing it could be worse.
 
I would like to experiment with DSD files. Is there any chance at all of replacing the current usb board with a board like this http://amanero.com/ or to provide a i2s interface? Still holding off buying an MDAC whilst waiting for a DSD solution.
 
MTRN (CD transport, ASync isolated USB 192, Digital FM/AM Tuner and Bluetooth + De-jittered Digital inputs)....

We might also do a small external "Dongle" (OK read cheap box) with just the ASync Clocked-lock 192kHz USB.

Hallo John

Will your MTRN interwork also with BDAC ala MDAC?

regards
f.s.
 
I would like to experiment with DSD files. Is there any chance at all of replacing the current usb board with a board like this http://amanero.com/ or to provide a i2s interface? Still holding off buying an MDAC whilst waiting for a DSD solution.

There is no 'USB board' in the mdac, it's all on one pcb. You can hack it so that an external USB input went straight onto the board as i2s, but it probably wouldn't fit in the case.

That's exactly what Weiss do with the 202 dac, just throw a Xmos USb board inside.
 
OH wow!, spent the last 2-3 days reading all 12 parts of this thread, i learnt a bit and also wasted a lot of hours too hahaha.
I found more than 90 percent of people overly enjoy their M-dacs and only a single hand full of people wanted to sell or upgrade their units, half of which were justified reasons.

Ah other useful notes were the amount of faults that people have had but i am not sure if it is more than usual for a high end product like this or just because the thread is so well maintained in support, that more people tend to try their problems here than on support systems with audiolab. Either way they are handled very well and props to those people.
People seem to regard the M-dac better than a lot of other highly acclaimed dacs like the benchmark, rega, nuforce, Dacmagic, etc. I think the only one i read that seem to top the m-dac was the weiss and some also thought it was comparable and at its 1/4 less price was a contributing factor to it being POSSIBLY superior.
Along with other comparisons i have read and seen from reviews, is that people perceive the M-dac to be more balanced and does not tend to favor one type of genre or type of music where as others seem to do better in some areas than others, which is one of the things i found greatly appreciative to know.
 
The MDAC does not have a passive pre-amplifier - its a Digital pre-amplifier so the audio signal is scaled in the digital domain - there is no change in the Analogue gain structure.

Having too much system gain requiring you to listen at high attenuation levels is a bad thing. "Gain" is never for free, each gain stage causes a reduction in sound quality - there's no such thing as a 100% perfect gain stage.

When I hear of systems where the owners are listening with level settings of -60dB or lower this suggests to me a very badly matched system.

Simple question is how to "Reduce" something without loosing anything - you will always be reducing a signal into a "fixed" noise floor level.

You have a large bucket of water, and want to pour it into a smaller bucket - the smaller bucket will eventually overflow, and you loose the rest.... Bigger into smaller does not go.

Both optimised Analogue and Digital systems (once converted back into the analogue domain) will always face the same noise floor issue - 24bits audio is BELOW the theoretical noise floor caused by the random movement of electrons "heat" energy, unless you live near absolute zero...

Digital domain attenuation when done correctly should be no different to performing analogue domain attenuation - however practical "real world" implemention issues need to be considered.

With Digital attenuation, the Analogue system is always operating at Full gain - turn up the volume knob of any analogue amplifier with no music playing and you can hear a slight background Hum, Hiss, RF intermodulation products etc. though the speakers - this is a reality of analogue electronics.

Any Digital product by there very nature will produce RF energy. There is a practical limitation on how much you can filter this energy before you start to detrimentally impact the audio quality.

Without any form of analogue attenuation this "leakage" RF energy from the DAC is pumped directly into the Amplifiers input stage which can then be demodulated into the audio range.

Transistor inputs stages are by far the most sensitive to RF demodulation by a significant margin followed by Jfets, Tubes then MOSFET's.

Adding Analogue attenuation in front of the amplifier reduce both Audio AND RF energy - this does not happen with pure digital attenuation.

John

No, this is not the case due to Noise Shaping, see my earlier reply :)

After some time i do understand what you are talking about when i asked you about digital attenuation, i just need however a little more insight into a couple of things if you are up to it.

You speak mostly about RF interference, which refers to radio interference yes ?? like in that of digital components radiating these frequency's because of the behavior of how they work physically ??. And that when the digital attenuation is being intensely used more and more that the amount of bits lost is not in direct relation to the quality degradation, but more to do because of how the attenuation does not reduce the effects of artifacts like analogue attenuation does and so you are left with one of the cons of digital attenuation.
Then you also talk about noise shaping, i am assuming this is not at all related to RF distortion but is another reason or cause for quality loss as well. Now i havn't done much on noise shaping but at best guess this technique is what moves or increases the bit depth of audio files to 32bit and the real problem is when reducing is the reduction of that said data when attenuating... something about error relocation as you said in previous post (like i said havn't read on it much yet..).

I may not be correct at all just wondering if im heading in the right direction, il be doing some more research on the actual properties soon just been busy reading all the threads from this lol.
 
So is the general concensus that it's best to just use the M-dacs volume/attenuator (whichever it is) than analogue attenuation?

Has anyone compared the two?
 
So is the general concensus that it's best to just use the M-dacs volume/attenuator (whichever it is) than analogue attenuation?

Has anyone compared the two?

I have compared the two, and in my system, in my room and to my ears I preferred the sound without my preamp.
In your setup, in your room and to your ears you may find different. Best bet is to try both and see which you prefer.

Sam
 
Yeah I've got some Rothwell XLR attenuators in the post, hopefully will get them tomorrow. If there's no difference to my ears, they're going straight back.
 
So is the general concensus that it's best to just use the M-dacs volume/attenuator (whichever it is) than analogue attenuation?

Has anyone compared the two?

For me using the M-DAC as a pre is a significant improvement over my Audiolab 8000Q, so much so that I spent about £80 on this fellow...

http://www.homehifi.co.uk/products/TC-7240.html

...I still need my Q for my TT and AV, so this allows me to switch between my 'digital' pre (M-DAC), and 'analogue' pre (Q) into the same power amps...works a treat :)
 
I have compared the two, and in my system, in my room and to my ears I preferred the sound without my preamp.
In your setup, in your room and to your ears you may find different. Best bet is to try both and see which you prefer.
Sam

If the question is really which gives better SQ, digital or analogue attenuation (gain). Then there are other factors involved (as usual).

In my system, SQ is considerably better using balanced XLR interconnects, (which I believe is generally the case).
The only XLR inputs on my amp are for CD input, which then means I am using the pre-amp section of my Integrated amp.

Of benefit to me is that I can use both analogue and digital attenuation, amp remote for general level then MDAC remote for fine volume tuning. As the analogue volume control is too harsh without.

I have tried digital attenuation only (phono interconnects direct to power amp stage).

But to me the use of fully balanced MDAC through balanced cable into fully balanced pre/power works best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top