Stunsworth
pfm Member
DSP got dropped quite a while ago because it would compromise the DAC's sound quality. A pity, it was something I was looking forward to at the time.
MDAC First Listen (part 00111011)
- Thread starter fred sonnen
- Start date
- Status
DSP got dropped quite a while ago because it would compromise the DAC's sound quality. A pity, it was something I was looking forward to at the time.
sam_cat
C'est Crounchifique!
The discussions at the time was it would be an optional module that could be switched off, and when off it would not be 'in path' so would make zero difference.
The threads got so bit and messy that I never saw the discussion around it being dropped until JohnW confirmed a little while ago that it was gone... Which makes my pledge for master and slave DSP units a bit pointless. Only need one unit and an external MINIDSP.
All from memory, usual caveats apply that memory is notoriously bad, especially when looking back many (many) years.
iHaveNoNaim
Active Member
I've just done the email trawl of shame and whilst not in as deep as others its seems I naively signed up for
MDAC up to fourth development £400, Detox £50, then another MDAC L3 MC/MM of £100, then finally (?!) £250 for the streamer
PS.
I too would really really like to have had the DSP built in but right now I couldn't give a flying about the whole farrago other than just some return on our collective investments
MDAC up to fourth development £400, Detox £50, then another MDAC L3 MC/MM of £100, then finally (?!) £250 for the streamer
PS.
I too would really really like to have had the DSP built in but right now I couldn't give a flying about the whole farrago other than just some return on our collective investments
The reason for introducing the MDAC 1.5 and reverting back to using the MDAC as a donor was to please those on a tight budget.
Becasuse as far a I remember it does not include the streamer option or the expensive transformers.
I do not complete agree with John very granular versions/options.
IMHO There should only be to versions
- Cost conscious option MDAC 1.5 (This option is actually closest to what was promised)
- Cost no object FDAC (with everything streamer, transformers PSU etc.)
killie99
pfm Member
John needs to come forward with a proposal of what he is going to offer and when he is going to offer it.
This is now the time to draw a line in the sand for each product (Detox, MDAC2, FDAC and VFets).
We cannot carry on in the ridiculous situation we are in now where over 6 years down the line we still have nothing. If John isn't held to account we'll still be here in 10 years time arguing about it.
This is now the time to draw a line in the sand for each product (Detox, MDAC2, FDAC and VFets).
We cannot carry on in the ridiculous situation we are in now where over 6 years down the line we still have nothing. If John isn't held to account we'll still be here in 10 years time arguing about it.
Timcat
pfm Member
I think you are correct about the proposed MDAC 1.5, it would appear the closest to what was originally proposed and then dropped because JW thought it impossible due to the constraints of the MDAC chassis. The problem with this option is that, as I see it, while this would have been nice back in 2014-5, it is probably out of date now and no better than the DACs (Mytek, Benchmark etc) many of us went out and bought, figuring this project was going nowhere fast.
As regards the mythical FDAC, I am sorry, but on the basis of JW's performance so far, I think that the chance of this ever materialising is about the same as that of finding a real live unicorn, or flying pig.
Having said this, I think that you are on the right track. The number of versions should be restricted to just one or two. If I recall correctly, at least one of the investors with industry experience has offered to manage this project for JW. If the individual(s) concerned are still willing to take on this task, perhaps the investors should look at the possibility of requiring, not simply requesting, JW to work from now on under the direction of such a manager(s), to produce a product or products to the specification(s) and within timelines proposed by the project manager(s) and agreed by the investors.
The same system might work for the proposed Vfets, but, as I am not involved in that project, its future is up to those who have paid for these.
If it was still based on a SABRE DAC then you would be right.
But now that it is a completely discrete MDAC design you are very wrong.
Going discrete has brought the DAC design back at the cutting edge.
The trend for high end DAC's is to go Discrete.
Timcat
pfm Member
I thought that the MDAC 1.5 was to be based on a SABRE DAC, but proposed specifications change so regularly, it is impossible to keep up!
sam_cat
C'est Crounchifique!
Thats what I thought as well. 1.5 was a very simple sabre dac solution, fdac was the full monty mega discreet option.
russel
./_dazed_and_confused
That's how I understood it, discrete DAC, solid state output stage rather than very expensive transformers and a more standard clock solution rather than the more exotic solutions floated, also using the original display will save a lot of time and money plus as far as I am concerned it's what I paid in for. Hopefully this stripped down version can be delivered be delivered sooner rather than later and the whole project can just calm down a notch.
Stunsworth
pfm Member
To be fair, for a project where around £100k has been invested with so little result I think people _are_ being calm. Most of us just want something to be delivered. I genuinely think all of this is down to John's lack of project and manufacturing experience, rather than anything that could be interpreted as fraud.
Timcat
pfm Member
Hence my suggestion that he should be required to work under the direction of an experienced project manager.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree again... Creative types don't respond well to deadlines, and there appears to be an underlying indication of acceptance of the current situation if JW would just start making visible progress.
The well-known project weakness of scope-creep, however, is an opportunity to be managed, as suggested in my earlier post; this doesn't require a project manager, just consensus among the customers.
fred sonnen
pfm Member
Stunsworth
pfm Member
I _am_ only speaking for myself - the words "I think" indicate that. My opinion is that people have been calm.
??? Please explain more.
Timcat
pfm Member
That's why companies that employ them have managers to ensure that they meet deadlines. Also, that is a poor excuse for what has gone on here; at the outset, JW purported to have the skills both to design and produce the proposed products in good time.
I almost agree, but I think we need an experienced project manager to advise what is possible from a production point of view and to ensure that there is no further mission creep.
Very basically, this project has not been managed, it needs managing and JW has demonstrated that he is not the man to do this.
moosemeat
pfm Member
I agree with this approach. If investors had our own thread, we could have such discussions with John. Most likely we'd need to have a vote on the options in order to limit the scope/products and freeze the features of the chosen products. Then, with regular updates, we ought to see progress towards an outcome.
Tony L
Administrator
<moderating>
Given discussion has now started to shift from investment totals etc to preferred outcomes I’m going to go live with the new thread tonight. It will be up shortly.
This thread is now locked and represents the last of the ‘MDAC First listen...’ strand.
The new thread is here. Please be gentle with it!
Given discussion has now started to shift from investment totals etc to preferred outcomes I’m going to go live with the new thread tonight. It will be up shortly.
This thread is now locked and represents the last of the ‘MDAC First listen...’ strand.
The new thread is here. Please be gentle with it!
- Status