|
|
Post by busen19 on Oct 16, 2009 17:22:02 GMT -5
the music hall uses a Burr Brown PCM 1796 24bit/192kHz DAC. My SC-886 has a Burr Brown 24bit/192kHz DAC. So my question since I am running my apple tv straight to my onkyo - is the sound quality the same as if it were ran through the DAC 25.2? Since my output is via HDMI the apple tv's internal DAC is bypassed.... I don't really understand how this stuff works.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigred7078 on Oct 16, 2009 17:30:30 GMT -5
the music hall uses a Burr Brown PCM 1796 24bit/192kHz DAC. My SC-886 has a Burr Brown 24bit/192kHz DAC. So my question since I am running my apple tv straight to my onkyo - is the sound quality the same as if it were ran through the DAC 25.2? Since my output is via HDMI the apple tv's internal DAC is bypassed.... I don't really understand how this stuff works. Not all Burr Brown DACs are the same, the Onkyo implements a multichannel DAC while the Music Hall uses a 2-channel DAC, So it would be different. The 25.5 also has a tube for the output stage. It would be a different sound for sure. Worlds better? Depends on how picky you are with music. Not every dac will make an improvment, and just the same not everyone will like the sound of a particular dac. If you are a 2-channel kind of guy who wants the best musical experience and DAC can do wonders  |
|
|
|
Post by busen19 on Oct 16, 2009 17:49:47 GMT -5
I am kinda picky, I rip my music in apple lossless with MAX, and I just want to make sure that I get the best sound I can. If I am not going to see a significant improvement by using an external DAC then I don't want to waste my money. I think it sounds pretty good right now - though it seems to be dependent on the material....
|
|
|
|
Post by busen19 on Oct 16, 2009 18:03:16 GMT -5
One more question as I am thinking about this ;D
My file is obviously digital. My output to my onkyo is via HDMI (digital) where in the process the analog conversion take place? I thought is was for if I was out putting a digital source via RCA (analog)?
|
|
scottl
Sensei
Stereo Pack Rat
Posts: 207
|
Post by scottl on Oct 16, 2009 21:29:23 GMT -5
In your current configuration, the digital-to-analog conversion is occurring in the Onkyo, just before the volume control. If you used an outboard DAC, you would end up with an analog signal to route through the Onkyo, and all the Onkyo would really get to do would be switching and volume control (because almost everything else it does is done digitally, which would require converting your analog signal back to digital & back again, making the external DAC pointless). Sticking with the internal D/A conversion of the Onkyo is far easier, since it would allow you to keep the surround processing, room correction, & other functions it offers.
Upgrading your processor someday may be the cure if the D/A conversion is the real weak point of your system, but you might also want to audition some different speakers or amps in your system first. The Onkyo's no slouch.
|
|
|
|
Post by busen19 on Oct 16, 2009 21:50:52 GMT -5
thank scott, that helps |
|
jlafrenz
Global Moderator 
I don't want to jump in, unless this music's thumping
Posts: 7,722
|
Post by jlafrenz on Oct 17, 2009 2:23:36 GMT -5
Both myself and TJHUB have the Music Hall DAC. We have been quite happy with it after some tube rolling. Great 2 channel listening.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincedog3 on Oct 17, 2009 3:04:38 GMT -5
jlafrenz what kind brand of tubes did you experiment with and and ended up with? Just curious. Thanks.
|
|
jlafrenz
Global Moderator
I don't want to jump in, unless this music's thumping
Posts: 7,722
|
Post by jlafrenz on Oct 17, 2009 7:57:58 GMT -5
jlafrenz what kind brand of tubes did you experiment with and and ended up with? Just curious. Thanks. I was lucky enough to receive a 1964 Amperex PQ White Label from another lounge member. It hit the sweet spot as soon as I put it in. I knew it was what I was looking for. I also had a Scott Nixon DAC with a stock tube that I rolled with the Music Hall. I honestly haven't rolled many tubes with the Music Hall since I was so pleased with the Amperex. TJHUB on the other hand has tried several tubes with different results. |
|
TJHUB
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 488
|
Post by TJHUB on Oct 17, 2009 9:01:12 GMT -5
jlafrenz what kind brand of tubes did you experiment with and and ended up with? Just curious. Thanks. I was lucky enough to receive a 1964 Amperex PQ White Label from another lounge member. It hit the sweet spot as soon as I put it in. I knew it was what I was looking for. I also had a Scott Nixon DAC with a stock tube that I rolled with the Music Hall. I honestly haven't rolled many tubes with the Music Hall since I was so pleased with the Amperex. TJHUB on the other hand has tried several tubes with different results. Tubes I've rolled: Electro-Harmonix 6922 (stock tube) (NOT A GOOD TUBE!) Telefunken E88CC (1960's) Tesla E88CC (1980's) Amperex (Holland) (RCA label - late model) Conrad Johnson labeled 6DJ8 (unknown brand) JJ E88CC And the winner of all of them for me is a 1972 NOS Mazda 7308. For me, I wanted a very balanced and accurate sound. I wanted crystal clear, extended highs with great attack and decay. I wanted a natural and open sounding midrange, with a very balanced and articulate bass with great midbass attack. Trust me, it's not easy to find a tube with all of this. At times I thought I'd never get what I was looking for exactly. Don't get me wrong, a few of these tubes are very livable, but I wanted it all. Tonal accuracy is critical for me, and a few of these tubes didn't even come close. This DAC is the first piece of tubed gear I've ever tried in my own setup. I can't believe it took me until the age of 41 to give tubes a try. I wasted a lot great listening time! Tubes get a bad rap from uneducated people and if you believe the "general" knowledge of tubes, you tend to stay away from them. Now that I've tried tubes, I'll most likely never get away from them entirely. This DAC (using it's tube buffer RCA outs) sounds really good. It's the best DAC I've ever heard next to my previous PS Audio DLIII DAC. Up until the Music Hall, I've heard no other DAC that even came close to making me consider moving from the PS Audio. The Music Hall throws a wider sound stage than anything else I've heard. The sound stage has great depth and a 3D holographic separation between vocals and instruments that makes everything sound more real and natural. Once I heard this even with the stock Electro-Harmonix tube, I wanted to keep the DAC and find a "better" tube. It's truly amazing. Tube rolling is a mixed bag. I'm not a person who likes "warm". Only a few tubes were warm sounding. Most, if not all, bring a smoother midrange that basically sounds real and not digital sounding. It's not distorted sounding or blended together, it's just not edgy in any way and sounds very accurate. The tubes really differ mostly on the high end and the bass. A few tubes have really nice extended highs. What differs is the attack and decay mostly, but a couple I've heard have more of an "airy" presentation. I can't tell you if I think that's good or bad. But the biggest issue I have with tubes in general is bass presentation. Most are just terrible. The bass from most tubes has rounded edges causing the notes to sound distorted and kill articulation. Some tubes can sound bloated and unbalanced and some have weak bass output altogether. Most also lack any good midbass attack. All of this became disheartening to say the least, but I still loved that sound stage and didn't want to give up. So here's were I learned the best trick of all. Once you've rolled a few familiar or popular tubes, you can now describe the sound you hear from your gear with these tubes and you can describe what sound you're looking for. This is where you need to find a tube vendor you like and trust. For me, I found Brent Jessee. I called him on a recommendation and he was really great. We talked for about 20 minutes and he recommended 3 different tubes to get the sound I described compared to the sound I had already heard. The tube he really thought would be the best for me was the 1972 NOS Mazda 7308 (a premium version of the 6922). I received the $161.00 (shipped) and proceeded to break it in for at least 40-50 hours. Yes, tubes break in without any doubt! However, even the first 5 minutes with the tube showed I had a winner. Even after 4 hours, I found myself hoping it doesn't change at all as I wanted the current sound to stay. This tube is amazingly good. The highs have a crystal clear sound, not tube like at all. The attack and decay is perfect to my ears. I can hear the most subtle treble details, but the highs are never thrown in my face like the PS Audio DAC could do. The midrange is very open and clear with than natural smooth sound that makes instruments and vocals sound like they're in the room with you. But the real kicker is the bass. It is every bit as articulate as the PS Audio's solid state presentation. Every low note is clean and clear, and the midbass is punchy and has great attack. The entire audio spectrum is very balanced with no signs of peaks or valleys. Nothing is overdone and nothing is missing. About the only negative to this tube is that the sound stage is not quite as deep as other tubes, but it's still much deeper than the PS Audio DAC. The other very cool thing about the Music Hall is that it's one of the only tube DACs that has 3 oversampling modes: non-oversampling, 96k, and 192k. All three modes sound different and can help when working with different tubes. Brighter tubes sound better at 96k, less articulate tubes sound better at 192k. It's a very flexible feature. If you can't tell by now, I think this is an absolutely fantastic DAC. I only decided to try it because of it's features and low price. I could dip my audio toe into tubes without breaking the bank. Judd seemed to like his and his comments mirrored a few others I had seen while relentlessly searching for info on this DAC. I couldn't say enough great things about how much I like this DAC and the synergy it's brought to my setup. I had sound in my head that I was trying to achieve. I think I'm so close with my current gear that any future changes will most likely only take me further away from that perfect sound. I loaned the Music Hall to a friend a couple weekends ago. He rolled all the tubes through and loved it. His Music Hall was delivered this past week. Sorry for the long post... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by vincedog3 on Oct 17, 2009 9:35:53 GMT -5
thanks jlafrenz and TJHUB for the help and info. I miss having tubes in my system and want to delve into it again. That Music Hall dac might be the way to go. I appreciate all the recommendations. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by bigred7078 on Oct 17, 2009 10:48:09 GMT -5
personally im excited for the emo dac lol. But i REALLY like the Music Hall, im just not sure if its worth the $500-$600 on MY system....hmmm Judd perhaps we need to test it again
|
|
|
|
Post by powerwindow on Oct 19, 2009 13:24:49 GMT -5
jlafrenz what kind brand of tubes did you experiment with and and ended up with? Just curious. Thanks. I was lucky enough to receive a 1964 Amperex PQ White Label from another lounge member. It hit the sweet spot as soon as I put it in. I knew it was what I was looking for. I also had a Scott Nixon DAC with a stock tube that I rolled with the Music Hall. I honestly haven't rolled many tubes with the Music Hall since I was so pleased with the Amperex. TJHUB on the other hand has tried several tubes with different results. jlafrenz, I see you mentioned you had a Nixon. I recently got one of his TD 2.2, an upgrade to his initial tube dac. I'm curious why you went w/ the Music Hall? Was it for the USB input for ripped content? Or was it for performance reasons? I'm using my Oppo BDP-83 as a transport and as the Nixon only has a few weeks of burn-in, things are sounding pretty good. Although I have to say the 2-channel analog outs of the Oppo were not too shabby for redbook action. Thanks for your response, Sips |
|
jlafrenz
Global Moderator
I don't want to jump in, unless this music's thumping
Posts: 7,722
|
Post by jlafrenz on Oct 19, 2009 15:53:36 GMT -5
I was lucky enough to receive a 1964 Amperex PQ White Label from another lounge member. It hit the sweet spot as soon as I put it in. I knew it was what I was looking for. I also had a Scott Nixon DAC with a stock tube that I rolled with the Music Hall. I honestly haven't rolled many tubes with the Music Hall since I was so pleased with the Amperex. TJHUB on the other hand has tried several tubes with different results. jlafrenz, I see you mentioned you had a Nixon. I recently got one of his TD 2.2, an upgrade to his initial tube dac. I'm curious why you went w/ the Music Hall? Was it for the USB input for ripped content? Or was it for performance reasons? I'm using my Oppo BDP-83 as a transport and as the Nixon only has a few weeks of burn-in, things are sounding pretty good. Although I have to say the 2-channel analog outs of the Oppo were not too shabby for redbook action. Thanks for your response, Sips Here is my thread about it. Should give you some of the info your looking for. emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=newgear&action=display&thread=4837 |
|
RadTech
Emo VIPs
X Rayed It!
Posts: 4,462
|
Post by RadTech on Oct 19, 2009 16:50:08 GMT -5
Thanks TJHUB and Judd! Awesome info! I just enter the tube arena and, the quest for my perfect tube has just begun. Unfortunately, I have the stock 6922 but, not for long.
|
|
|
|
Post by mintzar on Oct 19, 2009 17:02:45 GMT -5
I also have a Music Hall DAC 25.2.
It was wayy too laid-back for me in the standard version of the DAC. I did some modifications to it -- upgraded the Opamps to Bursons and upgraded the coupling caps--WOW what an upgrade that made. I'll probably do some tube rolling in the future, but this is one smokin' good DAC after the modifications. It cost me about $300 for the burson opamps and the caps -- but Underwood hifi charges upwards of $1000 for this same modification. I'll probably put in a Superclock3 next, but that's another pricey upgrade.
An external DAC will just about always sound better than an integrated amp. Same reason a prepro/amp will sound better than a receiver -- it separates tasks and signals. An external DAC can focus ONLY on digital to analog conversion, it has its own power supply, and if you look at the circuits of a dedicated DAC they are almost ALWAYS more complex than those integrated into a receiver or prepro. Effectively this means faster, more efficient signal processing with less jitter (hopefully), and a lower noise floor.
|
|
jlafrenz
Global Moderator
I don't want to jump in, unless this music's thumping
Posts: 7,722
|
Post by jlafrenz on Oct 19, 2009 19:27:41 GMT -5
I also have a Music Hall DAC 25.2. It was wayy too laid-back for me in the standard version of the DAC. I did some modifications to it -- upgraded the Opamps to Bursons and upgraded the coupling caps--WOW what an upgrade that made. I'll probably do some tube rolling in the future, but this is one smokin' good DAC after the modifications. It cost me about $300 for the burson opamps and the caps -- but Underwood hifi charges upwards of $1000 for this same modification. I'll probably put in a Superclock3 next, but that's another pricey upgrade. An external DAC will just about always sound better than an integrated amp. Same reason a prepro/amp will sound better than a receiver -- it separates tasks and signals. An external DAC can focus ONLY on digital to analog conversion, it has its own power supply, and if you look at the circuits of a dedicated DAC they are almost ALWAYS more complex than those integrated into a receiver or prepro. Effectively this means faster, more efficient signal processing with less jitter (hopefully), and a lower noise floor. Any reason why you went this route over tube rolling? That is quite a bit of money invested. I would have thought you could have bought a few tubes for that price and had a larger impact on the sound. |
|
TJHUB
Emo VIPs
Posts: 488
|
Post by TJHUB on Oct 19, 2009 21:33:47 GMT -5
I also have a Music Hall DAC 25.2. It was wayy too laid-back for me in the standard version of the DAC. I did some modifications to it -- upgraded the Opamps to Bursons and upgraded the coupling caps--WOW what an upgrade that made. I'll probably do some tube rolling in the future, but this is one smokin' good DAC after the modifications. It cost me about $300 for the burson opamps and the caps -- but Underwood hifi charges upwards of $1000 for this same modification. I'll probably put in a Superclock3 next, but that's another pricey upgrade. An external DAC will just about always sound better than an integrated amp. Same reason a prepro/amp will sound better than a receiver -- it separates tasks and signals. An external DAC can focus ONLY on digital to analog conversion, it has its own power supply, and if you look at the circuits of a dedicated DAC they are almost ALWAYS more complex than those integrated into a receiver or prepro. Effectively this means faster, more efficient signal processing with less jitter (hopefully), and a lower noise floor. Any reason why you went this route over tube rolling? That is quite a bit of money invested. I would have thought you could have bought a few tubes for that price and had a larger impact on the sound. If I may, I think I can answer why... The clock, some caps, and opamps are all a little on the low-end side of things in the stock DAC. You know I seriously considered modding this DAC, but I put too much stock on what the tube sounded like. My biggest complaint was the lack of bass articulation and midbass impact. I took one last shot at a tube purchase and I found a real winner. I honestly don't want anything to change. The opamps are socketed, so swapping those is easy and not too pricey. The clock mod is up there in price and the caps I can't really comment on. It would be very cool if mintzar could provide a little guide and pictures for those of us that may be interested in the DIY mods he did.  However, I can say with confidence that I couldn't describe this DAC with my Mazda tube "laid back". Bright material sounds bright, but it's not so in your face like my PS Audio DAC was. It's like all of the clarity and detail is there without any harshness. PERFECT! I think the bass is really good, but improvement could be there. I'm still interested to find out if it could be had with a clock mod or those diode boards Affordable Audio sells... |
|
|
|
Post by powerwindow on Oct 21, 2009 15:50:00 GMT -5
jlafrenz, I see you mentioned you had a Nixon. I recently got one of his TD 2.2, an upgrade to his initial tube dac. I'm curious why you went w/ the Music Hall? Was it for the USB input for ripped content? Or was it for performance reasons? I'm using my Oppo BDP-83 as a transport and as the Nixon only has a few weeks of burn-in, things are sounding pretty good. Although I have to say the 2-channel analog outs of the Oppo were not too shabby for redbook action. Thanks for your response, Sips Here is my thread about it. Should give you some of the info your looking for. emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=newgear&action=display&thread=4837Judd, Thanks for the link. It was informative. I get the impression the Nixon wasn't underwhelming. I have just some curious comments. Did your Nixon have the wall wort power supply, or did it have his optional upgraded power supply? Also, you didn't roll any tubes in the Nixon? It was just running it's original, however broke-in, tube? I got mine new from Nixon and it has probably less than 50 hours on it. It's the TD 2.2 (S/PDIF)which has some upgrades to the guts and I also went w/ the upgraded power supply. He gave me a deal on it for $50 because he had some left and the next batches were going up in price due to copper prices. So far w/ the few hours on it I find the sound stage to be more defined and a definite clarity in the vocal ranges. I also experimented w/ swapping digital cables from a friend and did notice differences and overall preferred a silver Signal Cable. However, I doubt whether an interconnect will have as much of an impact as tube rolling. Right now I'm just going to give it some time and see where it goes. Unfortunately I am still relying on my Harman Kardon AVR for amplification as I'm still waiting for the UMC to hit so I can pony up and double down w/ an XPA-5/UMC-1 combo. I have no doubt my amplification is limiting performance right now. Oh well, did not mean to hijack this thread or to be so long winded. I appreciate the open/and willingness of the Lounge to help us all on our journeys. Sips |
|
jlafrenz
Global Moderator
I don't want to jump in, unless this music's thumping
Posts: 7,722
|
Post by jlafrenz on Oct 24, 2009 1:53:48 GMT -5
The Scott Nixon was not underwhelming at all. I just had a different goal in mind. The Scott Nixon did a lovely job at warming up my speakers. It really was silky smooth. I did try the vintage Amperex in it and it was better, but over all same results compared to the Music Hall. The Nixon I had did in fact have the separate power supply. It was a tough decision for me at first when I compared the Scott Nixon to the Music Hall because the Nixon was so smooth and warm, but I just couldn't get over the sound stage of the Music Hall. With that tube as soon as I turned it on, I was sold. I do kind of wish that I would have kept the Scott Nixon for one of my other systems, but I owed on the Music Hall, so it had to go.
|
|
