Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › MHDT Havana DAC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MHDT Havana DAC - Page 146

post #2176 of 2474

>>how do you attach the feet/spikes/pods to the component<<

 

When I have to attach a cone to the underside of equipment where the cone has a flat top or there is no option for a bolt, I use appropriate size GrungeBuster dots from Herbie's Audio Lab. These can be ordered with adhesive on one side or both sides. The Grungebuster dots (also available in sheets to cut to needs, or for interior damping) are made from a flexible elastomer that attenuates mechanical energy and despite its flexibiltily, compresses very little. The adhesive Herbie's uses is tenacious but removeable. This is sonically and mechanically much better than Blu-tak. GrungeBuster Dots are here: http://herbiesaudiolab.net/gb.htm.

 

>>unquestionably the best tube I've used in this DAC. So much detail and separation compared to any other tube, even the Bendix 2C51.<<

 

Bendix 6385 is a spacious and revealing tube in this circuit. I think preference for it is going to be quite system and listener dependent however. Of the many tubes I've tried, the Bendix '60s 6385 is the most detailed, spacious and articulate, but the Bendix 2c51 is close in these respects and its tone density counters the leaner sound of the 6385. I find, for example that the 6385 vs. 2c51 is a close call in the Havana Balanced in which I am using PCM56P-K chips, with one tube being preferable on some music but losing out to the other on some performances. We're on the fringe when we're changing output buffer tubes in our DACs by the album or track! But the 6385 is definitely not the right tube to use with the AD1865 chips in the Havana Balanced. The AD1865 bring exactly what the Bendix 6385 does, but at the point of D>A origin: more definition, more articulate leading-edge transient detail, more event separation but leaner tonality. With the AD1865 chipset that I run in my second Havana Balanced, the Bendix 2c51 sounds tonally and harmonically more complete. I am interested in trying the 6386 to see if it splits the difference. I just got Russian 6N3P-DR to try as well. My Bendix 6385s are from 1964. The '64 is reputed to be the grail version. I haven't heard the 1966 production. I wonder whether you'll prefer it to the '64 when you get the latter.

 

Phil

post #2177 of 2474

Let me no when you have tested out those Russian 6N3P-DR, i don't hold out much hope as i tried quite a number of those tubes and they all fall short be quite some distance.

But what you say is very true some tubes sound better with different music.
 

post #2178 of 2474

nice, thanks for the info!

post #2179 of 2474
Quote:

Originally Posted by kimchee411 View Post

 

I only listened 30 minutes or so after making the change, but CuTF definitely shows its magic here!  Obviously things will open up substantially through the long break-in period, but straight out of the box there is a palpable improvement in micro detail, air, clarity, and precision.  I was not sure how much difference the three 0.01uF CuTF made as I was going through a number of changes at the time, but this one is undoubtable, IMO.  Note that I was using Jupiter Vintage Tone here, which does have a... hmm, somewhat warm, creaminess to it.  It sounds indeed quite "vintage" -- hard to describe.  It would be great for an electric guitar amp, but bringing out the nuances in all the pieces of an orchestra is not its forte.  So if you have something like a Clarity MR the contrast might not as be as stark, but nevertheless the character of whatever cap you put there seems to come out at this position.

 

Eugene,

 

I feel that the 0,22 CuTF V-Cap it shows its potential here only now, after 250 hours (for me).. I don't know how it sounds Jupiter vintage tone or Clarity Cap (although I would like to know), but somethink is clear for me: CuTF is suitable here. The sound is more articulate, with a better separation and layering. However, differences between CuTF and Auricap (of 0,22 capacitance) are substantial; the same is true for the differences between Russian Silver Mica and CuTF (of 0,01uF). Simply, audition turns into something emotional and alive with V-Cap. smile.gif


Edited by loserica - 3/2/13 at 2:06am
post #2180 of 2474

Hi,All got a problem with the Havana the unit has today dropped its output volume to half what it was and there is an humming sound that gets louder when the volume is turned up.

 

Any ideas please before i start pulling the thing apart over the weekend?

 

One thing that i noticed today myself was the on/off switch on the front panel seems very lose.

post #2181 of 2474
It's not a bad tube is it?
post #2182 of 2474

That's a good question, should not be i had just changed the tubes when this had happened, i will have a look. Another dead Bendix lol.
 

post #2183 of 2474

Hi,Yes changed the tube, woo never had anything fail like that before, one dead Bendix.

 

I have put a brand new nos Bendix in got complete silence, no earth sound just black.
 

post #2184 of 2474

Quick question for the Havana folk ... what other readily available DAC chips will work in the Havana/Stockholm other than the PCM56 variants?

 

I remember reading something from MHDT where Jiun was discussion other DAC chips that could work but I can't find that bit anywhere ... I'm wanting to try some different (non PCM56 chips....anything I  might be able to order from Arrow or Ebay and the like ...

 

Thanks!

 

PS > I got a second DAC recently, a Stello DA100 (which I've heard before) and it's really interesting to switch between the Stockholm and the Stello; it's amazing how much more smooth the NOS Stockholm sound is than the oversampling Stello. The Stello is a good DAC and I'm going to keep it as counterpoint ... slightly more detailed and a tad deeper/tighter bass but it doesn't come close to equaling the Havana/Stockholm musicality and liquid highs. The Stello's highs are just a tad too "hot" or "sizzling" at the trailing edges. Overall, I prefer the Havana/Stockholm...

post #2185 of 2474

You can replace PCM56 with AD1856 D/A converter

post #2186 of 2474
Quote:
Originally Posted by robeeert1 View Post

You can replace PCM56 with AD1856 D/A converter

 

Thanks Robert ... 

 

What term should I look for in the description to ensure that it's the sort that can plug in to the socket? Is this what SOIC means? I ask because some of the providers I have found show the chip with "flat" feet, of the sort that seem only appropriate for surface solder applications.

 

For instance, I found this one (though not in stock) ... the picture doesn't look right, though: 

 

http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?lang=en&keywords=ad1856rz&WT.term=ad1856rz&WT.mc_id=Integrated%20Circuits%20(ICs)&WT.medium=cpc&WT.campaign=Integrated%20Circuits%20(ICs)&WT.srch=1&WT.content=text&type=Exact&WT.source=google&cshift_ck=62717650-6c4c-4c39-8775-eced7460d950cs917030986&cur=USD

 

Thanks for any assist.

 

.joel


Edited by s1rrah - 3/8/13 at 2:49am
post #2187 of 2474

You have to pay attention to package/case. R=SOIC (small outline integrated circuit)

 

Look for AD1856N-K

 

 

 

post #2188 of 2474
Thank you Jedi Master.
post #2189 of 2474

Hi,

 

Who compared directly Auricap with Clarity Cap MR series into Havana? smile.gif I think I will try to replace all Auricaps with them (of 0,1uF capacity)

They should be better from Auricap...

here's what it says here:

"...Whatever they did performed some major transformation to the sound, as the MR sounds nothing like SA, sounding far more extended, neutral, dynamic, and yes, resolved.  As far as frequency extension, there is nothing to fault here, as both top and bottom go as high and low as can be desired; however, what’s even more impressive is how all the ranges in between seem coherent, finely-textured, and natural, with nothing sticking out like a sore thumb.  I kept thinking how smooth everything sounds while presenting a high degree of detail resolution across the frequency range, as good as a polypropylene cap gets including the exotic ones from Mundorf, etc.

Another benefit of this smooth precision seems to be outstanding imaging and separation within the soundstage, which is filled with air and “space”.  No smudging and blending together of instruments into blobs, which can happen with less precise caps.  These characteristics enable the MR to sound like the proverbial “no cap” better than most, if not all, polypropylene caps I have tested.  In fact, the MR sounds less colored than quite a few exotics, including some teflons, PIO’s, polystyrene, etc.  There is a downside to this neutrality, however, as the MR may not be the cap to shave off some rough edges from a bright source, plump up the low-midrange of that lean amp, or add extra “wetness” to that dry solid-state system.  But if your system is reasonably neutral and resolute and if you don’t want to “hear the cap” at a reasonable price, then the ClarityCap MR just may be the cap you have been waiting for". 

 

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=54218.540

post #2190 of 2474
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcat2 View Post

Hi,Yes changed the tube, woo never had anything fail like that before, one dead Bendix.

I have put a brand new nos Bendix in got complete silence, no earth sound just black.

 

Glad it was something less scary tongue.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › MHDT Havana DAC