Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Audio-Gd Reference 10
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audio-Gd Reference 10 - Page 18

post #256 of 362

Does anyone have any impression with th900?? thanks. I can't seem to find much comments with ppl using ref 10 and th900.

post #257 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtung View Post
 

Does anyone have any impression with th900?? thanks. I can't seem to find much comments with ppl using ref 10 and th900.

 

Should be a great pairing. The denons I have are pretty similar and sound great on the ref 10, so i'd expect the th900 to perform similarly. My personal experience is that my denons have noticeably tightened bass and a soundstage that would make you think you are listening to an open-back headphone, but only through the newest usb driver. Besides that they just sound fun.

post #258 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiNa.cz View Post
 

 

I believe that its superior and unsurpassed sound quality was the main reason why Kingwa used this DAC chip in his flagship products. But you can always ask him directly via email.

 

Sorry but that is simple marketing bulls**t.

 

The PCM1704 is not superior. It has it's own type of sound, easilty changed by other DAC design choices, but is not superior to the best of the rest DAC chip's.

Personally I would take a well designed Sabre32 chipped DAC over any PCM1704 chipped DAC I have heard.

 

Kingwa may prefer the PCM1704 chip but that is a matter of personal preference. If the PCM1704 chip was 'unsurpassable' then I doubt Audio-gd would produce anything else especially in their TOTL DAC's.

 

Although I have not heard it, it seems that the TOTL A-GD PCM1704 DAC (Master-7) actually sounds closer to the Sabre32 chipped DAC's than the old PCM1704 reference.

Which to me says a lot :wink_face: 


Edited by nigeljames - 9/23/13 at 5:37am
post #259 of 362

I don't think this is marketing BS... but I agreed that it related to personal preference. Why those audiophile big players use this PCM1704 in their products because it comes with very natural and dynamic sound. This type of sound is mostly favored by audiophile enthusiasts.

 

I remember Kingwa has ever told me that the sound of Master 7 is already superior than those Sabre32 machines he has tried, in terms of clarity, dynamic etc. It is not surprised to me as he has the know-how of PCM1704 for years.


Edited by ManAtWork - 9/23/13 at 9:39am
post #260 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigeljames View Post
 

 

Kingwa may prefer the PCM1704 chip but that is a matter of personal preference. If the PCM1704 chip was 'unsurpassable' then I doubt Audio-gd would produce anything else especially in their TOTL DAC's.

 

 

 
The problem is that PCM1704 is obsolete and its price is skyrocketing now.  
There is an interesting article comparing R2R and SD DAC chips on MoT
post #261 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManAtWork View Post
 

I don't think this is marketing BS... but I agreed that it related to personal preference. Why those audiophile big players use this PCM1704 in their products because it comes with very natural and dynamic sound. This type of sound is mostly favored by audiophile enthusiasts.

 

I remember Kingwa has ever told me that the sound of Master 7 is already superior than those Sabre32 machines he has tried, in terms of clarity, dynamic etc. It is not surprised to me as he has the know-how of PCM1704 for years.

 

The Master-7 may have greater dynamics than the Sabre32 chipped DAC's from Audio-gd BUT the Reference7.1 and the other older PCM1704 Audio-gd DAC's did not.

This is proof to me that the PCM1704 is not inherently more dynamic than the Sabre32 chip or possibly other chips that I have not heard.

As I previously stated implementation is the key and I believe the Master-7 is the best implemented Audio-gd DAC. I am absolutely certain that Kingwa could produce a Sabre32 chipped DAC to compete with the Master-7 but as he prefers the sound of the PCM1704 it's something we may never see.

 

Dynamics is an area that the Sabre32 DAC's that I have heard are clearly superior to the PCM1704 DAC's I have heard, including very expensive Naim players & DAC's and the Audio-GD Ref5.32.

I also feel detail, speed, bass, PRaT, energy are also better, disregarding implementation, on the Sabre32.

Personal preference is the key as to which is the best chip. One is not inherently better than the other. For myself being a rock & metal fan there is no comparison between the DAC's I have heard.

 

I bet Kingwa listens to classical or anything else instead of rock or metal :wink_face:

post #262 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigeljames View Post
 

 

The Master-7 may have greater dynamics than the Sabre32 chipped DAC's from Audio-gd BUT the Reference7.1 and the other older PCM1704 Audio-gd DAC's did not.

This is proof to me that the PCM1704 is not inherently more dynamic than the Sabre32 chip or possibly other chips that I have not heard.

As I previously stated implementation is the key and I believe the Master-7 is the best implemented Audio-gd DAC. I am absolutely certain that Kingwa could produce a Sabre32 chipped DAC to compete with the Master-7 but as he prefers the sound of the PCM1704 it's something we may never see.

 

Dynamics is an area that the Sabre32 DAC's that I have heard are clearly superior to the PCM1704 DAC's I have heard, including very expensive Naim players & DAC's and the Audio-GD Ref5.32.

I also feel detail, speed, bass, PRaT, energy are also better, disregarding implementation, on the Sabre32.

Personal preference is the key as to which is the best chip. One is not inherently better than the other. For myself being a rock & metal fan there is no comparison between the DAC's I have heard.

 

I bet Kingwa listens to classical or anything else instead of rock or metal :wink_face:

 

I made the jump from Reference 5.32 (which I found sounded too dark and not enough dynamic for my taste) to the NFB-27 which fixes all "these issues".

But going from a 1x r-core to a TOTL (3x r-cores) might explain why the sound is so much more authoritative/dynamic, more than the difference in the DAC chips?
 
I'd like to read a comparison between the Ref 5.32 and the 7.32 or 10.32 that - I suppose - have a similar voicing.
 
Back then, I had the HE-500. Now that I'm in the 5LEs and 6s game, I might reconsider the dark sound à la Ref-5.32 :)
post #263 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemmaster View Post
 

 

I made the jump from Reference 5.32 (which I found sounded too dark and not enough dynamic for my taste) to the NFB-27 which fixes all "these issues".

But going from a 1x r-core to a TOTL (3x r-cores) might explain why the sound is so much more authoritative/dynamic, more than the difference in the DAC chips?
 
I'd like to read a comparison between the Ref 5.32 and the 7.32 or 10.32 that - I suppose - have a similar voicing.
 
Back then, I had the HE-500. Now that I'm in the 5LEs and 6s game, I might reconsider the dark sound à la Ref-5.32 :)

 

I agree dynamics are more an issue of power supply than the chip itself. However even the expensive Naim players/DAC that I have heard, often with expensive external power supplies, could not match the dynamics of my Sabre32 DAC.

 

I don't know how 'bright' sounding your NFB-27 is but not all Sabre32 DAC's are bright. I have added silver cables to my HE6 & HD800's and they are still not bright in my system.

 

I listened to the Ref5.32 last year with my Master-6 and compared it to my NFB-7.

The R5 was clearly more laid back, distant and softer sounding. It lacked the excitement, detail, clarity, dynamics and speed of my NFB-7.

I could see someone who likes a laid back 'background music' sort of sound preferring it but it was not for me.

post #264 of 362

Same here, that's why I upgraded to a Sabre TOTL (as per Kingwa's suggestion).

 

The Metrum Quad was more like the NFB-27 in terms of voicing, exciting sound. The Ref 5.32 was dark and laid back (but natural). Not my cup of tea with the HE-500.

post #265 of 362

Folks,

What's your foobar setting for Reference 10.32? On the DPS and Output? Trying to play with the configuration for better SQ.

 

I used to go DS with Balanced cable - i know its not perfect, but the sound quality is acceptable while I can share the device for other applications. However when my balanced cable is broken, I changed to SE it became so unbearable. Its was disturbing I had to give Reference 10.32 dedicated to foobar again-

 

I'm now on this setting:

DPS:

1) Sox Upsampling 192k

2) mono to stereo +

3) 5 channel to stereo,

 

Output: WASAPI (event) - I have tested with KS as well, but noticed no difference

Buffer length: 100 ms

Output format: 32 bit

post #266 of 362
32-bit ASIO. Full file buffering. 1000ms buffer length in Foobar. 4096 sample buffer in VIA ASIO (the highest). No DSPs.
post #267 of 362

32-bit ASIO jriver, no software upsampling. I've found that it takes a little bite out of some 44.1 songs, but it's very subtle. Buffer at 1024 or higher (doesn't seem to affect anything regardless, and I don't use any daws). I use a crossfeed dsp for my denons, which really makes the bass come through more naturally.

 

On a side note, getting some proper speaker stands in from Sound Anchors in the next 2+ weeks. Comboing that with several yet-to-be-determined herbie's audio damping feets/pads. Lovely chaps to work with, pretty willing to fulfil any customizing you'd want. 

post #268 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by somestranger26 View Post

32-bit ASIO. Full file buffering. 1000ms buffer length in Foobar. 4096 sample buffer in VIA ASIO (the highest). No DSPs.

 

Thanks, how do you configure full file buffering in Foobar? I noticed KingWa's website also recommend ASIO too. Testing ASIO...

 

EDIT: Found, version 1.2 onwards, the Full file buffering has been moved to the advance-playback, rather than playback screen. Set to 204800kb, any single file should not exit 200mb.

 

EDIT2: After listening to some CD and low bitrate files, I have taken off the up sampling too.


Edited by OneSec - 9/29/13 at 10:51pm
post #269 of 362


After owning my Ref10.32 for almost 9 months and spending around 600 hours with my favorite records I have finally have an opportunity to test it with the HD800 cans with balanced cable last weekend. As expected they simply blew my old and trusty (new re-cabled) K702 out of water just after couple of songs.I've tested Ref's USB and Coax input with them and came to conclusion that if you want to squeeze maximum out of your Ref, then Coax input when used with quality transport (Modded HiFace 1 in my case) is the only the way to go. The sound is fuller with much noticeable "analogue" feel. It was not so obvious with K702, but with HD800 it was there without any doubts. With K812Pro just around the corner and rumors about HD800's successor unveiled with 3-4 months I will better hold back with my planned purchase of the HD800 for a while...

 

BTW: I usually don't stack up my gear like on the picture, but it was taken during testing USB input and my USB cable is quite short and free space is very limited. 

post #270 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiNa.cz View Post
 


After owning my Ref10.32 for almost 9 months and spending around 600 hours with my favorite records I have finally have an opportunity to test it with the HD800 cans with balanced cable last weekend. As expected they simply blew my old and trusty (new re-cabled) K702 out of water just after couple of songs.I've tested Ref's USB and Coax input with them and came to conclusion that if you want to squeeze maximum out of your Ref, then Coax input when used with quality transport (Modded HiFace 1 in my case) is the only the way to go. The sound is fuller with much noticeable "analogue" feel. It was not so obvious with K702, but with HD800 it was there without any doubts. With K812Pro just around the corner and rumors about HD800's successor unveiled with 3-4 months I will better hold back with my planned purchase of the HD800 for a while...

 

BTW: I usually don't stack up my gear like on the picture, but it was taken during testing USB input and my USB cable is quite short and free space is very limited.

Its amazing you can resist it after saying so many good things about HD800 :P

 

Nice picture there, and glad you finally checked HD800 out.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Audio-Gd Reference 10