Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Audio-GD Reference 5.2 (New Balanced 4x PCM1704UK DAC)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audio-GD Reference 5.2 (New Balanced 4x PCM1704UK DAC) - Page 9

post #121 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocksteady65 View Post

Both the DIR9001 and WM8805 are S/PDIF receivers and only handle the "legacy" Input formats, such as Coaxial, Optical and AES. It is the Tenor TE8802 that does perform the duty of USB receiver. 
Leonel
Thanks for the input Leonel, I need to figure out what received I have.
post #122 of 283

WM8805 is the standard S/PDIF receiver , DIR9001 only avaliable by request when ordering (what i always did with NFB-2 and NFB-17.2) . Or in a separate order (22.5*$) .

 

Soo if you don't have requested anything your unite is using a WM8805 . And it's easy to cheack if you have a something upper than 96khz , you will have no sound with dir9001 (only noise) , and sound with WM8805.

 

and .Sup how does ODAC perform against your REF5.2 ? tongue.gif


Edited by HaVoC-28 - 8/21/12 at 3:47pm
post #123 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocksteady65 View Post

Both the DIR9001 and WM8805 are S/PDIF receivers and only handle the "legacy" Input formats, such as Coaxial, Optical and AES. It is the Tenor TE8802 that does perform the duty of USB receiver. 
Leonel


...and which receiver sounds best between the DIR9001 & Tenor TE8802?
post #124 of 283

Unfortunately, I cannot help you there, simply because I haven't (yet) used the USB Input. I plan to do so in the future but for the time being I remain rather "Old School" regarding Digital Formats! redface.gif

 

All the best,

 

Leonel


Edited by rocksteady65 - 8/22/12 at 4:28am
post #125 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlach View Post


...and which receiver sounds best between the DIR9001 & Tenor TE8802?

 

 

 

 

Sincerly on my former NFB-17.2 USB or Coax sounded the same rolleyes.gif also REF 5.2 is higher end so try by yourself tongue_smile.gif , always the better thing to do . 

 

If one sound better use it , if not use the more convenient to you .


Edited by HaVoC-28 - 8/22/12 at 5:22am
post #126 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabelmeister View Post

Anyone here compared the 5.2 to the 7.1, would be nice to hear your thoughts.

i'd like to know this too! given the amazing reviews here, why would one still consider the 7.1 at double the price?


Edited by athenaesword - 8/27/12 at 9:49am
post #127 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by athenaesword View Post

i'd like to know this too! given the amazing reviews here, why would one still consider the 7.1 at double the price?

I asked this question before, and didn't see any reply. So I inquired with Kingwa, and this is the reply he gave me....

 


The sound flavor is quite near.
But the Reference 7.1 have a bit more transparency on the detail and image than the Reference 5.2.
The background is more blacker.
The Reference 7.1 is applied 8 pcs PCM1704 but the Reference 5.2 is 4 pcs.
The Reference 7.1 has more PSUs , all signals are conversion from the power supply, so better power supply can improve the sound quality.
Total the Reference 7.1 has better sound but not as the price different from the Reference 5.2 .
The Reference 5.2 is better on the price / performance rate .  Only 45% price but maybe have 90% sound quality.

 

post #128 of 283

it sounds like the added technicalities for the 7.1 don't seem to add much to the performance of the dac in kingwa's own words. the price/performance line was obviously the only card to play here- he does have to justify the higher price for the 7.1 anyway. I think the 5.2 is the clear buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Disc View Post

I asked this question before, and didn't see any reply. So I inquired with Kingwa, and this is the reply he gave me....

 


The sound flavor is quite near.
But the Reference 7.1 have a bit more transparency on the detail and image than the Reference 5.2.
The background is more blacker.
The Reference 7.1 is applied 8 pcs PCM1704 but the Reference 5.2 is 4 pcs.
The Reference 7.1 has more PSUs , all signals are conversion from the power supply, so better power supply can improve the sound quality.
Total the Reference 7.1 has better sound but not as the price different from the Reference 5.2 .
The Reference 5.2 is better on the price / performance rate .  Only 45% price but maybe have 90% sound quality.

 

post #129 of 283

Kingwa understates things, he doesn't want anyone underwhelmed by his products. While I have not owned the 5.2, I did have the NFB10SE and it was noticeably a lesser DAC than my Ref-8 (a older variation of the Ref-7.1).

post #130 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post

Kingwa understates things,

+1

 

But it's the law of diminishing returns.  No respectable salesman is going to claim  an improved price/performance ratio when the cheaper product is a (near) $1000 DAC.  At that point anyone should expect to pay a 95% premium for 5% of returns.  Once you get to the 'good' level I doubt there are too many people who are hearing legitimate differences in SQ anyway.  They may be there and some will hear it but many wont.

post #131 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by tme110 View Post

+1

 

But it's the law of diminishing returns.  No respectable salesman is going to claim  an improved price/performance ratio when the cheaper product is a (near) $1000 DAC.  At that point anyone should expect to pay a 95% premium for 5% of returns.  Once you get to the 'good' level I doubt there are too many people who are hearing legitimate differences in SQ anyway.  They may be there and some will hear it but many wont.

I don't know any salesman who does this- this is not Kingwa from my experience with him. But I agree that the differences are minimal at this level.

post #132 of 283

I'm wondering if this would be a worthwhile upgrade over the Audiolab M-DAC which I'm currently using?

 

I love the functionality of the M-DAC, but at times find it to be a little edgy up top (sound-wise) with my gear.

 

 

My gear consists of:

 

- SPL Phonitor w/ HD800 (XLR).

- Cavalli Audio Liquid Fire w/ LCD-3 (Currently use RCA - but could use XLR to RCA cables and daisy chain off the Phonitor as a possibility).

- KRK ERGO w/ Dynaudio MC15 desktop monitor speakers (Currently Use S/PDIF Coax - but could use RCA and re-configure my cabling for the 5.2).

 

Main source is my desktop PC.  (So USB or Optical will do - Coax if I install a sound card).

post #133 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamiee View Post

I'm wondering if this would be a worthwhile upgrade over the Audiolab M-DAC which I'm currently using?

 

I love the functionality of the M-DAC, but at times find it to be a little edgy up top (sound-wise) with my gear.

 

 

My gear consists of:

 

- SPL Phonitor w/ HD800 (XLR).

- Cavalli Audio Liquid Fire w/ LCD-3 (Currently use RCA - but could use XLR to RCA cables and daisy chain off the Phonitor as a possibility).

- KRK ERGO w/ Dynaudio MC15 desktop monitor speakers (Currently Use S/PDIF Coax - but could use RCA and re-configure my cabling for the 5.2).

 

Main source is my desktop PC.  (So USB or Optical will do - Coax if I install a sound card).


Wow,surprising......I'm trying to move up to the M-Dac with the ES9018 Dac chip....This seems like a downgrade to me.Have you listened to the M-Dac thru an amp with speakers?.....Is this "edgeiness" in your Headphone choice?

post #134 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by pietro944 View Post


Wow,surprising......I'm trying to move up to the M-Dac with the ES9018 Dac chip....This seems like a downgrade to me.Have you listened to the M-Dac thru an amp with speakers?.....Is this "edgeiness" in your Headphone choice?

 

Interestingly enough, last night I switched from USB to Optical from my PC to the M-DAC (Using a cheap Monster cable at the moment - I have ordered a 2m Wireworld Supernova 6 cable though), and the result is MUCH more to my liking !

All the detail is still there (actually even more-so), but the upper mids and highs aren't nearly as strident and the lower mids/bass carry a little more weight yet sound just a little bit better defined.

 

I'll wait for the Supernoava 6 to arrive before I draw any further conclusions, but I'm certainly happier with what I'm hearing out of the M-DAC right now.

Maybe it will be staying on my desk afterall?

post #135 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamiee View Post

 

Interestingly enough, last night I switched from USB to Optical from my PC to the M-DAC (Using a cheap Monster cable at the moment - I have ordered a 2m Wireworld Supernova 6 cable though), and the result is MUCH more to my liking !

All the detail is still there (actually even more-so), but the upper mids and highs aren't nearly as strident and the lower mids/bass carry a little more weight yet sound just a little bit better defined.

 

I'll wait for the Supernoava 6 to arrive before I draw any further conclusions, but I'm certainly happier with what I'm hearing out of the M-DAC right now.

Maybe it will be staying on my desk afterall?


I just ordered the Audio-gd NFB-11.32 with the Es9018 Dac chip.If i had $900 i would have bought the M-Dac.......Let me know,if you ever want to sell it(lol)......peter

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 5.2 (New Balanced 4x PCM1704UK DAC)