[Vitor Teixeira]

What do you guys mean when naming an y2 as "full"?
And also what's the synergy with the STAX SR-007?
Thanks.

 

[K3cT]

Quote:

What do you guys mean when naming an y2 as "full"?
And also what's the synergy with the STAX SR-007?
Thanks.

Full means the γ2 has all the provisions for all coaxial, optical and USB inputs; digital outputs; and external power. 
 
My own γ2 seems to work decent enough with the 404LE and SRM-1/MK-2. It's a fairly neutral DAC with just a tint of warmth so it should work well with everything. 

 

[NapalmK]

Just curious but how does the Gamma2 compare to the Assemblage Dac2 with upgrade kit and Parasound D/AC 1100? I tried searching for it but I wasn't able to find any comparisons.

 

[K3cT]

I'm just wondering what filter setting you guys use in the end for those with the WM8741 DAC chip installed? 

 

[Nebby]

I use Filter C, but I honestly can't tell any difference between the three. At least nothing I can definitely say was due to the filter change.

 

[jdkJake]

I actually prefer Filter B. It seems to get vocals right. Not sure why, but, they just sound more correct if that makes any sense. I think FIlter A has a bit more excitement or sparkle if you will, but, overall, something about B always makes me come back to it. Listening to it right now as a matter of fact. 

 
All this being said, the effect is VERY subtle. You need highly resolving gear and very well recorded music to even begin to notice the difference. Think music with lot's of space and air or a well-recorded vocalist. Once you hear the difference and know what to listen for, it becomes easier to spot the difference. Beware, you cannot just flick back and forth looking for a difference, you need to settle in and listen for a while at each setting as it is more an overall impression that is discerned over time.
 
Regardless, the DAC sounds wonderful with any of the settings. You cannot go wrong with any of them.

 

[Nebby]

I think I have decently resolving gear, the required well recorded music, and I have sat and listened for some time with no real result...but I'll take your word that there's a difference. I'm happy enough with the sound as is, without worrying about it

 

[RTF]

Sorry if this has been covered, but how does one decide which DAC, ASRC, and opamps should be installed? Do all these options contribute to a different SS? Is there a general consensus on which sounds 'best'?  Thanks much.

 

[Nebby]

http://www.amb.org/audio/gamma2/
 
subsection "Parts list"
 
Best DAC is the WM8741, the other two listed are inferior in specs
 
Of the two ASRC's, SRC4192 has slightly better specs
 
For opamp's, amb states
 
 
Quote:

U7 should be either a OPA2365AID or AD8656ARZ. These two were chosen for their stringent rail-to-rail swing characteristics, low-noise, low distortion and high CMRR performance. Do not substitute with other opamps. OPA2365 is recommended for line-level use while AD8656 is recommended if you plan to drive headphones directly. 

 

[K3cT]

OPA2365 seemed to sound "livelier" to me than the AD8656 which I initially used in my build. Other than that, follow what Nebby said regarding the DAC chip choice. 
 
Yeah, the filters sound very similar to me although I seem to settle on filter A. Sometimes I feel that the center image doesn't gel together with filter B but I admit that I could be talking out of my arse. 

 

[Nebby]

I like lively, so it's good I went straight for the 2365

 
Clearly, you need better resolving equipment and higher quality music (and maybe better cables? ohhh...I just went there....) to definitively hear the difference 

Quote:

OPA2365 seemed to sound "livelier" to me than the AD8656 which I initially used in my build. Other than that, follow what Nebby said regarding the DAC chip choice. 
 
Yeah, the filters sound very similar to me although I seem to settle on filter A. Sometimes I feel that the center image doesn't gel together with filter B but I admit that I could be talking out of my arse. 

 

[K3cT]

Oh shoot, now that you mentioned it I think I haven't burned it in for long enough. Perhaps I should give it 250 more hours... 

 

[jdkJake]

Ouch!

I guess that did come across a bit poorly. No slight intended.

 

[Nebby]

No slight taken, it's all in good fun 

 
Quote:

Ouch!

I guess that did come across a bit poorly. No slight intended.

 

[K3cT]

I haven't posted here in a while but I would like to share my short impressions. I just had a meet today with a good friend who happens to have both Twisted Pear Opus and Buffalo II in his possession so I have managed to compare them with my own γ2. This should be interesting as comparisons between them have been scarce in this site. 
 
FYI, the γ2 is powered with σ25. It's the upsampling model with SRC4192 installed, output op-amp is OPA2365, coupling caps are Blackgate NX bypassed with Vishay MKP1837. The Opus similarly has Blackgate NX coupling caps, no output stage, and it comes with the Metronome (upsampling) module. The Buffalo II is fully-decked with IVY-III and Trident modules. Comparisons are done via their USB inputs. 
 
Not surprisingly, each DAC has a sonic characteristics of their own which I'm going to outlay below.

• The γ2 is the most forward-sounding compared to the Opus and Buffalo II. Detail retrieval is on par with the Opus but falls behind the Buffalo II. Similarly, soundstage is less spacious compared to the Buffalo II which has a very nice and wide soundstage presentation which synergizes well with the LCD2. This DAC has an addictive timbre which makes it sounds very musical but perhaps not the most neutral. 
• The Opus sounds very similar with the γ2 in timbre. Overall the presentation is slightly less forward than the γ2 but not to the extent of the Buffalo II which has the most laid-back presentation. Vocal and guitar have less 'bite' and definition compared to the γ2 but the Opus makes it up with a very smooth and silky treble presentation, beating γ2 and even Buffalo II in this specific area. 
• Now here comes the DAC that everyone has been waiting for, the Buffalo II. This DAC... is an enigma. In terms of neutrality, detail retrieval and spacious presentation, the Buffalo II reigns supreme and unbeaten. Normally this equals to complete and utter eargasm but such is not the case here. The Buffalo II has a curious timbre but it's certainly not a roughness in treble that some people here complain with their Sabre-based DACs. I can say for sure that the Buffalo II has a very strange way of rendering guitar, stripping the life out of it and making it very "processed" sounding like something that has gone through a MIDI mixer. I think I enjoy those Wolfson-based DACs more personally as they have more humanity/soul/whatever in their timbres. 

 
Now that would be all and I hope you enjoy reading my impressions. I hope it will be helpful to you.