[Telstar]

Quote:

How do you compare Hex and R2R DAC with oversampling in terms of detail, speed and soundstage depth?

In terms of detail they should be the same, multibit DACs dont highlight details like S-D ones do. But up/oversampling if done well, improves transparency, because prevents the HF noise to contaminate the audio bandwith. Speed, cant say for sure, probably it is slightly improved, maybe not.
I didnt notice a difference in soundstage, while for instance I do when a converted uses additional DACs, i.e. metrum octave to hex, or audio-gd dac19 to ref7.

 

[preproman]

Quote:

In terms of detail they should be the same, multibit DACs dont highlight details like S-D ones do. But up/oversampling if done well, improves transparency, because prevents the HF noise to contaminate the audio bandwith. Speed, cant say for sure, probably it is slightly improved, maybe not.
I didnt notice a difference in soundstage, while for instance I do when a converted uses additional DACs, i.e. metrum octave to hex, or audio-gd dac19 to ref7.

 
 
So you've heard the HEX??  Can you give some impressions on it?

 

[Telstar]

Quote:

 
 
So you've heard the HEX??  Can you give some impressions on it?

Yes, but not in direct comparison to the ref7 or similar dac.
It's very good, one of the best NOS dacs I ever heard (and I heard many). But it's not extremely linear and I'm sensitive to distortions, so I prefer a good implementation of the pcm1704 or a custom r2r dac (MSB for instance).
YMMV

 

[DACLadder]

At about 5 weeks the Master 7 continues to develop but at a much slower pace.   Looking back the low runtime M7 had a much flatter soundstage and not as much resolution.  So seems like the past few weeks of operation has blown the dust off the low order bits and revealing greater detail.   Now when comparing the M7 and Audio GD Ref. 5.32 they sound very similiar in timbre.   The M7 though has more detail and smoother presentation while the Ref. 5.32 is slightly exaggerated and etched in comparison.  I thought the Ref. 5.32 displayed more bass but have convinced myself otherwise in the past few weeks.  The M7 bass did evolve rapidly in the first week of operation so was thrown off by its initial sound.  Lately have been playing computer games through the M7 and wowed by the detail.  Not including the first week I really can't think of anything that has been processed by the M7 that I thought sounded inferior to what I had previously.  The Master 7 is a keeper!

 

[Man7rah]

Quote:

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

Originally Posted by DACLadder /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
At about 5 weeks the Master 7 continues to develop but at a much slower pace.   Looking back the low runtime M7 had a much flatter soundstage and not as much resolution.  So seems like the past few weeks of operation has blown the dust off the low order bits and revealing greater detail.   Now when comparing the M7 and Audio GD Ref. 5.32 they sound very similiar in timbre.   The M7 though has more detail and smoother presentation while the Ref. 5.32 is slightly exaggerated and etched in comparison.  I thought the Ref. 5.32 displayed more bass but have convinced myself otherwise in the past few weeks.  The M7 bass did evolve rapidly in the first week of operation so was thrown off by its initial sound.  Lately have been playing computer games through the M7 and wowed by the detail.  Not including the first week I really can't think of anything that has been processed by the M7 that I thought sounded inferior to what I had previously.  The Master 7 is a keeper!
 

Damnit! why don't I have just an extra 2200$ just happening to be laying arround...

 

[preproman]

My first few days have been - so so.  Getting good detail and good sound stage.  However, the bass weight is not there.  

  The PWD2 is wins in bass presents at this point.  This DAC seems to be very transparent tho. 

 

[RedBull]

In terms of detail they should be the same, multibit DACs dont highlight details like S-D ones do. But up/oversampling if done well, improves transparency, because prevents the HF noise to contaminate the audio bandwith. Speed, cant say for sure, probably it is slightly improved, maybe not.
I didnt notice a difference in soundstage, while for instance I do when a converted uses additional DACs, i.e. metrum octave to hex, or audio-gd dac19 to ref7.

Thanks telstar.

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

My first few days have been - so so.  Getting good detail and good sound stage.  However, the bass weight is not there.  

  The PWD2 is wins in bass presents at this point.  This DAC seems to be very transparent tho. 

 
Firmware makes a significant difference. 2.0.2. was bass-heavy (in a good way), but a bit too smooth and didn't have the imaging and attack of 2.2.0.
 
I'm glad I didn't get rid of the Ref7.1 prematurely to get the M7. The Ref has solid bass, quite a bit more than the 2.2.0 PWD MK2.

 

[preproman]

Can someone list the major differences between the Ref. 7.1 and the Master 7?

 

[DACLadder]

Quote:

Can someone list the major differences between the Ref. 7.1 and the Master 7?
 

From what I understand only the middle, digital board changes between the two.  DSP is soldered down on the M7 and also supports more input options - USB32, S/PDIF 192Khz (IN2 & IN3) plus the better sounding S/PDIF receiver DIR9001 (96kHz max IN1 & IN4), I2S.  
 
Does anyone know if the DSP algorithm is the same or different between the Ref 7.1 and M7? 

 

[BournePerfect]

Just ordered a Master 7. I've been haunted by memories of my past Reference 9 and the realistic tonality and musicality of the 1704 chips. Now if Craig will just get 'a Kraken' I will have my end rig. Good times ahead.

-Daniel

 

[preproman]

Quote:

Just ordered a Master 7. I've been haunted by memories of my past Reference 9 and the realistic tonality and musicality of the 1704 chips. Now if Craig will just get 'a Kraken' I will have my end rig. Good times ahead.

-Daniel

So what didn't you like about the DP-1?  Did the Ref. 9 do better?  (IYRC)

 

[BournePerfect]

Actually the DP-1 did almost EVERYTHING better than the Ref 9. I loved the Eximus and would highly recommend one too anybody seeking transparency and musicality above all else. Those are it's biggest strengths along with a slight sweetness and silkiness that myself and other owners rave about. Heck I even thought the headout was pretty darn great-although that seems to be a polarizing stance.

I guess what I miss about the Ref 9 was essentially the great tonality of instruments above all else-part of the r2r design I suppose. I'm 'hoping' that the M7 captures most of the musicality and transparency of the DP-1, though I know it will be more neutral and not quite as forgiving. I'm sure it will probably be more detailed, with better tonality as well (not that the Eximus wasn't pretty good in these areas).

I also sold it since I sold the ZDSE (still hurts...) I figured why not blow up my whole rig that I love and try a different one? But something tells me the M7/EC Kracken/HD 800 will eventually ease the pain lol.

-Daniel

 

[preproman]

Ok yeah - thus far I'm getting loads of detail and it's very transparent.  Even more so than the PWD2.   This is coming from a few sneak peaks I've been taking.  I took it to a small meet this weekend.  The one person who did more of the listening there compared it to a few DACs.  
 
Lynx Hio
Anedio D2
PWD2
NAD m51
 
The Master 7 made the most honest and revealing rig there - GS-X mk2 / HD800
 
When I'm ready I will have all these DACS at home so I can do a more comfortable comparison and will include my souped up Buffalo III

 

[BournePerfect]

If my Ref 9 and many other AGD dac buyers' experiences mean anything....BURN THAT BABY IN! We're talking like 500 hours no kidding. I plan on leaving mine on for a month straight since that's about how long my Ref needed to settle in to it's final sound. Sounds like you've got a ways to go, but glad to see it's already proving it's worth (and then some).
 
-Daniel