[Hooster]

whats a good power cord for a good price? and conditioner?

Oyaide Tunami is an excellent power cable. You should be able to make your own and therefore make it in exactly the length you need. I make my own power cables and the fact that they are all exactly the correct length makes things a lot neater than having power cables coiled all over the place...

 

[adrianm]

Oyaide Tunami is an excellent power cable. You should be able to make your own and therefore make it in exactly the length you need. I make my own power cables and the fact that they are all exactly the correct length makes things a lot neater than having power cables coiled all over the place...

Do you also charge yourself the audiophile tax?

 

[Hooster]

Do you also charge yourself the audiophile tax?

Yes, sure do.

 

[wristmachine]

Has anyone listen to a Final Audio D8000 Pro with Dave?

I do and the combo is clean as a whistle that stings like a bee one of the more formidable synergies out there imo

 

[naynay]

-----------------------------------------------------------





When you say a few ferrites cores. Doesn't the M-Scaler cable need cores of particular specs. Like e.g. cores that block 2GHz. As well as cores that work for other frequencies.

The cylindrical ferrite cores used in the High priced cables you can buy that are mentioned on here and the MScaler forum use 28.5 mm in Length, 8 mm Internal Diameter, 16 mm Outside Diameter Ferrite Cores and Oyaide FTVS-510 5N cable with the same brand Oyaide SLSB BNC connectors.
Those particular sized Cylindrical Ferrite cores are only available in two types so look at the Graphs on the Data Sheets for each and choose the best suited.

 

[Triode User]

Since we are talking about streamers, does the quality of the streamer matter if optical is used (as the consensus is that optical is not effected by electrical noise and radio interference)?

You are right that optical does break the noise link in that cable but there are other routes for noise to travel if the streamer and dac are plugged into the mains. Also there is a view that optical is not the ultimate connection because of the noise that can be generated by the conversion of the optical signal back to an electrical based digital signal. I understand that Innuos measured the noise in optical circuits compared to a well executed usb circuit and the optical had more noise hence why the top of the range Innuos streamers only have a usb output. As always, listen in your own system and decide for yourself.

 

[Rob Watts]

Like all things in life, it's more complicated than that. Sure the raw signal to noise ratio of optical for the data transmission line is poorer than quality USB; but so long as SNR is good enough to maintain bit perfect transmission, this noise is completely irrelevant - and quality optical is bit perfect even at 192 kHz. What is of more relevance from a SQ POV is the amount of RF noise that is injected into the DAC, and here optical wins big time. An optical receiver is simply a diode and an amplifier with digital level outputs; there is no processing at all; USB decoding has by comparison a huge amount of digital processing, and twenty times the power dissipation, plus a separate processor clock. This creates enormous problems from the RF POV for the DAC - you have to isolate this noise and it's almost impossible to do it. Optical on the other hand. as the power consumption is negligible and there is no processing at all - just level shifting and amplification has little influence. Now I have always RF filtered optical receivers (as all functions are individually filtered anyway as a matter of course) but a few years ago I put ferrites on the optical ground - and I didn't notice any change in SQ at all - not like USB which is ultra sensitive.

So to imply that USB is lower total RF noise for the DAC against optical is simply false.

Additionally, optical has the huge benefit of preventing direct source ground currents from flowing into the DAC from the source via the mains.

 

[TheAttorney]

I do and the combo [DS8000 Pro with Dave] is clean as a whistle that stings like a bee one of the more formidable synergies out there imo

Based on my earlier comparison of DS8000, HEK V2 and Abyss1266 (prior to TC), and assuming that the Pro is an improvement over its older brother, then I'd estimate the Pro to be the very top headphone to be directly driven by DAVE. (The HEK V2 had already beaten Utopia and LCD4 for my tastes).

But nothing is perfect in every way. The main things stopping me from rushing out for a Pro audition are: Heavier weight, mediocre comfort and smaller soundstage compared to my current HEKse. I'll still have an audition eventually, when it's more convenient to do so.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Like all things in life, it's more complicated than that. Sure the raw signal to noise ratio of optical for the data transmission line is poorer than quality USB; but so long as SNR is good enough to maintain bit perfect transmission, this noise is completely irrelevant - and quality optical is bit perfect even at 192 kHz. What is of more relevance from a SQ POV is the amount of RF noise that is injected into the DAC, and here optical wins big time. An optical receiver is simply a diode and an amplifier with digital level outputs; there is no processing at all; USB decoding has by comparison a huge amount of digital processing, and twenty times the power dissipation, plus a separate processor clock. This creates enormous problems from the RF POV for the DAC - you have to isolate this noise and it's almost impossible to do it. Optical on the other hand. as the power consumption is negligible and there is no processing at all - just level shifting and amplification has little influence. Now I have always RF filtered optical receivers (as all functions are individually filtered anyway as a matter of course) but a few years ago I put ferrites on the optical ground - and I didn't notice any change in SQ at all - not like USB which is ultra sensitive.

So to imply that USB is lower total RF noise for the DAC against optical is simply false.

Additionally, optical has the huge benefit of preventing direct source ground currents from flowing into the DAC from the source via the mains.

Hi Rob,
Thanks for the feedback on the benefits of Optical. I found it both interesting and worrying in equal measure.

What worries me about Optical is where it imparts its own character on the sound. The same is true of course of Copper wire, Silver 'solder' and Silver 'wire and coated wire', plus Paper, Aluminium or Ceramic speaker cones, Silk soft dome, aluminium, beryllium tweeters etc. They all faintly colour the timbre of instruments and voices according to, lets call it, their 'resonance altered sound'. Material related resonance altered sound cannot be treated but happily RFI can so we are left with the affects of the materials used.

So here's my point:
If I am listening to my system with copper cables I may be listening to RAS but it is in tune with the timbre of Guitar strings and Piano strings for obvious reasons and that's a good start but also fortuitously it is more complimentary to the 'sound box' timbre of Violin, Violas, Cello etc than Silver or Optical cables. This being because, rather luckily, Copper's vice just happens to be closer to the ballpark frequency range of resonant wooden sound boxes. Copper has a more earthy timbre. I think Silver imparts a smoothness that is pleasing in hifi performance and many prefer it to copper but I have found 'too much use of Silver' will move the sound away from true timbre of the above instruments. So a balanced introduction of silver is better for timbre overall imo and that can only be achieved by listening and adjusting with different components but at least we can manage that sound.

Optical cables otoh, to my ears, have an RAS timbre in the lower 'high frequency band' and it sounds 'Glassy' over the whole mix. A lot of digital masterings in the 90's particularly have this embedded in the sound and some (for instance Paul McCartney's cheap CD masterings) are almost unlistenable to me. I have tried a number of optical cables over the years Rob, the best being Lifatec which is an Optical cable used in the medical and audio industry. However, I have never heard an optical cable which doesn't impart a Glassy RAS.

I recognise too that Optical is a favoured choice for audiophiles on grounds of price but personally I would much prefer my flawed solution to be something I can address the problem (RFI) because I am prepared to pay to put it right because the result is more natural in timbre than something which is unnatural which I cannot correct at any price.

 

[JaZZ]

Dave, what is «RAS»?

In terms of the «glassy» timbre of optical cables, I'm speculating that it may represent the pure sound provided by the digital source, given that digital formats still aren't able to reproduce analogue sound perfectly – whereas galvanic cables always carry some fine dirt with them, leading to an «analogue» touch, thus masking some of the still present sterility which has been associated with digital since its start.

Do you really hear differences in the different optical cables? That would be hard to explain, apart from different jitter intensities or patterns (which the DAVE is said to immune to).

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Its just something I termed for the post Jazz: Material related 'Resonance Altered Sound'. I do not know how it works in truth but I know materials alter the timbre of sound in our system.

To answer your question. To my ears Optical cables 'all' produce a 'glassy' veil to the sound.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Jazz: " I'm speculating that it may represent the pure sound provided by the digital source "

As I mentioned with 90's digital masterings in particular, this may be the case Jazz on certain recordings. I used McCartney's cheap CD's as an example but if I AB a perceived 'clean' recording (Clean from Glassy sound when listening via copper cables) pitching Optical against Copper I don't hear the glassy effect with copper and its in a frequency region which is easier to discern than say the middle frequencies buried in there with a lot of mass. Given also that my experience has been over the years to hear materials affect timbre, I am more inclined to believe this is the case with Optical. It's like a glazed veil.

EDIT: To clarify, I believe it could be part of the recording (as you suggest Jazz) if optical cables were used in mastering the recording, which I believe was more relevant to digital masterings during the 1990's.

 

[Christer]

Hi Rob,
Thanks for the feedback on the benefits of Optical. I found it both interesting and worrying in equal measure.

What worries me about Optical is where it imparts its own character on the sound. The same is true of course of Copper wire, Silver 'solder' and Silver 'wire and coated wire', plus Paper, Aluminium or Ceramic speaker cones, Silk soft dome, aluminium, beryllium tweeters etc. They all faintly colour the timbre of instruments and voices according to, lets call it, their 'resonance altered sound'. Material related resonance altered sound cannot be treated but happily RFI can so we are left with the affects of the materials used.

So here's my point:
If I am listening to my system with copper cables I may be listening to RAS but it is in tune with the timbre of Guitar strings and Piano strings for obvious reasons and that's a good start but also fortuitously it is more complimentary to the 'sound box' timbre of Violin, Violas, Cello etc than Silver or Optical cables. This being because, rather luckily, Copper's vice just happens to be closer to the ballpark frequency range of resonant wooden sound boxes. Copper has a more earthy timbre. I think Silver imparts a smoothness that is pleasing in hifi performance and many prefer it to copper but I have found 'too much use of Silver' will move the sound away from true timbre of the above instruments. So a balanced introduction of silver is better for timbre overall imo and that can only be achieved by listening and adjusting with different components but at least we can manage that sound.

Optical cables otoh, to my ears, have an RAS timbre in the lower 'high frequency band' and it sounds 'Glassy' over the whole mix. A lot of digital masterings in the 90's particularly have this embedded in the sound and some (for instance Paul McCartney's cheap CD remasterings) are almost unlistenable to me. I have tried a number of optical cables over the years Rob, the best being Lifatec which is an Optical cable used in the medical and audio industry. However, I have never heard an optical cable which doesn't impart a Glassy RAS.

I recognise too that Optical is a favoured choice for audiophiles on grounds of price but personally I would much prefer my flawed solution to be something I can address the problem (RFI) because I am prepared to pay to put it right because the result is more natural in timbre than something which is unnatural which I cannot correct at any price.

Very interesting take on optical versus usb.
And one that I with a much more humble system than yours I can still clearly relate to.
I am fairly new to optical/cd.
But I have played around with dacs via both firewire and usb and coax for quite a while now.
In my Qutest/Mscaler system both via my electrostatic speakers and my two headphones HEKV2 and HD800 I hear similar problems with optical and the three different cd transports I have tried.
While I have to admit that cd has never before sounded as good to me as via HMS/optical out and I play quite a lot of cds since getting my HMS. Unfortunately I also hear more hardening and glassiness compared to my humble mbp and Pure Music or Audirvana with the same material.
And yes some early cds are still so glassy that not even HMS can cure them. Early 90s DGGs being particularly glassy and unlistenable to me.

And contrary to what Rob claims regarding DSD, in my humble systems at least, even DSD 64 as native masterfiles from sessions more timbrally true and realistic than the cd layer played via optical too.
And although this is only from memory, it is quite a while since I auditioned BLU2, but the same applied even with BLU2. My DSD 64 masters sounded better via mbp and usb than the cd layer of the SACD on BLU2.
Apart from the horrendous price and some other problems I experienced with it,one more reason why BLU2 was never on my shopping list.
And now I hear that timbre and tonality of acoustic instruments that I know how they sounded live are not quite as realistic via cd /optical imho as via my humble mbp and usb.
Confusing yes, but I go by what I hear.
Another example:
This morning once again as part of my daily morning Yoga routine I played an orginally analogue recorded Yoga Nidra recording both as cd /optical/HMS, and also as ripped from the same cd and via usb and my macbook.
Via cd and optical I could just barely hear a tape print-through registering as a print-though, but hazily.
Via usb/mbp/HMS I could hear exactly what the voice is saying.

And various nature sounds like chirping birds and neighing horses in the distance or water gently running down a brook or waves lapping against a beach ALL sounded more REAL and less digital and glassy,via usb than cd/optical.
I know both what a piano sounds like live and neighing horses too, I have both at close range on a daily basis.

Cheers CC

 

[iamoneagain]

I’ve tested my optical vs usb again on my Mac mini and the optical still wins. It’s very close to usb but I feel the music flows better. The bass sounds more natural and mids just a hair richer. This is using the stock usb vs Chord Cable company optical.

I was reading a review on headphone cables and came across where someone was saying they believe our visual perception on the materials used can alter what we think we hear. We see silver as cold and metallic, copper as warmer, and glass/plastic well as glassy/plastic sounding. The silver and copper hold true even for musical instruments. I’m not saying are experiences don’t line up but are perception of sound has a strong influence as well.

 

[JaZZ]

What worries me about Optical is where it imparts its own character on the sound. The same is true of course of Copper wire, Silver 'solder' and Silver 'wire and coated wire', plus Paper, Aluminium or Ceramic speaker cones, Silk soft dome, aluminium, beryllium tweeters etc. They all faintly colour the timbre of instruments and voices according to, lets call it, their 'resonance altered sound'.

Very true! As a former speaker builder I can reproduce this finding. Among the mentioned membrane materials metal/aluminium has the bad reputation of sounding metallic. In my experience it has proven true in the case of tweeters, but with cone woofers and squawkers a steep low-pass filter can reduce the level of the resonances above their intended frequency range to a very acceptable degree, which actually makes them superior to most other membrane materials, including kevlar and fiberglass (even sandwich designs). Especially compared to paper cones the sound is much cleaner and more transparent. However, many people still prefer paper for its warmer, more organic sound. It's hard to find the corresponding qualities – within the intended frequency range – in the measurements, though. In most cases the hinted roughness of paper cones isn't reflected there.

We all hear differently. I never associated copper wires with «earthy» – in fact I would characterize them as slightly glassy, smearing transients at lower frequencies than the typical digital glassiness. (I'm talking of solid-core and litz cables; common braided cables are another case.) Silver sounds sharper to me, but isn't free of glassiness either, it just happens at higher frequencies. I'm surprised that you characterize them as «smooth», although I do hear some sort of smoothness as well. The only wire materials free from glassiness I've experimented with were carbon fibres and resistor wires. The former had a tendency to softness and matteness, the latter to hardness. So pure silver wire has still remained my preferred cable material. Note that I'm speaking of analogue cables! I'm not sure anymore if digital signals are affected by the wire material at all, although my experiments in the past (with younger ears) had led me to believe so.

As I mentioned with 90's digital masterings in particular, this may be the case Jazz on certain recordings. I used McCartney's cheap CD's as an example but if I AB a perceived 'clean' recording (Clean from Glassy sound when listening via copper cables) pitching Optical against Copper I don't hear the glassy effect with copper and its in a frequency region which is easier to discern than say the middle frequencies buried in there with a lot of mass. Given also that my experience has been over the years to hear materials affect timbre, I am more inclined to believe this is the case with Optical. It's like a glazed veil.

EDIT: To clarify, I believe it could be part of the recording (as you suggest Jazz) if optical cables were used in mastering the recording, which I believe was more relevant to digital masterings during the 1990's.

We don't even have to draw on the use of optical cables during recording/mastering (which I doubt), the use of less than perfect ADCs would suffice as an explanation for glassiness and digititis.

Early 90s DGGs being particularly glassy and unlistenable to me.

That's a common complaint and something that has to be accepted. I would say DGG recordings from the beginning of the CD era were even worse in this respect.

And contrary to what Rob claims regarding DSD, in my humble systems at least, even DSD 64 as native masterfiles from sessions more timbrally true and realistic than the cd layer played via optical too.

I'm inclined to confirm this perception, thinking back to the time when I was into SACDs. However, despite the more natural instrument timbres from SACDs I also found the SACD layer to be less clear and clean than the CD layer – there was an inherent sharpness that has prevented me from being really happy with the supposedly «higher resolution». In fact SACDs (and DSD generally) produce a lot of ultrasonic noise. One of my electrostatic Stax amps couldn't be used with them for this reason, as it sounded heavily distorted.

Now with the M Scaler and DAVE I really enjoy PCM recordings from 44.1 kHz upward. I can't really speak for DSD (no matter what sampling rate), as with its impossibility to use an equalizer with the format I have no use for it, but actually have no real complaints about DSD/PCM conversions (which are largely free from the mentioned ultrasonic noise).