[mhamel]

  I own the Source, but have been thinking of upgrading to a Convert-2. For the guys here who have made the jump, can you describe the overall improvements in sound? Or is it a general case of better clarity, balance, and dynamics? The Source with a liner power supply is pretty damn good, so it's hard to imagine it being a big jump in audio quality, but I'm hoping that's the case.

 
 
Take everything you like about the Source and just magnify it. Imaging, detail, clarity, depth, width, layering of instruments, tonality, etc. 
 
Sounds best through the AES input - I'm running Audio over IP to it via Dante, with a Focusrite D16 as the Dante receiver and AES out of that into the Convert-2, then using the Convert-2's clock as a master clock for the whole thing.

 

[bbb321]

hey im interested in source but read some posts here stock psu not good. rather than the expensive 12v13a teradak thats recommended here which might be overkill, how would something like a 12v4a or 5a...teradak work? or any other psus here u guys recommend? 

 

[Zoom25]

  hey im interested in source but read some posts here stock psu not good. rather than the expensive 12v13a teradak thats recommended here which might be overkill, how would something like a 12v4a or 5a...teradak work? or any other psus here u guys recommend? 

The stock PSU was fine. I still loved the Source back when I only had the stock power supply. I haven't went back to the stock power supply since the day the LPS arrived. As soon as I plugged it in, the difference to me was quite clear and since then I exclusively used that. Haven't done an A/B.
 
I'd recommend going for the 12V13A. I love having that overkill on all my components as it always feels relaxed. The guy who initially suggested me the 13A model also had another LPS that was rated at something like 5-7A....he found the Teradak to be better. He felt the extra power in the Teradak made the Source better.
 
Also, get it with black faceplate.

 

[chris.d.m.]

This was just on my mind today while curiously looking at the Convert 2.
 
I have the Source in my studio for monitoring & mixing.  A few months ago, my tech built me an over powered linear PS for it.
Although the difference isn't gigantic, it was a sublet yet significant improvement for the bottom end getting a bit more solid / tighter.
 
I may check the Convert 2 at some point and I hear it's a a significant step forward but, have to live/work with what have for now.
You know, marriage and all that.

 

[bbb321]

thankks. Sounds good and like a worthwhile upgrade than! 
how do you guys rate the source's headphone amps? does it hang on level with dedicated amps?

 

[Zoom25]

  thankks. Sounds good and like a worthwhile upgrade than! 
how do you guys rate the source's headphone amps? does it hang on level with dedicated amps?

Depends on the headphone. My personal favourite is HD 800. I went to a meet and tried 30+ headphones on it. The HD 800 was the best match.

 

[bbb321]

 
Depends on the headphone. My personal favourite is HD 800. I went to a meet and tried 30+ headphones on it. The HD 800 was the best match.

thats good to hear as these are the pair planning to use with
thanks!

 

[gournard]

@ Zoom25, you made the comment that your Bryston BDP-1 is acoustically isolated and mass loaded and this intrigues me. What did you do and what improvement did you find. I have the BDP-1/BDA-1 combo and will probably try the same. I once made a sand-box to place an old modified Marantz CD40 in and noticed a nice improvement, especially less congestion on busy complex music.

 

[Gonzbull]

Well after two years with the Source I'm finally going to get a LPS for it. I was thinking of getting another Regen as I use USB or running AES from my Lynx Pcie card. Need to do a listening Test real soon!

 

[Zoom25]

  @ Zoom25, you made the comment that your Bryston BDP-1 is acoustically isolated and mass loaded and this intrigues me. What did you do and what improvement did you find. I have the BDP-1/BDA-1 combo and will probably try the same. I once made a sand-box to place an old modified Marantz CD40 in and noticed a nice improvement, especially less congestion on busy complex music.

I tried mass loading, isolation, platforms. Not all of it works. Some do make a difference in sound, and most of them ended up sounding bad in the long term or over exaggerating certain elements. Brighter up top, less bass, mids being sucked out, etc...mix and match combo. Right now I just have my components stacked on one another and while it may not be at its best sounding in terms of resolution, at least it doesn't sound off.
 
Ideally, I would like to drain all the vibrations from the components into a significant mass that is further decoupled from its surroundings while paying attention to the loading of the system and at what frequency the isolation goes. Isolation needs to be very sensitive to have the best effects. One sized does not fit all...found the same for my speakers. Much prefer draining them out rather than isolating them if possible. Just feel the cabinet when playing music. I use cement blocks weighing 160 lbs in one of my rooms and it sounds perfect.

 

[1974]

   
I'm not using USB with the Convert-2.
 
I'm using Dante over Ethernet through a Focusrite D16, with AES into the DAC.

 
I'm picking up a convert-2 soon. Any chance of getting a photo of your setup? It seems complicated, but I'm hoping it's a straight forward / cost effective way to improve the sound (compared to regular USB). Thanks!
 
Edit - yikes, the Focusrite D16 isn't cheap, you wouldn't need 16 channels of AES for the convert-2?

 

[Zoom25]

   
I'm picking up a convert-2 soon. Any chance of getting a photo of your setup? It seems complicated, but I'm hoping it's a straight forward / cost effective way to improve the sound (compared to regular USB). Thanks!
 
Edit - yikes, the Focusrite D16 isn't cheap, you wouldn't need 16 channels of AES for the convert-2?

Try out the Crane Song Solaris as well. I'm hearing very good things about it from those who are comparing both. Convert-2 for pitching and Solaris for monitoring. Others love it for monitoring as well, but as a pitching DA, the Convert-2 seems to be the best in class.

 

[mhamel]

I'm picking up a convert-2 soon. Any chance of getting a photo of your setup? It seems complicated, but I'm hoping it's a straight forward / cost effective way to improve the sound (compared to regular USB). Thanks!

Edit - yikes, the Focusrite D16 isn't cheap, you wouldn't need 16 channels of AES for the convert-2?

The D16 is not cheap by any stretch, but there are also USB chains out there that are more expensive still. There can be a little bit of complexity in terms of setting up the software, but if you do hit any snags the thread here now has quite a few members that are running Dante / Focusrite Rednet setups that can help. You can use a Rednet 3 or D16, either of which will do the job. The RN3 is larger, and requires a breakout cable to get AES out, but is significantly cheaper. The D16 is only 1U in height, has a newer generation of the Dante AoIP hardware card and has direct XLR out for AES, no special cable needed.

I can try to take a couple of pictures later, but I'm not near the system at the moment. Essentially there are 3 cables in the connection from PC to DAC, with one of them being optional. There is an Ethernet connection that goes from the Focusrite box to either your network or directly to an Ethernet port on your PC. After that it's just the AES output into the DAC. Optionally you can get a word clock cable and connect the clock output on the Convert-2 to the clock input on the Focusrite box, which lets you use the clock in the Convert-2 as the master for the system. Personally I've found I prefer the sound when using the Convert-2's clock like this.

You do not need all of the channels that the D16 or RN3 provide, but there is no 2 channel Dante interface that does 192khz. There are smaller units with less channels that will do up to 96khz.

-Mike

.

 

[1974]

You do not need all of the channels that the D16 or RN3 provide, but there is no 2 channel Dante interface that does 192khz. There are smaller units with less channels that will do up to 96khz.
 

 
My Convert-2 is on it's way.
 
Mike, I'm mostly listening to red book CD ripped WAV files converted to FLAC, so I don't need 192khz capabilities. You could argue that I'm not squeezing all of the potential of of the Convert-2, listening to 44.1 - but even at that level, a great DAC with leave lesser DACS in the dust. 96khs is more than enough if I want to take a higher-res route, and that means I could pickup the much cheaper Focusrite Rednet AM2. I'm not an ultra high-res fan really, my ears aren't golden enough to hear the difference, sadly.

 

[mhamel]

   
My Convert-2 is on it's way.
 
Mike, I'm mostly listening to red book CD ripped WAV files converted to FLAC, so I don't need 192khz capabilities. You could argue that I'm not squeezing all of the potential of of the Convert-2, listening to 44.1 - but even at that level, a great DAC with leave lesser DACS in the dust. 96khs is more than enough if I want to take a higher-res route, and that means I could pickup the much cheaper Focusrite Rednet AM2. I'm not an ultra high-res fan really, my ears aren't golden enough to hear the difference, sadly.

 
AFAIK, the AM2 is just a headphone amp, there is no digital out to the DAC.
 
There is another product that provides Dante connectivity at up to 96KHz that is around $700 - it's been discussed in the big AOIP thread - I don't recall the name offhand but I can check. Reports are that it sounds just as good as the RN3 and D16 at 96KHz.