[Speederlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dura /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Havana soundstage is IMO different then that of more analytical DAC's. Recently I tried the Meier Stagedac and it had incredible depth, and every instrument had it's place from left to right. (wasn't to my taste though, not warm and no realistic tonal colors). In contrast the Havana soundstage is more like a life event; everything is discrete but not separated in place; rather the voice is a big central ball, the bass is the fundament near the floor, backchoirs are like the backwall, no pinpointing in width or depth.

So the Havana is more distorted than the Meier and you personally prefer the added distortion.

 

[dura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speederlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif So the Havana is more distorted than the Meier and you personally prefer the added distortion.

What a friendly formulated conclusion.

No, that is not the way I perceive it.
The Stagedac's representation of voices and instruments is unnatural to my ears, while the Havana does very well in representing the characteristic sounds of different instrumens and voices.

It seems more a matter of taste; some like an analytical sound, but to my ears that is listening to a system with not enough energy; then the images get small and can be better pinpointed .
I like more energetic systems, the images are larger and therefore less seperated.
I perceive the same thing when I listen to real music life performed.

 

[Speederlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dura /img/forum/go_quote.gif What a friendly formulated conclusion. No, that is not the way I perceive it. The Stagedac's representation of voices and instruments is unnatural to my ears, while the Havana does very well in representing the characteristic sounds of different instrumens and voices. It seems more a matter of taste; some like an analytical sound, but to my ears that is listening to a system with not enough energy; then the images get small and can be better pinpointed . I like more energetic systems, the images are larger and therefore less seperated. I perceive the same thing when I listen to real music life performed.

How does "analytical" = "not enough energy"? I understand you say to your ears this is the case, but can you explain how?
By "larger images" do you mean more smeared out across the spectrum? That seems like distortion to me. I am unsure how a "more energetic" system means you have larger images unless its nothing more than blurring the sound and reducing accuracy via added distortion, while increasing the energy at frequencies different than and in addition to those originally in the recording.

Again, I don't doubt this is pleasant to some people (or many people). I mean, distorted guitars are pleasant to many, but the distortion there is the original intended sound. In this case, aren't you distorting the original analytical signal (even if that signal is of distorted guitars) in a way that is pleasant to the listener? If so, that's fine, but it's added distortion for euphonious effect nonetheless.

And please don't take this as a challenge or attempt to make a point at your expense. It's neither.

Sorry for the slightly off-topic, I'll back this off from this thread now, but it seems relevant for a NOS DAC with a tube output where a lot of people are talking about similar experiences.

 

[dura]

Okay, no offense taken.
I'll try to explain what I mean with some slightly offtopic examples.
Last week I was in a jazzclub, not a very large space (60-80 m20), the sax, drums and piano were unamplified.
Looking, it was easy to couple instrument to location.
However, when I closed my eyes, each instrument seemed to fill the whole soundstage.

I attribute this to the raw power of instruments, the image gets so large is fills the whole soundstage, yet is clearly distinctive from other instruments. Pinpointing is clearly not the only way to distinguish instuments (easy to hear when listening to a mono recording).

Last year I had some silver LS-cables on audition; these cables were very thin, about 0.5mm across, too thin to transfer the power from my amp to my speakers.
The result was perfectly formed miniature images, clearly distinct in space because they were so small; great for analysing, but not at all sounding like real music.

So this is how I connect energy and soundstage, more energy gives larger images overlaying each other, smaller images are more discrete.

Now what is more distorted? IMO larger images are closer to music in reality.

Edit: this on my -speakerbased- system (see sign) compared to other sources.

 

[ciphercomplete]

I am demoing my friends Havana right now and I have to say that I agree with Dura's comments. It is less precise than most DACs/CDPs that I have heard in the $1k + range.

Let me clarify the last sentence. The Havana is probably my favorite DAC for low level listening and its only when I turn the volume up that its slight lack of precision becomes apparent. Now mind you I am evaluating it in a speaker system where the acoustics of the room come into play. To that end, if you are using it to source a headphone amp you will never hear what I am talking about. The Havana starts off a little behind in the precision area and once the acoustics of the room, most notably sound reflections, come into play at a certain volume level it really exacerbates the issue. I am in the process of having my room evaluated for its acoustics and after I am finished I will demo the Havana again and I won't be surprised if it convinces me to sell whatever DAC i am using at that moment.

Its lack of precision (warmth) is a plus in analytic or dry systems. Its probably the perfect DAC for AKGs, Grados and based on its description the HD800.

READ: The lack of precision is absolutely not a bad thing. As Dura states -- it sounds more real and more natural. So as in all things let your preferences decide. If you are a precision, detail nut then buy a Benchmark DAC. If you prefer emotional depth with a little warmth like I do and don't mind sacrificing a small bit of precision then THIS IS YOUR DAC seriously. I was able to push my speakers farther apart without losing warmth with it as my source --physically widening my soundstage. Other DACs become too cold the farther I push my speakers apart.

ALSO READ: (lol) Precision is not equal to detail because the Havana can do detail quite well. What we are talking about her is soundstage placement.

One of the things I am a little disappointed about is dynamics. I had heard that NOS DACs are supposed to be dynamics dynamos so to speak but to me the Havana comes in fourth behind the Monarchy NM24, Decware ZCD, Stello DA220 - the sources I have heard in my system in terms of dynamics. Perhaps I took a comment on Pacific Valves website regard NOS DACs a little to far though.

 

[DarKu]

@ciphercomplete did you auditioned the Havana with a JW WE396A/ JJ6386 tube, or with the stock one? Cos stock one sounds exactly how you say, however WE tube in my system sounds very dynamic with good impact/tone and coherency

 

[ciphercomplete]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarKu /img/forum/go_quote.gif @ciphercomplete did you auditioned the Havana with a JW WE396A/ JJ6386 tube, or with the stock one? Cos stock one sounds exactly how you say, however WE tube in my system sounds very dynamic with good impact/tone and coherency

You know I never asked my friend which tube he has in there. I'll pull it out later today and see which one it is.

 

[ciphercomplete]

Yep, its the stock tube. I don't know man, the stock tube is no slouch.

I hope my earlier post wasn't taken as a slam on Havana's dynamics. It is extremely dynamic, I just expected to crush the Decware and Monarchy in that area.

 

[dura]

Something more about the soundstage. My comments above were mostly about the lateral image, but on my speakerbasedsystem the depth image of the Havana is different from my former Rega Apollo. There is hardly any depth; sound remains on the line were the speakers stand, it doesn't go back far and it doesn't 'reach out' forward.
I'm not sure how to explain this; is it the inevitable NOS-DAC rollof or are upsampling machines wrong, adding phase distortions and thereby distorting the image?

Anyway, this is not so much a criticism as a peculair trait of the DAC, that remains to my ears very enjoyable.

Edit: I should add I'm one of those people that have been trying to enjoy every since it started and having had lots of cheap/midprize CDPs and got desperate when I find none was really enjoyable, due to something in digital sound, always hated the treble and the overdone transients. Until I got the Rega Apollo, the first CDP I could listen to and effort.
For me the Havana is an ideal choice, completely missing that aggressive 'digital edge', but your taste may very well differ.


P.S. My tubes are the JW/WE396 (1954, but square getters) and the new JJ 6386 I'm using right now.

 

[bdh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciphercomplete /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yep, its the stock tube. I don't know man, the stock tube is no slouch. I hope my earlier post wasn't taken as a slam on Havana's dynamics. It is extremely dynamic, I just expected to crush the Decware and Monarchy in that area.

I don't know what stock tube you got, but mine sucked compared to the Western Electric JW 25c1.

 

[ciphercomplete]

I am not sure if this thing has the stock tube or not. I think I misread MHDT's website. A Western Electric 396A is what my friend has in there right now and he hasn't responded back to me about whether or not this is the stock tube yet.
Anyone else have experience with this particular tube?

 

[bdh]

Despite being a 'Western Electric', it's not that good of a tube. On the other hand I haven't heard better than the Western Electric JW 25c1, which is a different tube than the Western Electric 396A, (although they are compatible, of course).

 

[donunus]

the regular 396a is muddy and barbaric sounding IMO

 

[ciphercomplete]

Well I wouldn't call the tube barbaric, at least not in my system. But I have a passive preamp. Donunus - your description did remind me of what the tube sounded like over my friends place -- he has a active preamp.

I wish I got a chance to hear this thing with a better tube. I like emotion but the 396a was too much. The rich tones I loved on Monday became very fatiguing last night, it reminded me of how my ears felt after 2+ hour sessions with the HD580 where the switch to the almost too thin K701 would be like lemonade on a 98 degree day. I would prefer a thinner tube with a tad bit more air to balance out the NOS sound. I don't know if this means that I prefer oversampling or just dislike this particular tube for long sessions.

I didn't get a chance to directly compare it with the Monarchy since my friend has it, but the Havana with the 396a is clearly far behind the Decware ZCD. The Monarchy usually bests the Decware by a smidge so thats my order. Given what other folks have experienced with the 396a I don't think thats unexpected.

I am just going to have to convince my buddy to shell out for more tubes so I can borrow the thing again and develop a more informed opinion.

Thanks for the help guys and I will pass some of your tube choices along to my buddy.

 

[pdhanwada]

My HAVANA on the way. In the process of selecting one TUBE over the standard one supplied with HAVANA.

I went thru the whole thread and got confused saw different opinions from different people on the lot of the tubes

I am intrested to know your opinion on the following tubes

1. Tsung sol

2. JW WE396a

3. WE396a

4. Bendix 2c51

5. Ericsson

Any other ones you know off. I am new into the tube world. Bear with me.

Are used Tubes ok. Any issues there. I hope the Tubes should last atleast 5 years with 10 hours per week usage.


Thanks
Pandu