[FauDrei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Has anyone found out what the clock is doing in the MK4? I know you can't slave a DIR9001 because it will get out of time with the transport. Is he reclocking or is this a PLL like tent labs? Is the clock present on the DF1704 boards?

As I understand theory, receiver (DIR9001) just receives data, from there data goes to buffer/filter (PMD100, DF1704, DSP-1...), and from there data is fed to the DAC chip(s) on very precise clock cycles. This "data feeding" of DAC chips is mission critical and clock precision there plays a substantial role in final SQ. Before that data timing is not that important because data (music) can be (and is) buffered.

Feel free to correct me or explain better...

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FauDrei /img/forum/go_quote.gif As I understand theory, receiver (DIR9001) just receives data, from there data goes to buffer/filter (PMD100, DF1704, DSP-1...), and from there data is fed to the DAC chip(s) on very precise clock cycles. This "data feeding" of DAC chips is mission critical and clock precision there plays a substantial role in final SQ. Before that data timing is not that important because data (music) can be (and is) buffered. Feel free to correct me or explain better...

There is only two ways to feed the DAC chips with a clock in the DAC: 1. external PLL (rare, expensive, complicated, and sometimes wonderful) or 2. asychonous reclocking (not so rare and slightly contorversial.)

We need to know which he is doing.

 

[nautilus983]

Hello Slim,

I have two further questions for you

1) In the post that you made on the Bada 5600 power filter, you noticed that you had to use it with the Essential Audio Tools Noise Filter to restore depth into the soundstage. However, I have noticed that you are not listing Essential Audio Tools Noise Filter in your profile - have you removed it from your system? If yes, why so exactly? I'd like to get the Bada 5600 plus the noise filter over the Supra Mains (with the noise filter I believe).

2) Now that you are using the Oyaide DB 510 and the Artisan Ultimate Silver Dream interconnects, along with the Bada power filter and the powertransplus power cord, could you describe us the difference between the PMD100 and the DF1704? Which one would you recommend?

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nautilus983 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hello Slim, I have two further questions for you 1) In the post that you made on the Bada 5600 power filter, you noticed that you had to use it with the Essential Audio Tools Noise Filter to restore depth into the soundstage. However, I have noticed that you are not listing Essential Audio Tools Noise Filter in your profile - have you removed it from your system? If yes, why so exactly? I'd like to get the Bada 5600 plus the noise filter over the Supra Mains (with the noise filter I believe). 2) Now that you are using the Oyaide DB 510 and the Artisan Ultimate Silver Dream interconnects, along with the Bada power filter and the powertransplus power cord, could you describe us the difference between the PMD100 and the DF1704? Which one would you recommend?

Hi nautilus983,

Essential Audio Tools Noise Filter

I am still using the Essential Audio Tools Noise Filter along with the Bada filter (I just forgot to put it on my profile). In fact, I am so happy with it that I am thinking to buy another one later (according to some, the more parallel filters you use, the better the effect but I have to try it for myself).


PMD100 vs DF1704

As for the comparison between the pmd100 and df1704, the difference is even more obvious after the many tweaks I have done to my system.
The sound with the pmd100 is very warm (tubey like), with rich harmonics but it lacks resolution and transparency compared to the DF1704.

I am well aware that in other DACs people preferred the PMD100 instead of the DF1704. However, in the case of the dac19mk3 it is not even a matter of preference. The DF1704 is much better : it has more deep bass, a more transparent midrange and more extended highs. The soundstage is significantly bigger. As for the resolution, the PMD100 masks all the low level details (concert hall ambiance, echoes, reverb,...) that is present with the DF1704.

When listening trough the PMD100, it is like listening to a rose tinted glass. Everything is nice but all recordings sound the same (relatively speaking of course). When listening trough the df1704, it is like looking through a highly transparent glass : the music comes out raw and unprocessed. With the DF1704, some recordings are warm, other are forward, and some of them are neutral. So to me it is a more accurate filter than the relatively euphonic sounding pmd100. By the way, I think that some people like the pmd100 in the dac19mk3 because it slows transients and "rounds off" the edges of the recordings which simulates that "analog feel". However, that slowing of transients also kills the dynamics (and the soul) of the music

Whenever, I tried comparing both modules, I would describe the pmd100 as enabling a good presentation, while the DF1704 could be best described as transporting me to the event.

Overall, the DF1704 gives a more thrilling experience because it is also fastest and more dynamic than the pmd100.

However, there are 2 things to keep in mind:
1. the DF1704 needs a careful set-up : if the source, the digital cable or the power cable are not up to the task, the DF1704 can give poor results (edgy sound for example).
2. the difference I heard could be less (or more?) audible depending on the system. For instance, I have been testing this last week the Stefan Audio Art Sennheiser upgrade cable (that rosgr63 sent me to try) and I find that those differences are less audible in comparison to when I use my Artisan Silver cables throughout. In fact, since the Stefan Audio Art Cable is slower and less resolving than the Artisan Silver headphone cable, most of what I could detect was a slight tonal shift and a slight change in the soundstage. There were other differences, but they were small with Stefan Audio Art Equinox Cable.

 

[h.rav]

^ I agree with Slim.a.
DF1704 is a much better filter for 19Mk3. DF1704 is also more musical than PMD100 to my ears.

 

[nautilus983]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slim.a /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi nautilus983, Essential Audio Tools Noise Filter I am still using the Essential Audio Tools Noise Filter along with the Bada filter (I just forgot to put it on my profile). In fact, I am so happy with it that I am thinking to buy another one later (according to some, the more parallel filters you use, the better the effect but I have to try it for myself). PMD100 vs DF1704 As for the comparison between the pmd100 and df1704, the difference is even more obvious after the many tweaks I have done to my system. The sound with the pmd100 is very warm (tubey like), with rich harmonics but it lacks resolution and transparency compared to the DF1704. I am well aware that in other DACs people preferred the PMD100 instead of the DF1704. However, in the case of the dac19mk3 it is not even a matter of preference. The DF1704 is much better : it has more deep bass, a more transparent midrange and more extended highs. The soundstage is significantly bigger. As for the resolution, the PMD100 masks all the low level details (concert hall ambiance, echoes, reverb,...) that is present with the DF1704. When listening trough the PMD100, it is like listening to a rose tinted glass. Everything is nice but all recordings sound the same (relatively speaking of course). When listening trough the df1704, it is like looking through a highly transparent glass : the music comes out raw and unprocessed. With the DF1704, some recordings are warm, other are forward, and some of them are neutral. So to me it is a more accurate filter than the relatively euphonic sounding pmd100. By the way, I think that some people like the pmd100 in the dac19mk3 because it slows transients and "rounds off" the edges of the recordings which simulates that "analog feel". However, that slowing of transients also kills the dynamics (and the soul) of the music Whenever, I tried comparing both modules, I would describe the pmd100 as enabling a good presentation, while the DF1704 could be best described as transporting me to the event. Overall, the DF1704 gives a more thrilling experience because it is also fastest and more dynamic than the pmd100. However, there are 2 things to keep in mind: 1. the DF1704 needs a careful set-up : if the source, the digital cable or the power cable are not up to the task, the DF1704 can give poor results (edgy sound for example). 2. the difference I heard could be less (or more?) audible depending on the system. For instance, I have been testing this last week the Stefan Audio Art Sennheiser upgrade cable (that rosgr63 sent me to try) and I find that those differences are less audible in comparison to when I use my Artisan Silver cables throughout. In fact, since the Stefan Audio Art Cable is slower and less resolving than the Artisan Silver headphone cable, most of what I could detect was a slight tonal shift and a slight change in the soundstage. There were other differences, but they were small with Stefan Audio Art Equinox Cable.

A very well thought out answer - you completely convinced me

I will be getting the new MK4 version with the DF1704 then, but first I want to understand this apparent problem with the new clock in the MK4.

 

[RickEC]

I have been using DF1704 which came installed. I am so happy with it that the minty PMD100 module has been sitting in my drawer. I really need to get off my butt to try out the PMD100.

 

[SoupRKnowva]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nautilus983 /img/forum/go_quote.gif A very well thought out answer - you completely convinced me I will be getting the new MK4 version with the DF1704 then, but first I want to understand this apparent problem with the new clock in the MK4.

well with the new one you can get the DSP-1, which might cost more, but pretty much gets rid of any jitter that may or may not be there, and may or may be audible

 

[slim.a]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nautilus983 /img/forum/go_quote.gif A very well thought out answer - you completely convinced me I will be getting the new MK4 version with the DF1704 then, but first I want to understand this apparent problem with the new clock in the MK4.

While I find the DF1704 better in many aspects than the pmd100 digital filter, I have never listened to the DSP-1. And according to Kingwa, it is a much better filter than both the PMD100 and DF1704 and it also the digital filter used in his flagship dacs (ref1 and ref7). So if you don't mind the price difference, you should perhaps go for the DSP-1 version.

By the way, there is no problem with the new clock. We have noticed an additional clock and we were just speculating about its actual purpose. Since Kingwa mentioned that the dac19 (mk4) is slightly better than the old one, people are trying to figure out where he squeezed that performance from I guess

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoupRKnowva /img/forum/go_quote.gif well with the new one you can get the DSP-1, which might cost more, but pretty much gets rid of any jitter that may or may not be there, and may or may be audible

I think that reducing jitter is not the only advantage of the DSP-1. Since it has a lot more power processing than the pmd100 and df1704, it probably uses more accurate oversampling and filtering algorithms. Also, while the DSP-1 (perhaps) reduces jitter, the quality of the transport is still very important according to its designer (Kingwa) and the many reports I read about the ref1 being sensitive to the quality of the transport.

 

[Pricklely Peete]

The main features of the DSP-1 can be found here.... Download FPGA

http://www.altera.com/products/devic...utilities.html

http://www.altera.com/products/devic..._features.html

http://www.altera.com/products/devic...-features.html

http://www.altera.com/products/devic...literature.jsp

It does so much more than the regular receiver chips it really can't be boiled down to a paragraph or two here. The main features however are phase correct data processing, dual PLL circuits ( to a max of 4 programmable PLL's), 16 global clock lines, proper on chip termination of single ended or differential signal I/O, on board cache memory with external support for DDR2 etc etc etc. Just read the pages from the links provided for the big picture.

This kind of processing or technology should be the norm in digital gear if you ask me rather than the exception.

Peete.

 

[shampoosuicide]

Has anyone compared this to the Stello DA100?

I can pick up a used Stello and was wondering how the DAC-19 would compare to it.

 

[Currawong]

The new DAC19 or the now "old" DAC19MK3? I recall reading a comparison of at least one of the recent Audio-gd DACs to the Stello today in one of the threads.

 

[shampoosuicide]

Comparisons to either would be fine.

I've done a search for 'Stello' and 'DA100' in both threads, and no, no comparisons... Although one member did remark briefly about the PS DLIII vs. DA100.

 

[Patu]

slim.a: Damn you! I might just have to finally test the DF1704. After your posts about its superiority, I can't resist! I have it in a box here but I've been too lazy to switch it to my DAC19Mk3.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shampoosuicide /img/forum/go_quote.gif Comparisons to either would be fine. I've done a search for 'Stello' and 'DA100' in both threads, and no, no comparisons... Although one member did remark briefly about the PS DLIII vs. DA100.

I've owned DA100 but back then my whole setup was different so it's impossible to compare the two.

 

[dukja]

I don't have DAC19 but do have Ref-1, DA100, and stock DLIII at this moment.

In just a short casual listening, all three DACs sound similar with slightly sonic difference:

DA100 has smallest soundstage with nice boomy mid bass. It may sound slightly less refine in mid and high comparing to DLIII.

DLIII is a good bargin. Soundstage is wide and deep. Imaging is accurate and clear. Tonality is balanced.

Initially, I have hard time to justify Ref-1 with its twice cost. Ref-1 only sounds sharper in good sense(without hint of sibilant or brightness). Later on I gradually grasp its improvement: even more accurate positioning and deeper stage with better impact over the all freq range. The bass is solid and deep. Compare to it, DLIII sounds easy-going and "smooth" (I would never use that term to describe DLIII before hearing Ref-1). Ref-1 fills the whole virtual soundstage easily with rich acoustic information flowing around. That is my take of its superiority.


I have not done really serious critical comparison between them since they are not in the same room. And it is probably not directly translatable to DA19 with DSP. I hope it helps some.