The Stax Thread III

[Earspeakers]

  First rule of digital audio is to buy used. Whatever the "flavor of the moment" is today, you'll see it on Audiogon next year for about 50% off the original price.

 
Thanks Frank, I appreciate your thoughts. I used to have a ginormous vinyl collection, along with a custom lead shot/oil turntable/JR Memorial tonearm, blah blah and etc. Unfortunately I can't afford the time, space and energy to maintain vinyl anymore, so it's all digital. I like them both for various reasons. 
 
I just did an interesting experiment, which was to set up a switch box with a Stax Quattro I CDP against a Mousai MSD192 DAC I'm otherwise using. Both playing the same Redbook simultaneously, and the switchbox lets me cut from one to the other instantly to see the difference. I haven't listened to a ton of stuff, but playing a few disks I hear ... no different. Nothing I can definitively attribute to one or the other. There is some kind of micro difference, I guess, but I'm not sure if it's just my imagination. Note I even tested this with Harpsichord Sonatas which I think is probably the most brittle and caustic music you can listen to (it's great to test audio equipment on) and perfect for testing sources. 
 
So 1986 high end against 2015 medium end and I can't hear a blessed difference. Maybe a $10K 2015 DAC will be night and day, I'd like to test but I'm not buying one anytime soon. 

 

[n3rdling]

Agree with the R2R and vintage advice - almost all my DACs are vintage R2R DACs.  Check out Assemblage, Sonic Frontiers, Parasound, EAD to name a few.  This list should come in very handy when researching sources:
http://vasiltech.narod.ru/CD-Player-DAC-Transport.htm
 
1702/1704/63/20400A are all very good chips.  PMD100/200 are two of the better filters.
 
I've enjoyed the Audio Note DACs I've heard in the past.  Can't say the same for any Sabre implementation...
 
Quote:

  Not the appropriate post to quote but I'm curious if you ere able to cleanly remove the dust cover for mk1's before? I'm having some slight balance problems and I think it's because the cover is compromised. Did you just cut it out?

 
Nope.  I've heard units with the dustcover removed and have known a couple people who run their 007s this way.  I think there were also measurements posted showing a pretty drastic difference in FR.  You might wanna PM zolkis for help with the dustcovers.

 

[astrostar59]

   
Thanks Frank, I appreciate your thoughts. I used to have a ginormous vinyl collection, along with a custom lead shot/oil turntable/JR Memorial tonearm, blah blah and etc. Unfortunately I can't afford the time, space and energy to maintain vinyl anymore, so it's all digital. I like them both for various reasons. 
 
I just did an interesting experiment, which was to set up a switch box with a Stax Quattro I CDP against a Mousai MSD192 DAC I'm otherwise using. Both playing the same Redbook simultaneously, and the switchbox lets me cut from one to the other instantly to see the difference. I haven't listened to a ton of stuff, but playing a few disks I hear ... no different. Nothing I can definitively attribute to one or the other. There is some kind of micro difference, I guess, but I'm not sure if it's just my imagination. Note I even tested this with Harpsichord Sonatas which I think is probably the most brittle and caustic music you can listen to (it's great to test audio equipment on) and perfect for testing sources. 
 
So 1986 high end against 2015 medium end and I can't hear a blessed difference. Maybe a $10K 2015 DAC will be night and day, I'd like to test but I'm not buying one anytime soon. 

Interesting subject that might need to be in the Computer / DAC forum section.
Here's my view anyway.
 
$2K will get you an Audio Note DAC 3.1 kit. It will blow many $10K DACs away IMO. 
 
I hovered over the CDP v Computer audio via USB and external DAC for a while back in 2005. After lengthy demos and testing gear it became pretty obvious I could beat a great CDP (CEC Belt Drive) with USB audio. I would say the jump was around 15-20%. The clarity and smoothness was the biggest jump, along with dynamics and bass texture.
 
The key to getting the best out of computer audio is obviously a great DAC (preferably an R-2R with some tubes in it) and a very good USB to SPDIF convertor that feed the DAC with pure data to work with. Many DACs USB implementations are not great as they are built to budget. Check out the MSB thread on here, there are posts that confirm the better USB module option affects the sound a lot. Asynchronous is most important and an external clock has benefits.
 
Then we have the software used as well as the computer. Ideally the computer (PC or Mac for example) needs to be stripped back to be only a music server to get the best performance. I messed around a lot with software on my Mac Mini and found Audirvana+ standalone is a big jump from the other players I tried. It sounds crazy but all the elements in the chain make a BIG difference here, even though it is 'digital' as in 'should' be the same regardless.
 
What I am trying to say is CDP v USB is a complex subject. But done well USB is remarkable, truly world class sound. And the cool thing is all your tunes at your finger tips. On the SQ level I am way beyond my turntable rig nowadays and would not go back.

 

[NoPants]

if you can't tell a difference with r2r then just get the audiolab mdac, the features and output stage are robust. There is a large body of tweaking supported by the original designer in random forums elsewhere

 

[astrostar59]

Check out Assemblage, Sonic Frontiers, Parasound, EAD to name a few. 
 

I don't think all of those DACs are true Non oversampling as in 44.1 straight through? Might be wrong.
 
Many of the early DACs were very blurry as to what they were doing to the data. Most, even R-2R were up sampling. It was the craze back then of course. Check out the Lampizator posts on that manufactures site, he took apart many regarded DACs and CDPs built back in the 90s and it is a shocker. Some have a chassis within a chassis and the cheapest Philips mechanism available yet were sold out as the high end of DACs and crazy money.
 
The path to a great DAC IMO sways towards R-2R non oversampling, but also having tubes in the device helps (if implemented correct). And the parts quality, the fact it may or may not have the filter removed, the quality of the output stage. The output stage on many even 'high end' DACs is no more than a simple buffer stage built to a budget.

 

[Earspeakers]

  Interesting subject that might need to be in the Computer / DAC forum section.
Here's my view anyway.
 
$2K will get you an Audio Note DAC 3.1 kit. It will blow many $10K DACs away IMO. 

 
Well, $2500 more like with the USB and balanced option
 

  I hovered over the CDP v Computer audio via USB and external DAC for a while back in 2005. After lengthy demos and testing gear it became pretty obvious I could beat a great CDP (CEC Belt Drive) with USB audio. I would say the jump was around 15-20%. The clarity and smoothness was the biggest jump, along with dynamics and bass texture ...

 
I prefer a DAC for the convenience. I use mocp/JackD on an older OSX computer, works for me. As a software developer I have difficulty believing the software makes any difference unless they somebody really screwed up. It's all buffered OS driver layer. Anyhow JackD is designed for realtime performance (if you want it) so that's not the bottleneck (I prefer the command line CURSES interface of MOC - I can launch it in a tmux session and reconnect later. And I can launch simultaneous copies, all pointing at different pieces I listen to)
 
Looking at the board shots from Audio Note (of course only the DAC board doesn't have a high resolution version), it appears to be based on the AD1865, is that correct? That's an obsolete ADC and not R2R, and it's oversampling, but they claim it's a non oversampling architecture. Anybody know the circuit of the Audio Note? 
 
One interesting thing ...
 

 Also, as with all the very latest Audio Note DAC's, the DAC 3.1 comes without an analog filter.

 
With the Stax Quattro you have the choice of with or without analog filter output. Again I couldn't hear much of a difference
 
I rather wonder if much of the difference between DACs is simply the output stage (analog drivers). Anyhow as a side note I prefer a dedicated DAC without a headphone jack staring at me. 

 

[preproman]

   
Anyhow as a side note I prefer a dedicated DAC without a headphone jack staring at me. 

 
+1 on this.  I don't know why, but I hate DACs with headphone outs.  I thought it was just me..

 

[nepherte]

   
+1 on this.  I don't know why, but I hate DACs with headphone outs.  I thought it was just me..

On the other hand. The headphone out of the TotalDAC is amazing...and it's in the back

 

[astrostar59]

Looking at the board shots from Audio Note (of course only the DAC board doesn't have a high resolution version), it appears to be based on the AD1865, is that correct? That's an obsolete ADC and not R2R, and it's oversampling, but they claim it's a non oversampling architecture. Anybody know the circuit of the Audio Note?

Ha Ha I love this, throwing out complete untruths like you know it for a fact....
 
AD1865 chips were bought in bulk by Audio Note UK a few years back, and hand selected for the best quality. They are true R-2R chips, no oversampling what so ever. They can handle 44.1 and up to 96K data. The same chips are also used in their DAC 5 Super DAC which retails for 35K. Getting a 3.1 or 4.1 DAC kits gets you close to that amazing DAC.
 
Audio Note also removed the filter section on the boards. It is different to a selectable circuit switched filter which does some frequency 'shaping' Basically removing the filter at the chip set takes away another layer of hash and sends Redbook straight to voltage.
 
It is best to get to listen to an Audio Note DAC. We can talk about digital theory all day, and many many folk will cling to Delta-Sigma like there life depends on it. Listening is the best way, as I found out. Before my Audio Note DAC I was buying and selling, Meridian, Naim, Musical Fidelity, McIntosh, it went on and on, demoing and listening to mates DACs. I nearly gave up and went back to my vinyl.
 
The DAC 3.1 can be had for 2.4K US, less if you are fine with Single Ended RCA.  I have heard many DACs costing 10K+ that don't sound this good.

 

[Earspeakers]

On the other hand. The headphone out of the TotalDAC is amazing...and it's in the back

 
No doubt, but is it Stax compatible? 

 
 
It's just psychological, like having a DAC from a company named after excrement. 

 

[nepherte]

   
No doubt, but is it Stax compatible? 

 
 
It's just psychological, like having a DAC from a company named after excrement. 

No suited for electrostats. It was more of an insider joke meant for preproman. He says he hates dacs with a headphone out, but he has a Totaldac and loves it

 

[astrostar59]

   
No doubt, but is it Stax compatible? 

 
 
It's just psychological, like having a DAC from a company named after excrement. 

Ha Ha your funny

 

[preproman]

 
No suited for electrostats. It was more of an insider joke meant for preproman. He says he hates dacs with a headphone out, but he has a Totaldac and loves it

I'm glad it's on the back.  That way I never see it. 

 

[astrostar59]

 
No suited for electrostats. It was more of an insider joke meant for preproman. He says he hates dacs with a headphone out, but he has a Totaldac and loves it

I have heard (read) nice things about this DAC. I respect the guy making it, a very small company and a big risk, but the design of it looks very interesting. Maybe an R-2R with a twist and some MSB technology in it? I would love to hear it against my Audio Note DAC 4.1. It is very interesting how a DAC can 'change' or make a 'difference' to the final sound, it's digital, it should be the same right? For those lucky ones who have such a DAC they have found that not to be the case.
 
I have also found the USB to SPDIF implementation makes a difference as well. If the TotalDAC has a great USB input design plus R-2R conversion I can imagine it is going to be a giant killer....
This should probably be in Computer Audio or over at the other site that specialised in this subject. It is important however more folk realise how much a good (better) DAC can affect the system. Lets face it, with 007 or 009s we are going to hear it for sure, possibly more than a top end speaker system IMO.

 

[Earspeakers]

  Ha Ha I love this, throwing out complete untruths like you know it for a fact....

 
Relax. If "it appears" and "is that correct?" sounds like 'throwing out complete untruths like you know it for a fact', then we have a communication problem.  
 

AD1865 chips were bought in bulk by Audio Note UK a few years back, and hand selected for the best quality. They are true R-2R chips, no oversampling what so ever. They can handle 44.1 and up to 96K data. The same chips are also used in their DAC 5 Super DAC which retails for 35K. Getting a 3.1 or 4.1 DAC kits gets you close to that amazing DAC.

 
I'm just going from this data sheet from AD on the 1865 which says "Operates at 16 3 Oversampling per Channel", however I see it does mention R2R. Looking for clarification, ya know?
 
Regards,