Valab NOS DAC - subjective listening and modifications
Dec 11, 2009 at 7:57 PM Post #1,306 of 2,013
2 days and counting waiting for a response again.

I'm sorry everyone, I have to whole-heartedly recommend that nobody buys a Valab at this point. Given you MAY have a great experience with them, it's only fair that I throw in my subjective experience into the collective. You're definitely throwing the dice by buying this product. Be ready to wait a loooong time for support if yours breaks down. Then the manufacturer will ask you to pay almost half of what a new one costs for shipping costs on an exchange. Bad business in my book.

Get some quality control, Valab.
 
Dec 12, 2009 at 2:50 AM Post #1,308 of 2,013
Directly from Teradak? I thought I was buying directly from the manufacturer by buying from Vintage_Audio_Labs on eBay...? I think this is Kevin's eBay account. If Teradak is Michael, whom I'm not really sure how he fits in with the operation, he told me he wasn't going to be able to do an exchange at all... so no dice there either.
 
Dec 12, 2009 at 4:37 AM Post #1,309 of 2,013
Quote:

Originally Posted by djembeplay /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Directly from Teradak? I thought I was buying directly from the manufacturer by buying from Vintage_Audio_Labs on eBay...? I think this is Kevin's eBay account. If Teradak is Michael, whom I'm not really sure how he fits in with the operation, he told me he wasn't going to be able to do an exchange at all... so no dice there either.


The way I see things here is TeraDak (Michael) sells his DAC to Valab (Kevin) at a discount. Valab makes profit by re-selling TeraDak's DACs... Customer service should come from Valab, any defects should go back to Valab and it is up to Valab to deal with Teradak on defective parts.... Michael can be nice and answer technical related questions but for product returns it should go back to where it was purchased.
 
Dec 12, 2009 at 7:53 AM Post #1,311 of 2,013
The Dac itself is not the problem it is the reseller Valab policy of returns.

This is a US based reseller of the same dac

Pacific Valve & Electric Company Pacific Valve Fathom DAC

I believe they are more 'conventional' in there customer relations, but please check that, and also the model type is called Fathom, manufactured by Teradak. So another option is to get a refund from Valab and purchase a new one from Pacificvalve.
 
Dec 13, 2009 at 3:58 PM Post #1,312 of 2,013
Here are some pics of my Valab. It's really starting to sound nice. I'm getting good dynamics and slam, but not as good as before I put in the BG FK's and the Shottky's.

I've had my doubts about the Schottky's. Has anyone noticed a lack of slam or speedy quick dynamics with them verses high speed FREDs or Murs with snubbers? Normally when I swap out diodes, I get a boost in dynamics, speed and slam. With the Schottky's it got slower and with less slam. Perhaps I'll have to swap them to FREDs with snubbers and listen.

I just did the negative leg of the SSOM. Other mods:

Back panel: Canare 75ohm input jack, Vampire Cu posts, Furutech Rhodium IEC

Lundahl 1574 digital input transformer on Canare jack, to 110ohm Caddock at DIR9001, through Jupitor 18g wire. (Bypassed switching and board tracing)

On DACs: 47uf BG FK, .1uf Wimas
3A Shottky's
Anti resonance circuit on secondary
Bypass fuse and board tracing (next time I'll get the 110V jumper)
lead tape on clocks
ERS tape on clocks and chips
.1 Wima caps on some of the PS (I had some extras)

Caddock mk-132 390ohm I/V w/ SSOM
Caddock mk-132 110ohm input resistor after Lundahl 1574
Output caps: Sonicap 3.3uF Sonicap GenII .22uF


The DAC is really starting to sound nice. Alive, musical, vibrant, transparent, satisying. Very sensitive to mechanical vibrations at my listening levels. It's still not as transparent, detailed, open, dynamic or possessing the shock and awe capabilities of my reference, but may be more enjoyable.

Unfortunately, I was not physically able to perform the DIR9001 mod. I could barely see the leads, let alone properly get my small soldering iron and a razor on them. I did confirm that pins 13, 14 are tied to ground on the 3.0 version.

What are the tricks to accomplish the DIR 9001 mod? It seems I'd have to buy a lighted magnifying lense and some kind of new Exacto blade. Access is tough too (of course i'd have to take out one of my output caps), but even then I think a flat blade Exacto bent to 90degrees might be helpful. Has anyone lifted these pins with a needle?

I also made up some Lowes 6ga speaker cables and a dig cable with Furutech FC-11 and Bullet plugs. The Furutech is way better than 1505A as a digital cable. It's relaxed and open and differentiates instruments in space very well. The Lowes 6ga cables have some promise. The Lowes cables demonstrated the most extreme case of mechanical settling I've ever heard. After twisting up the wires, crimping some cryod 6ga copper and gold spades and applying 3 pieces of heat shrink each for damping and holding the twist in place, I let the cables sit for a few hours and then installed them in my system. Even though the wire was burned in via DuoTech for weeks, it was extremely bright, with a bizarre super forward soundstage. With the amp off and no signal playing through the cables, most of the brightness was gone the next morning.


 
Dec 13, 2009 at 5:19 PM Post #1,313 of 2,013
Quote:

Originally Posted by highendman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What are the tricks to accomplish the DIR 9001 mod? It seems I'd have to buy a lighted magnifying lense and some kind of new Exacto blade. Access is tough too (of course i'd have to take out one of my output caps), but even then I think a flat blade Exacto bent to 90degrees might be helpful. Has anyone lifted these pins with a needle?
.



I have version 2.5, from what I remembered, after applying small amount of heat to the legs with a 30W heating iron, I simply lifted the legs of pins 13 and 14 using a small exacto blade...
 
Dec 13, 2009 at 7:12 PM Post #1,314 of 2,013
sweet mods Highendman, wish I had that skill, a little bit over my head, but I know so much more then I did 2 months ago, to bad it cost me my 3.0 dac hehe. (broke it trying to mod). I think im going to grab some new TDA1543's off ebay, I see some for like 8 bucks and try replacing them in my 3.0 dac to see what that does. I hate to spend to much money on the 3.0 or 2.1 version as I intend to buy the Chamelion when it comes out.

Does anyone have any idea what I'd be picking up this ground-loop type interference that I talked about earlier? I've solved the problem but my curious side has me wondering what caused it to begin with. I wonder if I have the output caps reversed.. they are Dynamicap E's and they are not polarized but do have a prefered orientation I've cut the leads so I don't know which is which, I assume it's like this

---pos Dynamicap neg---

but what if one was like the above and the other was reversed and I installed them the same way. then i'd have it like this

Left Channel

---pos Dynamicap neg---

Right Channel

---neg Dynamicap pos---

seems like they would all be the correct orientation and that should be the top diagram. I wonder if installing them like the above diagram would cause a ground loop. But if so, why does the cpacitors position inside the dac make a difference? I tried connecting the output caps with clip-on extension leads and when I moved the lead wires around the dac (especially near the blue transformer, or near the IEC inlet) the hum became much louder. Perhaps some ERS paper would solve these issues, but it's way to expensive.
 
Dec 14, 2009 at 5:18 AM Post #1,315 of 2,013
Just bought the 3.0 version which I am planning to do some mods on. I am still trying to figure out the TCXO 33.8688 MHz reclocker circuit that this version has (and it appears all versions I saw on Ebay had). Is it a good or bad thing?... Why 33.8688 MHz?

I guess if you have a high jitter source it could be a good thing but if you have a low jitter source it is proabably a bad thing?

Any input on this?
 
Dec 14, 2009 at 8:23 PM Post #1,316 of 2,013
Quote:

Originally Posted by highendman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Here are some pics of my Valab. It's really starting to sound nice.



Caddock mk-132 390ohm I/V w/ SSOM




390ohm?
I thought the suggested values and the consensus was about 340ohm, with 390ohm giving distortion...
confused.gif
 
Dec 14, 2009 at 8:59 PM Post #1,317 of 2,013
Yes there was a bit of a tiz about that some time ago. I suspect a troll.

I am using Texas components naked resistors at 390r, sounds great....
 
Dec 14, 2009 at 9:02 PM Post #1,318 of 2,013
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wood /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yes there was a bit of a tiz about that some time ago. I suspect a troll.

I am using Texas components naked resistors at 390r, sounds great....



So now the general consensus goes to 390ohm instead of the 340ohm now stock on the board?
As far as I know all the new versions come with 340ohm, there...
 
Dec 14, 2009 at 9:14 PM Post #1,319 of 2,013
Ive tried 340r and 390r, I think the 340r had a slightly lower output, but really nothing to talk about there. I suggest you go for 340r If your worried about distortion. You wont lose or gain anything either way in my experiance.
 
Dec 14, 2009 at 10:15 PM Post #1,320 of 2,013
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wood /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Ive tried 340r and 390r, I think the 340r had a slightly lower output, but really nothing to talk about there. I suggest you go for 340r If your worried about distortion. You wont lose or gain anything either way in my experiance.


Thanks, I was anyway going to go for the 340 since I have some good carbon composite ones on hand...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top