Tír Na HiFi

nige2000 wrote:

2channelaudio wrote:FYI, for those that are interested:
Here the PPA base usb card without the Chinese TCXO board

$12... from ebay
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Arrive-U ... 233b5f9bb3

looking at the TCXO board, I believe it is from this website

http://yishenghifi.taobao.com/category- ... 7%B0%E5#bd

tcxo board has the following address:
http://shop33599005.taobao.com/

still need to locate it.
probably just a quick email would sort it out.

Yea the parts for a ppa usb v2 card can be bought relatively cheaply
I did have links for the exact parts at one stage

The Modded usb3 cards have a good sq effect because it takes the 24mhz clock signal provides it with a far cleaner supply giving it a cleaner waveform
And then it allows a clean external 5v to provide power to the dac although usb cable +5v injection is better again

All mods are judged by ear in a series of a b testing
And then cross referenced at meet ups when there's a bit of an audience
We never did anything with measurements as the end goal was better sound we didn't think using our ears was such a bad idea

Are you able to fish the links out?
not sure what improvement this will add when I already have linear power on my yellowtec puc2....
happy to try though.

These are the links I have found...
$12... from ebay
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Arrive-U ... 233b5f9bb3

Looking at the TCXO board, I believe it is from this website
http://yishenghifi.taobao.com/category- ... 7%B0%E5#bd

just with a 25m clock soldered on...

Links again
they didnt work on the last post for some reason

http://yishenghifi.taobao.com/category- ... 7%B0%E5#bd

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Arrive-U ... 233b5f9bb3

Straight of the bat I like 3.95.....
I'm not a fan of 3.96.

3.96 is not balanced.
- Vocals around 3500hz are noticeably sibilant
- Nearly every song has sibilant tails... words like see, say, shine, sun all sibilant.
- Not musical
- SBGK has obviously made this version for Aleg and Nige!! lol. ;)

In contrast 3.92 is much more natural through the mids v's 3.96.
But 3.95 is better than both. Good mix of detail and vocal naturalness.
I do however think 3.92 had nicer treble. It was softer and more delicate - but still present....
3.95 is still great in this regard, but HF presentation is ever so slightly harder.

3.95 has better flow and spectrum balance than 3.96.
Its an enjoyable listen. I much prefer 3.95 V's sibilant 3.96.
Rendering remains composed, and not out of balance like 3.96 is as it scurries to push every last detail out at you, while sacrificing spectrum balance.

3.95 shows very good light and shade micro detail.
It offers a nice lift over 3.92 while still remaining in control.

3.95 seems like a decent compromise between detail and smoothness.
HF's are very detailed and extended, but vocals remain natural and controlled, no sibilant sssss' like 3.96.
3.95 is very musical too.

Personally I wouldn't want to see any more emphasis towards the mids/top end than this.... especially as I am using a highly compromised jitter galore PC. lol

If we can get more detail while still remaining composed then great... but the tone knob needs to stay roughly where it is. Somewhere between 3.92 to 3.95
My two cents. 2CA

2channelaudio wrote:Straight of the bat I like 3.95.....
I'm not a fan of 3.96.

3.96 is not balanced.
- Vocals around 3500hz are noticeably sibilant
- Nearly every song has sibilant tails... words like see, say, shine, sun all sibilant.
- Not musical
- SBGK has obviously made this version for Aleg and Nige!! lol. ;)

2CA sorry to disappoint you, but I think 3.96 is the worst of the 3 latest releases.
It seems you overlooked 3.94, which I feel is the best of the three.
I think 3.94 just nudges ahead of 3.95 and both are far ahead of 3.96

I started my comparisson from the lower end of the spectrum and have certainly not listened to all aspects and made no comparisson yet to other best versions.

Cheers

Aleg

2channelaudio wrote:In contrast 3.92 is much more natural through the mids v's 3.96.
But 3.95 is better than both. Good mix of detail and vocal naturalness.
I do however think 3.92 had nicer treble. It was softer and more delicate - but still present....
3.95 is still great in this regard, but HF presentation is ever so slightly harder.

3.95 has better flow and spectrum balance than 3.96.
Its an enjoyable listen. I much prefer 3.95 V's sibilant 3.96.
Rendering remains composed, and not out of balance like 3.96 is as it scurries to push every last detail out at you, while sacrificing spectrum balance.

3.95 shows very good light and shade micro detail.
It offers a nice lift over 3.92 while still remaining in control.

3.95 seems like a decent compromise between detail and smoothness.
HF's are very detailed and extended, but vocals remain natural and controlled, no sibilant sssss' like 3.96.
3.95 is very musical too.

Personally I wouldn't want to see any more emphasis towards the mids/top end than this.... especially as I am using a highly compromised jitter galore PC. lol

If we can get more detail while still remaining composed then great... but the tone knob needs to stay roughly where it is. Somewhere between 3.92 to 3.95
My two cents. 2CA

Aleg wrote:

2channelaudio wrote:Straight of the bat I like 3.95.....
I'm not a fan of 3.96.

3.96 is not balanced.
- Vocals around 3500hz are noticeably sibilant
- Nearly every song has sibilant tails... words like see, say, shine, sun all sibilant.
- Not musical
- SBGK has obviously made this version for Aleg and Nige!! lol. ;)

2CA sorry to disappoint you, but I think 3.96 is the worst of the 3 latest releases.
It seems you overlooked 3.94, which I feel is the best of the three.
I think 3.94 just nudges ahead of 3.95 and are far ahead of 3.96

I started my comparisson from the lower end of the spectrum and have certainly not listened to all aspects and made no comparisson yet to other best versions.

Cheers

Aleg

2channelaudio wrote:In contrast 3.92 is much more natural through the mids v's 3.96.
But 3.95 is better than both. Good mix of detail and vocal naturalness.
I do however think 3.92 had nicer treble. It was softer and more delicate - but still present....
3.95 is still great in this regard, but HF presentation is ever so slightly harder.

3.95 has better flow and spectrum balance than 3.96.
Its an enjoyable listen. I much prefer 3.95 V's sibilant 3.96.
Rendering remains composed, and not out of balance like 3.96 is as it scurries to push every last detail out at you, while sacrificing spectrum balance.

3.95 shows very good light and shade micro detail.
It offers a nice lift over 3.92 while still remaining in control.

3.95 seems like a decent compromise between detail and smoothness.
HF's are very detailed and extended, but vocals remain natural and controlled, no sibilant sssss' like 3.96.
3.95 is very musical too.

Personally I wouldn't want to see any more emphasis towards the mids/top end than this.... especially as I am using a highly compromised jitter galore PC. lol

If we can get more detail while still remaining composed then great... but the tone knob needs to stay roughly where it is. Somewhere between 3.92 to 3.95
My two cents. 2CA

Just joking around Aleg.. ;)
I haven't listened to 3.94 yet.... I'll give it a listen
Like I said the magic is somewhere between 3.92 - 3.95

tony wrote:Must post your results on ken's thread. It is obviously creating some stir in the market. LZ for me so I will be passing as the well is dry. Like Ken's when I heard it on my system but have found that the soundstage and warmth of LZ is what I really want.

Tony

No need for doubt about a Lampizator from what I hear.

It is one of the most highly regarded DACs of its type.
And if that is the sound you enjoy than it is the proper place in the signal chain to introduce that voicing.

I wish I could hear one myself sometime. In all likelihood it is not going to be my cup of tea to be honest, but I have heard nothing but good about it.

Enjoy it.

Cheers

Aleg

Thanks Aleg but wasn't in any doubt. Had heard a lower version already and knew that is what I wanted.
Chord Hugo threads a different line. LZ those lots of detail especially with the duelunds but there is a romantic warmth to it that as Seb pointed out is addictive. I think the meitner threads the line between the two and all things being equal is the best compromise if one wants the best of all worlds. But it comes with a good price tag.

This is off topic really but ties in with wushuliu and 2channelaudio's comments you can hear more of an edge in the LZ using my pc compared to Pearse's and same with Nigel. I am hoping when I get round to removing the pico and putting in a ppa card the gap will be close enough not to bother with blowing up mobo's with clock upgrades.

Having heard a few really nice systems over the last number of years there is no one size fits all and depending on
your taste/pocket/room size and lady luck most of us seem to get there.

nige2000 wrote:

2channelaudio wrote:FYI, for those that are interested:
Here the PPA base usb card without the Chinese TCXO board

$12... from ebay
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Arrive-U ... 233b5f9bb3

looking at the TCXO board, I believe it is from this website
http://yishenghifi.taobao.com/category- ... 5%C1%D0#bd

tcxo board has the following address:
http://shop33599005.taobao.com/

still need to locate it.
probably just a quick email would sort it out.

Yea the parts for a ppa usb v2 card can be bought relatively cheaply
I did have links for the exact parts at one stage

The Modded usb3 cards have a good sq effect because it takes the 24mhz clock signal provides it with a far cleaner supply giving it a cleaner waveform
And then it allows a clean external 5v to provide power to the dac although usb cable +5v injection is better again

All mods are judged by ear in a series of a b testing
And then cross referenced at meet ups when there's a bit of an audience
We never did anything with measurements as the end goal was better sound we didn't think using our ears was such a bad idea

Indeed testing by ear is very important. Many people say that measuring equipment is better than the ear, but I have long disputed that. Recently I saw an episode of Mythbusters (not something I normally watch) which somewhat confirms the ability of the ear to be more sensitive than test equipment. It can be viewed here, the myth being tested is called Chinese Invasion Alarm.

Anyway, I have been listening to MQN 3.92 and found it to be very pleasant. Music should be relaxing and enjoyable and musical. 3.92 ticks those boxes. - A step in the right direction. Keep up the good work Gordon.

erin wrote: ....
Anyway, I have been listening to MQN 3.92 and found it to be very pleasant. Music should be relaxing and enjoyable and musical. 3.92 ticks those boxes. - A step in the right direction. Keep up the good work Gordon.

yes. 3.92 is nearly leanless. leanless > details

3.94>3.95>3.96.

A few comments on recent posts if I may -

Develop by scientific measurement rather than by ear - is a compelling argument - well actually I would do it by both - BUT there has been no method put forward to produce those measurements or for that matter correlate measurements with listening experience. jkeny started a good thread on just such an approach, but noone volunteered a method, I seem to recall. Certainly, not without access to mega-expensive equipment only available to those in the electronics industry.

Of course, SQ is dependent not only on hardware but software. But it is the interaction between the two that results in what we hear. We are all using different hardware and differently configured Windows OS and so even testing the same version of MQn, we are not comparing apples with apples, so it is not at all surprising that there are numerous quite opposing views of versions of MQn.

As far as I am concerned, having to get a soldering iron out to the PC, is a red line not to be crossed. A slippery slope. And IMHO, I can get really, really good SQ without that. Careful choice of power supply (see my signature for my cheap approach), good quality components like RAM with standard BIOS settings can give very good results. Tuning the Windows OS is where I get most gain and in my case that time is free.

To make the point, taggart's excellent utility 'Tasker' easily provides the ability to change Windows Priority and Affinity for MQnplay for instance. My WaveIO has the Thesycon XMOS drivers with latency settings configurable in the Control Panel. Just changing that latency to Minimum from Low can in my case change the whole tone of the music to sharp and digital. Similarly configuring MQnplay to its own dedicated core and High (but not Realtime) Priority can transform the SQ for the better.
.. and did I mention that I have a Chord DAC which has a 4 second RAM buffer in the DAC that reclocks the SPDIF input and theoretically should remove a lot of incoming jitter? But it is still easy to detect difference between versions of MQn (to Gordon's surprise).

The different combinations of software and hardware settings must run to the millions. How can us mere mortals make sense of that? Just by listening and finding one or two that please one. Which is basically what Gordon has been doing for over a year and extremely successfully to my ears.

Jonathan - standing by for a barrage of opposing views!