ack's system - end of round 1
- Thread starter ack
- Start date
Hey Ian, thanks, the 400s will go to the highest bidder! They will continue as a current model, for quite some time.
Tasos, I join Ian in congratulating you on both the amp upgrade and the speaker modifications. Could you remind us how long you have had the 400s in your system and what improvements you suspect the 500s will bring? Also, in which ways do your modified Martin Logans sound different from the Magico M3s? I have not heard he M3s, but, as you know, am quite familiar with Ian's M Pros.
Are you mainly listening to vinyl, tape or CD these days and, since this is your system thread, are you thinking of improving any of your sources? If so, which one(s) and how?
Are you mainly listening to vinyl, tape or CD these days and, since this is your system thread, are you thinking of improving any of your sources? If so, which one(s) and how?
Thanks Peter.
I've had the 400s for a little over three years now, and they continue to fascinate me; I will truly miss them, and I would have kept them, had it not been for the compelling sound of the 500s - which btw, with bad recordings, sound incredibly bad. I never warmed up to the M3s, despite all the high anticipation I had when they came out. I think what bothers me the most is the lower bass - as set up for me - which is effectively missing; by contrast, the bass performance I have at home is far, far superior. With respect to the rest of the range, they don't offer me more than what I have, though imaging is a little better, but so what.
I am also looking forward to the Spectral phono, and these will be my last upgrades for quite some time, save for a cartridge. I am enjoying equally both analog and digital at this point. Lately, I've been experimenting with ferrite beads on interconnects - not speaker - with good effect. The most obvious improvement has been in bass articulation, tightness and extension - this is so damn evident with my tuner, imagine that; I was listening to a live performance last night and the low frequency rumble from the stage coming through the tuner was equally fascinating and annoying. The next obvious effect was on the XP-25's umbilical - frankly, significant bass tightening - so I'll be looking at the after-market umbilical that you have, just need a good price on it; but do try two beads on yours as well. The next, less significant improvement, was on the digital interconnect, and finally very little but still audible effect on the DAC and phono interconnects. But when you put everything together, yes, the improvement is noticeable, with no drop in dynamics or treble energy. I'll be writing more about all that in the future, but I am not sure how receptive people are to using ferrite beads - it's kind of an anathema in the high end. The XP-25's umbilical improvement came as a surprise to me, because the cable carries DC, but apparently, it also picks up a lot of UHF noise - so corrected I stand on what I was thinking about that all along; still, I was not afraid to experiment.
I've had the 400s for a little over three years now, and they continue to fascinate me; I will truly miss them, and I would have kept them, had it not been for the compelling sound of the 500s - which btw, with bad recordings, sound incredibly bad. I never warmed up to the M3s, despite all the high anticipation I had when they came out. I think what bothers me the most is the lower bass - as set up for me - which is effectively missing; by contrast, the bass performance I have at home is far, far superior. With respect to the rest of the range, they don't offer me more than what I have, though imaging is a little better, but so what.
I am also looking forward to the Spectral phono, and these will be my last upgrades for quite some time, save for a cartridge. I am enjoying equally both analog and digital at this point. Lately, I've been experimenting with ferrite beads on interconnects - not speaker - with good effect. The most obvious improvement has been in bass articulation, tightness and extension - this is so damn evident with my tuner, imagine that; I was listening to a live performance last night and the low frequency rumble from the stage coming through the tuner was equally fascinating and annoying. The next obvious effect was on the XP-25's umbilical - frankly, significant bass tightening - so I'll be looking at the after-market umbilical that you have, just need a good price on it; but do try two beads on yours as well. The next, less significant improvement, was on the digital interconnect, and finally very little but still audible effect on the DAC and phono interconnects. But when you put everything together, yes, the improvement is noticeable, with no drop in dynamics or treble energy. I'll be writing more about all that in the future, but I am not sure how receptive people are to using ferrite beads - it's kind of an anathema in the high end. The XP-25's umbilical improvement came as a surprise to me, because the cable carries DC, but apparently, it also picks up a lot of UHF noise - so corrected I stand on what I was thinking about that all along; still, I was not afraid to experiment.
Last edited:
I have no detailed information, don't even know anything about the technology yet.
I used to have a Pass Xono, which had a similar umbilical. Along the same lines, I found benefit in wrapping one of these around it: http://www.powerwraps.com.
Congratulations, Ack, on acquiring the top Spectral amp and on your modifications. Being a huge Spectral fan, and having been impressed by the DMA-400 (in your system and elsewhere), as well as the DMA-300 RS, I will be very interested to hear the amps.
Digital volume controls SUCK
There's something that's been bothering me for quite some time: some of my analog versions of digital recordings consistently sounded better than my digital, with more resolution. I had convinced myself that redbook can be really good, and even surpass analog in some cases. So something wasn't adding up. During my recent DMA-500 demo I was consistently hearing the very fine details I should be hearing, along with smoother more natural sound, and I know all these existed in the program because the LP reproduces them in my system, but not my digital, at least with the software I played. I was not prepared to attribute these improvements to the DMA-500s, and this is why I have not posted details yet.
To make a long story short, I started exploring details about digital volume controls. This lead me to http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/VolumeControl.htm which is making claims also mirrored in the opening of this WBF thread http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3813-Digital-Volume-control (which I was hoping had received more attention). The basic claims are that resolution is lost with 16-bit volume controls, not so much with 24-bit (the claim is that the first 8 bits shifted - which translates to ~48dB volume attenuation - comes with no original-signal loss), and much less with 32-bit volume controls. What is indisputable is that S/N is affected, but the wider the word the lower the inherent noise floor (true, but relative). There is also plenty of discussion on the net around quantization errors and noise, which are also true, though it's claimed that quantization errors are reduced or eliminated as the volume control word widens (don't know to what degree this is true, but my gut feeling is that this claim cannot be made universally).
So here's where my experiments came in: I was able to increase resolution in my modified Alpha DAC by bringing the volume up from 54.0 to 55.0 (the recommended setting in the manual), to 57.5 and the max at 60.0. But at the same time, the bass over 56.0 or so became overpowering. I had a really hard time deciding which setting offered the highest resolution, but 54.0 would not do, nor did 55.0. So I decided to take a more scientific approach and consider the widely claimed 2V 0dBFS reference (clipping) point by the redbook specification (TRUE???), and the goal was to get 2V out of the DAC with a test tone recorded at 0dBFS. However, all I have is a 1kHz test tone at -20dBFS on a Stereophile CD, but that's also good enough, as long as the measured output is adjusted to 0.2V (0.1V output of this DAC's RCA outputs). So the volume setting that gave me 0.100V from RCA-out was 55.5, very close to what the manual suggests. The same setting measures as expected 0.2V from the two phases of the XLR output.
The sonic results I get at that level are simply phenomenal, and more importantly, consistently repeatable:
I heard the same drop in resolution with various volume settings when I had the Vivaldi 2.0 in for evaluation, and that DAC also sounded better at max volume (2V output configuration, if I remember correctly). All of these make me want to say the following:
Pleased to know what I've done wrong, but my ears leave little room for error
PS: Can anyone point me to the actual detailed redbook specification?
There's something that's been bothering me for quite some time: some of my analog versions of digital recordings consistently sounded better than my digital, with more resolution. I had convinced myself that redbook can be really good, and even surpass analog in some cases. So something wasn't adding up. During my recent DMA-500 demo I was consistently hearing the very fine details I should be hearing, along with smoother more natural sound, and I know all these existed in the program because the LP reproduces them in my system, but not my digital, at least with the software I played. I was not prepared to attribute these improvements to the DMA-500s, and this is why I have not posted details yet.
To make a long story short, I started exploring details about digital volume controls. This lead me to http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/VolumeControl.htm which is making claims also mirrored in the opening of this WBF thread http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3813-Digital-Volume-control (which I was hoping had received more attention). The basic claims are that resolution is lost with 16-bit volume controls, not so much with 24-bit (the claim is that the first 8 bits shifted - which translates to ~48dB volume attenuation - comes with no original-signal loss), and much less with 32-bit volume controls. What is indisputable is that S/N is affected, but the wider the word the lower the inherent noise floor (true, but relative). There is also plenty of discussion on the net around quantization errors and noise, which are also true, though it's claimed that quantization errors are reduced or eliminated as the volume control word widens (don't know to what degree this is true, but my gut feeling is that this claim cannot be made universally).
So here's where my experiments came in: I was able to increase resolution in my modified Alpha DAC by bringing the volume up from 54.0 to 55.0 (the recommended setting in the manual), to 57.5 and the max at 60.0. But at the same time, the bass over 56.0 or so became overpowering. I had a really hard time deciding which setting offered the highest resolution, but 54.0 would not do, nor did 55.0. So I decided to take a more scientific approach and consider the widely claimed 2V 0dBFS reference (clipping) point by the redbook specification (TRUE???), and the goal was to get 2V out of the DAC with a test tone recorded at 0dBFS. However, all I have is a 1kHz test tone at -20dBFS on a Stereophile CD, but that's also good enough, as long as the measured output is adjusted to 0.2V (0.1V output of this DAC's RCA outputs). So the volume setting that gave me 0.100V from RCA-out was 55.5, very close to what the manual suggests. The same setting measures as expected 0.2V from the two phases of the XLR output.
The sonic results I get at that level are simply phenomenal, and more importantly, consistently repeatable:
- Exceptional low-level resolution (I am hearing all the details I heard during the DMA-500 demo), which outperforms ANY other volume setting I tried (even higher ones)
- Very smooth highs
- You-are-there presence with great hall ambience
- Natural voices
- VERY articulate and oh-so-complete notes (though not the very last word)
- Lower distortion with orchestral climaxes (fascinating rendition of the Mahler 2nd's finale)
- Vividness
- Equally important, no so-called digital glare
- (and the list goes on and on)
I heard the same drop in resolution with various volume settings when I had the Vivaldi 2.0 in for evaluation, and that DAC also sounded better at max volume (2V output configuration, if I remember correctly). All of these make me want to say the following:
- When we make claims that digital has problems, in any environment we may have been in, I would first question the overall digital set-up, including now the digital volume control setting. That's not to say digital cannot sound bad, but rather, was the set-up optimal to begin with. Next, I would question the transparency of downstream equipment.
- Whether what I am hearing at home is the lack of quantization errors & noise and/or preservation of bit resolution remains to be seen, but the sonic results are unmistakable and repeatable
- I would never drive amps direct with just about any DAC, and would rather figure out the optimal voltage output and then concentrate on a transparent preamp - the former assumes the designer knows what he's doing inside the DAC to start with (and that's a big IF), and the latter is easier said that done. However, I have been convinced that, unlike previous generations of Spectral equipment, the 30SV/400RS are more than capable of passing through the most resolving input signal they can receive - that's a major engineering feat
- Kudos to those manufacturers who eschew the digital volume control, like Spectral and Schiit
- Most important of all, whether every manufacturer adheres to the 0dBFS "standard" is yet another open question, so we really need to know what they suggest for an optimal digital volume setting themselves
Pleased to know what I've done wrong, but my ears leave little room for error
PS: Can anyone point me to the actual detailed redbook specification?
recently I experimented with the passive analog volume control of the MSB Select II, and compared it to my darTZeel analog preamp. others have reported significant performance advantages with this passive volume control over stand alone active preamps, but in my case the dart pre was just a little better overall.
a great preamp is hard to beat.....and to boot mine is ideally matched to my amplifiers.
it's hard to generalize stuff.
a great preamp is hard to beat.....and to boot mine is ideally matched to my amplifiers.
it's hard to generalize stuff.
Agreed - and it's very hard to find a totally transparent preamp. I applaud the analog volume control in your DAC
For sure... different gear "talks" to other gear very differently. And "transparent" is a hard term to really quantify from person to person, as the meaning tends to migrate around a few different things for different people.
Revisiting the question of "what don't I like about the Magico M3", I mentioned the other day the lower bass is effectively missing - and I've made the same comments during all three auditions of the speaker. I just noticed in a recent TAS issue, in the section where they give some [reviewer?] awards, the M3/Qsub15 are on there, with "review forthcoming". I am wondering if they will be reviewed together, and my thinking is that the M3 definitely needs help in the bass, and that effectively makes it a $100K speaker - thankfully, I have not lost my mind yet. So because of that, my audition of the DMA-500s was inconclusive, and I need to go back and listen with the Q7IIs.
Here's an excerpt from JV's Golden Ear Award (September issue):
I agree with everything here except "warmer". In fact, I've heard the Q3s in the same room so many times in the past, that the difference between them is quite stark: the M3 bass has virtually nothing to do with the Q3's, and I never complained about the Q3 bass. We'll see in future auditions.
Something else I should mention: I am falling in love with the latest Rockports, ever since I heard the Cygnus 1 last year, and I bet the Cygnus 2 is much better. So much so that I would have a hard time spending money on an M3 over spending less on a Rockport. My first impression during the DMA-500 demo the other day was, 'this is a technical speaker' but is it musical???? Haven't been convinced of it yet... I just did not have the same reaction as listening to the S5II at Myles's place, which I love, and they had great bass!
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |