MSB Select DAC II. The way every DAC on the planet should be built.

[Mike Lavigne]

Much more convenient and cost effective than digital downloads. Not to mention the vast selection

high quality master tape dubs are not intended to replace a collection of Lps or digital discs or files. most serious tape collectors also have relatively large Lp collections, and plenty of digital already. I have about 150 tape albums (most with 2 reels), about 6000-7000 Lps, and about 15 terabytes of digital files (plus about 4000 silver digital discs).

so it's typically not a matter of choosing tape over digital. although a few tape heads have no digital.

if you ever get down into the Seattle area it would be fun to have you visit and you can listen to some tape versions and digital versions of various recordings.

tape is something very special.

 

[Blizzard]

high quality master tape dubs are not intended to replace a collection of Lps or digital discs or files. most serious tape collectors also have relatively large Lp collections, and plenty of digital already. I have about 150 tape albums (most with 2 reels), about 6000-7000 Lps, and about 15 terabytes of digital files (plus about 4000 silver digital discs).

so it's typically not a matter of choosing tape over digital. although a few tape heads have no digital.

if you ever get down into the Seattle area it would be fun to have you visit and you can listen to some tape versions and digital versions of various recordings.

Yes I know. It's a luxury you can take advantage of once you already have everything else. Not about practicality. Kind of like owning a 1955 Mercedes Gull wing. Although I do think we are at the level in digital today, where in a blind test, with the right gear, You wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Yes that would be cool. I'll be down that way some time, and I'll let you know. Maybe I'll bring something along that you would be impressed by

 

[DaveyF]

Yes I know. It's a luxury you can take advantage of once you already have everything else. Not about practicality. Kind of like owning a 1955 Mercedes Gull wing. Although I do think we are at the level in digital today, where in a blind test, with the right gear, You wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Yes that would be cool. I'll be down that way some time, and I'll let you know. Maybe I'll bring something along that you would be impressed by

Blizzard, I think you may want to seek out an a'phile who is using tape as a source. But, be careful, because you may not listen to digital quite the same way again.
IMO, tape is still a long way in advance of any digital I have heard, and as I stated earlier, I have heard the MSB Select DAC11.
I think there are very few analog set-ups ( vinyl) that can even match tape, never mind digital!!

 

[Blizzard]

Blizzard, I think you may want to seek out an a'phile who is using tape as a source. But, be careful, because you may not listen to digital quite the same way again.
IMO, tape is still a long way in advance of any digital I have heard, and as I stated earlier, I have heard the MSB Select DAC11.
I think there are very few analog set-ups ( vinyl) that can even match tape, never mind digital!!

The part of the equation you are leaving out is the gear used to make the digital recording. And there's really no way to truly compare unless you have the original tape, the original R2R, the ADC , software and everything else used in the process of making the digital recording, all in the same room, hooked up to the same preamp, amp and speakers. You can't compare digital sourced from who knows where, converted with who knows what gear, to R2R from a different origin. This is the problem with these comparisons. They are never apples to apples.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The part of the equation you are leaving out is the gear used to make the digital recording. And there's really no way to truly compare unless you have the original tape, the original R2R, the ADC , software and everything else used in the process of making the digital recording, all in the same room, hooked up to the same preamp, amp and speakers. You can't compare digital sourced from who knows where, converted with who knows what gear, to R2R from a different origin. This is the problem with these comparisons. They are never apples to apples.

not true. Reference Recordings has done tape and 176-24 files from the same mic feed for years. you can buy low gen master tape dubs and the HRx 176-24 master files and compare them for yourself.

I have 4 of their master tapes, and the 176-24 files for 2 of those tapes. come on by and listen for yourself. the tapes and the files are mastered by the same guy.

I've done this comparison a few times. guess which sounds better????

 

[Blizzard]

not true. Reference Recordings has done tape and 176-24 files from the same mic feed for years. you can buy low gen master tape dubs and the HRx 176-24 master files and compare them for yourself.

I have 4 of their master tapes, and the 176-24 files for 2 of those tapes. come on by and listen for yourself. the tapes and the files are mastered by the same guy.

I've done this comparison a few times. guess which sounds better????

Yes but you are talking about old technology. How can you be using today's technology for years?


And it takes DSD 256+ to get to the level I'm talking about. I'm talking about today and tomorrow, not yesterday.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes but you are talking about old technology. How can you be using today's technology for years?


And it takes DSD 256+ to get to the level I'm talking about. I'm talking about today and tomorrow, not yesterday.

ok; last spring there was a Debussy solo piano recording by Ilya Itin made in New York State by Wave Kinetics with a 1/2" 30ips tape and 256dsd from the same mic feed. I have samples of the 256dsd already (it's superb). there will also be a 45rpm pressing made from the tape.

sometime this summer i'll have the tape too.

well.....smarty pants.....whadayasaynow?

I have a number of piano recordings on tape. hard to imagine the 256dsd getting to that level, particularly the emotive content.....but who knows?

 

[Blizzard]

ok; last spring there was a Debussy solo piano recording by Ilya Itin made in New York State by Wave Kinetics with a 1/2" 30ips tape and 256dsd from the same mic feed. I have samples of the 256dsd already (it's superb). there will also be a 45rpm pressing made from the tape.

sometime this summer i'll have the tape too.

well.....smarty pants.....whadayasaynow?

I have a number of piano recordings on tape. hard to imagine the 256dsd getting to that level, particularly the emotive content.....but who knows?

Depending on the gear used to make the recording, and the playback gear, it has the potential to be better. You can do DSD 256 recording with a $1000 Korg and laptop. So just like DAC's matter for playback, so does the recording setup for digital recording.

But even so, not a fair comparison. Because you don't have the mic feeds at this point to compare with. You can have a subjective preference, but that doesn't mean it's actually better. This is why a better test is transfers from a good master tape. Because you can have the same tape, and R2R machine to compare with. connected to the same pre, amp and speakers as the DAC playing back the digital copy. If you can't tell apart for the life of you, we know at this point digital can at least match analog.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Depending on the gear used to make the recording, and the playback gear, it has the potential to be better. You can do DSD 256 recording with a $1000 Korg and laptop. So just like DAC's matter for playback, so does the recording setup for digital recording.

But even so, not a fair comparison. Because you don't have the mic feeds at this point to compare with. You can have a subjective preference, but that doesn't mean it's actually better. This is why a better test is transfers from a good master tape. Because you can have the same tape, and R2R machine to compare with. connected to the same pre, amp and speakers as the DAC playing back the digital copy. If you can't tell apart for the life of you, we know at this point digital can at least match analog.

the Ilia Itin piano recording used the Pyramix Horus as the ADC for the Quad as I recall.

recording the quad from analog tape is not fair to the digital. I have many dozens of digital copies from tape, and the tape dubs of the tape far surpass the digital copies. not even close. digital comes closer when it's a mic feed.

always go native for best results. always.

native quad dsd verses native tape. that is what you want to hear.

 

[Blizzard]

the Ilia Itin piano recording used the Pyramix Horus as the ADC for the Quad as I recall.

recording the quad from analog tape is not fair to the digital. I have many dozens of digital copies from tape, and the tape dubs of the tape far surpass the digital copies. not even close. digital comes closer when it's a mic feed.

always go native for best results. always.

native quad dsd verses native tape. that is what you want to hear.

Yes but without the original source at hand, you have no way of comparing. You will never have the mic feeds at home. So you can say all day long you prefer the tape copy, but how would you ever know that it sounds closer to the mic feeds? It could be coloration you subjectively prefer.

This is why you compare the tape, to an digital copy of the same tape. This is because you will actually have the tape and R2R machine the digital copy was made from to compare it to. Chances are if it can make an exact replica of the tape, it can also do so with the mic feeds.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes but without the original source at hand, you have no way of comparing. You will never have the mic feeds at home. So you can say all day long you prefer the tape copy, but how would you ever know that it sounds closer to the mic feeds? It could be coloration you subjectively prefer.

This is why you compare the tape, to an digital copy of the same tape. This is because you will actually have the tape and R2R machine the digital copy was made from to compare it to. Chances are if it can make an exact replica of the tape, it can also do so with the mic feeds.

I do this all the time.....compare a digital copy of a tape. HDTT (High Definition Tape Transfer) and Yarlung both do Quad copies of tapes, which are for sale......although I don't any of those tapes (I do have a few of those Quad files from each of those companies). but lots of people have both the tapes and Quad files to give us feedback.

do you think that properly made Quad dsd copies of tapes sound the same as those tapes? based on what exactly?

 

[Blizzard]

I do this all the time.....compare a digital copy of a tape. HDTT (High Definition Tape Transfer) and Yarlung both do Quad copies of tapes, which are for sale......although I don't any of those tapes (I do have a few of those Quad files from each of those companies). but lots of people have both the tapes and Quad files to give us feedback.

do you think that properly made Quad dsd copies of tapes sound the same as those tapes? based on what exactly?

Yes but your digital copies are not quad
DSD made with the finest software, and ADC in the business.

According to one of the biggest tape heads out there, Eric Jan Persson or Opus 3 records, he can't tell the difference between his tape, and a quad DSD recording of the same tape made with the Merging HAPI/Horus/Pyramix. But of course the only way to judge would to be how he did it. Listen to the tape in the same R2R the digital copy was made on, can compare the 2. Even if you were to get the master tape, and a quad DSD recording made with the HAPI/Horus/Pyramix, it still wouldn't be a fair comparison because you are using a different R2R.

 

[VPN]

Hello,

I heard the MSB Select II in Munich. Really great sound. However, too expensive for me, I would never pay 90K for a DAC. I also heard the Total DAC Twelve and the CH Precision C1 in Munich. Both Sound great too. It was not very useful for me because what is really important is to be able to compare in my own system, otherwise there are too many variables.

The CH Precision C1 is also modular and supposedly upgradable. According to their website: "The C1 is based on a fully modular, future-proof architecture."
http://www.ch-precision.com/products/c1

The Totaldac Twelve is also upgradable, not sure if modular or not.
http://www.totaldac.com/guarantees.htm

So my personal view is that this whole discussion about being modular is not very relevant, for me at least. What is more important to me: (i) how it sounds in my system vs. what I already have, (ii) how much it costs, (iii) if the manufacturer is expected to continue to be in the leading edge of DAC sound and if it will offer a reasonably priced upgrade path, (iv) expected resale value (in case a competitor offers a better upgrade/price option).

BTW, I have a Playback Designs MPS-5, I am quite happy with it, and have received several free of charge firmware upgrades that have improved the sound. I also agree that in Munich, the best sound from the systems was usually from the analog source.

Cheers,

VPN

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Hello,

I heard the MSB Select II in Munich. Really great sound. However, too expensive for me, I would never pay 90K for a DAC. I also heard the Total DAC Twelve and the CH Precision C1 in Munich. Both Sound great too. It was not very useful for me because what is really important is to be able to compare in my own system, otherwise there are too many variables.

The CH Precision C1 is also modular and supposedly upgradable. According to their website: "The C1 is based on a fully modular, future-proof architecture."
http://www.ch-precision.com/products/c1

The Totaldac Twelve is also upgradable, not sure if modular or not.
http://www.totaldac.com/guarantees.htm

So my personal view is that this whole discussion about being modular is not very relevant, for me at least. What is more important to me: (i) how it sounds in my system vs. what I already have, (ii) how much it costs, (iii) if the manufacturer is expected to continue to be in the leading edge of DAC sound and if it will offer a reasonably priced upgrade path, (iv) expected resale value (in case a competitor offers a better upgrade/price option).

BTW, I have a Playback Designs MPS-5, I am quite happy with it, and have received several free of charge firmware upgrades that have improved the sound. I also agree that in Munich, the best sound from the systems was usually from the analog source.

Cheers,

VPN

Hi VPN,

I enjoyed reading your views in the post. We obviously share the same opinion because I, like you, was most impressed with both the Ch precision and TotalDac Dacs after Munich but also felt that analogue pretty much sounded best in almost all the rooms.

 

[asiufy]

I'm repeating myself, but the 90k SELECT is not only a DAC, but a full function preamp as well, and can be fitted with a streamer module.

 

[VPN]

I'm repeating myself, but the 90k SELECT is not only a DAC, but a full function preamp as well, and can be fitted with a streamer module.

Alexandre,

You know I have much respect for you. I have known you for several years. You were an audiophile for many years before becoming a dealer. I respect your views and truly believe you are providing unbiased views regardless of being a dealer.

I am sure the MSB Select II is a great dac. Maybe even a great preamp too. I will never know for sure because I do not intent to try it since I would not pay this price even for a DAC+preamp.

The Select II is not alone, the CH Precision C1 is a DAC + Preamp too (and it also has a streamer module). I was told by a dealer that if I plug my phono preamp into its analog input board and get rid of my stand alone preamp, I will be very happy. Recently CH Precision started selling a stand alone preamp, the L1, and an owner of C1+L1 says it sounds much better with the L1. I personally never (at least yet) heard a DAC, with digital music, drive a power amp as well as a DAC + standalone top quality preamp. I find it hard to believe that the preamp function of one or both of these DAC+Preamp would match a top quality preamp having as input a phono preamp, maybe I am wrong since I have not tested them, but I find it hard to believe.

It may very well be the case that the MSB Select II or the CH C1 are outstanding DAC+Preamp units. I personally find it unlikely that one company is able to produce the best DAC + preamp combination. I may be wrong, because I never tried the MSB Select II or the CH C1 in my system. I suggest that potential customers who would be willing to pay US$90K (or US$100K with the Femto 33) for a MSB Select II DAC+Preamp, audition the Select II as preamp for phono input vs. a top preamp having the same phono and system, and report here for us. I would be most curious to hear the comparison. I would also be curious to hear about the performance of the CH Precision C1 with analog input as preamp with a phono preamp as input, in a fair comparison with a top level preamp in the same system and room.

I would like to suggest that MSB offer the MSB SELECT II without the upgrade guarantee, as an option to the SELECT II with the guarantee, and perhaps charge US$15K or US$20K less for the Select II without this guarantee, so that people who do not value this guarantee can purchase it for US$70K or US$75K. Those who value the guarantee could still get it in the US$90K package. Just a suggestion for MSB.

Cheers,

VPN

 

[asiufy]

VPN,

Funny thing, *I* am on the "separate preamp" camp as well! I had never heard a DAC sound better direct to amp, before the MSBs. I've tried dCS, Esoteric, PS Audio, a whole bunch of DACs, straight to amps, and it always sounded fatiguing in the end. I *did* hear the SELECT hooked up to a $28k, and then going direct, and everybody in the room agreed the separate preamp added nothing beneficial. So I'm just not speculating here.

Apparently, and talking to Vince @ MSB confirmed this, it was a conscious decision by MSB to improve the analog stages of their products (starting with the DAC IV), if anything, to differentiate it from other DACs in the market. And with the SELECT II, since they were able to bypass an analog stage altogether, the DAC modules are powerful enough to drive the amps directly, with no added buffer/gain stage.

All I wanted to say is that, for $90k, you get a quality preamp *and* an incredible DAC. If people are not going to use it, it's OK, it's like people buying full function pre-amps and not using the phono stage...

 

[DaveyF]

Alex, does the MSB have a built in phono stage as well?
I thought the preamp section was quite good when I heard it driving the D'ags...but I wasn't aware it could also support a phono front end.
Certainly, it seemed to be of sufficient quality to drive any line source- and with aplomb.

 

[asiufy]

Alex, does the MSB have a built in phono stage as well?
I thought the preamp section was quite good when I heard it driving the D'ags...but I wasn't aware it could also support a phono front end.
Certainly, it seemed to be of sufficient quality to drive any line source- and with aplomb.

Dave,

No, it doesn't. It does have real analog inputs (XLR only though), so one can plug their favourite phono stage. If you want/need more analog inputs, it can be arranged with extra modules.

I like your phrase: "of sufficient quality"! MSB, of course, claims that preamp section will beat any ol' preamp out there, but I wouldn't go as far, specially if you take personal preferences in consideration.

 

[Blizzard]

I'm repeating myself, but the 90k SELECT is not only a DAC, but a full function preamp as well, and can be fitted with a streamer module.

That's actually the case with most DAC's these days doubling as a competent pre as well. But many still insist on adding a pre into the mix in order to achieve their desired coloration profile.