Bolder Mensa and Nixon TubeDac comparison

TV Man · « **Reply #40 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 06:25 am »

Forgot to add... Be sure to allow at least 300 hours for the Black Gate caps to burn in. This made a big differnce in my DacKit.

doug s. · « **Reply #41 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 02:19 pm »

hantra,

once again - the di/o is *not* an upsampling/oversampling dac...

doug s.

scottnixon · « **Reply #42 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 02:55 pm »

quote doug s.

"once again - the di/o is *not* an upsampling/oversampling dac..."

Excuse me, but the dac chip oversamples 128x and the receiver used, certainly can and does up sample. Check your facts! here's a link to the dac chip:

http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/product/ak4524/ak4524.html

Ravi · « **Reply #43 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 05:02 pm »

I think this oversampling stuff is a bit overrated. If its such a big deal, than why do Jackman and Tyson still prefer the ART over the Scott Tube DAC after having used both in their system?

scottnixon · « **Reply #44 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 05:38 pm »

I'm just trying to correct a mis-statement doug s. made. I don't have much time to visit 'circle, except during meals and boring phone calls.
Have built 65+ different dac designs over the past 15 years. I currently build the internet based non-oversampled stuff, to be as high performance as possible for a dirt cheap cost (compared to retail goods)
I also do oversampled, upsampled fare for my oneof my retail base lines and non-os for the other, as well as an OEM for 3 other companys. People all have their own opinions, which is always interesting, but they should be fact based, at the least

Hantra · « **Reply #45 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 06:10 pm »

Quote

If its such a big deal, than why do Jackman and Tyson still prefer the ART over the Scott Tube DAC after having used both in their system?

I often wonder that as well Ravi. I have much respect for Wayne, and use plenty of Bolder Cables in my system. Value for the dollar is unequaled. Wayne and I go back longer than Scott and I do, but at the same time, I can't listen to the Mensa DI/O. I just do not find that it does anything at all to make me want to listen to it.

Like I said in my recap of the now infamous DAC shootout, all the other DAC's did at least one thing to make me want to listen to them more, and see what I could hear next. The Mensa did not. It was extremely linear along the entire frequency range, but dry at the same time, and uninvolving at the least.

This could have been a symptom of many things. System dependance (although I didn't like it in my system either), a long day, or personal preference (although I don't recall that any of the shootout participants liked the Mensa).

The Nixon DAC, and the non-filtering/oversampling DAC's I have heard are rich, and full. There is not even a hint of dryness. Just naturalness, and gobs of what live music sounds like. I have heard MANY things that I never heard before the Nixon DAC. That should lay to rest any notion that it's "less detailed", or "veiled".

Just last night, I was listening to The Final Cut, and during track 6, there are footsteps behind the listener. For the first time in my many years of listening to this album, I was able to hear that not only were there footsteps, but it was also slightly wet. Just after a short rain. THAT is amazing. I can't tell you how many times I have listened to this disc.

Anyway, I am just rambling now, but I did want to add my name to the list of people who don't understand why people like the DI/O, and its implementations.

B

Tyson · « **Reply #46 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 06:21 pm »

If the TubeDac just had some more dynamics and "get up and boogie" type of sound, it would, IMO, go from very good to "great". I've sent scott an email about the possibility of upgrading to the "+" status, perhaps that will help. I'm also going to change the tube from the Siemens to a "special reserve" Sovtek I got from UpscaleAudio that I liked a lot in my old AI Mod 3A preamp. Perhaps that will pick up the pace a bit.

It's interesting that you use the word uninvolving, cause that's "exactly" how I feel about the tubedac in comparison to the Mensa. I'm going back and forth between the 2 again today, and for my music, the Mensa just gets to the heart of the music better (classical and rap, mainly). Different strokes for different folks, I guess. . .

Hantra · « **Reply #47 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 06:26 pm »

Hehehe. . .

Just to add to the fun and confusion, Giorgino posted his own review at Decware. Here's what he said:

Quote

Dynamic is probably a one word summation I would use for this DAC. I have never owned a CD source that starts and stops on a note and so immediate. I have to say that my experience with CDPs isn't massive or very highend. My Meridian is smooth but with a slightly sharp topend. When compared to the SN - DACKIT the Meridian sounded muffled and frankly, dead.

Although the soundstage on the Meridian is deep and wide, it always sounded safe and unsurprising. In contrast, the SN DAC has a liveliness about it. The instruments has a quality where you're led to believe they were playing 15 metres infront of you. Same soundstage width and depth (maybe) but more alive. Why I say "maybe" is because the soundstage depth seems to be more place-able due to the microdynamics coming from the SN DAC. An example would be the decay of a guitar string or snaredrum. Same depth but more detail there. I'm able to place the source of the sound much more.

Remember, we're talking about a comparison between a $240 DAC and a $3000 CDP here - and I'm actually saying that I prefer the sound of the $240 DAC!

I have many CDs that I've categorised as "okay but not great" recordings. There's nothing wrong with them but I've never been fired up by what I thought to be the music. How wrong was I? Some of them are very good musicians recorded very well. Its just that the Meridian just mellowed it out to the extent that none of the drama came through. The SN DAC brought all that to the fore.

There is a warning that comes with all this drama however. The SN DAC takes no prisoners. At times its just down right harsh. There's a distinct possibility that the running-in process wil take the edge off that - Thats my hope also. But if it doesn't - those wanting to purchase this DAC will have to bear it in mind when system matching. I suspect it'll sound really good with a mellow sounding valve amp like Unison Research.

Well, that's that for now. I'll keep people posted when I can make some further observations and any thoughts come to mind

Note his emphasis on dynamics. Did yours go through an X-Ray machine by chance? J/K. . .

Tyson · « **Reply #48 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 06:57 pm »

Just listened to the "special reserve" Sovtek in the tubedac - I'll be sticking with the Siemens in this app. The Sovtek took away some of the things I liked about the sound before (glorious mids), and did nothing to improve dynamics or drive. In fact, it sounded more veiled. That's all for today kids, I'll put in another update tomorrow after my Mullard tubes have had another day's worth of break in.

JohnR · « **Reply #49 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 07:01 pm »

Quote

If the TubeDac just had some more dynamics and "get up and boogie" type of sound, it would, IMO, go from very good to "great".

What about the DacKit? AFAIK it's the same, without the tube stage.

doug s. · « **Reply #50 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 10:43 pm »

scott, thanks for the info. perhaps it's my lack of technical expertise about this stuff, but, afaik, even tho the di/o may use upsampling in its conwersion, i was always undet the impression that if a 44.1khz unput was what it saw, what ya listen to thru the analog outs is based upon that. i do know that, when i fed the di/o an upsampled 96khz input, courtesy of the gw-labs upsampler, it sounded quite nasty. perhaps you (or others?) could help clarify this upsampling/oversampling stuff for me (and others?) i tink the term has been thrown around so loosely in audio, that there's a *lot* of confusion about what upsampling &/or oversampling is or isn't...

also, re: sound of the sn toob-dac dac, i have no experience, tho i'd love to try one, if anyone in the frederick, md area wants to lend me one! it's certainly in ther pricerange i'd call acceptable, for redbook cd...

i *do* know my self-modded di/o is amazingly detailed, amazingly dynamic, amazingly smooth. not even a *little* bit dry. this is the 1st time i've ever been able to enjoy cd in my rig, much in the same way i have always enjoyed analog, & for me, that's saying a *lot*...

ymmv,

doug s.

ABEX · « **Reply #51 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 11:03 pm »

There is really no best here in the DAC world.If you look at cost and fuss I would probably have gone to the SN DAC.Both are very competitive of anything that is ultra expensive!

Just wanted to re-emphasize the point of system synergy also.These are great products that we all are lucky to know about and also lucky we have the designers and techs to put the best touches on them.

Regards!

Ravi · « **Reply #52 on:** 20 Apr 2003, 12:52 am »

Scott, Hantra,

Thanks for the explanation. I would certainly like to try the SN DAC at some time. What is the non-tube version like as compared to the tube version? It may hit the ideal balance.

Great gear at a bargain price is always welcome, and the SN seems to fit that category nicely.

Tyson · « **Reply #53 on:** 20 Apr 2003, 08:43 pm »

Decided to pull my wife in to this to get her opinion (she has good ears, but is in no way an audiophile, just a music lover). Plopped her down in from of the speakers, played the same song for her on each DAC and asked her which she prefered. She liked the Mensa better - "The voices are clearer".

Anyway, I'm lucky in that I don't really have to make a choice, I am keeping both of these DACs. I would recommend that people try them both out in their own systems and make the decision based on actually hearing them.

Rocket · « **Reply #54 on:** 21 Apr 2003, 11:21 am »

hello,

i must be going mad, i thought that there was a scott nixon forum at audiocircle. does anyone have the website address?

regards

rod

Hantra · « **Reply #55 on:** 21 Apr 2003, 12:15 pm »

http://www.scott-nixon.com/

Marbles · « **Reply #56 on:** 21 Apr 2003, 12:44 pm »

Quote from: Rocket

hello,

i must be going mad, i thought that there was a scott nixon forum at audiocircle. does anyone have the website address?

regards

rod

Rod,

My memory has faded a bit on this subject, but I recall that he was offered one, but he had to get his website in better shape first.

That was a few months ago, and neither one of us (Scott Nixon) or myself have followed up.

Scott if your reading this and want to contact me........

rcurtis@hramerica.net

Jay S · « **Reply #57 on:** 21 Apr 2003, 01:51 pm »

Interesting thread. I'd love to listen to a SN tube dac myself as I have been quite intrigued by it. I was very tempted to jump on the used one that was for sale, but at this stage my goal is to sell unused equipment not gather more!

To add my $0.02 to what has been said, when I first got my Mensa I also found it to be a bit uninvolving. That stage/phase passed and now I find it to be emotional and involving. I guess that it needed a bit of break in. The top end and mids do not seem at all thin or scratchy to me (though it applied somehwat to the smART). Norah Jones sounds wonderful. In fact, I find the top end to be both detailed and smooth.

Somehow, my overall system with the Mensa is now more forgiving of bad recordings. For example, I formerly could not listen to the Eurythmics for more than a few seconds, whereas now I find myself enjoying it. As for pauses/silences interspersed in passages, the Mensa seems fine but perhaps this is all relative to the SN.

One thing about the Mensa is that it is very very dynamic. Its a lot of fun to listen to Stones songs like Brown Sugar and Beast of Burden!

byteme · « **Reply #58 on:** 23 Apr 2003, 08:40 pm »

Having gotten the tubedac after considering the Mensa and owning CIA VDA-1, EAD DSP 7000III and McCormack DAC-1 I have to agree with Hantra about how this sucker sounds. I just love it, I haven't heard the Mensa, but this is a fixture in my system now.

As for the "upgrade" to the tubedac+ in talking to Scott (I'm sure I was one of those boring phone calls he mentioned

)he mentioned that the plus is simply voiced differently than the non-plus. It adds that "air" around cymbals and other things in that frequency that some people think sound more accurate. The blackgates are in there to effect that same thing. I'm paraphrasing of course and I'm sure Scott can set the record straight better than I, but I was willing to go with either, he talked me into the tubedac because I was looking for real, you are there sound.

Tyson, can I ask where you got the Siemens tube and how much it was? If it made a difference I'd love to hear one in mine!

Thanks!

Tyson · « **Reply #59 on:** 23 Apr 2003, 10:19 pm »

Just to put the record straight on this one point - when comparing the mensa to the tubedac, extra "air" is not what I hear as the difference between them at all. The Mensa sounds more dynamic in all ranges of sound, and has a more inscisive presentation. To me, it is more involving. It really has nothing to do with "air" around cymbals or voices. In comparison, the tubedac (to ME) sounds a little too relaxed and slightly muted.

I will say that listening to the TubeDac on it's own without the comparison, it sounds GREAT. It does almost everything very very well. Even in the dynamics department, when not directly compared to something like the Mensa (which is insanely good in this area), it sounds fine.